canization for a person to know the language of the old country. Why make him wait? Why not make a clean sweep of the proposition and say that wives and children of any immigrant who has been legally admitted and who has declared his intention to become a citizen shall be a nonquota immigrant? What can you lose by it? The CHAIRMAN. If we could get those who have brothers and sisters and other relatives to agree on that, and also include grandmothers and orphans, and no more, how would that do?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Let them be in the relative quota. Remember that wives and children are the basis of our society. Why have him board? He would have to board with somebody. I know the life of the immigrant. If he gets here and has his wife and children, he lives a family life. If he is here alone, he lives with somebody else, and the environment is not what it should be, and you are simply doing something which is not good from the humanitarian or social standpoint.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would not let him bring in as his relatives all this list we have been talking about before. Mr. BERNSTEIN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You would limit them to the wife and minor children under 18 years?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Minor children should be 21. I have pleaded for that some time ago and here again. An 18-year-old boy or girl can not be left alone on the other side. In our American jurisprudence it has been assumed for generations that majority is at 21. At that time a man is of age.

Mr. RAKER. In California and many of the States a woman is of age when she is 18 for all purposes except voting.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. As I say, you would not want and I would not want a girl of 18 to remain on the other side when her parents are coming here. It seems to me that that change ought to be made for humanitarian and social reasons. There is a great deal to it. It will help to Americanize his wife and children and him. As to the rest of the bill, of course, I am in accord with the preceding argument, that the south and east Europeans will consider themselves actually insulted by making it 1890.

Mr. RAKER. You have made a very fair statement and we are sorry to have kept you so long, and the questions that we asked were for the purpose of clearing the air somewhat.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Saturday, January 5, 1924.

(Thereupon the committee, at 7.45 o'clock p. m., adjourned, to meet again at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Saturday, January 5, 1924.)

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, January 5, 1924.

The committee this day met, Hon. Albert Johnson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

In hearing Professor Jennings, it was suggested that he file a paper covering his analysis. If there is no objection, that will be in order.

he clerk will be instructed to write to him. There have been heduled to speak here Mr. Alba Johnson, Stephen B. Dugan, of olumbia University, Commissioner Clark, of Montreal, and the ommissioner in charge of Ellis Island, and we have a letter from he Commissioner General of Immigration that Mr. Clark will not e here until Monday. Mr. Johnson sent a telegram saying he could ot keep his appointment, and asked permission to file a brief stateIf there is no objection we will permit that to be done. Doctor Dugan, of Columbia University, we have received no word

rom.

Mr. RAKER. At this time I would like to make a short statement. It has been stated that if the census of 1890 as a basis for the quota was obtained, it would be discriminatory regarding certain States on the Mediterranean and eastern and southeastern Europe. I called up the Director of the Census, Doctor Steuart, and he tells me while they have not made a tabulation of alien white foreign born in the United States, who are married, and where their wives are, that it is in the return, but they did not have enough money to make a tabulation of such data, but he would be pleased to appear before the committee, and thought while they could not make a complete statement, they could take, for instance, the States of New York and New Jersey, and be able to give that data to the committee, if the committee desires. This is for the purpose of showing the number of white foreign-born aliens in the United States from the age of 15 up to 55, married, but their wives abroad, females here whose husbands are abroad, and families, and to show the number of these aliens, and the country from which they came, single, both male and female, that now are of marriageable age, the length of time they have resided in the United States, and either male or female could marry, having resided in the United States, for the purpose of showing under the percentage plan suggested by the committee either 1910 or 1890, particularly 1890; they would be-this is my suggestion-there is a larger percentage of relatives coming in by a considerable number than from those of the States like Scotland, France, Norway, Sweden, or England, and thereby show that while we fixed the census for 1890, with the relative clause, it would more than equalize the offset by taking that census and thereby there would be no discrimination.

I want to submit that to the chairman and the committee for consideration on Monday, or such day as we get the information. Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not think that is the proper basis at all, and I do not think the figures suggested by Judge Raker are correct, They are speculative, hearsay, based upon no concrete tabulation, and it is nothing but speculation.

The CHAIRMAN. I see no reason why we should not endeavor to see what the Director of the Census has.

Mr. HOLADAY. Should not one thing be added there? Maybe you added it, and I did not get it, the number of alien citizens, or foreign-born citizens, who have wives in the old country.

Mr. RAKER. Yes, I think that ought to be there too. I thank you for that suggestion.

Mr. WILSON. Isn't the purpose to show if we adopt the 1890 census this additional information will disprove any suggestion that we are discriminating against Italy and every other country.

Mr. RAKER. Yes, if you take the census of 1890, it would be lowering of those who could come in from those countries under the quota, but taking the number of make and female nonquota, who ar here, and who can send for their relatives.

Mr. WATKINS. There would be no discrimination.

Mr. RAKER. Who can marry, both male and female, and it would: bring in a larger number, and bring the quota higher than what is fixed from the other countries, so thereby, so far as the nationality. is concerned, there would be no discrimination. That is what I think the committee ought to have.

Mr. SABATH. We ought to have all the figures available, but I would like to know how it will increase the number.

Mr. RAKER. I will answer that. I spent a couple of hours going over what I got from the census last night, and I find they run into millions, single and married. If single men from any age up to any age, can go to their native country, for instance, let us take Italy, and marry and bring his alien wife to the United States, that adds that much to the quota. They can adopt in a different way the picture bride proposition. They would go over and get them, so the young women living here or a woman of any age who has lived here, can return to Italy and marry and bring in her husband. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you not think you are complicating the thing more?

