The CHAIRMAN. It would, if all of the steamship companies coming into the port of New York, including United States vessels, were in a position to make the agreement, but the minute that any line becomes competitive, or irregular, or undertakes to get the excess of business, it fails?

Mr. KLECZKA. My idea, though, was that it would offer also a solution for this possible excess. If a monthly maximum was fixed by you, the 100 per cent would be divided over 12 months, and there would be, instead of 20 per cent, say 8 per cent, and then, if in any particular month you would have a slight excess, you could raise the percentage for that month to 10 per cent to take care of these unfortunates who were not coming from a particular country but from every part of Europe. I know there are Italians coming not only from Italy and Jugoslavia, but they are coming from Belgium, Poland, and Germany, and unless all of these transportation companies could keep a constant check, you are going to have every month a situation not perhaps as pitiful as you have now, but you will always have a number of people that are above the quota. Mr. HUSBAND. It is inevitable.

Mr. KLECZKA. Would not the discretionary fixing of a monthly maximum relieve this situation?

Mr. HUSBAND. Well, I think just what you mean would be the best possible solution of the question, in my opinion, but I am afraid that an order would not hold. An order is an order, and an order of the court is another thing. That is, we can not legislate; we can only make rules.

The CHAIRMAN. You will find that very plan in the proposed bill of the House.

On and after July 1, 1921, the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted in any calendar month shall not exceed 15 per cent of the total number of aliens of such nationality admissible in that fiscal year. If in any month such 15 per cent limit has been reached the Secretary of Labor, by decision made after such limit has been reached, may admit during the remainder of such month otherwise admissible aliens of such nationality in a number not in excess of 5 per cent of the total number of aliens of such nationality admissible in that fiscal year; but only if he is satisfied as to each alien so admitted.

Then there was an effort to provide a sliding scale like that. I am reading from the proposed bill we had here last December.

Mr. KLECZKA. I think unless the commissioner shall have some leeway, you are going to have a repetition in a small degree of this situation.

Mr. HUSBAND. The maximum arrived at for any month of 1907 was about 15 per cent of the quota for the entire year.

The CHAIRMAN. That was before the European war, and before any sign of an exodus from any of the countries of Europe.

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes; and 15 per cent would be normal.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us get down to this resolution for a minute. We are taking a lot of your time. The nub of the resolution that I have read is:

That 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. The number of aliens of any nationality so admitted shall be deducted from the number of aliens of that nationality admissible during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1921, under the provisions of such act of May 19, 1921, under such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.

Do you think that meets the situation?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think so, if you make it clear that they are not to be deducted from the July quota, if that is clear. If it is not, if the department or bureau, or bureau of the department, were given the right to apply that deduction at such time as would be best, obviously it would be better to take it off the last end of the quota than the first end of the quota.

The CHAIRMAN. But in certain cases it would have to be in the five months, would it not?

Mr. HUSBAND. It would have to be taken up in the five months in most cases--not in most cases, but in many cases.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee spent some time yesterday in following out that very idea in proposing it should be distributed over a quota for 11 months, beginning August 1, in order to eliminate the very same thing arising in July, and a few of us agreed to leave it with the Secretary.

The number of aliens of any nationality so admitted shall be deducted from the number of aliens of that nationality admissible during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1921, under the provisions of such act of May 19, 1921, under such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.

Mr. HUSBAND. That, in my opinion, would make it possible to handle. The quotas are already fixed, and the quotas for June and July for the various countries have been advertised in Europe. If you make any new quota for July and August, you will be in the same trouble you are in now. The people are following the old quota, either knowingly or innocently, and if we can take this from the final end, as I see it, of the year's business, then there is plenty of time to arrange for it and have perfect understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. If we left words in there, in a broad way, line 1, page 2, of this resolution, so that they may be deducted from the number of aliens of that nationality admissible during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1921, would not the steamship people and the representatives of the foreign governments insist upon the right to start the thing July 1 and to crowd your quota for July? What I am trying to arrive at is whether it would be better to make it during the 11 months beginning August 1. Would there be anything gained by having it that way?

Mr. HUSBAND. Well, I do not know. This leaves the 20 per cent restriction on, does it not?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HUSBAND. And it would in no way repeal that?

The CHAIRMAN. It leaves the whole thing, except it makes a resolution that admits otherwise admissible aliens who departed on or before June 8

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. To be landed, and that number to be distributed over the quota for the fiscal year, beginning July 1, as the Secretary may direct.

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the simplest way of doing it.

Mr. HENNING. In such manner as the Secretary may direct.

Mr. RAKER. But if on the 15th of July, 1921, the quota has been filled, and on the 17th a thousand arrive, we are just where we are to-day, are we not?

Mr. HUSBAND. Oh, yes.

Mr. RAKER. So if the steamship companies can pull this off they have got their minds made up they can just do about what they please with Congress, because from the testimony before the committee, which appears from the publication, their agents had absolute notice of this, and not only that but the companies abroad: is not that right, Mr. Husband?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think that applies to the Italian quotas, as I said before. I can see no excuse for bringing in a great number of Italians from Italy in excess of the quota. In the case of PolandI think you were here when I explained the situation there? Mr. RAKER. Yes; I heard your explanation.

Mr. HUSBAND. I can see how, with the lack of knowledge as to what the quota was going to be, they would take what they considered to be the best available information on the subject, and arrange their business accordingly.

Mr. RAKER. What I am getting at is this. I am getting down now to the steamship companies and their agents. It would hardly be conceivable that any of these steamship companies did not know when this bill passed the House, when it passed the Senate, when the conference report was adopted by the House, when it was adopted by the Senate, when it went to the President, when it was signed, and when it became a law, and then they had 15 days after it was signed before it became effective.

