[98]. Dewees, F. P., The Molly Maguires; Rhodes, J. F., The Molly Maguires in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania; Encyc. Britannica, article “Molly Maguires.”
[99]. Coolidge, Mary R., Chinese Immigration, pp. 16, 17.
[100]. Coolidge, M. R., op. cit., p. 107.
[101]. Professor Taussig justifies the exclusion of the Chinese on the ground that “a permanent group of helots is not a healthy constituent in a democratic society,” Principles of Economics, Vol. II, p. 140.
[102]. The subject of Chinese immigration has been treated thus summarily because of the large amount of reliable material which is easily available on the question. It has been treated as a whole, rather than divided among the different periods, because in fact it has been a distinct phase of our immigration problem; only since 1900 has the administration of the Chinese exclusion law been a part of the duties of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Foremost among the books on the topic is Mrs. Coolidge’s work, already quoted. A defense of the Chinese written in the heat of the controversy is George F. Seward’s Chinese Immigration. Interesting chapters on the topic are to be found in Mayo-Smith, and Hall, and frequent references in Jenks and Lauck, and Commons. Cf. also Sparks, E. E., National Development, 1877–1885, pp. 229–250.
[103]. Mason, A. B., “An American View of Emigration,” Fortnightly Review, 22:273.
[104]. “Deportation” must be carefully distinguished from “exclusion,” “debarment,” or “returning.” When either of the last three terms is used, it implies that the immigrant is never allowed to land in the country. The first term is applicable when the immigrant has landed in this country, and some time after, in accordance with some provision of the law, is sent back to the country from which he came.
This is the first provision for deportation in the federal laws, except the temporary provision of the Alien Bill. As early as 1837 the common council of New York City passed a resolution, authorizing the commissioners of the almshouse to send back to their native country such alien paupers as were, or were likely to become, paupers at the establishment at Bellevue or elsewhere, provided the pauper in question gave his consent. (Executive (House) Documents, 25th Cong., 2d Ses., 370, pp. 16–18.) It is amusing to note that at that period our right to send back alien paupers,—even though they had been officially transported to this country,—after they had once been admitted, was seriously questioned by foreign powers.
[105]. By an administrative rule of the department any alien, who is a lawful resident of the United States and becomes a public charge from physical disability arising subsequent to his landing, may, with his consent, and the approval of the bureau, be deported within one year at government expense.
[106]. See page 118.