United States v. Ju Toy
Decision Date | 08 May 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 535,535 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. JU TOY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 253-257 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hayden Johnson, Oliver Dibbls, and Henry C. Dibble for Ju Toy.
This case come here on a certificate from the circuit court of appeals presenting certain questions of law. It appears that the appellee, being detained by the master of the steamship Doric for return to China, presented a petition for habeas corpus to the district court, alleging that he was a native-born citizen of the United States, returning after a temporary departure, and was denied permission to land by the collector of the port of San Francisco. It also appears from the petition that he took an appeal from the denial, and that the decision was affirmed by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. No further grounds are stated. The writ issued, and the United States made return, and answered, showing all the proceedings before the Department, which are not denied to have been in regular form, and setting forth all of the evidence and the orders made. The answer also denied the allegations of the petition. Motions to dismiss the writ were made on the grounds that the decision of the Secretary was conclusive, and that no abuse of authority was shown. These were denied, and the district court decided, seemingly on new evidence, subject to exceptions, that Ju Toy was a native-born citizen of the United States. An appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals, alleging errors the nature of which has been indicated. Thereupon the latter court certified the following questions:
We assume in what we have to say, as the questions assume that no abuse of authority of any kind is alleged. That being out of the case, the first of them is answered by the case of United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 170, 48 L. ed. 917, 921, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621: 'A petition for habeas corpus ought not to be entertained unless the court is satisfied that the petitioner can make out at least a prima facie case.' This petition should have been denied on this ground, irrespective of what more we have to say, because it alleged nothing except citizenship. It disclosed neither abuse of authority nor the existence of evidence not laid before the Secretary. It did not even set forth that evidence, or allege its effect. But, as it was entertained, and the district court found for the petitioner, it would be a severe measure to order the petition to be dismissed on that ground now, and we pass on to further considerations.
The broad question is presented whether or not the decision of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is conclusive. It was held in United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 167, 48 L. ed. 917, 920, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621, that the act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 372, 390, chap. 301, § 1, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1303), purported to make it so, but whether the statute could have that effect constitutionally was left untouched, except by a reference to cases where an opinion already had been expressed. To quote the latest first, in Japanese Immigrant Case (Yamataya v. Fisher), 189 U. S. 86, 97, 47 L. ed. 721, 724, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611, 613, it was said: 'That Congress may exclude aliens of a particular race from the United States, prescribe the terms and conditions upon which certain classes of aliens may come to this country, establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as come here in violation of law, and commit the enforcement of such provisions, conditions, and regulations exclusively to executive officers, without judicial intervention, are principles firmly established by the decisions of this court.' See also United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 290, 291, 48 L. ed. 979, 983, 984, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 186 U. S. 193, 200, 46 L. ed. 1121, 1125, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891. In Fok Young Yo v. United States, 185 U. S. 296, 304, 305, 46 L. ed. 917, 921, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 686, it was held that the decision of the collector of customs on the right of transit across the territory of the United States was conclusive, and, still more to the point, in Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 39 L. ed. 1082, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 967, where the petitioner for habeas corpus alleged facts which, if true, gave him a right to enter and remain in the country, it was held that the decision of the collector was final as to whether or not he belonged to the privileged class.
It is true that it may be argued that these cases are not directly conclusive of the point now under decision. It may be said that the parties concerned were aliens, and that although they alleged absolute rights, and facts which it was contended went to the jurisdiction of the officer making the decision, still their rights were only treaty or statutory rights, and therefore were subject to the implied qualification imposed by the later statute, which made the decision of the collector with regard to them final. The meaning of the cases, and the language which we have quoted, is not satisfied by so narrow an interpretation, but we do not delay upon them. They can be read.
It is established, as we have said, that the act purports to make the decision of the Department final, whatever the ground on which the right to enter the country is claimed,—as well when it is citizenship as when it is domicil, and the belonging to a class excepted from the exclusion acts. United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 167, 48 L. ed. 917, 920, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 546, 547, 39 L. ed. 1082, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 967. It also is established by the former case and others which it cites that the relevant portion of the act of August 18, 1894 [28 Stat. at L. 372] chap. 301, is not void as a whole. The statute has been upheld and enforced. But the relevant portion being a single section, accomplishing all its results by the same general words, must be valid as to all that it embraces, or altogether void. An exception of a class constitutionally exempted cannot be read into those general words merely for the purpose of saving what remains. That has been decided over and over again. United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221, 23 L. ed. 563, 565; Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 98, 99, 25 L. ed. 550, 553, 554; Allen v Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 84, 26 L. ed. 318, 319; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 641, 642, 27 L. ed. 290, 294, 295, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 601; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 269, 305, 29 L. ed. 185, 197, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 962; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 685-689, 30 L. ed. 766, 768, 769, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 656, 763; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 455, ante, 289, 25 Sup....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cobb v. Department of Public Works
...1264; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 41 S. Ct. 298, 65 L. Ed. 516, 14 A. L. R. 1045; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90, 6 S. Ct. 988, 30 L. Ed. ...
-
People v. Betts
...banishment, these exclusion zones did not explicitly exile a registrant from the community. See United States v. Ju Toy , 198 U.S. 253, 269-270, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040 (1905). But they might have effectively banished a registrant from living within the community. For example, in urba......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hadley
...of persons engaged in a like business, and that the statute was not separable, the valid from the invalid. The case of Ju Toy, 189 U.S. 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 644, 49 L.Ed. 1040, the Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 25 L.Ed. 550, and recent case of Howard v. R.R., 28 Sup.Ct. 141, 207 U.S. 463, 52 L.......
-
Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...Ct. 800, 43 L. Ed. 88; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497, 508, 24 S. Ct. 789, 48 L. Ed. 1092; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; Red 'C' Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380, 394, 32 S. Ct. 152, 56 L. Ed. 240; Mutual Film Co. v. Indus......
-
THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
...9 (1915); Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460, 475-76 (1912); Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U.S. 8, 13 (1908); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 263 (1905); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 653, 694 (1898); In re Tom Yum, 64 F. 485, 489 (N.D. Cal. 1894); see also Recent C......
-
Deportation Arrest Warrants.
...to deportation was transportation, which was penal in nature."); Bleichmar, supra note 127, at 129; see also United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 269-70 (1905) (Brewer, J., dissenting) (stating that both "transportation" and "deportation" refer to the banishment or "forcible removal of a ......
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
...as illustrated by Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892); Kaplan v. Tod, 2iTl U.S. 228 (1925); and United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (98.) 426 U.S. 67, 78, 80 (1976). (99.) 459 U.S. 21, 23, 32 (1982) ("We agree with Plasencia that under the circumstances of this case, she ......
-
The Adjudicative State.
...in several dissents arguing for stronger due-process protections against exclusion and deportation. See, e.g., United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 264 (1905) (Brewer & Peckham, JJ., dissenting); United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161, 170 (1904) (Brewer & Peckham, JJ., dissenti......