Doctor HILL. That did not in 1910, or vice versa?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Doctor HILL. I think there were some differences. I have not looked that up, but I think we will find a few probably.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you make a note and look into that for us? That is to say, on the census of 1890 what colonies or dependencies. received separate enumeration and what fell out?

It

I will insert this entire table for the use of the committee. appears to be the latest list of countries from the Department of Labor.

Number of aliens admissible for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, under the act of May 19, 1921, entitled "An act to limit the immigrantion into the United States", as extended by public resolution No. 55, 67th Congress, approved May 11,

1922.

Sweden..

Switzerland.

Yugoslavia..

20,042

4,008.

3,752

750

Palestine..

Syria...

Turkey, European and Asiatic (including eastern Thrace, Imbros, Tenedos, and area north of 1921 Turko-Syrian boundary)..

Other Europe (including Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, and
San Marino).

Africa (other than Egypt)..

Other Asia (including Cyprus, Hedjaz, Iraq, (Mesopotamia), Persia, Rhodes with Dodekanesia and Castellorizzo, and any other Asiatic territory not included in the Barred Zone, Persons born in Asiatic Russia are included in the Russia quota)...

531

Egypt..

Atlantic Islands (other than Azores, Canary Islands, Madeira Islands, and islands

adjacent to the American continents)

Australia..

New Zealand and Pacific Islands.

Total..

357,803

71,561

1 The immigration quotas assigned to the various countries and regions should not be regarded as having any polictical significance whatever, or as involving recognition of new governments, or of new boundaries, or of transfers of territory, except as the United States Government has already made such recognition in a formal and official manner.

2 Given up by Hungary and by Austria, and therefore can not be included in the quota of either of these countries.

The CHAIRMAN. In this list which is headed "Number of aliens admissible for the fiscal year 1924 under the act of May, 1921, entitled an act," etc., appears this line: "Great Britain and northern Ireland," and then "Irish Free State," and both are bracketed. Mr. HUNT. We made one quota.

The CHAIRMAN. That is made under a ruling?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the same division be made under the 1890 census?

Mr. HUNT. That is a matter for the State Department to indicate. It would probably be the same.

The CHAIRMAN. It is suggested that I ask you whether that is made in that form because the Irish Free State is not a dependency, or because no enumeration was made in 1910--no separate enumeration?

Mr. HUNT. Not of that particular area; no, sir. We had one of Ireland as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN. But not of Ireland as divided into northern Ireland and the Irish Free State?

Mr. HUNT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And that same condition would apply as to 1890 ?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice in previous quota tables the Memel region has been carried as one thing and the Pinsk region has been carried as another. It is now reported as "Lithuania, including Memel region and part of Pinsk region"; and Poland is carried as including eastern Galicia and part of Pinsk region. The question was asked the other day," What is included in 'other Asia'?" "Other Asia" includes Cyprus, Hejaz, Iraq (Mesopotamia), Persia, Rhodes, Dodekanesia, and Castellorizzo, and any other Asiatic territory not included in the barred zone. Now, then, in this bill under consideration it is proposed to give each country that would be included in the table of quotas a basic quota of 200. I would like to know if we can secure any information as to whether a quota basis of that kind would give 200 to each of those countries that are enumerated as "other Asia"!

Mr. HUNT. "Other Asia," as a whole?

The CHAIRMAN. Other Asia is not a country.

Mr. HUNT. It is a subdivision to which a separate quota was given. Doctor HILL. It is a question as to the application of this proposed quota law; whether these various areas would be considered countries I could not say. It is a question for the State Department, as it seems to me. Persia and Rhodes and these other political divisions would, I suppose, have the 200 minimum under the law, if the State Department decides that they represent nations or nationalities.

Mr. CABLE. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether it would be a good thing to get the same quota on a 1900 basis for the census?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to ask if it could be done with the same facility?

Mr. CABLE. No; if it can be done when they get the 1890 one. In your opinion would it be a good thing?

The CHAIRMAN. Are you asking me or are you asking the witness? Mr. CABLE. I am asking you.

The CHAIRMAN. You are asking whether it would be a good thing to have the same estimate based on the 1890 census to cover the year 1900?

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you could do that, Doctor Hill, it would be well.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I ask that the census of 1920 be put in the record along the same line.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. VAILE. I did not hear all that went on before I came in. I want to ask a question with reference to increase of population. Did you go into that?

The CHAIRMAN. In the United States?

Mr. VAILE. In different groups in the United States. Did you go into that?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. VAILE. Here is the point I have in mind. I am very sure that a census count based on the census of 1890 will be a fairer kind of a count for the present proportion of racial stock in the United States than a count based on the census of 1910, if you only count the foreignborn for each of those years in making your count. The reason for that is because the earlier immigration of the people who are favored by the count of 1890 is so much larger than the early immigration as per the count of 1910. I have had some difficulty, however, in making that out, because the census figures do not run along in the same way.

