(after stating the facts as. above). Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, entitled “An act to regulate the immigration of aliens and the residence of aliens in the United States” ( 39 Stat. 875 , c. 29 [Comp. St. 1918, § 428914b]), provides, among other things as follows:

The act also provided for the appointment of boards of special inquiry “by the Commissioner of Immigration or inspector in charge at the various ports of arrival as may be necessary for the prompt determination of all cases of immigrants detained at such ports under the provisions of the law,” to consist of three members to be selected from such of the immigrant officials in the service as the Commission *106 er General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, should from time to. time designate as qualified to serve on such boards, and provided for an appeal to the Secretary of Labor from the decision of a majority of such board denying the right of the alien to enter this country.

The pertinent evidence bearing upon the right of the appellant to enter the country consists of his own testimony and of the statement in the record that the applicant is possessed of a passport issued by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs April 11, 1917, which passport states that he “is a teacher and that he is going to proceed to Hawaii as a teacher.” The appellant testified before the Board of Special Inquiry, among other things, that a Mr. Shiji, of the Hongkong Mission- in Honolulu, left Japan the year before for Hawaii as a Buddhist priest, at which time the witness told him that he would like to go to Hawaii as a teacher, if he could, and that subsequently Shiji wrote him a letter, with the Japanese Consul General’s certificate, in which he said that there were many Japanese language schools in Hawaii, and that if the witness should come there he could get him a position in any place, mentioning Lahaina, if he should, like to go there, arid also mentioning a school on the island of Oahu. Asked what kind of a certificate from the Japanese Consul General Shiji sent him, the witness answered:

The witness further testified in effect that he attended the common school in Japan for 8 years, and finished the grammar school, and then entered the Hiroshima Ken Normal School, and went there for 4 years, and graduated March 28, 1904. The witness also testified that he had been engaged in teaching 13 years, having taught 5 years in the grammar school at Numata Hiroshima Ken, Japan, and having had charge of the Ochihai. Grammar and Manual Training School for 6 months. He further testified that his intention was to go to Hongwanji School at Lahaina, Maui, to teach the Japanese language, history, geography, and arithmetic. Being asked, “In what grades are you going to teach?” he answered, “Grammar grade; but I can teach higher than that.”

The question in the case is whether such a teacher is precluded by the Act of Congress of February 5, 1917, from entering the United States, which act, as has been seen, excludes “contract laborers, who have been induced, assisted, encouraged, or solicited to migrate to this country by offers or promises of employment, whether such offers or promises are true or false, or in consequence of agreements, oral, written or printed, express or implied, to perform labor in this country of any kind, skilled or unskilled,” but which in express terms exempts from the provisions of the act “professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, *107 professors of colleges or seminaries, persons belonging to any recognized learned profession, or persons employed in domestic service.”

The Act of Congress of February 26, 1885 ( 23 Stat. 332 , c. 164), entitled “An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia,” provided in its first section that it should “be unlawful for any person, .company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia.”

An alien residing in England was employed by the Church of the Holy Trinity, in the city of New York, to come to that city and take charge of its church as its pastor. It being claimed on the part of the government that the church corporation in making that contract had violated that provision of the Act of February 26, 1885, it was held by the trial court that the defendant was liable to the penalty provided for therein. But on appeal to the Supreme Court (Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457 , 12 Sup. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226 ), the judgment was reversed; that court holding that, while the contract complained of came within the letter of the statute, it did not come within the intent or spirit thereof, and that the statute had no application to such a case, the court saying, among other things:

The court in that case, after citing numerous cases in support of its ruling, as well as citing the title of the act, said, at page 463 of 143 U. S., at page 513 of 12 Sup. Ct. ( 36 L. Ed. 226 ):

The subsequent case of United States v. Laws, 163 U. S. 258 , 16 Sup. Ct. 998, 41 L. Ed. 151 , presented the question whether a contract made with an alien in a foreign country, to come to the United States as a chemist on a sugar plantation in Louisiana, in pursuance of which contract the alien did come here and was so employed, his expenses being paid by the defendant to- the proceeding, was such a contract to perform labor or services as was prohibited by the same act ■of Congress, to wit, the Act of February 26, 1885, and the court in holding that it was not, after referring to the amendment of the Act of February 26, 1885, by that of March 3, 1891 ( 26 Stat. 1084 , c. 551), by which amendment the proviso to the fifth section of the former act was made to read so that the provision thereof should not “apply to professional actors, artists, lecturers, or singers, nor to persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants, nor to ministers of any religious denomination, nor to persons belonging to any recognized profession, nor professors of colleges and seminaries,” said:

In the case of Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co. et al., 229 Fed. 970 , 144 C. C. A. 252 , Ann. Cas. 1917C, 258, this court held that it was not a violation o E the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907 ( 34 Stat. 900 , c. 1134), making it a misdemeanor to prepay the transportation or assist in the importation of contract laborers into the United States, for the operators of a merchant vessel flying the American flag to bring aliens from China, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 245 U. S. 122 , 38 Sup. Ct. 28, 62 L. Ed. 189 , where the court, after referring to the claim there made that the seaman described in each count of the complaint was an alien contract laborer, and that the steamship was a part of the territory of the United States, and that therefore the contracting to bring such alien to San Francisco and to there employ him upon such a vessel, was to knowingly assist and encourage the migration of a.n alien contract laborer into the United States for the purpose of having him perform labor therein in violation of the fourth and fifth sections of the act of 1907, said:

We are of the opinion that, in view of the purpose of the legislation here in question, as declared by the Supreme Court in the cases that have been cited, it cannot be held to apply to an alien who seeks to enter this country for the purpose of teaching “the Japanese language, history, geography, and arithmetic,” first, because the doing so is not to perform labor in this country within the meaning of the Act of February 5, 1917; and, secondly, because a teacher of the Japanese language, history, geography, and arithmetic may be properly regarded as belonging to a “recognized learned profession.”

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to the court below to discharge the appellant from custody.