1/

JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Cl£~3

HEARINGS ~75fi

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

UNITED STATES "SENATE

SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 2576

A BILL TO LIMIT THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS

INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 11, 12, 13, AND 15, 1924

Printed for the use of the Committee on Immigration

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

-95A71 1924
H

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

LBBARON B. COLT, Rhode Island. Chariman

THOMAS STERLING, South Dakota.

HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California.

HENRY W. KEYES, New Hampshire.

FRANK B. WILLIS,, Ohio.

DAVID A. REED, Pennsylvania.

II. M.

II

WILLIAM H. KING, Utah.

WILLIAM .T. HARRIS, Georgia.

PAT HARRISON, Mississippi.

JOHN K. SHIELDS. Tennessee.

ROYAL S. COPELAND, New York.

SAURY. Clerk.

| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

RECEIVED

APR 2 11924

DOCUMENTS DIVISION
i

CONTENTS

Page

Statement of••

Bowles, Gilbert 80

Gulick, Sidney L 54

MaeFarland. Kev. Charles S 21

McClatchy, V. S 3,21

McDonald, James G 100

Phelan, Hon. .Tames D 103

Schneder, David B 80

Shortridge, Hon. Samuel M 1,148

Taylor, Francis R 93

Turner, Fennel I R 09

Webb, Hon. U. S 38

; in

JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, MABCH 11, 1924

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. G.

The committee being in session pursuant to previous adjournment,

proceeded to take up the Japanese immigration phase of the pending bill.

Present: Senators Colt (chairman), Keyes, Willis, Reed of Pennsylvania, King, Harris, Harrison, and Copeland.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, we are ready to hear from

you now. I might say, for the information of the committee, that I

have a telegram from Senator Johnson, as follows:

BEACH. N. DAK.

Hon. LEBABON COLT,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C:

Please record my vote on that portion of the immigration hill concerning

which the California delegation appears to-morrow in favor of the California

position.

HntAM W. JOHNSON.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL M. SHORTRIDGE, A UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Senator SHORTRIDUE. Mr. Chairman, I shall detain you but for a

moment. The provision of this bill in which we are directly and profoundly interested, and to which we wish to direct your attention,

is that provision which would exclude aliens ineligible to citizenship. The provisions of the Johnson bill in reference to the admission or nonadmission of pel-sons ineligible to citizenship are as

follows: '

No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States

unless such alien (1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (b). (d), or (g) of section 4, or (2) is the wife, or

the unmarried child under 18 years of age, of an immigrant admissible under

such subdivision (d), and is accompanying or following to join him, or (3)

is not an immigrant as defined in section 3.

The subdivision referred to which clarify that subdivision are as

follows:

(b) An immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United States, who

is returning

*******

from a temporary visit abroad;

(d) An immigrant who continuously for at least two years immediately

preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States has

been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of,

1
2 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denominations, or professor of a college, academy, seminary, or university;

* . * * * * * *

(g) An immigrant who is a bona fide student over 18 years of age. and who

seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of study at an accredited college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated

by him and approved by the Secretary.

I wish to add and to emphasize that those who are appearing before you, coming from California, are immediately concerned and

very deeply concerned with these provisions in the proposed immigration bill. By your leave, Mr. Chairman, before we conclude, I

would ask to file a brief statement of my own views. I now say

that I fully, unreservedly, and unqualifiedly approve what shall

be said by those who have journeyed all the way from California

to be here to-da}' to present the mature, the deliberated, and the

deliberate views of the vast majority of the people of my State, and

I think, indeed I know, that they express the mature and deliberate

views of the vast majority of people of what I may call the great

Western States, the Pacific Coast States included, who have come

into immediate contact with the problem before us, namely, that of

contact with oriental immigration into our country.

I shall hereafter, I say, by your leave, express myself more fully.

Immediately, however, I wish to ask you to hear Mr. V. S. McClatchy, of California, a gentleman who has devoted many years

of earnest and intelligent study to this problem. I question whether

there is another man in the United States more familiar with it.

He comes here, as do these other gentlemen whom I shall name in

a moment, representing not alone California, not alone what some

might call a local question or local sentiment. They come representing not only that portion of our country to which I have alluded,

but representing the declared attitude and the deliberate and fixed

views of great national organizations.

The American Federation of Labor, which we all know is made

up of membership from all the States, at its last convention held in

Portland, Oreg., passed an appropriate resolution along the lines

which I have indicated and in support of legislation contemplated

by the provisions of the bill to which I am directing your attention.

The American Legion, made up of members from all the States

of our Union, from each and every State of the Union and our Territories, at its national convention held in San Francisco adopted, I

think unanimously, a like resolution.

The National Grange, as represented yonder in national convention, took the same position. And I scarcely need to add that the

Native Sons of the Golden West, an organization of California, as

also all our organized bodies in my State, have again and yet again,

formally and knowingly, not in anger, not in hostility, but out of

a great love for their State and our country, passed like resolutions.

Mr. McClatchy is here. Along with him is our attorney general,

Mr. U. S. Webb, who has occuppied the position of attorney general

in our State for so long a time that the memory of man runneth not

to the contrary.

Along with this gentleman comes one whom you all know and

highly respect, my predecessor, former Senator James D. Phelan, of

California. There is no one more familiar Avith this problem, no
JAPANESE TMMIGKATION LEGISLATION . 3

«ne who has given more thought to it, and no one more able to

present the views of my State and, may I say, your and my country.

For they and I and all of us believe that in seeking to check the

oriental immigration, seeking to check the immigration of those

peoples, which make up practically one-half of the human race, who

are ineligible to citizenship, who under our laws never can become

citizens, that in opposing such immigration we are advancing and

seeking to enforce a policy for the benefit of the Nation as a Nation.

Mr. McClatchy will, by your consent, speak on the facts of the

problem. The attorney general will present certain observations

touching the law as it bears upon the problem. Senator Phelan will,

in turn, express himself touching the policy of the legislation which

we favor.

I have the honor to introduce Mr. McClatchy. gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF MR. V. S. McCLATCHY, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, I trust you will not feel alarmed

by the appearance of these references. I am going to confine myself to a brief outline with reference to data, etc., so as to conserve

your time so far as possible. We appreciate very much the favor

you have accorded us in giving us this hearing, we having come

3,000 miles for the purpose, and out of regard for the other duties

which we know you have, we will be as brief as we may.

First, let me say that aside from the general interests which the

gentlemen who came from California to-day represent, we have been

asked specifically to present the views and the urge of four great

California organizations; the American Legion, the American Federation of Labor, the Grange, and the Native Sons of the Golden

West. I have here and will leave with you as exhibits their credentials, according us the right to speak for them with reference

to the exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship; also the answers

made by them to the foreign minister of Japan, and to Secretary

Hughes of our State Department in the same matter. (Exhibits

1,2,3,4,5.)

That policy has been indorsed by the national conventions of three

of those great organizations, and I will leave with you as exhibits

the resolutions passed at the last annual conventions of the American Legion, the American Federation of Labor, and the National

Grange•that has already been presented to you•urging upon Congress the immediate passage of a law which would exclude all aliens

ineligible to citizenship. (Exhibits 6 and 7•the Grange resolution presented by Mi'. Atkeson•also resolution California State

Legislature. Exhibit 8•see statement of Senator S. M. Shortridge.)

Evidently then, this is not a political issue. You could not find

in the United States or in the State of California any organizations

which represent so many diverse points of view, which have so many

different purposes, and so many different ideals. But on one thing

they are American, thoroughly American; and they believe, beyond

all, that if immigration is to be restricted in the interests of this

country we should commence by excluding that element of immigration which, under our Federal laws, may never become American

citizens, and is therefore hopelessly unassimilable.
4 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

We are going to confine ourselves in this hearing entirely and absolutely to this one phase of the question; that is to say, the question

of the exclusion of ineligible aliens, and are not concerning ourselves or addressing you or stating anything with reference to any

other feature of the bill or the subject before you.

In presenting this matter it is my duty to present the facts and

the conditions to you, and I desire to follow in any way the wishes

of the committee. I have prepared, for the purpose of conserving

your time as much as possible in presenting the matter in some understandable way, a condensed statement. Possibly I am going to be

too brief in some of my statements as to facts, most of which are

entirely new to you, many of which will be new to others in Congress here, and if in those statements I am too brief I trust you will

interrupt and question me, so that I may make the thing clear as

I proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you summarize your facts as you

think best, and then if you wisli to supplement or enlarge them in a

written statement you may do that, Mr. McClatchy.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have, already

been kind enough to suggest that a brief could be filed, and I will

do that. Our departure was so hurried that that brief was not prepared, but I will stay here and prepare it.

In 1790, over 130 years ago, the United States by Federal act made

ineligible to citizenship all the yellow and brown races, in effect

half the population of the globe, including the Hindus, the Malays,

the Japanese, the Chinese, and even the Philippinos. That has been

the law since that time, that particular feature not having been modified or changed. That law undoubtedly was enacted because of all

races which come to this country or which may come to this country,

the yellow and brown races of Asia are the least assimilable. They

are those races which ai'e most difficult to amalgamate into American

citizenship. And I use the term " assimilation" throughout my

talk in the sense of amalgamation. There is no real assimilation

unless it is amalgamation.

The yellow and brown races do not intermarry with the white

race, and their heredity, standards of living, ideas, psychology, all

combine to make them unassimilable with the white race. If we

are to restrict immigration, therefore, it is plainly proper that we

should deny first entrance to that element which is hopelessly unassimilable because under our own laws it may never enjoy the privilege of American citizenship. So we have the logical reason for the

provision which has been inserted in the House bill and now under

consideration before your committee, to the effect that aliens ineligible for citizenship shall not be admitted into this country.

Senator COPELAND. Has there never been any change in that law?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I understand that so far as concerns the exclusion of yellow and brown races, Senator, it has never been changed.

I think that is absolutely correct. It may have been modified in

minor particulare.

The CHAIRMAN. We admit the black race to citizenship.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes; we admitted the black race on account of

conditions which I shall not consider at this time.

Against this plan most determined opposition has been brought,

and whether that opposition comes through the Department of State
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 5

or comes through church organizations or commercial interests or

so-called immigration associations we find behind it all the hand of

Japan. So in this measure, which is not discriminatory, we are

forced to consider particularly the case of Japan, because Japan

has insisted on making her protest against it on racial and national

grounds. So that I want at the outset to avoid the charge or implication that we are taking in this matter any discriminatory action

against Japan, and it is Japan's own action which has forced upon

us making the prominent feature of this presentation the case of

Japan.

We start with the assumption that immigration is a domestic

question which it is our right to regulate by our own laws, in accordance with our own interests, regardless of the interests or protests or demands or threats of other peoples and other nations.

And least of all should we be diverted from legislation which is

manifestly in the interests of this country by the demand or "protest

of any or all races which under our own laws are made unassimilable because they are ineligible to our citizenship.

Of all the races ineligible to citizenship under our law, the Japanese are the least assimilable and the most dangerous to this country. Understand me, I make that statement in no offensive sense.

I have a very high regard for the character and ability of the

Japanese nation and the Japanese people, and I realize that it is

in effect their strong racial characteristics which make them so

dangerous a factor if admitted to this country as permanent residents. Let me say, therefore, that there is no prejudice on my part,

no prejudice on the part of the people of California. We realize

that the Japanese can be good and friendly neighbors, and we want

to remain with them as good and friendly neighbors. But neighbors may be friendly and continue indefinitely as friends if they do

not attempt to live in the same house.

Let me say, too, for the particular benefit of those who live in the

Eastern States that the average easterner, coming into contact with

the highly cultured Japanese, usually or often graduates of our

American colleges, has no conception of the character of Japanese

immigration which is coming into Hawaii and filling the fruitful

valleys of California and Washington. Frequently, therefoi'e, and

naturally, he has the feelino- that California has an unjust and unfair prejudice in this matter.

Now, why do I say that the Japanese are less assimilable and more

dangerous as residents in this country than any other of the peoples

ineligible to citizenship under our laws?

First, with great pride of race, they have no idea of assimilating in

the sense of amalgamation. They do not come to this country with

any desire or any intent to lose their racial or national identity.

They come here specifically and professedly for the purpose of

colonizing and establishing here permanently the proud Yamato

race. They never cease to be Japanese. They have as little desire

to intermarry as have the whites, and there can be no proper amalgamation, you will agree, without intermarriage. In Hawaii, where

there is every incentive for intermarriage, the Japanese have preserved practical racial purity, and I commend to your attention in

proof of that the National Department of Education Bulletin No.

16, 1920, and other references which will appear in my remarks.
0 .JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

In pursuit of their intent to colonize this country with that ract

they seek to secure land and to found large families, and they are

constantly being urged by their leaders and by their vernacular

newspapers to beget children and to get land, in order that they may

permanently maintain in this country that great race.

They have greater energy, greater determination, and greater ambition than the other yellow and brown races ineligible to citizenship, and with the same low standards of living, hours of labor.'use

of women and child labor, they naturally make more dangerous

competitors in an economic way.

They do not distribute themselves as individuals throughout a

great country or a great district. Some eastern gentlemen have

said to me, " Why. the position of California is absurd. On your

own statement you have only got 100,000 Japanese in a population of

4,000.000, and vou have onlv got 150,000 Japanese in a national

population of 1*10,000.000."

That is not a weak solution though; it is a concentrated solution

in small districts. For instance, of the 100,000 Japanese in California 75 per cent are confined to 7 of our 58 counties, and in those 7

counties they concentrate in a few districts. And so they do elsewhere. They select the better and richer districts, and they concentrate there, secure possession and control of communities and

industries, and make their presence felt, so that in those communities

they succeed in time in becoming the paramount influence.

They are a unified nation, with national pride and intent on maintaining a position as a world power. That is quite a different position from that occupied by any other of the races ineligible for

citizenship. They are insistent on securing recognition and social

rights, quite proud and sensitive, and therefore all the more occasion

and probability of friction and trouble when in large communities

they are settled in this country.

They never cease to be citizens of Japan. They are not permitted to expatriate after 17 years of age. The children born in

this country and carefully registered to secure all the rights of

American citizenship are only a little less unassimilable than their

immigrant parents.

In support of these contentions I am quoting various references,

but I shall not take up your time by reading them. However, if on

any point that I make you have grave doubt I wish you would ask

me to explain further, or give me an opportunity to make an explanation in personal conference.

Japan claims and insists on every individual Japanese (whether

he be born in Japan and an immigrant here or born in the United

States and accorded all the rights of American citizenship) discharging all the duties and obligations of Japanese citizenship, and

vicariously punishes his relatives in Japan if he fails to do it. I

will just read one extract in support of that last statement. The

Honolulu Advertiser of January 16, 1923, contained a very striking

item in regard to the case of Henry K. Fukuda, member of the

Society of American Citizens of Japanese Ancestry, born in Hawaii,

a citizen of the United States, claiming and exercising all the rights

and duties of American citizenship.

It seems that Fukuda, as all other Japanese born in this country

and claiming American citizenship, was cited to show himself in
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 7

Japan and perform his military duty, and he failed to do so. He

had certain relatives over there, and those relatives were punished

because Mr. Fukuda, an American citizen, declined to go back to

Japan and perform his conscription duties. He has a receipt showing that H. Nakahara, who was his relative, had paid $5 to the district attorney of the Iwakuni district for alleged violation of the

military conscription law by H. Fukuda.

Senator KING They insist upon dual citizenship, the same as Germany did for a while?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. They do, Senator, but they carry it to a very

much greater extent. Germany does not in this country maintain

associations under which every American citizen of German parentage is influenced and controlled; those associations subject to major

associations, and those in turn subject to the control and direction

of the local German consul. That is the fact with regard to Japan

and the Japanese, and here I have in my exhibits the proof of it.,

For instance, from Yoshi Kuno, a professor of the University of

California, a Japanese, a son of one of the great generals of Japan,

in this country many years, but not a citizen of the United States•

he has published a statement, in the interest of permanent friendship between the United States and Japan, showing the way in which

Japan has been determinedly and persistently doing these things.

and warning that a continuance of that policy must inevitably result in the breach of those friendly relations between this country

and his own country of Japan. I will leave that with you, Senator,

and be very glad to call your attention to any specific point in it.

There have been in the neighborhood of 90,000 Japanese born

under the American flag in continental United States and in Hawaii.

Three years ago I had an official report from, I think it was, the

department of justice in Tokyo, and there were exactly 64 of that

entire number who had been permitted to expatriate under the laws

of Japan. They were claiming and exercising the rights of American citizenship, and all but 64 of those 90,000 were tied up to Japan

and compelled to do her will in peace and in war.

Senator KING. Have you evidence that they assented to this claim

of Japan and recognized their allegiance to the Japanese Government? Or was it a mere assertion of a claim by Japan which the

American citizens resisted?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. For instance, every Japanese born in this country has to register with the Japanese consul, and he does register,

as a citizen of Japan. He is subject to the control and direction of

his local Japanese association. He can get none of the necessary

privileges or rights in the way of communication with Japan, passports, and so on, unless he has fulfilled the duties required of him.

Why, over in Honolulu during the time when we were at war and

under arms a number of Japanese had enlisted with the colors.

Many of them, I suppose really all of them, were American-born

citizens, and claiming rights as such. One of those American-born

citizens, in American khaki, coming in from the camp came to the

Japanese consul in Honolulu, and, under his right as a Japanese

citizen, got credentials from that consul recognizing him as such so

that he could bring over from Japan, a picture bride.

Senator KING. YOU will recall that the War of 1812 was largely

the result of the assertion by Great Britain of her right over English-
8 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

men who had expatriated themselves and taken out American citizenship papers and had gone upon our ships, and they were seized

upon the high seas.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Senator, that was a hundred years ago.

Senator KING. I know. I am merely stating it as a fact. And

yet England, perhaps improperly, certainly from our concepts of international law, asserted jurisdiction over those persons. Nevertheless, they did not assent to that. I am not expressing any opinion.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. DO not misunderstand me. I am not denying

the right of Japan to do these things. I am calling attention to the

fact and suggesting that the fact is one of the strong indications that

it would be absurd, criminal, and suicidal on the part of this country

to admit as permanent residents people of a proud race who will be

obliged to do these things.

Senator SHORTRIBGE. Senator, before we depart from that, with

the permission of the chairman, I undertake to maintain that practically 100 per cent of the native-born Japanese in the United States

and 100 per cent of those who have come here from Japan do submit

and do yield obedience to the demands of Japan.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. 1 might supplement that, if I am not taking too

much time, by referring the committee to the testimony of the Hawaiian commission before the House committee in either 1921 or

1922.

The big sugar strike, in Honolulu developed this astounding fact:

Hawaii had been priding herself on Americanizing the American

born•the Hawaiian-born Japanese. The, legion was particularly

proud of the fact that it was educating those American citizens of

Japanese ancestry. And yet they found in the course of that strike

that with a few individual exceptions, there was not a single Japanese in the Territory of Hawaii, immigrant or Hawaiian born, who

was not, under duress or voluntarily, conforming to the orders of the

Japanese, family leaders in Japan, and, directly or indirectly, actively or in other ways, upholding the strike as a racial matter.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And guided by the consul.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. I do not know whether the question has been brought up, but I see by the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration that in the last fiscal year there were

admitted a total of 11,571 Japanese and there departed 11,172 Japanese, so that the net gain by immigration in the last fiscal year was

399 persons. Do 3'ou regard that as a menace?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Senator, permit me to say•I will go into that

now if you desire, but I am dealing with the matter of the actual

result of the agreement later.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Very well.

Senator KING. As I understand it, under the bill which we are

discussing now, if it should be enacted into law, the number which

would be admitted would not greatly exceed 300.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Oh. I beg your pardon, Senator. You are taking the 1910 census, as I understand it•you have already agreed to

do that. The 1910 census would admit 3'.000 Japanese a year.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. That would mean that there were150.000 Japanese-born residents in the country in 1910?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. In 1910.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 9

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Is that in the continental United

States?

Mr. MCCLATCHV. NO; continental United States and Hawaii.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. The bill we are considering refers

only to the number in the continental United States.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Then it would be about 72,000•1,400 persons a

year.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. I have this thought, that under

the gentleman's agreement there is a distinct restriction on Japanese

immigration. This quota system which we will now add to that

supplies an additional restriction. It does not in any sense liberalize

the present law; it supplies an additional bar. I understand that

thist is not satisfactory, that you want absolute exclusion?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, Senator: and if you will permit me, I will

go into that now if you prefer.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. No; I did not want to disturb

thm order of your remarks at all, just so long -s you do not pass

over the subject entirely.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, I would be very ^lad to have you,

when you come to it, discuss the effect of including the Japanese in

the quota law.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I am prepared to do that, Mr. Chf irman. That

i? one of my topics.

I was speaking of the Japanese children born here and the difficulty of making American citizens of them. They are educated

in separate Japanese schools in California and Hawaii, where they

are taught to be loyal and ideal Japanese citizens. Again, I only

refer to that as a fact and as indicating that that class of people

is dangerous for us. It is perfectly proper for Japan to educate

her citizens in Japanese loyalty. A great many of those childirn

are sent back to Japan between the ages of 6 and 8 years, and they

remain there until they are 17 or 19, and when they come back

they are not American citizens, they are Japanese citizens, loyal,

and they never become American citizens in intent or ideal after

that.

Why, two years ago•and I suppose the conditions are about the

same now•there were, according to the admission of the Japanese,

15,000, and according to the estimate of the health board in the

territory, 20,000 Hawaiian-bom Japanese children in Japan, receiving their education in Japanese schools and destined to come

back when they were 17 or 19 years of age as full fledged loyal

Japanese citizens entitled to all the rights and privileges of American

dozens but drilled to do the will of Japan in peace and in war.

From California it is estimated that there are 15,000 Californiaborn Japanese children in Japan receiving a Japanese education.

I can not quote the exact figures, but there were 6,600 of those

children sent out from the port of San Francisco in three years, to

receive that Japanese education and come back.

Senator HARRISON. What is your estimate of the Japanese in

Mexico ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I do not like to talk about things on which

I am not informed, Senator, and I do not know. I may say this

only, that so far as I know and believe. Mexico is used largely as a
10 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

temporary abiding place for those who intend ultimately to get into

the United States. The same is true of South American ports.

Now, the Japanese maintain in this country a government within

a government. That is to say, as I have indicated they are subject

individually, whether born here or immigrants, to the orders of the

local associations, which in turn are subject to the central associations in the five consular ports of the Pacific coast, and those in turn

are under the direct orders of the local Japanese consuls. That is

not. my statement; that is the statement of a Japanese, Professor

Yoshi Kuno, and 1 have it here in one of my exhibits.

Senator KING. Mr. McClatchy, when I was in California and when

I was in Hawaii I talked with a good many Japanese; some of them

voluntarily sought me and in other cases 1 sought them for the purpose of getting information, with a purely open mind. I discussed

with them very frankly some of the matters to which you are referring, and some of the young men who were contemplating going

to Japan to complete their education stated to me that they did it

with a great deal of reluctance. They said that there was a sort of

bar sinister placed upon them by the Americans: that there in Hawaii

the Americans, the Anglo-Saxon race, always looked upon them as

Japanese, and American newspapers were always denouncing them

and denouncing the country of the birth of their fathers, holding it

up as the awful example, that it was the yellow peril, that it was the

menace of Anglo-Saxon institutions, and of our country. And they

conceded that the attitude of the American mind was that the}' were

to be outcasts even if they were American citizens under the American flag; that we erected social barriers against them and political

barriers agains them, and that there were economic barriers against

them; and that whereas they might be born here and be American

citizens by reason of birth, our attitude forbade any possible amalgamation, assimilation or association, political, or otherwise.

It seems to me there is a good deal in that. Have we dealt properly

and fairly with the young Japanese boy and girl born in America ?

Have we dealt fairly with the Jew, with the Italian, with the Greek,

with the Hungarian, with the Pole, with these young boys, and girls

who were born here and with those who have come here? Have we

held out a welcoming hand with a view to assimilating them, or

haven't we too often pushed them out, ostracized them, put them into

the ghetto and forced them to assume a feeling of affection and

loyalty to their fatherland that they did not want to assume?

That is worthy of consideration, though I express no opinion.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Senator, that suggestion is an entirely fair one,

and what you say is well grounded. That is quite true. But remember just this distinction. You in the East here, who come in contact

with the 'cultured and desirable Japanese, have no idea, no conception, of the class of immigration which comes into California. I

have, I am proud to say, among the Japanese many friends. I have

been able to discuss these questions with them in perfect frankness

and amity, with Vicount Shibusawa, the most prominent private

citizen of Japan now, and others. And there has always been that

trouble, that even where they have individually the desire to become

thorough Americans there is, as you say, this bar.

But that is hopeless, Senator. That is the result of the absolute

unassimilability of the two races. Whether it is our fault or theirs,
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 11

it exists. It is mutual. And since it is so. it is our duty, as I see it,

to protect our race and our people and our Nation, with all its faults,

rather than to sacrifice it by letting in an unassimilable alien people

at their request or demand.

We do not differ very much, Senator, when all the facts are before

us, on that point at least.

Senator KING. I did not express an opinion. I was just citing some

of the suggestions which have been made to me.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I agree with you, Senator, on that point, but I

say that these are conditions which we face.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, when you come to the end of your

statement of facts I want to ask you to discuss the numbers that

come in under the gentleman's agreement.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I have that. Do you want

me to take it up now ?

The CHAIRMAN. NO; I do not wish to interrupt the order of your

argument.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NOW, I want to show you why, in the judgment

of California, aliens ineligible to citizenship are so hopelessly unassimilable, and why, in our judgment, of all those races the Japanese,

notwithstanding our friendly feeling toward them, are the most unassimilable and the most dangerous.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say that the reason why I asked that question is this: Suppose there were only 100 coining in, a very minimum

number, then you would come to the international question of disturbing our international relations with Japan? I want to know

whether, in point of numbers, it is reduced to a minimum so that it

is a negligible quantity, or whether in practical operations, under

present conditions, it is a menace.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I will come to that, Mr. Chairman. But I will

say briefly that California will not be satisfied with any quota, no

matter how small, for reasons which I think will commend themselves

when I present them to your judgment.

The CHAIRMAN. NOW, Mr. McClatchy, in that aspect of it, how

many come in now under the present law, and, secondly, how many

would come in under the quota?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Under your quota ?

The CHAIRMAN. Under the 2 per cent quota. You need not answer

it now, but when you come to discuss the numbers, I wish you would.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. I can put the figures in the record,

Mr. Chairman. About 1,400 would come in if the quota were 2 per

cent, based on the census of 1910. If the quota were based on my

amendment, it would be about 300 persons per year.

(At this point the hearing was suspended for about 10 minutes to

permit members of the committee to attend upon a vote in the

Senate.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Continue your

statement, please, Mr. McClatchy.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I have shown the reasons why California believes

that it is impossible to assimilate the Japanese into American citizenship, not because of their fault•it is ours, if you like•butthe two

races are unassimilable, and, therefore, it is a danger to the peace and

friendliness and good will of the two nations to ha"e that condition

continue in this country.
12 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

President Roosevelt, who gave perhaps more consideration and

thought to this subject than any other President of the United States,

was very firmly of that opinion. His evidence is all the more striking, because in 1906, in a message to Congress, he suggested the propriety of admitting Japanese to citizenship. He entirely changed

that attitude afterwards when he had the facts before him. and then

afterwards was firmly and determinedly side by side with California

in the declaration that the two races were so unassimilable that it was

dangerous and suicidal to permit them to maintain in this country

communities of Japanese. He stated that view frankly to the Japanese themselves, and it was because of his attitude that the so-called

gentlemen's agreement was afterwards entered into. •

As illustrating Roosevelt's point of view, let me read to you only

a couple of paragraphs from his autobiography. I will leave the

balance to be considered by the committee in the exhibits:

There has always been a strong feeling in California against the Immigration

of Asiatic laborers, whether these are wageworkers or men who occupy anfl

till the soil. I believe this to be fundamentally a sound and proper attitude

which

*******

must be insisted upon.

In the present state of the world's progress it is highly inadvisable that

peoples in wholly different stages of civilization, or of wholly different types

of civilization, even although both equally high, shall be thrown into intimate

contact.

This is especially undesirable when there is a difference in both race and

standard of living. In California the question became acute in connection with

the admission

*******

of the Japanese.

But the Japanese themselves would not tolerate the Intrusion into their

country of a mass of Americans who would displace Japanese in the business

of the land. I think they are entirely right in this position. I would be the

first to admit Japan has the absolute right to declare on what terms foreigners

shall be admitted to work in her country, or to own land in her country, or to

become citizens of her country. America has and must insist upon the same

right. The people of California were right in insisting that the Japanese

should not come thither in masses; that there should be no influx of laborers,

of agricultural workers, or small tradesmen•in short, no mass settlement or

immigration.

He devotes a whole chapter of his autobiography to the California

question, and I refer the committee to it for further consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, was not President Roosevelt willing to leave it to Japan as a question of honor rather than to have

the United States pass a statute of exclusion?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NO, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was not that the essence of the gentlemen's agreement ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No. sir. I will say briefly now and explain it

later••

The CHAIRMAN. This is merely for my own understanding.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. To a certain extent you are right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Here we have a proud people. We know their

standing in the family of nations as one of the great nations of

the world. Here is this great question of racial discrimination.

Now, I thought Japan said to the United States, " Don't pass a law

which would denote our inferiority. Leave it to our honor.'' and that
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 13

that was the essence of the gentlemen's agreement•that is, the absence of a statute of exclusion, leaving it to the honor of Japan.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. You are right to that extent, Mr. Chairman;

but let me supplement it.

It was agreed between Japan and Roosevelt, representing the

United States, that further Japanese immigration was going to be

a very serious menace to the friendship of both peoples, and that

it should cease. California demanded an exclusion act. Japan, as

you say, said that would be a blow to her pride, and if permitted

she would under her own system voluntarily prevent Japanese

immigration coming into this country. Roosevelt said, "All right;

I wfll depend upon you in this matter." But Roosevelt did more.

While he said he would depend upon her honor in the matter, he

had a club, and that club was an agreement with Japan that if she

failed through her passport system to prevent a further increase

of Japanese population in this country, and even, if possible, to

decrease it, he would under the agreement with her put into effect

an exclusion act.

Senator SHOETRIDGE. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I am going to show you that from the brief prepared for the consideration of the State Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Then does not your proposition lead to this inference, that Japan has failed, practically?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Absolutely. That is to say, the agreement has

failed to accomplish what was its acknowledged purpose.

This whole matter is set forth very clearly in the correspondence

which ensued between President Roosevelt and the legislature of

California in connection with this subject. I think it is a matter

that has not been before the committee and is not generally known.

The CHAIRMAN. This is perhaps a rather unusual question. Do

you think that if Roosevelt were alive, and President of the United

States, he would say that the gentlemen's agreement with regard

to the issuing of passports had been a failure, and that he would

therefore come to the second proposition, that it is time now to pass

this exclusion act?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, I not only think so, but Roosevelt has in effect declared so, as I will show in a few minutes. To

understand this matter you will have to have the story.

In 1909 the California Legislature had before it a number of

anti-Japanese bills, and President Roosevelt, as we know, was very

anxious that that friction between California and Japan should

cease. He believed that some of those bills were unfair, while he

held that the general attitude of California as to Japanese immigration was proper.

A commission of Californians, at the President's request, took the

matter up with him. Senator Flint was one, Congressman Julius

Kahn was another, and Franklin K. Lane was the third. Following

that conference President Roosevelt telegraphed back to the legislature, in a telegram of February 9, 1909, to the speaker of the house.

In that telegram he said what lie had said to this commission, that

he desired California to recede from this anti-Japanese legislation,

which was only going to make friction, and some of which he believed to be unfair; that California's position generally was right;

that he had taken the necessary measures to protect her; that he had

95671•24 2
14 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

an agreement with Japan under which Japan by her own act was to

keep out Japanese immigration; at that time it had worked so successfully for the first six months of its operation the Japanese population in the continental United States had decreased 2,000; and that

if in the future similar satisfactory results were not obtained from

it, then California had just ground for complaint and the Federal

Government could and would apply the necessary remedy•meaning

enforcement of an exclusion act.

I want to read that telegram to you, because it is the foundation of

our claims. This is the telegram:

I trust there will be no misunderstanding of the Federal Government's atti-

/tude. We are zealously endeavoring to guard the intei-ests of California and of

' / the entire West in accordance with the desires of our western people. By

' friendly agreement with Japan we are now carrying out a policy which, while

I meeting the interests and desires of the Pacific slope, is yet compatible not

merely with mutual self-respect but with mutual esteem and admiration between the Americans and Japanese.

The Japanese Government is loyally and in good faith doing its part to carry

out this policy, precisely as the American Government is doing. The policy

aims at mutuality of obligation and harmony.

In accordance with it, the purpose is that the Japanese shall come here

exactly as Americans go to Japan, which is in effect that travelers, students,

persons engaged in international business, men who sojourn for pleasure or

study, and the like, shall have the freest access from one country to the other

and shall be sure of the best treatment; but that there shall be no settlement

en masse by the people of either community in the other.

During the last six months under this policy more Japanese have left the

country than have come in. and the total number of Japanese in the United

States has diminished by over 2,000. These figures are absolutely accurate and

need not be impeached. In other words, if the present policy is consistently

followed and works as well in the future as it is now working, all difficulties

and causes for friction will disappear, while at the same time each nation will

retain the self-respect and good will of the other.

But such a bill as this school bill accomplishes literally nothing whatever in

the line of the object aimed at, and gives just cause for irritation, while in

addition the United States Government would be obliged immediately to take

action in the Federal courts to test such legislation, as we hold it to be clearly

a violation of the treaty.

On this point I refer you to the numerous decisions of the United States

Supreme Court in regard to State laws which violate treaty obligations of

the United States. The legislation would accomplish nothing beneficial, and

would certainly cause some mischief. In short the policy of the administration is to combine the maximum of efficiency in achieving the real object

which the people of the Pacific slope have at heart, with the minimum of

friction and trouble, while misguided men who advocate such action as this

against which I protest are following a policy which combines the very

minimum of efficiency with the maximum of insult, and which, while totally

failing to achieve any real result for good, yet might accomplish an infinity

of harm.

If in the next year or two the action of the Federal Government fails to

achieve what it is now achieving, then through the further action of the

President and Congress it can be made entirely efficient.

I am sure that the sound judgment of the people of California will support

you, Mr. Speaker, in your efforts. Let me repeat that at present we are actually doing the very thing which the people of California wish to have

done, and to upset the arrangement under which this is being accomplished

can do no good and may do harm. If in the next year or two the figures

of immigration prove that the arrangement which was worked so successfully

during the past six months is working no longer successfully, then there would

be good ground for grievance and for the reversal by the National Government

of its policy. But at present the policy is working well, and until it works

badly it would be a grave misfortune to change it, and when changed it can

only be changed effectually by the National Government.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 15

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that written?

Mr. MCCI.ATCHY. That was February 9, 1909, Mr. Chairman.

Promptly, the very next day, in response to the assurance of

President Roosevelt that the United States had an agreement which

would fully protect California in this matter, and that she would

be protected under that agreement or under another agreement

already provided for, the California Legislature killed all those bills

to which the President had taken exception.

The President then sent out two wires, which are a part of the

record, and are significant. One was to the speaker of the assembly:

Accept my heartiest thanks niul congratulations for the great service you

have rendered on behalf of the people of the United States. I fhanl* *he people

of California and their representatives in the legislature.

The second was, however, very much more significant. It w°«

a telegram to Governor Gillette:

WASHINGTON. February 10.

Gov. J. M. GILLETTE. Sacramento:

Accept my heartiest congratulations. All good Americans appreciate what

you have done. Pray extend my congratulations individually to all who aided

you. I feel the way in which California has done what was right for the

Nation makes it more than ever obligatory to safeguard the interests of

California. All that. I can do to this end either in public or private shall

most certainly be done.

I want to impress upon the committee this: That there was a contract between the State of California and the Federal Government,

under the terms of which the Government was indorsing California's

position as to the exclusion of Japanese immigration, and that if she

would do certain things which would placate Jamn and not nrovoke

friction the Government itself would "see that this agreement would

be carried out, either in the way in which Japan proposed to carry

it out or forcibly by an exclusion act.

Now, then, what happened? According to President Roosevelt's

testimony, his successor, President Taft, made in the treaty of 1911

with Japan a concession which destroyed the very safeguard which

Roosevelt had placed in that agreement by providing that the

nationals of Japan might have admission as residents and for business purposes. .Even there, howeA'er, Japan, by a note which was

appended to the bottom of the treaty and signed by the Japanese

ambassador, specifically said

The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the treaty of 1911?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you have it there you

will notice a note at the bottom

The CHAIRMAN. I have only an excerpt from it.

Mr. MCCI.ATOHV (continuing). In which it is specifically said

that Japan guarantees to carry out the intent of the agreement as

to the exclusion of Japanese labor.

Now, then, the result has been, as we shall see later, that under the

agreement which has been in effect since then the very purpose of the

agreement in preventing the increase in Japanese population of this

country, with the obvious injuries and consequences which would

result, has not been fulfilled, and that population has steadily and

very largely increased.
16 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

The CHAIRMAN. Did it increase by reason of the Japanese coming

here for purposes of trade under the treaty ?

Mr. MCLATCHY. Partly, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course that might be, temporarily or for a

long time, you know.

Mr. McCiiATCHT. Yes. This is the footnote that was appended

to the treaty and signed by the Japanese ambassador:

In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States, the undersigned, Japanese ambassador in Washington, duly authorized by his Government, lias the honor to declare that the Imperial .lapanese Government are fully prepared to maintain

With equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the

past three years exercised in regulation of the emigration of laborers to the

United States.

That was practically a pledge on the part of Japan to the United

States that, notwithstanding the removal of Roosevelt's safeguard,

they would on their honor and through their own efforts still serve

the purpose for which that agreement was made and specifically

outlined, to wit, prevent the increase of Japanese population in

this country.

The CHAIRMAN. IS there anything said about the increase of

.Japanese population in this country in the papers themselves?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No; there is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, is there not a distinction between

what you call the laborer or immigrant and traders and merchants

coming from Japan under the commerce clause of the treaty?

Mr. MCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, I have shown you from President Roosevelt's own language that the danger which he and Japan

foresaw was that the development of Japanese communities in this

country was going to lead to racial and international friction, and

that it was the intent of that agreement to prevent an increase of

Japanese population in this country. He says that specifically in

some of these things which I have read to you.

Now, the difficulty with this Japanese agreement is this: It is not

a document which is accessible to the country. It is a secret understanding, consisting of an interchange of notes, and even the House

Committee on Immigration has been refused permission to see what

that gentlemen's agreement is and just what it says and what it

means. And the best evidence which we have been aide to produce is

that of Mr. Roosevelt himself, who made the agreement.

Just think! In a nation like this we have conceded to Japan under

that agreement the right to say how many Japanese shall come into

this country. The fact is that under the orders of the department to

the officials in each port any Japanese who presents himself with a

passport from Japan must be admitted unless he has contagious

disease. No such relinquishment of sovereignty has ever been made

by any other nation on the face of the earth, and we have never made

it ourselves to any nation save Japan; and Roosevelt did it, relying

absolutely on Japan's honor that she would fulfill the conditions of

the agreement; and apparently Taft, even after the removal of the

safeguard, relied on it that she would still do it tinder the footnote to

the treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's agreement, so far as we know it,

did not exclude traders from coming, did it? It was directed specifically, was it not, at the laborers, the immigrants ?
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 17

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I think not, from President Roosevelt's language.

You must remember that we are denied access to the documents, Mr.

Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it has been published, I think, in the House

reports somewhere.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. It has never been published. Secretary Hughes

in a letter to the House committee, which was published in its hearings within two years at least, specifically said, in response to the

request of the committee to be permitted to see what the agreement

contained, that it was a confidential correspondence between Japan

and the United States and that it could not be shown even to the

House Committee on Immigration without the express permission

of Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Waiving that for a minute, we entered into that

treaty with Japan in 1911, did we not?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a clause of the treaty:

The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have

liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other to carry on

trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories,

warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for

residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to

or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

In our consideration of this subject we must draw the distinction

between the immigrant; that is, the laborer, if you please, and persons coming here for purposes of trade under the commercial treaties

which we have with various countries. Now, the question I was

going to ask is whether the Johnson bill would not operate to repeal

this provision of the treaty?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I would rather that Attorney General Webb

should answer that question. But I understand, of course, that any

action along this line by Congress

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, absolutely; a statute repeals a treaty and a

treaty repeals a statute.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. May I say just a word right there? There is

no doubt whatever as to what was contemplated and agreed to in or

by the so-called gentleman's agreement. It was contemplated that

there would be a falling oil' or a decrease in the Japanese population

in California, and in so far as Japan could they promised to carry

out that agreement.

Now, the agreement has not been carried out, and there has been a

very great increase in the population. When it came to the treaty

of 1911, a portion of which you have just read, this bar as against

immigration was removed. The activities of the immigrants from

Japan were limited by (he treaty, but there was no limitation in that

treaty as to the number that might come. Recently the Supreme

Court of the United States has upheld our State legislation, which

prevents the owning of real property for agricultural purposes, for

subleasing, etc. But the gentleman's agreement was to limit and to

reduce the population or immigration. The treaty of 1911 removed

all limitation as to immigration, but accompanying that treaty of

1911 was the declaration of the ambassador that the existing gentleman's agreement would be carried out in good faith.
18 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mr. MCCLATCHY. And that, I understand, Mr. Chairman, was

done because the Senate in passing upon the treaty and approving it

specifically provided that it was not to interfere with the immigration

act. I think Senator Phelan can tell you more about that.

Now, let me indicate from President Roosevelt's own language

just exactly what he meant in that agreement in regard to the particular point which you raised; that is to say, as to whether they

were going to admit, regardless of the increase of population, traders,

business men, and so on. I will read now an extract from a letter

to the Hon. William Kent, written by President Roosevelt, dated

February 4, 1909, just a few days before he sent that telegram to the

California Legislature, which would indicate what was in his mind

art the time:

Let the arrangement between Japan and the United States l>e entirely reciprocal. Let the Japanese and Americans visit one another's countries with

entire freedom as tourists, scholars, professors, sojourners for study or pleasure,

or for purposes of international business, but keep out laborers, men who want

to take up farms, men who want to go into the small trades, or even in professions where the work is of a noninternational character. That is, keep out

of Japan those Americans who wish to settle and become part of the resident

working population, and keep out of America those Japanese who wish to adopt

a similar attitude. This is the only wise, proper policy.

The CHAIRMAN". NOW. you hit, it seems to me. one phase of this

question.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I think that meets your suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a new question. It arises with regard

to other commercial treaties that we have with other nations, whether

the immigration quota is not in violation of them. It is argued with

great force that the immigration law does not include traders who

come here temporarily for trade purposes and then go back.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Oh, yes; I think that is conceded.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Japanese agreement intended to include

those who come here for trade purposes, etc. ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Provided they did not remain permanently.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I mean.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. But the trouble was that those who came, here

for purposes of trade remained here.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not the Johnson bill exclude them from

coming here temporarily for purposes of trade?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NO; my understanding is that it makes a

specific exception of tourists.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the Johnson bill an immigrant is anybody

coming to the United States from outside the territory of the continental United States. It covers everybody coming.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. But they make exceptions.

The CHAIRMAN. They make exception, but those exceptions ai-e

specifically stated in the nonquota classes, and the Japanese are

not included.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. My understanding is that they except tourists,

professional men, men who come for business, for temporary residence.

The CHAIRMAN. The State Department has taken the position

that coming over here for temporary residence or for business is

not broad enough to include the commercial traders covered by the
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 19

commercial treaties, and therefore that there should be in the nonquota classes those who come under any treaty or agreement.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I want, if I may, to confine myself to the subject

of the ineligible alien, because I think 1 would take up too much of

your time otherwise.

Roosevelt says, further:

They have little recognition of the fact that in the present status of social

advancement of the two peoples, whatever may be the case in the future, it is

not only undesirable but impossible that there should be any mingling on a

large scale, and the effort is sure to bring disaster.

So that, clearly, the idea which Roosevelt had was that an increase

of the Japanese population, whether of laborers or business men or

professional men, should not be permitted, because any increase of

alien and unassimilable population was sure to make trouble between

the two countries.

The danger which Roosevelt foresaw has been foreseen elsewhere

in regard to the Japanese and the Asiatic population. Many years

ago Great Britain made a treaty with Japan and she specifically provided therein that Japanese citizens should have access to the dominions of Great Britain, with the privileges and rights of citizenship,

as any other favored nation. But she made a reservation to the

effect that any one of the dominions could except to or modify that

so far as it affected its own territory in any way desired. South

Africa, Australia, and New Zealand did most materially modify

that agreement so as to absolutely exclude Japanese, and Australia,

as you perhaps know, did it in a most discriminatory way. They

have a law there which says, in effect, that incoming immigrants

must submit themselves to an educational test, and the educational

test is that they may be forced to read and talk in any one of 20

different languages. They say, " Now, you are the inspector here,

and you can hold the job if you do not let in any Japanese." So he

asks the Japanese to read in Arabic, or Yiddish, or anything else.

Great Britain specifically warned her dominions separately to

modify that treaty as to their own territories if they saw fit.

I have seen the letter which the prime minister of Great Britain

sent to Canada warning them specifically in the matter, calling their

attention to what South Africa had done in the way of protection,

and urging, in a confidential way, that something of that same sort

be done by Canada. But Canada did not do it, and the result was

that she found herself in a few years confronted with a possible

influx of numberless Japanese. Then she entered into a gentleman's

agreement with Japan under which but 400 were to be admitted

each year. I see from the official reports that 1,200 or 1,600 are

coming in, and Canada has been very much aroused over it, because

she has now over five times as many Japanese in proportion to the

population as the United States has.

In the Dominion Parliament of 1922 the representatives from

British Columbia, Vancouver, and the west induced the parliament

to pass a resolution under which the Government was called upon to

bring about as speedily as possible an absolute exclusion by law of

all the Japanese.

Bear in mind that in all this matter Japan has been the close ally

of Great Britian, that she never excepted to any of these proceed-
20 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

ings, that she has never alleged discriminatory treatment against

herself, and yet she comes here and in the face of the fact that our

act is not discriminatory, but general, she excepts and protests and

even makes covert threats.

Now, what has been done actually under the Japanese agreement,

so far as the United States territory is concerned 8 And here I am

only going to skeletonize it with reference to the many exhibits which

I offer.

In Hawaii in 1880 there were no Japanese. In 1920 almost half

the population were Japanese, having the control of many and

varied industries. In 1940, according to investigations extending

over nearly two years, made by Louis Sullivan for the American

Museum of History, the number of voters of Japanese parentage will

exceed the number of voters of all other races in Hawaii, and Hawaii

will be hopelessly Japanese. In consequence, Hawaii, which a few

years ago sent a commission to Washington asking for statehood,

knows now that she will not only never get statehood, but she will

have to relinquish her territorial form of government and be placed

under a Federal commission.

What has happened in California? What has happened in Hawaii

has already happened in some districts of California, and is going to

happen in many of them unless those conditions are remedied. In

1880 there were no Japanese in California. In 1920 there were

100,000. And while those figures do not agree with the census figures,

you will find in a brief which I shall submit here, proof that the

census is entirely wrong. In fact, the Japanese themselves found

13,000 more than the census figures give.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the figures given by the census?

Mr. MCCLATCHT. About 72,000.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Japanese admitted 13,000 more than those

figures showed.

Mr. MCCLATCHT. Since you ask the question I will say that the

Japanese, under authority of their Government, had a census, and

you will find in the proceedings of the House committee a statement

of the secretary of the Japanese Association of America in which

he acknowledges that they found by this census in California 83,000

Japanese, and they found them under a most incomplete system of

census, which he explained. They sent out postal cards which had

to come back, and they charged every man who sent his return 25

cents. And yet, under that system, incomplete as they acknowledge

it to have been, they counted 13,000 in California in excess of the

United States census.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the State census make it 100,000 ?

Mr. MCCLATCHT. No; there was no State census. But the estimate

of the State board of health is 100,000, and I have various proofs

in the way of estimates of that same number.

Mr. PHELAN. The United States census broke down, confessedly•

I was pretty familiar with it at the time•because, of the system by

which the Census Bureau undertook to enumerate the aliens, at 10

cents a name. The Japanese were scattered in the country so far that

the agents gave up their jobs and would not enumerate them for 10

cents. There was no other provision of law by which they might be

compensated. We counted the 10-cent Japanese, the Attorney

General suggests, and they were in the towns.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 21

Mr. MCCLATCHT. SO much for population. One person in every

40 in the population in California is Japanese, and 1 birth in 11 is

Japanese. The birth rate per thousand is about three times that of

the whites (this statement is from the report of the State board of

health) although the proportion of adult females to males is only

1 to 2^ or 8. They are increasing in number about 10 times as fast

as the white, because practically all the women are wives and mothers

of families. If present conditions continue•this is a statement from

the register of vital statistics of the State board of health•it is

only a question of time when the Japanese will exceed the whites in

California.

In certain districts of southern California the number of Japanese

births exceed the white births. In Sacramento County, outside of

Sacramento City, in 1922 there were 252 Japanese and 273 white

births. In 1923 there were 268 white births and 250 Japanese. The

white population of the district is over five times that of the Japanese, according to the 1920 census. In Sacramento City in 1922 the

Japanese, constituting about 3 per cent of the population, furnished

22 per cent of the births.

The CHAIRMAN. The connnittee can sit this afternoon until 5

o'clock, and I think we had better take the usual recess now until 2.15.

STATEMENT OF KEV. CHARLES S. MacFARLAND, GENERAL SECRETARY THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

IN AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Doctor MACFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to submit certain papers here without discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be submitted.

Doctor MACFARLAND. They show the action of the Federal Council

of the Churches of Christ in America, and may be discussed when

you reach them by my associates, Doctor Gulick, and others. I simply ask permission to submit them at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The documents submitted by the witness were filed with the committee.)

(Whereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m. a recess was taken until 2.15

o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reconvened at 2.15 p. m., Tuesday, March 11, 1924,

pursuant to the taking of recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. McClatchy, you may continue, please.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF V. S. McCLATCHY.

Mr. MCC^ATCHY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee,

at the recess I was about to take up consideration in brief of what

Japanese peaceful penetration had clone in California under the gentlemen's agreement. I had shown what it had done in population.

The agreement has been in force for about 15 years. In 1920, as

shown by the report of the State board of health, under instructions from the California Legislature to investigate, and report at
__> JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

length, the Japanese controlled one-eighth of all the State's rich

irrigated lands, and in four counties, Sacramento, Placer, San Joaquin, and Colusa, they had seemed control of from 50 to 85 per cent

of all the irrigated lands in those respective counties. Among the

exhibits I am offering the entire report of that board of health, which

is very instructive.

They have driven white labor off the farms. Methods are illustrated in the Turlock matter, in 1920 and 1921, fully explained in

the brief submitted by me to the Department of State, which I leave

with you, and investigated also by the House Committee on Immigration when it was out there in 1920. Driving white labor from

farm and orchard they have forced in time the owner to sell to them

by refusing to work for wage, and afterwards when the law forbade,

ownership of land by aliens ineligible to citizenship they secured

leases which, with renewal, gave them practical control.

When that again, under decisions, was declared in violation of

the alien land law, they resorted to a subterfuge in the matter of

crop contracts, and that finally, too, was decided to be in violation of

the law by the court.

White tenants were thus driven off the lands, and gradually

many near-by white proprietor farmers owning small places, and

living on the proceeds of produce from those places, because of

social conditions and Japanese competition abandoned-'their farms

and orchards, many leasing to Japanese. In connection with that

I submit as an exhibit an article from the March number of the

Overland Monthly, which goes at some length into the existing

conditions in California, and what the situation has produced

there, and what it is likely to result in.

They have displaced the whites in business. The Los Angeles

city license department reports that in the city of Los Angeles there

are over 4,000 separate businesses owned and operated by Japanese,

and of these over 1,100 are vegetable and fruit stores, and over

500 are grocery stores, each one of which probably has displaced a

similar store owned by and supporting a white man or a white

family. That phase of the situation is giving concern not only in

Los Angeles but elsewhere throughout the State, because they look

across the ocean to Hawaii and see what has been produced there.

Now the profits from Japanese occupancy and lease and tilling

of lands in California has come only to the large landowners, who

have found that they could make more money by retiring to the

cities, leasing their land to Japanese, and taking their profits at the

end of the season.

Some suggestion was made this morning as to a difference of

opinion among the farmers of the country as to the advisability of

getting in cheap farm labor. Now, I want to say on behalf of the

farmers of California, as indicated by their action, and by the

action of the National Grange, that the actual farmer is unalterably

opposed to the immigration of cheap farm labor. The Japanese

have never been of any value to the small farmer of California.

They have benefited only the large landowner who could make more

money out of their services than he could by leasing or by crop

contract with whites.

There is no better proof of that than the fact that in 1920 the

farm bureaus of the State, representing, I think, 33 counties, and
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 23/

a membership of over 20,000, held a referendum on various points

connected with Japanese immigration, such as the introduction of

Japanese, the use of labor on the farms, the leasing by Japanese,

the ownership by Japanese, the introduction of picture brides, and

on every one of those questions the vote was from 7 to 1 to 24 to 1

against the Japanese.

The small farmer is absolutely opposed, because he does not

employ the Japanese laborer. The Japanese laborer will not work

for him. He works in preference for the Japanese contractor under

a sort of cooperative system, and the small farmer finds that, not

only is the Japanese laborer not available for him but he finds

that the Japanese contractor and lessee on adjoining places is his

active competitor in production and marketing, and that he is,

through this economic competition based on low standards of living,

long hours of labor, women and child labor, forced absolutely to

the wall. So you may take it that there is not any farmer who

knows his business who is in favor of Japanese immigration, or

who has as a rule the opportunity to use Japanese labor.

