*1 TERM, 1895. 228 Syllabus. 660, S. 159 U. Seneca Ind Nation Stinchfeld, v. U. 283. ians v. S. Christy, In such this it has sometimes been cases as the practice court to affirm sometimes to dismiss judgment of our records the writ. An examination will show that affirmed the court has some cases this judgment sometimes has dismissed writ below and of error. This have in a difference as originated of views may discrepancy However precise scope questions presented. be, we think that we find when unnecessary court, Federal decide when the question, state based its decision on local or has state our question, logical course to dismiss the Bolles, writ.” Eustis v. Ac supra. last case cited was one of dis cordingly judgment same missal. The in the two cases in given R. R. v. S., 159 U. Rutland Co. Central R. Vermont R. Co. v. and also in and Gillis latest Stinchfield, case very Seneca Nation v. 162 U. S. subject, Christy, in this The case should, therefore, proper judgment the writ is dismissal, accordingly Dismissed. v. UNITED WONG WING STATES. APPEAL FROM THE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Argued No. 204. 189 6.Decided May 18, 1896. April 2, temporary confinement, necessary give Detention tbe means expulsion to tbe exclusion effect Chinese aliens is valid. coming borders, States can forbid aliens from within their them, expel territory, duty from their and can devolve the identifying arresting such executive subordinate officials; promote policy but when sees fit to further such a subjecting such aliens to infamous hard labor, valid, confiscating property, legislation, provide'for must guilt trial to establish the of the accused. WING UNITED STATES.
WONG Opinion of the Court. Lee 15, 1892, Lee Ton July Wong Wing, Poy, On Tong *2 were Wah before John and Chan Dong Graves, a brought Court of the commissioner Circuit United States for District of virtue Eastern of a warrant Michigan, by issued of T. E. col- upon complaint deputy McDonough, lector of of customs, Chinese un- upon charge being States within the United and not entitled remain lawfully found within same. The commissioner that said persons were United States and not entitled unlawfully same, within the and he remain adjudged they impris- hard oned at labor and in the Detroit house correction of of days com- sixty including day and that at the mitment, said time be re- expiration from the moved United States China.
A of habeas was sued out of the writ Court Circuit corpus directed Nicholson, United Joseph superin- house of tendent Detroit said correction, alleging were him detained; superintendent made a return the action commissioner; and, up setting after the writ of was habeas argument, corpus discharged, were remanded said Nicholson, prisoners custody out their Erom serve sentence. this decision original was taken to court. appeal Mr. H. Mr. Frank Frederick W. appellants. Canfield was on his brief. Fielding
Mr. Assistant General Dickinson for Attorney appellees. Me. after case, delivered stating Shieab, Justice of the court. opinion 13,1888, the thirteenth section act By September “
c. 4/79, 25 Stat. 1015, 4/76, That follows: provided Chinese Chinese found un- any descent, person, person States or its Territories, United be arrested lawfully may warrant issued filed oath, complaint behalf United any party States, by any justice, TERM,
Opinion Court United States Court, or commissioner returnable any judge, of a commissioner before justice, judge States any when court, or before any convicted, court, found one not adjudged -upon hearing, remain be or shall entitled to from the United States to the be removed whence he came.” section the act of 1, The first October c. 1064, 25 was in
Stat. terms: That from and after following this act it shall be unlawful passage who shall at laborer time heretofore have been, who now or abe, hereafter resident within the United States, who shall have or shall departed, therefrom, and depart not have returned before the *3 act, this to re- passage remain the to, turn or United in, States.” of these acts was assailed validity because were be in to conflict with treaties alleged between the existing States and United and because to a China, Chinaman deport had, who a to return to the laws, United previous right States, awas which could be inflicted except sentence. by judicial
But and these contentions were overruled the of validity sustained this in the case of legislation Chae Chan States, v. 130 United U. S. this case it Ping was in an held, Field, elaborate decision Mr. Justice act Chinese from laborers the United excluding States was a constitutional exercise far that, so as it legislative power; conflicted with treaties between United States existing it and China, to that extent them as operated abrogate law of United and that States; a municipal conferred Chinese certificate issued right laborer, by in return to the laws, to United States pursuance previous be could taken act away subsequent Congress. 1892, On 5, date, act c. 60, Stat. May that all then in enacted force, laws prohibiting into this of Chinese coming regulating in descent, Chinese should be continued force of ten The sixth of the act. years passage WING v. STATES. WONG UNITED
Opinion of the Court section of the act was, terms: And part, following it shall be the all within the Chinese laborers limits of duty the United at the time of this States, act, the.passage who are entitled to remain in States, United apply collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one after act, this certificate year passage within the residence, laborer, limits of shall States, United who fail or refuse to with neglect, comply of this act, after who, from the year shall found within the hereof, passage United without such States certificate of residence, deemed and to be within the United adjudged be arrested United States customs by any internal collector of official, revenue or his deputies, his States marshal and taken before a United deputies, it States whose shall be to order that he be duty de- judge, from the United States as hereinbefore ported provided.” As it section, was validity contended against whatever be true that, might power aliens, exclude there no banish yet power had been such aliens who to become permitted residents, did nature of a that, exist, if such was in the punish- after a ment, could exercised only trial. held,
But this court Yue case Ting Fong exclude or to 149 U. S. expel certain condi aliens, aliens, class absolutely *4 in war or in is an inherent and inalienable tions, peace, and of nation; every sovereign power independent like of to aliens or exclude, any expel, class of be exercised aliens from country may entirely and that the said sixth section of officers; executive through and act of was constitutional valid. 5,May of made 18,1894, 372, 390, The act c. 28 Stat. August of all Chinese China provision expenses per- returning sons found States, United including cost of and actual conveyance expense Chinese the frontier or seaboard for deportation, persons TERM, 1895.
Opinion of the Court. “ enactment: and contained case where every following from into an is excluded admission alien now or under law or hereafter treaty existing made, any officers, decision of customs appropriate immigration of such alien, shall to the admission be final adverse unless to the reversed on Secretary Treasury.” appeal race, One Lem Moon Sing, who have had domicil in claimed to permanent United on carried business therein as a and have before merchant of the act of August 18,1894, and to have passage gone visit to his land native with the intention temporary and his residence in the returning continuing United States— — absence the said act was during temporary passed return, on his from was, prevented confined was landing, of his restrained the collector of liberty by port filed in He the District San Francisco. Court of the United District the Northern of California a States-for petition habeas, wherein he had writ he corpus, alleged and was not detained been virtue of the by apprehended judg- ment, decree order, judicial process court, or warrant, but under the under writ or authority alleged to the have been collector of the given San port Francisco 18, 1894, the act and that his August detention was without due law, jurisdiction process his Constitution laws against rights States. writ was habeas denied corpus the court below, this appeal to this court. prosecuted
The contention on behalf the case was appellant who Harlan, thus stated Mr. Justice delivered the opinion of the court: while, is that The contention immi- generally speaking, under the officers have statute exclude gration entitled under some an alien is not who statute to treaty if the yet entitled, come into alien to enter is, treaty, some law but right, by country, officers, excluded the latter nevertheless, exceed their if it action, results alleged restraining jurisdiction, *5 UNITED STATES. WING v. WONG Opinion the Court. his the alien of for the liberty, judicial presents question, of which decision the courts intervene writ of may habeas corpus.” this said: considering position view, would sustained, That into the courts bring every who
case of an claimed into the alien come United but law or treaty, under some from do- prevented so the' executive branch This ing government. manifest would defeat purpose Congress committing officers and to to subordinate immigration Secretary exclusive determine whether a Treasury authority particu- into lar this alien admission to the seeking country belongs some law or to come into the class entitled by treaty country, or to a forbidden to enter class United States. Under the act of 1894 the that the de- interpretation provision cision of the or customs officers should appropriate immigration unless reversed on to the final, appeal Secretary be of no would value. Treasury, practical “ The to exclude aliens from Congress altogether or to States, United terms conditions prescribe which come to and to have its country, declared in that enforced exclusively policy regard through officers, executive intervention, settled our previous adjudications.” of the conrt below
Accordingly denying for the writ of habeas was affirmed. Lem application corpus Moon S. 538. U. Sing present those different appeal presents question heretofore if it that, determined. even is claimed com- aliens from into the petent coming prevent or to those country, provide deportation its to submit the enforcement borders, pro- visions of laws executive fourth officers, section yet act of such Chinese provides “any of Chinese descent, convicted and person, adjudged to be entitled be or remain labor for a not ex- imprisoned and thereafter removed from year, ceeding *6 TERM, 234 Opinion of the Court. inflicts an infamous and States,” punishment, hence conflicts with the Fifth and Sixth of the Constitution, Amendments shall he held which declare that no person answer crime infamous otherwise unless on a capital presentment and or indictment of a that in all jury, criminal grand prose- the accused cutions to a and enjoy speedy an trial, of the State public by impartial and district jury the crime shall wherein have been committed.
It is as in that, held, this court has Ex argued Wilson, parte S. 114 U. and Mackin v. U. S. 348, that can be held to no without answer, presentment indictment a for crime for which by an infa grand jury, mous punishment imposed court, that by at hard for labor a term of imprisonment is an infamous years the detention of the punishment, present appellants, house of correction Detroit, at at hard labor for a without been sentenced thereto sixty days, having indictment and a trial is by jury grand by jury, illegal and without jurisdiction.
On the is hand, other contended on behalf of the Govern- ment that it has never been decided this court that in all by cases where the at hard be confinement labor punishment may the crime is are infamous, cases cited many of the state reports Courts, where the constitution- Supreme of statutes ality without providing summary proceedings, trial, jury punishment by imprisonment labor of has been vagrants disorderly upheld. These courts have held that refer constitutional guarantees to such crimes and have, misdemeanors by regular course of the law been modes of established procedure, of trial do embrace subject not jury, of accusation every species involving penal consequences. the offence of urged being remaining within the limits of the an alien is a United States by politi- cal triable and is not within offence, the common law cases only the Constitution does jury, apply such a case. —
The Chinese exclusion acts two classes operate upon WING UNITED STATES. WONG Opinion of the Court. of those who into the came with consisting its con- of those who have .come into the United sent, consent and of the law. Our disregard pre- vious decisions have settled that it is within the constitutional both of these and to com- power Congress classes, deport mit the enforcement of the law to executive officers. now is whether question presented can pro- mote its to Chinese to its policy respect persons by adding exclusion and their' expulsion labor, hard to be inflicted any justice, commissioner judge *7 a trial In other we words, have to by jury. consider fourth section of the act .of meaning validity “ in May 5,1892, words: That such Chinese following person, descent, convicted and person adjudged to be not be entitled to and remain in the States, shall be at hard labor for a of not imprisoned and thereafter removed from exceeding year, as hereinbefore provided.” We think it clear that detention, temporary confinement, as of the means to effect necessary give for the exclusion or would be aliens valid. Pro- expulsion exclude or would be vain those ceedings accused expel could not held in their into custody pending inquiry true character while were made for being arrangements Detention is a usual feature case deportation. every of arrest on a criminal when even an innocent charge, is but it not accused; is in a wrongfully imprisonment legal sense.
So, too, it we think would Con- competent plainly in to declare act of an alien gress remaining unlawfully within the United offence, be an fine by punishable if such were to be established a offence imprisonment, trial.
But the and no evident of the section meaning question, is claimed for it for the is the counsel Government, that the detention for is an provided which labor, is to be before sentence depor- undergone TERM,
Opinion of the Court. be carried into effect, is to tation that such imprisonment accused a against is adjudged justice, judge a commissioner, Thus summary hearing. construed, the fourth section comes before court for the first time as to its for consideration validity. indeed, from some is, obvious,
It used expressions in a exclusion opinion acts, previous now was question arise; perceived presented might but care taken reserve any expression opinion upon in the case Yue Thus, Ting it. Fong States, 149 U. S. Mr. used Justice Gray following significant language: The before United States judge, provided proceeding 6 of act of is in section no sense trial proper and sentence for crime or offence. is It the ascer. simply and lawful tainment, means, of the fact by appropriate the conditions exist whether has en- that an alien of acted this class remain within the coun- is not order try. deportation crime. banishment, is not a sense in which word often of a citizen from his expulsion applied country by It is but a method of way re- punishment. enforcing turn his own alien who has of an complied *8 with the conditions the the upon performance gov- within nation, ernment its author- constitutional acting and the has determined that ity through proper departments, his reside here not, He has there- continuing depend. been fore, life, or without due deprived liberty property, law; and the Constitution, secur- the process provisions trial and unreasonable ing by jury, prohibiting and and seizures, searches and cruel unusual punishments, have no application.”
There is an evident in of a dis- implication, language, between tinction those the statute which con- the exclusion or template only expulsion persons for their labor, and those which at hard provide imprisonment which their deportation suspended. pending thus views, Our question specifically upon pressed v. UNITED STATES. WONG WING Opinion of the Court. thus: We attention, briefly expressed as regard our our decisions United States previous settled by can, as matter public by policy, Congressional enactment, or classes of aliens from aliens forbid their coming and aliens or classes of aliens from their borders, terri- expel can, in order to make effectual such decree of ex- tory, devolve the clusion or expulsion, power duty identify- included in such decree, and ing arresting their executive or subordinate deportation, upon offi- causing cials.
But sees fit to further when such a promote pol- of such aliens infamous icy by subjecting pun- hard ishment at labor, by we confiscating property, valid, think to be such must legislation, provide judicial trial to establish accused. guilt can be limits courts put No Con- summary methods, gress protect, country whose advent of aliens race habits render them undesirable citizens, as have expel found their already our land and into remain way therein. But unlawful residence declare within the infa- crime, mous punishable deprivation liberty prop- out of would erty, pass constitutional sphere unless were made that the provision fact of legislation, guilt should first be established trial. It is not con- our sistent with the theory government legislature an offence should, after defined having an infamous crime, find the fact of one of punishment by guilt adjudge its own agents. Ex 114 U. parte Wilson, S. this court declared that than a more labor imprisonment century
state or other similar has institution been prison penitentiary an infamous considered America, England and that hard labor, compulsory unpaid, is, words, sense of strongest servitude involuntary of in the crime,” of the Ordinance of spoken provision *9 and of the Thirteenth Amendment of Constitution, all and which slavery abolished, declares TERM, 1895. Opinion.
Mr. Justice Field’s or servitude shall not slavery involuntary that such exist States or to the United any place subject juris- a for crime whereof diction, except party convicted. have been duly shall of Yick Wo v. the case S. 356, And in Hopkins, U. “ The Fourteenth said: Amendment to the it was Consti- to the confined is not citizens. protection
tution says: State of life, deprive ‘Nor any any person liberty due of law; nor without process deny property within its the law.’ equal protection These in their are universal to all application territorial without within the differ- jurisdiction, regard color, race, nationality; ences equal protection is a of the laws laws.” protection pledge equal to the Fifth and Sixth reasoning Amendments, Applying that all be concluded within the it must territory to the States are entitled guaranteed protection amendments, and even shall not be those aliens held or other infamous capital crime, to answer unless indictment nor jury, grand deprived presentment without due of law. life, process liberty property commissioner, in Our conclusion sentencing at hard labor at and in the Detroit appellants acted without correction, house of jurisdiction, in not erred from such Circuit Court prisoners discharging to their detention prejudice imprisonment, according law deportation. the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause judgment of to that court remanded with directions therein proceed accorda/nce with this opinion. Me. concurring dissenting part. Field, Justice case, in this hold that what- justices, The majority true as to the ever United States power might there was no such aliens aliens, exclude yet punish power to become residents, been that, who had permitted it could exist, did exercised only after *10 WONG WING UNITED STATES. Opinion. Mr. Justice Field’s therefore trial, and that the accused were entitled to be from their arrest and discharged To that imprisonment. is concurred in. their extent opinion do not but concur, I dissent But from what seemed entirely be harsh and to me assertions, made counsel illegal of on the Government, case, the as to the argument the court to the accused full deny the protection law and Constitution form against eveiy oppression to them. cruelty one of the
Wong petitioners be Wing, proceedings released from the unlawful is a alleged imprisonment, subject of the Chinese with which the Government, Government of the has United States relations This peace amity. Chinaman and three other of the same race were in the month found within July, 1892, of Detroit, Eastern District city Michigan, collector of customs at complaint deputy that made to a Circuit United States Court commis- place, within sioner for that that district, were they limits United warrant their arrest was issued were commissioner, they accordingly and taken before arrested him for into the correct- inquiry ness the charge. examination before commissioner
