Page images
PDF
EPUB

I stated to the committee of the House and to the committee of the Senate that if proper workable immigration laws could not be placed in this bill the seamen would prefer to be left exactly as they are now. The adoption of the House sections does not leave the seamen as they are now. It makes at least the distinction of changing the seamen from being presumably as honest as everybody else to that of being in the class of convicted crooks. If it be true that the House provisions dealing with alien seamen are adopted or are to be adopted, it would be infinitely better to leave the bill on that question as it was adopted in the Senate.

On behalf of the seamen.

Most respectfully yours,

ANDREW FURUSETH.

Memorandum concerning changes which should be made in. the seamen's sections of H. R. 7995 in order to make those sections fairly effective from the immigration standpoint and in order that this proposed law shall not result in repealing any provisions of the seamen's act.

[The print of the bill used in preparing this memorandum is conference committee print No. 6 of May 8, 1924]

As all provisions requiring the seamen to have landing cards and provisions relating to such landing card have already been eliminated from the bill in conference through the deletion of each and every paragraph of section 20 thereof, these suggestions proceed upon the premise that the landing-card arrangement has been definitely abandoned.

Section 19 of the bill (lines 15-22, p. 29) should be stricken out, because the provisions thereof, treating alien seamen as though "excluded from admission into the United States under the immigration laws," are in direct conflict with the fifth clause of section 3 (lines 8-12, p. 5), excepting from the "definition of immigration" any alien who is "a bona fide alien seaman serving as such on a vessel arriving at a port of the United States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States solely in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman." And in order that the bill may clearly show the extent to which and the purpose for which alien seamen are to be examined there should be inserted as section 19 the following:

"(a) Every alien employed on board of any vessel arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof shall be examined by an immigrant inspector to determine whether or not (1) he is a bona fide seaman and (2) he is an alien of the class described in subdivision (f), section 20, hereof, and by a surgeon of the United States Public Health Service to determine (3) whether or not he is suffering with any of the disabilities or diseases specified in section 35 of the immigration act of 1917.

"(b) If it is found that such alien is not a bona fide seaman, he shall be regarded as an immigrant, and the various provisions of this act and of the immigration laws applicable to immigrants shall be enforced in his case. From a decision holding such alien not to be a bona fide seaman the alien shall be entitled to appeal to the Secretary, and on the question of his admissibility as an immigrant he shall be entitled to appeal to the Secretary, except where exclusion is based upon grounds nonappealable under the immigration laws. If found inadmissibible, such alien shall be deported as a passenger on a vessel other that that by which brought, at the expense of the vessel by which brought, and the vessel by which brought shall not be granted clearance until such expenses are paid or their payment satisfactorily guaranteed.

"(c) If it is found that such alien is subject to exclusion under subdivision (d) of section 20 hereof, the inspector shall order the master to hold such alien on board pending the receipt of further instructions.

"(d) If it is found that although a bona fide seaman such alien is afflicted with any of the disabilities or diseases specified in section 35 of the immigration act of 1917, disposition shall be made of his case in accordance with the provisions of the act approved December 26, 1920, entitled 'An act to provide for the treatment in hospital of diseased alien seamen.'"

Strike out paragraph (a) of section 21 of the bill (line 11, p. 32, to line 4, p. 33) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 20. (a) The owner, charterer, agent, consignee, or master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof who fails to detain on board any alien seaman employed on such vessel until such alien

has been inspected pursuant to paragraph (a) of section 16 hereof, or until such alien has been placed in hospital pursuant to paragraph (d) of said section, or who fails to make provision for the deportation of any alien ordered deported pursuant to paragraph (b) of said section or pursuant to paragraph (c) of said section and paragraph (d) of this section, shall pay to the collector of customs of the customs district in which the port of arrival is located the sum of $1,000 for each alien in respect of whom any such failure occurs. No vessel shall be granted clearance pending the determination of the liability to the payment of such fine, or while the fine remains unpaid, except that clearance may be granted prior to the determination of such question upon the deposit of a sum sufficient to cover such fine, or of a bond with sufficient surety to secure the payment thereof approved by the collector of customs." Strike out paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 21 (lines 5-19, p. 33), and change the designation of what is now paragraph (d) (line 20, p. 33) to (b). Add to section 21 of the bill (after line 5, p. 34) three paragraphs to be designated and to read as follows:

