These wretched victims were of course thrown upon the mercy of the citizens of the colony in which they landed; Pennsylvania, and particularly Philadelphia, were especially subject to visitations of this kind. The generosity with which these unfortunates were cared for in this colony is remarkable. Nevertheless, the burden was a heavy one, and the opposition which arose to the free admission of this class of persons is not to be wondered at. A new country, struggling to subdue the wilderness and to establish economic independence, welcomes hardy and industrious laborers, even though they bring little capital with them. If the poverty of the immigrant is due to no fault of his own, and is offset by a sound body and a determined spirit of industry, there is every hope that the influence of the new environment may set him permanently on his feet. But an influx of people so deficient in moral or physical stamina as to promise nothing, save an additional burden on the already strained resources of the community, is naturally and justly viewed with alarm. Very many of the immigrants of this period belonged to this type.
As suggested above, the low physical and economic state of many of the immigrants was due to the conditions and experiences attending the passage from the old country to the new. Many an immigrant who was hale and able-bodied when he started on the voyage was a physical wreck when he landed. Many others who were relatively well off economically on leaving home arrived penniless. It was the practice of the “importers” to compel passengers who had means to settle the accounts of those who had not, and thus, it is stated, many who had been well-to-do were reduced to house-to-house beggary.[[18]] But many other of the immigrants were hopelessly destitute when they started. Still others were criminals. It was the practice of European nations at this time to empty not only their almshouses, but their jails, into their own colonies, or those of other nations. Thus many of the colonists, as well as of the immigrants, belonged to the pauper and criminal classes.[[19]]
This action of European states was naturally bitterly complained of by the colonies. But as long as they were colonies, and had no independent standing, it could be little more than a complaint.[[20]] After the War of the Revolution it became a matter of international relations, and, as will appear later, attracted no little attention.
Pennsylvania, being the destination of the largest number of immigrants, suffered most from troubles of this sort. Consequently, in this colony we find the most powerful body of opinion contrary to the free admission of aliens, and the most frequent and stringent measures to control it. Many of the stock arguments against immigration on the grounds of pauperism, criminality, and inability for self-support developed during this period.
One of the earliest Pennsylvania statutes covering this ground was an act passed in 1722, imposing a tax on every criminal landed, and making the shipowner responsible for the good conduct of his passengers.[[21]] This was followed by numerous other laws designed to help control the immigration situation. One of the most important of these was the act of September 21, 1727, which was passed at the suggestion of the colonial governor, who feared that the peace and security of the province was endangered by so many foreigners coming in, ignorant of the language, settling together and making, as it were, a separate people. This is one of the earliest instances of the use of the nonassimilation argument in connection with immigration legislation. The act in question provided that shipmasters bringing immigrants must declare whether they had permission from the court of Great Britain to do so, and must give lists of all passengers and their intentions in coming. The immigrants must take the oath of allegiance to the king, and of fidelity to the Proprietary of the Province. On the day the act was passed, an agreement was signed by 109 persons, representing about four hundred immigrants, who had arrived at the port and were waiting to be landed. A pathetic touch is given to the incident by the naïve statement, “Sundry of these forreigners lying sick on board, never came to be qualified.”
This act remained in force for some time, but appears to have been more or less of a dead letter, for the shipmasters never seem to have had any license to bring immigrants, and yet the latter were always admitted.[[22]] This law was slightly modified in 1729, and a tax of forty shillings was laid on each immigrant. This is an early instance of the use of a head tax as a restrictive measure, for among the reasons assigned for its passage we find mention of the necessity “to discourage the great importation and coming in of foreigners and of lewd, idle, and ill-affected persons into this province, as well from parts beyond the seas as from the neighboring colonies,” whereby the safety and quiet of the province are endangered, many of them becoming a great burden upon the community. It was asserted that shipmasters resorted to deceitful methods in the furtherance of the practice of bringing in convicts.[[23]] This accusation was substantiated by an event which occurred a short time previously, when “a vessel arrived at Annapolis with 66 indentures, signed by the Mayor of Dublin, and 22 wigs to disguise the convicts when they landed.”[[24]] The provision imposing a head tax of forty shillings was repealed within a very few months.[[25]]
Through the discussions of this matter can be traced a frequent conflict of opinion between the colonial governor and the assembly. The former, representing the interests of the Proprietary, was inclined to welcome anything which tended to increase the population of the colony at whatever cost. The latter, representing the people, is concerned for the character of the settlers and the financial welfare of the colony.[[26]] This is well illustrated by the progress of the effort to secure an immigrant hospital in Philadelphia. The erection of such a building had been recommended to the assembly by Governor George Thomas as early as 1740, in the interests of humanity. But the house demurred on the ground of expense, and several years of haggling passed before a pest-house was finally erected. In the meantime much difficulty was experienced with “sickly vessels,” and a law was passed requiring all ships to anchor a mile from the city, until inspected by the port physician. If sick passengers were found on board, the shipmaster was required to land them at a suitable distance from the city and convey them at his own expense to houses in the country prepared for them.[[27]]
The house, on its part, made vain attempts for a period of fifteen years or more to get a bill passed which should check the overcrowding of immigrants in ships. The ostensible reasons urged were mainly those of humanity, and they rested on an ample basis. The degree of overcrowding was frightful. It was stated that in many cases the chests of apparel belonging to immigrants were shipped in other vessels to make more room for passengers, so that the immigrants had no chance even to change their clothes during the long voyage of sometimes sixty days.[[28]] But underlying this there was undoubtedly the desire to reduce the number of immigrants. It was represented that whereas the German importations were at first of good class, people of substance, now they were the refuse of the country, and that “the very goals [sic] have contributed to the Supplies we are burdened with.”
In the southern colonies we find much the same attitude of welcome to respectable settlers, and fear of criminals and paupers, with this difference, that as immigration was slower into these colonies, more active measures were occasionally taken by the colonies themselves to encourage it. Thus in 1669 North Carolina passed a law exempting new settlers from levies for one year, and from action for debt for five years. But they were debarred from holding office for three years.[[29]]
Maryland early experienced difficulties with imported criminals. On account of the practice, which appears to have been common, of importing notorious criminals, the general assembly of this province in 1676 passed an act requiring all shipmasters to declare whether they had any convicts on board. If so, they were not to be allowed to land in the province. Any person presuming to import such convicts must pay a fine of 2000 pounds of tobacco, half to go to the Proprietary and half to the informer.[[30]] On December 9 of the same year the lieutenant governor issued a proclamation requiring all shipmasters who had landed convicts previous to this act going into effect to deposit a bond of £50 for their good behavior. Any landed without this bond were to be put in prison until the bond was paid.[[31]] This is one of the earliest instances of bonding shippers for the good conduct of their passengers.