New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-15
THE JAPANESE SETTLEMENT.

The conference report on the immigration bill
supposed TO be moribund-has been adroitly
appropriated as a vehicle for closing by le%isla-
ton an unpleasant diplomatic incident \ para
graph has been injected into that report which,
while Of universal application, practically 1P7
n situation of which California has complained
and which largely instigated that states dis
elimination against Japanese pupils in the pun
lie schools Hostility 10 Japanese labor rather
than any race prejudice against Japanese stu
dents lay behind the crusade begun by the san
Francisco school board. If, therefore, the APP
prehensions of the Pacific Coast could be al
layed by an attempt to exclude japanese Ia
borers rs such-the coolies whose standards OF
living are considered to make them demoral-
izng and harmful competitors in the American
labor market-it was clear that the ruling
against Japanese students could be abandoned
quite beside the real wishes and policy OF
the California proteStants. Such n JudlclouS
compromise seems 10 have been effected by the
incorporation in the immigration conference
report OF a paragraph giving the President
power to exclude from the continental terri
tory of the United States" citizens and sub
jects of foreign countries who first go TO any
other foreign country than their own, to any IN
sular possession of the United States or 10
the canal zone, and then seek to use their pass
ports to enter the United States proper, pro
vlded that their entry here is detrimental" to
the best interests Of domestic labor in the judg
ment of the President.
Such an enlargement Of the scope of our i'm
migration laws could not rightly offend the sus-
capabilities of the japanese government or the
Japanese people. The proposed exclusion pro
vision is general in teTmS-nO less general than
the prohibition against contract labor which
has long been on the statute book. Moreover,
even if it were to be applied chiefly to exclude
Japanese coolies, such an application would not
clash either with japanese rights under the
treaty Of 1894 or with the Japanese govern
ment's openly avowed policies Japan has ove-
and over again expressed purpose TO keep her
laborng population near home. She has no
laborers to spare, and has no wish to colonize
the Pacific Slope. She has been preparing for
years TO play a dominant role politically and
commercially IN Eastern Asia and needs to
husband all her resources to accomplish what
she deems her national mission. IL she is TO
develop Corea, Manchuria and Formosa and ex-
tend her influence in China she must turn every
element Of her population TO account It would
be economic folly to encourage the migration of
her working classes TO the United States, where
they would be pOwerless 10 promote her OBJ
JectS The Tribune has always accepted as
absolutely sincere the Japanese governments
declaration that it looks with no favor on the
Introduction and exploitation here Of coolie
labor. 1t is probably entirely willing now, as
it was in 1894, TO give the United States a free
hand in dealing with coolie immigration
Some objection will undoubtedly be made to
the exclusion paragraph on the ground that it
IS a Legislative makeshift'-that is, legislation
drawn to meet an emergency and having some
thing Of the Indebtedness and experimental
character Of all such legislation. 1t may re-
qulre eIucidauon on one point-the legal and
CONSTITUTIONAL meaning. namely, Of the phrase
''insular possession" Hawaii can hardly he
called an insular possession IN the same sense
as Porto Rico or the Philippines since Hawaii
IS an organized territory and Porto Rico and
the Philippines are only dependencies. But
the main point to be considered is that the para
graph contains the basis Of a working agree
ment-an agreement which Will relieve us from
the charge OF having made a discrimination
against japanese subjects lawfully here. which
was repugnant 10 Japans self-respect as an en-
ightened and progressive nation.