Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/398

 $92 Cases ruled and adjudged in the _ gygs. againlt Rawrn, was fullainml by reafon of the Defendant': ty"; ollicial charaétcr as Cont`ul."* And in a recent profecution by the State of Pennfyivania againll; f`.{·rqji·1·, in the llayor’a Court of Philadelphia, a motion in arrcll of judgement was over-ruled by the Recorder (Mr. Wbhocia) though the olfenee conlilted in forging claims to Land-Warrants, itlitable under the refolutions of Congrefs; and although the cognizance of all crimes and olfences, cognizable under the authority of the _ Union, is exelulively veiled in the Dillridt and Circuit Courts. Raw]: ( the Attomey of the Diilriél) obferved, that the ex- ception, taken in fupporr of the motion in arrelt of judge- _ ment, {truck at the root of the whole fyllem of the national government; for, if oppotition to the pure, regular, and elli· cient adminiflration of its aH`airs, could thus be made by fraud, the experiment of force might next be applied ; and doubtlefs with equal impunity and fueccfs. He concluded, however, that it was unneeellhry to reafon from the inconvenieney amd mifchief of the exception; for, the otfcnce was llriftly within the very terms of the Conltitution, ariling under the laws of the United States. lf no fuch ollice had been created by the laws of the United States, no attempt to corrupt fueh an oilieer could have been made; and it is unreafonable to infill, that _ merely becaufe a law has not prefcribed an exprefs and appro- priate punilhment for the offence, that, therefore, the otfence, _ when committed, {hall not be puniihed by the Circuit Court, upon the principles of common law punilhment. The elfeé}, indeed, of the polition is {till more injurious; for, unlefs this offence is punifhable in the Federal Courts, it certainly is not cognizable before any State tribunal. The true point of view for conlidering the cate, may be afcertained, by an enquiry, whether, if Mr. Cox: had accepted the bribe, and betrayed his trult, he would not have been inditlable in the Courts of the United States? If he would he fo indiftable, upon the Rrongelt principles of analogy, the offence of the perfon who tempted him, mult be equally the fubje& of animadverlion be. fore the fame judicial authority. '1`he precedents cited bythe Defendantls Counfel, are diltinguilhable from the prcfent in- diétment. The profccution ngainll; 1{wyfrld was not cxprefsly on the treaty, but on the law of nations, which is a part of the common law of the United States; and the power of in- diéling for a breach of treaty, not cxprcfsly providing the means ul` enforcing performance in the particular inllance, is itfelf a common law power. Unlcfs the judicial fyltem of the United States juililied a recourfe to common law againlt an individual guilty of a breach of treaty, the ollbnce, where no fpecilis
 * See cnn]:. 237. ‘

