aliens of any nationality who are brought to the United States on vessels which departed from foreign ports on or before June 8, 1921, destined for the United States, and who apply in the month of June, 1921, for admission to the United States, may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted to the United States, although the limit prescribed by section 5 of the act entitled 'An act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States,' approved May 19, 1921, may have been reached before such application for admission," would not be broken down if we undertake to consider a vessel which sailed, according to the report which is presented, on the 9th, and if we considered that date to include that date, if we then would not have, by the time we got this resolution on the floor of the House, to lift the date of the 10th to read the 11th?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think not, Mr. Chairman. That vessel which sailed on the 9th will arrive probably between the 21st and the 29th, and if they were obliged to wait until after the 1st of July it would not be a serious matter. The only other vessel reported as bringing immigrants is one which leaves-I will not say when it leaves, but it is due to arrive here on the 28th of June. That clearly could wait for three days until the 1st of July.

Mr. FREE. Do you not think it would be a mighty salutary lesson to some of these steamship companies to have some regard for the United States laws if we refused to help them in this situation and made them take these people back?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes; I do, Mr. Congressman, if it would work out that way, but it is a situation which I think should be looked at from a practical viewpoint, and for several reasons it would be practically impossible to accomplish that.

Take our own service. Supposing there were 6,000 in excess, or 6,000 who might be in excess. Perhaps 10 per cent of those would be admitted under the exceptions to the law. A thousand might be admitted. That would leave 5,000. That means that 5,000 individuals have the right to an examination under the immigration law, and if an inspector examines them, and, in his opinion, they are not entitled to land, it is his duty to refer the list to a board of special inquiry consisting of three persons. The board of special inquiry would have to hear each case formally and make its recommendation, which would be to exclude. An appeal lies in the case to the Secretary of Labor, and the chances are that every one of those 5,000 cases would be appealed to the Secretary of Labor, and with the legitimate work, the normal work that is coming along, I doubt if those 5,000 cases could be handled before September, or possibly October.

Mr. FREE. What would happen to these people in the meantime, Mr. Husband?

Mr. HUSBAND. In the meantime I will speak of that phase-if they are once examined by an immigration inspector and held, they are detained immigrants. They must be held, fed at the expense of the steamship company, and otherwise cared for by the Immigration Service, under the law. The detention quarters at Ellis Island will accommodate 2,000. Those will be in use with the ordinary traffic which comes through most of the time during the summer. That is about the only detention place they have that could begin to take care of them, and there is no place to detain them.

Mr. FREE. Outside of that, the food is taken care of by the steamship company?

Mr. HUSBAND. They are fed at the expense of the steamship company.

Mr. FREE. Then the expense to this Government would be sort of policing them?

Mr. HUSBAND. Policing and guarding, and furnishing them with a place to eat and a place to sleep.

Mr. CABLE. It costs the steamship company about 50 cents a day, does it not?

Mr. HUSBAND. I do not know what it costs now, but it is possibly a few cents more than that. That is the practical difficulty.

Mr. FREE. Do you believe, Mr. Husband, that a steamship company would permit these people to stay here at their expense, pending those appeals which would last so long?

Mr. HUSBAND. I do not know, Mr. Congressman, I am sure, whether they would or not. I think one of two things would happen. The steamship companies would get discouraged in waiting for their turn to have the immigrants examined, and would take them back, or they would appeal to the courts, and the courts, I understand, would force the Government to examine the aliens.

Mr. CABLE. What is the name of this steamship company that has this quota of Italian immigrants imported?

Mr. HUSBAND. There are several.

Mr. CABLE. How many boats are there?

Mr. HUSBAND. I could not say to-day how many there are. There were three in New York Harbor day before yesterday and one in Boston.

Mr. CABLE. All Italians?

Mr.. HUSBAND. Largely Italians.

Mr. CABLE. What excuse do the companies have for bringing them in on the 3d of June, when the law went into effect on that date?

Mr. HUSBAND. The excuses I have heard from the steamship men are lack of knowledge of what the quota would be on the other side; that is, they explained, you know, that it is difficult for people in a foreign country to understand just what is going on until it is presented to them very plainly, and it has not been presented, and I asked them if they did not present it, and they admitted that they had, of course.

Mr. CABLE. What is the excuse of the company itself?

Mr. HUSBAND. Of the steamship company?

Mr. CABLE. Yes.

Mr. HUSBAND. That is it, and the other excuse is a little more valid than that, I think. The other excuse is that they conceived that the 20 per cent clause would apply to the immigration for June. It does not. It is the only month where it is not applicable.

Mr. Box. We passed the maximum, Mr. Commissioner, for Italy, anyhow. 27/365ths is not much less than 30/365ths, is it?

Mr. HUSBAND. I made a computation on that matter and found that had the immigration been spread over the entire period of the 13 months, rather than in two parts, and then the 20 per cent rule applied, that Italy would have had admissible in June about 9.000 immigrants. They would have 8,000 in July, and that would have been increased a little by adding the June quota.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you at that point if it would help the situation if we could offer a resolution making the 20 per cent maximum apply to this month of June? Would that be a fair proposition?

Mr. Box. I do not think that would relieve it.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it come anywhere near relieving it?
Mr. Box. That was what my question was aiming at.

Mr. HUSBAND. That was my first plan. I worked that out one night, and I did not believe it could be done under the law, but I worked it out on the supposition that it was possible to drag the 20 per cent into the June quota, and made a table accordingly, and that was the result for Italy, something over 9,000.

Mr. FREE. As I understand, Mr. Husband, your information is that these steamship companies did admit they knew of the passage of this act, and their only excuse is that they were not satisfied as to what the quotas would be.

The CHAIRMAN. Not fully informed, you mean, instead of satisfied? Mr. HUSBAND. Not fully informed. I am inclined to think that they possibly thought this way, "We know nothing about this law until we are officially informed; we know nothing about the quota until we are officially informed what the quota will be, consequently we will go ahead with our business in the ordinary way." I can not see any other reason for it.

Mr. CABLE. Did the Government take specific steps to notify these steamship companies, except what they learned from the Congressional Record and the newspapers? Did they send out telegrams, or write any letters, or have you not any records at all of notification?

Mr. HUSBAND. The only records in the case-I think it was on the day of Justice White's funeral. Now, if we can fix that dateMr. Box. That was prior to June 1.

Mr. HUSBAND. It was prior to June 1. It was soon after May 19, I think. I was out of the office, and Mr. Claude Bennett, who represents the steamship companies here, or his bureau of information represents them, came to the office with a telegram which included a telegram which the steamship lines had sent to me, the lines bringing immigrants from Italy. Because it was a holiday I did not receive the telegram that day, but Mr. Bennett brought in a copy of it. I did the best I could in figuring out the probable quota for June. I could not do it officially at all, because the population basis had not been published at that time, but I did tell him what the minimum number would be. It was somewhere about 3,000.

Mr. Box. Did you do that in writing, or by word?

Mr. HUSBAND. I just gave him that by word. Then on the same day the Italian ambassador sent a telegram to the Secretary, which was likewise delayed because of the holiday, to perhaps three days later. The specific question put up was this: "We have in Italian ports ready booked, berths assigned, and everything prepared to sail, approximately 11,000 steerage passengers, and about a thousand others"-anyhow, the total was approximately 12,000, and asking if they could not be admitted if they were to arrive in June. The Secretary, of course, told them that they could not.

Mr. FREE. Then they sent them anyway, did they not?

Mr. CABLE. That is what I wanted to ask him. Are any of the boats that the Italian Government referred to in this telegram now in port?

Mr. HUSBAND. They are in port, some of them, or on the way.

Mr. CABLE. Then they willfully disobeyed the instructions, and they had knowledge?

Mr. HUSBAND. I will say that because of these delays in the department, due to a holiday, and then an intervening Sunday, and then I believe the Secretary was away one day, his reply was delayed, and I presume these ships sailed before his reply was received, but not before they asked for a ruling on that.

Mr. CABLE. Have you got a copy of this telegram of the Secretary of State to the steamship companies?

Mr. HUSBAND. It is available at the department, yes.

Mr. KLECZKA. It was not to the steamship companies; it was to the Italian Government.

