Mr. CURRAN. Yes, I am familiar with them. I think it is quite unreliable. Instead of 600,000, my guess is 40,000.

to

There may be more. I say about 40,000. There may be twice_as many. If it was three times as many, that is three times as good a reason for passing this bill to let this 120,000 or 40,000 in now, let these nunc pro tunc women and children of these soldiers come in. If we let them come in, how are we hurting ourselves? They are being supported-these women and children-now by money made in America. We might as well spend it here. They want to spend it here. They don't want to shovel it over the ocean.

Senator KING. Have you divided that 40,000 or 120,000, which ever it is, between fathers and mothers and soldiers? Have you atempted a division to determine how many of those are soldiers and their wives and children and how many are fathers and mothers?

Mr. CURRAN. I did not divide it at all because I think that the number of soldiers who have their wives and children in America is quite negligible. I didn't consider them at all.

Senator KING. Then the greater bulk of the 40,000 or 120,000 would be fathers and mothers?

Mr. CURRAN. They would be wives and minor children and fathers and mothers. You see, the present law makes no exemption for wives and children of aliens; it is only for those of citizens. These are people who came here before 1924 and have not become citizens. I will read from this compilation that I have here. It is a canny computation, as good as another that would be made, full of faults like any other. The total immigration, according to our figures, for the three years ending July 1, 1924, was about a million and a half. We don't need to consider anybody who came before July, 1921. There was no quota limitation before that date. They had full opportunity to bring their wives and children and parents with them. They had a very considerable opportunity during those three years also, because the quotas were large.

Senator REED. Do you think that that should apply to those who came in after July 1, 1921, and before July 1, 1924?

Mr. CURRAN. No; I do not, because I think you would be doing an unintentional injustice.

Senator REED. You would be making another rough spot?

Mr. CURRAN. I think that you would make another auxiliary rough spot.

Now, 350,000 in those three years went back for good; so certainly we can take those off.

Senator COPELAND. Major, did you include those from Mexico and Canada in your figure?

That re

Mr. CURRAN. I intend to come to that in just a minute. duces the total to 1,150,000. But over 400,000 of these will come from these nonquota countries. Their wives and children will be nonquotaed by reason of their being natives of those countries. They would come in anyhow.

Senator COPELAND. That reduces the figure still more?
Mr. CURRAN. That brings it down to 750,000.

Now, of course, a tremendous proportion of these 750,000 were families that came all together. The State Department has given

me a key that I want to use because I think it is worth something. They take for a given period the number of single men and the excess of married men over married women and add those and say that that is some indication of the number of men in the United States whose wives and children, if any, are still abroad. I have placed that figure at about one-third of the total immigration for a given period. The balance will show those who have their families here with them. That will be two-thirds of the total immigration for any given period. Two-thirds of 750,000 is 500,000. Now you have got down to 250,000.

Now, a lot of those 250,000 have come here already. We had big quotas under the first quota law. The Italian quota was 42,000. It has subsequently been cut down to less than 4,000. The Polish quota was 30,000 and now it is 6,000. The Russian quota was 20,000 and now is 2,000. The Greek quota was several thousand and now is 100. The total quotas were 360 odd thousand against 160 odd thousand to-day.

Furthermore, under the first quota law a little over one-half of the total immigration came from the northwest of Europe and the other half from southern and eastern Europe. But northwest Europe still has a big proportion of the quota.

The

My actual observation in very many cases is that there are not many hardships of this kind from the northwest of Europe. hardships, we believe, are mostly from the south and east of Europe. There are still some Scotch who are in this fix. They are coming hrough the island now. Some of those Scotch families-I hope we are near the last of them-are within the quota of Great Britain, which includes the northern part of Ireland. There are still some from Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and the little countries of Europe. There are practically none from the Irish Free State, France, and Germany, because the quotas from those countries are so large that they have ample opportunity to bring their families. Most of them are caught in the back regions of Europe. I would say that during those three years the number from northwestern Europe was over half of the total quota. So we can divide that 250 thousand by two and take out that half. They have had their chance. Most of them are here. Now we have left 125,000.

