138 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 
be evidenced was a question of fact—I will put it that way. Some 
men, from the country’s viewpoint, can be better utilized at home than 
they could in actual service. 
To my way of thinking, briefly—and you gentlemen, I suppose, 
have heard this argument pro and con for years—while it is not a 
new subject, it naturally is a new subject to me down here, because 
this is my first experience in Congress, this present short session. 
How long it will be, of course, likewise is a question of fact. At least 
it will be for two years, if I survive that long. 
But this question appears to me to be incapable of practical ascer- 
tainment—the national origins clause. We have a very sound prin- 
ciple incorporated in the law now. While intended as a temporary 
provision, it seems to me that it might be well, if we are going to 
have a restrictive policy of approximately 164,000 a year, restricted 
maximum policy of 164,000 a year, that we should have definiteness 
as to its ascertainment; and 2 per cent of the 1890 foreign-born 
population is a basis where the quotas can be definitely and certainly 
ascertained. It is simply a mathematical problem. There is no un- 
certainty. We have our census records in good shape, so that the 
uncertainty as to the origin of our foreign-born in 1890 is reduced to 
a minimum, if there is any uncertainty at all. 
When we come to the generations which preceded that, and I 
know so far as I am concerned—and I go back at least two generations 
before that of Irish descent, though I am an American, that is my 
viewpoint; and I look at every other person as an American, no maf- 
ter what his descent may be—but when we start discussing the na- 
tional-origins clause we must remember we are trying to determine 
the origin, not of one generation, but of every generation of Ameri- 
cans and of every generation that contributed to build up the original 
13 Colonies. In other words, we are going back approximately 300 
years, and into this discussion are drawn the offsprings of immigrants 
of all countries during the entire period of our history, both as a col. 
ony and as a Federal Government; and there is the danger of it. It 
is an unnecessary, it seems to me it is an unwise question, to present 
to the American public. It does not seem to me to be practically 
necessary. i 
While the principle anunciated might be in theory correct, if 
capable of ascertainment, so that it would not be offensive to our 
various elements or our nationals as is declared in the national-origins 
clause, nevertheless in its practical operation it is bound to be offensive 
and discriminatory. Mark you, when I use the words “ offensive 
and discriminatory ” I want a distinction drawn as between the intent 
in the passage of that law and its practical operation. You and I 
might have the highest motives actuating us in voting for legislation, 
and yet later we might see in its practical operation it is offensve. 
So, there is a distinct difference between intent in the beginning and 
results which follow the operation of any law that we might have 
voted or fought for. 
I want to submit this item of evidence: In Pennsylvania in 1790 
it wag said that there was approximately 110,000 persons of German 
descent. Yet between 1740 and 1750 there came to Pennsylvania for 
any one of several years approximately 12,000 of immigrants. That 
is not my word. That is in the records of the hearings before the