^{page 269 note 1} Federal space and sanitation requirements, however, date back to 1819. Federal legislation is conveniently compiled in U.S. Immigration Commission, Reports, vol. XXXIX (Washington, 1911). Cf. Higham, John, Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, N. J.; Rutgers University Press, 1955), p. 44.Google Scholar This article does not discuss legislation enacted in a number of states which barred foreign convicts. – The author acknowledges with gratitude the many helpful suggestions made by Professor Carter Goodrich, who supervised his doctoral thesis “Public Poor Relief in America, 1790–1860” (Columbia University, 1952) from which much of the material for this article is taken. A grant from the Social Science Research Council through the Committee on Research in Economic History made possible the research for this thesis.

^{page 269 note 2} Cf. White, Leonard D., The Jacksonians; A Study in Administrative History 1829–1861 (New York: Macmillan, 1954), p. 507.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 1} Pulsifer, David (editor), Records of the Colony of New Plymouth… Laws 1623–1682 (Boston, 1861), p. 108.Google Scholar In 1638 the vessel master was required to return any passenger landed without the permission of the authorities to the place from whence he came. (ibid. p. 30.) In the 1672 Book of General Laws, the vessel master had the option of giving a bond in lieu of removing the person likely to be chargeable. (New Plymouth, The Compact with the Charter and Laws [Boston, 1836], p. 275). – N.Y., 1683, c. 9, again in 1691, c. 6. (All references to Sessional Laws here are by state, year enacted, and chapter). These laws, unlike eighteenth century legislation, made no provision for a bond by the vessel master and therefore are not included in our table.

^{page 270 note 2} The option of removing a passenger feared likely to become chargeable was specified in the N.H. acts of 1718 and 1791, the Mass, law of 1700, the R.I. law of 1702, the N. Y. acts of 1683, 1721 and 1788, the N.J. law of 1730, the Pa. laws of 1730 and 1803, the Del. laws of 1740, 1775 and 1791 (c. 218, sec. 17), the N.C. law of 1738. The Pa. law of 1803 and the Miss. Territory Act of 1803, retained in Ala. until 1852, and in Miss, until 1857 were the only ones passed during the nineteenth century which specifically stated the alternative of removing the passengers or bonding them. As early as 1722 Mass, dropped reference to this alternative (though it was implied in the 1756 act) and R.I. did so in 1729. For the removal practices of the Cunard and Allan Lines see (National Board of Trade), Freedom of Immigration, Statements Presented at a Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, at Washington, December 14, 15, 16, 1876, in opposition to the imposition of a headmoney tax on alien passengers arriving at all the ports of the United States (Boston, 1876), p. 29, 30. Hereafter cited as Freedom.

^{page 271 note 1} A 1740 law of Del. (Laws, I, c. 66, sec. 7) placed a charge of 6 d. (7 cents) per foreigner, for a certificate that the person was fit to be landed. Under a 1797 act (Laws, II, c. 134, sec. 7), the physician examining foreign passengers was directed to collect 6 cents from each for the use of the poor in the county where the money was collected. – N. J.'s act of 1838 – unlike the laws of other states – did not specify the alternative of a bond or head money, but such it was in fact. Thus in the Rev. St., 1847, the head money provision was in Tit. I, c. 4 while the bond was referred to in Tit. 32, c. I, sec. 32. – The laws of Me. and N. J. which left it to the town whether a commutation should be made, as well as the Del. law of 1829, were not changed in 1849 or subsequently, and would appear to have been unconstitutional in the light of this decisxion. – In 1854 Portland adopted a form of receipt which specified that the vessel owner was paying the commutation money in lieu of the bond, at his request, and he agreed never to sue for a recovery of the amount paid. (Portland, The Charter and Ordinances… [Portland, 1856], p. 28).

^{page 271 note 2} R. I. was the only colony whose laws covered non-defective as well as defective persons, though for a time Mass. (1722–1724) and Pa. (1729) did so also. N.Y. (1799) was first, and N.J. (1838) was last, to widen the scope of the laws. S.C. was the only state which never changed its earliest act (1730), retained in Rev. St., 1873, c. 29, Sec. 24. – The N.Y. and Pa. laws were extended in scope to include not only foreigners but Americans as well. La.'s 1842 law taxed boats from American as well as from foreign ports, as did Cal.'s law of 1850. – Not only vessel owners but also railroads were responsible, for one year after carrying a foreigner into the state in Mass. (1851, c. 342); and R.I. (June, 1847).

