Mr. ALDRICH. I will, Mr. President

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I make the point that there is no quorum present.

Mr. ALDRICH. I raise the same question that was previously raised in the Senate to-night.

Mr. HALE. The Senate has already decided that.

Mr. CULBERSON. I make this point of no quorum in order to have spread on the RECORD the whole proceedings of the Senate to which the Senator from Rhode Island referred a few moments ago, showing the two points that the Chair decided in that case. That is all I make this point of order for. The Chair decided in that case, first, that he was absolutely without authority to count a quorum; and, second, that the point of order, which was sustained as to the second call for a quorum, was upon the ground that the suggestion of the lack of a quorum was made immediately after the roll had been called, showing the presence of a quorum, and no other business had intervened.

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair is of the opinion that the Senate this evening decided this question, and that that decision stands.

Mr. CULBERSON. I call the attention of the Chair to my request, and ask that it be granted, that there may appear in the RECORD the marked portions of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which I have before me, showing this entire proceeding.

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Texas has the floor?

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair asked the Senator from Wisconsin if he yielded the floor.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Oh, no; I do not yield the floor. Mr. ALDRICH. Then, I raise the question of order that this is not in order.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1602) for the relief of William H. Hugo.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BACON in the chair). The bill is in the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. If there be no amendment as in Committee of the Whole, the bill will be reported to the Senate. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment.

Mr. QUAY. Before the final vote is taken upon the bill, I suggest the alsence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania suggests the absence of a quorum. The Secretary will call the roll.

Mr. WILSON. A parliamentary inquiry. Is it possible in the midst of a question being put to raise the question of the absence of a quorum, the presence of a quorum having just been announced?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that a question was not being put.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will hear the Senator from Washington.

M. WILSON. The presence of a quorum had just been announced; not two seconds had intervened.

Mr. QUAY. Other business had been transacted.

Mr. HILL. What was the other business?

Mr. WILSON. What was the further business?

Mr. QUAY. A half dozen questions were put.

Mr. WILSON. I have no recollection of a half dozen questions.
Mr. QUAY. I refer to the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WILSON. I raise the question that we had just had a call of the Senate; the presence of a quorum had just been announced; the Chair had just announced it; not two seconds had intervened, and the question was being put on the passage of the bill. I raise the point of order Whether the Senator has a right to raise the question of no quorum until the transaction of some other business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair requests the Senator from Washington to state his request concisely, so that the Chair may rule upon it if necessary. Does the Senator make the point that a question was then

being put?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; I make that point of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that a question was not being put. The Chair was stating the condition of the bill. The Chair stated that the bill was in Committee of the Whole, and stated that the committee had made no amendment. The bill had then been reported to the Senate, but the Chair had not propounded any question to the Senate. If that is the point of order, simply that a question was then being put, the Chair will be constrained to overrule it. Mr. PEFFER. I understand the point of order is that no business had intervened, and that therefore another call was not in order.

Mr. QUAY. The Chair is perfectly aware that a number of perfunctory motions and questions had been put to the Senate after the previous call of the roll.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senate that the title of the bill had been reported to the Senate by the Secretary, which was intervening business. In addition to that, the Chair will state that according to the rule no intervening business is required; that the rule is that at any time a Senator may raise the question, and it must be immediately determined.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Upon the call of the roll forty-eight Senators have answered to their names, and a quorum is present.

The Chair wishes to state, as this question may recur, that the ruling of the Chair in this instance was put distinctly upon the fact that the bill had been reported from the Committee of the Whole to the Senate, which was a fact of making progress, and therefore was intervening business. While the rule itself does not say so, the Chair is inclined to the opinion that the suggestion made by several Senators upon the floor that there must be some intervening business is correct. But in this instance there had been intervening business.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

CAROLINE D. MOWATT-VETO MESSAGE.

Mr. GALLINGER. I ask for the regular order. The Senate proceeded to reconsider the bill (H. R. 1139) granting a pension to Caroline D. Mowatt, which had been returned by the President to the House in which it originated with his objections to the same.

