towards the close of existence of old tenor and after it had been 1760. called in and sunk, when judgment was given for real money, this matter (of how much to give) was greatly agitated. Some were for giving the value of the old tenor, or bills contracted for, as it stood when the obligation was out, or the debt became due. Others would have it settled, as it was when at the last and worst period; and others again, were for taking a medium. But the more general method was to take the value of the bills, when they should have been paid by the contract." Lord MANSFIELD observed, that from this information, he had received much light, and was relieved from his difficulty. That much might be said, for taking as a rule the value of the old tenor, at the time set by the bond for payment. That, upon the mention of it, it struck him as the rule of right in general: but that, in the present case, the bond had been outstanding so very long, the bills of credit, which were the currency of the country, had, in the mean time, sunk gradually, and became, in some measure, every one's loss: and that, therefore, in this case, he thought the loss ought to be divided between them. The BOARD, upon the whole, instead of taking the price of silver at the time of the contract, and time set for the payment, (which was about 27s. per ounce) fixed it at 37s. per ounce, and computed the debt accordingly. This made about 100% sterling in favour of the appellant, by which he got the opinion of the Court in his favour; but, as no costs are allowed upon appeal, he could not be much a gainer by the general result. VOL. IV. MAYOR'S COURT. April Session 1797. The Commonwealth versus Schaffer. HE defendant was indicted and convicted for forging the THE Tester several soldiers to powers of attorney, authorising names of him to demand and receive, their warrants for the donation lands, granted by acts of congress, for services during the revolutionary war. Dallas observed, that as the question of the common law jurisdiction of the federal Courts, in criminal cases, had not been decided, it was his duty, as counsel for the defendant, (without declaring his own opinion) to bring it before the Court, on the present occasion. He, therefore, moved in arrest of judgment, that the offence, charged in the indictment, arises under a law, or laws, of the United States; and is exclusively cognizable in their Courts. After argument, the Recorder stated the facts, authorities, and principles of the case, in giving the judgment of the Court. WILCOCKS, Recorder. The offences charged against the defendant in the indictment, are forgeries, committed in forging the names of Allen Fox, Ebenezer Drake, Robert Battersby, and Samuel Griswald, to four several powers of attorney, to demand and receive from the United States, for each of them, 100 acres of land; they having all been soldiers, who enlisted to serve during the late war with Great Britain, and who served through the war; and, in consequence, under various acts of congress, each of them was entitled to a donation of 100 acres of land. In support of this motion in arrest of judgment, made by Mr. Dalias, the constitution of the United States has been cited. Art. 3. s. 2. p. 12. The Judiciary Act of Congress, s. 9. p. 97. s. 11. p. 98, 99. s. 34. p. 112. 2 vol. Resolves of Congress, 16th Sept. Sept. 1776. p. 357, 8. p. 361. 18th Sept. 1776. p. 365. 20th 1797. It has been contended that, under the 2d section of the 3d article of the constitution of the United States, its judicial power extends, inter alia, to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. By the resolutions of congress in 1776 referred to, it was shown, that the soldiers, who enlisted to serve during the war, and served to the end of it, were, individually, entitled to a donation of 100 acres of land from congress. It has been said that an inspection of the indictment will show, that the crimes charged against the defendant, consisted in forging certain writings, which, by the rules of office, were necessary to obtain from congress the soldier's right to lands. For this reason, and because the soldier's rights to lands are derived under the resolves or acts of congress, the conclusion is drawn, that a state Court has no cognizance of this crime, because it arises out of a law of the United States. The 9th section of the judiciary law of the United States, it is alleged, gives to the District Court, exclusive of the state Courts, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, where the punishment is whipping under thirty stripes, &c. And s. 11. p. 99. gives to the Circuit Court exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where that act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States otherwise direct. It was contended that, for the reasons before recited, showing that the offence arose out of a law of the United States, that, therefore, the Courts of the United States had cognizance of it. And that, by the 9th and 11th sections of the judiciary law, their cognizance was declared to be exclusive of the state Courts, unless otherwise provided by that, or some other, law of the United States; and it was said that no such provision had been made, therefore the conclusion was, that the state Courts had no jurisdiction of this offence. In answer to an objection, that the laws and constitution of the United States no where defined the crime of forgery, in such manner as to comprehend the offence charged in the indictment; nor was the common law of England, relating to crimes and offences, extended to the United States; nor was there any law of the United States which prescribed a punishment for forgeries generally: The act of congress for punishing certain crimes against the United States, Laws of United States, s. 14. p. 151. and against forgery of indents or public securities of the United States were 1797. cited, and the judiciary law, s. 34. p. 112. which says that the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes, of the United States, shall otherwise require, shall be regarded as the rules of decision, in trials at common law, in the Courts of the United States. It has been inferred from hence, that the rule of punishment, in this case, would be the rule of the common law if it obtained in the state, or such rule as the law of the state provided. 