(45 S.Ct.) relator and institute further proceedings with respect to which the petitioners have to test the legality of her being in the country. It is the discharge of the relators and their bail by the Circuit Court of Appeals of which the government complains. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for petitioner. not been given a fair hearing should now be remanded to the District Court for its decision. Without saying that the circumstances might not arise which would justify such a variation in the order from that which we now direct, we do not think that the course Mr. Max J. Kohler, of New York City, for taken in the cases cited should guide us respondent. #118 *Mr. Chief Justice TAFT, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court. here. In those cases the single question was whether the petitioner was a citizen of the United States before he sought admission, a question of frequent judicial inquiry. Here the questions are technical ones involving the educational qualification of an immigrant in a language foreign to ours, and the medical inquiry as to effect of a physical defect on the probability of a child's being able to earn a living or of becoming a public charge. The court is not as well qualified in such cases to consider and decide the issues as the immigration authorities. The statute intends that such questions shall be considered and determined by the immigration authorities. It would seem better to remand the relators to the hearing of the appeal, by the Secretary and his assistants, who have constant practice and are better advised in deciding such questions. [3] We concur with the Circuit Court of Appeals in its criticism of the record in this case in that it does not set out more fully the details of the test applied in the examinations. The record is defective also in not showing the definite rulings of the commissioner or the Board of Inquiry on the issues [1] We think that the complaint of the government is well founded. The petitioners in the writ of habeas corpus were aliens who had not been legally admitted to the country -that is, neither the immigration authorities nor the court had held that they were entitled to admission. The immigration authorities had ordered their deportation. The Circuit Court of Appeals merely found that in the course of the examination by the immigration authorities the relators had not been given a fair opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of Labor as provided by the statute. This denial of appeal did not give to them a right to admission to the country. In the due and orderly disposition of the writ of habeas corpus, relators should not have been discharged and their bail released, but the order should have been framed so as to secure the benefit of the appeal to the relators, to which the court by its decision had held them entitled. To discharge them was to take them out of the proper custody of the government authorities pending their ad- made by Mrs. Waldman in her evidence. mission or exclusion, was to entail upon the This made clear her claim that she and her government the affirmative and initial duty children were refugees from religious perseof rearresting them and was improperly dis- cution relieving her from an educational charging the security for their response to test; but no finding appears in the record on any lawful order of the immigration author- this point either by the board or the departities. The mere fact that by rearrest the ment on appeal. The mere implication that government would not be confronted by any the claim must have been passed on adversejudgment of res adjudicata did not suffice. ly to her because the language test was apThe power of the court in such a case is indi-plied is not enough. If the necessary finding cated by section 761 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1289) in reference to habeas corpus. The section provides that a court or justice or judge shall proceed in a summary manner to determine the facts of the case by hearing the testimony and arguments and thereupon to dispose of the party as law and justice require. The law and justice here required under the decision of the Circuit *119 Court of Appeals was that the *case should be sent to the District Court with instructions to remand the petitioners to the custody of the immigration authorities, to await the result of the appeal from the judgment of deportation to the Secretary of Labor. [2] Counsel for the government urge that under three decisions of this court, Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 13, 28 S. Ct. 201, 52 L. Ed. 369; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454, 40 S. Ct. 566, 64 L. Ed. 1010, and Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 42 S. Ct. 492, 66 L. Ed. 938, the question *120 was in fact made, it should be made part of the record. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals also that the absence from the record of any finding by the department on appeal as to the issue whether the lameness of Zenia, one of the children, affected her ability to earn a living or made her likely to become a public charge is a defect. The inquiry and finding should have been made. If made, the record should disclose it. If not made, the inquiry should be made and the finding recorded. We see no reason, therefore, why upon the appeal which it is now decided the Secretary of Labor must afford the relators, he should not consider and make a definite finding on the issues made by the petition, to wit, first whether the relators are not relieved from the test as to language because they are refugees from religious persecution; second whether, if it be necessary, a proper test as to the reading knowledge of Yiddish only, which Mrs. Waldman had, was sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, and if not to order another; and, third, whether the lameness of Zenia Waldman is likely to affect her ability to earn her living or to make her a public charge. The order of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and modified in accordance with this opinion, with instructions to remand the petitioners to the custody of the immigration authorities to await the hearing on the appeal before the Secretary of Labor. Failing the granting and hearing of the appeal within 30 days after the coming down of the mandate herein, *121 the re*lators and their bail are to be dis L. Ed. 190; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63, 65, 17 S. Ct. 733, 42 L. Ed. 77; United States v. Union Pacific Ry., 168 U. S. 505, 512, 513, 18 S. Ct. 167, 42 L. Ed. 559; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452, 27 S. Ct. 559, 51 L. Ed. 875; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 106, 107, 28 S. Ct. 498, 52 L. Ed. 702. The constantly increasing demands upon us make it highly important that only matters which are both substantial and in approved form should be presented. Certificate dismissed. (266 U. S. 182) charged. Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 46, 44 James C. DAVIS, Agent Appointed by the S. Ct. 283, 68 L. Ed. 549. Reversed and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. (266 U. S. 173) W. I. BIDDLE, Warden of the United States (Argued Oct. 21, 1924. Decided Nov. 17. Courts384-Certificate not submitting defi- A certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals reading, "Do the counts of the indictment, or any of them, charge the commission of a criminal offense against the United States, as in violation of sections 147 and 161 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1088), known as the Penal Code of 1910?" does not present a definite question of law, but in effect asks decision of the whole case, and will be dismissed. On Certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See, also, 287 F. 699. *174 *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for Biddle. President under the Transportation Act of (Argued Oct. 10, 1924. Decided Nov. 17, Certiorari 60-Writ of certiorari, not stat- Where petition for certiorari declared the sole question to be whether punitive damages could be awarded against the United States Railroad Administration, and at the hearing counsel relied on the claim that, although the court restricted the jury to actual damages, size of verdict showed award of punitive damages, the petition did not state the case as presented at bar, and will be dismissed. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme *Messrs. Douglas McKay, of Columbia, S. C., and Thomas W. Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., for petitioner. Mr. L. D. Jennings, of Sumter, S. C., for respondent. Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor declared: The sole, question Mr. I. J. Ringolsky, of Kansas City, Mo., presented is: "Can damages for humiliation for Luvisch. and wounded feelings be awarded the re Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the spondent against the petitioner, the United opinion of the Court. This certificate fails to meet often announced requirements and must be dismissed. *175 It does not submit one *or more definite questions of law arising upon the record, but in effect asks decision of the whole case. City of Waterville v. Van Slyke, 116 U. S. 699, 700, 704, 6 S. Ct. 622, 29 L. Ed. 772; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 433, 8 S. Ct. 193, 31 1 Appellee pleaded guilty in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan to an indictment in three counts charging him and certain others with making and having in possession a half-tone plate in similitude of plates used by the Dominion of Canada for printing excise stamps and of the sale of a number of prints of counterfeit stamps. He was sentenced to the penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., and while in prison applied to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for release on habeas corpus, on the ground that the indictment charged no crime against the States Railroad Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Control Act [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115 a to 3115p], the proclamations of the President, and the general orders of the Director General pursuant thereto?" At the hearing counsel relied on the following: "The judgment against the Director General of Railroads for wounded feelings and humiliation arising out of a wanton, willful, and malicious act of his servant is unauthorized, involving, essentially, the inUnited States. The writ was awarded, and he was ordered discharged. The warden appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which certified to the Supreme Court the following question: "Do the counts of the indictment, or any of them, charge the commission of a criminal offense against the United States, as in violation of sections 147 and 161 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1088), known as the Penal Code of 1910?" (45 S.Ct.) fliction of a penalty upon the government." | damages were assessed against and a penThe argument was that, although the trial alty was imposed upon the United States. court distinctly limited the jury to actual The petition did not state the case predamages, nevertheless, it necessarily follows sented at the bar. from the size of the verdict that punitive Dismissed. (266 U. S. 579) MEMORANDUM DECISIONS DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1924 ! No., original. Ex parte In the matter of KINGSTON DRY DOCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, petitioner. Oct. 13, 1924. Mr. John M. Woolsey, of New York City, for petitioner. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of prohibition and/or a writ of mandamus herein denied. No. 21. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, appellant, V. The UNITED STATES. Oct. 13, 1924. Appeal from the Court of Claims. For opinion below, see 57 Ct. Cl. 625. Messrs. Alexander Britton, of Washington, D. C., and C. W. Bunn, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellant. The Attorney General, for the United States. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, on the authority of Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 339, 41 S. Ct. 329, 65 L. Ed. 667. No. 36. Claude E. BARNES, plaintiff in error, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Oct. 13, 1924. In error to the County Court of Jefferson County, State of New York. For opinion below, see 234 N. Y. 602, 138 N. E. 463, which affirms judgment 202 App. Div. 779, 194 N. Y. S. 965. Mr. John B. Rogers, of Watertown, N. Y., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry Purcell, of Watertown, N. Y., for the People of State of New York. PER CURIAM. Dismissed on the authority of Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U. S. 403, 42 S. Ct. 330, 66 L. Ed. 686; Molinari v. Maryland, 263 U. S. 685, 44 S. Ct. 179, 68 L. Ed. 506; Hixon v. Oakes, 265 U. S. 254, 44 S. Ct. No. 56. CENTRAL UNION TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, plaintiff in error, v. William H. EDWARDS, as Collector of United States Internal Revenue for the Second District of New York. Oct. 13, 1924. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. For opinion below, see 287 F. 324. Messrs. John M. Perry and Arthur H. Van Brunt, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Judicial Code, § 128 (Comp. St. § 1120); Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397, 24 S. Ct. 376, 48 L. Ed. 496; McFadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288, 29 S. Ct. 490, 53 L. Ed. 801; Kennard v. Nebraska, 186 U. S. 304, 308, 22 S. Ct. 879, 46 L. Ed. 1175. 7 (266 U. S. 581) No. 57. J. H. HINES COMPANY, Inc., et al., plaintiffs in error, V. Amet GUILLOT, Sheriff and Ex Officio Tax Collector of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Oct. 13, 1924. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. For opinion below, see 153 La. 319, 95 So. 794. Mr. Donelson Caffery, of New Orleans, La., for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. D. Wilkinson, of Shreveport, La., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of the Stat. of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214). No. 65. 8 (266 U. S. 580) Max WULFSOHN et al., plaintiffs in error, v. RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC. Oct. 13, 1924. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. For opinion below, see 234 N. Y. 372, 138 N. E. 24, which affirms judgment 203 App. Div. 862, 196 N. Y. S. 959. Mr. Otto C. Sommerich, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles Recht, of New York City, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction upon the authority of the act of September 6, 1915, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214); Oliver American Trading Co., Inc., v. Government of the United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 44 S. Ct. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778. No. 218. W. L. STICKEL, plaintiff in error, v. BIG LAUREL COAL COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1924. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia. Messrs. Maynard F. Stiles, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Halleck F. Rose, of Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, upon the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404, 18 S. Ct. 925, 43 L. Ed. 214; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92, 30 S. Ct. 225, 54 L. Ed. 396; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455, 30 S. Ct. 568, 54 L. Ed. 837. No. 416. ELKTON ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., plaintiff in error, v. Thomas W. PERKINS et al. Oct. 13, 1924. In Error to Maryland Court of Appeals. For opinion below, see 125 A. 851. Mr. Fred R. Williams, of Bel Air, Md., for plaintiff in error. Petition for a writ of certiorari herein denied. No. 424. PACIFIC RICE GROWERS ASSOCIATION et al., petitioner, V. LAKE CHARLES RICE MILLING COMPANY. Oct. 13, 1924. For opinion below, see 295 F. 246. Mr. C. K. Bonestell, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. No. 428. H. W. SWENDER, petitioner, v. Walter V. EMPIE. Oct. 13, 1924. For opinion below, see 296 F. 672. Mr. Kenneth E. Matot, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. No. 431. Winthrop SMITH, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Oct. 13, 1924. For opinion below, see 298 F. 1022. Mr. Leonard Biel, of New York City, for petitioner. Petition for a writ of certiorari to |