Mr. QUAY. I suggest that there is not a quorum of the Senate present. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania suggests the absence of a quorum. The Secretary will call the roll. The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names:

Allen

Allison Bacon Baker

Bate

Berry

Blanchard

Gallinger Gibson Hansbrough

Nelson

Thurston

Palmer

Vest

Peffer

Vilas

Brown

Hill

Perkins

Walthall

Butler

Hoar

Pettigrew

Warren

Jones, Ark. Kyle Lindsay

Platt Pugh

White

Wilson

Roach

McBride

Sherman

Call

Chandler Chilton

Clark

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty Senators having answered to their names, a quorum is present.

Mr. QUAY. What is the status of the bill before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was about to state that the bill is before the Senate, vetoed by the President of the United States. The question is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. The Secretary will call the roll.

Mr. WHITE. What is the bill before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The title of the bill will be read.

The SECRETARY. A bill (H. R. 1139) granting a pension to Caroline D. Mowatt.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will proceed with the call of the roll.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BLANCHARD (when his name was called). I again announce my pair with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Pritchard].

Mr. WALTHALL (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cameron].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. More than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the bill is passed, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. QUAY. I suggest that there is not a quorum of the Senate present. Mr. SHOUP. Mr. President

Mr. QUAY. I suggest that there is not a quorum of the Senate present. Mr. HOAR. I rise to a question of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts will state his question of order.

Mr. HOAR. My question of order is that the suggestion of the want of a quorum is out of order; that the matter of the intervention of business has nothing to do with it. In the case of the repeated motions to adjourn, the Senate having done something, they are motions for the Senate to do something, to wit, to adjourn, and the previous motion to adjourn may have been voted down for the very purpose of doing the thing which has intervened, and then they may be ready. But it never was intended that it should be put into the power of one man to prevent eighty-nine men from doing business.

The intervention of business, therefore, has nothing to do with it. The proper and reasonable application of the rule of the Senate is that if the Chair, on inspection, sees that since the presence of a quorum has been ascertained in the way provided by the rules there has been no substantial change in the condition and composition of the Senate, and that the quorum which was ascertained continues here, he is bound to refuse to entertain the suggestion and allow the eighty-nine men to go on with their business.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, without discussing the general question, it is sufficient now that no business has intervened since the announcement showed a quorum when the Senator from Pennsylvania made his point. I insist upon it that the Senator can make no point of the want of a quorum. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Shoup] is entitled to be recognized, having addressed the Chair to make a motion.

Mr. QUAY. Those who were present in the Senate pending the discussion of the bill for the repeal of the silver clause of the Sherman Act will remember that a majority of the Senate were held up by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dubois] and the entire minority, and the precedent was adopted and sustained that anyone, at any time after intervening business, could suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] if that is not true?

Mr. HILL. I rise to a point of order, which I will state. The Chair announced the vote. That vote showed the presence of a quorum. No business has intervened. We need not go further and raise a point upon an imaginary case. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Shoup] rose and asked to be recognized by the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator from New York that two points of order can not be pending at once unless the second point of order is addressed to something contained in the first. The Senator from Massachusetts has suggested an independent substantive point of order. The point of order suggested by the Senator from New York is an independent point on a different principle. Mr. HILL. No. The question I raise is that the Senator from Pennsylvania can not raise the question of a quorum when the roll call had immediately before disclosed the presence of a quorum. That is the point I should like to have decided, and if it is decided in my favor the Senator who addressed the Chair is entitled to be recognized. Is not that right?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair feels constrained to rule that the point submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts has to be disposed of unless the Senator from Massachusetts waives it.

Mr. HILL. It is the same point of order, except the Senator from Massachusetts went further; that is all. Having the two points both involving the same question, the Senator from Massachusetts went further.

Mr.VEST. I should like to hear the rule read. I ask for the reading of the rule.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri asks for the reading of the rule. The Secretary will read the rule.

Mr. QUAY. I desire to say that while to the public at large, to the people of the United States, it may seem that I am wantonly obstructing business, Senators on this floor know that I am doing it in the interest of millions of Pennsylvania capital and the wages of thousands of Pennsylvania workingmen.

Mr. HILL. Pennsylvania capital can not override the plain rules of the Senate or the country.

Mr. HOAR. I say again that in my judgment the question of the intervention of business is not a decisive test. It is the question whether the Chair sees that the composition of the Senate as made up, as ascertained by the roll call, remains substantially unchanged and a quorum continues. The other rule is to put eighty-nine men, representing this whole country, in the power of one.

