as to allow Chinese laborers to come into the islands, and he is opposed to this educational test because he thinks it would keep them out. I believe he acknowledged, however, that it would not keep out the Japanese.

I would simply say, in answer to that gentleman's statement, that the Hawaiian sugar planters enjoyed special privileges under our laws for some time before they became a part of our country, and they are here now asking for special privileges, something that is not in keeping with good American principles. They asked us to annex them and I think they should have been willing to adapt themselves to American principles. The American people through their Congress decided a good many years ago that it was not the proper thing to import Chinese laborers. Therefore I think it is a very poor plan to try to Americanize the Hawaiian Islands by importing Chinese. I think it is unfair to the workingmen of this country.

The gentleman says that the labor there is now performed for $17 a month, and that it is 50 per cent higher, if I understood him aright, than what labor was performed for at the time of annexation. I think it is unfair to the industries of this country, and to the men who are employed in them, to allow Chinese labor, which is obtained for $17 a month, to compete with them, when every man knows that $17 a month to an American workman, a man who has ambition and likes to educate and rear his family in American ways, is a very small item. I think it would be unwise for Congress to grant the concessions the sugar planters of the Hawaiian Islands ask for.

Now, I want to say a word in regard to the statement made by Mr. Anderson yesterday. He said, if I understood him aright, and I think I did, that if you would pass this bill without the educational test, that the provisions which seek to tighten up the bars along the Canadian and Mexican frontiers would answer the cry of the people of this coun try for a further restriction upon immigration.

I do not propose to speak for the whole country. I am simply here as the representative of about 185,000 railroad men, who, through their lodges and divisions in every State and Territory, have asked specifically for an educational test.

It does not seem to me that the gentleman's statement is borne out by past history. This is a question which has been before the people for a good many years. It has come before our political conventions, and they have passed upon it.

I do not desire to enter into any partisan discussion. Far from it. As a representative of the railroad men of this country I have no party. Neither have the organizations which I represent. Their members are organized for the purpose of protecting their trade, and not for partisan purposes. However, since the question of party was mentioned by Mr. Anderson, it will not be inappropriate for me to refer to his argu

ment.

He quoted from a speech made by a Cabinet officer, in which it was said that the Republican party protected the American workmen, as I understood it, by protecting the employer. It is true when, through a high tariff, the price of goods is raised it gives the employer the opportunity to pay his employees more wages, but they do not get a fair proportion. If they are well enough organized, they may get an advance in wages, but even then they do not get a fair share of the profits, and I do not think the representatives of that party really believe they do. Senator FAIRBANKS. Of what party?

Mr. FULLER. Of the party he spoke of.

Senator FAIRBANKS. What party did he speak of?

Mr. FULLER. I believe he referred to the Republican party.

The same party in its national conventions has passed resolutions to the effect that there still ought to be some further protection to labor. I think in passing those resolutions they did not do it blindly. The Democratic platform of 1896 had this to say:

"We hold that the most effective way of protecting American labor is to prevent the importation of foreign pauper labor to compete with it in the home market."

The Republican platform of 1896 said this:

"For the protection of the equality of our American citizenship and of the wages of our workingmen against the fatal competition of lowpriced labor we demand that the immigration laws be thoroughly enforced and so extended as to exclude from entrance to the United States those who can neither read or write."

This is a specific indorsement of section 3 of this bill. The following will be found in the Republican platform of 1900:

"In the further interest of American workmen we favor a more effective restriction of the immigration of cheap labor from foreign lands." Senator FAIRBANKS. You are reading from the Republican platform? Mr. FULLER. The Republican platform of 1900.

I do not think the Administration agrees with the contention made by Mr. Anderson that the protection now afforded is adequate. President Roosevelt in his message to the first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress said this:

"The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure, by a careful and not merely perfunctory educational test, some intelligent capacity to appreciate American institutions and act sanely as American citizens."

The President would go further than we have asked you to go in section 3. I think the test provided for is merely perfunctory. It does not restrict enough to suit the working class of the country, but it is a step in the right direction.

The President in his last message to Congress calls attention to what he said in his former message. He calls attention to the fact that this bill passed the House at the last session, and practically asks the Senate to pass it at this session.

Now, I hope the members of this committee, after considering this bill and having already reported it to the Senate with the educational test provision in it, will not be influenced by the statements of gentlemen who have said or who may say to you that the bill without the educational test is fully adequate, and that it will meet the prayers of the working class of people for the further restriction of immigration, because it will not.

I thank you, gentlemen, for your time and attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Still you consider that the bill contains many valuable provisions outside of the educational section?

Mr. FULLER. I do. We indorse the whole bill. As I said, we are in favor of the further restriction of immigration.

Senator MCLAURIN, of Mississippi. Mr. Fuller, if section 3 was stricken out, would not that be calculated to take away some of the protection to labor which you are seeking to obtain?

Mr. FULLER. Undoubtedly it would.

Senator MCLAURIN, of Mississippi That, then, would be to withdraw from the bill one of the provisions which you think is a good provision, not only for the country, but for protection to labor?

Mr. FULLER. Yes sir; as I have already stated, it is the most vital provision of the bill, and I hope it will not be stricken out.

The CHAIRMAN. We have here the principal officers of the Bureau of Immigration. We would be glad to hear from them, if they will arrange among themselves in what order and at what length they shall desire to be heard.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. CAMPBELL, OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Campbell, state your position in the Bureau. Mr. CAMPBELL. I am a special immigrant inspector connected with the Bureau of Immigration, and I am here this morning in the enforced absence of the Commissioner-General to make some remarks upon this bill, not with a view to any particular interest, either that of labor or manufactures or party, nor for the purpose of advocating any new measure. The Commissioner-General considers that he represents the interest of the American people as a whole, and he considers, furthermore, that administrative officers can appear here with propriety only to advo cate such legislation as will make the laws effective and as will enable him to enforce them successfully.

When this bill was prepared originally by the author of it, General Shattuc, he did the Bureau the compliment of calling its officers into consultation in order that the measure might be made effective from an administrative point of view. A great deal of the language of the bill was the precise language of existing legislation, not because that language might not have been amended in the interest of clearness and conciseness, an avoidance of tautology, and in various other respects, but simply because it had stood the test-the practical test—of administration and had not been found wanting. That bill was reported here to the Senate committee, and you, gentlemen, did the CommissionerGeneral the same kindness. His officers came here, and the bill was reviewed in the light of such information as they could give the committee, and the bill was reported favorably to the Senate.

In the few remarks I had the honor to make yesterday I called attention to the fact that the bill had been changed, to its detriment, since it was so reported, in one respect. Now I should like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that it has been changed in a much more material respect in the first section, because that sectionSenator FAIRBANKS. Before you go into that let me ask if you have stated your official position, so that it will go into the record. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; special immigrant inspector. Senator FAIRBANKS. Stationed where?

Mr. CAMPBELL. At Washington

Senator FAIRBANKS. How long have you been in the service?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I have been in the service eight years.

The CHAIRMAN. You are a lawyer, are you not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are really the legal adviser or law clerk?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am the law clerk of the Bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have examined this bill critically from beginning to end as a lawyer?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. I have been connected with the preparation of this bill since its inception. I have gone into it very carefully. I may say, moreover, that this bill as it was reported at the beginning of

S. Doc. 62- -26

the present session by the Senate committee passed the critical examination and inspection of all of our principal administrative officers and received their unanimous indorsement except in some minor respects, which respects were mentioned in a report made by the chairman of that commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the bill been referred to any of the staff of the Attorney-General?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir; I think not.

You will notice that the first section of this act is practically a revenue section. It is to be passed for the purpose of raising a fund to administer the laws. It is exactly in the language of the act of August 3, 1882, an act that has now been in operation for twenty years, which act of 1882 reads in this wise:

"That there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of fifty cents for each and every passenger not a citizen of the United States who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United States. The said duty shall be paid to the collector of customs of the port to which such passenger shall come, or, if there be no collector at such port, then to the collector of customs nearest thereto, by the master, agent, owner, or consignee of every such vessel," &c.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be too much trouble to you to prepare (as was done in the case of the Chinese restriction bill, and it was extremely useful) parallel columns that we could insert in the hearing on this bill, showing how nearly parallel the present law and Treasury regulations run with the present bill?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly; we can do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think, Senator Fairbanks, that that would be very useful when the bill comes up for debate?