Now then you have before you, too, the action of the State Grange.

The State Grange was a party to the request made to this committee to hold this hearing, and is unalterably opposed, through its

resolutions, to the admission of ineligible aliens. You had here

before you the legislative representative of the National Grange,

who has given you the resolutions by that organization.

Now, then, what the Japanese have done, what they have accomplished alreadj' in Hawaii, what they are doing in California, what

they have already done in some districts of California, they are

doing in some other States of the Union, and they are going to do,

if permitted, in every State of the Union which offers to them

agricultural advantages, because they seek the good, the productive,

the rich lands. They are not pioneers.

In Washington you will find in the reports of the House Committee things which have been accomplished by the Japanese there.

There, I think, 1 birth in 13 is Japanese. They have taken possession of a good deal of the lands around Seattle, and a large

number of the lands in the rich Yakima Valley, and the American

Legion of Washington called upon Secretary Fall, I think it was

during his. incumbency as Secretary of the Interior, to stop the

leasing of those Indian lands on the Indian reservations in the

Yakima to the Japanese because of the results obtaining there.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, we are not here to undertake

co regulate the conditions in California that exist with respect to

the present Japanese population that is here now. Therefore, what

I would like information on at the proper time is how many are

being admitted now under the gentlemen's agreement and treaties

with Japan

Mr. MCCLATCHY. All right. Mr. Chairman. I submit only this

thought, that what the Japanese

The CHAIRMAN. YOU have stated very clearly about what the

Japanese population means in all its aspects. You have been going

over that.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Well, I want to bring to your attention this

point, and I want to make that very clear, because many States

and many statesmen say that this is a local concern of California, or
24 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

possibly the Pacific States. I want to draw your attention to the fact

that what has been done in Hawaii, what is being done in California,

is being done gradually also in Washington and Oregon and Colorado and Texas and New Mexico. That is the point that I want to

make. And that it becomes not a sectional concern, but a national

concern, and that it is only a question of time when the things

which have occurred to us out on the Pacific slope are going to occur

to all those States that have rich agricultural districts, providing

the conditions as to the admission of the Japanese are permitted

to continue.

Now, then, these conditions have developed under the gentlemen's

agreement, and that I have explained to you on the very best authority. It woidd appear to me that the very fact that that is a

secret understanding which even a committee of this standing is not

permitted to cognize is sufficient justification for the immediate cancellation of that agreement. That, I think, needs no argument.

Under the agreement, as I have said, the United States is forced

to admit any Japanese coming to a port of entry with Japan's passport, unless he have a contagious disease. That, again, is sufficient

reason for the immediate cancellation of the gentlemen's agreement.

A suicidal relinquishment of the supreme sovereignty of this country

with regard to the number and the personnel of immigration admitted from a foreign nation, and particularly from a race whose

people have been declared by law ineligible to citizenship, and therefore hopelessly unassimilable.

NOM', then, the negotiations for the gentlemen's agreement were

concluded in 1907. They were commenced some time before, and

they had proceeded for some time previously. While they were

concluded in 1907, Japan postponed commencement of operations

under that agreement until July 1, 1908, and I call to your attention

to this fact that during the fiscal years of 1907 and 1908, while

this agreement was in negotiation at Japan's request, and during

the period when at Japan's request it was made inoperative after

it had been signed or entered into, Japan sent over to this country

46,029 Japanese immigrants, of which 19,774 came into continental

United States and the balance into Hawaii. Without further comment I simply suggest that that was a gross violation of the intent of the agreement as carefully and definitely explained by President Roosevelt.

Now, subsequently the population of the United States, and of

California, very greatly increased under the operation of the gentlemen's agreement. I ask that you bear in mind the fundamental

fact that this agrement, as has been shown conclusively, was formed

for the express purpose of preventing trouble between Japan and

the United States, by preventing an increase in this country of an

alien and unassimilable population, which was certain to provoke

racial strife and international misunderstanding. And yet under

the operation of that agreement since 1906, at the time when negotiations therefor were commenced and in operation, the Japanese population of the continental United States has trebled, and the Japanese

population of the State of California has quadrupled.

Senator COPELAND. How large is it now in California?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. It is 100,000, Senator.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 25

Senator COPELAND. And in the country how large £

Mr. MCCLATCHY. In the United States 150,000. If I may explain a moment, authorities generally agree on the 50,000 outside

-of the State of California. Mr. Gulick, who has given considerable

attention to the subject, made an estimate of about 49,000. The

difference in estimates has come in the State of California, and

you will find in my brief and things which I am submitting here

what I think is conclusive evidence that the population in California is 100,000. That is the estimate, also, of the State board of

health.

The CHAIRMAN. The census made it 72,000.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The census made it only 72,000. I was explaining some of those things this morning.

Senator SHORTRII>GE. And the Japanese admitted eighty-odd

thousand.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Figures have been introduced here, and I am

sorry that Senator Reed is not here, because he wanted me to express nvyself particularly to that point•figures have been introduced showing the immigration statistics, showing that in years

and on occasions departures exceeded the entries, and that therefore

the Japanese agreement was being well observed, and should be

satisfactory to both nations. Almost anything, I find, can be

proved by careful selection, in years or periods, of immigration

figures without knowledge of just the exact details. I see the chairman smiling at that. For the moment I ask the committee to disregard any of these periodical figures, and simply remember that

the agreement was formed for the express purpose of preventing

an unwise increase in the Japanese population of the United States,

and the Japanese population since the agreement was negotiated

has trebled, since it was made operative it has doubled, and that it

seems to me is a conclusive answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, would you dispute the figures? In the

last year the admissions were 5,652, the departures 3,644. That

would leave a net increase of about 2,000.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I would not propose to dispute any figures

because I do not know what they represent.

The CHAIRMAN. The year before the figures show 6,000 came

in and 4,000 left. The year before that 7,000 came in and 4,000

left.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Pardon me, how manv came in, for instance,

in the year 1921 i What is the net?

The CHAIRMAN. 1921, 7.551 came in and 4,352 departed.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. That is 3,200, is it ?

The CHAIRMAN. Just about.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Three thousand two hundred. All right. Now

in regard to figures of that kind. I find that the reports do not include the figures which are necessary. For instance, I wanted to

ascertain how many new wives were coming in in the particular

year that you referred to, 1921, and the figures could not be had,

and I had to employ, under permission of the commissioners in

San Francisco and Seattle, experts to go through their work and

get that. Now in that year that you quote, where there are only

3.200 that came in, 2.197 of those were what is called Kankodan
26 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

brides. That is to say, new wives coming in to meet husbands, or

with husbands, eacli one of them destined to produce on the average

a family of five.

The CHAIRMAN. IS it true or not that when it was represented

to the Japanese Government that they were issuing passports too

freely for picture brides, the Japanese Government itself greatly

restricted, if not prohibited, the issuing of passports to picture

brides ?

Mr. MCCLATOHY. It is true, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that shows good faith on their part as far

as that is concerned, Mr. McClatchy.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Let me make a reservation.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU made the admission.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Let me make a reservation and show YOU h»w

much good faith it was. I will always admit facts. Mr. Chairman.

I want the committee to feel that any time that I can not substantiate anything that I say here by proof of the fact I am out of the

running.

The CHAIRMAN. I realize absolutely that that is the spirit of your

testimony.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Now let me explain the picture-bride business.

It is quite time that Japan did, because of severe criticism of that

system, say that she would abandon entirely the picture-bride system

as far as it applied to continental United States, and in February.

1920, she. ceased to issue passports to picture brides, providing that

even the passports issued must be used before the last day of August.

1920, or they would be worthless. All right. Now then what she

did was to replace the picture bride with the Kankodan bride.

The CHAIRMAN. With what?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. With the Kankodan bride. " Kankodan " means

" excursion."

Tht CHAIRMAN. Oh, temporary?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes.

Mr. PHELAN. Explain what a Kankodan is.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU did not say "tentative." ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The picture bride is a mail-order bride, or was

a mail-order bride. You understand that.

Senator COPELAND. They are seeking to raise the rates on mailorder business.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. This is fe-male order business.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The picture bride was a mail-order bride. The

picture was sent over to Japan, and the marriage, under the Japanese law, was recognized as legal.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you express in English what substitutes

Japan made?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes. The difference between the two was that

under the Kankodan-bride system the happy bridegroom instead of

sending over a request and a picture and getting his bride back by

return boat, had to go over himself and marry there.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. But now let me show you wherein Japan did

not exercise, as I would say, full good faith. Bear in mind first

that she was under obligation to prevent, if possible, the increase
JAP^ESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 27

of Japanese population in this country, and next, that- tne picturebride system, which was doing precisely7

that thing, and had been

criticized, had been stopped. In order to assist the Japanese laborers and colonists in this; country to get a Kankodan bride instead

of a picture bride, the Japanese Government officially made this

change in the law, that- where visitors from California and the coast

going back to Japan had only 30 days in which to stay there, unless

they were prepared to do their conscription duty, that period was

extended to 90 days in the event that they came for the purpose of

getting a bride, and financial interests so arranged matters that the

laborer desiring a bride could enter into a Kankodan party and secure his bride from Japan at a cost which was not much, if any,

in excess of the price which would have been paid by him under the

picture-bride system.

Now watch the result. Picture brides stopped on the last day of

August. Their arrival ceased in our western ports on the last day of

August, 1920. I have the official figures from San Francisco and

Seattle. And in the year following, that is to say, up to the 1st of

September, 1921, there came into those two ports 2.197 Kankodan

brides, new wives, every one of them destined to raise on the average

a family of five, and that I insist, was not an observance of the intent of the Japanese agreement, and did not indicate good faith on

the part of Japan when she stopped the picture-bride system.

Now, in regard to the figures which have been offered from several

sources as to outgoing and incoming immigration and what it

represents, you will find in the report of the State Board of Control

of California that for the period April 15, 1910 to December 31,

1919, that is nearly 10 years, the increase of Japanese population in

the State by immigration; that is to say, the excess of arrivals over

departures, was 25,086, while the corresponding increase in the

Chinese population was 789. Now, bear in mind that the Chinese

immigration was regulated by the exclusion act. Bear in mind that

the Japanese population was regulated by the gentlemen's agreement specifically entered into for the purpose of accomplishing with

regard to Japanese the same results obtained under the exclusion act

with Chinese, and yet there came in in that period of 10 years, 32

Jaa'inese for every Chinaman. That is an official report.

fja/w, then, in that same period•and this again is from that official

rtr.»rte•the increase of the Japanese population in the State of

California by birth was 20,321. So that the increase of Japanese

population in the State from combined immigration (net increase)

and birth, less deaths, was 46,000. Now, each one of those elements

that entered into that increase, the element of direct immigration,

net immigration, and the element of increase by birth, was a direct

violation of the intent of the gentlemen's agreement formed for the

specific purpose of preventing an increase of alien and unassimilable

population in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen's agreement did not provide there

should be no births, did it?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NO; but it aimed to prevent those. Let me illustrate that point since you bring it up.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. By keeping the Avives out.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Under the exclusion act the Chinese did not

have wives. And their population did not increase. It decreased.
28 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

as a matter of fact, about 50 per cent. The Japanese did not have

wives, but what did they do? They resorted to this picture-bride

system, and where they did not have a wife, a wife was created for

them over there and shipped over here, and the United States,

whether compelled to or not by what it deemed to be the equities of

the case, recognized that system, and they created a wife for the

Japanese here in order that the terms and intent of the Japanese

agreement should be violated. That was the difference between

the situations, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, supposing we should restrict the operation

of the Japanese agreement by a quota law which would forbid only

a certain number, would not that be a barrier against any liberalization of the gentlemen's agreement?

Mr. MCCLATCHT. I think not. I am going to come to that later,

but I will take it up now if you like.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not want to suggest too many things

to come up later.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I will do anything you suggest, Mr. Chairman,

because I am in your hands.

Now, the same report shows that during that period the Japanese

increased in California 111 per cent. The white population 22 per

cent. And the Chinese population decreased 8.2 per cent. Minors

increased in that same period: Japanese, 152 per cent; whites, 18.5

per cent: Chinese decreased 17.6 per cent.

The gentlemen's agreement, in the judgment of California, should

have been canceled just as soon as those conditions were understood•

that it gave a right to Japan conceded to no other nation. It should

have been canceled just as soon as it was found that Japanese were

coming into the country in excess of the intent had in mind by

President Roosevelt. It is agreed by Japanese leaders, as well as

by California, that the increase of Japanese population in this country is an unwise thing in the interests of both countries. That is

now conceded. The only question has been as to how to stop that

increase or that immigration without hurt, to the pride of Japan or

injustice to individuals.

There were originally three suggestions offered. One was a Japanese exclusion act. Now, California says quite frankly that she

realizes that an exclusion act would be a blow to the pride of Jap in,

and she does not urge it. She does not desire to have a special exclusion act against Japan if the interests of this country can be subserved practically in any other way.

The next suggestion was a continuance of the gentlemen's agreement or an amendment to the gentlemen's agreement. That is objectionable, because, in the opinion of California, and I think of the

Nation, we should never concede to any nation tbe right to say how

many and who shall come into this country from that nation.

Aside from that, and without casting any reflections upon Japan,

let us simply say that the operation of the gentlemen's agreement

has proved a failure. It has failed to accomplish the object for

which it was designedly entered into. That is a sufficient reason

why similar agreements should not be attempted in the future.

In regard to the treaty, California believes that immigration from

Japan should be regulated as immigration from every other country

is regulated, and by an act of Congress, in the molding of which
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 29

those who are most concerned and who know most about the subject

may have some voice.

Now, it is the 1911 treaty that has made possible this existing

trouble, and we do not want another treaty of that kind.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not differentiated between immigrants

and traders who come in here temporarily under commercialtreaties•

or they may sometimes reside almost permanently•but strictly for

purposes of trade and commerce, such as is called for by the treaty

here. Would you eliminate traders coming in here for the purpose

of business, of trade and commerce, etc. ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NO. What we object to is the treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. The treaty of 1911 was a commercial treaty.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The treatv of 1911 was a commercial treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. You think it is too broad in its terms, do you?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Precisely, Mr. Chairman. It expressly provides

the right of entrance, and there is no restriction, there is no registration. California objects to a treaty, because it is formulated by the

Department of State, and the Department of State in this particular

matter has not shown that knowledge of the subject which would

safeguard the interests of the States and of the Nation in this particular matter of unassimilable immigration.

The CHAIRMAN. Mind you, that is a very broad question that we

have to consider in respect to immigration, how far it may conflict

with commercial treaties made with European countries. And do

not our restrictions extend so far as to violate the trade provisions

in commercial treaties? I mean, it is not a very easy question to

solve; not as easy as some others.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that your committee is

up against one of the most difficult problems.

The CHAIRMAN. You know that.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I know that, because I have been following it,

and I have high respect for the ability of the committee, and am

highly appreciative of the time and attention you have given it.

And I am not even suggesting, much less dictating, what your policy

should be.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a splendid drill for the mind, I will admit

that.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. NOW, then, instead of these plans, what we haVe

suggested•it is not original, of course, with us•is a simple provision

for the exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship. We consider

that that is simple and effective, not discriminatory, and least objectionable.

The CHAIRMAN. And even if it repealed the treaty of 1911, you

want that the supreme law of this land ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes. Now, our friends the Japanese•and I

have, I hope, many friends among them•have said that they

thought this discriminatory. I think'that they are mistaken in that.

I think that as a matter of fact this is the easiest and the fairest and

the least objectionable and undiscriminatory solution of the problem,

and that it would be wise for them to so recognize it and accept it

gracefully now. It is not discriminatory so far as Japanese are

concerned, because it applies to half the population of the globe,

and the Japanese form only a very small proportion of that popu95671•24 3
30 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

lation. If we had entered into a provision under which among aliens

ineligible to citizenship the Japanese would have been excepted and

ruled out, that would have been discrimination. If we had among

European nations selected one nation•European nations being eligible to citizenship•and had ruled that the French or the Germans

would not be eligible, that is discrimination. What Japan asks in

this case, if you resolve it, is that we discriminate in her favor, because under this proposed bill and the quota system Japan would

be excepted among all the nations ineligible to citizenship, and permitted to send in her immigrants here, and that is gross discrimination, and could rightly be protested by the other Asiatic nations, and

more particularly by the Chinese.

Now, it is not improper to call attention here to the fact that while

Japan has suggested that legislation of this kind would be discriminatory and therefore unfair to her, Japan herself discriminates

against people of her own color by refusing to admit as immigrants

Chinese or Koreans, and Koreans are under her own flag. She has

a perfect right to do it. I think she is wise to do it. She says that

she does it because it is a proper protection to the labor of her own

country, which can not meet these other peoples in economic competition. But if that is right and fair for Japan, it is right and fair

for the United States, because precisely the grounds upon which

Japan has excluded Chinese and Koreans are precisely the grounds

upon which we say the peoples of races ineligible to citizenship

should not be admitted.

You have had before you a request from the American-Japanese

relations committee protesting against the passage of this provision.

I want to read you an extract from a speech made by Dr. Tasuku

Harada, former president of Doshisha University at Kyoto, now a

professor in the University of Hawaii, who, as president of Doshisha

University, came over at the instance of the Japanese Government a

few years ago to investigate the California question•a very liberal,

high-minded, and intelligent Japanese, whom I have met on several

occasions. He is mentioned in the report of this speech as a prominent member of the American-Japanese relations committee. In a

speech at Fresno, reported in the Japanese newspaper of San Francisco onj July 31, the translation of which I have here, he said,

among other things, this:

We do not object to-day to the exclusion of immigrants, but we must insist

to the utmost that Japanese residing in America be given equal treatment. * * *

As for racial exclusion, It is practiced even in Japan with reference to the

Koreans and the Chinese. East and west are alike in this regard, only we need

to know that sort of ostracism is not permanent.

Then, in an interview with the Sacramento Daily News, which is

Japanese, and the translation of which I have, on July 23 Doctoi

Harada said this:

There remains now the question of prohibiting immigration. Since the gentlemen's agreement Japan has sent no emigrants to America.

Doctor Harada, with due respect for his views, is mistaken in that.

[Continuing reading:]

If there is to be still further restriction of travel the Japanese Government

will demand that there be no discrimination against the Japanese in America

as " persons inelgible to citizenship," and that they be given equal rights with

citizens.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 31

That is Japan's plea•that she should be given equal rights with

Europeans everywhere and with our own citizens here.

I am coming down to the quota system, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We try to be reasonable as to time, but there will

have to be some limitation. We are aware that you have traveled

3,000 miles, and we want to have your views fully before the

committee.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. What is the immediate point you wanted to

develop now?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The chairman asked me to talk on the quota

matter, as to the practical application of the quota.

The CHAIRMAN. GO ahead.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I will stop any time you suggest.

The CHAIRMAN. All this will be taken down. It will be before all

the members of the committee.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Well, suppose I proceed with this? You were

asking as to the practical result of••

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I think, Mr. McClatchy, the chairman wants

to develop the effect of a quota as compared with the enforcement or

nonenforcement of the so-called gentlemen's agreement.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes; so I understood.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean this: Supposing the present law should

stand just as it is, would a quota, putting Japan under the quota, improve or be detrimental to the situation, as you view it?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. It would be detrimental. And I will explain to

you why. In the first place, California is unalterably opposed to

replacing the proposed plan of exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship by including Japan in the quota; first, because it is an abandonment of the principle that aliens ineligible to citizenship should

not be admitted as immigrants, because they are an unassimilable

element. Next, because if you except Japan and place her in

the quota you are at once acceeding to her demand that she be placed

on the same plane as Europeans, and that conceded, it would only

be a question of time when she would demand, as she is demanding

now, citizenship and other privileges.

Now, the result of the quota would be this: If you use the 1890

census there would only be about 40 Japanese coming in, and you

would add, I suppose, the base of 200, or whatever it would be.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Now, if you use the 1910 basis you would, as

Senator Reed was figuring, jump it up to 1,440. If you use the 1920

census it would amount to 4,400. But in that event this would happen : Japan would do what she has been doing for years. She would

not send over many adult male Japanese. She would send over the

entire 3,000, or a great part of them, or 4,400, of brides, and those

brides would promptly proceed to business with the result that the

population of this country would be very much increased. That

would be the result, and a further dangerous situation created.

Does that meet your suggestion ?

The CHAIRMAN. YOU may practically eliminate the 1920 census,

I think.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Well, then, we will limit ourselves to the 1910?
32 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. That would be the result in that case. Now,

there is still another point. It is probable that an exception would

be made in a bill of this character for wives of those who are now

here. Now, if that exception be made, Japan, under the past rulings,

would immediately make picture brides and take them over either

by the picture-bride system or by the Kankodan plan.

May I add to that, that a further objection, which I think the

Senate would regard as a legitimate one, is that an arrangement of

this kind, placing Japan under the quota system, would be a gross

discrimination in favor of Japan against all other races who under

our law are ineligible to citizenship, and might be very fairly protested by all those Asiatic races, and more particularly by the

Chinese.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. How many Japanese were there in

this country in the 1920 Census?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. There were 72,000 in continental United States.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. In 1920?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, sir.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Then if this amendment were

adopted, basing the quotas on the racial origin to the whole population, the quota for Japan would be 210 under that amendment,

basing the quotas on racial origin ?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. That is in 1910, Senator?

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. On the 1920 census.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Would be 210?

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Two hundred and ten.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I do not understand that.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. You probably are not familiar

with the amendment.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. It is based on the idea that the

quotas should not be determined according to the number of foreignborn persons, but should be determined on the racial origins to the

whole population of the United States, including the 80 per cent of

~ar population which is native born and of native parents. If that

Were done, you see it would diminish the quotas of these more recent

arrivals.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, sir.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. If I do not interrupt the thread of

your argument

Mr. MCCLATCHY. (interposing). Not at all.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. The objections to thus putting the

quotas as in Congressman Johnson's bill, and which you ask to be

put in this bill, are these: The gentleman's agreement will remain in

force if Japan is put under the quota law, and the imposition of the

quota, whether it be 210 persons, or 1,400 persons, or whatever basis

is adopted, will be merely an additional check upon the importation

of Japanese. Now, I have an impression that the Japanese Government has lived up pretty well to its agreement not only with reference

to this importation of Japanese into this country but also it has

enabled us to prevent the smuggling of Japanese across the Canadian

and Mexican borders. And I would be very fearful there will be

danger of Japanese being smuggled in when we cease to have their
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 33

help to prevent smuggling, combined with the gentleman's agreement.

Now that I am making this speech, I might as well finish it. I

think the improvements in Japan have been tremendous in the last

10 years. I think our dealings with other nations in the treaties

we have made and in the outpouring of our generosity to the Japanese people when in distress at the time of the earthquake have had

a wonderful political influence. Those two things combined have

pretty well convinced our Japanese friends that war is the last thing

we want. I should be very sorry to see us do anything to spoil that

friendly relation in order to stop the incoming of 399 Japanese immigrants. And I believe it is that thought that is troubling most of

the committee. Will you not address yourself to that I

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Senator Reed, I regret that you were not here

a little while ago, because I covered specific instances of what might,

be termed violations of the intent of the agreement. And I showed

conclusively, I think, that the intent, as explained by President

Roosevelt, was in fact violated, and that our proposed dealings with

the Japanese would not bring about racial and international trouble.

I showed by the figures that from the time the agreement was negotiated up to 1920 the Japanese population in continental United

States trebled. I showed that from the time the agreement went

into effect the Japanese, population doubled. I showed from the

figures given by our State board of control report that the number

of adult incoming immigration net for a 10-year period was very

large, combined male and female was 25.000: that the births in

those same times were 20,000. Both elements were a violation of the

intent of the agreement. And, therefore, any continuance of that

agreement is unwise. Even if you concede now that there is no

further increase from that cause it is, in my judgment, suicidal for

any nation without any check to place in the hands of another

nation the power to say who and how many of the nationals of that

nation shall come to this country: and what you are doing is to

say that anybody who comes with a passport shall be admitted.

The CHAIRMAN. You omitted to state one thing, that for a while

Japan formerly granted passports to picture brides: when she had

no quota, she granted passports to picture brides. She had to construe it so that the Japanese could go over and bring them back.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes: and she replaced the picture bride by the

kankodan bride, leading to the same result.

The CHAIRMAN. Bringing in a large number of women?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes. sir. Now, in regard to the surreptitious

entry, let me say that the surreptitious entry and the results that

come from it are clue indirectly to the Japanese agreement. If the

Japanese agreement did not exist there would be checks winch would

prevent surreptitious entry: or which would find them with power

of ejectment. Among my exhibits•I do not want to take time to

read them•but among m'v exhibits you will find proof of this fact,

that a large number of those going'to South America are. destined

for the United States. These figures will show that they go to

South America, and come up through Mexico and into California.

The figures are conclusive. The figures as to the increase of Japanese population you can not get around. We know they are in the

country, because they have been counted.
34 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Now I close, Mr. Chairman, and I have no doubt you are pleased.

I apologize for taking so much time.

The CHAIRMAN. You need not apologize.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. In conclusion, let me say this, that California

regards herself as a frontier State. She has been making for 20

years the fight of the Nation against incoming of alien races whose

peaceful penetration must in time with absolute certainty drive the

white race to the wall, and prior to that time inevitably provoke

international trouble with her friendly neighbors across the Pacific.

That we want to avoid.

Now, California has gradually converted 10 or 12 States to her

point of view, even when they had to change their view. First it was

California's fight. She changed the view of Theodore Roosevelt.

At the start he was very determinedly opposed to California's position, but after a time, and studying the problem, he became enthusiastically for it. She changed the point of view of the Immigration

Committee of the House of Representatives, and when the committee

visited Washington, Oregon, and California and held hearings in

1920 the committee became absolute converts. She claims she can

convert anyone with fair mind who will give sufficient time and attention to an investigation of the conditions on the ground. And we

have the belief that while we may not make sufficient converts in this

committee at this time, if you will give us the time and attention,

either personally or otherwise, the facts convert you as they have the

others.

I thank you. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. McClatchy, for the clearness

with which you have stated the case.

(Supplementary material filed by Mr. McClatchy for the record is

herewith appended:)

THE AMERICAN LEGION. DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA,

San Francisco, February 20, 1924.

Hon. LEBARON B. COLT,

Chairman Senate Immigration Committee,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: This answer to certain statements made in the letter of February 5 of the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations, and in the

letter of February 9 of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in

America, and in the letter of Secretary of State Hughes of February 8,

addressed to the chairman of the House Immigration Committee, urging the

elimination from the immigration bill of the provision therein which would

exclude aliens ineligible to citizenship, is sent for the consideration of your

committee and for presentation to the Senate.

We urge that such provision be kept in the bill as a logical, fundamental

step in the exclusion of unassimilable immigration. It would exclude only

those who under Federal laws, operative since 1790, may never become American citizens and are therefore hopelessly unassimilable. No charge of discrimination can lie on the part of Japan, since it applies to about half the population of the globe•all the yellow and brown races•of which the Japanese

constitute a bare fraction. This provision offers a permanent solution of the

problem, while the quota plan would be only temporary, since succeeding sessions of Congress might change the quota or the census basis or make other

far-reaching modifications. The present gentlemen's agreement with Japan

and the treaty of 1911 have been productive of most disastrous results in

increasing our unassimilable immigration. We present for your consideration

the following facts.

Theodore Koosevelt, when President, made the gentlemen's agreement with

Japan. He is the best authority, therefore, as to what it was and what it

meant For his statements in regard thereto, see his telegram to the California
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 35

Legislature, February 9, 1909, quoted In the testimony of V. S. McClatchy in

House Immigration Committee hearing January 26, 1921, page 382; also Roosevelt's autobiography, pages 411 to 414, both quoted in the McClatchy brief

prepared for consideration of the Department of State, page 104.

Under the gentlemen's agreement, the United States is compelled to admit

as immigrant or permanent resident, any Japanese who presents himself at

a port of entry armed with Japan's passport, provided he has no contagious

disease. This extraordinary concession•made by the United States to no

other nation•was made at Japan's request, to save her pride, and because

Roosevelt contemplated an exclusion act to prevent the development in this

country of communities of Japanese, whose unassimilability and advantages

in economic competition were certain, in his judgment, to breed racial strife,

and disturb our friendly relations with Japan. Japan expressly agreed to so

exercise this power as to not only prevent increase of Japanese population In

continental United States, but also to induce decrease of such population, If

possible. She further agreed that if she failed to accomplish this purpose,

she recognized the right of the United States to secure the agreed result by

enactment of an exclusion measure similar to that in force against the Chinese.

In the treaty with Japan of 1911, negotiated under President Taft's administration, the teeth of the gentlemen's agreement were removed, because It

conceded a right of entry to Japanese for residence and business purposes, so

that the Roosevelt alternative of exclusion could not be enforced against

Japanese without cancellation of the treaty. While removing this safeguard,

however, the treaty still left in Japan's hands the extraordinary privilege,

granted by the agreement, of sending her immigrants into this country when

and to what extent she desired.

Immigration statistics, like other statistics, can be skillfully juggled so as

to prove, apparently, any contention. The best and the conclusive proof as to

what has happened under operation of the gentlemen's agreement with Japan

is comparison of the measure of our Japanese population before and after.

Since Japan opened negotiations for the agreement•and up to 1920•-the

Japanese population of continental United States trebled, most of the increase

taking place since the agreement went into effect July 1, 1908. The Chinese

population, on the contrary, decreased more than one-half under the exclusion

act

In California alone, there are over 5.000 Japanese births every year; and in

Hawaii the same. In the year succeeding the announced suspension of the

" picture-bride" system, there came into San Francisco and Seattle 2,200

" Kankodan " or excursion brides, each destined to produce an average family

of five children. The flow of Kankodan brides still continues.

The adult Japanese immigrants are hopelessly unassimilable. The American

born Japanese are only less unassimilable, and have the dangerous added factor

of dual citizenship, which hinds them to Japan while they exercise the rights

of American citizens.

Both agreement and treaty should be wiped out at once: the agreement, because of its humiliating and unprecedented concession to a foreign nation of

the right to regulate our immigration, and because of the disastrous results

which have followed therefrom ; and the treaty, because it removes the only

safeguard which would have made the gentlemen's agreement harmless under

Roosevelt's theory. The recommendations of the State Department in Secretary

Hughes'* letter to the chairman of the House Immigration Committee, of

February 8 that aliens entitled to enter the United States under the provisions

of the existing treaties be excepted from the provisions of the bill, if adopted,

would at once destroy one of the bill's chief merits.

There is inclosed herewith for consideration of your committee, the opinion

of State Attorney General U. S. Webb, in reference to the relative power of an

act of Congress and a treaty, where there exists conflict heween them. Secretary Hughes evidently coincides in the conclusion of General Webb, that Congress has the right•which in this case would also seem the duty•to repeal by

its own act provisions of the agreement and treaty, which do not serve in

this matter the purpose for which they admittedly were Intended, and under

operation of which., the interests of this country are being jeopardized. The

treaty itself has expired under date, and continues only under sufferance in

the absence of six months' notice. There would seem to be. therefore, no impropriety in the adoption of the measure referred to. Manifestly, the Committee on Immigration in the House also held this view, or they would not

have approved its retention.
36 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

With appreciation of the earnest and able work expended by your committee

in seeking practical solution for our grave immigration problems, we subscribe

for our respective organizations.

Very sincerely yours,

MORGAN KEATON,

Department Adjutant, American Legion.

WM. J. HATES,

Grand President Native Bong of the Golden West.

PAUL SCHARHENBERG,

Secretary-Treasurer State Federation of Labor.

GEORGE R. HARRISON,

Master California State Grange.

PAUL SCHRAMBERG,

By C. A. BODWELL, Jr.

STATEMENT FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN LEGION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, THE GRANGE, AND NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN WEST IN

REPLY TO JAPAN'S FOREIGN MINISTER ON THE SUBJECT OF JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

AND AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS.

SAN FRANCISCO. February 8.

This statement, made on behalf of the California State departments of the

American Legion, the American Federation of Labor, and the Grange, and on

behalf of the Native Sons of the Golden West, by the authorized executives

thereof, is in reply to an appeal issued yesterday through the Associated Press

by Japan, through her Foreign Minister, Mr. K. Matsui, to the people of the

United States. In that appeal Japan alleges discriminatory treatment of her

people in this country and refers to " proposals now before Congress for further

exclusion of the Japanese."

There is no discriminatory treatment of the Japanese in this country. They

are accorded everywhere the rights and privileges to which all aliens, or

aliens ineligible to citizenship under our laws, Federal and State, are entitled.

There is no Japanese exclusion bill now before Congress, and no such measure

which mentions the Japanese. Minister Matsui probably refers to that provision in the general immigration bill which would exclude hereafter as immigrants or permanent residents all aliens ineligible to citizenship.

Far from singling out the Japanese, this provision applies to all the yellow

and brown races, comprising about half the population of the globe, and

includes Hindus, Malays, Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos•of which the

Japanese constitute only a small fraction.

The provision is in strict accord with the Federal law forbidding naturalization of certain aliens, passed in 1790, whcih law has not since been changed

in this particular, nor was complaint in regard to this law or its effect on the

Japanese people ever made by Japan at any time until within the past few

decades, since she started her policy of colonization in the United States.

The provision is certainly a fundamental step in the restriction of unassimilable

immigration now demanded by the Nation. It has received unanimous indorsement in national conventions of the American Legion, the American Federation

of Labor, and the Grange.

Minister Matsui's appeal, while couched in courteous language, is an extraordinary attempt on the part of a foreign nation to influence the electorate

of this country against legislation on a purely domestic question•immigration•because such legislation does not accord with the interests or desires of

that nation and her nationals.

This appeal was preceded by an unsuccessful attempt to force the House

Immigration Committee at Washington to eliminate the provision in question

from the immigration bill. According to widely published press reports, the

attempt was made at the instance of our Department of State because of strong

protests from Japan and at the instance of our Department of Commerce

because of complaint from certain American commercial interests which were

threatened by Japan with cancellation of rehabilitation contracts aggregating

$200,000,000 if this provision were enacted into law.

We protest against such interference by Japan•and against such interference by any other nation•should any other nation, encouraged by Japan, be

so presumptious. Immigration is a purely domestic problem, which it is the

privilege and duty of a government to determine, uninfluenced by urge or protest
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 37

from other nations. The solution reached should be determined solely by

the effect it may have upon American citizenship, regardless of effect upon

other nations or other peoples, and uninfluenced by considerations of trade

or threat of war. Such a question can not safely be left to the determination

of those who would barter the vital principle involved for a few million dollars

in trade.

Under the present arrangement, and regardless of this country's views or

desires, any Japanese who comes to our shores bearing Japan's passport•

provided he be not afflicted with contagious disease•must be accepted as

immigrant or permanent resident. No other nation permits immigration under

such conditions. We should regulate our immigration•as do all other nations•in accordance with our own interests, by our own laws, enforced through

our own departments by our own officials.

Since Japan insists that this country should not enact legislation which will

bar her nationals, even indirectly, as immigrants, it is proper to point out

that Japan excludes as immigrants to her country the Chinese and Koreans•

thereby discriminating against her own color. Her claim•doubtless true•

is that such policy is demanded by the interests of the Japanese people.

We are friendly with Japan and wish to remain friendly; but, as President

Roosevelt pointed out, that friendship can not continue if communities of

unassimilable Japanese established in this country promote trouble through

economic competition and racial friction.

The gentlemen's agreement, referred to by Minister Matsui as working satisfactorily, has worked satisfactorily to no one but Japan. President Roosevelt explained to the California Legislature in his telegram of February 9.

1909, and in his autobiography that Japan agreed with him that the two races.

being1 unassimilable, it was unwise to encourage or permit the increase of

Japanese population in this country. The announced purpose of the gentlemen's agreement, as explained by him. was not only to forbid further Japanese

immigration hut also to decrease the number of Japanese alreatly in the

country. He pointed out that the result of the first six months' operation of

the gentlemen's agreement had been entirely satisfactory, in that it had decreased the Japanese population in the United States by 2,000.

The vigilance shown by President Roosevelt, however, was not observed by

his successor, President Taft, with the result that the Japanese population in

continental United States is now three times what it was when Japan opened

negotiations for the agreement, while the Chinese population, under the exclusion act, has decreased by more than 50 per cent.

Japanese births in the United States are about 12.500 annually, 5,000 each

in Hawaii and in California, and half as many in the other States of the

Union.

The gentlemen's agreement, therefore, has not only been a failure and a

detriment to this country in actual result, but it is also vicious in principle,

conceding to a foreign nation the right to regulate our immigration from that

nation.

MORGAN KEATON,

Department Adjutant, California American Legion.

PAUL SCHAISRENBERG,

Secretary California State Branch American Federation of Labor.

GEO. R. HARRISON,

Maxtor California State Grange.

WM. J. HAYES,

Grand President Native Sons of the Golden West.

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY FOURTH ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION OF AMERICAN

LEGION AT NEW ORLEANS, LA., OCTOBER 16-20, 1922.

Whereas the national oriental committee of the American Legion, Thomas

N. Swale, chairman, has rendered a valuable service in the collection and

collation of data on the danger from the influx of the oriental into the United

States, compiled in a formal report;

Resolved by the American Legion, in national convention assembled, That

said report be transmitted to the national legislative committee of the American

Legion for use before the Congress of the United States in urging laws consistent with the facts set forth and the recommendations set forth in said

report.
38 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Further resolved, That this convention urge the enactment, without delay,

of laws, and the negotiation of treaties if required, for the permanent exclusion as immigrants or permanent residents of the United States of all persons

ineligible under the laws thereof to citizenship.

Be it resolved by the American Legion, in national convention assembled.

That we oppose the efforts of certain foreign nations to retain citizenship, military or other powers over American citizens of foreign birth or descent, and

call on the Government to take appropriate steps to secure the abolition of

such dual citizenship.

RE8OLTI0N NO. 3, INTRODUCED AT THE AMEBICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, IN NATIONAL

CONVENTION AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, JUNE 14, 1922.

Whereas public opinion in the United States on the subject of foreign immigration is now well crystallized and demands a positive, constructive policy on

the part of the Federal Government under which our future citizens and

permanent residents of foreign birth shall be selected with due regard for

the present and future welfare of the Nation; and

Whereas the present 3 per cent restriction law, recently continued in effect

for two years to June, 1924, was enacted because it offered a temporary plan for

reducing to a fraction a threatened flood of undesirables, but it has failed to

improve the general average of the quotas admitted, because the present law,

in fact, recognizes officially a plan which perpetuates in kind, though not in

degree, our mistakes of the past: Therefore be it

Resolved by the American Federation of Labor, in annual convention assembled at Cincinnati, Ohio, That we urge Congress to hereafter deny admission

as immigrants and permanent residents to all aliens who are ineligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States.

The committee on legislation recommended concurrence in this resolution,

and commended the officers of the American Federation of Labor for their

efforts in combating an influx of Chinese coolie labor into Hawaii, and further

recommends a continuation of said efforts, which are in accord with the policy

of the American Federation of Labor on the immigration exclusion question.

The report of the committee was adopted unanimously.

(Resolutions of National Grange, as offered by Doctor Atkeson, are embodied

in his statement.)

Senator SHOKTRIDGE. NOW. Mr. Chairman, will you be good enough

to hear from our attorney general, Mr. U. S. Webb?

Mr. PHELAN. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment? In

order that the committee may understand, it was General Webb who

argued the land cases and the naturalization cases before the Supreme

Court, and the court agreed with his views.

STATEMENT OF HON. TJ. S. WEBB, ATTOBNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am

quite appreciative of the difficulties under which you gentlemen as

committeemen here labor, or as members of the Senate up there

labor. I appreciate the graciousness of your action in giving us this

opportunity to present the views which we have held and which

have become settled in our minds, because of our experiences upon

the questions which we are endeavoring to present. And while I

desire to economize, so far as possible, your time, I am so anxious

that you shall hear a former associate of yours that I am constrained

to ask, remembering the chairman's suggestion that you would sit
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 39

until 5 o'clock, if it is the intention to close the hearing to-day?

Now, that is not a threat of much time, Mr. Chairman, and I do

not want it construed in that fashion; but there is but an hour and a

half remaining and you, Mr. Chairman, and the others of you who

have been practicing law know that frequently we can not get far

into an argument that involves questions of law as well as complicated facts in an hour. And I would like to present some views that

I have. But I am anxious, likewise, that the regular time be given

to Senator Phelan.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Phelan, would you like to be heard in the

morning ?

Mr. PHELAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the attorney general not to consider me at all. I will ask that he make his statement.

I will close, if there is any time, but I do not think it is important

that I should be heard in view of the full explanations that have

been made to your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I am only one member of the committee, but you

gentlemen have come a long way, and within reasonable limits 1

think this committee should devote the time that is necessary to

hear you.

(After informal discussion as to further procedure the following

proceedings occurred:)

The CHAIRMAN. YOU may proceed, Mr. Webb.

Mr. WEBB. Senator Phelan suggested that I take the time and

eliminate him entirely from this situation; but I want to confess to

you that some of us in misguided moments

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Supposing I say, as representing

the feelings of the committee, that we desire to hear Senator Phelan.

Mr. WEBB. While we might have had that feeling for a moment

it has not abided with us. We can not eliminate him, nor could we,

from this or any other consideration; and we desire that he be heard

on this matter, because no man is more familiar with the internal

and external facts than he.

Now, gentlemen, that we may not be misunderstood in our view of

those who it is our thought should be excluded from entry into the

United States, and addressing myself particularly to the Japanese

Eeople•and I do so because that is the issue that has been raised here

y the objections to the House bill presented by the Secretary of

State: and that issue is forced also by the opposition of others to the

particular provision of the House bill that it is our desire to be included in what measure this committee reports out. Speaking, then,

of the Japanese people, we know them on the Pacific coast better than

you on this coast can know them. And we have always, and now consider questions of immigration with questions of residence; questions

of land ownership, where these people are concerned, in full recognition of the characteristics of the Japanese. It is not a race that requires race capacity. We freely admit the wonderful progress that

the Japanese Nation and the Japanese people have made in the last

half century. We acknowledge the wonderful industry, the capacity,

the ambition to captain industry and to control affairs possessed by

the Japanese. It is not that we regard the Japanese as an inferior

race or an inferior people. We are not concerned with that question.

It is, however, because long experience and close touch with existing

conditions have shown us that it is a question of race undesirability.
40 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

The line between those who may become citizens of the United

States and those who may not become such citizens was drawn a century and one-third ago in the first naturalization law adopted. That

law, as has already been adverted to, withheld the privilege of citizenship in this country from all races and all peoples, except the

white race. And although the act of 1790 was amended four times

within the next 30 years, that language remained unchanged all

through those four amendments. And that continued to be the law

unchanged in that particular until in 1870, when the language was

modified by extending that privilege to Africans and persons of

African nativity. That was the result of the Civil War, and the wisdom of that situation is not now open to debate. But it admitted

the colored race to all the privileges and immunities of United States

citizenship. So that we have a single exception in a century and onethird that has passed since the adoption of the original act, and no

change has been made in the policy set out by the framers of this

Government and the shapers of our institutions.

In the Pacific coast attitude we have adopted the classification for

all legislation and for all appeals to Congress for legislation then

adopted, namely, the classification of eligibles and ineligibles•those

eligible to citizenship and those ineligible to citizenship. That line,

while established thus early, was not so clearly and plainly located

upon the ground, until within the last year, when it was determined

by the Supreme Court of the United States that" white persons " or

" free white persons," as used in 1790, meant those who, under the

common acceptation and the general acceptation of the term " white

persons," could thus qualify.

(At this point in the proceedings the hearing was suspended for 10

minutes to permit the members of the committee to attend a vote in

the Senate.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will continue the hearing.

Mr. WEBB. It was not until last year that this line was definitely

located, the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the

original enactment as it had been preserved down to the present day

divided the peoples of the world into two great groups; on the one

side is placed the peoples of Caucasion decent; it placed, in short,

all the Caucasians on one side; on the other side it placed all the

others, all races of color other than white. Strangely enough, that

line of demarcation which was established so long ago divided the

races into practically two equal classes. It was deemed then and

has been deemed continuously since that the ineligible group were

for racial reasons undesirable as citizens of the United States. Mr.

MtClatchy has developed to some extent the unassimilable character

of the Japanese people. A Senator suggested this morning•Senator King, I believe it was•asked, in effect, if that unassimilable

character was not the result of discrimination and treatment in the

United States by those of those races who were here. And my

answer. Mr. Chairman, based upon actual conditions of experience,

is "No."

I do not deny that in the conduct of peoples there is discrimination.

I do not deny that the white race declines to enter into that social

intercourse or those domestic relations with those people as with

their own. I do not deny that they are excluded from activities of

the whites. But, rightly or wrongly, that condition is caused be-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 41

•cause of the conditions in the peoples themselves; because it is utterly impossible, by legislation or otherwise, to compel the white

race to accept the black race or the brown race or the yellow race.

And while those people in this country may feel the edge of that

indisposition to affiliate or assimilate, likewise would you and I feel

it if we were to establish our home in China or Japan or India and

should desire to enter into full fellowship with the peoples there.

Those are natural conditions over which human legislation has no

jurisdiction. Hence it results

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you not mean, General, that the

Japanese, by virtue of their inherited traditions and beliefs, such

as their fatalistic doctrine, would hesitate to renounce their allegiance to Japan? Are not their traditions and beliefs more firmly

imbedded in the orientals than in other races?

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Chairman, you have wonderfully expressed an

existing condition; you have wonderfully and clearly expressed the

character and tradition and ideals of the Japanese people. They are

different in many respects. They are different in color; different in

ideals; different in race; different in ambitions; different in their

theory of political economy and government. They speak a different

language; they worship another God. They have not in common

with the Caucasian a single trait; whether they be right or whether

they be wrong, I am not contending. Whether theirs is the only

true God, or ours the only true God, we will not debate. Whether

their language and their systems and the institutions are superior

to ours, I am not going to raise the question here. But the fact

is that we are contented with those things that have come to us

through the centuries; they are contented with the things that have

come to them from like times. And the differences are so great that

neither time nor law can change or modify it.

Like utterances may truthfully be made of the Chinese and the

Hindus and of certain Pacific islanders, if their entry was involved

in this matter; but for the present we have enacted an exclusion law

against 400,000,000 of Chinese; by a zone system we have excluded

two or three hundred millions of Hindus. So that we are not now

considering those people. But the same objections which we urge

and the same conditions which we point out as supportive of our

objections apply to them.

This is a Government of the white race. The original legislation

recognized that fact. All of the legislation since that time recognizes that fact. Originally there were no immigration laws. As

the chairman pointed out early this morning, it is of but recent

years. Our few million peoples at that time looking to the westward

and seeing 3,000 miles of unoccupied territory, perhaps never

dreamed that the day would come when from coast to coast our

country would be so thoroughly covered that the exclusion of any

race, aye, the limitation of immigration in any respect, would ever

be required. Then they stood upon the eastern fringe of the United

States, beckoning across the old Atlantic for other settlers and immigrants to come and use the vast resources of the North American

Continent, or that portion of it over which our flag floated. But

that invitation has been accepted, and though it was not specifically

•extended across the Pacific, they came also across the Pacific, and to
42 . JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

such extent has it been accepted that our continent is now covered

and we must concern ourselves with those measures and with those

determinations which have to do with the preservation and the conservation and rights and weal and welfare of those of our people

who are now here, and limit the immigration in numbers as the

exigencies of our own situation require, and exclude the privilege

of entering here to all races whose entry will not advance an advantage our own interests.

But it may be said by some that this is a selfish policy. I say to

you, Mr. Chairman, I admit it, and I believe the time is now here

when the Government of the United States must adopt a policy that

may by philanthropists and religionists be determined or denounced

as selfish. It is an old and true saying that preservation is the first

law of nature, and we have arrived here at a time and condition

when that axiom must be accepted as a national motto and as a

national guide.

I know that in the mainland of Japan, a territory comparing in

area with the territory of California, there are crowded approximately 60,000,000 people, living under conditions that could not

support a Caucasian population of that number, and I undertake to

say•I do not undertake to say; I do say•that if the Japanese

population of Japan were removed and in lieu thereof there was

placed upon that island 60,000,000 of white people, you and I included, and we were compelled to exist upon the productions of that

island, aided by the imports thereto that they now have without

any increase, that one-half of that population would starve to death

inside of 20 months.

1 appreciate the sad condition that confronts those people. I

know they are looking toward the mainland of Asia and toward the

North American Continent for room upon which to plant their

people that they may be relieved at home. That is a worthy ambition. That is a Japanese national necessity. Territorial expansion

they must have. New fields upon which to settle their excess population they must get. And while we hope, Mr. Chairman, that they

may be successful in this, we ask that this expansion and that these

new fields be acquired elsewhere than in the United States.

California has for a number of years been presenting on every

occasion to those who know not of the conditions existing there, a description of those conditions. She has sought, through her own legislature, to afford so much relief as is possible, and we are asking here

and now that this measure be adopted because we believe it to be indispensable to the future wellbeing of the people of the United States.

Itis not, however, a California question, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. It developed first on the American Continent in California

for two reasons, at least. One was that California was nearest to

them. And the other is that the climate of California, the productions, aye, the sunshine, and the showers of California more nearly

approximate and equal the conditions existing in Japan.

(At this point the proceedings were suspended for 10 minutes to

permit the members of the committee to attend a vote in the Senate.)

The CHAIRMAN. General Webb, you may proceed, please.

Mr. WEBB. I was speaking of the reasons that California has

raised these questions, and gave as the first the reason that they have
JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION 43

come to California, and they come to California because in climate,

geography, sunshine they get more nearly climate which resembles

Japan than any other place on the American Continent, except possibly in Florida or Palm Beach, and Palm Beach has recently gained

a notoriety from which I think'the Japanese will keep away. But

as they settled in California, expansion must come and naturally

they have gone northward, to Oregon, and Washington. They have

gone south to Arizona and New Mexico, and a little while ago a little

trouble sprung up in Texas because they were settling there. They

do not go in the line of least insistence; they go in the line of greatest

attraction. And Mr. McClatchy said that the whole United States

would be settled by them if this condition goes on. I do not know

whether that is true. I doubt that the Northern States, like the State

of Maine, would ever be settled in great numbers by the Japanese, because they will, so long as they in the world abide, they will avoid

the harsh climate and the rigorous northern winters. But where

the climates are modified, as upon the west and southwest coasts,

they will, if unrestricted, come in great numbers.

California, meeting this question, began earlier to consider legislation, and in 1909 we had the matter before us, and as was explained,

we were contemplating the passage of certain so-called alien land

laws, and an alien land law was pending. And we had the protest

from the then administration, and because of that protest California

withdrew all those bills and adopted no legislation, but was glad to

accept the promises of the Federal Government that the injuries of

which she complained would be taken care of by the Federal Government.

In 1911 it was apparent to us that the conditions were not as we

expected them to be, and that the so-called agreement, gentleman's

or otherwise, was not being observed as President Roosevelt believed

it would be and as it was during the six months to which he referred,

the first six months of its operation. Other bills were introduced into

the legislature of that year, and upon the representation of the administration then that a new treaty was pending and that it was desirable for California to delay legislation during the pendency of

that treaty, the pending legislation was withdrawn and no action

taken.

In 1913 the treaty of 1911 having been ratified and approved and

promulgated, and it not being satisfactory in its terms, with the

codicil or so-called gentleman's agreement attached, and it being

evident that it was not going to accomplish the results which President Roosevelt believed it would accomplish, the demonstrated results of the treaty and the gentleman's agreement then showed us

that additional legislation was required. And again the subject of

land legislation was considered. Again there came from the Capital

the expressed desire that California delay legislation upon that subJ'ect; and President Wilson sent his then Secretary of State, Mr.

Sryan, to Sacramento, and Mr. Bryan visited with us a couple of

weeks, and during that period I had the pleasure of a three-hour

conference with him upon this question, and all phases of the question, and in that three-hours conference, I want to say to you gentlemen I am sure I used at least three minutes of it in the representation

of the interests of our people. But it was pleasant and agreeable,
44 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

and I had much of the view of the then administration, and much of

the views of the then Secretary of State.

The representations made to us were that it had been represented

by the Japanese accredited officials that they were much opposed

to the proposed legislation, and the administration feared that the

passage of such act by the Legislature of California would endanger the amicable commercial relations that existed then between

the United States and Japan. Mr. Bryan admitted again that it was

the right of the State to legislate, but asked that lest such legislation might give offense to that great nation that California again

defer action. Mr. Bryan was told that if he could make the statement that it was the view of the administration that the passage

of that law might so far disturb our relations with Japan as to

cause a possibility of war, that instantly California would desist.

But he said that he could make no such representation; that they

did not believe that such would be the result. He said it might to

some degree result in a disturbance of trade and commerce between

the nations. But we then felt that the failure of the measures then

in force to accomplish the result desired and the result promised

was so eminent and so far demonstrated that we could not longer

afford to desist, for our lands were being purchased and leased and

settled by these people. The alien land law of 1913 was passed at

that time. There was much said about it at the time. There was

a long correspondence between the State Department here and representatives of Japan. It, so far as we know, produced no great disturbance of the economic or political relations between the two

countries. But there did develop a situation and a position of the

State Department which I feel I am compelled to compare with the

position assumed by the State Department at the present time.

And now, gentlemen, believe me, I am not unappreciative of the

wonderful and proper influence of the State Department upon the

affairs of government. I have the fullest confidence in the able

gentleman who now occupies the position of Secretary of State.

