The National Liberal Immigration League and Immigration Restriction,

The National Liberal Immigration 

League and Immigration Restriction, 

Rivka Shpak Lissak 

Between the years 1896 and 1917, as concern about the flow of 

immigrants from southern and eastern Europe mounted, immi- 

gration restriction became a public issue in the United States. The 

traditional principle of free immigration was now challenged on 

both socioeconomic and ethnic-cultural grounds, and became 

entangled with a web of social and industrial problems, among 

them unemployment, working conditions, low wages, and trade 

unionism. Conflicting versions of what it meant to be an American 

and differences regarding the role in the country's development to 

be accorded to the newcomers and their cultures also formed part 

of the controversy. 

Over the years since, American scholars have devoted far more 

attention to the proponents of immigration restriction and the eth- 

nic-cultural or nativist philosophy behind it than to its socioeco- 

nomic aspect. In particular, they have neglected the struggle 

against the restriction of immigration and the role played in it by 

both immigrants and native-born Americans. This paper concen- 

trates on the National Liberal Immigration League (NLIL), and its 

role in the struggle against restriction during the years 1906-1917.' 

Asylum and Free Immigration 

America's immigration policy was traditionally governed by two 

ideas, the right of asylum and free immigration. The notion of 

America as an asylum had its roots in the earliest years of the colo- 

nial era, but it was first put into writing during the Revolutionary 

War by Thomas Paine, who said in Common Sense that "this New 

World had been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and 

religious liberty from every part of Europe." Put this way, the idea 

was mainly an expression of sympathy for religious dissenters, not 

necessarily Catholics or Jews, and for rebels against European 

tyranny. It implied that political asylum would be given to oppo-

The National Liberal Immigration League 199 

nents of unjust authority, based upon the right of popular revolt 

against tyranny. Some later interpreters emphasized economic 

opportunity as an essential component of the asylum idea. Jean de 

Crevecoeur wrote in his Letters from an American Farmer: "In this 

great American asylum, the poor of Europe have by some means 

met together."' 

Although there was some disagreement in the nineteenth centu- 

ry as to the content or meaning of the right of asylum, govern- 

mental circles unequivocally linked economic opportunity with 

the idea of free immigration.3 The idea of free immigration was 

also rooted in the American concept of nationalism. Committed to 

the principles of democracy, Americans pledged to accept immi- 

grants as equals. Equality involved the recognition that all human 

beings were born equal and were worthy of joining the American 

nation and sharing the rights of citizenship. It also implied confi- 

dence in the capacity of every human being for change, adapta- 

tion, and adjustment to the American environment. Above all, the 

American tradition was based on the belief that national unity did 

not have to rely on common blood.4 

Consequently, the idea of free immigration, as distinct from the 

right of asylum, was the major underlying assumption upon 

which American immigration policy was established. This idea, as 

first enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, was based upon the princi- 

ple of "natural rights." Thus, a resolution of Congress of July 27, 

1868 declared the right of expatriation to be "a natural and inher- 

ent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights 

of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."' 

At the time of the establishment of the Republic, Congress had 

chosen not to exercise its authority in this field, and the adminis- 

tration of immigration was under state rather than federal juris- 

diction. This situation changed in 1875, when immigration policy 

and its administration came under the jurisdiction of Congress and 

the federal government. With the development of the policy of 

selection and exclusion, Congress demonstrated its sympathy with 

victims of political and religious persecution by deciding to waive 

the restrictions on immigration for the benefit of refugees from 

such persecution. It thus defined the right of asylum in political

200 American Jewish Archives 

and religious terms. Indeed, the Immigration Acts of 1875, 1882, 

1891, and 1907, which denied admission to convicts and criminals, 

specifically excluded "persons convicted of political offence" from 

the incidence of the laws. Similarly, the Immigration Act of 1907, in 

relation to the "public charge clause," allowed aliens to enter and 

remain in the country even if they were destitute or unable to earn 

a living, in cases where they were fleeing for their lives or trying to 

avoid persecution on political or religious grounds. Significantly, 

anarchists were not included in the category of political refugee^.^ 

Contemporary data show that the distinction between the right 

of asylum and the right of free immigration, namely, the distinction 

between refugees and immigrants, was widely accepted at the 

turn of the century by both advocates and opponents of free immigrati~n.~ 

In this respect, the results obtained in the 1914 poll of college 

and university professors conducted by the foreign press 

committee of the American Jewish Committee were quite typical. 

Asked whether they favored further restrictions on immigration 

and whether literacy tests should be imposed to determine the 

desirability of immigrants or only of those who were political and 

religious refugees, the majority of the respondents, regardless of 

their views on immigration policy, saw immigrants and refugees 

as separate categories? 

The Restriction Controversy 

Several organizations were deeply involved in the struggle for and 

against immigration restriction. The Immigration Restriction 

League (IRL), founded in Boston in 1894, devoted itself to the 

cause of immigration restriction, engaging in legislative lobbying 

in Washington and propaganda campaigns throughout the coun- 

try with the aim of enlisting mass support for immigration restric- 

tion. The League's leaders regarded the "new immigration" as the 

principal cause of the country's social, economic, and political 

problems, due to the differences in race, culture, and tradition 

between the "new immigrants" and native-born Americans. The 

League adopted socioeconomic as well as racial-cultural argu- 

ments in its campaign for restriction and lobbied for a literacy test 

as the best method for implementing its policy of restriction. The


IRL also sought, especially after 1911, to eliminate the right of asy- 

lum from American law. It argued that since the Immigration 

Commission, established by Congress in 1907, had stated in its 

report that the present immigrants were arriving in the country 

with the aim of improving their economic conditions, the policy of 

admission should be decided on the basis of socioeconomic con- 

siderations alone.9 

The American Federation of Labor (AFL), the country's largest 

labor union, was another leading participant in the campaign for 

immigration restriction, especially after 1906. At its annual con- 

vention of 1909, the AFL adopted a resolution in favor of immi- 

gration restriction by means of a literacy test "for restricting the 

present stimulated influx of cheap labor, whose competition is so 

ruinous to workers already here, whether native or foreign." 

Although it emphasized the economic issue, the AFL shared the 

IRL's view that immigrants were inassimilable and therefore a 

threat to American institutions. The AFL joined the IRL in calling 

for a literacy test, considering it a tariff measure against the com- 

petition of foreign labor. However, unlike the IRL, the AFL 

endorsed the right of asylum.'" 

The huge immigration and the many problems it created 

spawned a number of voluntary organizations designed to help 

immigrants adjust to life in America. Established by civic-minded 

citizens and funded by contributions, these organizations met 

newcomers on arrival, ran labor, welfare, and legal-advice 

bureaus, and conducted classes in English and civics. They also 

lobbied for legislation to protect newcomers against exploitation 

and fraud. The best-known of these organizations were the North 

American Civic League for immigrants, founded in Boston in 1909 

with branches throughout the country; the Committee for 

Immigrants in America, formerly a branch of the NACL, founded 

in New York in 19x4; and the Immigrants' Protective League of 

Chicago. Since all of these organizations had been set up to help 

immigrants after their arrival in America, they were not concerned 

with immigration policy as such. With the exception of the 

Immigrants' Protective League of Chicago, which was committed 

to defending the right of asylum, they took no stand one way or

Louis Edward Levy 

(7846-1919)


the other on the question of restriction.ll 

The Society of the Friends of Russian Freedom (FRF) was found- 

ed in 1906 to rally public opinion in favor of a representative gov- 

ernment in Russia, but it also actively defended the right of asylum 

for Russian political refugees. It counted among its sponsors many 

prominent liberals, including Jane Addams, Norman Hapgood, 

Oswald Garrison Villard, Lillian D. Wald, Dr. Lyman Abbott, and 

Samuel Gompers. The Political Refugees Defence League (PRDL), 

founded in 1909 by a group of Socialists with some liberal backing, 

also defended the right of asylum.12 

Liberal Progressives played an important role in helping new- 

comers to adjust to their new country through these organizations, 

as well as their own voluntary groups. The most important work 

in this area was done by the settlement movement, established at 

the turn of the century by a group of upper-middle-class men and 

women who went to live in the slums of America's cities in order 

to deal with the problems of the working class. Once there, the set- 

tlement workers soon realized that the working class consisted 

mostly of immigrants, and that the newest arrivals, apart from 

their problems as industrial workers (mostly unskilled), had the 

additional burden of social and cultural adjustment to the 

American environment. Thus, settlement workers devoted them- 

selves to helping the newcomers cope with these two problems.'3 

The uniqueness of the liberal wing of the Progressive move- 

ment-historians have variously called it social, humanitarian, or 

advanced progressivism-lay in its more comprehensive interpre- 

tation of democracy. They sought to extend the idea of political 

democracy, on which there was an American consensus, by sug- 

gesting new measures for coping with the ever-sharper class divi- 

sions in the country's emerging urban centers.14 

With this goal in mind, Liberal Progressives developed the idea 

of social democracy as an inevitable stage in the evolution and 

progress of society toward full democracy. Laissez-faire was to be 

modified by social welfare legislation. The government was to take 

responsibility for the underprivileged, improving their living and 

working conditions and providing better educational opportuni- 

ties. To achieve these goals, several organizations were formed,


among them the American Association for Labor Legislation 

(AALL) .'5 

Liberal Progressives became closely involved in the industrial 

situation, supporting the right of workers to organize unions and 

engage in collective bargaining. This support, which was the outgrowth 

of their commitment to the well-being of the underprivileged, 

created a close relationship and active cooperation between 

Progressives and the labor movement. They were seriously concerned 

about the problems faced by unskilled workers, very many 

of whom were new immigrants. With growing awareness that the 

unskilled were victims of industrial exploitation, they gradually 

became convinced of the need for an Industrial Minimums 

Legislation Program, of which a statutory minimum wage would 

be a major component. They were greatly disturbed by the fact that 

unskilled workers were not generally unionized by the AFL, 

which was primarily a craft-union federation. They were also troubled 

by the AFL's refusal to support a minimum wage law for 

unskilled workers as part of the Industrial Minimums Legislation 

Program, which it endorsed, on the ground that such legislation 

would weaken the bargaining power of the unions. The AFL considered 

unskilled immigrants to be competitors, and demanded 

that their admission to the country be restricted. Liberal 

Progressives never challenged the view that the state had the right 

to restrict immigration-excluding the right of asylum-if the wellbeing 

of its citizens was at stake. The differences of opinion, both 

among themselves and with labor leaders, focused rather on 

whether immigration indeed affected the general welfare of the 

American working class and whether immigration restriction was 

needed, on socioeconomic grounds, to protect American laborers.16 

The settlement movement never reached a consensus on the place 

new immigrants and their cultures should occupy in America.'7 

Nevertheless, its members took upon themselves the task of educating 

and socializing newcomers. For this end they organized clubs 

and initiated cultural and educational programs, including classes 

in English and civics, to introduce them to American society, inculcate 

them with American norms of behavior, and teach them 

American ways of doing things.


Liberal Progressives shared the American consensus on the dis- 

tinction between the right of asylum and free immigration. They 

were united in their support of the right of asylum, but divided on 

the issue of free immigration in both its ethnic-cultural and socioe- 

conomic aspects. 

By the end of the nineteenth century, America's business com- 

munity had developed an ambivalent approach toward immigra- 

tion. On the one hand, immigration was considered good for busi- 

ness because immigrant labor was needed to increase the output of 

mines, for the construction of railroads, and for industrial expan- 

sion. On the other hand, the radical elements among the immi- 

grants jeopardized social stability and industrial relations between 

capital and labor in periods of unemployment and economic 

depression. Immigration also increased the financial burden on 

charitable organizations and the community. During the last quar- 

ter of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth, 

northern businessmen, acting in their own interests, took advan- 

tage of the "diversity and tensions among the many peoples of 

southern and eastern Europe" and organized labor, thereby to 

exploit cheap, nonunionized immigrant workers. Southern busi- 

nessmen, on the other hand, made efforts to attract immigrant 

labor to the South in order to develop its economy. This attitude 

became ambivalent during the second decade of the new century, 

as the result of the anti-foreign, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic 

xenophobia fostered by nativist organizations, the publication of 

the preliminary report of the Federal Immigration Commission at 

the end of 1910, and the increased unemployment and labor vio- 

lence that characterized the 1913-1915 economic recession.ls 

Quite naturally, organizations of "old" and "new" immigrants 

were the major force opposing immigration restriction. The 

Immigration Protective League, founded in 1898 by Americans of 

German and Irish descent and renamed the New Immigrants 

Protective League in 1906, led the campaign against restriction 

around the turn of the century. During the first decade of the twen- 

tieth century, however, the leadership of the movement against 

restriction gradually shifted to the National Liberal Immigration 

League (NLIL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC), both

Simon Wolf 

(183 6-1923)


founded in 1906. The former, though organized by Jews, was a 

nonsectarian organization that included German, Irish, and Italian 

members as well as native-born Americans. The AJC was founded 

by German-Jewish leaders to defend the rights of Jews throughout 

the world. These two organizations were behind the demand that 

Congress establish an Immigration Commission to investigate all 

aspects of the immigration problem, a compromise proposal 

designed to counteract the growing pressure for a literacy test. 

