in section 8 applicable to excluded classes mentioned in section 3 of the law.

Mr. RAKER. I will read the section again:

That any person, including the master, agent, owner, or consignee of any vessel, who shall bring into or land in the United States, by vessel or otherwise, or shall attempt, by himself or through another, to bring into or land in the United States, by vessel or otherwise, * * * any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector or not lawfully entitled to enter or reside within the United States under the terms of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

Mr. HUSBAND. Well, that is a penalty for illegal landing of an immigrant, but landing in that sense means admission to the United States and being free to go wherever you choose.

Mr. KLECZKA. Judge Raker, how could these companies know that the limit is exhausted until they land at our ports. That is the practical side. That is something that is physically impossible to determine in the last days of the expiring months untl they come here, and unless they are going to have a clearing house through this Trans-Atlantic Association, or in some other way, there will be a repetition of this very condition every month.

Mr. RAKER. That is the point I am trying to get at, to see whether this law is defective, and will allow the steamship companies to continue the method they have started now of openly, boldly, and continuously, irrespective of the law that has been debated now in all Congresses for years, there being no criminal penalty, or none sufficient to penalize them, bringing these people over here and expect, the moment they get into port, that every organization and sympathetic fellow among the nationalities of these people will immediately appeal to Congress and their representatives for the poor unfortunates.

Mr. Box. How long have you been Commissioner of Immigration?

Mr. HUSBAND. It was either March 14 or 16.

Mr. Box. About the middle of March?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. Box. You had been connected with the Immigration Service prior to that, had you not?

Mr. HUSBAND. About six years ago, about six or eight.

Mr. Box. You have considerable knowledge of the subject? I do not want to ask you to be immodest, but I know it is a fact, and I want to make it appear, that is all.

Mr. HUSBAND. Í have spent the most of my time for 17 years working at it.

Mr. Box. You appeared before the Senate Committee while this legislation was pending?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. Box. And discussed this resolution with special reference to Senator Dillingham's percentage plan?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. Box. And you testified before that committee on the 18th of January, 1921?

Mr. HUSBAND. I do not recall the date.

Mr. Box. Well, I have the date here.
Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. Box. Is it not a fact that you inserted in those hearings an approximation of what these percentage figures would be? Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. Box. And those hearings were published?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. Box. And have been generally distributed since then?
Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. Box. Is it not a fact also that the representatives of practically all the steamship lines appeared at those same hearings? Mr. HUSBAND. Several steamship representatives did.

Mr. Box. If he does not know, I will get permission to insert some who did later, Mr. Chairman. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. The tables inserted at that time were on a 5 per cent basis?

Mr. Box. He figured on the five, four, three, two and all of them. I have the table here, and shall ask to have it inserted.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Number of natives of countries specified who were residents in the United States in 1910; average number of immigrant aliens who were admitted from such countries during 1910-1914; the number who would be admissible annually under the Dillingham 5 per cent plan, and also under a 4. 3, and 2 per cent limit.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you make the statement in any hearing before the Senate that any possible confusion of this kind that might arise could be cured by regulation?

Mr. HUSBAND. Not that I recall.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Commissioner, but the law at that time, or the hearings that were had on that law did not become a law, is not that a fact?

Mr. HUSBAND. You mean the bill that was under discussion at that time?

Mr. SABATH. In December, January, and February. That act did not become a law did it, so any hearings or any figures inserted in there would not have been of any service or value to any one?

The CHAIRMAN. But nevertheless, while the hearings were held on a bill that went out from this committee, the hearings took the turn over there of the development of a percentage plan of restriction.

Mr. SABATH. But Judge Box was trying to show by the witness that the companies-and I am not interested in any of them and I know it is a fact-do frequently take advantage of conditions, but an attempt is being made to show that they had notice in January of what the percentage would be, or of the number that would be admissible.

Mr. Box. What does the gentleman judge from, except from the conclusion which he draws. I have not stated it.

Mr. SABATH. But that was the evidence on a bill that did not become a law.

Mr. FREE. But that was approved, and when the bill did become a law on the 19th of May they had the percentages before them several months before.

Mr. SABATH. They were all tentative figures.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions of Mr. Husband, we would like to ask the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mr. Henning, if he will just give us a statement in regard to the present situation.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. J. HENNING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR.

Mr. HENNING. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what you have been covering in your discussion. I take it you have been discussing the provisions of that proposed resolution. Of course, we in our office are bombarded by the evidence of the suffering and difficulties of these people on the ships in the ports, and their prayers for relief, and it is evident that unless they are unloaded there will be a whole lot of suffering. People will be born on board ship if they are kept there for two or three weeks, or sent back, and then carried back again so as to get back on the 1st of July. They are congested and crowded on these ships unduly, and no one can tell what may be the result of some epidemic breaking out among the passengers, and what may happen to the poor victims of the greed and avarice of the steamship companies. Quoting Grover Cleveland, we are confronted by a condition, not a theory.

I take Mr. Raker's view somewhat, that the ship companies can be fined. I think, from a hop, skip, and jump reading of that part of the law, which I do not deal with, that they can be fined when they

bring an alien whom they know to be inadmissible, but you have got to bring to their knowledge that they knew when they started with him that he was inadmissible, and our boards make the findings when they have that sort of a case. We further find that this condition could have been known before the alien started, and that is the basis for the fine we impose on the steamship companies.

Mr. RAKER. Would there not be a little bit of evidence that they knew, if there are already landed 3,000 more than the quota provides, and if there are on the road 10,303?

Mr. HENNING. Of course, I take it you are a judge, and, after all. that becomes a question for a court ultimately, if we go to the limit. and just what the proof may be that can be adduced I do not know. It would be pretty hard to bring it home to them that they actually

knew.

I notice that Congressman Kleczka suggests that this condition will be repeated from month to month. I think there is this to be said in that regard. A great many people had the idea when this bill was passed, and people connected with the Immigration Department, who studied it closely, I assume, that in June you could bring 20 per cent of the yearly quota. Why that should have gotten out I do not know. There were men in my own office that had that idea. that the June quota would be the full 20 per cent quota. I do not doubt that the steamship companies probably knew better, but that would be a very resourceful defense.

Mr. RAKER. Well, notwithstanding that, if you gave them 20 per cent for June, they would still have exhausted it?

Mr. HENNING. No.

Mr. RAKER. Would not these Italians have exhausted it?

Mr. HENNING. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. Not quite.

Mr. HENNING. They run right to the margin now. I do not think there would be any of them exhausted if it were 20 per cent, and that is the exception in June, as I see it. That, of course, would not arise again. In July they would know what they can bring, and in August, definitely. They can make a pretty fair speel on the theory that they thought it meant 20 per cent in the month of June, because people that ought to know had that same idea.

Mr. Box. You lost only three days out of June, did you not? The quota, even as it is, would only be 10 per cent less than the full month, would it not?

Mr. HENNING. I have 28 days in June.

The CHAIRMAN. That is clear to everybody. As the law reads, the irregular month of June was added to the one year that the law was to be effective, and was not made subject to the 20 per cent maximum. Mr. Box. I see, but I wanted to know if there was any reason to think that more than the full month's quota could be admitted. Mr. HENNING. No.

Mr. Box. And you only lost three days off of June, which, at most, would be 10 per cent of the quota for a month?

Mr. HENNING. Yes.

Mr. Box. And they would only be justified in going 10 per cent above the actual quota?

Mr. HENNING. Ten per cent less than the 20 per cent which is allowable in any month.

Mr. KLECZKA. I do not gather that from a reading of that clause. Here is the way the clause reads:

and the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted during the remaining period of the current fiscal year, from the date when this act becomes effective to June 30, shall be limited in proportion to the number admissible during the fiscal year 1922.

In other words, your 20 per cent is not considered at all. It is 28 days in relation to 365 days.

Mr. HENNING. It is perfectly evident to a bright lawyer.

Mr. Box. I claim to have seen the point, but what I was trying to show was that, at most, they could not contend that they were entitled to more than 20 per cent, and that was only 10 per cent of what is actually given.

Mr. HENNING. Oh, no.

Mr. Box. I see the point.

Mr. HENNING. No. If they were right, and if June were a 20 per cent month we could land everybody who is here and will come this month.

Mr. RAKER. What will be the percentage for June?

Mr. HENNING. We are taking off two days; we are figuring on June 28 days.

Mr. RAKER. What will be the percentage?

Mr. HENNING. One hundred per cent, less one-fifteenth, which would be a very small margin.

Mr. FREE. Is there any law or regulation that covers the manner in which the steamship companies must make these people comfortable while they are here?

Mr. HENNING. I think not. There are some regulations which I do not now recall. That end of the business I have nothing to do with, and I recall nothing.

Mr. SABATH. There is a provision in the law that gives the department the right to have an inspector on each and every ship for the purpose of inspecting the conditions and to see that they are properly fed and properly accommodated.

Mr. HENNING. Yes; and we have been thinking, if it were not for the cost of the extra men required, that we would send men inspectors and have them come on each ship and make inspections in transit, so that the inspection would be completed when the boat. lands at port, so as to facilitate landing and avoid congestion. I think there is that to be said, that some people have made that mistake, figuring that June was a 20 per cent month, less a day or two, and others again, or the companies, that the actual quota for June was not officially promulgated until June 3. It was signed by Secretary Davis on June 2, as one of the three Cabinet officers who were to promulgate the actual quota. The regulations were worked out, and the quotas figured were promulgated either on the evening of June 2 or the morning of June 3.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what promulgation meant in that case. The Secretary signed it on the evening of June 2?

Mr. HENNING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the next step?
Mr. HENNING. I do not know what was done.

I do not know that

any notice was given, except that we notified our ports.