Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-05

eign Sovereign, Ok OF the United States, Ii
fraud, to the injury Of the State of Pennsylvania
should be committed in Naryland il could no
be tried in Pennsylvania; and shall it be said tina
| 1t IS no crime in Maryland to do an uulawfi,
act to the injury of PENNSYLVANIA What 4
there in the circumstances of the transaction tc
make it case of exclusive federal jurisdiction
Is it because the defendant is stated to have beer
Fourth Auditor of the Treasury of the u States9 H.
is not charged with having done any act in Thai cbar
acter by color of that office-nor is he charged
with the violation Of any official dutJ nor with hay
ing made of his Office or official character to ner
petrate the fraud is it because the person Oh whom
the drafts were drawn was an officer Of the u. Sates
That circumstance is perfectly immaterial and can
not change the nature Of the transaction,
The foundation and substance Of the offence is
1raud--rnorai fraud -c'lnnes aLsi, the turpitudc Of
which is neither increased nor diminished by the
circumstance thnt the draft was drawn bv one off
Of the United States, and accepted nv another.
neither Of them acting in his official character nor
by virtue of his Office. Is it because the fraud was
committed by means of requisition from the NAVY
department upon the Treasury of the United States!
That circumstance does not alter the nature of the
silence. 1t is still a simple cheat, or fraud Is i,
because the United States the sufferer by the fraud,
The same answer may be gvcn--1he nature of the
offence IS not thereby altered.
We therefore Of opinion that there is nothino
III the character of the parties in the circumst ances
or the transaction, which should make i. case oe
exclusive federal jurisdiction; but that if it be in
40 IL common law offence, and had been
committee In State. it might have been tried in
State Court, as an offence against that State.
we think, therefore, that if it be q common law
offence committed in this county, it is within the
jurisdiction of this court, whose common law jurisdc
ton is derived from the common law of MARYLAND.
which was, by the accession of MARYLAND, and
the acceptance of Congress-, under the provis-
ION III the constitution of the United States trans
ferred from MARYLAND to the United States with
that remnant Of State sovereignty which after the
adoption of the Federal Constitution, was left Ia
Maryland. All the State prerogative which Mary-
land enjoyed under the common law which she n
dcped so far as concerned the coded territory passed
to the United States. All the power which MARY
land had, by virtue Of that common law preroGa-
tive, to punish by indictment, offenders against
her sovereignty, and to protect that sovereignty be-
came vested in the United States; and authorised
them TO punish offenders against their sovereignty
ana TO protect that sovereignty by the same means
so tar as regards the territory ceded. We there
tore think that, in regard to offences committed With
IN this part Of the District, the United States have
criminal common law--and that this court has a.
criminal law jurisdiction.
Upon the second ground of demurrer the Court
waving the idea that Watkins case fell under the
description of frauds committed by means of false
public tokens, such falso weights, measures, O,
marks, or by means Of forgery or conspiracy, fixed
upon the remaining class ofcases of fraud viz "suci
as by their means, affect the public generally" as the
only class within which this case could be brouaht
To prove that it is comprehended in this, we pre-
sumo very comprehensive class the Court goes int
the examination Of much law learning to establish.
and does We think, satisfactorily establish taking al
ways, the allegations OF the indictment to be true
md sustained. But this point being established, an
other one cccnrs whether namely, the fraud is sui
iclcny set forth i'll the indictment? and if So wAeth
or it be fraud upon the pubEc ?
The last Of these questions was SUGGESTED by TN
argument, that the Money dra aa by Watkins muro
perly, vas not the money Of the U. States, bnt o
James X. Pauldng, Navy Agent at New yo:!s
The reasoning and decision az she Curt upon this
point, are rs follows:
1t has been suggested in arsunen, that as the money ma.
charged BY tile United States 10 the Nh Pauidng
who responsible fer it, his money and not the money
accused and that as MIR Padding liable United States
and has given security they have suffered can suffer no
loss and therefore that, if any fraud committed was
fraud upon Mr. Paudng, and not upon the United States
But 10 this objection think j; may b. answered. that it
not aveTed in the Indictment that the money charged
MI pauidnS; Is only averred that Pidced hands
SdUy .4gcH," and there nothing stated in the indictment
TO show that ceased to be public money in his hands BY the
Navy Agents directed, henever practicable keep he
'Pubc ia tei, hands, in Incorporated BANK
be designated for he purpose by the resident Of the United
"Sate This clearly shows the understanding Legisla
ture be- that the money when into the hands of tive
di BOt CeaSe ~ DE PUBIC should be
without negligence default of the agent, would
his loss hut that OF the u States; and if the money should
been charged TO hun account suppose under
such circumstance the United States would credit him for the
loss has been suggested the part the accused that
only Liable to the United States IN cV action for the money
which he received Bot if he is liable 10 co action by the
United States must be the ground thai money which
he received the money of the United STATES fNlr Pau
ding induced 10 these drafts by such arl conryauces
or false protece tokens could be guarded against
ordinary and prudence the United States might very Justly
allow him credit for the loss and, the loss in tina, would
fall on the United States, it would be fraud the public
And how is it less fraud upon the public fAlr Pauding
not so deceived aud imposed upon but paid the drafts knowing
That the accused had right to draw? II could
less fraud upon the u States If others had participated
For these reasons think that the money drawn by the
accused out of the bands of MIR Paudng the money of The
United States and therefore, that the fraud any, frauc
upon the public.
The next question, to VT; "whether the fraud BIZ
sufficiently set forth in the Indictment" is adjudget