Doctor HILL. Oh, yes.

Senator BLEASE. And could you tell what percentage of those people had become American citizens and what percentage are in this country remaining not naturalized?

Doctor HILL. You mean what proportion of the foreign-born population has been naturalized?

Senator BLEASE. Yes.

Doctor HILL. Yes; that is in the census.

Senator BLEASE. What I want to find out is, how rapidly the foreign element are becoming voters and how long it will take them to outvote the American people at the present rate they are coming in. Senator REED. Senator Blease, in 1924, when the immigration act was in committee, statistics were presented that showed the proportion of the foreign born of the different nationalities who had become naturalized. The lowest, as I recall, was that of the Greeks, where 24 per cent of those of Greek birth in this country were naturalized. That ran up until some other nationality showed nearly 80 per cent naturalized.

Senator WILLIS. But that would not show anything about voting. You are showing citizenship and not voting. You are asking about voting, are you not, Senator?

Senator BLEASE. Yes; I am asking about voting.

Senator WILLIS. There is nothing in the census about voting.
Senator REED. No.

Senator BLEASE. What I want to find out is at what rate they are coming in and how long it will take them at that rate to outvote American citizens, or until they are more numerous than are original American citizens.

Doctor HILL. You could not tell that from the census figures.

Senator COPELAND. I suppose we are all in a sense naturalized if we go back far enough.

Senator BLEASE. I was not naturalized; I was born over here. Senator COPELAND. Was the census of 1800 a more accurate census than 1790?

Doctor HILL. I do not know of any reason why it should have been. I never had occasion to consider that question, but I do not see why they should not have been equally accurate. They were both taken under the same organization and under conditions not very different, I should say.

Senator COPELAND. Do you consider that the census taken at that early period was anything nearly as accurate as it is to-day?

Doctor HILL. I think so, because they had a very simple census, to begin with. They did not have this vast mass of detail that we have to carry now and, in the second place, because they had not the confused conditions we have to contend with in the big cities, or the floating population that we have now. The population was much more permanent then, and I imagine that the enumerators in most cases were fairly well familiar with the population which they enumerated. If there was any difference, I should think it would be in favor of the 1790 census as against a later census.

Senator COPELAND. In your opinion the national origins law founded on the census of 1800 would bring practically the same percentages as 1790?

Doctor HILL. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. Would that be true as to 1810 and 1820? Doctor HILL. I do not think there was enough immigration had come in at that time

Senator COPELAND. We had immigration in the forties?
Doctor HILL. About that time.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Doctor, have we got the returns for 1800?
Doctor HILL. Have we got them?

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Yes.

Doctor HILL. There are some States missing still. The States for which the 1800 census records are missing include: Georgia, Kentucky Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia, and certain limited areas in some other States; also Indiana Territory and Northwest Territory.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. There were six or seven missing out of 1790. Senator WILLIS. I was wondering whether or not that might not be a check worth while. Our committees made these computations on the basis of the census of 1790. Suppose thay should start an entirely independent inquiry, taking the census of 1800 and 1810 and see where they come out. It would be a pretty useful check, would it?

Senator COPELAND. Up as far as 1830 it would be.

Doctor HILL. That would be a very large undertaking, a very large task, especially as we would have to work with manuscript records. We haven't printed these schedules as we have those of 1790. Senator WILLIS. You say you have not any printed record for the census for the earlier periods?

Doctor HILL. I mean by that, the original records. Of course, we have census reports giving statistics.

Senator WILLIS. 1790 was printed; 1800 was not, or 1810?
Doctor HILL. No; nor has any later census been printed.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Can you tell me the first census we took in which we undertook to find out what country these people came from? Doctor HILL. 1850.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. There was nothing done up until that time by our census enumerators to determine where these people came from in Europe?

Doctor HILL. That is true.

Senator COPELAND. In 1850 did they go back further than the immediate parents?

Doctor HILL. It did not go back as far as that; simply their own birthplace; whether foreign born, and in what countries.

