This case was submitted in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, from which statement these, among other, facts appear:

The plaintiff in error was master of the British steamship Wyneric, which ship arrived in the port of Tacoma on the 26th day of December, 1905, from the port of Ea Boca, Panama, having on her articles as an ordinary seaman one William Hall. At the time of the arrival of the ship at Tacoma 15 men of her crew, including Hall, were ill with malarial fever. The master had the crew examined by two competent physicians, one of whom was Dr. McCutcheon, superintendent and physician in charge of the Fannie Paddock Hospital in Tacoma, and the other Dr. Shugg, physician and surgeon in the United States Marine Hospital Service. By the advice of these two physicians these 15 sick seamen, including Hall, were sent from the ship to the Fannie Paddock Hospital for treatment. After examination, Dr. Shugg certified to the Commissioner of Immigration that Hall had “consumptive tendency very marked, affecting ability to earn a living.” Thereupon the officers of the immigration service served upon the master of the ship (the defendant to this action) a notice containing a quotation of section 18, c. 1012, of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1217 , entitled “An act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,” and rule 13 of the immigration regulations of date August 26, 1903, which provides that, at least 24 hours in advance of the intended time of sailing, the master, agent, owner, or consignee of any vessel shall notify the immigration office at the port of departure, and directing the master to prevent the landing of Hall, among others, “until his right to do so has been determined by the duly qualified immigration officer or immigration officers.” Thereafter the master requested permission to discharge Hall from the service of the *784 vessel on.the ground that he was not in a condition to perform his duties as a seaman, and, after further examination of Hall, the master was notified that by reason of Hall’s consumptive tendency he had been excluded from admission to the United States, and that he, the master, must return him to the port from which he came. After a subsequent examination, from which it again appeared that Hall was unable to go to sea on account of his sickness, the latter was by the master and the British vice consul at Tacoma discharged from his service as sailor on the Wyneric, and left in the hospital in charge of the vice consul as a distressed British .seaman. The vessel then proceeded, on a voyage without Hall, and without any other provision for returning him to his own country having been made. The vice consul made two attempts to send Hall away on British vessels as an ordinary seaman, but he refused to engage himself in that capacity on account of his physical disability; and, after the second refusal, the vice consul notified the superintendent of the Fannie Paddock Hospital that he would cease to afford relief, Hall having forfeited all claim to be sent home. Hall was then discharged from the hospital and disappeared. Upon these facts the master, having subsequently returned to Tacoma, was charged by an information filed against him in the court below with the commission of a misdemeanor under and pursuant to the provisions of section 18, c. 1012, Act March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1217 , which section is as follows:

This act of Congress was under the consideration of the Supreme Court in the cases of Taylor v. United States, 207 U. S. 120 , 28 Sup. Ct. 53, 52 L. Ed. 130 , and United States v. MacDonald, 207 U. S. 120 , 28 Sup. Ct. 53, 52 L. Ed. 130 . In the case of United States v. MacDonald the trial court quashed the indictment, which disclosed that the alien alleged to have been permitted unlawfully to land was a seaman; and in the case of Taylor v. United States, Judge Wallace dissented from the. judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from which court the case was taken to the Supreme Court, on the ground that the statutory provision under which the defendant was indicted should not be construed as embracing sailors who are bona fide members of a ship’s crew. The Supreme Court affirmed the MacDonald Case, and reversed the Taylor Case, and, in considering and construing section 18 of the act of March 3,1903, said:

We think the decision of the Supreme Court from which we have quoted is conclusive of the present writ of error and requires a reversal of the judgment, which adjudged the plaintiff in error guilty of the misdemeanor denounced bv section 18 of the act of March 3, 1903. ' .

The judgment is reversed and case remanded.