volves a principle of far-reaching consequence with respect to which your attitude will be regarded with profound interest.

The provision as it now appears will require careful reading. In some measure the group system is adopted-that is, one qualified immigrant may bring in certain members of his family-but the effect seems to be that a qualified alien may bring in members of his family who may themselves be disqualified, whereas a disqualified member would exclude all dependent members of his family no matter how well qualified they might otherwise be. In other words, a father who can read a dialect might bring in an entire family of absolutely illiterate people, barring his sons over 16 years of age, whereas a father who can not read a dialect would bring about the exclusion of his entire family, although every one of them can read and write.

Furthermore, the distinction in favor of the female members of the family as against the male members does not seem to me to rest upon sound reason. Sentimentally, of course it appeals, but industrially considered it does not appear to me that the distinction is sound. Furthermore, there is no provision for the admission of aliens who have been domiciled here, and who have simply gone abroad for a visit. The test would absolutely exclude them upon

return.

In the administration of this law very considerable embarrassment will be experienced. This at least is the judgment of members of the immigration force upon whose recommendations I rely. Delay will necessarily ensue at all ports, but on the borders of Canada and Mexico that delay will almost necessarily result in great friction and constant complaint. Furthermore, the force will have to be very considerably increased, and the appropriation will probably be in excess of present sums expended by as much as a million dollars. The force of interpreters will have to be largely increased and, practically speaking, the bureau will have to be in a position to have an interpreter for any kind of language or dialect of the world at any port at any time. Finally, the interpreters will necessarily be foreigners, and with respect to only a very few of the languages or dialects will it be possible for the officials in charge to exercise anything like supervision.

I am of the opinion that this provision can not be defended upon its merits. It was originally urged as a selective test. For some time recommendations in its support upon that ground have been brought to our attention. The matter has been considered from that point of view, and I became completely satisfied that upon that ground the test could not be sustained. The older argument is now abandoned, and in the later conferences, at least, the ground is taken that the provision is to be defended as a practical measure to exclude a large proportion of undesirable immigrants from certain countries. The measure proposes to reach its result by indirection, and is defended purely upon the ground of practical policy, the final purpose being to reduce the quantity of cheap labor in this country. I can not accept this argument. No doubt the law would exclude a considerable percentage of immigration from southern Italy, among the Poles, the Mexicans, and the Greeks. This exclusion would embrace probably in large part undesirable but also a great many desirable people, and the embarrassment, expense, and distress to those who seek to enter would be out of all proportion to any good that can possibly be promised for this measure.

My observation leads me to the conclusion that, so far as the merits of the individual immigrant are concerned, the test is altogether overestimated. The people who come from the countries named are frequently illiterate because opportunities have been denied them. The oppression with which these people have to contend in modern times is not religious, but it consists of a denial of

the opportunity to acquire reading and writing. Frequently the attempt to learn to read and write the language of the particular people is discouraged by the Government, and these immigrants in coming to our shores are really striving to free themselves from the conditions under which they have been compelled to live.

So far as the industrial conditions are concerned, I think the question has been superficially considered. We need labor in this country, and the natives are unwilling to do the work which the aliens come over to do. It is perfectly true that in a few cities and localities there are congested conditions. It is equally true that in very much larger areas we are practically without help. In my judgment, no sufficiently earnest and intelligent effort has been made to bring our wants and our supply together, and so far the same forces that give the chief support to this provision of the new bill have stubbornly resisted any effort looking to an intelligent distribution of new immigration to meet the needs of our vast country. In my judgment, no such drastic measure based upon a ground which is untrue and urged for a reason which we are unwilling to assert should be adopted until we have at least exhausted the possibilities of a rational distribution of these new forces.

