Document: 333 U.S. 483 68 S.Ct. 634 92 L.Ed. 823 UNITED STATESv.EVANS. No. 15. Argued Feb. 3, 1948. Decided March 15, Appeal from the District Court of United States for Southern California. Mr. David Reich, Washington, D.C., appellant. Ginsburg, appellee. Justice RUTLEDGE delivered opinion Court. 1 Section 8 Immigration Act 1917 provides: 2 'That any person * who shall bring into or land in (or attempt to do so) conceal harbor harbor, assist abet another place alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector lawfully entitled enter reside within States, under terms this Act, be deemed guilty a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof punished fine exceeding $2,000 imprisonment term five years each every so landed brought attempted in.' (Emphasis added.) 39 Stat. 880, U.S.C. § 144, U.S.C.A. 144. 3 Appellee were indicted concealing harboring named aliens alleged violation 8. Before trial appellee moved that indictment dismissed on ground it did charge punishable offense. He argued although statute provided two different crimes, one landing bringing unauthorized aliens, other such punishment was prescribed only former crime. The accepted argument granted motion dismiss. Government appealed directly pursuant Criminal Appeals 28 345, we noted probable jurisdiction. 67 625. 4 case presents unusual difficult problem statutory construction. It concerns much Congress' intention make criminal as does penalty applied those offenses including attempts. choice, might appear glancing at statute, is simply between no penalty, extreme, and, other, plus up specified maxima concealed harbored. rather multiple presenting least three, perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers statute's wording. Furthermore, will appear, legislative history neither clear nor greatly helpful ascertaining which possibilities calling Congress contemplated. 5 discussing specifically alternatives, note rests primarily clarity with indicates purpose criminal, than like indication intent concerning penalty.1 Because proscribe conduct clear, said, should allow fail becauseo f ambiguity penalty. Rather are asked effective applying seems most nearly accord proscription penalizing provision. 6 On hand, really dispute meant, inserting amendment prohibiting harboring,2 acts criminal. But he denies possible, either section's wording history, ascertain fair degree assurance penal consequences may have had mind. From falls back conclusion indicated premise, namely, task resolving difficulty goes beyond dispelling usual sense judicially construing statutes3 if attempted, would require invade function effect, fix therefore merely rule strict construction petitioner's favor. choice asks us broad deep, resting among equally tenable though possibilities, business all. 7 Even matters strong required about result seeks. For, where has exhibited clearly its power altogether omitted provision reasonable presumption attaches courts evident purpose. This true provisions others. v. Brown, 18, 376. validity be, there limits cannot go finding what put many words making certain left undefined too vague meaning. In our system, far federal powers, defining crimes fixing penalties legislative, judicial, functions.4 given some edict, margin necessary proper judicial statutes filling gaps large doing becomes essentially necessarily degree. 9 We turn then consider whether asking when puts forward preferred reading provision, suggests permissible alternative, prepared accept third, disavowing complete consistency intent, others adopted. 10 Government's impose same landing, notwithstanding 'for alien' clause limited expressly 'so Under interpretation effect provide additional punishment, stated brief, 'where crime involves more country illegally.' 11 admittedly ungrammatical failure integrate 'each language adding conceded been possibly due oversight. 12 If imperfect grammar stood way accepted. agree involved. concedes section prescribes harboring. argues inclusion them meaningless unless spite wording, construed apply well landing. words, because intended authorize but failed so, probably oversight, plug hole statute. 13 To very indeed, sheer section. For mean add concluding inserts, 'and harbored.' this. reason sure fact. 14 first place, originally enacted smuggling. And evidence addition meant closely connected chain consisting successive stages smuggling process.5 15 conclusive.6 susceptible broader constructions. treat distinct disconnected operations; also regard separate other. broadest interpretation, giving independent 'or States,'7 could taken unlawfully remaining country. 16 event innkeeper furnishing lodging coming overstaying his visa harboring, knew illegal remaining. And, him, known entered illegally earlier, even remote, time incur smuggling, position implied extension 17 mention these intimate reach reference covering them, question squarely before us. point out they relevant certainty asserting implication extend still all covered crimes. 