'O'niversity of 'l'exas Publications 136-8603-1 0-18-21-4,000 University of Texas Bulletin No. 2146: August 15, 1921 The Suspension of Immigration Edited by EDWIN DuBOIS SHURTER Professor of Public Speaking and State Chairman of the University Jnterscholastic League and CHARLES ADAMS GULICK Formerly Instructor in Economics • PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY SIX TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefit& of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused throueh a community, are essential to the preservation of .a free govern· ment. S:am Houston Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of democracy. . . . It is the only dictator that freemen acknowl­edge and the only security that free­men desire. Mirabeau B. Lamar FOREWORD The question for the University Interscholastic League debates for 1921-1922 is: Resolved, That Congress should prohibit immigration into the United States for two years. In addition to the references and arguments contained in this bulletin, debaters are advised to write to the follow­ing sources for supplementary material, which will be sent free of charge unless otherwise indicated: 1. Extension Loan Library, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. 2. Immigration Restriction League, 11 Pemberton Square, Boston 9, Mass. Literature sent on receipt of 10 cents postage. 3. Inter-Racial Council, Woolworth Building, New York, N.Y. 4. National Committee for Constructive Immigration Leg­islation, 105 East Twenty-second Street, New York, N. Y. 5. National Liberal Immigration League, 309 Broadway, New York, N. Y. 6. American Federation of Labor, Washington, D. C. Two copies of this bulletin will be sent free upon request to any school belonging to the University Interscholastic League; additional copies, 15 cents each (stamps not" ac­ceptable). E. D. SHURTER, State Chairman. CHAMPION GIRLS' DEBATING TEAM; 1921 GUENDOLIN WALTERS, ETTA MADDRY, Wichita Falls High School Wichita Falls High School CHAMPION BOYS' DEBATING TEAM, 1921 GEORGE OVERTON, ED. RAMSEY, Sweetwater High School Sweetwater High School BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL REFERENCES Abbott, Grace, The Immigrant and the Community. Cen­tury Co. New York, 1917. Commons, John R., Races and Immigrants in America. The Macmillan Co. New York, 1920. Davis, Philip, Immigration and Americanization, selected readings compiled. Ginn & Co. New York, 1920. Drachsler, Julius, Democracy and Assimilation. The Mac­ millan Co. New York, 1920. Hammond, John Hays, and Jenks, J. W., Great American Issues. Scribners. New York, 1921. Jenks, J. W., and Lauck, W. J., The Immigration Problem. Funk & Wagnalls. New York, 1917. Kellor, Francis Alice, Immigration and the Future. Geo. H. Doran & Co. New York, 1920. Mullan, E. H., Mentality of the Arriving Immigrant. Gov­ernment Printing Office. Washington, 1917. Orth, Samuel P., Our Foreigners. Yale University Press, 1920. Phelps, Edith M., Immigration (Handbook series). H. W. Wilson Co. New York, 1920. Roberts, Peter, The New Immigration, a Study of Industrial and Social Life of Southeastern Europeans in America. The Macmillan Co. New York, 1912. Talbot, W., and Johnson, Julia E. (editors), Americanization (handbook series). H. W. Wilson Co. New York, 1920. Warne, F. J., The Tide of Immigration. D. Appleton & Co. New York, 1916. Warne, F. J., The Immigrant Invasion. Dodd, Mead & Co. New York, 1913. United States Immigration Commission Abstracts of Re­ports, 2 vols. Government Printing Office. Washing­ton, 1911. American Economic Review. 2: Sup. 53. March, 1912. Restrictions of Immigration. Henry Pratt Fairchild. American Statistical Association. Quarterly. 17 :333. Sep­tember, 1920. Results of two year's operation of the literacy test for admission of immigrants. Louis Bloch. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social · Science. 48 :66. Immigration and the Minimum Wage. Paul U. Kellogg. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 93 :181. January, 1921. Elements in Immi­gration Policy for the United States: Articles by Frank J. Warne, W. Jett Lauck, Prescott F. Hall, Louis F. Post, Henry Pratt Fairchild, Frances A. Kellor, and Henry W. Jessup. Atlantic Monthly. 123 :483. April, 1919. Immigration an.d the Labor-Supply. Don D. Lescobier. Bulletin of the Chamber of Commerce of New York State. 12 :11. January, 1921. Immigration into the United States. Current History Magazine. 13 pt. 2 :405. March, 1921. Constructive Immigration Policy. W. H. Barr. Current Opinion. 70 :458. April, 1921. Comparing the Canadian and American Melting Pots. A. C. Lant. Independent. 99 :159. August 2, 1919. New Melting Pot. Sidney L. Gulick. Independent. 103 :201. August 21, 1920. If You Were an Immigrant. Alessandro Sapelli. Missionary Review of the World. 42 :839. November, 1919. America's Debt to Immigration. Eva Clark Ward. Monthly Labor Review. 11 :216. December, 1920. Monthly Movement of Aliens. January, 1913·to July, 1920. Monthly Labor Review. 12 :697. March, 1921. Immigra­tion. National Conference of Social Work. Proceedings. 1920 :59 Immigrant and Social Unrest. Jane Addams. New Republic. 26 :371. May 25, 1921; 27-19, June 1, 1921 et seq; Pseudo-Americanization. Edward H. Bierstadt. North American Review. 213 :598. May, ·1921. Present and Future of Immigration. P. F. Hall. Phelan, John, Readings in Rural Sociology. The Macmillan Co. New York, 1920. Review of Reviews. 62 :618. December, 1920. New Im­migration. W. Jett Lauck. Survey. 45 :834. March 5, 1921. Three Per Cent Immi­gration (Editorial). AFFIRMATIVE REFERENCES Fairchild, H. Pratt, Immigrntion, A World Movement and Its Significance. The Macmillan Co. New York, 1913. Gompers, Samuel, American Federation of Labor on Immi­. gration. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C., 1911. Gompers, Samuel, Labor and the Commonwealth. E.' P. Dutton & Co. New York, 1919. Ross, Edward A., Old World in the New; Significance of • Past and Present Immigration to the American People. Century Co. New York, 1914. Stoddard, Lothrop, Rising Tide of Color. Scribners, New York, 1920. American Industries. 21 :7. December, 1920. Menace of the Immigrant Tide. Frederick A. Wallis. Century. 87 :28. November, 1913. Economic Consequences of Immigration. E. A. Ross. Century. 87 :225. December, 1913. American and Immi­grant Blood, E. A. Ross. Century. 87 :392. January, 1914. Immigrants in Politics. E. A. Ross. Century. 87 :615. February, 1914. Racial Consequences of Immigration. E. A. Ross. Century. 102 :131. May, 1921. Menace of Migrating Peo­ples. E. A. Ross. Good Housekeeping. 72 :13. February, 1921. Whose Coun­try Is This? C. Coolidge. Independent. 105 :288. March 19, 1921. His Uneasy Un­swept Hearth He Lends. F. H. Giddings . . Journal of the National Education Association. 10 :21. February, 1921. Stranger Within Our Gates. Walter E. Clark. Outlook. 93 :65. September 11, 1909. Protect the Work­man. John Mitchell. Outlook. 126 :763. December 29, 1919. Incomparable In­vasion. Harold Knutson. Saturday Evening Post. 192 :8. February 28, 1920. Im­migration Control. A. Warren Parker. Saturday Evening Post. 193 :3. April 30, 1921. Existence of an Emergency. K. L. Roberts. World's Work. 26 :699. October, 1913. Our Expensive Cheap Labor. Arno Dosch. World's Work. 41 :328. February, 1921. A Moratorium in Immigration. (Editorial). NEGATIVE REFERENCES Antin, Mary, They Who Knock at Our Gates. Houghton, Mifflin Co. New York, 1914. Hourwich, Isaac A., Immigration ancl Labor; the Economic Aspects of European Immigration to the United States. Putnam. New York, 1912. Kellor, Frances A., Out of Work. Putnam. New York, 1915. American Machinist. 53 :10686-e. December 2, 1920. Our Immigration Problem. William H. Barr. Blast Furnace and Steel Plant. 8 :422. July, 1920. Plain Facts about Immigration. William H. B_arr. Forum. 62 :223. August, 1919. Emigration Scare Un­founded. Bryon H. Uhl. Forum. 65 :68. January, 1921. Immigration Hysteria in Congress. John E. Milholland. Iron Age. 105 :1133. April 15, 1920. Decreased Immigra­tion-Less Production. John E. Otterson. Iron Trade Review. 65 :757. September 18, 1919. Suspend Immigration? What of Industry? A. J. Hair. Jewish Immigration Bulletin. 9 :5. June, 1919. Why I Oppose Restriction of Immigration. I. L. Bril. Literary Digest. 691 No. 9 :19. May 28, 1921. Our Foreign Language Press on Immigration. Nation's Business. 9 :29. January, 1921. Why Bar the Door to Labor? Hugh Reid. Printer's Ink. 114 :114. February 10, 1921. After the Immigrant Passes the Statue of Liberty. Frances A. Kell or. Scientific American. 121 :108. August 2, 1919. Who Shall Do the Work? R. D. LaGuardia. Standard. 7 :70. November, 1920. Are the Foreign Born a Menace? Henry Newman. Survey. 45 :388. December 11, 1920. Immigration and Unemployment. William M. Leiserson. BRIEF OF ARGUMENTS INTRODUCTION As soon as the major portion of the American troops had returned from the World War, th.us making available some shipping for the transportation of immigrants, foreigners began to pour into the United States. The arrivals at Ellis Island now total 5,000 per day. The total for the year end­ing June 30, 1920 was 430,000, a very great increase over . the 141,000 of the preceding year. From these figures it is plainly evident that we shall soon be confronted again with the immigration "problem" that for a brief period had no importance. A realization of the renewed significance of the topic is shown in newspaper comment all over the country and by the facts that the legislature of the State of Texas passed a Japanese exclusion act in March, 1921, and that the federal Congress materially restricted immigration by the three per cent act of May, 1921. The minds of many men in va­rious callings are centered upon the problem. All agree that something should be done. What is the best solution of the , problem? ·AFFIRMATIVE As a solution of the problem outlined above the affirma­tive submits the following proposition: Congress should prohibit immigration into the United States for two years, because I. There are already too many unassimilated elements in the United States, for A. Our previous laws permitted more immigrants to enter than we were able to take care of, for 1. The "hyphenated" American was a positive peril to the United States in the crisis of the World War. 2. Many of them are still unfamiliar with our language, laws, and customs. II. This prohibition is necessary to protect American la­ bor, for A. There is now a surplus of labor in the country, for ­ 1. The statistics published by numerous agen­cies show that between June, 1920 and June, 1921 unemployment increased very rapidly. 