Case Name: LANG et al. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1904-10-11
Citations: 133 F. 201
Docket Number: No. 1,064
Parties: LANG et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 133
Pages: 201–209

Head Matter:
LANG et al. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 11, 1904.)
No. 1,064.
1. Immigration Laws — Prosecutions for Violation — Saving Clause in Amendatory Act.
The provision of section 28 of the immigration act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. 1220, c. 1012 [U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1903, p. 183]), that “nothing contained in this act shall affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, begun under any existing act or any acts hereby amended, but such prosecution and other proceedings, criminal or civil, shall proceed as if this act had not been passed,” is not limited in its application to prosecutions or proceedings which had been “begun” before the passage of the act, but applies to those thereafter begun under the old law, based on acts committed before its repeal or amendment.
2. Criminal Law — Federal Prosecutions — Rules of Evidence.
Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence in criminal prosecutions based on violations of the statutes of the United States are governed wholly by the general rules of law applicable to the conduct of trials, and not by the statutes or decisions of the particular state in which the court is sitting, except so far as the same may be persuasive.
3. Same — Impeachment of Defendant as Witness — Former Imprisonment.
It is within the discretion of a trial court to permit a defendant in a criminal case, when on the stand as a witness, to be asked on cross-examination if he has not been confined in a state prison.
Jenkins, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
¶ 2. See Courts, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. § 908.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs in error were found guilty, December 8th, 1903, in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, of violating section three of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 141, 18 Stat. 477 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1286], which reads as follows:
“Sec. 3. That the importation into the United States of women for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden and all contracts and agreements in relation thereto, made in advance or in pursuance of such illegal importation and purposes, are hereby declared void; and whoever shall knowingly and willfully import or cause any importation of women into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall knowingly or willfully hold, or attempt to hold, any woman to such purpose, in pursuance of such illegal importation and contract or agreement, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years and pay a fine not exceeding $5,000.”
On March 3, 1903, the above section was repealed and superseded by the following section:
“Sec. 3. That the importation into the United States of any woman or girl for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden; and whoever shall import or attempt to import any woman or girl into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall hold or attempt to hold, any woman or girl for such purposes in pursuance of such illegal importation shall be deemed guilty of a felony and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years and pay a fine not exceeding $5,000.” 32 Stat. 1214, c. 1012 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 172],
“See. 28. That nothing contained in this Act shall affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, begun under any existing Act or any Acts hereby amended, but such prosecutions and other proceedings, criminal or civil, shall proceed as if this act had not been passed.” 32 Stat. 1220, c. 1012 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 183],
Both were sentenced to the penitentiary at hard labor, Lang for the period of three years, and Lewis for the period of two years, and each to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs of suit. The petition in error is to reverse these judgments.
The assignment of errors is predicated, First on the court’s refusal, at the close of the evidence, to instruct the jury to find the plaintiffs in error not guilty; Second, the admission of evidence on cross-examination of plaintiff ih error Lang, bringing out the fact that defendant was at one time in the penitentiary at Trenton, New Jersey; the cross-examination on that subject, being as follows: . .
Mr. Bethea: Q: What were you doing at Trenton? A. I refuse to answer.
■ Q. Why do you refuse? A. I have got ground to refuse.
, Q. Trenton, New Jersey, has a penitentiary, has it not?
, ' Mr. Bachrach: I object on the ground that if the Government intends to try to prove a conviction for an infamous offense, the record of conviction would be the best evidence.
: Mr. Bethea: We will prove it at the proper time. We have a right to
show where this man was.
Mr. Bachrach: I object to it. They have no right to bring- out indirectly what they cannot do directly.
: The Court: Pie has a right to require the personal history of the witness, within the. discretion of the Court.
■ Mr. Bachrach: But when it becomes perfectly apparent from what he
states here, that the penitentiary is there at Trenton, that he wants the witness to admit that he has been in the penitentiary without proving such a conviction, that is one of the things that he must prove by the record.
.The Court: Do you contend that he may not ask that question straight out?
M. Bachrach: Whether he has been in the penitentiary?
The Court: Yes.
. Mr.. Bachrach: Indeed I do. He has no right to ask that question. He may ask him if he has been convicted of a felony or infamous crime, but has no right to ask a man if he has been in the penitentiary.
■ Mr. Bethea: I have a right to show where he has been living all the time. The Court: The objection will be sustained to that question.
Mr. Bethea: Q. How long were you in Trenton, New Jersey?
A. I can’t remember exactly how long.
Q. Weren’t you in the State Penitentiary during the time you were in Trenton, or most of it?
, The Court: You may answer.
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bethea: Q. For what crime?
Objected to by the defendants, on the ground that the recrrd of conviction of an infamous offense would be the best evidence. Which objection was overruled by the Court. To which ruling the defendants’ counsel duly save an exception.
A. I had been tending bar in the saloon, and they claimed the house was an ill famed house.
Q. Weren’t you convicted there of an infamous offense, the crime of im-' porting prostitutes from a foreign country, the same crime as this? A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn’t it for keeping a girl in a house of prostitution that was under age?
Objected to. Objection overruled.
A. No sir.
Mr. Bethea: What do you say the charge was?
Objected to upon the same ground, — that the record of conviction of an infamous offense would be the best evidence. Objection overruled by the Court Defendants’ counsel duly saved an exception.
A. The charge was for tending bar in a house of ill fame.
Third: In admitting testimony of correspondence by telegram and letter, between the agent of the Grand Trunk Railroad at Chicago, and the General Passenger Agent at Montreal; and Fourth: In entering judgment and sen-,
tencing the defendants upon a-prosecution under a statute that had been ver pealed.
