« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
of an engineer, in a hotel. He lost this place through the treachery of some one in whom he had confided. He then went to Chicago, where he was for a time in a home for ex-convicts. He committed a burglary in Chicago, and when last heard of was serving a term in the Illinois State Prison at Joliet. He was a man of rough and forbidding appearance, somewhat pitted by small-pox. He had a quick temper, and will most likely be a dangerous man all his life.
Every detective in New York knows that there is scarcely a ship landing immigrants that does not bring English, French, German, or Italian “crooks." The law reads that " convicts" shall be sent back. Who shall dare to send back the unconvicted thief, though known to have been a member of the criminal class for years? Not only do foreign criminals come here in hordes, seeking "fresh woods and pastures new," or to escape too close scrutiny at home, but there come by thousands members of those helpless classes from which crime has little difficulty in recruiting its ranks. In the New York Sun of July 9, 1889, appeared the following article :
In the London correspondence of the Sun of June 9, facts were stated about the methods that prevail on the western coast of Ireland, which, to quote the words of the correspondent, "might interest the commissioners of emigration in New York.”
It was stated that Erris, in county Mayo, had been placarded with posters requesting persons desirous of emigrating to America to apply to Emigration Agent Bourke. There were many applications, and Bourke selected 100 of the poorest and most worthless families of the population for transportation. A hitch arose which compelled him to give up the idea of sending them over in a body, and he hit upon the plan of shipping them at the rate of one family a week, his method being to put one man in as the head of a family, and to send a lot of others as his children and relatives. This statement was made on the authority of the Rev. Henry Hewson, the parish priest, whose word was corroborated by Mr. John S. Murphy, a leading merchant. Commissioner of Emigration Edmund Stephenson, of this city, at once wrote to the Rev. Mr. Hewson and to Mr. Murphy, stating the substance of the article, and requesting their personal statement as to the truth of the report. Mr. Stephenson took the precaution not to mention that he was one of the commissioners of emigration, fearing that, if he did so, he would get no reply. He has just received an answer from Mr. Murphy, dated Belmullet, June 27. Mr. Murphy writes : “ The poorest and most worthless class are sent from this place on what is termed the free emigration,' by what is called here the 'emigration committee.' The committee is, I believe, only nominal : it is embodied in the person of the gentleman you mention, a Mr. Bourke, who was formerly vice-guardian of Belmullet Union.”
Mr. Murphy goes on to state the methods employed in the selection and shipping of emigrants, and corroborates the Sun's statement in all respects. The writer in the Sun then quotes as follows the remarks of Commissioner Stephenson upon these facts:
There is a systematic movement on the part of the European governments to dump their paupers on our soil. Since the protest on the part of our government in 1884, their movement has been conducted secretly, but not without success. Last year, according to the report of the commissioners of emigration, out of some 380,000 who landed at Castle Garden, only 501 were sent home, which is less than the number who were returned the preceding year. The commissioners did, however, pay the return fare of about 600 others, who, if they had remained, would have become a burden to the country. So far as Castle Garden is concerned, the country would be better off if it were wiped out of existence. Castle Garden is a cover. It is not as it used to be. Formerly the people had a chance to see what sort of emigrants were landing upon our shores, but to-day these emigrants are taken charge of by agents immediately on their arrival and sent to remote parts of the country. The people are not alive to the question, and the very clerks in the Garden are between two fires,- on the one hand, the presidents of the Irish Emigration Society and of the German Society of New York, each of whom has a full vote in the board, and, on the other hand, the State commissioners, whose duty it is to enforce the law. I think it is high time that the public should acquaint themselves with these facts.
I wrote to Commissioner Stephenson as to the truth of this newspaper statement, and he corroborated the whole of it. In his reply he said that he had been informed by a Pennsylvania congressman that, of the eighteen persons in jail in his county under indictment for murder, every one was an immigrant of the Slavic
And he adds :
Only a few days ago the grand jury of the county of New York made a presentation to the court of the overcrowded condition of our almshouse and insane asylum. Unless some national legislation is had to restrict indiscriminate emigration, the pauper class will accumulate faster than we can erect buildings to cover them.
The following clipping from a Western paper contains a fact corroborated by the Castle Garden authorities : “The Castle Garden authorities have discovered that the Prisoners' Aid Society, of London, has been shipping convicts from England to Texas at the rate of one or two a week for several months.” It would not be difficult for me to fill pages with opinions and evidence all tending in the same direction that I have indicated already. But on these facts and figures I am ready to rest my case, merely reviewing the ground we have passed over, and suggesting the only apparent remedy in a few plain and, to my mind, incontrovertible propositions. They are :
1. That there is a relation between crime in America and immigration. 2. That the foreign population furnishes a prison population out of all proportion to its relation to the general population. 3. That the increase in crime has no more than tallied with the proportionate increase of immigration. Therefore, 4. That the crime increase is not due to an increase in the mere volume of immigrant population. 5. That certain nationalities are more conspicuously represented in the increase of crime than others. 6. That the Irish, Chinese, and Italian immigrants furnish a far larger percentage of prisoners than is their ratio to the general population. 7. That this indicates a special tendency to crime among the immigrants of these nationalities. 8. That this crime tendency is in conformity with the crime statistics of the nationalities named, elsewhere gathered and tabulated.
