The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-09-23
The Exclusion OF Immigrants.

she ought not to have gone on the stage.
The Exclusion OF Immigrants.
The decision Just rendered by Judge
| CHARLES L. BENEDICT Of the United States
| District Court for the Eastern District Of
| New York In the case Of ADOLF FEINKNoFF.
detained immigrant. Is an important cx-
| position Of the new immigration law passed
| on March 8. 1891.
| The acting Commissioner Of Immigration
| at this port ordered FEINKNoFF to be sent
back to Europe ON the ground that he was
| person likely to become a public charge.
| The testimony which was taken under the
act OF Congress as to the right OF the
immigrant to enter the United States.
| showed that he was an Austrian cabinet
maker. 40 years Of age. who had worked
at his trade twenty-five years. and was
able to find employment In this coun-
try. He was unmarried. had baggage worth
upward Of twenty dollars. and had never
been an inmate OF an almshouse or prison.
Gen. JAMES H. O'BEIRNE. the acting Com
missioner. simply refused to believe these
statements OF FEINKNoPF. and detained him
at the Barge Office until he could be returned
to the country whence he came. There
upon writ Of habeas corpus was sued out
in the Federal court In FEINKNOFFs behalf.
and Judge BENEDICT has directed his release.
The basis Of the decision ia the insufficient
cy Of the testimony to establish the propo-
sition that the alien seeking admission to
the United States was. In fact. likely to be-
come public charge. The evidence was all
one way. 1t was not contradicted In a
single particular It was met only by re-
fusal OF the inspecting officer to accept It as
true. This Is not enough to justify the de-
tention and enforced return OF the immi-
grant. according to the view which Judge
BENEDICT takes OF the act Of March 8. 1891.
That statute. he thinks. was not In
tended to confer any greater powers
upon Federal officers than were pos
sessed by State officers who were authorized
to examine immigrants under the earlier
net Of Congress on the subject. which was
passed In 1882; and he holds that II Congress
had meant to invest the Commissioner OF
immigration with the authority to exclude
immigrants solely by reason OF his avowed
disbelief In uncontradicted testimony show
ing that the alien was not within the pro-
hibited classes. the intention would have
been manifested In explicit language.
No doubt this Interpretation accords best
with the spirit Of our laws and institutions.
1t must be admitted. however. that the
statute Is readily capable Of more strict
and narrow construction. The act OF 1891
says:
1.-THE following classes Of aliens shan DO excluded
from admission into the United States 10 accordance
with tbs existing acts regulating immigration, other
than those concerning Chinese aborers: All idiots In
sane persons, paupers or persons likely to become .
public charge persons suffering from loathsome
dangerous contagious disease. persons who been
convicted Of felony or other Infamous crime mia
demeanor involving moral turptude polygamiss. and
also whose ticket passage paid for with
the money Of another who 10 assisted by othors
come unless u amrnafrey and sartdadoiiv shos~
special inquiry that such person does not belong to
Of the foregoing excluded cAsses the class OF
tract laborers excluded by the act Of Feb. &C. 1855"
It may fairly be said that this language
creates in the case Of each immigrant pre-
sumption that he belongs to one OF the ex-
cluded classes OF aliens. and imposes upon
him the burden OF proving otherwise. Such
seems to be the import OF the requirement
that 1t shall be afllrmatively and satsfao-
tortly shown" that no does not come within
any OF the categories OF the statute. II the
alien thus applying for admission into the
Shli'A oColCo HucO pAoN0 IhuV iO 40 hCi'iCA
pauper nor likely to become one. and for
this purpose offers his own testimony, why
Is the officer who hears 1t obliged to accept
1t rs true any more than Judge In court is
bound to believe tho evidence given by an
interested party In lawsuit
Tho officer is practically a Judge for the
purposes Of the particular inquiry. The I'm
migrant is as truly an interested party as
the plaintiff or the defendant In an action ut
law. To require the officer to give credence
to statements which are belied by the I'm
migrants appearance. demeanor. and man
ner. certainly may be deemed unreasonable
while Judge is Mt liberty to reject the I'M
contradlctcd testimony " Il utlgant stand
Ing In an analogous position.
We make these suggestions. not to show
that Judge BENEDIcr's decision Is incorrect.
but to point out the different views which
can be taken OF the recent Legislation In
reference TO the exclusion Of undesirable
immigrants from this country. and to en-
phasizc the importance Of having the power
OF the Federal authorities clearly defined
by an adjudication In the Supreme Court or
by further action on the part Of Congress.