but departments of finance and commerce. When the people of the United States become aroused to the necessity of this kind of education and we see, from the kindergartens up to the universities, proper attention given to these subjects, there isn't any power on earth that can compete with the United States; and her supremacy will not only remain as it is today but will advance beyond even the fondest hopes of the most sanguine and optimistic American.

Protection.

(Argument to a Jury on behalf of defendants in the United States Court at Cincinnati, Ohio, in the Diamond Cutters' contract labor cases, November 16, 1896.)

May it please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury

Begging your indulgence after a protracted trial, which has undoubtedly taxed your patience, I shall briefly present a few phases of these cases, hoping that what is said may assist in a solution of the questions presented.

From the discovery of this continent, it has been the boast that an asylum had been found for the oppressed of the world. The protection to life, labor and property, and freedom and equality guaranteed by our constitution, brought to us the skilled and thrifty of all countries. They and their descendants have by their diligence changed forests into fields of grain and into cities where great factories transform raw materials into finished products of trade, and thus have they created an industrial nation whose cereals and manufactures are the wonders of the world. But a recent and unusual influx of thriftless hordes from Asia and Europe, and the greed of a few great mine owners in filling the places of striking workmen by import

ing, under contract, cheap, unskilled, foreign pauper labor, led the American public to believe that some restrictions should be placed on immigration. No demand ever went forth that all immigration should be stopped or that skilled workmen should be denied admission. That America had a surplus of brainworkers and skilled workmen has never been contended. The universal belief that the two evils mentioned should be remedied caused Congress to pass the Act of February 26, 1885, in language not altogether clear. An examination of the Congressional Records, the debates in Congress, the proceedings of labor organizations, the scholarly opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in the Laws Case, of Mr. Justice Brewer in the Church of Holy Trinity Case, and of Mr. Justice Brown in the Craig Case, make it manifest that it was not the intention of Congress to exclude skilled labor and brainworkers, but to elevate the standard of immigration by encouraging the coming of these classes and excluding the cheap, unskilled labor of servile paupers.

Three questions are involved, Did the defendants make contracts for labor? Was diamond cutting a new industry not established at the time of passing this act? Could labor be otherwise obtained? They will be taken up in their order.

Did the defendants make contracts for labor? These cases charge that on the second day of May, 1895, defendants encouraged, by paying their expenses, the migration of William Lamberechts and Lewis DeGraff from Antwerp, Belgium, to Cincinnati, Ohio, and that they came under contract, made prior to the migration, to perform labor as diamond cutter and polisher respectively in the diamond cutting establishment of the defendants, known as The Coetermans-Henrichs-Keck Diamond Cutting Company. The elements thus charged are three: First, that defendants assisted the migration by paying the expenses from Antwerp to Cincinnati; second, that contracts were made by the defendants with William Lamberechts and Lewis DeGraff prior to the migration; third, that they migrated in pursuance thereof. These allegations have been denied by the defendants. Under a familiar and reasonable rule of law, the defendants are presumed to be innocent and are entitled to a verdict in their favor unless the plaintiff prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

If, for the sake of argument, we take the most favorable view of the evidence offered in support of the Government's cases, the facts appear as follows:

The Herman Keck Manufacturing Company was

organized in 1890 to manufacture jewelry. In March, 1895, Lewis DeGraff, William Lamberechts and other skilled diamond workers promised Mr. Van Reeth to come to America and perform service in Cincinnati for a period of two years at twenty-five and twenty dollars per week respectively. Mr. Van Reeth advanced money to pay their expenses from Antwerp to Cincinnati to be returned in weekly installments. There is no evidence that either Mr. Coetermans or Mr. Van Reeth, who were in Europe, or Mr. Keck who was in America, ever promised to employ them or keep them for two years, or pay them a fixed sum per week, or ever signed any paper. Mr. Van Reeth, William Lamberechts, Lewis DeGraff and the other diamond workers left Antwerp and reached New York March 20, 1895. Being detained at Ellis Island, they made affidavits that they came under contract with Keck & Co, and that Keck & Co. had advanced their expenses. At a subsequent hearing before the Court of Inquiry they denied having come under contract, and claimed to have paid their own expenses. They were nevertheless deported. Just as they were leaving, Herman Keck stated that he was going to Europe and would reach that place before they did. On reaching Europe they saw both Mr. Coetermans and Mr. Keck,