He asks for "a higher, or rather a more scientific personal standard for the admission of immigrants."'65 "The standards of mental ability and personality should be measured," he says, "by a series of modern psychological tests." These are interesting and definite suggestions. Some duly authenticated statement as to family and reputation would surely be of great import; with the data, in fairness to the individual, handled with much scientific understanding, if it is true, as some geneticists are coming to believe, that a study like that of the Juke family does not tell the whole story, and that some of those individual members might have had in them factors that under other circumstances would have produced different results.

In 1905 Dr. Salmon,66 writing in regard to the foreign born insane in institutions, gives the figures as 1 in every 256 for the foreign born, as against 1 in every 765 for the native born. This estimate was based on figures for the year 1890. In 1903 he quotes the foreign born insane in institutions as standing at 31.5 per cent, while the per cent in the general population studied is but 13.5.

Of rather different import is an article by Dr. A. J. Rosanoff67 who doubts that such unfavorable figures have absolute bearing as to interpretation of stock. He calls attention to the difference in age distribution, which exists between the native born and the foreign born, and to the difference in the proportion of city dwellers and country dwellers, which as well as race must have bearing on any interpretation. His most interesting point is where, in speaking of migrations, he quotes figures to show that these same general results are to be noticed in the case of Easterners migrating to the West, in the United States. In California, the natives of the state of New York who have gone to California have contributed 2.60 times as many admissions to the State Hospitals as have the native Californians. From his studies, Rosanoff draws the conclusion, that there is no evidence to show that there is a greater proneness toward mental disease in the foreign born, than in the native population.

Whether there is "greater proneness" or not, general opinion would probably hold, that while taking care of the insane "within," is necessary, it is perhaps equally necessary to devise the best

possible means for preventing the entrance of those who come from "outside."

Prof. S. J. Holmes, again to quote a biologist, in surveying the question has these sentences:68 "In regard to the immigrant, the question should be, not who can be proved bad enough to be sent away; but who can prove himself good enough to be admitted. The basis for selecting immigrants should be positive, not negative." This is followed by the suggestion that "matters would be helped if each newcomer were compelled to undergo a series of thorough mental tests, given in the language of the person.' Holmes says further: "Despite present defects in the art of mental testing, and despite an occasional injustice to the immigrant, a test designed to exclude everyone up to and excluding the level of a high grade moron, would insure a much better result than we are now getting."

Dr. H. H. Goddard writing in 1912, gives a brief survey as to "Feeble-mindedness and Immigration," where he reports on results gleaned from 16 different institutions. The foreign born here furnished but 4.5 per cent of the inmates. Of these, 95 cases were "morons who could not be expected to be recognized as they came through the 'Immigration Line."" 231 cases were imbeciles, and 92 were idiots, but as the age at which they entered the country was unknown, "they may have been at that time 'infants in arms' who might easily have passed an officer." For 246 cases only, were facts as to the mental state of the parents known. Of this number 83 had parents one or both of whom were feebleminded. "This," Dr. Goddard says "seems to be a little more serious indictment against existing inspection," although of course it is not known of how high a grade these parents may have been.

This, then, brings to a close the description of the state of affairs existing as far as the administrative side of the Immigration question was concerned, at the time when this study of Ellis Island children was made.

1 "Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration," 1922, p. 108. Fairchild, "Immigration," p. 62.

2 Jenks and Lauck: "The Immigration Problem," p. 305, 1922 edition. Fairchild, Henry Pratt. "Immigration," p. 53. Jenks and Lauck,

p. 365.

For a detailed account of the progress of legislation see: Jenks and Lauck, chap. xviii; Fairchild, chaps. iv, v, vi.

Fairchild, p. 122.

Fairchild, pp. 107-108. Jenks and Lauck, p. 375.

7 Fairchild, p. 115. Jenks and Lauck, p. 380.

For the existing laws, see: Government pamphlet, "Immigration Laws." Rules of May 1, 1917. Issue of August 1922.

For the 3 per cent law, see Government pamphlet, no. 5, 67th Congress, H. R. 4075.

For bill to limit to 2 per cent on the census of 1890, see H. R. 14273, Government pamphlet, February 9, 1923.

For full discussion of the law of 1917, see Jenks and Lauck, chap. xx, p. 423.

10 Jenks and Lauck, p. 436. Fairchild, p. 113.

11 See text of law of 1917. See Fairchild, op. cit., p. 107.

12 Jenks and Lauck, op. cit., p. 440.

13 At one time in the Ellis Island School there were three children of an insane mother, returned with her for deportation. It had not been possible to detect the insanity on arrival. The same children were at Ellis Island the year before. The great responsibility of that family did not belong to this country. One might be glad that all were to go back to relatives in Europe; and yet regret that in some way it had not been possible to stop them at the beginning. In such cases the idea of "authenticated records," before the stamping of a passport, may help.

14 Immigration Report, 1922, p. 104, note 1.

15 Jenks and Lauck, op. cit., p. 445. Immigration law of 1917, Government pamphlet, p. 11, 7th edition, August 1922.

16 Immigration law of 1917, Government pamphlet, p. 16. As to question of Payment see: "Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration, December 1923, January 1924, Serial 1A. Government Printing Office, 78952, p. 623.

17 Immigration law of 1917, Government pamphlet, p. 18.

18 For text in regard to "Illiteracy Test," see Jenks and Lauck, p. 425. See also Immigration Report, 1917, p. xii: xiv.

19 Jenks and Lauck, p. 410.

20 Jenks and Lauck, p. 428.

21 A physician, who for ten years has done mental examining at Ellis Island, has said that directly the law went into effect he noticed differences in the material arriving.

See also Public Health Service Report, 1917, p. 157, for the same general statement.

See also Congressional Record, 60, no. 64, p. 3555.

The writer was shown in Italy an answer sent from America to a letter asking about this test. A lawyer had been consulted, and a sample of the kind of thing necessary for reading had been sent back. There was probably no dishonesty in this regard, and even if there were, the strain

under which the test is taken, and the fact that no one can tell just what sentence the inspector will ask to have read, would militate against its being successful.

A most interesting case of shell-shock, detected by no other means, was found out at the time of the illiteracy test.

22 See Jenks and Lauck, op. cit., p. 429.

23 Report of Commissioner General of Immigration, 1917, p. xiv, xii. 24 For description see Immigration Report, 1917, p. xiv.

25 Once before a Board of Inquiry when a debarred "illiterate" woman was asked if she wished to appeal (which is always done) she answered that she did. When the formal paper was given her to sign, she put a cross for her signature. The presiding officer, through the interpreter, said, "But I thought you said that you could write your name." The woman said that she could. "Then do it," said the inspector, "The fact may help you in Washington." The alien's interests are carefully protected.

26 Immigration Report, 1920, p. 13.

27 For total immigration admission figures see Immigration Report, 1922, p. 101.

28 Congressional Record, February 14, 1921, p. 3372.

29 The "3 per cent law" went into effect June 3, 1921. See Immigration Report, 1921, p. 16.

30 Arranged from figures in Immigration Reports of 1920, pp. 96–97; 1921, pp. 34-35-36; 1922, pp. 32-33-34; 1923, pp. 48-49-50.

31 Congressional Record, February 14, 1921, p. 3372.

32 Immigration Reports, 1922, p. 101, and pp. 112-113; 1923, p. 48 and p. 128.

33 Immigration Report, 1922, pp. 117–118.

34 Immigration Report, 1921, p. 16; 1922, pp. 3–9.

35 Jenks and Lauck, op. cit., p. 448.

36 Immigration Report, 1922, pp. 3–18.

37 Government pamphlet, House Resolution 14273.

38 Commissioner Husband in the New York Tribune for April 4, 1923, is quoted as saying that he did not think “that the demand voiced by an element among industrial leaders for less restriction, on the ground that the country needs laborers, was representative of the sentiment among employers." He asserted that in touring the country he found most of the men of the generation that soon will provide the business heads of the nation, desirous of having curbs put on immigration from the south and east of Europe. The Commissioner here added (speech before the Civitan Club in New York City) that "contrary to the general belief, neither organized labor nor organized capital had any weight in the last five years in shaping the Immigration policy, but that Congress had been acting on what it believed to be the sentiment of the United States as a whole.

For congestion under present 20 per cent a month crowding see Public Health Service Report, 1922, p. 203.

39 Op. cit., note 38.

4o Congressional Record, February 14, 1921, p. 3372.

41 Baltimore Sun, April 18, 1923, vol. 172, no. 130.

See also article by Professor Henry P. Fairchild on "Immigration and Labor" in answer to Mr. Gary's contention as to labor shortage, New York Times, Sunday, April 29, 1923.

42 Congressional Record, February 14, 1921, p. 3367; vol. 60, no. 64, p. 3550.

43 Jenks and Lauck, op. cit., 5th edition, p. 46.

44 Seattle Times, October 23, 1921.

45 Baltimore Evening Sun, April 19, 1923.

46 U. S. Public Health Service Report, 1914, p. 196.

47 U. S. Public Health Service Report, 1916, p. 195. See also report for 1921, p. 232.

In 1921, because of fear of typhus infection, 21 principal foreign ports are reported as being so covered.

48 See Baltimore Evening Sun, April 19, 1923.

49 Commissioner Husband speaking in Arundel Hall, Baltimore, Wednesday, November 21, 1923, said that "counting" on the other side probably would be part of the law enacted by the "next Congress." He reminded the audience, however, that need for medical examination here would always exist.

50 New York Tribune, April 4, 1923.

51 The "peak" of immigration figures (1907

=

1,285,349).

52 House Resolution 476, Government pamphlet.

53 "Analysis of America's Modern Melting Pot." Harry H. Laughlin. Government Printing Office Publication, Serial 7C, no. 33555, November 21, 1922.

54 Law of 1917 (Government pamphlet). Also Commissioner General Husband. Speech, Arundel Club, Baltimore, Wednesday, November 21, 1923.

55 Op. cit., note 53, p. 729.

56 "Undesirable Aliens." H. S. Jennings. The Survey, December 15, 1923, p. 309.

57 Op. cit., 56.

58 Quoted as example by Professor Jennings, Biology Seminary, October 23, 1923.

59 Op. cit., note 53, p. 753.

60 Op. cit., note 56.

61 Hearings before House Committee on Immigration, Serial 1A, no. 78952, p. 540, for criticism of the Laughlin Report on Statistical Grounds by Dr. John M. Gillman.

62 Hearings before House Committee on Immigration, no. 78952, pp. 511-518.