to show that hI:': for a. Ji\De .(rom doing so in consequence of a pro,mise of toapply'the. proceeds qf' sales to the payment mortgage dl;lbt. The. case is therefore in several respects unlike that of llobinson v. Tbese propositions being decided, counsel can determine as to how far they.afl'ect the several cases growing out of this lam prepared to say that as to the plaintiffs here in one. of ,these Cllses--tQe case of .Bierman, Hei(lelberg & Co.-the proof after the execution and before the .shows that they dealt with recorqing of the chattel mqrtgage, upon the of his ownership of the stock of goods, and that therefore the mortgage as to them must be beld They dealt with Seymour wbilehe w.as in possession of the 1'rue, tbeir debt had bQeIl, previously contracted, but on the 2d of November the time for payment was and a new note was taken. At that date Seymour was in possession of the stock of goods, and there, was no recorded lien thereon. Following the decision of this court in Orook'8 A8signee v. Stuart, I must hold that asto them the mortthe gargage is void, and that they are entitled to judgment nishee accordingly.
UNITED STATES'll. SANDREY.
(otrcuU Oou'l't, E. D. Louwfa,na. December 26, 1891.)
Where a stowaway, found upon a British vB8selsoon after leaving Liverpool, is lngood faith regularly enrolled as a mew-ber of the crew for the voyage to New Orleans and return, his 8tattf,8 is thereby fixed as a British sailor, and he cannot be regarded as a destitute alienimmigrant, so as to charge the master, upon arrival at New Orleans, with the duties and penalties imposed by Aot Congo March 8, 1891, ln respeot to the and importation of. aliens; and the fact that such sallor deserts whUe ill port does not affect the master's responsibility.
ENROLLED AS BAILORS-DUTY OJ'
At Law. Complaint against S. S. Sandrey for violating tbe immigration laws. Before the circuit juuge as.committing magistrate. Rev. St. § 1014. Wm. Grant, U. S. Atty·. S. Gilmore and John Baldwin, for defendant.
PARDEE, 'J. The affidavit in this case made by Ferdinand Armant, United States commissioner and inspector of immigration, charges that S. S. Sandrey"Then being master of the British steam-ship Cuban, from Liverpool, England, brought into the tJnited States, to-wit, to the port of New Orleans, Louisiana, on board said ship, one alien immigrant, who was not entitled to land, viz., - - Murray. aged 17 years,who was a pauper, and likely to become a public charge, and was therefore excluded from admission into the United States; and aftla.llt£ul'ther charges that on the arrival aforesaid of the said alien imm'Jl'ant on the said in the United States, as afortsaid, the said S. S. Sandrey, the commander of the said vessel, unlawfully and negligently did permit .the said alien immigrant to land therein at a time and place other than that. designated by the insp'ecting officers of alien immigrants arriVing in the United States. in violation of sections 6 and 8 of the act approved 8.: 1891. contrary to the form; 'J etc.
UN!TED STATES 11. SANDREY.
The facts of the case,as appears by the evidence, are that the steamship Cuban, of which the accused is master, is a duly-registered British vessel, sailing under the British flag, now lying inthe port of New Orleans; that on the last voyage of the said steam-ship she left Liverpool on the 21st of November, and on the morning of the 23d the chief mate Murray, found two stowaways 'on board of the ship, the man named in the affidavit, and another, Stanley, both British BUbjects. It may be noticed that a "stowaway" is one who conceals himself on board a vessel about to leave port in order to obtain a free passage. The said stowaways were reported to the master, and on the fol..; lowing day he put them on the ship's articles, and duly shipped and enrolled them as part of the crew of the steam-ship Cuban for the voyage from Liverpoolto New Orleans and return to Liverpool, from which time the Ulen went on duty, and so remained until after the arrival of the ship in the port of New Orleans, where the said Murray deserted, Stanley remaini.ng on board the shi.p, where he now is on duty asa regular member of the crew. Stanley wa'!l about 17 years of age, and Murray was 19. Both were, so far as they had any trade, cleaners of boilers, which is work usually given to boys. They were not persons of means, ;a.nd, except for the employment as seamen, would be consiqered destitute persons. After the vessel landed in the port of New Orleans these 'men were treated as belonging to the crew, and given the usual liberty when not required for duty on board the ship. No capitation tax was paid upon either, nor was any report made of them as passengers. Some days aftef the vessel arrived the commissioner of immigration visited the ship, inquired into the facts, and decided that the two persons, ,Stanley and Murray, were aliens