18 real doubt scope forbidden, any, proximately raise equal greater encompass process particularly distinct, require, sound judgment, designed prevent discourage various phases. That sort judgment legislatures make. 19 take major respects, one. expand explicit limitation in,' second blindly quality forbidden made, is, without beforehand questions arising face relation ask undertake now say how numerous aspects coverage.8 willing blindfold, knowing advance applied. Nor decide wholesale coverage. problem, presented concrete instances, resolved step step, over resolve broadside cases cover, indirect presentation, proceed manner definition specification acts, order determination character 20 Beyond difficulties sufficient respect, added th obstacles, insuperable accepting reading. discloses both before9 after10 immigration authorities Commissioner General repeatedly sought specific insert. These efforts made conflicting decisions demonstrated sea11 their floundering congressional attention.12 instance nevertheless effort unsuccessful. 21 infers, increases mystery include new offenses. Conge §§ thought none needed. view hardly explains satisfactorily subsequent repeated failures clarify matter, after experience shown need. importing direction itself refused notice occasions importunities. 22 entirely intends alternative suggestion reading, already discussed, coverage i.e., regards tendered possibility statements brief sustain view.13 Whether correct taking suggesting or, accurately phrased purpose, support position, material. event, said extending narrower range applies force extension's rejection. 23 There finally, third wholly consistent says authorized 'if strictly grammatical employed.' read insofar concerned, while leaving differentiate classes maximum augmenting according number harbored, previously in, time. increase however continue landing.14 24 can treating ambivalently separable Nothing comma preceding final burden supporting part added. Previously clause's solely augment o t changed added.15 Neither amendment's evinces proportionately involved, class offenders construction, one, necessity, justified fact unenforceable 25 less inconsistency tentative implicit resolution action involve wide departure common actually case. here large. With parties punish know, guess uncertainty, several constructions apply. uncertainty extends satisfy section, grammatically substantively grammatically. includes varying ranges think substantial, conceivably held latter affects sum makes best guesswork. 26 outside bounds interpretation. better Congress, function, revise revision precision. speculation law. 27 affirmed. Affirmed. Since issues arise dismissal charges determine 'conceal harbor' used specifies offense ones latter, difference two. Cf. notes infra text. 1907, 34 900, attempts land. prohibition attempting 1917. 880. Indeed asserts unambiguously imposed *,' integral inseparable Hudson Goodwin, Cranch 32, 259; Britton, 108 199, 531, 698; Eaton, 144 677, 764, 36 591; Viereck 318 236, 241, 243, 244, 63 561, 563, 564, 565, 87 734. Senate Report accompanying 'such included related *.' Sen. Rep. 352, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 9. suggested offenses,' see note, proximity proscribed, operations. apparently comprehended case, substitutes 'and' 'or' describing charged viz., 'which persons use conjunctive disjunctive, text quoted beginning opinion, involving entry, il egal remaining, drafting indictments cover amending give disjunctive effect. pertinent present form. conjoins cf. 7, petitioner harbored 'not Thus, relating included. Such declaring whole constituting process. bills proposed in. draft respect whom assisting abetting harbor.' See Annual 1909 Immigration, 168. simple applicable' substituted bill annual report 1910. (P. 170.) 1911 incorporating General's amendments introduced, applicable S. 3175, 62d 2d omission corrected drafts eventually resulted H.R. 6060, 63d sess.; 10384, 1931 1932 reports pointed interpreted A introduced House Representatives 1934, enacted, foregoing occurred.' 9366, 73d At hearings bill, Deputy 'to inflict smuggled alien.' Hearings Committee Naturalization 22. 1940 general again unlawful stow away facilitate entry aid stowaway, 54 306, 469 et seq., amended deportation who, knowingly gain, encouraged, induced assisted entry. 671, 155. Circuit First construes prescribe increased Medeiros Keville, F.2d 187, infra. California Niroku Komai, 286 F. 450; Kinzo Ichiki, 43 1007, Roberts, unreported Yankwich, J., April 29, 1946; Piamonte, decision Weinberger, May 21, 1946. Illustrative statement, 'We submit, therefore, light leave States.' Mediros Circuit, appears appellate matter. successfully opposed granting certiorari consistently that, contrary ruling, involved 'equally all.' response taken, points opposition urged was, grounds. reinforced amendment. substantially imprisonment. thus gave attention expanding followed recommendation. Yet declined alter clause, changed.

Category: 0