bDERAL; REPORTER,· vol. 43.

'and'

coilipensation for the transporiatiOri, ,tinder suband conditions, of aitig:letlclta'tSfor"B shorter distance,thari for the tnmsportation of others ticket for a; longer distance; but this objectionis fully holding a met by the to the objections relating to', the second and third sectiona. 'ThIS bill should be dismissed at the costs of the complainant.

$t;lc'tioh, because if permits th'e:'

1$

'that. the sale ·of

I'll'

L HA

VJ:'I:O

RULLO. l

8, D. New York. M"J" 29,1890,)

This, court, habeas coTP'U8 .proceedings, is .not authorized to take evidence to facUl, which another. of a quasi judicial character, is constituted by ,law for the purpose of tnq]1irlng Into and determining. S.BAIIJI!:-CO'liTRAOT LABOR'LAW-AoT ·FlI:B. 28, 1887-BTATEOnIOBJUl. Where immigrants ;prevented from enterblg the coullt1'1 011 the ground that they ha\'e come contrary to the provisions of the contract labor law, the finding Il8 to the facts by the superllltendellt of immigration, when cOnfirmed by the collector, Mting pursuant to the, regUlations of the secretary of the treasury, is a finding of a tribunal dUll. constituted by law, and is not subject to review by thill court. Under the act 0 February 28, 1887, the secretary of the treasury haa the right to appoint a superlntendentofimmigration,;inl1eu of state otli081'llo

CQ1\PUS-ltBVlEw oJ'· FiOTs.

on

At Law. On petitionfor.llabWa CO'IpU8. L. fJUp, for petitioners. Daniel O'Connell, Asst. U. S. Atty., in opposition.

BROWN, J. The petitioners, immigrantsfrom Italy, having been forbidden to land, on the ground tpat they came here on contracts for labor and 1887, seek a release upon habeaa prohibited by the statutes C01pUS, on the grounds-.Ftrst-, that there has been no investigation of thei,!. case by any competent 'legal tribunal; and, second, that the state.ments in their affidavits, upop: which the refusal to permit them to lan4 was based,· were. incorrectly understood or incorrectly translated, and thatthey <lid not come here under any contract of labor. It has been repeatedly held in immigration cases that, under the statutes above re!erred to, andc;>thers similar, the court upon habeaa CQryus is not authorized to take upon the original question as to the facts concernthe. immigrant's right to lap.d, where another tribunal of a quasi judibY'law for the p;urposeof inquiring into :sl,lch facts, and determining the inu:p.igrant's rightjbut that the office of ;the writ of habe'a$ CQryUB is to inquire into the. jurisdiction exercised by and whether it has .kfilpt within its ,legal limits, and proceeded according to l&w. Inquiry into the facts· maybe had so far.'
J Reported

by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York D&I'.

IN RE VITO ,RULto.