Furthermore, there is a misapprehension as to the character of the people who come over here to remain. It is true that in certain localities newlyarrived aliens live under deplorable conditions. Just as much may be said of certain localities that have been inhabited for a hundred years by natives of this country. These are not the general conditions, but they are the exceptions. It is true that a very considerable portion of immigrants do not come to remain, but return after they have acquired some means, or because they find themselves unable to cope with the conditions of a new and aggressive country. Those who return for the latter reason relieve us of their own volition of a burden. Those who return after they have acquired some means certainly must be admitted to have left with us a consideration for the advantage which they have enjoyed. A careful examination of the character of the people who come to stay and of the employment in which a large part of the new immigration is engaged will, in my judgment, dispel the apprehension which many of our people entertain. The census will disclose that with rapid strides the foreign-born citizen is acquiring the farm lands of this country. Even if the foreign-born alone is considered, the percentage of his ownership is assuming a proportion that ought to attract the attention of the native citizens. If the second generation is included it is safe to say that in the Middle West and West a majority of the farms are to-day owned by foreign-born people or they are descendants of the first generation. This does not embrace only the Germans and the Scandinavians, but is true in large measure, for illustration, of the Bohemians and the Poles. It is true in surprising measure of the Italians; not only of the northern Italians, but of the southern.

Again, an examination of the aliens who come to stay is of great significance. During the last fiscal year 838,172 aliens came to our shores, although the net immigration of the year was only a trifle above 400,000. But, while we received of skilled labor 127,016, and only 35,898 returned; we received servants 116,529, and only 13,449 returned; we received farm laborers 184,154, and only 3,978 returned, it appears that laborers came in the number of 135,726, while 209,279 returned. These figures ought to demonstrate that we get substantially what we most need, and what we can not ourselves supply, and that we get rid of what we least need and what seems to furnish, in the minds of many, the chief justification for the bill now under discussion.

The census returns show conclusively that the importance of illiteracy among

aliens is overestimated, and that these people are prompt after their arrival to avail of the opportunities which this country affords. While, according to the reports of the Bureau of Immigration, about 25 per cent of the incoming aliens are illiterate, the census shows that among the foreign-born people of such States as New York and Massachusetts where most of the congestion complained of has taken place, the proportion of illiteracy represents only about 13 per cent. I am persuaded that this provision of the bill is in principle of very great consequence, and that it is based upon a fallacy in undertaking to apply a test which is not calculated to reach the truth and to find relief from a danger which really does not exist. This provision of the bill is new, and it is radical. It goes to the heart of the measure. It does not permit of compromise, and, much as I regret it, because the other provisions of the measure are in most respects excellent and in no respect really objectionable, I am forced to advise that you do not approve this bill. Very sincerely, yours,

CHARLES NAGEL, Secretary.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

[Transmitting reports on the extension of 2-cent letter postage to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands.]

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 1, 1913.

To the House of Representatives:

In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of February 20, 1913, requesting the President of the United States

if not incompatible with the public interest, to transmit to the House of Representatives all information that may be in his possession or the possession of the Department of State or the Post Office Department as to the practicability of extending a 2-cent letter postage rate, similar to that in force with Great Britain and Germany, to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and whether offers or intimations of a willingness on the part of any of said countries to establish such postal rates have been received, and if received, what action was taken in that behalf and the reason therefor

I transmit herewith reports by the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General upon the subject matter.

To the President:

WM. H. TAFT.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 28, 1913.

The undersigned Secretary of State, to whom was referred a copy of the resolution adopted in the House of Representatives on February 20, 1913, has the honor to report that there is no information in the possession of the Department of State as to the practicability of extending the 2-cent letter postage rate and that no offers or intimations of a willingness on the part of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands to establish such postal rates have been received by it.

P. C. KNOX, Secretary.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 26, 1913.

To the Postmaster General:

Replying to your inquiry in connection with House resolution 809 I have the honor to state as follows:

The agreement with Great Britain for a 2-cent letter rate of postage became operative October 1, 1908. The agreement with Germany applying only to letters exchanged between the United States and Germany by sea direct became operative January 1, 1909. Both of the agreements were exceptional and experimental, and no similar agreements except that with the colony of Newfoundland have been concluded since. Proposals for similar agreements received from other countries, including Denmark and Norway, have been replied to uniformly to the effect that the department is not prepared to extend the 2-cent letter rate to any other countries. No proposals for a 2-cent letter rate appear to have been received from either the Netherlands or Sweden.

Letters from this country for Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands, unless dispatched by slow steamers not used for the conveyance of such letters, would be required to pass in transit over one or more intervening countries in which this department would have to pay the transit charges fixed by the Universal Postal Convention, which would make the 2-cent rate on letters for those countries less advisable than the 2-cent rate on letters for Great Britain and Germany, which involves this department in no charges for intermediary transit.

It is estimated that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1912, the agreements with Great Britain and Germany resulted in the loss of postal revenue to this department amounting to $899,961.92, assuming that the same number of letters would have been dispatched at the regular postal-union rate as were actually dispatched at the 2-cent rate.

In view of the loss of revenue involved and of possible changes in international postage rates which may result from the next Universal Postal Congress which will be held at Madrid in the spring of 1914, it is not deemed practicable or desirable to conclude agreements for 2-cent letter postage at this time with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, or any other foreign country.

JOSEPH STEWART,

Second Assistant Postmaster General.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

[On the subject of relations between the United States and the Republic of

Colombia.]

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, March 1, 1913.

To the Senate and the House of Representatives:

I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress a report made to me on February 20, 1913, by the Secretary of State, on the subject of relations between the United States and the Republic of Colombia.

WM. H. TAFT.

To the President:

Department of State, Washington, February 20, 1913.

In the report which I had the honor to submit to you on May 17, 1912, and which was transmitted in your message of May 22, 1912, to the Senate in response to the Senate's resolution of March 1, 1912, requesting the transmission of correspondence with the Government of Colombia, I stated that the possibility of finding any reasonable means to put an end to the remaining ill feeling between the Republic of Colombia and the United States had, by your direction, long been the subject of study by the department. That study having culminated in the program approved by your letter of November 30, 1912, I deem it my duty now to report upon the outcome of the efforts which the department had made to carry out that program and thereby to replace the relations of the two countries in a state of cordial friendship and mutual confidence. That program was the result of the exhaustive study and earnest endeavors which, by your direction, had engaged the attention of the department from the beginning of the administration, in accordance with your conviction and that of the department that, so far as consistent with the dignity and honor of the United States and with the principles of justice when applied to the true facts, no effort should be spared in seeking to restore AmericanColombian relations to a footing of completely friendly feeling.

Before discussing the generous advances of this Government, which I regret have been, I think so mistakenly, rebuffed by the Government at Bogota, it will be convenient by way of recapitulation to sketch, in a measure, the antecedents of the recent attempts of the department to reach the hoped-for adjustment. Inasmuch, however, as the present report is not submitted with a view to its transmission to the Congress, nor intended as a complete survey of the very extensive and complex historical background of the subject, I shall endeavor to confine it within reasonable limits, which would not be possible if the vast amount of material on the subject now on file in the department were to be included or exhaustively summarized.

The necessity for some brief review of what had preceded is enhanced by the fact that the subject of arbitration, now again urged by Colombia, is intimately associated with political problems affecting the status of Panama, and the efforts of the Government of the United States to bring about an adjustment of concatenated questions in which, as a party directly interested because of its rights in regard to the Panama Canal, this Government is the more deeply concerned.

It seems obvious that, even assuming that any tangible issue for arbitration between the United States and Colombia could be made out, evidently no terms of arbitral submission could be entertained which might call in question the right of Panama to exist as a sovereign State.

At this point it should be recalled that Colombian proposals of arbitration, inadmissible for this and other reasons, have twice been rejected by this Government after full consideration by two former Secretaries of State, Mr. Hay and Mr. Root.

Mr. Hay, writing to Gen. Reyes on January 5, 1904, said:

Entertaining these feelings, the Government of the United States would gladly exercise its good offices with the Republic of Panama, with a view to bringing about some arrangement on a fair and equitable basis. For the acceptance of your proposal of a resort to The Hague tribunal this Government perceives no occasion. Indeed, the questions presented in your statement of grievances " are of a political nature such as nations of even the most advanced ideas as to international arbitration have not pro

"