tion of whether or not they shall have an increase or a decrease in force.

The CHAIRMAN. The $2,856,133 added to the $752,200

Mr. WAGNER (interposing). That made $3,608,333. That was our status at the beginning of the year.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have not apportioned the appropriation. You have apportiored what you call your needs.

Mr. WAGNER. Only as to salaries. We have not spent the money. I think perhaps the Commissioner General would like to explain his viewpoint about that.

The CHAIRMAN. The point is the law requires you to apportion the $3,000,000.

Mr. WAGNER. We have started in the year with what might be termed, perhaps, a "potential deficiency," but we intend to come within the appropriation before the end of the year, and with that in view have reduced our force by 309 employees since the 1st of July. That represents a yearly salary obligation of $360,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you have two hundred and some odd thousand dollars yet to take up?

Mr. WAGNER. $366,965 would be the annual salary saving on the basis of those salaries, whereas the net saving to date on the same number would be $260,000.

Mr. HUSBAND. If I may explain, I presume that seems a little strange to the chairman, but we had to shape our force to what might be expected under this 3 per cent law. Under the terms of the law the yearly immigration might have come in within five months, because 20 per cent of the total is admissible in any one month. We knew perfectly well that the first five months were going to make the trouble for the service, and that has been true. For example, as Mr. Wagner has said, we have succeeded in cutting down our yearly salary obligation $360,000 and have kept the business going, and it has been very difficult, especially at Ellis Island, but from now on the way is clear for constantly reducing the expenditures there for the reason that immigration that gives the trouble, southern and eastern European immigration, will be exhausted during the first five months, or anyway the first six months, leaving only northern and western Europe to draw from, and that immigration moves through very rapidly. There are very few detentions.

The CHAIRMAN. The point I would like to impress upon you is that in making these allotments the law provides that the entire amount of the appropriation shall be allotted by months or quarters or in such way as the Secretary may decide under the law, and that contemplates that no allotments shall be made in excess of the total amount of the appropriation, and that the expenditures shall keep within the allotments, unless the allotments are waived. Of course, if you fail to do that you are not obeying the law.

Mr. WAGNER. I believe what the bureau had in mind was keeping within the appropriation, but it could not on July 1 stop functioning at Ellis Island and elsewhere and immediately drop 600 employees in order to reduce the amount sufficiently to bring the allotments within the $3,000,000. Of course these are paper figures. We have not exceeded the appropriation in any way. We have only spent $916,000 of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the $3,000,000?

76214-21-12

Mr. WAGNER. Yes; so we have not gone beyond the amount appropriated, but it was necessary to take this means of shaping our course, so that we would not have everything come at one time.

The CHAIRMAN. But, after all, your expenditures for the entire year, according to your own estimate here--and you would not be here if it was not for that--will be $300,000 above the appropriation, if we assume you are going to get this amount appropriated.

Mr. WAGNER. And if we continue at the same rate of expenditure we are going at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it proposed to reduce the present rate of expenditure?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir; we are doing that right along each month. The CHAIRMAN. So you would not need the $300,000?

Mr. WAGNER. That $300,000 is for deportations.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not contemplated that the $3,000,000 would cover the cost of deportations and all other activities?

Mr. WAGNER. Congress may have considered that would be the proper amount, but our estimate, while I will say it was excessive, was nearer $6,000,000 than it was $3,000,000, and Congress cut it in half. Four million dollars would have been a fair estimate, I think, for the year.

The CHAIRMAN. If $4,000,000 is a fair estimate, how do you figure you are going to get along with $3,300,000?

Mr. WAGNER. We will necessarily have to stop performing some of our necessary work.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think perhaps Mr. Wagner means they were taking it on the basis of past experience. It is perfectly evident that operating under this percentage law was going to make possible a reduction of expenses, but at the time those estimates were made, the percentage law was not in operation and there was no assurance that it would be.

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say this morning that you had already deported 1,700 this year so far?

