IMMIGRATION AND TREATIES.

During consideration of various bills by the committee one of its members, Representative Box, was designated to make a study of immigration and treaties, and his statement (hearings, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 67th Cong., 4th sess., p. 493) follows in part:

Moreover, our experience as to the attitude of our Presidents toward this problem should warn us of the great danger of passing absolute or chief control of it to him.

The President's constant contact with delicate and difficult questions of our foreign relations and the necessity of maintaining cordial diplomatic relations with foreign countries expose him and his advisors and agencies to the constant tendency toward too great liberality in immigration regulations.

Our own people now almost uniformly confess that we have in the past been liberal to the point of ruinous looseness in our immigration policies, but even such restrictive measures as have been adopted in the past have nearly all been enacted in the face of Executive opposition. Nearly every step forward in the policy of restriction has been taken by overstepping the President's veto of restrictive laws.

In 1879 President Hayes vetoed the first Chinese-exclusion act (2 1. C. R. 580). In 1882 President Arthur vetoed an act suspending Chinese immigration for a period of 20 years (21. C. R. 581). On March 3, 1897, President Cleveland vetoed an immigration act excluding illiterates (21. C. R. 573). President Taft vetoed an immigration bill in 1913 containing a restriction against the admission of illiterates (p. 101, Rec., special sess., 59th Cong.). In 1917 President Wilson vetoed an act excluding illiterates, but Congress passed it over his veto.

In 1868 the Burlingame treaty between the United States and China declared it to be the inalienable right of men to migrate and emigrate at will. California had then been, for 15 years, alarmed and in trouble on account of the coming of great numbers of Chinese. The California Legislature had passed laws in efforts to protect the State. Pacific coast cities had passed ordinances for the same purpose. Congress itself, in 1862, had taken note of the degradation and slavery of Chinese coolie laborers, and had forbidden American ships to transport them. This was seven years before the Burlingame treaty was made by the President and ratified by the Senate, declaring the right of such people to migrate to the United States to be "inalienable." So aptly did the treaty-making power deal with the problem in that instance.

Conditions in California and on the Pacific coast were then and soon afterwards so bad that, in 1872, California was pleading with Congress for the exclusion of the Chinese; that is, for the deprivation of the “inalienable right" of Chinese to come to America in tens or even hundreds of millions.

A congressional committee was sent to California, where it found conditions very bad. In 1879 Congress passed what was practically a Chinese exclusion act and undertook to abrogate the obnoxious sections of the Burlingame treaty of 1868.

Here another unfortunate incident to immigration regulation by treaty developed. President Hayes vetoed the exclusion act, giving as one reason his contention that Congress had no right to abrogate a treaty. His action illustrated the fact that the President can nullify an exclusion act of Congress and that Congress has no power to relieve the country of a treaty so dangerous as was that one by any majority less than two-thirds of both branches. President Hayes claimed that Congress had no power to abrogate a treaty at all.

The President can make such a treaty with the approval of two-thirds of one branch of Congress.

A new treaty was made by the United States and China in 1880, in which China succeeded in limiting the freedom of the United States to deal with Chinese immigration in its own way. This treaty stipulated that the United States might limit or suspend the coming of laborers only and prohibited the United States to forbid general Chinese immigration.

In 1880 Congress passed an act suspending Chinese immigration for 20 years. President Arthur vetoed the act, chiefly on the ground that a 20-year suspension of Chinese immigration was not "reasonable" within the meaning of that term in the clause of our treaty with China permitting the United States to limit or suspend the coming of laborers in such a manner and to such extent as 'shall be reasonable."

It was soon found that this immigration treaty was unwise, and the United States asked China to agree to its abrogation. She objected and delayed until Congress passed a drastic Chinese exclusion law, from which the President withheld his approval until he became convinced that China would not enter a new treaty abrogating the treaty of 1880, of which the United States was now anxious to be rid.

President Roosevelt made an agreement, which he insisted on having treated as valid and binding, as being supreme law, without even consulting the Senate about it. He called it a "treaty."

If I may be permitted to say so, I doubt whether the gentleman's agreement made by President Roosevelt, to which the gentleman evidently refers, has any force or has ever had any force that America ought to recognize. To say that the President can by some secret understanding hidden in his bosom or by some written memorandum hidden in the archives of the Department of State, never submitted to the Senate, establish a law, a supreme law of the land, binding on the legislatures of States, binding on this body and the whole country, would be most extraordinary. That is the construction given to the gentleman's agreement. President Roosevelt, who made it, based his action on the facts as he saw them then. He would unquestionably say now that it did not work properly.

ROOSEVELT ON THE GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT.

