(A written statement was submitted by Professor Jennings. It is published in full as follows:)

Congressman ALBERT JOHNSON,

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY,
Baltimore, Md., January 8, 1924.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am sending you herewith the written statement for the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, arranged for at the brief hearing given me on January 4, 1924. I have prefaced it by a short summary of the points it endeavors to make, so that you will be able to decide without going into the details whether these points, even if established, are germane to your purposes.

Permit me to say that I appreciate the extreme difficulty and complexity of the task on which you are engaged, and realize that the points made in my statement touch only one aspect out of many; also that, from my observations last Friday, I admire the thoroughness, patience, and fair-mindedness with which you are handling your task.

I am sending a copy of this statement to Congressman Celler, by whose request I came before the committee.

Yours truly,

H. S. JENNINGS.

THE RELATIVE NUMBERS OF EUROPEAN-BORN DEFECTIVES FROM THE CHIEF SOURCES OF EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION AND THE EFFECT OF A CHANGE IN THE BASIS OF ADMISSION, FROM THE CENSUS OF 1910 TO THAT OF 1890.

[Statement for the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives, in pursuance of the hearing of January 4, 1924. By H. S. Jennings, professor of Zoology in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.]

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.

The following exposition sets forth that:

1. The data presented in Laughlin's report, "Analysis of America's Modern Melting Pot," show that with relation to proportions of defectives in our governmental custodial institutions, the division of European immigrants into those from the north and west on the one hand, the south and the east on the other, or into the "older" and "newer" immigration, is not a sharply defined one. Of the eight major groups from which European immigrants come. the heaviest source of defectives is found in one of the "older" set; while the group with the lowest proportion of defectives belong to the "newer" set. In that class which includes more than two-thirds of all the European defectives, the insane, the proportion from the north and west is distinctly greater than that from the south and east.

2. A change in the proportions of our European-born population from that prevailing in 1910 to that prevailing in 1890 (other things being equal and the total number of European-born remaining the same) would, while reducing greatly the numbers from some of the more defective groups, likewise reduce greatly the number from that major group having the best record, and double the number from that major group having the worst record.

Would this on the whole increase or decrease the number of European-born defectives? If the conditions found in Laughlin's report be considered the outgrowth of the situation of the European-born population at about 1910 (as Laughlin holds them to be), and if they be considered typical, analysis shows that a change in the proportions of the European-born population to that prevailing in 1890 (other things being equal), would not reduce the number of European-born defectives in the governmental institutions. The anlysis indicates that it would increase the number of insane, dependent and epileptic; decrease the numbers of criminals, tuberculous and feeble-minded; and that these various increases and decreases would offset one another, so that the total number of defectives would remain practically the same.

This positive conclusion, of course, can not be considered established, since there are many sources of uncertainty; particularly as to whether the conditions found by Laughlin are properly to be considered the outgrowth of the situation prevailing at 1910. But the negative conclusion is warranted that he data of the Laughlin report give no indication that a change in the pro

portions of the different groups of our European-born population from those of 1910 to those of 1890 (other things being equal), would decrease the number of defectives in our State and National custodial institutions.

In so far as the proposed change from the 1910 basis to the 1890 basis is for the purpose of decreasing the number of defectives entering the United States, these points appear deserving of consideration. To other possible grounds for the change they are not pertinent.

EXPOSITION.

1. Relative numbers of defectives in the main groups of European-born (data from Laughlin's report).

In examining the data of Laughlin's valuable report as to the numbers and relative proportions of defectives contributed to our custodial institutions by different European stocks, the vast mass of details in itself tends to obscure some of the most significant features, some of the main outlines of the situation. These reveal themselves if the material is grouped into a few chief classes. Not merely the proportions of defectives but the actual numbers of cases involved is of extreme importance for the effect on our population of any particular type of immigration. For example, in Laughlin's diagram for insanity the case of Serbia looms up larger than that of Ireland, yet there were found 18 insane from Serbia and 3,782 from Ireland. Cutting out the insane from Serbia would have little effect on our numbers of insane; cutting out those from Ireland would have a very considerable effect.