The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court,
Benjamin C. Bachrach, for plaintiffs in error.
S. H. Bethea, U. S. Dist. Atty.
Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
GROSSCUP, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The act of March 3rd, 1875, c. 141, 18 Stat. 477 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1286], under which plaintiffs in error were indicted, was superseded by the act of March 3rd, 1903, the third section of which reads as follows:
"Sec. 3. That the importation into the United States of any woman or girl for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden; and whoever shall import or attempt to import any woman or girl into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall hold or attempt to hold, any woman or girl for such purposes in pursuance of such illegal importation shall be deemed guilty of a felony and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years and pay a fine not exceeding $5,000" (32 Stat 1214, c. 1012 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 172]).
The twenty-eighth section of the act reads as follows:
"Sec. 28. That nothing contained in this Act shall affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, begun under any existing Act or any Acts hereby amended, but such prosecutions and other proceedings, criminal or civil, shall proceed as if this act had not been passed" (32 Stat. 1220 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 183]);
and the thirty-sixth section reads as follows:
"That all acts and parts of acts, inconsistent with this act, are hereby repealed" (32 Stat. 1221 [U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1903, p. 185]).
It may be doubted whether the third section of the act of 1903, reenacting in an enlarged way the third section of the act of 1875 — both sections being unaffected by any repealing clause except the one above quoted — constitutes a remission of all penalties for violations of. the earlier section committed before the passage of the act of 1903. On. that question, however, we express no opinion.
It will be observed that section twenty-eight of the act of 1903, provides "that nothing contained in this act shall affect any prosecution oi other proceeding, criminal or civil, begun under any existing act or any acts hereby amended." The prosecution under review was commenced after the passage of that act. Counsel for plaintiffs in error would have us construe the twenty-eighth section as if it read that nothing contained in the acts should affect any prosecution or other proceeding, criminal or civil, already begun, under any existing act. To make good their point, they must convince us that the saving clause was intended to save only prosecutions then pending.
We do not thus interpret the saving clause. The word "begun" as here employed, is not the preterit of begin, expressing that verb in its past tense; it is, in our judgment, the past participle, performing solely the function of a connective — the verbal adjective, qualifying any prosecutions in mind, pending or future, its sole purpose being to show that such prosecution is one under the act of 1875.
It was not the purpose of Congress in the employment of the word "begun" in the connection here used, to provide that there should be no prosecutions under the old statute unless they had been already begun. Congress presumably, was looking to the future, as well as the past. It meant that in the matter of importations of this character, there should be no interim of non-criminality. The amendatory statute only enlarged and tightened the preceding statute. No prosecutions could be based on the amendatory statute for acts done prior to Hs enactment; what Congress meant in the section preserving the . _,.,t to prosecute under the statute was, that no prosecutions begun under that statute, whether they were then pending, or should thereafter be brought, should lapse by reason of this effort to enlarge and tighten the hold of the government upon this class of importations. It is to carry out this purpose that the word "begun" is employed, merely as a connective to identify a prosecution pending or to be brought, with the statute under which it is brought.
. The other questions raised need little discussion. The verdict, in our judgment, is supported by sufficient evidence; the correspondence that passed between the agent at Chicago, and the agent at Montreal, was admissible as a part of the res gestae — bearing on the fact of importation ; and the cross-examination of Lang, as to his incarceration in the New Jersey penitentiary, was not carried beyond permissible limits.
' Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proseecutions, based on violations of the Statutes of the United States, are questions wholly within the general rules and law applicable to the conduct of trials, and not at all subject, except as state statutes or decisions may be persuasive, to the statutes or decisions prevailing in the particular state where the court happens to sit; otherwise each state would have a substantial part in determining the manner in which the courts of the United States should enforce, not the law of the state, but the national laws.
Chief Justice Cooley, in Clemens v. Conrad, 19 Mich. 170, laid down the rule covering the cross-examinations of witnesses in relation to their conviction and incarceration for crime, as follows:
"The right to inquire of a witness on cross-examination whether he has not been indicted and convicted of a criminal offense, we regard as settled in this state by the case of Wilbur v. Flood, 16 Mich. 40 [93 Am. Dec. 203]. It is true that in that case the question was, whether the witness had been confined in state prison; not whether he had been convicted; but confinement in a state prison pre-supposes a conviction by authority of law, and to justify the one inquiry and not the other would only be to uphold a technical and at the same time point out an easy mode of evading it without in the least obviating the reasons on which it rests. We think the reason for requiring record evidence of conviction has very little application to a case where the party convicted is himself upon the stand and is questioned concerning it, with a view to sifting his character upon cross-examination. The danger that he will falsely testify to a conviction which never took place, or that he may be mistaken about it, is so slight, that it may almost be looked upon as purely imaginary, while the danger that worthless characters will unexpectedly be placed upon the stand, with no opportunity for the opposite party to produce the record evidence of their infamy, is always palpable and imminent. We prefer the early English rule on this subject. Priddle's Case, Leach, C. L. 382; King v. Edwards, 4 T. R. 440; and for thq reasons which were stated in Wilbur v. Flood."
The rule thus stated is reenforced by Thompson on Trials, § 458; Greenleaf on Evidence [16th Ed.] 461; Notes to Taylor's Evidence, vol. 3, p. 978, and the cases there cited, and many other cases at hand.
We are content to adopt this rule. It has done the plaintiff in error, in the case under review, no injustice; and if, in its application to the particular circumstances of future cases, any injustice be done, a correction thereof will follow under the right of a court of review to set aside the abuse of discretion by the trial court.