Speech #590077599

I do not see how any lawyer can possibly object to the consideration of the national penal code from the Committee on Revision of the Laws. I am not. of course. familiar with that legislation. but see no objection to its consideration. I agree with my friend from Georgia in that I am heartily in favor of the bill to restrict undesirable immigration. From the reports of the Commissioner of Immigration and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor and my research (my views being contained in the speech I have already made in this House upon the subject of further restrictions upon immigration) I believe that is a measure important to the interests of the American people at this time. Ss to the purefood bill. I have not given it the investigation which I hope and expect to give it. but I wish to have the immigration bill considered. and it ought to be given consideration. I do not wish to lose this opportunity of getting that measure before the House. Now. every Member of the House by this proposed order is placed in the position that he has got to vote to give or not to give precedence upon the Calendar--or. rather. to give or not to give the same right to these measures as is given to appropriation billsand he has got to vote to give all of them that right or he has got to vote to give none of them that right. and I want the Ilouse to understand that. So far as I am concerned. being in favor as I am of the bill to restrict immigration. I do not see how I can vote otherwise than for this order. unless these propositions are separated. and I would much prefer to see them separated. But the Speaker informed me. upon my parliamentary inquiry. that the House would have to vote for consideration of all of the propositions or against consideration of all of the propositions. according to the proposed order. unless unanimous consent is given to vote upon them separately. and this can not be obtained. it is apparent.