Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-05-29

IndIct1Dle AZ C0Iniuou ldWs ANU 49, 49,
definition, in addition to the dictate OF reason
and common sense, he maintained the ieSahJ
Of this indictment. -,
MIR KEY, ON behalf Of the United States, ioi'
lowed Mr.. SWAMI. He expressed his SAUSAGE
lion, in the outset, that the Counsel on the ON
ther side, had been called back yesterday oy
very prop er suggestion Of The Court, from an
excursion which might have led them 10
course Of argument neither suited to the disni'
~ Of the Court, nor to the question now pe"a
ing, TO which ne protested an attention strictly
to confine himself After expressing his nope
tina, the court would, with him, consider NOM
ing but the legal principle involved, ana the
weight Of authority produced from decisions !"
the Courts Of Justice, MIX. proceeded 10 argue
the demurrer to the Indictments, hrsl, upon the
question whether the offence charged IN the IN
documents be criminal or Observation-Disclosures
he an indictable offence, or whether the remedy
be only to be sought by civil suit, and, second
~. whether, if indic,able a, Common Law, the
| offence Is SO charged as to sustain The iadie''
ments. =.
And first, Mr.. K. asked, is the substance oil
this charge, as the story is told in the lndici'
ments, on which the criminal authority can
take hold Of and punish, or one which, whatev-
er The lurpiude of it, enables The offender 10
laugh at the Government, and dare them 10
civil suit? The importa,ee Of this question, he
said, was sufficient 10 justify all the labor whieh
had been bestowed On ton the other side, and
all that which, as Counsel for the United States,
he should bestow upon The reply. He lett Ii 10
tie Court 10 say, whether il should 60 forth
from this tribunal, sitting here, where The trea-
sure Of the Government is, and in the midst Of
the officers appointed to disburse lis moneys,
that there is 10 law 10 punish such transgres,
| siuns as these. If there was not, II was indeed
necessary that il should be known, that those
who watch over the public interest shall know
wha, they have to depend upon. and what re-
mains for them tu do to guard the public purse
from depreciation.
Mr.. X. then proceeded to examine who were
in the right the gentlemen on the other slde'
who call the case before the Cour, default or
pee ula,ion, or the counsel for he United States,
who call it fraud and misdemeanor at COM
mon law. He said he should conine himself 10
the case as it appeared upon paper, and exam
inc the question whether the facts alledged do
o. do not constitute legal guilt.
And first, said he, lei US see what the facts oil
this case are, as stated upon paper.
In this indie lment, said he, il is set forth that
the accused being high officer Of the Govern
menr, and being an evil disposed person, and
devising and intending fraudulentIy and un-
Justly 10 acquire for his own private use divers
: sums OF money, belonging 10 the United States,
did falsely aud fraudulenly devise, Tor that pur'
pose, the train Of circumstances set out in this
indictments: that 20 public Off er OF the Uni
ted States entrusted with the disbursement U,
, the public money Of the UnIIed States, viz the
NAVY Agent at New York, he writes letter,
,-J>; ;s-,aei-ed- inihe .ineGsisfned III The II
, ter, he makes draft upon tina. officer, and the
} money Of the Unned States, in The hands Of hat
officer, is paid to his said draft: that 10 replate
the money in the haaos of T. Pauldins, which
: he obtained from him for that draft, and five
hundred dollars more which he intended to
draw out by second draft, he, as the indict,
menl charges, ostensibly for the public service,
but falsely and fraudulently, fol- his own gain,
causes requsiion to br issued upon the Tres.
sury of the United States for a ihous sand dol.
lars, BY means Of which the money Wa, drawn
from tie Treasury and put into the hands Of J.
X Paulding, as averred in the Indictment, for
the uss OF the accused on pTeIGnce Of being for
| the public service. There were, MIR. K said,
other drafts, and other letters, aud other reoui.
'Iions: but they presented precisely the same
question OF law, and he need not therefore take
up The time Of the Court in discussing Them
Upon this statement, Mr.. K asked, is this, as
the counsel for the accused contend, the mere
breach OF trust Of deiauler, or is il what we,
(the counsel Tor the United Statrs) term il, the
arlful con'rivance OF a cheat! We might, said
he, shu, up all the books and appeal o common
sense, and ask whether there can be greater
misnomer than to call such an offender BY the
mid hame Of defauer putting him on the
same footing with man who, though de-
faulier, may have comni,ted no wrong. Is The
man who is not disbursing officer, who gives
no bond, who Cannot touch by lawful authority
single dollar, and who breaks through all
these restraints, legal and moraI-is he TO be
put OIL footing with man who, entrusted
up'n security with large SUMS of money be-
longing TO the Government, fails TO make due
payment, perhaps 0y accid NJ, or by circum.
s'ances which he could not eon'ro2 This, Mr.
K. ssid, was grea. question in his cause, and |
he should discuss it by itself, apG place i, in
such light, he said, thai not doubt could
remain upon it, il the Court was governed eli.
Their BY the principle of law, OF by the weight
of authority.