Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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.

Control by the Federal Government

By the above decision the States were left without the means, except by taxing their citizens, of providing suitable inspection of immigrants arriving at their ports, 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 above-quoted 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 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 had been collected there. 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 (excepting those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots, and persons likely to become public charges, should not be permitted to land.

On February 26, 1885, the first act of Congress forbidding the importation of contract labor was approved. This law was defective in that it did not provide for inspection, nor was any arrangement made for the general execution of the provisions of the law, or for the deportation of the contract laborer himself. It was amended by the act of February 23, 1887, and again by that of October 9, 1888, the Secretary of the Treasury being given the authority to deport within the year any immigrant landed contrary to this law. From 1882 to 1888, aside from the enactment of the contract labor laws referred to, there was little attempt at other immigrant legislation. Numerous bills in amendment of the laws of 1882 were introduced in Congress, but no action was taken upon them.

The subject of immigration continued to be a matter of interest, however, and in 1889 a standing Committee on Immigration in the Senate and a Select Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in the House were established. In 1890, these committees were authorized jointly to make an inquiry relative to immigration, and to investigate the workings of the various laws of the United States, and of the several States relative to immigration. A number of reports were submitted, the conclusion of the committee being that a radical change in the immigration laws was not advisable, altho it had been found that throughout the country there existed a demand for a stricter enforce

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »