HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.45 o'clock a. m., Chairman Fenn, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. I think we can proceed. Doctor Steuart has come before us again and he has some suggestion or information he wishes to give to the committee. FURTHER STATEMENT OF W. M. STEUART Mr. STEUART. It may be that my statement in regard to the enumeration of the Mexican population that you referred to was a little misleading. The number of Mexicans coming into the United States was not as great at the Census of 1920 as it has been since, and what I said was with regard to the method of enumeration followed in 1920. That is, we tried to enumerate the population so as to give each locality the people who reside there, who vote there, who claim it as their place of residence. I referred to the population of Atlantic City which at times was very large, composed largely of people who go there for a short stay. They may be there in large numbers at the time of the enumeration, but they are not credited to Atlantic City. They are enumerated at the places from which they come. Now, if there were a number of Mexicans in El Paso, who said that they didn't live there, that they lived elsewhere and were citizens of some other community, they, under that rule, would be omitted from the population of El Paso, but the number of Mexicans that may possibly be found in those border places is so great that I think that for 1930 there should be some special instructions to the supervisors concerning them. That Mexican population is, of course, concentrated in considerable numbers in the border counties, but it also extends clear up through the States, and the number of Mexicans that will be found in other localities that are only there for a short period Mr. THURSTON. In the beet-sugar districts. Mr. STEUART. Is not as great as it is on the border. I looked that question up in the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration for 1927, and I would like to read this statement concerning it: The total Mexican immigration to the United States during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1927, was 80,639 immigrant aliens, or newcomers, for permanent residence in this country. Those, of course, would be enumerated as part of the population. And 13,873 nonimmigrants, aliens of the temporary class, either coming for a visit of less than a year or returning after a short absence from the United States. During the same period, 10,954 Mexican aliens were recorded as leaving the United States, practically all going to Mexico, 2,774 being of the emigrant class and 8,180 of the nonemigrant class. The net addition of this race to the alien population of the United States for the year just ended was 69,685. This is 15,237 more than for the fiscal year 1926 and 24,667 more than for the year 1925, but 32,530, or 31.8 per cent, less than the excess for the fiscal year 1924, the peak year for admission of Mexicans, a total of 105,787 aliens of this race having been admitted that year and only 3,572 departed. Concerning the 13,000 immigrants who came here for temporary residence, or any number that would be found as temporary residents, I think that there should be special instructions to the enumerators to be sure to get them all and make proper notation, so that proper disposition could be made of them. The trouble with that arrangement is that if we tell a Mexican that he will not be enumerated if a temporary resident he will claim he is only a temporary resident. That will be the tendency. He will say, "I live in Mexico; you don't have to enumerate me." We don't want to miss any that way. If they want to get out of being enumerated they will claim Mexico as a place of residence. Mr. THURSTON. Isn't it true that most of the shifting or roving population would be either in the Southwest, adjacent to the Mexican border, or in the large cities? Mr. STEUART. We think so. Mr. THURSTON. Shouldn't the same instructions be given to the enumerators in the large cities, to be careful to distinguish as between temporary residents and permanent residents? Mr. STEUART. Yes. Those are the general instructions I have reference to, but I have doubts as to applying these general instructions to the Mexican population, because I am afraid they will use it as an excuse for not being enumerated at all. Mr. THURSTON. But we are very anxious to know. Apparently, one who is not a permanent resident, either a citizen or one who shall become a citizen, shall not be enumerated, no matter where he may be found. Mr. STEUART. Yes. Our general instructions try to look after that situation. The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, you don't think it necessary to do that in the bill? Mr. STEUART. Oh, no. The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter for the schedule? Mr. STEUART. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I think your suggestion is very necessary, however, Mr. Thurston, in regard to the cities. Mr. THURSTON. The members of the committee well realize that the people intrusted with the performance of this duty will not be the highest type or the best educated in the community, and probably they will need those instructions. The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt of that. Mr. STEUART. There was another matter. I was asked to furnish certain information, and, as I remember it, it was the date of each census. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we had a little schedule here. Mr. STEUART. The population as enumerated at each census and the total cost of each census. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. STEUART. And the rate of pay of the enumerators at each census. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. STEUART. I have that statement now for each of the 14 censuses that we have had thus far. The population ranges from 3,100,000 in 1790 to 105,700,000 in 1920, and the cost increased from $44,377 in 1790 to $25,117,000 in 1920, and I imagine there will be a considerable increase for the next time. The CHAIRMAN. The bureau's estimate is about $35,000,000, isn't it? Mr. STEUART. With these additions to it I have added considerable. The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us have it. That is what they will ask us. ! Includes $248,000 expended on encumbered homes. * The estimates submitted to the Census Committee was $3,000,000. to meet the office expenses of the census of irrigation and drainage. The estimate submitted to the Census Committee was $3,288,000. to cover field expenses of the census of irrigation and drainage. The estimate submitted to the Census Committee was $1,000,000. to meet the office expenses of the census of mines and quarries. The estimate submitted to the Census Committee was $800,000. to cover field expenses of the census of mines and quarries. 