·l.N BE i'YERMAN.
(O£rcuft Oourt, W. D. Pennsylvania. November 6. 1891.)
An ordinance of the city of Titusville, Pa., requiring the payment of a license fee from all persons soliciting orders for books, etc., and from persons delivering books under orders so obtained, is void as a regulation of interstetecommerce, in so far as applied to one delivering books sold by an agent, to be delivered, on the approval of his principal in New York, from a store-house in Pittsburgh, which is kept replenished by shipments from the principal office in New York.
LAW-INTBRSTATE COMMERCB-BoOK CANVASSBR'S LICENSE.
At Law. Petition by William Tyerman for a writ of habeaac0rpu8 to' release him from his imprisonment for violating an ordinance of the city ofTitusville, Pa., by delivering books sold by a book canvasser. Prisoner discharged. Joseph R; McQuaide, 'for petitioner. Goo. A. Ohwse, for City of Titusville.'
REED, J. 1'he facts in this case are similar to those appearing in the (}w oj Nichols, 48 Fed. Rep. 164, (November term, 1891,) except that this a citizen of the state of New petitioner was employed by P. F. York, and doing business in the city of New York, to deliver the books sold by Mr. Nichols, and to collect the price therefor. 'l'hese books are sent to him from Mr. Collier's. branch store-room or office in the city of Pittsburgh, and while he was engaged in such employment he was arrested for failure to obtain the license required by the ordinance of the city of Titusville, and is now in custody tor failure to pay a fine im:posed under the provisions of such ordinance. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in the he must also be discharged. There is no difference in principle between the two cases, this petitioner being engaged in completing the sales made by Mr. Nichols, and therefore engaged in. interstate commerce. The' precise question was decided in favor of the petitioner in .the Case oj Spain, 47 Fed. Rep. 208, Judge BOND saying: "The right to sell itnplies the obligation and the right to deliver. It is as much interstate commerce to do the one 8S the other." And it is ordered that the petitioner be, and he is hereby, discharged; the respondents to pay the costs.
FEDERAL 'REPORTER t
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York.
IMMIGR"'TION-CON.TRAOT LABOR-IUBlllA.S CORPUS TO REV!lllW COMMIssromin's DEOtSION..
. .Onpreliminary iuquil'v by the insp.ection officers, certain immigrants stated that passage was paid (or them, and that they came under an engagement to work OJ) a.taUroad ill. Ohio for 7 francs a day; but on a BUl:!sequent speci!\l inquiry they , .retracted these statements·. Held. that there was competent evidence. tending to .' shoW tha.t they had come in violation of the restriction act, and the court had no jurisdictien to review by, the commissioner's decision ordering thew. to be taken b a c k . ' , .
Oircuit Judge, (orally.) tta;ppears in thisease that upon these the officers.luade th,em toucbmg the CIr.cumstances WhICh, they: pad come to thIS GQ,uof,ry .. In reply to. these questions,Bp.swers were given, which were writing in the form of affida.vits" were to the immian<i were by them sworri ,to.. ' .These statepl'eJits of the immigX:llntS were· certainly competent evidencElfor th,e commissioner of immigratioD, to take into cQnsideratioilin determining whether or not they shoulp be',permitted to land. ThEly wake out a ease which would warthat their transportl\.tion to this .country was paid for rant the of another, and that they came under an agreement, pre,vious to their to PElrform labodri the United States. a special inquiry into ,was conducted by the commissioner of immigration, and the testimon, taken on that inquiry contradicts their statements upon preliminary examination. In this respect these cases differ from that of In re Feinknopj, 47 Fed. Rep. 447, in which Judge BENEDICT filed the opinion referred to on the argument. In that case there was no evidence whatever, either in the preliminary examination or the special inquiry, tending to show that the immigrant was within one of the prohibited classes. Here, however, there is evidence which, standing alone, would fairly warrant the conclusion that these immigrants have come here in violation of the statute. That being so, it is not the part of the court to look any further to see if there is any additional evidence contradicting that) and to weigh all