They led the campaign against restriction between 1906 and 1917, 

advocating continuation of the traditional American policy of free 

entry and refuting the ethnic-cultural and socioeconomic argu- 

ments invoked in favor of restriction. They were opposed to any 

new immigration legislation, called for the fair administration of 

laws already on the books, and took a staunch stand in support of 

the right of asylum.'g 

The National Liberal Immigration League 

The National Liberal Immigration League was formally organized 

in July 1906, following the successful mass meetings held in New 

York and Boston in June 1906 to protest the bill introduced by 

Senator Gardner of Massachusetts aimed at restricting immigra- 

tion.'" 

The idea of establishing the League originated in Alliance 

Israklite Universelle (AIU) circles in Boston and New York. The 

AIU was a Jewish organization founded in France in 1860 by 

French-Jewish leaders in order to help Jews throughout the world, 

under the motto "All Jews are responsible for one another." The 

purpose of the organization was "to secure for the Jews of the 

entire world civil and political rights." The AIU worked to achieve 

these objectives through political lobbying and a network of 

schools designed to help Jews assimilate into the mainstream of 

their country of residence. In 1901, Nissim Behar was sent to New 

York by AIU headquarters in Paris to establish a national branch in 

the United States." Soon after his arrival, Behar founded AIU local 

societies in New York and Boston, and established close contacts 

with Jewish leaders throughout the country through the 

Federation of Jewish Organizations of New York. On February 27,

208 Americnn Jezuislz Archives 

-.A- 

p" 

MONSTER MASS=MEETING 

TO PROTEST AGAINST 

W RESTRICTIONS OF IMMIGRATION 

demand. of the rcstractto~urtr rn Cwgrtu for he hcdapmn of a Lteracy test. havrog lor 

the Ndw from thtn country .mually of thousandr of Hchrewr. Ilallans and the rcprualahvua 

d oth~ =hug oppartun~ty md frmlom undn our flag. have despt~c Ih slmpg &at moved 

bj lbcm throqh dr &and Honorable JAMES M CURLEY. .ad ahrr able and equally couragemr 

~ b d wen. c ~ qua brought the maner up for tmmedtate coruderahoo 

Up T h d y and Friday of ~hm week hcannw wdl h- held uodcr chc dmaon of 

Ca~aa JOHN L BURNETT. the arch eoemy d all f~rc~~ncrr to so codcaror lo m e 

&te mto law of thu hush .ad opprcwvc measure 

CONGRESSMAN CURLEY 

Wb a MW to mug a pmlat lo I d 1b.l tt. doa 

vS1 mmd m Ib h4I. of Cat- dl appear at 0Io 

MONSTFX PROTEST MEETING 

TO BB HECD AT 

cs&~(~ 

TEMPLE 

Blue Hill and Lamnee Are+es 

on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14, at 3.00 P. M. 

Wl All E@ALLV MOIISTER BATHERIN6 IN THE CRADLE OF UBERn 

FANEUIL HALL 

SUNDAY, DEC. 14, at 8.00 p. m. 

- 

HE HAS IWYITED &NO ACCEPTANCES VAVE 0EEH RECEIVED FROM 

JUDGE LEON SANDERS 

Dr HARRY LEVY of Commonwealth Temple 

MANUEL F W A R all of New York Dr RUBINOVITZ Moreland St Synagogue 

LOUIS LEVY, of Ph~ldelph~a 

Hm ANTONIO ZUCCA. of New York 

Rabb~ A COROVITZ, of Roxbury 

Rsbb~ P ISRAEL1,Adath Jnhurun Synagogue 

Hoa. JOHN J FRECHl of New York 

h. 9. J DRABINSKY of Brooklyn 

JACOB DE HAAS. Boaton Jcw~rh Advocate 

EZEKIEL LEAVI'IT. Ed~tor of &ston Votce 

Tk 

.mi 0th~. amd hu raemnd usurancafrom the foremot rsp-cn 

utl d .It .rca I. M~**achuactt., th.1 hey rill artend 

*- %Itm 

we owe ta lholc d our ract and Mod thc nM~ga~~on wr hold to ar ,\mencan crruc~ 

davdrthe 

to ma= 

ol dl at thew meenng* hats have bern reserved lor ~hc I.&. and wt 

two gsrhcnnps ~h- most rrp.rrrn!allvr proar.l cwr recorded on lhr htvtonr d bton GTluru fa-. 

A poster announces the meeting of pro-immigrntion forces 

at Boston's Fanz~eil Hall 

-.- 

4


1905 Philip Rubinstein, a Boston lawyer and secretary of the 

Boston AIU, suggested to Behar that he form "a federation of the 

different branches of the AIU in the various cities in this country, 

which federation would be in a better position to consider such 

large questions as anti-immigration laws and passport difficulty." 

The immigration committees of the Boston AIU and the Federation 

of Jewish Organizations of Massachusetts (FJOM) met on April 28, 

1906 to discuss the anti-immigration laws pending before 

Congress. This resulted in the drafting of a resolution against 

immigration restriction, a copy of which was sent to the congress- 

men and senators from Massachusetts in Washington. David A. 

Ellis, president of the Boston AIU and chairman of the immigra- 

tion committee of the FJOM, and its secretary, P. Rubenstein, urged 

Behar to suggest to all the other AIU societies in the country that 

they adopt similar resolutions and send copies and personal letters 

to members of Congress." 

The second activity against restriction sponsored by the AIU 

and the Federations of Jewish Organizations of New York and 

Massachusetts was the organization of mass meetings in New York 

City and Boston, to which representatives of other nationalities 

were also invited. Thus, Italians participated in the Boston mass 

meeting held at Faneuil Hall on June 6, 1906, and Irish participat- 

ed in the New York mass meeting held at Cooper Union on June 4, 

1906. This pattern was repeated in other cities with large immi- 

grant populations. At the mass meetings resolutions were adopted 

against immigration restriction and delegations were appointed to 

present the resolutions to President Roosevelt, Speaker Cannon, 

and members of Congress.'3 

The success of these mass meetings in attracting the attention of 

public opinion in general, and of the President and Congress in 

particular, to the opposition to immigration restriction, persuaded 

Ellis and Behar of the need for a national nonsectarian organiza- 

tion to combat the organized efforts of the advocates of immigra- 

tion restriction. Behar had become convinced that his mission in 

America was not only to help Jewish immigrants from eastern 

Europe to adjust to their new country, but also to ensure that the 

flow of Jewish immigrants to America remained unchecked. He


believed that a non-Jewish organization devoted to keeping the 

doors of America open would better serve the needs and interests 

of Jewish immigrants. In short, the idea was to invite immigrant 

leaders, American-born businessmen, and other distinguished 

persons to join the League's leadership in order to convince the 

American public that immigration was of economic benefit as well 

as a humanitarian issue, both in the spirit of American traditi0ns.q 

Behar convinced Edward Lauterbach, a well-known leader of 

the New York Jewish community and a famous lawyer involved in 

the public affairs of New York City, to use his close ties to non- 

Jewish leaders to help organize a nonsectarian national organiza- 

tion to combat restriction. Lauterbach, who was at that time also a 

member of the newly established AJC, accepted the challenge and 

persuaded several organizations and individuals with a concern 

for immigration to join the initiative, forming the National Liberal 

Immigration League. These organizations participated in the first 

annual meeting of the League, held on March 10, 1908. They 

included the New York branch of the Independent Order of B'nai 

B'rith, the Association for the Protection of Jewish Immigrants of 

Philadelphia, the Labor Information Office for Italians in New 

York, the German-American societies of New York, and the 

Slavonic Immigrant Society.'5 

The League was first mentioned in the Jewish press throughout 

the country in July-August 1906, following a letter signed by 

Edward Lauterbach, its first president, and addressed to the editors 

of the Jewish papers. The newspapers published the League's 

prospectus, which informed readers that "the object of this non-sec- 

tarian League is to counteract the efforts of various organizations 

which have spread throughout the country, and which all have the 

same purposethe restriction if not the suppression of immigra- 

tion." Here the League articulated its aim as being "to preserve for 

our country the benefits of immigration while keeping out unde- 

sirable immigrants." The League declared its commitment to the 

maintenance and enforcement of the existing laws "excluding crim- 

inals, paupers, persons having contagious diseases, and similar 

undesirable classes." Other than that, "there should be no further 

restriction of immigration." The League also declared its commit-


ment to the distribution and Americanization of immigrants as the 

solution to overcrowding and ethnic ~egregation.'~ 

On March lo, 1908 the League held its first annual meeting, at 

which its constitution and by-laws were adopted. These defined 

the purpose of its founders as: "uniting all American citizens who 

recognize the importance of immigration in the upbuilding of 

these United States in a combined effort to further the public inter- 

est through promoting the welfare of immigrants." The constitu- 

tion included five objectives aimed at achieving this purpose. First, 

"to effect the proper regulation of immigration and better distrib- 

ution of the immigrants." Second, "to diminish and prevent the 

overcrowding of immigrants in large cities, and especially at the 

ports of entry, by systematically aiding them to go to towns and 

farming districts in different parts of the country where their ser- 

vices will be most available." Third, "to help immigrants to form 

in assigned localities such new settlements as will benefit both 

them and the community." Fourth, "to advocate the enactment of 

such legislation as will most effectually promote this direction of 

immigrants." Fifth, "to oppose any further increase of restrictions 

imposed by the present immigration laws, and all unjust and un- 

American methods of administrating these laws."'7 

The membership of the League consisted of both organizations 

and individuals, but only the organizational delegates-two for 

each member organization-had the right to vote at the League's 

annual meetings. Its branches were entitled to one delegate for 

each fifty member^.'^ 

The officers of the League, as stated in its constitution, were a 

president, five vice-presidents, a secretary, a treasurer, and a board 

of directors. The annual meeting of the League was set for "the 

month of May each year." The League decided to form seven 

standing committees to help the officers and the board of directors 

to perform their duties. These were: a general committee, an advi- 

sory committee, a membership committee, a committee on ways 

and means, an educational committee, a committee of observation, 

and a committee on public meetings.'g 

The annual meeting chose Edward Lauterbach as president, five 

vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer. Nissim Behar was


nominated managing director of the League and occupied this 

post throughout the years of its existence. He was, in fact, its dri- 

ving force and moving spirit.3' 

The composition of the League's general committee, as well as 

of its other committees, reflected its nonsectarian character in eth- 

nic, political, and occupational terms. The members included rep- 

resentatives of various ethnic and immigrant organizations, 

Democrats and Republicans, and persons from all walks of life: 

professors, clergymen, businessmen, and lawyers. 

The Jews were represented by Simon Wolf, of the Independent 

Order of B'nai B'rith, president of the Union of American Hebrew 

Congregations, chairman of the Board of Delegates on Civil 

Rights, and a member of the National German American Alliance; 

Edward Lauterbach, president of the National Organization of 

Rumanian Jews in the United States, member of the board of direc- 

tors of the AIU and the advisory board of the Federation of Jewish 

Organizations of New York State, member of many other Jewish 

and non-Jewish welfare and educational associations, holder of 

leadership positions in the Republican Party of New York, a 

lawyer who had appeared "in some of the most noted legal con- 

tests," and a director of a large number of railroad and steamship 

companies; and Louis Edward Levy, a chemist, president of the 

Association for the Protection of Jewish Immigrants of Philadelphia, 

and later also of the Jewish Community (Kehilla) of Philadelphia.3' 

The Irish members included Michael J. Drummond, president of 

the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of New York, one of 

the major national Irish organizations, and a Commissioner of 

Charities of New York City; Thomas M. Mulry, a physician and 

member of the board of managers of the Manhattan State Hospital, 

president of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the largest Catholic 

welfare organization in the country, and vice-president of the 

Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of New York; W. Bourke 

Cochran, former president of the Immigration Protective League, a 

prominent congressman, and one of the leaders of the Knights of 

Columbus, Free Ireland, and the Ancient Order of the Hibernians; 

Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney General of the United States and 

leader of the Hibernian Society of Baltimore; and Michael F. Conry,


representing the Irish Federation of New York.3' 

The Germans were represented by Dr. Gustav Scholer, a physician 

and member of the board of managers of the Manhattan State 

Hospital of New York, who represented the New York branch of 

the National German American Alliance (NGAA); Dr. C. J. 