I know that his intentions are of the best, and I know that every

move and recommendation he makes he believes to be to the best

interests and the welfare of the people of the United States and

of our Government. But, with all deference, I feel that his recommendation in one particular is error. That is, the matter of immigration or immigration restriction, the measure with which you are

dealing, has to do with internal domestic concern. What we do or

what you do in the matter of immigration restriction concerns our

domestic policy. It is not the right of any nation to question your

action upon that matter. It is not the right of any nation to be

heard upon that matter. And with all deference, I believe the

action of the Government of the United States upon all domestic

and internal concerns should be determined by a consideration of

the effect which such action will have upon our own 110,000,000 or

120,000,000 of people; upon the weal and welfare of the Federal

Government, and not to be determined by the wish or urge or the

protest of any other people or any other nation. Aye, more, it is

significant that a little while ago Congress excluded from entranee

into the United States, by the zone system, 300,000,000 of the subjects of Great Britain. And did Great Britain come to you with

threat or with plea? Great Britain knew that you were dealing
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 45

with a domestic concern, and that your determination could be

made without regard to her wish in the matter; and Great Britain

dealt with the matter just exactly as she would feel the United

States should deal were she considering the immigration question.

A little while earlier this Congress excluded from entry into the

United States, by congressional action, 400,000,000 of the subjects of

the empire of China without protest or complaint by China; nor has

protest or complaint, so far as I am advised, ever come from that

empire because of that exclusion. And why? It must be because

that government, which we sometimes say is benighted and 100 years

behind the times, and it has not kept abreast with the age, that that

government or her diplomats knew and understood that the United

States was dealing with an internal domestic concern and that she

had no right to be heard, though she was prejudiced in the matter.

Discrimination indeed! The action which we ask raises the bar

against six or seven or eight hundred millions of people upon this

globe. And the only protest in behalf of those people has come from

a nation of 60,000,000. It is a discrimination as to all of them, if

you please, but it is not a discrimination in a legal sense. It is an

action taken by the Government upon an internal concern, and in

considering our domestic affairs we are always entitled to give the

greatest of heed, aye, to let our action be guided by the effect it will

have upon our Government and her people.

The CHAIRMAN. General Webb, does not Japan's position among

the great world powers have some bearing upon this problem? It

raises a practical issue whether you are now going to exclude them

absolutely. I am saying that, as a matter of international policy,

where a country has enjoyed a privilege and you are taking it away

it is quite different from where she has never enjoyed it, is it not?

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. NOW, you use the word "exclusion." I do not like

the use of a word unless you define what you mean. Do you mean

absolute exclusion?

Mr. WEBB. I mean absolute exclusion to those who would without

it come to the United States and establish here their homes.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean permanent settlement?

Mr. WEBB. I mean permanent settlement. Now, the same question

arose this morning as to the Johnson bill, whether it contained the

exempt classes. You assumed that it does. I say now for all whom

we represent that if it does not, what we ask to be reported out

should include all that class who come as travelers, tourists, and

students, etc., that are usually enumerated, should be exempt from

the provisions of the bill. Those who come without intention to

establish their homes and remain here should be admitted.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Johnson bill perfectly clear upon that

point, because the question has been raised here whether it does have

the definition of immigrant, etc.; whether it would admit under what

we call the nonquota-class people who come here temporarily? They

may be coming for trade. Then we run into the treaties. I would

Jike for the delegation from California to define what they mean by

" exclusion ": that is, whether they mean absolute exclusion or whether

they mean that it may be qualified by the commercial treaty, which

of course fundamentally provides that they are not to remain here

956T1•24 4
46 JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION

permanently, but still they might reside here for a long period of

years in connection with trade and commerce. You were to address

yourself, perhaps, as Senator Shortridge suggested, to the legal situation, naturally, and we are troubled a good deal on that point to

know how far the quota proposition may be in conflict with a commercial treaty. You do not like that treaty provision, do you ? You

say it is too broad. Now, we are dealing with a practical situation.

Mr. WEBB. Yes; I understand and appreciate that difficulty.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you take that up in the morning, Senator

Phelan. I

Mr. PHELAN. Yes; I will. I will not interrupt the general.

Mr. WEBB. Then we will pass that. I had already suggested that

we are dealing with an internal policy of the Government. In a

letter addressed by the then Secretary of State to the Japanese ambassador in 1913, after the passage of the California land legislation, and in reference to it the American representative expressed

himself, though he occupied the same position at that time which

Secretary Hughes occupies now, in manner quit© different from that

expressed by the present secretary. Both, however, recognize this to

be a domestic question. In the letter which has been referred to the

Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, says:

There can be no question that such a statutory exclusion will be deeply

resented by the Japanese people. It would be idle to insist that the provision

Is not aimed at the Japanese, for the proposed measure (sec. 25) continues

in force the existing legislation regulating Chinese immigration and the barred

zone provisions of our immigration laws which prohibit immigration from certain other portions of Asia. The practical effect of section 12 (b) is to single

out Japanese immigrants for exclusion. The Japanese are a sensitive people

and unquestionably would regard such a legislative enactment as fixing a

stigma upon them. I regret to be compelled to say that I believe such legislative action would largely undo the work of the Washington Conference on

Limitation of Armament, which so greatly improved our relations with Japan.

The manifestation of American interest and generosity in providing relief

to the sufferers from the recent earthquake disaster in Japan would not avail

to diminish the resentment which would follow the enactment of such a measure, as this enactment would be regarded as an insult not to be palliated by

any act of charity. It is useless to argue whether or not such a feeling would

be justified; it is quite sufficient to say that it would exist. It has already

been manifested in the discussion in Japan with respect to the pendency of

this measure and no amount of argument can avail to remove it.

With all deference, gentlemen, I say to you that that is an unfortunate declaration of national policy if it is to go out as such. This

Government should not withhold action upon an internal domestic

concern that is demanded by the interests of Government or her

people because some other nation may take offense. Between

nations as between individuals only that offense is to be countenanced which is justified. The individual who takes offense without

cause wrongfully takes offense, and the nation that takes offense,

without cause wrongfully takes offense. And if we are to withhold

action upon this question because Japan may take offense, then Japan

determines our internal policy, and not the United States of

America. If we are to withhold action because Japan demands that

action be withheld, then Japan determines our internal policy.

But I am not unmindful of the rank and class of this Nation. I

say we have reached that commanding position among the world

powers that we can afford upon international questions not only to

be generous but to go further; and when dealing with international
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 47

questions we can afford, if need be, to recede from abstract rights in

a measure and to give to another, and particularly if a weaker power,

more than the law of nations would give. But in dealing with our

internal concerns whenever we trade that which will best advantage

our people and our Government in its internal policy for or at the

behest of another nation we trade internal self-respect for external

accord.

The CHAIRMAN. General Webb, that is perfectly true, as a matter

of logic, but logic was made for life and not life for logic. Now, here

in the pending immigration legislation it is proposed virtually to cut

off Italy. She now has a quota of 42,000. We have about a million

and a half Italians here in this country whom we want to Americanize. There is a very strong feeling in southern and eastern

Europe against discrimination. Now, of course, we have got a

right•no one denies the right, but Italy has protested. You say it is

not Italy's prerogative to protest against our domestic policies. Ah,

yes; but this family of nations in certain ways is connected. Your

proposition is based upon the sovereignty idea; the idea that we have

a right to do just as we please and not recognize any obligation to

any other nation. Now, let me say that if I could modify this idea

I could often avert war. Your abstract logic is all right, but there

are other considerations which must be taken into account. I am

giving you an example in the case of Italy; and it is a practical

example. Shall we exclude Italy upon the ground that the Italians

are lees desirable than the Germans ? We fought with Italy as an ally.

Italy might say, "Are you going to admit 5 Germans to 1 Italian because you regard 40,000,000 people in Italy as undesirable?" Of

course, we have a right, but viewing this Nation as one of the family

of nations, we must recognize that we have certain obligations. If

Italians were a menace to the country, as you view the Japanese, then

our obligation to our own country might be the stronger. But it

will not do to apply your logic abstractly in every case. You must

present some strong case to show that it would be a menace to our

country. Everything is relative. And the point you make as to your

proposition is that the Japanese situation is a positive menace to

the American situation and everything American.

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think I see something of

your difficulties. I know that it is impossible to equitably adjust any

restriction of immigration. What appears to be unfortunate and

possibly unjust must arise. But, Mr. Chairman, you, in referring

to the European immigrant this morning said•I believe you said

the second or the third generation was American, no longer to be

viewed in any other light; all things which were foreign had dropped

away from him. and he had become an American citizen; and that

is correct. Hence, I do not know how you can adjust the conditions and the equities between Italy and Germany and England

and other European countries. I do not know how that can be

done. But if you err, if you admit too many of one and too few of

the other, you are doing here no internal injury, because they are

people like us, and if you get too many of the Caucasian they are

one nation, and not enough from the other, on equitable grounds,
48 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

still you are getting a people that will settle among us: that will

serve us well.

The CHAIRMAN. We use the term " western civilization."

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. NOW. these people are governed essentially by

common ideas, and they are quite distinct from the orientals.

Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I tried to draw that distinction. You might say

that the native born of native parents, when you reach the third

generation, are all Americans, and this is especially true with respect

to the races which are commonly classified under the term " western civilization."

Mr. WEBB. Yes: I was struck by your expression. The native

born of American parents. I agree with you absolutely, if you draw

them from our race.

The CHAIRMAN. The white race.

Mr. WEBB. Yes. sir. But I want to say to you that once a Japanese

always a Japanese. I want to say that you can go on down through

the ages and the product will still have all the characteristics

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, you argue that, and I am

firmly convinced of that.

Mr. WEBB. Yes. I am thankful that you are convinced of it.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not speak for any other members of the

committee.

Mr. WEBB. Now, then, applying these conditions, we are not concerned with the one class of immigrants, because we will make of

him a citizen like ourselves shortly; a little while, timely speaking,

but we know that the Japanese, and likewise the Chinese, if they

were admitted, will remain always wedded to their own institutions

and their own institutional life, and the Japanese particularly

under a dual or double citizenship; and he is the only human being in the world that has ever professed to be able to owe allegiance

to two governments, and discharge both allegiances properly. But

we know that he will continue, and it would produce, if you please,

Mr. Chairman, another race question. We have one race question

in this country. I saw the chairman looking at the clock, and I

am hurrying along. We have struggled for more than a century

with one race problem in this country, and it is open to argument

whether we are nearer a solution than we were a hundred years

ago. We have an unassimilable people in the Japanese. And I

want to say to you that if the Negro had had the capacity, the

efficiency, the ambition, the energy, and the power to accomplish

possessed by the Japanese, all south of the Mason and Dixon line

would long ago have been entirely black. We may talk about how

we shall treat these people, but the white American will not live

upon conditions of equality with the Negro nor with the Japanese,

nor with the Chinese, nor with the Hindu.

It is idle to preach that we should extend a more hospitable

spirit. We may repeat, if you will, however loud and however often

the phrase that the Christian of old repeated, " Peace on earth and

good will to men," but there can be no peace on earth and good will

to men so long as you try to combine these uncombinable and irreconcilable elements. We must deal with those things, regretting
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 49

that their existence and the way they are pressed upon us compels

us to be in a measure harsh. But they are beginning to know the

Japanese people in half a dozen other States as we know them upon

the Pacific coast, for seven or eight States have passed similar laws

to the California alien land laws, and in three or four action is

pending, and no State has passed a law until the Japanese came.

In every instance we have the wrong view until we know the actual

facts. But as they begin to settle, and as the States learn the conditions, then legislators get active. Now, then, practically seven or

eight States, I think it is, have adopted the alien land policy.

Every single State and organization that understands the question

has resolved in favor of the provision in the Johnson bill•that of

exclusion. I know that there are elements, organizations, that have

been before the committees, and will be before the committees, urging that the Japanese be not treated differently than the European,

or that the oriental be not treated differently than the European,

and much has been said here, and much may yet be said concerning

the quota, and if it reduces them to 300 or 700, or 1,400, will that not

eliminate? And I am not going into that. Mr. McClatchy has

given the answer to that question.

As you reduce it to 300 or 700 you ask why should we protest

against that. I want to ask why is Japan so concerned in having

the right to admit so few? That would do her substantially no

good.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not enough to say that national feelings will be hurt or dignity will suffer a blow. That will not do.

We deal with substantialities. We deal with the real condition.

And Japan is not insisting upon the right that 300 be admitted if

you adopt one census, or 500 or 700 in another, because that will

save dignity from a fall or feelings from a pain. She has no right

to, for what we ask places Japan upon the same plane and the

same basis as every other oriental nation. But we want, we desire

that the barrier be raised, that we meet this question at this time

while it is a domestic question. But as to those subjects of other

countries who have entered here, and as to our treatment of them,

and the conflict that may result, international questions will be

presented, and it is to that point that I propose to read the letter

of the Secretary of State to the Japanese ambassador, dated July

16, 1913, and it is short:

I am quite prepared to admit that all differences between human beings•

differences in appearance, differences in manner, differences in speech, differences in opinion, differences in nationality, and differences in race•may

provoke a certain antagonism, but none of these differences is likely to produce serious results unless it becomes associated with an interest of a contentious nature, such as that of the struggle for existence. In this economic

contest the division, no doubt, may often take place on racial lines, but it

does so not because of racial antagonism but because of the circumstance

that the traditions and habits of different races have developed or diminished

competitive efficiency. The contest is economic; the racial difference is a

mere mark or incident of the economic struggle.

But it is the last paragraph that expresses more particularly the

thought which there was recognized, the thought which the chairman suggested, the difference of race, etc.:

All nations recognize this fact, and it is for this reason that each nation

Is permitted to determine who shall and who shall not be permitted to settle
50 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

in its dominions and become a part of the body politic, to the end that it may

preserve internal peace and avoid the contentions which are so likely to disturb the harmony of international relations.

Now what does that mean? Mr. Hughes says: "Admit them,

though you have a right, as a domestic matter, to exclude now, because if you do exclude now they will become offended." He would

avoid giving offense now.

The Secretary of State 11 years ago, speaking from this same

building, said:

We may exclude now [that is, then] because if they be admitted the differences in race will produce here in our own land internal clash and conflict,

irreconcilable differences that will result in the production of international

questions, for admit them and they still remain the subjects of the government

from which they come, still are the objects of that government's protection

and solicitude, and it is the right of that government to follow them here

and protect them here.

The negro question has been handled in a fashion; but I want to

say to you that if those 3,000,000 negroes had been backed by a

nation powerful and ranking strong among the nations of the earth,

the gunboats of that nation would have surrounded that portion of

our country in which the question has been existing for the century

and a half. And I say to you that it is the international aspect of

this question that is graver by far than the domestic. I say to you

that the offense which Secretary Hughes said you may avoid by

changing the Johnson bill is of slight importance compared with the

great international questions that must arise if this people be established here; because they are so different that conflicts will arise,

clashes will occur, and they will be a thousandfold more serious than

the protest which Japan now makes or offense which action adverse

to her wishes may give.

That is really, Mr. Chairman, the big question here. Unassimilable

peoples must be excluded because of the conflicts and dangers of the

future. Assimilable people may safely be admitted, because we will

make of them American citizens.

And, added to all that God has done to establish the dissimilarities, the policy of this Government has added one other•that of

incapacity to become citizens of the United States•and that feature

is more significant than any other; because, though here they must

and will remain citizens and subjects of another government, owing

allegiance to that government, and though we have them here, though

we give to them all the benefits of this glorious country except its

political privileges, in time of danger, aye, in time of war, they can

not be compelled to take up arms in defense of the country in which

they live; but, on the contrary, if the conflict happens to be with their

fovernment, they will leave us and take up arms in support of the

ag to which they owe allegiance and turn their guns against us who

have thus hospitably entertained them.

Finally, gentlemen, this domain belongs to the people of the United

States, belongs to the white race, belongs now and I trust forever to

those who are or who may become citizens and who will have upon

them the obligation in law and the ambition in heart and mind to

uphold and defend this Government against all the world.

It is a large question, I grant you. I know that the questions you

have before you, the difficulties you have in reconciling the activities
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 51

or numbers that may be admitted from European countries, are perplexing and annoying, but they do not concern our internal affairs.

If you make a mistake, as indicated, and admit too many from one

country, that can be rectified. They can be assimilated. In time

their differences in ideas and in other things will go away.

Gentlemen of the committee, I say to you that what is now demanded in this country is a policy of dignified firmness; and I trust

that no action upon our domestic affairs here taken by this Congress

will substitute for the policy of dignified firmness that of pusillanimous fawning, that of unjustified yielding to the demands of a nation

that has no right to make the demands. So far as our internal interests will permit us to comply with the wishes of the other nations,

comply with them; but when the sacrifice becomes such that we can

not make it without doing ourselves an irremediable injury, without

doing violence to our own interests and our own people, then the

demand ought to be refused. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. General, may I ask you a question? This committee have decided nothing on this question, you know, but there

are three courses open, if you please. One is the position you take, to

adopt the provisions of the Johnson bill. Another course is to do

nothing; leave the present situation just as it is, with the gentlemen's

agreement. And another course, which has been suggested by several

members of the committee, is to apply the quota to the Japanese in

the same way it is applied to the European nations. Now, do you

believe that the application of the quota would be an improvement

on the present situation or do you believe that it would not? I think

Senator Reed suggested, although there has been no decision about

it, that it might operate as an additional barrier upon Japan*so far

as liberalizing the gentlemen's agreement is concerned; that is, she

would be positively bound then by a fixed number. Now, what all

of us want is light, and if you have any view upon that proposition

as to whether Japan should be brought under the quota, or whether

the. present situation should remain, I would be very glad to have you

say a word on that.

Mr. WEBB. I can not give you, perhaps, a satisfactory reason for

it, but those who have gone through this thing and know its history

and know the conditions do not want the quota, and we would rather

bear the ills which we now have than fly to others we know not of.

We do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the recognition of the right

to come will help us.

The CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to take your view of the situation.

Mr. WEBB. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will not be as the chief

sinner of his day when Paul was talking to him, and say, " Almost

thou persuadest me," but that you will be able to say, "Altogether

thou persuadest me that we must now take care of ourselves."

The CHAIRMAN. We stand adjourned until 10.30 to-morrow morning.

(Thereupon at 4.50 o'clock p. m., Tuesday, March 11, 1924. an

adjournment was taken until 10.30 o'clock a. m. of the following

day, Wednesday, March 12, 1924.)

JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1924.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. G.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the Immigration

Committee room, the Capitol, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Senator LeBaron

B. Colt presiding.

Present: Senators Colt (chairman), Keyes, Willis, Reed of Pennsylvania, and Copeland.

A lso present: Senator Samuel M. Shortridge, of California.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I have the following telegram, from Thomas Burke, dated Seattle,

Wash., March 10, 1924 [reading]:

SEATTLE, WASH.

Senator LEBABON COLT,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C:

While supporting the policy against Japanese Immigration our people earnestly protest against the clause in the immigration bill refusing admission to

this country of aliens ineligible to citizenship. This is obviously aimed at

Japan, a slap in the face of a neighboring state that has never given us cause of

nffeiise. It ignores an existing treaty with Japan as well as the understanding

commonly known as the gentleman's agreement. It spurns the comity of

nations. It goes out of its way to give gratuitous offense to a friendly nation.

There is a right way and a wrong way for doing the right thing. This I respectfully submit is tl).e wrong way. It is not necessary to the enforcement

of Japanese exclusion for the same end, namely, barring out Japanesa immigration can be as effectually attained by a treaty or the appointment of a

commission which would clear up any misunderstanding and open the way to a

continuance of good neighborhood between the two countries and give a practical example and plain proof of our devotion to peace with justice.

THOMAS BUBKE.

I received the following telegram from San Francisco, from the

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce [reading]:

SAN FBANCISCO, CALIK., March 11, 1924.

Hon. LEBABON B. COLT,

Chairman Senate Immigration Committee, Washington, D. C:

In connection with hearings on present immigration bill, we desire to formally

present our views on th<? clause affecting Japanese exclusion as follows:

" San Francisco Chamber of Commerce believes that it were unwise to build

up a permanent population in the United States of those ineligible to citizenship. This policy should be accomplished not_by_an afiLQfX^mgressJbut through

tlje*_negottation of a treaty- pcoviding therefor, "Because Congress" could not

eimut-a law which, deprives any nation" Of privileges already guaranteed and

exclusion caii best be secured through amicable treaty agreement.

SAN FBANCISCO CHAMBEB OF COMMEBCE.

, 53
54 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

That is from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. In other

words, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, while it believes

in the principle of exclusion, believes that it should be negotiated

by treaty and not through legislation.

I have also received this letter from the Secretary of State, which

I will read [reading] :

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 11, 1924.

DEAB SENATOB COLT : In view of erroneous statements that have been made

concerning my views with respect to a quota for immigrants from Japan,

permit me to say that I do not wish the introduction of any Japanese laborers.

I do desire to avoid the resentment and difficulties which will arise from a

statutory exclusion. I have pointed out that if a quota were established from

the Japanese under the provisions of H. R. 6541 it would in any event cover

a very small number and would give us a double control through the quota

and through the agreement. I have endeavored to make it clear that whether

or not there was a quota established we should retain the agreement with the

Japanese Government for the exclusion of laborers. We should have cooperation which I believe would be more effective to prevent the introduction of

any Japanese laborers than the proposed exclusion measure. Again let me

say that I am not seeking to have any Japanese laborers introduced, merely

to avoid the affront of the enactment of an exclusion provision.

I am, my dear Senator Colt, sincerely yours,

CHABLES E. HUGHES.

Hon. LEBAKON B. COLT,

Chairman of the Committee on Immigration,

United States Senate.

Now, Doctor Gulick, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF MR. SIDNEY L. GULICK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN JAPANESE RELATIONS,

NEW YORK CITY.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Gulick, state your name and whom you

represent, please.

Mr. GTJLICK. I am speaking first for Dr. Charles S. MacFarland,

who is the general secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches

of Christ in America. He was unable to remain, and he asked me

to make the statement which he would make if he were here, and

to present the documents which he would present. The Federal

Council of the Churches of Christ in America is the officially established organ of 29 church bodies. The number of church members

in these 29 denominations exceeds 20,000,000.

Now, the first thing I present is the action taken by the Federal

Council of the Churches of Christ in America at its annual meeting

in December last. There are two resolutions which were then passed

which I would like to present for the record. First, with regard to

immigration. [Reading:]

We record our conviction that in the laws necessary for the regulation and

limitation of immigration the greatest possible care should be taken to conform to the ideals and principles of justice and humanity. Authority for

clemency in individual cases of special hardship should be intrusted to the

Secretary of Labor or to a suitable Federal immigration board. Our immigration laws should be administered with courtesy and consideration.

So that was with reference to immigration matters. Second, with

regard to the treatment of aliens. [Reading:]

We declare our conviction that all persons residing within the United

States and subject to its jurisdiction should be given friendly and equal treat-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 55

ment under just and equal laws, regardless of race, color, or religion. We

deplore as unpatriotic and un-Christian movements, policies, and programs in

many sections that discriminate against and humiliate aliens, merely as aliens,

or as aliens ineligible to naturalization, and that single out certain races and

religious groups for discriminatory and unfriendly treatment. We urge a

Federal law raising the standards for naturalization and granting the privilege

of citizenship to all persons lawfully residing in the United States who duly

qualify, regardless of their race, color, or nationality.

In February the administrative committee of the Federal Council

of the Churches of Christ in America passed this resolution

[reading] :

ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE

CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA REGARDING THE HOUSE IMMIGRATION BILL,

H. R. 6540.

Resolved, That the administrative committee of the Federal Council of the

Churches of Christ in America, in harmony with the principles repeatedly advocated by the Federal Council and its executive committee, deplores the

proposal of the immigration bill (H. R. C540) to deny admission to the United

States of " aliens ineligible for citizenship "•

First, because it abrogates treaties and annuls international agreements by

an act of Congress without consultation or conference with the nations with

which the treaties and agreements were made; and

Second, because it is unnecessarily and inevitably offensive to the nations

affected thereby, and certain to be resented as an unfriendly act.

NEW YORK, N. Y., February 8, 1924.

Mr. Chairman, these actions are not taken by the representatives

of the churches regardless of the thought of the vast majority of

those whom this council represents; after very careful study these

actions were taken.

Now, as indicating somewhat of this thought and this opinion

there are two additional brief documents to be presented. One by

the Massachusetts Federation of Churches. There are a number of

State federations of churches, and we have a resolution on this particular issue which was passed by this particular federation. It

reads as follows [reading] :

THE MASSACHUSETTS FEDERATION OF CHURCHES,

Boston, March 10, 1924.

The Massachusetts Federation of Churches, by action of its committee on

legislation February 28, approved by the executive committee March 4, opposes

the provision in the Johnson bill (H. R. 6540), a bill to limit immigration,

stated on page 16, lines 14-15, viz, "(B) No alien ineligible to citizenship shall

be admitted to the United States."

The ground is that this will apply only to Japanese and is directly aimed at

their exclusion. We therefore support the Federal Council in their opposition

to this feature of the bill. We believe that Japanese immigration should be

restricted, but that this can be done by general provisions which will not reflect

upon a friendly nation and by diplomatic understanding with the Japanese

Government.

Respectfully yours,

SAMUEL A. ELIOT,

President.

AUSTIN RICE,

Secretary.

E. TALMADGE ROOT,

Executive Secretary.

That is the action of one of the State federations of churches.

I also hold here a copy of a letter addressed to the chairman of

the committee by James L. Barton, representing the American Board

of Missionaries for Foreign Missions. This is one of a number of
56 JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION

very important foreign-mission boards that have missions in Japan,

and later Mr. Turner will speak for the whole group of foreignmission boards. This letter reads as follows [reading] :

MARCH 5, 192-L

Senator LEBARON B. COLT,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR COI.T: I understand that the immigration bill (H. R. 65-40)

has been accorded a hearing, especially that part which refers to Japanese

immigration.

I represent a foreign-mission board that has been carrying on work in Japan

for 50 years. It is established and is now helping to support a great university

at Kyoto, with a student body of 3,600, and a girls' college in Kobe, with over

500 students, and has work on every main island of the Empire and in many

of the very largest cities. We have n body of 70 American missionaries in

Japan supported by this board. Since its beginning at least $6,000,000 has

been put by this board into its educational, evangelistic, and philanthropic

work. .

In behalf of the large constituency of this board, its officers and members,

and in behalf of the American missionaries now in Japan, I want to file a

protest against the passage of an immigration bill which abrogates by act,

without consultation with the Japanese Government, provisions of a solemn

treaty and gentleman's agreement duly ratified between Japan and the United

States.

It is our conviction that the matter of immigration from Japan can be far

more satisfactorily arranged by mutual agreement than by legislative enactment. We could hardly expect to maintain our integrity with any country if

a treaty is abrogated by Congress in the establishment of new regulations

affecting the interests of the nation with whom the treaty is made. Let

me, therefore, urge upon you, and through you upon your committee, that

you do not report favorably upon this bill, but that in place thereof you

recommend a new movement for a new agreement with Japan, or the drawing

up of a new treaty which shall represent the mutual agreement of both parties.

I am confident that you will find Japan will meet the United States half way.

I have the honor to remain,

Your obedient servant,

JAMES L. BARTON.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Gulick, that seems to be the substance of

the position taken by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in a

telegram to me.

Mr. GULICK. Yes; I think it is in very close accord.

On behalf of Doctor MacFarland, general secretary of the Federal

Council of the Churches of Christ in America, I submit these documents without further comment.

In the second place, Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to represent

the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations. The

chairman of this committee is Mr. George W. Wickersham, who was

expected to be down here for this hearing, but the exigencies of his

official duties there have taken him to Albany and made it impossible for him to be present. And he asked me personally to express

his deep regret that he is not able to come here and with his own

voice express to you his convictions in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a national committee on what?

Mr. GULICK. The National Committee on American-Japanese Relations. Mr. Wickersham is chairman, and I am executive secretary.

I wish to be understood as appearing here in the latter capacity, as

executive secretary.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to read a onepage statement by Mr. Wickersham. He first refers to the resolutions passed by the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations about two weeks ago, as follows [reading]:
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 57

RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS

CALLING FOB THE ELIMINATION OF SECTION 12 (B) OF THE HOUSE IMMIGRATION

BILL, H. R. 0540.

Whereas the proposal in the immigration bill (H. R. 6540) to deny to aliens

"ineligible to citizenship" the privilege of admittance to the United States•

sec. 12 (b)•contravenes the existing treaty with Japan and abrogates the

gentlemen's agreement without conference with the Japanese Government; and

Whereas acts of Congress overriding treaties and international agreements,

while constitutional, in effect invade the function of the treaty-making power

and are unnecessarily offensive to nations affected thereby, tending as they

do to the creation of unfriendly feelings and to the disturbance of stable

international conditions: Therefore

Resolved, That we respectfully urge the Senate and House of Representatives to eliminate said proposal•sec. 12 (b)•from said bill now under consideration (H. R. 6540) before passing it.

NEW YORK, March 10, 192/,.

The statement by Mr. Wickersham is as follows [reading]:

THE BEARING OF THE HOUSE IMMIGRATION BILL (H. R. 6540) ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE,

RELATIONS.

[A statement by George w. Wickersham.]

In conveying to the Senate Committee on Immigration the accompanying

resolution of the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations, permit me to emphasize the following points:

1. Were there no other possible way of dealing with the situation the case

would be different. The proper way by which to change a treaty or an international agreement, it would seem to me, is by treaty or agreement negotiated through the Department of State. If Congress deems such change advisable, a request made to the Executive will without doubt bring such action.

2. Responsible Japanese have repeatedly declared that if the gentlemen's agreement is not satisfactory, the Japanese Government will gladly reconsider the

whole matter and make some new arrangement. In the face of such assurances

from Japan of desire to maintain neighborly relations with us, and in view

of their earnest desire that the United States should not pass discriminatory

and inevitably humiliating legislation aimed at Japan, the passage of the

proposed act by Congress would certainly be resented by Japan as a gratuitous

act of unfriendly character.

3. The need for the proposed measure is far from obvious when we consider

the facts in the ease. The statistics of admittances and departures of alien

Japanese, published by the Commissioner General of Immigration, show that

since the gentlemen's agreement went into effect (1909-1923) 22,737 more males

left the United States (including Hawaii) than entered; and that the net increase by immigration of Japanese in the continental United States during

these 15 years has been 8,681, consisting of women and children.

It Is evident that the Japanese Government has been administering the gentlemen's agreement with careful fidelity. Naturally the proposed measure would

convey an Implication to the contrary which a proud and sensitive nation

would resent.

4. The statement that the proposed measure (H. R. 6540)•section 12 (b)•

is not particularly aimed at the Japanese, for it concerns all peoples " Ineligible for citizenship," is too specious to need extended reply. It is enough

to point out that practically all such peoples are now excluded by existing laws,

the Chinese by name, and the Hindus, Thibetans, Dravidians. and manv other

peoples of Asia and Polynesia by definition of latitude and longitude. The

real purpose of the proposed measure is the abrogation of the gentlemen's

agreement with Japan.

If there is any sound reason for such congressional action, I have not seen

it stated publicly.

NEW YORK, N. Y., March 10, 192',.

Those, Mr. Chairman, are the resolutions and judgment with

regard to this matter by Mr. Wickersham, which I wish to submit in
68 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

his name. And with this I wish to submit for your record a statement of the purposes and the policy of the national committee on

American-Japanese relations. I will not read it.

(The statement submitted is as follows:)

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS,

287 Fourth Avenue, New York.

STATEMENT OF PUBPOSE OV THE COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS.

The United States and Japan have for two generations maintained unique

relations of mutual consideration and good will. The earliest treaty pledged

" perfect, permanent, and universal peace, and a sincere and cordial amity between the United States and Japan and between their peoples, respectively,

without exception of persons and places." The return by the United States to

Japan of the Shimonoseki indemnity (1883). the generous gift by Japan to San

Francisco for the relief of suffering at the time of the great earthquake and

Are (1906), the mutual agreements by the United States, Japan, and other

powers for maintaining the peace of the Pacific and for limiting naval building

programs, the relief funds sent by America for sufferers in Japan by earthquake and fire, and other acts on both sides have throughout the decades manifested the spirit and fulfilled the mutual pledge of that first treaty.

Growing contacts and intimacy of relations have brought to light questions of

exceeding difficulty resulting in ominous states of mind and feeling. They are

questions concerning the significance of race difference, immigration, assimilation, and naturalization, treaty rights, population and territory, relations with

China, economic competition, and national policies. On all these matters there

Is much misunderstanding in botli countries, and no little positive misinformaton. Unethical practices also on both sides of the Pacific aggravate the

situation. These questions manifestly require careful, broadminded, and Impartial consideration. They can not be stated, much less can they be solved

by offhand, popular dogmatism.

Causes of irritation must not be left to work out their inevitably disastrous

consequences. Courageous and loyal patriots in America and in Japan must

face the facts. They must insist that all matters of difficulty can and should

be settled by reason, conference, and conciliation. Steps should be promptly

taken in both countries to provide the people with the needed information, and

to secure the necessary changes in the national mind. " Sincere and cordial

amity" must be maintained, misunderstanding removed, wise policies adopted,

and appropriate legislation enacted in both countries.

This committee on American-Japanese relations has) been formed in order to

attain these ends, in so far as their attainment depends on the people and

Government of the United States. We rely on enlightened leadership in Japan

to take corresponding action in that land. International good will between

America and Japan depends on what America and Japan both do. We both

must practice the inescapable principles of right international relations. Deeds

are what count, not words.

For the attainment of the ends thus defined, this committee adopts the following statement of objects, and urges its wide indorsement by American

citizens and organizations.

1. Cultivation of an informed and rational public opinion in the United States

in regard to Japan, inspired by a friendly spirit and sympathetic understanding

of her needs and problems.

2. A square deal for Japanese in the United States.

3. Specifically we propose:

(a) To oppose actively the jingo, anti-Japanese agitation in the United

States by frank and scientific discussions of the problems involved.

(6) To advocate the cultivation of friendly relations, both for the'r own

sake and for their effect on American-Japanese friendship, between each of

these nations and the Government and people of China and the other countries

of the Asiatic mainland.

(c) To advocate the adoption of a new treaty between the United States and

Japan to take the place of the present gentlemen's agreement, providing•
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 59

(1) That on the part of Japan the further issue of passports to those coming

to the United States for permanent residence be rigidly restricted.

(2) That on the part of the United States privileges of citizenship be

granted to all who personally qualify.

(d) To urge the enactment of adequate Federal legislation for the protection

of aliens and for the enforcement of their treaty rights, as urged by Presidents

Harrison, McKinley. Roosevelt, and Taft.

(e) To urge the recognition, either by treaty or by legislation in Japan, of

the right of expatriation, so as to abolish the evils of dual citizenship of

children of Japanese parentage born in the United States.

(f) To correspond with societies and persons in Japan who believe in settling

international difficulties by conference and mutual consideration and in accordance with our existing arbitration treaty with Japan, and to cooperate

with them in urging both countries to adopt policies, make treaties, and enact

laws bearing on international relations, based on justice and good will.

(All communications and checks should he sent to Sidney L. Gulick, executive

secretary, 287 Fourth Avenue. New York City.)

MEMBEKS.

Geo. W. Wickersham, chairman: Hamilton Holt, vice chairman; Edwin G.

Merrill, treasurer: Linley V. Gordon, secretary; Charles H. Levermore, secretary ; Sidney L. Gulick, executive secretary; Henry A. Atkinson, Nehemlah

Bpjmton. F. S. Brockman, Arthur J. Brown, John Bates Clark, StepBBn~PT

Cuggan, Mrs. J. Malcolm Forbes, James H. Franklin, William I. Haven, James

G. McDonald, Mrs. William F. McDowell, Paul Monroe, Frank Mason North,

George A. Plimpton. Lindsay Russell, Fennell P. Turner.

HONORARY MEMBERS (PARTIAL LIST).

Jane Addams, James R. Angell, George Gordon Battle. Percival P. Baxter,

Franklin Q. Brown, Luther Burbank, Thomas Burke, M. L. Burton, Carrie

Chapman Catt, Francis B. Clark, George W. Coleman, Seymour L. Cromwell,

I:. Fulton Cutting, Henry W. DeForest, Robert W. DeForest, Cleveland H.

Dodge, George Eastman. Livingston Farrand, W. H. P. Faunee, Elbert H. Gary,

Franklin H. Giddings. Howard Heinz, John Grier Hibben, Otto H. Kahn,

Henry Churchill King, Samuel Mather, Shailer Mathews, Francis J. McConnell,

William P. McDowell. Mrs. Wm. A. Montgomery, John R. Mott. E. Y. Mulllns,

Mrs. Henry W. Peabody, Francis G. Peabody, Mrs. Percy V. Pennybacker,

Clarence Poe, Julius Rosenwald. Chester H. Rowell, Charles M. Schwab,

Robert E. Speer, W. C. Sproul. Frank A. Vanderlip, William Allen White,

Stephen S. Wise.

And I would also like to submit, if you will, for your records,

two pamphlets, entitled " New Factors in American-Japanese Relations " and "Japanese in Hawaii."

The former. I may say, is a pamphlet I have prepared recently,

giving full statistics and outlining a constructive policy.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. By leave of the chairman, Doctor, in the

pamphlet you have prepared, a copy of which was furnished me,

presumably by you or at your suggestion

Mr. GULICK (interposing). Yes, sir.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. DO you give the present Japanese population

in California?

Mr. GULICK. NO; I do not. The second pamphlet deals with the

Japanese in Hawaii. The bulk of this pamplet is a result of a careful statistical study by Prof. Romanzo Adams, professor of

economics and sociolog}- at the University of Hawaii. There are

copious tables of various kinds dealing with the Japanese there,

which I have reason to believe have been very carefully worked up

and are thoroughly reliable, and it seems to me that they correct

many popular misconceptions and misstatements regarding the

Japanese situation in Hawaii.
60 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Does that statement give the total Japanese

population on the Island?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Have you that immediately before you? By

leave of the chairman I would like to have it inserted right at this

point in the record.

Mr. GtJLicic. It is here.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, do not delay, if you can not find it.

Mr. GULICK. Well, I do not find it immediately.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Very well.

Mr. GULICK. Now, with reference to these two pamphlets, in the

course of my discussion I wish to make further references to them.

But those constitute the two or three matters presented in the name

of Mr. Wickersham.

Then here is another document; this is a document from California, prepared by David Starr Jordan, as follows ("reading] :

In current discussions of the problem of the Japanese in California, several

matters have been misunderstood and others perversely stated.

Those of us opposed to anti-alien legislation are for the most part not in favor

of admission of Asiatic laborers. Our interest is in fair treatment of those

legally here, and in honorable and friendly conduct on the part of our own

Nation. Most of our Japanese farm laborers came to California on the annexation of Hawaii. They had been brought to Hawaii by American sugar

interests before the Japanese system of compulsory schools had been established. Hence they are naturally often ignorant and clannish.

It is not true, so far as known, that the Root-Takahira " gentlemen's agreement " lias been violated even in a single case. It is moreover evident that an

exclusion agreement, with Japan cooperating, is more effective than any arbitrary act could be. Some 14 years ago Count Hayashi, of the Japanese foreign

office, for the purpose of reducing friction or criticism, ceased to issue passports to Mexico. This measure lias been usually ignored by agitators in California. Having proved ineffective it may be rescinded, in which case the much

exaggerated emigration from Mexico might become a serious matter, which

it is not now.

It is not true that the Japanese Government is trying now. or ever has tried,

to secure a foothold in California or anywhere else in America. The Magdalena Bay scare of 1912 was about as idiotic a piece of yellow journalism as

could be imagined.

It is not true that agitation in California lias done anything toward exclusion of orientals nor is it likely to drive any away or to reduce their number.

Something may be said for the limitation of alien land holding provided in

the act of 1913, but the referendum act of 1920 represents a dangerous policy.

So long as these people are foreign citizens they must be controlled from home

through consular agents. Any act concerning them, if affecting their accepted

rights, is international in nature. The International interests of the United

States can not be safely left at the mercy of haphazard local referendum. One

can hardly imagine a more reckless way of dealing with international affairs.

As a matter of fact, most of the 600,000 voters for the act of 1920 supposed

that it concerned Japanese immigration ; 200,000 voted against it, arid about

400,000 who had voted for State officers did not cast any ballot on this question.

The birth rate among Japanese laboring classes is high, as with Italians,

Portuguese, Irish in the same financial condition. As with all other races, it

falls with the competition of other interests inside the family.

The word " assimilation " has two meanings•interbreeding and comprehension of political and social conditions. In the latter sense, the young Japanese

are more readily assimilated than people of several European races; In the

former, fortunately, scarcely at all, for a certain pride of ancestry makes

Japanese, as a whole, averse to " mixed marriages."

That all races resident in our country should have means of becoming citizens is vital to the integrity of the Nation. We should condemn no race of men

to permanent outlawry•a line of policy disastrous wherever it has been

tried. <

Sincerely yours,

DAVID STARR JORDAN.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 61

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to speak in my own capacity as executive secretary of the National Committee on American Japanese

Relations, and I wish, first, to express my appreciation for the opportunity of discussing this rather important subject and these rather

important matters before your committee. In the beginning, I wish

to confine myself to a discussion of a matter that is really to the

point. This whole broad Japanese question is not before this committee at the present time, I understand. There are three or four very

broad questions which need consideration and answer, and it seems

to me, if I may be permitted to say so, that a good deal of the material introduced into the discussion yesterday is really irrelevant to

the matters here in issue.

Now, what are those issues? I think we may bring them under

four heads.

First, what is the real proposal in this House immigration bill

as it bears upon Japan?

Second•and this is a very vital thing•has or has not Japan been

observing the gentlemen's agreement? I think that is vital.

Third, would the provision in H. R. 6540, section 12 (b) be offensive to Japan and would a quota law really meet California's need

better than the present gentlemen's agreement?

And, fourth, is there still a better way of dealing with the whole

situation?

Now, those are the general heads under which I wish to speak

briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Gulick, the question in my mind is this:

Whether we should by statute adopt a policy of exclusion 5 that is,

by statute law adopt a policy of exclusion, taking into consideration

that we already have a gentlemen's agreement and a treaty with

Japan, the treaty of 1911. Is the menace of the Japanese so great

that this country should, for the purpose of self-protection, pass a

statute without consulting in any way with the nation with whom

we have a gentlemen's agreement and with whom we have a treaty?

What good would treaties be if the United States at any time is going to pass a statute which abrogates a treaty? That comes down

to the question of the menace or the peril, and the immediate menace

or peril. Is the policy of the United States going to be as a general

principle to abrogate by statute law any treaty? Of course, we know

that the effect of a statute is to supersede a treaty. Now, I pay attention to the fact that we already have a treaty and a gentlemen's

agreement with Japan; and should the United States now, without

cooperation with the other nation, pass an act which abrogates that

treaty and that agreement?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I may say, in answer to that particular question, the statement is admirable. And I may say that

those are the things which the Federal Council of the Churches of

Christ in America and the National Committee on American Japanese Relations stand for. If I understand your question, I will say

those av? exactly the things that we stand for.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in beginning my affirmative statement here

I would like to stress this point for a moment. I do not think that

the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and the

National Committee on American Japanese Relations are very far

95671•24 5
62 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

apart from the main objective of the people of the Pacific Coast

States with regard to the Asiatics. I think we all agree; certainly,

for years and from the beginning of my study of this question in 1913,

I have consistently stated that in main outline I agree with that general proposal, namely, that Asiatic immigration should be very

rigidly restricted. So that in the main, in the large purposes which

we have in view, we have the same objective. I would like, to have

it understood and believed, because I see so many assertions that

what I ami after is Japanese immigration. That is not so. Please

understand that.

In this connection I would like to just say briefly that I was in

Japan last year. I had opportunity to make wide studies, and to

make many addresses. I made about 155 addresses, in Japanese, to

those audiences•I am sorry Mr. McClatchy has gone out•I think

if Mr. McClatchy had heard me make those speeches he would have

said amen to each one of them; because the thing I was trying to get

into the Japanese was that there are real problems that lie back of the

anti-Japanese agitation in this country, and that there is no public

opinion in this country which stands for any considerable immigration of the Asiatics into this country.

What I have been concerned with, all these years is the manner of

handling this difficult question. We must be courteous; we must consider their feelings. And I may say, as a result of my visit to China

and Japan and Korea, spending a whole year in those countries,

that I have come back with a renewed conviction of the remarkable

character of those oriental peoples for reasonableness. If you will

sit down and talk with the Chinese and the Japanese in their own

languages•and I did it with the Japanese in Japanese; I could not

do it with the Chinese in Chinese•but if you talk to them in a language which you both understand fully I think you will find the

oriental race a remarkably reasonable people.

I pointed out, for instance, the terrible problem that is in our midst

because of the 10,000,000 negroes that are in this country. When

I talked with them and showed them that we have this problem they

saw the point instantly. They saw that the coming of large numbers

of Asiatics would create another race problem. And they saw the

point that the coming in of large numbers of workers from Asia into

our country would create economic conditions that are intolerable.

They saw it and recognized it, and the result of that recognition has

been that in all these years, beginning in 1908, when they entered into

this gentlemen's agreement or understanding, they have attempted,

I think, honorably and successfully to carry out the terms of that

agreement, which I shall speak of later. But the point I am making

is this: In their appreciation of the difficulty created in our country

by the coming of their people, the leaders or responsible Japanesehave said:

Why, of course, we will not send over any more of our people to cause those

difficulties. But we have an ancient history, we have our culture, our religion,

and our philosophy. We are not a backward people, like the peoples of Patagonia or Australia. We are an educated and intelligent people. We wish to

be recognized as a people on a basis of equality. Now, we appreciate that you

can not permit any considerable number of Asiatics to go into your midst. It

will be stopped. Please do not legislate against us. That would imply that

we are an inferior race of people, which we resent. We will stop it.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 63

I

That was the basis of the gentlemen's agreement.

Now, when I was over there I made it a particular point to get in

touch with responsible leaders and get figures on immigration and

emigration, and I renewed acquaintances which I had for years, and

I became convinced of the desire of responsible Japanese to maintain

friendly relations with the United States, but it can only be done on

the basis of courtesy and good will, leaving each country to consider the circumstances and conditions in the other country. I

found that a new spirit has been developed in the relations of

America and Japan due to the Washington conference. There is an

attitude of good will toward America. ;No longer do they feel

that America is a military menace to them. It may seem strange to

some people to be told that America was considered a military

menace to them. But they did SO' regard it, just as it seemed to some

Americans that Japan was a military menace to America. I talked

about that in public and gave some of the reasons why some Americans had developed those ideas and suspicions. My audiences simply

laughed. Now, that spirit and that thought that Japan and America

are a mutual military menace was practically overcome by the

Washington conference. And then in September last the great

outpouring of the great gifts that were made to the earthquake

sufferers were still further evidence of the spirit and good will of

America.

The Japanese now say there is no insolvable difficulty between us;

every difficulty we have we can solve by conference and treaty. So

when this legislation was proposed last January or February, was

it, the premier telegraphed that if the agreement was not working

satisfactorily they would be glad to enter into a new agreement so

(hat tli? agreement may be made satisfactory.

Now, then, coming to the more central part, what is the real effect

of this proposed bill of the House Immigration Committee? The

question was asked two or three times yesterday. Does it provide for

admission into the United States of merchants and travelers and

people of that kind ? As I study this bill I am reminded of my experience in college with my professor in calculus. He would put up

problems most perplexing, and just what the meaning of the problem

was was not easy to get at. And I will confess as I read this bill

two or three times I was puzzled, but finally I observed a little

clause slipped in at section 12 (b), the end of that paragraph, which

satisfies me that the measure, if passed in this form, with the clause

about ineligible to citizenship persons being excluded, would nevertheless admit to the United States all the classes of persons enumerated in section 3, namely, a Government official, his family, attendants, servants, and employees; an alien visiting the United States as a

tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure; an alien in continuous

transit through the United States; an alien lawfully admitted to the

United States who later goes in transit from one part of the United

States to another through foreign contiguous territory, and a bona

tide alien seaman.

Now. those people would be admitted under the bill, if passed, and

so the objection to this bill is not so serious as some have thought.

Certainlv not in regard to those classes.
64 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

We need to bear in mind that this bill sets up a quadruple classification; first, immigrants and nonimmigrants; and then quota and

non-quota immigrants. Now, it requires a little thought to distinguish continuously between those four groups. Those five classes

I have just mentioned come under the nonimmigrant classification.

And then under the nonquota group come three classes referred to

three or four times yesterday; that is, an immigrant in the United

States who has made a temporary visit abroad and is returning;

second, a minister of religion, or a professor in a college, academy,

seminary, or university, who has had that status for two years; and

then the excellent provision in regard to a bona fide student.

These come in under the nonquota provisions. All others would

come in under the nonimmigrant provision. So far as these points

are concerned, I think this bill is very good. But section 12 (b) provides that no alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to this

country unless he is admissible as a nonquota immigrant. This

sweeping provision is deeply resented.

There are four reasons.

First, it violates a treaty right. It would treat the AmericanJapanese treaty as a scrap of paper. We know what the significance

of that means. That was one of the great outstanding wrongs that

developed in the early stages of that terrible war in Europe. It is

evident that we have got to regard treaties as sacred obligations and

that there are ways of amending treaties which are in accord with

the fundamental principles of international relationships, which are

fundamental relationships. And if we violate that treaty, and if

we by simple act of Congress, without taking the proper proceduie,

violate that treaty, of course it will cause resentment in Japan. If

Japan were to do that with any treaty which gave us rights we

would feel the same way.

Then, of course, it annuls the gentlemen's agreement without a

conference. Now, I recognize very well that the gentlemen's agreements does not have legal standing. It was simply an agreement

into which Japan entered years ago in order that she might conform to our ideas, and not make it necessary for us to pass legislation with reference to Japanese immigration. That is legitimate.

Of course, its operation is left to Japan to a very large degree; but

not wholly. If you will look into the statistics furnished by the

Commissioner General of Immigration, you will find every year

those who are admitted without passports, or those who were deported because they did not have the right passports.

Now, that shows that our Government does exercise supervision

over those who come from Japan. We apply our literacy tests, and

health laws, and those have been rather rigidly enforced against the

Japanese. So the statement that Japan sends her people here as she

chooses is not correct.

And it seems to me that the chief cause for Japanese resentment

if this were passed would lie in the implication that Japan has

violated the gentlemen's agreement; in other words, her promises.

Any nation would resent that.

And it seems to me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,

this charge that Japan has been violating this agreement is really

the major part of the basis of the anti-Japanese question on the

Pacific coast, and is one that ought to be very carefully investigated.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 65

If it is true, then our Government should take it up with the Japanese Government, or the Japanese Foreign Office, and say, "See here,

here is the gentlemen's agreement; you have not been keeping it.

What shall we do?"

I may say incidentally that that is a matter I have given a good

deal of study to, and I agree with the statement made by David

Starr Jordan that there is no evidence that Japan is violating the

gentlemen's agreement.

This brings me, therefore, to a study of this Japanese gentlemen's

agreement. How has it worked ? What are the facts as indicating

that the gentlemen's agreement has been violated? The ordinary

method of proving that statement that Japan has violated the gentlemen's agreement is this: Just look at the figures, they say. After the

gentlemen's agreement went into operation total arrivals began at the

low figure of "2,375. and then steadily increased to 4,000, 6.000, 8,000,

and 10,000. Does that not show that Japan was violating the gentlemen's agreement? Now, that is the ordinary method of trying to

prove that Japan violated that agreement.

In the autumn of 1921, I think it was, in the World's Work,

Professor Stoddard put up that question, and said that Japan has

been violating the agreement. He put the figures up in that way.

Now, a person who knows nothing more about the figures than that

is at once convinced. But if you will analyze those figures I think

you will find that those figures do not prove that at all.

I must confess that yesterday I was exceedingly interested in the

statement made by Mr. McClatchy. I was much interested in comparing figures which he gave yesterday with some of the figures

which he gave five years ago. And before I enter upon this rather

stupid but necessary study of statistics, I would like to just tell a

little experience that I once had. I had given an address on this

subject, and a gentleman came up to me afterwards and said, " Did

you ever hear that figures can't lie, but liars can figure ? "

A few days later I heard an address by that eminent and eloquent

professor, Professor Inui, whom no doubt Mr. McClatchy knows personally, and Professor Inui quoted that statement that " figures can't

lie, but liars can figure," and then he put it this way: " Figures

can't lie, but we can all figure." That is the case. I verily believe

that Mr. McClatchy and all others who are studying these figures

are seeking to know the facts. I can not believe that through these

years Mr. McClatchy or his cooperators out there would have gone

on with their program if they did not believe that the statistics which

they have are reliable.

On the other hand, I hope you will grive me equal credit in believing that the figures given by Mr. McClatchy are not reliable.

I do not profess to be omniscient, but I have given a great deal of

study to this subject, and when a man has given years of study to

a subject and to its statistics, be will not be led to quick conclusions

which on the face may seem normal and natural, but which, with

closer study, will reveal other conditions. But I would like to say,

in analyzing and criticizing the figures given by Mr. McClatchy

yesterday to prove that the Japanese have violated the gentlemen's

agreement, that I hold no position of dogmatic inerrancy, but I present the figures as I see them. I hold myself open for further light.
66 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

If the figures given by me are not correct, I want to correct the figures. I want the real facts.

What, then, are the figures that Mr. McCltachy referred to that we

must study ? He quoted that California State Board of Control, in

its report of 1920, to prove that the Japanese population of California had increased by 25,000, by excess of immigration over emigration, during the 10 years of the period of the census from 1910,

which was April, 1910, to the autumn of 1919.

Now, in order to show that the statistics, the twenty-five thousand

and some hundred are not reliable and do not give the real facts,

I need to question

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What do you mean by the 25,000;

increase in the Japanese?

Mr. GULICK. The increase of arrivals over departures. This does

not have reference to the births in California. We have to begin

with the census of 1910, which gives the Japanese in California at

that time as 41,356. Then the statement comes of " immigrants " admitted into California. 32,702, and 7,110 "emigrants." This gives

an increase of 25,086.

Now, that would seem, on the face of it, to be a very carefully

and logically worked out proposition. But if you compare the statistics of " emigration " and " immigration " with the statistics of

arrivals and departures, you will come to the conclusion that the

classification of emigration and immigration does not properly tell

the story.

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Mr. Gulick. if you could have that

put in the form of a statement or summary, we could comprehend

it. We can not follow the complete analysis as you are giving it

now.

Mr. GULICK. I think I can make it clear.

The contention is that in order to know how large is the increase

in the number of aliens of a given people in the United States we must

deal with all arrivals and all departures, and not merely with " immigrants " and " emigrants/' The State board of control fell into this

error in claiming an increase of alien Japanese by 25,086. The true

figure is approximately 10,898. Its error was about 14,000. (Cf.

the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

January, 1921, "Japanese in California," by Sidney L. Gulick.)

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the committee generally•I am only

speaking for myself•has the census figures, which place the number

of the Japanese in the United States in 1920 at 81,502.

Mr. GULICK. That must be a misprint. Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. The birth of foreign born in the United States

from each country.

Mr. GTTLICK. That is the foreign born in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. The foreign born. Of course, that does not include the children of the Japanese born here, because they would be

native born?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the figures that you give you do not distinguish

between the foreign born and the natives of foreign parentage?

Mr. GULICK. Now, my point, Mr. Chairman, is this: You can not

deal with merely the figures of emigrants and immigrants. You

have got to include
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 67

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, you are going into another

field.

Mr. GULICK. No; it is the same field.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, when you go into the question of those

who come and go back. You have to get at it accurately.

Mr. GULICK. Yes; but these figures of emigrant and immigrant;

deal with one group alone, and will not give it accurately.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not state in one word what is the difference?

Mr. GULICK. Yes; I worked that out with some care, and it is

printed in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, January, 1921, a number that was devoted entirely to

a discussion of immigration by various writers. And between the

figures which I arrived at and the figures which the State board of

control arrived at, was a difference•between the 72,000 for the California population and 86,000 of about 14,000.

The CHAIRMAN. But it does not seem to me to be very material to

go into all those details.

Mr. GULICK. It is material in this respect: Did Japan keep the

gentlemen's agreement? Was there a flood of new immigration

coming in? The statistics show conclusively that there was not.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a summary of the census of 1920, and I

think the committee will refer to it if it desires the figures.

Senator SHORTRIDGK. May I, Mr. Chairman, ask a question ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. By leave of the chairman. Doctor. I would

like to ask you one or two questions: How many Japanese were in

California as of the time of entering into the so-called gentlemen's

agreement ? What is your contention; how many ?

Mr. GULICK. The way of getting at it

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). I do not care how you get at it.

How many Japanese were in California as of that date?

Mr. GULICK. Forty-four thousand.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. How many are there now?

Mr. GULICK. I have not studied out the figures

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). About how many?

Mr. GULICK. Adding, I should say, somewhere between 80.000 and

85,000 now.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Very well. That is your contention. It

shows there has been a substantial increase in the Japanese population in California.

Mr. GULICK. By birth.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. YOU agree there are eighty and odd thousand in California now?

Mr. GULICK. Yes; including native-born children.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. We claim there are about 100,000.

Mr. GULICK. NOW, that 100,000, I was going to take that up next.

That is the figure Mr. McClatchy has used for many years. In the

hearings in the House Committee on Immigration in the summer

of 1919, Mr. McClatchy made the statement repeatedly that there

were 100,000 Japanese at that time. That is 1919. Now, five years

have elapsed since that time, and there is an average birth among

the Japanese in California of approximately 5,000 per year; some
68 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

years less than that, and sometimes a little more. So that during

those five years there should have been added, allowing for departures and deaths, at least 20,000. If the figures Mr. McClatchy

gave were correct, there should be 120,000 now.

Senator SHOETRTDGE. Probably there are; they multiply very

rapidly.

The CHAIRMAN. That is contrary to the gentlemen's agreement.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. We do not know all of the terms of that

agreement. But there is no race suicide there.

Mr. GTJLICK. I would like to enlarge on that a little further. From

the time the gentlemen's agreement went into operation, July, 1908,

till the summer of 1923, all arrivals in continental United States

numbered 120,317; the departures, 111,686; so that the net arrivals

have been 8,681.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Through the ports.

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. HOW many over the borders, we do not know.

Mr. GOTJCK. NO ; that is up to the Government to find out. That

does not affect the gentlemen's agreement.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Unless Japan aided their coming.

Mr. GULICK. Do you assume that is the case ?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; I do.

Mr. GTTLICK. I do not.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It may not have been by the Government

directly, but they have been aided by others, societies, etc., over

there.

Mr. GTJLICK. If it was aided by the Government, it would be a violation of the gentlemen's agreement. The result for the 15 years is

a net of arrivals over departures of 8,681. Now, according to the

statements of the California State Board of Control, 64.1 per cent

of the arrivals in the United States settle in California, so that the

increase of Japanese of foreign birth in California during those

years has been 5,564, which would indicate that if there has been a

violation of the agreement it has been very slight indeed.

But that brings me to the question of what was that agreement.

That is a matter that we need to study with care. The statement

made yesterday was that the agreement was to the effect that there

should be no increase of Japanese population in the United States.

Now, that is the general assumption of those who argue from California. And I have no doubt that there was more or less thought

that that would be the case; that under the gentlemen's agreement

there would be much the same situation as developed with the Chinese.

When, however, they put down in black and white the terms upon

which these arrivals were to be regulated, as reported for publication

by the Commissioner General of Immigration in the autumn of 1908,

it was stated that:

This understanding contemplates that the Japanese Government shall issue

passports to continental United States only to such of its subjects as are nonlaborers, or are laborers who, in coming to the continent, seek to resume a

formerly acquired domicile; to join a parent, wife, or children residing there;

or to assume active control of an already possessed interest in a farming

enterprise in this country, so that the three classes of laborers entitled to

receive passports have come to be designated former residents; parents, wives,

or children of residents; and settled agriculturists.
JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION 69

Now, the statement was given that this was a secret agreement.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. What are you reading from?

Mr. GULICK. I am reading from the report of the House committee in connection with this bill. This is to be found on page 15, about

the middle of the page.

Now, the statement is commonly made that this was a secret

agreement and that it was impossible to find out what it was. Possibly there was a certain measure of truth in that; possibly the

Department of State has not seen fit to give the public the full

statement of it. But a few months after it went into effect a statement as to how it was to work was published and was in the report

of the Commissioner General of 1908, which contains this statement of how the gentlemen's agreement was going to work. Therefore, it seems to me that the charge that it was a secret understanding

has very little value.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It never was reduced to writing, Doctor, as

you understand?

Mr. GULICK. I do not know.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Perhaps it was made by an exchange of

notes, or something of that sort.

Mr. GULICK. Possibly something of that sort. But when it came to

be expressed in a form to be carried out in practice, then it was

published in the form I have just read.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I suppose President Eoosevelt knew its

terms ?

Mr. GULICK. NO doubt, and the ambassador.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. And we would take the views of President

Roosevelt as conclusive?

Mr. GULICK. Yes. That statement read by Mr. McClatchy, or

telegram, he called it a telegram, to the legislature of California in

1909 expressed my own view very fully. I quite agree with that.

Now, I am free to admit that when this agreement in these terms

began to work out, results came somewhat different from what was

anticipated on this side, particularly with reference to the provision

with respect to the admission of children, parents, and wives. But

that Japan deliberately violated her pledges and sent over people not

in the agreement is

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). Do you think they contemplated what is known as the picture-bride method of introducing

Japanese into the United States; do you think it contemplated that

sort of thing?

Mr. GULICK. No; I don't think that question had come up at all.

The thought was no doubt that if no more passports were to be given

to laborers, no new immigrants would be admitted and those already

here would gradually drift back. And it did not occur to those

who dealt with it that they would fall so in love with California

that they would stay here permanently and send in large numbers

for their parents, wives, and children.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. They did not know California, you see.

Mr. GULICK. Neither did Japan think that. I don't think there

was any sinister thought in the mind of Japan. But Japan interpreted the terms " wives," " children," and " marriage " in harmony

with their own customs. This picture-bride idea was not a special
70 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION ' .

arrangement for bringing the women over here. The picture-bride

movement, if you choose to call it that, has applied to Italians, and

so on. Furthermore, in Japan the marriage is arranged by the

parents; it has been so for years and centuries. And so the young

fellow in this country, when he came to an economic position where

he could marry and enter into the full relations of life, naturally

appealed to the Japanese method of marriage. That was not a violation of the agreement. But their method of getting a wife did not

correspond to our custom and seemed to us wholly unsuitable, and we

rejected it. And after some years of criticism•I regret it dragged

out so long•Japan finally saw the point and stopped the coming of

the picture brides.

Now, since that period, and since the beginning of the working of

the agreement

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I trust you will summarize as much

as you can, Doctor Gulick.

Mr. GULICK. Since the gentlemen's agreement went into effect the

Commissioner General of Immigration has reported every year the

statistics bearing upon the arrivals. Those are given in the statistics. Now, it shows that during those years•and I will summarize

here without going into the details, because that is what you have

asked for•more Japanese males have left the country than have entered. Now, that is a part of what was contemplated in the gentlemen's agreement. And this has actually taken place•22,737 more

males have left the country than have entered. But under that provision of children and wives that deficiency has more than been made

up, so that there is a net immigration of 8,681 into continental United

States.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Only 8,000?

Mr. GULICK. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. How do you account for the 80,000 that are

admittedly here, then?

Mr. GULICK. Births.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Very well. I wanted to know your contention.

Mr. GULICK. The women and children and births. The point I

make is that Japan has been working within the specified terms.

Just one thing more. Mr. McClatchy made a statement like this

yesterday, broadly and generally to prove the failure of Japan to

keep the agreement: He said in 1880 there were no Japanese in the

Hawaiian Islands. In 1920 they constituted nearly one-half the population of the Hawaiian Islands. Now, that is a perfectly true statement. I do not controvert the figures at all; but does it prove that

the gentlemen's agreement has been violated? We must remember

that the great immigration from Japan to Hawaii took place between

1880 and 1900, before Hawaii was annexed to the United States.

And during the years from 1900 to the summer of 1908, before the

gentlemen's agreement was entered into, there was a large immigration to Hawaii, but the transfer of the population to the United

States was also large. Hawaii was a stepping-stone. Japanese

population in Hawaii from 1900 to 1908 remained almost stationary.

And it was a source of great grief to those planters that they could

not stop the departures for California. Since 1920 the Japanese
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 71

population in Hawaii has actually receded in proportion to the rest

of the population, falling from 42.7 per cent to 40.4 per cent. From

the time the gentlemen's agreement went into effect until the present

time there has been a positive diminution in the alien male population of Japanese in Hawaii.

Senator SHORTRIIXJB. What other races have increased more rapidly?

Mr. GULICK. I can not give you that statement.

Senator SHORTRIDGR. YOU make the broad statement here.

Mr. GULICK. Here are the figures in 1920, in the census, in regard

to California, Washington. Oregon, and Hawaii, for 1900 to 1920.

Now. in 1900 the Japanese population, as compared with the whole

population, was 39.7 per centSenator SHORTRIDGK. In the islands?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. In 1910 it was* 41.7 per cent. In other

words, during that period the Japanese population in the Hawaiian

Islands increased 2 per cent, a very slight increase indeed. The

increase was very slight. In 1920 the population, as compared with

the rest, ran about 42.7 per cent.

Senator SHORTRIDGK. That is. 42 per cent of the total population

of the islands is made up of Japanese?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. Now, if you will turn•you haven't it in

your hand•but if I turn to the figures of the Japanese population

in Hawaii during the past two or three years, it turns out that the

proportion is diminishing. In June. 1923, the proportion fell to 40.4

per cent. The adult Japanese males decreased in actual numbers

from 41,795 in 1910 to 36,548 in 1920.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that does not have a direct bearing.

Mr. GULICK. This is Hawaii, and the statement was made

The CHAIRMAN. I know what you are answering, but it does not

have a direct bearing.

Mr. GULICK. NOW, Mr. Chairman, in closing this section on the

gentlemen's agreement I would like to make a suggestion. This

question as to whether or not the Japanese have been observing their

agreement has been a very vital one. Itis one involving the morality

of Japan. Inasmuch as the figures I have presented are so different

from those of Mr. McClatchy, I would like to ask that you request

Mr. Husband to sit down with myself and Mr. McClatchy and go

over the figures, and arrive at the correct figures.

The CHAIRMAN. The trouble is, he has gone there now.

Senator SHORTRIDGK. Personally I am not concerned with statisticians or the way in which they may figure. We are concerned

with actual present conditions. We are concerned with the conditions, and not theory, having in mind the statement of a very great

democratic statesman: " It is a condition and not a theory that confronts us." As to whether an agreement has been observed in good

faith, or has been knowingly violated, or by intention or effect

suffered to be violated, are questions, of course, that should be

looked into.

Mr. GULICK. NOW, if Mr. Husband is not here, I am sure there

are experts at the department who could go over these figures and

determine what the fact is.

The CHAIRMAN. We have all those figures before us. The question of the Japanese population is before us in every form.
72 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mi\ GULICK. Yes; but is it in the form that it could be reconciled••

the diversified form they have given and those I have given? May

I be permitted to ask a question? Has this cpmmittee made up

its mind whether the Japanese Government has observed this gentlemen's agreement?

The CHAIRMAN. I should think from the questions that have been

asked that the committee has not made up its mind on anything. We

are here to hear you.

Mr. GULICK. Very well; that is what I am pressing, that we should

get at it•what the correct figures are.

The CHAIRMAN. You know very well from an international standpoint it would be a very serious thing for the United States to come

to the conclusion that the Japanese Government has violated its

agreement and therefore we are going to treat it as a nullity.

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir. •

The CHAIRMAN. It would take very strong evidence; and that is

a diplomatic matter, in any event.

Mr. GULICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman; that is the reason why it was so

necessary not to place the clause in the House immigration bill excluding aliens ineligible for citizenship, because that would be virtually saying they have not kept that agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not only the agreement but the treaty

of 1911•a commercial treaty.

Mr. GULICK. NOW, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think

the usefulness of the present gentlemen's agreement has come to an

end. Through the admission of the parents, wives, and children

there has come an amount of immigration which has caused serious

conditions•serious psychological conditions. And it seems to me

that we ought to say frankly to Japan that we believe the gentlemen's agreement is not satisfactory•" We believe you have observed

it, but, nevertheless, it is not satisfactory, and we need a new adjustment of the matter."

The CHAIRMAN. IS that not a matter for the State Department to

initiate ?

Mr. GULICK. Yes; it is so. But if Congress desires, it could make

a recommendation in that matter. That is one of the several constructive suggestions I desire to make.

The CHAIRMAN. Congress has nothing to do with the initiation or

negotiation of treaties. That is for the President, with the concurrence of the Senate.

Mr. GULICK Would it be proper for the Congress to pass a resolution requesting action to be taken along certain lines? If Congress

is bound to take some kind of action, that, it seems to me, would be

proper action.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Senate could ask for it.

Mr. GULICK. Mr. Chairman, there are three suggestions which it

seems to me we might consider or which the committee might consider: First, this matter of a joint resolution to confer with Japan

for a treaty or a new agreement.

Second, to include Japan in the quota in the law, which would

result in giving Japan her share in immigration. The amount would

be so small that it would be negligible, but it would give them what

they desire. It would put Japan on a basis of equality with other

nations.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 73

The CHAIRMAN. But the} object to the quota.

Mr. GULICK. Californians object to it because of the second item in

it, namely, equality of recognition. However, if they really wish to

cut down to a very low point the number of Japanese who can come,

the quota law would accomplish it. If the gentlemen's agreement

continues, we will still have several thousand Japanese children and

wives coming over.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Of course, that gentlemen's agreement, as

a matter of law, has no validity whatever.

Mr. GULICK. NO, sir; but the Department of State

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). It is for Congress to legislate.

Mr. GULICK. Yes; but there is the treaty.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Of course; those two things go together.

Mr. GULICK. And then the third proposition that it seems to me

might be considered is for Congress to request the appointment of

a joint high commission to study this question and get at the facts,

and to make recommendations.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished?

Mr. GULICK. With just a few more remarks bearing on points

made by Mr. McClatchy, which it seems to me need correction.

Mr. McClatchy made the point that Japan is controlling all the

Japanese in this country, and cited the fact that the Japanese born

in this country have to be registered in the consulates. The same

thing happens with regard to American children born in Japan.

When my children were born in Japan, it was necessary for me to

have them registered at the American consulates in order to maintain their American citizenship. So Japan is doing what every

other nation is doing. So that is no valid charge against Japan.

Then with reference to the Japanese children who are in this

coirntry. Various statements were made which seem to me to ignore very important facts that are available. I would like to call

your attention to an investigation made by Paul B. Waterhouse

who, a couple of years ago, in a questionnaire sent to Japanese

children in American schools, asked for certain information. He

received replies from 2,000 of these children. The questionnaire

was one with reference to their views and purposes. Among the

replies that he received, it turned out that two-thirds of those children were attending Protestant Sunday schools; 35 per cent of those

children declared they are Protestant in their religious faith, and

19 per cent declared they are Buddhists. In other words, the

Christian approach to the children on the Pacific coast is bringing

a remarkable change to the children, and to the Japanese people

in California. If we maintain the teachings begun in these schools,

I have no reason to believe that these children will be a menace to

this country.

And then another thing, a statement was made that the real aim

of those who are going to Mexico and South America is to come

to the United States. It seems to me that is a statement that should

be corrected, because the Japanese Government has refused for many

years to give passports to those who are going to Mexico, except

under the same terms as those who are coming to America; in other

words, they are working under the gentlemen's agreement. So I

think that ought to be wiped off the slate, that charge.
74 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

And then, Mr. Chairman, with reference to Japanese voters in

Hawaii. The statement was made, on the statement of an author

who was quoted, that by 1940 the Japanese voters will constitute a

majority.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you need go into that.

Mr. UUXICK. Will you permit me just a word there? These

figures, collected by and carefully prepared by Professor Adams,

show that the proportion of Japanese voters to other voters in 1940

will be 22 per cent, so that those charges do not stand careful

examination.

And then Mr. McClatchy made this statement, that the gentlemen's

agreement was delayed in its operation about two years, approximately, and in that period 45,000 Japanese laborers came into the

United States. I don't think that is a fair statement of the fact.

I don't know that anyone knows•certainly I don't know•when the

gentlemen's agreement went into effect. But it was made in 1907

and went into operation in 1908, and the immigration from that

time fell very markedly. During the year ending in the summer of

1907 the total immigration was 30,000, and then the gentlemen's

agreement got into operation by the middle of the year 1908, and it

fell to 15,000, and then the next year it fell to 3,000. And I can not

believe, Mr. Chairman, that, if the gentlemen's agreement should

have gone into effect by the summer of 1906, but its operation was

so delayed for two years that 45,000 came in who should not have

done so under the agreement, Mr. Roosevelt would have kept quiet.

With his keen insight into what was done, and his desire to protect

California, I think he would have at once spoken out.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. What do you understand to be the date of

the gentlemen's agreement?

Mr. GULICK. It began to get in operation

Senator SHORTRIDGE (interposing). Not getting into operation;

when was it entered into ?

Mr. (IULICK. I don't know. Some time the latter part of 1907.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, as a

Member of the Senate I propose to find out whether that agreement

was reduced to writing, and if it was reduced to writing when it

was entered into and what were its terms. I know of no law which

permits it to be kept secret.

Mr. GULICK. Now, Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to give a

very brief summary of what I have said. It will take me only five

or six minutes. It will be a brief summary of what I have said,

with the reasons for deleting that paragraph of the present bill, sec.

12 (b). . ...

iirst, the proposed paragraph denying admission to the United

States of aliens ineligible to citizenship would contravene the treaty

with Japan in a manner not in keeping with correct international

procedure. It would, therefore, be a piece of national immorality•-

regarding a treaty as merely a scrap of paper.

Second, it would annul the gentlemen's agreement without conference, which would be ungentlemanly.

Third, the action would imply that Japan has not kept faith in

administering that agreement, which implication would amount to-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 75

a grave accusation which can not fail to be resented, since the evidence is clear that Japan has observed it with great care.

The proposed paragraph is unnecessary, for the end in view•

namely, the rigid exclusion of Japanese immigrants•can be better

secured in other ways; in ways that are courteous and gentlemanly,

and in ways that are in accord with international procedure•(a)

by a joint resolution of the Senate and House requesting the Department of State to arrange either for a new gentlemen's agreement, or for a new treaty; or (b) by a slight adjustment of the proposed quota basis, and then making it applicable to all peoples and

nationalities.

Fifth, the proposal in having annulled the cooperation of the

Japanese Government in regulating Japanese immigration would

inevitably inaugurate a period of increased friction and contention

between the United States and Japan.

Sixth, the proposed action, if carried through, would go far

toward wiping out the good feelings produced by the Washington

Conference on Limitation of Armament, and the American activities

through the American Red Cross for the relief of the Japanese

sufferers from the recent earthquake and fire.

Seventh, the growth of ill will between the two countries could

not fail to result in talk of war and in increased preparations for

war.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on that point I want to say I do not believe

that the day will ever come when Japan will deliberately attack

the United States; I do not believe that the day will ever come when

American will deliberately attack Japan; but there will be talk

of war and preparations for war, both of which would be very

disastrous indeed. Therefore, I believe we should modify the agreement with Japan and provide for a stoppage of any further immigration of Japanese wives and children to this country, and then

go forward with the policy of constructive assistance of dealing

wisely and helpfully with the Japanese population in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to this committee the constructive proposals and programs which were worked out with the

National Committee on American-Japanese Relations, in a booklet

entitled, " Should Congress Enact Special Laws Affecting Japanese? " I would like to submit the last four or five pages of this

book, beginning on page 90.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be inserted in the record.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

IV. A CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAM.

The discussions thus far have shown conclusively that anti-Japanese agitators make use of unscientific statistics and sensational exaggerations. The

casual reader might perhaps infer, therefore, that when we reject these exaggerations and statistics and deal only with actual facts and scientific

statistics, we shall find no real difficulties to he solved.

Such, however, is not the view of the writer. To his thinking, there is a

real Japanese problem. And it is a difficult one. The agitators see It, indeed,

in a vague and partial way, but they do not understand its real nature. The

remedies, accordingly, which they propose for its solution would, as we have

sufficiently shown above, not only fail to accomplish what they desire but

would, on the contrary, aggravate the difficulty.
76 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

THE PBINCIPAD FACTS.

1. Japanese labor immigration was virtually stopped by the summer of 1908.

Since then, while many wives and children have come to the United States,

many thousands of men (about 10,000) who were in continental United States

at that time have permanently returned to Japan. In deference to California's

opposition, Japan has stopped granting passports to so-called " picture brides."

2. A Japanese population of seventy-two or three thousand has already secured a firm foothold in California. They are remarkably industrious, thrifty,

sober, reliable, enterprising, law-abiding, and ambitious. They possess peculiar physical fitness for certain forms of agriculture and meet thus a definite

economic need of the State. They cooperate effectively among themselves,

constitute a compact group, and offer powerful competition in certain lines of

agriculture.

3. Large numbers of them live in rural districts, where they constitute in

many cases communities largely, if not exclusively, Japanese. The white

landowners often find it economically advantageous to sell or lease to them,

for by their physical aptitude for certain kinds of labor, by their lower standards of life, by their longer hours of work when working for themselves, and

by their more patient and skillful intensive cultivation, they can afford to pay

higher prices for land than white farmers can.

4. Like all newcomers from foreign lands who have a different language,

different customs, different social habits, different interests, different forms of

recreation, and different culture, they are not acceptable as neighbors or

friends to the older population. Neither side is able really to understand the

other or to enter upon mutually agreeable relations. Such relations as are

necessarily established are economic, and these oftentimes are unpleasant,' due

to inevitable competition.

5. Japanese in rural districts living so largely by themselves naturally continue the standards and modes of life in which they were reared. They receive

relatively little American influence. From the American standpoint, many of

their native customs are objectionable. They quite commonly work on Sunday; they are apt to overcrowd their dwellings; they often live In insanitary

and unsightly conditions. Moreover, since many of the women work in the

fields, they can not make a proper home life nor rear the children according

to American standards.

6. Not a few of the unfavorable conditions under which they live are due to

the anti-.Tiipanese State laws, which have interfered with their economic prosperity and prevented their establishment of permanent homes.

7. Social relations between whites and Japanese are difficult to establish

and maintain, partly because of mutual ignorance of each other's language,

partly because the standards and ideals of life are so different,- partly because

the feeling engendered by economic competition is unfriendly, and partly

because of instinctive and also of cultivated race prejudice.

8. Japanese men, like European men (and unlike the Chinese) have brought

over their wives and children in unexpected numbers, so that we already have

some 20,000 American-born Japanese children in California. And we foresee

tens of thousands more in a few decades. These with their children and children's children for all future time are by our laws American citizens. Are

they to be loyal Americans, absorbed into the general population? Or are they

to constitute a distinct class, possessed of race consciousness, striving for

rights in the face of opposition and of humiliating race legislation?

9. California is now suddenly awakening to the situation thus developing.

For years it enjoyed and greatly benefited by the advantages of cheap, docile,

efficient Asiatic labor. No small part of her prosperity has been made possible by Chinese and Japanese labor on railroads, roads, and ranches. California is now discovering that Japanese labor is no longer cheap or servile.

It is found to be enterprising, independent, ambitious, able. Japanese desire

to secure the full profit of their toil. Like all other immigrants, they are not

content to remain forever mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, mere

workers for others; they aspire to independence, to ownership, to accumulation of capital, and to the power and liberty which capital gives.

10. Japanese, moreover, like every new immigrant group, are highly reproductive. Although there is no danger whatever of the preponderant Japanese

population foretold by imaginative statisticians and sensational agitators, it

is certain that we shall have among us a permanent, growing, and efficient

Japanese population. In a few decades it may possibly become in California

5 per cent of the population of the State.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 77

11. The anti-Asiatic agitation on the Pacific coast in past decades has

resulted in the denial to Asiatics of the privileges of naturalization and of

citizenship and the denial to them of certain economic opportunities. Of all

immigrants to the United States, Asiatics alone have been thus singled out

and humiliated. This condition has tended to segregate them as a group and

to interfere with their wholesome Americanization. They alone are " aliens

ineligible for citizenship." Advantage has been taken of this political disabilty to make them the object of discriminatory, humiliating, and obstructive

economic legislation.

12. The real situation, however, is by no means hopeless. It is by no

means so difficult as agitators insist and as many have been led to believe.

Time is one of the essent'al factors in the required solution. California politicians are in too much of a hurry. The charge that Japanese can never be

Americanized is based on too short an experience. The Americanization of

Irish, Italians, Poles, Scandinavians, or any non-English-speaking foreign

people is a matter of at least two generations. There is every reason to

believe that under similar conditions Japanese also will be happily and wholesomely Americanized.

THE REAL PROBLEMS NEEDING SOLUTION.

The real problems needing solution are not those emphasized by Mr. McClatchy and the political agitators. They are, rather, such as the following:

(1) How to overcome existing irritation between Americans and Japanese,

especially in rural communities, and create in its place an attitude of mutual

appreciation and good will.

(2) How to teach to Japanese our American customs and practices especially in regard to our family life and to our democratic institutions of government.

(3) How to overcome race cohesion in economic enterprises and secure cooperation across race lines.

(4) How to prevent further race seggregation and secure a better distribution of those in congested areas.

(5) How to prevent Japanese of the second generation, born in America,

from becoming a race-conscious group, functioning distinctly and separately

in business, in politics, and in social life as Japanese-Americans, rather than

as " straight Americans "•with no hyphen.

In solving these problems the State has certain duties to perform. Congress

and the Federal Government others. Public-spirited citizens also, especially on

the Pacific coast, and broad-minded Japanese likewise have most important,

nay. essential contributions to make.

A GENUINE SOLUTION.

A genuine and permanent solution is necessarily psychological and moral

though it should also include a legislative factor. Two programs of education

are needed, one for Japanese and one for Americans. The first would seek by

friendly instruction and helpfulness to show Japanese how Americans live,

what our ideals and economic standards are, and how earnestly we desire to

have all foreigners who plan to stay permanently in America learn our language and adopt our good ways as rapidly as possible•not, however, abandoning their own good customs•and participate in supporting our democratic

institutions. The rights and the duties of citizens would he fully explained to

them and they would be invited, in case they plan to stay permanently in

America, to qualify and become citizens. It would introduce Japanese to

Americans and urge them both to live in mutual helpfulness, fair play, and

good will. Especial attention would be given to the education of Japanese

children, making them feel that they too are Americans.

States in which Japanese have already settled in considerable numbers

might well provide that in communities where foreign-language children of

school age of any single race constitute a large proportion of those in school.

special attention shoud be given to the number and qualification of the teachers.

Such a plan would benefit both the American and the foreign-language children.

The program for Americans would seek to give them the real facts of the

situation. Falsehoods or even half truths about the Japanese would be exposed.

Steps would be taken to promote aspirit of such helpfulness, cooperation, and

95671•24•6
78 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

treatment as would commend to the strangers from Asia tlie essentials of the

Christian religion. Facts as to methods and processes that have been successful in harmonizing Japanese and Americans would he widely reported, such as

those that have been so successful at Livingston.

Business men might well make efforts to secure Japanese partners, especially in enterprises in which Japanese labor is employed to advantage. Jointstock farming corporations might well be formed.

Where families of American. Japanese, Chinese. Portuguese. Mexican, Italian.

Armenian, or other races are found in a single community it is highly important that an interracial community council should be formed of the most broadminded individuals of each group. Hegular meetings would promote mutual

acquaintance. Common activities in promoting common interests of the community, such, for instance, as recreational facilities, lecture courses, patriotic

celebrations, school improvements, offering of prizes to children for definite

agriculture achievements, promotion of tree-planting activities and other

methods for beautifying the town, and numberless similar general interests,

would go far toward reducing race misunderstanding, and in promoting mutual

appreciation and good will as well as in creating community unity and community loyalty. It is clear that the race question can be solved in any community only by the coming together and mutual cooperation of the better elements in that community. State and county interracial councils also may be

necessary in order to secure the establishment and wholesome functioning of

local interracial councils.

A Federal legislative program is also necessary. All Asiatics who are lawfully in the United States should be guaranteed and should be given equal

treatment with that accorded to every other group of foreigners and aliens

among us. The fourteenth amendment should be scrupulously observed.

Laws that conflict with treaty obligations should be repealed. Standards for

naturalization should be raised and all who duly qualify for citizenship and

desire to be naturalized should be granted this privilege, just as it is granted

to individuals of every other continent. All racially discriminatory and therefore humiliating laws should be repealed.

In order to overcome particular abuses State laws may be needed to prevent unfair racial combinations in restraint of trade, unnecessary Sunday

work, excessive hours of labor, unsanitary or immoral living conditions.

Legislation fitted to prevent the development of congested areas of a single

people or race may also be desirable.

Laws forbidding the purchase of agricultural lands by any aliens, even in

the names of their minor children, may perhaps be desirable in case naturalization is open to all who are properly qualified. This would be a powerful incentive to citizenship. Surely aliens who plan for permanent life in America,

as is indicated by purchase of farm lands, should be American citizens. All

such laws should, of course, be general and apply equally to all aliens and

all races.

It is assumed throughout the above sketch, but perhaps should be explicitly

stated, that the policy here advocated does not contemplate or propose further Japanese immigration. Either the gentlemen's agreement should be continued or some substitute found equally effective in restraining new Japanese

labor immigration from entering into the United States. If the gentlemen's

agreement is to he continued, and if it is shown to be defective in certain

respects, the Japanese Government would unquestionably give favorable consideration to suggestions for its improvement. The question of the dual

citizenship, and dual military obligations of American-born children of Japanese parentage is one that should receive careful study by both governments,

and a mutually satisfactory solution should be found. The difficulties of the

situation, however, are more theoretical than practical. They can be removed by the application of a little common sense on both sides.

Such a policy as this followed out constantly for two or three decades would

gradually solve the Japanese problem in an American and honorable way.

American-born Japanese under such conditions would absorb American ideals,

modes of life, and standards of labor. The strenuous economic competition

of the Japanese now complained of would gradually vanish as the American

born and American trained children took the place of their foreign-born
JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION 79

parents. These children would he as characteristically American as the

American-horn children of any other foreign people. Sunday lahor and excessive hours of work would automatically cease, and also the agricultural

labor of wives and young children.

The rising generation of Japanese would be distributed industrially and

economically and absorbed psychologically and doubtless politically into the

general community, which condition furnishes the most hopeful method for

preventing the rise of Japanese group consciousness. There would be a strong

tendency of English-speaking Japanese to scatter, thus serving to reduce the

over-population in areas now congested.

The foregoing moral, educational, and legislative program for solving the

Japanese problem on the Pacific coast appears to the writer to be the only

one in which there is the least hope of success. Its weakness lies in the fact

that it is neither sensational nor " political," nor will it secure striking immediate results.

The policies proposed, however, by the California Oriental Exclusion League

can secure no salutary results whatever. They will only aggravate the situation. The Japanese are here with their wives and children. To get rid of

them is out of the question : they are here to stay. How is California going

to deal with them? In a spirit of bitter condemnation, twisted statistics, distorted half truths, and increasingly obnoxious and economically discriminatory

legislation aimed at " aliens ineligible for citizenship '"> Such a spirit and

such laws will produce only increasing mutual animosity. This is no solution.

The only hopeful alternative would seem to be somewhat along the lines here

urged.

CONCTATSION.

The great world problem of the coming century is that arising from the

contact of the white and yellow races. Shall it be a contact of bitterness,

hostility, unfairness, and untruth in speech and act? Or shall it lie kindly

and helpful and considerate? Shall we seek war? Or shall we seek peace?

The answer is still in our hands. We can create hostile foes by the million

among our neighbors across the Pacific, or we can win them to friendship•

according as our treatment of those among us on the Pacific coast is hostile

or fair and friendly.

If we desire to keep Asia friendly we must he friendly ourselves. We must

give to every Asiatic lawfully in the United States the very same treatment

that we give to every other people. This alone is in fundamental harmony with

the spirit and principles of our Republic and our Constitution. This alone is

the course required by the Golden Rule This alone can lay right foundations

for permanent peace between the Par East and the Far West.

Mr. GULICK. In closing, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,'let me refer

to the oft quoted statement by the poet Kipling, in which he

declares that•• _ _.

East is east, and west is west,

"And never the twain shall meet•
80 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

And so forth. But it is generally forgotten that he goes on to say:

But there is neither east nor west,

BoYder. nor breed, nor birth.

When two strong men stand face to face.

Though they come from the ends of the earth.

And my life in the Orient has brought me to believe that there

is no real difference in the inhabitants of the Orient and the Occident.

The differences are superficial matters. I agree wholly with the

statements of Mr. Webb yesterday that the admission of any number

of Asiatics would be disastrous to our country. I indorse that. But

that does not mean that we do not have to learn to live together as

good neighbors, and we can do that and be good friends, and regard

our moral obligations as between neighbors.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Schneder, we will hear you.

Mr. GUIJCK. May I say, Mr. Chairman, in regard to Doctor

Schneder, that he lias been a student of this problem for many years:

for 35 years ho has been a missionary in Japan, and has a special

knowledge of the Japanese people and of their speech, and I think

he can speak for our American citizens in Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Schneder does not need any recommendation to the committee. There is no doubt of Doctor Schneder's standing. He is known to the members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID B. SCHNEDER, PRESIDENT NORTH

JAPAN COLLEGE, SENDAI, JAPAN.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, is there any special point that you wish

to speak on particularly?

Mr. SCHNEDER. The main point I would like to make is to add

my voice to whatever has been said in favor of keeping the gentlemen's agreement, perhaps in some modified form.

Officially, I represent the Board of Foreign Missions of the

Reformed Church of the United States, having been appointed to do

this by said» board. However, I speak more in an informal way as

a member of the American missionary body in Japan. The American missionary body in Japan consists of about 1,000 persons, and

millions of dollars of money are expended in that work every year,

and institutions, schools, and churches have grown up. Any legislation, whether in America or in Japan, that affects this work is, of

course, a matter of very deep interest to us. Of course, when it

comes to an issue betwen our own national welfare and the interests of missionary work in Japan there is only one answer that can

be made•the missionary work must be left to stand upon its own

feet. But when several courses are possible, then it seems to me

proper that this question of the bearing of any action upon the missionary work that such a large proportion of the American population is interested in should have consideration. Now, I do not wish

to spend any time of any account concerning the situation in California. That, has been gone over very ably by Doctor Gulick, who

has preceded me. I only wish to say that, so far as assimilability is

concerned, perhaps we missionaries are in a position to know more

than the people of California generally know, because of the peculiar

and strained conditions that prevail in California.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 81

I have lived, with my wife, for 36 years in the city of Sendai, in

north Japan, and there we find that the barrier between the Americans and the Japanese is not great; we associate very freely with

the Japanese people and they associate with us. We go into and out

of each other's homes in about the same way as we would in

America. And we know that in their thoughts and feelings they

are much closer to us than might be supposed by looking only upon

those that are to be found in most parts of California.

And as to the ability of the Japanese to become psychologically

assimilated, I would like to give one instance. Years ago we had in

the institution of which I am the head a young Japanese who became

specially interested in science, and he came over to the University

of Chicago, and after graduating there he spent a few years elsewhere, and then became a professor in the Wister Institute, of Philadelphia, which is now connected with the University of Pennsylvania. He got a wife to come over from Japan to join him, and

be made his home in Ridley Park, in the outskirts of Philadelphia,

and there he became a member of the community. He gradually

became to be one of the elder members of the community, and he

was looked up to by many of his neighbors as one of them, with

whom they often consulted and with whom they had very pleasant

social relations.

Now, two years ago that man was called back to head, or, rather,

start, the department of biology in the University of the Northeast,

which is located in Sendai. lie accepted the position and came back

with his family, a family of four children; and when his wife and

his children arrived they were simply miserable. The children did

not know a word of Japanese, but, what was more, their psychological outlook was absolutely American. The oldest boy, who was about

14 years of age, had entered high school in Philadelphia, and was, so

far as psychology was concerned, absolutely an American boy. He

did not want to have anything to do with Japan. He wanted to go

back to America, and at last he had an attack of something like

nervous prostration, and he finally was put into an American school

in Tokyo, where he at last became happy with the promise that he

was to be sent to America as soon as he was prepared for college.

That is only one of the many instances that have come under my

notice of the way in which, at least psychologically and so far as

psychological make-up is concerned', there is the possibility of assimilation.

So far an the Japanese Government observing the gentlemen's

agreement is concerned, I can say from the side of Japan that, so far

as my observation has gone, the Japanese Government has seemed to

try sincerely to keep that agreement. I am often appealed to to help

students get passports to come to America, and I know how exceedingly difficult it is. I do not know whether this committee is fully

acquainted with the' method by which the thing is done. The

way in which it is done is that the applicant has to apply to the local

governor, the governor of the Province in which he lives, or to which

he belongs, and there his application is carefully examined, and very

often various inquiries are made as to the means that he has for support in America, and in all ways it is exceedingly difficult for a

student to get a passport to America. I have never known that a

laborer has gotten a passport to come to America.
82 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

It seems to me, too•of course, here I am speaking about something concerning which the gentlemen from California have a much

better knowledge than I•it seems to me that this process of calling for wives or getting wives from Japan must soon come to an end.

because those that are there now will be supplied.

And then the land laws that have been passed and have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States seem to me to have

a tendency to cause Japanese to go back to Japan, not only farmers

but also tradespeople who live from agricultural communities, or

have been living from them. So, as far as I can see it•and I have

also spent some time in California•it seems to me that the danger

of a menace or the danger of the Japanese spreading over California

and over America is very remote.

But now what I wish to speak of principally is the bearing of this

clause in the Johnson bill upon the relations between Japan and

America. As we all realize, the coming together of the East and

the West is a process that has decidedly begun. Where there was

one contact between the Orient and the Occident 30 years ago. there

are a hundred contacts now. Through the improvement of communications, through travel, through commerce, those contacts have

become very numerous. When I crossed the Pacific last May, I went

up into the room of the radio operator, and he told me that the messages that were flying back and forth over the Pacific, there, right

in midocean, never ceased to ring in his ears. It seems to me that

it was a prophecy of what is coming; that there was going to

be there, as the oriental nations wake up, a great center of world

population and world commerce and world interrelationship. Now,

it seems to me that that is one of the most momentous movements

of the present day. The time is coming when it will loom up in

greater importance. And the essential question of that coming together of the East and the West is the question whether it will be

a peaceful and mutually helpful coming together or whether it will

be otherwise.

Now, it seems to me the answer to that question depends upon the

other question, whether America especially, and also, in part, Great

Britain•but especially, whether America will avoid humiliating the

oriental nations. I believe that there is the key to the whole

situation.

Now, I believe that this clause in the Johnson bill, though it has

been drawn up in all sincerity I know, will have the effect of humiliating the Japanese people. It will insult; it will estrange; it will

embitter; it will endanger the good effect of the disarmament conference, and of the marvelously good effect of the magnificent Bed

Cross relief that was given to Japan at the time of her great calamity

last September.

The CHAIRJLVN. Were you in Japan at that time, Doctor?

Mr. SCHNEDER. No, sir; but I have much communication with

Japan. On the other hand, here is the gentlemen's agreement.

Now, I don't know the- figures, but in a bi'oad way I don't believe that

it can be denied that it does work. It has not kept out all the immigration that it was, perhaps, expected to keep out, but it did prevent

a tremendous influx of immigration that would have been possible

had it not been for this gentlemen's agreement. I came across
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 83

the Pacific in 1905, and again in 1906, and I noticed shiploads of

immigrants that were carried at those times. The gentlemen's

agreement has stopped that. There are defects, but I repeat what

Doctor Gulick has said, that the Japanese Government is reasonable.

They want to be gentlemen and they want to meet America half way

in any proposition they make to amend or modify the gentlemen's

agreement.

One of the things that is still, so far as my view goes, very much

to be regretted is the dual citizenship arrangement. Of course, there

is excuse for that. Many of the Japanese that come over do not

know whether they will stay here, or whether they will go back, and

so they do not like to cut off their children from future citizenship

in Japan. There are two sides to the question, even from the Japanese standpoint. But, nevertheless, the Japanese Government itself

has raised the question whether it is not necessary to modify that

law which they now have, making every child born of Japanese

parents a Japanese citizen, unless that citizenship is renounced.

That disposition of the Japanese Government was stated in a newspaper I received from Japan quite recently. The subject is being

considered. And other points of the agreement that may develop

can be remedied, I firmly believe, by consultation with the Japanese

Government.

But now, what appeals to me is the fact that the gentlemen's

agreement is an honorable way out in this difficult position between

America and Japan; a way out that is not humiliating to Japan.

And by implication later, perhaps, through other nations. It was

arranged for under the administration of President Roosevelt,

whose knightly soul enabled him to understand the spirit and temper of the Japanese people as perhaps few public men have understood it. The arrangement touches the knottiest problem between

America and Japan, in A'iew of the overcrowded condition of Japan,

which was so touchingly and eloquently spoken of by Attorney

General Webb yesterday. That overcrowding is at the root of the

most difficult problem between Japan and America.

The gentlemen's agreement is a unique way of solving that

problem without the humiliation of Japan. And it seems to me

that that way of solving the problem in the providence of the God

of nations is a boon to America and Japan and the situation upon

the Pacific Ocean. It is an agreement that shows the way, I believe.

for all future dealings between the Occident and the Orient. By mutual agreement rather than by statutory legislation these problems

must be met; met by people on both sides of the Pacific who are

reasonable and whose ideals are approaching more and more the

ideals of America.

It seems to me it would be almost criminal folly to throw away

this wonderful opportunity of solving one of the biggest, one of

the most far-reaching, problems of the world to-day. It is on this

basis. I believe, that a conclusion must be reached, if there is not to

be a cleavage between East and West, between Orient and Occident

that, will be deep, and that it will be almost impossible ever to

bridge.

Now, I would like to say a word concerning recent movements

in Japan that may give us more confidence concerning the future
84 JAPANESE IMMIGHATION LEGISLATION

cooperation and mutual helpfulness of America and Japan. There

was a time when the leading men of Japan felt that they must have

a strong army and a strong navy; that they must look forward in

some way to enlarging their territory in the same way that the

occidental nations have done, in the past. They must in some way

provide for their own people in order to enable them to live. And

yet, in spite of that fact, there has come to be a change on the part

of the Japanese people, especially the younger generation. The\r

have come to realize that the way for Japan is not the way of aggression and militarism, but the way of peace and friendship and cooperation with the other nations of the world; with America, with

China, with Russia, and with the other parts of the world. There

are men like Mr. Ozaki, who has never ceased to stand for peace

with other nations and for a policy of friendship and good will.

There is a professor in the Imperial University of Tokyo who is forever hammering at militarism and working in favor of friendship

and good will with other nations. And there are others, including

that professor in the University of California who spoke yesterday.

And then a few weeks ago there came to my house at Lancaster,

Pa., where I temporarily reside, one of my former students. He has

been appointed professor in the Imperial University of the Northeast, and spent two years in postgraduate study in Japan, and then

three years in postgraduate study in Europe, and was then on his

way back to Japan. That young man will be a man who will

be an authority on the science of government, and who will be one

of the molders of the future destiny of his own country. And what

are his ideals? They are exactly the ideals of the other men I have

mentioned, namely, a policy, not of aggression; a policy of good will

with other nations; a policy of building up Japan as a manufacturing nation, and endeavoring to provide for her own people in her own

territory in the best possible way.

Now, these men have the younger generation of Japan behind

them. They are all filled with ideals that are very close to the

ideals of the best life of America.

Just the other day I read this extract from an address by Viscount

Kano, at a dinner given by the Chinese Students Union in London,

at which the Japanese ambassador himself was present. His words

are:

We are the unfortunate victims of a narrow nationalism and militarism.

Avoid making the same mistake Japan lias made, for however strong and

wealthy your country may hecome, it will only travel along the same path of

ruin as long as she adheres solely to the purpose of achieving her own national

aggrandizement and selfish well-being.

Now, that is from a leading business man of Japan. It shows that

his ideals are not different from the best American ideals.

And then here is an extract from an editorial that appeared in

January, 1923, in the Japan Advertiser, which is the leading English

paper in the Orient. It says this:

Undoubtedly one of the most remarkable and encouraging developments of

recent years in international affairs is the new outlook of the Japanese nation

on the world and its place therein.

Within a very short period the majority opinion of this country has ceased

to approve policies undeniably imperialistic, and has come to support a foreign

policy marked by a desire to cooperate with other great powers, and to con-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 85

ciliate less fortunate neighbors. The change from a policy of competition to

one of cooperation, we believe, has been achieved and there is no brighter

ray than that on the lowering horizon of our world to-day.

Japan, I believe, is eager to cooperate with America and with

Great Britain in furthering the highest interests of humanity.

There is a spiritual affinity between Japan and the best life of these

western countries of which perhaps few in America dream. And I

believe that that is the hope of the Orient, and not the danger of

the world; because whatever involves the Orient eventually will

involve the world. Japan is achieving a position of leadership

in the Orient. She is an educated nation. She has her compulsory

system of education and has had for over 40 years. She has a

college and university grade education that compares well with

that of western countries, and she has had her representatives all

over the world during all these years studying everything that is

best in all the world everywhere. Japan to-day is one of the

most intelligent nations in the world, and is at the same time achieving a height in her ideals which places her side by side with the

western nations to a very remarkable extent. Years ago it was her

growing army and navy and her military prowess that placed her

on a par with the western nations. During the Russian war she

was patted on the back for having such military prowess. But

the respect in which the younger generation in Japan and the

dominating spirit of Japan wants to stand with the world to-day

is not in military preparedness, but in the ideals of human life and

in working and cooperating with all the world for a better and

happier humanity.

Now, I hope that America will not disappoint this, in a sense,

young nation growing into the best of the world's life to-day; that

she will not disappoint her especially through what would -amount

to an abrogation of a sacred treaty which this country has with

Japan. I do not believe that America can do that. I do not believe that America will do it, for it would be a disappointment to

Japan; a disappointment not only in America, but a disappointment in the very principles of justice and humanity that all nations

are endeavoring more and more to maintain.

President Roosevelt has often been referred to here; I believe that

if President Roosevelt knew the situation to-day; knew the tendencies that are at work in Japan, he would say, " Be patient; continue this gentlemen's agreement; this mutual confidence between

Japan and America still further in order that the great chance

originally fostered by the gentlemen's agreement be not forever

lost."

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now take a recess until %

quarter past 2.

(Thereupon, at 1.10 o'clock p. m., the committee stood on recess

until 2.15 o'clock p. m. of the same day.)

A KTKK RECEHfl.

The committee reconvened at the expiration of the recess, Senator

Colt presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will first

hear Mr. Bowles.
86 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mr. GULICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish

to say that Mr. BoAvles has been a missionary for the Friends in Japan

for 25 or more years. He is the father of the peace movement in

Japan. I have known him from the beginning and from the first

laying of the foundation for the peace ideas. He has been the chief

worker, and those ideas have received a very wide acceptance by leading Japanese, which Doctor Schneder spoke of this morning.

STATEMENT OF MR. GILBERT BOWLES, RICHMOND, IND.

Mr. BOWLES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, although unauthorized to speak for any committee of the federated

nations, the present conference of federated nations in Japan, I have

served as chairman and at other times as secretary of the committee

on international friendship, dealing with American-Japanese questions especially and with other international questions.

I feel that I may interpret the spirit of that committee which represents practically all of the Protestant missions working in Japan,

and I think I can interpret'that spirit and attitude by referring to

the message of Doctor Schneder, who, in his message, interpreted the

attitude and the appeal which the missionaries from America woidd

make, and that appeal it has been my responsibility, on behalf of

this committee, to interpret by cable at different times and by letter,

recognizing that we are American citizens as well as representing

the different churches.

Just a word as to the problem on the Pacific coast. Although I

have lived and worked in Japan for 23 years, I have not ceased to be

vitally interested in the problems here in America, and this question of the oriental immigration, the Japanese resident on the Pacific

coast, comes close home to me when I visit America, as I have at four

different times.

I have a brother engaged in growing fruit in the Yakima Valley,

to which reference was made yesterday. 1 have visited that myself

three different times. I have nephews and nieces and cousins in

California and Washington, and I could not if I would, and I would

not if I could, detach myself from the problems of those there on the

Pacific coast who face these questions.

I wish before stating my own views to refer to just one statement

that Doctor Gulick made this morning. I think he would have added

a little more to that if he had realized the true comparison between

American children born in Japan and Japanese children born in

America.

Our own two sons were also registered at the American consulate

in Yokohama, but they are not by birth citizens of Japan. One of

them was born in Japan but was not, therefore, a citizen of Japan.

I think that point Doctor Gulick would have explained himself if

he had thought about it. I mention that to say that I believe that

the question of dual citizenship is one which our Government, with

the Government of Japan, should press for a solution in the spirit

of conference, and I can vouch here by personal knowledge that the

influential Japanese who are interested in American-Japanese problems, and in the whole problem of world cooperation, are themselves

committed to using their influence toward settlement by action of

the Japanese Parliament this question of dual citizenship.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 87

I recall now a conference which I attended at the end of May held

by the Tokyo Bankers' Club. That conference was attended by the

leading men who represent business and education, and in a private

wny the official life of Japan. The spirit of that conference was certainly as I found it on many occasions, very definitely committed to

going into all of these questions, not only questions of dual citizenship but every other problem which makes the relations between the

two countries difficult. '

The CHAIRMAN. The question of dual citizenship exists with regard to many of our nations, you know.

Mr. BOWLES. Yes; it is not peculiar to Japan alone.

The CHAIRMAN. A child born of American parents abroad is an

American child and is recognized as such, so the question of dual

citizenship arises in many cases out of our complex international

relations. The only way it can be settled is through diplomacy, etc.,

and I do not know then if it can be entirely settled.

Mr. BOWLES. I went home last evening after having listened to the

messages of the day, and awoke this morning with this feeling: I

have lived in Japan; I have known the Japanese people for 23 years,

have known them in all possible circumstances of life, have been in

their homes, have had them in our home, slept in their homes, and

known all classes of the Japanese people for 23 years; but the Japan

which we had interpreted yesterday is not the Japan that I know,

and I feel that congressional action based upon that interpretation of

.Japan would certainly be a mistake, very definitely, as I understood

(he interpretation yesterday, upon the belief that the Japanese being

orientals are now and forever will be unassimilable.

Mention was made of the fact that heredity, religion, and national

relationships and all the things that mold life forever make that

change impossible; but I say that is not the Japan that I know, it is

not the Japan that I know from history. I have been going through

the history of Japan since returning to America•I landed at Seattle

the 11th of July•and have been trying to interpret the present

thought movements in Japan in the light of the modern history of

Japan.

Reference was made to the vote. The idea of a vote does have some

influence; it has a very decided influence upon certain groups of

Japan, but the men who have made modern Japan, who have shapecl

her reorganized government and her educational s3'stem and are

gradually remodeling the life of .Japan, have certainly not been controlled by that idea. It is something which they fight and have

fought manfully.

