The following excerpts are very important to understanding more fully the background of American policies towards Japan and her people, not only in the early part of the 20th century but also during WWII. Much blame and accusation is cast towards the United States for her "prejudiced" behavior against Japanese immigrants to this country. Such censure is totally out of place, however.

The epithet of "racial discrimination" has been used in modern times by many to describe the articles you will read here. Keep in mind, however, that in the early 1900's, the usage of "racial" referred more specifically to nationality rather than ethnicity. In other words, the concern then was that a foreign nation was gradually supplanting parts of our nation. Accusations of racism and bigotry are groundless. In the words of McClatchy himself: "I view the Japanese themselves without prejudice, and do not even suggest that there is involved in the present problem any question of racial inferiority." He further makes "a frank admission that the Japanese are so much our superiors in certain admirable qualities, such as economy, industry, and discipline."

Personal rights were never infringed. The laws on immigration and land ownership were developed, therefore, in a just and reciprocal manner, "in effect the same measures which [Japan] enforces against the Chinese and Koreans, who are, too, of the yellow race, and for precisely similar reasons." See also "Japan's Foreign Policies" by A. M. Pooley, 1920.

For further background into the "Japanese problem" and the first use of that term, see "The Japanese Problem in the United States," by H. A. Millis, published in 1914 for the Commission on Relations with Japan under the authority of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.

The various policies to keep in mind are: the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Naturalization Act of 1906, Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907, California Alien Land Law of 1913 (also 1920 Initiative; similar laws passed in Arizona, Washington, Louisiana, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, and Arkansas), Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, and Immigration Act of 1924.

On the Japanese Problem

Excerpts from Japanese Immigration and Colonization
by V. S. McClatchy, July 27, 1921



In the statement made by V. S. McClatchy before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization during its hearings in California in July 1920, in connection with the subject of Japanese immigration, was included much interesting and startling and therefore unpublished matter casting light on various phases of the problem which is now receiving not only State but national attention.
From a digest of that statement it appears that the economic question of today will develop into a grave racial problem, unless the proper remedy be at once applied;
that the Japanese have determined to colonize favorable sections of the United States, and permanently establish their race in this country;

that they openly preach their plans of peaceful penetration, "get more land and beget many children," as the most certain method of accomplishing the purpose;

that in so doing they do not contemplate assimilating as American citizens, loyal to the country of their birth or adoption, but plan to serve the ambition of Japan in world subjection as taught in her religion and in her schools;

that American-born Japanese on whom we confer citizenship are being trained here and in Japan to use their American citizenship for the glory of the Mikado and the benefit of the Japanese race;

that through violations of the "gentlemen's agreement," the Japanese have increased manyfold in this country, while the declared intent of the agreement was to restrict Japanese immigration as the exclusion act restricted Chinese immigration;

that the Japanese birth rate per thousand in California, now three times that of the whites, exists in face of the fact that the proportion of adult females among the Japanese is less than one-third as great as among the whites;

that such birth rate will be very greatly increased if success attends the efforts of the Japanese to bring in a large number of females;

that orientals, largely Japanese, already control, through ownership or lease, one-sixth of the rich irrigated lands of the State, and, in some of the larger counties, have control of a majority acreage of such lands;

that the results as to Japanese control already secured in Hawaii, and fast developing in California, are contemplated in other States as shown by preliminary colonization;

and that American missionary and church influence is being exerted in belief of Japanese propaganda and this Japanese program, in the mistaken behalf that Japan in return will aid or encourage Christian evangelization of the Japanese here and in Japan.
The statement, of which the following is a digest, supplements other statements on the subject made during the year preceding by V. S. McClatchy, before the committees of Congress and in public print, and generally avoids repetition of matter contained in such previous statements.


The following article contains the important parts of a statement made before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in connection with the subject of Japanese immigration by V. S. McClatchy, publisher of the Sacramento Bee, at hearings held by the committee in Sacramento, Calif., on July 13 and 14, 1920. In preparation of the article from the original transcript of the hearing there have been omitted repetition of facts and deductions, and, so far as seemed desirable, the dialogue with members of the committee which elicited the facts. In this way brevity has been served without impairing the value of the article.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, my first appearance before the House Immigration Committee in connection with the subject of Japanese immigration was in June, 1919 -- not in person, but by a written statement hurriedly prepared and mailed at telegraphed suggestion of the chairman. The statement was in answer to the claims of Sidney L. Gulick, the most prominent opponent of Japanese exclusion, who asked your committee to approve a certain measure (fathered by his League for Constructive Immigration Legislation), which proposes to regulate immigration on a percentage basis, and to extend to all Asiatics the same privileges as immigrants and citizens as are accorded Europeans. In September, 1919, I appeared before the committee personally and made a more comprehensive showing of the grave danger to the Nation threatened by Japanese immigration even under existing conditions.

Statements made by me at that time have been severely criticized both to facts and deductions by advocates of the Japanese, and particularly by Mr. Gulick, who has issued and widely circulated, under the authority of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, two leaflets devoted largely to an attempt to discredit those statements.

My present statement before your committee is supplemental to, and should be considered in conjunction with, that previous statement, since it avoids, as far as possible, repetition of matter contained in the other. It is intended to answer conclusively the arguments and statements since put forth by Mr. Gulick and other proponents of Japanese immigration, and contains in addition a mass of valuable and unpublished matter secured, in large part, from Japanese sources. In the preparation of this statement care has been taken to secure authenticated facts and to draw deductions which can not be assailed with justice.

I view the Japanese themselves without prejudice, and do not even suggest that there is involved in the present problem any question of racial inferiority. The problem at present, I insist, is an economic one, due to certain advantages possessed by the Japanese in economic competition, and to their determined utilization of those advantages in securing permanent place for their race in this country through their systematized plan of peaceful penetration.

But I insist also that continuance of existing conditions is developing, and will in time make certain a racial problem of most grave character.


Since my appearance before the committee, nearly a year ago, the Pacific coast generally has awakened to a realization of the gravity of the situation, and there has been a deal of investigation, some of it on the part of eastern newspapers and periodicals. I might mention in that connection, The Country Gentleman, which sent Freeman Tilden, a New England writer, to the Pacific coast to make a special investigation of the problem. In the issues of that periodical of May 1, 8, 15, and 29, 1920, you will find the result of those observations.

Sentiment on the coast has crystallized. The California State Board of Control, under instructions from the State legislature, has been securing data for a year past, and has prepared a preliminary report for the governor. That report has gone to the Secretary of State at Washington and to the public, with a very strong letter from Gov. Stephens, calling attention to the facts, to the urgency of the menace which they indicate and urging that the matter be taken up with our friend, Japan, in order that a speedy adjustment, which will preserve the country for the white race and maintain our friendly relations with Japan, may be had.

This report of the board of control, with its introductory letter by Gov. Stephens, furnishes a comprehensive review of the Japanese problem as presented in California, and is the most convincing document which has been offered, partly because of its official character, and partly because of the fair manner in which the presentation has been made. I can not too strongly indorse and praise the manner in which that work has been done. That report, as I understand, is before your committee, and I shall refer to it only in instances where it corroborates and substantiates the various matters which I shall place before you.

It is no small gratification to me, who am in certain phases of this question a pioneer, to see that the various investigations made, official and nonofficial, not only fully confirm the statements which I had the honor to make to your committee in September, 1919, but show that the danger is, if anything, greater and more immediate than I represented then.


May I ask you to consider carefully, as the facts are developed, how conclusively they establish these points:
1. The practical impossibility of assimilating the Japanese, or making good and dependable American citizens out of them.

2. The determination with which they are bent on making a permanent place for themselves in this country through their methods of peaceful penetration, and notwithstanding any objection we may have thereto.

3. The hopelessness of any attempt by Americans to meet them in economic competition or in birth rate.

4. The certainty that, unless protective measures are at once adopted, they will secure control of the country, first through economic competition and finally through force of numbers.

5. The criminal wisdom of permitting any foreign nation, however friendly, to be the sole judge of what immigration shall be admitted to our land. That is our present policy with Japan.

6. The absolute necessity, along the line of self-preservation, of applying the same exclusion policy as to Japanese that has been effective for years in regard to Chinese.

7. The imperative necessity of applying the remedy now, while we can.

As to the second point, the determination of the Japanese to secure a footing in this country, through peaceful penetration regardless of our objections thereto, let me ask careful consideration by the committee of Exhibit Z [NOTE: Exhibits not included in this paper], extract from the Sacramento Bee of October 22, 1919, in which appeared a translation of an article published a few days before in Shin Sekai, The New World, a Japanese newspaper of San Francisco. The article is called forth by the opposition in California to Japanese immigration, and increase of Japanese population through "picture brides," etc. Following are a few sentences quoted from the article:
"When we of the Yamato race arise with a mighty resolve, their (the Americans') option will be as futile as an attempt to sweep the sea with a broom."

"We should advance, and not recede. To stop is to retreat. While we push forward boldly the enemy has no chance to form plans.... These maxims are suitable for the present situation."

"Even if photograph marriages should be prohibited, we can not be stopped from leaving our descendants on this American Continent. Even if not a single Japanese woman comes, it is not possible to prevent the seed of our great Yamato race from being sown in this American Continent by marriages with Americans, with French, with Indians, and with Negroes; especially since there already are 100,000 Japanese here, and 5,000 children are born annually."

"Supposing we Japanese were prohibited from owning or cultivating land .... If we can not conveniently do so in California, we shall go to other States and devise some plan. Even the laws of California are not forever unchangeable."

"The day will come when the real strength of the Japanese will make a clean sweep of all laws."

"Even the Kaiser's Empire was destroyed when its time came."

"What can Phelan and Inman (leaders of the anti-Japanese movement) .... do to stop the forward movement of our Yamato race?"

Let me call to your attention briefly the claims of Sidney Gulick and other friends and proponents of the Japanese, as presented to the American public.

Mr. Gulick, since I first opposed his demands on behalf of Japanese immigration, in June, 1919, has been steadily giving ground, when he found that ground absolutely untenable. He withdrew from his proposed constructive immigration bill, one by one, several ridiculous provisions to which attention had been called -- the grandfather clause, which, by the importation of a few thousand octogenarians who could send for all their blood relatives would have opened our gates to an unlimited number of Japanese; the student provision, under which any number of laborers could have come over as students, and gone to work at once in our fields, without any power on the part of our Government under the bill to prevent it; the religious persecutee clause, which opened our gates to anyone claiming religious persecution. Let me add that these provisions are also in the bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Dillingham.

These are a few of the "jokers" in the original immigration bill under which Mr. Gulick insisted that Japanese immigration would be materially cut down. Under the circumstances, it is not strange that I am forced to question either his good faith or his intelligence. He is still on the retreat, as noticed in his recent leaflets, but he persists in fighting for what has always been his real objective, though camouflaged carefully in the beginning. I refer to that because it is the objective of all the proponents of the "constructive" immigration bill, and all the opponents of the views which I present -- the passage of an act which will approve Mr. Gulick's so-called "New oriental policy," placing Asiatics on the same plane as to immigration and American citizenship as European races, and which, under his percentage basis plan, will admit ten times as many Japanese as Chinese, and a still greater number of Japanese, as compared with other Asiatics.

It would also compel us, for each immigrant admitted from France, Holland, Wales, or Mexico, to admit the following number from each of the respective countries named: Germany, 60; Ireland, 30; England, 15; Canada, 15; Russia, 10; Austria, 8; Sweden, 7; Norway, 6; Scotland, 4; Denmark, Hungary and Switzerland, each 2.


Mr. Gulick says that I use unscientific statistics and sensational exaggerations, and that my statements are so far from the facts that the "argument for the legislative program (against Japanese immigration) falls entirely to pieces." He makes that general charge against my estimate of the Japanese population in California, which becomes an important factor in various phases of the problem. The population cuts a figure in the Japanese birth rate in California and is of importance in connection with statements as to nonassimilability of the Japanese and as to violations of the "gentlemen's agreement."

He insists that Japanese own but little land in California; that there is no evidence that Japanese fail to make good citizens; that increase of Japanese population under the "gentlemen's agreement" has been only 55 per cent; that picture brides are not as efficient agents of reproduction as I have represented, and that I have exaggerated the proportion of Japanese school children in certain Florin districts.

He attacks the five planks of the anti-Japanese platform as first proposed by me in June, 1919, and since generally adopted by all enlisted in the movement, and bases his arguments against them, directly or indirectly, on his insistence that my statement of facts and statistics are untrustworthy.

As to each and all of these matters there is now evidence so complete and so unquestionable in its character as to readily convince any jury of intelligent and unprejudiced and competent investigators. So much of that evidence as may be necessary for the purpose will be laid before your committee.

With the proof now available that the Japanese population of California is about 100,000, it is evident that such population has been increased about 50,000, most of them laborers, since Japan asked for and secured a "gentlemen's agreement," because the population prior thereto was less than 30,000, and births less deaths up to last year, when my statement was made, were about 20,000, as stated by Mr. Gulick. It is true that the Japanese population of continental United States is about 150,000 (since Mr. Gulick concedes 50,000 outside of California), and it is true that the Japanese population of the United States has increased sixfold since 1900, nearly all under the protection of the "gentlemen's agreement"; all of which statements of mine were earnestly denied by Mr. Gulick and apparently disproved by a skillfully selected and plausibly arranged lot of statistics.

With these suggestions and the evidence and statistics which are to follow, I feel that those who have attacked my statements, including Mr. Gulick, are completely answered.



Population is a very important factor in the problem you are to consider. First, as to total Japanese population. The number in Hawaii is conceded to be between 112,000 and 120,000, out of a total population of all races, say, of 250,000. I haven't seen the census figures. These are estimates from the Secretary of the Interior and the Hawaiian Board of Education and other official sources. But more than 50 per cent of births and more than 50 per cent of new school registrations in Hawaii are Japanese.

The Japanese have already in Hawaii four times as many as the Chinese or Hawaiians or Portuguese or other whites, and within 20 years will cast more votes, as American-born citizens, than all other races combined.

In continental United States, outside of California, Sidney Gulick concedes that my estimate of 50,000 Japanese is correct. In California, where I have estimated 100,000 -- say 25,000 children, 60,000 adult males, and 15,000 adult females -- Gulick insists that there are not more than 72,000 or 73,000, and on that difference of 30,000 he hangs his argument through several pages of his pamphlets as to a number of different points. These arguments all fall to the ground if I am right and he is wrong, and that has been demonstrated.

Mr. Gulick and others have based their demonstration as to the number of Japanese in California on the theory that there are none in the State who had not entered legally, and that the population, according to the census of 1910, with allowance for arrivals and departures and births and deaths since, as furnished by the official statistics, would give the present population. The State board of control in its report, estimating in this same manner, places the total at 87,279, but explains that this estimate makes no allowance for the number who have entered the State surreptitiously. The Japanese Association of America advises the board of control that a census recently undertaken by the Japanese shows 78,628 in the State and says there are, in addition, about 5,000 California-born Japanese in Japan who will return here.

It is not generally known that a census taken in California in 1910, by order of the Japanese Government, showed 53,000 Japanese in this State, while the United States census enumerated only 41,000. This shortage of 12,000 in the data used by the State board of control (for it took the United States census of 1910 as basis and added births and legal recorded entries, and subtracted deaths and departures, to give the present population) would raise its estimate of the present population to 99,000 without illegal entries. From this it would appear that an estimate of the actual Japanese population (including illegal entries) based on mortuary tables as hereinafter referred to -- of 109,000 -- is probably not far from correct.


In view of the apparent present desire of the Japanese to conceal their real numbers, the Japanese census of this year can not be accepted as of much value. In San Diego County, for instance, where the Japanese originally reported 800 residents, a recount by the United States census enumerators disclosed 1,200, as published a few months ago. Too much reliance can not be placed even upon the final figures of the United States census of 1920, so far as they may indicate the actual Japanese population of California, in view of the apparent and determined effort to conceal their real numbers, and the ease with which, under present conditions and methods, enumeration may be avoided, and the great error conceded in the 1910 census.

Mr. L. E. Ross, registrar of the bureau of vital statistics of the State board of health, gave out on June 7, 1920, his latest figures on population and birth rate in California, which appeared in the Sacramento Bee of that date. (Exhibit A.) Mr. Ross's estimate of the total population of the State in 1919 is 3,234,204, and of that number he estimates 96,000 Japanese. He states that this estimate of the Japanese population is based on data secured by the board of control and from the United States census and the Japanese census, and includes those who have illegally entered the State.

While Mr. Ross has thus used 96,000 as his official estimate of the State's Japanese population, he evidently believes the total to be much higher. In the current number of the State's monthly Health Bulletin appears an article by him explaining a method which he has developed for estimating the population from the known ratio of males and females and from the established death rate in each sex. Applying this ratio to determine the present percentage of race distribution in the State, on the assumption that the entire population is 3,234,299 (his estimate for 1919), he finds that it gives results as to decrease of Chinese, slight increase of Indians, and material increase of Negroes, in accordance with the known facts. The same process indicates a Japanese population in the State of 109,000.

With the Japanese population of the State thus fixed conservatively at, say, 100,000, all the estimates which I have made as to present and future conditions in this State and in this Nation receive final verification, for this was the only factor assailed by Mr. Gulick which I was not in position to establish beyond question.


The tables heretofore presented by me to this committee indicating the increase of Japanese population in the United States in the future if existing conditions continue are now placed beyond criticism. My estimate of the present population, which was one of the factors, has been verified by official authority. The birth rate, as will be found later, has also been verified officially; but it is to be remembered that in those tables as a factor indicating natural increase due to births less deaths is used a number one-half as large as what was then indicated by known instances in certain communities, and apparently confirmed by the birth rate as published by the State board of health. The State board of health published for 1918 a birth rate of 62 for Japanese and 16 and a fraction for whites, but that was based on the population which the Japanese then said they had in this State -- 70,000. The board of health has proved to its satisfaction that the Japanese were mistaken; that their population was then a great deal more, and that their birth rate was therefore proportionately smaller. It must be remembered in connection with the Japanese birth rate in California that the proportion of males to females is four to one, while the proportion of males to females among the whites is one to one. If the Japanese population included females in the same proportion as the whites have, their birth rate would be multiplied by three or four. So that my factor of natural increase under conditions outlined is well below what may be expected.

The tables made by me showed that if the Gulick plan of percentage immigration were adopted and admissions confined absolutely to "allotments," eliminating all of his exceptions -- and the same is true of the Dillingham bill -- the Japanese population of the United States in 40 years would be 2,000,000, in 80 years 10,000,000, and in 140 years 100,000,000.

Under the "gentlemen's agreement" the increase of Japanese population indicated in these tables would be just as inevitable, but would be accomplished in greater or less time, according to the character and extent of the violations of the agreement by Japan.


When I was before the committee in September, 1919, attention was called to the conditions in the Florin district. I said that in certain sections the Japanese had entirely displaced the whites in some strawberry and grape fields, and that the Japanese children were rapidly supplanting the white children in the schools. Mr. Gulick endeavored to throw discredit upon my statement by publishing total attendance statistics for six school districts around Florin. In these six districts he stated that the white children numbered 517, of whom 209 were under 6 years of age, and that there were 530 Japanese, of whom 292 were under 6.

My statement as to certain sections of the area, which Mr. Gulick thus consolidates, is entirely true. Three of the school districts in this section are named, respectively, Enterprise, Sierra, and Florin. The Sacramento County grand jury, in its report published May 31, 1920, states that in the Enterprise district out of 46 pupils 17 are Japanese. In the Sierra district out of 64 pupils 40 are Japanese. The report adds, "There is evidence here of rapid increase of Japanese to the exclusion of the whites."

In the Florin district, out of 135 pupils, 85 are Japanese. The report adds, "So rapidly is the Japanese population growing to the exclusion of the whites that in a year or two all children in school will consist of Japanese. The upper and outgoing grades have the only white enrollment."

The county school superintendent of Sacramento County reports that in the Florin district there were in the fourth grade in 1918, 5 Japanese and 9 whites, and in 1920, 13 Japanese and no whites; in the fifth grade there were in 1918, 6 Japanese and 4 whites, and in 1920, 14 Japanese and 3 whites. At present there are in the first and second grades in this district 41 Japanese and 15 whites; in the third and fourth grades, 35 Japanese and 10 whites; in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades, 15 Japanese and 18 whites. It is only in the higher grades that at present the whites predominate. All the lower grades in the three districts show a rapid increase in Japanese and an equally rapid decrease in white attendance.

Even the statistics quoted by Mr. Gulick show that in a much larger area -- in six districts about Florin -- the number of Japanese under 21 already exceed the whites, while among children under 6 years the Japanese exceed the whites nearly 50 per cent. These figures themselves prove the rapid displacement of the whites, the great excess of very young children being peculiarly significant.


The comparative birth rate per 1,000 of the Japanese becomes a vital factor in this problem; for, if it be true that though they constitute today less than one-thirtieth of the population of the State, their birth rate, notwithstanding the small proportion of females among them, is three times as great as that of the whites, then it is only a question of time when they will outnumber the whites. That would be true even if immigration were to cease entirely. Continue to admit immigration, or increase the proportion of Japanese females, and the day when the white race in California will be in the minority will be brought much closer. In Hawaii it is now at hand. A continuance of existing conditions will produce in all other States of the Union the result which is looming above the horizon in California.

When it is remembered that this prolific race is unassimilable in the great American melting pot, and invincible in economic competition with our people, the gravity of the problem is apparent.

The birth rate of the Japanese per 1,000 of population in California, as given by the State board of health for the year 1918, was nearly four times that of the whites; that is to say, 62 and a fraction as against 16 and a fraction. These figures were based, as I explained, however, on the population then claimed by the Japanese of only 70,000. If we take the official estimate of the board of health of the Japanese population of 96,000 in the State, the Japanese birth rate per 1,000 for 1919 becomes, as announced by the board, 46.44 as against 16.59 for all other races in the State, including all whites -- that is, nearly 3 to 1.

The total births in the State in 1919 were 56,521, and the whites were 51,316; so that there were, other than whites, 5,205. Of that 5,205, 4,458 were Japanese, and included in the balance of 747 were all the other races except the whites and the Japanese -- the Negroes, the Indians and the Chinese. The Japanese had over six times the number of births of all other races, aside from whites, in the State of California in 1919.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Japanese that you have in California are middle-age, or below, are they not?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The figures show, Mr. Taylor, that of all the Japanese that came over here in 20 years past, 90 per cent were between 14 and 44 years of age; that is to say, of the mature, of the prolific age.

In Sacramento City the Japanese a year or so ago claimed 2,580 population, and the census of the total population now shows 66,000. I am assuming that no less than 60,000 are white. If that is so, the recorded births in 1918 and 1919 would indicate that the Japanese birth rate in Sacramento City is four times that of the whites, provided they have only 2,500 population. If they have 3,000 population, then the birth rate of the Japanese in Sacramento City would be three and a third times that of the whites.

