United States ex rel. Buccino v. Williams

• Decision Date: 10 October 1911
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. BUCCINO et al. v. WILLIAMS, Com'r of Immigration.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

190 F. 897

UNITED STATES ex rel. BUCCINO et al. v. WILLIAMS, Com'r of Immigration.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

October 10, 1911

Hobart S. Bird, for petitioners.

Daniel Day Walton, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for respondent.

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

Upon the hearing petitioner withdrew all charges in the petition against the good faith and conduct of the immigration officers, resting application upon three propositions only viz.:

(1) That the finding of the board that the alien was likely to become a public charge was a nullity for the alleged reason that the board had no evidence before it tending to sustain such finding.

(2) That upon the examination of the alien before the board he was denied the privilege and right to appear by counsel.

(3) That in examining into the alien's qualifications without counsel he was deprived of a right secured to him by a treaty between this country and Italy.

1. As to the first of these propositions, the board had before it the certificate of the examining surgeons that Thomas Buccino was undersized, and 'had varicose veins of the left leg which affects his ability to earn a living. ' Moreover the alien was present in person, and they had opportunity during the examination which they conducted to form an opinion as to his physical and mental qualifications for earning a livelihood. Ever since the decision of the Supreme Court in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S 651, 12 Sup.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146,

it has, so far as I know, been held in this circuit that, if the board of inspectors had the alien before them so that they might themselves inspect and examine him, there was sufficient before them to warrant his exclusion on the ground that he was liable to become a public charge if in their discretion they reached such a conclusion.

Nothing which has been presented on this argument persuades me to reverse this holding. It seems to me at least to be in strict conformity to the rule enunciated in the Ekiu Case and to the proposition enunciated in a host of other cases that the decisions of these boards are not to be set aside by the courts, because they think the weight of testimony does not support the board's conclusion. Speaking for myself, I may also say that, if I were a member of one of these boards of inspection, I should find the statements of relatives and friends that they would look after the new-comer far less persuasive than the enlightenment as to his qualifications to support himself which I might obtain from seeing and talking with him.

2. No authority is cited which sustains the proposition that upon the examination of an alien arriving in this country by the board of inspectors he is...