Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the state of New York/Chapter 8
CHAPTER VIII.
CAPITAL VALUE OF IMMIGRATION TO THIS COUNTRY—ITS INFLUENCE ON THE POPULATION AND THE NATION'S WEALTH—IS IMMIGRATION A MATTER OF STATE OR NATIONAL CONCERN?
IT is a common mistake of statisticians and writers on political economy to limit their enquiries to the amount of means which immigrants bring with them, to ascertain the aggregate thereof, and to conclude that the few millions thus obtained are the only addition to the nation's wealth.
Cash means of the emigrantsIn 1856, the Commissioners of Emigration in New York examined every immigrant as to the amount of his means, and the average cash of each of the 142,342 new-comers of that year amounted to $68.08. The Commissioners afterward discontinued this examination, for the reason that, in spite of all their endeavors, they could not obtain correct answers on the part of the immigrants, who were suspicious of their motives.
Kennedy's Report"The main object," says Superintendent Kennedy, in his report of January 14, 1858, "for enquiring of passengers the amount of cash means they possessed, was secured, when it was shown to the public that on the average they were in possession of a larger amount of such means than is held by the localized residents of any known community; and that, although a part of the immigration is among that class of persons who seek refuge on our shores, and subsistence by labor, with little or no cash means, yet a large portion bring with them of that kind of property a sufficient quantity to sustain themselves, and to aid in the enrichment of the country. It was justly apprehended that a continuance of the investigation might lead to mischievous results, from their manifest inaccuracy. For, while the table of 1856 presents the average amount of cash means at $68 08 per head, subsequent but reliable information showed that the concealment of large amounts had been constantly and successfully practised; and that, had full admission been made of the funds in possession, the average would have been at least double the amount reported."
I was myself at that time a witness of the unreliability of the Unreliable statements of emigrantsstatements of immigrants concerning their means. Being present when, in the summer of 1856, the passengers of a German ship were examined at Castle Garden, I observed an old farmer and his three adult sons, who, in answer to the enquiry of the Superintendent, opened their pocket-books, counted the contents of each, and hesitatingly declared it to be about $25. I interposed, and explained to these people, who evidently apprehended that they would be taxed on account of their money, the reason of the interrogatories, whereupon the old farmer showed me a bill of exchange of $2,700 on a New York banker, and remarked that each of his sons had about the same amount with him. These men had been entered as having about 100 together, while in fact they ought to have been credited with about $11,000.
"German immigrants alone," says a report of the Commissioners German emigrantsof Emigration, December 15, 1854, on the subjects in dispute between the Commissioners of Emigration and the Almshouse Department of the city of New York, "have for the past three years, as estimated by the best German authorities, brought into the country annually an average of about eleven millions of dollars. A large amount of money in proportion to numbers is estimated to have been brought from Holland and other countries. The amount of money thus introduced into the country is incalculable."
These estimates are corroborated by statements which I happened Statistical factsto find among some German statistical tables. It appears from the statistical records of the grand duchy of Baden, that from 1840 to 1849 the ready cash which each emigrant carried with him amounted to 245 florins, or $98 gold. Again, of the Bavarian emigrants between 1845-1851, each was possessed of 233 florins, or $93 20 gold; between 1851-1857, each of 236 florins, or $94 40 gold; while the Brunswickers, who emigrated in 1853, had 136 thalers, or about $96 gold, each. The Würtembergers, in 1855, carried only $76 gold each with them; which sum in 1856 increased to $134 gold, in 1857 to $145 gold, and in 1858 even to $318 gold per head. Other official data concerning this I have not been able to obtain, but the instances just cited throw sufficient light on the subject.
Other property of emigrantsThe money, however, is not the only property which immigrants bring with them. In addition to it, they have a certain amount of wearing apparel, tools, watches, books, and jewelry. Assuming that their cash amounts to only $100 a head, I do not think I exaggerate in estimating their other property at $50, thus making $150 the total of the personal property of each immigrant. The total arrivals at New York for the year 1869 were 258,989 immigrants, and the amount added to the national wealth, through this port alone, in one year, did consequently not fall short of $38,848,350. Large as this sum appears, it is insignificant in comparison with the hundreds of millions which have been, and will be, produced yearly by the labor of immigrants. And here the question suggests itself: What is the economic value of each immigrant to the country of his adoption?
Economic value of emigrantsWe are perfectly familiar with the estimates which, during the existence of slavery, were made of the value of negroes. A good field hand was considered to be worth $1,200 and over; a good cook was valued higher; and a seamstress or housekeeper was, in some cases, held at even $1,500 or $2,000. In order to obtain a proper idea of the importance of immigration to the United States, we must endeavor to capitalize, so to speak, the addition to the natural and intellectual resources of the country represented by each immigrant.
Dr. Engel's theoryA prominent German statistician, Dr. Engel, of Berlin, Director of the Prussian Statistical Bureau, in an able treatise on the price of labor, distinguishes three periods in the economic life of each man: two unproductive and one productive period. The first comprises the raising and education of the individual, and continues until he reaches his fifteenth year. It is, of course, not only unproductive, but causes considerable outlay. The second, extending from the fifteenth to the sixty-fifth year, is the productive time of life. The third comprises the unproductive years of old age after sixty. Dr. Engel calls the first the juvenile, the second the labor, and the third the aged period.
It is only during this productive period that man is able to subsist on the results of his own labor. In the juvenile period he is dependent on the assistance of others, and in the aged period he has to live upon the accumulated fruits of the productive years. Whether or not the child in its first period lives at the expense of his parents, there must be means for its maintenance and education, and as nature does not spontaneously furnish these means, and as they cannot be provided by others without danger of impoverishment if not replaced, they must be obtained by labor. This labor is performed during the productive period, in which the following three objects should be attained, viz.: 1. The payment of the expenses incurred for the support and education of the child in the juvenile period. 2. The satisfaction of the daily wants, and the maintenance of the productive power of the individual. 3. The laying up of a surplus fund for his sustenance during the aged period. Thus, the cost of the bringing up and education of a man constitutes a specific value, which benefits that country which the adult individual makes the field of his physical and intellectual exertions. This value is represented by the outlay which is necessary to produce an ordinary laborer. An immigrant, therefore, is worth just as much to this country as it costs to produce a native-born laborer of the same average ability.
It is evident that the capital value which a grown-up, able-bodied immigrant represents is different according to his station in life and the civilization of the country whence he comes. The wants of a skilled and unskilled laborer from the same country differ widely. Those of the Englishman are different from those of the Irishman. The German must be measured by another standard than the Mexican or South American. Their mode of life, their economical habits and practical pursuits, have little in common; and hence the benefit to the country of their adoption varies according to their respective previous relations. It is certain, however, that each emigrant brings, independently of his personal property, a certain increase of wealth to this country, which increase is paid by the country from which he comes, and accordingly must be credited to it.
In order to arrive at the most accurate possible estimate of this addition of wealth, it is necessary to enquire into the cost of raising and educating, in this country, a man whose means of living are wholly derived from his physical labor. I shall not include in the following calculation the professional man, the scholar, the lawyer, the clergyman, the physician, the engineer, and others, who, in the course of years, have likewise come here by thousands, and added to the productive wealth of the country in proportion to the greater cost of their education; but I shall confine myself to the class named, which forms the great majority of immigrants.
Cost of raising a laborerDr. Engel computes the cost of raising a manual laborer in Germany at 40 thalers a year for the first five years of his life; at 50 thalers for the next five years; and at 60 thalers from the eleventh to the fifteenth year, thus arriving at an average of 50 thalers per year, or 750 thalers in all. From my knowledge of German life, I consider this estimate as correct as it can be; and, assuming that in this country subsistence costs about twice as much as in Germany, I do not think I shall be far from the truth in doubling Engel's estimates, and in assuming the expense of bringing up an American farmer or unskilled laborer for the first fifteen years of his life to average 100 thalers per year, or a total of 1,500 thalers, equal to about $1,500 currency. Following Dr. Engel's estimate, an American girl will be found to cost only about half of that, or $750, for the reason that she becomes useful to the household from an earlier age. Allowance must be made, it is true, for the fact that about one-fifth of the emigrants are less than fifteen years old; but this is fully balanced by the great preponderance of men over women, and by thousands who represent the highest order of skilled labor. Hence I feel safe in assuming the capital value of each male and female emigrant to be $1,500 and $750 respectively for every person of either sex, making an average for both of $1,125. My friend, Mr. Charles Reemelin, one of the most prominent American political economists, confirmed these figures in a very able address, made before the German Pioneer Association of Cincinnati, on May 26, 1869, in which he estimated the value of each immigrant who had come to that city to live at $1,500, and the total value of the fifty thousand emigrants who have taken up their residence there in the last forty years at seventy-five millions of dollars.