The suggestion is made that this is an unfair comparison, because the Japanese are in the prolific period and we are comparing them with, whites who are not all productive. It you will turn to the report of the State board of control, page 34, the census of 1910 shows in California, 313,281 married white women under 45 years of age. The number of white births was 30,893, therefore the parentage percentage among white women of this age was 9.9. In contrast, the board's report quotes figures secured in the special census of the Japanese Association of America, made in 1919, as follows: Total married Japanese women in California, 15,211; number of births, 4,378; parentage percentage 28.8, which is three times the parentage percentage of the whites in the corresponding period of life.

The Japanese have been in control in Hawaii for a long time, and their birth rate, as shown by the official figures, is 45 or 50 or more in the 1,000, and that includes, you must remember, a number of old men and women. This, taken with the probability that the proportion of females will increase, is the most practical answer to the suggestion that the Japanese birth rate in California will soon decrease.


Mr. SIEGEL. Have you given any thought to the fact that before long Japan will have a large part of Siberia, and that, therefore, the drift will be over there instead of over here?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. The drift will never be to Siberia as long as the Japanese are encouraged or permitted to come here. California is the paradise of the Japanese, and they settle here in preference to any part of the United States, and in preference to any part of the world. They can make more money, under more favorable conditions, and with less effort, in California than anywhere else, and naturally they come here. And, even if there were a great drift over toward Siberia, it must be remembered that the net increase of population in Japan each year is said to be 600,000 or 700,000. It would take but a very small proportion of that net increase, if permitted to come in here, to inundate us in a comparatively short time. When they have occupied the most desirable portions of California, they will follow a similar policy as to other States. They have already commenced.


Mr. SIEGEL. What about the report introduced yesterday, showing that a number of Japanese had left this country, from July 1 to June 30, greater than those that came here?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I have this suggestion to offer in regard to that phase of the subject: Let me say of arrivals and departures, that we are interested in what is designated in official reports as "immigrant" arrivals and departures; we are not interested in the "nonimmigrant" arrivals and departures, since they do not stay here; they are supposed to be tourists, travelers, students, and they come and go. The "immigrant" arrivals are permanent that settle and become a part of the population; it is those in which we are interested.

In view of the enormous increase of Japanese population in continental United States since 1900, and particularly since the "gentlemen's agreement" was negotiated, it is absurd to make a claim as to departures exceeding arrivals in the aggregate.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. McClatchy, can you segregate these arrivals as to occupation?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. You will find in the report of the Commissioner of Immigration for each year a segregation by occupation of all the Japanese and Chinese, and perhaps other races which have entered. May I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that, in every one of those enumerations, will be found a large number of immigrants classed as laborers. Each year since 1908, according to the official reports, you will find from 1,000 to 3,000 Japanese laborers have been admitted, which is in direct violation of the gentlemen's agreement, unless those laborers were previous residents of the United States -- and all of them could not have been.


In the report of the board of control at page 34 you will find a very striking diagrammatic illustration, chart 4. That chart, interpreted, shows the high number of Japanese births per 100 registered births in 18 of the rich agricultural counties of the State for the years from 1910 to 1919, that number being nowhere below 10, and being in certain years above 15 in 11 of the counties, above 20 in 7, above 25 in 2, and above 30 in 1. That is to say, of the entire number of births in those counties, in some counties, in some years, the Japanese furnished nearly a third, and nowhere less than a tenth, and from a tenth it ran up to a third. And this notwithstanding the great disparity in population between whites and Japanese.

In these 18 counties the average births of Japanese have risen from 3.2 per cent of the total births in 1910, to 12.3 per cent in 1919; that is to say, their average proportion of the total has quadrupled in the past nine years.

In 1910, the Japanese births represented 1 out of every 44 children born in the State. In 1919, nine years later, the Japanese had 1 out of every 13 born in the State. In the 18 agricultural counties used by the board of control in its chart, which has s just been considered, the Japanese had 1 out of every 8 children in 1919. In Sacramento County, outside of Sacramento City, the Japanese births in 1919 were 49.7 per cent of the total births -- more, therefore, than the whites, since there were Chinese, Indians, and Negroes included in the total.

According to the California school census, the number of Japanese minors in the State in 1919 was 21,611, an increase in the past years of 252 per cent. The Chinese minors numbered 4,805, showing a decrease in the same period of 17.6 per cent. The white minors in that same period increased 18.5 per cent; so that the percentage of increase among the Japanese minors in California during the past nine years is 14 times as great as the percentage of increase among the whites.

Permit me to commend to your careful consideration what has happened in Tunisia, in North Africa. Tunisia is a French protectorate. France, many, many years ago, tried to make it a French colony, and through force of special inducements to French emigrants in time was gratified to find that the French in the colony exceeded all other Europeans in number. Then, the French Government rested, thinking that its work was well done. It committed, however, a grave blunder. It admitted a number of Italian immigrants. The number was small, and cut no figure as compared with the resident French population. Possibly the Italians were admitted to do some of the labor which the French preferred not to do. The stork labored for the Italians, and did not labor for the French, with the result that the Italians very steadily and rapidly increased in number, while the French slowly decreased. Today, Tunisia, though still a French protectorate, is an Italian colony, in which the French population cuts very little figure. Let us remember, however, in applying this lesson to our own case, if the time should ever come when this country, because of the number of immigrants absorbed, and because of their superior birth rate, has become a Japanese colony, it is certain that the United States will no longer be able to exercise a protectorate over it.



The "gentlemen's agreement" is at the bottom of all the present trouble. Mr. Gulick and the Japanese insist that it is a very excellent arrangement, and that its terms have been faithfully kept. The facts, on the contrary, demonstrate that, so far as concerns the interests of this Nation and the declared intent of the agreement, it is an iniquitous arrangement, and its terms have been constantly violated, in letter and in spirit, by Japan, and not properly enforced by this country.

The agreement was made at Japan's request, rather than have the exclusion act made to include the Japanese. It was supposed to secure, so far as concerns Japanese immigration, and through the acts of Japan herself, results similar to those which were secured by the exclusion act against the Chinese. Its terms provided that Japan was to prevent the importation into continental United States of Japanese labor, skilled and unskilled, and she afterwards voluntarily agreed to maintain the same policy as to immigration into Hawaii. The plan adopted was to admit into continental United States, even from Hawaii, no Japanese who did not bear Japan's passport, her word as a gentleman, certifying in effect that his entrance did not mean the entrance of a laborer.

Gulick, says at page 4 of his pamphlet, "The New Japanese Agitation -- 1920:"
"Californians were demanding that the Chinese exclusion laws be applied to Japanese. Japan wished to avoid the humiliation of such an action, and accordingly made an arrangement with the United States to stop all new labor immigration. This is known as the gentlemen's agreement. Her faithful observance of that agreement has been sufficiently shown by the writer in another paper."


The basic difference between the policies of the United States as to Chinese and Japanese immigration, respectively, is that, in the one case, we retained absolutely the right to decide the admissibility of the applicant; in the other case, we surrendered that right entirely to the other nation, a blunder on the part of a first-class power for which there can be no possible excuse.

The following language is from the report of the State board of control:
"The 'gentlemen's agreement,' intended to stop the indirect route of immigrant labor to continental United States through the Hawaiian Islands, Philippines, Mexico, Canada, etc., opened, however, the direct route from Japan to the United States by giving Japan exclusive power to determine who is eligible for a passport. A Japanese bearing a passport as a farmer probably cultivates in his own country an area not exceeding the size of a city lot in America. When he comes here he at once goes to labor on a farm."

The result of the two methods adopted by the United States for the purpose of excluding the Chinese and Japanese, respectively, is shown by the following facts:

According to the board of control report during a period of a little less than 10 years -- that is, from April 15, 1910, to December 31, 1919 -- the number of Chinese immigrants admitted to the State of California under the exclusion act was 11,914, and the number of emigrants departed was 125, a net increase in Chinese immigration of 789 in those nine years. During the same period under the "gentlemen's agreement," Japanese immigrants admitted to the State were 32,196, and the departures 7,110, a net increase in Japanese immigration of 25,086. That is to say, for every Chinaman admitted under the exclusion act there were 32 Japanese admitted under the "gentlemen's agreement," which, it was understood, would accomplish in the matter of Japanese immigration the same result as the exclusion act does for the Chinese.

Under the exclusion act, the Chinese population of continental United States decreased 50 per cent in the 20 years between 1890 and 1910; that is to say, from 72,422 to 36,248. Since 1910 it is estimated there has been a further decrease of 10 per cent. The Japanese, in the same territory, have multiplied sixfold in the 20 years from 1900 to date; that is, from 24,326 to 150,000, which is the present estimated population.

It is true, as Mr. Gulick says, that all of this increase has not been under operation of the gentlemen's agreement, but that which is not properly chargeable to the gentlemen's agreement was induced by the threatened closing of the gates against Japanese immigration on the demand of the Pacific Coast States. The agreement was adopted in 1907, and, as will be later shown, is properly chargeable with the immigration during 1907 and 1908, though Japan did not put it into operation until July 1, 1908. The Japanese population of continental United States in 1900 was 24,326, and in 1910 was 72,157, a gain of 47,831. In California the Japanese population in 1900 was 10,151, and in 1910 was 41,356, quadruple, an increase of 31,205. The total Japanese immigrant admissions to the United States, including Hawaii, for the 10 years, 1901 to 1910, inclusive, were, in round figures, 129,000, while the admissions for the years 1901 to 1906, inclusive, were 77,937. In the absence of exact data on the Japanese population in 1906, I have estimated that if 129,000 total admissions in the 10 years gave an added population in continental United States of 48,000 in round numbers, of which a little over five-eighths came to California, then the total admissions of 77,937 between 1901 and 1906 would have given an added population in continental United States, in round numbers, of 29,000, of which California would have received 18,000; so that it is fair to assume that the Japanese population of California in 1906 was approximately 28,000, and of continental United States was, say, 53,000.


Clearly, then, the "gentlemen's agreement," which was intended to prevent further increase of Japanese labor in this country, has really permitted the increase of our Japanese population threefold in continental United States and fourfold in the State of California -- this on the assumption that the Japanese population of California is over 100,000, as I have already established. And most of the increase is in the ranks of labor.

So, then, the agreement, whether its terms have been carried out in good faith or not, has failed to serve its clearly defined purpose, and, on the contrary, has done, or permitted, the very thing which it was intended to prevent. Therefore, it should be abrogated at once, while at the same time there should be put into force a plan which will accomplish the purpose desired.


The agreement, however, has been constantly and willfully violated, and evaded, sometimes on a large scale. The agreement was framed in 1907 following lengthy negotiations, and these were induced on Japan's part by an agitation in this country for some time previous, for exclusion of Japanese as well as Chinese. While the agreement was made in 1907, Japan postponed putting it into effect for a year, until July 1908. In the two fiscal years 1907 and 1908, while Japan was negotiating the agreement, and after it had been made but while she deferred putting it into effect, she rushed over 46,029 Japanese immigrants, nearly all laborers, of which number 19,774 entered continental United States.

In other words. Japan asked that our gates be not forcibly closed against her people, promising that she would herself keep them closed. But after she had obtained the concession asked for, she held the gates open for another year; and while, under her plea during negotiations, we had failed to close the gates, and while she herself held them open for a year after negotiations had been closed, she rushed through those gates over 46,000 of her people, the greater portion of whom were of that class which she had told us would not be permitted to pass through the gates; and nearly 20,000 of them came into continental United States, for whose particular protection the agreement was framed.

Politeness might term that act on the part of Japan an evasion, and not a violation of a gentleman's word. Mr. Gulick claims it was a legitimate procedure under the terms of the gentlemen's agreement, and that these 46,000 coming in 1907 and 1908, or the net increase which they added to the population, should not be charged against the gentlemen's agreement. On the contrary, I can not see in this action of Japan anything but a piece of sharp practice, and insist that the 46,000 are properly chargeable against the agreement. This is a question of international ethics, which may well be left for decision to any fair-minded individual.

In 1909 and 1910, immediately after Japan put the agreement into operation, the total immigrants admitted, including Hawaii, were 3,100 and 2,730, respectively. Since then the numbers have steadily increased until the admissions for continental United States alone exceed 10,000 annually.

For the fiscal year ending July 1, 1920, I have figures from commissioners of immigration at San Francisco up to June 12, 1920, and at Seattle up to May 31, each for less than the year, showing a total Japanese immigration into continental United States of 10,823. I have here in the shape of an exhibit the distribution of these:
Received at the port of San Francisco, Angel Island; that is, from July 1, 1919, to June 12, 1920:
From Japan, males, 2,944; females, 2,541; from Hawaii, males, 89; females, 37.
At Seattle: Arrivals of the Japanese from July 1, 1919, to May 31, 1920, say 11 months, from Japan, males, 3,175; females, 1,988.
From Canada, males, 25; females, 14.
From Hawaii, no record, insignificant number.
These figures, I understand, do not include tourists, students, merchants, etc.


The agreement was violated next by Japan sending over a large number of laborers, and numbers of others not classed as laborers, but who came to labor, and who were not prior residents of the United States. In the years 1918 and 1919, the official reports, segregated by occupations, show each year as high as 3,000 laborers admitted, all of whom certainly were not prior residents.

The board of control, in its report, calls attention to the fact that during the years 1910 to 1919, there applied for admission to this country 610 Japanese laborers not entitled to passports, and of these all but 25 were admitted. There were also 825 admitted who were without proper passports. The board asks, "Why the admission of those not entitled to passports, and those without proper passports?" This is an illustration of the suggestion which I have made earlier, that even within the limited area in which we could restrict immigration, apparently, our Government has been derelict.

As has been shown already, the Japanese population of continental United States has increased 96,000 since 1906, and that of California 72,000. Of this increase, a certain portion is due to births less deaths, while the balance is due to those who have entered the country from Japan or Hawaii, legitimately or surreptitiously. The great majority of this increase who have thus entered in the period named are laborers, as anyone knows who is familiar with the occupations of the Japanese now in this country; and every Japanese laborer within this category marks a violation of the "gentlemen's agreement." In California alone the population of the State has been increased within the period named by admissions about 50,000, and most of these were or are laborers.

Ichihashi, a Japanese member of the faculty of Stanford University, published in 1915 a book on immigration, in which he claimed that the total Japanese population of California, including women and children, was then 55,000; and that of this number 25,000 were farm hands. The greater portion of this 25,000 must have come in from Japan in violation of the terms of the "gentlemen's agreement," since the total Japanese population in California in 1906 was only 28,000.

Mr. SIEGEL. I understand that a great many aliens enter illegally as sailors, whether from Japan or otherwise, and we have not been successful in getting any of these people back, or shipping them out of the country.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Let me offer this suggestion: It is a very difficult thing to apprehend the Japanese, while it is not so difficult to apprehend the Chinese. A Chinese must have a certificate showing that he is entitled to be here; the Japanese need not; and, after three and five years, the Japanese are permitted to remain here, even though not legally admitted. So there ought to be a system of registration for Japanese; and any Japanese who can not show a certificate entitling him to residence here, should be at once deported. At present, the Japanese may exchange papers, or they may claim three or five years' residence.


The original Japanese immigrants as a rule did not bring wives with them. Very few of them had wives. In 1900, according to the United States census, the proportion of Japanese females to males in this country was one to twenty-five. Wives were needed in order that Japanese colonies in this country might rapidly increase, so Japan utilized the plan of the picture marriage, and recognized it officially in order that each Japanese in America who had no wife could acquire one by the simple expedient of sending his photograph over to Japan and having a complaisant maiden found who would wed him. The "gentlemen's agreement" recognized the right of each Japanese in this country to bring his wife over from Japan, and his picture bride was given a passport identifying her as his wife, armed with which she entered this country.

In 1910, the proportion of adult females to males in this country among the Japanese had increased to one to seven and thereafter nearly every year the number of females shipped over was in excess of the males, sometimes two to one. They were more necessary at that time, and are now, than males in the carrying out of Japan's plan of peaceful penetration. The present proportion of females to males in California is estimated at one to four. The Japanese census figures show about one to three and one-half.

That the practice of shipping picture brides was encouraged for the express purpose of aiding Japan's plan of "peaceful penetration" of this country, by increasing the number of resident Japanese and assisting thereby in securing gradual control of certain sections, is apparently verified by the following extract from an editorial published in the Asahi Shimbun, one of the leading newspapers of Tokyo, in commenting on the order abolishing picture marriage:
"As a result of the 'gentlemen's agreement' of 1907, by which our Government restricted emigration to America, Japanese in America lost the means of increasing their numbers by immigration. But afterwards relief from their difficult position was provided in the permission to send for women as photograph brides. By this it was possible for our unmarried compatriots in America to establish families without taking the trouble to go home to get wives. This had the double advantage that while on one hand it enabled them to enjoy the pleasures of family life, on the other hand it enabled them to escape the cruel persecution of all sorts of anti-Japanese laws by the power of their children who are born with the rights of citizens."

Further evidence as to the intent which lies behind the importations of "picture brides" into the United States is to be found in the article published in the Northman, a Swedish publication published in Portland, Oreg., in its issue of June 10, 1920; the article being composed of extracts from a letter written by Miss Frances Hewitt, who spent six years in Japan teaching English to Japanese school children, and whose long and intimate acquaintance with the Japanese in that relation gave her opportunities for acquiring knowledge denied to ordinary tourists, or even residents, in Japan.
"Tourists do not learn that every girl (school girl) is thoroughly drilled in the doctrine that, should she become a 'picture bride' in America, or an immigrant to other lands, her loyal duty to her Emperor is to have as many children as possible, so that the foreigners' land may become in time a possession of Japan, through the expressed will of a majority of the people."

During the year 1919, following the publication of my first articles on the subject, public sentiment in this country became so strong against this picture bride feature that Japan, in December, 1919, announced that, after February 25, 1920, she would cease to issue passports to picture brides. Note, however, that everything was done to issue as many passports as possible during the three months preceding February 25. The Japanese consulates at San Francisco and Seattle cabled the necessary certificates for picture brides at a probable cost of $25 each, and the Japanese Government announced that it would permit brides securing passports prior to February 25 to have until August 25 to embark for America. In consequence, they have been coming over steadily, from 60 to 130 in a single ship, while other travelers have been forced to postpone their journeys if accommodations on any ship were insufficient after the picture brides had been taken care of.

Following is a translation from the Great Northern Daily News, a Japanese newspaper published in Seattle. The article (embodying information from Tokyo) appeared in the issue of June 2, 1920:
"Photograph brides must go to America by the end of August. The foreign office has sent private (secret) instructions to the responsible authorities at the ports of sailing that this class of brides must be shipped as speedily as possible. Consequently, the hotels at Nagasaki, Kobe, and especially Yokohama, present remarkable spectacles like human whirlpools on account of these brides. The ordinary passengers for America have to postpone their sailings. Twenty per cent of the passengers on every vessel are women, according to the statement of a recent arrival from Japan."

The action of the Japanese Government in refusing further passports to picture brides was taken on the recommendation of the directors of the Japanese Association of America. This action was repudiated by the membership of the association and by the local Japanese associations throughout the coast, and resulted in a fight to turn out the old directorate, and a most vicious attack on Consul General Ohta, at San Francisco, who was held responsible for the directors' action. General demand was made upon Japan for withdrawal of the order as to picture brides, and failing to secure such withdrawal a commission was sent over, and is now in Japan, to induce the Japanese war department to lengthen the term of visit permitted to Japanese in their native land without being subject to the enforcement of the conscription law, from one month, the present regulation, to six months, so that they might have time to secure wives.

In the Japanese newspaper Shin Sekai, of San Francisco, The New World, of June 9, Noriyuki Toyama, a delegate to the commission from the Central Japanese Association of Southern California, expresses himself as follows:
"The inability on the part of those whose conscription has been postponed to stay more than 30 days in Japan is a great obstruction to the overseas development of our people."
The Sacramento Daily News, a Japanese daily newspaper in Sacramento, in its issue of June 29 of this year, declared that Consul General Ohta, when complaint was made to him as to his action in recommending, through the Japanese Association of America, that the granting of passports to picture brides be stopped, said:
"In compensation for the abrogation of the photograph marriage, we intend to take steps to secure the passage of a definite number of women under the name of extending the period of conscription."
The paper insists that the consul thereby conveyed the intimation that before enforcement of abrogation of picture bride marriages was announced he had taken the necessary steps with the authorities of the war office to insure the substitution of some plan which would obtain similar results in the importation of brides. Because the Japanese war department has declined to reconsider the picture bride order, or, up to this time, to provide some compensatory arrangement, the recall of the consul general has been demanded by a number of his indignant countrymen in California.

Other subterfuges have been resorted to maintain the continuance of the supply of picture brides. One of the plans was to secure the necessary number of women from Hawaii, and a regular business for the purpose was established by a Japanese in Stockton, whose naive advertisement in one of the Japanese newspapers of San Francisco, the Shin Sekai (New World), June 9, 1920, reads as follows:
"Marriages mediated -- the abrogation of photograph brides is positively nothing to grieve over. We have formed a connection with reliable parties in Hawaii, and will undertake to make all investigations of character and other particulars, and mediate marriage. Applicants should send photographs, personal history, and consular certificate to the undersigned, Furuya, 124 South Center Street, Stockton, Calif."

The "gentlemen's agreement" provided that Japanese already entitled to residence in this country had the right to send back for their wives and children. The Japanese, as a rule, had no wives, so wives were made for them in Japan by the picture-bride method. They had no children, so children were provided for them by the "yoshi" plan of adoption. Any Japanese in this country may formally adopt a number of children, men or women, in Japan, younger than himself, and these "yoshi" children after a certain period have the right of entry into this country. The "yoshi" after they arrive here, may, if they desire, divorce themselves from their adopted parents, and then bring over their own blood relatives; and so the flow of Japanese is maintained notwithstanding our understanding of the agreement.

The Shin Sekai, in its issue of May 25, 1920, quotes Vice Consul Tanaka, at San Francisco, as saying that between April 1 and May 24 of this year, he had issued 80 certificates for "yoshi." In the report of the board of control, mention is made of the fact that the Japanese consul at Los Angeles reported that out of 176 declarations by Japanese on behalf of relatives coming from Japan he filed in the two years preceding, approximately 23 were filed in behalf of "yoshi."

It is not improbable that the "yoshi" plan is being used, as it can be used, for the purpose of bringing over more brides, since the picture bride plan is about to be abandoned, because the plan of adoption is used for females as well as for males. Female adopted children are called "yoji." There is nothing at all to prevent a "yoji," on entrance into California, divorcing her adopted parent and becoming his bride.


It is not thinkable that Japan, through her consular system and agents, is not fully aware of the manner in which the intent and letter of the gentlemen's agreement is being violated by surreptitious entries over the border. Through the various local and district organizations, under control of the Japanese Association of America, with headquarters at San Francisco, which in its turn is entirely directed by the Japanese consul general at San Francisco, as openly declared by the leading Japanese newspaper of San Francisco, Nichi Bei, she keeps careful tab upon the Japanese in California, all of whom she claims as her citizens, and exacts from them duties and obligation as such.

