IMMIGRATION




[Illustration: [Logo]]

                         THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                  NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS
                        ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO

                        MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
                       LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
                               MELBOURNE

                   THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
                                TORONTO




                              IMMIGRATION
             A WORLD MOVEMENT AND ITS AMERICAN SIGNIFICANCE


                                   BY

                         HENRY PRATT FAIRCHILD


                               =New York=
                         THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                                  1913

                         _All rights reserved_




                            COPYRIGHT, 1913,
                       BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

             Set up and electrotyped. Published May, 1913.


                             Norwood Press
                 J. S. Cushing Co.—Berwick & Smith Co.
                         Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.




                                  =To=

                         ALBERT GALLOWAY KELLER

                           INSPIRING TEACHER

                            CONSTANT FRIEND




                                PREFACE


In the preparation of this book the author has endeavored to avoid that
narrowness of treatment which so easily besets the writer on such a
topic as immigration. The effort has been made to regard immigration,
not simply as an “American public problem,” but as a sociological
phenomenon of world-wide significance. While the primary viewpoint is
that of a citizen of the United States, several other viewpoints are
considered, and regarded as equally valid. It is pointed out that there
are a number of interests to be taken into account, aside from those of
the native American workman, or even of the American nation as a whole.
The immigration question is set forth as a part of an inclusive
conservation program for all humanity. The modern situation is placed in
its appropriate historical setting. Particularly, it is demonstrated
that the popular notion that a belief in restriction is inconsistent
with sympathy for the immigrant is false. The restrictionist may be the
truest friend of the alien.

At the same time, this book does not profess to be an exhaustive
treatise on immigration. To deal with this question exhaustively, as Dr.
Leopold Caro has pointed out, is too much of an undertaking for a single
man in a lifetime. This is for two reasons. In the first place, the mass
of data is too great, involving the intimate history of most of the
civilized nations of the world for a period of from half a century to
three centuries. In the second place, the subject is highly dynamic. It
is a present movement, displaying aspects which are continually
changing, and embodying relations which are constantly shifting. The
student is prevented by his human limitations from keeping his
information up-to-date in every particular.

For these reasons the purely descriptive features of such a book must
necessarily be limited in scope and subject to inaccuracy. The writer is
constantly constrained to qualify his general statements in the effort
to avoid dogmatism or positive error. But the purely descriptive
features are, after all, of secondary importance. The fundamental
matters are the laws or principles which underlie the great type of
population movement which we call immigration, and these are relatively
constant and unchanging. It is a knowledge of these principles which
fits one to understand the movement in its ever changing aspects, and to
grapple with it as a problem of practical politics or sociology. To
define and clarify the concepts involved, to set forth clearly the laws
and principles, and to point out the opportunities and responsibilities,
is the chief aim of this book.

These considerations account for the summary treatment of some topics,
and the omission of others. Some aspects of the question may seem to
have received more attention, others less, than their relative
importance would warrant. Thus the section on crises, exhibiting as it
does the intricate relationship between immigration and one of our most
important economic problems, also suggests other equally detailed
analytical studies which might be made; as, for instance, the relation
between immigration and strikes, or child labor, or public education.
The discussion of the effect of emigration on the countries of Europe,
while dealing with a topic of equal importance with the effects on the
United States, is manifestly only suggestive in character. Only such
tables have been included as are necessary for illustration or
demonstration. The statistical matter on immigration is now so
voluminous that it is impracticable to include it in a treatise dealing
with the general aspects of the situation in a narrative manner.

Some portions of this book have already appeared in print. The section
on crises is practically a reprint of an article entitled “Immigration
and Crises,” which appeared in the _American Economic Review_ for
December, 1911. The discussion of the effects of immigration on
population reproduces almost _verbatim_ an article, “The Paradox of
Immigration,” which was printed in the _American Journal of Sociology_
for September, 1911. An article entitled “Some Immigration Differences,”
printed in the _Yale Review_ for May, 1910, contained matter which has
been incorporated in different portions of this book. To the editors of
these three journals the author extends his thanks for permission to use
this material in the present volume.

The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Professor Albert G.
Keller, Professor Roswell C. McCrea, and Professor Allen Johnson, who
have read the manuscript wholly or in part, and have made many helpful
suggestions.

                                                                H. P. F.

  NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT,
      April 9, 1913.




                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


 CHAPTER                                                            PAGE

      I. INTRODUCTION                                                  1

     II. THE UNITED STATES. COLONIAL PERIOD                           26

    III. 1783 TO 1820                                                 53

     IV. 1820 TO 1860                                                 61

      V. 1860 TO 1882                                                 90

     VI. MODERN PERIOD. FEDERAL LEGISLATION                          106

    VII. VOLUME AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE IMMIGRATION STREAM     123

   VIII. THE CAUSES OF IMMIGRATION                                   144

     IX. THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION. CONDITIONS OF EMBARKATION AND
           TRANSPORTATION                                            163

      X. INSPECTION. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF ARRIVING
           IMMIGRANTS                                                183

     XI. CONDITIONS OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES. EFFECTS ON
           POPULATION. DISTRIBUTION                                  213

    XII. CONDITIONS (_Continued_). THE STANDARD OF LIVING            233

   XIII. THE STANDARD OF LIVING (_Continued_)                        258

    XIV. THE EXPLOITATION OF IMMIGRANTS. RELIGION. BIRTHS,
           MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. RECREATION                         274

     XV. CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE COUNTRY. WAGES. PAUPERISM. CRIME.
           INSANITY                                                  301

    XVI. INDUSTRIAL EFFECTS. CRISES. SOCIAL STRATIFICATION.
           POLITICAL EFFECTS                                         341

   XVII. THE NEW PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION                              369

  XVIII. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM                                   381

    XIX. OTHER POINTS OF VIEW                                        416

 BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                        439

 INDEX                                                               451




                              IMMIGRATION




                               CHAPTER I
                              INTRODUCTION


The study of immigration is a part of the study of the dispersion of the
human race over the surface of the earth, but only one of the most
recent parts. The most important population movements by which the
habitable portions of the globe became peopled took place long before
there was anything which might accurately be styled immigration. The
dawn of the historical period found the principal sections of the
earth’s surface already inhabited by races not widely different from
those now native to them.

About the early movements by which man was scattered from his original
home to the four corners of the globe we have as yet little definite
information. It seems safe to conclude that they must have resembled the
instinctive movements of animals more closely than the rational
movements of modern man. They must have been gradual, by slow stages,
and in immediate response to the demands of the food supply or of the
changing climate. Such movements, which may be designated by the term
“wandering,” were the necessary precursors of the more recent
developments. They furnish the background for the historic period, and
constitute the original factors in modern relations. They may be taken
for granted, and a detailed knowledge of them is not necessary for an
understanding or investigation of such a historic question as
immigration.

The word “immigration” is one of those terms which are in common use in
everyday speech, and which convey a certain general impression to the
hearer, but which need to be given a limited and specific meaning when
used in a scientific study. Many vague and erroneous notions about
immigration may be traced to the failure of those using the word to form
an exact idea of its connotation. Particularly is it necessary to
distinguish clearly between immigration and certain other forms of
population movements to which the term is frequently applied.

There are three of these forms of movement. They all fall within the
historical period, and consequently we have some definite information
about them. They may be designated as invasion, conquest, and
colonization. These, with immigration, all have this in common, that
they are reasoned movements arising after man had progressed far enough
in the scale of civilization to have a fixed abiding place. That is,
they are definite movements from one place to another. This
distinguishes them from what has been called “wandering,” and justifies
including them in a separate category, to which the general name
“migration” may be given. In using this term for this purpose, however,
we must rid our minds of the association which it has with the movements
of animals and birds. When we speak of the migrations of birds we
customarily refer to seasonal changes of location, occurring regularly
year by year. They are not cases of a change of home, but of having two
homes at the same time.

Man, too, has his seasonal movements. It is a very common practice of
primitive men to move from one location to another at different times in
the year in the pursuit of food, seeking a certain locality at the time
that a particular fruit ripens there, or a certain bird lays its eggs.
“The Haida Indians of British Columbia annually voyage as many as 500
miles southward to Puget Sound to lay in a supply of dried clams and
oysters for their own consumption and for trade.”[1] Many nomadic tribes
follow the pasture from the lowlands to the highlands, and from south to
north, as the seasons change. Even civilized man, in his highest
development, has his seasonal journeyings, from his summer home to his
winter home, and back. But none of these comings and goings deserve to
be included as true movements of peoples, or to be called migrations in
the present sense. Migration involves an actual and permanent change of
residence. It thus becomes evident that migrations can occur only in the
most rudimentary form among people in the hunting stage; more developed
cases may occur among pastoral people, when they change their base of
operation, as when the Israelites moved from Canaan into Egypt, and back
after several generations; but in its most complete form, migration
appears only after man has reached the agricultural stage.

Since man, when he migrates, leaves a fixed home in response to a
rational impulse, there must be some definable cause for the migration.
There are certain general causes which are found to underlie all
migratory movements, and which are worthy of examination. In the first
place we find that the cause of a migratory movement must be a powerful
one. Man inevitably becomes attached to the locality in which he finds
himself placed. Bonds of many kinds arise to tie him to his home. Among
these may be mentioned family connections, sentimental associations,
familiar customs and habits of the community, political and religious
attachments, business interests, property owned, superstitious
veneration for graves. All of these, and others, unite to make the home
ties very strong. The life of man is closely bound up with his
environment, and a change of environment is a momentous event. As a
result, there is a marked inertia, a resistance to pressure, among human
beings, and the presumption is that people will stay where they are,
unless some positive force causes them to move. And no trivial occasion
will suffice.

This force, which results in movement, may be a very complex one, but in
general it must present one of two aspects—it must be either attractive
or repellent. Men are either drawn or driven to break the ties which
bind them to their native locality. The attractive force must, of
course, exist in the country which is the objective point, the repellent
force, in the existing environment. This distinction is well brought out
by Professor Otis T. Mason, who classifies the causes of migration into
“positive”—advantages, satisfactions, etc.—and “negative”—discomforts,
compulsions, etc.[2] In view of the strength of the “home ties,”
however, it is evident that the repellent type of forces must be much
the more important. It would have to be a very alluring prospect indeed
that would lead a man to leave a spot where he was contented. In fact we
can hardly conceive of a man deserting a spot where he was really
contented. There must be some dissatisfaction with existing conditions
to induce him to take the step. Attractions often operate by inducing
dissatisfactions, through comparison. There is no attraction in a
foreign region unless it seems superior to the home surroundings. Then
the home conditions appear inferior, and there is dissatisfaction. This
is what Professor Sumner called a process of idealization.

It may be well, also, to distinguish between the causes and motives of
migration. Motives are subjective feelings existing within the
individual which inspire his actions. They are the immediate forces
which lead to movement, and may be divided into the same two general
classes as causes. Causes are objective forces or conditions existing
outside of the individual, which react upon him. They may exist in the
physical environment or in the human environment, and operate by
arousing motives, which in turn are the immediate springs of conduct.
Since human nature is everywhere enough alike so that similar causes
arouse similar motives, and since motives can hardly arise without some
exterior cause, in our search for the origins of migratory movements it
will ordinarily be sufficient to examine merely the causes. Thus in
almost every case of migration we are justified in looking for some
cause of a repellent nature, some dissatisfaction, disability,
discontent, hardship, or other disturbing condition.[3]

These discomforts may arise in any of the various interests of human
life, and may be classified according to almost any classification which
will include those interests. Probably the most satisfactory is the
familiar one of Economic, Political, Social, and Religious. The economic
causes of migrations are the earliest and by far the most important.
They arise in connection with man’s efforts to make his living, and
concern all interests which are connected with his productive efforts.
They are disabilities or handicaps which affect his pursuit of food,
clothing, and shelter, as well as the less necessary comforts of life.
These are vital interests, and any dissatisfaction connected with them
is of great weight with men.

There is a wide variety of economic causes of migration, of which the
following may be noted. Permanent natural inhospitableness of soil or
climate or scarcity of natural resources may make the struggle for
existence a perpetually hard one. Temporary natural calamities, such as
drought, famine, flood, extreme seasons, etc., may interrupt the course
of an ordinarily tolerable existence. Serious underdevelopment of the
industrial arts may make life difficult in a nation by limiting the
productive power of its citizens or handicapping them in the struggle
for trade. A common economic cause of migration is overpopulation. This
means that the population of a region has increased to the point where,
under the existing industrial conditions, there are too many people for
the supporting power of the soil. In man’s struggle with nature for a
time an increase in numbers is an advantage. But there comes a point
where the ratio between men and land reaches such an equilibrium that
any increase in the number of men means a smaller amount of the
materials of existence for each one.[4] This results in hardship and
dissatisfaction. Many migratory movements, particularly in the case of
primitive men, or men on a low stage of culture, may be very simply
explained by overpopulation.

Political causes are those connected with the organization of government
or the actions of the governing power. In this case the dissatisfaction
arises from the failure of the individual or group to secure what is
believed to be a rightful share in the control of the government, or in
some positive repressive or persecuting measures on the part of the
governing body toward some of its citizens. Hence we may look for
motives of infringed liberty, lack of freedom, or the feeling of
oppression. A bad government may put such handicaps on the entire body
of its citizens as to make life unsatisfactory to them.

Where social causes of migration exist, the dissatisfaction arises from
some fault in the social organization. Some classes or individuals are
subjected to a feeling of inferiority to other classes or individuals. A
caste, or aristocratic, organization of society gives certain classes an
advantage over others, and makes it impossible for the lower classes to
rise to a higher level. In case people living under these conditions
learn of another region where advancement is possible, migration may
easily ensue.

Religious causes include those cases where restrictions are placed on
certain members of the body politic because of their religious beliefs
or practices. There may be actual persecution, though this is coming to
be somewhat rare in modern times. The oppression may manifest itself in
various disadvantages, imposed on other interests of life, but which are
primarily due to religious differences. The great historical example of
this class of causes is found in the case of the Jews.

All of these kinds of causes may overlap, and almost always two or more
of them exist in conjunction. Cases where social causes alone account
for a migration are rare. They are frequently, however, a contributory
factor. The economic causes are by far the most important and universal,
though we need frequently to look for other causes back of them.
Political maladjustments often express themselves through economic or
social disabilities, religious differences through economic and social
limitations, etc. In any actual case of migration it is probable that
the motives of migration will be due to a complication of causes. This
fourfold classification, however, is of great aid in isolating and
understanding the underlying forces.

The effects of migratory movements, involving the transference of bodies
of people from one region to another, are far-reaching and extremely
diversified. They concern both the country of origin and the country of
destination. They differ widely in specific cases, so much so that it is
scarcely possible to lay down any general rules or conclusions which
will be of value. They manifest themselves under three main heads, viz.
the density of population, the physical stock, and the customs and
institutions, or mores. The most obvious effect, and the one which is
commonly assumed to follow any migration, is a decrease in the
population of the country of source, and an increase in that of the
country of destination. But even this, as will appear hereafter, is not
by any means the universal rule. There is commonly some effect on the
physical stock of the country receiving the migrants. This effect may
vary between wide extremes. Whether the customs and institutions shall
be also affected depends upon a variety of circumstances which are
likely to make each instance distinctive. There is scarcely one of the
vital interests of either country concerned which may not be deeply
affected by an important migratory movement. But the factors concerned
are so complicated, and so subject to individual variation, that
movements which bear a general resemblance may have very diverse
effects, and each case must be studied by itself.

As to the routes or channels of migratory movements, it may be said that
in general they follow the lines of least resistance, as determined by
the combination of all the forces involved. The closer the movement is
to a purely natural one, the more it will follow the natural routes
marked out by the configuration of the earth. River valleys, such as the
Danube in Europe and the Ohio in America, have always been favorite
migratory routes. If mountains have to be traversed, the easiest passes
will be chosen, such as the Cumberland Gap in the United States. In
general, water has been a bond and not a barrier between different
lands, and the earliest routes of distant travel were undoubtedly by
water. Greece became the source of numerous migratory movements partly
because of her extended coast line.[5]

Having thus considered some of the essential features of migration as a
whole, it will be well to distinguish further between the four great
types of migrations to which reference has been made. One of the
earliest, simplest, and most natural of migratory movements is the
invasion. This occurs when a rude people, on a low stage of culture, but
with much native physical virility, leaves its location, and overruns
the territory of a more highly developed state. It is a movement _en
masse_, involving the whole, or a large portion, of the tribe. The tribe
acts as a unit, and the end sought is the benefit of the tribe as a
tribe, not of any individuals. The forces back of it approach the
unconscious and irrational, characteristic of wandering, more closely
than in any other form of migration.

The power of the invasion lies in brute force and numbers. It is a case
of a lower civilization temporarily overcoming a higher one—temporarily,
because the rude virility which enables the invaders to maintain their
own customs for a time succumbs eventually to the enervating influence
of a civilization to which it is not trained. Civilization in the end
proves itself more permanent than barbarism. This result is often
furthered by the fact that the physical stock of the higher race is
improved by the infusion of new blood from the very foreigners who are
attacking it. This effect upon the physical stock may be very profound
and lasting, as an invasion customarily involves large numbers of
people. But while the invaders may succeed in checking the progress of
civilization for a time, they seldom leave any permanent monuments of
themselves, either material or institutional. They are not likely to
affect the language, religion, or social customs of the invaded nation
to an important degree. The mores are more enduring than the racial
stock of the people who possess them.

There have been numerous instances of invasions in the history of
Europe. In fact, the barbarian invasions are perhaps the most important
single factor in the history of that continent during the Dark Ages. An
excellent example is furnished by the Goths, particularly by the eastern
division of that people. The original home of this people was in East
Prussia, near the Baltic and the Vistula, where they were known in Roman
days as traders in amber. There were two principal branches, the western
or Visigoths, and the eastern or Ostrogoths. Their physical and mental
characters were well marked and definite. In physique they were tall,
blond, and athletic, in disposition brave and generous, patient under
hardship, chaste and affectionate in their family relations. As to their
habits of life before their migration, we have no very complete picture.
In general, they seem to have been living on the pastoral-agricultural
stage. They had no cities or villages, but lived in scattered dwellings
upon farms, which they cultivated with the aid of slaves descended from
captives. Much of the land was held in common, and upon it were pastured
the vast herds of cattle which constituted their chief subsistence. The
powers of government were centralized in a king, chosen by popular voice
from certain great families. They had progressed far enough in learning
to have an alphabet, but had not developed any written literature.

It is evident, then, that the Goths were a settled people, and while the
ties which bound them to their home land were not very complex, and they
were undoubtedly used to long warlike expeditions, yet there must have
been some powerful motives to induce them to leave a land where they had
become so well established. As to the exact nature of these motives, and
the causes which lay back of them, there is no accurate record. It is
not probable that they were driven out by the pressure of stronger
neighbors. “Most likely it was simply the natural increase of their
population, aided perhaps by the failure of their harvests or the
outbreak of a pestilence, that made them sensible of the poverty of
their country, and led them to cast longing eyes towards the richer and
more genial lands farther to the south, of which they had heard, and
which some of them may have visited.”[6] This explanation is admittedly
largely based on guess. But it has every element of probability and
marks the movement of the Goths as a perfectly typical example of a
migration due to economic causes, natural overpopulation, augmented by
temporary natural calamity, arousing motives of dissatisfaction through
comparison with other seemingly more desirable regions.

Whatever the causes, the Goths determined to move. Uniting with the
Gepids, Herules, and some other kindred peoples, they formed a great
throng, which moved through what is now western Russia to the shores of
the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Thence they journeyed westward to the
north bank of the Danube. On the way they were joined by other groups of
people, of Slavonic race. Their real history may be said to begin about
245 A.D., when they were living near the mouth of the Danube, under the
rule of the Ostrogoths. For about twenty years they had been the allies
of the Romans, who paid them money to defend their borders from the
attacks of other would-be invaders. The Roman emperor, Philip the Arab,
put an end to this payment, thereby arousing the anger of the
Ostrogoths, who crossed the Danube and plundered the Roman provinces.
This was the beginning of a long series of invasions extending down into
Greece and Asia Minor. Many cities were plundered cruelly and brutally.
Fortunately for civilization, however, the Goths had been converted to
Christianity in the meantime, so that the army which finally entered and
devastated Rome in the year 410 was not the utterly barbarous throng
which had started on the journey from northern Europe. Their leader,
Alaric, was himself a Christian and did what he could to restrain the
natural passions of his followers. Yet in spite of all, the sack of Rome
was a cruel and bloodthirsty affair.

It is characteristic of an invasion that over two centuries were
consumed in the journey from the old home to Rome, so that no single
individual of those who started on the undertaking lived to reach the
final destination. For nearly a century and a half after the fall of
Rome the Ostrogoths lived in or near Italy. Their fortunes in war
fluctuated, and for a time, under Theodoric, they were the masters of
the peninsula. Their kindred, the Visigoths, were in the meantime
settled in Gaul and Spain. Finally, in the year 553, after repeated
reverses, the Ostrogoths retired from Italy to the north, and as a
people disappeared from history, leaving scarcely a trace behind. The
Franks were never driven from Gaul, but eventually lost their native
language and became absorbed in the people whom they had invaded. The
Goths “have bequeathed to the world no treasures of literature, no
masterpieces of art, no splendid buildings. They have left no conscious
impress on the manners or the institutions of any modern European
people.”[7] Even Gothic architecture has no historic connection with the
people whose name it bears.

Other barbarian tribes invaded Europe at about the same time as the
Goths, and during the succeeding centuries. One of the most powerful was
the Huns, a people of rude culture but great virility, belonging
probably to the Mongolic or Tatar stock, who appeared about the fourth
century A.D. They were followed by other races from the same general
region and belonging to the same great stock, the Avars who arrived
about 555, and the Magyars who put in an appearance at the close of the
ninth century. The most recent explanation of the migrations of these
Asiatic tribes is that their habitat suffered a change of climate from
one of those great cycles about which we are beginning to have some
information, which resulted in drying up the region, and furnishing a
much smaller amount of subsistence than the people had been accustomed
to. This is overpopulation, and furnishes another case of that great
economic cause.[8] Another powerful Asiatic invader was Timur or
Tamerlane, who with his Tatar hordes devastated Asia Minor during the
latter part of the fourteenth century.

A conquest is almost the reverse of an invasion. In this case the people
of higher culture take the aggressive. It is an overflow of
civilization, of manners, of organization, of government,—not to any
great extent, of population. Conquest occurs when a well-developed
state, full of vigor, sends its armies over the territory of less
advanced peoples, imposing its political system upon them, and laying
them under tribute, but not slaying the people or destroying their
wealth any more than is necessary to secure subjection. It is an
enterprise of the state, seeking its own glory and aggrandizement. The
movement of population to the conquered territory may be insignificant,
and in this, conquest differs from all the other forms of migratory
movements. Consequently the effects on the racial stock of the conquered
people may be very slight, and in most cases are. The effect on the
mores, on the other hand, including the language, may be profound and
lasting. Conquest differs from the other forms of migration also in the
fact that the motives belong more nearly to the positive, or attractive,
group than in any of the others. It is energy, ambition, etc., which
lead to conquest rather than fear, cowardice, etc. Many of the
individuals who change their residence under conquest are state
officials, sent out in the pursuit of their duties to the sovereign, not
because of any particular choice of their own.

It scarcely need be said that the great historical example of conquest
is Rome. Her policy was to extend her dominion by making outlying tribes
realize that it was to their advantage to acknowledge her sway and pay
tribute. So long as they did this quietly and regularly, little else was
required of them. As far as possible, the native governmental
organization was continued, and simply grafted on to the great Roman
stock, the native officials being made subordinates in the Roman
organization. Roman traders came and went, carrying culture and
civilization with them, and exerting a powerful influence on the mores
of the provinces, but the permanent movement of people from the central
state was comparatively slight. Alexander the Great was a spreader of
conquest, though his early death destroyed whatever possibility there
may have been of his establishing a permanent empire. The career of the
British government in India has many of the characteristics of conquest.
Native rajahs are, to a great extent, utilized as officials of the
British government, and there is no large migration of people from
England to India, save those connected in some way with the government
service, or persons engaged in commercial pursuits, who maintain their
permanent home in England. But the influence on the mores of the native
inhabitants is great.

The third form of migratory movement, which has a particularly close
connection with immigration, is colonization. This occurs when a
well-established, progressive, and physically vigorous state sends out
bodies of citizens, officially as a rule, to settle in certain specified
localities. The regions chosen are newly discovered or thinly settled
countries, where the native inhabitants are so few, or are on such an
inferior stage of culture that they offer but slight resistance to the
entrance of the colonists. For while the two previous forms of migration
have been warlike, colonization is essentially a peaceful movement. The
rivalry for certain favored localities may involve the colonizing power
in war with other civilized nations who desire the same thing, but as
far as the seizure of the colony itself is concerned, it requires slight
military exertion. Colonization, like conquest, is a state enterprise,
conducted for the benefit of the state, but differs from it in that its
motive is rather the commercial advancement of the state than its
military or political aggrandizement. Colonization has often been
resorted to, also, when a state has believed itself to be overpopulated,
and has aimed directly at improving the condition of its citizens, both
those who go and those who are left,—something that is scarcely dreamed
of under conquest. Several classifications of colonies have been made.
The most satisfactory is that adopted by Professor A. G. Keller, which
makes a twofold division into farm and plantation colonies.[9] These
differ from each other so much in their essential characteristics that
it will be well to examine them separately, before making any further
generalizations regarding colonies as a whole.

This classification is based on the typical form of the industrial
organization in the colony. As colonies are always new and undeveloped
regions, the fundamental industry is always of an extractive nature,
almost universally agriculture in some form, though it may be mining or
fishing. Practically all important colonies in the history of the
movement, however, have been agricultural, so that the above division
serves every purpose. In the first place, it must be noted that
practically all colonizing nations have been situated in the north
temperate zone, and primarily in Europe. Outside of this continent,
Phœnicia and China are the sole important representatives. These, with
Greece and Rome, made up the colonizing powers of the ancient world. As
far as modern colonizing nations are concerned, the question is limited
to the countries of Europe.

A farm colony springs up in a region similar to that held by the
colonizing state, that is to say, in the temperate zone. Colonies of
this class have appeared both north and south of the equator. The
requirements are that the conditions of soil and climate be such as to
make the products of the colony similar to those of the home state, and
to render acclimatization either unnecessary or very easy.

Under these conditions, a large movement of population takes place from
the home state to the colony, and it is a movement of families. Men find
it possible to take their wives and children with them, and a normal
population is established in the new land. Agriculture may be taken up
according to the methods with which the colonists are familiar in the
old country. As land is abundant and cheap, each man will prefer, and
will find it possible, to take up a piece of land of his own, and to
cultivate it independently, rather than to hire out his services to any
other cultivator. Consequently, hired agricultural labor is almost
impossible to secure, and each man is compelled to rely on the labor of
himself and his family to cultivate his land. As a result, the typical
agricultural unit becomes the small holding, occupied and tilled by a
single family. The system is further established by the fact that the
products of such a region are well adapted to this form of culture. This
is the typical “farm” organization which gives its name to this class of
colony.

Plantation colonies, on the other hand, arise in regions different in
climate from the home state, that is, in tropical or subtropical
regions. Here conditions of soil and climate are such that the natural
products are of a kind which cannot be raised under home conditions, and
hence are luxuries rather than staples. Acclimatization is practically
impossible for men, and almost wholly so for women, so that normal
family life is precluded for the colonist. Furthermore, as it is
impossible for natives of the temperate zone to engage in agricultural
labor in the tropics, for physiological reasons, all work of that kind
must be performed by the natives, or by other similar races imported for
the purpose. As a rule, the natives do not wish to work, and wages are
no sufficient inducement. Hence they must be made to work, and slavery,
either openly or in one of its disguised forms, appears. Since a very
small number of Europeans will suffice to direct the activities of a
large number of natives, the movement of population from the home state
is small, and we find agriculture in the tropics developing along the
line of a large unit, producing a single commodity, and operated by
compulsory labor, under conditions of waste and exploitation. This is
the typical “plantation.”

Thus we see that the social and industrial conditions are diametrically
opposed in the two forms of colony. In the farm colony we have a
vigorous population, similar in stock to that of the home state, each
family tilling its own piece of land, and largely self-supporting. Under
such conditions large families are an economic advantage, and population
grows rapidly. In the plantation colony the colonists are few and mostly
males, who superintend the cultivation of large estates, with the
purpose of making as much money as possible and getting back to the home
land at the earliest possible moment. As far as the population of the
colony is affected, it is mainly by the growth of a body of half-breeds,
who are always a troublesome class. Morals are low, and life unhealthy
and artificial. In the political interests of the colonies similar
distinctions exist. Life in a farm colony tends to develop enterprise,
independence, and political and social equality. A feeling of patriotism
toward the colony, as distinguished from the home state, inevitably
develops. The manifest destiny of the farm colony is to become an
independent state, either with a wholly separate government, or with
only the most tenuous ties binding it to the home authority. In the
plantation colony life develops along an aristocratic groove, with
well-defined social and political classes. There is no love on the part
of the colonist for the colony as such, and no body of local feeling
grows up among the colonists. This development is furthered by the
customary action of the central government, which regards the farm
colony as of little importance because of the similarity between its
products and her own, but devotes an enormous attention to the
plantation colony because of the apparent importance of its unique
products. Hence the farm colony is left free to develop along natural
lines, while the plantation colony is subjected to all sorts of
artificial restrictions and limitations which hamper its growth. As a
result of all these factors, the plantation colony seldom achieves its
independence, but remains subject to the home state indefinitely.
Examples of farm colonies are the Thirteen Colonies, Canada, New
Zealand, etc.; of plantation colonies, Java, Jamaica, Brazil under the
Portuguese, etc. As will be seen, the farm colony has a peculiarly
intimate relation with immigration movements.

This preliminary survey of the earlier forms of migration prepares the
way for a clear understanding of the characteristic features of the
fourth form. This is immigration, which in many respects differs from
any other population movement. These distinctions merit emphasis.

In the first place, both of the two states concerned in an immigration
movement are well established, and on approximately the same stage of
civilization. Immigration can take place only over what Professor Sumner
calls a single culture-area. Secondly, immigration is a distinctly
individual undertaking. States may direct, control, regulate, or
encourage immigration, but the motives which lead men into this form of
movement are strictly individual ones, and the causes which arouse these
motives are conditions which react upon the individual alone. The end
sought is neither the advantage of the country of origin, nor of the
country of destination, but the improvement of the condition of the
individual.

The two countries concerned in an immigration movement resemble each
other not only in the stage of culture but in climatic conditions and
circumstances of life. There has never been any immigration between the
temperate zones and the tropics, in either direction, nor have the polar
regions ever figured. In fact, practically all immigration, historically
speaking, has been between different countries in the temperate zone.
But while there are these resemblances between the countries concerned,
there must also always be some differences, otherwise there would be no
motive for movement. The first and primary difference between the two
countries is that the one which receives the stream of immigration is
newer, and therefore much less thickly settled, than the other. Other
things being equal, the chances for a comfortable living are greater in
a country where the ratio between men and land is still low. This ratio
between men and land is of extreme importance, and ought never to be
neglected in the discussion of any sociological or economic problem.[10]
It is especially vital as regards migrations, which are so directly
connected with the shifting of populations.

Other differences which may be looked for between the two countries
concerned in an immigration movement are the following: the country of
destination is more democratic than the other, and its people enjoy
greater social and political equality; there is more of individual
freedom of conduct, and fewer traditional or legal restraints; military
burdens are lighter, and there is greater latitude for religious belief
and practice. On the other hand, life in the new country is likely to be
more arduous, industry more insistent, the demands for personal ability
more urgent. These features at once suggest those typical of the farm
colony, and in point of fact we find that practically all countries
which receive large streams of immigrants are developed farm colonies.
These are, at the present time, the United States, Canada, Argentina,
Australia, South Africa, and to a certain extent parts of Asiatic
Russia.

The requirements, then, for an immigration movement are the following:
two well-developed countries, one old and densely populated, the other
new and thinly settled, the two on friendly, or at least peaceable,
terms with each other. For immigration, even more than colonization, is
a phenomenon of peace. On the part of the people who are to take part in
the movement a high degree of civilization is demanded. They must be
trained to act on individual initiative, and must have sufficient
personal enterprise to undertake a weighty venture without an official
or state backing. They must have sufficient intelligence to know about
the objective point, and sufficient accumulated capital to enable them
to get there. There must be adequate, easy, and inexpensive means of
transportation between the two countries, in order to enable any large
number of people to make the journey. The immigrant is not in any sense
an adventurer or explorer. On the part of the nations concerned there
must be a willingness to allow individuals to come and go at their own
pleasure, without any extreme restrictions or regulations. There must be
nothing of the old idea of the feudal bond between the person and the
land.

From the above it appears that immigration must be distinctly a modern
movement. Scarcely one of the foregoing requirements—not to speak of the
conjunction of all of them—is more than three or four centuries old.
Consequently immigration, in the sense in which we have defined it, has
existed only for a comparatively short time, practically since the
Discoveries Period. Moreover, it seems likely to be a purely temporary
phenomenon. With the disappearance of the conditions which differentiate
the countries which are now receiving immigrants from the older European
countries, it seems probable that immigration will cease, for as far as
the human eye can see, there will be no new lands to be opened up for
the purpose.

In addition to these four chief forms of migration, there are certain
other less important forms of which mention should be made to avoid any
confusion. First among these stands what may be called forced migration.
This occurs when bodies of people, for any reason, without any choice of
their own, are compelled to leave a certain region, and go elsewhere,
either with or without a specific destination. A familiar example is
that presented by the Jews, who were expelled from England in 1290, from
France in 1395, and from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1495. The Moors
were also expelled from Spain in 1609, on penalty of death. Another
familiar example is that of the Huguenots, who were expelled from France
at the end of the seventeenth century. Such movements as these have
usually resulted in a nation’s losing the most valuable elements of its
population. The cause has usually been religious.

A different type of forced migration has been exemplified in the slave
trade. In this case the migrants are compelled by actual force to go
from one region to another specified one. The movement of the Africans
to America is a familiar example. The motive is the economic one of
securing a supply of labor at a minimum expense. Still another type is
furnished by the penal colonies, such as have been established in
Australia and elsewhere. All these forms of forced migration are
evidently different in principle and in most of their characteristics
from the great types of migration which have been mentioned. Their study
is a subject by itself.

Still another form of migration is what is known as the internal or
intra-state migration. This is manifestly going on all the time in every
civilized country. It is only when it involves large masses of people,
moving in certain well-defined directions, with a community of motives
and purposes, that it deserves to be classed with the great population
movements. Then it may become of great interest and significance, as in
the case of the great westward movement of the people of the United
States. It is evidently a wholly different matter from the other forms
which have been emphasized.

There is, of course, also a continual passage of individuals between all
the nations of the earth, in every direction. A permanent change of
residence is frequently involved. These movements, obviously, may not
correspond to any of the principles which have been laid down for any
specific form of migration, and, if they were sufficiently numerous,
would constitute exceptions to all that has been said. In point of fact,
they are isolated, scattered, and occasional. They do not rank in any
sense as movements of peoples, nor do they complicate the discussion of
the great sociological phenomena in which we are interested.




                               CHAPTER II
                   THE UNITED STATES. COLONIAL PERIOD


In taking up the special study of immigration, it is necessary to bear
in mind at the outset that the word is to be used in a limited and
semitechnical sense. It is not always so used in common speech nor even
in scientific writings, and much confusion and inaccuracy not
infrequently result. Let us state once more exactly what is meant by
immigration. Immigration is a movement of people, individually or in
families, acting on their own personal initiative and responsibility,
without official support or compulsion, passing from one well-developed
country (usually old and thickly settled) to another well-developed[11]
country (usually new and sparsely populated) with the intention of
residing there permanently. The same movement may equally well be
referred to as emigration. It is obviously only a question of the point
of view. The two words may be used interchangeably without danger of
confusion, if the point of view is regarded. There is only one movement,
and one set of people, emigrating from one country and immigrating to
another.[12]

As observed in the foregoing chapter, immigration is a movement which
could not have originated before the Discoveries Period, and did not, in
fact, become a matter of much importance until a century or so later.
The countries which are now the objective points of large streams of
immigration are, without exception, countries which have been opened up
since that epoch. An exhaustive study of immigration should take up each
of these countries in turn, and examine conditions in Canada, Argentina,
South Africa, Australasia, and the United States. The plan of the
present volume does not include so exhaustive a treatment; it is
intended primarily for American readers. The specific study of
immigration will be limited to the United States. This is the more
justifiable, inasmuch as the United States is, beyond comparison, the
foremost country in immigration movements, both in point of numbers and
of world interest. All the fundamental principles of immigration are
exemplified here more fully than in any other country. To the citizen of
the United States it is a matter of the greatest importance and
interest, for it has to do with a unique subject—the make-up of the
American people itself.

The history of immigration into the United States may for convenience be
divided into five periods. The first of these includes the time between
the first settlement of the North American colonies and the year 1783.
This date is chosen for the end of this first period because, as
Professor Mayo-Smith has expressed it, “At that time the state was
established, and any further additions to the population had little
influence in changing its form or the language and customs of the
people.”[13] The second period, from 1783 to 1820, marks the beginning
of national life. It was a period of small immigration, and closes with
the year in which federal statistics were first collected in regard to
the stream of immigration. The third period begins in 1820 and ends
roughly about 1860. This period is marked by the beginning and
culmination of the first great rise in the immigration stream, by a
growing opposition to the immigrant, and by state control of the
admission of aliens. The period from 1860 to 1882 begins with the Civil
War agitation, witnesses the disappearance of state control, and closes
with the year in which the first immigration law was passed by the
federal government. The fifth, or modern, period is from 1882 to the
present. Other features which distinguish and separate these periods
will manifest themselves as the periods are examined more closely.

It is customary with some writers, as, for instance, Professor
Mayo-Smith in the reference above quoted, to include all movements of
people into the North American colonies, previous to the Revolution,
under the head of colonization, and to call everything after the
beginning of national life immigration. The second part of this
classification accords with the definitions given above, but the first
part does not. For it will be remembered that colonization refers to
movements of people from a central state to its dependencies, while
immigration is a movement from the territory of one nation to that of
another. The fact that the receiving region is itself a colony does not
alter the case. Hence, in so far as the people who came to the North
American colonies in the early days came from a state to which the
region where they were going was subject, they were true colonists. They
were simply going from one part of a national territory to another. But
all who came from any European state to a dependency of another
state—and there were a goodly number of them—were immigrants. Thus, even
in colonial days, there were both colonization and immigration.

In establishing this distinction it must be noted that while the
colonies were undeveloped as regards their natural resources, they were
highly developed in respect to their stage of civilization and their
advancement in the arts. In this respect they were the peers of the most
cultivated European states of the period. The factors which gave a
primitive aspect to life in the colonies were due to the newness of the
settlement and the sparseness of the population. These were, in turn,
just the factors which made them desirable to immigrants and colonists
alike.

The truth of this position is further established by the fact that this
distinction was clearly recognized by the early settlers themselves. A
very different attitude was manifested in the colonies toward persons
who came from the home state than toward those from any other country.
The former were generally welcomed; the latter were regarded with
suspicion, if not actual hostility. The history of immigration to the
North American continent reaches far back toward the days of the
earliest settlement, and many of the characteristic problems and
arguments connected with the immigration situation were familiar long
before the Revolution. A familiarity with these early aspects of the
question furnishes many enlightening comparisons and parallels, and is
of great value in correctly estimating the modern situation.

The peopling of the North American continent by persons of north
European stock began with the formation by James I of England of two
companies of settlement in the year 1606. These were known as the London
Company and the Plymouth Company. To the former was granted the
territory on the North American coast between 34 and 38 degrees north
latitude, though these boundaries were somewhat extended in 1609. To the
latter was assigned the region from 41 to 45 degrees. This left a
section of unassigned territory between, extending from the Rappahannock
to the Hudson rivers. This was open to settlement by either company,
with the stipulation that neither was to plant a settlement within one
hundred miles of a previous settlement of the other. Neither of these
companies, however, ever made any very extensive achievements in
colonization, and both gave up their charters in the course of a few
years, the London Company in 1624 and the other in 1635.

Before the charters were surrendered, however, settlements had been
started in both territories. In Virginia, the province of the London
Company, the first shipload of adventurers from London arrived in the
year 1607. But twelve years of hard and painful struggle were required
to establish this settlement as a permanent and self-maintaining colony.
It is interesting to note that at this time, and in this place, one of
the greatest of our national racial problems had its commencement,
through the introduction of a number of African slaves from a Dutch
vessel in 1619. The settlers in this region were, in part, adventurers,
younger sons of noble families, and other members of the aristocracy who
found it advisable to leave England, and in part rather unworthy
representatives of the lower classes. A combination of political,
social, and economic causes was responsible for their coming.

The settlers of the northern colony, in the territory of the Plymouth
Company, were of a different class of the population. Their motives for
coming were also different, being primarily of a religious character.
These colonists were separatists from the Church of England, who fled
first to Holland, and from there came to America in 1620, landing in
what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts. In this colony, also, the process
of settlement was slow, and there were very few arrivals for ten years.
In 1630, however, about one thousand colonists, Puritans but not
separatists, came over, and settled in Massachusetts Bay. This was the
real beginning of the history of the Massachusetts colony, which in time
absorbed also the Plymouth colony. Once started, population in this
colony advanced very rapidly, and overflowed into the neighboring
regions, forming the colonies of Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and the
river towns of Connecticut.

In the meantime the Dutch were taking possession of the unassigned
central region. New Netherland was organized under the Dutch West India
Company in 1621, and the city at the mouth of the Hudson was named New
Amsterdam. Sweden, too, was trying to get a foothold in the new country
and sent a party of colonists to Delaware Bay in 1638. This was not
successful, however, and surrendered to the Dutch in 1655, so that
Sweden never achieved prominence as a colonizing power in the New World.
With the growth of the English colonies in the north and south, this
central territory in the hands of a foreign power came to be recognized
as a source of annoyance and danger, and on the occasion of a war with
Holland, England sent over a fleet and took possession of the whole
intervening region, forming the colonies of New York and New Jersey. In
1681 the territory of Pennsylvania was granted for settlement to William
Penn, and thus the whole Atlantic coast from Canada to Florida became a
field of colonization, subject to the English authority.

The study of the formation of the American people as a separate nation
is of peculiar interest, because it has taken place within a recent
historical period, and we can study the original elements from the time
when they first settled in the country. This is not true of any of the
nations of Europe.

The foundation of the new people consisted of colonists from England.
They were the original settlers, and during the entire colonial period
they continued to contribute to the growing population. In addition to
these there was the Dutch element, which became well established when
New York was a Dutch colony. Aside from the colonists, there was a large
and important contribution from other European nations, people from
practically every country on the continent. These were the true
immigrants. The colonies which were most affected by arrivals of this
sort were the central ones, particularly New York and Pennsylvania, and
above all the latter. This was due to their location, the attitude of
their proprietors, and the feeling and conduct of the original settlers.
The attitude of William Penn was decidedly liberal, and Pennsylvania
advanced in population accordingly. Penn advertised his colony widely,
and when he came over in 1682 there were already six thousand Swedish,
Dutch, and English settlers there. Others came rapidly, prominent among
them English Quakers, Scottish and Irish Presbyterians, German
Mennonites, and French Huguenots. These religious designations are
significant of the preponderance of the religious element in the
immigration of the day.

Throughout the colonial period this class of causes was an underlying
factor in most of the important migrations to America, both colonization
and immigration. The Protestant Reformation, and the intellectual and
social movements which went with it, had a profound effect upon the
contentment of large masses of the people of Europe, and made that
continent a very undesirable place of residence for many of them. That
political causes should have been closely combined with the religious
ones was inevitable, on account of the intimate relation between
religion and government, and the practice of using political power to
secure religious ends, and _vice versa_. These two classes of causes
were the prevailing and characteristic ones during this period.

The religious tolerance and freedom which characterized Pennsylvania was
therefore one of the chief factors which drew immigrants of every
nationality to it, and it quickly became the most cosmopolitan of all
the colonies. Penn’s agents were particularly active in Germany, with
the result that in twenty years the Germans numbered nearly one half the
population of the colony.

With the beginning of the eighteenth century two currents of immigration
rapidly outdistanced all others in numbers, importance, and the amount
of attention which they attracted. These were the Palatines and the
Scotch-Irish. Throughout the rest of the colonial period they held the
center of the stage in the immigration situation.

The Palatines were so called because their original home was in what was
known as the Palatinate. This was a section of Germany lying on both
sides of the Rhine from Cologne to Mannheim. It was divided into two
parts, the upper and the lower, from the latter of which most of the
immigration came. The position of this country brought it into close
relations with the spirit of the Reformation, and large bodies of the
population became Protestant, both Reformed and Lutheran. The rulers of
the Palatinate, the Electors Palatine, swung back and forth between
Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Roman Catholicism, and since each successive
ruler wished his subjects to conform to his religious views, the
miserable people suffered accordingly. Both of the two great wars
between 1684 and 1713, the War of the Grand Alliance and the War of the
Spanish Succession, had borne heavily on the Palatinate, which had long
been the object of Louis XIV’s most covetous desire. The second ruthless
devastation which the country experienced during the latter of these
wars reduced the people to the lowest pitch of misery and desperation.
Meanwhile their ruler, John William, was trying to force the whole of
the people back into Catholicism. “To the people already suffering from
the intolerable hardships which the cruelest of wars had thrust upon
them, this persecuting spirit of their prince came as the last impulse
to break off their attachment to the fatherland and send them to make
new homes in distant America.” Thus began the great exodus, from a
combination of political and religious causes, in entire harmony with
the spirit of the age.

The Elector Palatine resisted the emigration, and adopted various
measures to check it, among them an edict threatening death to all who
should attempt to emigrate. As usual, such efforts were powerless to
check a natural movement. The first detachment to leave was apparently a
small band which, after many wanderings, settled in New Jersey in 1707.
In 1708 a small company came to London and asked to be sent to America.
They were sent to New York at public expense, and were furnished with
farm implements; nevertheless, they fell into want and had to be aided
by the colonial council. The next year about thirteen thousand Palatines
arrived in London by way of Rotterdam. They were, for the most part,
absolutely penniless, and in rags. England responded nobly to the burden
thus cast upon her. Queen Anne allowed ninepence per day each for their
subsistence, and they were housed in army tents set up in vacant lots,
and in barns and warehouses. This piece of benevolence is said to have
cost England, in public and private expenditures, the sum of £135,000.
Some of these refugees were sent to Ireland, but large numbers of them
eventually found their way to America. A large shipment arrived in the
Carolinas in 1709.

The largest detachment, however, was a body of three thousand who
arrived in New York, from England, in the early summer of 1710. This is
said to have been the largest body of immigrants to have arrived in this
country at one time during the colonial period. They have been
characterized as perhaps the most miserable and most hopeful set of
people ever set down on our shores. In spite of their poverty, they
manifested a stern and determined spirit in their fight for their faith
and home. To the shame of the New York colonists, it is recorded that
they were welcomed with privation, distress, fraud, and cruel
disappointment. They were cheated and oppressed by the heartless and
rapacious settlers, to whom their helplessness made them easy victims.
It was by such practices as these that New York diverted many streams of
immigration from her territory to that of her neighbors, particularly
Pennsylvania.[14]

The second great stream of immigration during the colonial period was
composed of the Scotch-Irish, who were for a long time called merely
“Irish.” Neither name denominates them accurately, as, in the words of
Professor Commons, they “are very little Scotch and much less
Irish.”[15] They are in fact the most composite of all the people of the
British Isles, being a mixture of the primitive Scot and Pict, the
primitive Briton and Irish, and a larger admixture of Norwegian, Dane,
Saxon, and Angle. They were called Scots because they lived originally
in Scotia, and Irish because they moved to Ireland.

James the First resolved to make Catholic Ireland a Protestant country,
and with this in view dispossessed the native chiefs in Ulster, giving
their lands to Scottish and English lords on condition that they settle
the territory with tenants from Scotland and England. Thus about 1610
many people from Scotia moved to Ulster, and from that time on were
called Irish, though there was only a slight trace of Irish blood in
their veins. It was nearly a century later that conditions arose which
began to predispose them to emigration in large numbers. In 1698, on the
complaint, from English manufacturers, of Irish competition, the Irish
Parliament, a tool of the British crown, passed an act totally
forbidding the exportation of Irish woolens, and another act forbidding
the exportation of Irish wool to any country save England. The linen
industry was also discriminated against. These acts nearly destroyed the
industry of Ulster, and aroused great discontent. Next the people were
compelled to take the communion of the established church in order to
hold office, which practically deprived them of self-government, as they
were unwilling to renounce their native Presbyterianism for political
ends. Soon after, their hundred-year leases began to run out, and when
the land was auctioned off the low-living Irish could offer higher rents
than they, and consequently they lost much of their land. The ensuing
large emigration was thus the result of dissatisfaction due to an
interesting combination of economic, political, and religious causes.

It is said that in 1718 forty-two hundred of the Scotch-Irish left for
America, and that after the famine of 1740 there were twelve thousand
who departed annually. In the half century preceding the American
Revolution, one hundred fifty thousand or more came to America. They
were by far the largest contribution of any foreign race to the people
of America during the eighteenth century, and constituted a strong
element in the army at the time of the Revolution.

At the time of the arrival of the Scotch-Irish in America, the lands
along the Atlantic coast were already well occupied, and they were
compelled to move on into the interior. The traditional religious
exclusiveness of Massachusetts and the well-settled character of the
country prevented them from settling in the eastern portions of that
colony. Consequently they chose as their destination New Hampshire,
Vermont, western Massachusetts, and Maine, and most of all Pennsylvania
and the foothill regions of Virginia and the Carolinas. They were by
nature typical pioneers, and gradually pushed their way into western
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. They were the one race
sufficiently unified, endowed with the spirit of liberty, and scattered
throughout the colonies, to serve as the amalgamating force binding all
the other races into one—the American type.[16]

During the whole of the eighteenth century, up to the time of the
Revolution, representatives of these two races continued to arrive in
increasing numbers. The Palatines, though less numerous than the
Scotch-Irish, seem to have attracted more attention. The general
attitude of the colonists toward these immigrants was one of welcome, or
at the least of toleration. This was natural under the conditions of the
time. It must ever be borne in mind that the distinguishing feature of
the situation in this country during the colonial period was a
superabundance of fertile soil, rich in a variety of natural resources,
and a scarcity of men. That is, the ratio between men and land was low.
Hence there was a great demand for settlers, and newcomers were believed
to be, and were, an asset to the community. A certain degree of rivalry
and jealousy between the colonies, leading them to covet a rapid
increase in population, contributed to this sentiment.

At the same time, there can be no doubt that there was a decided
preference for colonists over immigrants. This was partly due to a
natural race prejudice, but it was augmented by the character of the
immigrants at that time. Considering the nature of the conditions which
led to emigration from both Ireland and Germany, it is not surprising
that a majority of the newcomers were characterized by extreme
destitution. As might also be expected from the frightful shipping
conditions which then existed, many of them arrived in wretched
condition physically. The voyage was long, the ships were small, poorly
ventilated, shockingly overcrowded, and totally unprovided with adequate
provisions for sanitation, cleanliness, and culinary facilities. It
seems to have been the expected thing that a large part of every
shipload of immigrants, particularly of the Palatines, should arrive in
a prostrated condition.

There is a record of one ship which made the voyage in 1731 on which
there was such a scarcity of food provided for the passengers that they
“had to live on rats and mice, which were considered dainties. The price
on board for a rat was eighteen pence, and for a mouse an English
sixpence. The captain was under the impression that the passengers had
considerable money and valuables with them, and, believing that he might
profit by it, he endeavored to reduce them to a state of starvation. He
succeeded too well, for out of the 156 passengers only 48 reached
America.”[17]

These wretched victims were of course thrown upon the mercy of the
citizens of the colony in which they landed; Pennsylvania, and
particularly Philadelphia, were especially subject to visitations of
this kind. The generosity with which these unfortunates were cared for
in this colony is remarkable. Nevertheless, the burden was a heavy one,
and the opposition which arose to the free admission of this class of
persons is not to be wondered at. A new country, struggling to subdue
the wilderness and to establish economic independence, welcomes hardy
and industrious laborers, even though they bring little capital with
them. If the poverty of the immigrant is due to no fault of his own, and
is offset by a sound body and a determined spirit of industry, there is
every hope that the influence of the new environment may set him
permanently on his feet. But an influx of people so deficient in moral
or physical stamina as to promise nothing, save an additional burden on
the already strained resources of the community, is naturally and justly
viewed with alarm. Very many of the immigrants of this period belonged
to this type.

As suggested above, the low physical and economic state of many of the
immigrants was due to the conditions and experiences attending the
passage from the old country to the new. Many an immigrant who was hale
and able-bodied when he started on the voyage was a physical wreck when
he landed. Many others who were relatively well off economically on
leaving home arrived penniless. It was the practice of the “importers”
to compel passengers who had means to settle the accounts of those who
had not, and thus, it is stated, many who had been well-to-do were
reduced to house-to-house beggary.[18] But many other of the immigrants
were hopelessly destitute when they started. Still others were
criminals. It was the practice of European nations at this time to empty
not only their almshouses, but their jails, into their own colonies, or
those of other nations. Thus many of the colonists, as well as of the
immigrants, belonged to the pauper and criminal classes.[19]

This action of European states was naturally bitterly complained of by
the colonies. But as long as they were colonies, and had no independent
standing, it could be little more than a complaint.[20] After the War of
the Revolution it became a matter of international relations, and, as
will appear later, attracted no little attention.

Pennsylvania, being the destination of the largest number of immigrants,
suffered most from troubles of this sort. Consequently, in this colony
we find the most powerful body of opinion contrary to the free admission
of aliens, and the most frequent and stringent measures to control it.
Many of the stock arguments against immigration on the grounds of
pauperism, criminality, and inability for self-support developed during
this period.

One of the earliest Pennsylvania statutes covering this ground was an
act passed in 1722, imposing a tax on every criminal landed, and making
the shipowner responsible for the good conduct of his passengers.[21]
This was followed by numerous other laws designed to help control the
immigration situation. One of the most important of these was the act of
September 21, 1727, which was passed at the suggestion of the colonial
governor, who feared that the peace and security of the province was
endangered by so many foreigners coming in, ignorant of the language,
settling together and making, as it were, a separate people. This is one
of the earliest instances of the use of the nonassimilation argument in
connection with immigration legislation. The act in question provided
that shipmasters bringing immigrants must declare whether they had
permission from the court of Great Britain to do so, and must give lists
of all passengers and their intentions in coming. The immigrants must
take the oath of allegiance to the king, and of fidelity to the
Proprietary of the Province. On the day the act was passed, an agreement
was signed by 109 persons, representing about four hundred immigrants,
who had arrived at the port and were waiting to be landed. A pathetic
touch is given to the incident by the naïve statement, “Sundry of these
forreigners lying sick on board, never came to be qualified.”

This act remained in force for some time, but appears to have been more
or less of a dead letter, for the shipmasters never seem to have had any
license to bring immigrants, and yet the latter were always
admitted.[22] This law was slightly modified in 1729, and a tax of forty
shillings was laid on each immigrant. This is an early instance of the
use of a head tax as a restrictive measure, for among the reasons
assigned for its passage we find mention of the necessity “to discourage
the great importation and coming in of foreigners and of lewd, idle, and
ill-affected persons into this province, as well from parts beyond the
seas as from the neighboring colonies,” whereby the safety and quiet of
the province are endangered, many of them becoming a great burden upon
the community. It was asserted that shipmasters resorted to deceitful
methods in the furtherance of the practice of bringing in convicts.[23]
This accusation was substantiated by an event which occurred a short
time previously, when “a vessel arrived at Annapolis with 66 indentures,
signed by the Mayor of Dublin, and 22 wigs to disguise the convicts when
they landed.”[24] The provision imposing a head tax of forty shillings
was repealed within a very few months.[25]

Through the discussions of this matter can be traced a frequent conflict
of opinion between the colonial governor and the assembly. The former,
representing the interests of the Proprietary, was inclined to welcome
anything which tended to increase the population of the colony at
whatever cost. The latter, representing the people, is concerned for the
character of the settlers and the financial welfare of the colony.[26]
This is well illustrated by the progress of the effort to secure an
immigrant hospital in Philadelphia. The erection of such a building had
been recommended to the assembly by Governor George Thomas as early as
1740, in the interests of humanity. But the house demurred on the ground
of expense, and several years of haggling passed before a pest-house was
finally erected. In the meantime much difficulty was experienced with
“sickly vessels,” and a law was passed requiring all ships to anchor a
mile from the city, until inspected by the port physician. If sick
passengers were found on board, the shipmaster was required to land them
at a suitable distance from the city and convey them at his own expense
to houses in the country prepared for them.[27]

The house, on its part, made vain attempts for a period of fifteen years
or more to get a bill passed which should check the overcrowding of
immigrants in ships. The ostensible reasons urged were mainly those of
humanity, and they rested on an ample basis. The degree of overcrowding
was frightful. It was stated that in many cases the chests of apparel
belonging to immigrants were shipped in other vessels to make more room
for passengers, so that the immigrants had no chance even to change
their clothes during the long voyage of sometimes sixty days.[28] But
underlying this there was undoubtedly the desire to reduce the number of
immigrants. It was represented that whereas the German importations were
at first of good class, people of substance, now they were the refuse of
the country, and that “the very goals [sic] have contributed to the
Supplies we are burdened with.”

In the southern colonies we find much the same attitude of welcome to
respectable settlers, and fear of criminals and paupers, with this
difference, that as immigration was slower into these colonies, more
active measures were occasionally taken by the colonies themselves to
encourage it. Thus in 1669 North Carolina passed a law exempting new
settlers from levies for one year, and from action for debt for five
years. But they were debarred from holding office for three years.[29]

Maryland early experienced difficulties with imported criminals. On
account of the practice, which appears to have been common, of importing
notorious criminals, the general assembly of this province in 1676
passed an act requiring all shipmasters to declare whether they had any
convicts on board. If so, they were not to be allowed to land in the
province. Any person presuming to import such convicts must pay a fine
of 2000 pounds of tobacco, half to go to the Proprietary and half to the
informer.[30] On December 9 of the same year the lieutenant governor
issued a proclamation requiring all shipmasters who had landed convicts
previous to this act going into effect to deposit a bond of £50 for
their good behavior. Any landed without this bond were to be put in
prison until the bond was paid.[31] This is one of the earliest
instances of bonding shippers for the good conduct of their passengers.

On the other hand, settlers of good character were regarded as very
valuable acquisitions, and measures were adopted from time to time to
encourage their immigration.[32]

In New England the immigration question was less pressing than in either
the central or southern colonies. There was less need of passing direct
restrictive measures,[33] because the religious exclusiveness of this
section kept away many who might otherwise have come. And there was
little necessity of encouraging immigration, as the natural increase of
the population was sufficient to maintain an adequate number of
inhabitants. In fact, the influx of population from Europe to New
England was practically over by the middle of the seventeenth century.
It is stated that from 1628 to 1641 about twenty thousand English came
as permanent colonists to New England, and for the next century and a
half more went from there to England than came from England there.[34]
As a result of these conditions, the population of this region was much
less mixed than in the other colonies. Nevertheless, it was a prolific
and growing population, and “overflowed into the other colonies, without
receiving corresponding additions from them.”[35]

In spite of this fact, however, a certain jealousy was felt toward
Pennsylvania, on account of the large number of foreigners who sought
her shores. This feeling was expressed by Dr. Jonathan Mayhew in his
election sermon before the governor and legislature of Massachusetts in
1754. While he surmised that Pennsylvania might in time experience some
inconvenience from too large numbers of unassimilated Germans, yet he
attributed much of her growth and prosperity to their presence. He was
assured that the English element in Massachusetts was already too well
established for there to be any fear of too great an admixture of alien
elements, and expressed the opinion that all measures to encourage the
immigration of foreign Protestants were to be favored.[36]

New York frankly shared this jealousy of Pennsylvania, and, when it was
too late, made efforts to attract immigrants to her territory. Thus in
1736 Governor Clarke caused to be widely circulated in Germany an
advertisement in which he proposed to give 500 acres of land to each of
the first two hundred families who should come to New York from Europe.
The measure met with no great success.[37] Possibly the treatment
accorded to the would-be settlers of a generation earlier still lingered
in the memory of their fellow-countrymen.

In addition to the legislation against paupers and criminals, most of
the colonies had laws designed to prevent the entrance of religious
sects who were not regarded with favor. The class most discriminated
against was the Roman Catholics, and the eighteenth century found harsh
statutes against them in the legislation of most of the colonies.[38]
Virginia, and all the New England colonies except Rhode Island, had laws
designed to prevent the coming in of Quakers.[39] Rhode Island resembled
Pennsylvania in the religious tolerance which prevailed there.[40]
Maryland started on the basis of religious toleration, but did not
maintain this position.[41] A prejudice against Roman Catholics soon
manifested itself, and occasionally found expression in legislation.
Thus in the Maryland statutes for 1699 there is an act entitled, “An act
for Raising a Supply towards the defraying of the Publick Charge of this
Province and to prevent too great a number of Irish Papists being
imported into this Province.” The provisions of the act required
shipmasters to pay twenty shillings per poll for all Irish servants
imported, as well as for negroes.[42] None of these acts, of course, was
absolutely prohibitive.

Among the settlers of this period there was one peculiar class which
requires special mention. They were, for the most part, colonists rather
than immigrants, though some of them came from foreign countries. These
were the indented (or indentured) servants, or redemptioners.[43] There
were two main classes of them—those who were brought under compulsion,
and those who came voluntarily. Of the first class, many were convicted
criminals, who were sent over in great numbers from the mother country,
and on arrival were indented as servants for a term of years. Under the
barbarous legal system of the day many persons were sentenced to death
for insignificant crimes, such as stealing a joint of meat worth over a
shilling, or counterfeiting a lottery ticket. Many humane judges
welcomed exile as an alternative to the death penalty. It is estimated
that possibly as many as fifty thousand criminals were sent to America
from the British Isles, from the year 1717 until the practice was ended
by the War of Independence. Besides the criminals, in this class of
indented servants were many who were kidnaped and sent over to America.
Press gangs were busy in London, Bristol, and other English seaports,
seizing boys and girls, usually, but not always, from the lowest classes
of society, and sending them over to labor as indented servants in the
colonies.

Those who came voluntarily were respectable but destitute persons who,
despairing of success or progress in the old country, sold themselves
into temporary slavery to pay their passage over. Many of these came
from very good classes of society. The southern colonies received a much
larger number of indented servants of all classes than the northern
colonies, as the semiplantation character of the former made a much
larger demand for servile labor than in the farm colonies of the
north.[44]

Shipmasters made an enormous profit from this traffic, adding as much as
100 per cent of the actual cost of transportation to cover risks. Adults
were bound out for a term of three to six years, children from ten to
fifteen years, and smaller children were, without charge, surrendered to
masters who had to rear and board them.[45] As a rule the indented
servants, on the arrival of a ship at an American port, were auctioned
off to the highest bidder at a public auction very like a slave market.
The last sales of this kind reported took place in Philadelphia in 1818
and 1819. These were mostly Germans. Many of the indented servants
became eminent and respected citizens of the colonies, while others
degenerated and became the progenitors of the “poor white trash” of the
south.

As a result of this study of the colonial period the fact stands out
prominently that during these years both colonization and immigration
entered into the peopling of the Thirteen Colonies. The distinction
between the two was clearly recognized by the colonists themselves, and
immigrants were accorded different treatment from colonists. In the
handling of the situation many of the stock arguments against
unrestricted immigration were developed, and some of the important
legislative expedients, such as the head tax, the bonding of shippers,
the exclusion of paupers and criminals, etc., which have had a wide use
in later years, were put into practice. It is very noteworthy, however,
that in all the discussions of this question during this period one
searches in vain for any trace of opposition to immigration on the
grounds of the economic competition of the newcomer with the older
residents. In the unsettled state of the country at this time, such a
thing could hardly be thought of. The idea of any crowding of the
industrial field, or any lack of economic opportunity for an unlimited
number, was almost inconceivable. It is this, more than any other one
thing, which differentiates the immigration situation during the
colonial period from that at the present time.

Two other fundamental facts in reference to the formation of the new
American people should also be noted in this connection. The first is
that the actual transference of people from Europe to America during the
entire colonial period was relatively slight. Benjamin Franklin stated
that in 1741 a population of about one million had been produced from an
immigration (used in the broad sense) of less than 80,000.[46] As an
indication of how much less important this “immigration” was than the
recent immigration into the United States has been, it may be noted that
the ratio between immigrants and total population, at the period that
Franklin mentioned, was one to twelve for a period of 120 years or more,
while the ratio between immigrants since 1820 and population in 1900—a
period of only eighty years—was one to four. “After the first outflow
from Old to New England, in 1630–31, emigration was checked, at first by
the changing circumstances of the struggle between the people and the
king, and, when the struggle was over, by the better-known difficulties
of life in the colonies.”[47]

The second of these facts is that such additions to population as there
were, while containing a number of diverse elements, were predominantly
English, and that those who were not English were almost wholly from
races closely allied to the English. These were principally the Dutch,
Swedes, Germans, and Scotch-Irish, which with the English, as Professor
Commons has pointed out, were, less than two thousand years ago, all one
Germanic race in the forests surrounding the North Sea. “It is the
distinctive fact regarding colonial migration that it was Teutonic in
blood and Protestant in religion.”[48] This Protestantism was important,
not so much because of the superiority of one form of religion over
another, as because of the type of mind and character which
Protestantism at that day represented. It stood for independence of
thought, moral conviction, courage, and hardihood.

The English element, then, was sufficiently preëminent quickly to reduce
all other elements to its type. As a result of the character of the
migration assimilation was easy, quick, and complete. While it was said
that every language of Europe could be found in Pennsylvania, this
diversity was short-lived. “No matter how diverse the small immigration
might have been on its arrival, there was a steady pressure on its
descendants to turn them into Englishmen; and it was very successful....
The whole coast, from Nova Scotia to the Spanish possessions in Florida,
was one in all essential circumstances.”[49]

Such, then, was the American people at the time of the Revolution—a
physically homogeneous race, composed almost wholly of native-born
descendants of native-born ancestors, of a decidedly English type, but
with a distinct character of its own. This was the great stock from
which the people of the United States grew, and upon which all
subsequent additions must be regarded as extraneous grafts.




                              CHAPTER III
                              1783 TO 1820


With the beginning of the life of the United States as a separate
nation, all strangers arriving at her shores, whencesoever they came,
are to be classed as immigrants. From this time on colonization may be
dropped out of the reckoning, and all increments of population from
foreign sources be considered under the head of immigration.

The first forty-odd years of our national life are included in the
second of the five periods which have been distinguished. During this
period no accurate statistics were kept of the arrival of immigrants.
The federal government took no control of the matter whatever, and the
records of the states, taken mainly at the customhouses, were
fragmentary and unreliable. Consequently there is no certainty as to the
number or source of the arrivals during these years, and we are forced
to rely on estimates. The best known are those of Seybert and Blodgett,
which are generally taken as the basis of other estimates. The Bureau of
Statistics in its pamphlet on “Immigration into the United States”
(1903) says, “The best estimates of the total immigration into the
United States prior to the official count puts [sic] the total number of
arrivals at not to exceed 250,000 in the entire period between 1776 and
1820” (p. 4336). In an unpublished study of this question Mr. J. L.
Leonard of Yale University finds this estimate probably too small, and
thinks that the figure 345,000 would come nearer to representing the
total number of immigrants from 1784 to 1810.

One thing is certain, however, that immigration during this period was
far from being a burning issue, or from attracting any great amount of
attention. An average of ten thousand arrivals a year was not a matter
of great importance, and the young nation had enough more weighty
matters to engage her attention to prevent her devoting much thought to
immigration. It is true that the need of an increasing population was
still felt, as it had been during colonial days, but the native
population was multiplying at an extraordinary rate (doubling about
every twenty-two years) and seemed thoroughly capable of supplying the
entire need.

Yet we find occasional references to the matter in the contemporary
literature, and the subject was evidently one which frequently came up
for discussion. In general, foreigners were not regarded as such
desirable citizens as natives, and it was considered unwise to give
newcomers too much power or responsibility in the government.[50]
Benjamin Franklin, writing in the _American Museum_ for the year 1787,
stated that the only encouragements which this government holds out to
strangers are such as are derived from good laws and liberty. “Strangers
are welcome, because there is room enough for them all, and therefore
the old inhabitants are not jealous of them.... One or two years’
residence give him [the immigrant] all the rights of a citizen; but the
government does not at present, whatever it may have done in former
times, hire people to become settlers, by paying their passage, giving
land, negroes, utensils, stock, or any other kind of emolument
whatsoever.”[51]

A citizen of Pennsylvania, writing to a friend in Great Britain,
enumerated the classes which could profitably come to America as
follows: farmers, mechanics and manufacturers, laborers, indented
servants, followers of the learned professions, and schoolmasters. “The
encouragement held out to European immigrants is not the same in all the
states. New England, New York, and New Jersey, being nearly filled with
cultivators of the earth, afford encouragement chiefly to mechanics and
laborers.” Manufacture is said to be flourishing in these sections.
“European artists, therefore, cannot fail of meeting with encouragement
in each of the above states.” Pennsylvania is said to welcome all people
belonging to the classes mentioned above as needed, and the writer
expresses his belief that the progress of art and science has been
greatly favored by the extreme heterogeneity of population in that
state, where, “we possess the virtues and weaknesses of most of the
sects and nations of Europe.”[52]

On April 20, 1787, a paper was read before the society for political
inquiries at the house of Dr. Franklin. The subject was “An enquiry into
the best means of encouraging emigration from abroad, consistently with
the happiness and safety of the original citizens.” The author admits at
the outset that it is a question how much encouragement ought to be
given to immigration. There seems to be a need for an increase of
population. On the other hand, we have a right to restrict immigration
whenever it appears likely to prove hurtful. Some prudent men have a
well-grounded fear of the harm which may result from admitting
foreigners too freely into participation in the rights of citizenship.
Foreign powers might take advantage of such concessions to accomplish
injury to the nation. The author doubts the validity of these fears,
especially when it is considered that the usual motive for emigration is
dissatisfaction with the old country.

The author reverts to the old question of imported criminals, remarking,
“With a most preposterous policy, the former masters of this country
were accustomed to discharge their jails of the violent part of their
subjects, and to transmit shiploads of wretches, too worthless for the
old world, to taint and corrupt the infancy of the new.” With a somewhat
unwarranted optimism he adds, “It is not now likely that these states
will be insulted with transportations of this sort, directly ordered
from any other sovereign power.” Pennsylvania seems to be the only state
which appears sensible of the danger from the poor quality of citizens.
Referring to acts which have already been noted, the author says that
Pennsylvania requires her naturalized citizens to be of good character,
as far as this can be determined, and also remarks, “Pennsylvania,
swelling hourly with arrivals of honest, industrious Germans and others,
wisely discouraged by a duty, what she dared not openly prohibit.”

The conclusion of the whole matter is that “the best means of
encouraging emigration may therefore be truly said to be the cultivation
of industry and virtue among ourselves, and the establishment of
wholesome laws upon permanent foundations, which may render the comforts
we enjoy objects of desire and pursuit to others.”[53]

The foregoing quotations may be taken as representative of the
prevailing attitude toward immigration among the body of the American
people. It is noteworthy that there is still no fear of the economic
competition of the immigrants, though there is a faint foreshadowing of
such a condition in the preference expressed for “artists” as against
agriculturists, of which there already seemed to be enough in some
states. On the whole, however, immigrants were regarded as assets, and
there existed a vigorous sentiment in favor of encouraging them to come.

This sentiment occasionally found more active expression than that
recommended in the passage quoted. North Carolina, for instance, by an
act of the general assembly, passed in 1790, granted to Henry Emmanuel
Lutterloh the right to raise $6000 per year for five years by lottery,
for the purpose of introducing foreign artisans.[54] _Niles’ Register_
for November 9, 1816, states that “Col. Nicholas Gray, after having
consulted with the governor of the Mississippi territory, is authorized
to invite any number of industrious emigrants into that country, where
they will be provided with lands, _rent free_ for three years, and with
cattle and corn at the usual rates.”

The fear of foreign influence on our politics, to which reference has
been made above, grew stronger during the next decade, and finally led
to the passage of the Alien Bill in 1798, by which the president was
empowered to deport all aliens whom he regarded as dangerous to the
country. This act was a result of transitory unsettled conditions,
particularly the expectation of a war with France, and contained a
proviso that it should expire two years after passage. But it contains
an important permanent principle—that of the right of deportation—which
has been made much of in recent years.

The discussion of the question of naturalization brought out some
decided opinions on both sides of the immigration problem.[55] The
period of residence required for naturalization was set at two years by
the act of 1790, but this was raised to five years in 1795. The war
excitement which marked the closing years of the century led to the
passage of an act in 1798 requiring a residence of fourteen years for
naturalization. This was repealed after four years, and the provisions
of the act of 1795 were again put in force. They have remained unchanged
in their essentials ever since. In addition to the period of residence
required, there was much discussion as to the charge to be made for
naturalization. It was proposed by some to set this at $20, but this was
regarded by others as too high, and the amount was finally fixed at
$5.[56]

There was little change in the attitude toward immigration during the
following years up to 1820. The number of arrivals remained relatively
small. The immigrants, being mainly from Germany and the United Kingdom,
were readily assimilated. In 1809 a French immigrant wrote a letter from
Boston in which he said, “There is in general no enmity to strangers as
such, but the most open, unguarded hospitality.”[57]

Shipping conditions were still very bad. We are told that in 1818 one
ship from Amsterdam embarked about eleven hundred persons for America.
Out of these, about five hundred died, some of them before leaving the
shores of Europe.[58] Some ships seem to have followed the practice of
sailing from Europe with a cargo of passengers, ostensibly for America,
but instead of following this course, stopping at some near-by island,
compelling their passengers to disembark, and then going back to the
mainland for a fresh load. It follows, of course, that a large part of
the immigrants who finally reached America arrived in a most deplorable
condition.

During this period there occurred some important events which had the
effect temporarily of interfering with the stream of immigration, but in
their after results were largely responsible for conditions which gave
to immigration an impetus such as it had never had before. Foremost
among these were the Orders in Council, the Embargo, and the War of
1812. These great events resulted in powerfully stimulating the
manufacturing industries of the United States. Up to this time, shipping
and commerce had been among the most important, if not actually the
leading, forms of enterprise for the citizens of the new nation, aside
from agriculture. The Embargo, with the other restrictive conditions,
struck a severe blow at this branch of industry, and forced great
numbers of Americans to devote their energies to other forms of
enterprise, notably manufacturing.

At the same time the need for such native manufactures was vastly
augmented by the discontinuance of the supplies from England. This
forced the youthful nation to be more self-sufficient and independent
than she had ever been before. At the close of the period of interrupted
communication, England tried to dump the goods which had accumulated in
her warehouses for a number of years upon the American market at cut
prices. At this the Americans rebelled. They had had a taste of
independence and liked it, and in the protection of their infant
industries they inaugurated that long series of protective tariff
measures which have continued to the present day. And whatever may be
said of the utility of these measures at the present time, there can be
no doubt that in the beginning they helped to establish the manufactures
of this country upon a firm basis.

With the growth of manufactures, there arose a great demand for
laborers, particularly skilled laborers, who knew the technique of
industry. There was also a great need for common laborers who would be
willing to go into factories and do the routine work. This supply was
not forthcoming from the native population, who were, by instinct and
training, independent workers, particularly agriculturists. It was
extremely difficult to persuade any great number of them to forego the
possibility of becoming independent landowners and cultivators, in order
to become hired workers in somebody else’s factory. The close of the
second historical period, accordingly, is marked by a keen demand for
foreign artisans, and the beginning of a general demand for immigrant
labor, to which Europe was commencing to respond.




                               CHAPTER IV
                              1820 TO 1860


The first act passed by the federal government of the United States
which can in any way be called an immigration law was primarily
designed, not to restrict or control the admission of immigrants into
this country, but to make some provision for their comfort and safety
while on the voyage—matters which had been shockingly neglected in the
past, with the result of untold sufferings and horrors. These evils were
largely due to the intolerable overcrowding on shipboard which was
habitual. The act in question aimed to correct these evils by limiting
the number of passengers which might be carried on any ship to two to
every five tons of the ship’s weight. It furthermore provided that each
ship or vessel leaving an American port was to have on board for each
passenger carried sixty gallons of water, one gallon of vinegar, one
hundred pounds of salted provisions, and one hundred pounds of wholesome
ship bread. It is very doubtful how much good either of these provisions
ever did to the immigrants. The clause in regard to overcrowding, based
as it was merely on the ship’s total weight, was wholly inadequate to
prevent extreme overcrowding in such parts of the vessel as might be
assigned to passengers. And as far as the provision regarding supplies
is concerned, it could have been of no help to the immigrants, as it
applied only to ships leaving an American port. There was one provision
of the law, however, which has been of permanent benefit. This was the
stipulation that at the port of landing a full and complete report or
manifest was to be made by the ship’s officer to the customs
authorities, which was to state the number of passengers carried,
together with the name, sex, age, and occupation of each. This act was
passed on March 2, 1819, and in the year ending September 30, 1820, the
first official statistics of immigration were collected. From this time
to the present we have a continuous record of arrivals, increasing in
detail with subsequent legal requirements. Thus the year 1820 stands as
a fitting beginning for our third period.

The decade of the twenties was one of great industrial activity on the
part of the American people. Manufactures increased. The Erie Canal was
completed, others were commenced, and there was a fever of excitement
about them. The first railroads were projected, and vied with the canals
in arousing public enthusiasm. There was a vast movement of population
westward, and the Ohio River was a busy thoroughfare.

All of these enterprises aroused a demand for labor, which, as we have
seen, the native population would not readily supply. By the middle of
the decade the stream of immigration had begun to respond, so that in
1825 the number of arrivals for the year reached the ten thousand mark
for the first time since statistics had been collected. By the end of
the decade the number had more than doubled. In the fifteen months
ending December 31, 1832, there were over sixty thousand arrivals, and
in the year 1842, 104,565—the first time the hundred thousand mark had
been reached. Such an enormous increase in immigration as this could not
fail to have its effect upon the social life of the nation, and to
attract widespread attention. Coupled with the changing nature of
industry, it brought many new problems before the American
people—congestion, tenement house problems, unemployment, etc.
Pauperism, intemperance, beggary, and prostitution increased.[59] For
many of these evils it began to appear that the immigrants were partly
responsible.

