any vessel refusing to pay such expense should not be permitted to land at or clear from any port of the United States, and the expenses were made a lien upon the vessel, and the necessary expenses incurred in the execution of the act for that fiscal year <namely, ending June 30, 1887) were to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.

On March 24, 1887, the Acting Secretary, in a circular addressed to the Collectors of Customs and Commissioners of Emigration and others, called attention to these acts and instructed the Collectors of Customs to cause all vessels arriving from foreign ports to be examined by officers of the port who might be in the customs service, in order to ascertain whether any alien immigrants forbidden to land within the provisions of the act of 1885 were on such vessels, and to use the utmost vigilance to prevent the landing of such immigrants, and to secure their return to the countries from whence they came by the vessels on their arrival, and to report the names of all persons or firms instrumental in engaging, or introducing into the country, contract immigrants prohibited from landing, to the United States Attorney for the judicial district embracing their respective ports, and also the names of the vessels bringing such contract immigrants, and of their masters, in order that prosecutions might be instigated against them as provided for in sections 2 and 3 of the original act, and in case of any refusal to return contract immigrants as required by law, Collectors were instructed to promptly institute the proceedings authorized by section 8 of the act of February 23, 1887. Commissioners of Emigration were also requested to aid Collectors of Customs and those persons designated by Collectors when the service required, so far as might be possible within the scope of their legitimate duties.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENFORCING THE LAW EXHAUSTED.

In these instructions the Secretary of the Treasury would seem to have gone to the very verge of the powers conferred upon him by the acts referred to. But at the time this circular was issued the Forty-ninth Congress had expired, the appropriation bills for the fiscal year 1888 had been passed, and by some omission, whether accidental or intentional, I am unable to say, no appropriation had been made to carry into effect the provisions of this law during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, and no appropriation has thus far been made or contemplated, that I am aware of, to defray such expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889.

Its enforcement, therefore, during this period by the Treasury Department has necessarily been made an incident of the customs service, and with the limited and inadequate appropriations provided by Congress for this service it will readily be seen that the means for a perfect and successful execution of the law are wanting. * *. What is

*

needed is a separate and independent appropriation for the service required of the Secretary of the Treasury under the act of 1887. There is in the Treasury an "Immigrant Fund" -derived from the head-money tax provided for in the Immigration Act of 1882 (22 Stats. 214), and which is especially appropriated by the terms of that act to defraying the expenses of carrying it into effect.

After paying out of that fund all expenditures properly chargeable to it there was a bal. ance unexpended on June 30, 1888, of nearly $335,000.It is difficult to perceive any good reason why this fund should not also be charged with the expense of enforcing the Alien Contract Labor Law. It relates to the same general subject-matter, namely, the exclusion from this country of undesirable foreigners, and the revenues derived from the tax on foreign immigration can be properly, and it is believed, profitably employed in this work.

ENLARGED POWERS FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

An enlargement of the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, under the act of 1887, would also seem to be desirable, As it stands, his jurisdiction in the premises apparently terminates when the landing of the immigrant has been consummated. From information derived from reliable sources, there is reason to believe that it will not infrequently happen that the evidence going to show that the immigrant has come here under a contract to labor, is inaccessible until it is too late to be of any avail. The provisions of this law are

now well known abroad, and the immigrant who is actually coming under a previous contract to labor, has the strongest of motives to conceal the fact and avoid his detention on ship-board and his return to his native country.

When it is considered that many of these immigrant ships entering at the port of New York bring from a thousand to fifteen hundred passengers at a trip, and sometimes enter at the rate of four or five a day, and the question of their right to land must necessarily be determined, in the first instance, in a very brief period of time, the possibility of evading the most rigid examination that can be instituted under such circumstances, is not remote. But the subsequent conduct of the immigrant and his employer may furnish strong proof of the contract previous to immigration. It should likewise be borne in mind that the entry of these immigrants can easily be effected by way of Canada, and they may be brought across the border at points many miles distant from the place where a customs officer may be located, and the first information which the Department or any of its officers may have of their presence here would be received long after the importation has been made, and when the time for preventive action under existing laws had passed.

THE LAW PART OF OUR SETTLED POLICY.

Regarding the law, therefore, as a part of the settled policy of our Government, it would seem to be wise to provide that in all cases where, within a reasonable time after the landing or entry of the immigrant, the Department become satisfied that his landing or entry was prohibited, summary proceedings might be instituted for re-taking the immigrant and returning him at the expense of the owner of the importing vessel, or of the person contracting for his service, in case he enters from the adjoining provinces.

