Gx Boil fr, i PE LL Lar 4 Powe “2 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW arte HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NON QS JT Res. 192 A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AMEND SUBDIVISIONS (B) AND (E) OF SECTION 11 OF THE IMMI-GRATION ACT OF 1924, AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 4, 6,9, 11, anp 13, 1929 Printed for the use of the Committee on Immigration om sa a - » ‘VES ws UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON * 1690 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California, Chatrman HENRY W. KEYES, New Hampshire, WILLIAM H. KING, Utah. DAVID A, REED, Pennsylvania. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota. ROYAL 8. COPELAND, New York, ARTHUR R. GOULD, Maine. COLE L. BLEASE, South Carolina, TAMES E. WATSON, Indiana. HUBERT D. STEPHENS, Mississippi. M. A. CONNOR. Olerk CONTENTS Statement of: Maj. Gist Blair, representing the Military Order of the World War, Washington, D. C_._____ me -- ——— Samuel W. Boggs, geographer, Department of State. _.__________.__ Hon. Wilbur J. Carr, Assistant Secretary, Department of State. ____ J. Edward Cassidy_.________________._______. RI Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, Washington, D. Co... __ . re Symes Bell Gurnee, representing National Civic Federation, Women’s DODAT TINE. issn i 50 mr mn nnn ge st ee mm en Dr. Joseph A. Hill, assistant to the Director of the Census, Department of Commeree________________________.___________._ ___ Hon. Harry E. Hull, Commissioner General of Immigration, Department of Labor_______________________ ______ Francis H. Kinnicutt, Immigration Restriction League, and allied patriotic society, New York City. __________________________ Edward R. ‘Lewis, chairman executive committee Immigration Restriction Association, Chicago, II_..________________________ Mrs. Sadye Linkletter, represenfing Daughters of America. _______ Demarest Lloyd, representing delegation of patriotic societies, Washington, D. C___ __ eee Hon. John W. MeCormack, Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts... . __.________________. _.____. Samuel A. Mathewson, University Club, New York City___.. ..... Mrs. George Maynard Minor, Waterford, Conn., representing Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America; a society of 25,000 women. (Not heard at length—merely stated organization she represented and their views) _ ________ - ee Arno P. Mowitz, representing the German Society of Pennsylvania, ou the relief of distress among German immigrants, Philadelphia, Bis som i i on mea Hon. B. Carroll Reece, representative in Congress from Tennessee, representing at the request of Judge Noyes, the Junior Order of United American Mechanies.________._______________.________ 71 Victor Frank Ridder, representing German element of the United 0 oo. 130 Senator Henrik Shipstead. ________._ ______________.._______. 166 Frank B. Steele, secretary-general, representing Sons of American Revolution. ooo eee ____ 38-112 Royal T. Stephens, president Patriotic Citizens Civic League, Philadelphia, Pa. _ 104 Col. John Thomas Taylor, representing the American Legion, Washington, ID. C____ 75 john B. Trevor, National Immigration Restriction Conference, New York City. ee 40 Roscoe C. Walker, Woodcliffe, N. J., representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the State of New Jersey___.__. 107 Mrs. Sherman Walker, vice president general, Daughters of the American Revolution, also chairman national defense committee of the National Society, Washington, D. C_____________________ Hon. Robe Carl White, Assltant Secretary, Department of Labor. . III Page 150 3 1 146 56 37 17 25 152 77 38 29 70 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1929 Ux1rep STATES SENATE, CoMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10.30 o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs. Capitol, Senator Hiram W. Johnson presiding. Present: Senators Johnson (chairman), Keyes, Reed, Nye, Gould, King, Harris, Copeland, Blease, and Stephens. Present also: Representatives Johnson (chairman of ‘the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives) and Jenkins. (The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of S. J. Res. 192. which is here printed in full as follows:) [S. J. Res. 192, Seventieth Congress, second session] JOINT RESOLUTION To amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of section 11 of the immigration act of 1824, as amended Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subdivisions (b) and (e) of section 11 of the immigration act of 1924, as amended, are amended by striking out the figures “1928” and inserting in lieu thereof the figures “1930.” The CmammaN. Gentlemen, there is a quorum of the committee present and the committee will please come to order. We have met this morning to hear certain testimony of representatives of various departments in reference to the national-origing provision of the immigration law, the particular matter pending before us being the resolution of Senator Nye postponing the proclamation of the Président for one year. I will call Secretary Carr, of the State Department. STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR J. CARR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE The CaamrMAN. Mr. Carr, we have under consideration the resolution of Senator Nye postponing for one year the proclamation of the President, to be made in accordance with the immigration law relating to the national-origins provision. The committee is anxious to be informed in regard to the view of your department respecting that provision and would welcome any suggestions you have to make in respect to the pending legislation or the provision itself. Would you proceed, therefore, in your own fashion and tell us your views and the views of the Department of State? Z NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Assistant Secretary Carr. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not believe the Department of State has any views on that question. What I mean by that is that we understand that the experts who have been engaged upon preparing the quotas under the so-called national-origins provision prepared one tentative report, which was finally transmitted to Congress. Last year they prepared another report, which we regard as a final report—that 1s, final up to that date—which was also transmitted to the Senate pursuant to a resolution of the Senate. Now, they are at work on another report to bring their results ap to date on the basis of whatever new data they have discovered meanwhile, for the information of the President and the Congress. if it desires that information. I feel, and I think it is the feeling of the department, that the board of experts have obtained about all the information that they are able to obtain and have done about all the work they are capable of doing to perfect these quotas as far as they can under existing aw. I do not think we have any feeling as to whether you should postpone the taking effect of this law or not; we think that is rather a matter for Congress, in its wisdom, to determine. The Cmamman. In your opinion, is there sufficient information before the Congress at the present time to put the law into effect ; I mean with accuracy and definiteness in the mode we like to have in respect of the administration of the law? Assistant Secretary Carr. I have not gone into that matter, Senator, the matter of sufficiency of the information, because we regard that as rather a scientific question for the determination of these scientists who are at work on the quotas. Doctor Hill, of the Department of Commerce, has been chairman of the committee that has worked on that matter, and I think all of us are prepared to say that we have absolute confidence in him and his colleagues, and are prepared to take their statement as to the accuracy of their conclusions and the sufficiency of the information upon which those conclusions have been reached. The three Secretaries—the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor—have in the past felt that they did not want to put themselves in the position of saying that ‘the formula which Congress laid down for the determination of these quotas was a good formula or a bad one. TI think they want to remain noncommital on that question. But I do not think any of them undertakes to controvert or disapprove the processes which this board of experts has employed. Senator Nye. Do they undertake to joss upon the efficiency of the basis which has been finally arrived at? Assistant Secretary Carr. I think they have all of them felt unconvinced that the formula in the law was a workable formula. I do not pretend to pass upon that at all myself; I do not know, frankly. I think I would have entire confidence in whatever Doctor Hill, Mr. Boggs, and those gentlemen have to say about that—confidence in their integrity and confidence in their scientific knowledge, Senator Rep. You do feel they have about exhausted all research that is possible for them? Assistant Secretary Carr. I have not talked to Doctor Hill, but I have talked to Mr. Boggs, of our own department. and I feal that NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 3 they have gone just about as far as they are capable of going; they have utilized all of the resources I think at their command. I do not believe from what I have learned of them, if I understand them correctly, that they will have much change to suggest over the quotas as they were submitted last year. Senator Rerp. So that from the standpoint of increased accuracy there would be no advantage in postponement for another year? Assistant Secretary Carr. That would be my impression; but I think you can get that more accurately from them. Senator Reep. Is Mr. Boggs here? Assistant Secretary Carr. Yes; Mr. Boggs is here. Senator Reep. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we hear from him, then. The CuamrMAN. Very well. I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that you wait a moment and we will hear from Mr. Boggs. Assistant Secretary Carr. Yes. sir. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. BOGGS, GEOGRAPHER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE The Cuamrman. Mr. Boggs, would you state your name, please, and your official station, so that the reporter may have it ¢ Mr. Bocas. Samuel W. Boggs, geographer of the Department of State. The Cuamrman. You have been engaged in that capacity how long, Mr. Boggs? Mr. Boges. Since October 1, 1924. The Cmamman. Have you any data with you in respect of the provision of the immigration law relating to national quotas? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. Senator Harris. May I ask what experience you have had in this line before going with the State Department ? Mr. Boaes. My work has been principally that of map compilation and geographical research with various publishing firms in New York. For the last three years before coming to the Department of State I was in charge of the editorial and revision work on the maps of a world atlas, the maps having been lithographed and printed abroad. TI have been concerned principally with the geography of foreign countries for a period of 10 years or more. Senator Harrrs. During that time vou have used census reports a good deal, I suppose? Mr. Boegs. Particularly in the last four years, yes. Senator Harris. You found them accurate, according to vour idea ? Mr. Boges. The United States Census revorts? Senator Harris. Yes. Mr. Boggs. I have had no reason to doubt them, sir. Senator Nye. That is, as to the accuracy of all census figures dating from the beginning of the census? Mr. Boggs. I would rather let Doctor Hill pass on that. Senator Harrrs. I did not mean to go so far; I meant on this particular subject. Mr. Boges. They seemed entirely consistent, so far as I have had occasion to use them. : Senator Harrrs. That is what I wanted to know. Thank you. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Reep. You are also secretary of the quota board, are you not? Mr. Bogas. Yes, sir. Senator Rep. That is the board created by the immigration law for the ascertainment of these quotas? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir; the committee of six. Senator Rerp. Have you been secretary of that board constantly since its organization ? Mr. Boas. Since its active work was begun on the national-origins quotas about three years ago. Senator Reep. Mr. Boggs, do you consider the national-origins methods and the 1890 foreign-born method so that you are able to make a comparison between the two of them from the standpoint of accuracy? Mr. Boges. I would not want to say anything that would discredit the present quota system in itself. Buf I have had to study the present quotas in order to gather such information as they had utilized, and to learn anything I could from their processes, in order to get a good start on the work of determining the national-origin uotas. 4 The national-origins quotas have, as we have used them, four separate factors: First, the immigration, that is, the foreign-born, reported in the 1920 census in the terms of postwar geography; second, the children of foreign-born who are reported interms of prewar geography; that is, the countries from which their immigrant parents came; and then, for statistical convenience and practical necessity, as I think Doctor Hill has previously explained, we have utilized figures concerning, third, the colonial stock, and fourth, the oe stock other than the foreign born and the children of oreign born. So that we have four streams. The immigrants, and children of foreign-born immigrants—— Senator Corer.axp. Pardon me just a moment. Those four streams represent the colonial stock and the immigrants? Mr. Boees. The postcolonial stock, which we have also called the “immigrant stock,” comprises what we call the grandchildren and later generations of postcolonial stock, the children of foreign born, and the foreign born themselves. That is simply for statistical convenience. Senator Remp. Take the first of those streams, the foreign born, is there any element of uncertainty in that? Mr. Boges. There is practically none, because it is reported in terms of post-war geography and it is in itself, of course, much more usable than are the 1890 foreign-born statistics in determining the present quotas, because it is in terms of post-war geography, whereas the 1890 foreign-born data have to have a good manv adjustments made because of the geographic changes. The Cmairman. The second of the sources that you used, how is it as to accuracy? Mr. Bocas. The children of the foreign-born are reported, as I say, in terms of pre-war geography, as of necessity, because they could not tell the countries, in terms of post-war geography, from which their parents came; many would not know of the geographical changes in Europe. But we have to use with that statistical table NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 5 the statistics of mother tongue for the 1920 and the 1910 censuses; and, of course, that subdivides the statistics for each country in terms of the number of each mother tongue from that country, and gives us a picture not simply of the foreign-born themselves, which were also reported, but reflects really the immigration of a considerable period, the period in which their immigrant fathers came to this country. Senator Remp. To the extent that you can check those figures against the mother tongue, that is more certain than the 1890 census, is it not? Mr. Bocas. I think that without any question it is. Senator Rep. So that you have got the first of your four elements settled in terms of post-war geography. You have got the second one subject to pre-war geography corrections? Mr. Bocas. Yes. Senator Regn, But checked by mother-tongue statistics? Mr. Bocas. Yes. Senator Reep. In getting your 1890 basis you do not have that check by mother tongue? Mr. Bocas. No; because our mother-tongue statistics begin in 1910. These two, may I add, account for one-third of the total quota. Senator Reep. To the extent of that third, you have a greater certainty under the national-origins basis, I take it, than you have ander 1890°¢ Mr. Boges. That is true. Senator Reep. How about the remainder? Mr. Bocas. Dividing between the two, the colonial stock and the “ grandchildren ” (as we speak of it) part of the post-colonial or immigrant stock: The Census Bureau has done a very great amount of work in trying to make the division between those two as precise as possible, and find that the ratio is about 2 to 1; in other words, about 45 per cent in the quotas get their distribution from the colonial Jk of 1790, and about 21.6 per cent from the grandchildren actor. Actually, whatever element of uncertainty there is in dividing between the two has very little effect. Accurate tests show that if there has been an error of 1,000,000 population in dividing between the colonial and the grandchildren factor (in the computation by the Bureau of the Census) which is rather difficult to suppose, the effect on the quotas would amount to less than 1,000 in the case of Great Britain, less than 400 in the quotas in the cases of Germany and the Irish Free State, and less than 50 in each of the rest. So that the division between those two, although it has been done with great care, really has not as much effect upon the quotas as would be supposed. , Senator Regn. Now, Mr. Boggs, turning to the 1890 method—that is, the basis of determining the quotas according to the foreign born, shown by the census of 1890—is that certain, definite, and accurate? Mr. Bogos. I take it that the figures as reported are accurate. We have no reason to question them. Senator Reep. The figures in the census itself? : Mr. Boggs. The ficures in the census itself: yes, sir. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Rerp. But is the distribution of the quotas among those countries accurate ? Mtr. Bocas. I would not like to pass judgment on the work of the previous committee, but this ean very properly be said: It wags intended to be a temporary provision, and they had a very short time in which to do the work. Further—— Senator Coprranp. Pardon me, what was it you said about a temporary provision ? Mr. Bocas. The present quota basis; and they had to do their work in a period of two or three months have forgotten how long, but it was a very short time. Further than that, a considerable body of information has been produced since then which is applicable to the determination of quotas on the present basis. A large body of information which we have unearthed in the national origins study would be applicable to improving certain of the present quotas. The error in the present quotas, whatever it may be— and there must be error in any quotas, not always demonstrable, but it is certainly there—is due wholly to the geographical adjustments which have to be made, because of the changes of boundaries; and as all of the present quotas are derived from one source, whatever error there is in handling that one source affects the quotas concerned very largely. The CrairmaN. The quotas have been in use since 1924, have they not? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. The Cramrman. They are fixed now and definite ? Mr. Boos. Yes, sir. The Cramman. You would not recommend their change? Mr. Boees. I am not at all concerned with the expediency of changing the quotas. The Cmarman. But the quotas as fixed are reasonably accurate, are they not? Mr. Bocas. They were done as accurately as it was possible to do at the time. . The Cumamrman. I have no doubt about that. I am not questioning anybody’s accuracy or desire to be accurate, But they are reasonably accurate, are they not? Mr. Boaes. I have not really attempted to recompute any of them with any care. The Cmamman. Then you would be unable to answer ¢ Mr. Boges. At the present time. The Cuaremax. Who certifies those quotas; the State department does, does it not? . Mr. Boggs. The three secretaries and the committee appointed under them to do so. . Co . The Cmamrman. All right. Now, they have been certified; and under them we have been admitting those who come from foreign shores ? Mr. Boos. Yes, sir. } The Carman. And definitely we have done that since the passage of the law in 1924? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 7 Senator Ree. Mr. Boggs, what proportion of the population of Europe, or what proportion of the area of Europe, is under a different sovereignty to-day than that under which it was in 1890% Mr. Bogs. Approximately one-seventh or one-eighth of the population of Europe has changed sovereignties since 1918. Senator Reep. Are you incuding Russia in that? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. Senator Rexp. And Russia has an area that has not changed sovereignty ? Mzr. Bocas. I am including Russia with the countries in which there has been geographical change. TI also include Turkish Asia. Senator Reep. In the effort to determine the 1890 quotas it is necessary to estimate the number of persons who come from that area which changed sovereignty, is it not? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir, Senator Reep. In other words, in establishing the Polish quota, you have to guess from the Russian, Austrian, and German figures of 1890 what quota should be apportioned to Poland, do you not? Mr. Boaes. Yes, sir. Senator Rerp. And that is true of all the quotas that have been created ? Mr. Boces. Yes; where boundaries have been changed. Senator Reep. And it is true of the areas that have transferred their sovereignty from one old country to another old country, as Alsace-Lorraine? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. So that the factor of error is there, and the element of error is possible in the census of 1890 just as it is with the children of the foreign born reported in the 1920 census; is not that so? Mr. Boas. Yes. The Crarrman. Yes; but in your computations you took into consideration all those matters, did you not, in the original computations? It not possible that all matters of that sort were not considered, is it ? Mr. Bocas. They were considered. The Cuairman. Why, of course. Now, how great is the possibility of error in computation such as has been suggested ? Mr. Bocas. There is an appreciable element of uncertainty when you take into account the effect of the geographical adjustments which are made with respect to each country which lost territory— not those which gained territory—and that those countries which have lost territory total about 55 per cent of the population of Europe. The adjustments must be made in the United States census report statistics, whatever they may be, with reference to those countries. About one-fourth of the population of the countries which have lost territory, or one-seventh of the entire population of Europe, has changed sovereignty. So that affects directly the whole of the present quotas, and it affects two major elements of the national-origins quotas directly. The Cuamman. What are the two major elements of the nationalorigins quotas? : Mr. Boggs. The children and grandchildren factors. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW The Cmarrmax. So that if there is an element of uncertainty in the quotas thus far established, there would be like element of uncertainty in the effort to establish national origins? Senator Reep. That is just what I was trying to illustrate, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boces. True. } Senator Remp. That element of error has to do with all of the 1890 quotas, has it not? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. In regard to those countries? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. The whole quota is affected by that element of error ? Mr. Boegs. Yes, sir. Senator Rerp. Within the national origins you have two streams in which that element of error does not enter ? Mr. Boogs. Yes, sir. Senator Rerp. To sum it all up, which, in your judgment, involves the greater uncertainty, the greater possibility of error, the national origins as now determined or 18909 Mr. Boges. Without having carefully recomputed—using the latest material we have-—the present quotas, I could simply give my impression—— Senator Reep. That is what we want. Mr. Boaes (continuing). And that is that the national-origins quotas as they have been computed, or as they will be slightly revised in the final report, are taken as a whole, at least as accurate as the present quotas. Many of the quotas are more accurate, Senator Reep. Mr. Boggs, have you made a study of the ratio of the various quotas to the various populations at present of the European countries to which they apply? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir; I have had to do that in connection with utilizing the mother-tongue statistics and the foreign-source materials. Senator Reep. By the way, before we go into this new matter, you have accumulated ‘a large amount of foreign-source material? Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. Senator Rrrmp. Statistics of emigration from various countries? Mr. Boeas. Chiefly from Ireland, Germany, and Hungary. Senator Rern. And the Hungarian Provinces, like Croatia ? Mr. Boggs. Including Croatia-Slavonia. Senator Reep. Have you prepared in tabular form a statement of these ratios of quotas t6 present population ? Mr. Boees. In checking over the quotas reported last year, I worked out a map—I usually work on maps anyway—and checked up to see whether the net results reflected what I supposed they would in the way of immigration trends. In order to equalize them, of course, I had to compare the quotas with the population of the countries to which they apply; and I have computed the number in the quota per million’in the population of each country of Europe, both on the present basis and the national-origins basis as reported last year. Senator Reep. Give us the figures for Ireland. Great Britain, Sweden. Norway, and Germany. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 9 Mr. Boges. On which basis? Senator Rerp. The ratio of present quota to the present population. Mr. Boggs. In the present quota— Senator Reep. I am speaking now of 1890. Mr. Boees. In the present quota—now the 1890 foreign-born basis—there are 9,609 in the quota of the Irish Free State for each million in the population, which means approximately 1 in the quota for every 104 of the population of the country. Senator Rep. About 1 per cent? Mr. Boggs. About 1 per cent. For Great Britain at the present time it is 752 per million. Senator Reep. That is, the Irishman has about twelve times as much chance of getting into America as the Englishman has. Mr. Boges. Almost thirteen. Senator Riep. Thirteen times as good a chance? How is it in regard to Sweden ? Mr. Bocas. For Sweden it is 1.579 per million, which is about onesixth of 1 per cent. Senator Rep. Norway? Mr. Bocas. Two thousand four hundred and thirty-five, or about one-fourth of 1 per cent. Senator Reep. Germany ? Mr. Boggs. For Germany, 812, or about one-twelfth of 1 per cent. Senator Reep. Will you put the entire table in the record, Mr. Boggs, please? Mr. Boags. Yes, sir. Senator Rep. So that we need not ask you to tell us orally. (The statement referred to will be found later in the record of to-day, on the margin of the maps, inserted with other data submitted by Mr. Boggs.) Senator Rep. Now, under the national-origins basis, what is the picture? Mr. Boaes. The largest is still the Irish Free State, namely, approximately 5,900 per million, or more than one-half of 1 per cent. The next largest is that of Great Britain, which is 1,457, or approximately one-fourth that of the Irish Free State. Senator Rerp. The Irishman will still, under the national origins, have five times as much chance of getting into the United States as the Englishman, Mr. Bocas. Four times. Senator Reep. Four times? Mr. BoeGs. Approximately; yes, sic. The next largest is that of Norway, which 1s 907 per million population, or about one-eleventh of 1 per cent. Sweden is 561. Then, following that, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany. Senator CopeLaxp. How do Norway and Sweden compare with Ireland and Great Britain in their admissions? Mr. Bocas. You mean in the present quotas, or national-origins quotas ? Senator Coprranp. National origins. 10 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF TMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Boos. Norway is nearly two-thirds that of Great Britain; Sweden, nearly two-fifths. Does that answer your question, Senator eed ¢ Senator Remp. That answers it; yes. Mr. Boggs, will the report that is about to be made by your quota board, in your opinion, make any material change in the quotas as transmitted to the Senate a year ago? Mr. Boees. Not very materially. Senator Reep. Would a postponement of the national-origins clause for another year give us any considerable amount of increased accuracy or certainty in the quotas? Mr. Boges. I do not see how it can. Senator Rerp. The quota board has finished its work, practically? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. . Senator Copzranp. Mr. Boggs, when ‘you spoke about Sweden, does your reply mean that, if the person in Sweden wanted to come to the United States, he would have half the chance of one from Great Britain? Mr. Bocas. Under the national origins he would have, say, twofifths the chance of a person from Great Britain. Senator Coperanp. And the man from N orway would have about two-thirds the chance? Mr. Boges. That is it. Senator Rep. And under the 1890 basis, how are his chances? Mr. Boges. Norway, about three and one-fourth times as large as that of Great Britain, in proportion to population. and Sweden, slightly more than twice. Senator Ruep. At present the Norwegian has three times as much zhance to come to America as an Englishman ? Mr. Boeas. That is true. Senator Rep. At present the Swede has three times the chance to come as an Englishman. Mr. Boees. The Norwegian has three times the chance, at the present time. : Senator Rerp. And under the national-origing plan the Norwegian has two-thirds the chance? Mr. Bogos. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. At present he has three times the chance, but under the new plan two-thirds? Mr. Boaes. Approximately. Senator Ree. Let us have this clear in the record. Under the present plan he has three times the chance that the Englishman has to come? Mr. Boges. That is true. Senator Rrep. And under the new plan of national origins he would have two-thirds the chance that the Englishman has? Mr. Bocas. That is true. Senator Rep. And then, likewise, with the man from Sweden, now he has—what did you say? Mr. Bogas. A little more than twice, Senator Reep. A man from Sweden has a little more than twice the chance of the Englishman. Under the new plan he would have two-fi "ths the chance ? NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 11 Mr. Boaas. Yes, sir. Senator Harrrs. Now, as to Germany, how would those figures be? Mr. Bocas. At the present time the German quota per million is a little larger than that of Great Britain, or about 812 compared to 752. Under the national origins the ratio is 395 to 1.457, as reported last year. Senator Corer.anp. What does that mean in figures? Mr. Boces. It means for a person in Germany, at the present time, a slightly greater chance; and under the national origins the chance would be between one-third and one-fourth that of a person in Great Britain, Senator CoruLaxp. That is to say, under the present law the German has the same chance to enter the country as the Englishman has; is that true? Mr. Boees. Yes, sir; or a little better than the Englishman. Senator CorerLand. A little better than or at least equal to it? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. Senator CopeLaxp. And under the national-origins provision his prospect of admission would be what? Mr. Boees. Between one-third and one-fourth as great as the Englishman would have. Senator Corperaxp. He has an equal chance now, and under the py plan he would have only one-fourth the chance the Englishman has? Mr. Boaes. Approximately, that is true—somewhat better than one-fourth the chance that the Englishman would have. Senator Harris. What are the ficures for Mexico under the na-‘ional origins? Mr. Bocas. There are none; there is no quota. Senator Harris. I thought you could give an estimate of what would come in under the national origins. Mr. Bocas. There is no quota whatever from Mexico under either system. Senator Harris. I understand; but if there was a quota? gator Nye (interposing). You have not given any study to tha Mr. Bocas. No; not any appreciable study. I have used the figures somewhat, of course. But the schemes that have been proposed have been different and there was nothing to apply it to. Senator Corrraxp. Mr. Boggs, will you give us two more quotas, Italy and Poland? Under the present law what is the relationship nf the Poland immigration to the English? Mr. Boggs. The Italian has an opportunity at the present time nne-eighth of that of the person from Great Britain. Senator CoPELAND. And under the new law, what would it be? Mr. Bocas. Approximately one-tenth. Senator CoreLanp. What about Poland ? Mr, Bocas. At the present time a little more than one-fourth that of Great Britain, and under the national origins it would be approximately one-sixth that of great Britain in proportion to the population. Senator Coperaxp. At the present time it is practically onefourth 2 12 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Bocas. Yes. Under the national origins the Polish quota is practically the same as at present, but the quota per million population is approximately one-sixth as great as that of Great Britain and northern Ireland would be, Senator CopeLanp. The quota has not changed particularly? Mr. Boags. No; the Polish quota is almost the same in the two systems, The Cmamrman, Mr. Boggs, you referred to g report submitted heretofore, and in that you said you thought there would be little alteration in figures that might hereafter be devised. Is that report the one dated February 15, 1928? Mr. Boacs. Yes, sir. Senator Coper.anp. ‘And that is the report made by Doctor Hill ? Mr. Boegs. That is right; by the committee of which Doctor Hill is chairman. Senator Rep. Mr. Boggs, have you a copy of that map you have been using that you can leave with the committee ? Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. I would ask that that be put in the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boces. Tt will be somewhat revised on the basis of the final report, Senator Rerp. This ig based on the quotas shown in the report ast year ? Mr. Boos. Yes, sir. The Crarrman. That is, the report you have just been referring to, of February 15, 1928% Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. The Crarrmax. At this point, therefore, at the request of Senator Regs the map and statement submitted by the witness will be inserted. (The statements referred to are as follows) Immigration quotes, Furopean countries, and demands for immigration wpisae (based upon reports of American consular officers, July 1. 1928) Europe (otal | Northern and Western Europe........_._.| Belgium... Denmark... [J7777777m mmm France... [J777777TTTTmmmmmmoeeees germany __TITTTTTTTII me Great Britain. __TTTITTTTIm me Leeland... "77777 77rrmmer ene ooe Irish Free State... ____ TIT Luxemburg. TTT Nt Norway C7777 1IIIITTrmee Sweden. _TTTTTTTTITmmmmmme mene Switzerland ________ mcm —— Present quota 1924—— 161, 546 | 140. 999 | 512 2, 789 3,954 51, 227 34, 007 100 8, 567 100 1,648 6,453 9, 56” 92 (RT Unused balance June 30, | 10928 Estimated Estimated demand | demand July 1, givided by 1928 quota Nationa] origins Juota (as reported 1928, for COmpari-Son) 208 | 1,706, 074 593.840 150, 560 129, 798 10, 000 opr 15, 000 big 4, 400 3,308 166, 266 24,908 203, 158 65, 804 NL i 30, 000 1.05 17,427 Nr | 1, 000 10.0 100 25, 000 15.2 3,083 10, 025 6.2 4 20, 00¢ 2.1 3399 9. one +p Ted v3 / TJROP: IMMIGRATION QUOTAS (1924-1928) PER 1,000,000 POPULATION oF THR aouNTRIES OF EURCPR LH * Bess than 50» A cu,oel iE n, F we ios . Fo os doe SE 50 to 200 ¢- “2 § ~ 4 RET 7 } i ahaa p § 100 to 200. Fe BoD, i 200 yo 500 iw HE 3 ag cm 500 to 1,000 More ¢han 1,000 Te quota being the minimum of 00 prescribed by law, the quote Per 1,000,000 population is not Significant for comparison with Other acuntries. nr The quotas per 1,000,000 pop-Wation for European countries (omitting the minimm quota countries) are listed below in mperical order: 1 Irish Free State . .9,609 2 Norway . » « « » ° 2,435 | Brera wows &# .1,57° Denmark . « + rc * 81c 5 Germany sees 2 Z gt. Brit. & Yor.lre. 2 Penzig « » + vc tt y Switzerland . « « ¢ oo v 0gechoslovakia . . 22t 0 Yotherlands . « o 222 1 Poland . oe ovo o20 1p Jitmania . o.oo 16) yy pinion Lam ws 1b f pustria. oo oe 0 0 J getonia + oc ¢ . 1 france . + cc * 1taly’ RE . portugal - , A Belgium . FEE A] Aungery a 00 en Yugoslavia . + 0 °° pumenis «co tC , ‘Russi oo. oe 0 - spain se & r* f | A Bg he —— —emsemepm—— 35R/5. oo (Face D- 12.) No. 1. 12 NATI Mr. Bogs practically 1 lation is apy and norther: Senator C Mr. Boas systems. The Cumar heretofore, s alteration in the one datec Mr. Boaes Senator C Mr. Boces is chairman. Senator R been using tl Mr. Boges Senator R Chairman. Mr. Boaes report. Senator R last year? Mr. Boges. The Cran to, of Februs Mr. Boaaes. The CHAIR Reed, the ms serted. (The state: Imanigration g { baged Europe (total)... Northern and Wests Belgium........ Denmark... France. ........ Germany..._... Great Britain... Leeland. .._____. [rish Free State Luxemburg. .__. Netherlands... Norway. _..... Sweden......... Switzerland_____ "F ATOR ORICTH IMMIGRATION QUOTAS PER 1,000,000 POPULATION 3F Ty QQUITELES OF EVRGER Legs tha 5° 0 to 100 100 40 200 200 3p 500 500 40 3,000 M fore than 1,50 In order that the quotas of large and small countries may Je made comparsble, they must be expressed in proportion to the population. The quota numbers shown on these two maps (upon vhich the shading 1s based), are not the total quotas for the several countries, therefore, but the number in the quota, in each instance, for each 1,000,000 population of the country. 0 s SE — ———— ETE TI .. 0. Lo, 1928 i ET The quote peing the minimum of 100 prescribed vy law, the quota per 1,000,000 population is not Blgngsicent for comparison with they countries. Ie quotas Der 1,000,000 popa)ation for Turopean countries (omitting the minimum quote sountries) are 1isted below in numerical order? } Irish Free state . 5.862 5 6t. Brit. & Yor.Ire.1,457 Norway o.oo * * °° 907 Sweden . o + + ¢ °° 561 ; Netherland8 . = ° ne . Switzerland . . - ° 110 C Germany ce oo °° 395 . Denmark . . +r "0" 37) , Demzig . - + 0 0 CC v7 0 pustria ooo oo 0 00 |g Polend . » + «+ "°° 2 Lithuania ee 7 Czechoslovakia . « Belgium , . - * * * 5 Finland . . - © O° 6 Italy .o.oeovc tt 17 Hungary . - - - 8 Latvia . - © 9 france . - ° 20 portugal . 71 Yugoslavia . . . sp Greece . + «= . 37 Rusels . eee oi penis «occ 25 purkey of Spain «© - 35885. (Face D- 12) No. Z. x] > y 221 200 170 1 8 tx a5 30 [2 Mr. practice lation 1 and not Senat Mr. 1] systems The | heretofc alteratis the one Mr. I Senat Mr. T is chain Senat been usi Mr. E Senat Chairm: Mr. ¥ report. Senat last yeas Mr. B The ( to, of F' Mr. B The C Reed, tk serted. (The 1 Immigrat {(h Europe (tota Northern ang Belgium. Denmark France... Germany Great Br. [celand.. [rish Fre L.uxembt Netherlaz Norway. Sweden. Switzerla NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 13 Immigration quotas, European couniries, and demands for immigration visas (based unon reports of American consular officers, July 1, 1928) —Continued Southern and Eastern Europe (including Armenia and TUrkev) - c coeeem come oo AIDANMIS ca mel ATUOPIRL. . «vm em SRA mm ATMeDIA emcee AUSHIIA. oocmmmmeme Bulgaria. occa Czechoslovakia. «ooo LLL... Danzig. «cameo meme eee ESOmI meee mmm meee FIRIBI et mm sem isi iii om DITOOO0 ce creme mmo hw stm mS FINALY. comm ae da Smee ctaly..-.. mmc ————— LY Bhim sot i A tm meme “dechtenstein__.___________ __________ JAthuania...._______________________. MORACO ome. Poland ...___._.___.__.._ ___. Portugal __.__... rr Rumania. _... RHEE ry men mmr Russia ____.__._ San Maring.......______ 7777700 SPAIN oo Turkey... fee. Yugoslavia__._. nN Present quota (1924—) 20, 547 10 i24 78F 100 3,073 228 124 471 190 47: 3,845 143 100 344 100 - 982 50° ‘ 2h 67) Unused balance Tune 30, 1928 Estimated demand July 1, 1928 270) 1,183,125 i 100 Nil. Nil, Nil. | “ll, “il. il. Jil. AL [918 Nil. Nil. 72 1. 3 Luo Nil. 120 30, 000 15,000 | 250, 000 520 5,000 12, 485 14, 000 20, 000 300, 000 4,000 Nil. 20,0 ~ 0 hy Estimated demand divided by quota 57.6 40.0 1.0 38.2 150.0 81.4 2.3 40.3 26.5 140.0 42.3 78.0 28.2 58.1 “ig 2. 8 26.5 22.2 108.5 200.0 EB A National origins quota (as reported 1928, for comparison) 25, 762 IGO 100 1, 639 100 2, 72¢ 157 2 312 1,181 5,089 243 100 492 100 6,090 457 311 3,540 100 305 233 30 1 Although the Russian quota of 2,248 applies to Asiatic as well as European Russia, almost the entire Russian immigration comes from European Russia. The Cmaremax. In the report I observe that you refer to the volume entitled “A Century of Population Growth” as being one of the means by which you determine your quotas under the national origins; is that correct? Mr. Bocas. That is right. The Cramman. When was the Century of Population Growth published ¢ Mr. Boges. 1910. The Cramrman. Who was the author? Mr. Boges. I think perhaps Doctor Hill had better speak on that point. It was done in the Bureau of the Census. The CHARMAN. The reason for that question, Mr. Boggs, was to see whether or not the detail was in your mind or whether you had accepted Doctor Hill’s conclusion in reference to this matter of national origins. Mr. Bocas. Well, I may say that the committee has utilized the Century of Population Growth to a considerable extent. There has been, of course, a thorough agreement between Doctor Hill and myself in utilizing it, and we have made allowance on the basis of later studies for the anglicization of names prior to 1790. The Crarrman. What was the study that you made in reference to_the anglicization of names since 1790? Mr. Bocas. We utilized quite largely some research which was done by two men working under the American Council of Learned So-85885—29— 9 14 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW zieties, of which Doctor Hill will probably speak in more detail. But there is practically no difference in opinion as to the extent to which that anglicization has taken place. The CuarMAN. You say there is no difference? Mr. Bocas. Very little difference. The figures which we used last year, compared to the percentages as reported in a provisional report of this special committee under the American Council of Learned Societies, very recently published, are very similar. The CuamrMan. I did not catch that name. Mr. Boges. The American Council of Learned Societies. The Crarrman. Where does that society have its headquarters, if you please? Mr. Boaes. Doctor Hill is a member of the committee, and I think it would be better for him to speak to that point, Senator. The Cmairman. All right. Now, this particular volume that seems to be the basis of at least one element of your computation, the Century of Population Growth—— Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir. The Cuoamrman. Was any check made with respect to the statement made therein contained, by you? Mr. Boges. By myself, you mean? The Crarrman. Yes. Mr. Boges. I would say I simply used the work which has been done in the Bureau of the Census with the collaboration of these specialists. The Cumairmax. When did we have our first census? Mr. Boggs. In 1790. The Cuairman. And was it accurate? Mr. Boggs. I know it is the opinion of the people in the census that it was at least as accurate as the present census. Senator Coreraxp. How is that, Mr. Boggs? Mr. Boggs. It is the opinion of the people in the census that it was at least as accurate as the present census. Senator Coreraxp. That the 1790 census was as accurate? Mr. Bocas. As the present census; yes, sir. The Cuamman. He says “the present census.” I am wondering if he is damning with faint praise or using that comparison for the purpose of indicating it was a remarkably accurate census. Mr. Bocas. I am not passing judgment on that census; I am saying it is my understanding that it is believed to be as accurate as the latest census. But I am not speaking of the study of the names. The Cramrman. There is a relative statement that you make, and I do not know whether you mean by that the present or recent sensus, the last one we had, was accurate or sufficiently accurate? Mr. Bocas. Yes, sir. The Cmamman. So that you speak, then, with the same degrees of praise as to the census of 1790% } Mr. Boges. As to the number in the population; yes, sir. Senator Coperanp. Mr. Chairman, + that is true, you and I and members of the Commerce Committee must do something to try to make the next census an accurate one. If my impression is correct about the first Census, it must be very inaccurate. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 15 Mr. Boges. I am not speaking of the study of names in the First Census; simply the number reported. The Cmairman. As I understand Mr. Boggs, he says the number is as accurate as any census. Senator Coprranp. That has been seriously questioned by the Irish societies, has it not, Mr. Boggs? } Mr. Bogs. I think you refer perhaps to the number of the Irish as estimated in the “ Century of population growth” rather than the total population in the 1790 census. Senator CoreLanp. Well, if I am correctly advised by these learned men from the Irish society, they think that many Irishmen were omitted from that First Census. I speak of it that way, because I have seen figures in reference to no others. Mr. Boggs. That is right. Senator NYE. Senator, so they challenge the total number reported ? Senator Coreranp. Yes. Senator Nye. I understand so. Do you happen to know, Mr. Boggs, the man in New York who furnished those figures, who pointed out how many Mc's and O’Leary’s, and so forth, there were in the Continental Army, and then compare it with the census and they could not find those names as they did not appear at all in the census? Mr. Boses. I have read the report. Senator Coperanp. My impression is they seriously questioned the inclusion of these persons in the census, and I should really, having that impression, be surprised to learn that the census just talken is as mistaken as that was in 1790. I would like to ask one other question, Mr. Boggs, simply to have the record clear in the matter: I find from your statement that apparently the southern and eastern European groups are not particularly affected by the new plan; that is, their admissions are mm about the same relative proportion as Great Britain has in the present law? Mr. Boegs. Taken as a group, they are very much the sane as they now are, but under the national-origins basis the quota of Great Britain and northern Ireland will be increased. Senator Coprranp. But when we come to the continental Nordic races—the Swedes, Norwegians, and Germans—we find a material percentage of reduction over Great Britain. Mr. Boos. The principal differences are that the quota of Great Britain is increased and the quotas of Germany and the Scandinavian countries and the Irish Free State are decreased—that is, all within the northern and western group of European countries. Senator CoreLaxp. Swedes about two-fifths, Norwegians twothirds, and the Germans one-fourth ? Mr. Boggs. I think so. The CumairMaN. Are there any further questions desired to be asked Mr. Boggs? Senator Reev. Mr. Boggs, have you any other material that the ommittee ought to know about that will assist us in the inquiry ? Mr. Boegs. I would hardly know how to answer your question. Senator Reep. Do you know what the committee is trying to determine? We would be glad of any light you can give us. The Cuatraan. What we are seeking or, rather, what I am seeking is to ascertain, whether it is better to. let this matter ride for 14 16 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW another year, with the confusion we have been having for the past two years, or attempt to force action at the present time in putting the national origins into operation. That is what I desire light apon. hr. Bocas. The only thing I can say there is that the results are lai practically as good as they can be made, and it is for Congress to '¢ determine whether they shall be utilized. Le The CraRMAN. As a policy, that is so? Mr. Boggs. Certainly. The Crmamrma~. And you say the results at the present time are quite as good as they can be made? Mr. Boces. As we will report them very shortly. The Cramrman. When will you have your report ready? Mr. Boses. I should say during the present Congress certainly, and I do not know how much sooner. Sor The CuamrmaxN. “During the present Congress” would be about Ce three or four weeks more. Mr. Bocas. It can be done in less time than that, I think. The Crmarrman. Are there any further questions of Mr. Boggs? Senator Rep. I think, if Mr. Boggs does not mind giving it, I would like to have his personal opinion on this: Which is the more accurate method of dividing these quotas? I am not asking you for the opinion of the Department of State or the quota board’s opinion, but your personal opinion. Mr. Boges. I would rather confine myself to the facts and the adequacy of the facts, sir. I am not concerned—— Senator Reep. We are very much concerned. The Cmairman. I think that is a very wise conclusion on the part >f Mr. Boggs. Senator Rrrp. There is nobody in the United States who has studied it more, and if he has any personal opinion I think the committee would be impressed by it. Mr. Boees. If I may, I would rather not attempt to pass on the question. The Cuarman. By the way, in the computations you have made , is there such a thing as differential of fecundity? if Mr. Bocas. That is something I would rather leave for Doctor Pu Hill to answer, if I may. I do not wish to dodge anything, but, you see, there have been two distinct phases of the study—the census statistics, and then the geographical adjustment, and my task was confined wholly to the geographical adjustment and to studying whether the material for that purpose was sufficient. The Cratrman. But you did agree to the report, did you not. that L was submitted ? cel Mr. Boees. Yes, sir. The CramrMAN. Do you know whether that report included such differential of fecundity ? Mr. Boaes. As reported last year, indirectly it did. The Cmarrman. All right, sir; then, I will ask Doctor Hill about. ' that, unless some of you gentlemen wish to ask further questions. me Senator Nye. All of these facts and details you have given us ma this morning are the property of one nation pretty well known by abe the members of that commission, including the Secretary of State. all B: wl NL NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 17 Mr. Boggs. I think they have never gone into the matter with great detail, sir. I do not know how far they are known or not known, Senator Coreranp. They have had access to it, however? Mr. Boegs. They have; yes, sir. } Senator Harris. How long did the secretaries upon this board sit with your committee ? Mr. Boges. They have never sat with our committee; we have simply reported to them in writing. Senator Nye. Have they had further means or access to other means that would lead them to conclusions upon this matter? Mr. Bocas. That I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of Mr. Boggs! Senator Rep. I have no further questions. The CHairman. All right. May we call Doctor Hill next? STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH A. HILL, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Cramryran. Doctor, will you state your name, please, and your official position, if any. Doctor Hirt. Joseph A. Hill, Assistant Director of the Census. Senator Hares. Doctor Hill, will you state just how long you have been on this special study of the quota problem and all other matters relating to population. Doctor Hirr. I have been in the Census Bureau since 1899. Senator Harris. That is what I wanted. Doctor Hirr. And a great deal of my work has lain in the field of population. Sa Harris. You have had particular charge of this kind of work ? Doctor Hiv. I have been in very close touch with it and for some time in charge of it, I should say. . The Cmamrman. Doctor, are you engaged in supplying the figures in reference to the national-origins proposition ? Doctor Hirr. It would be perhaps more accurate if 1 should say we are engaged in supplying some checks to the computations previously made. The Cramrma~. Have you completed that work? Doctor Hirr. Not quite. The CratrMaN. When do you expect to complete it, if you please? Doctor Hirr. Within the next few weeks. The CrARMAN. I have a note from you dated J anuary 31 which you wrote to the committee, if you recall, in which you say: I regret to say, however. that I shall not be able to present to the comte any revised figures dealing with the quotas. as the revision is not yet completed. Doctor Hw. Yes. The Cumamman. Doctor, I presume you understand the situation in this committee. There is a resolution pending for the purpose of postponing for one year the proclamation by the President, concerning the national-origins provision immigration law. There are certain gentlemen who have very pronounced views in respect to 18 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW that resolution. There is one, at least, speaking to you now, who is entirely open minded upon the subject and would like such information as you can give in regard to the present accuracy of any computations, and whether or not time would be of value to you in perfecting the computations that thus far have been made by you. Doctor Hiv. I think that the present computations are as near as we can get on this matter to determining the national origins, practically. If another year was put on it I do not know quite what we would do about it. I think we have done about all we can. But I suppose some historical researches might be made which might result in some slight changes, but I believe they would be very slight. The Cmamrman. The fact of the matter is that postponements that have heretofore been had in this matter have been of value to you, have they not? Doctor HirLr. They have been of value to us. The CrarrMan. Indeed, to have put the national origins in operation in the first instance would have been to have done so without accurate information or sufficient information on our part. Doctor Hrrr. I think so. The Cramman. Then, the second postponement which was made was equally valuable, was it not? Doctor Hur. In the way of studying and checking our figures; yes. I have more confidence in them now than I had a year ago. The CHAIRMAN. You have more confidence in them now than you had a year ago? Doctor Hin. Yes. The Crarrman. Within another year do you think you might have still more confidence or less? Doctor Hrwr. I doubt it. The Caamman, Sir? Doctor Hiv. I think we are about as near accuracy as we can get. The CratrmaN. It would do you no harm to have another year to do this thing in which you had little confidence at one time and now have much? Doctor Hii. I do not know that it would do any harm; no. The Cramrman. And inasmuch as we have now a system that has been put in operation and has been in successful operation for a period of four or five years, practically, no harm can accrue anyway to the immigration law by giving you the opportunity to check again. can it? Senator Rep. To continue quotas we knew to be inaccurate ? The Crarrman. No; to substitute something which you know to be more inaccurate—beg pardon. That is the clue at least as accurate; put it that way? Senator Reep. No; I will not admit that. The Cuaairmaxn. In view of Mr. Boggs’s testimony ? Senator Reep. No; Mr. Boggs to the contrary. Co Senator Nye. Doctor Hill, if at any time the national origins feature was to be repealed, would it not be better to have it repealed before it became effective than after it had taken effect? Doctor Hiri. Yes; it would; I would think so. Senator Nye. If we were to pass now upon this and permit the national-origins clause to become effective, and then it was afterwards to be repealed by anv chance. would it not entail a lot of NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 19 detail a an awfully lot of work that would be wasted energy in the end? Doctor Hire. Well, the work that has already been done—— The Crarrman. Does it not go without saying, Doctor, that at this session if the proclamation is to be made and the nationalorigins provision should be put in operation, it would be infinitely preferable not to do that, if the effort were to be made and success. fully made immediately afterwards to repeal the national-origins provision ? Doctor Hire. I should be inclined to agree with that. The CramrmaN. That seems to me to be quite obvious. Senator Reep. We also may admit the other policy that it will not be repealed. The CraiRmMaN. Oh, yes; when the President comes in on the 4th day of March; he believes in repealing it. i Senator Coperaxp. May I ask, Doctor Hill, was the last census any more accurate as to the number of people in the United States than the census of 1790? Doctor Hire. I do not see any reason to suppose it is more accurate, or that the census of 1890 was more accurate than the census of 1790. You can not prove degree of accuracy or inaccuracy. _ Senator Copzraxp. Are you familiar with the charge made by the irish organization in New” York or with the criticism made by that organization as to the number of Irish in the country in 1790¢ Doctor Hrrr I have seen some of the statements that have been Bade, I have never carefully been over the evidence they submitted. Senator CoreLanp. I have read about the impassible roads and the sparse population and the difficulties in getting the census of 1790. Doctor Hirr. Yes. Senator Corrrann. I am astounded to hear we are no more accurate to-day in the accumulation of names than they were then. Doctor Hirt. They had a very stable population, to begin with, a population which was not moving around from place to place as it is now, and they took the census very leisurely. They had about nine months to make the canvass in, did not hurry about it, and I think, whatever the conditions of the roads may have been, the census taker could have gotten over his district in that length of time, which included the spring, summer, and winter, too. That is about all the ground I have for the statement. It seems to me where the population was stable— Senator CorerLanp. They say the Irish served in the Army. Where did they go? Were they all killed in the war? What did happen to them? - Where were they? When we compare these lists of the soldiers with the lists in the census, they do not appear in the census, according to the reports made hy this organization of which 1 have spoken. Doctor HiLr. Those names were taken from the revolutionary rolls, were they not ? Senator Coperanp. Yes. Doctor Hiv. And, of course, at the time those enlistments were for short periods, sometimes for only three months; and then perhaps they went back home and reenlisted and had still another enlist- 20 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ment. So I imagine there was a great deal of duplication in the occurrence of the names. Senator Coreranp. Is it not possible that a great many Englishhen re Irish names when they went into the Revolutionary roy ? Doctor Hur. I do not know but what that might be the case. There is this thing further to be considered, I think, that the statements you refer to do not distinguish between the present Irish Free State and the rest of Ireland. I think these figures as to the frequencies of Irish names in the Revolution were based on the whole of Ireland. Of course, now we have to make the distinction between Northern Ireland, which goes to England, and the Irish Free State. Senator CorELAND. Doctor, you have been a long time in the Government and you know how essential it is to the happiness of a lot of people to be educated to the necessity of a new law; for example, there is opposition in certain quarters to the prohibition law. One of the evils I have in mind about the postponement is not the essential difference between the national origins and 1790, but the fact that the public has not been educated to the significance of the thing. I have no doubt that Senator Reed, if given time enough during the next year to present in small doses from time to time on this project, would be able to educate the public. I believe that there is a prevalent idea that there is uncertainty as to the finality of the figures. But granting that they are correct and that the plan is a wise one, the question in my mind is, Is it wise to attempt to force this upon the public now without having first prepared the soil? That is the way it looks to me, Doctor Hill. Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me he is asking Doctor Hill something he is not here to discuss. Doctor Hill is not here to give us information as to the policy—what we should do and Congress should do. I do not think Doctor Hill ought to be asked that question. Senator Kine. Do you not think he is a better judee of that than you are, Senator ? Senator Harrts. I do not think so; pardon me. Doctor Hirr. I would agree with Senator Harris on that point. Senator Hares. I think Doctor Hill is the best authority in the world on the matters he has given study to. I am glad to testify to that, because I was associated with him. Senator Coreranp. I am sure everyone has the highest opinion of Doctor Hill. I am not going to press the question myself. But that; is just the way it strikes me. Senator Ree. I would like to ask Doctor Hill his opinion as to the comparative accuracy or inaccuracy of the two methods. 1890 and the national origins. Doctor Hirn. You mean 1890 as it is now, unrevised ? Senator Reep. Yes. } Doctor Hire. I think it depends a good deal on what countries we have in mind. As to those countries whose boundaries have been materially changed by the war, I believe that the national-origins system is probably more accurate than the 1890 basis. Senator Reep. That would apply to Germany, Austria, and the countries that have been derived from Russian territorv? NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 21 Doctor Hin. Yes. Senator Reep. The countries of the northern Balkans, and that would be Bulgaria and Yugoslavia? Doctor Hire. Yes; but as applied to those countries not affected by the war I should say that the national-origin plan would not be more accurate. Senator Nye. Would it be as accurate, Doctor ? Doctor Hirir. In some cases it would not, I am inclined to think. Senator Nye. What percentage, now, of the peoples involved in this immigration law would be involved in any geographical changes coming as a result of the war? Doctor Hirr. I think perhaps Mr. Boggs can speak on that better than I can. I did not work over those geographical features. Mr. Boggs. What. was the question? Senator Nye. We have a given number coming into our country ander the immigration laws. What percentage of them would be affected as the result of the geographical changes resulting from the war ¢ Mr. Boges. I do not quite understand. Senator Nye. What is our total immigration Senator Reep. One hundred and sixty-four thousand total. Senator Nye. What percentage of those coming from territory which has been in any way changed as the result of the war? Mr. Boaes. About 43 per cent. And the changes, if I may go on, have affected about 141% or 15 per cent; by that I mean that when we add together the numbers which have to be attributed to a quota country which differs in name from the census entry from which it is derived, the total amounts to approximately 1414 per cent of the total of the present quotas. The Crairman. Are there any further questions that are desired to be propounded of Doctor Hill? Senator Reep. I would like to consider that last statement by Mr. Boggs. All of the people from Germany are affected to some extent by the determination of the German area and the quotas between the present Germany and the pre-war (Germany. That is 51,000 people, is it not ? Mr. Boggs. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. All the people of the Irish Free State quota are affected by the geographical changes that have taken place there, are they not? Mr. Bocas. Yes, Senator Reep. That is 28,000 more? Mr. Boges. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. All the people in Poland are affected similarly; that is nearly 6,000 more, is it not Mr. Boaes. Yes. May I add, you can not as easily dispose of it that way as you can to take the 1890 census of the foreign born from Austria-Hungary (including the figures for “ Bohemia ”), Germany, Russia (including the figures for “Poland ”), Bulgaria, and Turkey, and add them together and compute the percentage of the total number of foreign born from European countries in 1890. Senator Rump. That is true. But the question asked you is, what proportion of the people in the present quotas are affected bv these 22 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW geographic changes; and, as I add them up roughly, it seems to me to come to more than 43 per cent of the 164,000. Mr. Boggs. I took it directly from the census figures from which the quotas were derived, rather than from the quotas themselves. Senator Reep. The question was as to the quotas. Mr. Boaes. Well, you see the geographic adjustments are made to the statistics relating to the pre-war countries, and those which you are looking at are the quotas relating to the postwar countries. Senator Remp. But the question was directed to the postwar quotas. What proportion of the quotas are affected by those changes in geography? I think you will find it runs about 60 per cent. The question runs that way. Mr. Boges. I presume that is true. The Cmamrman. Doctor Hill, in computing the national origins, did you take into consideration the differential of fecundity ¢ Doctor Hirt. In making that division between the original native stock and the immigrant stock or what I rather prefer to call the “ colonial stock” and “postcolonial stock,” the process which we followed did take care of anv difference that there mav have heen in fecundity. The Cramrmaxn. Will you explain now in some detail what that is and what the differential was? Doctor Hin. We did not determine the differential, but we used figures that disposed of it. The process was such a complicated one, volving the use of age statistics, that I really could not explain it briefly. But it did not involve the question of differential fecundity. We started with the percentage of the population that was born of native parents and the percentage that was born of foreign parents as given by age groups in the censuses in 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920, and we did not make any assumptions as to birth rates or relative fecundity. We did not have to. The Carman. If you did not determine that, how did vou take it into consideration in reaching your figures? Doctor Hrrr. I might answer that question in this way: Suppose you knew or could ascertain in some way by using census figures and without applying birth rates or death rafes how many descendants two or more classes had at the present time, you would not need to work out the difference in fecundity. You could do it if you wanted to as a matter of information. "But if vou were interested only in how many descendants one class had and how many the other class had, and had data which enabled you to determine that without making any assumptions as to birth rates—the question of differential fecunditv would not arise. The Cuammman. That is what I am trying to ascertain—how this data arose and whether it is 2 part of the computations vou ficured in your report of 19287 Doctor Hin. We did not have to consider it. The Caamman. You did not have to consider it? Doctor Hix. No. Senator Rerp. It was automatically taken care of ? Doctor Hiv. It was automatically taken care of; yes. I think it is only fair to add that when it came to determining the different national stocks—the German, Irish, English, and so forth—we did NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 23 not make any allowance for the difference in fecundity. But in the main division into the original native or colonial stock and the postcolonial stock, that matter of fecundity, as Senator Reed says, was automatically taken care of. So there the question does not arise. But the colonial stock, having been once determined, had to be further divided according to nationality—so much English, so much Irish—and that was also the case as regards postcolonial stock, when the total had been determined it had to be further divided by nationalities. Now, in determining the nationalities, in determining what proportion of the total colonial and of the total postcolonial stock was German and what proportion was English, and so forth, we did not make any allowance for differential fecundity. We went on the assumption that the natural increase, in the long run, was the same or practically the same for these different national stocks. The Carman. Are there any further questions any member of the committee desires to ask? Senator Rerp. I have no other questions. The Cramrman. Is there anything you would like to say, Doctor, to the committee ? Doctor Hrir. I would like to say in this connection that I do not oelieve that that introduces any serious element of error. The Crarrman. That is, what introduces so large an element? Doctor Hrrr. The assumption that we made that the natural increase of these various national stocks, German. English, and Irish, and so on, was the same, The CuamrmaxN. What was your assumption ? Doctor Hrrr. That is the assumption which we made. We assumed that the natural increase was the same. We assumed that the Irish stock increased the same as the German; that the German stock increased the same as the English, that is at the same rate. Most people would say that that is not in accordance with the facts. They would say, « Why, look at the French Canadians, look at the Irish, and look at the Germans. How much more rapidly they breed than the English stock does.” There is a decided difference at the present time for about one generation, and then, when you get to the second generation, the difference has largely disappeared. Senator Coreranp. Have they become Americanized ? Doctor Hur. When you get to the third generation, I do not believe you will find any difference in the natural increase, they have become Americanized in that respect. There are some figures that indicate that. ‘We have the figures that show that the second generation of any foreign stock does not have as many children as the first generation. So I would say that there is no material error in the assumption of equal rates of increase. Senator CopeLanp. That is true of the old New England families? Doctor Hrrr. Eminently true. The old New England families increased in the early days just about up to the limit, I think you might say that they had just about as many children as it was physically possible for them to have. Of course, a great many of the children died in infancy or childhood, but enough of them lived fo result in very rapid increase of population through that period. The Cruammaw. That is all, Doctor. Mr. White. 