One of the proofs of her complicity in the matter is found in the recent secret order for a Japanese census in California, as directed by the minister of foreign affairs, under order of Premier Hara. A correspondent in Los Angeles, writing in the Shin Sekai, the New World, of San Francisco, May 19, says that secret instructions to the Japanese consul at Los Angeles are to the effect that this registration must be completed by August 31, 1920. The order calls for the most minute details as to the occupation and income of each registrant, but allows the most astonishing latitude as to inaccuracy in the names. This is opposed to all methods and regulations ordinarily exercised by the Japanese Government in such matters. The order provides that the name by which any registrant is known here, or even his initials, will be sufficient for the purpose of this census. The reason is that a large number of Japanese here are without passports, or only with borrowed passports, and under false names; and there are in addition hundreds of "yoshi" whose family connections have become complicated with that of the adopted parents.


Another proof of Japan's knowledge of the fact that much of the Japanese population of California is here illegally, is found in the procedure under which the Japanese consulate issues certificates to Japanese residing here who go back to Japan for a visit, intending to return. They have not been obliged in the past to show to the consulate proof that they came to California originally legally, and in accordance with the terms of the "gentlemen's agreement." Within the past few weeks, because of public criticism, the consulate has given notice that it would require such evidence in the future.

Still another proof of surreptitious entry across the border and of knowledge thereof on the part of the Japanese consulate will be found in certain court proceedings in San Francisco in February, 1920. Seventeen "picture brides" were detained at Angel Island by the immigration commissioner on the charge that the bridegrooms to whom they had been consigned had no right to be in the country, having entered surreptitiously, and without passports from Japan.

If that were true the consulate would be properly chargeable with knowledge of the fact, since each prospective bridegroom in sending back his photograph for acceptance by some Japanese woman, to be selected for him, must accompany it by a certificate from the Japanese consul at San Francisco, indicating his business, standing, etc. The consulate would therefore know, unless it deliberately failed to inquire, whether the prospective bridegroom had a right, under the agreement with Japan, to be in this country.

Writ of habeas corpus was sued for on behalf of these picture brides, and they were finally released and turned over to their picture bridegrooms when it was shown that the latter, though they had entered the State surreptitiously, without passports, had been here five years and therefore could not be deported under general immigration regulations.


Incontrovertible evidence of the surreptitious entry of Japanese across the border is furnished in the present estimated population of California, which is 100,000 or more. Up to the present time, Sidney Gulick and the Japanese have claimed that the Japanese population of California was from 69,000 to 73,000, and have offered in substantiation figures based on the United States 1910 census, with the record of arrivals and departures, and births and deaths. If their estimates were correct, any excess population in the State over the number claimed by them must have been added by surreptitious entry, or come from other States. As the Japanese population of other States has increased, rather than decreased, conclusion as to surreptitious entry is inevitable.

Again the board of control estimates that, assuming there have been no surreptitious entries, the Japanese population of States outside of California has decreased 10,000 since 1910, as indicated by official data. Anyone familiar with conditions in Washington, Oregon, and other States which have been colonized by the Japanese, knows that there has been nowhere a decrease, but everywhere a marked increase of Japanese population in the past 10 years. And the difference between the board of control estimates (assuming them to be correct) and the actual population in these various outside States will indicate with certainty the number of Japanese who have entered surreptitiously.

Still further evidence is found in the report of the Commissioner of Immigration for the year ending June 30, 1919, in which attention is called to the fact that there are 180 miles of California-Mexican frontier to guard, the physical character of which makes it impossible to prevent surreptitious entry even with a large force, while big Japanese fishing fleets ply between American and Mexican waters providing convenient means of unlawful entry.

Japanese farm laborers in the Imperial Valley on both sides of the border are passing constantly to and fro across the line. The report says that confidential information of unquestionable authenticity shows conclusively that the smuggling of Japanese across the border is carried on successfully, and doubtless to a very large extent.

The commissioner's report also declares that because of reduction of his force on June 30, 1919, there will probably be an enormous falling off of arrests and "instead of apprehending some 6,000 aliens of all classes and degrees of undesirability, following surreptitious entry, it is only reasonable to assume that many will cross the frontier during the ensuing year with absolute impunity and merge their identity." The report does not make it clear whether the 6,000 come across our 180 miles of State border or across the entire Mexican frontier; nor does it indicate what proportion may be Japanese.


Mexico is at this time the most available avenue for the surreptitious entry of Japanese. The "gentlemen's agreement" was entered into for the specific purpose of preventing entry of Japanese labor into this country through Hawaii, Mexico, Canada, etc. Mr. Gulick said, in his last pamphlet, "Japan and the gentlemen's agreement:"
"For many years Japan has been voluntarily restricting immigration to Mexico, applying to that land, also the general principles of the gentlemen's agreement."
That may or may not be true, but as a matter of fact Japan is sending a great number over every month. The Fall Senate Committee of Congress, which has been investigating Mexican conditions, says that it is reliably reported that Japanese liners arrive at the port of Salina Cruz every 10 days and that Japanese are entering through that port in increasing numbers, and that they practically control commerce on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Tehuantepec is a far cry from the American border; but a press news item of May 15, 1920, from the City of Mexico, published generally throughout the United States, called attention to the fact that the newspapers of that city are very much concerned as to the increased immigration of Japanese into Mexico; that the arrivals during the month of March had been 5,000 and that the total for the year was expected to be 100,000; and that most of the arrivals were going to the agricultural districts of Sonora and Sinaloa.

Sonora is on the American border. It is generally conceded that no Japanese stays in Mexico when he can cross into the United States.



As a result of the advantages possessed by the Japanese in economic competition they are gradually securing control of the soil in the richest agricultural districts of the State, control of the products thereof, and control of the markets. If a unified interest like the Japanese can thus obtain control of the soil and its products in this country, even while their numbers be comparatively few, they will be able to secure in time a strangle hold on the economic development of the country itself.

What they already have accomplished in California is thus briefly indicated.

Their apologists insist that the Japanese have only reclaimed or improved land which was practically worthless and unoccupied. That is true in a few instances only. The Japanese are concentrating their efforts in securing control of the richest lands of the State, following always their clearly defined policy of penetration by concentrating effort in localities and occupations where least efforts will produce greatest results. They have only, say, 100,000, in our total State population of 3,400,000, but nearly all that hundred thousand is found in 29 rich agricultural counties out of the State's total of 58. Most of it is found in 18 of those counties and 75 per cent, if births be a fair indication of population, is settled in seven counties and concentrated in the most favored portions of those seven counties. May I ask this committee to bear in mind that this is not a weak solution of a hundred thousand Japanese in 3,400,000 whites; it is a concentrated essence placed in a few special spots and for a special purpose.

Sidney Gulick -- and reference to Sidney Gulick applies equally to the pro-Japanese in general -- belittles the control of the soil by the Japanese, saying that they own a comparatively small acreage; but the fact is that the Japanese control of the land by lease is practically as bad for State interests as control by ownership, since the lease establishes Japanese residence and control and drives off the whites. Short-term lease is as bad in effect as long term, since at the end of the short lease the injury has been done to the community and the owner must either renew the lease to Japanese or let the land lie unproductive.

Placer County and other districts of the State, which the Japanese claim to have made, were highly developed before the first Japanese came into these districts.

That was so also in Florin. In my memory before the Japanese were seen there Florin strawberries were shipped in carload lots as far east as the Mississippi River. In those days the Sacramento Bee had a little newspaper route there. A woman in a sulky distributed the paper to about 60 subscribers through the strawberry fields. Each family had a 5 or 10 acre piece, not more than that, and that route meandered through those strawberry fields. The Japanese came in time, and they worked, and then they leased and then they bought, and the whites left, and in a few years there wasn't a single subscriber for that route. The whites had melted away from that particular district.


It has been claimed that the Japanese have been cultivating the lands which are worthless. Now, the rich lands are the irrigated lands. The fact that they are irrigated is proof of their richness. The report of the board of control showed that in this state there are 3,839,500 acres of irrigated land. On December 31, 1919, orientals occupied 623,752 acres of this total, in the proportion of 6 acres by Japanese, 1 by Chinese, and 1 by Hindus. Of the total acreage, 534,808 acres were held under lease on crop contract, and 88,944 acres owned in fee. A large portion of the acreage held in fee has been acquired by Japanese since 1913, through violation or evasion of the alien and law. The Japanese Agricultural Association of California states that the acreage occupied by Japanese in 1909 was 83,252, and in 1919 the association quotes the acreage as 427,029, an increase in the 10 years of 400 per cent. The discrepancy as to acreage occupied in 1919 between these figures and those of the board of control may be due to a difference in the time of year that their respective figures were gathered; or it may be due to the fact that the board of control figures include acreage secretly owned by Japanese through white agents. The same Japanese association indicates the valuation of Japanese crops in 1909 as $6,235,856, and in 1919 as $67,145,730; the 1919 crop being more than ten times the value of the 1909 crop.

The following quotations are from the board of control's report: "It is interesting to note that in some of the richest counties of the State orientals occupy a total acreage ranging from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the total irrigated area; notably, San Joaquin County, with a total of 130,000 irrigated acres, with orientals occupying 95,829 acres; Colusa, with a total of 70,000 acres, with orientals occupying 51,105 acres; Placer County, with 19,000 total, orientals occupying 16,321 acres; and Sacramento County, 80,000 orientals occupying 64,860."

In general truck farming, small fruits and berries, the Japanese have for some years produced most of the crop, the proportion in many products running up to as high as 85 per cent and 90 per cent of the total crop. Two years ago, through control of the strawberry market, the Japanese were enabled to raise the price to such an extent that the public and the commission dealers united in a refusal to buy.


The Japanese are now organizing throughout the State, on recommendation of the Japanese Agricultural Society of Central California, for the purpose of controlling all markets in products raised by them. An editorial in Shin Sekai, the Japanese New World, of San Francisco, June 2, 1920, advises its readers that the fears formerly expressed by it as to an organization of this character being opposed to the antitrust law have been dissipated by the bill recently passed by Congress excepting farmers and stock raisers from the operation of such a law. "Hence," says the editorial, "farmers can now combine to control the marketing of their output. We rejoice in this opportunity on behalf of the Japanese farmers for whom cooperation is so necessary."

The leaders among the Japanese fully recognize the importance to them of possession of the land in their plan for peaceful penetration and ultimate control in this country. An editorial in the Nichi Bei, of San Francisco, June 5, 1920, urges the Japanese to cease wasting their money in gambling houses and invest it in land. It tells them "land is the very life of the Japanese race in California. Land is the foundation of our development."

You have in the report of the board of control some very illuminating charts showing the manner in which the Japanese ownership and leases have dotted and spotted the rich agricultural lands of this State, and it is important to know that the lands which are thus spotted are the richest lands of the State.

Various articles concerning the work of Japanese in securing control of land and markets in California, are included in Exhibit D.


What the Japanese are fast accomplishing in California in the way of peaceful penetration and control of land, they are attempting elsewhere in the United States, although knowledge thereof has not reached the people of the country generally.

In Washington and in Oregon the committee's investigations will secure knowledge of the extent of this penetration. Seattle, in Washington, and the Hood River apple district, in Oregon, are notable examples. In other States, in which the committee will perhaps not have opportunity to investigate at this time, there are sufficient proofs of the determination of the Japanese to get a foothold in any locality where conditions of soil and climate and environment will make their plans for colonization and penetration easy or profitable.

For instance, in Colorado they have already secured control of the Rocky Ford melon district. The Country Gentleman of August 16, 1919, gives full account of how that was accomplished. They are now running over into the adjoining State of Nebraska, and according to Japanese authorities have already in those two States about 5,000 colonists, who farm on the average 80 acres of leased land to the family. The Christian churches have done what they could to allay alarm and uneasiness on the part of the white population of Colorado and Nebraska and make penetration of the Japanese colonists easier.

In Florida, according to item published in Shin Sekai of July 20, 1920, 200 Japanese settlers have purchased holdings averaging 150 acres each, in the northern part of the State, and through publicity are encouraging more of their countrymen to follow their example.

In Texas, as indicated by a news item in the Sacramento Bee, the Japanese have purchased 1,000 acres of good irrigated land in the Rio Grande Valley, near El Paso, which is to be planted in cotton. This adjoins the district in New Mexico, in Dona Ana County, where the Japanese are already established in the cantaloupe industry. In El Paso, the Japanese are interested in a large market house and refrigerating plant about to be constructed, which will handle their products from the lands in the Rio Grande Valley and the adjoining State of New Mexico. In Eastern Texas, in Orange County, there is a Japanese rice colony of over 3,000 acres.


The Japanese have invaded and taken practical control of some of the important fisheries of the State, as they have secured control of the various agricultural activities. In the southern part of California, it has been represented to the Federal Government that, in violation of the Federal statutes, the greater portion of the fishing fleet centered about San Pedro is owned or manned by Japanese to the number of 2,000 or more.

Complaint has been made recently as to this situation, but it develops that while the operation of these fishing boats by aliens is a clear violation of the Federal statute, through a curious omission in the law, there is no penalty provided under which the law can be enforced.

This matter has been called to the attention of the Administration, and of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, through Hon. C. F. Curry, from California, and in a bill introduced by Chairman Green of the committee named, House resolution 12102, there has been inserted a provision, section 5, which it is assumed will remedy the defect in the law. This section provides a penalty of $500 at every port of arrival for any vessel engaged in the American fisheries and not documented as a vessel of the United States, it being understood that vessels owned or manned by aliens can not be so documented.

The State of Washington has protected itself against a similar situation by passing a law under the provisions of which vessels engaged in the fisheries within the State's jurisdiction must be owned and manned by those who are citizens of the United States, or who have declared their intention to become such.

To leave the fisheries in practical control of the Japanese creates a very serious situation: First, they assist materially in smuggling Japanese into California from Mexico. Second, they place in the hands of aliens an adjunct to the Navy which was found most valuable to Great Britain in the recent war. Third, the fisheries in the Territory of Hawaii are an absolute Japanese monopoly, and in the event of war with Japan, the sampans and power boats of the Japanese, which are sea-going vessels, could very easily secure from Japanese cruisers or transports arms and munitions and land them on the coast of Oahu, the principal island, on which are located our defenses, and therewith arm the Japanese population, the greater portion of whose adult male members are trained soldiers.



There are three principal elements in the menace threatened by Japanese immigration. They are:
First. The nonassimilability of the Japanese race; the practical impossibility of making out of such material valuable and loyal American citizens.

Second. Their unusually large birth rate per thousand population, already shown in California to be three times that of the whites, notwithstanding that the estimated proportion of adult females to males among the Japanese is only 1 to 4, while among the whites it is, say, 1 to 1.

Third. The great advantages which they possess in economic competition, partly due to racial characteristics, and partly to standards of living, organization, direction, and aid from their Government. These advantages make it hopeless for American whites to compete with them.
It should be evident that we can not encourage or permit in our midst the development of an alien element possessing these characteristics without inviting certain disaster to our institutions and to the Nation itself. The evidence which will be presented on each of these points is incontrovertible, and the conclusions inevitable.


As to nonassimilability, the first element mentioned in the Japanese menace, there are three main reasons why it is useless to attempt the making of good American citizens out of Japanese material, save of course in exceptional individual instances. The Japanese can not, may not, and will not provide desirable material for our citizenship:
First, the Japanese can not assimilate and make good citizens, because their racial characteristics, heredity, and religion prevent.

Second, the Japanese may not assimilate and make good citizens, because their Government, claiming all Japanese, no matter where born, as its citizens, does not permit.

Third, the Japanese will not assimilate and make good citizens. In the mass, with opportunity offered, and even when born here, they have shown not only no disposition to do so, but pronounced antagonism.

There can be no effective assimilation of Japanese without intermarriage. It is perhaps not desirable for the good of either race that there should be intermarriage between whites and Japanese. The laws of some States forbid such marriages but even where such marriages are permitted and encouraged, the Japanese themselves will not take advantage thereof. That is best demonstrated in Hawaii, where there is a great commingling of races; but the Japanese, comprising nearly half of the entire population of the Territory, and steadily increasing in number, maintain in wonderful degree their racial purity. With a population of 112,000 or more the Japanese in Hawaii in five years have contracted marriages with other races, according to the report made this year by the Survey Commission -- at the request of the Commissioner of Education, at Washington -- Bulletin No. 16,1920 -- as follows:
Thirty-two Japanese men and four women were married to Hawaiians, a few Japanese men to Portuguese women, one Japanese man to an American woman, and a few Japanese women to Chinese and Koreans.

The Japanese hold that their Mikado [emperor of Japan] is the one living god to whom they owe their very existence, and therefore all obedience. It is not possible to make of an individual in whom that belief is deeply and firmly grounded an American citizen who can be relied upon in a crisis. This worship of the Mikado (Mikadoism, or Shintoism) is a part of the education of each child in Japan, and school children are by Government decree forced to worship at the Shinto shrines.

Buddhism, which is tolerated in Japan, has Shintoism grafted onto it. Baron Goto, a prominent Japanese statesman, at a gathering of Foreign Board Mission secretaries, at New York, in June, 1919, said he was almost persuaded to embrace Christianity; that with slight modifications he could do so.

It is upon such suggestions as this American missionaries hang their hopes that by placating the Japanese in various ways, and more particularly as to their demands for free immigration and citizenship privileges in the United States, the evangelization of the Japanese both in Japan and in this country, will be made very much easier through Japanese Government suggestion or influence.

The modification necessary or desirable in Christianity before Baron Goto would embrace it is probably a modification similar to that which has been made in Buddhism; that is to say, the incorporation therein of Mikadoism, or Shintoism, which recognizes the god character of the Mikado, and insures thereby the loyalty of the individual Japanese to the Japanese Empire, through the Mikado.

Prof. Kunitake Kume, in "Fifty Years of New Japan," the English version of which was revised and authorized for publication by Marquis Shigenobu Okuma, "the grand old man of Japan," said:
"He (the Mikado) is regarded as a living Kami (god), loved and revered by the nation above all things on earth, and himself loving and protecting the nation, who are deemed sons of Kami Nagara, and are intrusted to his care by the Kami. This mutual understanding obtains between every individual Japanese and the Emperor."

It is declared in the book, "The Political Development of Japan," written by Etsujiro Uyehara, member of the Imperial Japanese Parliament, and head of one of the war commissions from Japan to the United States in 1917, that,
"The Emperor of Japan can say without hesitation, 'L'etat c'est moi,' 'I am the State,' more effectively than Louis XIV, not because he can subject the people to his will, but because he is morally so recognized. Theoretically, he is the center of the State, as well as the State itself. He is to the Japanese mind the Supreme Being in the cosmos of Japan, as God is in the universe to the pantheistic philosopher."
In the Japan "Advertiser" of May 9, 1919, there appeared a translation of an editorial in the "Niroku Shimbun" of Tokio, from which the following quotation is made:
"The Imperial Family of Japan is as worthy of respect as is God. The Imperial Family of Japan is the parent not only of her sixty millions, but of all mankind on earth. In the eyes of the Imperial Family all races are one and the same. It is above all racial considerations. All human disputes therefore may be settled in accordance with its immaculate justice. The League of Nations, proposed to save mankind from the horrors of war, can only attain its real object by placing the Imperial Family of Japan at its head, for to attain its object the League must have a strong punitive force of supernational and superracial character, and this force can only be found in the Imperial Family of Japan."
From a writer long resident in Japan, and fully conversant with its language, its religion, and its people, is quoted the following statement on this matter:
"Mikadoism, or Emperor worship, is the sheet anchor of patriotic fervor in Japan -- the soul of the body politic. The vast majority of the people have no other religion. It is not a relic of bygone days, but the very heart of present-day Japan."
In the Los Angeles Examiner of June 1, 1920, appeared a series of resolutions adopted the preceding day at a picnic held in Flyman Park by the Japanese Christian laymen, at which Seimatsu Kimena, the Japanese "Billy Sunday" was present. These resolutions recite the belief of these Christianized Japanese that Japanese can not make good American citizens unless they become Christians. While the reason for this statement is not given, it is clearly to be found in the Japanese worship of the Mikado. They also declared their intention of giving their children only an American education, and their willingness to be regarded in consequence by their fellow countrymen as a forsaken band.


The plea of Sidney Gulick, and a number of his Christian friends, that we make citizens of the Japanese and then trust to making good citizens of them by Christianizing them, advocates an experiment dangerous in the extreme, doubtful even as to a superficial change in religion, and certain to end in disaster. There are 150,000 Japanese in continental United States, and it is estimated that but 4,000 of them have embraced Christianity, although between 30,000 and 40,000 of those now living were born in this country, and although 70,000 of them have been here from 10 to 20 years. It may be assumed that if any large body of Japanese become Christians, their brand of Christianity will have been modified by Shintoism, as is their brand of Buddhism.

In addition, it may be remembered that a few years ago Japan sent a commission over to this country for the express purpose of ascertaining the benefits conferred upon us by Christianity: for Japan, if she sees a good thing in other nations, is quite willing to adopt it herself. The report of the mission was to the effect that, judging by the effects of Christianity on our people, it would not be a desirable belief for Japan to embrace.

The principal opponents, in this country, to Japanese exclusion are the American missionaries and church organizations interested in the evangelization of the Japanese. Apparently, they assume, aside from their claim that a Japanese can be made a good American by Christianization, that if this country will yield to the demands now made by Japan for the same privileges as immigrants and citizens for their people as are extended to Europeans, the work of the missionaries in Christianizing Japanese, both in this country and in Japan, will be materially promoted through Japan's friendly offices.


The attitude of Japan as to Christianization of her people has been sufficiently indicated within the past year through her action in Korea, where the Korean Christians were subjected to the greatest persecution and torture, the evident attempt being made, as claimed by some writers, to exterminate the Korean Christians, on the theory that their Christianity imbued them with liberal ideas more or less dangerous to the maintenance of Japan's power.

The attitude of the Japanese Government toward practical evangelization in Japan itself is well illustrated by the manner in which the institutions established by various missionary organizations have been confiscated for Government use, either directly or through enforced incorporation as Japanese institutions. The following extract from a letter from Guy M. Walker, to the New York Evening Sun, dated July 27, 1920, gives detailed information as to Japan's act in connection with this policy:
"There is another thing concerning what has happened in Japan in the last few years on which our people should be enlightened, and that is the confiscation by the Japanese of all mission property created by the millions of money sent by our religious people to Japan for the Christianization of the Japanese. In order to prevent the confiscation of all of the mission property, there was a few years ago a feverish and hurried effort on the part of many denominations to organize Japanese churches such as the Methodist-Japanese, the Japanese Presbyterian Church and the Japanese Baptist Church, and a hurried transfer by the American missionary societies to these Japanese churches of the missions schools and properties, in order to prevent them from being seized and confiscated by the Japanese Government, or of being appropriated by the Japanese trustees, in whose name they stood. Many of these properties have since been converted into secular or pagan institutions, and the Japanese have cut out everything connected with the Christian propaganda, although they were created by Christian money from America. If these facts were known, as they should be, I am quite sure that no sensible American would ever give one penny further for the education or civilization of the Japanese."
In the Japan Advertiser (Tokyo) of June 20, 1920, is a lengthy article by Charles A. Perry, calling attention to the little interest shown by Japanese in the matter of Christianization as indicated by the small number of Christian converts in Hamamatsu, a manufacturing town in Japan, of about 19,000 inhabitants, and the high cost of their conversion. He gives statistics and experiences from the various missionaries and missions, and quotes Rev. W. A. Richards, one of the resident missionaries, to the effect that the baptized converts of all sects by the various missions on an average cost Y200 per head (a yen is worth 50 cents). Mr. Perry adds:
"I am inclined, though without precise figures, to think that this is an underestimate, for Mr. Richards's own three converts (secured in four years) work out at Y4,000 per head."
The inherent incapacity of the Japanese for assimilation, their religious belief and ideals, bred in them for generations and taught to them the world over, which foreign birth and foreign residence does not modify, create a permanent and insurmountable barrier between them and that real American citizenship which would be of value, and not a grave menace, to this Nation. They can not be transmuted into good American citizens.