It would also prove a great stimulus to persons who may be interested in the detection and prevention of violations of the law, if it was provided that they should have a share of the penalties recovered, or that the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to pay out of the moneys realized upon any such recovery such portion, not exceeding 50 per cent., as he may deem a just and reasonable compensation for any information furnished which has led to the recovery. This course is pursued with respect to violations of the revenue laws, but the act of 1885, while it authorizes any person to bring an action in the Federal courts for the recovery of the penalties imposed, makes no provision for his compensation or for the payment to him of any portion of the recovery, in case the prosecution is successful.

ASKS THAT THE LAW BE STRENGTHENED.

In view of the foregoing facts I would respectfully submit the following recommenda‣ tions:

First. That the sum of $50,000 be appropriated out of the "Immigrant Fund" for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of the Treasury to carry into effect the provisions of the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885, as amended by the act of 1887, and for the purpose of defraying the expenses which he is authorized to incur by the provisions of the latter act, during the present fiscal year, and that this appropriation be made in the General Deficiency Bill now pending, or in some other proper appropriation bill. If Congress approves of this recommendation a draft of a provision for that purpose to be inserted in such bill is herewith submitted.

Second. An amendment to the act of 1887, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury. in case he shall be satisfied that an immigrant has been allowed to land contrary to the prohibition of that law, to cause such immigrant within a reasonable time, say one year, to be taken into custody and returned to the country from whence he came at the expense of the owner of the importing vessel, or if he entered from an adjoining country at the expense of the person previously contracting for the services.

Third. An amendment to the act of 1885, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay an informer who furnishes original information that the law has been violated, such a share of the penalties recovered as he may deem reasonable and just, not exceeding 50 per cent., where it appears that the recovery was had in consequence of the information thus furnished. Respectfully yours,

C. S. FAIRCHILD, Secretary.

No complaint has been made in any quarter that the present Administration has not done everything in its power to execute the law without fear or favor, and the official letters already presented sufficiently attest the purpose of the authorities to do what in them lies to protect labor from the unfair competition, to which it was for more than twenty years subjected under Republican rule.

A REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO IMPORTED CONTRACT LABORERS IN GREAT

NUMBERS.

There is now pending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas an action in which the United States is plaintiff and Gustave Wilke, John V. Farwell, Charles B. Farwell, Abner Taylor and Amos Babcock are defendants.

The pleadings in the case show that the defendants had a contract for the erection of the State-House at Austin, Texas; that they were known as the Capital Syndicate; that the stonecutters employed to cut the stone struck and refused to work because convicts were employed at the quarries in getting out the stone, and the defendants then sent to Aberdeen, Scotland, in April, 1886, and brought over eighty-seven foreign stonecutters under contract to work upon said building, who were employed and paid by them, and after the completion of the work they, or the most of them, returned to Scotland.

Suit is brought to recover $1,000 penalty for each alien contract laborer.

VII.

EIGHT-HOUR LEGISLATION.

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW AND THE PERSIST

ENT FAILURE TO ENFORCE IT.

The first eight-hour bill was introduced by A. J. Rogers, a Democratic member from New Jersey, February 19, 1866. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, where it was pigeon holed during that Congress.

William E. Niblack, a Democratic member from Indiana, next introduced a joint resolution declaring eight hours a legal day's work under the Government. This resolution was also referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and was strangled by that Committee. The House of Representatives was strongly Republican during the Thirty-ninth Congress, and James F. Wilson, now United States Senator from Iowa, being Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

In the Senate Mr. Brown (Republican), of Missouri, introduced an eight-hour bill, which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. On March 2, 1867, it was reported to the Senate by Mr. Grimes (Republican), of Iowa, who moved that the committee be discharged from its further consideration, which motion was agreed to. That action killed the bill. The Senate was then Republican by & large majority.

ITS COURSE IN THE SUCCEEDING CONGRESS.

On March 14, 1867, George W. Jullian, of Indiana, now Democratic Surveyor-General of New Mexico, introduced the same bill offered by Mr. Rogers in the previous Congress. Mr. Holman, Democrat, of Indiana, moved that the bill be at once put upon its passage. But this was objected to by Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, and the bill was then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

FORTIETH CONGRESS-FIRST SESSION.

On March 28, 1867, General Banks, of Massachusetts, introduced an eight-hour bill, and the rules were suspended and the bill passed. The bill was sent to the Senate on the same day, and after a warm debate on its reference to a committee, it was referred to the Finance Committee, of which John Sherman, of Ohio, was chairman. That committee loved it so much that they could not part with it, so it was never reported back to the Senate.

FORTIETH CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION.

On January 6, 1868, another eight hour bill was introduced by General Banks, which was passed by the House without a yea and nay vote. This bill was received by the Senate on January 7, 1868, the day after it passed the House, and on motion of Mr. Conness, of California, it was ordered to lie on the table. He said he made that motion because a similar bill had been referred to a committee which neglected to report it back to the Senate. He gave notice that he would call it up at an early day.

