United States v. Uhl

• Citation: 203 F. 152
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. MYLIUS v. UHL, Acting Immigration Com'r.
• Decision Date: 19 February 1913
• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

203 F. 152

UNITED STATES ex rel. MYLIUS v. UHL, Acting Immigration Com'r.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

February 19, 1913

Simon O. Pollock, of New York City, for relator.

Henry A. Wise, of New York City, U.S. Atty., for respondent.

NOYES Circuit Judge.

Congress has not declared in general terms that all immigrants who have been convicted of crime shall be denied admission to the United States. The immigration laws divide offenses. They provide that aliens shall be excluded in case they have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. established? (2) Is the crime one which involves moral turpitude?

In determining whether aliens are entitled to admission, the immigration authorities act in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity. They must follow definite standards and apply general rules. Consequently, in classifying offenses I think that they must designate as crimes involving moral turpitude those which in their inherent nature include it. Their function is not, as it seems to me, to go behind judgments of conviction and determine with respect to the acts disclosed by the testimony the questions of purpose motive and knowledge which are often determinative of the moral character of acts. Besides, the testimony is seldom available and to consider it in one case and not in another is to depart from uniformity of treatment. In my opinion when it has been shown that an immigrant has been convicted of a crime, the only duty of the administrative officials is to determine whether that crime should be classified as one involving moral turpitude, according to its nature and not according to the particular facts and circumstances accompanying a commission of it. I do not think the immigration law intends that where two aliens are shown to have been convicted of the same kind of crime, the authorities should inquire into the evidence upon which they were convicted and admit the one and exclude the other. It is true that if they do not take such course some aliens who have been convicted of high crimes may be excluded although their particular acts evidence no immorality and that some who have been convicted of slight offenses may be admitted although the facts surrounding their commission may be such as to indicate moral obliquity. But such results always follow the use of fixed standards and such standards are, in my opinion, necessary for the efficient administration of the immigration laws.

This petitioner is an alien seeking admission to this country and it was established before the immigration officials that he had been convicted in England of the offense of criminal libel in that he had published defamatory statements regarding His Majesty the King. The officials went further examined the report of the proceedings at the trial and determined therefrom that the acts of the petitioner involved moral turpitude. Thereupon they found that he had been convicted of a crime embracing it and ordered his exclusion.

For the reasons stated I shall not, in reviewing the action of the executive officers, follow them into a discussion of the proceedings before judgment in the English court. It is proper, therefore, to emphasize that no conclusion which I may reach in interpreting these immigration statutes can be regarded as in the slightest degree minimizing the serious character of the petitioner's acts as disclosed, nor as reflecting in any way upon the fairness and regularity of his trial. If the petitioner be discharged it will be solely because I regard the offense of criminal libel as not involving in its inherent nature moral turpitude.

What then, is the crime of criminal libel and what is moral turpitude? To maliciously publish defamatory words of a person was a misdemeanor at common law. To 'maliciously publish any defamatory libel' is the provision of Lord Campbell's...