^{page 271 note 3} From 1784 to 1796, though, a foreigner residing in Conn, who was likely to become chargeable, could be sent away at state expense, if the cost was not greater than “the Advantage of such Transportation”. (Conn., 1784, p. 82). – Va., Rev. Code, 1819, c. 245, sec. 8, retained in the 1887 Code, sec. 2003. An earlier act, Oct., 1748, c 17, sec. 7 provided for a £ 10 ($ 33.33) fine for landing or discharging a sick or disabled sailor without providing for his maintenance. The 1819 Code (c. 245, sec. 8) increased the fine to $ 60, and so it remained to the end of our period. – Fla., 1822, p. 63. This act also provided for a $ 100 fine for landing a disabled seaman. The same provisions were still in effect in 1881. (Fla., Digest 1821–1881, c. 151, sec. 7).

^{page 272 note 1} Tex., 1866, c. 58.

^{page 272 note 2} 1796 statement of the Almshouse Commissioners in N.Y.C., Minutes of the Common Council, II, 212. Hereafter cited as NYCMCC. A similar complaint was made by the commissioners in the petition City of New York SS. At a meeting of the Common Council… the 15 th of January 1798… (Broadside, Houghton Library, Harvard University).

^{page 272 note 3} New York State. Messages from the Governors… II, 365; III, 177. These governors, as well as a committee of the state assembly (Journal, 1827, pp. 604–605) proposed that all the counties with a foreign pauper burden should be assisted. See also N.Y. Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, Second Annual Report, pp. 24–25.

^{page 272 note 4} N.Y., 1797, c. 67. Each vessel master and cabin passenger paid $ I; each mate and steerage passenger paid 50 cents, and every sailor, 25 cents. 1811, c. 175, sec. 26. Under the 1811 law, masters and sailors on coasting vessels paid only 25 cents. N.Y., 1843, c. 213, made the rate for the first category $ 1.50, for steerage, 25 cents, and for mates or sailors, 50 cents. 1844, c. 316 charged masters $ 1.50, cabin passengers $ 2.00, steerage, mates, and sailors, 50 cents. 1845, c. 227 retained the previous rate for captains, cabin, and steerage passengers, but raised the 1844 tax on sailors from 50 cents to $ I. The hospital tax was eliminated by 1849, c. 350, shortly after the Supreme Court decision, Infra, p. 287. David Schneider points out that hospital money was not used for foreigners who needed relief other than medical care upon their arrival. The History of Public Welfare in New York State 1609–1866 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), p. 304. Under an 1846 law, though, c. 300, sec. 18 repealed by 1849, c. 350, sec. 15, a person who had paid hospital money could be admitted to the Marine Hospital for a temporary illness, at any time within a year of his arrival. The 1797 law provided that any surplus hospital money was to go to the Society of the Hospital of the City of New York, for the care of sick seamen and foreigners, but later legislation deflected the surplus to the Institution for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in New York City ($ 8,000 a year) and three city dispensaries ($ 1,500 each). N.Y.S. Senate, Documents 1845,1, No. 29, p. 2.

^{page 273 note 1} NYCMCC IX, 411, 777; X, 590; XV, 643; XIX, 147–150. For the 1832 ordinance see Board of Assistant Aldermen, Proceedings, I, 352. See also Comptroller, Annual Statement… 1845 (New York, 1846), p. 33.

^{page 273 note 2} For early complaints about Perth Amboy, see NYCMCC, II, 351, 741, 761. An English investigation revealed that ships bound for New York with “a very low description of emigrants” would go to Amboy instead, and packet boats would bring the aliens to the metropolis. (Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1826, IV, 184). Official data, first collected for 1819–1820, showed that 89 foreigners arrived at Perth Amboy in the year to September 30, 1821, and none thereafter until 1829, when 105 arrivals were listed; the number was 74 in 1830, 57 in 1831, 545 in 1832, and none again until 1836, when 494 entered. A peak of 5,006 arrived in 1837, and none in subsequent years, according to this source. All data on arrivals used in this study are from U. S. Treasury Department Bureau of Statistics, Tables Showing Arrivals of Alien Passengers and Immigrants in the United States from 1820 to 1888 (Washington, 1889), pp. 108–109. – When 36 ill passengers arrived in Perth Amboy in 1837 on the “Phoebe”, $ 200 bonds were given for each one. (Perth Amboy adsm. Smith. 4 Harrison [N.J.], 53 [1842] ).

^{page 273 note 3} Board of Aldermen, Documents, V, No. I, pp. 15–16. It would appear likely that localities did collect head money, as the 1838 act authorizing this also provided that the locality where the alien had been permitted to land was responsible for relieving him if he afterwards became sick or otherwise incapable of maintaining himself. – Newark, Charter of the City… with the Ordinances passed by the Common Council (Newark, 1850), p. 56; the same provision was included in Newark, The City Charter and Ordinances… (Newark, 1858), p. 262, and in An Ordinance Comprising the Ordinances… (Newark, 1890), pp. 229–230. Perth Amboy Minutes of the Governing Body, November 7, 1860 (MS). I am indebted to Philip P. Costello, City Clerk, for this reference. – Portland, Annual Reports… 1856–1857, p. 40. Freedom, p. 31.

^{page 274 note 1} From 1843 to May, 1847, 294,755 passengers were bonded, while only 34,707 were commuted. (N.Y.C. Comptroller, Annual Statement… 1845, p. 62; N.Y.C. Almshouse Commissioner; Annual Report… 1846, p. 398; ibid… 1847, p. 41). Passengers were bonded by brokers at a cost to the vessel-owner of from 10 cents (or less) to $ I per passenger; from 1828 to 1836 the price was $ 2 per vessel. (Friedrich Kapp, Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the State of New York [New York, 1870], pp. 45–46). Several bondsmen had commitments for over $ 1,000,000 each (N.Y.C. Comptroller, op. cit., p. 32). In “many instances”, it was reported in 1830, the bonds could not be collected. (NYCMCC, XVIII, 575).

^{page 274 note 2} N.Y.C. Comptroller, ibid., pp. 32–33. Thus from 1843 through 1845, the city received just under $ 20,000 from bondsmen.

^{page 274 note 3} N.Y.C. Board of Assistant Aldermen, Proceedings and Documents, XXVII, 115. Conditions at Tapscott's are described in ibid., 117 ff. See also Kapp, op. cit., pp. 50–60.

^{page 274 note 4} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Report 1881, p. 12. The background of the 1847 law is discussed in Kapp, op. cit., pp. 85–95. For annual statistics of head money collections see N.Y. (State) Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Reports… from… 1847, to 1860, inclusive (New York 1861), pp. 355–377. This volume is cited hereafter as N.Y. Com. Emig. Data for 1818 through 1833 is in N.Y.C. Board of Aldermen, Documents, I, 184. For the years 1834–1847 see N.Y.C. Comptroller, Annual Report, passim.

^{page 275 note 1} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Report, 1876, p. 70. Every alien landed in towns on the Great Lakes, Niagara River, or the St. Lawrence had to pay $ 1 to the county superintendents of the poor (N.Y., 1847, c. 431). Later the vessel master could pay $ 1 or give a $ 500 bond for five years for every alien (1849, c. 40 5; retained in Rev. St., 7th ed. [1881], Pt. 1, c. 20, Title 21B). The county receiving payment was to reimburse any locality in the state where the alien became a pauper within three years after landing.

^{page 275 note 2} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Reports, 1881, p. 12. N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1851, No. 92, pp. 7–8; N.Y.S. Senate, Documents 1856, III, No. 105, p. 14. To a member of the Know Nothing party, “the plea that the commutation tax paid by immigration supports this aggregation of moral filth in our community, is paltry, if not meanly mercenary…” (Thomas R. Whitney, A Defense of the American Policy as Opposed to the Encroachment of foreign influence [New York, 1856], p. 185).

^{page 275 note 3} N.Y., 1847, c. 195, sec. 4; N.Y. Com. Emig. p. 52, 74, 116, 270. ibid., Annual Report 1876, p. 70.

^{page 275 note 4} N.Y. Com. Emig. pp. 6–7,51–52, 77–78;ibid., Annual Report 1876, p. 70.

^{page 276 note 1} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Report… 1868, pp. 19–22. For engravings describing the various activities at Castle Garden, see Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, January 20,1866, pp. 280–281. The discontinuance of special bonds is referred to in N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1876, IV, No. 33, p. 555.

^{page 276 note 2} Hopkins, C. T., Common Sense Applied to the Immigrant Question (San Francisco, 1869), p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 3} Mass. Senate, Documents 1847, No. 109, p. 2. See also ibid., Documents 1846, No. 74, p. 3.

^{page 277 note 1} Mass., 1840, c. 96, sec. 2; 1845, c. 76; 1848, c. 313. 1851, c. 342 created the state board. The Rainsford Hospital is referred to in 1852, c. 275, sec. 11; 1853, c. 352, sec. 5; 1854, c. 189, sec. 6.

^{page 277 note 2} Mass. House of Representatives, Documents 1835, No. 60, p. 11, 21. Mass. Board of State Charities, Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 23–24. See Boston Auditor, Annual Report of Receipts and Expenditures, 1832–1849, passim, and Mass. Board of State Charities, Seventh Annual Report… (Boston, 1871), p. 237, for the annual statistics of head money collection. – The Boston superintendent of alien passengers admitted in 1847 that he had allowed sick and aged persons to land without requiring a bond, and those persons went directly to the almshouse. Infirm persons were allowed to land without being bonded, if they stated they had friends here who could support them. The superintendent defended his conduct on the grounds of humanity alone. (Mass. Senate, Documents, 1847, No. 109, pp. 8–9).

^{page 277 note 3} Mass., 1853, c. 367. There were 6,757 bonds outstanding which had been collected since 1848. In 1853 bonds for 2,629 persons were cancelled, for a commutation of $ 5,034; in 1854 another 716 bonds were cancelled for $ 1,213.

^{page 277 note 4} Mass. House of Representatives, Documents 1856, No. 41, p. 19; ibid., 1857, No. 30, p. 21.

^{page 277 note 5} Statement of Sanborn, F. B., Proceedings of the Conference of Charities… Detroit, May, 1875 (Boston, 1875), p. 97.Google Scholar From 1854 to 1858 over $ 86,000 was collected in Boston, while the cost of supporting foreigners at the state almshouse during these years amounted to $ 56,000. (Mass. House of Representatives, Documents 1859, No. 243, p. 4).

^{page 277 note 6} Freedom, , p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} For the commutation fees, see Philadelphia Guardians of the Poor, Minutes (Ms, Phila. General Hospital, Old Blockley Historical Museum); hereafter cited as Phila. GP, XXII, July 3, 1837; XXIII, June 13, 1842; XXVI, August 14, 1849. The $ 1 fee was retained in the Rules for the Government of the Board of Guardians adopted May, 1851 (Philadelphia, 1851), p. 18. – Within a few months after the passage of the 1828 law, the consignees of a vessel from Le Havre with 200 aliens on board, wanted to bond them instead of paying head money, but the guardians refused to allow this. (Phila. GP, XVIII, October 13, 1828). In 1839 the solicitor stated that if taking bonds “would be more acceptable and less onerous (to vessel owners)… it would be conformable to the intention of the Legislature to take that course.” (ibid., XXXII, July 15, 1839).

^{page 278 note 2} Phila. GP XXXIII, April 9, 1798; XI, September 1, 1807; January 30,1810. In 1817 and again in 1819 an agent was appointed to report the names and conditions of all arrivals of foreign passengers. (ibid., VII, August 17, 1819; VIII, September 5, 1817). In 1825 the guardians obtained judgments to indemnify the city in five cases, and the committee on emigration requested information on foreign paupers, so that the persons who imported them could be called on to give security. (Phila. GP, XV, December 7, 1825).

^{page 278 note 3} Philadelphia Guardians of the Poor, Report of the Committee appointed… to visit the cities of Baltimore, New York… (Philadelphia, 1827), p. 28. Report of the Committee appointed at a town meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia… (Philadelphia, 1827), p. 6.

^{page 279 note 1} Phila. GP XXI, December 1, 1834. The complaint was in keeping with the popular opinion of the times and was probably exaggerated.

^{page 279 note 2} American Emigrants' Friend Society, Foreign Pauperism in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1851) p. 7. The society felt that the guardians “discountenance any efforts to mitigate the sufferings of emigrants, these very sufferings being regarded as partial barriers against an influx which they consider injurious to their country.” (ibid., p. 9).

^{page 279 note 3} Phila. GP, XXVIII, September 19, 1853; XXIX, January 21, 1856; XXX, March 28, 1859.

