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?

Mr. STEUART. Oh, yes.

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. It would be very unfair.

The CHAIRMAN. I guess we would have to make a new act.

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 under cross-examination and give a reason for the faith that was

up

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. STEUART. W. M. Steuart.

Mr. MOORMAN. And what is your title?

Mr. STEUART. Director of the Census.

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. Just let him answer, will you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORMAN. When did you come back from wherever you were? Mr. STEUART. The 14th of March.

Mr. MOORMAN. Was that after the hearings were completed? Mr. STEUART. Yes, sir.

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

85244-28 20

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

zero year you are going to have severe criticism. Population I am speaking of. What do you think of that?

Mr. STEUART. Well, I hadn't thought of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think it ought to be thought of? To change the system from the zero year, in which it has been held ever since the census was taken, except the first-to change it now to the twenty-ninth year or the twenty-seventh year, or the twenty-sixth or the twenty-fifth? Why not postpone this whole thing, according to your standpoint, and not have it taken in 1930, but in 1931?

Mr. STEUART. What does the last paragraph of this letter say? The CHAIRMAN. It says, "These are, therefore, the views of these two departments, but we wish to assure the committee that any date fixed by the committee would be acceptable to the departments. But I would like to have your judgment on what I have asked you. What do you think the criticism of the Congress would be that took a census of the population in any but the zero year?

Mr. STEUART. I can't believe

The CHAIRMAN. Whose convenience is it for, the convenience of the departments or the convenience of the public?

Mr. STEUART. The convenience of the public.

The CHAIRMAN. If we gave them a 1929 census, they would say, "This is not the 1930 census."

Mr. MOORMAN. Don't you know that the Department of Agriculture practically admitted that the objectionable feature was because of purposes of comparison. So far as I am concerned, and I think every member of this committee who is in favor of April 1, we have the utmost confidence in your folks, and we believe they were perfectly fair and above board about everything, but it is absolutely apparent to me that the change of mind has been dictated by Mr. Jardine, or by the Department of Agriculture, and not by your department.

Mr. STEUART. I can only say this, that if the committee passes a law fixing April 1 as the date of the enumeration that law will be carried out to the best of our ability, and if it is the concensus of opinion of the members of the committee that April 1 is the proper time to enumerate agriculture and the population that is the date we will stick to. The responsibility, of course, is upon the Congress. All we can do is to carry out the law.

Now, we have enumerated the population on April 15 and June 1, and probably we have done it pretty well, and there is no reason why we can't do it just as well again.

Mr. MOORMAN. In other words, you could do it just as well April 15?

Mr. STEUART. The population. We have done that heretofore. Mr. MOORMAN. Don't you know as a fact, and from your knowledge and information of the details of taking the census in rural communities, that you could do it better on April 1 than you could in the muddy weather of November and December?

Mr. STEUART. I wouldn't say that I know that, because it isn't so muddy in November. You can get around pretty well.

Mr. MOORMAN. It takes three months, doesn't it; and if you begin. November 1, you wouldn't wind up for three months.

Mr. STEUART. It takes six months.

Mr. MOORMAN. If you started November 1, you would naturally go through the very worst part of the winter.