Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-06-05

Judges iHRUsToN and MoRSEL.
Chief Justice CRAHcH, on the opening OF the
Court, delivered the following as the opinion oil
the Court upon The question argued before IL
last week in the case Of the indictment against
The late Fourth Auditor:
UNITED STATES Us. TOBIAS WATKINS.
OPINION.
The substance of This indictment is, That
Tobias Wakins, being Fourth Auditor OF the
Trea,ury of the United States, and intending
fr,udulently to obtain for his own use money 0!
the United States, falsely and frauduien'ly wrote
a letter 10 ]. X. PaulGtng, Navy Agent OF The
United States, advising him ofhs, Tobias Wat
kins' DRAFT on him for 500 dollars, 10 be charged
10 "arrearages," and that he would receive
Treasury draft for the same SUN 10 meet IT.
That Tobias Watkins drew such draii, and
sold il TO l.. ) Fowler for, and received oil him
uahe same amount, and applied tito his own use
IA. the said Tobias Watkins did, ostens'oiy
the public service, but falsely, and without
AUTHORITY, procure to b. issued from the Na,y
DEPARTMENT, certain reqpisit'on TO The Secretary
of toe Treasury. fIr The purpose OF placing IN
the hands Of j. K. Paulding, Navy Agent, the
sum Of 81 900 which requisiilon Is set out
in verbs TO be charged to 'arrearages prior to
1927" by means of which requisi,ion the said
sum of 600 dollars was placed in the hands Of
The sid Navy Agent.
That The said Tobias Watkins afterwards
wrote another letter TO the said Navy Agent,
informing him the remittance under the appro-
pria,,on TOR arrearages would be 1000 dollars,
instead of 500 dollars, before advised, and al
forwards drew another dfait on him tor 500 dol
lars, which he received for il of {. 5. Fowler,
ssYd ietitr ind ras, So 50 as aforesaid
wrilien aud sent, and drawn and sold as afore
said, and he said requisifion caused and pro.
cured To be issued as aforesaid, were, and each
ofthsm loas, so written. sent, drawn and sold, *
caused and procured to ne issued IS aforesaid,
without any authority rherefor, and not for or
on account of the public service, but for the
private gam AID benefit of he said Tobias
Watkins, and with intent 10 defrsud the said
UniIed States, and as false pretences 10 enable
him to obtain TO his own use aud benz fit the
said two sums Of 500 ;o!Iar, each. and that by
means of the said several false prrtences, he
said Tobias Watkins did at the time and times
aforesaid, deiraud the sid United States Of the
said Two sums Of 500 dollars each, and dispose
OF thu same to his own use and benefit, TO the
graf damage ofthe United S,a'es. and asains,
the 70, acH and government. thereof"
There Is another stmilar count upon another
sim'l transaction ior $50 dollars, with the like
aNermepis.
TO ihi, irdictment there is general dcmur
rer and juiuder.
b. tn demurrer, the facts are admitted, If
they amount 70 IN lndiC table offence al Conan D
law, and are well set forth.
The Gr,t ground Of d, murrer relied upon is,
that the United States, as u Nation. has no com
mon law in relation crimes and off. noes; and
consequently, that there can be 10 common law
offences against the United States in lis Nation.
al character. That this cffence. il 1t be an of.
fence, is against the Uui,ed States IN thai char.
acter, and Rot as he local sovereign uf this
District; aud therefore, il is not an indciabe
offence.
II is said that This Court can only exercise
tbr jurisdiction Of Federal Courts ant OF the
State Courts.
That the Federal Courts could not hold iu-
risciclion Of this cause, because il is not crin-
inal offence against The United States who
have no criminal common law; and that the
State Courts could not hold jurisdiction Of it,
because, If il be offence ALL il is ,xclu .ive>
ly an offence against the United States.
This argument is certainly, at first view,
quite plausible; but to our mind, MT en,irely
satisfactory. Is il clear that this offence is Of
such an exclusive character, ,ha. il could b.
prosecuted only in Court of the United States!
IL it had been commit,ed in one Of thei States,
say in Maryland, is it clear that it would not
have been offence against that State? The
offence charged, we will say, for the sake Of AR
gument, is, in substance, che al: e. an act Of
fraud done toshe injury OF the United States.
The State Cour, has jurisdiction Of cheats and
frauds. Does thar jurisdiction depend upcn
the question TO Whose injury the cheat or the
fraud was coTnmitted!-whether II be to the in
ju'y Of CITIZEN Of Maryland or foreigner-or
Of Ano,i er S'ate, nr Of foreign Sovereign, OF
Of the Unitec States! If fraud, 10 The iujary
Of the State OF Pennsylvania should be commits
ted in Maryland, i, would not be tred in Penn-
sylvania; and shall it be said that il is no crime
10 Maryland to do an unlawful ACT TO the injury
Of Pennsylvania What is there in the cir,um-
stances Of the transaction ts make it q case of