is a blessed thing that there is a civil service law, and that Commissioner Kellar believes, as he said, in obeying it, a blessed thing both for him and for the poor people under his charge.

To us, who call ourselves reformers, while we rejoice that Commissioner Kellar is a man who believes in obeying the law, it is humiliating to have to confess that the majority of the "so-called reform board" which had charge of the department of charities during the three years before January, 1898, did not believe in obeying the law; and the result was bad for the sick people and the poor, who suffered in consequence, and bad for the cause of good city govern

ment.

The following extract from a letter of an ex-civil service commissioner of New York City throws some light on the administration of the Department of Charities of that city during 1895-96-97 :

The Civil Service Commission kept close watch to prevent evasions of the rules, but, on more than one occasion, was estopped by the asseveration of the Charities Department. Although the Civil Service Commission, with the evi. dence before it, had every reason to doubt the statements of the department, and no reason to change its opinion because of them, it can be understood that the position was a delicate one. My own opinion is that the Board of Charities under the presidency of Mr.. was most inefficiently administered, and that the reason for said inefficiency was the political activity of Mr. —, and his continuous effort to appoint for political reasons alone. . . . I have had evidence that even the better paid employees, who could only be taken from an eligible list, were induced to join political associations and to become more or less active political workers, under threat, I suppose, of removal. . . .

In fact, the reformers and the Tammany man have equally been inconsistent and untrue to themselves. In the latter case this inconsistency is cause for rejoicing, and in the former it is cause for bitter sorrow. Had the reformers been true to reform, I believe we should have had to-day in the city of New York a government as good as that of any city in Europe.

And this brings me back to where I began, to the statement that what we need, above all, in this State is a moral awakening; and we need genuine civil service reform because it will help us to this awakening, because it creates and fosters honesty, justice, good morals, and self-respect, not only in the civil service, but among the people.

We have in the State approximately 5,000 civil servants and in the city approximately 31,000; 36,000 men and women who, with their families, are subject to the constant and direct influence of whatever system of appointment may be in force at a given time.

Consider the different influence upon these men of the spoils and merit systems, and of their influence upon all who come in contact with them.

Imagine these men and women, appointed because they have a "pull" of one kind or another, knowing that they will keep their places only by neglecting the work they have sworn to do, and by doing the bidding of the men who got them their appointments,— knowing (and bitterly resenting it, too) that honesty and efficiency and devotion to duty will not save them from removal,- men and women forced to be dishonest, whether they like it or not. (Do you remember the pathetic statement of the policeman at the Lexow investigation? "I was an honest man before I went on the force.")

But imagine, I say, these 36,000 citizens of New York under the spoils system, holding office on the terms I have described, and these same 36,000 men and women appointed to office because they have proved themselves fit for the places they fill in a fair, open trial with worthy competitors, doing their work honestly, and knowing that so long as they do it honestly they will remain in office, and that they must do it honestly or they will be dismissed. The difference in them under these two systems is that between fawning, imbittered, dishonest, anxious, miserable, incompetent slaves, and fearless, self-respecting, industrious, upright, efficient public officers, proud of themselves, proud of their work, proud of their country; while the difference of the influence of the two systems among the people at large is in the end the difference between "the living and the dying nations."

VII.

Immigration and Interstate Migration.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

AND INTERSTATE MIGRATION.

BY RICHARD GUENTHER, OSHKOSH, WIS., CHAIRMAN.

In a paper which I read at the session of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections at Grand Rapids, Mich., 1896, I said that a careful study of the then existing laws relative to the regulation of immigration to the United States will convince unprejudiced minds that no additional legislation is required to check immigration; that what is needed is to supply sufficient funds to enable the United States authorities to carry out existing law; that the educational test advocated by many, to my mind, is entirely uncalled for; that, if it should be deemed advisable by the people of the United States to prescribe an educational test with reference to the naturalization of aliens, then this question should be discussed in connection with naturalization, but not with reference to the immigration laws. I occupy the same position to-day.

No one can be more desirous than I am to exclude all elements that are a menace to us. But I am not prepared to say that a physically and mentally sound person of good moral character is unfit to be admitted to this country simply because he or she never had the opportunity to acquire a school education.

The main object of the agitation is to decrease the number of immigrants from the selfish and incorrect motive that they encroach upon the earning facilities of the American laborer. The fact that the new arrivals are not only producers, but necessarily consumers, is overlooked. It is as apparent to my mind as daylight is to my eyes that the professional labor agitators are responsible for this

crusade against immigration. As they see no other way to prevent foreigners from coming, they conclude that the educational test would at least be partially effective. They would prefer to stop immigration entirely if they could; but, not being able to do this, they have hit upon the educational test as accomplishing their desire in part at least.

United States senators and members of the House of Representatives have been enlisted to carry out the mandates of these selfconstituted leaders of public opinion; and, in advocating this new restriction, they proclaim that it is done only for the higher glory of the people of the United States.

They tell us that this law is not directed against the Germans or Scandinavians, and will hardly affect the Irish, but that they want to exclude the Italians, the Russian Hebrews, and the Hungarians, because these people are bad and corrupt. What do you care? they say. You are not an Italian nor a Russian Hebrew nor a Hungarian.

Such utterances as these are entirely unworthy of enlightened people. The persons against whom these restrictive laws are ostensibly aimed belong to our own, the Caucasian race,- to people who have given to the world leaders in intellect and civilization. In religion, art, and science these people have been the peers of any people on the globe.

There are good Italians and bad ones, good Hungarians and bad ones, as well as good Americans and bad ones. Under existing laws we can exclude all bad people, whether they come from Germany, Sweden, Russia, or elsewhere; but I maintain that a man is not bad because he has not learned to read and write.

In answer to the sophistry employed by the advocates of this unAmerican restrictive policy, let me quote the words of William Lloyd Garrison, of Massachusetts:

A nation of immigrants and the children of immigrants, having obtained possession of the continent, are considering the feasibility of barring out other immigrants. They assume to have the right to determine who shall be admitted hereafter and who shall not. It is pertinent to demand the evidence of their authority. The United States is a considerable fraction of the habitable globe, sparsely settled, with a population of 21 to the square mile compared with 311 in Great Britain, 234 in Germany, and 187 in France. Its

resources are as yet measureless; and, to use Mr. Atkinson's words, "it contains incalculable room for immigrants." Indeed, he figures that all the inhabitants of the nation can find standing-room in the town of Brookline,— the mothers holding their babes in their arms,—— and still have room to spare. Conclusively, it is not on the ground of overcrowding that the danger arises from the incoming of foreigners. Your authority, gentlemen, for this restricted persuasion, for this enormous assumption of power. Show us your title-deed. If a nation has a right to keep out aliens, tell us how many people constitute a nation, and what geographical area they have a right to claim. In the United States, where a thousand millions can live in peace and harmony under just conditions, who gives to seventy millions the right to monopolize the territory? How few can justly own the earth, and deprive others who are landless of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And what becomes of the rights of the excluded? such assumption except on the ground of might? It is the simple Is there any justification of power of force, and not of justice.

Abraham Lincoln in his first annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1861, said:

Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all.

No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty: none are less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. dering a political power which they already possess, and which, if Let them beware of surrensurrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

With relation to interstate migration Mr. W. A. Gates, of St. Paul, Minn., will present a paper on the workings of the new Minnesota law in reference to alien and non-resident dependants.

From my experience as a member of the Wisconsin State Board of Control as to the difficulty of determining the residence of an alien dependant, and of the resistance offered by one State to receive a