UNITED STATES'V. cllUReR 'OF THill IlOLY TRINITY.
803
, r Ie (5)' The 'Cpurt: fu.rthel,'J i,nstl"nctS' the jury that.if t1;u!y ,believefrolp.: t:\le,evi. "dence Walter Goff 'V8$employed by the conductor of the train upon 'Y'hich the accident.occurred as J;lra:keman upoll that at thetiIrili, ,qf said employment the said conductor did not k'now that the,said Walter 'Goff was under twenty-one years of age; and if they furtller beHeve from the 'ev1· dencethatsaid conductor believed from the statements of said Walter Goff, and from his appearance. that he was 21 years of the,defenQant is not chargeable witlJ, negligence by reason of employing the !laid Wl,J-lterGoff as a brakemlln, even if such employment was without the consent of the parents of the said Goff; and the plaihtiffls not entitled to recover by rea,sons Of .the employment of said Walter Goff without'obtlliriing the consent of his parents. " . "(6) The court instructs the jury that the contract for service made by the deceased W. Goff;if he were a minor, with the N. & W.R.R. Co.,throQgh its conduct()r"Jphnston, was, not void but only voidl\ble, at th,e election of the said lIeceased or his mother; and untilthe said contract was so avoided {twas i!.s valid binding upon the de,ceased as if he had b'eellan adult at the time he entered into It; and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, simplybecl\use the said contl'aCt Was made with a minor." .,
was a verdictfor the defendant..
After argument of counsel, the case was submitted to the jury, and· there .
UNITED
'STATES t7. RECTOR,
ETC.,
OF THE CHURcH OF THE HOLY
TRINITY.
(OircUii Oouri, 8. D.Nmo Y01'k. May 21, 1888.)
1.
mMIGRATION-PERSONS UNDER CONTRA.CT TO. LABO..-CLERGYMEN.
statute entitled" An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens undercontract or agreement to perform labor in the United States" prohibits theencouraA\:ement of migration of aliens under COntract Or agreement previously,made to pet:form labor or servicl' of any kind in ,States, "imI?o$es a penalty on any person or encouragIng mIgratIOn of an ahen under a contract or agreement prevIOusly made ," to perform labor or service of auy kind, " .and contains a proviso exempting from its, provisions "professional actors, artists, lecturers. OJ; singers. ". The defendant, a religious corporation, engaged an alien residing in England to come here and take charge of its church as pastor. Held, that the corporation,wasliable:to the penalty prescribed. The words "labor or servic:le" of any kind cannot be given a restricted meaning, sO &.Il to exclude the vocation of 'a minister of the gospel, in view of the proviso; which plainly signifies that they are intended to apply to aU who labor In any professional callings not specially exempted.
,9. SA.ME.
At
Seaman Miller, for the demurrer. StqJhefI, A.Walker, p.S. Atty., contra. WALLAOEjJ.
Law.
On demurrer to complaint.
posed by ,the
This suit is: brought.to recover a penalty of$l,OOQ,imof February 26, l885,{23 St. a.tLarge, 3:32,)
804 !
FEDERAL REPORTER.
upon every person or corporation offending against its provisions by knowingly encol,lraging the migration of any alien into the United States labor or service of any kind under contract or agreement, express orimplied," previously made with such alien. The defendant, a religious corporation, engaged one Warren, an alien residing in England, to come here and take charge of its church as a pastor. The act makes it the dtity of the United States .district attorney to bring suit to enforce the penalty prescribed. The. demurrer ihterposed to the complaint raises whether such...a contract as was nlade in this case is within the terms of the act. In other words, the question is whether congress intended to prohibit the migration. here of an alien who comes pursuant to a contract with a religious society to perform the functions · of a. minister of the gospel, and to subject to the penalty the religious making the contr;tcta,nd encouraging the migration of the . ThE;, act is enti*d "An act to prohibit, the im alien tion and' migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States." It was, no doubt, prima· :rily the object of the act toprohihit the introduction of assisted immigrants, bronght here under contracts previously made by corporations and capitalists to prepay their passage and obtain their services at low wages for limited periods s>f time. It was a measure introduced and advocated by the trades union and labor associations, designed to shield the interests represented by such organizations from the effects of the compliltitipn.in labor, marketo,f foreigners br<?ught here contracts having a tendency to stimulate immigration and reduce the rates of wages.. Except from the language of the statute there is no reason to suppose a contract like the present.to .be within the evils which the law was designe r{ to suppress; and, indeed, it would not be indulging a violent suppOSition to assume that no legislative body in this country would )a.vead a lit'V framed so as to cover a like the present. Nevertheless, where the terms oCa statute are plain, unambiguous, and explicit, the courts are not·' at liberty to go outside of the language to search fora meaning which it. does not reasona1:>ly bear in the effort to ascertulnand give effect to wlutt.may be imagined .to have been or not · to have beed. the intention of congress. Whenever the will of congress · is declared iu ample and unequivocal language. that will must be absolutely followed, and it is not admissible to resort to speculations of policy, nor even to the views of members of congress in debate, to find rea'sons to contrqlor modify the statute. U. S. v. Rauroad 00., 91 U. S. 72. If it were perD;lissible to narrow the provisions ot the act to correspond with the purport of the tit1'e, and restrain its operation to cases in which the alien is assisted to come here under contract "to perform labor," there might be room for interprehition; and the restricted meaning might possibly be given to the word "labor" which signifies the manual.work of the laborer, as distinguished from the work of the skilled artisan, or the professional man. But no rule in the construction of statutes is niore familiar. tha:n thepone to the effect that the title cannot be used to extend or.testrainpositive provisions in the body of the act. In Ha,d-
maTED STATES V. CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY.