^{page 279 note 4} Md., 1833, c. 177. The preamble to 1832, c. 303 stated that many foreigners had become charges not only to the city, but to “private associations for relieving foreign immigrants”, and therefore the law gave the city discretionary authority to give as much of the head tax receipts as they saw fit, to these societies. By 1841, c. 174, the city had to give the county of Baltimore one-third of the three-fifths of the tax not going to private societies. This provision was dropped in the 1860 Code, which however, continued the old sharing arrangements with the two societies. (Public Local Laws, Art. 4, sec. 260). – Perhaps inspired by the Baltimore example, the American Emigrants' Friend Society petitioned the Pennsylvania legislature for one-third of the head money collected annually by Philadelphia's guardians. The society aimed to relieve immigrants seeking employment and a home, and “at the same time to relieve our citizens of the burden of … supporting an … unemployed and therefore pauper population in their midst …” (op. cit., p. 3). The request was opposed by the guardians and it was not granted. (Pa. House of Representatives, Journal 1851, I, 348, 564).

^{page 279 note 5} From 1834 through 1838 the German Society received a total of $ 13,643.83 compared with $ 315.41 received by the Hibernians. The societies received $ 3,384 and $ 140 respectively in 1840, but in 1852 the respective amounts were $ 3,057 and $ 1,783. (Baltimore, Ordinances 1840, appendix p. 94; ibid., 1841, appendix p. 94; ibid., 1853, appendix p. 10.)

^{page 280 note 1} ibid., 1840, appendix, p. 95. ibid. 1850 appendix, p. 130. The data for 1833 through 1839 is from the 1839 Report of Trustees of the Poor (loc. cit.). For subsequent years, the figures were taken from the Register's Summary and the City Comptroller's report published annually in the Ordinances.

^{page 280 note 2} New Orleans Charity Hospital, Annual Report 1875, pp. 48–49; ibid., 1843, p. 2.

^{page 280 note 3} ibid., 1870, pp. 5–6. Commissioners of Immigration, Report to the General Assembly, January, 1870, p. 3; ibid., 1874, p. 3. Protection of immigration began with La., 1866, c. 126.

^{page 280 note 4} Cal. Assembly, Journal 1861, p. 418.

^{page 280 note 5} Coolidge, Mary Roberts, Chinese Immigration (New York, 1909), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar See also Eaves, Lucile, A History of California Labor Legislation (Berkeley, Cal., [1910]), Ch. 3,5,6.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 6} Cal. Assembly, op. cit., p. 420, See also ibid., appendix, Doc. 17.

^{page 281 note 1} Charleston City Council, Ordinances … passed since the incorporation of the City (Charleston, 1802), p. 341; ibid., A Digest of the Ordinances … from the Year 1783 to October 1844 (Charleston, 1844), p. 11; ibid., Charleston Ordinances … 1844–1854 (Charleston, 1854), p. 29; retained in the Ordinances … Revised and Codified … (Charleston, 1875).pp. 179–182.

^{page 281 note 2} The Ordinances of the Borough of Norfolk … (Norfolk, 1845), p. 233. The ordinance also provided for a vessel tax on a tonnage basis. An 1822 ordinance had merely placed a $ 20 fine on anyone importing a pauper or person without a visible means of support who was likely to become chargeable. (The Ordinances of the Borough of Norfolk [Norfolk, 1829] p. 203.) The Revised Ordinances of 1866 did not retain the 1841 ordinance, and indeed made no reference to passengers.

^{page 281 note 3} Pa., 1827–1828, c. 79, sec. 17 required the vessel master to give the name of every passenger placed on board a vessel bound for Philadelphia, and give a bond or pay head money for each, on penalty of a fine of $ 75 per passenger. The same provision was found in N.Y., 1847, c. 195, sec. 1. Earlier, by 1799, c. 80, the master was liable to pay a $ 500 fine for every alien passenger landed within 50 miles of the city who intended to proceed to New York. By Md., 1832, c. 303, sec. 3, the master was liable to pay $ 100 for every passenger landed within 50 miles of Baltimore with intent to proceed to that city. A $ 100 fine per passenger was placed on a vessel master who landed aliens at any place within Massachusetts other than the one which was the destination of the vessel for the purpose of evading the immigration act. (Mass., 1848, c. 313, sec. 9.) For an attempt to evade the law by landing passengers within 30 miles of Savannah a fine of $ 300 was authorized by the 1819 Ga. act.

