UNITED STATES 'II. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.
UNITED STATES 'D. MICHIGAN CENT. (Oircuit CoUTt, N. D. New York.
IMMIGRATION-ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR LAW.
December 10, 1891.)
A railroad company which knowingly employs at its office in New York, near the Canadian border, a person who resides in Canada, and comes daily to his work in the United States. is not engaged in assisting or encouraging the "importatilln or migration" of an alien, within the meaning of the alien contract labor law. Act Congo Feb. 26, 1885, § 3.
At Law. Action to recover the penalty for a violation of the alien ..:ontract labor law. Judgment for defendant. John E., Smith, for the United States. l)aniel H. McMillan, for defendant. W AI.LACE, J. This is an action to recover lhepenalty imposed by section 3 of. the act of congressof February 26, 1885, 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 Dfutrict of Columbia." Briefly stated, the facts are these: . The defendant, a Michigan corporation, operates a railway between Chicago and Buffalo, the route of which, between the states of Michigan and New York·.is throagh Canada. It has an officest Suspension Bridge, in New York. One Blount applied at that office for employmeJ?;tas a clerk, and was engaged by the defendant at wages of $50 permooth, but for DO stated. period. He continued in the employ of the defendant for several months. Before the e:xpiration of the first month the ficers (!)f the defendant ascertained that Bl9unt was an alien,residing in Cana,da, and having a family there, and; that he.came from his home morning to the office of the defendant, and·· after performing his day's work returned home each night. Nevertheless defendant retained him in its. service. The defendant's liability under the act of congress is precisely the sameSI;l though it had made a new contract with Blount abthe beginning of his second month of service, with ftlll kMwledge of the fa.cts. At the end <>fthe first month the existing contract between them was at end, and thel'eafter there was an implied contract of the same tenor. The statute, by section 1, makes it unlawful for any person or tion. to prepay the tranE\portatiQn, or in any way assist or encourage the importlltiQll or migration, of any foreigner into the United States under contraot or ,e;l:pre!;ls. or.implied, made previous totha importation. or ;migl'ation of sucn,foreignerj and1 by section 3, declares that for every violation of the provisiopg, of section 1, the person or corp<;>i1at4on violating the same, by knowingly encouraging the migration or tion of an alien to perform labor or service of any kind under contract or agreement, expressed or implied, made with the alien previous to his a resident or citizen of the United States, shall forfeit and pay t r such offense the sum of $1,000. Notwithstanding the defendant
knowingly encouraged a foreigner t9 come into this country and perform services here uQdet_lin.'implied contract .previotlsly made with him, it is not liable for the penalty unless it has encouraged the "importation or migration" of the foreigner. The sta1tute, being penal, must be strictly construed, and cannot be extended to a case which is not manifestly withiJ? its meaning. lightu.p.on· the meaning of the terms" importatien: or migration" is derived by reading other sections of the act. One imposes a penally llPOIl,JhEl master of a vessel in which the assisted foreigner has been brought here; anotherprohihita collectors of ports fr?m permitting such foreigners to land; and another anthorizes the secreta·ry of the treasury,"in caseh6Jshall be satisfied that an emigrant has been allowed to land"contrary to law, to cause snch emigrant to be returned at the expense of the importing vessel, or, if he entered from an adjoining country, at the expense of the person previously contracting for his services. The'Beveral provisions of the act are directed against immigrants,'as'lrell as those who prepay· their transportation or encourage their migration or importation by: previous contract. Blount was not an immigrant, because he did not COtne here inteliding to acquire a per.. ma.nent ora temporary home. As he did not migratehere, the defendant did not encourage his "migratkm." He was not imported, nor did the defendant assist in his "importation," any more than he was exported, and :assistedinhisexportafiion, .when he went home at night. Itmay.betbat such a case as this is within the ·mischief which the promotersi of law intended to.remedy,but it is not within the ordinary importci£ the wor<1s of thesta.tute. I If every person who comes into this or is imported,withill the meaning of the statute, beoausehe/rElmains temporarily attd: works here,lhestatute will reach many caSes. ,in which· its application 'would be a manifest absurdity . If the construction of the act contended for by the government is correct. every AJiell;Jsailorwhois,engagedhiai foreign port fora round voyage, and comes here on the ship, and performs his duty while she is within one of ourtlooports, migrates here or is irnported'here; and the vessel owner who engages himassists,jn or migration," and is lia01efor the perialty imposed. There are other'railroad corporations besides. ,tbe i defendant whose railways are operated bOth .in Canada and in this country. If one of them, likerthe Grand Trunk for instance, having itsidomicile.and rriain liM in Canada, has braMhes or a terminus here,and aconductpror brakemnn'Who is· aCanadino brings in one of its cats,: dt would be liable'. according to the cuntention for the government,(to the penalty ofrtbe act, ifit'engaged the condUctor or brakeman·jn Canada.. This doee 'not seem to herfti .reasonable interpretation. Judgment is.ordered f()rthe
,UNlTEJ,> ,!lTATES fl. COPPEJ,.L.
COPPELL et ale
,po New York. February 18,1891.)
BOND-'-LUBILITY OJ' PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
Where tfB,nspo$tioIl bonds, pursuant to sections 3000, 3001, Rev. Bt. U. S., were executed by principals and for the transportation of merchandise from bOnded warehouse i.n New York City to be entered and,rewarehoused.in New Orleanst La," Jlolld Where ,15,uch mercha,,ndise, through' no, faUl,t, of the prinClPBlson, the bonus, was not entered at the port of New Orleans, nor rewarehoused therei ll· butW'88, upon amvalatNew Orleans, shipped by rail to its destination in the repUblW of Mexico, t!lrqugb a mistakeol'overilight of the United States inspector of customs at New Orleans, that the principals andElurety upon the bonds remMned liable for double the amount'ot the duties upon said merchandise, 8CC9rdto the oonQition of lb.e lIonds and provisions of sectiona 8000 and 3001. Rev. Bt. U. B. , ' ,
, ",This was' a consolidated action" brought1?Y the, tynited States, govern'ment' to updrii two transportation bonds wveu' defendants as prinCipals ·. in 'form,bdtbdated bemg 1D theJ>enal sum of $100, 'the other in the penals,om for tbe tr,aosportati9D. Of CilUStic s?4l!-, fl'oiri New York tON'llW: which merchandise Was eontainediri'bonded warehouse attbe port -tif New York. The' condition both Of the bonds was in the usual form' proVided by articles 725 arrd:726cif the United States' ulatioJls'ofl884, and was as foUoWa:: " ,, , , tberefore;the condition' of this obligation is that, if the bounden prhicipals shall' Within four months [daysl'from the, cause to be tl'ansported in Cromwell's iine New QrJeans. and shall within the: time :berein speoified, deliver the sam'elo the fl,t the sai4 PP.r;lJ, ot destination, and cause due entry thereof to bo ·.an!l,.qaJllllso the, time herein speci6ed .produce to an,d, deposit thli;collector !l0rt!?f a the-said port of destmatlOtt that t\;Je saId has been, delivered to him aecording tQlawand rewarehoused, and thel'60npaid orseeuroo;or. ,faiUngso';to do, shall pay to the pro}lerc61lecting officer of United States at :the ssid, port of withdraWal 'the amountdNiuties to as due ,owing on merchandise aforesaid, ancian :adof lOOper pursuant to ,the statute insucQ ca!$!l,maqll'and then this oblfg'a(ion to',oe void; otherwise, i,t force.'! ' " " , , The was bonded the,pQrf; of New York ):>y tWQ trap!3portatioll, entrie$ in the :usual form, bptb qated May and that the "merchandise was withdrawn from, warel:iql.lse ,by .. Co. fpr to;New Orleans byroute or vessel, Cromwllll's line, SS.New Orleans,". )t was the mercbandise in,bOth cases at tlIepprt of t qrk, tpe Orleans, of Crom.wEllI!s line, 'the 25th;ofJt;1l1Y, in the at of New or 3d day ofJune, .,1889", The · th.e