4 Bl. Com. 245. has been referred to for the definition and punishment of forgery at the common law. Henfield's case has been referred to, which was an indictment in the Circuit Court of the United States, for a misdemeanor; that he, being a citizen of the United States, entered on board a French privateer, to cruize against the British, with whom the United States were at peace under a treaty. Ravara's case was, also, cited, who was a consul from the state of Genoa to the United States, and indicted in the District Court of the United States, for a misdemeanor in sending a threatening letter to Benjamin Holland, for the purpose of obtain ing money from him. It was said, that there was no act of congress which either de fined the offence, or the punishment, in those cases; but it was said, that the common law would give the rule for both. It was argued, that whatever was necessary to the existence of the United States, must not depend upon the state Courts. That this offence was committed in prejudice, and to the injury, of the United States, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of it belongs to the Courts of the United States. That under the constitution of the United States, no power is given to punish the offence of stealing records, robbery, perjury, and the laws of congress, p. 153. prescribe the punishment of these offences, in particular cases. As the laws of congress have made provision, in these cases, without any power given by the constitution expressly for the purpose; in the same manner, the authority of congress is competent to declare, by law, how the offence charged against John Schaffer, shall be tried and punished. And, therefore, it is an offence not of state cognizance, but ought to be tried in the Courts of the United States only. Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Thomas, in support of the jurisdiction of the Court, referred to the following authorities. Const. of U. S. art. 3. s. 2. art. 1. s. 8. p. 8. No. 10. 12th Amend: Const. U. S. Resol. of Cong. vol. 8. p. 289. 4th July 1783. Ib. vol. 10. p. 366. 1st Aug. 1786. Ib. vol. 12. p. 114. 23d July 1787. 2 vol. Laws of Cong. p. 49. 52. 154. 2 vol. Federalist, p. 323, 324. Const. U. S. art. 1. s. 8. No. 6. Laws of U. S. s. 16. p. 151. Fromm From these sources, a system of argument has been drawn, 1797. which, as it has been generally adopted by the Court (in the sentiments they have formed) I shall forbear to state it minutely, but proceed to deliver the opinion of the Court on the case before them. The soldier who enlisted to serve during the war, and afterwards continued to serve to the end of it, had a right to demand and receive from the United States, a promised donation of 100 acres of land. This right had its inception under several resolutions of congress, passed in the year 1776, and it became a perfect right at the close of the war in the year 1783. The commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for a long course of ume before the revolution down to the present day, has always had subsisting laws, competent to the trial, and punishment, of every species of forgery that could be fabricated. In the year 1789, when the constitution of the United States was completely organized, it found this commonwealth in full possession of jurisdiction over this forgery. And as offences on this subject may have occurred after the peace, and before the existence of the present constitution, it is possible that some instances of prosecutions on similar papers, may have taken place in the Courts of this state, before the establishment of it, as several have been known to take place, in this Court, since that period; particularly in the cases of Dixen, and M'Conchlan and Wife. The important question is, What has been the effect of the constitution of the United States (and the laws which have been enacted under it) to divest this commonwealth of a jurisdiction of which, at the time it was made, it found the state constitutionally possessed. The 1st and 3d articles of the constitution of the United States, principally affect this question; they respect the legislative and judicial powers, and contain an extensive enumeration of subjects, whereon their legislative power may be exercised, and to which the judicial power shall extend, and it is reasonable to say, that there may be powers which are not enumerated in it, but ought to be considered as granted by the constitution; for instance, those (if such there be) which are essential to the independence of the government, to its protection and defence, to such as grow out of the constitution, and out of the constitutional laws of Congress. If it be true, that this offence may be considered as growing out of an act of congress, because, if congress had never engaged to give lands to soldiers of a particular description, there never could have been a forgery of such a power of attorney: yet, it still remains a question, whether, under all existing circumstances, this court has jurisdiction. If the authority of congress is competent to declare the false making such a paper to be a crime of forgery, to prescribe its punishment. |