Ex parte Young

• Decision Date: 19 February 1914
• Docket Number: 2628.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: Ex parte YOUNG et al.

211 F. 370

Ex parte YOUNG et al.

No. 2628.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

February 19, 1914

R. W McClelland, H. A. P. Myers, and Walter L. Johnstone, all of Seattle, Wash., for petitioners.

Clay Allen, U.S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., and G. P. Fishburne Asst. U.S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash.

CUSHMAN District Judge.

The above petitioners, for discharge upon habeas corpus, have been ordered deported; the warrant of deportation reading:

'Whereas from proofs submitted to me, after due hearing before Immigrant Inspector B.A. Hunter, held at Seattle, Wash., I have become satisfied that the aliens Albert H. Young and Kamasaburo Sugiura, alias B.K. Sugiura, who landed at some unknown port, have been found in the United States in violation of the act of Congress approved February 20, 1907, amended by the act approved March 26, 1910, to wit: That the said aliens are unlawfully within the United States in that they have been found assisting a prostitute and protecting, or promising to protect from arrest, a prostitute, and may be deported in accordance therewith: I, J. B. Densmore, Acting Secretary of Labor, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, do hereby command you to return the said aliens to Japan, the country from whence they came. * * *'

The warrant for their arrest recited:

'That the said aliens are unlawfully within the United States in that they have been found assisting, protecting, or promising to protect from arrest a prostitute or prostitutes.'

The act under which they were ordered deported provides:

'That any alien * * * 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 twenty and twenty-one of this act. ' Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1907, as amended March 26, 1910, 36 Stat.at L., p. 264.

Petitioners rely upon the following authorities: United States v. Sibray (C.C.) 178 F. 148, 149; 36 Cyc.p. 1118; People v. Chicago. 152 Ill. 546-552, 38 N.E. 746; U.S. v. Williams, 200 F. 541, 542, 118 C.C.A. 632; Id. (C.C.) 189 F. 917; Frick v. Lewis, 195 F. 696, 115 C.C.A. 493; U.S. v. Martin (D.C.) 193 F. 797, 798; Ex parte Saraceno (C.C.) 182 F. 957; Ex parte Petterson (D.C.) 166 F. 539; Chin Yow v. U.S., 208 U.S. 11, 28 Sup.Ct. 201, 52 L.Ed. 369; Ex parte Long Lock (D.C.) 173 F. 208; Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 23 Sup.Ct. 611, 47 L.Ed. 721.

Respondent relies upon the following authorities: In re Unlawful Detention of Moola Singh and Seventy-Two other Hindoo Aliens (Case No. 2532) 207 F. (D.C.) 780; Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 12 Sup.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 644, 49 L.Ed. 1040; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 15 Sup.Ct. 967, 39 L.Ed. 1092; Du Bruler v. Gallo, 184 F. 566, at 569, 106 C.C.A. 546; Williams v. U.S., 186 F. 479, 108 C.C.A. 457; Sinis Calchi v. Thomas, 195 F. 701, 115 C.C.A. 501; United States v. Williams (D.C.) 175 F. 274.

The grounds urged for discharge are that petitioners have not had a fair hearing and that there was no evidence whatever to support the charge in the warrant of arrest, or the finding in the warrant of deportation:

'That the said aliens (petitioners) are unlawfully within the United States, in that they have been found assisting, protecting, or promising to protect from arrest a prostitute or prostitutes.'

It is not necessary to determine, concerning the warrant of arrest, whether the charge, as set forth therein, would be sufficient to apprise petitioners with that of which they were accused, it not alleging the time, place, or naming the prostitute or prostitutes alleged to have been assisted, protected, or promised protection from arrest, as proceedings of this character are summary in their nature; and, if it appears from the return that petitioners were actually apprised of the nature of the accusation against them and had a fair hearing thereon, it is sufficient.

Petitioners were represented at the deportation hearing by one of their present counsel. They were tried and heard together. Petitioner Young, being first sworn and examined, was asked at the commencement of the examination and proceeding: their present counsel. They were tried and heard together. Petitioner Young, being first sworn and examined, was asked at the commencement of the examination and proceeding:

'Q. I believe that you have been tried in the United States court for certain offenses? A. Yes, I have been tried twice on the same offense.

'Q. What offense? A. Aiding and abetting in transporting a Japanese girl, Hana Saito, in the interstate commerce from Seattle to San Francisco, and I was tried in February, 1913, and acquitted, and I was reindicted by a grand jury, last grand jury, and tried for conspiring to violate the same Mann Act, and again acquitted for transporting Hana Saito. I have been acquitted by the jury on a second trial and rearrested by departmental warrant for practically the same thing.'

The foregoing plainly shows that petitioners knew with what they were charged upon the deportation hearing.

The evidence shows that the woman, Hana Saito, had, prior to coming to Seattle, lived in a house of prostitution; that after coming to Seattle, she was followed from San Francisco by a Japanese named Washio; and that the petitioners, at his solicitation, secured transportation for him and the woman to San Francisco and accompanied them by steamer to that city. When they arrived in San Francisco, the four went direct to the house of prostitution where Hana Saito had formerly been. There is some testimony that, before securing tickets to San Francisco, the...