Mr. QUAY. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that when he and I were striving to sustain the credit of the Government pending the controversy over the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Act the rule was interpreted as it is being interpreted by the Chair tonight.

Mr. HOAR. I never heard it interpreted in that way.

Mr. QUAY. My recollection is that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. DUBOIS] time and again suggested the absence of a quorum, and we were compelled to sit here and to take vote after vote. We were held, 1 think, one month in that controversy by those obstructive tactics. Mr. HOAR. I never considered what was done at that time parlia mentary or proper on the subject of the points raised or thought of. Mr. HILL. Mr. President, is this ancient history in order? Mr. DUBOIS. Inasmuch as the Senator from Pennsylvania has alluded to me, I would say that during that debate on the repeal of the Sherman Act I never called for a quorum once when there was a quorum of the Senate in their seats. The Senator from Pennsylvania complained about that, and he stands here now and says he wants to protect some

capital in Pennsylvania. They did not care much then when they struck down all of that Western country. But even through that fierce fight, which was a fight for the people of this country and not for a few capitalists in Pennsylvania, men who have millions and whom you are trying to give more millions to unjustly-even through that fierce fight I never asked for a quorum in the Chamber when there was a majority of the Senate in their seats; and no advocate of silver on this floor and none of those who were opposing the repeal of the Sherman Act asked for a quorum when there was a quorum present.

Mr. QUAY. My recollection is

Mr. HILL. Can we not have the decision of the Chair on the point of order?

Mr. QUAY. I may be mistaken and the Senator from Idaho may be correct, but my recollection is that time and again, I can not say the Senator from Idaho personally suggested the absence of a quorum, but those who were subordinate to him and were acting in concert with him when there was a quorum present, and at times when there was not a quorum present the Senator from Idaho sat in his seat and refused to vote, and efforts were made to force him to vote, without success, because the Senator from Idaho stood bravely up and refused to vote, and the Senate had no recourse.

Mr. SEWELL. I do not know anything about the controversy then existing, but I want to know the rules of the Senate. I ask for the reading of rule V in relation to the matter, and I ask for a decision of the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the rule indicated. The Secretary read as follows:

"RULE V.

86 QUORUM ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT for.

"1. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.

"2. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a qu‹tion shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the presiding officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

"3. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, shall be in order." Mr. HILL. Mr. President, that rule expressly says that a question of a quorum can not be raised if the roll call has just disclosed the presence of a quorum, and that is the only question that is now pending. If that is so, then the Senator from Pennsylvania could not raise the question, and the Senator from Idaho was entitled to be recognized by the Chair.

Mr. SEWELL. In answer to the Senator from New York, the rule very explicitly shows that this point can not be maintained. Here it is in plain English:

2. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result."

Mr. HILL. The calling of the roll, no matter whether it is upon a regular roll call, upon the passage of a measure, or whether it is upon a direct suggestion of the want of a quorum, is a roll call, and that has just taken place. That is the fact which determines the presence of a quorum. Otherwise when it is called a suggestion can be made that there is no quorum, and you can keep right on forever. It can not be done, Mr. President, under these rules. Bad as these rules are, they will not permit such a farce as that. I submit the question that when the roll call discloses the presence of a quorum, then the Senator who has addressed the Chair is entitled to proceed. That is the question I want decided by the Chair.

Mr. SEWELL. The rules of the Senate may be wrong

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey will suspend a moment. The Chair will state that two points of order have been made. Only one can be entertained at a time. The point of order be. fore the Senate (after which the point of order made by the Senator from New York will be entertained) is the point of order made by the Senator from Massachusetts. It is that the Chair should by inspection ascertain whether there is a quorum present, and if he finds such to be the case that he shall rule the call out of order. Mr. HILL. That is an abstract question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is ready to hear any debate on that question. If there is none, the Chair is ready to rule upon it. Mr. SEWELL. The rule does not give the Chair that right. The rule is absolute.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, we have enough difficulties here without imagining them. I am one of those willing to go to the extent of holding that the Chair can, even under these rules, substantially count a quorum; but it is not necessary to go so far until we reach that point. That question does not arise. You are not called upon to decide the question whether at any time the Chair can discover that immediately after the roll call there had been any change, as the Senator from Massachusetts says. You are not called upon to decide that question; it is an abstract question which may arise hereafter.

The question that was presented here was simply to test the accuracy of the last roll call. The last roll call disclosed the presence of a quorum, and a Senator can not immediately arise and say, "I suggest the want of a quorum."

I pause here to say that for the integrity of the proceedings of the Senate it seems to me it is to be regretted that this entire matter was not read before the Senate voted upon that proposition. I read further:

That is the practical question and the only one now before the Senate to decide. The other is an abstract question which has not yet arisen, but which may arise before this evening's performance is

over.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from New York a very important fact, that may settle this question of order, and that is the information that the other House has receded from its disagreements all along the line so far as the naval bill is concerned. Mr. HILL. That is not a parliamentary question; that is a motive for the proceeding.

Mr. LINDSAY. It lacks now only the signatures of the presiding officers of the two Houses and of the President of the United States to make it a law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is constrained to rule that when a Senator presents a point of order the Chair can not refuse to rule upon it on the ground that it is an abstract question. If a Senator presents a point of order, it is within the province of the Chair to rule upon it but the Chair can not rule upon more than one point at a ting. After having ruled upon one question, if the other still survives, the Chair will decide it. The Chair will then rule on the point of order submitted by the Senator from New York.

Mr. HOAR. The point of order is that the suggestion is out of order. I stated one reason for the point, and the Senator from New York stated another-two reasons in favor of the same point. My proposition was that, after having done this, the provision of the rufe has been exhausted, and if the Chair sees, upon an inspection, that the composition of the Senate remains unchanged, it can not be successively pat every two minutes; otherwise, if I should be held to be wrong, it is very evident, it seems to me, that the rule would require the Chair to put it again and again, without any intervening business whatever. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order made by the Senator from Massachusetts is that, after there has been a roll call, in case there has been no intervening business and there is another suggestion of the absence of a quorum, the Chair should rule that point out of order if, upon a personal inspection of the Senate, he should determine that there had been no substantial change in the number present. The Chair knows no way in which such an inspection could be made, except by counting; and the Chair does not know of any rule in the Senate which justifies or authorizes the Presiding Officer to count a quorum. So the present occupant of the chair is now ready to pass upon the question submitted by the Senator from New York.

Mr. HILL. My point is that the presence of a quorum was dete mined by the last roll call and that a Senator can not immediately

thereafter suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator mean to embrace the feature that no business has intervened?

Mr. HILL. Yes; that no business has intervened.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. HILL. The Senator from Idaho can now make his motion.

Mr. GALLINGER. Regular order, Mr. President.

NEW IMMIGRATION STATION, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H. R. 13851, and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the following House bill and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

The bill (H. R. 13851) providing for the purchase of a site and the erection of a new immigration station thereon in the city of Boston, Mass.

The Senate amendment was read.

The proposed amendment was read, as follows:

In lieu of the matter stricken out by the Senate amendment insert the following: "except on Castle Island; and the sum authorized under section 2 is hereby provided out of the immigrant fund."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

Mr. KELIHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I ask unanimous consent for about seven minutes to make a statement.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. CROCKETT, its reading clerk, announced that the Senate had passed with amendments

CONFIRMATIONS.

Ezccutive nominations confirmed by the Senate May 29, 1908.

ASSISTANT TREASURER.

Clarence S. Hebert, of Louisiana, at New Orleans, La.

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

Robert S. Sharp, of Tennessee, for the district of Tennessee.

POSTMASTERS.

NORTH CAROLINA.

Evander Mc. Moore, at Burgaw, Pender County, N. C. S. Arthur White, at Mebane, Alamance County, N. C.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, May 29, 1908.

[Continuation of legislative day of Tuesday, May 12, 1998.] The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker at 11 o'clock and 59 minutes a. m.

GRANTING AN INCREASE OF PENSION TO BYRON C. MITCHELL, ETC.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the pension bill which I send to the Clerk's desk.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kansas asks unanimous consent to pass the following House bill, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

A bill (II. R. 22212) granting an increase of pension to Byron C. Mitchell, Calvin P. Lynn, and Harry S. Lee, formerly Albert Lee

Alleman.