Yet during the twenties it seems that the immigrants were, on the whole,
in good favor. The great economic need which they filled outweighed the
social burden which they imposed, but which, as yet, was only vaguely
felt. The hard manual labor on the construction enterprises of the
period was mainly performed by Irish laborers, who flocked over in great
numbers, constituting the largest single element in the immigration
stream, amounting to probably nearly half of the entire number. It was
believed by many Americans, as well as by foreign travelers and
observers, that the canals and railroads could never have been built
without these sturdy Irishmen. They were a turbulent and reckless lot,
though perhaps not wholly through their own fault. Their miserable wages
were supplemented by copious supplies of whisky, with the result that
the labor camps were frequently the scenes of riotous demonstrations
which shocked the sensibilities of the American community.

By the end of this decade, however, the evils attendant upon unregulated
immigration were beginning to make themselves felt among the native
population. Chief among these was the danger from an increase of
pauperism. The frightful shipping conditions, which had marked previous
periods, continued with practically no amelioration. The records of the
time are full of heartrending tales of crowded, filthy, unventilated
ships, and penniless, starved, diseased immigrants, often landed in a
state of absolute destitution. The sickening details of these accounts
make the most lurid description of present-day steerage conditions seem
absolutely colorless. Under such circumstances it was inevitable that a
very large number of these miserable victims should come immediately, or
in a very short time, upon the public for support. The censuses of the
poorhouses showed an altogether disproportionate number of foreign-born
paupers among the inmates. In Philadelphia, for instance, it appears
that at the beginning of the thirties the foreign-born paupers made up
nearly one third of the total number, and by 1834 this proportion had
increased to practically one half.[60] Such a state of affairs naturally
aroused the consternation of the natives, and the feeling was made more
intense by the belief that many of these paupers were taken directly
from the almshouses of foreign countries, and shipped to this country at
public expense. This matter has been the subject of so much debate that
it will be worth while to examine the truth of these charges in this
connection.

Mrs. Trollope, writing in 1832, said, “I frequently heard vehement
complaints, and constantly met the same in the newspapers, of a practice
stated to be very generally adopted in Britain of sending out cargoes of
parish paupers to the United States. A Baltimore paper heads some such
remarks with the words ‘INFAMOUS CONDUCT’ and then tells us of a cargo
of aged paupers just arrived from England, adding ‘John Bull has
squeezed the orange and now insolently casts the skin in our faces.’”
Mrs. Trollope states that careful investigation on her part failed to
substantiate this charge.[61] The article referred to is one which
appeared in _Niles’ Register_ for July 3, 1830. It gives an account of
the ship _Anacreon_ from Liverpool, which arrived at Norfolk with 168
passengers, three fourths of whom were transported English paupers, cast
on our shores at about four pounds ten shillings per head. Many of them
were very aged. The editor’s vehement protest against such action
contrasts sharply with the complacency with which the same journal had
viewed the advent of a crowd of transported Irish paupers seven years
earlier.[62]

An examination of the evidence on the question tends to support the
statement of the Baltimore editor, rather than the denial of Mrs.
Trollope. Other numbers of _Niles’ Register_ contain frequent accounts
of such practices. A letter written from England, dated February 7,
1823, and published in this journal states, “I was down in the London
docks and there were _twenty-six paupers_ going out in the ship
_Hudson_, to New York, sent by the parish of Eurbarst, in Sussex, in
carriers’ wagons, who paid their passage and gave them money to start
with when they arrived in the U. States.” The editor states that “this
precious cargo has arrived safely.”[63] Other numbers of the _Register_
contain similar instances, some of them quoted from other papers.[64]

So far the evidence consists mostly of newspaper tales, and is perhaps
open to reasonable doubt, though where there was so much smoke there
must have been some fire. But more reliable testimony is available.
Charges of the kind in question finally became so prevalent that the
government ordered an investigation, and on May 15, 1838, Mr. John
Forsyth, then Secretary of State, presented a report on the subject of
pauperism and immigration. This contains a large amount of testimony,
from which it will be sufficient to select a few typical cases.

On June 28, 1831, Mr. R. M. Harrison, United States consul at Kingston,
Jamaica, reported that there was a local law compelling shipmasters who
left that port to carry away paupers, for which they received $10 each
as remuneration. If they refused to take them, they were fined $300. As
various states had laws forbidding the landing of paupers, it was
customary for shipmasters to sign the paupers as seamen. The pauper had
the privilege of choosing his own vessel, and most of them went to the
United States. Mr. Van Buren called the attention of Lord Palmerston,
the British Foreign Secretary, to the affair, and requested a
discontinuance of the practice. Lord Palmerston replied that the law was
to expire December 31, and the governor of Jamaica had been instructed
to withhold his assent to any similar law.[65]

Mr. Albert Davy, United States consul at Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds,
England, reported that while no reliable lists were kept at
customhouses, distinguishing paupers from others, it was generally known
that paupers emigrated, and several shipmasters admitted that passage
was paid by parish overseers. If a pauper was an exceptionally hard
case, he could demand considerable sums of money in addition to his
passage, refusing to go unless they were paid.[66] Mr. F. List on March
8, 1837, reported from Leipsic that not only paupers, but criminals,
were transported from the interior to seaports, to be embarked for the
United States. A certain Mr. de Stein contracts with the governments to
transport paupers for $75 per head, and several of the governments have
accepted his proposition. There is a plan to empty the jails and
workhouses in this way. It is a common practice in Germany to get rid of
paupers and vicious characters by collecting money to send them to the
United States.[67]

That it was customary to transport criminals as well as paupers is
verified by the fact that during 1837 two lots of convicts arrived in
Baltimore: one a party of fourteen convicts on a ship from Bremen, who
had been embarked in irons, which had not been stricken off until near
the fort; the other a shipload of 200 to 250 Hessian convicts, whose
manacles and fetters remained upon their hands and feet until within the
day of their arrival.[68]

A memorial of the corporation of the city of New York, January 25, 1847,
states that within the last year the ships _Sardinia_ and _Atlas_ from
Liverpool arrived in New York, one with 294 and the other with 314
steerage passengers, all paupers, sent by the parish of Grosszimmern,
Hesse Darmstadt, to which they belonged and by which their expenses were
paid. Two hundred and thirty-four of these immigrants, 117 from each
ship, eventually found their way into the New York almshouse.[69]

On January 19, 1839, _Niles’ Register_ reported a crowd of paupers which
had arrived in New York from England. Their passage had been paid by the
overseers of the poor at Edinburgh, and the majority of them were still
wearing the uniform of the poorhouse. This naturally aroused objections,
and the consignees of the vessel finally agreed to take them back to
Europe, and to repay the city all expense that it had incurred on their
account. The United States consul at Basle, Switzerland, reported in
1846 that it was the practice in that country for congregations or town
authorities to send paupers to America.[70]

Instances of this sort might be multiplied, but these will suffice to
prove that the practice of transporting paupers was a common one during
the period we are considering. Just when it was finally stopped it is
impossible to say.[71] It certainly played a large part in creating the
feeling of hostility to immigrants which manifested itself strongly
during the decade of the thirties.

That the situation was partially, at least, comprehended also in England
is evidenced by a burlesque poem entitled “Immiscible Immigration,”
written in that country, which commences with the following words:

            “The tide of emigration still flows fast;
            Millions of souls remove their bodies corporate—
            Columbia’s shores will be o’erstocked at last,
            And Yankees must support them by a pauper rate.
                Others,
                With their brothers,
                Fathers and mothers,
                    Rush to Australia,” etc.[72]

While the dangers from pauperism and criminality were probably the
leading causes for opposition to immigration, at this time, other
broader and deeper objections were beginning to be felt and to be
expressed in current writings. In the _North American Review_ for April,
1835 (p. 457), there is a very sane, calm and convincing article by Mr.
A. H. Everett, in which the disadvantages of immigration are set forth.
Many of the stock arguments of to-day are well set forth here, among
them, of course, the dangers from pauperism and crime, but also the
dangers of a heterogeneous population, of poor assimilation, congestion
in cities, misuse of political power, and the growth of foreign
colonies. The author questions whether the immigrants are really filling
the demand for labor, and urges the necessity of furnishing the
immigrants with information about different sections of the country, and
advising them about their destination. He also feels the need of much
greater discrimination in the admission of aliens.

In the same magazine, in the issue for January, 1841, there is an
article entitled “The Irish in America,” in which the author names as
one of the great grievances against the immigrants that they do more
work for less money than the native workingmen, and live on a lower
standard, thereby decreasing wages. This is one of the earliest
expressions which we find of this objection, and shows that by this time
the country had passed beyond the primitive stage where there was room
enough for everybody, and no fear of economic competition. It is the
foreshadowing of modern conditions and modern thought.

There was still another ground for opposition to the immigrants which
very possibly at the end of the thirties eclipsed all the others in
positive influence.[73] This was the hatred and fear of the Roman
Catholic religion, to which the great majority of the Irish adhered. The
Protestant bias which had strongly characterized the early settlers
still persisted among the great body of the American people. This motive
was the leading one which led to the formation of the first political
party which was openly based on opposition to immigration. This was the
Native American party which came into prominence as a political movement
about 1835, in which year there was a Nativist candidate for Congress in
New York City. In the following year the party nominated a candidate for
mayor of New York. Nativist societies were formed in Germantown, Pa.,
and in Washington, D.C., in 1837, and two years later the party was
organized in Louisiana, where a state convention was held in 1841. The
adherents of this movement did not confine themselves to peaceful and
orderly methods, but resorted to anti-Catholic riots in 1844. Two
Catholic churches were destroyed in Philadelphia, and a convent in
Boston.[74]

In 1845 the Nativist movement claimed 48,000 members in New York, 42,000
in Pennsylvania, 14,000 in Massachusetts, and 6000 in other states. In
Congress it had six representatives from New York and two from
Pennsylvania. Its first national convention was held in Philadelphia in
1845.[75] A national platform was adopted, the chief demands being the
repeal of the naturalization laws, and the appointment of native
Americans only to office. They succeeded in securing a certain amount of
congressional investigation in 1838, and a bill was presented by a
committee appointed for the purpose, which proposed to fine shipmasters
who tried to bring into the United States aliens who were idiots,
lunatics, maniacs, or afflicted with any incurable disease, in the sum
of $1000, and to require them to forfeit a like sum for every alien
brought in who had not the ability to maintain himself. “Congress did
not even consider this bill, and during the next ten years little
attempt was made to secure legislation against the foreigner,”[76]
though many petitions to extend the period of residence for
naturalization were received. The ever increasing opposition to
unregulated immigration had not yet become sufficiently widespread to
accomplish any positive measures.

During this period the immigrants were almost wholly from the United
Kingdom and Germany, with the Irish in the lead, as we have seen. There
were also considerable numbers of French, who outnumbered the Germans in
some years in the early part of the period, and small contingents from
various other nations, particularly the Scandinavian countries. It was
natural that the ties of relationship, language, etc., should put the
United Kingdom at the head at this time, and conditions in Ireland were
such as to make emigration a very welcome means of relief. The Irish
tended to linger in the cities, where they went into domestic and
personal service, or to go out into the construction camps. The Germans
and Scandinavians, on the other hand, tended to move westward into the
interior, and colonies of these races were becoming numerous in several
of the middle western states. The Germans of this period were mostly
farmers from the thinly settled agricultural sections of the old
country, and the great attraction which the United States had for them
was the ease with which good farm lands might be secured in this
country.[77]

Most of the agitation about immigration, as has been intimated, centered
round the Irish, but there was also some feeling against the Germans.
This was augmented by the decided clannishness of these people. There
were many German societies and newspapers, and a strong and
ill-disguised movement to form an independent German state in Texas, or
elsewhere on the continent, which was not calculated to endear them to
the native American.

Up to the year 1842 the total immigration did not reach one hundred
thousand annually, and for the next three years it fell below that
figure again.[78] During the last half of this decade, however, certain
events occurred in Europe which vastly increased the immigration
current, and brought the matter more forcibly to the notice of the
American people than ever before. These were the potato famine in
Ireland, and the political upheavals of 1848 in various nations of
Europe, particularly in Germany. The result of the latter occurrences
was to leave a large number of middle class liberalists in Germany in a
very undesirable situation, in spite of the partial success of the
revolution. The way out, for them, was emigration. This is one of the
best examples in history of the political cause of emigration, though
even here economic motives were also concerned. A tremendous emigration
followed, reaching its climax in 1854, when 215,009 immigrants from
Germany reached this country. These were mainly persons of good
character and independent spirit, as might be expected from the causes
of their departure. Considerable numbers of Bohemians also emigrated at
this period, similar in character to the Germans, and actuated by
similar motives and conditions.

Conditions in Ireland at about the same time resulted in an emigration
rivaling that from Germany in numbers, but by no means so desirable from
the point of view of the United States. It was almost exclusively an
economic movement. The introduction of the potato into Ireland by
Raleigh in 1610 had seemed at first a blessing to the country. It
furnished an easy and abundant food supply, and its cultivation spread
rapidly. Population increased correspondingly, growing from 2,845,932 in
1785 to 5,356,594 in 1803 and 8,295,061 in 1845. By the latter year most
of the population were dependent for their subsistence upon the potato.
This was a precarious situation, for the potato furnishes the largest
amount of food in proportion to the land used of almost any crop which
is grown in temperate regions. In other words, the Irish were living on
a very low standard as far as food was concerned, with no margin to fall
back on in case of calamity. A people subsisting upon grains and meat
may, in time of distress, resort to cheaper and more easily secured food
materials temporarily. But a land which is densely populated by people
living on the cheapest possible food has no resources when any
misfortune attacks their staple supply. Ireland was in this situation in
the middle forties, and the misfortune came in the shape of the potato
murrain, which attacked the plants in 1845 and caused an almost complete
failure of the crop for that year.

Extreme hardship, privation, and distress followed. From 200,000 to
300,000 died of starvation or of fever caused by insufficient food. All
who could sought relief in flight. Benevolent agencies in England and
Ireland came to their assistance, and enormous numbers of Irish, in one
way or another, found the means for emigration, and embarked for Canada
or the United States. Added to the great numbers of Germans who were
coming at the same time, they caused the first great wave in the
immigration current, reaching a maximum of 427,833 in the year 1854, a
number which was not exceeded until 1873. After 1854 the immigration
current dwindled rapidly, until in 1862 it amounted to only 72,183.

During this entire period, up to the time of the great influx from
Germany and Ireland, immigration had been practically unregulated so far
as the United States government was concerned, the only federal law
bearing on the subject being the ineffective act of 1819. Many of the
individual states, however, had attempted to cope with the evils of the
situation by restrictive or protective measures. New York took the lead
in this matter. In this state there were two sets of laws bearing on the
question. The first of these had to do with the support of the marine
hospital. As early as 1820 New York had passed a law (April 14, 1820,
Chapter 229) levying a tax of $1.50 each for the captain and cabin
passengers, and $1 each for steerage passengers, mates, sailors, and
mariners, payable by the master of every vessel from a foreign port
arriving at a New York port. The proceeds were to be used for the
benefit of the marine hospital. This law was continued and reënacted,
with slight changes in the amount of the tax, at frequent intervals
during the next twenty-five years.[79] It was a real head tax, and may
have had a slight restrictive influence upon immigration.

Much more important than this set of laws, however, was another group,
specifically concerned with the immigration situation. The first[80] of
these was the law of February 11, 1824, which required the master of
every ship coming from any foreign country, or from any other state than
New York, to report to the mayor in writing, within twenty-four hours
after landing, the name, place of birth, last legal settlement, age, and
occupation of all passengers, under a penalty of $75 for each person not
reported, or reported falsely. The mayor might require a bond, not
exceeding $300, for each passenger not a citizen of the United States,
to indemnify the authorities of New York against any expense incurred in
connection with such passengers, or their children born after landing,
for the space of two years. Whenever any passenger, being a citizen of
the United States, was deemed likely to become a public charge to the
city, the master of the ship should at once remove him at his (the
master’s) expense to his place of last settlement, or else defray all
expenses incurred by the city. Non-citizens entering the city with the
intention of residing there must within twenty-four hours report
themselves to the mayor, giving their name, birthplace, etc., the time
and place of landing, the name of the ship and commander, under penalty
of $300.

This law remained in force for twenty-three years. On May 5, 1847, a
more inclusive immigration law was passed of which the most important
provisions were as follows:

SECTION 1. The shipmaster shall report the name, place of birth, last
legal residence, age, and occupation of every person or passenger
arriving in the ship, not being a citizen of the United States. The
report shall further specify whether any of the passengers reported are
lunatic, idiot, deaf and dumb, blind or infirm, and if so, whether they
are accompanied by relatives likely to be able to support them. A report
is to be made of those who have died on the voyage. Penalty for
violation, $75.

SECTION 2. For each person reported, the sum of one dollar is to be paid
by the master within three days after arrival.

SECTION 3. The commissioners of emigration shall go on board of arriving
vessels and examine their passengers. If any of the defective classes
mentioned in Section 1 are found, not members of emigrating families,
and likely to become a public charge, a bond of $300 for five years
shall be required, in place of the commutation fee of one dollar.

SECTION 4. Commissioners of emigration are appointed, to have charge of
the business of immigration.

SECTION 14. The commissioners of emigration are made recipients and
custodians of the marine hospital funds.

SECTION 16. The commissioners are given power to erect buildings for the
handling of the immigration business.

SECTION 18. The act of February 11, 1824, is repealed.

Under this law a special body of officials took charge of the handling
of immigrants for New York State, and a more systematic and effective
method was introduced.

The foregoing law and the corresponding law of Massachusetts were both
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in
January, 1849,[81] on the ground that the power to levy a head tax was
conferred on Congress by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution,
being included in the “power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations.”[82]

New York, however, at once (April 11, 1849) passed another law, even
more stringent in its requirements than the foregoing one, but designed
to avoid the constitutional difficulties. A bond of $300 was required
for _all_ alien passengers, which might be commuted for the sum of
$1.50. If any alien passengers are “lunatic, idiot, deaf, dumb, blind,
or infirm persons not members of emigrating families,” or likely to
become a public charge, or have been paupers in any other country, they
are to be bonded in the sum of $500 for ten years, in addition to the
commutation money. On such bonds the authorities were empowered to
collect enough money to defray the expenses incurred in connection with
the immigrants, not exceeding the amount of the bond.

By the act of July 11, 1851, the defective classes were added to by the
inclusion of persons maimed, or above the age of sixty years, or under
thirteen, widows having families, or women without husbands having
families, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself
without becoming a public charge. The bond of $500 for undesirables was
retained, but the time limit was reduced to five years.

Practically all of the other states which received trans-Atlantic
vessels had laws similar to the bonding law of New York, for their
protection against pauper immigration. The Massachusetts law was much
more severe than that of New York, and was believed to keep many
immigrants away from that state. The Massachusetts law passed April 20,
1837, required shipmasters to deposit a bond of $1000 for ten years for
each lunatic, idiot, maimed, aged, or infirm immigrant brought in, and
for those incompetent to maintain themselves, or who have been paupers
in any other country. For each other alien passenger the shipmaster was
to pay the sum of $2.

In all of this legislation the states found themselves in the dilemma of
wishing to frame laws which would keep out undesirable immigrants, and
yet would not operate to discourage aliens of good quality. The desire
for an increase of population by immigration, which was shared by
practically all the states, and the fear of diverting the current from
one state to another, led to a greater laxity in the attitude of each
state than would probably have existed if each could have acted
altogether independently. This made the state regulation of immigration
most unsatisfactory.

It was inevitable, considering the immensity and suddenness of the
immigration movement at this time, and the lack of experience in dealing
with such a problem on the part of the American people, that grievous
evils should arise. The immigrants, particularly the Irish, were a
destitute and helpless lot, and fell an easy prey to the machinations of
the host of exploiters which at once sprang up to take advantage of the
newly presented opportunities. Countless devices were put in practice
for separating the immigrant from whatever valuable goods he brought
with him. New York, in particular, as the center of the traffic, swarmed
with a host of runners, agents, and solicitors of every kind, who
fleeced the newcomers without remorse or pity. These runners were
themselves mostly earlier immigrants, who could more readily gain the
confidence of the aliens. The handling and inspection of these aliens by
the officials was also a weighty problem. It was in the hope of checking
the operations of the runners, as well as to provide suitable
arrangements for the examination of arriving immigrants, that the Board
of Commissioners of Emigration of New York State was created by the act
of 1847. This timely action undoubtedly prevented the various evils
connected with this immense movement from going to the extremes that
they otherwise would have reached, and that they did reach in certain
respects in Canada.[83]

In 1855 commissioners leased an old fort at the foot of Manhattan
Island, known as Castle Garden, to serve as an immigrant station. This
did duty for many years and was considered one of the most interesting
spots in the metropolis. It also proved of great service in restraining
the operations of the immigrant runners.[84] It goes without saying that
it was by no means successful in putting a permanent stop to them.

The bonding provision of the New York State law had one remarkable and
unfortunate result. A class of brokers sprang up who took the
responsibility of bonding the immigrants from the shipowners. It was
obviously to their advantage to keep as many of the immigrants as
possible from coming upon the public for support. To accomplish this,
they established private hospitals and poorhouses on the outskirts of
New York and Brooklyn, in which dependent aliens were placed. The effort
to maintain them here at the least possible expense resulted in extreme
neglect. A committee of the Board of Aldermen of New York City was
appointed to look into this matter, in the year 1846. They found
conditions which were almost unbelievable. In one apartment, fifty feet
square, they discovered one hundred sick and dying immigrants lying on
straw. In their midst were the bodies of two others who had died four or
five days earlier, and had been left there. The worst kind of food was
specially purchased for the consumption of these victims. The conditions
unearthed by this investigation contributed to the sentiment which
brought about the passage of the law of 1847.[85]

The chaotic state of the immigration situation, the inadequacy of state
control, and the increasing obviousness of the resulting evils led to a
growing demand for federal action on the matter. This feeling found
expression in numerous petitions and memorials presented to Congress by
state legislatures, city councils, and private citizens. These began to
appear about 1835, with the rise of the Native American party. With the
increased immigration of the latter forties, the demand became more
insistent. The immediate and crying evil, which attracted the greatest
attention, lay in the unspeakable shipping conditions which still
existed.[86] In 1847 Mr. Rathbun stated on the floor of Congress that
emigrants from abroad were frequently landed in the port of New York in
such a diseased condition, due to overcrowding on the ships which
brought them, that they were unable to walk. They were carried in carts
direct to the almshouse, and sometimes died on the way.[87] In the same
year, out of ninety thousand immigrants who embarked for Canada in
British vessels, fifteen thousand died on the way. This exceeded even
the suffering in vessels bound for the United States.[88] On the whole,
conditions seem to have been the best on the German and American
vessels.

In response to these conditions, and to the growing demand for a remedy,
Congress on February 22, 1847, passed a law, superseding that of 1819,
and designed to remedy the evils of overcrowding. The provisions about
victualing the ships remained the same as before, but the new law
provided for a certain allotment of superficial, or square feet of, deck
space per passenger, and also limited the number of passengers in
proportion to the tonnage of the ship. This law was not satisfactory,
however, and was very soon superseded by the act of May 17, 1848, which
remained in force until 1855. In 1849 the British government passed a
law, designed to secure the same ends as the American laws. It was under
the operation of these three laws that the great flood of Irish
immigration crossed the Atlantic.

The American statutes required that the deck space, unoccupied by stores
or goods, except passengers’ baggage, should average fourteen square
feet for each passenger, man, woman, or child, excepting infants not one
year old. If the space between decks was less than six feet, there must
be sixteen square feet per passenger, and if less than five feet,
twenty-two square feet (a significant commentary on the ship
construction of the day). There were to be not more than two tiers of
berths on any deck, and the berths were to be not less than six feet by
one and one half feet in dimensions. The British statute set a limit of
one passenger (exclusive of cabin) for every two tons registered
tonnage, two children under fourteen years of age being counted as one,
and children under one year not being counted.

Up to this time it had been customary on immigrant ships to require
passengers to provide their own stores, but on account of the lack of
intelligence and foresight on the part of the passengers, both the
American and British statutes required ships to carry a certain amount
and kind of provisions for each passenger, as follows:

 ──────────────┬────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────
               │AMERICAN ACT│                BRITISH ACT
 ──────────────┼────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────
 Water         │60 gallons  │52½ gallons
 Ship bread    │15 pounds   │50 pounds
 Wheat flour   │10 pounds   │20 pounds
 Oatmeal       │10 pounds   │60 pounds
 Rice          │10 pounds   │40 pounds
 Salt pork     │10 pounds   │22½ pounds
 Peas and beans│10 pounds   │Potatoes may be substituted for meal or
               │            │  rice at the ratio of five pounds for one
 Potatoes      │35 pounds   │                     „
 ──────────────┴────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────

The passengers were still required to do their own cooking, and the
American act provided for the building of cooking ranges for the use of
steerage passengers, in proportion to the number carried.

Most of the Irish passengers were collected at Liverpool, though by 1847
there were also many direct sailings from Ireland. They were mainly
booked through passenger brokers, who often imposed on them, but
apparently not so much as might have been expected. There was a medical
inspection at Liverpool, and emigrants were required to be certified
against contagious diseases. The average length of the passage from
Liverpool to New York in 1849 was about thirty-five days, and from
London about forty-three and one half days. But voyages were often much
prolonged. One ship, the _Speed_ (!), in 1848 had a passage of twelve
weeks, with great ensuing hardship. The British act provided that if
ships had to turn back, the passengers must be transshipped to another
vessel, and in the meantime maintained at the master’s expense. This
often resulted in hardship, instead of benefit, as ships sometimes kept
on the voyage when they were not fitted to sail. In 1849 and 1850 some
ships turned back after having been out seventy days. The British
government tried to induce steamers to take steerage passengers by
allowing them to provide provisions for only forty days, while sailing
vessels had to provide for seventy. Very few immigrants, nevertheless,
were carried on steam vessels during these years. The deaths on these
voyages were mainly due to ship fever, a severe form of Irish
typhus.[89]

Though the German immigrants at this time were at least as numerous as
the Irish, they attracted much less attention. This was partly because
they were less poverty-stricken, and partly because they mostly moved on
to the west, and did not collect in the cities of the Atlantic seaboard.
The Irish, in consequence of their native character, the circumstances
which led to their coming, and the conditions of the voyage, were in a
particularly helpless state when they arrived. They were the most
prominent victims of the runners, and made the largest showing in the
hospitals and almshouses. In spite of the good accomplished by the state
and federal statutes, an extreme amount of destitution and suffering
persisted. The burden of foreign pauperism, in particular, increased
tremendously. In 1850 more than half the paupers wholly or partially
supported in the United States were of foreign birth. In the North
Atlantic coastal states the proportion was much larger.[90]

These considerations, added to the preponderance of Roman Catholics
among the Irish immigrants, led to a renewal of the anti-immigration
agitation, which had been so vigorous ten years earlier. This time the
movement took the form of a secret organization, started probably in New
York City in 1850. This society grew rapidly. Its meetings were held in
secret, and the purpose and even the name of the organization were so
much of a mystery at first that the rank and file of the members, either
from necessity or from choice, were in the habit of answering all
questions regarding it by saying, “I don’t know.” Hence it came to be
known as the “Know Nothing” party, and as such has come down to
history.[91]

The organization did not long maintain its ultra-secret character. This
had mostly disappeared by 1854, and the society openly indorsed
candidates, and put forward candidates of its own. It is recorded that
in 1855 the governors and legislatures in New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, California, and Kentucky were Know
Nothings, and that they had secured many offices in other states. By
1855 they began to mature plans for the presidential election. They
adopted a platform calling for a change in the existing naturalization
laws, for the repeal of the state laws allowing unnaturalized foreigners
to vote, and the repeal by Congress of all acts making land grants to
unnaturalized foreigners and allowing them to vote in the territories.
In 1856 a national convention was held, and Millard Fillmore was
nominated for president. The principles of the platform adopted were
that Americans must rule America, that native-born citizens should be
selected for all state, federal, and municipal government employment in
preference to all others, that the naturalization law should be changed
so as to require twenty-one years’ residence, and that a law should be
passed excluding from the United States all paupers or persons convicted
of crime. This party had its greatest strength in the thirty-fourth
Congress, 1854–1856, and in the discussions of the period many severe
charges were made against the immigrants.

But the Know Nothings were in the minority and consequently had little
real influence on legislation. The immigration laws proposed by them
were, as a rule, confined to the exclusion of foreign paupers and
criminals, and none of these was passed.[92] The diversion of public
interest from immigration affairs to the great questions of slavery, and
the events preliminary to the Civil War, coupled with the decline in the
volume of immigration after 1854, led to the natural decline and final
break-up of the Know Nothing party.

The agitation of the period, however, particularly in regard to steerage
conditions, had its effect on Congress, and in 1853 a select committee
of the Senate was appointed to investigate the conditions of steerage
immigration and, in particular, “the causes and the extent of the
sickness and mortality prevailing on board the emigrant ships on the
voyage to this country,” and to determine what legislation, if any, was
necessary to secure better conditions. This committee reported on August
2, 1854, and on March 3, 1855, a bill was passed which, with slight
modifications, governed the carriage of immigrants up to 1882. The
design of this act was to improve steerage conditions, and
“theoretically the law of 1855 provided for an increased air space,
better ventilation, and improved accommodations in the way of berths,
cooking facilities, the serving of food, free open deck space, and so
forth. Although the evil of overcrowding, which had been attended with
such disastrous results in former years, appears to have been especially
aimed at by the makers of the law, the wording of the act was,
unfortunately, such that the provisions relating to the number of
passengers to be carried were inoperative, and there was practically no
legal restraint in this regard, as far as the United States law was
concerned, between 1855 and 1882.”[93]

Practically the only amendment to the steerage law from 1855 to 1882 was
an act of 1860, designed to secure much-needed protection for female
passengers from immoral conduct on the part of members of the crew. A
fine of $1000 was imposed on any person employed on any ship of the
United States who was found guilty of such conduct, and members of the
crew were forbidden to visit parts of the ship assigned to immigrants,
except under the direction or with the permission of the commanding
officer.

It will be observed that, while the various state laws had a slightly
restrictive effect, all of the federal acts of this period, designed as
they were to secure better accommodations on the voyage, served as an
encouragement, rather than a deterrent, to immigration. And, on the
whole, in spite of the violent anti-immigrant agitation of the
nativistic and Know Nothing movements and the dread of foreign paupers
and criminals, the preponderance of public opinion in the United States
was probably favorable to the immigrant as such. It must be remembered
that during this entire period the United States was still distinctly a
new country. There was an abundance of unoccupied land which might be
secured on easy terms. There was a large westward movement of population
from the Atlantic seaboard, and the growing manufactures and internal
improvements created a large demand for labor. It was, as a whole, a
decidedly thinly settled country. All of these things combined to give
the immigrant every advantage in the mind of the native citizen.

Reviewing the third period, we see that it was a period of rapidly
increasing immigration, responding to the expanding industry and
exceptionally favorable agricultural situation in this country. The
movement culminated in the enormous immigration of the late forties and
early fifties. These were mainly Germans, who left their home primarily
for political reasons, and took up farm lands in the west, and Irish,
who emigrated because of economic disaster, and tended to linger in the
eastern cities, or to go out into the construction camps. Both of these
races were closely allied to the American people, and easily
assimilated. At the beginning of the period, the attitude of the
American people was almost wholly one of welcome, but with the increase
of the current, bringing as it did enormous numbers of destitute and
helpless aliens, there arose a distinct feeling of opposition to
unregulated immigration, based primarily upon the dislike of foreign
paupers and criminals, and aided by the undeniable practice of foreign
countries of emptying their poorhouses, and even their jails, upon our
shores. This feeling later came to be intensified by a strong antipathy
to Roman Catholics and the restriction of immigration was made a party
policy. Nevertheless, the opposition to immigration did not, during this
period, attain sufficient strength to secure any important legislation.
Many of the states had laws designed to indemnify the communities
against expense on account of foreign paupers, which may have had a
slight restrictive effect. But such federal legislation as there was,
was directed to the improvement of the conditions of the voyage, and
hence had an encouraging rather than a restrictive tendency. With the
approach of the Civil War immigration fell off, and public attention was
diverted to other matters.




                               CHAPTER V
                              1860 TO 1882


The disturbances connected with the Civil War, following the industrial
depression of 1857, naturally produced a diminution in the immigration
current, which in the year 1862 fell to 72,183, the lowest point it had
reached for more than twenty years, and one which has never been reached
since. This condition, which tended to allay the excessive fear of
immigration which had marked the previous decade, was augmented by
certain other factors. Foremost among these was the enormous internal
migration of people from the east to the middle and farther west,
encouraged by the liberal homestead act of 1862. This movement, in
connection with the loss of life occasioned by the war, seemed to leave
great gaps in the population of the eastern states, and put the
foreigners who came to fill them in much better favor. Many of the
immigrants themselves also moved on to the west and took up new land,
where they crowded nobody and rendered a real service in the building up
of the country.

These facts explain what would otherwise seem an extraordinary
circumstance—namely, that the first federal law passed with the avowed
intent of regulating the volume of immigration was an act to encourage
immigration. This was the act of July 4, 1864, which provided for the
appointment by the President of a Commissioner of Immigration, to be
under the direction of the Department of State, and further provided
that all contracts made in foreign countries by immigrants pledging the
wages of their labor for a term not exceeding twelve months should be
valid. An immigration office was to be established in New York City, in
charge of a Superintendent of Immigration, to look after the
transporting of immigrants to their final destination, and protecting
them from imposition and fraud. Several companies, in pursuance of this
act, were formed for the purpose of dealing in contract labor. But
protests against the character of immigrants continued strong, and the
law was repealed in 1868. The feeling of opposition to contract labor in
general was also beginning to assert itself at this time, and continued
to grow, so that the next federal legislation touching on contract labor
was of a wholly different character.

This period witnessed another important change in the immigration
situation—the transition from the sailing vessel to the steamship as the
prevailing type of immigrant carrier. “Writers on the history of sail
and steam navigation agree that steamships played no part prior to 1850
in the transportation of other than cabin passengers. In that year the
Inman Line of steamships, then recently established, began to compete
with sailing vessels by providing third class, or steerage,
accommodation.... Once established in the emigrant carrying trade,
steamships quickly monopolized the greater part of the business.”[94] In
1856, of the passengers landed at Castle Garden, New York, 96.4 per cent
were carried on sailing vessels, and 3.6 per cent on steamships. In 1873
the proportions were almost exactly reversed—3.2 per cent on sailing
vessels, and 96.8 per cent on steamships. The turn of the balance came
between the years 1864 and 1865; in the first of these years the sailing
vessels carried 55.7 per cent of the passengers, and in the second, 41.7
per cent. “No consistent data are available to show the relative number
of passengers carried on sailing vessels and steamships after 1873, but
it was not long until steamships had practically a complete monopoly of
the business.”[95] This change did more to alleviate the conditions of
the steerage than anything which had transpired previously.

The change from sail to steam was accompanied by the loss of the primary
position in the immigrant-carrying field by the United States. In the
rivalry for the steamship business she was quickly outstripped by
England. Chance played a part in this outcome through the loss of two of
the largest ships of the Collins Line, but the conscious policy of the
United States contributed to the result. The available capital of the
country was diverted to manufactures and railroad building by the
artificial stimulus given to these industries—by the tariff on the one
hand, and the land grants on the other.

With the return of prosperity after the war, the volume of immigration
began to increase again, and in 1873 culminated in the record figure of
459,803. The industrial depression of that year cut down the influx, and
the next record was not reached until 1882, the year that inaugurates
the modern period. During the entire period under discussion the two
main elements in the immigration stream were the Irish and the Germans.
The climax of the immigration from the United Kingdom (mostly Irish) had
been reached in 1851, with a total of 272,240, a figure which has never
been equaled since. The immigration from Germany in the year 1854 had
reached 215,009, a number which has been exceeded only once since then
(in 1882). In 1854, 87.7 per cent of the entire immigration came from
these two sources. In 1873, 68.8 per cent still showed the same origin.

During the closing years of this period people of Scandinavian origin
occupied a noteworthy place in the immigration field. Small parties of
Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes had appeared early in the nineteenth
century, and had been followed by others from time to time. These early
immigrants had formed settlements, for the most part agricultural, in
various parts of the country, particularly in the middle west and
northwest. But they were an inconsiderable part of the total immigration
until after the Civil War. In 1873 they amounted to 7.7 per cent of the
total immigration, and in 1882 to 13.4 per cent. The underlying causes
which predisposed the natives of the Scandinavian countries to
emigration were found in the rugged and inhospitable character of the
soil, and the severe and uncertain climate. Only a small part of the
total land area was available for cultivation, and there was little room
for an expanding population. Thus the fundamental causes of emigration
were economic. Religious differences and the demands of military service
played minor parts. Political oppression entered in somewhat in the case
of the Danes.

The more immediate causes are found in a period of financial depression
between 1866 and 1870, the Dano-Prussian War of 1864, the activities of
steamship agents, and more particularly the letters and visits from the
earlier emigrants and adventurers, who told in person of the advantages
and opportunities of life in America. These, as always, had a profound
effect in stirring up enthusiasm for emigration.

The Scandinavian emigrants came mainly from rural regions and rural
occupations, and naturally tended to follow out the same bent in their
new home, resembling in this respect their kinsmen, the Germans. Like
them, too, they were easily assimilated, and aroused little opposition
on the part of the Americans.[96]

It was in connection with one of these leading groups of immigrants—the
Irish—that there developed one of the most unfortunate, and at the same
time interesting, series of events that have occurred in connection with
the immigrant situation during our entire history—one that had much to
do with arousing antipathy toward foreigners, and was among the
influences that led to the introduction of new races from southeastern
Europe.[97] This was the Molly Maguire disturbance in the anthracite
region of Pennsylvania.

When the anthracite coal districts of Pennsylvania were opened up, early
in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the social conditions
in the new settlements resembled those of a gold mining region, in the
prevalence of lawlessness, excitability, and turbulence. The country was
still rough and thinly settled, and between the mining settlements were
wide stretches of virgin wilds which furnished ideal hiding places for
criminals and refugees. As the knowledge of mining was largely confined
to foreigners, they came to occupy a large place in the colliery towns,
and prominent among them were the Irish. As the numbers of Irish
increased, Irish customs and ideas came to practically dominate many
places. Other foreign races represented were the Germans, English,
Welsh, Scotch, and Poles. The immigrants from Ireland during the forties
and fifties were not all worthy representatives of the race, as many of
the more turbulent characters were practically compelled by the
landlords to join the general exodus.

As early as 1854 there appeared among the Irish miners an organization
known as the Molly Maguires—a name long known in Ireland, though there
was no organic connection between the societies in the old and new
world. Its members were all Irish and all professed adherents to the
Roman Catholic Church, though both the church and the better elements of
the race absolutely repudiated them and their acts. Also, practically
all the Molly Maguires were members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians,
and were able so to control this organization, legally chartered for
beneficial purposes, as to use it as a cloak for their nefarious
enterprises.

The power of the Molly Maguires was used primarily to further the ends
of its members in their relations with the colliery owners and bosses;
whenever a dispute arose between an employee and a boss, the latter
would be served with a notice, frequently decorated with rude pictures
of coffins, death’s heads, and the like, warning him to desist in his
course or to leave the region. If he failed to obey, he was almost sure
soon after to be waylaid and cruelly beaten, as well as to suffer social
ostracism. The perpetrators of the deed of violence always escaped, and
thus confidence and a sense of power grew in the organization.

Soon after the breaking out of the Civil War, conditions in the
anthracite region became such as to improve the situation of the miners
and add to the power of the Molly Maguires. They became more and more
insolent in their demands, and ambitious in their purposes. They tried
to gain control of the Miners’ Union, and also, with a measure of
success, sought to dominate local politics, with their eye primarily
upon the township funds. They succeeded in making the lives of the small
mine owners such a burden that they were glad to sell out to the large
combinations; thus the growth of large units and monopolies was
fostered, as they alone could deal with the Molly Maguires on anything
like terms of equality. In the meantime, the methods of the society
increased in harshness and barbarity. Arson and murder took the place of
beating. There arose a rivalry among the Mollies as to who should gain
the greatest reputation for deeds of reckless savagery. Murder after
murder was committed, without a conviction. The victims were often men
of the highest repute and usefulness in their respective communities.
The motives for the outrages increased in variety, including almost any
injury, real or fancied, or any personal grudge on the part of a member
of the society, though rarely were they committed for robbery. A general
reign of terror settled down over the region, and vigilance committees
were being formed for purposes of reprisal.

At this juncture, in 1873, Mr. Franklin B. Gowen, president of the
Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company, and a man of remarkable
character, enlisted the services of the Pinkerton Detective Agency in
the effort to stamp out the organization. A young Irish detective, James
McParlan, was chosen for the dangerous and difficult work. He was
instructed to go to the anthracite region, join the Molly Maguires, and
get as high in their counsels as possible, in order that he might reveal
their secrets to the authorities, thereby preventing outrages when
possible and securing convictions where he could not prevent. He was
successful in both efforts. After many months of work and peril he
finally succeeded in securing sufficient evidence to accomplish the
conviction of a large number of the members of the society, breaking
down completely their customary defense of an alibi. In all, nineteen
Molly Maguires were hanged, and a larger number imprisoned, and the
power of the organization was completely shattered.

This series of events is a remarkable illustration of the way in which
customs, and habits of thought, and standards of conduct, which have
grown up by a natural process, and are comprehensible if not excusable
in one land, may develop most alarming and disgraceful features when
transplanted to a new environment. The essential strength of the Molly
Maguires lay in that deep-seated hatred of an informer which has become
a pronounced feature of the Irish character, as a result of the
conditions to which they have been subjected at home. Thus, while the
great mass of the Irish settlers of the anthracite region abhorred the
principles and deeds of the Molly Maguires, it was almost impossible to
secure witnesses against criminals whose identity was a matter of
general knowledge, because of the greater repugnance to the character of
an informer. The traditional hatred of the Irish peasant towards the
landlord was, in this country, diverted to the capitalist class in a
wholly unreasonable but efficient manner.

There is here, also, a striking demonstration of the capacity of a
relatively small group of turbulent and unassimilated foreigners so to
conduct themselves as to bring an undeserved disrepute upon their whole
group, and foster economic and social changes in society which will last
on long after they are all dead.[98]

While the Irish and Germans were dominating the immigration situation on
the Atlantic coast, the Chinese were occupying the center of the stage
in the west. The stream of Chinese immigration became considerable at
about the same time that the great increase in European immigration was
taking place on the other side of the continent. As to its causes, Mrs.
Mary Roberts Coolidge speaks as follows: “The first effective contact of
China with Western nations was through the Opium War of 1840, which
resulted in an increase of Chinese taxes, a general disturbance of the
laboring classes, and the penetration of some slight knowledge of
European ideas into the maritime provinces. Although this prepared the
way for the emigration to the West, its precipitating cause lay in ‘the
Golden Romance’ that had filled the world,”—that is, the news of the
discovery of gold in California. “Masters of foreign vessels afforded
every facility to emigration, distributing placards, maps, and pamphlets
with highly colored accounts of the Golden Hills.... But behind the
opportunity afforded by foreign shipping and the enticement of the
discovery of gold lay deeper causes for emigration—the poverty and ruin
in which the inhabitants of Southeastern China were involved by the
great Taiping rebellion which began in the summer of 1850. The terrors
of war, famine, and plundering paralyzed all industry and trade, and the
agricultural classes of the maritime districts especially were driven to
Hong Kong and Macao.”[99] By the end of 1852 there were in the
neighborhood of 25,000 Chinese on the Pacific coast, almost all of them
in California.

During the first few years of their coming, the Chinese in California
were welcomed, and were looked upon with favor. They were industrious,
tractable, and inoffensive, and were willing to undertake the hard,
menial, and disagreeable forms of labor—partly work generally done by
women—for which native labor was not available under existing
conditions. Their strange manners and customs aroused nothing more than
feelings of curiosity. But gradually a feeling of opposition to them
began to grow up, fomented by the jealousy and race prejudice of the
miners. Their peculiar appearance and strange customs began to make them
the objects of suspicion and hatred. This feeling was intensified by the
presence of a large element of southerners in California, who classed
all people of dark skin—“South Americans, South Europeans, Kanakas,
Malays, or Chinese”—together as colored. Wild stories of their character
and habits began to circulate, and with each repetition gained strength
until they passed current as facts. Among these were the assertions that
the Chinese were practically all coolies, or labor slaves, that they
were highly immoral and vicious, that they had secret tribunals which
inflicted the death penalty without due process of law, that they
displaced native labor, that they could not be Christianized, that they
had no intention of remaining as permanent residents of the country and
would not assimilate with the natives, that they sent money out of the
country, etc. Most of these charges have been proven to be either wholly
false or highly exaggerated by recent investigations, and were so
recognized by the more sober and fair-minded students of the subject at
the time. But for the mass of the people of the Pacific coast, and for
many in other parts of the country, they acquired all the force of
established dogma, and their reiteration passed for argument.

The Chinaman became the scapegoat for all the ills that afflicted the
youthful community, from whatever cause they really arose, and in time
an anti-Chinese declaration came to be essential for the success of any
political party or candidate. In such a state of public opinion it was
inevitable that their lot should be a hard one. They were robbed,
beaten, murdered, and persecuted in a variety of ways. The foreign
miners’ license tax was used against them in a discriminating way which
amounted to quasi legal plunder.

In 1876 the California State Legislature appointed a committee to look
into the matter of Chinese immigration and to make a report. This was
done in 1877, and although the resulting Address and Memorial to
Congress have had a large influence in forming public opinion, and in
shaping legislation, it appears that it was in fact a purely political
document, and that everything was arranged in advance to secure a report
which should accomplish a certain definite result—the satisfaction of
the workingmen of the state, and the emphasizing of the necessity of
federal legislation. The need of this was strongly felt, because nearly
all the acts passed by the coast states against the Chinese had been
declared either unconstitutional or a violation of treaty.

In response to the repeated demands of the coast states for some federal
action, Congress in 1876 appointed a special committee on Chinese
immigration, which made what purported to be a thorough investigation of
the matter, and reported thereupon. The report was wholly anti-Chinese.
But this was inevitable, as it is apparent from a careful study of the
testimony, that the committee “came to its task committed to an
anti-Chinese conclusion and that it had no judicial character
whatever.”[100] The evidence was willfully distorted to produce the
desired result.

During all this time our relations with China had been nominally subject
to a series of treaties, beginning with that of 1844, and including the
famous Burlingame treaty of 1868. While the earlier agreements did not
specifically mention the rights of Chinese to reside and trade in the
United States, they were in fact allowed the same privileges in these
respects as the citizens of other nations. By the treaty of 1868,
however, the right of voluntary emigration was definitely recognized as
between the two countries on the basis of the most favored nation; but
the Chinese were not given the right of naturalization. From this
privilege they were definitely excluded by the law of 1870.

It became evident in time that no federal legislation, satisfactory to
the politicians of the western states, could be secured under the
existing treaties. There arose accordingly a demand for a new treaty
which would allow the passage of laws which would include the points
desired by the western representatives, practically the exclusion of all
Chinese not belonging to the merchant class. In response to this demand
there was negotiated, after much conference between the representatives
of the two nations, a new treaty in 1880. The most important feature of
this new instrument was the right conferred upon the government of the
United States reasonably to regulate, limit, or suspend, but not to
prohibit, the coming or residence of Chinese laborers, whenever it
deemed that the interests of the country demanded such action. It is
under this treaty that the various Chinese exclusion acts have been
passed.

The first of these acts was passed in 1882, and provided for the
exclusion of Chinese laborers for a period of ten years. This was not to
apply to Chinese who were already in the country, or who should enter
within ninety days after the passage of the act. Such persons, who
desired to leave the country and return, were required to secure a
certificate, which by an amendatory act of 1884 was made the sole
evidence of the right of a Chinaman to return. This act also required a
certificate of the exempt classes, to be issued by the Chinese
government or such other foreign governments as they might be subject
to. The deportation of Chinese unlawfully in the country was also
provided for by these acts.

These laws were in many respects carelessly drawn and extremely
difficult of execution. In their application they entailed great expense
upon the United States government, and worked extreme hardship and
injustice to many Chinese. They were, nevertheless, effective as regards
their main purpose, for the volume of Chinese immigration at once
diminished exceedingly. The strictness of the exclusion was increased by
the act of 1888, which refused return to any Chinese laborer unless he
had a lawful wife, child, or parent in the United States, or owned
property of the value of $1000 or had debts due him of like amount. The
acts in force were extended for another ten years by the act of 1892,
and again indefinitely in 1902, in each case with relatively unimportant
modifications in detail.

This history of Chinese immigration is not a matter in which the citizen
of the United States can take much pride. Race prejudice, bigotry,
ignorance, and political ambition have played a prominent part in the
agitation, and have been instrumental in securing much of the
legislation. The attitude and conduct of the United States contrasts
unfavorably with the position of China, which has been one of patient,
courteous, dignified, but emphatic protest, and willingness to coöperate
in securing reasonable and beneficial regulation. The boycott of 1905
has been her principal active reprisal. In spite of these facts,
however, it would be rash to assert that the exclusion of Chinese
laborers, by whatever unfortunate means accomplished, has not been of
actual benefit to the United States. The assertion that the failure of
the Chinese to assimilate has been due more to race prejudice and
exclusiveness on the part of Americans than to unwillingness to be
Americanized on the part of the Chinese, does not do away with the fact
of nonassimilation. Until Americans are willing to fraternize on terms
of social equality with members of any race, there is great danger to
national institutions in the presence of large numbers of that race
within the country.[101] And when we reflect how enormous Chinese
immigration might easily have become in these recent years of quick and
easy transportation, and excessive activity of steamship agents,
contract labor agents, and others of their kind, it is apparent that if
free immigration had been allowed to these people of a widely diverse
race, we might now be facing a Chinese problem in this country second in
gravity only to the negro question.[102]

By the end of this period the conditions of life in America had so
changed as to diminish the general feeling of complacency toward
unlimited immigration. There was in particular a growing opposition to
contract labor, and an increased demand for federal control of the
immigration situation, especially as all state laws in regard to the
regulation of foreign immigration had been declared unconstitutional in
1876. There was a conviction in the minds of some thinkers that the
United States no longer stood in need of an increased labor force. These
views were clearly expressed in an article by Mr. A. B. Mason, published
in 1874. Some of his statements have a new ring. “The conditions that
have hitherto greatly favored immigration no longer exist in their full
force.” “The labour market, _especially for agricultural labour_, is
overstocked.” “The especial disadvantages of American labour more than
counterbalance its especial advantages.” “English labour is in the main
as well off as American labour.”[103] It is evident that the time was at
hand when the competition of the foreigner in the American labor market
could no longer be regarded with equanimity.

This sentiment did not bear fruit, however, until the year 1882. The
only federal legislation bearing on immigration after the repeal of the
favorable contract labor law in 1868 up to this date, was the act of
March 3, 1875, prohibiting the importation or immigration into the
United States of women for the purpose of prostitution, and also
prohibiting the immigration of criminals, convicted of other than
political offenses. This law, while couched in general terms, was an
outcome of the anti-Chinese agitation, and was passed with this race
particularly in mind.




                               CHAPTER VI
                   MODERN PERIOD. FEDERAL LEGISLATION


The year 1882 stands as a prominent landmark in the history of
immigration into the United States. In that year the total immigration
reached the figure of 788,992, a point which had never been reached
before and was not reached again until 1903. It witnessed the climax of
the movement from the Scandinavian countries, and from Germany; only
once since then has the immigration from the United Kingdom reached the
amount of that year. It coincides almost exactly with the appearance of
the streams of immigration from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia of
sufficient volume to command attention. In that year the first Chinese
exclusion act and the first inclusive federal immigration law were
passed. Consequently the year 1882 stands as a natural and logical
beginning of the modern period of immigration, a period during which the
immigration movement has been marked by characteristics so peculiarly
new and definite as to distinguish it sharply from anything which went
before. The discussion of immigration during this period is in all its
essentials the discussion of a present-day problem.

One of the most distinctive and obvious characteristics of this period
has been the growth of a complicated body of federal immigration laws.
These have put the whole immigration question on a new basis, and
deserve to be considered in some detail. In the following review, only
those sections of the successive laws which contain matter that is of
general importance have been included. All merely technical details and
many of the provisions regarding penalties and the practical
administration of the laws have been omitted.

Act of August 3, 1882. SECTION 1. A duty (commonly known as a head tax)
of fifty cents is to be levied for every passenger not a citizen of the
United States, who comes from any foreign port to any port of the United
States by steam or sail vessel. This duty is to be paid to the collector
of customs of the port, by the master, owner, agent, or consignee of the
vessel within twenty-four hours after entry. The money so collected is
to constitute an Immigrant Fund, to be used to defray the expenses of
regulating immigration, for the care of immigrants, and the relief of
such as are in distress, and in general for carrying out the provisions
of the act. This duty is to constitute a lien upon the vessel until
paid.

SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Treasury is charged with the execution
of this act, and with supervision over the business of immigration into
the United States. He is authorized to make contracts with state boards
and commissions, which are still charged with the duty of examining
ships arriving at ports of the state. Any convict, lunatic, idiot, or
any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a
public charge shall not be permitted to land.

SECTION 3. The Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make provisions
to protect immigrants from fraud and loss, and to carry out the law.

SECTION 4. All foreign convicts, except those convicted of political
offenses, shall be returned to the nations to which they belong and from
which they came. The expense of returning all persons not permitted to
land is to be borne by the owners of the vessel in which they came.

SECTION 5. This act shall take effect immediately.

The salient points of this law are the imposition of a federal head tax,
the beginning of a list of excluded classes, the return of excluded
aliens, at the expense of the shipowners, and the assignment of the
immigration business to the Secretary of the Treasury, the actual work
of examination, however, still being done by the state boards.

The next act bearing on immigration was Section 22 of the act of June
26, 1884, and was designed to correct a discrimination in favor of land
transportation contained in Section 1 of the act of 1882. It provided
that until the provisions of this section should be made applicable to
passengers coming into the United States by land carriage, they should
not apply to passengers coming in vessels trading exclusively between
ports of the United States and Canada and Mexico.

Act of February 26, 1885. SECTION 1. It shall be “unlawful for any
person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever,
to prepay the transportation, or in any way to assist or encourage the
importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or
foreigners, into the United States, its Territories, or the District of
Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or
implied, made previously to the importation or migration of such alien
or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any
kind in the United States, its Territories, or the District of
Columbia.”

SECTION 2. All contracts of the above nature shall be void.

SECTION 3. Provides for a fine of $1000 for every violation of the above
provision, payable for each alien being party to such a contract.

SECTION 4. The master of any vessel who knowingly brings in contract
laborers shall be fined not more than $500, and may also be imprisoned
for not more than six months.

SECTION 5. The following classes shall be excepted from the provisions
of the above sections: secretaries, servants, and domestics of
foreigners temporarily residing in the United States; skilled workmen
for any industry not now established in the United States, provided that
such labor cannot be otherwise obtained; actors, artists, lecturers or
singers, or persons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants.
This act shall not prevent any individual from assisting any member of
his family or any relative or personal friend to come in for the purpose
of settlement.

On February 23, 1887, there was an amendatory act passed to the above
act, specifically intrusting the Secretary of the Treasury with the
carrying out of its provisions, and providing for the return of contract
laborers in a manner similar to other excluded classes.

On October 19, 1888, the law of 1887 was amended, providing that a
person who has entered the country contrary to the contract labor law,
may be deported within one year at the expense of the owner of the
importing vessel, or if he came by land, of the person contracting for
his services.

The section containing the provision for excluding contract laborers has
been quoted verbatim to emphasize its extremely strict and inclusive
wording. It would be very difficult for any person who had the slightest
idea of what he was going to do in this country to prove himself outside
the letter of that law. The softening clauses of the law are put in the
form of exceptions, thus throwing the burden of the proof upon the
immigrant. The last amendment quoted is of especial interest as
introducing the principle of deportation after landing.[104]

Act of March 3, 1891. SECTION 1. The following additions are made to the
excluded classes: paupers or persons likely to become a public charge,
persons suffering from a loathsome or a contagious disease, polygamists,
and any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of
another, or who is assisted by others to come, unless it is specifically
proved that he does not belong to one of the excluded classes, including
contract laborers.

SECTION 3. Assisting or encouraging immigration by promise of employment
through advertising in a foreign country is declared illegal, with the
exception of the advertisements of state agencies.

SECTION 4. Encouragement or solicitation of immigration by steamship or
transportation companies, except by means of regular advertisements
giving an account of sailings, facilities, and terms is declared
illegal.

SECTION 5. The following are added to the excepted classes under the
contract labor law: ministers of any religious denomination, persons
belonging to any recognized profession, professors of colleges and
seminaries. Relatives and friends of persons in this country are not
hereafter to be excepted.

SECTION 6. Persons bringing in aliens not legally entitled to enter are
made liable to a fine of not more than $1000, or imprisonment for not
more than one year, or both.

SECTION 7. The office of Superintendent of Immigration is created, to be
under the Secretary of the Treasury.

SECTION 8. Shipmasters shall file with the proper officers a manifest,
giving the name, nationality, last residence, and destination of each
alien passenger. Inspection is to be made by inspection officers before
landing, or a temporary landing may be made at a specified place. The
medical examination is to be made by surgeons of the Marine Hospital
Service. During the temporary landing, aliens are to be properly fed and
cared for. Right of appeal granted. Landing, or allowing to land, alien
passengers at any other time or place than that specified by the
inspectors is made an offense punishable by a (maximum) fine of $1000,
or imprisonment for one year, or both. The Secretary of the Treasury is
empowered to prescribe rules for the inspection of immigrants along the
borders of Canada, British Columbia, and Mexico. The duties and powers
previously vested in the state boards are now to go to the regular
inspection officers of the United States.

SECTION 10. All aliens who unlawfully come to the United States are to
be immediately sent back on the vessel in which they came, all expenses
in the meantime to be borne by the shipowner.

SECTION 11. Any alien who comes into the United States in violation of
law may be deported within one year, and any alien who becomes a public
charge within one year after landing, from causes existing prior to this
landing, may be deported. The expenses of all deportations are to be
borne by the transportation agency responsible for bringing in the
immigrant, if that is possible, and if not, by the United States.

The items in this act particularly worthy of notice are the following:
extension of the excluded classes; prohibition of encouraging
immigration by advertising or solicitation, an attempt to cure two
serious evils, the success of which we shall have occasion to note
later; relatives and personal friends in this country no longer excepted
from the contract labor clause (this exception had almost vitiated the
former law); requirement of manifests; the complete assumption of the
work of inspection by the federal government; extension of the principle
of deportation to public charges.

Act of March 3, 1893. SECTION 1. Manifests greatly enlarged in detail.

SECTION 2. Alien passengers are to be listed in convenient groups of not
more than thirty each, and given tickets corresponding to their numbers
on the manifests. The master of the vessel must certify that he and the
ship’s surgeon have made an examination of all the immigrants before
sailing, and believe none of them to belong to the excluded classes.

SECTION 3. If the ship has no surgeon, examination must be made by a
competent surgeon hired by the transportation company.

SECTION 5. Immigrants who are not beyond any doubt entitled to land are
to be held for special inquiry by a board of not less than four
inspectors.

The noteworthy features in this law are examination at the expense of
the company at the port of embarkation, listing the immigrants in groups
of thirty, the institution of the boards of special inquiry.

August 18, 1894. Head tax is raised to $1.

March 2, 1895. The Superintendent of Immigration is hereafter to be
designated the Commissioner General of Immigration.

June 6, 1900. The Commissioner General of Immigration is made
responsible for the administration of the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

March 3, 1903. _Section 1._ The head tax is raised to $2, and is not to
apply to citizens of Canada, Cuba, or Mexico.

SECTION 2. The following are added to the debarred classes: epileptics,
persons who have been insane within five years previous, persons who
have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously;
professional beggars, anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate
the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United
States, or of all government or of all forms of law, or the
assassination of public officials; prostitutes, and persons who procure
or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women for the purpose of
prostitution; those who, within one year, have been deported under the
contract labor clause.

SECTION 3. The importation of prostitutes is forbidden under a (maximum)
penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of $5000.

SECTION 9. The bringing in of any person afflicted with a loathsome or a
dangerous contagious disease by any person or company, except railway
lines, is forbidden. A fine of $100 is attached if it appears that the
disease might have been detected at the time of embarkation.

SECTION 11. If a rejected alien is helpless from sickness, physical
disability, or infancy, and is accompanied by an alien whose protection
is required, both shall be returned in the usual way.

SECTION 20. The period of deportation for aliens who have come into this
country in violation of law, including those who have become public
charges within two years after landing, is raised to two years.

SECTION 21. A similar provision for deportation within three years is
made for the above classes of aliens, with the exception of public
charges.

SECTION 24. The appointment of immigration inspectors and other
employees is put under the Civil Service rules.

SECTION 25. The boards of special inquiry are to consist of three
members. Either the alien or any dissenting member of the board may
appeal.

SECTION 39. Anarchists, etc., are not to be naturalized.

The important features of this act are the further extension of the
excluded classes; special attention and penalties with respect to
prostitutes; the period of deportation raised to two and three years.

Act of February 14, 1903. The Department of Commerce and Labor is
created, and the Commissioner General of Immigration is transferred to
it from the Treasury Department.

March 22, 1904. Newfoundland is added to the countries exempt from the
head tax.

June 29, 1906. The Bureau of Immigration is henceforth to be called the
Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and is to have charge of the
business of naturalization. A register is to be kept at immigration
stations, giving full information in regard to all aliens arriving in
the United States.

On February 20, 1907, there was passed an inclusive immigration law,
designed to include all of the previous laws, and repealing such
provisions of earlier laws as are not consistent with the present law.
The principal changes introduced by the new law are as follows:

SECTION 1. The head tax is raised to $4. It is not to be levied on
aliens who have resided for at least one year immediately preceding, in
Canada, Newfoundland, Cuba, or Mexico, nor on aliens in transit through
the United States.

SECTION 2. To the excluded classes are added imbeciles, feeble-minded
persons, persons afflicted with tuberculosis, persons not included in
any of the specifically excluded classes who have a mental or physical
deficiency which may affect their ability to earn a living, persons who
admit having committed a crime involving moral turpitude, persons who
admit their belief in the practice of polygamy, women or girls coming
into the United States for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other
immoral purpose, or persons who attempt to bring in such women or girls,
and all children under the age of sixteen unaccompanied by one or both
of their parents, at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and
Labor. Persons whose tickets are paid for with the money of another must
show affirmatively that they were not paid for by any corporation,
society, association, municipality, or foreign government, either
directly or indirectly. This is not to apply to aliens in continuous
transit through the United States to foreign contiguous territory.

SECTION 3. The harboring of immoral women and girls in houses of
prostitution, or any other place for purposes of prostitution, within a
period of three years after their arrival, is made an offense punishable
in the same manner as importing them. Such women are liable to
deportation within three years.

SECTION 9. A fine of $100 is imposed on any person bringing in aliens
subject to any of the following disabilities: idiots, imbeciles,
epileptics, or persons afflicted with tuberculosis (or with a loathsome
or dangerous contagious disease), if these existed and might have been
detected previous to embarkation.

SECTION 12. It is made the duty of shipmasters taking alien passengers
out of the United States to furnish a report, before sailing, giving the
name, age, sex, nationality, residence in the United States, occupation,
and time of last arrival in the United States of each such alien
passenger.

SECTION 20. All deportations may be within three years.[105]

SECTION 25. Appeal from a decision of a board of special inquiry may be
made by the rejected alien or by any member of the board, through the
commissioner of the port and the Commissioner General of Immigration to
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, except in cases of tuberculosis,
loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, or mental or physical
disability, as previously provided for, in which case the decision of
the board is final.

SECTION 26. Any alien who is not admissible because likely to become a
public charge, or because of physical disability other than tuberculosis
or loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, may be admitted on a
suitable bond against becoming a public charge.

SECTION 39. An Immigration Commission is to be appointed.

SECTION 40. The establishment of a Division of Information is
authorized. Its duty is to promote a beneficial distribution of aliens
admitted into the United States.

SECTION 42. Provisions regarding steerage accommodations.[106]

The especially noteworthy features of this act are the following:
further extension of the excluded classes; more stringent provisions
regarding immoral women, and their managers; the fine for bringing in
inadmissible aliens extended to other classes; the beginning of
statistics of departing aliens; appeal not allowed from the decision of
a board of special inquiry in case of mental or physical disability;
Immigration Commission authorized; Division of Information established.

The only important addition to immigration legislation since this act is
the act of March 26, 1910, by which there were added to the excluded and
deportable classes “persons who are supported by or receive in full or
in part the proceeds of prostitution.” The three-year limit for
deportation was removed as regards sexually immoral aliens. Closely
connected with this phase of the immigration statutes is a recent act
prohibiting the importation from one state to another of persons for the
purpose of prostitution. In accordance with an act just passed (1913)
the business of immigration and naturalization passes over to the newly
created Department of Labor.

We have seen that up to 1882 practically all the federal acts relating
to immigration had to do with the regulation of steerage conditions.
Until the year 1907 these acts, which were encouraging in tendency, were
always considered as a separate body of legislation from the real
immigration laws, which were primarily restrictive in character. In the
act of that year, however, the control of the steerage was included in
the immigration law, where it logically belonged. There had been one or
two important pieces of steerage legislation passed previous to this
time which we have not as yet noticed.

The last important steerage act which has been noted was the act of
1855. The principal law between that date and 1907 was the act of 1882.
“Viewed from the standpoint of its predecessors the passenger act of
1882 was an excellent measure. Its framers had profited by observing the
results of the legislative experiments of about sixty-two years. This
advantage, together with the marvelous development and progress in the
methods of passenger traffic, enabled the lawmakers to draft an
intelligent and comprehensive bill. By its provisions the safety and
comfort of emigrants were, theoretically at least, assured. No deck less
than 6 feet in height on any vessel was allowed to be used for
passengers. On the main deck and the deck next below 100 cubic feet of
air space was allowed each passenger, and on the second deck below the
main deck 120 cubic feet was allowed each person. Decks other than the
three above mentioned were under no circumstances to be used for
passengers. With the development of shipbuilding, however, other decks
were added to ships, and this provision soon became obsolete. Sufficient
berths for all passengers were to be provided, the dimensions of each
berth to be not less than 2 feet in width and 6 feet in length, with
suitable partitions dividing them. The sexes were to be properly
separated. The steerage was to be amply supplied with fresh air by means
of modern approved ventilators. Three cooked meals, consisting of
wholesome food, were to be served regularly each day. Each ship was to
have a fully equipped modern hospital for the use of sick passengers. A
competent physician was to be in attendance and suitable medicines were
to be carried. The ship’s master was authorized to enforce such rules
and regulations as would promote habits of cleanliness and good health.
Dangerous articles, such as highly explosive substances and powerful
acids, were forbidden on board.”[107]

The above act remained in force until 1907, when it was superseded by
Section 42 of the immigration act of that year. By this law the cubic
air space system of the act of 1882 was abandoned in favor of the
superficial area system of preventing overcrowding. Eighteen clear feet
of deck space on the main deck or the deck next below were to be
provided for each passenger, and 20 feet on the second deck below. If
the height between the lower passenger deck and the one next above was
less than 7 feet, there must be 30 clear feet of deck space per
passenger. There was also provision for light and ventilation. No
passengers were to be carried on any other decks than those mentioned.

This act was unsatisfactory, as there was much uncertainty as to which
was the main deck, inasmuch as ships with as many as eight decks were
carrying immigrants. The British law was superior in this respect. It
specified the lowest passenger deck as the one next below the water
line. All above this were denominated passenger decks. This law required
18 clear superficial feet for each passenger carried on the lowest
passenger deck, and 15 feet for each passenger on passenger decks. If
the height of the lowest passenger deck was less than 7 feet, or if it
was not properly lighted and ventilated, there must be 25 feet per
passenger, and under similar conditions on passenger decks, 18 feet.
There must be 5 feet of superficial open deck space for each passenger.
In reckoning the space on the lowest passenger deck and passenger decks
the space occupied by the baggage of passengers, public rooms,
lavatories, and bathrooms used exclusively by steerage passengers might
be counted, provided the actual sleeping space was not less than 15 feet
on the lowest and 12 feet on the others. On December 19, 1908, the
United States passed a law making our steerage provisions correspond
with the British act, except that the last provisions are 18 feet and 15
feet respectively in the United States law.

In the practical application of such a complicated set of laws as these
it is inevitable that many questions and uncertainties should arise. For
the guidance of immigration officials in the performance of their
duties, a long list of rules and regulations are prescribed by the
Commissioner General. A few of these, which have an immediate bearing on
the admission of aliens must be noted. Stowaways are considered _ipso
facto_ inadmissible, and as a rule are not even examined. Certain border
ports are specified on the Canadian and Mexican borders, and any alien
entering at any other port is assumed to have entered in violation of
law. All aliens arriving in Canada, destined to the United States, are
inspected at one of the following ports: Halifax, Nova Scotia; Quebec
and Point Levi, Quebec; St. John, New Brunswick; Vancouver and Victoria,
British Columbia. The United States maintains inspection stations at
these points, and aliens examined there are given a certificate stating
that the alien has been inspected and is admissible, accompanied by a
personal description for purposes of identification. Special boards of
inquiry are also established in other border cities for the examination
of aliens, originally destined for Canada, but who later desire to be
admitted to the United States within one year after their arrival in
Canada. Aliens entering the United States by Mexican border ports are,
in general, subject to the same inspection as if arriving by a seaport.

Aliens in transit are examined in the same manner as if desiring to
remain in the United States, and if they are found to belong to the
debarred classes they are refused permission to land. The head tax is
charged on their account, as for other aliens, but it is refunded to the
transportation company if the latter furnishes satisfactory proof that
the alien has passed by a continuous journey through the territory of
the United States, within thirty days, such proof to be furnished within
sixty days after the arrival of the alien.

Throughout the development of this body of laws certain well-marked
tendencies can be traced. In the first place, the criteria of admission
have steadily increased in severity, until now the law provides for the
exclusion of practically every class of applicants who might fairly be
considered undesirable, with the exception, perhaps, of illiterates.
Secondly, we may note a tendency to concentrate all business, connected
with the admission of aliens into this country or into membership in the
nation, in the hands of a single branch of the federal government, and
the increasing power and importance of this branch. Thirdly, there is
manifest an increasing recognition of the right of this country to
protect itself against unwelcome additions to its population, not only
by refusing them admission, but by expelling them from the country, if
their subsequent conduct proves them unworthy of retention.




                              CHAPTER VII
        VOLUME AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE IMMIGRATION STREAM


As regards the volume of the immigration current the modern period has
witnessed a continuation of the same general process which has been
going on since 1820. The same succession of crests and depressions in
the great wave has continued, the only difference being that the apex
reached a much higher point than ever before. And, as in other periods,
the great determining factor in the volume of immigration has been the
economic situation in this country. Prosperity has always been attended
by large immigration, hard times by the reverse. As already remarked,
the year 1882 was marked by the largest annual immigration which had
hitherto been recorded. The next low-water mark was reached in the
middle nineties, following the depression of 1893. As the country
recovered from this, immigration began to increase again, and rose
almost steadily until in 1907 it reached the highest record which it has
ever attained, a grand total of 1,285,349 immigrants in one year.[108]
The crisis of that year interrupted the course of affairs, and
immigration fell off sharply, and has not since completely recovered.

There is one matter connected with the volume of immigration which marks
the last few years of the modern period and is of the greatest
importance. This is the provision for estimating the exact net gain or
loss in population each year through immigration movements. Until very
recently the only immigration figures which were considered worth while
were those of arriving aliens. It was tacitly assumed that our immigrant
traffic was a wholly one-sided one. But gradually people began to
realize that there was a large countercurrent of departing aliens. In
the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1906 (p. 56)
an effort is made to supply as far as possible these data for the years
1890 to 1906. But in the absence of any legislation requiring
shipmasters to furnish lists of departing passengers, these figures are
admittedly incomplete, and no attempt is made to distinguish aliens from
citizens of the United States. The nearest approach that can be made to
ascertaining the number of departing aliens is to assume that all the
passengers other than cabin belonged to this class. This is probably not
very far from the truth, and taking these figures as a guide, we can get
some idea of how large the outward movement has been at certain times,
particularly during the period of commercial depression which marked the
middle nineties. Thus in 1895 while there were 258,536 arrivals of
immigrant aliens, there were 216,665 departures of the class mentioned,
making a total gain of only 41,871; in 1898 the net gain was only 98,442
against a total immigration of 229,299. Unfortunately, figures are not
available for 1896–1897. The importance of this phase of the subject
eventually became so evident that in the immigration law of 1907 a
provision was included requiring masters of departing vessels to file
accurate and detailed lists of their alien passengers, giving certain
important facts concerning them. Accordingly, in the fiscal year 1908 we
have for the first time complete and accurate data regarding departing
aliens.

In that year another important distinction is made, that between
immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens on the inward passage, and emigrant
and nonemigrant aliens on the outward passage. Immigrant aliens are
those whose place of last permanent residence was in some foreign
country, and who are coming here with the intention of residing
permanently. Nonimmigrant aliens are of two classes: those whose place
of last permanent residence was the United States, but who have been
abroad for a short period of time, and those whose place of last
permanent residence was in a foreign country, and who are coming to the
United States without the intention of residing permanently, including
aliens in transit. Departing aliens are classified in a corresponding
way. Emigrant aliens are those whose place of last permanent residence
was the United States, and who are going abroad with the intention of
residing there permanently. Nonemigrant aliens are of two classes: those
whose place of last permanent residence was the United States, and who
are going abroad for a short visit only, and those whose place of last
permanent residence was abroad, but who have been in the United States
for a short time, including aliens in transit. In all cases the
expressed intention of the alien is regarded as final concerning
residence, and an intended future residence of twelve months is
considered a permanent residence. The recent reports of the Commissioner
General contain tables almost as detailed for departing as for arriving
aliens.

Thus it is now possible to make an exact reckoning of the net gain or
loss in population each year through immigration movements. The classes
in which we are particularly interested are naturally the immigrant and
emigrant aliens, for they are the only participants in true immigration
movements, according to our definition. The others are merely travelers.
Yet they are important and interesting travelers, and the modern
problems of immigration cannot be thoroughly understood without taking
some consideration of them. As for the aliens in transit, they can be
quickly disposed of. They are counted as nonimmigrant aliens on their
arrival, and nonemigrant aliens at their departure, which is supposed to
occur within a period of thirty days. Thus they cancel, and do not in
any important way affect the life of the United States. The other class
of nonimmigrants and nonemigrants is much more important, for they
include a group of aliens who have attracted considerable attention of
late—the so-called “birds of passage.” These are, in the strictest
sense, aliens who have chosen the United States as their place of
permanent residence, but who go back to the old country for brief
sojourns on certain occasions. In a broader sense, the birds of passage
may also be taken to include aliens whose permanent residence is abroad,
but who come to this country for a brief stay.[109]

As an illustration of the method of reckoning the gain or loss in
population, let us take the year 1910. In that year there were 1,041,570
immigrant aliens, and 156,467 nonimmigrant aliens admitted, making a
total of 1,198,037. There were 202,436 departures of emigrant aliens and
177,982 of nonemigrant aliens, making a total of 380,418. Thus there was
a net gain in the year of 817,619 aliens all together. But not all of
these were permanent residents. To get an idea of the actual increase of
permanent residents we need to add together two classes,—the immigrant
aliens, who come here for the first time with the intention of residing
permanently, and those nonimmigrant aliens who are such, not because
they do not expect to reside here permanently, but because their
permanent residence has already been established here and who have been
abroad for a brief period. Of the former class, the immigrant aliens,
there were 1,041,570; of the second class, nonimmigrants whose places of
last permanent residence and of intended future residence were both the
United States, there were 94,075. This makes a total of 1,135,645
permanent alien residents who came into the United States in the year in
question. The actual decrease in permanent residents may be computed in
a similar way. In the year in question there were 202,436 emigrant
aliens who departed, and 89,754 nonemigrant aliens whose places of last
permanent residence and intended future residence were both the United
States,—that is, permanent residents of this country who left for a
brief period only. This makes a total of 292,190 permanent residents of
this country who left it in the year in question. Subtracting this
number from the total of permanent residents who arrived, we have a
remainder of 843,455. This represents the actual gain in permanent alien
residents during the year in question. This figure, in the year in
question, happens to come very near to the gross gain estimated in the
simplest way. But it is not necessarily so, and in the year 1908 there
was considerable difference between the two figures. It is not always
necessary to make this somewhat involved calculation. In many cases, the
mere comparison of the figures for immigrant and emigrant aliens is
sufficient for the purpose. But there are many other instances in which
accuracy and consistency require this exact calculation to be made, and
it is a decided acquisition to the study of immigration to have these
data available.[110] Thus in the year 1909 the net gain in permanent
alien residents was 584,513, while in 1908 it was only 341,075; yet
there were more immigrant aliens admitted in 1908 than in 1909.

In respect to the composition of this great current, the period in
question has witnessed a profound and most significant change. We have
seen that prior to 1882 practically the entire body of immigrants was
made up of individuals from Germany, the United Kingdom, and the
Scandinavian countries. From that year on, these have steadily decreased
in importance, and their places have been taken by contingents from
Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and other south European countries. This
change has been so pronounced as to lead to a separation of immigrants
into the “old immigration” and the “new immigration,” a distinction
which has become familiar to every casual student of the subject. The
Immigration Commission has recently given its official sanction to this
classification, and in its reports follows this scheme: the old
immigration includes those from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales,
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and
Switzerland; the new immigration, those from Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia,
Spain, Syria, and Turkey. This schedule refers only to European
countries (with the exception of Syria and Turkey, which ethnically
belong to Europe), without reference to non-European sources. But
immigration to the United States is as yet almost wholly a European
movement, so that other countries may be neglected in any general
consideration. In so far as there are any immigrants from non-European
sources they would naturally be classed with the new immigration.
Roughly speaking, the old immigration came from the north and west of
Europe, the new immigration comes from the south and east of that
continent.

