Speech #610210926

Mr. Speaker. under the leave given me today I want to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama . found In the RECOD of June 16. page 8324. He takes as his text a resolution passed by the house and senate of the Ohio legislature relating to the restriction of iunigration. and says that while the Ohio Members have defended the tariff law no Ohio Member has spoken in favor of the restriction of immigration by adding an educational test. As I am the only Member from Ohio on the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. I think I ought to reply to this statement and to the gentlemans argument. First. let me call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that the resolution of the general assembly of Ohio was passed. and signed by Republicans. which shows that the Republicans of Ohio are taking an interest in. as well as being in favor of. the restriction of immigration. even though Ohio is unfortunate enough to have at this time a Democratic governor who thinks the other way. The gentleman from Alabama does not call attention toany statement or any activity or any action whatsoever taken by the Democratic party of Ohio or the Democratic governor of Ohio. advising or counseling looking to the restriction of Immigration. nor any such action by the Democratic party of the State of Alabama. If the gentleman from Alabama Is sincere. he surely Is in favor of the Republican party. In Ohio. as It favors restrictive immigration. while the Democratic party favors liberal immigration laws. His charge. in short. is that the Republican party is in favor of the most liberal immigration laws and is not In favor of reasonable restrictions upon immigration. I challenge this statement in Its broadest.. as well as its narrowest. sense. The fact is there never has been. In the last sixty years. an Immigration law passed looking to the restriction of immigration except It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President. and I challenge the gentleman from Alabama to produce a single congressional act which became a law to the contrary. I want to frankly state that I. believe that the gentleman from Alabama is in favor of restrictive Immigration. His acts all tend that way. but he is no more. in favor of restriction of immigration than I am. but when it comes to dealing with the Democratic party as being In favor of restriction of Immigration. then his memory is very short. Indeed. In 1897 an act was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate which went a long ways toward the proper restriction of Immigration. It was House bill No. 7864. and among other things this bill proposed the exclusion of certain classes of immigrants. as follows: All persons physically capable and over 16 years of age who can not read and write the English language or some other language. but a person not so hble to read and write who is over 50 years of age and is the parent or grand parent of a qualified Immigrant over 21 years of age and capable of supporting such parent or grand parent may accompany such immigrant. or such a prent or grand )arent may be sent for and come to join the family of a child or grandchild over 21 years of age. similarl y qualifled and capable. and a wife or minor child not so able to read and write may accompany or be sent for and come and join the husband or parent similarly qualified and capable. After this bill was passed by the House and Senate it was sent to the Chief Executive for his approval and signature. and the Democratic party. through its Chief Executive. refused to approve this act and vetoed the same. and would not allow or permit it to become a law. although it was a wholesome act. containing good provisions. ninny of them leading up more nearly to what is right in the admission of foreigners into our country than had theretofore existed. " In vetoing this measure. among other things. the Democratic party. through Mr. Cleveland. said: It is proposed by the. bill ader consideration to mect the alleged difficultirs of the situation by establishing an cducatiottal test by 1e1icl the right of a foreigner to make his home with. It shalt be determined. Its general scheme is to prohibit from admission to oar country all immigrants "physically capable and over 16 years of age ieho can not read and write the English language or sonic other largtage. " and it is provided that this test shall be applied by requiring immigrants seeking admission to read and afterwards to write not less than twenty nor more than twentyfive words of the Constitution of the United States in some language. and that any immigrant failing in this shall not be admitted. but shall be returned to the country from whence he came at the expense of the steamship or railroad company which brought him. Again says the Democratic party. through the same Executive : I can not believe that we would be protected against these evils by limiting Immigration to those who can read and write in any language 25 words of our Constitution. In my opinion it is Infinitely more safe to admit a hundred thousand Immigrants who. though unable to read and write. seek among us only a home and opportunity to work. than to admit one of those unruly agitators and enemies of governmental control who can not only read and write. but delights In arousing by Inflammatory speech the illiterate and peacefully inclined to discontent and tumult. Violence and disorder do not originate with illiterate laborers. They are rather the victims of the educated agitator. Theability to read and write. as required in this bill. in and of itself affords. in my opinion. a misleading test of contented industry and supp1lea unsatisfactory evidence of desirable itizenship or a proper apprehension of the benefits of our institutions. If any particular element of our Illiterate immigration is to be feared for other causes than Illiteracy. these causes should be dealt with directly instead of making Illiteracy the pretext for exclusion to the detriment of other illiterate immigrants against whom the real cause of complaint can not be alleged. So that when it was put up to the Democratic party to have an educational test incorporated into and become a part of the immigration laws. that party said "No." with a big "N." and gave the reasons for not wishing. allowing. or permitting such educational test. So you have Mr. BURNETTS position and you have the postion of the Democratic party. It seems to me that he is an orphanized Deluberat upon the question of Immigration. Now. what has the Republican party done about immigration? In 1903 an immigration act was passed. It was drafted by Republican members of the Committee