Senator COPELAND. When did they begin to ask anything about the parents?

Doctor HILL. They made a beginning in 1880, but, as I stated a while ago, that was not a complete classification. The first complete classification made of parents was in 1890.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Then, until 1850 there was nothing to show, except by assuming from the names?

Doctor HILL. Well, we have the immigration figures, you know. Senator SHIPSTEAD. Were there any other immigration figures other than those required by the Government to be filed by the officers of incoming ships with the immigration officers, the number of passengers, and that the passengers landed were accreditied to the flag carried by the ship?

Doctor HILL. I think you are right about that. I am not familiar with the immigration regulations of those days.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. So, if the ship came in carrying passengers from all over Europe, assume she had a thousand passengers, the officer would file with the immigration department a manifest showing that a thousand come here, and that German ship and immigration officials would accredit those immigrants to Germany; is that right?

Senator REED. I doubt whether there was any ship of that capacity at that time.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Of course, the figures I assumed merely for the purpose. For instance, an English ship_coming in under the English flag, carrying passengers from all over Europe, the passengers would be accredited to England?

Senator WILLIS. The way they handled ships in those days that would not be a bad guess, because they did not have tramp vessels gathering up cargo. A ship was laden and went to a certain port.` Senator REED. Your conclusions upon that were checked, were they not, by statistics of emigrants from various countries?

Doctor HILL. So far as we could get them.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. Could you get them in any extended form for those days of 1850?

Doctor HILL. For some countries we have statistics of emigration from Provinces and counties, and of others we haven't found any yet. Senator SHIPSTEAD. In what countries did you get those?

Doctor HILL. In the case of Ireland, we had the emigration by counties and in the case of Germany we had it by Provinces.

Senator COPELAND. Is it not quite apparent, Mr. Chairman, that we might refine and verify these figures by the use of more time? Doctor Hill says so; and out of these discussions it would seem to me more light might be thrown upon the subject.

Senator KEYES. I submit for the record a letter by Senator Bruce of Maryland to Senator Johnson under date of March 14, 1928, inclosing protest of the Independent Citizens' Union of Maryland, and ask that both be inserted in the record at this point.

(The letter and inclosure referred to, as directed by Senator Keyes, are here inserted:)

Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON,

United States Senate.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

March 14, 1928.

DEAR SENATOR: At the request of Dr. Robert H. Haase, president of the Independent Citizens' Union of Maryland, I am forwarding to you herewith a copy of a protest, which the members of the union have made against the quota provision of the immigation bill.

Truly yours,

WM. CABELL BRUCE.

A PROTEST AGAINST THE QUOTA PROVISION OF THE NEW IMMIGRATION BILL

To the Congress of these United States:

We, members of The Independent Citizens Union of Maryland, an organization of citizens of immigrant origin whose loyalty has stood every test in the time of trouble and whose patriotism is unimpeachable, having a political conscience equal to their civic honesty, protest the so-called "quota" provision in the new immigration measure now before Congress

For that the provision thereof is arbitrary, unequal, unfair, and unreasonable. For that the passage of this measure is a reflection upon the courage and the intelligence of the people of the United States and is a confession of fear that they are morally and mentally, weak and have lost the virility that marked their immigrant ancestors so now dread and shun to compete with the newcomer of like proportions.

We protest the passage of this bill because we believe in the future of this our country, for as we know that its greatness was achieved by the pioneer immigrants and their descendants, so do we welcome their successors of to-day as we are convinced that these will equally contribute to the greatness and well-being of our country of the to-morrow.

Because we so believe, and because we possess courage in ourselves and a grateful memory for those who prepared the way for us, we oppose this quota provision as prejudicial to the best interests of the United States and of its welfare. Respectfully submitted,

THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS UNION OF MARYLAND, By Dr. ROBт. H. HAASE, President.

Senator KEYES. The committee will now go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 3 o'clock p. m., the committee proceeded to the consideration of executive business, and at the conclusion thereof adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman.)

X