Last permanent residence of immigrant aliens admitted and future permanent residence of emigrant aliens departed, during periods specified, by countries-Continued.

All classes of aliens admitted, departed, debarred, and deported, and United States citizens arrived and departed, during the six months ended December 31, 1922.

All classes of aliens admitted, departed, debarred, and deported, and United States citizens arrived and departed, during the six months ended December 31, 1922-Continued.

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

The undersigned members of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization dissent from the report of the majority on H. R. 14273, which is offered as an amendment to S. 4092.

Ever since the 3 per cent restriction quota law and its amendments went into effect, just complaints from every section of the country have been registered against its harsh, inhuman, and unworkable provisions. This was recognized by the Secretary of Labor and the Bureau of Immigration, who were compelled to urge the temporary admission of the wives and children of American citizens and declarants who had not been permitted to enter under the law, owing to its drastic provisions. Public opinion forced the adoption of two amendments which permitted the entry of several thousand Armenian refugees, yet a large number of refugees, as well as the wives and children of American citizens, were deported when the quota of 3 per cent had been reached. No consideration was given to the fact that many of them had left their homes long before they had any reason to believe or expect that the quota of the country of their nativity would be exhausted and although they had received their visés. The bill in a measure aims to remedy the harsh provisions of the present law which caused so much suffering and to prevent in the future a repetition of the same unfortunate conditions. If this provision had been originally adopted, as some of us urged, much of the suffering of those held at Ellis Island and other ports of entry and finally deported would have been avoided. Consequently, we heartily approve the adoption of this provision, which will permit the near-blood relatives to enter as nonquota immigrants.

The provision allowing a basic quota of 400 for all countries will prevent the return and deportation of peoples of small countries who especially have suffered under the unworkable provisions of the present law.

We also heartily approve of the provisions providing for the thorough examination and investigation of immigrants in the ports of embarkation before leaving for the United States, as well as the extremely strict provisions which will require immigration certificates. In fact, we favor every provision which tends to strengthen and safeguard entry and make impossible the admission of any individual immigrant who can not in every way comply with every provision of the present stringent immigration laws. We are irrevocably opposed to the admission of even a single immigrant who is not physically, mentally, and morally fit eventually to become a real American citizen.

We do, however, protest against the reduction in the quota from 3 to 2 per cent, and especially against the per cent being based on the 1890 census in lieu of that of 1920 or 1910. We are of the opinion that it is a deliberate discrimination against the so-called newer immigration. If it was not intended to arbitrarily discriminate against the immigration from Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark,

Italy, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, and other countries, why did the proponents of the measure take the 1890 census? It is too apparent that it is intended not to reduce immigration from Great Britain and Germany, but to completely estop almost all immigration from all of the other countries. At the time when the committee was considering the bill they had before them the actual figures showing what the result would be if the census of 1890 was adopted. It furnishes the most conclusive proof of positive discrimination which can be found. For the information of the House and to prove our contention, we submit the following figures showing the number admissible under the censuses of 1890, 1900, and 1910:

It certainly will not be contended by those who favor this measure that the reason for its adoption was a failure of display of loyalty and patriotism of those who came from southwestern Europe. If this apprehension did exist, then the most complete answer destroying such apprehension is found in an article appearing in Colliers, entitled "Eight American soldiers," referring to John N. F. Bilitzki, Lonnie J. Moscow, Aloizy Nagowski, Isaac Rabinowitz, Epifanio Affatato, Wasyl Kolonoczyk, Daniel Moskowitz, and Antony Sclafoni.

EIGHT AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

(By Samuel McCoy.)

The heroism of the eight Americans whom I am about to name was duplicated in every one of the hundreds of regiments which were sent from America to serve in France; I name these eight men merely because their war records happen to be before me at the moment and because much has been said of late in regard to the proper qualifications for American citizenship.

Each of these men was awarded the distinguished-service cross. Twenty thousand men who fought in the same division to which they belonged all acquitted themselves with honor in the face of danger. A thousand men of the division were singled out to appear in the divisional citations for feats of heroism performed in that campaign. But these eight were ranked even higher than all these. They were of the handful who won the distinguished-service cross-a decoration awarded only "for extraordinary heroism in action."

The first man, a sergeant, in the assault launched against the seemingly impregnable Hindenburg line, "although twice wounded, refused to leave the field, but remained with his platoon, exhibiting magnificent courage and bravery, until he was wounded a third time. His devotion to duty set a splendid example to the men of his company."

The second, a corporal, in the same fearful fire of the enemy, was an advance scout for his platoon. The platoon was temporarily halted by machine-gun fire from a section of the enemy trench in their immediate front. He rushed through the heavy enemy fire to the trench, and at the point of his rifle compelled 12 of the enemy to surrender. He then signaled for the platoon to advance."

The third, also a corporal, "left shelter, went forward under intense machine-gun fire, and carried a wounded officer to safety. In accomplishing this mission he was severely wounded."

The fourth man, a private, first class, "when the advance of his battalion was checked by heavy machine-gun fire, went forward, with two other soldiers, under heavy fire to reconnoiter the enemy positions. By effective rifle fire they drove the gunners from two machine-gun nests into a dugout near by, which they captured, together with 35 prisoners, including 3 officers.'

66

The fifth man, also a private, after being severely wounded by shrapnel, took shelter in a shell hole somewhat in advance of his company, from which he had become separated in the fog and smoke. He saved the lives of four of his wounded comrades who were occupying the shell hole, by throwing live grenades, which had been tossed into the shell hole by members of his own company in the rear, into the enemy's lines."

*

*

The sixth, a private, "under heavy shell and machine-gun fire, left the shelter of his trench, and going forward under a thick smoke screen, single-handed captured between 30 and 40 prisoners * Three weeks later, in a second battle, after the advance of his company had been stopped by strong, hostile machine-gun fire, he, with three companions, advanced far ahead of the front line to attack an enemy position located in a large farmhouse. By skillful maneuvering in the broad daylight they covered all entrances to the house and forced the surrender of the entire force of the enemy, numbering 36 men and 2 officers. During the exploit they killed two of the enemy, who attempted to take cover in the cellar.

The seventh, a private, "exhibited exceptional bravery by leaving shelter and going into an open field under heavy machine-gun and shell fire to rescue wounded soldiers."

The eighth man, also a private, "while the advance against the Hindenburg line was at its height, seeing an American machine gunner exposed to the enemy, ran to his assistance. On the way he was seriously wounded, but continued on, reaching the position and using his body to shield the gunner while the latter poured a fire into the enemy. He was wounded three times, finally losing consciousness, but after his wounds were dressed he insisted on leaving the field unaided."

The names of these eight American soldiers, all of whom are still living, are John N. F. Bilitzki, Lonnie J. Moscow, Aloizy Nagowski, Isaac Rabinowitz, Epifanio Affatato, Wasyl Kolonoczyk, Daniel Moskowitz, and Antony Sclafoni.

We realize that the committee can not report a bill which would satisfy the two extremes, viz, first, those alarmists and extremists who at all times clamor even against the admission of the wives and children of our citizens and soldiers and who insist upon completely