Hexamer, president of the NGAA; Prof. Marion D. Learned of the 

Pennsylvania branch of the NGAA; Judge Herman C. Kudlich, 

vice-president of the New Immigrants Protective League; and John 

J. Hynes, president of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association of 

Buffalo, New York, and vice-president of the American Federation 

of Catholic Societies.33 

The Italians included Antonio Stella, a consulting physician to 

the Manhattan State Hospital of New York, vice-president of both 

the Italian Immigration Society of New York and the Union League 

of Italian-Americans; Antonio Zucca, the owner of a large import 

business, president of both the Italian American Democratic Union 

of Greater New York and the New York Italian Chamber of 

Commerce; and Benjamin F. Buck of the Italian American 

Agricultural Ass~ciation.~~ 

The American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers 

(AAFLN), an organization representing the ethnic press throughout 

the country, was represented in the League by its president, 

Louis N. Hammerling, an immigrant from A~stria.~~ The business 

community was represented by noted businessmen and civicminded 

citizens, such as Andrew Carnegie of New York, a tycoon 

in the iron and steel industry; Frank S. Gannon and Grenville M. 

Dodge of the railroad business; and the bankers Robert Fulton 

Cutting and Cornelius N. Bliss. Cutting was also president of the 

New York Association for Improving Conditions of the Poor, and 

a member of the national committee of the FIG. The business community 

of the southern states, which was interested in attracting 

immigrants to the South, was represented by Major Frank Y. 

Anderson, one of the leading citizens of Birmingham, Alabama, 

who was one of the vice-presidents of the League.36 

The League's general committee also included persons of 

prominence in the academic world, such as Prof. Charles W. Eliot, 

president of Harvard University, and Woodrow Wilson, president


of Princeton University, and later governor of New Jersey and 

President of the United States. Victor S. Clark, the League's fifth 

vice-president, was an economist and investigator of labor condi- 

tions for the federal government and the author of many books on 

labor and economic problems. He and Isaac Hourwich, who was 

statistician at the federal Census Bureau and the author of 

Immigration and Labor, served as the League's advisors.37 

The religious leadership of America was represented in the 

League by prominent ministers, such as Rev. Henry C. Potter, the 

Episcopalian bishop of New York; Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, a 

Presbyterian minister and member of the national committee of 

the FRF; Rev. Percy Stinkney Grant, rector of the Church of the 

Ascension of New York and member of the national committee of 

the FRF; Rev. Thomas R. Slicer, a Methodist; and Rev. David James 

Burrell, author of many books on religion.?' 

The politicians represented on the League's committees 

belonged to both the Republican and Democratic parties. 

Congressman Joseph G. Cannon, Speaker of the House of 

Representatives during the Roosevelt administration, was one of 

the first members of the League and served as its president for a 

short time during 1906 and from 1914 on. William S. Bennet, 

another Republican congressman, was on the League's Advisory 

Committee and served as its vice-president from 1914. The 

League's general committee included two Democratic governors, 

William Sulzer of New York, a former congressman, and Judson 

Harmon of Ohio. It also included George Gordon Battle, a former 

associate district attorney of New York County, and General 

Benjamin F. Tracy, Secretary of the Navy, and later a judge of the 

New York Court of Appeals.39 

Of the seven standing committees appointed by the League, the 

only active ones were the advisory and education committees. It 

seems, however, that even these committees did not meet regular- 

ly, if at all, but the managing director conducted their business by 

regularly corresponding with members, keeping them informed 

and consulting them before making decisions, as the Behar-Eliot 

and Behar-Levy correspondence shows. 

Since the League did not have a permanent agent in


Washington, it kept in close contact with several congressmen who 

acted as informal agents, thus keeping abreast of what was going 

on in the capital in regard to immigration restriction. Congressmen 

Bennet, who was a member of the Immigration Commission from 

1907 to 1910, reported on the Commission's work and also regu- 

larly reported on developments in the House of Representatives 

during his terms of office there in the years 1906-1911 and 

1915-1917. Congressman James Curley of Massachusetts, served 

as the League's unofficial agent between 1911 and 1914. The 

League was also in contact with many senators and representa- 

tives who defended the cause of free immigration.@ 

Although in terms of officials and committee members the 

League was nonpartisan and nonsectarian in nature, the organiza- 

tion was directed by its Jewish members. As we have seen, the 

main motivation behind the founding of the League was to secure 

an "open door" for Jews from eastern Europe. Taking into consid- 

eration the growing anti-Semitic feeling in the United States, 

resulting from the large influx of Jews fleeing from oppression, 

Jewish leaders were anxious to divert public attention from focus- 

ing only on Jewish immigration in order to prevent the identifica- 

tion of immigration as a "Jewish issue." Thus, the League's policy 

was to conduct the campaign against restriction as an "American 

issue," emphasizing primarily the economic arguments against 

restriction, and relegating the humanitarian aspect of immigration 

to the background. In short, the League wished to prove its thesis 

that America needed the immigrant as much as the immigrant 

needed A~nerica.~' 

At the same time, the League wished to be recognized as an 

organization of "those without selfish interests at stake, those with 

altruistic motives." It presented itself to the American public as 

representing America's traditionally Liberal immigration policy 

combining the economic needs of the country with its humanitar- 

ian and democratic attitude toward immigrants. The League 

described its supporters as "those whose hearts have been touched 

by the appeal of their distressed brothers across the sea . . . those 

who want the immigrant for the good of this country with those 

who want him for their own good and those who want him for 

humanity's go0d."4~


League Activities 

The National Liberal Immigration League gave high priority to the 

publication and distribution of literature against immigration 

restriction. It published extracts from speeches by members of 

Congress against immigration laws, pamphlets containing the 

views of prominent persons against restriction, and anti-restriction 

pieces from the daily press. From time to time the League also pub- 

lished articles on economic and other issues connected with immi- 

gration. In their publications, statements, and addresses before dif- 

ferent organizations, League members analyzed the economic sit- 

uation in the United States and the role played by immigrant labor 

in the country's development and economic growth. The League 

argued that America still had millions of acres of unimproved 

land, on the one hand, and a scarcity of labor in agriculture and 

industry, on the other.43 

Moreover, the League claimed that all the measures suggested 

for restricting immigration-the requirement that aliens possess a 

large sum of money; a high head tax; physical tests equivalent to 

those required for army recruits; a literacy test; a certificate of good 

moral character; and exclusion of aliens unable to pay for their 

transportation-were designed to stop immigration altogether, of 

both skilled and unskilled immigrants. Since, however, the litera- 

cy test seemed to have the greatest support in Congress, the 

League focused its efforts on this measure. The League's econom- 

ic experts offered data proving that a literacy test would deprive 

the country of its chief source of much-needed labor and result in 

a shortage of unskilled workers to the detriment of economic 

growth. It would "keep out of this country those you most need, 

able-bodied men who are anxious to plow and hoe, willing to use 

the pick and shovel, the very work which the native American has 

grown too prosperous or too ambitious to do."44 

The League criticized the labor movement for its anti-immigrant 

policy, contending that "the objection to the immigrant is based on 

the false premise that the coming of the immigrant, by increasing 

the supply of labor, decreases the wages of labor." The League pre- 

sented data proving that wages were going up despite increased


immigration, that native-born American and "Old" immigrant 

workers from western and northern Europe were being "shoved 

upward," as the result of immigration, and that "without abun- 

dance of labor, enterprise and development are impossible." It 

claimed, therefore, that the problem was not restriction of immi- 

gration but the need to "look after the welfare of those who 

The League pointed to the Contract Labor Law, introduced 

before Congress by labor unions, as "the greatest obstacle to get- 

ting the needed labor into this country." It therefore suggested 

amending Section 4 of this law to read as follows: "That it shall be 

a misdemeanor for any person, company or corporation, in any 

manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation or in any way to 

assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any contract 

laborer or laborers into the United States, unless a copy of the con- 

tract between the employer and such laborer or laborers, in the 

language of the said laborers, is given them and duplicates filed 

with the Commissioner of Immigration or his representative at the 

port of entry; provided that said contract is not, in the judgement 

of the Commissioner or his representative, at a rate of wages lower 

than the current wages in the section to which the laborer is des- 

tk1ed."4~ 

The demand that contract labor enter the country only on con- 

dition that the rate of wages was not lower than the standard in the 

United States was designed to answer organized labor's argument 

regarding the competition posed by cheap foreign workers. The 

League's leaders believed that the amended law would secure bet- 

ter, not cheaper workers, and that when there was no demand for 

them they would simply go back home.47 

The League considered the creation of a mass movement against 

immigration restriction to be crucial to its success in combating the 

organizations active in the campaign for restriction, especially the 

AFL. The immigrant community of America was the natural target 

of the League's efforts to organize such a mass movement. 

The first object of the League's campaign was, as a matter of 

course, the Jewish community. It sought to organize branches in 

Jewish centers throughout the country, using the Jewish press and


the League's own agents to spread the news of the founding of the 

organization and explain its aims and tactics. As a newcomer 

unacquainted with the American way of doing things, Behar 

enlisted the help of Louis E. Levy of Philadelphia as his adviser, 

using his services to make personal contact with immigrant lead- 

ers and businessmen and to draft circulars and appeals.4' 

In 1906-1907, the League formulated the pattern of its activities 

in the Jewish community. These models were later applied to the 

immigrant community at large, and were followed until 1915. The 

Jewish papers received "Appeals to the Jewish Press," "Letters to 

the Editors," and circulars from the League's president and man- 

aging director in which they explained their aims, advising Jewish 

readers to urge their local organizations to rally mass meetings 

against restriction and invite all immigrant groups to participate, 

adopt resolutions against restriction, send letters to senators and 

congressmen, and nominate delegates to go to Washington to 

protest before the President and the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives against pending laws to restrict immigration. 

Individuals were urged to support the cause by sending letters and 

petitions to their congressional representatives. The League print- 

ed in the Jewish press the form to be used in preparing petitions. 

Jewish organizations were urged to initiate campaigns on the city 

and state level to generate public opinion against restriction, and 

to call upon mayors, councilmen, and state legislators to endorse 

the policy of an "open door." In December 1906 the League issued 

"An Appeal to American Citizens" against further restrictions, 

signed by mayors, clergymen, immigrant leaders, and Jane 

Addams, a prominent Liberal Progressive and a friend of lab0r.~9 

The League planned to form its branches within the nationwide 

network of existing Jewish organizations, later inviting organiza- 

tions of other nationalities to join, thus establishing its nonsectari- 

an character. The AIU societies of New York and Boston were the 

first to become branches of the NLIL. The League sent agents to 

centers of Jewish population, such as Boston (Louis Gordon), 

Philadelphia (M. S. Margolis and later B. A. Sekely), Pittsburgh, 

and Galveston. These were Yiddish-speaking agents recommend- 

ed by Levy, who made "strenuous efforts to reach every Jewish


organization and have them learn what is meant by the two pend- 

ing [immigration] bills." Levy and Behar planned the "formation 

of a local Jewish Federation and branch of the League" in 

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Behar wrote in March 1907 to Dr. M. 

Spitz, editor of the Jezuish Voice of St. Louis, as well as to other edi- 

tors, asking that they "send him names for whom we could apply 

to help in the formation of the branch." 

In September 1907, Behar was informed by the League's agent 

in Galveston that a branch was about to be organized by a Mr. 

Cohen, with the aim of including "Jews, Protestants and non-reli- 

gious sects." Lauterbach also wrote to Jewish leaders throughout 

the country suggesting the organization of other branches. In 

December 1906, he was informed by E. M. Baker, secretary of the 

Cleveland Federation of Jewish Charities, that he planned "to call 

together in a conference representative citizens of the various 

denominations and nationalities and with them organize a Liberal 

Immigration League." In January 1907, the Jewish organizations of 

Worcester, Massachusetts, established the Worcester branch of the 

League together with immigrant organizations representing all the 

other nationalities in town. Gradually, branches were formed in 

Philadelphia, San Francisco, and other immigrant centers. They 

were meant to be self-supporting and autonomous, maintaining 

contact with League headquarters in New York for their instruc- 

tion~.~~ 

The Jewish press cooperated willingly with the League. Jacob de 

Haas, editor of the Boston Advocate and one of the leaders of the 

Jewish community of Boston, committed his newspaper, as did 

other editors, to "making an effort weekly to interest the people to 

become more conversant with what is at present going on about 

them," asking all his readers "to take immediate action in this mat- 

ter by writing to their congressman and asking him to spare no 

efforts to prevent the [immigration] bills from becoming law. 

WRITE TODAY FOR TOMORROW MAY BE TOO LATE." The edi- 

tors published the League's letters, circulars, and other literature, 

urged the Jews to organize branches, and recommended that their 

readers contribute money to meet the League's expense^.^' 

The Germans were the second group approached by the League.


Lauterbach took advantage of his connections with German leaders 

in New York City, and in 1908 the first German branch of the League 

was formed there. Gustav Scholer represented the branch on the 

League's general committee. Gradually, branches were established 

in other centers of German population. These were actually branch- 

es of the National German American Alliance (NGAA), the national 

organization of German societies in the United States. Cooperation 

between the NGAA and the NLIL was made possible by the rela- 

tionship between Levy of Philadelphia and J. Hexamer, president of 

the NGAA, and was very fitful. The NGAA declared at its annu- 

al convention, held in October 1907, that "It opposes any and every 

restriction of immigration of healthy persons from Europe, exclusive 

of convicted criminals and anarchists." 