Mr. HUSBAND. One thousand five hundred and thirteen.

The CHAIRMAN. Within this fiscal year?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you contemplated deporting 1,200 more? Mr. WAGNER. No; we have 1,200 more in institutions, but we may have a number of others that are not in institutions that would be public charges, for some reason or other, and subject to deportation. Mr. HUSBAND. On the basis of the experience for the past four months we would deport somewhat over 4,500 during the year. The CHAIRMAN. That is about what you deported last year? Mr. HUSBAND. That is what we deported last year; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of what fund was the cost met of those who have been deported this year?

Mr. WAGNER. Out of the general appropriation for the expenses of regulating immigration.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of this $3,000,000 ?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What leads you to suppose you will not be able out of this $3,000,000 to take care of the balance of the deportation for the rest of the year?

Mr. WAGNER. Because the estimates of the districts as to the amounts they will require to maintain their stations, exclusive of salaries and transportation and the items charged to administration here in Washington, total $1,000,000, and we cut them down onethird right at the beginning of the year. On that basis we allowed

$150,000 for transportation.

The CHAIRMAN. And how much of that have you expended? Mr. WAGNER. We have spent $76,797 during July, August, and September, and that would make just $302,000 if we continue at the present rate.

The CHAIRMAN. But if you reduce your force below what it is now, as you contemplate, you might save a sufficient amount to meet this obligation?

Mr. WAGNER. It will take quite a reduction to make up $300,000. The CHAIRMAN. But you say you have reduced the force at the rate of $366,000.

Mr. WAGNER. That is on a yearly basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course.

Mr. WAGNER. That is not the net saving. The total actual saving is $260,000, because some of these people were dropped on July 1, some in August, some in September and October.

Mr. HUSBAND. I think I see what you mean, Mr. Chairman, and I will say that if we could save this $300,000 by further reduction in the force, then we would not have the force to do the work with.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you would not need to incur this expense. Mr. HUSBAND. The $300,000 would mean keeping a force for this particular work which otherwise would have to go and the work would not be done; that is, as I figure the thing.

DEPORTATION COST PER CAPITA.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any figures to show what the total cost per capita is for those deported, including maintenance, transportation, and everything?

Mr. WAGNER. It would be difficult to give the exact figure.

The CHAIRMAN. You might not be able to give it to us in the individual cases, but you might give the average.

Mr. WAGNER. I might say, approximately, $250 for each person. That takes the aliens from the Pacific coast to New York and then across the pond.

The CHAIRMAN. And keeps them in the institutions where they are to be kept while they are to be held in this country?

Mr. WAGNER. While they are in institutions, of course, we do not pay for them, but after we pick them up and take charge of them and put them in institutions, we bear the expense, and we also bear the expense of maintenance in jails and in other places pending decision of the Secretary of Labor as to whether the alien is unlawfully within the United States.

Mr. BYRNS. As I recall, there was some criticism during the past administration of delays in decisions with reference to persons who were here awaiting deportation. Has that been corrected?

Mr. WAGNER. I think it has been corrected. We are up to date on our work in the bureau. I think Mr. Husband made a report to the Secretary two weeks ago saying we were up to date in all our deportation work.

Mr. HUSBAND. We were current two weeks ago last Saturday night for the first time within the memory of any one in the bureau.

NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us any idea of the total number that have come into this country as immigrants since the first of the year and the number the previous year so as to compare them?

Mr. HUSBAND. I may say roughly it is about one-half this year. The CHAIRMAN. 1920 would not be a good year to compare with, would it?

Mr. HUSBAND. No. We will have this year approximately what we had two years ago, I think, which was 430,000 immigrant aliens, 191,575 nonimmigrant aliens, or a total of 621,576. That was in the fiscal year 1920.

Mr. WOOD. What do you mean by a nonimmigrant alien?

Mr. HUSBAND. A nonimmigrant alien is one who comes for a temporary stay. They have to be examined, but they are not counted as permanent immigrant aliens.

