892 FEDERAL REPORTER, �the offence, as crlmen falsi. As to the latter, this court holds that the federal statute must alone prevail. �(5) If there are no felonies under the federal law except what the federal statutes so denominate, what other federal offenees are infamous ? As has been already stated, there are only two statutes which denounce infamous punishment ; that is, disqualification within common-law rules. Considering the nature of the United States government and its limitations of authority, what offenees and consequences thereof can obtain within its jurisdiction beyond what congress enaets ? It cannot borrow authority from England or from any of the states within the Union. It may be that British statutes or law and state statutes measure certain offenees against their au- thority very differently from federal statutes ; may denounce against them punishments of infamy or otherwise, while the federal statutes treat Hke offenees as trivial. United States courts are bound to fol- low United States statutes, and no other, in criminal cases. �It has been urged with force that as United States courts are bound as to rules of evidence in civil cases to foilow the state authority, that, therefore, if certain offenees under state laws are made infamous the United States courts should Gonsider infamous cases of like quality as to turpitude under the federal law. But is not this a begging of the question ? The diversity or inoongruity of federal legislation in that respect need not be discussed, whereby what is a rule of evi- dence in one United States court may not be the rule in another, and whereby United States courts are not goverpted by a uniform law enacted by congress, but are made subject to local legislation, con- trary to the spirit of federal jurisdiction aud authority. It must suf- fice, however, that no state legislation can enlarge or restrict federal authority, nor can such legislation croate or qualify a federal offence. Each state may, for purposes of its owu, designate what shall be con- sidered offenees against its authority, and characterize them as fel- onies or otherwise; but its legislation in such respects cannot override federal laws, or supply their supposed defects, in matfcers exclusively within federal cognizance; hence, United States courts cannot look to state legislation for assistance. If, then, congress passes a statute against frauds of varions kinds, which, under the common law, would fall respectively under the designation of infamous or non-infamous, should a United States court fall back on the common law to ascer- tain the nature and quality of this newly-created offence, and attach consequences which congress has not done? These questions have generally been discussed as if whatever offence congress declared was ��� �
