land. It is impossible to say how many of these votes were attributable to his supporters among the "KnowNothing" party.

The "Know-Nothing" strength in Congress was greatest in the Thirty-fourth Congress, 1854 to 1856. They had no openly avowed representatives in the Thirty-third Congress, while in the Thirty-fourth they claimed 43 Representatives and 5 Senators, aside from 70 Republicans who were said to be members of "Know-Nothing" councils. In the Thirty-fifth Congress the "Know-Nothings" claimed 5 Senators and 14 Representatives, and about the same number were in the Thirty-sixth and Thirty-seventh; but in the Thirty-eighth Congress the party was not represented in either branch.

Being in a minority in Congress, the "Know-Nothings" but slightly influenced National legislation. In naturalization bills introduced, they proposed to lengthen the period of residence, usually demanding that it be made twenty-one years, but their proposed laws affecting immigration were, as a rule, only directed against the exclusion of foreign paupers and criminals. The "Know-Nothings" disappeared without having accomplished anything against immigration, adopted citizens, or Catholics. As a matter of fact, some National legislation favorable to foreigners was passed during this period of agitation. In 1847, and again in 1848, the passenger law of 1819 was amended in order to improve conditions in the steerage quarters of immigrant ships.

State Legislation Abandoned

Altho the National Government did not assume control of immigration until 1882, Congress, in 1864, passed a law to encourage immigration. This law, which was repealed in 1868, represents the only attempt of the Government to promote immigration by direct legislation, altho frequently the States have made such attempts. President Lincoln, in his annual message to the first session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, favored a proposal of the Territories for encouraging immigration, and in a subsequent message, December 8, 1863, he strongly recommended National legislation of the same nature. The bill which was the outcome of this message, and which became a law July 4, 1864, provided for the appointment by the President of a Commissioner of Immigration to act under the direction of the Department of State. All contracts that should be made in foreign countries by emigrants to the United States whereby immigrants pledged the wages of their labor for a term not exceeding twelve months to repay the expenses of emigration, should be held to be valid in law, and might be enforced in the courts of the United States and Territories, and no such contract could in any way be considered as creating a condition of slavery or servitude. It was further provided that an immigration office should be established in New York City, with a Superintendent of Immigration at its head, who was charged with arranging for the transportation of immigrants to their final destination and protecting them from imposition and fraud.

Following the enactment of the law of 1864, several companies were established to deal in immigrant con

tract labor, but they were not satisfied with the law and wanted its scope enlarged. In 1866 the House of Representatives passed a bill amending the act of 1864, the principal provision being to increase the number of commissioners of immigration, the additional commissioners to be stationed in various cities along the Atlantic Coast. The Senate, however, did not agree to the amendment. During the following decade the discussion is chiefly important in revealing the inadequacy of State control of immigration, and the development of a movement for National control, culminating in 1876 in a decision of the Supreme Court, which practically left no alternative other than National regulation.

State Control Declared Unconstitutional

Up to this time various questions relating to the subject of immigration had been considered by the Supreme Court of the United States. The first of these cases was that of the State of New York vs. Miln, which tested the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature of the State of New York in 1824, requiring all masters of vessels arriving at the port to make a report in writing and give the name, age and last legal residence of every person on board during the voyage, and stating whether any of their passengers had gone on board any other vessel or had been landed in any place with a view of proceeding to New York. Another section made it lawful for the mayor of the city to require a bond from every master of a vessel to indemnify the mayor and the overseer of the poor for any expense incurred for passengers brought in and not reported. The

United States Supreme Court held that the New York act was not a regulation of commerce, but of police; and, being so, it was in exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the State.

Justice Story, dissenting from the decision of the court, thought the law unconstitutional, and said, in part:

The result of the whole reasoning is that whatever restrains or prevents the introduction or importation of passengers or goods into the country authorized or allowed by Congress, whether in the shape of a tax or other charge, or whether before or after their arrival in port, interferes with the exclusive right to regulate commerce.

This law being held to be constitutional, New York, in 1829, in providing for the support of the marine and quarantine hospital established on Staten Island, ordered that the health commissioner should collect from the master of every vessel arriving from a foreign port, $1.50 for every cabin passenger; $1.00 for every steerage passenger, mate, sailor, or marine; and 25 cents for every person arriving on coasting vessels. The money so collected, after deducting 2 per cent., was to be used for the benefit of the above-mentioned hospital.

In 1837, Massachusetts enacted a law which provided for the inspection of arriving alien passengers and required a bond from the owner of the vessel bringing such aliens as security that such of these passengers as were incompetent in the eyes of the inspectors to earn a living, should not become a public charge within ten years. It also provided that $2 be paid for each passenger landed, the money so collected to be used for the support of foreign paupers.

In 1849 these two legislative acts were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in what are known as the "Passenger Cases." Immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court, the New York statute was modified with a view to avoiding the constitutional objection. As modified, the law provided for the master or owner of every vessel landing passengers from a foreign port to make a report similar to the one recited in the statute declared to be valid in the case of New York vs. Miln, in which report the mayor was to endorse a demand upon the owner or master that he give a bond for every passenger landed in the city to indemnify the commissioners of immigration, and every county, city and town in the State against any expense for the relief or the support of the person named in the bond for four years thereafter; but the owner could commute for such bond and be released from giving it by paying $1.50 for each passenger landed.

In several other States similar laws were in force. Cases were brought up to the Supreme Court from New York, California and Louisiana, and the laws. were declared unconstitutional. The most interesting part of this decision, however, was that in which the court, in a most unusual proceeding, recommended that Congress exercise full authority over immigration, saying:

We are of the opinion that this whole subject has been confided to Congress by the Constitution; that Congress can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise it than any other body known to our law, State or national; that, by providing a system of laws in these matters applicable to all ports and to all vessels, a serious question which has long been a matter of contest and complaint may be effectively and satisfactorily settled.