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, immigration 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 ethnic-cultural or nativist philosophy behind it than to its socioeconomic 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 concentrates 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 colonial 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 century as to the content or meaning of the right of asylum, governmental 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 immigrants 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 confidence in the capacity of every human being for change, adaptation, 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 principle of "natural rights." Thus, a resolution of Congress of July 27,
1868 declared the right of expatriation to be "a natural and inherent 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 administration of immigration was under state rather than federal jurisdiction. 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 immig r a t i ~ nIn
. ~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 country with the aim of enlisting mass support for immigration restriction. 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 arguments in its campaign for restriction and lobbied for a literacy test
as the best method for implementing its policy of restriction. The
The National Liberal Immigration League
201
IRL also sought, especially after 1911, to eliminate the right of asylum 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 considerations 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 convention of 1909, the AFL adopted a resolution in favor of immigration 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 competition 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 National Liberal Immigration League
203
the other on the question of restriction.ll
The Society of the Friends of Russian Freedom (FRF)was founded in 1906 to rally public opinion in favor of a representative government 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 newcomers 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 settlement 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 themselves to helping the newcomers cope with these two problems.'3
The uniqueness of the liberal wing of the Progressive movement-historians have variously called it social, humanitarian, or
advanced progressivism-lay in its more comprehensive interpretation of democracy. They sought to extend the idea of political
democracy, on which there was an American consensus, by suggesting new measures for coping with the ever-sharper class divisions 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 opportunities. To achieve these goals, several organizations were formed,
204
American JewishArchives
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.
The National Liberal Immigration League
205
Liberal Progressives shared the American consensus on the distinction 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 socioeconomic aspects.
By the end of the nineteenth century, America's business community had developed an ambivalent approach toward immigration. On the one hand, immigration was considered good for business because immigrant labor was needed to increase the output of
mines, for the construction of railroads, and for industrial expansion. On the other hand, the radical elements among the immigrants 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 quarter of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth,
northern businessmen, acting in their own interests, took advantage 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 businessmen, 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 violence 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 twentieth 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
(1836-1923)
The National Liberal Immigration League
207
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 arguments 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 immigration.'"
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,
Americnn Jezuislz Archives
208
MONSTER MASS=MEETING
TO PROTEST AGAINST
W RESTRICTIONS OF IMMIGRATION
demand. of the rcstractto~urtrrn Cwgrtu for he hcdapmn of a Lteracy test. havrog lor
the N d w from thtn country .mually of thousandr of Hchrewr. Ilallans and the rcprualahvua
d oth~
=hug oppartun~tymd frmlom undn our flag. have despt~cIh s l m p g &at moved
bj lbcm throqh dr &and Honorable JAMES M CURLEY. .ad ahrr able and equally couragemr
~
bd c
~ qua brought the maner up for tmmedtate coruderahoo
U p T h d y and Friday of ~hmweek hcannw wdl h- held uodcr chc d m a o n of
C a ~ a JOHN
a
L BURNETT. the arch eoemy d all f~rc~~ncrr
to so codcaror l o m
e
&te
mto law of thu hush .ad opprcwvc measure
wen.
CONGRESSMAN CURLEY
Wb
a
MW
to m u g a pmlat lo I
vS1 m m d m Ib h4I. of Cat-
d 1b.l t t . d o a
d
l appear at 0 I o
MONSTFX PROTEST MEETING
-.-
TO BB HECD AT
-.A-
p"
c s & ~TEMPLE
( ~ Blue Hill
and Lamnee Are+es
on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14,
at
P. M.
3.00
Wl All E@ALLV MOIISTER BATHERIN6 IN THE CRADLE OF UBERn
FANEUIL HALL
SUNDAY, DEC. 14,
-8.00
at
p. m.
HE HAS IWYITED &NO ACCEPTANCES VAVE 0EEH RECEIVED FROM
D r HARRY LEVY of Commonwealth Temple
Dr RUBINOVITZ Moreland St Synagogue
Rabb~A COROVITZ, of Roxbury
R s b b ~P ISRAEL1,Adath Jnhurun Synagogue
Hoa. JOHN J FRECHl of New York
JACOB DE HAAS. Boaton J c w ~ r hAdvocate
h.9. J DRABINSKY of Brooklyn
EZEKIEL LEAVI'IT. Ed~torof &ston Votce
.mi 0 t h ~ .
amd h u raemnd usurancafrom the foremot rsp-cn
utl d .It .rca I. M~**achuactt., th.1
h e y rill artend
JUDGE LEON SANDERS
MANUEL F W A R all of New York
LOUIS LEVY, of Ph~ldelph~a
Hm ANTONIO ZUCCA. of New York
Tk
davdrthe
to ma=
we owe ta lholc d our r a c t and M o d thc nM~ga~~on
w r hold to a
r ,\mencan c r r u c ~
ol dl at thew meenng* h a t s have bern reserved lor ~ h c&.I.
and wt
two gsrhcnnps ~ h most
rrp.rrrn!allvr proar.l c w r recorded on lhr htvtonr d b t o n
*-
%Itm GTluru fa-.
