"The average annual immigration from AustriaHungary during the past ten years has been approximately 220,000, but under the bill immigration from that country would be limited to 167,000 annually, at least until the census of 1920 afforded a new basis for computation. Immigration from Italy has averaged 207,000 annually, but future immigration from that country would be limited to about 134,500, while Greece would be limited to 10,000 as compared with an average of about 20,000 in recent years. Apparently immigration from Turkey would be cut down about one-half. Of all the principal sources of southern and eastern European immigration, Russia alone would seem to be little affected, as under the proposed law 173,500 immigrants could be admitted from that country annually, as compared with an average annual immigration of 172,500 during the past ten

years.

"On the other hand, western European countries in all probability would not be in the least affected by the proposed law. Germany has furnished an average of 35,000 immigrants in recent years and under the proposed law could send 250,000. The United Kingdom could send about 258,000, but has sent an average of 96,000 in the past ten years. In the cases of France, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries the margin is not so large, but it is not believed that the law would in any way affect immigration from such countries.

"It seems certain that the proposed law would restrict European immigration along the lines recommended by the Immigration Commission, and restrict it to a greater extent than the literacy test which the Commission recommended as the most feasible single

means of bringing about the desired slowing down in the movement of unskilled laborers from Europe. The effect of the literacy test is largely conjectural, but the method of restriction proposed by Senator Dillingham would confine the influx from any one country within certain definite limits. Moreover, it is pointed out that, by putting a reasonable limit on the annual increase of population of various nonEnglish-speaking nationalities, as proposed by the bill, the possibility of properly assimilating and distributing the incoming hordes would be greatly increased.

"Finally, it is claimed for the new method that it will afford a simple and effective method of increasing or diminishing immigration from time to time, as may be desired, by simply changing the percentage, and that the law can be applied without hardship to the intending immigrant.'

Rev. Sidney L. Gulick of the Commission on Relations with Japan, appointed by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, has developed this percentage plan as a means to the settlement of the perplexing problem of Asiatic immigration.* He claims that "a new general immigration law is needed, which shall apply impartially to all races. We must abandon all differential Asiatic treatment, even as regards immigration. The danger of an overwhelming Oriental immigration can be obviated by a general law allowing a maximum annual immigration from any land of a certain fixt percentage of those from that land already here and naturalized. The valid principle on which such a law would rest is the fact that newcomers from any land enter and become assimilated to our life chiefly through the agency of those from that land who are already here. These know the

languages, customs, and ideals of both nations. Consequently, the larger the number already assimilated, the larger the number of those who can be wisely admitted year by year. The same percentage rate would permit of great differences in actual numbers from different lands."

This plan, as developed by Dr. Gulick, has the undoubted merit of bringing all races under a general scheme of restriction, obviates special race discrimina-` tion and is based on citizenship, which in itself has many advantages. If the problem of Asiatic immigration becomes very acute-and there are many indications that the question is by no means settled-it may well be that legislation along these lines may be the solution, rather than the present cumbersome Asiatic regulations in the new immigration law recently passed.

Chinese Immigration Laws and Treaties

During the early part of the decade, 1850-1860, the Pacific Coast States and cities attempted to restrict Chinese immigration, but their regulations were declared unconstitutional. Recourse was then had in the year 1862 to the Federal Government.

The first treaty in which emigration from China to the United States was considered was the Burlingame treaty, proclaimed July 28, 1868. Sections 5 and 6 of that treaty state the position of the United States respecting the rights of Chinese in this country. The inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the

* See Appendix B for Doctor Gulick's plan.

other, for the purpose of curiosity or trade, or as permanent residents, were recognized, but "any other than an entirely voluntary emigration" was reprobated. The attitude of the United States as exprest in this treaty was not popular in the Pacific States, however, and they continued their efforts to secure legislation restricting the further immigration of the Chinese.

In 1872 the legislature of California had instructed their Representatives in Congress to urge the making of a new treaty with China, providing for the exclusion of certain Chinese subjects, and continued agitation finally resulted in the enactment of the law of March 3, 1875. Besides prohibiting the importation of women, especially Chinese, for the purpose of prostitution, and the immigration of convicts, the principal provision of the act of 1875 was that the transporting into the United States of residents of China, Japan or any oriental country, without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service, was to be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year and by a fine not exceeding $2,000. It further provided that any person attempting to contract in this manner to supply coolie labor to another should be guilty of a felony and imprisoned for not more than one year and pay a fine of not more than $5,000.

This important topic was being almost continually discust in Congress and, on November 17, 1880, a treaty somewhat more satisfactory to the Pacific Coast was negotiated, the article relating to the limitation and suspension of Chinese immigration into the United States being as follows:

Whenever in the opinion of the Government of the United

States the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to endanger the good order of said country, or of any locality within the territory thereof, the Government of China agrees that the Government of the United States may regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or suspension shall be reasonable, and shall apply only to Chinese who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or suspension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be subject to personal maltreatment or abuse.

After the treaty of 1880 was concluded, a bill to execute certain stipulations contained therein was passed by the Senate and House. As this bill went to the President for approval it provided that within ninety days after its passage, and until twenty years thereafter, the coming of Chinese laborers should be suspended. Exception was made to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on November 17, 1880, and those who should come before the act went into effect. Also a complete system of registration, certification and identification was provided. Skilled Chinese laborers were specifically among those excluded and all State or United States courts were denied the right to admit Chinese to citizenship. On April 4, 1882, President Arthur returned the bill with his veto, his principal reason for refusing to sign it being that the passage of an act prohibiting immigration for twenty years was an unreasonable suspension of immigration and, consequently, a breach of the treaty. The features relating to registration he also claimed served no good purpose. Subsequently, a modified bill was passed by Congress, and altho con