Speech #590043943

To turn to the question of selection. I -believe that all these selective billsand we have any number of them which say that a .man shall be excluded because he has poor physique. -or because he is imbecile. or because he is not accompanied by his parents and is -less than 17 years oldare all very well in their way. The testimony of the immigration -officials. and a rough calculation which anyone might make. shows that only a few thousand would be affected by the passage of the Dillingham bill. New selective measures are well -enough. but our immigration laws today are pretty good so far as they concern the exclusion of aliens proved to be mentally or morally unfit. Last year 820.000 aliens came into the port of New York. Every one was examined physically. yet out of that 820.000 ctily 39.000 had anything the matter with them. Of that 39.000 only 12.000 had anything serious the matter with them. The others were certified for minor disabilities. from the loss of one finger upward. Over 780.000 people physically perfect came into the port of New York last year. -and yet -gentlemen speak of raising the physical standard as a practical measure for cutting down the number of our immigrants. Why. if the law last year had excluded every imperfect marl you would only have cut 39.000 out of 820.000 that passed through Ellis Island. There has been a plethora of talk about the distribution of Immigration. The other afternoon I tried to point out to this House that the only way to distribute immigration was in response to the laws of supply and demand. It is no use for gentlemen to say. "The people down my way want labor. but it wont come there." " We should like to have the Swedes." they say. "but the Swedes do not come." "Why not dump them there. would they not stay?" Let me tell you that if you were to dump an American in that locality and he could get better wages elsewhere he would not stay. but would take the next train away. So it would be with the immigrant. Population in the United States has always distributed itself. and will continue to do so. wherever It is best paid and whereever employment is steadiest. Gentlemen need feel no alarm as to the scarcity of labor in the industries of their States if they will offer wages which will yield steadily as good a standard of living as the wages offered elsewhere. It does not matter whether immigration Is large or small. just as sure as the sun rises and sets it will stay in the States 6f New York and Pennsylvania just as long as the best jobs are to be found there. A gentleman speaking from the floor the other day suggested a plan by which the Secretary of Commerce and Labor should be authorized to forbid immigrants settling in any city or town where 30 per cent of the population is foreign born. I doubt whether that would remedy the situation. but as the gentleman Is not present I shall not discuss it further. Only one other suggestion for distribution has been received. actually only oneand. mind you. every report of the CommissionerGeneral of Immigration for years has talked "distribution. distribution. distribution." Until this year. so far as I know. we have never had a distributive bill before our committee. Not one practical measure. good. bad. or indifferent. because people when they come to figure distribution out find that it is governed by natural laws. The gentleman from Pennsylvania offered his 30 per cent settlement bill. and the gentleman from California and I. and possibly some other gentlemen as well. have offered distributive bills. What do youthink my bill and that of Mr. HAYES amounts to? Nothing more than the establishment of intelligence offices at immigrant stations.