New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 09 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 105. |
| Citation | 239 F. 130 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | NEW YORK CENT. & H.R.R. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
Allen & McClary, of Malone, N.Y., for plaintiff in error.
D. B Lucey, U.S. Atty., of Ogdensburg, N.Y., for defendant in error.
Before COXE, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought to recover five penalties, of $1,000 each under the immigration laws, for assisting and inducing five aliens to enter the United States from Canada to work as laborers on the defendant's railroad. The aliens in question did not enter the United States but it is asserted by the defendant in error that there was a violation of the statute by the railroad company's agents in encouraging and assisting the aliens to enter, although they never did enter the United States. The court rendered judgment for one penalty only, of $1,000.
The act of February 20, 1907, provides as follows:
Section 5 of the act provides for the punishment of any one violating the law by assisting, encouraging or soliciting the migration or importation of any contract laborer into the United States. It is clear that any one who does this has violated the law. The solicitation must necessarily be attempted while the laborer is outside the United States. No one can solicit a laborer already in the United States to enter the same. It is argued that in order to constitute a crime it is necessary that the soliciting should be successful, that is, the laborer must actually come to his country by reason thereof. We think, however, that under the phraseology of the statute, the soliciting is sufficient.
The action of the defendant in appearing, through its agents before the board of special inquiry and submitting the question to that board is persuasive evidence that Vincent and Canale, the defendant's agents, were ignorant of the law in question and had no intention of violating it. This, however, is a defense which is not available to the defendant. The railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John R. Thompson Co. v. District of Columbia
...U.S. 57, 70, 30 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed. 930; Reynolds v. United States, 1878, 98 U.S. 145, 167, 25 L.Ed. 244; New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 1917, 239 F. 130; Hemans v. United States, 6 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 228, certiorari denied, 332 U.S. 801, 68 S.Ct. 100, 92 L.Ed. 38......
-
United States v. River Spinning Co.
... ... (section 6) ... We are ... not inclined to follow the decisions in New York Central, ... etc., Co. v. United States, 239 F. 130, 152 C.C.A. 172, ... decided by ... [250 F ... ...
-
United States v. International Silver Co.
...the defendant incurred one penalty.' This ruling was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on appeal. 239 F. 130, 152 C.C.A. 172. So here there was but one transaction, all one act, and, even if the allegations of the second count be sufficient to state a cause of ......
-
United States v. Morrisey
... ... The defendant ... also cites United States v. Michigan Cent. R. Co ... (C.C.) 48 F. 365, but we confess we cannot see its ... application ... identical question here involved was presented in United ... States v. New York Central & H.R.R. Co. (in the District ... Court of the Northern District of New York in 1916) 232 ... ...