The second point made by me against the possibility of making American citizens out of Japanese is based upon my statement that Japan does not permit it. We come now to the curious and inconsistent policy of our Government as to dual citizenship, the full viciousness of which is most apparent in the case of the Japanese. We recognize as an American citizen and extend all rights and privileges as such to anyone born under the American flag, including of course, the Japanese. Japan, on the other hand, rigidly insists that every Japanese, no matter where his parents were born, and no matter what nation may have conferred citizenship on him, with or without his request, is a Japanese citizen, and must perform all the obligations as such.

Every Japanese born here, even if his forbears for generations were born here, but had not been permitted to expatriate, is subject to orders from Japan; is kept track of through the Japanese consulate, and other organizations, and is subject to call for military duty. Authorities on international law agree that, since the United States confers its citizenship on the Japanese born here, unasked and with full knowledge of Japan's claims, we must, in the event of war, recognize those Japanese as the citizens of Japan.

We are thus conferring upon the Japanese born here all the rights and privileges of citizenship, without any of the obligations, and we are certainly breeding in our midst a class of American citizens whose hand, we know in advance, must be against us in possible case of war.

The Japan Parliament passed, some years ago, and the Emperor afterwards promulgated, what is known as the "nationality option law," which is supposed to permit a Japanese born on foreign soil to expatriate himself. Examination of its terms and operation shows it does nothing of the kind. Under it, a Japanese born on foreign soil may, between the ages of 15 and 17, and with the consent of his guardians, apply to the Japanese Government for permission to renounce his allegiance. Under the circumstances, that application is not often made, but, if made, it has no effect unless permission be granted by the Japanese Government. The board of control report quoted the Japanese Vice Consul Ishii, at San Francisco, to the effect that not to exceed a dozen American-born children have signed the "Declaration of Losing Nationality," and that, so far as learned, permit has not been granted by the Japanese Government in any of these cases.


Japan not only claims as her citizens all Japanese born on American soil, but she takes great care that they grow up really as Japanese citizens, with all the ideals and loyalty of the race, untouched by the notions prevalent in this country, which would weaken that loyalty.

The Japanese children born under the American flag are compelled to attend Japanese schools, usually after the public-school hours, where they are taught the language, the ideals, and the religion of Japan, with its basis of Mikado worship. Here they are taught by Japanese teachers, usually Buddhist priests, who frequently speak no English, and who almost invariably know nothing of American citizenship. The textbooks used are the Mombusho series, issued under the authority of the department of education at Tokyo. These schools are located wherever there are Japanese communities, and teachers in the American public schools testify that the Japanese children frequently are studying their Japanese lessons in their public-school hours.

In Hawaii this system of Japanese schools and its effect in preventing any chance of inculcating the principles of American citizenship in the Japanese upon whom we confer such citizenship, caused such widespread comment that the Hawaiian Legislature in 1919 attempted to pass a law providing that teachers in foreign-language schools must know sufficient English and enough American history and civics to ground the pupils in the principles of American citizenship. That bill was defeated on the demand and through the influence of the Japanese, who said its effect would be to destroy their schools.

Now, the survey commission appointed by the Commissioner of Education of the United States, reports in Bulletin No. 16, of 1920, that these Hawaiian-Japanese schools, if not anti-American, are at least not pro-American, and recommends that all foreign language schools in the Hawaiian Islands should be abolished, except for foreign children who can never become American citizens.


It has been shown already why the Japanese can not make good citizens, because of their religion and heredity and nonassimilability; it has been shown also why they may not make good citizens, because the laws of Japan, efficiently and rigorously administered in the United States, as well as in Japan, do not permit them; it is equally true that they will not make good citizens and that the evidence of the acts of those who have resided under the American flag for many years is conclusive on this point.

In Hawaii, where their numbers make them independent, and where they are now in a position to practically control the territory, the Japanese form a separate, alien community, observing the laws, customs, and the ideals of Japan, using the Japanese language, both in their business and in their schools, and bringing up their children to be, not American but Japanese citizens, with all that loyalty to the Mikado which is a part of the Japanese religion.

The statement made as to Japanese policy in Hawaii is equally true of the Japanese in California, though, because of differences in conditions, the evidence has not forced itself as yet so strongly on public attention. The Japanese schools are found in every Japanese community in California where there are enough children to support them.

The Japanese, however, are not content to depend upon education of their American-born children in this country in order to make them loyal subjects of the Mikado. In the report of the Japanese Association of America, concerning its California census, as quoted by the State board of control, appears the statement that there are in Japan at this time about 5,000 California-born Japanese. That statement carries little significance to most people. It means, however, that there are at this time 5,000 of the Japanese born in California -- that is to say, 20 per cent of California's Japanese minors -- upon whom the United States conferred citizenship, who are now back in Japan being thoroughly instructed in the religion and ideals of Japan; so that when they return here they may serve not as American citizens, but as loyal subjects of the Mikado, to do his will and serve his interests.

The immigration commissioners of San Francisco and Seattle testify to this custom of many California Japanese to send their children back to Japan when between [missing figure] and 10 years old and bring them back when they are 17 to 19.

The Japanese writer, C. Kondo, chief secretary of the Central Japanese Association of Southern California, in a very able article published in Nichi Bei of January 8 and 9 of this year, frankly acknowledges that the Japanese of California show no disposition to Americanize themselves, and that to this fact largely is due the antagonism which they have created. He warns them that this antagonism will increase rather than disappear, and suggests that they should move to the Southern States, where their characteristics are as yet unknown. He adds, however, that if they pursue the same methods there that they have in California they will encounter the same bitter experience that they are now undergoing here.


One reason why the Japanese show no disposition to Americanize themselves lies in their belief, passed down through generations, grounded into them in their schools, and a part of their religion (for is not their nation the only one on earth whose ruler is the living god?), that they are superior to any race on earth. Why, then, should they be willing to expatriate themselves and become citizens of an inferior Nation?

The cockiness which many have noticed in the Japanese under certain conditions and on certain occasions, their pride and sensitiveness, their intolerance of criticism or opposition, are all due to this inbred and firmly established belief in their superiority. In Exhibit AA appears an article from the issue of June 10, 1920, of The Northman, a Swedish publication printed at Portland, Oreg., in which Miss Frances Hewitt, who spent six years in Japan teaching English to Japanese school children in the public schools there, says:
"Neither do the tourists learn that these children are taught that they, being children of the Son of Heaven, are superior to all foreigners, and that their natural destiny is to bring all other peoples to subjection."
Under such conditions, it is not only probable but practically certain that the majority of Japanese who are now endeavoring to secure for themselves the privileges of American citizenship are doing it not from any desire to help the American Nation, or to become an integral part of it, but that they may better serve Japan and the Mikado. A striking evidence of this is found in an article which appeared in the Sacramento Daily News, a Japanese newspaper, February 4, 1920, a translation of which appears in Exhibit K herewith. This article calls the attention of the Japanese to the dual citizenship situation, and suggests that for the present they cease registering births with the Japanese authorities, but register only with the American authorities. They are advised that they need not fear thereby to lose Japanese citizenship, because at any time they can make good their claim to it by proof of birth, etc. The article closes with the statement that the American citizenship can be used for furthering the purposes of Japan in this country. Following is part of the article:
"It is urged then when as American citizens (by birth) the opportunity comes for them to reinforce the Japanese residents in America who have no citizenship rights, they must, on behalf of His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, become the loyal protectors of the race."
The following is a portion of a statement made on his return to San Francisco from Japan by Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, president emeritus of the University of California, and republished in the Japan Advertiser of Tokyo on May 22, 1920. Dr. Wheeler had gone to Japan as a member of an unofficial mission headed by Mr. Wallace M. Alexander, of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, to discuss with leading Japanese the feasibility of a friendly understanding between the two countries.
"The two civilizations can not mingle, and the leaders in Japan agree that it is not well to attempt to amalgamate them. They can not and will not understand our civilization, and no matter in what part of the world he is, a Japanese always feels himself a subject of the Emperor, with the Imperial Government backing him, much as a feudal retainer had the support of his overlord in exchange for an undivided loyalty."

I have heard but three arguments in favor of Japanese immigration -- or rather all pleas may be reduced to these three:

First. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man plea. The Japanese want to come here because this is a better place than Japan for them, and we ought to welcome them.

That plea is a legitimate one within limits. It ceases to have force when you invite destruction for yourself and your posterity and your Nation in order to give someone something which he does not need, but which he wants. A nation has no right to disregard the first principles of self-preservation.

Second. It is declared we can not do without Japanese labor; that with exclusion enforced, lands will lie idle, and productivity decline.

So far as our small farmers are concerned, the evidence is that they get no benefit from Japanese labor. The Japanese work lands on lease, and those who work for wages work for their countrymen, usually on the cooperative plan, and not for whites. The board of control says in California there are fewer Japanese working for white men than white men working for Japanese.

It is the absentee landlord, the large landholder, who wishes to reside in the city, who profits through the presence of Japanese, by leasing to them.

We can afford to have less profit made by these landowners -- we can even afford, if necessary, to see our total production decrease, rather than promote the control of this country by Japanese. Besides, the future exclusion of Japanese will not decrease their number here. Their birth rate will prevent that.

There are many experienced California farmers, agriculturists, and orchardists who insist that activities in the agricultural sections of the State can be continued successfully without Japanese labor, and who themselves furnish proof thereof in the management of their own properties. They do it usually by providing conditions which will offer attractions to help of this character to remain, particularly where they have families. For the picking of fruit a number report that they find no difficulty in securing families and girls, providing the necessary conditions are furnished. Some use Mexican labor, which has to be handled courteously and fairly, but is declared to be excellent labor if so handled, particularly if the laborers have their families with them, and a small house with an adjacent piece of ground is provided for each.

As indicating the sentiment of California farmers on this subject, it is sufficient to say that the California Farm Bureau Federation, representing an affiliation of 33 county farm bureaus, covering 85 per cent of the agricultural area of the State, with a membership of 20,000, voted by referendum in July, 1920, on a long list of topics of importance to the California farmer. The result as to matters connected with Japanese was as follows:
Against Japanese immigration, 12 to 1; against leasing land to Japanese, 12 to 1; against ownership of land by Japanese, 40 to 1; against Japanese as bonded laborers, 7 to 1; against importation of "picture brides," 27 to 1.
Third. It is urged that to enforce exclusion against the Japanese may produce friction and international complications.

That is not the plea of a good, red-blooded American. The question is, Are we right in this matter, and is Japan wrong? Canada and Australia and New Zealand say we are right, and Japan has tacitly acquiesced in the protective measures which those countries maintain. Our own experience with Japanese immigration under presumed restriction proves conclusively that the interests of the Nation demand exclusion. That being so, the true American will say frankly to Japan: "You see the facts; our people can not assimilate. Continuation of existing conditions will make us enemies where we are now friends. Let us adopt the only possible means which will prevent such an unfortunate result."

If Japan insists on finding cause for friction in such a frank statement, why, this is a good time to learn that fact. Certainly it is the time to act in our own protection.

Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard University, who returned recently from a visit to the Hawaiian Islands, where he had investigated the problem of Japanese immigration, said in a talk before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco:
"Put the boot on the other foot. Suppose 100,000 American laborers settled on one of Japan's small islands. Suppose they brought with them American customs, traditions, habits, and means of permanent establishment through propagation. Would this be tolerated by the Japanese Government? The Japanese themselves admit that it would not."



I can not too strongly impress upon this committee the evidence which is indisputable, and which steadily accumulates, that, through encouragement or tolerance of Japanese immigration, we are developing in our midst an unassimilable alien community which has no sympathy with American institutions; out of which we can not in any way and in any time mold American citizens; which is here simply for its own selfish purposes and for the aggrandizement of Japan and the Mikado, who is its god; and that this alien community is already commencing to secure economic control of certain sections of the country.

Every utterance and every act of the Japanese, properly understood, points to their determination to develop the Japanese race in this country and to create for them a position which can not be attacked -- to make, in short, of this country a principality of Japan. They never discuss or consider the development of themselves or their children as American citizens who have severed all connections with Japan, but only as Japanese who are establishing their race in a particularly favored land. It is for this end that they are openly urged by their speakers and writers, in district meetings and in newspaper editorials, to secure land and beget children.

The three Pacific Coast States are generally designated by the Japanese as "New Japan." Florin, in Sacramento County, now a Japanese village and district, is called "Taisho-ku." Taisho is the name of the present Imperial family of Japan. The model Livingston colonies in Merced are called the Yamato Colonies. Yamato is one of the favorite names of the Japanese for their homeland. The Imperial Valley is always called Tei Koku, a term employed in speaking of the Japanese Empire. Japan always changes the names of new territories annexed by her. Korea is Chosen (which was the ancient name): Formosa is Taiwan, etc. It would seem that they already regard the Pacific coast as an outlying province.

Children are more frank than their elders, and they usually reflect the sentiments which they hear expressed by these elders. In the Washington Farmer, June 3, W. S. Charles tells of the frequently expressed sentiment on the part of Japanese school boys in the Pacific Northwest, when they have physical differences with the American boys, to the effect that Japan will come over here some day and take possession of this country. Similar evidence appears in the statement of Mrs. J. M. MacClatchie of Berkeley.

Japanese kultur is as insidious and much more dangerous than German kultur. The propaganda and the agencies which it employs, some of which were exposed by me in my previous hearing before the committee, are such that, at first mention of them produced among the uninformed only incredulous smiles. And Japanese kultur is not making a mistake which German kultur made -- it does not encourage, much less permit, the Japanese to become real American citizens.


This alien community has an organization and practices a degree of cooperation which makes it invincible in certain matters, notwithstanding its comparatively small membership. The Japanese have their local associations, which are controlled by five district organizations centered at Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. They have in California 55 agricultural associations, each of which is affiliated with one of the three large central agricultural associations.

The district organization centered at San Francisco is known as the Japanese Association of America and its jurisdiction covers the States of Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and all that portion of California north of the Tehachapi. There are 39 local organizations affiliated with it.

The Japanese Association of America, the district organization located at San Francisco, while ostensibly an independent organization acting only in the interests of the individual Japanese in a certain district of the United States who swell its revenues, is really ruled by the Japanese Consul General at San Francisco for the glory of Japan and her illustrious ruler, the Mikado. That is not my statement, but the declaration of Nichi Bei, the leading Japanese newspaper of San Francisco. There is offered as an exhibit (see Exhibit "P") a translation of an article, one of several of similar character which appeared in that newspaper, in which it openly charged that the Japanese Association is only the tool of the consul general, operated from his office, and that he names its executives and dictates their action.

The Japanese have boasted that through various influences they have "scotched " or delayed adverse legislation in Colorado and in Oregon. Their California journals have called attention to the fact that they are raising a fund of $100,000, $50,000 to come from Japan and the balance to be collected here, for the purpose of "persuading " the next California legislature against action adverse to Japanese interests here.

An investigation of the Japanese communities in this State will convince this committee that we are harboring a most dangerous character of alien Government within our Government; that this alien Government controls the education, the religion, the acts and the lives of the members of these resident communities; and the sacred privilege of American citizenship conferred on them by birth is of no value in inducing assimilation, but simply places in their hands a weapon which will be used against us in peaceful penetration or in open warfare.


It will be agreed, I think, that the facts now before us conclusively establish that the Japanese are undesirable as immigrants and as citizens, not because they are of an inferior race but because they are superior in certain characteristics, which, if the issue were forced, would determine the possession of this country between two unassimilable races.

The Japanese are unassimilable with our civilization and our people. Their racial characteristics would soon give them economic control of this country if these secure a foothold, and their natural increase would give them in time superior numbers to the whites. Under such conditions it would be national suicide to encourage or permit the Japanese to secure a foothold here.

The "gentlemen's agreement," under which Japanese immigration is at present regulated, was a grave blunder. It has failed utterly to accomplish the purposes for which it was intended. In 20 years our Japanese population in continental United States has increased sixfold; while since 1906, and directly chargeable to the "gentlemen's agreement." that Japanese population in continental United States has multiplied three times, and in California has multiplied four times.

It has been established that the agreement is being constantly and deliberately violated. Admissions coming through the open ports under passports from Japan are largely in violation of the intent, if not the actual wording, of the agreement, while there has been coming in over the border surreptitiously in violation of the agreement, but certainly with the knowledge of Japan, a steadily increasing number.

It is certain that under either the "gentlemen's agreement," or the proposed percentage immigration plan, an encouragement of further admission of Japanese means that the Japanese population in this country will so increase as to run into millions in a comparatively few years, and ultimately become so large as to dispossess the white race.

What has happened in Hawaii, which is apparently already lost to the United States and to the whites, is happening in certain localities in California. A continuance of these conditions will make the situation general throughout the favored portions of the United States. We are permitting to develop in our midst an alien, unassimilable community, whose continued presence means international conflict, and whose growth without conflict would mean the subjugation of this country.

In Exhibit R will be found an interview from the Japan Advertiser, of Tokyo, May 7, 1920, with Dr. H. H. Powers, who has been a member of the faculties of the Universities of Stanford and Cornell for 15 years, and who is the author of a number of books. Dr. Powers is frankly telling the people of Japan, through the Advertiser, that they are being misled in reference to this immigration question; that Mr. Frank Vanderlip wrongs both peoples when he holds out the hope that America will abandon her policy of exclusion toward the peoples of the Far East. I shall quote a small portion only of that interview:
"Unfortunately, the Japanese would not make Americans at all. No race ever makes itself a part of another race except by intermarriage and physical fusion. That would not happen in the case of any far-eastern race, or at least would not happen fast and soon enough to destroy the consciousness of race separateness. The Japanese would remain distinct. They would rapidly displace our own more exacting race. As we felt ourselves to be losing ground, we should turn upon the aggressive race with bitterness and fury. That race would lean on the home country and enlist its support.

"In a word, if we want war between the two countries, that is the best way to get it. Keep the sea between us and we can be friends, very good friends: but, bring the two races together under conditions that ensure competition on unequal terms, and where the necessary fusion is not to be expected, and a bloody clash is inevitable. The American people feel this though they do not wholly understand it. Their policy is the instinct of self-protection."

To remedy the national situation which has thus been outlined, the State of California can do very little because of lack of authority. What she may do within her own borders, she is attempting to do, through an initiative measure, in closing up the loopholes which have been found to exist in her alien land law, so that the Japanese will no longer be able to secure control of the rich agricultural lands in the State, either through ownership or lease.

It is to be remembered that in the existing treaty with Japan there is no provision for extending to Japanese the right to own or lease agricultural lands, and that the present alien land law, and the amendments thereto now being provided for by initiative specifically guarantees to aliens ineligible to citizenship, as to the acquisition, ownership, occupation, and disposition of agricultural lands, all the rights granted them by treaty, and not otherwise.

It is noted, too, that the plan outlined by California to prevent ownership or lease of agricultural lands by Japanese, against which there was such protest on the part of the Japanese, has already been embodied in a law passed by the Philippine Legislature and now effective with the formal or tacit approval of the President of the United States.

The effective remedy for the situation in this country must lie with the Federal Government, which made the original blunder and created the existing situation, and which alone has the power to provide the remedy. That remedy will probably have to come partly from the Executive Department, because of the existing "gentlemen's agreement," and perhaps partly through Congress in adopting legislation.

What is necessary, apparently, on the part of the United States Government to remedy the existing situation is:

First. A policy of absolute exclusion of the Japanese, either under a treaty or written agreement with Japan, or by act of Congress, as in the case of China. This should be as rigid in its terms as our exclusion law affecting the Chinese, and should forbid the importation, under any pretext, of women or wives of Japanese men whose right to reside in this country has been recognized. It has already been shown in this statement that the Japanese birth rate in California is three times that of the whites, though the Japanese have but one woman to three or four men; that they have urged that they be permitted to import enough women to serve as wives for all adult Japanese men; and that their speakers and newspapers have constantly urged the necessity of raising large families in order to establish the Yamato race permanently in this country.

Second. Any necessary precautions to enforce such understanding by guarding against surreptitious entry.

Third. Formal adoption of the clearly defined principle that Japanese and other unassimilable Asiatics shall never be admitted to citizenship by naturalization. To make exceptions to such a rule in favor of Japanese already here, as is now being urged, would be a grave blunder, establishing a precedent which would make for present complications with other Asiatic countries, and future friction with Japan -- for the concession would be used by her as an entering wedge. Aside from these considerations, it would be a national crime to confer citizenship on Japanese saturated with the ideals and religion of Japan, and who came over here after reaching maturity. The evidence seems conclusive on that point.

Fourth. A modification of our present policy which permits dual citizenship and its grave consequences in the case of the Japanese. Apparently the latter can be done only by amendment to the Federal Constitution, confining citizenship by birth to those whose parents are eligible to such citizenship.


Exclusion can be accomplished under proposed bills in Congress by extending the boundaries of the zone in Asia from which immigration is barred, to include Japan. Action along these lines has been recommended by the Commissioner General of Immigration in his report for the fiscal year, ending June 30, 1919, at page 59, in the following language:
"The bureau respectfully suggests consideration of the extension of the barred zone to such parts of Asia as are not now included therein, nor affected by exclusion laws or agreements, and also to Africa and adjacent islands so as to exclude inhabitants who are of the unassimilable classes, or whose admission in any considerable number would tend to produce an economic menace to our population."
The immediate settlement of this very grave question along lines of exclusion is manifestly in the interests of both nations, since both nations wish to maintain, and will find it advantageous to maintain, friendly relations.

Apparently the leaders in Japan, as well as those who have investigated the subject on behalf of the American people, find convincing proof that neither race is desirous of assimilating, even if it can assimilate. Under such conditions to maintain side by side in this country two unassimilable races would be to invite friction and bring about conflict ultimately.

The effective remedy indicated in the four proposed measures outlined above should be applied, if possible, in such a manner as to avoid hurt to Japan's pride, and thereby prevent friction and possible international complications. That could be accomplished either by a treaty, or by the passage of identical laws by Japan and the United States under which each nation would decline to admit to its shores, either as immigrants or citizens, the nationals of the other, making, of course, due provision for officials, tourists, students, commercial men, etc.

Japan could offer no reasonable objection to such an arrangement, since she would be excluding from Japan the same classes which we desire to exclude from the United States, and she would be doing it presumably in the interests of her own people, as we would be doing it in the interests of ours. I commend to your committee careful consideration of this suggestion as a possible solution for this serious problem.