Increase of national wealth by immigrationThe number of emigrants who have arrived at the port of New York from May 5, 1847, to January 1, 1870, is no less than 4,297,980. Adding to the capital value of $1,125 represented by every emigrant, $150 per head for the average value of personal property brought, as I have shown, by each, we find that immigration increased the national wealth, in the stated period, by more than five billions of dollars, or more than twice as much as the present amount of the national debt. The total immigration into the United States being now at the rate of 300,000 souls per year, the country gains nearly four hundred millions of dollars annually, or more than one million per day.
My friend, Mr. Charles L. Brace, in a very able communication Mr. Brace theorywhich, on November 3, 1869, he addressed to the New York daily Tribune, has taken exceptions to these statements and estimates, which were contained in a paper read by me before the American Social Science Association.
"Mr. Kapp," he says, "deserves high commendation for the ingenuity and industry he has shown in thus analyzing our emigration statistics, and proving the economical value of this current of population.
"But, in the light of science, we are compelled to point out what seem to us omissions in these economical reasonings, which will somewhat modify the results. The capital value of an object is not determined merely by the cost of its production, but also by another element—the demand for it. Thus, if a hundred new sewing-machines are produced, they are worth to the community not merely what they cost to make, but what the demand for them will bring. If there has been an overproduction of sewing-machines, or they are of poor quality, their worth sinks, and their money value to the community may fall below the cost of manufacture. The same is true of all articles which are parts of the capital of a country. Their money value or price is conditioned by cost of production and the relation of demand to supply. It is true also of animals. A cow or a horse is worth not alone what it costs to produce it, but what the demand will bring. Some, from adventitious circumstances, will fall below the cost of production; some will rise above it. Many fine horses, which cost no more to raise than poor ones, are worth far more to the country, because the demand for them is greater, while many poor ones sink below their cost, because the demand is unreasonably small. So with human beings, if we look at them purely as instruments of production. An idiot costs as much, perhaps more, to raise as a lad of ordinary intelligence; but he is of no capital value. A farmer s boy, whose brain has worked intensely as he broke the sod, though costing no more in education than a dull clodhopper in the next house, finds himself at fifteen worth double the other in his market value, solely because the demand for his labor is greater. The wages or salary of men in the professions is not measured solely by the cost of their education, but by the price which their services will bring in the market; and this is determined mainly, though not entirely, by demand and supply.
"When an emigrant lands in this country, his capital value is conditioned by these two elements, cost of production and demand. There are, probably, every year among the emigrants, a few thousand of poor, ignorant, and rather weakly women who become sewing-women in the great cities. These, on Mr. Kapp's estimate, should be worth $750 each. But, owing to the crowded state of the market for such instruments of production, and to their own ignorance, and the consequent small demand for each seamstress, those women are probably of scarcely any pecuniary value to the community, and are often a burden. On the very property of the Commissioners of Emigration there will be, this winter, some thousands of able-bodied men, who not only produce nothing, but are supported by the contributions to the Emigration Fund of their more industrious fellows. These certainly are not worth $1,175 capital to the nation. Then take the very considerable number of the four million emigrants who have been entirely non-producers, being either paupers, or criminals, or diseased, or who have, as neglected children, fallen into the hands of the public authorities, or whose labor, as destitute women, has not supported themselves. When these are all subtracted from the four millions, there will be a very considerable deduction from Mr. Kapp's enthusiastic estimates of the value of this golden tide.
"We do not question, however, the general conclusion of the Commissioner's paper—the immense value of this current of labor to the production and development of the country. We would only diminish somewhat his numerical estimate of the pecuniary worth of each emigrant.
"Articles which are in universal demand, such as gold and silver, depend for their value mainly on the cost of production. So universal is the demand here for ordinary male labor, that its value will not vary much from the expense of its production in this country. This cost Mr. Kapp has probably exaggerated in making it double that of Germany. It would be safe, however, reckoning from the expense of supporting a laborer's male child in Germany, to call the capital value of the most ordinary farm hand at least $1,000 or $1,100 in the United States.