Upon charge him that was held the Chinese named were un- and his should at hard labor in the they house of cor- imprisoned Detroit, at rection Eastern District of Michigan, from and and that days period sixty including thatvdate, of that from should removed they expiration States United to China. The Chinese thus arrested and committed immediately applied judges
Eastern District for writ of habeas Michigan, corpus, released and restraint their unlawful, that the same were without warrant liberty, alleging law and to the Constitution laws of contrary the act and that were made under States; TERM, 1895. MO Opinion. field’s Mr. Justice “ An act to entitled the com- prohibit 5, May approved States.” into the United of Chinese persons ing and conviction proceedings alleged petitioners on the of the commis- were wholly warrant of law. authority and without They sioner writ issue might therefore commanding prayed *11 the Detroit of of house correction to forth- superintendent before the court and show cause, the petitioners with bring should be further detained and be, there de- why they of their The writ was issued and liberty. immediately prived him the to have the superintendent, served commanding upon of the arrested and bodies and imprisoned upon day before the hour with the time court, and designated together of such and detention. cause imprisonment The before the court superintendent immediately appeared and the arrested with and imprisoned persons produced copy issued the the commitment commissioner at a session of of Court of for the Circuit the United States Eastern District the held in the of District pursuant adjournment Michigan, of Detroit on room the 22d of city Friday, Court day Swan, Honorable H. District Henry July, being Judge, heard, and after counsel were the arguments present, of habeas that the writ and that ordered corpus discharged, arrested be remanded to custody Nicholson, the persons of the District house of correction, serve keeper sentences. original now that are
The prisoners allege aggrieved by and are advised that decision court, judgment are erroneous order following, among grounds: commitment and First, because the imprisonment correction are unlawful and with- the house petitioners to the Constitution and laws contrary out warrant law, that States; conviction of the United proceedings before commissioner were without wholly the petitioners his warrant authority part, and other reasons these law; appearing themselves face petitioners, feeling proceedings Court, and decision of the Circuit aggrieved «. WONG WING UNITED STATES. 2il Opinion. Mr. Justice Field’s to the therefrom Court of the appeal Supreme pray allowed, appeal may and, accordance with the rules and of that court, practice pending appeal be admitted to which bail, they may prayer granted. The involved whether is a Chinese question can be person convicted and sentenced to labor a definite period by commissioner without indict- ment trial involves the by jury. question constitution- é of the act of section ality
It is submitted that this section invalid because conflicts with the Fifth Amendment Constitution, de- clares that “no shall be held to answer capital, crime, or other unless on a infamous or indict- presentment ment . . . nor be jury, life, grand deprived liberty without due law,” also property process conflicts with Amendment Sixth Constitution, which pro- “ in all criminal vides the accused shall en- prosecutions, to a trial, speedy public joy impartial jury and district wherein the the State crime shall have been committed.” *12 the
It not follow because that, does Government may expel them aliens or exclude this it can coming country, a confine them at hard labor in before penitentiary deporta- tion them to harsh cruel If subject any punishment. a human at hard in labor a being imprisonment peni- is for misconduct offence not it is tentiary punishment, difficult to understand how short infliction of anything death misconduct such offence is penalty punish- seem to not ment. would but only punishment, punish- character, ment infamous in its under the which, provisions States, Constitution of the United can be inflicted only a his due conviction of after crime person pursuant law. forms and provisions á of oí 1892 : Section the act “That Chinese provides descent, convicted person person adjudged in to be or remain be not entitled at hard labor for not period shall be imprisoned from the and thereafter removed exceeding year, voi.. cam —16 TERM, 1895.
