Hanges v. Whitfield

• Decision Date: 03 December 1913
• Citation: 209 F. 675
• Parties: HANGES et al. v. WHITFIELD, Immigrant Inspector, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

209 F. 675

HANGES et al. v. WHITFIELD, Immigrant Inspector, et al.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

December 3, 1913

Williams & Breese and Rule & Shipley, all of Mason City, Iowa, for petitioners.

A. Van Wagenen, U.S. Atty., of Sioux City, Iowa, for defendants.

REED District Judge.

A writ of habeas corpus was issued against the defendants November 12, 1913, upon application of the petitioners therefor, to which the defendants have answered or made return. The evidence taken upon this hearing shows that complaint was made to the Bureau of Immigration some time prior to October 7, 1913, by certain of the police officers of Mason City Iowa, that the petitioners, who are aliens and citizens of Greece, were or might be unlawfully within the United States. The matter was referred to the defendant S. L. Whitfield, as inspector of the Bureau of Immigration, who procured at Mason City the ex parte statements of certain women and girls, and other persons in that city, which purport to have been sworn to before the defendant Whitfield as such inspector, and tend to show that two of the petitioners, viz., George Hanges and Demetrios Lampere were proprietors of a restaurant in Mason City; that the other two were employed by them in said restaurant as waiters; also, that women and girls who had been previously employed in the restaurant were of ill repute and practiced prostitution in rooms over the same. This so-called testimony was taken in the absence of the petitioners, without notice to them, and was forwarded by the inspector from Mason City to the Bureau of Immigration at Washington, October 23, 1913. On the same day he sent to the Bureau a telegraphic message in cipher requesting that a telegraphic warrant issue for the arrest of the petitioners. Upon receipt of this message the Bureau of Immigration granted the request and sent to the inspector at Mason City a telegraphic message in cipher, which translated reads as follows:

'Western Union Telegraph Co., Washington, D.C., Oct. 24, 1913.

'Whitfield Immigrant Inspector, Mason City, Ia.

'Arrest the following named aliens and bring before yourself for hearing, forwarding record of proceedings to the Department Demetrios Lampere, Steve Pantza, George Hanges, and Pete Francas. Aliens employed by, in, or in connection with a music or dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually frequented by prostitutes or where prostitutes gather. Aliens connected with the management of house of prostitution. Aliens found receiving, sharing in, or deriving benefit from a part or the whole of the earnings of any prostitute.

J. B Densmore, Acting Secretary.'

Upon receipt of this warrant Inspector Whitfield arrested the petitioners, and, without informing them of their right to counsel, examined each of them separately and at length, and at the conclusion of the examination asked of each this question:

'Q. Do you understand that you are charged in this warrant with being unlawfully in the United States, in that you are employed in a house of prostitution, music or dance hall, or other place where prostitutes gather; that you are connected with the management of a house of prostitution; that you are found receiving, sharing in, or deriving benefit from a part or the whole of the earnings of prostitutes?'

Each answered: 'Yes, I understand.'

'Q. Are you satisfied with this hearing that has been given you, or do you desire to be represented by an attorney?'

Each answered: 'I want an attorney, or lawyer.' No testimony was taken by the inspector after the receipt of the telegraphic warrant and the arrest and examination of the petitioners. After completing their examination, and taking the testimony in their behalf a few days later, he forwarded to the Bureau of Immigration the copy of the ex parte affidavits taken by him prior to his application for the warrant of arrest and the examination of the petitioners and the testimony taken in their behalf and recommended that warrants issue for the deportation of the petitioners.

There are some 20 of the so-called affidavits taken before the inspector at various times from October 7th to October 23d, inclusive, the date of the application for the warrant of arrest. It would unnecessarily extend this opinion to set forth these alleged affidavits in full or even an abstract of them. It must suffice to say of the contents of the so-called affidavits, and other testimony taken by the inspector, that most of it is but hearsay, and would be inadmissible against the petitioners for any purpose whatever in any judicial proceeding where the established rules of evidence prevail. Some of the girls, however, relate conversations they say they had with some of the petitioners, and some say they had sexual intercourse with one or two of them at places other than in the restaurant or in the rooms over the same. One of the petitioners, George Hanges, admits that he had sexual intercourse with one of the women several months before the hearing, on the farm where she and her husband lived; and another, Steve Pantza, admits that he was at an apartment house in Mason City with another of the girls more than a year before he was examined. Aside from this, the petitioners in the main deny the statements of the women or girls.

The purport of the testimony and the method of procuring it has been thus stated for the reason that the petitioners allege, as a ground for the issuance of the writ and to sustain the same, that they have been denied a legal, fair, and impartial hearing or trial upon the charges against them as grounds for their deportation.

The court will not in proceedings of this character consider the testimony or the weight thereof, if properly and fairly taken, to determine whether or not it is sufficient to warrant the deportation of an alien. That would be for the proper immigration officials to determine. But the court may, and it is its duty to, consider the manner of procuring the testimony, its competency and legal admissibility against the petitioners, and determine whether or not they have had a fair and impartial hearing or trial. Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U.S. 8, 28 Sup.Ct. 201, 52 L.Ed. 369; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 237, 238, 239, 16 Sup.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140; United States v. Sibray (C.C.) 178 F. 144; United States v. Williams (D.C.) 185 F. 398; Roux v. Commissioner of Immigration, 203 F. 413, 121 C.C.A. 523; United States v. Williams (D.C.) 193 F. 228.

The Immigration Act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, as amended by the Act of March 26, 1910, c. 128, 36 Stat. 263 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 499), provides, in effect: That any alien who shall enter the United States in violation of law, and such as become public charges from causes existing prior to landing, shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor (now Secretary of Labor), be taken into custody and deported to the country whence he came at any time after the date of his entry into the United States. Section 20. That in case the Secretary of Labor shall be satisfied that an alien has been found in the United States in violation of the act, or that an alien is subject to deportation under the provisions thereof, or of any law of the United States, he shall cause such alien to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came, in the manner provided by section twenty of the act. Section 21. That the Commissioner General of Immigration shall under the direction of the Secretary of Labor have charge of the administration of all laws relating to the immigration of aliens into the United States, and shall establish such rules and regulations, and issue from time to time such instructions, not inconsistent with law, as he shall deem best calculated for carrying out the provisions of the act, and for protecting the United States, and aliens migrating thereto from fraud and loss. Section 22. That immigrant inspectors and other immigration officers, clerks, and employes shall be appointed from time to time by the Secretary of Labor, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner General of Immigration, and that immigration officers shall have power to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence touching the right of any alien to enter the United States, and, when necessary, to make a written record of such evidence. Section 24.

Rule 22 of the Immigration Rules of November 15, 1911, so far as applicable, provides that officers shall make thorough investigation of all cases where they are credibly informed or have reason to believe that a specified alien in the United States is subject to arrest and deportation on warrant. Subdivision 1.

The application for the warrant of arrest must state facts bringing the alien within one or more of the classes subject to deportation after entry. The proof of these facts should be the best that can be obtained.

Note: Usually affidavits stating facts on affiants' own knowledge should be obtained. Subdivision 2.

'Execution of...