2. In New York alone from March, 1920 to December, 1920 employment in manufac­turing industries decreased 20 per cent­300,000 workers. B. The admission of more immigrants would simply aggravate the surplus of laborers, for 1. The vast majority of immigrants are labor­ers. C. The maintenance of union standards is impossible in the face of a flood of immigrants, for 1. Immigrants are usually illiterate and unable to comprehend the advantages of unioniza­tion. ' 2. Immigrants have lower standards. 3. Employers take advantage of the fact stated above and smash unions by the use of immi­grant labor. D. It will tend to convince our middle class people , of the dignity and worth of hard labor. III. Prohibition of immigration is ·necessary to keep out numerous undesirable groups, for A. Statistics show that the foreign born are a ser­ious element in our crime wave, for 1. Crime is most frequent in cities having a high per cent of· foreign born population. B. Syndicalists, anarchists, and Bolsheviks come to America in large numbers, for 1. Our present exclusion tests are not rigorous enough to exclude them, for a. We usually have no means of ascer­taining their political and economic views except their own statements. The Suspension of Immigration 2. Investigations by the Department of Jus­tice in 1920 showed that fully 90 per cent of the radical agitation was traceable to aliens. 3. The Government has been compelled re­cently to deport large numbers of this class. IV. It is our duty to protect our standards .of living, for A. We must continue to serve as a model for striving democracies in other lands. B. We must ourselves be in a position to help these democracies to gain their ideals. V. Prohibition of immigration will tend to increase the birth-rate among the native-born, for A. Statistics tend to show that immigration in the past has acted as a check upon the native birth­rate. VI. This legislation is favored by authorities, for A. Many prominent economists and sociologists favor it. B. The American Federation of Labor and the four railway brotherhoods favor it. VII. Prospective immigrants would better serve. their home­land and the United States by staying where they are, for A. There is a vast amount of reconstruction work to be done in most European countries. B. The creation of a foreign market resulting from the industrial and financial stabilization of Eu­rope is the best means of improving co~ditions at home. NEGATIVE Congress should not prohibit all immigration into the . United States for two years, because I. America depends upon the foreign element for a large percentage of her unskilled labor, for A. The native American is usually a skilled laborer, the possessor of some technical knowledge. B. The native American despises the jobs which the foreigner readily accepts. C. Most of our basic industries employ a high per­centage of foreign laborers, for 1. The percentages of foreign born in the un­skilled labor are: a. In iron and steel industries, 69%. b. In coal mining, 61.9%. c. In oil refining, 66. 7 % . d. In sugar refining, 85%. II. Prohibition of all immigration is neither a sensible nor a scientific remedy, for A. The migratory instinct is inevitable and should be regulated, not crushed. B. The results of immigration are in the long run beneficial to humanity. III. Prohibition of immigration is contrary to our long es­tablished policy, for A. We have always been a place of refuge for the oppressed. IV. Prohibition of immigration is inadvisable, for A. It would give rise to serious international difficul­ties, for 1. Itwould make Japan more distrustful of the United States. 2. It would make the Latin-American coun­tries more distrustful of the United States. B. It is in conflict with the new spirit of interna­tionalism as embodied in the Hague Tribunal and the League of Nations. V. Prohibition of immigration is unnecessary, for A. The present laws accomplish every desirable end concerning immigration, for 1. They keep out such undesirables as the sick, the criminal, the anarchist, the immoral, the· pauper, etc. 2. They so restrict immigration that only a small number of the southeastern Euro­peans can come in, whereas the better races from northern and eastern Europe have ample opportunity to enter. 3. They put such a check on the total number of immigrants that we shall have time to formulate a permanent policy without adopting the extreme measure proposed by the affirmative. GENERAL DISCUSSION IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION* Before 1882 immigration to the United States was prac­tically unrestricted. Up to this time the problem of regulat­ing immigration had been largely left to the several states. Since 1882 various attempts have been made by the federal · government to prevent undesirable immigration. The most important measures which have been proposed or adopted may be summarized as follows : The first general immigration law was enacted in 1882. This law, which was administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, provided for the levying of a head tax of fifty cents on all aliens entering the United States, and for the exclusion of idiots, lunatics, persons likely to become public charges,•and convicts (except those convicted of political offonses). In 1885 the Contract Labor Law was passed to stem the tide of cheap labor which was being imported under contract to the detriment of the American laborer. Assisting or en­couraging immigration under contract, expressed or implied, was forbidden under penalty. Masters of vessels were held. liable and forced to pay deportation charges under an amend­ment in 1887. The following classes of persons were ex­cluded: insane persons, paupers, persons suffering from loathsome and dangerous contagious disease, polygamists, and assisted persons unless it was shown that they did not belong to any excluded class. Exceptions were professional actors, artists, lecturers, ministers, college professors, skilled workmen for new industries not yet in the United States, and personal and domestic servants. Another amendment was adopted in 1899 which forbade steamship companies to solicit immigration and permitted them to advertise only their rates and time-tables abroad. States, however, were allowed to advertise their inducements for immigration. *Bulletin of the University of Washington on Immigration. Tn 1893 a law was passed requiring manifests which in­cluded full information about each immigrant, signed by the captain and surgeon before departing from Europe, and which contained a sworn statement that none of the ex­cluded classes were on board. The law also provided for a special board of inquiry of four inspectors to consider doubt­ful cases. Hitherto the inspector's decision was final unless appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Lodge literacy bill was the first attempt to restrict immigration on the ground of illiteracy. It passed both houses, but was vetoed by President Cleveland in 1897. It carried again in the House, but was lost in the Senate. The law of 1903 raised the head tax to $2.00 and added the following to excluded classes: prostitutes and persons at­tempted to bring in prostitutes, and those who had been de­ported within a year as contract laborers, epileptics, profes­sional beggars and. anarchists. The Dillingham bill of 1907 included provisions for a lit­eracy test similar to the defeated Lodge bill. It passed both houses, but was shorn of the literacy test. It raised the head tax to $4.00 and added to the excluded classes the following: imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, those with tuberculosis, persons not comprehended in the foregoing classes but who were mentally or physically defective, such defect being liable to affect their. ability to earn a living, and children under sixteen years unaccompanied by one or both parents. It also provided for a bureau of information to disseminate information among the immigrants regarding labor condi­tions and opportunities for settlers in various parts of the country. The aim of this bureau was to relieve the con­gestion of the immigrants in the large cities and industrial centers and to secure a more equitable distribution of immi­grants. In 1910 the 1907 law was amended so as to exclude persons who are supported by or receive in full or in part the proceeds of prostitution. Senator Dillingham presented another bill in 1912 pro­viding for a literacy test and for the revision and codifying of existing immigration laws so as to secure greater effi­ciency in administration an<1 a more logical arrangement of the law itself. The terms used were made more explicit; violations of the immigration laws were tb be considered under criminal rather than civil proceedings; the term con­tract labor was to mean manual labor; matrons were to be appointed to travel in the steerage in order to report upon the steerage conditions; and other practical changes were included. This bill passed both houses, but was vetoed by President Taft. The Senate passed it over his veto, but · it was lost in the House by a small majority. The bill was reintroduced in 1915 and passed, but it was vetoed by Presi­dent Wilson. In 1917 it was again passed and vetoed, but this time it was carried over the President's ~vet.o. In dealing with Chinese and Japanese immigration the United States has pursued a special policy. As early as 1882 a law was passed providing for the exclusion of Chinese laborers, skilled or unskilled. Various other laws have been enacted from time to time, and treaties have beeri made with China regulating immigration. The present law ex­cludes all Chinese except teachers, students, travelers for curiosity or pleasure, merchants, officials and a few other classes. In 1907 Japanese skilled and unskilled laborers were effectively excluded by agreement with the Japanese Government. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION LAW* , Following is a brief summary of the United States Immi­gration Law (enacted February 5, 1917). · Excluded classes: All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded or insane persons, epileptics, persons having contagious dis­eases, paupers, anarchists, contract laborers, all persons likely to become public charges, and aliens over sixteen years · of age who can not read the English language or some other language or dialect. The Jaw prescribes various exceptions and qualifications as applied to particular cases. *Condensed from The World Almanac and Encyclopedia for 1921, pp. 343-345. ,. THE "THREE PER CENT LAW," ENACTED BY THE SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS AND APPROVED MAY 19, 1921 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That as used in this Act-­ The term "Upited States" means the United States, and any waters, territory, or other place subject to the juris­diction thereof except the Canal Zone and the Phillipine Islands; but if any alien leaves the Canal Zone or any in­sular possession of the United States and attempts to enter any other place under the jurisdiction of the United States nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as permit­ting him to enter under any other conditions than those ap­plicable to all aliens. The word "alien" includes any person not a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, but this definition shall not be held to include Indians of the United States not taxed nor citizens of the islands under the jurisdiction of the United States. The term "Immigration Act" means the Act of February 5, 1917, entitled "An Act to regulate the immigration of aliens to, and the residence of aliens in, the United States"; and the term "immigration laws" includes such Act and all laws, conventions, and treaties of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens. · SEC. 2. (a) That the number of aliens of any nation­ality who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the United States in any fiscal year shall be limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign-born persons of such na­tionality resident in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1910. This provision shall not apply to the following, and they shall not be counted in reckoning any of the percentage limits provided in this Act: (1) Gov­ernment officials, their families, attendants, servants, and employees; (2) aliens in continuous transit through the United States; (3) aliens lawfully admitted to the United States who later go in transit from one part of the United States to another through foreign contiguous territory; (4) aliens visiting the United States as tourists or tem­porarily for business or pleasure ; ( 5) aliens from countries immigration from which is regulated in accordance with treaties or agreements relating solely to immigration; (6) aliens from the so-called Asiastic barred zone, as described in section 3 of the Immigration Act; (7) aliens who have resided continuously for at least one year immediately pre­ceding the time of their admission to the United States in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Mexico, countries of Central or South America, or adjacent islands; or (8) aliens under the age of eighteen who are children of citizens of the United States. (b) For the purposes of this Act nationality shall be . determined by country of birth, treating as separate coun­tries the colonies or dependencies for which separate enumer­ ation was made in the United States census of 1910. (c) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of-Labor, jointly, shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of this Act, prepare a statement show­ing the number of persons of the various nationalities resi­dent in the United States as determined by the United States census of 1910, which statement shall be the population basis for the purposes of this Act. In case of changes in political boundaries in foreign countries occurring subse­quent to 1910 and resulting (1) in the creation of new countries, the governments of which are recognized by the United States, or (2) in the transfer of territory from one country to another, such transfer being recognized by the United States, such officials, jointly, shall estimate the num­ber of persons resident in the United States in 1910 who were born within the area included in such new countries or in such territory so transferred, and revise the 'population basis as to each country involved in such change of political boundary. For the purpose of such revision and for the purposes of this Act generally aliens born in the area in-· eluded in any such new country shall be considered as having The Suspension of Immigration been born in such country, and aliens born in any territory so transferred shall be considered as having been born in the country to which such territory was transferred. (d) When the maximum number of aliens of any nation­ality who may be admitted in any fiscal year under this Act shall have been admitted all other aliens of such nationality, except otherwise provided in this Act, who may apply for admission during the same fiscal year shall be excluded; Provided, That the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted in any month shall not exceed 20 per centum of the total number of aliens of such nationality who are admissible in that fiscal year ; Provided further, Tliat aliens returning from a temporary visit abroad, aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, professors for col­leges or seminaries, aliens belonging to any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as domestic servants, may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted notwithstanding the maximum number of aliens of the same nationality ad­missible in the same month or fiscal year, as the case may be, shall have entered the United States; but aliens of the classes included in this proviso who enter the United Statts before such maximum number shall have entered shall (unless ex­cluded by subdivision (a) from being counted) be counted in reckoning the percentage limits provided in this Act; Provided further, That in the enforcement of this Act pref­erence shall be given so far as possible to the wives, parents, brothers, sisters, children under eighteen years of age, and fiancees, (1) of citizens of the United States, (2) of aliens now in the United States who have applied for citizenship in the manner provided by law, or (3) of persons eligible to United States citizenship who served in the military or naval forces of the United States at any time between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, both dates inclusive, and have been separated from such forces under honorable con­ditions. SEC. 3. That the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of this Act, and from time to time thereafter, prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry the provisions of this Act into effect. He shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of this Act, publish a statement showing the number of the various nationalities who may be admitted to the United States between the date this Act becomes effective and the end of the current fiscal year, and on June 30 there1;1.fter he shall publish a statement showing the number of aliens of the various nationalities who may be admitted during the ensuing fiscal year. He shall also publish monthly statements during the time this Act remains in force showing the number of aliens of each nationality already admitted during the then current fiscal year and the number who may be admitted under the provi­sions of this Act during the remainder of such year, but when 75 per centum of the maximum number of any nationality admissible during the fiscal year shall have been admitted such statements shall be issued weekly thereafter. All s~te­ments shall be made available for general publication and shall be mailed to all transportation companies bringing aliens to the United States who shall request the same and shall file with the Department of Labor the address to which such statements shall be sent. The Secretary of Labor shall also submit such statements to the Secretary of State, who shall transmit the information contained therein to the proper diplomatic and consular officials of the United States, which officials shall make the same available to persons in­tending to emigrate to the United States and to others who may apply. SEC. 4. That the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of the immi­gration laws. SEC. 5. That this Act shall take effect and be enforced 15 days after its enactment (except sections 1 and 3 and subdivisions (b) and ( c) of section 2, which shall take effect immediately upon the enactment of this Act), and shall con­tinue in force until June 30, 1922, and the number of aliens of any nationality who may be admitted during the remain­ing period of the current fiscal year, from the date when this Act becomes effective to June 30, shall be limited in propor­tion to the number admissible during the fiscal year 1922. THETHREEPERCENTLAW* All restrictions of immigration law, such as head tax, literacy test, etc., are continued in force by the terms of the emergency immigration bill, which has been approved by President Harding. The essential feature of the emer­gency act is to limit immigration from certain sections of the world until June 30, 1922, to 3 per cent of the number of persons of a given nationality already here based upon the census of 1910. The new act has no application to immigra­tion from countries on this hemisphere, after one year con­tinuous residence in such countries, nor to the Chinese, who are within the Asiatic barred zone, nor to the Japanese, · whose immigration is restricted by the so-called gentlemen's agreement between this government and the governmnt of Japan. It will be necessary for administration of the new law to revise the map of Europe, based upon results of the war, and to determine t.he number of persons from such countries ::il­ready in the United States, according to the census of 1910. Upon the figures thus obtained according to the boundary lines of Europe is to be based the 3 per cent of the national­ities that may be admitted. According to information before Congress, the new law will limit the immigration within the period to a maximum of 202,000 from Northwestern Europe and 153,000 outside that territory, or a total of 355,000. The greatest number will be received from the United Kingdom (England), or 77,000, and the maximum allowed from Germany will be 75,000. Other countries, according to the congressional re­ports, will be allowed as follows: Belgium, 1,482 ; Denmark, 5,449; France, 3,523; Netherlands, 3,624; Norway, 12,000; •Mark L. Goodwin in the DaUas News, May 30, 1921. Sweden, 20,000; Switzerland, 3,745; Austria-Hungary, 50,­000; Bulgaria, 345; Serbia, 139; Montenegro, 161 ; Greece, 3,000; Italy, 40,000; Portugal, 1,700; Roumania, 2,000; Rus­sia, 52,000; Spain, 663; Turkey in Eur9pe, 697; Turkey in Asia, 1,800. The foregoing figures are based upon 3 per cent of the number of such nationals already here. PRINCIPLES OF IMMIGRATION* THe writer is convinced that a study of the facts and con­ditions of assimilation on the frontier would furnish the surest guide to the principles upon which the alien, or im­migration, question must be settled. Those principles in outline are as follows : (1) The aliens must not be too numerous. (2) They must not be too unlike our own people. (3) They will have to be thoroughly intermingled with Americans. (4) They must be so hopefully situated as to feel the inner urge to become Americans. *Joseph Schafer in Schafer and Cleveland, Democracy in Recon,... struction, p. 16. AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION IMMIGRATION STANDARDS AFTER THE WAR* One of the knottiest problems which will have to be faced in the establishment of a world state or a league of nations will be the question of the movement of people. Under the national economy which has prevailed hitherto, every state has assumed its own right to determine what should be the constituents of its population so far as extrinsic contribu­tions were concerned-in other words, the right to control immigration-and few states, with the exception of Japan, have questioned the legal or moral right of other states to make such a determination. On the other hand, few mod­ern states have found it expedient to place limitations upon the movements of their own people within their own terri­tory. Whether the era of internationalism which is now dawn­ing results in the formation of a world state, or in a more loosely coordinated league or federation of self-determining units, in either· case there can be only two general alterna­tives as regards migrations. Either there will be a free right of passage over the entire territory included in the state domain, analogous to the present right of travel within a given country, or else restrictions must be placed by the central authority, or by the federated states in accordance with a common agreement and consent, with respect to boundaries broadly similar to those which now separate ex­isting nations. In the former case, there would be intro­duced the new principle of discrimination within a given jurisdiction; in the latter, the way would be left open to increditable bitterness, jealousy and dissension. Either so­lution is full of uncertainties and dangers. It is the purpose of this paper to show that, great as are the difficulties of migration control under a world govern­ *Henry Pratt Fairchild. Annals. of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 81 :73. January, 1929. ment, for the present the scientific and only safe course is to insist upon restrictions (so far as the United States, at least, is concerned) at least as rigorous as those which were in operation before the outbreak of the war. The demonstra­tion of such a proposition calls for a matter-of-fact, imper­sonal analysis which seems at first to ignore the claims of humanitarianism and universal brotherhood, and yet is as fully legitimate as if the subject under discussion were the transplantation of fruit trees, or the control of river cur­rents. .The ultimate goal of the present convulsi'on, the military phases of which have happily terminated, and the political and social phases of which have just begun, is the estab­lishment of universal democracy. Democracy is composed of various elements, and is difficult of definition or descrip­tion. But of its material e1ements there is no better em.: bodiment and criterion than the standard of living of the common people. Where the standards of living of the peo­ple is high, relative to the general producing power of the territory, there democracy flourishes, by whatever name the · government may be called. Where the masses live on a low plane of comfort, democracy languishes and dies, however great may be the tabulated wealth of that nation. Speak­ing of the world at large, if a higher standard does not result for the great bulk of mankind, all this blood will have been shed largely in vain. If there should result a general lowering of the standard over the entire globe it would be an unspeakable calamity, dwarfing all the untold horrors and losses of the conflict itself. For the remainder of this discussion, let us lay to one side all question of the inferiority and superiority of racial stocks, and think only of the tangible values of material comfort and spiritual welfare, about which there can hardly be ~ difference of opinion. What is the obligation of the United States with reference to maintaining, and if possible raising, the standard of living of the great masses of mankind, 'of whatever race or affiliation? The naive answer to this question might easily be that our duty. is to share our blessings as liberally and impar­tially as may be with all those who care to participate in them, all the more so, since our losses in defense of democ­racy have been so trivial in comparison with those of our gallant Allies who have borne the burden of the con­flict. If there were, before the war, hosts of conscientious, intelligent people who were ready to throw our doors wide open to "the downtrodden and oppressed of every land," there will be more now who will conceive it as the acme of national selfishness if we refuse asylum to the would-be refugees who will seek to escape the drudgery and hard­ships of the reconstruction period in Europe. Let us set down certain basic considerations bearing upon the question, with reference to which there will be general agreement and which will clarify the more dubious steps of the argument. In the first place, there is little doubt that before the war the people of the United States enjoyed a higher standard of living than any other considerable na­tion. This was ours, not because of any special merit of our own, but because of the peculiarly fortunate conjunction of land, climate and historical development which has given us an unparalleled command over the sources of wealth. Our standard is rather in the nature of a free gift than an achievement. In the second place, it will hardly be denied that if the spirit of universal brotherhood is to dominate the world, those of us who have been fortunate enough to have our Jot cast in this bountiful land must not seek to monopolize these blessings entirely for ourselves, just be­cause we happen to be now in possession of them, or because the nation of which we are the constituent parts has "owned" them for a century and a half. Surely the modern thing, the altruistic thing, the post-magnum-bellum thing to do is to share these benefits as unreservedly as possible, particu­larly with those suffering peoples with whom we have been so closely associated during a year and a half of war. The crucial question is whether or not we can best share them by allowing the individual representatives of those and other peoples free access to the land from w:ijich we draw our wealth and power. . No space need be devoted to a portrayal of the dire con­ditions which would result if large contingents of foreign labor should be admitted to this country within two or three years from the present date. It is painfully obvious that we shall have all that we can do to handle the problems of demobilization of our own army, and readjustment of our industrial situation, without serious injury to our standards of wages and working conditions. Such an immigration as was normal during a busy year before the war would now be an intolerably complicating factor. Probably this will be prevented without any direct action by the use of ship­ping for other purposes, and other contributory forces. But if it should transpire that the current of immigration labor began to flow once more while our army was still being demobilized, such a current should certainly be checked by effective means, however drastic. The larger problem, however, has to do with the effects which may be expected to follow the resumption of immigration when peace condi­tions are measurably restored. Modern immigration, as is recognized by all authorities, is largely an economic phenomenon, that is, it represents a search for a higher standard of living. Almost without ex­ception, the countries which furnish large bodies of immi­grants to the United States have a standard lower than ours; or at least the classes which emigrate have a lower standard than similar classes in this country. More than that, our general standard is so much higher than that of most foreign countries that our lowest economic classes have a standard above that of much higher classes in other lands. Immi­gration, therefore, represents the introduction of lower standards into a country of higher standards. The immigration of foreign labor to the United States tends to lower the standard of living of our working classes. It numerically increases the supply of workers bidding for employment and therefore tends to lower the prevailing wage or at best prevents it from rising. This is a sufficiently serious influence, but if the immigrants were habituated to the same standard as the natives, so that the effect was exclusively numerical, the result would not be necessarily' calamitous, especially in times of expanding industry when immigrants come most freely. Immigri:ition, however, has an influence much more :powerful and much, much more disastrous, that is directly connected with the standard of livmg itself. The introduction of a relatively small contingent of for­eign labor into an industrial country may have a depressing effect upon the standard of living of the working people in that country out of all proportion to the numbers involved, provided that the immigrants are accustomed to a definitely lower standard than the natives. The process may be schematically descr1bed as follows: Suppose that there is in the United States an industrial town centering about one great plant which is the economic backbone of the com­munity. Suppose that this plant employs 10,000 people, the bulk of the wage-earners of the town. These workers are reasonably efficient, and receive wages sufficient to enable them to maintain their families in a fair degree of comfort. Say that the average daily wage runs about $3.00. Into this town there comes some morning a group of 500 raw immigrants in charge of a labor importer. These foreigners. are men not materially inferior in economic productiveness to the natives of the town. But they have previously lived in a country where the conditions of existence are so much inferior that their customary wage is the equivalent of only $1.50 of American money. To receive a wag-e of $2~00 a day would therefore enable them to raise their standard very decidedly, and they will snatch at the chance to work for such a wage. Immediately upon their arrival, the labor ·agent goes to the superintendent of the plant and offers him 500 laborers at $2.00 apiece. The superintendent looks them over, becomes convinced that they can do the work approxi­mately as well as his present workers and agrees to take them on. He then calls in his foremen, and together they select the 500 least efficient of the $3.00 men, who are there­upon informed that they are to be discharged. Upon learn­ing the reason, they protest that they have their homes and families in the town, they do not know where else to find em­ployment, and rather than lose their jobs altogether they accept the wage o:ftered to the foreigners. With a show of generosity, the superintendent offers to pay them $2.25 a day, and they go back to their places. In the meantime the group of foreigners are still available. Therefore the next most inefficient group of 500 employes is selected, and the process repeated, with the same result. So it goes on, until eventually every one of the 10,000 original workers has had his pay reduced by fifty or seventy-five cents. At the same time, not one of the immigrants has been employed, and in the evening the group departs to try its luck elsewhere. It goes without saying that in the complicated life of the nation at large the process does not go on so simply and me­chanically as this. But exactly this principle is at work, however much its operation may be masked by contributory forces. There can b~ no doubt that the competition of laborers habituated to a lower standard is the most perni-. cious and insidious force which can attack the standard of living of the workers of a modern industrial democracy. It has been well stated that there is a Gresham's law in the industrial world, whereby the poorer labor drives out the better, and the lower standard eliminates the higher. There can be no question that free immigration of foreign labor thoroughly undermines the standards of our common people. The process was already beginning to tell disas­trously before the war, and would be immeasurably aug­mented if immigration should again go unchecked, now that there will be so much added incentive for the tax-burdened natives of European countries to seek this land. Tf1e worst of the whole matter is that there is no limit to t1ie pr<;>cess. The drawing off of a sufficient number of laborers from such countries as India and China to destroy our own standard would produce no appreciable benefit in those countries, for the simple reason that it would not reduce the pressure of population there, and therefore could not raise their standard. A million immigrants a year perpetually could easily be drawn from China with­out decreasing its population in the least. The logical outcome of free immigration of workingmen under mod­ern conditions of competitive bargaining for labor, as General Walker pointed out long ago, is the reduction of the standard of living of all countries to one dead level, and that the level of the originally most degraded and backward of them all. rt needs no argument to show that the United States is not called upon to sacrifice her standards for the sake of mere unreasoning sentimentality. She would be most re­creant to her trust if she did so. Standards of living once lost can hardly be regained. It is our duty as a nation, our duty to humanity in the highest sense of the word, to protect our standard, in order that it may serve as a model and goal for the striving democracies in other lands, and that we ourselves may be in a position to help those democracies to climb somewhere near to the plane of their ideals. The question of immigration after the war is often stated as the problem of whether we need to protect our­selves against the dumping of cripples and incompetents from foreign source. The real question is, how we may protect ourselves from the able-bodied workers of less fortunate lands. Paradoxical as it may seem, we have much less to fear from the man who can not earn his living than from the man who can. This is a rich coun­try, and we could well afford to support for the rest of their lives thousands of the physical wrecks of war from England, France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Russia and Ser­bia. It would be but a slight recognition of our debt to those countries who have paid so much dearer for the liberty of the world than we have if our military hos­pitals and cantonments were gradually transformed into homes for as many disabled victims as our Allies chose to send (under proper government supervision to prevent abuse), while we taxed ourselves liberally for their lifelong support and comfort. This would cost us nothing but money. · But to permit the free transference of the labor from those countries to this under conditions which meant the disrup­tion of our own standards would cost us our very life, and worst of all, would cost us our ability to be of real and per­manent help to less fortunate lands. The foregoing discussion rests upon the assumption that . in general the present economic system will prevail-pri­vate ownership of capital, competitive wage-bargaining, in­dividual responsibility for family living conditions, etc. What might happen under conditions of socialism, or a world-wide minimum wage is merely matter for conjecture -except that it is hard to conceive of any minimum wage which would not speedily break down under conditions of free immigration. IMMIGRATION AND THE WORLD WAR* ' The World War verified at least two things about ilnmi­gration which had been previously asserted by experts, but doubted or ignored by the public. The latter knows very little about anthropology or. the history of various past mi­grations; and its opinions are largely influenced by its l9cal experience and by the articles and news items in the news­papers, most of which are inspired by various interests, and which give usually a narrow immediate rather than a long range point of view. The first point proved by the war was that the immigra­tion of a million aliens a :,rear is not necessary to sustain the industries of this country. During the war, there was prac­tically no immigration, anji at the same time millions of men were taken out of industry for the army and navy. It is true that production in many lines was curtailed ; but .in many others it was vastly extended. It is also true that to attract workers to the expanding trades money wages, and in some cases real wages, were sharply advanced. But, in the long run, high wages are a good thing for a country if a fair day's work is given . for them. If there had been a *Prescott F . Hall in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, January, 1921. Publication No. 1473. gJ,'eat general shortage of labor as a result of the war there would not even now be requests to the Division of Distribu­tion of the Bureau of Immigration to stop sending aliens into various localities. Undoubtedly there was, for a time, a shortage of workers in certain places and certain indus­tries. The newspaper reports of this were, however, un­doubtedly exaggerated. We must remember that the ideal conaition, from the point of view of some employers of cheap labor, is to have two men waiting for every job, in order to keep down wages. Such a condition results in an im­mense amount of unemployment and misery, and shows that labor which is economically cheap for the employer is seldom socially cheap for the community. The second'point demonstrated by the war, and the most important one, was in regard to assimilation. A great deal ·of nonsense had been preached and swallowed whole by the people, to the effect that environment is all important and heredity of little account, in considering the effects of im­migration. That falsest of all shibboleths" the melting­pot" had hypnotized statesmen and legislators. That in­version of Darwin's real teaching, which pronounced that survival indicated fitness for things other than mere sur­vival, had permeated the public mind and made it careless 'Of current changes and of the future. Down to 1860, as Eliot Norton pointed out in The Annals, the United States had begun to develop a definite national eharacter based on well-known Nordic traits. The colonial population had consisted of picked specimens of Nordic races. The Irish immigration of 1846 contributed further Nordic strains; and, what is important to observe, the Ger­lnan emigration of 1848 was also Nordic, whereas the more recent German immigrants are largely Alpine. Things having gone so well down to 1860, the policy of the "open -door" became fixed in spite of the warnings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin as to the danger of unguarded gates. From 1860 and especially after 1880, the whole: situation changed. In 1914, nearly three-quarters of all alien immi­grants were Alpine, Mediterranean or Asiatic and only one­quarter Nordic. In other words, 863,000 of those coming in that year were from races with a different historic back­ground, different customs and different ideals. This change had been proceeding with increasing intensity for forty years. Now the temperamental optimist, the social worker and the average citizen had insisted that in the new enviromnrnt of America the alien rapidly changed into a "good Ameri.., can." When the evidence did not entirely bear this out; some said that although the alien might be assimilating us instead of our assimilating him, nevertheless this was a good thing, and that the mixture of conflicting types was a benefit. The World War completely knocked out these cheerful' conclusions by revealing that the superficial changes consti­tuting "Americanization" were entirely