Mr. RAKER. No, I do not. You say there was a discrimination. Mr. DICKSTEIN. While you are trying to remedy it by another suggestion

Mr. RAKER. Whenever you argue with a man there is nothing to it but showing the facts to the contrary. I believe any man should be fair-minded and just enough to bring the facts up to show the man who thinks there is a discrimination that there is not a discrimination, and that is the purpose of it.

Mr. FREE. Mr. Chairman, I think this is wasting a lot of time. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, we will ask for the official of the census office to be present Tuesday.

(The question was duly put and carried unanimously.)

Mr. LINEBERGER. Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, if an arrangement has been made to have a representative of the American Legion here to submit their views on the immigration question, as adopted in various resolutions in different national conferences?

The CHAIRMAN. Nothing has been arranged so far.

Mr. LINEBERGER. In case it is not possible for them to get here, I would like to ask permission of the committee to submit as a part of the record at a future date the resolution recently adopted at the San Francisco National Convention of the American Legion. Mr. SABATH. I move that such request be granted.

Mr. WILSON. Will it be convenient or possible for Mr. Quinn, the manager of the Legion, to come?

Mr. LINEBERGER. I am endeavoring to get in touch with Mr. Quinn and our legislative representative of the Legion, Mr. Shapiro, in order that the Legion might present it to be used by this committee. During the existence of the American Legion it has gone on record in practically every national convention regarding the immigration question, and it is one of the outstanding features of the Legion policy to promote, I believe, the proper solution of this entire

migration question. I think it would be very desirable if Mr. uinn could come.

Mr. SABATH. Will you not try to have him come?

Mr. LINEBERGER. I will do the best I can to get him here.

Mr. SABATH. I know the committee would be pleased to hear from

m.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be considered in order that the American egion resolution be placed in the record and that the representative e asked to appear.

Mr. Box. I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact hat several times we have given witnesses the right to revise heir statements. I understand that is under the rule to be followed y this committee, that those revisions, however, can not erase any matters of substance.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Mr. Box. If they are to take these records (I practiced law, and I know about records)-where the record is large, if they are to take hese records out and keep them indefinitely, we will need these hearngs in a few days, and I think there ought to be some restriction on the scattering of this testimony, and there should be some provision to bring it back so our secretary can have it printed in the regular way, within a reasonable time, so we can use it for the benefit of our colleagues. These gentlemen that make statements will be taken into consideration by the House, as well as the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two methods. We could order the temporary printing of each day's proceedings, subject to revision. It is a little expensive, but it fixes the matter in type. They will be printed exactly as the Congressional Record is, and then the revision can follow, and that course is pursued by the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Box. Does that involve any great expense?

The CHAIRMAN. Where the revision tears down the type, it does. The experience has been that if we would print it daily, and let them be final, the edition of one day might be used up before we knew it, and when we came to find the volumes, or send out texts of the series, one day would be entirely missing. Judge Burnett had that trouble all the time. The plan of the committee in the last five years has been to assemble about a week at a time, printing as rapidly as possible, giving them a serial number, each series.

Mr. Box. This last arrangement is a very decided improvement, but I know it will be some time before we have it printed, and these gentlemen, before they revise it, are liable to be crowded for time with other matters and postpone it, and we will want the record, and it will not be here. want to be sure that this record is here for the benefit of these witnesses, and our colleagues, who are very much interested.

The CHAIRMAN. I think at the conclusion of the day's hearings all the hearings of the week will be gathered together and printed, subject to revision.

Mr. Box. That is all right.

Mr. SABATH. I think that we should insist that all these hearings should be returned by every one of these gentlemen within three days' time at least.

The CHAIRMAN. You can not do it. Take a man like Mr. Marshall. It will be subject to small corrections, but he likes the privilege of

seeing that he has rounded out his sentences. If we sent them to him yesterday, he is likely to have another engagement, and he will hold them eight days.

Mr. Box. Many others are in much the same situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will endeavor to get the hearings up from the stenographers. They are behind, too. We have held such long sessions per day that they are a little behind. We will endeavor to close them up.

We have one or two witnesses present. Matters have come in which I think should go into the record, and we might start with two tables which have been placed before you, made from this one large blue print, endeavoring to show in a comparative way quotas that would be admitted on the census of 1910 and 1920, on quota additions of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 per cent; the 1890 quota basis is being made separately, but in addition to the ones dealing with the census of 1910 and 1920, the straight quota on the population of 1910 is also a comparative table, based on naturalization of 1920. The large blueprint table has been cut in two, and made in tables 1 and 2. Without objection it will be placed in the record.

Mr. WATKINS. Table 1 is on the population.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. WATKINS. Table 2 is on naturalization.

The CHAIRMAN. Table 1 deals with the present law, the census basis of 1910, and shows various percentages. Table 2 is based upon the naturalization on the census of 1920, and it is noted that the various countries have been rearranged to show those with the heaviest possible immigration in the tops of both.

(The papers referred to are as follows:)

TABLE NO. 1.-Citizenship of foreign-born white population by countries of birth, and quotas that would be available under per cents specified: Population (Table No. 1) based on census of 1910, and naturalization (Table No. 2) based on census of 1920.