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

Case ~ IL. UOiILag-O n<Cucs.l.v. the Circuit
Court Of the U. States a. Washington. Proceeded
30 deliver Judgment in The case OF DR.. Watkins The
opinion Of the Court delivered by CHEZ Justice
Cranrh) occupies more than five co.aInns of tie Ma.
t'ona! In'eliisenccr: we shall therefore D., excused
from giving it in plcno but that the read.r NAV sec
the view taken by the court, OF Watkins case. we
have attempted to cxtrac. aud fepubHsl as ti, or
las Governor Giles spells il, adapting the or:hc-,a.
ply to tire sound) the ~
The syJsltncc ftLa Jud.c:mcn, IS thus stated b.
the court.
The substance of,his Indictment ia. That Tobias
w Atkins, being Fourth Auditor ~ the lreasur, Of
the United States and offending fraulllenflv - oh
tain for MS nwnuse money ofhc United ST. s. jlise-
~ ana irnudu!epit wrote Il letter TO j. X. Paudinr
Navy Agent of the United states. advising him o.
his, Tobns Watkins draft on him for 800 dollars Il,
b. charged to "RrrclraGcs," and that he woud re-
ceive Treasury draft tor the same sum to raot IT,
That Tobns Watkins drew such draft, ard sold il.
too Fowler for, and received ofs him he same
mount, and applied II To his / >. Tina. the sal
Tobias Watkins did, oStensibly for The plJE. SIR
vice, hut fuiseiyia and withouI euthc.i,v procure to
he issued from the .fd'y Department. certain re-
QUESTION 10 the Secretary ofthe Treqsury ,;,- The
purpose OF placing in the hands Of j. l.. pauldinq
Navy Agent. the am Of 500 dollars which rcanisi-
ten - So out IN "erbiS 70 be charged to
PRIOR to 1927 by means Of which renr;,ion the
snid sum % 1000 do'ss was placed IN the hands o.
the said Navy Agent.
There wcrr ot,s, counts IN the iul,,,u, ~. .ar 9th,
or sums, bnt Of the legal iInpor !. being tho
pleasure oF lawyers to describe tho SANG Ting IL
some hall >zen dItrcut ways lc4, pcrs cas- accused
should escape At some unsupported avenue.
To tn" Indictment thus briefly charactc-.lol. ne
counsel Of Watkins dcpo.rcd, ard demurrer ina
plies the admission ofthc G,cs chargcd Jnt denies
the law 10 b as stated il tic indictment. Tie
grounds Of the demurrer were, l. THAT tho offence
charged TO Watkins, is common law (and not n sta
;utory) offence, and that there bairg 10 common law
in the u. States as such he cannot be punished a,
thc suit ofic Y. States as such. Cd ground .'That
fraud is not nla,ah'c offence at common law.
unless it be effected by means OF some false ru11c
token; such a. false weights, measures or marks;
or by means of forgcr'. conspiracy; or ~ means
which Affect thc public grcgally."
Upon tho ir. Of these grounds, dccmug 10 -hr
most essential, We g.c the opinion Of the court at
large.
The first ground Oh. DEMURRER relied upon is. th.t
tho United state, as n Nation, has no common law
IN relation 90 crimes ani offences, and conscqucntIv
that there can be common law offences against
lhc United Soic@ in Us National character. That
TINS offence If /, he an offence - against the Uni
ted States IN That character, aud rs tho local soy
creign Of ibis Districts and therefore, il is uot an i-
d;ctabc offence.
Il is said TIM, The Court can only exercise ,rc in
risdicon OF Federal Courts aud OF the state Courts
That the Federal Courts could not hold iurfsdlc-
ton OF Tins cause, because 10 is not criminal rtcnco
against Tho United Stotcs, who have no criminal
common law; aud that the State Courts could not
hold Jurisdiction Of It. because Il 1t BE- an oHcucr Mt
o 81 rs c@clnsiyc'y an offence oguiust the United
States.
/ This argument Is certainly, Mt first view. cutie
plausible hui, TO orr mind, not entirely satisfactory
is II clc5f that this offence is OF such an exclusive
character, that IL could be prosecuted only In Court
of tho United Statcs' VI It had hecn committed in
ono ofthc States say in Maryand's IL clear that Il
woUld not have been IN offence arainst that
Stato' The oicace charged, we viii say, for tho
snke Of argument is, in substance, cheat: l. o. an
act Of fraud done 10 the injury Of the l.. States.
Tho state Court has jurisdiction ofchcats and frauds
Does that jurisdctioni depend upon the question -
whose INJURY the cheat or tho fraud was committed
"h'th"rit be TO tic injury of citiznu of Maryland
or q '"rcigucr--cr az ano'lc. STAT" 'r 80 '',~-