inadequate to affect the hereditary tendencies of generations; and that a mixture of conflicting types and opinions seriously affected the ca­pacity of the nation to think and to act as a unit. Take first the hostile attitude of many of the immigrants from the Central Powers. Probably a large majority of those of German descent, especially of those descended from Germans coming before 1870, were loyal. But the term "German" as used in statistical publications is quite am­biguous. Dr. W. S. Sadler has pointed out that in 160~ Germany was almost entirely Nordic. Then, owing to the Thirty Years' War and other wars, the Nordic element was largely killed off and its place taken by Slavic Alpines, so that in 1914, Germany was 90 per cent Alpine and only 10 per cent Nordic. This, in his opinion, accounts largely for the fact that the World War was fought on the German side so much more lawlessly and cruelly than was the War of 1870. The characteristics of the Nordic race are individual initiative, love of personal liberty, and a certain chivalry and sportsmanship. The Alpine and Mediterranean races on the other hand tend to centralization of authority, reliance upon the state, and in war to subservience and absence of moral quality. Another element, the Semitic, is largely interna­tional or racial in its interests. The resistance to the draft law, whether from cowardice, indifference or conscientious objection revealed the differ­ence in attitude between the earlier and the later immigra­tion, and this again showed that apparent "Americaniza­tion" was built in many cases upon quicksand. The .unani­mous opinion of American and French observers was to the effect that those American regiments composed .~hiefly of Nordic stock or led by Nordic officers were by far the most valuable. It is estimated that at the present time from 40 to 55 per cent of our population are still Nordic. It is also stated that at least ten million aliens of non-Nordic races are anx­ious to come here at once. If this should be kept up for the next twenty years, it is easy to see that anywhere from twenty to forty millions or more of non-Nordic races might come, utterly changing the balance of race-stocks in this country. And, as everything depends upon the people who are here to do things, especially under universal suffrage, this would mean at the worst a profou~d change in our in­stitutions and ideals, and at the best an ineffectiveness born of the mixture of diverse elements. And still we do not learn the lesson. We forget that Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Chaldea. Phoenicia and Carthage, perished from the peaceful invasion of alien races. Still we are led away from facing matters squarely by .the red herrings of distribution of aliens and "Americanization." Neither distribution nor Americanization is possible while one or two millions of alien types are being poured into the country. I do rn?t say that the aims and efforts of those engaged in the Americanization movement are wrong, but I maintain that the energy of many good meri and a vast amount of money are being diverted from the only path by which success can be attained. I have no doubt also-that they are encouraged by those who wish immigration left practically unrestricted. It has always been so in the past. Any important change in habits of thought anlogy. How much has "Americanization" changed the revolu­tionary communists in our large cities? How many more agitators are being allowed to come in today to make trouble · in the future? They can not be detected by ordinary meth­ods of inspection. While immigration was at a low ebb and patriotic fervor was at its heigbt during the war, there was a splendid chance to pass a stringent immigration law, even over a probable veto. We did nothing, as usual. It took twenty-six years to get the reading test intO the law, although it is the most valuable restrictive clause we have. We are dallying with our future safety just at the time when, as Lothrop Stoddard so clearly shows, there is a probability that the brown and yellow races of Asia will soon resume that western move.i ment'which was checked for a time ·by Charemagne. Bol­shevism is essentially such a movement of oriental Tartar tribes led by Asiastic Semites against Nordic burgeoisie. Japan is arming. Before the war she was poor; now she is rich. The next big war may be in the Pacific. To prepare for that, indeed merely to maintain our present development, we need to become and to remain a strong, self-reliant, united country, with the only unity that counts, viz., that of race. THE NEED FOR CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION* There remains for consideration one source of over-supply which Malthus had no need to consider in that regard, but *Maciver, R. M., Labor in the Changing World, pp. 192-194. which has caused much doubt and questioning among our­selves. I refer of course to immigration. It is a subject beset by unusual difficulties. Here prejudice and interest combine and cross most subtly and curiously to warp our judgments, and the most opposite considerations unite the advocates of restriction and of the open door. If we con­fine ourselves, however, to the direct question of the effect of immigration on labor, the main factors of the situation seem fairly clear. I believe that a carefully restrictive control of immigra­tion is absolutely necessary to the establishment of the kind of industrial order already suggested. Not because there is no room or fruitful work in America for all the myriads who annually (in normal times) pass through its gates. The · vast resources of this continent could sustain, given scientific cultivation of the land, and an economic distribution of the people, we know not how many times its present population. And not because the newcomers, from Europe at any rate, can not be assimilated into American life and raised-where raising is in question-to American standards. The re.:. sponse to the American environment of the children of the children of the foreign born, even of those whom we remissly suffer to be insulated in racial colonies, is a most remarkable phenomenon. But the true reason for restrictive control is an economic one. The Report of the Immigration Commis­sion provides much evidence to show that the low-skilled occupations into which the mass of immigrants enter are considerably overstocked. Too cheap labor is, like all cheap things, very expensive in the long run. Our society as a whole, as well as those directly concerned, suffers on account of the low standards, the overcrowding and the infection, the disorganization and the exploitation, which are the other siae of too cheap labor. These evils can not be avoided so long as unskilled myriads are allowed to flood the labor market. No standards can be maintained, no order can be built up in face of the competition of the immigrant­recruited reserves of unemployed. This indisputable fact is the true ground for restriction. NEGATIVE DISCUSSION A CONSTRUCTIVE IMMIGRATION POLICY* Under the stress of multifarious post-war problems the American people have failed to give due consideration to one of the most vital of all these problems, namely, immigra­tion. But the time has come when a sane and sound national policy must be formulated; when we must cease to think of immigration from the viewpoint of expediency and emer­gency, and think about it from a broad, fundamental stand­point. We can not arrive at a real solution of this very im­portant problem if we permit the exigencies and fears of the present to exclude adequate contemplation of its tre­mendous potentialities for political and economic weal or woe to this country. The World_War woke some of our dreamers from their smug delusion of America's "splendid isolation" and estab­lished conclusively that all the nations of the world are economically interdependent. We should not forget that the causes of that war sprang largely from economic sources and ambitions. We should also remember that there can be no permanent peace until there is stabilization of economic conditions throughout the world. Consequently, the prob-. lem of immigration, which is chiefly an economic problem, must be considered in its true significance as a paramount international issue. It must be removed from the handi­caps and dangers of class legislation and partisan politics, and constructively solved by international economic states­manship. In brief, we must devise a policy which concerns itself not merely with provisions for admission, rejection and deportation of immigrants, but also with the economic law of supply and demand and with adequate arrangements for distribution and proper assimilation. *An address by Francis H. Sisson, Vice-President, Guaranty Trust . Company of New York, at Columbia University, New York City, Wednesday, February 16, 1921. .Ii has wisely been observed that what America needs is not more technical regulations, not the extension of hard­ships, not the erection of barriers based on temporary ex­pedients, but a racial inventory and a formulation of poli­cies, with such general powers as will enabie the government to meet any situation as it arises. We need above all "a policy of assimilation which will cover the reception, distri­bution, and adjustment of immigrants after arrival so we can really ascertain if we have assimilated the immigrants who have entered, with a view to determining how many we may wisely admit." THE MYTHICAL FLOOD We should guard against hasty and ill-considered action inspired by unjustified fears of an immigrant inunadition. It is imperative that we examine the facts in the case and avoid loose thinking and unsound conclusions. We have heard, for instance, that ten million people plan to come to the United States as soon as possible. We have read that eight million want to come from Germany alone. In an­ otfier statement it has been announced that five million in Italy would seek admittance here; still another has declared that a million plan to leave Poland for the United States, and smaller groups of prospective immigrants are reported from Spain, Austria, Syria, Sweden, and elsewhere. I have no sympathy with the hyterical fear expressed by many that this country is about to be invaded by hordes of radicals who would destroy our institutions, and by the victims of disease who would undermine our health. Surely such extremes are easily subject to