Senator FAIRBANKS. I think it is a very excellent idea.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have that done at your convenience? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; I will have it done at the earliest practicable moment.

My object in calling attention to that provision in the act of 1882, which is identical with the bill that was reported by the Senate committee at the opening of the present session, was to show that this tax is not a tax on the alien. It may indirectly come out of him and it may not. According to the testimony of representatives of the steamship companies, it does not come out of him. But whether it does or not, the payment is to be made specifically by the masters, agents, or owners of vessels. I call attention to it because I understand an amendment has been adopted by the Senate which reads: "That there shall be levied, collected, and paid a duty of three dollars for each and every alien immigrant," instead of "passenger."

Senator FAIRBANKS. Is not the important matter there the amount of the tax to be levied rather than the question as to who shall pay it? Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to show you, if you will allow me, Senator, that that question goes directly to that point-to the amount that shall be paid. The term "alien immigrant" is a modification of the existing law, and I understand that it is based upon the proposition that, inasmuch as we do not charge Canadians a head tax (that is the broad way in which the proposition is stated), such a course involves a violation of our treaty obligations; that is, the obligation of the most-favored-nation clause, which appears in all our treaties.

If the head tax was collectible from the alien there might be some ground for that contention, or if it were true that we did not claim a head tax from Canadians that would be true. We do collect a head

tax from Canadians and from Mexicans, but not directly. We collect it from the steamship company which brings them to our seaports from ransoceanic ports.

Senator FAIRBANKS. You do not bring Canadians from transoceanic ports?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, yes, sir; a great many of them.
Senator FAIRBANKS. Down the coast?

Mr. CAMPBELL. They are brought from Europe. If you will notice the Commissioner-General's report you will see a statement of the number of Canadians who have come from Europe to this country.

Senator MCLAURIN, of Mississippi. Does not the bill as it now stands amended propose to collect the head tax from Canadian alien immigrants?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is exactly what it does.

Senator MCLAURIN, of Mississippi. That is what I thought.

Mr. CAMPBELL. But my purpose is to show you that when the term "alien immigrant" is employed it qualifies the section and limits the lass on account of whom the tax can be collected.

The courts have determined that an alien immigrant is an alien who is coming here with a definite and distinct and avowed purpose of settling here. I take it that I need not reason that if the bill is passed in this shape, whatever may be his purpose in truth, every alien will profess that he is simply coming here for a visit, in which case we could not collect a head tax of any sort on account of him.

That is one of the difficulties which was met with in the administration of the present laws which apply specifically to "alien immigrants," as the result of which Congress was impelled to pass the act of August 18, 1894, taking out of the hands of the courts the determination of the admissibility of any alien, and since then it has been possible for the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether a foreigner was com ing here in violation of law or not, and to reject him if inadmissible, whether coming to stay here as a settler or as a visitor merely. But before its enactment the courts had admitted aliens who were diseased and who were of the other excepted classes, simply because they had been here before.

The CHAIRMAN. The point was raised in the Senate as to the status of the particular class of Canadians who come here a few months and work in the summer.

Mr. CAMPBELL. There is no head tax paid on them under the provisions of the act now in force, which is embodied in the bill reported by this committee to the Senate at the beginning of the present session. The CHAIRMAN. This proposed act does not alter their status in any way?

Mr. CAMPBELL. This act alters their status.

The CHAIRMAN. In what respect? That is an important point. I have had some doubt about it, as I think all have.

Representative SHATTUC. Did the bill, as it came from the House, alter in this respect the old act of 1882?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; the bill as it passed the House was a reenactment of existing law, which is found to be thoroughly effective. The only question in that regard was as to the amount of the head tax, whether the amount fixed by the House would be sufficient to meet the demands of the service.

The CHAIRMAN. How have we altered the status of the French Canadians chiefly?

Mr. CAMPBELL, There is an exception made here. You limit them