WESTERN HEMISPHERE IMMIGRATION 287

there of voting directors or delegates from 3 to 5, because they vote
in blocks of 20,000. The representation is very similar to the make-up
of the House of Representatives, because each representative represents
 a certain number of people in the United States. So our
directors or representatives represent blocks of 20,000. However, if
a State federation has not 20,000 members in it, as is true in some of
our weaker State bureaus, in some of our smaller States, that director
votes, irrespective of the number.
Mr. EstErLY. How many attend the conventions?
Mr. Gray. From 3,000 to 5,000, because we have a great number
of farm visitors and other visitors, in addition to the voting body.
The voting body runs from 50 to 75 annually, the men and women
who really come there and vote and determine the policies; they
reflect the sympathies and interests and policies of their members
back home on questions coming before them for determination.
Mr. EstErLy. What would be the set-up as to majority? Would
the majority of that voting body be west of the Mississippi River?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. The majority of that voting delegation would
be in what you call the Middle West; from Ohio to Colorado is where
the majority of the voting directors would be. However, the third
strongest State is New York, and the fifth or sixth strongest State,
according to my memory, is California. So we are scattered all over
the country.
Mr. Esterry. What would be the interest of the New York delegation
 not to have any further restriction of immigration on the
Western Hemisphere?
Mr. Gray. No primary interest, but the thought of the whole
organization would be to let the State federations which are most
actively interested in this, which I named a while ago, express their
opinion on it; and if it did not conflict with the welfare of these other
States, that would be determined as the policy of the national group.
For instance, New York is not at all interested, from a selfish point
of view—if I may use another project to illustrate the point that you
have in mind—New York is not at all interested in our national
advocacy of the St. Lawrence deep waterway canal; because New
York, and the State federation of farm bureaus in New York, would,
Bom Hen a selfish point of view, rather have the All-American
anal.
Mr. Ramey. You mean that New York is interested from a negative
 standpoint? ~
Mr. Gray. Well, perhaps so, but the New York State federation,
although the national policy has been in favor of the St. Lawrence
Canal, never interposed any objection to that at all, and goes along
with the national organization, because it is the mass judgment of
she organization that the St. Lawrence Canal is the proper route.
Mr. EsterLy. Then the New York delegates did not have anything
 to say either pro or con on that resolution in 1927? Is that
about it?
Mr. Gray. Practically speaking, you are right. Now, I do not
know what the roll call might have been, because usually, unless
there is a division of opinion, the roll call is a viva voce affair. But
[ should say that New York was neutral in regard to this particular
resolution, but is willing to help.