The CHAIRMAN. If the total number of aliens this year will not exceed half the number last year, I would like to ask you how you reconcile the fact that last year you had $3,086,000, including the deficiency appropriation, and this year, if you get this deficiency appropriation, you will be getting $3,300,000 for one-half the number? Mr. HUSBAND. I think last year, Mr. Chairman, they had three separate appropriations. As I recall, the total expenditures in regulating immigration last year were three million seven hundred and some odd thousand dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not what our record shows.

Mr. HUSBAND. No, sir; that is true; but they had reappropriated the balance of the anarchists' deportation fund.

The CHAIRMAN. So that it was three million and how much? Mr. WAGNER. There was $384,000 of an unexpended balance, and then there was an appropriation of $300,000 additional.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of what fund?

Mr. WAGNER. It was entitled "Enforcement of the law against alien anarchists," but it was all for the regulation of immigration; and then there was another fund. We also had $100,000 for deportation of aliens, old cases, so-called. They were cases that had been accumulating for five years during the war period, and we had $100,000 the preceding year, in addition, and the unexpended balance of that was about $28,000.

The CHAIRMAN. So that it amounted to how much altogether? Mr. WAGNER. It totaled $3,748,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Even assuming it was $3,748,000 for 1921 as against $3,300,000 for 1922, including this anticipated appropriation, and you only had half the number this year that you had last year, how do you reconcile that?

Mr. HUSBAND. I will explain that, Mr. Chairman. The reduction comes at two points, practically, New York and Boston, with some little reduction at Philadelphia. That is, they are the places that would feel the effects of the law reducing immigration. The borders, the Mexican border, the Canadian border and every other loop hole

requires a greater expenditure because there is a greater effort to get in surreptitiously.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean you do not reduce your expenditures in the same proportion?

Mr. HUSBAND. Oh no.

The CHAIRMAN. And any reduction you make must be made at those two points?

Mr. HUSBAND. It must be made practically at those two points; and at Ellis Island, of course, is the biggest expenditure of all, and the overhead, the laborers, the watchmen and the expenditures for coal and the expenditures aside from the number of persons actually engaged in examining immigrants, can not be reduced very much. The CHAIRMAN. It would cost you so much for coal whether you had any immigrants there or not?

Mr. HUSBAND. No; if we could get rid of the immigrants altogether, then of course we could shut off some of the plants; but to-day, for reasons over which we have no control-and it has been so under this law-there has been a tendency to bring them all in in the first part of the month. Then many stay on our hands for the rest of the month. The detentions are very much greater than they ever were before, and I think I explained why this morning, and while there is a saving, and we are saving and will be able to save, because of the operation of the new law, the saving has to come from practically those two points.

The CHAIRMAN. At those points you can not save much on the physical needs of operation?

Mr. HUSBAND. No, sir; indeed our savings at New York have been largely in getting rid of surplus steamboats and launches that were used.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible to still further reduce that?

Mr. HUSBAND. That is down to the minimum. I hoped to reduce it somewhat the last time I was over there last week, but I am afraid we have now gotten practically to the limit of saving on the physical aspects at Ellis Island.

The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of how low the immigration may be? Mr. HUSBAND. No; that would not be true. I mean on the anticipated immigration, because, while we are going to have about as much immigration during the rest of the fiscal year as we have had during the past four months, I think, it is coming from a different source and it will be much easier to handle it. There will be fewer detentions and less time taken in examination.

The CHAIRMAN. How much are you asking for this service for 1923? Mr. HUSBAND. I think it is about what we would have this year if we got this $300,000. I think it is around $3,300,000.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Husband, I understand you are asking for this year practically the same amount you had for last year for deportation expenses?

Mr. HUSBAND. No.

Mr. BYRNS. I understood that statement to have been made.

Mr. WAGNER. In what way, sir?

Mr. BYRNS. In other words, that your allotments for deportation expenses for this year are practically the same as the expenses for the same purpose last year.