No table was before tie Senate in which the quota each country would receive under the Reed amendment was computed. There is a table on page 5476. part 6. volume 65. CoNGREssI~xAL RECORD. showing what each country would receive under 2 per cent of 1890. 2 per cent of 1910. and under the " nationalorigin " method. but when you examine this table more closely you will find that this table as to the " nationalorigin " method Is based upon a total annual immigration of 300.000. while the Reed amendment provides for only 150.000. and it is very unfair to compare what each country would get -under 2 per cent of the 1890 census where the total immigration would amount to only 161.990 with the "nationalorigin" method based on 300.000. According to this table. Denmark would get 2.782 under the 2 per cent of 1890 method and 2.183 under the " nationalorigin " method. but when you reduce the annual immigration to 150.000 the quota for Denmark would be only onehalf of what is shown in this table. Take Germany: Under the quota of 1890 basis she would get 50.129. under the " nationalorigin " method as shown on this table. 44.035. but under the Reed amendment only about 22.000. Take the quota of Norway : Under the 1890 basis. 6.453 . under this table. 4.866 . but under the Reed amendment only onehalf. or 2.433. Thus Norway and Sweden would lose about twothirds of the quota under the 2 per cent of the 1.890 method. These tables did not give anything with reference to the Irish Free State. I think when you spoke in the Senate you had the total Immigration quota of 300.000. because I see when you take that basis. then there is not much difference between the quota under this nationalorigin clause and the law of 1890. but when we take 150.000 there is a great deal of difference . and I think you overlooked that. Senator REED. It cuts it In half.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration