siderable number of Asiatics. I sympathize very fully with that contention.

But I have also realized that the prevention of the coming of large numbers of Asiatics should be based on sound international principles, sociological and psychological, and should be courteous, and should not be a method that would be inevitably resented by the Asiatics.

It was evident that any procedure, any policy that would succeed, ought therefore to fulfill two conditions, the protection of the United States from Asiatic immigration and the giving of such fair treatment to the Asiatics that they would not feel resentment. This means, of course, that we must take up for the solution of this question the whole immigration question, and the more I studied the problems of immigration from Europe, the more it became clear to my mind that the time has come for the regulation of immigration from Europe as well as from China, Japan, and India.

Now, I wish to devote the first part of what I have to say to a study of the immigration problem as it comes to us from Europe and leave to a later part of my remarks the immigration from China and Japan.

As I have studied the general question this gradually came to my thinking as a fundamental proposition, namely, that we should regulate all immigration and do it upon a basis of universal validity and applicability. I conceived of two such principles. I have been stating them in this way: We ought to admit no more than we can Americanize; the capacity of the United States to turn into American citizens those who come should be the first basis for determining the number of those whom we admit.

It also became clear to me that the numbers whom we can wholesomely Americanize from any particular people may differ considerably from those from whom we can wholesomely Americanize from another people. In other words, some people are more easily worked into our domestic life and our economic system than other peoples are.

On the other hand, there seemed to me to be a second principle by which we should regulate the coming of the aliens, namely, our capacity to employ them. Therefore, in formulating the policy which our committee has been standing for we have set up a double standard, one the question of Americanization, and the other our capacity to give wholesome and continuous employment. As our committee worked along these lines, it became clear that we needed to deal with these matters in a flexible way, especially from the standpoint of economics, in order that the tide of incoming immigration might be adjusted to our economic conditions.

So that the policy which our committee has formulated and has expressed in a form that we may call, perhaps, the beginnings of a bill, turns upon those two points, the Americanization and the employment of the aliens.

When we began to study the question as to Americanization this underlying principle became very clear, that the newcomers necessarily make contact first of all with those who speak their own language. If therefore those who speak their own language do not know very much English, are still dependant upon their foreign language newspi pers for their news and for other influences, that they patronize

their own doctors and lawyers and stores and have their own societies so that they are quite sufficient unto themselves, the newcomers make contact with that group simply enlarge that group and make it more and more difficult to assimilate. Whereas, if the newcomers make contact with the people of their country who speak their own language, who have been here so long that they have acquired the English language fully, are able to read our American papers, and to converse freely with American men and women; if this latter group has become so throughly Americanized that they have given up allegience to their native country and have become American citizens, and if the newcomers in proportion to the older ones are relatively small, then the influence upon the newcomers from the very start will be mostly an influence in the direction of their entering into the American life which they find here.

In other words, it seemed to us as we studied the question that the fundamental principle in the regulation of our immigration should be the setting up of a certain proportion of the newcomers or individuals from a particular country to the number of those who have already become American citizens.

The second principle is that when there is a surplus of labor here, when economic conditions are low, then in some way we ought to arrange for the shutting down of the doors, so that more immigration may not flood in to make the situation more difficult.

In trying to state in somewhat legal and technical terminology these ideas, we finally came to the formulation of our proposition in these words, that the permissible immigration from each particular country shall be a certain small percentage of those from that country who have already become American citizens.

When we say "who have already become American citizens," it is necessary to define a little bit further that phrase "American citi

zens.'

In our thinking, the older ones who will exert this powerful influence upon the newcomers, consist not only of the foreign-born parents who have become naturalized, but also the American-born children of that people. These American-born children speak the foreign language, have been reared in their foreign language homes and have also gone through our American institutions; they have learned English freely, and by the fact of having been born here are American citizens. When, therefore, we set up the total figure from which to reckon the permissible immigration, we have included those two factors-American-born children of foreign parentage, plus naturalized people who have come over and who have become affiliated with our life to the extent of saying that they are going to throw themselves whole heartedly into American civilization. This would constitute the 100 per cent.

Of course, nobody knows just what number we can Americanize from each particular people. By way of illustration, I started out with 5 per cent as an experimental figure. As we worked along, however, we felt it necessary to have a flexible standard and we finally came to the conclusion that it should be from 3 to 10 per cent of those who have become American citizens of that particular group.

Now, of course, it is at once asked, where we will find these figures? That is one of the first questions to come up. The reply is in the census and in the reports of the Bureau of Naturalization.

We have studied the census very carefully and we find it is quite quite possible to start, as a fair proposition, from the figures of the census of 1910. But not wholly, because of some items are lacking in regard to some of the peoples. We felt it important, therefore, to make arrangements with the Census Bureau that in the taking of the census of 1920 the facts should be assembled with a view to the proposed law so that we may have adequate information in the new census of the American-born children of foreign parentage, of the naturalized members of those particular peoples or races, and then later on in the work of the Naturalization Bureau, each successive year a suitable classification of those who have become naturalized, according to their people's or mother tongue groups. So that in the successive years of the decade after the census has been taken, to the first two figures of American-born and naturalized citizens, as reported in the census, there will be added a third figure-those who have been naturalized of that people since the census was taken. On through the decade there will be constantly the three sets of figures to be considered each year.

But how will the exact figure be determined for any particular year? As we studied that question it seemed to us that Congress could not be expected to take up year by year this rather complicated matter. There would be great advantage for the continuous adjustment of immigration to the economic conditions of the country that this important responsibility should be placed upon an immigration commission. Our national committee is therefore proposing that Congress shall establish an immigration commission to consist of the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, and a third man to be appointed by the President. In other words, these three men shall constitute a standing committee, one of the regular commissions. From year to year it will keep in constant touch with the conditions of the country and decide in sufficient time before the next succeeding year what the percentage rate shall be, whether it shall be a minimum, if Congress should decide upon 3 per cent, or whether it should be a maximum of 10 per cent, or some figure in between. That, in general, is the statement of the plan which this committee has been working on and is proposing, and which is supported by the members of this committee, who are more than a thousand men and women from all parts of the country.

Perhaps I may explain a little further in regard to the formation of this committe. I said I was a missionary in Japan and came to this country and became involved in this question. I did not come with any expectation of having anything to do with the matter. Indeed, the doctor sent me home expecting that I was to go into a hospital for a surgical operation, and they were very pessimistic about my condition and thought I might be going to my grave very soon. Evidently there was something else for me to do.

All the missionaries in Japan were very anxious as to this tension between America and Japan, because it affects the Christian work in Japan. The building up of the Kingdom of God, we in Japan, believe, is very intimately connected with the establishment of right international relations in the political sphere. The missionaries in

Japan at that time prepared and sent to the Church Federation of America, technically called the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, a memorial asking that that church federation should appoint a committee to study the whole matter.

After some months the federal council appointed a commission on relations with the Orient, and it has been under this commission that I have been serving during these five years. Under this commission I have traveled rather widely; I have been addressing large audiences, not only among the churches, but chambers of commerce and rotary clubs and women's clubs, trying to present the idea that the time has come for us to regulate immigration on a principle that shall be fair and safe for the United States, and also fair and friendly to other peoples.

Two years ago it seemed to me that the time had come to begin to formulate these propositions in the form of a bill. I presented the urgency of it to the church commission on relations with the Orient, and the reply to me was that if the time has come for that I must form an independent committee; for churches, as churches, can not go into politics. Just as soon as the proposal is put in the form of a bill for the action of Congress it becomes a political matter, and the churches, as churches, can not handle it.

The result of that was that I began to talk among my friends with regard to the formation of a new body, wholly nonecclesiastical of those who believed in these methods of handling the situation. At first we had a little committee that went over the proposition, formulating the material in very succinct shape. This brief statement was sent out to 150 men whose names were provided by that small committee. Very soon we had more than 100 men who said they believed that this was the way to grapple with the whole question.