^{page 282 note 1} Phila. GP XXIII, July 16,1838; July 25,1838.

^{page 282 note 2} The report of the superintendent of alien passengers is in Mass. House of Representatives, Documents 1852, No. 47, p. 4. For the report of the joint special committee, see Mass. Senate, Documents 1852, No. 127, p. 6. See also Mass. House, Documents 1853, No. 18, p. 23. A proposal to increase the head tax was opposed by Boston's Board of Trade on the ground that it would destroy “a large part of the city's commerce”, and give New York City and Portland a position of preference. (ibid., 1855, No. 69, p. I.) – Beginning in 1849 the N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration (op. cit., p. 105) began to commute bonds “at such rates as the Commissioners judged sufficient to meet the probable expenses which would be incurred by the support of such persons.” This procedure, Governor Boutwell of Mass, felt, gave N.Y. an advantage: business flowed to that city, while many needy found their way to Mass, to become public burdens there. (Mass., Acts and Resolves, 1852, p. 314.) – Following the recommendation of the Commissioners of Emigration, the legislature of N.Y. raised the head tax to $ 2 in 1853. Earlier a committee of the legislature had argued against the increase on the grounds of adverse effect on the commerce of the city and state. (N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1851, No. 92, p. 5.)

^{page 282 note 3} Mass, 1853, c. 360. However, by 1854, c. 219, if the passenger returned to Massachusetts and became chargeable, within five years, the vessel master was liable for his support, just as if he had given a $ 300 bond for the passenger. 1865 c. 160 repealed these two laws. It in turn was repealed by 1870, c. 215, which re-enacted the 1853 and 1854 provisions. Once more, by 1872, c. 169, sec. 2 the latter provisions were repealed. Portland, Maine exempted aliens en route to Canada from payment of the head tax. (Portland, Annual Reports … 1858–1859, p. 31.)

^{page 282 note 4} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Report … 1870, p. 29. Another type of interstate complication was pointed to in a petition from Providence to the legislature of R.I., dated June, 1847. The cost of caring for the immigrant poor was unusually large because of a fever among them; most of them came from New York over the railroad, and it was felt only right that New York should relieve persons who took sick “soon after their arrival”. (R.I. General Assembly, Petitions 1847–1850 [MS, State Archives, Providence].) – In later years N.Y. and Mass, had a working arrangement whereby the state collecting the head money supported the indigent alien for five years after his arrival, even if he fell into distress in the other state. (Mass. Board of State Charities, Seventh Annual Report, January 1871, pp. 218–219.)

^{page 283 note 1} Arguments in favor of the freedom of Immigration at the Port of Boston, Addressed to the Committee on State Charities of the Massachusetts Legislature, April, 1871 (Boston, 1871), p. 31. Statement of E. H. Derby, local merchant.

^{page 283 note 2} An Appeal to the Legislature of Massachusetts in favor of Freedom of Immigration at the Ports of the Commonwealth … (Boston, 1872), pp. 16–17, 29.

^{page 283 note 3} “Statement in Behalf of the Boston Board of Trade before the Massachusetts Legislative Committee on Public Charitable Institutions”, in: Hamilton Andrews Hill, Immigration and Head-Money Taxes. A series of Papers and Reports (Boston, 1877), p. 8. (Library of Congress); Mass. Board of Charities, Twelfth Annual Report (Boston, 1876), p. 11.

^{page 283 note 4} N.Y.S. Senate, Documents 1871, III, No. 31, p. 1. N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1875, VII, No. 82, p. 3. Opinions of the New York Press on the Application for an Increase of Emigrant Head Money ([NP], [ND]), p. 3. – After listening to testimony, one legislative committee remained unconvinced that a tax increase would drive away shipping. (N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1876, IV; No. 33, p. iv.)

^{page 284 note 1} The committee reports are in Phila. GP XXVI, April 24, 1848; April 2, 1849; XXVII, August 14, 1849. In 1839 the solicitor of Philadelphia alluded to “the disadvantages it now labours under, in comparison with other ports”, as regarded head money. (ibid., XXXII, July 15, 1839.) The argument of the minority of the committee on emigrants was in error, as far as Md. was concerned, and their observation became obsolete for N.Y. when the tax was raised to $ 1.50 in 1849. – New Orleans also was told that its levy was “a serious burden upon commerce”. (Louisiana Commissioners of Immigration, Report to the General Assembly, February, 1872, p. 7.)

^{page 284 note 2} N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1876, IV, No. 33, p. 54, 111. The Commissioners were disappointed that fares were not reduced following the head tax cut. Almost $ 300.000 was thus pocketed by shipowners, they estimated for 1872. N.Y.S. Senate, Documents 1873, No. 37, p.3.

^{page 284 note 3} Freedom, , p. 22, 23.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 4} North Atlantic Steam Traffic Conference, To the Hon. the Committee on Commerce and Navigation of the House of Representatives [NP] [ND], p. 2 (Library of Congress). The Indianapolis Daily Sentinel, Nov. 24, 1870 likewise held that the tax was borne by the companies.

^{page 284 note 5} N.Y.S. Assembly, Documents 1851, IV, No. 92, pp. 2–3; ibid. 1876, IV, No. 33, p. 659; Ottarson, Frank J., Answer to the Memorial of the Steamship Companies … Protesting Against the Proposed Increase in the Head Money (New York, 1874), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} F. B. Sanborn, (member of the Massachusetts Board of Public Charities) in Proceedings of the Conference of Charities, held in connection with the general meeting of the American Social Science Association, Detroit, May, 1875 (Boston, 1875), p. 97. See also the argument of Letchworth (ibid., p. 96) and the New Orleans Charity Hospital, Annual Report, 1831, p. 5; ibid., 1842, p. 2. A Californian agreed that immigrants received “ample equivalent” for their head tax payment to New York. C. T. Hopkins, op. cit. p. 31.

^{page 285 note 2} N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Annual Report 1869, p. 34; Friedrich Kapp, Immigration, in: Journal of Social Science, No. 2 (1870), p. 26; Memorial of New York Commissioners of Emigration, Congressional Globe, 42 Congress, 3d Session, p. 423 (1873); Letter from Emigration Commissioner Schack in: New York Daily Tribune, March 22, 1876; Mass. Board of State Charities, Thirteenth Annual Report, p. xli, xlvi; editorial in New York Times, June 19. 1882.

^{page 285 note 3} Baltimore Sun, September 30, 1871; Freedom, p. 3. The N.Y. delegation walked out of the convention. (Indianapolis Evening News, November, 25, 1870.)

^{page 285 note 4} Freedom, , p. 5, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 1} Convention Proceedings, in Indianapolis Journal, November 26, 1870. See also H. A. Hill's argument in Freedom, p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 2} An Appeal to the Legislature of Masschusetts, in favor of Freedom of Immigration at the Ports of the Commonwealth … (Boston, 1872), p. 90.

^{page 286 note 3} Op. cit., p. 3.

^{page 286 note 4} Freedom, , p. 6.Google Scholar See also p. 33.

^{page 286 note 5} Congressional Record, XIII, 5107.

^{page 286 note 6} 33rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Congressional Globe, XXIV, 783, 1181. For a summary of the discussions in Congress on immigration restriction see Frank George Franklin, The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States (Chicago, 1906), pp. 264, 271.

^{page 286 note 7} Freedom, , p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 8} North Atlantic Steam Traffic Conference, op. cit., pp. 5–6. See also Freedom, pp. 15–16, 34. – The General Agent of State Charities in Massachusetts felt there was no reason to fear competition from the Allan Line to Quebec. In a letter to the House Committee on Commerce (January 3, 1877 [National Archives]) he pointed out that for some years past, despite the tax in American ports, these ports had competed successfully.

^{page 286 note 9} 13 & 14 Vict., c. 4; repealed by 16 Vict., c. 86. N.Y. was concerned over this law (New York State Assembly, Documents 1851, IV, No. 92, p. 5).

^{page 287 note 1} Hamilton A. Hill, The Present Condition and Character of the Immigration Movement. An Argument made at the Conference of Charities, Saratoga Springs, September 7, 1876, in opposition to the National Head Money Tax on Immigrants (Boston, 1876), pp. 17–19; North Atlantic Steam Traffic Conference, op. cit., p. 3; Morton, Levi P., Immigration, Its National Character and Importance … (Washington, 1880), p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 2} City of New York v. Miln, 11 Peters (36 U.S.) 102, 141 (1837). Earlier, in 1828, the New York Supreme Court has upheld the act (Candler and Waite ads Mayor … and Commonalty of the City of New York, 1 Wend. 493). The passenger cases are in 7 Howard 283, 572, 573(1849).