Nothing more was said about it for nearly five months, when, on June 3, 1868, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, the late Vice-President, moved to take it up for consideration. He made an earnest speech in favor of his motion, saying in the course of it:

The bill is meritorious, and petitions have come to the Senate from all over the United States, and up to this time no attention has been paid to them by the Senate. At an early period of this session, among the first acts passed by the house of Representatives was this act, but it has laid upon the table and has not even been referred to a committee. Now, in response and in respect to the sentiment of the country so generally expressed on this subject I have felt it my duty to call up the measure for passage. The bill is brief and can be considered without reference to a committee.

The Senate refused to take the bill up.

On June 24, 1868, on motion of Mr. Conness, the bill was taken up, when Senator Sherman offered the following amendment:

"And unless otherwise provided by law, the rate of wages paid by the United States shall be the current rate for the same labor, for the same time, at the place of employment." Mr. Sherman said:

"All I desire is, if the United States Government chooses to take the lead in making eight hours a day's work, that it shall not be compelled to pay for that eight hours' work more than any private individual would pay."

Mr. Hendricks (Democrat) from Indiana, said:

"I have supported this bill, because a very large number of workingmen of the country have petitioned Congress for it. Its influence on the private employments of the country may be beneficial to the laboring masses. My opinion is that eight hours of labor, faithfully applied, are quite sufficient, and that the health of the laborer and the general interest of society will be promoted by this reform. I do not think the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman) is necessarily connected with this proposition. There may be reasons why the wages of those employed by the Government should not be regulated by the wages paid by private employers in the particular locality. Take the city of Washington for example. Private employment here is very limited; enterprise is very limited, and if you would say that the laborer for the Government should have no more than one who works for a private citizen, perhaps you would fix an unfortunate standard. I shall vote against the amendment of the bill.'

The amendment of Senator Sherman was rejected and the bill was passed by a vote of 26 to 11.

After the passage of the bill Senator Sherman said the title of the bill ought to be changed so as to read: "A bill to pay Government employes 25 per cent. more wages than employes in private establishments receive."

FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE LAW IN NAVY YARDS.

After the passage of this law it early became apparent that officers of the Government were hostile to the spirit and intent of the law and determined to construe its provisions to suit themselves, and compel or induce workmen, through fear of discharge to labor ten hours per day or submit to a reduction of wages if only eight hours' labor was given.

To meet this violation of the law, the House of Representatives, on the 8th day of April, 1869, passed a joint resolution which provided "that the joint resolution reducing and regulating the hours of labor of Government laborers, workmen and mechanics, approved June 25, 1868, shall not be construed as to authorize a corresponding reduction of wages."

April 20, 1869, fifteen days after the passage of this resolution, Senator Wilson addressed a letter to the then Secretary of War, wherein he said:

"I am clearly of the opinion that the construction put by officers of the Government upon the act constituting eight hours a day's work for all laborers, workmen and mechanics employed by the United States is a palpable violation of the spirit and letter of the acts and intention of Congress, and of the men who petitioned for its passage.

*

"The recent act of the House of Representatives is the complete demonstration that the action of the Government officials is in direct violation of the will of the representatives of the people. Congress was not asked to reduce the pay in proportion to the reduction of the hours, but to fix the number of hours that should make a day's work. By that law eight hours is constituted a day's work, a day's work that commands a day's pay."

*

The House resolution above referred to was sent to the Senate April 8, 1869, but was not acted upon during that session. During the second session, on December 15, 1869, Mr. Morrill, of Vermont, called the resolution up and offered an amendment repealing the original eight-hour law. He made a speech covering seven pages of the Congressional Globe, in support of his amendment.

In the meantime President Grant had been appealed to, and had issued a proclamation, dated May 19, 1869, giving the Executive construction to the law, which was that no reduction in wages should be made because of a reduction in the hours of labor. At that time workingmen thought that the proclamation of the President would be respected and obeyed by the Executive officers of the Government, but they seemed to care no more for the President's order than they did for the law itself, and so flagrant was the continued violation, that the President was again appealed to, and a second proclamation was issued May 11, 1872, commanding officers of the Government to obey the law.

During the first session of the 46th Congress, John Goode (Dem) of Virginia, April 21, 1879, offered a joint resolution to provide for the enforcement of the eight hour law. Mr. Goode, on May 7, 1879, from the Committee on Education and Labor, reported the resolution to the House with a favorable recommendation.

Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, opposed the passage of the resolution. In reply to a question whether the last proclamation of President Grant did not declare that there should be no reduction in the wages of workmen employed by the Government of the United States on account of the reduction of hours of labor, he said: