SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

from returns to the Canal Zone, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony and- punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for 1 year, and thereafter removed from the Canal Zone in accordance with the laws and orders relating to deportation.
Art. 2. This order shall take effect from and afterthis date.
WM. H. TAFT.
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 2, 1911.
The question presented is whether a person, after having been convicted and after having served a term of imprisonment in the Canal Zone and after being deported therefrom, is, in legal intendment, guilty of violating .the Executive Ordei in question by returning temporarily to the Canal Zone in the capacity of a coach driver, for the sole purpose of conveying passengers from Colon, Republic ot Panama, to Cristobal, in the Canal Zone, he having no intention of taking up a residence or embarking generally or permanently in business in the Canal Zone.
We have no decisions bearing directly upon this point. In the case of the Government of the Canal Zone vs. Joseph Burroughs, which was decided by this court on April 20, 1912, it was, however, held that a person who had been convicted and had served a sentence of imprisonment in the Canal Zone and who was deported therefrom prior to the Executive Order of May 2, 1911, was not guilty of the offense provided in said Executive Order for returning to the Canal Zone after his deportation. But this case can not be said to be analagous to the case at bar. However, it may be said that this court, in deciding the Burroughs case, was mindful of the fact that a strict and literal interpretation of the provisions of the Executive Order ot May 2, 1911, would in many cases work hardship and injustice. We think that in the construction and application of the provisions of this Executive Order, we should be guided to a great extent by the "rule of reason." To apply the provisions of said Executive Order to every person deported from the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama and who might thereafter cross the line and enter the Canal Zone for a purely temporary purpose, without any intention of becoming domiciled in the .Canal Zone, or becoming generally employed therein, would not, we think, be in accordance with the object and purposes of said Executive Order, and in fact would be contrary to its true spirit. A strict and literal application of the provisions of this Executive Order would require the imprisonment in the penitentiary for 1 year of the deported person, if he came to Ancon or Cristobal for the purpose of getting his mail from the post office, or if he went to the hospital in either of these places

186