When I think of the present president of the House of Peers.

Prince Tokugawa, one of the delegates to the Washington conference,

T remember that if the old regime had continued he would have been

the miltary dictator of all Japan, the Emperor living in forced

retirement. Remember that that adjustment took place in orderly

ways, and that he has to-day adjusted himself to this change. ThV

modern Japan has been uniformed, and that whole movement has

taken place as a result of very deep affections, the leaders in that

movement showing that they can adjust themselves and are anxious

to adjust not only their personal attitudes but the educational and

social systems of the nation.
88 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

When I think of Viscount Shibusawa I remember a story I have

often heard him tell. When news was carried through Japan to all

of the village* and farms of the coming of Commodore Perry in 1853,

Viscount Shibusawa hastened to what was Yado ready to fight

against the coming of these foreign ships from the west. As indicating the change which has taken place I read a paragraph from a

letter written on November 26, as follows:

Our people are full of gratitude toward the Government and people of

your great Republic for all they did at the time of Japan's sore need. After

working for years to promote a better understanding and closer friendship,

I feel a deep right in seeing what has taken place bewteen the two Nations,

admiring, at the same time, the marvelous work of providence.

When I think of Admiral Baron Kato, who was in fact but not

in name the leader of the delegates to the Washington conference,

I remember that he and the other delegates were deeply and profoundly impressed with the absolute sincerity of the Government

and the people of the United States and by the statement of President Harding and of Secertary Hughes. Admiral Baron Kato

and the other delegates used their influence upon the Japanese

Government, and the Japanase Government upon the naval circles

and the men who had been educated in our colleges and universities,

and had come under American influences, to educate the Japanese

nation to face what they saw to be the world' tendencies toward

reduction and limitation of armament led by our Government.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the condition of the elective franchise

in Japan?

Mr. BOWLES. $1.50, a very small amount of direct taxes, gives one

the right of suffrage, but according to that limitation only onefifth, that is, 3,000,000 of the 15,000,000 men of voting age, have

the right of suffrage. That is one of the great problems, and a campaign is now being carried on and is more far-reaching in its purposes and its possible effects than anything Japan has yet done.

The CHAIRMAN. They have a slight property qualification?

Mr. BOWLES. That is an income tax of $1.50 a year.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Women do not vote?

Mr. BOWLES. No.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, males 21 years of age that pay a tax of

$1.50 are qualified?

Mr. BOWLES. It is a direct tax, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. About how many would be qualified ?

Mr. BOWLES. Three million, approximately, one-fifth.

The CHAIRMAN. Three million voters?

Mr. BOWI.ES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to mean that the general movement of the world toward democracy, placing it upon a broad scale

of universal suffrage, which exists in Great Britain and in France,

is extending to Japan?

Mr. BOWLES. At the present moment there is in power and has

been since early February what the liberal leaders of Japan believe

to be a cabinet that does not meet with their ideals•I will use that

word in this connection•and the Parliament has been dissolved.

The CHAIRMAN. IS the Government practically carried on by the

cabinet, the same as it is in Great Britain ?
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 89

Mr. BOWLES. The cabinet up to the present time, is not, as it is

in Great Britain, directly responsible to the Parliament, and that is

the question at issue. It is that question that the liberal leaders

in Japan have been working for for years, and one who knows

Japan recognize that they will continue to work for that until it

is realized; a cabinet directly responsible to Parliament. .

It is interesting to note that perhaps the most conservative of

the so-called liberal parties has been split in two and the leader.

Viscount Tokahashi has given up his title of nobility and as a plain

commoner represents one-half of the old constitutional party of

Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, owing to the separation of powers under

our Constitution our cabinet is not responsible.

Mr. BOWLES. Perhaps not: and that reminds me that those of us

who hope for the triumph of real liberalism of the best type and

democracy in its better sense and the international spirit in its better

sense feel that as the best elements in the United States and Great

Britain can understand and cooperate with the best elements in Japan

there is hope for the triumph of liberalism in its best sense.

In proportion that the liberal leaders of Japan•the men who are

really shaping Japan•believe that the best people of the United

States understand them and will work with them they become strong.

and in proportion that they feel the best people of America are failing in times of crises to understand their task becomes doubly difficult

and the power of the reactionary and nationalistic forces becomes

stronger.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Japan a liberal cabinet to-day ?

Mr. BOWLES. The liberal members say no. It is more bitterly criticized, perhaps, than any cabinet Japan has had in a long day, and the

liberal leaders do not believe it will stand. I am only interpreting

what the liberal leaders say.

Another incident indicating the trend of Japan is in the fact that

in October, 1918, as one of the members of the continuous committee

representing the conference of federated missions in the Japanese

Federation of Churches, the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Tokunami, at the annual conference said:

I appeal to you as foreigners•that is. in common terms, British and American•Christian and Japanese leaders, to do three things, to help us in the

achievement of three things.

He mentioned first the building of character, and as the result of

that building of character he believed that their influence would help

to make a stronger nation. The third point is what I wish particularly to mention. In the third place, he said:

You are more sensitive to the hest things in the life of the world than any

other section of our people, and we depend upon you to interpret to us and to

our people these finest things in the world movement at the present time.

That is significant when a cabinet minister can address a group of

Christian workers meeting in national capacity to face the problems

before them.

I speak with hesitancy about one thing. The Japanese speak with

hesitancy in mentioning a member of the royal family, but I do it

for this reason: Again and again we have had it charged by those

carrying on this campaign in America that all Japanese are wor-
90 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

shipers of the Mikado in the sense that makes them so completely

national in their outlook that they can not think in liberal terms.

We need bnt remember that the present prince regent, because of the

ill health of the Emperor, has the authority of the ruling sovereign.

Two years ago he made a trip to Europe, and on that long voyage

and during his journeys on the Continent of Europe and in Great

Britain he had as his intimate adviser one of the most liberal-minded

young men, a Christian, in touch with and knowing the best things

in the life of the world. That young man had spent six years in the

Japanese Embassy in London, and I know by personal acquaintance

and knowledge that during that contact he had every opportunity

to interpret the great world movement.

Whatever is finest in the western civilization and whatever is

finest and promising in comparison of the west•and we know the

degree of freedom, shall we say•we say it with hesitancy which is

becoming to feel more of intimacy between the Japanese people and

the sovereign. That does not mean, as I understand, any weakening

of that loyalty, but it means as we look forward in the future to

a possible liberal regime in Japan with a definite, support of the

Prince Regent when he comes to the throne, a young man now, only

23 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Since the advent of Commodore Perry, has not

Japan endeavored to incorporate into her body politic all the best

ideas and ideals of western civilization?

Mr. BOWLES. Yes: she has.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it not been her policy to adopt that which

she believed to be good and to reject that of which she did not

approve ?

Mr. BOWLES. Yes: to put it definitely from the earlier contacts

until the early nineties, and especially during the eighties. During

the eighties there was a movement to adopt almost wholesale things

western, and then there was a period of reaction during the nineties,

and from the beginning of the present century the attitude of the

Japanese has been certainly one of fair and unbiased criticism of

whatever is best in western civilization. They are able to analyze

now and compare that which is good with that which is not good.

Following that process of searching criticism and judgment, there

is without question a continual bringing into the life of Japan of

whatever is best in the western world.

The CHAIRMAN. What I would like to say is that I know of no

example in history, whether of an oriental or a western nation, that

has taken the attitude, generally speaking, of Japan in not being

governed by her old traditions, but in trying to adopt that which was

good in what you might call western civilization. Can you not then

say that in the end she will adopt the best religion, namely, the

Christian religion?

Mr. BOWLES. Well, that is my personal belief.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Their dominant religion is Shintoism, is it

not?

Mr. BOWLES. Yes; if you take it in the field of the state, their

relation to the nation. In relation to problems of the future world,

Buddhism; in relation to ethics and family life. Confucianism. But

the influence of Christianity in Japan is far greater than is indicated

by the numerical membership of the church.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 91

What I read from the statement of Mr. Tokunami, the minister of

home affairs, awhile ago•he was not then and is not now a Christian•indicates the attitude of intelligent men.

The CHAIRMAN. IS there governmental opposition to the introduction of Christianity?

Mr. BOWLES. NO: there is not. Tt is significant that recently the

present premier called together representatives of three great religions, a Buddhist a Shintoist, and a Christian. Of course, since

Japan gives freedom to religion, according to the constitution, they

do not favor Christianity and they do not favor any one religion.

Shintoism is, in a measure, favoring a type of state religion, but the

Government interpretation is different from that.

As western people are interested in Christianity, and since that

question has been raised, the thoughtful men are testing to-day what

Christianity is doing in our Western World, and they are not inclined to take it wholesale in so far as Christianity removes prejudice and broadens outlook and makes people more sypmathetic

and more just.

The CHAIRMAN. DO not let me interrupt you further. Please

proceed.

Mr. BOWLES. There is in Japan a great outburst against what

America has done. I have been in Japan through those periods of

testing, and I know pretty well and will give you two incidents which

I think are indicative of the spirit with which the most influential

people in Japan in the past have met these very difficult situations

for them.

In 1913, when that legislation was pending in California, I attended a large meeting held in the Y. M. C. A. hall in Tokyo. For

two hours a packed audience listened to Mr. Miyoka, one of the

greatest lawyers of Japan, who had had experience in the Japanese

consular and diplomatic service for 25 years. He interpreted to thaigreat audience the Constitution of the United States in relation to

the doctrine of State rights to that of national sovereignty. That

was the way that audience was meeting that question.

As another illustration. Marquis Okuma met that situation at his

home. Although not a Christian himself he called together a group

of American missionaries and Japanese Christians and discussed the

political situation, but he appealed to those men to pray. He said:

I am not a Christian, but you know where to bring down power upon men,

even upon statesmen when they are facing a difficult question, and so I call

you to pray at the present time.

This is indicative of what the people who know the influence of

Christianity in America think at times of such crises. There is a

serious side to this. I feel that it was mentioned this morning.

The passing of that provision which would exclude aliens ineligible

to citizenship, as it would strike directly the Japanese, would without doubt meet with very strong feeling all over Japan, and I have

this belief, that the people who know America best would still say,

even in that crisis, as they have said time and time again, that in

the end America will do right. That has been the confidence up to

the present time of the best mem, that in the end America will do

right. That has taken Japan through many a crisis in these international questions, and my concern as an American citizen, know-
92 JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION

ing something of the temper and spirit of Japan, is that that confidence shall never be broken, and I feel that upon that confidence

the best men in America and the best men in Japan can face fairly

and squarely any question that might arise. And I am thoroughly

convinced of this, that a very large initial group of Japanese men•

and I would say it of other orientals•I believe it of the Chinese

definitely•that granted the same body of facts they will come to

the same moral judgment, and that is something upon which we can

build, and because of this deep confidence I can not believe there is

that impassable wall between the East and the West.

Therefore I feel that in dealing with the question of immigration

as touching the orientals it ought to be upon the basis of conference,

and I hope that will be the attitude in the future, not only in relation to the Japanese but also the Chinese.

Just one further word, a definite illustration. Doctor Sawanagi,

who has been the president of two of Japan's Imperial universities,

returned from a world tour in early August of 1922. The first statement that he gave out through the press was to this effect:

My observation of the educational ideals and systems of the world at the

present time has brought me back to Japan with the very deep conviction that

any system of education that is not international and world-wide in its spirit

and its scope is doomed.

Doctor Sawanagi is helping to shape the educational policy of

Japan along that line, and to that end he was the leader in organizing in Japan an association for international education. That association sent to the conference held in San Francisco this last summer five or six delegates who went back to Japan carrying the spirit

of that great conference.

A word as to the experience of our own son born in Japan. Up to

the time he was 17 years old he had spent only two years in America.

Landing in San Francisco and going to southern California to find

a position to work during the summer of 1921, he reported to me

later that he found the Japanese attitude toward Americans different from that which he had found in Japan. When he approached

them at first•he was accustomed to talking with them in their own

language, as he speaks Japanese as freely as English•he said it

was difficult to get through that crust of reserve. He said that

granted a common attitude on the part of the people where Japanese

live, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to open their own

minds and hearts, and therefore it becomes increasingly difficult,

and in my own opinion it becomes impossible, for Americans living

in the same community to understand heart and mind granted that

attitude on the part of Americans.

But I am certain, from experience in moving about in California

and Washington and Idaho and mingling with Japanese and meeting

with them when we go back to Tokyo and hear them speak in their

own language to their own people, that whenever American people

maintain toward the Japanese that attitude recognizing them as

members of the common human family, recognizing that they are

not separated from us by that impassable wall of the division between the Occident and the Orient•butthere is a common ground of

our common humanity, and as we come to know them we find that

their moral judgment will agree with the best of the Japanese•
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 93

I am sorry I can not say that for all of them or for all Americans,

but I say the best Japanese and these who are shaping the Japan

that is to be. I think upon that we may build, and that is the thing

that makes me hope as an American citizen living in Japan and

knowing the Japanese that we shall continue to deal with this problem and with all of the problems which are before the two nations

and which will come from time to time on the basis of frankness.

I may say here that I agree with Doctor Schneder and with Doctor

Gulick, and I believe I voice the opinion of practically all missionaries in Japan in that they believe that under present conditions,

economic and social and psychological, very strict limitation is the

thing to do, and granted that and granted a fair deal and granted

proper cooperation in distribution with opportunities for citizenship

in the future, there is no reason why this very perplexing question

may not be settled in a way to meet the legitimate demands of those

who do feel the economic and social pressure involved.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Doctor, assuming the word in its political

sense, are you an internationalist!

Mr. BOWLES. What do you mean when you say in a political

sense?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, as I said. I use it in its political sense.

Are you what we call in modern political literature an internationalist?

Mr. BOWLES. In spirit I am, although recognizing my loyalty to

the United States Government and working as an American citizen,

and I may say that whatever international work I have done in

Japan has been always with the full knowledge of and closest cooperation with our accredited representatives in Japan; such as arranging meetings from time to time at which our American Ambassadors^•at least I remember four•have spoken at meetings so arranged, and I think, if I understand your term, I am an internationalist in the sense that I believe international cooperation is possible for nations, but that does not mean the breaking down of

loyalty to our own Nation, and giving up our institutions except

as time and experience prove that they ought to be changed. I do

not know whether that answers your question or not.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, it is youn answer.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS R. TAYLOR, REPRESENTING THE

RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I

representthe Religious Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers

of Philadelphia, and appear, on their behalf in opposition to clause

12-B of the bill, amounting practically to a restriction of admission

of Japanese to this country.

1 think I need trespass very little upon the time of the gentlemen

of the committee, because I believe the atmosphere has been very

much cleared by the telegram received this morning from the San

Francisco Chamber of Commerce and by the very lucid and cogent

suggestion that the chairman of the committee threw out this morning at the opening of the session.

I must confess I was very considerably disturbed last evening by

what appears to me to be the reckless disregard of the gentlemen

95671•24 7
94 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

from California in their presentation of the subject, the reckless

disregard of the international relations in pressing for the obtaining through legislation of what probably through diplomatic channels could be just as readily obtained and probably more readily

obtained as through the regulation of admission of Japanese citizens

or immigrants to this country; more readily changed and that without hurting in any particular whatsoever the feelings of the Japanese

people.

It seems to me that any action which this committee may take,

any recommendations which this committee may make, upon what is

admittedly a domestic policy, that is, a domestic regulation of immigration and emigration, with which I grant no other nation has a

right to meddle•that whatever action this committee may take, if

those things which have to do with the larger policy of the Government as shall be delegated to that portion of the Government that has

to do it, namely, by the executive end of the Government, by and with

the advice and consent of the Senate

The CHAIRMAN. I was in no sense speaking of what the committee might do.

Mr. TAYLOR. 1 used the word " suggestion " advisedly on that account rather than " decision."

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want it understood that I was in any way

speaking for the committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. It was a great comfort to me that you made that

suggestion. It seems to me that these supposedly insolvable conflicts

that we have thrown to us in such books as The Rising Tide of Color

and The Yellow Peril, and that sort of thing, are simply another

element of those age-old conflicts that can be settled if they are

anticipated in time. And all of us agree at the present time that the

center of gravity of the world has shifted, owing to the events of the

last decade, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and that the old policy

of the United States, started, as we heard yesterday, in 1790, as to

the exclusion of any line of color and modified following the Civil

War as to the black race, the African•that that old policy of the

United States in the interest of the amicable dwelling together of the

peoples of the earth will have to be modified. But I take it that

national legislation is not the way in which to modify those policies.

I take it that the diplomatic end of the United States Government is

the end of the Government that must undertake that and consequently that the provisions of the Johnson bill to which I have

referred, section 12, subsection (b), that those are irrelevant and

impertinent to the issue for legislation by Congress.

Now, these irrepressible conflicts have come down through the ages

bearing upon different kinds of questions. There have been the territorial questions that have proved to be irrepressible conflicts. There

have been political questions, and the history of the human race in

the past shows that those things can be settled and in many instances

have been settled, peaceably and without interposition of warfare if

the parties involved•they usually have been nations rather than

people•have quietly and candidly and in advance set themselves to

the peaceable solution of them.

And now we have what seems to be the unsolvable problem•the

problem of racial conflict. It is another one of the long series•a
JAPANESE IMMIGBATTON LEGISLATION 95

conflict that seems to be as unsolvable as the conflicts in the wars of

religion. And yet, as far as any fundamental differences are concerned, we hear nothing about the race religions of Christianit}7

which for the past part of a century were pitted against each other•

Catholicism against Protestantism. They have been solved, and I

believe in all candor that the solution of the interracial problems is

amenable to the same kind of candor and advance approach.

Our tariff legislation in the House, our immigration legislation in

both Houses, our internal policies, necessarily cut across into all sorts

of intricate relationships that have to do with our foreign relationships; and in so far as they do cut across, just to that extent they

must be made subsidiary to the wider purposes of the Nation and

handled through commercial treaties or treaties in amity and relationship by the diplomatic end of the Government.

The question that the gentlemen of California have put before us

is one with which we can all sympathize with them. It is one that

does not lend itself to an easy solution. And yet it is one of the

three and possibly four problems of the same kind that face the

country in three or four different sections.

I would be overjoyed if they would take with me next summer

when the weather would be auspicious, a trip to the coal regions of

Pennsylvania, where we have to exactly the same extent the same

kind of an undigested population that they have in certain thickly

populated districts in California, I will take them to places in

Pennsylvania where the Pennsylvania Germans still speak German,

although they have been in this country for 50 years. I will take

them in half a dozen counties of Pennsylvania where they can find

Hungarians and Italians, people who have been taken there by the

force of circumstances of immigration and foisted down upon a

stock of native-born Americans perhaps 100 years ago, where they

retained their own relations as to marriage, their own language,

their own institutions; where their churches have the appearance

of a Mohammedan mosque with minarets rather than the cross of

the Christians, where there is a foreign element present so that you

can hardly understand a word when you go through the streets of

the village.

Allusion has been made to the undigested elements in the South,

to the great black belt of Alabama, for instance, where you can

hardly see a white man in a day's travel. I do not say these things

in order to alleviate at all the seriousness of the problem that California has before her. I simply mention them in order to show

that other sections of the country, without calling upon the National

Government for this kind of legislation of exclusion, or taking in

what is considered as an undesirable alien population, and are indeavoring to work up against that proposition and by force of education or Americanization to alleviate that situation by education.

It takes years to do it.

I have mentioned the Pennsylvania Dutch. They can talk English to a certain extent, but it is pigeon English; they can not converse in any language except a modification of the German language.

We saw in 1830 the great influx of Irish, and we can remember

from our history the undesirable nature of those Irish. From Mr.
96 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

McClatchy's name, I would not be at all surprised if his ancestors

were among them. They were considered at that time as a raw

element.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the attitude of those undigested stocks,

if you please, toward the American Government during the war?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Civil War?

The CHAIRMAN. I mean the last war.

Mr. TAYLOR. They were absolutely faithful to the call of the

American Government. And in the Civil War

The CHAIRMAN. NO ; I was .not talking about the Civil War. I

was speaking about the last war.

Mr. TAYLOR. They were absolutely faithful to the call of the

Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Both in subscriptions to the governmental loan

and in other respects they were loyal ?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have no statistics to prove it, but my impression

is that as far as that is concerned they were absolutely on a par.

The CHAIRMAN. What injury, then, are they doing to our body

politic, socially, politically, or in any other sense?

Mr. TAYLOR. Simply the injury, sir, of one generation, and it is

to that point that I wish to address myself.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the injury of one generation ?

Mr. TAYLOR. The inability to adjust themselves to American circumstances during the passing of the first generation.

The CHAIRMAN. But while they are in the undigested state, while

they are foreign born, what injury do they do?

Mr. TAYLOR. As a class, no injury: as individuals they do some

injury.

The CHAIRMAN. DO you want all Americans made up just the same,

to look just alike, to dress just alike, and to be absolutely homogeneous ?

Mr. TAYLOR. Not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. IS not there strength in variety ?

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Look at the Englishman and the Scotchman;

absolutely different nationally and yet politically one; and in that

diversity there is strength.

Mr. TAYLOR. And I believe therein lies the great strength of the

future of America. I believe it is the interfusion of these great

strains. There are no Simon-pure descents of America at the present

time, and I believe by the infiltration of those national strains into

this country of ours there will evolve into the American Nation a

strain that will be dominant in the world for everything that the

world holds best.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Racially, you mean?

Mr. TAYLOR. Racially.

The CHAIRMAN. Racially, every race is a composite race. The

Scotch are made up of three or four different races, if you go back

far enough.

Mr. TAYLOR. The English as well.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Irish civilized the Scotch, did they not?

The CHAIRMAN. I think they did if you go back far enough. Our

Anglo-Saxon ancestors were the greatest pirates ever known in the
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 97

world. You do not have your pride of race if you go back far

enough into history.

Mr. TAYLOR. I have none whatever, sir, which brings me to the

point that I started to make, that hearing yesterday that there were

no Japanese•and if I am wrong in this, Mr. McClatchy will correct me•certainly in Hawaii, and I presume in California, prior to

1880•am I correct in that?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Practically so.

Mr. TAYLOR. That leaves a span of practically one generation•44

years.

Senator SHORTRLDGE. There has been no change.

Mr. TAYLOR. I will come to that in a moment. Practically 44

years in which there has been no pressure of this kind, except in the

last 20 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not catch what you said before.

Mr. TAYLOR. That there were practically no Japanese in California prior to 1880, and that the problem has not become a pressing one, except in the last 20 years. My opinion is that they will

amalgamate themselves, that they will adjust themselves to present

American circumstances, if they are granted the right of citizenship and do not have to register as foreign born.

I have had no experience with California, but I have had with

Mexico. I have met in Mexico various Chinese•never Japanese•

but 1 have met in Mexico, Chinese who are perfectly satisfied to remain in Mexico and have no desire to emigrate to the United

States; Chinese who have married Mexicans. 1 will admit that that

is not the same thing as intermarrying with Americans.

I know of one Chinese who married a Mexican woman and they

have 10 children being educated in the American schools across the

border. He told me that his daughter was the secretary of the

American High School Y. W. C. A. at Eagle Pass, indicating that

there are Chinese in Mexico who have been smuggled into San

Francisco and have gone to Mexico and prospered there, a different

route from that which has been suggested as the usual route of}

Chinese into the United States. They had gone from San Francisco into Mexico and were happy to remain there and have prospered there.

The only objection that those agriculturists of Mexico had, and the

objection was principally on the part of American citizens, resident

in Mexico and active in agriculture, was that the sun-kissed organization of California, under the guise of a quarantine had practically

worked an embargo against Mexican citrus fruits coming into the

United States.

But my point is, that if these people are given opportunity* of education•it may have to be by different schools, as it is in the South

with respect to the negroes•if they are given the possibilities of

citizenship, there is nothing fundamentally different in their racial

approach to the problems of world policies and of American policies

that Will differentiate them in language from a thorough amalgamation with an American political commonwealth, and I believe

if we tried it for more than the two-thirds of a generation that they

have had at the present time, that statement would work itself out.

The CHAIRMAN. The native-born of native parents are always

classified under all the census reports as Americans. There are
98 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

58,000,000 now of native-born of native parentage. That means

the third generation. They do not classify the second generation.

There are the native-born of foreign or mixed parentage, and then

you come to the foreign born. There are those three classes. One

is about 13,700,000, the other about 23,000,000, and then you get

down to the basic number of 58,000,000. Now, with that 58,000,000

it is impossible to differentiate stocks. Then if you take the second

generation we will forget almost the stock from which they sprang.

You know it is said that the Janizaries, the most fanatical Mohammedans, the most ruthless in their warfare in the Balkans, the

present army of the Sultan, were born Christian babies and educated in Mohammedan families.

Mr. TAYLOR. As a final word, my plea would be that the committee

take into consideration the fact this is something broader than the

mere question of immigration. The action that this committee takes

as to the immigration policy, particularly in the Pacific regions, is

one that will react and that certainly will react if there is anything

recommended that may be interpreted by Japan as a hostile or

unfriendly recommendation regarding the right of movement of her

nationals.

I do not wish to take more time in discussing the gentleman's

agreement or various other things that have been before your committee at great length this morning; I simply wish to thank you for

the courtesy and patience with which you have listened to me and

my colleagues and to express the hope that some solution of this

problem will be made as to the Japanese.

The CHAIRMAN. We wish also to thank you for the information

you have given us.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Do I understand you to express the belief

that the Nation should change its age-old policy in respect of citizenship?

Mr. TAYLOR. AS to the Japanese, yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. YOU limit it for the moment to the Japanese ?

Mr. TAYLOR. To the Japanese, and I think in the future to the

Hindus and Chinese.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. YOU think it would be desirable that they

become American citizens?

Mr. TAYLOR. I should think so. I think it would solve a great

many of these problems and also dovetail in with the request that

ought to be made upon the Japanese Government as to dual citizenship.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. YOU mentioned the word " marriage," or possibly the word " intermarriage." Do you think it desirable from any

point of view that there should be intermarriage as between the

Caucasian or Aryan branch of the human family and the Japanese ?

Mr. TAYLOR. One of my mother's dearest friends married a very

highly polished gentleman of Japan and is exceedingly happy. I

would have no objection to my daughters marrying Japanese men of

similar type.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. DO you think that as a national policy it

would be desirable from all points of the social compass to permit,

by law or custom, intermarriage as between, let us say, the American

citizen type, or branch of the human family, the Caucasian and

Aryan, to limit my question, and the Japanese?
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 99

Mr. TAYLOR. I do.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. DO you think the offspring, the highbred offspring, would be a desirable specie of the human family ?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think so from two experiences I have had with

two extremely cultivated young men who were the offspring of

American and Chinese.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I merely wished your views upon that subject.

Mr. TAYLOR. I might say, in connection with mixed marriage, that

we have some picture brides. We have some American instances of

that. I believe the immigrants to Jamestown did something of the

same kind.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Pocahontas, though, was of a fine American

strain.

Mr. TAYLOR. Better than you or I, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You rather take the Rome view, as I understand.

Rome comprised the Mediterranean world and was a world empire,

composed of different races and different religions, and the Emperor

said one day: "We will confer Roman citizenship upon all these

races; we will recognize all religions," and that edict was issued, and

Rome for 500 years maintained the peace of the world that has never

since been' equaled. In the eyes of a Roman his citizenship was the

greatest of his possessions. T do not mean to say that the Roman

policy is adaptable at the present time, etc.; I only say that these

historical instances are instructive and often call upon us to modify

our opinions of isolation, isolation with fifty-odd nations dominated

by sovereignty, isolation with respect to Europe. As you know,

Europe for years before the outbreak of the World War was nothing

but an armed camp. In order to meet present world conditions we

must substitute some form of cooperation for competition and isolation.

Mr. TAYLOR. And may I add to that that that same Roman citizenship has more of the fundamental character in the halls of this building to-day than any other single national strain that ever existed?

Mr. GULICK. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Turner, the next speaker, is the

secretary of the Foreign Missions Conference of North America,

which has in its membership practically all the foreign mission boards

of the United States and Canada. He is well acquainted, therefore,

with the workings and with the spirit and purposes of these very

large constituents interested in foreign lands, and, of course, in Japan

among them.

STATEMENT OF MR. FENNELL P. TURNER, SECRETARY FOREIGN

MISSIONS CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to submit a resolution adopted

by a committee of this conference when this bill was brought before

it. After much discussion and a study of the letter of Secretary

Hughes to Mr. Johnson, it was decided by our committee that.we

would attempt to draw up no resolution

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you will bring us back to the subject. We

have wandered far afield.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is very interesting. This is an immigration bill, I understand.
100 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am addressing myself to the immigration bill. On this point I want to say that this Foreign Missions

Conference, of which I am the secretary, has within its membership

some 75 different foreign mission boards and agencies that work in

all parts of the world. They are therefore interested in all questions

which relate to the relation of these different nations to our own, and

problems of this kind which come before them are thought about in

relation to our international contacts.

When this bill was brought before a subcommittee of our conference, after consideration and study of the problem, and also a careful reading of Mr. Hughes's letter to Mr. Johnson, it was decided

that we would not attempt to draw up any statement with regard to

this matter, but pass a resolution indorsing certain sections of Mr.

Hughes's letter, and I now wish to read what was the action of the

committee on that occasion:

With regard to the proposed legislation affecting the immigration of aliens

into the United States, H. It. 6540, introduced hy Hon. Albert Johnson on

February 1, 1924, our committee indorses the views of Secretary Hughes in

regard to•

(1) The question of treaty obligations, and

(2) The provisions excluding the Japanese, as set forth in his letter addressed to Mr. Johnson under date of February 8, 1924.

The paragraphs referred to are the paragraphs beginning in line

1, " First. Treaties." That covers the first section of it. The second

paragraph referred to is the one which begins " Second. Section 12

(b) provides as follows." Those two sections of Mr. Hughes's letter

were indorsed and made a part of our records on the subject, and are

submitted here as representing the views of our committee on this

subject.

With regard to the question of quota, Mr. Chairman, our committee

did not feel competent to go into that question, and there again in

the letter which Mr. Hughes addressed to you, I believe, Mr. Chairman, he expresses the hope that through the process of the work of

our committee and the House committee and the work done after

these bills have come before the House, some satisfactory arrangement in the matter of quota would be adopted of which no reasonable

complaint could be made by the different nations concerned.

Our desire, Mr. Chairman, is to see such relations established between our own Government and these other nations, especially these

nations from which these immigrants may come and these nations in

which our various churches are carrying on their eleemosynary educational work, that that relation may be such that international justice and good will may prevail, so that instead of having the world

an armed camp we can have a world made up of independent nations cooperating together for the good of all. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McDonald? •

STATEMENT OF ME. JAMES G. McDONALD, REPRESENTING THE

FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I have one word of good news,

which is that I shall be as brief as the preceding speaker, if I am successful, and if I am unsuccessful I shall not take more than 10

minutes at the outside and I hope only five. May I say that the
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 101

reason I need speak only a few minutes is because the case has been

presented so exhaustively and so brilliantly from both sides, and because the committee has shown by its questions and the chairman his

penetrating and always illuminating comments that the case is thoronghly understood and it needs no further illustration.

I merely want to say that the Foreign Policy Association is a

group of 3,000 or 4,000 people throughout the United States especially interested in the question of American foreign policy and in

the study of specific phases of that foreign policy. They have no

interest in Japanese relations any more than they have with our relations with Germany, France, or Russia, and therefore the Foreign

Policy Association at least is not one of those groups which was suggested yesterday as somehow motivated either in a sinister or benevolent way by the almighty power of Japan.

We feel that we have an adequate appreciation of California's

point of view, and with the basic California contention and the

western contention that Japanese immigration in any considerable

degree, or perhaps at all, should be ended. It is merely a question

of how to achieve that desirable end. In that respect our groups

feel that Mr. Hughes has taken a decisive step and it is up to the

contentions of this particular bill•that is, this subparagraph (b)

or article 12•and for these reasons, first, for the simple reason that

our relations with Japan on this question, as I understand it, have

been so clearly illustrated here, depend on two international agreements, one of them a formal treaty and the other an informal understanding, and that this supposed action would be the ending of the

treaty and would be the ending of the informal understanding by

action of one party.

Now, we grant that the Congress of the United States has a perfect right to end treaties, a perfect legal right to end treaties by

legislative action, and I personally should not go so far as Doctor

Gulick did this morning when he said that if this treaty were ended

by this proposed legislation it would be making a scrap of paper

of the treaty; at least, not in the sense that the Kaiser made a scrap

of paper of the Belgian treaty. It would be ending a treaty in what

I consider an unwise and ungentlemanly policy and would be a sort

of policy which would create misunderstanding.

I think it a bad policy for any nation by legislative action to end

treaties if there is any other way of arriving at a conclusion. As I

understand it, there is another way in this case. Therefore it seems

to us it would be an ungentlemanly and an unwise and an imprudent

method of procedure.

In the second place, it seems to us that the evidence, if not conclusive, at any rate is very weighty to the point that the Japanese

have kept in good faith the gentleman's agreement.

In the third place, it seems to us you have alternative methods of

meeting this issue, either by means of a new treaty or through the

quota provision suggested in some of the bills now pending.

The last point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is simply this:

This action proposed in the Johnson bill would be, in our judgment,

putting the hands of the clock back; it would be doing exactly the

thing Senator Reed suggested yesterday; it would be endangering the

good relations that have been so largely created by the Washington
102 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

conference and our action toward Japan since the earthquake. Our

point of view is merely this, that while the interests or California

and other western sections should be conserved, those interests can

be conserved in ways much more adjusted to ordinary international

procedure than those proposed in the bill, and I feel confident that

the action of the committee, whatever they decide to do, will be such

that will in the farthest possible degree satisfy all interests.

The CHAIRMAN. We are all desirous of hearing Senator Phelan,

and I think we will make more progress if we will suspend any further hearings to-day and meet again to-morrow at 10.30.

(Thereupon, at 3.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to 10.30

o'clock a. m., Thursday, March 13, 1924.)
JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION.

THURSDAY, MABCH 13, 1924.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, at

10.30 o'clock a. m., in the Immigration Committee room, the Capitol,

Senator LeBaron B. Colt presiding.

Present: Senators Colt (chairman), Keyes, Willis, Reed of Pennsylvania, King, Harris, and Copeland.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Senator

Phelan, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES D. PHELAN, FORMER UNITED STATES

SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.

Mr. PHELAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, needless to say, I am

deeply grateful to the committee for having given the California

delegation an opportunity to address them on the subject which is

uppermost in the minds of the people of the Pacific coast.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Phelan, may I say that you may make

your statement in your own way and in the order in which you wish

without interruption from members of the committee.

Mr. PHELAN. At yesterday's meeting there was read a telegram

from the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco which may possibly tend to mislead the committee with respect to the real sentiment

of San Francisco, and, indeed, of California. The chamber of commerce stated, as I recollect, that while it was in favor of the exclusion of Japanese laborers, it ventured the opinion that it would be

best to regulate the incoming of the Japanese, in itself an inconsistency, by treaty•a half measure•rather than by an exclusion law.

I am a member of the chamber of commerce, but I will not resign

on that account. It is a very large and representative body of business men in San Francisco, and I emphasize the word " business."

Their board of directors presumes to reflect the opinion of a great

body of the people, and I think it is needless to recall to you that in

the election of three years ago when the people voted upon a referendum providing for the denial of the privilege of owning land to

ineligibles, the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco " gave comfort to the enemy " by passing just such a resolution opposed to the

measure.

Senator COPELAND. Was that the only commercial body, Senator,

that took that stand?

103
104 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mr. PHELAN. It was the only commercial body that took that

stand as I recollect; and I question the right of a board of directors

elected to provide reports upon shipping and upon trade and related

matters to express for the membership, which is probably 4,000, of

whom I am one, an opinion upon a question of that kind. The

result, of course, as you are well aware, was that the measure carried

before the people by a vote of probably 4 to 1, which I think

should somewhat have submerged the chamber of commerce as an

organ of public opinion.

Senator HARRIS. What was the vote in San Francisco on that

question?

Mr. PHELAN. In San Francisco itself ?

Senator HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. PHELAN. I would hazard the guess that it was three to one.

They were emphatically against it. And that is a great commercial

emporium.

There are only two contentions here, one made by the Japanese

through their agents•and I say " agents " advisedly•and the other

by the people of California by their representatives in Congress

and by this special delegation which has come 3,000 miles to present

to you this matter which they consider one of great importance.

Mr. Webb, the attorney general of the State, who successfully

handled the land and naturalization cases before the Supreme Court

of the United States, held that aliens inelligible to citizenship could

not hold land and could not enjoy the elective franchise. A serious

contention was made by them that they were under the statute limiting the franchise to free white persons entitled to that privilege.

Mr. McClatchy has long been the manager and owner, with his

brother, of the Sacramento Bee, a paper of the largest circulation

of all other in central California, and has since retired from the

business of journalism and is devoting his whole time as a labor of

love to this matter.

We have met every week for many months now, a committee consisting of Mr. McClatchy and General Webb and representatives of

the American Federation of Labor, the American Legion, National

Grange, and of the Native Sons of the Gokkn West. Forty thousand

members of this organization, the men born on the soil, meet in their

lodges all over the State weekly, and the sentiment of these great

societies is unanimous, and it is under the suggestion of these bodies

that we have come here with credentials, which have been formally

issued to us.

So that I do not feel in speaking that I am acting in any other

capacity than in a representative capacity. But I must say that I

have opinions of my own which I have previously expressed and

which have been reinforced by my visit to Japan a year and a half

When I discussed this question with you gentlemen on other occasions I had no personal knowledge of Japan, and, eager to see the

people in their home land and study the problem at close range, I

went to Japan, and there I saw the representatives of that country

who are famed, and justly famed, for their courtesy.

Before I advert to that I desire to say that Doctor Gulick is the

principal spokesman in this country for the Japanese propaganda,
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 105

which is an elaborate institution, not unlike the German propaganda

before the war; and their business, possibly legitimate if they confine

themselves to the facts, is to inform the American Republic as to

the aspirations of Japan and as to the need of such legislation or

treaty that will give them a better status in this country. Doctor

Gulick has lived all his life in Japan. I think he is now on furlough

from the University of Japan. He is thoroughly identified with

that people, and his only purpose, as well as that of the other associations that have been here within the last two days, is to bring

about a more intimate relationship between the United States and

Japan.

I may say for the other organizations that he was the actual inspirer, if not the organizer, of most of them. They meet in different

parts of the country. They have their banquets; they invite gentlemen of distinction to address them; and they have come here very

naturally before you.

Senator COPELAND. Senator, pardon me, I would really for myself

like to know the honest to goodness, low-down facts as to why the

people on the coast do not want the Japanese. I am so eager to

have those facts that I am inclined to ask the chairman, if it is embarrassing to you to give them in the presence of the public, to permit you to present them to the committee alone if that would be

easier for you. The committee is entitled to know what we call in

the language of the street the " low down" on why you do not

want them.

Mr. PHELAN. I am very glad, Senator Copeland, to speak of that

now, and, as a matter of fact, it involves the whole question, because the people of the Pacific coast do not want the Japanese for

the same reasons that should actuate the Representatives of the Nation in the Congress of the United States.

The. only difference between your State and mine in that respect

is that ours is the State in contact with the Orient, being closer to

it, and, furthermore, we enjoy a more equable climate which naturally

attracts people who have lived under the warm oriental skies of

Nippon, India, Burma, Java, and Siam. They naturally come to

the nearest coast, and they come more particularly because they find

the climate suitable to their temperament and to their customary

life.

You might say that the people engaged in hard work of the

world, the laborers, would not be influenced, but as a matter of fact

the Japanese have refused, I am told, to colonize the island of

Hokkaido, which is a part of the Japanese Archipelago, comparatively without population, on account of the inclemency of the

weather.

The people of California object to the Japanese•and I say it

involves the whole question•because of racial and economic reasons.

Many years ago, about the time of the construction of the Central

Pacific Railroad, a large number of Chinese were imported to

California. They were excellent workers, and after helping to

build the railroad they took up their accustomed avocation of agriculture. Many came into the cities and became small traders, laundrymen, and vegetable vendors; and, in fact, they would lend their

hand to any class of work.
106 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

During the hard times in 1878 and 1879 a workman movement was

inaugurated called " Kearneyism." Kearney was a man of considerable natural ability and all the workers rallied to him, demanding

the Chinese should go, and the chambers of commerce fled from him.

What was the result? You will find two chapters in James Bryce's

work " The American Commonwealth," in which he states that so

universal was the unrest and so aggressive had become those who

believed that the presence of Chinese was depriving them of

work•because men, women, and children were crowding the streets

crying for bread and for an opportunity to earn bread•that the

State of California was revolutionized; and what was regarded as a

radical constitution, the constitution of 1879, was passed, which

frightened capital and which demoralized that conservative sentiment which, when alarmed, condemns the country, always in every

land, to perdition. As a matter of fact, the constitution had worked

out admirably. There was nothing in it that was not for the

common weal. That was the Chinese movement. Congress responded at that time and cooperated with the exclusion law.

Gladstone once said, " The Irish question had never come within

the range of practical politics until the explosion of Birkenwell'

Prison," an explosion caused by Irish patriots. It was a generalization which was dangerous, perhaps, to utter, but which has been

employed since Gladstone's time. Ireland could get nothing without fighting for it, and these workmen under Kearney did commit

some outrages; they resorted to acts of violence, and it is claimed,

unfortunately, that that was the only thing that moved Congress,

and Congress passed an exclusion bill and afterwards there was

negotiated a treaty with China, in the preamble of which you will

read substantially " Owing to the fact that the presence of Chinese

. on the Pacific coast has caused serious disturbances and economic

distress, the high contracting parties agree to the following treaty."

The Chinese, seeing very plainly the trend of events, acquiesced,

and we have lived at peace with the Chinese ever since. I do not

know that a hand has been raised against the Chinese in all these

years. I am adverting to this having in mind another reason than

historical, because it has been stated here that unless we do these

things demanded to oblige Japan there will be irritation that will

ultimately result in the menace of war. The menace of war is in

the fact that if these domestic conditions prevail in California,

which I will describe to you now, it will be far more serious and

provocative of more friction than Japanese displeasure. We must

first take care of our own domestic peace and order and do justice

to our own people, to avert a conflict with Japan. We can not

hllow our people to take the law into their own hands, because you

may then look for trouble with Japan-•a fighting nation, remember.

It would be a good thing before that day to have granted, within our

undisputed jurisdiction, relief legislation to the West; in other

words, to have removed the cause of domestic irritation so far as

possible.

In Humboldt County, which is made up of lumbermen, sturdv

foresters in their day, outraged, resorted to no violence; they took:

the Chinese bodily, several hundred of them that came there one

night, and put them on the train in a perfectly gentlemanly wayr
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 107

almost as gentlemanly as the manners of an oriental potentate, and

told them never to come back, and they never came back.

Senator KING. YOU refer now to the Chinese situation?

Mr. PHELAN. Yes. But not so long ago, quite recently, in the city

of Turlock an attempt was made to do the same thing with the

Japanese. The Japanese came in there like a flock of ravens, under

a contractor, and took by a lower bid a contract away from the

white men who were accustomed to doing the work for the picking

and boxing of the fruit. These white settlers, who had done that

work for time immemorial, did not know what to do. They had

!os? their customary employment. Disaster faced them. They also

were exceedingly gentlemanly; they assembled a lot of automobiles,

and they put the Japanese in the automobiles, took them to remote

parts, and warned them not to return.

Senator KING. Were some of those Japanese American citizens?

Mr. PHELAN. I doubt it very much, because but few of American

citizens, that is to say, the native-born California Japanese, have

yet qualified as laborers. They are coming on.

The State government was, of course, appealed to by the Japanese

consul and it immediately intervened, as it always does, and put an

end to that sort of thing and restored the Japanese to their positions

from which they had displaced the whites, and the incident died.

The power of the State was asserted. How often can that be repeated

without conflict ? That was a mere local uprising; itwas not general;

but I am merely intimating to you that there is that constant danger,

that is, the danger of friction with Japan in the future unless we

get remedial legislation. You can avert war only by insuring peace.

The Japanese began to come as soon as the Chinese exclusion act

went into effect, and they came in very large numbers, mostly from

Hawaii, and they soon grew to be formidable. They are natural

agriculturists, and they take to the soil with so much success that in

a very few years they have controlled, either by ownership or by

lease, out of a possible three and a half million acres of irrigable

lands about 460.000 acres, or about one-eighth.

When that is mentioned it is answered by giving the total area of

the State of California, but the State of California has vast waste

and sterile spaces in the Sierras and deserts. So it is utterly misleading to give the total area of California and say the acreage controlled by the Japanese is not comparatively material.

We take lands that are susceptible of cultivation and we tell you

that the Japanese, by ownership or by lease, have control of about

one-eighth of the entire State. That struck the people as a very

extraordinary thing. And when they found that the Japanese had

actually controlled the small crops, fixing the prices after the approved methods of chambers of commerce, if you please, they became

alarmed; they woke up one morning and found that the Japanese

produced 91 per cent of all the berries raised in California; of all

the celery raised in California, 89 per cent; of the asparagus, 82

per cent; of the seeds, which is a great industry, or had been, in

California, providing seeds for the entire country, 79 per cent; of

onions, the succulent onions, 76 per cent; of tomatoes, 66 per cent;

of cantalopes, 63 per cent; of sugar beets, 50 per cent; and so on with

potatoes, grapes, raisins, etc.
108 JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION

Senator KING. HOW many Japanese who were able to work and

actually did work accomplished the herculean task as I would infer

from your remarks that you say was performed? Were there more

than 50,000 who actually were laborers who did all that work ?

Mr. PHELAN. Apart from those who are engaged in the trades,

the entire Japanese population are agriculturists. I need only then

give you the population of the Japanese in California, which is estimated at about 110,000, and a census population of about 78,000.

The Japanese themselves estimate it at 85,000. It was thoroughly

discussed here by Mr. McClatchy. The same problems exist in your

State. The low census enumeration is due to the fact that under our

system 10 cents is allowed for each name counted, and the enumerators actually rebelled, struck, if you please, against the Census

Bureau when they were asked to go into the interior of the State

and find the Japanese on the farms and in the mountains. They said

they could not undertake that work for 10 cents a name, so they

enumerated only those who were close by in the cities. Therefore,

the census is confessedly in error. The department itself admitted

its inability to enumerate the Japanese.

Senator KING. Admitting that there are 110,000, what proportion

of them were competent and did actually work on the farms\

Would there be 50,000?

Mr. PHELAN. I would say 50,000 at least, because there are

women•all are laborers•and children that may or may not be entitled to be included in that number. The children work in the field

as soon as they are able. They do that in all poor countries, and

Japan is a poor country, and they have been trained to that sort of

work.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King, the census gives the number of

Japanese.

Senator KING. I am familiar with that, Mr. Chairman, and I am

familiar with the numbers which are claimed, but the question I was

asking was the number that actually worked on the farms. I marveled at the statement that forty or fifty thousand who worked on

the farms could accomplish such prodigious results as those indicated

by the Senator.

Mr. PHELAN. Well, it is intensive farming; it is day and night

farming; it is farming on Washington's Birthday, the Fourth of

July, New Years, and Valentines Day. They have no respect for our

anniversaries. I do not blame them. They are there to make all they

can out of the soil and they are inured to labor and nothing else.

They do not meet with our native, sons in lodges; they do not attend conventions. I doubt if they ever go to the grand opera or to

church or theater. I doubt if they have any social interest in anything outside of the business of making money.

Senator WILLIS. Senator, I was very much interested in those figures you quoted showing the very large percentage of what we would

call the garden truck industry that these people control. What, in

your judgment, would be the effect upon that industry if the Japanese were excluded, the effect upon prices, etc. ? Have you canvassed

that question ?

Mr. PHELAN. Yes. White men, of course, as before would come

in. I was in Los Angeles a few years ago and learned at first hand
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 109

that the Japanese had adopted American methods so completely

that the great boss who controlled the garden truck industry and

small fruit industry around Los Angeles sat in a room with a

telephone and telephoned to Pasadena and to Kiverside and to various other small cities around about in his area, fixing the price

of vegetables that morning, he having, of course, been informed as

to the demand in these several localities. So the price has gone up.

The cost of living in Los Angeles is very high on that account. In

those parts of the State where the Japanese do not control vegetables

are at the price customarily paid by people under normal conditions.

Here they have a price and they actually destroy their excess production in order to maintain the price.

Two men who had been driven off their vegetable gardens, both

Italians, by the incoming of the Japanese and their control, went

back and leased their old land and prospered because they were able

to sell their produce at the Japanese prices. Otherwise, they said

they could not possibly do it.

First the Japanese come in and force prices down. They crowd

the tiller off the soil and then raise prices. According to American

standards that is very clever.

Senator HARRIS. That is what your fruit growers do with the

California fruit growers?

Senator PHELAN. Absolutely. I raise fruit and I belong to the

Fruit Growers' Association. I deliver all my produce and they send

me a check and they make Chicago and New York pay for it.

Senator COPELAND. We pay for it all right, Senator.

Senator HARRIS. But it was necessary to protect your fruit

growersI

Mr. PHELAN. But what I want to show is that the incoming of

Japanese does not mean that the people of California may benefit by

even low prices. They have all of the disadvantages and none of the

advantages that you might believe would possibly result.

Senator KING. Have the whites attempted to cut prices established

by them, or do they maintain the prices?

Mr. PHELAN. The Japanese are in possession of the soil. They

control the markets and they control up to this time the land. That

is the situation.

Senator KING. IS it a fact that they have taken land which was

abandoned and swampy and land which contained saline deposits

and transformed it into productive land? That has been suggested,

and my interrogation implies no expression of opinion.

Mr. PHELAN. That has been frequently stated, and there is not a

word of truth in it. The Japanese take only the best lands, having

ousted the farmer who had as the pioneer brought it up to a state

of cultivation. It may be in the delta lands, where they have gone

in and built levees and by keeping the water out thus reclaimed the

land in some instances, but most of that delta land had been reclaimed and cultivated for 50 years by men of our own race.

I visited that district personally, the region between the Bay of

San Francisco and Sacramento, and there was a great celebration the

day I arrived and I participated in it, at Walnut Grove. It was in

connection with the return home of a young soldier from the war.

It interested me very much, and I asked the history of the boy. His

95671•24 8
110 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

father had come there 25 years before with a blanket on his back

and had acquired by reclamation a great deal of productive land.,

and lived there with his wife and raised a family, and this boy had

gone to the war and come back a hero. I thought then, in the awful

condition of California, with one-eighth of her available arable

lands held by Japanese, if a pioneer from New York or from Ohio,

out to make his fortune and name in the world, had marched down

the valley of California with a blanket on his back, willing to spend

his labor in the development of the soil and rear a family, what

chance in the world would he have? None at all. He would find

it occupied by the Japanese and he would go on and the Nation

would be the loser. That unit of the family would never exist which

my friend had established and out of which came the soldiers that

won the war.

You ask me why the Californians object to the Japanese. No

matter how we admire their indefatigable industry, every day and

Sunday too, we can not blind our eyes to the fact that their very

presence for social and patriotic reasons is a blight and a menace.

" The fell disease, which must destroy at length,

Grows with their growth and strengthens with their strength."

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you a question that troubles me ? We

have now, under a present law, a gentlemen's agreement with Japan.

We have the treaty of 1911. Those are the existing relations. The

Johnson bill virtually denounces the treaty and the gentlemen's

agreement. Now, it becomes a practical question as to how Japanese

exclusion may be best be secured. Would you reach that end by

adopting this exclusion provision of the Johnson bill without consulting Japan at all ? Or would you allow the present relations to

stand and permit the State Department to open negotiations with

Japan for the further limitation or regulation of the gentlemen's

agreement? It is a question of method, it seems to me, that this

committee is confronted with, practically. Should we adopt the

drastic step of repealing a treaty and an agreement without consulting the other party ?

Mr. PHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I will turn to that. The present

situation, as you stated, is this: With respect to Asiatics, we have

a zone immigration law which was passed three years or more ago,

and it barred all Asiatics embraced within an arbitrary zone which

included India, Siam, Java, the Straits Settlements and islands close,

to the Asiatic shore, and it left out China. Why? Because we

had an exclusion law against the Chinese. But it left out Japan.

Why? Because we had the treaty of 1911, and the gentlemen's

agreement of 1908. I think we must read the treaty of 1911, and

the gentlemen's agreement together. •

The treaty of 1911 provides, in words, to this effect: That subjects of the Mikado have the privilege to freely enter the United

States for purposes of trade. There is no limitation. And when

that treaty was taken up in the Senate serious objection was made

by the Senate, and you will find appended to the treaty, due to the

protests of the Senate when the matter was up for ratification, a

memorandum by Ambassador Shidahara, and that memorandum

simply obligated Japan•it had not the solemnity even of an agreement; it was a memorandum added by the ambassador, one of the
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 111

parties•it obligated Japan to continue its policy of excluding

laborers under the gentlemen's agreement.

Now, what is this gentlemen's agreement? As was explained to

you very fully the other day by the Attorney General, California

undertook, very innocently, to segregate the Japanese and the white

children in the public schools, to have separate school buildings for

them under the public-school system, where in our State school

attendance is compulsory. The farmers and the other people of the

country did not like their little girls sitting side by side with these

Japs. Bear in mind that the Japanese " school boy " was often one

of the big fellows who came over densely ignorant, but of matured

age. They would be in these school rooms with the little girls, and

the Japanese, notoriously, are unmoral people. In matters of that

kind they are an extreme danger, and I have very good authority

for what I say. Doctor Gulick, of the Imperial University of Japan,

has frankly written to the same effect in this volume; that is to say,

the unfitness of the Japanese to intermarry, and to participate in

American life. In the American-Japanese Problems, one of his

books, he says:

The mere fact of American birth, public-school education, and the reckless

age should not be regarded as adequate qualification for suffrage, for it is to

be remembered that during the entire period of schooling not only have they

been in oriental homes, but the Japanese at heart have been diligently drilled

in Japanese methods by Japanese teachers, many of whom have little acquaintance and no sympathy with American institutions or the Christian

civilization. If, as Asiatics, they maintain their traditional conception of God,

nature, and man, of male and female, of husband and wife, of parent and child,

of ruler and ruled, of the State and the individual, the permanent maintenance

in Hawaii of American democracy, American homes, and American liberty is

impossible.

