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 immigra-
tion committee of the German Society of Pennsylvania for the Re-
lief 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 en-
tirely free from religious and political partisanship—very strictly
so; and I believe those who are familiar with the history and de-
velopment 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 Wash-
ington, 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
