66

"Landing from vessel." The words "landing from vessel," as used in this section, mean to go ashore," the landing being complete the moment the vessel is left and the shore is reached. Niven v. U. S., (1909) 169 Fed. 782, 95 C. C. A. 248.

Sailors. This section does not apply to seamen landed and placed in a hospital because of illness, who were unable to return to their home port with the vessel as intended. Niven v. U. S., (1909) 169 Fed. 782, 95 C. C. A. 248.

Sailor deserting. The ordinary case of a sailor deserting while on shore leave is not comprehended by the provisions of this section, notwithstanding the omission therefrom of the word "immigrant," which had followed the word "alien" in the earlier Acts. Taylor v. U. S., (1907) 207 U. S. 120, 28 S. Ct. 53, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 130, affirming 152 Fed. 1, 81 C. C. A. 197.

Vol. X, p. 108, sec. 19.

Minor children of naturalized father. - The status, as aliens, of children born in a foreign country of alien parents is not changed by the naturalization of their father as a citizen of the United States by taking out his second papers while the children are detained in custody as immigrants at Ellis Island, and they remain subject to exclusion under the

Vol. X, p. 108, sec. 20.

Right to hearing. Where an alien had deserted from the crew of a vessel on which he was brought into the United States, and had been at large in the country for a month before he developed insanity, when he was arrested and ordered deported by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, it was held that the secretary's decision was not conclusive on the alien; the secretary, as an executive officer, being without power within the time limited by statute to order the deportation of an alien without giving him an opportunity to be heard on the questions involving his right to remain in the United States. Waterhouse v. U. S., (1908) 159 Fed. 876, 87 C. C. A. 56.

collect a sum of less than that amount for each such violation of the statute. (1905) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 336.

The proper method of enforcing collection of a penalty imposed for a violation of sections 12. 13, and 14 of this Act, where payment is refused, is by a prosecution for the offense or an action to recover the penalty. (1905) 25 Op. Atty.-Gen. 336.

The fact that an alien seaman deserting while on shore leave was a stowaway under order of deportation does not bring the case within the provisions of this section, making it the duty of any officer in charge of any vessel bringing an alien to the United States to adopt precautions to prevent the landing of such alien at any time or place other than that designated by the immigration officers, and punishing him if he lands or permits to land any alien at any other time or place. Taylor . U. S., (1907) 207 U. S. 120, 28 S. Ct. 53, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 130, affirming 152 · Fed. 1, 81 C. C. A. 197.

Where there was no evidence that any one connected with a vessel from which an alien escaped into the United States permitted or in any way connived at the alien's desertion, neither the master nor the agents of the vessel were guilty of an offense under section 18. Waterhouse v. U. S., (1908) 159 Fed. 876, 87 C. C. A. 56.

immigration laws for a dangerous contagious disease contracted before their embarkment, such children not being affected by R. S. sec. 2172, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 209, which provides that the minor children of persons duly naturalized "if dwelling in the United States " shall be considered as citizens thereof. U. S. v. Williams, (1904) 132 Fed. 894.

the term "transportation," as used in this section, should be given its ordinary meaning, viz., carriage from one place to another, and that the phrase "cost of inland transportation" therefore only includes the cost of carrying the alien from the inland place where he was found to the port of deportation, and that the government was therefore not entitled to recover under such section from the steamship company bringing the deported alien into the United States any part of the traveling expenses of an officer sent to bring the alien to the port of deportation. Finality of decision. The direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor that an alien should be deported on the vessel by which he was brought to the United States is not conclusive on the officers and agents of the vessel, neither of whom has been a party

shall deport aliens found in the United States "in violation of this Act" within three years after landing, a "deportation" for entering in violation of any prior law can only be made within two years, which means the actual deportation, and not merely the commencement of proceedings. Botis t. Davies, (1909) 173 Fed, 996.

Vol. X, p. 110, sec. 25.

1. Williams,

Res adjudicata. — Pearson (1906) 202 U. S. 281, 26 S. Ct. 608, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 1029, affirming (1905) 136 Fed. 734, 69 C. C. A. 386, set out in the original note.

Conclusiveness of findings. The rule that the finding of immigration inspectors that a person apprehended for deportation is a Chinese person not entitled to enter the United States, when affirmed by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, is final, does not prevent a citizen of the United States from invoking the protection of the courts to secure his right to live within the boundaries of his own country, guaranteed by the Constitution. Ex p. Lung Wing Wun, (1908) 161 Fed. 211.

Information of right to appeal. — Under this section and rule 7 of the regulations established thereunder by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, an immigrant who, on examination by a board of special inquiry, has been denied the right to enter the United States, has the right to be informed that he has a right of appeal therefrom, and the fact that he has been so informed must be entered of record in the minutes of the board's proceedings, and withholding of that right precludes finality in the decision of the board

See under this title, vol, 10,

which may in such case be reviewed by the courts on a writ of habeas corpus. Rodgers v. U. S., (1907) 152 Fed. 346, 81 C. C. A. 454.

Questions of fact. Congress has by the immigration statutes lawfully conferred upon executive officers final and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine whether any particular individual is an alien or a citizen in so far at least as such determination depends upon conclusions which may be reached upon disputed questions of fact. Ex p. Watchorn, (1908) 160 Fed. 1014; U. S. v. Sprung, (C. C. A. 1910) 187 Fed. 903, reversing (1909) 182 Fed. 330.

Habeas corpus. In Chin Yow v. U. S.. (1908) 208 U. S. 8, 28 S. Ct. 201, 52 U. S. (L. ed.) 369, it was held that habeas corpus should be granted by the federal courts to a Chinese person, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, who had arbitrarily been denied such a hearing and opportunity to prove his right to enter the United States as the Exclusion Acts demand, and had been placed in custody of a steamship company, to be returned to China, pursuant to the decisions of the Commissioner of Immigration and the Department of Commerce and Labor.

tation of alien prostitutes and such as become public charges within three years, etc., were a re-enactment and extension of Act Cong. March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. L. 1213, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 102, and prior legislation on the same subject enacted in the light of the construction placed on the prior acts by the courts. Looe Shee v. North, (1909) 170 Fed. 566, 95 C. C. A. 646.

The construction of the provision of this section for the deportation of aliens likely to become a public charge to include persons likely to become criminals does not conflict with the provision for exclusion of an alien convicted of crime. U. S. v. Williams, (1910) 175 Fed. 274.

Passage paid by state. The payment of passage money of immigrants by a state with its funds is not prohibited by this section, but its payment with funds contributed by any society or association renders the immigrant liable to exclusion, even though the payment be made through the agency of the state or its officers, and although the immigrant would otherwise be entitled to admission. The same prohibition does not extend, however, to the payment of passage money by individuals, whether directly through the agency of a state, provided their action is, and is shown to be, in good faith individual, and not attended by such combination or concert of action as would make it substantially the act of an association or a society. (1907) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 199.

Burden of proof. While the payment of an immigrant's passage out of state funds does not itself require his exclusion, yet such payment operates to throw upon the immigrant the burden of showing that he does not come within any of the otherwise excluded classes, such as paupers, etc., specifically excluded by the Act. (1907) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 410.

Under this section a person whose passage is paid by another must be prepared to show, not merely that he does not come within any of the categories of immigrants to be excluded, but also that his passage was not paid, directly or indirectly, by a corporation, association, society, municipality, or foreign government. (1907) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 199. Promise of employment by state officer. An alien who arrived at New Orleans from Cuba on Aug. 5, 1907, his passage money having been paid by an agent of the Louisiana State Board of Agriculture and Immigration out of funds appropriated by that state, the agent having assured the alien of employment upon his arrival, which assurance operated as a material, if not the principal, inducement to his immigration, the expectation being that the employer would loan the alien the sum so advanced for the reimbursement of the state, was held not to be entitled to admission to the United States. (1907) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 410.

Contract of employment unnecessary. The classes of aliens excluded by this section include "aliens solicited or induced to immigrate by reason of offers or promises, even if there is no contract of employment." (1907) 26 Op. Atty.-Gen. 410,

F. S. A. Supp.—71

"Likely to become a public charge." - The provision in this section for the deportation of aliens "likely to become a public charge' is not limited to likelihood to become a pauper, but extends to likelihood to become periodically inmates of prisons as a result of crime. U. S. v. Williams, (1910) 175 Fed. 274.

Children of naturalized parents. - Under Act March 2, 1907, ch. 2534, sec. 5, 34 Stat. L. 1229, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 68, providing that a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen by virtue of the naturalization of the parent taking place during the minority of the child, provided that the citizenship of such child shall begin when he begins to reside permanently in the United States, until a minor child of a naturalized parent has begun to reside permanently in the United States he is an alien, and he cannot begin to so reside if he belongs to a class of aliens debarred from entry, and the naturalization of a father will not permit his minor child born abroad, and remaining in the country of his nativity until after the naturalization, to come into the United States if prohibited from entering by Act Feb. 20, 1907, ch. 1134, 34 Stat. L. 898, excluding from admission into the United States persons belonging to enumerated classes. U. S. v. Rodgers, (C. C. A. 1911) 185 Fed. 334, affirming (1910) 182 Fed. 274.

Married women. Where the relator was married to her husband in Cuba, and he had already entered the United States and was employed, earning daily wages sufficient to prevent himself and his wife from becoming public charges, and both were strong, healthy, and intelligent, it was held that the relator was also entitled to enter. U. S. v. Redfern, (1910) 180 Fed. 500.

Prostitute-wife of citizen. Where an alien female was found practicing prostitution in the United States within three years after her entry, it was held that she was subject to deportation though her status at the time of entry as the wife of a citizen of the United States entitled her to enter. Looe Shee . North, (1909) 170 Fed. 566, 95 C. C. A. 646.

Evidence of prostitution. — Evidence that an alien female was found practicing prostitution within three years after her entry was held to be evidence that she was a prostitute when she entered the United States, and was therefore subject to deportation as provided by this Act. Looe Shee v. North, (1909) 170 Fed. 566, 95 C. C. A. 646.

Aliens not destined for United States. The immigration laws apply only to aliens applying for landing within the United States as their destination, so that an alien listed on a ship's manifest and ticketed for Halifax, on being refused admission to enter Canada, not having disavowed any intention to land there, and not having questioned the jurisdiction of the Dominion government in directing his deportation, was not entitled to his release on habeas corpus from the custody of the officers of the steamship while temporarily in port in the United States

pending his deportation to the place from whence he came in accordance with the direction of the Dominion. U. S. v. Fielding, (1909) 175 Fed. 290.

Deportation of contract laborers. -- Neither Immigration Act March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, 32 Stat. L. 1213, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 102, nor this section authorizes the deportation as a contract laborer of an alien who entered the United States before the later Act took effect; the former containing no provision whatever in that regard, and the latter, while making such provision, also expressly providing, in section 28, that it shall not be construed to affect any act, thing, or matter done or existing" at the time of its taking effect, but that the same shall be governed by prior laws, which are continued in force for that purpose. Botis . Davies, (1909) 173 Fed. 996.

.

66

An alien upon promise to employ him on arrival in this country at stipulated wages in a definite occupation, made by one who advanced him money for his passage, secured by mortgage on his property, and who accompanied him on his journey, came to this country, went to work for such person at the stipulated wages and designated occupation, repaid the advance out of his wages, and continued in the employment of the person who made the promise and advance for a year. It was held that he was a contract laborer, expressly excluded by this section. Ex p. George, (1910) 180 Fed. 785.

Criminals. Proof that an alien, prior to his immigration, committed a single act of fornication or adultery in the country from which he emigrated, was held to be insufficient to justify his deportation as an alien having been convicted of or having admitted committing a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. U. S. v. Sibray, (1910) 178 Fed. 144.

Conviction of crime in foreign country after admission. The provisions of this section excluding from admission persons "who have been convicted of or admit having committed

a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude," and of section 20 requiring the deportation of any alien who shall enter the United States in violation of law, do not authorize the deportation of an alien because of his conviction of a felony in the country from which he came after his admission into the United States. Ex p. Koerner, (1909) 176 Fed. 478.

Superintendent of lumbering company. An alien induced to come to the United States by promise of employment as superintendent of a lumbering company, conditioned that he must be a competent woodsman, logger, and mill man, and must be a first-class mechanic, does not come within the provisions of this section, provided the agreement does not require him to perform manual labor. The provisions of the statute are limited to manual labor, skilled or unskilled. (1909) 27 Op. Atty.-Gen. 383.

Hawaii. In (1909) 27 Op. Atty.-Gen. 479, it was held that the President was authorized to sign a blank form of letter addressed to officers of the United States abroad commending to their favorable consideration an agent of the Hawaiian government, who was being sent to the Azores and Madeira to make arrangements for the transportation of immigrants from those islands to Hawaii, their passage being prepaid by the Hawaiian government, and their immigration being induced solely by a representation of the resources of Hawaiian Islands and the industrial conditions existing there, without any offer or promise of employment being made to any of them, such persons to have perfect freedom of action in choosing their places of residence and vocations.

Chinese. The provisions of this section excluding alien immigrants afflicted with certain diseases, etc., are applicable to Chinese immigrants otherwise entitled to admission. Ex p. Lee Sheer Wing, (1908) 164 Fed. 506; Looe Sheet. North, (C. C. A. 1909) 170 Fed. 566; Ex p. Li Dick, (1909) 174 Fed. 674.

But the Secretary of Commerce and Labor has authority to consider the evidence connected with the marriage of an alien prostitute to a citizen of the United States, and, subject to the principle that the validity of the marriage is to be determined by the law of the place where the contract is made, may deport the woman if the facts justify the conclusion that the ceremony was entered into merely for the purpose of evading the immigration law, and with no intention on the part of the parties to live together as husband and wife. (1909) 27 Op. Atty.-Gen.

578.

Woman previously domiciled in United States. In a prosecution for the importation of an alien woman for the purpose of prostitution, in violation of this section, it is