Senator REED. I suggest four.

Mr. CURRAN. I suggest two.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you still suggest two, Mr. Curran?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir. However, I retreated to the position reflected by three months at one time and I am ready to do that now. I very much dislike to see anything over three months put in, because this congestion is one of the factors that make for delay, and it is during the delay that immigrants fall sick and die and scandal arises and Ellis Island becomes a name of reproach to our whole Government. This will help do away with that delay. It would be helpful if we could have an even inflow of immigration throughout the year. There will be a peak load in the spring, but it will not be nearly so sharp if you make it three months as it would be if you make it four or five or six months.

The inspection is not worthy the name when the arrivals are bunched in a few months. We inspect at the rate of an immigrant a minute. An immigrant will take a month or so to get over here. He will wait a solid week in the steerage of the ship in dock, and he winds up with one minute of inspection, which is not enough to protect the United States against the admission of undesirable citizens, and with our force we can not give inspection more time. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curran, some immigrants might be delayed, might they not, in reaching the port of embarkation? You are allowing a reasonable time, are you?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think three months is a reasonable time? Mr. CURRAN. I do. In all our records I do not know of a single case where it has taken an immigrant a longer time to arrive at the port of New York. There were a few immigrants who came from the far reaches of Persia, and they were delayed in one way or another in getting to the Mediterranean coast, but after all their adventures from the beginning to the end of the voyage, they arrived here inside of three months, and that is the longest voyage on record.

Senator KING. However, if the certificate given by the consul becomes the equivalent of the visé and the plan should prevail that that precede the passport, there might be such a long time intervening between the visé and the obtaining of the passport as to prevent the immigrant from reaching here within the period named.

Senator REED. May I make this suggestion? I believe it would be the practice that the actual issuing of the certificate would not take place until the immigrant presented his passport and showed himself ready for the certificate. Then the consul would complete the transaction by giving him a visé certificate.

Mr. CURRAN. We would cure that.

Senator REED. What I had in mind in making it four months was that until the immigrant knows he can come he can not settle up his home affairs, and that period of four months would allow a reasonable time for him to sell off what he has and make his family arrangements at that end.

Senator KING. What I had in mind were the statements made by the Secretary of Labor yesterday. He was advocating that a certificate shall be issued by the consular office and upon that the applicant for entrance into the United States goes to his own Government

and obtains his passport and does not report back to the consular office.

Senator REED. I think the Secretary had not thought his suggestion through to its conclusion, or he perhaps would not have made it in that form. The consul ought not to issue his certificate until he finds that the immigrant is going to be permitted to come; otherwise, he will have issued a lot of certificates to people who will not be permitted to leave their own country. He ought to show his readiness to issue the certificate but nothing more than that.

Senator KING. I called the Secretary's attention to the fact that after the passport was issued the applicant ought to communicate with the consular office from which he had obtained his visé or certificate. It seems to me that this time limit ought to be determined whether we adopt the Secretary's plan of having the visé precede the passport or adopt the latter plan of having the passport precede the visé.

Senator REED. I do not like his plan and I do not believe it would work out in practice.

Senator HARRISON. Four months is the limit and the consul can fix the limit. He can fix it at two months. He knows when the folks are leaving. He can take into consideration how long it will take the applicant to fix up his affairs. Is not that right? In other words, this says not exceeding four months. The consular agent could fix the certificate to make it less than that if the facts warrant. The CHAIRMAN. There is a discretionary power there.

Senator REED. That would be all within the control of the officers here by regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that we have all the facts and we can determine the reasonableness of six months or four months.

Senator REED. Before Senator King and Mr. Johnson came in, Mr. Curran said he liked this idea of dispensing with a separate visé and having this certificate suffice for a visé as well as for immigration purposes. I am wondering if there is anything else that he wants to tell the committee along that line.

Mr. CURRAN. No; thank you, Senator. In a way it is none of my business. That happens not in the United States at the gate which is my station, but it seems to me it simplifies things, and I do not see any objection to it. The more we can simplify the better off we

are.

Senator REED. From an immigration standpoint, you see no objection to calling it an immigration certificate?

Mr. CURRAN. I see no objection. I think it is an excellent change. The next point has to do with paragraph (c) on page 6, at line 17. That refers to ministers of a religious denomination. Also paragraph (f) on page 7, which refers to students. As I said after I discussed it with Congressman Johnson for a few minutes, this is a sort of thing that for sentimental reasons I should be the last one to press very hard, and yet every additional exemption to the quota law breeds trouble. We have the most surprising dilemmas and difficulties in deciding what a minister of a religious denomination is. We have cantors and nuns and layreaders and all manner of people in the twilight zone between what might be called helpers and what might be called ministers.

The same thing is true with respect to students. Students come here to pursue their devotion to learning under a Ford car in a garage; they are studying auto mechanics and that sort of thing, and the courts are still deciding what is a minister and what is a student. If I had my way I would cut out both exemptions and let them come within the quota as they may. With the discretion that will be vested in our consuls I think we may safely leave it to them to take care of these very desirable accessions to our country. When you talk about a professor, that is an old American name. The professor is the fellow at the barn dance who does the fiddling, and he is almost anything. And more seriously, the law speaks of a college but not a university. I went to Yale College, but it is a part of Yale University, and the fellows over in the scientific end of my university do not belong in this law. So they put in the word "university." Then they had a seminary, which is a finishing and polishing place for young ladies, but not an academy where the boy goes to get polished in turn. All those differences and divergences you can not foresee, and you are led into the courts to know just what it is all about.

Senator REED. If we were to put in clause (c) the same qualifications that Mr. Johnson has put in clause (f), that the colleges or universities should be particularly designated by the Secretary of Labor and approved by him, would not that help?

Mr. CURRAN. I suppose it would, but then they would question the erudition of the Secretary of Labor at once. When the little old school that the man went to when he was a boy was ruled out by the modern Secretary of Labor, he would say, "The professor of that school is the maker of Americans finer than anybody I ever knew in my life." And there is your trouble all over again.

Senator REED. In others words, you would cut them out?
Mr. CURRAN. I would cut them out.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curran, you are dealing with the nonquota classes. Would you cut out paragraph (c)?

Mr. CURRAN. I would cut out paragraph (c) and also paragraph (f), Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as to paragraph (f), which refers to a bona fide student. I have received a large number of communications from heads of universities stating that students should come within the nonquota class, young men who want to come over here to Columbia University and other colleges. Would you put them in the quota class?

Mr. CURRAN. That leads me to the one further thing I wanted to say, and I am very glad you put it that way, Mr. Chairman, because exchange professors, going back to paragraph (c) and students, as contemplated by paragraph (f), may come here over and above the quota as visitors. A visit is not determined by the length of time; it is determined by the nature of the expedition.

The CHAIRMAN. Where would they come in as visitors? 66

Senator REED. Page 5, section 3, clause 2, which says, an alien visiting the United States temporarily for business or pleasure." It is strictly temporary as distinguished from a permanent residence. The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that a student was coming on business?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. I would cut out both of those others. What you say is absolutely true.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Husband, have you ever admitted students upon the principle that they come in as temporary sojourners for business or for pleasure?

Mr.. HUSBAND. Yes; they have a rule under which students are admitted temporarily for business or pleasure.

Senator HARRISON. How long do you let them stay over here? Mr. HUSBAND. They stay for a year or until the close of the school term. Usually if they were admitted now it would be until the 1st of July, and then if they maintained the status of students they would make reapplication and that status would be continued for another year.

Senator HARRIS. About how many are there in that class?

Mr. HUSBAND. It is difficult to say. Most of the students, Senator, come in under the quota. It is only when the quota is gone that this is resorted to. So the great majority of students who come are charged to the quota and we know nothing about it. This rule went into effect, I think, in September-it was finally adjusted-and not more than 200 or 300 have been admitted. There have not been many. But it was for the school year, so there would be more in August and September, probably.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed now, Mr. Curran. You have gotten rid of the students. What is the next?

Senator COPELAND. What about the students? What about nurses, the persons who come over here to enter schools for nursing? Senator KING. We have concluded that they come over here as temporary visitors. We are opposed to students. I am going to move to strike it out.

Senator COPELAND. Could the nurse come in under the plan as you have it now?

Senator REED. Temporarily for study, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curran, what is the next amendment that you desire to speak of?

Mr. CURRAN. The next is on page 9, lines 3 and 4. "A certified copy of his birth certificate if required by the country of his birth." Senator COPELAND. Which bill is that?

Mr. CURRAN. This is Senator Reed's bill. I would broaden that in the way that the other requirements are broadened, to say: "If available," or some such phrase, in order to take care, for instance, of a thousand Russians of the old régime who are in France and England and who can not go back to Russia to get their birth certificates. That situation came to my attention the other day.

Senator REED. You would change the words "if required by the country of his birth" to read "if available?"

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

The next change is purely conformatory. It is on page 10, line 21, paragraph (b), reading: "any citizen." I would say, "Any resident citizen" to make it conform to the previous provision which speaks of a resident citizen only.

The next point is on page 14. If I may say, if I am not going beyond my proper province

Senator KING. Go ahead. Butcher it all you can.

Mr. CURRAN. I should like to add just a word to what Congressman Johnson said, and I have no hesitation about anything that I say being in the record. I agree with the objections that he made, with all deference

Senator KING. Do not apologize. Let us have your view.

Mr. CURRAN. I agree with his objections to the naturalization measure of the amount and kind of immigration proposed in this bill. It has always seemed to me that we naturalize too soon. Americanization is not accomplished by naturalization at the end of five years from the moment the immigrant steps off the boat at Ellis Island. I have always thought that naturalization should come at the end of 10 years or 15 years or 20 years to be safe. We know they have been driven in. You gentlemen have brought that out in this informal discussion. But it seems to me this provision would quicken naturalization in order to provide greater quotas for those nationals in changes to be made in the future, 1930, and so on, and work directly against the possibility that Congress in its wisdom may some day require a foreigner to stay here more than five years before he becomes a voting American with a vote just as good as yours and mine, voting for you gentlemen whenever you run for office. I feel that so strongly that I rather shrink from anything that might stimulate or quicken naturalization. I think the best good of the country is that it be slowed up instead of quickened.

Senator KING. May I interrupt you there to make this observation and perhaps put it in form of an interrogation? Do you not think that if the judges did their duty they would take up as they take up a case in equity and not admit them until they evinced a knowledge of our institutions and showed a disposition to conform to our laws and our theory of government?

Senator COPELAND. I am sorry if your judges do not do that in your State. They do in New York.

The CHAIRMAN. The law since 1906 has provided that naturalization shall be in open court.

Senator KING. I know, but we have not been strict enough. The point I had in mind was this: Some in two or three years learn more of American institutions than others in 10 or 15 or 20 years. Some come here burning with a desire to become American citizens. Indeed, they may be more familiar with our institutions than some of us. To keep them for 10 or 15 or 20 years might be unfair. It might be unjust to keep others 15 years because of their lack of understanding of our institutions.

Senator COPELAND. Those persons who have the greatest intellectual knowledge of the United States and of its institutions and of its laws are usually the most dangerous citizens.

Senator KING. I agree with you there. Some of these parlor Bolsheviks know more about political history than some of us.

Mr. CURRAN. I should like to qualify what I have just said with this statement: I know this is one means toward an end, toward the end of future restriction of immigration and the other means. definitely proposed is Mr. Johnson's 2 per cent of 1890. It is not for me to advance any opinion as to which is better, but may I say-if I am speaking out of turn I hope you will stop me, but this is said as an American and also as an administrative official-it has

85852-24- -3