Mr. HUSBAND. No; it was to the Italian ambassador.

Mr. KLECZKA. Here is one thing I wish you would explain. I would like to know how these various steamship companies or boat lines can meet the requirements and limitations of this law, unless they constantly keep a check on the number of passengers from each of these countries, and unless they come to some agreement that each line will carry so many passengers from a particular country. Is there any other way in which these competing lines can transport the passengers, and not bring these excess immigrants to our shores?

Mr. HUSBAND. I can not see any other way, and I think that is what they are doing now. They are doing it in the case of Italy, I have understood anyhow, and I am sure the situation is so obvious that they would do it in the case of every other country.

Mr. CABLE. Do you know how many steamship companies there are altogether?

Mr. HUSBAND. No; I do not.

Mr. CABLE. Does this man Claude Bennett represent all of them? Mr. HUSBAND. Not all of them.

Mr. SABATH. These Italian boats do not belong to one company, do they?

Mr. HUSBAND. No.

Mr. SABATH. There are three different lines.

Mr. HUSBAND. There are several lines, two or three Italian lines. The Cunard line runs boats to Italy, the United States mail runs boats to Italy, and I think some of those lines that originate in the eastern Mediterranean.

The CHAIRMAN. That was reported in the Senate hearings, in the statemnt of Mr. Morse, representing the conference.

Mr. Box. Do you recall what companies were represented in the conference, practically all of them?

Mr. HUSBAND. Practically all of them. There are two or three insurgents, I believe.

Mr. MALONEY. When a law of this kind passes is it customary to notify the governments of other countries?

Mr. HUSBAND. This law provides that the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, shall publish the quotas.

Mr. MALONEY. I understand that, but, for instance, this law went into effect and was signed on the 19th of May. Were the other countries, Italy, for instance, notified of the passage of this law, or is it necessary to notify them of it?

Mr. HUSBAND. I do not know as to the necessity, as an international matter, I am sure.

Mr. MALONEY. Is it customary?

Mr. HUSBAND. I have never known of its being done.

Mr. MALONEY. The information I wanted was this: These boats that arrived in Boston, for instance, and New York last Saturday and Sunday, left Italy before the signing of this bill by the President? That is what I wanted to find out, if that was so.

Mr. HUSBAND. No; I think that in a considerable number of the cases they sailed after the President signed the bill.

Mr. MALONEY. But the order was not promulgated, the percentages, etc., until the 2d day of June?

Mr. HUSBAND. The number of admissible in June was published on May 28th for northwestern Europe, on June 1 for southern and eastern Europe, and on June 2 for the countries that have been constructed from Turkish territory.

Mr. FREE. The fact is, Mr. Husband, that in some of these circumstances where they made inquiry of the department here they were informed not to send these people, and they sent them anyway, and some of the boats are in port now.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think the Secretary's information did not reach the Italian ambassador before these ships sailed. I think they sailed after they had made the inquiry, but before they had received the

answer.

Mr. FREE. Showing they were notified, or they had knowledge of the law, and should have informed themselves before they sailed. Mr. HUSBAND. It was in their minds, at least.

Mr. SABATH. But that would not apply to the immigrants themselves. It does take from 2 days up to 10 days for some of those people to reach a port; is not that true? And it is also necessary for them to remain frequently from two to five or seven days in port waiting an assignment?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. SABATH. So many of these people no doubt left their homes perhaps two weeks before the sailing of the vessel? That is a fact. is it not? You know that, do you not?

Mr. HUSBAND. Oh, yes; of course.

Mr. SABATH. And therefore these people could not have known. And many of them no doubt had left even before the law was passed.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think the immigrants are entirely innocent. I do not think you can attach any blame to the immigrants in this case. Mr. Box. Is it not true, Mr. Commissioner, that there are a great many immigrants in Europe even now that left their homes prior to June 3, according to your information?

Mr. SABATH. You mean in port?

Mr. Box. I do not mean in port. You said anywhere.

Mr. SABATH. No; I mean in port.

Mr. Box. I am asking now about their having left their homes and how long it would take to reach the ports, etc. I am asking if there