And I believe the Christian churches were represented here yesterday, and I believe the Christian missionaries when I was in Korea

protested bitterly against the brutal methods of the Japanese Government in that stricken and subject country of Korea. During the

reign of the late Emperor of Korea they were assured protection by

the missionaries, to whom they would come and appeal against outrages committed against them by the police and by the taxgatherers,

and always the voice of the missionary was heard, and there is where

the missionary has served a most excellent purpose, in standing

against injustice and wrong, having the ear of the Government

through the ear of the American ambassadors.

The Japanese took possession of Korea in violation of all their

promises, and the missionaries are put in the discard: they have no

voice; but you have to present the other cheek after you are smitten

in older to give yourselves titles to Christianity, and the missionaries

are here pleading for the Japanese!

I was giving the history of the gentlemen's agreement, and it was

this attempt on the part of Californians to segregate this class of

people from the little children that led President Roosevelt to declare that unless California behaved he would send the Army and

Navy there to discipline it.

We are very fond of Theodore Roosevelt in the West, and more

particularly because when he saw that he was wrong he immediately

rectified the error. He had not the obstinacy of an ass; he had the
112 JAPANESE IMMIGBATIOX LEGISLATION

intelligence of a great man, and he changed all his views in respect

to the Japanese question as soon as he was informed.

The Californians needed no threat of that kind. He invited them

to Washington. They agreed that as long as they were protected by

an exclusion law, which Congress could grant•provided the gentlemen's agreement, which he said he was about to negotiate, would

fail•that was all they asked. He said, substantially: " I have negotiated now an agreement with Japan. We realize that this constant

friction out there is going to lead to trouble. They have agreed to

a gentlemen's agreement by which they will regulate the incoming of

Japanese, and I yield that because they are a proud and a sensitive

people and the idea of exclusion is offensive to them." And so the

gentlemen's agreement was born.

Now, that is the only barrier between the United States and Japan,

because the treaty gives no protection and the addendum to the

treaty seeks to incorporate the gentlemen's agreement, and the gentlemen's agreement gives to Japan the right to determine who shall

come, the understanding being that laborers shall not come. But it

is so loose, so vague, so evanescent, that you can not put your hands

on it. Nobodv knows exactly what it is.

California is going to ask the State Department to graciously

inform the Senate of the United States what this agreement is. In

" platforms " the parties denounce secret treaties. Nothing could

be more secret than this. As the Frenchman said, " What you

can not put your hands on it is a dream." This is a dream. You

can not find it.

Oh, here is a book, The Real Japanese Question, by K. K. Kawakami, the author of Japan in World Politics, Japan and World

Peace, etc., published by the Macmillan Co. I came across Kawakami many times. He is the busiest propagandist that Japan employs in the United States, and he even accused me of having stolen

his secret correspondence out of his waste basket. When I was in

the Senate I had access to a great deal of information, and a secret

service agent sent me some very damaging information concerning

Kawakami and his activities as an agent of Japan, and when I get

secrets I like to give them out for the information of Congress. He

now gives here what I think is a pretty fair statement of what

must be the gentlemen's agreement.

The chairman yesterday sought information in the Commissioner

General of Immigration's report of 1908. It is only a written expression or interpretation of what the commissioner thought to be

the gentlemen's agreement. This is the first time that I have actually seen it in print, in Mr. Kawakami's book. He says:

The " gentlemen's agreement " of 1907•

I do not think it went into effect until July 3,1908•

excluding Japanese laborers from America, is not in the shape of a formal

treaty or agreement. The term applies simply to the substance of a number

of informal notes exchanged between the State Department and the Japanese

Ambassador at that time. Briefly stated, the agreement is this:

First. Japan of her own accord will refrain from issuing passports to

Japanese laborers desiring to enter territories contiguous to continental United

States, such as Mexico or Canada.

Senator KING. Senator, do you not think that is rather a great

concession, speaking as to the dignity of a nation, to make by Japan,
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 113

if she had laborers who desired to go to those other countries and

those countries did not prohibit them? I am merely getting your

reaction from that.

Mr. PHELAN (reading) :

Japan, of her own accord, will refrain from issuing passports to Japanese

laborers desiring to enter territories contiguous to continental United States,

such as Mexico or Canada.

Of course, the object of Koosevelt was to prevent them from coming over the borders. Mexico has about 4,000 Japanese there and

does not want them. Mexico within the last three months has made

a decree against the Japanese. Just think of it. They do not

want the Japanese even in Mexico. They want to protect their own

people. Obregon is trying to give his own people a chance in life.

They would be devoured as by a plague of locusts if the Japanese

came in. Canada has barred Japanese. So I do not know how

they could get them into Mexico or Canada even with a passport.

Second. Japan will recognize the right of the United States to refuse the

admission to continental United States of Japanese of the laboring class whose

passports do not include continental United States.

That is, Japan concedes to us the right to refuse admission. He

says passports do not include continental United States. They can

include continental United States if they want to. Here it is:

Third. Japan will issue passports to continental United States only for

Japanese of the following four classes: (1) Nonlaborers, such as travelers,

business men, financiers, etc.

We all concede that. It is in the Johnson bill.

(2) Japanese, whether laborer or nonlaborer, who have already become domiciled in continental United States.

That is to say, if they once got in here they can get a passport to

come back should they leave.

(3) Parents, wives, or children of Japanese who have become domiciled in

continental United States.

(4) Japanese who have acquired farming interests in continental United

States and who wish to return there to take active control of those interests.

Well, there is a large question. " Parents, wives, or children of

Japanese." You have heard the discussion with respect to wives.

They have sent their photographs over there and they have gotten a

wife. It was referred to here the other day as "mail-order wives,"

and then as there was great revulsion of sentiment, especially in the

churches, about the acknowledgment of such wives as regularly married women, they said they would surrender that; and then they substituted the " Kankonan " bride, which simply means that the Japanese who wants a bride has to actually see the woman. He has to

go back to Japan, and the steamship companies of the Japanese•

they control most of the ocean traffic on the Pacific•have made such

terms for the Japanese that it does not cost them very much more

to go over there and get a bride and come back, except possibly the

loss of their time. Then the Japanese Government, to facilitate this

bride-getting, has extended the time from 1 month to 90 days within

which time the Japanese has to respond to the conscript law in case

he goes back to Japan. Ordinarily he has only a month there, but

the time was extended to 90 days to seek out a bride.
114 JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION

So this simply shows the directing mind of Japan following her

nationals wherever they go and having a fixed and set purpose of

colonization. Of course, the wives are exceedingly prolific. The

fecundity of the Japanese is extraordinary. They have at home an

excess population of 700,000 every year, and, as I shall show you

from statistics, the birth rate in California is enough to alarm one.

If you pass this law excluding Japanese, which is only one step,

we still have the Japanese problem in California, which will require

our best statesmanship to cure in order to redeem an American

State, or a dozen States, which they infest. The Japanese problem

will still be with us acutely even if you pass this legislation, which is

but a preliminary yet a necessary step.

The wives have given birth to children in the neighborhood of

Sacramento and Los Angeless at the rate of 33 per cent of all the

births, and for every 11 births in all California to-day 1 is a Japanese.

That is a problem in itself. And we have got nothing to do with it

here except it should be our policy to keep out the wives as seed of

future problems.

These wives are permitted to come in freely, and since the gentlemen's agreement 38,000 women have been imported into California

for the uses of propagation in order to establish the Japanese colonies.

Every child born is an American citizen under our very generous

Constitution, intended to encourage population by European immigration of an earlier date when Asia was a closed book. What a

Pandora's box we opened when Admiral Perry went there and

opened the gates of Japan!

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, can you conceive of a gentlemen's agreement that would keep out the women and the wives? [Laughter.]

Mr. PHELAN. Well, I am told that in Monkish institutions celibacy

is required in order that a man may give his whole time to his

work. Otherwise he has distractions. Richelieu said, " The State

is my bride."

We want to encourage the assimilable to increase and multiply.

I am making comments, as I read these provisions of the gentlemen's agreement, in order that you may understand their significance.

When the Mormons went into Utah, the State of Senator King,

they preached plurality of wives, just as under the old law of

Moses, and it certainly is the best way to establish a Commonwealth.

It is a quick way of establishing a Commonwealth, and I supposeunder the regulations of such a community only those who could

afford to have plural wives would enjoy them. But the object was

to establish a Mormon settlement, and they succeeded. A more

admirable, body does not exist. All the men and children of men

are husbandmen and they are bound together in a common cause,

making of the sterile State of Utah, which only owns, I think, 16

per cent of its entire land, the balance being public land, a garden

spot. And the Japanese are also as wise as serpents and as gentle

as doves.

I may say, of course, that the object of the gentlemen's agreement was to exclude laborers, and I claim that the spirit of the

gentlemen's agreement has been violated as well as the letter, because

these women who have come in, 38,000 since the agreement, are

actually not only wives but they are laborers. They all work in
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 115

the fields as they do in Japan, side by side with the men, and most

excellent workers they are. So 38,000 in that one lot have been

admitted as laborers and are so manifested, because while we stood

by the gentlemen's agreement to exclude laborers, we consented at

the same time that they might issue passports to "wives." It is a

rather ridiculous situation to presume that woman is not capable of

doing work side by side with man. But again this great birth rate

will be the foundation for their permanent colonies in California.

It is so apparent that he who runs may read. Japan had an important purpose in colonizing the Pacific coast•need I amplify ?

(4) That Japanese who have acquired farming interests in continental United

States and who wish to return there to take active control of those interests.

I have known Japanese of the laboring class without interests at

all go back to Japan and return, but they had, by the aid of good

American lawyers, become parties to alleged leases, signing the

leases, and that gave them within the law that technical interest

which entitles them to return. This whole law of agreement is

honeycombed with evasions and subterfuges which have been a source

of much prosperity•to our lawyers.

On the basis of this understanding President Roosevelt issued on March 14,

1907, an order excluding from continental United States Japanese or Korean

laborers, skilled or unskilled, who have received passports to go to Mexico,

Canada, or Hawaii, and come therefrom.

To put this Executive order into operation the Department of

Commerce and Labor on March 26, 1907, issued a circular which

reads as follows. This is such an obscure thing that I think I need

not read it. But here it is:

Aliens from Japan or Korea are subject to the general immigration laws.

Every Japanese or Korean laborer, skilled or unskilled, applying for admission at a seaport or at a land border port of the United States, and having in his possession a passport issued by the Government of Japan, entitling

him to proceed only to Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii shall be refused admission.

If a Japanese or Korean alien applies for admission and presents a passport entitling him to enter the United States, or one which is limited to

Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii, he shall be admitted if it appears that he does

not belong to any of the classes of aliens excluded by the general immigration laws.

If a Japanese or Korean alien applies for admission and present a passport limited to Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii, and claims that he is not a laborer,

either skilled or unskilled, reasonable proof of this claim shall be required

in order to permit him to enter the United States.

If a Japanese or Korean, skilled or unskilled laborer, is found in the Territory of the United States without having been duly admitted upon inspection the procedure employed under the general immigration laws for the

arrest and hearing of aliens who have entered the United States surreptitiously

shall be observed.

That is a great deal of verbiage and very little actual restriction.

The Japanese having passports•and they seem very easy to get•

come to the United States, and they are only detained in practice

at the immigration station in case they have contagious diseases.

They are not subjected to the illiteracy test or any other test to

which Europeans are subjected. Hence they have been treated with

great consideration. If they have a passport issued by the Japanese Government without any right on the part of the United States

to interpose an objection they enter the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Phelan, has not Canada a gentlemen's

agreement with Japan?
116 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Mr. PHELAN. I am not perfectly familiar with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know except by report. You need not

go into that.

Mr. PHELAN. I understand they have a head tax of $1,000.

Mr. BOWLES. They have a gentlemen's agreement.

Mr. PHELAN. Now, this gentlemen's agreement is the only protection. Theodore Roosevelt objected strenuously•it was one of the

causes of his break with President Taft•against the treaty of 1911,

and because he said it destroyed the gentlemen's agreement, and

practically opened wide the doors. Now, that is your protection

to-day; the gentlemen's agreement and the treaty of 1911, when this

bill is proposed by the House committee and approved by the House

committee, and in order to refresh your memory let me read from

Union Calendar No. 61, H. R. 6540, section 12. paragraph (b). I

think I can show you that there is no substantial difference between

this and the gentlemen's agreement, except transferring the jurisdiction where it properly belongs to the United States for the regulation of the incoming hordes of Asiatics. There is no interference

with commerce or trade. That was the pretended object of the

treaty of commerce and navigation of 1911, to promote trade, not to

promote immigration or protect the evil which everybody had seen

apparently, except Mr. Taft. He made a proposition before the

Japanese societies night before last for another conference. It is

said, " The United States never lost a war and never won a conference."

The CHAIRMAN. AS a legal proposition, as an international proposition, the term M

immigrant" does not extend to those who are

admitted for the purpose of trade under commercial treaties.

Mr. PHELAN. That would be a fair interpretation.

The CHAIRMAN. In the ordinary acceptation of the term an immigrant would not come within that classification.

Mr. PHELAN. Not at all, but the facts stare us in the face.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the view of the Secretary of State.

Mr. PHELAN (reading from the bill, section 12) :

(b) No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States

unless such alien (1) is admissible as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of subdivisions (b), (d), or (g) of section 4, or (2) is the wife or the

unmarried child under 18 years of age of an immigrant admissible under such

subdivision (d), and is accompanying or following to join him, or (3) is not an

immigrant as defined in section 3.

The exceptions are to be found in section 3, where, under the caption, " Definition of ' immigrant,' " the bill says:

When used in this act the term " immigrant" means any alien departing

from any place outside the United States destined for the United States, except

(1) a government official, his family, attendants, servants, and employees.

They have admission under the Johnson bill just as they have

under the gentlemen's agreement and the treaty of 1911:

(2) An alien visiting the United States as a tourist or temporarily for

business or pleasure.

The same is in the treaty or agreement:

(3) An alien in continuous transit through the United States, (4) an alien

lawfully admitted to the United States who later goes in transit from one part

of the United States to another through foreign contiguous territory, and (5)
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 117

a bona fide alien seaman serving as such on a vessel arriving at a port of the

United States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States solely in

the pursuit of his calling us a seaman.

Seamen are constantly deserting the ships sailing into the ports

and staying. I know it to be a fact with the Chinese and Jananese,

and Capt. Kyland Drennan told me on the voyage which I took with

him that he lost 14 of his crew in San Francisco on his previous

voyage.

Now, here are some of the exceptions. While ineligibles are excluded, yet all these may come in section 4:

(b) An immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United States who

is returning from a temporary visit abroad.

(d) An immigrant who continuously for at least two years immediately

preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States

has been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of

carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination, or professor

of a college, academy, seminary, or university.

That is perhaps unobjectionable. " Religious freedom " to teach

Shintoism or Emperor worship!

(g) An immigrant who is a bona fide student over 18 years of age and who

seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of study at an accredited college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated

by him and approved by the Secretary.

All these are liberal provisions. Our only object is the object which

we sought to obtain by the gentlemen's agreement, to keep out laborers. The only object of the Johnson bill is to reaffirm practically

existing law giving us of the United States control, however, and

doing everything for the accommodation of merchants and students

and visitors for pleasure, to encourage and maintain our amicable

relations and our trade connections. It might be called an act to

promote trade just as much as the treaty of commerce and navigation.

So I do not see that any objection can be made except in the

minds of those who think we were perfectly right in relegating to

Japan the sovereignty of the United States in the matter of issuing

passports to those who sought admission to our territory. We simply

reverse conditions and reassert our sovereignty, and I challenge

anybody to show that in the entire diplomatic history of the United

States there was ever such an abortion as the gentlemen's agreement,

which is neither treaty nor law. It is something we can not find

except in the books written by the Japanese. We do not know exactly what it is, and yet we know enough to understand that it was

a secret pact by which the United States surrendered its sovereignty

to Japan in a matter of vital importance; and when they come in

here since the gentlemen's agreement at the rate as evidenced by

these figures, you can see that there is something wrong with the

gentlemen's agreement of 1908.

In 1900 there were 24,000 Japanese; in 1910, 72,000 Japanese;

in 1920, 110,000 Japanese in the United States.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. In California?

Mr. PHELAN. No; that is in the United States. In California

there were 10,000 in 1900, there were 41,000 in 1910, and there were

79,000 in 1920•census population.
118 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Now, we had the Chinese exclusion law, and the Chinese during

those same periods in the United States diminished.

The Chinese problem is peacefully solving itself, and what threatened to be a serious condition in 1879 has been, by reason of the acts

of the Congress of the United States, the Senate and House, and not

the State Department, solved.

California has done everything that the Federal Government has

asked. It has done something within its jurisdiction which it was

entitled to do in denying them land, either by ownership in fee or

by leasehold, and the Supreme Court has sustained California and

Washington and Oregon and Montana and six other States in their

attempt to protect themselves within their jurisdictions. It is all

they can do, and having done all that it is possible for them to do

within the law, they come to Congress asking that the Congress do

its part, not the Secretary of State, not our diplomatic service, which

abroad was described before the Foreign Relations Committee the

other day by one of their number as an aggregation of " Cookie

pushers," a lot of gentlemen learned in the foreign languages, who

have no Americanism from the spats on their shoes to the curls on

their caputs. And they in foreign ports represent the United States.

Those gentlemen, who attain high position in the United States in

the service of the Secretary of State, have got neither the training

nor the understanding. They are a caste whose end is to please foreign plenipotentiaries. Congress represents the people.

Now, that is one thing to which I wish to advert. The Secretary

of State the other day addressed to the House committee, and to

this committee, communications in which he said that he favored a

quota basis for the admission of Japanese rather than an exclusion

law. We are all agreed, and he is agreed, that there ought to be

exclusion. I am sure this committee and the Congress•Secretary

Hughes himself has said it in his communications•are all in favor

of exclusion, and then, as the chairman has said, the only thing for

us to consider is the best method of effecting exclusion.

By the quota you will obviate giving offense to Japan. Granted.

And here is the real problem. It appears upon the surface perfectly plain that this is apparently no unreasonable request of the

Secretary of State to admit under the quota of 1890, Japanese,

which would aggregate 246 annually.

I think in the same communications he advocated, however, the

census enumeration of 1910 for the Italians. That is to say, he

would like to give one basis for the Italians and another for the

Japanese, but it can't be done. Whatever basis you give the Japanese, whether it is 1890 or 1910, he is in favor of giving them

the benefit of the quota which we propose to give to the European

nations. As a matter of fact you discussed, as I remember, the 1890

basis, which would admit only 246 Japanese, but he is applying another yardstick for the Italians in order to bring in a larger number.

The CHAIEMAN. I did not understand the Secretary of State's

letter in that way. I understood that he did not intend to fix the

quota as to whether it would be 1890 or 1910, but whatever quota

we fixed for Europe we should apply the same quota to Japan.

Mr. PHELAN. The Johnson bill provided 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. It did.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 119

Mr. PHELAN. And it was given out to the country that would

only admit 246 Japanese.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee simply tentatively changed the

basis of our quota law; it simply voted to change it to 1910. Now,

under the 1910 census I think instead of being 300 and some odd

it would be 1,100 and something.

Mr. PHELAN. Mr. Albert Johnson, of the House, told me yesterday that there was that inconsistency in some communication received by them from Secretary Hughes.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be, but I did not so understand it. I

understood the general proposition to be that we should admit

Japan to the quota law whatever the basis of the quota law might

be. I would like to have your views upon that.

Mr. PHELAN. I am just going to give them to you. At the request of Japan the Secretary of State introduced this suggestion

as an amendment to the Albert Johnson bill. He says he is not

opposed to the exclusion of Japanese, but he thinks the best method

would be to include Japan in the quota of 2 per cent or other basis,

if you please, which is granted European nations. That is, he was

adopting the plea of the Japanese for racial equality, which was

denied at the two great conferences in Paris. That is the crux of

the whole matter. Japan applied for racial equality to the conferences and it went to a vote and under their rules it required

unanimity, and the vote of the British Empire, the commonwealths

and possessions, represented by England and also by overseas representatives, voted no, but they were a small minority, and President

Wilson, presiding, held that inasmuch as there was no unanimity

the motion granting racial equality which the other nations of the

world were willing to grant, was lost, and the Japanese representative arose in his place and said substantially, " It may be lost now,

but I shall bring it up again. You did not deny the majority or

rule the other day when you determined the seat of the League

of Nations at Geneva, and why should you rule so against us?"

All the President could say was that in matters of large importance

it required unanimity, and the fixing of the seat of the League of

Nations was a matter of small importance.

Now, the Japanese protest against so-called discrimination,

against them, but there is no discrimination when the case is analyzed, because the Federal Government for 130 years has drawn a

distinction between those that are eligible and those who are ineligible to citizenship by the naturalization law, and only deviated

from it in 1870 to pass an amendment to the Constitution including persons of African descent.

To give Japanese the same benefit of the quota law with Europeans, would be to discriminate in favor of them as against the

Chinese, the Hindus, the Japanese, the Siamese, and other cultured

intelligent people.

So they, while complaining of discrimination, are really seeking

at the hands of the United States discrimination in their favor as

against their neighbors in Asia, and to be put upon a racial equality

with the Europeans.

Now, you may say, why should not they be put upon a racial

equality with the Europeans? And I consider this the essence of
120 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

the whole thing. It is the set purpose of Japan to demand racial

equality, and that means, having been granted racial equality, they

could enter the United States on the same terms as the Europeans;

they could ultimately enjoy the elective franchise and the ownership of land just as the Europeans, and they would thus defeat all

our protective legislation if we once conceded the principle of racial

equality.

When this matter was up in Paris I took upon myself for the

western Senators, with whom I conferred, to protest to Secretary

Lansing that if racial equality were granted it involved all these

things against which we had set our minds in the United States in

connection with granting to Asiatics, unassimilable and undigestible,

the right to vote and the right to own land and all those other

rights of American citizenship which should be regarded as precious, and I am very glad to say that the conference adjourned

without making any concession to the Japanese, although every

European State, with the exception of Great Britain, was quite

ready to concede the principle of racial equality.

We will give them equality as a nation among nations, in the

family of nations, and the distinction is that while we are willing to

concede that they deserve and should have a place of equality as a

nation in the family of nations for all purposes of negotiations and

conference on international matters, we can not take them, into our

own family, because it has been demonstrated that they are a discordant and a refractory element: they can not be blended; they can

not by intermarriage become a homogeneous part. The Senator

said yesterday, Rome was a great Empire and held the peace of

the world for 500 years, because she granted Roman citizenship

very freely to the nations, but that was at a time when Rome sat as

the Imperial Mistress of the Western World with great armies, and

these so-called countries whose citizens were granted Roman citizenship very largely were ruled by satraps. Rome would send her

consuls into remote places and rule these people. It had no influence

at all on the policy of Rome which was held firmly by the senate and

the people in the imperial capital. Why, England is not disturbed

by granting citizenship to people in the Australian colonies, so far

as their government is concerned at home, but we would be disturbed

in granting the people of the Philippine Islands citizenship as a part

of the Republic of the United States, because in a few years, in 1840,

there will be 20,000,000 of them, and their voite would affect the presidential elections and the congressional. It would be dangerous for

us. But Rome was ruled by a strong centralized government consisting of " the senate and people of Rome "; not of the colonies. And

what led to the destruction of Rome ? It ought to be an example. It

was bringing slaves as the result of wars to Rome in that age of

slavery and putting them upon the soil, crowding off freemen and

driving them into the city. The rich Romans had great estates, and

they were worked by a servile class, and that class also grew and

multiplied and became the rabble which finally overthrew the great

Republic of Rome.

Froude says that the very rottenness that was engendered made the

noble oak which had sheltered Rome for 500 years incapable of further serving that function, and that it was best to cut it down, to

reduce the sheltering oak to lumber to construct the palace of the
JAPANESE IMMIGKATTON LEGISLATION 121

Caesars; and so he justified the usurpation and the destruction of the

Republic because the oak tree had fallen to the ground, and that was

the beginning of the Roman Empire and the end of Republic,

The CHAIRMAN. In spite of that Rome lasted for 1,100 years, which

was quite good for the life of a nation.

Mr. PHELAN. That is a very ripe age, and the intercommunication

was so slow that there was no such nervous ramifications as the

countries to-day enjoy, and I suppose if they live now for a shorter

period they will by comparison not have lived less long. Everything

has become intensified; some, people see signs of failure already,

due entirely to a foreign and unassimilable immigration and the destruction of the ideals of Republic. We can not absorb and certainly

can not but imperfectly assimilate the large influx of people from

Europe, and certainly not from Asia at all. That is the point. The

oriental races are not assimilable. The races of Europe are potentially assimilable. We can make in a few generations a good American

citizen out of a boy from France or England or Scotland or Ireland

or Germany or Italy. Not so the black and brown and yellow races.

Now, I am not speaking idly: certainly not with prejudice. I have

here an authority, none less than Herbert Spencer, and it is quite

in point.

Herbert Spencer was asked by a Japanese statesman, at a time

when Japan•now 70 years in the family of nations•was formulating

her foreign policies, whether she should admit Europeans and attempt assimilation. His answer was an emphatic " No." I can not

refrain from quoting this letter in part, as it squarely meets the

present American-Japanese situation. Japan accepted Spencer's

advice, has grown in strength, industrially, and as a nation, and has

preserved the purity of her raceShe has kept, our merchants out as far as she is able except to

facilitate a reasonable exchange. She has kept wholly our agriculturalists out. There is no such thing as a Caucasian farmer in Japan.

But she has also kept out the Chinese and Koreans by strict exclusion

laws. She is in no position to make a protest before this committee.

She is devoted to the preservation of her own people and she does

protect them. The little fellows that are farming all over Japan

will not suffer so long as Japan holds guard. The only competition

is that of the Chinese. The Japanese get their dollar a day and the

Chinese are willing to work for 15 or 20 cents a day; and when 200

of them came from China to Japan not long ago they were immediately deported. Japan is protecting her people and we are seeking

to protect our people, and she can not come into this court with clean

hands and protest against our purpose,

Herbert Spencer says:

It seems to me that the only forms of intercourse which you may with advantage permit are those which are Indispensable for the exchange of commodities•importation and exportation of physical and mental products. No

further privileges should be nllowed to people of other races, and especially

to people of the more ixnverful races, than is absolutely needful for the

achievement of these ends.

And Spencer asked that the letter be not published until after his

death because he knew it would offend his countrymen. England

has been rather ruthless in going into China and India.
122 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Spencer continues:

Apparently you are proposing, by revision of the treaty with the powers of

Europe and America, " to open the whole empire to foreigners and foreign

capital." I regret this as a fatal policy. If you wish to see what is likely to

happen, study the history of India. Once let one of the more powerful races

gain a point d'appui. and there will inevitably, in the course of time, grow up

an aggressive policy which will lead to collisions with the Japanese.

Spencer continues:

These collisions will be represented as attacks by the Japanese which must

be avenged, as the case may be; a portion of territory will be seized and

required to be made over as a foreign settlement, and from this there will

grow, eventually, subjugation of the entire Japanese Empire. I believe that

you will have great difficulty in avoiding this fate in any case, but you will

make the process easy if you allow of any privileges to foreigners beyond those

which I have indicated.

To your remaining question respecting the intermarriage of foreigners and

Japanese which you say is " now very much agitated among our scholars and

politicians," and which you say is " one of the most difficult problems," my

reply is that, as rationally answered, there is no difficulty at all. It should

be positively forbidden. It is not at root a question of social philosophy. It is

at root a question of biology. There is abundant proof, alike furnished by the

intermarriages of human races and by the interbreeding of animals, that when

the varieties mingled diverge beyond a certain slight degree the result is

inevitably a bad one in the long run.

Darwin has observed on the subject of mongrelization that when

widely divergent stocks are crossed there is a strong tendency to

revert; the higher and more recently evolved characteristics vanish,

and the primitive traits, not only physical but mental and moral,

come to the surface. Indeed, there is a saying in the darkest continents that " God made the white man; God made the colored man,

but the devil made the half-caste."

Agassiz wrote:

Let anyone who doubts the evil of this mixture of races and is inclined from

mistaken philanthropy to break down all barriers between them come to certain southern countries. The amalgamation of races is rapidly effacing the

best qualities of the white man, the Negro, and the Indian, leaving a mongrel,

nondescript type, deficient in physical and mental energy.

The New York Times has a verv able article, and this is the gist

of it:

The quesiton of miscegenation with Chinese and Koreans was relatively unimportant, the racial stocks being kindred, " yet the Japanese passed exactly the same kind of laws to which they now object

in California." The editor sanely concludes that the relations between Japan and the United States are endangered "if we persist in

regarding as a question of race pride what in reality, is a matter of

biology."

That is the whole thing; we can not grant racial equality to the

Japanese, because there is no racial equality: there is racial difference.

The CHAIRMAN. Does marriage between the Japanese and the Caucasian in California prevail to any extent?

Mr. PIIELAN. To no extent at all. There are isolated cases. While

Chinese and Hawaiians make a good blend, the Japanese only intermarry among themselves in the Hawaiian Islands.

The CHAIRMAN. I was asking about California.

Mr. PHELAN. In California there are very few examples. Stanford University, at the request of the Commonwealth Club of New

York, I think, undertook a survey. They went out among the
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 123

schools to determine the relative brightness of Japanese and of halfbred children and of white children. I wrote a letter to President

Wilbur of the university, asking him for the result. He said the

tests were just taken and there was not sufficient time to justify any

conclusion, but that he found the Japanese children very bright; the

half-caste children, the few that were there, were very bright, but

not as bright as the white children. He says, whether those children

five years from now will so continue progressively cannot be determined now.

This question raised by the Secretary of State with regard to putting Japanese on an equality with the Europeans, I think, is the

main question that is before you. If you do it you will bring a flood

of evils to the State. They will have then, logically undisputed, the

right to vote, the right, to own land, and they will upset all the work

we have done for the purpose of restraining them and protecting

ourselves.

I must add, as I said before, that this law, of course, only applies

to the Japanese who are coming in here, and we have in California

the very big problem of taking care of the Japanese who are already

there.

When I was in Japan I was entertained by the Tokyo Chamber of

Commerce. The old Japanese president of the chamber of commerce,

Fugiyama, was exceedingly courteous, and so the secretary Hatteri.

Probably there were a dozen men there, college professors and presi- •

dents of banks. They were curious to get my point of view because

they had heard I was active in California in what they called

anti-Japanism. I accepted their invitation. We had a very excellent luncheon at the headquarters, in a beautiful building dedicated

to the purposes of the chamber of commerce which has since been

destroyed by the earthquake. After the luncheon, during which not

a word was said about our purpose, we adjourned to another room.

The president raised the question and the discussion followed.

Everybody there, except two, spoke and understood English. I

gathered this, that they were agreed against immigration. They

practically conceded the point that it would be undesirable for the

United States to continue mass immigration of Japanese. That was

settled as it is settled here, and we always come back to the best

method of enforcing it. But they said, as I left, " A final word; can

you not take care of the Japanese who are already there and give

them all your privileges?" I told them that they had all the protection of the law; that is to say, whatever they legally possess•their

lives and their property•were perfectly safe in California, and there

had been no manifestation of unfriendliness except in very rare

cases. I said that the laws always had been enforced for the protection of Japanese or other foreigners sojourning in our midst and

that California was not a lawless State. That was all they asked;

that we take care of the men who are there. Rut, sir, we have

100,000 of them. That is a big problem. The only question before

us is to keep from replenishing that number. They will grow by

reason of their extraordinary fecundity. We have a mass of undigestible people living in colonies, and if we let in 246 a year, there

may be 246 women admitted, which means next year 246 births, and

so ad infinitum These women average a family of five each.
124 JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION

Make a geometrical progression. We have that continuing problem,

and I do not know, really, how to meet it.

They will in the course of time, as in Hawaii, very soon enjoy

the elective franchise by constitutional right•born on the soil.

How receptive the politician is of the man or woman who enjoys

elective franchise! The politician will trade for votes, and the few

people who stand for principle will not only have to fight the native Japanese but the native politicians. You can imagine the conflict. It is racial. Race conflicts are most difficult of solution.

You have one in connection with the Negro problem here. In the

South they are plagued by 10,000,000 of negroes unassimilable.

It is a great blight, and certainly it has taxed the limits of our

fenerosity to take them into the family and make the most of it

ecause we brought them here. It was one of the sins of the earlier

Republic, and we shall learn that our sins have found us out and

we shall have to suffer.

What we can do in California I can not divine, and I am not

going to raise a new question here, but certainly as these children

become of age they are full-fledged American citizens and can own

land and enjoy elective franchise and destroy our ideals and institutions.

In Hawaii we have a situation which will be in California

in the next few years; that as soon as they come into full possession

.of their suffrage they will elect their legislature, their mayor, and

their chief of police and control the machinery of government in

the Hawaiian Islands until, in order to meet that kind of a situation•because it is still a Territory and under the jurisdiction of

Congress•we will tear down American institutions and give to the

islands a form of government which will rule them arbitrarily

from Washington, but California•a. State is indestructible in lawwill have to make her stand. I do not believe that the United

States could tolerate for a minute a Japanese civil government in

the Hawaiian Territory, not that it has too much regard, perhaps,

for the Kanakas or, perhaps, for the 10,000 Americans living there,

much as we would regret their unfortunate state, but because Hawaii

is " The naval key to the Pacific." If there is any trouble in the

Pacific we would not only have to meet a frontal attack, but a rear

attack. The 110,000 Japanese living in the Hawaiian Islands are,

many of them, veterans of the war, great fighting men, and they

could range up behind our guns where we are spending millions of

dollars for fortification and rout our gunners, because we can not

maintain a garrison to meet a hostile attack of overwhelming numbers from the rear. And nobody believes for a moment that the

Japanese are loyal to the American flag. They have a dual citizenship. It has been proved. Their allegiance has been tested. The

Japanese are under obligation to those planters. The planters

thought they had won their loyalty. Just as you would nurse a

serpent and it would bite you for your pains, they turned upon the

fdanters, and the only thing which saved the situation during the

ate strike was a Japanese commissioner who was sent from Japan

in the interest of international peace, to hold down the Japanese.

They looked only to their consul. He was their directing force.

I made that statement publicly in Japan, that Tokyo controlled the

expatriated Japanese, and it was not denied. If Japan would forbid
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 125

the consul from interfering in domestic affairs and would destroy

the Japanese-language schools, which tend to keep the Japanese

away from anything common with the rest of the community, and

which seek to maintain their Japanese character and Japanese

allegiance and religion, involving Emperor worship, there might be

some sort of a coming together of races which would do away with

possible friction. The Japanese consul in San Francisco and Hawaii

are the real governors of the Japanese, although they are under the

protection of the Stars and Stripes.

Japenese interference in our governmental affaire should be resented. They are asking to be admitted into our house on terms

which they make. Ordinarily a man is master of his own house

and certainly has the right to select his guests.

You are asked to give us a small measure that will aid us in some

degree in the solution of a great problem, to keep the Pacific for

Americans and avert the danger of war.

I have digressed, because I have been asked by Senators to elucidate certain points which seem to be difficult in their minds to solve.

If there is anything else you have in mind, I would be very glad to

answer it as far as I am able.

The law which we have and the treaty and the gentlemen's agreement are inadequate. They have been violated in spirit and violated

in fact.

The very presence of the very large number of Japanese in California and in the United States, showing a tremendous increase

since 1908, is sufficient evidence. Whether they come in through the

ports or surreptitiously I do not know. I know a great many come

in through Mexico and Peru. The Japanese from whose book I

quoted apologized for the number of men who came in from Peru

because there was no way to control them. They buy tickets, he

says, for home from Valparaiso to Yokohama, but as the ship touches

at Salina Cruz they get off. They have purchased passage and

nobody can prevent that. So in practice the gentlemen's agreement

administered by Japan is a fraud. Whether laborers all come in

through the ports or over the border is immaterial. The fact is

that "the law" is such that we are not able to enforce it, and the

only way of limiting the Japanese is to exclude them and make definite exceptions certified by American consuls.

And certainly when I ask you gentlemen to recover jurisdiction

from Japan to the United States of America, it is asking very little;

and when the Secretary of State asks as a mere matter to oblige

the Japanese in order to prevent the United States from needlessly

hurting their feelings, that they be put under the quota, it seems it

might be a very gracious thing to which to accede, but it involves

the principle of racial equality, and will continue to breed trouble

on the Pacific coast; of that I solemnly warn you. " Racial equality "

is the main question. The others are all matters of small detail and

comparatively trivial. It is the whole question because once the

principle of racial equality is conceded, nothing can prevent them

from coming in here and claiming citizenship and land ownership

Lloyd George and President Wilson saw this and stopped it.

Beware of the cunning of Japanese diplomacy. My experience

during my travels in Asia has been that Japan exercises a tremen95671•24 0
>

126 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

dous power. She is the military master of the Orient, and she has

ruthlessly assumed this position in China, Korea, Manchuria, and

Sakhalin, in spite of her pretentions of always observing her obligations. She is hurt when we say that she is not in honor respecting

the letter and the spirit of the gentlemen's agreement. Nevertheless, by every means of evasion, she violates the gentlemen's agreement.

Mr. Kaymond Leslie Buell in his work, The Washington Conference, says this concerning Japan's violation of agreements and

promises:

••Such declarations as to future policies were made in the Hay correspondence of 1890 and 1900; in the Anglo-Japanese alliances of 1902, 1905, and

1911; in the Franco-Japanese agreement of 1907; in the Russo-Japanese agreement of 1907; in the lloot-Takahira agreement of 1908; and in the LansingIshii agreement of 1917. They were likewise made in regard to Korea in

1902 and in the evacuation of Siberia in 1918 and ir» 1920 and of Manchuria

in 1905, and of Shantung in 1914 and 1919. Yet, despite these promises, Japan

now remains in Korea and Siberia and Manchuria, and she is withdrawing

from Shantung, after being compelled to do so by the outraged opinion of the

world; but then only after having made certain of economic control. There

is little to believe that a mere reiteration of a long line of promises will change

the present position or prevent the future progress of the Japanese military

machine, especially when the fear of armed intervention from abroad no longer

exists.

We have made chaotic conditions and called it peace. We have disarmed ourselves in this conference, and Japan is going on arming

herself by the construction of noncapital ships. She is the military

power of the East, and I have always; thought, with many authorities, that this California " smoke screen which she constantly

throws out is merely to cover her Asiastic aggressions and hoodwink

the United States. She has beaten us in diplomacy everywhere and

is capable of doing it again, and I tell you the California question,

in my judgment, and in the judgment of authorities, is a camouflage,

a "smoke screen," to enable her to carry out her activities in Asia

in violation too often of the agreements into which she has entered.

Why, she was at peace with Russia when she entered the harbor

of Port Arthur and struck without notice. She protested against

the acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States. She

has made her secret treaties, which have been since quietly confirmed,

giving her the Marshall and other islands, where she has established a

military base stronger than Gibraltar. She has advanced 2,000 miles

by reason of these acquisitions to the coast of the United States.

All our naval experts say that our last stand is in Hawaii. We are

not allowed to fortify the Philippines or Guam•a diplomatic concession to Japan. Why we acquired Guam I do not know, except to

have a base. Our ships can not fight from Hawaii if the action is

on the other coast. I hope they will never fight, but it merely shows

the encroachments of Japan. Her clear policy is to sooner or later

dominate the Pacific.

Now, the United States is a Nation dedicated to peace, and only

asks not domination but equal trade opportunity•the open door.

The compact which was entered into here by four powers lasts only

for 10 years. In the meantime it simply gives Japan an excellent

opportunity to reconstruct her military power, which it is doing, and

to rehabilitate herself.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 127

Then more negotiations. We have abandoned our superiority to

placate a second-class nation, with no assurance of permanent peace.

Supersensitiveness is an oriental subterfuge. We want to be friendly

with Japan and have no designs whatever upon her.

San Francisco was asked for $100,000 for the Japanese earthquake

victims by the American Bed Cross and gave $500,000. But it is a

poor requiting by Japan, after she has received the sympathy of the

United States, to say that on that account it is an opportunity for

pressing her case against the permanent interests of the American

people. The demonstration of sympathy by the American people

for the Japanese should go far toward helping our relations, and the

good Secretary of State and societies sponsored by Mr. Taft and Mr.

Wickersham say now, " Let us cement this friendship." It is a very

hard plea to resist, if we did not stand on fundamentals and know

the cost. What they ask is the privilege of coming into this country

as Europeans, and as they can not possibly be assimilated, we can

not possibly, as a matter of principle, compromise one iota. It is a

delusive hope. If it' is the census of 1890 to-day, it will be the

census of 1920 to-morrow. And increasingly they will come in if

they are put upon a census basis. That will be their demand until

they overwhelm this country, particularly the Pacific slope, and continue to renew their colony system, which will ultimately and inevitably wreck the fair State of California and the fair State of

Oregon and the fair State of Washington.

The people are all up in arms, figuratively speaking, against it.

The}' send us here and they instruct you in your national conventions

and their representatives speak to you with no uncertain tones; and

there should be no question as to the practical unanimity of the sentiment against the admission of Japanese under the quota, if it is

properly understood, and no question as to the right and duty of

Congress to assert its authority and enact effective exclusion.

I met in my travels a gentleman who opened my eyes•none other

than Lord Northcliffe. He said, " Ultimately you will have to solve

this question by war." I said, " No; we can solve these questions by

peaceful negotiations or by exclusion laws, and imitate in all respects

the Australian-New Zealand Government and keep them out; they

did not protest to Great Britain, their former ally, against the treatment by Australia or New Zealand; they are kept out." Lord Northcliffe said, " If you do that, of course, you will postpone the day ";

and, addressing the commercial societies of Pekin, he said in my

hearing:

In case there is ever any necessity for the United States to assert its authority in the Pacific against any Asiatic power I see no reason why Great

Britain should not give the use of Singapore as a naval base.

The Japanese diplomatic corps has a private organ, which then

bristled with such talk as this:

If Great Britain and the United States take that stand of excluding Japan

from the Pacific, England lending the aid of Singapore, then Japan will raise

the cry of Asia for the Asiatics, combine all Asia, if you please, and drive the

English and the Americans out.

It is a threat that has been often made, but it should frighten nobody. I think the best way to meet threats is to act justly and firmly,
128 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

and that this is a singularly opportune time; and as Japan has set the

example of excluding the Chinese from their own territory we simply

exclude the Japanese laborers from ours, admitting their gentlemen,

their travelers, their savants, their students, and merchants, giving

them cordial welcome. Just as they welcomed me to their chamber

of commerce would I welcome them to our chamber of commerce.

We can be mutually helpful and should sedulously cultivate exchange

in commodities.

The}* know very well that we are only directing our shafts against

laborers that take the living from our people. They know in their

hearts that we are not only justified but that we have a national duty

to perform. It is accomplished when the Congress is convinced;

when it restores our sovereignty and asserts our right.

No treaty nor agreement can be as effective as an exclusion law

which will be the test of our sincerity in the accomplishment of our

purpose.

(Certain documents, submitted for the record by Hon. James D.

Phelan, are incorporated herein, as follows:)

RESOLUTIONS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE FIFTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE

AMERICAN LEGION AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER If, TO 19, 1920

Resolved, That the report of the national oriental committee of the American

Legion, Thomas N. Swale, chairman, represents a valuable service; that the

report is hereby approved anil adopted by this convention, and the national

legislative committee is directed to use the same in urging the national administration and Congress to perfect treaties and enact laws conformable to the

recommendations thereof, and the printing of said report is hereby authorized

and the continuance of said committee directed.

Resolved, That we renew and emphasize the action of the fourth national

convention urging the enactment without delay of laws, and the negotiation

of treaties if required, for the exclusion as immigrants or permanent residents

of the United States of all persons ineligible to citizenship under the laws

thereof.

Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that the program and

recommendations on immigration in all of its phases adopted by it as contained

in the several resolutions on this subject be the special concern of the American

Legion, and that the national officers charged with the duty exert every possible means and endeavor to secure immediate legislative action thereon; and

be it

Further resolved, That each of the State departments of the American

Legion be urged to take similar action by recommending to and urging upon

each Senator and Representative in Congress from such States the enactment

of laws in accordance with said program and recommendations with the least

possible delay and at the meeting of the next Congress.

RESOLUTION NO. SO. INTRODUCED BY DELEGATES ANDREW FURUSETH AND PAUL

SCHARRENBURG, OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION AND ADOPTED BY THE

NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AT PORTLAND.

OREG., OCTOBER H, 1923

Whereas, the terrible calamity which recently befell the people of Japan

has justly aroused universal sympathy throughout America; and

Whereas there is serious danger that this sympathy for a stricken people

is likely to be guided into channels that have always obstructed labor's demand for the effective exclusion of Asiatics; Therefore be it

Resolved bj,t the American Federation of Labor, in forty-third, annual convention assembled, That we hereby reaffirm our previous declaration upon

immigration legislation: and be it further

Resolved, That we again urge Congress to hereafter deny admission, as immigrants and permanent residents, to all aliens who are ineligible to citisenship under the laws of the United States.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 129

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ORIENTAL COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN LEGION TO

THE FIFTH ANNUAL CONVENTION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., OCTOBER 15 TO 19,

1923

THE JAPANESE EARTHQUAKE

On September 1, of this year, an earthquake caused the Japanese Empire

the greatest loss of life and destruction of property in recorded history. The

American Legion, notwithstanding the prominent part it has taken in resisting the encroachments of the Japanese on American soil, has been keenly

sympathetic toward the victims of this catastrophe and generous in its contributions toward the relief of their distress.

The Japanese disaster, however, does not solve the problem of the Japanese

in this country; rather, it may be expected to accentuate that problem. It

is naturally to be expected that many of the inhabitants of the affected regions

will attempt to find an asylum in this country, and that American sympathy

will be appealed to, as in the ease of the Greek and Armenian refugees, to

induce us to receive these sufferers and the problem which they would bring

with them. When it is considered that the number of those affected by the

earthquake is estimated at 4,000,000. it will be understood how grave will

be the situation for the Pacific coast if such an exodus gains headway.

JAPANESE VIEW AS TO EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE ON JAPANESE-AMERICAN RELATIONS

Many Americans have hoped that the outpouring of sympathy and aid from

America would convince the Japanese that the oppos'tion to them was not

based on hatred or prejudice, and in so doing would evoke from them an

acknowledgement of the justice of the American demand for an ocean-wide

segregation of the two races. Such, however, has not been the case. Instead

of feeling that the demonstration of American friendliness called for any

acknowledgment that the American point of view might be right, the Japanese

seem to expect that sympathy for the victims of the disaster will result in

the disappearance of all opposition to their peaceful conquest of American soil.

Already a number of expressions of this hope have appeared in the Japanese

language press of this country, typical of which is the following excerpt from

the San Francisco Japanese-American News of September 15. 1923:

" We hope and believe that the American people by reason of this disaster

will change their sentiments toward the Japanese people. For the past 10

years the reiterated arguments of the anti-.Tapanists have been based on sentiment rather than fact. * * * But now the sentiments which have been

the chief elements in the question have clearly changed in conseqeunce of

this calamity. Even the people who up to yesterday were the foremost advocates of anti-.Iapanism to-day sympathize with Japan in her disaster and are

talking of the brotherhood of all men and of humanity and are busily collecting relief funds. * * * The anti-Japanese movement in the West will

probably be greatly ameliorated. It may even disappear entirely. * * * If

this occasion results in the complete destruction of the anti-Japanese movement, or at least in partly mitigating it, the Japanese residents will be more

than ever grateful to America and to the Americans."

PRESENT STATUS OF JAPANESE-AMERICAN RELATIONS

A successful appeal by the Japanese to American sympathy at the present

juncture would be of far-reaching significance, for events which will have

the most profound effect upon Japanese-American relations are at this moment taking definite shape in the fields of both diplomacy and legislation.

The Japanese treaty of commerce and navigation of April 5, 1911, expired

on July 17 of this year (1923), and Japan is exerting every energy to secure

such modifications of its provisions as will insure to Japanese in this country

the same civil rights as are enjoyed by members of other races.

The present temporary 3 per cent immigration law of May 19, 1921. as

extended by joint resolution of Congress on May 3. 1922, will expire on

June 30, 1924. and there is pending in Congress a bill to supersede it, which,

if passed, will effect a complete exclusion of Japanese from this country.

THE GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT AND TREATY OF 1911

In the 1922 report of this committee much space is devoted to the RootTakahira convention of 1907, commonly called the " gentlemen"s agreement,"

which was designed to restrict the admission of Japanese into this country to
130 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

travelers, students, and the like, through the action of the Japanese Government in issuing passports only to persons coming within the enumerated

classes. According to the views of President Roosevelt, as quoted in the

1922 report, the gentlemen's agreement left the United States free to pass an

exclusion lay if the agreement failed to accomplish the results expected of it.

But the subsequent treaty of commerce and navigation of 1911 contained

the provision that " the citizens and subjects of each of the high contracting

parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the

other upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects." President Roosevelt

criticized this feature of the treaty of 1911 as depriving the United States of

the right to pass an exclusion law; and the clause above quoted has been

frequently invoked in opposition to proposed legislation aimed at Japanese exclusion. To the treaty of 1911, however, was appended a note signed by Baron

Uchida, the Japanese ambassador, declaring that " the Imperial Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation

and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation

of the emigration of laborers to the Unitetd States," and it is this note which

has furnished the basis for the continuance in effect to date of the RootTakahira convention or gentlemen's agreement.

The treaty of 1911, as before mentioned, expired on July 17, 1923, and our

National Government is facing the task of determining whether the treaty

which is to succeed it shall continue to guarantee to Japanese the right to

enter this country subject only to the restrictions of the gentlemen's agreement

or whether the clause of the treaty of 1911 containing that guarantee shall be

so amended as to leave Congress free beyond question to enact an effective

exclusion law.

A forecast of what Japan will attempt to gain in the negotiations relative to

the new treaty and by what methods can, it is believed, be formulated from a

study of her course during former diplomatic encounters between the two

countries.

REVIEW OP JAPANESE-AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

In 1905 the San Francisco school authorities made an order aimed at preventing grown male Japanese from attending school classes with American

children. The incident brought forth such vigorous representations from the

Japanese Government that President Roosevelt sent his Secretary of War, Mr.

Taft, to induce the people of San Francisco to rescind their action, and

through his Attorney General brought suits in the State and Federal courts for

the same purpose.

In 1907 and 1908, pending the negotiations which resulted in the gentlemen's

agreement, the Japanese demonstrations were again so urgent that President

Roosevelt felt impelled to dispatch the American battle fleet on a cruise, which

significantly included a visit to Japan.

1913, when the Legislature of California had under consideration the first

of its proposed laws aimed at preventing Japanese ownership of agricultural

lands, the Japanese manifestations were so threatening that President Wilson

sent his Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, to California to endeavor to prevent

the enactment of that law.

JAPANESE DEMAND FOR A DECLARATION OF " RACIAL EQUALITY "

At the Versailles conference in 1919 the Japanese delegation, headed by

Baron Makino. sought to have incorporated In the covenant of the League of

Nations a clause declaring their " racial equality." On learning of their puruose Senator James D. Phelan, of California, cabled to Secretary of State

Lansing, as follows:

" Any declaration in constitution of league on ' race equality and just treatment ' may be construed to give jurisdiction of league over immigration,

naturalization, elective franchise, land ownership, and intermarriage, and an

affirmative declaration that these are domestic questions should be made in

consonance with established American policy. Believe western Senators and

others will oppose any loophole by which orientals will possess such equality

with white race in the United States. It is a vital question of self-preservation."

The Japanese demand was rejected by the votes of the delegates from the

British Dominions•the American delegates not voting•but Baron Makino

before the close of the conference said:
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 131

" I feel It my duty to declare clearly on this occasion that the Japanese

Government and people find poignant regret at the failure of the commission

to approve of their just demand * * * They will continue in their insistence for the adoption of this principle by the league in the future."

At the first Geneva conference in 1920 the Japanese delegates were furnished

with three drafts of a racial equality measure which they were to present

according to the developments of the conference. As at Versailles, they were

unsuccessful.

CALIFORNIA LAND LAW OF 1920 AND THE MOBBIS-SHIDEHAKA NEGOTIATIONS *

The issue as to the status of the Japanese in this country was brought to

an acute stage when the California Legislature in the spring of 1920 passed a

law greatly strengthening the antialien land law of 1913, and referring the act

to the people to be voted on by them at the 1920 November election. The

reaction of Japan was prompt. Secretary of State Colby was told by Ambassador Shidehara that the proposed law " would cause a wave of anti-American

sentiment in Japan." Press notices from Washington announced that both

Governments were alarmed over the prospect of the measure becoming a law,

and that while the United States Government could not prevent a vote on the

measure the State Department could probably influence the trend of the vote.

Bearing out the latter prediction, Mr. Davis, Acting Secretary of State, on

the eve of the California election issued a statement intended to convey to the

people of California the belief that the enactment of the law by their votes

would be futile, as the Federal Government would take steps to render it of

no effect. Mr. Davis said:

" The movement of California to recast the State laws affecting alien land

tenure has been receiving since its inception the close and interested attention

of the Department of State. * * * The department has had numerous

discussions of the most friendly and candid nature with the ambassador of

Japan, and it is believed he thoroughly realizes, as we have sought to make clear,

that no outcome of the California movement will be acceptable to the country

at large that does not accord with existing and applicable provisions of law,

and, what is equally important, with the national instinct of justice."

