Mr. WATCHORN. At the present time we insist on the collection of the head tax on all coming over the border who have resided in Canada for less than one year, and I may say to the committee that since the 1st of September we have collected approximately $3,000 of people who would otherwise have gone over and paid no head tax whatever. We have collected that in addition to those we have rejected. Senator LODGE. That is applied there in connection with the educational test. In connection with the existing test, it is very well, but applied in connection with the educational test, would it not have the effect of sending all the illiteracy around through Canada?

Mr. WATCHORN. All those who have been in Canada less than a year would have to be examined under the illiteracy test.

Senator LODGE. Yes; that is true. Do you think a year is a long enough time?

Mr. WATCHORN. We shall gain, then, at one of the following places, Montreal

Senator LODGE. Yes, I know; but those who stay more than a year. Would it not practically defeat the illiteracy test?

Mr. WATCHORN. I do not think so. I do not think any of them could afford to stay a year. Let us take the case of the Baron de Hirsch Society, for instance. It has been stated to me that they have an appropriation of about $2,500 per annum which they devote to the purpose of assisting their coreligionists who have come by way of Canada. This money they use for giving them transportation to go on to the States, for temporarily sheltering them while they remain in Montreal, and so on. In September, I think 340 of them sought admission through our board to come to the States. We rejected probably 100 of them. It has been steadily declining month by month, until in the month of April we did not have one applicant of the Jewish race, nor have we had an applicant of the Jewish race during the month of May. It has been stated to me by a member of that society in Montreal that the reason they do not come now is that their appropriation has been exhausted in hospital bills and bills of maintenance for those we have kept back, and they are no longer able to receive them, and have sent word to Europe not to send them this way.

Therefore I think a year would be too long a time to keep them and nurse them with a view to sending them over the line. The Roumanian Jews who came over two years ago, many of them, are still in Canada, a burden on that society; and only at their last meeting, Thursday night week, as many as 92 destitute Jews, who have been destitute since the 1st of January in Montreal, were at that meeting of the society to receive their alms and support, being unable to care for themselves.

Senator LODGE. Does not the Hirsch society come within the law against assisting immigration?

Mr. WATCHORN. If you could prove it assists them, it would.

Senator DRYDEN. How could you satisfy yourself that a party lived a year in Canada?

Mr. WATCHORN. We invariably make them bring the certificate from the steamship company, showing the ship on which they landed, and then I send an officer back to the steamship to verify the manifest. Senator DRYDEN. Then you ought to have an official certificate of some officer or magistrate in the town in which they profess to have resided for year.

S. Doc. 62--14

Mr. WATCHORN. In Europe, do you mean?

Senator DRYDEN. No; in Canada.

Mr. WATCHORN. Well, they come and present themselves at the depot and answer the usual questions, and they say they have been in Canada a month or two months, as the case may be. We say to them, "Well, you communicate with the steamship company and get us a certificate to that effect, and we will deal with you. You must wait until we get the certificate." As soon as we get the certificate from the steamship company, we go back to the steamship company and ourselves verify that manifest. We do not care where they have resided. All we care about is that they shall not enter the States until they have made themselves eligible.

The CHAIRMAN. How can you identify the applicant with the certificate? He might use any certificate, might he not?

Mr. WATCHORN. No; hardly so, because the description on the manifest is so nearly correct that he could scarcely use any other. The CHAIRMAN. It contains a description of him, his age, and so on? Mr. WATCHORN. Yes, sir.

Senator LODGE. Does this bill contain the provision of the present law in regard to making the manifest on the other side? Representative SHATTUC. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. But it is sworn to on this side. It makes it more convenient to the steamship companies. It enables them to perfect it during the voyage.

Representative SHATTUC. It is sworn to by the officers and by our people, too.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Is it not true that this clause relating to a year's residence in Canada is in the present law?

Mr. WATCHORN. Well, we have an agreement, under what is known as Department Circular No. 97, which extended the time from one month to one year. Formerly, up to November 1 of last year, a month's residence in Canada sufficed to make them Canadian residents. Under the present system it takes one year.

Now, it may interest the committee to know that it has been shown in numberless instances where as many as fifty passengers on a voyage, who started from Liverpool, manifested to the United States, coming to Quebec or St. John or Halifax, as the case might be, had their destinations changed while en route, and they have given Montreal as a destination. The inference is that the ship's surgeon discovered that they were suffering from diseases which would preclude the possibility of their lawful entry into the States, and he changed their destination to Montreal, so that they would avoid the inspection of the American officers at the point of debarkation. They reside in Montreal for a month or two, and then these guides pilot them in every direction possible to get them over the line. I am sure I repeat what I said before-that in view of the experience we have had in the past ten months, unless the law is made to apply to the Canadian border it will nullify the work at the United States ports.

Senator DRYDEN. Why would it not be possible for them to avoid the law even if you designate certain points of entry? Why could they not still come over the border by these underground routes? Mr. WATCHORN. They could, but we could prosecute them then. Senator LODGE. They would be liable to arrest and prosecution here. Mr. WATCHORN. Under the present law we have no means of dealing

with them when they come in in that way; and I should like to suggest further, if the honorable committee will permit, that some provision should be made for the prosecution of those who bring them over. At the present time we have five of the most skillful smugglers on the border in United States jails. We caught them napping over the line and arrested them, and they are awaiting trial in the respective jurisdictions where they are in prison. I do not know what will be done with them. I do not know what can be done with them, because there is no specific provision made for their punishment; but I think they ought to be punished. They set us at defiance.

The CHAIRMAN. General Shattuc, could you not prepare an amendment of that character?

Representative SHATTUC. I will prepare one for you and bring

it in.

The CHAIRMAN. I ask you to do it because you have given this matter a great deal of attention.

Representative SHATTUC. Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman here named Campbell, who is the expert of the Department on this subject. Before he goes away I should like if you would ask him some questions.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Gentlemen, I should be very glad to answer any questions you may wish to ask.

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD K. CAMPBELL, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

The CHAIRMAN. State your full name, Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Richard K. Campbell.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your position?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Special immigrant inspector, Bureau of Immigration, Treasury Department.

Mr. Chairman, I think the case has been stated here pretty plainly in regard to the various questions that have arisen in the discussion of this bill, and it hardly seems to me it is necessary for me to consume the time of the committee. If there is any special point on which you desire information, I should be very glad to answer your questions.

Senator LODGE. I suppose the officers of the Bureau, with General Shattuc, can prepare a clause that will cover those cases just spoken about by Mr. Watchorn?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is the case of the smugglers?

Senator LODGE. Yes; a proper penalty for those who unlawfully assist immigrants to cross the line.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; that will be a very simple measure to

enact.

Senator LODGE. I think we ought to have something of that sort prepared and sent here.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not know whether the committee understand thoroughly a point that was raised here a moment ago. That was as to the necessity of having exclusive ports of entry along the border. The difficulty lies in the fact that any alien who is arrested in this country for being here in violation of law, not having come in through certain ports, is subject under the provisions of this bill to deportation to the European port from which he came. Now, all we can do is to

place him over the border and he comes back again. That gives the administrative officer a very important lever in enforcing the law, and if he did not have that it is perfectly obvious the more rigidly the law is enforced at our seaports the more certainly will objectionable aliens be diverted from that method of entry around through Canada, as has been the case, as shown by Mr. Watchorn's statement here.

The chief difficulty the administrative officers have found for years has been the fact that that Canadian border has been practically unprotected.. It seemed almost impossible to protect it owing to the fact that the range was so great and the few inspectors were scattered so far apart and they lacked an administrative head there who could control and direct their actions. That has been amended and a new agreement has been prepared within the last twelve months, the consideration being, as any of you gentlemen will be able to see at once, that the trans-Atlantic transportation lines running into the ports of Canada are able to assure their alien passengers: "We can put you through into the United States if you are entitled to go in just as easily as you can go to the port of New York," because, after they are passed by our inspectors at the ports of Canada, they are furnished with a certificate which entitles them to admission, and they apply then for the admission and come right in. So we will always have at least that much leverage upon the steamship companies as a means of forcing them into some agreement for the purpose of carrying out this law. Representative SHATTUC. Mr. Campbell, have you read the bill since it was reported by the Committee on Immigration of the House? Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not think I have, except in part. I have not read it through as a whole.