belonging to a class of persons whose landing in the United States is prohibited by the act of congress approved March 3, 1891, gavA his decision to the officers in charge verbally, and afterwards served written notice upon tbe master. At that time Murray had already deserted the ship. The nraster, in his examination, swears to information that Murray has already reshipped on another vessel, and is now en rotlte to Liverpool; that Stanley is still on board,. is not locked up nor otherwise confined, and is working on board, like any other man, as a member of the crew. The act of congress approved Marcb3, 1891, entitled"An act in amendment to the various acts relative to immigration and the importation of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor," in its first section provides"That the follOWing classes of shall be excluded from admission into the United States, in accordance with the existing acts regulating immigration other t1laothose concerning Chinese laborers: A.ll idiots, insane persons, paupers, or persons likely to become a pUblic charge. persons suffering from a loathsome ora dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, polygamists, and also any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another, or 'who is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown on special inquiry that such person does not belong to one of the fOl'egoing excluded classes, or to the class
of lab()l'ers excluded by tbell.ct of Februllrytwenty-sixt.h, eighteen hundrerandeighty-fivej but tllls sectioJ;l shall not be held to exclude persons liVing in the Unjted States from sending- for a relative or friend who is not ot the excluded' under such regulations as the secretary of the treasury maypl'escl'ibe: provided, that nothing in tllis act shall be construed to apply :to'or exclude persons convicted of a political offense. notwithstanding,said political otl'ensemay be designated as a 'felo,ny. crime, infamous crime"or. misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude,' l.lythe laws of the land or by the court convicting." ·'l'peQbject and purpose of the act clearly appear from the title and the section quoted, and may be summarized to be to prevent the importation·of aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor, and the immigration of aliel)s 'of certain objectionable classes specifically enumel)llted. The remaining sections of the act relate to the methods and detaihfof accomplishing the aforesaid purpose. It ,is only the sixth and eighth with which, we are particularly concerned in this case· ./ The sixth sectionirnposes a penalty upon any parties who, in violation of the object and purpose of the act, ehall bring into or land in the United States, by vessel or otherwise., or aid to bring into or land in the United,Statell, by vessel or otherwise, Ilny alien.not lawfully entith,d to enter the.United States; that is, bring into or land in the United States any alien under a contract or agreement to perform labor, or any alien immigrapt 'belonging to any of the objectionable classes enumerated in the te·.. The eighth section defines the duties of agents and masters of vessels bringing into the United States alien immigrants, as to reporting the name, nationality. last residence. and destination of every such alien; the duties of inspection officers.in regard to the inspection and the examination .and detentiOltof.such alien immigrants; and gives the inspection officers certain powers as to the administration. of Qaths, and the taking of testimony touching the right of such aliens to th!} United States; proviqes far the effect of the decisions of inspection officers touching the right of any alien to land; requires the masters anq agents of vessels bringing alien immigrants into the United States to adopt precautions to prevent the landing of such immigrants at any time "Or place other than that designated .by the inspection officers; and then imposes a penalty 'upon any sllch officer or agent or person in charge of a vessel who shall knowingly or negligently land, or permit to land, any :;tlien immigrant at any place or time other than that designated by such inspection officers. The section further authorizes the secretary of the treasury to prescribe rules for inspection along the borders; limits the number of inspectori:l to be appointed; and, further, defines their duties. As clearly appears, the act deals only with tha importation of aliens under contract to labor and alien immigration. It is only with regard to alien immigrants that the act imposes duties upon the masters and of vessels, or provides penalties for the n6n-performanceof duties by such masters and agents. Au'alien'immigrant to the United States is an alien. who corJ;\esor removes into the United States fOf the purpose of pennanent Aliens oomposing the crews of vessels visiting
UNITED STATES V. SANDREY.
