THE MOVEMENT FOR NATIONAL CONTROL. By this 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 set to work to secure the passage of a general immigration law. The above quoted case was decided by the Supreme Court March 20, 1876, and July 6 following. Senator Conkling and Representative Cox, of New York, introduced bills for the national regulation of immigration. These bills will be considered later. The only other legislation of this period was brought about by conditions in California. President Grant, in his message to Congress, December 7, 1874, after decrying the evils of the Chinese coolie trade, said: In a worse form does this apply to Chinese women. Hardly a perceptible percentage of them perform any honorable labor, but they are brought for shameful purposes, to the disgrace of the communities where settled and the great demoralization of youth of these localities. If this evil practice can be legislated against, it will be my pleasure as well as duty to enforce any regulations to secure so desirable an end. February 18, 1875, Mr. Myers, of Pennsylvania, reported a bill supplemental to the several bills in relation to immigration which enbodied the recommendations of the President. It passed the House February 22 and the Senate on March 3, 1875, and was approved on the same day. This act provided that all contracts providing for the importation of women for the purposes of prostitution were void; it further provided that persons convicted of felonious crimes other than political, and women "imported for the purposes of prostitution," should not be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Provision was also made for inspection of vessels and the deportation of such excluded persons. This law marked the beginning of national regulation of immigration." a Congressional Record, Forty-third Congress, second session, p. 4. Appendix B, p. 96 (18 Stat. L., p. 477). For synopsis of all immigration and contract labor laws from 1875 to 1907, see Appendix A. CHAPTER IV. NATIONAL LEGISLATION. (1882-1907.) About three-fourths of all the immigrants arriving in the United States prior to 1880 were landed in New York. The laws of that State in force between 1847 and 1876, when the regulation of immigration by States was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, provided in substance that the captain, consignee, or owner of every vessel arriving at the port of New York from a foreign country having on board passenger immigrants destined for the city of New York should give a bond of $300 for each of such passengers, conditioned to indemnify the State against any charge or expense on account of the passengers named in the bond within four years from arrival. The parties interested in the vessel had, however. accredited to them by the same legislation the right to avoid this bond by paying a certain sum (varying in different years from $1.50 to $2.50) to the commissioners of emigration, whose duty it was to pay out of this fund whatever expense the State might incur for any alien passenger who might have arrived at the port of New York within the previous four years. The commissioners were also empowered to purchase lands and erect whatever buildings seemed necessary for the care, support, and protection of such immigrants. In the year 1847 the commissioners began, and for many years after continued, to purchase lands on Wards Island and to erect buildings thereon for the care and treatment of the sick and diseased and the support and maintenance of the needy among immigrants. These lands were used exclusively for immigrants who had arrived at New York within four years from the date they sought care or support from the public authorities. The commissioners also leased in 1855 the building in New York City known as Castle Garden and converted it into a landing place for immigrants. At Castle Garden, after examination of their luggage by the customs officers, the immigrants were transferred to the landing depot. where they were received by officers of the commission, who entered in registers kept for the purpose all particulars necessary for their future identification. The names of those having money, friends, or letters awaiting them were called out, and they were put into immediate possession of their property or committed to their friends, whose credentials first were properly scrutinized. Clerks to write letters for them in European languages and a telegraph operator to forward their dispatches were at hand. The main railway lines had offices there. Brokers were admitted to exchange the foreign money • House Mis. Doc. No. 22, Forty-fifth Congress, second session. of the immigrant. A physician was always in attendance, and a temporary hospital was located there. What New York in 1876 was doing at Castle Garden with money collected from arriving immigrants other Atlantic States were doing with money raised by taxation, nearly all of them by this time having abandoned the collection of head taxes. Thus it is readily seen that New York, receiving three-fourths of all the immigrants arriving in the United States, was especially affected by the decision of 1876. What the State had previously been able to do with a fair measure of profit, as claimed by the Western States, now became a heavy expense. Naturally, in the attempt to secure national legislation New York was particularly active. Convinced that their plan of caring for Immigrants as working at the port of New York was the best one for the National Government to adopt, the legislature of New York appropriated money to carry on the work at Castle Garden until Congress had an opportunity to legislate on the subject, and on April 26, 1876, that legislature passed the following resolution: Resolved, That the commissioners of emigration are hereby instructed to call the attention of Congress of the United States to the present condition of the immigration laws, resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, declaring the State laws on that subject unconstitutional and void, and to impress upon Congress the necessity for speedy national legislation in regard thereto, and the said commissioners take such steps as in their good judgment may be proper to secure such legislation. Reference has been made to the Conklin-Cox bill for the Federal regulation of immigration, which was introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives following the Supreme Court's decision that State control of immigration was unconstitutional. This bill provided for a manifest of 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 for the support and maintenance of any immigrants within four years from their arrival. No action, however, was taken on the bill. The principal opposition to the proposed measure came from commercial organizations. As early as 1872 the National Board of Trade had expressed as its judgment "that all capitation taxes collected from or upon immigrants, whether imposed directly or indirectly, with or without color of law, are odious and unjust, and ought to be abolished." The organization argued that immigration figures were a pretty sure index to national prosperity. During the seventies, while immigration was at a low ebb because of the prevailing business depression, it objected to a head tax; it wanted to have nothing done which would interfere with the return of prosperity. And in the late seventies, when immigration was