HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS, PETITIONER, VS. H. B. MCCOY, RESPONDENT.

Edwards versus McCoy

The Case

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Henry Atholl Edwards, a British subject, against H. B. McCoy, the immigration or customs authority detaining him. Edwards sought entrance to the Philippine Islands at the port of Manila, and the board of special inquiry denied him admission on the ground that he was a person of Chinese race and descent because his mother was a Chinese woman of the full blood. The case matters because it defines what a real hearing before an administrative board means, and it marks the boundary between a reviewable arbitrary act and a final administrative finding that the courts will not disturb.

Procedural History

Edwards was denied entrance by the board of special inquiry at the port of Manila. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, attacking the legality of his detention under the order of deportation. The respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into the correctness of the board's decision. The case reached the Supreme Court as an original petition for habeas corpus, and the Court resolved both the jurisdictional objection and the merits.

Facts

Henry Atholl Edwards was a British subject seeking entrance to the Philippine Islands at the port of Manila. He was the child of a legal marriage between a Chinese woman of the full blood and a Eurasian, meaning a person of mixed European and Asiatic blood with no admixture of Chinese. His father, Frank Hugh Edwards, was and had always been a British subject with no Chinese blood, and the paternal grandparents of the petitioner were at one time citizens of the United States born therein. His mother was Lian Niu.

Edwards was born in the British concession of Amoy, China, and resided there at the time of his emigration. The board of special inquiry denied him the right to enter on the ground that he was a person of Chinese race and descent by reason of the fact that his mother was a Chinese woman of the full blood.

The facts of the case were conceded. The board itself presented these facts as the basis of its decision, and from them drew the conclusion that the petitioner was a Chinese person or a person of Chinese descent within the meaning of the laws of Congress prohibiting the entrance of such persons into the territory of the United States.

Issues

• Whether or not the courts may review the decision of a board of special inquiry denying an alien the right to enter the Philippine Islands.
• Whether or not the board's finding that the petitioner is a person of Chinese descent is supported by the conceded facts, so as to stand as a final administrative determination.
• Whether or not the race of a person of mixed blood is determined by the race of the father alone, to the exclusion of the mother's race.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the phrase from the Act of Congress prohibiting the entrance of certain persons, which the Court quotes as follows:

"Chinese person or person of Chinese descent."

This phrase is the statutory test the board applied to Edwards, and its breadth is the reason the Court declined to disturb the board's conclusion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that, generally speaking, the decision of administrative officers on the right of an alien to enter the Philippine Islands is final where no abuse of authority is shown, and that a hearing having been given, the decision is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. But the Court clarified what a hearing requires:

"The right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain."

The Court explained that a body designed by law to be deliberative which declines to deliberate abdicates its functions, and its decisions are entitled to no more consideration than if made with no hearing at all. A finding in plain and open contradiction of the conceded and admitted facts is an arbitrary act, an abuse of discretion, and wholly without authority, and in such circumstances the Court has jurisdiction to review.

On the second issue, however, the Court found that this condition did not exist in the case before it. The facts were conceded and the board presented them as the basis of its decision. The Court held that the finding that the petitioner is a Chinese person or a person of Chinese descent must stand, because the phrase is very broad and the conclusion was not devoid of foundation.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the contention of counsel for the petitioner, supported by the case of Ex parte Reynolds, that the race to which one belongs depends upon the race of the father and that the mother has no influence. The Court held that different rules govern, because the case cited dealt with the jurisdiction of courts over persons within the territory of the United States, a question of personal rights that is purely judicial, while this case concerns the immigration of aliens, a question of international rights that is executive and administrative.

Doctrine

An alien seeking to enter United States territory is entitled to a hearing before he is denied entrance, and a hearing means not only the opportunity to present evidence but also the duty of the board to consider it. A deliberative body that declines to deliberate abdicates its functions, and its decision is a nullity when directly attacked. A finding in plain and open contradiction of the conceded and admitted facts is an arbitrary act, an abuse of discretion, and wholly without authority, and the courts may review it. But where the board's finding rests on the conceded facts and is not devoid of foundation under the broad statutory phrase "Chinese person or person of Chinese descent," the finding is final and will not be disturbed. The race of a person of mixed blood is not determined by the race of the father alone; the rules on immigration are executive and administrative, not the purely judicial rules on personal rights.

Disposition

The application for the writ of habeas corpus was denied, and the petitioner did not win admission.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty of the board to consider it, is vain. Examiners use this case to test the finality of administrative findings on alien admission and the exact point at which an arbitrary finding becomes reviewable by the courts.