United States v. Thomson

Decision Date23 May 1882
PartiesUNITED STATES v. THOMSON.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

J. F Watson, for plaintiff.

John W Whalley, for defendant.

DEADY D.J.

Section 4253 of the Revised Statutes provides that if 'the master' of any vessel at a foreign port, not contiguous to the territory of the United States, 'shall take on board such vessel' 'any greater number of passengers' in proportion to the space allowed them thereon then is prescribed by section 4252 of the Revised Statutes, 'with intent to bring such passengers to the United States,' and does bring the same within the jurisdiction of the United States, 'he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,' and fined $50 for every such passenger, and may also be imprisoned not exceeding six months. The defendant, as the master of the English steam-ship Bothwell Castle, is accused by the information herein of violating this statute, by taking on board said vessel on April 21, 1882, at the port of Hong Kong, 160 passengers more than the number allowed thereby to be carried thereon, with intent to bring the same to the United States and by afterwards bringing said passengers on said vessel within the jurisdiction of the United States, to-wit, the district of Oregon. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, and by the stipulation of the parties the case was tried by the court without a jury. From the evidence including the testimony of the master, his chief officer, and two of the seamen, it appears--

That within a year past the defendant carried a cargo of Chinese passengers on this vessel from Hong Kong to San Francisco consisting of 1,033 adults; that on April 18, 1882, the 'administrator' of the port of Hong Kong licensed the Bothwell Castle to carry, under the English passenger act, not exceeding 1,094 Chinese passengers from that port to Portland, Oregon; that on April 20th, the 'emigration officer' of the same port gave the vessel a 'certificate,' to the effect that she had space and was furnished to carry 1,094 adult passengers on said voyage, and that there was then on board 1,032 men and 20 children, equal to 1,042 adults; that on the same day the 'harbor master' gave the vessel a 'clearance' for Portland, with 1,052 Chinese passengers in the lower berths, 'under the emigration officer's certificate;' that a passenger list attached to said documents and signed 'George Holmes, passenger broker,' and containing the names of 1,015 ordinary passengers, and 37 doctors, interpreters, stewards, cooks, etc., or in all 1,052 passengers, was delivered by the defendant on May 14, 1882, to the collector at Astoria, verified by his oath then made as containing 'the names and descriptions of all the passengers who were on board the said steamer (Bothwell Castle) at the time of or since her last departure from the said port of Hong Kong;' that said vessel on said voyage was chartered to carry Chinese passengers to Portland, and while lying in the stream at Hong Kong, not less than a mile from the shore, on April 20, 1882, took on board 1,198 of such passengers, of whom about 1,041 had 'contract passage' tickets, containing the terms of the contract, a receipt for $50 in payment of the passage, with the name of the passenger, his sex, age, occupation, and place of birth, signed by 'George Holmes, passenger broker,' and signed and certified by the 'emigration officer,' to the effect that he had 'explained and registered' the same, and about 157 had similar tickets not signed by any one, and brought the same to this port, when by law she was not entitled to carry more than 1,038 such passengers, being an excess of 160; that after all said passengers were on board said vessel there was a count of the same made by the 'harbor master' and 'assistant health officer' of the port, on said April 20th, and the defendant, upon a statement then given him by them, and by him delivered to the proper local authorities, obtained his clearance and gave bond to convey the passengers as per agreement, and at 6 o'clock the next morning sailed for Portland; that soon after starting a strict search was made for stow-aways, or persons who had not paid, and one found and put off the vessel, but no attempt was ever made by the master, or any one under his direction or authority, to count the passengers or ascertain how many were on board until the vessel was within two or three days of the mouth of the Columbia river, when the defendant ordered the tickets taken up, and found that he had about 160 passengers more than he was entitled to carry; that on April 19th, the 'government marine surveyor' measured the vessel,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • United States v. Gallant
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • March 1, 1910
    ... ... statute; and to the same effect is U.S. v. Adler and ... Forst, Fed. Cas. No. 14,424. The same holding is made by ... [177 F. 283.] ... Justice ... Miller, in U.S. v. Ulrici, 3 Dill. 532, Fed. Cas. No. 16,594 ... In U.S ... v. Thomson (D.C.) 12 F. 245, the rule is stated that ... negligence may be equivalent to a criminal intent, and is ... applied to the provisions requiring a ship's master not ... to take on more than a certain number of passengers, and to ... deliver a correct passenger list. In U.S. v. Bayaud, ... 16 F ... ...
  • United States v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • November 24, 1885
    ...jurisprudence, in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; U.S. v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670; U.S. v. Jackson, supra; U.S. v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52; U.S. v. Thomson, 12 F. 245; U.S. Houghton, 14 F. 544. In the last case cited it is said: 'If one intends to do what he is conscious the law, which every one is p......
  • In re Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 1, 1882
    ...12 F. 235 In re WILSON & GREIG, Bankrupts. United States District Court, S.D. New York.June 1, 1882 ... The ... assignee of the bankrupts ... ...
1 books & journal articles
  • The dilemma of mental state in federal regulatory crimes: the environmental example.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 No. 4, September 1995
    • September 22, 1995
    ...stills); United States v. Bayaud, 16 F. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1883) (removing tax stamps from commercial goods); United States v. Thomson, 12 F. 245 (D. Or. 1882) (transporting immigrants to the United States); United States v. Thompson, 28 F. Cas. 98 (C.C.D. Mich. 1853) (No. 16,490) (cutting timbe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT