Gonzales v. Williams

192 U.S. 1, 24 S. Ct. 177, 48 L. Ed. 317, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 1027
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 1, 1904
Docket225
StatusPublished
Cited by120 cases

This text of 192 U.S. 1 (Gonzales v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1, 24 S. Ct. 177, 48 L. Ed. 317, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 1027 (1904).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by Isabella Gonzales from an order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus issued on her behalf, and remanding her to the custody of the United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York. 118 Fed. Rep. 941.

Isabella Gonzales, an unmarried woman, was born and resided in Porto Rico, and was an inhabitant thereof on April 11, 1899, the date of the proclamation of the Treaty of Paris; she arrived at the Port of New York from Porto Rico, August 24, 1902, when she was prevented from landing and detained by the Immigration Commissioner at that port as an “alien immigrant, ” in order that she- might be returned to Porto Rico if it appeared that she was likely to become a public charge.

If she was not' an alien immigrant within the intent and meaning of the act of Congress entitled “ An act in amendment to the various acts relative to immigration and the importation of aliens under contract or.agreement to perform labor,” approved March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, c. 551, the commissioner had no power to detain or deport her, and the final order of the Circuit Court must be reversed.

The act referred to contains these provisions:

“That the following classes of aliens shall be.excluded from admission into the United States, in accordance with the *8 existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge. . , .

“ Sec. 8. That upon the arrival by water at any place within the United States of any alien immigrants it shall be the duty of the commanding officer and the agents of the steam or sailing vessel by which they came to report the name, nationality, last residence, and destination of every such alien, before any of them are landed, to the proper inspection officers, . . . All decisions made by the inspection officers or their assistants touching the right of any alien to land, when adverse to such right, shall be final unless appeal be taken to the superintendent of immigration, whose action shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury. It shall be the duty of the aforesaid officers and agents of such vessel to adopt due precautions tó pidVent the landing of any alien immigrant at any place or tjme other than that designated by the inspection officers, and any such officer or agent or person in charge of such vessel who shall either knowingly or negligently land or permit to land any alien immigrant at any place or time other than that designated by the inspection officers, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. ’. . ”

“Sec. 10. That all aliens who may unlawfully come to the United States shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back on the vessel by which they were brought in. . . .

“Sec. 11. That any alien who shall come into the United States in violation'of law may be returned.as by law provided, . . . ”

The treaty ceding Porto Rico to the United States was ratified by the Senate, February 6, 1899; Congress passed an act to carry out its obligations March 2, 1899; and the ratifications were exchanged and the Rreaty proclaimed April 11, 1899, 30 Stat. 1754. Then followed the act entitled “An act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,” approved April 12, 1900. 31 Stat. 77, c. 191. The treaty provided:

*9 "Article II..

"Spain, cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

"Article III.

" Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line.

"Article IX.

“Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of'its proceeds; and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall bg held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.

"The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.”

By the constitution of the Spanish monarchy, and the Spanish Civil Code,- in force in Porto Rico when- the treaty was proclaimed, persons born in Spanish territory were declared to be Spaniards, but Porto Ricans who were not natives of the Peninsula, remaining in Porto Rico, could not, according to the terms of the treaty, elect to retain their allegiance to Spain. By the cession their allegiance became due to the United *10 States, which was in possession and had, assumed the government, and they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the island became American instead of Spanish, and by the treaty, Peninsulars, not deciding to preserve their allegiance to Spain, were to be “held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside.” .

Thereupon Congress passed the act of April 12, 1900. That act created a civil government for Porto Rico, with a Governor, Secretary, Attorney General, and other. officers, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who, together with five other persons, likewise so appointed and confirmed, were constituted an executive council, at least five of whom should be “native inhabitants of Porto Rico;” and local legislative powers were vested in legislative assembly, consisting of the executive council and a house of delegates to be elected.

The Attorney General, the Treasurer, the Auditor, the Commissioner of the Interior; the Commissioner of Education were to make report through the Governor to the Attorney Generaof the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and so on, to be transmitted to Congress; and all laws enacted by the legislative assembly were to be reported to Congress, -which reserved the power to annul the same.

Courts were provided for, and, among other'things, Porto Rico was constituted a judicial district, with a district judge, attorney and marshal, to be appointed by the President for the term of four years.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
591 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Igartua-De-La-Rosa v. United States
417 F.3d 145 (First Circuit, 2005)
State v. Burchett, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2004)
2004 Ohio 3101 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
United States v. Pollard
209 F. Supp. 2d 525 (Virgin Islands, 2002)
Celso Lopez Lopez v. M. Aran
844 F.2d 898 (First Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Wheeler
435 U.S. 313 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Moore v. Dalessio
332 F. Supp. 926 (D. Massachusetts, 1971)
United States v. Jose Julio Gonzalez-Parra
438 F.2d 694 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)
Varga v. Rosenberg
237 F. Supp. 282 (S.D. California, 1964)
Marks v. Esperdy
198 F. Supp. 40 (S.D. New York, 1961)
Rabang v. Boyd
353 U.S. 427 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Frausto v. Brownell
140 F. Supp. 660 (S.D. California, 1956)
United States v. T. Vail Palmer, Jr.
223 F.2d 893 (Third Circuit, 1955)
Barber v. Gonzales
347 U.S. 637 (Supreme Court, 1954)
Varleta v. Barber
98 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. California, 1951)
United Office & Professional Workers of America v. Smiley
77 F. Supp. 659 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)
State Ex Rel. Quisor v. Ellis
184 P.2d 860 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1947)
United States Ex Rel. Bradley v. Watkins
163 F.2d 328 (Second Circuit, 1947)
Alfafara v. Fross
159 P.2d 14 (California Supreme Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 U.S. 1, 24 S. Ct. 177, 48 L. Ed. 317, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-williams-scotus-1904.