But. Mr. Chairman. there is a point further to which I desire to call the attention of the committee. in which. as it seems to me. there can be no question of the unconstitutionality of this bill. and that is this: It follows these immigrants into the country for a year. and their wants may be supplied out of this fund. that is. for one year after an immigrant comes into this country. wherever he may go. he may apply for aid and support out of this fund drawn from the national Treasury. The opinion of the court in what are known as the Liquor Cases in which the Supreme Court decided that a State. in the exercise of its police power under a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor. could not exclude from its borders liquor imported in the original packages. does not go so far as this bill goes. The imported liquor could only be covered by the national authority while it was in the original packages. After it had gotten into the State and become merged in local property of the State. the national authority could not cover it. But this bill follows the immigrant from New York to Chicago. to Kansas. anywhere. and for one year after he has left the ship and become merged in the population of the country he may draw aid and support from the Treasury of the United States. This. -sir. I say is unconstitutional. and I challenge the gentleman from New York or any member of the House to find any authority for it in any decision of the Supreme Court.
Keywords matched
immigrants immigrant