Speech #670332504

But tile power which this invites him to exercise over statutory law is substantial. We may not tell the President how lie shall exercise his treatyilaking power. but we can in advance suggest and invite his abrogation of statutory provisions of the ilmligratioll laws by directing him to deal with two things which may be in conflict so as to remove tile conflict. If we had power to direct in both. that would give him authority over both. hut he already has authority over at least one. and we are suggesting that he exercise that authority for the modification of our immigration laws. One of the greatest dangers to which the immigration laws have been exposed during recent years has. inl my judgment. been the danger of passing them over to the control of the treatymaking power. Foreign countries have a say in the making of treaties. Vhen Congress invites the President to control immigration laws by the treatymaking 1owver it invites the President to consult with foreign countries and meet their views on our immigration policies. There can be no treaty with a foreign power except upon terls acceptable to such foreign power. If our immigration laws ever come in actual practice to be controlled by the President in his treaty making. they will pass into that forum where the voice of j oreign powers nmist be heard and their wishes consulted. We all know that they want to unload their surplus and undesirable population upon us. They will not agree to treaties made exclusively in our interests. as we have a right to make our immigration lawc. therefore we shall insist that our limimtigration policies shall be controlled by Congress and not by the President tirough the treatyataking power. I call special attention to the fact that nearly all of our leading immigration laws restricting immigration hlve had to be passed over the Presidents vetoes. Our Presidents have not usually been in sympathy with the views of the people on tills subject. and have repeatedly used the veto power to prevent them from giving expression to what they have repeatedly tried to say for themselves and their posterity. In 1879 President Hayes vetoed the first Chinese exclusion act. (2 I. C. R. 580.) In 1882 President Arthur vetoed an act suspending Chinese immigration for a period of 20 years. (2 I. C. R. 581.) On March 3. 1897. President Cleveland vetoed an immigration act excluding illiterates (2 I. C. R. 573.) President Taft vetoed an immigration bill in 1913 containing a restriction against the admission of illiterates. (Page 101. RECORD. special session. 59th Cong.) Ill 1917 President Wilson vetoed an act excluding illiterates. but Congress passed it over his veto. The present 3 per cent law and extensions of it have been approved by President Harding. which is an exception to the rule which usually applies. but we have no assurance that the exception will hereafter control the present or future Presidents. I am convinced thatt the purpose of the principal provisions of Title III are to enable Mr. Lasker. the chairman of the Shipping Board. and the private shipping companies. in whose interests this bill is proposed. to get control of the immnigration laws so as to prevent their restricting the profits of the lawless steamship companies who bring immigrants here. Their record in dealing with it is marked throughout by disregard of law and the public Interest. in return for which we are subsidizing them and placing them in a position in which. through their advocite. Mr. Lasker. they can mislead the President and. for the purpose of making money out of immigration traffic. weaken or disregard vital parts of the immigration laws. every wholesome and restrictive featu�e of which they so much hate. But If we say to the President that whatever he does with the subject should be in harmony with the law as now existing we are maintaining that which it is our duty to maintain. It would be extreme folly.