Grant Brothers Construction Company v. United States
Citation | 34 S.Ct. 452,58 L.Ed. 776,232 U.S. 647 |
Decision Date | 16 March 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 182,182 |
Parties | GRANT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Plffs. in Err., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Isidore B. Dockweiler, A. C. Baker, and Robert B. Murphey for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 648-656 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General Wallace for defendant in error.
In an action of debt, tried to the court and a jury, in one of the district courts of the territory of Arizona, the United States recovered a judgment against the Grant Brothers Construction Company, a California corporation, for the prescribed penalty of $1,000 for each of forty-five alleged violations of § 4 of the alien immigration act of February 20, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 898, chap. 1134, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 499); and upon an appeal to the supreme court of the territory, the judgment was affirmed. 13 Ariz. 388, 114 Pac. 955. The construction company and the surety upon its supersedeas bond then sued out this writ of error, claiming that divers errors had been committed by the trial court which should have been, but were not, corrected by the appellant court.
The portions of the statute upon which the action was founded are as follows:
* * * * *
The petition contained forty-five counts, each charging, with considerable detail, that the defendant, by offers and promises of employment and by providing transportation and paying expenses, assisted, encouraged, and solicited the migration and importation into the United States from Mexico of a designated alien laborer who was not within the terms of either of the last two provisos in § 2 of the statute. A different alien laborer was named in each count, and the date of the offending act was given in all as October 29, 1909.
In a preliminary way, the evidence tended to show these facts: The construction company was building a line of railroad in southern Arizona, near Naco, a town on the international boundary. Laborers in large numbers were required for the work, and in August, 1909, the company employed one Carney to procure laborers for it and to take them to the vicinity of the work. For this he was to be paid $1 in gold for each laborer secured, and 20 cents for each meal provided while they were en route. It was contemplated that he would arrange with others to aid him, and he secured the assistance of Holler, Rupelius, and Randall, who, like himself, were located at Nogales, another boundary town. Under this employment Carney procured, and the company accepted, prior to the transaction in question, about 450 laborers, 95 per cent of whom were Mexicans. Many of these came across the line on their own initiative and were then engaged by Holler, but a substantial number were engaged in Mexico by Rupelius, and then brought into the United States at Nogales. Only a few days before the transaction in question, Rupelius gathered together 80 or 90 in Mexico, and induced them to enter the United States at Nogales by promising that the construction company would employ them, which it did.
As respects the forty-five laborers named in the petition there was evidence tending to show the following: These men were citizens of Mexico, and were unskilled laborers who were not within the exemptions specified in the last two provisos in § 2 of the statute. They were secured at Hermosillo, Mexico, by Rupelius, October 28, 1909, were brought into the United States, at Naco, by Randall the next day, were there taken into custody by an immigration inspector, and were examined before a board of special inquiry. The board found that they were alien contract laborers, ordered that they be excluded, and notified them of the order and of their right to an appeal. After consulting with the Mexican consul at Naco they waived that right, and most of them were returned to Mexico, a few being detained as witnesses. Rupelius had induced them to leave Hermosillo and come into the United States by offers and promises of employment by the construction company. They were brought to Naco upon a railroad pass procured by Carney, and purporting to have been issued on account of the construction company, and their only meal en route was provided by Holler at Carney's suggestion. During the latter part of their journey they were in charge of Randall, who had been directed by Carney to deliver them to McDonald, as agent of the construction company, who was expected to be at Naco to receive them. McDonald was there, having come in from one of the company's camps that day. He endeavored to hasten the proceedings before the board of inquiry in order that he might get the men out to the camp that afternoon, and also provided a meal for them while the proceedings were in progress. This was the first party of Mexicans that Carney had attempted to bring into the country at Naco. Others had been brought in at Nogales. According to his statement, the inspection officers at the latter place had been particularly liberal in admitting Mexican laborers procured for the construction company; and he suggested to the inspectors at Naco that like action on their part would be appreciated, but the suggestion did not find favor with them.
There were some direct contradictions in the evidence, different portions gave rise to opposing inferences, and parts of it were more or less improbable; but as it was the province of the jury to pass on such matters, which it did by the verdict, they require no other notice than they will receive presently.
As several of the alleged errors, not involving anything fundamental or jurisdictional, were not presented to the appellate court for consideration, they must be regarded as waived, and will be passed without further notice. Montana R. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348, 351, 34 L. ed. 681, 682, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 96; Gila Valley, G. & N. R. Co. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94, 98, 58 L. ed. ——, 34 Sup. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helvering v. Mitchell
...578, 31 S.Ct. 612, 55 L.Ed. 582; United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37, 34 S.Ct. 213, 58 L.Ed. 494; Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 660, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776; Murphy v. United States, 272 U.S. 630, 47 S.Ct. 218, 71 L.Ed. 446; Various Items v. United States, ......
-
United States v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
... ... railway company, alleging a violation of the Hours of Service ... Act (34 Stat. 1415) ... the incidents to such an action are costs and disbursements ... Grant Bros. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 665, 34 ... Sup.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed ... 279, 296, 22 Sup.Ct. 920, 46 ... L.Ed. 1164; Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United ... States, 232 U.S. 647, 665, 34 Sup.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed ... ...
-
Bowles v. Barde Steel Co.
...was an action to recover penalties for violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. It was held to be a civil action. Grant Brothers Construction Co. v. United States was an action of debt by the United States under a federal statute imposing a penalty for violation of the immigration law......
-
Attorney Gen. v. Pelletier
...by the informant. United States v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475, 16 Sup. Ct. 641, 40 L. Ed. 777;Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U. S. 647, 660, 34 Sup. Ct. 452, 58 L. Ed. 776. 2. The respondent, after the taking of evidence began, moved that paragraphs, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 be s......
-
Rule 803 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY — REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DECLARANT IS AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS
...disputed boundary, and pedigree. More recent recognition of the principle is found in Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776 (1914), in action for penalties under Alien Contract Labor Law, decision of board of inquiry of Immigration Service a......
-
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
...disputed boundary, and pedigree. More recent recognition of the principle is found in Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776 (1914), in action for penalties under Alien Contract Labor Law, decision of board of inquiry of Immigration Service a......
-
Decriminalization of Municipal Offenses in Colorado
...Brown, supra, note 2. 44. U.S. v. Helvering, 303 U.S. 391 (1938); U.S. v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475 (1896); Grant Bros. Constr. Co. v. U.S., 232 U.S. 647 (1914). 45. See, CRS § 42-4-1505.7(3); Rule 10, Colorado Rules on Traffic Infractions. 46. See, State v. Vance, 631 P.2d 843, 847, Note 4 (Or.......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 803 Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available As a Witness
...pedigree. More recent recognition of the principle is found in Grant Bros. Construction Co. v. United States, 232 U.S. 647, 34 S.Ct. 452, 58 L.Ed. 776 (1914), in action for penalties under Alien Contract Labor Law, decision of board of inquiry of Immigration Service admissible to prove alie......