Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

Sir: Referring to your notes of the 5th, 8th, and 19th instants, respectively, relative to the case of Charles Gibbons, an alleged assisted immigrant, I have the honor to inclose for your information a copy of a letter from the acting Secretary of the Treasury communicating his decision in regard to the matter.

Calling attention to the statement of the Treasury Department that its action in the Gibbons case will not be considered as a precedent in similar cases in future,

I have, etc.,

James G. Blaine.

Mr. Spaulding to Mr. Blaine.

Sir: Referring to the case of Charles Gibbons, who, with a portion of his family, has been detained by the Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York until it could be ascertained whether or not he is an illegally assisted immigrant, which case is referred to in communications from the Department of State to the Secretary of the Treasury dated respectively January 5, 1892, and January 9, 1892, transmitting copies of letters from Her British Majesty’s minister at this capital, I have the honor to inform you that instructions have this day been sent to the proper officer to permit the landing of the immigrants referred to.

This determination has been reached with difficulty. Whatever may be the merits of the Gibbons case it is clear that this Government can not allow a general practice to grow up which shall permit the landing at United States ports of any considerable number of people of this class, simply because such practice would be in violation of the provisions of the immigration laws.

For your information I inclose herewith copy of a letter dated the 23d ultimo from the acting commissioner of immigration, port of New York, detailing particulars of the case of Gibbons and of another immigrant, John O’Brien, coming hither under almost identical circumstances. To this communication I respectfully call your attention.

The immigrant O’Brien was returned to the country from which he came on the ground that he was both illegally assisted and likely to become a public charge. The facts set forth in Mr. O’Bierne’s communication seem to indicate that it is a practice of the British war office, particularly in the case of invalid or disabled pensioners, to commute their pensions and pay them a lump sum on the condition and understanding that they are immediately to emigrate to, and thereafter reside in, some other country. As stated in Mr. O’Bierne’s letter, and confirmed by Her British Majesty’s minister in his communication of the 8th instant, the sum of money resulting from such commutation is not paid to the commuter in Great Britain, but is forwarded to the British consul at New York, or other United States ports of arrival and paid to him on this side after his landing and when it is apparently certain that he will not be a further burden upon the revenues of Great Britain. The unavoidable inference is that this privilege of commutation, whether so intended or not, serves as an inducement to the pensioner to emigrate from Great Britain.

As will be seen by the cited cases of O’Brien and Gibbons, the amount of money resulting from such commutation of pension is not sufficient to preserve the immigrant [Page 270] from becoming a public charge for any considerable length of time if he is otherwise unable or unwilling to earn a livelihood. The result is that this country is asked to receive and maintain a class of men who, however meritorious may have been their military service to a foreign nation and however exemplary may be their personal character, yet are unable to be self-sustaining, and are in effect, if not technically, assisted immigrants within the prohibitions of our statutes.

I will thank you to call the attention of Her Majesty’s minister to this aspect of the case and to impress upon him the fact that while, at his request, the Gibbons family have been permitted to land this action must not be considered a precedent in future cases of substantially similar nature. Respectfully, yours,

O. L. Spaulding,
Acting Secretary.
[Inclosure in inclosure.]

Mr. O’Bierne to Mr. Foster.

Sir: I have the honor herewith to submit for direction of the Secretary of the Treasury two cases of ex-British soldiers assisted in coming to this port by the official authorities of Great Britain. The first is that of John O’Brien, 60 years of age, born in Ireland, arrived December 20, 1891, per steamship Britannic, certified by the surgeon U. S. I. S. in our medical department, Dr. J. A. Tonner, as suffering from old gunshot wound of shoulder and unable to take care of himself. O’Brien swears that his object in coming to the United States was to receive commutation of pension from Her Majesty’s consul in New York City, amounting to £95 1s. 10d. sterling, as a settlement of his pension claims. He has a friend and a daughter-in-law here, addresses not known. He is utterly unable to support himself by manual labor. I have received from her Britannic Majesty’s consul-general the following letter, dated New York, December 21, 1891, relating to him:

Sir: John O’Brien has been brought to this office by an officer from your department, who states that he has to be returned, as likely to become a public charge. If the man be allowed to land I shall pay him the equivalent of £96, which should be regarded as sufficient to relieve him from his otherwise disability to land.

“I am, sir, your obedient servant,

J. Booker,
Consul-General.”

“Gen. James R. O’Bierne,
Commissioner of Immigration.

It appears in this case that the presence of O’Brien (who already has his return ticket to Ireland) is merely for the purpose of collecting this commutation of pension, and he further says that he does intend to remain in this country. He came under the influence of the following communication, usually received in like cases from the representatives of the war office of the British Government:

“I am directed by the lords and others, commissioners of this (Chelsea) hospital, to inform you that, having fuily considered your application for commutation of pension, together with reports on your case from medical and staff officers, who have been desired to examine you, they are pleased to award you the amount of —— years’ pension as commutation of pension, and have directed that you shall receive £—— at home for emigration expenses and the balance on your arrival at ——; but at the same time they wish once more distinctly to caution you that in accepting this grant you forfeit all further claim whatever upon the Chelsea Hospital.”

O’Brien is held for further special inquiry, with the view that he should be prohibited from landing in the United States. It is to be said, however, that this will involve to him a hardship in preventing his receipt of commutation of his pension. Again, if he is landed, and should receive and expend this money, he is liable to become a public charge, in which event, of course, he can be sent back at the expense of the steamship company which brought him here.

A second case of the same character, but with some redeeming traits about it, is that of Charles Gibbons, also an ex-British soldier, 52 years of age, born in Ireland, arrived per City of Chester December 21, 1891, a pensioner, who is accompanied by his wife and five children; a very nice family; Lucian, 14, suffering from lameness, [Page 271] and Mary, 11, convalescent from pneumonia; destination, Jersey City, to brother, who promises pensioner employment. He is to receive £304 13d. in money as pension commutation; is a clerk and man of intelligence, having been living with his family all the time in garrison, when not in field; has been thirty-three years in the British Army.

These two cases, while alike on general principles as to the act of the British Government in deporting them to this country, and making a condition of settlement of its obligations to them an implied residence in this or other country outside of the British Government, in order to secure it against further reclamations of these soldiers, who have been so long in its service, has seemed to me to involve two questions: First, Are these cases of “assisted immigration”? Second, Do they involve any points of international courtesy, or an implied utilization of the United States and its territory, to decrease the number of dependent classes of Great Britain, and to throw the responsibility of their support and maintenance upon this country in the event of the parties becoming unable to take care of themselves? I write, inviting the particular attention of the Secretary of the Treasury, and if necessary, of the Secretary of State, to these cases, inasmuch as I am given to understand by the older employés of this office that this practice has been long resorted to in similar cases; which, of course, it goes without saying, adds eventually to the burden of the pauper element of this country, to be sustained by the public charities.

Respectfully, yours,

Jas. R. O’Bierne,
Acting United States Commissioner of Immigration.