Speech #590160740

By excepting it in the interpretation they fulfill their highest duty. which Is to carry out the true legislative intent." (Bishop. Written Laws. secs. 226. 230. 236.) Replying to your letter. therefore. in the light of all the foregoing considerations. I have the ionor to say that. in my opinion. the plan pursued by Commissioner Watson. as it is shown to have been carried out. does not involve a violation of the immigration laws of the United States prohibiting the importation of contract laborers. and I am further of opinion that there has been no misapplication of the exemption in favor of States. Territories. and the District of Columbia. contained in section 6 of tie act of March 3. 1903. The views taken in reaching this conclusion have made it unnecessary to consider questions which might arise in an ordinary case involving the contractlabor laws. as. for example. whether the payment by "another" of the passage money of foreign laborers induced to come to this country to perform labor would of itself constitute a violation of law. And it is proper to add that this opinion is based altogether upon the facts of the particular case. as disclosed by the record referred to at the outset. It is obvious that very different questions would arise if the facts were that Commissioner Watson. instead of acting iddependently and as the representative of the State in behalf of the general body of its citizens and of its industries as a whole. acted in reality only under color of State authority and in fact as the agent of particular persons. firms. or interests. that the contributions made by private persons toward the expenses of the department of immigration. instead of being merely added to the general fund appropriated by the State. to be expended at the sole discretion of State officials. were used to assist in the immigration of foreign laborers to perform labor for the particular persons who so contributed . that Commissioner Watson. instead of being wholly free to act for the benefit of the State at large. was actually under the control of special interests and bound to act as they should direct: or that the immigrants themselves. instead of being entirely at liberty to accept or reject any employment provided for them. were coerced into working for particular employers. Such circumstances. and others which readily suggest themselves. would materially alter the complexion of the case. and are not. therefore. to be considered as covered by this opinion. Respectfully submitted.