Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-05
VOL. XVI. mo. 9.


lent writings aud acquisitions, obtained money from
!. IA Psuiding. He saw good ground for OBJ.
lection against the form OF the indictment. IL a
fraud of this character can be punished by com
mon law, the case now presented is sufficiently
made out
Ihiss case OF fraud against the United States
government in It's Federal capacity. 1, is com
petent Tor ihs court To- take cognizancc oi all Of
fences committed within their jurisdiction i'm this
district. Are there public offences in this district
Have we not common interest in the security
OF the public Treasury? He here submitted
the case to the Court, confident that the Court
would consider the indictment sufficiently laid
MIR. Coke then suggested to the Court that il
would greatly promote his convenience, fatgued
as he was with following the counsel on the other
side, through their elaborate argument, il the
Court would adjourn, rather than compel him 20
aorIoge what he should have TO submit in reply
The Court then adjourned.
THURSDAY, MAY Is
MT Coke (ior tho accused) expressed his CT
TIRE concurrence in the opinion OF the opposite
counsel that this is important case. Ii is i'm
portant III every view. II important 10 the com
munity, for there is scarcely 4 hamlet in which
the fraud which this person committed has not
been sounded. 1t is also important to the COM
uun'ty who are Interested equally in the faithful
discharge OF public duties, and the faithful one
ration OF the criminal law. L, is important TO the
Government who have used great labor 10 bring
forward this charge, having employed an addition
al counsel to AID the very learned District At;os-
ney. 1t was also important To himself who baa
to satisfy the public expectation as TO the clear
ness OF the grounds on which this demurrer could
be sustained.
He took passing notice Of the remarks which
mad been made on the motives OF those who arc
opposed 10 the prosecution, and on this ground AZ
proper time, he expressed himself ready to nice.
the counsel on the othe7 side.
As 10 the construction OF a position which Nc
had laid down, it had been made erroneously
His position that this was an offence against
the United States, and dat Ibis Court had no j.,
risiicuon in common law over offences exclusive
ly against the United States. tic considered thu
case "a novel one. and worthy 81 high conside-
ration.-Speaking Of the United States we mean
the contederatcd Union OF pa States He would
he The last TO assert that citizen ofMarylanJ ba,
no common law protection. On the contrary he
denied this position But he resisted the idea thac
the court had any common Ia " OF jurisdiction as .
Court OF the United States The common law Of
Maryland ~ onE rule 81 conduct Considering thu
Court as not exclusively Court OF the United
StateS, but also as exercising the jurisdiction of
The General Court OF Mary land transferred TO il az
the Municipal Court OF this District il has no
other jurisdiction but what is obtained from thes,
sources.
II has been laid down that no Court can exer
else any jurisdiction in the criminal law derived
from any other source than its own legislature He
referred TO the practice OF the English Courts who
uld NOT pretend to exercise any jurisdiction over
the offences III ireland, except such as came I'M
der statutes. They never pretended to exercise
common law jurisdiction over ireland This
court. as Court OF The United States, could noe
exercise common law urisdic tinn over MARYLAND
so IT could not, as Court OF NaryIau,,, exercise
jurisdiction in any against the United Sta,es
not provided Cor hy statute. lie referred tn
Rents commentaries, s3S support Of this pronosi-
ton.
He made reference "a Garrison rsnor,q voI
p l92, TO . ease OF the United States against Coo
iidge, where Judge Story gave his opinion ON the
SUBJECT the power OF Circuit Court 10 fake
cogn'Lance OF any offence against the Unte,i
States which IS not provided for, and specj6c
punishment attached TO II, by specific statute. II,
which lac defines what particular crimes arc
crimes agans, the United States aud within The
cogniZance OF the United States Courts He ten
referred 10 Rents coipmentarics, vol. L. D. So
IS to show ha; Safe Courts cannot hold criminal
jurisdiction over cases OF offence committed er
cusivey against the United States IL was laa
down in this and other Cases, thal was not in the
power oil Congress 10 confer such jurisdiction on,
any State Court. Ifthen, as Judge Story decides
this be offence against the United States and as
Kent shows State Court cannot exercise iu,is-
dicton over any crime committed against the ty
States, he had clearly made it out that this Court
has no jurisdiction.
Is it an offence against common Lave WLcre
is il 10 he found? There arc twenty-Iou Sta,ns
New York has her common law. MARYLAND has
her common law. But Florida, Missouri SC
have no common law. The common law, 10 ex.
IsN, 'uusl ne a ui'iiN. 4 ne people OF the United
States, when considered as citizens of different
States, have a common law, but it is the common
law OF the several States. fIc referred TO a work
OF Goodenow, as to the common law of Louisiana
Judge Thruston asked IL kouisiina had not tho
Spanish Common law.
Mr. Coke replied IN the negative
Judge Thruson said this was a subtle auestier
on which he required more light He asked
whence this Court derived its authority to adiudge
in cases of murder? &c. lie propo,nded vario,,s
questions, which he excused himself for asking
on the ground that he was quite in the dark as q,
the subject OF the common law itiisdction of the
Court in cases similar to the present lie suggest
ed that the population OF this District was so sin
gulariy situated, % to place them exclusively uD-
der the protection and cOgniZance OF This court
MI Coke resumed. lie expresseo his req,ef
that he had not been sufficiently Ineligible TO the
court but the regret diminished when he
found that the learned Judge had found the same
difficulty IN understanding the decisions of Chan.
ceOT Kent and Judge Story. lie designated the
peculiar features OF the offence NOW charged
which brought Il precisely within the description
OF offences against the Federal Government. He
had argued that this court, sitting az a court os
Maryland, had no jurisdiction. Has the eour,
jurisdiction as a court Of the United Satcs3 He
then repeated what lac had said conccrninr M
common law jurisdiction OF the different state,
which was the only rule Of common iaw in thess
states. lie referred TO the case Of the tiuite1
States VS.. Warrel dallas, vol y where the O
fence being charged as against the United States
and was brought IN Che circuit court, Judge Chase
decided That II this was an indictment common
law, II cOuid not he SUSTAINED. lie read The opin-
ION gwen by Judge Chase in di'nissng te case
Can 1t be doubted but that the Legislature of the
- STATES has the power 10 enact law making
The offence charged against the accused, in fjlis
case, penal, and thus 10 bring Il under an express