United States ex rel. Brion v. Prentis

182 F. 894, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedJune 29, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 182 F. 894 (United States ex rel. Brion v. Prentis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Brion v. Prentis, 182 F. 894, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170 (N.D. Ill. 1910).

Opinion

CARPENTER, District Judge.

The petition in this case alleged that Martha Brion is a native and citizen of the Republic of France; that she arrived in the United States of America on the 5th day of February, 1906, and since that time has been continuously in this country; that she is held and imprisoned in the county jail of Cook county, Ill., by virtue of a warrant of deportation issued by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor under an act of Congress approved March 26, 1910 (Act March 26, 1910, c. 128, § 2, 36 Stat. 264), amending an act entitled “An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States” (Act Feb. 20, 1907, c. 1134, § 3, 34 Stat. 899 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 450]); that the warrant was issued on or about the 6th day of June, 1910, charging the petitioner with being an inmate of a house of ill fame. The petition also sets forth that the imprisonment and detention of Martha Brion is unlawful, for the reason that she had resided in the United States of America for more than three years prior to the issuing of the warrant.

The answer of P. L- Prentis, United States immigrant inspector in charge at Chicago, admitted all of the allegations of the petition, and stated further the specific violation of the law which it was claimed warranted the deportation of the woman. No evidence was introduced as to the character of the woman, or of her conduct while in this counfry; it being admitted by counsel for the petitioner that the sole question involved was whether or not the United States government could deport a woman at a period more than three years after her arrival in this country.

Section 3 of the act of February 20, 1907, provides:

“That any alien woman or girl wlio shall be found an inmate of a house of prostitution, or practicing prostitution, at any time within three years after she shall have entered the United States, shall be deemed unlawfully within the United States, and shall be deported, as provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act.”

Section 20 provides:

“That any alien who shall enter the United States in violation of law, and such as become public charges from causes existing prior to landing, shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, be taken into custody and deported to the country whence he came, at any time within three years after the date of his entry into the United States.”

Then follows a provision for the payment of costs.

Section 21 provides:

“That in case the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall be satisfied that an alien has been found in the United States in violation of this act, or that an alien is subject to deportation under the provisions of this act, or of any law of the United States, he shall cause such alien, within the period of three years after landing or entry therein, to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came, as provided by section 20 of this act.”

Then follows a provision with reference to failure or refusal of vessel owners, masters, or consignees to take back such aliens.

Section 3 of the act of February 20, 1907, was amended by the a(⅞ of March 26, 1910. This was an, engrossed amendment, and' [896]*896superseded entirely original section 3, and carried with 'it the last word of Congress with reference to the situation. This amendment was passed after the original act had been in force some three years, and presumably after Congress had before it all of the enlightenment which- the experience of the department and those interested in the immigration laws could furnish.

Section 3 of the amendment provides:

“That the importation into the United States of any alien for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose is hereby forbidden; and whoever shall, directly or indirectly, import, or attempt to, import, into the United States, any alien for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, or whoever shall hold or attempt to hold any alien for any such purpose in pursuance of such illegal importation, or whoever shall keep, maintain, control, support, employ, or harbor in any house or other place, for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose, in pursuance of such illegal importation, any alien, shall, in every such case be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof be imprisoned not more than ten years and pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars. Jurisdiction for the trial and punishment of the felonies hereinbefore set forth shall be in any district to or into which said alien is brought in pursuance of said importation by the person or persons accused, or in any district in which a violation of any of the foregoing provisions of this section occur. Any alien who shall be found an inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution or practicing prostitution after such alien shall have entered the United States, or who shall receive, share in or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute; or who is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any way assists, protects, or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute, shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States and shall be deported in the manner provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act. That any alien who shall, after he has been debarred or deported in pursuance of the provisions of this section, attempt thereafter to return to or to enter the United States shall be deemed of a misdemeanor, and' shall be imprisoned for not more than two years. Any alien who shall be convicted under any of the provisions of this section shall, at the expiration of his sentence, be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came, or of which he is a subject or a citizen, in the manner provided in sections 20 and 21 of this act. In all prosecutions under this section the testimony of a husband or wife shall be admissible and competent evidence against a wife or husband.”

It will be observed that the amendment, in referring to aliens who shall be found to be inmates of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution, states that they “shall be deemed unlawfully within the United States, and shall be deported in the manner provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act.”

What did' Congress mean by amending a law which provided that the alien woman found an inmate of a house of prostitution at any time within three years after she shall have entered the United States shall be deported, as provided by sections 20 and 21, and substituting a provision which omitted altogether the. words “at any time within three years after she shall have entered the United States,” and substituting, for the words “shall be deported as provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act,” the words “shall be deported in the manner provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act”? There is no question whatever as to the meaning of the original section 3. The [897]*897three-year limitation was unambiguous and not open to judicial construction. We cannot suppose, therefore, that Congress, in enacting the amendment, omitted that limitation by accident or inadvertence. It must have been done deliberately and with some purpose, and in this conclusion we are supported by the debates in Congress at the time of its passage. See Congressional Records, vol. 45, pp.

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

Related

Central Bank, National Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank
430 F. Supp. 1080 (N.D. California, 1977)
Ex Parte Olden
1948 OK CR 108 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1948)
Small v. United States
110 F.2d 122 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Pierce v. Riley
70 P.2d 206 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
United States v. One Ice Box
37 F.2d 120 (N.D. Illinois, 1930)
Hauserman v. Board of County Commissioners
132 P. 212 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Ex parte Garcia
205 F. 53 (N.D. California, 1913)
Ex parte Cardonnel
197 F. 774 (N.D. California, 1912)
Siniscalchi v. Thomas
195 F. 701 (Sixth Circuit, 1912)
Sire v. Berkshire
185 F. 967 (W.D. Texas, 1911)
United States v. North German Lloyd S. S. Co.
185 F. 158 (S.D. New York, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 F. 894, 1910 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-brion-v-prentis-ilnd-1910.