56118/590
Decided by the Board August 26, 1943.
Fines — Section 20, Immigration Act of 1924 — Failure to detain for inspection.
When the responsible parties failed to detain an alien seaman for inspection as required by section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924, the mere fact that he returned to the vessel before it sailed does not constitute a defense to liability for fine incurred under that section.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating McGrann, of New York City, attorneys for the respondent.
Miss Arlene Tuck, Board attorney-examiner.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The record indicates that the S.S. Baron Haig arrived at the port of New York on January 21, 1943, from the Dominican Republic and that it sailed from New York on the morning of January 24, 1943. The inspector in charge does not report and the protest is not clear as to whether the crew was inspected on the 22d or the 23d. The inspector reports, however, and the agents do not deny, that the seaman, S---- B----, went ashore without having been inspected. According to the inspector's report, apparently the agents first asserted that B---- was obliged to go ashore to receive United States naval instructions at the port director's office. They do not assert this in their protest, however, and a report from the office of the port director at New York shows that B---- did not attend a conference at that office. The inspector in charge at New York states that ample opportunity was afforded the master and the agents to present the seaman for inspection. Notice of intention to fine was served on the agents on February 15, 1943.
DISCUSSION: Section 20 of the Immigrant Act of 1924 provides that fine is incurred where the responsible parties fail to detain on board an alien seaman until the immigration and naturalization officer has inspected him. It is urged by the agents that fine has not been incurred in this case because the seaman in question returned to his vessel and sailed out with it. The same reasoning has been followed by the Central Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in recommending that fine be not imposed. The case of the S.S. Aeas (56068/170) [ see page 105, this volume] is referred to. In that case we held that fine would not be imposed where a seaman ordered detained on board escaped his guards, but through the efforts of the responsible parties was apprehended, his detention on board was resumed, and he departed with the vessel when it sailed. That decision is not to be interpreted as a broad inroad upon the application of section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924. That a seaman sailed out with the vessel on which he came has not been made a general defense available to responsible parties in all cases in which a fine is sought to be imposed under section 20. The ruling in the Aeas case served the very practical purpose of encouraging the responsible parties to try to apprehend escaped seamen. It was not intended to be a license to such parties to permit alien seamen to go ashore without inspection. If such were the rule, the master or agent, willing to take a chance that his men would return to the ship, could take the matter of granting or denying shore leave into his own hands. Obviously section 20 serves other purposes than the insurance that alien seamen depart with their ships. There are many reasons why certain persons should not be permitted to go ashore in the United States for even one hour. A seaman might be afflicted with a dangerous, contagious disease. In time of war he might be in the service of the enemy.
The statute required that the seaman in this case be detained on board until he was inspected and granted shore leave. No reason has been advanced why it was impossible or impracticable to comply with this requirement. We are of the opinion that fine has been incurred.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the basis of all the evidence presented, it is found:
(1) That the S.S. Baron Haig arrived at the port of New York on January 21, 1943, having on board the alien seaman, S---- B----;
(2) That the said seaman was not detained on board for inspection and went ashore;
(3) That notice of intention to fine was served on the agents, J.H. Winchester Co., on February 15, 1943.
CONCLUSION OF LAW: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded:
(1) That under section 20, the agents, J.H. Winchester Co., have incurred liability for fine for failing to detain on board for inspection the alien seaman, S---- B----.
ORDER: It is ordered that fine be imposed. The sum involved is $1,000.