Senator REED. That is pretty broad if you make it the immigration officer in charge, because that would include every tank town along the Texas border. If you would make it any commissioner of immigration, you would do better.

Senator KING. Would you permit appeal from that decision or make it final?

Mr. CURRAN. I would make it final. It is final now with the Secretary of Labor, and I think the official at the port is better able and more quickly able to judge than the Secretary of Labor at Washington. Uniform practice at the port can be obtained by the regulations which the Secretary can promulgate to govern us in our decisions. I feel it very strongly and my predecessors have all felt it at Ellis Island. It is section 17 of the general law. I am at my wits' end whenever we have any rush of immigration to get these appeals decided. I never know what intercession is being made. Often new evidence is being brought before the Secretary of Labor when that is absolutely against law. It is bound to happen. It is no fault of his. The evidence should be brought to our board of special inquiry at the port who have seen the immigrants and have heard the evidence previously introduced. In the House committee they seemed to sympathize but were not ready to overhaul at all the general law, and yet there will be more troubles right along. is part of the job. Every week there will be sob stuff stories, and justifiably so, unless we can in some way stop the delay.

It

Senator KING. Do you think we could incorporate that in this bill? Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator COPELAND. Is it your feeling now that under this proposed plan or any one of them all these inhuman things will be done away with and there will be fewer persons returned because of filled quota and less of the sob stuff, to use your language, than we have at present?

Mr. CURRAN. I do not use the term "sob stuff" derisively at all, I am there and I know what goes on with these people.

Senator COPELAND. Yes; I have an office in New York and I know

too.

Mr. CURRAN. I can not think of anything to add to the bill to that end. I think the issuing of the visé certificate abroad is going to eliminate a tremendous amount of hardship; and the bill has been whittled down and polished and is still being subjected to that process by Senator Reed's amendments and the letter of the Secretary of State. So I think when you gentlemen are through there will be nothing left for us administrative officials to beg and pray for.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curran, do you not think that some times they get exaggerated notions about how many were deported, etc.? I notice in Commissioner Husband's report that out of 694,025 immigrants under the percentum quota law only 2,080 were deported. Senator KING. You mean departed?

The CHAIRMAN. No; under the quota law-they were in excess of the quota-2,080. So far as New York is concerned, which is always the storm center in this regard, 11% per cent of the aliens applying last year were turned away. Could we not frame certain regulations with regard to the number of the number of refugees, etc., or certain amendments to the present law which would in part eliminate the number that were rejected and deported?

Senator COPELAND. Mr. Curran shows us that under this law we are going to have fewer such.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and would not selection at the source, while it would not be the same examination as you have at the port of entry, tend to help?

Mr. CURRAN. I believe so, yes.

Senator COPELAND. I want to enlarge upon what Major Curran has said about the fine of the steamship companies. You gentlemen will remember, perhaps, that two or three years ago I got disturbed over the typhus cases and put a line of policemen around the barge office to direct these immigrants after they passed through Ellis Island into a health department station where we found 25 per cent of them vermin infested. Then the steamship companies came to me to see if I really meant that lousy people could not come into New York. I said that was what I meant. So they sent them to Boston. We got them at the Grand Central Station. The steamship companies established these hotels on the other side to examine people and make them clean and reject those who were not suitable for our physical examination. There is not any question at all but what the quality of immigrants we have had since has been very much improved. Is not that true?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Copeland, as you are very familiar with this subject of health, can you not propose some amendment to the Johnson bill covering what you are saying with regard to it?

Senator COPELAND. I have a feeling that it would be helpful if our consuls abroad were all as intelligent as Mr. Keener, at Warsaw, of whom Senator King has spoken, and likewise our consul at Trieste and our consul at Rotterdam. They are doing these things. The United States Public Health Service physician who is there attached to the office is in constant contact with what they call the steamship hotels where these immigrants are taken. Now, if that activity were taken into every port of embarkation on the other side so that there would be the same careful oversight of the immigrant, I believe that even though we do not write it into the law and raise all this trouble of treaty disturbance we will accomplish, to a certain extent, what we have in mind, a physical examination at the source. If we can by the cooperation of the State Department bring that about, I think we can accomplish, Mr. Chairman, exactly what you have in mind. I believe it will be equivalent to a physical examination at the source. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Husband, we will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. W. HUSBAND, COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF IMMIGRATION.

Mr. HUSBAND. Mr. Chairman, I do not know just what you want me to say. If you would like to have the few comments I have to make on the bill. I should be glad to make them.

The CHAIRMAN. May the chairman ask just one question? We do not know what legislation is going through, but I notice in your report for the last fiscal year you say, "If the law"-that is, the present quota law-"were amended in some particulars it is doubtful whether any other equally effective method of

I

restricting immigration could be devised that would present fewer administrative difficulties or cause less hardships to aliens or immigrants or inconvenience to their friends in the United States." wonder if you could submit to the committee such amendments to the present law that may have occurred to you in your experience as an administrative official that would cure or perfect the present law.

Now, I am frank to say that I am asking this question in view of the possible but not probable contingency that might arise, that the Johnson bill would not pass the House; in other words, that none of these general bills would get through and we might go along to the first of May when the present law would expire and have to pass an emergency measure. I would like, for my own satisfaction-or perhaps the committee would authorize me to do so in connection with yourself-to have you frame certain amendments to the present law that you think would perfect it. Is there any objection to that on the part of the committee?

Senator COPELAND. I am glad to move that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HARRIS. Suppose you let it include suggestions from Mr. Husband as to the Johnson bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That is entirely a separate subject about perfecting the present law, and I do not know that it will ever happen.

Senator HARRIS. But I would like to have his criticism of the Johnson bill.

The CHAIRMAN. You may ask him for it now.

Mr. HUSBAND. Speaking of the Johnson bill, I have here the Johnson bill as Senator Reed has proposed to amend it. In the main it probably includes whatever recommendations I would have to make in connection with perfecting or amending the present law. The bill in its present form is, in my opinion, admirable.

Senator REED. You mean as amended.

Mr. HUSBAND. As you have amended it, in that it differs from the bill as originally proposed or even as reported from the House committee by aiding simplicity.

What I have said in my annual report as to the method of regulating imigration was based on the theory that it is a simple mathematical proposition, and I know of nothing that could so lend itself to such easy administration as something that is mathematical and about which there can be no misunderstanding.

The trouble with the present law, to some extent, is that a good many of the proposals that have been made take a simple mathematical proposition and complicate it by exceptions to the exemptions, such as "if" and "whereas" and "provided also." Those are the things in an immigration law which cause the trouble. One trouble with the present immigration law is that section 3 sets up some 30 classes of individuals who may not be admitted to the United States. Senator COPELAND. It is very difficult to apply the multiplication table to human beings.

Mr. HUSBAND. I was going to speak of that, Senator. Whether it is difficult or whether it is not, after all it is the most human thing to do. I say the present general law sets up about 30 classes who may not be admitted to the United States, and in the same section there are nine provisos which tell us how most of them may be admitted under certain conditions. That is the thing which causes

the administrative trouble and your trouble, Senator Copeland. It is not the terms of the law that this person shall be kept out, but making a pin hole or a loop hole big enough for them to get in. And I say this: Had the quota law been enforced from the very day it began, or from the 1st of July, 1921-and I joined in with the Secretary in those human measures which he took-had it been enforced from the 1st of July, 1921, there would have been no trouble with it. There would have been trouble for about three months and then it would have passed. The exceptions are what caused the trouble. So I say in this bill, in my opinion, there ought to be a very simple, straightforward proposition with just as few exceptions or just as few loopholes as it is possible to make. For that reason I will agree that the certificate plan is the main thing. Count them on the other side. They ought to be counted on the other side.

Taking up the nonquota matter on page 6, I would agree perfectly that an American citizen ought to have the right to bring in his wife and children and his father and mother, especially after they reach the age where they are dependents.

Senator ČOPELAND. What about children under 21?

