Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-05

nv
should be committed in Maryland il could moi
be tried in Pennsylvania and shall it be said that
II Is no crims III Maryland 10 DO an unlawful
act 10 the injury of Pennsylvania What is
there in the circumstances Of the transaction 10
make it case of exclusive federal Jurisdiction
Is il because the defendant is stated to hlyc been
Fourth Auditor of the Treasury ofthe u States He
Is not charged with having done any in lt char
acter, by color Of that offce-nor is he CHARGED
with the violation of any official duty nor with hay
ing made OF his Office official charactc. to ner
petrate the fraud. Is it becausethe person on whom
the drafts were drawn was an officer of,e n State,
That circumstance is perfectly rlmaterial ana can
not change { nature OF the transaction.
The foundation aud substance of the offence i,
iraud--moral iraud--crineR Giis the turpitudc OF
which is neither Increased nor diminished NV Tho
circumstances that the draft drawn by one oil.
oE the United States, and accepted by another;
neIlher oil them acting III his official character nor
by virtue Of his Office. is it because the fraud was
committed by means OF q requiston from the NAVY
Department upon the Treasury OF the United States,
That circumstance does not alter the atuf, of the
offence. IL IS still simple cheat. or fraud. l.
because the United Safes the sufferer by the fraud.
The answer may be giver--The nature OF tic
offence IS not thereby altered.
we are therefore OF opinion that there is nothlnn
IN the character Of the parties, the crcus anccs
o the transaction which should make it IL case of
exclusive iederH! Jurisdiction; bot that If IL be i'm
It's nature common law offence, and had been
committed III Stale. il might have been tried in
a state Court, as offence against that State
We think, therefore, that If it be q common law
offence Committed III TINS county, II is within the
jurisdiction ofths court whose common law iurisdic
ton IS derived from the common law OF MARYLAND
winch was, by the accession Of Maryland, and
the acceptance OF Congress, under the provis-
ION III tie constitution OF the United States trans
ierred from Maryland to the United States with
mat remnant vi State sovereignty which after the
adoption OF the Federal Constitution. was LETT To
Maryland All the State prerogative which Mary
lana enjoyed under the common law which she u
dopted so far concerned the ceded territory passed
10 me United states Al the power which MARY
land had, b. virtue Of that common law preroga-
I'VE 70 PUNISH by indictment. Offenders against
heF sovereignty, and TO protect that sovereignty ne
came vested in the United States; and authorised
lhein to punish offenders against their Sovereignty
ana To protect that sovereignty by the same means
50 lar as regards the territory cejcd. We there
lore hnk that, III regard 10 offences committed with
IN this part of the District. the United States have
criminal common law--and that this court has
criminal law jurisdiction.
| Upon the second ground Of den.qr.cr, the Court
waving the idea that Watkins case fell under the
description OF frauds committed by means OF false
pubic tokens, ouch as false weights, measures. or
marks, or by means Of forgery or conspiracy, fixed
upon the remaining class ofcases fraud viz "such
as By their means, affect the public generally" as the
only class within which this case could be brought
10 prove that it is comprchended in this, we pre-
sumo. very comprehensive class the Court goes into
the examination of much law learning to establish
and dos we think, satisfactorily establish taking al
Ways, the allegations of the Indictment 10 be true
and sustained. But dis point being cs dishcl, an
other one occns, whether namely the fraud is suf-
iccntly set forth til" indictment: and i so, w!ci
or il b4a fraud upon tic pa5Le?
/ Tie last .! those questions vas suggested Is tie
argument, thai =" money drawn ivy Watkins impro-
perly, not the money CT the Z. States, but Of
James x. Paud'ng, Navy agent at New York.
The rcas Jnng and decision Of the Court upua this
point, folio So:
!, ms tea suggested in argument, hat o. ,b. nr va,
char. by nc Jn"d states To e accou. of lc Pauldiny
afthe United States which ws ds,, o1 81 h. ba ~ 49,,
accused and that MIR PAU u. liable to the United state
and hos .iven security icy h!ve :fe,.d AMI cav -
s, ant therefore dat, anv fand was committed il
raHH upon MI taud my, aud not upon the United States
Rnl :" ;hs objection iinS may be- answered, l is
n1 ayerrcd H. the 'd cruH moa-y was charged n
MIR lanf!rs 1t only ayeJcd ;hat yiacei g., lbs la rs
a. n3 ~ lf 81" Nee is mo'nrs s,!ei IN e Indictment
IN section o tire net of Conc>s Of the al March 1903 the
>'vS Agents are u't' "4cne'e pacucahic 10 Keep ft
"si1ics Th., c,t9,l, s.,s,, ID, 4, a,,h an,
n o1 ~ Er public money aud II il should be lest
without my negligence or l.ftu Of the rrnt u,old NOT me
his lo b1, hat Of the 4. States AMI it money should have
sch circumstances III Ia,eI saics would rc n, Ei 6 S
t has been suggested the par, ofhe accused tia, h,
is only liable 10 tc tnted States civ action for the money
which hc received EIif hc is liable to a Girl action hy dc
r received tho ur1cy the United States lfNlr Paul
ding was iul rcd to uay these rafis b. sue, r,f
ordinary care and prudence the United states mirht very ius;iv
allow him credit for the loss and in that case yof
tai on the United states would be Il lud en- tie publ
Nnd how is Il less fraud upon he public, ir laudnr was
50 deceived and imposed uran but sid the Known
That the accused bod right 10 draw could not have been
less fraud upon the Sq'rs, # others had pote5 in
For 'iee ica.ons we think TIM, the r,ors da, iv r
a. Iff DI plrfr.