Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-04

l
considered the question, Decides, as already
.diuasea. In conclusion, aiiei an sr
rnmen, OF three hours length, MIR. h. submit
ted the case 10 the court with perfect conn
arucc that the Indictment would be sustained.
TRefore the close ot his remarks, something
aeeurred which induced MIR MY 10 say that
nothing could be more unfair than any thing
which had been sad, or might be said, suggest
ing harshness on the part OF tue counsel Tor
the prosecution towards the accused. They
might have used hsrsher terms towards him,
Ind they been so disposed, &c. &c.
MIR CoxE, counsel for The accused, then
said that the usual hour Of adjournment hal
nearly arrived. aud as the court must be snfii-
GENTLY faiigurd by this DAYS iahDrious sitting,
he should be glad to be allowed unlil TO NOR
row 20 conclude the argument.
No objection being made on the other side,
/, WIS so ordered and Mr. Corr viii conclude
the argument io.morroN (Ihursday)
Nay os. 1929.
The argumeut upon the demurrer 10 his in.
dlctmeni against + Waiknr or alleged fraud
II common law against the United 5ia,e', wai
resumed on the opening o. the Court
MIR r. S. Corr counsel for the accused +,
commenced by observing that he agreed IN
one opinion expressed by the counsel whom il
was his duty 20 follow IN argument, VIZ that
this isa case Of great importance II IS Sc IN
every aspect IN which II can be viewed. IL is
80 ~ is relation 90 the country ut large
There IL scarcely n hamlet throughout the
country. nor an individual WIN paid gnY = r
ten ion TO passing events. thai had not ha= a
IN exaggerated terms, OF the frauds alleged Go
have heen committed by the individual nbw
before the Court. II was important TO The
whole People Al large IN another view Deep.
n as the People are interested IN the faithful
oxecu,ion Of the Executive trusts of the GOV
ernmeni they have a still deeper interest in the
due Interpretation Oft criminal law OF thc
country and IN this aspect the cause now be.
fore the Courf does present most serious aud
grave questions The case was OF tnporl snce
20 the Government also for. as had been iru
Nv said. they have thought II advisable TO em-
ploy csns counsel 10 assist the learned 81 d
eminent Attorney tor the United States in this
Court. For their doing so, Mr.. c. said he
meant not 10 cast any impuiation whatever,
Tor the importance oi the case was sufficient
10 Justify il. need not add said Mr.. CT
bow important toe case Is 10 the accused him
self, TO his large aud Interesting family nor
need say how deeply feel the response
bilhy dovoved npon me. standing where
nm, by these grave aud touching considera-
tons.
Mr. c. wen, on To state that he had inten-
ded 20 congratulate tho two learned counsel on
the other side upon soma Of the mat ers which
they hai presented Ia the view Of the Court
ia the course OF their argument yrsiel dsy.
The learned prosecutor IN this Court specially
had thought II necessary 10 undertake gralui.
iously 10 justify the conduct OF all who had
been concerned IN bringing this case before
the court. Mr. C. had intended to congratu.
late him on this new addition TO the duties oi
the District Attorney. Whenever the case
arrived he should br ready 20 join issue with
the learned gentleman, aud submit 10 the
considerations ofthe Court and OF Jury
whether he WAS right IN his views in that par.
ticular
Mr.. c. then proceeded 10 consider the ques.
tions winch appeared 10 HIN necessarily 10 Il.
rise in this case.
The first ground which he proposed TO take
was not, as the learned District Attorne, ap.
paared TO assume, whether this Court possessed
or could exercise any criminal jurisdiction al |
common law That was a point which MIR &
conceded. Ills proposition was, that the Of
fence charged 10 this case is a crime, II an of.
fence at all, against the United States, and a.
gainst the uni,od states alone aud il is char
aed as being based on the common law and
thai the United States, IN their fderative char.
acier, have no criminal common law, nor can
fhe Cour, exercised common Law jurisdiction
over any offence which in It's character and
nature is purely an oiIcuce against the United
States. When he spoke ofthe United States
in reference 10 this proposition, il was OF the
government OF n confederation, embracing
four and twenty different States within lis lin.
~, each of which has IFS own peculiar munici.
pal law. BY the act o. the United States ac- |
ceping the ccssion uf this District he went on
10 argue the laws OF Maryland and oil Virginia |
having been exiendcd to The parts OF the Dis
irct cedcd by each oGIhose States. the common |
law of Maryland as il then existed, IS the rulr |
oi conduct here, IN matters criminal as well |
n. civil, Admitting, then, that this court does |
not sit simply rs Federal Courr, but has. in |
addition 10 the powers The Courts of the
0nion, all the powers OF the General court ot
anle Tior 10 the cession of the District
his proposition was, that this court possesses
no jurisdiction bat thar which belongs 10 IL
expressly as Que of the cour Of tue United
States, or that which belonged TO the General
court of Maryland, and was transferred to II |
on the acceptance by Congress Of the cesson |
of the District. Ia the exercise Of lis power
derived hy transfer from the General Court |
OF Maryla il could not exercise jurisdiction
gainsi the Government OF the United States, |
aud therefore moi cognizable by State court. |
As Circuit court il could not exercise juris. |
diction over H. because 10 that capacity II pos |
sessed no criminal common law jurisdiction |
whatever. IL was a maxim he said, as old as |
written law, that one judicial tribunal cannot |
execute any criminal law but such MS eman-
aies from lis own Legislature aud he instan-
ced the cases of the practice in the English
Srotch and Irish Courts, which were GOV orned
by their own distinct laws, well as that OF |
aur own State governments, each OF them |
Of the General Government, as
well as of one another This court. he illus
,rated il by saying, could not. under the power
which il derived by transfer from the Govern.
,neot of Maryland, inillct a punishment for |
the violation any law OF Virginia nor |
could it exercise any jurisdiction over any Of |
fence against The Federal Government lie |
quoted various decisions Of courts of the Uni
ed States, and commentaries ON the laws 10
'ustain the general position that State court
-annaf evpu Inv an exOress N the ;slz.