Several other species threatened with early extermination could be named, but these must suffice.

The Alaskan, Russian and Japanese fur-seal herds are fairly safe, thanks to the International Fur-seal Treaty entered into in 1911 by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and Japan. The northern sea otter is also protected by the same treaty. While that treaty has some serious defects it is believed they can be corrected in 1926 when an opportunity to do so will be afforded. But this treaty, unfortunately, does not cover whales, walrus, sea lions, southern sea otter, elephant seal or any of the southern fur seals.

It is perfectly lawful for anybody to kill any of these animals anywhere on the high seas. No country has jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit. Only by international agreement can they receive the protection necessary for their preservation and conservation.

The United States should take the initiative in bringing about an international treaty for the protection of the marine mammals of the Pacific. The principal countries concerned are the United States, Japan, China, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico and Chile, but every country at all interested in the Pacific should be invited to join in the treaty.

At the meeting of this association held in Berkeley last year a "Committee on the Conservation of Marine Life of the Pacific" was appointed. This committee is now functioning under the Committee on Pacific Investigations of the Division of Foreign Relations of the National Research Council. The committee is endeavoring to develop an interest on the part of the public in conservation of our natural resources, particularly those of the sea. It is endeavoring to interest the zoologists of the countries bordering on the Pacific in the wonderful animal life of that great ocean. It is making investigations and assembling data regarding the former abundance of various species, their present condition, and the causes which brought about the change.

In its efforts toward creating a strong public sentiment for conservation, the committee is trying to interest boards of trade, chambers of commerce, fish commissions, scientific societies, newspapers, women's clubs, and officials of educational institutions including colleges, normal schools, and public schools. It hopes to make use of the public press and public lectures that the people may learn something about the wonderful resources of the sea which we, through ignorance, indifference and greed, are permitting to be seriously if not fatally depleted. The committee plans to form an association or organization to be known by some such name as "The Associated Societies for the Conservation of Marine Life of the Pacific," and it is hoped to bring into this association as many as possible of the naturalists, educational institutions,

chambers of commerce, boards of trade, fish and game commissions, fishery companies and other interested units found in the various countries bordering on the Pacific.

It is hoped that public interest in the conservation problem of the Pacific will in the near future be developed to such an extent as will result in an international treaty broad enough in its scope to cover not only all the marine mammals but also the fishes, birds, and reptiles of the Pacific Ocean.

That our game mammals and birds, our fur-bearing animals and our marine mammals are among our most valuable natural resources is not fully realized by many of us. A few figures, however, will readily convince us that we have in these animals natural resources almost fabulous in their money value. Take for example the deer: the number of deer killed in 1915 by hunters in 36 states was 75,000. At 150 pounds each these would weigh 11,250,000 pounds, worth 20 cents a pound, or $2,250,000. It is claimed that the annual kill of deer in the entire United States could safely be put at 100,000, worth $3,000.000. Rabbits are a very valuable food asset. In 1918, 465,000 were killed in the State of New York alone. In 1919, 2,719,879 were killed in Pennsylvania. In 1920, 293,665 were killed in Virginia. At 20 cents apiece (a very conservative estimate) these rabbits had a money value of $695,710, which is no small item in the food supply of the country. And this embraces the catch in only three states. In the whole United States it must have been many times as great.

Now let us consider the game birds. In 1920 hunters in Minnesota killed 2,083,991 ducks, geese and other game birds, worth at least $1,000,000. In the same year there were killed in Virginia 187,582 quail, pheasants, turkeys, doves and woodcock worth more than $110,000. The take of game animals in the same period was valued at $350,000, while in New York the game mammals and birds taken in the same period numbered 1,526,960 valued at $3,239,277. From these figures it is believed that the game mammals, furbearing animals, and game birds of the United States yield to our people not less than the stupendous amount of $100,000,000 annually. Surely the conservation of such valuable resources as these is well worth while.

I should like to say something about the fisheries and the fur seal, those wonderful resources in which I have been most interested for many years, but time does not permit.

I can only say that they, too, must receive our most thoughtful and serious consideration if they are to be rehabilitated and maintained in anything like their former productiveness. No nation can grow populous and great and long survive which, through lack of vision, continues to destroy those very resources which have made it great.

A

SOME THOUGHTS ON IMMIGRATION

RESTRICTION

By Professor ROBERT DeC. WARD

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

SURVEY of American literature on immigration during the past twenty-five years emphasizes certain general tendencies. There has been a singular failure on the part of many writers to appreciate the larger, more fundamental, more permanent relations of the problem. The immediate, the temporary, the individual aspects have been unduly emphasized. There have, of course, been outstanding exceptions to this broad statement: men of vision, who have labored earnestly to bring before their fellow-countrymen the far-reaching racial, economic, political and social relations of alien immigration. But, in the main, most of what has been written has not been constructive in the best sense of that term. In view of the present widespread discussion of immigration in our magazines, in Congress and in our daily newspapers, the writer of the present article has thought it worth while to consider briefly some of these larger aspects of the problem as they present themselves to his mind. There is danger that the public will be diverted from a really serious consideration of the question as a whole by having its attention constantly directed to the stories of individual hardship-mostly fictitious or exaggerated-which are being so assiduously fed to the daily press by influences which are opposed to all restriction.

AMERICA'S "TRADITIONAL" IMMIGRATION POLICY

In any discussion of immigration problems reference is sure to be made to our so-called "traditional policy" of providing an asylum and a haven of refuge for the poor and the oppressed of every land. There is a fundamental error in the popular conception of this "tradition.'

The desire that there should be some restriction has existed from the very foundation of our Republic. Washington questioned the advisability of immigration except of certain skilled mechanics. Jefferson expressed the wish that there were an ocean of fire between this country and Europe, so that it might be impossible for any more immigrants to come here. The Hartford Convention, in 1812, proclaimed that "the stock population of these states is

amply sufficient to render this nation in due time sufficiently great and powerful." In spite of these early distinctly restrictionist views, it was, nevertheless, for generations a national ideal that America should be an asylum and a refuge. But it must be remembered that immigration was then welcomed and encouraged because it was regarded as a source of national strength. The noble ideal of a refuge, open to all, had its roots in economic conditions far more than in any generous spirit of world philanthropy. The country was very sparsely settled. There was an abundance of free land. Labor was scarce. The number of immigrants was small. Nearly all of them were sturdy pioneers, of essentially homogeneous and readily assimilated stocks.

In time this ideal inevitably came into conflict with changing economic and social conditions. In the face of cold, hard, presentday facts it has had to be abandoned. These facts are that the supply of public lands is exhausted; that acute labor problems have arisen; that immigration has increased enormously and fundamentally changed its character; that our cities are congested with aliens; that we have failed to assimilate them, and that large numbers of mentally and physically unfit have come to our shores. Our so-called traditional policy began, in fact, to be abandoned almost fifty years ago, when Congress first put up the bars against certain classes of economically and morally undesirable aliens. It is now obvious that our "asylum" has become crowded with alien insane and alien feeble-minded; that our "refuge" is a penitentiary well filled with alien paupers and criminals.

The un-American policy is not restriction but indiscriminate hospitality to immigrants. It is un-American for us to permit any such influx of alien immigrants as will make the process of assimilation and amalgamation of our foreign population any more difficult than it already is. It is for the best interests of the alien as well as of America that our immigrants should be numerically restricted and wisely and carefully selected.

Our policy of admitting freely practically all who have wished to come has not only complicated our own problems, but has not helped the introduction of political, social, economic and educational reforms abroad. Our idealists tell us that the "cream" and the "pick" of Europe has been coming here because it is discontented at home; because it wants political and religious and economic liberty; because it wants education, and better living conditions, and democratic institutions. Have we in any way really helped the progress of these reforms by keeping the safety-valve of practically unlimited immigration open? By allowing the discontented millions of Europe and of Asia to come here now, are we

likely to hasten, or to delay, the coming of political and social reforms in Armenia, in Russia, in Turkey? Our duty as Americans, interested in the world-wide progress of education, of religious liberty, of democratic institutions, is not only to preserve our own institutions intact, but also to help the discontented millions of Europe and of Asia to shoulder their own responsibilities at home; to work out there, for themselves, what our own forefathers worked out here, for us and for our children. Are men and women who are now leaving their own countries and their own problems behind, likely to be of any real assistance to us in the maintenance and development of American institutions?

FALLACIES OF THE "MELTING-POT" IDEA

"Never shall ye make the crab walk straight. Never shall ye make the sea urchin smooth." Thus, many centuries ago, Aristophanes set forth his view of the fallacy of the "Melting Pot." We have been proceeding on the theory that the United States could, in the great American melting pot, crystallize into a new, homogeneous race, better and finer than has ever been known, the millions of aliens, of all nations, habits and languages, who have flocked to us from every quarter of the globe. We have thought that sending the alien children to school, teaching them English, giving them flag drills, and letting them recite the Gettysburg Address and read the Declaration of Independence, would make Americans of them almost overnight. Yet the laws which rule in the world of the lower animals obtain equally in the case of man. We can not make a heavy draught-horse into a trotter by keeping him in a racing stable. Nor can we make a race true to the old American type by any process of Americanization, essential as that undertaking is for creating better citizenship. It is distinctly the trend of modern biological discovery that heredity is, on the whole, far more important than environment in determining not only the physical but also the mental characteristics of man. Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, in an address before the recent International Eugenics Congress said: "We are slowly awakening to the consciousness that education and environment do not fundamentally alter racial values. . The true spirit of American

democracy, that all men are born with equal rights and duties, has been confused with the political sophistry that all men are born with equal character and ability to govern themselves and others, and with the educational sophistry that education and environment will offset the handicap of ancestry."

What goes into the melting pot determines what shall come out of it. If we put into it sound, sturdy stock; akin to the pioneer breed which first peopled this country and founded its institutions;