Mr. MowITZ. I have nothing further, unless the gentlemen of the committee desire to ask questions. Senator REED. I have no further questions to ask Mr. Mowitz. Mr. WALKER. I would like to have just about three minutes of your time. Senator KEYES. Well, we will hear you. Give your name, residence, and occupation. STATEMENT OF ROSCOE C. WALKER, WOODCLIFF, N. J., REPRESENTING THE JUNIOR ORDER OF UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. WALKER. My name is Roscoe C. Walker, Woodcliff, N. J., representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the Congressman who spoke earlier in the day, representing the Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the United States-the group that I represent is not a part of the 400,000 he speaks of, but a separate unit in the State of New Jersey, affiliated with the units of Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia. The organization I represent is a patriotic organization over 75 years of age. Its object and principles are closely allied to the principles of this Government of the United States itself. Since the inception of my organization, it has always stood for selective and restricted immigration. Back in the time when the literacy test was before the Congress, we favored and fought for its adoption. When the immigration act adopted in 1924 was before Congress, we acted in the same manner; and at this time I have been instructed to appear before you, by resolution of my fraternity in opposition to the Nye resolution, and urge upon you the necessity of putting into effect the national-origins provisions of the 1924 act without further delay. It has been stated here that the national-origins provision is unworkable. I doubt that we can all agree upon that mere statement, because, in my opinion, an idea is an idea and nothing else unless it has the opportunity to prove itself by being put into practical operation. When the steamboat, Clermont, sailed up the Hudson River, it was an idea scoffed at by a great many people. We know that by the idea being put into practical operation it was a success. Can we not, therefore, judge possibly that this theory of national origins, in which my organization has been interested as well as others, because they believe that it is the only possible solution, because it represents the population not in 1890, not in 1920, or not at any particular stage of our history, but the entire population for all time of the history of our great Nation? I believe, and so does my organization, that the adoption of the National-origins provision will prove the settlement of the immigration problem, and will be of great value to the Nation, and I am sure that is something in which we are all interested. The organization which I represent has a membership of 79,000 in the State of New Jersey, all native-born Americans. I respectfully request that your body give this proposition of national origins serious consideration. I thank you for listening to me. Senator KEYES. What is the pleasure of the committee? Shall we adjourn until Monday, or do you desire to go on any further to-day? Senator REED. I think we better adjourn until 10.30 Monday, if that suits you, as 10 o'clock is a little too early. Senator KEYES. Very well, we will consider the hearing adjourned until 10.30 o'clock Monday morning. (Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock, the committee adjourned to meet Monday, February 11, 1929, at 10.30 a. m.) NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1929 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on Military Affairs, Capitol, Hon. Hiram W. Johnson (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Keyes, Reed, Gould, Harris, and Copeland. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. I have just received a telegram from Arno P. Mowitz, who testified on last Saturday before this committee, and I will ask the reporter to insert his telegram in the record. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 11, 1929. Senator HIRAM W. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: May I add the thought that postponement and the creation of fact-finding commission of experts, possibly including men representative of major strains, would serve to dispose of national-origins controversy? ARNO P. MOWITZ, Guarantee Trust Building, Philadelphia. Senator Reed, will you suggest the next witness you desire to call, please? Senator REED. Are there any witnesses here in opposition to the national-origins clause? If not, Mr. Lloyd, we will be glad to hear from you as to who you have next. Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, we have several witnesses. But before we start, if I may, remembering that sometimes a few words of misunderstanding require a great many in order to get things straight, I would like to read one or two quotations bearing on the testimony of Mr. Mowitz, the last witness, who brought out, as I remember it, that he did not know very much about quotas, or what they should be, but made most of his statement on the strength of belief that large numbers of other people were opposed to national origins. I find on investigation that in a good many of those cases he was either mistaken from the beginning, or at least not up to date; and the first thing I want to do is read quotations in regard to Professor Garis. He stated that Prof. Roy S. Garis was in favor of the 1890 basis and against national origins. Senator REED. It was Professor Garis's testimony on the 1890 basis that caused its adoption, was it not? 35885-29- -8 109 Mr. LLOYD. Yes, sir. It was true that he favored that to the exclusion of all others in the beginning, and therefore these brief quotations I shall read will clear that up. The first one is his foreword to a pamphlet entitled The National Origins Plan of Immigration Restriction, by Martha Ragsdale, graduate fellow in economics, Vanderbilt University; and he says [reading]: One of the most gratifying instances of the successful participation of the general public in the solution of a major social and economic problem confronting the Nation has been evident in the efforts that have been and are being made relative to the immigration problem. Then I skip some lines: The 3 per cent emergency quota legislation based on the census of 1910 was superceded on July 1, 1924, by the 2 per cent quota act based on the number of foreign born in the United States according to the 1890 census. The purpose of the latter plan was to insure that our future immigration