In re Umeno

Citations

• 3 D. Haw. 481

Syllabus

<p>Due process of law — Proceedings under immigration act — Conclusiveness and finality: An alien woman who hacl presumably entered the United States lawfully, was ascertained to be practicing prostitution within three years thereafter, was arrested, accorded a hearing and ordered to be deported under section 21 of the immigration act of February 20, 1907, 34 Stat. L. part 1, 898, and rule 35 of the regulations of July 1, 1907, relating to immigration. Held, that such proceedings constituted due process of law, and were conclusive and final, subject only to the authority of the courts in habeas corpus when the findings are against the alien and are repugnant to his rights under the Constitution and laws.</p> <p>Admissions as evidence — Habeas corpus proceedings: Admissions of alien women at a hearing under such proceedings are, in the absence of improper means for procuring them, legal evidence, and a court in habeas corpus proceedings may not review such evidence as to its conclusiveness.</p> <p>Construction of word — “Pound an inmate”: The word “found” in the sentence “found an inmate of a house of prostitution or practicing prostitution,” section 3 of the act of February 20, 1907, construed to be covered by the words ascertained to be.</p> <p>Applicability of Keller case to proceedings complained of considered: The proceedings complained of held not within the rule of the case of Keller v. United States, 213 U. S. 138, which found that the act making the harboring of alien prostitutes a felony was unconstitutional in its application to the harboring of such persons in a State because it was an assumption of the police power, which is reserved to the States by the Constitution, — the Hawaiian Islands being a Territory under the control of Congress, and this case being a civil proceeding.</p>