The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-05-17

be out.
g. That the aiant being The party claimant his depo-
sition could not have been used as evdenie on .ne
ing, and he cannot be indicted iof ialse
his affidavit could have been used i cannot on any
other ground be said 10 have been made In support o.
claim II this is be governed ny me same ,Ie uA
prevails nespee OF indictments No Re statute
of 23 George H. CHI H. which IS IN force mere, (kys
Reports on Stat 269) and from which The ION and 2oh
sscons of The ac OF Congress oil 3oth April, 1890, (U
STAT al Large l6, ll7) copied, Is enacted that
In every pIesennent or Indictment TO be prosecuted
agsins, any person Tor wiiaI and corrupt perjury u shall
charged upon the defendant and BY what court before
whom the oath Affirmation was taken, (averIng such
court person persons 10 have competent authority
10 administer the same) together with the proper aver
avements to fasy the matter matters wherein
the perjury or penries is or are assigned Without setting
forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, declaIa
uon, or any part OF any record OF proceeding either 10
law in equity, other than aforesaid and without set
ting forth the commission the authority OF the court or
person Or persons before whom The perjury was commit
ted There is no necessity IN The indictment to go be-
hind the justice OF the peace who administered the oath
and here he is named described by his Office and aveed
to have sufficient and competent authority and power TO
administer oath in the premises, and ~ that behalf
In New York, where they have statute substantially
the same as the statute of George Ill and the United
States, one Phelps indicted Tor perjury IN an affidavit
made before the recorder of New York TO obtain the ben
eft Of the insovent laws and The court BY Savage,
said BY the English decisions since the statute, IT Is
only necessary stale the substance OF the offence the
OF the court, simple averment OF the courts au
thority 10 administer the oath, and proper avermens OF
ihe iasy Of the defendants assertions ? and i. is
necessary to set forth the facts which give jurisdiction
the recorder TO administer the oath" (ihe People v
Wendell r. 636 , form OF the Indictment Whar.on's Pre-.
cedents, 3o7-s Wharton c. 5. AIS 2 CHI. c. 5. Qs4D
3os In the case Of the King Callahan, Barnwell
Cressweps r., lo2 5. c.; IS English Com. Law r.. 100
The Indictment out that the oath taken before
"F j. Chell (he said F. j. Chel Their and there having
sufficient and competent power and authority 10 admins
ter the said oath 10 the defendant that beha) and The
said defendant being so sworn, NC " and thai The de-
fendant did. before The said I. ] Che such commits,
> krn AZ No hofn nd
commissioner this of course went for nothing and the
indictment stood the first allegation Read Russell
on Grimes Qs45o G31, where the opinion Of court and
the given length, from Is Eng. Com l. r.,
l09 This decision very strong Tor there was no des
nation of office given These might be multi.
Piled but will only refer 10 the indictment IN the case OF
the United States " Bailey, Peers's R., 1885, taken
from the record where there is other averment OF the
authority TO administer the oath than there is IN this case
but exactly the same, and il prosecution under the
statute OF 1923 The regulation OF the Secretary OF
the Treasury matter Of proof, the rules OF The
commission may be here There was no necessity for
speaking OF the boards regulaon-no! OF the commits
sion further than is done.
I'd. That the Mexican commission was tribunal Of
such special and limited jurisdiction and authority, and OF
such legal character that its jurisdiction and Authority
should have been specially set forth, well the regu
laon requiring oath as 10 the veracity OF the claim
What has been said III relation to the preceding point
applies TO this The quality and authority of the Next
commission IL was unnecessary to set forth. fur
ther than it required 10 explain the charge made
against the defendant and place record inelglby the
accusation he was called upon 10 answer And so lar they
set out In the commencement OF the Indictment
legged that the defendant produced before The justice paper
writing purporting to be memorial addressed TO George
Evans, Caleb b. Smith, and r. T. Paine, commissioners
&C., under the treaty with Mexico. The memorial itself
set out length and addressed 10 the indIvid
Uas commissioners, IN the same language and In an
after part of the indictment II is avefred that the said
George Evans, Caleb b. Smith, and Robert L. PANE
being the day and year first herein mentioned, at the
county Aforesaid the same persons to whom the aforesaid
paper writing, puporling 10 be memorial, was addressed
aforesaid by the said George A. Gardiner; and being
the Presdent of the United Saes by and with the ad
vice and consent Of the Senate thereof TO receive exam
ine and adludcaie certain claims Of citizens OF the said
United States the republic OF Mexico, by virtue of
act of Congress OF the said United States, entitled An
act TO carry into effect certain spulaons OF the treaty
between The United States OF America and the republic OF
Mexico, OF the I'd day OF February, thousand eight
hundred and oryeght, which said acl OF Congress
approved on the third day OF March, IN the year eighteen
hundred and foty-n by James Polk, then Presi-
dent" &c. IL unnecessary 10 decide whether the
commission was one whose jurisdiction and authority IT
would have been necessary set forth specially bee
they limited, Tor the statutes referred TO dispense
with any such statement; though incline TO think
airibnna created substantially by ireatyhe supreme
law OF the and-treqnrng an act OF Congress only TO
give direction to the power OF the President, and form,
not substance 10 the commlssion-could hardly be re-
garded as OF such private character as is attributed
TO il.
3D. That the afhant being the party claimant,
his deposition could not have been used evidence
the hearing; and he cannot be indicted Tor false
swearing unless his affidavit could have been used
II cannot any other ground be said to have
been made IN support oil claim The rules and orders
established" by the commission have been used in The
Argument, have been referred TO by the counsel in
oIcement of their views, and submitted the court
whenever oath is indspensaby necessary TO the all
lowance of claim. No matter By whom taken, it 10
made support OF claim; without It, the claim cannot
be sustained. Whether the deposition is used the
hearing before the tribunal required 10 obtain that
hearing Tor caim 1t is equally in support oil H. The
first rule adopted by the commission requires the claim
ant 10 hle memorial with the secretary OF The board
which must be addressed 10 the commissioners, and
must set forth nnutely and particularly the facts and cir
cumstances whence the right TO prefer such claim is de-
rived 10 the claimant, and must be verified by his oath
affirmation. And in order that the claimants may be
apprized OF what considered necessary 10 be avced
in every such memorial before the will be received
and acted it is further ordered that every such
mortal it shall be set forth-ls for and in behalf OF
whom the claim is preferred 81, whether the claimant
now citizen OF the United States, &c. The claim OF
the defendant before the Mexican board would have
been received acted upon without his oath TO the
truth OF his memorial He complied with the rule, and
filed his memorial made on oath, which is set GU, in the
indictment But there are not wanting decisions in OPP
position the ground assumed by the defendants coun-
sci 10 the particular under consideration montgomery
Us The State, 10 Ohio X 220l In suit before jus.
hce, the plaintiff offer himself witness ia sworn,
and tes6es falsely though incompetent Witness be
may be indicted for perjury II The Justice had jurisdiction
OF the subject matter The court say itis perfectly set
ued. when the court has jurisdiction the subject
may Commit perjury" e Russ on Crs usa5O 500 NJ
ne same point was decided in Vsnstenburg Us Korz,
~ 9onos n, 1877, where. in order to obtain an attach
"n, Jnsuce OF the peace admitted the incompetent
oan OF tne party The statute equirng other saisac
.oty PIoo was held that perjury was assipnabIe on