68

is necessary t() determine that question. In re Dietze, 40 Fed. Rep. 324; Trire Ournmings,82 Fed. Rep. 75; :En rfJ Day, 27 Fed. Rep. 681, and cited. , cases In the 'pi:esent case the'return to the writ shows that an examination of the immigrants was had by the superintendent of immigration. The affidavits of the petitioners translated from Italian into English, and signed by their mark, and certified to the collector by the superintendent along with his report, show plainly that the petitioners came within the prohibition of. the law,., It is alleged that a miStake was made in the language of the affidavits, either in understanding what the petitioners stated, or'in the translation of it. This is a matter, however, which, as held in the Case of Dietze, ffUpra, cannot be inquired into before this court; it being admitted that an13xatnination at the timestated was had,the affidavit made, and no fraud' or· imposition being charged in the 'proceeding; The correctioIiof such errors,if they were errors,can only be ,made upon a rehearing, which can be flilowed at his discretion by the collector, and on his direction by the superintendent, or upon appeal, under tberegulations,by the secretary of the treasury; and it is to bepf6Sumed that such discretion will be exercised in favor of appresent a reasonable and proper case therefor. The examination into the right of the immigrants to land was made in this case by the superintendent of immigration,an officer appointed by not by the state commission, board, the secretary of the treasury, or officers designated by the governor of the state, as provided for in the sixth section of the act of February 23,1887, (24 S1. at Large, 415.) The authority of the secretary (If the treasury to substitute such anappointee in place of that board rests upon the general power given him in the first two lines of that 'section, which charge the secretary the duty of "executing the provisions of this act." No doubt, question' may be made as to the construction of that section, and of the secretary's authority in this respect. But if, the secretary, in examining into the im.tnigrant's'right to land,had no, powerto proceed except in the particular maniler provided in'tne of thjl.t section, viz., through the state officers" then, in case of's. refusal by those officers to act, the law would becpm.e nugatory, so far as respects landing, from the want of any means of enforcing it, Such a result would be plainly contrary to the intent oftpeact, and the construction of the language of the act is not necessa:rilY,such as to entail that result. I deemitmy duty, therefore, to sustain the cOllstructiongiven to it by the department, and its authority to 'appoint a superintendent of immigration, in case of dissatisfaction. with the 'state officers, to perform thtl same duties the latter had previously performed, and act asa quasi judicial tribunal for the determination of the right of the iIOmigrant to land in the sam,e manner, and with the same effect, as the state commission or board of officers mentioned in the sixth sectionabove referred to were authorized to act. The findingoLthe superintendent, when confirm'ed by the collector, acting pursuant' ,to the regulations of of the treasury, I must therefol'eholdtl. finding .by the tribunal duly constituted by law) .\1, ". .
\ ,. ,'. r,,1 ; , . , " .

FEDERAL REPORTER ,

vol. 43.

The regular, and within its 'jutisdictioh, is binding here. Relief'rriust be sought there. The habeaa; is therefore disch!\rged, and the petitioners remanded· ,

"

,

',.

.

UNITED STATES V. KONKAP-OT

,'fl

et al.

(Circuit Court. ]j].1). WiscOnBin. Julyll,1890.)
1.,

Rev. St. U; S; § 2461, ,wnich forbids the cutting of timber growing on land of the United States whiohhas ,bf3e,lli,reserv,',ed or purcha,sed for supplying timber for the navy, and the cutting or re,J;llovlI.lof timber from any other land of t!1e with intent to export or dispose of the same otherwise than for the use of the navy, does not apply to Indian reservations' in Wisconsin, since its objeot is to' PrQtect tim1:)er suitable for the use Qf the navy. ton destruction of timber upon Indian reservations does not apply to one who removes and uses for building purposes timber which has been cut on an Indian reservation by another person wlthout his aid or enoollragement. '

LAW.

,:

Rev. St. U. S. §5388,as amended June 4, 1888, which forbids the cutting or wan'
Error to district court.

"

'

At Law.

CharlesW. Felker, for plaintiffs in erroi'.

Uf. A. Walker, U. S. Dist. Atty.

GREsHAM,:r.' ·The defendants were convicted and sentenced for cutting and removing timber from an Indian reservation. The first count of the charges that on the 1st day of January, 1889, the defendants unlawfully entered uponan SO-acre tract,-describing it,-part ()f the unallotted lands of the belonging to. the Stockbridge tribe ofIndians l:nWisconshi, and cut and away 75 pine trees, alid other trees then and there the. value of $700, withintent to uSe and dispose 6£ the. same the open mat'ket for their mvn behefit, gain, and profit, and not for the use of the. navy of the United SUttes. The second count differs from the first in omitting the charge tpt{t the trees were not'cut with the intel1.tionof disposing of them for the USe of the navy.. Section 2461, Rev. St., declares that if any son shall cut or cause to be cut, or aid or assist in cutting, or shall wantonly destroy,or Cll.use .or .aid in w,ahtonly destroying, any oak or cedar trees, or other standing, growing, or being on any lands orthe United States which have been reserved or purchased for the use ofthe United States for supplying or furnishing therefrom timber for the navy of the United States; or if any person shall remove, or aid or assist in removing, from any such lands any live oak or red cedar trees, orotber timber, unless 4uly authorized so to do by order in writing of a competent officer, an(:1' for the use of the navy of the Uqited States;, or if any person shall cut, or cause to be cut, or aid or assist in cutting any oak or red cedar trees,dr other tiniber on. or shall remove, or cause to