Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/252/171.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:46:12+00:00

Document:
Mr. Wm. S. Bennet, of New York City, for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for appellee and defendant in error.
The appellant, Gayon, was indicted in the Southern district of Texas for conspiring (section 37 of the Criminal Code [Comp. St. 10201]) with one Naranjo, of San Antonio, Texas, and with one Mendoza, of Laredo, Texas, about January 1, 1919, to hire and retain Foster Averitt, a citizen of the United States, to go to Mexico, there to enlist in military forces organized in the interest of Felix Diaz, then in revolt against the government of Mexico, with which the United [252 U.S. 171, 172] States was at peace, in violation of section 10 of the Criminal Code, as amended May 7, 1917, 40 Stat. 39, chapter 11 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 10174).
Gayon was arrested in New York, and, after a full hearing before a commissioner of the United States, was held subject to the order of the District Court for his removal to Texas.
Thereupon, by petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, the case was removed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, upon a hearing on a transcript of the evidence before the commissioner, that court discharged the writ of habeas corpus and entered an order that a warrant issue for the removal of the appellant to Texas. An appeal brings this order here for review.
The principles and practice applicable to this case are abundantly settled. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U.S. 249, 261 , 22 S. Sup. Ct. 218; Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77 , 24 Sup. Ct. 605; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 84 , 25 S. Sup. Ct. 760; Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20 , 27 Sup. Ct. 430; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 475 , 30 S. Sup. Ct. 249, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112; Price v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 488, 490 , 30 S. Sup. Ct. 257; Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 , 32 Sup. Ct. 793, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 614; Brown v. Elliott and Moore v. Elliott, 225 U.S. 392 , 32 Sup. Ct. 812; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219 , 35 Sup. Ct. 54.
Of many errors assigned only two are argued, viz: That the court erred in holding: (1) That the acts committed by the appellant 'of which there was any evidence before the commissioner' constituted a crime under section 10 of the Penal Code, and (2) that the evidence before the commissioner showed probable cause for believing the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the indictment.
The government introduced the indictment and, with the admission by Gayon that he was the person named therein, rested. This established a prima facie case in the absence of other evidence. Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20, 31 , 27 S. Sup. Ct. 430, and cases cited.
For five years before the arrest, Del Villar, a political exile from Mexico, had maintained offices in New York, from which he had conducted a systematic propaganda in the interest of Felix Diaz and against the Mexican government.
The accused, Gayon, is a Mexican citizen, and during several administrations prior to that of Carranza had served as consul for the Mexican government at Roma, Texas, and at other places within and without the United States. For about two years he had been secretary to Del Villar and for some time prior to his arrest was in the joint service and pay of Del Villar and General Aurelio Blanquet, the latter then in Mexico serving with the forces of Diaz.
Naranjo was editor and publisher of a newspaper at San Antonio, Texas, called 'Revista Mexicana' (Mexican Review), which was opposed to the established Mexican government and favorable to the revolutionists operating in the interest of Diaz.
On January 14, and again on January 21, 1919, he addressed Naranjo as 'My dear Friend' and discussed further advertising and circulating of his book.
This correspondence makes it clear enough that Gayon, although in New York, in December, 1918, and January, 1919, was in close association with Naranjo, and that the two were actively engaged in promoting opposition to the established Mexican government.
Supplied with these letters, Averitt straightway went to San Antonio and presented his letter to Naranjo, who, [252 U.S. 171, 176] after some conferences with him, gave him a letter to General Santiago Mendoza, at Laredo, on the border. This letter was presented to Mendoza and through him arrangements were made for Averitt's crossing into Mexico with two or three others, but they were arrested by customs guards and the proceedings we are considering followed.
In the interviews in New York there was suggestion of payment of expenses and a commission for Averitt, but Gayon, saying that the furnishing of either would violate the noutrality laws of the United States, told him there would be no difficulty in his getting a commission from General Blanquet on his arrival in Mexico and the last thing he said to him when leaving was 'that he expected that he should be at least a colonel when he saw him again down there.' He told him it might be possible to have his expenses made up to him when he arrived in Mexico, and, as a matter of fact, he received $15 from General Mendoza at Laredo.
'That whoever within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States ... hires or retains another ... to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted ... in the service of another foreign ... people' shall be punished as provided.
And the overt acts charged in the indictment are: That Gayon delivered to Averitt at New York a letter addressed to Naranjo, and at the same time gave him instructions with respect to presenting it and impliedly promised Averitt that upon his arrival in Mexico he would be given a commission in the army of General Blanquet; that at the same time he delivered to Averitt a letter addressed to General Blanquet, who was then in Mexico in command of revolutionary forces; that Averitt visited and held conferences with Naranjo, who gave him a letter to Mendoza, at Laredo, in the Southern district of [252 U.S. 171, 177] Texas; and that Averitt, under instructions received from Naranjo, called upon and conferred with Mendoza at Laredo and with him arranged to enter Mexico with others, with intent to join the forces of Diaz under General Blanquet.
While the narration of what took place between Gayon and Averitt does not show a hiring of the latter in the ordinary sense of the word, yet, when taken with the conduct of Averitt in going immediately to Texas, and in attempting to cross into Mexico, plainly, it tends to show that Gayon retained Averitt in the sense of engaging him to go to Mexico, that he was induced to enter into that engagement by the promise that he would be given a commission in the forces of Diaz when he arrived there and that he would probably be reimbursed for his expenses.
[252 U.S. 171, 178] 'A party may be retained by verbal promise or invitation for a declared or known purpose. If such a statute could be evaded or set at naught by elaborate contrivances to engage without enlisting, to retain without hire, to invite without recruiting, ... it would be idle to pass acts of Congress for the punishment of this or any other offenses.' Opinions of the Attorney General, vol. 7, pp. 367, 378, 379.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.