Then, on the strength of that preliminary committee, as we may call it, we took this ground, that if these proposals are really wise, and are the line along which our country should move, we ought to be able to secure more support. We said if we get 1,000 men, representing all parts of the country, representing all different classes of society and the different interests, that will show that our proposition is practicable, is a proposition that has merit in it. If, however, we can not get a thousand men that will show that we have not yet got the matter properly formulated. It was not a very difficult matter to secure these supporters. We sent letters rather widely to various people, without regard to their religious or ecclesiastical connections, without regard to their political connect ons, and without any knowledge of their individual beliefs of any kind. The result, after about a year of effort, was this group of men and women, many of whom come from the Pacific Coast, who had expressed their indorsement of this proposition.

Then in December of last year (1918) we began to take more active steps and formulated our proposition into what might be called a bill. This was first printed in a tentative form, in March, and now is reprinted in revised form. I would like to put it into your hands, and also the pamphlet entitled, "Immigration Charts and Statistics Illustrating the Proposals of the National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation."

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the pamphlet will be inserted in the record.

(The statistics and charts referrred to are inserted on pages 139-151.)

Dr. GULICK. Now, Mr. Chairman, if you will turn to page 7 of of the pamphlet, at the top of the page you will find section 3; here you will find the central proposition with reference to the regulation of immigration. It reads as follows:

That as soon as the results of the census of 1920 are available, the number of alien persons belonging to a given people or mother-tongue or group who may be admitted to the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico, during any one fiscal year, shall be determined by the immigration commission, according to the following general rule.

The admissible number shall not be less than 3 nor more than 10 per cent of a basic figure, to be composed of

(a) The number of American-born children of that people or mother-tongue group, as recorded in the United States census of 1920, plus

(b) The number of naturalized aliens, of that people or mother-tongue group as recorded in the last available census, and also plus

(c) The number of aliens of that people or mother-tongue group naturalized since that census, as reported by the chief of the Bureau of Naturalization.

In other words, this proposal looks forward to a figure constantly changing on through the decade after 1920. The first two figures, those provided for in (a) and (b) will be derived from the census and will be a basal figure for the first year after the census is available, provided those figures are available quite promptly. Then there will be added annually those who have been naturalized in the successive years, and the actual decision upon this figure shall be made by the immigration commission of which I spoke a moment ago.

You will at once raise the question as to how many people this will admit from the various countries. That is a matter of statistics and it requires a good deal of investigation. Of course, we do not yet have the census of 1920, and therefore if we are trying to figure out for the future there will be more or less a problematical element. The question will also arise as to what we will do before 1920. That is provided for in section 2, which says:

(a) That this act shall go into effect sixty days after its enactment.

(b) That until the statistical data of the census of 1920 are available, the immigration commission shall determine the permissible annual immigration for each people or mother-tongue group, so far as possible, from the census of 1910, according to the principles and procedure defined in section 3 (a), (b), and (c).

(c) That in the case of peoples such as the newly formed states of central Europe for which the census of 1910 and the reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization do not furnish adequate data, the immigration commission shall be authorized to make such estimate as are practicable on the basis of existing data, and to use the same in fixing the permissible immigration.

(d) That the permissible immigration for any people for the fraction of the year between the passage of this act and the end of the fiscal year (June 30) shall be one, two or three-quarters of the total permissible immigration of that people according to the date at which the act goes into effect.

We have tried to estimate with a good deal of care what immigration would be permissible on this basis, and in general we may say that, supposing the law had gone into effect July 1, 1918, there would be no restriction of immigration for this year, from northwest Europe, even if the percentage were as low as 2 per cent; while in the case of the immigration from southern Europe and from eastern and central Europe and from northern Europe there would be more or less restriction upon the various countries.

Let me show you now one of the charts, which will show what the facts would be under the plan of our National Committee. We have put here (in columns 2, 3, and 4) the actual immigration for the years 1912, 1913, and 1914 [indicating on chart]. The actual limitations for those years were these figures [indicating on the chart].