Department of State,
Washington
,
September 18,
1905
.
No. 302.]
[Inclosure.]
The Acting Secretary of
Commerce and Labor to the Secretary
of State.
Department of Commerce and Labor,
Office of the
Secretary,
Washington
,
September 14,
1905
.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge
receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, inclosing a translation
of a note from the Italian ambassador in further relation to his
request under cover of your letter of the 24th of June last, for an
answer to certain queries propounded by him in regard to the
admission of aliens.
Replying categorically to the said interrogatories, the Department
has to state that officers of the immigration service do admit “an
immigrant or a family of immigrants which comes with the intention
to settle in a determined place and to buy land there on long
payment and without paying any sum on account of the price of sale,”
unless such immigrants are inadmissible for any of the various
reasons stated in section 2 of the act of March 3, 1903.
In answer to the second query the same reply may be made—namely, that
the immigration officers would admit “an immigrant or a family of
immigrants which comes to work land on shares, i. e., the net profit
derived from the crop raised to be divided between the laborer and
the owner” unless inadmissible, as above stated, or unless it
appears to the inspectors at the port or ports of arrival that the
coming of such aliens was induced by promises of employment given
before the departure of said aliens from their own country.
The Department is aware that these replies are probably not so
explicit as the Italian ambassador desires, but it is impossible to
make them more so. In the Department’s letter of the 30th of June
upon this subject it endeavored to show that such cases as those
cited by the Italian ambassador were hypothetical and that therefore
no positive and satisfactory reply could be made. The law imposes
upon the officers at the ports primarily the duty of deciding
whether an alien is admissible or not. The Department has no
jurisdiction except upon appeal from the decision of such officers.
The latter would, of course, be governed by the evidence presented
in each particular case irrespective of any general expression of
opinion upon hypothetical cases made by the Department. This
explanation, it is hoped, will suffice to make it clear to the
Italian ambassador that the object of the Department’s letter of
June 30 last was rather to show the futility of attempting a reply
to the queries propounded and not indicative of any unwillingness to
furnish any information which would be of practical service.
Respectfully,
