Page:Emigration and immigration.pdf/4

 religious sentiments, cannot "digest almost anything sent" to it. When confidence is general, and when wealth is held in many shapes, the addition of a small lawless element may shake the whole social order, and in particular, profoundly influence the political system; and it thus becomes a natural aim of societies so placed to protect themselves against the dangers likely to result from an inferior class of immigrants; as the writer just quoted says:—

The political effect of immigration is all the more marked in new countries, owing to the easy terms on which naturalisation is obtained. Thus, in the State of Massachusetts, according to its census of 1885, there were 98,199 Irish born males over twenty years of age, 62,599 of whom were naturalised—i.e., over 63 per cent. It is not hard to see that a decisive effect may be exercised at elections by a solid vote given by such a body; and though other countries do not equal Ireland in the percentage of citizens they give to the State, yet we may remark that there are 16,386 naturalised Englishmen in Massachusetts, out of a total of 30,323 English-born—i.e., over 54 per cent.

Bearing in mind the facts just mentioned, it is not very hard to account for the rising feeling against indiscriminate immigration; nor need there be any hesitation in predicting that it will in all likelihood extend to immigration in general. The causes which have united to produce the sentiment may, however, for the sake of completeness, be more definitely stated:—

(1) The great body of available public lands in the United States has now been taken up, and thus the field of settlement for farmers is practically limited to land purchased from companies or private holders. This element of the question will naturally become increasingly prominent.

(2) For many years it has been an article of faith with the strongest political party that the American working-man should be protected from the competition of pauper labour; an aim which was supposed to be accomplished by the imposition of heavy duties on almost all commodities imported from Europe. The American working-man unfortunately found to his cost that this "protection" implied an increased cost of living, while it utterly failed to secure him constancy of employment. We cannot, therefore, wonder that he should try to apply the doctrine of protection to labour in a more logical manner. If the exclusion of the products of pauper labour be so beneficial as is asserted, it is only natural to believe that the shutting out of pauper labour itself will prove a still greater good. The workingman may fairly say to the protectionist politician:—

It cannot be denied that the limitation of the number of labourers