act of Congress. The contention amounts to this, that there were no District Courts in Porto Rico from the time of the going into effect of the Porto Rican act in 1904 up to the present time. Whilst the proposition presents a formal Federal question, we think it is clear that it is so frivolous as to bring it within the rule announced in American Railroad Co. v. Castro, supra. We say this, because we think that no other conclusion is reasonably possible from a consideration of the whole of section 33 of the act of Congress and the context of that act, particularly section 15 thereof, both of which are reproduced in the margin.1

We do not deem it necessary to analyze the text of the act

1 SEC. 15, 31 Stat. 80. That the legislative authority hereinafter provided shall have power by due enactment to amend, alter, modify, or repeal any law or ordinance, civil or criminal, continued in force by this act, as it may from time to time see fit.

SEC. 33, 31 Stat. 84. That the judicial power shall be vested in the courts and tribunals of Porto Rico as already established and now in operation, including municipal courts, under and by virtue of General Orders, Numbered One hundred and eighteen, as promulgated by Brigadier-General Davis United States Volunteers, August sixteenth, eighteen hundred and ninetynine, and including also the police courts established by General Orders, Numbered One hundred and ninety-five, promulgated November twentyninth, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, by Brigadier-General Davis, United States Volunteers, and the laws and ordinances of Porto Rico and the municipalities thereof in force, so far as the same are not in conflict herewith, all which courts and tribunals are hereby continued. The jurisdiction of said courts and the form of procedure in them, and the various officials and attachés thereof, respectively, shall be the same as defined and prescribed in and by said laws and ordinances, and said General Orders, Numbered One hundred and eighteen and One hundred and ninety-five, until otherwise provided by law: Provided, however, That the chief justicand associate justices of the supreme court and the marshal thereof shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the judges of the district courts shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, and all other officials and attachés of all the other courts shall be chosen as may be directed by the legislative assembly, which shall have authority to legislate from time to time as it may see fit with respect to said courts, and any others they may deem it advisable to establish, their organization, the number of judges and officials and attachés for each, their jurisdiction, their procedure, and all other matters affecting them.

of Congress to point out the inevitable result just stated, since the obvious meaning of the act is established by a decision heretofore rendered. Dones v. Urrutia, 202 U. S. 614. In that case Dones, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for murder, unsuccessfully sought release by habeas corpus at the hands of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico upon the identical ground presented in the assignment of error which we are considering, and upon an additional ground relating to an alleged personal disqualification of the judge who presided at his trial. On appeal to this court the questions raised were fully argued in printed briefs, but were deemed to be of such a frivolous character as not to require an opinion, and were hence disposed of per curiam, referring to the provisions of the statute and pertinent authorities. True it is that in the Dones case, in conformity to the practice in cases of habeas corpus, the formal order was to affirm, but this would not justify us in assuming jurisdiction on this record when the necessary result of the action of the court in the Dones case is to establish the frivolous nature of the contention here relied upon as the basis of jurisdiction. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown. 187 U. S. 308, 311, 314.

The second of the asserted Federal questions relates to the action of the courts below in respect to a certain letter claimed to constitute a confession of guilt and written by the accused to a private person before this prosecution was commenced. It is insisted that by the actions of the trial court on the subject the plaintiff in error was deprived of rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Conceding, arguendo, the applicability of the constitutional provision relied upon to the subject and that it was operative in the island of Porto Rico, we think the record demonstrates that the claim here made was not raised below, is a mere afterthought, and is established by the record to be without color of merit.

When the document was offered in evidence the record recites that "the defendant objected on the ground that its com

petency had not been established in accordance with the custom in law, inasmuch as it had not been shown to have been free and voluntary and given without promise of reward or without promise of freedom from prosecution."

It is next stated that "the accused requested that the jury withdraw while the question of the competency of the evidence should be decided by the court." The request was acceded to and evidence was introduced on the subject of the voluntary nature of the alleged confession. The court decided to admit the document and overruled "an extensive oral argument, requesting the court to reconsider its decision to admit the document in evidence." After such admission in evidence it is stated merely that "the defendant duly excepted to the admission."

Again, after the close of all the evidence, the record recites: "Counsel for the defense asked that that part of the record in which appeared the testimony of the witnesses Dix, Kent, and Dexter concerning the so-called confession which the Fiscal had offered in evidence be transcribed by the stenographer and given to the jury so that the jury might have full knowledge of all of the circumstances connected with the so-called confession, which motion was denied by the court, in accordance with the law and especially section 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the accused duly excepted.

"Whereupon, the defendant moved through his attorney, that Messrs. Dexter and Kent be allowed to testify as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged confession before the jury, which motion was granted by the court, and the witnesses testified."

Further, after thus, at the request of the counsel for the accused, allowing testimony as to the voluntary nature of the confession to go to the jury, the court in instructing them, after calling their attention to the proceedings had at the trial in respect to the circumstances surrounding the making of the confession which had been given before the jury, submitted the matter to the jury and no exception was noted. That this ac

tion of the court was proper, if there was conflict of testimony, is not open to controversy. Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613.

Nor does the record disclose that the errors assigned in the Supreme Court of Porto Rico involved any contention that rights under the Constitution of the United States had been denied. The Supreme Court, in approaching the consideration of an assigned error which complained of the action of the trial court in admitting the confession in evidence, made an elaborate statement of what it deemed to be the rules applicable to the admissibility of confessions, and in so doing referred to the Fifth Amendment and to a multitude of cases in this and other courts concerning the principle to be applied in determining such admissibility. It is a matter of no concern, however, in ascertaining whether rights under the Federal Constitution were asserted and denied to consider the accuracy of all the statements made by the appellate court in its elaborate review of the subject, since the conclusion which it reached was that as a general principle of law confessions in order to be admissible "must have been made without compulsion or undue promise or inducement and be entirely voluntary." Besides the ultimate and decisive ruling of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico was that the trial court had not erred in acceding to the request of the accused in allowing the evidence concerning the voluntary nature of the confession to be heard by the jury and leaving that subject to its determination. True it is that the opinion indicates that the court deemed that the proof as to the voluntary nature of the confession was of such a preponderating character that the court would have been authorized in not submitting it to the jury. But the correctness of that conclusion is not a matter of concern in view of the fact that the question of the voluntary nature of the confession was submitted to the jury at the request of the accused. As from no possible view of the action of the courts below concerning the confession can we discover even the semblance of the assertion or denial of a right under the Constitution, it follows

that the errors assigned on that subject furnish no basis for the exercise of our jurisdiction.

As the matters which we have considered dispose of all the alleged Federal questions asserted to come within the second clause of § 35 of the act of April 12, 1900, the conclusion follows that we are without jurisdiction, and the writ of error is, therefore, Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES v. MACDONALD.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

Nos. 238, 404. Argued October 24, 25, 1907.-Decided November 18, 1907.

Even though one who makes it possible for an alien to land by omitting due precautions to prevent it, may permit him to land within the meaning of the penal clause of § 18 of the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1217, that section does not apply to the ordinary case of a sailor deserting while on shore leave.

This construction is reached both by the literal meaning of the expressions "bringing to the United States" and "landing from such vessel" and by a reasonable interpretation of the statute which will not be construed as intending to altogether prohibit sailors from going ashore while the vessel is in port.

The fact that an alien has been refused leave to land in the United States and has been ordered to be deported does not make it impossible for the master of a foreign vessel, bound to an American port, subsequently to accept him as a sailor on the high seas.

Under the act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, the United States can be allowed a writ of error to the District Court quashing an indictment in a criminal case. The act is directed to judgments rendered before the