The sweeping nature of this change can be comprehended only through the
comparison of figures. The immigration from the United Kingdom and
Germany, which up to 1882 had made up so nearly all of the total, never
again reached the same figure, and gradually dwindled, both relatively
and positively, until in 1907 it amounted to only 11.8 per cent of the
total immigration for the year. On the other hand the currents from
Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia, all of which, as we have seen, began
to attain prominence approximately in 1882, grew steadily until in the
year 1907 they amounted respectively to 26.3 per cent, 22.2 per cent,
and 20.1 per cent of the total. Putting them together, we have a total
for these three countries of 68.6 per cent of the total immigration, and
adding to them the immigration from the other countries belonging to the
new movement, we have a total of 81 per cent of the European immigrants
admitted to the United States in 1907. In the years from 1819 to 1883
the old immigration had furnished about 95 per cent of the total
movement from Europe to the United States. Comparing the two years 1882
and 1907, it appears that the old immigration made up 87.1 per cent of
the total immigration in the first year, and 19 per cent in the latter,
and the new immigration 12.9 per cent in the former and 81 per cent in
the latter.[111]

This is a most radical change, the importance of which can hardly be
overestimated. The old immigrants, as we have before observed, were of a
racial stock very closely related to the early settlers of the country,
and to the original type of the American people. Their language was the
same or similar, and their national traditions wholly harmonious.
Consequently assimilation was a comparatively simple matter. It was
practically a reforming, on American soil, of the English race, from the
same component elements which had gone into it from the beginning in
England. The new immigration is made up from people of a very different
racial stock, representing the Slavic and Mediterranean branches of the
Caucasian race rather than the Teutonic. With the difference in race go
differences in mental characteristics, traditions, and habits of life.
As a result, the problem of assimilation in this country has taken on a
completely different aspect. Moreover, this change is a very recent one.
It was not until the year 1896 that the three currents from
Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia exceeded in volume the contributions
of the United Kingdom, Germany, and Scandinavia. The real dilution of
the original American stock is a matter of scarcely half a generation.
These facts will become clearer by glancing at the following table:

     PER CENT OF TOTAL IMMIGRATION COMING FROM SPECIFIED COUNTRIES BY
                       DECADES, FROM 1861 TO 1910.
 ═══════════════════════════╤════════════════════════════════════════════
           COUNTRY          │                   YEARS
 ───────────────────────────┼────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────
              „             │1861–70 │1871–80 │1881–90 │1891–00 │1901–10
 ───────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
 Austria-Hungary            │    0.33│     2.6│     6.7│      16│    24.4
 German Empire              │      35│    25.5│      28│      14│     3.9
 Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia│    0.51│       2│     5.9│      18│    23.3
 Russian Empire and Finland │     0.2│     1.9│     4.4│      14│    18.2
 United Kingdom:            │      38│        │        │        │
   England                  │        │    15.6│      12│       6│     4.4
   Ireland                  │        │    15.5│      12│      10│     3.9
 ═══════════════════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════

In seeking to determine the causes of this change it will be well to
note first certain general causes which have underlain the whole
movement, and then to consider the specific causes which have operated
to stimulate immigration in certain of the more important countries.

Among the general causes may be mentioned first of all the great
development of transportation during the last thirty years. As has been
previously observed, emigration movements are very dependent upon easy
and cheap transportation facilities. One great reason why there were so
many more immigrants from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the
Scandinavian countries, during the first three quarters of the
nineteenth century, was that communication between those countries and
the United States was so much easier than with southeastern Europe. The
latter part of this century saw the establishment of many direct
steamship lines from Mediterranean ports to the United States, which
served to open up this new territory. There was also a great improvement
in internal transportation in the more backward countries of Europe,
which completed the line of access from the United States to the more
remote interior districts of Europe.

With the establishment of these new lines of communication, it followed
inevitably that the transportation companies should put forth every
effort to attract as much business as possible to them. So we find the
activities of transportation and emigration agents extending farther and
farther into Europe, with the growth of lines that demanded their
services. The importance of these agents in stimulating emigration will
be discussed in another connection. Along with these changes, and
incident to the beginnings of emigration from some of these new sources,
there grew up in these countries a better knowledge of the United
States, its attractions, and the means of getting there. This knowledge
was very meager and faulty at first, and willfully distorted by the
agents, but it served to awaken the people to the possibilities of
emigration, and to stimulate them to take the step. This influence was
abetted by a growing sense of independence and ambition on the part of
the people of these regions, which made it more possible for them to act
on their own initiative. They could never have emigrated under the
conditions of difficulty, uncertainty, and hardship which marked the
earlier movement, and which the more hardy, adventurous, and daring
northern races faced without hesitation.

There are two further causes of this shifting of the sources of
immigration from northern to southern Europe, which are even more
significant than the foregoing. The first of these is that, with the
filling up of the United States, and the industrial improvements of
northern Europe, the economic situation in this country no longer
presents the same marked advantages over the older nations that it did
during most of the nineteenth century. The immigrant from England,
Ireland, Germany, or Sweden no longer finds his lot so much easier here
than at home. The United States has now its own problems of congestion,
pauperism, and competition of labor. Consequently it is much less worth
while for the northern immigrant to come. But as compared with the more
backward countries of Europe, there is still a sufficient margin of
advantage in the United States to make it well worth while for the
peasant to make the change. The comparison of the conditions which
exist, or which he believes to exist, in the United States, with those
in his own land has still sufficient power to arouse those feelings of
discontent which are necessary to migration.

The second of these causes is that when the representatives of more
backward countries, representing a lower standard of living and of
industrial demands, have once begun to come, the members of more
advanced races cease coming. They are unwilling to take up residence in
a country where they must enter into competition with their inferiors,
and where all will be classed together by the natives. Our immigration
started from the most advanced nations of Europe. Each inferior
reservoir which we have successively tapped, and allowed to drain freely
into our nation, has tended to check the flow from the earlier sources.
This will continue to be true to the end. Canada recognizes this fact
frankly, and while making every effort to attract immigrants from the
United Kingdom and northwestern Europe places serious obstacles in the
way of immigrants from the other half of the continent.[112]

In considering the specific causes of the rise of the new immigration we
will confine our attention primarily to the countries of
Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia, which send us the great bulk of the
immigrants, and in which conditions are sufficiently representative to
give a satisfactory idea of the nature of the new movement in general.
Let us first consider Austria-Hungary.

The early immigration from Bohemia in the middle of the nineteenth
century belongs in every way rather to the old than to the new
immigration, and need not be considered here. As for the recent
immigration from Austria-Hungary, it may be said that the underlying,
fundamental factor is the racial diversity which characterizes that
country. Austria-Hungary is not in any sense a nation, but a mixture of
diverse and hostile races, held together primarily by the outside
pressure of Russia, Germany, Italy, and Turkey. The attempt to get a
clear and definite understanding of the racial composition of the empire
is baffling to one who has not had the opportunity to make an exhaustive
study of the situation at first hand, and even the authorities do not
wholly agree as to the racial classification. The following sketch,
taken from Professor Commons,[113] will give a sufficient idea of the
complicated conditions which exist. In the territory of Austria-Hungary
may be found considerable numbers of five important sections of the
human family, as follows:

German.

Slav: Czechs or Bohemians, Moravians, Slovaks, Poles, and Ruthenians in
the northern part; Croatians, Servians, Dalmatians, and Slovenians in
the southern part.

Magyar.

Latin: Italians and Roumanians (Latinized Slavs).

Jewish.

From such a conglomeration of races it is impossible that political and
social entanglements and difficulties should not arise. In the words of
Miss Balch, “Politically, the dual monarchy is nothing short of a
monstrosity.”[114]

In general, the Germans and Magyars are the ruling element, and the
Slavs are held in subjection. The former races constitute the nobility,
and own the land; the latter are the peasants and laborers. The
management of public and private financial affairs has largely been
monopolized by the Jews, who have been more liberally treated here than
in any other country of modern Europe. Along with this political
inequality there has gone a pronounced economic inequality, and while
universal manhood suffrage has recently been granted by the emperor, it
yet remains to be seen whether it will bring about an improvement of the
economic conditions, which are the great immediate stimulus to
emigration.

One of the greatest blights of Austria-Hungary is the system of
landlordism, and the antiquated system of landholding and agriculture,
which still persists, and seriously handicaps the country in competition
with more advanced nations. These economic disabilities are accompanied
by various social and political disturbances. Taxes are high and fall
unequally upon different classes of the population, exempting the great
landowners from their fair share of the burden. The terms of military
service are severe. The birth rate and death rate are both high, and the
poverty, ignorance, inequality, and helplessness of the people make the
overpopulation seem greater than it is. The emigration is almost wholly
from the peasant class, which does not, however, represent the lowest
section of the population. Below the peasant in the social scale are the
cottager, the laborer, and the farm servant.

We thus have, in the case of Austria-Hungary, an interesting combination
of economic, political, and social causes, all resting upon racial
heterogeneity.[115]

Turning to Italy, we find somewhat the same combination of economic and
political causes, without, however, a corresponding basis of racial
diversity. It is true that the population of Italy is divided into two
distinct groups, but these are also geographically separated, and the
result is a dual stream of immigration, rather than a single outflow due
to racial antagonism. The inhabitants of northern Italy, the “north
Italians” as they are called, are Teutonic in blood and in appearance.
Their home is in a relatively well-developed manufacturing section, and
a large proportion of the emigrants are skilled artisans, and come from
the cities. The southern Italians belong to the Mediterranean branch of
the Caucasian race, are shorter in stature and more swarthy, and on the
whole much inferior in intelligence to their northern compatriots. The
majority of the emigrants are peasants from the great landed estates,
accustomed to wages about one third of those in the north. Naturally the
conditions which lead to emigration are somewhat different in the north
and the south, and it is in the latter region that we are particularly
interested, for, unfortunately from our point of view, the great
majority of our Italian immigrants belong to the southern branch. The
distinction between these two groups is so marked that for years the
immigration authorities of the United States have recognized it, and
have listed them separately in the statistics. In 1910 there were
192,673 south Italian immigrants to this country, and only 30,780 north
Italians. The north Italians go to Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil in
about the same numbers that the south Italians come to us.

In southern Italy and Sicily the power of the landlord, which as in
Austria-Hungary is one of the great curses of Italy, is greatest. The
land is divided up into large estates held by the nobility, and let out
to tenant farmers at enormously high rents. As much as $160 per year per
acre is paid for an orange garden. The leases are short. The wages of
all classes are very low. An agricultural laborer earns from 8 cents to
38 cents per day, an unskilled laborer from 25 cents to 50 cents, and a
skilled laborer, such as a mason or carpenter, from 27 cents to
$1.40.[116]

It is true that prices are lower than in the United States, so that
these wages are not so extremely inadequate as might at first appear.
Nevertheless, the difference between prices in this country and in Italy
is not nearly so great as the difference in wages, so that the wage
scale is in fact much lower there. Living expenses are seriously
increased by an exaggerated system of indirect taxes, which are so
severe in the case of food as to make food alone cost the peasants about
85 per cent of their wages. These taxes are so arranged as to fall with
undue weight upon the poor and working classes, forcing them to pay over
one half of the entire amount of taxes. The amount thus paid, exclusive
of the tax on wine, amounts to from 10 to 20 per cent of their wages.
Moreover, this is an increasing burden. Since 1870 the wealth of the
country has increased 17 per cent and taxes 30 per cent.

The army and navy are a tremendous drain upon the people, in two ways.
First, they vastly increase the national expenditures. The money spent
for this purpose amounts to one fourth more of the national income than
is spent by France or Germany, and nearly three times as much as by the
United States. Secondly, they interfere with production, as every
able-bodied peasant is required to serve in the army for a term of two
years.

Another, and more profound, cause of economic distress is found in the
rapid increase of population. This is both a cause and a result of
poverty, and the birth rate is highest in the poorest districts. While
this high birth rate is accompanied by a high death rate, there is still
difference enough between the two to bring about an extreme density of
population, exceeded only by the islands of Great Britain and Japan, and
the states of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and the little country of
Belgium. In such a densely populated country, where both the birth rate
and death rate are high, we are almost always sure to find economic
pressure and distress.[117]

As a result of the foregoing conditions, the annual emigration from
Italy is very heavy. In addition to the true emigration, where there is
a permanent change of residence, there is a large amount of temporary or
periodic migration, in which case the individual leaves his home only
for a short space of time, with the fixed intention of returning. Much
of this temporary emigration is directed to France and Germany, where
work is obtainable during the summer season. Some of it turns toward
North America, and a large amount to South America. Many Italians take
advantage of the difference in seasons, and put in two seasons of summer
work in each year, one on each side of the equator. It is estimated that
about one third of the total migration from Italy is of this temporary
or periodic character.[118]

Of the total number of immigrants to the United States from Russia,
somewhat less than one tenth are Russians. The balance are Poles,
Lithuanians, Finns, Germans, and Jews. Agricultural, social, and
political conditions in Russia are sufficiently well understood to make
it no cause for wonder that almost any of its common citizens should be
glad to leave. The Russian peasant is said to be the most oppressed in
Europe, but he is also probably the most ignorant and degraded, and as
yet is only beginning to learn to emigrate. There is a great reservoir
there which will be ready to furnish us untold millions when the current
gets well started. But so far the great stream from Russia is made up
principally of other races. Of these, we are particularly interested in
the Jews, partly because they are the most numerous, partly because they
are a unique and striking people, partly because the reasons for their
coming are more definite and easily comprehended.

We have seen that during the Middle Ages the Jews were expelled from
almost every country of Europe. Almost the only region where they were
allowed a settlement was in Poland, and hence they gathered there in
large numbers. Under Russian domination this has been made the “Pale of
Settlement” for the Jews, and now contains about one third of the
11,000,000 people of that race in the world. Life in any other part of
the Empire is made practically impossible for them, and it is far from
easy there. Among the other restrictions put upon the Jews during the
Middle Ages was a prohibition of engaging in agriculture. But they were
allowed to take usury, which was forbidden to Christians. The natural
result was that they were driven almost entirely into trade, and
particularly into money lending, so that those pursuits which seem to be
so well adapted to the natural proclivities of the Jews were in a sense
thrust upon them. As a result the Jews in Russia are engaged primarily
in the two businesses of lending money and selling liquor. When the
Russian serfs were liberated in 1861, and left in a most helpless state
without either capital or land, the Jews became their merchants,
middlemen, and usurers. It was perfectly natural that the ignorant
peasant should come to blame the money lender and the saloon keeper for
evils which were really due to the wretched political, social, and
economic organization, but of which they seemed to be the immediate
agents. There is reason to believe that the government encouraged this
popular antipathy toward an unpopular race for the sake of diverting the
indignation of the masses from itself. Certain it is that the attitude
of the government has been most hostile to the Jews. In 1881 this
antagonism culminated in a series of terrible anti-Semitic riots, and
then began the exodus to America.

In the next year, 1882, were passed a set of laws, known as the May
Laws, which, with other subsequent ones of a similar nature, have made
existence for the Jews almost intolerable in the Russian Empire. These
laws, inspired largely by the Greek Orthodox Church, have made it
impossible for the Jew “to foreclose a mortgage or to lease or
purchase land; he cannot do business on Sundays or Christian holidays;
he cannot hold office; he cannot worship or assemble without police
permit; he must serve in the army, but cannot become an officer; he is
excluded from schools and universities; he is fined for conducting
manufactures and commerce; he is almost prohibited from the learned
professions.”[119] The press is against them. Here in America we hear
of only the climaxes of this persecution, but the oppression is
constant and untiring. Is it any wonder that the Jews seek relief in
flight?

It will become evident from time to time that our Jewish immigration is
in many respects unique, and stands as an exception to many of the
general principles which one might lay down concerning immigration. So
in respect to the causes of their emigration it is not surprising to
find a situation somewhat different from other branches of the new
immigration, or from any other immigration, in fact. The Jews have
always been a “peculiar people,” and religion has played a larger part
in their history than in the case of probably any other modern people.
The persecutions to which they have been subjected from age to age have
had religious diversity as their ostensible and obvious, if not always
their only, motive. And in the modern emigration from Russia, while the
oppression under which they suffer touches almost every phase of their
life, and imposes numberless economic handicaps, it rests ultimately
upon religious grounds. Russia is the only modern country from which
numerous emigrants are driven by actual persecution, though it is said
that Roumania has within the last ten years passed anti-Jewish laws more
stringent than those of Russia.

Conditions in Austria-Hungary and Italy, and to a less extent in Russia,
may be taken as typical of the circumstances which prevail in other
countries of southern and eastern Europe, and Asia Minor, from which our
new immigrants come. In Bulgaria the following four particular reasons
have been assigned for emigration:

(1) Bulgaria is distinctively an agricultural country, and while a large
per cent of the people own their farms, the holdings are too small to
enable them to make a sufficient living, and the methods of cultivation
are poor.

(2) There is a great dearth of manufacturing industry. In 1907 there
were only 166 factories of any size, with 6149 workers.

(3) Taxes are very heavy, amounting to one fifth, one fourth, or even
one third of the earnings of families.

(4) There is much dissatisfaction with the government among the peasants
on the grounds of expense, and of the very oppressive terms of military
service.[120]

Summing up the facts regarding the volume and racial character of
immigration during this period, it appears that, as regards the former,
the series of waves has been continued, responding to the economic
conditions, but reaching a much higher culmination than ever before. As
regards the latter, there has been a most distinct and profound change.
The main source of the immigrant current has shifted away from northern
and western Europe, to the southern and eastern portions of the
continent, whose people are by no means so closely related in physique
or so similar in mental characteristics to the people of the United
States as the immigrants of earlier periods. The causes of this change
lie primarily in altered conditions in the United States which make it
less attractive to the residents of the more advanced nations of Europe
than formerly. In the more backward countries the political and economic
situation is still so inferior to the United States that an ample motive
for emigration exists. All that was needed to start a large movement was
a knowledge of the possibilities across the Atlantic, and the means of
getting there. Both of these have been provided within the period in
question.




                              CHAPTER VIII
                       THE CAUSES OF IMMIGRATION


There are two things which the student of sociological problems—like
every other scientist—wishes to know about the phenomena which fall
within his field. These are the causes and the effects. Hitherto we have
said a good deal about the causes of immigration and very little about
the effects. In truth, it is much simpler to predicate causes of such a
movement than effects. The causes lie in the past; the effects are
largely a matter of the future. It is possible to state with a fair
degree of certainty what are the causes of the modern immigration to the
United States. The reader will have already formed a general idea from
the examples of the new immigration which we have given.

In general the causes of our recent and present immigration may be
divided into two classes, the natural and the artificial. Most of what
has been said thus far refers to the former; the latter has been merely
hinted at. Another distinction which is often helpful is that between
the permanent or predisposing causes, and the temporary or immediate
causes. It frequently happens that in a given country there are
conditions of long standing—perhaps inherent in the character of the
country itself—which make life hard and disagreeable for the resident.
Yet no immigration takes place until some relatively trivial event, of a
temporary nature, occurs, which serves as the final impulse to
emigration. To the superficial view this temporary event appears as the
cause of emigration, when in point of fact its weight in the total
amount of dissatisfactions is insignificant.[121] The natural causes of
immigration at the present time lie primarily in the superiority of the
economic conditions in the United States over those in the countries
from which the immigrants come. Modern immigration is essentially an
economic phenomenon. Religious and political causes have played the
leading part in the past, and still enter in as contributory factors in
many cases. But the one prevailing reason why the immigrant of to-day
leaves his native village is that he is dissatisfied with his economic
lot, as compared with what it might be in the new world. The European
peasant comes to America because he can—or believes he can—secure a
greater return in material welfare for the amount of labor expended in
this country than in his home land. This fact is recognized by
practically all careful students of the subject, and is frequently
emphasized in the recent report of the Immigration Commission. It is
worthy of notice, also, that the changes which affect the volume of the
immigration current, and cause those repeated fluctuations which we have
observed, are changes in the economic situation in this country, rather
than in the countries of source. A period of good times in this country
attracts large numbers of immigrants by promising large rewards for
labor; an industrial depression checks the incoming current, and sends
away many of those who are here. This is probably accounted for by the
fact that economic conditions in this country are subject to greater
oscillations than in European countries which are relatively static,
rather than dynamic. An example of the opposite condition is furnished
by the Irish emigration of the middle of the nineteenth century, when a
great economic disaster in the country of source occasioned a large
increase in emigration. This relation between the economic situation in
this country and the volume of immigration has been worked out
statistically by Professor Commons, and is presented in graphic form in
a table in his book, _Races and Immigrants in America_ (opposite page
64). In this table he takes imports as an index of the prosperity of the
United States and shows how closely the curve representing immigration
follows the curve of imports per capita. If he could have taken account
of the departing aliens as well, the showing would probably have been
still more striking.

The search for the reasons for this economic superiority of the United
States involves an investigation too complicated and extensive to be
undertaken in the present connection. There are two factors, however,
which may be pointed out, which, at the beginning of our national life,
gave us an advantage possessed by no other modern nation. The first of
these was the small ratio between men and land, which we have commented
on before. The territory of the United States was a vast, newly
discovered region, with untold natural resources and every advantage of
climate and configuration, inhabited by a mere handful of settlers, at a
time when the nations of Europe had long since struck a balance between
population and land, on the customary standard of living. The countries
of Europe have also profited, it is true, by the opening up of this
great new world. But their benefit has been transmitted and indirect,
while the American people have been the direct and immediate recipients
of this great advantage. The importance of this factor can hardly be
overestimated.

The second of these great factors is the character of the American
people themselves. We have seen that this was well formed and
distinctive at the time of the Revolution. The early settlers of the
North American continent were in many respects a picked body, taken from
the best of the populations of Europe. Their descendants were also
subjected to the stern selective processes of the struggle with, and
conquest of, the wilderness, and the establishment of their own economic
and political independence. As a result, the American people at the
beginning of our national life had certain qualities both of physical
and intellectual character,—hardihood, enterprise, daring, independence,
love of freedom, perseverance, etc.,—which set them apart from any of
their contemporaries.

It has been the combination of these two factors—a unique people in a
rich virgin land—which, more than anything else, has accounted for the
eminent position attained by the American nation in the economic life of
the world. Many other circumstances have doubtless contributed to the
result, but they would have been powerless to accomplish the end,
without these two essential prerequisites. With the disappearance of
these two distinguishing features the United States will begin to lose
her position of economic superiority.

The statement made in a previous paragraph, that the immigrant comes to
America because he can—or believes he can—better his economic lot by so
doing, suggested that great class of causes which we have called the
artificial. The advantages of the economic life in the United States all
too frequently exist, not in fact, but in the mind of the prospective
emigrant. And this belief is equally potent in stirring up emigration,
whether it is grounded on fact or not. There are hosts of immigrants
passing through the portals of Ellis Island every year whose venture is
based on a sad misconception. There are also countless numbers who would
never have engaged in the undertaking had not the idea of doing so been
forcibly and persistently instilled into their minds by some outside
agency. In other words, a very large part of our present immigration is
not spontaneous and due to natural causes, but is artificial and
stimulated. This stimulation consists in creating the desire and
determination to migrate, by inducing dissatisfaction with existing
conditions as compared with what the new world has to offer. Its source
is in some interested person or agency whose motive may, or may not, be
selfish.

There are three principal sources from which this stimulation or
encouragement to immigration emanates—the transportation companies, the
labor agents, and the previous immigrants. The motive of the first two
is an economic and wholly selfish one; that of the latter may or may not
be selfish.

The carrying of immigrants from Europe to America is a very vast and
lucrative business. The customary charge for steerage passage averages
at least $30, and as the large immigrant ships carry 2000 or more
steerage passengers there is a possibility of receiving as much as
$60,000 from steerage passengers on a single voyage. It is, furthermore,
a business which can be almost indefinitely expanded by vigorous
pushing. A skillful agent can induce almost any number of the simple and
credulous peasants of a backward European country to emigrate, who had
scarcely had such an idea in their heads before. Consequently it pays
the transportation companies to have an immense army of such agents,
continually working over the field, and opening up new territory. The
motive is not so much rivalry for a given amount of business between the
different companies; a mutual agreement between different lines or
groups of lines, dividing up the territory from which they shall draw
their steerage passengers, practically precludes this.[122] It is rather
the possibility of actually creating new business by energetic
canvassing.

It is obvious that the activity of these agents may be of the most
pernicious nature. The welfare of the immigrant, or the benefit of
either country concerned, are of no concern to them. Their sole aim is
to get business. So long as the immigrant has the wherewithal to pay his
passage, it matters not to them where he got it, nor are they deterred
by any doubts as to the fitness of the immigrant for American life, or
of the probability of his success there. In fact, it is claimed that the
steamship companies prefer a class of immigrants which is likely,
eventually, to return to the old country, as this creates a traffic
going the other way. The only checks to their operations are such as are
imposed by their own scruples, and the possession of too many of these
does not help a man to qualify for the position of agent.

The methods used by these agents to encourage emigration are most
ingenious and insidious. Every possible means is used to make the
peasant dissatisfied with his present lot, and to impress him with the
glories and joys of life in America. Many, perhaps the majority, of the
agents are themselves returned immigrants, who give glittering accounts
of their experiences in America, and display gold watches, diamond pins,
and various other proofs of their prosperity. The methods of to-day are
not quite so crude and bizarre as they used to be. The stories of the
richness of America and the ease of life there which used to be current
were so overdrawn as to undeceive any but the most ignorant and
gullible. Immigrants have left for America expecting to be able to pick
up unlimited dollars lying loose in the streets, and stories are told of
steerage passengers who threw away the cooking utensils they had brought
with them, as the vessel neared New York, supposing that they could get
a new lot for nothing as soon as they landed. A better knowledge of
actual conditions in America, which now prevails in most European
countries, has precluded the continued circulation of such fictions as
these. In fact, if there were not real advantages in the United States,
and many cases of successful emigrants, the agents would not be able to
operate successfully for an indefinite time. But as yet there does exist
a sufficient difference between conditions in the new world and in the
old to give them a basis of truth, which they may embellish as occasion
demands. Many of these agents make a practice of advancing money to the
emigrants to pay for their passage, taking a mortgage on their property
for an amount far in advance of that actually furnished. These debts are
met with a strange faithfulness by the immigrants, even when they have
been woefully deceived and cheated. In Greece it is asserted that the
agents work through the priests, and thus largely increase their
influence.[123]

Immigration which is inspired by such stimulation as this is far from
being so desirable as that which is natural and spontaneous. It follows
no natural laws, and responds to no economic demand in this country. It
is likely to be of injury rather than of benefit to the United States,
and works untold injustice to the immigrants. It is regarded as
pernicious by all fair-minded observers, and the United States
government has made serious efforts to check it. This is the purpose of
the clause in the immigration law limiting the nature of solicitation
that may be done by transportation lines. The solicitation of
immigration is no new thing. Hale, in his _Letters on Irish
Immigration_, written in 1851–1852, said that competition between the
different lines of packets and different shipping houses had made the
means of emigration familiar in the remotest corners of Ireland, and
that advertising was fully utilized. Professor Mayo-Smith in 1892 wrote
that the Inman Steamship Company had 3500 agents in Europe and an equal
number in the United States selling prepaid tickets. In Switzerland in
1885 there were 400 licensed emigration agents.[124] The laws passed
since then have forced the agents to proceed more cautiously, and
conceal their activities. They have not put a stop to their operations.

These emigration agents are by no means all accredited representatives
of the steamship lines over which they send their recruits. There are,
to be sure, plenty of official agents of the various transportation
companies, who are openly acknowledged as such. The region around the
harbor, in many of the Mediterranean seaports, is thronged with
steamship ticket offices, often flying the American flag, and with
emigration agencies, and the line between the two is frequently very
difficult to draw. But the traveling agents, or “runners,” are often
free lances as far as appearances go. It is very hard to establish any
connection between them and any transportation company. Yet all who have
investigated the subject are convinced that there is a close
understanding and coöperation between the two, even if there is no
official relation. It is contrary to human nature, when so much money is
to be made by such canvassing, and there are plenty of people ready to
do it, that the transportation companies should neglect the opportunity.
On this subject the Immigration Commission says, “It does not appear
that the steamship lines as a rule openly direct the operations of these
agents, but the existence of the propaganda is a matter of common
knowledge in the emigrant-furnishing countries, and, it is fair to
assume, is acquiesced in, if not stimulated, by the steamship lines as
well.”[125]

The Commissioner General of Immigration is much more emphatic in his
statements. The report for 1909 contains the following passages (p.
112): “The promoter is usually a steamship ticket agent, employed on a
commission basis, or a professional money lender, or a combination of
the two.... He is employed by the steamship lines, large and small,
without scruple, and to the enormous profit of such lines.... To say
that the steamship lines are responsible, directly or indirectly, for
this unnatural immigration is not the statement of a theory, but of a
fact, and of a fact that sometimes becomes, indeed, if it is not always,
a crying shame.... [Referring to Contract Labor Inspector John
Gruenberg] He shows quite clearly that all of the steamship lines
engaged in bringing aliens from Europe to this country have persistently
and systematically violated the law, both in its letter and spirit, by
making use of every possible means to encourage the peasants of Europe
to purchase tickets over their lines to this country. They have issued
circulars and advertisements, and made use of extensive correspondence,
through their own agents in this country and in Europe.”

The law referred to is Section 7 of the Act of 1907, repeating in
substance Section 4, Act of 1891 (p. 111). The ease and persistency with
which this provision, carefully worded as it is, is violated, furnishes
a striking example of the difficulty of passing statutes which shall be
capable of enforcement, especially in foreign countries, to put a stop
to practices which are universally conceded to be undesirable.

The second great source of stimulation to emigration is the labor agent.
His operations are extensive and diversified, and always in direct
violation of the contract labor law. That section of the immigration
statutes, as previously pointed out, is so sweepingly drawn as to make
any immigrant, not in the excepted classes, who has received the
slightest intimation that there is work awaiting him in this country, a
violator of the law. But the economic advantage to employers in this
country of importing European labor under contract to perform services
in the United States at much less than the market rate of wages, is so
great, that, as in the previous case, human nature cannot resist the
temptation, provided the chances of escaping detection are sufficiently
good. And this part of the law, like that relating to advertising, is of
such a nature as to make it susceptible of continued and extensive
evasion by unscrupulous persons, possessed of such skill and craftiness
as characterize the typical contract labor agent. While there is no way
of estimating the extent of this practice, there is no doubt that only a
very small proportion of the present immigration, from the Mediterranean
countries at least, is innocent of the letter of the law, strictly
interpreted. This is not to say that they are under actual contract to
labor, but that their coming has been encouraged by some sort of
intimation that there would be work awaiting them.

By a recent opinion of the Attorney-General, two essential points have
been laid down in the construction of the contract labor laws, as
follows:

“(1) That they ‘prohibit any offer or promise of employment which is of
such a definite character that an acceptance thereof would constitute a
contract.’

“(2) That the prohibition to encourage the immigration of an alien by a
promise of employment is ‘directed against a promise which specially
designates the particular job or work or employment for which the
alien’s labor is desired.’”[126]

Even under this somewhat liberal interpretation of the laws, wholesale
violations undoubtedly go on. In the words of the Immigration
Commission, “In this way hundreds of immigrants are annually debarred at
United States ports as contract laborers, while doubtless hundreds of
thousands more are admitted who have practically definite assurances as
to the place and nature of their employment in this country.”

A fuller description of contract labor in general, and of that
particular form of it which is known as the padrone system, will be
given in another connection. The point to be emphasized here is that it
operates as one of the great causes of our present immigration, and that
it continues to exert a powerful, and probably increasing, influence, in
spite of all the efforts of the legislators and officials of the United
States to check it.

The third source of stimulation to emigration is the earlier immigrant
himself. He is probably the greatest factor of all in induced
immigration, and his influence is utilized in various ways by both
emigration agents and labor agents, and made to contribute to the
success of their efforts.

Every stream of immigration must have its origin in some few
individuals, who, the first of their region, break the ties of home and
fatherland, and go to seek their fortune in a new and far-away land.
Upon their success depends the question whether others from the same
district shall follow in their footsteps. If they fail in their venture,
it serves as a discouraging factor as respects further emigration from
that region. But if they succeed, and win a position which makes them
envied in the eyes of their fellow-countrymen, it furnishes a powerful
stimulus to further emigration. Sooner or later, there will be some who
succeed from every region, and the example of a few successful ones is
likely to far outweigh numerous failures. Something like this is going
on in countless remote districts of the south European countries, and
has gone on for decades in every country which has sent us numbers of
immigrants.

Take a typical example. Some Slav peasant, in a little village of
Austria-Hungary, of a more ambitious and adventurous disposition than
most of his fellows, hears of the opportunities in America, and being
dissatisfied with his present lot, decides to try his fortune in the new
world. His first “job” is in a mine in some small town of Pennsylvania.
Accustomed as he is to a low standard of living, he is able to save a
considerable part of the wages which seem munificent to him. From time
to time he writes letters home, telling of his prosperity. Eventually he
saves up enough to purchase a little store or saloon. Of course there
will be a letter telling about that. These letters are wonderful
documents in the eyes of his friends and relatives at home.
Correspondence does not flourish in these regions, and the receipt of
any letter is a matter of great importance. The arrival of a message
from across the sea creates an impression which it is almost impossible
for an American to comprehend. The precious missive is read aloud in the
coffee-houses, and passed from hand to hand throughout the village. It
may even travel to neighboring hamlets, and make its impression there.
The neighbor in America, and his career, become the foremost topic of
conversation for miles around.

In time all this has its effect. A small group of the original
emigrant’s former neighbors resolve to try their luck too. The most
natural thing, of course, is for them to go to the place where their
friend is. He helps them to find work, tides them over difficulties, and
in various ways makes their life easier and simpler than his had been.
Each of these newcomers also writes letters home, which go through the
same round, and add to the growing knowledge of America, and the
discontent with European life in comparison. Once started, the movement
grows with great rapidity, and the letters from America increase in
geometrical proportion. Other nuclei start up in other places, recruits
are drawn from more distant villages, and the first little trickling
stream becomes a swelling tide.

This is what has come to be known as the chain-letter system. Multiplied
by hundreds of thousands, the foregoing example serves to illustrate the
irresistible network of communications which is drawing the peasants of
Europe to every part of the United States. This is recognized by all
authorities as probably the most powerful single factor in stirring up
emigration from such countries as Italy, Austria-Hungary, Greece,
Bulgaria, etc. Its effect has been graphically described by a Greek
writer in the following words:

“‘Such a one, from such a village, sent home so many dollars within a
year,’ is heard in some village or city, and this news, passed like
lightning from village to village and from city to city, and magnified
from mouth to mouth, causes the farmer to forsake his plow, the shepherd
to sell his sheep, the mechanic to throw away his tools, the
small-grocer to break up his store, the teacher to forsake his rostrum,
and all to hasten to provide passage money, so that they may embark, if
possible, on the first ship for America, and gather up the dollars in
the streets before they are all gone.”[127]

This is a perfectly natural influence, and obviously beyond the power of
any legislation to check, even if that were desirable. When inspired
merely by a friendly interest in the home neighbors, a desire to keep in
touch with them, and a little personal vanity, it is probably the most
harmless of any of the forms of stimulation. When, as all too frequently
happens, the underlying motive is sinister and selfish, it becomes a
source of the greatest deceit and injustice.

When the pioneer emigrant returns to his native village, after some
years of prosperous life in America, his influence and importance are
unbounded. He becomes in truth the “observed of all observers.” Groups
of interested listeners and questioners gather round him wherever he
goes, and hang on his words in breathless awe. His fine, strange
clothes, his sparkling jewelry and gold watch, his easy, worldly
manners, all arouse the greatest admiration. He has to tell over and
over again the story of his career, and describe the wonders of that
far-away land. If such a one is returning to the United States, it takes
no urging on his part to induce a number of his countrymen to accompany
him; they are fairly clinging to the skirts of his garments, to be taken
back. Even if he has come home to remain, his constant example is there
to inspire the youth of the village to follow in his path. So the “visit
home” and the “returned immigrant” add their weight to the influence of
the stream of letters. How universal this condition has become is
evidenced by the fact that in 1909 only 6.3 per cent of all the
immigrants admitted to the United States were not going to join either
relatives or friends, according to their statement; in 1910 the
percentage was only 4.9. In 1912 it rose to 7.5. About six times as many
go to join relatives as friends.

Many of the letters from America contain remittances from the immigrants
to their friends and relatives at home. Often these remittances take the
form of prepaid tickets,[128] complete from some European center or port
to the city in America, where the sender is waiting. Then their
influence is absolutely irresistible. The transportation companies make
every effort to make the passage as simple as possible, and railroad
companies in this country make special immigrant rates, to be used in
connection with such tickets. A large part of the induced immigration of
the present day is also assisted immigration. It is a perfectly natural
thing that an immigrant in this country should wish to be joined by
certain of his relatives on the other side, and, if he is able, should
send them the means to come. This has always been done. In the middle of
the nineteenth century E. E. Hale wrote that a large part of the letters
from Irish to their friends in this country consisted in acknowledgments
of remittances, and requests for more. The remittances in 1850 are said
to have amounted to about four and one half million dollars. Prepaid
tickets were also in use at that date. It is manifestly impossible to
estimate correctly the extent of this business at the present time.
According to the official reports, in 1910, 72.5 per cent of the
immigrants had paid for their own tickets, 26.5 per cent had their
tickets paid for by a relative, and 1 per cent by some one other than
self or relative. But this showing rests solely upon the immigrant’s own
statement, and is undoubtedly an underestimate. The suspicion of
immigrants whose passage is paid for them, which characterizes our law,
leads many to practice deceit in this matter. For instance, it is almost
impossible to believe that all but 5.4 per cent of the Greeks had paid
their own passage. An examination of the figures shows that there is a
larger proportion of passages paid by some one besides the immigrant
among the old immigration than among the new. This is explained by the
fact that the old immigration has more of a family character, and that
immigrants are sending for wives and children. This can be understood
only by comparison with the sex and age tables.[129]

Even when these remittances are not in the form of prepaid tickets, nor
are even intended to pay passage in any way, they exert a powerful
influence in stirring up immigration, through the tangible evidence
which they furnish of American possibilities. There could be no stronger
proof of the success of immigrants in the United States than the
constant stream of gold which is flowing from this country to Europe.

For the sake of clearness, these different forms of stimulation have
been discussed separately. In practice, they overlap and combine in a
variety of complicated relations. The emigration agent is often himself
a returned immigrant; if not, he utilizes all the influences which arise
from the letters, visits, and remittances of actual immigrants to
further his ends. The letters from America are often misleading or
spurious, used by labor agents in this country to entice others to come.
The prepaid ticket is susceptible of a wide variety of uses. Assistance
to emigrants is often furnished, not by well-disposed friends and
relatives, but by loan-sharks, whose motives are wholly selfish, and
whose sole aim is to secure usurious rates of interest for sums
advanced, which are amply protected by mortgages.

As a result of this complex of motives and forces, America has become a
household word even to the remote corners of Europe, and he who wishes,
for any reason, to stir up emigration from any region finds a fertile
field already prepared for him. It is amazing to find how much an
ignorant Greek peasant knows about conditions in America. The economic
situation is, of course, the prime interest. But there is also a good
fund of information about social and political subjects. There are of
course many misconceptions and errors, but it is evident that the lines
of communication between the European village and the American city are
very well established. Similar conditions prevail in all the
immigrant-furnishing countries.

It is impossible to say to just what extent our present immigration
ought to be classified as induced. It is probable that only a very small
part of the total immigration is wholly free from stimulation to some
degree. Certain it is that a very large proportion of it is thoroughly
artificial and induced. The getting of immigrants is now a thoroughly
developed system, planned to serve the needs of every form of interest
which might profit thereby.[130] As to the quality of such immigration,
something has already been said. There is evidently nothing about the
immigrants themselves, or the way in which they are secured, that serves
as a guarantee of their serviceability or value to this country; as to
their own prospects, we can do no better in closing this chapter than to
quote the words of the Commissioner General; these various operations
“often result in placing upon our shores large numbers of aliens who, if
the facts were only known at the time, are worse than destitute, are
burdened with obligations to which they and all their relatives are
parties,—debts secured with mortgages on such small holdings as they and
their relatives possess, and on which usurious interest must be paid.
Pitiable indeed is their condition, and pitiable it must remain unless
good fortune accompanies the alien while he is struggling to exist and
is denying himself the necessaries of decent living in order to clear
himself of the incubus of accumulated debt. If he secures and retains
employment at fair wages, escapes the wiles of that large class of
aliens living here who prey upon their ignorant compatriots, and retains
his health under often adverse circumstances, all may terminate well for
him and his; if he does not, disaster is the result to him and
them.”[131]




                               CHAPTER IX
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION. CONDITIONS OF EMBARKATION AND TRANSPORTATION


It was remarked in an earlier paragraph that the effects of immigration
were largely a matter of the future. This may have seemed like too
sweeping a statement. Yet it will prove true upon consideration. In the
case of the old immigration there are, to be sure, certain immediate and
superficial effects which may be postulated with a fair degree of
certainty. As an example, we may be reasonably sure that the old
immigration has increased the proportion of Irish, German, and
Scandinavian blood in the composite American people. But as to the
ultimate effects of this movement upon the social, religious, moral, and
economic aspects of our national life, we can, at best, hazard only a
forecast. The reason is that the effects have not transpired as yet.

“One of the commonest errors of writers on sociological topics is to
allow too little time for the action of social forces. We are inclined
to think that the effects of a certain social phenomenon, which we are
able to detect in our lifetime, are the permanent and final effects. We
forget that these matters may require many generations to work
themselves out. No better illustration of this could be asked for than
that furnished by the case of the negroes in the United States. The
importation of these people began many generations ago. To our ancestors
it undoubtedly seemed a perfectly natural thing to do, and for centuries
it did not occur to anybody to even question its rightfulness or its
expediency. When objections began to be raised, they were feeble and
easily put aside. But at last the presence of this peculiar class of
people in the country involved the nation in a terrible and bloody
conflict, which worked irreparable injury to the American stock by the
annihilation of the flower of southern manhood, and left us a problem
which is probably the greatest one before the American people to-day—one
which we have hardly begun to solve. There is much of similarity between
the case of the negroes and that of the modern immigrants. To be sure,
the newcomers of to-day are for the most part white-skinned, instead of
colored, which gives a different aspect to the matter. Yet in the mind
of the average American, the modern immigrants are generally regarded as
inferior peoples—races which he looks down on, and with which he does
not wish to associate on terms of social equality. Like the negroes,
they are brought in for economic reasons, to do the hard and menial work
to which an American does not wish to stoop.”[132]

Even in the case of the old immigration, then, the effects are largely
in the future; in the case of the new immigration they are almost wholly
so. We have seen that in regard to racial stock the new immigration has
been predominant for scarcely half a generation. There are a number of
circumstances besides this which make the immigration problem
practically a new one. Certain of the most important factors which
condition it, and many of the aspects which it presents to the public
mind, are new to the men of this generation. The verification of this
statement is to be found in the following pages; in the present
connection it must suffice merely to suggest the circumstances in which
these differences may be looked for. These may be grouped under six main
heads, as follows: (1) the racial stock of the immigrants; (2) the
volume of the immigration current; (3) the distribution of immigrants in
the United States; (4) the economic conditions of this country; (5) the
native birth rate; (6) the quality of the immigrants.

If the effects of immigration are mainly in the future, the discussion
of them must be, for the most part, theoretical. It is a discussion of
something which is going to happen, or which is likely to happen, not of
something that has happened. This gives it an element of uncertainty and
speculation which is not wholly desirable in a scientific study. Yet
this is the phase of the subject which is by far the most interesting
and important to the average American citizen who wants to know how this
great sociological phenomenon is going to affect him, and his country,
and his relatives and friends. His attitude toward the question will
depend upon what he believes these effects will be. If it appears to him
that immigration will benefit himself, his country, the immigrants, or
humanity in general, he will favor it; if his belief is to the contrary,
his attitude will be one of opposition. Since there is no certainty as
to what the effects will be, the arguments about immigration are largely
composed of attempts to prove that certain effects have transpired, or
to demonstrate that they will transpire. As a consequence, it comes
about that the discussion of the effects of immigration practically
resolves itself into a consideration of the arguments for and against
immigration, and it will be so treated, for the most part, in the
following chapters.

There are three classes of effects of immigration which may be clearly
distinguished, and which will interest different persons in different
degrees. These are the effects upon the United States, the effects upon
the countries of source, and the effects upon the immigrants themselves.
The second and third of these interest the American citizen only as he
is open to broad humanitarian considerations; the first touches him
directly, and may have an intimate bearing on his personal and selfish
interests and pursuits. If a seemingly disproportionate space is given
in this volume to effects in general, and effects upon the United States
in particular, it is because this is the vital and imperative part of
the whole subject to the people of this nation.

Although the effects of immigration are largely a matter of speculation
and debate, one step may be taken which will help to make the deductions
arrived at as reliable as is possible under the circumstances. This is a
careful investigation of the actual conditions which surround
immigration at the present time, and a comparison of them with those of
the past. Only upon a solid basis of such facts can any trustworthy
predictions be made as to what may be expected to come about in the
future. Accordingly, in preparation for the discussion of effects, we
will attempt to get a clear picture of the circumstances which surround
the immigrant on his journey from the old world to the new; of his
condition when he arrives; of the character of his life and labor in his
new home. In general, the plan followed will be to take up each set of
conditions in turn, and having ascertained the facts, to try to
determine what bearing these seem likely to have upon the final effects
of immigration. This will at times involve a departure from the strictly
logical method of treatment, but this is unavoidable in such a
complicated discussion.

With the sources of our present immigration we are already familiar. We
have seen how they have shifted from the north and west of Europe to the
south and east. It has been stated that the movement is essentially a
European one. This is still emphatically true. In 1912, 85.8 per cent of
all our immigrants came from Europe, and if we exclude Turkey in Asia
(which really is a part of Europe in the ethnical sense), British North
America, Mexico, and the West Indies, there is very little left of the
non-European portion. So it is still correct, for all important
purposes, to regard immigration to the United States as having its
origin in Europe. How long this will continue, it is of course
impossible to say. There are vast reservoirs of population in Asia, to
say nothing of the other continents, which we have scarcely as yet
tapped, and which may reach the point of emigration with advancing
civilization. Whether or not we are to receive large contingents from
these countries in the future will depend largely upon the attitude of
our government. So far, we have put up the bars before the Chinese, and
unless they are lowered, which hardly seems likely, we need not
anticipate any considerable number of arrivals of this race. Up to 1900
there were only a comparatively few Japanese in this country. Since
then, the rising tide of immigration from Japan, which threatened to
reach large proportions, has been checked, partly by “a series of
measures which permits the greater part of the administrative problem to
rest with the Japanese government,”[133] which is avowedly opposed to
the emigration of its laboring population, and partly by a presidential
order from the White House on March 14, 1907,[134] denying admission to
Japanese and Korean laborers, who had received passports to go to
Canada, Mexico, or Hawaii, and were using them to secure admittance to
continental United States. While the new treaty between this country and
Japan contains no specific prohibition of immigration, it is understood
that the Japanese government agrees to prevent the emigration of
laborers from that country to this. A new problem has recently appeared
in the Pacific coast states in the form of an East Indian immigration.
The manifestly undesirable character of this immigration, however, has
led the immigration officials in the Pacific seaports to apply the law
to members of this race with the greatest strictness, so that most, if
not all, of the Hindu laborers applying for admission have been debarred
on the grounds of belief in polygamy, liability to become a public
charge, or some other provision of the statutes. A similar attitude on
the part of the Canadian immigration officials has been of assistance in
stopping at the outset what might have grown into a very important
current of immigration.[135]

Whatever the future may bring forth, then, our immigration at present
springs from European sources.[136] Every country on the continent
furnishes its contingent, large or small. From the cities, towns, and
villages, most of all from the rural sections, even to the most remote
corners of the back districts, they come, inspired with great hopes by
the emigration agents and the labor contractors, aided by friends or
relatives or future employers on the other side. Homes and property are
mortgaged, the labor of their bodies—even their very souls—are pledged,
to pay their passage. Wives, children, and sweethearts are left behind.
On foot, on donkey back, in rude carriages and wagons, they travel till
the nearest railroad station is reached. The way is made as easy as
possible for them, through the agency of interested parties, who profit
by their coming. The prepaid ticket avoids much confusion and
perplexity. Friends are awaiting them on the other side. In every large
group there are almost certain to be some who have been over the road
before. All the emigrant needs to do is to allow himself to be passed
along submissively from one stage to another—provided he has the money
to pay. For those who make the way easy must have an ample recompense.

As the seacoast and the port of embarkation draw near, the groups of
emigrants increase in size by constant additions. In the important
emigration ports they arrive by thousands during the busy season. The
provisions for their entertainment, while awaiting the sailing of the
vessel upon which they are to embark, differ in different ports. In many
ports they are required to put up in the cheap hotels and lodging
houses, which, in such cases, abound in the neighborhood of the harbor.
In other ports, the steamship companies maintain extensive emigrant
stations, where emigrants are lodged and cared for while awaiting
transportation. Probably the most elaborate of these is the emigrant
village of the Hamburg-American Line, at Hamburg. This is located on the
left bank of the Elbe, completely segregated from the city, and is
designed to receive only immigrants from countries where the standard of
health is low. It consists of about twenty-five buildings, and
accommodates 5000 persons. Among the buildings are a large inspection
building, a simple hotel, and a number of living pavilions, each
consisting of a dormitory, living room, baths, etc. There is one large
dining hall, with a special section for Jews, for whom also a separate
kitchen is provided. The religious needs of the emigrants are provided
for by a synagogue, a Catholic church, and a Protestant church.[137]

The provision of the United States law, which requires an examination
and medical inspection at the port of embarkation, is observed with
different degrees of care in different countries and by different lines.
It is to the advantage of the steamship company to refuse transportation
to any individuals who are manifestly inadmissible to the United States,
as their refusal involves their return at the expense of the company,
and in many instances an additional fine of $100. On the other hand, if
there is a fair chance that the immigrant may succeed in passing the
examination, there is a strong temptation for the steamship company to
take him, for the sake of his passage money. There is a practice,
believed to be quite extensive, among the transportation companies, of
compelling an alien who seems in danger of being debarred, to deposit
with the foreign agent from whom he purchases his ticket a sum
sufficient to cover the cost of his return in case he is refused
admission. This is in direct violation of the United States law, but the
difficulty of securing evidence has prevented the authorities from
putting an effective stop to the practice.[138] Large numbers of
would-be emigrants are nevertheless turned back before embarkation, as a
result of the examination by the steamship company. The proportion of
those detained in this manner to those debarred at the ports of arrival
in the United States is at least four to one.[139] Some companies have
had such a bitter experience in the matter of having their passengers
refused as to lead them to exercise great caution. The Austro-American
Company, which carries a large share of the Greek traffic, had over 300
emigrants refused at the United States port on one of their early
voyages, and returned to Europe. Since then, they have adopted the
system of having physicians provided for their forty subagencies in
various parts of Greece, who inspect applicants for tickets, and pass
upon them before any document is issued to them by the agent. If this
physician accepts an emigrant, he is given a medical certificate, makes
a deposit toward his ticket, and has space reserved for him on the
steamer. He is then sent on to the port of embarkation, where the final
examination takes place.[140] In this way large numbers of inadmissible
immigrants are kept from leaving their native village, and are spared
the expense and disappointment of the trip to the port of embarkation.

The examination at the port of embarkation is differently conducted at
different seaports. As a rule the medical examination is made by a
physician employed by the steamship company, either the ship’s doctor,
or a specially engaged physician. But at some ports the American consul
chooses the physician, though the steamship company pays him. At Naples,
Palermo, and Messina, by a special arrangement between the two
governments, the examination is made by officers of the United States
Public Health and Marine Hospital Service, who examine steerage
passengers and recommend the rejection of those who are likely to be
refused admission to the United States. Their action is unofficial, but
their suggestions are always complied with. Under the quarantine law of
the United States the American consular officers are also required to
satisfy themselves of the sanitary condition of passengers and ships
sailing for United States ports. In addition to the medical examination,
a long list of questions is put to the immigrant, in accordance with the
requirements of the United States law. His answers are recorded on the
manifest, which is later put into the hands of the inspecting officer at
the port of arrival, who repeats the same questions and notes whether
the answers tally. Vaccination and the disinfection of the passenger’s
baggage are important parts of the preparation of emigrants for the
journey to America. The differing degree of care exercised in this
examination at the different ports is indicated by the fact that the
proportion of immigrants refused at the port of arrival for medical
causes, to the total number embarked from the different ports, varies
from 1 to 163 at the Piræus and 1 to 165 at Bremen, to 1 to 565 at
Antwerp and 1 to 597 at Fiume.

A large amount of transatlantic traffic passes through Germany from
neighboring states, and to protect herself against having large numbers
of foreign emigrants refused at her ports, and left in a destitute and
helpless condition in her territory, Germany has compelled the steamship
companies to establish control-stations on the German-Russian and
German-Austrian borders. There are fourteen of these stations, thirteen
on the frontier, and one near Berlin. All emigrants from eastern Europe
who are intending to pass through German territory to ports of
embarkation are examined at these stations, and those who do not comply
with the German law, or who are evidently inadmissible to the United
States, are turned back. This is a wise and humane provision, for the
condition of the emigrant, who, having spent his all to pay his passage
to America, and traveled a long distance to the seaboard, finds himself
refused at the port of embarkation, is often pitiable in the
extreme.[141]

The governments of most European countries do not regard a large
emigration with favor, partly because of the withdrawal of men from
military service, partly because of the economic loss resulting from the
departure of so large a part of the laboring class. Most of them
exercise some control over emigration, and, in particular, endeavor to
combat the activities of the emigration agents, which, however, they are
as powerless to check as is the United States. Nevertheless, there is
practically no effort to prohibit emigration altogether, as it is
recognized as a natural and irresistible movement. Italy exercises the
greatest care for the welfare of her immigrants of any European nation.

Practically all of the immigrants who are crossing for the first time,
and probably a majority of those who have made the trip before, travel
in the steerage. The second cabin is patronized by the more prosperous
of the immigrants who have been in the United States previously, and by
others who know themselves to be inadmissible, and hope in this way to
avoid a searching inspection. The great bulk of the emigrants, however,
having passed their preliminary examination, flock up the steerage
gangway into the ship which is to convey them to America. At the top of
the ladder stands a ship’s officer who examines their tickets and their
certificates of vaccination (sometimes a little purple mark stamped on
the wrist), and in certain cases searches them for concealed weapons.
They are then allowed to proceed to the interior of the ship, and find
their way to such berths as suit their fancy, and are not already
occupied, within the limits of the section of the ship assigned to them.
Steerages are usually divided into three compartments, more or less
completely separated from each other; one is for men without wives,
another for women traveling alone, and the third for families.

Steerages on the transatlantic vessels are divided into two main
classes, designated by the Immigration Commission as the old-type or old
steerage, and the new-type or new steerage. The former class
predominates on the Mediterranean lines; the latter is found on some of
the better ships of the north Atlantic service. Some ships are equipped
with both kinds. The old-type steerage is still the typical one, and is
found on the majority of vessels bringing immigrants to the United
States. It is in such a steerage that the average immigrant gets his
first introduction to America—for everything after he leaves the port of
embarkation is closely identified with America in his mind. It is in
this type of steerage that the student of immigration is primarily
interested.

Steerages of this type all bear a general resemblance to each other, and
once seen can never be forgotten. Imagine a large room, perhaps seven
feet in height, extending the entire breadth of the ship, and about one
third of its length. The floor and ceiling are sometimes of iron, but
more often of wood. Through the center of the room, very probably,
descends the shaft to the hold. This room is filled with a framework of
iron pipes, with only sufficient space left to serve as aisles or
passageways. This framework is so constructed as to form a series of
berths or bunks, adjoining each other laterally, and in two tiers
vertically. The dimensions of these berths are usually about six feet by
two, with approximately two and one half feet between berths, and about
the same space between the lower berth and the deck below, and the upper
berth and the deck above. In each berth a network of strap iron serves
for the support of a coarse mattress, upon which a pillow and a cheap
blanket are the only bedding. Often a life-preserver takes the place of
the pillow. Thus the room is filled with a double layer of beds, with
only space enough between for the passengers to reach them. On some of
the older ships wooden bunks may still be found. Such a room will
sometimes accommodate as many as three hundred passengers, and is
duplicated in other parts of the ship, and on the successive decks upon
which immigrants are carried.

In their provisions for steerage passengers most transportation lines
aim to trim as close to the minimum requirements of the law as possible.
The immigrant-carrying business is a purely money-making enterprise, and
humanitarian considerations have no place in it. The good effects which
might result from free competition are practically eliminated by the
recent agreement dividing territory, which has been mentioned
above.[142] There is no other force to compel transportation companies
to go one whit beyond the legal requirements in an effort to make their
steerage passengers comfortable.

The open deck space reserved for steerage passengers is usually very
limited, and situated in the worst part of the ship, subject to the most
violent motion, to the dirt from the stacks and the odors from the hold
and galleys. The only provisions for eating are frequently shelves or
benches along the sides or in the passageways of sleeping compartments.
Some ships have separate rooms, used for dining and recreation purposes,
but these are usually wholly inadequate to accommodate all the steerage
passengers. Frequently, too, they are planned without the least regard
to cleanliness, as when the dining table, upon which the dishes remain
set, is placed directly below an open grating, through which the filth
and dirt may fall from the shoes of passers-by. Toilet rooms are wholly
inadequate in number, are poorly designed, and often wholly uncared for
during most of the voyage. The resulting conditions are almost
unbelievable. Toilets are sometimes placed directly alongside the only
passages leading to the steerage quarters, so that one must pass them,
and breathe their horrible stench, every time he passes in or out. The
law requires separate wash rooms for men and women, but this is a
distinction which is frequently ignored, men and women using the same
rooms promiscuously. The provisions for washing are wholly inadequate.
There are only a few taps, and usually the only water provided is cold
salt water, which must be used for all purposes, including the washing
of dishes. The law requires that hospitals for steerage passengers be
provided, but as they are not open to seasick passengers, they fail of
their greatest usefulness.

The arrangements for feeding steerage passengers differ on different
vessels, but there are two main systems. In the first, each passenger is
furnished a cheap set of eating utensils at the beginning of the voyage,
which remain in his possession till the close, and sometimes
permanently. At meal time the passengers form in line, and pass before
stewards who have large kettles of food, and serve out the rations to
each. Passengers may eat at tables if there are any and they can find
places; otherwise, wherever they can. After the meal, they must wash
their own dishes, and stow them away for future use. Under the second
system, the women and children receive slightly better attention, being
given first place at such tables as there are. The most essential
utensils are placed by stewards, and washed by them afterwards. The food
is served in large pans, one for each table, which are passed along a
line of stewards from the galley, in the manner of a bucket brigade.
This is all the table service there is. The men receive even less
attention. They are divided into groups of six, and each group is given
two large tin pans, and tin plates, tin cups, and cutlery enough for
all. Each man takes his turn at going after the food, and in caring for
the dishes. The men eat wherever they can find a place.

Life under such circumstances must of necessity be disgusting and
degrading, whatever the character or desires of the individual. The only
part of the whole ship which the steerage passenger has a right to call
in any sense his own is the few square feet contained in his berth. Here
he must keep all of his personal belongings. His hand baggage must be
stored in it, or hung from the pipes above his head. If there are eating
utensils committed to his keeping, they must be concealed in some corner
of the bunk when not in use. This is the only place to which he may
retire in the search of even the semblance of privacy. It is the only
place where he can recline during the daytime, except upon the open
deck. The berths receive absolutely no attention from the stewards from
the beginning of the voyage to the end. Is it any wonder that they
become untidy, mussed, and ill smelling? The blankets provided are
usually wholly inadequate for cold weather, so that passengers are
absolutely compelled to sleep in their day clothing for warmth.

The ventilation of the steerage is almost always inadequate, growing
worse the farther down one goes. The congestion is intense, and even if
every provision were made for cleanliness, the air would inevitably
become foul. Unfortunately such provision is not made. There are no
sick-cans provided for the use of steerage passengers, and the vomitings
of the seasick are allowed to lie unattended to for hours. Sometimes a
steward comes around with a can of sawdust or sand, but that is of
little avail. Add to this the odors of bodies not too clean, the reek of
food, and the awful stench of the toilet rooms, and the atmosphere of
the steerage becomes such that it is a marvel that human flesh can
endure it. It is a fact that many of the passengers lie in their berths
for the greater part of the voyage, in a stupor caused by breathing the
vitiated air, indifferent to everything around them, unless it be to
their meals. If one attempts to better things by going on deck, and
remains above for any length of time, he finds it almost impossible to
go below again. There are practically only two alternatives; either to
go below for only a few hours of sleep, and spend practically all the
time on deck, or to spend all the time below.

Even if the immigrants desired to keep personally clean, there is
practically no opportunity, owing to the inadequacy of the wash rooms,
the absence of towels, soap, etc., and the absolute lack of privacy.
Only one who was trained to make the very most of such facilities could
maintain his decency under such conditions; the bulk of the immigrants
lack even the elements of such training.

The food served to steerage passengers is, according to almost all
investigators, usually sufficient in quantity, and originally of good
quality. But in the majority of cases it is so poorly cooked and served
in such an unappetizing way as to render it most unsatisfactory. An
average menu reads very well; it is only when one actually undertakes to
eat the food, as served to the immigrants, that the real quality
appears. There is usually a canteen, or bar, where drinks, candy, fruit,
etc., may be secured by those who can pay for them, and stewards
sometimes turn an extra penny by securing food from the second cabin for
steerage passengers who make the arrangement with them.

One of the worst conditions prevailing in the steerage, upon which the
investigators of the Immigration Commission lay great stress, is the
indecent and immoral attitude and conduct of the men, including the crew
as well as the passengers, toward the women. The stories which are told
of the constant persecution of immigrant women,—unprovided as they are
with any means of privacy,—even by those whose duty it is to protect
them, are almost unbelievable, but are well substantiated. As one
investigator wrote, only a set of instantaneous photographs could give
an adequate idea of the demoralizing attentions to which women and girls
are subjected, until even the most self-respecting of them sometimes
weaken under the strain. The United States law, of course, aims to
prevent these abuses, but it is powerless, without better machinery for
enforcement than is provided.

All of these conditions are naturally aggravated by crowding, and are
usually more pronounced on the westward than on the eastward trip, since
the steerage is ordinarily more congested coming to the United States.
It is a marvel that even the ignorant, uncultured, stolid peasants of
Europe can find life tolerable under such conditions. Yet they do, and
manage to get some enjoyment out of it besides. There are songs and
games and dances to while away the time. Especially when the ship stops
at any intermediate port the deck throngs with immigrants, men, women,
and children, seeking recreation in their own way.

On the whole, the old-type steerage is the poorest possible introduction
to, and preparation for, American life. It inevitably lowers the
standards of decency, even of the immigrants, and often breaks down
their moral and physical stamina. It shatters their bright visions of
American life, and lands them cynical and embittered. One of the first
steps in the improvement of the immigration situation should be the
abolition of the old-type steerage.

The new-type steerage, which is found on some lines carrying immigrants
from north Europe, was the result of competition for the traffic, which
led certain companies to improve their facilities. The traffic agreement
above referred to, by eliminating this competition, has prevented the
extension of this type of steerage to other lines, and other ships. In
general, the new-type steerage is a modified second cabin, with simpler
and plainer accommodations, and less attendance. Separate staterooms are
provided, having from two to eight berths in each; in some cases the
berths are of the old steerage type. The blankets are adequate, and
towels, mirrors, etc., are provided. On some lines the stewards are
responsible for the care of the berths and staterooms. There are regular
dining rooms, properly cared for; the food is abundant, and when
carefully prepared, of good quality. Facilities for washing and toilet
are superior to the old steerage, and greater segregation of the sexes
is secured. The air is still bad, but not so absolutely intolerable, and
most of the flagrant abuses of the old-type steerage are avoided. Old
and new steerages are sometimes found on the same vessel, in which case
the latter is known as third class. The difference in price between the
two does not at all correspond to the wide difference in accommodations;
in general, the price of steerage passage is much nearer to that of
second cabin than the relative service would seem to warrant. This tends
to disprove the claim sometimes made that the steamship companies cannot
afford to furnish better accommodations to steerage passengers without
materially raising the price, as does the fact that passengers are
actually being carried in the new-type steerage, with a profit, at a
moderate charge.

Throughout their long journey from their native villages to the portals
of America, the immigrants are very much at the mercy of those into
whose hands they have committed themselves for transportation. Their
treatment differs with different companies, but all too often they are
handled like so many cattle, or even worse, like so many articles of
inanimate freight.[143]

The Immigration Commission recommends that a law be passed requiring
United States government officials, both men and women, to be placed on
all ships carrying third class or steerage passengers, at the expense of
the companies, and that inspectors in the guise of immigrants should
occasionally be sent across in the steerage. This ought certainly to
bring about a decided improvement in conditions, for at present there is
no provision, on the part of this government, for enforcing the steerage
laws, or looking after the welfare of passengers on the voyage. Ships
are subject to inspection after they arrive in port, but conditions are
very different then from what they are in mid-ocean. As the ship
approaches shore, toilet rooms and wash rooms are cleaned up,
disinfectants are used, and everything is made to appear more proper and
orderly. That such supervision and inspection is capable of producing
beneficial results is proved by the fact that on ships carrying an
Italian royal commissioner, conditions are very much superior to those
on others.




                               CHAPTER X
   INSPECTION. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF ARRIVING IMMIGRANTS


The immigrant first comes under the official control of the United
States government when he arrives at the port of destination. There are
a number of seaports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts designated by
the Bureau as ports of entry for immigrants. Entry at any other ports is
illegal. The facilities for the inspection and care of immigrants differ
in extent in the different ports with the demands placed upon them, but
the general line of procedure is the same in all. As New York has the
most elaborate and complete immigrant station in the country and
receives three quarters or more of all the immigrants, it may be taken
as typical of the fullest development of our inspection system.

A ship arriving in New York is first subject to examination by the
quarantine officials. Then the immigrants are turned over to the
officers of the Immigration Bureau. All aliens entering a port of the
United States are subject to the immigration law, and have to submit to
inspection. First or second class passage does not, contrary to a common
impression, secure immunity. Cabin passengers are given a preliminary
inspection by the officials on board the vessel, and if they are plainly
admissible, they are allowed to land without further formality. If there
is any question as to their eligibility, they are taken to Ellis Island,
and subjected to a closer examination. While there, they have to put up
with the same accommodations as are accorded to steerage passengers.
During three months of the spring of 1910 twenty-five hundred cabin
passengers were thus taken over to Ellis Island, and the commissioner in
charge at that port was led to recommend that better facilities be
provided for this class of immigrants.[144] This recommendation was
repeated in 1912.

The steerage passengers are loaded on to barges, rented by the steamship
companies, and transferred to the immigrant station. This is located on
Ellis Island, a group of small islands in the harbor, not far from the
Statue of Liberty. It consists of two main parts, on one of which is
located the main building, containing offices, sleeping rooms,
restaurant, inspection rooms, ticket offices, etc.; on the other are the
hospitals, etc. This temporary disembarkment does not constitute a legal
landing; the immigrants are still nominally on shipboard, and the
transportation companies are responsible for their support until they
are legally landed.

After landing on the Island, the immigrants pass through a detailed
process of examination, during which all the facts required by the
statutes are ascertained and recorded, as far as possible. This
examination consists of three main parts. The first is the medical
examination made by officers of the United States Public Health and
Marine Hospital Service. These inspect the immigrants for all physical
weaknesses or diseases which make them liable to exclusion. The next
stage is the examination by an inspector who asks the long list of
questions required by the law, in order to determine whether the alien
is, for any nonphysical reason, inadmissible. If the immigrant appears
to be “clearly and beyond a doubt” entitled to admission, he passes on
to the discharging quarters, where he is turned over to the agents of
the appropriate transportation company, or to a “missionary,” or is set
free to take his way to the city by the ferry.

If any alien is not clearly entitled to admission, he must appear before
a board of special inquiry, which goes into his case more deliberately
and thoroughly, in order to determine whether he is legally admissible.
Appeal from the decision of these boards, in cases provided for by the
statutes, may be made either by the alien or by a dissenting member of
the board. Such appeal goes through the Commissioner and the
Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Commerce and
Labor, whose decision is final.

Many aliens must of necessity be detained on the Island, either during
investigation, or, in case they are excluded, while awaiting their
return to the country from which they came. The feeding of these aliens,
along with certain other services, is intrusted to “privilege holders,”
selected carefully by government authority.

The volume of business transacted on Ellis Island each year is immense.
There are in all about six hundred and ten officials, including
ninety-five medical officers and hospital attendants, engaged in
administering the law at this station. The force of interpreters is
probably the largest in the world, gathered under a single roof. At
other immigrant stations the course of procedure follows the same
general lines, though the amount of business is very much less.[145]

This is obviously one of the most difficult and delicate of all the
branches of government service. Questions involving the breaking up of
families, the annihilation of long-cherished plans, and a host of other
intimate human relations, even of life and death itself, present
themselves in a steady stream before the inspectors. Every instinct of
humanity argues on the side of leniency to the ignorant, stolid, abused,
and deceived immigrant. On the other hand, the inspector knows that he
is placed as a guardian of the safety and welfare of his country. He is
charged with the execution of an intricate and iron-bound set of laws
and regulations, into which his personal feelings and inclinations must
not be allowed to enter. Any lapse into too great leniency is a betrayal
of his trust. One who has not actually reviewed the cases can have no
conception of the intricacy of the problems which are constantly brought
up for decision.

Is it surprising that the casual and tender-hearted visitor who leans
over the balcony railing or strolls through the passages, blissfully
ignorant of the laws and of the meaning of the whole procedure, should
think that he detects instances of brutality and hard-heartedness? To
him, the immigrants are a crowd of poor but ambitious foreigners, who
have left all for the sake of sharing in the glories of American life,
and are now being ruthlessly and inconsiderately turned back at the very
door by a lot of cruel and indifferent officials. He writes a letter to
his home paper, telling of the “Brutality at Ellis Island.” Even worse
than these ignorant and sentimental critics are those clever and
malicious writers who, inspired by the transportation companies or other
selfish interests, paint distorted, misleading, and exaggerated pictures
of affairs on Ellis Island, and to serve their own ends strive to bring
into disrepute government officials who are conscientiously doing their
best to perform a most difficult public duty.[146]

It would not be safe to say that there never has been any brutality on
Ellis Island, or that there is none now. Investigators of some
reputation have given specific instances.[147] It would be almost beyond
the realm of possibility that in so large a number of officials, coming
in daily contact with thousands of immigrants, there should be none who
were careless, irritable, impatient, or vicious. How much of
maltreatment there may be depends very largely upon the character and
competency of the commissioner in charge. The point is, that no one is
qualified to pass an opinion upon the treatment of immigrants, except a
thoroughly trained investigator, equipped with a full knowledge of the
laws and regulations, and an unbiased mind.

One thing in particular which impresses the dilettante observer is the
haste with which proceedings are conducted, and the physical force which
is frequently employed to push an immigrant in one direction, or hold
him back from another. It must be admitted that both of these exist—and
they are necessary. During the year 1907 five thousand was fixed as the
maximum number of immigrants who could be examined at Ellis Island in
one day;[148] yet during the spring of that year more than fifteen
thousand immigrants arrived at the port of New York in a single day. It
is evident that under such conditions haste becomes a necessity.

The work has to be done with the equipment provided, and greater
hardship may sometimes be caused by delay than by haste. As to the
physical handling of immigrants, this is necessitated by the need for
haste, combined with the condition of the immigrants. We have seen that
the conditions of the voyage are not calculated to land the immigrant in
an alert and clear-headed state. The bustle, confusion, rush, and size
of Ellis Island complete the work, and leave the average alien in a
state of stupor and bewilderment. He is in no condition to understand or
appreciate a carefully worded explanation of what he must do, or why he
must do it, even if the inspector had time to give it. The one
suggestion which is immediately comprehensible to him is a pull or a
push; if this is not administered with actual violence, there is no
unkindness in it. An amusing illustration of the dazed state in which
the average immigrant goes through the inspection is furnished by a
story told by one of the officials on the Island. It is related that
President Roosevelt once visited the Island, in company with other
distinguished citizens. He wished to observe the effect of a gift of
money on an immigrant woman, and fearing to be recognized, handed a
five-dollar gold piece to another member of the party, requesting him to
hand it to the first woman with a child in her arms who passed along the
line. It was done. The woman took the coin, slipped it into her dress,
and passed on, without even raising her eyes or giving the slightest
indication that the incident had made any different impression on her
than any of the regular steps in the inspection. It would be a
remarkable man, indeed, who could deal with a steady stream of
foreigners, stolid and unresponsive to begin with and reduced to such a
pitch of stupor, day after day, without occasionally losing his
patience.

The information collected at the port of entry is sufficient, when
compiled and tabulated, to give a very complete and detailed picture of
the character of the arriving immigrants, in so far as that can be
statistically portrayed. The reports of the Commissioner General contain
an elaborate set of tables, which are the principal source of accurate
information on the subject. In the following pages these tables will be
summarized, with the intent of bringing out the most important facts
which condition the immigration problem in this country. Data from other
reliable sources will be added as occasion requires.

During the period 1820 to 1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants have
entered the United States. Of these, the Germans have made up a larger
proportion than any other single race, amounting in all to 5,400,899
persons from the German Empire. Until very recently the Irish have stood
second; but as far as can be determined from the figures the Italians
and natives of Austria-Hungary have now passed them. There have been, in
the period mentioned, 3,511,730 immigrants from Austria-Hungary,
3,426,070 immigrants from Italy, including Sicily and Sardinia, and
3,069,625 from Ireland. But if the 1,945,812 immigrants from the United
Kingdom not specified could be properly assigned, it would probably
appear that Ireland could still lay claim to second place. The other
most important sources, with their respective contributions, are as
follows: Russian Empire, 2,680,525; England, 2,264,284; British North
American possessions, 1,322,085; Sweden, 1,095,940.[149] When it is
considered how recent is the origin of the immigration from Italy,
Russia, and Austria-Hungary, the significance of these figures becomes
apparent. The figures for a single recent year show very different
proportions. Thus in the year 1907, 28.2 per cent of the total European
immigration came from Austria-Hungary, 23.8 per cent from Italy,[150]
and 21.6 per cent from the Russian Empire, while only 3.2 per cent came
from the German Empire, 1.7 per cent from Sweden, 2.9 per cent from
Ireland, and 4.7 per cent from England.[151] What the ultimate effect of
this sweeping change in nationality will be it is impossible to predict
with any certainty; it is one of the greatest of all the problems
connected with immigration, and can better be discussed in another
connection. Suffice it to say for the present, that it has put an
entirely new face on the question of the assimilation of the immigrant
in this country.

In regard to the sex of the immigrants, the males have always had the
predominance. During the period from 1820 to 1910, 63.8 per cent of the
immigrants were males, and 36.2 per cent females.[152] This is what
might naturally be expected. The first emigration from a region is
almost always an emigration of men. They have the necessary hardihood
and daring to a greater extent than women, and are better fitted by
nature for the work of pioneering. After the current of emigration
becomes well established, women are found joining in. Early emigrants
send for their families, young men send for their sweethearts, and even
some single women venture to go to a country where there are friends and
relatives. But in the majority of cases the number of males continues to
exceed that of females. In the long run, there will be a greater
proportion of men than of women, because of the natural differences of
the sexes. In this respect, however, there has also been a change in
recent years. The proportion of males is considerably larger among the
new immigrants than among the old. In the decade 1820–1830, when
immigration was still in its beginning, there was a large proportion of
males, amounting to 70 per cent of the total. In the decades of the
forties and fifties, however, the proportion of males fell to 59.5 per
cent and 58 per cent, respectively. But in the decade ending 1910, 69.8
per cent of all the immigrants were males. There is a general tendency
for the proportion of males to rise in a year of large immigration, and
fall as immigration diminishes. This can be traced with a remarkable
degree of regularity throughout the modern period. It is well
exemplified in the last six years. In the year 1907, when the total
immigration reached its highest record, the proportion of males also
reached the highest point since 1830, 72.4 per cent. After the crisis of
that year the total immigration fell off decidedly, and in 1908 the
proportion of males was only 64.8 per cent. In the next year the
percentage of males rose to 69.2, while the total immigration decreased
slightly; but since the net gain by immigration increased in that
year,[153] this is not a serious exception to the rule. In 1910 the
total immigration again showed a marked increase, and the percentage of
males rose to 70.7.[154] In 1911 there was another marked decline in
immigration and the percentage of males fell to 64.9, while a further
slight decline in 1912 was accompanied by a fall in the percentage of
males to 63.2.[155] This phenomenon is undoubtedly accounted for by the
fact that the men come in more direct response to the economic demands
of this country than the women, and hence respond to economic
fluctuations more readily. Many of the female immigrants come to join
men who have established themselves on a footing of fair prosperity in
this country, and are able to have them come even in a year of hard
times.

An examination of the sex distribution of some of the leading races
shows how thoroughly characteristic of the new immigration this excess
of males is. The following table shows the percentages of the two sexes
of certain chosen races for the eleven-year period 1899 to 1909:

              SEX DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS OF SPECIFIED
                   RACES, BY PER CENTS, 1899 TO 1909
             ═══════════════════════════════╤═════════════
                     RACE OR PEOPLE         │  PER CENT
             ───────────────────────────────┼──────┬──────
                            „               │ Male │Female
             ───────────────────────────────┼──────┼──────
             Bulgarian, Servian, Montenegrin│  96.0│   4.0
             Croatian and Slovenian         │  85.1│  14.9
             English                        │  61.7│  38.3
             German                         │  59.4│  40.6
             Greek                          │  95.4│   4.6
             Hebrew                         │  56.7│  43.3
             Irish                          │  47.2│  52.8
             Italian, north                 │  78.4│  21.6
             Italian, south                 │  78.6│  21.4
             Lithuanian                     │  71.1│  28.9
             Magyar                         │  72.7│  27.3
             Polish                         │  69.2│  30.8
             Ruthenian                      │  74.0│  26.0
             Scandinavian                   │  61.3│  38.7
             Slovak                         │  70.3│  29.7
             ═══════════════════════════════╧══════╧══════

Comparing the entire old immigration for the period specified with the
entire new immigration (European only), we find that of the former 58.5
per cent were male and 41.5 per cent female; of the latter 73 per cent
were male, and 27 per cent female.[156] It is evident that the new
immigration is in no sense an immigration of families, but of men,
either single men, or married men who have left their wives on the other
side. This is due in part to the very fact that it is a new immigration,
partly to the fact that it is, to such a large degree, temporary or
provisional. An immigrant who expects to return to his native land after
a few years in America is more likely to leave his wife behind him than
one who bids farewell to his old home forever. The typical old
immigrant, when he has secured his competency, sends for his wife to
come and join him; the typical new immigrant, under the same
circumstances, in many cases returns to his native land to spend the
remainder of his days in the enjoyment of his accumulated wealth. The
only exception to this rule is that furnished by the Hebrews, among whom
the sexes are nearly equally distributed. This is one of the many
respects in which they stand apart from the rest of the new immigration.
The only race in which the female immigrants exceed the males is the
Irish, and this has been the case only within recent years. During the
years of the great Irish immigration the males predominated.

The matter of sex is one of the greatest importance to the United
States. It is one thing to have foreign families coming here to cast in
their lots with this nation permanently; it is quite another to have
large groups of males coming over, either with the expectation of
returning ultimately to their native land, or of living in this country
without family connections, for an indefinite number of years. Such
groups form an unnatural element in our population, and alter the
problem of assimilation very considerably. They are willing to work for
a lower wage than if they were trying to support families in this
country, and are not nearly so likely to be brought into touch with the
molding forces of American life as are foreign family groups. Their
habits of life, as will appear later,[157] are abnormal, and tend to
result in depreciated morals and physique. Many of the most unfortunate
conditions surrounding the present immigration situation may be traced
to this great preponderance of males.

The one thing that can be said in favor of this state of affairs is that
such a group of immigrants furnishes a larger number of workers than one
more evenly distributed between the sexes. This is an argument which
will appeal to many; but to many others, who have the best welfare of
the country at heart, it will appear wholly inadequate to offset the
serious disadvantages which result from the situation. The Immigration
Commission expresses its opinion that, in the effort to reduce the
oversupply of unskilled labor in this country by restricting
immigration, special discrimination should be made against men
unaccompanied by wives or children.[158]

In regard to the age of immigrants the most striking fact is that the
great bulk of them are in the middle age groups. In the year 1912 the
distribution of the total immigration among the different age groups was
as follows: under fourteen years, 13.6 per cent; fourteen to forty-four
years, 80.9 per cent; forty-five years and over, 5.5 per cent. In the
total population of the United States the respective percentages in
these groups are about 30, 51, and 19. There is only a slight difference
in this respect between the new and the old immigration. Of the total
European immigration for the years 1899 to 1909, the old immigration had
12.8 per cent in the first age group, 80.4 per cent in the second, and
6.8 per cent in the third; the new immigration had 12.2 per cent in the
first, 83.5 per cent in the second, and 4.3 per cent in the third.[159]
There is, however, a very marked difference between the races. This will
be brought out by the following table, which shows the age distribution
of certain selected races, for the year 1910:

 DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS OF SPECIFIED RACES AMONG THE AGE GROUPS, BY
                            PER CENTS, 1910
 ══════════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════
     RACE OR PEOPLE    │                 AGE, PER CENT
 ──────────────────────┼───────────────┬───────────────┬───────────────
           „           │Under 14 Years │14 to 44 Years │ 45 Years and
                       │               │               │     Over
 ──────────────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────
 Croatian and Slovenian│            4.7│           91.0│            3.3
 German                │           17.0│           75.9│            7.1
 Greek                 │            2.6│           96.0│            1.4
 Hebrew                │           25.9│           67.9│            6.2
 Irish                 │            7.4│           88.3│            4.3
 Italian, south        │           10.4│           83.5│            6.1
 Polish                │            7.6│           89.7│            2.7
 ══════════════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════

Here, again, the Hebrews appear as an exception to the general rule as
regards the new immigration and, in this case, as regards the total
immigration.

The showing in regard to age substantiates the observation already made
that our modern immigration is in no sense an immigration of families.
This, too, affects the chances for assimilation very considerably. As
regards the economic efficiency of the immigrants, the age distribution,
added to the sex distribution, marks them as a selected group. When it
is further considered that the physically and mentally feeble, and those
who are unlikely to be able to earn their own living are weeded out in
the process of inspection, it appears that those who look upon the
immigrant as nothing more than a source of cheap labor have much reason
to be pleased with the quality of our immigration. The productive power
of a group of immigrants averages very much higher than a corresponding
number of persons taken from the general population of the race from
which they come.

Herein lies perhaps the greatest and most popular argument for
immigration. It is claimed that without our foreign laboring force it
would have been impossible to develop the resources of the country so
rapidly and completely as they have been developed, and that if the
supply were cut off now, it would seriously cripple the entire industry
of the country. It is certainly true that under the present organization
of industry in this country, production in many lines depends to a very
important degree upon foreign labor. How much of truth there is in the
deduction that without the immigrants this country would be much farther
back in the industrial race than it is to-day, will be considered in
another connection.[160]

There are many citizens of the United States, however, who look upon the
immigrant as something more than a mere productive machine. To them the
proof of his economic efficiency is not sufficient. They wish to know
something of his adaptability to assimilation into the American life,
and of his probable contribution to the ethnic type of the United
States. To such as these, there are a number of further conditions which
must be considered, and which are of at least equal significance in
determining the final effects of immigration upon this country.

Prominent among these is the intellectual quality of the immigrant. This
is naturally a very difficult thing to measure. Beyond actual
feeble-mindedness, the only test of intellectual capacity which has
received wide application is the literacy—or, as it is more frequently
expressed, the illiteracy—test. This concerns the ability to read and
write, and is given a great deal of weight by many students of the
subject. It is not, however, necessarily an indication of intellectual
capacity, but rather of education. The inability to read or write may be
due to lack of early opportunity, rather than to inferior mental
caliber. Nevertheless, the matter of literacy has received sufficient
attention, and is in fact of sufficient importance, so that it is
desirable to have the facts in this respect before us.

Two forms of illiteracy are recognized by the immigration authorities,
inability to either read or write, and inability to write coupled with
ability to read. The latter class is a very small one, and for all
practical purposes those who are spoken of as illiterates are those who
can neither read nor write. For the period of 1899–1909 the average
illiteracy of all European immigrants fourteen years of age or over was
26.6 per cent. There is a marked difference between the old and new
immigrants in this respect. Of the former class, during the period
mentioned, only 2.7 per cent of the immigrants fourteen years of age or
over was illiterate; of the latter class, 35.6 per cent. The same
difference is brought out by the following table, showing the illiteracy
of certain specified races:

                     PERCENTAGE OF ILLITERACY[161]
                    OF IMMIGRANTS OF THE SPECIFIED
                    RACES, 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER,
                    FOR THE YEARS 1899 TO 1909[162]

                        RACE OR PEOPLE     PER CENT

                    Scandinavian                0.4
                    English                     1.1
                    Irish                       2.7
                    German                      5.1
                    Italian, north             11.8
                    Magyar                     11.4
                    Hebrew                     25.7
                    Greek                      27.0
                    Roumanian                  34.7
                    Polish                     35.4
                    Croatian and Slovenian     36.4
                    Italian, south             54.2
                    Portuguese                 68.2

Footnote 161:

  Those who can neither read nor write.

Footnote 162:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 17.

Where there is such a marked difference between races as is exhibited in
the foregoing table, it seems fair to assume that there is a
corresponding difference in the intellectual condition of the respective
peoples—if not in their potential capacity, at least in the actual
mental equipment of the immigrants themselves.[163] In fact, it is quite
customary to take the degree of illiteracy as a reasonable index of the
desirability of a given stream of immigration. There seems to be
considerable basis for this idea, for it appears probable that an
immigrant who has had the ability and the opportunity to secure, in his
home land, such a degree of education as is indicated by the ability to
read and write, is better equipped for adapting himself to life in a new
country than one who has not. On the other hand, there is considerable
testimony to the effect that the immigrants who have the hardest time to
get along in this country are those who have a moderate degree of
education, bookkeepers, mediocre musicians, clerks, etc. They are either
unable or unwilling to do the menial work which their less educated
countrymen perform, and are not able to compete with persons trained in
this country in the occupations which they followed at home. There are
relatively few of the occupations into which the typical immigrant of
to-day goes, and for which he is encouraged to come to this country, in
which the ability to read and write adds to the efficiency of the worker
to any considerable degree. It is possible that the ability to read and
write may hasten the process of assimilation somewhat; it is
questionable whether it adds appreciably to the economic fitness of the
immigrant for life in this country.

The question of literacy as a test of immigrants has received a large
amount of attention recently through its inclusion in the proposed
immigration bill which barely failed of becoming a law early in the year
1913. This bill was the result of the investigations of the Immigration
Commission, and embodied several of the recommendations of that body.
The one upon which most of the opposition was centered was a clause
providing a reading test for adult aliens. There were certain exceptions
to the rule, however, so that in its actual application the exclusion
would have been limited almost wholly to adult males. The bill passed
both houses of Congress, but was vetoed by the President, after a
careful and judicial consideration. The Senate promptly passed the bill
over the veto, but a similar action in the House failed by the narrow
margin of half a dozen votes.

The agitation for a literacy test rests upon two main groups of
arguments. The first class includes the efforts to show that literacy,
in itself, is a desirable qualification for citizenship, economically,
socially, and politically. The second group rests on the belief that the
total number of immigrants ought to be cut down, and that a literacy
test is a good way to accomplish the result. It is not unlikely that
this latter set of opinions predominated over the former in the minds of
the adherents of the proposed measure, though it was not necessarily
expressed openly. And there is much to be said in favor of the literacy
test from this point of view. In the first place, it is a perfectly
definite and comprehensible test, which could be applied by the
immigrant to himself before he left his native village. In the second
place, it is a test which any normal alien could prepare himself to meet
if he were willing to make the effort. It does not seem too much to
require of one who wishes to become a member of the American body
politic, that he take the pains to equip himself with the rudiments of
an education before presenting himself. Finally, as Miss Claghorn has
pointed out,[164] it is a test which would react favorably upon the
immigrant himself. It is impossible to tell, as noted above, just how
much value attaches to literacy in the effort of the alien to maintain
himself in this country. Yet without doubt there is some advantage. And
perhaps there would be even more in the strengthening of character and
purpose which would result from the effort to attain it. A glance at the
preceding table will show which of the immigrant races, as the
immigration stream is now constituted, would be most affected by such a
test. But it is not at all impossible that the passage of a literacy
test by this government would have the effect of materially stimulating
the progress of education in some of the more backward countries of
Europe.

This tendency to illiteracy on the part of immigrants is apparently well
overcome in the second generation, for among the employees in
manufacturing studied by the Immigration Commission the percentage of
illiteracy was lower among the native-born descendants of foreign
fathers than among the native-born of native fathers.[165]

In the year 1910 information was collected for the first time in regard
to the conjugal condition of immigrants. The figures on this point are
summarized in the following table, which gives the percentages of each
sex, in the different age groups, who are in the different
classifications as to conjugal condition.

                 CONJUGAL CONDITION OF IMMIGRANTS, 1910
 ══════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  SEX  │                          PERCENTAGES
 ──────┼───────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────
   „   │      14 TO 44 YEARS[166]      │       45 YEARS AND OVER
 ──────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬────────┼──────┬───────┬───────┬────────
   „   │Single│Married│Widowed│Divorced│Single│Married│Widowed│Divorced
 ──────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼────────
 Male  │  55.3│   44.2│    0.5│ [167]  │   5.2│   86.8│    7.9│ [167]
 Female│  57.7│   39.9│    2.3│ [167]  │   6.6│   52.8│   40.5│     0.1
 ══════╧══════╧═══════╧═══════╧════════╧══════╧═══════╧═══════╧════════

Footnote 166:

  All the immigrants under 14 were single, with the exception of one
  female.

Footnote 167:

  Less than one tenth of 1 per cent.

This table furnishes further verification of the fact that our present
immigration is in no sense an immigration of families. More than half of
all the immigrants fourteen years of age or over, of both sexes, are
single. This affects the problem of assimilation very deeply. One of the
greatest forces for Americanization in immigrant families is the growing
children. Where these are absent, the adults have much less contact with
assimilating influences. If there was a large degree of intermarriage
between these single immigrants and native Americans, the aspect of the
case would be very different; but thus far, this is not the case.

Much has been said and written about the absolute economic gain to this
country through immigration. It is pointed out that each year an army of
able-bodied laborers, in the prime of life, is added to our working
force. To the expense of their rearing we have contributed nothing; they
come to us as a free gift from the nations of Europe. Various efforts
have been made to estimate the actual cash value of these alien
laborers. Professor Mayo-Smith enumerates three different ways of
attacking the problem. The first is by estimating the cost of bringing
up the immigrant, up to the time of his arrival in the United States.
The second is by estimating his value as if he were a slave. The third
is by estimating the amount of wealth he will contribute to the
community before he dies, minus the cost of his maintenance—in other
words, his net earnings.[168]

The lack of uniformity in the results obtained by different methods and
by different investigators gives weight to the opinion that it is, after
all, a rather fruitless undertaking. To estimate the monetary value of a
man seems to be, as yet, too much for economic science.

There is one economic contribution, however, which the immigrants make
to this country which is capable of fairly accurate measurement. This is
the amount of money which they bring with them when they come. For many
years immigrants have been compelled to show the amount of money in
their possession, and this information has been recorded, and
incorporated in the annual reports. Up to 1904, immigrants were divided
into those showing less than $30 and those showing that amount or more.
In that year this dividing line was raised to $50. The total amount of
money shown is also given. Thus it is possible to estimate the average
amount of money shown by the immigrants of different races, and also to
ascertain what proportion of them showed above or below the specified
amount. Unfortunately for the conclusiveness of the statistics,
immigrants very commonly do not show all the money in their possession,
but only so much as they think is necessary to secure their admission.
So the total amount of money shown does not represent the total amount
brought in; all that can be positively stated is that at least so much
was brought in.

In 1909 the total amount of money shown was $17,331,828; in 1910,
$28,197,745; in 1911, $29,411,488; and in 1912, $30,353,721. The average
per capita showings of the European immigrants for the period 1905 to
1909 was as follows:[169]

 ═══════════════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
      CLASS     │                  AVERAGE PER CAPITA
 ───────────────┼───────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────
        „       │   Based on Total Coming   │  Based on Total Showing
 ───────────────┼───────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────
 Old immigration│                     $39.90│                     $55.20
 New immigration│                      15.83│                      20.99
                │                     ——————│                     ——————
      Total     │                     $22.47│                     $30.14
 ═══════════════╧═══════════════════════════╧═══════════════════════════

Those not showing money were for the most part children and other
dependents. This shows how baseless is the impression, quite prevalent
among Americans and aliens alike, that a certain specified amount of
money is necessary to secure admission to this country. Thirty dollars
or fifty dollars are the amounts commonly mentioned. But since the
average based on the total number showing money is barely over thirty
dollars, it is plain that there must be a large number showing less than
thirty dollars. In fact, some races, as, for instance, the Polish,
Lithuanians, and south Italians, have an average of from twenty to
twenty-five dollars for all showing money. There is no monetary
requirement for admission to the United States. While the possession of
a certain amount of money is considered to add to the probability of an
immigrant being able to support himself without becoming a public
charge, a sturdy laborer with ten dollars in his pocket is more likely
to secure admission than a decrepit old man with a good-sized bank
account.

Against these large amounts of money brought in by immigrants, which
represent a net gain to the total wealth of the country, must be set off
the enormous amounts of money annually sent abroad by alien residents of
the United States. Various efforts have been made to estimate these
sums. The best is probably that of the Immigration Commission which sets
the figure at a total of $275,000,000 for the year 1907, which was a
prosperous year.[170]

The following table gives the distribution of immigrants among the
different classes of occupations.

                        OCCUPATION OF EUROPEAN
                       IMMIGRANTS FOR THE YEARS
                             1898 TO 1909,
                           PERCENTAGES[171]

                          OCCUPATION     PER CENT

                      Professional            1.0
                      Skilled laborers       15.2
                      Farm laborers          15.7
                      Farmers                 1.0
                      Common laborers        27.8
                      Servants               10.8
                      Miscellaneous           2.1
                      No occupation[172]     26.4

Footnote 171:

  _Ibid._, Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 15.

Footnote 172:

  Including women and children.

These figures are taken from the statements of the immigrants
themselves, and represent, in so far as they are correct, the economic
position of the immigrant in the country from which he came. They are
not a reliable indication of the occupation into which he goes in this
country.

It is evident that the great majority of the immigrants belong in
general to the unskilled labor class. This is the class of labor for
which there is a special demand in this country, and for which the
immigrants are desired. At the same time, as Professor Commons has
pointed out,[173] there is also a considerable demand for skilled
artisans in this country, as the peculiar conditions of American
industry prevent the training of a sufficient number of all-round
mechanics at home. This demand is also met from European sources. There
is a great difference in this respect between the different races.[174]
For instance, 29.8 per cent of the English immigrants were skilled
laborers, 37.9 per cent of the Scotch, and 35.2 per cent of the Welsh,
while only 4.7 per cent of the Croatians and Slovenians, 2.7 per cent of
the Roumanians, 1.8 per cent of the Ruthenians, and 3.5 per cent of the
Slovaks belonged to that class, during the period mentioned. The highest
proportion of professional is shown by the French, with 6.2 per cent. In
general, the old immigration has a larger proportion in the professional
and skilled groups than the new, and this difference would be much more
marked if the Hebrews were excepted, as they again furnish a marked
exception to the general rule of the new immigration, with 36.7 per cent
in the skilled labor group.

Thus far, the facts which have been brought out all have to do with the
condition of the immigrants upon their arrival. They furnish a sort of a
composite picture of the raw material. This is about as far as the
regular statistics go. After the immigrants have left the port of
arrival, the Bureau furnishes practically no information about them
until they leave the country again, except an occasional special report,
and, in recent years, figures concerning naturalization. This is typical
of the general attitude which characterizes the entire immigration
system and legislation, and rests on the assumption that if sufficient
care is exercised in the selection of immigrants, all will thenceforth
be well, and no attention need be paid to them after they are in the
country. The final piece of information furnished in the reports is the
alleged destination of the immigrants. This is of course somewhat
uncertain, but in so far as it is conclusive it furnishes a preliminary
clew to the distribution of our alien residents throughout the country.

The significance of the figures regarding destination, or intended
future residence, may best be brought out by showing the percentages
destined to the different territorial divisions of the United States. In
1910 these were as follows:

                           PER CENT OF TOTAL
                        IMMIGRATION DESTINED TO
                         EACH OF THE SPECIFIED
                            DIVISIONS, 1910

                           DIVISION    PER CENT

                        North Atlantic      62.3
                        South Atlantic       2.5
                        North Central       26.1
                        South Central        2.3
                        Western              6.1
                                            ————
                            Total      99.3[175]

Footnote 175:

  Balance to Alaska, Hawaii, Philippine Islands, and Porto Rico.

The fact that in a typical year 88.4 per cent of the total immigration
gave their intended future residence as the North Atlantic or North
Central divisions, introduces us to some of the peculiarities of the
distribution of immigrants in the United States, which will be further
considered later.

Before closing our consideration of arriving immigrants it will be well
to glance briefly at those who arrive, but are not admitted—in other
words, the debarred. We have seen that the law has grown more and more
stringent in its conditions for admission, and each new statute has
tended to raise the standard. These laws have had a powerful influence
in improving the character of the applicants for admission, and with the
coöperation of the transportation companies have operated to check the
emigration of the manifestly undesirable to an ever greater extent. Yet
there are every year considerable numbers of would-be immigrants who
have to be turned back at the portals of the United States. The lot of
these unfortunates is undeniably a hard one, and they are the objects of
much well-deserved sympathy. Everything possible ought to be done to
limit the number of inadmissible aliens who are allowed to present
themselves at the immigrant stations of this country. The farther back
on the road they can be stopped, the better will the interests of
humanity be served. At the same time, pity for the rejected alien ought
not to be allowed to express itself in unreasonable and unwarranted
attacks upon our system of admission, and the officials who administer
it, as is sometimes done.[176]

The statistics of debarments may be indicative of the character of the
applicants, of the stringency of the laws and the faithfulness of their
enforcement, or of the care of the transportation companies in
prosecuting their examination on the other side. It is impossible to
tell from the figures themselves which of these factors account for the
different fluctuations. It is undoubtedly true that there has been, in
general, a steady improvement in the care with which immigrants are
selected. If, next year, a million immigrants of the same general
character as prevailed sixty years ago should present themselves at our
gates, the proportion of refusals would soar tremendously. The following
table gives the proportion of debarments to admissions since 1892.

        PROPORTION OF ALIENS DEBARRED, EXPRESSED IN PERCENTAGES
                   OF IMMIGRANTS ADMITTED, 1892–1912
       ════════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════╤══════
       YEAR    │=1892=│=1893=│=1894=│=1895=│=1896=│=1897=│=1898=
       ────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
       Per cent│   .37│   .24│   .49│   .94│   .62│   .70│  1.32
       ────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
       YEAR    │=1899=│=1900=│=1901=│=1902=│=1903=│=1904=│=1905=
       ────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
       Per cent│  1.22│   .95│   .72│   .76│  1.02│   .98│  1.15
       ────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
       YEAR    │=1906=│=1907=│=1908=│=1909=│=1910=│=1911=│=1912=
       ────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────
       Per cent│  1.12│  1.02│  1.18│  1.09│  2.33│  2.54│  1.92
       ════════╧══════╧══════╧══════╧══════╧══════╧══════╧══════

In the years 1892 to 1912, 169,132 aliens were refused admission to the
United States. Of these, 58.2 per cent were debarred on the grounds of
pauperism or likelihood of becoming a public charge, 15.8 per cent were
afflicted with loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, and 12.7 per
cent were contract laborers. These three leading causes account for 86.7
per cent of all the debarments. The other classes of debarred aliens
specified in the reports are as follows: idiots, imbeciles,
feeble-minded, epileptics, insane, tuberculosis (non-contagious),
professional beggars, mental or physical defects likely to affect
ability to earn a living, accompanying aliens, under sixteen years of
age unaccompanied by parent, assisted aliens, criminals, polygamists,
anarchists, prostitutes, etc., aliens who procure prostitutes, etc.,
under passport provision, Section 1, under provisions Chinese exclusion
act, supported by proceeds of prostitution.

There has been a change in the relative importance of the three leading
causes of debarment since 1892. In that year almost all the debarred
aliens were paupers or likely to become a public charge or contract
laborers. The first of these classes has held its own down to the
present, and still stands far in advance of any other cause as regards
the number refused. The contract labor class has declined in relative
importance. Loathsome and dangerous contagious diseases were
comparatively unimportant until 1898, when they sprang into prominence,
and have since outstripped contract laborers. This was due to the
classification, in 1897, of trachoma as a dangerous contagious disease.
It has since led the list of diseases by a large margin. In 1910 there
were 2618 cases of trachoma out of a total of 3123 loathsome or
dangerous contagious diseases. Favus comes next with 111 cases,
tuberculosis next with 90, and others 304. The proportions were about
the same in 1908 and 1909. In 1912 the proportion of trachoma was even
greater.

Trachoma is the disease popularly known as granular lids. It attacks the
conjunctiva, or mucous lining of the lids, setting up inflammation. It
affects the cornea, forming ulcers, and may result in partial or total
opacity, which may be permanent or temporary. The determination of cases
of true trachoma appears to be a matter of some difficulty; the
examiners on Ellis Island are “instructed to regard as trachoma any case
wherein the conjunctiva presents firm, well-marked granulations which do
not have a tendency to disappear when the case is placed in hygienic
surroundings a few days, or does not yield rapidly to ordinary
treatment, even though there be no evidence of active inflammation at
the time of the examination, nor appreciable discharge, nor as yet any
signs of degenerative or destructive processes.”[177] The necessity for
great caution in this matter is increased by the fact that it is
possible by medical treatment to remove the outward symptoms of trachoma
so as to make it very difficult of detection, though there is no real
cure, and the disease will return later. Many immigrants who are
suffering from this malady take treatment of this sort before
emigrating. It is stated that in London there are institutions which
make a business of preparing immigrants for admission.[178] Statements
emanating from medical sources have recently appeared in the newspapers
to the effect that trachoma is not so contagious or dangerous as has
been supposed, but they appear to lack substantiation.

Favus is another name for the disease known as ring worm. It is a
vegetable parasite which attacks the hair, causing it to become dry,
brittle, dull, and easily pulled out. Favus is also susceptible to
temporary “cures.”

On the whole, the new immigration is more subject to debarment than the
old, particularly for the cause of trachoma. This is a disease to which
the races of southeastern Europe and Asia Minor are especially liable. A
large part of the Syrians have it. In 1910 more than 3 per cent of all
the Syrians who presented themselves for admission were refused for this
cause alone. Inability for self-support is also much more common among
the new than the old.

Reviewing this survey of the arriving immigrants, we find that as
respects age and sex they are a body of persons remarkably well
qualified for productive labor. The predominating races are now those of
southern and eastern Europe, which are of a decidedly different stock
from the original settlers of this country. There is a large percentage
of illiteracy. The statistics of conjugal condition, combined with those
of sex and age, show that our present immigration is in no sense an
immigration of families. The great majority of the immigrants belong to
the unskilled or common labor class, or else have no occupation. The
bulk of the immigrants are destined to the North Atlantic and North
Central divisions of the United States. The immigrants are a selected
body, as far as this can be accomplished by a strict examination under
the law. In spite of the care exercised by transportation companies on
the other side, a considerable number of aliens are debarred each year,
mainly for the causes of disease, inability for self-support, or labor
contracts. In almost all of these respects the old immigration differs
to a greater or less extent from the new, with the exception of the
Hebrews, who stand apart from the rest of the new immigration in a
number of important particulars.




                               CHAPTER XI
 CONDITIONS OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES. EFFECTS ON POPULATION.
                              DISTRIBUTION


The student who turns to the investigation of immigration conditions
within the United States at once finds himself hindered by a serious
lack of material. As has been stated above, the Immigration Bureau
furnishes practically no data concerning our alien residents after it
bids them farewell at the immigration station. The Census Bureau
furnishes certain valuable data, and the Immigration Commission has
recently collected a vast amount of useful information. Occasional
articles appear in the periodicals, and there are a few books touching
on the subject. But there is a great need for more concrete, exhaustive,
and sympathetic studies of single racial groups of immigrants, such as
has been made by Miss Emily G. Balch in regard to the Slavs. There ought
also to be a number of conscientious studies of different phases of
immigrant life in this country—what might be called transverse sections
of the problem, as the other studies are longitudinal sections. A number
of valuable studies of the latter sort have been made by the Immigration
Commission in its reports upon immigrants in industries, immigrants in
cities, immigrants as charity seekers, etc. Other topics which might
well be considered in a similar manner will be suggested by the
following subjects: housing conditions among immigrants, the food of
immigrants, the problem of assimilation, family life of the immigrants,
religious life of the immigrants, etc. Until more work of this sort has
been done most general conclusions must be admittedly tentative and
subject to revision. Nevertheless, knowledge grows from the general to
the particular, as well as in the reverse order, and it will not be
without profit to review the data which are already at hand, and
establish as many conclusions with a fair degree of certainty as may be
possible.

At the time of the census of 1900 the population of the United States
numbered 76,303,387. Of these 10,460,085 were foreign-born. In 1910 out
of a total population of 91,972,266 there were 13,515,886 foreign-born.
Out of about forty-five different groups, designated by the country of
origin, the following are the most important:

             FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES
             WHOSE BIRTHPLACE WAS IN THE COUNTRY SPECIFIED

                  BIRTHPLACE         1900 NUMBER 1910 NUMBER

           Austria                       276,702   1,174,973
           Canada (English or other)     787,798     819,554
           Canada (French)               395,427     385,083
           England                       843,491     877,719
           Germany                     2,669,164   2,501,333
           Ireland                     1,619,469   1,352,251
           Italy                         484,703   1,343,125
           Norway                        338,426     403,877
           Poland (all)                  383,595    [179]
           Russia                        424,372   1,602,782
           Sweden                        574,625     665,207

Footnote 179:

  Distributed under Austria, Germany, and Russia.

When we remember the remarkable homogeneity of the inhabitants of the
United States at the time of the Revolution, we seem justified in saying
that one conclusion, at least, is established beyond any doubt, viz.
that immigration to the United States since 1820 has resulted in a
decided mixture of racial stock. For good or ill, the racial unity of
the American people is a thing of the past.

There is another conclusion which might be drawn from the above figures,
and which is in fact assumed by many writers, and in most popular
discussions of the subject, which is not so well supported by facts.
This is, that these foreign-born residents of the country, amounting to
one seventh of the total, constitute a net addition to the population;
in other words, that immigration has increased the total population of
the country by an amount approximately equal to the number of
immigrants, allowing, of course, for removals and deaths.

At first glance this may seem almost a self-evident proposition. That it
is not, however, is evidenced by the strikingly large number of the
deeper thinkers on the subject who hold the opposite view. Of these, the
best known in this connection is General Francis A. Walker. In his
discussion of this problem he says: “Space would not serve for a full
statistical demonstration of the proposition that immigration, during
the period from 1830 to 1860 instead of constituting a net reënforcement
to the population, simply resulted in a replacement of native by foreign
elements; but I believe it would be practicable to prove this to the
satisfaction of every fair-minded man.”[180] Mr. Prescott F. Hall, who
quotes this passage, holds firmly to the same opinion himself, and cites
a number of other writers who are more or less positive in their
statements of the causal relation between immigration and the
diminishing native birth rate.

Mr. F. A. Bushee, whose authority on matters of population is well
recognized, says, “The multiplication of foreign peoples has seriously
checked the growth of the old American stock.”[181] Mr. Robert Hunter is
a pronounced advocate of this view, and says, “The immigrants are not
additional inhabitants. Their coming displaces the native stock.”[182]
Professor John R. Commons supports this position throughout his
discussions of the subject. An extreme but convincing opinion is that
expressed by Mr. S. G. Fisher in the _Popular Science Monthly_ for
December, 1895. After a careful statistical survey of the growth of
population in the United States he states his conviction that
“immigration has not materially increased, but, on the contrary, has
somewhat decreased the American population.... All the immigrants and
all their increase cannot make up for the loss of the old rate of
increase of the natives.”

In view of this imposing weight of authoritative opinion, it is perhaps
surprising that the popular mind still holds so tenaciously and
universally to the belief that immigration directly increases
population. The explanation probably lies in ignorance of the facts of
the case and of the fundamental laws of population and in the somewhat
abstruse nature of the reasoning by which the expert conclusions are
reached. For it must be admitted frankly that this is not a proposition
which can be demonstrated in an absolutely conclusive mathematical way,
which will leave no further ground for argument. The factors affecting
population are many and complicated, including not only immigration, but
war, vice, hard times, marriage customs, the growth of cities, and a
host of other things. It is far beyond the present power of social
science to define positively the relative importance of each of the
forces involved in producing a certain phenomenon.

The line of argument by which, in general, all writers such as those to
whom reference was made above have reached their conclusions is as
follows. The population of the United States at the time it became a
nation was almost wholly of native origin. It was a homogeneous people,
of one stock, one language, and one set of traditions, customs, and
beliefs. For the first forty years of our national life the increase of
population was phenomenal, doubling every twenty-two or twenty-three
years. Malthus chose the North American colonies as an example of the
extreme possibilities of increase under favorable conditions, and the
rate continued for many years after they ceased to be colonies. Between
1790 and 1830 the population increased from less than 4,000,000 to
nearly 13,000,000, or 227 per cent in forty years. An estimate made in
1815, based on the first three censuses, reckoned the probable
population of the United States in 1900 at 100,235,985. The fact that it
was, instead, only 76,303,387, in spite of the incoming of 19,115,221
aliens since 1820, shows that there must have been a tremendous
falling-off in the native birth rate. Careful study reveals the fact
that the birth rate first began to decline appreciably about 1830, just
the period when the effects of immigration first began to be strongly
felt in this country, and that it diminished progressively with the
swelling volume of the immigration current. Moreover, it was in just
those sections where the immigrants congregated most thickly that the
fall in the native birth rate was most pronounced, even down to such
minor divisions as counties. New England, which, at the time of the
Revolution, held the most homogeneous population in the country, and had
the highest birth rate, has now the greatest proportion of foreigners
and, as far as the natives at least are concerned, the lowest birth
rate. To such an extent has this decline gone, that at the present time
the native stock in large sections of New England is not even
maintaining itself. Coincidences of time and place between the phenomena
of immigration and those of the declining birth rate are so numerous and
so striking that, in the words of General Walker, they “constitute a
statistical demonstration such as is rarely attained in regard to the
operation of any social or economic force.”

This line of argument has been so thoroughly and convincingly expounded
by a number of writers that it need not be dwelt upon further here. Its
great weakness is that which has been anticipated—it lacks mathematical
positiveness. An opponent might readily claim that the appalling decline
in the native birth rate (the existence of which no one would care to
deny) was due to some one or other of a variety of different causes, or
to several operating together. The sections where the birth rate is the
lowest are not only those where immigration has been the heaviest. They
are also to a large extent those which are characterized most
distinctively by manufacturing industry, or where the population is the
densest. Why not assign the falling birth rate to one of these
causes?[183]

The best answer to this counterargument is to strengthen the original
position by another and wholly different course of reasoning. This may
be done very effectively by applying the fundamental and accepted laws
of population to the question in hand, and seeing how they would work
out in such a case. If the conclusion thus reached coincides with that
resulting from the other method of proof, it will furnish a
demonstration amounting almost to a certainty.

For this purpose we must go back to the set of doctrines first
consistently expounded by Malthus, and known by his name. Though they
are now more than a century old, they still stand as one of the
profoundest contributions to human knowledge. These doctrines are so
familiar to all students of social subjects that the merest summary will
serve the present purpose. This may be given in the following words.

Under favorable circumstances, the reproductive power of the human
species is very great.[184] Actual cases of doubling of population in
from twenty to twenty-five years have been known, and this may be taken
as a maximum standard. But man is dependent for his existence on the
food supply, and, owing to the actual conditions of production, there is
no ground for the hope that the amount of subsistence of the world or of
any nation can ever be increased at a rate corresponding to the possible
increase of mankind. Consequently, the growth of the species is always
limited by the possibilities of the increase of the food supply, and as
the strength of the reproductive instinct is very great, population will
always be pressing hard on the limits of subsistence. The only means of
providing for a greater population is by increasing the amount of
productive land, or, by improvements in the arts, by making the land
already under cultivation produce more food. Briefly stated, in any
society, population tends to increase up to the supporting power of the
soil. The forces which retard the growth of population, however, are
something more than starvation in the strictest sense of the word. They
are enumerated by Malthus in a list of what he calls checks. These
naturally fall under two heads: First, the positive checks, which
increase the death rate, viz. war, famine, pestilence, vice, etc.; these
all produce misery and arise whenever population becomes too dense.
Second, the preventive checks, which limit the birth rate, such as
deferred marriage, celibacy, and voluntary restriction of births,
vicious or otherwise; these are under the control of the human reason
and will, and while they too entail a degree of suffering, it is not
comparable to that caused by the other class of checks. All civilized
societies have come more and more to employ the preventive checks,
particularly that which is known as moral restraint.

The basic principles of Malthusianism remain as unassailable as when
they were first propounded. But there have been certain modifications
made necessary by the changing conditions of human society. As already
suggested the preventive checks hold a much larger place than formerly,
and great weight is now attached to what are known as the institutional
checks, such as the demands of education, late marriages, social
obligations, the “emancipation” of women, and a host of other customs
and conventions which tend more or less imperceptibly to limit the
number of births. Still more important, in the place of a bare
subsistence as the limit upon which population is always pressing, has
been substituted the standard of living. This includes all those
necessaries, comforts, and even luxuries which are customary in the
social group in which the individual or family finds itself placed. The
limits of the family group are not now determined by the amount of bare
necessaries which are essential for the preservation of life—probably
they never were absolutely—but rather by the amount of advantages which
are required to keep the family in the social stratum to which it
belongs or to which the parents aspire, either for themselves or for
their children. Particularly is this true in a democratic country like
the United States, where social position depends not so much on rank or
birth, as on wealth and education, both of which are attainable by
effort and sacrifice. It is the desire for the “concentration of
advantages” of this sort which leads to the restriction of the size of
families.

With this set of laws in mind, let us seek to determine the effect which
might reasonably be expected to follow the introduction of a large
number of immigrants from European countries into the American body
politic. In the first place, it will be conceded that the great bulk of
our immigrants represent a much lower standard of living than is
customary among native American workmen in the occupations into which
they go.[185] Observation of conditions in the countries from which the
immigrants come, and in the communities in which they settle after they
arrive, establishes this fact beyond the necessity of proof. In fact,
this difference, as has been shown, is the underlying reason for their
coming.[186] Undoubtedly many of the immigrants raise their standard of
living somewhat after their arrival in this country, but not nearly up
to the American level.

Since the immigrant has a lower standard than the native, he can afford
to work for lower wages, and since the amount of alien labor is so
abundant and so easily available, the standard of wages in the
occupations into which the immigrants go is set by the amount for which
they are willing to work. This amount is lowered still further by the
fact that the immigrant is generally quite willing to add to the income
of his family by putting his children to work as soon as the law
allows—or earlier if possible—whereas the native ordinarily prefers to
keep his children at home and in school as long as possible.[187] Thus
large families become a source of revenue for one, and an item of
expense for the other. It is obviously impossible for the native to
support the same-sized family in the same degree of comfort on the new
scale of wages as on the old. He is compelled to choose between two
alternatives. Either he may lower his standard of living and keep the
same-sized family, or limit the size of his family for the sake of the
standard of living. But the lowering of the standard of living is
something which every people—particularly the Americans—resist
strenuously. If it is a question of the possibility of raising the
standard, people often prefer larger families. This is instanced by the
very significant fact that immigrants to this country do, as a rule,
raise their birth rate very considerably. The foreign-born birth rate in
Massachusetts in 1895 was 50.40, which is from 12 to 20 higher than in
most European countries.[188] But if it is a question of lowering the
standard of living, the opposite course is taken. The standard of living
is a matter of custom, and, when once established, has a tremendous
tenacity. The American laborer chooses the other alternative. _He limits
the size of his family._

Multiplied by tens of thousands, this expedient results in seriously
checking the growth of population. This decrease in the number of native
children destined to enter certain occupations makes a greater demand
for alien labor, which is promptly supplied. Thus the invasion of the
American standard goes on progressively, and gradually these occupations
come to be resigned more and more to foreign labor. Already certain
classes of work are commonly known as “Dago labor,” others as “Hunkie
labor,” etc., and a self-respecting American parent shudders at the
thought of having his child enter them.

This very fact is sometimes used as an excuse for the whole procedure.
It is claimed that the natives are not displaced, but are simply forced
into higher occupations. Those who were formerly common laborers are now
in positions of authority. While this argument holds true of
individuals, its fallacy when applied to groups is obvious. There are
not nearly enough places of authority to receive those who are forced
out from below. The introduction of five hundred Slav laborers into a
community may make a demand for a dozen or a score of Americans in
higher positions, but hardly for five hundred. Furthermore, in so far as
this process does actually take place, it must result in a lowering of
the native birth rate, for it is a well-known fact that in all modern
societies the higher the social class, the smaller is the average
family.

What has been said thus far refers to the limitation of families after
marriage. The same influences work to produce the same result in another
way. The increased difficulty in earning enough to support a family, due
to immigration, leads countless American young men to postpone marriage
for many years, and perhaps an equal number to give up marrying
altogether. Both result in a great decrease in the birth rate for
society as a whole.[189]

The processes sketched above are mainly volitional. There is a variety
of other influences, which work unconsciously, but perhaps none the less
powerfully, to accomplish the same result. General Walker asserted that
the shock produced on the American mind by the miserable class of
immigrants in the thirties and forties, in itself, had a profoundly
detrimental effect on the natural rate of reproduction. Immigration has
the effect of vastly increasing congestion of population, and congestion
limits its growth. Furthermore, in an average group of immigrants, the
males exceed the females by more than two to one.[190] The introduction
of such an unnatural element into the population must limit its
reproductive power.

It is thus apparent that the laws of population would lead us to expect
exactly the result which the statistical data indicate—a decided fall in
the native birth rate, due to the enormous and ever increasing
immigration into this country. The conclusion thus reached is
corroborated and verified by a host of social workers, who testify from
their own experience and observation. As an example, note the words of
Rev. Walter A. Rauschenbusch, whose keen insight into social questions
has placed him in the front rank of American thinkers: “The natives, who
suffer by the competition of the immigrants and who feel the tightening
grip of our industrial development, refuse to bring children into a
world which threatens them with poverty.”[191] Whether this decline in
the native birth rate has been sufficient to offset the high birth rate
of the foreign-born, and produce an actually smaller population than we
would have had without any immigrants since 1820, is impossible of
proof. It seems wholly probable that it has. The second generation of
immigrants themselves feel the effect of the newcomers, and our foreign
population shows a sharp decline in its birth rate after a generation of
American life.[192] At least, if immigration has not positively lessened
our population, we may be certain that it has failed to increase it to
any considerable extent. Its net result, as far as size of population is
concerned, has been to substitute a very large foreign element, from
various sources, for a native element which would otherwise have come
into being.

The size and diversity of this foreign element in the United States is
constantly increasing. The representatives of different foreign
nationalities are becoming ever more numerous and more important in the
life of the country. In them is embodied the “problem of the immigrant.”

One of the most essential factors conditioning this problem is the
distribution of these foreign residents. The importance of this aspect
of the situation is becoming more and more felt, and will manifest
itself in the succeeding pages. There are two main sources of official
information on this point. The first of these, the immigration reports,
has already been considered, and its data taken for what they are
worth.[193] The other is the reports of the Bureau of the Census, which
give the actual distribution of the foreign-born, at ten-year intervals.
According to this authority, the per cent distribution of the
foreign-born among the various territorial divisions in 1900 was as
follows:

                         PER CENT DISTRIBUTION
                            OF FOREIGN-BORN
                           POPULATION IN THE
                             UNITED STATES
                         (EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
                         AND HAWAII) AMONG THE
                         DIVISIONS, 1900[194]

                          Total foreign-born,
                        exclusive of Alaska and
                          Hawaii, 10,356,644

                           DIVISION    PER CENT

                        North Atlantic     46.0
                        South Atlantic      2.1
                        North Central      40.2
                        South Central       3.5
                        Western             8.2
                                          —————
                            Total         100.0

Footnote 194:

  Twelfth Census, Vol. I, p. civ.

According to the division adopted in the census of 1910, 84.8 per cent
of the foreign-born were in the North, 5.4 per cent in the South, and
9.7 per cent in the West.

The distribution shown by these figures accords closely with the
statement of destinations made by the immigrants at the time of their
arrival.[195] Whereas 88.4 per cent of the immigrants in 1910 gave their
destination as either the North Atlantic or North Central divisions, in
1900 the census enumerators found 86.2 per cent of the foreign-born
residents actually residing in those divisions, and in 1910, 84.8 per
cent in the North.

There is a marked difference, however, in the distribution of the
various races. This is shown by the following table, which gives the
proportional distribution of some of the leading races of the
foreign-born among the divisions:

       PER 10,000 DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION OF THE
      UNITED STATES, ACCORDING TO DIVISIONS AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH,
                               1900[196]
     ════════════════╤════════╤════════╤════════╤════════╤════════
        BIRTHPLACE   │ NORTH  │ SOUTH  │ NORTH  │ SOUTH  │  WEST
                     │ATLANTIC│ATLANTIC│CENTRAL │CENTRAL │
     ────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
     United Kingdom  │    6152│     234│    2558│     220│     806
     Scandinavia     │    1653│      37│    7066│     105│    1087
     Germany         │    3312│     274│    5475│     410│     508
     Poland (Russian)│    7070│     261│    2389│     145│     132
     Hungary         │    7297│     144│    2260│     126│     167
     Italy           │    7264│     216│    1136│     540│     830
     Roumania        │    8491│     144│    1142│      92│     124
     Austria         │    6187│     134│    2543│     365│     743
     Russia          │    6580│     387│    2535│     211│     272
     ════════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════

Footnote 196:

  Twelfth Census, Supp. Anal. and Deriv. Tables, Table 67.

The most striking fact exhibited by this table is the exceptionally
large proportion of the Germans and Scandinavians who have settled in
the North Central division. It also illustrates further the minor part
that the Southern and Western divisions have played in the immigration
of all races. The same general showing is made by the figures for 1910.
Thus 74.1 per cent of the foreign-born from Austria, 86.8 per cent of
those from Hungary, 69.3 per cent of those from Italy, and 72.9 per cent
of those from Russia were in the Middle Atlantic and East North Central
divisions. But 35.2 per cent of the foreign-born from Denmark, 17.1 per
cent of those from Germany, 49.2 per cent of those from Norway, and 32.1
per cent of those from Sweden were in the West North Central division
alone.[197]

The significance of these figures can be fully comprehended only by
taking into consideration the questions of area and density. The
statement is often made that the density of population in the United
States is so small that we still have ample room for an indefinite
number of immigrants. It is pointed out that the average density of
population in the United States is only 25.6 per square mile (1900), as
against 400, 500, or even more in European countries. If the immigrants
were evenly distributed over the entire territory of the United States,
this argument would have some weight. But we see that they are not. This
is one of the cases where an average is misleading. The immigrants are
really being concentrated in the most thickly populated portions of the
country. This becomes more evident if we examine the conditions in
certain states. Thus in 1907, according to the Immigration Report, 6.5
per cent of the immigrants were destined to Massachusetts, which in 1900
had a density of 348.9; 30 per cent of the immigrants were destined to
New York, with a density of 152.6; 17.9 per cent to Pennsylvania, with a
density of 140.1; 8.1 per cent to Illinois, with a density of 86.1; 5.5
per cent to New Jersey, with a density of 250.3; while little Rhode
Island, with a density of 407, was credited with .9 per cent. It thus
appears that these six states, containing only 5.6 per cent of the total
area of the United States, and with a density in each case far above the
average, received 68.9 per cent of the total immigration for the year.

It is thus apparent that our foreign-born residents tend irresistibly to
congregate in the most densely settled portions of the country, and in
the most densely populated states. But this is not all. They also tend
to congregate in the largest cities, and in the most congested sections
of those cities. In 1890, 61.4 per cent of the foreign-born population
of the United States were living in cities of at least 2500 population.
In 1900 the percentage had increased to 66.3, while 38.8 per cent of the
entire foreign-born population were huddled into the few great cities
having a population of over 100,000. In the same year only 36.1 per cent
of the native-born population were living in cities of over 2500. This
tendency appears to be increasing in strength, and is more marked among
the members of the new immigration than among the older immigrants.[198]
Thus in 1910 the percentage of foreign-born living in cities of the
specified size had risen to 72.2.

The reasons for this tendency of the foreign-born to congregate in the
most densely settled districts may be briefly summarized as follows. (1)
They land, almost without exception, in cities, and it is often the
easiest thing for them to stay there. It takes some capital, knowledge,
and enterprise to carry the immigrant any distance from the port of
arrival, unless he has a definite connection in some other place. Yet it
is claimed that, land them where you would, about the same number of
immigrants would find their way to New York within a few weeks. (2)
Economic opportunities are much more abundant and varied in the cities
than in the country. (3) Such occupations as are obtainable in the city
require much less capital than the characteristic country occupations.
With a few dollars, an immigrant in the city can set himself up in some
independent business, depending on turning over his capital rapidly to
make a living. There are so many people in the city, that if one can
manage to serve the most trivial want satisfactorily, he can get along.
But any independent business in the country requires a larger outlay of
capital than the average immigrant can hope for. The only country
occupation open to him is common farm labor, and there are other reasons
which make him ill adapted for this. (4) In the cities, the newly
arrived immigrant can keep in close touch with others of his own race
and tongue. In the compact colony of his fellow-countrymen, he may be
sure of companionship, encouragement, and assistance when needed. It is
the most natural thing in the world for an immigrant to want to settle
where there are numbers of others of his immediate kind. (5) Knowledge
of the English language is much less essential in the city than in the
country. The presence of others who can speak the same tongue makes it
possible for an immigrant to make a living without knowing a word of the
language of his adopted country, as many of them do for year after year.
In the rural districts, however, it is almost impossible for a newly
arrived immigrant to get along at all without a knowledge of the English
language, either in independent business, or as an employee, unless he
settles in a farm colony of people of his own race, of which there are,
of course, many to be found. (6) Not only is there more chance of
friendly relief from fellow-countrymen, in case of necessity, in the
cities, but public relief agencies and private benevolences are much
more available there than in the country. (7) The excitement and novelty
of American city life is very attractive to many immigrants—just as it
is to the natives. Trolley cars, skyscrapers, and moving picture shows
are wonderfully alluring features. In fact, in addition to the
considerations which are peculiar to himself, the immigrant has all the
general incentives to seek the city, which operate upon the general
population, and which have produced so decided a change in the
distribution of population within the last few decades.[199]

The matter of distribution has been treated thus at length because it is
one of the most important aspects of the entire situation. Many, if not
most, of the practical problems of immigration hinge directly upon the
matter of distribution. Upon it depends the question whether the
immigrant and the economic opportunity, which is his justification for
being in the country, shall come together. The question of assimilation,
which is largely a question of contact between the newcomer and the
native-born population, is primarily a matter of distribution. Crime,
pauperism, disease, the standard of living, morality, education—all, to
a greater or less extent, are dependent upon distribution. No practical
program for the treatment of immigrants, which is not calculated
directly to improve distribution, can hope for any considerable measure
of success.




                              CHAPTER XII
            CONDITIONS (_continued_). THE STANDARD OF LIVING


We turn now to a closer study of the life conditions of the immigrants
after they have been admitted to this country, and have become a part of
our body politic. These conditions affect all the life interests of the
alien, and must, in the end, have a determining influence upon the
desirability of immigration, both from the point of view of the
immigrant and of the United States. They are manifestly so diverse and
complicated as to make it difficult to frame any classification which
will not overlap, and confuse rather than clarify. In general, however,
we may divide these conditions into two categories, which are not
absolutely exclusive and definite, but will serve the purposes of
arrangement. These are as follows: (1) Those conditions which are
primarily individual to the immigrant himself, and affect the general
life of the nation only indirectly, because the immigrant is a resident
of that nation. (2) Those conditions which have to do directly with the
life of the immigrant as a member of society, and immediately affect the
interests and welfare of others besides himself. To the first category
belong such matters as housing conditions, food, and standard of living
in general, wages, recreations, religious life, certain forms of vice,
education, etc. To the second, pauperism, crime, sex vice, insanity,
contagious diseases, industrial efficiency, trade-union affiliations,
political activities and affiliations, money brought into and sent out
of the country, and anything which increases or lightens the burdens of
the average citizen of the country. In each of these two classes, there
are conditions which may be considered as political, religious,
economic, and social. Many life interests belong partly in one category,
and partly in the other. This is especially true of that great class of
facts having to do with marriages, births, and deaths, which affect
first of all the immigrant, but through him the general population of
the country.

Among those conditions which are primarily individual, many of the most
important come under the head of the economic. And many of the most
significant economic conditions may be considered under the head of the
standard of living. It has been said, with a great deal of truth, that
the immigration problem in this country is largely a matter of a
competitive struggle between different standards of living.

Probably no other department of the standard of living of the immigrants
has received such careful study in recent years as the matter of
housing. As a result, we are now able to draw more accurate general
conclusions in regard to this matter than is possible in respect to
almost any other phase of the standard. Particularly is this true in
regard to conditions in the compact colonies of our large cities, which,
as we have seen, constitute the characteristic home of the new
immigrant, and where the problem is the greatest. There is also a mass
of reliable information in respect to another characteristic home of the
immigrant, the residence portions of mining camps, and the smaller
manufacturing cities.

Up to the present the slum, in spite of all the attacks upon it, has
maintained itself as a permanent feature of most of our large cities.
But the population of the slum is not a permanent but an ever changing
one. The unsuccessful, unfortunate, and incapable individuals remain,
but the more ambitious, progressive, and successful move on to other and
better sections. Nevertheless, the slums are always full; and grow
rather than diminish. There is a never failing supply of new recruits,
in the body of recent immigrants, to take the places of those who move
up. Thus the slum becomes the great sifting ground of the foreign-born,
and tends to become more and more the abode of the poorest classes of
our population. Not only is there a progression of individuals through
the slum, but some of our cities have witnessed a most interesting and
significant succession of races along the same course. The natives were
displaced by the Irish; they in turn were crowded out by the Italians
and Jews, and now the Greeks, Syrians, and allied races are driving out
the Italians. Races may come and races may go, but the slum goes
on—forever?

The character of the modern tenement has been sufficiently described by
many writers to obviate the necessity of going into any detailed account
of it in the present connection. Our main concern is the life of the
immigrant within this tenement. The most recent and reliable information
upon this point is that furnished by the Immigration Commission in their
report on Immigrants in Cities.[200] The agents of the Commission made a
detailed study of the most densely congested districts of New York,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Milwaukee. They
found the population of these districts to consist mainly of members of
the recently immigrating races. In all seven of these cities Russian
Hebrews and south Italians are among the principal races represented in
the congested districts, while in the cities on the Great Lakes Poles,
Bohemians, and other Slavic races are relatively more numerous than in
the Atlantic coast cities. Very few families whose heads were
native-born of native fathers were found in these districts. Nearly one
half of the foreign-born heads of households had come within the last
ten years, and over one fifth within five years. Not only were there
very few native families, but only the remnants of colonies of Germans,
Irish, and Swedes were found.

The first point to demand our attention in regard to the life of the
foreign-born within the tenements is the amount of congestion. Among the
households studied by the Immigration Commission, the average numbers of
rooms per apartment was 3.72. The average number of rooms per apartment
for the households whose head was native-born white of native father was
4.47, of the native-born of foreign father 4.34, of the foreign-born
3.64. The average number of persons per household for the native-born
white of native father was 4.14, for the native-born of foreign father
4.39, for the foreign-born 5.16. An interesting indication of the habits
of life of some of the newer immigrating races is given by the fact that
while, among the Greeks, 32.7 per cent of the households consisted of
two persons, and 18.4 per cent of three persons, 8.2 per cent consisted
of ten or more persons. Among the Servians 18.2 per cent of the
households consisted of ten or more persons, and among the Slovenians
11.2 per cent. This is the result, as will appear later, not of large
families, but of the tendency on the part of the male representatives of
these races to group themselves together into large coöperative
“households” (pp. 21, 22, 23).

The average number of persons per room in the households studied was as
follows: native-born white of native father, .93; native-born of foreign
father, 1.01; foreign-born, 1.42 (p. 24). Only 51.9 per cent of the
native-born white of native father had one or more persons per room,
54.7 per cent of the German households, 68.5 per cent of the Irish,
south Italians 91.9 per cent, and Greeks 98 per cent. Of the Slovaks,
Slovenians, and Syrians, 90 per cent or more of the households had one
or more persons per room. Two per cent of the Greeks, 2.6 per cent of
the south Italians, and 3 per cent of the Syrians had four or more
persons per room. The number of occupants, per _sleeping_ room, is of
course somewhat higher. The total average number of persons per sleeping
room in the households whose heads were native-born white of native
father was 1.93; of the foreign-born, 2.39. Two per cent of the Greek
households studied had six or more persons per sleeping room, as did 2
per cent of the south Italians and 5.2 per cent of the Slovenians.
Fourteen per cent of all the foreign-born households slept in all the
rooms in their apartments, and 41.1 per cent in all the rooms except
one, while among the native-born whites of native fathers 2.3 per cent
slept in all the rooms, and 20.2 per cent in all the rooms but one.

The foregoing figures may be taken as giving a reliable summary of the
amount of congestion in the crowded districts of the seven great cities
mentioned. It is painfully evident that conditions exist on a wide scale
in these centers, which are a disgrace to any civilized country. A large
proportion of the lower classes of our cities are living under
conditions which render self-respect, cleanliness, and even decency
almost impossible. Moreover, it is apparent that the native-born whites
of native fathers, studied in this investigation, although representing
the lowest portions of that class, rank decidedly above the foreign-born
as far as can be judged by the degree of congestion. The native-born of
foreign fathers stand between the other two classes. A more vivid and
vital aspect may be given to the picture by taking some specific
instances of life conditions among various groups of the foreign-born.

Among the Italians extreme congestion had manifested itself as long ago
as the decade of the nineties. The average density of population in the
Italian quarter of the North End of Boston was said to be nearly 1.40
persons per room.[201] In the Italian quarter of Philadelphia
investigators found 30 Italian families, numbering 123 persons, living
in 34 rooms. In some of the Italian tenements in this city, lamps were
kept burning all day in some of the rooms, where day could scarcely be
distinguished from night.[202] The Jews at this time were only a little
less densely crowded than the Italians. In 1891 nearly one fourth of the
whole number of Jews living in two of the precincts of the North End of
Boston were living with an average of more than two persons to a room
and were found to be very uncleanly in the care of their homes. Among
the Irish an average of 1.24 persons per room was found in Boston in
1891. On the whole they kept their tenements cleaner than did the Jews
or Italians.[203]

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, interest in the slum
population of our cities has centered itself about the Slavic and other
races of southeastern Europe, even more than about the Italians and
Jews. About one sixth of the entire population of Buffalo, or 80,000
individuals, is Polish. Of these, about 4000 families, representing
20,000 persons, own their homes. They are said to be thrifty, clean,
willing, and neglected. Nearly all the Poles live in small one and two
story wooden cottages. Good tenement work thirty years ago avoided the
serious structural conditions which prevail in most cities. The
principal evil now in the Polish section is room-overcrowding. The
two-story cottages hold six or more families, while the older one-story
cottage was built for four families, though the owner is likely to
occupy two of the rear apartments. There are 15,000 of these cottages,
all subject to the tenement law. A Pole was recently made health
commissioner, and gave promise of being the best incumbent of that
office that Buffalo has ever had. That there is plenty of work for him
to do may be judged from the description of some of the conditions which
prevail.

“Counting little bedrooms, living rooms, and kitchens (and they are
pretty nearly indistinguishable), Mr. Daniels tells us that half the
Polish families in Buffalo, or 40,000 people, average two occupants to a
room. There are beds under beds (trundle beds, by the way, were once
quite respectable), and mattresses piled high on one bed during the day
will cover all the floors at night. Lodgers in addition to the family
are in some sections almost the rule rather than the exception. Under
such conditions privacy of living, privacy of sleeping, privacy of
dressing, privacy of toilet, privacy for study, are all impossible,
especially in the winter season; and those who have nerves, which are
not confined to the rich in spite of an impression to the contrary, are
led near to insanity. Brothers and sisters sleep together far beyond the
age of safety. It begins so, and parents do not realize how fast
children grow, or how dangerous it all is.”[204]

Even in Buffalo, the congestion problem is not limited to the Poles. The
author just quoted describes the Italians as tending to establish
residences in old hotels, warehouses, and abandoned homesteads, and
says, “As late as 1906 we found Italians living in large rooms,
subdivided by head-high partitions of rope and calico, with a separate
family in each division.”

In Milwaukee there are three foci of the tenement evil, the Italian
quarter, the Polish quarter, and the Jewish quarter. While there are not
the large tenement houses that prevail in larger cities, there are the
same evil conditions in the small cottages of the laboring class. The
following paragraphs give a vivid picture of some of the conditions in
each of these three sections.

In the Italian district, “Entering one of these dwellings we had to duck
our heads to escape a shower bath from leaking pipes above the door.
Incidentally, we had to dodge a crowd of the canine family which did not
seem to be particularly pleased with our visit. The rooms were dark.
Something, which I supposed was food or intended for food, was bubbling
on a little stove. A friendly goat was playing with the baby on the
floor, and the pigeons cooed cheerily near by. Through the door of the
kitchen we got the odor of the stable. The horses had the best room. In
the middle room, which was absolutely dark, on a bed of indescribable
filth, lay an aged woman, groaning with pain from what I judged to be
ulcerated teeth, but which for aught she knew might have been a more
malignant disease. In this single dwelling, which is not unlike many we
saw, there lived together in ignorant misery one man, two women, ten
children, six dogs, two goats, five pigeons, two horses, and other
animal life which escaped our hurried observation.”

“In the Ghetto, in one building, live seventy-one people, representing
seventeen families. The toilets in the yard freeze in winter and are
clogged in summer. The overcrowding here is fearful and the filth defies
description. Within the same block are crowded a number of tenements
three and four stories high with basement dwellings. One of these is
used as a Jewish synagogue. Above and beneath and to the rear this
building is crowded with tenement dwellers. The stairways are rickety,
the rooms filthy, and all are overcrowded. The toilets for the whole
population are in the cellar adjoining some of the dwelling rooms,
reached by a short stairway. At the time of our visit the floors of this
toilet, both inside and outside, were covered with human excrement and
refuse to a depth of eight to twelve inches. Into this den of horrors
all the population, male and female, had to go.”

A typical dwelling of the Polish working people is thus described.
“There is an entrance, perhaps under the steps, which leads to the
apartments below. In this semibasement in the front lives a family.
There are perhaps two rooms, sometimes only one. In the rear of this
same basement lives another family. Above, on the first floor, lives
another family, likewise in two or three small rooms; and in the rear is
another. Thus four or more families live in one small cottage—and,
often, in true tenement style, they ‘take in’ boarders.... Here,
together, live men, women, children, dogs, pigeons, and goats in regular
tenement and slum conditions.”[205]

Such instances as these, which might be multiplied almost indefinitely,
are individual manifestations of conditions which are represented _en
masse_ by the figures of the Immigration Commission. It is apparent that
slum conditions exist, fully developed, in other places than the great
cities, and in other types of building than the regulation tenement. As
will be seen later, they may be found in communities which do not come
under the head of cities at all. The slum is a condition, not a place,
and will crop up in the most unexpected places, whenever vigilance is
relaxed. The slum can never be eradicated by erecting model dwellings,
however well planned, nor by any other superficial method alone. The
foundation of the slum rests in the social and economic relations of
society, and can be effectually attacked only through them.

In the foregoing quotations, frequent reference is made to the filthy
condition in which the dwellings of the foreign-born are kept. It is the
current idea among a large class of people that extreme uncleanliness
characterizes the great majority of immigrant homes. Unfortunately there
is all too large a basis of truth for this impression. Yet there is
undoubtedly much exaggeration on this point in the popular mind. The
Immigration Commission found that out of every 100 homes investigated in
its study of city conditions, 45 were kept in good condition, and 84 in
either good or fair condition, though the foreign-born were inferior in
this respect to the native-born. In many cases the filthy appearance of
the streets in the tenement districts is due to negligence on the part
of city authorities, rather than to indifference on the part of the
householders. “In frequent cases the streets are dirty, while the homes
are clean.”[206] Not only is it an error to suppose that all immigrants
are filthy, but it is also untrue that all immigrants who are filthy are
so from choice. While the standards of decency and cleanliness of many
of our immigrant races are undoubtedly much below those of the natives,
there are many alien families who would gladly live in a different
manner, did not the very conditions of their existence seem to thrust
this one upon them, or the hardship and sordidness of their daily life
quench whatever native ambition for better things they might originally
have had.

In the foregoing paragraphs mention has been made of the boarder as a
characteristic feature of life in the tenements. He is, in fact, a
characteristic feature of the family life of the newer immigrant
wherever found. Since so large a proportion of the modern immigrants are
single men, or men unaccompanied by their wives (see p. 191), there is
an enormous demand for accommodations for male immigrants who have no
homes of their own. This demand is met in two main ways. The most
natural, and perhaps the least objectionable, of the two, where there
are a certain number of immigrant families of the specified race already
in this country, is for a family which has a small apartment to take in
one or more boarders or lodgers of their own nationality. In this way
they are able to add to their meager income, and thereby to increase the
amount of their monthly savings, or perhaps to help pay off the mortgage
on the house if they happen to be the owners. The motive is not always a
financial one, however, but occasionally the desire to furnish a home
for some newcomer from the native land, with whom they are acquainted,
or in whom they are interested for some other reason.[207] The second
way of solving the problem is for a number of men to band themselves
together, hire an apartment of some sort, and carry on coöperative
housekeeping in one way or another. A description of these households
will be given later (p. 247).

The keeping of boarders or lodgers[208] is a very widespread practice
among our recently immigrating families.

Among the households studied by the Immigration Commission in its
investigation of cities, 13 per cent of the native-born white households
kept boarders, and 27.2 per cent of the foreign-born. The following
foreign-born nationalities had high percentages, as shown by the
figures: Russian Hebrews, 32.1 per cent; north Italians, 42.9 per cent;
Slovaks, 41 per cent; Magyars, 47.3 per cent; Lithuanians, 70.3 per
cent. A similar showing is made by the figures given in the report of
the Immigration Commission on Immigrants in Manufacturing and Mining
(abstract quoted). The percentage of households keeping boarders, as
shown in that report, is as follows:

                   PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS KEEPING
                             BOARDERS[209]

                           NATIVITY              PER CENT
              Native-born white of native father     10.0
              Native-born of foreign father          10.9
              Foreign-born                           32.9

                     Race (foreign-born)—

              Norwegian                               3.8
              Bohemian and Moravian                   8.8
              Croatian                               59.5
              South Italian                          33.5
              Magyar                                 53.6
              Polish                                 48.4
              Roumanian                              77.9
              Servian                                92.8

Footnote 209:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 147.

The average number of boarders per household, based on the number of
households keeping boarders, was as follows:

               AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOARDERS PER HOUSEHOLD
               BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS KEEPING
                             BOARDERS[210]

                            NATIVITY              NUMBER
               Native-born white of native father   1.68
               Native-born of foreign father        1.52
               Foreign-born                         3.53

                      Race (foreign-born)—

               Bulgarian                            8.29
               Croatian                             6.39
               Roumanian                           12.23
               Servian                              7.25

Footnote 210:

  _Ibid._, p. 149.

This prevalent custom of taking boarders brings numerous evils in its
train. Foremost among these is the absolute sacrifice of family life in
the households. It is difficult at best to maintain a decent degree of
privacy when the family is left to itself; the intrusion of outsiders
makes it wholly impossible. Secondly, the taking of boarders tends to
increase a congestion which is likely already to be extreme. Thirdly, it
lays additional burdens upon the already overworked housewife. Its great
advantage is, of course, the increase of the family income, sometimes to
an amount almost double that which could be obtained without the
boarders. Among the Slavs, for example, women are rare, and are regarded
as very valuable, first as wives, and second as a means whereby a man
may take boarders.[211] The arrangements between the boarders and the
housewife differ in different localities, and under different
conditions. In a Colorado mining camp $10 a month is the customary price
for a regular boarder. A very common arrangement is for the men to buy
each his own food, and pay the woman to cook it. The sums paid range
from $2 to $4 a month for lodging, washing, and cooking.

The life of such a housewife in a coal mining community has been
described in the following words: “The status of the immigrant housewife
from the south and east of Europe is deplorable. The boarding system
followed is one whereby a fixed sum is paid for lodging, cooking,
washing, and mending; an individual food account being kept with each
lodger. The housewife has the beds to make each day for a dozen men,
their clothing to wash and mend, their meals to prepare. In many cases
she has also to buy the food, which necessitates many visits to the
store and separate purchases for each boarder. She has also to carry all
the water used from the hydrant or well, which may be ten or one hundred
yards distant. When the men return from work it is a part of her duties
to help them in their ablutions by scrubbing their backs. There are also
numerous children to care for and scores of other tasks demanding her
attention. Under these conditions the marked untidiness of the immigrant
households is not to be wondered at.”[212]

The second typical method of providing for the single male immigrant,
mentioned above, is coöperative housekeeping on the part of a group of
men, either with or without a female housekeeper. This practice is very
common among many of the newer races of immigrants, as has been
suggested. It is a makeshift to which the foreigner is driven by the
absence of a normal number of women of his own race. In households of
this sort are developed some of the very worst conditions to be found
among our foreign residents.

Under this system, a number of men of a certain foreign race club
together and hire an apartment, consisting of a few rooms in a regular
tenement house, or, very frequently, a large storeroom or warehouse,
which thereupon becomes their home. In order to minimize expense, the
greatest possible number of beds are provided in each room. If the
apartment consists of a storeroom, it is often fitted up with tiers of
bunks along the sides. Such a room may be used by two sets of men, one
during the day and one during the night. If some of the men are
peddlers, the peanut stands or barrows will be kept at night in the
unoccupied spaces in the room. The lack of woman’s care in the upkeep of
such apartments is very manifest.

The meals are either prepared in the apartment or secured at some
near-by restaurant, or the two methods are combined. In the absence of
all semblance of family life, every possible expedient to reduce expense
is adopted, with the unfortunate results that might be expected. The
following description of such a household will give a concrete idea of
the type:

“To-day, in a certain mining town, there are fourteen Slavs, all
unmarried, and with only themselves to support, who rent one large,
formerly abandoned, storeroom. This is taken care of by a housekeeper,
who also prepares the meals for the men. Each man has his own tin plate,
tin knife, fork, and cup; he has his own ham and bread, and a place in
which to keep them. Some things they buy in common, the distribution
being made by the housekeeper. For beds the men sleep on bunks arranged
along the walls and resembling shelves in a grocery store. Each has his
own blanket; each carries it out-of-doors to air when he gets up in the
morning, and back again when he returns from his work at night. The
monthly cost of living to each of these men is not over four dollars.
They spend but little on clothes the year round, contenting themselves
with the cheapest kind of material, and not infrequently wearing
cast-off garments purchased of some second-hand dealer. For fuel they
burn coal from the culm-banks or wood from along the highway, which
costs them nothing but their labor in gathering it.”[213]

That housing conditions such as have been portrayed above should prevail
so generally all over the country is a serious indictment against the
social and industrial organization of the United States. It has been
intimated that these conditions are not in all cases due to the choice
of the immigrant, or to the lack of desire for better things on his
part. Whether they are not, to a large degree, actually due to the
presence of the immigrant in this country is quite another matter, upon
the decision of which must rest much of the final judgment as to the
desirability of immigration under the present system.

Throughout the study of housing conditions among the foreign-born, it
becomes more and more evident that there is a marked distinction not
only between the homes of the native-born and the foreign-born, but
between those of the older and newer immigrants. By whatever test the
standards of each class are measured, there is almost invariably a
decided discrepancy in favor of the older races. As regards the number
of rooms per apartment, the size of households, the number of persons
per room, the number of boarders, the care and upkeep of the apartment,
the English, Scandinavians, Germans, and Irish come much nearer to what
might be considered a reasonable American standard than do the Italians,
either north or south, the Slavs (except perhaps the Bohemians and
Moravians), the Greeks, Syrians, Bulgarians, etc. This distinction is
well brought out in mining localities, where the newer races have
displaced the older within recent years. A graphic comparison is given
by Mr. F. J. Warne in his book, _The Slav Invasion and the Mine
Workers_. He says that, by the time of the coming of the Slavs, the
Irish, English, Welsh, Scotch, and German mine workers had grown
accustomed to a “social life of some dignity and comfort.” The
English-speaking mine worker wanted a home and family. That home was
usually a neat, two-story frame house, with porch and yard. Within were
pictures on the walls, and carpets on the floors of the best rooms. He
wished to have no one as a permanent resident of the house save his own
family, or very near relatives. He desired his wife to be well dressed
and comfortable, and his children to have the benefits of school. His
wants were always just beyond his wages, and always increasing.

The Slav had no wife and children, and wished none. “He was satisfied to
live in almost any kind of a place, to wear almost anything that would
clothe his nakedness, and to eat any kind of food that would keep body
and soul together.” He was content to live in a one-room hut, built of
driftwood and roofed with tin from old powder cans. In the mining towns
he drifted to the poorer and cheaper sections to live. He did not care
with whom or with how many he lived, provided they were of his own
nationality. When two such standards are brought into competition, it is
inevitable that the higher should yield in some way or other.

This difference in standards is undoubtedly due in part to a difference
in natural instincts and aptitudes for decency and cleanliness between
the common classes of northern and southern Europe, but probably more to
the customary standards to which they have become habituated in their
native land. The effect is the same, whatever the cause. The new
immigrant desires a certain improvement in his standard as a reward for
emigration, but the new standard need not be by any means the equivalent
of that of the immigrant races which have preceded him. As long as we
continue to draw our immigrants from more and more backward and
undeveloped nations and races we may expect to see a progressive
degradation in the customary standard of the working people.

There are many other considerations besides congestion which determine
the character of life in the slums. Many of these have already been
suggested in preceding paragraphs. Prominent among them are ventilation,
sanitary and cooking facilities, light, water supply, healthfulness of
surroundings, and play room for children. The degree in which evils
exist in these particulars, in any locality, depends primarily upon the
stringency of the local tenement and public health laws, and the energy
and faithfulness of their enforcement. Much is being accomplished and
has been accomplished in recent years in the direction of securing
better conditions. Yet there is almost infinite room for improvement.
The futility of relying upon the individual benevolence and humanity of
builders, owners, and agents was demonstrated long ago. Here, of all
places, eternal vigilance on the part of the better classes of society
is the price of safety. Descriptions of the homes of the foreign-born
are full of accounts of dark and absolutely unventilated bedrooms,
houses unprovided with any water supply, filthy outdoor closets and
privy vaults, toilets used by ten or twelve families conjointly,
buildings covering the entire lot, dooryards flooded with stagnant water
and refuse, basements half filled with water, domestic animals sharing
the limited accommodations with the family, and a host of other horrors.
Detailed descriptions of these dwellings are unnecessary. Any one
interested may find them in abundance in the accounts of housing
conditions in the poorer sections of our cities and towns, for, as the
Immigration Commission has amply demonstrated, the slum, wherever found,
is distinctively the home of the foreign-born.[214]

It is almost superfluous to add that there are thousands of immigrants,
even of the newer races, who live in conditions wholly different from
those we have been discussing. Individuals of every race, in large
numbers, have succeeded in raising themselves from the lowly estate of
their compatriots, and establishing homes of culture and refinement,
even of luxury. Examples of this class are prominent, and are frequently
referred to. Yet in spite of this, the slum remains the characteristic
home of the average immigrant to this country, and as such it must be
reckoned with.

The influence of the slum must of necessity be hampering and degrading
to its denizens. No poorer training school for American citizens could
be devised. Not only is the life prejudicial to health and morals, and
destructive of ambition, but it precludes practically all incidental or
unconscious contact with the uplifting influences of American life.
Almost the only actively assimilating agency with which the slum dweller
comes into immediate relationship is the public school, and this lacks
much of its value as an assimilating force in districts which are so
largely foreign that the pupils meet few, if any, children of
native-born parents. Any practical program for solving the immigration
problem must attack the slum boldly. In the words of Mr. Frederic Almy,
“You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and you cannot make an
American citizen out of a tenement slum. The slum must go. If you spare
the slum, you will spoil the child.”[215]

In regard to the housing conditions of the foreign-born outside of the
larger centers of population it is more difficult to make
generalizations. Fortunately, it is also less necessary. Some of the
foremost housing evils are essentially city matters. Particularly is it
true of immigrants who have established themselves in independent
agriculture, that they have made a long step toward Americanization.
While every grade of dwelling may be found among foreign-born
agriculturists, from the wretched hovel of the Italian market gardener
to the home of the Swedish farmer of the Northwest which ranks with the
finest in the land, yet the alien who takes up his abode in the country
has, in many respects, removed himself from the general problem of the
immigrant, and his living conditions can, with a reasonable degree of
safety, be left to look after themselves. Yet it has been abundantly
proved that slum conditions can exist even in the country, and in small
towns. This is especially true in mining camps, and in the smaller
manufacturing communities. Some of the worst conditions of the most
crowded sections of the cities are reproduced in the shacks of the
miners or the dwellings of the factory hands. Overcrowding, bad
ventilation, unsanitary toilet facilities, inadequate heating, and filth
are not city monopolies. The taking of boarders is especially common in
these communities, and, in the mining towns, brings a peculiar evil with
it, in addition to all the regular disadvantages. This lies in the
necessity which every mine worker is under of bathing every day after
work. In the absence of bathrooms, ablutions are customarily performed
in a tub set in the kitchen, and in the crowded quarters of the miner’s
cabin, the children of the household are accustomed to the sight of
nudity from their infancy up, to the serious injury of their moral
sense.[216]

It is too often true that the worst conditions prevail in the company
houses. The extreme monotony of these identical rows of ugly dwellings
is in itself sufficiently depressing. But in addition, it appears that
many employers are wholly oblivious to the higher needs of their
employees, and provide the most meager shelter which will suffice to
keep body and soul together, charging therefor exorbitant rates. To say
that these men and women are treated like beasts, is putting the case
too mildly, for no well-to-do person would house a valuable animal as
some of these human workers are housed. The shifting character of the
population and the uncertain duration of a mining camp offer a quasi
justification for some of these evils. Yet a self-respecting nation
should not permit any type of industry to persist which requires its
army of workers to live as do hundreds of thousands of these faithful
toilers.[217]

In regard to the food of our immigrant population, such studies of
individual races as have been made seem to indicate that, while the
dietary of the average foreign family falls far short of what a native
American would consider a satisfactory standard and is very deficient in
variety, yet it is ordinarily sufficient in quantity and in amount of
nourishment. Of course there are countless immigrant families of the
poorer sort, just as there are of natives, who are habitually
undernourished; yet the ordinary immigrant working family or individual
appears not to suffer for lack of sustaining food. This condition is
made possible by a long habitude in European countries to an exceedingly
simple diet, and by a resulting knowledge of cheap and nourishing foods.
The food item in the budget of an immigrant family from southern or
eastern Europe is almost incredible to an American. The average cost of
food for an individual immigrant mine worker in Pennsylvania runs from
about $4 to $10 per month. Among the Italians in Boston, during the
winter months, about a dollar a week will suffice for the food of a man.
The south Italian berry pickers in New Jersey are said to be able to get
along on as little as 25 cents per week, and other races live almost as
cheaply.[218]

There appears to be a considerable difference in this respect between
the different races, even among the newer immigrants. The lowest
standard prevails among the south Italians, Greeks, Syrians, Bravas,
etc. The Slavs are inclined to spend more of their increasing income on
food; particularly is meat a more important part of their diet. The Jews
are said to rank well above the Italians in this regard.

The quality and preparation of food leaves much to be desired. Italian
children are sent to the markets of Boston to gather vegetables which
have been thrown away as unfit for use. A brief walk through the East
Side of New York, with an eye on the push carts, will convince one of
the undesirable quality of some, at least, of the food eaten by the
residents of that section. On the other hand, the Greek laborers on the
railroads of the West are said to live remarkably well, and themselves
complain of the staleness of American food, and object to our practice
of putting everything up in “boxes.”[219] In general, the conclusion of
investigators in regard to the food of our working classes seems to be
that the faults of their dietary lie, not so much in the failure to
spend an adequate amount of money for food, as in wasteful and
ill-judged purchases, unsatisfactory preparation, and improper balance
between the essential food elements (especially lack of sufficient
proteids) and too much fat. It is not unlikely that in this particular
the immigrants fare better than the natives in the same class. It is
certainly probable that, taken on the whole, the standard of food of the
immigrant families in this country is superior to that to which they
were accustomed in their native land.