The five remedial measures suggested by me originally and afterwards adopted by the American Legion in national convention, and by the several exclusive organizations of the Pacific coast, would be sufficiently covered in the plan as now proposed. These five remedies appear at page 36 of "The Germany of Asia," and include (1) cancellation of the "gentlemen's agreement"; (2) stopping of "picture brides"; (3) future exclusion of Japanese with other Asiatics as immigrants; (4) formal recognition of the policy excluding unassimilable Asiatics from citizenship; and (5) amendment to the Constitution so that citizenship by birth will not be conferred on those whose parents are ineligible to such citizenship.

There was a sixth suggestion credited to me as to admission of Chinese labor in limited numbers for a limited time, under restriction as to locality of residence and occupation. I did offer that suggestion in the inception of the discussion, to meet the declaration that the interests of the Nation demanded introduction of some oriental labor. That suggestion was withdrawn within two weeks, and I have since uniformly opposed it. The reason is that if we refuse admission to Japanese on the plea that our policy bars Asiatic labor generally, we can not consistently admit Chinese. If more oriental labor is really necessary to maintain or to increase production (which we are not prepared to admit) it is better to see production decrease somewhat than to permit and encourage the evils which must follow in the wake of oriental immigration.



(V. S. McClatchy in Sacramento Bee, Aug. 27, 1920.)

Some Japanese, and many pro-Japanese, in this country question the constitutionality of California's proposed initiative alien land law, and insist also that it conflicts with, the existing treaty between Japan and the United States.


Henry P. Bowie, who was formerly a Californian (he was the first president of the Japan Society of San Francisco), now settled in Japan, says in a leading article in the Tokyo "Japan Times and Mail" of July 5, 1920:
"It is the opinion of many legal minds and jurists of distinction that this California statute violates the letter and the spirit of the treaty with Japan..... There are sound reasons for believing that should the case be properly presented either by an appeal to, or by original proceedings taken in the United States Supreme Court, that tribunal would adjudicate the California land law to be unconstitutional and void."
And again Mr. Bowie says:
"The Constitution of the United States declares all treaties to be the supreme law of the land, any law of a State to the contrary notwithstanding."
It has been pointed out a number of times by the proponents of the California land measure that it does not violate in any way the existing treaty with Japan, nor is it in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The contentions put forth by Mr. Bowie in the article referred to are shown to be ridiculous by Japanese authorities of recognized standing who concede that the law, as originally passed in 1913, and the initiative measure now before the people, do not in any way conflict with the treaty, or with the Constitution of the United States, and that Japan can have no legal redress in the matter.


The Japanese Review of International Law, published at Tokyo, is a recognized authority in that country, its contributors being among the best known and best informed of Japanese statesmen.

In the March, 1919, issue of that review, there appeared an article by Sakuye Takahashi, L. L. D., its leading editor, in which he disposes uncompromisingly of the opinion, more or less prevalent among the Japanese, that the California land law can be set aside by appeal to the United States Government, or to the courts.

He shows in that article:

1. That the treaty between Japan and the United States contains no "favored nation" clause applicable to the case.

2. That the treaty fails to concede to Japanese in this country the ownership of land for any purpose, or lease of land except for commercial or residential purposes; and that, therefore, the Japanese can not claim, under the treaty, the rights to the use of agricultural lands, either through ownership or lease.

3. That even if the treaty did permit ownership of land, such provision would be illegal, since it is not within the province of the Federal Government, but solely the right of the individual States, to regulate within their own borders the ownership and control of land.


The argument of Dr. Takahashi, being written over a year ago, dealt only with the law of 1913, and could not take into account the initiative measure now before the people of California; but the same Japanese review, in the issue of June, 1920, published a lengthy article by Dr. K. Kobayashi, under the title of "The anti-Japanese land law in California," which considers very fully all phases, historical and legal, of the law of 1913, and also of the initiative measure now before the people of this State for decision.

Therein he sets forth as clearly and uncompromisingly as did Takahashi a year before the futility of attempted opposition by legal methods to the California alien land law. He says:
"Neither the present California alien land law nor the proposed hasty and cruel initiative law can be dealt with as legal questions. All that can be done is to soften them by political and diplomatic methods."
He considers the proposed law, first as to its constitutionality, and next as to its compliance with the treaty, very fully, explaining the points in connection with both phases.


He shows that under the Federal Constitution the Federal Government is clothed only with certain powers as to matters and conditions within the respective States, and that as to other matters full authority is vested in the States themselves. Among the matters over which the States have entire and absolute control are land, and its acquisition and use; and he concludes:
"Hence the California land law does not in any way conflict with the Constitution. California can extend or shorten the leasing period or take away the privilege entirely, and we can do nothing."
He explains fully our treaty with Japan, showing the material differences between this treaty and a similar treaty made by Japan with Great Britain. Our treaty with Japan expressly omits granting to Japanese in this country the privilege of owning any land for any purpose, or of leasing lands for purposes aside from those having to do with commerce and residence. The treaty with Great Britain is quite different.

He shows, too, that the only favored-nation clause in our treaty with Japan is found in Article XIV thereof, which applies solely to matters of commerce and navigation, and can not be made, under any stretch of the imagination, to apply to land ownership. In fact, the treaty itself is simply a treaty of commerce and navigation. He states very positively, therefore,
"The California land law violates neither the Constitution nor the Japan-America treaty of commerce and navigation."

He writes in a similar uncompromising way of the suggestion that Japan can secure for her nationals naturalization in the United States by treaty, and says: "To secure naturalization by treaty for aliens ineligible to citizenship under the naturalization law is totally unthinkable," explaining that matters of naturalization are not within the jurisdiction of the executive department of the Federal Government, which department has to do with the negotiating of treaties with other nations, but belong only to the legislative functions of Congress.

It is nevertheless true that the Japanese Embassy at Washington, as reported on several occasions, has made earnest protest against the progress of the initiative land law measure in California. The embassy is even reported to have delayed certain negotiations on matters entirely unrelated until the California question shall have been decided.


To expatriated Californians like Henry Bowie, now earnestly promoting the plans of Japan against this country, without proper knowledge of the facts; to earnest Americans in this country innocently acting as propagandists for Japan, and similarly uninformed; to other Americans whose selfish interests induce them to espouse the Japanese cause regardless of the menace to this country; and to official Japan seeking to induce the Federal Government to interfere again in blocking the fight which California is making, not for herself alone, but for the entire Nation; to all these the following facts should be known and heeded; and to him who still doubts that they are facts necessary proofs will be supplied on application:

1. The highest authorities on international law in Japan frankly declare that the California initiative land law does not conflict either with the American Constitution or with the American-Japanese treaty.

2. Similar authority, or the law itself, shows that California, in thus complying strictly with the treaty, will refuse to the Japanese in this country no rights or privileges which are not refused by law to Americans in Japan.

3. In thus seeking to prevent control by the Japanese of the land and its products, California is using her limited jurisdiction in an attempt to stop an evil which would eventually result in economic control of the Nation by an alien and unassimilable race.

4. While individual States may guard the land and its products from control of this character, only the Federal Government can stop the incoming tide of this alien and unassimilable race. If that tide be not stopped, the comparative birth rates officially established in California demonstrate that the white race in this country must succumb in time to actual force of numbers.



(By V. S. McClatchy.)

In support of the demand on the part of the Japanese for naturalization of their nationals in this country in order that they may be placed upon an equality with immigrants from Europe in the matter of ownership of land, despite laws that might be passed denying such right to unnaturalized aliens, attention has been called to the recommendation made by President Theodore Roosevelt in his message to Congress December 3, 1906. In the short space of two lines he recommended merely:
"The passage of an act for naturalization of Japanese who come intending to become American citizens."
The use of this recommendation by President Roosevelt for the purpose of influencing public opinion favorably toward granting naturalization at this time to the Japanese loses weight when it is shown that subsequently and with better knowledge of conditions Roosevelt entirely reversed the opinion thus expressed. It should be borne in mind, too, that the Federal statutes must be amended before Congress even may grant right of naturalization to members of the yellow race.

It is evident that Roosevelt changed his views on the subject, for in subsequent years, when he touched upon the Japanese question, he offered no such recommendation, and these later clearly expressed views on various phases of the subject seem to preclude the idea that he would favor such action.


In his autobiography, published in 1913, at pages 411 to 417, in discussing the California Japanese school question and his action in regard thereto, he carefully omits reference to his recommendation of naturalization and writes as though he approved California's stand as to Japanese in all regards, save separation of school children.

In that portion of the autobiography he says that Japan has the right to declare on what terms she will admit foreigners to work in her country, or to own land, or to become citizens, and that America has and must insist on the same right. He points out that he concluded an agreement with Japan (the gentlemen's agreement of 1907) under which it was expressly agreed that we would pass exclusion laws against the Japanese if Japan failed to keep her laborers out of this country, and that the teeth were drawn out of this agreement by his successor, who in 1911 made a treaty of commerce and navigation with Japan under which we, in effect, surrendered the right of exclusion which we had reserved. The following is Roosevelt's language on this point:
"I secured an arrangement with Japan under which the Japanese themselves prevented any immigration to our country of their laboring people, it being distinctly understood that if there was such immigration the United States would at once pass an exclusion law. It was, of course, infinitely better that the Japanese should stop their own people from coming rather than that we should have to stop them; but it was necessary for us to hold this power in reserve. Unfortunately, after I left office, a most mistaken and ill-devised policy was pursued toward Japan, combining irritation and inefficiency, which culminated in a treaty under which we surrendered this important and necessary right. It was alleged in excuse that the treaty provided for its own abrogation; but, of course, it is infinitely better to have a treaty under which the power to exercise a necessary right is explicitly retained, rather than a treaty so drawn that recourse must be had to the extreme step of abrogating, if it ever becomes necessary to exercise the right in question."

In a speech at Newport, R. I., July 2, 1913, Roosevelt said:
"We have the right to insist that we, and we alone, are to decide what immigrants shall come to our shores and as to whether these immigrants shall become citizens or own land. These and other similar rights are not merely rights but duties."
This is a repudiation of the principle embodied in the gentlemen's agreement, as modified by the treaty of 1911, under which we surrendered to Japan the right to select the quantity and quality of Japanese immigration coming to us. It is also a criticism of the policy, lately attempted by the Federal treaty-making power, to nullify State land laws on Japan's demand.


In an editorial in the Outlook, January, 1916, Roosevelt declared that: "We can not arbitrate, with the intention of abiding by the arbitration," various questions, including the "admission of Asiatic immigrants in mass."

This is a repudiation of a plan suggested recently at Washington under which the entire Japanese question, including land ownership and immigration, should be decided by the United States, in conference with Great Britain, Japan, and China.

Writing in the Kansas City Star in December, 1917; Roosevelt said:
"No temporary advantages from the importation of Chinese coolies would offset the far-reaching ultimate damage it would cause."

The most conclusive evidence as to Roosevelt's quick change of the views expressed in his message of 1906, and his subsequent opposition to naturalization of Japanese, is found in correspondence had by him with Hon. William Kent, in February, 1909, and published in the Sacramento Bee, July 18, 1910, by special permission of" Roosevelt.

Kent, in a letter to Roosevelt, January 29, 1909, called attention to the seriousness of the Japanese situation, and insisted that, while the Japanese should be treated with deference and respect,
"They should be made to understand that we must be judge of our citizenship, and that, if, in the exercise of such judgment, we do not wish to have our blood mixed with that of orientals, or on the other horn of the dilemma, we do not wish an unassimilable people among us, this means no disrespect to a friendly nation or a friendly people who happen to be orientals."
Toward the close of Kent's letter he says:
"Therefore, while fully appreciating the great difficulties of your position, and the great service you are rendering in negotiating an understanding whereby the Japanese shall be kept out by their own Government, there still remains the menace of this race proposition that they are an irreconcilable race when settled among us, and that distance will best sanctify our traditional friendship for each other."

President Roosevelt's reply was written from the White House, under date of February 4, 1909, and is as follows:
"MY DEAR KENT: Let the arrangement between Japan and the United States be 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 non-international 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 and proper policy.

"It is merely a recognition of the fact that, in the present stages 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 intermingling on a large scale, and the effort is sure to bring disaster. Let each country also behave with scrupulous courtesy, fairness, and consideration to the other."

This statement makes it quite plain that Roosevelt would keep out of America all those Japanese who wish to settle and become part of the resident working population, not only in the ranks of labor and agriculture, but even in the small trades and the professions.

It is manifestly certain, therefore, that he was decidedly and unquestionably opposed to conferring upon the Japanese the privilege of naturalization, since such privilege would open the doors to contact and intermingling and entitle them to ownership and control of agricultural land, to all of which he expressed such decided opposition.


(Sacramento Bee, June 22, 1921.)

DENVER, COLO., June 22.
The American Federation of Labor convention yesterday went on record as favoring total exclusion of Japanese and other orientals from the United States.


The executive council was instructed to take steps to prevent any modification of the Chinese-exclusion act.

They were also urged to work for the repeal of the "gentlemen's agreement" with Japan.

"The 'gentlemen's agreement' has proven to be a failure because the Japanese, in a cunning and stealthy manner, have outwitted the intent of the law," said the approved declaration. "In California alone there are over 100,000 Japanese.

"This peril is not only a serious condition for California, but it is a positive menace to 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."



(Original articles copyrighted by the Oakland Tribune. This digest reprinted by permission. Published by the Sacramento Bee.)
[Link to transcribed articles forthcoming]

Evidence of a startling character was produced in the hearings of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, held on the Pacific coast in July and August, 1920, to show the manner in which the Japanese in California are using their privileges as immigrants and as citizens (American born) to foster the interests of Japan in antagonism to those of this country. Much of that evidence appeared in the statement of V. S. McClatchy, publisher of the Sacramento Bee, and in the exhibits offered in corroboration.

In the introduction to a published digest of that statement it is said that it would appear therefrom, among other things,
"that the economic question of today will develop into a grave racial problem, unless the proper remedy be at once applied; that the Japanese have determined to colonize favorable sections of the United States, and permanently establish their race in this country; that they openly preach their plans of peaceful penetration 'get more land and beget many children,' as the most certain method of accomplishing the purpose; that in so doing they do not contemplate assimilating as American citizens, loyal to the country of their birth or adoption, but plan to serve the ambition of Japan in world subjection as taught in her religion and in her schools; and that American-born Japanese on whom we confer citizenship are being trained here and in Japan to use their American citizenship for the glory of the Mikado and the benefit of the Japanese race."
Three months after these charges were heard by the House committee they received further confirmation from an entirely unexpected source. Dr. Yoshi S. Kuno, son of Gen. Kuno, of the Imperial Army of Japan, has served for a number of years as a professor of oriental languages and history at the University of California. He published in the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune in the latter part of October, 1920, a series of articles telling the facts as to the policy and acts of the Japanese in this country, impelled, as he says, by the conviction that further deception will be certain to lead to strained relations between the two countries, and determined to do what he can as a loyal Japanese and a friend to America to avert that calamity.

In the following digest of those articles will be found the main points of Dr. Kuno's statement:
Dr. Yoshi Saburo Kuno, professor in the department of oriental languages in the University of California and son of Gen. Kuno, of the Imperial Japanese Army, has brought down upon himself the indignation and antagonism of his countrymen in California by declaring in public print that the secret policy of Japanese generally in this country is antagonistic to American interests and if not discontinued, must result in serious misunderstanding between the two countries. As a lover of Japan and a real friend of the United States he conceived it to be his duty to tell the truth and thus force an adjustment which would prevent a breach of friendly relations. His statement was first given to the public through a series of copyrighted articles in the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune in the latter part of October, 1920.

Dr. Kuno directly charges that Japan has established in this country a government within a government; that through consular offices and organized Japanese associations (which latter he says should be abolished), she is controlling the acts and policies of all Japanese here, whether they came as immigrants or were born here and enjoy, therefore, the rights and privileges of American citizens; that such control is exerted in the interests of the ambition of the dominant military party of Japan for world conquest; that a skillful propaganda system is maintained in this country, supported by the Japanese Government; that many American universities are innocently assisting this propaganda through the work of exchange Japanese professors or dishonest American professors who are paid by Japan; that the continued increase of unassimilable Japanese in this country -- with their advantages of economic competition -- marks a danger which Japan would not tolerate in her own country; that in California, even without immigration, the 100,000 Japanese would double that number, because of the birth rate, approximately every 10 years and in time overwhelm the whites; that the separate Japanese schools are used to make loyal Japanese out of children born here on whom this country has conferred citizenship and that such schools should be abolished; that the laws of Japan directly encourage the use of American citizenship in this way and the return of the individuals at any time to Japan with full restoration of all rights as Japanese citizens; and that American "investigators" visiting Japan are so entertained and honored and allowed no opportunity for learning the truth that they frequently return active propagandists for Japan.

Dr. Kuno says that he is forced to the course upon which he has embarked because the Japanese have been sympathetically building a wall of lies about the true conditions both here and in Japan. He declares that missionaries returning to America, after living for many years in Japan, grossly misrepresent conditions there to Americans. As an offender in this regard he mentions Dr. Sidney Gulick particularly. "Friendly relations between the United States and Japan can not be builded upon lies," he says. "The truth must be told at all cost." He declares that the Japan Society of America and similar organizations, composed of Americans and Japanese and formed ostensibly to maintain friendly relations between the two countries, are really used as means for distribution of Japanese propaganda and the deception of the American public as to Japan's acts and policies.

Curiously enough the publication of Dr. Kuno's articles was made three months after the House Committee on Immigration, at hearings in California, listened to similar charges offered in a lengthy statement by V. S. McClatchy, publisher of the Sacramento Bee, and substantiated by various proofs and exhibits, including translations from a number of Japanese newspapers of the Pacific coast. A digest of that statement has been printed in leaflet form for distribution.


As to Dr. Kuno's integrity and trustworthiness, and partly also as to some of his charges, witness is borne by David P. Barrows, president of the University of California, and by Benjamin Ide Wheeler, president emeritus of the institution. Dr. Barrows in a published interview said that Dr. Kuno had been associated with the faculty in various capacities for a score of years, had been a student before then and had thus imbibed a love for truth and fair play in association with American ideals, and had established a reputation for accuracy which lent importance to the charges. He said also:
"As early as 1916 a cabal was organized by a professor, no longer associated with the university, to oust Dr. Kuno from the faculty. This professor and his associates were undoubtedly acting in the interests of the Japanese Government. The motive behind the plot was the opposition to the teaching of any kind of Japanese history in the university which was not approved by the Japanese Association of California. Dr. Kuno was too independent a man and too high a scholar to be sacrificed in this way. He is a learned scholar and an accurate, independent, and fearless teacher. I attest my sincere respect and admiration for him as a result of 10 years of acquaintanceship."
Dr. Wheeler, in an interview published at the same time as Dr. Barrow's statement above, said:
"Prof. Kuno, in my opinion, is a man whose judgment can be wholly respected and who is not accustomed to saying or doing wild things. He knows whereof he speaks, and while all of us may not agree with him in some statements, his declarations must be respected as coming from a man who knows whereof he speaks."

The situation in California (which it may be assumed would be extended in time under existing conditions, to other States) is thus outlined by Dr. Kuno:
"The Japanese are not living in this State as emigrants. In my opinion they are establishing plantations of their own, introducing their peculiar civilization and governmental, as well as educational, institutions right in the midst of American civilization. With the recognition of their home Government through their consulate offices, they have established a sort of quasi-government in leading cities, towns, and districts, wherever the size of the Japanese population warrants. They levy a tax on Japanese males and Japanese families under the caption of a membership fee. With the permission of the consulate, they collect fees for all official services rendered the Japanese by that office. All the Japanese who live in the United States, whether they were born in this country or have come from Japan, have many affairs to be attended to in connection with the home Government, because all are claimed as subjects by the Japanese Government. However, though these matters must be handled in the consulate office, that office will have nothing to do with anything that does not reach it through the channels of the quasi-Japanese Government established in the towns and cities in California, and otherwise known as 'The Japanese Association.'

"In the State of California, the Japanese Government maintains two consulate offices, viz., a consulate general at San Francisco and consulate at Los Angeles.

"Under the control of each of these offices, there is one central Japanese association. Under the control of each central association, there are in turn numerous local Japanese associations. For example, the Central Japanese Association at San Francisco has 40 local associations under its control, while the one at Los Angeles has 12.

"In San Francisco, there are practically three sorts of Japanese Government, viz., the office of the consul general, which represents the Japanese Government directly; the Central Japanese Association, and the Local Japanese Association. The Central Association supervises all the 40 local associations in its district, in behalf of the office of the consul general. In case a local association should disobey, conduct itself with too great independence, or commit any irregularity, the consul general's office, upon the advice of the Central Association, would deprive it of all rights and privileges, such as the issuing of certificates.

"The Japanese in the State hold an annual assembly corresponding somewhat to the California State Assembly. This assembly is composed of delegates sent by the local associations. There is also another assembly held annually, which may be likened unto the California State Senate, in that only the managers of the various local associations are entitled to sit in that august body.

"The purpose of the Japanese association, quoting from the regulations of that in Berkeley, 'to defend, protect, and guard Japanese interests and privileges against the outside, and to maintain and establish unity and harmony in the inside, that they may enjoy full benefits.' All Japanese in the United States, including native sons and daughters, being, from the standpoint of Japan her subjects, are obliged to report births, marriages, and deaths, besides movements of the families to the Japanese Government. This can be done only by paying the fee to the association and transmitting the information through that channel."

Concerning the manner in which American universities have been utilized for spreading misleading Japanese propaganda, Dr. Kuno makes some startling statements. He says that Japanese scholars are unfit to be exchange professors in this country "because of their blind and burning patriotism and because they count scholarly veracity and honor as naught when they have opportunity to defend their country's policies." He says:
"A man in the employ of the San Francisco Association is now teaching at Stanford University, and until a recent date a member of the University of California faculty, who has since resigned, was in the service of the Japanese Government and was writing magazine articles supporting the Japanese holding of land."
He shows by abstracts from official publications of Stanford University that in 1913 "the trustees accepted a gift of several Japanese gentlemen to maintain an instructorship in Japanese history and government"; and that there was received "from the Japanese consul, San Francisco, $1,800 for the salary of an instructor in Japanese history and government for the academic year 1918-19." The inference is that while it may not be objectionable for the Japanese gentlemen and the Japanese consul to pay the salary of an instructor of history, such instructor, either under suggestion of his patrons, or at the order of the consul, should not deceive his pupils in his lectures or use his position to strengthen the antagonistic policies of Japan in this country.

He insists that Japan, through her consuls and influential Japanese in this country, is urging these college professors to use their positions, not for the teaching the truth, but for such concealment or coloring thereof as will suit Japan's purpose. He instances his own case. His first trouble was with the Japanese consul at San Francisco, who summoned him and requested that he do not teach the sordid side of Japanese history to his classes. Dr. Kuno declined to conceal or misrepresent the facts, either as to Japan's history or as to living and social conditions in that country. Since that time the Japanese have barred him from their associations and their meetings. He has been continually warned by letter to desist from his announced cause, and since publication of his articles has appealed to the police for protection because of threats made against him.


