United States v. Uhl
| Decision Date | 13 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 65. |
| Citation | 210 F. 860 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MYLIUS v. UHL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
On appeal from an order of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York sustaining a writ of habeas corpus and discharging the relator, who is an alien and a subject of the King of England. He arrived at the port of New York, September 22, 1912, and was brought before a Board of Special Inquiry on the charge that he had been convicted of a criminal libel which, the appellant contends is a crime involving moral turpitude under the act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134 (34 Stat.L. 898 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1911, p. 499)), as amended. The board found against the relator upon this issue and he was ordered deported. He appealed to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor who affirmed the decision of the board. Thereafter the relator sued out the writ of habeas corpus as before stated.
H Snowden Marshall, U.S. Atty., and John Neville Boyle, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of New York City, for appellant.
Simon O. Pollock, of New York City, for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
The appellee was convicted of libel in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice and sentenced by the Lord Chief Justice, who presided at the trial, to 12 months' imprisonment, this being the maximum punishment under the law. The indictment was laid under the fifth section of Lord Campbell's Libel Act which provides for the punishment of any person who 'shall maliciously publish any defamatory libel.' The libel in question charged, in substance, that the present King of England during the year 1890 was married to the daughter of Admiral Sir Michael Culme-Seymour at the Island of Malta and that he subsequently abandoned her in order to obtain a woman of royal blood for his wife, and, by so doing, committed bigamy. It further charged that the daughter of Admiral Seymour, if still living, is the lawful queen of England and her children are the only rightful heirs to the English throne.
The question presented is whether a conviction under a charge of having maliciously published a defamatory libel justifies the exclusion of the appellee under a statute which provides that aliens 'who have been convicted of * * * a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude' shall be excluded from the United States. 34 Stat.L. page 899.
The question may be narrowed still further to the inquiry, Does the publication of a defamatory libel necessarily involve moral turpitude? We are of the opinion that it does not. We of course, do not lose sight of the extreme brutality of the libel, involving, as it does, not only the King, but the Queen, her children and the daughter of Admiral Seymour. But we are dealing with laws designed to exclude from this country those whose records abroad are such as to warrant the inference that they are depraved and will continue to belong to the criminal classes. In construing these laws we should proceed on broad general lines, considering all persons as equal before the law. A decision which makes the infamy of the libel dependent upon the rank of the person libeled cannot be defended either in law or ethics. If it would not involve moral turpitude to publish this libel of a field laborer in Devon or a street sweeper in London, it would not involve moral turpitude to publish it regarding the Lord Chancellor or even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rogers
...was immoral.... Conversely, when [the offense] does, no evidence is competent that he was in fact blameless."); United States v. Uhl , 210 F. 860, 863 (2d Cir. 1914) (noting that in determining whether a conviction is one involving moral turpitude, courts must "[c]onfin[e] the inquiry to th......
-
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 11–702.
...hook.” 4Carachuri–Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2588, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010); see United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 862 (C.A.2 1914).B The aggravated felony at issue here, “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance,” is a “generic crim[e].” Nijhaw......
-
Jean-Louis v. Attorney General of U.S.
...548 (5th Cir.1952); United States ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 51 F.2d 1022, 1022-23 (2d Cir. 1931) (Hand, J.); United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 862-63 (2d Cir. 1914). 24 I. & N. Dec. at 513; see United States v. Williams, 203 F. 155, 156 (D.C.N.Y.1913) (applying categorical app......
-
Prudencio v. Holder
...521 F.3d at 743. It is somewhat ironic that one of the first reported cases applying the categorical approach, United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860 (2d Cir.1914), concluded the approach was necessary, in part, to guarantee the “uniform and efficient administration of the law,” id......
-
"Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude": The Constitutional and Persistent Immigration Law Doctrine.
...explored in Part III. (31.) H.R. Rep. NO. 3472, at ii (1891). (32.) United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 203 F. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1913), aff'd, 210 F. 860 (2d Cir. 1914). (33.) Id. at 153. Mylius had written that George V had secretly married a woman in Malta in 1890, which, if true, would rend......
-
Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void for Vagueness
...an offense involves moral turpitude; this approach is commonly called the categorical approach. See United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 863 (2d Cir. 1914); see also Rebecca Sharpless, Toward a True Elements Test: Taylor and the Categorical Analysis of Crimes in Immigration Law,......
-
Beyond 'T.B.D.': Understanding va's evaluation of a former servicemember's benefit eligibility following involuntary or punitive discharge from the Armed forces
...Department of Justice’s historical reluctance to examine facts about the perpetrator of an offense. United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 863 (2d Cir. 1914) (establishing a longstanding rule to avoid relitigation of criminal cases by a reviewing administrative body). More recentl......