Representative SHATTUC. From what you have seen of the bill, what do you think of it? What is your opinion of it?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it is an admirable bill, General. I do not see how it can be improved very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it would be effective to prevent the abuses complained of?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not think of anything that can be added to it now. Although this is a matter which has engaged my attention for the past eight years, I do not think of anything that could make it more effective.

Representative SHATTUC. I suggest that Mr. Campbell look the bill over with care, and if he thinks of any amendments that he feels ought to be made he could formulate them.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will do so with pleasure.

Mr. LITCHMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Campbell a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. LITCHMAN. Do you not regard it as imperative that the bill— that is, substantially the bill-should be passed at this session of Congress?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Unquestionably. There are many defects in the existing law that result in the defeat of its obvious purposes. That point was raised here a while ago, I think probably by Mr. Anderson, with respect to the term "alien immigrant." That matter was the source of endless embarrassment before Congress took it out of the hands of the courts and placed it in the hands of the administrative department. Before the final decision as to the right of any alien to enter the United States, the courts rendered a number of contradic

tory opinions as to what kind of persons the law applied to, as to what an alien immigrant was. The result was confusion and uncertainty. One officer administered the law in one way and another in another way.

The opinion of the Attorney-General, referred to by Mr. Anderson, covered the very point that he raised, which was that if under this law the term "alien immigrant" was construed very broadly, it would necessitate asking very embarrassing questions of first-class cabin passengers. The answer of Attorney-General Griggs, in brief, is that that is a matter of administration; that obviously the law is not to be construed with any such degree of literal strictness when it is to be applied to a class of people like those who usually travel first cabin as when applied to the masses, who travel in the second class or in the steerage; but it is a question of administration, and as Mr. Williams has stated, there has been no embarrassment where he has undertaken to enforce the law.

I may say that the Department has for years urged that the manifesting be done in the case of cabin passengers, as well as second and third class passengers. We find that some of the most notorious criminals have endeavored to get in as first and second class cabin passengers. I do not know whether you gentlemen remember the case of the two Phoenix Park murderers or accessories to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish. They had served their sentence and they came into the port of New York as first-cabin passengers. That was so flagrant a case that they were stopped there and examined. They made that very point; but inasmuch as the Department had the final decision in that case, as to what an "alien immigrant" was under the law, they were deported, the strong probability being that under the decision of the courts, had the matter gone before the courts, they would have been admitted, although they were both convicts.

Senator LODGE. Do you think the arrangements in this bill in regard to the preparation of and swearing to manifests are secure? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I think so.

Senator LODGE. Better than the present law?

Mr. CAMPBELL. General Shattuc has been good enough to consult us repeatedly on the subject, and it seems to us to answer every purpose, particularly the point raised by Mr. Anderson with respect to cabin passengers coming down at the last moment, it being impossible for them at the last moment to swear before a United States consul.

Senator LODGE. You think it is safe as now arranged?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think it is abundantly so. I do not see why swearing before an immigration official at the port of arrival is not equally as much a protection as an affidavit made before the consul at the point of departure.

Mr. WILLIAMS. May I ask if it is provided that that official shall have power to administer oaths which shall be binding?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The immigration inspectors are all given power to administer oaths. There is a provision in the bill to the effect that they shall have power to take testimony and administer oaths with regard to the right of any alien to land. I have forgotten which section that is in, but it is there.

Representative SHATTUC. It is there, I know.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is there; yes.

Representative SHATTUC. Now, Mr. Campbell, will you be so good