CONG. REC.. vol. 35. pt. 6. pp. 5757. 5768. 5813. 5833. 5985 . vol. 36. pt. 1. pp. 27. 47. 96. 108. 128. 556. pt. 2. pp. 1112. 1172. pt. 3. pp. 2749. 2804. 2894. 2949. 3011.) "Capitalists." " corporations. " mine owners." manufacturers. " " railroads." " employers." were the words usually employed in describing importers of foreign labor. never words signifying a State or State officers. The truth seems to be that the idea of a State adopting as a governmental policy the promotion of immigration in aid of its industries was never broached. or. If broached. that the. need of regulating the execution of such a policy was never considered. (See CoNG. fEe.. vol. 22. pt. 3. pp. 2949. 2953. 2954.)- The possibility of the original act (February 26. 1885) Interfering with t0 work of State immigration bureaus was suggested by Senator MORGAN. who offered an amendment to prevent such a result. That the act would have this effect was denied and the amendment was defeated. (See CONG. ReC.. vol. 16. pt. 2. pp. 1790 et seq.) Nor is it apparent that the conditions which led to the passage of these acts and the evils they were designed to remedy had any reference to such a situation as would move a State to act in the manner followed by South Carolina in the present case. "The situation which called for this statute." said the Supreme Court (143 U.
Keywords matched
immigration