Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/219

 mn;ja> sxaisb «, .oqcpjsbsmith.; 205 �referred to the laws and usag^^of the state wliensthe judieîal System -was organized. 1 AJîb. Pr. 197; 2 Abb. Pr. 171; U. S, v.JReid, 12 How. 861; U. S. v. Lawca^ter, 2 McLean, 431; U. S.. Y. Peterson, 1 Wood. & M. 306, 309; U. S. v. Shepherd, 1 Hughes, 520, 522; U. S. v. Taylor, là. 514, 517; U. S. v. Maxwell, 3 Dill. 275, 276; U.S. v. Shepard, 1 Abb. 431; U. S. V. Cross, 1 McArth. 149; U. S. v. Black, 1 Sow. 211; U. S. V. Ebert, 1 Cent. L. J. 206; U. S. v. Williams, 1 CM. 5; U. S. T. Barney, 5 Blatchf. 294; U. S. v. Watkins, 3 Cr. C. C. 441, 461; U. S. v. Hammond, 2 Woods, 197; Î7. S. v. Ma^fiii, 1 Wash. C. C. 463. �In those cases wbere the state laws have been adopted as in section 5391 of the Eevised Statutes, they stand as if the act of congress had defined the offences in the very words of the state law; and in those cases where congress bas been content to denounce the offence by its common-law.name, as in mijrder and rape, for example, (Eev. St. 5339, 5354,) they stand as if congress had re-enacted the commoa Jia'sy totitiem verbis. And in suchcaeeg, unquestionably, if the crim^ bôa felony at common law or by state statute, it is a felony under the act cf., congress; aod if not.puBished capitaUy Vfonlà .îa\\ within the designation of"any other felony," as used in this section 819, by force, not of the common law or state statute, but of the federal statute; Murder is a felony at common law, but it may be doubted if rape is, it having been made so by statute. Merton, 2; 1 Hale's P. C. 226. If thia flatter offence were not punishedcapitally, andwe wer« confined/asin aome of the states, to the ancient «ommon law, and not that existing at the time of the revolution, it would become avery difficult matter to determine how it was to be ruled under this section 819. This is mentioned to illustrate the almost inextricable perplexity which arises from the use of this word "felony" in the present state of our law, in acts of con- gress, without some statutory definition of it. It does not follow, however, because we can find no common-law defini- tion of this tenu which will give it and this statute operation according to that law, and are îorbidden to adopt the defini- tion found in the modern use of it in state statutes, that this ����