Mr. Speaker. the conferees on the Immigration bill. taking: advantage of parliamentary technicalities and of previous rulings. have. without authority of the House. deliberately embodied provisions. firstly. that. have been rejected by the House. secondly. that were not considered by the House. thirdly. that were not in conference. and fourthly. have extended the time when the Japanese provision should go into effect provided for in the Senate as well as the House bill. namely. March 1. 1925. Though the report submitted on the part of the managers .of both Houses may be held not to be in violation ol former rulings. to my mind it violates the spirit and. intent of the rules of the House. However. being desirous to familiarize the Members of the House with at least the most. important changes that have been. agreed upon. I will not dwell whether the report Is in order or not. hut will briefly point out the differences between the bill as it passed. the House and the report before us. In the first place. as to what I consider important deviation from. the House bill is the adoption on the part of the managers of the socalled Reed nationalorigin scheme adopted by the Senate. but which. when presented on the floor of the House during the consideration of the immigration bill. was defeated by a large majority. This. the nationalorigin schemeandi that is the only way I can designate it--reads as follows: SEc. 11. (b) The annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1. 192T. and for each year thereafter. shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150.000 as the number of inhabitants In continental. United States in 1920. having that national origin (ascertained as hereinafter provided in this section) bears to the number. of inhabitants in continental United.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration