Hopkins v. Fachant

• Citation: 130 F. 839
• Decision Date: 02 May 1904
• Docket Number: 1,003.
• Parties: HOPKINS, U.S. Marshal, et al. v. FACHANT.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

130 F. 839

HOPKINS, U.S. Marshal, et al. v. FACHANT.

No. 1,003.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 2, 1904

Appellants take this appeal from an order made by the District Court discharging appellee from custody upon habeas corpus. Her petition for the writ of habeas corpus is very lengthy, but the essential points therein may be briefly stated. In said petition it is alleged that Alexander Fachant was born in the republic of France, 'but is now, and during all the times herein mentioned was, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, and has been domiciled in the United States of America, and has past, and is now, and during all the times herein mentioned was, a bona fide citizen and resident of the district of Washington'; that in April, 1903, at Paris this petitioner, at the request of Alexander Fachant, entered into a contract of marriage with him, and that she agreed with him to come to the United States for the purpose of the consummation of such marriage relation; that upon her arrival in the city of Walla Walla, Wash., the said Alexander Fachant refused to make her his lawful wife; that she thereafter brought suit against said Fachant to recover $15,000 damages for the breach of said marriage contract; that said Alexander Fachant made default, but that for reasons stated she had been unable to have a jury trial in order to assess the damages to which she was entitled. It then sets forth the facts in regard to her arrest for the purpose of being deported under the immigration laws of the United States, and alleges that her deportation would be 'in violation of the existing treaties between the United States of America and the republic of France,' etc.' and she prays upon the hearing of her petition to be released from custody and restored to her liberty. The order of discharge, as made by the court, after a preliminary statement of the appearance of the respective parties, states that appellants herein 'having made return ore tenus on behalf of the said respondents, and each of them, to the effect that the said Blanche Masclez had been held and retained in custody by the said Charles B. Hopkins, United States Marshal for the District of Washington, as a detained witness in the case of the United States vs. Alexander Fachant, pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of Washington, Northern Division, in pursuance of a commitment duly issued by United States Commissioner H. B. Strong, and that the said Blanche Masclez had been held and was being held by the respondents, Thomas M. Fisher and J. H. Sargent immigration officers of the United States, and the Mother Superior of the House of Good Shepherd, as an alien immigrant unlawfully within the United States, and as such subject to deportation to the republic of France, the country whence she came, and under and by virtue of a certain warrant of deportation duly issued by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, on the 28th day of May, 1903, directed to the said Thomas M. Fisher, Chinese and immigrant inspector wherein it is found by the said Secretary of the Treasury that the said Blanche Masclez is an alien immigrant, who landed in the United States at the port of New York, N.Y., on the 2d day of May, 1903, and came into the United States from the republic of France, contrary to the immigration laws of the United States, and commanding him, the said Thomas M. Fisher, as such immigrant inspector, to take into his custody the said Blanche Masclez as such alien immigrant, and return her to the country whence she came, which said warrant of deportation is still in force; and said respondents, in making return to the said writ of habeas corpus, having denied the allegations set forth in said petition herein as to the rights of the said Blanche Masclez to be and remain in the United States. And the court having taken into consideration the evidence admitted upon the trial of the case of the United States vs. Alexander Fachant, together with the fact of the marriage of the said Blanche Masclez to the said Alexander Fachant subsequent to the issuance of the writ herein, and being fully advised in the premises, and having found from a consideration of all the foregoing facts that the said Blanche Masclez is entitled to be and remain in the United States, and therefore not subject to deportation under the writ of deportation heretofore issued by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, but entitled to her full liberty: Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the said Blanche Masclez, petitioner above named, be, and she hereby is, discharged from the custody of the respondents herein, and restored to her full liberty.'

Jesse A. Frye, U.S. Atty., and Edward E. Cushman, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellants.

Silas M. Shipley, Will H. Morris, and Frank S. Southard, for appellee.

Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

HAWLEY District Judge (after making the foregoing statement).

Appellee moves that the appeal herein be dismissed upon the grounds that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters involved upon this appeal, for the reason and upon the ground that the determination of the case involves the construction and application of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutionality of the law of the United States passed March 3, 1903, c. 1012, 32 Stat. 1213 (US.Comp.St.Supp. 1903, p. 170), being 'An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,' and also the construction of the treaty existing between the United States and the republic of France, and the rights of appellee thereunder; and, further, that the right to hear and determine the matters involved upon this appeal is by statute vested in the Supreme Court of the United States exclusively.

It is questionable, to say the least, whether, in the face of all the facts set out in the petition for habeas corpus especially after her marriage to Alexander Fachant, appellee is shown to have any property rights which would involve any construction of the treaty referred to. But be that as it may, the determination of this case also depends upon other questions, which have no relation whatever with the provisions of the treaty. It is claimed by appellants that the only question involved in this case Is, 'did the court below exceed its authority and jurisdiction in interfering with the Secretary of the...