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 esti- 
mated 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 au- 
thorities. 
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 mo- 
ment-—appeared before the House committee and explained to them