Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 5, 1892
Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
Washington , April 15, 1892 .
Sir: Referring to your note of the 25th of November last, relative to certain alleged hardships suffered by the owners or agents of British vessels arriving at the port of Boston with immigrants, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury which sets forth the circumstances connected with the matter in question, and states that the whole subject is now under consideration.
I have, etc.,
Mr. Spaulding to Mr. Blaine.
Office of the Secretary,
Washington , April 9, 1892 . (Received April 11).
Sir: For farther reference to the matters treated in your communications of the 4th ultimo, the 10th ultimo, and the 30th of October last, to wit: “Certain alleged hardships suffered by the owners or agents of foreign steamship lines, whose vessels arrived at the port of Boston bringing immigrants,” which subject was called to your attention in a communication from the British minister at this Capital, dated the 25th of October last, I now have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a communication from the United States commissioner of immigration at the port of Boston, which fully sets forth all the circumstances connected with the matter in question.
It is proper to add that the whole subject of the rights and duties of the owners and agents of steamships engaged in bringing immigrants to ports of the United States, so far as concerns the custody and maintenance of immigrants who are temporarily detained at such ports for any reason, is now under consideration by the Department, and when a conclusion is reached the result will be communicated to you for transmission to the British minister.
Respectfully, yours,
Acting Secretary.
Mr. Wrightington to Mr. Nettleton.
Boston, Mass. , March 19, 1892 .
Dear Sir: Your communication, under date of the 16th instant, with the inclosures concerning certain alleged hardships suffered by the owners or agents of foreign steamship lines, whose vessels arrive at the port of Boston, bringing immigrants, with particular reference to the case of Mary Kelly and her four children, whose landing was debarred from the steamship Roman, and the escape therefrom of said Mary Kelly, came to hand on the 18th instant.
[Page 275]I herewith inclose conies of the correspondence between this office and the bureau of immigration concerning the case, and answer somewhat in detail the questions raised in your communication.
Superintendent Owen’s letter of August 25 is supposed to be that referred to in his communication of October 9, and is therefore annexed thereto.
Premising that the alien immigrants here arriving by the Warren line of steamships are mentally and physically inferior to those here arriving by other European lines, perhaps because of reduced rates of passage, with the further premise that the attitudes of the agents and officers of this line towards the inspection officers of the United States, and their allusions to the statutes governing them and us, are in marked contrast to the gentlemanly bearing and respectful reference of other agents and officers, I proceed to restate this special case.
The steamship Roman of the Warren line, arrived at this port Wednesday, September 16, having on board, among other passengers, Mary Kelly and her four children. After a careful examination of such passengers it was decided that the Kellys were “persons likely to become a public charge” and therefore belonged to one of the classes of aliens excluded from admission into the United States by the provisions of the act of 1891, by reason that they had been in receipt of public aid while at home, and at a time when the husband and father, who now professed to be able to properly provide for them, had been supported at the expense of the United States, with the further reason that their passage to America had been prepaid, and it did not appear from what source the money for the purchase had been obtained.
On the Thursday or Friday following the Roman’s arrival, Mr. Kelly, who had been previously notified, put in an appearance and was informed that his family would not be permitted to land except upon his furnishing a bond in the penal sum of $2,500, conditioned that no member of the family should at any time thereafter become a public charge, but that lie was privileged to appeal from this decision to the Department at Washington. Upon his request for further time in which to take advice of counsel and friends he was informed that the Monday following would be the latest that could be allowed for the purpose. The steamer’s day of return being Tuesday, and that in default of bond and notice of appeal his family would be returned. Mr. Kelly made no suggestion touching the removal of his family pending his deliberation, although he was informed that they would be removed if he decided on an appeal. He visited them several times while they were on board the steamer and never once suggested that their detention thereon was an act of inhumanity; indeed, I am certain that they were far more comfortable on the steamer while she lay at the dock than they had been on the passage over when herded with some hundred others, or would have been had they then returned on the steamer, loaded, as she was, with cattle. That such detention was an inconvenience to the ship’s officers, I grant, and some inconvenience usually and usefully attends infraction of law and often serves as a reminder of duty to be performed. The escape of Mrs. Kelly was through the criminal negligence of the ship’s officers. The ship was at its dock, where the presence of a woman must have attracted the attention of every man in the employ of Messrs. Warren, and her departure therefrom must have been witnessed by scores. The first notice received of the elopement was late in the afternoon of Monday, it having occurred about 2:30 p.m. of that day. The collector of the port was notified as well as the United States district attorney. The steamers agents were required to give security sufficient to meet any fine that might be imposed for the offense; the children were removed to the State primary school awaiting further developments, and the case for the time closed. (See letters marked A and B, sent Superintendent Owen, and his answer, marked C.)
Prior to the receipt of your communication I had construed the provisions of the act of 1891 in its eighth section as permitting the inspection officer to “order a temporary removal of such aliens for examination” and to “detain them until a thorough inspection is made.” Further that “such removal shall not be considered a landing during the pending of such examination.” I had also construed the provision relating to housing and feeding as referring only to those undergoing inspection, and such as were “delayed in proceeding to their destination after inspection.” I had not supposed that this last-named clause applied to an alien whose inspection was finished and whose return had been ordered. Where great hardships would otherwise ensue, as in case of sickness or of children unaccompanied with parents, or where serious difficulty was found in their detention, as in the case of stowaways, I had acted in accordance with the authority conferred on the State board of lunacy and charity by Secretary Fairchild in his communication of January 18, 1888, but it did not appear to me that the Kelly case could be properly included within this authorization or the beneficent provision of the act of 1891.
No further proceedings were had in this case until October 7, when, the Messrs. Warren having succeeded in locating Mrs. Kelly, I met Mr. Fred. Warren and Assistant District Attorney Wyrnan, District Attorney Allen being temporarily absent, by appointment, at the office of United States Commissioner Hallett. After a careful [Page 276] examination of the law and a protracted consultation with Mr. Wyman the commissioner declined to authorize Mrs. Kelly’s arrest, and advised me to do nothing in connection therewith without instructions from the Department, whereupon, on the suggestion of Mr. Wyman, I sent the superintendent of immigration the communication marked D and received from him the communication marked E, which clearly did not authorize me to arrest and return Mrs. Kelly.
On November 16 Mr. Warren was brought before Commissioner Hallett for a violation of the act of 1891, and Mary Kelly, in default of bond, was committed to Suffolk jail as a witness. This was understood to have been clone in the interest of the Messrs. Warren in order to obtain legal custody of Mrs. Kelly preparatory to her return.
On the 18th of November I wrote Superintendent Owen the letter marked F and received in reply the letter marked G. On the 23d of November Messrs. Warren notified that a steamer of their line would sail the following day and that they desired to return the children on the steamer. I protested against the children’s return except in charge of the mother, and in order to the removal of their objection to further delay, the mother being still in custody of the court, I gave a personal guaranty that the Warren Line should not be required to pay for the further keeping of the children, and consequently from that date until their return, December 19, the expense of the children’s maintenance was borne by this Commonwealth.
November 28 a new element appeared in the case: Henry C. Mulligan, attorney-at-law, informed me that he had forwarded an appeal to Washington in the Kelly case, whereupon the letter marked H was forwarded the superintendent of immigration, and the reply (marked I) was received. The communication marked K followed later, and a response thereto was received December 9, which is marked L, and which closed the correspondence. Mary Kelly and her children were returned to England, the husband and father accompanying them, at his own expense, on the steamer sailing December 22.
Referring to the latter part of your communication as to our “facilities for taking charge of these people on shore,” I would say that the State board of lunacy and charity can furnish hospitals for the sick and insane, almshouse for adult paupers, a primary school for children, and the city of Boston has allowed the use of one of its police stations for stowaways and other vicious characters. Of course these establishments are scattered over the State, and some expense would be entailed in the removal of the people to the institutions named, and would perhaps require additional assistance in such supervision at this port. This expense would, of course, eventually fall upon the steamship companies, but nevertheless would primarily be a charge to the Treasury. True, these facilities are not of the character that are found in New York, and a single establishment owned and controlled by the department as at Ellis Island would be preferable, but I can not think so great an expense at this port would be justifiable.
Respectfully,
Commissioner.