Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-01
DOMESTIC.
From he National Infringement
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
May sS, 1929.

C1RSOiI COOhl IHE UNITED SIAIES
May IS, 1929.
Case Of Z. States vs.. T. Rattins. Continued
The argument upon the demurrer TO the indict.
'ncnt against L. WATKINS for aiedged fraud n,
common law against the United States was resumed
on the opening OF the Court.
Mr. X. 5. COKE, counsel for the accused, common
ced by observing that he agreed i'll one opinion ex-
pressed by the counsel whom it was his duty 10 fol-
low IN argument. viz: that this is a case OF great i'm.
portance Ii Is so IN every aspect III which can be
viewed II so IN its relation 10 he country at LARGE
There IS scarcely a hamlet throughout the country
nor an individual who paid any attention to passing
events, that had not heard, in exaggerated terms
ofthe frauds alledged to have been committed by the
individual now before the Court. IL was important
TO the whole people at large in another view Deem
~ as the people are interested in the faithful execu.
ton OF the Executive trusts of the Government thew
have still deeper interest in the due Interpretation
OF the criminal law ofthe country and in this aspect
the case now before the Court does present most
serious ind grave questions. The case was of inn
porance to tho Government also for, it had been
truly SAID they have thought advisable To emnlov
extra counsel TO assist the learned and eminent Attor
ney fer the United States in this Court. For their
doing go, Mr. &. said he meant not to cast any mpu-
tation whatever for the importance Of the case was
sufficient to justify Il, need not add (said Mr. C. :
how important the case is 10 the accused himself TO
h,s large and interesting family; need say how
deeply feel the responsibility devovei upon me
standing where uEn, by these grave and touching
considerations.
Mr.. G. went on to state that he had intended to
congratulate the two learned counsel the other
side upon some of the matters which they had pre-
scented 10 the view Of the Court in the course of their
argument yesterday The learned prosecutor in this
Court especially had thought it necessary TO under
take grautously TO justify the conduct of all who had
been concerned IN bringing this case before the Court
hr. Z. had intended TO congratulate him OH this new
addition to the duties Of the District Attorney
WhaneveT the arrived, he should be ready To
ioIn issu with the learned gentleman and submit 10
the confederation of the Court and Of Jury wheth-
lo "a. rffvb IN hia,+,n. 81
Mr.. &. then proceeded TO consider the auestions
which appeared to him necessarily to arise in this
case.
The f'si ground which h, proposed 20 take was
not, M The learned District Attorney appeared To a.
sumo, whether this Court possessed or couId exer
cise any criminal jurisdiction at common INV That
was point which Mr.. C.. conceded His PROPOSE |
ION was That the offence charged in this case is
crime, IT offence NJ all, against the United States
end against the United States alone; that il is char
ged a. being based the common Law; and TINT
no United States, in their federative character
nave no crmnal law, nor can the Court exercise "A |
COMMON law jurisdiction uny offence which In
- cha rncter and nature is purely an offence against
1nc CHted states. When he spoke Of the United |
states, IN reference TO this proposition il was OF the
government OF confederation, embracing four and
twenty different. States within its limits earh of
winch hls la own, peculiar municipal law By the net
~ TIC United States accepting the ccsqon OF this
I'lstTct he wen' on 90 G-gne the laws Of MARYLAND
'no 1i Virginia having been extended 70 tho parts
cnnmpn law OF Maryland. ns il then existed is the
rue OF cowllct hero, III matters criminal as we'll az
civil, Ahmihns, then, that t,is Court does not sit
SIMPLY as edera. Court, but has, ia addition 10
te powers OF The Courts of the Union nH the noyyera
~ The General Court Of Maryland anterior IN the
ccssion Of the District hs proposition wss. flint
his Court possesses jurisdiction but TINT ,ybicb
belongs 20 u expressly ono Of Tue Courts cf ,Lc
United States, or that which belonged To tho Gone
al Cosrt " Maryland. and WIS transferred IN II on
lc acceptance by Congress ofthe cess,n of The
ifstuct. In the exercise of it's power derived bv
transfer h0m The General Court of Maryland II could
rot eVerci.c jurisdiction This case, because !,
"as en- nI,Br" against the Government OF the Uni.
80 f''m' hnd therefore not cognizaJlc by Safe
|nurl- As Circuit Conn II could not exercise
'uTsde'"h over ., because in that capacity il Dos
fcscd no criminal common law jurisdiction wlIatey-
fr. u was maxim, mo raid, rs old as written law
sat one judicial tribunal cannot execute any critni
nal las but sach as emanates from IA own f,eoisIa
ufc an0 be nstanccd the Of tho practice In the
SDg lai. Scotch. and Irish Courts which, vyero oveT
e4by thor own distinct laws well as tat Of our ot,n
State Governments, each Of them Independent oe
'hc General Government well as of ono auotber
tits curt, he Illustrated IL by saying, could MOI
under The power which it derived by transfer froa
tie Government Of Maryland, nlici punishment
ior the violation Of any law of Virginia. nor could
exercise any Jurisdiction orcr an offence againq,