The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 95, July 1991 - April, 1992 Page: 467

                                
Emzgrant Strzkebreakers                        467
unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner
whatsoever to prepay the transportation or in any way assist or encourage the
importation or migration of any alien or aliens, and any foreigner or foreigners
into the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under con-
tract or agreement . . . made previous to the importation of such [people] to
perform labour or service of any kind in the United States.'
Guilty parties were to be liable to a fine of $1,ooo in respect of each
immigrant illegally introduced, while ships' captains who knowingly
transported them were to be fined $500 per immigrant and were also
to bear the expense of returning them to their place of origin. In prac-
tice, however, the act was easily evaded and failed to eradicate the
problems that it was meant to solve": since most immigrants did not en-
ter the U.S.A. as contract laborers and did not therefore fall within the
remit of the act, the use of aliens to break strikes and keep wages down
continued almost unabated."
Until 19o6 the American Granite Cutters' Union repeatedly rebuffed
suggestions from its Aberdeen counterpart that it should agree to the
interchangeability of union cards and benefits. These proposals were
rejected on the grounds that since the emigrant traffic was one-sided,
the concessions would benefit only the Scots. There was opposition to
any proposal to exchange cards with a union whose entry fees were
much lower than those of its American counterpart, and criticism of
"An Act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and ahens under contract
or agreement to pei for m labour in the United States, its territories and the District of Co-
lumbia," United States Statutes at Large, 48th Cong, 1883-1885, vol XXIII, p 332, in
[American] Gan mte Cuttets' National Jounual, X (May, 1886), 3 (quotation), cited hereafter as
American GCNJ
'Failure to define the precise categories to be excluded caused confusion in interpleting the
act, successive court inter pr etations, and many loopholes. For instance, employers could have
contract workers shipped to the U S A as cabin passengers, since only steerage passengers
were inspected under the law, or they could pei suade member s of their existing labor foice to
write home encouraging "friends and relatives" (who were exempt from the law) to come out
on the assurance of work. Contract laborers could also be trained in advance to answer ofhcial
questions in a way that would avoid dcetec ton at the port of arrival See Charlotte Erickson,
Amercan Indzusty and the Eopeani ImntgimNit, 186o- 1885 (Camb idge, Mass Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1957), 170-171, 172 (quotation)
"lhe act had been ur ged on the government primarily by a small union of skilled craftsmen
within the Knights of Labol, the window-glass wor kei s, whose position was threatened by the
introduction of contract workers from Lurope They harnessed to their campaign the growing
resentment of the American labor movement in general against the misuse of imported labol,
by suggesting-cl ronecously-that immigrant strlkcbl makers were generally bl ought in under
contract In this way the wlder labol movement (which had not formulated precise proposals
for dealing with its problems) was persuaded to support legislation that was much too narrow
to meet its needs The Contract Laboi Law applied only to a small minority of highly skilled
immigrants who were bi ought in to per fol m specfhc jobs, and failed to restrict the importation
of undesirable immlgl ants to bLeak strikes and lower wages For further details on the act and
its limitations, see Erickson, Anmeu, lan Idusly and the Ewuopean Imnig)at, especially chapters 9
and io