There is probably no other aspect of life in which the immigrant shows
at least a superficial Americanization more quickly than in the matter
of clothing. It is a matter where imitation is easy, and in fact almost
inevitable. Any purchases of clothing made after the immigrant’s arrival
in this country must, almost of necessity, be American in type. And the
younger generation, at least, are eager to have their exterior
appearance correspond to that of the older residents of their adopted
country,—so eager, often, as to lead them to adopt the most extreme of
the new fashions in cut and fitting, however cheap and flimsy the
materials may be. In fact, this Americanization affects the immigrants
even before they leave their native home. Officials on Ellis Island say
that it is rare nowadays to see groups of immigrants arriving clad in
their picturesque European costumes; the prevailing garb now is of the
American type. It is a strange fact that some writers, apparently
oblivious of the ease of this transition, seem to regard American
clothes as an evidence of real assimilation.

As regards physical adequacy of clothing, the immigrant is probably as
well off on the average as his native fellow-worker. It is not likely
that any large proportion of our working classes actually suffer
physical harm from insufficient clothing, unless it be through lack of
proper protection against dampness, particularly in the matter of
shoes.[220] In respect to cleanliness, and even decency, there is
frequently room for improvement among the immigrants, just as there is
among the native-born. There is, on the other hand, a recognized danger
that the desire for a fashionable appearance, particularly on the part
of the women, may lead to an extreme expenditure for dress, unwarranted
by the family income.[221]




                              CHAPTER XIII
                  THE STANDARD OF LIVING (_continued_)


The standard of living of any family or individual[222] is the resultant
of two principal factors. These are the desires and appetites of the
individual or family and the amount of income available for the
gratification of those desires and appetites. The casual observer, in
forming his estimate of the immigrant, is in danger of forgetting the
second of these factors, and of assuming that because the immigrant is
found living in a certain status, he is therefore satisfied with that
status and has no ambition to change it. It has already been hinted, in
the foregoing paragraphs, that this is not the case. A full
understanding of the limitations under which the immigrant is placed can
come only with a study of the customary wages or income of the class to
which he belongs.

  AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRIES SPECIFIED[223]
 ═══════════════════════════════╤════════════╤══════════════════════════
            INDUSTRY            │PER CENT OF │ AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS
                                │ EMPLOYEES  │
                                │FOREIGN-BORN│
 ───────────────────────────────┼────────────┼─────────┬────────┬───────
                „               │     „      │Males, 18│  Male  │Average
                                │            │ or Over │Heads of│Family
                                │            │         │Families│Income
 ───────────────────────────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────┼───────
 Iron and steel manufacturing   │        57.7│     $346│    $409│   $568
 Slaughtering and meat          │            │         │        │
 packing                        │        60.7│      557│     578│    781
 Bituminous coal mining         │        61.9│      443│     451│    577
 Glass manufacturing            │        39.3│      574│     596│    755
 Woolen and worsted             │            │         │        │
 manufacturing                  │        61.9│      346│     400│    661
 Silk goods manufacturing       │            │         │        │
 and dyeing                     │        34.3│      431│     448│    635
 Cotton goods manufacturing     │        68.7│  [224]  │     470│    491
 Clothing manufacturing         │        72.2│      513│     530│    713
 Boot and shoe manufacturing    │        27.3│      502│     573│    765
 Furniture manufacturing        │        59.1│      575│     598│    769
 Collar, cuff, and shirt        │            │         │        │
 manufacturing                  │        13.4│      637│     662│    861
 Leather tanning, currying,     │            │         │        │
 and finishing                  │        67.0│      431│     511│    671
 Glove manufacturing            │        33.5│      625│     650│    904
 Oil refining                   │        66.7│      591│     662│    828
 Sugar refining                 │        85.3│      522│     549│    661
 Cigars and tobacco             │        32.6│1.92[225]│        │
   manufacturing                │            │         │        │
 ═══════════════════════════════╧════════════╧═════════╧════════╧═══════

Footnote 223:

  Compiled from Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs.

Footnote 224:

  Not given.

Footnote 225:

  Daily wage only given.

The matter of wages is one of the easiest aspects of the life of the
immigrant about which to secure reliable data. It lends itself readily
to exact measurement, averaging, and tabulation. It is a subject upon
which the immigrant himself can give accurate information if he is so
inclined. As a result, there is a considerable mass of data in regard to
the earnings of the foreign-born, and it is possible to make trustworthy
generalizations thereupon. The latest and most inclusive figures on this
point are those furnished by the Immigration Commission in its various
reports. Foremost among these stands the report of Immigrants in
Manufacturing and Mining, which presents the results of a thoroughgoing
investigation of twenty of the leading industries of the country, and a
less detailed study of sixteen others, covering in all 17,141 households
and 503,732 individuals. The great majority of these are foreign-born,
but there is a sufficient number of native-born, both of native and
foreign parentage, to serve the purposes of comparison. The table on the
previous page gives the average annual earnings of employees and the
average family income in the different industries.

A noteworthy feature of the above table is the general excess of average
family earnings over the average earnings of heads of families, showing
the extent to which other members of the family besides the head
contribute to the family support.

The average weekly earnings of male employees, 18 years of age or over,
distributed according to nativity, are as follows. (The table includes
over 200,000 individuals.)

       AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS OF MALE EMPLOYEES, 18 YEARS OF AGE
                       OR OVER, BY NATIVITY[226]

                    NATIVITY              AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS
       Native-born white of native father                  $14.37
       Native-born of foreign father                        13.89
       Foreign-born                                         11.92

Footnote 226:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs. p. 91.

There is a marked difference between races in this respect. The lowest
figures among the foreign-born were: Albanian, $8.07; Greek, $8.41;
Portuguese, $8.10; Syrian, $8.12; Turkish, $7.65. Some of the
foreign-born rank well above the natives, as, for instance: Norwegian,
$15.28; Scotch, $15.24; Scotch-Irish, $15.13; Swedish, $15.36; Welsh,
$22.02.

The average yearly earnings (approximate) of male employees 18 years of
age or over were as follows:

        AVERAGE YEARLY EARNINGS (APPROXIMATE) OF MALE EMPLOYEES,
               18 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, BY NATIVITY[227]

                    NATIVITY              AVERAGE YEARLY EARNINGS
       Native-born white of native father                    $666
       Native-born of foreign father                          566
       Foreign-born                                           455

Footnote 227:

  _Ibid._, p. 131.

In this table, the decrease of earnings of approximately $100 from class
to class is striking.

The average family income was as follows:

          AVERAGE ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME, BY NATIVITY OF HEAD OF
                              FAMILY[228]

                     NATIVITY              AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME
        Native-born white of native father                  $865
        Native-born of foreign father                        866
        Foreign-born                                         704

Footnote 228:

  _Ibid._, p. 136.

Comparing the last two tables, and noting that while the average yearly
earnings of native-born male employees of foreign parentage are $100
less than those of the native-born of native parentage, yet the family
income of the native-born of foreign parentage is $1 more than that of
the native-born of native parentage, the obvious conclusion might be
that the native-born of foreign parentage are more inclined to rely upon
some one besides the head of the family for part of the income than are
the native-born of native parentage. Closer examination, however, proves
that this is not the case. The following table gives the percentages of
families of different nativities which receive the entire income from
the husband.

               PER CENT OF FAMILIES HAVING ENTIRE INCOME
                  FROM THE HUSBAND, BY NATIVITY[229]

                           NATIVITY              PER CENT
              Native-born white of native father     58.4
              Native-born of foreign father          61.3
              Foreign-born                           38.0

Footnote 229:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 139.

Thus there is a smaller proportion of families among the native-born of
foreign fathers who rely upon other members of the family than the
husband for part of the family income than of the native-born of native
father. It appears that the explanation of the peculiarity which has
been noticed must be either that only the more prosperous of the
native-born of foreign parentage are heads of families, or that those
families of this class which do receive income from other sources than
the husband receive a much greater total amount than among the
native-born of native father, so as to raise the average. The former
explanation seems the more probable, for while 67.3 per cent of the male
native-born white employees of native fathers, 20 years of age or over,
were married, only 56.5 per cent of the native-born of foreign fathers
of the same age were married. Native-born employees of foreign parentage
who are old enough to be the heads of families are predominantly
representatives of the old immigration, and hence stand high on the wage
scale. The very small percentage of families among the foreign-born
which derive their entire income from the husband indicates the extent
to which the children of this class contribute to the family support,
and also the extent to which boarders are taken.

Figures from other sources corroborate, in general, the showing made in
the foregoing tables, with some differences in detail. The Immigration
Commission in one of its other reports, namely that on Immigrants in
Cities, gives the average approximate yearly earnings of over 10,000
male wage workers 18 years of age or over as follows: native-born white
of native father, $595; native-born of foreign father, $526;
foreign-born, $385.[230] These figures are less, throughout, than those
presented in the foregoing tables, and seem to indicate that the average
of wages in cities is less than in the general run of organized
industries throughout the country. It is probable that a census of city
workers would include many in insignificant industries, and in
occupations which could hardly be classed as industries, where the wage
scale is low.

The earnings of agricultural laborers on the farms of western New York
range from $1.25 to $1.75 per day of ten hours. South Italian families
of four or five members, engaged in this kind of work, average from $350
to $450 for the season, extending from April to November. Poles, working
as general farm laborers the year round, earn from $18 to $20 per
month.[231] Among the anthracite coal miners of Pennsylvania, the
average yearly wage of the contract miners, who make up about
twenty-five per cent of persons employed about the mines, is estimated
at about $600 per year, while “adults in other classes of mine workers,
who form over sixty per cent of the labor force, do not receive an
annual average wage of $450.”[232] In the extensive array of wage
figures given by Mr. Streightoff, distinction is not made between
natives and immigrants, but the general showing harmonizes so well with
what has already been given as to obviate the necessity of going into
this question in further detail.[233] We are justified in setting down
the average earnings of wage-working adult male immigrants as from $350
to $650 per year, and the average annual income of immigrant families at
from $500 to $900.

The figures given for individual immigrant incomes have been confined to
male workers, for the reasons that they are representative, and are of
primary importance in determining the status of the immigrant family in
this country. The wages of female workers range on the average from 30
to 40 per cent below those of males. Full comparisons are given in the
volume of the Immigration Commission Report on Immigrants in
Manufacturing and Mining.

The next question which arises is, to what degree are these incomes, of
individuals and families, adequate to furnish proper support to an
average family of five persons? This problem involves the determination
of the minimum amount on which a family can live in decency under
existing conditions in America. Numerous efforts have been made to solve
this question. The estimate of the Bureau of Statistics of Massachusetts
is $754.[234] The Charity Organization Society of Buffalo regards $634 a
year as the “lowest tolerable budget which will allow the bare decencies
of life for a family of five.”[235] A special committee of the New York
State Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1907 made the following
estimates as to the income necessary for a family of five persons in New
York City.

“$600–$700 is wholly inadequate to maintain a proper standard of living,
and no self-respecting family should be asked or expected to live on
such an income.”

“With an income of between $700–$800 a family can barely support itself,
provided it is subject to no extraordinary expenditures by reason of
sickness, death, or other untoward circumstances. Such a family can live
without charitable assistance through exceptional management and in the
absence of emergencies.”

“$825 is sufficient for the average family of five individuals,
comprising the father, mother, and three children under 14 years of age
to maintain a fairly proper standard of living in the Borough of
Manhattan.”

Mr. Streightoff summarizes the evidence in the following words: “It is,
then, conservative to set $650 as the extreme low limit of the Living
Wage in cities of the North, East, and West. Probably $600 is high
enough for the cities of the South. At this wage there can be no saving,
and a minimum of pleasure.”[236]

The close correspondence of these various estimates gives them a high
degree of credibility. If we fix these standards in mind, and then look
back over the wage scales given on the foregoing pages, we are struck
with the utter inadequacy of the annual incomes of the foreign-born to
meet even these minimum requirements of decency. It is obvious that an
enormous number of immigrant families, if dependent solely on the
earnings of the head of the family, would fall far below any of these
standards, and that many of them, even when adding to their resources by
the labors of wife and children, and the contributions of boarders,
cannot possibly bring the total income up to the minimum limit. Even the
average income in many occupations is far below this minimum, and it
must be considered that while an average indicates that there are some
above, there must also be many below, the line. What must be the
condition of those below! The average family income of the foreign-born
studied in the Immigration Commission’s investigation of the
manufacturing and mining industries was $704. Mr. Frederic Almy states
that 96 per cent of the Poles under investigation in Buffalo earn less
by $110 than the $634 per year which was set as the “lowest tolerable
budget.”[237]

A vast amount of information covering a number of miscellaneous aspects
of human life, which fall under the general head of the standard of
living, is furnished by the Immigration Commission, in its report on the
manufacturing and mining industries. Some of the most important of these
facts are summarized in the following tables.

First, as to the situation of young children in the homes of immigrants.

         PER CENT OF CHILDREN 6 AND UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE[238]
  ══════════════════════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════
                                    │      MALE      │     FEMALE
  ──────────────────────────────────┼────┬──────┬────┼────┬──────┬────
                  „                 │ At │  At  │ At │ At │  At  │ At
                                    │Home│School│Work│Home│School│Work
  ──────────────────────────────────┼────┼──────┼────┼────┼──────┼────
  Native-born white of native father│ 5.4│  90.9│ 3.6│ 6.9│  90.5│ 2.6
  Native-born of foreign father     │10.2│  83.9│ 5.9│12.6│  83.5│ 3.9
  Foreign-born                      │13.2│  77.0│ 9.9│19.1│  73.6│ 7.3
  ══════════════════════════════════╧════╧══════╧════╧════╧══════╧════

Footnote 237:

  _The Survey_, Feb. 4, 1911, p. 767.

Footnote 238:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., pp. 194–195.

Among the following races the following per cent of foreign-born male
children of the specified age were at work: German, 13.9; south Italian,
13.3; Lithuanian, 14.3; Portuguese, 15.7; Ruthenian, 14.6; Scotch, 19.0;
Syrian, 22.6.

The following table, showing the per cent of literacy of the employees
studied in these industries, is based on information for 500,329
employees, and hence has a remarkable trustworthiness:

         LITERACY OF EMPLOYEES IN MINING AND MANUFACTURING[239]
       ══════════════════════════════════╤═══════════╤═══════════
                    NATIVITY             │   MALES   │  FEMALES
       ──────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────
                       „                 │ PER CENT  │ PER CENT
                                         │    WHO    │    WHO
       ──────────────────────────────────┼─────┬─────┼─────┬─────
                       „                 │     │Read │     │Read
                                         │     │ and │     │ and
                                         │Read │Write│Read │Write
       ──────────────────────────────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────
       Native-born white of native father│ 98.2│ 97.9│ 98.8│ 98.4
       Native-born of foreign father     │ 99.0│ 98.7│ 99.0│ 98.8
       Foreign-born                      │ 85.6│ 83.6│ 90.8│ 89.2
       ══════════════════════════════════╧═════╧═════╧═════╧═════

Footnote 239:

  _Ibid._, pp. 162–165.

Foreign-born male employees of the following races have the following
literacy, as shown by the per cent who can read and write: south
Italian, 67.6; Macedonian, 67.1; Portuguese, 46.1; Ruthenian, 63.6;
Servian, 69.5; Turkish, 54.1.

From the foregoing table it appears that in respect to literacy the
native-born employees of foreign fathers are superior to the native-born
whites of native fathers, and that the foreign-born females are superior
to the foreign-born males.

The important matter of ability to speak English is forcibly portrayed
in the following table:

         PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN EMPLOYEES (EXCLUSIVE OF THE
            ENGLISH-SPEAKING RACES) WHO SPEAK ENGLISH[240]
    ═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════╤═══════════════
       NATIVITY    │     MALE      │    FEMALE     │     TOTAL
    ───────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────
    Total          │           55.6│           38.6│           53.2
    Bulgarian      │           20.3│  80.0 (only 5)│           20.6
    Danish         │           96.5│           98.3│           96.6
    German         │           87.5│           80.2│           86.8
    Greek          │           33.5│           12.3│           31.5
    Hebrew, Russian│           74.7│           75.7│           75.0
    Herzegovinian  │           14.6│               │           14.6
    Italian, south │           48.7│           25.8│           44.4
    Magyar         │           46.4│           24.0│           45.2
    Norwegian      │           96.9│           91.8│           96.5
    Polish         │           43.5│           15.5│           39.1
    Portuguese     │           45.2│           27.0│           37.8
    Slovak         │           55.6│           26.6│           55.1
    Slovenian      │           51.7│           30.3│           50.9
    Swedish        │           94.7│           94.2│           94.7
    ═══════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════╧═══════════════

Footnote 240:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 198.

It is thus apparent how large a proportion of our foreign-born laborers
have not even taken the first essential step toward assimilation. This
evil is, of course, practically overcome in the second generation.
Almost all of the native-born persons of foreign fathers, six years of
age or over, speak English, though some races show from 6 to 8 per cent
who do not.

The percentage who can speak English naturally increases with the length
of residence in the United States, until a percentage of 83.1 is reached
for all foreign-born employees who have been in the United States ten
years or more. But even in this group a very low percentage is found
among the Cuban and Spanish cigar makers, of whom almost three fifths
are unable to speak the English language.

The age of the immigrant at the time of arriving in the United States
has a great deal to do with the ability to speak English. The percentage
of those who were under fourteen when they arrived who can speak English
is nearly twice as large as that of those who were fourteen or over. The
reasons for this are the greater adaptability of the younger immigrants,
and their greater opportunities of going to school. The relatively poor
showing of the females is probably due to their greater segregation,
which prevents them from coming in touch with Americans or older
immigrants of other races.

One of the special reports of the Immigration Commission deals with the
children of immigrants in schools and brings out some very significant
facts. Practically all of the information was secured in December, 1908.
Naturally this investigation involved a study of the children of
native-born fathers also. A general investigation was made in the public
schools of thirty cities, including the first twenty cities in point of
population, as shown by the census of 1900, with the exception of
Washington, D.C., Louisville, Ky., and Jersey City, N.J. An
investigation was also carried on in regard to parochial schools in
twenty-four cities, and an investigation of the students in
seventy-seven institutions of higher learning. In addition to this
general investigation, an intensive investigation was made in twelve
cities, including seven cities not in the previous list, making a total
of thirty-seven cities in which public schools were studied. The total
number of public school pupils for whom information was secured was
1,815,217. Thus the investigation was a very inclusive one, and the
results may be taken as representative of educational conditions in the
cities of the entire country.

Of the total number of public school children studied in the
thirty-seven cities, 766,727 were of native-born fathers, and 1,048,490
of foreign-born fathers. The children of native-born white fathers
constituted 39.5 per cent of the total, while among the children of
foreign-born fathers there were the following percentages of the total
number: Hebrews, 17.6; Germans, 11.6; Italians (north and south), 6.4;
total, native-born father, 42.2 per cent; total, foreign-born father,
57.8 per cent.

The different cities show a marked difference in the proportion of
children who come from foreign-born fathers, as the following table will
show:

                         PER CENT OF PUPILS IN
                           PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
                         FOREIGN-BORN FATHERS
                          IN SPECIFIED CITIES

                             CITY     PER CENT
                         Chelsea          74.1
                         Duluth           74.1
                         New York         71.5
                         New Bedford      68.8
                         Chicago          67.3
                         Fall River       67.2
                         Shenandoah       67.1
                         New Britain      65.3
                         Boston           63.5
                         New Orleans      18.1
                         Kansas City      21.3
                         Johnstown        24.8
                         Cincinnati       27.1
                         Baltimore        28.5
                         St. Louis        31.9
                         Los Angeles      32.0
                         Cedar Rapids     34.2
                         Haverhill        39.1

“In only 7 of the 37 cities is the proportion of pupils who are children
of native-born white fathers as high as 60 per cent.” Four cities have
less than 30 per cent. The children of German foreign-born fathers are
most numerous in Milwaukee, Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, Meriden,
Chicago, Cincinnati, and St. Louis; those of foreign-born Russian Hebrew
fathers in Chelsea, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Newark, and
Baltimore, those of foreign-born south Italian fathers in Providence,
Newark, New York, Yonkers, Buffalo, and Boston.

A smaller proportion of the total number of children of foreign-born
fathers are in the higher grades of the public schools than of the
children of native-born white fathers, as the following table shows:

              PER CENT OF PUPILS OF SPECIFIED NATIVITY IN
                          THE SPECIFIED GRADES
              ══════════════╤══════════════╤══════════════
                  GRADE     │ NATIVE-BORN  │ FOREIGN-BORN
                            │ WHITE FATHER │    FATHER
              ──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────
              Kindergarten  │           4.3│           4.4
              Primary grades│          52.1│          57.6
              Grammar grades│          34.5│          33.3
              High school   │           9.1│           4.7
                            │         —————│         —————
                  Total     │         100.0│         100.0
              ══════════════╧══════════════╧══════════════

The Slovaks, south Italians, and Magyars have the largest percentages in
the kindergartens, and the Portuguese, Lithuanians, Slovaks, south
Italians, and Polish the largest percentages in the primary grades. In
the high schools, the Canadians, other than French, the Scotch, the
native-born white, the Welsh, Germans, Hebrews, and English stand
highest. This is due to two main facts,—the longer residence of these
latter races in the United States, and their greater desire for a high
education for their children, coupled with a greater ability to give it
to them. Especially in the case of the kindergartens are the newer
immigrating races very eager to have their young children looked after
so that the mother can be free to work, or otherwise occupy herself.

Another interesting set of figures is that referring to the amount of
retardation among the pupils of different nativities. By “retardation”
is meant that a pupil is above the “normal” age for the grade in which
he is. In this respect the children of foreign-born fathers of the newer
immigration are decidedly inferior to those of the older immigration.
The latter, in fact, are on the whole superior to the children of
native-born white fathers. Of the total number of children of
foreign-born fathers for whom this information was secured, 77.2 per
cent were born in the United States, and 28.8 per cent were born abroad.
There is a considerably larger proportion of retardation for those
children eight years of age or over who were born abroad than among
those born in the United States. The proportion retarded increases as
the age at the time of arrival in the United States advances. The
proportion of retardation is greater among those children whose fathers
cannot speak English than among those who can, and greater among those
whose fathers have not taken out naturalization papers than among those
who have.

When we turn to the institutions of higher learning, we find a
comparatively small number of foreign-born students, as might be
expected.[241] The percentages for a total of 32,887 students are as
follows:

                 NATIVITY OF STUDENT         PER CENT OF TOTAL

          Native-born white of native father              64.0
          Native-born of foreign father                   25.3
          Foreign-born                                    10.2

The Hebrews stand foremost among the foreign-born.

Of the 221,159 pupils included in the parochial school investigation,
36.5 per cent are children of native-born fathers (36.3 per cent of
native-born white fathers), and 63.5 per cent of foreign-born fathers.
Children of foreign-born Irish fathers number 26.9 per cent of the total
number of pupils, foreign-born German fathers, 9.7 per cent, Polish, 7.1
per cent, and Italian, 7 per cent. In the twenty-four cities in which
information was secured for both public and parochial schools, there
were 1,322,053 pupils in the public schools, and 221,159 pupils in the
parochial schools. In Philadelphia nearly one fourth of the pupils were
in parochial schools.

Information was also secured for teachers in the kindergartens and
elementary grades of the public schools in thirty cities, including
49,067 individuals. Of these, 49.8 per cent were native-born of native
white fathers, and 42.8 per cent native-born of foreign fathers, and 5.8
per cent foreign-born. Of the foreign-born, only six races were
represented by as many as one hundred teachers each, viz. Hebrew,
English, Irish, German, Canadian (other than French), and Scotch.




                              CHAPTER XIV
THE EXPLOITATION OF IMMIGRANTS. RELIGION. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
                               RECREATION


There is a group of peculiar economic institutions which have been
developed by the immigrants in this country, and which are especially
characteristic of the new immigration. This group includes the padrone
system, the contract labor system, the immigrant bank, and two or three
similar institutions, particularly the sweating system, which is now
practically dependent on immigrants.

The word “padrone” is adopted from the Italian, and signifies master or
“boss.” In its application to American conditions, it refers to a system
of practical slavery, introduced into this country by the Italians, and
subsequently utilized by a number of other southeastern European races.
When immigration from Italy began to assume considerable proportions,
there were already in the United States a few Italians who had been here
some time, and had acquired a certain familiarity with the language and
customs of the land. They were thereby especially fitted to be of
assistance to their newly arrived fellow-countrymen, and also,
unfortunately, to exploit them. In fact, they did both of these things.
By way of assistance, they put the green immigrants in touch with
employers of labor, helped them to find lodgings, and, in brief, acted
as the go-between in every case of contact between the immigrant and the
life of the people around him. On the other hand, the padrone charged
the newcomer well for every service rendered, and in too many cases
subjected him to various forms of extortion, which his ignorance kept
him from either recognizing or preventing. As certain of the newer
immigrants became familiar with the speech and customs of their new
home, they in turn became padrones, and extended their operations over
the ever increasing numbers of new arrivals. Thus the system spread.

There are certain businesses or occupations which are particularly
adapted to the application of this system, such as railroad labor,
peddling, boot-blacking, etc. The Italians developed it primarily in
respect to the first of these. This race has now practically abandoned
this system in this country, but it has been taken up by others, and is
at present practiced by the Bulgarians, Turks, Macedonians, Greeks, and
Mexicans, and in some cases among Austrians and Italians.[242]

A more concrete idea of the workings of this system may be gained by an
examination of its operation in a single industry, as, for instance, the
shoe-shining industry among the Greeks. This business, in a marked
degree, combines the necessary elements for the successful application
of the system,—small capital, cheap unskilled labor, close supervision,
etc.,—and this race is well adapted to apply it to its extreme extent,
partly from natural aptitude, and partly from custom and training. For
the system, in its main outlines, has long been familiar in Greece,
though some of the most unfortunate aspects do not develop there.

The padrone is a Greek who has been in this country for some time, and
knows the ways of the land. He decides to engage in the boot-blacking
trade, and to secure his necessary helpers contracts for a number of
boys from his native land to come over and work for him for a certain
length of time, for a specified sum. The arrangement is sometimes made
with the boys, sometimes with the parents, but almost always with the
parents’ consent. When these boys arrive, they are taken to a room or
set of rooms, which the padrone has engaged and which thenceforth are
their “home.” They are at once put to work in the shop of the boss, and
kept at work continuously thereafter, with practically no time off which
they can call their own, except the meager allowance made for sleep. The
hours are long—twelve, fourteen, or even more hours per day. The boss
furnishes board and lodging, and pays a small sum in cash, perhaps $200
per year. The rooms are frightfully overcrowded, miserably ventilated,
and wholly unhygienic. The boys do their own cooking, usually in relays
of two, and the noon meal is eaten hurriedly in a room in the rear of
the shop. The boys are prevented from attending night school, and are
forbidden to talk to patrons. In every way the padrone tries to
discourage their acquiring knowledge of American ways, for the system
rests on ignorance. In a majority of cases the padrone takes all the
tips given to the boys, and the boys excuse him on the grounds that
wages are high and expenses great.

It is obvious that the boys are wholly at the mercy of their boss, a
mercy the quality of which is sadly strained. And when a boy does manage
to get a grasp of the English language, and acquire a little
independence, instead of turning traitor to the system, he sets up as a
padrone himself. All investigators, and a number of the better class of
Greeks in this country, agree that this system is a disgrace to the
Greek race, or to any other race that practices it.[243]

The contract labor system is next of kin to the padrone system. The main
differences are that the control of the boss, outside of working hours,
is not so complete, and the relationship is likely to be of shorter
duration. This system arises from the necessity of the capitalistic
employer of labor getting in touch with the alien workman. Differences
of language, ignorance of the sources and the means of communication,
and a variety of other perfectly comprehensible reasons, prevent the
employer from enlisting his workers directly, and the laborer from
applying for work in his own person. The natural and inevitable
intermediary is the immigrant who has been in this country long enough
to know the language and have some influence and acquaintance among
employers. Given this starting point, the process of bringing the
immigrants and the employer together goes along wholly natural channels,
with only minor modifications in the details. In some cases the employer
pays the agent certain specified wages for each laborer furnished, and
the agent pays whatever is necessary—below that figure—to secure the
workers; sometimes the employer pays fixed wages to the laborers, and
allows the agent a stated commission for each worker secured. This is
much the more desirable system of the two. In many cases the agent is
retained as overseer in charge of the men he has secured. The degree of
definiteness in these arrangements varies all the way from cases where
agents go over to foreign countries, definitely charged with securing
laborers for some employer, to those where the employer simply lets it
be known among his employees that there will be work for all their
friends or relatives who wish to come, and leaves the leaven to work. It
is becoming more rare for agents in this country to go abroad in person;
the tendency is for them to work in connection with agents established
on the other side.

The possibilities of abuse in this system are manifestly great. The
agent customarily advances the passage money of those brought from
abroad, taking a mortgage far in excess of his actual expense on
whatever property the immigrant has to offer. Rates of interest are
exorbitant, and the terms of the contract all in favor of the
importer.[244] Sometimes the immigrant agrees to work for him seven or
eight months, in return for an initial outlay of not over $100 or $125.
In extreme cases, when an importer has taken mortgages far in excess of
his actual expenditure, he will discharge an entire set of men, in order
to make room for a new lot brought over on similar terms. The debts of
the original group are still binding, and it is astonishing to note the
faithfulness with which these poor unfortunates, thus thrown on their
own resources, will labor on to pay off these obligations.

Not all of the laborers employed under this system are secured directly
from abroad. Many of the more recent immigrants, who have been in this
country for some time, are almost equally dependent on the contractor
with the absolute “greeners.” Chicago is a great clearing house for the
labor market of the western railroads, and labor agencies, often
connected with a restaurant, or some similar place of business, abound
in the foreign sections.[245]

A great deal of business of this general nature is carried on by aliens
who are not real agents. It is very frequent for an immigrant to tell a
newcomer that if he will pay him a certain sum of money he will secure
him a position in the establishment where he is himself employed. All
that he really does is to take the newcomer around and introduce him to
the foreman, who gives him work, if there is any. But the new arrival
considers himself much in the debt of his “friend,” and more than that,
thereafter regards the job as his own because he has paid for it, and
resents discharge for any reason as an injustice. Conscientious
employers naturally do all they can to discourage such practices, but
are powerless to prevent them. In fact, the eagerness of earlier
immigrants to exploit their newly arrived fellow-countrymen, not only in
this way, but in any other that promises a profit, is one of the most
disheartening features of the whole immigration situation.

It goes without saying that all of these operations, which involve
bringing immigrants into the country under agreement to labor, are in
direct violation of law. The contract labor clause of the immigration
law, if strictly interpreted and enforced, would exclude practically
every immigrant who had the slightest assurance of employment awaiting
him. In fact, however, as has been shown above (page 154), the courts
have so interpreted the act as to include under contract laborers only
those who have a definite contract, or those who come in response to a
specific offer or promise of employment.[246] This kind of a promise or
offer is relatively rare. Nothing so definite is required to induce
unskilled laborers to emigrate. Broad and general assurances of
employment awaiting them are sufficient. The wide discrepancy between
the letter and the interpretation of the law is unfortunate. This
section of the law is the one upon which immigrants are coached more
thoroughly than on any other, and in addition to the large number of
immigrants who violate the most lenient interpretation, there must be
many others whom the courts would not hold guilty, who nevertheless
believe themselves so and suffer a corresponding degradation of
character. A third element in the situation, which complicates it still
further, is the interpretation practically placed on the law by the
immigration authorities, which is apparently more strict than that of
the courts. The whole matter of contract labor needs to be thoroughly
reconsidered.

In addition to the activities of labor agents and employers, state
boards do a good deal to encourage immigration, sometimes keeping within
the spirit of the law, and sometimes exceeding it.

Another member of this same nefarious family is the peonage system. For
a general description of the system the reader is referred to Professor
Commons, _Races and Immigrants in America_, chapter on Labor. It has
been judicially defined in the following words: “Peonage is a status or
condition of compulsory service based upon the indebtedness of the peon
to the master. The basic fact is indebtedness.”[247] The customary or
typical case is where a laborer receives advances of some sort from his
employer, and then leaves his service before the terms of his engagement
have been fulfilled, certainly before he has repaid his employer for the
advances. His employer then procures his arrest, either under a charge
of obtaining money under false pretenses, or under the labor statutes of
the various states. The employer makes a new agreement with the laborer,
that if he will return to his employment, and work out the balance of
his indebtedness, the criminal procedure will be dropped.

This might seem, on the face of it, a thoroughly just proceeding. The
trouble is that the employer has every advantage. The laborer is
ignorant, and very often the conditions under which he is to work are
grossly misrepresented to him. Lack of forethought, moreover, is one of
the chief characteristics of ignorant and unintelligent men. The money
or goods advanced to them occupy a very disproportionate place in their
minds, compared to the work which they agree to perform in the future.
The employer, on the other hand, knows all about the conditions, and
just how much he can afford to pay, and is able to give himself the best
of the bargain by a broad margin.

The Immigration Commission made a thorough investigation of this
subject, and found evidences of peonage in every state in the Union,
except Oklahoma and Connecticut. In the south, where peonage is supposed
to be most rampant, it was discovered that most of the peons were
supplied by labor agents in New York City, who seriously misrepresented
the conditions under which they were to work, and in many cases sent out
men wholly unfitted for the work which they were to do. In the south,
however, in spite of the existence of many cases, it appears that the
vigorous prosecutions, and the willingness of juries to convict, have
pretty well broken up the tendency toward peonage in connection with
aliens.

In the west and northwest, cases of technical peonage were found in the
shoe-shining industry, and in some lumber and railroad camps. But there
have been practically no attempts at prosecution for peonage in these
states.

The most surprising fact established by the Commission in this respect
is that probably the most complete system of peonage in the whole
country has existed, not in the south, but in Maine. Here the employers
of labor in the lumber camps have been obliged to secure their labor
mostly from other states and in the main from immigrants. Boston is the
great labor market for this industry. The immigrants are given very
misleading accounts of the conditions of their labor, and are engaged to
work for their employers for a specified time. They are then taken into
the forests, sometimes having to walk sixty or seventy miles to their
place of labor, and kept in the forest all winter.

When they learn the extent to which they have been deceived, many of
them are inclined to run away. However, in February, 1907, a law was
passed making it a criminal offense for a person to “enter into an
agreement to labor for any lumbering operation or in driving logs and in
consideration thereof receive any advances of goods, money, or
transportation, and unreasonably and with intent to defraud, fail to
enter into said employment as agreed and labor a sufficient length of
time to reimburse his employer for said advances and expenses.” The
general interpretation of the courts has been to ignore the provision
about intent to defraud, or at least to put the burden of proof on the
defendant, though it is not specifically provided in the law that
failure or refusal to fulfill the terms of the contract shall be _prima
facie_ evidence of an intent to defraud, as is the case in the contract
labor law of Minnesota and other states. Employers in other branches of
industry have sought to secure the same protection, but in vain, so that
this law is iniquitous, not only from the point of view of peonage, but
also because it is class legislation. A considerable amount of peonage
has resulted from this law in Maine.[248]

The basis of all the evils which have just been discussed has been seen
to lie in the ignorance and helplessness of the newly arrived immigrant.
Knowing nothing of the language of the country, or of its methods of
doing business, and having no connections with the industrial system of
the country, he is forced to rely on some one who can supply these
factors. Most naturally he turns to some one of his fellow-countrymen
who has been in this country longer. From that time on, sometimes for
many years, his career is dominated by the older immigrant to a
remarkable degree. Out of this connection has grown up a peculiar set of
institutions, commonly known as immigrant banks, which have the power
for great good or evil to the immigrant, according to the character of
the men who have them in charge. The origin and nature of these banks is
as follows:

The foremost ambition of the average immigrant is the saving of money.
The purposes of this saving are many—to guarantee his own future
prosperity, to ease the lot of friends and relatives at home, to pay off
mortgages and other debts, and, perhaps the most important of all, to
provide the means whereby friends and relatives on the other side may
join him in the new world. The prepaid ticket is the final end of much
of the saving of aliens. These accumulations naturally come in small
amounts. Out of a month’s earnings, the immigrant may save $10 or $15 or
even as high as $30. The living conditions of many of the immigrants
make it unsafe for them to try to keep this money in their lodgings;
they are unfamiliar with, and distrustful of, American banks. The
disposition of their savings which seems to them the wisest and safest
is to intrust them to a fellow-countryman who is familiar with the ways
of the country and has some means of keeping them safe. This individual
may be the padrone or boss, the lodging-house keeper, a saloon keeper or
grocer, or the steamship agent from whom the immigrant expects
eventually to purchase the prepaid ticket. In time, immigrants in these
positions get into the habit of receiving small sums from their
fellow-countrymen for safe keeping or on deposit against some future
purchase. As these amounts accumulate, they become of considerable value
to the holder, who may deposit them in a regular savings bank at
interest, to his own profit, or may invest them in his business, or may
make other speculative investments with them. To attract such deposits,
and increase their amount, he adds the term “bank” to the name of his
business, so that he now becomes a “Grocer and Banker,” a “Ticket Agent
and Banker,” etc. This adds a dignity to his position and increases the
confidence of the people in his integrity.

It has been intimated in the preceding paragraph that the immigrant
“banker” makes no distinction between the funds deposited with him and
his own property. This is generally the case. Occasionally the banker
will keep the deposits in his safe, in the original wallets in which
they were delivered to him,[249] or deposit them in a bank in his wife’s
name,[250] but these are exceptional instances. Ordinarily all the money
in the banker’s possession is lumped together, so that the assets of the
“bank” are identical with the general resources of the proprietor.
Furthermore, there is a great amount of laxity in the giving of receipts
to depositors. Sometimes no written acknowledgment whatever is given;
from this point the character of the receipt varies all the way up to a
regular pass book, and a thorough system of bookkeeping.

From such a beginning as this, these banks have developed a variety of
forms, varying in functions and in stability. They have been classified
by the Immigration Commission into three main groups, as follows:

“I. State and incorporated banks or highly organized private
institutions thoroughly responsible and operated in a regular manner
almost exclusively as a bank. There are comparatively few of these
institutions.

“II. Privately owned steamship agencies, and real-estate offices which
masquerade under the name of a bank, but which are not legally
authorized as such. To this class should be added groceries and saloons
in which the banking functions are clearly defined as apart from other
business. The majority of the banks investigated are of this class.

“III. Banks which may or may not be known as such, but in which the
functions of caring for deposits and receiving money for transmission
abroad are extended more as an accommodation or as incidental to the
main business of the concern. Saloon keepers, grocers, boarding houses,
barbers, and men engaged in similar occupations usually conduct this
class of banks. It has been claimed by some that every immigrant saloon
keeper will be found doing a banking business of this character. This is
the largest, as it also is the most irresponsible, class. It is
undoubtedly the hardest class to regulate, as it is the one about which
it is the most difficult to obtain accurate information.”[251]

The hold which these bankers have over their patrons is due in the first
instance to the ignorance of the latter, and the feeling of security
which they have in dealing with people of their own race. It is
increased by the familiarity which the banker has with business methods
in this country, and names, places, and methods in the old country. The
immigrant banker assumes a decidedly paternalistic attitude toward his
patrons, and renders them many services not ordinarily associated with a
banking business, such as writing and translating letters, securing
employment, giving legal advice, etc. The greater the hold thus secured,
the wider are the opportunities for exploitation. In the absence of
proper control, and of the ordinary safeguards of such businesses, the
immigrant depositor is made to suffer extortion and loss in countless
cases. In many cases this is due to the ignorance of the banker, and his
total unfitness for the assumption of such responsibilities; in many
others, it is due to dishonesty, greed, and willful intent to defraud.
In the panic year of 1907 large numbers of these banks failed, and sums
of money were lost to immigrants, the importance of which is to be
judged, not so much by the total amounts, as by the fact that they
represented the savings of a large number of individuals in meager
circumstances. In normal years, there is a steady loss, due to failures,
defalcations, and abscondings on the part of bankers, and also to the
continual petty frauds, habitually practiced by many of these men. The
trustfulness of the immigrants towards men of this character is
surprising. Instances are known where men have come into a community,
advertised a bank, and in a few weeks accumulated large sums of money
from the foreigners, with which they promptly decamped, leaving
absolutely no means of redress to their creditors.

The primary functions of these banks are the safe keeping of money and
the transmission of remittances abroad. Only in exceptional cases do the
other banking functions play an important part. It is estimated that in
1907 approximately $137,500,000 in foreign remittances passed through
the hands of immigrant bankers, in sums averaging about $35.[252]

These banks are mostly in the hands of the recently immigrating races.
The reasons for their existence—ignorance of language and customs,
illiteracy, inconvenient hours kept by American banks, and their
luxurious appearance and requirements of cleanliness—appeal much less
strongly to the immigrants from northwestern Europe.

Another functionary who exercises an extensive, and often baleful,
influence over the immigrant is the notary public. The position of
dignity and influence held by corresponding officials in foreign
countries leads the immigrant to accord too much confidence and trust to
such persons in the United States, who are often ignorant and in many
cases dishonest men. The nature of the cases in which the immigrant has
recourse to them gives them a large amount of power over the foreigner,
and opens the way to many petty extortions.

All of these exploiting agencies become inextricably mingled in actual
life. The functions of the padrone, the labor contractor, the employment
agent, the steamship agent, the boarding boss, the saloon keeper, the
grocer, the banker, the notary public—any two or more of these may be
combined in the person of a given individual, who exercises a
corresponding control over the destiny of those who are dependent on
him. His hold over them rests upon the fact that they are not
Americanized, and it is wholly to his interest to keep them so.[253]

The sweat shop is manifestly an institution of the same general
character as those which have just been discussed, and while it may not
owe its origin to the immigrants, it is now practically dependent on
them for its existence. The main features of this system are familiar.
Its distinctive characteristic is the giving out of work by
manufacturers to contractors, in order that certain processes may be
carried on in the homes of the workers. It finds its fullest development
in the clothing trade, which at the present time is almost wholly in the
hands of the Jews.

The chief evils of the system are the unsanitary conditions of labor,
the long hours, the extensive employment of women and children, the
difficulty of proper supervision, the low wages, and the complete
subjection of the workers to the control of the boss. The contractor
himself is often in a precarious financial situation, being himself a
victim of the system. Like the foregoing institutions, it results from
the ignorance and lack of connection of the workers. Its persistence and
wide spread in this country are due to the constant accessions of
low-grade workers, unassimilated to the conditions of the country, which
immigration furnishes. These supply the raw material upon which the
system feeds. By so doing they have blocked the efforts of the cities of
the United States to control or abolish this evil.[254]

There is another class of institutions which rests upon the helplessness
of the newly arrived immigrant, which is, however, an alleviating,
rather than an exploiting agency, and which belongs to the social rather
than to the economic life. This is the immigrant home or aid society.
These institutions are numerous in the seaport cities where immigrants
arrive; there are said to be not less than sixteen in operation in New
York City.[255] They are for the most part benevolent or philanthropic
organizations (at least nominally), and many of them are under the
control of some religious organization. Many of them work primarily with
a single race or people. Their functions are looking after newly arrived
immigrants who are not met by friends, and forwarding them to their
destinations, furnishing them board and lodging while in the port of
arrival, helping them to find work or to locate missing acquaintances,
and in general safeguarding them while they are establishing a
connection with some responsible party in this country.

Most of the immigrants who come to this country come to join relatives
or friends, who generally meet them at the port of arrival, or send
money or transportation to take them to their destination. But it
frequently happens that the friends or relatives fail to put in an
appearance. In that case the immigration authorities are unwilling to
turn the immigrant adrift unprotected, especially in the case of
unaccompanied women or girls. Consequently the government has allowed
representatives of homes and aid societies to visit the immigrant
stations, and offer their aid to the immigrants. At Ellis Island,
immigrants whose relatives or friends fail to call for them are detained
five days, and then given the choice of being sent back to Europe or of
leaving the station in company with some representative of a home or aid
society, often called a “missionary.” If the latter alternative is
chosen, the immigrant is said to be “discharged” to the given person,
who is thereupon held theoretically responsible that the immigrant shall
not become a public charge. There are three general classes of
immigrants who are thus discharged: (1) Immigrants whose friends or
relatives fail to meet them, and whom the authorities do not deem it
wise to land unless some one becomes responsible for them. (2)
Immigrants who are without sufficient money to take them to their
destination, and who must be cared for until the necessary funds are
forthcoming. (3) Immigrants, particularly girls and women, who have no
friends or relatives in this country, and need a home until they can
secure employment. These homes and aid societies necessarily have
something of the nature of employment agencies, and do a good deal of
work of that kind.

The amount of work done by these organizations is very great. In the
calendar year 1907, over 14,800 immigrants were discharged to such
representatives at Ellis Island by the New York discharging division.
This does not include the total number discharged, as the boards of
special inquiry and the commissioners of immigration also discharge
immigrants.[256] Six homes in New York City cared for a total of 48,275
immigrants in 1908.[257]

It will be seen at once that these homes and societies have great power
over the immigrants, and are in positions of immense advantage and
responsibility, inasmuch as the authorities give their representatives a
semiofficial standing, and intrust immigrants to them without reserve.
Unscrupulous and grasping persons, once admitted to the stations as
missionaries, have large opportunities and every advantage to exploit
the immigrants at will. This is especially true of the homes, where the
immigrants can be charged—and over-charged—for every possible kind of
service.

It might appear at first sight that the authorities would exercise every
caution, not only in regard to the character of the representatives, but
as to the character and conduct of the homes. The investigations of the
Immigration Commission, however, revealed that this has not always been
the case. Not only have many of the authorities used very little care or
discretion in granting privileges to representatives in their stations,
but they exercised practically no supervision over the homes themselves,
and when the immigrant had once been discharged to the representative,
they paid no more attention to him or his welfare. The Commission
investigated carefully 102 immigrant homes and aid societies, in
addition to twenty-five employment agencies, most of which had some
connection with an immigrant home or aid society. A large amount of
misconduct on the part of representatives was discovered, as well as
undesirable conditions in the homes themselves. Many of the homes were
found to be purely money-making institutions, where the immigrant was
fleeced to the limit of his resources. The sanitary conditions in some
of them were terrible. Some of the representatives seemed to care for
nothing but to have as many immigrants as possible discharged to them,
and were little more than runners for their respective homes. “It was
the testimony of some of the leading officials at Ellis Island that the
majority of missionaries and representatives there care only to secure
the discharge of immigrants who have money and can pay for food and
lodging.”[258] Some of the representatives were instrumental in securing
the admission of contract laborers. “About two thirds of the homes
investigated were clean, comfortable, and sanitary, and about one third
were overcrowded, badly ventilated, filthy and insanitary.”[259] Many of
the homes where bad conditions were found were supported by honest
conscientious people, who had been duped and betrayed by their
representatives and managers; others were intentionally nothing but
money-making schemes.

These conditions are bad enough in themselves, but the most serious
feature of the situation is the lack of responsibility and care in
placing women and girls out in employment. The majority of the homes
investigated showed absolutely no sense of their duty and responsibility
in this matter. Only one sixth of them refused to place girls in
situations where their morals would be seriously endangered. Many of
them were perfectly willing to supply girls to work in houses of immoral
character.[260] There was also a great deal of carelessness in the
investigation of addresses to which girls were sent. Many of the
addresses reported by the societies were found to be fictitious, many
were false, that is, the girls had never been there, and some of them
were admittedly immoral resorts. It is encouraging to note that since
the investigation of the Commission vigorous measures have been employed
in correcting these evils, and conditions have greatly improved.

The case of the immigrant homes and aid societies is a remarkable
illustration of the eternal vigilance which is necessary to prevent
exploitation and corruption from flourishing, even in connection with
professedly benevolent agencies, when plastic material is furnished in
such abundance as exists in the immigrant body.[261]

The effects of immigration upon the religious life of the immigrants and
of the United States constitute a great field of research which has been
surprisingly neglected, perhaps because of the difficulty of securing
reliable data and establishing definite conclusions, perhaps because it
has not seemed of sufficient importance to warrant exhaustive study.

One result which has certainly followed the immigration of the
nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth is a vast increase
in the number of denominations and sects organized in this country. The
position of the Roman Catholic Church as a product of immigration is too
obvious to be dwelt upon. The predominance of this form of belief among
the Irish of the first half of the nineteenth century, which more than
anything else motived the Native American and Know Nothing movements,
has been maintained to a certain extent among the Germans, and in later
days among the Italians and Slavs.[262]

The census reports on religious bodies unfortunately give no information
as to the nationality of members and communicants, so that it is
impossible to distribute the adherents of the various sects among the
constituent races. However, out of the list of denominations given we
can pick a number of manifestly foreign origin which indicate the
tremendous diversity of religious forms which are represented in this
country. Among them are the following: Armenian Church; Buddhists,
Chinese and Japanese; Dunkers; Eastern Orthodox churches, Russian,
Servian, Syrian, and Greek; various German Evangelical bodies; various
Scandinavian Lutheran bodies; Slovak Evangelical Lutheran Synod;
Moravian bodies; Jewish congregations; Polish national church; Swedish
Evangelical bodies; Hungarian Reformed Church; Bahais, etc.

The total number of organizations covered by the report of the census
for 1906 is 212,230 as reported by 186 denominations. One hundred and
fourteen of these denominations reported the use of some foreign
language in some of their organizations. Of the denominations so
reporting 12.5 per cent of their organizations, with 26.3 per cent of
their membership, report the use of foreign languages, either alone or
with English. There are forty-one individual languages included in the
report.

These facts indicate that, whatever changes the removal to a new
environment involves, and however much of American life the immigrants
adopt, a large percentage of our foreign population brings its religion
with it, and keeps it. This is not to be wondered at, as we know that
men hold on to their traditional religion more tenaciously than to
almost any other of their mores and resent interference here most of
all. More than this, it is probably well that it is so. For religion is
the great conserving force of morality, the principal bulwark of
traditional conduct. The perils of the moral nature of the immigrant in
his new home are many. Trained to repression, restriction, and control,
he finds himself suddenly endowed with liberty and opportunity. This
liberty he is all too likely to interpret as license. Finding people all
around him doing things which have hitherto seemed to him sinful or
immoral, he adopts the practices, without having acquired the principles
and restraints which safeguard them, and make them innocuous for
Americans. If, along with this shifting of ethical standards, he loses
also his religious sanctions, his moral danger is great indeed.[263]
This process has been particularly observed among the second generation
of Hebrews. In the light of American civilization and public thought,
they find the religion of their fathers discredited. It appears to them
antiquated and unworthy. They throw it over unreservedly, and with it
goes the whole body of admirable moral precepts and guides, and the
remarkable ethical standards, which have been indissolubly associated
with religious belief in their minds. The unfortunate part of the
process is that nothing takes the place, either of the religious faith,
or of the moral code. The old, which was good, is forsaken without
adopting the new, which is perhaps better. As a result, juvenile crime
is very prevalent among the Jews, and a large proportion of those
concerned in the white slave traffic, both men and women, are
Hebrews.[264] It would be difficult to say to what extent the bad record
of the second generation of immigrants in regard to criminality and
general lawlessness may be due to similar causes.

While the majority of our immigrants are nominally Christians, there is
nevertheless a sufficient demand for religious guidance to constitute a
tremendous foreign missionary problem within the borders of our own
land—the more so when it is remembered that a large part of the efforts
of some of our foreign missionary boards is directed toward people who
are already nominally Christians, in their home lands. Many of the
religious denominations are beginning to feel this call, and are
responding to it by special services or organizations, planned to meet
the needs of foreign residents. As stated above, many religious bodies
support missionaries on Ellis Island. The Young Men’s Christian
Association devotes especial attention to the foreign-born. Many foreign
groups have societies of a religious character, aside from their regular
church organizations.

Yet in spite of all that can be said on this side of the question, there
remains an astonishing apathy on the part of the body of American
Protestant churches toward the religious and moral needs and dangers of
the foreign population, and of the opportunities for service which it
offers. This service might be made of incalculable benefit not only to
the immigrants themselves, but to their adopted country, whose destiny
hangs in the same balance as theirs. It is true that a group of
ignorant, stolid, perhaps dirty, European peasants on the streets of
one’s own city does not make the same appeal to his emotions and
sympathies as the half-clad savages which he reads of in the missionary
journals. Yet the spiritual needs of the immigrant group are probably
the greater of the two—at least they are more immediate—and the
receptive attitude of the newly arrived immigrant toward all elevating
influences makes him a uniquely promising subject for missionary work.

The unwillingness on the part of many wealthy and fashionable churches
to accept this responsibility in the spirit of the founder of the
Christian religion may be attributed to ignorance of actual conditions,
to fastidiousness, or to race prejudice, if not to actual indifference.
But if the church is to fulfill its mission in twentieth century
America, the efforts toward serving the spiritual needs of the alien
must be immensely widened and strengthened. Reverend Charles Stelzle
gives an ironical epitome of the situation in the story of the church in
New York City which sold its fine building because there were too many
foreigners in the neighborhood, and sent the proceeds to the Board of
Foreign Missions.[265]

In regard to that set of social conditions which are represented by
statistics of births, marriages, and deaths, no definite statistical
data for the country at large are available. The census reports do not
make the necessary distinctions between native and foreign-born to serve
as a basis of comparison. Such a comparison is, in fact, practically
impossible, for the composition of the foreign-born element of the
population in respect to sex, age, and conjugal condition differs so
widely from that of a normal population that any comparative rates,
based on general statistics, would be meaningless. Thus a foreign-born
death rate, based simply on total deaths and total population, would
probably be remarkably low. For, as has been shown, the foreign-born
population is largely in the middle age groups. They have passed the
dangerous period of childhood, and many of them, with advancing age, go
home to die. But if compared with a selected group of native-born, of
the same sex and age, the foreign-born would probably show a high death
rate, on account of the prevalence of industrial accidents and diseases,
and unhygienic living conditions.

Similar considerations hold true as regards the birth rate and marriage
rate. In respect to the former, it has been observed in another
connection that the birth rate of the foreign-born is extraordinarily
high for the first generation. As the length of residence of any foreign
group in this country increases, its birth rate tends to approach that
of the native-born until, as has been said, “the probability is that
when immigrants have lived with us so long that their grandparents were
born in the land, there is little more difference between the two stocks
in reproductivity than between any other equally extensive groups taken
at random.”[266] The study made by the Immigration Commission of the
fecundity of immigrant women shows that women born of foreign parents
have a much greater fecundity than those born of native parents.

In respect to marriages, comparative rates would have little meaning
unless they could be very carefully refined. The relative number of
foreign-born women is so small, and the number of men who have left
wives on the other side so large, and the temporary character of the
residence of many aliens so marked, as to put the entire question of
marriage among the foreign-born into an abnormal status. Many obstacles
prevent the free intermarriage of foreigners with natives. Marriages
between the foreign-born in this country are probably much more
infrequent than would be the case in a normal population of the same
size. Even in the case of the second generation of immigrants Professor
Commons finds that the proportion of marriages is smaller than among the
native-born.[267] The effect of this is to increase the tendency,
already noticed, to augment the population of this country by new
immigration, rather than by the reproduction of elements already here.

For recreation the foreign-born are limited to virtually the same
resources as the natives of the working class. The dance hall, the
moving picture show, the cheap theater, and the recreation park hold the
prominent places. For the men of some races the saloon, and for others
the imported coffeehouse, furnish a place for meeting and social
relaxation. The need of recreational facilities for the working classes,
so long neglected in this country, is beginning to be recognized and met
in every up-to-date American city. In all such advantages the
foreign-born will have their share. There are also other efforts, such
as the revival of folk dancing among foreign groups, and the giving of
dramas which appeal to the immigrants, which have the foreigner directly
in view. These merit hearty commendation. Yet much remains to be done.
The problem of recreation can be solved only in connection with the
problem of general industrial conditions. The average adult worker in
many of our industries is too much exhausted at the close of his day’s
work to take much interest in recreation of any kind. All too often,
also, the time and the pecuniary means are alike lacking for forms of
recreation which would be of great value. There needs to be more
recognition of the fact that the workman, though a foreigner, must have
relaxation and diversion to promote his highest welfare, just as truly
as those in higher stations.[268]




                               CHAPTER XV
  CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE COUNTRY. WAGES. PAUPERISM. CRIME. INSANITY


Turning to those aspects of the immigration situation in this country
which more immediately affect the life of the American people as a
whole, we find that they group themselves under nine main heads, as
follows: wages and standard of living, pauperism, crime, insanity,
industrial efficiency and progress, amount and distribution of wealth,
crises, social stratification, and politics. In each of these categories
certain preliminary effects are already observable, and other much more
extensive ones may be predicted on a theoretic and hypothetical basis.

As regards wages, we have already made a careful study of what may be
taken as typical immigrant wages. The question now is, how have these
wages affected the earnings of the great body of American workmen? Has
this admittedly low wage scale of the foreign labor body exercised a
depressing effect upon the remuneration of the native American, or has
the latter been enabled, by relinquishing the lower grades of labor to
the foreigner, to avail himself of higher and better paid positions?

This question, like many others of its class, involves the problem of
determining what would have happened if history had been different in
some single particular. It is a most perilous, and often profitless,
field to enter. It is apparently impossible for statisticians to
determine with certainty what has been the course of real wages within
the past half century or so. There is no doubt that money wages have
gone up. There is also no doubt that the average price of commodities
has gone up. The question is whether average prices or average wages
have gone up the faster. The most reliable tables covering this subject
are probably those of the Bureau of Labor, and these have been
discontinued since 1907. As far as the showing which they make can be
depended upon, it seems to indicate that there has been a very slight
rise in the purchasing power of full-time weekly wages since 1890.[269]
Granting this, the question still remains, would not the American
workman have enjoyed a much greater increase in real wages during this
period, if he had been allowed to reap the full advantage of his
economic position in the country, without having to meet the competition
of vast numbers of foreign laborers? The answer to this question must
rest on pure theory, as its statistical proof would involve a
reënactment of past history, which is a manifest impossibility.

According to the established laws of economics there are two ways in
which immigration may operate to lower wages. First, by increasing the
supply of labor in the country, and thereby diminishing the amount of
remuneration which the individual laborer can command. Second, by
introducing a body of laborers whose customary wage in the countries
they come from, and whose corresponding standard of living, is much
lower than the prevailing standard in the new country. This factor
operates, not by increasing the number of laborers bidding for
employment, but by lowering the amount of the initial bid on the part of
a sufficient number of laborers to fix the remuneration for the whole
lot. As to the first of these ways, if the argument contained in Chapter
XI is valid, it is not probable that in the long run immigration has
materially increased the total population of the United States. But it
has, from time to time, caused a marked temporary increase in the body
of unskilled labor, and this, as will be shown later, is an important
matter. However this may be, the second of these two ways has
undoubtedly been by far the more instrumental in reducing the average
wage of the American workman. It is not because he has had to compete
with more laborers, so much as with cheaper laborers, that the American
workman has failed to secure a higher remuneration for his services. It
is what Professor Commons has called the “competitive struggle for
standards of living”[270] which has been the determining factor, and the
whole matter can be best understood by taking it up in the light of the
general standard of living, rather than of mere wages.

The standard of living is the index of the comfort and true prosperity
of a nation. A high standard is a priceless heritage, which ought to be
guarded at all cost. The United States has always prided itself on the
high standard of living of its common people, but has not always
understood on what that standard rests. The standard of living is the
resultant of two great factors, the stage of the arts, and the ratio of
men to land. It may be improved by bettering the methods of production
and utilization of natural resources, or by reducing the ratio between
men and land, _i.e._ by limiting the increase of population. It may be
lowered either by a retrogression in the stage of the arts—something
which can hardly be conceived of under our present civilization—or by an
increase in the ratio between men and land. Both of these suppositions
assume that the amount of land remains stationary. If large tracts of
good land are made available by any means, it gives opportunity for a
decided improvement in the standard of living, and if we can conceive of
large areas of good land being actually lost, there would be an
inevitable lowering in the standard. In point of fact, standards of
living are much more likely to go up than down. The history of
civilization has been that of increasing standards. A retrogression in
the stage of the arts is not likely to take place on a large scale;
neither is it probable that, other things being equal, men will increase
their rate of reproduction, for the very reason that such an increase
would involve a lowering in the standard of living.

A standard of living, once established, has great tenacity, and people
will suffer almost anything in the way of hardship before they will
reduce it. If, for any reason, the dilemma is presented to a people of
lowering their standard or of limiting their rate of increase, they will
in general adopt the latter alternative. This will come about, not so
much as the result of a conscious choice, as by the unconscious
adaptation to surrounding conditions.[271] On the other hand, if natural
conditions are gradually and steadily improving, it may frequently
happen that the rate of reproduction will keep pace therewith, so that
the standard of living will remain essentially the same. But if some
sudden improvement in conditions appears—like the opening up of great
stretches of new land, or some far-reaching improvement in the arts—the
standard of living may rise appreciably before the forces of
reproduction have had time to offset the new advantage. In other words,
the rise of standards of living does not take place ordinarily by a
steady and unvarying progress, so much as by successive steps or waves.
The regular, continuous improvements in conditions account for lifted
standards less than the exceptional, epochal occurrences. Such
occurrences, being inherent in the cosmic laws and in the constitution
of human nature, transpire with sufficient frequency to make possible
great advances in standards of living over long periods of time.

Let us apply these principles to the case of the United States, and seek
to determine what part immigration has played in their operation.[272]
At the beginning of its career the United States was most favorably
circumstanced as regards its standard of living. A people whose
knowledge of the arts represented the highest product of the
civilization of the day was set down in a practically uninhabited
country, apparently unlimited in extent, and of marvelous fertility and
abundance of natural resources. All of the old checks to population were
removed, and there resulted a natural increase of numbers unprecedented
for a corresponding area and extent of time in the annals of the race.
But even this could not keep up with the development of natural
resources, and a general standard of living was established far ahead of
any other nation of the period.

Into this favored section of the earth’s surface have been introduced
ever increasing numbers of the lower classes of foreign nations. What
has been their effect upon the prevailing standard of living? As a major
premise, it will be granted that the standard of living of the working
classes of the United States has been and still is superior to that of
the nations which have furnished the bulk of the immigrants. Common
observation and general testimony establish this beyond the need of
proof. Particularly at the present time, if this were not so, very few
of our immigrants would come, for, as we have seen, this is the great
incentive which draws them.[273] It is significant, however, that the
bulk of immigration has been recruited from more and more backward races
of Europe as the decades have succeeded each other. There is not now the
relative advantage for the peasant of England, Germany, or Scandinavia
that there was during the first two thirds of the nineteenth
century.[274] As regards the new immigrants—those who have come during
the last thirty years—the one great reason for their coming is that they
believe that on the wage which they can receive in America they can
establish a higher standard than the one to which they have been
accustomed. And this wage for which they are willing to sell their labor
is in general appreciably below that which the native American workman
requires to support his standard.[275] What does this mean? It means in
the first place that the American workman is continually underbid in the
labor market by vast numbers of alien laborers who can do his work
approximately as well as he. But it means more than this. It means that
he is denied the opportunity of profiting by those exceptionally
advantageous periods which as we have seen recur from time to time, and
provide the possibility of an improved standard. From his point of view
these periods include any circumstances which occasion a sudden increase
in the demand for labor—such as the establishment of a great new
industry or the opening up of new territory by the completion of a
railroad or recurring “good times” after a period of depression. If this
new demand must perforce be met by the labor already in the country,
there would be an opportunity for an increase in wages to the working
man. But the condition which actually confronts the American workman at
such a time is this—not only is the amount of wages which can be
successfully demanded by labor profoundly influenced by the number and
grade of foreign workers already in the country, but there comes at
once, in response to improved conditions, a sudden and enormous increase
in the volume of immigration. Thus the potential advantage which might
accrue to the laborers already in the country is wholly neutralized. The
fluctuating nature of the immigration current is of vital importance to
the American workman. It means that for him the problem is not that of
taking the fullest advantage of a possibility of an improved standard,
but of maintaining intact the standard which he has. We have seen that,
in the long run, the only way in which he can do this is by limiting the
size of his family.

The familiar argument that the immigrants simply force the native
laborers up into higher positions is often urged in this connection. It
is hard to see how any one can seriously hold this opinion. The fallacy
of it has already been shown. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that
at the present time most of the native workmen in industry are in the
better paid positions, and that the lower grades are occupied by
foreigners. But the question is, are there as many native workmen in
high positions as there would have been in all positions if there had
been no immigration? This is what the “forcing up” argument assumes, and
the falsity of the position seems self-evident. It appears much more
reasonable to believe that while a few native workers have been forced
up, a vastly larger number are working side by side with the immigrants
and earning approximately the same wages—to say nothing of that other
body of native labor which the immigrants have prevented from ever being
brought into existence.

Even if it were true that the native American himself is as well off as
he would have been without immigration, that would not settle the
matter. The question is that of the standard of living of the American
workman. If the American workman happens to be a foreigner, it is just
as important for the welfare of the nation, and of humanity, that he be
properly housed, fed, clothed, educated, and amused as if he were a
native. We would still have to face the fact of a standard continually
retarded by accessions of newcomers, representing ever lower economic
strata. Can we afford, as a nation, to allow the standard of living of
the workman, whoever he is, to suffer in this way?

It appears that the forces whose working has been outlined in the
preceding paragraphs can have only one logical outcome—namely, the
depression of the wage scale of the American workman. If immigration has
not absolutely lowered the wages and the standard of living of the
American workman, it certainly has kept them from rising to the level
that they otherwise would have reached. This is the opinion reached by
many of the most careful students of immigration in the country, and it
seems the only tenable one.[276] And after all, this is the really
important thing. For it must not be forgotten that poverty, and riches,
and standards of living are all purely relative terms. It is not a
question of how much a man has, absolutely, as of how much he has in
comparison with those around him, or how much he might have had. So that
the common statement that the American workman of to-day has more of the
comforts and luxuries of life than one in the same class fifty or one
hundred years ago, by no means meets the case. If his share in the
wonderful prosperity of the nation has not increased at least in the
same proportion as that of the capitalist, or the professional man, or
other members of society, then he has really suffered loss.

Immigration has seriously complicated the problems of the trade-unions
in this country. Both the need and the difficulty of organization have
been greatly increased. The traditional attitude of the unions toward
immigration has been one of opposition. Restrictive measures, in
particular the contract labor law, have met with their approval and
support. But when the immigrants are once admitted to the country, the
unions are under the necessity of either receiving them or suffering
from their competition. A large body of unskilled laborers, with low
standards, unaffiliated with the unions, is most prejudicial to the
success of unionism. Alien races differ as to their adaptability to
union control. Some of the races of southeastern Europe are looked upon
as natural strike-breakers. The Irish, on the other hand, are natural
organizers, and at the present time tend to monopolize the direction of
the unions. In some cases a large influx of foreigners has practically
put the unions out of the running.[277] In others, the unions come to be
made up largely of foreigners. At times it is necessary to organize the
different racial elements into separate subgroups.[278]

On the other hand, the unions exercise a great educative influence on
the immigrants—often practically the only one with which the adult
foreigner comes in contact. They encourage him to learn English, imbue
him with higher standards of living, and teach him the principles of
independent thought and self-government.[279]

One of the chief objections to unrestricted immigration has always been
the belief that it seriously increased the amount of pauperism and crime
in the country, and added to the burden of relief and correction. We
have seen how large a part this objection played in the early opposition
to immigration, not only in colonial days, but during the first half of
the nineteenth century. Even in our day, in spite of the laws
prohibiting the entrance of criminals, paupers, and persons likely to
become a public charge, there is a widespread impression that these two
evils are increased through immigration.

The prominence of pauperism as an item in the immigration agitation has
led to the production of a large amount of material on the subject.
Nevertheless, most of it has been fragmentary and untrustworthy. This
has been largely due to the incompleteness and lack of uniformity of the
records of various eleemosynary institutions, and the difficulty of
securing returns from all the manifold agencies of relief. At the
present time, however, as a result of careful studies by the Immigration
Commission, this is one of the very few effects of immigration about
which we may feel justified in setting down definite conclusions.

According to statistics for the year 1850 a native-born population of
21,947,274 contributed 66,434 of the paupers who were wholly or
partially supported in the country, while a foreign-born population of
2,244,602 contributed 68,538.[280] This was manifestly enough to arouse
deep consternation, and had not the current of immigration fallen off in
the latter fifties we should probably have had a pauper restriction
clause in the federal statutes long before we did. The enactment and
enforcement of such a statute has prevented the recurrence of any such
state of affairs in recent years. Nevertheless, as one glances at random
over the reports of various charitable organizations he is impressed
with the fact that the number of foreign-born paupers is out of all
proportion to the total number of foreign-born inhabitants. Thus in
Massachusetts in 1895 a foreign-born population of 30.6 per cent
furnished 47.1 per cent of the paupers.[281] The report of the
Associated Charities of Boston for 1894 stated that nearly all of their
applicants were of foreign birth or parentage,[282] while in the same
city, three years later, the Industrial Aid Society reported that 56 per
cent of the men given work in the men’s department were foreign-born,
while 66 per cent of those aided by the Provident Aid Society were of
this class.[283] The reports of the Wisconsin State Board of Charities
for the years 1871 to 1898 show that, on the average, the foreign-born
paupers considerably outnumber the native-born. Similar figures may be
obtained from many sources.[284]

But the question can be settled only by taking the whole country into
account. The Special Report of the Census Bureau on Paupers in
Almshouses, 1904, gives the following figures as to the proportions of
foreign and native paupers in the almshouses of the country (p. 6):

  ═════════════╤══════════════════════════╤══════════════════════════
    NATIVITY   │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF │ PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF
               │         PAUPERS          │    GENERAL POPULATION
  ─────────────┼────────┬────────┬────────┼────────┬────────┬────────
        „      │  1903  │  1890  │  1880  │  1903  │  1890  │  1880
  ─────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────
  Native white │    51.6│    50.2│    56.8│    74.5│    73.2│    73.4
  Foreign white│    39.3│    37.8│    34.6│    13.4│    14.6│    13.1
  ═════════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════╧════════

These figures are the most authoritative and inclusive which there are,
covering the almshouses of the country, and show a ratio of paupers
among the foreign-born vastly in excess of the ratio of total
population.

The paupers in almshouses, however, do not by any means include the
total number of persons who belong in that category. There are large
numbers of persons receiving relief, who never get inside the
almshouses. To cover this class, the Immigration Commission made a
special study of immigrants as charity seekers, which included the work
done by the charity organization societies in forty-three cities, during
the six months from December 1, 1908, to May 31, 1909. The cities were
distributed as follows: North Atlantic states, 17; North Central states,
18; Southern states, 4; Western states, 4.

In the terminology of this report, a “case” means an individual or
family assisted. The head of the case is the husband, if he is living at
home, or the wife if widowed or deserted. If there are no parents or
real family, the one upon whom the responsibility falls is the head of
the case, or otherwise, the one asking assistance. The total number of
cases for which information was secured is 31,685. Of these, the head of
the case was foreign-born in 38.3 per cent of the cases, native-born of
foreign father in 10.7 per cent, native-born white of native father,
39.9 per cent, and native-born of native negro father, 11 per cent. Of
the persons represented, 37.5 per cent were native white of native
father, and 42.3 per cent foreign-born. For exact conclusions,
comparison should be made of the relation of the percentage of
foreign-born paupers to the percentage of foreign-born in the total
population in each separate city. For general purposes it is sufficient
to note that in the cities of 25,000 or over in 1910—which include all
of the forty-three cities studied—the percentages of foreign-born were
20.2 for cities of 25,000 to 100,000, 22.1 for cities of 100,000 to
500,000, and 33.6 for cities of 500,000 and over.[285]

In fifteen out of the forty-three cities one half or more of the cases,
classed by the head of the case, were foreign-born, Milwaukee standing
at the head of the list with 67 per cent. In twelve out of the
forty-three cities, more than 15 per cent of the cases were immigrants
of the second generation, Milwaukee again standing at the head with 25.5
per cent. These two classes make up 92.5 per cent of all the cases for
this city. There is evidently more than one thing that makes Milwaukee
famous, with a possible connection between them.

In regard to the relative importance of the various foreign races in
this respect, we find that the Germans show the largest proportion,
amounting to 6.8 per cent of the total number of cases and 7.1 per cent
of the total number of persons. The next in order are the Polish, with
6.5 per cent of the cases and 8.6 per cent of the persons, and the
Irish, with 6.2 per cent of the cases, and 6.3 per cent of the persons.

As might be expected, the proportion of foreign-born is much larger
(more than half) in the cities of the North Atlantic states than in the
rest of the country, and very small (10 per cent) in the southern
cities. It is interesting to see how each city has its special problem.
For instance, in Buffalo 32 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born
Poles, and in Chicago 20 per cent were of the same class. In Hartford
15.1 per cent of the cases were foreign-born Irish, in Lynn 10.7 per
cent were foreign-born Canadians (other than French), and 19.3 per cent
foreign-born Irish. In Milwaukee 33.3 per cent were German, in Newport
22.2 per cent were Irish, in Orange 26.4 per cent Irish, in Rochester
14.6 per cent south Italian, in San Francisco 23.7 per cent were “other
races.” By way of comparison, it is interesting to note that in
Washington 56.9 per cent of the cases were native-born negroes of native
father. In ten of the cities, the native-born whites of native father
were less than one fourth of the cases.

The Hebrews are noted for looking after their own poor, yet in six
cities more than 5 per cent of all the cases were foreign-born Hebrews.
In Brooklyn they made up 18.1 per cent, and in Malden 15.7 per cent. The
Germans rank first among the foreign races in 18 cities, and tie with
other races in three more. The Irish rank first in nine cities and tie
with the Germans in one more. The Polish rank first in four cities and
tie in one more.

One more piece of evidence may be taken from the Report of the
Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908 (p. 98). It is there shown
that in the charitable institutions (other than for the insane) in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, both public and
private, there were, at the time this investigation was made, 288,395
inmates, of whom 19,572 were aliens, 40,453 naturalized citizens, and
228,370 native-born. The percentages are native-born 79.2 per cent and
foreign-born 20.8 per cent. It appears that the proportion of
foreign-born in institutions is not so extremely excessive as among
those seeking a more temporary relief. This is what might be expected in
the light of certain considerations respecting the make-up of the
foreign-born group which are now to be considered.

It thus becomes evident that from whatever source the figures are taken,
the percentage of foreign-born dependents is sadly out of proportion to
their relative number in the general population. The absolute figures
themselves are bad enough. But a further consideration of the
composition of the foreign-born element will demonstrate that the actual
showing is much worse than the figures would indicate on their face.

We have seen that as respects their economic efficiency the immigrants
are a picked group. The same is true of the foreign-born in the country.
This is especially evident as regards the age distribution. The
following table, taken from the census of 1910, illustrates this point:

  PER CENT OF NATIVE-BORN AND FOREIGN-BORN OF THE GENERAL POPULATION IN
                      THE DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS[286]
 ═════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════════╤═════════════════
    AGE PERIOD    │           NATIVE WHITE            │  FOREIGN-BORN
                  │                                   │      WHITE
 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┬─────────────────┼─────────────────
         „        │Native Parentage │Foreign or Mixed │        „
                  │                 │    Parentage    │
 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
 Under 5 years    │    13.2         │    14.2         │     0.8
 5 to 14 years    │    22.6         │    24.1         │     4.9
 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
 15 to 24 years   │    19.7     59.5│    21.6     60.4│    15.8     85.3
 25 to 44 years   │    26.2    „    │    27.6    „    │    44.1    „
 45 to 64 years   │    13.6    „    │    11.2    „    │    25.4    „
 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
 65 years and over│     4.4         │     1.4         │     8.9
 ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════

Footnote 286:

  Abstract of Thirteenth Census, p. 126.

It will be seen that there is a much larger proportion of the
foreign-born in the middle age groups, that is, in the period of
greatest productivity, than of the native-born. There ought accordingly
to be a smaller percentage of pauperism, rather than a larger one.

The sex distribution contributes a further element to this disparity. In
1910, in the native-born white population there were 102.7 males to 100
females. In the foreign-born white population there were 129.2 males to
100 females. This should lessen the liability of the foreign-born to
pauperism.

Another factor which enters in to complicate statistical comparisons of
pauperism among immigrants and native-born is the matter of the age at
which persons become dependent, or, in the case of the immigrants, the
number of years they have resided in the United States before they
become dependent. There are two periods at which the immigrant is most
likely to need relief. The first is immediately after landing, when he
has exhausted his slender store of money, and has not yet found means of
self-support. Seven per cent of the entire Jewish immigration to the
United States, in one year, found it necessary to apply at the office of
the United Hebrew Charities in New York, within a short time after their
arrival. Relief granted at this time is liable to be temporary, and the
immigrant cannot justly be considered a pauper. If he actually becomes
dependent, he is of course liable to deportation.

The second, and vastly more important, period is several years after
arrival, when the immigrant has exhausted the prime of his strength, and
becomes one of the unfit in the keen struggle for economic existence.
Those who become dependent at this time are likely to remain so for
life. They are those who have been unable or unwilling to make provision
for old age, perhaps being so dazzled by the apparent richness of
America that they gave no thought to a possible future dearth, perhaps
having sent all their meager savings year by year back to friends or
relatives in the old country, possibly never having been able to earn
more than a bare living wage. Individuals of this class make up the vast
majority of the foreign-born paupers in our almshouses. The census of
1890 showed that 92 per cent of the foreign-born male paupers in the
almshouses of the United States had been in this country ten years or
more. The corresponding figures for the twelfth census show that out of
27,230 foreign-born paupers whose length of residence in this country is
known, 26,171, or 96 per cent, had been here ten years or more.[287] The
facts furnished by the investigation of the Immigration Commission in
respect to persons aided by the Charity Organization societies are
similar; it must be borne in mind, also, in respect to these cases, that
they largely represent instances of temporary distress, rather than
settled dependence. Of all the foreign-born heads of cases aided by
these societies, 44 per cent had been in the United States twenty years
or more, and 70.7 per cent ten years or more. When it is recollected how
small a proportion of our foreign-born population have been in this
country twenty years or over, or even ten years or over, it is manifest
how misleading are comparisons in respect to pauperism between
native-born and foreign-born, based on the total population of the two
classes. Thus, according to the census of 1910, only 62.2 per cent of
the total foreign-born population, and 60.2 per cent of the foreign-born
population in the urban communities, had immigrated in the year 1900 or
earlier.[288] These facts also point to a possible great increase of
pauperism among the foreign-born, as the average length of residence of
this class increases.

