NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 153

I also ask to have put in the record appended to my statement a
resolution of the Immigration Restriction League (Inc.) adopted
January 25, 1929, in opposition to the Nye resolution (Exhibit 1)
and a resolution of the Allied Patriotic Societies in support of the
national origins provision (Exhibit 2). Also a copy of a memorial
to the same effect signed by representatives of 23 patriotic organizations
 when the question of the first postponement of the national
origins provision came before Congress in 1927 (Exhibit 3), and an
important memorial (Exhibit 4) with 47 signatures, which include
‘he names of some of the most distinguished biologists, ethnologists,
and authorities on immigration in the United States. Some of these
are Prof. Edwin S. Conklin, of Princeton, Profs. E. M. East and
Ernest A. Hooten, of Harvard, eminent authorities on biology and
anthropology ; Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American
 Museum of Natural History; C. C. Little, president of the University
 of Michigan; A. Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard, and
such well-known authorities on immigration as Robert De C. Ward,
John R. Commons, and Henry P. Fairchild.
In addition to these documents, with the committee’s permission, 1
annex, to my statement (Exhibit 6) table showing the principal dis-~riminations
 produced by the 1890 foreign-born quota basis and what
they would amount to over a period of years, another table (Exhibit
7) taken from the 1920 census showing the comparative racial assimibility
 of certain immigrant groups as indicated by intermarriage
with native Americans, and finally (Exhibit 5) a translation of part
of an article in a German newspaper quoting a speech of the late ambassador
 to the United States, to the effect that the German-Americans
 in the United States had caused postponement of national
origins in 1927.
The position of the societies which I represent, with respect to the
question of the Nye resolution, is briefly as follows: We believe that
the national origins provision of the immigration act of 1924, which
provides a permanent basis for apportioning the quota of immigration,
 is an integral and essential part of our present policy of restricting
 immigration; that ample time having elapsed for the scientific
and correct determination of the nationl origins quotas in the manner
provided by Congress, these quotas should be put into effect according
 to the terms of the law as at present amended. and we are
strongly opposed to further postponement.
As to the national origins provision itself, we wholly approve of it
and for the same reasons given by the late Congressman William N.
Vaile, in a speech delivered in the House of Representatives in December,
 1925. Mr. Vaile, who was a member of the conference committee
 which accepted the national origins amendment offered by
Senator Reed to the bill introduced bv Congressman Albert Johnson
in 1994. said:

The national origins plan is fair to all; it avoids completely all racial dissrimination,
 and it will preserve the blood of the Uniterl States in its present
aroportions. }
More specifically, we believe that the national origins provision is
aecessary not only to prevent the present heavy discrimination
against the native-born American population in the 1890 foreignbom
 census basis. but also as a means of preserving such degree of