24 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW STATEMENT OF HON. ROBE CARL WHITE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR The Cmamrman. Secretary White, you know the subject matter under discussion. Can you enlighten the committee in respect to it$ Assistant Secretary Wurre. I do not know that I can add much to what has been said. The Department of Labor has taken about the position that the Department of State has taken, as outlined by Mr. Carr. Our attitude is one of watchful waiting. We feel that we are administering the present law in a satisfactory manner, and we believe we can administer the national-origins plan if it is put into affect. Senator Coperanp. In that connection, are you having less and less trouble in administering the present law? Assistant Secretary Wire. Yes; the quotas as allotted, are generally accepted by the various nationalities at the present time. I do not know as it will help you, but in my judgment any other quota announced by our Government would be equally as well accepted. Senator CoreLanD. After education of the public? Assistant Secretary WaiTe. Yes. The Cmamman. It would be unfortunate to undertake a change of the quotas and then repeal the change within a brief period, would it not? Assistant Secretary Ware. I do not know as I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman. We never know what a change will entail, and I can not at this time—— The Cramman. I was not speaking of the change. If a change were made, there would be, as you say, adjustment to it within a very few years by all the nations of the earth, I assume. But if a change were made, and then immediately that change were revoked, annulled, and repealed, it would be an unfortunate thing to do, would it not? Assistant Secretary Warre. It would cause some disturbance in administration of the law. Senator Harris. If the national origins was put into effect it would not interfere with those who applied to come in under the quota of the different countries—it would not change their status? Senator Reep. The waiting list ” would remain as it is? Senator Harris. The waiting list would remain the same? Assistant Secretary Ware. I understand it would remain the same. Senator CopeLanp. Mr. White, this is true, as you have already stated, that it would take some time to adjust the country to the 1890 census plan, as a matter of education. I have no doubt your experience has been the same as my own in New York. Now, they have adjusted themselves to it, and I do not see anything of them. But if you had a new system, if you had a new quota, a new arrangement, which was not yet understood by the people, would you not have this same sort of unhappiness and restlessness as we had when we adopted the 1890 plan? Assistant Secretary Wrrte. When the 1924 act was put into effect there was no noticeable disturbance or questioning of the quota, from our department’s standpoint. I doubt seriously if we would nate anything particularly if the national-origins plan is put into nffeet. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 25 We look upon this question as a scientific and historical one, to be left primarily to the scientists and to the legislative bodies. The Cuamrman. Are there any further questions desired to be asked, Mr. White? Senator Reep. I have no questions. The Cmairman. The reason I hurried this along, gentlemen, is that I want to determine what we can in reference to this resolution this morning. Senator CopeLanp. May I remind you that we have no calendar this morning? Unanimous consent is in effect. So. if we take a little more time it will not interfere. The CrmarrMaN. Mr, Hull is here and Doctor Hill is here. If you wanted to go into detail, it is up to you gentlemen. What does the sommittee wish ? Senator CopeLaxp. Mr. Hull is here. Would he add something to what has been stated? Senator Reep. I think we ought to give Mr. Hull an opportunity. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY E. HULL, COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF IMMIGRATION. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR The Cramman. Would you give, for the purposes of the record, your official station? Commissioner Horr. Commissioner General of Immigration. The Crairman. Can you add to what has been said here concerning the national-origins provision, the matter under discussion? Commissioner Hurt. Very little. I might say, personally, that I rather dread a change in the quota law. The administration of the law, of course, falls upon the Bureau of Immigration, which is in the Department of Labor, and so any change entails some work on the bureau, and some confusion. We are a very small organization, with a tremendous and a very important job fo administer. I do not know that there is anything further than that. . The Cramrmax. In your opinion, would it be something of a calamity to put in operation this particular provision of the law and then repeal 15 within a very brief period? Commissioner Hurr. I think so; very definitely. Senator Rerp. You have seen nothing to lead you to think it was going to be repealed, have you, Mr. Hull? Commissioner Hurt. I do not know. Stor Rrep. That is speculation, of course: it is not fair to ask that. Senator CoPELAND. We are repealing the present law. il Reep. We are not going, as I understand it, to let the present law—-— Commissioner Horr. If I read the President elect’s statement, it might lead to that conclusion. The CuairmaN. You say in a letter? Commissioner HuLL. As I understand it, in his speech of acceptance, The Crarman. You have known of no letter or anything he has said in writing? Commissioner Hurr. No; that was in his speech of acceptance, if I remember correctly. 26 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Reep. Do you believe in the restriction of immigration, Mr. Hull? Commissioner Hurt. Absolutely. Senator Reep. Do you think in the long run it is more apt to be a permanent, undisturbed policy if the quotas into which our immi.-gration is divided, are undiscriminating ? Commissioner Horr. I am unable to conceive a quota law enacted with any regard to the elements comprising our population and the numbers comprising those elements, respectively, that would not in actual practice be regarded by those adversely affected as discrimina.-tory. Senator Reep. If Congress has done its best to make it undiscriminatory, such a law is more likely to stand and to endure than one that is obviously discriminatory, is it not? Commissioner Hurr. Certainly, if it is fully considered by Congress. ~ Senator Remp. At the present time the Germans have about one-third of the quota, have they not—51,000 out of 164,000? Commissioner Hur. They have 51,000 of 164,500. Senator Reep. And the German element in the American population does not constitute anything like that proportion, does it? Commissioner Hur. I suppose if it did the census said so; I donot know. Senator Reep. That proportion of the foreign-born in 1890; yes. But you do not understand that it constitutes that proportion of the whole population, do you? Commissioner Hurr. No. As I understand it, the quota law at present is based on the foreign population entirely. Senator Reep. Yes. . Commissioner Horr. On the theory, of course, that we are not discriminating. But it does, of course. Senator Reep. It does discriminate against native-born, because it excludes them entirely? Commissioner Hurt. Yes, in one way. In another way, no. The CrarrmanN. What native-born? Senator Reep. People born in America. The Cmamrman. You are not making an immigration law with reference to people who live in America. Get to your basic idea. Senator Reep. I think the people born in America have as much right to be considered as an unnaturalized alien. The Cramrman. Indefinitely more. But that is not the point, if you want to discuss that thing, That is not the thing that is involved here at all. ; Senator CopeLanp. With great tact and common sense you have been applying this law. If you were to have a new law, without any education of the public ag to its significance and its meaning and its justice, if it is just, would you not have more disturbances than you would to go along with this law under you until we have had time to educate the public as to what it means? Commissioner Hurt. Unquestionably, Senator, you would have some confusion and some criticism. The quota as it is administered at the present time is, of course, a tragic thing in the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. They are theoretically standing in NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 27 line on the other side waiting, waiting for the opportunity to come in, hoping against hope; and they have been told, of course, or rumors have run around that their numbers will be called at a certain time, and they do not know very much about the theory of the immigration quotas or the basis of the quota. So they stand waiting. I speak of it theoretically when I say “standing,” they are on a list. Senator Coperanp. And that feeling extends, of course, into our own country ? Commissioner Horr. Oh, yes; of course, among the relatives especially, and a change in the quota law creates confusion unquestionably. I am not concerned as to the number of people that come in. That is a matter for Congress to decide, not for us who administer the law. It is purely a question for Congress to determine. But I have expressed myself on numerous occasions as opposed to any change in the quota law, Senator CoperLaxp. The existing quota law? Commissioner Hur. The quota law existing to-day. I overemphasized the fact that we have a quota law and it is very satisfactory. But the matter of changing the quota law is purely a matter for Congress. Senator Coperaxp. Mr. Hull, you have distinguished company in your opinion, as there were two candidates for the Presidency, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith, who took the same view. Mr. Horr. I have understood so. The Carman. Are there any further questions you desire to propound to Commissioner Hull? (After a pause.) Now, gentleman, what is your pleasure in respect to this matter? Senator Reep. I have just been handed by Mr. Boggs a tabulation which he made up to show the immigration quotas and the number of demands for places within that quota. I would like to ask that it be inserted in the record along with the map which has already cone in. The Cruatrman. That will be done. . (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock the committee proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and at the conclusion thereof adjourned to meet Wednesday, February 6, 1929, at 10 o’clock a. m.) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION 0F IMMIGRATION LAW WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1929 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., n the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. The CuamrMmaN. The committee will please come to order. We have met this morning pursuant to the determination of the committee for hearings upon the national-origins provision of the immigration law of 1924. The secretary of the committee has advised all of the organizations and the Y dividuals who have requested hearings of this meeting and of the opportunities that will be accorded them to present their views. We have replies from a considerable number of those who are interested, and I have a list of those to whom notification has been sent. That list embraces some hundreds of individuals and organizations. So that I assume we ought to conalude these hearings by the 1st of July next, at least. We are ready to proceed, and the Rrst in order, I take it, because of the mention of that fact by Senator Reed when the motion pre-¢ailed the other day, will be the American Legion, and we will now near the representative of the American Legion upon that subject. _ Senator Ree. They tell me they have been called to another meeting, Mr. Chairman, and will be here within an hour. The CrarMAN. Ver well. Have you a suggestion to make as to what witness shall be frst called, Senator? Senator Reep. I should think those who want the law changed ought to be heard first, Mr. Chairman. be CARMAN. Just as vou and Senator Nve desire. Senator Nye? Senator NYE. I think the only two who indicated an intent to be asked to be heard this morning, Doctor Friedenwald or Mr. McGilbry, expected to be here by 10.30 or 11 o'clock. The CuarrMAaXN. Is there anybody here this morning who desires to be heard upon the question of the national-origins provision of the immigration law If so. we are ready to hear them. STATEMENT OF DEMAREST LLOYD, REPRESENTING DELEGATION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. Lroyp. My name is Demarest Lloyd. I appear here with a delegation of patriotic societies who are interested in this question ind who want to speak in opposition to the Nye resolution, and for ‘he sake of convenience they have asked me to act as spokesman. 3 QEQRE 90 3 30 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW The Cuammax. I suggest, then, Mr. Lloyd, that you proceed. Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the immigration act of 1924 was widely regarded as America’s second declaration of independence. But the Nation has not yet been able to obtain the great benefits which® were intended. The nationalorigins provision, that vital and fundamental portion which settles the vexed question of quota apportionment, settles it in a way which is fair to every nation, and therefore bids fair to be permanent. has twice been postponed. As we see it, those postponements have not been because there was anything the matter with national origins or because Congress was opposed to it. We feel and we believe, we can show, that those postponements have been due to a widespread misunderstanding which had its origin and inspiration, or, rather, were caused by directly and indirectly what we call “hyphenated propaganda.” I I use that word advisably. It is a hard word. I use it advisedly. We are prepared to show photostatic copies of documents of secret organizations with alien purposes which a long time ago began to agitate on this question. What we want is the law as it stands. We are not asking for any change. What we have got now under this great law is only a temporary, makeshift arrangement. We do not like it because of its arbitrary and discriminatory features. Senator Reep. You refer to the 1890 basis? Mr. Lion. I refer to the 1890 foreign-born basis, which is now temporarily in operation. It is not a thing that looks as if it would stand up, because, being discriminatory, it 1s open to violent attacks. We feel it will not constitute a settlement of the nestion, and that this great and important subject will be a bone of contention, with danger to the cause of restriction and danger to the whole country for many years to come. The Cramrman. Why? Mr. Lrovp. Sir, if the 1890 basis is discriminatory, it will be open: to the charge of discrimination, and I believe that that is more of a load than any restriction law can carry. Any law to restrict immigration into this country has to stand up against terrific pressure, and a law which is discriminatory will have the added disadvantage of being open to the accusation of being unfair and, therefore, it will have two kinds of opponents: It will have the out-andout sort of alien-minded antirestrictionists, and it will also have individualistic and fair-minded people who will say this thing is quite wrong as it discriminates against this European nation in favor of that one; and the whole cause of restriction will be weakened thereby. Senator Reep. It has already been attacked on that ground. Mr. Lrovp. Yes, sir. I have a statement, which I would like to come back later and make, if I might. But at any rate I have speeches made in the last campaign in which the present 1890 basis was violently attacked before a meeting of Italians because, as the speaker said, that census was picked out “because it discriminated against you people.” And the same thing can be said about other nations; and we feel that there is more of a strain than the immigratien laws can stand, to be up against—the alien pressure for antirestriction plus an accusation of unfairness. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 31 The Crammax. Do you not think that our immigration law at present has been generally acquiesced in? Mr. Lion. I do not think, sir, this question has been at all understood. I think there are a great many people who are opposed to the national-origins basis, who are temporarily rendering the-hpservice to the 1890 basis; but in a great many instances thogé people have the objective of breaking down restriction. and as soon as you get the national origins out of the way then those people who are rendering lip -service to the 1890 basis will turn and attack it on those grounds I have mentioned. Senator Nye. Do you feel, Mr. Lloyd, that the 1790 census is not subject to any attack? Mr. Lroyp. 1 should say it is beyond any serious attack. I do not think that anything very much in this world is perfect. I should be guided by the expert opinion in cases of that kind, and, as I say, I Jo not think anything is perfect. The CHairmax. Just what is the defect in the law at present that is being administered ¢ Mr. Lroyp. Defect? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. Lioyp. Well, it is discriminatory in a great many ways. The quota figures, of course, you gentlemen are familiar with. 1 do not think there is any basis, any rhyme or reason for a basis of quotas which gives to Germany one and a half times as much as England, Scotland, Wales, and north Ireland. I do not think there 15 any rhyme or reason or basis or justice In quotas which give the Irish Free State, with a population of less than the State of New York, almost as much as Great Britain. 1 believe it is fair to sdy that in this restrictive law the idea wus to ecure assimilable immigration, and it would seem that the most as-«imilable kind, unless you are going to select and he highly discriminatory the other way, would be to have your incoming quotas substantially of the same composition. same kind of elements, and same proportions as found in the populations. I do not think anybody in their senses would argue that this country is one and a half times as much German as British or Irish as it is British; and as long as we are going to have immigration’ we might just as well have the kind that will blend in harmoniously with our existing population. The Crarryrax. Do you believe in any immigration at all? Mr. Lroyn. Do 1? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. Loy. Well. sir, T had not made up my mind on that question. I do not think that isa practical question. I think that rather than: have improper immigration, unassimilable immigration, It would be better to have exclusion. but I do not think that that 1s a question to be talked about or, from my point of view. considered. { trv not to waste my time, The (‘maizmax. 1 have no doubt vou would not waste your time under any circumstances, Mr. Lloyd. But the question was asked and is entitled to an answer. Mr Lioyp. I have not made up my mind. 32 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW The Crarrman. It is a matter of some indifference. Are there any other questions to be asked Mr. Lloyd? Senator Keyes. Mr. Lloyd, I understood you to say you were spokesman for several organizations Lo Mr. Luoyp, Yes, itv ico oo ener one Cee Senator Kiyes. Would you be kind enough to give a list of them? Mr. Lroyp. I think the chairman has been given a list. Senator Nye. Mr. Lloyd, you said that upon the inauguration of the 1924 immigration act you looked upon it as a thing which, when the national-origins clause finally became effective, was going to be a second Declaration of Independence? Mr. Lroyp. Yes. Senator Nye. Did you know at that time of the existence in the law of the national-origins clause? Mr. Lroyp. In 1924? Senator Nye. Yes; when it was passed. Mr. Lroyp. Yes. Senator Nye. You had given it study and knew just how it was going to operate? Mr, Lroyp. I had not given it particular study, because at that time I was in Europe doing newspaper work. Senator Nye. Then, in other words, the law which established the 1890 basis of quotas was regarded by you as being a second Declaration of Independence? Mr. Lroyp. Well, the 1890 basis is a temporary proposition, while the other matter was being worked out. The Cmamryan. Is it not a fact that it was the only proposition the public had any acquaintance with at all, or Congress at that time had any acquaintance with at all, for that matter ? Mr. Lroyp. I could not speak for Congress; and, as far as the public goes, I think that ey were primarily interested in the subject of restriction. But I think that they were also interested in the formula which was fair to all and bid fair to settle the question permanently for all time. I know that is what I heard about it in letters I got and reports, that the thing was of fundamental, farreaching consequence. Senator Ny. You are going to ask to be heard again, are you, Mr. Lloyd ¢ Mr. Lovo. Yes, sir; I am just making a very short statement. The Crammax. Let me ask you this: You said you had the evidence before you of endeavors made by an alien society or a society with alien purposes? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. The CrammaN. Will you present it? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. I would rather not present it myself, because [ have a witness who has been more in touch and can do it better. The CrarMAN. Is that witness here? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. But just before I introduce the witness 1 want to emphasize this, that all of us here in this delegation are not asking for anything new. We simply want the law to be put into effect as it stands; we do not ask this for ourselves; we do not ask this for our relatives; and we do not ask this for our friends. We are just simply asking that this patriotic law be put into effect because we regard that as best for restriction, and restriction is the best for the , i 1 . Cea 3h etfs ce ret pte ted NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 33 country, which is our only concern; and on that subject we invite comparisons with organizations which have appeared or will appear on the other side. } oo Senator Nye. Do you question the patriotism of the two late candidates for President of the United States? Mr. Lioyp. No, sir. Senator Nye. Do you not suppose there must have been some real, genuine, patriotic reason that caused them to advocate the repeal of the national-origins clause? Mr. Lroyp. I would not say that it was a patriotic reason. I think that national origins, as 1 said earlier in my opening. has been a subject of such misrepresentation—— Senator NYE. You do think it was a sincere belief on their part that the national-origins clause was not in keeping with the public interest ? Mr. Lroyp. I should suppose so. Senator Rerp. You would think, also, it was a patriotic reason that inspired Governor Smith to denounce the use of a census 38 vears old? Mr. Lroyp. He had a well-meaning motive in that. Senator Reep. And you imply from that. I suppose. as I did. that he disapproved of the 1890 census ¢ Mr. Lroyp. I certainly did; and his own paper, the New York World, immediately saw the implication that what he ‘meant was to abolish these quotas founded on the 1890 census and bring it to 1920 and 1930; and even the New York World, his own paper. said this would not do. The CratrMaN. You said “his own paper.” Mr. Lroyp. I should say that it was one of his leading supporters. The Cmamrman. When did you first have anv knowledge of the national-origins provision of the 1924 law? Mr. Lovo. I was informed about it shortly after it passed. Ihave been interested in the subject for a great many years. The CuarrmaN. Did you then, as Senator Nye asked vou. have any conception of how it would work out? Mr. Lovo. T had just the conception that the quotas would be a cross section of the population. The Cuarruan. I have understood from our experts that it took them a considerable period of time to determine what the results of the national origins would be? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. Tow CuarmaN. You knew that. however, in the beginning: did ou? y Mr. Liovp. No, sir. I knew the principle, the formula. 1 did not realize the exact figures to be worked out, or approximately. The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall the original report that was made by the three members of the President’s (Cabinet to the Congress of the United States upon this subject? Mr. Lroyp. That is the original letter of January 3. The CHairMAN. Was that dictated by “lip service” to the immigration law in order to avoid restriction at all, in your opinion Mr. Leroy. Well, sir, there were in all about four or five different copies of that letter, and I do not pretend to understand it. 34 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW The Cramuman. You made some rather harsh remarks about those who are opposing national origins as being influenced by “lip service” to a law that they would subsequently repeal if they could, and I was wondering whether the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor were in that category, in your view? Mr. Lroyp. No, sir. In that statement I spoke of the organized opposition. The Cuarman. Oh, yes. Mr. Lrovp. I have also spoken of the misunderstanding—the widespread misunderstandings which have resulted from the propaganda emanating from those sources. The Crmamrman, Well, is it your opinion that Mr. Hoover was laboring under a delusion in respect to the matter when he declared flatly for the repeal, in his acceptance speech, of the national origins proposition ? Mr. Lroyp. I think Mr. Hoover must have been acting on inaccurate information. I can not believe that Mr. Hoover has really studied this thing and could reach such a conclusion as he mentioned. The CrarryaN. Generally we have the opinion that he does not speak unless he is fairly well advised and has reached that conclusion after mature deliberation. Mr. Lroyp. I can only give you the best opinion I have on the subject, = Senator Reep. I do not think Mr. Hoover ought to be on trial here, without having the privilege of facing his accusers. I thought we were here to consider the immigration law. The CratrmaxN. Quite so. Senator Ree. And not to go into a psychological analysis of Mr. Hoover. The Crairman. No. But the first witness you present questions the good faith and honesty and the intentions of everybody who might oppose this law; and because he questioned T wanted to know how far be went in his questioning. Senator Rep. I did not understand he questioned—— The Cuairman. That was exactly his language. He has now corrected it by saying that he referred to those various societies. Mr. Lroyn. I was very careful—I think if the stenographer would turn back it would be shown. I realized just that possibility of misunderstanding of me. and TI think T was very careful to say that it was the organized societies; and I have also said, and I want to repeat it again, that there were a great many people who misunderstand the question—— The Crarrman. I am very glad to have the correction. Senator Reep (interposing). Both his statements? Co The Cuamman. Both of his statements, because originally you did not say “organized,” and there are some gentlemen upon this Committee who are, I take it from what has existed in the committee, opposed to the national-origins proposition. Their good faith I concede just as readily as I concede the good faith of those who favor it. Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; and we—-— The Cuarrman. And I wanted to make that very plain, and that was the only reason, may I say to the Senator from Pennsvlvania. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 35 that I pursued the inquiry in reference to Mr. Hoover. I wanted to get the reactions of this gentleman in that regard. Mr. Lroyp. Of course, my attitude on that is a matter of public record. We put a large advertisement in the newspaper the other day, in which we catalogued the opponents of national origins, and the first group was the antirestriction group, who are opposed to all restriction, and merely want to knock national origins out as the first step; and, second, those various groups specially favored under the 1890 basis; and third, sir, the people who had been led to misunderstand the value, character, and purpose of national origins as a result of the propaganda eminating from Groups No. 1 and No. 2. The CrairkmaN, You understand, do you not, that the matter that is before the committee is not a repeal of the national-origins provisions? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; I do. The CHAIRMAN. It 1s a resolution introduced by the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. Lroyp. I understand. The CrairvaN. Directing postponement for a year, as the matter has been twice before postponed ? Mr. Lroyp. Yes. ~The CHARMAN, So that the repeal does not enter into the proposition at the moment? Mr. Lroyp. No, sir; we appreciate that. Senator Reep. Without cutting the dog’s tail off entirely, we are taking it off by inches; that is the proposition. The Cmarrman. Now, wait a minute. I am not going to let that pass, if you will permit me, because the other postponements have been at the insistence and suggestion of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Now, do not forget that. Now, he feels that he has, and correctly so doubtless, more information on the subject and is ready to act. But he did not feel so in the matter of the other postponements, and he was the one who was the main mover, or one of the movers in conjunction with the rest of us with respect to it. Let us make that plain. Senator Nye. Mr. Lloyd, you feel that the effort being made is one against restricted immigration, do you not? Mr. Lroyp. Which do vou mean to say, postponement of national origins? Senator NYE. To postpone? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. Senator NYE. However, you do concede that there are those who are seeking postponement of the national origins clause who are believers in restricted immigration ? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. Senator Rep. And it is they who you think to be mistaken? _ Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; they are the victims of misunderstandings. This is a question in which there has been a great deal of misrepresentation for two years or more. Senator Reep. Mr. Lloyd, when you said that you thought the 1890 basis was unfair, you said you thought it was unfair for two reasons, and you gave us only one. Mr. Lroyn. Oh, ves. 36 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION TAW Senator Rep. You said it discriminated against nationalities? Mr. Lroyp. Yes. Senator Reep. Is there any reason why? Mr. Lroyp. It discriminates in favor of certain groups and against others; it discriminates in favor of the Germans and the Irish and against England, Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales, places from which most of the original stock of the country came from. We are not claiming that they ought to have more than their share of the quota, but we do not think they ought to have less. Senator Reep. You do not base your objection on any prejudice against particular nationalities, do you? Mr. Lroyp. No, sir. . Senator Rerp. I do not understand that you are finding fault with the Germans as immigrants. Mr. Lroyp. Not a particle. Senator Reep. Or Scandanavians? Mr. Lroyp. Not a particle. Senator Reep. Your attitude simply is they ought not to have more than their fair share, and they do have more than their fair share under the 1890 basis, do they? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; that is it exactly. Senator Rep. Some mention has been made of Governor Smith’s attack on the 1890 basis in the last campaign. Do you recall whether or not it was attacked also in the House? Mr. Lroyp. The 1890 basis attacked in the House of Representatives? Senator Reep. Yes—or, you were not here at that time? Mr. Lroyp. I do not recall that. Senator Rep. My recollection is that at the time the immigration law was under consideration it was very bitterly attacked by the Tammany representatives from New York, who claimed that the 1920 census of foreign born was the only basis on which quotas should be rested. Mr. Lroyp. It seems to me if you are going to base quotas on foreign-born census it is going to be very difficult to resist the force of the appeal to bring the census up to date; and if you have to give in to that appeal on the basis of 1920 or 1930 census you are going to get much more than 50 per cent of the immigration from southern and east Europe, and you will have a total quota of immigration very much unlike the population of the United States. The Crarrmax. Is not that one of the reasons that was given for the adoption of the 1890 census? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; that was one of the reasons given for that. The Cuamrman. In order to avoid what we are just suggesting. Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; exactly. The Cratrman. And was not the entire argument that was made before the Congress upon the theory that in taking the 1890 census you were going to avoid the objectionable feature you have indicated ? Mr. Lion. Yes, sir. The 1890 foreign-born census basis does get a fairly accurate distribution of the quota as between the northwest and southeast Europe, but it gets a very inaccurate and wholly discriminatory basis of quotas as between the nations even—— NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 37 Senator Reep. How do we know that it gets a fairly accurate distribution as between the southeast and northwest Europe? Is it not only the national-origins figures that we get that? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir; that is the only way we do get it. Senator Reep.” And is it not a fact that the national-origins figures for those two great groups were used by the advocates of the 1890 census as a temporary basis to justify the position that they took? Mr. Lroyp, That is my understanding. Senator Reep. Who first suggested that temporary basis, do you recall ¢ Mr. Lroyp. No, sir; I do not. : Senator Reep. Was it not Professor Garis, of Vanderbilt University? Mr. Lroyp. I could not say—I think it was. Senator Regp. Is he available here as a witness? : Mr. Lroyp. No; I do not think we have him to-day. The Carman. Just as a matter of curiosity, who first suggested the national origins as contained in the law? Senator Reep. I think I am the culprit there. The Cmarman. You? _ Senator Reep. I think so. But Professor Garis, I notice, has Just published an article in the Saturday Evening Post last month in which, after stating that it was he who first suggested the 1890 basis, says very frankly and gererously that he prefers the national origins. The CuarmMaN. Are there any other questions to be asked of Mr. Lloyd? [After a pause.] If not, a lady, Miss Gurnee, is very anxious to leave and is anxious to be heard. Is that satisfactory to you? I think she desires to present the side of the case that is presented by Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. The Cuamrman. If the lady desires to be heard, we will hear her briefly. State. if vou please, your name and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF BELL GURNEE, REPRESENTING NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION. WOMEN’S DEPARTMENT Miss Gurnee. My name is Miss Gurnee, of the National Civic Federation, the women’s department. The Cramman. Now, if you will state what you wish, so that the reporter may get it, if you please? Miss GURNEE, Miss Maude Wetmore, our chairman, called me up yesterday from New York and asked me to put our organization on record for national origins. We have been on record for national origins since the beginning, and we studied it at the time that the 1924 bill was being prepared and knew all about it when it was first introduced, and felt what Mr. Lloyd and Senator Reed have said, that it seems to be a sound, permanent, and fair basis. As a matter of fact, our race is going to be replaced by another race if the present act is not put into effect. It may take several centuries, but we have some right to preserve our race and culture. This is an Anglo-Saxon country, run on Anglo-Saxon principles, and a great many disadvantages will occur if another race tries to run things. I think the breakdown of our jury system is a sufficient 38 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW answer to that, as it also, perhaps, the situation in my own town, where registered mail has to be delivered in armored cars with machine guns. I did not mean to speak. I just meant to put in an appearance. The Crarrman. Thank you, Miss Gurnee. Mr. Lroyp. I am going to ask you to allow Mr. Steele, of the Sons of the American Revolution, to read a telegram he has and to make an address. ‘ The Cramrman. Would you state, first, if you please, your name and residence. STATEMENT OF FRANK B. STEELE, SECRETARY-GENERAL, REP-RESENTING THE SONS OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION Mr. Steere. My name is Frank B. Steele, 1227 Sixteenth Street, secretary-general Sons of American Revolution, The Crarman. Just proceed as you desire, Mr. Steele. Mr. Steere. I want to read a telegram. The CramrmMan. Yes. Mr. Steere (reading) : SAN Francisco, CALIF. February 5, 1926. FRANK B. STEELE, 1227 Sixteenth Street N W., Washington, D. C.: Kindly represent California State Society Senate Immigration Committee public hearing on national origins provision-immigration law, Wednesday, February 6, 10 o'clock, rooms of Senate Committee on Military Affairs, and read following message: * Whereas national-origing provision is only American basis for quota ; * Whereas all other methods discriminate against Americans whose forbears founded Nation and fought its wars; “ Whereas it is only plan based on a principle without discriminating against any race or nation; “ Whereas it is most accurate and scientific method of computing quota ; “ Whereas 1890 census discriminates against American alien residents arriving later and some European nations: . “ Whereas opposition is from groups motivated by foreign racial interests: “ Therefore we make vehement. protest against repeal or further postponement of enforcement of national-origins provision of law.” CALIFORNIA STATE SoCIETY, SONS OF THE AMERICAN RevoLuTron, ALDEN AwmEs, President. I just wanted to read that telegram. The CmarrMax. Yes, sir. Is there any individual present who desires to be heard in support of the resolution of Senator Nye for the postponement of the operation of the national-origins proposition ¢ Mr. Lroyp. I would like then to ask Mrs, Linkletter, ranking leader of the Daughters of America, to make a short statement. The Crairman. If you please, would you first give your name and residence to the reporter and then make such statement as you desire in reference to the matter. STATEMENT OF MRS. SADYE LINKLETTER, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING DAUGHTERS OF AMERICA Mrs. LiNkrerrer. My name is Mrs. Sadye Linkletter, 21 Monticello Avenue, Jersey City. I represent the Daughters of America. [ was chairman of the national legislative committee. I want to put Ee NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 30 the organization on record at this time by stating that we have studied the laws of immigration on both sides, and that we find that the 1924 law, with the national-origins provision. is the one we wish to adopt and have adopted. Almost every State 1 have been in has signed this document unanimously, and also in our national organizations when they met last year they were unanimously adopted. One of our first objects of the organization is the restriction of immigration to our country; consequently we feel that this 1924 act is the only one with which we could stand. I want to state before I sit down that I represent over 300,000 members in the United States. Thank you. Senator Reep. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from Mr. Charles Steuart Davison, of New York, which he asks may be placed in the record. Have you any objection to that? The CrairMaN. None at all, sir. (The letter referred to is as follows:) New York, February 3, 1929. Hon. Davip A. REED, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR REED: I am wiring you by night letter as follows: “Notice of meefing Senate Immigration Committee too short to perhic my personal attendance. Please put upon the record my request to you by wire of January 27 for representation in the immigration quotas which is at present denied me. * Every citizen is entitled to representation in the quotas under any application of the principle of fair play.” } My night letter to you of January 27 read as follows: “Have wired chairman Immigration Committee as follows: ‘ Your reputation for. a belief in the American principle of fair play for all and special privilege for none encourages me to believe that vou will not permit any further deprivation of the American born of their just proportion in the immigration quotas by another postponement of the going into effect of the national origins provision. I ask through you for my share of representation in the immigration quotas which at present is withheld from me. Respectfully request you urge this aspect of the matter upon the whole committee.” It appears to me that there is a plain proposition here which denuded of all mystery and of all confusion, is as follows: (1) The present quotas ave based on a calculation, admittedly more or less erroneous, derived from the census of 1890. (2) It is proposed that a calculation more or less erroneous based upon the census of 1790 shall be substituted therefor. (3) It is openly admitted that it is impossible to attain to absolute accuracy as to racial derivation present here at the respective times from the information given in either of the two censuses. (4) Tt seems to be a consensus of opinion of those qualified to judge that the approximation to accuracy is greater as to the census of 1790 than as to the census of 1890—that the percentage of probable error is less as to the earlier census, and indeed common sense would indicate the probability of this being rue. (5) It is openly. admittedithat quotas based upon the census of 1890 do not give fair representation to those races who were here in 1790, (6) Ouly one deduction can be made from the above. That deduction is that the present quotas are unfair. (7) The constant effort of Congress toward the carrving on of this Republic by legislative enactments is to produce equality of opportunity which is simplified in the colloquial phrase ‘fair play.” (8) Present immigration quotas constitute special privilege for certain races. (9) This is contrary to American principles. - I shall be very glad if you have opportunity %o to do, if you will place this letter as well as my two telegrams upon the records of the hearings now about. being held by the Senate Committee on Immigration, Yours very respectfully, CHARLES STEWART DAVISON. 10 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Chairman, I also have a letter from the National Patriotic Council, who passed a resolution the other day, and I would like to turn that in for the record. The Cmamman. It may be inserted. (The letter referred to is as follows :) THE NATIONAL PATRIOTIC COUNCIL, Washington, D. C., January 30, 1929. Senator HizaM JOHNSON, Chairman Senate Immigration Committee, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator: I desire to inform you that the National Patriotic Council, nt a meeting to-day, at the Arlington Hotel, attended by many leaders of nation. wide organizations, voted unanimously in favor of the retention and putting into effect of the national origins provision of the immigration act of 1924, and instructed its officers to offer ail possible opposition to the Nye resolution (8. 192). Yours very truly, CorNELIA Ross Porrs, President. The *Cuairman. Proceed, Mr. Trevor, as you desire, in reference to the matter before the committee. STATEMENT OF JOHN B. TREVOR, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION CONFERENCE, NEW YORK CITY Mt. Trevor. My name is John B. Trevor, my address is 11 East Ninety-first Street, New York; my business address is 40 Wall Street. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I represent the National Immigration Restriction Conference, which is a body of delegates of patriotic organizations from all over the country, all of whom are firmly in support of the national origins provision of the inmigration act of 1924. * Also I have been requested to represent a great many other organizations. If I may, I will enumerate them : The Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, one of the most important organizations of the country, which at a special meeting of the chamber, held on June 23, 1927, the following report and resolutions, submitted by its executive committee, were adopted. I would like to submit that report as representative of the views of the chamber of commerce on this subject The Crairmax. Very well. {The document referred to is as follows:) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE STATE oF NEW YORK At a special meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, held June 23, 1927, the following report and resolutions, submitted by its executive committee, were adopted : IMMIGRATION To the Chamber of Commerce: The executive committee of this chamber, from recent events throughout the world is convinced that the American people can mot remain supine, if our institutions and Government are to endure. Of all forms of administration, democracy is peculiarly susceptible to the infiltration of foreign elements that do not understand or appreciate the customs and government of the new land in which they settle. There is no.use closing our eyes to the fact, that the outstanding motive underlying modern immigration is the economic betterment of the immigrant. Those most ready to abandon the land of their birth, either NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 41 hold to no national allegiance, thereby constituting a danger in all organized society; or, they too often come imbued with a determination to perpetuate the ties of racial solidarity and give, at the best, but a divided allegiance to the United States. Evidences of the activity of racial blocs attempting to influence congressional aetion for their special benefit have been brought to the attention of the executive committee. Accordingly, this special meeting of the chamber has been called to lay before the members the following essential features of the situation, and to secure a reaffirmation, in a formal and impressive manner, of principles which already have been adopted by this body or which are logically supplemental to its previous action. When the Seventieth Congress assembles it is the expressed intention of some of its Members who represent districts in which alien influence predominates, to secure the repeal of one of the fundamental provisions of the immigration act of 1924. The particular section under attack is the national origins provision. This provides, in substances, that the annual quota of any nationality for each fiscal year shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 (the total number of aliens to be admitted annually) as the number of inhabitants of that national origin in continental United States in 1920 bears to the total population of continental United States in 1920. The paragraphs of the acts of 1924, which embody this provision and describe the methods by which it is to be put into effect, are subsections (b), (e), (dy, and (e) of section 11, commonly known ag the national origins provision. The wording of this section and the statements of its proponents in 1924, demonstrate beyond peradventure of doubt, that it was the infention of Congress to maintain the racial status quo in the United States as of 1920. However, in order that the essence of the controversy which has arisen over this matter in the past three years may he understood, it is necessary to refer briefly to some of the circumstances which led to the adoption of this method for the apportionment of immigration quotas. Prior to the adoption of the first quota act, it became very evident that a lefinite check by legislation must be put upon immigration into the United States. Without such action, this country was in danger of being submerged oy a kind of immigration of a type essentially different in culture and political experience from the elements which evolve the political institutions under which this country has prospered for 150 years. The discussion at that time centered upon a consideration of the characteristics of what are known as the “old” and “new” streams of immigration. But whatever the relative merits, intellectually or culturally, of these groups may be, the essential fact, apparent to everyone, wag that the old immigration from northwestern Europe was being gradually eliminated. This was because the people originating in that area could not compete with the low scale of living to which the newer immigrants were accustomed by environment and the standards of their forefathers. Experience demonstrated that the first quota system adopted fa led in two respects : First, it proved to be an inadequate check on the influx of 1:eople seeking to land upon our shores’; and, secondly, it failed to divide the immigration in accordance with the relative proportion of the two streams of our population as a whole, Both of these condifions led to the adoption of the census of foreign born in 1890 as a rough and ready just division of the quotas between the two great streams of immigration. It was, nevertheless, recognized that within each group this arbitrary: method inevitably resulted in discrimination. For example, there is an obvious inconsistency in a German quota amounting to 51.227 and the assignment of a quota of only 34,007 to Great Britain and North Ireland, when the veriest schoolboy is aware that the contribution of the English, the Welsh, the Scotch, and the S-otch-Irigh constituted the great hulk of the foundation stock of the American people? That is to. say, Germany obtained 81 per cent of the total quotas and 32 per cent of the actual adm’ssions uuder the quota of the last fiscal year, although It is deducible from the calculations of the committee of Government experts ! The quotas aggregated 357,803 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, but the total net increase of population through immigration ‘as a result of exemptions was 662,557, or only 672 less than the average net increase of poonlation in the five years preceding the Great War, 2In fact, owing to the necessity of apportioning the quotas among the Secoteh, Welsh, North Irish, and certain dependencies overseas falling within the British quota, the actual number of immigrants admitted from England in the fiscal vear ending June 30, 1926, was only 10,5949, or roughly, one-fifth of the German quota. (Annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1926. Tuble 2. 1 34) 12 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW that the German element in the United States represents approximately only 14 per cent of the total population. It was discriminations such ag this within the two great groups which unquestionably impelled the Senate to write into the law the national-origins provision, whereby all questions of that character would be forever eliminated in the computation of quotas. In its final form, as amended in conference, the bill passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming majorit.es. The reaction to the adoption of this system was as curious ag it was unexpected by its proponents. No sooner was the act passed—and before any official determination of the quotas had been published—a bitter assault was made upon the national-origins system. The attack developed from two directions. First. there were the irreconcilable opponents of a policy of restriction upon immigration who, doubtless, saw in the enactment of a just and fair system of apportionment of quotas a feature which would be unassailable once definitely established in operation. Secondly, the section of the act embodying the new system was violently assailed by a group obsessed with rac.al and religious hatreds or allegiances imported from the land of their origin. These self-constituted spokesmen for racial blocs, whose nationals abroad ave particularly favored by the circumstance that in the year 1890 there happened to be more foreign-born persons of their blood in the United States than at any other decennial enumeration, have attempted to throw diseredit on the national-origins system by alleging that a racial analysis of the population is impracticable through a deficiency of data. They claim not only that there are great gaps in colonial records of immigration but, also, that the census of 1790, which forms the basis for the apportionment of the descendants of colonial stock, is crude, inaccurate, and the schedules were missing for five States” They also allege that the lack of an official record of immigration prior to 1820, and that the fact the census authorities only commenced a classification of foreign born in the country in 1850, constitute an insuperable bar to the compilation of data necessary in order to put the national-origins system into effect. The fact of the matter is that 15 years before Senator Reed introduced his national-origins measure in the Senate the Census Bureau issued through the Government Printing Office a book entitled “A Century of Population Growth,” which deals with all the problems hereinbefore referred to. This work from the date of its publication has been anathema to those who seek to perpetuate racial solidarities inimical to the national welfare, because the findings of the census experts did not substantiate their propaganda. It may be added that the committee of experts in tle report of their provisional findings for the quotas under the provision of subsections (b), (c¢), (d), and (e) of section 11 of the imunigration act of 1924 to the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor, in commenting upon the apportionment of the colonial population prepared under Mr. Rossiter’s direction for A Century of Population Growth says: “rhe work of making this classification was, however, carefully done by people who were by no means lacking in qualifications for the task, and who did not rely exclusively upon names but consulted histories and works oun nomenclature to some extent. Moreover, the files of the Congressional Record show that it was the expectation of Congress that the 1790 classification here referred to would be used as a basis in carrying out the provisions of the act regarding the determination of national origin.” This reference from the official report of the committee of experts demonstrates that the classification attacked by the opponents of the national-origing system was not only carefully done by men competent to do the work but, also, it makes evident that the charge frequently made that Congress was unaware at the time of the passage of the act as to how the analysis would be made is without foundation in fact. In his testimony before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization last January Mr, Hill, the Assistant Director of the Census, even went so far as to say, when questioned upon the relative accuracy of the census of 1790 and that of more recent decennial enumerations that— “My belief is it would be easier to take an accurate census in those days than now. They did not hurry but took their time, went from house to house. 3 The population of these States amounted to approximately 1134 per cent of the white population of the United States in 1790. The method of apportioning the population of this area adopted by Mr. Rossiter, of the Census Bureau, is described in A Century of Population Growth, referred to in the text. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 43 There were no big cities with a mixed, congested population at that time and, consequently, I feel it is more accurate.” . Furthermore, Mr. Hill not only pointed out that with the quotas of admissible immigrants limited to a total of 150,000, an error of 60,000 in a racial apportionment of the inhabitants of the U nited States would result in only a difference of 100 in the quota of admissible immigrants, but also he testified * with regard to most nationalities that that portion which came from 1790 stock forms only a relatively small part of the total quota, and you might have a considerable margin of error in that part without affecting the total very much,” The executive committee does not deem it necessary to discuss the methods by which the committee of Government experts have evolved their analysis of the population of the United States. This has been explained in detail to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization by the Asxistant Director of the Census in the hearings to which reference has already been made. It will suffice to say that previous studies by experts of the Census Bureau, supplementing those embodied in A Century of Population Growth, and published in another volume entitled, “ Increase of Population in the United . States, 1910-1920,” have been reviewed and revised. The perplexing difficulty of the differential between native and immigrant fecundity has been overcome by what is characterized by Mr. Hill as a novel and scientific plan. The committee say in their report to the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor, that while their work has not been completed. the figures. though provisional and subject to revision, indicate approximately what the result will be. For the information of the members of the chamber the quotas under the present system of basing immigration on 2 per cent of the foreign born in the United States in 1890, and the national-origins system, which has temporarily been suspended by action of Congress in the last session as a result of alien political agitation, are to ye found in the appendix of this report. Finally, it seems to the executive committee that the following quotation from a memorial to the President, Senate, and ITouse of Representatives, dated January 4, 1926, signed by 34 scientists, including Db ologists, physiologists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, ete, drawn from the leading institutions of the United States, should demonstrate to any layman the futility of arguments advanced by the protagonists of certain races in the United States: wo We further urge the prompt putting into effect of that provision. of the immigration act of 1924, whereby the quota, after July 1, 1927. at present determined by the number of foreign born of each nationality here in the year 1890, are to be adjusted so as to conform to the officially estimated number of persons pow in the country of each national origin, either by birth or descent. We believe that this permanent basis for fixing the quotas, already provided for by (aw, is sound in prince ple and fair to all elements in the population. Only by this method can that large proportion of our population which is descended from fhe colonist and other early settlers, as well as the members of the newer immigration, have their proper racial representation in the quotas. We believe that Jongress wisely concluded that only by such a system of proportional representation in our future immigration could the racial status quo of the country pe maintained or a reasonable degree of homogeneity secured. Without such basic homogeneity we firmly believe no civilization can have its best development.” While it is impossible to foretell what action’ Congress will take in the premises, it is very significant that the chairman of the Committee. on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives has announced his intention of meeting the alien agitation by the introduction of a bill cutting the quotas substantially in half. the reduction to be accomplished by gradual steps jn the course of five years. Other restrictionists are advocating total suspension of all immigration, as the only solution of the Americanization preblem. When the political activities of certain secret societies, credited with a large membership in a standard work of reference, are taken into consideration, there is much to be said in favor of this viewpoint. The executive comnmittee, however, feels that the consistent and just attitude to take, is that the integrity of the present law, as passed in 1924, should be upheld in so far as it relates to the apportionment of quotas in accordance with contributions by all nations, to whom the quota principle is applied, since the establishment of the United States. This ix much better than to abide by a purely arbitrary method to meet political exigencies, or to curtail, to a greater degree, immigration from Europe whereby the problem of reuniting families will be accentuated. 14 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRANTS ABROAD Before concluding this report, it is necessary to deal briefly with two other problems which have not been solved, or, at least, in the case of the first to be discussed, only partially covered by administrative action. The members of the chamber of commerce are probably aware that through the initiative of the Secretary of Labor, great advances have been made in thé examination of immigrants abroad, which represents the accomplishment in part of an aspiration embodied in reports adopted by the chamber of commerce in years past. The full benefit of this system, however, is apparently not to be obtained without legislative direction, that the applicants for admission be not merely examined abroad, but that the best material be selected within each national quota and the priority rule be abolished, Tt is further suggested that the selective principle within each national quota be extended to permit the Secretary of Labor, in the case of heads of families, to secure preference in the assignment of future visas for members of acceptable immigrant families, IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO AND SOUTH AMERICA The second matter, completely unsolved, relates to the influx of a heterogeneous mass of immigrants from Mexico, the West Indies, and South America, Great numbers of these people have spread as far Northeast as Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. No one familiar with sanitary conditions in many of the countries south of the Ric Grande can fail to recognize the fact that this class of immigrant constitutes a perpetual menace to the health of the community. . It is wholly illogical to limit the European entrants and admit these people outside the quota. The executive committee is well aware of the economic arguments which have been, and will be, advanced, by certain elements in our population, who seek to profit by peon labor in the field or in the shop, but the committee is confident from the previous action of this chamber that all its members recognize that national welfare transcends any temporary inconvenience or selfish consideration. The United States is not a mere geographical expression for an area devoted to intensive economic exploitation, but a nation of people in the aggregate inspired by high ideals of service to mankind at home or abroad. It is for the preservation of these ideals and our institutions and government, handed on to us in trust by our forbears, the founders of the Republic, that the executive committee urges the adoption of the following preamble and resolutions : PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS Whereas the members of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York are advised that alien groups are seeking by political pressure upon individual representatives of the people to influence the action of Congress, in behalf of special interests of their own, or of the Nation from which they have sprung ; and Whereas the members of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York believe these activities tend to the perpetuation of race solidarity and political feuds or jealousies, wholly foreign to our national interests; and Whereas the American people have throughout the history of the Nation accepted immigrants on a basis of equality, one with another and with themselves, it is expedient that the old and the new stocks be treated on a basis of this same equality in the apportionment of whatever immigration quotas may be considered assimilable in the future; and Whereas it is illogical and inequitable to apply the quota system to the countries of Europe whence the hulk of our population has heen derived and leave wide open our gates to immigrants from the independent countries of North and South America and the Islands of the West Indies: Therefore he it Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York indorses the immigration act of 1924 and urges that the immigration quotas be revised in accordance with the final report of the committee of Government experts, and put into effect July 1, 1928; and be it further Resolved, That it is also the sense of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York that the quota system embodied in the immigration act of 1924 be extended by supplementary legislation to the independent countries of North and South America and the islands of the West Indies; and be it further NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 45 Resolved, That it is also the sense of the Chamber of Commerce of the State »f New York, that authorization by new legislation should be extended to the Secretary of Labor, to abandon the right of priority of application as a basis for admission, and substitute therefor selection within the quotas among the applicants for visas; and be it further Resolved, That it is also the sense of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, that the Secretary of Labor should be authorized by new legislation, in making selection within the quotas, to make provision in the selection of heads of families, for the subsequent prompt admission of the wives and families of the applicants; and be it further Resolved, That the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York be hereby authorized to take such steps as may be deemed expedient and proper to bring these resolutions to the attention of the President of the United States, the Congress, and the American people. WitriaM L. DrBosrT, President. CHARLES T. GWYNNE, Executive Vice President. Attest: New YORK, June 23, 1927. Jere D. TAMBLYN, Secretary. National origing provision, immigration act of 1924, immigration quotas Provisional immigration quotas based on national origin as provided by the immigration act of 1924, ) compared with present immigration quotas as based on 1890 foreign-born population] Country of origin Tobalec canummmsm mms Afghanistan. ._..