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of Byron C. Mitchell, late of Company F, One hundred and thirty-seventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension at the rate of $24 per month in lieu of that he is now receiving.

And the name of Calvin P. Lynn, late of Company G, One hundred and fortieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension at the rate of $30 per month in lieu of that he is now receiving. And the name of Harry S. Lee, formerly Albert Lee Alleman, late of Company F, One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and pay him a pension at the rate of $30 per month in lieu of that he is now receiving.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER.

The gentleman from Alabama objects.

XLII-451

House of Representatives was requested:

H. R. 19795. An act concerning locomotive ash pans; H. R. 21003. An act fixing the compensation of certain officials in the customs service, and for other purposes; and

H. R. 21052. An act to amend sections 11 and 13 of an act entitled "An act to establish a Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States.

The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 2295) to extend the time within which the Washington and Western Maryland Railroad Company shall be required to complete the road of said company under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, as amended by the act of Congress approved June 28, 1906.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the following titles:

II. R. 17228. An act to promote the safe transportation in interstate commerce of explosives and other dangerous articles and to provide penalties for its violation;

H. R. 19462. An act to amend section 5438 of the Revised Statutes;

II. R. 16757. An act for the incorporation of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew; and

H. R. 22029. An act to incorporate the Congressional Club. The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 6200) granting a perpetual easement and right of way to Salt Lake City, Utah, for construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and the renewal of a conduit and pipe line and valve houses upon and across the Fort Douglas Military Reservation.

The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 3405) to amend an act to authorize the Baltimore and Washington Transit Company, of Maryland, to enter the District of Columbia, approved June 8, 1896.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills and joint resolution of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House of Representatives was requested:

S. 5164. An act to provide for the improvement of the Platt National Park, situated at Sulphur, Okla.;

S. 6919. An act to establish a home for feeble-minded, imbecile, and idiotic children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; and

S. R. 99. Joint resolution providing for assistance to the people of the storm-swept district of Oklahoma.

The message also announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1385) to authorize the sale and disposition of a portion of the surplus and unallotted lands in the Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Indian reservations in the States of South Dakota and

North Dakota, and making appropriation and provision to carry the same into effect.

The message also announced that the Senate had disagreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 5083) to amend section 1 of the passenger act of 1882, had asked a conference with the House of Representatives on said amendments, and had appointed Mr. DILLINGHAM, Mr. LODGE, and Mr. McLAURIN as the conferees on the part of the Senate.

LOCOMOTIVE ASH PANS.

The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before the House the following House bill with Senate amendments, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

The bill H. R. 19795, an act concerning locomotive ash pans.
The Senate amendments were read.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous consent that the House concur in the Senate amendments. Mr. MANN. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand this is the bill to which we gave unanimous consent the other day.

Mr. MANN. It is the ash-pan bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And the only amendment to it is that they have provided these ash pans may not necessarily be required to be placed under locomotives that use oil or something that does not make any ashes.

Mr. MANN. That is the amendment, with the exception of the amendment to the title. The bill related to locomotive ash pans, and the amendment of the title is to make it in relation to safety appliances, so that, in the opinion of some gentlemen, it will be more likely to agree with the employers' liability act. Mr. WILLIAMS. For the same reason that led me not to object to the bill upon its original passage I shall not object

now.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and the Senate amendments are agreed to.

NEW IMMIGRATION STATION, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment to the bill H. R. 13851.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves to take the bill II. R. 13851 from the Speaker's table, to suspend the rules, and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, which was just read. Is a second demanded? Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second. The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill? Mr. FINLEY. Yes.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to twenty minutes and the gentleman from South Carolina to twenty minutes.

Mr. O'CONNELL. I will ask the gentleman from South Carolina to take his time. I will reserve my time.

Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts should explain the bill and explain the necessity for this procedure.

Mr. O'CONNELL. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the House unanimously two weeks ago and passed the Senate practically three different times. It is now in such form that, with the amendment now proposed by me to the Senate amendment, the differences between the two Houses will be adjusted and the bill finally passed. This bill calls for a station required by the immigration department in Boston and is recommended by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor; it is also recommended by the Commissioner-General of Immigration and by the commissioner in Boston. We need it there very badly because of the condition of the station as it now exists. It is, beyond question, practically a danger place for every man, woman, and child who may be confined within it. The fire underwriters in Boston have urged time after time that a new station be afforded to the immigrants that come in there, and I can not urge upon this House any too strongly the absolute recessity, so far as humanity is concerned, of abandoning the present inadequate and unit station and in giving to us a suitable one. The income from the port of Boston, so far as the immigration fund is concerned, in the last two years has been largely in excess of the sum asked for in this bill, viz, $250,000. In justice to the immigrants coming to the port of Boston, in justice to the officers and men who are engaged in administering the duties of the Department, suitable and commodious

quarters should be given to all parties concerned. The proposed exemption of Castle Island is in accordance with the wishes of the people of South Boston, who have protested against converting that island-now used as a public park— into a place for the landing and detention of immigrants, and in this feature of my amendment, which was part of my original bill, but stricken out by the Senate, I am particularly and deeply interested. [Applause.]

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the immigration laws of this country can best be administered by having a comparatively few immigrant stations. There is no question about the fact that in times past the immigration laws have been administered in a very lax and loose sort of way. I think that to limit the number of stations would bring about the better administration of the laws to the end that the requirements of the immigration laws of this country be strictly administered.

I know, as does every other gentleman on this floor, that hundreds of thousands of people come into this country every year who under a strict administration of the law are not entitled to come. I believe in a strict enforcement of the immigration laws. I regret that they are not more onerous in point of qualification for immigrants than they are. If I had my way, the Gardner bill providing an educational test would be on the statute books in this country to-day. I would exclude mixed and colored races. If I had my way, immigrants coming to this country would possess the qualifications necessary to make good citizens. But the law is not as I would

have it.

Mr. Speaker, the real reason for the demand made on Congress to enlarge and equip the various immigrant stations throughout the country is that the number of immigrants has greatly increased during the past twenty years. The immigration laws in this country should be so framed as to exclude all persons who have not the necessary qualifications to make good American citizens. America has become the dumping ground for the world. It is probably true that more immigrants came into the United States during the last fiscal year than all other countries received during the same time. It is the standard of citizenship that makes the United States the great country it is; and when the bars are let down, as they are in the present immigration laws and the loose and lax administration of those laws, we find that several hundred thousand undesirable immigrants came to this country last year.

The time has come for the American people to consider this great question and to deal with it in a proper way. No fault has been found with the class of immigrants we received from France, Germany, Switzerland, and Great Britain in the early days of the Republic-and, in fact, the great majority of immigrants coming to the United States came from those countries. These people and their descendants are the ones who laid the foundations, and by their continued efforts have made this country great. But these countries no longer furnish the proportion of immigrants they did formerly.

In 1887 the number of immigrants from France numbered 5,034; in 1894, 3,150, and in 1896, 5,578. In 1887 Germany furnished 106,865 immigrants; last year, 37,807. In 1887 Switzerland, 5,214; last year, 3,748. Sweden in 1887, 42,836; in 1907, 20,589. In 1887, England, 72,855; Ireland, 68,370; Scotland, 18,699; Wales, 1,820. In 1907, England, 56,637; Ireland, 34,530; Scotland, 19,740; Wales, 2,660. These are the countries that in the past have furnished the best class of immigrants coming into this country.

On the other hand, Austria-Hungary in 1887 furnished to this country 40,265 immigrants; in 1907, 338,452. Italy in 1887, 47.622; in 1907, 285,731. Portugal in 1887, 1,360; in 1907, 9,608. Russian Empire in Europe in 1887, 30,766; in 1907, 258,943. Turkey in Europe in 1887, 206; in 1907, 20,767. China in 1887, 10; in 1907, 961. Japan in 1887, none; in 1907, 30,226. Other countries in Asia in 1887, 605; in 1907, 9,337.

This comparison can be carried much further with like results. showing beyond question that in recent years we are obtaining the bulk of our immigration from countries in Europe bordering on the Mediterranean, the Black, and Caspian seas. To a great extent the people coming from southern Europe, northern Africa, and the Turkish Empire are of mixed races, and the coming of this people to this country will neces sarily add to the race issue here. A very large percentage of these people are both ignorant and vicious.

The table on following page shows the number of immigrant aliens admitted during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1907, taken from report of the Commissioner of Immigration.

