Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-09
[FI.o. Nc Nsll1l,l Ia,rliI.tncsr.I

~
circuit Court OF Tie United STATES for ihe Dis
tTict Of COiss7r5ta.
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1920.
Present, Chief Justice Cranch and Associate
Judges Thruston and Morsell.
Chief Justice Cranch, on the opening of the
Court, delivered the following as the opinion of
the Court upon the question argued before it last
week in the case Of the Indictment against the late
Fourth Auditor:
UNITED STATES as. Tomas WATKINS
OPINION.
The substance of this indictment IS, That Tobias
w atkins, being Fourth Auditor of the Treasury
Of the United States, and intending fraudulently
10 obtain for his own money Of the United
States JdiSeiy and ifauduiently wrote letter TO
j. X. Pauiding, Navy Agent of the United
States, advising him Of his, Tobias Watkins draft
on him Tor 500 dollars 10 be charged 10 arrear-
ages" and that he would receive Treasury draft
for the same sum TO meet it. That Tobias Wat
kins drew such draft, and sold il TO c. s. Fowler
for, and received Of him the same amount and an
Piled II 10 his own use. That the said L. Watkins
did, osfensibiy for the public service but fdlsely 4
without authority, procure TO be issued from the
wary department, certain requsition to the
Secretary OF the Treasury for the purrose of plac-
ing in the hands of J. x. Pauiding, Navy Agent,
the sum OF 1000 dollars which resuisiiion is set
out IN Ter6ts 10 be charged 10 90 arrearages prior
TO 1927 by means Of which requisition the saii
sum OF 1000 dollars placed in the hands of the
said Navy Agent.
That the said Tobias Watkins afterwards wro1e
another letter to the said Navy Agent, informing
bin the remittance under the appropriation for
arrearages would be 1000 dollars, instead of 500
dollars as before advised and afterwards drew an
other draft on him for 500 dollars, which lac re-
ceiyed for it Of G. 5. Fowler, and applied to his
own use, of which draft he also informed the said
Navy Agent by letter "That the said letters
and drafts, so as aforesaid written and sent, and
drawn and sold as aforesaid, and the said reulisi-
ton caused and procured TO be issued as aforesaid
nj
drawn and sold, and caused and procured to be is
sued as aforesaid, without any authority therefor
and not TOR or on account of the public service but
for the private gain and benefit of the said Tobias
Watkins, and with intent TO deiraud the said Unit
ed States and as false prelences to enable him to
obtain to his own use and benefit the said two
sums OF 900 dollars each and that by means OF the
said several false prstenres, the said Tobias Wat
kins did at the time & acs Aforesaid delrard the
said United States Of the said two Sims OF $40 dol
lars each, and dispose Of the same 10 his own use
and benefit, 10 the great damage Of the United
states, and against the peace and government
thereof"
There is another similar count upon another
similar transaction Tor $50 dollars, with the like
vaerinents.
To this Indictment, there is general demurrer
and joinder
BY the demurrer, the facts are admitted, if
they amount TO an indctable offence at common
law, and are well set forth.
The first ground of demurrer relied upon l.. that
the United States, as Nation, has no common law
inrelaion to crimes and offences; and consequent
Jy, that there can I've no common law offences
against the United States in iIs National charsc.
ter That this offence, if it be an offence, is
agsinst the United States in that character, and
not as the local sovereign Of this District and.
therefore, u IS not an indicable offence
IL IS said that this Court can only exercise the
jurisdiction of Federal Courts and Of the State
Courts.
That the Federal Courts could not hold iurisdic-
ION oil this cause, because it Is not criminal Of
fence against the United States, who have no
criminal common law aud that the State Courts
could not hold jurisdiction Of il, because, if il be
an offence at all, ii is exclusively an offence against
the United States.
This argument is certainly, at FIRST view. unite
plausible; but, TO our mind, not entirely safisac-
tory. Is il clear that this offence is Of such an
exclusive character, that it could be prosecuted
only IN Court Of the United States? n il had
been committed IN one of the States, saw in Ma
ryland, is it clear that il would not have been an
offence against that Slater The offence charged
we will say, for the sake OF argument is, in Sub.
stance, cheat: !. e.. an act offraud done to the
injury OF the q. States. The State Court has iu-
rlsdiciion Of cheats and frauds. Does that iuris
diction depend upon he question 10 whose inju-
" the cheat or the fraud was committed who-
iheT II be to the injury OF a citizen oil Maryland
OF foreigner-or Of another State, or Of . To-