Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-05

Che case OF Hudson aud Gardeon) where Judge
Chase's opinion was confirmed Again, he refer
red 10 Coolidges case, where the same opinion
was laid down and confirmed. Ii was laid down
that there is 20 such thing IS criminal common
law in the Federal courts as source ofjurisdiciop
"A jurisdiction must be conferred upon the courts
20 look into the subject, by the constitutional au-
ulority. This is the opinion of Judge Story illus.
trated by Mr.. Duponceau, and confirmed by Kent
Ia cases OF murder, and piracy, the courts derive
their Jurisdiction from law of Congress or the
law OF nations. But he coG.ended that the cour,
could not take cognizonce OF an offence which l.
only to be found in the common law, and which is
exclusively committed against the United States
No such offence as is contained in this indict.
ment exists in the common law.
IL had been contende6 that every offence com
mitted against the United States was per Sc indct
able at Common Law. lie referred to East Oh the
subject of offences affecting the public, and argu
cd that East distinguished between offences be-
tween individuals, and crimes calculated 10 de-
fraud numbers and 10 deceive the public in gene
raj This is what East means by " affecting the
public" lie referred TO debate in the Senate
on the subject Of Rowctt's application for copy
right for his Interest Tables where difference OF
opinion existed, similar TO what now exists be-
tween himself aud the Counsel on the other side
as 10 the meaning of the word public" He ga
thered from other portions of East's Reports, that
10y the term affecting the public" he intended
10 convey the idea Of numbers, or the people in
general
Mr.. Coke then referred TO I'd Russell, 1870, for
confirmation OF the view he had thsown out, as
80 the construction Of the word sspubc," and
which had been sustained by East. The obvious
meaning OF these writer's, in using the expression
g affecting the pubiic' is to convey the idea of
numbers & 10 contra-di-t ngushed this view, f ON
offences between individuals. Chilly also, D. 42i
sIstans this construction, using the phraseology
precisely in The view the other writer's
All these authorities were reconcilable 10 them
selves and TO the doctrine which he had laid down.
Nor did he stand alone them. He quoted
from Dana's Arrangement to show a harmony of
construction on this point. II was there laid down
that the common law only gives redress, where
the party deceived, is deceived by some false mark
or token OF public nature, and he describes this
public token 10 be such as is made so by statute
or by public custom.
Mr. Coke then remarked upon the authorities
which had been cited on the other side The King
against Wheatey, Tor cheat in selling 10 gallons
OF ale tor eighteen, aud receiving pay for
eighteen. Lord Mansfield laid it down as mere
!y private cheat, not affecting the public,
and unless il had been measured, by short mea-
sure, not indictable fraud. He also noticed
the case of the baker relied by the other side,
where the offence the marking OF the bread
80 pounds, when there was only 65. The gentle
man on the other side omitted the most important
part of the case the opinion of the Court that the
injury was contaminated, because the mark " as
customary relied ON by the public, and the bread
was usually taken the faith of the mark. He
alse showed that other cases relied OF by the op-
posite Counsel, would not, it fairly examined, bear
out the construction which had been placed upon
them.
There can be no indictment against an indiviu-
al for cheat, unless it effected by some false
token, not of private nature, but affecting the
public.
His objections 10 the Indictment extended to the
whole of il. They are objections which cann.t be
overcome. There is no specification of false to-
ken. II is not sufficient 10 set forth that certain
papers and statements and aveTments were ialse-i
~ made 1t is necessary to make a clear discrIn
ination between that which is true, and that
which Is false pretehce. He complained that
while The Counsel for the accused came into
Court to demurr against the indictment as found
by the Grand Jury, the Counsel on The other side
had argued that the Jury had found two specified
charges of forgery. He showed that the jury
had ignored the bill which charged forgery; and
yet the opposite Counsel had d1et on the ndict
ment found as indictment charging forgery
The Counsel for the accused could not anticipate
that It would be thrown upon them 10 meet an ar
gumsnt charging forgery Upon every indictment
for forgery, he commended that the words "laisely
and irauduIently forged or counterfe,ed' must be
used, or an Indictment could not be sustained.
General allegations not sufficient; the offence
must be designated in specific terms. He referred
10 the letter in the Indictment, addressed 10 Mr..
Harris, and signed I. Watkins. Yetitis charged
that his genuine and true letter "falsely and
fraudulently" written. Can usst be false and
fraudulent, which is genuine and tsHs? If ths
accused never wrote the letters and drafts signed
by him, where is his oiience2 The offence is com
mitted by the person who has counteffeited the
name Of I. Watkins 1t had also been charged
that The regusition issued was false and forged
when in fact the reguSion was a genuine one
in Hawkins (yol ?, p. 3i5,) he found an authority
which declared void an indictment containing ab-
surd or inconsistent allegations. # this requsition
issued from the Navy TO the Treasury De-
parlment, il was not forged, but genuine Was
1t charged that any alteration had been made in
the paper? Nothing Of the kind. 1t was merely
charged that it falsely issued. II it was issued in
consequence OF any false representations, let us
know what they were, that we may know what
we are TO meet. Gritty says where the cTcurn-
stances apart Of the offence, they must be set
out. The circumstances here are alleged as part
Of the offence, and must therefore be set out.
again, Gritty says, it is not sufficient TO use in
general terms the terms falsely and fraudulently
represented, but that it must be shown what parts
Of the representations were false and fraudulent
Here then is deficiency in the present indct-
mebt, as we not informed what falsehoods had
been used.
In reference to the drafts in favor of Pottenger
distinct averment is made positively that these
drafts are endorsed by Pottenger. The averment
is distinct and decided. The grand jury found
that the endorsement is either made by Potten-
ger, or falsely by Watkins. This not sufi-
cient The ayernent must not be on the alterna.
tive. Chity says that a charge must not be stated
in the disjunctive Either the endorsement is gen.
uiDe, il is not, and this is the amount of the al
legation in the indctme Mt. He had always sup
posed it was the duty Of grand jury to present
only such facts, as not explained, would lead to
conviction by petty Jury, and where they had
not facts OF such a character before them, that il
was their duty to reject them. His learned col
league had, as he thought, sufficiently shown
that this impairment averment.
There are other views y hich he now desired to
a. H.. l. Il