President. I do not think this amendment should be adopted. for two reasons. If the purpose of the amendment be further to restrict imunligration..it is about as unscientific a method of restricting immigration as anyone could possibly think of. Its restriction will be dependent wholly upon whether or not there is an American line of steamships to a given country If there is not. it is an absolute prohibition of immigration from that country. Now. when we are trying to be more scientific in admitting immigrants. and to base our action at least upon some reasons. do we want to make it dependent upon the circumstance of whether or not there be an American line of steamships to a given country? That would apply as a very effectual prohibition in the case of practically all of the northern countries of Europe. I think it would apply to all of the Scandinavian countries. I do not believe there is a single American line to any Scandinavian country. and yet under this amendment there would be an absolute prohibition of immigration from those countries. Upon the other point. as to violation of treaties. I can see no difference between a provision of law providing for a differential in the admission of goods and a similar provision relating to immigrantsnot the slightest difference. The reason why that provision was put Into the Underwood tariff law was because. after full investigation. it was believed that Congress had no power to make that differential so long as those treaties were in existence. Now. if this amendment should be adopted. even though we had a right to adopt it. it seems to me that it might well injure the American merchant marine more than it would help it. because the benefit to the merchant marine would be very small indeed. but it might lead to retaliation by Great Britain and other countries having a large merchant marine that they would be very glad to have the excuse to discriminate in their favor and against us.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrants immigrantsnot