on Immig~ation and Naturalization. although there were a few Democrats on that committee who perhaps favored it. It was introduced into the House. and passed by a Republican House and Senate. and signed by a Republican President. and this act of 1903 was a great Improvement over the then existing immigration laws. But it was not perfection. In 1907 another immigration act was drafted by the Republican members of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. and no doubt this act met the approval of the gentleman from Alabama. It was Introduced in the House of Representatives. and passed by a Republican House and Senate. and signed by a Republican President. and this law is conceded by all. irrespective of party. to be the very best immigration law the United States has ever had. and yet. as time goes on. it Is found that it does not contain all the restrictions that should be placed upon immigration. Not only did the Republican party do this. but the Republican House and Senate passed and a Republican President signed the naturalization act of 1906. which embraces many new ideas and Is the best naturalization act that was ever passed. So that the gentleman from Alabama has no right to claim that the Democratic party is for restriction of immigration. or that the Democratic party is for an educational test on the admission of Immigrants. On the contrary. the Democratic party has been at all times and Is now for the most liberal Immigration and against the educational test. The gentleman from Alabama states that the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization has reported a bill looking to the deportation of criminals. but that on account of the rules of the House the matter has not yet been considered. Such a bill has been reported. and with perhaps one exception every Republican on the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization was not only in favor of it. but stood sponsor and godfather for it. But it is likewise true that owing to other measures pending before the Committee on Immigration and "Naturalization. this bill was not reported out until too late in the session to have it passed. the whiteslave bill having been taken up first. and the committee disposing of it before reaching the deportation criminal bill. And after this bill was reported to the House. the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization was not reached upon the committee call. but the bill is on the calendar and will be taken up in due time at the next session. Then the gentleman from Alabama complains that the educational test was delayed waiting for the report of the "Immigration Commission." This is true. The gentleman from Alabama is a member of that commission. which was appointed some years since. and the members thereof made a trip or trips abroad to investigate conditions. take evidence. and look into the surroundings of persons coming to this country to ascertain their fitness for citizenship here. and in connection with such investigation as well as the prosecution of violations of the immigration law. something over $600.000 has been expended. and no report of the investigations of this Immigration Commibsion has as yet been filed. so that other Members of the House are not in a position to know. and could not possibly be as well advised upon these matters as the gentleman from Alabama. and it seems to me that it does not come with good grace from a member of that commission. the report of which is delayed until next December. to come to this House and criticise Members of it for not speaking in the House upon a measure that has never been reported to the House. If a Member simply wanted to talk and take up the time of the House that would be all right. but if he were a Member in fact. wishing to try to pass legislation. why take up valuable time and talk in the House upon a proposition until the legislation was reported to the House so that there could be some action on it? If the gentleman from Alabama will usa his good talent to bring forth a report at the earliest possible date from the .immigration commission. he will find no member of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. or of the House. more anxious to pass the educational test than myself. The fact is. according to my opinion. that we could get along very nicely without any more immigrants coming here. and if I had my way about it no man in this country would ever lose an hours work by reason of allowing or permitting foreigners to come here. Care for ourselves before we care for the other fellow. Again. the gentleman from Alabama claims that immigrants settle in the cities. and that thereby they become a set of consumers instead of producers. which. to my mind. is correct. They eat. wear some clothing. most of them. yet scarcely any of them produce or aid in the production of any farm or garden products. and necessarily. we having consumed more and not aiding in the production. the producer of farm products is going to have a better market and. naturally. a better and higher price. But to return. the Democratic party. through its Chief Executive. Mr. Cleveland. in replying to this very proposition on March 2. 1897. said: It is said that too many immigrants settle in our cities. thus dangerously increasing their idle and vicious population. This Is certainly a disadvantage. It can not be shown. however. that It affects all our cities nor that it is permanent. nor does it appear that this condition where it exists demands as its remedy the reversal of our present immigration policy. So. it is plain to be seen that the policy of Mr. Cleveland was to allow them to come in under the "opendoor" policy. because he says that to allow that act to become a law would be a "reversal of our present immigration policy." Then. the gentleman from Alabama charges that the Republican party is not a friend of the laboring man. but. on the contrary. passes protective laws in the interest of the manufacturers. which are not beneficial to the laborer and are a detriment to the laborer by increasing the cost of living. Let me answer both propositions: First. as to the cost of the necessaries of life. neither the gentleman from Alabama nor anyone else can point to a single item of the necessaries upon which the duty was increased under the PayneAldrich lawin fact. the tariff upon the necessary articles of life is almost universally reduced. but where it is not reduced it remains the same as it was before. It neither adds to nor detracts from the cost of necessary articles of living of laborers. but. on the contrary. this tariff law raises the tariff upon the luxuries. particularly silks and liquors.