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? 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

always seemed to me that the most assimilable and the best kind of immigration we could get would be that which is most nearly like the hundred million of Americans of us who are now here. In other words, that each annual installment might be a replica according to the different constituents of stock who are now here. So, if there are 30,000,000 of Irish, Scotch, or English, 30 per cent of each annual immigration installment should be from the same countries. If there are 10 or 15 per cent of Italian stock, let us let in 10 or 15 per cent of Italian stock every year.

I have always thought that the census of 1890 was much nearer to measuring stock reflection than the census of 1910. I am perfectly sure of that. The census of 1910 measures only a very recent immigration and either of those two censuses measures the foreign born. It seems to me the test of the kind of immigration we want to make us homogeneous and less disunited is the roll of the American born. If we can come at any estimate of the different percentages in the present American make-up as we are as a whole and have that reflected, I think that is the best cross section of immigration we can get, and I think the census of 1890 comes much nearer to that than anything else I have ever seen. If there is something that comes nearer that would be better, let us take it; but to say that 1890 is discrimination, it might just as well be said that 1910 is a discrimination against 70 or 75 per cent of the American people, if you are interested in national stocks.

Senator REED. Mr. Curran, I think most of us are reconciled to the idea of a discrimination; I think that the American people want us to discriminate; and I do not think discrimination in itself is unfair, because our duty is to the American people and we owe no duty to be fair to all nationals. If that were so we would have to repeal our Chinese exclusion law. We have got to discriminate. The only question that I think worries the committee is whether the use of the 1890 census or the use of the method based on naturalization is the more plausible method of attaining that discrimination, which is the object which we are all seeking. If you will look at the table on page 37 of my proposition here you will see that the figures that my bill will result in are almost identical with the result you would get if you took five per cent of 1890. The question we are tackling is which is the more plausible, the more reasonable, and the more defensible method of attaining that end. Practically all of us are agreed that that is an end that should be attained.

If

Mr. CURRAN. I think there is not one iota of discrimination. we let in each year the percentage that is already here of any nationality, nobody can object to that. I heard yesterday that the British are objecting to the 1910 census and that the Italians are objecting to the 1890 census. But the nearest reflection of what we are, those of us who are here, whether we have been here 20 minutes or 200 years, according to the national stock from which we sprang, can not be called a discrimination by anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more you wish to give us?

Mr. CURRAN. On page 18, line 3, I want to make an exception and express the firm hope that paragraphs (c) and (d) will stay out. They have been stricken out in Senator Reed's bill but not in the House bill. I shall not go into any argument on that unless you desire me to do so.

I have only one more point, Mr. Chairman. If there is any suggestion of amending the general law of 1917, I have just two matters that I could appropriately bring up now.

Senator COPELAND. Did you mean that everything on page 18 should be stricken out.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. And also the top of page 19, as Senator Reed has stricken out?

Mr. CURRAN. Well, I think that goes with paragraphs (c) and (d). Am I wasting your time if I talk about an amendment to the law of 1917?

The CHAIRMAN. Could you submit your views in a written statement?

Senator KING. I think he can state them, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed, Mr. Curran. Mr. CURRAN. The first thing, answering Senator Copeland's question as to the examination abroad, I do not believe that is practicable, and no immigration man thinks it is practicable. Neither do I believe selective immigration is practicable. But we will have less mentally and physically defective immigrants come here, I believe, if the steamship company is fined not $200, which is an archaic amount in the present law, but $1,000, or $2,000.

Senator REED. In line 4 of page 21 you will see that the fine is fixed as $1,000 for bringing in any immigrants not equipped with & visé certificate.

Mr. CURRAN. This does not refer to visé certificates, but to a physical or mental disqualification. We have a great deal of trouble with those cases. They never should be taken on a ship. In the case of most of them their condition is discoverable before they embark, and if there is a fine of $1,000 or $2,000 staring the steamship company in the face there will be less difficulty.

Senator REED. That would have to be an amendment to the act of 1917.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes; section 9 of the act of 1917, which, I think, is worth considering.

The other point is the decision of appeals by immigrants. Those appeals are now made to the Secretary of Labor and decided by him through an informal board of review aiding his second assistant secretary, all in Washington. At the port we see the immigrants; we know them; we handle them all day and every day. The relatives are usually nearer there. We know the ship sailings. We can act at once, I think, with better insight into the case and with no delay. The delay, in spite of all the splendid efforts that are made in the Washington office, incident to sending appeals down here and back to Ellis Island or Seattle or San Francisco is an unconscionable thing, and it is during that delay that immigrants take sick and die and the Government is blamed. To clothe the commissioner at the port with power to decide appeals and to admit on bond merely requires substituting the words Immigration Commissioner" or "Official in charge," in place of the words "Secretary of Labor," where it appears in the general law of 1917, and the power could be safeguarded by requiring of the commissioner his reasons, in writing, for his decision.