United States v. Laws

• Citation: 163 U.S. 258,16 S.Ct. 998,41 L.Ed. 151
• Decision Date: 18 May 1896
• Docket Number: No. 248,248
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. LAWS
• Court: United States Supreme Court

163 U.S. 258

16 S.Ct. 998

41 L.Ed. 151

UNITED STATES

v LAWS.

No. 248.

May 18, 1896.

Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes here upon a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case came before that court by writ of error to the judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Ohio, Western division. Upon being presented to the circuit court of appeals, it appeared from the record that the following question or proposition of law arose in the case, concerning which the court desired the instruction of this court as to the proper decision thereof. The following is the question, as stated:

'Is a contract made with an alien in a foreign country to come to this country as a chemist on a sugar plantation in Louisiana, in pursuance of which contract such alien does come to this country, and is employed on a sugar plantation in Louisiana, and his expenses paid by the defendant, a contract to perform labor or service, as prohibited in the act of congress passed February 26, 1885?'

The court certified the following as being a summarized statement of the facts appearing in the bill of exceptions made under the direction of the judges of the court, viz.:

'Statement of Facts. A. Seeliger was on or about July 22, 1889, a citizen of the German Empire, residing at Dormangen, Germany. At that date it is claimed that the defendant made a contract with him to come to the United States as a chemist on a sugar plantation in Louisiana, and that Seeliger agreed to come to the United States for that purpose, and that the defendant paid his expenses to the United States; that Seeliger paid his expenses to the United States; that Seeliger came to the United States, and went to Louislana, and was there employed on a sugar plantation, as chemist, under the direction of the defendant.'

It will be noticed that in the foregoing statement of facts there is a plain contradiction as to which party paid Seeliger's expenses,—whether he paid them himself, or whether the defendant paid them, it being stated both ways. This is unquestionably a mere clerical error, because, in the question which is certified to this court, the statement is plainly made that the expenses of Seeliger were paid by the defendant. We must assume, therefore, that such is the fact.

The act of congress under which the question arises, passed February 26, 1885 (23 Stat. 332), is entitled 'An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.' The first and second sections thereof read as follows:

'Section 1. Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia.

Sec. 2. That all contracts or agreements, express or implied, parol or special, which may hereafter be made by and between any person, company, partnership or corporation, and any foreigner or foreigners, alien or aliens, to perform labor or service or having reference to the performance of labor or service by any person in the Uni ed States, its territories or the District of Columbia previous to the migration or importation of the person or persons whose labor or service is contracted for into the United States, shall be utterly void and of no effect.'

The third and fourth sections are not material here. The fifth section, after providing for certain exceptions to the provisions of the first two sections, further enacts that the act shall not apply 'to professional actors, crtists, lecturers or singers, nor to persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants.'

While this act was in force a suit was brought in the circuit court for the Southern district of New York, in favor of the United States, against the rector, etc., of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in the city of New York. It was brought to recover the penalty of $1,000, as provided for in the act; and in the course of the trial it appeared that the defendant was a religious corporation, and had engaged a Mr. Warren, an alien residing in England, to come to the city of New York, and take charge of its church as pastor. It was claimed on the part of the United States that the church corporation, in making that contract with Mr. Warren, had violated the first section of the act in question. It was held by the circuit court that the contract was within the statute, and that the defendant was liable for the penalty provided for therein. U. S. v. Rector, etc., of Church of Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. 303.

In the course of his opinion the learned circuit judge said:

'It was no doubt primarily the object of the act to prohibit the introduction of assisted immigrants, brought here under contracts previously made by corporations and capitalists to prepay their passage and obtain their services at low wages for limited periods of time. It was a measure introduced and advocated by the trades union and labor associations, designed to shield the interests represented by such organizations from the effects of the competition in the labor market of foreigners brought here under contracts having a tendency to stimulate immigration and reduce the rates of wages. Except from the language of the statute, there is no reason to suppose a contract like the present to be within the evils which the law was designed to suppress; and, indeed, it would not be indulging a violent supposition to assume that no legislative body in this country would have advisedly enacted a law framed so as to cover a case like the present.'

Nevertheless the circuit court felt bound by what it regarded the plain terms of the statute to hold that the defendant had violated the act, and was therefore amenable to its penalties.

The court was strengthened in its construction of the statute in question by the terms of the proviso above alluded to, contained in the fifth section, which excepted from the act professional actors, artists, lecturers, and singers. The circuit judge said: 'If, without this exemption, the act would apply to this class of persons, because such persons come here under contracts for labor or service, then, clearly, it must apply to ministers, lawyers, surgeons, architects, and all others who labor in any professional calling. Unless congress supposed the act to apply to the excepted classes, there was no necessity for the proviso. * * * Giving effect to this well-settled rule of statutory interpretation, the proviso is equivalent to a declaration that contracts to perform professional services, except those of actors, artists, lecturers, or singers, are within the prohibition of the preceding sections.' Page 305.

The defendant in the action brought the case to this court for review, where the judgment of the circuit court was reversed, and it was held that the statute did not apply to such a contract. The opinion of this court was delivered by Mr. Justice Brewer, and is reported in 143 U. S. 457, 12 Sup. Ct. 511. In the course of that opinion the title of the act in question was referred to and commented upon, and it was tated, in speaking of the title, that 'obviously the thought expressed in this reaches only to the work of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that of the professional man. No one reading such a title would suppose that congress had in its mind any purpose of staying the coming into this country of ministers of the gospel, or, indeed, of any class whose toil is that of the brain.'

It was further stated in the opinion as follows:

'Again another guide to the meaning of a statute is found in the evil which it is designed to remedy; and for this the court properly looks at contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and as it was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body. U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 79. The situation which called for this statute was briefly but fully stated by Mr. Justice Brown when, as district judge, he decided the case of U. S. v. Craig, 28 Fed. 795, 798: 'The motives and history of the act are matters of common knowledge. It had become the practice for large capitalists in this country to contract with their agents abroad for the shipment of great numbers of an ignorant and servile class of foreign laborers, under contracts by which the...