During the years 1907-1915, NGAA and its branches through- 

out the country held protest meeting against immigration restric- 

tion, sent petitions to the President, the Speaker, and local con- 

gressmen and senators, and participated in hearings before con- 

gressional committees and presidential hearings on immigration. 

The St. Louis branch was one of the most active. Missouri, an area 

that was one of the largest centers of German population, wanted 

immigrants to settle and develop the state, and the Missouri 

Immigration Society associated itself with the League for this pur- 

pose. Thus, the congressmen and senators from Missouri, 

Representative Richard Bartholdt, one of the leaders of the NGAA, 

and Senators William J. Stone and James A. Reed, cooperated with 

the League, and were at times instrumental in resisting restriction 

bills. Through the NGAA, the League received contributions from 

German-American agents of German steamship companies, such 

as the Hamburg-American Line, as well as from other German- 

American businessmen. These corporations had an interest in the 

continuation of unchecked immigration from Europe, but being 

immigrants or sons of immigrants themselves, they were, at the 

same time, motivated by a sense of solidarity with the plight of 

immigrants in general. The League also formed close relations 

with the leaders of the New Immigrants Protective League, and 

one of its vice-presidents, Judge Herman C. Kudich, was a mem- 

ber of the NLIL's general committee.5'


The League also became closely connected with New York 

City's Irish and Italian leaders, as revealed by the names of its 

committee members. Compared to the Jews and the Germans, 

however, the Irish were much less active in organizing a central- 

ized effort against restriction through their national organizations. 

Neither were the Italians very effective on the national level. 

Nevertheless, New York's Italian societies and the Italo-American 

Alliance of the United States sent petitions and delegates to the 

President and Congress and participated in hearings before con- 

gressional committees and in presidential hearings on immigra- 

tion under the League's auspices.53 

In 1910, the League enlisted the support and cooperation of the 

American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers 

(AAFLN), established in 1908, with its president, Louis N. 

Hammerling, joining the League and becoming a member of the 

advisory committee and later of the general committee. As the 

major channel of information and interpretation of American life 

for immigrants, the foreign-language newspapers were of utmost 

importance in spreading word of the League and its aims, and in 

recruiting immigrant organizations of all nationalities for the cam- 

paign against restriction. The American Leader, the organ of the 

AAFLN, became an aggressive advocate of an "open door" policy, 

and the Association sent petitions and letters to the President and 

the Speaker and participated in hearings before congressional 

committees and presidential hearings on immigrati~n.~~ 

Due to its cooperation with the AAFLN headquarters in New 

York, the League was able to establish direct communication with 

editors of the non-Jewish foreign press, who were in most cases 

also leaders of their immigrant communities. The League prepared 

appeals and other literature in foreign languages to be printed in 

the foreign press and distributed by foreign-language-speaking 

agents among their countrymen. Levy was instrumental in enlist- 

ing the services of these agents. 

The editors were thus instrumental in creating awareness 

among the foreign population of the issue of immigration restric- 

tion and in mobilizing its participation in mass meetings. They 

also helped in uniting immigrant organizations in every immi-


grant center for concerted action against immigration restriction. 

Such cooperation between editors and the League is revealed in 

the correspondence between Behar and Giovanni M. Di Silvestro, 

editor of La Voce del Popolo of Philadelphia and one of the leaders 

of the Order of Sons of Italy on the adoption of resolutions in favor 

of the League and its liberal immigration policy at the Italian 

Convention of 1911, and with James V. Donnaruma, editor of the 

Gazzetta del Massachusetts, who received a letter of thanks from 

Behar on January 14, 1913, for his cooperation "in behalf of our 

cause," with the expressed hope that he would "continue it and 

have petitions circulated amongst, and signed by the largest pos- 

sible numbers of citizens of all races and origins." From time to 

time the League also held meetings with editors of the foreign-lan- 

guage newspapers in immigrant centers, as part of its efforts to 

mobilize immigrants of all nationalities, along with their leaders. 

Such meetings were held in March 10, 1908 in Philadelphia, 

attended by representatives of immigrant organizations, and in 

Chicago in November 1913.55 

In short, the League was successful in mobilizing the immigrant 

population, especially Jews, Germans, and Italians, for the cam- 

paign against restriction. Under its auspices, immigrant organiza- 

tions created local branches in centers of immigrant population. 

Thus the League's structure gradually emerged. It was neither a 

centralized organization exercising control over its branches or 

affiliated organizations, nor a democratic association of affiliated 

societies. Rather it was a loose framework of independent organi- 

zations united upon short notice from the headquarters in New 

York for the purpose of ad-hoc cooperation on the city level. 

Contact between the League's headquarters and its so-called 

branches was maintained through regular correspondence 

between Behar or his secretaries and the presidents of the affiliat- 

ed organizations or the branches. In this manner, the League kept 

its members informed as to what was going on in Washington and 

sent them its instructions. 

Campaign Against the Immigration Bill 

Between 1906 and 1915, the National Liberal Immigration League


initiated three nationwide waves of protest, from April 1906 to 

February 1907, January 1911 to February 1913, and April 1913 to 

February 19x5. The pattern of the League's protest movement was 

formulated during the first wave of 1906-1907, and improved dur- 

ing the second campaign, when it reached the peak of its success. 

Nevertheless, after 1912 the League was confronted with a serious 

crisis related to its policies as well as financial difficulties and the 

bankruptcy of its president's business, which greatly reduced its 

effectiveness. While in 1913-1914 the protest movement was spon- 

sored simultaneously by both the League and the AJC, by the 

1914-1915 campaign the League's role was greatly reduced. From 

then on, although it continued to exist, its role was insignificant. 

The purpose of the first wave of protest movements was to 

defeat the 1906 immigration bill, which included, among other 

restrictive provisions, a literacy test. The League demanded that a 

federal commission be established to investigate all aspects of the 

immigration problem. "Our motto is," Behar wrote Levy, to "side 

track the bill, and postpone all action till the investigation com- 

mission has reported, at any rate till the next season." The League 

planned to use the period of the investigation to influence public 

opinion and establish a consensus against re~triction.5~ 

As already stated, the 1906-1907 protest movement began with 

mass meetings in Boston and New York in June 1906, and was 

taken up in other cities. The speakers at these meetings were rep- 

resentatives of immigrant organizations, politicians of both par- 

ties, religious leaders, and occasionally businessmen, Liberal 

Progressives, and leaders of immigrant trade unions. The meetings 

typically adopted resolutions against restriction, designated dele- 

gations to go to Washington to protest before Congress and the 

President, and called the members of the organizations represent- 

ed to send petitions to their c~ngressmen.~~ 

The 1906-1907 campaign against immigration restriction was 

fruitful from the League's point of view, since it achieved its major 

objective. In February 1907 Congress formed an Immigration 

Commission to investigate all aspects of the immigration problem, 

postponing consideration of the Literacy test for the time being. In 

a letter to the League sent on February 19, 1907, Congressman


Bennet congratulated the League for its role in defeating some of 

the restrictions included in the 1906 immigration bill, and urged its 

leaders to continue the campaign against restriction. "I cannot 

speak too highly of the work of your League during this Congress, 

without which it is quite certain there would have been an educa- 

tional test on the Statute books to-day, thus excluding yearly about 

200,000 deserving immigrant~."5~ 

The Jewish press and Jewish 

leaders shared this view. Isidor Phillips, a Jewish leader from 

Boston, wrote Behar on March 29, 1907: "I have great pleasure in 

commending the work and progress achieved by the National 

Liberal Immigration League, in which you are such an ardent 

worker, and its success thus far, on behalf of free immigration."59 

In December 1910, the Immigration Commission published its 

preliminary report. The evidence upon which the Commission had 

based its conclusions and the recommendations contained in it 

were not included in the report. The Commission's thesis was that 

immigration restriction was an economic necessity required to 

protect the welfare of the American working class, and recom- 

mended a literacy test as the best method for implementing a 

reduction in the volume of unskilled labor. Restrictionists 

responded immediately by introducing new immigration bills, the 

Burnett bill in the House and the Dillingham bill in the Senate. 

Both were based upon the economic thesis of the Commission and 

provided for a literacy test." 

The League decided that the best tactics would be to postpone 

legislation until the Commission's data had been thoroughly 

examined by Congress and the public. "We take the liberty to sug- 

gest that before acting upon the recommendations of the 

Commission, members of Congress insist that the people of the 

Republic have ample time and opportunity to examine for them- 

selves the reports obtained by the Commission, its conclusions 

based thereon, and to judge for themselves whether the specific 

restrictive recommendations made by the Commission were justi- 

fied in fact. The problem . . . needs for its solution full knowledge 

of the facts, adequate public discussion and clearly expressed pub- 

lic ~pinion."~' 

At the same time, the League started a propaganda campaign to


prove to Congress and the public that, contrary to the 

Commission's thesis, immigration was still an economic blessing, 

that immigrant labor did not endanger the welfare of the working 

class, and that a literacy test was an un-American measure in the 

sense that its aim was to "discriminate arbitrarily against . . . any 

healthy and honest immigrant who may seek to land," and was 

thus inconsistent with the country's traditions. The League sug- 

gested that instead educational qualifications be introduced as a 

prerequisite to citizenship. Although the League also objected to 

the other restrictive measures included in the bills, such as the 

Root amendment, which it considered to run counter to the right 

of asylum, it emphasized that the literacy test was contrary to the 

country's economic need^.^' 

Immediately after the publication of the preliminary report of 

the Immigration Commission, the League remobilized its forces 

for a second wave of protest. It issued letters to the editors of the 

foreign-language press, asking them to explain to their readers 

"what an educational test really would mean," both to immigrants 

and to the welfare of the country. They were informed that the 

League was "organizing a mass meeting to be held at Cooper 

Union on February 6, 1911," and were asked "to impress upon 

their readers the necessity of organizing similar meetings of 

protest and to make the success of such meetings their own cause." 

The readers should be urged, the League stated, to send delega- 

tions to Congress, and express the demand against a literacy test to 

their senators and representative^.^? 

In its efforts to prove that the its policy was not anti-labor, the 

League wished to enlist the support of the Liberal Progressives, 

known as friends of labor. Thus, the League invited Seth Low, for- 

mer mayor of New York, and Jane Addams and Lillian D. Wald, 

both of whom were leaders of the settlement movement known for 

their sympathy to immigrants and unions, to address the meeting. 

It is unclear whether these individuals agreed. However, Prof. 

Charles W. Eliot, one of the League's most prominent members, 

accepted the invitation to address the meeting and also publicly 

expressed his views on immigration restriction in an open letter to 

the League's president, on January 10, 1911. The letter was pub-


lished in both the English and foreign-language press, as well as 

the Congressional Record. The League distributed 130,000 copies of 

this letter "to all members of the Junior Order [of United American 

Mechanics], to Colleges and Universities, all papers and maga- 

zines, and to public libraries." Eliot's letter was meant to "con- 

vince many disinterested and patriotic Americans that no further 

restrictions on immigration are desirable." Eliot presented seven 

points in support of his view against further restriction, the main 

ones being the scarcity of labor, the growth in the immigration, and 

the traditional policy of religious toleration and of America as the 

asylum for the world's afflicted. As part of the same effort, the 

League published the correspondence between Rev. Parkhurst, a 

liberal minister and a member of the League's education commit- 

tee, and President Lauterbach on the "Effects of Present-Day 

Immigration." In 1912 the League also published The Educational 

Test, a pamphlet containing the views of Charles Nagel, the 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, 

Harry Pratt Judson, president of the University of Chicago, 

President Cleveland, and several congressmen all speaking out 

against the literacy test. The main thesis of the pamphlet was that 

the literacy test would "tend to exclude worthy but uneducated 

immigrants who are willing to work, and of whom we stand in 

need." The literacy test was recommended as a prerequisite to 

"suffrage, not to admission to the country.'"j4 

In its efforts to persuade the public that immigration was an eco- 

nomic blessing to America, and at the same time to enlist the finan- 

cial and public support of the business sector for its activities, the 

League sent speakers to address chambers of commerce and man- 

ufacturers' associations. To advance this effort, the League pub- 

lished the views of Andrew Carnegie, and F. Y. Anderson of 

Birmingham, Alabama, both League members representing the 

interests of industry and the South in immigration. Another project 

was the publication of the address delivered by B. A. Sekely, the 

League's economic expert, on June I, 1912, before the Pittsburgh 

Chamber of Commerce, on "Immigrant Labor and the Restriction 

of Immigration." The League also issued thousands of circulars 

explaining its views regarding the conclusions and recommenda-

The Naf ional Liberal Immigraf ion League 227 

tions of the Immigration Commission, sending them to the 

President, all members of Congress, the press, and its own members 

and affiliated 0rganizations.~5 

When the League discovered, by the end of January 1911, that "the 

question of immigration will not come up before the present session," 

it decided to postpone the mass meetings. However, it urged 

its supporters and affiliated organizations "not to cease in the meantime 

their agitation on behalf of liberal immigration, on account of 

the recommendations of the Immigration Commission, and of the 

AFL, as well as the ceaseless activity of the restrictionist^."^^ 

Contrary to the League's expectations, during the years 

1911-1913, the protest movement throughout the country did not 

always follow the pattern of activity it recommended. Rather, the 

immigrant organizations adopted the German model of the 

NGAA. Instead of sending petitions on a nonsectarian basis, on 

the city or state level, through the League's branches, petitions 

were sent to Congress by national ethnic, fraternal, and religious 

0rganizations.~7 Even the AAFLN, whose president was on the 

League's advisory and general committees, formed its own 

Liberty Immigration Society, notwithstanding its cooperation with 

the League.68The Philadelphia immigrant community was the only 

organization that continued to act along the lines developed by the 

Leag~e.~9 

Furthermore, contrary to its record in the past, the Boston immigrant 

community was slow in organizing its protest movement. 

This was due in part to the growing influence of the Massachusetts 

restrictionists led by the IRL and the local Federation of Labor, and 

in part to the confusion among Jewish leaders created by the growing 

rivalry between the NLIL and the AJC in their struggle to win 

leadership of the anti-restriction movement within the Jewish 

community. The Jewish leaders dealt with the "internal" situation 

by forming, on December 15, 1912, the Boston Immigration 

Committee, later the New England Immigration Committee, 

which committed itself "to work in unison with the American 

Jewish Committee and the Liberal Immigration League." The new 

body, which was composed of the same leaders who had previously 

belonged to the local branch of the NLIL, appointed a sub-


committee to distribute petitions and organize mass meetings 

throughout New England. The Committee published petition 

forms in the Boston Advocate, calling on Jews to sign them; and on 

December 17, 1912, a delegation of Jewish leaders presented the 

petition to Congressman Curley of Massachusetts in Washington.7" 

Despite the intensive propaganda and lobbying in Congress, 

and the numerous petitions sent to members of Congress by immi- 

grant organizations, the Dillingham bill was passed by the Senate 

in April 1912. The League now decided to concentrate its efforts on 

organizing mass meetings throughout the country in order to 

influence the House to kill the Burnett bill. 

The Burnett Bill 

In 1912, the National Liberal Immigration League organized sev- 

eral mass meetings along the same lines as those in 1906-1907. 

During that year, the House Committee on Immigration held hear- 

ings on the pending immigration bill. Representatives of the AJC 

and their affiliated organizations, the AAFLN, and congressmen 

representing districts with large immigrant populations, were the 

first to appear before the committee. The NLIL and representatives 

of its affiliated organizations appeared before the committee in 

May 1912. These representatives were nominated by the mass 

meetings sponsored by the NLIL and held at the beginning of May 

in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, and other 

cities. The League's delegation, which was the largest, was headed 

by Behar, and represented Jews, Germans, Italians, and Poles.71 

The League was also engaged in efforts to win over the dele- 

gates of the three parties to the national conventions to be held in 

summer 1912, before the presidential elections. It issued circulars 

to its members and affiliated organizations, urging them to use 

what influence they might have to convince the parties to include 

a statement against immigration restriction in their platforms. John 

E. O'Brien, one of the League's secretaries, sent letters to members 

of Congress and delegates asking them to include a plank against 

restriction in their party's platform. Notwithstanding President 

Taft's veto, the Republican Party adopted a plank favoring restric-


tion, while the newly formed Progressive Party avoided any men- 

tion of the issue, dealing in its plank on immigration with the 

problems confronted by immigrants after their arrival in the coun- 

try, and the ways to help them to become integrated into American 

society. Unlike his own party, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic 

presidential candidate and a member of the NLIL from its incep- 

tion, endorsed the idea of free immigration in his speeches. The 

League's failure to get support for its cause was the outgrowth of 

the changed attitude toward restriction, which now crossed party 

lines.7' 

On January 6, 1913, after the Burnett bill was passed, President 

Lauterbach issued a circular to League members and affiliated 

organizations, asking them "to help the cause by obtaining for the 

two enclosed forms of Appeals, the largest number of signatures, 

and forwarding them to the designated quarters." These Appeals 

were similar to the "Appeal to American Citizens" published by 

the League in December 1906, bearing the signatures of mayors, 

clergymen, immigrant leaders, and Jane Addams.73 

The League was also engaged in an effort, which proved to be 

successful, to persuade President Taft to hold a hearing at the 

White House and to veto the bill. The hearing was held on 

February 6,1913 with about two hundred delegates from various 

parts of the country representing the fraternal, social, and civic 

organizations interested in immigration, "most of them being rep- 

resentatives of the NLIL." The delegates sent by organizations 

affiliated with the League held a conference in Congressman 

Curley's office to discuss the procedures at the hearing. 

Congressman Curley, who was in charge of the League's work in 

Washington, also took charge of the hearing on behalf of all those 

opposed to the bill. The League's contingent consisted of delega- 

tions from New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, 

Jersey City, and Pittsburgh, and included representatives of all 

immigrant groups. It presented to the President "petitions from 

every State in the Union, and bearing all more than 400,000 

names." After hearing both the opponents and advocates of the 

Dillingham-Burnett bills, President Taft decided to use his veto. 

The campaign, however, was not yet over, since Congress could


still pass the bills over the President's veto. The League sent letters 

to members of Congress, urging them to use their "vote and influ- 

ence against the passing of the Dillingham-Burnett immigration 

bills over the President's veto," and reminding them that "the 

press of this city [New York] have almost unanimously approved 

the action of the President . . . and . . . in this respect the newspa- 

pers represent the overwhelming sentiment of the public."74 

The President's veto was eventually sustained and the League 

celebrated the event. Together with the New ~n~land Immigration 

Committee it held a dinner at the Boston City Club on March 15, 

1913 in honor of Congressman James M. Curley with two hundred 

guests attending. Manuel Behar, the son of the League's founder, 

presented Curley with a large silver cup from the NLIL, bearing the 

inscription: "Distribution and Education Rather than Restriction." 

The guest list, including immigrant leaders from all over the country, 

reflected the League's influence in the immigrant community.75 

The best evidence of the important role played by the League in 

the struggle against restriction was given by the President when he 

sent to the League the pen with which he had written and signed 

his message to the Senate on returning without approval Senate 

Bill No. 3175.~~ 

The League's Decline 

The 1911-1913 campaign against restriction was the last one in 

which the National Liberal Immigration League played a domi- 

nant role. Indeed, the peak of its success coincided with the begin- 

ning of its decline. The League conducted its third protest move- 

ment between April 1913 and February 1915, along the same lines 

it had operated in the past. Although it protested against all the 

restrictive measures included in the immigration bills, it still 

placed the greatest emphasis on the economic effects of these mea- 

sures on American economic growth. In "An Appeal to American 

Citizens," issued on April 15, 1914, by Cannon, the League's new 

president, it was argued that the bills "would close our doors to 

many thousands of healthy, honest, simple, law-abiding immi- 

grants, such as helped to build up our country. . . . This country 

needs immigration for its upbuilding."n


This line of propaganda, however, was an anachronism. The 

Immigration Commission's interpretation of the economic situa- 

tion was widely accepted by the public, academic circles, and 

politicians of all parties. Thus, the League's insistence on its oppos- 

ing economic views lent support to the restrictionists' accusation 

that the League represented business interests. Furthermore, the 

circumstances that had facilitated its success in the past had now 

changed. The war that had broken out in Europe in August 19x4 

diverted at least some of the attention of immigrant organizations 

to the situation of their homelands. This was especially true of the 

Germans, whose weight as a pressure group had been crucial up 

to now. Other immigrant organizations gradually became more 

and more preoccupied with organizing relief for their people in the 

war zone. Furthermore, one of the outcomes of the war was the 

blossoming of national feeling among the different immigrant 

groups in the United States. As a result, immigrant organizations 

became deeply involved in the struggle for independence of the 

national movements in their homelands, lobbying in Washington 

for this goal as well. And last but not least, the anti-immigrant feel- 

ings, and the wave of chauvinism that swept America in the wake 

of war, did not encourage immigrants to hold mass meetings. 

Above all, politicians and Liberal Progressives, as well as the AJC 

and other immigrant organizations, now avoided any identifica- 

tion with the League, which was continuously being accused of 

representing business corporations and steamship lines, especially 

after 19x5. 

Furthermore, the protest movement became disunited. The dif- 

ferent organizations, such as the AAFLN, the Polish National 

Alliance (PNA), the Polish Roman Catholic Union (PRCU), the 

Jewish and other Slavic fraternal organizations, sent thousands of 

petitions to Congress members during 19x3-1915.7~ Nevertheless, 

while restrictionists worked in unison in Washington, the oppo- 

nents of restriction conducted their lobbying separately, with occa- 

sional internecine tensions. This was especially true of the AJC and 

the League, because of personal friction between the leaders of the 

two organizations and the struggle for leadership in the Jewish 

community, on the one hand, and differences on essential issues,


on the other. Where the League gave precedence to economic argu- 

ments against restriction, the AJC considered this inconsistent with 

Jewish interests and stressed the right of asylum and humanitari- 

anism. 

The League also suffered from internal problems that weakened 

its position, especially the 1914 resignation of Edward Lauterbach 

from the office of president after the collapse of his personal busi- 

ness, and the growing financial deficit resulting from the reduction 

in membership and contributions from businessmen, as a result of 

the reasons mentioned above and the changing attitude of the 

business community toward restriction.79 

Although President Taft vetoed the immigration bill of 

1912-1913, the League and the other opponents of immigration 

restriction were seriously concerned when the Senate passed the 

bill over the President's veto, and the House sustained the veto by 

a very narrow margin. The restrictionists, on the other hand, 

gained confidence in their chances, and started a vigorous propa- 

ganda campaign, at the same stepping up their pressure on 

Congress. They now introduced new arguments into the contro- 

versy, claiming that the circumstances underlying immigration 

policy had drastically changed. This new line of attack was advo- 

cated in Dr. F. J. Wame's book, The Immigrant Invasion. The restric- 

tionist lobby renewed its campaign immediately after the 

President's veto was sustained by the House. On April 17, 1913, 

Senator Augustus P. Gardner introduced a bill identical to the 

Dillingham bill vetoed by President Taft, and representative 

Burnett did the same in the House on June 13,1913. Restrictionists 

actually introduced eight new restrictive bill^.^" 

The League's chances of garnering enough votes against restric- 

tion in Congress were not promising. Nevertheless, it resumed its 

lobbying in Washington and published circulars and other litera- 

ture maintaining the fallacy of restriction. On September 15,1913, 

the League issued "An Earnest Appeal to the Friends of 

Immigration," stating that "as soon as the regular session of 

Congress opens, there will be started the greatest fight on immi- 

gration that this country has ever seen." Its supporters were urged 

to enlist their friends to form new local branches, and to organize


mass meetings to defeat the bills.*' Professor Eliot was asked to 

publish a statement to counteract Warne's arguments, which he 

did in February 1914. In this statement, which was incorporated 

into the minority report of the House, Eliot argued that he saw no 

reason to change his statement of January 10, 1911, "in regard to 

either fact or theory." The same scarcity of labor still persisted, 

"and will persist for many years to come, because of the sparseness 

of our population and the enormous unused resources of the coun- 

try which require for their development new capital and addition- 

al labor." Furthermore, Eliot stated that he had not seen "a single 

argument for further restriction of immigration . . . which does not 

violate the plainest principles of sound American industrial devel- 

opment, and also propose to abandon . . . the noble policy of the 

United States which has made this country the refuge of the 

oppressed."" On April 15, 1914, the League again issued "An 

Appeal to American Citizens," signed by its president, Cannon.'3 

The response to the League's call for new members and new 

local branches was weak. The League was able to hold only two 

mass meetings, in Roxbury and Boston, with Jewish, Italian, 

German, and Irish organizations from New York, Philadelphia, 

and Boston participating. Congressman Curley and Lieutenant 

Governor Barry were the only politicians among the speakers. No 

Liberal Progressives participated. Dr. S. J. S. Drobinsky of New 

York represented the Jewish labor movement.84 The Philadelphia 

immigrant community also joined the protest. On March 3, 1914, 

the presidents and ex-presidents of the United Societies of 

Philadelphia held a meeting and adopted resolutions to be sent to 

the Vice-President and the Senate. Levy of the NLIL was among 

the sponsors of this event.85 

The League's cause was greatly weakened by the war in Europe. 

The war introduced a new argument into the controversy on immi- 

gration restriction. The advocates of restriction held that "as soon 

as peace is declared . . . there will be an increased immigration to 

this country." The opponents of restriction rejected this claim, stat- 

ing that eventually "equal rights, as a consequence of peace would 

be accorded to every man in Europe, and instead of an increased 

immigration, there would be an increased immigration from the


United States to the respective countries." Nevertheless, by the 

end of 1914, there seemed to be no chance that the public or 

Congress would adopt the latter view.86 

The League responded to this controversy by publishing, in 

December 1914, pamphlet no. 52, entitled The Fear of Post-War 

Immigration. At the same time, it tried in vain to bring public opin- 

ion around to the humanitarian aspect of the situation, namely, 

American's responsibility toward war refugees. In a petition dated 

December 16, 1914, sent to all senators and representatives, the 

League asked them to "temporarily suspend the collection of a 

head tax from refugees."'7 

After Congress passed the immigration bill, the only chance of 

still preventing the enactment of the immigration law lay with 

President Wilson. On January 22,1915, the President held a hear- 

ing, at which the League was represented by its president and 

vice-president, Cannon and Bennet. Unlike the hearing before 

President Taft, this time the League did not head a united delega- 

tion of immigrant organization^.^ 

The decline of the League was also apparent from the fact that 

the mass meetings held in New York, Boston, Baltimore, and 

Providence against restriction were not organized by the League, 

but by Leon Sanders, president of the Hebrew Sheltering 

Immigration Aid Society and chairman of the New York Non- 

Partisan Citizenship Committee. While the former was a Jewish 

organization, the latter was composed of Jewish, Italian, and 

American-born members. The Jewish contingent included Louis 

D. Brandeis of Boston, Lee K. Frankel, and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise 

of New York, from the new generation of Liberal Progressive lead- 

ers. The Italians were represented by Antonio Stella, also a mem- 

ber of the NLIL, Umberto Colleti, and Alexander Konta. The liber- 

al Protestant ministry was represented by Rev. Percy S. Grant, a 

member of the NLIL, and Rev. John H. Holmes. The Committee 

also included several prominent Liberal Progressives, such as 

Lillian D. Wald, and Paul Kennaday, secretary of the Friends of 

Russian Freedom. Brandeis, Kennaday, Wald, and Wise were 

known as friends of labor, and could not be accused of represent- 

ing the selfish interests of business, a fact that gave the Committee


a great advantage over the NLIL. The mass meeting in New York 

was held on January 25,1915 at Cooper Union. Most of the speak- 

ers characterized the immigration bills as "un-American, inhu- 

man, and bad economics to the country." The meeting adopted res- 

olutions to be sent to the President.Q Another mass meeting was 

organized in New York on January 24, 1915 by the East Side 

Protective Association. The principal speakers were the Irish- 

American leader W. Bourke Cochran, connected with the NLIL, 

the Catholic-American leader Alfred E. Smith, and several Jewish 

members of the New York State Assemb1y.P President Wilson 

vetoed the immigration bill at the end of January 1915. 

The final and most severe blow to the League's prestige was 

inflicted on January 30, 1915, when the American Federationist, the 

AFL's organ, published a collection of documents stolen from the 

League's headquarters. These included lists of industrial, railroad, 

and steamship corporations and their contributions to the 

Leag~e.~' 

Behar maintained the pretense that the League was as influen- 

tial as it had been in the past. In a letter to Louis Marshall, one of 

the leaders of the AJC, he interpreted the attack on the League by 

the AFL as evidence of "the importance of the work done by the 

League." He assured Marshall that the League was doing "a nec- 

essary and useful work."g2 

Nevertheless, the AFL attack on the League was evidence of its 

strength in the past rather than in January 1915. Its present situa- 

tion was implied in Behar's pleading for Marshall's sympathy. "It 

would give me satisfaction to know you appreciate its [the NLIL's] 

efforts, and my associates and myself should feel very proud and 

gratified were we to enjoy your sympathy." Marshall, however, 

was of the opinion that "in fact we [the AJC] have conducted the 

fight against this bill almost single-handed the past two years."93 

Behar's correspondence during 1915 reflected both his frustra- 

tion at the decline of the League's influence and his efforts to con- 

vince his correspondents that the League still had a major role to 

play in the campaign against restriction as "it is the only organiza- 

tion publishing liberal immigration literature . . . and were we 

unable to continue our work in this direction, then the


Immigration Restriction League and other exclusionist organiza- 

tions which send their misleading literature all over the United 

States would have the field to themselves." The League's financial 

situation was described by Behar in a letter to Jacob H. Schiff, 

another leader of the AJC. "It labors," he wrote, "under a great 

deficit, has heavy debts for printing, rent, salaries, supplies, etc." 

In short, by 1915 the League suffered from the loss of its con- 

stituency, from diminishment of its role and prestige, and from 

empty pockets.94 

Indeed, the League's role in the 1916-1917 campaign against 

immigration restriction was insignificant. Its decline was reflected 

in "A General Statement on the League," presented on February 

19,1918 to the Council of Jewish Federations by Dr. Rosenblatt. He 

stated that "the League is a paper organization . . . that the activi- 

ties of Mr. Nissim Behar in behalf of free immigration were of a 

rather suspicious nature. Mr. Behar seems to have been in the 

employ of the steamship companies, in whose interests it was to 

fight for free immigration. The League is used by Mr. Behar and 

his sons as a means for selfish ends."95 

A memorandum prepared by the Bureau of Philanthropic 

Research in February 1918 dealt with the history of the League up 

to that time. The researchers interviewing Nissim Behar claimed 

that he confirmed the accusation that, before 1914, the League 

"was supported by a membership body consisting of manufactur- 

ers, railroad companies and such interests as are directly benefit- 

ted by immigration." The memorandum also stated that "there 

seems to be considerable overlapping in the activities of Mr. Behar 

in his capacities of American representative of the AIU and the 

managing director of the NLIL. . . . The expenses . . . are said to be 

charged entirely to the former organization," and finally con- 

firmed the above statement that the League was "a paper organi- 

ati ion."^^ 

Conclusions 

The National Liberal Immigration League played an important 

role in the campaign against immigration restriction between 1906 

and 1912. This is confirmed by the persistent efforts of the AFL and


the IRL to destroy its credibility. The League failed after 1912 

because of a combination of factors. First, its continued emphasis 

on economic arguments after the publication of the report of the 

Immigration Commission was a serious tactical mistake, consider- 

ing the wide acceptance of the report as a reliable and unbiased 

scientific document. Secondly, in the rivalry between the League 

and the AJC, the latter's victory was determined both by the 

greater prestige of its leaders in the Jewish community and among 

liberal as well as conservative American leaders, and by its more 

convincing policy, namely, emphasis on the right of asylum. The 

best chance of securing an open door for Jews was by separating 

the Jewish problem from the immigrant problem and appealing to 

humanitarianism in the name of the right of asylum. Thirdly, the 

advent of World War I drastically changed the situation in the 

United States, because of the surge of nationalistic feelings on both 

sides, that of the immigrant groups and the American public. The 

immigrant community became preoccupied with the situation in 

Europe and the prospect of the independence of their homelands, 

on the one hand, and with promoting the prestige of their nation- 

al organizations for that matter, on the other, a state of affairs that 

encouraged individual rather than cooperative effort. Fourth, the 

possibility of a postwar invasion by millions of poor immigrants 

convinced most Americans to support restriction so that America 

could solve its own problems first. Keeping all these considera- 

tions in mind, however, the linkage supposedly proved between 

business and the League by the publication of its list of contribu- 

tors dealt the final blow to its pretense of altruism. Liberal 

Progressives were reluctant to cooperate with the League because 

of ;ts image as being anti-labor and pro-business, an image pro- 

moted by the IRL and the AFL a long time before they were able to 

supply the evidence. An analysis of the evidence proves that the 

business community at large never gave the League any formal or 

informal support, and that the financial support given by busi- 

nessmen was sporadic and on an individual basis, and after 1913 

this support became insignificant. It seems fair to assume that 

these businessmen were the private clients of the law firms of 

Lauterbach and Bennet with some connection to Cannon. The col-


lapse of the former's business and the failure of the later to be 

reelected in 1912 put an end to these contributions. Behar, unac- 

quainted as he was with the American scene, was one of the vic- 

tims of the situation. 

Rivka Shpak Lissak is the chair of the history department at Achva CoIIege and 

teaches American history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A native Israeli, 

Dr. Lissak is the author of the highly-regarded Pluralism and Progressives: Hull 

House and the New Immigrants, 1890-1919 (1989).


Notes 

I. Maldwyn A. Jones, American Immigration (Chicago, 1960); Barbara M. Solomon, 

Ancestors and Immigrants: A Changing New England Tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1956); John 

Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 186-1925 (New York, 1971); 

John Higham, Send These To Me (New York, 1975); Oscat Handlin, Race and Nationality in 

American Life (Boston, 1950); Henry B. Leonard, The Open Door: The Protest Against the 

Movement to Restrict Immigration, 1896-1924 (New York, 1980). 

2. Thomas Paine, Common Sense (n.d.); E. E. Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws (New York, 

lgoo), p. 13; Jean de Crevecoeur, Lettersfrom an American Farmer (London, 1782), p. 49. 

3. Robert Emst, "The Asylum of the Opp~ssed," South Atlantic Quarterly 40 (January 

1941): 1-10; E. P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965 

(Philadelphia, 1981), pp. 39c-393, 397-400; Cecil D. Eby, "America as Asylum: A Dual 

Image," American Quarterly 14 (1962): 483-489. 

4. Higham, Strangers in the Land, pp. 9, 19-34; Hans Kohn, American Nationalism: An 

Interpretative Essay (New York, 1957). pp. 139-175; Higham, Send These to Me, pp. 3-4, 20, 

2966. 

5. Higham, Send These to Me, p. 31; Robert A. Devine, American Immigration Policy, 

1924-1952 (New Haven, 1957). p. 1; Hutchinson, Legislative History, p. 522. 

6. Richard Mayo Smith, Emigration and Immigration (New York, 1890); Hutchinson, 

Legislative History, pp. 80, 102, 128-129, 522-532. 

7. Alvin Kogut, "The Settlements and Ethnicity, 189~~1914," Social Work 17 (May 1972): 

29; Smith, Emigration and Immigration, pp. 89,93,284-302. 

8. "Questionnaire on the Attitude towards Restriction of Immigration," 1914, Foreign 

Press Committee, American Jewish Committee Papers (hereafter AJC), Blaustein Archives, 

New York; A. W. Harris to Herman Bemstein, February 18,1914, ibid. 

9. Solomon, Ancestors and Immigrants, pp. 59-152; Higham, Strangers in the Land, pp. 

102-103,106,108,112,15~, 162-163,188; Higham, Send These to Me, pp. 3-66; Handlin, Race 

and Nationality, pp. 74-82. 

lo. Higham, Strangers in the Land, pp. 49-50,55,7172,112,163, 189,305-306,313; A. T. 

Lane, Solidarity or Survival? American Labor and European Immigrants, 183-1924 (New York, 

1987). pp 75-186; Robert D. Parmet, Labor and Immigration in Industrial America (Boston, 

1981), pp. 145-196; Samuel Gompers, "Immigration-Up to Congress," American 

Federationist 18 (January 1911): 1-8. 

11. Edward E. Hartman, The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant (New York, 1948); 

North American Civic League Annual Report, 1909-19x0, pp. 1-37, Library of Congress; 

New York-New Jersey Committee Annual Report, 1909-1911, pp. 5-40, Library of 

Congress; Immigrants Protective League Papers (hereafter IPL), University of lllinois 

Archives, Chicago Circle; IPL, Annual Report, 1917, p. 2, ibid. 

12. "Society of the Friends of Russian Freedom," New York, 1907, box 93, Lillian D. Wald 

Papers, Columbia University Manuscript Room, Memorandum by Simrnon 0. Pollock, 

1912, box 6983, Fold. New York City, Petitions, National Archives. 

13. Rivka S. Lissak, Pluralism and Progressives: Hull House and New Immigrants, 1890-1919 

(Chicago, 1989). 

14. Ibid., pp. 13-17, 21-24. 

15. Ibid. 

16. Jane Addams, "Trade Unions and Public Duty," American Journal of Sociology 4 

(January 1899): 448-462; idem, "The Present Crisis in Trade-Union Morals," North American

240 American Jezuish Archives 

Rmim 179 (August 1904): 178-193; Jane Addams et al., Hull House Maps and Papers (Boston, 

1895), pp 27-90,245-287; John A. Ryan, "A Minimum Wages and Minimum Wage Boards," 

The Survey 24 (September 3, 1910): 810-820; Florence Kelley, Some Ethical Gains Through 

Legislation (New York, 1905); Allen F. Davis, Spearheads for Reform: The Social Settlement and 

the Progressive Movement, 1890-1914 (New York, 1967), pp. 103-122; Jane Addams, The 

Second Twenty Years (New York, 1930)~ pp. 24-38; Paul U. Kellogg, "The Industrial Platform 

of the New Party," The Survey 28 (August 24, 1912): 668; Davis, Spearheads for Reform, The 

Social Settlements and the Progressive Movement, 1890-1914 (New York, 1967), pp. 172-173, 

195-198, 208-213, 216217; Paul U. Kellogg, "Report of the Committee on Occupational 

Standards," National Conference of Charities and Correction Proceeding (hereafter NCCC 

Proceedings), 1910, pp. 391-404; R. C. Chapin, "Present Wages and the Cost of Living," ibid., 

pp. 44~456; John A. Ryan, "A Minimum Wage and Minimum Wage Boards," ibid., pp. 

457-475; C. Eastman, "Work Accidents and Employers; Liability," ibid., pp. 414-44; C. C. 

Kingsley, "Compensation in Case of Sickness, Accident or Death," ibid., pp. 434-439; J. B. 

Andrews, "Industrial Diseases and Occupational Standards," ibid., pp. 440-448; Florence 

Kelley, "Report of the Committee on Standards of Living and Labor," NCCC Proceedings, 

1911, pp. 148-210; Paul U. Kellogg, "The Minimum Wage and Immigrant Labor," ibid., pp. 

165-177; idem, "An Immigrant Labor Tariff," The Survey 25 (January 17, 1911): 529531; 

Owen R. Lovejoy, "Report of the Committee on Standards of Living and Labor, NCCC 

Proceedings, 1912, pp. 376394; Allen F. Davis, "The Campaign for the Industrial Relations 

Commission, 1911-1913," Mid-America 45 (1964): 211-228; Committee on Industrial 

Relations, Kelley Papers, box 33, folder 313, Social Welfare History Archives, University of 

Minnesota; "Meeting at the call of Jane Addams," fol. 314, ibid.,; Samuel Gompers, 

Organized Labor (Washington, 1904); M. A. Aldrich, "The American Federation of Labor," 

Economic Studies, American Economic Association Publications, no. 3 (August 1898), ; 

Florence Kelley, Some Ethical Gains Through Legislation (New York igog), p. 106; Selig 

Perlman and Philip Taft, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932 (New York, 1935). 

vol. 4, pp. 304-313; P. Taft, The A.EL. in the Time of Gompers (New York, 1957)~ pp. 17~180; 

Matthew Josephson and Sidney Hillman, Statesman of American Labor (New York, i952), pp. 

43-58, 67, 7-1, 86110; American Federation of Labor, Convention Proceedings, 1911, pp. 

186187,276; 1912, pp. 182,384-385; M. R. Carroll, Labor and Politics (New York, i923), pp. 

85-86. 118-119; John R. Commons et al., History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932 

(Toronto, 1935)~ pp. 15-33, 114-136; A. T. Lane, Solidarity or Survival? American Labor and 

European Immigrants, 1830-1924 (New York, 1987); Gompers, "Immigration: Up to 

Congress," pp. 14; Louis S. Reed, The Labor Philosophy of Samuel Gompers (New York, 1930)~ 

pp. 113-115; Samuel Gompers, Labor and the Common Werare (New York, 1919), pp. 1-22, 

45-57; Paul U. Kellogg, "Immigration and the Minimum Wage," Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science (hereafter Annals) 48-49 (1913): 76; Arthur N. 

Holcombe, "What Is the Minimum Wage?" The Survey 29 (October 19,1912): 7576. 

17. Davis, Spearheads for Reform, pp. 9-4; John R. Commons, Races and Immigrants in 

America (New York, 1907); Edward A. Ross, "The Causes of Race Superiority," Annals 18 

(1901): 85-88; Higham, Strangers in the Land, pp. 10~110,117,147,273,367; Walter E. Weyl, 

The Nm Democracy (New York, 1912), pp. 346347; idem, "Immigration and Industrial 

Saturation," National Conference of Charities and Correction Proceedings, 1905, pp. 363-375; 

Grace Abbott, "Adjustment-Not Restriction," The Survey 25 (January 7, 1911): 527-529; 

Grace Abbott, The Immigrant and the Community (New York, 1917); Lillian D. Wald to A. D. 

Howard of the Nm York Tribune, February 20, 1911, box 2, folder: Correspondence, Wald


Papers, New York Public Library; Lillian D. Wald to President Taft, February lo, 19x3, box 

23, Wald Papers, Columbia University Library; Lillian D. Wald to President Wilson, 

December 17, 1914, ibid.; Lillian D. Wald to President Wilson, January 11, 1915, ibid.; 

Florence Kelley, "Standards of Living and Labor," The Survey 26 (July 1, 1911): 534-535; 

Emily G. Balch, "Restriction of Immigration," Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting, American 

Economic Association," December 1911, American Economic Review 2 (March 1912), 

Supplement, p. 63. 

18. Higham, Strangers in the Land, pp. 16,50-52,6970, loo, 112,114-115,188,211; Heald 

Morrell, "Business Attitudes Toward European Immigrants, 1861-1914" (Ph.d. diss., Yale 

University, 1951)~ pp. 281-382; Gordon Maurice Jensen, "The National Civic Federation: 

American Business in an Age of Social Change and Social Reform, 1900-I~IO" (Ph.D. diss., 

Princeton University, 1956); Leonard, Open Gates, pp. 5-59. 

19. Higham, Strangers in the Land, p. 107; Petition of the Immigration Protective League, 

January 20, 1898, box 171, fol. I, Petitions Collection, National Archives (hereafter NA); 

Petition of the Immigration Protective League, February 14, 1898, box 181, Fold. 1, ibid.,; 

Petition of the New Immigrants' Protective League, June 12,1906, box 5473, Fold. 2, ibid.; 

Petition of the New IPL, h e 21, 1906, box 5473, Fold. 3, ibid.,; Petition of the New IPL, 

January 2,1907, box 5473, Fold. 4, ibid.; Leonard, Open Gates, pp. 34-46; Naomi W. Cohen, 

Not Free to Desist: The Amm'can Jewish Committee, 1906-1966 (Philadelphia, 1972); Henry B. 

Leonard, "Louis Marshall and Immigration Restriction, 19061924," American Jewish 

Archives 24 (April 1972): 6-26; Leonard, Open Gates, pp. 8445, 93-100; S. M. Neuringer, 

American Jewry and the United States Immigration Policy, 1881-1953 (New York, 1980); Judith 

Goldstein, "Ethnic Politics: The American Jewish Committee as Lobbyist, 1915-1917, 

"American Jewish History Quarterly 65 (1975): 36-58; Nathan Schachner, The Price of Liberty; A 

History of the American Jewish Committee (New York, 1948), pp. 1-28, 217; Leonard, Open 

Gates, pp. 9539,123-124,128-136. 

20. Manuel F. Behar [son of Nissim], "The Immigration Situation," Jewish Immigration 

Bulletin 4 (December 1914): 2; Boston Advocate, June 8, August 17, 1906, American Jewish 

Historical Society (hereafter AJHS), Waltham, Mass.; Mark J. Katz to Louis E. Levy, box 1, 

Fold. 2, Association for the Protection of Jewish Immigrants Papers (hereafter APJI), 

American Jewish Archives (hereafter AJA), Cincinnati, Ohio. 

21. Alliance Israelite Universelle (hereafter AN), July 28,1902, AIU Papers, reel 723 AJA. 

22. Phillip Rubenstein to Nissim Behar, February 27, 1905, reel 723 AIU Papers; Philip 

Rubenstein to Nissim Behar, May 8,1906, ibid.; Boston Advocate, March 3, April 13, August 

31,1906. 

23. Boston Advocate, June 6, August 31,1906; American Hebrew, August 17, I*, AJA. 

24. Harold Debrest, "Nissim Behar," Jewish Forum 11 (October 1928): 522-524. 

25. Israelite Alliance Review 1 (February, 1907), 1-3; Proceedings of the First General 

Meeting of the National Liberal Immigration League, March lo, 1908, NLIL Volume, New 

York Public Library. 

26. Boston Advocate, August 17, 1906. 

27. Ibid.; Declaration of the League's Purposes, NLIL Volume. 

27. Proceedings, March lo, 1908; Constitution and By-Laws of the Liberal Immigration 

League, pp. 3-4, NLIL Volume. 

28. Ibid., pp. 4-5. 

29. Ibid., pp. 7-10~12-13. 

30. Debrist, "Nissim Behar," 522-526; Boston Advocate, August 17, 1906; Proceedings,


March 10,1908, pp 24-26. 

31. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America (Chicago, 1943), vol. 1, pp. 1371,713; 

Who Was Who in American Jeu~ry (New York, 1926), pp. 419. 

32. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 114, 236,253,; Richard C. Murphy 

and Lawence J. Mannion, The Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, in the City ofNew York 

(New York, 1962), pp. 411,526,527. 

33. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 558, 713; New Immigrants' 

Protective League, List of Vice-Presidents, January 2, 19~7, box 6, IRL Papers; Gustav 

Scholer Papers, New York Public Library Manuscript Room; American Federation of 

Catholic Soaeties Petition, January 4,1909, box 6386, package 7, Petitions Collection; John 

J. Hynes to Mark J. Katz, May 16,1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers. 

34. NLILletterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 161,1176; ltalian American Who Was 

Who (New York), p. 513. 

35. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, p. 513. 

36. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 107, 194, 289, 329, 433; Behar- 

McMullen Correspondence, 1906-19g, NLIL File, AJC Papers. 

37. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 364,591, 1364; vol. 3, p. 160. 

38. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 172,477,936,1133. 

39. NLIL letterhead list; Who Was Who in America, pp. 49,76-77,190,1205,1250. 

40. William S. Bennet to NLIL, February 19,19g, reel 16, Wilson's Papers; Behar to A. C. 

Latirner, January 19, 1908, box 23, fol. NLIL, Industrial Removal Office Papers (hereafter 

IRO), AJHS, Waltham, Mass.; NLIL Circulars, February 4, 15, 1908, ibid.,; Behar to Adolph 

Sabath, March 8, 1910, box I, fol. 2, Marshall Papers, AJA; William Sulzer to ~dw&d 

Lauterbach, May 22,1911, box 3, fol. Kohler Papers, AJHS; Louis Marshall to Isidor Raper, 

February 16,1912, box 1581, fol. February 1912, Marshall Papers; Boston Advocate February 

4.1913- 

41. Behar to Friend, February 1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Behar to Dear Brother, 

February 12, 1907, ibid.; "An Appeal to Our Co-Religionists," 1907, ibid.,; Behar to Levy, 

November 4,1908, box I, fol. 3, ibid. 

42. L. J. Ellis, "Immigration: An Address Before the Immigration Association of 

Missouri," December 14,1906, pp. 2-3, box 7, IRL Papers. 

43. Ibid., pp. I-2,45. "Immigration in Congress," New York, 1907, Cockran Papers, New 

York Public Library Manuscript Room; "Immigration in the 66th Congress," New York, 

1908, NLIL Vol.; "Contrary Views on Immigration," New York, 1907, ibid.,; "Discussion on 

Immigration on Boston," New York 1907, For. NLIL, AJC Papers. 

44. A. B. Sekely, "Immigrant Labor and the Restriction of Immigration: An Address 

before the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce," June 1,1912, pp, pp. 6-7, box 7, IRL Papers. 

45. Ellis, "Immigration," p. 2; Sekely, "Immigrant Labor," pp. 3-8. 

46. Ibid., p. 6. 

47. Ibid., pp. e. 

48. Levy-Behar correspondence, APJI Papers. 

49. Boston Advocate, March 3, April 13, June 6, August 17,31, November 30,1906; March 

22, April 12, August 17,23,1907; Jewish Tribune (Portland) October 19,1906, April 5, June 28, 

1907; American Hebrew (New York) August 17,1906; Jewish Voice (St. Louis, Mo.) March 22, 

April 2, June 7, 21, 1907; American lsraelite (Cincinnati) August 23, 1906; Jewish lndependent 

(Cleveland) August 31, November 29,1906, April 5,19g. 

50. Boston Advocate November 30, 1906; Jewish Voice March 22, 1907; Jewish lndependent


June 15, 29, 1906, April 7, 1907; Philadelphia Public Ledger January 15, 1911, January 9, lo, 

1913, Philadelphia Public Library; Evening Post (San Francisco), April 25, 1913, box 7, 

Immigration Restriction League (hereafter IRL Papers), Houghton Library, Harvard 

University; Mark J. Katz to Louis E. Levy, July 6, 1906, box 1, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Nissim 

Behar to Levy, October 11,23, November 6, December 21,1906, March 12,1907, ibid.; E. M. 

Baker to Edward Lauterbach, n.d., in Israelite Alliance Review, I (January 1907): 8; Victor 

Abraham to Lauterbach, November 23, 1906, ibid. (February 1907): 8; General Agent to 

Nissim Behar, September 6,1907, box 23, fol. NLIL, IRO, AJHS; Behar to Levy, February lo, 

11,121907, box I, fol. 2, APJL; Petition from Worchester, Mass., January 20,1907, box 5474, 

package 2, Petitions Collection. 

51. Boston Advocate, February 15, March 22,1907, February 7, December 18,1908; Jewish 

Voice, March 22, June 7, 21, 1907, January 6, 27, February 3, 1911; American Israelite, August 

2,23,19&, January 19, February 9,1911; Who's Who in American Jewry, pp. 120-121. 

52. Behar to Levy, August 26, 1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Behar to Gustav Scholer, 

March 9, 1909, Scholer Papers, New York Public Library Manuscript Room; Edward 

Lauterbach to Joseph Krauskopf, January 6, 1913, box 15, F13, Krauskopf Papers, Temple 

University Archives, Philadelphia; Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 9, 1913; Cincinnati 

Enquirer, October 8, 1907, University of Cincinnati Library; Telegram to President Taft, 

NGAA, Alabama Branch, January 7,1913, reel 364, Taft Papers; Telegram to President Taft, 

December 20-21,1912, reel 364, ibid.; Petition to President Taft, NGAA, New York Branch, 

September 30, 1912, ibid.; Address of L. J. Ellis of New York, representing NLIL before 

Immigration Association of Missouri, December 14, 1906, box 7, Immigration Restriction 

League (hereafter IRL) papers; Who was Who in America, p. 1194. 

53. Petition, Ancient Order of Hibernians, February 7,1907, Buffalo, New York, box 5475, 

package 1907, Petitions collection; Petition, New York Italian Chamber of Commerce, 

January 20, 1910, box 6386, package March lglg-February 1911, ibid.; Petition, New York 

Italian Chamber of Commerce, January 8, 1913, box 6983, package N.Y.C., ibid.; Petition, 

Italo-American Union League (IAUL), May 1912, box 6983, package 18, ibid.; Petition, 

IAUL, n.d., box 7473, package I, 1914-1915, ibid. 

54. Louis N. Hammerling to President William H. Taft, January 4, 1911, reel 66, Taft 

Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Room; The Courier (Chicago), April 27, 1910, 

Foreign Language Newspapers Survey, Chicago (hereafter FLNS), Chicago Public Library; 

Ira E. Bennett, "The Proposed Revision of the Immigration Laws," American Leader 1 

(Tanuary, 1912): 48-51; Ira E. Bennett, "The Educational Test," ibid. I (April 1912), 1620; 

John Foster Carr, "The New Immigrant Labor: Keep Open the Gates," ibid. (May 1912): 

31-40; Amour Caldwell, "The Educational Test," ibid. (May 1912): 31-34; "A Vigorous 

Protest," ibid. (September 1912): 24-30; Henry M. Goldfogle, "The Restrictionists," ibid. 3 

(Ianuary-June lgy): 147-153; Charles Nagle, "The Spirit of the Immigration Laws," ibid., 

pp. 160-169, etc. 

55. Behar to Giovanni M. Di Silvestro, February 15, 1911, box 2, fol. 11, Di Silvestro 

Papers, Immigration History Research Center (hereafter IHRC), St. Paul, Minnesota; B. A. 

Sekely to G. M. Di Silvestro, March 25, 1911, ibid.; Behar to James V. Dunnaruma, January 

14,1913, fol. 13, Donnanuna Papers, IHRC; Behar to Levy, February, 11,1907, March 4,1908, 

box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Courier, November 30, December I, 1913, reel 40, FLNS; Behar to 

Levy, October 11,1906, box 1, fol. 2, APJI; Behar to Levy, December 21, 1906, ibid. 

56. Behar to Levy, October 16,1906, February 7, lqg, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers. 

57. Boston Advocate, August 31,1906, June 8, I+; American Hebrew, June 8,1906; Jewish


Tribune, June 15, July 6, 1906; Boston Advocate, June 8, August 31, 1906; Jewish Independent, 

April 19, 1907; Italian American Who's Who, p. 342; A Protest from Philadelphia, box 7, IRL 

Papers; American Hebrew, June 15, 22, 1906; Petitions of the New Immigrants Protective 

League (hereafter NIPL), June 12, 21, 25, 1906, box 5473, package 2, Petitions Collection, 

National Archives; Petition of NGAA and its branches, box 5474, packages 2,3, ibid.; Levy 

to Behar, January 14, 1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Petition from Worchester, Mass., 

January 20,1907, box 5474, package 2,1907, Petitions Collection; petition from Philadelphia, 

February 16, 1907, box 5475, package 2, 1907, ibid.; Boston Advocate, February 8, 15, 1907; 

Katz to Levy, July 6, 1906, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Levy to Behar, February 5, 10, 1907, 

ibid.,; Clifton J. Childs, The German-Americans in Politics, 1914-1917 (Madison, 1939), pp e; 

Lauterbach to Levy, February 3, 1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; New York Times, February 

23, 1907; Who Was Who in America, vol. 1, pp. 62, 140, 1133. 

58. William S. Bennet to NLIL, February 19, 1907, box I, fol. 2, APJI Papers; Jewish 

Tribune, April 5, 1907; Boston Advocate, April 12, 1907. 

59. Boston Advocate, March 22,29, April 12,1907. 

60. Immigration Commission, "Brief Statement of the Conclusions and 

Recommendations of the Immigration Commission," 1910, Washington, box I, IRL Papers. 

61. NLIL Petition, February 2, 1911, box 6386, package New York, 1912, Petitions 

Collection. 

62. An Appeal to American Citizens, 1912, NLIL Vol.; NLIL Petition, February 23, 1912, 

box 6982, package New York, 1912, ibid. 

63. Lauterbach to Charles W. Eliot, December 28, 1910, box 413, Eliot Papers, Haward 

University Archives; Jewish Independent, February 3, 1911; Scandia (chicago), January 28, 

1911; American Israelite, January 11, 1911; Jewish Independent, February 3, 1911; Scandia, 

January 28,1911; "TO the Press and Friends throughout the Country," January 13,1911, box 

6385, package 1, Petitions Collection. 

64. American Israelite, November 29, 1906; Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 15, 1911; 

Boston Advocate, January 27, 1911; Jewish Tribune, December 20, 1912; Behar to Charles W. 

Eliot, December 28, 1910, box 413, Eliot Papers; Lauterbach to Eliot, December 28, 1910, 

ibid.; Elio to Lauterbach, January lo, 1911; ibid.; Lillian D. Wald to Louis Marshall, January 

1911, Marshall Papers; Katz to Marshall, February lo, 1911, box 32, fol. N, ibid.; Behar to 

Marshall, June 15,1911, ibid.; A. Newburg to Behar, January 26,1911, ibid.; James H. Patten 

to the Members of the NLIL, February, 14,1911, NLIL Vol.; Lauterbach to Scholer, March 16, 

1911, Scholer Papers; "The Educational Test," New York 1912, NLIL Vol.; B. A. Sekely, 

"Immigrant Labor and the Restriction of Immigration," New York, 1912, ibid.; "The Fear of 

Post-war Immigration," New York, 1914, box 7 i Papers; ~ Who ~ Was ~ Who in America, p. 749. 

65. Jewish Tribune, January 20,1911; Views of Andrew Carnegie, January 1911, box 341, 

Eliot Papers; NLIL Circular, February 1911, box 6386, package March qog-February 1911, 

Petitions Collection; NLIL Circular, February 2,1911, NLIL Vol.; NLIL Circular, January 13, 

1911, box 7, IRL Papers. 

66. NLIL Circular, January 30,1911, NLIL Vol. 

67. Petitions, 1911-1913, boxes, 6385,6386,698&34,7471, Petitions Collection. 

68. Memorandum, January 4, 1911, reel 66, Taft Papers; U.S., Congress, House, 

Committee on Immigration, 62nd Congress, md sess., Hearing, January 11,1912, pp. 3-24, 

N. A.; Hearing before the President of the United States on the Immigration Bill (S. 3175), 

February 6,1913, box 60, fol. 49, Nagel Papers, Yale University Archives. 

69. Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 3, 1913; Philadelphia Press, November 28, 1911; A


Remonstrance Against Further Restriction of Immigration, November 27,1911, box I, fol. 4, 

APJI Papers; Petition, January 6, 1911, box 6386, package March 19og-February 1911, 

Petitions Collection; Lauterbach to Krauskopf, January 6, 19x3, box 5, 13F. Krauskopf 

Papers. 

70. Jewish Tribune, December 20,1912; Boston Advocate, December 20,1912, January 3,10, 

24,3l, 1913; Eliot to Lauterbach, January 17,1913, box 413, Eliot Papers. 

71. New York Times, May 6, 7, 8, 9, 25, 1912; American Hebrezu, May 10, 1912; Boston 

Advocate, May 10,1912; Petition by Boston citizens, box 6981,1912, package Mass., Petitions 

Collection; NLIL Circular, May 6, 1912 NLIL Vol.; H. R. Hearing of the Committee on 

Immigration, May 4,7,8,1912, National Archives; Who's Who in American Jmry, p. 4189, Vol. 

3, p 761; Philadelphia Public Ledger, May 8, 9, 1912; Memorandum by Louis E. Levy, 

November 29,1912, box I, fol. 4, APJI Papers; Who's Who in American Jezury, p. 1052. 

72. Lauterbach to Joseph Krauskopf, December 12,1912, box 15, F13, Krauskopf Papers; 

NLIL Circulars, June 21,1912, NLIL Vol.; John E. O'Brien to George H. Lindsay, February 17, 

1913, box 6983; NLIL Circulars, June 11,1908, box 23, fol. NLIL, IRO Papers; NLIL Circular, 

June 21,22,1912, NLIL Vol. 

73. Lauterbach to Scholer, January 6,1913, Scholer Papers; NLIL Circulars, April 23, July 

lo, 1912, NLIL Vol.; NLIL Circular, April 27,1912, box 6982, Petitions Collection; H. Berlin 

to Max J. Kohler, March 2,1912, box 4, fol. Immigration, M-P, Kohler Papers, AJHS. 

74. Boston Advocate, February 14, 1913; Nezu York Times, February 6, 7, 1913; John E. 

O'Brien to George H. Lindsay, February 17,1913, box 6983, package 15, Petitions Collection; 

Boston Transcript, February 6,1913. 

75. Boston Advocate, March 21,1913; Behar to Nagel, March 31,1913, Series I, box 8, fol. 

127, Nagel Papers. 

76. Behar to Taft, February q, 1913, reel 364, Taft Papers. 

77. An Appeal to American Citizens, April 15,1914, box 7, IRL Papers. 

78. Petitions Collection, boxes 6982,6983,7471,7472,7473,7474,7475. 

79. Behar to Schiff, July 2,1915, box 443, fol. 11, NLIL, Schiff Papers; 

80. F. J. Wane, The Immigrant Invasion (n.d.). 

81. "An Earnest Appeal to the Friends of Immigration," September 15,1913, box 7, IRL 

Papers. 

82. Manuel Behar to Eliot, February 17, 1914, box 413, Eliot Papers; Eliot to M. Behar, 

February q, 1914, ibid.; Nagel to Bartholdt, February 28, 1914, box 11, fol. 159, Nagel 

Papers. 

83. Jewish Tribune, September 18, 1914; "An Appeal to American Citizens," box 7, IRL 

Papers. 

84. Boston Advocate, December 12,19,1913; Italian American Who's Who, p. 215. 

85. Petition of the United Societies of Philadelphia, March 3, 1914, box I, fol. 4, APJI 

Papers. 

86. "The Fear of Post-War Immigration," December 19x4, box 7, IRL Papers; Wolf to 

Marshall, October 13,1914, box 42, fil. W, Marshall Papers. 

87. "The Fear of Post-War Immigration," ibid.; "To the Members of the Senate and House 

of Representatives," December 16,1914, box 7478,1914-15, Petitions Collection. 

88. Boston Transcript, January 22,1915; Boston Advocate, January 29,1915. 

89. New York Times, January 26,1915; American Hebrew, January 29,1915; Jezuish Bulletin 5 

(February 1915): e; Leon Sanders to Marshall, January 15, 1915, box 45, fol. N. 1915, 

Marshall Papers; the New York Non-Partisan Citizenship Committee, Memorial and


Resolutions, January 25,1915, box 7473, package 2,1915, Petitions Collection; Boston mass 

meeting, January 24,1915, ibid.; Who's Who in American Jewry, pp. 77-78.171; Who Was Who 

in America, pp. 456,691. 

90. New York Times, January 26,1915; American Hebrew, January 29,1915. 

91. American Federationist, January 30, 1915. 

92. Behar to Marshall, February 5,1915, box 45, fol. N 19x5, Marshall Papers. 

93. Marshall to Rev. H. Pereira Mendes, January 30,1915, box 1584, fol. 15, ibid.; Marshall 

to Behar, February 8,1915, box 1583, fol. February 1915, ibid. 

94. Behar to W. Bourke Cockran, February 19,1915, Cockran Papers; Behar to Schiff, July 

2,1915, box 443, fol. 11, NLIL, Schiff Papers, AJA; Marshall to Behar, February 8,1915, box 

1583, fol. February 1915, Marshall Papers. 

95. General Statement to the Council of Jewish Federations, February 19, 1918, box 39, 

fol. NLIL, Council of Jewish Federations Papers, AJHS. 

96. Memorandum on the National Liberal Immigration League, February 1918, New 

York, box 89, ibid.

The National Liberal Immigration League and Immigration Restriction,

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?