It will be observed that the number of English unable to read and write is only 536; of French, 170; of Germans, 5,310; of Irish, 713; Italians from the southern part of Italy, 115,803; of the Poles, 49,842; and altogether footing up a total of 337,573 persons over 14 years of age unable to read and write.

In the report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration this statement is made:

What will be the effect if the present phenomenal immigration continues is a question that is constantly being asked. With regard more particularly to quantity, the question may be answered by the following illustration: China proper is the thickly populated portion of the Chinese Empire and is the country popularly thought of as representing the limit of density of population. With a net increase to our popula tion by immigration of 1,000,000 per annum, which is less than the present rate, and the present rate of natural increase-14.66 per cent per decade the United States would reach the density of China proper in about four generations, or, more particularly, in one hundred and thirty-four years, at which time we would have a population of 950,000,000. This is in no sense an estimate of future population; it is simply an illustration of the present pace.

2. SOURCES OF AND INDUCEMENTS TO IMMIGRATION.

The figures given in the tables covering the immigration of the past year do not necessitate any particular modification of what was said under this heading in the report for 1906 (pp. 59-61). Another year's experience but emphasizes and confirms the conviction that a considerable part of the large immigration of the past few years is forced or artíficial. Two separate and distinct factors are, from interested motives, responsible for such of the immigration as is not natural: First, the violators and evaders of the contract-labor feature of the law (treated of particularly under subtitle 5 hereof, p. 67); and, second, the steamship runners and agents, to a discussion of whose activities and operations considerable space was devoted in the last report of the Bureau (p. 60) and in the report for 1905 (pp. 48-57). An influence which perhaps has not heretofore been accorded the recognition to which its importance entitles it is the "letter to the home folks," written by the alien temporarily or permanently domiciled here. These letters constitute the most extensive method of advertising that can be imagined; almost innumerable "endless chains" are thus daily being forged link by link. A letter is written to his brother, father, or other relative by an alien who, after a few months' employment here, has been able to save $150 or $200-a small fortune in the eyes of the Italian or Hungarian peasant-picturing in homely but glowing terms the opportunities of this country for money making. That letter is read by or to every inhabitant of the village, or, perhaps, even passed on to other neighboring hamlets. Others are thus induced to migrate selling their belongings, mortgaging their property, almost enslaving themselves to procure the amount of the passage. They come, find employment at what seems to them fabulous wages, write letters home; and so the process goes on and on, until some of the rural districts of such countries as Italy and Hungary as almost depopulated.

Many of the immigrants coming to this country have no intention of remaining. Thousands of them come seeking temporary employment; others with the fixed intention of returning to their own country when they have accumulated what at home would be regarded a competency.

To a large extent the ignorant and vicious alien fills the prisons and almshouses of the country. He is unfit to participate in the government of the country, yet in many of the States he can file his declaration of intended citizenship and vote. It is a notorious fact that the work of making citizens out of this class of people has been carried on in an outrageous and criminal way. It was found necessary many years ago to pass a Chinese exclusion law. It is necessary now to extend this law to people other than the Chinese. In the last Congress the Committee on Immigration in the House reported a bill, and an effort was made to pass a law restricting immigration. In the present Congress no bill of this character has been reported by the Committee on Immigration and none will be reported, for the very good reason that the personnel of the committee has been changed. Why any man in this country, native or immigrant, should wish the present stream of immigration continued I can not understand. The Republican party professes the greatest friendship for and promises the greatest protection to labor, and then places the American laborer in competition with the cheapest labor of the world. The Republican party professes to stand for high ideals in American citizenship, and then brings in hundreds of thousands of people who are ignorant and vicious and unfit in every way for citizenship.

The American people are alive to this question, and I do not think it will be long until there is a law on the statute book properly regulating the question of immigration.

As I have stated, I am in favor of the Gardner bill. In fact, in many respects I would make the law more stringent than is proposed in this bill.

measure.

Mr. KELIHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in no spirit of hostility to the acceptance of these admendments or passage of this I rise simply to call the attention of the House to the fact that few bills of equal merit have had such a rough passage as this one has had up to its present stage and to remark that this was in no way due to the fault of the bill, but rather to its gross mismanagement.