our seaports are in no sense immigrants, and, as the review of the statute as above shows, are in no wise affected by the law in question. With re!/;ard to them, the said law imposes no duties nor penaltips upon the masters and agents of vessels. The case shows that the man Murray, charged in the affidavit to be an alien immigrant and pauper, likely to become a public charge,and not entitled to land in the United States; was, when he came to this port, a duly.enrolled seaman on board of a British vessel,. shipped for a voyage from Liverpool to New, Orleans, and return to Liverpool. Prior to his shipment he was a stowaway and and his may have heen to emigrate to tll.eUn,ited States. But whtm he was enrolled as a seaman, and signed articles for a voyage from Liverpool to New Orleans and return to Liverpool, his 'statUs as a"British seaman became fixed. He ceased, for the tiine being, at least, to be a possible immigrant; and with regard to him the master of the steam-ship Cuban, the accused in this cause; was charged with no duties, nor exposed to any penalties, under the act of congress approved March 3, 189L His desertion after the ai·tival of the ship at the port of' New Orleans in no wise affects the duty or the responsibility of the accused. Murray's legal status; if he is now in this is not that of 'an immigrant, but that of a deserter from, his shi p. We are not dealing with a case where a vagrant sailor has been brought to this country and discharged ina destitute condition, nor with a ease where the master of a vessel has connived with an immigrant, within the objectionable classes enumerated, to, smuggle him into the <:ountry under COver of shipping articles. When such cases arise, it can be terminedwhether the masters of such offending vessels have rendered themselves amenable to the penalties defined by the act of congress aforesaid. All the circumstances of the present case show tbat the cused has acted openly and above board, within the line, of his duty ,as master of the vessel, and no wise in violation of the laws of the United States. The complaint is dismissed, and the accused discharged.
U.NITED STATES V. BAIRD.
, (D'l8trlctOOUA1.j D.Washinaton, N. D. December12,1891.)
CBINBBE-D17'J:Y all' -CUSTOM' >Oll'lI'IOERe-OP:POSING ARREST!!. . , The proVisioUs of restriction acts requiring the customs omcera to prevent the landing from boats 01' vessels of Chinese wbci are not entitled to, land ,do 1I,0t Impose upon oftillers the duty of arresting. Cbines" who are already in tbe United 8tates without. nor ta there any law imposing such duty; and ,hence an who, wilihout legal process, attempts to make suoh arrests, acts merely as a private citizen, and one who opJ;l0ses him therein is not of 0ppos, ing "any oftlcer," of the 'customs in the "execution of his duty," wlthin the meaning cCRev. 8t. U. S. 1'5447.: ,
, . Presentment of J. a.Baird for oQlltr1;lcting an officer of the customs in attempting to. arrest a· Chinaman.
P.H. Wi718Wn, U.S.Atty.
HANFORD,' J; The l'e<lord in this case shows .that the defendant has been· heretofore on a warrant issued by a United States commissioner, for an alleged violation of secti6n5447 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and, after an examination by said commissioner, held to bail for his appearance, at the present term.of this court, to swer for said offense. The case is riow brought before the court by the following presentment ofthe grand. jury: ... . ' . the grand jury, desire to report that we have investigated the cnse of the United States vs. J.O. Baird, charged with a violation of section 5447, Revised Stll.tutes, and f(,lund, the follOWing to be the facts of the case: That Z.'.f. Hplderi, then aninspectoJ' of customs for the district of Pugetsound, was, on the evening of July 26th. 1891, in the town of Wooley, engagl/d in,' an to capture certain ChInese laborers who had entered the Ul'lftedStates con1;ra,l'1 to law, and who were Dot entitled to be in the defeDdant.J. C. Baird, seized upon UnitedStates. That. while so HoldeD,and handcutffldhim, and interfered with him in the the performance of his work. We further find that said Z. T. Holden, at the time he was interfered with, was not acting uuder the direction of any court of law, nor executing any legal process. We have requested the United States attorney, upon thesfl facts, to prepare a bill of indictment against said J. C. Baird, and he has, in response to said request, informed us that he is unable to find a law covering this case upon the facts presented. We therefore desire to present J. C. Baird to the court for having done the act herein stated. and to obtain the opinion of the court as to whether the facts set forth constitute an offense against the United States. "D. R. McKINLEY, Foreman of the Grand Jury." It is one of the fundamental principles of our government that no man can be required to defend against a criminal prosecution in a court of the United States for mere wrong-doing, nor unless the,charge against him be the commission of an offense made punishable by a law of the United States. By the division of governmental powers between the several states and the national government the punishment of all such offenses as assaults, batteries, unlawful arrests, and breaches of the peace, 'committed within a state, belongs to the state. The act which the de-