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