__._.__... Albania. o.oo. Andorra... o.oo... Arabian Peninsula. ..._____ Armenif. cc eeemuaceoon oo Australia, ete... _.__ AUB cmon om mii mms i Belgium _oooooooee oo____| Bhutan._.... re Bulgaria. o.oo. __. Jameroon: British... French. .....____._.._._ China... Czechoslovakia... _. DEE ircsisserimsmsmi bois ie Denmark. ......... I Baypl. cuvsmepsssmwswsmsimny Estonia. ....---ocoocmnnn.n.. Ethiopia (Abyssinia).___.._ Finland__._... -. France.____. BOLMANY apn wining it wisn Freat Britain and Northern Ireland... .wuus esse smeaas BPO... vv ome mm mm SH mm Hungary. . J, {celand.._... = I pun sup —— iraq (Mesopotamia) ___...._. [rish Free State____._____.._ taly. ee emma) JE) 42:1 Latvia ooo. Provisional motas on basis of ational origin 153, 541 100 100 100 100 - 100 L, 486 110 100 100 100 100 100 2,248 122 i, 044 100 109 100 559 3, 837 23, 428 3, 039 367 967 100 100 100 , 13,862 | 6, 091 100 184 Present quotas oased mn 1890 ‘oreignborn nopulation 164, 667 100 10C 100 100 124 121 785 512 100 100 1:00 100 100 3,073 228 2, 789 179 124 100 471 3,954 51, 227 34,007 100 473 100 100 100 28, 567 3,845 100 142 Country of origin LAR. os nese pees dechtenstein_._.... ..... Athuania_ o_o. oo... suxemburg. ..o.oooooo. vionaco. o_o. _..______ voroeeo.._.________.__:___. Auscat (Oman) _...._...__. SPAT RW cr iw mR opal. ccpiiciis wwensunnen Netherlands____._.___._...... New Zealand, etc... ..._.. NOTWAY « ceoocceccaoan Vew Guinea, etc... ........ alestine. wn ‘ersia. A OVI cna seas Orb own nw samen anda and Urundi.. oo... aman... eae (USSI iol ‘amoa, western._......._... jan Marino... . we HY nae wong swamp ans Jouth Africa, Union of ..__ South West Africa. - Spain__.. cma Sweden. ___.. ——-Switzerland... ___..... Syria and the Lebanon. .... Toanganpilii. cocci Togoland: British. .__.. pr Prone. use meapunsmasug E131) Yap, ete. ..oooooeoniooio Yugoslavia. ooo Provisional juotas on basis of national origin Present quotas based on 1890 foreignhorn popula tion 100 100 134 109 ‘00 00 6 107 100 2, 421 100 2,267 100 105 100 4,978 200 100 a6 4,7 17 100 100 344 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,648 100 6,453 10 10, 100 5,082 503 100 603 2,248 1n0 1 Lu. 100 674 3, 259 , 198 100 100 J AJ 100 131 9, 561 2, 081 100 100 100 100 w| | 100 100 77 671 3588529 4 16 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Trevor. I also just received a letter this morning from the veneral manager of the New York Board of Trade, 41 Park Road, New York City, which says [reading]: NEw York Boarp oF TRADE (INnc.), New York City, February 5, 1929. Mr. JouN B. TREVOR, "Hotel Carlton, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a meeting of the executive committee of the New York Board of Trade held to-day I was instructed to inform you that the board of trade reaffirmed its position in favor of the national-origins provisions of the immigration law. Very truly vours, M.D. GrirriTH, General Manager. I would like to submit that, if I may, for the record. I also represent the American Defense Society, the Government Club of New York, the Americanization committee of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the Massachusetts Public Interests League, the Industrial Defense Society of Boston, Chapter 68 of the Sojourners of New York, the New York Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the National Society of Patriotic Women, and the Daughters of Colonial Wars. I also have received a letter this morning, but I have mislaid it for the moment; if you will permit me later to submit it to the stenographer ? The CraamrmaN. Very well. Mr. Trevor. This is from another important organization in Boston, which has asked me to represent it here at this meeting. The CratemaN. When you find it, you may insert it in the record. Mr. Trevor. I would like to confine myself strictly to the merits of this proposition, Mr. Chairman, as I think it is unfortunate that anything should be added to create racial disharmony in our country. Tt has already been said to you that efforts have been made by certain organizations to mislead the public in general and gentlemen in public life upon the fundamental proposition of this national-origins provision. Perhaps you are aware that I am somewhat familiar with it, because of the fact that a great many of the statistics originally before Congress and published in the Congressional Record were compiled by me; and I would like to say in connection with those figures that they were submitted before my studies on the question had been completed and I had not yet reached a definite conclusion, although I had proceeded far enough to believe that the only fair method of apportioning immigration into the United States was on the basis of all the people and not an arbitrary census basis, which inevitably discriminates in behalf of certain races and discriminates adversely against other races. Tt does not seem to me, and I know that the members of the organizations that I represent feel that it is not consonant with our democracy, that an pnsnaraTy of race should be declared by law simply because it so happens that more of some element happens to be in the United States at any given census—and it makes no. difference whether that census was 1890 or 1790. The organizations 1 represent believe that the man who arrived after 1890 is just as much entitled to representation in the apportionment of the quota as the NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 47 nan who arrived before 1890; or who is descended from colonial tock. It is simply the question of a high principle of equity and justice as against, if I may say so, politics. Possibly 1 am unjust to go so far as that, but it is an impression which I am compelled to fake from a study of a great deal of material which has been brought to my attention. } Senator Reep, How long have you been studying this immigration question, Captain T revor ? Mr. Trevor. 1 think immediately after I left the Army, Senator, { began to study it intensively. For nearly six months preceding that time I was in-charge of the intelligence service of the Army in New York City, and it was my duty to get into intimate touch with ‘he social conditions and observe political reactions that developed among the people. I was not simply engaged in hunting down perons who were supposed to be affiliated with the enemy powers, but generally watching the subversive movement and all that; and in that connection I became convinced that if some of our political problems were to be successfully solved, immigration would have to be greatly curtailed. I may say that after leaving the Army I was wequested by officials of the chamber of commerce to present to them a general viewpoint of the situation; and shortly afterwards that body—which I may also add always acts like a town meeting; no small committee ever dictates the policy of the chamber; it is solely by reports distributed to all members and then voted upon in open meeting—made a determination that, in spite of the economic ideas of some people, that they would benefit by cheap labor, that the national ‘nterests demand a rigid restriction upon immigration, and from that date onward I have been more or less closely identified with the study of this subject. My connection with the chamber of commerce makes me familiar with the members’ attitude on the immigration question, and they completely subordinate any economic consideration to national welfare. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the arguments which have been presented against the national-origins provision rather than with any of the motives which impel certain organizations that have been developed in this country to propose that 1t be postponed; and I feel that, without any reflection upon any Member of Congress, that further postponement is merely a prelude to an effort to repeal. It has been asserted, Mr. Chairman, that this national-origins provisions is unworkable. Well, of course, to say that is to make an assertion, because it is not an argument. The 1910 census, which differed radically and distinctly from the .1890 census, a foreignborn’ basis worked. But I think you will agree with me that it was within the power of Congress to enact any schedule of quotas which it may see fit. It lies in your power to be just or unjust; but [ am perfectly convinced from my connection with various Members of Congress that it Is their desire to be just, and for that reason the Senate took a very strong stand for the adoption of the nationalorigins provisions in 1924. Senator Lodge at that time—I trust I am not being indiscreet in quoting him? Senator Reep. Not at all. 18 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Trevor. Because he was present with Senator Reed and one other gentleman at that time—said that this is the only basis that will eliminate the charge that Congress is attempting to discriminate agains certain races which have contributed to our population and many of whose sons have fallen in its defense. Senator Lodge was very strongly of the opinion that through the working out by the authorities of the census we would reach an approximation of the facts regarding an analysis of our people. Senator Rrep. If you will permit an interruption, Captain: Senator Lodge made a similar statement on the floor of the Senate. He. was always much interested in immigration. “He had been chairman of this committee for many years. Mr. Trevor. It is said, Mr. Chairman, that the national-origins: provision is unconstitutional. If I may, I would like to read to you some provisions of the act, because I feel it is necessary to refresh your recollection, in order that you may appreciate the fact that the. 1890 census base is one of estimate and not of precise statistics as. has been asserted in and out of Congress in connection with the. effort to repeal the national-origins provision. Section 12, subsection (b) of the act—1I will read excerpts from it, but I might suggest that in your pleasure paragraphs (b) and (c¢) be incorporated in the record, in order that the possibility of a charge of misquotation or anything of that kind may not arise in connection with the excerpts which I read. [Reading:] (b) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly, shall as soon as feasible after the enactment of this act, prepare a statement showing the number of individuals of the various nationalities resident in continental United States as determined by the United States census of 1890, which statement shall be the population basis for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11. That relates solely to the 1890 census base. In the case of a country recognized by the United States, but for which a separate enumeration was not made in the census of 1890, the number of individuals born in such country and resident in continental United States in 1890, as estimated by such officials jointly, shall be considered for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11 as having been determined by the United States tensus of 1880. In the case of a colony or dependency existing before 1890, but for which a separate enumeration was not made in the census of 1890 and which was not included in the enumeration for the country to which such colony or dependency belonged. * * = Gentlemen, T might prolong the reading, but if you will consent to my suggestion that just these two sections be embodied in my testimony of the hearing, it will serve to illustrate the fact that the 1890 system is based on estimates. The Cratrman. Let it be so considered that at this point the two sections will be printed in the hearings as a part of your testimony, Section 12, subsections (b) and (c) of the immigration act of 1924 referred to are as follows:) (b) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly, shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of this act, prepare A statement showing the number of individuals of the various nationalities resident in continental United Siates as determined by the United States census of 1890, which statement shall be the population basis for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11. In the case of a country recognized by the United States, but for which a separate enumeration was not made in the census of L890. the number of individuals horn in such country and resident in continental NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 49 United States in 1890, as estimated by such officials jointly, shall be considered for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11 as having been determined by the Uniied States census of 1890. In the case of a colony or dependency existing before 1890, but for which a separate enumeration was not made in the census of 1890 and which was not included in the enumeration for the country to which such colony or dependency belonged, or in the case of territory administered under a protectorate, the number of individuals born in such colony, dependency, or territory, and resident in continental United States in 1890, as estimated by such officials jointly, shall be considered for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11 as having been determined by the United States census of 1890 to have been born in the country to which such colony or dependency belonged or which administers such protectorate. (¢) In case of changes in political boundaries in foreign countries occurring subsequent to 1890 and resulting in the creation of new countries, the Governments of which are recognized by the United States, or in the establishment of self-governing dominions, or in the transfer of territory from one country to another, such transfer being recognized by the United States, or in the surrender by one country of territory, the transfer of which to another couniry has not been recognized by the United States, or in the administration of territories under mandates, (1) such officials, jointly, shall estimate the number of individuals resident in continental United States in 1890 who were born within the area included in such new countries or self-governing dominions or in such tervitory so transferred or surrendered or administered under a mandate, and revise (for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11) the population basis as to each country involved in such change of political boundary, and (2) if such changes in political boundaries occur after the determination provided for in subdivision (ec) of section 11 has been proclaimed, such officials, jointly, shall revise such determination, but only so far as necessary to allot the quotas among the countries involved in such change of political boundary. For the purpose of such revision and for the purpose of determining the nationality of an immigrant, (A) aliens born in the area included in any such new country or selfgoverning dominion shall be considered as having been born in such country or dominion, and aliens born in any territory so transferred shall be considered as having been born in the country to which such territory was transferred, and (B) territory so surrendered or administered under a mandate shall be treated as a separate country. Such treatment of territory administered under a mundate shall not constitute consent by the United States to the proposed mandate where the United States has not consented in a treaty to the administration of the territory by a mandatory power. Mr. Trevor. These subsections, as I have just said, demonstrate the fact that the 1890 census system is an estimate and not based upon definite or precise statistics, as has been suggested by the proponents of Senator Nye’s resolution, both in Senate—I do not wish to infringe upon the prerogatives of the body in any way, but I feel the Senators will correct me if I am wrong—-— Senator Rerp, I think that statement has been made many times, as charged, that the national origins basis is unconstitutional. Mr. Trevor. If my recollection, Senator, is correct, Senator Shipstead in his testimony before this committee one or two years ago, raised the question as to constitutionality. I am dealing with it merely because it is one of the arguments that has been disseminated respecting this law, and I do not like to take too much of your, time, but in order to present the matter adequately—— The CuarrmaN. Unless some other member of the committee desires to hear you upon that subject, personally I do not, because I think Congress has a right to do as it sees fit on that point. Mr. Trevor. That is my opinion. Possibly reading an opinion taken from Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, which seems to me to support that proposition—I merely do that for my own—— The Cuamrman. Pardon me. We may curtail this part of the discussion. Senator Nye, do you attack the constitutionality ? 50 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Nye. Not at all. The Cratrman. Then, I suggest you pass to another subject, because the matter of constitutionalitv. unless Senator Reed desires it particularly—— Senator Reep. No. I myself have never heard a lawyer even question the constitutionality of any of these bases of calculating the quota. The CuArMAN . If in these hearings anybody shall attack it hereafter, we will give you ample opportunity to respond. Mr. Trevor. Thank you. I would like to curtail my remarks as far as possible. The CramrmaN. Let us eliminate that portion then. Mr. Trevor. Yes; I will eliminate all further reference to that. Now, as to the question of accuracy of the statistics: All the organizations which I represent are so perfectly convinced of the absolute impartiality and integrity of Doctor Hill and his associates that we never for a moment questioned that a perfectly fair apportionment of the population has been made. The question of accuracy, of course, is relative. Absolute accuracy in any census has never been attained. It probably was more nearly attained in the earlier census than it has ever been attained in the more recent census. Therefore, I would like to speak briefly and say that our understanding of the purposes of Congress in passing the act of 1924 was to maintain an approximation of the status quo of our population as it was in 1920. Now, that was very specifically stated in the House reports. I will not burden you with repeating what is already a matter of public record, but the public at large who have been talking against the national origins provisions are not aware that that was the attitude unquestionably of the Congress and the committees before this act of 1924 was passed. It hag already been set forth, and Doctor Hill has testified before this committee, that the 1890 census base in no way represents a cross section of the population. That is perfectly obvious. We would be talking German to-day or some other languages if that did represent it; and I would like to say in that connection that when the United States Government drafted the youth of the country into the war it never would have considered for a moment the idea of taking an arbitrary census bage as the basis for the draft; it took all the people, and it is on that basis that we are arguing here to-day. And we believe that those figures worked out by the board of experts are substantially accurate. In that connection it has been repeatedly asserted, as I have already alluded to in my testimony, the fact that the 1890 census ficures were absolutely based on a known and established body of statistics, and it is said that the divergencies between the preliminary report of the committee of experts, and their final report is sufficient to discredit the final report. It is not generally known that there are much greater divergencies in the principal quotas concerned, and I believe in every quota there is greater or less divergence, between the figures which were submitted to Congress as representative of what 2 per cent of the 1890 foreign-born would be, and those which were subsequently pro- NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 51 claimed by the President. If you will permit me, without reading too much nto the record, I have here some tables from which I will quote one or two figures. This is a comparative statement of estimated quotas, 2 per cent of the census of 1890, and the present quotas. When you gentlemen passed the act of 1924, it was the impression of Congress that the German quota would be 45,229; when the quotas were proclaimed it was 51,227, a rise of 13.2 per cent, as a result of the estimates which I have already alluded to. Great Britain and Ireland at that time were credited with a quota of 41,772 and the actual quota accorded was 84,007, a decrease of 22.8 per cent. Senator Rep. In other words, at the present moment Great Britain and northern Ireland have about 25 per cent less than Congress expected they would have when they passed the law? Mr. Trevor. Precisely so, in spite of the fact that Congress had reason to expect—I am quoting the statistics from Report No. 350 of the House, which was the latest publication of statistics available at that time—and in spite of that fact that approximately equal quotas were accorded Great Britain, Germany, and northern Ireland, you will recall, Senator, that a bitter attack was made by many restrictionists in the Senate on the fact that the quota, even for temporary purposes, was substantially larger to a country with which we had recently been at war than was given to countries with which we were allied. I could go on indefinitely. I could point out, for instance, that the Irish Free State was accredited with a quota of 20,886 in 1924, and the present quota is 28,567, an increase of 36.7 per cent. Now, some of the Irish societies, as you know, are very vigorous in their opposition to the national-origins provision, but I wonder what their attitude would have been if their quota on the 1890 basis had been reduced 36.7 per cent? In other words, this table serves, if you care to have me introduce it in the record, to show the divergencies, and you will see that the thing was juggled up and down, not in any way reflecting on the census authorities in so doing, because Doctor Hill and, I think, Mr. Hunt—I do not recall positively the name of the gentleman who had charge at that time of the population division, told the House committee that any census date—the 1910 census base was based on estimates and that the 1890 census base must be based on estimates likewise. The CrairManN. Who made the original estimates that you refer to? Mr. Trevor. The census authorities, I believe. They were printed by the congressional committees and obtained from the census authorities. The CrmamrmaN. And those were incorporated, as I understood you, in the House committee’s report ¢ Mr. Trevor. Yes, sir; Report No. 850, for, that session. The Cramrman. Can you state whether or not those estimates were made by Doctor Hill? Mr. Trevor. It is my recollection, Senator—I am speaking strictly from recollection—that about January 5 or 15, 1924, Doctor Hill and Mr. Hunt—if you have the record here you can verify it in a moment-—appeared before the House committee and explained to them 52 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW that any of these census dates involved estimations, and he has since testified before your committee that in connection with these estimates they took a very much more arbitrary method of apportioning the census estimates than had been taken in connection with the national-origins data; that they were compelled to do so. The CrarrmMaN. Do you wish that table put in the record? Senator Reep. I think that ought to go in the record. The CrameuMaN. Very well; let it be inserted at this point. {The table referred to is as follows:) Comparative statement of estimated quotas on 2 per cent of census of 1890 and present quotas AIDA. oe oo eee emmmemeecmecmam annem een BPTTIOTUI : mmm oii bo i in im mt BA BUIEETIIN oe SE 0 a STORRS, BERL ZIUUTIN «mr em 0 0 0 Czechoslovakia... «occrammrmmnamaceaaaaaa SE DARE. wn wm RE ————— DONIMAIK co oo eo emmemiemcmmmmns mmmecammanee ESE OMIA cn cece cc amma mamamamm amen AMADA — ee eee emma mmm mmm Ji 1051 TA, orm mm mee SERRE France... ......- a ms en FRY FOPIANY « — oo cnoceazmmamm mma sm memmamm mmm mmnmmm ens Great Britain and North Ireland... ocooocemanmamenmann Tish Free State. coo oveuacocoammmmmmmonmm mem mmmoon TROD wiv sii irc mr wn mie ROR. HUNEATY ccm eemcemce commmmmmmmmmmonmmeao aes coland. oars mammmmmmmmmmmmaee as ae 7 RT PEEP PELE TELE ELS IALTER ems SR 8 © At HUATA «cece acne am mmm amma ee . SUXOINDULE «oc aece eee cm cm mw mma mmm mm memes Netherlands... cceeeccaccmommar ammmcccemamnn-NOIWRY « «eee meer cme amm mmm mmm mame amm omnes POIANA eee eee mmm memmam— me imam—emmamman POrtUZAL «ooo cami cemcaamm maemo mmo nono maes BUITTIAIIR Lo oom i wi io i mm ms A BUIEEIR oem mr mi a mm pm Ee TEER ERERE EE EERE WEAN eee omnme ec eecmaemcmmmme—emnmmm—aamese Iwitzerland ooo eee cmeammee ian amon YUZOSIAVIA. co cmoiimes aiimaos cmmeemeoeemneonaes 3an Marino... maaan SER Palestine. «oo ooo oom am cman aeans 3g 3 COIS RPEEERPE SEES SEES EESE THRE a een ean mmm mmm meen AA edjalo cca oe em ARE “ersia.... sgn mms mses Jnion of South Africa onions AUSEFAlB oom meemammmoan cmmmemmmemmesomoeomons Now Zealand o_o oeouan SR Estimated ! Present | Decrease Increase Per cent Per cent 104 100 4.0 el. 117 124 eoaene- 5.9 1, 090 785 | 38.8 Sh 609 512 18.9 oem 1,973 3,073 eeoeonnn 55.7 323 | 228 476 joeeoeee 2,882 , 2,739 | 3.3 Lol 202 | 124 1 62.9 {oiooans 45 71 oe] 92.2 410 nani 3,978 IT 45, 229 a 13.2 41,772 228 een 20, 886 Co. 36.7 135 350 ein 588 2%.3 Ll 136 a0 | esy 2.9 (iaeoonn 7 Eo 1 SE 09 16.8 |oooooo-o-158 58.0 |ooooioon 1,737 5.4 [ 6, 552 OT 8, 97% 49,9 574 41 |e 731 MR ansmenmnn 1,892 A 18.8 224 FOX J 3, 661 3.04 ll 2.121 4.8 24.4 fomemnenan 10.0 ii 10 comme 120 ooo. ow 25 100 | 25.0 | iin 106 100 89 |e 110 100 10.0 |-oooones 220 121 B18 |___._. 167 100 B7.0 enn. Mr. Trevor. You are aware, Mr. Chairman and Senators, that the apportionment has been attacked in various ways. As I say, none of us who advocate the national-origins provision are the proponents of any especial racial group, and, as I have already said, accept absolutely without question the findings of the extremely scientific work done by the census’ authorities, and with the cooperation of the American Council of Learned Societies, of which some members were not at all inclined to be favorable to this proposition. But they have worked out substantially what nga ioniily is an accurate analysis. I say that with some emphasis, because I devoted some four years since the passage of the act to a verification on my own part of the findings on this question. I do not want to advance my own views, but merely say I have not just studied this thing for a day. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 53 And now let me turn to the apportionment on the bagis the census of 1790, which has been the focus of attack, ds you a. ogall. The census publication Century of Population Growth has beert’ pm, der fire by the Irish societies, in fact it was under fire from the moment it came out, because they claimed the Revolution: was, peally fought by Irishmen, and that all our institutions: were developed hy the Irish. I am not saying anything against the'Irish; I like them personally and employ almost exclusively Irish; that J peithorabops nor there—but they are not entitled to any more copsidetatiott gan the Germans or Scandinavians. or I omitted to state that the Century of Population Growth as a study is really out of the discussion. All the analyses of the colonial population have been restudied and re-presented in an entirely new proposition. So that any attack on the Century of Population Growth is really out of this question. But I believe Senator Shipstead quoted in his argument a letter of Mr. Rossiter about the lost schedules, which have been a matter of controversy. I do not want to quote the Senator inaccurately, but I read the record only a few days since, and if my recollection is correct, it was his impression from an article published in the Outlook of, I think, 1906, before the Century of Population Growth was prepared, that 25 per cent of those schedules were missing. As a matter of actual fact, when Mr. Rossiter who was the author of Century of Population Growth, developed his tables on the colonial population, I can only figure out over an approximation of 11 per cent, at the very outside, for the missing schedules, or the alleged missing schedules; and the areas considered to which these missing schedules referred are so distributed that it is possible to get substantially accurate information regarding the population that was in .those areas. The CrrairMax. When you speak of the Century of Population Growth is that the work that is referred to in the reports made to this committee? My. Trevor. That is the book that is always attacked, Mr. Chairman, and it really is entirely out of the picture. : Senator Reep. It is a publication of the Census Bureau made in £910. The Crammmax. I only query on it, because, if you will recall, in the report Doctor Hill made and that the experts made there 1s a particular volume referred to, and referred to quite often, as one of the authoritative references. Is that the work you refer to? Mr. Trevor. If you will pardon me, Doctor Hill in his preliminary report utilized the apportionment of the colonial population as it was set forth in the Century of Population Growth, but that was only in the preliminary figures, which he stated at that time were subject to correction. The CramrMaN. That is the February, 1928, report you refer to? Mr. Trevor. No, sir; that was the January, 1927, report. The CuairMAN. In the February, 1928, report he refers to a volume, and I was simply asking for information, whether that is the same book to which you are referring now. ; Mr. Trevor. My recollection of that testimony possibly is a little different from yours. The Cuamman. Possibly so. 54 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Trevor. Because I think you may be confusing his first reference. He states the Century of Population Growth—the schedules that were used there—have been completely revised by the Council of Learned Societies and the quota board. The Cramrvan (reading) : The principal sources of data available for determining national origin are as follows * os F3 ae oe (2) A classification by racial stocks of the white population enumerated at the census of 1790 as publ shed by the Bureau of the Census in the voluine entitled “A Century of Population Growth.” supplemented and modified by recent studies which are referred to in the statement which follows. The only query I had was whether this is the book to which you have been referring in your testimony. Mr. Trevor. Yes, sir; that is the book. But I want to call particular attention to the fact that that analyses has been completely restudied and radically changed. An attempt has been made to discredit the census of 1790 on the basis of the revolutionary muster rolls. I would prefer not to go into that in great detail, because there is another witness who has made a detailed study of that question. The CramrMaN. Very well. Mr. Trevor. And he, I think. can demonstrate to you satisfactorily that the contentions of Mr. O’Brien in his book are hardly warranted by the facts; in fact, I think in Doctor Hill's testimony there {is an intimation that he does not—he is unable to accept all the claims made along that line. So I will omit that and leave that to this other witness. A very important witness 'has been unable to come to Washington, who has made some additional studies of this colonial population, and the various claims made by some of the hyphenated societies regarding these national origins. I do not know whether he can come here before Monday. If he could not come here I would like to introduce into the record his statement. without reading it, on that point. Senator Rep. Can you have him here Monday? Mr. Trevor. I telephoned him this morning, and there seems to be some difficulty about whether he can at all leave. He is a lawyer and is engaged in some case or other, and I am not sure he can get away. But if he is unable to come, possibly you, Senator, could introduce his statement on that question at a later date or allow me to return. Senator Rep. I would very much rather have him here for examination, if it is possible. The CuarrmaN. Who is the gentleman in question, if you please? Mr. Trevor. It is Mr. Edward R. Lewis. Senator Rep. Where does he live? Mr. Trevor. In Chicago. If you determine to go on Monday—— The Cramman. Is he the gentleman, Mr: Trevor. who has written that very interesting work? Mr. Trevor. He is the author of America, Nation or Confusion, and, as I say, he is an expert on that question. While not strictly relevant, if I may, I have with me some studies being made under my supervision by a research student. Miss Strain. A} NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 55 on the Constitution. It really is corroborative evidence. If I may introduce those statistics I think it may be interesting to the committee. Spat Regp. I do not understand what the statistics bear upon at all. Mr. Trevor. This is a genealogical research into the ancestry of the men delegated by the various Colonies to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It covers a vast amount of ancestry in the colonial period, and merely demonstrates a sort of corroborative evidence as to what those people, who were selected without any regard to racial affiliation, happened to make a picture of our colonial population. They represented—— Senator ReEp. If that can be briefly stated, I would like to have it. Mr. Trevor. A very slight revision, I think, will be made: English 69.94 per cent; Scotch 7.37 per cent; Welsh 2.30 per cent; Scotch-Irish 10 per cent; the total of the British contribution of ancestry 89.61 per cent; and the South-Irish 8.08 per cent; the Dutch 5.09 per cent; French-Huguenot 1.45 per cent, and Swedish 0.77 per cent. These men were selected without regard to anything more than that they were representative of the community in which they lived, and they took an important part in writing our fundamental law. It is of interest comparatively and not specifically. I do not suppose you gentlemen care to have me go into the general nature of the organizations that are opposed to this propesition or who are rather attacking the Nye resolution. They will probably appear here themselves. If at any time a comparison between those organizations and the patriotic organizations are necessary, I imagine the Senator from Pennsylvania could supply that data. I have a lot of names here which would take up your time possibly to read, Mr. Chairman. Senator Reep. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be of advantage if we could have something on the other side of this matter, if Senator Nye’s witnesses are here. Mr. Trevor. I will omit that. : The Caatrman. Temporarily, I think, you may omit it, and then, in addition to that, I do not think the comparisons would be particularly interesting to the committee. Mr. Trevor. It does not seem to me so. The Cruairmaxn. All right, then, omit them. Senator Rrep. What we are concerned with is the merits of the proposition itself and not the details of the people who are urging it. Myr. Trevor. It seems to me so. It is a little difficult for me to tell whether I have covered all the ground; it is a tremendous field. The Cramyan. I think you have done admirably, Captain, and if you desire hereafter to present any matters in addition, that opportunity unquestionably will be afforded. I am advised by Senator Nye that one of the people interested on the other side of the controversy is here, and we will call him. Mr. Trevor. I want to express my appreciation, Senator, of the great courtesy that has been extended to me. The Crratemax. You owe me nothing in that regard, sir. 56 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT FRIEDENWALD, WASHINGTON. D. C The Crarrman. Would you please state, Doctor, to the reporter, so that he may have it, your name, residence, and occupation. Your name is Dr. Herbert Friedenwald? Doctor Friepenwarp. Yes, sir. ~The Crammax., You reside at 1509 Sixteenth Street NW., Washington ? Doctor FriepENwaLp. Yes, sir. The Cuairman. Your occupation, if you please. Doctor Frizpexwarp. Retired. If you will permit me, I might say [hat a very dear friend of mine was your friend, Harris Weinstock. The Cratrmaxn. There was no finer man nor better American than Harris Weinstock. Doctor Friepexwarp. I agree with you. The Cuairmaxn. Doctor, we are holding a hearing on a resolution presented by Senator Nye having for its purpose the postponement of the national-origins clause of the immigration law, and we would be very glad if you would proceed in your own way to present your views. Senator Nye. Doctor, in a conversation with you a few days ago you disclosed your origin. Doctor Frrepexwarp. I did. Senator Nye. Are you going to cover that? I would be very glad if you would. Doctor Friepenwarp. I think it would be interesting information for the committee. Senator Nye. I am sure it would. Doctor Friepexwarp. As we are considering national origins, though appreciative of the situation, I trust you will indulge me if I venture to state that I am one of the very large family of my name, whose forebears settled in Baltimore almost 100 years ago. My father was born in Baltimore. His father and his father’s father were immigrants to this country. My father’s youngest brother, Dr. Aaron Friendenwald, between whom and my father there was a perfect Cheryble brothers relationship (or if the classicists among you prefer, a Damon and Pythias relationship) was the first of the long line of medical Doctors Friedenwald of Baltimore, unto the third generation, all of whom have attained great distinction in their profession. Senator and Doctor Copeland is in position to verify my statement, and if any ome of you is curious to know any details, I refer you to Who’s Who in America. In passing I may add that the first of the Doctors Freidenwald studied medicine in Baltimore. After graduation in the University of Maryland Medical School, he determined to become an oculist, and as he fittingly was a man of vision, even so far back as the early sixties, he sailed for Europe in order to perfect himself in the branch of his profession where it was best known and taught. Upon his return to Baltimore he became professor of ophthalmology and dean at the old College of Physicians and Surgeons, now merged with the University of Maryland. So much for my father’s side. On my mother’s side, she came nf a family of the name of Ahlborn. Her father’s father, my great-grandfather, was a Hanoverian Ger- NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 57 man, of a family of distinction in the military and political life of the State of Hanover. Naturally they are North Germans or Teutons, or as is now the fashion to term them Nordics—though I never use that awful name, as I abandoned calling people names I don’t understand ever since, when a youth in England, I called an Englishman a “ bloody something or other—1I escaped with my life. } I have in my possession a photograph of a painting, of one of my mother’s ancestors who was an officer in the Hanoverian Army. This young man of the name of Ahlborn, my great-grandfather, became enamored of a beautiful young Jewess of the name of Solomons, whose portrait I also own, and succumbed to such an extent that he became a convert to Judaism in order that he might marry this fascinating young Jewess, Their son, my grandfather, left Hanover and settled first in Liverpool, and then in Manchester, England. My mother was born in Manchester. When she was an infant she was taken to Dublin, Ireland, where she received her education, and in Dublin, on St. Patrick’s Day of about 1850 was born her only brother, Arthur Ahlborn. When she was still a minor, she and her brother and sister were brought to this country by her father and mother, who settled in St. Louis, where my father met and married her. I was born in Baltimore of this ancestry; religiously and racially Jewish on my father’s side, of people accidentally born in Germany; on my mother’s side I am the son of a woman born in England, raised in Treland, married in the United States to a natural-born American citizen, but, inasmuch as my mother is of the ancestry just related to you, I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to inform me, after I have concluded my brief remarks (because I am unable to determine this for myself), what my national origin is. And 1f you find this ready of solution, I beg to ask you to determine for her the national origin of my first cousin (now resident of Baltimore) who bears the name of Ahlborn, the only living child of my mother’s brother, born in Dublin on St. Patrick's Day, of mixed Jewish and Teutonic origin, so far as I am able to resolve this complicated situation, which to my mind is, after all, of very minor significance in the determination of one’s fitness for citizenship. I am not so much disturbed as some others might be about the determination of my national origin, because I am a natural-born citizen, as is my wife, and I am under the aegis of the Constitution of the United States. But there are millions of just as good citizens and prospective citizens as myself in this country, as to whose racial origin there are just as great complications involved as in my own case, and it is for their protection that I urge you not to burden our next President (who will have problems sufficient brought to his attention) with this problem which in my humble opinion is one wholly incapable of solution on any basis that has so far been suggested. Moreover, as I have referred to my Hanoverian ancestors, none of whom were among the mercenaries who fought against us in the Revolutionary War, I beg leave to read from a volume of the Journals of the Continental Congress, printed while that Congress was in session. I own-the only complete set of the original Journals 58 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW of that Continental Congress in private hands, and I collected these yolumes one by one myself over a period of many years. I wish to read to you a few sentences from the volume, which by a fortunate accident was owned by and bears the signature of Thomas Stone of Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and he has not only attached his signature with its date to the volume, but has added to it an explanation in his own holograph why the volume was printed at what is now York. Pa., but was then known as York Town. Senator Reep. The Continental Congress met at York for awhile, did it not? Mr. FRIEDENWALD. Yes: that is what I was gong to refer to. {Reading :] Journals of Congress Containing (The) Proceedings, From January 1, 1776, to January 1, 1777. Published by order of Congress. Volume II, York-Town: TPennsylvania.l Printed by John Dunlap. MDCCLXXVIII. To which Thomas Stone adds— when he, [Dunlap] left Philadelphia on account of the enemy. (To Senator Reed :) That was the fact you referred to, as York-Town was the Capital in 1778. A resolution was introduced on August 9, just exactly one week after the members of the Continental Congress had signed the Declaration of Independence. A committee was appointed, consisting of James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, chairman; Thomas Jefferson, of world fame; and Richard Stockton, of New Jersey, all signers of the Declaration of Independence, and I might add parenthetically for the benefit of those of you who are not lawyers, that James Wilson, of Scottish birth, was one of the greatest jurists of this country, whose participation in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was of an importance that even those among you who are not lawyers or jurists must be familiar with, and that he was appointed by Washington as one of the original justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. This committee was 1nstructed to. Devise a plan for encouraging the Hessians and other foreigners employed by the King of Great Britain and sent to America for the purpose of subjugating these States to quit that iniquitous gervice. They reported five davs later as follows. [Reading:] \Wherens it has been the wise policy of these States to extend the protection +f their laws to all thoso who <hould settle among them. of whatever nation or religion they might be. and to admit them to a participation of the benefits: of civil and religions freedom, and the benevolence of this practice as well as its satutary effects have rendered it worthy of being continued in future times, And whereas his Britannic Majesty, in order to destroy our freedom and happiness, has commenced against us a cruel and unprovoked wal; and unable to engage Britons enfficient to execute his wanguinary measures, has applied for aid to certain foreign prinees who are in the habit of selling the blood of their people for money. and from them has procured and transported hither considerable numbers of foreigners. And it is conceived that such foreigners if apprised of the practice of these States would choose to accept of lands, Iiherty, safety, and a communion of good laws and mild government in a country where many of their friends and relations ave already happily settled rather than continue exposed to the toils and dangers of a long and bloody war waged against a people guilty of no other crime than that of refusing to exchange freedom for slavery; and that they will do this more especially when: NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 59 hey reflect that after they shall have'violated every Christian and moral prerept by invading and attempting to destroy those who have never injured them or their country, their only reward if they escape death and captivity will be a return to the despotism of their prince, to be by him again sold to do the drudgery of some other enemy to the rights of mankind. } And whereas the Parliament of Great Britain have thought fit by a late act got merely to invite our troops to desert our service but to direct a compulsion sf our people taken at sea to serve against their country: . Resolved, therefore, That these States will receive all such foreigners who shall leave the armies of his Britannic Majesty in America and shall choose to become members of any of these States; that they shall be protected in the free exercise of their respective religions and be snvested with the rights, privileges, and immunities of natives, as established by the laws of these States; and, moreover, that this Congress will provide for every such person 50 acres of unappropriated lands in some of these States, to be held by him and his heirs in absolute DrODErty. Resolved, That the foregoing resolution be committed to the committee who prought in the report, and that they be directed to have it translated into German and to take proper measures to have it communicated to the foreign troops. In the meanwhile that this be kept secret. Resolved, That Doctor Franklin be added to said committee: Among the immigrants who have made this country the great councry it is and among the prospective immigrants are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, pioneers in every sense of the term, as great ploneers as the original settlers, who are as much worthy to have your most serious consideration of their fate as those despised and contemned Hessians and Hanoverians whom the fathers Jeemed worthy of inviting to participate on the terms I have just read to you in the benefits to be derived from membership in our body politic. In conclusion I wish to draw the attention of the Senator from Pennsylvania to an earlier edition of the volume I have just now read from. It bears the signature of “B. Reed ” also a distinguished Pennsylvanian. Perhaps he was an ancestor of the Senator and he can enlighten us as to his national origin. . denator Reep. He was Scotch-Irish, Doctor. Doctor FriepexwaLp. I know it. Perhaps you would like to look at the volume that bears the signature of a Signer of the Declaration of Independence. (Handing volume to the chairman). That is all T have to say, sir. Phe Cramvax. Are there any questions that are desired to be oropounded to the doctor? Senator Nyu. Doctor, are you prepared to pass judgment on the availability or feasibility of the 1890 census as a basis for quotas, or the 1790 census? Do you believe there is any difference between the two? Doctor FrippeNwarp, I am not prepared to make any definite statement as to my opinion, because I did not know the question was going to be asked, or I might have looked up and confirmed my ciows that I held some years ago when I examined the census of £790, and this report Senator Johnson has referred to awhile ago. The difficulties in my mind in establishing anything on the basis of the 1790 census is, if I recall it correctly, and 1f I do not, Senator Reed can correct me, is that the names form the basis, to a large axtent at least, of the. determination of what the racial origin Is. Now, I can tell you of a case in point, and this has prevailed throughout all time: A man came to see me some years ago, and 60 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW he looked like an Irishman, and he said his name was Devlin. .T suspected that he was an Irishman, and there was no reason why I should from his name and appearance conclude he was anything else. I happened to have some Jewish books on the mantel when he came a second time, and he said to me, “Doctor, I would like to borrow some of those Jewish books some time.” I said, “ What in the world would you, a man named Devlin want with Jewish books?” He said, “ That is not my right name. That is my business name. My real name is Abram Levin.” Devlin is about as far from Abram Levin as you can get; and that sort of thing has been going on all through history. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews born in Russia who became American citizens and changed their names at that time.. You remember some time ago there was in Philadelphia a man, whose name I have forgotten—Cabinsky, or something like that— who wanted his name changed to Cabot; and some of the descendants and good people of Boston who bore the name Cabot objected. It so happened that this case came before Judge Audenvied, and, as you know, Judge Audenvied is a Democrat, a real Democrat, of an old Philadelphia family; and he, of course, saw no reason why this man should not change his name to Cabot if there was no legal hindrance, and he permitted him to do so in spite of the protests of the ancient Cabots from the land of the bean and the cod. This matter of determination by name is almost futile. You can make a guess, but that is all it amounts to, in my opinion. Senator Reep. Of course, you understand, Doctor, that national origins are determined from other sources besides the census of 1790? Doctor Friepexwarp. I do not know how, Senator. I do not know, because I am perfectly incapable of determining national origins on any basis I have seen brought forward. Senator Reep. In the census of 1920, the national origins is determined by the statement of each foreign-born person. Doctor Friepenwarp. All right. Suppose I were foreign born; what is my national origin? Suppose I were a foreign-born person, and that question is asked. You have heard me answer what is my ancestry. Senator Rrep. You would give the nation from which you departed to the United States, and I suppose you would say Ireland. if you were born there. . Doctor FriepeNwarp. Does that make Irish my national origin? Senator Rep. You were born there? Doctor FriepeNwaLp. I was born there when my forebears were in passage from Germany to the United States, and the mere fact that I happened to be born in Ireland, would that make me an Irishman eligible to the Ancient Order of Hibernians because my uncle was born in Dublin on St. Patrick’s Day? Senator Reep. I believe it was an Irishman who said, “If the cat has kittens in the oven that does not make them biscuits.” [Laughter. ] Doctor Friepenwarp. That must have been said by a very wise and witty Irishman. ‘ Senator Rerp. But we have been dealing with large masses of population. The Census Bureau authorities assume that peculiar NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 61 cases of that sore wash out one another, and that most persons born in Ireland are Irish, and most persons who are born in Germany are Germans; and that the exceptions rather cancel one another and our common senge tells us that most persons are born in the country in which their race lives. } } The national-origins calculations, you see, take into account all those persons who have immigrated into the United States since 1790, and for many of them we have precise statements of their origins. We have statements of the 1920 census of the country of origin of the persons born here whose parents were born abroad; and there again we have an element that is very definite. What method do you prefer to national origins? Doctor FriepENwALD. I do not know, but I would like to see any sane method but that method utilized. If you want to restrict immioration, if that is your point, then .do it on some basis which can be justified not merely by the calculations which are largely based on guess of men who are called statisticians, but on some rational basis, either upon a reading and writing test as we do now on the basis of population. But you can not determine national origins. Take my family. T do not know what it is. Take the Jews, particularly. They probably are about as pure a race as exists. There are no pure races. There is no such thing as a pure race. “There ain’t any such animal.” The Jews are probably as pure a race as exists. But they have intermarried, largely among gentiles, all over the world, and. as in the case of my own family, there has been a perfectly enormous intermarrying of Jews and Christians in every country where Jews have ever lived. How can you determine what racial origins is? And national origin means racial origin, practically, as worked out; and that is the reason I regard as hopeless any racial-origins standard. I can not understand it and I am pot attempting to. It is perfectly impossible for me to do it. Senator Rerp. We are seeking light from you, Doctor. Of course, it is perfectly obvious somebody must do something. What should we do to substitute a method for national origins? Do vou believe in numerical limitations of immigration? Doctor Frmpexwarp. I may state quite frankly that I do not believe in restriction of immigration except to keep out the people who are lame, halt, and blind, who are diseased and are liable to become a public charge. In other words, any able-bodied man or woman, I believe, is an asset to the country. Senator Reep. Now, let me interrupt, Doctor, at that point. Doctor FriepeNwarp. Let me finish what T wanted to sav? Senator Rep. Certainly. Doctor FriepeENwarp. Now, then, the country has determined to differ from me, and I accept that. The method by which you determine who may enter the country is upon the basis of population already existing here. Why do you want to complicate it? That method is complicated enough. Why complicate it more by adding to it what to my mind is absolutely impossible of working out on any basis, not only of reason, but in fairness to the people here or the people we want to allow to come in? IERRE_ 90K 52 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Rep. Now, let me see if I understand your point. You believe in the literacy test established by the act of 19177? Doctor Friepenwarp. I do—not necessarily. Senator Rrep. Now, you do not believe in the literacy test? Doctor Frizpexwarn. I do not believe in the literacy test, for this reason, or one of the reasons: To illustrate, a Jew applied for a position as sexton of a synagogue, and when he was asked if he could read and write he said “No.” So they could not employ him. But he went into business and was very successful, and one day he was perfecting a loan, and to the surprise of the new clerk he could not sign his name but made his mark, and the new clerk said to him, “ Why, my God, can’t you write?” “ No,” he said, “1 can not write.” “And you have made all this money while being unable to read and write. My God, what would you have been if you could read and write?” And he replied, “I ‘would have been sexton of the synagogue.” [Laughter.] Senator Reep. Now, Doctor, I see the point, but I do not see the moral. Doctor Friepexwarp., I mean literacy is a test of a certain kind, but it is not a test of character. As Joe Cannon said some years ago, when the literacy test was up and some of his constituents went to him and asked for his support against it « Why,” he said, “ certainly I am with you. One of my best constituents and ablest supporters spells ‘shot’ with two t's.” Literacy is a test, but it is not adequate. I have known some men so lacking in education that they could barely read and write, and yet they were of the highest character; and women the same. Literacy is not really a test, but that is part of the law and we are not going to revise that law to-day. Senator Reep. Let us see if we can get a categorical answer, If you were rewriting the entire body of the immigration law, would you exclude or include the literacy test? Doctor Friepexwarp. That is rather a leading question. Senator Rep. Yes; I meant it to be. Doctor Friepenwarp. I do not know that I can answer that. 1 do not know that I have the information on which to make a real answer. Senator Remp. Then we will leave that in the record as undecided ; we are not sure about the literacy test. You would include the test of whether the prospective immigrant would be likely to be a public charge? Doctor Friepexwarp. Certainly Senator Reep. That is definite. Then would you also include the est of whether the proposed immigrant had certain especial diseases? Doctor FriepeNwaLp. Certainly Senator Rexp. You would exclude those? Doctor Frizpenwarp. Certainly Senator Reep. Who were gravely diseased? Doctor Friepenwarp. Or contagious disease of any kind. Senator Resp. A serious disease? Doctor Friepexwarp. A serious disease. Senator Reep. We are agreed that the test for disease and for pauperism in the act of 1917 are wise: we are not sure about the lit- NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 63 eracy test. You do not approve, I understand, of any numerical limitation; is that correct? Doctor FriepExwarn. I am not prepared to say whether I do or do not. I knew at one time, prior to 1913. I was familiar, before the war, with the immigration situation, and I knew most or a good part of the so-called statistics—had them at my fingers’ end. But 1 have been in bad health for a number of years, I have retired, and I have not kept up with the details, and I am not prepared to give any answers more than I have made to-day. Senator Reep. Now, Doctor, suppose the country and Congress decided that there must be a numerical limitation of immigration, right or wrong? We will assume that has been decided. Doctor FRIEDENWALD. Yes. Senator Rep. How then would you divide those numbers among the various countries from which we expect to receive immigration? Doctor FriepExwarp. Well, that is again asking me a question I am not prepared to answer. Senator Rerp. But that is the question Conoress is faced with. and { want your help. Doctor Frivpexwarp. My help would be of no use to you. I have no information on which I can base an intelligent statement. If you would like me to have prepared for you a statement of the point of view of the men with whom I was formerly associated and who have made special investigations of the immigration problem. I will endeavor to have them prepare it for you. I do not represent anybody but myself, and I can not speak for any organization or organization or organizations, but if that is what you would like to have T would be very glad to see if I can not get them for you. Senator Remo. I am asking you quite seriously. We have heard much criticism of the national origins scheme. Doctor Friepenwarp. Yes. Senator Rrep. But many of the critics, including yourself, are not suggesting anything that is any better, and I am wondering if you can indicate to us the course of action that we ought to take, It is not enough to stand at a fire and wring one’s hands and say, * Some one ought to do something;” and that is what many of our critics are doing. They are not offering us anything to take the place of the national origins, which they criticize. Doctor FriepENwarp. I tell you my own objections to the national origins measure is that it is not feasible. I do not believe that it can possibly be put into operation with anything like fairness of results to the immigrant or to the population already In the United States. I came here prepared only to discuss the national-origin phase. It is the immediate matter that we had to meet. Senator Nye. Which you are anxious to see postponed ? Doctor Friepexwarp. I am anxious to see postponed, because I believe it puts our next president In a situation of embarassment, as I understand it. If I am correctly informed, he has never been able to accept the national origins as a workable scheme, and he so said in his speech of acceptance. He wishes it to be postponed, and I am in favor of doing so. not to embarass him. and for the hanefit 54 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW of the country, until we can determine what really should be done. As the country has determined to have this restriction of immigration, I accept the determination. Now, the point is not to jump to do something such as this national origins scheme which means absolutely nothing to me. I can not make out what it means; and the thing to do is just as Senator Nye suggests, have this postponed. Senator Resp. Beg your pardon: the President-elect suggested its repeal. Doctor Friepenwarp. Better still. Senator Reep. If it were repealed, what can we substitute in its place? Doctor FripenwarLp. We do not have to determine that between now and the first of April; that is a matter to be determined after the most careful consideration, not ask me to say, “right off the bat,” what should be done. You have been considering this for years. You do not know, or, at least, apparent you do not know, from your question. Senator Rrep. I do not know any method that is as good as the national origins. Doctor Frirpenwarp. I do not know any method that is possibly worse than national origins. Senator Reep. Have you considered the 1890 foreign-born method? Doctor Friepenwarp. Only in a desultory way. I am not prepared to make any statement about it. I looked into the national-origins method slightly, when it was first brought up. I did not pay much attention to it, because I did not think anyhing so silly could be included among the laws of the United States. I may have been mistaken, but in all events, I have never changed my mind. Senator Reep. It was enacted five vears ago. Nobody has suggested anything better. Doctor Friepexwarp. Has the question you put to me ever been asked to any group of men to do? Certainly we are not aware it has been put to any Jewish organizations I know of. Senator Remp. Oh, yes: their representatives have many times urged many bases. Doctor Frizpenwarp. I have been out of touch with things for the last 15 years, and I do not know exactly what has been going on, except as I read in the newspapers. Senator Remp. Did you ever read a book called The German Element in the United States? Doctor Frizpexwarp. By Rosengarten? Senator Rep. By Doctor Faust, I think. Doctor FriepENwaLp., Oh, yes; Dr. A. B. Faust. He was a college mate of mine, just one year ahead of me at Johns Hopkins. Senator Reep. Do you recall what he claimed to be the German proportion of population of the United States at the present time? Doctor Friepenwarp. No, sir; I do not. But I know that Doctor Faust is a very distinguished professor of German, and I will accept anything he says about the German language or almost any modern language. But I would not accept his opinion on a statistical matter of that sort any more than I would accept the opinion of any man in the street, because he does not, and could not, know. He has devoted all of his life to the study of the German and Teutonic languages. and he can not know anything about immigration statistics. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 65 Senator Rem. Do you think there is a larger proportion in the American Nation as it stands at the present time derived from German sources than British? Doctor Friepenwarp. I have not the slightest idea, and I do think it amounts to a hill of beans as to whether it is or not. It is a question whether the people we admit to this country are fit to become good American citizens, just as Franklin, Wilson, and Jefterson asked those men in Revolutionary times to come and offered them land to settle in this country for good and sufficient reasons. Senator Reep. Do you think it Tight that by a system of numerical limitations we should permit many less British citizens to come to this country than Germans? Doctor FRIEDENWALD. Senator, I can not answer that directly; I have lived in a good many parts of the world. From the time I was a youngster just out of college, I lived for a considerable period of time in the Near East. I spent a year or more abroad and I traveled over Europe, and I have made numerous trips to Europe from year to year, and I have always enjoyed associating not with the people of the higher classes of society, but the common man; and it has been my experience wherever I have gone that the ordinary laboring man is a sweet, lovely and, in the main, fine, direct, God-fearing, good man and woman, very much the same kind wherever you go; and it does not make any difference whether he is Slav, German, Frenchman, Spaniard, or Italian, that is my personal viewpoint. Senator Reep. Or Englishman? ) Doctor Friepexwarp. Or Englishman; certainly. Senator Reep. Do you think there is any justice in limiting the Englishman more strictly than we limit the Germans? Is it just to allow a larger number of (ermans than of English, Dutch, and Welsh to come? Doctor FriepenwarLp. Senator, I do not know how to answer that question. I have just answered to the best of my ability that I did not see how any whole-hearted man or woman who had the pioneer spirit, who was willing to cut himself off from all his home surroundings, to come to a strange country, whose language he does not know——— Senator Rexp. If he is English, he knows it. Doctor Friepenwarp. If he is English he knows it, yes; but he is the only one. The Englishman is no better than anvone elce. from my point of view. Senator Reep. He is just as good, is he not? Doctor FriepEnwarp. He is just as good. Senator Rep. Doctor, has it ever been called to your attention that an Englishman, under the 1890 basis, the temporary quotas, has just one-tenth the chance to get into America that an Trishman hag? Doctor FriepENwALDp. It has not. Senator Reep. Well, the fact is, that about 1 per cent of the population of Ireland Free State that come to the United States each year under the annual quota now allowed came temporarily, while only one-tenth of 1 per cent of the population of England can come. Is that just? Doctor FrirpenwaLp, Why you participated in the- enactment of the Jaw; I can not imagine that you would stand sponsor for a law acainst the English in favor of the Irish or—-o 56 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Senator Reep. We are looking for light. Doctor Friepexwarp. I can not give you the light as you request. 1 give you my views as I gathered them through mv life. in which 1 have been interested in large measure— — Senator Nye. You do not think we found the light in the national origins. Doctor Frioexwarp. I certainly do not think we found the light in the national origins at all. Senator Reep. In asking us to continue the temporary basis, you are asking us to continue the injustices T am speaking to you about. Doctor Frizpexwarp. These injustices have gone on for some years. I will tell you a story about Mr. Julius Rosenwald, whom we all know. Mr, Rosenwald was a member of a committee of which I was the executive officer, and we would consider all kinds of Jewish things. One day, after an all-day session considering all sorts of educational and philanthropic things, we came to an application which had been made to us to aid the Falashas of Abyssinia. The Falashas of Abyssinia are black Jews; and Mr. Louis, of Marshall, our chairman, turned to Mr. Rosenwald and said, “Julius, why, they are black Jews. That is your interest; you are interested in the colored people all over the country. What shall we do about them?” Rosenwald put his hand in his pocket and pulled out his watch and said, “ It is almost 6 o'clock. We have been in session since 10 o’clock this morning. How long have those Ifalashes been there? »? « Oh, since about the sixth century B. C.,” answered Marshall, « If they have been there that long, they will stay there until our next meet. ing. I move we adjourn.” [Laughter.] Now, these problems are not to be settled right off the bat; you know that, Senator, perfectly well. You have got yourselves into a snarl, and you want to get out of it by tying onto it a new kind of rope—national origins. “There ain’t no such animal.” This thing has been discussed and the policy of the country seems to be to have restriction of immigration. Senator Rep. Although you personally do not believe in it? Doctor Fruevenwarp, Although I personally do not believe in it. I am probably mistaken, because I am willing to abide in the main by the will of the majority. I do not know enough about it in the present situation to say if I went into it again I would accept it or not, I only know that these gentlemen, IF ranklin, Wilson, Jefferson, and Richard Stockton, were speaking for the future, as stated in the journal I read from, you remember. They were the founders of this country, and knew what they wanted because there are no more remarkable products of the brain of men than the documents of the Revolutionary period and the constitutional period. Senator Rerp. And they were trying to encourage the settlement of the Hessians, in trying to encourage them to desert from the British army? Doctor Frrepexwarp. Yes; in war time. } Senator Rerp. And you favor the decision that gives representatives of those Hessians more Immigrants in the quota than these distinguished members of the constitutional convention who were discussing them ? Doctor Frrepexwarp. Senator, you are trying to pin me down to details. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 67 Senator Regn. I can not pin you down to anything. Doctor Friepenwarn. I can not be pinned down to details, because [ do not know details. I am thinking about the broad general principles. Senator Rrep. Yes; that is what I want to get you to do; the broad general principle whether it is within our right or desirable to give to the descendants of those Hessians quotas over the men who constituted that Continental Congress that decided to take them In. Doctor FriepeNnwaLp. My answer to that, Senator, is in all deference, I would have to investigate statistics and be sure vour statement is correct. Senator Reep. We have the statistics here. Doctor FriEpENWaLD. But you know the old story about statistics? Senator REED. Yes; I know. Doctor FrRIEDENWALD, Statistics, as you know, can be made to answer any purpose. Senator Rump. Yes. Doctor Frieoenwarp. And Doctor Hill and the statisticians will admit to you that the theories of the statistics do not rest on any exact scientific basis, like an exact science. Senator Reep. Doctor, if you will pause for just a moment; the only statistics to which I was going to call your attention were the numerals in the table of quotas, which show that the German quota is very much larger at present than the British quota. Is it, in your judgment, fair to have the Germans and German element, the descendants of these Hessians you speak of, given a larger representation in the quota than the British? That is not any deduction from statistics. Doctor Frzpenwarp. If your statement is correct—I am assuming it is—and it is based on correct statistical information. I do not want to listen to fieures. Senator. because they do not mean anvthing to me——-Senator Reep. Perhaps somebody else in the room does want to listen to figures and perhaps I want to give them. Under the temporary 1890 basis the quota of Germany is 51,227; the quota of Great Britain and northern Ireland is 34.007: that is, 51.000 against 34,000. Is that fair? Doctor Frienenwarp. If those statistics are correct, and I assume they are, then I do not see any reason why it is fair. I see no reason why there should be any discrimination in favor of Germans against English. That is all Thave to say. I quite agree with you, if those statistics are correct. I presume thev are as correct as they can be made. Senator Reep. The statistics I read to you are the proclaimed quotas under which we are now operating, and until yon suggested a doubt as to the accuracy of them, no one else has. Doctor FriepeNwarp. It is not the first time I have had an individual opinion. Senator Reep. Not at all. But those are the figures to which the immigration at present is limited. I am trying to find out whether in vour judeement that is a fair system to continue. 68 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Doctor FriepeNwarp. I can not answer your question. I do not know enought about it. Senator Reep. Just to sum it up, then, Doctor, your personal opinion is that you do not believe in the Literacy test; you do not believe in the numerical limitation of Immigration; you do not know whether it is fair or unfair to give Germany a quota 50 per cent bigger than Great Britain and northern Ireland, and you do not know any method that you think is preferable to the national origins, but you do not like that. That summarizes your feelings? Doctor FriepENwarp, N. 0; it does not in any way, shape, or form. I prefer to summarize my views for myself, if you want my views; and I have not stated anything along that line. and if I did, IT did it by inadvertence. Senator Reep. Where is the error in what I sald, in that summary ¢ Doctor Frieveswarp. I said as to the literacy test that I had grave doubt of the efficacy of the literacy test, and my answer to you would be along that same line. I do not knew, Senator, I am not prepared to state it. I said to you I have not enough information, and for that reason, I say that it is a most important question, important to every citizen of the United States. Now, if you, after studying all these years, have not determined that the present basis is correct, then let us all get together, all the people who are interested in immigration or want to restrict it or want to allow the bars to be lowered more than they are now, and see if there is not some basis on which we can come to an agreement or an understanding. Senator Reep. Doctor, I have not the slightest doubt about it. I think the national-origins method is workable. I think it is fair, and I think it is high time it should be into effect, Doctor FriepENwaLD. Then, I presume if you can convince enough other Members of Congress to agree with you, it will go through. As I said before, I think it ig unworkable, and one of the principal reasons is this: it is so indefinite; it can be made to mean so much or so little, that after all, its operation will be in the hands of a group in the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, or the Immigration Bureau. Now, then, I do not know but what some designing people might be able to influence, perfectly legitimately, by argument the man in charge of the interpretation and the operation of the law, to make it operate entirely differently from what it is intended by the men who enacted it. Senator Reep. Have you seen the quotas they have tabulated in the report of 1928¢ Doctor Friepexwarp. I have seen them; that is all T can say. Senator Rep. Can you point to any one of them that is not there or is incorrect? Doctor Friepenwarp. No; I can not, sir. Because I have not examined them with sufficient care. Senator Rep. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. The Cramrman. At this point I will put in the record various responses made by people who were sent invitations to be here, with views presented by those people. (The communications referred to are as follows:) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 69 Cuicaco, Ir, February 5, 1929. Senator DAVID A. REmp, Washington, D. €C.: Telegraphic advice from Senator Johnson, anent Committee on Military Affairs meeting, received too late for me to attend. Recognizing the inadvisability of further delay principally because of influx of Mexicans, I hope you will do what you can to urge immediate action. FREDERICK W. CHAPMAN. SAN FraNcisco, Carir.,, February 5, 1929. M. CONNOR, Secretary of Senate Immigration Committee, Washington, D. C.: I offer your committee individual plea for operation of national origins called for by immigration act as only plan suggested which insures to every eligible resident citizen or alien native born or naturalized, proportional representation in future blood current of our Nation. Claim that some foreign nation merits farger quota than origin gives iy simply a demand on behalf that nation for more than its blood current this country and contemplates corresponding loss to other quota nations. Claim material inaccuracy seems untenable in view latest data and Doctor Hill's explantion, but in any event it loses force because of unavoidable inaccuracy in foreign-born quotas due to changes in map Europe. To repeal national origins and substitute a foreign-born basis would be in my judgment an injustice to every native-born citizen. And to further delay carrying out plain provision of law in absence of better reason seems unjustified. V. 8. McCrarcuy. Boston, Mass., February 5, 1929. Senator HiraM W. JOHNSON, Committee Room of Military Committee, Washington, D. C.: Appreciate telegram. Illness prevents my attendance at public hearing. Again affirm strong stand of 8500 Massachusetts Daughters of American Revolution for the present national origins provisions of immigration law. Mrs, Jamies CHARLES PEABODY, State Regent Massachusetts D. A. R. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., February 5, 1929. Hon. FITIRAM JOHNSON, Chairman Senate Imanigration Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: We are most grateful for your kindly telegram advising public hearings national origins. Our commission will be represented by Captain Trevor and Mr Demarest Llovd, IMMIGRATION STUDY COMMISSION. SAN Francisco, CALIF, February 5. 1929. Hon. HiraAM W. JOHNSON, Chairman Scnate Committee on Immigration, Washington, D. C.: Appreciate notice of public hearing on national origins provision of law, but not able to have representative present. Request statement made to committee that club held post-card referendum on principle. resulting 781 for national origing plan. 229 against. Regards. CoMMOoNWEALTH CLUE oF CALIFORNIA, WinLiaM Frros CHENEY, President. New York, N. Y., February 5, 1929. Hon. Hiram W. JOHNSON, Chairman Senate Committee on Immigration: Acknowledge with thanks the courtesy of your telegram. The chamber will be represented at hearings beginning Wednesday. CHARLES T. GWYNNE. 70 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON: Regret unable attend, but wish register favor national-origin provision. C. H. WILMERDING. CHicAqo, ILL, February 5. 1929. HirAM W. JORNSON, House of Representatives: I shall be unable, because of an engagement I can not break, to attend hearing Wednesday. National origins means racial preservation. I hope national origins will prevail, Josep Lie. New York, N. Y., February 5, 1929. I — Hon, Hiram Jomnsoxw, United States Senate: Telegram relative to Nye resolution received, National Society Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America desire to go on record ag being vigorously opposed to any postponement or illumination of national-origins provision of immigration law: can not be personally present at hearing. Mrs. JoHN LAIDLAW BUEL. LircHFIELD, ConnN., February 5, 1929. BosToN, Mass, February 5, 1929. Hon. Hiram JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: During the last four years, some fifty or sixty thousand new foreign workers have entered Massachusetts. During the same period exceptional unemployment in Massachusetts has been continuous with consequent distress. The same conditions have existed in many other parts of the country. Under changed industrial conditions we have more than plenty of labor for our work and not enough jebs for our own people. Only a limited interest that wants peon labor is opposed to all-round restriction. If your committee will report out a bill cutting down ull the larger quotas to 10,000 and limiting all countries whether East or West Hemisphere to the same number it will have the country’s approval. The people are sick of racial controversies, and of the injection of foreign interests into onr legislation and they want restriction. They want American jobs for Americans. The best way is to cut the Gordian Knot and give it to us while yet there is time. I can not attend hearing, but would say this if I were there. Ricuarns M. BrapLey, The Cmarman. Now, gentlemen of the committee, when do you want to resume? Senator ReEp. Saturday morning will be all right. Mrs, Mivor. I may not be able to be here at a later meeting. The Cramrman. Yes, madam. Mrs. Minor. May I state T am here representing the Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America, a society of 25,000 women? We do not favor the Nye amendment. We do favor the national origins. The Crmarrmax. Will you give vour name to the reporter so that he may have it. C Mrs. Minor. My name is Ms. George Maynard Minor, Waterford, onn. The Cuamrmax. We will now stand adjourned until Saturday morning at 10. (Thereupon, at 12.03 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned. to meet Saturday, February 9, 1929, at 10 o'clock.) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION IAW SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1929 UNTrED STATES SENATE, CoMMITTEE ON InmicraTION, Washington, 1. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Keyes, Reed, Gould, King, Harris, Copeland, Blease, and Stephens. The Cramaan. This committee, now consisting of two members, will come to order; and I am going to say, for the sake of the record, unless more members attend these hearings I am going to summarily adjourn them this morning and conclude them. The hearings were called at the instance of those who favored the so-called Nye resolution and those who opposed it. The two who are present were probably the most open-minded of the members of the committee upon the subject, and neither the proponents nor the opponents of the resolution have attended in any very large numbers, and the two openminded members of the committee who thus far have attended will, as Senator Keyes agrees with me, unless the others come to our rescue, conclude the hearing this morning, Congressman Reece wishes to say something in respect to this resolution, and so, out of order, we will have vou make that statement as you desire. STATEMENT OF HON. B. CARROLL REECE, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Representative Reece. Mr. Chairman, as a representative in the other body, I am naturally interested in this question. But I am present this morning at the request of Judge Noyes, the representative of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, to express the views of that order, in view of the fact that Judge Noyes himself is ill and could not be here. This order has a membership in the United States of some 400,000 thousand. The views of the members venerally and of the officials of the Junior Order is that the national-origins clause ought to become operative as is now provided that it should not be repealed or the operation of this provision of the law extended. They are very much of the opinion that in the determination of our future citizenship that recognition should be oiven to the blood which has built America and American institutions and which has defended America at all times, and not be based upon the quota of aliens which might be residing in this coun-71 72 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW try at a particular time, or of naturalized aliens that might be residing here. The Junior Order, as the gentlemen of the committee and others present probably realize, has devoted a great deal of time to the study of this and similar questions, and it feels very strongly that the national-origins clause ought to become operative as is now provided by law, and I am pleased to be present this morning to express these views; and I thank the committee for the courtesy. The Cuamrman. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody present who desires to present any views in behalf of the N ye resolution postponing the operation of the law for the period of a year? (After a pause.) Mr. Lloyd, will you designate who you wish called, please? Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. If I might take the committee’s time just for a minute, here are some more petitions just arrived. I would like to turn them over to the stenographer. The Cuairman. You may file them. (The petitions referred to were thereupon received and filed with the committee for reference.) i Mr. Lroyp. Here is a telegram, just recently arrived, which I did not have titne to read to the committee the other day. It is dated at Sacramento, Calif., February 5, and addressed to me [reading] : Chairman Hiram Johnson kindly wired us about when the public hearings national origins. Since the time prevents our sending representatives, trust you will most earnestly present our protest against any further annulment of this clause of quota act. Hntire Pacific coast patriotic societies emphatically opposed to further postponement. These constitute overwhelming majority of voters here. None thereof can grasp why Senate should yield to pressure groups that were disloyal during the war. These carried on propaganda then. Their mentality indicates loyalty of overseas instead of American flag. No finer group in America to-day than blood descendants of those who gave America her institutions. Why should they be penalized? IMMIGRATION STUDY COMMISSION. I would like also to read, if I may, a letter I received from Doctor Hill, in reply to one of my own, which will explain the situation [reading] : Dr. Josep A. Hiri, Chairman of the Quota Board, Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. HirL: A witness before the Senate Immigration Committee, at its hearing Wednesday, argued that national origins could not be computed because the ancestries of so many Americans, like his own, were mixed. The witness seemed ignorant of the specific statement in the law that the determination of the national origins “shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based on statistics of immigration and emigration,” ete. In order to make the matter perfectly clear, however, I would appreciate it very much if you would drop me a line stating whether or not in working but the national-origins figures you were obliged to give any attention to individual genealogies and, if so, roughly, how much? Doctor Hills letter [reading] : DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BureaU or THE CENSUS, . Washington, D. C., February 28, 1929. FEBRUARY 8. 1929 Mr. DEMAREST LLOYD, : 1825 R Street NW., Washington, D. C. Dear Me. Lroyp: Replying to your note of February 8, aud in answer to your inquiry XY would state that the quota board in determining immigration quotas did not’ make any attempt or find it necessary to trace individual genealogies tO any extent whatever NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 73 I would also like to say that I received from Mrs. Linkletter, who testified on Wednesday, a telegraphic request that I correct her testimony. In presenting her attitude she said that her organization was in favor of the 1924 census, but what she meant to say was that she was in favor of the 1924 act as it stands with the national origins. If I have the committee’s permission, I would like to make that correction. I would also like to present resolutions I have here——-hs CHAIRMAN. You can present them without reading, if you please. oo Mr. Lroyp. The significant paragraph is—this is signed by Mus. Linkletter— The CuamrmaN. They will be printed in the record, if you please. Mz. Lroyp. It is just merely a correction. She used the wrong word. (The resolutions referred to are as follows:) whereas Senate Joint Resolution 192 introduced by Senator Nye provides for a further postponement of one year in putting into effect the national-ovigins clause of the immigration aet of 1924 by which the inequalities in the quotas of certain countries determined on the 1890 foreign-born celtsus basis are removed so that our immigration is apportioned fairly in accordance with the number of people in our present population of each national origin; and Whereas said national-origins provision is a fundamental part of the system of quota restriction adopted by Congress in 1924, and further delay in putting the same into effect amounts to repudiation of our whole present system of restriction ; Resolved by the Hudson County Branch of New Jersey of the Immigration Restriction League (Ire), at a regular meeting held on the jth day of Februtry, 1929, That said Senate Joint Resolution 192 is against the public interest and should not be enacted into law. Sapye E. LINKLETTER, President. Epwarp L. MAYER, Secretary. Whereas a bill (H. R. 349), amended by the Senate committee, and reported favorably to the Senate by Senator Copeland, which would permit the legalization of aliens who illegally entered the country prior to July 1, 1924, thus permitting such illegal entrants to become naturalized; and Whereas a similar bill introduced by Congressman Schneider (H. R. 13793) has been reported favorably in the House of Representatives; and Whereas the passage of said bills would strike a serious blow at our whole system of naturalization by making citizens out of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of aliens who have never been in the country except as trespassers and who have never passed inspection under the immigration laws : Therefore be it Resolved by the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.) (Hudson County, N. J., branch, at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of February, 1929), That said bills, H. R. 349 and H. R. 13793, are against the public interest and should be defeated in both Houses of Congress. SADYE BE. LINRKLETTER. President. EpwaARrRDp Li. MAYER, Sr. I1. Resolved, That the Hudson County Brauch, of New Jersey, of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc), at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of February, 1929, hereby indorses Senate bill 5903, introduced by Senator Blease, for the issuance of certificates of admission to aliens who have lawfully entered the United States in compliance with our laws, and also Senate bill 5904, introduced by Senator Blease, making the reentry of previously deported aliens a felony. Epwarp IL. MAYER, Sr. ITI. Resolved, That the Hudson County branch, of New Jersey, of the Immigration Restriction League (Ine.), at a regular meeting held on the 4th day 74 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION oF IMMIGRATION LAW of February, 1929, hereby indorses the bill introduced by Congressman Alber Johnsen in the House of Revresentatives, H. R. 16392, defining unnaturalizes inhabitants of the Philippine Islands as aliens subject to the restrictions of the Immigration acts of 1917 and 1924, SApYE E. LINKLETTER, President Enwarp L. Maver, Sr, IV. Resolved, That the Hudson County branch, of New Jersey, of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.), at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of February, 1929. urges upon Congress the importance of enacting at the bresent session legislation placing the immigration from Mexico under the quota restriction Epwarp I. Maver, Sr, The Cramemax. T have just received from Senator Nye the follow. ing note [reading] : Dear Senator Jonson: Sorry this cold on my lungs will not let me be present at hearing to-morrow (Saturday) morning. I have written Senator Shinstead to be present to speak in behalf of the cesolution. Please offer the inclosed editorial for the record. Sincerely yours, SADYE BE. LINKLETTER, President GERALD P. NyE. And then, Mr. Reporter, will you insert this, the editorials referred to from the Public Ledger, Philadelphia, Friday, February 8, 19297 (The editorial referred to it as follows) LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE The question of continuing the present immigration quota system or permitting the * national-origing plan, already authorized, to go into effect is again before Congress. Its postponement for another year is proposed in g resolution introduced by Senator Nye. Unless this resolution is adopted, the national-origing scheme will become operative on July 1. In his address accepting the presidential nomination Mr. Hoover suid : “As a member of the commission whose duty it is to determine the quota basis under the national origins law, I have found it impossible to do so aceucately and without hardship. The basis now in effect carries out the essential princinle of the law, and I favor repeal of that part of the act calling for a new basis of quotas.” This expert opinion of the difficulty in determining bresent national origins of the population tracing hack as far as 1790 is shared by many others who have given thoughtful attention to the subject. Tqualiy important is the question of the justice and desirability of applying this method of restricting immigration even if based in ascertainable facts. As Mr. Hoover savs, the present iaw has worked well on the whole. There ure respects in which it is susceptible of improvement, and measures are being taken to this end. It seems wise, at least, to defer the alternative proposal for another year. At its best. it would be an experiment of extremely doubtful value, Mr. Lioyp. Mr. Chairman, if you are ready to proceed? The Cuarrman. Yes. Let me ask you first: Something was said as we adjourned last time concerning the presence to-day of a gentle. mi co i 1 man from Chicago, Mr. Lewis, I think it was, Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. } The Crarvan. He was the author of a very interesting work. Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. The Cuamrman. Did he come? Mr. Lroyo. Yes, sir; he did. He is here, and I would like to call first on the representative of the American Legion. and then have Mr. Lewis. The Cuairman, Very well. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 75 STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN LEGION, WASHINGTON. D. C. Colonel Tayror. I would like to read this telegram to begin with "reading : Will you please convey to Senator Johuson and the Senate committee out of appreciation for the consideration shown us in granting public hearing. In your presentation of the Tegion’s stand on this legislation, please eount us amongst your constituents and assure said committee that we heartily support your cause. WALTER I. LELAND, Commander George Bdwin Kirk Post, American Legion. That is the expressed feeling of the entire American Legion on this, what we consider a most important subject. Now, you might say in reply to this, just why is it that the Legion is so interested in the general Immigration question and partienlarly in this nationalorigins provision? It is the question that has heen considered by every single national convention of the American Legion since our first one in Minneapolis in 1919. The only one that T wish to put into the record is that one of 1928, as follows [reading]: Whereas it seems the proper function of the American Legion to voice its attitude toward ngnpartisan questions of public concern, to the end that life and government in the United States may be improved: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the American Legion in convention assembled, That we favor and recommend continuunce of the method of restriction on immigration in the 1924 immigration law with its fundamental national-origins provision, so that American citizenship and economic prosperity may be maintained at the highest possible level. 1 have prepared a brief statement on the subject, so that I can come right to the point and not take up too much time of this committee. Following the World War, members of the American Legion had it brought home to themselves forcibly that the so-called melting pot had not melted sufficiently to form a harmonious nation. In order to give the melting pot a chance to fuse the varied strains of racial origins within our shores the Legion then advocated total restriction of immigration for a period of years. The Legion continued this attitude until the passage of the immigration act of 1924. Since the passage of this act, the Legion has indorsed it and upheld its provisions, for the following reasons: (1) The Legion believes firmly in restrictive immigration. We believe that this is our country, and that we are entitled to be the judge of whether we shall allow people to come here from foreign countries to make their home with us, or to say to them, “ We now have sufficient persons of other races within our shores.” (2) As we favor restrictive immigration, the question of how the immigrants should be chosen is of paramount importance. The selection of immigrants upon the basis of the foreign-born population resident in America at any selected date is manifestly unjust, and opens such a basis to the charge of ‘discrimination. This discrimination must inevitably exist, regardless of the census upon which it may be based. (3) The theory of the national origins of the entire population of the United States is therefore the fairest basis upon which immigration quotas may be based. It comprehends our entire population, just as the selective service act of 1927 included the entire young manhood of the Nation, regardless of race or creed. 76 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION, OF IMMIGRATION LAW (4) During the World War 2,000,000 persons resident in America of foreign birth, claimed exemption under the draft because of their alienage. Yet, should we continue to base our quotas upon the forsign-born population, the countries of which these slackers are natives would be allowed to send additional immigrants to America on their account, although no account would be taken in immigration quotas of the native-born Americans who responded so admirably to the call of their country. Page 90, table 23, of the second report of the provost marshal general, 1919, shows that 1,703,000 aliens were registered in the draft up to September 11, 1918. Page 452 of the same book, paragraphs E and F, shows that 914,950 aliens were deferred and exempted because of their alienage. These were: Alien enemy exempted, 334,949; resident alien, not enemy, claim: ing exemption, 580,003; total, 914,952. This was more than one-half—to be exact, 53 per cent—of those registered, claimed exemption, or were exempted or placed in a deferred classification because of their alienage. and were never called. What better argument for the national-origins provision could be advanced ¢ The issue can be brought squarely between patriotism and slackerism—shall slackerism be represented in selecting our immigrants over patriotism ? The American Legion has more than 860,000 members and our auxiliary 350,000 members. We number within our membership all races, creeds, and nationalities. Tt is a cross-cut of the Nation. We are not the advocates of immigration from any special nation or oroups of nations, but we emphatically uphold the theory underlying the national-origins provisions, which 1s that immigration quotas based upon the entire population of the nation is not only the fairest method for selecting immigrants but is the most certain method of retaining for the future the blend of population and racial mixtures as they exist in America to-day. The national-origins provision is a part of the basis law of the act of 1924. The temporary basing of the quotas upon the census of 1890 was an arbitrary expedient placed in the law until such time as—and only until—the national-origins provisions could become effective. This required additional study in order to determine the quotas which would be provided under it. The charge has been made that national origins as a basis for quota immigration is unworkable. Nothing could be further from the truth than this statement. The Congress can set up arbitrary quotas for any foreign countries, regardless of population and census figares—can chose immigrants or exclude them as it sces fit. Any system of selecting immigrants based upon the foreign-born population at any particular period is open to the charge of discrimination, and justly so. But to base these quotas upon the national origins of the entire nation, can not be open to the charge of discrimination, for under such a plan the newest immigrant coming to our shores stands upon the same footing as the descendants of those who came here 300 vears ago and founded this Nation in the wilderness. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 77 That in general, Mr. Chairman, is our attitude on the national-orioins provision of the 1924 act. It is in the law now. The 1890 ensus was an expedient. The national origins has been twice extended. We earnestly beseech you, Mr. Chairman and this committee, to use your best efforts in seeing that now the national-origins clause of the immigration act be put into effect. I thank you very much. Mr. Lio¥p. If there are no questions, 1 would like Mr. Edward R. Lewis, member of the Chicago bar and chairman of the executive committee of the Immigration Restriction Association, and author of the volume, “America, Nation or Confusion.” Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee— The CirarMAN. Mr. Lewis, may 1 thank you first, for sending me a copy of your work which I read with utmost pleasure, if not with the utmost profit; and 1 appreciate very much indeed the fact that vou did send me a copy. You may now proceed in your own way, stating first your name, residence, and occupation to the reporter; and then in detail in such fashion as vou desire vour views upon the pending matter. STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. LEWIS, CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE COM-MIOTES IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO. TI. Mr. Lewis. My name is Edward R. Lewis. I am a lawyer In Chicago. Ill. My residence is in Wenetlka, Ill, a suburb of Chicago. I am chairman of the executive committee of the Immigration Redriction Association of Chicago, an organization which was organized in Chicago in June, 1927. Senator Harris. Are you representing anyone else. except this organization you refer to? Mur. Lewis, Sir? Senator Harris. Do you represent anyone else except the organization you refer to? Mr. Lewis. No, sir. In studying the national origins question and the various bases for determining the quotas, 1 thought last fall, I believe, then. it first occurred to me, that an interesting study should be made of the representative historians of some of the important racial groups in this country, to see what their own estimates of the strength of those racial groups was. In other words, the very root and essence of national origins is that which counts everybody and is fair to everybody; and yet there were gentlemen, earnest citizens, whom I thought very sincerely believed that they were not fair, and I thought that it would be worth while to see what the representative historians of some of our larger racial groups had estimated. 1 think it is a fairly cafe statement that most of the disputes have arisen on the division of 1790 stock, which was 3,172,000. I think there is an estimate of the American Council of Learned Societies that if you add those in the territory outside of the census, it would be about 75,000 more which increased to about $1,000,000 and some hundred thousand in 1920, or an increase of thirteen times; and the origins experts have divided the 41.000.000 o5QQS 9G. 6 78 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW the way the 3,172,000 that were divided. That is really where the whole dispute has come, the size of the 1790 stock. The origins committee finds that the 1790 stock—they do not give these figures in this approximate, but they do give in document No. 65 the total population in 1920, derived from the 1790 stock, which is 41,285,570, and then they give the amount for each country. So to arrive at what the strength was in 1790 I simply divide those totals in this column, column 2 of page 11, document 635, by 13, and that would give us the strength in 1917 to those derived from England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland as 1,439,915; and the Irish Free State, 140,076; to Germany, 231,360; to the Netherlands. 104.519; and those are the largest groups right there. The Cuamrmaxn. Pardon me. Mr, Lewrs. Yes, sir. The Cuamman. First, if T am following you, and if I am not you will correct me, please; you are figuring that back from the 1920 census to indicate the appropriate number of each of the racial groups in 1790; is that correct ? Mr. Lewrs. IT am figuring back, sir, from the origin committee, Mr. Hill’s report here, where he gives those derived from the original native stock in column 2. The Crairman. I understand. Mr. Lewrs. And that is part of the 1920 census. The Crmarman. That is the conclusion from the 1920 census? Mr, Lewis. Yes, sir. Senator Reep.. It is not stated in the 1920 census. Mr. Lewis. No; it is not stated in the 1920 census. The Cramyan. But it is derived from the 1920 census? My. Lewrs. Oh, yes; the whole origin figures are. The Cuamrman. You are reaching the conclusion as to the racial groups in 1790 by dividing by 13. Mr. Lewrs. The 1790 population was 3,172,000, I believe, and the origin committee finds that the population in 1920 derived from that vas 41,288,570. The Cuamrman. Then, I am correct, am 1 not, in my estimation ? You take the result of the 1920 census. Am I wrong? Senator Reep. Yes, sir. The Cramrman. Let us get it right. That is all T am seeking to do. Mr. Lewis. I am starting off, Mr. Chairman, with the origins committee’s figures, the 1790 population, and I was going to compare those with the estimates of some representative historians of several racial groups in this country. Now, then, to start off with, the origins committee—— Mr. Rern. Let me interrupt vou, to make it clearer? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. In the 1920 census the population of the United States was shown to be about 105,000,000, was it not? Mr. Lewts. Yes; white, colored, and all that. Mr. Rep. The origins committees quota board finds that 41,000,000 of those were descended from what is known as colonial stocks: and they state that the factor of increase has been 137 Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir—they do not state that, but it is. Mr. Ree. It follows necessarily ? Mr. Lewis. It is the mathematics of it: that is all. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 79 Mr. Reep. From the mathematics of it, with 3,172,000 in 1790 and £1,000,000 representing that 1790 group in 1920, the increase is 13 “0 one. The CHarMaN. Now, let us see. You said I was wrong in my estimation. I think that I was entirely correct. So that the 11,000,000, as shown by the reports in 1920, you divide by 13 and you obtain, by dividing the respective groups, therefore, the numbers in 1790 of the national origins stock, if I may term it such, is that ~orrect ? Mr. Lewis. Of the 1790 stock; yes, sir. The Cramrman. Of the 1790 stock? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. The Cmamman. Certainly. Senator Rep. I misunderstood the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Lewis. That reduces us, starting off with the origins committee’s estimate—there were probably 41 groups—the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Ulster Irish or Scotch-Trish, which ever you wish to call them; the Germans or those derived from Germany; those derived from the Irish Free State; those derived from the Nether-‘ands were the largest groups. I find in this book—and I wish to say I am only using this book ws what I think is a representative work; I am not injecting any religious question in any way, except to get at statistics. It is a rook entitled “ Has the Immigrant Kept the Faith? A Study of Lnmigration and Catholic Growth in the United States 1790-1920,” by Gerald Shaughnessy, formerly professor of theology, Marist College, Washington, D. (., and Noire Dame Seminary, New Orleans, published under the sanction of M. J. Curley, archbishop of Baltimore; and it is attempting to estimate the original strength of the Catholic population in colonial times, 1790. the growth by ‘mmigration, and by the increase of population. Senator Regn. What is the date when published ? Mr. Lewrs. 1924~The MacMillan Company. 1925. And the strength at the present time: of course, his thesis is Erankly that the immigrant has kept the faith; that 1s, that he has not fallen away from the Catholic faith in this country. Therefore, I think it his testimony is extremely interesting when he takes up the strength of the Catholic population in 1790, because he does believe that the immigrant has kept his church’s faith, he would, I think it is fair to say. naturally not overestimate the popu-‘ation in 1790. Now, he says here on page 44, that he thinks that about 35.000 of the population in 1790 in the United States were members of the Catholic Church. [Reading:] If the Irish element among the American Catholics of that day be estimated as 25,000, there appears to have been a loss to the church of 125,000. I do want to put in the number of Catholics that 35.000 and the [vish at 25,000, and he estimates. Senator CoperaxNp. Are you giving his language when you say that? Mr. Lewrs. Yes, sir; I will give’ his language. [Reading:] In sad contrast with the latter figures stands the estimated number of Catholics actually present in the United States at the end of the War of Inde- 30 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW pendence—35,000, or about one-fourth the number of Irish Catholics alone who should have been enumerated at the time. If the Irish element among the American Catholics of that day be estimated at 25,000, there appears to have been a loss to the church of 125,000 among the Irish immigrants to this country previous to 1790. Just above that he says [reading] : Accordingly, in view of the facts adduced in the first chapter, it may be estimated that of the above-mentioned 550,000, about 400,000 were of Protestant stock, while probably between 100.000 and 150.000 were of Catholic origin or descent, Senator Coreranp. What does he mean by saying, “ Should have been enumerated ” ¢ Does he mean they were not enumerated? Mr. Lewis. Well, he means that his estimate is 100,000 to 150,000 people of Irish origin were of Catholic descent, and that 35.000 were actually in the church, Senator Coperanp. Well, when he uses the language which you quoted, I think, “ Who should have been enumerated "—read that again. will you, that sentence that has in it the language “should have been enumerated.” Mr. Lewis [reading] : In sad contrast with the latter figure stands the estimated number of Catholics actually present in the United States at the end of the war of independence—35,000, or about one-fourth the number of Irish Catholics alone who should have been enumerated at the time. Should have been in the church at the time, is what he is arguing. Senator CorerLaxp. It is not what should have been enumerated in the census. Mr. Lewis. Oh, no; I do not understand so. Senator Corerawnp, Is there any question in your mind about the fact that a great many Irish were overlooked in the immigration dgures of 1790? Mr. Lewss. I do not think there is any reason to believe there were a great many Irish overlooked. Mr. Hill has figured that several times before this committee and the House committee. Senator Corrraxp. How does it happen so many Irish names appear in the muster rolls of the Revolutionary Army which did not appear in the census of 1790 Mr. Lewrs. I have no proof that that is the case, sir. Well, of 2ourse—— Senator Coreraxp. Well, assuming it is the case, how would you account for it? Mr. Lewis. You mean if it were the case, you can account for it in many ways? In the census of 1790 counts only heads of families, Again, there were numerous men—it was a custom in the Revolutionary days, until perhaps the very end of the war, Senator—to enlist for six months, to again enlist for six months, and again enlist for six months, one man enlisting five or six times in the Revolution; so that the name would maybe show up five or six times in the Revolutionary rolls, whereas it might not show up at all in the census, because 1f he was not the head of a family he would not show up at all. Senator Coreranp. If he enlisted five or six times for a period of six months at a time, he must be old enough to be the head of a family; and it is a tact, I understand, that a great many names are not included in the census who were on these Revolutionary rolls. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 81 Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Chairman, as the witness may be interrupted, we have another witness, one who has made a study of that subject, and if the Senator would postpone his question, I think we could give him more information than Mr. Lewis is prepared to give. The Crarrman. Very well. Mr. Lewis. I do not want—-— The Cramman. I am sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Lewis. It is all right. I am glad to be interrupted, if I can help in any way. Senator Reep. Mr. Lewis, I think some of us do not understand the drift of your statement with regard to this Irish Catholic question. What does it all lead to? Mr. Lewis. I was going to lead just up to this, that here is Professor Shaughnessy, who 1s a representative historian of his church, who estimates that the number of Irish Catholics in 1790 was 100,000 to 150.000. Now, then, the origin committee shows the figure of 140,000 for South Ireland. Well, sir, gentlemen of the committee, there is abundance of testimony that almost all of the Irish Catholics were from south Ireland, and the Protestants were from Ulster; in fact, Mr. Shaughnessy utilizes in his book, as proof of his division, say, 400,000 for the Protestant Irish and 100.000 to 150.000 to the Catholic Irish. He cites several books, one by Prof. Henry Jones ¥ord, of Prince: ton University, who wrote the book The Scotch-Irish in America; another by Charles A. Hanna, The Scotch-Irish; and he also refers to Arthur Young, a great English traveler. who wrote A Tour in Ireland. Arthur Young’s book was written in 1780, just 10 years. before the census of 1790 was taken, and in that citation from Young by Shaughnessy, Young states that the Catholic Irish never went to America. Henry Jones Ford states that there was very little immigration from outside of Ulster until after the War of 1812. I think that the testimony is very clear that the Protestant Irish who came to the United States were the Protestant Irish who came from Ulster, and the Catholic Irish were those who came from the south; and when Binnginany gives a figure of 100,000 to 150,000, and the origin committee figures it at 140.000. it 1s pretty clear that there is no dispute on that group. Then, let us take the German group—— Senator Rerp. First, how i] in the German group dees the national-origins quota board state? Mr. Lewis. About 231,000 in 1790, Senator Reep. How many do they themselves claim? Mr. Lewis. Well, Albert Bernhardt Faust is professor of German at Cornell. He is a recognized scholar, and a recognized historian of German-American population, or population of (German origin in the United States, and he has written a book called The German Element in the United States. He estimates the number in 1790—— Senator Regp. Excuse me. What is the title of the hook and when published ? Mr. Lewts, The title is The German Element in the United States, and published by Houghton-Mifflin Co. in 1909. 82 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW He estimates the number in 1775 at 225,000, and he has gone to great pains in the matter. He went to church registers, to church records, and to county records, and he has made a prolonged study for many years. He estimates the number in 1775 at 225,000, and Frederick F. Schrader in his book, The Germans in the Making of America, accepts Faust’s figure. He says: Faust gives what he regards as a conservative estimate of the number of Germans in the Colonies at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, These figures are based upon church censuses, documentary evidence, and contempotary computations, and reach the total of 225,000, So Schrader accepts Faust’s figure, and they both put it at 225,000 for 1775. Then Doctor Faust goes on to bring that down to 1790, He estimates by two different methods, which 1 will not bother the committee to elaborate here, and he under one method estimates 345,000 and under another method estimates 375,000; and be comes down to a mean of 350,000. But, gentlemen, it is very clear from his book that he is estimating the German racial stock and not at all the population derived from Germany. Many citations in his book show that he speaks of German source. He speaks of source many times and I know that in many parts of the United States they made a very considerable contribution to our population. Senator CoreLanp. Pardon me. Did you mention Professor Faust’s statement regarding the number of Germans? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. I said he said it was 360,000 in 1790. not German origin but of German blood. Senator CopeLaxp. What was the total nunber in 17907 Mr. Lewrs. About 3,172,000, I think it is. I am talking from memory. I believe it is 3,172,000. Senator CorrLaxp. Bancroft estimated the number of Germans as one-twelfth of the whole, did he not? Mr. Lewis. I do not remember. T tried to find that quotation of Bancroft’s. Senator Coperaxnp. It is in the Life of von Steuben. Mr. Lewis. It is not found then in Bancroft. Senator Coperanp. May I just give you the facts? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. Senator CopEranp. Bancroft, in his life of von Steuben, says: The Americans of that day who were of German birth or descent formed a vast part of the population of the United States. They .can not well be recognized at less than a twelfth of the whole, and perhaps formed even a larger proportion of the insurgent people. That would be something over 260,000. The Coamman. May I interrupt you just long enought to state that the Senators present now—I am making this because of a little statement made by me after we had heard the first witness— Senators Gould, Copeland, Harris, Keyes, Reed, King, and chairman. So we had for a very brief space, two Senators present. Pardon me for interrupting, Mr. Lewis, von may proceed. Mr. Lewrs. Yes, sir. The CuamrMan. I felt due to make the statement I did, in view of the statement I had made at 10.10, after we had heard the first witness. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 83 Senator King. It is understood, Mr. Chairman, that of course, those serving on this committee, the Senators, have other important duties. The Crarman. 1 quite agree with you; and we have innumerable duties that make it impossible for us to attend all meetings as we desire. Senator Kina. I had to leave one committee to come here. Senator Keyes. I think you can say all of us, not one of us. The Caairman. We are all in the same fix. Mr. Lewrs. I think that it is fair to say that the utmost dispute over the German voter may be said to occur between two figures of 360,000 and 231,000 in 1790. The difference between 231,000 and 360,000 is 129,000. That is the sole dispute that there can be. I might just more or less emphasize that by taking the report of Mr. Hill in the Document 65, last session. He gives the ia population of German origin as 14,833,588. Now, then, the first toreign born, 1,672,375—just the exact census figure for the 1890 foreign born and the other foreign born—so there is no element of dispute there. The second is the children of foreign born, or 4,037,313; that is also a census figure. You can get that right in the 1920 census. I will explain that I understand from Doctor Hill’s testimony that most of those are adjusted by deducting, due to loss of German territory in the war. Those two are exact. are as exact as anv foreign-born ficure Is. The third is the children of immigrants and later generations— 6,133,800. That is what you might call the nineteenth centurv immigration and their descendants. That is, as you will see, about 80 per cent of the total who are grouped—20,629,219—page 199. Now, as to that figure, in that period, in the nineteenth century, from 1800 or from 1820, when the figures were taken, to 1900, the German 1mmigration was 28 per cent and a fraction of our total immigration. Senator King. You are not reading from the report, now? Mr. Lewis. No, sir. Then, they get 30 per cent of that group; that is, they get 29.6 per cent. There is grandchildren a later generations in column 6, and they contributed slightly less than our immigration in the nineteenth century. So I think that there is very little chance for dispute of that figure. They.get a slightly greater proportion in that group than they contributed to our immigration in the nineteenth century; and they vet a greater proportion in that group in 1900, taking that as a tape when most of them should be judged from. So it comes down, then, to the sole dispute in the 1790 figure, the total difference 1s 129,000, the difference between Schrader’s and Doctor Faust’s estimate and Doctor Hill’s committee’s estimate. I shall multiply 129,000 by 13, and you will get in 1920 a total population of 1,607,000. If there is one in the quota from 595 in the population, then the increase in the German quota is 2,816. In other words, gentlemen, if the utmost difference between the recognized historians of the German element are taken—367,000 or 84 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 370,000—the quota would only show up 2.800; and the 1890 basis shows up 37,218 over the origin. Doctor Faust in his book says very clearly that when he is talking about the German element in the United States, he is talking about the German racial element in the United States; because when he comes to estimate here, in volume 2, along in pages 10 to 12—for example, on page 12 he says that the results are summarized as follows: The German population, born in Germany or of parents born in Germany, or of parents who were of German stock, for example, total of white persons having both parents born in Germany, 6,244,107. Then he goes on, one class born in Germany, the other in some other foreign country; total Germans from Austria, Bohemia, Russia, Poland, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg; and then Germans from other countries, clearly showing that when he was coming down to 1800 for his studies he was basing it on people of German blood. I think it is fair, although I believe he does not specifically say that, when he is estimating 860,000 or 370,000 he is talking about German stock and not people from (Germany. Senator Reep. Now, Mr. Lewis, let us sum that up: If we include from Germany persons who come from Holland, from Luxemburg, from Switzerland, from Austria, from that part of East Prussia which has now been taken from Germany, from Silesia. from German Poland, it still would increase the natural origin’s quota by only 2,400. Mr. Lewis. 2,816. Senator Reep. By only 2,816 according to their own claims? Mr. Lewis. According to their own claims, 2,816. Senator Reep. Now, this book which you are reading from to illusrate their claims is a semiofficial publication, is it not ¢ Mr. Lewis. Well, I do not know. Senator Keyes. It says here in the introduction [reading]: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT At the suggestion of Dr. Walther Wever, German counsel-general at Chicago, Mrs. Catherine Seipp, of that city, offered in March, 1904, cash prizes for the three best monographs upon the subject indicated by the title of this book. Competing works were submitted under assumed names on or before Murch 22. 1907, to the Germanic department of the University of Chicago. The prize judges were Profs. Hanno Deiler, of Tulano; Fredrick J. Turner, of Wisconsin : and Karl Detlev Jessen, of Bryn Mawr. In this contest Professor Faust was awarded the first prize of $3,000. STARR WILLARD (WITING. The Cuamrman. What date, please? Mr. Lewis. The introductory statement does not include it. The publication was made in 1909. The Cmamman. All right; it was published in 1909. Mr. Lewis. Doctor Faust signs his own preface April, 1909. Senator CopeLaxp. Mr. Lewis. I assume you are in favor of national origins plan. . Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir; I am. Senator CopeLanp. You are aware of the fact that under this plan n German would have just one-fourth of the chance to come to the United States that an Englishman has. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 85 Myr. Lewis. No, sir; I am not aware of that fact. Senator Corrraxp. Is that disputed in the committee? The Cuarrman. I do not know. Senator Reep. I do not remember the exact figures, it is approximately that. Mr. Lewis. It is 65,894 for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and the quota for Germany is 23,000 and something. Senator CopeLanp. Anyhow, so far as continental Nordic races are concerned, a Swede would have two-fifths of a chance of coming to the United States that an Englishman had. Senator Reep. That is comparing the quotas to the total present population. Senator CoPeLaND. And a Norwegian would have two-thirds of a chance to come an IEnglishman has; a German would have one-fourth of the chance. Of course, when we come to Italy and southern Europe, an Italian would have one-tenth to come that an Englishman has. Senator Rexp. An Irishman would have five times as much chance as an Englishman, if you want to carry it on. Senator Coperanp. Since the Irish fought (in) the Revolution, { suppose they should be entitled to a very large proportion. (Laughter. ] Mr. Lewis. Now, sir, I have thought many times, I have given nearty, sincere study to the question of arriving at these quotas. Your question would seem to imply, sir, that you would base it on a comparison of the European countries, and on that basis Asiatic China would get most of this. Of course, China is excluded territory. Senator CopeLanp. You may make any conclusions you like. Of course, you are presenting your own conclusions, not mine. Senator King. You are making an attack in view of your last statement, on methods. Mr. Lewis. No, sir; I am not. Senator King, Why did you mention as a parallel case China? Mr. Lewis. I can not base it on the population of foreign countries; Russia has a tremendous population. We would not let Russia get seven or elght times what other countries get. Senator CoperLanp. You are afraid a statement of these figures 1 have given may cause some criticism of the national-origins plan? Mr. Lewis. No, sir; I am not. Senator CoPeLAND. And therefore you seek to beat them down by saying we should bring in ten or fifteen times as many Chinamen as we do Englishmen. Mr. Lewis. I think there are about four methods I can think of for basing quotas. One is on the size of the population of the foreign countries, which it seems to me is simply a grab bag; there is no sense or reason 1b it. no basis in our countrv for it. You take [ndia—— Senator CoreLaxp. Would not a better plan be to take a man who was worthy of our citizenshiv. regardless of the country from which he came? Mr. Lewis. I think it leads into insolvable difficulty, if you are zoing to base it on worth. Sopgior Corperaxm It would be quite desirable to have it on worth 2 36 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lewis. What is the test of character? I do not know. Suppose we took up the quota list and said, “ We will let in 150,000, but we are going to let them in, the very best people from any country, wherever they come from; and we are going to select the best 150,000 as near as we can come to the quota applications,” there would probably be two or three million people applying, and they are going to apply in every consulate of Europe. The CmammaN. You recognize, too, that there might be some differences among us as to who are the best people, do you not? Mr. Lewss. I think, sir, that there is no test, at least not that I can think of, that would decide who are the best people. The CmamrmaN. We have difficulties, in our own country, even. with national-origins stock. Mr. Lewrs. I do not know. Physical tests we have now, and mental tests. Well, I took three or four of those psychological examinations in the Army, as did others in my knowledge, and most of the fellows who passed it well were for it, and, on other other hand, those who did not pass called it the “ bunk ”; and that is as far as I think they would get with the psychological test. Senator Corrraxp. How did you think about it? Mr. Lewis. How did I think about? Senator CorELaND. You got into the Army? Mr. Lewis. You do not have to pass the psychological test in order to get into it; you had to take one after you got in. Senator Coprranp. To see whether you could stay in? } Mr. Lewis. To see whether you would be a corporal, sergeant, or officer. But, anyway, they are not working out; they are not recognized. And, then, you would find tremendous opposition to that. As for tests of character, people all differ on that now. You have our own as well as foreign countries, and they are trying to decide on worth, on mentality; and their judgments are going to be different as the men are going to be. There is no objective standard; you can not tie it down. One man will be easy and let them in; another man will be hard-boiled and keep them out. There would not be anything that you could unify that system on. As you let them all come in this country to make it unified they would all pile into Ellis Island, and you would have confusion worse confounded. Just as Commissioner Curran said in 1923, it would be impossible when they come at the rate of one a minute. We can not do it, and we all know when the examination is performed here it can not be done properly when the tremendous pressure is on in a quota; and if it is done abroad you have got to have a quota system applied to a country, because if you do not you can not possibly synchronize men. They have arbitrary judgments. Senator COPELAND. 9 far as quality 1s concerned, it would make no difference what system was used. You would still be up against the same problem, would you not? Mr. Lewis. I think, sir, as it works now, you have a quota from each country. A man will go to the consul in England or the consul in Germany or Norway, and he applies, puts his name in the quota. He may come up. He may not. Get a visa for two years and in some countries three years. There is a regular procedure which moves slowly, and there is plenty of time examining him. You NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 87 san make your selection just as well then as before, but you have got to have something to reduce numbers first. You now have an automatic system which reduces the number, so they come up slowly and each one examined has just as much chance in the selection by quality tests after you have the quota, but how you «an ever distribute as to countries except on the quota basis I do not know. When you come to the quota basis, I think the question of the method of selecting it by the population of the foreign countries is arbitrary and has no relation to this country. Now, when you come to the 1890 foreign-born method, that gives a fairer test of the total population than the 1920 foreign born, that is just an arbitrary date. It was only selected as an expedient; and it is bound to get more arbitrary and more out of date. Senator Coreraxp. Is not this an arbitrary method that we are proposing here? Mr. Lewis. I do not think so. The Crairman. When you conclude your answer, I want to ask you a question as to your views generally. Do vou believe in total restriction? Mr. Lewis. I do not know, sir. A few years ago I would have said no. 1 would not say. I think it may be a difficult thing. The Cratraan. So that you would prevent any immigration at all to this country at the present time, if you had the power. Mr. Lewis. Well, IT am not ready to say that yet. I say I am fooking on it with a great deal more sympathy than I used to. ‘The CrratrMaN. Your inclination is that way at present? Mr, Lewis. Well, T would not quite like to say that. It is a quesaon I want to give very serious consideration to. I certainly do not feel impelled. T mean, I look on it as a question I want to give very serious consideration to. I certainly do not feel impelled by that idea, although it may be necessary. This country, seems to me— I have been studying it until lopsided, as some of my friends say I am Jopsided—a man with one idea. Maybe T am. The Cramyax, I want to ascertain the fact, if it is so. Mr. Lewrs. T think there are tremendous times of distortion in sur public and confusion; for instance, you take this crime situation. [ have read any number of articles that claimed we had passed the point. But Chief Justice Taft said bluntly just what I have been thinking, that one of our causes of crime is our diverse population. He is not criticizing any particular racial group; he simply means that the common-law system of jurisprudence is based on common opinion. By reason of having grown up through a long time, we are a people who understand each other and react in the same way. I do not care if we have the very best immigrants in the world, if they come from 40 different nations they are not going to have the common opinion. The old basis of the common law came out of -onnection with that for one reason. The Cuamman. That is because they retain their old sympathies, retain their old viewpoints, and bring to us an entirely different viewpoint and utterly different sympathy of situation that is at variance with what we are pleased to term the American viewpoint ? 88 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lewrs. Yes, sir; that is largely it. But here is a people that Is not fused. I think it is 36,000,000 of the white population out of the 94,000,000 that are foreign born and the children of foreign born. I do not say a word against their worth or law-abiding character. I think that would be a caddish statement. But it is simply that no country is an ordered unit, or can have order in politics and, I think, even in literature unless the people have lived a long time together and understand each other and have a common basis, and it takes time to get that. We have gone far enough in unstabilizing our population and we need to settle down. I do not know whether we are ready to restrict totally or not. Senator CoreLaNp. You spoke of crime. We are not advised, but do you live in Chicago? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir—I work in Chicago and live outside. The Crarrman. He lives in a beautiful suburb of Chicago. Senator Kine. Do you believe in standardization of the people of a State so as to have them all of one blood. all one mentality. all one culture ? Mr. Lewis. No, sir. Senator Kine. Do you not think that the introduction of diverse streams of culture and thought and civilization adds to the general welfare and the general culture. Mr. Lewis. Well, sir, I believe a reasonable infusion of that is a good thing. Let us take the principal great countries of Europe— England, Germany, and France, for example. As far as I know, Germany has had very little immigration from any country, and France has had very little immigration from any country. Senator Kine. You know France is composite. It has more than a dozen nationalities there, or the ethnics of it. Mr. Lewis. How long ago did they stop introducing new elements? Senator Kine. They have not stopped it yet. Mr. Lewrs. There is very little immigration into France. Senator Kine. There have been more than 50,000 Armenians introduced into France in the past five years. Mr. Lewis. I do not know about the introduction of Armenians, but since the war there has been infiltration of Italians—not that Italians are bad people, but they are a different people. Senator Kine. But is not your work based upon economical rather than ethnic conditions? Mr. Lewis. If they let too much go on, it will be ethnic, sir. 1 think that the greatest necessity for the Nation is unity, something like fusion, common understanding, like-mindedness. We are in danger of losing our unity by this infiltration or, rather, say, flood— the infiltration of a few individuals is comparatively all right. That will give all the urge of population you want. But when it comes in a flood, so that in the last 30 or 40 vears we have introduced 23,000,000. Senator CopELand. We have no flood now. Mr. Lewis. No. But I was asked by the chairman if I wished total exclusion. I am getting off the subject. I do think this country needs to settle down and unify. Senator Coperanp. Will you ask him what he means by “unity »? Senator Kine. All right. I take it from your name, you are of Welsh origin ? NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 89 My. Lewis. I do not know. My people have been here so long that { do not know. I was talking here with a gentleman from the Amer-«can Legion just before we started, and he said that he thinks he and Admiral Barry are connected about eight generations back, and probably English or Welsh. "Senator Kine. As you are of Welsh origin, I congratulate you, because they are a most brilliant people. Mr. Lewis. I am Welsh and English. Senator King. I was going to ask you, assuming you are Welsh, 1o you think that the addition to our country of your fathers’ Welsh blood was a disadvantage to our unity and to our cultural and political unity, our cultural development and political development? Mr. Lewrs. I do not know, Senator King. Could you say that of the Germans, English, or Irish? Mr. Lewis. I can not say that of any individual or group of individuals. I am not going to leave the committee in doubt. I do not want to criticize any race. Their bloods are good, and the people are good. and you select your individuals—I simply say that a nation’s success—I do not want to get back on this, because I think the whole ~ommittee is agreed on restrictions—the Nation’s success depends upon people being a unity, having a common opinion as a basis for law and population. I do not care how good the people are or what race they come from. I say introduce too many newcomers, so that in 50 years your population is largely new, you are going to upset your political base. The Cuammax. I am not clear what you mean by “unity ” of these people—unity of what? Senator Kine (interposing). You do not mean unity of religion, ("atholics, for instance, do you? Mr. Lewis. Oh, no. Senator King. Mere political views or economic views? Mr. Lewis. No; but General Pershing put it pretty well in a speech he made in 1921 or 1922. He said “We have no objection to a man of foreign birth or stock who cherishes the love of folk lore. of music, of better traditions, of his native country, or country of origin, but we do object to a man of foreign birth or stock who attempts to decide American questions for foreign reasons.” That is what I mean by “unity ”—unity of reasoning; and I think we have had plenty of evidence of it for the last 12 years in the United States. ‘The CmairMaN. I think that we will all agree to that. It is a wholly undesirable idea to introduce into this country any group or any race, whether they be international bankers or whether they be the poorest immigrants from Italy. who decide questions for us on European ideas. And that is what vou mean bv “unitv?? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. The (‘mairMAN. Let me ask you one other question: Do you believe in immigration of those who are ineligible for citizenshin? Mr. Lewis. Why, no; I don’t know———oo Senator Reep. People such as the Chinese, Siamese, Malays? Mr. Liewrs. I think that the Chinese and Japanese restrictions are absolutely essential to our safety. The Crairman. You do believe. then. in the restriction of those ineligible for citizenship? 20 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lewis. Oh, yes; absolutely. Senator Reep. Does not that illustrate your point about the difficulty of fusion? If we were to introduce 10,000,000 Chinese into this country within the space of a few years, would it not make our governmental problems manv times more difficult than they now are? Mr. Lewrs. Yes, sir; I think it would make it very many times more difficult. The Caamrman. You have made a study of this, and a very deep study of this, Mr. Lewis, that is, of the question of immigration genarally, have you not? Mr. Lewis. I do not know; I have been at it a long while. The Cramrman, Have you done it in connection with racial groups in the city of Chicago? Mr. Lewis. Well, not directly; no, sir. The Cuamman. Could you give any personal observations as to what you have learned so far as the second generation is concerned’ Mr. Lewis. 1 would not care to do that: I do not think I am comnpetent. The Crarrman. I live in the Italian quarter of San Francisco. 1 have been intensely interested in observing those in the quarter in which I live. The second generation have become a part of us, and a part of us quite thoroughly, and many of them are among the very best citizens we have in San Francisco; and 1 am curiously wondering if that same sort of thing obtained in the city where vou have made your studies and observations, or not. Mr. Lewis. Now, unfortunately or fortunately, in some ways, as to answering your question, I live outside of Chicago in a suburb which does not give that test and I think it is very difficult to generalize even from one’s own experience, because sometimes I think that my method of going at it is a little more accurate than that of a person who does it from his own observation. I have the utmost respect and admiration for many of our settlement-house workers; distinguished people like Miss Addams, for example. But it seems to me they all get too close a view so they are not able to see in the terms of millions. They see the lovable and the beautiful characters in the settlement houses. God forbid I should say a word to diminish the respect and admiration for those people. [ am talking about mass results of the thing; about millions of people coming in. I do not care how good they are. 1 know that if 10,000, 000 of the very best Americans went to France or to Italy, we would upset their social order and their politics, and there would be somebody going around in Italy, some good politician, looking for the American vote or one who would go around and talk for the Americans over there; and it would just upset their politics so they would bitterly regret the day that happened. I do not care if it were 10,000,000 of the best people we have—-The Cuairman. Are you speaking of the political aspects in the views you express? Mr. Lewis. I think of it politically, socially, and legally. I think that a too big intrusion or infusion of foreign people is going to upset the social order of any country. It takes a long time in any country to make institutions, it takes a long time for law to grow. and a long time for politics to grow it NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 91 :akes a long time to work up these institutions. People have got to get the political habit. Very few countries have got the political habit. 1 am not going to mention any countries by name, but we snow we have seen country after country which has gone into a dictatorship in Kurope. They have not got the habit of governing themselves. It takes a long pressure of heritage bought by much blood and much suffering. I am afraid I am taking too much time, gentlemen of the committee. The Caarrmax. Are there any other questions? Senator Regn. First, I would like to ask Mr. Lewis his reasons for oreferring the national-origin plan over the 1890 plan? Mr. Lewis. Now, sir, I would like—I have worked out a little theory on that—to try to go to an advocate of the 1890 basis and find out what his attitude is. I would like to ask any man who says “I favor the 1890 foreign-born basis,” “ Why do you not favor the 1920 basis? If you are going to get a foreign-born basis, why do you not get the latest and most up to date?” I can imagine him saying one of two things. He would either say “ The 1920 foreignborn basis is not representative of the whole country, because it gives 52 per cent of our population foreign born in i920, where from southern Europe and southeastern Europe only represent about 16 per cent of our population.” I have nothing against southeastern Europeans, but I do not see why they should get three times their share. He wants the nationalorigins basis then. If you want to get a more representative basis than the 1920 basis why do you not go the whole way and get a national-origins basis, not based on the foreign born only but base it mn the whole population? If he talks about the possibility of error in our system, I am frank to admit that oir system is not 100 per cent accurate. I would be very foolish to make such a bald claim as that. But it is substantially accurate, because for the whole population the margin of errors, as I have shown for two large groups like the Irish—there is practically none on the Irish. The origins committee gives practically the same as Shaughnessy, and on the Germans the total difference is only 2,800 in the quota; and if you would allow for the various individual eroups of other immigrations from other countries than Germany by (xerman blood, of which Faust speaks, you will reduce that margin to 700 in the quota. On the other hand, I would say to the 1890 man, “ Your system is not accurate. If you talk about our accuracy, you are 100 per cent off, because on the very figures of Shaughnessy and Faust the Germans get about 31 per cent upon the 1890 quota basis when they are antitled to about 16 per cent.” Senator Reen. They only claim 16. Mr. Lewis. They only claim 16, practically, under this book; they laim about 17 per cent under the claims of Mr. Faust. Senator King. What was that, Mr. Lewis? They claim 17 per cent of the entire population? Mr. Lewis. The only dispute can be on the 1790 population—the back check of 1790 population does not change from 1909 to 1928. Senator King. I was wondering whether vou meant based on the population away back. 92 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lewis. I mean the whole difference—there is dispute on many of these 1790 populations, and the whole spread between Doctor Faust’s estimates and the origin committee's estimates is only 2,800 in the quota; if you exclude the (ferman blood from other countries than Germany it is about 700 in the quota. A man simply can not answer those questions; he can not say that the 1890 basis 1s a more accurate basis than the origins basis. He simply is helpless, and he is bound to say one other thing, “I am inclined to favor the 1890 basis because it let in the best immigration and keeps out the worst.” Now, gentlemen, I read that frequently during last fall in the campaign, and I think that is an impossible political position to tale. 1 do not think it is desirable to say that we are flatly discriminating, if we keep out one nationality and let in another, to encourage one and keep out another, as far as European Immigration is concerned, any of the white races. I do not think that is a possible political position. I think it is bound to lead to friction with foreign countries and certainly will lead to bitterness and misunderstanding in this country. The newer races that have come in since 1890 are not so articulate and so well represented as the older races but as they get more used to this country, get more influence in our politics, in other words, certain influence comes with time—they are going to ask and can not be gainsaid, “ Why do you take an 1890 basis if you are not doing it to slap us in the face?” And some day you will have to bring it down to 1920, if you are going to base it on the foreign born; and then it will be utterly discriminatory and bring the whole matter of restriction into disrepute. As far as that goes, I think it is an impossible political position— I mean governmental position—that you are going to say to the German and Scandinavian immigration, however good they may be, that they are more desirable than the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Ulster Irish. I do not think that we want to discriminate against the stock that gave us Cardinal Gibbons and Carl Schurz more than against the stock that gave us George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I think we want a square deal for all. I think that is about all IT have to say. (The following statement was subsequently furnished by Mr. Lewis and at direction of the chairman is inserted at this point :) Now, let us sum the matter up: I have tried to show that we can not select immigrants by quality tests, since there are no comparative tests available, and since the pressure of numbers would be too great for proper selection, aud, moreover, that method takes no account of racial differences and might result in serious changes in our national complexion in the course of years, whereas the national-origing plan is designed fo prevent any radieal changes in our national make-up. The 1920 foreign-born basis discriminates in favor of the latest comers, giving them three times their proportion of our immigration. The 1890 foreigu-born basis discriminates against the latest comers and against native stock in favor of the middle comers and gives several national groups twice their proportion. The national-origins plan counts us all and discriminates for and against nobody. An attack has been made on the accuracy of the national-origin figure, and that attack is centered on the strength of the various racial groups in this country in 1790. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 93 At that time our population was principally composed of those derived from England, Scotland, North Ireland, and Ireland, who, under the national-origing provision, make one group; from Germany; from the Irish Free State; and lland. Pn = alls committee finds that the population in 1790 derived from the Irish Free State was 140,076. We have just seen that Doctor Shaughnessy sstimates that the number of Irish Catholics in 1790 was from 100,000 to 150,000 and he cites three historians for the point that the Protestant Irish were from North Ireland and not from South Ireland, and we know that some of the Catholic Irish were from North Ireland, so that it clearly follows that there is no difference between Doctor Shaughnessy’s estimate of the South Irish population in 1790 and the origins committee's, since the origins committee fixes the figure 40,000 higher than his lowest estimate and only 10,000 under his high estimate. There can, therefore, be no dispute as to the Irish quota. As to the German quota: We have seen that there can be no dispute as to the German-born here in 1920, nor as to the children of the German-born, since these are actual census figures with deductions only due to loss of territory in the war. The figure of German-orig'n population in 1920, whose grandchildren or earlier ancestors (other than descendants of the 1790 stock) came from Germany is 29.6 per cent of that group, and yet in the nineteenth century Germany contributed only 28.85 per cent of our immigration, and it would seem, therefore, that there can be no dispute on that part of the German populasion. As to the German-origin population derived from the 1790 stock, we have seen that if the entire number estimated by Doctor Faust, 360,000. as being of German blood in 1790, be considered as coming from Germany, the German quota would go up only 2,816, to 18 per cent of the total quota immigrarion, whereas under the 1890 basis it is 31 per cent of the total quota immigration. Moreover, if we reduce the figure of 360,000 to eliminate those who were of German blood from other countries than Germany, the German-origin population in 1790 would only be about 264,000 or only 83,000 greater than found hy the origin committee, and this would only increase the German quota 720. In other words, the difference between Doctor Faust’s figures and the origins committee's figures is immaterial. And we have seen Mr. Frederick Schrader, editor of The Progressive, in his book The Germans in the Making of America accepts Doctor Faust’s figure of 225,000 for the German-origin population in 1775, and may therefore be considered as accepting Doctor Ifaust’s figures for 1790. As to the other groups in 1790, I have heard no dispute as to the group of Dutch origin, and if we succeed, as I believe we have, in finding the maximum of the other groups in 1790, they were very small and if you doubled the 1790 number of any of them. the increase in the present quota of any of them would be negligible. In other words, we see then that the origin figures tested by the claims of the historians of two large national groups are entirely fair and it follows likewise that the 1890 foreign-born quotg are entirely disproportionate and anfair, In conclusion may I say that I have found a widespread feeling among the native stock that they wish to be counted in determining immigration quotas. An immigrant born in 1889 and brought as a baby to this country in time to be included in the 1890 census is counted, in fiixing the 1890 foreign-born quotas, but a person whose people have been in this country for eight generations is not counted. All the descendants, all of the Revolutionary forefathers, all the Civil War veterans and their descendants, most of the Spanish war veterans and their descendants, and almost all those who served in the World War and their children, are excluded from the count and the 1890 foreign oorn, if that system is made Permanent, becomes a sacred class, a new order of aobility as the only group considered fit to determine our quotas. In other words, as a friend of mine expressed it, if your ancestors fought with Washington, or Grant, or Lee, or if you yourself fought with Pershing, you don’t count, whereas if you merely happen to be one of the 8,000,000 foreign born in 1830 you do count. In view of the close accuracy of the origins’ figures as substantiated by the historians of our racial groups and in view of the extreme inaccuracy and unfairness of the 1890 foreign-born quotas, the national origins system became the only fair and all-American. basis for determining quotas and any foreign-born basis is discriminatory and certain to lead to dissension and Jitterness, . Epwarp R. Lewis. BHRR/[—29_____ 7 04 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION: LAW Senator Rep. Mr. Lloyd, what other witnesses have you? Mr. Lroyp. I think we have at least a dozen. Senator Reep. Who are they? Mr. Lroyp. Mrs. Walker will be here; here is this gentleman just came in from a patriotic citizen’s civic league of Philadelphia; there is Colonel Cassidy of the United Air Force—I have a long list here. The Crmarrmax. Mr. Lloyd, if you please, are there any of them that, besides presenting their views and advocacy of the natisnal origins, that could give us light on the subject? Mr. Lroyp. I think, sir, that will vary. TI think that some undoubtedly would, and others would just want to go on record for their organization. But this is such an important matter and they have given so much thought to it, it is difficult to gauge. Senator Ree. Let us run on until noon, The Cuairman. First, let me put in the record a communication that has come to the Committee on Immigration from the State Council of Pennsylvania, Order of Independent Americans, dated Philadelphia, February 7, 1929. It gives the views of that organization and, without reading it, I will hand it to the reporter to be printed here as part of the record. (The communication referred to is as follows:) State COUNCIL OF PENNSYLVANIA, ORDER OF INDEPENDENT AMERICANS (INoC.), Philadelphia, February 7, 1999. To the COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. RsteEMED Sirs: On behalf of the 50,000 native-born Americans, members of our order, we wish to respectfully oppose the Nye resolution to postpone the national-origing clause of the present immigration bill for the following reasons: First, “ National origins” iz a portion of the original measure, and it should become operative as a part of the same, Second. Our order took for its motto upon its inception 25 years ago, * Justice to all,” and we believe that national origins will give justice to all, and that the number of eligibles allotted to each country, to enter the United States ander the present quota is unjust, while we, as an organization, have no particular love for Great Britain, neither do we have any hatred for Germany. Third. We feel that those who are opposed to national origing do not understand it, as it was our pleasure to listen to Doctor Friedenwald at your committee hearing on the 6th, and this eminent gentleman immediately injected racial origing and religion into his argument. Fourth, Upon investigation all those who are or have been opposed to national origins have nothing to offer to take its place. Fifth. We, as an organization, are thoroughly convinced that the Senator from Pennsylvania has gone into the matter so fully and to such an extent, and knowing from his past reputation that he is an ardent believer in the religion of “A square deal to all,” otherwise he would not be the champion of national origins, therefore our confidence in his ability as well as his sterling sharacter is another reason why we are ardent supporters of national origins All of the above is respectfully submitted. Very truly vours. Maurice H. RASENER, State Council Secretary. The Crairman. Well, gentlemen of the committee, let me suggest this to you: We called these hearings for the purpose of permitting those who are interested in the sulbiject to present their views. There has been but one gentleman who has come here in behalf of this resolution. He presented his views at such length as he desired to present them at the last hearing. There have been quite a number who NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 95 have been very interesting and important witnesses upon the other side of the problem. Is, I submit to you, there any good purpose served by multiplying the views of the many who have come before us and presented their side? Personally, so far as I am concerned, the hearings could be concluded now. I am perfectly willing to await the pleasure of the committee and to do whatever the committee may wish to do with respect to the matter. Senator King. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the opponents of the resolution select from their number here those that can give some information. Mr. Lewis has made a scientific study of this matter. A mere expression of opinion or views in a general way on this gives no light on the matter. Senator Brease. Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, if anybody here has got anything against the resolution they should be invited to speak ? Phe CrAmRMAN. I have asked that twice, Senator. Senator Brrase. What is the use to keep on adding up testimony? Why not hear somebody that can show us some reason why we should not pass this resolution? Senator Rep. You mean the other way around, Senator? The Caamman. You mean this—— Senator Breas. I mean this: I am not in favor of the resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator Brease. If there is somebody that can show me why I ought to be, he is the one I want to hear. Th) Craimaras. I said that on the other occasion and this occasion as well. Senator Breas. I am ready to vote on it, so far as I am concerned. The Cmamman. As I said, there has been only one gentleman appeared here in behalf of the resolution. Senator Nye, unfortunately, is sick abed. It is all a question whether you want to hear cumulative evidence on the proposition in opposition. Senator Reep. Is there anyone here who desires to be heard in behalf of Senator’s Nye’s resolution? The Cuairman. That has been asked. Mr. Mowrrz. Following the suggestion of the chairman, I desire to appear in behalf of the resolution. My name is Mowitz. I came down here to-day—— The CHAIRMAN. You favor the resolution? Mr. Mowrrz. I am in favor of the resolution. The Cmarrman. I would be glad to hear from you, sir—because those who favor the resolution have not appeared—and present your views on the question on the other side. But if you will go ahead and express your views, then the gentlemen on the other side will have opportunity, if they desire. to rebut. STATEMENT OF ARNO P, MOWITZ, REPRESENTING THE GERMAN SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE RELIEF OF DISTRESS AMONG GERMAN IMMIGRANTS. PHILADELPHIA PA. Senator Kine. Where do you live in Philadelphia? Mr. Mowrrz. I practice law in Philadelphia and, like the Chicacoans, I live outside of Philadelphia, in the suburbs. 06 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Permit me to say at the outset that I do not want to come here under false pretenses or in any way appear impertinent in what 1 am to say. I am foreign born. I was born in Saxony. I was brought to this country when I was about 1 year old. My parents brought me in and, with the exception of some time spent in school over there, I have been a resident in the United States continuously since; for about 80 years in and about Philadelphia. I do not know whether that will militate against anything I might want to say on this subject. The Cramrman. Not at all, sir. Mr. Mowrrz. I have no apology to make for that situation at all. If I could not be born here, then the only other country I would want to be born in, naturally, would be Germany. We are in favor of the Nye resolution. Of course, we are opposed to the national-origins theory and are in favor of a census basis. I might state, when I say “ we,” that I am chairman of the immigration committee of the German Society of Pennsylvania for the Relief of Distress Among German Immigrants. That organization was formed in 1764 and has been in continuous and useful existence ever since, has remained true to the ideals indicated by its title, and entirely free from religious and political partisanship—very strictly so; and I believe those who are familiar with the history and development of Pennsylvania have not overlooked the part that that organization has played, in a constructive way, in that development. I believe Senator Reed will bear me out in that. } I also might say that I voice the sentiment of a large proportion of the citizens of German birth or descent who sometime ago met by representatives and were kind enough to elect me as chairman of that group. It was unofficial, entirely, but for this purpose when the question was acute the last time. I have not had the opportunity to call them together again. As I say, we are not an organization for aggression. We prefer to express our views before the proper body in the matter. . Our first and primary reason why we would like to urge upon you the inadvisability of the adoption of the national-origins clause is that the records, the data upon which such a theory must be based, are not available—certainly not prior to 1812, when most of the records, during the occupation bv the British of the city of Washington, were destroyed. } } It will also be found that, up until a comparatively recent date, the records kept in a number of different States that would have immigration records, had been destroyed by fire or other reasons. Therefore, when we come to consider the colonial history, say, from 1727 to 1776, there is little more than heresay to go on, and I am taking for that statement the words of the experts who have already appeared before the Senate committee on previous occasions; and when we come to guesswork or hearsay we have this difficulty to contend with: Co } A great many of the immigrants who came to the United States in the early history of our development here came on British ships, and it was the custom, as I am told, that when they came on a British ship the total number was taken, and as many as came on a British ship were all classed as of British origin. You can readily NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 97 see that a good many persons were on these ships who were not British. A second element that enters into this question is that, when the foreign immigrant came to these shores—and that was particularly true m the Philadelphia port—those fearful-sounding names rang rather harsh and strange in the ears of the British officers, who could not pronounce them, much less spell them. So they just proceeded to Anglicize them at the very moment of entry into this country, and wrote the name down as it sounded to them and not according to its European speliing. There were many cases of this kind, I am told. Another very important element that enters into this is the fact that to trace national origins means largely as a rule to trace the name, because up until a very recent date those statistics were not analyzed for that purpose, and we know they are not available. Marriage would change it; you would have the classical example in this book by Faust, that has been quoted by Mr. Lewis, as to what happens to a man who marries an Irish woman who had an English father and a Swedish mother, and so on down the line; and it takes you entirely into the realm of the impossible. Then, too, there were a lot of Germans and a lot of Italians and others of all nationalities—Slovaks and Ukranians and so on—who had unpronounceable names, and who Anglicized them for matters of convenience, business, or politics. You will find many thousands of such cases in the records in the courts of those States which require a regular procedure to do that sort of thing. Senator Reep. But not prior to 1790? Mr. Mowrrz. Not, perhaps, prior to 1790. But the difficulty is that prior to that time there were no substantial records available, and all of it is based upon guesswork. Now, those of us who believe that the first duty of an immigrant is—and the first duty of those who preceeded them and who have had the advantage of the teachings and the institutions of this country—is to, as quickly as possible, bring that new immigrant’s mind to a point where he will readily assimilate into our social structure. And when we do that we get away from the idea of keeping nationalities in this country segregated because of their nationalities, and we give them a new interest which will lead them to the position of mind where they will not, as Mr. Lewis has quoted General Pershing, decide American questions from an European standpoint. I think that was very well put, and it concerns one of the great evils which we must avoid. You know there is rivalry between nations. But I am not one of those who even before the war believed in twisting of the lions tail every time you wanted to get a cheer out of a crowd of listeners, and therefore I do not say this in the sense of jealousy or rivalry with the British. But I do say this, that when you are confronted with a schedule which is based palpably upon a guess, and which while it gives overwhelmingly to one nation at the expense of other nations, there must inevitably arise the question of unfairness and discrimination—and if it is not a guess, then all the journals I am prepared to quote to you, all the writers, all the authorities are wrong, and the administrations was twice wrong in refusing to put it into effect 98 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW When you set up a standard of that kind and say that by a mere theory, based on guesswork, you are now going to change the quota, so that the British have 130 per cent more than they had, or 50,000, approximately; that the Germans must have 30,000 less; that the Irish must have 20,000 less; and the Scandinavians less, and so on in lesser degrees, but always less, then you will have provided a bone of contention that is going to present a very wide and susceptible target and materially weaken any real, constructive. and wise immigration policy. I do not want you to feel that it comes from us with poor grace, now that we are here, to try to keep the other fellow out. We do not mean it that way. But we believe thoroughly that a restrictive policy is a wise policy, for our own protection as well as for the protection of the immigrant, who otherwise comes to already crowded labor markets. This is also the fact, that we do not want the record that German immigrants, our forefathers, have made in this country discounted by indiscriminate immigration, even from Germany. But that immigration ought to be wisely distributed— I mean there ought to be a basis found that is free from substantial objections, that will not always rise to plague you, and under the guise of attacking that, because it is subject to attack, in fact attack a wise restrictive policy. Senator Ruep. If you were in our place, what kind of a quota basis would you use? Mr. Mowrrz. I would say that as far as I have been able to understand the statistics, both on the basis of origin and census, it seems to me that the census basis is the more plausible and accurate one; and I get that also from some people who were not born on the other side, but from such publications as the Wall Street Journal, the New York World, the Chicago Tribune, the Cincinnati Inquirer, and a host of others all over this country. Senator Reep. You say the census basis. You mean the census of foreign born? Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. And what census would you use? Mr. Mowrrz. For the lack of a better one, I would say the one that gives the best cross section of foreign-born population in the United States. And, again, I revert to the experts who say that on that theory the 1890 census is the best, by far: there may be a better one later, I do not know. Senator Reep. It comes closest to corresponding with the distribution according to national origins, is that it? Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir. I think that was the opinion of Doctor Garis, of Vanderbilt University, who made a study of it. Senator Reep. Doctor Garis suggested the 1890 basis but Garis is on record in the Saturday Evening Post a month ago as preferring the national origins. Mr. Mowrrz. He may have had a change of heart. Senator Reep. However, putting that to one side, you take the 1890 basis, and that involves an element of uncertainty, too, does it not? Mr. Mowrrz. 1 think it does to a small extent, but I understand the Census Bureau prides itself upon a margin of error of only 1 per cent. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 99 Senator Reep. When we come to use a quota for Poland, for example, we have to guess entirely, because Poland is not mentioned in the census of 1890. Mr. Mowirz. Of course, there you come to a very peculiar situation on account of this new Polish corridor, and so forth, back in there. It might interest you to know that because of our immigration law, if President Hindenburg wanted to come to the United States and needed a visa, he would have to get it from the Polish; he could not have a German visa. Senator Ruep. Take the whole Polish quota, it involves some uncertainty because there was no Poland in 1890, and what is true of Poland is true of a dozen other countries of new Europe. Mr. Mowrrz. That is true. Senator REED. So that there is an element of uncertainty? Mr. Mowirz. There is no element of uncertainty ; it is certainty; they are not there. Some definite means can be provided whereby that situation can be taken care of, because you are dealing with a definite proposition. Senator Reep. It requires an estimate? Mr. Mowrrz. It does in the first instance. Senator Rerp. Which is incapable of exact check. Mr. Mowrrz. Yes; but the point is this, Senator; we believe that sight should not be lost of the fact that the wisdom of this policy lies in the fact that the selection should be as nearly as possible and as fairly as possible from those tried stocks who in the past have been admitted to this country and unquestionably have contributed materially to its progress. Senator Rep. Mr. Mowitz, I share with you in admiration for the average German immigrant. I think he is a very high type of immigrant. But if we adopt the 1890 basis because it is more fairly representative of the proposition of all America than is the 1920 basis, still, are we not inconsistent when we have given the German immigrant a quota of 51,000 and the British immigrant a quota of only 34,000 None of us can claim that the German element in the United States is 50 per cent larger than the British, can we? Mr. Mowrrz. No; and I would say in answer to that, Senator, that I would not take one single Englishman off a quota to which that Englishman is fairly entitled on the same basis we claim for Germany. We do not want one more. I mean it should be fair; otherwise our argument falls. Senator Reep. I will meet you the other way; I would not admit one single Englishman to take the place of a German fairly entitled to come. Mr. Mowrrz. I have never questioned your views on that subject, that is self-evident. But, after all, I think we are confronted, if 1 may be permitted to say so, with choosing between the least of two evils, if you want to put it that way; and it is, I think, the evil mentioned by Mr. Hill and I can name you any number of author-‘ties—even the commission, composed of the three Cabinet officers— State, Labor, and Commerce—that they could not possibly vouch for the correctness of their papers and figures; and Doctor Garis himself—why he has had a change of heart with no better figures available now than in 1927, I do not know. I saw the article the 100 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW other day, and was rather astounded; and put side by side with the other one he wrote in 1927, it is inexplicable. Co The Cmatrman. What did he write in 1927, if you have it in mind ? ] Mr. Mowrrz. I have the article. } The CHARMAN. I do not care for the article. Mr. Mowirz. Here is just an exerpt from it, Senator: Mr. Ray L. Garis, Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University, in an article on the subject of immigration in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1926—that is when he wrote—had this to say: As one critic put it, “Against this iniquitous ‘conspiracy of statistics it behooves all good Americans to rise in righteous wrath.” Naturally this ig z0ing to lead to serious charges of discrimination, The I quote him still further. [Reading :] The national origins plan means, therefore, that we must abandon practical methods and adopt something which we do not know anything or at best very little about. That there are no figures in existence which show completely the national origins of the population of the United States. Those are the words of Professor Garis, Senator Reep. That was written before the report of the quota board, was it? Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir; before the report of the quota board; and according to the letter which accompanied that report, I doubt whether that would change his opinion. You might say the same, for instance, of men who have been in the midst of this thing, and have to deal with it every day. Our Commissioner of Immigration, Mr. Hull, who said in 1925. [Reading :] The bureau feels that the present method of ascertaining the quotas is far more satisfactory than the proposed determination by national origin, that it has the advantage of simplicity and certainty. It is of the opinion that the proposed change will lead to great confusion and result in complexities, and accordingly it is recommended that the pertinent portions of section 11, providing for this revision of the quotas as they aow stand, be rescinded. Mr. Curran, Commissioner of Immigration at Ellis Island, said: The 1890 measure is the soundest, the healthiest, the fairest, and the best. Senator Reep. When was that? Mr. Mowrrz. That was said March 5, 1924. Senator Reep. That was before the national origins was suggested. Mr. Mowrrz. I think it was on the question; it must have been on the question. Senator Rep. Was not that the time we were confronted with a choice between 1920, 1910, and 1890¢ I think you will find that the national Cit had not been suggested. } Mr. Mowrrz. That may be so, Senator. Now, then, there is no need of my taking up your time beyond quoting the New York Herald-Tribune. (Reading:) The present quota limitations, admitting 2 per cent of the foreign born from each country residing in the United States in 1890 has proved satisfactory. It has the solid census basis, and it is believed to correspond nearly with the racial compositions of the American people. The national origins theory carries out the priniciple to an ideal degree, but if the theory presents practical difficulties for lack of data, it can be put on the shelf without damage. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION IAW 101 To the same effect is an almost unanimous press of the country. Senator Reep. Mr. Mowitz, would you permit me to interrupt you by quoting from a speech of Commissioner Carran delivered on March 25, 1924¢ . Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. He said: For my own part, I do not seen why, whatever year we use, 1910 or 1890, we should measure the immigrants wholly by the foreign born in America. Why not pay some attention to the American born in America? Have you who are American born no say in this thing? Must we always measure the future of our own country by the numbers of foreigners who are here? Is it true that the United States is already a collection of foreign colonies rather than a Nation 3f native Americans? He said that in his speech to the Economic Club at.the Hotel Astor on March 25, 1924, Mr. Mowrrz. I think he is right, to this extent, that if you want to restrict immigration entirely. It is not for us to say that you should not do it. But if you are going to have immigration—and this is the whole burden of my argument—if you are going to admit foreigners, then we are proud enough of the XA and reputation of the German race in the building up of this country that we would resent by petition, of course, any implication by discrimination or givin ganas in figures which will take away any part of that reputation, Senator Ree. I think you would be right in so doing. Mr. Mowrrz. Yes. Senator Reep. Mr. Mowitz, you are familiar with Doctor Faust’s treatise, The German Element in the United States. Mr. Mowrrz. Yes; I know of it. Senator Reep. You are familiar with the statement that he makes that, including all the Germans born in Holland, and Sweden, and Switzerland, and Austria, and other countries than Germany—including all those, the German element amounts to about 17 per cent of our population. Now, if that is the utmost that the Germans claim, can we justify giving Germans 81 per cent of the quotas. as we do now? Mr. Mowrrz. Well, Senator, unfortunately, you are quoting as an authority a man who has written a book as a result of a contest and who has no more authority than I might have to stand here and speak as authority for the German-born people in United States, which I can not. I have not subscribed to that book. I have not subscribed to that statement. As a matter of fact, he can not prove it or disprove it, and that is just the trouble with the national origins proposition. Senator Reep. The book was published under the auspices of the German consul general in Chicago. Mr. Mowrrz. That does not affect it. We have nothing to do with the German Government, and whatever they do is not controlling for as. We would no more feel obliged to recognize that as an authority than any other work of that character, unless it was based on actual figures, or that you could from authoritatave sources check back and show that the author was right. Senator Reep. But you do not think the German element is half of the English. Scotch. Welsh. and Ulster element in the TTnited States? 102 NATION AL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Mowrrz. I would not say that, because I do not know. I do not know, and if it should be that. they are entitled to their proportion; fair proportion. Senator Rupp. That is all we are trying to do with the national origins; study it out. Mr. Mowrrz. That is right, and I say that the national origins theory in this act is not the right way to do it. Senator Rep. What substitute do you suggest that is better ? Mr. Mowtrz. For the time being, as far as tangible figures are concerned, the census of 1890, because, according to all authorities. it is the best available cross section. Senator Rexp. For the time being, to what method shall we resort ? Mr. Mowrrz. It is a question of time—it is a question of time, research, and study, but, after all, Senator, you can study as much as you want, and you can research as much as you want, and you will not create or revive the records that were either never made or destroyed. Senator Rekp. As to the destruction of records, the population shown in the 1790 census was 38,000, as I recall it. Are you familiar with the studies made by the Council of Learned Societies to the effect that records which were destroved by fire covered only 75.000 persons ? Mr. Mowrrz. I have heard such a statement made. As I say, I learned of this hearing three days ago, when I wired Senator Johnson, and I have not had opportunity to refresh my memory on it. Senator Rep. If that 1s true, the effect of the fire was only to destroy about 2 per cent of the records? } Mr. Mowrrz. Now, Senator, before I get into a discussion of that, I would have to have before me the underlying facts upon which that statement has been made. . Senator Reep. It has been testified to by other witnesses, Mr. Mowrrz. Well, I did not have the bencfit of their substantiation in the matter. Senator Kine. Mr. Mowitz, I would like to ask a question: Do you think by postponing the operation of this law for a year, less or more, and further research work conducted, a better knowledge of the subject could be obtained, which would lead to a juster law than the one that is now upon the statute books? Mr. Mowrrz. That is possible, sir. Furthermore, I think that the elimination of this clause at this time and the enactment of a fair and wise limitation on and distribution of immigration, relieving it from the burden of this constant attack, will permit a dispassionate study of the subject from all possible angles, rather than spending your time here fighting men like myself or, rather, listening to men like myself, and others who have divergent views on a matter which is not going to get us anywhere, and a matter which is vital to the policy of the United States because it is a search for the best method. I hope that the time will come when you gentlemen will realize that the national origins theory is not the logical way out of this situation. Senator Brrase. Let me ask you a question, please, sir. I am from South Carolina. We had Germans down there long ago who were NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 103 among our first people, and they are still there, or some of their kin, the best people in this country, no better at least. Mr. Mowrrz. 1 am glad to hear you say that. ’ Senator Brease. I am a Methodist, a church that brought John Wesley over here, and Wesley sald he received more inspiration from the German preacher he talked to than from any other man he talked to in his life. So you see how I stand toward the German people. I came near petting into jail about the war, because I did not want America to Aght Germany; and I do not think yet we should have fought Germany. But do you not think even if Germany does lose some, that she can afford to do it to get rid of the undesirable elements from other countries? I am not talking about your country—other sountries. My. Mowrrz. I do not think we are all “lily white ” at that. There are black sheep in every flock. Senator Brass. I have a very few bad ones in my section of the country. Mr. Mowirz. I agree with you there. We come in first contact with the people who have come from over there in our efforts to help them over the first impacts in the new country, and to help them along so that they will head into the proper paths. Senator Breas. Understand, my grandfather and grandmother were born in Liverpool, England, and came directly to this country. So, I am an Englishman, but T love everv German T have ever seen. Mr. Mowrrz. That is very nice of vou to sav, sir; but, Senator, it is not advisable, when you are adopting a national policy, to make a patchwork of it, which is always subject to attack, and will be a bone of contention for years and years to come, will get into polities, and all that sort of thing, when you have before vou the testimony of some of the greatest experts in the United States, and you have the action of your own committee and of Congress itself. that the national-origins theory is not practical. Now, for the sake of trying to get an impractical thing, why ask a group of people such as the German Americans, if you want to call them that way—I prefer to say American, of German birth or descent or citizens of German descent—to concede something that they, in all fairness, ought not to be asked to concede? TI mean, you are asking them to do that for the sake of putting into effect something that a great many people who are better qualified than I am to judge of the question say is entirely impossible of execution? Senator Kine. Mr. Mowitz, I think that you may assume that this committee and Congress will not enlarge the number which may come to the United States. There is no disposition to do that. Mr. Mowrrz. I understand so. Senator Kine. It is only a question whether there should be 164,000 or a little less. Mr. Mowrirz. Yes, sir. Senator Kixae. Whether it should be national origins or whether there 1s some better basis. more accurate. more ust basis upon which 104 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW to fix the quota. Now, with those assumptions before you, do you suggest that the census would be more accurate and more fair to all countries than the national-origins system? Mr. Mowrrz. I believe so, Senator; I really believe so. Senator Kina. If you had to draw a statute now taking up the question de nova, what you say as to the basis by which to determine those who shall come to the United States, and the quota to be allocated to the various countries? Mr. Mowirz. Assuming at that time I had before me the result of the research that had been made on this question, I would say unquestionably the 1890 census, for the time being. If by reason of the passage of time, shifts in population, and future census takings would give a better cross section than that has given, I would say always adopt the one that gives the fairest and most correct distributive representation in that quota. Senator Kine. From an examination of that census, have you obtained the quotas which would be allotted to each of the countries, assuming that the numbers coming into the United States is limited by the present laws? Mr. Mowrrz. By the national origins, 150,000. Yes; I have the figures here. Senator Kine. I wish you would submit them. Have you seen the testimony to see whether they are in the reports? Mr. Mowrrz. No, sir. Senator King. The Chairman states they are in the reports. I have not examined the reports. Senator Reep. It is all in Senate Documents Nos. 170 and 65. Senator Kine. Then I shall not insist. The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to sit during the noon hour? Mr. Stepmens. I am from Philadelphia, and I have got to be back in Harrisburg to-morrow. I would like five minutes in which to present—-— The Cuatrman. Will you do us a kindness, Mr. Mowitz, to have a seat for a moment, if you please. I think this gentleman has to return immediately. Mr. Stephens, we will let you proceed. Please state your name and whom you represent, as well as vour address, for the record. STATEMENT OF ROYAL T. STEPHENS, PRESIDENT PATRIOTIC CITIZENS CIVIC LEAGUE, PHILADELPHIA. PA. Mr. Srueuexs. My name is Royal T. Stephens. I am president of the Patriotic Citizen’s Civic League of Philadelphia. My occupation is getting other people to do things worth while. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this national orgins bill is a matter that concerns every well-thinking American. For many years I have given considerable time and study to this question. In Pennsylvania we have seen newspapers publishing foreign languages who are insisting that the customs and ideas be changed to suit them, and during the Sesquicentenial, and the advocating of that by those politicians there, who said the voice of these foreign born must receive first consideration, and you Americans do not vote or take NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 105 second consideration. And I want to call your attention to the fact that in Harrisburg this session a bill has been presented by a senator, no doubt by request, that provides that the public business or official business of the State be published in every foreign paper that has been in existence three years, in spite of the fact that we are spending millions of dollars for education every year, and we tolerate that; but I assure you that that bill will never get by first base even, because some of us are on the job in Pennsylvania. I want to call your attention to the fact—and I said the same in Cleveland before our national convention—that there are politicians who are in the districts where the foreign groups live and are listening to the demands of those groups and organized by them, letting in agents of the foreign government who are insisting that the customs and ideas be changed. I am in favor and the Patriotic Citizens Civic League, which I have the honor to be president of, is for maintaining the customs and ideas that our forefathers established in this country and which have made this country. Now, if we can not get into effect this national origins bill at this time, then the solution is to close the ports of immigration for a period of five years, and an experiment in the interest of unemployment. 1 want to say to you that I fought for that in pur national convention last summer, and in to talking to labor groups and many representatives and contractors, they told me that there are so many labor-saving devices about to go on the market that they are fearful it is going to do away with the employment of many men. By way of illustration, a machine is in operation in Pittsburgh which is operated by 3 men which takes the place of 40. You know what happened in the census bureau where 25 people do the work of a thousand. In the streets of Philadelphia they are paving a square in 24 hours, where it took a week before, and so we go on down the line. Mr. Joseph Steel, president of the Steel Construction Co., one of our prominent contractors, said that in the building trade it has got to be met. It is the same way all over the sountry. The labor groups in the United States have gone on record that the ports of immigration ought to be closed in the interest of employment. In Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and other districts they can not work the year around, and that surplus labor could he transported where seasonal labor is needed; and I am of the opinion that it would stop the objection and it would be a fair and square deal not only to Americans but to every man who comes from some other shore, and they could not object to the doors of immigration being closed on all ports, and I sincerely hope there are Members of the House and the Senate who will bring in such a bill this session. [f we do not get it through this session, then President-elect Hoover will include that in his call: that that be considered as a thing that concerns the welfare of the American people. I want to say to you along that line it is a vital question, and it will solve the problem. As an illustration, we see in Philadelphia, and we see it in other large cities being allowed to go into the hands of foreign born, while the American stock, the stock that made America, live out in the suburbs, leaving the influence not only of taxes but the influence that delegation in the legislative halls of State and Nation to mold 106 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW opinion demanding constantly that we lay down eontinually our ideas and customs; and I as an American pray and I hope and sincerely believe that we have enough Americans in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives who will meet this issue. Next Wednesday, when they hear before the District of Columbia committee of the Senate a bill to amend the Constitution based on citizenship, I will be there, and I hope every American who thinks in terms as I do will be there. I want to see the District Committee of the Senate meet if necessary and then take it on the floor of the Senate so that we in Pennsylvania will have an opportunity to ratify that amendment based on citizenship instead of foreignborn aliens. And I want to say on Monday it will be presented in both houses in Harrisburg, calling upon Congress to enact that constitutional amendment, and likewise amending the constitution of Pennsylvania along the same line. Those are matters that we considered. I wish you could see the legislative bills I have in my brief case. There are numerous bills that have been presented by members of the House and Senate at the request of these blocs of the alien born, who think that we must amend our laws to suit them, and calls for .serious consideration talking about amending the constitution of Pennsylvania. When we recognize that our politicians are subject to this influence, as I recall a certain man whom I was after at one time, who said his constituents were foreign born, and would receive his consideration, and voted against the immigration act, and I want to say that party had an object lesson this past election, but it behooves us to think in terms along that line. May I make another suggestion, that I hope to see the day when every public school in the United States will install under mandatory direction the keeping of the guild system of the young republic and the children in our schools will be taught under the Constitution the golden rule, and that they will know what constitutes the duties of every public officer, and the lord knows many of our adults do not know that to-day. It will be the solution of many governmental problems along that line. I hope that we can get this thing through, but if we can not, for heaven’s sake, let us think and act as Americans and put through a bill that will make it impossible for a foreign group to determine or undermine the customs and traditions that made America. I hope also we may amend our Constitution to provide for making an alien wait 21 years to vote, the same as we accord native Americans; then we will make sure they will not tear down our customs and ideas. I have spent time in other countries, and I want to say that I was compelled to respect the laws and customs of those countries, and every law-abiding citizen will as he sojourns to another country; and we demand that they respect our laws and customs; and if they do not like it let them pack up their grips and go back where they came from, and let a lot of politicians who would sell our country for the sake of holding office go with them. I thank you. [Applause.] ; Senator Keyes (presiding). Mr. Mowitz, have you anything further ? NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 107 Mr. Mowrrz. I have nothing further, unless the gentlemen of the committee desire to ask questions. Senator Rerp. I have no further questions to ask Mr. Mowitz. Mr. Waser. I would like to have just about three minutes of your time. "Senator Kryrs. Well, we will hear you. Give your name, residence, and occupation. STATEMENT OF ROSCOE C. WALKER, WOODCLIFF, N. J., REPRE-SENTING THE JUNIOR ORDER OF UNITED AMERICAN MECHAN-108 OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. WarLxer. My name is Roscoe C. Walker, Woodcliff, N. J., representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics. of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Congressman who spoke earlier in the day, representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the United States—the group that I represent is not a part of the 400,000 he speaks of, but a separate unit in the State of New Jersey, affiliated with the units of Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia. The organization I represent is a patriotic organization over 75 years of age. Its object and principles are closely allied to the principles of this Government of the United States itself. Since the inception of my organization, it has always stood for selective and restricted immigration. Back in the time when the literacy test was before the Congress, we favored and fought for its adoption. When the immigration act adopted in 1924 was before Congress, we acted in the same manner; and at this time I have been instructed to appear before you, by resolution of my fraternity in opposition to the Nye resolution, and urge upon you the necessity of putting into sffect the national-origins provisions of the 1924 act without further delay. Tt has been stated here that the national-origins provision is unworkable. I doubt that we can all agree upon that mere statement, because, ill My opinion, an idea is an idea and nothing else unless it has the opportunity to prove itself by being put into practical nperation. When the steamboat, Clermont, sailed up the Hudson River, it was an idea scoffed at by a great many people. We know that by the idea being put into practical operation it was a success. Can we not, therefore, Judge possibly that this theory of national origins, in which my organization has been interested as well as others, besause they believe that it is the only possible solution, because it represents the population not in 1890, not in 1920, or not at any particular stage of our history, but the entire population for all time of the history of our great Nation? I believe, and so does my organization, that the adoption of the National-origins provision will prove the settlement of the immigration problem, and will be of great value to the Nation, and I am sure that is something in which we are all interested. The organization which I represent has a membership of 79,000 in the State of New Jersey, all native-born Americans. I respectfully 108 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW request that your body give this proposition of national origins serious consideration. I thank you for listening to me. Senator Kuyrs. What is the pleasure of the committee? Shall we adjourn until Monday, or do you desire to go on any further to-day? Senator Reep. I think we “better adjourn until 10.80 Monday, if that suits you, as 10 o’clock is a little too early. Senator Keyes. Very well, we will consider the hearing adjourned until 10.80 o'clock Monday morning. _ (Thereupon, at 12.10 o’clock, the committee adjourned to meet Monday, February 11, 1929, at 10.80 a. m.) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1929 Unirep STATES SENATE, CoMMmITIEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. OC. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnsen (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Keyes, Reed, Gould, Harris, and Copeland. The Caammman. The committee will please be in order. I have just received a telegram from Arno P. Mowitz, who testified on last Saturday before this committee, and I will ask the reporter to insert. his telegram in the record. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 11. 1929. Senator HIRAM W. JOHNSON, Ohairman Immigration Committee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: May I add the thought that postponement and the creation of fact-finding :ommission of experts, possibly including men representative of major strains, would serve to dispose of national-origins controversy? Arxo P. MOwITZ, Guarantee Trust Building, Philadelphia. Senator Reed, will you suggest the next witness you desire to 2all, please? Senator Reep. Are there any witnesses here in opposition to the national-origins clause? If not, Mr. Lloyd, we will be glad to hear from you as to who you have next. Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Chairman, we have several witnesses. But before we start, if I may, remembering that sometimes a few words of misanderstanding require a great many in order to get things straight, { would like to read one or two quotations bearing on the testimony of Mr. Mowitz, the last witness, who brought out, as I remember it, that he did not know very much about quotas, or what they should be, but made most of his statement on the strength of belief that large numbers of other people were opposed to national origins. {find on investigation that in a good many of those cases he was either mistaken from the beginning, or at least not up to date; and the first thing I want to do 1s read quotations in regard to Professor Garis. He stated that Prof. Roy S. Garis was in favor of the 1890 basis and against national origins. Senator Reep. It was Professor Garis’s basis that caused its adoption, was it not? EK/RH—20_. 