Argument for Appellant. the law requires upon either the present testimony before him, or that and such other as he may deem proper to take." The petitioner appealed to this court. Mr. Lyman I. Mowry, for appellant, submitted on his brief. Intervenor Hatch had no power or authority in the premises: first, because he was not legally and properly appointed an inspector of immigration; and second, because the petitioner was ashore and within the United States before his appointment. The act of March 3, 1891, creates a bureau of immigration, and provides for the appointment by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, of a superintendent of immigration, who shall have his office in the city of Washington. As there is no provision in the act for the appointment of inspectors of immigration, such appointment would necessarily, and by the universal practice of the government be in the superintendent of immigration as the head of the department of immigration. The superintendent of immigration was appointed by the President long after the appointment of Hatch by the Secretary of the Treasury, and long after Hatch had decided upon the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner having been brought ashore and within the United States by Thornley, there was nothing for Hatch to act upon, because if he were legally appointed inspector of immigration his examination must be made on board of the ship or after removal by him from the ship temporarily for examination. He had no power or authority to examine into the status of aliens already ashore in the United States. Neither Thornley, Hatch nor the collector of the customs obeyed the instructions of the act of March 3, 1891. That act says: "The inspection officers and their assistants shall have power to administer oaths and to take and consider testimony touching the rights of any such aliens to enter the United States, all of which shall be entered of record." There is in this case no such record as is contemplated by the statute. VOL. CXLII-42 Opinion of the Court. The evidence shows the whole record made by Thornley, Hatch and the collector, and that consists of Thornley's letter to the collector, the collector's reply, Thornley's report to the collector and Hatch's report to the collector. There is nothing in this record that shows that either Thornley, Hatch or the collector administered any oaths, took or considered any testimony touching the rights of the petitioner to enter the United States or entered the same of record. Thornley's letter to the collector shows that he intended to take testimony, because he removed Nishimura Ekiu from the ship to the mission home, but Hatch received his appointment on the day following the removal, and Thornley then ceased to act. It is evident from an examination of his report to the collector that Hatch did nothing but make a stereotyped copy of Thornley's report. The reports of Thornley and Hatch and the letter of the collector thereto attached show that the decisions of Thornley, Hatch and the collector were arbitrary, irregular and without testimony. The powers conferred upon inspectors by the act are of such an extraordinary and far-reaching character, that it was the evident intention of Congress that such a record of their proceedings should be kept, as would be of some service to the government in case diplomatic complications should arise from the execution of the law. Notwithstanding that some of the cases heretofore cited hold that the decision of the inspector upon the facts is not reviewable by the courts, yet the court did inquire into the facts in the cases of Cummings, Dietze and Bucciarello. In re Cummings, 32 Fed. Rep. 75; In re Dietze, 40 Fed. Rep. 324; In re Bucciarello, 45 Fed. Rep. 463. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Parker for appellees. MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. As this case involves the constitutionality of a law of the United States, it is within the appellate jurisdiction of this Opinion of the Court. court, notwithstanding the appeal was taken since the act establishing Circuit Courts of Appeals took effect. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5; 26 Stat. 827, 828, 1115. It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every soVereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. Vattel, lib. 2, §§ 94, 100; 1 Phillimore (3d ed.) c. 10, § 220. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the Constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through statutes enacted by Congress, upon whom the Constitution has conferred power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the entrance of ships, the importation of goods and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to declare war, and to provide and maintain armies and navies; and to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into effect these powers and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580; Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581, 604-609. The supervision of the admission of aliens into the United States may be entrusted by Congress either to the Department of State, having the general management of foreign relations, or to the Department of the Treasury, charged with the enforcement of the laws regulating foreign commerce; and Congress has often passed acts forbidding the immigration of particular classes of foreigners, and has committed the execution of these acts to the Secretary of the Treasury, to collectors of customs and to inspectors acting under their authority. See, for instance, acts of March 3, 1875, c. 141; 18 Stat. 477; August 3, 1882, c. 376; 22 Stat. 214; February 23, 1887, c. Opinion of the Court. 220; 24 Stat. 414; October 19, 1888, c. 1210; 25 Stat. 566; as well as the various acts for the exclusion of the Chinese. An alien immigrant, prevented from landing by any such officer claiming authority to do so under an act of Congress, and thereby restrained of his liberty, is doubtless entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain whether the restraint is lawful. Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536; United States v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U. S. 621; Wan Shing v. United States, 140 U. S. 424; Lau Ow Bew, Petitioner, 141 U. S. 583. And Congress may, if it sees fit, as in the statutes in question in United States v. Jung Ah Lung, just cited, authorize the courts to investigate and ascertain the facts on which the right to land depends. But, on the other hand, the final determination of those facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers; and in such a case, as in all others, in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to reëxamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 31; Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad v..Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448, 458; Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457; In re Oteiza, 136 U. S. 330. It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicil or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law. Murray v. Hoboken Co., 18 How. 272; Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U. S. 97. The immigration act of August 3, 1882, c. 376, which was held to be constitutional in the Head Money Cases, above cited, imposed a duty of fifty cents for each alien passenger coming by vessel into any port of the United States, to be Opinion of the Court. paid to the collector of customs, and by him into the Treasury, to constitute an immigrant fund; by § 2, the Secretary of the Treasury was charged with the duty of executing the provisions of the act, and with the supervision of the business of immigration to the United States, and, for these purposes, was empowered to make contracts with any state commission, board or officers, and it was made their duty to go on board vessels and examine the condition of immigrants, "and if on such examination there shall be found among such passengers any convict, lunatic, idiot or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge, they shall report the same in writing to the collector of such port, and such persons shall not be permitted to land;" and by § 3, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to establish rules and regulations, and to issue instructions, to carry out this and other immigration laws of the United States. 22 Stat. 214. The doings of Thornley, the state commissioner of immigration, in examining and detaining the petitioner, and in reporting to the collector, appear to have been under that act, and would be justified by the second section thereof, unless that section should be taken to have been impliedly repealed by the last paragraph of section 8 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 551, by which all duties imposed and powers conferred by that section upon state commissions, boards or officers, acting under contract with the Secretary of the Treasury, "shall be performed and exercised, as occasion may arise, by the inspection officers of the United States." 26 Stat. 1085. But it is unnecessary to express a definite opinion on the authority of Thornley to inspect and detain the petitioner. Putting her in the mission house, as a more suitable place than the steamship, pending the decision of the question of her right to land, and keeping her there, by agreement between her attorney and the attorney for the United States, until final judgment upon the writ of habeas corpus, left her in the same position, so far as regarded her right to land in the United States, as if she never had been removed from the steamship. Before the hearing upon the writ of habeas corpus, Hatch |