Skip to main content

In the Matter of the Application of Marie Miller

January 7, 1913 - May 27, 1913

Petitioned on April 15, 1913

Filed before the US District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle, Washington)

Case ID: hc.case.wa.0176

Case Summary

January 7th, 1913 the Secretary of Commerce and Labor issued a warrant for Marie Miler. She was arrested by an officer of immigration on the 8th and was charged with "being an alien found in the United States in violation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907, as amended by the Act approved March 26, 1910, to-wit: That she is an was a member of one of the classes of aliens required to be deported under the laws of the United States, to-wit: (That the said alien was connected with a house of prostitution, and practiced prostitution and derived benefits therefrom after she entered the United States." However the petition states that Marie was not able to defend herself because they only notified her of her right to an attorney after the immigration office examined her, as well as her attorney did not show up to court. The immigration office said they contacted the attorney Roger Marchetti and that he said he would show up but did not. Marie's new attorney believes it is the immigration office's fault for not getting him there and also not conveying that he was being resistant to Marie Miler. Marie also believes that her former partner or husband (both are used) is trying to get rid of her and take her property with other men in town. Marie says their affidavits are fake testimony because they are all conspiring to get her property (these men are referred to as the Italians). Marie seeks to be discharged because she was not represented by counsel, she paid him and he did not appear. The Immigration office believes the "petitioner alone is responsible for the neglect of her attorney". The new attorney working with Marie is Elias A Wright for her habeas petition. The petition is granted and the writ follows but her writ is subsequently denied ("quashed") because there are laws saying only the immigration officer has to be "satisfied" with proceedings for them to be valid (among other laws stated in both defendant and petitioner's briefs).

Case Information

Petition type(s)

  • Carceral

Petition subtype(s)

  • Prostitution
  • Immigration

Sites of significance

Outcome

Writ denied

Fate of bound party

Deported

Case Citation

RG21 US District Courts, Western District of Washington, Seattle, Records of the Northern Division, Case Files, 1890-1972, No. 2457

Source material(s)

Case File

Case document transcriptions

Length of case file

Between 51 and 75 pages

Repository(s)

State

  • Washington

Point(s) of law cited

Petitioner and Defense briefs both mention many cases. Mainly Act of Congress of February 20, 1907 as amended by March 26, 1910

Tag(s)

  • Abnormal procedure

People

Citation

Katrina Jagodinsky, Cory Young, Andrew Varsanyi, Laura Weakly, Karin Dalziel, William Dewey, Erin Chambers, Greg Tunink. “In the Matter of the Application of Marie Miller.” Petitioning for Freedom: Habeas Corpus in the American West, 1812-1924, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Accessed November 24, 2024. https://petitioningforfreedom.unl.edu/cases/item/hc.case.wa.0176

Back to top