Out of that 125,000 there are a great many who won't come anyhow-a great many fathers and mothers who won't come-and there are wives and children of aliens who have gone back. That is a pretty small figure, anyhow, but I would say, take a third of them and leave 80,000.

Now, out of the 80,000-these figures are just as sound as some that I have seen here, since we are in the realm of guesswork-out of the 80,000 there are a certain number who will come anyhow when these aliens become citizens, not before. We are simply allowing them to come now instead of then-nunc pro tunc. We are saving them the hardship of two or three or more years' separation. They are coming anyhow.

Now, when you get down to that, you are beginning to perhaps speculate as to how many are actually coming. I don't want to suggest that process of figuring as authoritative or controlling at

all, but I think it is worth a whole sight more than some of the other processes that I have observed that result in figures like 500,000 or 600,000. There are none of those who will claim that the figures are based on administrative observation or on knowledge of actual figures. Naturally, I have a good knowledge of actual conditions because I live with the immigrants every day of my life. I know them and I know their stories and their troubles. I get them both from Government workers and from welfare workers. I get the stories that they bring with them from abroad and through their friends and families of friends stranded there and the stories that come in from their relatives all over the United States into the Island.

It is my own belief that the number will be very small. But I say that, whether it is small or big, it is a question of principle. Of course, we can just enact the bill and some of them will die--they won't get here and some will get here 10 years from now.

The minimum of tragedy is where a wife comes over four or five or six years after her husband has become to that extent Americanized. She then seems to him a greenhorn and he looks down on her. That family is at odds already.

Senator WADSWORTH. Would it not be an advantage to this country to have the children who will come here later educated hererather than abroad?

Mr. CURRAN. Oh, by all means. Thank you, Senator Wadsworth, for thinking about that.

Senator MEANS. Eliminating the soldier because he has a peculiar and special right, inasmuch as he has earned his right to come here— speaking only for myself-I say that he is entitled to that. Why would it not accomplish your purpose if you merely give preference in quota rights, in the issuing of visas, to these particular parties who come in after July 1, 1924? Then we will not run the risk of increasing the number coming in, and we will still give them the right to come in under the preference clause, and later we could extend the preference clause to those who came here prior to July 1, 1924.

Mr. CURRAN. My suggestion as to that would be that preference would take care of a very small minority of cases of families coming from the northwest of Europe, but it would not take care of those coming from the south and east of Europe, because there the quotas are all so small. For instance, the Greek quota is 100 a year. Half of that is already mortgaged by preference to skilled agriculturists, whatever they may be, and fireside relatives of citizens. At least 50 a year out of the Greek quota is preferenced, which means that those who will not come in by virtue of that preference will come about 15 or 20 years from now.

I think the same is true of Italy. I know it is true of Hungary and those countries in the south and east of Europe. Preference within the quota, in my opinion, will not help them; it will be of very small help.

Senator MEANS. If there are only 40,000 people entitled to come in, according to your figures, and the total quota is 160,000, would not preference take care of those 40,000?

Mr. CURRAN. I think not. I think you will understand why it does not when you consider the quotas from those countries. Greece has a quota of 100, Italy 3,800, Czechoslovakia 230.

If I believed for one moment to the slightest degree that preference within the quota would take care of those whom justice must take care of, I would be for that. I am for small immigration. But that won't do the trick. The only way you can do justice to them is to exempt them from the quota and let them come now. They have been waiting long enough to come already. We have wives and children who have been waiting two years. We have two Scotch families, three mothers and thirteen children, who have been waiting for two whole years. One father was in Providence, one in Paterson, and one in Pennsylvania. Those fathers had supported their families abroad and they had supported themselves here, those Scotchmen, with such pluck that they now had $130 worth of visas on the ship. Of course three of the thirteen children had the measles and that is how they came to my attention.

