Speech #590162061

Earl. the solicitor of that Department. After quoting various decisions of the Supreme Court and giving the law in full. this is his summing up: Replying to your letter. therefore. in the light of all the foregoing considerations. I have the honor to say that in my opinion the plan pursued by Comlmissioner 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 furhser of opinion that there has been no lnisapl)lication of the exemption in favor of States. Territories. aii(d the District of Columbia contained in section 0 of the act of March :3. 190.. Tile views taken ill reaching this conclusion have made it unnecessary to consider qiestions which might arise in an ordinary case involving tile contractlabor lavs. 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 tliat very different questions would arise if the facts were that Commissioner Watson. instead of acting independently and as the representative of the State in behalf of the genoral 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.*tlt tie contributions made by private persons toward the expenses of the department of immigration. instead of being merely added to tile general fund appropriated by the State. to lie explended at the sole discretion of State officials. were used toassist in tie immigration of foreign laborers to perform labor for tile particular persons wllo so contributed. that Commissioner Watson. instead of being wholly free to act for the benefit of tile State at large. was actually under tie control of special interests and bound to act as they should direct. or that the immigrants themselves. instead of being entirely at lilerty to accept or reject any emloyment provided for them. were coerced into working for particular employers. Silch circumstances. and others which readily suggest tlemselves. would materially alter the complexion of the case. and are not. therefore. to be considered as covered by this opinion.