"(c) All vessels entering ports of the United States manned with crews the majority of which, exclusive of licensed officers, have been engaged and taken on at foreign ports shall when departing from the United States ports carry a crew of at least equal number, and any such vessel which fails to comply with this requirement shall be refused clearance: Provided, however, That such vessel shall not be required when departing to carry in the crew any person to fill the place made vacant by the death or hospitalization of any member of the incoming crew.

"(d) No vessel shall, unless such vessel is in distress, bring into a port of the United States as a member of her crew any alien who if he were applying for admission to the United States as an immigrant would be subject to exclusion under paragraph (c) of section 13 hereof; except that any ship of the merchant marine of any one of the countries, islands, dependencies, or colonies immigrants coming from which are excluded by the said provisions of law shall be permitted to enter ports of the United States having on board in their crews aliens of said description who are natives of the particular country, island, dependency, or colony to the merchant marine of which such vessel belongs. Any alien seaman brought into a port of the United States in violation of this provision shall be excluded from admission or temporary landing and shall be deported either to the place of shipment or to the country of his nativity as a passenger on a vessel other than that on which brought at the expense of the vessel by which brought, and the vessel by which brought shall not be granted clearance until such expenses are paid or their payment satisfactorily guaranteed.

"(e) If any alien seaman temporarily landed under the provisions of this act remains in the United States without shipping foreign for a period in excess of 60 days, such circumstance shall constitute prima facie evidence of abandonment of calling and becoming an immigrant, and such alien shall thereupon be taken into custody by immigration officials and examined as though he were an immigrant appling for admission; and unless such alien shows either that he has not abandoned his calling but is still a bona fide seaman, or that he is in all respects admissible under this act and the immigration laws, such alien shall be deported in the manner prescribed by sections 19 and 20 of the immigration act of 1917."

The following letter and statement by Mr. Furuseth was submitted by me to the conferees while H. R. 7995 was under consideration. It follows:

MEMORIAL ON IMMIGRATION BILL, BY ANDREW FURUSETH, ON BEHALF OF THE

SEAMEN

Section 19 places the seamen under the immigration laws. Immigration laws are defined as all acts, treaties, and conventions, including this act, dealing with immigration, exclusion, and expulsion of aliens, so that the seamen will, first, have to comply with all the provisions of the former immigration statutes, and in addition to that he must be capable of becoming a citizen of the United States under this proposed statute.

Section 21 provides that the master of a vessel must hold the seaman on board, first, until examined; second, until deported either by himself in the same ship or by order of the Secretary of Commerce in some other ship, unless the seaman shall be permitted to land. Having no immigration visé, of course he can not land in the United States under the immigration laws as they will

be amended if these two sections are adopted. The failure of the master to hold the seaman to the vessel carries with it a penalty of $1,000.

Section 4 of the seamen's act was passed (1) to liberate the seamen, (2) to induce Americans to go to sea, and (3) to equalize the wage cost of foreign and American merchant vessels. It gives to the seaman the right to demand one-half of the wages earned, and if that is refused, to leave the vessel and apply to the courts for the payment of all the wages earned. This section of the seamen's act has been most seriously contested by foreign and domestic shipping companies. It finally came before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dillon v. Strathearn (U. S. 252, p. 358). Great Britain appeared through amicus curiae. The United States was represented through the Department of Justice; and the Supreme Court unanimously held this section to be valid law.

Sections 19 and 21 of the immigration bill and section 4 of the seamen's act can not operate together, if the immigration laws and the seamen's act are both to be obeyed. If you do not desire to repeal section 4 of the seamen's act, sections 19 and 21 of this act must be deleted. The seamen were given a definite promise by the committees of both branches of Congress that no part of the seamen's act would be repealed.

