98 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 
When you set up a standard of that kind and say that by a mere 
theory, based on guesswork, you are now going to change the quota, 
so that the British have 130 per cent more than they had, or 50,000, 
approximately; that the Germans must have 30,000 less; that the 
Irish must have 20,000 less; and the Scandinavians less, and so on 
in lesser degrees, but always less, then you will have provided a 
bone of contention that is going to present a very wide and sus- 
ceptible target and materially weaken any real, constructive. and wise 
immigration policy. 
I do not want you to feel that it comes from us with poor grace, 
now that we are here, to try to keep the other fellow out. We do 
not mean it that way. But we believe thoroughly that a restrictive 
policy is a wise policy, for our own protection as well as for the 
protection of the immigrant, who otherwise comes to already 
crowded labor markets. This is also the fact, that we do not want 
the record that German immigrants, our forefathers, have made in 
this country discounted by indiscriminate immigration, even from 
Germany. But that immigration ought to be wisely distributed— 
I mean there ought to be a basis found that is free from substantial 
objections, that will not always rise to plague you, and under the 
guise of attacking that, because it is subject to attack, in fact attack 
a wise restrictive policy. 
Senator Ruep. If you were in our place, what kind of a quota basis 
would you use? 
Mr. Mowrrz. I would say that as far as I have been able to under- 
stand the statistics, both on the basis of origin and census, it seems 
to me that the census basis is the more plausible and accurate one; 
and I get that also from some people who were not born on the 
other side, but from such publications as the Wall Street Journal, 
the New York World, the Chicago Tribune, the Cincinnati Inquirer, 
and a host of others all over this country. 
Senator Reep. You say the census basis. You mean the census of 
foreign born? 
Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir. 
Senator Reep. And what census would you use? 
Mr. Mowrrz. For the lack of a better one, I would say the one 
that gives the best cross section of foreign-born population in the 
United States. And, again, I revert to the experts who say that on 
that theory the 1890 census is the best, by far: there may be a better 
one later, I do not know. 
Senator Reep. It comes closest to corresponding with the distribu- 
tion according to national origins, is that it? 
Mr. Mowrrz. Yes, sir. I think that was the opinion of Doctor 
Garis, of Vanderbilt University, who made a study of it. 
Senator Reep. Doctor Garis suggested the 1890 basis but Garis is 
on record in the Saturday Evening Post a month ago as preferring 
the national origins. 
Mr. Mowrrz. He may have had a change of heart. 
Senator Reep. However, putting that to one side, you take the 1890 
basis, and that involves an element of uncertainty, too, does it not? 
Mr. Mowrrz. 1 think it does to a small extent, but I understand 
the Census Bureau prides itself upon a margin of error of only 1 
per cent.