NATIONAL-ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1929 
UNITED STATES SENATE, 
CommrTTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 
Washington, D. C. 
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o’clock a. m., 
in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. 
Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. 
Present: Senators Johnson, Keyes, Reed, Nye, King, Harris, and 
Stephens. 
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, please be in order. 
[ have before me, members of the committee, a note from Hon. 
Albert Johnson, chairman of the Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization of the House, transmitting to me a letter from Hon. 
John W. McCormack, in respect to the subject matter of our in- 
vestigation. This letter, with your permission, I will insert in the 
record. The letter, as I understand it, in a word—I have just 
olanced at it this moment—is a statement that the writer is not in 
sympathy with the view that was expressed by the representative of 
the American Legion before this committee. Do you want the letter 
read, or shall we let it be inserted in the record? 
Senator Reep. Let it be inserted in the record, I think. 
The CHARMAN. All right. 
(The letter referred to is as follows:) 
House oF REPRESENTATIVES, 
Washington, D. C., February 10, 1929. 
Hon, ALBERT JOHNSON, 
Chairman Senate Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. O. 
My Dear SENATOR: I have been informed, and my reading of a statement 
that was made confirms my information that at a hearing held by the Senate 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization Saturday morning a representa- 
five of the national headquarters of the American Legion informed the com- 
mittee that its 860,000 members and auxiliaries of 350,000 members “em- 
phatically upheld the theory underlying the national-origins provisions,” which 
necessarily means the full membership of both organizations are in favor of 
its operation this year. 
As a member of the American Legion I desire to state that the representative 
is mistaken in his assertion. I am opposed to the provisions of said clause, 
so-called, and the representative appearing had no authority to pledge that the 
full membership of the Legion was supporting the members of the committee, 
but is for the purpose of registering my protest against the unaualified state- 
ments of the representative. 
I believe that it is proper, although undoubtedly unnecessary, to call to your 
attention that the appearance of any person or persons before a legislative 
committee and purporting to pledge the entire membership of an organization 
for or against any proposition should be viewed with hesitancy, in absence of 
an understandable referendum to its members. However, in absence of some 
90