« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
ditions were such that it was difficult to get enumerators, and the enumerators, after they did accept the appointment, would not go into the districts to see the farmers, so we advanced the date of the agricultural census to November, in certain localities, and then brought it along properly, covering, in each case, the calendar year 1924.
When I took this matter up with Secretary Jardine and Secretary Hoover, I explained the situation to them as nearly as I could and said that I drafted the original law fixing November 1 as the census of Agriculture--you will find it in your draft-and April 1 as the census of population, because there seemed to be a great opposition to taking the enumeration of the population out of the even 10-year period.
Mr. MOORMAN. You want to take them both together now?
Mr. STEUART. Wait a minute. And that there was opposition to separating them, because the agricultural people thought that the enumerators were more apt to go and get a return from the farmer if he was compensated for the enumeration of the population at the same time. Therefore, I believe that it would be better to enumerate the population and the agriculture at the same time, and in view of our experience in the last census, I thought it was a mistake to try to do that work in the wintertime. And they said, “Very well; we believe that the fall of the year is the proper time to do it."
Mr. JOHNSON. If that is carried out, then your population census would be in November? Mrs. Kann. Of 1929.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; 1929. Mr. Johnson. It would be short, then, of the full 10 years, a little bit?
Mr. STEUART. Well, not so very much short. Not so much short as you think, Mr. Johnson, because we advanced it from April 15 to January 1 before.
Mr. Johnson. For the population?
Mr. STEUART. Yes; for the population. Now, we are only about two months out at the farthest.
Mr. Johnson. So it doesn't amount to anything?
Mr. STETART. It doesn't amount to anything, and when we fixed on January 1 and April 15 we did not have the shifting in population that we have now
Mr. JOHNSON. And you did not have as large a population. Mr. STEUART. We did not have as large a population. We have a larger population, and it is shifting more. A larger percentage of them are running around the country. They don't stay put. It is very difficult to enumerate people under such conditions. You know, in Turkey they have just finished a census, and in making the enumeration there they got out an edict that everybody had to stay in the house until they were enumerated, and there didn't any of them go out until they were enumerated. We couldn't do a thing like that here. We have to try to find them where they are and try to get each one to say where he lives, and it is a very difficult problem. Take Los Angeles, for example. I think the Government spent $50,000 in the 1920 census in getting the enumeration of Los Angeles on a correct basis.
The CHAIRMAN. What do you do with the Mexicans that come into southern California and other Southern States?
Mr. Johnson. There is something I would like to have the record show. I am sorry I haven't the book with me, but the difficulty in enumerating Mexicans is to enumerate the American born of Mexican ancestors.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but you have to count them as individuals in the country.
Mr. Johnson. You go into El Paso, and you will find, on the best estimates, that 65 per cent are Mexicans. You analyze that and find that 30 per cent of what they said were Mexicans are United States citizens with Mexican ancestry, so your figures go to pieces at once. That is one of the things I would like to have attention paid to. Of course the birthplace of the parents enters into that.
The CHAIRMAN. My inquiry was similar to Mr. Johnson's, in regard to what you did with those Mexicans who came over in swarms
Mrs. KAHN. That Mexican problem is much less in California than in some of the other States.
The CHAIRMAN. I didn't refer to California particularly on that score. Mr. STEUART. I wouldn't like to answer that question.
The CHAIRMAN. How would you enumerate those men? Would they be included in the population, in other words, if they were within the borders of the United States?
Mr. STEUART. If they came in here and are citizens, and if they are not citizens they would be enumerated as foreign.
The CHAIRMAN. Do they count in the population?
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to get at. As long as they are in here, no matter how they got here, or how long they have been here, or whether they are going to stay here, anyone who is found in the United States when the enumerator goes around is counted in the population of the United States? Mr. STEUART. Some place in the United States; yes.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The floating population that comes in in the summer months and goes back; that are here only two or three months? What about those ?
The CHAIRMAN. If they are here, they are counted. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Would they come within the population for the reapportionment, where there are thousands who flow in here and then go back?
Mrs. Kahn. If the census is taken in November, they won't be here.
The CHAIRMAN. Any person who is found within the United States when the enumerator comes around, as I understand it, is counted in the population of the United States. Not in the citizenship population, but in the current population of this country.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. And the reapportionment from which you are going to make up the number of Congressman, would that be accepted as the population in that? If they were only here two or three months and were going back to their own country again, would they be counted?
Mr. STEUART. I guess that is up to Congress.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. The visiting people that come in in the thousands will have to be taken in just the same as the population that is here only a month or two.
The CHAIRMAN. If they are found here, yes. They even take them in hotels.
Mr. STEUART. There are certain inquiries on the schedule; whether you are a citizen or not, whether you have taken out naturalization papers
Mr. FITZPATRICK. What I am trying to get at is that you find down in some of these Southern and Western States they are only there for a month or two and they are going to return. You get that information. Do you put them in the population?.
Mr. STEUART. Let me show you. If we enumerate the population of Miami, Fla., the people who claim Miami as their legal residence are the people who are enumerated in Miami. If there is a man in Miami who is a legal resident of Savannah, he is enumerated as of Savannah.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is not what I am getting at.
Mr. STEUART. If there is a person in Miami who is a citizen of Cuba, he is not enumerated in Miami. We give the population of Miami as the people who live in Miami. If there is a citizen of Mexico in Miami, or in El Paso, and he says, “I live over in Mexico," he is not enumerated in Miami or El Paso.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. But Mr. Fenn was saying
Mr. STEUART. I was trying to bring home to you that it is a very difficult thing, getting the people assigned to the place where they claim to have their legal residence.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. In New York, for instance, in the winter time there are thousands of people who come from Europe just on a vacation.