The age of admission to the almshouse of the different population groups
gives corroborative evidence along the same line. The following figures,
taken from the census report on Paupers in Almshouses (p. 129), give the
average age at admission of the different groups in 1904: native white
of native parentage, 45.6 years; native white of foreign parentage, 41.7
years; native white of mixed parentage, 38.3 years; foreign-born white,
56.9 years. The high average age of the foreign-born is due in part to
the relatively small number of foreign-born children in the country. But
it is undoubtedly also an indication of the effectiveness of the system
of examination in weeding out those whose liability to dependence in the
near future can be detected. It furthermore adds to the apprehension
with which we must look forward to the time when a greater proportion of
our foreign-born residents will be above the specified age.

These considerations have an especial bearing on the effort to establish
the relative tendency toward dependence of the different immigrating
races. As one runs over tables of dependence or pauperism, arranged by
nationality, he is impressed by the immense preponderance of the Germans
and Irish among those listed. His first conclusion is likely to be that
the popular idea of the greater desirability of these races over the
newer immigrants is an error; but as soon as he recalls how much longer
these races have been in this country, on the average, than the
southeastern Europeans, he realizes that these tables, taken by
themselves, are wholly unreliable as indicating relative tendencies
among races. The following table will serve as an illustration:

      PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PAUPERS IN ALMSHOUSES BY COUNTRY OF
                               BIRTH[289]
 ═══════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════╤════════════════
                    │                │                │
 COUNTRY OF BIRTH   │ENUMERATED 1903,│ ADMITTED, 1904 │  PER CENT OF
                    │                │                │     TOTAL
                    │                │                │  FOREIGN-BORN
                    │                │                │      POP.
 ───────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────
 Ireland            │            46.4│            41.2│            15.6
 Germany            │            23.3│            18.4│            25.8
 England and Wales  │             8.7│             8.8│             9.0
 Canada             │             4.8│             6.5│            11.4
 Scandinavia        │             4.9│             4.9│            10.3
 Scotland           │             2.5│             2.6│             2.3
 Italy              │             1.0│             3.1│             4.7
 France             │             1.4│             1.3│             1.0
 Hungary and Bohemia│             1.0│             1.5│             2.9
 Russia and Poland  │             1.5│             3.4│             7.8
 Other countries    │             4.5│             8.3│             9.2
                    │           —————│           —————│           —————
                    │           100.0│           100.0│           100.0
 ═══════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════╧════════════════

Footnote 289:

  _Paupers in Almshouses_, pp. 19, 20.

Taking these figures as they stand, we may say roughly that the Irish
have thirty times as many paupers as those born in Russia and Poland,
and forty-six times as many as the natives of Italy or Hungary and
Bohemia, and twice as many as the Germans. But this evidently does not
represent the relative tendencies to pauperism of these races. The first
correction to be made is in regard to the relative numbers of each group
in the total population. The Irish have 3.3 times as large a total
population as the Italians, which reduces the ratio of relative tendency
to pauperism down to about fourteen to one. By a similar reckoning we
find that the Germans manifest only about one third the tendency to
pauperism that the Irish do, but 4.2 times as great as the Italians. But
before even approximately accurate figures for the relative tendencies
of these races can be secured, a further correction must be made for the
relative average length of residence of the different groups. This
unfortunately cannot be done in the present state of our information.

The figures in the preceding paragraph are of course merely the rudest
approximations, but they serve to convey an idea of the extreme
complexity of the problem of determining relative tendencies toward
pauperism, and illustrate the utter worthlessness of the ordinary
hit-and-miss comparisons which are made.

The Immigration Commission also made a study of the patients admitted to
Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for the seven months period August 1,
1908, to February 28, 1909. The total number of charity patients or
cases was 23,758. Of these 18.5 per cent were native-born of native
father (2.5 per cent negro), 28.5 per cent native-born of foreign
father, and 52.3 per cent foreign-born. The Irish foreign-born are far
in the lead, having approximately one fifth of all the cases treated. If
we add the Irish native-born of foreign father, we have over one third
of the total.

In regard to the length of residence in the United States, the two
danger periods noted above are well marked, as the following figures
show:

 PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN PATIENTS ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE
                               UNITED STATES
 ════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════╤════════════
         │  UNDER 5   │   5 TO 9   │  10 TO 14  │  15 TO 19  │ 20 OR OVER
         │   YEARS    │            │            │            │
 ────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────
 Per cent│        28.0│        14.2│         8.9│        10.8│        38.1
 ════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════╧════════════

The same distinction appears here between the old and new immigrants
that we should expect—a high percentage for the old immigrants in the
group over twenty, and a high percentage for the new immigrants in the
group under five.

Whether the newer races, as their average length of residence in this
country increases, will approach the degree of pauperism of the Irish
and Germans, time alone can tell. The strictness of the tests of
admission to the United States has steadily increased, and this has had
the effect of giving the later immigrants a better showing, as a body,
than the earlier ones. It is not impossible that time will prove that
thrift and foresight are more distinguishing features of the southern
races than of the northern, purchased though they are at the cost of a
very low standard of living. A large amount of relief is undoubtedly
sought by members of the newer races of immigrants. Among the Charity
Organization cases studied by the Immigration Commission, 14.2 per cent
of the Russian foreign-born heads of cases had been in the United States
less than one year, and the following percentages of foreign-born heads
of cases had been in the United States less than five years: Magyar,
44.1 per cent; Russian, 38.7 per cent; Italian, south, 26.6 per cent;
Syrian, 25.8 per cent; Italian, north, 25.6 per cent. The races having
the largest percentages of foreign-born heads of cases residing in the
United States twenty years or over were: Irish, 71.3 per cent; Welsh,
70.4 per cent; French, 62.9 per cent; German, 62.8 per cent; Canadian,
French, 58.5 per cent.

The Hebrews exhibit a large amount of dependence, but as they are almost
wholly looked after by their own race they seldom appear in large
numbers in the public reports. The United Hebrew Charities of New York,
in the year 1904, received 10,334 applications at their relief bureau,
representing 43,938 individuals, and expended for relief alone
$124,694.45. In 1912 the number of applications had fallen to 7140,
representing 31,835 individuals, but the expenditure for relief had
risen to $254,188.71. This indicates, as the report points out, that the
present applicants are in need of permanent relief to a much greater
extent than those of a decade ago. The report of the same organization
for October 1, 1901, gives the estimate that from 75,000 to 100,000 Jews
in New York alone are not self-supporting.

There can be but one conclusion from the foregoing discussion, namely,
that our foreign-born residents add to the burden of public and private
relief an amount largely out of proportion to their relative numbers in
the general population, and that this burden is likely to be an
increasing one. Mr. Prescott F. Hall publishes an estimate that the
total annual cost of caring for the foreign-born poor of New York State
alone equals $12,000,000.[290] It is worth noting that while the expense
of this burden of relief is borne by the public and by benevolent
individuals, the real benefit goes to the employer of cheap labor. He
secures his labor at a wage which will barely maintain its efficiency
for a period of years, without any provision for the future, and when
that period is over, and the laborer is no longer an efficient producer,
he is cast aside with absolutely no responsibility resting on the
employer for his future support or care.[291] At the customary rate of
wages there seem to be but two alternatives open to the workingman’s
family—either to live on a frightfully low standard, and make some
slight provision for the future, or to live on a somewhat higher
standard and run the risk of dependence in old age or misfortune.[292]
It is obvious that both of these are unqualifiedly bad.

As to the causes of this abnormal amount of pauperism Miss K. H.
Claghorn makes the following statement: “While it is plain enough that
foreign immigration has some connection with the problem of pauperism
since common observation and all the statistics available unite in
showing that the majority of the recipients of our charity, public and
private, are of foreign birth, it is equally certain on the other hand
that pauperism is not something that the immigrant brings with him, but
is the result of a considerable period of life and experiences
here.”[293] This opinion, coming from so high a source, emphasizes two
facts—first, that it is not altogether, if at all, the immigrant’s
“fault” that there is so much pauperism among this class. Those who have
been paupers before, or seem likely to become so, are refused admission.
Second, that there is something radically wrong in the industrial
adjustment of the United States when so large a number of foreigners,
who come here primarily for motives of financial betterment, and who are
not by nature thriftless, are unable during a long period of faithful
labor to lay up anything against the period of helplessness. We cannot
escape the accusing finger which points toward the United States,
demanding recognition of the fact that we are by no means prepared to
accept the tremendous responsibility of admitting unlimited numbers of
aliens whose entire future destiny depends upon the soundness of our
political, social, and economic fabric.

It may be worth while to note some of the general causes which lead to
pauperism among the foreign-born. (1) Lack of intelligence. This is
sometimes represented by figures of illiteracy. This is hardly a fair
basis of judgment, however, as illiteracy may be often the result of
poor opportunity, rather than of low intelligence. Nevertheless it is
true that the average immigrant of the present generation is probably
inferior to the average native workingman, and hence is handicapped in
the competition with him. (2) Lack of industrial training. Most of the
immigrants have had no training in their home countries to fit them for
higher industrial pursuits, and many of those who have, find that it is
not adapted to American conditions. (3) Lack of foresight. This must not
be generally asserted of the immigrant class, for undoubtedly a large
proportion of them are well equipped with an appreciation of the future.
Yet in many cases, the ease with which a comparatively comfortable
living may be secured in the first years of residence, and the
apparently inexhaustible riches of the United States, combine to make
the alien neglectful of a future period of dearth. (4) Large families.
The birth rate of the foreign-born is a high one, and a large number of
young children is always a predisposing cause of pauperism in a
struggling family. In this connection some significant figures are
furnished by the investigation of the charity organization cases, made
by the Immigration Commission, and already referred to. Of all the
foreign-born male persons, aided by these societies, who were twenty
years of age or over, 81.5 per cent were married, 5 per cent deserted,
separated, or widowed, and only 13.5 per cent single. Of the females,
62.3 per cent were married, 33.9 per cent deserted, separated, or
widowed, and only 3.8 per cent single. When we remember how much the
single men outnumber the married men in the general population of the
foreign-born above twenty years of age, we see that if the time ever
comes when immigration becomes more of a family matter than at
present—in many ways a condition much to be desired—it must inevitably
bring with it a tremendous increase in the amount of foreign-born
pauperism. (5) Money sent home. If the situation of the immigrant was
such that these large sums could be retained in this country, as a
reserve fund against future want, his liability to pauperism would be
much diminished. This, of course, cannot be expected, since much of this
money is sent back to meet obligations which no one would wish the
immigrant to evade. In cases where it is sent back to support a family,
it is doubtless a more economical arrangement than if the wife and
children were maintained in the United States. (6) Low wages, and the
maladjustment between the supply of labor and the demand. Enough has
already been said to establish this as a fundamental condition, and it
is the proximate cause of pauperism in the majority of cases. The
attempt to analyze and classify the causes of pauperism is
unsatisfactory at best; yet a certain amount of light may be shed on the
subject in this way if carefully done. The Immigration Commission’s
Report on Immigrants as Charity Seekers assigns the cases studied to
certain general causes in the following proportions:

         PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES ASSIGNABLE TO
                         THE SPECIFIED CAUSES

                            CAUSE                    PER CENT
         Lack of employment or insufficient earnings      59.0
         Death or disability of breadwinner               28.7
         Death or disability of another                   18.9
         Neglect or bad habits of breadwinner             18.7
         Old age                                           6.2
         Other causes                                10.0[294]

Footnote 294:

  The total of per cents adds up to more than 100 as more than one cause
  is often reported for the same case.

There is no great difference in the proportions of the different causes
in the different general groups. It may be significant to note that the
per cent of cases due to the neglect or bad habits of the breadwinner is
a little larger for the native-born white of native father than for the
foreign-born, and larger for the native-born white of foreign father
than for either. If we take persons instead of cases, the showing of the
native-born of foreign father is even worse. The relatively small number
of cases due to this cause—the only one which may be charged directly to
the “fault” of the breadwinner—indicates that the difficulty lies rather
with the industrial system of the United States than with the
culpability of the individual.

That assimilation, in so far as it is represented by ability to speak
English, will not remedy the situation is indicated by some suggestive
figures given in the report on Charity Seekers above quoted. It is shown
(p. 70) that of the total number of persons assisted, six years of age
or over, belonging to non-English speaking races, 76.3 per cent were
able to speak English. Now in the report on Manufactures and Mining it
appears that only 53.2 per cent of the foreign-born employees studied,
belonging to non-English speaking races, could speak English. That is,
the percentage of dependents, who are so far “assimilated” as to be able
to speak English, is much greater than the percentage of those who are
at work, in spite of the fact that the former class includes younger
children than the latter. This harmonizes with the fact already
demonstrated, that dependent foreigners have been in this country much
longer than the average of their group. It also lends color to the
suggestion made by a charity worker, that one reason why the newer
immigrants do not appear in larger numbers on the books of philanthropic
organizations is that they are not yet “on to the ropes,” and that as
they become familiarized with American methods, they will seek relief in
increasing numbers.

The subject of crime is customarily linked with that of pauperism in the
discussions of immigration, and the same claim is frequently made, viz.
that immigration has increased the amount of crime in this country. The
attempts at proof of this assertion generally follow the same method
adopted in the case of pauperism, that is, they consist in an
examination of the relative tendency toward criminality of the general
groups of native-born and foreign-born. In other words, the line of
argument is, if the foreign-born manifest a larger proportion of
criminals among their number than do the native-born, all increases in
the foreign-born population will mean a more than proportional increase
in crime for the country as a whole. There is, however, another way in
which immigration might operate to increase crime. That is, by
interfering with the natural adjustment of economic relations between
different classes, it may so alter the condition of the native-born as
to lead to an increase in crime in this class. For instance, it has been
claimed that a large proportion of the “hobo” class (who are, to be
sure, not necessarily criminal) are native Americans who have been
forced out of employment by foreign competition. In a similar way, other
individuals may have been driven into active crime. This proposition,
whatever the incidental evidence for or against it, is manifestly
incapable of statistical proof, and for any semi-mathematical
demonstration we must rely on the other method of approach.

In the matter of crime the effort to make generalizations is complicated
by the fact that it is necessary to take into account, not only the
number of crimes, but the nature and severity of the criminal act. Tests
of criminality, to be accurate, should include quality as well as
quantity. This is obviously very difficult to do. We are accustomed in
everyday phraseology to speak of one crime as being worse than another.
Presumably crimes against the person are more serious than crimes
against property. In the case of crimes against property, we might
naturally consider it “worse” to steal $1000 than $5, but it would not
necessarily be so.

These conditions frequently result in an injustice to the immigrant. The
police and court records of our great cities show an amazing proportion
of crimes chargeable to the foreign population. For instance, out of
71,253 persons held for trial or summarily tried and convicted in the
Magistrates’ Courts of New York City in 1907, only 30,261, or
considerably less than half, were born in the United States. But when
these records are studied more closely it becomes apparent that a large
share of the offenses of the foreign-born are violations of the city
ordinances,—offenses which are comparatively trivial in themselves do
not indicate any special tendency toward criminality, and are in many
cases intimately associated with a low station in life. The moral
character of alien groups may in this way be seriously misrepresented.

Nevertheless, if comparisons are to be made at all, they must rest upon
such records as these, and such allowances as are possible be made
afterwards. Figures of this kind are available in the publications of
the Census Bureau, the Commissioner General of Immigration, and the
Immigration Commission. In the census report on Prisoners we find that
of the prisoners enumerated in the United States on June 30, 1904, 76.83
per cent were native-born, and 23.7 per cent foreign-born. In the
general white population, ten years of age or over, in 1900, 80.5 per
cent were native-born and 19.5 per cent foreign-born. If a due allowance
is made for a disproportionate growth of the foreign-born population
between 1900 and 1904, the relative proportions of prisoners among the
two groups would be approximately equal. Of the white prisoners of known
nativity committed during 1904 the percentages were as follows:

 ═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════
     NATIVITY     │      TOTAL      │ MAJOR OFFENDERS │ MINOR OFFENDERS
 ─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────
 Native-born      │71.2 per cent    │78.3 per cent    │69.9 per cent
 Foreign-born     │28.8 per cent    │21.7 per cent    │30.1 per cent
 ═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════╧═════════════════

The somewhat less favorable showing made by the foreign-born in the case
of those committed than of those enumerated, is accounted for by the
large proportion of minor offenses among the foreign-born. Many minor
offenders, serving short sentences, would not be included at all in the
enumeration. Over half the major offenders among the foreign-born had
been in the United States ten years or more, and about two thirds of the
minor offenders.

According to the Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for
1908 (p. 98), there were in the penal institutions of the United States,
including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico (in which the figures are not
large enough to affect the conclusions materially), in 1908, 149,897
inmates, of whom 15,323 were aliens, 8102 naturalized, and 126,562
native-born. Thus the percentage of native-born was 84.4 and of
foreign-born 15.6.

The Immigration Commission made a careful study of the matter of crime
among the immigrants, reviewing the foregoing data, and collecting some
original data of its own, covering 2206 convictions in the New York City
Court of General Sessions from October 1, 1908, to June 30, 1909. This
is, so far as known to the Commission, the first time that any court in
the United States had made a record of the race of persons convicted in
it. This fact illustrates the utter inadequacy of the data for making
any deductions as to the influence of immigration upon crime in the
United States. Not only courts, but police departments and penal
institutions, are very lax in their keeping of records in this respect.

In response to the questions, “Is the volume of crime in the United
States augmented by the presence among us of the immigrant and his
offspring?” and “If immigration increases crime, what races are
responsible for such increase?” the Commission says that no satisfactory
answer has ever been made, or can ever be made, without much more
complete data than have ever been collected or are available. Certain
general conclusions, however, have been reached by the Commission, which
harmonize with those reached by other students, and are worthy of
acceptance as far as they go. First, “No satisfactory evidence has yet
been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in
crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such
comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to
obtain indicate that the immigrants are less prone to commit crime than
are native Americans.”[295] Second, “Immigration has, however, made
changes in the character of crime in the United States.”[296] These
changes have been in the direction of an increase in offenses of
personal violence, and offenses against public policy (disorderly
conduct, drunkenness, violation of corporation ordinances, etc.), some
of which are incident to city life, and probably in offenses against
chastity. There does not appear to have been any increase in the
majority of offenses against property, or, as they may be better called,
gainful offenses.[297]

Comparing the different races as regards criminality, it appears that
the Irish stand at the head as regards the total number of offenses and
the Germans next. In respect to major offenses, however, the Germans
stand first, while the Irish again take first place in the minor
offenses.[298] The Germans are much addicted to crimes against property,
the Irish and Scotch to drunkenness, Greeks and natives of Russia to
violations of corporation ordinances, and immigrants from France,
Russia, Poland, and Canada to crimes against chastity. The Italians are
preëminent in crimes of violence or crimes against the person.[299]

It is even more difficult to postulate the causes of crime than of
pauperism. Until the criminologists have furnished us with a more
efficient means of determining the causes of crime in general, there can
be no profit in the attempt to classify the causes of crime among a
particular group of the population. In respect to the nature of crime
committed by different races, there seems to be something in the racial
character of some of our immigrants which predisposes them in a certain
direction, as exemplified in the preceding paragraph. There is also
evidence that among some of the newer immigrants, crime is largely a
matter of economic position. This is well illustrated by the case of the
Greeks. Among the members of this very recent immigrant group, there has
been a noteworthy decline in the average of criminality within the last
few years, and the explanation appears to be that the crimes of the
Greeks are such as correspond with a low economic situation—violations
of corporation ordinances, of the sanitary code, etc. As a larger and
larger proportion of the individuals of this nationality rise above this
lowly estate, the percentage of crime among them falls off
correspondingly.[300] This emphasizes once more the responsibility of
the United States for some of the evil conditions for which we
habitually blame the immigrants.

There are two particular forms of crime which are closely associated
with foreign groups in the United States. These are the Black Hand
outrages and the white slave traffic. The former of these is confined
almost wholly to persons of the Italian race. In some of its features it
recalls the Molly Maguire occurrences of a generation earlier. In fact,
the resemblance between the Irish societies and the Mafia of southern
Italy was noted in a contemporary magazine article at the time of the
disturbances in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania.[301] In both
cases no organic connection between the societies in the new world and
the old is manifest. In fact, the best judgment in regard to the Black
Hand appears to be that there is no real organization in existence in
America, but that individuals of Italian race use the power of the
dreaded name to accomplish their own ends. Like the Molly Maguires, the
Black Hand operators utilize warning letters, but they differ from them
in that their purpose is often, if not usually, blackmail, which was
seldom the case with the Irish society.

The white slave traffic has aroused tremendous public interest during
the last few years, and has been thoroughly exploited in the daily and
periodical press. Only the essential features, particularly in their
bearing on immigration, need to be reviewed in the present connection.
Not all of the girls concerned in this business are immigrants, nor are
all the persons who draw a revenue from it foreigners; yet the various
investigations of the subject have demonstrated that the whole trade is
fundamentally an affair of our foreign population.

One surprising thing about this traffic is that essentially it is an
economic phenomenon. It is not a perverted sex passion which demands the
perpetuation of the inhuman system; it is the desire for large and easy
profits, and the life of indolence that goes with them, which actuates
the promoters of the traffic, while on the part of the alien women it is
frequently the desire for larger earnings which brings them to our
shores. The demand has to be stimulated.

There are two classes of these alien girls who are brought over. One
consists of innocent girls who are brought over under a false
understanding. The incentive is usually a false promise of employment or
of marriage. Sometimes false marriages, and occasionally actual
marriages, are resorted to. With this class of subjects, the male
importer is naturally the most successful. All kinds of inducements are
offered by the procurer, including an apparently sincere love-making.
About the only inducements which female importers can offer to such
girls are easier or more lucrative employment. The other class, probably
constituting a large majority, are women who have already been leading
an immoral life on the other side, and come in the hope of bettering
their prospects, although they recognize the power of the importer.

These women and girls are usually brought over second class, and every
conceivable artifice is employed to deceive the inspectors. When a girl
has been safely introduced into the country, she is completely in the
power of the man who controls her. The supposition is that the man
furnishes protection and care to the girl in return for her earnings.
She is sometimes kept in a disorderly house, sometimes in a hotel or
other resort, but always where the man can keep control of her. She is
thoroughly frightened, and every device is employed to keep her from
communicating with any outside sources of relief, or escaping. She is
often deprived of street clothing, so as to make escape impossible. She
is kept heavily in debt, so that there may be a legal claim over her.
Only a very small part of her earnings is given to her, and she is
charged outrageous prices for all the supplies which are furnished her.
Her life is one of hopeless and terrible degradation, and she has
nothing to look forward to except a wretched and continually descending
existence, and an early death.

Alien women are particularly desirable to the promoters of this traffic
because their lack of connections in this country, and their ignorance
of the language and customs of the country make it more difficult for
them to escape or to make trouble for their men than in the case of
native girls. In addition to the terrible wrongs wrought upon the women
themselves, this practice has resulted in an increase in the number of
prostitutes in the United States, in the introduction and dissemination
of dangerous diseases, and in the introduction of various forms of
unnatural vice, more degrading and terrible than even prostitution
itself in its ordinary form.

The great majority of the alien women found by the Immigration
Commission engaged in these pursuits, as well as the men who prosecute
the traffic, are French and Hebrews. Belgians are largely engaged in it,
according to Commissioner Bingham. Germans are numerous, and there are a
few Irish and Italians, with of course a scattering of individuals of
other races.

A number of these women are detected at the port of entry and returned,
and a good many are deported. But it is a practice very difficult of
detection, and it is not easy to get at the facts in regard to its
extent in this country. It is certain that the class of abandoned women
in this country is largely recruited in this way. Commissioner Bingham
estimated in 1908 that there were more than 100,000 such women on the
Pacific coast and in Mexico, who had come in through New York.

No evidence has been found to justify the suspicion that there was an
organization controlling this traffic in this country. But those engaged
in the trade naturally are acquainted with each other, and are always
ready to help each other against a common enemy. They have various
meeting places where they get together for gambling, conference, and
divers forms of recreation.

It has been proven that this traffic is slavery in more than name, as
girls are sometimes sold directly by one person to another. The new
federal law is designed to put a check to all practices of this sort, by
making it illegal to transport women or girls from one state to another
for immoral purposes. The efforts of the Immigration Commission and
other governmental agencies within the last two or three years have
accomplished a good deal in breaking up some of the resorts, and
deporting or imprisoning the culprits. But while the traffic has
received a serious setback, it is by no means killed. This is
emphatically one of the things where eternal vigilance is the price of
safety. Nothing short of a sweeping change in public opinion and
practice will ever put it out of the way beyond the possibility of
resurrection.[302]

In respect to juvenile delinquency the most unenviable place is held by
the native-born children of immigrants. They not only manifest two or
three times as great a tendency toward crime as the native-born children
of native parents, but they are much more criminal than foreign-born
children. Of the juvenile delinquents committed during 1904, according
to the census report, 76.7 per cent were native white. This percentage
was made up as follows: native parentage, 37.6 per cent; foreign
parentage, 24.9 per cent; mixed parentage, 9.7 percent; parentage
unknown, 4.5 per cent. An exact comparison of the children of native
parents and of foreign parents in this respect would require information
as to the total number of the two classes in the country in the year in
question, which is not available. But it cannot be supposed that the
number of native-born children of foreign parents compared with the
number of native-born children of native parents is anything like the
ratio shown in the above figures. This high degree of criminality is
attributed by Professor Commons and by the Immigration Commission
largely to concentration in the cities. Whatever the cause, this
tendency toward lawlessness among the second generation of immigrants is
indisputable, and is one of the most disturbing elements in the whole
situation.[303]

Still another way in which the immigrant becomes a burden upon the
American public is through insanity. The laws are very strict in regard
to the admission of aliens who are liable to be subject to this
misfortune. Yet it is impossible to prevent the entrance of large
numbers who ultimately appear in the category of the insane. The
maladaptation of the immigrant to his environment shows itself in this
way perhaps as clearly as in any other.

In the institutions for the insane, both public and private, in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, in 1908,
there were, according to the Report of the Commissioner General of
Immigration, 172,185 inmates. Of these 25,066 were aliens, 25,128
naturalized citizens, and 121,451 native-born. Thus the percentages
were 70.5 per cent native-born and 29.5 per cent—nearly one
third—foreign-born.[304]

An even larger percentage of foreign-born appears among the insane
persons enumerated in hospitals in continental United States on December
31, 1903—34.3 per cent of the white insane of known nativity[305]—while
of the persons received at Bellevue and Allied Hospitals for treatment
for insanity during the period of the investigation of the Immigration
Commission, 63.4 per cent were foreign-born, and 36.6 per cent
native-born. Moreover, among the native-born, more than half (20.6 per
cent of the total) were native-born of foreign father.

Summing up the matter of insanity, the Commission speaks as follows:
“For the high ratio of insanity among the foreign-born, several causes
have been assigned, and while it is difficult to determine the values of
the various factors it is probably true that racial traits or tendencies
have a more or less important influence. A further cause of mental
disease is probably to be found in the total change in climate,
occupation, and habits of life which the majority of immigrants
experience after arrival in the United States.”

The efficiency of the inspection in regard to feeble-mindedness is shown
by the very small proportion of foreign-born of that class appearing in
the statistics. This is an affliction which can more easily be detected
than the liability to insanity, of which there may be no observable
indication at the time of admission.[306]




                              CHAPTER XVI
  INDUSTRIAL EFFECTS. CRISES. SOCIAL STRATIFICATION. POLITICAL EFFECTS


It has been observed already that the great argument for immigration
during the past half century has been the economic one. The main defense
for immigration has rested upon the claim that it has decidedly
increased the industrial efficiency of the American people, and has
facilitated the development of our resources, and the expansion of
industry, at a rate which would not have been possible otherwise. The
facts in regard to the age, sex, and physical soundness of the
immigrants are mustered to establish them as a peculiarly efficient
industrial body.

This contention rests upon two assumptions. First, that our alien
residents constitute a net addition to the total population of the
country; second, that if there had been no immigration, and the
population, particularly that part of it which constitutes the labor
supply, had been smaller, that there would have been no inventions and
improvements in the way of labor-saving machinery which would have
permitted the same amount of work to be accomplished with a smaller
amount of labor.

In the light of what has been said in regard to the relation between
immigration and the growth of population in Chapter XI, the first of
these claims, at the very least, is open to serious question. While the
proposition, as has already been stated, is absolutely incapable of
mathematical proof, there nevertheless is every reason to believe that
our immigrants have not meant a gain in the labor supply, but the
substitution of one labor element for another. Not only have the
immigrants in general displaced the natives, but the newer immigrants
have displaced the older ones in a wide variety of industries and
occupations. This latter process has gone on before our very eyes; it is
manifest and perfectly comprehensible. A careful consideration of it may
make it easier to understand how the same result, in a more subtle way,
has been accomplished in the case of the native-born.

The displacement of the English, Irish, Welsh, and German miners in the
anthracite region of Pennsylvania by Italians and Slavs is a familiar
fact.[307] The Italians are being driven out of the boot-blacking
business, and other of their characteristic trades, by the Greeks. The
Irish laborers on the railroads have been largely supplanted by
Italians, Slavs, and Greeks. The “Bravas,” or black Portuguese, have
forced the Poles, Italians, and, in large measure, the Finns from the
cranberry bogs of Massachusetts.[308] Granite City and Madison,
Illinois, have witnessed a succession of English, Irish, German, Welsh
and Polish, Slovak and Magyar, Roumanian, Greek, and Servian, Bulgarian
and Armenian laborers in their industries.[309]

In these cases it is plain that while some of the displaced individuals
have gone into other, very likely higher, occupations, the real
substitution has been the concomitant of a cessation of immigration from
the older sources. The north Europeans, being unwilling to meet the
competition of races industrially inferior to them, have either ceased
emigrating in large numbers, or else are going elsewhere. At any rate
they do not come here. The diminution of the supply of native labor has
been brought about in an analogous way, though in this case the
restrictive forces operate upon the principles of reproduction instead
of immigration.

Even though it be granted that the numerical supply of labor has been
somewhat increased, there has been an undeniable decrease in the
efficiency of the individual laborer, as is attested by the uniformly
superior earnings received by the native-born as compared with the
foreign-born, or the old immigrant as compared with the new. As Dr.
Peter Roberts has pointed out,[310] there seems to be a sort of
Gresham’s law which operates in the field of labor. The fittest to
survive in an unregulated economic competition of races is the one least
advanced in culture, the one whose demands in respect to comforts and
decencies are lowest, even the one, it sometimes seems, whose industrial
productiveness per individual is lowest. It is this fact which gives so
dark an aspect to the industrial future of the United States under
unregulated immigration.[311]

In regard to the second assumption—that a smaller labor supply would not
have been offset by an increase in invention—we are again confronted
with an impossibility of proof, one way or the other. The economists
tell us that one of the great incentives to invention is a scarcity of
labor, and also that many of the greatest inventions have been made by
men who are working daily with machines, and consequently are in a
position to discover improvements that may be made. There is at least
some reasonable basis for the belief that if the absence of immigration
to this country had resulted in a smaller laboring force, the greater
pressure on employers to secure machinery, and the greater intelligence
of the machine worker, would together have brought about such a
betterment of labor-saving machinery as would have resulted in a total
production equal to what we have actually witnessed.

It is inconceivable that in America, of all countries, any needed work
should have to be neglected because of the lack of a foreign labor
element, or because of a shortage of labor in general.[312] It is hard
to see how in a nation the majority of whose citizens are healthy and
intelligent there can be any real shortage of labor. What there can be,
is a shortage of labor _at a given wage_. In a prosperous community
there may be industries into which a sufficient number of laborers will
not go, at the wages which the promoters are originally willing to pay.
But if there is an actual social need for those industries, wages will
rise to a point high enough to attract a sufficient number of workers,
however irksome or disagreeable the employment. No self-respecting
community ought to expect industries to be carried on within its borders
for which it is not willing to pay such a price as will enable the
workers to subsist in reasonable comfort and decency. If there are any
industries carried on in the United States which, in the absence of a
foreign labor supply, would have to be abandoned, because the
native-born laborers or their children would refuse to go into them, it
simply means that society is not yet ready to pay a fit price for the
products of those industries.

This brings us to the question of the effect of immigration on the
amount and distribution of wealth in the United States. It is frequently
pointed out that we receive yearly a net increase of half a million or
so of able-bodied laborers, for whose upbringing and education we, as a
nation, have expended nothing. It is stated that it is cheaper to import
laborers than to raise them. The truth of this assertion depends first
of all on the quality of the laborer. It may be cheaper in the long run
to rear laborers of the American type than to import Portuguese,
Russians, and East Indians. Furthermore, while we do not pay directly
for the laborers, we pay a great deal for their residence in this
country. The estimated amount of money sent abroad by aliens in 1907,
$275,000,000, is probably higher than the total for an average year.
Suppose $200,000,000 be taken as an average amount.[313] These
remittances do not represent commercial payments for imports, but are
savings actually withdrawn from the wealth of this country and sent
abroad to be expended there. So that for each able-bodied alien laborer
who enters the country something like $400 goes out. In a sense a good
deal of this money might be considered as actual payment for the
importation of the laborers, since much of it goes for traveling
expenses, debts incurred to provide for emigration, etc.[314]

Whether immigration has increased either the total or per capita wealth
of the nation may be open to question. One thing, however, is certain—it
has profoundly affected the distribution of wealth in the country. It
has been sufficiently demonstrated that the successive waves of
immigration have represented an ever cheapening labor supply. As the
country has grown in wealth and prosperity the employers of labor have
found that they could secure their workers at relatively, if not
absolutely, lower rates decade after decade. Whenever conditions became
such that the native laboring force, if left to themselves, might have
successfully demanded better conditions or higher remuneration, there
has appeared an inexhaustible supply of foreign laborers, ready and
willing to take what was unsatisfactory to the natives, or less. The
workman already in the country, whether native or foreign, has been
continually robbed of his advantage. Thus the gap between capital and
labor, between the rich and the poor, has grown ever wider. Not only
have wages been kept from rising, but conditions of labor have persisted
and been tolerated which an American laboring force would never have
submitted to. The accounts of terrible accidents in mines and foundries
arouse sincere feelings of sympathy in our breasts for the poor
foreigners who have to suffer so. They would incite a storm of indignant
protest which would not be stilled until remedies were provided, if
those who are subjected to such conditions were our own kin
brothers.[315]

There is still another characteristic feature of our economic life,
between which and the immigration movement a close and peculiar
connection can be traced. This is the frequent recurrence of economic
depressions, or crises. The causal relation between these events and the
variations in the volume of the immigration current has already been
mentioned. There is also a causal relation between these conditions and
the fluctuations in the outgoing stream of aliens. This fact has
received no little attention of late years, and it has been frequently
pointed out that a period of depression in this country is followed by a
large exodus of the foreign-born.

The popular interpretation of this fact is that this emigration movement
serves to mitigate the evils of the crisis by removing a large part of
the surplus laborers, until returning prosperity creates a demand for
them again. The Italian, who displays the greatest mobility in this
regard, has been called the safety valve of our labor market. Thus the
movements of our alien population are supposed to be an alleviating
force as regards crises.

The question arises, however, in this connection, whether there is not a
converse causal relation; in other words, whether the conditions of
immigration are not, partly responsible for the recurrence of these
periods. Professor Commons takes this view of the matter, and in his
book, _Races and Immigrants in America_, demonstrates how immigration,
instead of helping matters, is really one of the causes of crises. His
conclusion is that “immigration intensifies this fatal cycle of ‘booms’
and ‘depressions,’” and “instead of increasing the production of wealth
by a steady, healthful growth, joins with other causes to stimulate the
feverish overproduction, with its inevitable collapse, that has
characterized the industry of America more than that of any other
country.”[316]

The few pages which Professor Commons devotes to this topic are highly
suggestive, and show careful study of the subject. The author, however,
at the time this book was written, was handicapped by the lack of data
regarding the departures of aliens, which, as we have seen, have since
become available. The fact that within the period since the collection
of these figures began, the United States has experienced, and recovered
from, a severe depression, makes the study of this matter at the present
time particularly profitable.

First of all, it will be desirable to see just what the facts of
immigration and emigration during this period are; then we shall be
prepared to attempt their interpretation. The accompanying table (p.
349) gives the number of aliens admitted to and departed from the United
States, and the net increase or decrease of population resulting
therefrom, by months, from January, 1907, to December, 1910 (with the
exception of the figures of departures for the first six months of 1907,
which are not available).

The figures for arrivals given in this table include both immigrant and
nonimmigrant aliens, a distinction which has been observed with some
care since 1906. The column of departures also includes emigrant and
nonemigrant aliens.[317]

 TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF ALIENS ADMITTED TO AND DEPARTED FROM THE
    UNITED STATES, AND THE NET GAIN OR LOSS IN POPULATION RESULTING
                THEREFROM BY MONTHS, FROM 1907 TO 1910
 ═════════╤═════════════════════════════╤═════════════════════════════
   MONTH  │            1907             │            1908
 ─────────┼─────────┬─────────┬─────────┼─────────┬─────────┬─────────
     „    │Admitted │Departed │Gain (+) │Admitted │Departed │Gain (+)
          │         │         │ or Loss │         │         │ or Loss
          │         │         │   (−)   │         │         │   (-)
 ─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────
 January  │   54,417│         │         │   33,058│   60,233│ − 27,175
 February │   65,541│         │         │   30,266│   50,688│ − 20,422
 March    │  139,118│         │         │   43,537│   43,506│     + 31
 April    │  145,256│         │         │   55,220│   65,721│ − 10,501
 May      │  184,886│         │         │   48,245│   61,251│ − 13,006
 June     │  154,734│         │         │   41,094│   60,482│ − 19,388
 July     │  107,535│   46,198│ + 61,337│   37,133│   51,508│ − 14,375
 August   │  111,135│   44,317│ + 66,818│   39,606│   47,569│ −  7,963
 September│  115,287│   43,734│ + 71,553│   56,635│   43,884│ + 12,751
 October  │  129,564│   55,826│ + 73,738│   60,715│   41,916│ + 18,799
 November │  132,647│   94,440│ + 38,207│   50,965│   38,609│ + 12,356
 December │   77,107│   88,432│ − 11,325│   61,111│   33,416│ + 27,695
 ─────────┼─────────┴─────────┴─────────┼─────────┴─────────┴─────────
          │            1909             │            1910
 ─────────┼─────────┬─────────┬─────────┼─────────┬─────────┬─────────
 January  │   54,975│   18,061│+  36,914│   57,472│   20,256│+  37,216
 February │   81,992│   15,100│+  66,892│   66,072│   17,672│+  48,400
 March    │  135,040│   22,550│+ 112,490│  152,020│   30,894│+ 121,126
 April    │  138,382│   24,315│+ 114,067│  153,915│   40,886│+ 113,029
 May      │  127,139│   31,190│+  95,949│  148,822│   38,740│+ 110,082
 June     │  100,542│   32,274│+  68,268│  115,793│   36,119│+  79,674
 July     │   77,944│   27,940│+  50,004│   82,191│   39,056│+  43,135
 August   │   71,992│   28,450│+  43,542│   91,460│   37,206│+  54,254
 September│   85,088│   29,950│+  55,138│  100,456│   43,023│+  57,433
 October  │   92,372│   30,838│+  61,534│  100,334│   39,189│+  61,145
 November │   98,020│   39,134│+  58,886│   86,144│   54,700│+  31,444
 December │   78,527│   39,539│+  38,988│   68,794│   61,814│+   6,980
 ═════════╧═════════╧═════════╧═════════╧═════════╧═════════╧═════════

It is not necessary to take account of these discriminations for the
purposes of the present study.

Turning then to the table, we observe that the monthly average of
arrivals during the first six months of 1907 was a high one. Following a
large immigration during the last six months of the preceding year, this
made the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907, the record year for
immigration in the history of the country. For the next four months the
stream of immigration continued high, considering the season, and the
number of departures was moderate. Early in October, however, there were
signs of disturbance in the New York Stock Exchange. On the sixteenth
there was a crash in the market, and within a week the panic had become
general. It reached its height on October 24, and continued for many
weeks after.[318] The response of the alien population to this
disturbance was almost immediate, and manifested itself first in the
emigration movement. In November the number of departures almost
doubled. But the immigrants who were on the way could not be stopped,
and in spite of the large exodus, there was a net gain of 38,207 during
the month. The next month, December, however, saw a marked decrease in
the stream of arrivals, which, accompanied by a departure of aliens
almost as great as in November, resulted in a net decrease in population
of 11,325 for the month. During the first six months of 1908 the number
of arrivals was small, and the departures numerous, so that, with the
exception of March, each month shows a net loss in population. During
July the number of departures began to approach the normal (compare the
months in 1908 with 1907 and 1910), but the arrivals were so few that
there was still a decrease for the months of July and August. In
September, 1908, the balance swung the other way, and from that time to
the present every month with the exception of December, 1911, has shown
a substantial increase in population through the movement of aliens.

Thus we see that the period during which the number of alien laborers in
the United States was decreasing was confined to the months December,
1907, to August, 1908, inclusive.[319] By the end of July, 1908, the
effects of the crisis were practically over as far as departures are
concerned. It is evident, then, that the effects of the crisis on
emigration were immediate, but not of very long duration. During the
months of November and December, 1907, when the distress was the
keenest, there were still large numbers of aliens arriving. But when the
stream of immigration was once checked, it remained low for some time,
and it was not until about January, 1909, that it returned to what may
be considered a normal figure. The reasons for this are obvious. The
stream of immigration is a long one, and its sources are remote. It
takes a long time for retarding influences in America to be thoroughly
felt on the other side. The principal agency in checking immigration at
its source is the returning immigrant himself, who brings personal
information of the unfortunate conditions in the United States. This
takes some time. But when the potential immigrants are once discouraged
as to the outlook across the ocean, they require some positive assurance
of better times before they will start out again.

Now what catches the public eye in such an epoch as this is the large
number of departures. We are accustomed to immense numbers of arrivals
and we think little about that side of it. But heavy emigration is a
phenomenon, and accordingly we hear much about how acceptably our alien
population serves to accommodate the supply of labor to the demand. But
if we stop to add up the monthly figures, we find that for the entire
period after the crisis of 1907, when emigration exceeded immigration,
the total decrease in alien population was only 124,124—scarcely equal
to the immigration of a single month during a fairly busy season. This
figure is almost infinitesimal compared to the total mass of the
American working people, or to the amount of unemployment at a normal
time, to say nothing of a crisis.[320] It is thus evident that the
importance of our alien population as an alleviating force at the time
of a crisis has been vastly exaggerated. The most that can be said for
it is that it has a very trifling palliative effect.

The really important relation between immigration and crises is much
less conspicuous but much more far-reaching. It rests upon the nature
and underlying causes of crises in this country. These are fairly well
understood at the present time. A typical crisis may be said to be
caused by speculative overproduction, or overspeculative production.
Some prefer to call the trouble underconsumption, which is much the same
thing looked at from another point of view. Professor Irving Fisher has
furnished a convenient and logical outline of the ordinary course of
affairs.[321] In a normal business period some slight disturbance, such
as an increase in the quantity of gold, causes prices to rise. A rise in
prices is accompanied by increased profits for business men, because the
rate of interest on the borrowed capital which they use in their
business fails to increase at a corresponding ratio. If prices are
rising at the rate of two per cent annually, a nominal rate of interest
of six per cent is equivalent to an actual rate of only about four per
cent. Hence, doing business on borrowed capital becomes very profitable,
and there is an increased demand for loans.

This results in an increase of the deposit currency, which is
accompanied by a further rise in prices. The nominal rate of interest
rises somewhat, but not sufficiently, and prices tend to outstrip it
still further. Thus the process is repeated, until the large profits of
business lead to a disproportionate production of goods for anticipated
future demand, and a vast overextension of credit. But this cycle cannot
repeat itself indefinitely. Though the rate of interest rises tardily,
it rises progressively, and eventually catches up with the rise in
prices, owing to the necessity which banks feel of maintaining a
reasonable ratio between loans and reserves. Other causes operate with
this to produce the same result. The consequence is that business men
find themselves unable to renew their loans at the old rate, and hence
some of them are unable to meet their obligations, and fail. The failure
of a few firms dispels the atmosphere of public confidence which is
essential to extended credit. Creditors begin to demand cash payment for
their loans; there is a growing demand for currency; the rate of
interest soars; and the old familiar symptoms of a panic appear. In this
entire process the blame falls, according to Professor Fisher, primarily
upon the failure of the rate of interest to rise promptly in proportion
to the rise in prices. If the forces which give inertia to the rate of
interest were removed, so that the rate of interest would fluctuate
readily with prices, the great temptation to expand business unduly
during a period of rising prices would be removed. It may well be
conceived that there are other factors, besides the discrepancy between
the nominal and real rates of interest, that give to business a
temporary or specious profitableness, and tend to encourage speculative
overproduction. But the influence of the rate of interest resembles so
closely that resulting from immigration, that Professor Fisher’s
explanation is of especial service in the present discussion.

The rate of interest represents the payment which the entrepreneur makes
for one of the great factors of production—capital. The failure of this
remuneration to keep pace with the price of commodities in general leads
to excessive profits and overproduction. The payment which the
entrepreneur makes for one of the other factors of production—labor—is
represented by wages. If wages fail to rise along with prices, the
effect on business, while not strictly analogous, is very similar to
that produced by the slowly rising rate of interest. The entrepreneur is
relieved of the necessity of sharing any of his excessive profits with
labor, just as in the other case he is relieved from sharing them with
capital. It would probably be hard to prove that the increased demand
for labor results in further raising prices in general, as an increased
demand for capital results in raising prices by increasing the deposit
currency. But if the demand for labor results in increasing the number
of laborers in the country, thereby increasing the demand for
commodities, it may very well result in raising the prices of
commodities as distinguished from labor, which is just as satisfactory
to the entrepreneur. This is exactly what is accomplished when unlimited
immigration is allowed. As soon as the conditions of business produce an
increased demand for labor, this demand is met by an increased number of
laborers, produced by immigration.

In the preceding paragraph it has been assumed that wages do not rise
with prices. The great question is, is this true? This is a question
very difficult of answer. There is a very general impression that during
the last few years prices have seriously outstripped wages. Thus
Professor Ely says, “Wages do not usually rise as rapidly as prices in
periods of business expansion.”[322] R. B. Brinsmade stated in a
discussion at a recent meeting of the American Economic Association that
“our recent great rise of prices is acknowledged to be equivalent to a
marked reduction in general wages.”[323] Whether this idea is correct,
and if correct, whether this effect had transpired in the years
immediately previous to 1907, cannot be definitely stated. The index
numbers of wages and prices given in the _Statistical Abstract of the
United States_, for 1909 (p. 249), seem to show that during the years
1895 to 1907 money wages increased about _pari passu_ with the retail
prices of food, so that the purchasing power of the full-time weekly
earnings remained nearly constant.

But whether or not money wages rose as fast as prices in the years from
1900 to 1907, one thing is certain, they did not rise any faster. That
is to say, if real wages did not actually fall, they assuredly did not
rise. But the welfare of the country requires that, in the years when
business is moving toward a crisis, wages should rise; not only money
wages, but real wages. What is needed is some check on the unwarranted
activity of the entrepreneurs, which will make them stop and consider
whether the apparently bright business outlook rests on sound and
permanent conditions, or is illusory and transient. If their large
profits are legitimate and enduring, they should be forced to share a
part of them with the laborer. If not, the fact should be impressed upon
them. We have seen that the rate of interest fails to act as an
efficient check. Then the rate of wages should do it. And if the
entrepreneurs were compelled to rely on the existing labor supply in
their own country, the rate of wages would do it. Business expands by
increasing the amount of labor utilized, as well as the amount of
capital. If the increased labor supply could be secured only from the
people already resident in the country, the increased demand would have
to express itself in an increased wage, and the entrepreneur would be
forced to pause and reflect. But in the United States we have adopted
the opposite policy. In the vast peasant population of Europe there is
an inexhaustible reservoir of labor, only waiting a signal from this
side to enter the labor market—to enter it, not with a demand for the
high wage that the business situation justifies, but ready to take any
wage that will be offered, just so it is a little higher than the
pittance to which they are accustomed at home. And we allow them to
come, without any restrictions whatever as to numbers. Thus wages are
kept from rising, and immigration becomes a powerful factor, tending to
intensify and augment the unhealthy, oscillatory character of our
industrial life. It was not by mere chance that the panic year of 1907
was the record year in immigration.

Against this point of view it may be argued that the legitimate
expansion of business in this country requires the presence of the
immigrant. But if business expansion is legitimate and permanent,
resting on lasting favorable conditions, it will express itself in a
high wage scale, persisting over a long period of time. And the demand
so expressed will be met by an increase of native offspring, whose
parents are reaping the benefit of the high standard of living. A
permanent shortage of the labor supply is as abhorrent to nature as a
vacuum. Expansion of any other kind than this ought to be hampered, not
gratified.

There is one other way in which immigration, as it exists at present,
influences crises. In considering this, it will be well to regard the
crisis from the other point of view—as a phenomenon of underconsumption.
Practically all production at the present day is to supply an
anticipated future demand. There can be no overproduction unless the
actual demand fails to equal that anticipated. This is underconsumption.
Now the great mass of consumers in the United States is composed of wage
earners. Their consuming power depends upon their wages. In so far as
immigration lowers wages in the United States, or prevents them from
rising, it reduces consuming power, and hence is favorable to the
recurrence of periods of underconsumption. It is not probable, to be
sure, that a high wage scale in itself could prevent crises, as the
entrepreneurs would base their calculations on the corresponding
consuming power, just as they do at present. But a high wage scale
carries with it the possibility of saving, and an increase of
accumulations among the common people. It is estimated at the present
time that half of the industrial people of the United States are unable
to save anything.[324] This increase in saving would almost inevitably
have some effect upon the results of crises, though it must be confessed
that it is very difficult to predict just what this effect would be. One
result that might naturally be expected to follow would be that the
laboring classes would take the opportunity of the period of low prices
immediately following the crisis to invest some of their savings in
luxuries which hitherto they had not felt able to afford. This would
increase the demand for the goods which manufacturers are eager to
dispose of at almost any price, and would thereby mitigate the evils of
the depressed market. It is probably true that the immigrant, under the
same conditions, will save more out of a given wage than the native, so
that it might seem that an alien laboring body would have more surplus
available for use at the time of a crisis than a native class. But the
immigrant sends a very large proportion of his savings to friends and
relatives in the old country, or deposits it in foreign institutions, so
that it is not available at such a time. Moreover, our laboring class is
not as yet wholly foreign, and the native has to share approximately the
same wage as the alien. Without the immense body of alien labor, we
should have a class of native workers with a considerably higher wage
scale, and a large amount of savings accumulated in this country, and
available when needed.

On the other hand, it may be argued that if the desire to purchase goods
in a depressed market should lead to a large withdrawal of cash from
savings banks and similar institutions, it might tend to augment rather
than alleviate the evils of a money stringency. There seems to be much
force to this argument. Yet Mr. Streightoff tells us that in a period of
hard times the tendency is for the poorer classes to increase their
deposits, rather than diminish them.[325] On the whole, it seems
probable that a large amount of accumulated savings in the hands of the
poorer classes would tend to have a steadying influence on conditions at
the time of a crisis, and that by preventing this, as well as in other
ways, immigration tends to increase the evils of crises.

In closing this discussion, it may be interesting to note what are the
elements in our alien population which respond most readily to economic
influences in this country, and hence are mainly accountable for the
influences we have been considering. As stated above, the annual reports
of the Commissioner General of Immigration give very complete data as to
the make-up of the incoming and outgoing streams by years. Thus in the
fiscal year 1908 there were 782,870 immigrant aliens and 141,825
nonimmigrant aliens admitted. Of the nonimmigrant aliens, 86,570 were
individuals whose country of last permanent residence and of intended
future residence were both the United States; that is, they were alien
residents of this country who had been abroad for a brief visit. These
are the birds of passage in the strictest sense, in which we shall use
the term hereafter. In the same year there was a total exodus of 714,828
aliens, of whom 395,073 were emigrants and 319,755 nonemigrants. The
former class includes those who have made their fortune in this country
and are going home to spend it, and those who have failed, and are going
home broken and discouraged—a very large number in this panic year. The
latter class includes aliens who have had a permanent residence in the
United States, but who are going abroad to wait till the storm blows
over, with the expectation of returning again—true birds of passage
outward bound. There were 133,251 of these. The balance were aliens in
transit, and aliens who had been in this country on a visit, or only for
a short time. In 1909 there were 751,786 immigrant aliens and 192,449
nonimmigrant aliens. Of the nonimmigrants 138,680 were true birds of
passage according to the above distinction—a large number and almost
exactly equal to the number of departing birds of passage in the
previous year. The storm is over, and they have come back. The
departures in that year numbered 225,802 emigrant and 174,590
nonemigrant aliens. These numbers are considerably smaller than in the
previous year, but are still large, showing that the effects of the
crisis were still felt in the early part of this fiscal year. The number
of birds of passage among the nonemigrant aliens, 80,151, is much
smaller than in the previous year. In 1910 there were 1,041,570
immigrant aliens and 156,467 nonimmigrant aliens. In the latter class,
the number of birds of passage, 94,075, again approximated the
corresponding class among the departures of the previous year. The
departures in 1910 were 202,436 emigrant aliens and 177,982 nonemigrant
aliens, of whom 89,754 were birds of passage. This probably comes near
to representing the normal number of this class. A careful study of
these figures confirms the conclusion reached above. While a crisis in
this country does undoubtedly increase the number of departing aliens,
both emigrant and nonemigrant, and eventually cuts down the number of
arrivals, the total effect is much smaller than is usually supposed, and
taken in connection with the fact that the stream of arrivals is never
wholly checked, the influence of emigration in easing the labor market
is absolutely trifling.

Comparing the different races in regard to their readiness to respond to
changes in economic conditions, it appears that the Italians stand
easily at the head, and the Slavs come second. In 1908, in the traffic
between the United States and Italy, there was a net loss in the
population of this country of 79,966; in 1909 a net gain of 94,806. In
the traffic between this country and Austria-Hungary there was a loss in
1908 of 5463; in 1909 a gain of 48,763. In the traffic with the Russian
Empire and Finland there was a gain of 104,641 in 1908 and a gain of
94,806 in 1909. This shows how unique are the motives and conditions
which control the emigration from the two latter countries. The
emigrants from there, particularly the Jews, come to this country to
escape intolerable conditions on the other side, not merely for the sake
of economic betterment. They prefer to endure anything in this country,
rather than to return to their old home, even if they could.

Hand in hand with the economic disparity caused by immigration has come
an increasing social stratification.[326] This is based partly on
wealth, partly on race. Already certain occupations are regarded as the
special province of certain nationalities, and native parents recoil
from the prospect of having their children enter them to work side by
side with the aliens. Only the beginnings of these changes are as yet
manifest, and no one can foretell what the outcome will be. But even the
beginnings must give us pause. There can be no more pernicious social
classification in a nation than one based on race. Distinctions resting
on wealth, religion, or education can be overcome, potentially at least.
Distinctions of birth affect only a small proportion of a society, and
exist only in nations long habituated to them. But distinctions of race
affect the entire population are fundamental, and can never be
obliterated except as assimilation is so perfect that race is forgotten.
No effort of the individual can blot out his racial identification. The
most familiar example yet developed in the United States is that of the
Hebrews. However sincerely we may admire their fine racial traits,
however closely we may associate with individuals of the race, we cannot
deny that they constitute a separate body in our population in many
respects.[327] Summer hotels are closed to them, or else other people
avoid those resorts. Americans move out of the sections of cities where
they are moving in. Select clubs are closed to them. It is an indictment
against the American people that these things are so. We, who pose as
the friends of all races, however downtrodden and despised, should be
ready to take them into equality with us when they seek refuge on our
shores. Both Hebrews and Americans may resent the bald statement of such
facts. Can we deny their truth?

Nor is it only in high society, nor only among Americans, that this
friction is felt. In the slums of our cities bitter feeling exists
between the Italians and the Jews.[328] Nor is racial antagonism
confined to any two or three races.[329] Employers of labor find it
wholly expedient to arrange their workers in groups of the same
nationality.[330] Austria-Hungary is an example of the conditions that
may result when too many jarring nationalities are included within a
national territory. But the racial groups in Austria-Hungary do not
compare in diversity with those which are gradually forming in the
United States.

In the political aspects of the immigration situation there has been a
peculiar reversal of public opinion in the last three quarters of a
century. In the days of the Native Americans and the Know nothings, the
uneasiness was mainly due to the fear that too many aliens would acquire
the rights of citizenship. Then it was the naturalized foreigner who was
the undesirable. Nowadays, the fear is that the foreigners will ignore
the privileges of citizenship, and a high percentage of naturalization
is a test of desirability in any foreign group. This change may be
attributed to a change in the situation of the United States, and to a
difference in the character and causes of immigration. During the first
half of the nineteenth century the United States was essentially a new
country. Political questions were predominant, and the memory of the men
who fell in the fight for freedom was still fresh in the minds of their
sons. The immigrants of the period, on the other hand, were actuated to
a large extent by the desire for political freedom, and were keen to
secure all the power possible in this country. At the present time, the
predominating interests are wholly economic, and even the political
questions of the day have an economic flavor. At the same time, the
motives of the immigrants are almost wholly economic. So the jealousy
between native and foreigner now concerns itself mainly with the
industrial relations, and anything which indicates an inclination on the
part of the alien to ally himself permanently with the interests of the
country is welcomed. The temporary immigrant was an almost unknown
quantity in the old days.

The naturalization laws of the United States have undergone only slight
modifications in the past hundred years.[331] The main provisions of the
present laws are as follows: In order to become a citizen of the United
States an alien must follow out the following method of procedure: At
least two years before he is admitted he must file a preliminary
declaration of intention. To do this he must be at least eighteen years
old. This declaration shall state that it is his bona-fide intention to
become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all other
allegiance to a foreign power, and shall set forth his name, age,
occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence
and allegiance, date of arrival in the United States, name of the
vessel, if any, by which he came, and present place of residence in the
United States. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after
he has made application, he shall present a petition in writing, signed
in his own handwriting, stating the essential facts about himself,
including his declaration of allegiance to the United States, and
disclaiming belief in anarchy, or belief in or practice of polygamy.

This petition shall be verified by at least two credible witnesses, who
are citizens of the United States, who shall state that they have known
the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at
least five years continuously, and of the state or territory at least
one year immediately preceding, and that they have personal knowledge of
his good moral character and general fitness to become a citizen of the
United States.

With this petition is filed a certificate from the Department of
Commerce and Labor, stating the date, place, and manner of his arrival,
and also his declaration of intention. He shall swear in open court his
allegiance to the United States and renounce all other allegiance.

In accordance with a recent law, no alien can now be naturalized without
an ability to speak the English language, unless he has made entry upon
the public lands of the United States. No person may be naturalized
within thirty days preceding the holding of a general election in the
territorial jurisdiction of the court. Chinese are not admissible to
citizenship.

A woman who is married to a citizen of the United States is herself a
citizen, provided she herself might be legally naturalized. This
provision has been the subject of considerable attention lately on
account of the practice of women engaged in the white slave traffic
marrying a citizen in order to avoid deportation. The Commissioner
General in his report for 1910 recommended that a more definite
statement be made of this clause, admitting of no doubt as to its
interpretation.

Children of naturalized citizens who were under the age of twenty-one at
the time of the naturalization of their parents, if dwelling in the
United States, are considered citizens, as are children of citizens,
born outside of the United States.

If any alien who has received a certificate of citizenship shall, within
five years thereafter, go to the land of his nativity or to any other
foreign country, and take up permanent residence therein, it shall be
deemed evidence of his lack of intention to become a permanent citizen
of the United States at the time of filing his application, and warrants
the canceling of his certificate.

According to the regulations of September 15, 1910, clerks of courts are
instructed not to receive declarations of intention or file petitions
for naturalization from other aliens than white persons, and persons of
African nativity or of African descent.

Jurisdiction to naturalize aliens is conferred on the following courts:
United States circuit and district courts in any state, United States
district courts for the territories, the supreme court of the District
of Columbia, and the United States courts for the Indian territory; also
all courts of record in any state or territory, having a seal, a clerk,
and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in
which the amount in controversy is unlimited.

Since the establishment of the division of naturalization by the act of
June 29, 1906, the business of naturalization has been in the hands of
the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.

The statistics of naturalization for the five years 1908–1912 are as
follows:

  ════╤════════════════════╤════════════════════╤════════════════════
  YEAR│ DECLARATIONS FILED │  PETITIONS FILED   │CERTIFICATES GRANTED
  ────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────
  1908│             137,229│              44,029│              25,963
  1909│             145,794│              43,161│              38,372
  1910│             167,226│              55,038│         39,206[332]
  1911│             186,157│              73,644│              55,329
  1912│             169,142│              95,627│              69,965
  ════╧════════════════════╧════════════════════╧════════════════════

Footnote 332:

  Repts. Comm. Gen. of Imm.

In addition to the certificates granted there were, in 1912, 9635
certificates denied. These were for a variety of causes, the most
important of which was failure of the petitioners to prosecute them, so
that they were stricken from the docket. Of those which were actually
refused the largest single cause was incompetent witnesses.

There has been a large amount of fraud and trickery in connection with
naturalization, and presumably it has not wholly ceased. This has been
due partly to a lax attitude on the part of some of the court officials,
and partly to the physical impossibility of giving proper attention to
the number of candidates who apply, with the existing machinery. There
is a story of one judge in New York City who issued nearly seven
thousand papers in October, 1891, at the rate of two a minute.[333] Many
states have been very lax in their requirements for voting. In some
states aliens have been allowed to vote in both state and federal
elections, sometimes after a residence of only six months.[334]

Even where naturalization is desired by recent immigrants, it is not
always for the most commendable reasons. Sometimes the motive is the
desire for a better chance of securing employment,[335] sometimes the
facilitating of entrance into the United States after a trip abroad.
Natives of some foreign countries, particularly Turkey, have come to the
United States with the express intention of securing citizenship, in
order to return to their native land, and carry on business under the
protection of the American flag, which carries with it greater
guarantees than their own. A special law, passed to put a stop to such
practices as these, provides that when a naturalized alien has resided
two years in the foreign state from which he came, or five years in any
other foreign state, he forfeits his citizenship.[336]

Of all foreign races, the Irish have taken by far the largest place in
politics in this country. According to Professor Commons, the “ward
boss” is the logical product of the mixture of nationalities in the
various divisions of a city, and the Irishman is the logical man for the
work.[337] “The Irishman has above all races the mixture of ingenuity,
firmness, human sympathy, comradeship, and daring that makes him the
amalgamator of races.”[338] Possibly a sense of humor ought to be added
to these qualifications. In the eyes of Professor Commons, such a system
makes it the merest chance if the best man is elected, and subverts our
whole system of representative government.[339] It seems beyond question
that the existence of separate racial groups in a community, each with
its own prejudices and group loyalty, must have a very disturbing
influence on the course of elections. Measures become of much less
import than men in the minds of the voters, and in the choice of men
race rather than fitness is often the determining element.




                              CHAPTER XVII
                     THE NEW PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION


It was stated on an earlier page that the immigration situation, in most
of its important characteristics, presents an entirely new aspect to the
men of this generation, and that these changes might be looked for under
six general heads, as follows: race, volume, distribution, economic
condition of the United States, native birth rate and quality of the
immigrants. We are now prepared to consider the truth of this assertion.

In regard to race, nothing further need be said. Sufficient facts are
already before the reader to establish the fact that the racial aspect
of the situation has undergone a sweeping and significant change in the
last thirty years. The change in volume has naturally been one of
degree, not of kind. But the change in degree has been a profound
one—more so than is often admitted. It has been pointed out
occasionally, as a sedative to the fears aroused by the immense
immigration of the twentieth century, that while the positive
immigration has increased tremendously, it has not increased at so great
a rate as the population of the country. The ratio between immigration
and total population was higher in the early fifties and early eighties
than at any subsequent period. The assumption is that if we could
successfully assimilate the immigrants of the earlier period, we
certainly ought to be able to take care of those of to-day. But the
question of assimilation depends not only upon the ratio of immigrants
to total population, but upon the proportion of foreign-born population
already in the country. In this connection the following figures are
significant. The number of foreign-born to 100,000, native-born in the
population of the country at the time of the last seven censuses was as
follows:

                              1850 10,715
                              1860 15,157
                              1870 16,875
                              1880 15,365
                              1890 17,314
                              1900 15,886
                              1910 17,227

It thus appears that the proportion of foreign-born, even at the time of
the census of 1900, after a decade of very slight immigration, was much
higher than at the time of the beginning of large immigration, while the
last census, after the enormous immigration of the past ten years, shows
a proportion of foreign-born higher than at any previous census, except
that of 1890. Now it is the proportion of foreign-born to native-born
which determines the assimilating power of the nation, so that without
this correction the comparison between immigration and total population
is inadequate and misleading. It is as if a fireman whose steam boiler
lacked a safety valve was warned that his gauge was going up more and
more rapidly all the time, and he replied, “Never mind, the pressure is
not coming in so fast, compared to what I already have, as it was awhile
ago.”

Another circumstance which affects the ability of the country to
assimilate immigrants, and in which there has been a marked change
during the history of immigration, is the ratio of men to land, upon
which much emphasis has already been laid. As the amount of
unappropriated and unsettled land diminishes in any country, the need of
new settlers also diminishes, while the difficulty of assimilation and
the possible evils resulting from foreign population proportionally
increase. In the case of the United States the first and simplest
comparison to make is that between immigration and the total territory
of the nation. In this, as in the subsequent comparisons, it will be
desirable to leave Alaska out of consideration. The enormous extent of
that inhospitable region, to which practically none of our immigrants
ever find their way, if included in the reckoning, would simply confuse
the issue. The gross area of the United States, exclusive of Alaska and
Hawaii, at the time of the different censuses, has been as follows: 1790
and 1800, 827,844 square miles; 1810, 1,999,775 square miles; 1820,
2,059,043 square miles; 1830 and 1840, the same; 1850, 2,980,959 square
miles; 1860 down to the present, 3,025,600 square miles.[340]

Estimating the immigration before 1820 at 10,000 per year, and using the
official figures after that date, we find that the immigration by
decades from 1791 to 1910 was as follows:

                          1791–1800   100,000
                          1801–1810   100,000
                          1811–1820    98,385
                          1821–1830   143,439
                          1831–1840   599,125
                          1841–1850 1,713,251
                          1851–1860 2,511,060
                          1861–1870 2,377,279
                          1871–1880 2,812,191
                          1881–1890 5,246,613
                          1891–1900 3,687,564
                          1900–1910 8,795,386

Combining these two sets of figures, it appears that for each immigrant
coming to this country during the decades specified, there was at the
close of the decade the following number of square miles of territory in
the United States:

                              1800  8.278
                              1810 19.998
                              1820 20.927
                              1830 14.355
                              1840  3.437
                              1850  1.739
                              1860  1.205
                              1870  1.273
                              1880  1.076
                              1890   .570
                              1900   .824
                              1910   .347

This table illustrates forcibly the fact that from the point of view of
the need of new settlers immigration at the present time is a vastly
different matter from what it has ever been before in the history of our
country. This impression is strengthened if we make another comparison,
which is even more significant for our purposes, viz. the relation of
immigration to the public domain, that is, to the land which still
remains unclaimed and open to settlement. If there were still large
tracts of good land lying unutilized, and available for settlement, as
there have been in other periods of our history, we could take comfort
in the thought that as soon as the incoming aliens caused too great a
congestion in any region, the surplus inhabitants would overflow, by a
natural process, into the less thickly settled districts. Let us
consider what the facts have to show in this respect.

In 1860 there were, as nearly as can be estimated, 939,173,057 acres of
land lying unappropriated and unreserved in the public domain. In 1906
there were 424,202,732 acres of such land, representing the leavings,
after all the best land had been chosen. In other words, for each
immigrant entering the country during the decade ending 1860 there were
374 acres in the public domain, at least half of it extremely valuable
farm land. In 1906, for each immigrant entering during the previous ten
years, there were 68.9 acres, almost wholly arid and worthless.

The fact that the immigrants in this country do not, to any great
extent, take up this unclaimed public land does not destroy the
significance of this comparison. As long as there was a strong movement
of the native population westward, it was not so much a matter of
concern, if large numbers of foreigners were entering the Atlantic
seaboard. And this was exactly the case during the middle of the
nineteenth century. This was the period of the great internal migration
to the new lands of the Middle West. In point of fact also, at this
time, many of these pioneers were actually immigrants. It is scarcely
necessary to say that nothing comparable to this is going on at the
present time. The frontier, which has had such a determining influence
on our national life, is a thing of the past. Of the 424,202,732 acres
remaining in the public domain in 1906, only a very small part consisted
of valuable farm lands, such as existed in great abundance when the
Homestead Act was passed in 1862. Evidence of this fact is furnished by
the act recently passed allowing homesteads of 640 acres to be taken up
in certain sections of Nebraska, where it is impossible for a man to
make a living from less. Not only are the incoming hordes of aliens not
now counterbalanced by an important internal migration, but there is an
actual movement, of noteworthy dimensions, of ambitious young farmers
from the United States to the new and cheaper wheat lands in Canada.

This set of conditions may be stated in another way by saying that the
United States has changed from an agricultural to a manufacturing and
commercial nation.[341] In the early nineteenth century the rural family
was the typical one, to-day it is the urban family. Then the simplicity
and independence of the farm gave character to the national life; to-day
it is the complexity and artificiality of the city which govern. The
nineteenth century was a period of expansion. Particularly in the
earlier part of it was the subduing of new land the fundamental
consideration of national development. This was the period of internal
improvements, the building of roads and canals, and later of railroads.
It was the adolescence of the American people. At such a period the
great demand is for accessions of population, and it is no wonder that
many of the writers of that day were frank in their demands for the
encouragement of immigration. And even in the thirties and forties,
though the miserable shipping conditions and the large number of
incoming paupers aroused a countercurrent of opinion, still the
immigrants found a logical place on the great construction works of the
period, as well as on the vacant arable lands.

This period is past. The labors of the typical alien are not now
expended on the railroad, the canal, or the farm, but in the mines and
foundries, the sweatshops and factories. The immigrants of to-day are
meeting an economic demand radically different from that of a century or
half a century, yes, we may say a quarter of a century ago.[342]

This change is further exemplified by the increased concentration of
population in cities which the United States has witnessed in the past
century. In 1790 there were only 6 cities in the United States with over
8000 population each, containing 3.4 per cent of the total population.
In 1840 the percentage of population in cities of this size was still
only 8.4. But in 1900 there were 545 cities of over 8000, counting among
their inhabitants 33.1 per cent of the total population. In other words,
the ratio between city and country dwellers (taking the city of 8000 as
the dividing line) has changed from one to twenty-eight in 1790 to one
to two in 1900. At the same time the average density of population of
the country as a whole has increased from 3.7 per square mile in 1810 to
10.8 in 1860, 17.3 in 1880, and 25.6 in 1900.

Hand in hand with these changes has come a sweeping change in the scale
of production, which must have an important bearing on the immigration
situation. The early immigrants, to a very large extent, came into more
or less close personal relations with their employers, often working
side by side with them on the farm or in the shop. Now foreigners are
hired by the thousands by employers whom they perhaps never see,
certainly never have any dealings with, the arrangements being made
through some underling, very likely a foreigner himself. Working all day
side by side with others of their own race, or of other races equally
foreign, and going home at night to crowded dwellings, inhabited by
aliens, and with a European atmosphere, the modern immigrants have but
slight commerce with anything that is calculated to inculcate American
ideas or contribute any real Americanizing influence.

Mention of the declining native birth rate in the United States had
already been made (Chapter XI), with some consideration of the causes
thereof. The fact needs to be called attention to in this connection as
another element in the changed aspect of immigration. It is unfortunate
that our census figures do not give us positive data as to the
respective birth rates of the native-born and foreign-born, so that we
have to rely upon estimates. All of these estimates, however, agree that
there has been a marked decline in the rate of native increase, though
the causes assigned vary. The population of the United States in 1810
was 1.84 times as great as in 1790, and that of 1840, 1.77 times as
great as twenty years earlier. Since the immigration during all this
period was relatively slight, this increase may be taken as representing
a very high native birth rate. In 1900, in spite of the large element of
foreign-born with a high birth rate then in the country, and the large
immigration of the previous twenty years, the population of the country
was only 1.52 times as large as in 1880. This must represent a
tremendous fall in the native birth rate. Mr. S. G. Fisher has estimated
that the rate of native increase by decades has fallen from 33.76 per
cent in the decade ending 1820 to 24.53 in the decade ending 1890. Some
eminent authorities, as previously mentioned, are of the opinion that at
the present time the native population of parts, if not the whole, of
New England is not even maintaining itself. Thus our present immigrants
are being received by, and are mingling with, a people, not vigorous and
prolific as in the early days, able to match the crowds of aliens with a
host of native-born offspring, but weak in reproductive power, and
constantly decreasing in the ability to maintain itself. In this
connection it is significant that during the last intercensal decade the
total foreign-born population increased 30.7 per cent, while the
native-born population increased only 19.5 per cent. This fact, in
connection with the high birth rate of our now large foreign-born
population, puts a new face on the question of the elimination of the
native stock.

There yet remains to be considered the matter of the quality of
immigrants to-day as compared with those of past generations. In regard
to this but little can be said in the way of positive declarations.
Quality in an immigrant is a very uncertain matter, and differs
according to the individual point of view and prejudices. What may seem
to an employer of labor high quality in an immigrant may appear quite
the reverse in the eyes of a minister. With the facts of immigration in
mind, each student of the question must determine for himself whether
the quality of our present immigrants compares favorably with that of
earlier groups. There is, however, one consideration to which attention
should be directed when examining changes, which has materially altered
the character of immigration. This is the selective influence of the act
of immigration itself, upon those who are to come. It used to be the
prevailing idea that the immigrant represented the better individuals of
his race or class, that he was more daring, energetic, or enterprising.
Traces of this notion are still very common.[343] There was, moreover, a
great amount of truth in this view during earlier periods of
immigration. Many of the migrations of two or three centuries ago were
inspired by religious or political motives, or very often by a
combination of the two. Such was the exodus of the Huguenots from
France, of the Palatines from Germany, the Puritans from England, the
Scotch-Irish from Ireland. In such cases as these, emigration implies
strength of character, independence, firmness of conviction, moral
courage, bravery, hatred of oppression, etc. Motives such as these
played no small part in immigration movements even as late as the middle
of the nineteenth century.

More than this, it is doubtless true that the earliest immigration from
any region at any time involves a certain degree of ambition,
independence, courage, energy, forethought, all of those characteristics
which are required in the individual who forsakes the known for the
unknown, the familiar for the untried, the stable for the unstable, the
certain though hopeless present for the hopeful but uncertain future.
Such were the early immigrants to this country from every land—not north
European alone, but south European. They possessed something of the
intrepidity and daring of pioneers. They had the strength of character
to break the shackles of age-long tradition and custom, and, taking
their destiny in their hand, seek their fortune in a new and unknown
land. In this respect all new immigration differs from all established
immigration.

But all this is now a thing of the past. Not only have the religious and
political motives almost wholly disappeared in favor of the economic in
modern immigration, but the European immigrant of to-day is in no sense
going to a new or unknown land, when he embarks for the United States.
American life and conditions, particularly economic conditions, are well
known in those sections of Europe which furnish our large contingents of
immigration. The presidential election, the panic, the state of the
crops in the United States, are familiar topics of conversation.[344]
Almost every individual in the established currents of immigration has
at least one friend in this country. Many of them know exactly where
they are going and what they are going to do. To a host of them the
change is no greater than to go to the next village in their native
land, perhaps less so. For as likely as not, just as many of their
friends and relatives are awaiting them in the new country as are
lamenting them in the old.

Neither is the voyage to-day, bad as it is, beset with the
uncertainties, hardships, and perils which used to characterize it. The
way is cleared for the travelers at every step. If their ticket is not
actually supplied to them from America, probably all or part of the
money with which it is purchased came from America. At least they may
now secure a ticket direct from a European center to their ultimate
destination in America, and every stage of the journey is facilitated by
the ingenuity of financially interested agents. Induced immigration has
always existed since the days when the press gangs in the coast towns of
England carried inducement to the point of abduction. But probably never
in the history of our country has artificially stimulated immigration
formed so large a part of the whole as now. There is nothing, therefore,
in the modern conditions of immigration which serves as a guaranty of
high quality in the immigrants.

One other element which concerns the quality of the immigrant, and
therefore should be mentioned in this connection, is the immense
increase in what may be designated temporary or seasonal immigration.
The prominence of this type of movement in recent years has radically
modified the industrial aspect of the situation.[345]

It is possible that some of the changes reviewed above may be of a
beneficial character. However that may be, there can be no question
that, taken together, they indicate so complete an alteration in the
circumstances surrounding the admission of aliens to this country as to
require that the entire immigration situation be considered in the light
of present conditions, rather than of past history. The old stock
arguments, _pro_ and _con_, which seem to have stood the test of time,
need to be thoroughly reviewed. The modern immigrant must be viewed in
the setting of to-day. Especially must it be borne in mind that the
fact—if such it be—that immigration in the past has worked no injury to
the nation, and has resulted in good to the immigrants, by no means
indicates that a continuance of past policy and practice in the matter
will entail no serious evil consequences, nor bring about disaster in
the future.




                             CHAPTER XVIII
                       THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM


Much is said and written in these days about the “immigration problem,”
yet it is only rarely that there appears a conscious effort to prove
that such a problem exists, or to analyze its character. Is there in the
United States an immigration problem? If so, in what does it consist? To
answer these two questions is the purpose of the present chapter.

When the great new lands of the Western Hemisphere were made available
to the inhabitants of Europe by the efforts of Columbus and the later
explorers and discoverers, there opened up before humanity tremendous
possibilities of advance.[346] The ratio between men and land was
changed for the whole civilized world. An enormous area of fertile
country was presented to the nations of Europe, by which the operation
of the Malthusian principles was checked. Peoples who had reached the
saturation point of population in Europe were given the opportunity to
utilize their acquired arts in a virgin and practically uninhabited
region. On account of the difficulties of transportation, and the
consequent slow settlement of the new world, the results of this great
alteration were only tardily developed. In many ways the entire progress
of civilization during the nineteenth century is the outward expression
of the transformation in conditions which then took place. So far as the
human mind can anticipate, nothing of a similar nature can ever happen
again on this earth.

