Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-07-01
3Strt1,,toll0 e11BfQ.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY I, 1879.

",
tic facts found by them amounted to forgery. With
Difference we think Mr.. SWANS argument in suppors
OF his motion lame one. 1t completely overtrown
by Judge Morsels question.
The argument seems to have deviated from, the Re-
cord and to have principally reflected OH the one hand
ON the out door attempts assai the integrity of Tho
court and jury and to oppress the accused; and re-
tantlon on the other that it was proposed TO rni-
political storm TO favor Watkins escape We 40
not believe that there is in the opposition wbo
wishes to secure impunityto Watkins. Their indie.
nation has been rousedby the high handed course Of
the prosecutions the multiplication of indictments for
the game offences inter hoy had been repeated ir
nored by the jury quashed by the court the eager
zeal manifested by Power to convict him. the infamy
OF some of the instruments most forward to hunt him
down in tile name of "Reform," the efforts made 10
ntmidate the court and Jury by portion of the Jack
son Press and the fagitous assault upon their in.e
gritty by the same persons. These are the c.uses
winch hove very Justly attracted towards Watkins.
trial the fixed attention of the public and towards
ms prosecutors 1--WE do not mean the counSe largo
portion OF It's censure. AS for Watkins himself no
man wishes him to escape the just punishment which
he may have deserved but all men wish for il is NIL
mems interest that the end should be attained bv
legal MEANS and for justice sake und not for the sae
OF gratifying tho spitefu malignty of limos Kendall
or Duff Green or for the sake of enabling the pen
stoned Press of the Administration, to present n
PLAUSIBLE however, unsubtanal defence fits course
We shall get by Tomorrow probably, tho decision
OF the court on Mr.. Swanns notion
From the National Journal.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY ON
WASHINGTON.
SATURDAY, June CT.
ynln I'D fh.ao ~
he had submitted to the Court He exprcssed his
oeile that the Court would be satisfied they ought To
accede It, He complained that,the discussion of the
opposite counsel had taken an unnecessary rance
which would make it necessary that he sbonld re-
ply; and If hs honorable friends were sitting as iu-
TOTS ne made no doubt TINT he could satisfy them
Inc counsel for the u States had been charged with
introducing INNOVATIONS into the practice of the Court
with persecution against the accused of making tho
uahd Jury the agents In that prosecutions and of as
saiiing the reputation of the Jury He disclaimed
IN the first place, for himself and his colleague eve.
ry thing like desire or an intention IN nersecnte INV
individual For himself whatever step he took WINS
from sense OF duty; and when i'm the heat of ay6I
lnent, he had gone step too far il nwavs was a sb
Jcct OF subsequent regret. The United States Coun-
sci sci could not he charged with i'll will TO the acc used
There IL, however. duty due to the nation ne ye no
the individual; and while should be- careful not TO
aTnpe OH tho rights of the individual we should ho
equally careful TO protect the welfare and sa Retv oF
| the nation. -
| in reply 10 the statement that the GRIND Jurv
presentmputa sui with
their Immediate knowledge, he contended TINT be
wns restrained by the statute Of MARYLAND of I7a2
rom presenting bill of indictments unless the Grand
jury shall have previously found resentment This
WOW was sustained 10y the net of Assembly Of 1715
He skotched the duties and powers of Grand Juriez
and asked If, upon individual suggestion it was mo,
| competent for Jury to send for Witnesses md
through them to obtain the knowledge which was
| requisite There IL an act Of Assembly which re-
CURES all the constabes TO be sworn IIe ins;sted
that Grand Jury do present. whatever the source
from which they derive their reformation. a process
may ISSUE He stated that tho preaen mont onlv re
quircd tho formal requisites 10 mike IL an nd;crocnt
ana the Counsel on the other side had admitted thai
)" nS omciai cupBctty, he had sometimes tried cases
on me PIeseniments. lie made quotations from the
Jaws OF maryland to sustain tho course which the H.
states Attorneys had pursued, in having the Witness
esS"oIn ~ general terms lie also ndyerted In ha
3" oihcal prac; e in all cascs 20 Justify the course
so naI I""Pteu 10 ms case That preseuiment had
Prcceued inc indictments hc cousidered ndvents-
geous 70 The accused. The L-Stafsr~
more 'han ne INV required IN cIvotinp tho nc
.tfrd Prcsentincnt as we'll os an indictments
rs 10 tne enforcement of the Witnesses on the ndict-
ncns, II had been his own usual practice hut n u,as
not rcquredby law his g. adinor had not done 90
had been said that under the present practice no
prosecution for perjury malicious prosecution
CouIG ne but nc insisted that the evidence of
man before the Jury could be extored from the mem
sandcr. ' ~
! On the subject Of persecution, which had been
! cF,.SD"y S""' ge"' aHu VI u manner to wound his
ieo,gs' y hod been Inmoicd that peculiar industry
hadbecn displayed by the Government in their ondeo
vprs 10 Cypress the accused. lie would only renIv
by statement Of facts. lie then described tbe fcfs
continued IN tho indictments, tho opinions of tho in
enS me process ct reasoning in tho minds Of tho
Onlteu STATES Counsel which was Induced nv those
opinions. They reflected that thee was d,fy n
tno Umted States MS well M N tho iudividnaI and
s,,ntn c'Ime was committed il was their duty TO
R Ei 10 lts perfect development and punishment.
IHey I'uO como to the conclusion that Ak under tho
saiuto the issue ola false writing wns forgery, and
as me Grand Jury had declared this rcouisition is
sco' was issued without authority tbs was case Of
Io.'gC'J. re also showed tic importance ofthc alb
s''aCV WINCH mad It gone 10 the Second Comptroller
~ I'VE proper form. would have exposed the fraud, and
.not INC alteration Of It by the Fourth Auditor,
inquired ~ Tho opinion ofthc United Statcs Counsel