Senator MEANS. Do you want to go on record as saying that if your figures are correct, 40,000 is the approximate number that will come over and that the situation can not be cleared up by a preference within two years, as I suggested?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir; I do. I eagerly make that statement. I do not say that the exact figure is 40,000. I am not quite as contentious about my guess as some others are.

Senator COPELAND. But if it is 40,000, it can not be taken care of in that way?

Mr. CURRAN. It could not possibly be in some of the countries. You see, you are allocated by nationalities.

Senator COPELAND. Major, in order that the record may be clear I will ask you this: When you make the estimate of 40,000 you include in that estimate all the immigrants mentioned in subdivision (a) of the bill?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. That is, the unmarried children and the wife of the husband and father or the citizen or the veteran?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Senator COPELAND. Who were legally admitted before July 1, 1924. Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

As to citizens, I think that if they are entitled to have their wives and children under 18 years come over, they are entitled to have their fathers and mothers, too. I think that if we are going to do that much for the American citizens, we had better go the whole distance in lineal relationship.

I don't want to take up too much of the time of you gentlemen, but I want to say that one of the greatest problems, I think, that we have before us, as I see it from Ellis Island, is the problem of Americanizing the seven or eight million foreign-born aliens that we have in the United States. A great help in doing that is to have the children educated in the United States rather than abroad. The adult aliens come here as immigrants and never can entirely change the whole of their hearts, in my experience. Neither could you or I,

if we migrated to France or Russia, suddenly become Russians for life. No; it doesn't happen.

There is a tragic side to it. The immigrant brings his children over and they are never at home on either side of the ocean. All we can do by way of giving the children a head start in America I believe we should do. I believe we can do more for them when we let them come in at the youngest possible age. If you compel them to wait until they are 14 or 16 or 18 or 20 years of age, we won't be able to do so much for them.

The word "humanity" has been used with such absence of sincerity and with such force by propagandists against the policy of restriction that I never wanted to let it pass my lips again, but as to these people I will use it. I think that it is a matter essentially of the minimum dictates of American humanity that we should do it. I do not wish to generalize my opinion too much. Please believe that I am telling you my viewpoint gained from my observation at Ellis Island, which is the place that all European immigrants come through. They all come through the port of New York. It is there that you have the international point of irritation and meeting between Europe and America.

As I see these people in the light, I think we owe it to them. I think we are taking a pretty big, broad stand. I think we are doing what we should do when we allow this limited number to come now instead of later.

Senator REED. Can you not put up almost as strong an argument in favor of the admission of the minor brothers and sisters?

Senator WILLIS. In that first connection, I would be glad if the major would say whether he has made an estimate of the number of brothers and sisters or not.

Mr. CURRAN. No, I have made no estimate of the brothers and sisters; but I am sure that there would be a small number. But I don't know how you could write a law that would take care of the few cases that deserve to come in without letting in the others, and at once you have your endless chain.

Senator REED. If you start off with restricted immigration and then introduce this element of humanity, isn't it possible to make just as eloquent an argument in favor of the admission of minor brothers and sisters "left orphans in some foreign country, and we ought to open up the doors and let them in "? There is your endless chain, Major.

Mr. CURRAN. I don't think so. You can logically, as you go through life, draw very clearly the line of cleavage between lineal relatives and collateral relatives of any kind.

The CHAIRMAN. Not where they are dependent. Assume them to be, in addition to what was suggested by Senator Reed, wholly dependent, too. What line of cleavage can be drawn with reference to those relatives? I am not disagreeing with your statement so far as that is concerned at all, but I do not see where the line can be drawn. Mr. CURRAN. It is a little hard to express, perhaps. The line, to my mind, is not a question of who supports the dependant so much as it is a question of the lineal relationship.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the human element. I think it was that that Senator Reed referred to. When the human