Prentis v. Seu Leung

• Decision Date: 07 January 1913
• Docket Number: 1,901.
• Citation: 203 F. 25
• Parties: PRENTIS v. SEU LEUNG.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

203 F. 25

PRENTIS v. SEU LEUNG.

No. 1,901.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 7, 1913

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Kenesaw M Landis, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Seu Leung against P. L. Prentis, immigrant inspector in charge at Chicago. From an order discharging petitioner from custody, the inspector appeals. Reversed with directions.

DPOn November 23, 1910, appellee, a Chinaman, was arrested by Immigrant Inspector Thompson as he alighted from a train at Sixty-third street, Chicago, Ill., and taken to the immigration office in Chicago, where he was sworn and examined for the purpose of showing whether or not he was lawfully entitled to be and remain in the United States. Not being able to understand the English language, he was examined through an interpreter. The questions and answers of appellee on this hearing were reduced to writing and forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and are made part of the return of P. L. Prentis, immigration inspector of the United States in charge at Chicago, which return was not traversed by appellee. At this hearing appellee stated that he was born in China in the village of Sue Cong, District of Hoy Yuen; that his father was once here, but that his mother never was; that he was married in China in 1901, and first came to this country in 1902, when he was smuggled in; that he sailed from San Francisco for China in 1908; that he landed at Vancouver, Canada, where he paid a head tax of $100, the receipt of which he had thrown away; that after one week he came to the United States two or three days before making the statement; that he lived in Toronto, Canada, just before he came to the United States that he and one Sue Wah You, whom he had met in China, were rowed across the river by a white man, to whom each paid $40; and that he took a train at night to Ann Arbor, Mich., where he met Chin Coon Poy and remained a few hours.

On this information a warrant was issued by the Acting Secretary of Commerce and Labor for the arrest of appellee, with directions to the said inspector to give him a hearing to enable him to show cause why he should not be deported. Appellee was arrested under said warrant, and taken before the inspector and granted a hearing. He was represented at this latter hearing by counsel, and produced several witnesses and his own interpreter. Sue Wah You, one of his witnesses, swore than he and appellee came together from Vancouver to Windsor, Canada, where they remained about two months; that they came across the river with a white man in a rowboat at night; that they were to pay one Hin Lun of Detroit $50 for the rower and $150 when they reached Chicago; that they were taken to Ann Arbor in a trolley car by one Lee Wah, who paid their fares; that they took the train from Ann Arbor to Chicago, and left the train at Sixty-Third Street.

Appellee testified that he was born in San Francisco, and otherwise disowned his first statement on vital points, claiming that he could not understand statements attributed to him on the first hearing. The other witnesses, was interpreter i the present case, and that he did not remember making the statements attributed to him on the first hearings. The other witnesses, Suey Sai Chon, Sui Quay, and eugene Sin, gave corroborating testimony. The evidence on this second hearing, together with the report of the inspector, and the said statement under oath of appellee made November 23, 1910, was submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, whereupon the warrant of deportation complained of was issued under and by virtue of Act Cong. Feb. 208 1907, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, as amended by the act approved March 26, 1910, c. 128, 36 Stat. 263 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 500). Thereupon appellee filed his petition herein for writ of habeas corpus. The return of the inspector Prentis thereto sets out all the evidence taken on he first and second hearings as aforesaid, and the submission thereof to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and contained the further statement that appellee had been brought to Chicago by one W. S. Lee, another Chinaman, who had theretofore pleaded guilty in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to the charge of importing appellee. None of the allegations of the return were traversed. On the hearing no claim was made that appellee had not been given a full and fair hearing. No evidence other than that set out in the petition and return was heard by the District Court. Such further proceeding were had in said cause that on March 22, 1912, appellee was ordered discharged from custody, from which judgment of the court the inspector prayed and obtained this appeal.

For errors, appellant assigns: (1) that the District Court should have limited its inquiry in the first instance to the question, 'Was appellee given a fair hearing by the Secretary to Commerce and Labor, and did he have an opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf?' (2) that, without determining that matter, the District Court proceeded to weigh the evidence produced and dispose of the case upon the merits; and (3) did not give due weight to the finding and order of deportation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

John F. Voight and James H. Wilkerson, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Benjamin C. Bachrach, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.

KOHLSAAT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Under the act of February 20, 1907, to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States, any Chinese alien who enters the United States unlawfully may be summarily deported by order of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor at any time within three years. United States v. Wong You et al., 223 U.S. 67, 32 Sup.Ct. 195, 56 L.Ed. 354, decided by the United States Supreme Court on January...