To the people of the new nation of the United States, as the possessors
of the most favored portion of this new territory, was intrusted the
responsibility of utilizing its marvelous resources, not only for their
own advantage, but for the securing of the greatest and most permanent
amelioration of the living conditions of the whole human family. It was
not to be expected that our forefathers should have completely
recognized the full significance of this responsibility, nor have
undertaken the administration of it with a degree of scientific wisdom
which they did not possess. Their past experience of bad political
systems enabled them to frame a plan of government which has held the
admiration of all civilized people down to the very present. In the
utilization of the material resources of the country, however, they had
no past experience to serve as a guide. No other civilized people within
the compass of human history had been intrusted with such a profusion of
virgin resources, absolutely open to exploitation. There is no wonder
that the possibilities of the country seemed limitless, and that men
proceeded to make the most of them to serve present needs, with no
thought of what the consequences might be to future generations. Forests
were cut down, mines were wastefully worked, rivers were dammed, natural
gas was burned day and night, the soil was cultivated year after year
without enrichment, and when exhausted, abandoned. In our modern age of
conservation we are beginning to realize how ruthlessly these rich
treasures have been squandered, and are making eager and earnest efforts
to save what is left.

Something of the same sort took place in the more intangible domain of
population. Into the minds of the less than four million people who were
enumerated in the United States in 1790, even the thought of a redundant
population could hardly enter. The one great thing that seemed to be
needed was more people, and while the natural increase of the native
stock seemed to many ample to meet the demands, there was nevertheless a
hearty welcome to all sturdy and well-intentioned aliens who elected to
establish themselves within the territory of the new nation. Especially
was there a feeling of sympathy toward those who came seeking refuge
from political tyranny or oppression in the nations of Europe. Thus the
principle of an open door, and a welcome to the “oppressed and
downtrodden of all races,” became the established policy of the nation,
and as decade succeeded decade acquired all the power and authority of
tradition and usage. As a consequence, all efforts to control or
regulate the ingress of aliens, which have been incited by the apparent
needs of the situation, have been confronted with the necessity of
bearing the burden of proof, and of assailing established dogma. This
has put the advocates of restriction into the category of “antis,” and
has laid them open to the charge of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. If it
can be conceived that the United States should have been in her present
industrial situation when she first began to frame national policies, it
is wholly probable that the restrictionists would have been considered
the conservatives, and the advocates of free immigration, the radicals.

However this may be, the fact is that in general the open-door policy
has prevailed, and only within the last generation have restrictive laws
been passed, which have served merely to weed out the manifestly
undesirables, scarcely to diminish in any significant measure the great
bulk of the current. The resulting transfer of people from Europe to
America has been truly phenomenal. In the period of years from 1820 to
1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants came to the United States.[347] No
population movement of equal social significance, and comparable in
volume, has ever taken place within the recorded history of the human
race. And never again, so far as the human eye can see, can it be
repeated, when the heyday of immigration to the United States is over.
It is inconceivable that such a phenomenon should not have important and
far-reaching effects upon every country concerned in the movement. There
is, then, an immigration problem.

But just what is the problem? The answer to that question depends upon
the point of view. In the first place, it must be decided whether it is
desirable for nations consciously to interfere with, and try to control,
such a natural movement as this; secondly, if interference is to be
undertaken, whose welfare is to be held prominently in view—in other
words, from what standpoint is the problem to be attacked? If the former
of these queries is answered in the negative, the problem remains a
purely academic one—the study of causes and effects, and the recording
of conclusions and data, without any telic purpose in view. No programs,
schemes, or systems of reform can emanate from such a study. If answered
in the affirmative, the problem then becomes one in applied
sociology—perhaps the most complex and important that any modern nation
has ever had to deal with. In regard to the second part of the above
query, it is to be noted that there are four possible standpoints open
to choice. First, that of the United States; second, that of the
countries of source; third, that of the immigrants; fourth, that of
humanity in general. There are possibilities of a different aspect of
the problem from each of these viewpoints. Let us consider the two parts
of this query in turn.

There is a natural and deep-seated reluctance on the part of every
careful and scientific student of sociology to advocate the regulation
of any great human activity according to any man-made scheme or formula.
The laws of nature seem so much safer a guide than any plan which, as
Professor Summer says, some one has thought out in bed.[348] The
_laissez-faire_ doctrine makes a great initial appeal. This probably
accounts in large measure for its great vogue. The broad-minded and
liberal man says, “What can be better or more just than to let each
individual work out his own destiny in the way that seems to him best?”
Particularly does such a tremendous movement as modern immigration
inspire the student with feelings of reverential awe, rather than a
desire to intermeddle. It is such a gigantic and complex thing, and cuts
straight across all social relations with such an inclusive and
unsparing sweep, that one can never know what the unknown factors are,
nor what unforeseen and unexpected developments may arise. Certainly
this seems one of the things that had better be left alone.

But as we look at the world around us, we realize that the doctrine of
_laissez-faire_ has proved inadequate to meet the conditions of modern
industrial life, and has broken down under the strain.[349] We realize
that self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is not the safest
guide for the individual or for the race. We recognize the fact that the
safety of society demands that men shall not be allowed to do as they
please, nor to go where they please. The law places many restrictions
upon the free movements of men. I may not trespass upon my neighbor’s
property; I may not enter public buildings except at specified times. If
I wish to visit a fever-stricken and quarantined city, I either am not
allowed to go, or I am prevented from coming away when I wish. These are
familiar and trivial illustrations, but they emphasize the fact that
complete _laissez-faire_ is impossible under present conditions—in fact,
probably always has been. A host of other instances of social
legislation, pure-food laws, trust regulation, etc., might be invoked to
establish the point, were it necessary. The whole series of immigration
statutes, increasing in severity from 1882 down to the present, are
evidence of the acceptance of this principle with special relation to
immigration. The question is not, shall we have regulation or not, but
how much and what kind of regulation shall we have? The doctrine of
_laissez-faire_, _per se_, would have no greater weight as an argument
against complete suspension of immigration than it would have against
the exclusion of contract laborers.

If the personal inclinations of the individual lead him to prefer to
regard the immigration problem in the strictly academic light, no fault
can be found; but the denial of the propriety of suggesting plans of
control, the demand that the immigrants be let alone, represents an
obsolete point of view. Any amount of regulation, which proves necessary
to safeguard the interests of society, can be justified in the light of
modern opinion and practice.

Furthermore, it is to be observed that immigration will not be let
alone. It has already been demonstrated that the immigration of to-day
is not in any sense a wholly natural movement. It is stimulated at the
outset, partly by disinterested friends and relatives, partly by purely
selfish transportation interests. It is subjected to various controls
all along the way. After the immigrants reach this country, they are
often, for a long time, in almost complete subjection to the padrone,
the contractor, or the importer. Once again, the question is not, shall
immigration be a natural and uncontrolled movement or not, but shall it
be controlled by greedy, selfish, and unscrupulous individuals, or by a
well-intentioned government? For the rest of this book we shall take the
position that the immigration problem is one of applied sociology, and
that immigration is a proper subject for government control, by such
means and to such an extent as the most careful and scientific study
shall warrant.

Most problems in applied sociology have to do with interests; certainly
the problem of immigration does. Having answered the first part of our
query in the affirmative, the problem now expresses itself thus: how
shall the movement of aliens from foreign countries to the United States
be so controlled as to further the best interests of somebody? But of
whom? This is the second part of our query. It is manifest that the
United States, the countries of source, the immigrants, and humanity in
general all have interests which may be affected by immigration, that
these interests are not always harmonious or correlative, but that they
may be, and in some cases must be, in direct opposition to each other.
Any one who has opinions on the subject must make it plain, to himself
at least, which of these interests he regards as paramount, which of
these standpoints he proposes to assume. Many of the popular arguments
on the question have been confused by the unconscious effort to take two
or more of these viewpoints at once. Each of these viewpoints is
legitimate, and has arguments on its own side, and no one should be
blamed for choosing any one. Evidently the fourth is a sort of summation
and balance of the other three. It will be profitable to consider the
first three in turn; we shall then be prepared to take the point of view
of the welfare of humanity in general.

What, then, are the arguments for and against immigration from the point
of view of the United States? The positive arguments for, and the
negative arguments against, immigration center around the question
whether the United States needs the immigrants. The positive arguments
against, and the negative arguments for, immigration have to do with the
claim that immigration injures the United States.

The argument for immigration which, if not the strongest during the
first half of the nineteenth century, was probably the most frequently
expressed, was the sentimental one which exhibited the United States as
the natural haven of refuge for the oppressed and unfortunate of all
lands, and extended a hearty welcome to all seekers of liberty who
should come. This, as has been mentioned, was natural under the
conditions of the time. It found expression in such words as the
following, appearing in a magazine in the year 1855:

“If the physiologic principle we have endeavored to establish is
correct, it follows that America pre-eminently owes its growth and
prosperity to the amalgamation of foreign blood. To cut off, therefore,
or to discourage its influx, will be to check the current from which our
very life is drawn. The better course is evidently to welcome and
provide for this tide of immigration, rather than to oppose and turn it
away; to cherish the good influence it brings, and regulate the bad,
rather than to trample them both under foot. What, though the population
which is annually cast upon American shores is all of the filthiest and
most degraded kind! The farmer might as well complain of the black and
reeking soil into which his seed is dropped, as the statesman of such
materials as these.... Let us welcome the houseless and the naked of
every land to American shores; in the boundless forests of the north and
the south there is room to make a home for them all. Let us invite the
ill-fed and the starving of every grade to partake of American
abundance; on the fertile fields of the west there grows corn enough to
feed them all. Let us urge the oppressed and the down trodden of every
name to the blessings of American freedom; the Star Spangled Banner is
broad enough to cover, and the eagle that sits over it is strong enough
to defend, them all.”[350]

Such talk as this is so thoroughly out of date as to sound almost
ridiculous in modern ears. In fact, the sentimental argument plays but
little part in the present agitation, for the reason that the conditions
which justify it furnish the motive to an insignificant portion of our
present immigrants, with the exception of the Russian Jews.

Two other arguments for immigration may be styled the social and the
biological. These claim respectively that the national character and the
physical stock of the American people may be much improved by the
addition of new elements brought in by foreign immigrants. It is pointed
out that the German love for music, the artistic temperament of the
Italian, the thrift of the Slav, the outdoor sociability of the Greek,
might add—perhaps have added already—something of great value to the
life of the country. There is much weight to this argument. It is quite
conceivable that under proper conditions of social contact on a plane of
equality between foreigner and native some such desirable transfusion of
character might take place. It is another matter altogether to claim
that any such beneficial result is transpiring, under the present
conditions of the immigrant in this country.

The biological argument brings up the much-vexed question of the
desirability of mixed stocks. There has been a prevalent opinion that
the interbreeding of two races, not too far separated in physical stock,
resulted in a type superior to either of the parent races. But there is
no agreement as to where the line between the favorable and the
unfavorable mixing shall be drawn. Some of the papers read at the
Universal Races Congress in London would seem to convey the impression
that any two races on earth might be mixed to good advantage. But this
is by no means the universal opinion of careful anthropologists.

In regard to both of these arguments it may be said that, whatever their
intrinsic worth, they have no great positive weight as respects the
present situation in the United States. It seems likely that this
country has already within its borders all the alien elements that will
be needed for a long time to come—certainly until they are more
completely absorbed than they are at present.

There remains by far the greatest and most universal argument for
immigration—the economic one. The one plea for the free admission of
aliens, that has weight to-day, is that our industrial organization
demands it. Not only is it asserted that the rapid development of the
country would not have been possible without the immigrant and cannot be
prosecuted in the future without him, but that the cessation of
immigration would seriously cripple many of the basic industries of this
country. The former of these points has already been considered at some
length, and the conclusion was reached that it was inconceivable that in
such a country as the United States any socially important or necessary
work should have had to be foregone in the absence of a foreign labor
supply. Such an assertion implies a lack of self-sufficiency on the part
of a young and vigorous people which is unthinkable. Whether the
exploitation of our resources would have proceeded at such a rapid pace
in the past, whether this pace could be kept up in the future, without
the immigrant—these are questions more difficult of answer. There is no
doubt that at present a large portion of our industry—possibly the
greater part—is closely dependent upon a foreign labor supply, and that
a sudden cessation of immigration would check the expansion of those
industries, though it would not necessarily prevent their continuing on
the present basis. It seems wholly probable that the development of the
country would be retarded for a time if the immigration current was
stopped.

But why this insistent demand for a rapid exploitation of our resources?
Wherein are we the gainers if the wonderful natural riches of the
country, which, as we have seen, constitute one of the two great
elements which have accounted for our past prosperity, are consumed in
the shortest possible time? In the words of Prescott F. Hall, “what
boots an extended railroad mileage or the fact that all our coal and
minerals are dug up or all our trees cut down some years or decades
sooner?” Are we so greedy for luxury in the present that we wish to
leave as little as possible of this natural advantage to future
generations? It seems hardly possible. Rather is this idea another of
those traditional survivals from the early life of the country, when
conditions were such that the exploitation of resources was really
essential to growth in per capita, as well as total, wealth, and
prosperity. Our country has, in point of fact, developed so rapidly that
the public mind has not adjusted itself to new conditions, and the idea
of the value of a rapid exploitation lingers on as an anachronism.
Possibly there is a slight element of modern megalomania mingled with
it.

If it were true that the United States, having reached its present point
of development, was unable to advance along the path of steady and solid
growth, depending solely upon its own resources, human as well as
material, it would be one of the most serious indictments against our
social situation that could possibly be made. It is inconceivable that
it should be true. It seems much more reasonable to believe that while
the suspension of accessions of population from foreign sources would
entail numerous and serious readjustments in social and economic
relations, nevertheless the United States still has enough native
virility to work out a prosperous and independent destiny of its own. It
is hard to see any important respect in which the United States, at the
present time, really needs immigrants.

There is still another type of argument for immigration, which might be
called the indifference argument, which says, in effect, “Very likely we
do not need the immigrants, but they do us no harm. Let them come,
anyway.” The answer to this throws the burden of proof upon the
restrictionist, and makes it incumbent upon him to show that immigration
really injures the United States.

The positive arguments against immigration as at present conducted may
be grouped under eight main heads, which may be designated as follows:
(1) the numbers argument; (2) the distribution argument; (3) the
standard of living and wages argument; (4) the pauperism and crime
argument; (5) the stimulation argument; (6) the illegal entrance
argument; (7) the biological argument; (8) the assimilation argument. In
the discussion of these arguments it must be borne in mind that they are
considered with reference to immigration as it now exists, not as it
might be under other conditions.

(1) The common argument that we have too many immigrants is really no
argument at all. There cannot be too many immigrants unless the
excessive number manifests itself in some positive evil. What the
average person who uses this argument probably means, if he has any
definite meaning in mind at all, is that there are so many aliens coming
to this country that their presence results in one or another of the
undesirable conditions which are included in the other seven arguments.

(2) In like manner the statement that immigrants are poorly distributed
is no real argument. It has been demonstrated that there are certain
excessive tendencies toward concentration on the part of our alien
population, but unless positive evils emerge from this condition, it is
no argument against immigration.

(3) The claim that immigration has lowered the wages and standard of
living of the American workman has already been examined, with the
conclusion that it would be nearer the truth to say that it has kept
them from rising. This, however, amounts to practically the same thing.
If somebody prevents me from getting that to which I am entitled, he to
all intents and purposes makes me suffer deprivation. The evidence on
this point is so strong that it can hardly be gainsaid. As we have seen,
practically all careful students admit it. About the only answer that
can be made to this argument is that it is not the immigrant’s
fault.[351] This is undoubtedly true, partly at least. The immigrant has
no grudge against the American workman, nor any desire to injure him.
Undoubtedly he would be glad to earn as good wages as the native, if he
could. Inasmuch as he cannot, he is not to blame if he consents to work
for what he can get. And inasmuch as his wages are low, and his family
is large, and he is anxious to save, he is not to blame if he lives on a
miserably low standard. In the whole procedure the immigrant may display
the most admirable qualities. He is simply playing his part in an
impersonal struggle for existence. But the result to the American
workman is the same. It is a question of causes and effects, not of
blame. It must be accepted as a fact that each successive wave of
immigration has tended to check the advance of the laboring men already
in the country, be they native or foreign. And here is where the numbers
argument applies. For it is obvious that the greater the numbers the
more aggravated will be the evils of this kind.

(4) The argument that immigration increases the amount of pauperism and
crime in the country has already been examined. As far as the past is
concerned it appears that pauperism has been immensely increased through
our foreign-born population, while the amount of crime has not. But
there has been a change in the character of crime, in the direction of
an increase in crimes against the person relative to crimes against
property. What the future will bring forth, it is impossible to predict.
It seems likely that the tendency toward an excess of pauperism on the
part of the foreign-born will become greater as the average length of
residence of the newer immigrants increases. Here, again, the claim that
it is not the immigrant’s fault might be advanced, and the answer be
made that whether it is the fault of the immigrant, or of our industrial
system, or of the individual American, makes no difference in the facts
as they exist. It does make a difference, of course, as to where the
remedy must be applied.

(5) The extent to which the immigration movement of the present is a
stimulated one has already been indicated. It might seem at first that
it made no difference to the United States whether the immigrant was
induced to come, or whether he came of his own volition. But a closer
consideration shows that there is a fundamental difference. A strictly
natural immigration would mean that immigrants came in response to some
actual economic demand in this country which was strong enough to make
itself felt abroad. They would also be the ones best fitted to meet that
demand. But when one of the greatest motives back of immigration is the
desire of the transportation companies to make money, the mere fact of
emigration is no indication of any real need for the immigrant in this
country, nor of his fitness to enter into its life.

(6) Owing to the very strict wording of our contract labor law, a very
large proportion of our immigrants enter the country under the
impression, either false or correct, that they are evading the law. This
has a very serious effect upon their character, and upon their attitude
toward American institutions. They may readily conceive that a country
that has such laws that it is necessary to break them to get in,
probably has other laws that need to be broken after one is in. The
whole system engenders a most dangerous attitude of indifference or
hostility to law.

(7) The biological argument of the restrictionist is the obverse of the
biological argument of the pro-immigrationist, and is equally vague in
the present state of our knowledge on the subject of race mixing. Those
who urge this argument against immigration are those who believe that
only when the mingled races are closely allied is the resulting stock of
a superior type, or else those who hold the extreme view that no mixed
race is as good as a pure race. At any event, they believe that the
racial elements which are now coming to the United States are too
diverse to produce anything but an inferior stock through their
interbreeding. In this connection it should be observed that there are
two possible results of this gathering of races in the United States,
each with its own problems. One is that these races will, in the course
of time, become so blended through intermarriage as to produce one
composite but homogeneous whole—the new American people. The other is
that race prejudice and the forces of segregation will result in the
growth of a large number of ethnic groups within the nation, each with
its own peculiarities, and each distinct from the others. There are some
indications which point to the latter as the more probable outcome.[352]

(8) The charge that our immigrants are not completely assimilated, or
are not assimilated at all, is one of the most frequent and gravest
complaints made against our present immigration situation. It is made to
include—as, indeed, it rightfully does in a sense—all the other
arguments against immigration. The term assimilation is almost
unfailingly suggested by the mere mention of immigration. But
assimilation is a big word, and needs to be used with great caution and
understanding.

In its general application, assimilation is defined as the “act or
process of assimilating, or bringing to a resemblance, conformity, or
identity,”[353] or “the act or process of making or becoming like or
identical; the act or process of bringing into harmony”;[354] or again,
“the action of making or becoming like; the state of being like;
similarity, resemblance, likeness; ... the becoming conformed to;
conformity with.”[355] It is evident from these definitions that the
essence of assimilation is likeness or conformity; this of necessity
implies a type to which such likeness approaches. It appears that it
would not be incorrect to speak of assimilation when there is nothing
more than resemblance; it seems equally clear that _complete_
assimilation involves identity. This is particularly evident in
reference to the special application of the term, which is the one
generally in mind when it is used, viz. the assimilation of food in the
body. In this sense the process is described as “the reformation of
biogen molecules by those already existing, aided by food-stuffs.”[356]

It is this physiological analogy which underlies the term assimilation
when applied to population, and the whole matter may be best understood
by keeping that analogy in view. When nutriment is taken into the system
of a living organism, it passes through certain processes by which it
ultimately becomes an integral part of the physical body of that
organism. It is then said to be assimilated. Every suggestion of
separate origin disappears, each new constituent entering harmoniously
into relation with the others, new and old, and fulfilling its own
functions. While it is true that certain food elements contribute
particularly to certain portions of the organism, yet the whole is a
coördinated unit. Any portion of the food which created disturbance with
reference to the body would not be said to be assimilated.

This is only an analogy, and analogies are dangerous if used as
arguments. But it may contain a helpful suggestion. Transferred to the
field of population, it means that true and complete assimilation of the
foreign elements in the United States involves such a complete
transformation and unification of the new constituents that all sense of
difference between the new and the old completely disappears. The idea
of a type, into conformity with which the new elements must be brought,
is here present also. In the case in point, this is manifestly the
“American type.” Just what this is, it might be difficult to say. Some
writers appear even to question its existence. But the very idea of
assimilation presupposes a type. In general terms, this type in the
United States is the “native American.”[357]

A foreigner, or the descendant of a foreigner, can be truly said to be
assimilated only when the natives around him are conscious of no feeling
of alienation on account of his origin, and when the newcomer himself
feels no degree of separateness, nor possesses divergent interests or
loyalties traceable to the source from which he came. This is not
inconsistent with the fact that certain elements contribute more fully
to specific characteristics of the body politic than others. The
political, religious, or artistic aspects of the national life may, in
fact, owe their character more to one element of the population than to
another. But if assimilation is complete, there can be no disturbances
or friction arising from differences of origin among the members of the
nation.

Perhaps the most efficient test of entire assimilation is that of free
intermarriage. If marriage might take place between any man and woman in
the country, without suggesting differences of race or ethnic origin to
either contracting party, or their families, it is a safe evidence of
complete assimilation. There may be objections on the grounds of wealth,
social station, or religion; there must be none based on race.

This may seem like strong doctrine. It may, indeed, not be necessary for
the welfare of the country that assimilation should be so thoroughgoing
as this. It is possible that different racial groups within the body
politic do not constitute a menace. But if so, the fact should be stated
by saying that complete assimilation is not necessary, rather than by
saying that the absence of serious difficulties or evils arising from a
composite population is a proof of complete assimilation.

It is disheartening to note the frequency with which even careful
writers on the subject accept trivial and superficial indications as
evidence of the assimilation of our foreign residents. The wearing of
American clothes, the laying of carpets on the floors, the abandonment
of sleeping in the kitchen and taking large numbers of boarders, the use
of better food, and most of all the knowledge of English are taken as
proofs of assimilation.

Not all of these improvements, to be sure, are in themselves trivial.
They may indicate a great advance in living conditions, and in so far an
approach to Americanization; but they are superficial as proofs of
assimilation. Particularly is this true of the knowledge of English,
upon which so much emphasis is laid, and which is often accepted as an
evidence of essential assimilation. Now the knowledge and use of the
English language is of the greatest importance, and is one of the first
steps—perhaps the most essential one—toward assimilation. But it is not
assimilation itself. Missionaries in China, Turkey, and other foreign
lands learn to speak the languages almost perfectly, and sometimes their
children speak the language of the country more readily than they do
English. But that is no proof that either the missionaries or their
children are assimilated into the nations in which they reside. The
outlook for foreign missions would indeed be dark, were it so. The
importance of the knowledge of English to our foreign residents must not
be underemphasized. The lack of it is an almost insuperable bar to
assimilation. But the two should not be confused. Even people whose
native tongue is English may need to go through a process of
assimilation before they become Americans. The following incident may
serve as an illustration of this point.

Two young men, one an American and the other an Englishman, both
teachers in a foreign city, were discussing the conditions in the armies
of their native lands. The Englishman remarked that in his country the
officers were chosen from the noble families, and that it was a fine
system, as it caused the men to look upon their superiors with great
respect. The American replied that in America officers were chosen for
bravery, ability, or distinguished conduct, and that made the men
respect them much more. “Oh, no,” said the Briton, “it is impossible
that such a system as that could result in as profound a respect as
exists in our army.” The point was argued for half an hour, with
naturally not the slightest alteration of opinion on either side. It is
probable that that young Englishman might have lived all the remainder
of his life in the United States, without actually getting the American
point of view. But until he did, in this respect as well as others, he
could not be said to be truly assimilated, although he might have been a
very useful citizen.[358]

Regarding the matter of assimilation from the American point of view,
there are two questions to be asked. First, are our immigrants being
thoroughly assimilated? Second, is complete assimilation necessary or
desirable? As to the first of these queries, it seems that there can be
but one answer, as far as the immigrants themselves—those of the first
generation—are concerned. We have seen in how large a proportion of this
class the first step, the mastery of the English language, has not been
taken. In the various other conditions of life, which we have studied,
it is apparent that a large part of the foreign-born are very far from
American standards. With length of residence, an approach to
Americanization is made. Yet it is very doubtful if it is possible for
even the most exceptional adult immigrant, from the southeastern
European races, at least, to become thoroughly assimilated in his
lifetime. The barriers of race, set for the most part by Americans, can
hardly be broken down. The immigrant is still an Italian, or a Slav, or
a Greek, as long as he lives, and Americans regard him as in a measure a
stranger, no matter how cultivated, or wealthy, or broad-minded he may
be. The mental habits, also, which are the result of long race
inheritance, are very deep-seated, and can hardly be altered even after
a long residence in a foreign country.[359] Assimilation for the adult
means the abandonment of one set of mores and the adoption of another.
But the mores of a race become too thoroughly ingrained into individual
character and thought to be subject to complete revision in a changed
environment, even under the most favorable circumstances. And when
attention is directed to the slums, the question of assimilation becomes
almost a mockery. These matters are so obvious as to be almost an axiom,
and even the adherents of the “liberal” policy of immigration have come
to lay little stress in their arguments upon the assimilation of the
first generation. The attention of all is turned to the children of the
foreign-born—the immigrants of the second generation.

Judged by the superficial tests upon which reliance is generally placed,
the native-born children of foreign parents seem to be very well
assimilated. They wear American hats, clothes, and shoes, they speak
English, they are as literate as the offspring of native parents of the
same social class, they play American games when they are young, and
engage in American business when they grow up. In the words of
Professors Jenks and Lauck, speaking of the foreign races in the larger
cities, “Their children differ little from those of the American-born,
unless they are brought up throughout their childhood in the race
colonies,”—a weighty exception.[360] But are they really assimilated?
Are the tests which have been enumerated above fulfilled? This is a
matter worthy of the most serious consideration, and very difficult of
determination, withal.

It is a very hopeless task to attempt to decide upon the degree of
assimilation of any group on a statistical basis. Statistics which might
give light are meager and unreliable, and it is not a matter which lends
itself well to such treatment at best. In many of the statistics which
might be appealed to, the second generation of immigrant is included
under the general head of the native-born, and sometimes gives that
class a more unfavorable appearance than it would otherwise present. As
far as the statistics of criminality and tendency to pauperism are
concerned, the native-born of foreign parents appear to be the most
troublesome class in the population. They seem to have earned an
unfortunate reputation for lawlessness, although their crimes, as the
Immigration Commission has pointed out, tend to resemble those of the
native element in character. But these things alone are not sufficient
tests of assimilation. We need to know whether in their mental
processes, in their attitude toward life, and in their position in
regard to political or moral questions, there linger peculiarities
traceable to their foreign origin. We need to know whether their
neighbors, of the old American stock, think of them as different from
themselves, because of race. We need to know whether, in respect to
international questions, their views are colored by inherited
affiliations or prejudices. In regard to such considerations as these it
is impossible to make any positive and sweeping statements. It seems
wholly probable that there are large numbers of the descendants of
immigrants, particularly of the earlier races, who would measure up to
the full standard of assimilation even by these tests. But it seems also
beyond question that there are great bodies of immigrants of the second
generation who are prevented from complete absorption into the body
politic, if not by their own lack of adaptation, at least by the
attitude of the representatives of the old American stock.

It would be foolhardy to deny that, at the present time, there are
immense unassimilated elements in our population,—immigrants of the
first or second generation, possibly even of the third. Every
foreign-American society, be it Irish, German, Italian, Slovak, or any
other, whatever its aims and purposes, is a standing evidence of a group
of people who recognize certain affiliations or loyalties which are
foreign to the out-and-out American. The number of such organizations is
legion, and the membership, if it could be reckoned, would reach an
imposing total. The recent protests by Irish-American societies against
the production of certain plays by the Irish Players, the
German-American demonstration which broke up the peace meeting in
Carnegie Hall on December 12, 1911, as well as the German-American
meetings held four years previously to protest against the enforcement
in New York of what was styled a Puritan Sunday, the discrimination of
the Russian government against certain of our citizens—these and a host
of similar events occurring from time to time emphasize the existence
within this country of racial contingents which have not become
indistinguishably blended into the American people. If, for any
conceivable reason, the United States should be drawn into any European
international complication, she would find that hosts of her citizens,
as well as mere residents, displayed a divided allegiance, of which the
preponderance might easily be on the side of some foreign nation. As
long as such conditions as these prevail, it is idle to claim that
assimilation is complete.

Assimilation is a matter of the force of environment pitted against that
of heredity. The protracted discussion as to the relative influence of
these two factors continues unsettled. But the claim that the second
generation of immigrants are thoroughly assimilated seems to deny the
importance of either. To assert that the children of foreign parents,
brought up in a home made by foreigners though located in the United
States, are in the end equally American with children born of native
parents, and reared in a home upon which the American type is indelibly
stamped, is to claim that heredity is of no account whatever, and that
the only environment which has weight is that rather vague environment
of “country.” It is to say that a man’s character is solely the result
of the region in which he lives, without reference to either birth or
breeding. It seems hardly credible that such an assertion should be
seriously made. It is more likely that those who say that the children
of the foreign-born are assimilated really mean that they are nearly
enough assimilated for all practical purposes.

Professor Franz Boas, in his study of “Changes in the Bodily Form of
Descendants of Immigrants,” which forms a part of the report of the
Immigration Commission, and has attracted wide attention, lays much
stress on the change in environment which follows immigration. He
reaches the conclusion that there is a tendency manifest in the
American-born children of immigrants to approach a common physical type
in this country, and that this tendency becomes more marked as the
mother’s length of residence in the United States, previous to the birth
of the child, increases. His main investigations are concerned with the
head form, and have to do particularly with Sicilians and east European
Hebrews. The cephalic index has always been considered one of the most
permanent of race characters, but Professor Boas’s figures seem to show
that the naturally long-headed Sicilians tend to become less so in this
country, while the relative length of head of the naturally
brachycephalic Hebrews increases. The results reached by Professor Boas
are somewhat startling, and challenge attention. It is to be hoped that
they will be subjected to the most careful scrutiny by anthropologists
qualified either to verify or to correct them. Until they have been thus
tested they can be accepted only tentatively. On the face of them they
suggest certain weaknesses or limitations. In the first place, they are
concerned with too few races, and too few individuals in each race, to
justify general conclusions. Again, they are concerned almost wholly
with persons under twenty years of age, who are naturally still in a
plastic state. It would be much more significant if it could be shown
that this tendency still persisted after the individuals were fully
matured. Furthermore, the curves show a decided tendency to lose their
regularity, and go to pieces, in the upper ages tabulated, either
because there were too few individuals in those age groups to afford
regularity, or because the tendencies actually diminish as age advances.
Finally, it must be said that if the mere change of residence from
eastern Europe or southern Italy to America is sufficient to produce a
complete change of head form in the offspring, it can only mean that
after all the head form is not such a permanent race character as has
been supposed, and really has little significance. Certainly we should
avoid such sweeping deductions from this study as Professors Jenks and
Lauck make in the statement, “If these physical changes are so great, we
may well conclude that the whole mental and even the moral constitution
of the people may also rapidly change under the new conditions.”[361]

It will not do to assume, as is sometimes done apparently, that mere
residence in the United States is enough to make Americans of foreign
immigrants or their children. America is something more than merely a
section of the earth’s surface. It is a set of standards, customs,
ideals, institutions, mores, embodied and personified in a group of
people. Like many other of the deepest things in life they would be very
hard to enumerate or describe, yet their existence is none the less
sure. They are exemplified more completely in some persons than in
others, and he who most thoroughly personifies them is the truest
American. Historically, they have been associated with a certain
physical strain, with which many of them appear to be inherently
connected. Real assimilation means adoption into this spiritual
inheritance. The only way it can be brought about is through close,
intimate, constant association with those in whom it is embodied.

The agencies of assimilation then, in addition to the physical one of
race blending, are those things which further contact and association
between the newcomer and those who are truly Americans. Professors Jenks
and Lauck give a list of such causes or influences.[362] The list might
perhaps be amplified, but as it stands it is an enumeration of forces
which contribute to interrace association. It is not essential that the
influence of the American upon the immigrant be an intentional, or even
a conscious, one. Many of the most powerful forces are unobserved. The
foreigner is very much aware of the differences between himself and his
American neighbors, and the laws of imitation work strongly. But to have
these forces work, there must be contact.

Under the modern conditions which surround the immigrant this contact or
association is all too often wholly lacking, or very meager. The entire
life of many of our foreign-born and the youth of their children is
spent in compact colonies, where, except for a few externals, the
atmosphere is much more suggestive of the old world than of the new. The
conditions of the old home are reproduced with the utmost possible
fidelity, though often with a loss of much of the charm. So far as there
is any social life, it is almost wholly confined within the boundaries
of race. Even in the industrial life of to-day, as has been pointed out,
there is practically no contact with Americanizing influences. It is
really a wonder that the aliens are Americanized at all. When we stop to
consider that in Massachusetts and New Jersey there are only two natives
for every foreigner, and that many of these natives are of foreign
parentage, we realize how slight are the chances for assimilation. It
would be almost the task of a lifetime for two Americans to thoroughly
Americanize a native peasant from a backward district of southeastern
Europe, if they gave their whole time to it.

The one great assimilative agency, which is continually cited as the
hope of the coming generation of the foreign-born, is the American
public school. It certainly is a tremendous force in the right
direction, and its possibilities are immeasurable. Yet even the public
school is not a panacea for all ills. It cannot take the place of both
birth and home training. During the hours that the pupils are in school,
a wise and tactful teacher can instill many of the principles of
Americanism into their minds. But the means, good as it is, is not
adequate to the end. And it is to be feared that under recent conditions
even the public schools are losing some of the power in this direction
that they once had. With the growth of localized colonies of a single
race, or of several foreign races, the schools in many of our large
cities are losing their American character, as far as the pupils are
concerned, so that the immigrant child finds himself associating with
others equally foreign with himself, instead of with children from
American families. There is a story that in a certain New England city,
of high scholastic traditions, an American lady determined to place her
son in the public school, and on taking him down found that he was the
only American child in that school. A Russian Jewess edged up to her and
remarked confidentially, “Ain’t it a shame, the way the Dagoes are
crowding in everywhere these days?” Furthermore, a very large proportion
of the children of the foreign-born do not receive even such
Americanizing influence as the public school exerts, because of the
religious prejudices which compel them to attend parochial schools.

Aside from the characteristics of the immigrants themselves, the
positive forces which prevent or retard assimilation may be considered
under three heads, viz. the indifference, love of wealth, and race
prejudice of the older residents of the United States. As to the first
of these, no elaboration is required. The attitude of those who are
perfectly content to let things drift along as they will, without any
care on their part, is too familiar and too well understood to need
comment. The love of wealth manifests itself as a barrier to
assimilation, in two principal ways. First, the greed for economic gain
results in bringing in continually cheaper supplies of labor,
represented by ever lower and more backward races, and paying them such
wages as of necessity keep them on the lowest scale of living. Secondly,
the well-developed distinctions between the rich and the poor prevent
Americans from associating on friendly terms with these same foreigners
for whose presence and condition they are at least indirectly
responsible. The growing tendency for certain occupations of the lower
type to become the especial province of certain foreign races, as has
been observed above, is continually accentuating these distinctions.

There can be little doubt that race prejudice is the greatest single
barrier to assimilation. It is a disgraceful anomaly that the people of
the United States, who preach and profess to believe in the doctrine of
universal brotherhood, who have given political equality to the negroes,
who proclaim all men born equal, should in their lives exemplify the
narrowest race prejudice. The very currency of the terms, “Dago,”
“Sheeny,” “Griner,” “Hunkie,” “Bohunk,” “Guinea,” “Wop,” etc., however
insulting to the people addressed, is more of a shame to those who use
them. Many of the sincerest efforts toward a better understanding
between races are thwarted by this feeling. Ministers who try to attract
the foreigners to their churches find that their old parishioners do not
wish to associate with them—though quite willing to foot the bills—and
do not wish their children to mingle with them in Sunday school. The
fact that a certain perfectly natural fastidiousness contributes to this
result does not in the least lessen the problem. All praise is due to
such broad-minded persons as Professor Steiner and Miss Addams, who are
doing all in their power to break down this barrier. But their task is a
hard one.

In addition to the race prejudice existing between Americans and
foreigners, there is an even more bitter prejudice existing between
various foreign groups, as has been mentioned already. This is also a
most serious obstacle in the way of assimilation. One of the first to
cry, “Down with the foreigners,” is the Irishman.[363] In this
connection it has been pertinently pointed out that it is possible for
foreign races to become so far assimilated as to be in practical harmony
with Americans, and yet to be seriously at variance among
themselves.[364]

It must be confessed that, under present conditions, the outlook for the
complete assimilation of our foreign population, even in the second
generation, is far from bright. Even Miss Balch’s thoughtful and
sympathetic chapter on assimilation, though written in an optimistic
spirit, makes it plain that there are many and grievous difficulties,
and leaves one with a somewhat gloomy feeling at the close. Professor
Sumner used to say that the United States had no claim to the name of
nation, because of the diverse population elements—foremost among them
the negro—which it contains. Exception may be taken to so narrow a
conception of the term “nation.” But there can be no question as to the
fact that the problem of maintaining national solidarity is immeasurably
complicated by the great variety of ethnic constituents with which the
United States has to deal.

There are, of course, countless institutions and agencies, of a
benevolent or philanthropic nature, which are consciously working to
assimilate the immigrant. Such are the night schools, the social
settlements, the religious missions, the boys’ clubs, etc. Conscientious
efforts of this kind, when wisely directed, are worthy of the fullest
commendation and support. But the extensive and valuable work they are
doing must not be allowed to obscure the fact that such agencies, at
best, can only touch the border of the problem. Just as philanthropy is
inadequate to abolish poverty or to do away with the evils of factory
employment, so it is inadequate to secure the assimilation of the
immigrants in this country. Such immense problems can be met, if at all,
only by profound and sweeping changes in the conditions of life. The
whole aim of social legislation is to remedy the conditions of
employment, and to regulate the relations between workman and employer,
so as to reduce the need of philanthropy to a minimum. So it is vain to
hope for the assimilation of the alien as a result of conscious,
benevolent effort. The only possibility of accomplishing such
assimilation is through such a change in the conditions of life of the
immigrant, that Americanization will inevitably and naturally result
from the unconscious and normal influences which surround him in the
daily routine of his existence.

In the event of failure of assimilation to the American type, there seem
to be two possibilities, as mentioned above. One, the development of a
new, composite race, with a character all its own; the other, the growth
of a number of separate racial groups in the same territory. There are
some who regard the latter outcome as the more desirable of the
two.[365]

As to the question whether complete assimilation is desirable or
necessary from the point of view of the United States, there is little
ground for argument. If a person sincerely holds the opinion that
neither of the two eventualities mentioned in the foregoing paragraph is
unfortunate or undesirable, his opinion could hardly be changed by any
amount of argument. Another individual, who believes that such an
outlook, on the face of it, is ominous, is likely to remain of the same
opinion still, no matter how much logic is brought up on the other side.
The appeal to history is not fruitful, for two main reasons. First, it
can be used equally by the adherents of either side. Montesquieu is
often quoted as saying that the fall of Rome was due to the
heterogeneity of its population, while on the other hand it has been
asserted that the strength of Rome, as well as of all other great
empires, was due to the mixture of population elements, even from the
very lowest sources.[366] The opposing camps in the mixed race
controversy are evidently ranged on opposite sides of this question.
Secondly, as has been pointed out, immigration is distinctly a modern
movement, and history furnishes no parallels, but only more or less
remote analogies.

The opinion of the average American citizen, based perhaps upon
prejudice or conviction, rather than reasoning or investigation, is
probably that a certain degree of assimilation is essential to the
welfare of the American nation, and that the nearer the approach to
complete assimilation, the better. Any plan for regulating immigration,
devised to meet the wishes of the American people, would probably have
to proceed on this assumption.

It is now necessary to take the opposite point of view, and examine this
whole matter from the standpoint of the countries of source. What have
been, what are likely to be, the effects of emigration upon those
nations, and accordingly what is desirable, from their point of view, as
respects the regulation of this great movement?




                              CHAPTER XIX
                          OTHER POINTS OF VIEW


The effects of the immigration movement upon the countries of source are
in a way much more simple than the effects upon the United States. None
of the problems of race mixture, assimilation, varying racial
inheritances, etc., are involved. They are confined principally to the
three questions of the effect of the removal of parts of the population,
the effect of the remittances from America, and the effect of the
returned immigrant. But while simpler, these effects are perhaps none
the less subtle than those in the United States, nor any less difficult
of prediction—for in Europe, as in America, the effects of this great
movement must be largely in the future.

It is one of the corollaries of the Malthusian theory of population that
a steady, regular emigration from a country has no power to check the
rate of increase of population in that country. This opinion has been
accepted by many leading students of social subjects from Malthus’ day
down to the present. In fact, the general idea was expressed as early as
1790 by an anonymous writer in that quaint old magazine, the _American
Museum_. He says: “When a country is so much crowded with people that
the price of the means of subsistence is beyond the ratio of their
industry, marriages are restrained: but when emigration to a certain
degree takes place, the balance between the means of subsistence and
industry is restored, and population thereby revived. Of the truth of
this principle there are many proofs in the old counties of all the
American states. Population has constantly been advanced in them by the
migration of their inhabitants to new or distant settlements.”[367] John
Stuart Mill believed that a steady emigration was powerless to cure the
ills of overpopulation.[368] Roscher and Jannasch maintain that not only
will emigration not decrease population, but may actually make the
increase of population greater than it would otherwise be.[369] Réné
Gonnard, the French writer, says that the fact of emigration gives a
stimulus to the birth rate, and cites Adam Smith, Malthus, Garnier,
Roscher, and De Molinari in support of the view.[370] Robert Hunter also
expresses his adherence to this opinion.[371]

With the laws of population in mind we can easily understand how this
condition may result—in fact, how it must result theoretically. Every
society, in the course of its development, reaches a balance between the
means of subsistence and the desire for reproduction. This balance is
represented by the standard of living. In a society where the desire for
reproduction greatly overbalances the desire for comforts and luxuries,
the standard of living will be low, and the rate of increase of
population high. In a society where the appetite for material welfare is
strong, the opposite conditions will prevail. Changing conditions
present the possibility of change either in the rate of reproduction or
in the standard of living. As we have already observed, the former is
the more flexible of the two. Particularly in static societies, such as
exist in European countries, where social positions have become
thoroughly stratified, any gradual amelioration in circumstances is much
more likely to result in an increased rate of population growth than in
an improved standard of living.

Emigration, by _temporarily_ relieving congestion to a certain extent,
offers a chance of betterment. But in general, if the emigration is
moderate, this chance is seized by the reproductive power rather than by
the standard of living. The rate of increase of population rises until
the drain of emigration is offset, while the standard of living remains
unaltered, and the total population continues virtually the same. The
very fact of emigration gives a sense of hopefulness to the people, and
the knowledge that there is an ever ready outlet for redundant
inhabitants causes the population of the country to multiply more
rapidly than it otherwise would. This is the result which must
reasonably be expected to follow all regular and gradual emigration
movements.

On the other hand, while the withdrawal of a more or less uniform number
of inhabitants, year by year, has no power to reduce population, and may
actually tend to increase it, the opposite result may be achieved where
there is such a sudden and extensive removal of people from a country,
that those who remain feel a definite and profound lightening of
pressure. This must be sufficiently immediate and widespread to produce
a sudden and significant rise in wages or fall in prices. In such a case
it may occur that, before the forces of population have had time to fill
the breach, the people may have become accustomed to a somewhat higher
standard of living, which thereafter they may be able and inclined to
maintain.

The peculiar sex distribution of modern emigration probably has the
effect of increasing the possibility of reducing the population in the
countries of source, out of proportion to the actual number of
emigrants, just as it lessens the likelihood of increasing population in
the country of destination.

Such is the theoretic argument as regards the effect of emigration upon
the population of a country. It may be summed up in the words of John
Stuart Mill, “When the object is to raise the permanent condition of a
people, small means do not merely produce small effects, they produce no
effects at all.”

There is no lack of authoritative opinions to support this view. In
addition to those already cited, the following may be noted. Douglas,
Earl of Selkirk, in his pamphlet on “Emigration” dated 1806, expresses
his belief that emigration does not reduce population, and cites the
Isle of Skye as a case in point. The population of this island in 1772
was about 12,000. Between this date and 1791, 4000 people emigrated, and
at least 8000 more moved in a more gradual and less conspicuous way to
the Low Country of Scotland. Yet the population more than kept
even.[372]

Mr. Whelpley says, “There is no hope of an exhaustion of supply, for the
most prolific races are now contributing their millions, and yet
increasing the population of their own countries. There is no hope of an
improvement in quality, for the best come first and the dregs
follow.”[373] Professor Mayo-Smith says, “Emigration does not threaten
to depopulate the countries of Europe. Had there been no emigration
during this century (the nineteenth) it is not probable that the
population of Europe would have been any greater than it is. The
probabilities are all the other way.”[374]

Professor Taussig, while not stating this opinion in so many words,
appears to adhere to it when he says that without emigration Sweden and
Italy would have had—not a larger population—but either a higher death
rate or a lower birth rate.[375]

If we seek for a statistical demonstration of the foregoing argument we
are confronted with the same impossibility of securing it which has
become so familiar in the course of this work. These matters do not
adjust themselves with clocklike regularity, but operate over long
periods, and are complicated by innumerable other factors. Even though
two phenomena are shown to operate harmoniously, it is not always
possible to prove which is cause and which effect. The declining birth
rate has been a common phenomenon in almost all European countries
during the last forty years, and particularly during the last twenty
years of the nineteenth century.[376] An opponent of the view we are
considering could point to this fact as a contradiction of the claim,
while one on the opposite side could assert that the decline would have
been equally rapid and perhaps more so without any emigration at all.
Neither could prove his case. Even if it could be demonstrated that the
countries which experience the largest emigration also manifest the
highest rate of increase in population, it might be easily maintained
that it was the extreme growth of population that accounted for the
large emigration, rather than the reverse. About all that can be shown
is that a large emigration and a high rate of increase of population may
go together. Examples of this state of affairs are numerous.[377]

Of the opposite case, where a sudden and extensive emigration has cut
down population, there have been a few historical examples, notably that
of Ireland. The population of Ireland diminished from 8,100,000 in 1841
to 6,500,000 in 1851, and 5,700,000 in 1861. Since then it has steadily
declined to 4,456,000 in 1901.[378] The fact that the beginning of this
decline was coincident with the great exodus to America has made it
customary to explain the decreasing population by emigration. But even
in this case, it is a question whether it would not be more accurate to
assign the decrease in population in Ireland in the middle of the
nineteenth century to the famine, rather than to emigration. The famine
was the primary fact, and had passed the death sentence upon a large
proportion of the people; emigration—to carry out the figure—merely
commuted that sentence to exile. It furnished an outlet to thousands who
were otherwise doomed to die. It has been claimed that Norway has lost a
greater part of her population by emigration to America than any other
European country except Ireland.[379]

The obvious effect of the remittances from America is a beneficial one,
inasmuch as it increases the purchasing power of those of the peasant
class who remain at home. The immigrant in the United States who sends
money back to Europe is earning in a country where the price level is
high and spending in a country where it is low, which is a manifest
advantage. Even though his real wages are the same as he might command
at home, as long as there is a margin of saving his family benefits
financially by the arrangement. But in so far as this money sent home
results in an increase of the monetary circulation in the European
country, its desirability is more questionable. The Immigration
Commission notes an increase in wages in some immigrant-furnishing
sections of southern and eastern Europe. If this were accompanied by a
corresponding rise in prices, there would of course be no real gain.
Something of this sort has actually occurred in Greece. Several forces,
among which the remittances from America stand prominent, have within
the last few years brought the exchange between paper and gold down
nearly to par. The result has been to diminish seriously the purchasing
power of the income of the ordinary workingman. For while large payments
are made in gold, ordinary purchases are made in paper, so that while
both money incomes and prices have remained approximately the same, the
workman who gets his gold piece changed finds that he now has only 108
paper drachmas or so to make his purchases with, where ten years ago he
had 160 or so.[380]

Even where no such disadvantageous effects can be observed, it is a
question whether it is a healthy state of affairs for any nation to be
largely supported by money earned in another land, and sent back in a
form which gives it the nature of a gift in the eyes of the common
people.

As to the effect of the returned immigrant upon his native country,
opinions again differ. Some observers see a great advantage accruing to
European countries from the better habits of life, the more advanced
knowledge of agricultural and other industrial methods, and the more
independent and self-reliant spirit, which the returned immigrants bring
back with them. To them, the returned emigrant appears as a disseminator
of new ideas and higher culture, and a constant inspiration to more
effective living. There are others in whose opinion the evil influences
exerted by the returned immigrant largely outweigh the good. While they
build better houses, and wear better clothes, they are idle and
egoistical. They take no active interest in the life of those around
them, and make no effort to spread among their fellows the advantages of
what they have learned in America. Their example arouses feelings of
discontent and restlessness among their neighbors, and leads to further
emigration, rather than to the betterment of conditions at home. They
are misfits in the old environment.

There is undoubtedly much of truth in both of these opinions, and
numerous cases might be found to illustrate either. A very helpful idea
of the two-sided aspect of this matter may be gained by studying a
concrete case, furnished by a single country. For this purpose,
excellent material is furnished by the careful study of “The Effect of
Emigration upon Italy” made by Mr. Antonio Mangano,[381] who has gone
into all the divisions of his subject in an admirable way.

This author finds that emigration, great as it has been, has not
decreased the population of Italy, which, on the contrary, is larger
than ever. He does not say that the rate of increase has been as great
as it would have been without emigration, nor could this be proved. It
is certain that some sections of Italy have been seriously depopulated,
though the population of the country as a whole has increased. It is
quite possible that emigration from Italy at the present time approaches
the sudden and sweeping type sufficiently so that it may actually check
the rate of increase of population.

As to the effects of the money sent home, and the returned immigrants,
he finds contrary opinions, and facts on both sides of the case. Among
the beneficial results of emigration he finds that wages have increased
fifty per cent, so that the peasants who remain have benefited by the
departure of others. Farm machinery has been introduced, usury has
almost disappeared, and the percentage of violent crimes has been
reduced. The returned immigrant carries himself better, dresses better,
and has a greater spirit of independence, which he communicates to
others. There has arisen a growing demand for rudimentary education.
Many peasants have been enabled to buy land.

But on the other side there are many evil results to be reckoned with.
The ignorant peasant has been cheated in the quality and price of the
land he has bought, and after two or three years of unsuccessful effort
learns that he cannot make even a living from it, and sells it at a
great loss, sometimes to the very landlord from whom he purchased it.
The southern provinces are losing their working population, so that the
production, which was inadequate before, has become even more
insufficient. Carefully cultivated and terraced land is being laid waste
through neglect. As a result there has been a notable increase in prices
and in the cost of living, which nearly or entirely offsets the higher
wages of the peasants, and brings a disproportionately heavy burden on
the salaried and clerical classes. Women have been driven to take up
hard labor in the fields, to the extent that a physical injury to the
rising generation is already observable. As a consequence of the
breaking up of families, there has been a tendency toward moral
degeneracy, not only on the part of the men who have emigrated, but of
the women who are left. Prostitution, illegitimacy, and infanticide have
increased. Children are growing up without salutary restraint.
Tuberculosis, almost unknown in Italy before emigration, is spreading
rapidly. Only a few of the returned emigrants are willing to settle down
permanently in the old country, and work for its uplift, and there is no
assurance that the money which has been sent to Italy for safe keeping
will be ultimately spent there. Many of the young men who return, bring
back vices with them, and serve as a demoralizing example while they
remain.[382] From the governmental point of view, there is an alarming
deficiency of recruits for the army. Even the new houses, built with
American money, are not always an improvement on the old, as no new
ideas come in with the remittances.

A comparison of these two categories emphasizes the fact that the
favorable effects are, in general, the more obvious and immediate ones.
They are the ones which catch the eye of the traveler or the superficial
observer. They are the ones which appear to have particularly impressed
the Immigration Commission, as evidenced by their seemingly hasty review
of conditions on the other side.[383] It is upon these that Professor
Steiner, with his warm fellow-feeling for the immigrant lays special
stress. Even Miss Balch gives prominence to this class of effects. The
injurious results of such a movement as emigration are likely to be of
such a nature as makes them slow of development, and difficult to
observe and calculate. Physical and moral degeneracy are slower to
appear than high wages and new houses, but at the same time they are
more important. Taking everything into account, it seems probable that,
for Italy at least, emigration under the present conditions will prove
at least as much of a curse as a blessing.

Conditions in Greece resemble in many respects those in Italy, though
the depopulation of the country seems even more imminent. Not only has
the emigration been very sudden, but it is almost exclusively male, so
that there seems a real danger of a serious diminution of population in
the kingdom. Although the emigration movement is so recent in Greece
that effects can hardly yet be looked for, yet here, as in Italy, the
immediate favorable results of better houses, a reduction of the rate of
interest, mortgages cleared from the land, higher wages and lower rates
of interest are already manifest. The darker side, too, is beginning to
show in the assumption of hard labor by the women, the lack of laborers
in certain sections, the increase of immorality among the women, and the
introduction of a demoralizing example by returned young men. Prices and
the cost of living have increased. The returned immigrant, instead of
serving as an uplifting example of intelligent industry, is likely so to
conduct himself as to add to the already prevalent scorn for hard work,
and increase the prevailing unrest and discontent which leads to further
emigration.[384]

The general conclusion in regard to the effects of emigration upon
European countries, which the facts appear to justify, is that the
movement is at least of doubtful benefit to the countries of
source.[385] The obvious beneficial results are partially if not wholly
offset by certain undesirable consequences, insidious and persistent in
their nature, and likely to make themselves more manifest with the
passage of years. The attitude of European governments serves as a
verification of this conclusion. It is certain that the advantages of
emigration do not sufficiently outweigh its drawbacks in the eyes of
most of these governments to lead them to regard it otherwise than with
disfavor, although none of them now practically forbid it.[386] Nor is
that attitude due to the military interest alone.

The question of the effects of immigration upon the immigrants is
perhaps the most difficult of all to determine. It is manifest that it
must affect all of their life interests, in their own generation and for
many generations to come. And particularly, if it is desired to
ascertain whether the immigrant gains or loses in the long run by his
undertaking, the effort involves the attempt at evaluation of almost
every human activity, in order that a balance may be struck between the
good and the bad.

On the face of it, it seems that there must be some gain to the
immigrants from immigration. It is inconceivable that such a movement
should continue year after year unless those directly concerned in it
were profiting thereby. It is true, to be sure, that there is a vast
deal of misinformation, and false hope, on the part of the immigrants.
Those who are interested in their coming strive to paint the future in
the brightest possible colors, and to minimize the drawbacks. The
example of one or two eminently successful acquaintances is likely to
wholly outweigh that of many who only scrape along or fail altogether.
Nevertheless, making all allowances, it seems necessary to believe that
there is a net margin of advantage in the long run. It is perhaps
possible that this advantage may often be more specious than real, and
that the immigrant may believe himself the gainer when, if he could
balance true values, he would find himself in a more pitiable case than
before.

The great gain of the immigrant is to be looked for in the field of
wealth, or material prosperity. There can be little doubt that on the
average the immigrant is able to earn and save more, not only of money,
but of wealth in the broader sense, than he could at home. This is the
great underlying motive of modern immigration, and if it were illusory,
the movement must soon fail. A comparison of economic conditions in
Europe and America, as far as this can be made, seems to bear this out.
Both wages and prices are lower, on the whole, in the countries which
send us most of our immigrants than they are in the United States. But
wages appear to be proportionally lower than prices. The money sent from
America is a very real and tangible thing, and represents a great
economic advance on the part of a large proportion of the immigrants.

Doubtless, there is also somewhat of gain in independence and freedom
for many of the immigrants. The growth of class distinctions in the
United States has not yet proceeded so far that the immigrant from
Austria-Hungary or Italy does not feel an improvement in his social
status. To be sure, the classes of population with which the immigrant
establishes this social equality in the United States are not such as to
do him the greatest conceivable good, but a sense of heightened
self-respect and self-reliance does undoubtedly develop,
nevertheless.[387]

Many of the immigrants, of course, forge ahead, either because of
unusual ability or exceptional good fortune, and attain a position of
advancement in every way which would have been utterly inconceivable in
their old home. There are countless instances of prosperous business
men, eminent and respected citizens, invaluable servants of society in
this country, who could never have been anything but humble peasants in
their home land. These shining examples attract much attention here and
abroad, and serve as valuable illustrations of what may be accomplished
under favorable circumstances.[388]

But for the bulk of the ordinary immigrants the economic and other
advantages are offset by terrible hardships and losses. As one thinks of
the broken and separated families, often never reunited; of the
depressing, and degrading group life of men in this country; of
religious ideals shattered and new vices acquired in the unwonted and
untempered atmosphere of American liberty; of the frequent industrial
accidents and unceasing overstrain of the Slavs in mine and factory,
upon which they reckon as one of the concomitants of life in America,
and which sends them back to Europe in a few years, broken and
prematurely aged, but with an accumulation of dollars;[389] of the
tuberculosis contracted by Italians in the confined life to which they
are unaccustomed, and by Greek boot-blacks in their squalid quarters and
their long day’s labors;[390] of the sad conditions of labor in the
sweatshops and tenement workrooms;[391] of the child labor in the
cranberry bogs of Massachusetts and New Jersey;[392] of the destruction
of family life by the taking of boarders, and the heart-breaking toil of
the boarding-boss’s wife;[393] of the unremitting toil and scant
recreation, of the low wages and insufficient standard of living, of the
unsparing and niggardly thrift by which the savings are made possible—as
one thinks of these things, which are all too common to be considered
exceptional, and compares them with the conditions which characterize
peasant life in Europe, where many æsthetic and neighborly circumstances
tend to offset the poverty, one cannot help wondering how large a
proportion of our immigrants finally reap a net gain in the things that
are really worth while.

It is useless for any individual to undertake to answer this question
categorically for immigrants in general. The answer rests too much upon
personal opinion and estimation of relative values. The point that needs
to be emphasized in this connection is that against the evident and
unquestioned economic gain of most, and the general social and
intellectual gain of many, there must be set off a long list of serious,
though not always obvious, evils which result for a large proportion of
the immigrants under present conditions.

The question of the desirability of immigration from the point of view
of humanity as a whole, as previously stated, is a summation of the
aspects of the problem from the point of view of the United States, the
countries of source, and the immigrants. This balance must be struck by
every student for himself. The effort has been made in the foregoing
pages to set forth the facts which condition this great movement at the
present time, as a groundwork upon which reasonable conclusions may be
based. It has appeared that for the United States there is at present no
real need of further immigrants, and that the most that can be said is
that they do no harm. On the other hand, it seems likely that the evil
effects from the movement as at present conducted—effects to be
developed mainly in the future rather than existent at the present
time—will overbalance any good that may result. From the point of view
of European countries, while the advantages are obvious, it appears that
there are also fundamental drawbacks which may in the end more than
offset the gain. For the immigrant there is an undoubted net margin of
advantage on the average; but this advantage is less general and real
than is often supposed, and is qualified by many weighty considerations.
In striking this balance it is important to bear in mind the influence
of emigration and immigration upon total population. If it is true that
immigrants in a large measure are supplanters of native population,
rather than additions to population, it then becomes a question whether
the immigrants as a body are happier than the native population would
have been, which would otherwise have filled their places.

In regard to national prosperity and welfare, moreover, it must ever be
remembered that the effects of immigration upon all countries concerned,
particularly upon the receiving country, are scarcely more than in the
embryo. Such a tremendous movement as this must inevitably have
significant and far-reaching results. But only a prophetic vision could
state with assurance what those results will be.

One thing, however, seems certain—that the movement is not accomplishing
all the good that it might. Many of the foregoing statements in regard
to immigration have been qualified by the phrase “as at present
conducted.” The peculiar circumstances which have given rise to the
immigration movement certainly contain possibilities of great advantage
to the human race. It ought to be possible so to utilize them as to
bring about a great and permanent uplift for the whole of mankind. There
is no assurance that our present policy, adopted in its main features at
a time when conditions were radically different,[394] guarantees this
uplift in its maximum degree. What, then, ought to be done about it?
This is the real kernel of the immigration problem for the statesman and
the practical sociologist.

One of the great difficulties with which sincere social workers have to
contend in almost every field of their efforts is that practical
economics has advanced so much more rapidly than practical sociology.
Our knowledge of the technique of production and transportation, and of
the industrial arts, has made phenomenal strides in the past century.
The growth of cities, the development of the factory system, easy means
of communication between all countries, the growth of the world market,
advances in agricultural methods which have made the soil much more
productive per unit of labor, have coöperated to introduce a new set of
social conditions and problems with which we have not yet learned to
grapple. Our knowledge of how to produce satisfactory social relations
is far behind our knowledge of how to produce wealth. This is strikingly
evident in the matter of immigration. If transportation conditions and
means of communication had remained as they were at the time of the
Revolution, our present immigration situation could never have arisen.
There would have been a natural barrier which would have prevented too
large increments of European population from entering the new country
while it was working out its problems and gradually finding itself. The
problems of immigration which presented themselves would have been of
sufficiently moderate dimensions so that they could have been dealt with
as they arose. As it is, the recent rapid development of communication
has made the ease of immigration so great that we have been overwhelmed
by the resulting problems. The movement of millions of people from one
region to another is a phenomenon of prodigious sociological import.
Modern mechanical progress has made this movement possible, before the
nations or the individuals concerned have advanced far enough in social
science to know how to make the most of it.

Granting that there is an immigration problem, and granting that there
is a desire to grapple with it, there are two methods of attack. The
first is, to pick out the obvious evils, and apply a specific to them
one by one. The other is to endeavor to determine the underlying
principles and to devise a consistent and comprehensive plan which will
go to the root of the matter, relying upon established sociological
laws. The first method is much the simpler. It is the one which has
hitherto been followed out in our immigration legislation. One by one
certain crying evils have been met by definite measures. After half a
century of protest, paupers and criminals were refused admission. A
little later contract laborers were debarred. Certain diseased classes,
growing more comprehensive with the years, have been excluded. The
principle of deportation has been introduced and gradually enlarged.
Steamship companies have been made responsible for the return of
nonadmissible aliens. The net result of these measures has
unquestionably been beneficial. This type of remedy, if wisely
administered, is always valuable, and should be adopted, in the absence
or delay of the other kind of solution.

Certain other improvements of this general type readily suggest
themselves. The steerage should be abolished, and United States
inspectors placed on all immigrant-carrying vessels. If possible, better
provisions should be adopted for turning back inadmissibles early on
their journey. Immigrant banks and lodging houses should receive
stricter supervision. The padrone system and the unrestricted contract
labor system should be abolished. Tenement houses should be supervised
in the strictest way possible. Every remedial agency designed to better
the lot of the alien in this country should be encouraged.

It appears that many of the ills of immigration are due to faulty
distribution and the lack of efficient contact between aliens and the
better classes of Americans. Consequently, the need of better
distribution, and various schemes for securing it, are constantly urged
in the press, and in other writings on the subject. Yet we are warned to
be on our guard against pinning too much faith to this solution of the
problem. There are many evils which distribution alone cannot remedy,
and there is competent authority for the statement that much of the
agitation for better distribution emanates from interests which profit
by a large immigration, and which hope in this way to blind the eyes of
the American people to the more deep-seated evils, and to hush the cry
for some restrictive measures. Some think, also, that if there ever was
a time when any scheme of distribution would have been effective, it is
now long since past.[395]

In such ways as the foregoing, great good may be accomplished, and many
of the more obvious evils avoided or mitigated. It does not seem
possible, however, that in such a manner can the greatest possible good
be derived from the immigration movement. This can be achieved only
through the operation of some far-reaching, inclusive plan of
regulation, based on the broadest and soundest principles, in which all
countries concerned will concur. The formulation of such a plan requires
the greatest wisdom of which man is capable. It is possible that we have
not yet advanced far enough in social science to make the construction
of such a plan feasible. In such a case, it might be the part of wisdom
and honor to radically restrict the numbers of immigrants until such a
plan can be devised and put into operation. Otherwise, the peculiar
situation of the United States among nations may disappear, and the
possibilities of gain to the race be lost forever, before the maximum
advantage has been secured. One of the strongest arguments for
restriction at the present time is that the United States is not yet
qualified to accept the responsibility of admitting unlimited numbers of
eager seekers for advantages, and giving them in fullest measure those
things which they desire, and which their earnest efforts merit.

One thing, meanwhile, must be remembered—the problem will not solve
itself. If there are evils connected with immigration, there is no
prospect that in the natural course of events they will disappear of
themselves. The history of immigration has been a history of successive
waves of population, from sources ever lower in the economic, if not in
the social, scale. If it has seemed at any time that the country was
about to adjust itself to a certain racial admixture, a new and more
difficult element has presented itself. And the process will go on. As
General Walker pointed out long ago, immigration of the lowest class
“will not be permanently stopped so long as any difference of _economic
level_ exists between our population and that of the most degraded
communities abroad.”[396] Under present conditions a diminution in the
immigration stream should not be interpreted as a cause of
congratulation, but rather deep consternation. For, except to the extent
that restriction is actually accomplished by our laws, a cessation of
the stream of immigration to the United States can only mean that
economic conditions in this country have fallen to so low a pitch that
it is no longer worth while for the citizens of the meanest and most
backward foreign country to make the moderate effort to get here.




                              BIBLIOGRAPHY


NOTE. A bibliography on Immigration might be extended almost
indefinitely. Nearly every book written on any social question,
particularly in America, contains material on immigration. The magazine
articles on the subject are legion. By no means all the works which may
profitably be consulted, nor all those cited in the foregoing pages, are
included in the following list.


                       GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS


                                _Books_

  ADDAMS, JANE: Newer Ideals of Peace, 1907; Twenty Years at Hull-House,
    1910.

  ANDERSON, W. L.: The Country Town, 1906.

  BLODGET, SAMUEL: Economics: A Statistical Manual for the United States
    of America, 1806.

  BRANDENBURG, BROUGHTON: Imported Americans, 1904.

  BROMWELL, WILLIAM J.: History of Immigration into the United States,
    1856.

  BUSHEE, F. A.: Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston, American
    Economic Association, 3d Series, 4:2, 1903.

  BYINGTON, MARGARET F.: Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town, 1910.

  CHICKERING, JESSE: Immigration into the United States, 1848.

  COMMONS, JOHN R.: Races and Immigrants in America, 1908.

  DONALDSON, THOMAS: The Public Domain, 1881.

  EDWARDS, RICHARD H.: Immigration, 1909.

  ELLWOOD, CHARLES A.: Sociology and Modern Social Problems, 1910.

  ENDICOTT, WILLIAM C., JR.: Immigration Laws, State and National, in
    Commercial Relations of the United States, 1885–1886. Appendix III,
    1887.

  EVANS-GORDON, W.: The Alien Immigrant, 1903.

  GONNARD, RÉNÉ: L’Émigration européenne au XIX Siècle, 1906.

  GROSE, HOWARD B.: Aliens or Americans? 1906.

  HALL, PRESCOTT F.: Immigration, 1906.

  HENDERSON, C. R.: An Introduction to the Study of the Dependent,
    Defective, and Delinquent Classes, 1893.

  HUNTER, ROBERT: Poverty, 1904.

  Immigration Commission: Report, Authorized, 1907.

  JENKS, JEREMIAH, and LAUCK, W. JETT: The Immigration Problem, 1911.

  KAPP, FRIEDRICH: Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of
    the State of New York, 1870.

  KENNGOTT, GEORGE F.: The Record of a City, 1912.

  LINCOLN, JONATHAN T.: The City of the Dinner Pail, 1909.

  MACLEAN, ANNIE M.: Wage-Earning Women, 1910.

  MARTINEAU, HARRIET: Society in America, 1837.

  MAYO-SMITH, RICHMOND: Emigration and Immigration, 1890.

  New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration: First Annual Report,
    1911.

  New York Commission of Immigration: Report, 1909.

  VON RAUMER, F. L.: America and the American People, 1846.

  RAUSCHENBUSCH, WALTER: Christianity and the Social Crisis, 1910.

  RIIS, JACOB: How the Other Half Lives, 1890; The Making of an
    American, 1901.

  ROBERTS, PETER: Anthracite Coal Communities, 1904; The New
    Immigration, 1912.

  ROSCHER, WILHELM, and JANNASCH, ROBERT: Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik, und
    Auswanderung, 1885.

  SEYBERT, ADAM: Statistical Annals of the United States, 1789–1818,
    1818.

  SPILLER, G.: Interracial Problems, 1911.

  STEINER, EDWARD A.: On the Trail of the Immigrant, 1906; The Immigrant
    Tide, 1909.

  STELZLE, CHARLES: The Working Man and Social Problems, 1903.

  SUMNER, WILLIAM G.: Folkways, 1907; War and Other Essays, 1911.

  TAUSSIG, F. W.: Principles of Economics, 1911.

  TROLLOPE, MRS. T. A.: Domestic Manners of the Americans, 1832.

  United States Bureau of the Census: Census Reports; A Century of
    Population Growth, 1909.

  United States Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization: Commissioner
    General of Immigration, Annual Reports; Immigration Laws
    (Pamphlets).

  United States Bureau of Statistics: Immigration into the United States
    from 1820 to 1903, 1903; Special Report on Immigration, by Young,
    Edward, 1871.

  United States Congress: Documents, Reports, etc.

  United States Library of Congress: A List of Books (with references to
    periodicals) on Immigration, 1907.

  WALKER, F. A.: Discussions in Economics and Statistics, 1899.

  WATSON, JOHN F.: Annals of Philadelphia, 1830.

  WHELPLEY, JAMES D.: The Problem of the Immigrant, 1905.

  WILKINS, WILLIAM H.: The Alien Invasion, 1892.

  WOODS, ROBERT A., and others: Americans in Process, 1902; The City
    Wilderness, 1898.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  AINSWORTH, F. H.: Are We Shouldering Europe’s Burden? Charities,
    12:134, 1904.

  American Museum: 1:13; 2:213; 5:109; 7:87, 233, 240; 8:124; 10:114,
    221; 12:112; 13:196, 263, 268, 1787–98.

  BARROWS, W.: Immigration; Its Evils and their Remedies. New Englander,
    13:262, 1855.

  BRANDENBURG, BROUGHTON: The Tragedy of the Rejected Immigrant,
    Outlook, 84:361, 1906.

  Chambers’ Journal: Warning to Emigrants, 50:644, 1873.

  CHAMBERS, W.: Emigrant Entrappers, Chambers’ Journal, 23:141, 1855.

  COMMONS, JOHN R.: Social and Industrial Problems of Immigration,
    Chautauquan, 39:13, 1904.

  DE BOW’S REVIEW: Sources from which Great Empires Come, 18:698, 1855.

  DEVINE, EDWARD T.: The Selection of Immigrants, The Survey, Feb. 4,
    1911.

  EVERETT, A. H.: Immigration to the United States, North American
    Review, 40:457, 1835.

  GOLDENWEISER, E. A.: Immigrants in Cities, The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911.

  HALL, PRESCOTT F.: The Future of American Ideals, North American
    Review, 195:94, 1912.

  HART, A. B.: The Disposition of Our Public Lands, Quarterly Journal of
    Economics, 1:169, 251, 1887.

  HAZARD, SAMUEL: Register of Pennsylvania, 1:25; 6:266; 8:31, 27, 33,
    54, 88, 108, 116; 11:361, 416; 15:157, 1828–35.

  LEE, JOSEPH: Conservation of Yankees, The Survey, Oct. 28, 1911.

  Monthly Anthology: Letter from a French Emigrant, 6:383, 1809.

  Niles’ Register: 11:359; 13:35, 378; 17:38, 63; 20:193; 22:155, 310;
    23:305; 24:113, 411; 25:232; 34:411; 40:74, 130, 273; 41:356; 43:40,
    391; 44:131, 233; 45:2; 46:1, 218, 244, 398; 49:62, 69; 52:250,
    1816–38.

  North American Review: Review of von Fürstenwärther, M., Der Deutsche
    in Nord-Amerika, 11:1, 1820; Figures of Immigration, 1812–21,
    15:301, 304, 1822; Review of Schmidt and Gall on America, 17:91,
    1823; Quotations from Hodgson’s Remarks on America, 18:222, 1824.

  RIPLEY, WILLIAM Z.: Races in the United States, Atlantic Monthly,
    102:745, 1908.

  ROSSITER, W. S.: A Common-Sense View of the Immigration Problem, North
    American Review, 188:360, 1908.

  SATO, S.: History of the Land Question in the United States, Johns
    Hopkins Studies, 4:259, 1886.

  SHALER, N. S.: European Peasants as Immigrants, Atlantic Monthly,
    71:646, 1893.

  TOBENKIN, ELIAS: Immigrant Girl in Chicago, The Survey, Nov. 6, 1909.

  WILLIS, H. PARKER: Review of Findings of the Immigration Commission,
    The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911.


                           GENERAL MIGRATION


                                _Books_

  BRADLEY, HENRY: The Story of the Goths, 1888.

  HODGKIN, THOMAS: Theodoric the Goth, 1891.

  JORDANES: The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, English version by
    Mierow, Charles C., 1908.

  KELLER, ALBERT G.: Colonization, 1908.

  LEROY-BEAULIEU, PAUL: De la Colonisation chez les Peuples Modernes,
    1908.

  MERIVALE, HERMAN: Lectures on Colonization, 1861.

  VON PFLUGK-HARTTUNG, JULIUS: The Great Migrations, translated by
    Wright, John Henry, 1905.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  BRYCE, JAMES: Migrations of the Races of Men Considered Historically,
    Contemporary Review, 62:128, 1892.

  MASON, OTIS T.: Migration and the Food Quest, American Anthropologist,
    7:275, 1894.


                            COLONIAL PERIOD


                                _Books_

  Archives of Maryland.

  ARMSTRONG, EDWARD: Correspondence between William Penn and James Logan
    and Others, 1870–72.

  BITTINGER, LUCY F.: The Germans in Colonial Times, 1901.

  COBB, S. H.: The Story of the Palatines, 1897.

  DEXTER, F. B.: Estimates of Population in the American Colonies, 1887.

  DIFFENDERFFER, F. R.: The German Immigration into Pennsylvania through
    the Port of Philadelphia, 1700–75, 1900.

  Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York.

  FISKE, JOHN: Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, 1897.

  GEISER, K. F.: Redemptioners and Indentured Servants in the Colony and
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1901.

  Massachusetts Election Sermons, 1754.

  MITTELBERGER, GOTTLIEB: Journey to Pennsylvania in 1750, translated by
    Eben, C. T., 1898.

  New Jersey Archives.

  North Carolina Colonial Documents.

  Pennsylvania Colonial Records.

  PROPER, E. E.: Colonial Immigration Laws, Columbia College Studies,
    12:2, 1900.

  Rhode Island Colonial Records.


                             RACIAL STUDIES


                                _Books_

  ANTIN, MARY: The Promised Land, 1912.

  BALCH, EMILY G.: Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens, 1910.

  BENJAMIN, G. G.: The Germans in Texas, 1909.

  BERNHEIMER, CHARLES S.: The Russian Jew in the United States, 1905.

  CARO, L.: Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Österreich, 1909.

  COOLIDGE, MARY R.: Chinese Immigration, 1909.

  FAIRCHILD, H. P.: Greek Immigration to the United States, 1911.

  FAUST, A. B.: The German Element in the United States, 1909.

  FLOM, GEORGE T.: Norwegian Immigration into the United States, 1909.

  GREEN, S. S.: The Scotch-Irish in America, 1895.

  HALE, E. E.: Letters on Irish Immigration, 1852.

  HANNA, CHARLES A.: The Scotch-Irish, 1902.

  KING, BOLTON, and OKEY, THOMAS: Italy To-day, 1901.

  LORD, ELIOT, TRENOR, J. D., and BARROWS, S. J.: The Italian in
    America, 1905.

  MACLEAN, J. P.: Settlements of Scotch Highlanders in America, 1900.

  MAGUIRE, J. F.: The Irish in America, 1868.

  NELSON, O. N.: History of Scandinavians and Successful Scandinavians
    in the United States, 1900.

  PETERS, MADISON C.: The Jews in America, 1905.

  RUBINOW, I. M.: Economic Condition of the Jews in Russia, United
    States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 72, 1907.

  SEWARD, GEORGE F.: Chinese Immigration, 1881.

  SPARKS, E. E.: The Chinese Question, in National Development, 1877–85,
    p. 229, 1907.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  ABBOTT, GRACE: The Bulgarians of Chicago, Charities, 21:653, 1909.

  BODIO, L.: Dell’ Emigrazione Italiana, Nuova Antologia, 183:529, 1902.

  EVERETT, E.: German Immigration to the United States, North American
    Review, 11:1, 1820.

  HOUGHTON, LOUISE S.: Syrians in the United States, The Survey, July 1,
    Aug. 5, Sept. 2, Oct. 7, 1911; The above criticised, The Survey,
    Oct. 28, 1911.

  MANGANO, ANTONIO: The Effect of Emigration Upon Italy, Charities and
    the Commons, Jan. 4, Feb. 1, April 4, May 2, June 6, 1908.

  MILLIS, H. A.: East Indian Immigration to British Columbia and the
    Pacific Coast States, American Economic Review, 1:72, 1911.

  North American Review: The Irish in America, 52:191, 1841.

