I have not read over the report of the Hab. Corp. case decided in the supreme Court, as pub[l]ished in the National intelligencer & other papers; but I presume it to be correct. I am very sure however, that if any inference can be drawn from the opinion given in that case, to favor the idea that prosecutions at common law cannot be sustained in the federal Courts, such was not intended by the Judges. That point was never glanced at in or out of court, nor do I know what are the sentiments of my brethren respecting it.

     I recollect no case before me in Pennsylvania which involved this subject, except that of a prosecution agt Passmore, for perjury committed before commissioners of Bankrupts. The repeal of the Bank. law before the indictment was found, did, in the opinion of the Court, protect him agt that Court which was founded on the Statute. It was also the opinion of the Court that a false Oath taken as this was, could not be punished as perjury either under the general criminal law of the U.S. or at Common law, not being taken in a Judicial proceeding. But the Court at the same time denied the position which had been taken in the argument that the common law did not prevail in the courts of the U.S. I am Sir very respectfully yr mo. ob. Servt