Argument for Defendants in Error. LEES v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 98. Argued November 22, 1893. — Decided December 4, 1893. A district court of the United States has jurisdiction over an action to recover a penalty imposed for a violation of the act of February 26, 1885, 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, "to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." The act of February 26, 1885, 23 Stat. 332, c. 164, prohibiting the importation of aliens under contract to perform labor in the United States is constitutional. An action to recover a penalty under that act, though in form a civil action, is unquestionably criminal in its nature, and the defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is well settled that, instead of preparing separate bills for each separate matter, all the alleged errors of a trial may be joined in one bill of exceptions; and the exception in this case is specific and direct to the one error of compelling the defendant to become a witness against himself, and comes within this rule. THIS was a civil action in form, to recover a penalty for importing an alien under contract to perform labor, in violation of the act of February 26, 1885, 23 Stat. 332, c. 164. The point upon which the case turns in the opinion is, that the action being criminal in nature, though civil in form, the defendant could not be compelled to be a witness against himself. Mr. Hector T. Fenton for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Conrad for defendants in error. It is assigned as error, that the court erred on the trial in overruling defendants' objection to the compulsory examination of John Lees. If error in this regard was committed by Opinion of the Court. the trial court, it could be brought to the attention of the reviewing court only by a bill of exceptions, setting forth plainly the matter complained of as error, and thereby introducing the same into the record. Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24. In this case a bill of exceptions appears to have been begun, and later on in the record to have been concluded. The intermediate space is occupied with the testimony of the witnesses, among which appears the following: "John S. Lees, sworn. Mr. Fenton: John S. Lees, the witness called, is one of the defendants. This is a proceeding in the nature of a criminal proceeding. I object to his being examined on behalf of the plaintiff, because he is protected by statute. (Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.)” It nowhere appears, by any certificate of the judge, by whom John S. Lees was called to testify, or on whose behalf: nothing by which the fact is certified to this court that any objection was made and overruled, or any exception taken for defendants, nor, indeed, does it appear when, or by whom the remarks above quoted were written, upon the record from which this transcript was made. These are all matters extraneous to the record and could only be introduced into it by a proper bill of exceptions. No such bill appears in this record. And now as to the charge and opinion of the court which is the subject of this bill of exceptions: No error is specifically assigned, but the whole charge is dumped out en masse, and this court is called upon to scrutinize the whole opinion and charge, and pick out from it such error as it may discover. And thus, neither "the points of law," the charge of the court, nor the opinions of the court, are before this court for review. MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court. On August 22, 1888, the United States commenced this action in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover of Joseph Lees and John S. Lees, the present plaintiffs in error, the sum of one Opinion of the Court. thousand dollars, as a forfeit and penalty for a violation by them of the act of Congress of February 26, 1885, entitled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia." 23 Stat. 332, c. 164. Proceedings were thereafter had in that suit which resulted in a judgment, on February 23, 1889, in favor of the United States, for the sum of one thousand dollars. This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of that district, and has since, by writ of error, been brought to this court for review. The first alleged error is that the District Court had no jurisdiction over the action. The third section of the act provides that, for every violation, the offender "shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of one thousand dollars, which may be sued for and recovered by the United States, or by any person who shall first bring his action therefor, including any such alien or foreigner, who may be a party to any such contract or agreement, as debts of like amount are now recovered in the Circuit Courts of the United States." It is insisted that the last clause of this sentence vests the sole jurisdiction over such actions in the Circuit Court. But for those words there would be no question of the jurisdiction of the District Court. From the earliest history of the government the jurisdiction over actions to recover penalties and forfeitures has been placed in the District Court. The ninth section of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 76, c. 20, provided as follows: "The District Court shall have exclusive original cognizance of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States." While in the Revised Statutes the word "exclusive" was omitted, the language was not otherwise substantially changed. It is true that in some cases jurisdiction over matters of penalty and forfeiture has been committed to the Circuit Court, but this was always done by special act, and does not otherwise affect the proposition that the general jurisdiction over actions for penalties and forfeitures has been and is vested in the District Opinion of the Court. Court. Hence, when, as here, a statute imposes a penalty and forfeiture, jurisdiction of an action therefor would vest in the District Court, unless it is in express terms placed exclusively elsewhere. If the words, "as debts of like amount are now recovered," were omitted from this last clause, the construction claimed by counsel might be sustained; jurisdiction would then be given to the Circuit Courts. So, if those words were in parenthesis, or even separated from the last part of the clause by a comma, or any similar punctuation, there would be plausibility in the contention; but taking the clause as a whole, giving force to all its words, it would seem to refer to the form of the action rather than to the forum. When it is remembered that a penalty may be recovered by indictment or information in a criminal action, or by a civil action in the form of an action of debt, and also that the Circuit Courts of the United States are, as contradistinguished from the District Courts, the Federal courts of original civil jurisdiction, the significance of this clause is clear. It in effect provides that, although the recovery of a penalty is a proceeding criminal in its nature, yet in this class of cases it may be enforced in a civil action, and in the same manner that debts are recovered in the ordinary civil courts. Repeals by implication are not favored, and the general grant of jurisdiction to the District Courts of suits to recover penalties and forfeitures should not in any case be transferred exclusively to the Circuit Courts by words of doubtful import. In United States v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104, a somewhat similar effort was made to construe certain provisions of a statute as divesting the District Courts of their general jurisdiction over suits to recover penalties and forfeitures; but, in the face of language more significant of a change than that here presented, this court sustained such jurisdiction. A second alleged error is that the act, so far as it imposes this penalty, is unconstitutional. This question was elaborately considered by Mr. Justice Brown, then a Judge of the District Court, in United States v. Craig, 28 Fed. Rep. 795, and the conclusion reached that there was nothing in the act conflicting with the Constitution. In Church of the Holy Trinity v. Opinion of the Court. United States, 143 U. S. 457, its constitutionality was assumed ; and since the Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, and the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, affirming fully the power of Congress over the exclusion of aliens, there can be little doubt in the matter. Given in Congress the absolute power to exclude aliens, it may exclude some and admit others, and the reasons for its discrimination are not open to challenge in the courts. Given the power to exclude, it has a right to make that exclusion effective by punishing those who assist in introducing, or attempting to introduce, aliens in violation of its prohibition. The importation of alien laborers, who are under previous contract to perform labor in the United States, is the act denounced, and the penalty is visited not upon the alien laborer — although by the amendment of February 23, 1887, 24 Stat. 414, c. 220, he is to be returned to the country from which he came — but upon the party assisting in the importation. If Congress has power to exclude such laborers, as by the cases cited it unquestionably has, it has the power to punish any who assist in their introduction. - A third allegation of error is that the court compelled one of the defendants to become a witness for the government, and furnish evidence against himself. The bill of exceptions reads as follows: "John S. Lees sworn. "Mr. Fenton: John S. Lees, the witness called, is one of the defendants. This is a proceeding in the nature of a criminal proceeding. I object to his being examined on behalf of the plaintiff, because he is protected by statute. “(Objection overruled. Exception for defendant.)” This, though an action civil in form, is unquestionably criminal in its nature, and in such a case a defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is unnecessary to do more than to refer to the case of Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616. The question was fully and elaborately considered by Mr. Justice Bradley in the opinion delivered in that |