9. That the remedy is to be found, then, in rigidly restricting immigration from those countries which furnish a larger percentage of prisoners than their percentage of the general population; as, for example, Irish emigrants should have special restrictions put upon them until the 9.2 per cent. of the Irish prison population shall have fallen to 3.6 per cent., which is the proportion of the Irish-born to the general population. 10. That a precedent in this direction has already been established in the case of Chinese immigrants; and the Irish element of our population cannot complain, since it has not merely acquiesced in, but done much to originate and support, the movement for the prohibition of Chinese immigration. II. That the dangers noticeable in the increase of actual foreign criminals are emphasized by the fact that there is a similarly appalling increase in the pauper, insane, and idiot classes, and that the figures as to ratios of nationality are much the same in all these indirectly crime-producing classes.
It must be remembered that we approach this subject simply from the standpoint of penology. No fair-minded man can be insensible of the debt we owe to immigration, and especially to Irish immigration, in the development of our country's resources. The national interest still demands that we shall give welcome to any element that shall increase useful citizenship. We are not going contrary to the principles of our government when we protect ourselves against foreign criminals and foreign paupers, or against any class or nationality likely to produce criminals or paupers. With our present law such protection is not afforded. Legislation looking to more careful restriction has thus far been a failure. The Ford Investigating Committee reported a bill that called for an increase of the immigrant "head money" from 50 cents to $5, and which required that the emigrant should produce a certificate from the United States consul nearest his place of residence, certifying to his good character and his general fitness to become a safe resident of the United States. This bill failed to become a law. It is said to have been defeated by the organized opposition of the two great foreign societies that dominate in the councils of the New York emigration commissioners. Had it become a law, these organizations by its various conditions would have been shorn of their influence in the commissidn, and of much political power out of it. As has not infrequently happened, the ends of national interest have been defeated by a factor that owes its existence and its influence to a single State. The defeat of this bill furnishes an additional reason why the whole matter of the control of immigration should be placed beyond the power of any State, and especially of any organization within a State. New York is the principal gate of entry for immigration; but it is a gateway that opens out to the prairies and to the Mississippi Valley. Ohio and Kansas and Minnesota have a right to demand that the sentinels placed there shall be placed in their interest. The country, with its crowded jails and prisons, has a right to demand that its safety shall not be imperilled for the sake of New York politics.
And what should be the course of legislation in all this matter? Manifestly, to put national wisdom and national power behind it all. In the shadow of the dangers we have seen, let us sit down and study for a moment the details of the law. We do not seek to reduce the volume of immigration : therefore, there can be little advantage in increasing the head money, certainly not beyond such a rate as will furnish ample funds for the expenses incurred in the regulation of immigration.
We do not want to keep out the Irish laborer who seeks in this land higher wages for hard work, which he is qualified to do and which he expects to do. He might find some difficulty in paying the $5 head money, when the Irish thief would have no difficulty whatever in paying it. The only possible advantage that I see in the increased head money would be that it would sooner exhaust the various funds that now assist pauper emigration. What we most need is a thorough and systematic examination of every emigrant by our representatives abroad. Before granting a certificate of good character and correct and industrious habits, a thorough investigation by proper officers should be made. No person should be allowed to land here, with the intention of taking up his residence, until he has a certificate stating such intention, signed and filed, with proper vouchers as to its truth, three months before his date of sailing. This would give our consuls time to have his character properly investigated. To cover the expense of this investigation, I would have the intending emigrant deposit $5, or some other sum to be agreed upon, with the consul, this sum to be forwarded to the immigration bureau of the government in America, and to be returned to the immigrant without interest on application one year after arrival here, provided that for that time he shall not have, in any sense or for a single moment, become a public charge. The honest laborer could easily command that sum, and the blameless, able-bodied pauper could borrow it from those who are now willing to assist him to leave. The forfeitures under this act would in a large degree pay the expenses, on this side the water, of caring for and returning the delinquents and crime class of immigrants. The proper investment of this enormous sum continuously flowing through the immigration bureau of the government would yield an income quite sufficient to care for those who become burdens upon our hospitality. The 500,000 annual immigrants would yield a sum of $2,500,000 constantly on deposit with the authorities, which ought to yield at the lowest rates not less than $100,000 a year of income. I do not think that we want any adult immigrant here who has not had the thrift to save $5 from his earnings, or whose credit is not good enough to enable him to borrow it.
Here I must leave this most important question, by quoting once more from Senator Morrill's speech a single paragraph. It contains a sentiment that all patriotic Americans must indorse :
We hold a tempting part of the world, and to those who come