returning to a normal figure, it did not believe "that just as the tide of population is flowing again toward our shores, both illustrating and increasing the returning prosperity of the Nation, Congress will do anything the effect of which would be to affix a stigma on the character of the movement, no less than to diminish it in force and volume." a Senate Mis. Doc. No. 96, Forty-fourth Congress, first session (H. R. 3853, by Mr. Cox, of New York; S. 977, by Mr. Conkling, of New York). Tenth Annual Report National Board of Trade, p. 7. Bills to regulate immigration were now regularly introduced by the New York Representatives and Senators, all generally following the plan of the Conklin-Cox bill of the Forty-fourth Congress. One exception to this was a bill introduced in the Forty-sixth Congress," which did not provide for a head tax, the Committee on Foreign Affairs deeming the imposition of a per capita charge on each passenger inadvisable in consequence of the decrease in immigration to the United States, as it was believed the fund which would be obtained would be inadequate to meet the expenses necessary for carrying out the law. Instead the bill provided that a sufficient sum for that purpose be appropriated from the National Treasury. The New York State board of Charities was especially active in trying to secure legislation, and September 9, 1879, adopted the following resolutions: Whereas this board has become satisfied by observation and investigation that it has long been the custom for many of the cities and towns in different governments of Europe to send to this country blind, crippled, lunatic, and other infirm paupers, who ultimately become life-long dependents on our public charities; and whereas the greater number of these helpless creatures arrive at the port of New York, whence some find their way into other States, but the majority of them become permanent inmates of the charitable institutions supported by the State of New York: Therefore Resolved, That in the opinion of this board, the evil being an increasing rather than a diminishing one, an effort should be made looking to its suppression or limitation. Resolved, That the attention of the Senators and Representatives of our State in Congress be called thereto, and that a copy of these resolutions, signed by our president and secretary on behalf of this board, be sent to each of our Senators and Representatives, requesting their efforts toward procuring legislation, if possible, by Congress, providing for an appropriation of funds to defray the expense of the return of any disabled, lunatic or any other infirm paupers, arriving in this country, to the places whence they came. The opposing argument can be found in the following remarks of Representative Rice, of Massachusetts: Let the State and city which reap the benefits of this mighty immigration assume the responsibilities which devolve upon them in receiving that benefit and pay the bills for which provision is here sought to be made, and not seek to draw the money to meet them by an unconstitutional measure from the Treasury of the United States. Still Congress failed to enact an immigration law, and finally, May 31, 1881, New York, again attempting to evade the force of the Supreme Court decision that States could not tax incoming passengers, enacted a law imposing a head tax of $1 upon every alien arriving in New York City. This law met the fate of former legislation of this nature and was declared unconstitutional in the case of The People v. The Compagnie Générale Transatlantique (107 U. S., 59). Mr. Justice Miller again delivered the opinion of the court, which was unanimous. THE IMMIGRATION LAW OF 1882. Congress having taken no action, President Arthur, in his annual message, December 6, 1881, called attention to the subject of immigration, saying: In 1875 the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional the statutes of certain States, which imposed upon shipowners or consignees a tax @ H. R. 240S (H. Rept. No. 1), Forty-sixth Congress, second session. of $1.50 upon each passenger arriving from a foreign country, or in lieu thereof requiring a bond to indemnify the State and local authorities against expense for the future relief or support of such passengers. Since this decision the expense attending the care and supervision of immigrants has fallen on the States at whose ports they have landed. As a large majority of such immigrants immediately upon their arrival proceed to the inland States and the Territories to seek permanent homes, it is manifestly unjust to impose upon the State whose shores they first reach the burden which it now bears. For this reason and because of the national importance of the subject I recommend legislation regarding the supervision and transitory care of the immigrants at the port of debarkation. April 6, 1882, Mr. Van Voorhis, of New York, introduced a bill " to regulate immigration. It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and on June 19, 1882, a substitute bill (H. R. 6596) was reported and passed the House on the same day by a vote of 116 to 16. Later it was found that the wrong bill had been substituted, and on June 21 it was resolved to recall the bill from the Senate. It was returned June 23, and on June 27 another substitute was introduced and passed (H. R. 6677). This passed the Senate without amendment on July 29 and was approved August 3, 1882. The enactment of a Federal immigration law at this time was largely a result of the continued efforts of the people of New York to secure such legislation and their refusal to continue paying the expenses of keeping Castle Garden open. Mr. Guenther, a Representative from Wisconsin, said: While I would be perfectly willing to have the State of New York pay the expenses of keeping Castle Garden open for the purpose of receiving immigrants, still I recognize the fact which has been clearly demonstrated within the last week, that unless this bill becomes a law Castle Garden will be closed, and the immigrants will be landed in the streets and become easy prey of heartless and rascally land sharks, against whose miserable tricks they are fortunately protected to a great extent. The provisions of this, the first general immigration law, were, first, that a head tax of 50 cents should be levied on every passenger not a citizen of the United States coming by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United States; the money thus collected to be used to defray the expenses of regulating immigration and for the care of immigrants arriving in the United States, and of such as might be in distress after landing, no more being expended at any port than shall have been collected at such port; second, 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 said State; third, that foreign convicts, except those convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges should not be permitted to land. In this law the National Government did not take full control of the matter, but allowed the governors of the States to say who should administer it locally. No mention was made of overland immigration. In 1884, by act entitled "An act to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and encourage the Amer @ H. R. 5669, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. See Appendix B, p. 97. Congressional Record, Forty-seventh Congress, first session, part 1, p. 5113. |