Katz v. Commissioner of Immigration at Port of San Francisco, Cal.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | 2812. |
| Citation | 245 F. 316 |
| Parties | KATZ v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AT PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Marshall B. Woodworth, of San Francisco, Cal., and S. Luke Howe, of Sacramento, Cal., for appellant.
John W Preston, U.S. Atty., and Caspar A. Ornbaun, Asst. U.S. Atty both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before GILBERT and HUNT, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District judge.
The appellant, an alien, who has been a resident in this country since 1906, was adjudged and ordered to be deported by the commissioner of immigration of San Francisco, on the charge of being 'unlawfully within the United States, in that he has been found receiving, sharing in, or deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute or prostitutes. ' Subsequently appellant applied to the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, the petition setting forth, by way of an exhibit attached thereto, all of the proceedings had before the commissioner of immigration. A demurrer was interposed to the petition, which, after presentation and argument, was sustained; the court holding that, as it appeared that the appellant was the owner of a house in which prostitution was practiced and carried on, and had received rent thereon from an inmate thereof, one Nellie White, it should be held that he was 'deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute.'
Error is assigned by appellant on account of this holding. It is further urged on the part of the government that the petition otherwise shows on its face that the appellant is guilty of receiving the earnings of prostitutes.
We must seek for the purpose and object of the statute, in order that we may properly construe the provision which it is claimed appellant has violated. Section 2 of the act in question being that of February 20, 1907, as amended by Act March 26 1910 (36 Stat. 263, 264), relates to the exclusion of certain classes of aliens. These are specified as idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, etc., and among the rest 'prostitutes, or women or girls coming into the United States for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose,' and 'persons who are supported by or receive in whole or in part the proceeds of prostitution. ' The language relating to this class of persons is of the same import as that contained in section 3, under which the charge against appellant is preferred. That of the latter section is no broader, and manifestly it was not intended to extend to any persons other than the language of section 2 was designed to reach. The manifest purpose of Congress was to exclude aliens of that particular class, as well as those answering to the other classes enumerated. Section 3 was designed to reach aliens, although admitted into this country, who should thereafter be found guilty of the acts proscribed. But the classification as it respects persons receiving the earnings of prostitutes is the same in both sections. It is very clear what persons are meant to be included by the classification: 'An inmate of or connected with the management of a house of prostitution, or practicing prostitution.'
Over against this, but in the same connection, is included any alien who shall receive, share in, or derive benefit from the earnings of any prostitute. This alludes to another class but allied in association to the prostitute class. It is perfectly well known what this class is. There are many vile persons of the male sex, who allow themselves to be 'supported by' (using the language of section 2), and take the earnings of, fallen women, which they appropriate to their own particular use, and many of them have no other visible means of livelihood. This is not to say that women may not be guilty of living off the earnings of fallen women as well, nor that a man may not be guilty of keeping a brothel; but the two classes are clearly defined, so that there need be little uncertainty as to the style or character of persons Congress designed to comprise by such classification. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that the dry goods salesman or the grocer, who sells his goods to a fallen woman and takes the price from her, or a cabman, who carries her for hire and receives the hire from her, or, as in the present case, the landlord, who rents her abode to her and takes rental therefor, all or any of them were designed to be classified as persons who receive or derive benefit from the earnings of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley
...an action in the nature of a criminal proceeding. See Board of Supervisors v. Simpson, 36 Cal.2d 671, 227 P.2d 14; Katz v. Commissioner of Immigration, 9 Cir., 245 F. 316. The action under general equity powers for protection of public morals is a civil action. Defendant was entitled to hav......
-
American Bank of Alaska v. Johnson
... ... Heggerty, all of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error ... ...
-
Strench v. Pedaris, 489.
...ground alone the judgment in the habeas corpus case appealed from would have to be affirmed. See Katz v. Commissioner of Immigration (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit) 245 F. 316; Backus v. Owe Sam Goon (C. C. A.) 235 F. 847; Backus, Commissioner of Immigration v. Katz (C. C. A.) 245......
-
Iku Kono Ishihama v. Carr, 7846.
...that the appellant acted under the threats, command, or coercion of her husband. The appellant relies upon the decisions of Katz v. Commissioner, 245 F. 316, and Backus v. Katz, 245 F. 320, by this court. These decisions are not applicable, for, in those cases there is no evidence that the ......