Speech #620198747

Chairman. I desire to bring the mind of the committee back to the bill that is before it. Originally the department recommended that an appropriation should be made for an immigration station at the port of Baltimore. and an appropriation was recommended of $250.000. Action was taken upon it by the House and it authorized an appropriation of only $130.000. Subsequent to this authorization there were quite a number of bills introduced into the House and in the Senate in respect to the matter. Unfortunately. some of those referred to the desired appropriation as an appropriation for an immigration station which would have included a detention hospital. and some of them were only appropriations or authorizations for a detention hospital. That was the condition of affairs until the present time. There is no immigration station which is owned by the Government in Baltimore. Neither is there any detention hospital there owned by the Government. The Government has the use. by mere sufferance. as I understand. of the facilities which are afforded for the landing of immigrants from the GermanLloyd steamers to the station or pier of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. That is the only immigrant station that the Government has. The detention hospital is in a dwelling house of a very unsatisfactory kind. which is located some three or four blocks away from the waters edge in a most inhospitable and unpleasing locality. and is in itself a most forbiddinglooking building for that purpose. It is absolutely necessary. as it would seem. that Baltimore should have an immigration station. and. further. that it should have as a part of it a detention hospital. All agree that the immigration station and the detention hospital should be as intimately associated as possible. If they can be part of the same plant. they ought to be so arranged. It is contemplated that this immigration station and the hospital shall be so arranged. Under the impression that they were locating only a detention hospital. the Treasury authorities selected and purchased a site which is seven or eight blocks distant from the water front in immediate proximity to some manufactories of various kinds that are not only unsavory. but absolutely unhealthy. in a place that no detention hospital. and certainly no immigration station. should be located at all. It may be admitted that is a mistake. and not seeking to place the responsibility for that mistake we now have this condition. It is thought now that by the expenditure of not a very large sum of money. not to exceed $35.000. a very desirable site can ba obtained for an immigration station. with the detention hospital combined. on the water front. so that it will be in direct contiguity to the grounds now known as Fort McHenry. which will give it one of the most desirable locations in the city. This can be secured for the Goverfiment at a total cost of not to exceed $35.000. That is the authorization proposed for that purpose. I think gentlemen certainly would be unreasonable to suppose that an expenditure of that amount for a site for an important place of this kind in a city like Baltimore. which ranks fourth. I believe. among the ports of entry of the United States. is unreasonable. The amount already authorized for the building of an immigration station is entirely inadequate to a city of Baltimores importance. I think it ought to be increased regardless of the passage of the immigration bill. I agree with what the chairman has so well said. It is not of importance whether.we lose 1 or 5 or 10 or 15 per cent of our population by the passage of this bill in so far as it relates to our duty in this regard. It is important. as the gentleman from Illinois well said in his remarks. how we treat the immigrants after they come here. and certainly for a great port like Baltimore an adequate immigration station ought to be provided. and the simple question before this committee now is. Is $35.000 too large and an unreasonable amount to provide for the acquiring of such a site for such a station? I think it is not. and the committee was unanimous in its belief it was reasonable for that purpose. and I hope that the bill will pass.