Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-07-03
Tbe Gn,rstit.ttettai Sgsbig.
WEDNESDAY MORNING, July 1, 1879.


the facts found by hem amounted forgery. With
Difference, think Mr. Swami argument in s,pport
OF his motiona lame 1t is con-. etely overthrow
Icy Judge Morscis question.
The argument to have icyateI from The Re
cord, and TO have principally reflected the one hand
nn the ont dDor attempts assai the integrity OF tic
court and jury, and to opprcs. The accused; and re-
t.iat'on ON the other, that proposed to raise
political stom to favor Watkins escape We do
not believe tSi there is i'll the opposition who
wishes to secure impunity to Walks Their ineiis-
nation has been reused by the high-landed course Of
The Prosecution the multiplication indictments for
the same offences after they had been repeatedly ir-
nored by the jury or quashed by the court the ca ger
zeai manifested by Power TO convict lnn the inimy
" some OF The Instruments I1ost forward to hunt him
ooSsn In the name of REFORM, the efforts made to
1u1indate the court and jury by portion OF the Jack
son fress and the hagitious assault upon their inte-
gritty oy the same persons. These are the causes
which have very Justly attracted towards Watkins
tttai the fixed attention Of the public; and towards
his prosecutors 1--WE do not the COUNSEL large
portion OF lis celshre. As for Watkins himself 10
man wishes him to escape the just punishment which
lie may have deserved; Blu, all men wisIi for it is all
mems interest, that the end should be attained by
legal means, and for ssce sake and not ior the sake
Of gratifying the sPitotn magnity of :: mos Kendall
OF Duff Green, for the sake Of enabling the pen
stoned Press Of tue Administration, ia present &,
plausible however unsubantial defence ofits course
Wa shall get ~ tomorrow probably, the DECISION
,is the court on Mr.. SWANS motion
From the National I.x.yiuk
iIRCUlT, COURT OF THE COUNTY OF
WASuINGTON.
SATURDAY, June -.
Mr.. SWAY cxnlained the ample proposition which
lie had submitted To the Court. lie expressed his
hief that the Court woud be satisfied they QUO Int To
accedeit. He complained that the discussion of the
opposite counsel Ind taken unnecessary rance
Which would make 1t necessary that he sllon!d re-
Ply; and if his honorable friends were sitting as iu-
rors, he made no doti! that lie could satisfy them
3he Counsel for the u States had been charged with
introducing innovations into the practice of the Court
with persecution against the accused OF making the
Grand Jury the agents III that prosecutions and of u.s.
sailing the reputation of the .Iny. lie iisclaimed
n the first place, for himself and lis colleague eve
rythng like desire or an intention perseote any
Individual. For himself, whatever step he took was
from of duty; aud when, i'll the Lent of arr-
Iient, he had gone step too far, it always sub
Jet of subsequent regret. Che United States Conn
sci could not be charged with i'll will to the accused
There however, dny due to the nation as wei! as
the individual; and while should be careful 30. 10
tyanple the rights of the individual, we should be
equally careful to protect the welfare and safety u!
the uation
In reply to the statement that the Grand Jury
should con6nc their presentncus subjects within
restrained By the statute Of Maryland, of i722.
from presenting bill ofindictmrns unless the Grand
Jury shall have previously found pre- sentiment This
view sustained by the act Of Assembly Of 17i5.
lie sketched the duties and powers of Grand .uries
ind asked if, upon individual suggestion, it was not
competent for Jury To send for witnesses, and
through them TO obtain the lsno: ledge which was
requisite. There is an act of Assembly which re-
quires all tue constabes to be He insisted
TINT if Grand Jury do present whatever the source
from which they derive their reformation, Il process
ell, .
quired the formal requisites to make it Indictments
and the COUNSEL on the other side had admitted that
IN his official capacity he had sometimes tried cases
on the presentnionts lie made quotations from the
laws of Maryland to sustain the which the U.
States Attorneys had pursued in having the witness
Es IN general terms. lie also adVercd to his
official practice IN all cases. to Justify the course
he had adopted in this case That presentment had
preceded the indictments he considered advanta-
gcous to the accused. The U. States Counsel had
done more than the law required in fivoring the ac-
FUSED with presentment as well Us indictment.
As to the endorsement oPthe witnesses on the iudict
lncata, it had been his usual practice, but it
not required law, his 81 udjntor bad not done SO.
is had been said that under the present practice,
prosecution for perjury malicious prosecution
coula lie, but he insisted that the evidence of
man before the Jury could be extoFto from the
bers of the jury themselves, OH trial or from any by
stander.
On the subject Of persoco;ion which had been
repeatedly charged, and in manner to wound his
feelings, it had been minated that peculiar industry
had boon displayed by the Government in their endea
vors to opprcss the accused. lie would only reply
by statenent Of facts He then described the facts
contained in the indictments the opinions Of the iu-
ry and the process of reasoning in the minds Of the
United States Counsel which induced by those
opinions. they reflected that there duty 10
ihe United States well 10 the individual, and
that a crime committed it their duty to
pursue it to its perfect development and punishment.
They lad come to the conclusion that under the
statute the issue ola false writing forgery Gnd
as the Grand Jury had declared this reguistion is-
sued, was issued without authority, this of
forgery. lie also showed the Importance Of alb
stract, which lad it gone to the Second Comptroller
IN its proper form, would have exposed the fraud, aid