Edye v. Robertson
Decision Date | 08 December 1884 |
Parties | EDYE and another v. ROBERTSON, Collector, etc. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus and statement of facts from pages 580-582 intentionally omitted] Geo. De Forest Lord, for Cunard Steam-ship Co.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 582-584 intentionally omitted] Philip J. Joachimsen and Edwards Pierrepont, for Edye and others.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 584-586 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Phillips, for Robertson, Collector, etc.
These cases all involve the same questions of law, and have been argued before this court together. The case at the head of the list presents all the facts in the form of an agreed statement signed by counsel, and it therefore brings the questions before us very fully. The other two were decided by the circuit court on demurrer to the declaration. They will be disposed of here in one opinion, which will have reference to the case as made by the record in Edye et al. v. Robertson. The suit is brought to recover from Robertson the sum of money received by him, as collector of the port of New York, from plaintiffs, on account of their landing in that port passengers from foreign ports, not citizens of the United States, at the rate of 50 cents for each of such passengers, under the act of congress of August 3, 1882, entitled 'An act to regulate immigration.' The petition of plaintiffs and the agreed facts, which are also made the finding of the court to which the case was submitted without a jury, are the same with regard to each of many arrivals of vessels of the plaintiffs, except as to the name of the vessel and the number and age of the passengers. The statement as to the arrival first named, which is here given, will be sufficient for them all, for the purposes of this opinion.
The following are admitted to be the facts in this action:
On the facts as thus agreed and as found by the circuit court, a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, which we are called upon to review. There is no complaint by plaintiffs that the defendant violated this act in any respect but one, namely, that it did not authorize him to demand anything for the 20 children under one year old, and for the 59 who were between the ages of one year and eight years. The supposed exception of this class of passengers does not arise out of any language found in this act to regulate immigration, nor any policy on which it is founded, but it is based by counsel on a provision of an act approved one day earlier than this, entitled 'An act to regulate the carriage of passengers by sea.' This provision limits the number of passengers which the vessel may carry by the number of cubic feet of space in which they are to be carried, and it declares that, in making this calculation, children of the ages mentioned need not be counted. In reference to the space they will occupy this principle is reasonable. But, as regards the purpose of the immigration act to raise a fund for the sick, the poor, and the helpless immigrant, children are as likely to require its aid as adults, probably more so. They are certainly within the definition of the word 'passenger,' when otherwise within the purview of the act. This branch of the case requires no further consideration.
The other errors assigned, however numerous or in whatever language presented, all rest on the proposition that the act of congress requiring the collector to demand and receive from the master, owner, or consignee of each vessel arriving from a foreign port, 50 cents for every passenger whom he brings into a port of the United States who is not a citizen, is without warrant in the constitution and is void. The substance of the act is found in its first section, namely:
'AN ACT TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION.
The act further authorizes the secretary to use the aid of any state organization or officer for carrying into effect the beneficent objects of this law, by distributing the fund in accordance with the purpose for which it was raised, not exceeding in any port the sum received from it, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by him. It directs that such officers shall go on board vessels arriving from abroad, and if, on examination, they shall find any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself, without becoming a public charge, they shall report to the collector, and such person shall not be permitted to land. It is also enacted that convicts, except for political offenses, shall be returned to the nations to which they belong. And the secretary is directed to prepare rules for the protection of the immigrant who needs it, and for the return of those who are not permitted to land. This act of congress is similar, in its essential features, to many statutes enacted by states of the Union for the protection of their own citizens, and for the good of the immigrants who land at sea-ports within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sei Fujii v. State
...intended to prescribe a rule that, standing alone, would be enforceable in the courts. See Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson) 112 U.S. 580, 598, 5 S.Ct. 247, 254, 28 L.Ed. 798; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 8 S.Ct. 456, 458, 31 L.Ed. 386; Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 11......
-
Sanchez-Llamas v. Bustillo, Nos. 04–10566
...and diplomatic channels, rather than through the courts.” Brief for United States 11; ibid. (quoting Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 798 (1884) (a treaty “ ‘is primarily a compact between independent nations,’ ” and “ ‘depends for the enforcement of its provisions......
-
Earl v. Boeing Co.
...here (Dkt. #225 at pp. 7, 17).b. Applicable Law Treaties are "compact[s] between independent nations." Head Money Cases , 112 U.S. 580, 598, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 798 (1884) ; Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp. , 466 U.S. 243, 253, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984) ("A tr......
-
Rodriguez v. Pan Am. Health Org.
...the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it." Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 798 (1884). When such a compact is breached, "its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamat......
-
Funding 'Non-Traditional' Military Operations: The Alluring Myth of a Presidential Power of the Purse
...(1899); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 721 (1893); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 599 (1884). Thus, if it can muster a veto-proof majority, Congress can change the nation's international commitments wholly independently o......
-
Enforcing international commercial arbitration agreements and awards in U.S. Courts: is the New York convention a 'self-executing' treaty?
...at 504–06 (citations omitted) (quoting Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888)); see also Edye v. Robertson (The Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 598–99 (1884) (“A treaty, then, is the law of the land as an act of congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rig......
-
THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
...id. amend. XIV, [section] 5 (civil rights). (20.) Bilder, supra note 18, at 790-824. (21.) Edye v. Robertson (The Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 595 (1884); see also Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 270 (1876)("[T]he transportation of passengers from European ports to those of......
-
International Miranda? Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
...1124 n.1 (C.D. Ill. 1999)(same), aff'd 226 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2000). 10. Foster v. Nielson, 27 U.S. 253, 314 (1829); The Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884). 11. United States v. Chaparro-Alcantara, 226 F.3d 616, 622 (7th Cir. 2000)(quoting William J. Aceves, Murphy v. Netherland, 92 Am. ......