regulation, and if there be threats of such invasions the fault would lie in govern­ ment administration and not in any necessity of the situa­ tion. I should regard it quite as supposeable that conserva­ tive and intelligent Europeans would seek to come to this country as a refuge from Bolshevism as to believe that only the Bolshevists could be attracted to us, and that the healthy and industrious may desire to come here to seek a proper reward for their efforts, out of the atmosphere of a sic'lc · and ailing homeland in which their fullest acheivement would be impossible. Before we becqme unduly alarmed and close the gates entirely, let us consider that there are transportation facili­ties for the arrival of only one million immigrants a year, and arrivals since the armistice do not bear out the prophecy of any tidal wave of immigration. The total net gain in population by immigration through the Port of New York in 1920 was about 266,000, or about 50 per cent of the yearly average for the five-year period preceding the war. Fur­thermore, it may be well to bear in mind that prior to the war we received on an average about one million immigrants a year, but during the five-year period of the war we received a total of only 1,880,000. This represents a loss to us of 3,500,000 immigrants who would, in all probability, have come to our shores had there been no World War. And, it is estimated by authorities, three-fifths of them would have been producers. THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION OF EUROPE Statistics show that during the last thirty years the dwind­ling of immigration has been chiefly from the countries where economic stabilization was occurring most rapidly, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Scandinavia. And there is good reason to believe that immigration to the United States will decrease as the present economic stabili­zation of Europe proceeds. Already, in fact, there are evi­dences of this. The stabilization process is now beginning in those countries which of recent years have supplied most of our unskilled laborers-Czechoslovaks, Jugoslavs, Poles, Finns, and Armenians. A comparison of 1912-1913 arrivals and-departures with those of 1918-19-20 show that only one Bohemian is coming now, whereas forty-two arrived before the war; that three times as many Slovaks as arrive are going home; that only one J ugoslav to about 170 before the war is arriving; that seven times as many Poles are going home as are arriving; that, whereas before the war one out of every four Finnish arrivals returned to their native land, now fourteen out of fifteen do so; that Lithuanians have lessened their arrivals from tens of thousands to hundreds, and that Armenians are coming at one-sixth of their pre­war rate. There is also less incentive now than in the past for many foreigners to seek here an asylum from religious persecu­tion and political oppression. Political freedom has come in varying degree to Armenia, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, .Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland and Esthonia; religious freedom has been guaranteed to minorities by the Peace Treaty, and freedom to Jews in Rumania and Greece has caused Jewish departures from those countries to dwindle to a minimum. The adoption of liberal constitutions by newly-established republics tends to eliminate political op­ pression as a cause of emigration. While it is true, ·of course, that economic conditions in Europe at present are such as to inspire large numbers of the continent's inhabitants to emigrate, it must be remem­bered that Western Europe is steadily rehabilitating itself, ,as is proved by the gradual but pronounced decrease in its unfavorable balance of trade with this and other countries. As a result of the colossal sacrifice of life during the war, Europe as a whole sorely needs its man-power and will continue to need it during the years of reconstruction that lies ahead. THE CHECK AND CONTROL OF EMIGRATION In this connection, it is significant that the Swedes, Finns, -and Germans have already opened large areas of land at home for colonization purposes, and that the military laws ·of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Greece deny passports to all -0f military age, while Roumania threatens loss of citizenship to all of its nationals who emigrate to the United States, and requires them to promise that they will never return to their native land. There is agitation in Czechoslovakia to make impossible the activity of agents who seek to cause mass emi"gration, while a law has just been enacbd there pro­hibiting men twenty-two years of age to pass over the bound­aries. Germany has established a Department of Immigra­tion and Emigration to undertake the task of bringing her colonists back to the Fatherland. Great Britain is seeking to direct emigration to the Dominions of the British Empire where such emigrants would retain their British citizenship. Emigration to the United States and South America is dis-· couraged. A semi-official pronouncement in behalf of Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League protests against the increasing emigration of young Irishmen, and states that if the appeal to stay in Ireland is disregarded other means will be taken to prevent emigration. The general emigration from Spain during the last year has called forth may protests and warn­ings in that country. Belgium is not only trying to hold her people at home but is also seeking the return of all emi­grant Belgians to help build up the heroic little kingdom. In Greece, the government will permit the emigration of only those who have fulfilled their military obligations and re­serves the right to prohibit or limit all emigration. Italy has entered into labor treaties with France and Brazil to control the emigration of Italians to those countries. And as to the flow of Italian immigrants into this coun­try, it may be interesting to note that Italy at present faces a great dearth of raw materials, while she possesses an abundance of man-power. She hopes to distribute this sur­plus in the labor markets of the world in such a way as to guarantee her coal and raw products for her industry. Already the experiment has been tried on a small scale. Several thousand Italians were sent into France on an agreement between the Italian and French Governments that for every man sent to France so many tons of coal would be delivered yearly to Italy. Now Italy hopes to make this a world-wide plan for her emigration. But the scheme-and those who fear too large an influx of Italians here should take special heed of this-will in­ clude an attempt to establish Italian colonies which will retain all their national features and not become assimilated in the new countries. Italian schools and churches were demanded for the men who went to France, and they will be demanded elsewhere, if the proposed legislation is adopted in Italy. The Italian Minister of Commerce and Industry, in discussing this phase of the subject, declared that Italian emigrants should live "in continual contact with the mother country, ,for not only should they not forget Italy but they should be proud to remain Italians." The consequen­ces of such a scheme of colonization so far as the United States is concerned is foreseen, however, by the Italian Socialists, whose views are recommended for the considera­tion of those I have referred to as being alarmed at the prospects of an Italian immigrant invasion. In addition to opposing this attempt to control immigration on the ground that the Government does not have the right to barter men for goods and that the plan would make Italian laborers practically slaves in the countries to which they are sent, as well as deny them a choice of homes, the Italian Socialists quite rightly express the belief that such legis­lation would close .the United States to Italian emigrants, because the United States will not accept immigrants who enter with the intention of remaining virtual nations of the country from which they come. The Italian Federation of Labor, meanwhile, is protest­ing that the present exodus of Italians to America will hamper the development of Italian industry and agriculture removing, as it does, men who could and should take their part in the reconstruction of Northern Italy. Hope is also expressed in Italy that the new land laws and the occu­pation of the landed estates by peasants will serve as a check to emigration. THE FEAR OF OUR FOREFATHERS It is not without bearing upon the existing state of agi­tation against immigration to recall that so farsighted and wise a statesman as Benjamin Franklin declared in 1753 that the immigrants then coming to America were "gener­ally most stupid" and that "it is almost impossible to re­move any prejudice they entertain-they have newspapers and books in their own language-and, in short, they will soon outnumber us." In the annual report of 1819 of the Society for the Pre­vention of Pauperism in the City of New York we find the following passage: "Through this inlet (of immigration at the Port of New York) pauperism threatens us with the most overwhelming consequences. The present state ~of Europe (referring to the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars) contributes in a thousand ways to foster immigra­tion to the United States-and an almost unbelievable population beyond the ocean is without ·employment. This country is the asylum of vas't numbers of these needy people." Samuel Morse, the inventor of telegraphy, wrote in 1835 a pamphlet enl:itled, "Imminent Dangers to the Institutions of the United States through Foreign Immigration," and like all radical restrictionists, who are ever praising the form of immigration that was and condemning the present immigration, states: "Then our accessions of immigrants were real accessions of strength from the ranks of the learned and the good, from mechanics and intelligent hus­bandmen. Now immigration is the accession of weakness from the ignorant and the vicious or the slaves in Ireland and Germany, or the outcast tenants of the poorhouses and prisons of Europe." The report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor for the year 1869-70 declared that "the poor and the unproductive classes of Europe by hundreds of thousands have been and are now coming to our shores with fixed habits and modes of life. These, who now constitute mainly