American Prisoners at Algiers. der such circumstances were received and ransomed as citizens of the United States; and though Mr. Noah may not be implicated, it can never, I think, meet the sanction of government. I am very clearly of opinion that no part of the charge for them should be allowed. It is enough that the public money has been expended upon the doubtful citizenship of Turner and Clark. 4. Upon the fourth and last question, although coupling itself with the general case, I have felt more hesitation than upon any of the points preceding. The conclusion to which I have come is, that the pledge to Mr. Butler to pay the bills cannot, under all the circumstances, operate to the benefit of Mr. Lewis. The refusal by the department to accept them, in the first instance, was, as I suppose, completely justified. The subsequent acceptance was not from seeing the instructions, or the conduct under them, in any different or more advantageous lights, but for reasons extrinsic and new. It was from the provident and paramount motive of keeping the credit of the nation in the Mediterranean firm. Before payment, this object was met, by Mr. Noah, who had agreed to appropriate, in discharge of the bills, certain funds lodged in his hands. This removed the only ground which had impelled the United States to make the assumption. The motive being at an end, the assumption becomes so too. It was not made to Mr. Lewis, but to Mr. Butler. Between the United States and Mr. Lewis there was no privity. That the assumption passed to him, on the mere footing of his money having been unwarrantably used, I do not feel prepared to say. It had been deposited with Mr. Noah, as the prize agent of Mr. Lewis. This appears from the official letter of Commodore Decatur to the Secretary of the Navy, dated July 31, 1815, from the bay of Tunis. It is true that, by an act of Congress, our consuls on the Barbary coast are not to engage in trade with those States. But I do not say that the restriction operated to prevent Mr. Noah's acceptance of the prize agency. He did accept it, being at the same time consul; and, in the former capacity, received Mr. Lewis's funds. He paid them away without authority and of his responsibility; I presume that there American Prisoners at Algiers. can be no doubt. This, then, is the true legal remedy open to Mr. Lewis. But Mr. Lewis stands in the attitude of an individual to whom an injury has been done. If, therefore, his recourse to Mr. Noah should not prove efficacious, and the United States, in consideration of his money having been applied to meet a public object, which they themselves were about to meet, should think fit to recognise a creditor so meritorious, it may be done through the medium of Congress. I feel unwilling to give an opinion under which his reimbursement might take place by any power short of this. To the SECRETARY OF STATE. RICHARD RUSH, OPINIONS OF HON. WILLIAM WIRT, OF VIRGINIA: APPOINTED DECEMBER 16, 1817. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. The Attorney General is bound to give his opinion to the President and heads of departments on a case stated in writing; but he will not act as arbitrator, nor render an award. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, January 23, 1818. SIR: The Attorney General can never act as an arbitrator between the government and an individual, and therefore can render no award in the sense in which this phrase is generally understood. The Attorney General is officially bound to give his opinion on any question of law which may be propounded to him by either of the departments; but his opinion is made up on the case as it comes from the department, stated in writing. Whatever you may wish, therefore, to present to my consideration, must be sent through the department from which the inquiry comes, and must be in writing, as it reaches me through that channel. I am, sir, &c., To Mr. JACOB BARKER. WM. WIRT. FRAUDS UPON THE GOVERNMENT. There is no law of the United States which makes a fraud, by forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, and the corruption of a justice of the peace, punishable by criminal prosecution. No act can be made an offence against the United States, except by a law of Congress. Forgery, as an offence against the laws of the United States, is confined to certain specific subjects, such as certificates, indents, public securities, bank notes, and checks, &c. Perjury is limited to depositions taken pursuant to some law of Congress; and bribery and corruption of a justice is not punishable by the laws of the United States. Frauds upon the Government. If money has been fraudulently obtained from the United States, an action in the name of the United States will lie to recover it back. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFfice, March 8, 1818. SIR: I have availed myself of the first moment I could command, to examine the documents developing certain fraudulent transactions in the State of New York, which you have done me the honor to submit for my opinion on the following questions: 1. Whether, according to the existing laws, any prosecution can be sustained in the courts against the persons impli cated?" and 2. "Whether the moneys fraudulently obtained from government can be recovered from the persons who have obtained them?" 1. I understand the prosecution mentioned in the first question to mean a criminal prosecution; and the existing laws to mean the laws of the United States. There is no law of the United States which makes this kind of fraud a crime punishable by criminal prosecution. By the common and statute law of England, as well as by the statutes of several of the United States, this kind of cheat is indictable. But neither the common law nor statutes of England, nor the statutes of the States, can confer any jurisdiction on the courts of the United States, nor can they create an offence against the United States. No act can be made an offence against the United States, except by act of Congress; and there is no such act in regard to this offence. The whole offence (the fraud) seems to have been composed of several distinct offences-forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, the corruption of one justice of the peace at least, and, finally, the imposition on the officers of the government here, by means of these fabricated materials. The offence of forgery, under the laws of the United States, is confined to certain specific subjects; such as certificates, indents or other public securities, bank notes and checks on the Bank of the United States, treasury notes, and gold and silver coin; and does not extend to the forgery of such papers as are here in question. Office of Attorney General. The offences of wilful and corrupt perjury, and subornation of perjury, extend, by the laws of the United States, to "any deposition taken pursuant to the laws of the United States." The several acts of Congress under which these claims were presented and paid, allow of depositions in support of the claims, and prescribe the mode in which they shall be taken. I am therefore of the opinion that all perjuries and subornations of perjury committed in depositions taken under these acts are punishable by the laws of the United States. The offence of bribery and corruption of a State magistrate is not punishable by the laws of the United States; and I have already said that no provision has been made by the laws of the United States for the punishment of the imposition on the officers of government by means of these false papers. 2. This question is one entirely new to me, and, so far as I am informed, has never been tried; yet I think an action in the name of the United States, to recover back the money, may be sustained in the courts of the United States. I have the honor to be, &c., WM. WIRT. To the CHAIRMAN of the Committee of Claims, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. The Attorney General is not authorized to give an official opinion in any case except on the call of the President or some one of the heads of departments. Subordinate officers of the government, who desire an official opinion, must seek it through the head of the department to which such subordinate is accountable. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, June 12, 1818. SIR: I beg you to be assured that the failure to give an earlier answer to your letter of the 7th ultimo has proceeded from no want of respect, personal or official, for you; but has been forced on me by a current of duties which I could not turn aside. I am sorry now to be obliged to decline an answer to your question, which I do simply on the ground that I have no legal authority to answer it officially. The commission of Attorney General authorizes and em |