"This estimate alone would justify all the Commissioner's enthusiasm as to the pecuniary value of emigration.
"It is a little less than was the old market value of the male slave, for the reason, probably, as Mr. Olmsted has shown, that the pecuniary value of slaves was somewhat speculative, based on the expectation of profit from the best cotton lands.
"There is another method of obtaining the capital value of the male emigrant, which we throw out for the consideration of your readers interested in questions of political economy.
"Each laborer is worth (pecuniarily) to the country the profits from his production over and above the expense of his support. His average cost to his employer is, say, $20 per month and 'keep', or about $400 per annum. It is believed that an ordinary profit on common labor upon a farm is from 15 to 18 ¾ per cent. This would leave the gain to the country from $60 to $75 annually. This, at seven per cent. interest, would represent just about the capital value estimated above, or about $1,000 or $1,100 for an average male laborer."
So far Mr. Brace. I freely admit that the economical principles Reply to Mr. Brace's argumentset forth by him are incontrovertible; but, on the other hand, I claim that actual experience has established the correctness of the position I have assumed. The basis for my statements and estimates is chiefly this:
In a comparatively new country like the United States, with its immense area and the rapid development of its resources, the demand for labor is always greater than the supply. There are, it is true, some pursuits in which this is not the case. During the winter, too, in large cities, hundreds and thousands of emigrants are often unable to find suitable employment or an adequate reward for their labor; but this state does not continue for any length of time. Seamstresses who cannot find work in their line turn to other occupations, such as housemaids, nurses, etc. The character of the European workingwoman in this respect is just the reverse of that of the American. While the latter considers labor in a factory to be of a more elevated character, and would never descend to common housework, the former is content to exert herself in any decent sphere of labor.
But for argument's sake, let me admit that every year there are a few thousand poor, ignorant, and incapable men or women who become a burden to the community. What proportion does their number bear to the total immigration of a whole year? The New York Commissioners of Emigration have annually to support an average of about 2,000 sick and destitute in their institutions, and, besides, a few hundred criminals, who are confined at their cost in the city prisons; but all this does not amount to one per cent, of the entire immigration. It must be borne in mind that the poorer emigrants remain in New York City, and that, consequently, it cannot be presumed that any large number of the others become a burden to the several States.
However, I will even go so far as to admit that the number of those who not only produce nothing, but are supported by the contributions of States or counties, reaches 5 per cent. Taking the number of immigrants in 1869 as a basis, this percentage would give between 12,000 and 13,000 non-producers. But even such a percentage would be more than counterbalanced by the large number of emigrants better educated than the ordinary laborers who form the basis of my computation.
An emigrant population contains a very small percentage of helpless and incapable individuals. Apart from the law which prohibits the landing of cripples, blind, deaf, and aged persons, it is self-evident that only the strong, the most courageous and enterprising natives of a country emigrate to a foreign land. The unequal representation of the several ages and sexes among emigrants is due to this fact. Out of the whole immigration to the United States from 1819 to 1860, more than 22 per cent. were from one to fifteen years old; a little over 50 per cent, were from fifteen to thirty years of age; more than 73 per cent. were less than thirty years old; more than 46½ per cent. were from twenty to thirty-five; more than 60 per cent. were from fifteen to thirty-five, and nearly 90 per cent. less than forty years old. Moreover, the sexes approach equality only among children and youths. Of individuals under twenty years of age, about 18 per cent. were males, and 17 per cent. females, while the male immigrants from twenty-five to forty years of age were double the number of females of the same age.
Of the total immigration to the United States within the above-mentioned period (1819 to 1860), amounting to 5,459,421, the occupation of 2,978,599, including 2,074,633 females, is not stated, while 1,637,154 are put down as farmers and laborers, leaving 843,688 persons who were either mechanics or professional men. In the census tables for that period, we find 407,524 mechanics, 4,326 clergymen, 2,676 lawyers, 7,109 physicians, 2,016 engineers, 2,490 artists, 1,528 teachers, 3,120 manufacturers, 3,882 clerks, and 5,246 seamstresses and milliners, enumerated among the immigrants. This enumeration, incomplete as it is, shows that about 15 per cent. of the immigration belong to that class of population which produces more than the common laborer, and that therefore the 5 per cent., if so many, of helpless and unproductive emigrants are more than balanced by the percentage of higher mechanical and professional ability.
