United States v. Sui Joy
| Citation | 240 F. 392 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2800-2802. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SUI JOY. SAME v. WONG YUEN. SAME v. CHING LUM. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
John W Preston, U.S. Atty., and Casper A. Ornbaun, Asst. U.S. Atty both of San Francisco, Cal.
E. A Mott-Smith, W. L. Stanley, and Stanley & Wilder, all of Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellees.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
These cases were heard in the court below upon writs of habeas corpus issued to determine the legality of orders of deportation made against the petitioning aliens and the returns of the inspector in charge to the writs. The charge against each was that he was found receiving, sharing in, and deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute, and deportation was ordered under the provisions of section 3 of the act of Congress of March 26, 1910, entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,' approved February 20, 1907. ' The court below entered orders discharging each of the appellees, holding that those persons who admittedly were residents of the territory of Hawaii before annexation thereof by the United States did not enter the United States, within the meaning of the act above referred to, and that Congress has no power to regulate the affairs of aliens within the United States, excepting under its constitutional authority 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations,' and that whereas, Congress may permit an alien immigrant to land under certain conditions as to conduct thereafter while in the country, involving forcible deportation upon his failure to perform such conditions, it may not deport alien residents for similar conduct, with whom there has been no such conditional entry into the United States.
Section 3 of the act of February 20, 1907 (34 Stat. 898), provides in part as follows:
'Any alien woman or girl who shall be found an inmate of a house of prostitution or practicing 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.'
The act of March 26, 1910 (36 Stat. 263), amends section 3 of the former act, and provides as follows:
'Any alien who shall be found an inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution or practicing prostitution after such alien shall have entered the United States, or who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute; or who is employed by, in, or in connection with any house of prostitution or music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or who in any way assists, protects or promises to protect from arrest any prostitute shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States and shall be deported in the manner provided by sections 20 and 21 of this act.'
It is admitted that the appellees in all these cases were resident aliens in the territory of Hawaii before the transfer of the sovereignty thereof to the United States. We are unable to agree with the court below that the clause 'after such alien shall have entered the United States' is to be read into the definition of the offense with which these three appellees are charged. The statute as we read it limits the application of that clause to alien women connected with the management of a house of prostitution or practicing prostitution. We think that Congress by the act has, in unlimited terms, provided that 'any alien * * * who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the earnings of any prostitute,' etc., shall be deemed to be unlawfully within the United States and shall be deported. But, even if that clause were applicable to the offense with which these appellees are charged, we are of the opinion, for reasons stated in United States v. Kimi Yamamoto, 240 F. 390,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nakazo Matsuda v. Burnett
...officers, without judicial intervention, — are principles firmly established by the decisions of this court." See, also, U. S. v. Sui Joy (C. C. A.) 240 F. 392, 394. In 1916, after an absence of approximately seven months, the appellants presented themselves for admission on passports limit......
- Tama Miyake v. United States
- United States v. Kimi Yamamoto