United States v. John Bitty

Decision Date24 February 1908
Docket NumberNo. 503,503
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. JOHN BITTY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Attorney General Bonaparte and Assistant Attorney General Cooley for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 394 intentionally omitted] Mr. Edward A. Alexander for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 395-397 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a criminal prosecution under an act of Congress regulating the immigration of aliens into the United States.

By the act of March 3d, 1875, chap. 141, relating to immigration, it was made a felony, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years and by fine not exceeding $5,000, for anyone knowingly and wilfully to import or to cause the importation of women into the United States for the purposes of 'prostitution.' 18 Stat. at L. 477, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1285.

By the act of March 3d, 1903, chap. 1012, it was provided: 'That the importation into the United States of any woman or girl for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden; and whoever shall import or attempt to import any woman or girl into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall hold or attempt to hold any woman or girl for such purposes in pursuance of such illegal importation, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years, and pay a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.' 32 Stat. at L. 1213, 1214.

A more comprehensive statute regulating the immigration of aliens into the United States was passed on February 20th, 1907. By that act the prior act of 1903 (except one section) was repealed. The 3d section of this last statute was in these words: 'That the importation into the United States of any alien woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, is hereby forbidden; and whoever shall, directly or indirectly, import, or attempt to import, into the United States, any alien woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, or whoever shall hold or attempt to hold any alien woman or girl for any such purpose in pursuance of such illegal importation, or whoever shall keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor in any house or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, any alien woman or girl, within three years after she shall have entered the United States, shall, in every such case, be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned not more than five years and pay a fine of not more than five thousand dollars; and any alien woman or girl who shall be found an inmate of a house of prostitution or practising prostitution, at any time within three years after she shall have entered the United States, shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States and shall be deported as provided by sections twenty and twenty-one of this act.' 34 Stat. at L. 898, chap. 1134, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 389.

The defendant in error, Bitty, was charged by indictment in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York with the offense of having unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously imported into the United States from England a certain named alien woman for 'an immoral purpose,' namely, 'that she should live with him as his concubine.'

The circuit court having sustained a demurrer to the indictment and dismissed the case, the United States prosecuted this writ of error under the authority of the act of March 2d, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 209). That statute authorizes a writ of error, on behalf of the United States, from the district or circuit courts directly to this court in all criminal cases in which an indictment is quashed or set aside or in which a demurrer to the indictment or any count thereof is sustained, 'where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded.'

The demurrer to the indictment was sustained and the indictment dismissed upon the ground that the statute, properly construed, did not make it an offense for one to bring and import an alien woman into the United States for the purpose of having her live with him as his concubine. The case is, therefore, one in which the United States was entitled, under the above act of 1907, to prosecute a writ of error from this court unless, as the accused suggests, the act is unconstitutional in that it authorizes the United States in the cases specified to bring the case directly to this court, but does not allow the accused to bring it here when a demurrer to the indictment or to some count thereof is overruled. There is no merit in this suggestion. Except in cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party—in which cases this court may exercise original jurisdiction—we can exercise appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make in the other cases to which, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends. Const. art. 3, § 2. What such exceptions and regula- tions should be it is for Congress, in its wisdom, to establish, having, of course, due regard to all the provisions of the Constitution. If a court of original jurisdiction errs in quashing, setting aside, or dismissing an indictment for an alleged offense against the United States, upon the ground that the statute on which it is based is unconstitutional, or upon the ground that the statute does not embrace the case made by the indictment, there is no mode in which the error can be corrected and the provisions of the statute enforced, except the case be brought here by the United States for review. Hence—that there might be no unnecessary delay in the administration of the criminal law, and that the courts of original jurisdiction may be instructed as to the validity and meaning of the particular criminal statute sought to be enforced—the above act of 1907 was passed. Surely such an exception or regulation is in the discretion of Congress to prescribe, and does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • April 24, 1911
    ... ... [186 F. 874] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [186 F. 875] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [186 F. 876] ... John ... McCourt, U.S. Atty., B. D. Townsend, and Tracy C. Becker, ... Special Counsel for the Government ... P. F ... Dunne, Wm. D ... 147; United ... States v. Winn, 3 Sumn. 209, 211, Fed. Cas. No. 16,740; ... [186 F. 892] ... United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 402, 28 ... Sup.Ct. 396, 52 L.Ed. 543 ... Furthermore, ... interpretation must be had in the light of the conditions ... ...
  • Roe v. Butterworth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 10, 1997
    ...a crime."). See also Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697, 106 S.Ct. 3172, 92 L.Ed.2d 568 (1986); United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401, 28 S.Ct. 396, 398, 52 L.Ed. 543 (1908); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917). Various justices have also e......
  • Alabama Power Co. v. Gulf Power Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • March 15, 1922
    ... 283 F. 606 ALABAMA POWER CO. v. GULF POWER CO. et al. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama. March 15, 1922 ... [283 F. 607] ... It was ... further applied in U.S. v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 28 ... Sup.Ct. 396, 52 L.Ed. 543, construing the statute ... ...
  • Cleveland v. United States Darger v. Same Jessop v. Same Dockstader v. Same Stubbs v. Same Petty v. Same 19
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1946
    ...other immoral purpose'. The decision turns on the meaning of the latter phrase, 'for any other immoral purpose'. United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 28 S.Ct. 396, 52 L.Ed. 543, involved a prosecution under a federal statute making it a crime to import an alien woman 'for the purpose of pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917) (prohibition on interstate transportation of any woman for an "immoral purpose"); United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 398 (1908) (prohibition on importing any alien woman for an "immoral (93.) See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2320......
  • Interring the Immigration Rule of Lenity
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 99, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...harmonizes with the context and the end in view." (citing United States v. Mescall, 215 U.S. 26, 31-32 (1909); United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 402 (1908); Johnson v. S. Pac. Co., 196 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1904); United States v. Hartwell, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 385, 395 (1868))); Corbett, 215 U.S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT