rise simply to urge that we shall not cut off discussion (whether we shall adopt the resolution on verbatim, or whether this Association will refuse absolutely to attempt to instruct Congress) that we will not gag debate, that we will not refuse to speak and to listen upon a question which is of so great consequence as this, and that we will consider it to-day, and not postpone for an indefinite period a question of such importance. Alexander R. Lawton, of Georgia:

Mr. President: It is with great reluctance that I rise, after so much time has been given to this subject, after hearing how thoroughly prepared we are to decide on these solemn questions, to say a word or two. If anything has been developed by the discussion that has taken place here to-day, it is that we are not prepared to vote. To my mind, that is all that has been fully ascertained, that we are not prepared to vote on this question to-day. We are not a legislative body. We are not a body to decide upon the policy of the government. We are not a body to decide, strictly speaking, legal questions, but to give advice in reference to the enactment of laws passed. If there is no difference of opinion as to the power of the Congress of the United States to deal with the question in the manner which foreign nations think we ought to deal with it, then it becomes matter of policy whether they should so deal with it, and, if matter of policy, is this the body to tell them what their true policy is? I venture, Mr. President, to stand for the negative of that proposition. This is not the body to tell Congress what is the true policy in reference to a matter of dealing which is to affect our relations with foreign governments. If they have no power and that question is submitted to us to look into, it might be our duty to give such assistance as a legal body of this magnitude and importance could give; but that is certainly matter that requires time. Who of us, what learned judge, likes to decide upon the instant when a question is put to him? What able lawyer likes to give an opinion at the moment, or to commence the making of an argument at the moment when

he is requested to take charge of a case. If it is matter of law or of Constitution, whether Congress could do that or not, we are not here at this moment in a condition to be hurried into an expression of opinion which would tend, I modestly suggest, to destroy any of the value that the utterance of our opinions may have in the estimation of the public. If it is matter of policy which we are to advise about, I venture to say that the moment the suggestion is made we should abdicate. I heartily join in the view that if this is a subject for us to think of at all, it is one that we are not prepared for a final vote upon at this time, and that the motion to postpone to the next session is altogether decorous and proper.

Bernard McCloskey, of New Orleans:

Mr. President, and gentlemen: I hesitated before I should express any opinion on the very serious question that is presented to you this morning, but being a member of the Bar of New Orleans, and the only representative from the State of Louisiana present here to-day, I feel that I would not do justice to this organization did I not express the sentiment of the members of the Bar Association of Louisiana if they were present. Mr. President, to-day is not the time to commit this Association upon this very important question. This is not the hour for you to judge, and by your action indirectly state that the State tribunals in Lousiana have not done their duty. Mr. President, you must remember that in that massacre there were two citizens of the United States, native born. You must remember that one of the Mafia, the leader, that was killed was a native-born citizen-not an alien. Now, his descendants. have no remedy, in so far as appealing to the Federal court for relief is concerned. There is no criminal statute that will benefit the descendants of the native-born citizen. Why should there be a statute to place the descendant of the alien citizen in any better position? Mr. President, you must remember that New Orleans and her best citizens are still dealing with this question in the Federal courts. There are suits in those courts

involving almost one million dollars against her citizens for damages arising from this affair. Are you to-day to say that that State court did not do its duty, that they should have indicted, tried and convicted an entire people-because the grand jury of the parish of Orleans said, when it was presented to them by the district attorney, "We cannot indict an entire people?" And we ask you here to-day, by your action, not to say that that State tribunal has not done justice. We ask you not to intimate and say to the Federal court in which those civil actions are pending for damages that we, the American Bar Association, have taken cognizance of the fact, and that it is necessary to have additional legislation to protect the alien citizen because the State court has not protected him. It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I think the matter should go over for another year, and it is only for that reason—not that I am familiar with the legal questions arising, but because I feel that you affect the best people of the city of New Orleans by the action contemplated here to-day.

Thomas Nelson Page, of Virginia :

Mr. President, I rise with great diffidence at this stage of the proceedings, because I agree fully with my friend, General Lawton, that the proceedings here this morning have developed one fact; that we are not yet prepared to vote upon this question, and, as I propose to vote with him upon this resolution, I wish to make what may be deemed a personal statement upon the first resolution in the report of the learned committee. I should say nothing except for the fact that there was a criticism made upon that report and the gentleman who brought it in last night which I deem unjust. That committee has brought in a report which upon its face shows that the utmost thought and care were given to the work. It seems to me that they have answered the resolution which appointed them. And yet I feel that this Association would lose the benefit of its action if it were to adopt that report by anything like an evenly divided vote. When the time comes, I for one

shall be ready to vote for the adoption of that report. I start out, I may say, from a different standpoint from that of a number here-from the standpoint that an American citizen needs some little protection at the hands of the government of the United States. I belong to that unfortunate class of native-born American citizens who want under circumstances which might arise not to have new penal statutes passed in advance, but to be tried by the law under which we have. grown up-the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the States in which we have been born and have made our homes. Now, it appeared to me that a good deal of this discussion took the form of sympathy for these unfortunates down in New Orleans or elsewhere. Mr. President, it seems to me that when a man comes to the United States, if he comes here as an honest man to do his business properly and to observe the laws of the United States, there are sufficient laws now to meet his case. It is only when he comes and thinks that he is not able to secure substantial justice from the State tribunals that he wants to seek the cover of the United States Constitution and laws. Now, I happen to know something of that case to which my friend from New Orleans has just referred, and I know the utmost care was taken by the tribunals of New Orleans to investigate this matter. As was stated by the learned committee, this matter has been brought forward, not so much by the courts and by Congress, as by the press generally. Some of our friends object to our advising Congress. I really do not know anybody that I think needs more advice, and it seems to me that that is the function of this Association. We are prepared to advise anybody else, and I do not see why we should not advise Congress. Now, in closing, I wish to say that, having made this explanation to my friend, the chairman of this committee, I for one have a great regard for the Constitution that our fathers adopted and for the forms of legal investigation which they established. This Association has done itself the honor to-day to elect as its chief presiding officer a gentleman whom I have the honor to call my fellow statesman. He is known

in Virginia and in the south as a great constitutional lawyer. His position here is due to the fact that, at all times and in all seasons, he has kept the light of the Constitution of the United States before him, never swerving and never faltering under any circumstances, but has established himself among us as a man who follows the light which our fathers lighted.

William T. Houston, of New York:

I desire to say a few words in favor of postponing, for the reason that I think all the arguments on the question have not occurred to the house. The question here is of the mischief and of the remedy. What is the mischief? It is not that one or two persons in a particular county in a particular State make an assault upon aliens and that justice will not be done in that case, that the assailers of the aliens will not be brought to just and timely punishment. That is not the mischief. We all know from our observation that if one or two men in the city of New Orleans, or in New York, or in San Francisco fall upon any aliens, whether Italians, or French, or English, or Chinese, and put those aliens to death, those one or two men will be arrested under the State laws, will be properly tried, and, if guilty, will be found guilty and will be punished. There is no doubt about that. An individual citizen of the United States assailing an alien is just as liable to be promptly and severely punished as a citizen of the United States insulting and assailing another citizen of the United States. The mischief that some gentlemen think protection against which can be sought is that a large number of people, a mob, will rise up, excited by some grievance, real or imaginary, and make an assault upon a certain number of aliens of a particular nationality and put them to death, that the people in the community will sympathize with the mob, that the forces of justice will become paralyzed by that sympathy, and that consequently the murder of these aliens will not be punished either as a vindictive measure or as a preventive to future crimes of the same character. Now, that is the difficulty. It may be violence