15, 658,000 13, 658, 000 9, 610,000 1,600,000 + 1, 200, 000 1,609,000 1,587,000 2,250,000 2,250,000 36,993, 000 2,000,000 1,320.000 7 1,870,000 33, 493,000 39,993,000 36,493,000 927,000 1, 223, 000 22,748,000 2, 369,000 25, 117, 000 The increase of $210,000 was made The increase of $150,000 was made The increase of $200,000 was made The increase of $100,000 was made The estimate submitted to the Census Committee was $1,250.000. The increase of $1,000,000 will be necessary if detailed information is collected and tabulated concerning the distribution of farm products. The estimate submitted to the Census Committee was $1,800,000. The increase of $70,000 was made to cover the cost of printing of the census of irrigation and drainage and also mines and quarries. Mr. LozIER. I am very anxious that the bureau be not unduly limited as to funds. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, surely. Mr. LOZIER. If it is to be a very accurate and comprehensive census. The CHAIRMAN. That is what we want to get. Don't be afraid to give us figures, Doctor. Mr. MOORMAN. If there isn't any objection to it, I would like to have the doctor's estimate for the coming census put in right after the others. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Mr. MOORMAN. I think that would be better. Mr. STEUART. I have gone over each item as closely as I can and have here a statement giving an estimate based on forty million, and one at about thirty-six million, and then the cost of the census of 1920, which was twenty-five million. That statement I did not prepare to be inserted in the record, but if the chairman insists upon it being put there I will leave it, with the understanding that it is just a rough estimate. Mr. THURSTON. It might be mimeographed and handed to the members of the committee, if it is not put in the record. What would you say to that? Mr. STEUART. Well, you can do that. Either way you want it. Mr. LOZIER. There would be nothing embarrassing in including it, would there? Mr. STEUART. I don't think it would be embarrassing. Mr. LozIER. It is an estimate. Mr. STEUART. It is an estimate. It is made as carefully as I could make it with the information I had. Mr. THURSTON. It seems to me it would be entirely proper for this committee to adopt an independent resolution saying that it feels certain sums would be needed, so that they can be used by the bureau. The CHAIRMAN. That will go into the report. Mr. THURSTON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. This is an estimated cost, of course. We shall be asked that on the floor of the House anyway, and I think it ought to go in the report. How much was the figure? Mr. STEUART. I have here an estimate of about forty million, and one about thirty-six million. Mr. LozIER. Depending, of course, upon the thoroughness with which certain subjects are gone into. The CHAIRMAN. The requirements of the census as prescribed by the bill. Mr. THURSTON. The information there that is sought with relation to persons who are illiterate, would that be for the purpose that that information would go to the officials and, in turn, there would be an effort to place those persons in the literate class? Mr. STEUART. Numerous organizations want it. Mr. THURSTON. Wouldn't that be highly commendable service to render, so that these public or quasi public organizations can support a campaign to bring these people within the literate class? Mr. STEUART. They did it last time. They paid for it themselves. 85244 2821 Mr. THURSTON. Don't you feel that would be a service the Government should render in connection with any public-spirited citizens who wanted to promote that particular thing? Mr. STEUART. Yes. Mr. MOORMAN. I want to ask the doctor a question or two. I want to ask what he, as director, contemplates will be the benefits to agriculture of the added feature of distribution in this bill. Mr. STEUART. I hadn't given any consideration to the benefits that would result to agriculture from a census of distribution. The only factors that I did consider in that census of distribution was its scope, that included all commodities that were dealt in and that would, of course, include agricultural commodities, the number of people engaged in their distribution, wholesale and retail, just like it does every other commodity. Mr. MOORMAN. What I am asking of the gentleman who is charged with the responsibility of the procedure under the proposed bill is to definitely distinguish, if he pleases, and put into the record what he and his department, the Department of the Census, contemplates doing under the authority given in that bill that will be helpful to agriculture. Mr. STEUART. I was just saying that the census of distribution would cover every man dealing in a mercantile way with agricultural products, just like it covers every other commodity. I didn't distinguish in my estimates on what is to be the scope between any classes of commodities. But it is certain that that census like every other census covers every transaction in every commodity. Mr. MOORMAN. I will change my question then. Will the gentleman state any benefit or benefits that will be derived by those engaged in agriculture from the embodiment of this feature in the bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Just a minute. The inference is that if it is not beneficial to agriculture we don't want it? Mr. MOORMAN. By no means, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. If it is incidental to agriculture and all other Mr. MOORMAN. The gentleman can draw his own inferences, but he is not authorized from anything I have said, or any idea I have or any purpose, to draw such an inference. I am simply inquiring and attempting to find out what benefits are to be derived from it. I am in favor of it and not against it. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, then Mr. MOORMAN. No, sir. I will ask my own questions, if you please. I am asking for the benefits that will be derived by agriculture. Mr. JOHNSON. That leads to the inference that I was entitled to make and did make. Mr. STEUART. It is my impression it will be of benefit to agriculture as it is to every other producer to know the number of people dealing in his commodity, the quantity of that commodity that is sold in different communities and that is consumed in that community, the number of people engaged in the wholesale sale of that commodity and the number of people engaged in the retailing of that commodity to the ultimate consumer. Take, for example, potatoes. The quantity of potatoes that are sold by wholesale dealers in the city of Washington, the number of retail dealers in the city of Washington engaged in retailing potatoes-I am just giving this as an example. If the per capita consumption of potatoes is not as large |