Concerning "picture brides" and the manner in which they have been used to evade the intent of the "gentlemen's agreement" as to introduction of Japanese labor into continental United States, Dr. Kuno calls attention to the fact that Chinese laborers in the United States are not permitted to send back to China for wives, while Japanese laborers in California "have imported hundreds of picture brides every month." He further says:
"Because the Japanese are able to live so cheaply at present, many Japanese men in the State, who would otherwise have been unable to marry, have gotten wives from Japan. Upon the arrival of the wife she generally works with her husband in the field. In fact, female labor has thus been imported under the caption of wives. Though this is not a legal violation of the 'gentlemen's agreement,' the effect is substantially the same. This is not all. Even after children have been born, the wife often works in the field."

Dr. Kuno declares that the real danger to California and the United States from an increase of unassimilable Japanese population lies not so much in immigration from Japan as in the great birth rate among the Japanese already here. He says that the Japanese are "a marvelously prolific race" and then prophecies as follows:
"Should all the plans and propositions regarding the Japanese now advocated by Californians materialize, and everything asked be secured, still, I venture to prophesy that by the end of another decade, these same Californians would be confounded to find that despite all their well-planned measures the Japanese population in the State had doubled. This is no dream. A little scientific investigation will prove the plausibility of such conclusion."
Dr. Kuno evidently regards the situation in California even after further Japanese immigration is excluded as a subject of grave concern. He says:
"Under normal conditions, it will be next to impossible for California to rid herself of the Japanese already within her confines. The bloodless struggle has been waged and will continue to be carried on between the whites and the Japanese in the State. The one uses the legislative power of the Commonwealth as its weapon, while the other wields the economic sword. Under existing conditions, the bitterness seems to be augmented year after year on the one hand, while on the other, through the birth of children, the Japanese population will practically double itself each decade.

"Should this condition persist uncorrected, it is but a matter of time before there will be a serious clash between the United States and Japan. The question is, indeed, one of great gravity."
Besides Dr. Kuno's prophecies as to natural increase of the Japanese population in this country, the tables offered by Mr. McClatchy a year ago are mild and conservative. In those tables it was shown that assuming the Japanese birth rate would be very much less than that now established in California, and with "restricted" immigration under the Gulick plan or under violations of the intent of the "gentlemen's agreement" as now practiced, the Japanese population of continental United States would double in a little less than 20 years, and under such conditions would reach 2,000,000 in 40 years, 10,000,000 in 80 years, and 100,000,000 in 140 years.


The attention of the House Committee on Immigration was called by Mr. McClatchy in his statement to the manner in which the separate Japanese schools in the United States are used to make faithful subjects of the Mikado of Japanese children born in this country upon whom our law confers American citizenship. The survey commission appointed by the United States Commissioner of Education at Washington was so impressed by the menace these schools in Hawaii offered that it recommended they be abolished. (See Bulletin No. 16, 1920. of Department of Education.)

Dr. Kuno evidently agrees fully with the impropriety of Japanese maintaining such schools in this country. He says:
"Whenever a Japanese association exists a school is generally established under its auspices. Most Japanese children are thus obliged to attend two schools. They attend the regular American public school from 9 to 3, and after school hours they have to go to the Japanese school, where they study from texts prepared for use in the schools of Japan. Thus these children while being served with a double amount of education, which is in violation of physical law, have instilled into them two codes of morality and two loyalties. The Japanese conduct these schools in a most official way. In the city or town, there is a Japanese board of education. In Berkeley, for example, if I understand correctly, this board consists of about 20 members."
Dr. Kuno calls attention to the dangers of dual citizenship to the interests of this country. He points out that Japanese who expatriate themselves, with the permission of Japan, may become Japanese citizens again at any time provided they establish a domicile within the bounds of the Japanese Empire; and he thus comments thereon:
"Though probably remote from the purpose of the framers of the law, one might reasonably interpret it as an artifice on the part of Japan by which her subjects might become citizens of foreign nations in order to enjoy full rights and privileges in other countries, with the view of later returning to allegiance to their mother country."

California's claim is that the Japanese, because of certain advantages in economic competition offered by their thrift, different standards of living, long working hours, concentration and cooperation, are enabled to displace the white race in any localities and industries selected by them for "peaceful penetration;" and that the economic problem thus created must rapidly develop into a racial problem with its attendant complications. On this subject, Dr. Kuno says:
"Let us now take up the economic condition of the Japanese in California. Japanese labor is often mistakenly termed "cheap labor." However, the Japanese charge almost as much as do workmen of almost any other nationality. They also prove higher bidders when buying an unharvested crop in the fields. The Japanese are able to pay higher for crops because they live in shacks and their food is exceedingly plain and cheap. Therefore, the trouble in California is not that the Japanese are cheap laborers, but that they have wonderful saving capacity. Within a few years those who started as common laborers have often either become landowners or amassed sufficient capital to purchase standing crops. Because of this difference in the standard of living of the Japanese and the American farmer, the former has been able to encroach upon the production of agricultural products to such an extent that the Japanese have come to control from 80 to 90 per cent of such important crops as potatoes, tomatoes, asparagus, spinach, and berries."
Again he says:
"The Japanese should realize that the economic question constitutes an important factor whenever foreign laborers come into a country and, while living under a lower standard, compete with the citizens of that country. The Japanese have simply to look at home conditions in Japan for a good example of this. Some time after the Russo-Japanese War, the cost of living as well as wages took tremendous leaps. Chinese laborers were brought into Japan by a number of promoters. Anti-Chinese agitation followed, and the Japanese Government was forced to strictly prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers. The anti-Chinese agitation, however, did not end there, but developed into race prejudice. In fact, the Japanese studying in California, those engaged in trade and industry, and even the laborers, have, notwithstanding the present agitation, much better treatment than is accorded the Chinese by the Japanese in Japan."

Dr. Kuno says that the articles in the Oakland Tribune mark but the beginning of work which will perhaps extend into years; that he proposes to compel the Japanese in California to understand their own situation, and to listen with profit to the criticism of others. He insists that Japan must change her present policy of framing foreign relations and demands entirely upon her selfish interests, or she will have misunderstandings, not only with the United States, but with all other nations with which she comes in intimate relation.

He offers several suggestions looking toward remedying the existing situation, including exclusion of further Japanese immigration; abolishment of Japanese associations and Japanese Schools in this country; reliance by Japanese here in the American Government and school system; raising the standard of living of Japanese here to that of the middle-class American family, and naturalization of Japanese now here.

The Japanese Association of America, located in San Francisco, and claiming jurisdiction over the Japanese in the greater part of California and in all of Nevada, Colorado, and Utah, through its secretary, K. Kanzaki, has issued a general denial of Dr. Kuno's charges, so far as they affect the objects and acts of the association. He declares there is no relation between the association and the Japanese Government, that it is an entirely independent body, working for the benefit of its members and a better understanding between them and the Americans. He says that the Japanese have never persecuted Dr. Kuno because of his views, that they do not wish to attach importance to his expressions on public matters, and that he is avoided by the Japanese because he "is utterly unacquainted with the amenities of social life and has a disposition which makes it impossible for anyone to associate with him." It is insisted in this statement that Dr. Kuno's outline of Japanese conditions in this country, and particularly in California, is entirely misleading.



(From the Sacramento Bee, Nov. 8, 1920.)

SAN FRANCISCO, November 8.
Midari Komatsu, editor of Chugai Shinron, an influential vernacular magazine of Japan, and now representing several newspapers of Tokyo, has just arrived in San Francisco from Japan on a tour of the world. While in the United States he will investigate social and economic conditions. Mr. Komatsu is now confining himself to journalistic work, but he was formerly connected with the diplomatic service, having been Secretary of the Japanese Legation at Washington prior to 1910 and afterwards director of the Japanese foreign affairs bureau and secretary of the central council in Korea. He is a graduate of law of Yale and of political science of Princeton.


In an interview with a Bee reporter Mr. Komatsu said that he had interchanged views on the Japanese immigration problem at length with the publisher of the Bee, V. S. McClatchy, and was agreeably surprised to find that Mr. McClatchy's views, which he understood represent more or less the views of most Californians, are entirely misunderstood in Japan, because of various publications made in that country concerning those views.

"I do not find," said Mr. Komatsu, "that Mr. McClatchy is unfriendly to Japan or to the Japanese people. It seems to me, on the contrary, that he is as anxious as I to prevent ruptures between the two nations, so long friendly, and that he is quite in earnest in believing that a continuance of existing conditions is certain to produce friction and misunderstanding. I find myself in accord with him in certain matters connected with the present problem, and know of no reason why the minor points on which we differ can not be satisfactorily solved.


"For instance, we agree that the white race and the Japanese race, at present, for biological and other reasons, are not assimilable; that the existence in either country of a large unassimilable element of nationals of the other country, controlling land and its products, and entering into disastrous economic competition with the natives, must inevitably result in a racial conflict and international misunderstanding. If conditions in California, or elsewhere in the United States, are reaching that state it is to the interests of both nations to correct them.

"If exclusion of Japanese immigration will prevent a misunderstanding, Japan will not object to taking necessary steps to correct any defects in the 'gentlemen's agreement' which are responsible for present conditions. Japan is really losing the better class of her farmers in those who come to the United States, and would prefer to keep them. But she is also solicitous that in any adjustment of the matter there should be no real or apparent discrimination against her people, and that those who remain in California, particularly, should be fairly treated.


"The impression prevails in Japan that the Japanese in California during the past year's campaign on exclusion have been badly treated. I find that it is not so; that they have nowhere been interfered with or hindered in business, or insulted or abused personally. It has been difficult for the Japanese people to understand that an actual campaign for rigorous exclusion of Japanese could be conducted in such perfect good temper and without boycott or other offensive measures against the Japanese. I am led to believe therefrom that Mr. McClatchy properly represents California sentiment when he says that neither the law nor the people contemplate any interference with vested rights or any prohibition to Japanese now here legally from following any occupation or conducting any business, with the reservation only that they may not own or lease agricultural lands."

Mr. Komatsu felt the alien land law, while applied to all aliens ineligible to citizenship, would be regarded by the Japanese as less discriminatory if it had been applied to all foreigners, or at least to all foreigners who had failed to be naturalized or to take out first citizenship papers.


He objected also to such change in the American constitution as would make children born in this country ineligible to citizenship unless both parents are eligible to such citizenship. He conceded that present methods are preventing the making of good American citizens out of many Japanese born here -- he referred to separate Japanese schools and the practice of sending children back to Japan for education -- and conceded that such schools should be abolished and such plan discontinued if the children are to enjoy American citizenship. He suggested, however, that the proper solution of the problem would be for the United States to follow Japan's plan of naturalization which is applicable equally to all foreigners, with no exception, and not give citizenship to the children of foreigners born within the country. Such children can not become citizens of Japan save through the usual channel of naturalization, though the time required for them is shortened to 3 years, while for other foreigners it is 10 years. What Japan contends is equal treatment, he added, not special privilege of citizenship for her people in the States.


Mr. Komatsu frankly expressed himself as feeling that the Japanese were not treated in accord with their merits when the objectionable classes of Europeans were classed as eligible for American citizenship, while the Japanese are barred. He commented on the fact that 100,000 Chinese had been called to France to serve during the war, and had been sent home with the gratitude of France and her allies. He felt that the work of the Japanese in producing the food for California was not properly appreciated, and would not be unless the Japanese were to leave in a body.

He decried some of the extreme methods of his countrymen in connection with their campaign against the initiative measure, and thought some of the activities had served only to prejudice the country against the Japanese. He thought any attempt to appeal to the courts in the matter ill advised, and that it was unlikely to avail anything.

In his opinion, this problem can be solved not by any legal method, but rather by sympathetic consideration on both sides, based upon the principles of equity.



(By V. S. McClatchy, publisher the Sacramento Bee.)

J. Russell Kennedy, who acted as publicity agent for Japan at the Paris peace conference, is manager of Kokusai, the Government-controlled news agency of Japan, which handles the incoming and outgoing news of the Empire. He is also manager in Japan for Reuter, the British news agency, which surrendered the Japan news field some years ago to Kokusai. He is also publisher of the Japan Times and Mail, a daily newspaper issued from the Kokusai building in Tokyo, and used by the Japanese Government to present to English-reading people points of view as to matters Japanese, which might not otherwise secure their attention.

Mr. Kennedy has been engaged for a few months past in an active campaign to convince the people of the Far East that certain articles which have appeared in the Sacramento Bee, written by its publisher, and outlining the policy and acts of Japanese in the Far East and in this country, are unreliable, and with no foundation save malice.

In this campaign he has enlisted actively the various agencies with which he is associated.

The newspapers of the Far East have been asked, as a matter of courtesy to a fellow journalist, to reprint the matter. The Kobe (Japan) Chronicle of January 15, 1920, for instance, comments on the fact that Kennedy was indignant because the Chronicle failed to use a two-column article of this description.

The Kokusai has included in its regular service matter of the kind which has been published by the newspaper subscribers to that service; and Reuter has lent its facilities to Kennedy's purpose by including similar matter in the news report distributed in China and elsewhere.

Much of the matter has also been printed in pamphlet form, and given extensive circulation.

While much good white paper has been used in this way, most of the space is devoted to vituperative personal abuse of the writer of the Bee's articles, and the balance to denying certain statements as to the Kokusai and Reuter services. The really important statements which deal with Japan's acts and policy are dismissed by Kennedy with a wave of the hand, and the assertion that they constitute "a web of mendacity."

The elaborate efforts thus made to discredit these articles by personal attacks on the writer, and by attempting to show that they are inaccurate in minor issues, is sufficient indication that some one on the other side of the Pacific is being hurt by an exposition of the facts.

The Bee's articles were published nearly a year ago, and have had general circulation through republication in prominent newspapers of the United States. Each month since has brought corroboration and proof of some of the statements therein made. No important matter has met disproof or authoritative denial.

The manager of Kokusai, in assailing the articles, is forced to the expedient of claiming they contain a charge which does not appear therein and then disproving that fictitious charge. He says that Kokusai was charged with suppressing news of the armistice after the armistice had been signed. The extract from the articles quoted by him disprove his complaint. It was plainly stated that Kokusai had failed to publish in Japan prior to the armistice the news received by the balance of the world indicating that the defeat of the Germans was inevitable and an armistice was about to be asked for.

The Peking Daily News in commenting on the denials promulgated by Kokusai said in its issue of January 12:
"But it is well known in this country that the Kokusai News Agency does suppress news when it is unfavorable to Japan."
Under the circumstances the Kennedy attack and the methods used in circulating it are complimentary to the Bee and to the writer of the article. They constitute also a tactical mistake, for they call attention in the Far East to certain activities of the Kokusai's manager which might otherwise have attracted little notice; and they will induce more careful investigation of the subject matter of the Bee's articles. This phase has suggested itself to the editor of the Kobe Chronicle, who says that "it seems unlikely that Mr. McClatchy's pamphlet is worth the two-column advertisement which Mr. Kennedy wishes to give it."



(In eight articles.)


These articles on the Far East situation were written immediately on return to California after three months' absence and published in the Sacramento Bee between the 5th and 18th of April, 1919. The entire time, aside from that portion consumed in sea travel and a few days each in Manila and Korea, was spent in China and Japan, sight-seeing being neglected at all times when information of value could be secured.

While, as a Californian and newspaper man, I was familiar with the local phases of Asiatic immigration, I had made no study of the Far East problem and had not even read the books of Thomas F. Millard. The study made on the ground was, there fore, somewhat in the nature of an original investigation, with the advantages and disadvantages that attend such character of investigation.

Exceptional opportunities for securing reliable and confidential information offered themselves, however, in meeting prominent officials, business representatives, and newspaper men -- Chinese, Japanese, English, and American -- most of them long resident in the Far East and intimately familiar with conditions there. These men represented not one but all sides of the vexed problem.

It is believed that the picture presented in the articles, while necessarily deficient in detail and artistic niceties, is substantially true in conception, outline, and color. Read in the light of subsequent events, the articles present an added interest, and have been reprinted in this form in response to request.


Article III explains the wonderful commercial asset which the United States possessed in the early part of this year in the good will of China. How much of that asset remains today, since the Paris conference indorsed Japan's claims on the Shantung Peninsula, it would be difficult to say. Letters from China politely excuse us on the theory that President Wilson, while unwilling to consent to inflicting injury on China, was compelled by the strength of the combination against him. It is probable that the real judgment of China is to the effect that while we refused to despoil China ourselves we have placed, through President Wilson's action, our official seal of approval on her spoliation by Japan. It is true President Wilson's action has been repudiated by the United States Senate reservation as to Shantung. If this reservation shall stand as the final action of the Nation we will have retrieved, in small part only, the grave injustice we have done China.


Various methods of propaganda, followed by Japan in securing her objects in the Far East and concealing them from the world are referred to in the articles. The most remarkable piece of propaganda work done by her has been exposed since they were written. It is referred to here because it offers striking corroboration of statements made in them. Reference is had to the accomplishment of Sidney L. Gulick, who, during five years' stay in the United States, has essayed to convert us to his "new oriental policy" of admitting Asiatics to this country as immigrants and citizens on the same plane as Europeans; who secured the indorsement and financial assistance in this campaign of a powerful church federation representing 100,000 churches; who has embodied his plan in a "restricted immigration" bill, and, with the names of 1,000 prominent American citizens as sponsors therefore, presented the bill to Congress.

Under the operation of the bill the Japanese population in the United States would reach over 100,000,000 in 160 years, long before which time the country would have become a Japanese Province. The thousand good Americans whose names are used in connection with this work of the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation did not know that the bill was "loaded." The scheme was fully exposed in a series of articles in the Sacramento Bee published in June, and reproduced in the second part of this booklet.


In Article IV attention is called to the manner in which Japan controls the incoming and outgoing news of Japan; how she is attempting to accomplish similar results in China, and the grave menace to the interests of the United States and the peace of the world which would attend the success of her efforts in this direction.

Following publication of these articles in April, 1919, the writer urged upon the departments in Washington, and subsequently, in September and October, upon the two subcommittees of Congress having charge of radio legislation, the utilization of the Navy radio facilities on the Pacific for news transmission to keep the people of the Far East in close touch with us, and thus prevent misunderstandings, defeat vicious propaganda, and avert war.

With the cessation of war activities the news report of the committee on public information had to cease, and the Far East, including our own Philippines, would become again dependent upon unsympathetic and unfriendly, or inimical, news agencies for its daily information as to the United States, our sentiments and actions.

Interchange of news across the Pacific by American news agencies or newspapers under existing conditions was impracticable. The single American cable when operating was so congested that 10 to 15 days was required for transmission of a message, while the rates, either by cable or by radio, were prohibitive.

It was urged therefore that the Navy be authorized to transmit news messages across the Pacific at a word rate so low -- a maximum of 6 cents per word was suggested -- that American news associations would be encouraged to inaugurate a reliable and adequate daily trans-Pacific news service, self-supporting and free from Government control or censorship.

The subcommittees were sympathetic, and bills looking to the temporary authorization urged, pending permanent solution of the problem, were introduced in both Houses. Probably encouraged thereby Vice Admiral W. H. Bullard, director of communications of the Navy, issued an order effective December 20, 1919, under which news messages would be received at San Francisco for transmission to Manila by naval radio at 6 cents per word.

As an immediate result steps are now in progress under which the Manila newspapers will receive every day a very full report of world's news from San Francisco. If Congress shall approve the principle involved in Admiral Bullard's order, a similar report will go to China, and eventually to Japan, and there will be sent back to us daily a report covering events and sentiments in the Far East.

With a plan of this character successfully operating on the Pacific, the same plan , will be tried elsewhere, and in time the peoples of the earth may find, through daily interchange of reliable news reports in independent hands, free from Government suggestion or censorship, a safeguard against secret diplomacy and the ambitions of rulers for which the common people must always pay.


Since the articles were published, patriotic Chinese mobs have treated severely the persons and the property of three of the five traitorous Chinese officials named in Article V. The boycott against Japan and Japanese goods inaugurated by China in the early part of the year has grown in strength and determination and has not been affected apparently, so far as the Chinese people are concerned, by Japan's threat to the Chinese Government that it might be compelled to resort to force to stop it. That boycott has been extended to our three Pacific Coast States -- more particularly California -- where the resident Chinese have declined to do business in any way with the Japanese.


The estimate of the Korean situation, in a special article made before reliable information could be secured as to repressive measures adopted by the Japanese, has been fully confirmed by news since given to the world. I have myself received a mass of testimony and a large number of photographs bearing witness to the terrible atrocities committed upon the persons of the defenseless Koreans -- men, women, and children -- apparently with the same object which the Germans had in committing atrocities in Belgium, to subordinate by terror a subject people.

The copy of the Korean manifesto or declaration of independence, brought out from Seoul on March 6 in my money belt, is the daddy of all the copies which have since been given to the world, and now rests in the archives of the president of the provisional Korean republic -- Dr. Syngman Rhee, at Washington.

The story of the Philippine independence intrigue, as told in the last article, has since found confirmation in the records of congressional committees and committeemen at Washington, to whom requests were made in 1916 by cable and letter that independence be not granted to the islands unless the United States would guarantee that independence against the world.

V. S. McClatchy.
Sacramento, January 15, 1920.



The man who, in a strange land, finds more interest in observing the customs of the people and investigating economic and political conditions than in ordinary sightseeing can not fail to conceive admiration for the Japanese people after even a short stay in Japan.

He finds them possessed of a number of admirable traits which might well be emulated in America and which will account in part for the wonderful progress made by the Japanese Nation in two generations in modeling herself on the lines of western civilization and taking position as one of the world powers.

The people are industrious and thrifty to the last degree. They are disciplined from childhood, and have inbred in them a deference for superiors, a respect for law and authority, which never leaves them. There are no tramps and no vicious idle.


Their percentage of literacy is 100 -- greater than that of the United States, which prides herself on public schools and newspapers and general intelligence. The coolie who draws your rickshaw, or who labors at the docks, can read and write his language, and his language is one of the most difficult on earth to learn. And the Japanese newspapers have large circulations.

The Japanese are ambitious, trained to utilize each moment, and eager to improve themselves.


They are courteous. The stranger traveling in Japan and unused to the customs of the country and unfamiliar with the language will always find some Japanese, not of the official class, who speaks enough English, who will put himself out to serve the stranger. In Kyoto, the ancient capital, thoroughly Japanese and not spoiled, as are the ports, by contact with western civilization, we had a card of introduction, by means of which we hoped to see the interior of the house of a wealthy Japanese. The lady of the house received us, our jinrikisha coolie, with the card in his hand, acting as our introducer and interpreter. And he did it with all the confidence and readiness of a Sir Walter Raleigh, with the strict observance of bows and compliments called for by Japanese etiquette, and, what was most surprising to us, with a natural grace of manner.


It is true that in a railroad train in Korea Mrs. McClatchy had to request a Japanese sergeant to remove his stockinged feet from the seat opposite so that she might sit down, but it is to be remembered, against this, that in Berlin German officers before the war would shove ladies off the narrow sidewalks, and the Japanese have modeled themselves in many ways after the Germans, and small officials are inclined to be self-important and arbitrary. The high-class Japanese are commencing to observe more and more, however, the deference toward women which they find in Americans.

The Japanese impressed me as being generally superior in physical fitness to other peoples, due in part, perhaps, to their outdoor life and their simple food, but above all to physical training, which is compulsory in all schools. In two weeks in Japan, circulating freely among the crowds, I saw only two spindle-shanked children. Babes and youths alike seemed sturdily built, happy, and healthy.


But the same man who freely admires these qualities in the Japanese can not travel through other portions of the Far East, and particularly Korea, Manchuria, and China, with opportunities for observation and investigation, without realizing that Japan is the Germany of Asia, with an ambition somewhat similar to that of her model, but limited possibly to eastern Asia, instead of the world, while her methods are just as relentless and unscrupulous.

The Great War gave her an opportunity of which she took full advantage, and the armistice came to her as a sickening shock, for she thought Germany could not be beaten. The world which had its hands so full in Europe that it was forced to ignore the progress of events in Asia is now checking up on Japan and her plans, with the probability that those plans will have to be materially modified.


The United States particularly is entitled to a knowledge of the facts, and he who has acquired them owes a public duty to make them known.

The three Pacific Coast States, having had some experience with the Japanese and some knowledge of Japanese character, will be prepared to accept these facts. The remaining portions of the United States, outside of some officials at Washington, are not yet prepared to believe them, their only sources of information up to this time having been such as are skillfully provided through Japanese propaganda, which convey innocuous generalities and friendly assurances calculated to encourage ignorance and to lull suspicion.

These sources comprise not only professional Japanese propagandists and a number of Japanese-American societies organized, in instances, by Americans with good intent, but skillfully used to deceive by the Japanese, but also Americans of national prominence who have unwittingly permitted themselves to be used.


There are men like Gary, the steel man, who with his wife was royally entertained in Japan, and in interviews on his return gave as the correct index to the far-eastern situation the point of view furnished by his entertainers, which was quite at variance with the facts; men like Jacob Schiff, the New York banker, who recently declared at a banquet that Americans should be very glad to see Japan in control of the Far East, as they would then know that their interests would be well cared for -- and Schiff's information, according to his statement, was acquired in a visit to Japan 13 years ago; men in various professions and lines of business who permitted themselves to be entertained and perhaps decorated by the Japanese Government and officials, and accepted their explanation of the situation at its face value, without attempt at investigation.

Such men, in view of the story which I have to tell, and which is only what any business firm or diplomat closely in touch with far-eastern matters knows, are committing -- unknowingly of course -- a national crime in thus misleading the public that trusts them, in an important matter and at a critical time.


The Californian is supposed by his eastern friends to be prejudiced against the Japanese; but a newspaper man is more or less of a trained investigator. In this matter, in order to be sure of the facts, after going through China and Korea, on my return to Japan, I put myself in touch with Japanese authorities and with Americans who had absorbed the Japanese point of view in order that misinformation received by me might be detected. In addition, I confess, as is indicated in the introduction to this article, to admiration of the Japanese people for certain traits and national accomplishments.

Among other prominent Japanese I met Zumoto, one of the big men of Japan, a journalist without official position, but who occupies with the present Japanese administration a standing similar to that filled by Col. House in President Wilson's entourage. Zumoto speaks perfect English, has met many of the prominent men of the world, and is a man of views. In a two-hour interview at the Tokyo Club he discussed in the frankest manner the policies and mistakes of Japan, answering without hesitation the questions which I put to him, the understanding being that much of the interview was not for publication, but for my information only.


I have discussed various phases of the eastern problem in the same way with resident managers of the great American corporations doing business in the Far East and intimately familiar with the conditions. So that I am confident my facts are right, and the story which I have to tell must stand or fall in the minds of those who read it, by the facts rather than by opinions of mine.

Always the excuse is made for Japan in doing the things she has done and in following the present apparent policy that she has her own vital problem and is driven by stern national necessity. There is force in that plea and it is given place here before the story is told.


Japan's population increases more rapidly than that of any people on the earth except the Koreans. The records of the past show that she may be expected to double her population in 50 years. I assume that rate would be increased by more general adoption of modern sanitary methods (there is not yet in Japan, even in Tokyo with its 2,000,000 people, a sewer system) and that it might be decreased by improved standards of living and by progress of woman's rights and possible adoption in the future of woman suffrage.

At all events the population increases every year by 700,000 or more, and the problem is where to put them, for Japan's population is already dense. Sixty thousand or 70.000 a year are going to Hokkaido, the northern of the island group; where the climate is colder, but it is found the Japanese can adapt themselves to conditions there. Some are going to Manchuria and some to Siberia. Some are going to South America, where a satisfactory understanding has been had with several of the countries that find Japanese labor desirable.


These outlets, it is claimed, are insufficient, and Japan must have the right of "peaceful penetration" into China in order to provide for her excess population. She insists, however, through those who talked with me, that she does not demand exceptional rights in China, but is willing to share with all other nations the privileges granted her there.

That sounds fair enough; but the facts will show that Japan has demanded and sought to secure exceptional and exclusive rights in China; that she is even now working along that line; that in districts where she has been able to carry out her plans other nationalities could not now secure a footing without giving excuse for war between China and Japan; and that if Japan insists on carrying out the plans which are now plainly outlined the interests of the United States will be seriously menaced and possibly the peace of the world again jeopardized.


In following her established policy in the Far East, Japan has not only shown herself an apt pupil of Germany, her arch instructor, but she has also proved herself an unfaithful partner to her allies, deliberately taking advantage of their necessities to feather her own nest and to take from them the very things which she insisted she had no intention of taking. It is not impossible that when the facts are laid before the world and her allies find time to look after their own interests, Japan will undertake with their aid to find some solution of her congested population problem that does not involve possession or control of the entire Far East.


Careful consideration of the facts offered in these articles will furnish, also, conclusive answers to two suggestions that have been made as to the policy of the United States in the Far East.

One of these suggestions is that we accept the proposition made by Japan and "peacefully penetrate" or exploit China in partnership with Japan. That would effectually destroy our prestige in China, where we are now regarded as the one powerful and disinterested friend she has, while Japan is regarded as an enemy who seeks her destruction. In this suggestion Japan aims either at destroying our stand in China, or if it survives the partnership, then she will share in the benefits.

The other suggestion is to the effect that we can save future worry and trouble by turning the Far East over to Japan and permitting her to work her will on it. That is the plan adopted in the melodrama to save the adult occupants in the sleigh from the Russian wolves by dropping one baby after another. In that case safety is secured if the supply of babies holds out. In the case of the Far East the way is endless, reaching onward through the generations of future history, and a victim offered at this time, even if it secured temporary relief, would only strengthen the Germany of Asia so that it could in the future more easily exact its demands of us. Besides the United States would lose too much even at this time by such a surrender.


President Wilson, who has said many good things and done some bad ones, said in his speech at the League of Nations meeting at New York March 5 concerning publicity and intrigue:
"One of the things the League of Nations is intended to watch is the course of intrigues. Intrigue can not stand publicity, and if the League of Nations were nothing but a great democratic society it would kill intrigue. It is one of the agreements of this covenant that it is the friendly right of every nation a member of the league to call attention to anything that it thinks will disturb the peace of the world, no matter where the thing is occurring."
It is a pleasure to have in this way the commendation of the President for telling this story and to realize that the war censorship powers, if still in force, will not be invoked to stop it. For, in the absence of a League of Nations, it might be considered an unfriendly act for the United States to give these facts to the public, though Washington doubtless knows them; and it is important and necessary that the American public should learn them since the President has shown on several notable occasions an indisposition to take a stand on important international questions until assured of public sentiment; and public sentiment to be lasting must be based on a knowledge of the facts.



Japan's course as the Germany of Asia will be better understood when it is remembered that she has always been a military nation. The Samurai who saved and held Japan by the sword are the heroes of Japan's history, and to her army she unquestionably owes her existence and the place which she has recently attained among the great powers of the world.

Then, too, when Japan, about to emerge from her long eastern seclusion into the light of western civilization, looked about for a model government to copy, she chose that of Germany as best fitted to her needs and conditions. German ideas were adopted and German methods followed; the army was German taught and German organized; police surveillance and espionage systems were modeled on the German plan; most public officials speak German and but few speak English; German methods of efficiency and detail were copied; martial order was cultivated in the school children who are drilled and whose school caps of military form indicate the class to which each belongs.

Yes, Japan was made in the Far East, but she was made over in Germany. She has been continuously ruled by the military, is ruled by it now, and will be perhaps for some time. For while the voices of individuals are being raised in question as to the wisdom of retaining the military in the saddle save in times of war, in view of a number of recent blunders with which the rulers are charged, still the military spirit is too great and the military party too strongly entrenched to be easily displaced.

Japan in her planned conquest for control of the Far East has closely followed the methods pursued by Germany up to 1914. It is not unlikely, however, that the fate of Germany in consistently following up those methods through the World's War will give Japan cause to pause; and that if the glare of publicity be cast upon her own course in the Far East she will find in the world's comment and in diplomatic suggestions sufficient inducement for a material change of policy.


It is known now that Japan's course throughout the war was not that of a wholehearted enemy of Germany's methods and ambitions, but rather that of one who, while friendly to and admiring Germany, felt tied by certain treaty obligations and saw in the war a golden opportunity to advance her own ambitions.

Japan did not treat harshly enemy aliens; they were asked to drop out of open business, but they do not appear to have been otherwise disturbed. I learned of but one action against an enemy alien -- an aggravated case -- and the German after being found guilty was fined 300 yen, but the fine was not collected and he was permitted to depart. It is well known in Japan that the Government believed Germany could not be beaten and that the end of the war stunned the nation. This belief will explain much of Japan's policy.


The facts show, too, that Japan was not in all things a faithful partner of the Allies. She took advantage of the predicament of her partners to advance her own interests in the Far East, often to the injury of theirs. The unexpected -- to her -- close of the war has left her in an embarrassing situation, for her objects have not been finally accomplished, and yet her intentions are plainly evidenced and she is called upon to offer some explanations and some amends. This language is undiplomatic, but it represents the cold facts.

In this, as in other matters, the war will prove a distinct benefit to mankind, notwithstanding its great cost, for without evidence of the kind the world, and particularly the trusting United States, might have accepted Japan's assurances until too late for preventing action.


The Japanese merchants and business men are only commencing to appreciate the value of commercial honesty, and the military powers that rule Japan have sadly soiled her reputation before the world for diplomatic honesty and national honor. If she had won control of the Far East by these German methods she could have disregarded the world's criticism. As it is, publicity, even without public pressure from her allies, will doubtless do much toward inducing a change in her policy.

Since the war opened in 1914 Japan has consistently endeavored to force China by threat and by bribery and by force to accord her special rights and concessions which would be to the injury of her allies, and has sought by force and threat to have these concessions kept secret. And in the case of the 21 demands in 1915 she was guilty of the unparalleled piece of bad faith of having her ambassadors deny categorically to her allies and friends whose interests were involved -- notably the United States and Great Britain -- that such demands had been made or granted.


In the case of Tsing-tau which she wrested from Germany in order, as she publicly declared, to return it to China, she first showed a disposition to retain it as her just share of the spoils, then declared a willingness to turn it back to China if paid therefore in railroad and other exclusive concessions; and now it appears that she has utilized her four years' possession of the place to so change local conditions and supplant other nationals with Japanese that it will be practically Japanese territory no matter who holds the nominal title.

Japan endeavored to force the Chinese Government by bribe and threat to have Japan appear as spokesman for China at the Paris conference; tried to have Koo and Wong withdrawn when they faithfully presented China's cause; threatened the Chinese Government through Obata if it disclosed any of the secret treaties and concessions which had been wrung from China during the war, which were inimical to the interests of the other allies and which the Paris peace conference had shown a desire to see.

These are only a few of the counts against Japan as a bad partner; some of the others perhaps will not become public, but they are all placed and indexed in the foreign offices of the great powers; and a knowledge of them on the part of the world will undoubtedly secure a change of policy on the part of Japan, and perhaps assist in dethroning the military power in Japan that is responsible for them. They are briefly referred to now, as they help to make easy an understanding of matters to follow.


Japan's main efforts for the past four or five years have been directed at securing control of China. Dr. Kengiro Yamakawa, president of the Imperial University of Tokyo, recently said in the Nichi-Nichi, one of the prominent Japanese dailies:
"If Japan would abandon the policy of expansion it would no doubt put an end to Chinese suspicion of us. But such can not and could not be done. It would expose Japan to danger to her national existence. Japanese expansion in China has always been economic, and there is no reason why it should not continue to be so."
Dr. Yamakawa might have added with equal truth that if Japan were permitted to take what she wishes in China her penetration of that country would be entirely peaceful.


It has been stated often, too, that Japan wishes no exclusive privileges or rights in China, but is only anxious to have an equal chance with all other nations. Nothing could be fairer in sound -- but the facts show that Japan has been standing China up with a gun and demanding exclusive concessions and the right to dictate the financial, military, and commercial future of the country; to control its revenues; to command its army; to manage its mines -- pointing unerringly to the undoing of China and the elimination of the interests of all other countries therein. She has done this in cool disregard of the fact that she was acting as an unfaithful partner, robbing her allies of their commercial assets in the Far East, while they were fighting for national existence and the liberty of the world in Europe. She has done it in the belief that Germany would win with this kind of policy in Europe and that she could win with it in Asia. In pursuance of her policy of securing control of the Far East, and particularly of China, Japan has attempted a number of things as enumerated below, some of which will be discussed in future articles.


1. Her plans for propaganda have been elaborate, including the use of newspapers in America and the Far East, the making of opinion by entertainment of prominent visitors, speeches, and interviews by her diplomats, use of Japan-American societies. She has secured some of the best results from prominent men susceptible to social flattery, who accepted what they saw without investigation.

2. She has controlled for years the incoming and outgoing news of Japan and it is sterilized and colored so as to best serve the purpose of propaganda.

3. She is attempting to secure similar control of the incoming and outgoing news of China.

4. She is attempting to secure by loans and otherwise control of news communication in China -- telephone and telegraph lines.

5. She is attempting to secure rail communication by loans for roads building, or in grant for new roads; and to obtain exclusive control of minerals and raw material.

6. She has insisted that China should not borrow from others or make grants to others, save with Japan's consent, and that the Chinese Army should be, in effect, controlled by Japanese.


7. She has sought to promote civic strife in China as an excuse for entering with her army. The trouble between the North and South is kept alive largely by Japanese influence. She has loaned the money to support the army of the North, whose existence threatens natural peace. The peace conference at Peking between the two sections failed, it is said, because of Japanese influence.

8. She maintains under salary in official position in China provocateurs -- peace disturbers -- to prevent the creation of a unified government or the adoption of effective opposition to her plans. These are usually, though not always, Chinese who have been educated in Japan, and are for that reason more amenable to Japanese influence.

9. She has sought through these various avenues to keep the outside world in ignorance as to the real facts in the Far East, to cause disruption among forces that might oppose her, to cause distrust in China and the Far East generally of the United States.


During the war Japan found it easy to take what she wanted. Since the armistice she has encountered unexpected obstacles. She expected to secure control of the Siberian railroad; she hoped for an expression from the Paris peace conference on "racial discrimination" which would open the United States, Canada, and Australia to her emigrants on equal terms with other Nations. She desired as a reward for her participation in the war possession of Tsingtau and a free hand in China.

Instead she finds a growing distrust of her throughout the world as the facts come to light, and a warning from a few of her thinking and independent statesmen -- Osaki for one -- that her present militaristic methods are carrying her to a fall, and that unless she mends her ways, the world, including those whom she counts on as friends, will he allied against her.

In her operations in Siberia she has succeeded in losing the good will of all her allies -- first by breaking her pledge and sending in 73,000 Japanese soldiers when the understanding called for 12,000 only, with 7,000 from the United States and a small number from England and France, and next by the uncontrolled and autocratic actions of three independent military units, each acting on its own authority, and indulging in such by-play as the arrest of English generals and the inquisition of French colonels. These things are not spoken of publicly, and the real statesmen of Japan deplore them, but they stand as Japan's acts so long as she is ruled by the military party.



To understand the effect on the integrity of China, upon the interests of the United States, and upon the peace of the world of the policy of Japan in the Far Fast -- and reference is had to the policy inexorably pointed out by her acts and not to that innocent substitute which she courteously acknowledges to the world -- it is necessary to refer to some incidents which are not generally borne in mind by the American public, though they are readily ascertained through inquiry.


First, as to the sentiment of China toward the United States. I had opportunity to learn it by intercourse with representatives of all classes of Chinamen in Hongkong, Canton, Shanghai, and Peking, sometimes speaking in English and sometimes where necessary communicating through an interpreter. Whether it was a building contractor in charge of construction of a million-dollar modern department store in Canton; a wealthy abbot and patriot entertaining me in his garden beside a bronze Buddha 1,500 years old, and in the shade of an immense pagoda hoary with age; a wealthy merchant; a student; a coolie; the plague expert of China; a justice of the supreme court; the physician in charge of sanitation on the Government railways; a Chinese editor; a newspaper business manager, with up-to-date Western ideas and a wonderful plant; whether he had been educated in America, in England, at Oxford College, Hongkong, or even in Japan -- there was always one message for Americans spoken with touching enthusiasm and feeling. It was a message of love and appreciation for what Americans had done in the past, absolute confidence in their disinterested friendship as demonstrated by their acts, and a hope that the same kindly leading hand would help China to preserve her nationality and survive the dangers by which she is threatened.


It is a feeling such as no nation, so far as I know, has ever before in the world's history entertained for an alien people.

It is a sentiment which unfortunately permits the Chinese at times to be victimized by some sharper taking advantage of his American standing to add to his bank roll. There was the man who proposed to sell to the Chinese Government several million dollars' worth of locomotives, and who secured a large advance in cash on the order, but who was found on later investigation to have no connection with the Baldwin Locomotive Works, which he claimed to represent. The police of the United States, I understand, are still looking for him.

A more satisfactory manifestation of the sentiment was found in the spontaneous contributions from Chinese to the American Red Cross. I heard of one man, a small farmer in the interior, who walked 10 miles in order to be able to send in by post office messenger a contribution of a dollar -- all he could afford -- with a note expressing his gratitude as a Chinaman for what America had done.


I was told by Americans long resident in China -- newspaper men and others -- that this feeling is practically unanimous among the Chinese, and that it extends far back into the interior, where presumably knowledge of world happenings does not penetrate.

Consider this sentiment as a commercial asset and see what it means. China has a population of 400,000,000, and its purchasing power, already great, will become enormous when under intelligent and kindly aid its resources are developed, education made general, the status and wages of the laborer increased, and standards of living raised. Its purchasing power then will be greater than that of any other nation on the face of the earth.


The foreign business of this nation is ours for the asking, and assuming only intelligent handling and fair treatment, and involving no violation of national rights, commercial ethics, and no unfairness to any other nation, whether ally or not. Do we want that business, and will we take steps to protect it? This, entirely apart from the consideration of justice in preventing the further subjugation of Asia by a nation that might be induced in the future to use its augmented power against the balance of the world, and particularly against the United States.

It becomes evident, too, why Japan, aside from her desire to absorb China, or to so control it as to lead in time to its absorption, and possibly as an aid to attainment of that ambition seeks to cause such distrust of the United States in the Far Fast as will minimize our influence there and induce the Chinese to look elsewhere for friendly counsel and aid.


If the United States only takes the necessary steps to nullify the vicious propaganda undertaken by Japan for this purpose and to insure and maintain between us and the Far East that intimate knowledge of each other that will prevent future misunderstanding, Japan will be powerless to accomplish her purposes. For in this, as in some other matters, this Great War, terrible as has been the misery and the toll, has served a wise and a beneficent purpose, giving the Far East a warning that need only be heeded to insure protection and peace in that part of the world.

Japan, confident that Germany could not be beaten, certain that the war would drag on for some time, and seeing in the preoccupation of her allies her opportunity to work her plans in the Far East, abandoned all semblance of guile and persuasion with her intended victims and plainly demanded with the necessary threats the things she wanted immediately with reservations for the future. The armistice came like a thunderbolt before her plans had been fully consummated, and now as the facts become known, she stands forth as the Germany of the Pacific, relentless and implacable, willing to use any means to secure her ends.


What she has done in Korea and in Manchuria she intended to do in China, and her protestations at this time are sufficiently contradicted by her acts.

In 1894, when Japan made war upon China, it was, she claimed, partly to insure the independence of Korea, and the peace of Shimonoseki recognized that independence. In 1904 Japan warred with Russia because that power threatened the independence of Korea; and in 1910 Japan calmly annexed Korea on the assumption, presumably, that it would be easier thus to maintain its independence!

In Manchuria Japan sought ostensibly only peaceful penetration, a railroad franchise, and some mining rights. She gradually assumed control through her army, and now she rules it with the relentless methods of a Prussian-taught army. The stories told by American engineers of the present "peaceful penetration" of Manchuria have placed the Far East, which has heard them, upon sufficient notice as to Japan's methods.


Japan's defense in this matter, as made by Baron Makino at Paris in February, and published throughout the country, consists partly of reverberating silence on some issues, and the plea ingenuously made between the lines that even if guilty, as charged, she is only doing in China what the European Nations have done. Makino calls attention to the fact that when Japan, as spoils of victory in the war with China, claimed and received title and lease to the Liaotung Peninsula (in Manchuria), with the naval base and fortress of Port Arthur, and the port of Dairen, she was robbed thereof by the European powers, Russia taking the peninsula, while England got Wei-Hai-Wei. This peninsula under lease and title Japan recovered as spoil after her war with Russia.

There is no reference in Makino's statement to the fact that in 1909, after her rights as to the Antung-Mukden Railroad had expired, Japan, by force of arms and against China's protest, completed that road and is now operating it; and in 1915, while Europe was at war, forced China to extend to the year 2002, instead of 1923, the year when she would secure control of this road.

What Japan has done in Tsingtao and its hinterland, Kiachau, in order to force territory which she took from Germany in trust for China, to revert to Japanese control will be explained in another article.


The situation as indicated in this article will explain also why Japan is eager to go into partnership with the United States in the exploitation of China.

There exists throughout China at this time the most bitter hatred of Japan since her intentions have become so evident. If the United States becomes the partner of Japan in working her pleasure in China, the good will of the Chinese which we now enjoy will disappear and Japan will no longer be under any handicap in securing Chinese trade. If any of that good will survives the partnership, then Japan will share equally in the profits. And incidentally, all hopes of China saving herself from the destiny intended for her as a subject of Japan will disappear, while the United States will find the fruits of partnership turn to ashes, for Japan has continually shown a clever ingenuity in taking the spoils and leaving her partners with an empty bag.

In such a partnership the United States would secure no profit, and she would lose all the prestige and honor which has come to her through generations of fair dealing.


In the situation as described is found answer, also, to the suggestion that the United States has no concern in the Far East, and that she can save herself future trouble by permitting Japan to work her will there.

The United States can no longer live within herself. She must have trade relations with the balance of the world; and she can not afford to throw away the opportunity to secure the trade of China now offered her. Aside from that, consideration for her own future safety and for the peace of the world would forbid allowing Japan to carry out her plans, which have been prematurely exposed by the close of the war.



