protecting immigrants within the country, and of securing the proper regulation of immigrant voters. The discussion during the next ten years is chiefly important in revealing the inadequacy of State control of immigration, and the development of a movement for national control. In 1876 a decision of the Supreme Court practically left no other alternative but national regulation.

State Control Declared Unconstitutional

Before 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 the 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 at 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 from 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 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 0.25 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 abovenamed hospital.

In 1837 Massachusetts enacted a law which provided for an 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, 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 pro

vided 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.

Control by the Federal Government

By the above decision the States were left without the means, except by taxing their own citizens, of providing suitable inspection of immigrants or of

caring for the destitute among those admitted. The only alternative was the recommendation of the Supreme Court that Congress assume control of immigration legislation, and New York representatives in Congress immediately endeavored to secure the passage of a general immigration law. The abovequoted case was decided by the Supreme Court, March 20, 1876, and on July 6 following, Senator Conkling and Representative Cox of New York introduced bills for the national regulation of immigration. No legislation was enacted, however, until the year 1882.

THE LAW OF 1882

In his message of December 6, 1881, President Arthur called attention to the subject of immigration control and recommended supervisory legislation. On August 3, 1882, the first general immigration law was approved. This law provided for a head tax of 50 cents to be levied on all aliens landed at United States ports, the money thus collected to be used to defray the expenses of regulating immigration, and for the care of immigrants after landing, no more being expended at any port than was collected at such port. The Secretary of the Treasury was charged with executing the provisions of the act. For that purpose he was given power to enter into contracts with such State officers as might be designated by the Governor of any State to take charge of the local affairs of immigration within such State. This law provided that foreign convicts, except those convicted of political offenses, lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public. charges, should not be permitted to land.

vided 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 Yor1lifornia, and Louisiana, and the laws constitutional. The most interesting on, however, was that in which the unusual proceeding, recommended ercise full authority over immigra

whole subject has been conn; that Congress can more tance exercise it than any

or national; that, by proatters applicable to all ports tion which has long been a may be effectively and satis

ederal Government

the States were left without taxing their own citizens, of spection of immigrants or of