In

Mr. HUSBAND. That is something that while it works does so very badly in some cases. The law now says 18 years of age. other cases if it were 21 you would see people coming in who ought to come on their own responsibility. But I do not think that matters. I would be perfectly willing as an administrative officer to say a minor child, which means 21.

Senator KING. Why should we make any exception in favor of any relative except a wife or children?

Mr. HUSBAND. There are a great many citizens who want to bring their fathers and mothers over simply to die here. They are about the most distressing cases we have.

Senator HARRIS. If we select on the other side, why could not our consul give preference to those instead of making exceptions?

Mr. HUSBAND. He does now, and I want to speak of the preferences a little later as a possible cure for a good many of the troubles we are thinking about.

Now, as to an immigrant who has resided continuously for 10 years, and the amendment suggested here by the Secretary of State. That condition will have changed as time goes on. It would probably have to be based on those who were born in or who have become citizens of, or something of that sort, because in 10 years you could upset the whole quota law.

Senator REED. The Secretary of State suggests that we include the Island of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the countries of Central America and of South America. That is to take care of British, French, and Dutch Guiana.

Senator COPELAND. How do you feel about the person who has applied for citizenship?

Mr. HUSBAND. I should say that if you are going to restrict immigrations they would have no rights whatever. It is one of those hardships, but a restrictive measure does produce hardships, and an alien who comes to the United States comes voluntarily and he must understand and undergo the difficulties. You are adding more difficulties, but that is restriction.

Senator COPELAND. In other words, you think that would be an unwise thing?

Mr. HUSBAND. Very unwise, indeed; not only unwise in principle but exceedingly unwise in practice.

Senator REED. What do you think of ministers and professors? Mr. HUSBAND. I should wipe them out entirely, but before doing that I would say that the quota instead of 10 per cent per month should be divided into 12 equal parts, so in effect you would have a monthly quota rather than an annual quota. Then you could say in truth that the quota never is exhausted. It is simply saying if you can not come this month you may come next month; we are not shutting you out of the United States, but we are delaying your coming, and with that amendment dividing it into 12 equal parts I would certainly eliminate this paragraph (c). Major Curran has spoken of that and I do not need to go into it.

Senator KING. Could you make such small time divisions as 30 days and have it operate successfully?

Mr. HUSBAND. Oh, yes, There is no difficulty in that.

Senator KING. That would be by copious use of the telegraph or cable?

Mr. HUSBAND. No; there would be no complications. It would be simply like tickets for the theater. Here are tickets printed, say, for a three-month's run. Now, you or I go to the theater and say, "Can you sell me a seat for to-night?" The ticket agent says, "No, we are sold out for to-night, but I can give you one for to-morrow or one for the next night.' That may inconvenience you or me, but it does not deprive us of the right of going to the theater, and when those tickets are gone, then no more are sold. It is the capacity of the house. When these certificates are issued to a certain number in the month that is the capacity of the quota for that month.

Senator KING. Supposing we had diplomatic relations with Russia; how would you arrange it there? For instance, a good many would sail from Odessa, and others would sail from Petrograd or come by the way of Warsaw. How would they keep in touch with each other so as not to exceed?

For instance, forty or a hundred apply at Odessa on the 25th, and a hundred apply at Petrograd, and a hundred apply at Minsk to go out on the railroad and the entire quota was 100 for the month with 300 applying.

Mr. HUSBAND. I would arrange that in this way: We have had three years' experience as to where people do apply, where they may be expected to apply. Say that 500 certificates are issued for a month. I would allot those in the main part to where experience has shown that the greater number apply, like in Poland where Warsaw would be the place, but Poles apply for certificates or apply for visés at London or Paris or Berlin or Montreal, occasionally one in South America, and some in China I would allot to those different consulates the number which experience has shown would probably be asked for there. Then toward the close of the month if by telegraph or cable it were known that a smaller number had applied at Paris, it would be very easy to transfer certain certificates to Warsaw for the surplus. It is a reasonably simple matter. There would be some hardship there; it could not be done exactly, but this is a hardship bill, as I have said before.