the army of our unskilled laborers, are ignorant, degraded, pitifully so." I might continue indefinitely to cite similar alarms sounded in the past, but I believe these will suffice to make my point. And no comment is necessary, other than to call attention to a few material facts, namely, that the Unfted States today is the richest country not only in all the world but also in all history, with a national wealth estimated at three hundred billion dollars, and a national yearly income in excess of sixty billion dollars; that the combined resources of our banks, exclusive of Federal Re­serve Banks, aggregate more than fifty billion dollars and exceed those of all other banks of the world combined, that one-third of all the gold coin and bullion of the world is held in this country as reserve and underlies our credit structure which is unequalled in volume and strength. The United States produces 24 per cent of the world's wheat; 60 per cent of the world's cotton; 75 per cent of its corn; 27 per cent of its cattle; 25 per cent of its dairy products; 40 per cent of its iron and steel; 20 per cent of its gold; 40 per cent of its silver; 52 per cent of its coal; 60 per cent of .its copper; 66 per cent of its oil; 85 per cent of its auto­mobiles. In brief, we contribute one-quarter of the world's ..agricultural products; one-third of its manufactured goods, and more than one-third of its mineral products. We are today the second greatest creditor nation, with foreign peoples owing us in excess of twelve billion dollars. Wages and living conditions here are higher than those in any other country, And, finally, we have given mankind such revolutionary inventions as the steamboat, the cotton gin, · the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light, the sewing machine, the phonograph, the aeroplane, the submarine, and the moving picture-to mention only a few of the very great mechanical achievements of this nation, that even in Franklin's day was "endangered" by the number .of character of its immigrants. OUR NEED FOR IMMIGRANTS I believe that it is generally recognized and conceded that the United States would not and could not have been as ·fully developed and as powerful as it is today if it had not drawn so liberally upon the population of Europe as it has. We must, in fact, acknowledge our great economic debt to immigration. But I doubt if it is generally realized that immigrant workmen today mine three-quarters of our output of iron and coal; that they constitute the majority fo the laborers in our lumber camps; that they are used almost exclusively to lay our railroad tracks and build our roads and to keep them in repair; that in all forms of our construction activities they predominate, and because of the shortage of such workers the building of houses in this country is seriously · handicapped; that they bake one-half of our bread, refine one-half of our sugar, prepare four fifths of all our leather, make fifty per cent of our gloves, shoes and silks, and make ninety-five per cent of all our clothing, as well as constitute sixty per cent of all the employes of our packing houses. It is quite possible, in fact, that unless immigrant labor is obtainable in the proper quantity and quality when needed, some American industries may have to set up factories in countries where labor is available on a basis that will permit such industries to compete with those of rival nations, for certain of our industries are almost wholly dependent upon immigrant labor, as it is impossible for them to obtain an adequate supply of native-born laborers at any price. The first responsibility of American industry to itself and to the nation is to make sure that it has a sufficient supply of labor to maintain production with a fair margin of profit, and at the lowest possible price to the consumer. Our constant supply of labor from hereto­fore unfailing sources abroad has kept down our costs of production and increased our output of all kinds of goods. And production will be most affected if we unwisely seal the sources of immigration. Furthermore, this country-the richest of all ih natural resources-is under-developed and under-built. Hundreds of years will elapse before we will begin to exhaust our resources. And today it is conservatively estimated that we need two million homes in the United States, while the proposed plans for State and Federal highway construction call for the expenditure of a billion dollars. Our railroads urgently demand new construction and extension, as well as repairs, on a large scale. Despite the present temporary lull in industry and the consequent more or less wide-spread unemployment, there is a vast amount of work to be done and it cannot long be deferred. Reviewing the resources of our vast country many years ago, Lord Macauley estimated that not until our population had reached the figure of 20,000 per square mile would we reach the danger zone of sufficiency. Today our population averages 35 to the square mile. The State of Texas alone could absorb the entire population of Germany and France, and still not be so thickly populated as Italy. It is esti­mated that the Southern States could today accommodate an additional population of 250 million and still have not exhausted their supporting powers, so any danger of over­population is too far removed to warrant serious discus­sion. There is a further consideration which the situation compels, · and that is the economic problem of the world as a whole in its relation to our own. In many parts of the world consumption has overtaken production, and in order to add to the world's economic development, there -must be some redistribution of population. The world · needs the products of our land and we would be denying to the world its legitimate claim upon us if we closed our doors to its proper expansion. We must be international­minded in our outlook on this question and realize that no nation, as well as no individual, liveth unto itself alone. · So any spirit of rigid exclusion on our part would be both economically and socially wrong and in the long run we would help bear the penalty which such a policy would assure. FARM IMMIGRANTS ARE IN BIG DEMAND* Commissioner General Husband, of the immigration bureau, has received from banks, business firms; railroads, chambers of commerce and individuals all over the coun­try, offers to co-operate in the immigration service pro­posal to settle immigrants on small farms. ReprE)sentatives of the Labor, Interior and Agricultural *Stephen C. Mason, President of the National Association of Manu­facturers, in American Industries for February, 1919. *Newspaper clipping. Departments and the Farm Loan Board will meet soon to adopt more definite plans for co-ordination of government agencies to provide farm lands for immigrants, it was said today. Among the offers of aid received are letters from individuals in Louisiana, who want settlers, from a Pitts­burg railroad official, urging co-operation with railroads in the Central states, from an Italian savings bank offering to loan money to Italian immigrants with which to pur­chase land and from chambers of commerce, church organi­zations or others in Bradford, Fla., ; the Delta Valley in Utah; Louisville, Ky.; Terre Haute, Ind.; Slater, Mo.; Petersburg, Va.; Tompkinsville, Ky.; the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; the Cumberland plateau of North Dakota, and Charleston, S. C. asked that settlers be sent to their locali­ties. The city of Bristol, Va., and the chamber of commerce of the state of Maine offered land to be used for settle­ment. THE PROPOSAL TO SUSPEND IMMIGRATION* Manufacturers throughout the United States believe that the Burnett Bill, now pending in the House of Represen­tatives, to prohibit immigration from any but contiguous lands for a period of four years, is neither wise nor in ac­cord with the principles of our Government. They fur­ther believe such action will hamper the future expansion of industry and agricult,ural development in many sections. After the present period of uncertainty in business passes over, our manufacturing leaders believe the domestic sup­ply of labor will not be adequate to meet our needs. The bill is a direct confession of our national failure intelligently to arrange for proper supervision and distri­bution of arriving immigrants. A much better solution of the matter would be the adoption of suitably restrictive legislation with immigrant distribution machinery on the new lines of Canada. *Styles C. Mason, President of the N::.tional Association of Manu­facturers, in American Industries for February, 1919. We have millions of acres of undeveloped lands in this country to which few, if any, of our returning 2,000,000 soldiers will emigrate. Why refuse admission to those immigrants from agricultural lands in Europe with these lands of our own still lying in disuse and our farmers badly in need of labor and the country in need of increased farm products? Furthermore, there are many industrial centers where the supply of unskilled labor is far below the de­mand, even now. To shut off practically every avenue for new labor forces for the next four years is not squarely meeting an import­ant problem of readjustment. It is creating possibly more grievous problems and conditions then those which it is sought to correct. We are weak, indeed, if, on the pretext of preventing the importation of one of Europe's war ag­gravated social diseases, known as rampant Bolshevism, the only remedy we can adopt is to prohibit the continued arrival of those still remaining healthy and vital forces of European labor which may come to our shores to es­cape the very social conditions in their own land which we, ourselves dread. The Burnett Bill is contrary to and in conflict with the avowed purpose of President Wilson to "make the world safe for democracy," through the medium of the League of Nations. Furthermore, it directly seeks to create a prohibitive labor tariff wall, so that while our Government leaders are proclaiming our ideals of "Democracy," an autocracy of labor may quietly be built up within our do­main. So far as that portion of our free institutions and form of government might apply to the immigrant, the Burnett Bill might logically contain the following cause as to pur­pose: "to extinguish the light in the hand of the God­dess of Liberty at the entrance to New York harbor for four years."