It should be borne in mind, too, that in the matter of immigration control not a single State but the United States is the territorial and political unit. If I sampled fairly within that unit, in much the same manner as the assayist samples in any metallurgical analysis, I have used a fair sample. It would, of course, be desirable to examine every person in the United States in reference to his institutional record and the institutional record of his near kin, also to give modern scientific and anthropometric tests. It may be a thing that will be carried out some time in the future, but the Bureau of the Census is not yet ready to include such a survey among its tasks, however desirable the findings would be. So until that time arrives, the best we can do is to take representative samples.

Let me repeat that the survey of the inmates of 445 of the 657 State and Federal custodial institutions was honestly and thoroughly made. Every institution was urged to give its complete returns. Every return that was officially made was used, and nothing else was added. All data were included in the analysis. These are the plain facts. The analysis and the tables and charts of the analysis show a true mathematical picture of the racial and diagnostic records of 210,835 institutional inmates found in these institutions during the survey period in 1921. There was nothing guessed at; only facts officially reported by the responsible authorities of these institutions were used.

The only criticism which I must take most seriously is that of Prof. H. S. Jennings, of Johns Hopkins, who did not challenge the honesty of the survey nor the representative nature of the population studied. In the end Professor Jennings comes to the same main biological conclusion as that given in the "Melting Pot" paper, namely, that taking into consideration the racial distribution of the inmate populations of our present institutions for the socially inadequate, it would probably be necessary for our future immigration policy to consider the matter of family stocks in admitting immigrants.

In comparing the number of defectives of different nationalities found in institutions, persons who criticize a particular quota formula, in reference to the number of immigrants from a particular nation who may be admitted to the United States under it, must understand that, besides the quota distribution, the law seeks to apply the selective principle within the quota, and that especial vigilance must be applied in proportion to the number of defectives of the particular nationality who have in the past years found their way through our immigration sieve.

The "Melting Pot" paper consists mainly of facts. There are very few conclusions drawn from it. The facts are analyzed and presented for the use of persons who need such facts in order that they may conclude logically the true situation. The committee should bear in mind that no critic of the "Melting Pot" paper brought any new first-hand material; he brought only advice and opinion.

A scientific study which has a bearing upon current political' issues is always conducted under the greatest difficulty; but the scientist must, nevertheless, confine himself to facts and their analysis and must take into consideration only criticisms of scientific work. Only those criticisms which appear honest and which seek to present a better mathematical picture of the situation than has been

yet been prepared must be considered. I have done that in every case. But when the criticism is made by a person who has never conducted studies of this sort and who tries to predict what he would find if researches were made in a certain way, and who calls the present studies biased, and who is trying, apparently, to count out the value of the study because its conclusions are displeasing to him, the scientific investigator must, despite his joy in a good fight, ignore petty heckling.

The CHAIRMAN. It should be borne in mind by those who have criticized the "Melting Pot" paper, but have placed great confidence in the report of the Bureau or the Census called "Statistical Directory of State Institutions for the Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent Classes," that this report also was made by Doctor Laughlin, and that this same report laid the groundwork which made possible the later survey of inmates of these same institutions. This survey, made for the committee, desired a diagnostic and racial classification of every institutional inmate. To complete this work in its entirety became a task that was too great for the resources at our command. We were able, as Doctor Laughlin states, to secure returns from 445 out of 657, and every return, it should be borne in mind, required a great deal of voluntary research on the part of the institutional authorities. It was a first-hand survey in nature and extent never before undertaken among the eleemosynary institutions of the country.

Mr. VAILE. Mr. Jennings made the statement that even Doctor Laughlin's figures show a certain percentage of undesirables for certain races from northern and western Europe, and that among those he showed the Irish as being quite undesirable, because there were a large number of people born in Ireland in our custodial institutions. My reply to that suggestion is that those figures do not prove anything of the sort, because there may be other reasons arising from present conditions in Ireland, which would send us a less desirable class of people from Ireland than we were getting before. At all events, that nation has been so contending for so many years that those who were themselves born in Ireland, and who are now here, furnish a very small index of the whole Irish stock in the United States. Whereas the people from such countries as Greece and Italy, those who were themselves born in those countries, furnish a larger per cent of the total for their own races who are here. As to the latter groups, Doctor Laughlin's figures do furnish fairly reliable and accurate figures of those people.

Doctor LAUGHLIN. One thing that the survey shows, without dispute, is that the immigration sieve of the United States has let in more inadequates of some races and types than of others. Why it is so we want to know; we wish to get at the root of the matter. I did not try to show that one nation is more degenerate than any other nation, but simply made the survey.

The survey and the analysis showed the facts in regard to nationality and institutional inmate numbers. That was its purpose. Any general racial inference to be made from the institutional findings must be made with the greatest caution. High institutional quota fulfillment by one racial group in America, in reference to a given type of social inadequacy, may or may not be due to one of the several causes. It may be, for example, found that (a) the

race reported is especially subject to the particular defect, or (b) in American environment it breaks down readily under this ailment, or (c) American States treat differently different races in institutionalizing this defect, or (d) the particular portions of this race which came to America in recent years were especially subject to the particular trouble. But above all, it is not the general racial inference, but the specific fact that whereas the Government of the United States required our immigration laws to refuse admission to all persons likely to become public charges, in a survey of 445 State and Federal custodial institutions for 10 classes of social inadequacy, which institutions had a total inmate number of 210,835, the number of foreign-born persons was 35,612. The apologist must explain how, out of over 200,000 inmates, 35,000 persons who, under the law were denied admission, actually got into the country. And this does not include all of the State and Federal institutions, nor any of the private and municipal institutions.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that the committee agreed from the time of the taking of those figures and looking at them, that the mere fact that one group was ahead of another would bring a protest, and it was also agreed and shown here that because Serbia showed great excess in delinquency, all that that could be taken to mean is not that a larger percentage of Serbians at home were delinquent, but it showed that there was a hole somewhere in the filter, and we were getting more than our share of a delinquent class from the country last named.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Summing up the situation, do you contend that the immigrant from northern Europe is more desirable than from southern and eastern Europe?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that is a fair question.

Doctor LAUGHLIN. Desirability is a matter of policy. The races of northern and western Europe, more closely than the races of southern and eastern Europe, resemble the main body of the American people. I made this biological investigation and put the facts on record here for the benefit of the committee, which must draw its own conclusions. I am not here as an advocate for or against any race. Indeed, my position with the Carnegie Institution of Washington would prevent me from standing as an advocate or special pleader.

Mr. Box. Did you not make that same statement at the beginning of your testimony here?

Doctor LAUGHLIN. I did, sir. I meant to make it clear. I must state also that as a member of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, if I were biased in favor of the immediate financial interests that created the institution, I should, perhaps, be expected to advocate open immigration in order to get cheaper labor, which might increase the immediate profits of Carnegie investments. But I am not doing that. I am here simply as a scientific investigator to present the facts to the gentlemen of the committee, with the hope that the facts and their analysis might be of use.

STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Based upon your scientific discussion that you have so well made in this committee, suppose that New York City