should correspond in its make-up with our population as it is to-day. It does this successfully as between the two great regions of Europe from which the old and the new immigration come, respectively. However, it does injustice in the determination of the quotas of the individual countries within the two major groups. Then I skip some more lines: * ** It is the purpose of the national origins plan to rectify such discriminations and to place the immigration quotas on a better historical basis. While its adoption has been postponed for two years by Congress, yet the nation-wide discussion it has had and is having during the present presidential campaign is awakening the public to its fundamental importance. It deserves and should receive the thoughtful consideration of the American public. Then afterwards there appeared this article in the Saturday Evening Post of January 5, and I shall read just very brief extracts from that. Speaking of national origins he says [reading]: Continued postponement and indecision are dangerous to the whole restrictive program. It gives the opponents the opportunity to attack. Indeed, it invites attack. Charges of discrimination, sob stories, and what not fill the air. These very opponents have been making the most of the indecision between the two plans to split the restrictionists and thus, if possible, to destroy the quota method entirely. Though they are doomed to failure in this, yet Congress could devote its time and presence to no greater purpose than to consider each plan impartially, without bias or prejudice, and to select either the 1890 census or the national-origins plan as the permanent-quota basis. Then I skip: Now, however, that the presidential and congressional elections are over, and in view of the overwhelming success of the restrictionist policies, continued indecision concerning the national-origins plan should not be tolerated. * * * Most of the protest against the national-origins plan has been from those whose quotas would be somewhat diminished. It is evident that no apportionment could be made which would be favored by all countries. They are willing for the quotas of other countries to be low, but never those of their own. The United States should enact its immigration laws to meet its own needs. It is too great an undertaking for one nation to attempt to legislate to suit the world. When Congress realizes this and stops being buffeted around by first one national group and then another, and settles down to make laws for the United States, we shall have progressed. Then Mr. Mowitz laid a great deal of stress upon this: He claims that three Secretaries, State, Commerce, and Labor, had been opposed to national origins and were still opposed to national origins; and in that connection we simply want to point out that while as to the preliminary report issued January 31, 1927, there was criticism of national origins figures or computations, that that was not reiterated when the final report was put in later. Furthermore, I understand on good authority that both Departments of State and Labor now take the position that they have no opinion as to the merits of these quotas; and, furthermore, certain well-informed people hold that those departments are not authorized to express an opinion in regard to them. Another point that I recall is that Mr. Mowitz, while a very agreeable witness, referred to the monumental work of Doctor Hill and his associates as guesswork. Now, that is a question in which I should say that a layman such as Mr. Mowitz was not as well qualified to speak as would be Doctor Hill himself. I do not know that I ought to bother the committee with the quotations, but in his testimony before the House January, 1927, Doctor Hill pointed out that the margin of error in the national-origins figures was very small, that is to say, it was 1 in 600 for the whole population, and when one realizes the further fact that the whole controversy really revolves around the proportions in the 1790 population, which is a little less than a half, the margin is even very much less. Then in his testimony before the Senate, March, 1928, Doctor Hill, in response to questions from the Senator from Pennsylvania, stated that he had not heard of a fairer plan than national origins; in fact, he was impressed by the absence of any other alternatives except the quotas based on the foreign born of 1890, which, he said, in reply to a specific question, did not represent with any accuracy the proposition of nationalities in the present population of the United States. I think that it is going too far to say that that great work that the Assistant to the Director of the Census and the chairman of our quota board and his associates performed is pure guesswork; and on that subject I just want to read from another witness. I think we all know Mark Sullivan and appreciate his shrewdness and his integrity and reliability. Mark Sullivan, in an article on national integrity and reliability. Mark Sullivan, in an article in the Nashville Tennesseean on national origins, entitled "Big Problems Facing Congress," wrote as follows: The scientists who made the computations insist they are right. Some persons who have talked with these statisticians have found them holding their ground firmly and insisting that the computation is possible and that it has been made with sufficiently approximate accuracy. It is a fact that some persons who flouted the whole idea of computing national origins have been moved, after talking with the statisticians, to assent to the claim that the computation has scientific soundness. Now, I want to read a telegram from a gentleman whom we wanted to have here as a witness, from Chicago, but he could not come. [Reading:] As general manager of American Vigilance Intelligence Federation, with nation-wide membership, and speaking for that membership also as first generation from German ancestry native born, the stock that helped pioneer in our country, am lodging a vigorous and earnest protest against further delay in course of permitting the national-origins clause to go into effect as originally intended when enacted by the Congress. Vicious attacks by alien-minded hyphenates if successful now will mean a campaign by decent Americans to totally exclude all immigration. National origins as quota basis is fair to all, discriminates against none, is possible of more accurate computation than 1890, and is backed by real American-minded opinion. Unless national origins goes into effect this year as |