Court Opinion

ID: 9445334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:25:22.079883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:12.683829
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
1. I agree with the first reason given by my colleagues, i. e., that this defendant was guilty because he knowingly and deliberately failed to state that he had been convicted of an offense, since that offense constituted a “crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude”.
2. As that reason alone suffices to dispose of this appeal, I think we ought to stop there. I think it a mistake for my colleagues needlessly to embark — without a pilot, rudder, compass or radar— on an amateur’s voyage on the fog-enshrouded sea of psychiatry. The unnecessary voyage ends, as I think it was bound to, in a dubious conclusion: My colleagues (sans legislative history or extensive research into psychiatric writings) solemnly declare what Congress intended when, in the 1917 statute, it adapted psychiatric terminology in the phrases “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” and “mentally defective.” It is those phrases which, if they apply at all, must be applied here, and not the psychiatric terms found in the 1952 Act, which was not in effect when defendant gave his answers.
The 1952 Act for the first time used the term “psychopathic personality” which it substituted for the phrase “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” in the earlier statute.1 We have the legislative history of the 1952 Act which makes it plain that, in that legislation, Congress deliberately adopted definitions, contained in a 1952 report of the Public Health Service, of the terms of the 1952 Act. According to those Public Health Service definitions (which many psychiatrists would not accept), “psychopathic personality” and “mental defect” seem to include homosexuality or sexual perversion, regardless of whether such proclivities are “constitutional” 2 — a word *413which means what one is born with.3
We have no legislative history of the 1917 statute to help us interpret its pertinent language. Recognizing that fact, the government in its brief asks us to read into the 1917 Act the definitions— which Congress adopted 35 years later— of the new language of the 1952 Act. This, of course, we cannot do. Consequently, to construe the 1917 terms— “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” and “mentally defective” — to include homosexuality or the like, we would need most convincing and reliable data (to inform our judicial notice) as of the date of that legislation. We have none.4 *414To obtain such data would be none too easy. But from what little reading of psychiatric writings I have done, I know just enough about psychiatry to know this: (a) No unanimity, even now, prevails among psychiatrists concerning the correct interpretation of the words in question, and the conflicting interpretations were much in flux when Congress enacted the old statute in 1917 and up to 1952 when it enacted the new.5 (b) Certainly there was not in 1917 (and there is not now) any general agreement among psychiatrists that homosexuality and sexual perversion are characteristics with which a person is born.6
I think it unwise, in interpreting the 1917 Act, for my colleagues to rely on a Minnesota decision in 1939,7 construing a 1939 Minnesota statute, Laws 1939, c. 369, § 1, M.S.A. § 526.09, which provided for the application to one having a “psychopathic personality” of that state’s laws relating to insane persons. Not only did the statute say nothing of “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” but it specifically defined “psychopathic personality” to mean “the existence in any person of such conditions of emotional instability, or impulsiveness of behavior, or lack of customary standards of good judgment, or failure to appreciate the consequences of his acts, or a combination of any such conditions, as to render such person irresponsible for his conduct with respect to sexual matters and thereby dangerous to other persons.” Nor do I think it wise for my colleagues to rely on quotations (without regard to con-
text) from the writings of two psychiatrists, published 11 and 22 years, respectively, after the enactment of the 1917 statute.8 (When I say “without regard to context” I have in mind the following: Psychiatrists have differing perspectives when they are (a) classifying patients, (b) diagnosing patients with reference to possible “cure,” and (c) discussing the legal “responsibility” of the those accused of crime. A psychiatrist with one perspective may use a psychiatric term in a manner different from another psychiatrist with another different perspective.) Such material supplies slimsy support for a decision holding (1) that in 1917 homosexuality was considered a “constitutional” component of “psychopathic inferiority,” (2) that, when in 1952, Congress dropped “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” and substituted “psychopathic personality,” it intended no change, so that the former means the same as the latter, and (3) that in the 1917 statute “mentally defective” included homosexuality and exhibitionism not present at birth.
Revelatory is a circular, distributed in 1951 — i. e., before the 1952 Act — by the Public Health Service to its medical officers concerned with examining aliens under the 1917 statute.9 The circular summarizes the “criteria” these officers were to apply. It states, “These criteria * * * are not * * * to be understood as legally effective interpretations of the statute”; and it notes that there are “instances in which the terminology of the Immigration Act of *4151917 does not correspond with the standard nomenclature of modern medicine and psychiatry.” With that preface, the circular states: “The statutory term ‘constitutional psychopathic personality’ has no exact counterpart in present medical or psychiatric terminology. However, with certain limitations the term ‘psychopathic personality,’ with its various subcategories, would seem to have the same meaning. In the classification of conditions under this category, the word ‘constitutional’ is important. This term implies that the psychopathic inferiority was present at birth. The medical examiner will, therefore, certify a condition as ‘constitutional psychopathic inferiority’ only where the condition or its symptoms were present and are traceable rather clearly back to the early years of the individual’s existence and therefore can be considered to have been present at birth.” So, according to this circular, “psychiatric personality” includes, and means much the same as, “psychopathic inferiority,” and Congress, when it specifically provided for the exclusion of an alien with a “psychopathic personality” if it were “constitutional,” meant such a personality present at birth. But the circular also states, “Individuals with psychopathic personality in whom it is impossible to demonstrate the constitutional nature of the symptoms are also certifiable (i. e., to be excluded) as mentally defective.” See the curious result of this circular’s interpretations:
(1) The statute specifically calls for the exclusion of an alien who was born with a “psychopathic personality” (i. e., “psychopathic inferiority”).
(2) Yet an alien with a “psychopathic personality,” whether or not present at birth, is to be excluded as “mentally defective,” since “mentally defective” includes “psychopathic personality” (i. e., “psychopathic inferiority”).
If, however, “mentally defective” includes every alien with a “psychopathic personality,” regardless of whether or not he was born with it, why did Congress specifically require the exclusion of an alien whose “psychological personality” (i. e., “psychopathic inferiority”) is “constitutional,” i. e., goes back to his birth? Does not such an interpretation of “mentally defective” render purposeless, functionless, the use of the limiting word “constitutional”? As an interpretation with such an effect should be rejected,10 does not the statute mean that an alien is not to be excluded unless his “psychopathic personality” (i. e., “psychopathic inferiority”) is “constitutional” ?
It would seem to me to follow (a) that "constitutional psychopathic inferiority,” used in the old statute, is not at all the same as “psychopathic personality,” first used in the 1952 statute, and (b) that “mentally defective” in the old statute cannot be stretched to cover a “psychopathic inferiority” which is not “constitutional.” This analysis, I think, amply justifies the circular’s prefatory warning that its interpretations “are not * * * to be understood as legally ef*416fective interpretations of the statute” as it stood before 1952. The same, I think, is true of my colleague’s interpretations. For they construe the 1917 Act as if it were the 1952 Act, by applying the legislative history of the latter to the former.
We would smile (I trust indulgently) at psychiatrists who thought that most legal terms possess clear, precise, stable meanings, easily to be learned by thumbing a few judicial opinions and a legal dictionary. Why should we hope to escape the smiles of psychiatrists if we behave similarly vis-á-vis psychiatry ? And why should we assume that psychiatrists have successfully overcome the semantic difficulties we and all other humans (except, perhaps, mathematicians) 11 have never surmounted?