After a good deal of discussion we came to an entirely satisfactory conclusion. The obnoxious school legislation was abandoned, and I secured an arrangement with Japan under which the Japanese themselves prevented any emigration to our country of their laboring people, it being distinctly understood that if there was such emigration the United States would at once pass an exclusion law. It was of course infinitely better that the Japanese should stop their own people from coming rather than we should have to stop them, but it was necessary for us to hold this power in

Unfortunately, after I left office a most mistaken and ill-advised policy was pursued toward Japan, combining irritation and inefficiency, which culminated in a treaty under which we surrendered this important and necessary right. It was alleged in excuse that the treaty provided for its own abrogation; but of course it is infinitely better to have a treaty under which the power to exercise a necessary right is explicitly retained rather than a treaty so drawn that recourse must be had to the extreme step of abrogating if it ever becomes necessary to exercise the right in question. (Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography, p. 414.)

Quotations with reference to the "gentlemen's agreement" have been made more freely, perhaps, than is necessary in a report from a commmittee of Congress, advocating passage of a measure, but have been made because of continued difficulty in finding the so-called text of the "agreement," and because of the shortage of copies of House hearings for the past two or more years on the many phases of the problems which attend each attempt to write a satisfactory immigration act.

The provisions of the committee's proposal in reference to the admission and nonadmission of "persons ineligible to citizenship are as follows:

An immigrant not eligible to citizenship shall not be admitted to the United States unless such immigrant is admissible as a non-quota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (c), (e), or (h), of section 4.

The subdivisions of section 4 referred to are as follows:

(c) An immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United States, who is returning from a temporary visit abroad;

(e) An immigrant who continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States has been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of, carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination, professor of a college or seminary, or member of any recognized learned profession;

(h) An immigrant who is a bona fide student over sixteen years of age and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of study at an accredited educational institution particularly designated by him and approved by the Secretary.

The committee believes that these exceptions serve to clarify the "gentlemen's agreement," and that the enactment of the plan into law will end in a satisfactory manner, without friction, a most troublesome problem.

THE NEAR EAST REFUGEE PROBLEM.

It is not possible for the United States to offer more than a modicum of relief even if immigration restrictions were greatly relaxed. Principal relief must be through the association known as the Near East Relief. This organization shipped overseas in 1921, 13,408 tons of clothing, food, medical supplies, and other commodities, valued at $2,186,833; and up to November 30, 1922, shipped 25,322 tons, valued at $4,251,074.

The total value of Near East Relief's operations to date approximate $73,000,000.

The report of this association, February, 1923, says:

Refugees now homeless and without adequate provision for food and shelter for the coming winter, 1,250,000.

Refugees threatened in Anatolia and Constantinople, and even now in flight from regions which may witness a greater disaster than Smyrna, 1,250.000.

Total number now homeless or threatened with exile, 2,500,000. In the face of this tragic situation, it is impossible to estimate the probable mortality as these millions of destitute people try to weather the rigors of winter in their shelterless condition. The deaths are estimated to number a thousand a day. Without doubt, thousands more of children will be thrown upon the world's charity.

High officials of the Near East organizations have told this committee that it is not desired to bring either 5,000,000, or any part of that number of Armenian orphans and homeless children to the United States. They could not be placed. To bring that number would cost $7,000,000. Probably as many refugees arc Greeks as are Armenians.

COMMON LABOR.

Employers of labor in the United States have undertaken to show to the committee that there is a shortage of common labor; that aliens must be had to do the rough work, the trench digging, the excavations, the road building, the repairing of railroad beds, the handling of heavy raw materials, etc., and, while the committee agrees that there has been recently an absence of unemploymentquite striking in comparison with the fact that 5,000,000 or more wage earners were out of work in the United States only 12 or 14 months ago the committee is of the opinion expressed by Walter Renton Ingalls, engineer and author, of Mount Vernon, N. Y., that "the alleged labor shortage and the effect of immigration curtailments are being misunderstood and overrated." (Hearings, serial 6-C.) Mr. Ingalls says:

Although business activity in the United States increased greatly in 1922 in comparison with the abyss of 1921, I do not find from examination of the statistical evidence that the rate of production in the latter part of 1922 was any higher than in 1913. The aggregate production of raw materials was about the same in 1922 as in 1913. Factory employment in the State of New York, which is considered to afford a fairly reliable sample for the whole country, rose in the latter part of 1922 about to the level of the middle of 1914 when this series of figures began. Building construction in 1922, while the greatest on record in terms of dollars, appears from my own studies of this subject to have been less in terms of quantity in 1922 than in 1913.

All this is offered with no intention of contradicting representations of shortage in labor of some kinds and at some places. That such shortage exists is evinced by the fact that employers have had to increase wages to get the labor they need, which they would not do unless they had to. I find it difficult, however, to attribute that condition solely to curtailment of immigration by the terms of the Dillingham law which has been in operation for only little more than a year. During that year the net immigration was higher than in three other years since 1913 during which the United States was making a larger production than in 1922 without there being any serious complaint of labor shortage. Moreover the transition from the first quarter of 1922, when unemployment was at the maximum, to the suppositious conditions of the fourth quarter is rather too kaleidoscopic.

