Secondly, owing to his low standard of living he congests the slum districts of our large cities and is responsible for evils there.

Thirdly, he has criminal tendencies. Comparison of the illiteracy of foreign born population and the illiteracy of foreign born criminals shows a decided tendency of the illiterate toward crime.

A literacy test would mean a yearly exclusion of some 350,000 immigrants. This exclusion is justified because, after barring criminal and pauper, it amounts to criminal negligence to admit immigrants of the same rank and intelligence as those which produce these evils.

Rebuttals.

In rebuttal, the negative repeated the statement often made during the debate, "Where immigration is most, unemployment is least." The literacy test, also, is obviously unfair in that it would bar 300,000 people when only 3,000 should be barred. There is absolutely no connection between the criminal and illiterate elements. Finally, figures and experience show that the southern foreigner can be assimilated, and that he can be educated in our schools so that he is not a drag on the community, which was claimed by the affirmative.

The affirmative maintained that the illiterate foreigner aggravated the social, economic and political problems of our country. The literacy test would go far to cure this, and would not bar out classes, as the negative claimed, but would affect the individual alone. Because of ignorance the immigrant goes to the slum, but leaves it as soon as he becomes more educated. By the literacy test, this would be done away with; wages would be increased; crime would be lessened, and politics improved