597); and so as to quasi criminal acts of the corporation officers or servants (Salt Lake City v. Hollister, 118 U. S., 256). If a corporation or "transportation company" is not included in the term or description "person" in section 6, then while the officers, agents, or servants of the corporation transgressing the law may be reached and punished and the corporation be indirectly controlled by the act in that way, nevertheless the employing company, the real and responsible offender, would escape, ignoring the provisions of the law, and setting aside the plain intent of Congress with impunity. To hold otherwise would be practically to destroy the operation of the act. Because as part of the statutory punishment the offender is liable to imprisonment does not make any real difference, or invalidate the penalty which may be imposed upon the corporation itself. In 15 Opinions, 230, it was held that various provisions of internal-revenue laws show that a penalty for the enforcement of the tax on distilled spirits, prescribing imprisonment as part of the punishment imposed, can not be regarded as incompatible with a clearly expressed intent to make various provisions of the law relating to distilling applicable to corporations as well as to individuals. Practically, I see no reason why the fine alone should not be imposed upon the indictment and conviction of the corporation itself (eitherunder ordinary criminal forms or by a proceeding analogous to a suit for the enforcement of a penalty), and both the fine and imprisonment, or either, in the discretion of the court, upon the indictment and conviction of the officer or employee of the corporation. The court may use its discretion generally in such a case, and impose either the fine or imprisonment, or both. Sometimes the court's discretion in the matter is specifically recognized (act of February 8, 1892, 29 Stat., 512), but it is to be implied as part of the court's sound discretion in exercising its judicial functions, unless the law provides otherwise. (Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S., 727, 737.) I may suggest here that the case of Mergenthaler Linotype Company v. Ridder (65 Fed. Rep., 853) is authority for the theory that the directors and officers of corporations may be enjoined by the court from further violations of law. I conclude that corporation officers or servants responsible for or actually engaged in breach of the immigration laws under the act of 1891 are liable to the fine and imprisonment imposed by section 6, and the corporation itself is liable to a fine in the case of any and each alien brought into or landed in the United States, by vessel or otherwise, who is not entitled to enter, and I therefore answer the question submitted for my consideration by stating that the repeated endeavor on the part of transportation companies to bring into the United States aliens afflicted with a disease pronounced to be "loathsome or dangerous contagious" is embraced within the meaning of section 6 of the act of March 31, 1891, so as to make such companies liable in the way herein indicated to the penalties prescribed thereby. Very respectfully, JOHN W. GRIGGS. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. DRAWBACK-SUGAR. It being possible to ascertain the quantity or measure of sugar used in canning fruit for export, the drawback on such sugar under section 30 of the act of July 24, 1897, should be restored. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 15, 1898. SIR: In your communication of the 11th ultimo you state that in August, 1896, the practice which had theretofore existed of allowing drawback on imported sugar used in canning fruit for export was discontinued for the reason that all natural ripe fruits contain some cane sugar, and that the cane sugar present from the fruit itself can by no means be distinguished from the imported cane sugar added in the canning process; consequently, the imported sugar contained in the exported article can not be ascertained in the manner required by the first proviso of the drawback law-now section 30 of the act of July 24, 1897-as construed in the Attorney-General's opinion of December 28, 1894. The proviso referred to requires that when an article. exported is made in part from domestic material, the im ported material shall so appear in the completed article that the quantity or measure thereof may be ascertained, and in the opinion of December 28, 1894, it was held that this proviso forbids the allowance of a drawback except in cases where the article manufactured or produced can be so separated, chemically or mechanically, into its component materials, that the relative proportions of each material may be ascertained without reference to past books of account. The application for an allowance of this drawback is now renewed on the ground that it is practicable to determine the quantity of foreign cane sugar in the exported canned fruit by ascertaining, through an analysis, the total quantity of cane sugar present in the canned fruit and then deducting the quantity of cane sugar shown by the records or ascertained through analysis to be derived from the fruit itself. Assuming that the quantity of imported sugar present