Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-10-21
For the Co.'S rIrUTIoNAL WmG.
W\TKiNSlS CASE


III" Wing of 'le 2ii Juno last, contains short
essay on the subject ct prosecutions 1r offences
against the u States. II commenced By assuming
as true tho proposition, that If citizen he prose
cu"d III any court of the l.. States for the coinIns-
sion OF an act, charged TO b. ocnce against the
government thereof, The act charged must be an
"otcncc against some law of the u. Sta,es."
In the decision this case, this uropoSitjon was
neither admitted denied. lit may or il NAV not
De correct say The Court. (See National Journal
ct the liih July. 1927 The pfopositinn il seems
was dee'd uninai eFiai; 1t did touch the matter
! in debate.
The essay then proceeded TO slcw tlioi there was
no act OF Congress, describing offence the act
imputed To Watkins; aud that thus act could not be
reached by the Common law. there heinp no com
mon law IN force under me government of the u
States.
Ibis position also, it seems, was immaterial. The
act was declared 20 b. liable To prosecution THROUGH
tn" law of Maryland, which forms the law not even
OF the District nut OF that part Of it which was &C.
Died to the u. States by Maryland. OF This law of
Maryland, the common law formed a part, and the
commnn law IT was said, embraced the case
In ihS essay, 1t was also conteadej, that there was
IN essential difference between the government IF
the T. Stacs. and The inferior dependent territorial
government of Columbia; aud that IT was pbs,rd
tina, the latter should undertake TO punish as an of.
fence against The u, States, act not deemed such
by the laws of the u. States
THIS proposition IL put aside If compreh end III
part OF the subject iudic1jiy exhbitcd by the as
sumption, that although the done was an offence
against The U. States 1t done by the offender in
therefore a.
fence ~ punishable in The District according To is
laws do not mean TO discuss this matter for
reason "urh will presently appear: but must re-
mark hero, that the premiss not true and that if
were true, The conclusion does not follow
The essay also said, Chat the question in case OF
district prosecution will always depend OH the cha
"racter OF the ac, charged an offence lfthe act
or me effect OF the &C, be injurious to the L. States
"Or the government thereof, look into the laws
'of the IT, States, 10 whether il be described as
IAN offence, aud how It il 10 be punished. If these
laws are silent on the subject, the matter Is at
"end, or rather meyer had a beginning"
This proposition IL seems was deemed totally erro.
neo"s The question whether prosecution in the
district, for an offence against the IT, States can he
sustained does not depend on the character ot' the
act done. bat the chrratiey in tphich me o1sudey
acr8 Ifhc docs ;hc act complained Of in his indvi
dual character he may be- punished under the district
law; although tho act is directly injurious TO the IT,
States committed 10y officer Of the Government,
by mo employment " means emphaticaiy and cxclu-
slvely official and coud not nave Deen comun,tCu, ~
he had not been in office. And Watkins is said to
have acted IN his indl, idua charactcr!
do not moan To argue any Of these points. To
many tho bare statement of them Will be sufficient.
Those who disposed To make further inquiry, will
do well to- read Mr. CoXos speech 90 the Jury, pub
lshed IN the National Journal of the 18th August,
and his speech un tho motion for new trial, publish
ed ia the Journal of the 18th. Without meaning To
commit myself 90 Gerry proposition which he adj
vanccs, think may safely say, he has proved that
Tobias Watkins however weak or vicious his COM
duct may have been, deprived Of his liberty, in vo-
laiun ofthe Constitution Of our country.
The essay concluded It's remark, by saying that the
law ofthe case had been totally misconcciycd. The
sentence having been passed, may now with PRO.
pricty add, what believe to be equally true, that
the facts in lcgul point Of view have bccn equally
misunderstood; meaning thereby 20 affirm distinctly
this proposition, that tho facts stated ~ the three
vcrsl indictments upon which convictions have pass
cd, do not constitute an offence according 20 any
code ever known in these u. States. But with this
view, with many other views Of the case IN relation
TO circumstances without parallel, do not mean Ia
have any concern. have confined mysclfto duty
winch selected thirty years ago and shall remain at
my post even II am 20 remain alone.
taii hat did not mean and ! no not moan :,