110 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW
Mr. Lroyp. Yes, sir. It was true that he favored that to the
exclusion of all others in the beginning, and therefore these brief
quotations I shall read will clear that up. The first one is his fore-
word to a pamphlet entitled The National Origins Plan of Immi-
gration Restriction, by Martha Ragsdale, graduate fellow in eco-
nomics, Vanderbilt University; and he says [reading]:
One of the most gratifying instances of the successful participation of the
zeneral public in the solution of a major social and economic problem confront-
ing the Nation has been evident in the efforts that have been and are being
made relative to the immigration problem.
Then I skip some lines:
The 3 per cent emergency quota legislation based on the census of 1910 was
superceded on July 1, 1924, by the 2 per cent quota act based on the number of
foreign born in the United States according to the 1890 census. The purpose
of the latter plan was to insure that our future immigration should correspond
in its make-up with our population as it is to-day. It does this successfully as
between the two great regions of Europe from which the old and the new immi-
gration come, respectively. However, it does injustice in the determination of
the quotas of the individual countries within the two major groups.
Then I skip some more lines:
It is the purpose of the national origins plan to rectify such discriminations
and to place the immigration quotas on a better historical basis, * * *
While its adoption has been postponed for two years by Congress, yet the
nation-wide discussion it has had and is having during the present presidential
campaign is awakening the public to its fundamental importance. It deserves
and should receive the thoughtful consideration of the American public.
Then afterwards there appeared this article in the Saturday Even-
ing Post of January 5, and I shall read just very brief extracts from
that. Speaking of national origins he says [reading]:
Continued postponement and indecision are dangerous to the whole restrie-
tive program. It gives the opponents the opportunity to attack. Indeed, it
invites attack. Charges of discrimination, sob stories, and what not fill the
pir. These very opponents have been making the most of the indecision be-
tween the two plans to split the restrictionists and thus, if possible, to destroy
the quota method entirely. Though they are doomed to failure in this, yet
Congress could devote its time and presence to no greater purpose than to con-
sider each plan impartially, without bias or prejudice, and to select either the
1890 census or the national-origins plan as the permanent-quota hasis.
Then I skip:
Now, however, that the presidential and congressional elections are over, and
in view of the overwhelming success of the restrictionist policies, continued in-
lecision concerning the national-origing plan should not be tolerated. * * *
Most of the protest against the national-origing plan has been from those
whose quotas would be somewhat diminished. It is evident that no apportion-
ment could be made which would be favored by all countries. They are willing
for the quotas of other countries to be low, but never those of their own.
The United States should enact its immigration laws to meet its own needs.
It is too great an undertaking for one nation to attempt to legislate to suit the
world. When Congress realizes this and stops being buffeted around by first
one national group and then another, and settles down to make laws for the
United States, we shall have progressed.
Then Mr. Mowitz laid a great deal of stress upon this: He claims
that three Secretaries, State, Commerce, and Labor, had been op-
posed to national origins and were still opposed to national origins;
and in that connection we simply want to point out that while as
to the preliminary report issued January 31, 1927, there was criti-
cism of national origins ficures or computations. that that was not