  RUBINOW, I. M.: The Jews in Russia, Yale Review, 15:147, 1906.


                          INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


                                _Books_

  ADAMS, T. S., and SUMNER, H. L.: Labor Problems, 1905.

  DEWEES, F. P.: The Molly Maguires, 1877.

  HOURWICH, ISAAC A.: Immigration and Labor, 1912.

  STEWART, ETHELBERT: Influence of Trade Unions on Immigrants, In
    LaFollette, R. M., The Making of America, Vol. 8, p. 226, 1906.

  WARNE, F. J.: The Slav Invasion and the Mine Workers, 1904.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  All the Year Round: Molly Maguire in America, New Series, 17:270,
    1876.

  BAILEY, W. B.: The Bird of Passage, American Journal of Sociology,
    18:391, 1912.

  CANCE, ALEXANDER E.: Immigrant Rural Communities, The Survey, Jan. 7,
    1911; Jewish Immigrants as Tobacco Growers and Dairymen, The Survey,
    Nov. 4, 1911; Piedmontese on the Mississippi, The Survey, Sept. 2,
    1911; Slav Farmers on the “Abandoned-Farm” Area of Connecticut, The
    Survey, Oct. 7, 1911.

  CHUTE, CHARLES L.: The Cost of the Cranberry Sauce, The Survey, Dec.
    2, 1911.

  DARLINGTON, THOMAS: Medico-Economic Aspect of the Immigration Problem,
    North American Review, 183:1262, 1906.

  HOLCOMBE, A. N.: Minimum Wage Boards, The Survey, April 1, 1911.

  KELLOGG, PAUL U.: An Immigrant Labor Tariff, The Survey, Jan. 7, 1911;
    The above criticised, The Survey, Feb. 4, 1911.

  LAUCK, W. JETT: Industrial Communities, The Survey, Jan. 1, 1911.

  LOVEJOY, OWEN R.: Cost of the Cranberry Sauce, The Survey, Jan. 1,
    1911.

  Political Science Quarterly: Levasseur’s American Workman, 13:321,
    1898.

  RHODES, J. F.: The Molly Maguires in the Anthracite Region of
    Pennsylvania, American Historical Review, 15:547, 1910.

  RIPLEY, WILLIAM Z.: Race Factors in Labor Unions, Atlantic Monthly,
    93:299, 1904.

  ROBERTS, PETER: The Foreigner and His Savings, Charities, 21:757,
    1909.

  SPEARE, CHARLES F.: What America Pays Europe for Immigrant Labor,
    North American Review, 187:106, 1908.


                          POLITICAL RELATIONS


                                _Books_

  FRANKLIN, FRANK G.: The Legislative History of Naturalization in the
    United States, 1906.

  United States Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization: Naturalization
    Laws, 1911.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  MCMASTER, J. B.: The Riotous Career of the Know-Nothings, Forum,
    17:524, 1894.


                          RELIGIOUS RELATIONS


                                _Books_

  United States Bureau of the Census: Religious Bodies, 1906.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  COUDERT, FREDERIC R.: The American Protective Association, Forum,
    17:513, 1894.

  GLADDEN, W.: The Anti-Catholic Crusade, Century, 25:789, 1894.

  WHITE, GAYLORD S.: The Protestant Church and the Immigrant, The
    Survey, Sept. 25, 1909.

  WINSTON, E. M.: The Threatening Conflict with Romanism, Forum, 17:425,
    1894.


                            SOCIAL RELATIONS


                                _Books_

  ARONOVICI, CAROL: Some Nativity and Race Factors in Rhode Island,
    1910.

  BINGHAM, T. A.: The Girl that Disappears, 1911.

  BONAR, J.: Malthus and His Work, 1885.

  BOURNE, S.: Trade, Population, and Food, 1880.

  United States Bureau of the Census; Insane and Feeble-Minded in
    Hospitals and Institutions, 1906; Paupers in Almshouses, 1904;
    Prisoners and Juvenile Delinquents in Institutions, 1907.

  WHITE, ARNOLD: The Destitute Alien in Great Britain, 1892.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  BINGHAM, T. A.: Foreign Criminals in New York, North American Review,
    188:383, 1908.

  BUSHEE, F. A.: The Declining Birth Rate and Its Cause, Popular Science
    Monthly, 63:355, 1903.

  CLAGHORN, K. H.: Immigration and Dependence, Charities, 12:151, 1904;
    Immigration in its Relation to Pauperism, Annals American Academy of
    Political Science, 24:187, 1904.

  COMMONS, JOHN R.: City Life, Crime, and Poverty, Chautauquan, 38:118,
    1903.

  DAVENPORT, CHARLES B.: The Origin and Control of Mental Defectiveness,
    Popular Science Monthly, 80:87, 1912.

  DUNRAVEN, EARL OF: The Invasion of Destitute Aliens, Nineteenth
    Century, 31:985, 1892.

  FAIRCHILD, H. P.: Distribution of Immigrants, Yale Review, 16:296,
    1907.

  FISHER, S. G.: Alien Degradation of American Character, Forum, 14:608,
    1893; Has Immigration Increased the Population? Popular Science
    Monthly, 48:244, 1895.

  HART, H. H.: Immigration and Crime, American Journal of Sociology,
    2:369, 1896.

  HUNTER, ROBERT: Immigration the Annihilator of our Native Stock, The
    Commons, 9:114, 1904.

  Monthly Chronicle: Pauperism in Massachusetts, 3:564, 1842.

  PATTEN, S. N.: A New Statement of the Law of Population, Political
    Science Quarterly, 10:44, 1895.

  ROSS, E. A.: Western Civilization and the Birth Rate, American Journal
    of Sociology, 12:607, 1907.

  ROSSITER, W. S.: The Diminishing Increase of Population, Atlantic
    Monthly, 102:212, 1908.

  ROUND, WILLIAM M. F.: Immigration and Crime, Forum, 8:428, 1889.

  TUKE, J. W.: State Aid to Immigrants, Nineteenth Century, 17:280,
    1885.

  WHITE, ARNOLD: The Invasion of Pauper Foreigners, Nineteenth Century,
    23:414, 1888.

  WILLCOX, W. F.: The Distribution of Immigrants in the United States,
    Quarterly Journal of Economics, 20:523, 1906.


                           STANDARD OF LIVING


                                _Books_

  CHAPIN, ROBERT C.: The Standard of Living Among Workingmen’s Families
    in New York City, 1909.

  STREIGHTOFF, FRANK H.: The Standard of Living Among the Industrial
    People of America, 1911.


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  ALMY, FREDERIC: The Huddled Poles of Buffalo, The Survey, Feb. 4,
    1911.

  BRECKENRIDGE, SOPHONISBA, and ABBOTT, EDITH: Housing Conditions in
    Chicago, American Journal of Sociology, 16:289, 433; 17:1, 145,
    1910–11.

  CHAPIN, ROBERT C.: Living Costs: A World Problem, The Survey, Feb. 3,
    1912.

  HUNT, MILTON B.: The Housing of Nonfamily Groups of Men in Chicago,
    American Journal of Sociology, 16:145, 1910.

  MARK, MARY L.: The Upper East Side: A Study in Living Conditions and
    Migration, American Statistical Association, 10:345, 1907.

  THOMPSON, CARL D.: Socialists and Slums, Milwaukee, The Survey, Dec.
    3, 1910.

  WARD, ROBERT DE C.: Congestion and Immigration, The Survey, Sept. 9,
    1911.


                          SHIPPING CONDITIONS


                       _Magazine Articles, etc._

  All the Year Round: Aboard an Emigrant Ship, 7:111, 1862.

  Chambers’ Journal: Emigrant Ship _Washington_, 16:27, 1851; Trip in an
    Emigrant Ship, etc., 1:228, 262, 302, 1844.

  Living Age: Scenes in Emigrant Ships, 26:492, 1850.

  United States Senate Reports: Sickness and Mortality on Board Emigrant
    Ships, 33d Congress, 1st Session, Committee Report No. 386, 1853–54.




                                 INDEX


 Advertising, 153.

 Age distribution of immigrants, 194–196, 316.

 Agents, 132, 148–160.

 Agriculture, 59, 72, 263.

 Alaric, 13.

 Alexander the Great, 15.

 Alien Bill, 57.

 Almshouses, paupers in, 312, 318, 319, 320.

 American Protective Association, 294.

 American type, 51, 147, 399, 408.

 Americanization. See Assimilation.

 Ancient Order of Hibernians, 95.

 Appeals, 111, 114, 116, 185.

 Argentina, 22, 27, 137.

 Arguments concerning immigration, 388–415.

 Assimilation, 51, 58, 69, 103, 130, 194, 196, 199, 202, 231, 257, 327,
    369, 375, 397–415.

 Assimilation argument, 397.

 Assisted immigration, 159.

 Association, 409.

 Attitude toward immigrants, of colonists, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46;
   of American people, 54, 65, 88, 99, 164.
   See also Race prejudice.

 Australia, 22, 24, 27.

 Austria-Hungary, 128, 134–136.

 Austro-American Company, 171.

 Avars, 14.


 Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, 321, 339.

 Berths, 175.

 Biological argument, 390, 397.

 Birds of passage, 126, 359.

 Birth rate, European, 420;
   foreign-born, 222, 225, 298, 377;
   native, 215–218, 375.

 Births, 298.

 Black Hand, 334.

 Boarders, 239, 242, 243–246, 253, 262.

 Bohemians, 73.

 Bonding shipowners, 41, 45, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80.

 Boot-blacking. See Shoe-shining.

 Boston, 282.

 Brutality at immigrant stations, 186.

 Buffalo, 239.

 Bulgaria, 142.


 Cabin passengers, 183.

 California, 99.

 Canada, 22, 27, 79, 81, 133, 168;
   aliens arriving in, 121.

 Canals, 62, 63.

 Carolina colonies, 35.

 Castle Garden, 80, 91.

 Causes of immigration, 34, 131, 144;
   from Austria-Hungary, 134;
   Bulgaria, 142;
   China, 98;
   Germany, 72;
   Ireland, 73;
   Italy, 136;
   Russia, 139;
   Scandinavia, 93.

 Causes of migration, 3, 5.

 Certificate of citizenship, 365.

 Chain-letter system, 156–157.

 Charitable organizations, 312, 328, 413.

 Charity organization societies, 313, 318, 322, 326.

 Chicago, 278.

 Children, occupations of, 266.

 China, 17.

 Chinese, 98–105.

 Cities, growth of, 374.

 Civil War, 86, 90.

 Cleanliness, 242, 247.

 Climatic changes, 14.

 Clothing of immigrants, 256–257.

 Colonies classified, 17.

 Colonists, 29.

 Colonization, 16, 28.

 Commissioner General of Immigration, 113, 114.

 Commissioners of Emigration in New York, 76, 79.

 Company houses, 254.

 Conditions. See separate headings, _i.e._ Housing, Sex, Wages, etc.

 Congestion, 228–231, 236–242.

 Conjugal conditions of immigrants, 201–202.

 Conquest, 14.

 Conservation, 382, 394.

 Contract labor laws, 90, 108, 111, 153–154, 279.

 Contract labor system, 277–280.

 Control-stations, German, 173.

 Convicts, imported. See Criminals, imported.

 Coöperative housekeeping, 247.

 Crime, 328–338.

 Crime argument, 395.

 Criminals, imported, 43, 44, 48, 56, 67.

 Crises, 123, 347–361.


 Deaths, 298.

 Debarred aliens, 207–211, 336.

 Declaration of intention, 364.

 Density of population, 228, 375.

 Departing aliens, 116, 124–128, 347, 351.

 Department of Commerce and Labor created, 114.

 Department of Labor, 118.

 Depopulation, 424, 426.

 Deportation, 57, 102, 109, 112, 114, 118, 337.

 Destination of immigrants, 206–207.

 Destitution, 40, 317.
   See also Pauperism.

 Discharging, 290.

 Discoveries Period, 27.

 Disease, 86, 209–211.

 Displacement, 133, 235, 342.

 Dissatisfaction, as a cause, of immigration, 133, 145, 148;
   of migration, 4.

 Distribution argument, 394, 435.

 Distribution of immigrants, 207, 226–232.


 Early population movements, 1.

 East Indians, 168.

 Economic argument, 391.

 Economic competition, 50, 57, 69, 105, 222, 302, 342.

 Economic conditions of immigrants in colonial period, 40;
   in modern period, 204–206.

 Economic nature of immigration, 145, 341, 363, 428.

 Economics, practical, 433.

 Effects of immigration. See separate headings, _i.e._ Housing, Standard
    of Living, Wages, etc. See also Arguments.

 Effects of migration, 8.

 Ellis Island, 183–185.

 Embargo, 59.

 Embarkation, conditions at port of, 169.

 Emigrant aliens, defined, 125.
   See also Departing aliens.

 Encouragement of immigration, 55, 60, 62, 87, 90, 383, 389;
   forbidden, 110.

 England, colonists from, 32.

 English, 401.

 English language, ability to speak, 267, 272, 327, 365, 401.

 Environment, 406.

 Europe, 14, 17, 167, 417.

 Examination in Europe, 171.

 Excluded classes, 76, 78, 105, 107, 110, 113, 115.

 Exclusion. See Debarred aliens.

 Exclusion of Chinese, 102, 113.

 Exploitation, of immigrants, 79, 274–289, 291;
   of resources, 382, 391–392.


 Family incomes, 261.

 Famine, Irish, 72, 421.

 Farm colonies, 17, 22.

 Farms, 210, 211.

 Federal laws, 61, 82, 87, 90, 102, 105, 106–120, 386.

 Feeble-mindedness, 339.

 Food, of immigrants in the United States, 254–256;
   on shipboard, 83, 176–179.

 Foreign-American societies, 405.

 Foreign-born population, number and race, 214.

 Foreign missions, 296, 401.

 Fraud in naturalization, 367.

 French, 71.


 Gains of immigrants, 428–430.

 Germans, 33, 71, 84, 92.

 Germany. See Germans.

 Goths, 11.

 Greece, 17, 422, 426.

 Greek Orthodox Church, 141.

 Greeks, 150, 157, 159, 275, 333.

 Gresham’s Law, 342.


 Haida Indians, 3.

 Hamburg-American emigrant village, 170.

 Head forms, 407.

 Head tax, 42, 74, 76, 77, 78, 107, 113, 115.

 Hebrews. See Jews.

 Heredity, 406.

 Hindus. See East Indians.

 Historical analogies, 414.

 History of immigration, 27.

 Hospitals, 43;
   private, 80.
   See also Bellevue and Allied Hospitals.

 Housing conditions, 234–254.

 Huguenots, 24, 33.

 Humanity, point of view of, 431.

 Huns, 14.


 Illegal entrance argument, 396.

 Illiteracy, 197–201, 325.

 Imitation, 409.

 Immigrant Aid Societies, 289–293.

 Immigrant aliens defined, 125.

 Immigrant banks, 283–287.

 Immigrant Homes, 289–293.

 Immigration Commission authorized, 117.

 Immigration defined, 20, 26.

 Immorality, in the United States, 292, 335;
   on shipboard, 87, 179.

 Importation of paupers and criminals, 40, 43, 64, 68.

 Indented servants, 48.

 Indentured servants. See Indented servants.

 India, 16.

 Indifference, 411.

 Indifference argument, 393.

 Induced immigration, 93, 132, 148–162, 379, 387.

 Industrial depressions, 92, 123, 124, 145.

 Insanity, 338.

 Inspection of immigrants, in Canada and Mexico, 121;
   on arrival, 43, 111, 183–188;
   on embarkation, 170.

 Inspectors on shipboard, 182, 434.

 Intellectual qualities of immigrants, 197.

 Interbreeding, 390, 397.

 Interest rates, 353.

 Interests, 387.

 Intermarriage, 202, 299, 397, 400.

 Internal migration, 90, 373.

 Invasion, 10.

 Ireland, 421.
   See also Irish.

 Irish, 63, 69, 71, 83, 92, 94, 146, 238, 310, 368.

 Italians, 238, 240, 241, 334.

 Italy, 13, 128, 136, 423–426.
   See also Italians.


 Japanese, 167.

 Jews, 8, 23, 139, 238, 241, 288, 296, 362.

 Juvenile delinquency, 298, 337.


 Know Nothing Party, 85.


 Labor. See Wages, Standard of Living, Shortage of Labor, etc.

 Labor agents, 153.

 Labor conditions, 346.

 Labor-saving devices, 344.

 _Laissez-faire_, 385.

 Land. See Ratio of men to land.

 Laws. See Federal laws and State laws.

 Liquor, 63, 332.

 Literacy, 267.

 Literacy test, 197, 199–201.

 Living wage, 264–266.

 Loan-sharks, 160.

 Lodgers. See Boarders.

 London Company, 30.

 Losses of immigrants, 429.

 Lumber camps, 282.


 Magyars, 14.

 Maine, 282.

 Malthusianism, 219–221, 381, 416.

 Manifests, 111, 112, 172.

 Manufacturing industries, 59, 62, 259, 375.

 Marine Hospital, New York, 74, 76.

 Marine Hospital Service, officers of, 111, 172, 184.

 Marriages, 299.

 Maryland colony, 44, 47.

 Massachusetts, colony, 31, 37, 46;
   State, 78.

 May Laws, 141.

 Mennonites, 33.

 Methods of emigration agents, 149.

 Migration, defined, 2;
   forced, 23;
   intra-state, 24.

 Migration, seasonal, 2, 3;
   causes of, 3, 33;
   classified, 6;
   economic, 6, 12;
   political, 7;
   social, 7;
   religious, 7;
   effects of, 8;
   routes of, 9.

 Milwaukee, 240, 314.

 Mining, 94.

 Mining communities, 246, 248, 253.

 Missionaries, 290, 292.

 Molly Maguires, 94–98, 334.

 Money brought in, 202–204.

 Money sent home, 157, 158–160, 204, 287, 326, 345, 421, 424.

 Moors, 23.

 Moral dangers, 295.

 Mores, 10, 15, 16, 403.

 Mortgages, 150, 160, 278.

 Motives of migration, 5.


 Native American Party, 70, 81.

 Naturalization, 58, 70, 85, 101, 114, 115, 272, 363, 364–368.

 New immigration, 128, 250.

 New Jersey colony, 32, 35.

 New Netherland, 31.

 New-type steerage, 180–181.

 New York City, 289, 329, 331.

 New York, colony, 32, 35, 46;
   State, 74.

 Nonemigrant aliens, 359;
   defined, 125.

 Nonimmigrant aliens, 359;
   defined, 125.

 North Carolina, colony, 44;
   State, 57.

 Notary public, 287.

 Numbers argument, 393.


 Occupations of immigrants, 204–206, 223.

 Old immigration, 128, 249.

 Old-type steerage, 174–180.

 Open-door policy, 383, 388.

 Opposition to immigration, 41, 54, 68, 69, 70, 81, 85, 91, 99, 104.
   See also Arguments.

 Orders in Council, 59.

 Overcrowding on shipboard, 44, 61, 82, 87, 180.
   See also Congestion.

 Overpopulation, 6, 12, 14, 16, 136, 138, 383.

 Overproduction, 352.


 Padrone system, 274–277.

 Palatinate, 34.

 Palatines, 33, 34.

 Panic of 1907, 286, 350.

 Parochial schools, 273, 411.

 Pauperism, 63, 84, 311–328.

 Pauperism argument, 395.

 Paupers, imported, 64.

 Penal colonies, 24.

 Pennsylvania, colony, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41;
   State, 56, 94.

 Peonage system, 280–283.

 Persons per room, 237.

 Petition for naturalization, 364.

 Philanthropy, 413.

 Phœnicia, 17.

 Physical conditions of immigrants, colonial period, 40;
   1820–1860, 64, 81;
   modern period, 209–211.

 Physiological analogy, 398.

 Plantation colonies, 18.

 Plymouth colony, 31.

 Plymouth Company, 30.

 Poles, 239, 241.

 Politics, 70, 363–368.

 Poorhouses, private, 80.

 Population, effect of emigration upon, 416–421, 423;
   effect of immigration upon, 215–225, 341.

 Population movements, four forms of, 2.

 Potato, 73.

 Prepaid tickets, 158, 169, 284, 379.

 Presbyterians, 33, 37.

 Prices, 137, 302, 307, 352, 422, 425.

 Prisoners, 330.

 Protection, 289.

 Protestantism, 46, 51, 70, 297.

 Provisions on shipboard, 61.

 Public domain, 372.

 Public schools, 252, 270–272, 410.


 Quakers, 33, 47.

 Quality of immigrants, 377–380, 395, 419.


 Race prejudice, 39, 99, 103, 297, 362, 397, 411.

 Racial composition, 128–131, 189, 369.

 Railroads, 62, 63.

 Ratio of men to land, 6, 21, 38, 88, 146, 303, 370–373, 381.

 Recreations, 299.

 Redemptioners, 48.

 Reformation, Protestant, 33, 34.

 Regulation, 386.

 Religion, 293–298.

 Remedies, 434–436.

 Remittances. See Money sent home.

 Responsibility of the United States, 382, 387, 432–436.

 Restriction, 42, 393, 394, 436.

 Retardation, 272.

 Returned emigrants, 157–158, 422, 424, 426.

 Revolution of 1848, 72.

 Rhode Island colony, 47.

 Roman Catholicism, 34, 47, 70, 85, 293.

 Roman Empire, 12.

 Rome, 13, 15, 17.

 Rooms per apartment, 236.

 Routes of migration, 9.

 Runners, 79.
   See also Agents.

 Russia, 22, 128, 139.


 Sanitary provisions on shipboard, 176;
   on land, see Housing conditions.

 Savings, 284, 323, 345, 357.

 Scandinavians, 93.

 Schools, 269–273.
   See also Parochial schools and Public schools.

 Scotch-Irish, 33, 36.

 Second generation, 403.

 Sentimental argument, 388.

 Sex distribution of immigrants, 190–194, 317, 419.

 Ship fever, 84.

 Shipping, 59, 84, 91, 131.

 Shipping conditions, 59, 63, 81.
   See also Voyage.

 Shoe-shining industry, 275–277, 282.

 Shortage of labor, 344, 357.

 Skye, Isle of, 419.

 Slavery, 19, 24, 30, 164.

 Slums, 234, 242, 251, 403.

 Social argument, 390.

 Social stratification, 361.

 Sociology, applied, 384, 387, 433.

 Sources of immigration, 167, 419.

 South Africa, 22, 27.

 Special inquiry, boards of, 113, 114, 185.

 Standard of living, 221, supposed to be 224–273, 303–310, 417.

 Standard of living argument, 394.

 Standpoints, 385, 388.

 State laws, 74–81, 104.

 Statistics of immigration, authorized, 62.

 Steerage conditions, 86, 174–182.

 Steerage legislation, 82, 87, 118–120.

 Steerage rates, 148, 181.

 Stimulated immigration. See Induced immigration.

 Stimulation argument, 396.

 Stowaways, 121.

 Superintendent of Immigration, 111, 113.

 Supreme Court decisions, 77.

 Sweat shops, 288.

 Sweden, colonists from, 31.


 Tamerlane. See Timur.

 Tariff, 60, 92.

 Temporary immigration, 138, 379.

 Theodoric, 13.

 Timur, 14.

 Trachoma, 209, 210, 211.

 Trade-unions, 310.

 Tradition, 383, 392.

 Transit, aliens in, 121, 125–126.

 Transportation companies, 148–153, 170, 175, 207.

 Treaties with China, 101.


 Underconsumption, 352, 357.

 Unemployment, 352.

 United Hebrew Charities, 323.

 United States, 22, 24, 27, 53, 382, 388.


 Ventilation, of steerage, 178;
   of houses, see Housing conditions.

 Virginia colony, 30.

 Volume of immigration, 1783–1820, 53;
   1820–1860, 62, 73, 74;
   1860–1882, 92;
   1882–1912, 102, 106, 123–128;
   1820–1912, 189, 369, 384.

 Voyage, 39, 61, 83, 174, 379.


 Wages argument, 394.

 Wages, in Europe, 422;
   in Italy, 137, 424;
   in the United States, 258–264, 301–310, 354.

 Wandering, defined, 1, 10.

 War of 1812, 59.

 Wealth, amount of, 345;
   distribution of, 346;
   growth of, 392;
   love of, 411.

 Weekly earnings, 260.

 White slavery, 296, 334–337, 365.


 Yearly earnings, 261, 276.

 Young Men’s Christian Association, 297.

-----

Footnote 1:

  Mason, Otis T., “Migration and the Food Quest,” _American
  Anthropologist_, 7:279.

Footnote 2:

  Mason, Otis T., “Migration and the Food Quest,” _American
  Anthropologist_, 7:275.

Footnote 3:

  Professor A. G. Keller brings out this point in his unpublished
  lectures on Colonization, where the causes of emigration are
  classified under unsatisfactory conditions of environment, either
  physical or human. He also emphasizes the strength of the home tie in
  resisting emigration.

Footnote 4:

  Henry George does not appear to recognize this dividing line, but
  seems to regard an indefinite increase of numbers as bearing with it
  the possibility of improvement. The opposite view is maintained by
  Professor Irving Fisher, _Elementary Principles of Economics_, pp. 434
  ff.

Footnote 5:

  Cf. Bryce, James, “Migrations of the Races of Men Considered
  Historically,” _Contemporary Review_, 62:128.

Footnote 6:

  Bradley, H., _The Story of the Goths_, p. 21. Cf. Von Pflugk-Harttung,
  J., _The Great Migrations_, p. 110.

Footnote 7:

  Bradley, _op. cit._, p. 365. See this work for fuller details of the
  Gothic invasion. Also Von Pflugk-Harttung, _op. cit._, and Hodgkin,
  Thomas, _Theodoric the Goth_.

Footnote 8:

  Huntington, Ellsworth, _The Pulse of Asia_, pp. 357, 373, 383.

Footnote 9:

  Keller, A. G., _Colonization_, Ch. I.

Footnote 10:

  Sumner, W. G., _War and Other Essays_, “Sociology.”

Footnote 11:

  Well developed, of course, in the sense of culture, not in the
  exploitation of natural resources.

Footnote 12:

  There has not only been much looseness and ambiguity in the use of the
  word “immigration,” but also an apparent feeling that immigration and
  emigration are two different things, as is witnessed by the title of
  one of the standard works on the subject. They are, in fact, only two
  different ways of looking at the same thing. As so often happens in
  the social sciences, the student of immigration is under the necessity
  of taking a word from the common language, and giving it a more
  restricted and inflexible meaning than either everyday usage or the
  etymology of the word would warrant.

Footnote 13:

  Mayo-Smith, R., _Emigration and Immigration_, p. 36.

Footnote 14:

  Cobb, S. H., _The Story of the Palatines_. Cf., also, Faust, A. B.,
  _The German Element in the United States_, Chs. II, III, IV;
  Bittinger, Lucy F., _The Germans in Colonial Times_, pp. 12–19;
  Proper, E. E., _Colonial Immigration Laws_, Columbia College Studies,
  Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 40–42.

Footnote 15:

  Commons, J. R., _Races and Immigrants in America_, p. 32.

Footnote 16:

  Cf., especially, Commons, _op. cit._, pp. 31–38. Also Hanna, Charles
  A., _The Scotch-Irish_, esp. Vol. II, pp. 172–180; Green, S. S., _The
  Scotch-Irish in America_; MacLean, J. P., _Settlements of Scotch
  Highlanders in America_, pp. 40–61.

Footnote 17:

  Kapp, F., _Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the
  State of New York_, p. 21.

Footnote 18:

  Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 6:385.

Footnote 19:

  Early examples of this practice are furnished by Holland, which in
  1655 sent out large numbers of orphan boys and girls from its asylums.
  The action in this case was less grievous, however, as they were
  apparently bound out to service for a term of four years, so that they
  did not at once come on the community. Documents relating to the
  Colonial History of New York, 14:166, 264, etc.

Footnote 20:

  Cf. Proper, E. E., _op. cit._, pp. 19, 20.

Footnote 21:

  Diffenderffer, F. R., _German Immigration into Pennsylvania through
  Philadelphia_, p. 143.

Footnote 22:

  Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 2:282 ff.

Footnote 23:

  Diffenderffer, _op. cit._, pp. 51–53.

Footnote 24:

  _Ibid._, p. 53, quoted from Watson’s _Annals of Philadelphia_,
  2:266–7.

Footnote 25:

  Proper, _op. cit._, p. 50.

Footnote 26:

  The action of the governor in recommending the passage of the act of
  1727 is exceptional.

Footnote 27:

  Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 4:516.

Footnote 28:

  William Penn in his day reckoned the average voyage at between six and
  nine weeks, though voyages sometimes took four months. Diffenderffer,
  _op. cit._, pp. 29, 62.

Footnote 29:

  North Carolina Colonial Documents, 25:120.

Footnote 30:

  Archives of Maryland, 2:540.

Footnote 31:

  _Ibid._, 15:36.

Footnote 32:

  See, for instance, Archives of Maryland, 13:440 and 19:183.

Footnote 33:

  Yet in 1700 Massachusetts passed an elaborate immigration law,
  requiring shipmasters to furnish lists of their passengers, and
  prohibiting the introduction of lame, impotent, or infirm persons, or
  those incapable of maintaining themselves, except on security that the
  town should not become charged with them. In the absence of this
  security, shipmasters were compelled to take them back home. This
  statute was reënacted with amendments from time to time. Proper, _op.
  cit._, pp. 29, 3.

Footnote 34:

  _Commercial Relations of the United States_, 1885–1886, Appendix III,
  p. 1967.

Footnote 35:

  Hall, Prescott F., _Immigration_, p. 4.

Footnote 36:

  _Mass. Election Sermons_, 1754, pp. 30, 48.

Footnote 37:

  Doc. Col. Hist. of N. Y., 6:60.

Footnote 38:

  Proper, E. E., _op. cit._, p. 13.

Footnote 39:

  _Ibid._, pp. 25, 63.

Footnote 40:

  _Ibid._, p. 36.

Footnote 41:

  _Ibid._, pp. 13, 57, 62.

Footnote 42:

  Archives of Maryland, 22:497.

Footnote 43:

  These terms are used somewhat loosely in the contemporary documents
  and in modern writings. “Indented servants” is the broader term,
  including all who signed indentures, or were sold under an indenture,
  whether they came willingly or under compulsion. “Redemptioners” is
  sometimes used to refer specifically to those who voluntarily sold
  themselves. But there is authority for the view that “redemptioner,”
  strictly speaking, referred to one who came without an indenture, on
  the expectation of finding some one on this side who would pay for his
  passage. He was given a period of time after landing to accomplish
  this. Failing in this, he was to be sold by the captain to the highest
  bidder. See Geiser, K. F., _Redemptioners and Indentured Servants in
  the Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, Ch. I. But the words are
  sometimes used interchangeably.

Footnote 44:

  Fiske, J., _Old Virginia and her Neighbors_, Vol. II, pp. 177 ff.

Footnote 45:

  Evans-Gordon, W., _The Alien Immigrant_, pp. 192–193.

Footnote 46:

  Hall, P. F., _Immigration_, p. 4.

Footnote 47:

  _Encyc. Britannica_, article “United States.”

Footnote 48:

  Commons, _op. cit._, p. 27.

Footnote 49:

  _Encyc. Britannica_, article “United States.”

Footnote 50:

  _American Museum_, 1:206.

Footnote 51:

  _Ibid._, 7:233.

Footnote 52:

  _Ibid._, 2:213.

Footnote 53:

  _American Museum_, 10:114.

Footnote 54:

  North Carolina Colonial Documents, 25:120.

Footnote 55:

  Jefferson is quoted as having expressed the wish that there were “an
  ocean of fire between this country and Europe, so that it might be
  impossible for any more immigrants to come hither.” Hall, P. F., _op.
  cit._, p. 206.

Footnote 56:

  McMaster, J. B., _History of the United States_, Vol. II, p. 332; “The
  Riotous Career of the Know Nothings,” _Forum_, 17:524; Franklin, Frank
  G., _Legislative History of Naturalization_.

Footnote 57:

  _Monthly Anthology_, Boston, 6:383.

Footnote 58:

  _Niles’ Register_, 13:378.

Footnote 59:

  McMaster, J. B., _History of the United States_, Vol. V, pp. 121 ff.

Footnote 60:

  Hazard’s _Register of Pennsylvania_, 6:266; 11:362, 416; 15:157.

Footnote 61:

  Trollope, Mrs. T. A., _Domestic Manners of the Americans_, p. 121.

Footnote 62:

  _Niles’ Register_, 24:393.

Footnote 63:

  _Ibid._, April 26, 1823.

Footnote 64:

  _Ibid._, Aug. 23, 1823; July 21, 1827; Aug. 14, 1830.

Footnote 65:

  Executive (House) Documents, 25th Cong., 2d Ses., 370.

Footnote 66:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 67:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 68:

  Executive (House) Doc., 25th Cong., 2d Ses., 370, and House Reports of
  Committees, 34th Cong., 1st and 2d Ses., 359.

Footnote 69:

  Executive (House) Doc., 29th Cong., 2d Ses., 54.

Footnote 70:

  Senate Doc., 29th Cong., 2d Ses., 161.

Footnote 71:

  As late as 1884–1885 thousands of immigrants were sent from Ireland to
  the United States and Canada, partly at state expense and partly at
  the expense of the “Tuke Fund.” Some of these were admittedly paupers.
  Cf. Tuke, J. H., “State Aid to Emigrants,” _Nineteenth Century_,
  17:280.

Footnote 72:

  _Knickerbocker_, 7:78.

Footnote 73:

  It is said that the natives suspected a deliberate plan on the part of
  the Catholic powers to destroy the free institutions of America.
  McMaster, _Forum_, 17:524.

Footnote 74:

  Hall, P. F., _op. cit._, p. 207.

Footnote 75:

  Franklin, F. G., _op. cit._, p. 247.

Footnote 76:

  Report of the Immigration Commission, Federal Immigration Legislation,
  Abstract, pp. 7, 8.

Footnote 77:

  Roscher-Jannasch, _Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik, und Auswanderung_, p.
  380.

Footnote 78:

  The statistics at this period are confused by changes in the time of
  ending of the fiscal year, but the above statement corresponds with
  the figures of the Immigration Commission.

Footnote 79:

  Mar. 21, 1823; Rev. Stat., 1827, Ch. XIV, Title IV, Sec. 7; Apr. 18,
  1843; May 7, 1844.

Footnote 80:

  In 1818 a book was published under the title _Der Deutsche in
  Nord-Amerika_, by M. von Fürstenwärther. According to a review of this
  book which appeared in the _North American Review_ for July, 1820, Mr.
  von Fürstenwärther mentions a New York State law requiring security
  from ship captains against their immigrant passengers becoming public
  burdens. This reference does, in fact, occur on page 38 of the book in
  question, but the present author, after a careful search, has not
  succeeded in finding any such law on the New York Statutes previous to
  1824.

Footnote 81:

  7 Howard, 283. Passenger Cases, U. S. Supreme Court, Jan. Term, 1849.

Footnote 82:

  Endicott, William C., Jr., _Commercial Relations of the United
  States_, 1885–1886, pp. 1968 ff.

Footnote 83:

  The following passage, quoted from J. T. Maguire’s _The Irish in
  America_, gives a vivid picture of conditions on the voyage, and of
  the circumstances that attended landing in Canada. “But a crowded
  immigrant sailing ship of twenty years since [written in 1868], with
  fever on board!—the crew sullen or brutal from very desperation, or
  paralysed with terror of the plague—the miserable passengers unable to
  help themselves or afford the least relief to each other; one fourth,
  or one third, or one half of the entire number in different stages of
  the disease; many dying, some dead; the fatal poison intensified by
  the indescribable foulness of the air breathed and rebreathed by the
  gasping sufferers—the wails of children, the raving of the delirious,
  the cries and groans of those in mortal agony!” The only provision for
  the reception of these sufferers at Grosse Isle, where many of them
  were landed, consisted of sheds which had stood there since 1832.
  “These sheds were rapidly filled with the miserable people, the sick
  and the dying, and round their walls lay groups of half-naked men,
  women and children, in the same condition—sick or dying. Hundreds were
  literally flung on the beach, left amid the mud and stones, to crawl
  on the dry land how they could. ‘I have seen,’ says the priest who was
  chaplain of the quarantine, ... ‘I have one day seen thirty-seven
  people lying on the beach, crawling on the mud, and dying like fish
  out of water.’ Many of these, and many more besides, gasped out their
  last breath on that fatal shore, not able to drag themselves from the
  slime in which they lay.” As many as 150 bodies, mostly half naked,
  were piled up in the dead-house at a time. (pp. 135, 136.) The moral
  evils and dangers were said to be even worse than the physical.

Footnote 84:

  For accounts of the activities at Castle Garden, and of the operations
  of the runners, see Kapp, Friedrich, _Immigration and the
  Commissioners of Emigration of the State of New York_; _Chambers’
  Journal_, 23:141, “Emigrant Entrappers”; Bagger, L., “A Day in Castle
  Garden,” _Harper’s Monthly_, 42:547.

Footnote 85:

  Maguire, _op. cit._, pp. 185–187.

Footnote 86:

  See Mr. Maguire’s description, footnote, p. 79.

Footnote 87:

  _Congressional Globe_, Feb. 1, 1847, p. 304.

Footnote 88:

  Hale, E. E., _Letters on Irish Immigration_.

Footnote 89:

  Most of these details are taken from E. E. Hale’s interesting _Letters
  on Irish Immigration_, written in 1851–1852.

Footnote 90:

  _Congressional Globe_, 33d Cong., 2d Ses., p. 391.

Footnote 91:

  Its real name was “The Supreme Order of the Star Spangled Banner.”
  There appears to be some difference of opinion as to the exact date of
  organization. It began to attract public attention about 1852. See
  Hall, _op. cit._, p. 207; Jenks and Lauck, _The Immigration Problem_,
  p. 297; Rept. Imm. Com., Federal Immigration Legislation, Abs., p. 8;
  McMaster, J. B., “The Riotous Career of the Know Nothings,” _Forum_,
  17:524.

Footnote 92:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Federal Immigration Legislation, Abs., pp. 8–10.

Footnote 93:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Steerage Legislation, Abs., p. 11.

Footnote 94:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Steer. Legis., Abs., pp. 12, 13.

Footnote 95:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Steer. Legis., Abs., p. 13.

Footnote 96:

  See Flom, George T., _Norwegian Immigration into the United States_,
  and _Chapters on Scandinavian Immigration to Iowa_; also, Nelson, O.
  N., _History of the Scandinavians and Successful Scandinavians in the
  United States_.

Footnote 97:

  Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, p. 129.

Footnote 98:

  Dewees, F. P., _The Molly Maguires_; Rhodes, J. F., _The Molly
  Maguires in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania_; _Encyc.
  Britannica_, article “Molly Maguires.”

Footnote 99:

  Coolidge, Mary R., _Chinese Immigration_, pp. 16, 17.

Footnote 100:

  Coolidge, M. R., _op. cit._, p. 107.

Footnote 101:

  Professor Taussig justifies the exclusion of the Chinese on the ground
  that “a permanent group of helots is not a healthy constituent in a
  democratic society,” _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, p. 140.

Footnote 102:

  The subject of Chinese immigration has been treated thus summarily
  because of the large amount of reliable material which is easily
  available on the question. It has been treated as a whole, rather than
  divided among the different periods, because in fact it has been a
  distinct phase of our immigration problem; only since 1900 has the
  administration of the Chinese exclusion law been a part of the duties
  of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Foremost among the books
  on the topic is Mrs. Coolidge’s work, already quoted. A defense of the
  Chinese written in the heat of the controversy is George F. Seward’s
  _Chinese Immigration_. Interesting chapters on the topic are to be
  found in Mayo-Smith, and Hall, and frequent references in Jenks and
  Lauck, and Commons. Cf. also Sparks, E. E., _National Development_,
  1877–1885, pp. 229–250.

Footnote 103:

  Mason, A. B., “An American View of Emigration,” _Fortnightly Review_,
  22:273.

Footnote 104:

  “Deportation” must be carefully distinguished from “exclusion,”
  “debarment,” or “returning.” When either of the last three terms is
  used, it implies that the immigrant is never allowed to land in the
  country. The first term is applicable when the immigrant has landed in
  this country, and some time after, in accordance with some provision
  of the law, is sent back to the country from which he came.

  This is the first provision for deportation in the federal laws,
  except the temporary provision of the Alien Bill. As early as 1837 the
  common council of New York City passed a resolution, authorizing the
  commissioners of the almshouse to send back to their native country
  such alien paupers as were, or were likely to become, paupers at the
  establishment at Bellevue or elsewhere, provided the pauper in
  question gave his consent. (Executive (House) Documents, 25th Cong.,
  2d Ses., 370, pp. 16–18.) It is amusing to note that at that period
  our right to send back alien paupers,—even though they had been
  officially transported to this country,—after they had once been
  admitted, was seriously questioned by foreign powers.

Footnote 105:

  By an administrative rule of the department any alien, who is a lawful
  resident of the United States and becomes a public charge from
  physical disability arising subsequent to his landing, may, with his
  consent, and the approval of the bureau, be deported within one year
  at government expense.

Footnote 106:

  See page 118.

Footnote 107:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Steer. Legis., Abs., p. 14.

Footnote 108:

  The figures since 1858 have been for the fiscal year ending June 30.

Footnote 109:

  For a fuller discussion of this class see the discussion of crises, p.
  359.

Footnote 110:

  As, for instance, in the study of the effects of crises (see pp.
  347–361).

Footnote 111:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emigration Conditions in Europe, Abs., p. 9.

Footnote 112:

  Rept. Imm. Com., The Immigration Situation in Canada, p. 15.

Footnote 113:

  Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, pp. 79 ff.

Footnote 114:

  Balch, Emily G., _Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens_, p. 29.

Footnote 115:

  For a detailed account of Slavic immigration, the reader is referred
  to Miss Emily G. Balch’s monumental work, _Our Slavic
  Fellow-Citizens_.

Footnote 116:

  Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, p. 73. For fuller figures see King, B.,
  and Okey, T., _Italy To-day_, p. 126.

Footnote 117:

  Cf. _Americans in Process_, p. 46.

Footnote 118:

  Bodio, Luigi, “Dell’ Emigrazione Italiana,” _Nuova Antologia_,
  183:529.

Footnote 119:

  Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, p. 92. Cf. _Americans in Process_, p. 48;
  Rubinow, I. M., “The Jews in Russia,” _Yale Review_, August, 1906, p.
  147; Antin, Mary, _The Promised Land_; Evans-Gordon, _The Alien
  Immigrant_, Chs. IV, V.

Footnote 120:

  Marsh, Benjamin C., _Charities_, XXI:15, p. 649.

Footnote 121:

  The instances given by Mrs. Houghton of economic causes of immigration
  are mainly of this temporary nature, though not all trifling. See
  Houghton, Louise S., “Syrians in the United States,” _Survey_, July 1,
  1911, p. 482.

Footnote 122:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Steer. Cond., p. 8.

Footnote 123:

  Caro, L., _Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Österreich_, pp.
  59–71.

Footnote 124:

  Mayo-Smith, R., _Emigration and Immigration_, p. 46.

Footnote 125:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Brief Statement of Conclusions and Recommendations,
  p. 17.

Footnote 126:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Contract Labor, etc., Abs., p. 12.

Footnote 127:

  Canoutas, S. G., _Greek-American Guide_, 1909, p. 39.

Footnote 128:

  These prepaid tickets are commonly orders, to be exchanged by the
  traveler, in Europe, for the actual certificate of transportation. Cf.
  Rept. N. Y. Com. of Imm., pp. 38 ff.

Footnote 129:

  See pp. 192, 194.

Footnote 130:

  See Whelpley, Jas. D., _The Problem of the Immigrant_, p. 3.

Footnote 131:

  Report, 1910, p. 116.

Footnote 132:

  Quoted from the author’s book, _Greek Immigration_, pp. 236–237. Cf.
  Cooke-Taylor, W., _The Modern Factory System_, p. 419.

Footnote 133:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Japanese and Other Immigrant Races, etc., Abs., p.
  46.

Footnote 134:

  Under authority conferred by Section 1 of the Immigration Law of 1907.

Footnote 135:

  Millis, H. A., “East Indian Immigration to British Columbia and the
  Pacific Coast States,” _Am. Econ. Rev._, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 72. Rept.
  Comm. Gen. of Imm., 1910, p. 148.

Footnote 136:

  For a picturesque description of “The Beginning of the Trail” the
  reader is referred to the first chapter of Professor Steiner’s
  fascinating book, _On the Trail of the Immigrant_.

Footnote 137:

  Clapp, Edwin J., _The Port of Hamburg_, pp. 667–688; Evans-Gordon,
  _op. cit._, Ch. XIII.

Footnote 138:

  Rept. Com. Gen. of Imm., 1910, p. 118.

Footnote 139:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 37.

Footnote 140:

  _Ibid._, p. 38.

Footnote 141:

  For a fuller description of the system of medical examination, see the
  Report of the Immigration Commission, Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., pp.
  35 ff., from which many of the above facts are taken.

Footnote 142:

  See p. 149.

Footnote 143:

  For fuller accounts of the steerage and life therein, see Rept. Imm.
  Com., Steerage Conditions; Steiner, E. A., _On the Trail of the
  Immigrant_; Brandenburg, B., _Imported Americans_, Chs. III, XIV, XV.

Footnote 144:

  Rept. Com. Gen. of Imm., 1910, p. 135.

Footnote 145:

  Cf. Brandenburg, B., _Imported Americans_, Chs. XVII and XVIII.

Footnote 146:

  See an editorial in the _New York Evening Journal_, May 24, 1911.

Footnote 147:

  Brandenburg, _op. cit._, p. 214.

Footnote 148:

  Rept. Com. Gen. of Imm., 1907, p. 77.

Footnote 149:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Statistical Review, Abs., p. 17, and Rept. Comr. Gen.
  of Imm., 1912, pp. 68, 129. The figures of the Commission do not tally
  in all respects with those given in the annual Reports.

Footnote 150:

  Figures for Italy, unless otherwise specified, include Sicily and
  Sardinia.

Footnote 151:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 9.

Footnote 152:

  _Ibid._, Stat. Rev., Abs., p. 11.

Footnote 153:

  See page 128.

Footnote 154:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Stat. Rev., Abs., pp. 9, 10, 11.

Footnote 155:

  Repts. Comr. Gen. of Imm., 1911, 1912.

Footnote 156:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 13.

Footnote 157:

  See page 247.

Footnote 158:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Brief Statement, p. 39.

Footnote 159:

  _Ibid._, Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 14.

Footnote 160:

  See page 341.

Footnote 163:

  The per cent of illiteracy in the general population of the United
  States, ten years of age or over, is 10.7.

Footnote 164:

  Claghorn, Kate H., “The Immigration Bill,” _The Survey_, Feb. 8, 1913.

Footnote 165:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigrants in Manufacturing and Mining, Abs., p. 165.

Footnote 168:

  Mayo-Smith, R., _Emigration and Immigration_, pp. 104 ff.

Footnote 169:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 20.

Footnote 170:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigrant Banks, p. 69.

Footnote 173:

  _Races and Immigrants in America_, pp. 124–125.

Footnote 174:

  For detailed figures of occupation by races see Rept. Imm. Com., Stat.
  Rev., Abs., pp. 52, 53.

Footnote 176:

  See Brandenburg, B., “The Tragedy of the Rejected Immigrant,”
  _Outlook_, Oct. 13, 1906.

Footnote 177:

  Stoner, Dr. George W., _Immigration—The Medical Treatment of
  Immigrants_, etc., p. 10.

Footnote 178:

  There is also a flourishing business of this sort in Liverpool,
  Marseilles, etc. Rept. Commissioner General of Immigration, 1905, pp.
  50 ff.

Footnote 180:

  Quoted by Prescott F. Hall, _Immigration_, p. 107. See also Walker, F.
  A., “The Restriction of Immigration,” _Atlantic Monthly_, 77:822.

Footnote 181:

  Bushee, F. A., “The Declining Birth Rate and Its Cause,” _Pop. Sci.
  Month._, 63:355.

Footnote 182:

  Hunter, Robert, “Immigration the Annihilator of our Native Stock,”
  _The Commons_, April, 1904.

Footnote 183:

  For a statement of the importance of the growth of cities, as opposed
  to immigration, in affecting the birth rate, see Goldenweiser, E. A.,
  “Walker’s Theory of Immigration,” _Am. Jour. of Soc._, 18:342.

Footnote 184:

  See page 217.

Footnote 185:

  See review of Levasseur’s “American Workman,” _Pol. Sci. Quart._,
  13:321.

Footnote 186:

  See page 145.

Footnote 187:

  See Report of Committee on Standard of Living, 8th N. Y. State
  Conference of Charities and Corrections, Albany, 1907, p. 20. Also Van
  Vorst, Mrs. John, _The Cry of the Children_, p. 213.

Footnote 188:

  Bailey, W. B., _Modern Social Conditions_, p. 104, and Gonnard, René,
  _L’Émigration européenne au XIXe siècle_, p. 120.

Footnote 189:

  For discussions of the sensitiveness of the marriage rate to economic
  conditions, see Schooling, J. Holt, “The English Marriage Rate,”
  _Fortnightly Review_, 75:959; Willcox, W. F., “Marriage Rate in
  Michigan, 1870–1890,” _Quart. Publ. Amer. Stat. Assn._, 4:1; and Crum,
  F. S., “The Marriage Rate in Massachusetts,” _Quart. Publ. Amer. Stat.
  Assn._, 4:322.

Footnote 190:

  See page 191.

Footnote 191:

  _Christianity and the Social Crisis_, p. 273.

Footnote 192:

  Cf. Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, pp. 203–204.

Footnote 193:

  See page 207.

Footnote 195:

  See page 207.

Footnote 197:

  Abstract, Thirteenth Census, p. 197.

Footnote 198:

  For a full statement of opposite opinions on this subject, see
  Willcox, W. F., “The Distribution of Immigrants in the United States,”
  _Quart. Jour. of Econ._, August, 1906; and Fairchild, H. P.,
  “Distribution of Immigrants,” _Yale Review_, November, 1907.

Footnote 199:

  Cf. Balch, Emily G., _Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens_, pp. 317–319; and
  Addams, Jane, _Newer Ideals of Peace_, pp. 65–68.

Footnote 200:

  Quotations are from the abstract of that report.

Footnote 201:

  Lord, Trenor, and Barrows, _Italians in America_, p. 70; Bushee, F.
  A., _Ethnic Factors in the Population of Boston_, p. 29.

Footnote 202:

  Lord, Trenor, and Barrows, _op. cit._, p. 72.

Footnote 203:

  Bushee, _op. cit._, p. 30.

Footnote 204:

  Almy, Frederic, “The Huddled Poles of Buffalo,” _The Survey_, Feb. 4,
  1911.

Footnote 205:

  Thompson, Carl D., “Socialists and Slums,” Milwaukee, _The Survey_,
  Dec. 3, 1910. Cf. Byington, Margaret F., _Homestead_, pp. 131–136.

Footnote 206:

  Cf. description of conditions in a manufacturing town, Fitch, John A.,
  Lackawanna, _The Survey_, Oct. 7, 1911, p. 936.

Footnote 207:

  Balch, Emily G., _Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens_, p. 349.

Footnote 208:

  For convenience’ sake, the term “boarder” will hereafter be used in
  the place of the clumsy phrase “boarders and lodgers.”

Footnote 211:

  Balch, _op. cit._, p. 349.

Footnote 212:

  Lauck, W. Jett, “The Bituminous Coal Miner and Coke Worker of Western
  Pennsylvania,” _The Survey_, April 1, 1911. Cf. also Roberts, Peter,
  _Anthracite Coal Communities_, p. 137.

Footnote 213:

  Warne, F. J., _The Slav Invasion_, p. 68. Cf. Hunt, Milton B., “The
  Housing of Non-Family Groups of Men in Chicago,” _Am. Jour. of Soc._,
  16:145.

Footnote 214:

  See, for instance, Riis, Jacob, _How the Other Half Lives_;
  Breckenridge, Sophonisba, and Abbott, Edith, “Housing Conditions in
  Chicago,” _Am. Jour. of Soc._, 16:4 and 17:1, 2; “The Housing
  Awakening,” series in _The Survey_, beginning Nov. 19, 1910.

Footnote 215:

  _The Survey_, Feb. 4, 1911, p. 771.

Footnote 216:

  Roberts, _op. cit._, p. 143.

Footnote 217:

  For full descriptions of life in mining and manufacturing villages,
  see Roberts, _op. cit._, Chs. IV and V; Lauck, W. Jett, _The Survey_,
  Apr. 1, 1911; Fitch, John A., _The Survey_, Oct. 7, 1911; Balch, _op.
  cit._, pp. 372–375; Warne, _op. cit._, Ch. VI. For an account of the
  life of some of our foreign agriculturists, see Cance, Alexander E.,
  “Piedmontese on the Mississippi,” _The Survey_, Sept. 2, 1911; Lord,
  Trenor, and Barrows, _op. cit._, Ch. VI; Balch, _op. cit._, Ch. XV.

Footnote 218:

  Cf. Balch, _op. cit._, pp. 363–364; Lauck, _The Survey_, Apr. 1, 1911,
  p. 48; Roberts, _op. cit._, pp. 103 ff.; Bushee, _op. cit._, p. 29;
  Rept. Imm. Com., Recent Imms. in Agr., Abs., p. 59; _Americans in
  Process_, p. 141.

Footnote 219:

  Cf. Streightoff, F. H., _Standard of Living_, Ch. VI.

Footnote 220:

  _Ibid._, p. 106.

Footnote 221:

  _Americans in Process_, pp. 142–143.

Footnote 222:

  Conditioned, of course, by the general standard of the society.

Footnote 230:

  _Ibid._, Imms. in Cities, Abs., p. 44.

Footnote 231:

  _Ibid._, Recent Imms. in Agr., Abs., p. 57.

Footnote 232:

  Roberts, _op. cit._, p. 346.

Footnote 233:

  _Standard of Living_, Ch. IV.

Footnote 234:

  Roberts, _op. cit._, p. 346.

Footnote 235:

  _The Survey_, Feb. 4, 1911, p. 767.

Footnote 236:

  Streightoff, _op. cit._, p. 162.

Footnote 241:

  In this investigation pupils are listed by their own nativity, rather
  than by that of the father.

Footnote 242:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Greek Padrone System, pp. 7, 8. For an account of the
  operation of the system in England, see Wilkins, W. H., _The Alien
  Invasion_.

Footnote 243:

  For a fuller description of the system, and a more detailed account of
  its crying evils, see Fairchild, H. P., _Greek Immigration_, and Rept.
  Imm. Com., The Greek Padrone System in the United States.

Footnote 244:

  For an illustration of such a contract, see Rept. Imm. Com., Greek
  Padrone System, Abs., pp. 23–24.

Footnote 245:

  Cf. Addams, Jane, _Twenty Years at Hull-House_, p. 221.

Footnote 246:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Contract Labor, Abs., p. 12, which compare
  throughout.

Footnote 247:

  Clyatt case, 197 U. S. 207.

Footnote 248:

  Cf. Rept. Imm. Com., Peonage, etc.

Footnote 249:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigrant Banks, p. 35.

Footnote 250:

  _Ibid._, p. 35.

Footnote 251:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigrant Banks, p. 27.

Footnote 252:

  _Ibid._, pp. 69, 85, 86.

Footnote 253:

  For a full description of the nature, organization, and functions of
  the immigrant bank, and of efforts which have been made to correct its
  evils, the reader is referred to the Report of the Immigration
  Commission on Immigrant Banks, to which reference has been made, and
  also to the Report of the New York Commission of Immigration. This
  latter volume also contains an extended discussion of the position of
  the notary public. Cf. also Roberts, Peter, _The New Immigration_, Ch.
  XV.

Footnote 254:

  Addams, Jane, _Twenty Years at Hull-House_, p. 99; Adams, T. S., and
  Sumner, Helen L., _Labor Problems_, Ch. IV.

Footnote 255:

  Rept. New York Com. of Imm., p. 88.

Footnote 256:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imm. Homes and Aid Socs., Abs., p. 8.

Footnote 257:

  Rept. New York Com. of Imm., p. 90.

Footnote 258:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Imm. Homes and Aid Socs., Abs., p. 14.

Footnote 259:

  _Ibid._, p. 16.

Footnote 260:

  Cf. Rept. N. Y. Com. of Imm., p. 92.

Footnote 261:

  New York now has a state law, which went into effect Sept. 1, 1911,
  for the regulation of these lodging houses. _The Survey_, Sept. 30,
  1911.

Footnote 262:

  That the spirit of Know Nothingism dies hard, and is likely to crop
  out even in modern times, is evidenced by the so-called A. P. A.
  agitation of the early nineties. The A. P. A., or American Protective
  Association, was the most prominent of several secret organizations,
  formed about this time, the purposes and methods of which were
  strikingly similar to those of the Native American and Know Nothing
  parties. The object of their antagonism was the Roman Catholic Church,
  and particularly the body of Irish Catholics. This agitation was
  carried to such an extent that many people, even of the intelligent
  and thoughtful, feared that a religious war was impending. For details
  see Winston, E. M., “The Threatening Conflict with Romanism,” _Forum_,
  17:425 (June, 1894); Coudert, Frederic R., “The American Protective
  Association,” _Forum_, 17:513 (July, 1894); Gladden, W., “The
  Anti-Catholic Crusade,” _Century_, 25:789 (March, 1894).

Footnote 263:

  Professor Mayo-Smith says on this point, “The commands of morality are
  absolute and must have the sanction of perfect faith in order to be
  effective. To destroy the credibility of the sanction, without putting
  anything in its place, must for the time being be destructive of
  ethical action.” _Emigration and Immigration_, p. 7.

Footnote 264:

  Cf. Bingham, T. A., “Foreign Criminals in New York,” _North American
  Review_, September, 1908, p. 381. Also, Rept. Imm. Com., Importing
  Women for Immoral Purposes, pp. 12, 14.

Footnote 265:

  _The Workingman and Social Problems_, p. 32. Cf. White, Gaylord S.,
  “The Protestant Church and the Immigrant,” _The Survey_, Sept. 25,
  1909.

Footnote 266:

  Anderson, W. L., _The Country Town_, p. 164.

Footnote 267:

  Commons, J. R., _op. cit._, p. 203.

Footnote 268:

  It is a suggestive fact that the word “recreation” does not occur in
  the indexes of Hall’s _Immigration_, Jenks and Lauck’s _The
  Immigration Problem_, Commons’ _Races and Immigrants in America_,
  Coolidge’s _Chinese Immigration_, or Balch’s _Our Slavic
  Fellow-Citizens_. For descriptions of the recreations of the
  foreign-born see Kenngott, George F., _The Record of a City_, Ch.
  VIII; _City Wilderness_, Ch. VIII; _Americans in Process_, Ch. VIII;
  Roberts, Peter, _The New Immigration_, Ch. XVIII.

Footnote 269:

  Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1910, p. 251. Cf. also Ely, R. T.,
  _Outlines of Economics_, p. 340, and Streightoff, F. H., _Standard of
  Living_, p. 55.

Footnote 270:

  _Races and Immigrants in America_, p. 115.

Footnote 271:

  Professor Taussig says that there is evidence that “a standard of
  living so tenaciously held as to affect natural increase” is a force
  which acts on the numbers of the well-to-do in modern countries and is
  coming into operation in the upper tier of manual workmen. _Prin. of
  Econ._, Vol. II, p. 152. In these upper groups it operates mainly upon
  the birth rate. In the lower groups, where there is less conscious
  control of the rate of reproduction, a decrease in the means of
  subsistence must almost inevitably result in an increase of the death
  rate, particularly of infants.

Footnote 272:

  A certain amount of repetition of matter already given—particularly in
  the discussion of the effects of immigration on population—has seemed
  unavoidable in the following paragraphs. The matters of population,
  wages, and standards of living are obviously closely associated.

Footnote 273:

  See page 145.

Footnote 274:

  Mr. Earle Clark has shown by a comparison of recent figures that “the
  wages paid in the Massachusetts cotton mills do not enable the men
  employed to maintain a standard of living higher than that which the
  men employed in English mills can maintain upon English wages.” _The
  Survey_, March 23, 1912.

Footnote 275:

  A further consideration, in addition to the difference in standards,
  which gives the foreigner an advantage over the native, is found in
  the different price levels here and abroad. In general the price
  levels in the countries from which the new immigration comes are lower
  than in the United States. This means that the immigrant, who saves
  part of his earnings for the support of a family in Europe, finds it
  possible to accept a lower wage than the native, who supports his
  family in this country, and yet keep his family on a standard
  equivalent to that of the American workman.

Footnote 276:

  Professor Taussig says, “The position of common laborers in the United
  States (that is, in the Northern and Western States) has been kept at
  its low level only by the continued inflow of immigrants.... These
  constant new arrivals have kept down the wages of the lowest group,
  and have accentuated also the lines of social demarcation between this
  group and others.” _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, p. 139. See
  also p. 234.

  The same general opinion is expressed by Jenks and Lauck, _The
  Immigration Problem_, p. 195; by Hall, _Immigration_, pp. 123–131; by
  Commons, _Races and Immigrants in America_, pp. 151, 152, 159; by Miss
  Balch, _Our Slavic Fellow Citizens_, pp. 288–289; and by Wilkins (with
  reference to England), _The Alien Invasion_, p. 68.

Footnote 277:

  Cf. Byington, M., _Homestead_, pp. 6–11.

Footnote 278:

  Cf. Ripley, William Z., “Race Factors in Labor Unions,” _Atlantic
  Monthly_, 93:299.

Footnote 279:

  Cf. Stewart, Ethelbert, “Influence of Trade-Unions on Immigrants,” in
  LaFollette, R. M., _The Making of America_, Vol. VIII, pp. 226 ff.

Footnote 280:

  Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 2d Ses., 391.

Footnote 281:

  Hall, P. F., _Immigration_, p. 161.

Footnote 282:

  _Ibid._, p. 165.

Footnote 283:

  _Ibid._, p. 161.

Footnote 284:

  See, for example, Mass. Report on the Unemployed, 1895, pp. 18, 116.
  Report Ohio State Board of Charities, 1902, pp. 178 ff.

Footnote 285:

  Abstract of Thirteenth Census, pp. 92, 95, 96.

Footnote 287:

  _Paupers in Almshouses_, p. 101.

Footnote 288:

  Abstract of Thirteenth Census, pp. 215, 218.

Footnote 290:

  _Immigration_, p. 168.

Footnote 291:

  Mr. Streightoff points out that even in a year of prosperity about
  half of the laboring families are not able to save anything, even on
  the close margin of living which they maintain. _Standard of Living_,
  pp. 24, 25.

Footnote 292:

  Cf. Byington, M. F., _Homestead_, p. 184.

Footnote 293:

  Claghorn, K. H., “Immigration in its Relation to Pauperism,” _Annals
  of the American Academy of Political Science_, 24:187.

Footnote 295:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigration and Crime, Abs., p. 7.

Footnote 296:

  _Ibid._, p. 8.

Footnote 297:

  Cf. Hourwich, I. A., “Immigration and Crime,” _Am. Jour. Soc._, 17:4,
  p. 478.

Footnote 298:

  Census Report on Prisoners, 1904, pp. 42, 45.

Footnote 299:

  _Ibid._ Cf. also Bingham, T. A., “Foreign Criminals in New York,” _No.
  Am. Rev._, September, 1908, p. 381; Rept. Imm. Com., Imm. and Crime,
  Abs.; _Americans in Process_, pp. 199–207; _The City Wilderness_, p.
  172.

Footnote 300:

  Fairchild, H. P., _Greek Immigration to the United States_, p. 203.

Footnote 301:

  “Molly Maguire in America,” _All the Year Round_, New Series, 17:270.

Footnote 302:

  Cf. Bingham, T. A., _The Girl that Disappears_, and “Foreign Criminals
  in New York,” _No. Am. Rev._, September, 1908; and Rept. Imm. Com.,
  Importing Women for Immoral Purposes; _New York Times_, Jan. 17, 1912,
  p. 1.

Footnote 303:

  Cf. Census Report on Prisoners, 1904, p. 236; Commons, _Races and
  Immigrants in America_, p. 170; Hall, _Immigration_, p. 150; Bingham,
  _No. Am. Rev._, September, 1908; Addams, _Twenty Years at Hull-House_,
  p. 252; _Americans in Process_, p. 209.

Footnote 304:

  Rept. Com. Gen. of Imm., 1908, p. 98.

Footnote 305:

  _Insane and Feeble-minded in Hospitals and Institutions_, 1904, p. 20.

Footnote 306:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Immigration and Insanity. Cf. Williams, William,
  “Immigration and Insanity,” address before the Mental Hygiene
  Conference, New York City, Nov. 14, 1912. Yet the burden of the
  feeble-minded immigrant is becoming so strongly felt in New York as to
  lead the Chamber of Commerce of that state to send resolutions to
  Congress urging better provisions for excluding this class. _The
  Survey_, March 2, 1912.

Footnote 307:

  Roberts, P., _Anthracite Coal Communities_, pp. 19 ff.; Warne, _Slav
  Invasion_.

Footnote 308:

  Jenks and Lauck, _Immigration Problem_, p. 92.

Footnote 309:

  _Ibid._, p. 72. For numerous other cases see Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in
  Mf. and Min., Abs., pp. 226 ff.; Commons, J. R., _Races and Immigrants
  in America_, pp. 151, 152.

Footnote 310:

  _Anthracite Coal Communities_, p. 20.

Footnote 311:

  For an opposite view of this whole question, see Hourwich, I. A.,
  _Immigration and Labor_. This book, which should be consulted for an
  elaborate defense of free immigration from the economic point of view,
  has come to hand too late to be cited at frequent intervals throughout
  the present work. It is an ingenious production, but so full of
  inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and misleading statements that to
  criticize it in detail would require a volume in itself. The
  refutation of many of Dr. Hourwich’s arguments may be found throughout
  the pages of the present work.

Footnote 312:

  Mr. W. L. Anderson, who is not an extreme advocate of the opinion that
  immigration has not increased population, nevertheless says,
  “Certainly the common assertion that without the foreigner the
  development of the country would have halted disastrously is
  fallacious.” _The Country Town_, p. 154.

Footnote 313:

  Some allowance needs also to be made for the amount of money brought
  in. See p. 202.

Footnote 314:

  Speare, Charles F., “What America Pays Europe for Immigrant Labor,”
  _No. Am. Rev._, 187:106.

Footnote 315:

  Cf. Balch, _op. cit._, p. 302. Fred C. Croxton and W. Jett Lauck find
  the recent immigrants largely responsible for dangerous and
  unhealthful conditions in mines and factories, and trace a direct
  causal relation between the extensive employment of recent immigrants
  and the extraordinary increase of mining accidents in recent years.
  Spiller, G., _Inter-Racial Problems_, pp. 218–219.

Footnote 316:

  Pp. 155–159.

Footnote 317:

  For the distinction between these classes see p. 125.

Footnote 318:

  White, _Money and Banking_, third edition, Ch. XVIII.

Footnote 319:

  The fact that in March, 1908, there was a gain of 31 is not a
  coincidence. The month of March is always a busy one in immigration,
  as it opens the spring season, and this influence was sufficient to
  check the prevailing movement temporarily.

Footnote 320:

  Mr. F. H. Streightoff shows that at the time the census of 1900 was
  taken, 2,634,336 or 11.1 per cent of all males over ten years of age
  who were engaged in gainful occupation in the United States were
  unemployed three months or more during the year. See _Standard of
  Living_, p. 35.

Footnote 321:

  Fisher, Irving, _The Purchasing Power of Money_, pp. 58 _seq._

Footnote 322:

  Ely, R. T., _Outlines of Economics_, p. 268.

Footnote 323:

  Bulletin of the American Economic Association, April, 1911, p. 253.

Footnote 324:

  Streightoff, _The Standard of Living_, p. 24.

Footnote 325:

  Streightoff, _The Standard of Living_, p. 111.

Footnote 326:

  See quotation from Professor Taussig, footnote, p. 309.

Footnote 327:

  Israel Zangwill, in an address before the Universal Races Congress in
  London, said, “Even in America, with its lip-formula of brotherhood, a
  gateless Ghetto has been created by the isolation of the Jews from the
  general social life,” Spiller, G., _op. cit._, p. 270. Cf. also
  Peters, Madison C., _The Jews in America_, pp. 123–138.

Footnote 328:

  “The Jews associate little with other nationalities, principally from
  the choice of the other nationalities.” Bushee, F. A., _City
  Wilderness_, p. 42.

Footnote 329:

  Cf. _Americans in Process_, pp. 61–63, 157.

Footnote 330:

  Jenks and Lauck, _Immigration Problem_, p. 172.

Footnote 331:

  Cf. Franklin, Frank G., _Legislative History of Naturalization in the
  United States_.

Footnote 333:

  Hall, P. F., _op. cit._, p. 194.

Footnote 334:

  _Ibid._, p. 186. For a general discussion of these abuses, see Hall,
  _op. cit._, Ch. IX.

Footnote 335:

  _Americans in Process_, p. 157.

Footnote 336:

  Act of March 2, 1907.

Footnote 337:

  Cf. Champernowne, Henry, _The Boss_, Ch. XIII.

Footnote 338:

  Commons, J. R., _Races and Immigrants in America_, p. 182.

Footnote 339:

  Cf. throughout, Commons, _op. cit._, Ch. VIII.

Footnote 340:

  Twelfth Census, Vol. I, p. xxxii. Includes land and water. Figures for
  land area alone are given in _A Century of Population Growth_, p. 54.
  Taking land in this restricted sense would not materially affect the
  conclusions.

Footnote 341:

  This change has been furthered, according to Professor Taussig, by
  immigration. _Principles of Economics_, Vol. I, p. 545.

Footnote 342:

  The importance of this change is emphasized by noting Professor Guy S.
  Callender’s statement, “Perhaps the most important circumstance
  affecting American society is the fact that the people have always
  been in contact with unoccupied lands.” _Economic History of the
  United States_, p. 667. Professor Taussig points out also, in this
  connection, that unskilled labor is more needed when a plant is being
  constructed than when it is being utilized. _Principles of Economics_,
  Vol. II, p. 154, footnote.

Footnote 343:

  Thus, “Immigration calls for courage and every other personal quality
  which makes for social progress.” Lincoln, _The City of the Dinner
  Pail_, p. 141.

Footnote 344:

  See page 160.

Footnote 345:

  Cf. Bailey, W. B., “The Bird of Passage,” _Am. Jour. of Soc._, 18:3,
  p. 391.

Footnote 346:

  See Professor Keller’s introduction to Fairchild’s _Greek
  Immigration_.

Footnote 347:

  A slight element of inaccuracy is given to these figures by the
  different methods of recording immigration at different periods. Rept.
  Imm. Com., Stat. Rev., Abs., p. 8.

Footnote 348:

  _War and Other Essays_, p. 169.

Footnote 349:

  Cf. Kidd, Benjamin, _Social Evolution_, p. 237; Ellis, Havelock, _The
  Task of Social Hygiene_, pp. 2–4.

Footnote 350:

  _De Bows’s Review_, 18:698, “Sources from which Great Empires Come.”
  Signed L.

Footnote 351:

  This point is frequently pressed by writers who adopt the standpoint
  of the immigrant, as for instance, Professor Steiner. Much effort is
  expended to establish the high character of the immigrant, his noble
  motives and worthy ambitions. The wealthy American on the promenade
  deck is contrasted unfavorably with the alien in the steerage. No
  criticism is to be made of this position. It is beyond doubt that
  there is a great deal to admire in the very humblest of our
  immigrants. But a most emphatic exception must be taken to the
  conclusion which apparently is assumed to follow this premise; namely,
  that therefore anything in the way of restriction is wrong. Granted
  that the admirable character of the immigrant is thoroughly
  established. This fact does not obviate the need for action, if it
  appears that evils arise. If the welfare of the nation is menaced; if
  the immigrants are not reaping the benefits for which they have
  sacrificed all in the old country; if the wonderful patrimony of the
  United States, fitted to render an enduring service to mankind, is
  being thoughtlessly squandered; if conditions in foreign countries are
  not improved; if the most remarkable population movement in history is
  being left to the machinations of selfishly interested parties—if any
  of these things are true, the fact that it is not the immigrant’s
  “fault” does not remove the responsibility from those upon whom it
  naturally rests of taking active measures to secure to humanity the
  greatest and most enduring benefits which such a tremendous
  sociological phenomenon may be made to yield. If the first step in
  such a conservation program is restriction, then that step must be
  taken.

Footnote 352:

  Cf. Hall, P. F., “The Future of American Ideals,” _No. Am. Rev._,
  Jan., 1912.

Footnote 353:

  _Webster’s Dictionary._

Footnote 354:

  _Century Dictionary._

Footnote 355:

  _New English Dictionary._

Footnote 356:

  _Encyc. Britannica_, article “Physiology.”

Footnote 357:

  For an enumeration of important American characteristics, see
  Mayo-Smith, R., _Emigration and Immigration_, pp. 5–6.

Footnote 358:

  It is noteworthy that while the English are in many respects more
  similar to Americans than any other foreign race, yet their complete
  assimilation to the American type is said to be very difficult,
  because of their unwillingness to give up their own ideas and
  character. _City Wilderness_, p. 52; _Americans in Process_, p. 65.

Footnote 359:

  Professor Lester F. Ward says, “The assimilation of an alien
  civilization ... cannot be accomplished in a single generation, no
  matter how favorable the conditions may be.” _Applied Sociology_, p.
  109. Professor Sumner says, “The only way in which, in the course of
  time, remnants of foreign groups are apparently absorbed and the group
  becomes homogeneous, is that the foreign element dies out.”
  _Folkways_, p. 115. Mr. Joseph Lee says, “Whether we in this country
  shall succeed in doing in a few centuries what Europe in fifteen or
  twenty or more has not been able to accomplish, is a problem of which
  the present generation of Americans is not in a position to fully
  judge.” _Charities and the Commons_, 19:17.

Footnote 360:

  _The Immigration Problem_, p. 209.

Footnote 361:

  _The Immigration Problem_, p. 267.

Footnote 362:

  _Ibid._, p. 293.

Footnote 363:

  Cf. Coolidge, Mary R., _Chinese Immigration_, p. 267; and Fairchild,
  H. P., _Greek Immigration_, footnote, p. 242.

Footnote 364:

  _Americans in Process_, p. 50.

Footnote 365:

  Hall, P. F., “The Future of American Ideals,” _No. Am. Rev._, Jan.,
  1912.

Footnote 366:

  _De Bows’s Review_, “Sources from which Great Empires Come,” 18:698
  (1855).

Footnote 367:

  _American Museum_, 7:240.

Footnote 368:

  _Political Economy_, Vol. II, 13:265.

Footnote 369:

  _Kolonien, Kolonialpolitik, und Auswanderung_, pp. 333 ff.

Footnote 370:

  _Op. cit._, p. 135. Cf. also Bonar, J., _Malthus and His Work_, p.
  144.

Footnote 371:

  _The Commons_, April, 1904.

Footnote 372:

  Douglas, _Emigration_, pp. 117–118.

Footnote 373:

  _The Problem of the Immigrant_, p. 15.

Footnote 374:

  _Op. cit._, p. 23.

Footnote 375:

  _Principles of Economics_, Vol. II, p. 217. For a statement of the
  opposite opinion, see Bourne, S., _Trade, Population, and Food_.

Footnote 376:

  Bailey, _Mod. Soc. Cond._, 101, and Gonnard, _L’Emig. Eur._, 120.

Footnote 377:

  In spite of the enormous emigration from Italy, and the almost entire
  depopulation of certain districts, the population of the country as a
  whole increased 6.81 per cent during the period from Feb. 10, 1901, to
  June 10, 1911, without regard to those subjects temporarily residing
  abroad. Daily Consular and Trade Reports, Jan. 20, 1911, p. 1440.

Footnote 378:

  Gonnard, _op. cit._, p. 22.

Footnote 379:

  Flom, George T., _Norwegian Immigration_, p. 27.

Footnote 380:

  Fairchild, _Greek Immigration_, p. 71.

Footnote 381:

  Mangano, Antonio, “The Effect of Emigration upon Italy,” _Charities
  and the Commons_, Jan. 4, 1908, Feb. 1, 1908, April 4, 1908, May 2,
  1908, June 6, 1908.

Footnote 382:

  For a corroboration of these facts, see Borosini, Victor von,
  “Home-Going Italians,” _The Survey_, Sept. 28, 1912.

Footnote 383:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., pp. 10, 11.

Footnote 384:

  Fairchild, H. P., _Greek Immigration_, pp. 220–235, Ch. XI.

Footnote 385:

  Gonnard, while he has little to say of the effects of emigration,
  other than those on population, in his book on _European Emigration_,
  nevertheless gives the general impression that these effects are
  injurious as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned, quoting Count
  Mailath to that effect (p. 280). The so-called emigration from Russia
  to Siberia, which Gonnard regards as advantageous, does not fall
  within the strict definition of emigration adopted in this book.

Footnote 386:

  Rept. Imm. Com., Emig. Cond. in Eur., Abs., p. 10.

Footnote 387:

  Miss Balch gives a pathetic and significant instance of a Ruthenian
  woman, returned to her native land, whose highest ideas of American
  social life were based on her acquaintance with negroes. _Our Slavic
  Fellow-Citizens_, p. 144.

Footnote 388:

  See the series of articles on foreigners in the United States in
  _Munsey’s Magazine_ for 1906.

Footnote 389:

  Balch, E. G., _op. cit._, pp. 154–155, pp. 300–303; Steiner, E. A.,
  _The Immigrant Tide_, Ch. II.

Footnote 390:

  Mangano, A., _The Survey_, April 4, 1908, p. 23; Rept. Imm. Com.,
  Greek Bootblacks, Abs., pp. 12 ff.

Footnote 391:

  Adams and Sumner, _Labor Problem_, pp. 130–138.

Footnote 392:

  Chute, Charles L., “The Cost of the Cranberry Sauce,” _The Survey_,
  Dec. 2, 1911, and Lovejoy, Owen R., _The Survey_, Jan. 7, 1911.

Footnote 393:

  Page 246.

Footnote 394:

  See page 383.

Footnote 395:

  Cf. Rept. Com. Gen. of Imm., 1911, pp. 4–7.

Footnote 396:

  Quoted by Hall, P. F., _Immigration_, p. 128.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 1. Silently corrected palpable typographical errors; retained
      non-standard spellings and dialect.
 2. Reindexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end
      of the last chapter.
 3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 4. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.