United States v. Evans (333 U.S. 483)/Opinion of the Court

Section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1917 provides:

'That any person * *  * who shall bring into or land in the United States (or shall attempt to do so) or shall conceal or harbor or attempt to conceal or harbor, or assist or abet another to conceal or harbor, in any place *  *  * any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector or not lawfully entitled to enter or to reside within the United States, under the terms of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for each and every alien so landed or brought in or attempted to be landed or brought in.' (Emphasis added.) 39 Stat. 880, 8 U.S.C. § 144, 8 U.S.C.A. § 144.

Appellee and another were indicted for concealing and harboring five named aliens in alleged violation of § 8. Before trial appellee moved that the indictment be dismissed on the ground that it did not charge a punishable offense. He argued that although the statute provided for two different crimes, one landing or bringing in unauthorized aliens, and the other concealing or harboring such aliens, punishment was prescribed in terms only for the former crime. The District Court accepted this argument and granted the motion to dismiss. The Government appealed directly to this Court pursuant to the Criminal Appeals Act, 28 U.S.C. § 345, 28 U.S.C.A. § 345, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 67 S.Ct. 625.

The case presents an unusual and a difficult problem in statutory construction. It concerns not so much Congress' intention to make concealing or harboring criminal as it does the penalty to be applied to those offenses including attempts. The choice, as might appear on glancing at the statute, is not simply between no penalty, at the one extreme, and, at the other, fine plus imprisonment up to the specified maxima for each alien concealed or harbored. The problem is rather one of multiple choice, presenting at least three, and perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers on the statute's wording. Furthermore, as will appear, the legislative history is neither clear nor greatly helpful in ascertaining which of the possibilities calling for punishment was the one Congress contemplated.

Before discussing specifically the alternatives, we note that the Government rests primarily on the clarity with which § 8 indicates Congress' purpose to make concealing or harboring criminal, rather than upon any like indication of legislative intent concerning the penalty. Because the purpose to proscribe the conduct is clear, it is said, we should not allow that purpose to fail becauseo f ambiguity concerning the penalty. Rather we are asked to make it effective by applying that one of the possibilities which seems most nearly to accord with the criminal proscription and the terms of the penalizing provision.

On the other hand, appellee does not really dispute that Congress meant, by inserting the amendment prohibiting concealing or harboring, to make those acts criminal. But he denies that it is possible, either from the section's wording or from the legislative history, to ascertain with any fair degree of assurance which one of the possible penal consequences Congress may have had in mind. From this he falls back upon the conclusion indicated by the premise, namely, that the task of resolving the difficulty goes beyond dispelling ambiguity in the usual sense of judicially construing statutes and, if attempted, would require this Court to invade the legislative function and, in effect, fix the penalty. The argument is therefore not merely that a rule of strict construction should be applied in petitioner's favor. It is rather that the choice the Government asks us to make is so broad and so deep, resting among such equally tenable though inconsistent possibilities, that we have no business to make it at all.

Even in criminal matters a strong case would be required to bring about the result appellee seeks. For, where Congress has exhibited clearly the purpose to proscribe conduct within its power to make criminal and has not altogether omitted provision for penalty, every reasonable presumption attaches to the proscription to require the courts to make it effective in accord with the evident purpose. This is as true of penalty provisions as it is of others. United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 68 S.Ct. 376.

But strong as the presumption of validity may be, there are limits beyond which we cannot go in finding what Congress has not put into so many words or in making certain what it has left undefined or too vague for reasonable assurance of its meaning. In our system, so far at least as concerns the federal powers, defining crimes and fixing penalties are legislative, not judicial, functions. But given some legislative edict, the margin between the necessary and proper judicial function of construing statutes and that of filling gaps so large that doing so becomes essentially legislative, is necessarily one of degree.

We turn then to consider whether the Government is asking that we do too much when it puts forward a preferred reading of the penal provision, perhaps suggests another as a permissible alternative, and is prepared to accept a third, though disavowing its complete consistency with Congress' intent, if neither f the others is adopted.

The Government's preferred reading would impose the same penalty for concealing or harboring as for bringing in or landing, notwithstanding the 'for each and every alien' clause is limited expressly to aliens 'so landed or brought in or attempted to be landed or brought in.' Under this interpretation the effect of that clause would be to provide additional punishment, as stated in the brief, 'where the crime of landing or bringing in aliens or the crime of concealing or harboring aliens involves more than one alien brought into the country illegally.' (Emphasis added.)

This construction is admittedly ungrammatical and the failure to integrate the wording of the 'each and every alien' clause with the language of the 1917 amendment adding the concealing and harboring offenses is conceded to have been possibly due to oversight.

If only imperfect grammar stood in the way the construction might be accepted. But we agree with appellee that more is involved. The Government in effect concedes that in terms the section prescribes no penalty for concealing or harboring. But it argues that inclusion of them as offenses becomes meaningless unless the penalty provision, in spite of its wording, is construed to apply to them as well as to bringing in or landing. In other words, because Congress intended to authorize punishment, but failed to do so, probably as a result of oversight, we should plug the hole in the statute.

To do this would be to go very far indeed, upon the sheer wording of the section. For it would mean in effect that we would add to the concluding clause the words which the Government's reading inserts, 'and for each and every alien so concealed or harbored.' It is possible that Congress may have intended this. But for more than one reason we cannot be sure of that fact.

In the first place, the section as originally enacted was limited to acts of smuggling. And there is some evidence in the legislative history that the addition of concealing or harboring was meant to be limited to those acts only when closely connected with bringing in or landing, so as to make a chain of offenses consisting of successive stages in the smuggling process.

But that evidence is not conclusive. And the section's wording is susceptible to much broader constructions. On the language it is possible not only to treat concealing or harboring as offenses distinct and disconnected from smuggling operations; it is also possible to regard them as separate and distinct from each other. And on the broadest possible interpretation, giving independent effect to the words 'or not lawfully entitled * *  * to reside within the United States,' the section could be taken to apply to concealing or harboring of aliens lawfully admitted but unlawfully remaining within the country.

In that event an innkeeper furnishing lodging to an alien lawfully coming in but unlawfully overstaying his visa would be guilty of harboring, if he knew of the illegal remaining. And, with him, one harboring an alien known to have entered illegally at some earlier, even remote, time would incur the penalties provided for smuggling, if the Government's position giving implied extension of the penalty provision were accepted.

We do not mention these possibilities to intimate opinion concerning the reach of the statute with reference to covering them, for no such question is squarely before us. But we point them out because they are relevant to the problem of assurance or reasonable certainty in asserting that Congress by necessary implication intended to extend the penalties originally and still clearly provided for smuggling to all offenses covered by the language defining the crimes.

The very real doubt and ambiguity concerning the scope of the acts forbidden, if any, beyond those clearly and proximately connected with smuggling raise equal or greater doubt that Congress meant to encompass all those acts within the penal provisions for smuggling. If acts disconnected from that process are forbidden, the separate offenses of concealing and more particularly of harboring, if the two are distinct, might require, in any sound legislative judgment, very different penalties from those designed to prevent or discourage smuggling in its various phases. That is essentially the sort of judgment legislatures rather than courts should make.

The position the Government asks us to take involves therefore a major task in two respects, not merely one. The first is to expand the penal language beyond the explicit limitation 'for each and every alien so landed or brought in,' so as to apply the penalties designed for smuggling to all offenses covered by the section. The second is to do this blindly in reference to the scope and quality of the forbidden acts to which the extension is to be made, that is, without resolving beforehand the questions we have noted as arising on the face of the section in relation to its reach in defining the offenses of concealing or harboring. The Government does not ask us to undertake now to say how far the section may or may not go in these numerous aspects of defining coverage. We are not willing to undertake extension of the penalty provision blindfold, without knowing in advance to what acts the penalties may be applied. Nor are we any more willing to decide wholesale among the various possibilities of coverage. That problem, squarely presented in concrete instances, might be resolved step by step, were there no difficulty over the penalty. But to resolve it broadside now for all cases the section may cover, on this indirect presentation, would be to proceed in an essentially legislative manner for the definition and specification of the criminal acts, in order to make a judicial determination of the scope and character of the penalty.

Beyond the difficulties arising on the section's wording, the legislative history is sufficient in one respect, when added to th other obstacles, to make them insuperable for accepting the Government's preferred reading. It discloses that both before and after and 1917 amendment the immigration authorities and particularly the Commissioner General repeatedly sought from Congress the specific penal wording the Government now asks us to insert. These efforts were made as conflicting judicial decisions demonstrated that the courts were very much at sea and their floundering was brought to congressional attention. In each instance nevertheless the effort was unsuccessful.

It may well be, as the Government infers, that this only increases the mystery of Congress' failure to include explicit penalties when it added the new offenses. It is possible that Conge §§ may have thought none were needed. But that view hardly explains satisfactorily the subsequent repeated failures to clarify the matter, after experience had shown that need. We cannot take them as importing clear direction to the courts to do what Congress itself either refused or failed on notice to do upon so many occasions and importunities.

We are not entirely sure that the Government intends to put forward as an alternative suggestion the reading, already discussed, which would extend the smuggling penalties to the section's broadest possible construction in relation to definition and coverage of criminal acts, i.e., to concealing or harboring of aliens lawfully admitted but unlawfully remaining. But appellee regards this as a tendered possibility and specified statements in the Government's brief appear to sustain his view. Whether appellee is correct in taking the statements as suggesting an independent alternative or, on the other hand, they were made, though not accurately phrased for the purpose, in support of the Government's preferred position, is not greatly material. For, in any event, what has been said about extending the penalty to include the narrower range of forbidden acts applies to the broader one with even greater force as calling for the extension's rejection.

There is, finally, the third possible interpretation which the Government concedes not wholly consistent with the statutory purpose, but says nevertheless is clearly authorized 'if a strictly grammatical construction of Section 8 is employed.' This would read the 'for each and every alien' clause out of the section insofar as offenses of concealing or harboring are concerned, while leaving it effective for bringing in or landing. In other words, the reading would differentiate the two classes of offenses for applying the penalty provision. The prescribed maximum penalties would be made effective for concealing or harboring, but without augmenting them according to the number of aliens concealed or harbored, even though previously landed or brought in, at the same time. That increase however would continue in force for bringing in or landing.

The wording of § 8 can be made to support this interpretation only by treating the 'for each and every alien' clause as ambivalently separable in relation to the two classes of offenses. Nothing on the face of the section suggests such a reading. The comma preceding the final clause is not equal to the burden of supporting the construction. The clause was part of the section before the concealing and harboring offenses were added. Previously there could have been no possible intent or purpose to apply the clause to some of the offenses but not to others. The clause's function was solely to augment the penalty when more than one alien was involved. That function was o t changed when the new offenses were added. Neither the amendment's wording nor its history evinces any purpose to increase punishment, proportionately to the number of aliens involved, for one class of offenders but not for the other. The construction, like the preferred one, is a construction of necessity, to be justified if at all only by the fact that without it the statute becomes unenforceable for the offenses of concealing or harboring.

If there were less inconsistency among the tentative possibilities put forward or greater consistency with the section's wording implicit in one, resolution of the difficulty by judicial action would involve a less wide departure from the common function of judicial interpretation of statutes than is actually required by this case. But here the task is too large. With both of the parties we agree that Congress meant to make criminal and to punish acts of concealing or harboring. But we do not know, we can only guess with too large a degree of uncertainty, which one of the several possible constructions Congress thought to apply. The uncertainty extends not only to the inconsistent penalties said to satisfy the section, either grammatically or substantively if not grammatically. It also includes within varying ranges at least possible, and we think substantial, doubt over the section's reach to bring in very different acts which conceivably might be held to be concealing or harboring. The latter ambiguity affects the former and their sum makes a task for us which at best could be only guesswork.

This is a task outside the bounds of judicial interpretation. It is better for Congress, and more in accord with its function, to revise the statute than for us to guess at the revision it would make. That task it can do with precision. We could do no more than make speculation law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.