34 FEDERAL Bm>oB'rEB. ,
States, or that the attorney general had made the proper designation for that
purpose; (4) because he was not confined under any proper warrant or mitti-
mus.
Alfred Russell, for petitioner. ·
S. M. Outcheon, Dist. Atty., for the United States.
Bnown, J. 1. The prisoner was convicted upon an information
charging him with the fraudulent possession of an obligation in the
resemblance and similitude of a government bond, and with passing
a counterfeited obligation of the United States. It is claimed that
these are f‘infamous" crimes, within the meaning of the constitution,
and that the court had noijurisdiction to proceed except upon indict- r
ment of the grand jury. There is no definition of the word "infa-
mous" to be found in the statutes, although, by the law of this and
several other states, the word "felony" includes every offense punish-
able by death or imprisonment in the state prison. It seems hardly
necessary to say that this definition does not obtain in federal juris-
prudence, inasmuch as many of the most trifiing misdemeanors are
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. Revised Statutes,
§ 721, adopting the laws of the several states, applies only to civil
cases. It has been repeatedly held that the fact that an offense may
or must be punishable by imprisonment in_a penitentiary, does not
make it in law infamous. U. S. v. Reid, 12 How. 361; U. S. v. Max-
well, 3 Dill. 275; U. S. v. Coppersmith, 4 FED. REP. 198; U, S. v.
Wynn, 9 Fun. Bnr.886`; U. S. v. Block, 4 Sawy. 211. _.
The question whether the utterance of forged paper is a felony, was
exhaustively discussed by JudgoH.~.mMonn in U. S. v. Coppersmlth,
supra, and the conclusion reached that it was a mere cheat or misde-
meanor. e See, also, Fox v. State, 5 How. 410. It would naturally
follow that it was triable by information, and such was the opinion
of Judges Bmronronn and Bnnnmcr in U. S. v. Yates, 6 Fun. Bar.
861, and by Judge WHEELER in U. S. v. Field, 16 Fm:. REP. 778. In
U. S. v. Wynn, 9 Fun. Rnr. 886,’Judge Tama: took a still more ad-
vanced position, and held that no crime is infamous, within the
meaning of the constitution, unless expressly made infamous or de-
clared a felony by an act of ee¤gi·ess.i An information for stealing
from the mail was here sustained. But see U. S. v. Block, 4 Sawy.
211. The only case I have found to the contrary is that of U. S. v.
Oullus Joe, 15 Int. Bev. Rec. 57, wherein it was held that proceedings
by a criminal information in federal courts were unknown and unau-
thorized. In so far asithis case is applied to offenses not infamous,
· it must be considered as overruled by a great preponderance of au-
thority. I do not think the case is affected by implication by Rev.
St. § 1022, since by sections 1044 and 1046 a proceeding by informa-
tion in otherclasses of cases is expressly recognized by congress. In
this concurrence of opinion I do not deem it necessary to give the sub-
ject an independent consideration. Even if I entertained some doubt
regarding the correctness of the views expressed in these opinions, as