The election occurred on November 2, 1920, and resulted in the adoption of

the act by a 4 to 1 vote of the people of California. Never in the history of

the State had a public measure been fought with a greater expenditure of

money than was used in opposing this act. On December 8, 1920, the day

before the act went into effect, Gov. William D. Stephens, of California, in

answer to a request from Secretary of State Colby to be advised of the vote,

telegraphed in part as follows:

" * * * I have no desire to embrace the negotiations now pending between your department and the Government of Japan * * *. From tomorrow on, however, this definite piece of legislation adopted so overwhelmingly

by the people of this State springs into legal life, and as governor of this

States it becomes my duty to see that it is just as vigorously enforced as any

other law upon the statute books. Public opinion on this matter, is overwhelming and very sensitive about any interference with or restraint upon

the sovereign right of the State to deal with its domestic land problems. As

governor. I shall deem it my duty to exercise my full constitutional power in

the enforcement of this statute•justly, of course, but effectively."

In September preceding the November elections at which the California land

law was adopted, the news items had announced that following a series of

informal conversations covering a period of six weeks, Ambassador Shidehara

had been authorized to enter into formal negotiations for a treaty on the

subject of the proposed law and dealing with the subject of immigration.

Numerous dispatches from Tokyo and Washington recorded the progress of the

negotiations and were unvarying in the statement that in return for a revision

of the gentlemen's agreement the United States would consent to the annulment of the California anti-Japanese land laws.

On December 20, 1920, a Washington report stated that the negotiations,

which had been carried on in Washington between Ambassador Roland H.

Morris and Baron Shidehara, had been formulated in the draft of an amendment of the treaty of 1911, the amendment guaranteeing to Japanese subjects

in the United States equal civil rights with the nationals of all other countries, except that of naturalization, it being pointed out that Japan could not

well request the alienation of her own subjects. Apparently the treaty draft
132 JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION

did not amend the immigration clause in the treaty of 1911, which matter was

treated of in a report recommending a revised gentlemen's agreement.

In January, 1921, the draft of the Morris-Shidehara treaty was submitted

to Secretary of State Colby. Upon the announcement of this event Senator

Hiram Johnson, of California, issued a public statement attacking the proposed

treaty wherein he said:

" From authoritative sources it is stated that the agreement between Ambassadors Shidehara' and Morris embraces: (1) An exchange of diplomatic

notes denning passport regulations, etc., which would ' tighten up' the present

gentlemen's agreement relating to exclusion of Japanese from this country

and (2) a treaty defining the rights of nationals of each country, and which

will, in effect, abrogate and destroy the alien land laws of the State of California.

" Tho new gentlemen's agreement, notwithstanding its additional phrases,

can be just as loosely administered as the present one. and, just as in the,

case of the present gentlemen's agreement, it will be honored more in the

breach than in the observance. The result will be, under the suggested agreement, if adopted, a continuance of Japanese immigration and increase in the

Japanese population in the West.

"A situation of this sort is intolerable, and I think I voice the sentiments

of California when I say that in every legitimate and legal fashion the consummation of such a plan will be resisted."

Senator Johnson followed this statement with a demand that the report of

Ambassador Morris be made public. This demand was not complied with but

the result of Senator Johnson's attack was that the treaty was never submitted to the Senate.

PRESIDENT HARDING'S PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT

During the pendency of the Morris-Shidehara negotiations, aroused by the

threatened abrogation of the sovereignty of their State. Governor Stephens

and a delegation of California called upon Senator Harding in the midst of

the presidential campaign of 1920. In answer to their inquiry as to his views

on the Japanese question, Senator Harding said :

" There is abundant evidence of the dangers which lurk in racial differences.

I do not say racial inequalities•I say racial differences. I am ever ready

to recognize that the civilization of the Orient is older than ours, that their

peoples have their proud and honorable traditions.

" In spite of the honor of these oriental peoples and in spite of their contributions to the world's advancement, it is conceivable that they may be so different

in racial characteristics or in manner of life or practice from other peoples

of equal honor and achievement, that no matter whether it be upon the

soil of one or upon the soil of the other, these differences, without raising

the question of inferiority, superiority, or inequality, may create as I believe

they have created upon our Pacific coast, without blame to either side, a friction that must be recognized. The Nation owes it to the Pacific coast to

recognize that fact. The Nation owes it to the Pacific coast States to stand

behind them, in necessary measures consistent with our national honor, to

relieve them of their difficulties."

LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS CONFERENCE

With the issuance of President Harding's call for the Conference on Limitation of Armaments, Japan for the fourth time laid her plans to raise the

issue of " racial equality." A Tokio dispatch stated that a body of professors

who had long been a power in shaping Japanese opinion had prepared a

manifesto as to Japan's position, including the proposal: " Race equality and

other questions to be solved on a basis of human coexistence and a spirit of

justice and humanity." Another Tokio dispatch quoted Premier Hara as

saying that the delegates desired to attain " the removal of the barriers

between the different races."

The Japanese hopes, however, were frustrated when Secretary of State

Hughes issued his proposed list of subjects to be discussed at the conference,

containing no mention of the question of immigration, land ownership, or

race equality. Commenting upon this circumstance a Washington dispatch

said:

" It is known in Washington that the utmost pressure has been brought to

bear by the Japanese upon their Government to insist upon discussion and
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 133

settlement of the immigration issue at the conference. The militarist element has been foremost in that demand. Its newspapers are advancing the

view that the 'open door' which America proclaims as the mainspring of

its Far Eastern policy can not be kept open in Asia and slammed shut in

California. The point is urged that the 'open door' can not honorably be

interpreted to mean only an unrestricted passage for trade; that it ought

to be construed as comprehending unrestricted movement of people, too.

" It is evidently the view of the State Department that the question of deciding who may or may not emigrate to the United States is not a topic

for debate by an international conference. The omission of the subject from

Secretary Hughes's agenda suggestions indicates plainly that we regard immigration a strictly domestic concern."

RESERVATION TO FOUR POWER TREATY EXCLUDING DOMESTIC QUESTIONS

As the Limitation of Armaments Conference proceeded a feeling of concern

developed on the Pacific Coast lest the phrasing of the treaty to result therefrom should be such as by implication, if not by express declaration, to give

Japan ground to argue in future that the United States and the several States

were prohibited by the treaty from enacting measures adverse to the Japanese

desires. A letter was addressed to President Harding signed by John K. Quinn.

Lane Goodell. and C. D. Cunningham, department commanders of the American Legion for California, Oregon, and Washington, which read in part, as

follows:

" From the press dispatches we gather the impression that the efforts of

the American delegates will be directed to the solution of the so-called far

eastern questions, and that it is their purpose to avoid a discussion of the

question of Japanese immigration to this country, upon the theory that this

is a matter of domestic concern and is not a subject for international negotiation.

"With this view we are in hearty accord: hut we think it would he unfortunate if the Japanese delegates returned home in the belief that the movement to terminate Japanese immigration to this country had been automatically put at rest by an agreement expressly or tacitlv professing to settle all

matters in dispute between Japan and the United States. It is our conviction that so long as the question of immigration remains unsettled the chief

cause of friction, and the only one which would justify this country in a resort

to arms, will have been left untouched. * * *

" In view of the situation here outlined, we feel that in fairness to Janan

its delegates to the conference should be unequivocally given to unde'^t'nd

that all questions of immigration are left open to lie settled by the United

States Government as it deems best for the interests of the American people

and independently of all other questions and considerations."

When the four-power treaty was signed it contained a reservation attached

at the instance of the American delegates, and reading as follows:

" In signing the treaty this day between the United States of America, the

British Empire, France, and Japan, it is declared to be the understanding and

intent of the signatory powers: * * *

" 2. That the controversies to which the second paragraph of article 1 refers shall not be taken to embrace questions which according to international

law lie exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the respectve powers."

Commenting upon this reservation a Washington dispatch said:

"That, although not advised at the moment, means particularly the Japanese immigration question. * * * The conference accepts the American view

that questions of immgration are primarily of domestic concern."

Another dispatch said:

" This provision was put in for the express purpose of satisfying that very

large body of Americans inhabiting the Pacific coast and making it clear to

them that the conference would never have power to deal with such questions

as immigration or land ownership. In other words, with such an understanding attached to the four-power treaty it was made certain that Japan could

not appeal to the conference from the acts of State legislatures or of Congress

restricting Japanese immigration or prohibiting Japanese ownership of land."

EXPIRATION OF THE TREATY OF 181J

As already mentioned, the Japanese treaty of 1911 expired on July 17, 1923.

Some months before that date indications appeared as to what Japan's plan

of procedure would be in the matter of negotiating a new treaty. As early
134 JAPANESE IMMIGBATION LEGISLATION

as January, 1923, dispatches from Washington and Tokyo told that Masano

Hanihara, the newly appointed ambassador to the United States, had been instructed to take up the Japanese immigration question upon his arrival in

this country. On May 5, Viscount Shibusawa, speaking at a dinner of the

Japan-American Society in Tokyo, said:

" For the peace of the world and the harmonizing of oriental and occidental

civilizations we have been trying to solve for years the Japan-American

question. Many and various matters have cast threatening clouds over the relations of Japan and America, but most of them have been settled by concessions on the part of Japan. Only one unsettled question remains, i. e.,

the immigration question. We expected to have it settled at the Washington

conference, but we were disappointed. The great European War•a thing

we had thought impossible•did take place."

On May 18, Ambassador Hanihara, addressing the Japanese Society in New

York, stated that the American attitude toward the Japanese immigrant was

the one question in the whole bright outlook which vexed the minds of both

people, adding: " The question is simply one of elementary principle in

international intercourse•that is to say, of discrimination or no discrimination based on color or nationality."

On June 6, a Tokyo dispatcli announced that the appointment of a Joint

high commission was being urged by a group of prominent Japanese, headed

by Viscount Shibusawa, to investigate and fecommend a solution of the

treatment of Japanese in America, and on June 19 a Washington dispatch

stated that Ambassador Hanihara in the near future would ask the United

States to enter negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the

rights of Japanese in this country if the American Government did not soon

indicate a willingness to open such negotiations.

In the meantime, the Japanese in this country, either of their own initiative

or at the instigation of the Japanese Government, have been conducting a

campaign aimed at forcing an issue on the question of their rights.

This campaign made itself evident in March, 1923, when there appeared in

various Pacific coast cities widely circulated petitions printed in the Japanese

language. These petitions were to be signed by resident Japanese and forwarded to members of the Japanese Parliament, prefectural governors,

statesmen, educators, social and public bodies, and by sucli means to the

Japanese Prime Minister. Translated, these petitions read:

" We, the subjects of the Japanese Empire residing in America, are convinced that we are entitled to protection by the government of the home

country, and that we are by treaty entitled to the same treatment by the

American Government which is accorded to the people of all nations. But

the facts are Wholly to the contrary. The 200,000 and more Japanese who

reside on the American mainland and in Hawaii are everywhere in all the

States of America subjected to extraordinary discrimination, persecution, and

insult.

" Fortunately, July of this year is the time for revising the Japan-American

treaty. We believe it to be the proper duty of the government of the home

land to the subjects of the empire not to let this opportunity slip but to deliver

us from our cruel distress by bringing about an agreement, by treaty or otherwise, which shall guarantee the rights and liberties of subjects of the empire

' ineligible to naturalization.'

In view of the foregoing petition and of pronouncements in the local Japanese language press, Mr. H. Takeuchi, editor of the Great Northern Daily

News, a Japanese language newspaper published in Seattle, was asked: " Just

what do you want, your people; what do they expect from the American Government*!1" His reply was:

" We, the Japanese people, want from the American Government the same

treatment accorded to other alien nationals. We want to he admitted to this

country on the same basis as a resident of Europe; to have citizenship rights

the same as an Italian : to intermarry the same as a Freuchinun or Russian

with the American people; to intermingle socially the same as an Englishman;

to have the same business, rights, and protection as a Greek. We want to

be treated fairly; the. same as you treat other immigrants."

To the same effect an article by Kentaro Kaneko in a recent issue of an

American periodical expresses the thought which is animating the entire Japanese nation, and incidentally shows how important was the reservation of

the four-power treaty excluding domestic controversies. The writer says:
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 135

" The Washington conference did not take up any questions dealing with

the internal affairs of the United States or any of the individual States and,

as a consequence, the questions which have been for long years pending between Japan and America were not brought into the discussion at the conference. These pending questions, as all know, are summed up in the one phrase,

'the California question '•the anti-Japanese land laws, the racial discrimination laws, the law prohibiting the intermarriage of Japanese and whites, the

problem of Japanese immigration and dual domicile, the question of education

and religion, the probelm of American agrarian economy, and many others.

" These long pending questions must be solved if we are to maintain the

cordial and amiable friendship which has existed nearly 70 years unblemished

and undisturbed in every way * * *."

THE TEMPORARY 3 PER CENT IMMIGRATION LAW

The present temporary 3 per cent immigration law was approved by President Harding on May 19, 1921, and by its original terms was to expire on

June 30, 1922. In general, the effect of that law is to limit immigration from

any given country to 3 per cent of the number of foreign-born persons of that

nationality resident in the United States as determined by the census of 1910.

The act, however, does not apply to the Japanese, for it contains a clause to

the effect that the 3 per cent provision " shall not apply to aliens from

countries immigration from which is regulated in accordance with treaties

or agreements relating solely to immigration."

In anticipation of the expiration of the temporary 3 per cent law the House

Committee on Immigration conducted hearings throughout the winter of

1921•22, where divers plans were discussed. Not being able to come to an

agreement as to a definite permanent policy, the committee recommended and

Congress oo May 3, 1922, adopted a joint resolution extending the life of the

temporary 3 per cent law for two years, or until .Time 30. 1924.

THE PERMANENT IMMIGRATION MIX

On June 30, 1922, Chairman Albert Johnson, of the House Immigration

Committee, introduced a bill to establish a permanent immigration policy. This

oill, with the committee amendments, was favorably reported to the House

on February 15, 1923. The bill, as reported, provides for reducing the

quota of immigration from any one country to 400. plus 2 per cent of the

foreign-born individuals of such nationality resident in the Unitetd States as

determined by the census of 1890. As to the Japanese, it seeks to bring about

total exclusion under a clause declaring that "an immigrant not eligible to

sitizenship shall not be admitted to the Unitetd States," exceptions being made

in the case of ministers of the gospel, professors of colleges, members of any

learned profession, and bona fide students who seek to enter the Unitetd

States solely for the purpose of study. As explained by Chairman Johnson,

the provisions relating to the Japanese were designed to translate ito law the

terms of the gentlemen's agreement.

PROSPECT OF LEGISLATIVE OH DIPLOMATIC ACTION

A disposition on the part of Congress to avoid arousing Japanese antagonism

following the conclusion of the four power treaty and the prospect of the

adjustment of the immigration question during the process of revising the 1911

treaty of commerce made it impossible for Chairman Johnson to obtain a vote

on the proposed permanent immigration law prior to the adjournment of Congress on March 4, 1923. A statement reflecting the hopes of the pro-Japanese

element in the United States is found in a dispatch from Washington which

said :

"The Washington Government has been given to unerstand that there is no

chance for Senate action on the Johnson bill prior to March 4 * * *. It is

quite likely, before Congress meets next December, this whole matter will be

settled through a treaty made after friendly discussion between representatives

of both governments and free from the harmful effects of abusive and spreadeagle debates. Recall again the treaty of 1911 between the United States and

Japan will expire on July 17. 1923. Negotiations of some sort, therefore, must

take place soon. In view of the agitation in Congress, where the immigration

question has been pending for several years, and on which Pacific coast influence
136 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

has been brought to bear without cessation, it is believed to be inevitable that

the new treaty with Japan will cover specifically the admission of her nationals.

It will not cover it, however, in a way to please the Pacific coast politicians."

The last-quoted sentence is apparently intended to convey the impression

that our State Department is negotiating a treaty which will deal with the

Japanese immigration question in a way displeasing to the people of the Pacific

coast. If such is its purpose this committee can not agree with the writer of

the dispatch. It can not believe that the national administration will agree to

any treaty which would tend to weaken the existing restrictions against

Japanese immigration, grant naturalization rights to Japanese, or annul the

antialien land laws of the Western States.

As was said by Secretary of State Root in discussing the San Francisco

school question: " The protection of the interests of every locality in the

country is always the true interest of the Nation." We believe that the national administration has that true interest at heart, and that the reservation

attached to the four-power treaty excepting all domestic questions from the

purview of that convention constitutes a guaranty, in which the Pacific coast

may place its faith, that nothing will be done by the diplomatic representatives of our Government which will tend to undermine the resistance of the

Western States to the encroachments of the Japanese.

ANTIALIEN LAND LAWS

A reliable index to the feeling of the people of the West on this question

is to be found in the legislation by means of which, in default of action by

the National Government, they have sought to hold back, if they could not

entirely stop, the Japanese incursion. In the 1922 report of this committee

it was shown that laws aimed at preventing the ownership and leasing of

agricultural lands by Japanese had been passed by the legislatures of California, Washington, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and

Nebraska. That report omitted to say that a similar law to meet the same

emergency had been enacted on the Atlantic seaboard by the State of Delaware.

Since the 1922 report was written Oregon, Idaho, and Montana have enacted

antialien land laws based on the California statute, and California and Washington have enacted amendments materially strengthening the laws of those

States. In practically every instance these bills were introduced at the instance of and pressed to a successful conclusion by representatives of the

American Legion in the respective States.

SUPREME COURT NATURALIZATION DECISION

In connection with the pending permanent immigration bill it may be remarked that this bill, if it becomes a law, will have been fortified by the

decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court on November 13, 1922,

declaring Japanese not " white persons " within the meaning of the naturalization statutes. One paragraph of Justice Sutherland's opinion would apply to

the pending bill or to any other exclusion measure which Congress might

enact. It reads:

"The briefs filed on behalf of appellant refer in complimentary terms to the

culture and enlightenment of the Japanese people, and with thin estimate we

have no reason to disagree, hut these are matters which can not enter into

our consideration of the question here at issue. We have no function in the

matter other than to ascertain the will of Congress and declare it. Of course

f* there is not implied, either in the legislation or in our interpretation of it,

any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority."

PROPOSED BILL TO GRANT RIGHT OF NATURALIZATION TO JAPANESE

An aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision was the announcement in

Japanese language newspapers published in this country to the effect that a

United States Senator had promised to introduce and work for the enactment

of a bill to grant the right of naturalization to Japanese. On obtaining translations of these statements the chairman of this committee wrote the Senator

in question, in part, as follows:

"As you are doubtless aware, there exists on the Pacific slope a widespread

and very deep concern over the numbers of the Japanese who have settled on

our soil. There is a feeling that those already here constitute a problem
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 137

which will tax the self-control of our people and the wisdom of our statesmen,

that a mistake was made in letting the Japanese come here at all; and that

the ideal solution of the problem would be to convince the Japanese that the

interests of pence and good will would best be served by their voluntary withdrawal from this country rather than by their continued efforts to increase

their numbers, power, and privileges.

" This feeling is evidenced in many ways, but it is sufficient to mention the

formal expression of it through the enactment of State laws aimed at discouraging further Japanese immigration by forbidding the owning or leasing

of agricultural lands by Japanese under the designation of ' persons not eligible

to citizenship.'

" The attitude of the Japanese toward these laws has been little short of

seditious. They have openly defied them and have resorted to every subterfuge to evade them. But, what is more to the point, they boast that when the

rapidly-increasing numbers of their American-born children come to voting age

they will not only force the repeal of these laws but will break down all other

barriers to the unrestricted admission of their nationals.

" When it is considered that the Japanese births in the State of California

are now more than 5,000 each year, and in the State of Washington more than

1,200 each year, with a total of something more than 50,000 for continental

United States and an even larger number for Hawaii, the formidable character

of this future American-born Japanese vote is apparent. But a bill granting

to Japanese the right of naturalization, if passed, will in addition at once

give the vote to at least 150,000 Japanese-born adults in Hawaii and on

the Pacific coast; and there can be no doubt that these votes will be cast

in a block in support of every demand of the Japanese Government aimed at

overcoming the resistence of the Western States to the admission of its people.

" As it is, there have been, notwithstanding the gentlemen's agreement,

more than 120,000 admissions to continental United States and Hawaii since

that agreement was made. These people have come here, not as future

American citizens in the sense in which immigrants from other countries

have come, but as colonists of Japan, establishing centers of Japanese populaton and influence which are neither more nor less than outposts of the

Japanese Empire on American soil. By the fact that they can never become

an integral part of the American national stock through blood fusion they

are foredoomed to remain among us a race apart. Being so separated from

us by the barrier of race, they can not fail to be an ever-increasing source

of friction and complications between this country and Japan.

" Rather than grant the privilege of citizenship to Japanese immigrants,

it is the belief of the people of the Pacific slope that this privilege should

be withheld not only from the Japan-born arrivals but from their progeny

in this country as well."

YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION SITUATION

The report of this committee for 1922 referred to the struggle which the

men of the American Legion in the Yakima Valley of the State of Washington

have been carrying on to recover the Indian lands on the Yakima Reservation

from the Japanese into whose hands they had largely fallen during the war.

Mention was made of the ruling of former Secretary of the Interior, Albert

B. Fall, to the effect that in future no lease of these lands should be made

or renewed to others than American citizens.

An apparent lack of energy on the part of the resident Indian agent in carrying out Secretary Pall's ruling resulted in thei calling of a mass meeting under

the auspices of the American Legion which was held at Wapato on the evening

of March 28, 1023, and attended by more than a 1,000 farmers of the entire f

Yakima Valley. The meeting resulted in a letter to Secretar

Hubert Work, complaining of the persistence with which the

clinging to their holdings and asking an investigation by the department.

Responsive to this request an investigator appeared and is at the time of this

writing conducting an inquiry into conditions on the reservation. Soon after

his arrival the Indian agent resigned.

During the past summer the chairman of this committee, was advised that

Secretary Work had made a ruling in the ease of a lease by an Indian of oil

lands in Oklahoma, which seemed to reverse the ruling of Secretary Fall in

the matter of the Yakima Reservation leases. The subsequent visit of Secretary Work to the Pacific coast was availed of by a committee of Washington

iei s or me enure

ry of the Interior ,

le Japanese were /
138 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Legion members, headed by Department Commander Lewis B. Schwellenbach,.

who obtained from Secretary Work assurances that he would accord recognition to the anti-alien land law of Washington as having force, under the principle of comity, on the Indian lands under Federal jurisdiction within the territorial limits of that State.

The Yakima Indian Reservation issue is more significant than the mere question whether a million acres of rich soil, irrigated at a cost of $15,000,000 of

Federal money, shall he a land of contented American homes or a Japanese

colony. That question alone would justify the fight which the American

Legion in the State of Washington is making to restore the reservation to

American tenantcy. But, more than this, the situation has furnished the Federal Government an opportunity to take a definite stand in support of the

Pacific coast, and the thanks of the Legion should go to Secretaries Fall and

Work, for the patriotic manner in which they have upheld our comrades in.

the Yakima Valley. Nor can this committee let pass the present opportunity

to say that in standing firmly behind his department heads in this contingency

President Harding made good in striking fashion his preelection assurance that

" the Nation owes it to the Pacific coast States to stand behind them, in necessary measures consistent with our national honor, to relieve them of their

difficulties."

CALIFORNIA FISHERIES SITUATION

Not dissimilar to the situation on the Yakima Reservation is the situation

in regard to the California fisheries, which was mentioned in the 1922 report

of this committee. The present situation is set forth in an article in the Los

Angeles Record of August 29, 1923, from which the following quotation is taken :

" Eight hundred Japanese families have colonized at San Pedro. * * *

The Japanese men who head these families have attained control of fishing

out of San Pedro, despite Federal laws designed to halt them. Japanese

babies are being born so fast that they constituted 20 per cent of the births

in San Pedro during the past 12 months. Since the end of the war every step

made to eliminate Japanese fishermen from San Pedro has been blocked. Half

a dozen United States Senators are urging Federal action. William J. Burns

lias accumulated data for the Department of Justice. But final action of

Government machinery lias been mysteriously blocked for three years. Those

who ask immediate elimination of Japanese fishing activities declare that the

United States is stupidly permitting a situation to gradually assume grave proportions. The longer the solution is delayed, they point out, the more difficult

it will be to solve. Now the American Legion executives of the Pacific coast

have entered the controversy. They are prepared to demand action, as they

did in the Wapato, Wash., colonization."

The statement that the California Legion executives are entering the fight

to return these fisheries to American control is reassuring. This committee

believes that a vigorous fight conducted by them along the lines of that made

by their comrades in Washington with regard to the Yakima Reservation

leases will produce results of the most important character.

HAWAIIAN SITUATION

The 1922 report of this committee goes at considerable length into the situation in the Hawaiian Islands. The testimony before the House Committee on

Immigration, which was incorporated in that report,, revealed conditions in

connection with the strike of the Japanese field hands in 1920 which it was

difficult to believe could exist under the American flag. That testimony has

since received significant corroboration.

As a result of the revelations at the hearings before the House Committee on

Immigration, Secretary of Labor James J. Davis was authorized by Congress

to send a commission to the Hawaiian Islands for the purpose of investigating

the conditions told of at the hearings. The commission consisted of the following : L. E. Sheppard, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Conductors;

Otto Hartwig, secretary of labor of the State of Oregon; Fred Keightly, secretary of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers of

America; John Donlin, president of the building trades department of the

American Federation of Labor; Hyweil Davies, commissioner of conciliations,

Los Angeles, Calif.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 139

The full report of this commission has never been made public, but from that

portion given out by the Secretary of Labor we quote as follows:

" In diagnosing the situation we have arrived at the following conclusions:

* * * That attention should be specially called to the menace to alien domination, and that the present policy of 'parental adoption ' and importation of

'picture brides' by the Japanese should be stopped, because these practices

have defeated the purpose of the so-called ' gentlemen's agreement' by creating a method of genetal reproduction augmented by the picture bride that

will soon overwhelm the territory numerically, politically, and commercially,

unless stopped.

" The menace from a military standpoint can be fully verified by referring

to the records of the related Federal departments.

" The question of national defense submerges all others into insignificance.

If these islands are to remain American, the assured control of the political,

commercial, social, and educational life of the islands must also he American,

and the sooner we wake up to a fuller appreciation of this imperative and immediate need the sooner we will make the people of the Hawaiian Islands feel

generally a greater sense of security and insure control of all that contributes

to make continued living in the Territory of Hawaii worth while.

" In the interest of the national defense and the welfare of American citizenship in the Territory, the commission respectfully and earnestly recommends that the question of alien domination be immediately referred to the

Congress of the United States for the necessary remedial legislation."

Chairman Albert Johnson of the House Committee on Immigration, in his

report on the Hawaiian situation, referring to the report of the Davis commission, observed:

" That report * * * contains statements of such startling character that

the Secretary does not feel at liberty to make its full text public The report has been offered to the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization as a confidential matter to be read in executive session. The committee

declines to receive the report under such conditions. * * *

" The question of labor in the Territory of Hawaii is second to that of the

problem brought about by the rapidly increasing Japanese population. An

attempt at a solution can not long be deferred."

The message of Gov. Wallace R. Farrington, of Hawaii, to the Territorial

Legislature, dated February 21, 1923, contains a number of pertinent observations on the Japanese situation in the Hawaiian Islands from which we quote:

" Hawaii is free from race prejudice. It has developed, however, that

among people coining to this Territory and enjoying our American freedom of

thought and action, an element has arisen that interprets liberty as license

and claims exceptional privilege as a right to be demanded. These malcontents and agitators have been more successful among the Japanese than with

other resident aliens.

" A striking evidence of the operations of these agitators was the attempt

in 1920 to organize a general strike among the Japanese for the purpose of

dominating the laborers in the sugar industry. The spirit prompting the movement was voiced in vicious and insulting propaganda carried on by units of

the Japanese language press. A natural result was conspiracy to destroy life

and property. * * * The insulting attitude of this alien element, its reckless statements directed against our American plan of progress tends to arouse

bitter resentment and lead to radical legislation."

Referring to the attitude of the Japanese toward the law for the supervision of the alien language schools, of which, according to the 1922 report

of this committee there are 160 maintained by the Japanese in the Hawaiian

Islands, with more than 20,000 pupils. Governor Farrington says:

" The administration of this law has brought into striking relief the capacity

of some of the aliens in this Territory to assimilate with Americans. Up to the

present writing it is not necessary to discuss whether some of these aliens can

assimilate. If their defiant and discourteous action means anything, it is that

they have no desire to assimilate. They apparently aim to dictate."

In closing this reference to the situation In the Hawaiian Islands it is thought

proper to repeat for the purpose of emphasis what was mentioned in the 1922

report of this committee, that it is only a matter of a few years•10 at the outside•when the Hawaiian voters of Japanese parentage will hold the balance of

power in the politics of the islands; and a matter of not more than 15 years

when they will be in a position, following the example of the Americans in

1898, to declare the Islands independent of American rule and petition the
140 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Japanese Empire to annex them. Pour years ago this future strength of the

voters of Japanese descent was forecast by the Honolulu Nlppu .Tiji, which

predicted that in 1933 the Japanese vote in Hawaii would decide whether the

Democrats or Republicans would win. A military dictatorship, backed up by

armed forces of overwhelming strength, offers the only guarantee of the retention of American sovereignty over the, islands.

ACTION BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

Without going into statistics as to the Japanese in Canada, where, likewise,

the Chinese and Hindus are very numerous, suffice it to say that the situation

has become so serious that the Canadian Parliament and Government are taking vigorous steps to bring about a termination of all oriental immigration into

the Dominion. In May, 1922, the Canadian House of Commons adopted a

resolution as follows:

" In the opinion of this House, the immigration of oriental aliens and their

rapid multiplication is becoming a serious menace to living conditions, particularly on the Pacific coast, and to the future of the country in general, and the

government should take immediate action with a view of bringing to an end

further such immigration for residence purposes."

In November, 1922, the legislature of British Columbia adopted a government motion calling upon the Federal Government to amend the immigration

act so as to prohibit all Asiatic immigration to Canada. In March, 1923, the

Right Hon. McKenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, informed the House of

Commons that the Canadan Government was negotiating with the Japanese

Government with a view of limiting the number of Japanese immigrants to

Canada to 400 annually. On May 2, of this year, an Ottawa dispatch stated

that official announcement had been made that day that the Dominion Government would enforce stricter regulations against Chinese and Japanese, and

that only merchants and students would be admitted without restrictions.

In the matter of the fisheries, which had almost completely fallen into the

hands of the Japanese, the Canadian Government has recently taken vigorous measures looking to the restoration of the industry to the whites.

RESCUE OF PRESENT DlPI.OMATtC AND LEGISI^ATIVE SITUATION

From the published expressions of Japanese of prominence set out in the

opening portions of this report, it seems clear that the situation confronting

our National Government is as follows:

Japan desires, in view of the expiration of the treaty of 1911, to retain

in the new treaty the present clause guaranteeing to Japanese the right of

unrestricted immigration to this country subject only to a collateral gentlemen's agreement which, like the existing arrangement, shall have only such

force as the diligence of the American Government and the good faith of the

Japanese Government shall give it.

Along with a renewal of the guarantee of unrestricted admission of its

nationals contained in the treaty of 1911, Japan will seek to obtain as many

as she can of the following concessions:

1. A guaranty of the right of Japanese to own and lease agricultural lands

in the United States, which right is not guaranteed in the treaty of 1911.

2. A guaranty against restrictions on the part of the several States against

the right of intermarriage with Americans.

3. Possibly, a guaranty of the right of naturalization with the incidental

right of suffrage, the doubt on this point being due to the fact that Japan insists on retaining the allegiance of its subjects in this country and can not

without inconsistence demand for them the right of expatriation.

Failing to obtain the foregoing by express treaty declaration, Japan will

attempt to gain the same end by means of a declaration of the Japanese

" racial equality."

While seeking to gaiii the above-named concessions by treaty, Japan will

endeavor to prevent the enactment of any form of exclusion legislation by

Congress.

It is important to note that all of the Japanese demands are directed at

the eventual removal of all bars to the immigration of her subjects, even if

the right of free admission guaranteed by the treaty of 1911 should for the

time being be abrogated and an exclusion law be passed; for whatever tends

to strengthen the present hold of the Japanese in this country gives just
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 141

so much more opportunity for the extraordinary Japanese birth rate to bring

about that increase in the number of voters of Japanese parentage to which

the Japanese look with great expectancy and which is causing grave concern

to those who are keeping closely in touch with the Japanese purposes.

Opposed to the Japanese demands are those of the Western States as follows:

1. Elimination from the new treaty of the guaranty of the right of free

admission contained in the treaty of 1*11.

2. Omission from the new treaty of any provision tending to abrogate or

weaken the antialien land laws of the several States, or guaranteeing either

the right of suffrage or the right of intermarriage.

3. Termination of the gentlemen's agreement and restoration of control of

Japanese immigration to the American Government through American officials

4. Substitution for the gentlemen's agreement of a law, as little offensive

to Japan as possible, insuring complete exclusion of Japanese except bona fide

students, travelers, and the like.

THE GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT SHOULD BE TERMINATED

It is worthy of note in considering the present controversy that while Japan

has always professed to seek for its nationals only equality of treatment

with the people of other countries, that country in fact has heretofore uniformly asked for and obtained exceptional treatment for its nationals.

The gentlemen's agreement is believed to be the only agreement ever entered

into by this or any other country under which the sovereign right to regulate

immigration has been surrendered to a foreign government. The real nature

of this agreement was stated with prophetic accuracy 15 years ago in a

protest addressed to Congress by the first international convention of the

Asiatic Exclusion League of North America held in the Seattle Labor Temple,

February 3, 4. and 5, 1908, which states that the convention did most respectfully•

" Protest against the administrative and executive officers of the United

States entering into any agreement which will permit the ruler of any

foreign country to make stipulations as to what class of persons, and in

what numbers, shall leave said foreign country for the purpose of immigrating to the United States;" and did

" Declare that any such agreement with a foreign power is a subversion of

the traditions and policies of the United States, and a betrayal of the

rights of American citizens;" and did further

" Declare that the incoming immigrants into the United States is a matter

for domestic legislation and regulation, and is a prerogative of Congress and

of Congress alone."

Thirteen years later the executive council of the American Federation of

Labor in its report to the 1921 national convention at Denver said:

" The ' gentlemen's agreement' with Japan has proved to be a failure because the Japanese in a cunning and stealthy manner have outwitted the

intent of the law. This peril is not only a serious condition for California,

but it is a positive menace for our entire Nation. The American Federation

of Labor is fully justified in taking a firm stand to do away with the ' gentlemen's agreement' and in its place inaugurate a definite policy calling for

total exclusion of Japanese with all other orientals."

The two foregoing statements emanating from bodies representative of

American organized labor point out as clearly as this committee could hope to

do within the limitations of this report the inherent weakness and the complete failure of the gentlemen's agreement. If more detailed information is

desired as to the particulars wherein that agreement has failed of its purpose

reference is made to the 1922 report of this committee.

This committee recommends in line with the resolutions of the American

Legion at previous national conventions, that the gentlemen's agreement be

immediately terminated.

THE IMMIGRATION CLAUSE IN THE TREATY OF 1011 SHOULD BE ABROGATED

The termination of the gentlemen's agreement without abrogating the immigration clause of the treaty of 1911 would leave the country with no restriction upon Japanese immigration, and would permit to continue the present

doubt as to the power of Congress to enact a valid exclusion law which would

contravene the guarantee of the right of unrestricted immigration contained

95671•24 10
142 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

in that treat}'. It is, therefore, an indispensable corollary of the termination

of the gentlemen's agreement that the treaty of 1911 be declared at an end as

provided for by its own terms, and that any new treaty omit the immigration

clause contained in the treaty of 1911.

RECOMMENDATION AS TO FORM OF EXCLUSION LAW

With the way thus cleared for legislation by Congress, unhampered by doubt

as to the validity of such legislation in the light of treaty provisions, the

question will then be open to consideration as to what form an exclusion lawshould take.

A law expressly naming the Japanese, as in the case of the Chinese exclusion laws, is not necessary.

A law prohibiting immigration from all countries for a specified term of

years would effect a temporary remedy and perhaps accustom the Japanese to

the fact of exclusion without giving them any ground to claim discrimination.

But such a law would be only temporary, for the country will sometime be

ready to reopen its doors to immigration of its own selection, and in that event

Congress will have to decide the question which it is facing now as what

form a Japanese exclusion law should take.

The ultimate permanent solution of the matter appears to this committee

to lie in the resolutions adopted by the last national convention of the American Legion at New Orleans, the principle of which is embodied in the pending

immigration bill. The new Orleans convention said:

I p" Resolved, That this convention urge the enactment, without delay, of laws,

I »nd the negotiation of treaties if required, for the permanent exclusion as

immigrants or permanent residents of the United States of all persons ineligible under the laws thereof to citizenship; and again,

-Resolved, That Congress be urged to permanently deny admission hereafter as immigrants or permanent residents, to all aliens who are ineligible to

citizenship under the laws of the United States."

The American Legion has not been alone in urging the exclusion of the

Japanese by means of a law-making eligibility to citizenship the test for the

admission of immigrants to this country. The 1922 session of the National

Grange at Wichita, Kans., declared:

" The National Grange indorses the provision in the pending immigration

bill denying permanent residence in the United States to all aliens ineligible to

citizenship and urges its Immediate passage by Congress."

That the foregoing had specific reference to the Japanese question is attested

by the further declaration:

" Whereas State laws have proved inadequate for the solution of the Japanese problem: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That means be taken to set forth the facts regarding Japanese

immigration and the latter's rapid penetration into this Nation, as existing

to-day in California and other Pacific Coast States, to the end that means be

taken to advise every Member of Congress and the President of the United

States of the intense feeling of the people of the West in this matter, so absolutely vital to Christian civilization and to the white races of our country."

The 1922 convention of the American Federation of Labor declared:

" Resolved bji the American Federation of Labor, in national convention

assembled, at Cincinnati, Ohio, That we urge Congress to hereafter deny admission, as immigrants and permanent residents, to nil aliens who are ineligible

to citizenship under the laws of the United States."

In a word, the solution of this phase of the Nation's immigration problem is

to be found in the naturalization laws which have been in force since the

Government was established. Throughout the 140 years of our national life

it has been the established policy of this country that certain races should

not be granted American citizenship. In the original expression of that policy

in our naturalization laws and in the reenactment and amendment of these

laws from time to time there has been discrimination as pointed as any of

which Japan can make complaint in the proposal to restrict the immigration

of her nationals. Yet in all that time the right of this country to make such

discrimination has been upheld by Congress, by the courts and by public opinion.

Conformable to the New Orleans resolution of the American Legion, the

pending permanent immigration bill contains the provision that " an immigrant

not eligible to citizenship shall not be admitted to the United States." This
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 143

committee believes that the bill, with the above provision included, should be

passed at the next Congress. The provision can give the Japanese no legitimate

ground for offense, and will not give them offense unless they are determined

to find ground for objection in the unwillingness of the American people to

ignore the racial chasm by which the Creator has separated them from the

Japanese.

It can be said of the pending bill, as the United States Supreme Court in

its recent decision said of the naturalization law, " there is not implied either

in the legislation or in our interpretation of it, any suggestion of individual

unworthiness or racial inferiority." It is, as President Harding said in his

preelection speech to the delegation from California, not a matter of racial

inequalities, but one of racial differences.

AN APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN PRESS

Within the last three or four years many instructive articles have appeared

in American newspapers and periodicals relative to the Japanese situation

both in Hawaii and on the American mainland. These publications are entitled

to the gratitude of the American Legion and of the American people for their

patriotic work in this particular. This committee takes this opportunity to

express its appreciation of the excellent review of its 1922 report in the

American Legion Weekly.

The committee would like to be able to say that the American press had been

a unit in helping to educate the country to the facts of the Japanese situation,

but unfortunately it must be admitted that there exists a considerable portio^^

of the press•some of it located on the Pacific coast•which, for divers reasons,

have lent their columns to disparagement of the Japanese exclusion movement.

The Japanese problem is not a local problem, as many seem to think•-in;^*

volving only the interests of the Pacific slope. It is a national problem in

every sense of the word, and unless it is soon disposed of in a way to safeguard the interests and ideals of the American people the Nation can not long

keep from becoming involved in the controversies which are inseparable

from it.

The people of the Pacific coast in their resistance to the Japanese are not

making a selfish stand. They are as truly rendering a patriotic service to the

Nation in their endeavors to prevent the infiltration of the Japanese as if

they stood in the trenches with rifles in their hands resisting the advance of

an armed invasion. The Nation has no better right to remain idle and see

them make the fight unaided than a commanding general would have to ignore

a call for help from the men in his front line trench who are fighting to hold

back the enemy until reinforcements could arrive.

This committee, therefore, appeals to the American press; to American

writers, corespondents, and publishers to consecrate their talents and facilities to a study and exposition of this vital problem, to the end that the American people may know the facts and take the necessary remedial action before

it is too late.

Respectfully submitted.

THOMAS N. SWALE,

Chairman National Oriental Committee American Legion.

JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

SATUBDAY, MARCH 15, 1924

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment on yesterday, at 10.30

o'clock a. m., in the Immigration Committee room, the Capitol, Senator LeBaron B. Colt presiding.

Present: Senators Colt (chairman), Keyes, Reed of Pennsylvania,

King, and Shields.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I have a telegram from Doctor Gulick reading:

Kindly authorize my filing with committee for record formal statement on

Phelan's false and libelous charges concerning my alleged relations with Japan.

Request your committee require him furnish proof.

I have a further telegram from Doctor Gulick, which reads:

Information just to hand reports statement by L. E. Ross director California State Bureau Vital Statistics, that Japanese population, California, 1923,

was 79,831, and that annual number Japanese births is practically stationary.

This is a marked contrast to V. S. McClatchy and James D. Phelan's assertions of 100,000, and my own rough estimate of between 80,000 and 85,000.

Kindly read to committee.

I have also a communication from the Secretary of State requesting that we put into the nonquota class aliens from countries, immigration from which is regulated by treaty.

This letter will be made a part of the record.

(The communication in question is printed in the record in full, as

follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington March 14, 1924.

DEAE SENATOR COLT: Referring to my letter of February 19, 1924, inclosing

a copy of the letter I addressed to Representative Johnson on February 8,

1924, with respect to H. R. 6540, I beg to inclose for your information a copy

of a letter dated March 14, 1924, which I have forwarded to Mr. Johnson,!

concerning the amendment I suggested to section 3 for the purpose of avoid-l

ing a conflict between the provisions of our treaties and those of the bill, j

I am, my dear Senator Colt, very sincerely yours,

CHARLES E. HUGHES.

MARCH 14, 1924.

Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON,

Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. JOHNSON : Referring to my letter of February 8, 1924, I beg

to say that I understand there is some objection to the insertion of the exception I suggested In section 3 of H. R. 6540, for the purpose of avoiding a

conflict between the provisions of our treaties and those of this bill, upon

145
146 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

the ground that the suggested exception would apply to treaties that might be

hereafter negotiated. Of course, I can not in any way acquiesce in any arrangement or understanding or proposal which was apparently aimed at a

limitation of the authority of the Executive in the negotiation of treaties,

and it is hardly to be supposed that any treaty would receive the essential

assent of two-thirds of the Senate if it were opposed to the wishes of the

Congress.

However, in the exception that I proposed, I had in mind the existing

treaties of the United States and my desire was to avoid an unfortunate

violation of our international obligations by provisions in the bill which

I believed to be inconsistent therewith. Accordingly, and in pursuance of

this intent, I have no objection to the phrasing of the exception so as to

make it read, " an alien entitled to enter the United States under the provisions of an existing treaty."

I am, my dear Mr. Johnson, very sincerely yours,

CHARLES B. HUGHES.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, we will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL M. SHORTRIDGE, UNITED STATES

SENATOE FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator SHOKTRIDGE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my first duty is to thank the committee for the very patient,

thoughtful attention it has thus far given to this problem of immigration, particularly as it bears upon oriental immigration, or the

immigration into our country of peoples ineligible to citizenship,

and I am very sure that that patient and thoughful attention will

continue to be given to the problem until it is solved.

I had intended some weeks ago to develop very fully the problem

as we view it, but inasmuch as you have been good enough, in the

performance of your duty, to listen to others, my labors will necessarily be curtailed, certainly in so far as the hearings before the committee are concerned. Later it will be my duty to make some observations to the Senate concerning these matters.

Mr. McClatchy so fully went into the details touching the material

facts involved that perhaps nothing further can or need be said.

You will recall, that he urged and dwelt upon various facts, all of

which are to be weighed and considered in arriving at a policy. I

need not, of course do more than merely refer to them as I now do,

holding myself ready, if it should ever become necessary, to fortify,

strengthen and defend every fact and every statement of fact that

Mr. McClatchy has made. For he does not speak idly; he speaks

authoritatively, as result of long study and accurate information.

As I said when this hearing was opened, no one in California, no

one in this country, has devoted more time, more unselfish attention

to this problem than has Mr. McClatchy, and no one who knows him

can question the absolute sincerity of his views, or his broad American patriotism.

If those qualities and characteristics have not been fully displayed here before you as a committee, I wish to say that we who

know him know that he is animated by loftiest patriotism, and

that his patriotism is not limited, so to speak, by the territorial

boundaries of California. He is an American as you are, and as

we are, and whilst he speaks immediately for California, he has

in contemplation always the welfare of the whole Nation as a

nation.
JAPANESE IMMIGKATION LEGISLATION 147

And I can say the same thing of General Webb. You remember

I recalled that he had been our attorney general so long that the

memory of man runneth not to the contrary, or, in other words,

to speak accurately, he has been our attorney general for full 16

years, and possibly longer, being elected every four years practically unanimously by the people of our State. So that his views

as to the treaty-making power of the Constitution, as to the power

of the Congress in cooperation with the President in the matter

of the passage of statutes, as to the reserved powers of the States to

deal with domestic municipal questions within the State, as these

questions impinge upon or have to do or may come in conflict with

the powers of Congress to legislate in respect of our intercourse

with foreign nations•his views as to these questions are entitled

to great weight, for General Webb for many years has had to do

with these and many other related questions which are to be considered by us in framing an immigration bill.

The question of the naturalization of certain orientals has engaged his attention. As has been remarked, comparatively recently

a Japanese applied for naturalization under our existing laws.

Well, it was due largely•and I take pleasure in giving him the

credit•it was due very largely to the learning, the masterly presentation of that problem to our Supreme Court that in the late

decision referred to it was held, determined, that under existing

naturalization laws a Japanese is not eligible to naturalization or

citizenship.

I scarcely need to say that Senator Phelan is equally familiar

with this whole problem, as he made so manifest in his plendid presentation of this matter before this committee. So that it would be

a work of supererogation for me to go over the matter in detail,

and, indeed, it may seem unnecessary for me to add a word to what

has been presented to the committee. But accredited to speak, in a

sense, authoritatively, for California; feeling so deeply on this question, and having devoted so many years to its study; entertaining

fixed opinions as to the policy which our Nation should adopt and

continue to adhere to; and having a fixed opinion as to the power

of Congress to legislate on this subject without giving just offense

to any nation, I am going to trespass a few moments, by your

courtesy, to consider the problem, perhaps from a somewhat different viewpoint, yet approving all that has been said.

First, I would have the Senate, I would have you learned men,

chosen representatives from great States•Senators of the United

States•not Senators of individual States, but Senators of the

United States•I would have you consider and have my country consider the form of government our fathers set up and which thus far

we have maintained, a representative government, a republican form

of government, a Republic.

I need not remind you that this form of government calls for the

highest type of intelligent citizenship. The history of the world,

wet with tears and blood, teaches us that a Republic to be maintained,

to be perpetuated as a blessing, must be sustained, guarded, watched

over, not only by love and devotion, but by wisdom. I am not saying this merely to use words, but these thoughts I have sought to

impress upon many, many people during the last 25, 30, or more

years, and I have said, and I bee to repeat to you, that just as great
148 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

wisdom, born of historic knowledge, and with foresight, framed

our Constitution, so wisdom has preserved it and wisdom must

maintain and guide it.

That brings me to the fundamental principle upon which I stand.

and upon which I submit this Nation rests, and upon which its security depends, and that is that we must have a loyal, patriotic, devoted, intelligent citizenship. In a word, one people, a homogenous

people, with one altar of patriotism, with one Constitution to which

all are devoted, and of course, as the symbol of the Nation, just one

flag in the sky, one flag. So that with love, devotion, loyalty, patriotism, intelligence and wisdom, the Nation we love and which we

hold in trust shall be preserved and perpetuated.

Now, what has been the policy of our Nation as to citizenship?

You have been reminded that from the first naturalization law

passed in 1790, the fathers then and their successors down to this

hour recognized that here on this Continent, was to be founded, and

was founded, a Republic, the United States of America. The Convention in Philadelphia had framed and formed that Government,

and whilst the new Republic was then a haven for the oppressed and

downtrodden of the earth, and whilst America reached out her arms

and welcomed all the broken in spirit, the heavy burdened, and the

sorrowing, yet from the outset we recognized, our fathers•Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, the great Judge Wilson of

Pennsylvania•all recognized that if we were to have this form of

government we must have a certain type of citizen, and so we have

the act of 1790, and that act in respect to the type of men who should

become citizens of America has remained the same with the one exception, that out of the great tragedy of the Civil War we amended

the act to the extent of making eligible to citizenship the African

or those of African descent.

But that national policy, from 1790 to this hour has run along like

the Gulf stream, and no statesman has risen to question the wisdom

of that policy. No man esteemed as a statesman, who can contemplate the past, see the present and glance into the future, has questioned the wisdom of that policy.

I am very well aware that latterly it has been suggested, by Mr.

Wickersham in his argument in the Supreme Court, that when our

fathers adopted this policy they were ignorant of the existence of the

great populations that lie over yonder in the hoary, gray east. But

gentlemen, they were not so ignorant as this argument supposes.

Anyone who has read the works of John Adams, anyone familiar

with Hamilton or Franklin or the great Judge Wilson whom I mentioned, or others whom I could mention of those fifty-odd men who

met in Philadelphia and framed our Government must come to know

that they were historians, and were quite well aware that there was

the great Continent of Asia and that it was vastly populated as it

is to-day. But they conceived that there was a type of civilization

peculiar to western Europe, They, as you and I, and races of western

Europe, belonged to the Aryan branch of the human family. They

were Caucasians, Anglo-Saxons. If it be that humanity came down

over the Himalayas to settle ultimately in the rich fertile valleys

of the Euphrates and the Tigris, in what was, speaking broadly,

ancient Mesopotamia, or the earlier Chaldea or Turania, at any
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 149

rate, we know that one branch of the human family flowed off to the

east and that another branch of the human family flowed to the west,

down around into Egypt, ultimately into ancient Greece, and on to

the west. So that the stream of the human family divided, one

branch flowing to the east, the other to the west.

We belong therefore to the Aryan branch of the human family,

to the Caucasian branch, to the Anglo-Saxon branch, and we

have developed through the centuries a capacity for self-government, a capacity for organized government, for* representative

government, for a republic, carrying into and through it what we

may call the democratic idea, a people who make their own laws,

who interpret their own laws, who execute their own laws. Wisely

and knowingly this naturalization-citizenship policy of ours which

was adopted in 1790, lias continued on down through the century

and has limited citizenship to the races I have mentioned, with the

exception of those of African descent, and excluded all other

races. We stand for that policy. Who would abandon it? In

harmony with this naturalization-citizenship policy we would

exclude aliens ineligible to citzenship, and for reasons manifest

and convincing.

Reference has been made to the race problems which we now

have. It is even so; we have had great race problems. One of

the greatest race problems which we have had and which we still

have grows out of the presence in America of some ten or eleven,

probably twelve millions of negroes, either of the pure negro type

or of the hybrid type, due to intermarriage. I merely allude to

that problem in brief. I said a quarter of a century ago and I say

to you now, and I shall say to the Senate, that remembering the

tragedy which came very near wrecking this republic, having regard to all that has passed, it would have been better if the negro

had never landed at Jamestown, the same year, if I remember

Senator SHIELDS (interposing). You mean at Plymouth Rock.

There is where he came in. He came in up there and came down

to the South.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. NO, Senator; I am historically correct when

I say

Senator SHIELDS. Read your history again. The negro was

brought to England and was found unprofitable, and then he was

brought to the South.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The first slaves brought to America were

brought to Jamestown, and it happened to be the same year that

the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. You will find that historically correct, and sympathizing with you with my whole heart, I

say, as bearing on this new race problem, it would have been

better if the negro had never been brought to America.

That race problem then was, as it were, as a man's hand in the

sky, a little cloud. But we know how it grew, and we know the

sorrow it caused. We know, as the Senator from Tennessee knows,

that our fathers deplored it. The South more than any other section deplored it. And the great Thomas Jefferson, in the draft

of the Declaration of Independence, inveighed against and indicted England for furthering and encouraging that migration to

America.
150 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, there is no question before

this committee with regard to naturalization, or as to enlarging

our present naturalization laws.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I appreciate that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question before the committee.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, Senator, and I have been indulging in

too many words, possibly, but I say that if the right to come here is

placed upon the quota basis, it is the entering wedge in a problem which affects and threatens the national policy as to naturalization.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the very problem.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I so observed that. It is not a rhetorical

expression, but it seems to me that it would have been better if Eli

Whitney had not been born, because this great fertile southland,

made up of so many splendid men and noble women, so honorably

connected with our history, would have been better off without the

race problem his invention developed. We see the problem they

have to deal with. We appreciate it. Sometimes we differ as to the

way to deal with it, but we deal with it. That burden is there. That

problem is there, an economic problem, a social problem, a political problem; and, Senators, what I am urging here

Senator SHIELDS. You, I suppose, are appearing here on the Japanese question.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, Senator.

Senator SHIELDS. If you will show us how you can get along with

the Japanese in California, as well as the whites and the negroes in

the South, who are working out their own problems for themselves

and are doing it successfully to the benefit of both races, when not

interfered with by other sections, then there would be some chance

for the Japanese to come here. I am not very favorable to them now,

but do not make any parallel with the South about it. We want the

negro there. We are treating him fairly and justly, and he is doing

better there than he ever did in the history of the world. He is better civilized, better educated, has more protection under the law,

and in every way. That is more than you are doing for the Japanese. Let us hear what you can do for the Japanese. We have had

enough of this negro question and enough advice about it in the

South, and there is no immigration question as to the negroes to the

South.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, Senator, hasn't it been a problem with

you?

Senator SHIELDS. And we are solving it, and have solved it, and

we are getting along fine now. Both races are dwelling together

in harmony and unity, as well as two races can, and prospering.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, that is a very happy solution, if you

have solved it, and I trust you have, and I will proceed then to say

that we do not wish to introduce into this country another race

problem. I so term it. And, therefore, we of the West are standing

m opposition to oriental immigration and we are asking in this bill

for the exclusion of all aliens ineligible to citizenship.

Senator SHIELDS. I want to act sensibly on this. How many

people have you got in California, about 3,000,000?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. We have nearly 4,000,000.

Senator SHIELDS. And you have about 80,000 Japanese?
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 151

Senator SHORTRIDGE. We claim fully 100,000.

Senator SHIELDS. Are those Japanese stronger than the 4,000,-

000 whites there, and are they running your country? Are they a

menace to you ? Let us get down to that. What is the real question

in regard to this ?

Senator. SHORTMDOE. I will get down to it.

Senator SHIELDS. What is the real question with regard to this

Japanese immigration?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Our opposition to this immigration is, first:

We ought not to admit into this country any peoples, with certain

exceptions, who are ineligible to citizenship. That is an immigration

policy which is in harmony with our naturalization policy, adopted in

1790. The naturalization act of 1790 limited those who could become

citizens, and that has excluded fully one-half, and perhaps more

than one-half, of the whole human family, all the great oriental population. That has been our policy and we seek to continue it, and we

believe, Senator, it is unwise, and I think you will agree with me,

that we should not admit into this country vast masses of peoples

who never can become citizens.

Our opposition to oriental immigration is based on another ground.

We are objecting on the economic grounds. Their standard of life

and living is such that our people, the American family with father,

mother, and children, with churches and schools, can not successfully compete with them, and the result is, they drive out our own

people. They colonize and live apart. They settle in masses in the

fertile sections and acquire control over the labor of that immediate

section.

Latterly, as you know, the Supreme Court has held that our State

laws in respect to the ownership and leasing of agricultural lands are

perfectly constitutional. Our contention was, and it is involved in

this discussion here, that an alien had only those rights which are

affirmatively set down in a given treaty, and that the treaty of 1911

between our country and Japan, for example, did not give the right

to own or lease agricultural land. That law was questioned, and it

went through the courts up to the Supreme Court, and resulted

in a decision which must be of great comfort to all men who believe as I believe, that there are many reserved rights of the States,

and one of those reserved rights is the right to determine who shall

own and cultivate its land.

The Supreme Court decided that the Alien Japanese could not

own agricultural land; second, that they could not enter into leases

for a term of years; and third, that they could not circumvent and

defeat the law by certain crop contracts, which were declared to be

illegal.

This exclusion provision in the immigration bill does not apply

alone to the Japanese. It applies to all those races not eligible to

citizenship. But since Japan is the only nation that has objected or

protested against this legislation, our attention, of course, is necessarily called to the Japanese, and therefore we are opposing them

because of economic reasons and because of the noncitizenship

quality of this immigration.

Senator Phelan, Mr. McClatchy, and Attorney General Webb discussed this provision in the bill, and as I said before the Senators

from Tennesse and Utah came in, they have covered the field so
152 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

fully that it will not be necessary for me to go into details. Answering a question put to me a moment ago, there is a dispute as to the

number of Japanese in California. The Federal census gives some

seventy-odd thousand. The Japanese authorities admit eighty-odd

thousand. We claim there are over 100,000 Japanese in California.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, isn't this the first time in the

history of this country since the adoption of the Constitution 135

years ago that it has ever been proposed that we should limit immigration to those who might become citizens? I don't want to get

confused in my mind between the immigrant status and the citizen

status.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. NO; it is not the first time, Senator. We

excluded the Chinese by legislative act.

The CHAIRMAN. I know we did.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It might not have been upon the ground of

ineligibility to citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an immigration problem.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I grant you it might not have been upon

that ground, the ground of their ineligibility to citizenship. I am

not familiar with any debate that grounded Chinese exclusion on the

proposition of noncitizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU are resting on the broad proposition that we

should admit nobody here as an immigrant who can not become a

citizen ?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; with certain specified exceptions.

The CHAIRMAN. What I want to say is that that is a new policy

so far as the United States is concerned.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, Senator. It is the application of a century-old policy that certain races were not eligible to citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. I am aware of that.

Senator SHIELDS. I think you might say further, if it is the first

time such a policy has been advocated in this country, it is only in

late years that such a policy was called for.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes.

Senator SHIELDS. And in the early days we sought immigration

to populate and to improve the great West. We were not particular

about the class of immigrants. We got a very fine class and they

came here to go to the West, clear up those forests and open the

mines and become citizens, and they did become citizens. But there

has been a marked change in immigration and there is such a thing

in all matters, including immigration, of getting enough of a good

thing, and we have got about enough of it, and we have got to have

some time to assimilate the dose and digest the stomach full we have

got. Those are questions which call for this policy of citizenship or

anything else that tends to restrict immigration for a while, at least.

I think it is very well•you can argue that question of citizenship

under those conditions, in the light of facts.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Your mind runs in the same channel as mine.

Senator.

Senator SHIELDS. I want to say this is nothing new. It has happened in other countries, that they thought they were getting too

many. A conquest can be made not only in war, but in peace. Scotland is alarmed, I see recently, by the Irish immigration. No doubt
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 153

the Japanese think they are improving California by sending so

many over there, and if you leave it to me, I think the Irish would

improve Scotland, but the Scotch are very much opposed to it.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. For example, there was no objection to the

Chinese away back in the early days, but there came a time when

there was a unanimity of sentiment against their further coming,

and hence Congress, as you know, passed the Chinese Exclusion Act,

and it exercised that power of controlling immigration without consulting China, and, indeed, without giving any just offense to China,

for the right to regulate immigration is a recognized right, the

recognized right of every independent souverign nation, and my

broad proposition is, and I have stated it, and I propose to state it

here and elsewhere, everywhere, and at all times, that this Nation

can regulate the matter of immigration without consulting other nations and without giving just offense to other nations.

That right has been recently recognized. It has been formally

recognized here within a year, not only by European nations, but

by the Asiatic nations, and particularly by Japan.

Time was when we reached out our arms and welcomed here all

the races of man, but the time lias come, the time is here, when we

must close, either wholly or partly, the doors of the Atlantic, and I

think we should close the doors of the Pacific to the coming of

Asiatic immigration, with the exceptions which appear in this bill,

such as merchants admitted under present treaties of commerce,

students, travellers, ministers of their religion, and those temporarilv

absent. There are certain nonquota subjects which should be admitted. There are certain exceptions to the immigrant clause. We

have a perfect right to thus legislate. It is not an offense to any

other nation to do so. Just as Japan, without considering China, has

excluded the Chinese; just as she has excluded the Koreans, though

dominating over them; so we, not because of our power, not because

we are claiming to be superior, but in the exercise of our admitted

right, and for our own benefit as we conceive it, may exclude certain

peoples, and neither Japan nor China nor Siam nor any of the

Strait Settlements, nor any of the peoples of the earth have any just

cause to complain of our actions.

I have always maintained the position, and I submit it to the learning of the lawyers here, that the treaty-making power has its limitations. The treaty-making power can not and should not be held to

control the Congress in respect to legislation upon the subject of immigration. That has been declared in all books of law dealing with

our Constitution, and it was admitted by the declaration accompanying the ratification of the four-power treaty which was the result

of the late great conference here. Not to take too much time, many

documents or statements of facts and figures which I can not submit to you in person orally I will ask the privilege of incorporating

in my remarks, to be a part of the record here.

Senator REED of Pennsvlvania. May I interject a question?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, Senator.

Senator REED of Pennsvlvania. If I correctly understand the attitude of the committee, there isn't in our minds the slightest doubt

of our power to adopt this exclusion clause that appears in Mr.

Johnson's bill. What the committee seems to desire light on principally is the advisability of adopting that policy, where it is shown
154 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

by the immigration report that in the last fiscal year our net increase of immigration was only 399 Japanese. The question is

whether the quota law would not be simply an additional bar to the

bar thatis at present set up by the gentlemen's agreement.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. And whether it is worth while,

where we have been to such pains to show our friendly intentions to

Japan by the disarmament treaty, and by what we were fortunately

able to do in their behalf at the time of the earthquake, whether it is

a wise thing to give this offense to a friendly government where the

net increase of immigration is so small?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, in the first place, I don't think we will

give any offense; certainly, no just offense, and, secondly, as to the

figures or statistics, Senator, we have said before, and we repeat, that

there has been a steady, continuous increase in the Japanese population in California. That has been due to those who come and to

the births.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. It is not within our power to stop

the births, Senator.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Oh, certainly not; and we are dealing with a

concrete situation, which is as I have stated. What their comings

and goings may show•whether for a given six months or a

given year there might be a net increase or a net decrease•I am not

concerned with that. We are concerned, and vou are, with the ultimate conclusion. Has there been a falling off in the population as

was contemplated by President Roosevelt as of the time of entering

into the gentlemen's agreement, or has there been, as a matter of fact.

a steady increase due to those who come under the terms of the agreement, to those who have smuggled themselves in, and to births?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, what Senator Reed has

asked is a question that is, I might say. troubling the committee; in

other words, the question whether to extend the quota laws to the

Japanese. Let us look at the present law. The present law puts in

the nonquota class aliens from countries immigration from which

is regulated in accordance with treaties or agreements relating to immigration.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That refers to this Japanese agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the present law; the gentlemen's agreement and the treaties; immigrants admitted under the treaties.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Because, while you have in the nonquota classes

those coming in here temporarily for the purpose of business or

travel, the Secretary of State says that that provision is not broad

enough to cover our commercial treaties with Norway and Sweden,

etc. I have a letter from the Secretary this morning in which he

says that he does hope we will put in the nonquota class aliens from

countries immigration from which is regulated in accordance with

treaties.

Now, I understand that the objections of California to putting

Japan upon the quota class would be this: That it would in effect•

and when I say the quota class I mean immigration as applied to

Europe•put Japan upon an equality with Europe, a racial equality

with Europe, and that, you argue, woidd be the entering wedge

which might lead finally to the breaking down of the citizenship
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 155

law and admitting the Japanese to citizenship. Isn't that your

argument ?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It is, as was presented yesterday by Senator

Phelan.

The CHAIRMAN. But I would be very glad, and I know the committee would be glad, if you would just tell the reason why you

object to putting Japan in the quota class, which the Secretary of

State evidently suggests.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; there has been a suggestion, there has

been a statement•perhaps coming to this committee; I have heard

it in many places•that the treaty-making power could solve this

problem. I repeat myself when I say that there are limitations to

the treaty-making power and that Congress ought not to abdicate

its power to control the subject of immigration, which is a domestic

question. It is a question over which Congress, meaning both

Houses and the President, has control, and that it is not offensive to

a foreign nation when the Congress of the United States legislates

upon this subject.

That is what I want to leave with the committee.

Now, we have a treaty with Japan, the treaty of 1911. Anterior

to that we had what was called the gentlemen's agreement. Of

course, it was not a treaty. Of course, in the legal sense, it had no

validity, but it was an understanding, an arrangement, entered into

through the President and the representatives of Japan to control,

in a measure, this question of the immigration of the Japanese into

the United States.

Now, I am necessarily repeating here what has been said again

and yet again, when I say that President Roosevelt thought, and if

the other party to the agreement was candid, he thought that that

agreement would result in the gradual diminution of Japanese in the

State of California. There is every evidence of that. I won't take

up your time to read it, but it is here in the autobiography of President Roosevelt: it is evidenced by correspondence, by contemporaneous statements of newspapers, by telegrams from the President

to our State legislature at Sacramento, and nobody is warranted

in doubting that this Government, speaking through the President,

entered into that understanding, at the time, in the firm belief that

if the agreement were carried out in good faith there would be a

gradual diminution, falling off, of the population of Japanese in

California. Now, that is a fact.

Coming back to the thought thrown out by Senator Reed, the

result has been just the contrary. There has been a steady, continuous increase in that population, made up very largely by the bringing

in of women under the so-called picture-bride process, and since then

increased by the bringing in of women under new schemes of marriage. A man, resident in California, makes a hasty trip to Japan,

there selects or has selected for him a wife, and returns to California

speedily with his wife, and, of course, from that union there come

children. So that we ought not to get into any controversy over the

fundamental facts. Now, whether it is wise that that should be so,

that is the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shortridge, the White House has called

you, I am informed, by telephone, four times. They know you are
156 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

appearing before this committee. If you wish, we will take a fiveminute recess.

(At this point a recess of five minutes was taken, at the conclusion of which the following occurred:)

The CHAIRMAN. YOU may continue. Senator Shortridge.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The fact is that there has been this steady increase in population of Japanese in California due to the reasons

stated, and in that respect it has been a defeating of the very purpose of the gentlemen's agreement. It has been pointed out again

and again, and it ought to be accepted as the fact.

Now, we understand what the gentlemen's agreement was; that

is, in its general scope and purpose. Whether it was ever reduced

to a formal agreement, whether it was made up of written notes,

or in part oral understanding, we do not know; all vague and uncertain; but we have all agreed, everybody has agreed, that the

purpose of it was as stated. And that purpose has been defeated.

Hence, the increased agitation, the increased friction, and hence

we are brought to the present situation.

Now, the thing that has disturbed many minds, and I am sure

has your earnest attention is this: Whether we, having the power

and having the acknowledged right to exercise the power to control immigration, should do so by statute regulation or by way of

treaty arrangement.

Now, I have said, and with great deference to others I maintain,

that the treaty-making power is not all-comprehensive, and that it

does not take in this domestic national question, over which the Congress has complete control. I must assume that foreign statesmen

are familiar with our form of government and therefore when, at

the conclusion of the late great conference and the entering into of

this four-power treaty, that accompanying declaration was signed;

it was a recognition by all these nations that a domestic question

such as this is within the control of the individual nation. Therefore I can not see why China, Japan, or any other foreign country

should find fault with us if we adopt a policy which we think is for

our national benefit.

Let me emphasize that the gentlemen's agreement was before the

treaty of 1911, and in that accompanying note of Japan she said

that she would continue to observe this gentlemen's agreement. The

treaty is before you. It sets no limit upon the number who may

come. It is very indefinite or uncertain as to numbers.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU mean the treaty?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; the treaty of 1911.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Shortridge, these commercial or

trade treaties deal with persons who are not immigrants, according

to the ordinary acceptation of that term.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I agree with you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. An immigrant is a person who comes here to stay

permanently. A trade agreement deals with traders who may stay

here a more or less lengthy time.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Please observe the particular terms of this

treaty.

ARTICLE I. The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties

shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territory of the other, to

carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own and lease and occupy houses.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 157

manufactories, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to

lease land for residential and .commercial purposes, and generally to do anything Incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens

or subjects, submitting them to the laws and regulations there established.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU claim that that is beyond the treaty-making

power of the United States?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. NO; I do not, but I claim that it does not

prevent Congress in the legitimate exercise of its legitimate power

to modify, add to, or take away.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You have the power to build a spite

fence, but you don't always do it. I concede the power. There is

no question about the power.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. All right. The point is this, Senator. It

was feared that that treaty was too broad and that it would permit

an unlimited number of Japanese to enter America. Therefore, accompanying this treaty was this declaration which it might be well

to read.

In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States the undersigned Japanese ambassador in Washington, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to

declare that the Imperial Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain

with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the

past three years exercised in regulation of the immigration of laborers to the

United States.

That is signed February 21, 1911.

I am not criticizing; I am merely stating that this treaty, as

drafted, was charged with great danger from our point of view,

and that it was deemed at least prudent to have Japan make this

declaration in regard to the so-called gentlemen's agreement.

Now, we say, assuming that that declaration was correct, namely,

that they had effectively carried out the gentlemen's agreement of

1907-8•assuming that, we know that whether willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, the purpose of that gentlemen's

agreement has not been carried out, and there has been this steady

increase of this undesirable population or people.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Japan ever issued any passports to laborers

under the gentlemen's agreement ?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, I maintain that she has. I maintain

that under the guise of students they come here and at once change

from the. status of a student into that of a laborer.

The CHAIRMAN. Doesn't the weakness of the gentlemen's agreement lie in the fact that it specifically provides for the admission

of the wives and children of the laborers, and has not that been the

cause of the increase in the population?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes; Senator. The number that has come

in under the guise of wives has been stated, and, of course, to that

extent, it was violative of the very purpose, the dominating purpose

of President Roosevelt and of the gentlemen and statesmen of that

year•1907 and 1908.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Senator Shortridge, you realize

that under the bill the committee has before it, all such wives would

be within the quota law. There are no exceptions such as that.

The immigration last year from Japan was a gross total of 5,600.

That is cut down 90 per cent by this law we have before us now.

95671•24 11
158 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Let me ask this question: Will this act,, along

the lines suggested, nullify the gentlemen's agreement?

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. No; it will simply be an additional limitation.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is the contention. Well, my contenitioni

is that by enacting a law excluding all aliens ineligible to citizenship, with the exceptions which the Johnson bill contains, will not

be violative, indeed, of the true intent and purpose of the gentlemen's agreement•-that is to say, the number who can come in here

now under the gentlemen's agreement, if carried out, is very limited.

We admit under this bill students; we admit ministers; we admit

those who were here of right and temporarily absent. There is a

certain nonquota class, and so, for trade purposes, we are not materially modifying the 1911 statute, so far as trade is concerned and

so far as commerce is concerned.

Senator REED, of Pennsylvania. Senator, I don't want to interrupt

you too much, but I would like to have you understand the difference.

Under the Johnson bill the Japanese wives of American citizens

of Japanese birth would be admitted regardless of quota.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Regardless of the exclusion clause.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Under the bill before the Senate

committee those persons would all be under the quota limitations.

Practically, the number of Japanese admissions under the Johnson

bill will be considerably in excess of the number admitted under the

Senate bill. The difference is that the Johnson bill declares this

principle of exclusion and the Senate bill does not.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes.

Senator HARRISON. I have been unable to hear all your proposition.

In view of this explanation by Senator Reed, how do you want this

Senate bill changed?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, answering broadly, we want to fall

back and stand upon the provisions of the Johnson bill. The Johnson bill speaks of those not classed as immigrants, such as a government official, his family, servants, attendants, employees, and aliens

visiting the United States as tourists or temporarily for business or

pleasure, an alien in continuous transit through the United States,

an alien lawfully admitted to the United States who later goes in

transit from one part of the United States to another through foreign contiguous territory, a bona fide alien seamen serving as such on

a vessel arriving at a port of the United States, and seeking temporarily to enter the United States solely in pursuance of his calling

as a seaman.

Those are not treated as immigrants.

Now, the Johnson bill further speaks of the nonquota immigrants,

and they are as follows:

An immigrant who is an unmarried child under eighteen years of agf», father

or mother over sixty-five years of age, husband or wife of a citizen of the

United States, be he an immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United

States who is returning from a temporary visit abroad, an immigrant who had

resided at least ten years immediately preceding the time of his admission to

the United States in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of

Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, or the republics of South America or adjacent

islands, and his wife and unmarried children under 18 years of age, if accom-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 159

panying or following to join him, an immigrant who continuously for at least

two years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission

to the United States has been and who seeks to enter the United States solely

for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of minister of any religions denomination, a professor of a college, seminary, academy or university, ai'd

further an immigrant who is a skilled laborer, if labor of like kind, unenployed, can not be found in this country; further, the wife or the unraarri&l

child under eleven years of age of an immigrant admissible as minister, pro

fessor or skilled laborer, and finally an Immigrant who is a bona fide studem

over eighteen years of age.

Now, with the immigrants which under this bill are not classed

as such, with the nonquota immigrants, with all these exceptions, I

undertake to say that not Japan nor England nor any other nation

would have any just cause to complain of us, and therefore I am sick

and weary

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Senator Shortridge, you have not

called attention to the important section of the Johnson bill, which is

section 12:

No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States,

unless sucli alien is admissible as a nonquota immigrant,

under the provisions of several sections which would not admit. It

is an absolute exclusion of the admission of any Japanese under the

nonquota, except under sections C, D, and E.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I was responding to the question as to

whether we want to stand on the Johnson bill. We are particularly

concerned with the section to which you have now called my attention, and to which I called the attention of the committee at the

outset, standing on the broad proposition that we do not think it

desirable to admit into the United States for purpose of permanent

residence a class of citizens who may never become citizens of the

United States. That is my notion of public policy, and that has been

our public policy from 1790 with respect to naturalization. Therefore, we think we should exclude that type of man and woman from

America, with these generous exceptions, which, if taken advantage

of by the alien people, would be of benefit to them. We have in California, and will always have, a certain number of Japanese, even if

the gates were locked now. We propose to give them all their rights

under the Constitution and the laws.' Therefore, we propose to admit

their ministers. We are willing to admit any number of students

from that ancient empire and let them enter our academies, our

schools, our universities. There is no exclusion of them. They may

come and gather such of our wisdom as they may and carry it back to

their native land. But we stand irrevocably opposed to the immigration of that type of people•and we are not limiting our opposition

to the Japanese, though we are forced to address ourselves immediately to that empire. China is excluded and all the other races whicr

have been mentioned again and yet again.

Now, I wish to call the attention of this committee to the fact that

the public policy of a State is not represented by an individual chamber of commerce, or, if you please, by any individual group of most

worthy citizens. The public policy of a State is found in its statutes,

in its formal legislative declarations, and I think it is well to bear

that in mind. I took the liberty of saying at the opening of this

hearing that I was speaking the mature, deliberate judgment of the

people of California, and I thought I could add of Oregon, Wash-
160 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

ington, and other western States. I know I did speak the mature

judgment of the American Legion, the American Federation of

Labor, and the National Grange, and of our State Native Sons organization. I know that I speak the sentiment of many other bodies,

but I wish to call the committee's attention to the fact that on May

18, 1923, the Legislature of California adopted this resolution which

is spread upon the records of the senate:

Whereas the continued admission of undesirable immigrants into the United

States under the operation of our present laws, taken in connection with the

vast number of nonnaturalized, uonassimilated persons heretofore admitted

through lax laws and lax administration of our immigration laws, constitutes

a vital and growing menace to American institutions and American ideals: and

Whereas, obviously the admission as immigrants of aliens who under our

laws are ineligible to citizenship must create in our midst communities of nonassimilables having interests and ideals of their own, and affording more or

less of danger to American institutions and citizenship: Therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, in assembly jointly. That the Legislature of the

State of California hereby memorializes the Congress of the United States to

so amend the present laws as to prohibit absolutely the entrance as immigrants

or permanent residents of all aliens ineligible to citizenship; and be it further

Resolved, That the secretary of the senate he, and is hereby, authorized

to transmit copies of this resolution to the president of the senate and speaker

of the house of each State legislature now in session.

Now, since yesterday I received this telegram, prompted, as you

will see, by the telegram which came to the committee from our

chamber of commerce, concerning which I will add a word. This

is a telegram I received this morning from Mr. Morgan Keaton, the

department adjutant of the American Legion. By your leave I

will read it:

Sentiment expressed in recent telegram to Senate Immigration Committee

by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce does not express views of large

majority of rank and file citizens of San Francisco and Pacific coast. Telegram sent without authority of referendum to members of chamber itself. My

contact with great patriotic people of San Francisco convinces me that we are

all in one accord in desiring total exclusion of all immigrants ineligible to

citizenship, and inasmuch as treaty excluding has not given us relief•

We are dealing now with the situation; these people want congressional action on this legislation which, after all, is a domestic question which lies within the sphere of the National Congress rather

than executive functions of this "great country•

California American Legion, American Federation of Labor, Native Sons of

the Golden West, together with the State Grange, through their contact with

people of this coast know that they speak the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of this State, which is also the majority of Pacific coast

States, in asking that Congress now, once and for all time, settle this matter

by passing an act excluding all aliens ineligible to citizenship without equivocation or fear of canceling financial contracts held by certain of our business

firms. It is primarily an Americanization question and demands the support

of patriotic people all over this Nation.

Let me add this, recurring to the telegram sent by our chamber

of commerce, of which a number of us are members. I invite your

attention to the fact that the chamber of commerce agrees with the

position we have taken here as to the desirability of excluding this

class. Their only difference of opinion is as to the method by which

that end can be achieved.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly, and that is the question before this committee.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is a grave and important question.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 161

The CHAIRMAN. And is the only question, Senator.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I am glad to have you say so, because, not to

detain ourselves longer, or to multiply words, I do believe that every

thoughtful member of this committee, and that includes them all,

•will upon reflection come to the fixed conclusion that it would be

wise for our country to check and stop this type of immigration.

We of the West are united on that proposition. With us it is not

a partisan question. We stand together, Republicans and Democrats,

and there is no division among us.

Now, the thought I wish to leave with you now, perhaps supplementing my remarks later by putting in a written statement

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). If you will.

Senator SHORTRIDGE (continuing). In this, I have, I hope, as fine

a regard for international obligations and proprieties as others. I

do not wish my country to do an ungracious or an unwise, or even

an impolite thing. Because we are powerful and fear no nation, I do

not wish to trample upon the sensibilities of a most courteous and

chivalrous people or to ignore or disregard our treaty obligations.

Not at all. But, what I maintain is that in the exercise of our

sovereignty, under our form of Government, we are giving no offense,

intend no offense by this proposed legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. NOW, wait

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is my position.

The CHAIRMAN. I know it is, but there is another side. We have

a treaty and have a " gentlemen's agreement." Shall we break those

by statute? Or shall we follow the suggestion of the Chamber of

Commerce of San Francisco, to treat with Japan in order that if

there are any abuses under the " gentlemen's agreement" or if the

treaties are too broad, she herself may help to correct them? Supposing we shall say that we will try diplomacy first. Suppose we try

diplomacy first with Roosevelt's understanding, that if diplomacy

did not succeed, then we would be warranted in exercising this legal,

statutory power. Of course, we have the power. That is the only

question, as it lies in my mind.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, Senator; but note that when we entered

into the 1911 treaty, that treaty by this " gentlemen's agreement " was

modified. Japan recognized that by an informal agreement we could

modify a formal treaty. But the " gentlemen's agreement" was

entered into with the further understanding that if it did not achieve

the end that all were supposed to have in view, we might exercise our

right to legislate on the subject. The " gentlemen's agreement"

having failed of its purpose, we are not justly offending anybody

when we exercise that right. Nor are we acting contrary to precedent by now changing some existing law, treating this " gentlemen's

agreement" as a law•which it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Senator Shortridge, I want to interrupt

you again. Suppose you and I have a contract with each other.

That is all a treaty is, a contract between nations. You and I have

a contract. I have got the nower to modify or abrogate it. Do you

think it is fair for me, having the power, to do it without first consulting you?

Senator SHORTRDDGE. As stated that way, of course not. But if

along with the agreement there is the understanding that you may

do so without my assent, then you have the power plus the right to

Ho so. and we did it in respect to China. I am not now saying that
162 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

merely because we did pass a given act it is a precedent to be followed, but we exercised the power of legislation in the passage of the

Chinese exclusion law while a treaty was in existence. In effect we

did the same thing in denouncing the treaty with Russia.

The CHAIRMAN. We had no treaty with China. If we had no

treaty with Japan and no " gentlemen's agreement" and it came

before us as an abstract question, I would of course exclude Japan.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. I beg the Senator's pardon. When the passage of the exclusion law as to China was under consideration, there

sprung up a great question which had to be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and that was, whether a statute

passed subsequent to a treaty modified or annulled the treaty. That

was discussed by me in California as of that time.

The CHAIRMAN. I may be in error. We may have had a treaty

with China.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes: I know there was. I remember well

a great meeting in San Francisco when that question was discussed.

The CHAIRMAN. But there is no question now but what a statute

modifies a treaty or abolishes it. We are sovereign in that matter.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, there is no doubt as to the law or as to

our constitutional power. I am about through. I have not been

able to present the matter as fully or as worthily as I had hoped

to do, but it has been ably stated by others and the committee understands the case. You understand* our position. We desire to exclude a certain type of immigration into the United States, whether

it comes to California or to New York. We want the national

policy with respect to citizenship, which runs back to 1790, with the

exception of the amendment of that law after the Civil War, to be

continued, and we know, as was pointed out to the committee yesterday, that there is an insistent effort being made to break down

that policy.

The CHAHIMAN. There is no question about it.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. There was an effort recently made, which

was defeated by the Supreme Court of the United States, to have

it established that a Japanese is eligible to citizenship under existing laws. The great opinion, prepared by Mr. Justice Sutherland,

recently handed down, settled that question. That being so, that

being our national policy which we hope to have continued, we do

not think it wise to introduce into our Nation a class of aliens who

may never become citizens.

Nor do we think it wise policy to admit a class who will breed

children who will owe allegiance to the United States and to their

parents' native country. That, in time of peace, is not desirable:

that, in time of war, is charged with great danger. From an economic standpoint, from a social standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a California standpoint, from a national standpoint, we

think that we should not depart from our policy as to naturalization

and that we should adopt a policy of exclusion of races ineligible

to citizenship, so that the two policies would be in harmony.

I think I can show that the adoption of such exclusion policy by

congressional act we will not be violating any treaty obligations.

We will not be giving just offense to any nation. We will be doing

in respect of one-half of the r. inian races no more than this par-
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 163

ticular protesting nation has done and is doing. Japan exercises

this right and excludes such races or peoples as she thinks are or

will be inimical to her interests•and nobody protests.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say you would file a statement, Senator 3

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, if you will permit me. Or I may decide that it will be better to express our views in the Senate when

you have reported the bill.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement on behalf of Doctor Gulick

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania (continuing). Who was mentioned

the other day in the address of one of the witnesses and was charged

with being in this country the representative of the Japanese Government. Doctor Gulick has asked me to say for the record that he

is not and has not been employed by the Japanese Government, that

he is not and has not been their representative, and is in no sense

acting for them.

May I also request the chairman of the committee to put into the

record the telegram received from Mr. John D. Rockefeller, jr. ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I was going to put that in the record.

(The Rockefeller telegram is as follows:)

NEW YORK, N. Y., March 12, 192J,.

Hon. LEBARON B. COLT,

Chairman Committee on Immigration.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C:

No pressure exerted by racial groups or from abroad or from any action of

our business interests should in my opinion deter Congress for a moment from

passing a law restricting immigration on the basis of the 1890 census. I am

assured it renders substantial justice in accordance with contributions to our

population from old and new sources of supply. The descendants of the people

who created the institutions under which we live need as much consideration

as the latest arrival on our shores.

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, Jr.

(Certain additional telegrams received by the committee are here

printed in full, by direction of the chairman, as follows:)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., March IS, 192-i.

CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Oriental Missions Council, representing all protestant denominations, and

Home Missions Council earnestly protests passage discriminatory immigration

legislation against orientals and denying citizenship to American born of

oriental blood. Such legislation is uncalled for because Japanese birth rate

is decreasing in California as per Bureau of Vital Statistics. The population

per cent with whites is practically stationary. The American-born Chinese and

Japanese are being largely assimilated. We represent a very large minority

and especially Christian sentiment in State. No action should be taken now

because a scientific joint survey is being made representing many organizations.

HERBERT B. JOHNSON, Chairman.

PETALUMA, CALIF., March 18, 1924-

LEBARON B. COLT,

Chairman Senate Immigration Committee, Washington, D. C.

California subordinates pomonas and State grange protest San Francisco

Chamber of Commerce treaty preference over congressional act re ineligible

aliens. Already 20 years of hesitating diplomacy in interest of commercialism

have implanted in California an infusion of Asiatic blood a century will not

eradicate nor assimilate. That American rural homes shall be preserved and
164 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

that the West shall not be paganized. Grange insists retention of ineligible

•cause in immigration bill now at this opportune time.

C. A. BODWEIX,

(For State Master George R. Harrison.)

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., March 15, 1924.

LEBARON B. COLT,

Chairman Senate Committee Immigration, Senate Chamoer,

Washington, D. C.

Representatives of 28 organizations composed of native Californians at

meeting here last night protested against recommendation of San Francisco

Chamber of Commerce that matter of Oriental immigration be fixed by treaty

and strongly urged that immediate legislation be enacted by Congress excluding all peoples ineligible to become American citizens. Public opinion in

California is unanimous against further colonization by Japanese, and unless

Congress acts to prevent further Oriental immigration the condition here may

become critical. If matter left to treaty there will be evasion and subterfuge,

resulting In constant friction. Matter should be settled at once by legislation.

EDWARD J. LYNCH,

Grand Vice President Native Sons of the Golden West.

(The subjoined letter from Mr. V. S. McClatchy. with accompanying data, is herewith printed in full:)

WASHINGTON, D. O, March 15, 10**.

Hon. LEBARON B. COLT,

Chairman of the Senate Immigration Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR : A telegram from Sidney L. Gulick to you as chairman

of the Senate Immigration Committee, read at the hearing this morning, quoted

L. E. Ross, register of vital statistics of the California State Board of Health,

as contradicting my statement of his estimate of Japanese population in California, and quoting him as giving such population as 79,831.

Your committee has shown such courtesy and consideartion to Attorney

General Webb, ex-Senator Phelan, and myself in presenting the case of California in this matter before you, that I can not afford to leave the committee

under the impression that I have misrepresented facts even in a small way,

nor do I wish to rest under the imputation of making assertions on imperfect

foundations.

Permit me to repeat that my estimate of 100,000 Japanese population of

California is also the estimate of Mr. Ross; and in proof of that statement I

inclose copy of his letter February 19 to me The figures 79,831 are the census

figures which Mr. Ross used in his various comparisons. These figures while

official are confessedly wrong. Please note that Mr. Ross says, " I have made

no estimate of the actual Japanese population since my former figure of

100,000."

Note also in section 78 of the brief prepared by me for consideration of

the Department of State (copy herewith) that the California State Board of

Health estimated the Japanese population of the State in 1919 as 96,000 and

that Mr. Ross in an official bulletin, May 1920, wrote that estimates based

on mortuary and sex statistics, which had checked up in the case of other

races, indicated a Japanese population of 109,000 including surreptitious

entries.

Note in section 77 of the same brief that the estimate of the State Board

of Control in 1920, corrected because of error in the basis adopted, would be

exactly 100,000, not including surreptitious entries.

Since Mr. Gulick's charge is before the committee, will you kindly advise

them of my vindication?

Please express to the members of the committee the appreciation of the

Californians who presented the case of the State before the committee, because of the time allowed us by a very busy committee. Only our conviction

of the grave importance of the subject, not only to the Pacific States, but to

the nation as well, would justify us in taking up so much of the committee's

valuable time.

Very sincerely yours,

V. S. MCCLATCHY.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 165

CALIFORNIA STATE BOABD OP HEALTH,

Sacremento, February 19, 1984-

Mr. V. S. MCCLATCHY,

No. 910 Humboldt Bank Building,

San Francisco, Calif.

MY DEAB Mr. MCCLATCHY: I have yours of February 15 and give below

statement of Japanese and white births in Sacramento and Placer for 1922

and 1923. The 1923 is January to November. Returns incomplete.

1922 1923

Japanese White Japanese White

310

252

111

1,442

273

360

258

250

98

1,397

268

Placer, rural _ 277

The population figures mentioned by you are those computed from the

censuses of 1910 and 1920. These are the figures on which the Japanese birth

rates are based. The rate for 1922 was 63.5, the actual number of births having been 5,066. The 1923 returns are not complete. Indications are however

that there will be approximately 5,000 Japanese births.

I have made no estimate of the actual Japanese population since my former

figure of 100,000. I understand that Japanese are leaving California in large

numbers, but have no actual information with reference to the matter. We

note however that there is increased activity in the matter of establishing fact

of birth in the courts and filing birth certificates for Japanese children more

than one year of age. Since the ruling of the Supreme Court with reference

to the antialien land law, the necessity for proving citizenship is somewhat

greater than was formerly the case. This may account for the increased court

activity. If Japanese are in fact leaving the State this would also account

for the registration of such births as were not registered when the children

were born.

Tours very truly,

L. B. Ross,

State Registrar of Vital Statistics.

(The following letter from the administrative committee of the

Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America is herewith

incorporated in the record:)

MABCH 15, 1924.

Hon. LEBABON B. COLT,

Senate of the United States.

MY DEAB SENATOB COLT : The administrative committee of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, by unanimous vote, request that the

Senate Committee on Immigration place on the record of its hearings in connection with Senator James D. Phelan's charges against Dr. Sidney L. Gulick,

the following statement:

" In view of the fact that Senator Phelan charged that Doctor Gulick, who

is one of the secretaries of the Federal Council, is an agent of Japan, and that

he, Senator Phelan, insinuated that either directly or indirectly he, Doctor

Gulick, is in the employ of Japan, the administrative committee of the Federal

Council, on the basis of its intimate knowledge of all the facts in the case,

declares•

" (1) That Doctor Gulick is in no way an agent either of Japan or of any

group of Japanese in this country or in Japan.

" (2) That not one dollar of Doctor Gullck's salary or other remuneration

comes from Japanese sources, either from individuals or from the Japanese

Government, directly or indirectly.

" (3) That not one dollar toward the expenses of the Federal Council or of

the Commission on International Justice and Goodwill has been received from

Japanese sources."

On September 11, 1919, in reply to Senator Phelan's charges at that time,

a statement similar to the above was made by the administrative committee

and sent to Senator Phelan, but of this denial he has taken no notice.
166 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

Inasmuch as the insinuations and charges are absolutely false and without

foundation, the administrative committee would suggest to the Senate Committee on Immigration the desirability of requesting Senator Phelan to submit

proofs of his charges or to present his retraction and apology.

The interest of the Federal Council of Churches in the Japanese question

is due to its concern in•

(1) The moral issues involved.

(2) The fair and honorable treatment of Japanese already lawfully in the

United States.

(3) The Christian movement in Japan.

(4) The maintenance of permanent peace between America and Japan.

In these positions the Federal Council is supported by the repeated actions

of its constituents denominational bodies.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES S. MACFARLAND,

General. Secretary.

On behalf of the the following members of the administrative' committee who

were present at the meeting on March 14, 1924:

The Kev. John M. Moore.

The Rev. Charles S. Macfarland.

The Rev. Samuel McCrea Cavert.

Mrs. John Ferguson.

Mr. Charles S. Crosman.

The Rev. Worth M. Tippy.

The Rev. William I. Haven.

Bishop James Cannon, jr.

The Rev. Willam Adams Brown.

Miss Mabel Cratty.

The Rec. Worth M. Tippy.

Dr. George E. Haynes.

The Rev. Rivington D. Lord.

The Rev. Charles E. Burton.

Mr. Alfred R. Kimball.

Mr. Robert H. Gardiner.

The Rev. Alfred Williams Anthony.

The Rev. Harry E. Stocker.

The Rev. Harry R. Miles.

The Rev. F. Ernest Johnson.

The Rev. Rufus W. Miller.

The Rev. Augustus Steimle.

Mr. Arthur E. Hungerford.

The Rev. John A. Marquis.

The Rev. George R. Montgomery.

The Rev. I. W. Gowen.

Mr. Fennell P. Turner.

The Rev. Robert A. Ashworth.

(The following documents are herewith made a part of the record

of these hearings:)

SO-OALLED GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

Washington, April 10, 192'i.

Hon. LEBARON B. COLT,

United States Senate.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith for your consideration a copy of

a note of April 10. in which, referring to the recent report of the Committee on

Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives (Report No.

350, March 24, 1924), the Japanese ambassador has taken occasion to state

his Government's understanding of the purport of the so-called " gentlemen's

agreement," and that Government's practice and purpose with respect to

emigration from Japan to this country.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 167

I also inclose a copy of my reply of to-tlay*s date stating that the ambassador's statement of the essential points constituting the gentlemen's agreement corresponds with my own understanding of that arrangement.

I have the honor to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

CHARLES B. HUGHES.

JAPANESE EMBASSY,

Washington, April 10, 1924.

SIR : In view of certain statements in the report of the House Committee

on Immigration•Report No. 350, March 24, 1924•regarding the so-called

gentlemen's agreement, some of which appear to be misleading, I may be

allowed to state to you the purpose and substance of that agreement as it is

understood and performed by my Government, which understanding and practice are, I believe, in accord with those of your Government on this subject.

The gentlemen's agreement is an understanding with the United States

Government by which the Japanese Government voluntarily undertook to

adopt and enforce certain administrative measures designed to check the

emigration to the United States of Japanese laborers. It is in no way intended as a restriction on the sovereign right of the United States to regulate

its immigration. This is shown by the fact that the existing immigration act

of 1917, for instance, is applied to Japanese as to other aliens.

It was because of the fact that discriminatory immigration legislation on

the part of the United States would naturally wound the national susceptibilities of the Japanese people that, after thorough but most friendly and frank

discussions between the two Governments, the gentlemen's agreement was made

for the purpose of relieving the United States from the possible unfortunate

necessity of offending the natural pride of a friendly nation.

The Japanese Government have most scrupulously and faithfully carried

out the terms of the agreement, as a self-imposed restriction, and are fully

prepared to continue to do so, as officially announced at the time of the conclusion of the present treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and

the United States. In return the Japanese Government confidently trust that

the United States Government will recommend, if necessary, to the Congress

to refrain from resorting to a measure that would seriously wound the proper

susceptibilities of the Japanese nation.

One object of the gentlemen's agreement is, as is pointed out above, to stop

the emigration to the United States of all Japanese laborers other than those

excepted in the agreement, which is embodied in a series of long and detailed

correspondence between the two Governments, publication of which is not

believed to serve any good purpose, but the essential terms and practice of

which may be summed up as follows:

(1) The Japanese Government will not issue passports good for the continental United States to laborers, skilled or unskilled, except those previously

domiciled in the United States, or parents, wives, or children under 20 years'

of age of such persons. The form of the passport is so designed as to omit

no safeguard against forgery, and its issuance is governed by various rules of

detail in order to prevent fraud.

The Japanese Government accepted the definition of " laborer " as given in

the United States Executive order of April 8, 1907.

(2) Passports are to be issued by a limited number of specially authorized

officials only, under close supervision of the foreign office, which has the

supreme control of the matter and is equipped with the necessary staff for the

administration of it. These officials shall make thorough investigation when

application for passports is made by students, merchants, tourists, or the like,

to ascertain whether the applicant is likely to become a laborer, and shall

enforce the requirement that such person shall either be supplied with adequate

means to insure the permanence of his status as such or that surety be given

therefor. In case of any doubt as to whether such applicant is or is not

entitled to a passport, the matter shall be referred to the foreign office for

decision.

Passports to laborers previously domiciled in the United States will be

issued only upon production of certificate from Japanese consular officers in

the United States, and passports to the parents, wives, and children of such

laborers will be issued only upon production of such consular certificate and of
168 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

duly certified copy of official registry of members of such laborer's family in

Japan. Utmost circumspection is exercised to guard against fraud.

(3) Issuance of passports to so-called "picture brides" has been stopped

by the Japanese Government since March 1, 1920, although it had not been

prohibited under the terms of the gentlemen's agreement.

(4) Monthly statistics covering incoming and outgoing Japanese are exchanged between the American and Japanese Governments.

(5) Although the gentlemen's agreement is not applicable to the Hawaiian

Islands, measures restricting issuance of passports for the islands are being

enforced in substantially the same manner as those for the continental United

States.

(6) The Japanese Government are further exercising strict control over emigration of Japanese laborers to foreign territories contiguous to the United

States in order to prevent their surreptitious entry into the United States.

A more condensed substance of these terms is published in the annual

report of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908,

1909, and 3910, on pages 125-126, 121, and 124-125, respectively.

As I stated above, the Japanese Government have been most faithfully observing the gentlemen's agreement in every detail of its terms, which fact is,

1 believe, well known to the United States Government. I may be permitted,

in this connection, to call your attention to the official figures published in the

nnnual reports of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration,

showing the increase or decrease of Japanese population in the continental

United States by immigration and emigration. According to these reports1

in the years 1908-1923 the total numbers of Japanese admitted to and departed

from the continental United States were, respectively, 120,317 and 111,636.

In other words, the excess of those admitted over those departed was in 15

years only 8,681; that is to say, the annual average of 578. It is important

to note that in these 8,681 are included not only those who are covered by the

terms of the gentlemen's agreement but all other classes of Japanese, sucli

as merchants, students, tourists, Government officials, etc. These figures

collected by the United States immigration authorities, seem to me to show

conclusively the successful operation of the gentlemen's agreement. Besides

this there is, of course, the increase through birth of the Japanese population

in the United States. This has nothing to do with either the gentlemen's

agreement or the immigration laws.

I may add, in this connection, that if the proposition were whether it would

not be desirable to amend or modify some of the terms of the agreement, the

question would be different, and I personally believe that my Government

would not be unwilling to discuss the matter with your Government, if such

were its wishes.

Further, if I may speak frankly, at the risk of repeating what, under

instructions from my Government, I have represented to you on former occasions, the mere fact that a certain clause, obviously aimed against Japanese as

;i nation, is introduced in the proposed immigration bill, in apparent disregard

of the most sincere and friendly endeavors on the part of the Japanese Government to meet the needs and wishes of the American Government and people,

is mortifying enough to the Government and people of Japan. They are,

however, exercising the utmost forbearance at this moment, and in so doing

they confidently rely upon the high sense of justice and fair play of the American Government and people, which, when properly approached, will readily

understand why no such discriminatory provision as above referred to should

oe allowed to become a part of the law of the land.

It is needless to add that it is not the intention of the Japanese Government

to question the sovereign right of any country to regulate immigration to its own

territories. Nor is it their desire to send their natonals to the countries where

they are not wanted. On the contrary the Japanese Government showed from

the very beginning of this problem their perfect wilingness to cooperate with

the United States Government to effectively prevent by all honorable means

the entrance into the United States of such Japanese nationals as are not desired by the United States, and have given ample evidences thereof, the facts

of which are well known to your Government. To Japan the question is not

one of expediency but of principle. To her the mere fact that a few hundreds

or thousands of her nationals will or will not be admitted into the domains

of other countries is immaterial, so long as no question of national suscepti1 See Table B of the annual reports.
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION 169

bilities is involved. The important question is whether Japan as a nation is

or is not entitled to the proper respect and consideration of other nations. In

other words, the Japanese Government asks of the United States Government

simply that proper consideration ordinarily given by one nation to the selfrespect of another, which after all forms the basis of amicable international

intercourse throughout the civilized world.

It is indeed impossible for my Government and people, and I believe it would

be impossible also for your Government and for those of your people who

had made a careful study of the subject, to understand why it should be necessary for your country to enact as the law of the land such a clause as section

12 (b) of the House immigration bill.

As is justly pointed out in your letter of February 8, 1924, to the chairman

of the House Committee on Immigration, it is idle to insist that the provision

is not aimed at the Japanese, for the proposed measure (section 25) continues

in force your existing legislation regulating Chinese immigration and the

barred-zone provisions of your immigration laws which prohibit immigration

from certain other portions of Asia•to say nothing about the public statements

of the sponsors and supporters of that particular provision as to its aim. In

other words, the manifest object of the said section 12 (b) is to single out

Japanese as a nation, stigmatizing them as unworthy and undesirable in the

eyes of the American people. And yet the actual result of that particular provision, if the proposed bill becomes the law as intended, would be to exclude

only 146 Japanese per year. On the other hand, the gentlemen's agreement is,

in fact, accomplishing all that can be accomplished by the proposed Japanese

exclusion clause except for those 146. It is indeed difficult to believe that it

can be the intention of the people of your great country, who always stand

for high principles of justice and fair play in the intercourse of nations, to

resort, in order to secure the annual exclusion of 146 Japanese, to a measure

which would not only seriously offend the just pride of a friendly nation, that

has been always earnest and diligent in its efforts to preserve the friendship

of your people, but would also seem to involve the question of the good faith

and therefore of the honor of their Government, or at least of its executive

branch.

Relying upon the confidence you have been good enough to show me at

all times, I haw stated, or rather repeated, all this to you very candidly and

in a most friendly spirit, for I realize, as I believe you do, the gui£ji_cuH*iequences which the enactment of the measure retaining that particular provision would inevitably bring upon the otherwise happy and mutualb

advantageous relations between our two countries.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

M. HANIHARA.

Hon. CHABLES E. HUGHES,

Secretary of State.

APBIL 10. 1924.

His Excellency Mr. MASANAO HANIHARA,

Japanese Ambassador.

EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of

April 10, in which, referring to the recent report of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives (Report No. 350.

March 24, 1924), you took occasion to state your Government's understanding

of the purport of the so-called " gentlemen's agreement" and your Government's practice and purposes with respect to emigration from Japan to this

country.

I am happy to take note of your statement concerning the substance of the

so-called " gentlemen's agreement" resulting from the correspondence which

took place between our two Governments in 1907-8, as modified by the additional undertaking of the Japanese Government with regard to the so-called

" picture brides," which became effective four years ago. Your statement of

the essential points constituting the " gentlemen's agreement " corresponds with

my own understanding of that arrangement.

Inasmuch as your note is directed toward clearing away any possible misapprehension as to the nature and purpose of the " gentlemen's agreement," I

am taking occasion to communicate copies of it, as also of my present reply, to

the chairmen of the appropriate committees of the two Houses of Congress.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
170 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

ANSWER TO AMBASSADOR HANIHARA JiY FORMER SENATOR JAMES D. PHKLAN

WASHINGTON, D. C. April 11,

Statement of former Senator James D. Phelan, who with V. S. McClatchy

and State Attorney General U. S. Webb, compose a delegation in Washington

on the Japanese question, appointed by the American Legion, the National

Grange, The American Federation of Labor, and the Native Sons of the Golden

West, through their branch organizations in California:

The Japanese ambassador, through the State Department, has communicated

a statement to Congress on the pending immigration bill so far as it relates

to Japan. The House, bill provides for the exclusion of all aliens ineligible

to citizenship, which under Qur century-old naturalization laws, are limited

to whites and later blacks. He explains and defends the so-called gentlemen's agreement, which gives to Japan the power to issue passports without

question to Japanese subjects who are not, in the opinion of Japan, skilled

or unskilled laborers. Under this agreement of 1908. the Japanese population

of California has more than doubled, but that is not the point•the United

States never has before and should not now continue the practice of delegating

its sovereign authority to another nation, so the gentlemen's agreement should

be revoked and this country should rely upon its own law and enforce it

without the aid of any other government. The Senate bill seeks to preserve

the gentlemen's agreement and attempts to put the Japanese, as a special

privilege, under the quota law•that is to say. to put them on an equality

with Europeans to whom the quota law only applied in the past, notwithstanding the fact that they are barred by law from citizenship. In reading the

ambassador's letter, it is apparent that this is the crux of the question and it

is the one thing for which he is seriously contending. By making legislative

acknowledgment of the Japanese contention for racial equality, Japan wins

its case before the court of the world. Before the Paris conferences, Japan

demanded the recognition of this principle and it was denied by the action

of Great Britain, Australia. New Zealand, and South Africa, and the United

States.

The reason for it is just as pressing to-day as it was then. The ambassador

says: " To Japan the question is not one of expediency but of principle: to

her the mere fact that a few hundreds or thousands of her nationals will or

will not be admitted into the domains of other countries is immaterial, so

long as no question of national susceptibilities is involved." The ambassador

uses the word "susceptibilities" when lie means "equality." That is to say,

their "susceptibilities'" are hurt when they are not put on a parity with

Europeans. But what dictated the action in Paris and what requires our

denial of race equality now? If the Asiatics are to be put upon race equality

with Europeans, then logically our laws will have to be amended sooner or

later to permit them to intermarry with our people, to own and lease our

lands, and to enjoy the elective franchise. And yet intermarriage, bilogically

undesirable, if attempted would destroy homogeneity and tend to mongrelization. As they can not blend, they can not be taken into the family as equals.

In the economic field it is well established when they come we go. The

national policy already excludes the people of China. India, Burmah, Siam.

and the Malay Archipelago for the s«me reasons. It is neither a question of

superiority, equality nor inferiority, but purely one of race divergence which

prevents assimilation, and this is something that Congress can not cure. In

another and important sense it is a question of American equality so far as

the people of the United States are concerned. The hope of the future of America is in the intermarriage of assimilable peoples and where potentially there is

no intermarriage there can be no equality, and yet equality is the foundation of

American institutions. It will be seen, therefore, that it is not a question of

Japanese susceptibilities but rather of the assertion of the American right of

self-preservation against an insidious danger. If Congress passes the House

bill now Japan will be simply denied again what she vainly demanded in Paris:

there will be no compromise of principle on our part and no necessary interruption of friendly international relations.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned subject to the

call of the chairman.

(Whereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)

X