Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-05-30

actment are different in all the states. Mr..
c. came TO Inc conclusion, after considerable
argument, that there is no common law of the
United States as a source of jurisdiction, and
that no off nee not based on the Constitution
Of the United States, or laws made in conform.
iy thereto, can be will in the federal lurIsdic.
ton. In support Of which doetiine he quoted
different legal authorities.
The next position TAX by Mr.. &. was that
no such off nee IS that described in he indIci-
ment exists at the common law. fraud a.
eainst the Government, aud People must be
such as to produce a general injury, must be
public in i,s nature and, Effected by means CAL
culaled to deceive numbers. a hing might be
public properly in one ,etse, and no. n anoth-
err. Thus. the Bible, Shakr,prar's PLAYS, or
any work Of value, were, in on. s'nsf, public
pro2Saty and as such, every I'll zen Il pro
perry in them, which Congress an neil re"n-
uol nor take away. An uf nee indIci'he at
common law must not merely bf all 1T nee
against tie public domain, but against the
rights Of the community a. large-agaln't the
ipierps, OF The mass If the ciizens Frauds, to
be indictable at common law, must be puoiic
in iheir nature, aud calculated to deceive the
public in general. The abs ence of any su2h
| feature in the presen; Indictment, was an ineu-
rable defect and could not be got over. In
support of this doctrine. Mr. e. referred, al
large, to various British authorities. &c.
Mr.. G.. next proceeded o.sta,e the more spe-
| ciic exec pions which he took 10 the firm OF
the Indictment, which, though he dwslt upou
them at large, we must be content briefly TO
notice. The 6rst exception WATCH he took TO
| il was that it did not contain sufh lent aver
menl Of the false prerences" alleged to have
been made use Of by the ~ccused. In reference
| 10 the attempt TO make out a case OF forgery as
| a misdeme amor, in the Indictment, the counsel
on the other side must have supposed hat the
counsel for the accused were demurring to the
| indictment sent out TO the jury, instead o.
those found by them; for an indictment setting
forth d, forgery the very abstract On which
the charge Of forgery was now attempted 10 be
maintained as msdeme amor, had been return.
eG ignored BY the Jury. Could it have been
expected, otter this, whatever the ingenuity Of
the counsel, tina, they would bs driven 10 such
shifts as 10 contend tina, if all The rest Of this
indictment, was bad, they could establish a
charge Of forgery under it? 10 sustain any
indictment for forgery, the words FALSELY
forged and counlerfeired" must be used, and
| without them, words Of like import, the in
| diclment could not stand; and no such words
were used in this indictment. MIR. &. further
impr ached the validity of the Indictment Tor
stating 10 be false what was no. false, but, 10
sustain The indictment, must be admitted
10 be true; and for containing allega
lions hypothetical, alternative, or not geimain
10 the matter, which, such OF them as were
| introduced without reason, might be said 10 be
wa1tonly introduced. He charged the indie-
ment also with inconerui!y, defec'iveness, and
iuco sis,ency from beginning 10 the end. He
den,ed that il included any offence against the
Pubic, because, in fac,, the public had no, been
defrauded. To this day the moneys OF which
stood ahargsdIo The Navy 4een7s npos whom
drafts had been drawn, and The subsequent act
OF an erasure in an abstract, SO far from going
TO consummate fraud on The United States,
as alleged in The indictment, wtnI directly 10
prevent such an eff-ct, sc. He ridiculed the
idea OF The alleged alteration of this abstract
icing forgery: an abstract is an account rem
dered, and had il bren between individuals il
would be Just as wise and reasonable to charge
the recipient with forgery or fraud bee use he
han drawn his pen across it, used il for the
wsddng of gun, or thrown it into the fire.
He had heard Il constructive treason, but he
never before beard OF constructive forgery, such
as was now attempted 10 be set up.
Nj. E. further objected 10 the Indictment, as
containing, contrary % the established usage,
allegations II matters subs quent 10 the ae ged
on nee OF obtaining money, &c.--upon which
ground, with all those previously taken, Mr.. Z.
confidently rested an expectation that the ill., |
die 'ment would be Sc, aside, sc. SC.
Mr.. KEY replied 10 some Of he n W matter
introduced in argument by The COUNSEL who last |
addressed the Court. He said that the indict-
men' ignored by the Grand Jury was not an in
.'e'men' for forgery, bur an indictments under
he statute OF the Uniled STATES for presenting
"a public accounting Off 'er paper known to
u false or for geo; which had been returned by
Up Jury because they supposed the Of.
trHe not 10 come within the statute, though
they believed every fact in he indie ,ment they
had found TO be true. He denied that the
worh"forgrd or eounerfeited" were necessary
technfal words in an indictment at common
law to- forgery. The old Latin words 10 ex-
press ne offFnce were jabrieavit It eontyafeea,
and he aid non know that these were at all more
or less requisie TO constitute charge of for.
gerry tina. the Whimsical translation Of them. in
common use, hich had been supposed tech.
nicaIly necessary After divers other obser,a,
tions in reDly- ,