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. There is not any possibility of doubt but what they all knew it, is there?

Mr. HUSBAND. Well, they knew that, they knew the law, and in some of the countries they knew, or might have known, the quota, and very probably did know the quota. But in the case of Poland, Greece, Rumania, Hungary, Austria, and Russia, it would have been practically impossible for anyone to have told them.

Mr. RAKER. They got the quota?

Mr. HUSBAND. They got the quota; yes.

Mr. RAKER. What I am getting at is this: When they started, say, on the 3d, 4th, 5th, or 6th of June, the steamship companies, or their agents, clearly knew that there was a limitation, and they would have to comply with it?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

There is one other matter I wanted to mention. I do not know whether you want to do it or not. I put another proviso on this resolution this morning, as follows:

Provided, further, That any and all expenses incident to carrying this resolution into effect shall be paid by the steamship lines involved.

That might be an extraordinary expense. For example, they wanted to take the immigrants off in Boston on Deer Island, and the Boston commissioner asked authority for 15 guards at $4 a day, and

we replied immediately to incur no extra expense on account of these people at all. I doubt, myself, if this is necessary, because they do pay there a certain expense.

Mr. KLECZKA. The companies are compelled to maintain them until duly admitted, so that would be surplusage, would it not?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes. The question was raised in the bureau this morning, but I do not think it is important.

Mr. RAKER. Right in that connection, that brings up a question suggested this morning, that under the immigration law they can be fined for trying to bring immigrants in that are not admissible, and they can be compelled to provide for them while they are being held and before they are disposed of.

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. In section 4 of this act of May 19, 1921, it provides:

That the provisions of this act are in addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of the immigration laws.

Is it your view that the penalties and provisions relative to steamship companies, providing for the care and maintenance of the immigrants before they are admitted and until they are admitted, and the penalties also provided after the immigrants are admitted to land, are applicable if they violate the provisions of this act of May 19, 1921?

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes; I think, Judge Raker, that it is certainly very clear that all ordinary expenses that are provided for in the law of 1917 are applicable to this, except the matter of fines for bringing them here. Those are more specific in the law, a fine of $25 for this class of case, $200 for another class of case, and that fine would not be applicable in this. That is my understanding, is it not yours, that it would not be applicable to those who are brought in in excess of the quota?

Mr. RAKER. In section 8 of the immigration law it is provided as follows:

* * *

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, any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspectorshall be subject to a fine.

Mr. HUSBAND. Yes. That is for illegal landings, that is not for bringing them to a port. That is one class of fine for illegal landing. The other class of fine is for bringing to a port certain inadmissible classes.

Mr. RAKER. Well, let us get it clear. The steamship companies bringing to the port of New York immigrants that are not admissible under the law would not be subject to the penalties provided in the immigration act?

Mr. HUSBAND. I am not absolutely clear on that. I believe that all of the fines for bringing to a port in the United States are for specific classes. There is no general fine for bringing in inadmissible immigrants. If they attempt a landing without examination, then the section that you have read applies.

Mr. RAKER. What do you mean, Mr. Husband, that a steamship company can bring to the United States and land in the port of New York, or offer to have landed, 2,000 immigrants, all of whom can not be admitted because this law would not admit them, by reason

of the quota having been exhausted, without a penalty being attached to it at all?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think they can, Judge Raker.

Mr. FREE. They do not get them landed, Judge.
Mr. RAKER. I know.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think no provision was put in here for penalizing steamship companies for bringing an excess quota.

Mr. RAKER. Then they could with impunity start on the 2d, 3d, 4th, or 9th of June, and run the risk of getting the people landed, without being subject to any penalty?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think so.

Mr. FREE. Except that they would have to feed them if we refused to give this relief?

Mr. RAKER. I want to get the penalty. So the steamship companies can just word ad libitum and run the risk of landing?

Mr. FREE. What they have done in this instance.

Mr. RAKER. I want the record to show this fact. Some of us thought there was a penalty.

The CHAIRMAN. No; there is no penalty put in the act. Now, let us get it very clear. In the latter part of section 9 of the old law it says:

It shall also be unlawful for any such person to bring to any port of the United States any alien who is excluded by the provisions of section 3 of this act because unable to read, or who is excluded by the terms of section 3 of this act as a native of that portion of the continent of Asia and the islands adjacent thereto described in said section, and if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that these disabilities might have been detected by the exercise of reasonable precaution prior to the departure of such aliens from a foreign port, such person shall pay to the collector of customs of the customs district in which the port of arrival is located the sum of $200, and in addition a sum equal to that paid by such alien for his transportation from the initial point of departure, indicated in his ticket, to the port of arrival, for each and every violation of this provision, such latter sum to be delivered by the collector of customs to the alien on whose account assessed. And no vessel shall be granted clearance papers pending the determination of the question of the liability to the payment of such fines, or while the fines remain unpaid, nor shall such fines be remitted or refunded, etc.

Mr. SABATH. All fines apply to nonadmissible aliens.
The CHAIRMAN. Then it says:

Provided further, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed to subject transportation companies to a fine for bringing to ports of the United States aliens who are by any of the provisos or exceptions to section 3 hereof exempted from the excluding provisions of said section.

Mr. RAKER. I wanted the commissioner, before he goes, to give an answer on section 8.

Mr. SABATH. He has given a definite answer.

Mr. RAKER. I want to know if a steamship brings to the port of New York immigrants who can not be admitted under this act because the quota has been exhausted, goes to the wharf and has those immigrants landed on the wharf, with the purpose of having them admitted, is not guilty under the provisions of section 8 of the immigration act.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think, Judge Raker, that it would be necessary to specify in the act that the penalties imposed by section 8 of the immigration law would apply in this case, because they seem to be