Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-11

from The lphiR oflhe 9Th.

AfVi Ht bHik ~ tht On
Gaze of Dr. Uaikins. On Tuesday the Cir
cult Court Of The United States al Wilmington
proceeded 20 deliver judgment in the case Of
Watkins The opinion of the Court delivered
by Chief Justice Cranch) occupies more than
FIVE columns If the National lntclligeneer We
shall therefore I've excused from giving IL IN
plene, hut TINT the reader may see the view
taken by the court. of Watkins case. we have
attempted 20 extract aud repubhsh its gist. or
(as G,vernor Giles spells i, adapting the or.
biography to the sound) the jit
The substance OF the indictment is thus stated
by tho Court.
The substance OF this indictment is, Tba,
Tobias Watkins, being Fourth Auditor Of the
Treasury OF the u. S.ntes, aud intending fraudu.
icnily TO obtain for his own use money nfthe
United States falsely and iraudulentiy wrote II
letter ,oJ. X. Pau'dnR, Navy Agen, Of the
United States, advising him of his, Tobias
Watkins dran on him for 800 dollars, TO be
charged TO - nrrearages," and that he would
receive a Treasury draft for the same sum TO
meet H. That Tobias Watkins drew such a
drait aud sold IL 10 c. s. Fowler for. and re-
ceved Of him the same amount, aud applied
il 10 his own use. That the said Tobins Wat
kins did ostensiby for the public sevice, but
falsely, and without authority, procure IL
he issued from the Nary Department a certain
reguisition 10 tho Secretary OF the Treasury for
the purpose of placing in the hands OF } X
Paud,ng, Navy Ageo. the sum of one thousand
dollars which rcqusi,ion is set out in perbis o
be charged 10 " arrearnges prior TO 1927 by
means of which QUESTION the said sum OF 900
dollars was placed in the hands The said Ma
Wy agent"
There wcre other counts in the indictment
for other sums. but Of the same legal import :;
IL being the pleasure of lawyers 10 describe he
same thing in some half dozen different ways
lest persons accused should escape AZ some un.
suspected avenue.
To the indictment thus briefly characterised
the counsel Of Watkins demurrtd, and demur-
rer implies the admission OF the facts charged
but denies the law 10 be as stated IN the iDdct-
menf. The grounds Of the demurrer were. |.
That The offence charged 10 Watkins, Is n com
mon Law land not statutory offence, and
that there being 10 common law In the United
States as such, he cannot be punished q, the
suit of the U. States as such. 2dgroDnd, That
fraud is not IN indictabe offence at common
law, unless IL be effected by means Of some
false public token such as false weights. or
measures, or marks, or by means of forgery, or
conspiracy or by means which effect The pub
lie generally"
Upon the first Of these grounds, dceming il
the most essential, we give the opinion OF The
cour, at large.
I" The frJ ground Of demurrer relied upon
is, that the United States, as a Nation, has 10
common law in relation TO crimes and often
ces, and consequently thai there can he no COM
mon law offences against the United States IN
its National Character. That this offence. " II
he an offence, is against the United States IN
that character, aud not as the locnl sovereign
Of this district aud Therefore it is not an indIc,-
able offence.
II is said that this court can only exercise the
jurisdiction Of Federal Courts aud of the State
Courts.
That the Federal Courts could not hold ju-
risdcllon OF this cause, because il Is not n cri
mnal offence agains, the United States, who
have no criminal common law and that the
State Courts could not hold jurisdiction Of II,
because, lit be an offence. nj ALL II is exclu-
sively an nhence against the United States.
This argument is certainly NJ frs, view quite
plausible, but, TO our mind not entirely satisfac-
tory. II is cleur that this offence is Of 5sch an
| exclusive character, that il could be prosecuted
only in a Court Of the Uni,pd States. II il had
been committed in one Of the States, say III Ma
ryland, IS il clear that II would not nave been
an oHrnce agains that State The offence
charged, we will say, for the sake Of argument,
is, in substance, a cheat j. e. an act VI fraud
done to the injury Of the United Sates. The
State Court has jurisdiction Of cheats and
frauds. Does thai juridicton depend upon the
question To whose injury the cheat or the fraud
was committed Whether II be to the injury
OF citizen of Maryland, ola foreigner--or Of
another State. or Of foreign Sovereign or Of
the United States 7 Ifa fraud to the Injury Of
fhe State OF PENNSYLVANIA should be com
mitied in Maryland, IL could not be tried In
Psnnsy ivania and shall il be said that il is mt
crime in Mary land TO do an unlawful act 10 the
injury of Pennsy wanna What is there in the
circumstances OF the transactions 10 make
il a case OF exclusive federal juI isdic toni
Is il because the defendant is stated to have
been Fourth Auditor ofthe Treasury ofthe
United States He is not charged with hav-
Ing done any act in that character, or by color
ofihat of1ice-nor is he charged with the VIC.
laton Of any official duty, nor with having
made use Of his Office. or official character
20 perpetrate the fraud Is II because the per.
sou o., whom the drafts were drawn was an of
fcer of the u. States That circumstance rs
perfectly immaterial and cannot change the
nature Of the transaction.
The foundation and substance of The offence
is fraud-mora frand-crimen Jdisi, the iutpi-
tude OF which is neither increased nor dimin-
i.hed by the circumstance that the draft was
drawn BY one officer of the United States and
accepted by another neither Of them acting
in his official character nor by virtue ofbis
Office. Isl because the fraud was committed
by means ola requsiton from the Navy De-
partment upon the Treasury of the United
States? That circumstance docs not alter
the nature of the offence. II is still simple
che't, or fraud. Is it because the United States