An indictment for unlawfully bringing Chinese aliens into the
United States will lie under § 8 of the Immigration Act of February
5, 1917, where the acts charged do not go far enough to amount to a
landing in violation of § 11 of the Chinese Exclusion Act of July
5, 1884. P.
254 U. S.
41.
Reversed.
Writ of error under the Criminal Appeals Act (c. 2564, 34 Stat.
1246), to review a judgment sustaining a motion to quash an
indictment charging defendant with bringing certain Chinese aliens
into the United States,
viz., into the bay and port of San
Francisco by vessel, in violation of § 8 of the Immigration Act of
February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 880, which reads as follows:
"That any person, including the master, agent, owner, or
consignee of any vessel, who shall bring into or land in the United
States, "
Page 254 U. S. 39
by vessel or otherwise, or shall attempt, by himself or through
another, to bring into or land in the United States, by vessel or
otherwise, or shall conceal or harbor, or attempt to conceal or
harbor, or assist or abet another to conceal or harbor in any
place, including any building, vessel, railway car, conveyance, or
vehicle any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector or
not lawfully entitled to enter or to reside within the United
States under the terms of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding $2,000 and by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five hears for each and every alien so landed or brought
in or attempted to be landed or brought in.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of July 5, 1884, c. 220, § 11, 23
Stat. 117, provides:
"That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be
brought into the United States by land, or who shall aid or abet
the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any
vessel, of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the
United States shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, on
conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand
dollars and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year. "
Page 254 U. S. 41
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Error to review a judgment of the district court quashing an
indictment against defendant in error, Butt, which charged him with
feloniously bringing four Chinese aliens into the United States in
violation of Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874,
880.
The legality of the ruling depends upon the coexistence of that
act with Chinese Exclusion Act July 5, 1884, 23 Stat. 117.
We may use in exposition of the case the memorandum of the
district court (Judge Rudkin). It appears therefrom that an earlier
indictment was presented against Butt, charging him in three counts
with having brought the same four Chinese aliens into the United
States. The first two counts were based on § 8 of the Immigration
Act of February, 1917, and the third count on § 11 of the Chinese
Exclusion Act. All of the counts were based on the unlawful landing
of four Chinese laborers into the United States. A motion to quash
the first and second counts on the grounds of misjoinder and on the
further ground that the several acts did not state facts sufficient
to constitute a crime was granted. The ruling was based on a
decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
246 F. 98.
Upon the trial of the third count, a verdict of not guilty was
directed by the court (Judge Farrington), the government having
failed to prove that the Chinese were actually landed in the United
States.
On June 11, 1919, the indictment in controversy was found. As we
have said, it charged Butt with bringing the same Chinese aliens
into the United States, and all of its counts were based on the
Immigration Act. A motion to quash was made, accompanied by the
record in the former case, in the nature of a plea of former
jeopardy.
Page 254 U. S. 42
To this procedure the government consented, but contended that,
inasmuch as defendant did not proceed far enough to violate § 11 of
the Exclusion Act, he was subject to prosecution under § 8 of the
Immigration Act, it being broader and more comprehensive in its
terms. To this contention the court replied, and we quote its
language:
"In my opinion, Congress did not intend that the courts should
indulge in any such refinement as this. In other words, Congress
either intended that persons bringing Chinese laborers into the
United States should be prosecuted under the immigration act or
that they should not. Such was manifestly the view of the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case already
cited."
The court considered that it was its duty to follow that
decision until the question should be decided by the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or by this Court. The motion to
quash was sustained.
This ruling is attacked, and that of the case adduced in its
support, by the citation of
United States v. Wong You,
223 U. S. 67, and
United States v. Woo Jan, 245 U.
S. 552,
245 U. S. 557.
The cases support the contention for which they are cited, and it
follows therefore that the ruling of the district court in the case
at bar sustaining the motion to quash the indictment was error, and
it is reversed.
So ordered.