Now, for example, taking the series of figures made from the census given by the report of the Immigration Commission and trying to compare the group of principal countries, take England, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Greece (which, of course, in the early days was very small), and Poland, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. I find when we get down to 1890 that Poland has dropped out of the count and I started to carry that along from 1870, but it has dropped out of count because of inclusion of Poland in Russia and Hungary and the German Empire; consequently it is impossible to carry the count along for either Poland, Austria-Hungary, Germany, or Russia. Are those figures available elsewhere-the actual immigration from those four countries from the year 1890 on?

Mr. HUNT. Except through the Immigration Bureau. Those reports are the only ones which are made from manifests turned in by the steamship companies.

Mr. VAILE. Are they incorporated in the census?

Doctor HILL. No. That is not material which we handle at all. Mr. VAILE. What is the formula for working out the percentage of increase of population given a birth rate? That is, if you assume a birth rate of so many per thousand, how do you work that out for a series of years?

Doctor HILL. Well, you would assume a death rate, too, would you not?

Mr. VAILE. Yes, sir.

Doctor HILL. It would be simply a matter of applying the difference between the birth rate and the death rate that would give the rate of natural increase. The difference between the number of deaths

and the number of births would be what you would call natural increase.

Mr. VAILE. It did not seem to me it would be quite as simple as that, if I can indicate what I mean. There is a recent book entitled "America's Racial Heritage." I have forgotten at this moment the name of the author, but it is based on census figures. In that book the author has figured America's increase on certain original stocks. He states the conclusion in there that in 130 years the given number will have increased about fourteenfold. Of course that will be an average of practically 100 per cent for each decade, which is, of course, impossible; but it might readily be possible for the whole 130 years because the group would increase would be so much larger by, say, the middle of the period, that it seems to me the increase would be much more rapid. Would you apply a simple arithmetical rate to it? Or would it be a fractional geometrical rate?

Doctor HILL. It would be a compound interest rate, would it not? Mr. VAILE. Is there a formula by which that can be worked out? Doctor HILL. Oh, yes; there is such a formula. I am not familiar with it myself.

Mr. VAILE. Can you get that formula and present it to me? Doctor HILL. Probably I could. That makes no allowance for immigration or emigration-it is just the natural increase.

Mr. VAILE. Taking a given group, say 100,000 people, since 1870? Doctor HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. By giving that to you means giving it to the committee, I presume?

Mr. VAILE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you if the 1890 census differs in the form collected from any other. I mean, were the places of birth noted in the 1890 census?

Mr. HUNT. Oh, yes, but not the same as in 1920. For in 1920 we asked not only the country of birth but the province or city. In all previous censuses we asked simply for the country.

The CHAIRMAN. So the census up to 1920 shows only the country of birth?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And after that it shows the country and place of birth?

Doctor HILL. In 1920 we asked the province or city as well as the country. That is the first time we ever asked for that information. Mr. SABATH. And the nationality of the people in the mother tongue?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. That was asked for the first time in 1910, was it not? Mr. HUNT. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that used (the 1910 census) in making the distribution under the quota act?

Mr. HUNT. Do you mean the classification by mother tongue?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. No; we made no use of that.

The CHAIRMAN. So the use of the 1890 census would be exactly the same as was used in making it under the 1910 census or present quota law?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Taking the census of 1920, can you give us the following information:

1. The number of men, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40?

Doctor HILL. Oh, yes.

Mr. RAKER. 2. Number of women, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40.

3. Number of married men, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40.

4. Number of married women, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40.

5. Number of single men, foreign born, between ages of 15 and 40. 6. Number of single women, foreign born, between the ages of 15 and 40.

7. Number of widows, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40.

8. The number of widowers, foreign born, white, between the ages of 15 and 40.

9. The number of divorced men.

10. The number of divorced women.

Doctor HILL. Yes; we can get all that. You might let us have that list, if you have it.

Mr. WATKINS. If it would not entail too much work and delay this other work, I would like for them to embrace the naturalization numbers of those for the particular years 1910 and 1920.

Mr. HUNT. As shown by the census?

Mr. WATKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNT. We can do that very easily.

Mr. BACON. You can only do that so far as the women are concerned, for just this year.

The CHAIRMAN. You made some figures for the Senate committee, did you not?

Doctor HILL. Mr. Husband, I think, made some estimates for each country, of the number naturalized.

The CHAIRMAN. We have those for 1920.
Doctor HILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be much trouble to get it for 1890 ? Doctor HILL. No, sir; it would be very little trouble to give you the number from each country naturalized. It would be more trouble to give you the quota.

Mr. BACON. Would you take the number of women naturalized? Mr. HUNT. Like 1920-the number we have.

Mr. RAKER. Well, keep this in your mind-the number of men in the United States in 1920, foreign born, white, married, without their wives.

Mr. HUNT. We can not give you that offhand.

Mr. RAKER. Number of women, the same census, foreign born, white, without their husbands. In these last two I realize there is part of it in the abstract but they will not be able to give this except by taking certain localities where there is a large number and giving some estimates. You could do that, could you not, Doctor?

Mr. HUNT. This is naturalized?

Mr. RAKER. No; these are with their families.