305
den v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107, it is said: "The title of an act furnishes little aid in the construction of its provisions." The encouragement of migration prohibited by the first section is of aliens under contract or agreement previously made "to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States. " The contracts which are declared to be void by the second section are contracts "having reference to the performance of labor or service by any person in the United States" previous to the migration of the alien. The penalty imposed by the third section is imposed on the person or corporation encouraging the migration of the alien under a contract or agreement previously made "to perform labor or service of any kind." No more comprehensive terms could have been employed to include every conceivabl!l kind of labor or avocation, whether of the hand or brain, in the class of prohibited contracts; and, as if to emphasize and make more explicit the intention that the words "labor or serviell" should not be taken in any restricted sense, they are followed by the words-"of any kind." Every kind of industry, and everyemployment, mariual or intellectual, is embraced within the language used. If it were p,ossible to import a nllrrower meal)ing than, the natural and ordinary one to the language of these sections, the terms of the fifth section would forhid the attempt. That section is a proviso withdrawing frorll the operation of the act several classes of persons and contracts. Foreigners residing here temporarily, who may engage private secretaries; persons desirous of establishing a new industry not then existing in the United States, who employ skilled workmen therein; domestic servants; and a limited professional class, are thereby exempted from its provisions. The last clause of the proviso is: "Nor shall the provisions of this act apply to professional actors. artists, lecturers, or singers, nor to persons employed striotlyas personal or domestic servants." If,without this exemption, the act would apply to this class of persons, because such persons come here under contracts for labor or service, then clearly it must apply to ministers, lawyers, surgeons, architects, and all others who labor in any professional calling. Unless congress 8upposed the act to apply to the excepted classes, there was no necessity for the proviso. The office: of a proviso is generally to restrain an enacting clause, and to except something which woaln otherwise have been within it. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 30; Mini.s v. U 8., 15 Pet. 423. In the language of the authorities: "A proviso carves special exemptions only out of the enacting clauses." U. S. v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 165; lfyan v. Carter, 93 U. S. 83. Giving effect to this well-settled rule of statutory interpretation, the proviso is equivalent to a declaration that contracts to perform professional services except those of actors, artists, lecturers, or singers, are within the prohibition of the preceding sections. The argument based upon' the fourth section of the act has not been overlooked. That section subjects to fine and imprisonment any master of a vesseL who knowingly brings within the United States any alien."laborer,mechanic, or artisan," who has previously entered into any contract to' perform labor or service in the United' States. This section is wholly independent of the others, and the difference in the persons dev.361".no.5-20
smfibed mayr:reasonably, be teferred'to to: mitigate the severity of the act' in its application to masters of vessels. The demurrer is overruled.
I'll,
'1'6
LETTERS, ROGATORY FROM , (OirD'Uit
FIRsT
DISTRICT
JunQ:ll:()F
VER,A CRuz.
Oourt,S:'». NeUJ fork. August 1,1888.)
DEPOSITION-LE1-TERS ROGATORy--Rmv.ST. U. S.
§ 4071. Letters rogatory from the first district judg'e of Vera Cruz, Mexico. stating that for the purpose of clearing up the, details of a certain importation, he has made a decree directing the issue of letters rogatory, which decree purpotts to have ,been made in proceedings relating to an in-vestigation as t() the smuggling of"certain cotton, do n()t show that amount to a "suit for the recovery of money or property" WIthIn the meanIng of Rev. St. U. S. 4071, providing that the testimony of any witness residing in the United States may be obtained by commission or letters rogatory, to be used in a suit for the recovery of money or property depending in, any cOllrt in a foreign country when the government of that country is a party, or interested in the suit, and 'do not warrant an order directing the attendance of a witness to answer the interrogatories.
On Motion to Set Aside an Orderdirecting the attendance of a witness. Olcott, Mestre k Gonzalez" for Mexican Government. 'LowiJJ Sanders, for witness. ' LACOMBE, J. The order heretofore made for the attendance of the witness was based on letters rogatory from the first district judge of Vera Cruz, stating that, "for the purpose of clearing up the details of" a certain importation, he has made a decree directing the issue of letters rogatory to the federal judge at the city of New York. This decree purports to have been made "in the proceedings relating to the investigation that [he is] making as to the smuggling of some cases of cotton." A motion is now made to set aside the order. The only authority for directing ,the attendance of the witness to which attention has been called is found in section 4071 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is therein provided that the testimony of any witness residing in the United States may be obtained by commission or letters rogatory} to be used (a) in a suit for the recovery of money or property; (b) depending in any court in a foreign country, with which the United States are at peace; (c) where the government of that country is a party to such suit, or interested therein. It does not appear, either by the letters, the petition of the Mexican consul general, or even the cablegram read upon the argument, that the "proceedings relating to the investigation as to the smuggling" above described in fact amount to "a suit for the recovery of money or property." The order must therefore be set aside.. Section 875 of the Revised Statutes does not help the petitioner; it only. provideR for the procedure when letters rogatory are ,addressed .and commissionerappointed; it does not extend the cases in which examination of witnesses will be ordered.