. The 1952 Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182, provides for the exclusion, inter alia, of the following classes of aliens:
“(1) Aliens who are feeble-minded;
“ (2) Aliens who are insane;
“(3) Aliens who have had one or more attacks of insanity;
“(4) Aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect”.

. The Senate Report No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Session (1952) stated: “Existing law does not specifically provide for the exclusion of homosexuals and sex perverts. The provisions of S. 716 which specifically excluded homosexuals and sex perverts as *413a separate excludable class does not appear in the instant bill. The Public Health Service has advised that the provision for the exclusion of aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality or a mental defect which appears in the instant bill is sufficiently broad to provide for the exclusion of homosexuals and sex perverts. This change of nomenclature is not to be construed in any way as modifying the intent to exclude all aliens who are sexual deviates.”
The advice of the Public Health Service mentioned in this Report refers to a “Report of the Public Health Service on the Medical Aspect of H.R. 2379.” This report of the Public Health Service is set out in House of Representatives Report No. 1305, 82nd Congress, 2nd Session (1952), page 47; see U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, 82nd Congress, 2nd Session (1952), volume 2, pages 1653 et seq. On pages 1699 et seq. appears the Public Health Service Report. It states: “ * * * The conditions classified within the group of psychopathic personalities are, in effect, disorders of the personality. They are characterized by developmental defects or pathological trends in the personality structure manifest by lifelong patterns of action or behavior, rather than of mental or emotional symptoms. Individuals with such a disorder may manifest a disturbance of intrinsic personality patterns, exaggerated personality trends, or are persons ill primarily in terms of society and the prevailing culture. The latter or soeiopathic reactions are frequently symptomatic of a severe underlying neurosis or psychosis and frequently include those groups of individuals suffering from addiction or sexual deviation. * * *
“Sexual perverts. The language of the bill lists sexual perverts or homosexual persons as among those aliens to be excluded from admission to the United States. In some instances considerable difficulty may be encountered in substantiating a diagnosis of homosexuality or sexual perversion. In other instances where the action and behavior of the person is more obvious, as might be noted in the manner of dress (so-called transvestism or fetishism), the condition may be more easily substantiated. Ordinarily, a history of homosexuality must be obtained from the individual, which he may successfully cover up. Some psychological tests may be helpful in uncovering homosexuality of which the individual, himself, may be unaware. At the present time there are no reliable laboratory tests which would be helpful in making a diagnosis. The detection of persons with more obvious sexual perversions is relatively simple. Considerable more difficulty may be encountered in uncovering the homosexual person. Ordinarily, persons suffering from disturbances in sexuality are included within the classification of ‘psychopathic personality with pathologic sexuality.’ This classification will specify such types of pathologic behavior as homosexuality or sexual perversion which includes sexual sadism, fetishism, transvestism, pedophilia, etc. In those instances where the disturbance in sexuality may be difficult to uncover, a more obvious disturbance in personality may be encountered which would warrant a classification of psychopathic personality or mental defect.”

. See, e.g., White, The Abnormal Personality (2d ed. 1956) 394. He says that the concept of psychopathic personality “originated with an English psychiatrist, Prichard, who in 1835 described a ‘form of mental derangement’ in which intellect seemed unimpaired but in which the ‘power of self-government’ was lost or lacking, so that the individual was incapable of ‘conducting himself with decency and propriety in the business of life.’ Prichard called such patients ‘morally insane’ or ‘morally imbecile,’ terms which still persist in British psychiatry. Toward the end of the century the hypothesis was advanced that people who answered the description given by Prichard probably suffered from some hereditary tceakness of the nervous system; hence the term constitutional psychopathic inferiority.”
And see the Public Health Service Circular, quoted infra, which explicitly states that “constitutional” means “present at birth.”

. I think that, before we attempted to interpret those words, we should at least have asked the government to assist us by *414filing additional briefs supplying us with such data as, by diligent research, it might discover. For neither in its filed briefs nor at oral argument, did the government furnish us with such material.

. White, loc. cit. 395-396; cf. Guttmacher and Weihoffen, Psychiatry and the Law (1952) 86 if.

. See, e.g., White, loc. cit. 129, 407-409.
Consider the fact that a culture’s tolerance of homosexuality may foster it in many persons who had no such tendencies at birth. See excerpts from Westermarek, The Origin and Development of The Moral Ideas (1908) in Calverton, The Making of Man (1931) 529, especially 545-547. Think, for example, of the homosexuality of Plato and his associates ; see, e.g., Fite, The Platonic Legend (1934) Oh. 8.

. State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 205 Minn. 545, 287 N.W. 297. See also Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744.

. The Myerson book was published in 1928, and the Draper article in 1939.

. The circular was published in Interpreter Releases, Common Council for American Unity, Vol. XXVIII, No. 35, August 7, 1951.

. See, e.g., United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-539, 75 S.Ct. 513, 99 L.Ed. 615; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Phoenix Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 285 U.S. 209, 52 S.Ct. 329, 76 L.Ed. 709; Ex parte Public National Bank of New York, 278 U.S. 101, 104, 49 S.Ct. 43, 73 L.Ed. 202; Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U.S. 112, 115-116, 25 L.Ed. 782; Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 99 U.S. 48, 58, 25 L.Ed. 424.
In Hill v. William, [1949] A.C. 530, 544, 546-547, Viscount Simon (at 546), in pointing out that seldom should tautology be imputed to a legislature, said that “it is to be observed that though a Parliamentary enactment (like parliamentary eloquence) is capable of saying the same thing twice over without adding anything to what has already been said once, this repetition in the case of an Act of Parliament is not to be assumed. * * * The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out.”

, We cannot be sure that even mathematicians have always escaped the perils of ambiguity. See Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (1945) Chapters 6-8.