UNITED STATES
v.
STEAMSHIP "COAMO," HER ENGINES, ETC., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that under the Immigration Act of 1917, when a vessel owner fails to prevent aliens from landing at unauthorized ports, the vessel is subject to a fixed penalty of exactly $1,000 per violation, not a discretionary fine within a range. The Court rejected the District Court's approach of imposing $200 per alien, finding that the statute's language mandating "a penalty of $1,000 shall be a lien upon the vessel" established a definite, non-discretionary amount independent of any personal criminal penalties against the vessel's owners or agents.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Immigration Act of February 5,1917, c. 29, § 10; 39 Stat. 874, 881, makes it the duty of every person, including .owners, officers, and agents of vessels or transportation lines, &c., bringing aliens to ports of the.United States to prevent the landing of such aliens at any time or place other than as designated by the immigration officers,, and failure to comply with the requirements of thé section is made a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $200 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment or by both. “ Or, if in the opinion of the Secretary of Labor it is impracticable or inconvenient to prosecute the person, owner, master, officer, or agent of any such vessel, a penalty of $1,000 shall be a lien upon the vessel whose owner, master, officer, or agent violates the provisions of this section, 'and such vessel shall be libeled therefor in the appropriate United States court.” The United States libeled the Coamo for a violation of this section by a failure to deliver two aliens at the designated place, Ellis Island, and to prevent their landing elsewhere. The District Court found the violation, but held that $1,000 was simply the upward limit and imposed a penalty of $200 for each alien. The libellant appealed demanding $1,000 for each. The Circuit Court of Appeals certifies the question whether in such a case the trial, court is “ bound as a matter of law to pass a decree condemning said vessel for a penalty of exactly $1,000, neither more or less, for each alien landing from said vessel in .violation of said section of said statute.” - .
We áre of opinion that the language of the statute is too definite to be escaped by construction. After dealing with' the personal liability of owners and agents of vessels and transportation lines, the section passed to another matter, the liability qf vessels. It provides a remedy against them irrespective of any fine that may have been incurred by owners or agents. The liability is not a security for any such fine, it is a new one. The statute does not say that the fine or penalty previously mentioned shall be a lien, upon the vessel but that a penalty of $1,000 shall be. It seéms to us as plain that this is the sum to be demanded as it is that the right to demand it does not depend upon a conviction of the owner or agent of the ship. See The Scow 6-S, 250 U. S. 269, 272. The earlier part of this section and other sections of the Act simply fix limits and leave discretion as to the amount within the limit or limits fixed. . In §§ 35, 36, discretion is given to the Secretary of Labor. But here the statute allows only one judgment in' case of guilt. We answer the question
Yes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Pesaquid. United States v. 3 (D.R.I. 1926)…the vessel, subjecting her to immediate seizure and to summary proceedings by libel. The Scow 6-S, 250 U. S. 269, 63 L. Ed. 977; The 6-S (D. C.) 39. S. Ct. 452, 247 F. 348; The C. G. White, 64 F. 579, 12 C. C. A. 314; U. S. v. Coamo, 45 S. Ct. 237, 267 U. S. 220, 69 L. Ed. 582. The libel No. 1590 against the cargo of distilled spirits. It is plain that claimants can take no advantage of article 3 of the convention between the United States and Great Britain signed January 23, 1924 (43 Stat. 1761), which p…1 / 2
-
Serentino v. United States, 36 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1930)…aeh and every alien so landed or brought in.” Grant Bros. v. United States, 232 U. S. 647, 34 S. Ct. 452, 58 L. Ed. 776; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 34 S. Ct. 26, 58 L. Ed. 144; United States v. Steamship Coamo, 267 U. S. 220, 45 S. Ct. 237, 69 L. Ed. 582. It is true that in none of the cases cited to the foregoing proposition was section 8 under consideration. In Grant Bros. v. United States, sections 2, 4, and 5 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 USCA §§ 132,138, 139)…1 / 2
-
The Presidente Wilson (S.D.N.Y. 1931)…ually permitted the aliens to escape into the country. There is, therefore, no fault to be found with the procedure that has here been followed. ' See The Bremen (D. C.) 18 F.(2d) 960; The Nanking (C. C. A.) 290 F. 769, and The Coamo, 267 U. S. 220, 45 S. Ct. 237, 69 L. Ed. 582. My remarks to the contrary, made at the conclusion of the trial, were due to the fact that I momentarily overlooked the provision of the statute that, aside from this proceeding, the persons responsible for the landing of the aliens…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE SCOW "6-S.", 250 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1919)