mUTED STATES ". GREAT PAtLS II: O. BY. CO.
trNITED STATES T. GREAT FALLS & C. RY. CO. (Circuit Court. D. Montana. November 21. 1892.)
In an action at law by the United States to recover the penalty for a via lation of the contract-labor law, (Act Feb. 26,1885,) a complaint alleging that defendant offered to one of its employes in Canada to continue his employment if he would come to the United States, and that in consideration of such promise, and in pursuance of such he did come to the United States, and work for thll defendant, is sufficient to show the acceptance of the offer in Canada, under the Montana rule that pleadings shall be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice. Compo St. Mont. diT. 1. § 100.
At Law. Action by the United States against the Great Falls & Canada Railway Company to recover the penalty of 81,000 for the importation of a laborer under contract. On demurrer to the complaint. Overruled. John M. McDbnald, Asst. U. S. Atty.! Geo. W. Taylor, for defendant. . KNOWLES, District Judge. This is an action brought by the United States to recover of defendant 81,000 for a violation of the provisions of section 1 of the act of congress of February 26, 1885, entitled "An act to prohibit the Importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under (:ontract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its terri. tories, and the District of Columbia." The provisions of that section provide"That it shall be unlawful for any corporation, - · · In any manner Whatfloever, to prepay the transportation * * * of any alien or aliens, auy for· .eigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia. under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or a!iens, foreigner .or foreigners, to perform labor or services of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia. "
The cotriplaint in this case charges that defendant entered into an ,express parol contract with one John Lamont, an alien, by which defendant agreed that, in consideration that the said John Lamont would immigrate into the United States, to wit, the district of Montana, and perform services and labor for it, the said defendant, it would continue him as an employe at satisfactory to the said John Lamont. This <lontract, it is alleged, was made on November 5,1891, in the dominion of Canada, a dependency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The complaint further sets forth that thereupon, upon the date aforesaid, the said John Lamont, in consideration of the said promise, and in pursuance of the said agreement, did immigrate and CClme into the United States, and into the state of Montana, and, in pursuance -of said contract, worked asa laborer upon the defendant's road; that the -said defendant prepaid the transportation. of the said John Lamont, and did otherwise assist,encourage, and solicit his migration, knowing that he, the said John Lamont, being an alien, as aforesaid, had entered into this _ illegal contract. with said defendant. Defendant demuned to
this complaint, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient tocons.titute' a causeof'aotiotl','" The principal pointpresentEld the co:wpl/!-int is that there is in fact no contract for labor alleged inasmuch as Lamont made no contract ,t<> "r"prk for ,defendant. The c<;>11tract was by a proposal to Lamont by defendant that.if he would come to the United States, as aland perform services for defendant, it would give :wages as would be satisfactory to him. It is Il1leg«iithat inconsideration of' said promise, and in pursuance of said said Lamont did migrate and come into the United States; 'and in pursuance of said contract worked as a laborer upon the line :oftlit!' defendant's toad. hereset'forth appears to have been an offer on the part or det'Qi18fttlt to Lamont to continue>him in its employ if he would emigrate to the United States, and work for it. The wages would be satisthis offel"1? No doubt, it would factory to Lamont. Did Lam<?nt But, instead of have been better to have alleged' diI:ectly that be that, the pleader has seen fit to allege that he did emigrate to the UI1ltMdid, for defendant, this was done in said mqst bl;) that part of the agreement by defendant. "This is, an action ,at law, and the rules for ofthepleadings,a;e those prescribed bY,the statutes of Mont.a#a,., that the pleadings in theease shou14 view to substantial justice between the partIes. Camp. St. Mont. div. 1, § 100. I think that the allegatio?s o( what was embraced in the propositionsuffiacceptall.ce. The only point dCtrouble is, where can it be said that the acceptance was made? I think when Lamont started on his migration to the 'United States. He came here then under a conwas made in Canada, and detract to ll\.bQ(, for fendant prepaid his transportation. The complaint states facts suffi,a cauSe of and the demurrer is overruled. cient to
In re GRIBBON.
D. New York. April
CUSTOMS 'Du'llms...., CLASSJFWATION-HEM8TITOHED HANDKERCHIEFS-EMBROIDERED ,!JANJ?ll;ERCHIEFS.,.-;HE,MSTITCHE.\J, i ,EMBROIDEnJ!lp. HANDKERCHIEFS.
Certain handkerchiefs, composed 'of linen and cotton: ,Imported under the tariff act of October 1, 18110, consisting'-First, of handkerchiefs with a hemstitched border; second. of handkerchiefs embroidered or scolloped on the r.!Lud" third, of handkerchiefs with a hemstitched with initial letters or withllgiJres worke,d by border, hand or maohinery,-aMl dutiable, thebemstitched handkerchiefs, under par, .gro.ph"a.9: aQ$;J8:1HoO per centum ad valorem, as "handkerchiefs;"' those e as textile, ,f,abrics, embroi,dered by hand or ma, uMer the ptbvlSOiti paragl'sph873. at 60 per centum ad valorem: i ani! only't,hose handkerchiefs which are e'mbroideredandalso hemstitohed as su,cll ullder paragraph iJ78 ,of, slWd llo<;t.,Ttie handkerchiefs were only. and wllre embroidered only, h.eld Uot to be 'included In the provision for "embroidered andhemstitclied hand-