In the first place. I believeand I base my belief upon the opinions expressed by experts on these questions. because personally I have no knowledge. and therefore must depend entirely upon such testimony as a basis for my own opinionI believe. and I want to call the attention of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Massachusetts . and others who oppose this amendment. to the fact that. without one single exception. every learned physician inthe city of New York whose opinion and advice upon this question was called for by the authorities of that city stated (as gentlemen will find in the testimony taken by the committee) that a quarantine on the other side of the ocean" would reduce the quarantine on this side to a minimum. and that it was really the only effectual mode whereby the incoming of contagious diseases could be prevented. The gentleman from New York deems it a great hardship that a worthy man. an emigrant seeking to leave his own country to make his home here. should be taken and kept under restraint. it may be. as the gentleman suggests. under rules more exact and rigid and disagreeable than those in your penitentaries. for seven days before being allowed to sail. But why should that be a greater hardship than it would be for the same man to be seized by a State. municipal or Federal quarantine officer when he reaches these shores after a long and tedious voyage. and to be held. it may be. for months. before being allowed to land. as emigrants were held upon an infected vessel lastyear. and. even after leaving the infected vessel. were kept in very uncomfortable quarters? I cannot see that the argument of the gentleman from New York does not prove as much against quarantine at the port of entry as against quarantine at the port of departure.
Keywords matched
emigrants emigrant