We will next consider not only the increase of population by Influence of immigration on the population and wealth of this countrythe immigrants proper, but also that produced by their descendants. It is the great merit of Mr. L. Schade, of "Washington City, to have first applied the proper principle in computing the gain of population in this country from immigration. As he has shown, if it had been the policy of the Government to exclude all aliens from our shores, the growth of the population of the United States would represent simply the excess of births over deaths. In 1790, the population of the United States, exclusive of slaves, was 3,231,930. In the census returns for 1850, we find that among the white and free colored population, the number of births was 548,835, and the number of deaths 271,890. The excess of the former over the latter—276,945—represented the increase of population for 1850. The whole population of whites and free colored persons in 1850 was 19,987,573. This increase, therefore, was at the rate of 1·38 per cent. I cannot find in the small edition of the Census for 1860 the number of births; but in 1860 the percentage of increase is nearly, if not precisely, the same as in 1850—the total increase of population from 1840 to 1850 being 35·87, and from 1850 to 1860 35·59 per cent.
That this estimate of 1·38 as the yearly rate of increase of the population without immigration cannot possibly be an understatement appears evident when we compare it with the percentage of the yearly increase of the population of other countries. In England, the rate was only 1·25; in France, 0·44; in Russia, 0·74; in Prussia, 1·17; in Holland, 1·23; in Belgium, 0·61; in Portugal, 0·72; and in Saxony, 1·08. This increase of 1·38 added each year to the aggregate of the preceding year, down to 1865, would give us the population of the United States as it would have been if the policy of excluding immigration had been followed. The whole white and free colored population in the year 1790 having been 3,231,930, it would have amounted, if increased only by the excess of births over deaths:
| In | 1800 to | 3,706,674, | while in fact | it was, | exclusive of slaves, | 4,412,896 |
| " | 1810 | 4,251,143 | " | " | " | 6,048,450 |
| " | 1820 | 4,875,600 | " | " | " | 8,100,050 |
| " | 1830 | 5,591,775 | " | " | " | 10,796,077 |
| " | 1840 | 6,413,161 | " | " | " | 14,582,008 |
| " | 1850 | 7,355,423 | " | " | " | 19,987,563 |
| " | 1860 | 8,435,882 | " | " | " | 27,489,662 |
| " | 1865 | 9,084,245 | " | " | " about | 30,000,000 |
Deducting 9,034,245 from 30,000,000, the remainder, or 20,965,755, represents the population of foreign extraction gained by the United States since 1790. If the influx of aliens had been stopped in that year, the population in 1865 would have been very nearly what it was in 1825. Immigration, therefore, has enabled this country to anticipate its natural growth some forty years. The increase of wealth in every branch of national activity has been, too, in the exact ratio of the increase of population. Official statistics show, indeed, that the augmentation of imports, exports, tonnage, and revenues has been most rapid during the periods of the largest immigration. The following tables give ample proof of this fact:
| Year. | Imports. | Exports. | Tonnage. | Revenues. |
| 1800 | $91,252,768 | $70,971,780 | 972,492 | $12,451,184 |
| 1810 | 85,400,000 | 66,757,974 | 1,424,783 | 12,144,206 |
| 1820 | 74,450,000 | 69,691,699 | 1,280,166 | 20,881,493 |
| 1830 | 70,876,920 | 73,819,508 | 1,191,776 | 24,844,116 |
| 1840 | 131,571,950 | 104,805,891 | 2,180,764 | 25,032,193 |
| 1850 | 178,136,318 | 151,898,720 | 3,535,454 | 47,649,388 |
| 1860 | 362,168,941 | 400,122,293 | 5,358,868 | 76,752,034 |
| The | number of | immigrants | between | 1819-1829 was . . . | 128,502 |
| " | " | " | " | 1830-1839 . . . . | 538,381 |
| " | " | " | " | 1839-1849 . . . . | 1,427,337 |
| " | " | " | " | 1849-Dec. 31, 1860 . | 2,968,194 |
| Total | in 41¼ years, . | . . . . . | . . . . . | . . . . . . . . | 5,062,414 |
We hear it often said that immigration is to the country, not Immigration a matter of State not of national concernto a State; that it has a national bearing; and that in more than one respect we stand in absolute need of a national board of emigration. I do not agree with this. Immigration is undoubtedly a matter of national importance, but it is a matter of State concern also. I will endeavor to state the grounds on which this opinion rests.
