not at all; social and political confusion. Specifically-2. A social theory which regards the union of order with the absence of all direct government of man by man as the political ideal; absolute individual liberty. 3. Confusion in general.

"ANARCHIST. 1. Properly, one who advocates anarchy or the absence of government as a political ideal; a believer in an anarchic theory of society; especially, an adherent of the social theory of Proudhon. (See Anarchy, 2.) 2. In popular use, one who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, all law and order, and all rights of property, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed; especially, such a person when actuated by mere lust of plunder. 3. Any person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against an established rule, law, or custom.”

And Huxley is quoted as saying: "Anarchy, as a term of political philosophy, must be taken only in its proper sense, which has nothing to do with disorder or with crime, but denotes a state of society in which the rule of each individual by himself is the only government the legitimacy of which is recognized."

The language of the act is " anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all government or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials." If this should be construed as defining the word" anarchists" by the words which follow, or as used in the popular sense above given, it would seem that when an alien arrives in this country, who avows himself to be an anarchist, without more, he accepts the definition. And we suppose counsel does not deny that this Government has the power to exclude an alien who believes in or advocates the overthrow of the Government or of all governments by force or the assassination of officials. To put that question is to answer it.

And if the judgment of the board and the Secretary was that Turner came within the act as thus construed, we can

not hold as matter of law that there was no evidence on which that conclusion could be rested. Even if Turner, though he did not so state to the board, only regarded the absence of government as a political ideal, yet when he sought to attain it by advocating, not simply for the benefit of workingmen, who are justly entitled to repel the charge of desiring the destruction of law and order, but "at any rate, as an anarchist," the universal strike to which he referred, and by discourses on what he called "The legal murder of 1887," Spies v. People, 122 Illinois, 1, and by addressing mass meetings on that subject in association with Most, Reg. v. Most, 7 Q. B. Div. 244; People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423, we cannot say that the inference was unjustifiable either that he contemplated the ultimate realization of his ideal by the use of force, or that his speeches were incitements to that end.

If the word "anarchists" should be interpreted as including aliens whose anarchistic views are professed as those of political philosophers innocent of evil intent, it would follow that Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few, and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, or as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government.

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance; and as long as human governments endure they cannot be denied the power of selfpreservation, as that question is presented here.

Reference was made by counsel to the alien law of June 25, 1798, 1 Stat. 570; c. 58, but we do not think that the con

194 U.S..

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, concurring.

troversy over that law (and the sedition law) and the opinions expressed at the time against its constitutionality have any bearing upon this case, which involves an act couched in entirely different terms and embracing an entirely different purpose. As Mr. Justice Field remarked in the Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 610: "The act was passed during a period of great political excitement, and it was attacked and defended with great zeal and ability. It is enough, however, to say that it is entirely different from the act before us, and the validity of its provisions was never brought to the test of judicial decision in the courts of the United States."

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, concurring.

Order affirmed.

In view of the range of discussion in the argument of this case at the bar I feel justified in adding a few words to what has been said by the Chief Justice.

First. I fully endorse and accentuate the conclusions of the court, as disclosed by the opinion, that, notwithstanding the legislation of Congress, the courts may and must, when properly called upon by petition in habeas corpus, examine and determine the right of any individual restrained of his personal liberty to be discharged from such restraint. I do not believe it within the power of Congress to give to ministerial officers a final adjudication of the right to liberty or to oust the courts from the duty of inquiry respecting both law and facts. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Const. Art. 1, sec. 9, clause 2.

Second. While undoubtedly the United States as a nation has all the powers which inhere in any nation, Congress is not authorized in all things to act for the nation, and too little effect has been given to the Tenth Article of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the

States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The powers the people have given to the General Government are named in the Constitution, and all not there named, either expressly or by implication, are reserved to the people and can be exercised only by them, or upon further grant from them.

Third. No testimony was offered on the hearing before the Circuit Court other than that taken before the immigration board of inquiry, and none before such board save that preserved in its report. Hence the facts must be determined by that evidence. It is not an unreasonable deduction therefrom that petitioner is an anarchist in the commonly accepted sense of the term, one who urges and seeks the overthrow by force of all government. If that be not the fact, he should have introduced testimony to establish the contrary. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider what rights he would have if he were only what is called by way of differentiation a philosophical anarchist, one who simply entertains and expresses the opinion that all government is a mistake, and that society would be better off without any.

HEWIT v. BERLIN MACHINE WORKS.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND

CIRCUIT.

No. 228. Argued April 18, 1904.-Decided May 16, 1904.

A trustee in bankruptcy gets no better title than that which the bankrupt had and is not a subsequent purchaser, in good faith, within the meaning of § 112 of chapter 418, of the laws of 1897 of New York. And as the vendor's title under a conditional sale is good against the bankrupt it is good also against the trustee.

LOREN M. HEWIT, as trustee in bankruptcy of Clara - E.

194 U. S.

Argument for Appellant.

Kellogg, applied to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for an order of sale of certain real estate, buildings and machinery. Notice to creditors was given, and thereafter the Berlin Machine Works, a corporation, filed its petition, praying, on grounds set forth, to be declared the owner of certain machines included in the property and be awarded possession thereof, and that they be exempted from sale, or that it be determined that the corporation is entitled to be first paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the machines and to share in dividends on any unpaid balance. The matter was heard before the referee, who held that the corporation had lost the legal title to the machines, and must come in as an unsecured creditor. The corporation petitioned the District Court for a review of the referee's decision, the referee made his certificate and return, and the matter was submitted to the court, which thereafter reversed the decision of the rtree and adjudged that the Berlin Machine Works had a good and valid title to the machines, and that the same be delivered to it, or, in the event that they. had been disposed of, that the trustee pay over to the Berlin Machine Works the sum of twelve hundred dollars, the value of the machines. 112 Fed. Rep. 52.

The trustee then filed a petition in the District Court making application for revision and review in matter of law, and appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment of the District Court, and the District Court ordered "that a superintendency and revision and review in matter of law and an appeal be and the same hereby is allowed in the above-entitled proceedings to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit of the United States." The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, 118 Fed. Rep 1017, and thereupon an appeal was allowed to this court.

Mr. Frank H. Robinson for appellant:

There is no such provision as $70, a-5, of the act of 1898,