12 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 
that the German element in the United States represents approximately only 
14 per cent of the total population. It was discriminations such ag this within 
the two great groups which unquestionably impelled the Senate to write into 
the law the national-origins provision, whereby all questions of that character 
would be forever eliminated in the computation of quotas. In its final form, 
as amended in conference, the bill passed both the House and Senate by over- 
whelming majorit.es. 
The reaction to the adoption of this system was as curious ag it was unex- 
pected by its proponents. No sooner was the act passed—and before any 
official determination of the quotas had been published—a bitter assault was 
made upon the national-origins system. The attack developed from two direc- 
tions. First. there were the irreconcilable opponents of a policy of restriction 
upon immigration who, doubtless, saw in the enactment of a just and fair 
system of apportionment of quotas a feature which would be unassailable 
once definitely established in operation. Secondly, the section of the act 
embodying the new system was violently assailed by a group obsessed with 
rac.al and religious hatreds or allegiances imported from the land of their 
origin. These self-constituted spokesmen for racial blocs, whose nationals 
abroad ave particularly favored by the circumstance that in the year 1890 
there happened to be more foreign-born persons of their blood in the United 
States than at any other decennial enumeration, have attempted to throw dis- 
eredit on the national-origins system by alleging that a racial analysis of the 
population is impracticable through a deficiency of data. They claim not only 
that there are great gaps in colonial records of immigration but, also, that 
the census of 1790, which forms the basis for the apportionment of the de- 
scendants of colonial stock, is crude, inaccurate, and the schedules were miss- 
ing for five States” They also allege that the lack of an official record of 
immigration prior to 1820, and that the fact the census authorities only com- 
menced a classification of foreign born in the country in 1850, constitute an 
insuperable bar to the compilation of data necessary in order to put the 
national-origins system into effect. 
The fact of the matter is that 15 years before Senator Reed introduced his 
national-origins measure in the Senate the Census Bureau issued through the 
Government Printing Office a book entitled “A Century of Population Growth,” 
which deals with all the problems hereinbefore referred to. This work from 
the date of its publication has been anathema to those who seek to perpetuate 
racial solidarities inimical to the national welfare, because the findings of the 
census experts did not substantiate their propaganda. It may be added that 
the committee of experts in tle report of their provisional findings for the 
quotas under the provision of subsections (b), (c¢), (d), and (e) of section 
11 of the imunigration act of 1924 to the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and 
Labor, in commenting upon the apportionment of the colonial population pre- 
pared under Mr. Rossiter’s direction for A Century of Population Growth 
says: 
“rhe work of making this classification was, however, carefully done by 
people who were by no means lacking in qualifications for the task, and who 
did not rely exclusively upon names but consulted histories and works oun 
nomenclature to some extent. Moreover, the files of the Congressional Record 
show that it was the expectation of Congress that the 1790 classification here 
referred to would be used as a basis in carrying out the provisions of the act 
regarding the determination of national origin.” 
This reference from the official report of the committee of experts demon- 
strates that the classification attacked by the opponents of the national-origing 
system was not only carefully done by men competent to do the work but, also, 
it makes evident that the charge frequently made that Congress was unaware 
at the time of the passage of the act as to how the analysis would be made 
is without foundation in fact. 
In his testimony before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturali- 
zation last January Mr, Hill, the Assistant Director of the Census, even went 
so far as to say, when questioned upon the relative accuracy of the census of 
1790 and that of more recent decennial enumerations that— 
“My belief is it would be easier to take an accurate census in those days 
than now. They did not hurry but took their time, went from house to house. 
3 The population of these States amounted to approximately 1134 per cent of the white 
population of the United States in 1790. The method of apportioning the population of 
this area adopted by Mr. Rossiter, of the Census Bureau, is described in A Century of 
Population Growth, referred to in the text.