Such. if the Chair understands correctly. is the rule of international law. But the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is not to prohibit Chinese from coming upon the ships sailing under the American flag. but is to prohibit their employment under the American flag. a subject entirely different from that under consideration by the committee. Could it be in order. for instance. upon an immigration bill excluding certain classes of people from coming to these shores. to provide that our ambassadors abroad should not employ persons of that same description? It would hardly be contended that that would be in order. The attention of the Chair has been called to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Reed on the 19th of May. 1896. where a bill to amend the immigration laws of the United States was before the House. and it was proposed by that bill to exclude all male persons between 16 and 60 years of age "who can not both read and write the English language or some other language." Mr. CORLISS. of Michigan. offered an amendment excluding aliens living in another country and while so living there entering into the United States to engage in labor within its borderswhat the Chair remembers the gentleman from Michigan termed" birds of passage." A point of order was made against the amendment. and Mr. Speaker Reed sustained the point of order upon the ground that the amendment was not germane. although both the bill and the amendment had in view the protection of American labor.
Keywords matched
immigration