Respectfully submitted.

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 13, 1924.

ANDREW FURUSETH.

The following letter was sent by me to Secretary of State Hughes, and his reply thereto duly received. These were presented to the conferees and by them considered. My letter and Secretary Hughes's reply are as follows:

Hon. CHARLES E. HUGHES,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

APRIL 23, 1924.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am sending you herewith a proposed amendment to sections 18 and 19 to the present pending immigration bill, H. R. 7995. There are two provisions in the bill that I would like your opinion on, to see whether or not they are in conflict with any treaty now existing between the United States and any foreign country. The only questions really involved upon which I particularly call your attention are the provisions of subdivision (e) and (f) of the proposed amendment to section 19.

I would appreciate your reply to this at the earliest possible date, not later than Thursday evening, if possible.

I am sending this to Mr. Andrew Furuseth, whom I have requested to go over the matter with you, so that we may have a full and complete understanding on the subject. I want to know whether or not these two sections as written are workable, so far as our treaties are concerned.

Respectfully submitting the same and anticipating your early reply, believe me, I am

Most cordially yours,

JOHN E. RAKER, M. C.

ALIEN SEAMEN PROVISIONS IN H. R. 7995 AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE, WITH SUGGESTION RELATING THERETO FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND OTHERS-LETTERS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO HON, JOHN E. RAKER, M. C.

[Received April 24, 1924]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 24, 1924.

Hon. JOHN E. RAKER,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. RAKER: I have received your letter of April 23 asking whether, in my opinion, subdivisions (e) and (f) of the proposed amendment of section 19 of the pending immigration bill, H. R. 7995, would be in conflict with any treaty now existing between the United States and a foreign country. The proposed provisions are as follows:

"(e) All vessels entering ports of the United States manned with crews the majority of which, exclusive of licensed officers, have been engaged and taken on at foreign ports shall when departing from the United States ports

carry a crew of at least equal number, and any such vessel which fails to comply with this requirement shall be refused clearance.

"(f) No vessel shall, unless such vessel is in distress, bring into a port of the United States as a member of her crew any alien who if he were applying for admission to the United States as an immigrant would be ubject to exclusion under paragraph (b) of section 12 hereof; except that any ship of the merchant marine of any one of the countries, islands, dependencies, or colonies immigrants coming from which are excluded by the said provisions of law shall be permitted to enter ports of the United States having on board in their crews aliens of said description who are natives of the particular country, island, dependency, or colony to the merchant marine of which such vessel belongs. Any alien seaman brought into a port of the United States in violation of this provision shall be 'excluded from admission or temporary landing and shall be deported either to the place of shipment or to the country of his nativity, as a passenger, on a vessel other than that on which brought, at the expense of the vessel by which brought, and the vessel by which brought shall not be granted clearance until such expenses are paid or their payment satisfactorily guaranteed."

Probably the countries which would be affected most by the proposed measures would be Great Britain, Japan, and the Netherlands.

I do not find anything in the treaty of commerce and navigation of 1852 with the Netherlands which seems to have any direct bearing upon this question. Article I of the convention of commerce and navigation of 1815 with Great Britain reads as follows:

66

'There shall be between the territories of the United States of America, and all the territories of His Britannick Majesty in Europe, a reciprocal liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all such places, ports, and rivers, in the territories aforesaid, to which other foreigners are permitted to come, to enter into the same, and to remain and reside in any parts of the said territories, respectively; also to hire and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of their commerce; and, generally, the merchants and traders of each nation, respectively, shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce, but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively."

Article I of the treaty of commerce and navigation of 1911 with Japan reads, in part, as follows:

"The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufacturies, warehouses, and ships, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established."

Article IV of the same treaty reads as follows:

"There shall be between the terr tories of the two high contracting parties reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation. The citizens or subjects of each of the contracting parties, equally with the citizens or subjects of the most-favored nation, shall have liberty freely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports, and rivers in the territories of the other which are or may be opened to foreign commerce, subject always to the laws of the country to which they thus come."

Provisions more or less similar to those quoted may be found in treaties with other countries.

Especial attention is called to the provisions in the treaties from which I have quoted relating to "reciprocal liberty of commerce" and "rec procal freedom of commerce and navigation." It appears to me that subdivision (e) of the proposed amendment of section 19 might operate in such a way as to interfere with reciprocal freedom or liberty of commerce and to cause serious loss to British and Japanese vessels, and perhaps vessels of other countries with which the United States has commercial treaties similar to those from which I have quoted. If for example a seaman on a vessel coming within the provisions of subd vision (e) should die or become ill and have to be taken to a hospital, or if one or more members of the crew should desert immediately before the scheduled time for sailing, it is quite possible that a considerable time would be required to obtain other seamen to fill their places. It is quite conceivable that a delay of several hours or of a day or more might be re

quired to fill the quota of the crew. In the case of a large vessel a delay of an hour or more may result in a very large loss. Therefore, if the proposed provision should be adopted it would seem desirable to amend it in such a way as to make it less rigid. Perhaps this might be done by adding a provision to the effect that the Secretary of the Treasury should have authority to give the vessel clearance where the crew loss has occurred within a specified time before the scheduled time for sailing, and where such loss has not been caused by the fault of the vessel. You may wish to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury concerning this point.

As to subdivision (f) there would seem to be no conflict with commercial treaties except, perhaps, in so far as it applies to seamen subject to exclus on under the immigration act as being ineligible to naturalization and coming from overseas dominions or colonies of the country to which the vessel belongs. This objection would not be apt to ar se under the convention of commerce and navigation of 1815 between the United States and Great Britain, since that convention specifically applies to commerce between the territories of the United States of America and "all the territories of His Britannic Majesty 'n Europe." However, the British Government might object upon the ground that the provision, as applied to Hindoos serving on British vessels plying between the United States and India, would be so unreasonable as to amount to a violation of international comity. The Japanese Government might object upon the ground that the application of this provis on to Korean seamen serving on Japanese vessels would be a violation of the provisions of Articles I to IV of the treaty of commerce and navigation of 1911, quoted above. The Japanese Government might reasonably contend that the treaty provisions just mentioned guarantee the right of Japanese subjects, whether coming from Japan proper or from overseas domin'ons, to come to the United States for purposes of commerce and navigation, and that these provisions cover the seamen on a vessel as well as its owners and agents.

For the reasons mentioned above, it would seem desirable to have subdivision (f) amended in such a way as to avoid its application to seamen of the class mentioned coming from outlying dominions.

I am, my dear Mr. Raker,

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES E. HUGHES.

A letter to Secretary Davis and his reply thereto are as follows:

Hon. JAMES J. DAVIS,

Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C.

In re H. R. 7995.

APRIL 30, 1924.

My Dear Mr. DAVIS: I am sending you herewith a printed copy of a letter to me from Secretary of State Hughes, of date April 24, 1924.

66

66

I wish you would take H. R. 7995, sections 18, 19, and 20 of the bill as it passed the House. Then we desire to add to section 19 two new subdivisions, which are marked in the letter from Secretary Hughes as '(e)" and (f)." While we want to leave section 19 just as it stands, the subdivisions would be changed and (e) " and " (f)" of the Hughes letter would be then different subdivisions, but what we want to know is whether or not you can see your way clear to add to section 19 of H. R. 7995 the provisions of " (e) and "(f)," as found in the Hughes letter of April 24, 1924, copy of which I am submitting herewith.

[ocr errors]

I hope that I may have your favorable approval of these two subdivisions.
Respectfully submitting the same, I am
Yours most truly,

JOHN E. RAKER, M. C.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
Washington, May 1, 1924.

Hon. JOHN E. RAKER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My Dear Mr. RAKER: In the absence of the Secretary, I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 30, inclosing printed copy of letter from the Secretary of State, in which you ask whether subdivision (e) and (f) of Secretary Hughes's letter can be added to section 19 of H. R. 7995.

« PreviousContinue »