My opinion. Mr. Chairman. is that the bill now contains enough obnoxious provisionsthe most objectionable one. of course. being the one calling for a literacy testto justify him in vetoing it. and I for one do not believ6 that to gain a slight advantage we should inject into this bill any matter which might place our President or our country in an embarrassing position. Furthermore. I feel that. even should we adopt this amendment. it would promptly be stricken out in the Senate. and I am sure the bill would never contain this provision when placed before the President. consequently I can see nothing to be gained by its adoption. I can readily understand why the gentleman from California and my colleague on the committee should seek to secure the passage of some measure which would restrict Asiatic immigration. for I am thoroughly in sympathy with their views on that question. but I believe it would be both u nwise and unfair to load down the pending measure with a restrictive provision of this kind. Therefore I believe that the amendment. as well as the substitute offered by my colleague . should be defeated. Before I conclude I wish to say that for years both of these gentlemen from California have been doing everything within their power to bring about the restriction of Asiatic immigration. and I hope that none of the residents of their respective districts will charge them with not having done their utmost to bring about the legislation for which they are contending today. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. in conclusion I wish to state that the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentlemen from Alabana and Tennessee do our side an injustice when they state that all of us who are opposed to the bill are going to vote for these amendments.
Keywords matched
immigration literacy testto Asiatic