That is in the State of Texas precisely wh the United Stateshs done by its homestead law. and it is no such practice as that. no such thought or idea as that. which is prohibited by this proposed legislation. Therefore itfollows that the contract system not having been introduced into Texas. not having been made use of as a means of her development. she has really no interest whatever in this proposed legislation. She can not complain that this provision injures her. because she never has received an immigrant. she never has receivred a dollars worth of development by reason of the existing practice which the bill undertakes to p rohibit. Then Why should our friends from Texas oppose this legislation since it has no effect whatever upon their interests? On the other hand. as I was saying. if the practice does exist. the remarks of the Senator from New York are certainly pertinent. I am not at liberty by the necessities of the session to pursue the subject any further than did he. nor would it be necessary. fbr what he said was sufficiently elaborate and covered the whole subject with reference to the foreign ownership of vast tracts of land in this country. in the Territories. and in the newer States especially. which are and can only be kept profitable by means of cheap labor. and that must be contract labor. labor of the precise kind which the billis designed to prohibit the introduction of. Any one will see that if the amendment suggested by the Senator from Texas . which proposes to forbid the extension of the provisions of this legislation to labor employed in agriculture and stockraising. is adopted. thenthe evil will continue. we shall nothave stopped it at all. because it is perfectly easy to introduce all the labor which we are trying to prohibit as agricultural labor or as labor to be employed in stockraising. and once within our country. as the agricultural interests embrace some thirty millions of our people-
Keywords matched
contract labor immigrant