Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-02
them to do to guard the public purse from de

Mr.. IL. then proceeded TO examine who were III
the right the gentlemen tine other side, who call
the case before the Court default peculation,
the counsel Tor the United States, who call 1t fraud
and misdemeanor at common law. He said he should
conlne himself TO the as it appeared upon pa
per- and examine the question whether the facts al
lodged do or do not constitute legal guilt.
And first, said lie, let what the facts of this
case are, stated upon paper.
IN this indictment, said he, 1t IS set forth that the
accused being high officer Of the Government, and
being an evil disposed person, and devsing and
intending frauduleny and unjustly oacquirc ior his
own private divers sums of money belonging to
the United States did falsely and raudulcntly devise
Tor that purpose, the tram ol circumstances set out III
this indictments that to public officer of the United
States entrusted with the disbursement of the public
money of the United States viz: the Navy Agent at
New York he writes letter, which is recitCd in the
indictment: that, according to the limitations
tanned in the letter. he makes draft upon that officer
and the money of the United States, in the hands OF
that officer Is paid TO his said draft: that replace
the money i'll the hands of J. X. puudinr which he
obtained from him for that draft, and five hundred
dollars more which he intended TO draw out by
cond draft, hc, as the indictment charges ostcnsby
for the public service but falsely and frauducntly,
for his own gain, causes rcauisoD 80 DC issued up
on the Treasury the United States for thousand
dollars, by OF which the money drawn from
thc Treasury and put into the hands of j. * Paul
ding, avCrred III the Indictment for the of the
accused on pretcnCe OF being for tie public service
There were, r. h. said other drafts, and other let
tors, and other acquisitions: but they presented pre-
ciscly the question of law, and he need not
therefore take up The time OF tic Court in discussing
them.
Upon this staten ,nt Mr.. i. asked, is this. as the
counsel Tor the acciised contend the breach OF
;rus OF = q .tautgr is il what we t!c counsel Tor
tc United Stutc term it, the artful contrivance of
cheat We might, said lie, shut up all the books
and appeal 10 sense, and ask whether there
can bc Il greater msnomcr than to call such often
der BY the mild name of deiaulter--putting him
the same footing with uian who, though defaul
ma hu tcdn M Is mo vho
IS not Disturbing officer, who gives no bond, who
cannot touch by lawful authority single dollar, and
who breaks through all these restraints, legal and
imorai-s he 20 be put footing with man who,
entrusted upon security with large sms money be-
longing TO the Government, fails make DIE pay
ment, perhaps by accident, by circumstances which
lie could not control? This, Mr.. X. SAID was great
question IN this cause and he should discuss it by it
self, and place it in such light he said, that not
doubt could remain upon it, if the court govern
cd either by the principle OF Law, or by the weight
of authority.
MI *. undertook maintain that the otrco described in
The ndcment was cmnally punishable msdeneandf At
common Jaw against all the arguments that have been and can
De brought to the contrary The indictment could be maintain
ed he said against all question, great and unequvccai
grounds First fraud upon the public. offence therein
decrbeu tctabe always has been, and will ever continue
TO be so, without any legislative whatever Second
y apart from the consideration of crninay from the fraud
ocg against the public II the offence DO only the same as if
committed against an individual, still the indictment contains
charges which the accused must criminsly, the
ground tdi sets oh the making OF false writings. which Of
themselves constitute fraud inoctabe common law.
10 establish the first Of these POSITIONS Mr. x reasoned
great ZENITH INST aiming to establish that The offence charged
was not breach trust because the accused had
Trusted with the public money! ich necessary cons-
te breach OF trust Fiji breach of ne argu
ed was, beyond all controversy indctable offence at
mon law There was he said, nothing else that it could be-
unless some statute exalted to higher grade OF nquy In
support Of lis heng So he quoted largely from the English
to!'ies commenting on them as ne went along His gener
al conclusion was, that there is class of cases punishable
common law because they frauds upon the public and tina,
this vas undoubtedly ome Of them.
But, the government he brought down from eeva-
ZION TO the ieveoi the meane indiVdua and the degree
fraud he required constitute offence common law
Whcthei conned on an individual or the government, still
he maintained that this Indictment facts which make
out as clear case of forgery, constituting memeano
common law, as ever man was guilty OF And then he proceed
ed 10 illustrate this position What, he asked forgery?
king of wrngt to the prejudice of anohes right. Forgery
was but cheat IN one of the forms of cheating, and SUCH
ali the rest OF the Indictment were defective, be sufficient
stain IT, HCconsered tine whole of stated in
dictment as chain OF circumstances, link after link, contu
ting general charge otIaud But STILL if taken by ITSELF the
common law charge of forgery, msdemean0r sul-
GENTLY laid in the Indictment was impossible that the
sci Tor the accused could expect sustain this
Mr. r. replied large other exceptions which had
and details Which brought him to the question
whether fraud can be perpetated against the
der the commcn law Upon this question Ire bestowed
few observations being many he thought required which
were in the train of reasoning those Of the who
preceded him lie considered the question: besides already
auGScd In c"ncuslon after an arScmen Of three hours
length Mr. X submitted the the with perfect
fdence tina, the Indictment would be sustained.
Before the close of his remarks, something occurred which
induced Mr. Key say that nothing could he unfair than
any thing which had been said, might be said suggesting
hashncs the Of the counsel for the prosecution
tie accused They might have arsher terms towards
him, had they been so disposed, &c. sc
Nh Coke, counsel for the accused then said that the Usual
hour OF adjournment had nearly arrived and the
be sufficiently asucd by this days laboous sitting, he should
be glad TO be allowed until Tomorrow conclude the argument
No objection being made the other sde odeted
and Mr. Coke wiAoncudc the argument to inrow Thurs
day3
MAY 2S, 1929.
The argument upon the demurrer to tile nd.c:-
lDont against u. WATKINS for alledged fraud at
common law against the United States was resumed,
on the opening Of the Court.
Mr.. r. S. CoxE, counsel for tho accused, commcn-
ced by observing that he agreed in opinion ex-
pressed by the counsel whom it his duty to fol-
low i'll argument, viz: that this is case of great i'm
porancc II is in every aspect in which it can be
viewed lisso i'll its relation to The country at large.