The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-01-28
DEBATE ON THE REPORT.
Remarks of DanfOrd, Ba rthOldt, stone
md Other Members.

and other Members.
WASHINGTON, Jan. .27-The House to-
day, after debate of four hours, adopted
the conference report on the immigra tion
bill by a vote of 131 to lis. TIE principle
criticism of the measure agreed on by the
conferees in debate to-day was based on
the extension of the educational test to
female well male emigrants on the
ground that it might divide families, and
TO the limitation of the ability of the immi-
grant to read and write the English lam
guage or the language of their native coun-
try residence" Speeches were made by
Messrs. Buck Dem., La.), Dolliver Rep.,
Ia.). Bartholdt (Rep., MOI, Parker Oep.,
N. j., Walker Rep., Mass.), Cannon Rep.,
Ill) Grosvenor Rep., Ohio) and Boatner
-lDem.. LAD in. opposition. and -s-NsssEs-
Danford (Rep., Ohio, Hepburn (Rep., Ia.),
w. A. Stone Rep.. PAD. Johnson Rep,,
Ind.), Corliss (Rep., Mich.), Morse CRep.
Mass). Wilson Dem, s. CO and Taylor
(Rep.. Ohio) i'm its support. The provisions
of the bill have been recently published
Mr.. Danford made the opening argument
In support of the report. AS it passed the
House. he said. the bill applied the educa-
tional test only to males. This test was
now extended to females. 1t was this ex-
which caused the principal antagonism to
the adoption of the conference report on
the ground that it would separate families
Husbands might be admissible and wives
excluded or vice versa. If the bill became
law. he said, its provisions would be we'll
understood abroad by prospective immi-
grants. and very few families would apply
at our shores for admission who were not
m ma
nies were obliged TO return them. lie drew
a graphic picture of the overcrowding i'm
the great centers of population, the great
numbers out OF work and the constant ne
eessity of relieving them from want and
starvation. He drew attention to the Cor
liss amendment which was designed to
prevent the birds of passage from cross
ing the Canadian border each year in the
spring and returning again in the fall. They
took advantage OF the high wages paid in
the United States. They paid no taxes and
contributed nothing to the common veal.
He thought that this bill was less drastic
than the one which passed the last House.
In conclusion he said this bill did not go
he believed that the present unemployed
In this country to-day constituted the
greatest danger to the Republic.
OBJECTIONS TO THE BILL.
Mr.. Bartholdt. who had charge of the
opposition to the conference report fol-
lowed in favor of the rejection of the re-
port and instructions to the conferees to
insist on certain notifications of the bill
AS one of the conferees. he said he had re-
fused to sign the report. because it would
separate husband and wife parent and
child, and further because it not only ex-
cluded illiterates, but all those who could
not read and write the language of their
native or resident land" knowledge and
reason, and not prejudice and passion, he
trusted, would prevail I'm the consideration
of this subject. The bill agreed on by
the conferees. he said would bar out the
Germans of the Baltic provinces of Russia
and many OF the people of southern Europe
and of South America. who could not read
or write the lang aage of their native or
resident lands. The German Quakers who
spoke no Russian. and yet were under Rus
sian domination, the French who lived in
the German province of Alsace- Lorraine
and other conquered subjects who had not
learned the language of the conquerer
Mr. Boutele interrupted to express the
opinion that Mr.. Bartholdt gave a too mar
row definition tn the words OF the bill.
In reply to question. Mr.. Bartholdt said
he thought the bill would exclude ne-third
of our present immigration.
Mr. w. \. Stone said the House was con-
fronted with the alternative OF accepting
the agreement Of the conferees or of hav-
ing no immigration bill passed at this ses-
sion He sent to the clerks desk and had
read some kilograms addressed to Senator
Lodge, copies of which appeared in an in
terview with Senator Lodge printed to-day.
He quoted some statistics to show that last
year but 146 immigrants of the class of
which we are proud would have been ex-
cluded by this bill. Ii was the importation
OF those from Italy, Hungary and other
countries of southern Europe. large per
centage OF whom would be excluded by this
bill, which was causing the glut in the
common labor market. Two hundred and
twenty thousand of the 260 900 immigrants
who came in last year he said remained
i'm the three States of Massachusetts. New
York and Pennsylvania. We had been
legislating for years in the interest of high
wages for labor; now we should DO
something 10 prevent foreign pauper labor
from coming here To enjoy conditions we
created for the benefit OF our own people.
Mr. Buck opposed the conference report.
He believed that whatever tended TO re-
strain or restrict human effort contained
within il the germs Of injustice and wrong
Ii was un-American.
HENRY L. JOHNSON'S VIEWS.
Mr.. Johnson. of Indiana. advocated the
adoption OF the report, but criticised the
measure because II did not go far enough.
Mr.. corliss. the author OF the amendment
placed in the bill by the conferees to pre-