The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-04-02
BONAPARTE'S
ASSISTED
IMMIGRAIlON-
OPINION

being under contracts. promises, or |
it might Doe rererable solely |
to persons dcportcd prior to the passage |
of tn S act; but aus prior to the pas
sage of this act there was no provision |
or excluding or dcporting persons "un- !
dor offers or solicitations of labor, and !
such persons could not have been pre-
giously dcportcd, this phrase is only ex-
rIainoble ON the theory that Congress |
understood that persons coming i'm pur-
suunce of the offers or solicitations pro- |
hibited in section of the act of 1908
were to be thereafter subject to depor-
tot'on The force of any argument
Against the repeal. by implication.
which can be fairly drawn from the
insertion of this provision is, however,
seriously weakened by the fact that the
persons coming i'm pursuance of offers
or sol citations prohibited i'm section a
of the act of 1906 but not embraced un-
der the terms of the act of 1885, in fact,
were not made subject to deportation
by the aforementioned act, although it
is possible and even probable, that ITS
trainers thought they We're. Congress
used no apt words to subject them to
this penalty either in section 2 or in
section4, or in any other section of the
act in question; and it may be not un-
reasonably held that the true inference
to be drawn from the provision in ques-
ton was, not that Congress intended
to keep alive the statutes on the same
subject previously enacted, but that it
passed the law of 1903 under a misap-
prehension as to its legal effect.
should, therefore, find great difficulty In
escaping the conclusion that the pro-
visions of law authorizing the exclusion
or deportation of aliens by reason OF
their coming to the United States I'M
der contracts of employment had been
repealed by the act of 1903, if it were
not that the question in dispute seems
to have been determined by judicial
authority. This precise point was con-
sidered in the deportation case of In re
Ellis Q24 Fed. 6SO, decided June 25
1908, in which two al'ens-Ellis and
Charalambis-who had been denied ad.
mission and who were held in custody
by immigration authorities insisted
that the act of 1908 had repealed, by
implication, all previous laws on the
subject and that there was no law then
existing under which they could be
deported, although their passage had
been paid by others and they came here
under contract to perform labor or
service. Lacombe, Circuit Judge, af-
ter reviewing the statues and carefully
Analysing the act of 1903 held that
while section 2 of the act of 1903 was
inconsistent with section l of the act
of 1891 as to all items wherein they
differed, it did not operate to remove
the barrier to the admission of con-
tract laborers under the contact labor
laws. He further says
But as was pointed out in Holy
Trinity Church V. The United States
G4S U. S. $40, in constituting these sta
tutes we are to get at the spirit OF the
statute and the intention of it's makers.
however inconsistent that may be with
the words used.
THE act now under consideration
originated in the House of Representa-
tives. When 1t came to the Senate
there was in the second session Omme-
diately after the clause persons VINO
procure or attempt to bring in pro-
stitutes or women for the purpose of
prOstitutionD the following: Persons
whose migration has been induced by
offers, solicitations, promises, or agree
ments, parol or special, express or inn
piled, of labor or work or service of
any kind, skilled or unskilled, in the
United States The Senate amended
the House bill by striking out the last
clause above quoted and in several 9TH
er respects. The House went to a
conference committee. The committee
came into accord as to which amend
ments should be accepted and which
should be withdrawn. This particular
amendment was accepted. The House
conferees reported to the House that
they have concurred in the Senate
amendment Gin line 10, p. 8, sec. p,
striking out the part of the bill relat-
ing particularly to the contract-labor
law, leaving intact the contract-labor
laws heretofore enacted and now on the
the statute books the only variation
being that the words offers, soicita-
tions, or promises We're substituted
for the word contracts" Congressional
Record, p 32O5)
Judge Lacombe further held that
these petitioners, although expert ac-
countants, were not within the except
cd clauses. Both Ellis and Charalam-
bis appealed to the Supreme Court
but subsequently, on a rehearing be-
fore the Commissioner of Immigration
the excluding order was reversed-upon
what grounds does not appear-and
the two appeals were dismissed with
out decision by that court.
In a later case before the Circuit
} Court of Appeals for the second circuit
I'm which tha question wa g eouoraIvy IN,