^{page 287 note 3} Cf. the New Orleans Charity Hospital, Annual Report 1852, p. 4, where Congress was asked to recognize definitely the right of the states to collect head taxes. Requests for federal action against foreign “pauper dumping” date back to the 1830's. (Baltimore, Ordinances 1833, p. 67; Hazard's Register of Pennsylvania, XI [1833], 151; 25th Congress, 2nd Sess., Executive Documents, IX, No. 313; Mass., Resolves 1836, p. 420.) Another wave of requests for Congressional ban of paupers and convicts was the product of the Know-Nothing agitation of the 1850's. (R.I., January, 1855, p. 8; 35th Cong., 1st Session., Senate Miscellaneous Documents, No. 12; Message of William A. Newell, Governor of New Jersey … January 13, 1858 [Trenton, 1858], p. 24; Pa. Senate, Journal, 1857, p. 25.) A bill to this effect was submitted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but not acted upon. (34th Cong., 1st sess. House of Representatives, Reports of Committees, III, No. 359.)

^{page 287 note 4} Henderson et al. v. Mayor of the City of New York et al.; Commissioners of Immigration v. North German Lloyd, 92 U.S. 259, 273, 275; Chy Lung v. Freeman et al., ibid., 275, 280. In The State v. SS Constitution, 42 Cal. 578, 587 (1872), California's 1852 law was held unconstitutional. An amendment was held invalid by a U.S. Circuit Court in 1874. (In re Ah Fong, 3 Sawyer 145.) – When N.Y. tried to levy a $ 1 duty under the guise of an inspection charge (1881 c. 427, c. 432) the Supreme Court quickly declared the law unconstitutional (People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U.S. 59 [1882].) A Cal. inspection fee (to check for leprosy) of 70 cents per passenger arriving from a foreign port met the same fate (Amended Political Code 1875–1876, sec. 2955; 8 Sawyer 640 [1883].) – In 1878 Congress specified that no action could be maintained against a state or locality for the recovery of head money paid before January 1, 1877. (U.S. Statutes at Large, XX, 177.)

^{page 288 note 1} U.S. Statutes at Large, XXII, 214. An 1875 law had prohibited the entry of convicts and prostitutes (U.S. Statutes at Large, XVIII, Part III, 477). The Committee on Immigration of the Conference of Charities and Corrections claimed (Proceedings … Ninth Annual Conference [Madison, 1883], xxvii) that it had been instrumental in securing the 1882 law. The House Committee report is in 46th Congress, 2nd Sess., House Report No.1 (1879). Arthur's statement is in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VIII, 64.

^{page 288 note 2} DrBüchelc, , Land und Volk der Vereinigten Staaten (Stuttgart, 1855), p. 481.Google Scholar See also N.Y. Commissioners of Emigration, Special Report … December, 1854 ([NP], [ND]), p. 4.

^{page 288 note 3} Superintendent of Alien Passengers for the Port of Boston, in: Mass., Public Documents 1863, Pt. II, No. 15, p. 6; letter dated January 3, 1877 from the Mass. General Agent of State Charities and Acting Superintendent of Alien Passengers to the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce. (MS, National Archives.)

^{page 288 note 4} Report to the General Assembly Session of 1874, p. 12.

^{page 289 note 1} Anderson, Martin B., Legislation to Prevent the United States from Being Made a Receptacle for Foreign Paupers, in: Conference of Charities, Proceedings … at Saratoga, September, 1876 (Albany, 1876), p. 172.Google Scholar Dr. Hoyt complained in 1885 that at many ports, the investigation was not always as thorough as desirable, with the result that improper persons were allowed to land who became public burdens. (National Conference of Charities and Correction, Proceedings … Eleventh Annual Session [Boston, 1885], p. 48.)

^{page 289 note 2} Cf. N.Y. Com. Emig., p. 175. Passage from Bremen (including food) cost $ 20 in 1845. Around 1873 the fare from Europe was $ 40. (Thomas W. Page, Transportation of Immigrants and Reception Arrangements in the Nineteenth Century, in: Journal of Political Economy XIX [1911], 738.)

^{page 290 note 1} See note to table, p. 295.

^{page 290 note 2} See Massachusetts for laws before 1820.