would allow me to make an argument on some particular provisions; not against the bill, but simply in regard to particular features of the bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am very busy at Ellis Island and I find it difficult to get away. Would it be improper to ask Mr. Anderson to state now the general headings of his objections? Perhaps they will not interest me as an administrative officer at all. If they should interest me, I should like to reply to them, perhaps.

Mr. ANDERSON. I could hardly state them offhand just now.

The CHAIRMAN. I have received some communications from you, Mr. Anderson, which I could hand you to refresh your memory if you desire. I did not see any objection to the suggestions you made to me. Representative SHATTUC. He wrote most of the bill. He ought to be satisfied with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson represents the International Navigation Company and they are not particularly interested in this class of immigrants who are kept out, as I understand it.

Mr. ANDERSON. We have never advocated any provision of the bill except what we considered was honest and for the impartial administration and the impartial enactment of laws for the restriction of immigration. We certainly sympathize with the Government, and I do not think anyone has worked harder than I have to secure the effective administration of these restrictive laws. I would refer in regard to that matter to Commissioner-General Powderly himself.

Representative SHATTUC. I thought, Mr. Anderson, when we reduced the head tax it would make you very happy, and that we would not see you in opposition to the bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am not here in opposition to the bill. I do not propose to oppose the bill; but there are certain features of it which I consider are unjust. There has never been a time when I have asked for anything or our company has asked for anything that was not considered perfectly just and right.

Mr. LITCHMAN. The main thing, Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to make the suggestion, is this: If you can get this legislation into shape so that it can get through the Senate, I think the condition of the immigration service is such that the improvements made in this bill will very materially assist in the administration of the law; and the main features of the bill, therefore, it seems to me, should receive as early attention as the business of the Senate will permit, and, if possible, favorable action by the Senate during the present session.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I second the correctness of those remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, you have submitted some memoranda in writing. Could you submit your whole statement in writing? Mr. ANDERSON. I would be very glad to have the remarks that I want to make printed, if it would be more satisfactory to the committee, and I will prepare them as early as possible. I prefer to appear before the committee. I think that would be better. At the same time if that is inconvenient to you, I will prepare them.

Mr. LITCHMAN. There is only one suggestion I would make in relation to that. I think the paper Mr. Anderson presents ought to be available for those of us who may perhaps desire to reply to some criticism made by him.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think so.

Mr. LITCHMAN. It would seem to me eminently unfair that we should not have an opportunity to reply to a proposition submitted by him.

Senator FAIRBANKS. Could you be prepared to submit your observations to-morrow, Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. It would be impossible to prepare them in proper shape to-morrow. I could do it by, say, next Monday. I have a very great deal of business to attend to. It is our busy season. I have a great deal of work to do besides this, but I will be very glad to devote my time to it and prepare it by next Monday or Tuesday, if it would be satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. We can have a meeting on Monday if Senator Fairbanks will undertake to hold the meeting. I shall be in Harrisburg, and can not be here myself.

Mr. ANDERSON. Any time that is agreeable to the committee will be satisfactory to me.

Mr. LITCHMAN. Monday would suit me exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps we could hold a meeting on Friday of next week. I could be back by that time.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an opportunity to reply to any criticism that is made of the bill. I have looked through some of these memoranda, and I notice there is opposition to the $100 penalty. That opposition is so entirely unreasonable that I should like to have that question out now.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think you had better be here at the next meeting?

Mr. LITCHMAN. I think it would be very advisable for you to be here at the next meeting, Mr. Williams.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no very great hurry, in view of other important measures now before the Senate, and Senator Fairbanks suggests that we hold a meeting next Friday week.

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C., June 18, 1902.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators Penrose (chairman), Fairbanks, Lodge, Dillingham, and Dryden.