242 Opinion. Mr. Justice field’s as and whenever hereinbefore the law provided,” pro- follow a vides that trial shall conviction imprisonment it intends that offender, necessarily shall be inflicted offence of as which the punishment has been convicted. labor person Imprisonment definite is not it is only but punishment, punishment of an infamous character. in a at hard labor state servi- is also
Imprisonment prison to which no under the Constitution tude, can sub- for crime, whereof he have jected except punishment been convicted. duly “ Wilson, Ex U. S. the court Im parte said: at hard labor, is, prisonment compulsory unpaid, ‘ words, crime,’ sense of the servitude for strongest involuntary of in the Ordinance of and of the Thirteenth spoken Amendment of Constitution, which all other slavery was abolished.” In 2 on the is Constitution, said that Story § “
amendment forbids not known heretofore merely slavery to our but laws, all kinds of servitude involuntary imposed offence.” public Fifth,
The Amend- Sixth and Thirteenth ments the Constitution as well to Chinese apply who are aliens as to American citizens. term used in Fifth broad is Amendment, person,” to include human within the any'and enough juris- every being diction A entitled resident, born, alien is republic. the same the laws entitled that a citizen is protection owes he to. He laws of obedience domiciled, and, as he is entitled consequence, equal of those laws. protection has
This been decided so often that not re does point 356, 369; *13 Yick Wo v. 118 U. S. argument. quire Hopkins, Numan, Ho Ah Kow v. 5 552; Carlisle v. Sawyer, 147; 16 Wall. In re Lee 18 re Fed. Tong, 253; Rep. 237; Pooi, In re 25 Wong Yung Chow Goo Quy, Sawyer, Fed. Rep. 77.
The contention that within the territorial jurisdic-
WONG WING UNITED STATES. Opinion.
Mr. Justice field’s tion of might beyond republic protection with on the at the bar —in face law was heard pain argument constitutional amendment which declares that of the no great to its State shall deny equal of the laws. Far nobler was the boast great protection French Cardinal who in the affairs of exercised power public for did France that never in all his time he years, deny justice “ “ one. For fifteen such were his while words, years,” in these hands dwelt the humblest the ob- craftsman, empire, scurest from the vassal, sun, very shrinking leper though loathed ask by charity, might justice.” It is to be that the now before us Chinamen, hoped poor relief cruel find their from will not seeking oppression, appeal to our institutions and and idle laws a vain republican pro- ceeding.
But whilst in the remarking denouncing strongest form in the language every cruelty legisla- barbarity tion or exclusion of proceedings expulsion adopted who do enter country, permission of its order avoid Government, misconception authorized action the declarations respect with the aliens named their and as as to entrance regard the time and manner of their are adopted. departure
And the statement of case that the court present can, as a matter of by Congres- policy, public sional aliens from their forbid aliens or classes of legislation, make such order to effectual can, territory, legislation for their exclusion or devolve duty expulsion, their them, identifying causing deportation arresting executive or as sound. officials, subordinate accepted when And the court further views announced by sees fit such a by subjecting policy promote labor, hard of such aliens to infamous be valid legislation confiscating property, must establish an arrest and provide guilt trial is not consist- are accused, also accepted adopted. K of our ent,” as said with the court, gov- theory truly defined ernment that the after should having legislature *14 TERM, 2M 1895.
(cid:127) Statement of Case. crime infamous offence as an fact of provide infamy its one of own shall be established by agents.” no took Me. the decision of this Beewee Justice case. STATES WINCHESTER
UNITED AND POTOMAC RAILROAD COMPANY. THE COURT
APPEAL FROM OF CLAIMS. 195. 1896. April May 1, March Argued No. Decided case, The Court of Claims had no over the claim of the Claim,” growing appropriation error a War defendant in out of the property army engaged suppression while of the rebellion. review a up in favor of appeal brought This and Potomac the Winchester Railroad for the sum Company thousand three hundred and of thirty the value forty dollars, iron rails removed in 1862 of certain from the track of that railroad authorities of the United military States. to a seems clear necessary understanding questions that the of this claim and the history circumstances presented its should be prosecution against attending stated. fully
In 1862 years thereto the many prior appellee, owned and the railroad corporation ex- Virginia, operated in the State of tending Winchester Ferry Harper’s Its stock was owned citizens Virginia. capital largely States. loyal March authorities of the United year military which at the road, States took time was possession op- the use and erated benefit of the Confed- company war, erate States munitions transportation troops, a contract 11,1861, made subjects September officer of the and the Confederate States between an Army the railroad president company.