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 © His- 
torical 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 gen- 
erations, 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 immi- 
grant stock outnumbered the native stock. Doctor Hill had a tre- 
mendous 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 coun- 
tries, 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