In Europe there are seven national or regional groups from which had come in 1910 some 94 per cent of our European-born population (11,071,769 out of 11,791,841); each of these had contributed more than a million of our foreignborn. Next in size, though much smaller, is an eighth group, the nations of the Balkan Peninsula, which had contributed 220,946 foreign born; this is of interest because its contribution had so greatly increased of late (from 3,726 in 1890 to 220,946 in 1910). Including this we have a group of eight regions, four in north and west Europe, four in south and east Europe, that in 1910 had yielded 96 per cent of our European-born population. Comparison of the statistics as to these gives results that are perspicuous.

The committee is familiar with the way the data are formulated in Laughlin's report-he gives the relative quota fulfillment of different groups for nine main classes of defects. Three of these classes-deafness, blindness, and deformityare small, comprising together but 80 cases out of over 30,000 defectives of European birth, and in all these the European born show a lower proportion of defectives than do the native born. In order to make the results still more perspicuous I omit these three unimportant classes-though in the class of "All defects together" they are included.

The comparative quota fulfillments from the eight major groups of European born, for the six different classes of defects, and for all classes of defectives together, are given in the following table (data from Laughlin's report):

TABLE 1.-Comparative quota fulfillments of the major racial groups in American custodial institutions (percentages).

These same relations are shown graphically in the chart, in which, however, the sources of immigration are arranged in order of increasing total defectiveness.

CHART SHOWING GRAPHICALLY THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DEFECTIVES OF DIFFERENT CLASSES (QUOTA FULFILLMENTS) IN THE EIGHT MAJOR GROUPS OF THE EUROPEAN BORN. (FROM LAUGHLIN'S DATA.) THE DIFFERENT GROUPS ARE ARRANGED IN ORDER OF INCREASING DEFECTIVENESS.

As the table and chart show, the smallest proportion of defectives from these eight main groups comes front Austria-Hungary (92 per cent), followed by Germany (107) and Great Britain (113). Then follow in order with larger and large proportions of defectives-Scandinavia (119), Italy (145), the Balkans (175), Russia-Finland (184), with Ireland last showing the largest proportion of all, a quota fulfillment of 209 per cent.

I have summarized in the following Table 2 the regions giving the largest proportions of defectives in each class of defect, together with the second and third in rank.

TABLE 2.

Groups of the foreign born who, in proportion to their share in the total population of the United States, contribute the larges number of inmates to custodial institutions, as indicated by the Laughlin survey. Classified by types of disability (with the numbers of European-born defectives in each group).

In considering these, again the actual number involved are practically very important. I have therefore added to each rubric the total number of European born of that class; and for each country the number which it contributes. The largest class is that of the insane, with 21.404 European born; here Ireland is first in proportional numbers: Russia, though second, is largest in actual numbers. In the second largest class, crime, with 4,622 European born, the Balkans come first, Italy second, Russia third. In the third largest (so far as European born are concerned), dependency, with 2,320. Ireland is again far first, with a quota fulfillment more than six times her allowance The other figures speak for themselves.

The north and west division of Europe thus has the larger proportion of defectives in the largest class-insanity; and in dependency; these are the two in which Ireland is first. The southeast has the larger proportion in the other four. For all defects together a larger proportion comes from the south and east (143 per cent to 130 per cent). The country with the largest proportion of defectives (Ireland, with 209 per cent), is from the northwest; that with the smallest proportion (Austria-Hungary, with 92 per cent) is from the southeast. The division into northwest and southeast with relation to comparative defectiveness is therefore not a sharp one.

2. Effect of a change from the 1910 basis to the 1890 basis.

On page 734 of his report of Laughlin gives grounds for referring the conditions just outlined to the proportions of different national groups in the population prevailing at the time of the census of 1910; and his tables and analysis are based on those proportions. The assumption underlying this, I take it, is that a European-born population remaining continuously in the numbers and proportions prevailing in 1910 would continue to yield about the same numbers of defectives found in his survey, carried out in 1921. There is, of course, large opportunity for error on this point, and this fact must be kept in mind in evaluating any conclusions drawn from the data. Yet this 1910 basis seems the best justified of any that can be taken (compare the table near the top of 754 in Laughlin's report); and if conclusions of any sort are to be deduced from the data, they should be reached by sound systematic treatment, not by general impression. A negative conclusion on certain im portant matters will be found justified in any case.