in the fruit canned for exportation can be ascertained, in the manner indicated, you request my opinion upon the question whether the drawback applied for may be allowed. In a later communication, dated the first instant, you transmit for my consideration a report from the customs auditor at San Francisco, setting forth the method followed in the ascertainment of the quantity of imported sugar used in the process of canning. I quote from this report: "As the law provides for drawback equal in amount to the duties paid on the materials used, less 1 per centum, the matter is herein considered for the purpose of arriving at a rule to ascertain the quantity of sugar used. "There is no difficulty in deducing the rule. "(1) A customs officer may inspect or supervise the canning process, and take note of quantity of sugar added in putting up a certain number of cans of a given variety of fruit. The number of pounds of sugar so added, divided by the number of cans filled, will be the weight of sugar, per can, actually added. "(2) Samples of such pack, taken then and there, may be analyzed by the Government chemist, for the purpose of showing quantity of sugar ascertained by analysis. "(3) The result thus obtained by analysis may be compared with quantity of sugar actually added, as demonstrated by customs supervision outlined above, for the purpose of determining the quantity of sugar allowable for drawback. "For illustration: "(a) Suppose the customs officer finds, by actual inspec tion, that 10,000 pounds of sugar is used in putting up 20,000 cans of apricots; the sugar added per can would be 8 ounces. "(b) Suppose that the Government chemist finds by analysis 7 ounces of cane sugar from all sources in sample taken at time of canning; "(c) Then it is a matter of clear demonstration that the proper allowance for drawback (on canned apricots) would be the quantity of sugar shown by analysis (7 ounces), plus one-seventh of itself, which equals 8 ounces, the quantity added in the canning process.' * * "The first proviso of section 30 requires that when the exported article is made in part from domestic materials, the imported materials shall so appear in the completed article that the quantity thereof may be ascertained. "In the example illustrated the domestic material is apricots; the imported material is cane sugar. Does the imported material so appear in the completed article that the quantity thereof (used in the manufacture) may be ascertained? "Investigation at time of canning demonstrated that 8 ounces of imported cane sugar were used per can; analysis shows presence of 7 ounces of cane sugar. "From this point the rule for ascertainment of quantity of imported cane sugar used is one of mathematics, pure and simple. The quantity to be ascertained is known to be 8 ounces, while the base for said known result is 7 ounces. Said base is the quantity of cane sugar shown by analysis to be present in the exported article, and it is immaterial to mathematics what may be the source of said cane sugar." It appears from your statement that it is possible, by analysis, to ascertain the quantity of cane sugar in the canned fruit. Deducting the known quantity of cane sugar derived from the fruit itself, you have the quantity of the imported material in the exported article. It further appears in the report I have so liberally quoted from that a method exists 7843-VOL 22, PT 1—9 for ascertaining, by a chemical analysis of the exported article, the quantity of imported material used in its manufacture. In view of these facts and for the reasons stated in my opinion of the 13th instant, I am clearly of the opinion that the imported sugar does so appear in the exported canned fruit that the quantity or measure thereof may be ascertained, and therefore that the drawback on such sugar ought to be restored. Respectfully, Approved. JOHN K. RICHARDS, JOHN W. GRIGGS. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. CHINESE TRADERS. Chinese persons known as traders are not entitled to admission to the United States for the first time upon presenting a certificate in accordance with the requirements of the act of July 5, 1884. Chinese applicants for admission to the United States should comply strictly with the requirements as to certificates. The true theory of the Federal law is not that all Chinese persons may enter this country who are not forbidden, but that only those are entitled to enter who are expressly allowed. A trader is not expressly known to the law as among the exempt classes, nor is such a person fairly included in them unless as a merchant and the statutory language cannot be so construed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 15, 1898. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communications of June 8, June 27, and June 28, with their various inclosures, relative to the admission into this country of certain Chinese persons known as "traders," under a certain form of certificate framed by the United States consul at Canton, China. The papers submitted present, in effect, the question whether the persons referred to are entitled to admission to this country upon presenting a certificate actually or substantially in accordance with the |