Ever since immigration has attained greater proportions, legal questions have grown out of the financial interests connected with it, which have turned on the point whether a single State has or has not the right to tax the immigrant on his arrival for sanitary purposes and for his protection. As this tax, or commutation money, of $2 50, which is levied on each immigrant landing at New York, amounts to between one-half and three-quarters of a million per year, it will easily be understood that the magnitude of the amount involved induced a reference of the questions to the highest tribunals of the land. Lately, this same question has again been taken up by Western newspapers, and by some Western members of Congress. They demand that the commutation money which immigrants pay at the several ports of entry be distributed, pro rata, among the States where they settle; and to effect this purpose they insist that the United States Government should take the whole business of immigration in its own hands; that the Secretary of the Treasury make all needful rules and regulations, and appoint the proper officers in the same manner in which the Custom House officers are appointed; thus doing away entirely with all State institutions which have been established in the course of years for the protection of immigrants. I believe not only that existing laws authorize the single State to exercise an exclusive control over immigrants, but that the real interest of the country requires this exclusive State control to be continued.
It is a well-known fact that New York is the principal port of entry for immigrants, and that more than five-sevenths of them are landed there. Whether directly pointed out or not, it is the port and State of New York against which the attacks of those who wish to give to the General Government the exclusive power of dealing with immigration are directed. Now, the State of New York is, as far as my knowledge extends, the only one which heretofore has organized a proper system for the protection of immigrants. As has been stated, it took years to effect a wholesome reform in the former management of immigration, and to create the Board of the Commissioners of Emigration of the State of New York.
All that can be admitted in regard to the question of State or national control is, that the Congress of the United States has not only the right, but is absolutely bound, in the interests of humanity, to protect the immigrant on the high seas, in his transit from foreign countries, and to make for that purpose international treaties, which Congress alone can do. But the authority of the federal legislative power extends no further in the premises, and completely ceases after the immigrant has landed and put himself under the operation and protection of the State laws. For Congress to attempt, then, to collect from him any tax, or to assume his support, would be not less absurd than if it were to undertake to license the boarding-house where he puts up, to appoint the policeman who protects him, or to provide him with transportation to his railway depot. The care of the immigrant, after he lands, is purely a police regulation, in which the people of the State where he lands are so exclusively interested as to have, beyond a doubt, the best right to provide for him. The harbor of the city of New York, while of national importance, is still of State concern, and so it is with foreign immigration.
But granting, for the sake of argument, that immigration is a matter of national concern, it is doubtful if anything but evil would result from abandoning a system which has fully realized its purpose which has been tried and perfected by the experience of nearly a quarter of a century; whose operations are greatly facilitated by being concentrated upon a comparatively small area, and the agents under which are few, practised, and under the immediate supervision of a Board of unsalaried and non-partisan Commissioners, located and laboring on the spot. To replace such a system by the clumsy machinery of a central board, or by a single Commissioner, stationed at an inland city, remote from the chief objective points of foreign immigration, with an unwieldy multitude of subordinates scattered over the land, whose irresponsibility would inevitably increase in the direct ratio of their distance from the seat of authority, would be worse than unreasonable. The transfer to the National Government of the control of the immigrant would lead to quarrels, heart-burnings, and jealousies among the States, as the controlling officers would certainly be required to use their power to influence the current of immigration. The effect would undoubtedly be to so increase the cost of supporting the immigrant, as either to quadruple the present tax, and then make it virtually a prohibitory one, or to impose the burden on the national treasury, and thus make the immigrant the nation's pauper.
It is obvious that the General Government would encounter a great many more insurmountable obstacles and be called upon to remedy more evils than are met with under the present system. In the first instance, the institutions for the protection of the immigrant would have to be largely extended, and instead of one place like Castle Garden, a dozen would be required. Besides the Eastern and Southern and Western ports, the large inland cities, like Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and St. Paul, would have to be provided with the same proportionate facilities as New York. Thus the General Government would be obliged to sustain ten establishments, while the income derived from the commutation would remain the same. At a very low estimate, the Government would have to pay at least one million of dollars per year out of its coffers for this purpose. In itself, this sum is insignificant when expended for such an object; but every cent spent from the national treasury for the immigrant can only injure his condition and the proper appreciation of his value. Again, we all know the tendency of originally small public expenditures to grow into large ones. While one million might suffice at first, many millions would be required in the end. One of the worst consequences would be that immigration would speedily become a political question, and as such the subject of strife among demagogues, and that cry against the "importation of foreign paupers" would doubtless soon be raised by which the condition of the immigrants would be deeply affected. Again, it is not clear to me how the United States can establish hospitals and houses of refuge for the small percentage of sick and destitute among immigrants, unless the fundamental law of the country is changed. This difficulty would, in all probability, lead to a division of the duties for the protection of the immigrant between the General and State governments, so that the several States would be charged with the duty of nursing the sick and supporting the destitute. Whether they would or could do this, is a matter about which I have considerable doubt.
There is another weighty objection to a transfer of the control of immigration to the General Government. The proper care of the immigrant requires a staff of efficient officers, having well-trained employees acting under them. Experience has shown that even the best organized minds require months and years to master this task.
The best and most efficient agents of the Commissioners of Emigration have served under them from May 5, 1847, that is, from the birth of the Commission. They have educated themselves and others to a proper comprehension and discharge of their duties. They are familiar with all the minutiae of the service, and are consequently able to perform their work more speedily and efficiently than inexperienced new-comers. The uniformity and stability of the system, the undisturbed march of progress and reform, the absence of sudden changes, form an indisposition to try new experiments, constitute, indeed, the main reasons of the success of the New York Commission of Emigration, which would never have been attained if, with the advent of every national administration, a change of officers and clerks had taken place.
It is a well-known fact that the mode in which the General Government appoints its officers is very far from giving security for the proper discharge of their duties. We have seen about ten or twelve different collectors of the New York Custom House since 1847, and in all probability each new administration would have paid off part of its political liabilities by appointments to offices in connection with immigration. The place of general agent or treasurer of the Commission would have been eagerly sought after, as the salary connected therewith is larger than that of any one subaltern of the Collector of Customs in New York. The interest of the ruling party would have been paramount, of course, to the interest of the immigrant. And how many clerks and assistants rotated into office would withstand the temptations held out in the immigration business, which would be greater than in any other branch of the civil service? When, according to the statement of a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, it costs one hundred millions in bribes, theft, and embezzlement to collect three hundred millions of revenue, I do not think I exaggerate when I state that the immigrant, if handed over to the mercy of the regular office-holder, would not leave New York without having been fleeced out of at least one-half of his property. Certainly, so long as Mr. Jenckes's Civil Service Bill, or some such measure, has not become the law of the land, it will be a cruelty and an aggravation of the existing evils to make the change referred to.
While New York has to endure nearly all of its evils, the other States reap most of the benefits of immigration. New York protects and shields the immigrant in his health and property, and the rising communities of the West flourish upon the fruits of her vigilant care. Our State acts, so to speak, as a filter in which the stream of immigration is purified: what is good passes beyond; what is evil, for the most part, remains behind. Experience shows that it is the hardy, self-reliant, industrious, wealthy immigrant who takes his capital, his intelligence, and his labor to enrich the Western or Southern States. As near as a calculation can be made, it has been ascertained that out of one hundred continental immigrants, seventy-five go West, and twenty-five remain in the great cities of the East, while of the Irish and English, twenty-five settle in the country, and seventy-five remain in the cities of the East. Thus, about fifty per cent. of all newcomers go to the country, and of these again about seventy-five per cent. to what is now called the West. In 1867, of 242,731 immigrants, only 91,610 declared New York State and City to be the place of their destination; in 1868, out of 213,686, only 65,734 proposed to remain in our city and State; and in 1869, out of 258,989, the total who stated they would remain in New York was 85,810.
A large proportion of those who remain here is made up of the idle, the sickly, the destitute, the worthless, who would become a burden instead of a help to our people, were it not for the wise institution of that fund which, at the least possible cost to the immigrant, yet still at a cost that relieves him from the degradation of eleemosynary aid, provides him with shelter and support. It is this feature of our State emigrant laws which is so admirable, and which, at the same time, for reasons already indicated, it would be most difficult for the General Government to imitate.
The same trifling sum which the immigrant pays to secure himself against the danger of possible sickness or destitution for five years after his arrival, and which is, as it were, the insignificant premium on a policy of health insurance for that time, supports the establishment which takes care of him without burden to the people of the State. It is this feature which invalidates the Western claim for division of the commutation money pro rata, among the States in which the immigrant settles. For the commutation fund is the consideration of a contract between the immigrant and the State of New York, by which the latter binds herself to protect him on his arrival, and for the period of five years thereafter provide him with shelter if destitute, and with medical and other aid if sick.
Contrary to the arguments of those who favor the distribution of the commutation money among the several States to which immigrants go to settle, it is susceptible of proof that such a distribution would eventually result in injury rather than in benefit to the States in question. For, in that event, the share of New York would not be sufficient to meet the expense of caring for the disproportionately large number of sick and destitute who remain within her limits. Our State could not then, as she does now, act in the interest of the whole Union, by efficiently protecting all the immigrants on their arrival, and by preventing the spread of the diseases imported by them over the country at large, and this while deriving far less advantage from immigration than the Western States. Let those who compare the exaction of the commutation money by the Commissioners of Emigration of this State to the "Sound dues" formerly levied by Denmark, consider whether it would not be a far greater disadvantage for the Western States to have ship-fever, cholera, and other pestilential diseases carried among their people, than it is for them to do without the share of the commutation money which they claim. In 1846-47, more than twenty thousand immigrants died on the sea-voyage and immediately after landing, and thousands of others carried the germs of disease to the remotest corner of the land. It is the Commissioners of Emigration who have since prevented the spread of contagious diseases beyond their hospitals, and the East as well as the West ought to thank them for their disinterested care of the immigrants, and for the protection of the whole country from pestilential scourges.
It seems to me that those who wish to put an end to this beneficent work estimate the value of the immigrant by dollars and cents instead of by his productive power, and forget entirely that what the West wants is healthy men, capable of assisting actively in the development of her resources. This want is certainly better supplied under the present system than it would be were a change made. The same persons also seem to overlook entirely the beneficial influence exercised upon the immigrant by the protection against fraud and imposition of every kind afforded to him by the Commissioners. It is in this that benevolence and sympathy find their true sphere of action. The pecuniary losses of the immigrant from his own ignorance and inexperience, and from the rapacity of others, are to be deplored as much, and even more, on account of the community than on his own account. For, whenever the poor immigrant is fleeced by rogues, his judgment is impaired, his energy is diminished, and in general that moral elasticity lost which he needs more than ever to start well in a strange land; and thus a heavy injury is inflicted on his adopted country, which, instead of self-relying, independent men, receives individuals who are broken in spirit, and, at least for a time, useless, who are burdensome to themselves and to others. From this point of view, every one who has the interest of his fellow-being and of his country at heart, has the strongest interest in having the immigrant efficiently protected, and in cooperating with those who are officially called upon to provide for this protection.
If the same people who engage our attention on their landing here crossed our path in their native country while in their old accustomed track of life, the task would be comparatively easy, for in that case they would much more readily understand their interest and advantage; they would not be confused by a hundred new impressions; and the majority of them would distinguish the honest man from the scoundrel. Upon emigrating, however, the masses enter into entirely new relations, into a new world; two-thirds of them do not know the language of the country, and all receive in one single hour more new notions and ideas than formerly in years. Thus, they find themselves without proper guidance, and fall the easier into the hands of impudent impostors, perhaps for the very reason that they have been warned against them. This sudden transition from one country into another, this change of old homelike surroundings, with new conditions of life, all of which, strange and some offensive to the immigrants, often stuns them temporarily, and creates a general bewilderment, which even makes an intelligent man appear awkward and stupid.
Whatever we may do, we cannot absolutely protect the immigrant against the practices of sharpers as long as we cannot obstruct the sources from which credulity and ignorance flow. We can take some precautionary measures, we can point out the right way, but it is just as impossible entirely to cure the evil as it is to put an end to human depravity in general. The Commissioners cannot be expected to accomplish an impossibility. In New York, a special detective would have to be assigned to each immigrant, in order to render him absolutely secure against all attempts to swindle him. What a board like that of the Commissioners can do is to give the immigrant the best possible protection, and this duty they are certainly discharging.