Senator DRYDEN. In the statement which has been made here by Mr. Anderson, and also so far in your remarks, two diseases have been referred to and no others specifically. Why is that? Is it because these are the predominating diseases?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Apparently so. They are diseases which are unknown to this country, I believe, and they are brought in by people from southern Italy and from the neighborhood of Poland and eastern Austria.

The CHAIRMAN. What are these diseases?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Favus is a disease of the scalp and trachoma is a disease of the eyes. They are peculiar to those countries, and it is not hard to detect real cases. It is not hard to detect the cases that I object to and for the introduction of which I am trying to punish.

Senator DRYDEN. Are those diseases of such a character as to imperil public health?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The United States Government has declared them to be dangerous contagious diseases, and one of them is, in addition, a loathsome disease. I am not a physician, and would prefer not to be examined too closely on that, but I have been to the hospital myself, and as to all these cases, the introduction of which I am not pleased with, I can say that I have seen them myself, and as a layman I can tell that those people ought not to have been brought here. Of course my views are entirely backed up by the Marine-Hospital surgeons at Ellis Island.

Senator DRYDEN. I only asked for information as a layman myself. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, do you want to ask Mr. Williams a question?

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF A. S. ANDERSON, PASSENGER MANAGER, AMERICAN LINE.

Mr. ANDERSON. I want to answer one or two points Mr. Williams has made.

In the first place, I did not attack Mr. Williams, and did not censure anything he has done. I, in fact, complimented him on trying to do his duty.

Ι

In regard to the cases of favus and trachoma, to which he refers, his argument would indicate that the steamship companies did not want any such cases of flagrant or willful violation of the law punished. They do not occupy any such position. I say, punish such cases. am perfectly willing and glad to have such cases punished; but I said, and I say it because I have had twenty-seven years' experience in this business, that there are not only cases that break out on board the ship after they have embarked on the other side, but cases which have been pronounced free of disease on the other side, which, if they existed at all, existed when they went on board, and were pronounced not to have those diseases when they arrived. It is the result of a difference in the examination made by the physicians. Medicine has not arrived to the exact science, when five or six physicians pronounce a different opinion on the same case. We have heard a demonstration of that. There were four people returned by Mr. Watchorn from Newport, Vt. Two reputable physicians pronounced those people to have favus. They were sent to New York, and three other physicians pronounced

that they did not have favus, and they certainly did not get it on the way, nor they did not get cured of it on the way. The physicians said they had had favus, but it had run its course.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right there, allow me to say

Mr. ANDERSON. Will you excuse me a moment? I want to answer another point now, because I do not want to get up again. It is in regard to the manifesting of cabin passengers. The manifesting of cabin passengers and the rules under which the Treasury Department is advised that they may mitigate that requirement, as far as first cabin passengers are concerned, so that they shall not have to answer all these questions, are made by the Attorney-General on the fact that the word immigrant" is used, and that there is a distinction between cabin passengers and immigrant passengers, who usually occupy the third class.

Now, in this new bill the word "immigrant" has been eliminated, and it says all cabin passengers must answer-not one question, not other questions, not a sufficient number of questions to satisfy you that they are not objectionable aliens, but every question that is asked a steerage passenger. I do not mean to say you should not include passengers within these examinations. Do just as you in your wisdom think proper; but it seems to me that you could eliminate a lot of these questions from those that are asked cabin passengers and still get at the real status of those people.

Representative SHATTUC. Mr. Anderson, you suggest we have not used the word "immigrant" in the bill. Do you know the definition of an immigrant?

Mr. ANDERSON. I only know that the Attorney-General in his opinion has given it a different definition from the word "alien."

Representative SHATTUC. What would you give as the definition of the word "immigrant?"

Mr. ANDERSON. An immigrant is, in my opinion, one who comes here to settle; and I do not say it is not perfectly proper, as a general thing, to eliminate "immigrant" from the law. I am not telling you what you shall do or what you shall not do, but I am trying to point out to you some evils that are likely to occur, so that in your wisdom you may provide for them.

66

Representative SHATTUC. Let me point out one evil that would occur if we should adopt your suggestion and say "immigrant." Immigrant" means, according to the law books and dictionaries, and everything else, a person coming to this country to settle permanently; so if we used that word our laws would apply to nobody except those coming to settle here permanently.

Mr. ANDERSON. Gentlemen, I have not suggested that you put it in. I am only suggesting that under the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, when you take that out, you apply it in a way which you ought to guard by some other provision.

Representative SHATTUC. In order to quiet your mind on that subject, Mr. Anderson, may I say one thing to you? I had some doubts about it, because I am not a lawyer, and I had the Department attorneys examine it. The Secretary of the Treasury examined it, and I have the bill, with his name on it, saying: "Dear General: This bill is all right." Notwithstanding that, I submitted the bill to Hon. Peter Hepburn, of the House, who was the best Solicitor-General the Government ever had, and he was so well pleased with the work of an amateur that he got up in the House and said that Congress owed

a vote of thanks to the chairman of the committee. Now, I think if we leave it to men of his standing, and he says it is proper, we need not be afraid of the legality of it.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM WILLIAMS.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is plain, Mr. Chairman, that in all statutes there are individual cases where the necessity of asking questions is imposed, which perhaps might be dispensed with; but you have to enact statutes for the 999 cases and not for the thousandth case.

If I can say one word about these favus cases on the frontier, so often mentioned by Mr. Anderson, I will not trouble you any more. The simple point is this: Those people had favus at the time they were sent from the frontier, and by the time they reached New York our doctors said: "Yes, they had favus, or at any rate they probably had it, but they are over it now;" there was no inconsistency in the action of the two medical officers.

Senator DILLINGHAM. May I inquire if these diseases you have been referring to are classed as filth diseases?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The United States statute speaks of loathsome and contagious diseases, and these are classed among them. To the eye of a layman they are loathsome things. We do not want them. It is not going to be a difficult thing to stop their being brought here with a proper fine. It is a shame that any steamship company should bring them here so long as there are no fines which I can impose. The trouble is with the agents on the other side, who, without a fine, can not, apparently, be made to appreciate how we feel on this subject. Senator DRYDEN. Mr. Williams, referring to section 3, have you any opinion as to the amount, stated in percentage, which this education clause would reduce immigration?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not time to figure on that, Senator.
Senator DRYDEN. You have no data?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have not yet had time to devote myself to the statistical matters in which my office is interested. I should think it might keep out 25 per cent on a basis of those that are now coming in, because most of our immigration comes from countries the majority of whose population are illiterate.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. B. SHATTUC, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Representative SHATTUC. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was in the House of Representatives, and my little grandson, 3 years old, the only child we have, sat beside me. He heard Mr. Ray, and all those distinguished lawyers over there, debating a certain question, and he turned around to me, after a while, and said, "Grandpa, when are you going to recite?" Well, I thought it was very nice of the little fellow, and I told him if he would come over here among the distinguished Senators to-day at 11 o'clock he would hear me recite.

I will just ask your indulgence about ten minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I appear with you at this time to argue in favor of House bill No. 12199, which I had the honor to report to the House from the committee of which I am chairman. With the exceptions I shall mention in my argument I hope the bill will pass the Senate substantially as it came from the House.

I understand, of course, that the honorable Senators composing this committee will give to the consideration of the bill that discriminating care and thoughtful attention which the importance of the subject treated demands. I venture, however, to briefly mention some of the features of this legislation which I hope will have due weight in your deliberations.

You will admit, gentlemen, that it is unusual for a committee to report unanimously in favor of a bill covering a controversial subject. Such a report was made in favor of the bill reported by me to the House. That result was gained because the members of the committee sought to give to the House a comprehensive measure, symmetrical and harmonious in all its parts and effective for the administration of the Bureau of Immigration.

The necessity of the law was imperative because no codification of the immigration laws had been made for twenty-five years. The work of officers having charge of the enforcement of the law was hampered, not only by the restrictions of court decisions on laws already existing, but also by the absence of provisions of law needed to meet changed conditions and evasions which experience had taught aliens and their importers how to easily make.

The House bill as reported, therefore, may be said to have been framed with three things in view.

First, to include all parts of existing laws which experience had proved effective or, which is of equal importance, had received the sanction of judicial interpretation.

Second, to insert such changes as were necessary to make the administration of the law conform to judicial decisions by which existing law had been made inoperative.

Third, to add such new provisions of law as were necessary to meet new or changed conditions and bring within the purview of the public statutes certain features now only partially reached through decisions of the Treasury Department officials.

Many weeks' earnest and careful thought were given to the formation of the bill, and all the expert knowledge available was utilized, so that the completed bill might serve the purpose intended with the fullest possible success, while inflicting no unnecessary hardships upon either the transportation lines of land or sea bringing the aliens to our country or upon the aliens themselves.

Knowing how equally patient and conscientious work of past Congressional committees had been rendered fruitless and needed legislation throttled by the addition of extraneous matter offered in the shape of amendments, ostensibly for the purpose of perfecting but really with the effect of ultimately defeating pending legislation, I urgently opposed in the House, while the bill was under consideration, all amendments that led in any other direction than that planned by the committee I had the honor to represent. That committee having unanimously placed in my hands a bill framed after most careful thought, embracing substantially the experience of the Treasury Department as to what was needed, and indorsed personally in writing by the honorable Secretary of the Treasury and by the CommissionerGeneral of Immigration and his experts, as well as, in the main essentials, by the recent Industrial Commission, which had gone into the subject of immigration thoroughly and exhaustively, I felt it my duty to save this bill from the fate that had fallen to so many others.

Knowing the urgent need of legislation at this session of Congress and the danger of attempting too many things in one bill, I felt it was unfair to load down the bill with additions which might prevent the passage of the legislation itself.

Substantially as reported by the committee the bill passed the House, with the exception of the amendments prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors at immigrant stations and at the Capitol at Washington, and establishing an educational test.

For the reasons already stated I believe it to be my duty to strenuously oppose these amendments. Whatever the merit of either proposition, I objected to loading down the bill with matters which could not but arouse antagonism that might endanger the passage of the bill. I was overruled, and the House by its action put itself on record in favor of legislation such as is embraced in the amendments adopted. At this time and before this committee I have nothing to offer concerning the sale of intoxicants at immigration stations and at the Capitol. If the Senate wishes to indorse these amendments it is their privilege to do so. I only plead that these or any other amendments shall not be permitted to endanger the bill prepared with such patient labor, and of itself and by itself so good for the administration of the immigration laws.

So, also, in regard to an educational test as a means of restriction of immigration. If you will not allow such an amendment to jeopardize the bill and thereby deprive the country of the general legislation so imperative upon this subject of immigration, I am content. But I most earnestly protest against the form of the amendment tacked on to the bill in the House to secure that result. When the amendment was under consideration in the House I pointed out several objections thereto which seemed to me sufficient to prevent the adoption of the amendment. It may be well to ask you to analyze the amendment and notice its exceedingly objectionable features in the form in which it now stands. The amendment says (page 4, line 21, of the bill): "All persons-"

Note the words

"over fifteen years of age and physically capable of reading, who can not read the English language or some other language."

The section denies admission to "all" persons. Thus it affects the immigration into the United States from Canada and Mexico, and applies not only to the elements all wish to exclude, but also to the citizens of those countries along our borders, north and south, who daily come into the United States for trade or otherwise, and return to their homes at nightfall. It would apply to the 70,000 migratory "birds of passage" that annually come into New England at the beginning of the labor season and return at the end thereof. The test would have to be applied daily, and would thus be so obnoxious as to provoke immediate retaliatory legislation by our neighbor, and there are quite as many citizens of this country who cross the Canadian line for trade and work as there are of the Canadians who cross the line for like purposes.

Should this view be held to be correct, then the proviso, commencing on line 18, page 5, of the bill, designating certain places through which alone "all persons" may enter, acts with still more rigid force, for every citizen of Canada, for instance, from Vanceboro, Me., along the frontier to Newport, Vt., would have to enter the United States, if only to do a day's shopping, at those two places or "be adjudged to