It further appears that the average percentage of desertions for the four years cited, 1890, 1895, 1900, and 1904, was 1.9 per cent. of the total strength, and that 76 per cent. of all discharged reënlisted. An average of 7 per cent. have deserted from the United States Army during the past four years, and an average of 17 per cent. of those discharged have reënlisted.

The conditions affecting the discipline and morale, apparently so widely different, judging from the results, may be summed up in the word "pay." A non-commissioned officer of police, it is said, receives from $25.50 to $60 per month, and a private from $15 to $22.50, in addition to clothing and rations. Certainly, the United States is as well able to pay its soldiers as is the Dominion of Canada.

IT

T is, of course, an absurdity to speak of England as a free-trade country. The great difference between our two systems is that, while the United States seeks to safeguard her manufacturers by imposing duties on what she can produce at home, England, on the other hand, has taxed largely what she draws from abroad, while she has left her own ports free to the surplus products of other nations, with the result that England has suffered as the dumping. ground of the surplus products of the world. And it is a curious thing that, while free-trade England pays, per capita of the population, some $4.50 per head, the United States, the so-called protected country, pays only $3.45. Mr. Chamberlain's great object is to rectify this anomaly and to change the tariff, by taking duties off some articles and placing them on others, so that our manufacturers may, if possible, have a market that is to some extent safeguarded from an unnatural condition of affairs in the matter of dumping. In no case, under existing conditions, will the average tariff on manufactured goods exceed 10 per cent.,-and by this I mean, not an all around 10 per cent., but a very small duty (or, perhaps, none at all), on certain

articles, while the duty may rise to 10 per cent. on certain manufactures where England is subject to unfair competition. Raw materials, of course, will enter free. But, to sum up the whole situation, the truth is there is no finality in anything in this world. Free trade may have been good for England in the past, but since the Cobden theory was put into practice conditions in England have entirely changed. Those who were formerly our best customers are now our greatest competitors, and Mr. Cobden's dream that if England demonstrated that free trade was beneficial the rest of the world would follow suit has not eventuated. As a matter of fact, the rest of the world, instead of leaning more and more to free trade, has gone entirely in the opposite direction, and has gradually become more and more protectionist, until England now finds herself isolated and surrounded by a tariff wall throughout the world which steadily increases rather than diminishes, and the various nations (especially Continental) seek free access to our market while denying it to our own manufacturers.

I venture to think that the business men of England who have accepted Mr. Chamberlain's

proposals from an unpartisan standpoint, entirely free from politics, are very largely convinced that the time has come for England to overhaul her affairs and bring her tariff up to date. By this I mean, of course, a scientific tariff, not a blind ad valorem. But, unfortunately for the movement, politics has entered into this great question, as it does into all questions in England, and instead of business men asking themselves whether the tariff would be good or not for the country, they are arranging themselves either in favor of or against largely on political lines. This is a great misfortune for the movement, as, although it cannot retard in the long run the success of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, it makes it difficult for the time being and puts a large strain upon his supporters to educate those who are now opposing it to the true state of affairs and the advantages to be gained.

Many industries, however, are strongly in favor of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. For instance, iron and steel, which has just published its report, shows that something like 85 per cent. of the producers of this commodity are in favor of a modification of our present system, and as the various industries' reports are published, from time to time, I have little doubt that somewhat similar results will be the outcome of the inquiry by the tariff commission. This, however, does not apply to all industries. For instance, the cotton trade has, so far, not been attacked seriously, and the manufacturers at present do not feel the necessity for any serious revision; but the report published by the textile section of the Tariff Reform League shows that the future is full of peril and that sooner or later the textile industries will begin to feel the pressure from without.

Mr. Chamberlain has always held that time,and considerable time,-must be given to the movement, inasmuch as the English nation as a whole is extremely conservative, slow to make any radical change, and, of course, the masses have yet to be educated and shown that their true interests lie, not only in protecting labor, which alone may be harmful, but in order to make their movement a success they must be prepared to safeguard the product of labor. So difficult a programme as bringing home to the masses the necessity for a scientific tariff in the general interests of humanity is a problem which will tax the energies of a large number of gentlemen who have associated themselves with Mr. Chamberlain's movements to the utmost, but one and all are sanguine of ultimate victory and realize that victory is to be accomplished only through the medium of education and patient

spadework. How long this will take to accomplish no one but a prophet dare give an estimate, but there is one point upon which I may be forgiven if I make a prophecy, and that is, that, come what may, the question now before the public will be fought out and made the central plank in the programme of the Conservative party, and that they will be prepared to fight on until success crowns their efforts.

Mr. Chamberlain himself is indeed a magnificent leader, full of energy, resource, fighting capabilities, and organizing power, and holds the imagination of the people through his strong personality as few statesmen of modern times have succeeded in doing. His health is excellent, his energy without limit, and his belief in his work unbounding; and, although he is somewhat advanced in years, barring unforeseen circumstances there is little doubt that he will carry his programme to victory within a reasonable period, and, with such vitality as he possesses, it may come sooner than some imagine. Of course, our colonies have been foremost in welcoming Mr. Chamberlain's proposals and offering him both sympathy and aid. In Canada, his views are completely understood, and the bulk of the thinking population are backing him and will be prepared to help him in his endeavors to enlarge the scope of the empire. South Africa is also heart and soul with him, as has been expressed by the premier of Cape Colony over and over again, while New Zealand and Australia are offering him every encouragement. Next year the colonial premiers meet in London, and then, no doubt, substantial progress will be made toward the realization of Mr. Chamberlain's ideals. In the meantime, those who associate themselves with Mr. Chamberlain remain confident and hopeful, and, so far as one can see, such proposals as Mr. Chamberlain desires the empire to adopt are in no way detrimental to the United States, and should, in many respects, tend to increase the understanding and business relations between the two countries and give them a basis on which to deal, which is Mr. Balfour's aim and object. Both these gentlemen are heart and soul in favor of the United Kingdom reconsidering its position, and with so vast a change facing the public we must be content to wait and progress by slow degrees. A hasty movement in any direction would be a misfortune, and probably be detrimental to the cause, but with the thorough thrashing out of the question by the tariff commission who are now investigating the subject all parties, it is to be hoped, will ultimately agree upon a common programme for the betterment and prosperity of the empire at large.

IT T has become the habit to classify all persons who speak or write on the immigration problem as " Restrictionists" or "Anti-Restrictionists." Whoever urges a better enforcement of existing laws or suggests any amendments to these laws is a Restrictionist. Whoever em

phasizes the benefits of immigration or opposes further legislation is an anti-Restrictionist. The dividing line between these two groups is, apparently, sharply defined.

This is most unfortunate from every point of view. Persons who differ but slightly in their opinions seem wholly antagonistic to one another. This leads to unnecessarily and deplorably heated debates. It leads to the calling of hard, unjust, and misleading names. Restrictionists are called Know-nothings, and all who oppose further radical legislation are apt to be spoken of as being selfishly interested in the importa tion of cheap labor, or as making a profit out of steerage-passage receipts. It gives the general public the impression that the students of this great immigration problem, after careful investigation, are hopelessly at loggerheads. Legislators or individual citizens, therefore, conclude that until they see less diversity of opinion on the part of experts they need not make up their minds one way or the other.

The Immigration Restriction League is generally regarded as the leading exponent of the Restrictionists. Yet we read at the head of its publications that this body "was organized for the purpose of improving and regulating alien immigration into the United States," and at the end of all its publications: "The league is strictly non-partisan and non-sectarian. . . . It advocates a stricter regulation of immigration, but not the exclusion of any immigrants whose character and standards fit them to become citizens." Thus hedged in, before and behind, with officers who are well known as intelligent and patriotic citizens, it is clear that the league cannot be hopelessly narrow, and that wholesale condemnation and abuse of its work is neither just, nor true, nor generous.

On the other hand, President Eliot, of Harvard University, stands in the front rank of the so-called anti-Restrictionists. One of our very foremost citizens, his words always carry great weight. And President Eliot has said emphatically: "I am no kind of a restrictionist, either

in education, religion, or immigration" (Economic Club, Boston, December 15, 1905). Yet President Eliot is not unpatriotic; nor can any one maintain that he is personally benefited in any way by cheap labor.

17
SELECTION VERSUS "RESTRICTION."

Are the views which are held by the so-called Restrictionists and anti- Restrictionists really wholly irreconcilable? Must speakers and writers continue to be selected because they are on one side or the other? Must the decision which the public and which Congress is to make be determined by the relative numbers on the two sides? Far from it. The differences are more apparent than real. The authorities on both sides are really in accord on many points which are of vital importance in settling this question. Those who try to promote differences of opinion; to array speaker against speaker; who abuse their opponents and attribute to them narrow and unworthy motives, are not helping their country.

It should be the earnest endeavor of all those who have looked into this question at all to do what they can to emphasize the many things on which some agreement has been reached, and to stop exaggerating the few things on which honest differences of opinion may naturally always be expected to exist. It should be pointed out that Restrictionist is hardly the right name for the majority of those who believe in further immigration legislation. There are comparatively few who wish to reduce to a large extent the number of our immigrants by imposing a very high head-tax, or by limiting the number who shall be allowed to come in any single year, or by suspending immigration entirely for a period of years. Such persons may properly be called Restrictionists. The vast majority of persons in this country want some changes in our existing laws to make them more effective, and some additions to the excluded classes. All such per

sons are in favor of selection or regulation, rather than restriction, and hence might rather be called Selectionists. When thus named, there are very few of our citizens who do not belong in this latter group. Most of the demand for further legislation is distinctly along selective, rather than restrictive, lines. Even the muchtalked-of illiteracy test, which has called forth violent opposition at the hands of the anti

Restrictionists, would probably not permanently cut down the numbers of our immigrants to any very considerable degree.

THE MERITS OF EXISTING LAWS.

It is the purpose of the writer to call attention to some of the points on which the Restrictionists and the anti-Restrictionists can come together, and indeed have come together. In agreeing on these measures both groups have become Selectionists; both believe in a further regulation of immigration; both unite in asking Congress for specific legislation.

1. The present laws are good, and should be strictly enforced. These laws, as a whole, unquestionably commend themselves to all our people. Our immigration legislation has been the slow growth of years of study and investigation on the part of Congressional committees, and of government officials. It has not grown up in a night. Every step has been opposed by steamship, railroad, and selfish capitalistic interests, and represents a compromise between all kinds of extreme views. All agree that our laws are wise in excluding such classes as idiots, insane persons, epileptics, paupers, persons likely to become a public charge, professional beggars, persons afflicted with a loathsome or with a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists, anarchists, and prostitutes.

Objections to existing laws are occasionally made by persons who are not familiar with these laws. A college president recently opposed the contract-labor feature of our present law on the ground that Louis Agassiz could not have come to this country under its provisions. This gentleman was evidently not aware of the fact that the contract labor law does not apply to "professors for colleges or seminaries; to actors and artists; to lecturers, singers, ministers; to persons belonging to any learned profession; to persons employed as personal or domestic servants. There doubtless are some objections to the contract labor law as it now stands. designed to remedy a great evil, and it did much to remedy that evil. In some cases it has worked hardship. But in the main, with the existing exceptions, it is not as objectionable a clause as some people imagine. For example, it distinctly allows, contrary to the general impression, the importation of skilled labor "if labor of like kind unemployed cannot be found in this country."

It was

Being agreed as to the necessity of excluding aliens suffering with loathsome and dangerous contagious diseases, we must also agree that the

law of March 3, 1903, is right in fining a steamship company $100 for bringing over an alien afflicted with such a disease when "the existence of such disease might have been detected by means of a competent medical examination" at the time of embarkation. To make the steamship companies exercise suitable care in such matters is fair, not only to the diseased alien himself, who would otherwise have to be sent back, but also to the other passengers on the ship, who would otherwise be exposed to the risk of contracting the disease during the voyage.

HEAVIER FINES ON THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES.

2. A $500 fine on steamship companies for bring ing diseased immigrants. Commissioner-General of Immigration Sargent, in his last annual report, recommends that the fine in such cases be increased from $100 to $500. With this recommendation all disinterested persons must surely agree. The steamship companies, through their representatives, have assured us, time and again, of their anxiety to do all in their power to act in accordance with our laws, but the added experience of each year emphasizes more clearly the fact that they obey our laws only when they are obliged to. Large numbers of diseased aliens are still brought here, in spite of the $100 fine. The proposed increase from $100 to $500 is simply an extension of a principle in existing law which has worked well. A larger fine would certainly make the steamship companies still more careful, and would therefore save larger numbers of diseased aliens the unnecessary voyage to the United States and the disappointment and discomfort of being obliged to return.

ocean.

3. A fine on steamship companies for each alien rejected by us for any cause which an examination before sailing could have detected. One of the distressing results of our present system is the large number of aliens who are denied admission after they have made the journey across the Commissioner-General Sargent has recently spoken in the most emphatic terms of the injustice and the wrong done these unfortunates in permitting them to make the journey, and has well said: "It is right that they should be denied admission; wrong that they ever should have started from home." The Immigration Conference at New York hit upon an excellent method of reducing the number of these debarred aliens when it recommended that a fine of $100 be imposed on the steamship companies. for each immigrant whom our inspectors reject. for any cause under existing law. This sug gestion follows the present practice regarding diseased aliens, just noted. It throws the responsibility exactly where it belongs.-upon the

steamship companies. As President Roosevelt well said in his last message to Congress: "The most serious obstacle we have to encounter in the effort to secure a proper regulation of the immigration to these shores arises from the determined opposition of the foreign steamship lines, who have no interest whatever in the matter save to increase the returns on their capital by carrying masses of immigrants hither in the steerage quarters of their ships." That is the keynote of the whole situation. If we fine the steamship lines $100, or more, for each immigrant whom we reject, for causes distinctly defined in our present laws, we shall go far toward forcing these companies, to whom we owe no favors of any sort whatever, to refuse thousands of undesirable or doubtful aliens, who will therefore never leave their homes. No more logical amendment to our present laws could be made.

THE DEMAND FOR GREATER AIR-SPACE.

4. The air-space allowed each steerage passenger should be increased. While the conditions of steerage travel have been greatly improved during recent years, there are still evils of overcrowding, of non-separation of the sexes, and of lack of proper treatment on some steamships which are a disgrace to modern civilization, and which an enlightened and a humane people like ourselves should not permit. For every reason, gienic, humanitarian, moral,—our law regarding accommodations for steerage passengers should be amended. The facts have often been set forth. We permit the evils to continue. One of the steps which we can take is to increase, by law, the minimum requirement of cubic feet of air-space per passenger. By doing this we shall prevent overcrowding, and thus do away with most of the evils which under present conditions are sure to exist. If the allowance per person were increased from the present require ment of 110 cubic feet to, say, 200 cubic feet on the main deck, and proportionately on other decks, as recommended by the National Immigration Conference at New York, a step in advance would be taken consistent alike with hu manitarian motives and with a proper solicitude on our part concerning the numbers of our ar riving aliens. For it is clear that if Congress heeds this most logical and most humane request we shall have a regulation of immigration which will commend itself to all persons except those pecuniarily interested in carrying the largest possible amount of human freight or in obtaining the largest possible numbers of cheap laborers. In his last message. President Roosevelt said, in connection with this: There should be a sharp limitation imposed on all vessels coming

66

to our ports as to the number of immigrants in ratio to the tonnage which each vessel can carry. This ratio should be high enough to insure the coming hither of as good a class of aliens as possible."

ADDING TO THE EXCLUDED CLASSES.

5. The exclusion of the feeble-minded. The Act of March 3, 1903, excludes "idiots." Experience has shown that there are a good many immigrants who are certified by our medical inspectors as being "mentally deficient" or "feebleminded," and who should certainly be debarred by law. Our best interests demand that no distinction should be made between the idiotic and the feeble-minded. The latter are as undesirable additions to our population as the former, and it is as dangerous to add to the American race the children of feeble-minded parents as of idiotic parents. Every one will agree that we should exclude the "feeble-minded" as well as the idiot. No valid argument can be adduced in favor of any other course.

6. The exclusion of persons of poor physique. At the present time our medical inspectors record thousands of aliens as being of such poor physique that their ability to earn a living is thereby interfered with, yet most of these are admitted because there is no specific clause in our existing immigration law under which they can clearly and surely be excluded. The physique of an immigrant is a matter of the very highest importance for the health and future of the race. It is the aliens of poor physique who usually shun the country and crowd into city tenements, where they become ready victims of diseases and establish in these crowded quarters dangerous foci for the dissemination of disease. The real danger to the public health and to the future of our stock lies in that class of immigrants whose physique is much below American standards." Our best insurance against race decadence is to be sought in the selection of good, strong, healthy stock. We want none but honest, industrious, healthy, and fit immigrants. We want them sound in body and in mind. We have by law debarred idiots. We should by law debar the feeble-minded. And we should, by all means, debar aliens of poor physique.

There can be no objection to such an amendment to existing laws. A physical test is urged by the President in his last message, and was recommended by the Immigration Conference in the resolution which called for the exclusion of "persons of enfeebled vitality, whether such condition is due to defect, inheritance, disease, or advanced age."