A poster announces the meeting of pro-immigrntion forces
at Boston's Fanz~eilHall
4
The National Liberal Immigration League
209
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 congressmen and senators from Massachusetts in Washington. David A.
Ellis, president of the Boston AIU and chairman of the immigration 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 participated in the New York mass meeting held at Cooper Union on June 4,
1906. This pattern was repeated in other cities with large immigrant 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 organization to combat the organized efforts of the advocates of immigration 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
210
American Jewish Archives
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 nonJewish leaders to help organize a nonsectarian national organization 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-sectarian 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 immigration." Here the League articulated its aim as being "to preserve for
our country the benefits of immigration while keeping out undesirable immigrants." The League declared its commitment to the
maintenance and enforcement of the existing laws "excluding criminals, 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-
The National Liberal Immigration League
211
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 interest through promoting the welfare of immigrants." The constitution included five objectives aimed at achieving this purpose. First,
"to effect the proper regulation of immigration and better distribution 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 services 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 unAmerican 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 advisory 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
212
American Jewish Archives
nominated managing director of the League and occupied this
post throughout the years of its existence. He was, in fact, its driving 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 ethnic, political, and occupational terms. The members included representatives 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 directors 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 contests," 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,
The National Liberal Immigration League
213
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,
. ~ ~business
Louis N. Hammerling, an immigrant from A ~ s t r i aThe
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
214
American Jewish Archives
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 conditions 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 regularly, 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
The National Liberal Immigration League
215
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 regularly 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 representatives who defended the cause of free immigration.@
Although in terms of officials and committee members the
League was nonpartisan and nonsectarian in nature, the organization 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 consideration 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 focusing only on Jewish immigration in order to prevent the identification 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 humanitarian 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~
216
American JewishArchives
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 published articles on economic and other issues connected with immigration. In their publications, statements, and addresses before different organizations, League members analyzed the economic situation 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 literacy test seemed to have the greatest support in Congress, the
League focused its efforts on this measure. The League's economic 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 presented data proving that wages were going up despite increased
The National Liberal Immigration League
217
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 abundance of labor, enterprise and development are impossible." It
claimed, therefore, that the problem was not restriction of immigration 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 getting 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 contract 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 destk1ed."4~
The demand that contract labor enter the country only on condition 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 better, 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
218
American Jewish Archives
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 leaders 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 managing 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 printed 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 organizations of other nationalities to join, thus establishing its nonsectarian 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 recommended by Levy, who made "strenuous efforts to reach every Jewish
The National Liberal Immigration League
219
organization and have them learn what is meant by the two pending [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 editors, 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-religious 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 instruction~.~~
The Jewish press cooperated willingly with the League. Jacobde
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 matter 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 editors 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.
220
American Jewish Archives
Lauterbach took advantage of his connections with German leaders
in New York City, and in 1908the 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 branches 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 relationship between Levy of Philadelphia and J. Hexamer, president of
the NGAA, and was very f i t f u l . The NGAA declared at its annual 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 throughout the country held protest meeting against immigration restriction, sent petitions to the President, the Speaker, and local congressmen and senators, and participated in hearings before congressional 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 purpose. 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 GermanAmerican 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 member of the NLIL's general committee.5'
The National Liberal Immigration League
221
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 centralized 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 congressional committees and in presidential hearings on immigration 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 campaign 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 enlisting the services of these agents.
The editors were thus instrumental in creating awareness
among the foreign population of the issue of immigration restriction and in mobilizing its participation in mass meetings. They
also helped in uniting immigrant organizations in every immi-
222
American Jewish Archives
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 possible numbers of citizens of all races and origins." From time to
time the League also held meetings with editors of the foreign-language 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 campaign against restriction. Under its auspices, immigrant organizations 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 organizations 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 affiliated 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
The National Liberal Immigration League
223
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 during 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 sponsored 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 commission 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 representatives of immigrant organizations, politicians of both parties, religious leaders, and occasionally businessmen, Liberal
Progressives, and leaders of immigrant trade unions. The meetings
typically adopted resolutions against restriction, designated delegations to go to Washington to protest before Congress and the
President, and called the members of the organizations represented 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
224
American Jewish Archives
Bennet congratulated the League for its role in defeating some of
the restrictions included in the 1906immigration 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 educational 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 recommended 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 suggest 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 themselves 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 justified in fact. The problem . . . needs for its solution full knowledge
of the facts, adequate public discussion and clearly expressed public ~pinion."~'
At the same time, the League started a propaganda campaign to
The National Liberal Immigration League
225
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 suggested 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 delegations 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, former 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-
226
American Jewish Archives
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 magazines, and to public libraries." Eliot's letter was meant to "convince 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 committee, 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 economic blessing to America, and at the same time to enlist the financial and public support of the business sector for its activities, the
League sent speakers to address chambers of commerce and manufacturers' associations. To advance this effort, the League published 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 Nafional Liberal Immigrafion 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.~7Even 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.68ThePhiladelphia 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-
228
American Jewish Archives
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 immigrant 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 several mass meetings along the same lines as those in 1906-1907.
During that year, the House Committee on Immigration held hearings 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 delegates 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-
The National Liberal Immigration League
229
tion, while the newly formed Progressive Party avoided any mention of the issue, dealing in its plank on immigration with the
problems confronted by immigrants after their arrival in the country, 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 inception, 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 representatives 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 delegations 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
230
American Jewish Archives
still pass the bills over the President's veto. The League sent letters
to members of Congress, urging them to use their "vote and influence 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 newspapers represent the overwhelming sentiment of the public."74
The President's veto was eventually sustained and the League
nd
celebrated the event. Together with the New ~ n ~ l a 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 dominant role. Indeed, the peak of its success coincided with the beginning of its decline. The League conducted its third protest movement 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 measures 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 immigrants, such as helped to build up our country. . . . This country
needs immigration for its upbuilding."n
The National Liberal Immigration League
231
This line of propaganda, however, was an anachronism. The
Immigration Commission's interpretation of the economic situation was widely accepted by the public, academic circles, and
politicians of all parties. Thus, the League's insistence on its opposing 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 feelings, 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 identification 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 different 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 opponents of restriction conducted their lobbying separately, with occasional 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,
232
American Jewish Archives
on the other. Where the League gave precedence to economic arguments against restriction, the AJC considered this inconsistent with
Jewish interests and stressed the right of asylum and humanitarianism.
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 business, and the growing financial deficitresulting 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 propaganda campaign, at the same stepping up their pressure on
Congress. They now introduced new arguments into the controversy, claiming that the circumstances underlying immigration
policy had drastically changed. This new line of attack was advocated in Dr. F. J. Wame's book, The Immigrant Invasion. The restrictionist 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 restriction in Congress were not promising. Nevertheless, it resumed its
lobbying in Washington and published circulars and other literature 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 immigration that this country has ever seen." Its supporters were urged
to enlist their friends to form new local branches, and to organize
The National Liberal Immigration League
233
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 country which require for their development new capital and additional 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 development, 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 immigration 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, stating 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
234
American Jewish Archives
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 opinion 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 hearing, 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 delegation 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 NonPartisan 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 leaders. The Italians were represented by Antonio Stella, also a member of the NLIL, Umberto Colleti, and Alexander Konta. The liberal 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 representing the selfish interests of business, a fact that gave the Committee
The National Liberal Immigration League
235
a great advantage over the NLIL. The mass meeting in New York
was held on January 25,1915 at Cooper Union. Most of the speakers characterized the immigration bills as "un-American, inhuman, and bad economics to the country." The meeting adopted resolutions to be sent to the President.QAnother mass meeting was
organized in New York on January 24, 1915 by the East Side
Protective Association. The principal speakers were the IrishAmerican 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 influential 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 necessary 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 situation 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 frustration at the decline of the League's influence and his efforts to convince his correspondents that the League still had a major role to
play in the campaign against restriction as "it is the only organization publishing liberal immigration literature . . . and were we
unable to continue our work in this direction, then the
236
American Jewish Archives
Immigration Restriction League and other exclusionist organizations 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 constituency, 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 activities 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 manufacturers, railroad companies and such interests as are directly benefitted 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 confirmed the above statement that the League was "a paper organiati 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 National Liberal Immigration League
237
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, considering 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 national 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 considerations in mind, however, the linkage supposedly proved between
business and the League by the publication of its list of contributors 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 promoted 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 businessmen 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-
238
American JewishArchives
lapse of the former's business and the failure of the later to be
reelected in 1912 put an end to these contributions. Behar, unacquainted as he was with the American scene, was one of the victims 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).
The National Liberal Immigration League
239
Notes
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: A n
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). p p 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
I.
240
American Jezuish Archives
R m i m 179 (August 1904): 178-193; Jane Addams et al., Hull House Maps and Papers (Boston,
1895), p p 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. 4 4 ~ 4 5 6 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. 1 7 ~ 1 8 0 ;
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 N m 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 N m York Tribune, February 20, 1911, box 2, folder: Correspondence, Wald
The National Liberal Immigration League
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.;
Fold. 3, ibid.,; Petition of the New IPL,
Petition of the New IPL, h e 21, 1906, box
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 JewishHistory 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,
5473,
American Jewish Archives
242
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; BeharMcMullen 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 ~ d w & 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
4.191341. 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.
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
e.
The National Liberal Immigration League
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 W h o 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; W h o 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 l g y ) : 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
244
American JewishArchives
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),p p
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; "TOthe 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
Papers; Who Was Who in America, p. 749.
Post-war Immigration," New York, 1914, box
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, m d 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
e;
7 i ~ ~ ~
The National Liberal Immigration League
245
RemonstranceAgainst 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
Leon Sanders to Marshall, January 15, 1915, box 45, fol. N. 1915,
(February 1915):
Marshall Papers; the New York Non-Partisan Citizenship Committee, Memorial and
e;
246
American Jewish Archives
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.