The House committee had before it many witnesses on the labor phase of the immigration problem (hearings, 5-C, 67th Cong., 4th sess., pp. 227-599) and received letters, telegrams, statements, and arguments from many others. (Hearings, Serial 6-C, 1923.) Those who advocated the admission of laborers were unable to solve the problem of quantity or the problem of when to admit these laborers' wives and dependents. This is the very problem that has led to the inclusion of the relatives provision in the House measure. The committee was unable to concur in the arguments of James A. Emery, representing the National Association of Manufacturers, that laborers in bulk might be brought here from certain countries, to be placed at certain points, and to be sent back at a definite time. The recommendation of the Manufacturers' Association that "the United States assert the right to register, distribute, educate, and otherwise supervise the alien during the period of his alienage" can not be sustained for the reason that "distribution" and "supervision" might develop a system of peonage abhorrent to the institutions of the United States.

The prosperity of the United States does not depend upon additional unskilled immigrants coming to this country. There are 1,500,000 unemployed now here. Quotas from northwestern Europe are not exhausted. There are 250,000 coal miners who are unemployed regularly due to overabundance of workers in that occupation. Aliens who leave this country temporarily may return within six months outside of quotas. If work was so plentiful, why did more male immigrants go back to their native lands than came here in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1922?

During the first six months of the present fiscal year (ending June 30, 1923) immigrants exceed emigrants by approximately 220,000, with a great increase from northwestern Europe.

The natural resources of the United States-coal, oil, gas, iron, and other minerals, timber, etc.-are not inexhaustible.

William J. Faux, president of the Logan Coal Co., says (hearings, Serial 6-C):

My preference is that the immigration law should be more drastic than at present. I do not believe it necessary for the United States to make all the goods in the world, and we are certainly producing our share when we produce two thirds. We have got enough of the immigrants of southern Europe to last for the next 50 years, if we are to maintain our Americanism.

The committee agrees with the statement of Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (hearings, Serial 6-C), who says, in part:

I am in favor of a broad policy of selective immigration, but I am not quite able to harmonize such a policy with the latter part of the statement wherein you say that the National Association of Manufacturers is in favor of letting down the bars suffi

ciently to give our industries and our agriculture the immigrant labor it previously has had to draw from. Previously in our country there was little in our immigration policy of a selective nature. The bars were so thoroughly let down as to permit everybody to come in, the good, bad, and indifferent, and I should regret very much to see that policy resumed.

I believe, however, that it is for the best interests of all in this country that there should be a reasonable incoming of immigration, partly in order to supply the common labor necessary in connection with agriculture and other basic industries, but I would much prefer to see the supply of such labor held at a point less than the actual requirements, if necessary, rather than to remove or lower the proper standard of admission.

The American Federation of Labor, which has a dues-paying membership of over 3,000,000 members, June 30, 1921, at Denver, and again in 1922, urged Congress to "forbid the importation of labor from any country until such time as conditions in our country become stabilized and relations of life more normal."

FARM LABOR.

Concerning common labor in connection with agriculture, E. B. Reid, assistant Washington representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation, appeared before the House Committee on Immigration (hearings, p. 283, serial 5-c) with a resolution of that federation adopted at Chicago December 11-14, 1922, as follows:

"We believe there exists a continuing shortage of farm and industrial labor which gravely imperils efficient and economical agricultural production; that, in the national interest, the Congress ought immediately to authorize the Secretary of Labor, upon demonstration of such conditions, to admit otherwise admissible aliens in excess of existing quotas to such extent as is necessary to meet the established needs of agriculture and industry. In estimating quotas fixed by law, due consideration should be given to ascertained immigration. It is, furthermore, essential that, so far as practical, provision should be made to determine the admissibility of aliens either where their passports are viséed or at the principal ports of embarkation."

The CHAIRMAN. Does the American Farm Bureau Federation believe there is an overproduction of farm products this year?

Mr. REID. I think it does, from the statements it has issued.
The CHAIRMAN. They need more laborers just the same.

Mr. REID. Yes, sir; they want to produce crops cheaper.

The CHAIRMAN. They want to produce crops cheaper whether they can dispose of them or not.

J. R. Howard, then president of the Farm Bureau Federation, in a speech at Buffalo, said:

Immigration restriction is undoubtedly affecting the prosperity of the country, and particularly of the farmer.

Mr. Howard declared the present law was limiting the amount of manual labor in this country, and one of its natural and inevitable results was a shifting of labor from the country to the city, presenting a tremendous handicap to the farmer in production.

Another phase of the question mentioned by Mr. Howard was that the restrictive law forced prospective immigrants to seek other shores and become natural competitors of American farmers, adding still more to the depression they had been fighting for three years.

Later he seems to have modified his views, for he says (hearings, Serial 6-C):

Some interests are discussing the letting down of immigration bars on the ground that it is demanded by the agricultural interests. Cheap labor is not what the farmer wants. He himself is a laborer. and the number of those gainfully employed in agriculture indicates that approximately one-half the farms of the country are manned by the farm family itself. To cheapen labor on the farm would be to cheapen the labor of these farmers and their families. The welfare of the country demands that