Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/874

 862 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Bbnedict, D. J. Andrew Yates was charged by an infor- mation with having passed counterfeit trade dollars with in- tent to defraud, in violation of the statute of the United States in such case made. Eev. St. § 5457, as amended by act of January 16, 1877, (19 St. at Large, 223.) Upon arraign- ment he pleaded not guilty. Having been tried and con- victed upon such information and plea, he now moves in arrest of judgment upon the ground that a prosecution upon an information filed by the district attorney, instead of an in- dictment of a grand jury, for the crime charged against him, is in violation of the constitution of the United States. The language of the constitution relied on is found in the fifth amendment, and is as follows : "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, uniess on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury." �The question for determination, therefore, is whether the crime of passing counterfeit trade dollars is an infamous crime within the meaning of the fifth amendment of the con- stitution. The act of passing counterfeit money, with intent to defraud, was one of common occurrence in England prior to and at the time of the adoption of our constitution, and the character of the act, as fixed by the statutes of England in force at the time of the adoption of the fifth amendment, will furnish a good test by which to determine whether the offence was intended to be covered by the words "infamous crime" in the fifth amendment. By the laws of England from an early period a clear distinction between the act of coining and the act of passing counterfeit coin had been maintained. The former was, by the statutes of Elizabeth, (1 Haie, P. C. 224,) placed in the highest class of crimes, and punished with death, upon the ground that the royal majesty of tho crown was affected by such act in a great prerogative of government. 1 Euss. on Crimes, 54. The act of passing counterfeit coin was nothing more than a cheat. Prior to the statute, 15 Geo. H. c. 28, there does not appear to have been any statute of England whereby the mere act of passing «ounterfeit coin, with intent to defraud, was made a crime. ��� �