civic kindergarten, questions that were supposed to be settled are reopened. The citizens are made to thresh over again old straw the relation of church to state, of church to school, of state to parent, of law to the liquor trade. Meanwhile, ripe sheaves ready to yield the wheat of wisdom under the flails of discussion lie untouched. Pressing questions-public hygiene, conservation, the control of monopoly, the protection of labor - go to the foot of the docket, and public interests suffer. Some are quite cheerful about the confusion, cross-purposes, and delay that come with heterogeneity, because they think the variety of views introduced by immigration is a fine thing, "keeps us from getting into a rut." The plain truth is, that rarely does an immigrant bring in his intellectual baggage anything of use to us. The music of Mascagni and Debussy, the plays of Ibsen and Maeterlinck, the poetry of Rostand and Hauptmann, the fiction of Jókai and Sienkiewicz were not brought to us by way of Ellis Island. What we want is not ideas merely, but fruitful ideas, fructifying ideas. By debating the ideas of Nietzsche, Ostwald, Bergson, Metchnikoff, or Ellen Key, American thought is stimulated. But should we gain from the introduction of old Asiatic points of view, which would reopen such questions as witchcraft, child-marriage, and suttee? The clashings that arise from the presence among us of many voters with medieval minds are sheer waste of energy. While we Americans wrangle over the old issues of clericalism, separate schools, and "personal liberty," the little homogeneous peoples are forging ahead of us in rational politics and learning to look pityingly upon us as a chaos rather than a people.

POLITICAL MYSTICISM VS. COMMON SENSE

If you should ask an Englishman whether the tone of political life in his country would remain unaffected by the admission to the electorate of a couple of million Cypriotes, Vlachs, and Bessarabians after five years' residence, he would take you for a madman. Suggest to the German that the plane of political intelligence in reading and thinking Germany would not be lowered by the access to the ballot box of multitudes of Serbs, Georgians, and Druses of Lebanon, and he will consign you to

bedlam. Assure the son of Norway that the vote of the Persian or Yemenite, of sixty months' residence in Norway, will be as often wise and right as his own, and he will be insulted. It is only we Americans who assume that the voting of the Middle Atlantic States, with their million naturalized citizens, or of the East North Central States, with their million, is as sane, discriminating, and forward-looking as it would be without them.

The Italian historian and sociologist Ferrero, after reviewing our immigration policy, concludes that the Americans, far from being "practical," are really the mystics of the modern world. He says:

To confer citizenship each year upon great numbers of men born and educated in foreign countries men who come with ideas and sympathies totally out of spirit with the diverse conditions in the new country; to grant them political rights they do not want, and of which they have never thought; to compel them to declare allegiance to a political constitution which they often do not understand; to try to transform subjects of old European monarchies into free citizens of young American republics over night is not all this to do violence to common sense?

VI. IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

THIS

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COMMISSION

HIS feature of the Immigration Commission's general report is a brief review of the sentiment toward immigration as expressed in legislation, or attempts at legislation, upon the subject in Congress. For convenience, the review is divided into four periods, namely: From colonial times to 1835; the "Native American" and "Know-Nothing" period, 1835-1860; end of state control, 1861-1882; period of national control, 1882 to the present time.

During the period first mentioned immigration was taken as a matter of course; the only legislation enacted, and practically all that was proposed, was the law of 1819 for the regulation of the carriage of steerage passengers at sea, which law also for the first time provided that statistics relative to immigration to the United States be recorded.

THE NATIVE AMERICAN MOVEMENT

The second period, from 1835 to 1860, is sharply defined by the so-called "Native American" and "Know-Nothing" movement, which, as is well known, were largely based on opposition to the immigration of Catholics. The hostility early took the form of a political movement, and in 1835 there was a Nativist candidate for Congress in New York City, and in the following year that party nominated a candidate for mayor of the same city. In Germantown, Pennsylvania, and in Washington, D. C., Nativist societies were formed in 1837, while in Louisiana the movement was organized in 1839 and a state convention was held two years later. It was at this convention that the Native American party, under the name of the American Republican party, was established. In 1845 the Nativist movement claimed 48,000 members in New York, 42,000 in Pennsylvania, 14,000 in Massachusetts, and 6000 in other States, while in Congress it had six

Representatives from New York and two from Pennsylvania. The first national convention of Native Americans was held in Philadelphia in 1845, when 141 delegates were present and a national platform was adopted. The chief demands of this convention were a repeal of the naturalization laws and the appointment of native Americans only to office.

While these societies were stronger in local politics than in national, and were organized chiefly to aid in controlling local affairs, their few representatives in Congress attempted to make Nativism a national question. As a result of their efforts, the United States Senate in 1836 agreed to a resolution directing the Secretary of State to collect certain information respecting the immigration of foreign paupers and criminals. In the House of Representatives on February 19, 1838, a resolution was agreed to which provided that the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to consider the expediency of revising the naturalization laws so as to require a longer term of residence in the United States, and also provide greater security against frauds in the process of obtaining naturalization. The committee was further instructed to consider the propriety and expediency of providing by law against the introduction into the United States of vagabonds and paupers deported from foreign countries. This resolution was referred to a select committee of seven members, and its report was the first resulting from a congressional investigation of any question bearing upon immigration. Four members of the committee were from New York and Massachusetts, which were then the chief centers of the antiforeign movement, and its report recommended immediate legislative action, not only by Congress, but also by many of the states, so that alleged evils could be remedied and impending calamities averted. Two southern members of the committee and the member from Ohio did not concur in the report. It is interesting to note that a recommendation to this committee by the Native American Association of Washington urged that a system of consular inspection be instituted, a plan that in recent years has been repeatedly recommended to Congress. The plan was to make the immigrant, upon receiving his passport from the consul, pay a tax of $20. The committee, however, did not include this provision in its recommendations to Congress.

The bill presented on recommendation of the committee provided that any master taking on board his vessel with the intention of transporting to the United States any alien passenger who was an idiot, lunatic, maniac, or one afflicted with any incurable disease, or any one convicted of an infamous crime, should be fined $1000, or be imprisoned not less than one year nor more than three. It was further provided that the master should forfeit $1000 for any alien brought in who had not the ability to maintain himself. Congress did not even consider this bill, and during the next ten years little attempt was made to secure legislation against the foreigner.

In the message to Congress on June 1, 1841, President Tyler referred to immigration in part as follows:

We hold out to the people of other countries an invitation to come and settle among us as members of our rapidly growing family; and for the blessings which we offer them, we require of them to look upon our country as their country, and unite with us in the great task of preserving our institutions and thereby perpetuating our liberties.

THE "KNOW-NOTHING" MOVEMENT

As a consequence of the sudden and great increase of immigration from Europe between 1848 and 1850, the old dread of the foreigner was revived, and in the early fifties the native Americans again became active. The new, like the earlier movement, was closely associated with the anti-Catholic propaganda. The new organization assumed the form of a secret society. It was organized probably in 1850 in New York City, and in 1852 it was increased in membership by drawing largely from the old established Order of United Americans. Its meetings were secret, its indorsements were never made openly, and even its name and purpose were said to be known only to those who reached the highest degree. Consequently the rank and file, when questioned about their party, was obliged to answer, "I don't know"; so they came to be called "Know-Nothings."

By 1854 much of the organization's secret character had been discarded. Its name - Order of the Star Spangled Banner and its meeting places were known, and it openly indorsed candidates for office and put forth candidates of its own. It is