Ex parte Hamaguchi
District Court, D. Oregon
Habeas Corpus. The petitioner, a Japanese, shows that he is detained in custody by J. H. Barbour, inspector in charge of the immigration service at Portland, Or., by virtue of a certain telegram from the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Babor, and a letter from the Commissioner General of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of the United States; the detention being for the purpose of deporting petitioner to the Empire of Japan.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. The petitioner, a Japanese, shows that he is detained in custody by J. H. Barbour, inspector in charge of the immigration service at Portland, Or., by virtue of a certain telegram from the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Babor, and a letter from the Commissioner General of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of the United States; the detention being for the purpose of deporting petitioner to the Empire of Japan. Upon an order to show canse why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue as prayed, the inspector in charge, excepting to the petition for…
1Opinion of the Court
WOLVERTON, District Judge.
The principal insistence of counsel for petitioner against deportation is: “petitioner and sentenced on the charge of entering the United States without inspection”; that “the law contains no provisions against entering the United States at a border point without inspection”; and that “it (the law) contains no provision against entering contrary to the rules of the Department. It prescribes no penalty for infraction of a rule of the Department.”
Counsel are, I think, proceeding upon a mistaken premise, in that they base their defense upon the assumption that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- The Japanese Immigrant CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- United States v. Ju ToySupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Chin Yow v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- United States v. Sing Tuck or King Do & Thirty-OneSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Lavin v. Le FevreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
3Cited by8 opinions
- Guiney v. BonhamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1919
- Ung Bak Foon v. PrentisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
- United States ex rel. Dombrowski v. KarnuthDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1937
- Ong Seen v. BurnettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916
- Singh v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.