Opinion of the Court.

was appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury inspector of immigration at the port of San Francisco, and, after making the inspection and examination required by the act of 1891, refused to allow the petitioner to land, and made a report to the collector of customs, stating facts which tended to show, and which the inspector decided did show, that she was a "person likely to become a public charge," and so within one of the classes of aliens "excluded from admission into the United States" by the first section of that act. And Hatch intervened in the proceedings on the writ of habeas corpus, setting up his decision in bar of the writ.

A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for his detention by the government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment. Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75, 114, 125; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509, 519; United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624; Kelley v. Thomas, 15 Gray, 192; The King v. Marks, 3 East, 157; Shuttleworth's Case, 9 Q. B. 651.

The case must therefore turn on the validity and effect of the action of Hatch as inspector of immigration.

Section 7 of the act of 1891 establishes the office of superintendent of immigration, and enacts that he "shall be an officer in the Treasury Department, under the control and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury." By § 8" the proper inspection officers" are required to go on board any vessel bringing alien immigrants and to inspect and examine them, and may for this purpose remove and detain them on shore, without such removal being considered a landing; and "shall have power to administer oaths, and to take and consider testimony touching the right of any such aliens to enter the United States, all of which shall be entered of record;" "all decisions made by the inspection officers or their assistants touching the right of any alien to land, when adverse to such right, shall be final unless appeal be taken to the superintendent of immigration, whose action shall be subject to review by the Secretary

Opinion of the Court.

of the Treasury;" and the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe rules for inspection along the borders of Canada, British Columbia and Mexico, "provided that not exceeding one inspector shall be appointed for each customs district."

It was argued that the appointment of Hatch was illegal because it was made by the Secretary of the Treasury, and should have been made by the superintendent of immigration. But the Constitution does not allow Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers elsewhere than "in the President alone, in the courts of law or in the heads of departments;" the act of 1891 manifestly contemplates and intends that the inspectors of immigration shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury; and appointments of such officers by the superintendent of immigration could be upheld only by presuming them to be made with the concurrence or approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, his official head. Constitution, art. 2, sec. 2; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; Stanton v. Wilkeson, 8 Ben. 357; Price v. Abbott, 17 Fed. Rep. 506.

It was also argued that Hatch's proceedings did not conform to section 8 of the act of 1891, because it did not appear that he took testimony on oath, and because there was no record of any testimony or of his decision. But the statute does not require inspectors to take any testimony at all, and allows them to decide on their own inspection and examination the question of the right of any alien immigrant to land. The provision relied on merely empowers inspectors to administer oaths and to take and consider testimony, and requires only testimony so taken to be entered of record.

The decision of the inspector of immigration being in conformity with the act of 1891, there can be no doubt that it was final and conclusive against the petitioner's right to land in the United States. The words of section 8 are clear to that effect, and were manifestly intended to prevent the question of an alien immigrant's right to land, when once decided adversely by an inspector, acting within the jurisdiction conferred upon him, from being impeached or reviewed, in the courts or otherwise, save only by appeal to the inspector's

Syllabus.

official superiors, and in accordance with the provisions of the act. Section 13, by which the Circuit and District Courts of the United States are "invested with full and concurrent jurisdiction of all causes, civil and criminal, arising under any of the provisions of this act," evidently refers to causes of judicial cognizance, already provided for, whether civil actions in the nature of debt for penalties under sections 3 and 4, or indictments for misdemeanors under sections 6, 8 and 10. Its intention was to vest concurrent jurisdiction of such causes in the Circuit and District Courts; and it is impossible to construe it as giving the courts jurisdiction to determine matters which the act has expressly committed to the final determination of executive officers.

The result is, that the act of 1891 is constitutional and valid; the inspector of immigration was duly appointed; his decision against the petitioner's right to land in the United States was within the authority conferred upon him by that act; no appeal having been taken to the superintendent of immigration, that decision was final and conclusive; the petitioner is not unlawfully restrained of her liberty; and the

Order of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER dissented.

BIRD v. BENLISA.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

No. 139. Argued January 6, 1892. Decided January 26, 1892.

When land in Florida assessed for taxation is not assessed to the owner or occupant, or to an unknown owner, and also by an official or accurate description sufficient to impart notice to the owner, the title of the purchaser at a sale made for non-payment of the tax so assessed is not protected by the provision in the statutes of Florida limiting the right of action of the former owner, to recover the possession of the lands sold, to one year after the recording of the tax deed; but the sale and the deed are nullities within the decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida.

Statement of the Case.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This was an action of ejectment brought in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, on May 25, 1887. The action was subsequently removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida. A trial in that court resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant in error, plaintiff below. That such judgment was correct, is conceded, unless plaintiff's right to recover was defeated by a tax deed, with accompanying record and possession. That deed purported to be based on a sale for the taxes of 1873, and the description therein was as follows: Section 39, township 16, of range 27; section 37, in township 17, of range 27; and section 38, in township 17, of range 28; containing nine thousand nine hundred and nine and three-quarters (9909) acres, lying and being in Orange County, Florida. It was executed December 13, 1876, and recorded the same day. The assessment roll was produced in evidence, and on it was found no description like that contained in the deed. There was, however, this entry, which plaintiff in error claimed was intended as a description of the lands found in the deed, to wit,

Defendant relied on section 63 of chapter 1976 of the Laws of 1874, page 27, (which is the same as section 20, chapter 1877, Laws of 1872,) as follows:

"No suit or proceeding shall be commenced by a former owner or claimant, his heirs or assigns, or his or their legal representatives, to set aside any deed made in pursuance of any sale of lands for taxes, or against the grantee in such deed, his heirs or assigns or legal representatives, to recover

Opinion of the Court.

the possession of said lands, unless such suit or proceedings be commenced within one year after the recording of such deed in the county where the lands lie, except upon the grounds that the said lands were not subject to taxation, or that the taxes were paid or tendered, together with the expenses chargeable thereon before sale, and the recording of such deed shall be deemed such assertion of title or such entry into possession by the grantee, his heirs or assigns, as to authorize such suit or proceedings against him or them as for an actual entry."

Mr. J. B. C. Drew and Mr. A. II. Garland (with whom was Mr. H. J. May on the brief) for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. C. Cooper (with whom was Mr. II. E. Davis on the brief) for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

It is true that this tax deed is regular in form, but there is no connection between the description in it and any to be found in the assessment roll; and it has been held by the Supreme Court of Florida, that the limitation section does not prevent a suit, by the owner to recover lands after the lapse of a year, when "the calls in the deed of the clerk are materially different from the lands described on the assessment roll, and sold by the collector." Carncross v. Lykes, 22 Florida, 587. In that case it appeared that on the assessment roll the land was described as "blocks 10, 12, 13 and 16," while the deed purported to convey "blocks 10, 12 and 13, in the town of Tampa, and according to the general map of said town." the opinion the court said: "The description of the land on the assessment roll is an important element in the purchaser's title, and it must be sold by the collector and deeded by the clerk in accordance with such description. The statute was intended to prevent, after the lapse of a year, suits by the former owner for recovery of lands upon technical grounds, for informalities and irregularities in the proceedings. It contemplated that the deed of the clerk alluded to would be to lands assessed, and none other. The clerk can only make a

In