immigrants, saying that it seemed to him a fair subject of legislation by Congress. Later, in the same session, he sent a special message to Congress upon the subject of immigration in which he urged national control, saying in part:

I do not advise national legislation in affairs that should be regulated by the States; but I see no subject more national in its character than provision for the safety and welfare of the thousands who leave foreign lands to become citizens of this Republic. When their residence is chosen they may then look to the laws of their locality for protection and guidance.

At about this period several bills were introduced for the promotion of immigration and the protection of immigrants, and the Senate Committee on Commerce reported a bill which provided for the appointment of a Commissioner of Immigration; the levying of a head tax of $1 on each immigrant passenger landed in lieu of a head tax imposed by States; and the exclusion of criminals. The bill in question did not pass, but in 1875 a law was enacted which provided for the exclusion of prostitutes. The law in which this provision was contained, however, was designed chiefly to regulate Chinese immigration. The messages of President Grant and the debates in Congress evidently indicated a strong sentiment in favor of national control of immigration, and in 1876 a decision of the Supreme Court practically left no alternative.

STATE CONTROL DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Before the decision of 1876 above referred to various questions relating to the subject of immigration had been considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first of these cases was that of the State of New York v. Miln. This case tested the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature of New York State in 1824, requiring all masters of vessels arriving at the port of New York to make a report in writing and give the name, age, and the last legal residence of every person on board during the voyage, and, stating whether any of his passengers had gone on board any other vessel or had been landed at any place with a view to proceeding to New York. Another section of the law

made it lawful for the mayor of the city to require a bond from every master of a vessel to indemnify the mayor and the overseer of the poor from any expense incurred for passengers brought in and not reported. The United States Supreme Court held that the New York act was not a regulation of commerce, but of police; and, being so, it was in exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the State.

Justice Story dissented from the decision of the court, declared the law unconstitutional, and said, in part:

The result of the whole reasoning is that whatever restrains or prevents the introduction or importation of passengers or goods into the country authorized or allowed by Congress, whether in the shape of a tax or other charge, or whether before or after their arrival in port, interferes with the exclusive right to regulate commerce.

This law being held to be constitutional, New York, in 1829, in providing for the support of the marine and quarantine hospital established on Staten Island, ordered that the health commissioner should collect from the master of every vessel arriving from a foreign port $1.50 for every cabin passenger; $1 for every steerage passenger, mate, sailor, or marine; and 25 cents for every person arriving on coasting vessels. The money so collected, after deducting 2 per cent, was all to be used for the benefit of the above-named hospital.

In 1837 Massachusetts enacted a law which provided for an inspection of arriving alien passengers and required a bond from the owner of the vessel bringing such aliens as security that such of these passengers, incompetent in the eyes of the inspectors to earn a living, should not become a public charge within ten years. It also provided that $2 be paid for each passenger landed, the money so collected to be used for the support of foreign paupers.

In 1849 these two legislative acts were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in what are known as the "Passenger Cases."

Immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court the New York statute was modified with a view to avoiding the constitutional objection. As modified the law provided that the master or owner of every vessel landing passengers from a foreign port

was bound to make a report similar to the one recited in the statute declared to be valid in the case of New York v. Miln, in which report the mayor was to indorse a demand upon the owner or master that he give a bond for every passenger landed in the city to indemnify the commissioners of immigration, and every county, city, and town in the State against any expense for the relief or support of the person named in the bond for four years thereafter; but the owner could commute for such bond and be released from giving it by paying $1.50 for each passenger landed.

In several other States similar laws were in force. Cases were brought up to the Supreme Court from New York, California, and Louisiana, and the laws were declared unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Miller, who delivered the opinion, said in part:

It is a law in its purpose and effect imposing a tax on the owner of the vessel for the privilege of landing in New York from foreign countries. . . . A law or rule emanating from any lawful authority which prescribes terms or conditions on which alone the vessel can discharge its passengers is a regulation of commerce; and in the case of vessels and passengers coming from foreign ports is a regulation of foreign

commerce.

The most interesting part of this decision, however, was that in which the court recommended that Congress exercise full authority over immigration, saying:

We are of the opinion that this whole subject has been confided to Congress by the Constitution; that Congress can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise it than any other body known to our law, state or national; that by providing a system of laws in these matters applicable to all ports and to all vessels, a serious question which has long been a matter of contest and complaint may be effectively and satisfactorily settled.

THE MOVEMENT FOR NATIONAL CONTROL

By the above decision the States were left without the means, except by taxing their own citizens, of providing suitable inspection of immigrants or of caring for the destitute among those admitted. The only alternative was the recommendation of the Supreme Court that Congress assume control of immigration

legislation, and New York representatives in Congress immediately endeavored to secure the passage of a general immigration law. The above-quoted case was decided by the Supreme Court March 20, 1876, and on July 6 following Senator Conkling and Representative Cox, of New York, introduced bills for the national regulation of immigration.

These bills provided for a manifest of all alien passengers; a head tax of $2; the exclusion and deportation of convicts, insane persons, and paupers, and the reimbursement to the States of all money paid out by them for the support and maintenance of any immigrants within four years after their arrival. These bills were not given favorable consideration, the principal opposition coming from the commercial organizations of the country. New York Senators and Representatives, however, continued to introduce bills of like nature, but a national immigration law was not enacted until 1882.

THE IMMIGRATION LAW OF 1882

In his message of December 6, 1881, President Arthur called attention to the subject of immigration control and recommended legislation regarding the supervision and transitory care of the immigrants at ports of debarkation.

In that session of Congress immigration legislation was given consideration, and on August 3, 1882, the first general immigration law was approved. This law provided that a head tax of 50 cents should be levied on all aliens landed at United States ports, the money thus collected to be used to defray the expenses of regulating immigration and for the care of immigrants after landing, no more being expended at any port than was collected at such port. The Secretary of the Treasury was charged with executing the provisions of the act, and for that purpose he was given power to enter into contracts with such state officers as might be designated by the governor of any State to take charge of the local affairs of immigration within such State. The law provided that foreign convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges, should not be permitted to land.

THE FIRST CONTRACT-LABOR LAW

On February 26, 1885, the first law forbidding the importation of contract labor was approved. This law was defective, in that no inspection was provided for, nor was any arrangement made for the general execution of the provisions of the law or for the deportation of the contract laborer himself. This law was amended by the act of February 23, 1887, and by this amendment the Secretary of the Treasury was given the same power to exclude and deport contract laborers that he had been given under the act of 1882 over criminals, paupers, idiots, and lunatics. The act of 1885 was again amended on October 9, 1888, by which amendment the Secretary of the Treasury was given power to return within the year any immigrant landed contrary to this law.

From 1882 to 1888, aside from the enactment of the contractlabor laws referred to, there was little attempt at other immigration legislation. Numerous bills in amendment of the laws of 1882 were introduced in Congress, but no action was taken upon them.

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE FORD COMMITTEE

During this period, however, there was considerable agitation for the further restriction or regulation of immigration, and in 1888 the House of Representatives passed a resolution, in which note was taken of the charges of prominent journals that the laws prohibiting the importation of contract laborers, convicts, and paupers were being extensively evaded, owing to the lack of machinery to enforce them, and this resolution authorized the appointment of a select committee to investigate the matter. This select committee, which was known as the "Ford committee," reported at the following session of Congress. The report alleged that each year there were thousands of alien paupers, insane persons, and idiots landed in this country who became a burden upon the States where they happened to gain a settlement; that many of these were assisted to emigrate by the officials of the country from which they came; that the number of persons not lawfully entitled to land in the United States who came in by the way of the Canadian frontier was large, and was