United States v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 14 May 1901 |
| Citation | 109 F. 891 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MORRISON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Lewis Miles, U.S. Atty.
John F Lacey and William R. Lacey, for defendant.
November 22, 1900, on an ex parte application, the court granted leave to the United States attorney to file an information against the defendant, accusing him of a violation of the laws prohibiting the giving of aid to the bringing of aliens to this country under contract. The information filed is in two counts. The first count in substance charges that defendant a resident of Grinnell, Iowa, did in June, 1900, aid in bringing from Prague, Austria, one Adolph Zuza, a cutter of ladies' kid gloves, who was then a native, resident, and citizen of Prague, Austria, and then a subject of the emperor of Austria. Zuza was not a singer, lecturer, minister of the gospel, actor, artist, professor of a college, and not a member of defendant's family or his secretary. He was a cutter of ladies' kid gloves, and had no other occupation or profession, and did not, and was not to, sustain any other relation in this country, either to the defendant or any other person, than as such cutter for defendant. The information also charges that, while Zuza was still in Austria, he and defendant entered into an agreement by which Zuza was to perform labor in this country, and under which agreement he came to the United States with money furnished him by defendant for his transportation; that the agreement preceded furnishing the aid, and preceded Zuza's coming to America pursuant to the agreement; that Zuza did come from Austria to the United States under said agreement, and after having received the aid in transportation from defendant, to perform in the United States the services and labor of cutting ladies' kid gloves. And the information them charges:
'And the said Adolph Zuza was not * * * then and there a skilled workman under any contract and agreement to perform labor and services in the United States in or upon any industry not them established in the United States, and not established in the United States February 26, A.D. 1885.'
The second count of the information is in the same language as the first, excepting as to the name of the other person of Austria to whom aid was furnished, and who came to the United States. The information was duly verified by the United States attorney. A warrant for defendant's arrest was issued, and he has demurred to the information. There is no claim but that the information is in due form, and that it has all allegations and recitals necessary to constitute a crime, if a person who is a ladies' kid glove cutter is such a person as is prohibited from being brought to this country under agreement and with aid furnished him to enable him to come.
The grounds of the demurrer are that a ladies' kid glove cutter is an expert mechanic; that he is not a person engaged in common or ordinary manual labor; that the business requires skill; that February 26, 2885, the business of making ladies' kid gloves was not an established industry in the United States; that the trade of a ladies' kid glove cutter requires skill and intelligence, and is an art or profession known to but very few persons in the world. On demurrer the court will consider only such matters as are alleged and of which judicial notice is taken. The acts of congress under which the information has been filed are highly penal, and as a criminal statute are to be strictly construed. In this country no person is ever subjected to fine or imprisonment because of the common law, but only when there is a plain statute clearly condemning the acts complained of as being a crime.
It is conceded by counsel for both the government and the defendant that this government has the power to regulate or prohibit immigration of foreigners. Generally the policy has been to encourage it. This went on for many years, until quite a per cent. of our best citizens were people of foreign birth. But selfish men took advantage of the opportunities offered to laboring men, and it is said that as far back as 1859 alien iron moulders were brought over to take the place of workmen then on strike in Troy, in the state of New York. After the Civil War the Pacific Coast states were overrun by the Chinese, until the traffic in coolies became a scandal, and almost or quite destroyed the opportunities of our own people on the Pacific Coast for getting work at remunerative prices. The evil so grew that it became necessary for congress to enact the most stringent legislation against Chinese immigration; and congress did enact such legislation against the Chinese, partly because that people would not assimilate with our people, partly because they only intended to remain in America a short time, partly because of their immoralities, but largely because from their methods of living they could underbid American workmen. The Pacific Coast condition after a short time became largely the condition of Eastern states, and particularly in those states having coal and large manufacturing interests and lumber interests. The records show that about the year 1883 bills were introduced in large number in both the senate and the house to correct the evil. In December, 1883, for the first time, the house of representatives provided for a committee of labor, to which all bills upon the subject were referred. The question of immigration of laborers became one of great public concern. Political parties took up the question, and it became one of general public discussion. The labor committee of the house and the appropriate committee of the senate took much evidence and made elaborate reports strongly urging legislation.
From these matters, which are now general history, as well as that which is in the recollection of all, it is known several evils existed, which congress undertook to correct; and existing evils are always considered as having great and convincing force in the construction of a statute. The labor organizations of the country appealed to the political parties and to legislatures and to congress for help, by way of correction of the evils. They furnished the proof, if proofs were needed, that when a strike in this country occurred, or one was threatened or impending, or when labor was in great demand, the large concerns, with much capital behind them, sent agents to Europe, and sometimes to Asia, for laborers to take the place of workmen. They were brought over under contract. Many of them lived, while here, but little, if any, better than animals. They lived together in large numbers in small rooms. Many lived together regardless of sex, and often regardless of the marriage relation. They lived on nearly nothing, and that nearly nothing was often food of the most disgusting kind; and, so living, they only asked and only received wages on which an American could not live. They gave their children no education. They never intended to make this country their home, and yet tens of thousands of them went through the form of being naturalized. They debased and prostituted the right of suffrage. All these things appear in most graphic language in the reports of committees to congress,-- one by Senator Blair to the senate, June 28, 1884, and one by Mr. Faron, of Ohio, to the house, February 23, 1884. On these reports the act of February 26, 1885, was enacted by congress, supplemented later by other laws. Under these statutes the defendant is now prosecuted.
But immigration was not prohibited. Immigration under contract was not prohibited. But certain kinds of immigration were prohibited, and immigration of certain kinds under contract was prohibited. And the question is whether the immigration of the two ladies' kid glove cutters who were brought over under contract with defendant are prohibited. Before discussing this question, as the question of the case, I think another matter one of importance. It is a matter of general knowledge that, during all the time the foregoing matters were under discussion before the country and before congress, a question which was ever being asked was, why enact protective tariff laws, to protect American laborers against the paupers of foreign countries, and yet allow the pauper laborers of foreign countries to be brought here to labor? The difference was that, with the foreign pauper here the little he ate and the little he wore were furnished him by our own producers and manufacturers; but the fact remained that in either case the foreign pauper was in direct competition with the American laborer. But there was this other difference: Generally the pauper laborer who remained was a skilled workman, while the one who came or was brought to this country under contract was unskilled. Generally he was the common, cheap, ignorant, and unskilled workman. But the truth is that the protective tariff laws and the laws against importing an alien laborer are upon the same subject and have the same purpose in view, which is that of protecting the laboring man of our country from the competition of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial