The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-06-10
LETTER TO THE EDITOR.
DR.. RYAN AND THE IMMIGRATION
BILL.
Catholic University Of America,


Test" in your issue of May ", contains
a slight Misrepresentation of my posi-
ton, and some observations that do
not adequately meet the general argu-
ment for the restriction OF immigra-
ton The views which have been at
tr1bnted to me in several journals
recently were originally expressed In
a lecture here at the university. The
published versions of the lecture were
copied from notes that had made
out beforehand, and which were neces-
sarily brief and skeletonized. There
fore, they might lead to inexact i'm
pressions.
While did say that 1.-THE provisions
of the pending immigration bill were
admirably adapted to keep undesirable
immigrants out of the country
explicitly pointed out that the pro-
visions relating to character in the
immigrants, are found in other parts
of the bill than that which embodies
the literacy test. So far as moral
fitness can be practically secured by
any regulations, it will be obtained by
those other sections of the bill. In
the newspaper versions of the lecture
it was clearly stated that those per-
sons who find fault with the literacy
test because it does not guarantee
character, are on the wrong track,
since the test was never intended to
do anything of the sort. The only
kind of fitness for American citizen
ship that it is designated to foster is
in the domain of the intellect rather
than the will. Unless we are dis
posed to maintain that illiterate per-
sons are as rule quite as efficient
American citizens as those who can
read and write, we must admit that
the literacy test has some value as
a determinant of fitness. Therefore,
all the eloquent words that have been
uttered and ink that has been spilled
in supporting the proposition that
many conspicuous and worthy immi-
grants would have been unable to pass
the literacy test, are beside the point.
cases but of the majority in the
class. Of two large groups of pros
pective immigrants, one able and the
other unable to read and write, which
is likely to furnish the greater num-
Der of intellectually desirable citizens?
| If we say the latter, then, we should
go further and deny the general value
of reading and writing for any class
of citizens, native or foreign. If we
admit that the literate man is, gener-
ally speaking, likely to make more
suitable citizen than the illiterate,
then, we must acknowledge that the
| literacy test has some merit, even
though it should exclude some desir-
able persons whose handicap in the
matter of literacy is more than Offset
by other qualities. Laws have to be
made to apply to the majority, not
to the exceptions. Most of the cur
rent arguments against the literacy
test lead logically to the conclusion
that the citizen who cannot read and
write is superior to the one who can.
But, as l said in the lecture, and as
the printed accounts have noted, the
Iliteracy test in mainly method of
affecting quantity not quality" The
/ immigration Commission, which con-
sisted of nine members appointed by
President Roosevelt to study the
whole question of immigration, and
which after several years labor pub
/ lished a report in forty-tWo volumes,
was unanimous in the conclusion that
There is in America a constant over
| supply of unskilled labor, and that the
Incoming masses of unskilled for
leigners should be restricted in mum.
bers. And eight of the nine members
Iof the Commission declared that the
Iliteracy test was the best single
lmethod of reducing the number of i'm.
migrants. Hence the literacy test is
chiefly valuable as a means of pro.
tecting the standard of living of the
Ipoorer American laborers against
degradation by foreigners who come
in such numbers as to force wages
below the level of decency. 1t is all
an obvious matter of supply and
demand. There are too many un.
4 ShIICo AuUOIcES III tlLO oAlOuhL vi
unskilled employment available at
living wages. / believe that if the
immigration of persons who possess
no special industrial training could be
entirely, prohibited for ten years, the
question of living wages and of mini
mum wage legislation would have be-
come relatively easy of solution.
On the other hand, you, and many
other editors, declare that there is
plenty of room for all, and no danger
Iof overcrowding for many years to
come" All depends on your defini-
ton of "overcrowding. If you mean
that America can furnish some kind
Iof bare physical existence to un-
limited numbers of immigrants for
several years yet, you are right, but is
that a desirable situation? If You
mean that these incoming unframed
multitudes will be able to find en-
ployment at decent wages, or that they
will not cause those unskilled labor
lers who are already here to become
subject to sharper competition and to
be paid lower wages, you are entirely
wrong. So far as | know, every
economist in america, except one,
believes that unrestricted immigration
lcauses an excessive supply in the I'M
Iskilled labor market, and necessarily
forces the wages of the poorest paid