Mr. STEUART. They are not enumerated.
Mr. FITZGERALD. The chairman said that we take them even in the hotels.
Mr. STEUART. The residents of the hotels. Mr. JOHNSON. What does happen if you take a November count? The men who have been working out on the farms or in summer resorts will be back in the large cities, and they contend that is their residence. It probably is. That is where they are counted and that gives your city population a little in excess of what it truly is, and, at the same time, you may find a man working on a farm, out in Illinois, 75 miles from Chicago, and he will tell you his residence is Chicago, so that in a large count of the whole United States it always accentuates the city population, and that, in its turn, accentuates city membership in the House of Representatives.
Mr. STEUART. That may be the case, but those are the conditions that exist, and how can we overcome them? Mr. MOORMAN. Take it on April 1; that would overcome it.
Mr. LOZIER. I would like to inquire if there is any reason that has come to you from the Department of Commerce or the Department of Agriculture since these hearings were held, which has resulted in a change of the attitude of the Department of Commerce as to this date? The Department of Agriculture, through its representatives, opposed the date of April 1, but not a one of them was able to stand up under cross-examination and give a reason for the faith that was in him. Some of them even went to the extent of testifying that three-quarters of the animals slaughtered on the farm were slaughtered before December 1. Mr. Thurston will remember the testimony of Mr. Olsen to that effect.
Now, so far as I am concerned, I want to pass a bill that will give the Census Bureau carte blanche to take an accurate census, and give them all the money they want, and not tie their hands with reference to civil service, but I, for one, am not willing to allow the Department of Agriculture that has come here and fallen down and has failed to establish a reason in opposition to the date of April 1, allow them to go behind the scenes now, and by pulling the triggers, fix a date that the vast majority of this committee is opposed to. I will never vote to report out a bill that does not fix it in the spring of the year. You have just called attention to the fact that the agricultural classes, the men that work on farms in the spring and the summer, when their farm work is completed, go to the cities, they go to the mines, and they go to the factories, and they are enumerated there. You can't get a fair census of agriculture in October; you can't get a fair census in November, or you can't get a fair census of agriculture in December. The only time you can get a fair and just census of agriculture is in the spring, and so far as I am concerned, I am not willing to consent to undo what has been done, unless some reason is given for this change.
The representatives of the Department of Commerce agreed that April 1 was best for population, best for agriculture, and best for all the other activities of the Government, and now when these men came here and gave testimony that wouldn't stand up under crossexamination, they go back behind the scenes and bring influence to bear for this date change. I, for one, am opposed to it.
Mr. MOORMAN. What is your name?
Mr. MOORMAN. You held that same position while these hearings were going on, did you not?
The CHAIRMAN. He was over at the international conference.
Mr. MOORMAN. Had you communicated with any of these persons who have testified before this committee as to your convictions about this matter here? Mr. STEUART. Before that date? Mr. MOORMAN. Before that date. Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.
Mr. MOORMAN. Can you account for why they testified as they did if you, as their superior, had instructed them as to your convictions?
Mr. STEUART. I didn't instruct them, and so far as the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census is concerned I can answer the gentleman's question very effectively, I think. Are there any members of the Department of Commerce here? No; evidently
not. That date of April 1 was agreed to by Doctor Hill, who was my assistant in the census, and I asked the doctor how he came to agree to April 1. Now, as I remember his answer it was that there was on the part of the members of the committee a very decided opposition to bringing the enumeration out of the decennial period of 1930, and he was asked the question whether, considering all the circumstances and the enumeration of the population and the census of agriculture at the same time, he did not think that, on the whole, April 1, would be the best time, and he said, “I told them that I thought it would be the best time.” That was the reason why he answered April 1. Considering everything that had occurred before the committee, and considering all the testimony about it, he thought that April 1 would be the best date that could be agreed upon. I talked to Doctor Hill about it. I talked to him about it this morning and said, “Well, what is your opinion about it?” I am telling you frankly what our conversation was. He said, “I think that the fall of the year is the best to enumerate both, if you can get the committee to agree on it.” I haven't brought any pressure, as has been insinuated here, to bear on Doctor Hill.
Mr. LOZIER. No; I think the pressure has come from the Department of Agriculture, the people who could not stand up under crossexamination. I am standing by the Department of Commerce. I have absolute confidence in you, Doctor Steuart, and this committee has, and the country has, but I think the fly in the ointment has been the gentlemen from the Department of Agriculture who came here, the poor argument they were able to present, and the facts and figures which they gave. That was where the trouble was—when they were unable to stand up and defend the date they advocated, when they ignominiously failed, and when they made pretensions and claims that were absolutely ridiculous. Now, what I don't like, is for them to go behind this committee and go behind the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Agriculture and bring influence to bear upon them to have this date changed.
Mr. STEUART. I wouldn't like to say that exactly. This matter of date, of course, I took up with Mr. Hoover. The Secretary said, “I guess I had better write them a letter telling them what we think would be the best date." That letter you have there.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you read the last paragraph of this letterMr. STEUART. Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. I will, if you give me an opportunity. I have been trying to ask you a question for a long time. Mr. STEUART. He said, “Go and see Secretary Jardine”—
The CHAIRMAN. The letter speaks for itself. Now, I would like to ask a question. Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you think, sir, that this country would approve of a change in the taking of the census from the decennial year, the zero year, to the ninth year of population? Why not take it in 1927 or 1928?
Mr. STEUART. You could under the Constitution.
The CHAIRMAN. I know that, but what do you suppose the country would think of it? We have to think a little about that. You are familiar with all this census matter, and you know as I know, if you try to put through a census of the population in any year but the