shores men and women who were worthy of sharing the opportunities afforded by our tremendous national resources, which, to an extraordinary extent, still clamor for development.

What we regard as the danger lurking in this legislation, is that it stimulates racial, national and religious hatreds and jealousies, that it encourages one part of our population to arrogate to itself a sense of superiority, and to classify another as one of inferiority. At a time when the welfare of the human race as an entirety depends upon the creation of a brotherly spirit, the restoration of peace, harmony and unity, and the termination of past animosities engendered by the insanity and brutality of war, it should be our purpose, as a nation which has demonstrated that those of diverse racial, national and religious origins can live together and prosper as a united people, to serve as the world's conciliator. Instead of that this bill, if it becomes a law, is destined to become the very Apple of Discord.

(2) Subdivision (b) of Section 11 only adds to the injustice and the confusion of thought which characterize this bill. Instead of dealing with what was claimed by the Dillingham bill to be an emergency and leaving it to future Congresses to take up the subject anew, this section provides that the annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1927, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of immigrants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920. This attempts to fix indefinitely, beginning three years hence, the number of immigrants to be admitted at 150,000. Heretofore we have had no difficulty in absorbing a million immigrants a year. From August, 1914, down to 1920, because of the war, there were practically no immigrants into the United States-in fact during that period the emigrants exceeded in number the immigrants; and yet there is an attempt to determine once for all the number of immigrants who are to be admitted into our vast domain to supply our industries and to meet our many other needs.

But here, again, the vice of the legislation is that it is based entirely on national origin, regardless of fitness or usefulness, dili

gence or energy, or of our country's needs. Moreover, the reference to "national origin" is not to the number of foreign-born individuals of the several nationalities resident in the United States, but it is expected to make a biological, anthropological, ethnological investigation into the birth or ancestry of those resident in the United States in 1920. It is believed that there are no statistics which would make it possible to work out a reliable conclusion as to national origin. The very fact that there have been intermarriages between those of diverse nationalities and that there may be an admixture of the blood of half a dozen nationalities into a single individual, demonstrates the absurdity of such a scheme. There has been no scientific or other investigation indicating that it is practicable to work out such a theory, and yet it is written into our law as a happy thought originating during the heat of argument. It is evident that three years will be required to make the determination called for, and yet, in advance of any trustworthy investigation, the fundamental theory of our immigration laws in force for more than a century and by means of which we have progressed as no other nation in the world has during a like period, is to be forever rejected. It will be a sorry day for our Republic when our national legislation shall substitute for the humane, far-sighted and statesmanlike theories of the past, the feudal, medieval and inhuman concepts which characterize this bill.

(3) Although it has been the declared public policy of this country not to separate families, under the present bill, with its reduced quotas, where practically every immigrant is to be governed by the quota principle, it will become virtually impossible for a wife and children of a husband and father coming to this country for the purpose of establishing a home for them to join the head of the household. The fact that under Section 6 (a) they are entitled to preferences will be of but little avail in the light of the diminished quotas. Nor does Section 4, subdivision (a), remedy the situation, because it deals merely with the unmarried child under the age of 18 years, or the wife, of a citizen of the United States. In such cases a period of five years may elapse during which the separation would be continued.

(4) Further discrimination is shown by the fact that under

Section 4 (c) an immigrant born in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, or an independent country of Central or South America, and his wife and his unmarried children under eighteen years of age, are admitted as non-quota immigrants. Can it be seriously contended that Mexicans, Cubans, Haitians, Santo-Domingoans, or Central or South Americans, are more desirable or more assimilable than Italians, Poles, Russians, Austrians, Belgians, Hungarians, Roumanians, Greeks, Dutch, Czecho-Slovakians or Yugoslavians?

(5) Section 24 reverses the rules of evidence which have always hitherto obtained by seeking to impose the burden of proof upon the alien to establish that he is not subject to exclusion under any provision of the immigration law, and that in any deportation proceeding against any alien the burden of proof shall be upon him to show that he entered the United States lawfully. By the operation of this provision, if any immigrant arrives here and is told that the quota of his nationality had on the day previous been exhausted, it will be necessary for him to prove the contrary, although the records are within the control of the Government and it is utterly impossible for the immigrant to establish by legal evidence the inaccuracy of the statement that he was not admissible.

You will recollect, Mr. President, that in the early part of November, 1923, it was announced by the Department of Labor that the Russian quota for the year had been exhausted, and approximately 1,000 immigrants were excluded and ordered deported. Some of the cases were of excruciating hardship. Two hundred of them were in fact deported, when it was learned that, through erroneous bookkeeping in the Department or otherwise, all of these arrivals were admissible. The facts being called to your attention, those remaining in this country were promptly admitted.. Let us suppose that the burden of proof to show that they were entitled to admission rested on these immigrants. It would not have been possible to have met it. If habeas corpus proceedings had been instituted, the Government would have stood mute and the writ would necessarily have been dismissed.

Illustrations could be multiplied to show that such a rule of

evidence as is now contemplated is not only unjust and inequitable but contrary to American traditions.

Without dwelling upon other objections, we most respectfully and earnestly submit that if this bill shall become a law it will be a positive misfortune to the country and will make a sharp departure from those policies which have proven a blessing to mankind as well as to our beloved land.

Cordially yours,

(Signed) LOUIS MARSHALL,
STEPHEN S. WISE,

JOSHUA KANTROWITZ,
MAX PINE,

SALVATORE A. COTILLO.

In the course of its activities in connection with immigration legislation, your Committee found many evidences of a strong tendency toward even more drastic restriction than is provided for by the Immigration Act of 1924. Already there are signs that those forces which have for years agitated for immigration restriction are determined to bring about the modification and if possible even the abolition of that feature of the law by which certain groups of immigrants, principally relatives of American citizens, are admitted irrespective of the various national quotas.

But there is another measure which is likely, from present indications, to be pushed with even greater vigor, and that is the proposal for the universal registration of all aliens. This is intended in a general way to require all aliens above eighteen years of age to register in person once in each calendar year. The certificates of registration are to specify the name, sex, race, nationality, date and place of birth, date and port of arrival in the United States of the immigrant, the name of

vessel or other conveyance on which he arrived; his age, residence, ability to speak, read or write, occupation and marital status, and such other information as the Secretary of Labor may by regulation prescribe. The certificates are to have attached to them a photograph of the registrant. Aliens over twenty-one years of age are to pay a fee of $5, and those between eighteen and twenty-one, a fee of $3 at every registration. It is further proposed that every alien who fails to register is to be fined $25 for each year in respect to which such failure occurs; those aliens who come after the registration law has been in effect for three months and who fail to register for the year in which they enter may be taken into custody and deported.

This measure has earned the condemnation of all liberalminded persons who have studied it. Many organizations have registered their protest against it. Among these are the League of Foreign Born Citizens, the Council on Immigrant Education, the Salvation Army, the National Security League, the National Liberal Immigration League, the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association, the National Catholic Welfare Association, and the Naturalization Aid League, all of them bodies which come into close and frequent contact with the immigrant, understand his point of view, and help him to adjust himself to his new environment. The Chicago Immigrants' Protective League, upon whose Board of Directors are such representative Americans as Miss Jane Addams, Miss Julia C. Lathrop, Miss Edith Abbot, and Professor Ernst Freund, filed with the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization last January, a statement of their objections to the proposed bill for the registration of aliens.