Present also: Hon. W. B. Shattuc, of Ohio, chairman of the Committee on Immigration, House of Representatives; Hon. Terence V. Powderly, Commissioner-General of Immigration; William Williams, esq., commissioner of immigration at the port of New York; Robert Watchorn, esq., special immigrant inspector, stationed at Montreal, Canada; Richard K. Campbell, esq., special immigrant inspector, Bureau of Immigration, Treasury Department: A. S. Anderson, esq., passenger manager, American Line, International Navigation Company, Philadelphia, Pa.; Herman J. Schulteis, esq., chairman national legislative committee, Knights of Labor, Washington, D. C.; Prescott S. Hall, esq., secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, and Charles H. Litchman, member of the Industrial Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, you desire to make a statement to the committee, do you?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to hear you on the pending bill.

STATEMENT OF MR. A. S. ANDERSON, OF PHILADELPHIA, PASSENGER MANAGER, AMERICAN LINE, INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION COMPANY.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson, will you please state your full name and whom you represent to the stenographer?

Mr. ANDERSON. A. S. Anderson, passenger manager, American line, International Navigation Company.

Mr. Chairman, I have one slight request to make first, and that is that if there are any questions to be asked me, I would very much prefer to have them asked after I have finished reading my paper if that will be satisfactory to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Any way that suits your convenience, Mr. Anderson, will suit the committee.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and Senators, being the representative of a steamship company, I presume I should apologize for daring to appear before this committee for any purpose, unless it was to plead guilty to all the crimes of which steamship companies are accused. From the fact that I have been invited to appear before this committee, I imagine that you at least have hope that what I may say will not be altogether prejudiced and unjust to the interests of the Government and people of the United States. I shall try to meet your reasonable hopes in that direction.

I do not intend to oppose the passage of H. R. 12199, as I believe that, notwithstanding its many defects, a very few changes would make it a great improvement over the present laws. Therefore, because I believe that in some particulars the bill should be amended, I do not want to be classed with those who are opposed to any bill which proposes to control immigration into the United States.

I believe this bill should be amended in a few particulars, in order that if it shall become a law, it shall be, first, just, and then effective. In order for laws to be just they must be impartial; and they must be so worded that it will be possible to obey them without incurring a penalty; they should make it possible to correct a mistake which may be made in the execution of the law, if, before the final act, there is reason to believe that such a mistake has been made; and they should clearly distinguish between the innocent and the guilty in the imposition of penalties.

In order that a law shall be effective, it must be so framed and administered that it shall accomplish the purpose for which it was intended. The framer of the law should not hold one possible offender so prominently before the mind's eye that, in striving to make the punishment fit that particular criminal, he omits to provide any penalty whatever for other offenders. The law should as clearly as possible express its intention or meaning.

If I shall be able to show you that this bill offends in any one or all of these particulars, I shall hope that you will amend the bill to the extent only of correcting such offenses.

I purpose commenting on several sections of H. R. 12199, but I ask your permission to take them up topically rather than in consecutive order.

Section 10. This section imposes a fine of $100 upon steamship com

panies for every case of an alien afflicted with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease who is brought to any port within the United States.

From our actual experience we know that there is but one way to avoid the infliction of this fine, and that is for the steamship companies to refuse to carry any passenger who has any affection of the eye, or of the scalp, or who presents any other sign of disease, which might possibly be pronounced a contagious disease. But this would shut out people who might only have eyes weakened from overwork, or read ing, or a bad cold, or an accidental injury, or any one of a score of innocuous troubles, and would work hardship and unnecessary injury. Trachoma and favus are considered contagious diseases; but in the earlier stages of trachoma it is impossible to distinguish between this disease and an ordinary and temporary inflammation of the eye. In cases of favus, and especially where the scalp has been washed and good care taken of the patient, it is sometimes impossible to be certain of the presence of the disease without a microscopic examination. There are frequently differences of opinion between different physicians in their diagnosis of these diseases, and we have had many cases where one physician has pronounced the patient to be suffering from trachoma, and another physician has pronounced the same patient to be free from the disease. Physicians even differ essentially in their opinions as to the final recovery of such cases. Some hold that a person once afflicted is never entirely free from the disease, and others hold that such cases may be permanently cured. As an illustration of such diversion of opinion I would cite the following:

"Sometime in April of this year, Mr. Robert Watchorn, special inspector of immigration on the Canadian border, arrested four aliens who entered the United States without having been examined by the United States immigrant inspector at Newport, Vt. Two of these men were examined by James Barcley, M. D., who certified that they had favus; the other two were also certified to as having favus by a local physician at Newport who examined them. They were ordered deported from New York. On arrival at New York the cases were appealed to Washington by the Jewish society. The aliens were ordered reexamined by United States Marine-Hospital surgeons, and Dr. Geo. N. Stoner and two other medical officers of the Marine-Hospital Service pronounced them free from disease. At the same time they stated: "They probably have had favus, but the disease has run its course.""

At one time the Marine-Hospital Service had surgeons stationed in the European ports to examine alien emigrants embarking for the United States, yet in spite of the fact that these officers were afforded opportunity to make a thorough examination, the surgeons at the United States ports found on almost every ship one or more cases of favus or trachoma. At the present time the International Navigation Company employs two physicians to examine their alien passengers before embarkation at the European ports. In addition, there is present at such examination at Liverpool and Southampton a physician representing the British Board of Trade and at Antwerp a physician representing the city health authorities, and a very careful examination is made to detect diseases which are debarred by the laws of the United States; but in spite of these efforts there is not a month passes

during which there are not one or more cases discovered by the examining physician at the United States port; and I am satisfied from our strong but unavailing efforts to remedy this situation that it is impossible to do so, except as above stated-by rejecting everyone who might have any affection of the eyes or scalp. This strict application of preventive measures would undoubtedly cause very great hardship. A large family coming from Russia, or other countries far from the ports of embarkation, a member of which might happen to take a cold in the eye, or receive a slight injury which would temporarily inflame the eye, would, in consequence, necessarily be rejected until recovery was complete, when, if allowed to embark, he would have recovered before he arrived in this country.

Suppose the case of a man who had resided in the United States for four years, had declared his intention to become a citizen, had taken out his first papers, and had established a business in the United States, and who should take his family on a visit to his former home, perhaps for the very purpose of closing out his remaining interest in the old country, and on his return to the port of embarkation it was found that one of the children or the father had some inflammation of the eyes. Although residents of the United States, and within a year of being citizens, having a home and business here, and no other home, yet they are perforce detained at heavy expense in a foreign country until the case is cured, for it would not be safe to take the statement of any physician in Europe, because it might differ from the statement of the physician at the United States port. But suppose the person was really suffering from trachoma, but that the disease was contracted in the United States before the passengers went abroad. How far from just would this section prove in such a case?

Let us suppose another case that may and will undoubtedly occur under this provision, if this bill becomes a law:

Sections 13, 14, and 15 require that a list of all aliens, cabin as well as steerage passengers, shall be made and sworn to before the commissioner of immigration at the port of arrival, in which affidavit it must be declared that a thorough physical examination has been made of each and every alien and that all have been found free from diseases which are prohibited by law from entering the United States. The clause requiring these lists to be sworn to before the commissioner of immigration at United States ports was inserted in the present bill because it was found impracticable to make any examination of cabin passengers before they embarked, and it was expected that such an examination could be made on board the ship.

Accepting that theory as correct, and the remedy suggested as the proper one, let us suppose that the examination of the cabin passengers has been made during the voyage, and some prominent foreigner has been found suffering from consumption, or some other disease which has been pronounced contagious. Under section 19 how is it possible to escape the $100 fine.

Nor is this the only difficult question. How can the captain, or the surgeon, make affidavit under the required form? In such a case as above, is it really intended that such prominent foreigner should not be permitted to land?

I hope it will not be inferred from what I have said that we desire to influence your purpose of shutting out dangerous diseases, or, if