United States ex rel. Bosny v. Williams

185 F. 598, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 339
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 2, 1911·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

This is a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of the detention of Arthur Bosny and Lambertine Bosny, his wife, who are held under an order for their deportation issued by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor on the ground that they were proprietors of a house of prostitution. The act of March 26, 1910, amending the immigration act of February 20, 1907 (Act Feb. 20, 1907, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 447] amended by Act March 26, 1910, c. 128, 36 Stat. 263), makes all aliens guilty of carrying on such a business liable to deportation. These aliens have resided several years in this country. The immigration act provides, in substance, that the person arrested shall have a hearing before the commissioner or an inspector, but it does not provide for the details of the practice. The rules prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in relation to immigration provide for the method of procedure in such cases. These rules prescribe that upon an application to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for a warrant of arrest a statement of the facts, supported, if practicable, by affidavits', is to be submitted, and thereupon, if it appears to the Secretary, that a case is made out; a warrant of arrest shall be issued. Thereupon the person arrested shall be given a hearing before the Commissioner of Immigration, or any immigration inspector, and, “at such stage thereof as the^person before whom the hearing is held shall deem proper, the alien shall be apprised that he may thereafter be represented by counsel. * * * If counsel be selected, he shall be permitted to be present during the further conduct of the hearing * * * and to offer evi[599] deuce.” In actual practice the usual procedure is as follows: There are a number of officers called inspectors of immigration, connected with the office of the commissioner.. Complaint that an alien is in this country in violation of law is usually made by one of these inspectors. The information upon which he bases the charge may have been obtained!))' himself upon investigation, or may have been furnished to him by others. Frequently such information is furnished by the city police, or by enemies of the person charged, acting through malice or revenge. Affidavits are obtained and are sent by the inspector to the Secretary at Washington, who, if he thinks a proper case is made out, issues a warrant for the arrest of the persons charged. This warrant is usually intrusted for execution to the inspector who has made the charge, and he subsequently usually takes entire charge of the case. Vfter the aliens have been taken to Ellis Island, they are held in seclusion and not permitted to consult counsel until they are first examined by the inspector, under oath, and their answers taken by a stenographer. After this preliminary inquisition has proceeded as far as the inspector wishes, the aliens are -then informed that they are entitled to have counsel, and to give any evidence they wish in respect to the charge. Thereafter a further hearing is had before the inspector, at which further evidence may he given by him, and the aliens may appear by counsel and offer evidence in their own behalf. The inspector thereupon reports whether in his opinion guilt lias been established, and the evidence taken and the inspector’s finding are sent to the Secretary of Commerce and Eabor at Washington, who thereupon makes an order either for the deportation or the release of the aliens. It is, of course, obvious that such a method of procedure disregards almost every fundamental principle established in England and this country for the protection of" persons charged with an offense. The person arrested does not necessarily know who instigated the prosecution. I Iris held in seclusion, and is not permitted to consult counsel until he has been privately examined under oath, 'filie whole proceeding is usually substantially in the control of one of the inspectors, who acts in it as informer, arresting officer, inquisitor, and judge. The Secretary who issues the order of arrest and the order of deportation is an administrative officer who sits hundreds of miles away, and never sees or hears-the person proceeded against or die witnesses. Aliens, if arrested, are at least entitled to the rights which such a system accords them; and, if they are deprived of any such right, the proceeding is clearly irregular, and any order of deportation issued in it invalid.

It is claimed in this case that the prescribed procedure has not been followed, and that there have been such irregularities in the procedure as to invalidate the result. The charge is that in this case the inspector influenced the aliens, partly by promises of help and favorable treatment, and partly by intimidation, not to enqdoy counsel in the case.

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

United States ex rel. Bosny v. Williams, 185 F. 598, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1911).

185 F. 598 (United States ex rel. Bosny v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Kurth
28 F. Supp. 258 (S.D. California, 1939)
Colyer v. Skeffington
265 F. 17 (D. Massachusetts, 1920)
Whitfield v. Hanges
222 F. 745 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Jouras v. Allen
222 F. 756 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Ex parte Garcia
205 F. 53 (N.D. California, 1913)
United States ex rel. Buccino v. Williams
190 F. 897 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1911)