8K 0 110 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. It was true that he favored that to the exclusion of all others in the beginning, and therefore these brief quotations I shall read will clear that up. The first one is his foreword to a pamphlet entitled The National Origins Plan of Immigration Restriction, by Martha Ragsdale, graduate fellow in economics, Vanderbilt University; and he says [reading]: One of the most gratifying instances of the successful participation of the zeneral public in the solution of a major social and economic problem confronting the Nation has been evident in the efforts that have been and are being made relative to the immigration problem. Then I skip some lines: The 3 per cent emergency quota legislation based on the census of 1910 was superceded on July 1, 1924, by the 2 per cent quota act based on the number of foreign born in the United States according to the 1890 census. The purpose of the latter plan was to insure that our future immigration should correspond in its make-up with our population as it is to-day. It does this successfully as between the two great regions of Europe from which the old and the new immigration come, respectively. However, it does injustice in the determination of the quotas of the individual countries within the two major groups. Then I skip some more lines: It is the purpose of the national origins plan to rectify such discriminations and to place the immigration quotas on a better historical basis, * * * While its adoption has been postponed for two years by Congress, yet the nation-wide discussion it has had and is having during the present presidential campaign is awakening the public to its fundamental importance. It deserves and should receive the thoughtful consideration of the American public. Then afterwards there appeared this article in the Saturday Evening Post of January 5, and I shall read just very brief extracts from that. Speaking of national origins he says [reading]: Continued postponement and indecision are dangerous to the whole restrietive program. It gives the opponents the opportunity to attack. Indeed, it invites attack. Charges of discrimination, sob stories, and what not fill the pir. These very opponents have been making the most of the indecision between the two plans to split the restrictionists and thus, if possible, to destroy the quota method entirely. Though they are doomed to failure in this, yet Congress could devote its time and presence to no greater purpose than to consider each plan impartially, without bias or prejudice, and to select either the 1890 census or the national-origins plan as the permanent-quota hasis. Then I skip: Now, however, that the presidential and congressional elections are over, and in view of the overwhelming success of the restrictionist policies, continued inlecision concerning the national-origing plan should not be tolerated. * * * Most of the protest against the national-origing plan has been from those whose quotas would be somewhat diminished. It is evident that no apportionment could be made which would be favored by all countries. They are willing for the quotas of other countries to be low, but never those of their own. The United States should enact its immigration laws to meet its own needs. It is too great an undertaking for one nation to attempt to legislate to suit the world. When Congress realizes this and stops being buffeted around by first one national group and then another, and settles down to make laws for the United States, we shall have progressed. Then Mr. Mowitz laid a great deal of stress upon this: He claims that three Secretaries, State, Commerce, and Labor, had been opposed to national origins and were still opposed to national origins; and in that connection we simply want to point out that while as to the preliminary report issued January 31, 1927, there was criticism of national origins ficures or computations. that that was not NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 111 reiterated. when the final report was put in later. Furthermore, I understand on good authority that both Departments of State and Labor now take the position that they have no opinion as to the merits of these quotas; and, furthermore, certain well-informed people hold that those departments are not authorized to express an opinion in regard to them. Another point that I recall is that Mr. Mowitz, while a very agreeable witness, referred to the monumental work of Doctor Hill and his associates as guesswork. Now, that is a question in which I should say that a layman such as Mr. Mowitz was not as well qualified to speak as would be Doctor Hill himself. I do not know that I ought to bother the committee with the quotations, but in his testimony before the House January, 1927, Doctor Hill pointed out that the margin of error in the national-origins figures was very small, that is to say, it was 1 in 600 for the whole population, and when one realizes the further fact that the whole controversy really revolves around the proportions in the 1790 population, which is a little less than a half, the margin is even very much less. Then in his testimony before the Senate, March, 1928, Doctor Hill, in response to questions from the Senator from Pennsylvania, stated that he had not heard of a fairer plan than national origins; in fact, he was impressed by the absence of any other alternatives except the quotas based on the foreign born of 1890, which, he said, in reply to a specific question, did not represent with any accuracy the proposition of nationalities in the present population of the United States. I think that it is going too far to say that that great work that the Assistant to the Director of the Census and the chairman of our quota board and his associates performed is pure guesswork; and on that subject I just want to read from another witness. I think we all know Mark Sullivan and appreciate his shrewdness and his integrity and reliability. Mark Sullivan, in an article on national integrity and reliability. Mark Sullivan, in an article in the Nashville Tennesseean on national origins, entitled “ Big Problems Facing Congress,” wrote as follows: The selentists who made the computations insist they are right. Some persons who have talked with these statisticians have found them holding their ground firmly and insisting that the computation is possible and that it has been made with sufficiently approximate accuracy. It is a fact that some persons who flouted the whole idea of computing national origins huve been moved, after talking with the statisticians. to assent to the claim that the eommnntation haa eeiontific fondness. Now, I want to read a telegram from a gentleman whom we wanted to have here as a witness. from Chicago. but he could not rome. | Reading :] As general manager of American Vigilance Intelligence Federation, with nation-wide membership, and speaking for that membership also as first generation from German ancestry native born, the stock that helped pioneer in our sountry, am lodging a vigorous and earnest protest against further delay in course of permitting the national-origins clhuse to go into effect as originally intended when enacted by the Congress. Vicious attacks by alien-minded hyphenates if successful now will mean a campaign by decent Americans to ‘otally exclude all immigration. National origins as quota basis is fair to all, discriminates against none, is possible of more accurate computation than 1890, and is backed by real American-minded oninion. Unless national origins goes into effect this vear as 112 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW intended, Congress will be pledged each session by the whittlers who, for alien reasons, do not want the immigration question settled once and for all time as an American policy but want to keep it an open matter, with the fond expectation that eventually they can break down the entire restrictive immigration policy of our Government. I sincerely hope that you will make my views Known to the Congress. The Crairman. Who was that? Senator Reep. Who signed it? Mr. Lrovp. That was from Harry A. J ung, of Chicago. The Crairman. Please state to me again what association or organization that was. Mr. Lroyp. He was general manager of the American Vigilance Intelligence Federation. The Crarrman. What is that, please? Mr. Lroyn. I think it is an Americanization society that gives particular attention to the questions of the foreign groups, divided allegiance of certain groups, and perhaps revolutionary radicals in certain others, Senator Reep. Do you know Mr. J ung? Mr. Lroxp. I have met him; I do not know him well. Senator Reep. What is his ancestry ¢ Mr. Lroyp. He is of German ancestry. Senator Resp. When did his ancestors immigrate to this country ? Mr. Lroyp. I understand they came in 1848, or thereabouts; about that period. Then there is a communication from Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis felt that in his testimony he was trying to bring out certain relations of facts and figures, and that with the questions and interruptions perhaps he did not hold his train of thought entirely, and so he wrote out a short supplementary statement, which I will file. It is too long to read; it is about three pages in length. The Crarman. You want it inserted in the record? Mr. Lyon. Yes; I would like permission to add it to his statement, The CuarmaN. Very well; it is so ordered. (The supplementary statement of Mr. Lloyd, referred to, will be found at the end of his original oral statement.) Mr. Lroyp. Mr. Steele, will you address the committee supplemental to vour recent teleeram ? HARRY A. JUNG. STATEMENT OF FRANX B. STEELE, SECRETARY GENERAL SONS OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1227 SIXTEENTH STREET, WASH-INGTON, D. C.—Resumed Mr. Steere. Mr. Chairman, at the last Congress of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution Justice Josiah Van Oradel made the following report: Your committee after investigation regards the national origing law ag the key to the solution of the immigration question, and recommends that the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution by adoption of this repoyt places itself on record as strongly supporting this law. It has praetically the unanimous support of all of the patriotic organizations in this country, and we believe oyr society should no longer hesitate to take a firm. stand in this matter. This report was unanimously adopted. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 113 The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution has more than 20,000 members, from every State in the Union, and among its members are the President of the United States, the Vice President, the President elect, and five Cabinet officers, together with many Senators and Representatives, and also men who are active in the business, political, and social life of the Nation. Nor is the membership confined to men of high position and wealth, for there are many thousands who are in the every-day walks of life. This society was organized some 40 years ago to perpetuate the memory of those men who took part in the Revolutionary War, and later it was chartered by the Congress of the United States. At the time of its organization the emphasis was placed upon the marking of historic spots, the research of historical data, the preservation of historical data, and the celebration of the anniversaries of prominent men and events of the Revolution. But some score of years ago many thinking men of this society felt that there was a much more definite and important matter to be considered. It was apparent that the vast hordes of foreigners who were crowding into this country from nearly all parts of the world were having a far-reaching and marked effect on the principles and ideals that originated and promulgated at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It was felt that these principles were sound and lasting and that the men who brought them into being must have had a wonderful inspiration and a deep knowledge of what a lasting government should be, not for a hundred vears or so out for a thousand if adhered to. It became apparent to our organization that certain elements that were coming into this country from foreign counties, with their traditions of a thousand years deeply inbedded in their races, traditions of a vastly different kind than that of our Government and not in harmony with the principles of the forefathers, and that gradually by methods, political and otherwise, they were making deep inroads into-our constitution and the revered traditions of the great men of the end of the eighteenth century. There was nothing unaatural in this, but it was a fact to be recognized and met, and the members of our society felt that the descendants of these men who framed the Constitution should have the right to protest and work against this dangerous situation and find some wav, if possible. to remedy the condition. First, a far-reaching work was done in educating the immigrant who was already here but is seemed that this was not the root of the matter but that it was necessary to go to the source of the trouble and restrict immigration, and when the bill for this restriction was before Congress in 1924 our officers worked in close harmony with the committee in Congress to assist in enacting the present law, and it was felt that a great stride had been made toward a partial solution of the problem. At the time, I will say frankly that members of our committee were not absolutely convinced on the question of the national origins clause, but they have studied it carefully and thoughtfully and now have reached the conclusion that this is the best possible way to carry out the immigration quotas. Our National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution feel that as the oldest patriotic organization but one in this country; that 114 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW as descendants of the men who made this country possible; that we have the right and privilege of advocating a method of admitting immigrants to this land of ours that seems to be based on all the origins of the men and women who have lived in the country since its inception and in the last analysis this is the only way to compute and allot the quotas for the many countries who are seeking to have their people enter this land of promise, wealth, and freedom. Senator Reep. Thank you, Mr. Steele. The CaaremaN. Who next? Mr. Lroyp. I want to add that Gen. John H. Sherburne, of the American Legion, has sent word that he wished to be recorded as being in favor of the national origing going into effect. and is therefore opposed to the Nye resolution. I would like to ask Mr. Sam Mathewson of New York to address the committee on the subject, to which he has given great study. The Crairman. Mr. Mathewson, will you state, please, your name, residence. and occupation. in order that it may be of record? STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. MATHEWSON, UNIVERSITY CLUB, NEW YORK CITY Mr. Marurwson. My name is Samuel A. Mathewson, University Club, 1 West Fifty-fourth Street, New York City. The Cuamman. Your occupation, if you please, sir. Mr. Maraewson. I am a lawyer but am not practicing at the present time. I am about to undergo an operation in a couple of days, nothing serious, but I am not doing anything now. Senator Coreranp. This will be good training for you now. Mr. MaraEwsoN. Yes; I have no doubt. The Cuamrman. A lawyer by profession? Mr. MaraewsoN. Yes, sir. In taking up Mr. Michael J. O’'Brien’s A Hidden Phase of American History, I say this is a very entertaining and interesting book, and the author seems to be very much taken up and absorbed in his subject and very enthusiastic about it. I'he main thing that occurred to me, however, in reading it over was the fact that the author is apparently too enthusiastic about his subject. } His title is “ Historiographer, American-Irish Historical Society,” and anybody reading the book, I think, will be compelled to admit that he exhibits a deep-seated antagonism toward the English. T am not—— The Cuamman. What did you say the name of the author was? Mr. MaraewsoN. Michael J. O’Brien. The Cuarrman. And you suggest he had antipathy to the English? Laughter. ] } Mr. Marurwso~. It is evident that he has; yes. I am not going into the question of the justification of that antagonism, but I think it can be safely said that such an attitude of mind invariably colors a man’s judgment. Now, Mr. O’Brien attempts to show that the number of Irish in the United States in 1790 were far in excess of those as given in the figures based upon the census of 1790, but he does not give any direct statement as to the number of people of south Irish origin whom he believes were in the countrv in 1790. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 115 Senator Coreraxp. He does emphasize the number in the Revolu-Honary War, does he not; in the Army Mr. MaruEwsoN. Yes; he speaks about the number that he claims were in the American Army in the Revolution; and in so doing he lays great emphasis upon the muster rolls of the Revolutionary Army. In connection with that, he says, page 134 [reading]: “IT have not examined all of the muster rolls, but have selected a number indiscriminately from each of the original 13 colonies. On the basis before explained, I have made a careful calculation, (1) by counting the total number of soldiers in each unit, and (2) by a separate count of those of undoubted Irish birth or descent.” Mr. O’Brien, of course, did not examine all the muster rolls; if he had tried to have done so, it would have been a prohibitive task, just from a physical standpoint; it would have taken too long. But he arrived at his conclusions, if you call them conclusions, since he vives no estimates of the Irish here in 1790, by comparing the numbers he claims that he finds in the muster rolls that he says were of Irish origin with the number given in the census of 1790, and finds and compares all those with the names in the muster rolls of 1890, showing, he claims, so many more in the muster rolls, and therefore there must have been more in the country of Irish blood than show in the 1790 census. Senator Coreraxp. He takes some specific names to illustrate how they do appear in the census compared with on the muster rolls. Mr. Marmrewson. Some of them appear in the census, but not as many, according to his statement, as should be in the census. since there are so many in the muster rolls. Now, these muster rolls—I stated my conclusions in the beginning, rather than my reasons—are very plainly unreliable data upon which to hase any conclusion. The muster rolls are composed of various data, not only including the rolls themselves but the data taken from the pay rolls, bounty warrants, and what not. And TI think that possibly most people have a pretty good idea about the number of times that the names of the same individual occurs in the muster rolls, not as regards the times it is represented in the muster rolls but that the muster rolls contain countless revetitions of the same names. The reasons for those repetitions are very apparent, after even a few hours looking over the rolls. In the first place, a man would anlist on an alarm. He would march off to some place on the coast. The alarm was found to be a false alarm, or would be over in a short time, and we would be marched back again and go home. Then he would be enlisted on another alarm. The same thing would happen. The countless ways of spelling the same name. So a man could ve listed under two names, which to a modern view of the subject are totally different, yet exactly the same name. Men used to desert from the Army in large numbers, and by desertion I do not mean that a man would leave the American Army and go over and join the British Army; but he would find that his crops needed taking in, or that his family needed attention; and he would just leave the Army and go home. Then he would come back, join the Army again; and that was taking place all the time. 116 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW In the case of the two services, the Navy and the Army, the simplicity of warfare in those days enabled a man to be a seaman or sailor one day and a soldier the next day. } These facts are well recognized, and I should like to read from the introduction, or, rather, the preface, of Volume 1 of Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, which is a “ compilation of the records of the Massachusetts soldiers and sailors who served in the Army and Navy during the Revolutionary War, as shown in the archives in the office of the secretary,” and is stated : “ * * In crediting service to any given individual, no attempt has been made to force identification where a person of similar name has been found upon the rolls as serving at a distant and separate interval of time, in a different command, and without any place of residence stated * * * many of the rolls furnish no proof whatever as to residence of the men borne upon them * * * The principle was adopted of bringing together scattered records of service and crediting them to one individual where identification was proven by place of residence, by continuous service, or by service in the same command at not too widely separated intervals, when it might be fairly presumed that the proofs of continuous service had failed of preservation and were only lacking from the State's collection. All records that failed to meet these tests are simply printed as they are found, and must stand as wunidentifed, * * = Now, here is another statement from the Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War: As the same name may appear under various forms, each carrying some portion of a record of service, it is necessary in order to obtain the complete record, as far as preserved, of any given individual, to examine all the forms under which a name is stated to appear in the record index * By way of illustration I will cite a few of these various ways of spelling the same name: Casady, Casaday, Casedy, Casety, Casity, Cassaday, Cassadey. Cassady, Cassiday, and so forth. Donahue, Donahew, Donehue, Donnahu, Donnohew, Donogho, Donohew, Dunahew, Dunehu, Dunnahew, 10 ways of spelling Donahue; numberless ways of spelling Farrel, numberless ways of spelling Ryan, and countless ways of spelling Sullivan; countless ways of spelling Murphey, Mahoney, Malone, and Maloney. So it is name after name. I examined about 20 out of 28 names which Mr. O’Brien listed and which he referred to in this way. He gave in one column the surname, in another column a number of times that he said that name appeared on the Revolutionary muster rolls, and then in another column the number of times it occurred in the census of 1790 in order to show the disparity between the two. I only took 20 out of those 28 names for comparison, because after that 8 of the 28 names there are so many different ways of spelling them that it was practically impossible to judge just how far to go or when to stop. But I took 20 of them, and out of those 20 names I listed what were in all practical certainty 127 duplications. Out of those 425 total number of persons that he claims those represented I found 147 duplications. Now, as a matter of fact, in my opinion it is not at all improbable that instead of 147 there would be 247 duplications, because I was very caretul to take only those particular names which were palpably duplications. As a matter of fact, the burden of proof ought to be upon the person who maintains that two similar names in the Revolutionary NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 117 War muster rolls are not duplications; the burden of proof ought to be on him, and the reason I came to that conclusion is this: The Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, which is a work embodying names of every individual from Massachusetts who fought in the Army forces of the Revolution, on land or sea, which they have been able to get data on, is a work embodying 17 volumes, with pages totaling in number 16,180. Now, I glanced through many of these names, and the minimum average is about 10 names to the page. That would mean a total number of names listed in this work of 161,800, who would be, if you took all the names there, without allowing for duplications, the number who were in the Army forces of Massachusetts from 1775 to 1783. Senator CoprLanp. What was the probable number? Mr. MaraewsoN. Well, as I understand it, if one-tenth of the population is in the army forces of a country it is an exceptionally high percentage. In bringing that point out—the population of Massachusetts was estimated for 1780—— Senator Resp. 17804 Mr. Mataewson. For 1780 was 307,000. If you take 161,800 as the number of soldiers in the Revolutionary Army from Massachusetts, it would mean that considerably more than one-half of the population was in the Revolutionary Army, which is, of course, an absurdity—1t could not be; that is all. ~ There are no authentic figures showing exactly the number of men mn the Revolutionary Army. It varied so from time to time, or any exact data or information showing how many come from each State. But taking your 310,000, and taking 10 per cent of that, you would have, say, 30,000, which would be a high figure for those who come from Massachusetts—from the Massachusetts descendants of the Revolutionary War. You can judge from this to what extent there must be duplications in the muster rolls, and yet these furnish, I might say, the chief support up which Mr. O’Brien relies in his statement concerning the number of southern Irish in the United States in the Army of 1790. I will just read to you a few of the records of certain men of whom [ found duplications of names. Senator Reep. Would you forgive an interruption. sir? Mr. MATHEWSON. Yes, sir. Senator Reep. I see that you have all these prepare in the form of a statement. I am wondering if, in order to save your time and the committee’s, it might be as well to embody the entire statement in the record, instead of picking out fragments of it. It would be more helpful to us. Mr. MarsEwsON. I see. Well, I have made several notations for convenience ; and then I will put my memorandum in the record. Senator Reep. Thank you very much. Mr. MarnewsoN. And then I understand, Senator, you would like fo me to read the records of the different men. I only have a few ere. Senator Reep. If they are going to go into the record as part of your statement. Mr. Maraewson. Then, I will just read one as an example. Senator Rrrp. All richt. 118 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mr. MatarwsoN. Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, volume 5, page 186: Casey, James; Boston. Return of men enlisted into Continental Army from Capt. Samuel Ward's and Cap. Thomas Nash's Company's dated Weymouth, January 2, 1778, enlisted for town of Weymouth ; joined Capt. John Langdon’s Company, Col. Henry Jackson's Regiment; enlistment, three years (also given during war) ; reported a foreigner; also, list of men mustered in Suffolk County by Nathaniel Barber, muster master, dated Boston, August 17, 1777; also private, Col. Henry Jackson's Regiment ; enlisted August 12, 1777; reported ‘“ deserted and never joined.” That is one record. Senator Reep. How many times did James Casey appear? Mr. Maraewson. Well, I have listed James Casey four times here, the ones which are duplication, sir, without question. James Casey was listed in other forms of the same name. and so often it would be quite a job to keep up with him. And then James Casey, Petersham. Return of men mustered by Thomas Newhal, muster master for Worcester County, indorsed July —, 1777; Captain Blanchard’s Company, Colonel Wessons’s Regiment ; mustered June 27, 1777; enlistment, eight months. Another James Casey, private, Capt. Thomas Will’s company, Col. David Morgan's (Eleventh Virginia) Regiment, given © Eleventh and Fifteenth Regiment of foot in ‘the service of the United States”; pay roll for October, 1778. Then James Casey, Matross, Capt. John Doughty’s company, Col, John Lamb’s (Second Artillery) Regiment; muster rolls of February, April, 1781, dated West Point; enlistment, during war. Now, there are countless other names I could read, but will not bother to do so, because the memorandum is going into the record. That is just given as an illustration of the way these names are duplicated, and that is only duplicated comparatively few times compared with other duplications. I do not want to take up the committee’s time with needless repetition. Senator Ree. We have a number of other witnesses, as you know. Mr. MaraewsoN. So I will just close with the statement that I can not see how it is possible for anybody to take the muster rolls seriously as a means of information, for arriving at the number of people in the country as of 1790, whether they be English, Irish, German, Scotch, or French origin. Senator CorrrLaxp. Just one moment. It is frequently stated by the friends of the Irish that they fought the war for us.” Have you gone far enough in your searches to determine or to reach the conclusion as to the proportion of the soldiers in the American Army who were Irish? Mr. MaTuewsoN. No; I have not gone into that subject. I noted the statement which Mr. O’Brien made. Senator Coperanp. I tried to find it. I could not locate it in the brief reference. Mr. Maraewson. His statement is to the effect that 38 per cent of the forces of the Revolutionary Army were composed of Irish, and in support of that statement he quotes testimony given by a man named Galloway, who was a speaker of the Assembly of Pennsylvania, who was a Tory; and his testimony was given in London ye NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION Law 119 fore a joint committee of the lords and commons on the conduct of the war. Senator Coperaxp, Particularly in reference to Saratoga? Mr. MaraewsoN. No—it may have been; but the part which is pertinent to the question as to the number of Irish in the Revolutionary Army was brought out as the result of an inquiry in regard to the number of Irish in the Revolutionary Army by one of the members of the committee, and he made his statement, which was based upon a number of deserters whom he had interviewed, who came to him, I believe, during the winter at Valley Forge; and, according to his statement, one-half of the deserters who came from the Revolutionary Army at Valley Forge to the British camp were Irish. From that Mr. O’Brien in his subsequent statement says that, of course, that is not conclusive, and says that the muster rolls, however, actually support his conclusions. Senator CoreLanp. That is, the conclusion that a very large percentage of the soldiers were Irish? Mr. MataEwson. So Mr. (’Brien contends; yes. Senator CopeLAND. I was speading of Mr. O’Brien’s conclusions. Mr. Maraewson. Well, he bases his conclusion on Mr. Galloway's conclusions. Mr. Galloway’s conclusions are based upon the percentage of Irishmen who came into the British Army in the winter at Valley Forge, and who were deserting from the American Army. Senator Coperanp. If two-thirds of the men at Valley Forge were [rish, I presume a large proportion of those who deserted would be frish? Mr. Maraewsox. I do not know of any contention that states twothirds of the soldiers in the American Army at Valley Forge were Irish. Even Mr. O’Brien in his statement only claims 88 per cent. Senator Rerp. Ireland furnished 38 per cent of the troops and 50 per cent of the deserters; is that what the figures show? Mr. Maraewson. I do not wish to draw any unpleasant or unfair conclusions in regard to the number of deserters; but the fact remains that Galloway stated that he was the officer to whom the deserters were sent after they had been sent to headquarters, and I suppose he questioned them. He, in turn, sent them to the officer who swore them into the British allegiance; and he says that 50 per cent of those who came to him at that particular time—I do not wish to imply that was the general percentage, by any manner of means—happened to be of Irish descent; and from that he bases his conclusions, because he is asked by a member of the committee in so many words, “ Do you base your conclusion upon the percentage of deserters that were ncluded 1n those who came to see you? ” And he said. “T do.” Senator Rep. I think we understand that. Senator CoreLanp. Have you made any study of the Tories to determine how many of them were English in opposition to the war? Very few of the Tories were Irish. Am I right in that? } Mr. MaraewsoN. I do not know the percentage of Tories in the population; I have not made a study of that. The Cuamrman. Is that all, Mr. Mathewson ? Mr. MaraewsoN. That is all. (The statement submitted by Mr. Mathewson 1s as follows?) 120 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW MEMORANDUM By SAM A, MATHEWSON With reference to the contention stated in A Hidden Phase of American History, by Michael J. O’Brien, that the Irish in America at the time of the Revolytion far exceeded the number indicated by the surnames listed in the census of 1790, and that such census and the Colonial Irish stock estimates based upon it, as contained in A Century of Population Growth, are correspondingly inaccurate One of the chief bases by which Mr. O’Brien supports his conclusions regarding the number of people of Irish origin in the United States during the Revolution and 1790 is the number of Irish names appearing in the Revolu-Jdonary War muster rolls. Giving his computations of the number of times certain Irish names appear on such muster rolls and in the census of 1790, he presents ag his conclusion that because the muster-roll figures are much larger than the census figures the latter are correspondingly inaccurate. However, in relying upon the muster-roll figures as the basis of comparison Mr. O’Brien is using data plainly unreliable. In the preface of volume 1 of Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War (a compilation of the records of the Massachusetts soldiers and sailors who served in the Army and Navy during the Revolutionary War, as shown in the archives in the office of the secretary, Massachusetts) it is stated : “% « * Tn crediting service to any given individual no attempt has been made to force identification where a person of similar name has been found upon the rolls ag serving at a distant and separate interval of time, in a different command, and without any place of residence stated. * * Many of the rolls furnish no proof whatever as to residence of the men borne upon them. * * * The principle was adopted of bringing together scattered records of service and crediting them to one individual where identification was proven by place of residence, by continuous service, or by service in the same command at not too widely separated intervals, when it might be fairly presumed that the proofs of continuous service had failed of preservation and were only lacking from the State’s collection, All records that failed to meet these tests are simply printed as they are found, and must stand ag unidentified. * * * The above-mentioned publication, Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, embodies 17 volumes with pages totaling in number 16.180. Taking a minimum average of 10 names to the page, the total number of names listed is 161,800. According to the census of 1790 the total white population of Massachusetts at that time was 373,187. Subtracting 20 per cent from the 1780 figures, the mean of the total white population during the Revolutionary War could not have been more than 298,567. Thus if the muster-roll figures were to be aceepted without correction they would indicate that more than onehalf of the population of Massachusetts was in the Revolutionary forces. Since it is a recognized fact that the fighting element in a community seldom exceeds one-tenth of the entire population, and that one-fifth is an extraordinarily high proportion, it is easy to see to what extent duplications must exist in the Revolutionary muster rolls. On pages 120 to 121 of A Hidden Phase of American History some of the difficulties above enumerated are apparently recognized, and yet it would seem ‘hat in the case of the muster rolls anyway these difficulties have not heen solved. Since Massachusetts is the only State which has alphabetically arranged its Revolutionary War records the muster rolls of that State are the only ones adapted to an immediate comparison with the figures given by Mr. (Brien. The names of Revolutionary soldiers and sailors in other States are for the most part listed in rosters by companies and regiments, thus entailing an endless task in running down any particular name or names. Reference should be made to the variations in spelling of the same name which. of course, is one of the causes of duplication. In the introductory note to each volume of Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War it is stated: fx % ok Ag the same name may appear under various forms, each carrying some portion of a record of service, it is necessary in order to obtain the complete record, as far as preserved, of anv given individual, to examine all the forms under which a name is stated to appear in the record index * % * NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 121 By way of iliustration the following forms of the same name are herewith given: . Casady, Casaday, Casedy, Casety, Casity, Cassaday, Cassadey, Cassady, Cassiday, ete. Donahue, Donahew, Donehue, Donnahu, Donnohew, Donogho, Donohew, Dunahew, Dunehu, Dunnahew. Farrall, Farrel, Farril, Farrill, Ferrall, Ferrill, etc. Ryant, Rion, Rine, Ryne, Royn, Ruyan, Ryon, ete. Sulaven, Sulevan, Suleven, Sulivan, Sulliven, Sullavan, Sallaven, Sullervan, Sullevan, Sulleven, Sulliven, Sullovan, Sulloven, Sulliven, Sullovan, Sulloven, Sullovin, ete. There are countless ways of spelling Murphy, Mahoney, Malone, and Maloney. Jo it iz with name after name, It should be noted, therefore, that a decision to accept or reject one or more of the variations of even a few names could alone make a difference of thousands one way or the other in computing the number of times certain names occur in the Revolutionary War muster rolls. Another chief cause of duplication of the same name lay in frequent shortterm enlistments, which in many cases were a few days only. Among other tabulations in A Hidden Phase of American History Mr. O'Brien lists. pages 380-381, certain Irish names, and compares the number of such aames found in the muster rolls with a number in the 1790 census. Of 28 Massachusetts names so listed a careful investigation of the muster-roll records show, in the case of 20 names, 147 duplications. as follows: Number 1 revolu-Lionary | muster rolls according | a O’Brien Number if duplicaion of armnes in revolulonary nuster rolls Number n revolutionary muster rolls according 0 O’Brien Number of duplications of names in revolutionary muster rolls surname Surname O51: SI, DRURIAY crore for odin Javanagh-.__..__.._._] rowley... LITT Yonohue. .... ooo... jonovan. _ JR oye el DV e221 FEN IWPOL mmm ema PATEL cpm wim isin SMtzpatrick oo cee ee lynn. ee eating. __ .__..__.._.... BATT emma AeCaffrey o_o ooeeaans AeCormick. «ooo ooo AONABAA. nian min FUONcovenvsmomm, RY ciumns imeem ‘ullivan____. ae 1 1 29 78 31 22 147 The above calculations are very conservative. An estimate of 200 duplica-‘ions or more is a far more likely figure. The checking up of the other eight names in this particular group cited by Mr. O'Brien, is impossible, due to the large number of variations in spelling of such names, since Mr. O'Brien does not give any clue as to what forms of the same name he adopted in hig tabulations. A few examples of the duplications of the 20 names above cited as shown in Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War. follow. VoruMme IIL 186 Casey, James: Boston. Return of men enlisted into Continental Army from Capt. Samuel Ward's and Capt. Thomas Nash's Companies, dated Weymouth, January 2, 1778, enlisted for town of ‘Weymouth; joined Capt. John Langdon’s Company, Col. Henry Jackson's Regiment; enlistment, 3 years (also given dur-{ng war) ; reported a foreigner; also, list of men mustered in Suffolk County by Nathaniel Barber, muster master, dated Boston, August 17, 1777; also private, Col. Henry Jackson's Regiment: enlisted August 12. 1777: reported ‘ deserted and never joined.” Casey, James: Petersham. Return of men mustered by Thomas Newhal, muster master for Worcester County, indorsed July —, 1777; Captain Blanchard’s Company, Colonel Wesson's Regiment: mustered June 27, 1777: enlistment. 8 months. 122 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Casey, James: Private, Capt. Thomas Will's Company, Col. David Morgan's (Eleventh Virginia) Regiment, given “ Eleventh and Fifteenth Regiment of foot in the service of the United States”; pay roll for October, 1778. Casey, James: Matross. Capt. John Doughty’s Company, Col. John Lamb's (Second Artillery) Regiment; muster rolls for February, April, 1781, dated West Point; enlistment, during war, The above four Caseys are doubtless one and the same Casey. Similarly the following are doubtless one Crowley and one Doyle, respecively. YoruMme IV, 193 Crowley, Abraham: Mansfield. Private, Capt. John Allen's Company, Col. Thomas Carpenter's Regiment; entered service July 27, 1780; discharged July 30, 1780. Service 6 days, travel included, at Rhode Island on an alarm; regiment detached from Bristol County Militia to serve for 6 days. Roll dated Norton, March 3, 1781. Crowley, Abraham. Private, Lieut. Ephraim Grover’s Company, Col. Isaac Dean’s (Fourth Bristol County) Regiment; enlisted August 1, 1780; discharged August 7, 1780; service 9 days, on the alarm at Rhode Island of August 1. 1780. Roll sworn to at Attleborough. Crowley, Abraham. Private, Capt. Alexander Foster's Company, Col. Isaac Dean’s Regiment; march to Tiverton, R. I, August 4, 1780, on an alarm; discharged August 8, 1780; service 7 days, travel included. Roll sworn to at Attleborough. ] Crowley, Abraham. Private, Capt. Josiah Keith's Company, Col. Isaac Dean’s (Bristol County) Regiment; enlisted March 4, 1781; discharged March 16, 1781; service 13 days at Rhode Island. Yoruoume IV. 942 Doyle, William: Boston. Private, Captain Page’s Company, Col. Benjamin Tupper’'s (Tenth) Regiment; Continental Army pay accounts for service from March 14, 1777, to December 31, 1779, residence, Boston; credited to town of Roxbury; reported transferred to invalid corps, October 5, 1777. Doyle, William: Boston. Descriptive list of men; Capt. John Lillie’s Company, Col. John Crane's (Third Artillery) Regiment; age 31 years; stature, 5 feet 6 inches; complexion, fair; residence, Boston; enlisted for town of Bogton ; rank, sergeant; enlisted in 1780 by Captain Lillie; enlistment during war; reported transferred to Springfield laboratory, July 8 (year not given ). Doyle, William : Marblehead. Descriptive list of men raised in Essex County for the term of 9 months from the time of their arrival al Fishkill, returned as mustered by Henry Rutgers, jr., deputy muster master, at Fishkill, August 1, 1778; residence, Marblehead; arrived at Fishkill June 29, 1778: reported rejected by muster master general as unfit for service. Doyle, William. Private, Capt. Simson Brown's Company, Col. Jacob Gerrish’s Regiment of Guards; service between April 2, 1778, and July 3. 1778: 2 months 25 days. Roll dated camp at Winter Hill. Doyle, William. Descriptive list of men detached from the Boston regiment to serve in the Continental Army for the term of 9 months from time of arrival at place of rendezvous, returned as received of Maj. Stephen Badlam, at Anthony Burk, at Roxbury, June 3, 1779, to be delivered to Justin Ely, commissioner at Springfield, detached from Captain Newell's Company, age 24 years; stature, 5 feet 4 inches; complexion, fair and pitted; hair short and red: eyes, blue; engaged for town of Boston; reported delivered to Captain Marshall; also descriptive list of men returned as received of Maj. Stephen Badlam, superintendent for Suffolk County, by Justin Ely (commissioner) at Springfield, July 9, 1779: reported discharged by order of Doctor Pynchon. being ruptured. VOLUME XIII, 715 Ryan, John, Boston. List of men raised to serve in the Continental Army from Capt. Nathan Alden’s (Ninth) Company, Colonel Mitchell’s Regiment engaged from town of Bridgewater; joined Captain Allen‘s Company: Colonel Bailey's Regiment, term three years or during war; reported as belonging to. Nova Scotia ; also, private (late) Capt. Jacob Allen’s Company, Col. John Bailey’s (Second) Regiment; company return dated Camp Valley Forge, January 24. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 123 1778 ; enlisted May 15, 1777; reported a transient; also reported deserted June 7, L777 ; also, list of deserters from Colonel Bailey's (Second) Regiment subsequent fo January 1, 1777; as returned by Ezra Badlam, lieutenant colonel comnandant ; residence Boston, enlistment, three years; deserted June 7, 1777. Ryan, John, Boston. List of men raised to serve in the Continental Army ‘year not given) ; residence, Boston; engaged for town of Malden. Ryan, John, Marblehead. Sergeant, Capt. Micajal Gleason's Company, Col. John Nixon's (¥ifth) Regiment; muster roll dated August 1, 1775; engaged April 23, 1775; service three months, 16 days; also private; company return lated September 30, 1775; reported as having gone to Quebec; also, order for younty coat or its equivalent in money dated December 22, 1775. Ryan, John, Marblehead. Capt. Samuel Page's Company, Col. Ebenezer Francis’s Regiment subsistence allowed from date of enlistment, March 13, 1777, to date of marching to Bennington, April 8, 1777; credited with 39 days subsistence, including allowance for 240 miles travel on March to Bennington; also, orivate, Capt. Samuel Page’s Company, Col. Benjamin Tupper’s Regiment; return date January 25, 1778; residence, Marblehead; enlisted for town of Marblehead; mustered by Esquire Cushing, county muster master; reported deserted. Ryan, John, private, Capt. Caleb Turner's Company ; entered service March 26, 1776; service to September 10, 1776, five months 15 days in defense of sea coast; rolls dated Bristol; also, same company service from Sepetmber 10, 1776, to December 7, 1776, two months 27 days, company stationed at Boothbay. Ryan, John. List of men mustered by Nathaniel Barber, muster master for Suffolk County, dated Boston, March 2, 1777; Captain Child’s Company, Colonel Wesson’s Regiment. Ryan, John. Return of men raised to serve in the Continental Army from Capt. Oliver Clap’s Company, Col. Benjamin Haw’s (Fourth Suffolk County) Regiment; dated Walpole, February 17, 1778; engaged for town of Walpole, joined Captain Wyley’s Company, Colonel Jackson's Regiment (also given Captain Westen’s Company, Colonel Greaton’s Regiment) ; term, three years, Ryan, John. List of men raised to serve in the Continental Army (year not ziven) ; engaged for town of Waltham. The above eight names probably represent at most only three Ryans; and the four Sullivans below listed, only one. VOLUME XV, 246-247 Sullivan, James, Boston. Matross, Capt. Joseph Balch’s (Third) Company, Col. Thomas Craft’s (Artillery) Regiment; enlisted May 17, 1776; four days preceding March ; service to November 1, 1776, five months 20 days. Sulliivan, James, Framingham. List of deserters from Thirteenth Massachusetts Regiment. Commanded by Lieut. Col. Calvin Smith, indorsed “July 13, 1780”; Major's Company: rank, private: birthplace, Framingham: deserted April 1, 1778. Sullivan, James. Private, Capt. Samuel Flower’s Company, Col. John Greaton’s (Second) Regiment; muster roll for January—August, 1777, dated Van Schaick’s Island and sworn to in camp at or near Stillwater; enlisted January 2, 1777 ; enlistment, during war ; reported deserted January 3, 1777. Sullivan, James. List of men raised by the town of Newburg to serve in the Continental Army, agreeable to reserve of April 20, 1778. A listing of the records of the names Ryan an dSullivan showing at least 81 duplications of the former, and 22 duplications of the latter name would alone require a very large number of pages. } But Massachusetts is not alone in findnig it impossible to identify separate records as referring to the same individual as shown by the introductory ‘note to Pennsylvania in the Revolution. 1775-1783: rolvime 1 * It is difficult to distinguish between those (records) of the line, the association, rangers, or militia and many of them, no doubt, appear in the rolls already published: vet it has been deemed proper to print this list as it qh ®t be 124 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW At a time when warfare was simple, as compared to its present complications, any able-bodied man who owned a musket could be enrolled in the local militia. Enlistments for a temporary emergency—e. g., an “alarm” often lasted for a few days only until another emergency resulted in another enlistment. Misspelling of names by recruiting officers, when there was no systematic keeping of records, adds to the confusion. Discipline in any real sense was practically nonexistent. Technical desertion from the service mercly and not to the enemy was not considered g grave offense, and was going on ali the time. Most of those who so deserted from one colpany later enlisted in the militia of nearby townships, and would later desert again and then reenlist, how many under different names it is impossible to say. The Revolutionary War muster rolls present, therefore, insurmountable difficulties, as far as their use is concerned, as a premise for basing any conclusion such as that drawn by Mr. O’Brien. This memorandum does not take up Mr. O’Brien’s work in its other phases, but in so far as A Hidden Phase of American History attempts by use of the Revolutionary War muster rolls to prove its point regarding the number of irish in this country at that time and in 1790 it is ineffectual. Mr. Trevor. This referred, Senator, to the statistics which were before Congress when the 1924 act was in preparation, and it also refers to the fact that I am supposed to be a person who turned in a lot of stuff to the notorious Lusk Committee. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that I was appointed special deputy to the attorney general of the State of New York, and that I was requested by Senator Lusk to secure my discharge from the Army as early as possible in order to assist the joint legislative committee of the State of New York to organize a bureau to investigate radical and subversive movements within the State, which subsequently conducted an investigation of the radical situation in our State. I resigned that position after getting the work organized, and the committee subsequently published some voluminous documents, in which the Senator can find my name. Senator Reep. You are the John B. Trevor who supplied statistics which were used by the Senate and House in 1924 when the national origins was adopted, were you not? Mr. Trevor. Yes, sir; unquestionably so. I gave them to Senator Lodge and to you after the introduction of your resolution in the Senate. Senator Reep. I notice that the article states that the statistics for this system are being supplied by John B. Trevor, referred to above. so that evidently the article means you? Mr. Trevor. Without a question. i Senator Reep. It also states here immediately after the reference to you that Secretary Davis is also of British birth, implying that you are, and that you say is untrue? Mr. Trevor. Absolutely untrue and demonstrably untrue. STATEMENT OF MRS. SHERMAN WALKER, VICE PRESIDENT GEN. ERAL DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; ALSO CHATRMAN NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL, SOCIETY. WASHINGTON. D. C. Mrs. Warker. My name is Mrs. William Sherman Walker; vice president general of the Daughters of the American Revolution; also chairman of the national-defense committee, representing an organization of 167,000 active members, comprising over 2,300 chapters in every section of the United States NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 125 Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Immigration Commitiee, I want to express the opposition of my erganization to the Nye resolution, Senate 192. Our society has, In the course of its work for national defense against enemies from within as well as without this country, given a great deal of thought to the question of immigration restriction. And I am requested to speak also at this point in behalf of the national chairman of legislation for our society, who is in the room—Mrs. Edwin Gregory, daughter of Senator Overman. She has worked valiantly for the national-origins provision and through her efforts to disseminate accurate information has been rery effective and valuable, Place in any show window an opal mounted in permanent setling and it attracts very little attention. Put a floating opal in the same window and it draws a crowd. The opal in permanent setting may have all the characteristics of a precious gem—size, brilliancy, genuine inherent value—and yet it is unnoticed. In contrast examine the floating opal and you will find only tiny paricles of the real gem, but these keep in ‘constant motion by floating about in glycerine. Native-born Americans, like the mounted opal, have permanent setting, but they create little stir in the consideration of a question like the one before us for a hearing to-day. But let the people, who at best represent only small fractions of genuine Americanism, float about in the glycerine of internationalism, and they get immediate public notice. In the future who will guard the American principles as set forth I the Declaration of Independence? Will they be cherished by the ‘oreign-born as they have been by native born ? The Constitution of the United States was framed by an assembly of scholarly, conscientious patriots who had equipped themselves for their responsibilities by examining the principles of governments of ancient times. They were also accurately familiar with the objectives of all contemporary governments. "Through generations this Constitution has provided liberty and security for the people of this rountry. The CraRMAN. Pardon me a moment. I observe you are reading your address. Would it do as well to insert it in the record, and it would be an accommodation to the committee because of the limitations upon our time? Mrs. Warxer. I have some exhibits to introduce which are not in the manuscript. The Crammax. You may introduce them as well. Mrs. Warker. It will only take about five minutes. Tt is not as tong as it looks, Mr. Chairman. The CumarmaN. Very well, is, Warker. Who will guard its precepts in the generations to come ? The Pilgrim fathers and mothers, immediately after their coming, set up homes and founded churches. From decade to decade their descendants pushed farther westward over unblazed trails, at first home seekers. Storms,. mountains, swollen rivers, icy blasts, deserts, intracked forests, had no terrors for those who had the love of America in their hearts. From such patriotic ancestors we are de-EQQE 90.0 126 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW scended. From such founders and patriots we have inherited a system of government, deserving perpetuation through time. | May I call the attention of this committee to resolutions wifich have been passed by the legislative body of the National Society, of the Daughters of the American Revolution, namely, Continental Congress. At each annual congress of this society delegates assemble from every State in the Union representing, as far as it is possible for them to do so, an index of the feeling of the chapter members in every community. Such delegates are authorized by their chapters to vote the expression of their local communities. In this way Continental Congress registers a national thought in somewhat the same manner as the selected representatives of the people in Congress do in representing their constituencies. I should like to bring to your attention here the fact that since 1923 we have been on record in very strong language for restricted immigration and more lately, 1927-28, for the national-origins provisions. The D. A. R. has existed for nearly four decades without changing its name or moving its headquarters from place to place. Its members must qualify as descendants from patriots who defended the country during the Revolutionary War. They not only have a visible interest in preserving American institutions, but they want the people of this country to remain American in character and action. May I briefly state a few reason why members of the D. A. R. as individuals uphold the national-origins plan and desire to have it put into effect as soon as possible? oo We regard delay as unnecessary, because we feel that criticism of national origins is not well founded. To judge whether or not national-origins figures are accurate within the requirement of the law, one must qualify as an expert in statistics, and in this realm we have supreme confidence in Doctor Hill, who, in his testimonies before House and Senate Immigration Committees, has convinced us that national origins is by far the most fair of any method suggested for the division of quotas. As it is, the 1924 law is now being obstructed—nullified. As loyal and ardent restrictionists that state of affairs is not satisfactory to us. Senator Corrraxp, Pardon me. What was the statement about the law being nullified ? Mrs. WALKER. As it is now, the 1924 Jaw is now being obstructed— nullified. Senator CopELanD. The present law? Mrs. Warksr. The present law is not in effect, because it has been postponed, and therefore it is nullified. Senator Coperanp. I did not understand that. Mrs. WarLker. Another postponement will leave the whole question open. We would like to see it settled the way Congress obviously intended when it passed the 1924 act, including the nationalorigins provisions, by such an overwhelming majority. } The temporary 1890 “ foreign-born” basis (or any foreign-born basis) harshly discriminates against the native-born decendants of those distinguished patriots which it is the function of our society to commemorate. We do not regard such an arrangement as equitable in theory nor for the interest of the country in practice. Un- NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 127 less one wants to take the position that those colonial stocks are inf rior, one must insist that their present proportions in our populat:on should not be diminished. } The National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, takes a firm stand in support of the Constitution of the United States. It therefore feels that it must assist the immigrants in interpreting American standards of living. oo For several years the D. A. R. has presented to immigrants upon their arrival at our ports of entry a manual urging them to inform themselves upon the privileges of liberty and security granted to every citizen under the United States Constitution, and further, has invited them to avail themselves of the opportunities offered them for becoming citizens of this great Republic. Our first manual was brought out 1911 and published in only two languages, Italian and English. Since then we now print it in 17 languages, Handbook Manual of the United States, giving information for the early arrivals. We have rendered friendly assistance to the foreign born. We have strengthened the faith of newcomers in conservative leadership, pointing out that orderly workmanship is more desirable than idleness, thirft than reckless expenditure, learning than ignorance, and law and order than mob ascendency. The national society is apprehensive that the foreign-speaking peoples in many cities, living a life apart from American customs and ideals, create a menace to good government and stalwart American citizenship. When it is considered that a conservative estimate places the number of foreign newspapers and publications at around 1,200, another threatening, un-American problem confronts us. We believe that America has room for a normal number of incoming people, but that it should not yield to the incessant demand by foreign opposition to this immigration act of 1924, that we admit a quota of foreigners reckoned on a basis that will reduce the very people who have made our Nation what it is—a land so enticing that foreigners plead to be put on the waiting list, that they are willing to leave relatives abroad. not knowing the time at which they can be reunited. As a group of American women, loving America and standing for national defense in all its ramifications, we believe a thoughtful Congress will not deny the protection and fair representation afforded the family life of the Nation in the national-origins plan. Senator CoPELAND. Just a moment. Does the witness feel that the 1,200 foreign-language papers were disloyal to us during the war? Mrs. Water. 1 do not say so. I say I think that they are a probtem because it indicates that we are not assimilating them as rapidly as we should like. Senator CoreLAND. Is the witness questioning the fact that it was stated by those who investigated it at the time that much patriotic service was rendered by those papers in presenting to those persons in our country who had not yet mastered our language, the cause and ideals and ambitions of our country in this contest ? Mrs. Wanker. That is very possible. I do present it as an illustration that it should not be necessary, if we are assimilating our immigration as rapidly as we should like, to have 1.200 foreion- 128 NATIONAL ORJGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW language publications; and also it is certainly obvious that those are avenues of potentialities for un-Americanism. Senator CoreLanp. Would the witness advocate the abolition of these foreign-language papers? Mrs. WaLker. 1 have no opinion on that question. Senator Coreranp. Thank you. Senator Harris. Would you not like to require them to also print in English what they do print in the foreign language? Mrs. Warker. That would be my answer, The CmairmaN. I want the attention of the committee as to the matter pending before us. First, we will determine as to the continuance of these hearings. It is now 12 o'clock. What is the pleasure of the committee in regard to the continuance of the hearing? Senator Reep. I believe we could finish in one more session. The Cmamrmax. To-morrow there are at least three members of this committee, I am sure, who will be before the Commerce Committee upon a very important matter, the sale of the United States ships. Senator Reep. Would Wednesday do? The CmamrmaN. 1 would suggest, if we are going to proceed with the hearing, that we continue Wednesday morning. Is that satisfactory to the committee? If satisfactory, then, it will be the order that the hearings will be continued, and at 12 o’clock on Wednesday I am going to ask that the hearings be concluded. I would now like the attention of the committee in executive session to one bill pending here. } (Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee proceeded tc the consideration of executive business, and at the conclusion thereof adjourned to meet Wednesday, February 13, 1929, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) NATIONAL-ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1929 UNITED STATES SENATE, CommrTTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Keyes, Reed, Nye, King, Harris, and Stephens. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, please be in order. [ have before me, members of the committee, a note from Hon. Albert Johnson, chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House, transmitting to me a letter from Hon. John W. McCormack, in respect to the subject matter of our investigation. This letter, with your permission, I will insert in the record. The letter, as I understand it, in a word—I have just olanced at it this moment—is a statement that the writer is not in sympathy with the view that was expressed by the representative of the American Legion before this committee. Do you want the letter read, or shall we let it be inserted in the record? Senator Reep. Let it be inserted in the record, I think. The CHARMAN. All right. (The letter referred to is as follows:) House oF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 10, 1929. Hon, ALBERT JOHNSON, Chairman Senate Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. O. My Dear SENATOR: I have been informed, and my reading of a statement that was made confirms my information that at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Immigration and Naturalization Saturday morning a representafive of the national headquarters of the American Legion informed the committee that its 860,000 members and auxiliaries of 350,000 members “emphatically upheld the theory underlying the national-origins provisions,” which necessarily means the full membership of both organizations are in favor of its operation this year. As a member of the American Legion I desire to state that the representative is mistaken in his assertion. I am opposed to the provisions of said clause, so-called, and the representative appearing had no authority to pledge that the full membership of the Legion was supporting the members of the committee, but is for the purpose of registering my protest against the unaualified statements of the representative. I believe that it is proper, although undoubtedly unnecessary, to call to your attention that the appearance of any person or persons before a legislative committee and purporting to pledge the entire membership of an organization for or against any proposition should be viewed with hesitancy, in absence of an understandable referendum to its members. However, in absence of some 90 130 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW evidence, one might be inclined to give such a statement more weight than it sometimes should receive and be entitled to. I consider the statement made as one of these occasions. It is not my purpose, by this letter, to set forth what I consider to be proper and logical reasons why the national origins clause should be repealed, or, in absence of such action, deferred at this session. My sole purpose is to indicate that the members of the legion are not in unanimous agreement on this question. At a later date I will undertake to state the reasons for my position in detail. I also feel confident that many thousands of legionnaires will later register their protest through their representatives in both branches of Congress. Sincerely yours. Jorn W. McCormack. The Crarmmman. Is Congressman McCormack here? He desired to be heard this morning. That letter is from him, evidently. Senator Reep. Mr. Ridder asks to be heard. The Cuamrman. Mr. Ridder. did vou desire to be heard on behalf of—— Mz. Roper. I desired to be heard on behalf of the German element of the United States. The Ciramraran. Will you proceed, giving your name, residence. and occupation, if you please? STATEMENT OF VICTOR FRANK RIDDER, REPRESENTING GERMAN ELEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Riper. My name is Victor Frank Ridder. I am one of the publishers of the New York Staats-Zeitung, a German-language paper published in the city of New York. I am down here to register on behalf of the German element—— Senator Nye. You are the owner of more papers than the one at New York? Mr. Roper. Oh, yes; the New York Staats-Zeitung is a Germanlanguage paper, which my brothers and I are owners of. We are also owners of the Journal of Commerce in the city of New York, of the Long Island Daily Press at Jamaica, Long Island, of the Pioneer Press and Dispatch at St. Paul, Minn.; and of the Aberdeen American News, in Aberdeen, S. Dak. The last four are English-language newspapers, and the Staats-Zeitung is a German-language paper published in New York. The Caammax. Mr. Ridder, will you please proceed in your own way and make such statements as you desire in reference to the national-origins subject? Mr. Roper. I am here to-day representing the German element of the United States in protest against the use of the nationalorigins method as a basis for immigration, because we feel, in the first place, that this basis is not accurate. The discussion which has come out of that clause has demonstrated that it is not workable, and that such an important matter as the immigration into the United States should be based on something not only more scientific, on something not only more accurate, but should be based particularly on something which is founded on something more definite than the very elusive and very intangible basis on which this national-origins clause rests, or rather on which the figures rest that were compiled from it. We believe that the basis is doubtful, but we also believe that the figures as worked out are an injustice to the German element. in that NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 131 it would restrict this immigration at once by about 50 per cent. I may not be exactly accurate on the figures, but I believe it would involve the reduction of this immigration in the case of the German element from 57,000 to 23,000 or 24,000; and we believe that there is nothing in the record of the German element in the United States to warrant or to justify such a cut, and on the basis of national origins such cut would be made. We feel also that when it comes to the consideration of immigration there should be taken into consideration other things than the question of who arrived or who did not arrive a hundreds years ago. We do not believe that that is scientific; that it is worth while or important; that if immigration is to be fixed on some basis that it ought to be fixed on something that deals with the welfare of the United States and the conditions in the United States to-day, and not on something that happened a hundred years ago. I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but I would like to say that one of the reasons why there has not been a larger representation of the German element, that there have not been more persons appearing here, is because we have believed and felt that this matter had been definitely disposed of by the pledges of the candi-Jates in the last election, by the attitude of the two major parties on this proposition, and that that had more or less settled the matter. But since these hearings have come up we are down here to register this protest; to say that we think it is an unfair basis. There are many other matters in relation to the quota law that we object to, but we think that they are secondary to this one important matter; that it is an injustice to base the immigration of to-day on happenings of a hundred years ago, particularly as there is nothing in the record of the German elément to create in anyone's mind the impression that they are not a desirable element. Their whole record ever since the country has been founded has been a good one, and we believe that the basis should be fixed on something else, not on the national-origins clause. The CHARMAN. Are there any question ? Senator Rerp. Yes; I would like to ask Mr. Ridder a couple of questions. Do you believe in restricting immigration at all, Mr. Ridder? Mr. Roper. I believe in restricting immigration somewhat, according to the conditions, but I believe that the restriction should be selective; that it is not a good basis to say, for example, that out of a certain country so many people can come. whether desirable or undesirable. Senator Reep. You do not believe in the numerical limitation of immigration from particular countries? Mr. Ripper. No; I believe that the individual immigrants would give us a better basis to work on than to say, for example, that out of any country a certain number should come, good, bad, or indifferent; that we have a much better way of selecting immigration, and that would be to make it a personal selection rather than a group selection. Senator Reep. Do you think we could ever agree on what immigrants were the best? 132 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Mz. Ripper. No. I do not think we ever could. But I think it is at least a better way than to say that a mass grouping is better than an individual selection. Senator Rep. Would you say that a clerk was a more desirable immigrant than a farm worker ¢ Mr. Riper. No; I would say the farm worker is potentially a much better immigrant. Senator Rrzep. Would you allow an unlimited number of farm workers of good moral worth? Mr. Roper. I would not allow an unlimited number of any workers to come. I would go by the conditions. If the conditions required that we needed an unlimited number of farm workers, then I would take all the farm workers who could come in. Senator Reep. The statistics show that the farm workers when they, come go directly to the factories. How would vou cope with that? Mr. Ripper. If you are going to take 10,000 men from a certain country, it does not keep them out of the factories. Senator Reep. No; I know it does not. In other words, this is no better basis? Mr. Roper. In effect, it is worse than many bases and no better than others. Senator Reep. Do you prefer the 1890 basis? Mr. Roper. The German element are not so interested in what it is based on except that they prefer it based on something not so far back. We prefer the 1890 basis, but even if you base it on 1890 it still has weakness. Between the national origins and 1890, we prefer the 1890 basis. Senator Reep. What would you say if we dropped the national origins basis entirely? . Mr. Roper. Then we would say that the law is probably as good as you will get. Senator Reep. Do you regard immigration from Great Britain as generally satisfactory? Mr. Ripper. Yes; oh, yes. Senator Reep. I have not heard any advocates of the national origins say that they did not regard the German immigration as entirely satisfactory, or the Scandinavian. Mr. Ripper. No; quite true. Senater Rep. I think everybody admits that. Mr. Roper. Yes. Senator Reep. That it is a good source of immigration ? Mr. Rioper. Yes. Senator Reep. But it has been argued that it was fair to give Germany 51,000 annually and to restrict England, Wales, Scotland, and North Ireland altogether to a quota of quota of 84.000. Do you think that is fair? Mr. Roper. Noj that is not fair. My judgment is that there were not more Britons coming in to-day than the quota permitted, or rather that the Britons were not making more applications. I am under the impression, right or wrong, that the British quota is not altogether used up. But if you speak of Great Britain—— NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 133 Senator Rep. I think the contrary is the fact. I think that it is hespoken for several years in advance, that is, applicants. Mr. Ripper. That has not been the impression we have had from the figures. I do not know. The Cuarrmax, I think you are in error there. Mr. Ripper. You think that there are more required ? The Cmairman. I do not think there are. Senator Nye. There are not more required. The Cmarrman. What I say to you is that substantially every quota is more than full. Mr. Ripper. Is that true of the British quota? The Cmairman. Yes. Mr. Roper. It is true of the German quota, is it not? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator Rrep. Their quota is more nearly sufficient to take care of the applicants. Mr. Roper. I would like to call attention to one incongruity in this whole thing. It deals with Great Britain and Ireland. Imagine if conditions in England and Scotland were so there would be no immigration into the United States. Under this present proposed yuota law, you could take 77,000 immigrants from the north of [reland and about 15,000 from the south of Ireland. Senator Rep. Excuse me. I think your figures are perhaps inaccurate. The national origins. Mr. Roper. What is the total for Great Britain and Ireland? Senator Rrep. I was just about to say that the national origins quota for Great Britain and northern Ireland as reported in Xebruary, 1928, is 65,894. Mr. Roper. And the Irish Free State? Senator Reep. And the Irish Free State 17,427. Mr. Ripper. Roughly about one-sixth? Senator Reep. Oh, no. Mr. Ripper. A little over a third or a quarter. Senator Reep. About a third. Mr. Roper. Would it not be unfair to take from the northern part of Ireland about three times as many people as from the southern part of Ireland. It is incongrous; it is one of the things that will not happen, but it could happen. Senator Reep. It would be strange to take the whole German quota from Saxony, but that will not happen? Mr. Ripper. It could happen. Senator Reep. It could happen; yes. Mr. Roper. It would be like saying that you should take 55,000 from Saxony and 17,000 from Germany. Senator Reep. But I think your argument applies as much to Germany as Great Britain. Mr. Riper. Certainly, the whole basis is wrong. That is our point. Immigration ought to be based on something different from an occurrence of a hundred years ago, even if you could definitely ascertain what that occurrence was. Senator Reep. Do you think it is fair to base quotas only on the foreion born—the foreign-born citizens and the unnaturalized aliens 134 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW who were here in 1890—and ignore all of us who were born in this country, like you and I? Mr. Riper. The answer is that I do not think it ought to be based on either one. Senator Reep. Then, you do not like either the 1890 basis or national origins? Mr. Roper. If you ask me personally, I do not like the 1890 basis or national origins. I think there ought to be a better plan worked out than either. But between the two, it is much better to take the basis as of 1890, let us say, when you and I were in the country when we know what was here, than to go back 140 years and say we will base it on something that we ourselves do not know anything about, Senator Reep. Would you say it is solely based on the census of 140 years ago? Mr. Rmoer. No; I understand that it goes up to the year 1826, if I am correct. Senator Reep. Oh, no; it takes in the foreign born reported in the 1920 census. Mr. Rioper. True; but it really goes back to an earlier time. Senator Remp. For part of the population it must, necessarily. Mr. Riper. I think for a large part. Senator Rep. It also gives equal security to the foreign born who reported here in 1920. Mr. Roper. True; but from the fact that there is such a variation between the quotas if they are set up under the other bases it shows there is a vast difference, a very important difference. Senator Rep. You do not think there are as many people of German origin in the United States as of British origin, do you? Mr. Roper. If you want my personal opinion, ves: I do. Senator Reep. You think there are? Mr. Roper. Yes; I do. Senator Reep. It is strange we are not talking German instead of English. Mr. Roper. No; German has nothing to do with it. The Germans came over afterwards. Bogor Rrep. But you think there are as many people of German stock? Mr. Roper. I think there are as many people of German-speaking stock—not only German, but stock from Switzerland and Austria. Senator Reep. Then, you would give credit to the Germans for the Swiss quota ? Mr. Rmper. If you want to, call it “credit.” TI mean by that, 1 am speaking’ now on the theory that if you are going to take English stock, if you are going to take Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen and say these are English stock and therefore one group, you have got to equally take the Germans. Austrians, the German-speaking Danes and the Swiss. Senator Reep. Then the quotas which we apportion to Switzerland, Denmark, and the other countries from which German stock has come? Mr. Ripper. Yes, sir. Senator Rerp. So all quotas are available to German-speaking people of those countries, are they not ? NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 135 Mr. Roper. Oh, yes. Senator Reep. So the discrimination is one against Germany? Mr. Ripper. It has nothing to do with Germany. I am not objecting on the ground of discrimination against the Germans. I would be just as ready to protest if I thought the discrimination were against the British. I am speaking personally in this matter. But it 1s a wrong basis; in other words, the basis would be wrong if it gave the Germans 100,000 and the British 10,000; it would still be wrong. Senator Resp. I think we are in agreement that we ought not to {iseriminate against a people because of nationality? Mr. Ripper. Nor should we base this on theory, set up with those back so very far. In other words, what happened in 1790 we say zhould not be used in dealing with the situation to-day; should not be used as a basis in dealing with a situation to-day, because conditions are different. Senator Rep, Why should we not base the quota on the foreignborn 1920 basis exclusively? Mr. Ripper. If you are going to base it on anything, you could take that as well as any: but I think there should be an entirely Jifferent basis. Senator Reep. Then really one-seventh of our immigration would be Polish, one-sixth Italian, and about one-eighth German? : Mr. Roper. That would not change anything; that basis is still wrong. It does not make any difference who comes in under it, if the basis is wrong. Senator Reep. You do not believe in the quota system? Mr. Ripper. I am not down here to protest against this basis, because it is going to cut German immigration and increase the British. [ am down here to protest against the injustice toward any immigration, to basing this immigration law on something so intangible. In other words, if the basis is fair, everybody ought to be willing to take what comes to them, take their medicine if it is against them, and accept the benefits if there are any. But there ought to be something everybody, at least, could agree is a fair basis, and that 1790 basis does not seem to us to be a fair basis. In other words, if the country had been wholly organized then as it is to-day, and if we could say that the immigration that came over at that time could be placed definitely, so there would not be created in the minds of anyone who has studied it at least a very marked doubt that this basis is a weak one to go on, that is unscientific, is not really worth much, is not anything a business man would base his judgment on in deciding a business matter, then our protest would not be quite so loud. But when it comes to a matter based on something like that we sav there aught to be a better basis than that. Senator REeEp. And you believe, then, in limiting the aggregate and choosing immigrants by selection as to their worth? ) Mr. Ripper. Yes; I think that we micht have a larger auota then, what is the total, 165,000% Senator Rep. One hundred sixty-four thousand. Mr. Ripper. One hundred sixty-four thousand. It would be my judgment we could go above that if we knew that the immigration coming over was as nearly desirable as we can get it. Of course, 136 ~~ NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW it is very hard to say what is desirable immigration. When you look into it and see some people who came over and who have proven themselves great Americans, though you and I agree if they had applied to us for admission we would have barred them right away, and we would feel we were doing something for the good of the country, and yet those men turned out very well. It is a very difficult thing to do. But out feeling is thai the best basis would be some selection of immigration, a personal selection rather than group selection, if that could be done. But if you are going to use some basis, then at least let us go back to the 1790 basis. Senator Nye. You mean 1890 basis? Mr. Roper. I mean 1890, which is now working out fairly satisfactorily. I think, while there are protests on every side, if you could have every one speak they would feel there was more sound basis for this 1890 than there is for the 1790, and if any hardships for the British immigration then arbitrarily increase British immigration, there is no objection to that. . Senator Rupp. I think we understand your position. The Cmamrmaxn. Are there any other questions by other members of the committee to be asked Mr. Ridder? [After a pause.] That 1S all, Thank you very much. Is Congressman McCormack here now ? Representative McCormack. Yes, sir. The Cmamrman. Congressman, I understood you wished to be heard upon this matter. Representative McCormack. Just briefly. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MeCORMACK, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Representative McCormack. I received quite a few telegrams as the result of the utterances made by the representative of the American Legion at the hearing last Saturday, and particularly on two aspects of his utterances. First, where he undertook to represent to the committee, as I understand it, that 860,000 or more members of the Legion and 850,000 auxiliary memberships were emphatically upholding the underlying principle of the national origins clause, and as to that aspect most of the objections I received or telegrams which I received from Legion posts repudiate and deny that fact. It is a fact, I believe, that at the Saratoga convention there was some action taken along that line, but it was a convention wherein there was no referendum to any members. By the way, I want to apologize for misdirecting a letter which I intended to reach the chairman of this committee but which went to the chairman of the House committee. The Cmarrmaxn. Such is fame. [Laughter] Representative McCormack. Probably it was a lack of experience on my part. The Crairman. Not at all. Representative McCormack. Personally, the statements made by the representative of the Legion certainly do not voice my sentiments, because of the arguments which you gentlemen know so well NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 137 as to the uncertainty of determining the national origins of our population as it was in 1920. } The second part of the statement made by the representative of the American Legion seems to be very offensive, and to me it seems to be likewise offensive. You notice I say “ the representative of the American Legion ” not the American Legion. I happen to be a member of the Legion myself and have two brothers who are members of the Legion. So that I have naturally a strong interest, because they are. a very powerful organization and very much needed organization, and I would not want my remarks to be construed as an attack upom the Legion in any way, directly or indirectly. The second aspect seemed to be the issue between patriotism and slackerism. To me that seems to be a spacious argument, illogical, emotional, and inflammatory—does not seem to go to the merits; does not seem to me to be a { ndamental argument. It might be one that it seems to me would appeal to my emotional mind rather than to my rational mind, because it picks out just a certain element, and he bases his argument upon that element, when, if we were to place ourselves in the position of some of those foreign born in 1920 undoubtedly we would seek the deferred classifications for any reasons which they sought it. In the first place, the alien enemies were deferred as a matter of course, whether they wanted to or not. They were deferred, and that was over 300,000, as I understand it; and of the remaining 1,400,000, approximately, somewhere around 300,000 sought deferred classification, it may be they say on the ground that they were aliens; there may be other reasons which prompted them; it may have been marriage, it may have been phys: ical disabilities, although the fact they are aliens may have been the first thing that came to their minds. There have been other considerations which might have brought about a great many of the deferred classification. But, ignoring that completely, assuming everything that the representative said is correct, it seems to me it is illogical and does not appear to be quite relevant to a discussion of anything of a fundamental question like national origins or a definite policy with reference to our restriction of immigration or with reference to our immigration policy in general. That should also embrace a consideration of the percentage of Americans who sought deferred classification; and it should also embrace a comparison of those who were given deferred classification because of the necessities of the country at the time ; the fact that the draft was a benefit to the country, in that they could muster men into the service from time to time as facilities would permit; that an overcrowding of men in the service was undesirable and did prove from a practical angle to be dangerous, in that they did not have the camps and the various places for housing the men, and many other HRS ations which you gentlemen are more acquainted with than myself. There are any number of reasons—the Government did not call men in who could do better service at home. They did not want married men; and I agree with the Government that the married men were more use at home than in the service; they were of more use taking care of wife and children than going into the service. And what 1s patriotism is also a question of fact: the best way it should 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 ascertainment—the national origins clause. We have a very sound principle 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 uncertainty. 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 mafter what his descent may be—but when we start discussing the national-origins clause we must remember we are trying to determine the origin, not of one generation, but of every generation of Americans 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 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 139 House Committee on Immigration in 1927; and it is not the statement of anybody before that committee, except it is quoting some man who had written it about a hundred years ago; and in the same reference will be found this additional information, that in any one of two or three years the Irish who came to Pennsylvania were about the same number. If this was around 1740 and 1750— one year, tor example, 12,000 Irish came—it seems natural to feel, if in the 1790 census they were only accredited with about 8,000, the uncertainty of the 1790 census as the determination of our origins, particularly when it is one of the main grounds of determining the origins of our nationals. The Cmamzmax. Can you tell me, Congressman, what authority it was that made that statement ? Representative McCormack. Yes; I think I can. The CARMAN. Do you know? Senator Reep. I never heard it before. Of course, there was no immigration of any consequence from south Ireland, from what is the Irish Free State? Representative McCormack. No; that is true. From all of Ireland. There was no Irish Free State then. Senator Reep. And the northern Irish immigration was all Scotch and English descent. Representative McCormack. Of course, that includes 9 counties ‘n England and 36 counties in the Irish Free State. The Cuamrman. I understood that, but I was curious to know the authority, that was all, in order that we might have it before us in considering final action. Representative McCormack. That will be found on page 40 of the hearing before the Committee on Immigration of the House of Representatives in 1927. There is no document number here, but that was in 1927. Senator Rerp. Who made the statement? Representative McCormack. Robert Proud, in his history of Pennsylvania, written between 1776 and 1780. Volume II, page 273. Do you want me to quote it? Senator Remp. Yes. Representative McCormack (reading) : Besides the great numbers of the first and early colonists, as well as since, trom Great Britain, and the large importations of people from Ireland into this Province, both in early and latter times, those from Germany have been so great that it is supposed near one-third, at least, of the inhabitants, at this time, consists of the last and their descendants; the counties of Lancaster, York, Berks, and Northampton being principally settled by them, and they are very numerous, even in the city and county of Philadelphia, as well as in the others. In the summer of the year 1749, 25 sail of large ships arrived with German passengers alone; which brought about 12,000 souls, some of the ships about 600 each; and in several other years near the same number of these people arrived annually; and in some years nearly as many aunually from Ireland. By an exact account of all the ships and passengers annually, which have arrived at Philadelphia, with Germans alone, nearly from the first settlement of the Province, till about the year 1776, when their importation ceased, the number of the latter appears to be ahont 89.000: and their infernal increases has been very great. Senator Reep. You are reading from Captain Trevor’s testimony, are you not? Representative McCormack. Yes. The thing in Captain Trevor's testimony that impressed me was this—of course. I disassociated 140 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW that from his general testimony, and I do not want any inference to be drawn from my last remark. There are no personalities at all, and, as I say, I disassociate it and do not want that inference to be rawn. The Carman. Was he questioning the authority at that time? Representative McCormack. Apparently. Senator Reep. He was talking about this as true? Representative McCormack. Yes; he was advancing this. The Cramman. Pardon the interruption. I was curious about the authority, that is all. Representative McCormack. There [indicating] is one of the most interesting books. I have given it considerable study. I happened to run across this in the Congressional Library. It it entitled © Historical Aspects of the Immigration Problem,” by Abbott. Probably some of you gentlemen are familiar with it. It is written by Edith Abbott, dean of the graduate school of social service administration and professor of social economy in the University of Chicago, and apparently that was written long before this question became so controversial. But, in any event, it is not her personal views, it is an accumulation by.her of views of eminent men in the past generations, both in Europe and America on this question, and it gives one an excellent fundamental knowledge of the reasons, causes, and effects of immigration; and the interesting thing is that most of the immigrants were sought, as you know, for many reasons, in America. There is one interesting article here relating to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which shows that in 1860 it was felt by one of the eminent writers there that the immigrant stock, so-called, as would be termed under this division for descriptive purposes of 1790—that immigrant stock and native stock came from 1790—that the immigrant stock outnumbered the native stock. Doctor Hill had a tremendous job, and his whole report indicated the uncertainty of his basis of determination, but it was the result of a desire to try to carry out what he thought at least was the intent of Congress. But in this it shows that in Massachusetts it was felt then that those of foreign extraction exceeded those of native stock as early as 1860. That is very significant as bearing on the 1790 proposition apon which Doctor Hill and his associates worked, which resulted in approximately 41,000,000 being their determination in 1920. The whole thing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, seems to revolve in the main around the uncertainty of the 1790 basis of determination. We have no records prior to 1790." We have only one census of 1790, that is, names of the heads of families, and the Quota Committee considered, as I understand it—I say this reservedly, but it is my understanding that the nationality of the inhabitants were determined in accordance with the sounding of the name. Doctor Hill says that many names would indicate two or more nationalities, that they came from two or more countries, and, furthermore, in a large predominant community it is only natural for one who might be born in one country to say they were born in a country that the predominating element were born in or that they are the descendants of. We have no record prior to 1790. The records that the ports of entry from 1820 on are very uncertain; in fact, the records, as 1 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 141 understand it, in the city of New York were burned at the Ellis [sland fire of 1896. Many of the early records were destroyed when the British occupied the city of Washington, all the data was necessarily lacking or not kept; and Doctor Hill and his committee faced this tremendous task, and to the best of their ability tried to perform it, but the whole thing is impossible of human performance and ascertainment, without being offensive. Senator Reep. May I interrupt you with a question? Representative McCormack. I would be glad to have you do so. Senator Reep. Have you read the entire statement of the American Legion? Representative McCormack. Yes; I have. Senator Reep. Do you think there is no force in their argument that 53 per cent of the foreign born who were called in the draft claimed exemption on account of alienage? Representative McCormack. Not on this question; no, I do not. Senator Rzep. Do you think we ought to base our quotas on a group of which 53 per cent declined to serve the country in time of crisis and ignore all the native-born Americans? Representative McCormack. As I said before, the argument, in my opinion, advanced by the representative of the American Legion is an inflammatory, emotional, and irrelevant argument. Just as a fundamental question on immigration I would say this—I hope the Senator does not think I am trying to evade this question; if I fail to do so, I want you to keep right after me; I do not want to duck it, in plain language—but it seems to me if Congress wanted to say, “ We will give southern Ireland this much, we will give Scotland this much—England with Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland this much ”—if you and I as Members, performing our duty as we see it, and the majority accomplishing it, agree we will give each country a definite quota, I have no controversy. I might disagree, but we will assume our responsibility. We here say that it shall be determined upon national origins. We then pass to the President’s commission of three eminent men, distinguished men—not of my political faith, but that is immaterial—politics, in my opinion, ceases in the main on election day. We are here to do what we can nationally. Those men admit inferentially, at least, in both their reports that they have no faith in it, at least they say they do not guarantee its correctness. That is a fair inference to be drawn in both their reports. Doctor Hill admits that he feels it to be statistically correct—that is, his first report—statistically correct. He does not believe it to be correct, only statistically correct. Senator Rep. Did you see Doctor Hill’s testimony that he believed that the 1890 computation involved greater uncertainties than the national-origins basis? Representative McCormack. No. Senator Reep. You did not see that? Representative McCormack. No. I did read something purporting to come from Commissioner of Immigration Hull to the effect that 1890 basis is better and more desirable—I think I saw in Senator Shipstead’s article, which I found very interesting. I say that not 35885-—20— 10 142 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW because it agrees with my viewpoint, and any man who disagrees with me I respect his right to do so and his reasons for it. Senator Rerp. 1 want to ask you just a few questions before we get to these other things. Rrepresentative McCormack. I am not going to take up your time. Senator Rep. Will you permit me to ask a question? Representative McCormack. I will be glad to answer any question Senator Reep. Where was the last convention of the Legion held ? Representative MoCormack. 1 think it was held out West. Senator Reep. Was it not at San Antonio? Representative McCormack. Yes. Senator Rep. You spoke of some action taken at Saratoga. Do you know the action the Legion took at San Antonio? Representative McCormack. No. Senator Rep. Did you know that the national convention of the Legion, without a dissenting vote, went on record as favoring national origins? Representative McCormack. I assume—I do not know one way or the other; but it would not disturb me either way; it would not change my opinion. Senator Rep. Just a moment. If, in fact, they did go on record as favoring national origins at their last convention, do you think that the representatives of the Legion in Washington are in any way reprehensible for voicing that sentiment? Representative McCormack. The word “reprehensible,” of course, is probably stronger than I might go. Senator Reep. But I took it from your opening statement that you thought they were not speaking for the Legion? Representative McCormack. Exactly. Senator Reep, Well, how could the Legion better express its sentiments than by unanimous vote in convention ? Representative McCormack. Unanimous vote in convention is entirely different from a referendum submitted to its members. - I realize the practical difficulty of it. If you ask me that, yes. But there is a difference between coming out in favor of the principle of national origins and quotas established thereunder. You can not disassociate the quotas from the principle. The right of the American Legion to express its opinion on the principle is one thing, but the right of the the American Legion to express itself upon quotas which would be established thereunder is an entirely different proposition. Senator Ree. But, Mr. McCormack, you said you had read the Legion’s statement. There is nothing in that about any particular quota, is there? Is it not exclusively devoted to the approval of the principle of national origins? Representative McCormack. As I remember it, it says “ We emphatically oppose the underlying principle of national origins.” That is the language, as I remember it. Senator Rexp. Exactly. Do you say they ought not to do that? Representative McCormack. Exactly, considering that the quotas Shed thereunder can not be disassociated from the principle itself. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 143 Senator Reep. Then your position is that the action of the Legion convention was wrong } Representative McCormack. The action of the representative as expressed, and naturally he follows out the action of the Legion convention, in my opinion, does not represent the rank and file of the American Legion. Senator Rerp. What source of information have you about the rank and file attitude of the American Legion? Representative McCormack. I know that this is not a sectional matter. This question does not confine itself to any one area of our country; it concerns the people in every State of the Union. Senator REeep. Yes; and there were representatives at that convention from every State of the Union, were there not? Representative McCorsrack. While I have never attended a convention, the primary matter of interest in the convention is the election of its officers. Senator Reep. You think they are not interested in national problems ¢ Representative McCormack. Probably my remark needs a little further explanation. I do not want to say the primary matter of interest in the convention is the election of officers. I will explain that so it will be interpreted correctly. The primary duty from a practical angle which shapes up in the minds of the delegates, or a good portion of them, is the lining up of State organizations and Jelegations behind this or that man for national commander and other offices, and many times in the activity of that work platforms are adopted without a profound understanding. Here is something you gentlemen have been considering for years, and yet in this committee and in the House committee men actuated by the high desire of rendering public service as their conscience dictates differ; and yet you are seeking more information. You want something more. You are seeking light. You want it, and you welcome people coming before you in order to get a thought. The gentleman who just spoke before gave me a thought when he said, “ Would you as a business man look upon the 1790 census as a basis for determining origins?” Senator Harris, Will you allow me to ask you a question? Representative McCormack. Yes, sir. Senator Harris. What is more important or what is anything like as important as a meeting of the American Legion, when this question was before Congress, in view of the record that the Senator from Pennsylvania just told you of, the number that claimed exemption during the war, it seems to me there was nothing more vital to the men who fought and the men who are going to fight than just the information showing the number that claimed exemption? Representative McCormack. All right. Senator Harris. What we would just like to know is what was more important for the American Legion to decide than that? Representative McCormack. In presenting those facts they should also present the fact as to the number of American citizens who claimed exemptions. In following that out they should cold-bloodedly, if they wanted to advance that as an argument, state how many 144 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW of Irish foreigners, how many English foreigners, and these other foreigners claimed exemption. Senator Rep. Mr. McCormack, I do not think you read the statement carefully. This is a statement of the number claiming exemption because of alienage alone. Representative McCormack. And we are asked as public representatives to draw inferences from that statement. It is not what he said; it is what inferences are fairly deductible from the statement. That is an argument advanced in favor or national origins, to my way of thinking, and from that I am to draw certain instances, because there were 1,700,000 aliens in America, and about 600,000, roughly, claim deferred classification, and 300,000 were given it because they were alien enemies. I am to draw certain inferences from that statement, and the inferences from that statement are that these immigrants, 900,000 approximately, of which 300,000 were compelled to take deferred classification—we will assume most of them would have taken it, for the purpose of argument, but they were compelled, in any event, by the action of the boards or by operation of our law. We are asked to infer that those nationals we should discriminate against so far as immigration is concerned. Senator Reep. On the contrary, we are giving this same group of national origins as much representation as we are giving the Americans who fought the war. Surely that is being fair to them, is it not ? Representative MoCormack. Well, “Americans who fought the war.” You want to remember a large percentage of the Americans who fought the war are immigrants, in accordance with the descriptive term used by the committee, meaning all who arrived here since 1790, or their descent, in the main. I am talking about in the main, in a general way. Senator Rep. The point is that the native born did not, because they could not, claim exemption on account of alien birth. The point also is that 53 per cent of the foreign born who were called in the draft did claim exemption. Representative McCormack. And I understand that approximately 60 per cent of those Americans claimed exemption. Senator Rep. Not on account of alienage? Representative McCormack. No; but for other reasons, Senator Reep. This does not take any account of the number of aliens who claimed exemption for other reasons. Representative McCormack. I know, but I feel it should be borne in mind that the second generation of Americans, children by the immigrants, look at things entirely different from one who arrives here from the land of their nativity. Senator ReEp. Precisely; and then why should you exclude those native-born children of immigrants from representation? Representative McCormick. You should under the 1790 classifisation, if the basis of determination is uncertain. Senator Rep. Was it your impression that the national origins was based entirely on the 1790 census? Representative McCormack. No; but one portion, the 41,000,000, is in the main determined upon the 1790 basis; 58,000,000 approxi: matel y—— NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 145 Senator Rep. Fifty-three million are immigrants and descendants of immigrants since 1790? Representative McCormack. Since 17901 Senator Reep. That is fair, is it not? Representative McCormack. No, I do not know whether it is or not. The means of ascertainment are so indefinite that nobody can say it 1s fair. In any event, the Congress is passing the buck, to my way of thinking. The President’s commission, that refuses to other than transmit to the President, who in turn transmits to Congress the quotas, which the six gentlemen appointed by the three department heads have established, and their reports bear the greatest evidence of uncertainty. Take Captain Trevor’s statements, which of course are unreliable, but take the first report of Doctor Hill and his associates, where they stated it would be approximately correct; and take their second report and note the marked difference. The quotas will affect those of Norwegian, Danish, or Scandinavian descent, Swiss descent, those of southern Ireland and of German descent; and the very elements, if your want to give weight to the representative of the American Legion’s argument, that contributed most prominently with the English to the building up of this country are the ones who would be discriminated against. Senator Regn. You mean the Germans? Representative McCormack. The Germans, Irish, Danes, those of Scandinavian descent ; the rest will be slightly discriminated against, as well as the Swiss. Senator Reep. You mean discriminated against in that they would have their present quotas cut down; is that what you mean by “ discriminated ”¢ Representative McCormack. Oh, no. Senator Rrep. Do you think that the German element in the United States is half again as large as the British, Scotch, Welsh, and Ulster element? Representative McCormack. Why, from my study of immigration and applying matters of common knowledge as to the productivity of the Germans, for which they are to be complimented. I would not be a bit surprised but what 1t is more. Senator Reep. Do you think it is more than half again as large as the British? Representative McCormack. I would not want to say that, Senator; I am not going to express my opinion as to how much more. Senator Rerp. Do you think it is more? Representative McCormack. Yes. Senator Reep. Does it strike you as odd, then, that in the studies 5f the German element made by Germans, such as Faust’s book on the German element in the United States, they should claim only 17 per cent? It is singularly modest. is it not. for a prevonderance aroup ? Representative McCormack. I will not talk about the modesty. But it must be borne in mind that the English immigration to America decreased considerably after the two wars; at least it was not as great as it ordinarily would be if we had still remained a colony. England was concerned with colonizing her own possessions as she should have been. and she subsidized immigrants going to her vari- 146 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ous colonies, and, assuredly, England was not going to build up America if she could prevent it at the expense of her own colonies. We have got to consider the 2,000,000 from Ireland who came here within a span of 10 or 12 years, particularly during the famine period. Senator Reep. I have no other questions. The Crmarrman. Are there any members of the committee desires to propound? [After a pause.] Thank you, Congressman, very much. Senator Reep. Mr. Cassidy asks to be heard. - The Cuamrman. Mr. Cassidy. Mr. McCormack. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The CuammaN. Thank you for coming. Mr. Cassidy, state your full name. residence. and occupation. STATEMENT OF J. EDWARD CASSIDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON. D. C. Mr. Cassipy. My name is J. Edward Cassidy, and my address is 815 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C. My profession is that of a consulting engineer, specializing on hydroelectric-power developments, and my work in that capacity has taken me into 22 different countries of the world, so that I have a pretty fair direct acquaintance with the people of these countries. Co My appearance before this committee in opposition to the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 192 is in the capacity of executive direetor of the United States Air Force Association, which is concerned with the development of both commercial and military aviation as vital elements of our national defense. This association has a membership of approximately 27,000, and, while its numbers are not so great, it is without doubt one of the most highly specialized groups of citizens in this country. Its membership includes 98 per cent of all the active people in aviation whether civilian or military. As the official representative of this association I must pay a tribute to the State so ably represented in the Senate by the chairman of this committee. Up to 18 months ago the State of California was responsible for over 70 per cent of the developments in aviation, and, notwithstanding the fact that the industry has been spreading rapidly to other parts of the country, better than 50 per cent of the developments in aviation are rightly attributed to California. This association is a nonprofit organization and is governed entirely from patriotic motives, as our whole concern is with national defense and the various elements that enter into it. The association is opposed to the Nye resolution which would delay carrying into effect the mandates of Congress as expressed in the immigration act of 1924. There was a definite reason for the enactment of this law and a definite demand on the part of the public that immigration be restricted. There has been plenty of time to study the situation since the act of 1924 was passed, and there is no longer any valid reason for further delay in putting it into effect. The present quotas based on the 1890 foreign-born population is wholly unsound and it does not take a very great amount of consideration to show clearly that this NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 147 basis is unsound, as it gives late comers a preferential status over the parent stock of this country. No one can deny that the foundations rf this country were Anglo-Saxon and that it is an Anglo-Saxon country by an overwhelming preponderance. All authorities of importance agree that the parent Anglo-Saxon stock composed 40 to 80 per cent of the population of 1790. The selection of the 1890 census as a basis for temporary use in the restriction of immigration was alleged to be due to the fact that it was more equitable than the census of other periods. This can not be substantiated as the foreign born coming into this country during the period 1880-1890 was far above the average, excluding the abnormal period of 1850-1860, as the foreign born coming into this country setween 1880 and 1890 was 39.1 per cent as against an average of 27 per cent for the 50-year period starting in 1860. The increase in foreign born coming into this country between 1850 and 1910 is as ollows : Per cent ii i i pie; So eee. 12.0 [EE cree 3007 If the period of 1910 to 1920 had been used in arriving at the average the percentage would have been an average of a little more than half of the census of 1890 now being used as a basis. Another excellent reason why the immigrant quota on the basis of foreign born shown by the 1890 census is wholly unsound lies in the fact that the determination of the quota is based on a group of which approximately one-third are aliens who have neither become natural-‘zed nor indicated their intentions of becoming naturalized. The census of 1890 shows a total of 13,712,754 foreign born in this country of which 4,364,909 were aliens. These aliens who have neither become naturalized nor even signified their intentions of oecoming citizens are given full consideration in the determination of quotas while the parent stock responsible for the founding of this country are wholly excluded from consideration. In other words, 1 large percentage of the basis of determination of quotas is in the hands of aliens who have not enough interest in the country to become sitizens, and even the bulk of the other group consists of late arrivals 1s a large majority has come into this country since 1850. The great increase in foreign born of 82.8 per cent during the period of 1850— 1860 was brought about largely by three causes—the famine in Ireland, discovery of gold in California, and the failure of a revolutionary movement in Germany. It is to be especially noted that the great increase in foreign born on which the present quota method is based did not start until 1850 or until long after the parent stock of this country had founded a new nation, and endured the sacrifices and hardships involved: The influx of foreign born came not because of a desire to build up the new nation but because they desired to share the wealth and advantages resulting from the rR emis efforts and sacrifices of the parent stock. What I have termed the late comers did not appear in this country until after the country had been established and in a prosperous sondition, and they did not share in the hardships and privations 148 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW incident to the independence of this country. Under the 1890 status the late comers who did not share in the hardships and sacrifices of the founders of this Republic are given preferential consideration over the parent Anglo-Saxon stock to the exclusion of the latter, to such an unwarranted degree as to make the present basis not only unsound but dangerous. The two principal reasons for the enactment of the immigration act were (1) the necessity of not further deranging our economic life by a flood of immigrants from countries with specially heavy war burdens and (2) the reduction of the number of immigrants to a point where they can be assimilated. We discovered after we entered the World War that the ‘influx of foreign population had been altogether too great to be assimilated. As this is an Englishspeaking Anglo-Saxon country, it is clear that English-speaking people from other countries will assimilate much more readily than people from countries not using the English language. For this reason, if there is any preferential basis to be established. it should be given to people of Anglo-Saxon origin. I do not mean to intimate for a minute that there are not large numbers of people from countries other than English-speaking who have done their full share as citizens since they came to this country, but that does not entitle their country of origin to an unwarranted preferential basis over the countries from which the bulk of our parent stock originated. Proponents of the Nye resolution have used a few complications in the matter of origin of individuals in an attempt to show the futility of determining the country of origin, but such cases would amount to only a small fraction not sufficient to detract from the soundness of the national origins basis. From my observations during the World War I do not believe that doubt in national origins cases would exceed 15 per cent, and, to my mind, a proposition which shows a margin of 80 to 85 per cent of definite determination is certainly a sound one. From data which has come under my observation from time to time the doubt as to the workability of the national origins basis has been initiated by those who know the unsound basis of the 1890 foreign-born population, under which certain countries get a preferential status to the detriment of other countries. Under the national origins basis the 1890 census basis would be replaced by a more equitable basis, under which this unwarranted preference would be eradicated. We recognize fully to-day the necessity of the assimilation of foreign elements, if the country is to remain in control of its Anglo-Saxon founder stock. If the World War had not forcibly brought this fact to the front it is possible that this country would have suffered the fate of the Roman empire, which fell because of the great influx of foreign elements who were not assimilated, and for that reason were not interested in the principles on which the Empire was founded. In 1908 A. P. Schultz, in Race or Mongrel, page 257, states: Up. to the middle of the last century a distinct national character was developing in the United States and certain distinctive traits were forming. The addition of millions of other races has caused a recomposition which prevented the endurance of these characteristics and caused this development to PR SO— NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 149 It was the condition of the country prior to the alien influx startng in 1850 which led to the above conclusions by Mr. Schultz, and t was the recognition of these facts 16 years later that resulted in the enactment of the immigration restriction of 1924 by Congress. Prior to the enactment of this legislation the Republican Party in 1920 laid down in its platform the necessity of restricting immigration to numbers that could be fully assimilated, and also went on record that preference should be given to immigrants whose standards are similar to ours. This declaration of principles certainly did not contemplate the preferential status given to the Nordic races under the 1890 census basis. The assumption that quotas based on national origins are unworkable by inability to determine origins is, to my mind, unfounded. Authorities in general agree within a small percentage, and a basis which is 80 to 90 per cent current is certainly stable enough for a foundation, especially as compared with 1890 census quota basis, where not even a fair average is found. A general examination of authorities indicate that of our population as regards the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic stock is around 70 per sent Anglo-Saxon and 80 per cent Nordic. The presidential commissions’ quotas of 1927 and 1928 recognize this ratio with a little less degree of divergence. On the average conclusion of authorities then the Anglo-Saxon quota should be around 70,000 and the Nordic quota around 30,000 whereas the 1890 census basis gives the Angloaxon race but 84,000 and the Nordic races around 68,000, due to the fact that the latter is based on a period in which there was an abnormal influx of foreign born of which nearly one-third were aliens who had not signified their intentions of becoming citizens. The fifty-odd million parent stock (census 1920) is eliminated from consideration while one-third of the basic number on which the 1890 quota is founded, are citizens, not of this country but of other countries. The continuance of the quotas based on the foreign-born as indicated by the abnormal figures of the 1890 census, is a direct deprivation of tne parent stock of this country of their rights and a surrender of same to the control of citizens of other countries. In my opinion the national-origins basis is wholly sound, workable and provides the only equitable basis for the restriction of immigration, and that further delay in putting into effect the immigration act of 1924, is detrimental to the public interest in general and to the preservation of the national integrity of the country which was sstablished under trying difficulties long before the last comers had arrived to enjoy the benefits of the sacrifices and hardships endured oy our parent Anglo-Saxon stock. Mr. Ridder and Representative McCormack referred to Germanic immigration. The census records show that up to 1832 the German immigrants were very meager, that the average was not to exceed 500 a year; that it increased in around 1854 to 215,009, and 1882 it had increased to 250,630; and the influx of the Germans from 1820 to 1923 was around 5,568,702. The foreign-born population in 1920, 47 per cent found in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Massachusetts—27 per cent New York, 16 per cent Pennsylvania, 19 per cent in Illinois, and 27 per cent from Massachusetts, Of the foreign-born popula- 150 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW tion New York City, for instance, had 764,089 in 1910, or 44.4 per cent for aliens. The principal objections that we have to the 1890 basis is that it eliminates the foreign stock from all consideration, and in eliminating the foreign stock it leaves the quota entirely in the hands of the foreign born, of which I think it is 84 per cent, or around one-third are people who are aliens. We do not know whether they are going to become citizens or not; they have not signified their intentions. So we can not give them that status. The Cuamman. I want to announce that this committee is going into executive session at a quarter of 12 for the final determination of this matter. So that there are but a few minutes left. Senator Reed desires Mr. Kinnicutt to be heard. Senator Reep. I would like Mr. Kinnicutt and Col. Gist Blair to be heard. STATEMENT OF MAJ. GIST BLAIR, REPRESENTING THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE WORLD WAR. WASHINGTON. D. C. Major Bram. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I had the honor and privilege of serving on General Crowder’s staff during the war and during the entire term of the organization of our National Army and now represent the Military Order of the World War. which, as you know, 1s the organization of officers. I think it perhaps advisable to say that in the application of the selective draft one of the places that comes to my mind where that draft could not be applied was Hawaii; and the reason was that under the voluntary system the entire number required were already taken up by applications from Japanese. Another very interesting—— Senator Kine. You mean Japanese citizens? Major Bram. Japanese and citizens—not only citizens, but they were supposed to include those who had made application for citizenship. Another very interesting thing comes to my mind, about which I have heard so much discussion here, as to who wanted to serve. I remember there was a great delegation from a reservation of Indians from out in the Dakotas who protested that they were not included under the draft law so that they might serve Uncle Sam. The Military Order of the World War at its last general convention at Atlantic City unanimously passed a resolution in favor of national origins. That has been thoroughly discussed, as I understand it, among the officers; and they not only are in favor of it but that great body of men represent all of our body of citizens. They served their country, and they represent all the races of our country. I do not believe there is an organization with which I am acquainted where there is less feeling about race questions. This is the law. It has been adopted after a great deal of discussion, and it represents the final act. Now, if the law is repealed and changed, you are immediately confronted with the question, What are you going to put in its place? I think the most important point that has brought about this exclusion of immigration has nothing to do with the race to which any man belongs but it is industrial. We are in a great country wherein, NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 151 as you all know, there is going on a bloodless revolution. We have 0 the United States a tremendous increase in the use of machinery; we have an increase in mass production of all products. That great increase in the use of machinery is eliminating a large number of workers, and at the same time increasing the compensation of those who are retained in our great factory and manufacturing system. This is an economical question, gentlemen, more than racial or anything of that kind that is being so thoroughly and fairly discussed here before you. We desire to save America not for any race but for the children of those who are now and have been residing here under ‘his national origins, accepting immigrants from every race in the proportion in which they have already come here. Those people are more familiar with the conditions and circumstances of America than those from any race; the assimilation of all of us, in accordance with this great mass production, the bloodless revolution, that is going on around us, is much better if we take those who are here with us, for whom we have all of us a kindly feeling rather than to bring in entire strangers. Now, this quota just restricts that and makes an attempt, crude perhaps, but it is an attempt. The attempt is to bring into our midst those who are here already, so as to carry on the great work of America. I wish to declaim personally and for the people I represent any racial feeling of any kind whatsoever. As I said, I had the privilege of being on General Crowder’s Staff during the entire organization of our national army, and I can agsure you thatenone of these questions were ever brought up, and there was the most generous answer from all races to the demands that they should then help the country. Thank you very much. Senator Reep. Thank you very much, Major Blair. Mr. Kinnicutt is one of the authorities on this subject and has studied it for a lifetime. We have not time to hear him adequately. I should like to ask leave for him to file a statement of his views with the stenographer, to be embodied in the record. and to say a word also if he wants to. The CriarrMan. There is no objection to that. You may file your data and thev will be considered bv the committee, in due course. NEW York. February 15. 1929. THADDEUS RAGSDALE, Esq. Columbian Building, Washington, D. C. My DEAR MR. RaGsparr: There is a trifiing correction which I should like to have made in my testimony if there is still time. On page 9 of the typewritten copy I would like to strike out the words at the end of the fourth line and beginning of the fifth, “on the one hand and,” and in place thereof, substitute the words “ and those of,” so that the fourth line reads “ tutions and civilization of the United States and those of.” What is more important, however, is that I should like to put a heading on Exhibit No. 6, as follows: . . “ Principal discriminations caused by the 1890 foreign-born census basis.” [ would like this to go right at the top of the page. The exhibit is one of those on yellow paper, and may be identified by the exhibit number which X believe is on it now, No. 6, and by the fact that the first words appearing thereon on the left-hand upper corner are “1890 foreign-born uotas.” Hoping it is not too late to make these slight corrections, I am, Verv tralv vonrs. Franwcrs HH. KINNIQCUTT. 152 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW STATEMENT OF FRANCES H. KIN NICUTT, IMMIGRATION RESTRIC-TION LEAGUE, AND ALLIED PATRIOTIC SOCIETY, NEW YORK CITY Mr. Kinnrcurr. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will accept that; and I just want permission to state whom I represent, and to ask for the insertion of certain exhibits. The Cramrman. Please state it, if you will. i Mr. Kinnicurr. I represent the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.), organized in 1908, and also the Allied Patriotic Societies of New York, which comprise about 40 patriotic societies. I ask permission to insert in the record the resolution from each in opposition to the Nye resolution. The Cramman. Granted. Mr. Kixyicurr. I also ask to insert translation of an article that appeared in the Frankfurter Staats-Zietung July 17, 1927, when this question first arose. The Cramrmax. If there is no objection, it will be so ordered. Mr. Kixxtovrr. I want the committee to know the gist of that in a few words, that the German Ambassador, Baron von Maltzahn, who was killed in an aeroplane disaster shortly afterwards, said in a public speech at Bremerhaven, Germany, on July 16, 1927, that the German-Americans in the United States were to be thanked for the postponement of the national-origins provision. The Cmamrnman. I think that was introduced by Senator Reed, so he will accept that. , . Mr. Kinnicurr. I was not aware he had done so. The other exhibits are simply tables showing how those discriminations work out. The CrairmaN. Now, if you will arrange with the reporter for the insertion of such matter as you may leave with him, this committee will close its public hearing and determine what is going to be done with the resolution. (Mr. Kinnicutt’s supplemental statement and exhibits referred to above are as follows:) I appear as the representative, primarily, of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.), and also of the Allied Patriotic Societies (Inc.). The parent body of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.) was established as far back as 1908, and it is incorporated under the laws of New York. It has branches in Brooklyn and in Essex and Hudson Counties, N. J., with a total membership of duespaying members of about 20,000 American citizens. The league has been actively engaged in the cause of immigration restriction during the past 20 years of .its existence, and was a strong supporter of the legislation embodied in the present immigration act of 1924. The Allied Patriotic Societies (Inc.) consist of a group of about 40 patriotic societies and organizations, some national, others confining their activities to the State of New York. A list of these societies appears in a letter recently addressed to the chairman of this committee opposing the resolution of Senator Nye, which seeks to postpone for a third time the putting into effect of the national origins quotas basis under the immigration act of 1924. I ask your consent to have that letter, a short one, incorporated in the record. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 153 I also ask to have put in the record appended to my statement a resolution of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.) adopted January 25, 1929, in opposition to the Nye resolution (Exhibit 1) and a resolution of the Allied Patriotic Societies in support of the national origins provision (Exhibit 2). Also a copy of a memorial to the same effect signed by representatives of 23 patriotic organizations when the question of the first postponement of the national origins provision came before Congress in 1927 (Exhibit 3), and an important memorial (Exhibit 4) with 47 signatures, which include ‘he names of some of the most distinguished biologists, ethnologists, and authorities on immigration in the United States. Some of these are Prof. Edwin S. Conklin, of Princeton, Profs. E. M. East and Ernest A. Hooten, of Harvard, eminent authorities on biology and anthropology ; Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History; C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan; A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, and such well-known authorities on immigration as Robert De C. Ward, John R. Commons, and Henry P. Fairchild. In addition to these documents, with the committee’s permission, 1 annex, to my statement (Exhibit 6) table showing the principal dis-~riminations produced by the 1890 foreign-born quota basis and what they would amount to over a period of years, another table (Exhibit 7) taken from the 1920 census showing the comparative racial assimibility of certain immigrant groups as indicated by intermarriage with native Americans, and finally (Exhibit 5) a translation of part of an article in a German newspaper quoting a speech of the late ambassador to the United States, to the effect that the German-Americans in the United States had caused postponement of national origins in 1927. The position of the societies which I represent, with respect to the question of the Nye resolution, is briefly as follows: We believe that the national origins provision of the immigration act of 1924, which provides a permanent basis for apportioning the quota of immigration, is an integral and essential part of our present policy of restricting immigration; that ample time having elapsed for the scientific and correct determination of the nationl origins quotas in the manner provided by Congress, these quotas should be put into effect according to the terms of the law as at present amended. and we are strongly opposed to further postponement. As to the national origins provision itself, we wholly approve of it and for the same reasons given by the late Congressman William N. Vaile, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives in December, 1925. Mr. Vaile, who was a member of the conference committee which accepted the national origins amendment offered by Senator Reed to the bill introduced bv Congressman Albert Johnson in 1994. said: The national origins plan is fair to all; it avoids completely all racial dissrimination, and it will preserve the blood of the Uniterl States in its present aroportions. } More specifically, we believe that the national origins provision is aecessary not only to prevent the present heavy discrimination against the native-born American population in the 1890 foreignbom census basis. but also as a means of preserving such degree of 154 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW racial homogeneity as we still possess. Here we are in entire agreement with the views of the 47 signers of the memorial of scientists to which I have referred, expressed in the following language [reading from the memorial] : 2. We further urge the prompt putting into effect of that provision of the immigration act of 1924 whereby the quotas after July 1, 1927, at present determined by the number of foreign born of each nationality bere in the year 1890, are to be adjusted so as to conform to the officially estimated number of persons now in the country of each national origin, either by birth or descent. We believe that this permanent basis for fixing the quotas already provided for by law is sound in principle and fair to all elments in the population. Only by this method can that large proportion of our population which is descended from the colonists and other early setttlers, as well as the members of the newer immigration, have their proper racial representation in the quotas. We believe that Congress wisely concluded that only by such a system of proportional representation in our future immigration could the racial status quo of the country be maintained or a reasonable degree of homogeneity secured. Without such basic homogeneity we firmly believe no civilization can have its best development. I believe that we have here an excellent statement of the true reasons for retaining the national-origins provision, and I want particularly to emphasize the last point made, that it is necessary to preserve “ga reasonable degree of homogeneity ” in our population, While it is true that we are a composite people to-day, it is also true that by far the largest single element is still composed of the basic Anglo-Saxon stock, which almost exclusively settled the country prior to the Revolution, gave us our Constitution, and founded our American civilization. That stock at the time we became a Nation constituted about 90 per cent of our population. We were then, both in race and culture, a homogeneous people. Let me quote what George Washington said just after the Revolution: Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affection * * * With slight shades of difference you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. This homogeneity continued until about the middle of the last century. Since then we have as a people undergone great racial changes through successive waves of immigration. Some of this immigration by reason of its fairly close ethnical relationship to the original population was assimilated with comparative ease, both racially and culturally. With the later—the so-called “newer ” immigration from southern and eastern Europe greater difficulties of assimilation have been encountered; but if we do not further dilute the basic stock, which still constitutes about one-half of our white population, we may hope to overcome these difficulties. The effect, however, of converting the temporary 1890 apportionment of our immigration into a permanent basis will not help to achieve this end, for it will further seriously dilute the original stock which at the present time is still strongly represented in all parts of the country. While the national-origins basis will preserve the present status quo and give that stock a share in the quotas, as great but no greater than its present representation in our population, the 1890 quotas, if continued, would heavily discriminate against it. This appears from the following table showing the 1890 and national-origins quotas: NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 155 Quotas of Germany, the Irish Free State, and Great Britain, plus Northern Ireland 1890 quotas National origins quotas FOrmany - ove cvaecauna: ee mmmmmeeemmemmmmmmamemmaemmme Sm mmmeem mm [7iSh Free State ooo eoarom—romemememsamwes: -oscemmsemeees. smmssasmssssnmees JFreat Britain and northern IrelaBd. oc cmumeem commas conan er ———] 31, 227 28, 567 34, 007 | 24, 906 17,427 85, 894 Assuming that the revised report of the national origins figures is substantially correct, as I believe it is, the 1890 quotas effect a 100 per cent discrimination in favor of the element in our population derived from Germany and the Irish Free State and a discrimination of 94 per cent against that part of our people which is derived from England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland. How does this work out over a period of 10 years? ; In 10 years we should get, approximately, on the 1890 foreign-born asls HT IE ATES eee oe rm om bn [rich Free State Rei im ee 510, 000 280, 000 TOA eee mmm mmm meee. (90, 000 English, Scotch, Welsh, and North Irisho eo 340, 000 Thus there would come into the country in the period named £50,000 more Germans and Irish than immigrants from Great Britain and North Ireland. This excess, moreover, as already pointed out, would represent further dilution of the Anglo-Saxon element in our population. It would not be a square deal to all elements as is the case with the national origins plan. Is this just to ourselves as a nation, or is it advisable? The late Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood summed up the melting-pot problem clearly and briefly when he said, “ The American cement has about all the sand it will stand.” The late Gino Speranza, an American citizen of Italian parentage, in his great book, Race or Nation, had for his main thesis that our American institutions and our American civilization itself were in danger if we continued to allow mass immigration of other races eradually to submerge the racial element which produced those instiations and civilization, He holds that, to a large extent, forms of government as well as social customs and ideals are the products of race, and that the best guardian of a nation’s institutions is the race ny which they were involved. By keeping our basic stock proportionately represented in the quotas we tend to avert the danger pointed out by Speranza. In this connection the quotation from Gustave Le Bon in Professor Garis’ article, We Must be on Guard (Saturday Evening Post, January 5, 1929), is appropriate: A preponderating influence of foreigners is a sure solvent of the existence of States. It takes away from a people its most precious possession—its soul, I believe that there are many evidences that our body politic is suffering to-day from too much alienage. Says Speranza, on this point: 156 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW Immigration, or more exactly, that cohering and aggressive mass alienage such as we have seen operating in other fields of the life of the Nation, is undoubtedly playing a very important part in the malaise which to-day gravely troubles the body-soul of democracy. (Race or Nation, p. 133.) Without making any claim of superiority for the immigration chiefly discriminated against in the 1890 quotas, it presents as a whole no problem of assimilability. In the first place, these immigrants speak the language of our country—a very important matter In connection with their fitting rapidly into our national life. They at once read our English language newspapers and know what is going on in all phases of American life and from the American point of view; whereas the immigrant who speaks a foreign language and sometimes does not master our language to the end of his life gets his ideas of our institutions and ideals only as interpreted by the foreign language press, which is often colored in its views, particularly on political subjects, by the point of view of the country in whose language it is written. For many reasons the newcomers from England or Scotland can hardly be said to require assimilation, as the word is used. They come from a country whose political institutions, particularly that of a truly representative government, are much like our own; and from a country from which we inherit our system of law, known as the common law, which prevails in every State of the Union, except Louisiana. Our Constitution, while it abolished the monarchical form of government, still prevailing in Great Britain, incorporated in its Bill of Rights many of the personal liberties won by the people of England in centuries of political struggle. They come from a country with which we have, to a large extent, a common literature and to whose great writers of the past we owe most of the masterpieces of our language. Further analogies might, of ‘course, be drawn between the institutions and civilization of the United States on the one hand and the Great Britain of to-day, such as similarity in forms of local government seen in the typical city, township, and county systems of the United States. Although we are to-day, particularly since the Great War, greatly occupied with the Americanization of various alien groups, no one hears of any work of this kind being necessary ‘with respect to recent immigrants from Great Britain. In another respect, they assimilate readily. The census of 1920 shows that our British-born immigrants intermarry more with native-born Americans than with their own kind, there being more native-born children of mixed British and American marriages than native-born children both of whose parents are British. This is not true of any other foreign-stock group. I have offered (Exhibit 7) a table taken from the 1920 census, showing the figures on this particular matter with respect to several classes of immigration. Turning now to the question of the fairness of reliability of the national-origins quotas, as determined by the revised report of February 25, 1928, I wish briefly to refer to the action of the experts with respect to the only part of the statistical investigation which seems to have met with any substantial difficulty. At the time the preliminary report of the three secretaries was filed in January, 1927, the claim was made that the previous conclusions of the Census Bureau as to the national origins of our population at the time NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 157 of the first census (1790), published by the Census Bureau in the Jocument entitled “A Century of Population Growth,” were subject to substantial correction in one respect. It was claimed that in relying upon the Christian and surnames contained in the census of 1790 to determine the proportion of people of English, Scotch, [rish, or German descent, a certain allowance should be made for the Anglicization of some of the names which were not in fact English, The revised national-origins report (S. Doc. 65) by the committee of experts, shows how this problem was dealt with. Says the report (p. 4): It was to be expected that whatever error there might be in this classifisation would be in the direct.on of an overstatement of the English element in the population, because that was the dominant element in most parts of the United States at that period, and for that reason the name changes would paturally be in the direction of the Anglicization of names of non-lnglish origin. Moreover, there would be a natural and justifiable tendency on the part of the class.fiers to assign to the dominant element in the population 111 names not clearly of other origin. “The investigations carried on by the research experts employed by the American Council of Learned Societies bore out this expectation, indicating that the English element as given in the Century of Population Growth was too large; and on the basis of data which they submitted and of information derived from other sources your committee came to the conclusion that the English element as there given should be reduced by a little over 10 per cent and the amount of the reduction distributed among the other nationalities represented in the population of the United States in 1790. This revision affects only that portion of the several quotas which is derived from the 1790 population, which we termed ‘the original native stock.” It does not affect that portion which is derived from immigrant stock coming into this country after 1760." It is quite apparent from this that the experts, after much conscientious work and corroboration of their work by expert assistance of the Council of Learned Societies, gave liberal recognition of the claim above referred to. This resulted in the only changes of any importance made in the revision report of the national origins quota board as compared with the original report, namely, changes affecting the quotas of Great Britain and Ireland and to a less extent Germany, as shown in the following table: Nationalorigins quotas SO iain and North Tn Jreat Britain and North Ireland... o.oo... IIIT rish Free State. A i Revised fiotirae %, 908 65, 804 | 17 497 Preliminary report 23,428 73,039 13. R62 Considerable testimony has been offered during the present hear-‘ngs to show that the final national-origins quota awarded to Germany is fair and corresponds very closely with the claims as to the number of persons of German origin in the United States by authorities having a high standing with the German element in the United States. But there is also evidence, not alluded to during these hearings, that the national-origins quota allotted to the Irish Free I5RR5— 929.11 158 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW State is admited to be fair by Americans of Irish descent. I refer to the testimony of Mr. Joseph Carey, President of the American-Irish Republican League, before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, January 26, 1927 (p. 65) : Mr. Carey. I am president of the American-Irish Republican League of Detroit. It is a local organization. Mr. Horapay. Is it a political organization? Mr. Carey. Yes; it is. Mr. Horapay. Is it composed largely of Irish? Mr. Carey. It is American. We put America first. It is Americaun-Irish, vecause we believe that America needs constant attention. Mr. Horapay. I suppose your objection to the national-origins plan is based primarily upon the fact that it would seriously reduce the quota of the Irish Free State from the number granted it according to the census of 1890. Mr. Carey. No; I would not say that. I have no instructions bearing on that particular peint, but I believe it is generally thought that the Irish Free State quota under the present law is quite liberal. It is very liberal. The present quota is 13.000 looks qu'te liberal. As already seen, the revised national-origins quota for the Irish Free State is 17427. In view of the fact that other points involved in the question before your committee have been pretty fully covered by other witnesses, I shall not trespass upon your time by going into them. 1 will only add this word in conclusion: That the societies I represent believe that the immigration act of 1924 was a statesmaniike measure, conscientiously worked out and meeting with the full approval of the great majority of American citizens. A fundamental part of the act—the permanent basis for apportioning the immigration— lias not been allowed to go into eflect. We believe that a further postponement of this provision of the existing law would be equivalent to repudiation of the law itself and of our whole present system of restricting immigration. Therefore. we are opposed to the passage of the Nye resolution. I beg to thank the committee for its great courtesy in permitting me to make the foregoing statement, with accompanying exhibits. Exnisir No. 1 COPY OF RESOLUTION OF IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION LEAGUE Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 192, introduced by Senator Nye, provides for a further postponement of one year in putting into effect the national yriging clause of the immigration act of 1924 by which the inequalities in the quotas of certain countries determined on the 1890 foreign born census basis are removed so that our immigration is apportioned fairly in accordance with the number of people in our present population of each national origin, and Whereas said national-origins provision is fundamental part of the system of quota restriction adopted by Congress in 1924 and further delay in putting the same into effect amounts to repudiation of our whole present system of restriction. Resolved, by the main body of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc), at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of January, 1929. that said Senate Joint Resolution 192 is against the public interest and should not be enacted into law. + pdr. Fxursit No. 2 RESOLUTION Resolution relating to immigration legislation unanimously adopted at the regular monthly meeting of the Allied Patriotic Societies (Ine.), held on Viav 2. 1928 « NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 159 Resolved, That the Allied Patriotic Societies (Inc.) urge upon Congress: The retention of the immigration act of 1924 including the national-origins provision for apportioning the immigration according to the present composition of the American people, both native and foreign born. (A true copy.) Francis H. KINNICUTT, First Vice President Allied Patriotic Societies. Tue ALLIED PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES (INC.) } (Headquarters, 299 Madison Avenue, New York City) Dwight Braman, president. Francis H. Kinnicutt, first vice president. John R. Voorhis, second vice president. Mrs. Charles F. MacLean, third vice president. SOCIETIES REPRESENTED American Defense Society, American Legion, American Society of Reconstruction, Board of Education (New York City), Bowery Mission, Boy Scout Foundation, Columbia University, Committee for America’s Defense, Dames of the Loyal Legion, Daughters of America (National Society), Daughters »f the American Revolution (State of New York), Daughters of the Holland Dames, Department of Labor (official observer), Huguenot Society, Jacobus Roosevelt Chapter Daughters of the American Revolution, Key Men of America, Knickerbocker Chapter Daughters of the American Revolution, Law and Order Union of New York State, Lord's Day Alliance of the United States, Lord's Day Alliance of New York State, Mary Washington Colonial Chapter Daughters of the American Revolution, Military Order of the Loyal Legion (State of New York), National Association for American Speech, National Patriotic Builders of America, National Society of New England Women, National Sgeciety of Patriotic Women, National Society of the Daughters of ‘he Union, Naval Order of the United States, Navy of the United States (official observer), New York Port Society, New York University, Old Guard of ‘he City of New York, Patriotic Order Sons of America, St. Nicholas Society, Salvation Army. Society of American Wars, Society of Sponsors of the Navy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Sons of the American Revolution (national society), Sulgrave Institution, Tammany Society or Columbian Order, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Washington Headnaarters Association Danghters of the American Revolution. Ex#HIisir 3 MEMORIAL OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES OPPOSED TO REPEALING THE NATION AL-ORIGINS PROVISION OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT The undersigned patroitic societies and organizations and individual citizens respectfully submit to the President of the United States, to the Senate and to the House of Representatives, the following memorial with regard to iegislation regulating immigration : We believe the present policy of restricting immigration to the United States ambodied in the immigration act of 1924 to be sound in principle, fair to all elements of our population, and necessary to the protection of the people of ‘he United States against excessive and unassimilable immigration from foreign rountries. We believe that, aside from the numerical limitation of quota immigration ‘0 a fixed number annually, the apportioning of the quotas in accordance with the national origins of our predent population is the most important part of che present law, because it gives a just representation to the older as well as rhe newer racial elsements of our population and to the descendants of the sarly settlers and founders of our country. 160 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW We believe that this equitable representation is only approximately secured hy the 1890 census basis, which was resorted to temporarily by Congress as the readiest available method of carrying out the underlying principle of the entire: law, which is nothing more nor less than the preservation of the American people and the American Nation. In view of the foregoing considerations, we urge upon the President and upon Congress the maintenance of the basic provisions of the immigration act of 1924, and particularly the permanent basis for apportioning the quota immigration in accordance with the national origins of our present population. Leonora Rogers Schuyler, president, Washington Headquarters Association. Song of Confederate Veterans, eastern division, Silas W. Fry, commander. New York State Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America, Mary J. Aikenhead Davy, president. Florence G. Finch, regent of the Jacobus Roosevelt Chapter, D. A. BR. National Society Women Builders of America, Mrs. William Cumming Story. Bowery Mission, Anson O. Baker, secretary. Women’s Republican Association of the State of New York, Eleonora G. Goldsborough. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, National Americanization: Committee, Walter I. Joyce, director. Old Guard of New York, Walter I. Joyce, quartermaster. Daughters of America, Sadie E. Linkletter, national legislative chairman. Daughters of America, Sadie E. Ludlow, State council outside sent. Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, Harry L. Bowlby, general secretary. Patriotic Order Sons of America, C. B. Helms, chairman national legislative committee. Law and Order Union, D. Braman, president. New York Port Society, Mrs. Charles R. Scarborough. American Defense Society, by Charles Stewart Davison, chairman immigra--tion committee. Dames of the Loyal Legion, Society of State of New York, Emma BE. R. Cairns, president. The State Council of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the State of New York (Inc.), Franklin 8. Faye, secretary. Military Order of the Loyal Legion, New York Commandery, Alex L. Ward. Grace H. Brosseau, president-general, N. 8. D. AR. Immigration Restriction League (Inc.), William B. Griffith, chairman, axecutive committee. National Council Junior Order of United American Mechanics, John H. Noyes, aational legislative committee. Tosiah A. Van Orsdel, vice president general, Sons of American Revolution. JOPY OF MEMORIAL TO THE PRESIDENT, THE SENATE, AND THE HOUSE OF REPRE-SENTATIVES, DATED JANUARY 4, 1927 We, the undersigned, all citizens of the United States, impressed with the vital importance to the country of maintaining and perfecting the present system of immigration restriction, respectfully submit to the President of the United States, to the Senate, and to the House of Representatives, the following axpression of our views with respect to specific aspects of this question. 1. We urge the extension of the quota system to all countries of North and South America from which we have substantial immigration and in which the population is not predominantly of the white race. We believe that without such oxtension the present restriction of immigration is already inadequate and will become increasingly so in the near future. During each of the last two fiscal years we have been admitting upwards of 75,000 immigrants from Mexico, the West Indies, Brazil, and elsewhere, who are for the most part not of the white race and who, because of their lower standards of living, are able to compete at an advantage with American workers engaged in various forms of agricul--ural and unskilled labor. 2. We further urge the prompt pufting into effect of that provision of the immigration act of 1924, whereby the quotas, after July 1, 1927, at present determined by the number of foreign born of each nationality here in the NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 161 year 1890, are to be adjusted so as to conform to the officially estimated number of persons now in the country of each national origin, either by birth or descent. We believe that this permanent basis for fixing the quotas, already provided for by law, is sound in principle and fair to all elements in the population. Only by this method can that large proportion of our population which is descended from the colonists and other early settlers; as well as the menibers of the newer immigration, have their proper racial representation in the quotas. We believe that Congress wisely concluded that only by such a system of proportional representation in our future immigration could the racial status quo of the country be maintained or a reasonable degree of homogeneity secured. Without such basic homegeneity, we firmly believe, no civilization can have its best development. Princeton University: E. G. Conklin, professor of biology; Ulrie Dahlgren, professor of biology; L. R. Cary, assistant professor of biology ; Kenneth P. Stevens, instructor of biology; B. G. Butler, instructor of biology; Walter M. Rankin, professor of biology; C. F. W. McClure, professor of comparative anatomy; KE. Newton Harvey, professor of physiology; William Starr Myers; >hilip M. Brown; Edwin 8. Corwin. rard University: A. Lawrence Lowell, president; Robert Dec. Ward, professor of climatology, authority on immigration; E. M. East, professor of biology; Ernest A. Hooten, professor of anthropology; J. N. Carver, professor of economics; Alfred Tozzer, professor; 8. K. Lothrop, professor: Howard Daggett; Theodore BH. Burnett. Yale University: Irving Fisher, professor of political economy; Robert M. Yerkes, professor of psychology; Ellsworth Huntington, professor of geography; Edward Bliss Reed, professor; Samuel B. Hemingway, professor: John Johnston. professor of chemistry. Colmmbia University: Franklin H. Giddings, professor of sociology and history; Howard McBain, professor of constitutional law; Robert E. Chaddock, professor of statistics: Henry HE. Crampton, professor of zoology. University of Wisconsin: Xdward A. Ross, professor of sociology; J. BE. Irelin, professor of sociology; Wm. H. Kiekhofer, professor of economics; John R. Commons, professor of economics; Henry R. Trumbower, professor of economics. University of Michigan: C. C. Little, president; C. H. Van Tyne, head of department of history. New York University: H. P. Fairchild, professor of sociology. The following not attached to a university: Eugene N. Foss, exgovernor of Massachusetts; Leon ¥. Whitney, field secretary American Eugenics Society; Charles B. Davenport, director lepartment of genetics, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C.; H. H. Laughlin, Eugenics Records Office, Washington, D. C.; Roswell H. Johnson, president American Eugenics Society; Madison Grant, president New York Zoological Society; Henry fairfield Osborn, president American Museum of Natural History; Richards M. Bradley, Authority on Immigration.; Joseph Lee, vice president Immieration Restriction Leacue TBRostor. ExuIBIT 5 [Translation of part of article appearing in Frankfurter Zeitung of July 17, 19271 Apropos the contennial celebration of the city of Bremerhaven the North German Lloyd yesterday afternoon held a banquet on board the steamship Columbus, just returned from America, for which numerous invitations were sent out. At the covclusion of a speech by the mayor, Doctor Donandt, Baron Von Maltzahn, the German ambassador at Washington. whe was among the zuests, spoke as follows: “The German-American element is to be thanked for a breach in the wall which has been made here as well as over there in the question of the war 162 NATIONAL. ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW guilt. * * * On the immigration question the German-Americans were to be thanked that the new law under which only 26,000 Germans could emigrate annually to the United States had been postponed. Three further matters of great influence were art, sport, and science. Therefore, it was of great importance that the North German Lloyd should be helpful when German professors wished to travel to America. Before everything, sport in America plavs a very great role. More had been written in Americn about the German swimmer Rademacher than about any diplomat or artist.” ExHaisir No. 6 PRINCIPAL DISCRIMINATIONS CAUSED BY THE 1800 FOREIGN-BORN CENSUS 1890 foreign-born quotas Percentage Germany, 51,000. eee BL Irish Free State, 28,000 ce. A Great Britain and North Ireland, 34,000 eo 20 National-origing quotas Percentage Germany, 24,908 eee 16 Trish Bre Bale, 17401. re mmi msiiim iimnisg mim liiiit. imiibiiiiiiiimos. b Great Britain and North Ireland, 65,894 i 43 Immigration over 10-year period on 1890 basis CHOTTIVIVILY. sii sion di e555 Sl at a [rish Free State __ 510, 000 280, 000 Total. emma 790, 000 Great Britain and North Ireland. eee. 340.000 Immigration over 50-year period on 1890 basis Germany eer 2 DOU), 000 Irish Free State eee 1,200, 000 TT OEIUT ce er em 55 rr 5m min iim i si mr iis yy EG O00 Great Britain and North Ireland. ____ 1,700. 000 ExgIsiT 7 Native white of foreign or mized parentage [Table taken from U. 8. Census, 1920, vol. 2, p. 897] Sngland . «ecm creeaae Jeotland ooo iii i ieee IPE cin msm ims sisson ss i os NDPWAY wwii mmm sme sw mien A Bors IPB i RS SARA RRR 48 SRE wi JOIUINIIL «oc morro mm mon sommes mel A BR 3ermany. ..- mm ————— [talv rare mm em om Total 1, 483, 024 421, 147 2,071, 688 661, 174 824,726 276, 029 5, 344; 128 L721 781 Both par- . ents foreign Father foreign 574,499 571, 560 178,638 153,917 , 066,068 573, 021 437,623 143,314 500,744 | 144,382 170, 702 73, 915 3,397,370 | 1,367, 805 1 556.065 | 146, 304 Mother foreign 336, 965 88, 592 131, 699 80, 237 80, 600 © 31,412 578, 053 19. 202 Analysis of the above figures show, with respect to- the eight countries in column 1, that there is a marked variation in the number of children born in the United States having one Amverican parent. In other words, it shows that some of these nationalities intermarry with the native-born American more than others, NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 163 Proportion of children with one American parent England. eee _._____ Over one-half. Ireland... ecm meme eee. S1ightly over one-third. TR ORIIVIVINY cei im ng dt nn Do. Denmark... cmmmm— Less than one-half, Scotland... oo __.. Over one-half. Sweden_____ ee re eee. Dne-fourth. NOTWARY ee meee. ODIE-third, Italy.___ mmm eme—. One-tenth. Mr. Livoyp. I ask leave to insert telegram from Mrs. Eaton, secrecary of bureau of immigration of the Women’s Home Missionary Society of the Methodist Church, and list of organizations which have taken a stand for the national-origins provision, also resolution on immigration adopted by the Women’s Patriotic Conference on National Defense, January 381, 1929. The Crairman. Without objection, it is so ordered. r > 3 {The documents submitted by Mr. Lloyd are as follows:) LaxspownNE, PA. February 12, 1929. DEMARST LLoyp, Esq.. Washington, D, C.: The Woman's Home Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with membership exceeding 400,000, indorses the national-origins quota basis for immigration and opposes the Nye resolution to postpone. The society's sarposge is to train for home making and good citizenship. Its work is largely mong aliens and their children and at ports of entry, therefore it has practical knowledge on which to base this aefion. Mgrs, SeyMouR EaTox. The following organizations have taken a stand for the national-origins proision of the present immigration restriction law: Allied Patriotic Societies of New York City. Allied Patriotic Societies of Washington. American League of Good Will. American Defense Society. American Legion. American War Mothers. Baptist Missionary Society. Better America Federation. . Chamber of Commerce, State of New York. Civil Legion, Coalition Committee of Michigan. Daughters of the Defenders of the Republic. Daughters of Liberty. Descendaiits of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Disabled American Veterans of the World War. General Society Mayflower Descendants. immigration Restriction League of Boston. [mmigration Restriction Association. {mmigration Restriction League (Inc.). immigration Study Commission of California. independent Orders of Americans. {ndustrial Defense Association of Boston. Junior Order, United American Mechanics. Key Men of America, La Societe des 40 Hommes et § Chevaux. Massachusetts Public Interests League (Inc.). Military Order of Foreign Wars of the United States. Military Order of the World War. 164 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW National Jorps, Army and Navy Union. National ?atriotic Council. . National 3ociety, Daughters of the American Revolution. National Society, Daughters of the Revolution. National 3ociety, Dames of the Loyal Legion. National Society, Daughters of the Union. National Society, Patriotic Builders of America. National jociety, Sons of the American Revolution. National Society, Daughters of America. National Society, Patriotic Order Sons of America. National Sojourners. National Woman's Relief Corps. Naval Order of the United States. New York Board of Trade and Transportation. Yew York State Women’s Republican Club. Naval and Military Order of the Spanish-American War, Patriotic Women of America. Reserve Officers’ Association of the United States. Scabbard & Blade. Society of Colonial Wars. State Council, Pennsylvania Order of Independent Americans. United Daughters of 1812. 3 United Daughters of the Confederacy. United States Air Force Association. United States Blind Veterans of the World War. United States Flag Association. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Washington Headquarters Association. Women’s Constitutional League. PESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION ADOPTED BY THE WOMEN’S PATRIOTIC CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE, JANUARY 31. 1929 Whereas the first line of defense of every country is a patriotic and free «itizenry, with a common language, like-mindedness on all matters of country’s welfare and with a pronounced sense of national loyalty, esaily fired by love »f country and so ever ready to come to its defense; and Whereas, during the past quarter of a century, the great mass of immigration to the United States has been of classes and groups that do not readily assimilate; and Whereas it is evident alien groups and alien-minded organizations are engaged in a persistent and continual assault on our immigration restriction policy, and have effectually prevented the adoption of rigid deportation law, which groups and organizations, apparently lack the essentials of sound citizens: Now therefore be it Resolved. That we, the delegates here assembled, speaking for ourselves and so far as authorized, for our organizations, oppose any and all legislation that would interfere with a rigid restrictive immigration policy. and in accord with this position we demand: First. That the Congress neither postpone Or repeal the national origins provision of the present immigration law; Second. That the Congress without further delay adopt a deportation law {hat will enable the proper enforcement officers, without the interference of fegnl delatory measures to deport all held to be undesirable because of their criminal actions, or their connection with some organization that advocates the ase of force and violence to overthrow the Government of the United States; and make such a law effective by a sufficient appropriation to the Department of Labor. . Third. That the Congress without further delay and for the protection of American homes and American citizenry, adopt a law compelling the registration of all aliens. a provision now in force in practically every country from which such aliens came. NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 165 The following organizations participating in the Women’s Patriotic Conference, sn National Defense, held at Washington, January 29, 30, and 31, 1929, approving the above, were as follows: American Gold Star Mothers. American Legion Auxiliary. American Veteran and Allied Patriotic Organizations. American War Mothers. American Women’s Legion. Auxiliary to Sons of Union Veterans of Civil War. Bergen County Women’s Republican Club of New Jersey. Colonial Daughters of the Seventeenth Century. Daughters of the Cincinnati. Daughters of the Colonial Wars, Inc. Daughters of the Union Veterans of the Civil War, 1861-1865. Government Club of Chicago. Government Club of New York. Ladies’ Auxiliary, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic. Law League of Kansas. National Auxiliary, United Spanish War Veterans. National Society, Colonial Daughters of America. National 3ociety, Dames of the Loyal Legion. National jociety, Daughters of the American Colonists. National 3ociety, Daughters of the American Revolution. National 3ociety, Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America. National 3ociety, Daughters of the Union, 1861-1865. National 3ociety of New England Women. National Society, Patriotic Builders of America (Inec.). National 3ociety, United States Daughters of 1812. New York City Colony, National Society of New England Women. Service Star Legion (Inc.). Society of Sponsors of the United States Navy. The Guadaloupe Club, 1848. - The National Patriotic Council. The National Women’s Relief Corps. Women’s Naval Service. Women of Army and Navy Legion of Valor, United States Army. Women's Overseas Service League. Woman's Constitutional League of Virginia. New YORK, February 7, 1929. Senator HIRAM JOHNSON, Chairman Committee on Immigration, Washington, D. C. My DEAR SIR: You will find accompanying this note petitions to the number of 624 signed by members and friends of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Camp No. 985, New York. This number represents a very small percentage of those interested in the snactment of the national-origin provision of the present immigration law. but time precluded any further addition to the list. Those of us who have signed firmly protest against the Nye resolution postponing the enactment of the provision, and we sincerely hope that you will use every effort possible to prevent either the repeal or vostnonement of this worthy piece of legislation. We hope that our cooperation in this small way will do something to strengthen the barriers against a further influx of aliens, and if we can be of any further assistance you have onlv to command us. Yours verv truly. Siras W. Fry, Commander Eastern Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. Senator NYE. Before we go into executive session, Mr. Chairman, you say that Senator Shipstead he nermitted ta submit a statement also for the record. 166 ~~ NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW The Crammax. That will be granted. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HENRIK SHIPSTEAD BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITIEE oN IMMI-GRATION REGARDING THE NYE RESOLUTION TO POSTPONE Errecruation or NATIONAL-ORIGING CLAUSE On two previous occasions the Committee on Immigration hax been called apon to exuinine the report of the three Cabinet officials based upon their investigations through statistical reports. On both occasions your committee has refused to accept the report. The reasons given to the Senate for refusing to accept the report are contained in the following statement by the chairman of the Committee on Immigration, February 1, 1927: “I desire to say that under the present immigration law the President ig required to promulgate a proclamation on the 1st day of April, 1927, in respect to the national-origins provisions of the law. “Upon this subject two messages have been received by the Senate. The last of those messages states that figures relied upon for the quota numbers of various countries are ambiguous and that practical legislation could mot be predicated upon then.” And further he says: “1 violate no confidence. 1 think, in saying. to the Senator from Missouri that the majority of the Immigration Committee desired to repeal the national origins law, but there being a minority in favor of it and our time being so limited, we felt that we could not at this time have definite action. * The resolution passed the Senate, came before the Immigration Committee of the House, and a majority of the committee reporting the resolution to the House reported in part, as follows: “The committee having considered the text of Senate Joint Resolution 152, to postpone for one year the goitug into effect of the national-oviging provision of the immigration act of 1924, is of the opinion that at the end of one year from July 1, 1927, the same uncertainty as to the results of regulating immizration by means of the national-origins plan will continue to exist. © “<That the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor will have little, if any, more positive evidence on which to base quota findings than at present, “*That too much uncertainty exists as to the requirements of the law that ‘the President shall issue a proclamation on or before April 1, 1927,” when read in conjunction with further provisions of the law. “*That it seems far better to have immigration quotas for the purposes of restriction fixed in such a manner as to be easily explained and easily understood by all. “ ‘That the committee is of the opinion that the United States, having started on a policy of numerical restriction, the principle of which is well understood, that little will be gained by changing the method.’ ” I take for granted that your committee has again refused to accept the report of the fact-finding commission appointed by the President according to law. I base that upon the fact that the committee has decided to hold public hearings. LAW OF 1924 SPECIFIC Under the provisions of the immigration law of 1924 the commission composed of the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Commerce had the task of determining the national origin of the population of the United States. This specific instruction of the law to this commission reads as follows : x “Such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors of descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses. and such other data as may be found to be reliable.” You will note that the mandate is quite specific in its limitations upon the commission. The purpose of this provision of the law was to create a factfinding commission. The commission is instructed by law to confine their source of information to “immigration and emigration” statisties “together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States census, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.” The law specifies these three sources of information upon which to find ‘he facts. The report is here; in fact. it is here for the third time by request NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 167 »f the committee for the purpose of determination by your committee as to whether or not the commission has complied with the provisions of the law in its search for facts and if the facts reported are of such a character that the committee in its judgment feels they ave sufficient and substantial enough to form the foundation of the immigration policy of the United States. It must be clear to everyone that the limitations conferred by law upon the fact-finding commission extend also to the Committee of Immigration in this care. The committee sits in a judicial capacity in judgment on the report and the report of the commission must form the foundation of your decision. Under the law .it seems plain that the committee is confined to the report of the commission. It. therefore, becomes important to learn what is the foundation of the commission’s report, Therefore. I call the committee's attention to the testimony of the chairman nf the commission's experts” whose duty it is to report to the commission of three cabinet officials in order that we may learn upon what their report is founded. CENSUS OF 1790 BASIS OF REPORT On page 14 of Senate document dated March 15, 1928, and designated as Hearing before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sevendeth Congress, first session, we read the following: “ Senator SuipsteAD, Doctor, upon reading the report I got the idea that fhe census of 1790 plays a very important part in your report. “ Doctor HILL, Yes; that is true. “ Senator Smresteap. It is almost a foundation for the entire report, as I read it. “ Doctor Hirr, Well, you are talking now about the census records, not about the century of population growth? “ Senator SmrpsTEAD. I am talking about the census record, and the century nf population growth is based, as I understand it, upon the census of 1780? “Doctor Hin. Yes. ; . “ Senator SHIPSTEAD. So the census of 1790 becomes the key to the arch of the whole basis of calculation as I understand the report. I wanted to know if that is your idea. “Doctor FILL. Yes; for that part of the population which we call the ariginal native stock, representing about 45 per cent of the total. ' “ Senator SmipsTeap. Can you tell us how many or what percentage of the statistics gathered in that report were destroved when the British burned the Capitol here? “ Doctor Hirn, Well, the records for New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Kenucky, and Tennessee. These records have been lost, but it is not altogether sertain that they were destroyed when the British burned the Capitol. although that is the tradition. x “ Senator SurpsTEAD. It Was given at one time as something like six or seven Htates of which the statistics were burned at that time, so given by one of the Commissioners of Immigration. « Senator Corerann. Does the Senator mean that the records relating to those States were burned? “ Genator SHIPSTEAD. Yes.” In Renate Document dated December 22, 1926, and des gnated Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, on page 4, while making a statement on the provisions of the law specifying the source of information upon which the commission was instructed to base its conclusion 1 made the following statement: “mhe number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 whose origin by birth or ancestry is attributable to such geographical area. Such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.” It will be seen from the above that the most important element in this determination ig * statistics of immigration and emigration.” The next important slement is © rates of increase of povulation as shown bv successive decennial [Tnited States censuses.” As reliable statistics of immigration and emigration are not in existence the whole plan fails and leaves the determination to mere guesswork or coniecture. “ Qenator Rep. In the absence of statistics. vou sav? 168 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW “ Senator SurpsTEAD. Yes. I say ‘reliable statistics’ are not available. Aecording to the best authorities, there are no reliable statistics of immigration for the first 213 years of this country’s history. I believe you stated in the debate upon this proposition that there were none until 1820? “ Senator REED. Yes, “ Senator SHIPsTEAD. I am quoting from your statement on the floor of thé Senate, April 3, 1924, page 5460, part 6, volume 65, of the Congressional Record : There was no official governmental record of immigration commenced until the year 1820." Dr. Edward McSweeney, former Assistant Commissioner of Immigration, has made a statement on that, and if you would care to have me do so I would like to read it. He said [reading]: “In 1819 a law was passed making it necessary for the captaing of all incoming ships bringing passengers to the United States to file a manifest of the passengers but, except to give the number of the passengers to the Government, was never other than perfunctory and almost never used, These accumulated manifests were burned in the Hillis Island fire of 1896. The first real attempt to gather immigration statistics was after the Immigration Bureau was established in the early nineties.” In 1906 Congress passed a law providing that the Director of the Census be authorized and directed to publish in permanent form, by counties and minor subdivisions, the names of the families returned at the first census of the United States in 1790. Speaking of the difficulties in this work, William 8. Rossiter, then chief clerk of the Census Bureau, stated in Outlook for December 29, 1906, page 1071, marshals in the different districts who had charge of the census: ' “The break in official records is one of the marks of the teeth of the British on, these papers and many others having been destroyed during the occupation of Washington in the War of 1812.” Mr. Rossiter also states: “ Vagaries of size, shape, paper, ruling, chirography, and language could easily be forgiven, if, however, thereby we could restore the missing schedules lor Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia, another reminder of the British, for they were also destroyed during the occupation of Washington.” Mr. Rositer estimates that one-fourth of the enumeration ig now lacking and that it would be very difficult to comply with the law of 1906. Director of the Census North was not seemingly deterred by the fact that such a large part of the records was missing, and proceeded in 1909 to make a voluminous report which not only used the partial records but gave meticulous percentages of the racial divisions in the country based solely on names, the same as the late Senator Lodge has done in his “ Distribution of Ability ” in 1896. Well, certainly the recklessness of that would be apparent ; for instance, here is a man by the name of Murphy; suppose he marries a girl of German descent. What would the children be? If you go by naine, of course they would be called Irish; the German would be wiped out. If an Irish girl should marry a man with a German name, a Scotch name, or Scandinavian name, the Irish descent would be wiped out. These fragmentary statistics of immigration and emigration are, therefore, admitted by the chairman of “experts” to be the foundation of their report. One-half of the records of the census of 1790 were destroyed more than 100 years before the commission began its work. In the census of 1790 the only information gathered by the census takers was the name and age of the individual. No information was gathered to determine their national origin. Che only manner in which the national origin could he determined of the population of 1790 would be from the remaining records of the seven remaining States. Six are gone, and the only manner in which the national origin if the remainder can be determined is by tracing the national origin of each individual of the population at that time by spelling or sound of lis name. This is ‘tracing the ancestors of descendants of particular individuals,” but he law creating the committee of experts says, ‘such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of emigration and immigration together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.” It seems plain and must be patent to the committee that the census of 1790 is specifically eliminated from consideration in this work by specific provizion of the law. It is plain, in view of the statement of Doctor Hill that the NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 169 rensus of 1790 is the foundation of his report that this evidence places the report in an indefensible position. There remains then (a) * Statistics of immigration and emigration.” RECORDS FROM 1819 TO 1896 BURNED on April 4, 1924, page 5460, part 6, volume 65 of the Congressional Record, [ find the statement made by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Reed: “There was no official governmental record of immigration commenced until the year 1820.” The immigration statistics provided for by law in the year 1819 were burned in the Ellis Island fire of 1896. As to the reliability of these records, Dr. Edward Sweeney, former Commissioner of Immigration said : “In 1819 a law was passed making it necessary for the captains of all incoming ships, bringing passengers to the United States, to file a manifest of the passengers but except to give the number of the passengers to the Government was never other than perfunctory and almost never used. These accumulated. manifests were burned in the Ellis Island fire of 1896. The first real attempt to gather immigration statistics was after the Immigration Bureau wag established in the early nineties.” Therefore the immigration statistics up until the early nineties were “ perfunctory and almost never used,” and what there was of them were destroyed by the Ellis Island fire in 1896. The immigration statistics are therefore eliminated not only by the provisions of the law on account of unreliability, but also by the fire. There remains then for the consideration of the committee “the rates of inwrease of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable.” It is hard to understand what effect “the rate of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses” can have upon the determination of the national origin of the American population so long as no information bearing upon national origin of the American population was gathered by the Census Bureau until 1850 and the Census Bureau did not gather any statistics on the origin of parents that were complete until 1890. NO NATIONAL ORIGIN CENSUS RECORD UNTIL 1890 I desire to call the committee’s attention to Doctor Hill's testimony in Senate locument designated as * Flearing before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Seventieth Congress, first session, March 15, on page 19: “ Senator SmipsTEAD. Doctor, have we got the returns for 1800? “Doctor Hrrr., Have we got them? “Senator SurrstEAD. Yes. “Doctor Hirn, There are some States missing still. States for which the [800 census records are missing include Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia, and certain limited areas in some other States; also Indiana Territory and Northwest Territory. “ Senator SHIPSTRAD. There were six or seven missing out of 1790. “ Senator WILLIS. I was wondering whether or not that might not be a check worth while. Our committees made these computations on the basis of the census of 1790. Suppose they should start an entirely independent inquiry, taking the census of 1800 and 1810 and see where they come out. It would be a pretty nxeful check, would it? ¥ Senator CorpLanD. Up as far as 1830 it would be, Doctor Hill. That would be a very large undertaking, a very large task, especiaily as we would have to work with manuscript records. We haven't nrinted these schedules as we have ‘hose of 1790. “ Senator WILLIS. You say you have not any printed record for the census for. ‘he earlier periods? . “Doctor HLL. I mean by that, the original records. Of course, we have census reports giving statistics, “ Senator WiLLis. 1790 was printed; 1800 was not or 1810? “Doctor HirL. No; nor has any later census been printed. “Senator SmIpsTEAD. Can you tell me the first census we indertook to find out what country these people came from? “Doctor Hin, 1830. “Senator SmuipstEap. There was nothing dome up until that time by our onumerators to determine where these people came from in Europe? [70 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW “Doctor Hin. That is true. “Senator CoreLanp. In 1850 did they go back further than the immediate parents? . “ Doctor Hin. It did not go back as far as that; simply their own birthplace, whether foreign born, and in what countries. . “ Senator CorELAND., When did they begin to ask anything about the parents? “ Doctor HinL. They made a beginning in 1880, but, ag I stated a while ago, that was not a complete classification. The first complete classification made of parents was in 1890. “ Senator SuipsTrEAD. Then until 1850 there was nothing to show ‘except Ly assuming from the names? “Doctor HILL. Well, we have the figures, you know. “ Senator SuipsTEAD. Were there any other immigration figures other than those required by the Government to be filed by the officers of incoming ships with the immigration officers, the number of passengers, and that the passengers tanded were accredited to the flag carried by the ship? “Doctor HrLL. I think you are right about that. I am not familiar with the immigration regulations of those days. “ Senator SHrpsTEAD. So, if the ship eame in carrying passengers from all over Europe, assume she had 1,000 passengers, the officer would file with the immigration department a manifest showing that 1,000 came here, and that German ship and immigration officials would accredit those immigrants to (Germany; is that right? * Senator Reep. I doubt whether there was any ship of that capacity at that time, * Senator SHipsTEAD. Of course, the figures 1 assumed merely for the purpose of illustration. For instance, an English ship coming in nuder the English flag, carrying passengers from all over Burone, the passengers would be accredited to England “ Senator Winns. The way they handled ships in those days that woukl not be a bad guess, beeause they did not have tramp vessels gathering up carvo. A ship was laden and went to a certain port. * Senator Reep. Your conclusions upon that were checked, were they iio, oy. statistics of emigrants from various countries? “Doctor Hit. So far as we could get them.” In Doctor LIS last report he says: “In order to utilize the available data to best advantage in the determination of national origin it was necessary first of all to determine what proportion of the white population of the United States in 1920 was derived trom the white population present in the United States when the fitst census was taken in 1790.” Suppose that it were possible to determine what percentage of the population of 1920 was descended from the population prior to 1790, what beuring could that have on the national origins of the population of 1920 unless we had some definite immigration and census records informing us on what was the national origins of the population prior to 17907 On page 2 of Doctor Hill's last report we learn— “The national origin of the original native or colonial stock is assumed to be the same as that of the 1790 population. In its preliminary report, submitted in 1026, the quota committee accepted the classification of 1790 population by nationalities as given in A Century of Population Growth, a work published 0y the Bureau of the Census in 1909, It was admitted. however, that there was a ‘considerable element of uncertainty’ in a classification based as that was upon the names of heads of families.” On page 4 of the last report and the one now pending we find that oue nf the experts explains the method of determining the national otig ns of the population of 1790. This shows plainly that the committee of experts’ report is based on A Century of Population Growth, which again is based ou the census of 1790, and the only excuse for basing the quotus on the census of 1790 and the only scientific thing about it ix that they determine the national origin of the population of 1790 by tracing or by guessing the national origin of the indiv.dual, using his name ax a basis. This method was cons dered so unscientific at the time of the passage of the immigration act that the (onsress specifically prohibited this method from being used. Therefore, up until 1890, we find there was no complete classification made of the national origins of the parents of the American population by ‘he Census Bureau. This is an admission of Doctor 1Lill in the hearings conlucted by your committee. It seems to me. therefore. that the record sas well NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 171 as the law rules out the “ Rate of increase as shown by successive decennial [Tnited States censuses.” DANGERS OF GOING ASTRAY There remain, then, “such other data as may be found to be reliable.” what that data is and how reliable it may be is for the committee to deternine. ln passing upon the reliability of whatever remaining data there may se, I am sure it is not necessary to warn the committee against going astray on -estumony presented by people whose mental complex seems biased by interaational and racial prejudices and inhibitions always latent to some extent in the human breast. The law does not provide that the committee shall consult the opinions and prejudices of our various racial or national groups. The ww specifically provides that the commission of Cabinet officers shall search the records for facts. The law does not provide the commission shall search smotions for prejudices. It is plain that the same provisions of law apply 0 the committee, The Congress of the United States legislates under the provisions of the Constitution. It is not within the province of Congress to legislate for or against any person or group representing any nationality comyosing its citizenship. We legislute as Americans. The Constitution does not Jistinguish between racigl groups. 1 find on reading the report of the committee of experts that they have arbitrarily divided the American population into two classes, the native American stock and the immigrant stock. The native American stock is held by the committee of experts to be composed of those whose ancestors were here vefore 1790, and that part of our population whose ancestors came here after L790 are designated as immigrants and the children of immigrants. This arbirary clasistication is the foundation of the report of the committee. I would dke to know how thix committee of “experts” discovered that the population of the United States prior to 1790 were not immigrants or children of immigrants. That is a new theory that I nominate to stand on par with Doctor Einstein's ourth and fifth dimensions, interesting for speculative purposes but surely not to be relied on to form the foundation of an American immigration policy. [ know of no provision of law nor do I desire any such that may prohibit ‘hose whose ancestors were here before 1790 from purchasing for themselves shampionship belts for the purpose of designating to the world that they are she only “simon pure” Americans. But for purposes of legislation we can not Histinguish or give any preferred status to any particular group. The law specifically confers the duties of finding the facts upon a commission of three Cabinet officers. This commission has made its report. It is evident ‘hat the veport of the Cabinet officers based upon the work of their “experts ™ satisfy the commmittee that the data is not of such a character that it was suthicient to comply with the provisions of section (¢) of the hmmigration act. [, therefore, assume that the present liearings hive been extended by the committee to other sources in the hope that it may find * such other data as may be found to be reliable.” How scientific and how relinble such testimony may have been as presented to the committee by the various witnesses appearing before it ix for the committee to determine. It must be evident and apparent to the committee that the somrcees enumerated in the law have been searched and found wanting. It is therefore plain that the committer, having discarded the report of the 'ommission appointed by law. and if the nationai-orgins clause is to be put into affect and used as a basis for our immigration policy it can only be done by mending the immigration act of 1924. If that is the infention of the committee { assume its recommendations will be based upon information obtained in public nearings, and will be political in character since the scientific and statisteal tata to which we ave limited under the law is not found to be reliable. The CHairmax. I am also reminded that the Society of 1812 wishes its name placed in the record as being in favor of the national wigins. The committee will now go into executive session. (Thereupon, at 11.50 o’clock p. m., the committee proceeded to the sonsideration of executive business and at the conclusion thereof adjourned.) F 5 50 0 Foaa s & of 3 xh TI Ea ¥ 3p 152 Q Ny J NO \ J an & ‘71 ND pr oh C > oO 2 MY 2 NY 2 - D “ w i 0 vy ni - 0 00 YNAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION Law 131 rict this immigration at once by about 50 per cent. I exactly accurate on the figures, but I believe it would eduction of this immigration in the case of the German a 57,000 to 23,000 or 24,000; and we believe that there 1 the record of the German element in the United States or to justify such a cut, and on the basis of national cut would be made. 180 that when it comes to the consideration of immie should be taken into consideration other things than = of who arrived or who did not arrive a hundreds years o not believe that that is scientific; that it is worth iportant; that if immigration is to be fixed on some 5 ought to be fixed on something that deals with the the United States and the conditions in the United .¥, and not on something that happened a hundred vant to take up the time of the committee, but I would hat one of the reasons why there has not been a larger m of the German element, that there have not been more ‘aring here, is because we have believed and felt that this een definitely disposed of by the pledges of the candilast election, by the attitude of the two major parties sition, and that that had more or less settled the matter. 2s¢ hearings have come up we are down here to register to say that we think it is an unfair basis. There are matters in relation to the quota law that we object to, { that they are secondary to this one important matter; t Injustice to base the immigration of to-day on haphundred years ago, particularly as there is nothing in if the German element to create in anyone’s mind the hat they are not a desirable element. Their whole record ie country has been founded has been a good one, and nat the basis should be fixed on something else, not on origins clause. *MAN. Are there any question? ‘BED. Yes; I would like to ask Mr. Ridder a couple of Jo vou believe in restricting immieoration at all. Mr. i R. I believe in restricting immigration somewhat, ac-1e conditions, but I believe that the restriction should be 1b it 1s not a good basis to say, for example, that out of a try so manv people can come. whether desirable or iIEED, You do not believe in the numerical limitation of from particular countries? R. No; I believe that the individual immigrants would tter basis to work on than to say, for example, that out ry a certain number should come, good, bad, or indiffer-* have a much better way of selecting immigration, and be to make it a personal selection rather than a group teED. Do you think we could ever agree on what immithe best ? 1 I co