For years Japan has pursued a shrewd and well-organized system of propaganda designed to conceal from the Western World a general knowledge of her real purposes in the Far East, to maintain friendly relations with nations whose interests she was steadily undermining, and to create among the powers concerned in the Far East a mutual distrust of each other which would prevent concert of action against her. Because of the disinterested position of the United States and its consequent influence, particularly in China, this propaganda has been used within the past few years to injure the American prestige in the Far East.


A previous article referred to various means utilized in spreading this propaganda, including prominent Americans who had been entertained in Japan and carefully coached on one side of the question and who became earnest and innocent propagandists! Japan-American societies for the ostensible promotion of friendly feeling and commercial business, entered into by Americans and by some Japanese perhaps in perfect good faith; hired propagandists of various types who traveled in America, and control of the news of the Far East.

Students of the news have wondered why we know so little of the Far East; why there seldom comes anything prejudicial to Japan; why when a short special of that character does get through, it is promptly denied or lengthily explained away until the original charge sinks out of sight. The traveler in the Far East is surprised to find practically no news of America, but considerable of London, in the newspapers on the eastern Asiatic coast, and rarely anything of importance from America that is distasteful to prominent far-eastern interests.


The explanation is that the news of the Far East is controlled practically by Reuter, a British news agency, and by Japan, and the two have formed a combination. Before the war Germany presented her interests to the people of the Far East through the Wolff agency and the Ostasiatische Lloyd, a ramification of Wolff.

Except during a few months this year and last year, when the committee on public information sent American news across the Pacific, the Far East for many years has received its news of the United States through Reuter, the report being prepared at New York for British tastes, blue penciled by British hands at London, expurgated, clarified, and interpreted by British hands at Shanghai, where British feeling against Americans has been most marked, and thence distributed.


During the first years of the Great War, when the United States was neutral, this Reuter service was very effectively used to so misinterpret American sentiment and acts as to create a strong prejudice against us.

Reuter has discriminatory rates over the far-eastern cables, which are generally under British control, which would have made it impractical for an American news report to go over in competition. And again, the Associated Press has until recently regarded its proper sphere as within the United States. Last January, however, it commenced a complete leased wire daily report by cable to the leading newspapers of South America at their request.


Some years ago Reuter retired from Japan in favor of the Kokusai, the Japan National News Agency, a Government-controlled organization. Under that arrangement the Kokusai receives from Reuter the world news and distributes it through Japan after it has been properly sterilized according to Japanese standards. The news of Japan, which Reuter distributes over the world under the Reuter label, is that which the Kokusai determines should go out of Japan.

One result of this news control was observed at the time of the armistice. The world knew for a week or 10 days that things were leading inevitably to the signing of the armistice -- it knew for 30 days or more that the defeat of the Germans was rapidly approaching. This news was suppressed by Kokusai, and Japan knew nothing of it until the announcement of the signing of the armistice came like a thunderbolt; and in one week there are said to have been failures in Japan amounting to $50,000,000. Some favored corporations which are said to be close to the Government had the tip and shoved off on an unsuspecting market as much of doubtful securities as the market could take.


While the Associated Press and a few American dailies have special correspondents in the Far East, the cable facilities across the Pacific are so inadequate and the rates so high that a satisfactory news service can not be maintained. During the years of the war it took from 10 to 14 days to get a cable message across the Pacific.


As Japan has control of the news of Japan, so is she attempting to control the news of China, both incoming and outgoing.

In pursuance of that policy, she has secured ownership or control of a number of the Chinese vernacular newspapers located in the larger cities, and controls also some English language newspapers, including two in Shanghai. In Canton, where no Chinese newspaper could be purchased, a new one was started by Japanese interests.

The vernacular newspapers controlled by Japan are registered with the Japanese consulate and claim extraterritorial rights, including trial by the Japanese consul, so, that they are practically immune from Chinese laws or courts, or official displeasure. In consequence they can vilify and blackmail without check or redress, and this power is freely used to silence or coerce Chinese officials and patriots who do not bend themselves to the Japanese will. The Chinese newspapers conducted on a business basis and responsible to the courts for debts and utterances face in this situation an unfair and very trying competition.


Japan has also organized in China a news collecting and distributing agency called the Far Eastern News Agency, which has the aid of Japanese consular agents in the various cities in collecting news and the assistance of the Japanese code books in transmitting it. This agency offers its service of world and China news to the vernacular newspapers at a price which would not pay for office rent. As an added inducement it offers registration at the Japanese consulate and the protection afforded thereby so long as the editor is "good."

This service is devoted largely to Japanese propaganda, and is even more dangerous to the newspapers that rely on it for a complete service because of what it suppresses. It is carefully designed to keep from the Chinese the local and foreign news which it is not in Japan's interests to have known, or to so color and modify it as to make it serve the purpose.


The control of the news has been used of late years deliberately for creating prejudice against America and injury to American interests, either by what it failed to tell or by what it told only partly or incorrectly, to such an extent that the United States last year, through its committee on public information, essayed to keep the Far East advised of America's aims and acts in the war by establishing a daily service of its own.

The "compub" report, as it was called, was wirelessed each day from San Diego (afterwards from San Francisco) and caught at Cavite (Philippine Islands), from which point it was relayed to China, being caught at Shanghai by the French wireless and at Peking by the United States wireless in the American concession.


At Manila it was used by the three American newspapers and (after translation) by the five vernacular newspapers. It was briefed also, and transmitted to the various islands of the Philippine group for publication or posting.

In Shanghai, Peking, and Tien Tsin it was available at once for English or American newspapers, and elsewhere could be received by mail or by wire. In addition, it was briefed and translated into Chinese, under direction of Carl Crow, representing the committee on public information, and mailed to all the Chinese newspapers that cared to receive and use it -- between 200 and 300.


From Guam the report was cabled, at expense of the committee, to Japan, where it was used by the few American newspapers, and a part of it -- particularly the speeches of President Wilson -- translated into Japanese, and offered to the Japanese dailies, which quoted freely therefrom.

Later the report was caught at Vladivostok, wired to Irkutsk and Omsk, and distributed by mail to other points.

In addition, after the Paris conference commenced, an excellent report thereof was sent by wireless from Lyons in France, caught at Vladivostok, Peking, Shanghai, and Cavite, and distributed therefrom.

In this way the Far East was kept advised of the position of the United States and the vicious propaganda of Japan lost most of its effect. The report, however, was not an adequate news report of world's affairs, was only a war measure operated under war authority, has already been discontinued in some places, and must soon cease in others if it has not already ceased everywhere.


All American interests in the Far East, diplomatic and commercial, are unanimous in expressing the opinion that the United States can not retain the good will of the Far East and can not protect her interests there in the absence of the exchange of news report across the Pacific which will keep the United States and the Far East fully advised as to the acts and sentiments of each other, respectively.

In China, Chinese newspaper men, statesmen, and business men now recognize the necessity for securing through an adequate news service, such knowledge of world affairs that Japan's vicious propaganda may be offset and her purposes uncovered. In Canton the Chinese have even started an English language newspaper in order to keep before Americans and English the things which they should know as to the policy of Japan.



In February of this year I was in Hongkong, Canton, Shanghai, and Peking, engaged rather in investigations of conditions than in sightseeing. What I learned then -- which is only what every one in the Far East who follows the march of events knows -- constitutes a complete answer to the suave assurances made to the world at that same time as to the pacific intentions and benevolent acts of Japan in China. I shall outline here only the conditions as they were in February -- equally interesting and convincing is the history of Japan's policy for the past four years, incidents of which have been referred to in previous articles and more of which will be told later.

Incidentally it should be borne in mind that the ignorance of the general American public as to these matters of vital concern to them -- as shown in a recent article on the commercial asset which we have in China's good will -- is due partly to the difficulties in securing news communication, but more to the elaborate propaganda of Japan and to her control of the outgoing news of the Far East.


In February there was in session at Canton the old Chinese Parliament of the new republic, which had been forcibly dissolved some time before by the former premier with a Chinese army at his back, paid by Japanese gold. This parliament had reconvened as a protest against the existing conditions and with the patriotic desire to do what it could to save China.

At Peking the new parliament was in session, divided in its councils by the intrigues of Japan, by the demands of the Japanese paid army, and by the loyal efforts of the faithful guard to serve the country.

At Shanghai the commissioners from North China and from South China deliberated in the large building built by the Germans for a club, but confiscated by China at the declaration of war. They had come together at the urgent solicitation of the United States and Great Britain to heal their differences if possible, to put an end to civil strife, and to present a united China to the outside world.

In one of the adjoining Provinces the Chinese army under the orders of its commander, Gen. Usu Shu Cheng -- "Little Hsu," as he is called to distinguish him from the elder Hsu -- was practicing the art of warfare on a defenseless people, and as a suggestion that its demands for more Japanese money be favorably considered. The army was with the north -- it had been instructed by Germans and Japanese, and its commanders are under Japanese influence.

On the Wampu, near Canton, the Chinese navy of a few ships was mobilized. It is British taught, and it had thrown in its fortunes with the south, whose policy seems to the foreigners to be more actuated by real love for China.

At Paris the Chinese peace commissioners, Wellington Koo, ambassador at Washington, and Wong, also a distinguished Chinese statesman, endeavored to protect China against the intimidation of Japan and the traitorous acts of some of her own people.


Bear in mind that all the trouble and disruption which form the subject matter of this article was directly and deliberately caused by Japan in furtherance of her own ends, to make the conquest or control of China more easy and to accomplish it as speedily as possible and before Europe and America could find time to look after their interests in the Far East.

The disruption between the north and the south of China was brought about through the intrigues of Japan, by direct suggestion and aid, and through means of Chinese officials, many of them educated in Japan, and all well paid for their treachery.

The south was assured it was not receiving proper treatment from the north and that it had the sympathy of the majority of the Japanese people. The north was told that differences between the people of a nation can only be settled by military operations and the complete defeat of one side. Japan, therefore, loaned large sums of money to the new Chinese Government, controlled by the north, with the express understanding that certain portions thereof were to be used for military operations against the south. In thus instigating civil war and then insuring the victory of the north, Japan felt she was aiding the element which would be most amenable to Japanese influence and would care least for the integrity of China.


The President of China has the confidence of the patriotic element among his countrymen, who say that, while he makes apparently no open or aggressive stand against Japan, he is fully alive to her intentions and proposes to thwart them, if possible, but is opposing cunning with cunning. His official family, however, is honeycombed with treachery. The following five individuals, all educated in Japan and all comparatively young men, are notoriously paid tools of Japan who have profited well by their employment: Tsao Ju Lin, minister of communications; Lu Chung Yu, head of the Sino-Japanese Bank; Gen. Hsu Shii-cheng, head of the army; Chung, Chinese minister in Japan, and Sze Li Pen, councillor in the foreign office. The latter acts as interpreter when Chinese and Japanese commissions or officials discuss important matters, and honest Chinese officials, I am told, have been horrified to find that the official record bore testimony that they had made statements and acceded to conditions quite different from what was in their minds.

The governors of some of the Provinces are also Japanese agents. This is openly charged, and apparently proved by his official acts, against the governor of the Shantung Province, who is married to a Japanese woman.

The effort to secure through the Shanghai conference a working agreement between the north and the south was a failure, though another conference is spoken of. The south insisted that the north should come in with clean hands and cease active military operations against unorganized and unarmed people. Japanese influence was too great, however, and while there was some oriental sidestepping there was no cessation of hostilities; and the conference adjourned.

In parliament a measure was introduced for the demobilization of the army, both in the interests of economy and because China had no need of an army at this time. This was promptly met by an ultimatum from the army that the government at once secure from Japan more of the $20,000,000 loan offered and insure future payments to the army for some time.

The President and Chinese loyal statesmen are trying to prevent the taking of more money from Japan because derelict Government officials have pledged for the loan some of the Government railways and certain additional concessions, and Japan is anxious to force the loan on China as one means of securing possession of the railroads. The end had not come when I left China, and I have seen no statement covering the matter since then.

An agent of American financial interests went to China in March, and it is possible that a readjustment of Chinese financial affairs may be made by a loan participated in by all the powers, but in which the United States will predominate. If this happens, China may be saved from the clutches of Japan.


At Paris Japan asserted the right to speak for China, and when Koo and Wong combated this Japan tried to have them silenced or recalled, making use of various threats to secure the purpose.

Under the Lansing-Ishii agreement between the United States and Japan quasi recognition is given to some indefinite interests of Japan in China. President Wilson has not seen fit as yet to make a public explanation of this remarkable document, though he has had sufficient inquiries. I can therefore only refer to it. But Japan claims that under this agreement we have conceded her full control over Chinese affairs, and this is the claim she attempted to make good at Paris.

In fact, when President Wilson sent a congratulatory telegram to the President of the Chinese Republic on the occasion of that Republic's birthday, the Japanese papers declared his act to be a clear violation of the Lansing-Ishii agreement and that the United States had no right to communicate with China save through Japan. That same claim was made by an English-language newspaper in Shanghai, the Mercury, controlled by Japanese.

The issue was forced in connection with the submission to the peace conference of the secret 21 conditions forced upon China by Japan in 1915, existence of which was denied to the world by Japan, which threatened China and her officials with severe penalties if she even mentioned that such conditions had been exacted. The peace conference had shown a desire to see these conditions and other secret treaties, and the Chinese commissioners had indicated their willingness to produce them. Their copies had been stolen from them as they passed through Japan on their way to Paris, but duplicates could be secured by wireless if necessary.

Japan used all her power and influence, first, to have Koo and Wong silenced and Japan recognized as China's spokesman at Paris, and, failing that, to have Koo and Wong instructed that the secret treaties forced at the point of the sword by Japan since August, 1914, should not be produced. Obata, on behalf of Japan, made at Peking the most serious threats against China and the officials of her Government if Japan's wishes were not complied with, and it looked for a while as if China must yield.


In this case publicity defeated Japan and saved China, just as publicity now, promptly and properly applied, will prevent attainment of Japan's ultimate ends in the Far East and save the world much tribulation. The old Parliament at Canton cabled Koo and Wong to stand by their guns; the commercial bodies and guilds of the leading cities, commencing in the south and gradually spreading through the north, did the same; and such public sentiment was speedily created throughout China that the new Parliament at Peking, notwithstanding the influence of Japan, did not dare recall Koo and Wong or withdraw their authority, and they were permitted to go ahead on their own discretion. Fortunate, indeed, for China that she was represented by such men.

It is little wonder that China was stirred by these matters into active hatred of Japan and a boycott of her goods, and that she was impelled to seriously consider the advice of her friend, the United States, and endeavor to adjust her internal differences, that she might present a united front to the enemy. With the aid of her friends on the outside, and with full exploitation in China of the traitorous acts of Japanese paid officials of China, she may yet accomplish a workable union of the Chinese Provinces.



Japan persistently insists, through diplomatic channels and by her various clever methods of propaganda, including American societies and American business men, that she has no designs on securing the territory of China or any part of it, or any wish for concessions or privileges which are not open to all other Nations.

Japan's record is sufficient disproof of her claims of good faith in this matter, and fortunately perhaps for the world that record during the war and because of Japanese belief that it was her great opportunity has been so plainly written that it needs only publicity -- the publicity which Japan is desperately striving to prevent.


Korea was under the suzerainty of China. Japan fought two wars -- one with China and one with Russia -- ostensibly to insure the independence of Korea; and then appropriated the country herself. The excuse she made was that Korea is contiguous to Japan -- and therefore offered opportunity for Japan's enemies to menace her. She afterwards claimed a special sphere of influence and control of South Manchuria on the plea that an enemy might occupy it to the injury of Korea. That control of South Manchuria has since been changed into the most despotic possession under Prussian methods.

She subsequently insisted that it was necessary for her to have control in inner Manchuria lest her rights in south Manchuria should be threatened.

Under that system of reasoning Japan, if unchecked, might claim all of China, and eventually all of Asia.


South Manchuria is occupied in a military way by the Japanese. British and other nationalities were subjected to the greatest indignities and the excuse therefore offered by a Japanese vice consul in a particularly aggravated case was "in the view and contention of the Japanese Government you are in Japanese territory and must submit to the Japanese who are the ruling authority in the East and must be obeyed."

Italian troops passing through Manchuria on their way to Siberia were hampered in their progress after leaving the south Manchurian Railroad by the demand of the Japanese that their authority and not that of Russia be recognized. The Chinese who presumably have some little claim on the territory were not even permitted to entertain the Italians.

Japanese subjects made attacks on the American consuls at Dalny and Newchang and on the wife of the American consul at Mukden. At Mukden in April, 1915, when Japan was insisting on acceptance by China of the 21 demands, a body of Japanese troops marched through the Walled City, into which they had no right to enter, and maneuvered for 15 minutes in front of the American consulate general.


Japan has put up a wireless station without any authority and in violation of China's sovereignty at Tsinan Fu, on the railway from Peking to Mukden. She has installed another in the center of China at Hankow, 500 miles up the Yangtze River, and maintains a garrison there, both against China's protests. The wireless is powerful and prevents the American and British gunboats patrolling the river from communicating with each other.

Japan has installed another wireless at Tsingtau, which place she took from Germany to return to China but is still holding. At Dairen, the Japanese wireless station in the Kwangtung leasehold is apparently used to prevent communication between or with ships for a distance of 1,500 miles. The Pacific Mail frequently can not communicate with her ships coming into Shanghai.


The history of Tsingtau and its hinterland, Kiaochou, very aptly illustrates the methods of Japan, and indicates how much sincerity there is in her protestations of good faith. Germany secured possession of this port and the hinterland in consideration for the massacre of two German missionaries. She probably would have been willing to trade more missionaries on similar terms. She made elaborate improvements in town and port on modern lines.

When Germany in 1914 was called on by Japan to surrender the territory, she agreed to give it back to China if compensated for improvements made. Japan would not consent to this.

Japan in her ultimatum declared to Germany that Tsingtau was to be turned over to China. She made the same statement in response to an inquiry from the United States as to her intentions.


She has, however, regarded Tsingtau as a spoil of war which should be given to her in recognition of her services to the Allies. She forced on China secret treaties which would extend indefinitely her rights there and would give her practical possession of the town and the port.

She imposed a condition in one secret treaty by which in event of restoration of Tsingtau to China a concession under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan was to be established at a place to be designated by the Japanese Government; if the foreign powers desired an international concession it might be chosen afterwards; and the disposal of buildings and property formerly held by Germany was to be a matter of "mutual" agreement between the Chinese and Japanese Government. The mutuality of an agreement of that sort as shown by China's history would be something like that between the German military governor of Belgium and an honest and patriotic Belgian mayor in 1917.


Japan has already selected the site of the concession which is to be under her exclusive jurisdiction. "It constitutes the most important part of Tsingtau, including the port, the principal railway station, and practically all the revenue-producing utilities," as explained by the Japan Chronicle of Kobe.

Through discriminatory regulations and taxes the Chinese and other nationals were forced out of Tsingtau to a great extent and Japanese took their places. The government lands, revenues from which had been devoted to improvement of the city by the Germans, were sold at nominal prices to Japanese syndicates which proceeded to install manufacturing enterprises thereon. The French were asked to give up the land on which their tennis courts were located and refused. They were about to be forced when Great Britain and France protested. Japan desisted. The war came on, and Japan through discriminatory taxes forced confiscation of the land.


In response to various suggestions as to turning over Tsingtau to the Chinese, for over four years Japan said nothing publicly. A few months ago, the war having closed, she intimated her willingness to consider turning it back if China would pay therefore by valuable railroad and other concessions. It transpires now that secret treaties forced on China had provided for such an adjustment.

Now it is said that even if Tsingtau be turned back to China it still will be controlled by the Japanese, and if China attempts to restore former conditions Japan will seize upon it as a pretext for war. She has used her four years of possession so that the interests of China and of Japan's partners and allies will be effectually wiped out. It remains to be seen whether the peace conference and the Allies and the United States will stand for this arrangement.


With her power thus established in Tsingtau and its hinterland of Kiaochou, Japan, following her established principle, sought control of the entire Province of Shantung, the plea being that such control was necessary to protect her rights in Tsingtau. The Chinese Government was forced by the same secret treaty method "to give full assent to all matters upon which the Japanese Government may hereafter agree with the German Government relating to the disposition of all rights, interests, and concessions which Germany, by virtue of treaties or otherwise, possesses in relation to the Province of Shantung."

Under another secret agreement, this time made with the Chinese minister to Tokyo in 1918, but never ratified by the Chinese Government, the control of the Shantung Railway, running through the Province, and of the entire railway zone, becomes Japanese without qualification and without time limit. Article 6 of that agreement guards against any disturbance of Japan's position by the peace conference, for it provides that, regardless of what disposition shall be made as to ownership of the railway, it shall be placed under joint management of China and Japan. Japan, through Obata, insisted that this agreement did not need ratification by the Chinese Government, being purely a "commercial agreement."


The Japanese Government last autumn advanced $10,000,000 to China, through her trusted representatives, in return for the transfer to Japan of the options allowed Germany in 1913 on an extension of the line to the Peking-Hankow Railway, with an option on construction of a branch from Kaomi to Hsuchow, at which point it would make connection with the Belgian transcontinental line from the sea coast to Turkestan. China has not yet learned what became of all the money. Some of it, apparently, was used for fostering trouble between north and south China, by supplying arms and pay for an army for the north. Clearly there was something crooked about this agreement on the part of some one in China, for, when China offered to expose the secret treaties to the Paris conference, Japan threatened to publish, and did publish, this Shantung Railway agreement.

Baron Makino, in February, made a defense of Japan's acts in China for the Paris conference, in the course of which he said that the details of this agreement as to Tsingtau and Shantung had not been made public under a mutual understanding, and because they were preliminary to certain business matters, as yet in an incomplete stage. He stated positively, however, that "the agreement is in no sense oppressive, nor does it provide for illegitimate or arbitrary control by Japan of any territory or China's territorial rights."


It is true that some conditions of some of these secret agreements do not seem onerous to an outsider, if in force between two nations of equal strength and good faith. The best information as to what they mean for China, and other nations, is to read in the record made by Japan's acts her interpretation of the powers which these agreements confer. The record is conclusive. Nothing else is necessary to establish the justice of the title of these articles -- "The Germany of Asia." In Shantung, with a military controlled railway zone and Chinese officials bribed to complacency, Japan has been running things very much as in Manchuria. The methods were made in Germany, but the Japanese are apt pupils.



No man may know, until under exceptional advantages he has investigated the facts on the ground, how the march of events in the Far East has been concealed from western eyes for years past by a thick veil, devised partly by Japanese cunning, and owing its effectiveness largely to the world's absorption in other matters. Material aid, too, was had from inadequate and congested cable facilities, which did not transmit ordinary business or personal messages -- no matter how pressing -- across the ocean in less than 10 to 14 days. War put the wireless in Government hands, barring private messages and news service, and made excuse for a censorship which has been used to the limit; so that, even since the armistice, we see things through that veil in such indistinct or distorted fashion that we know really nothing, and what we think we know we must some day unlearn.

So it is that the western world has not learned yet the genesis, the meaning, and the real facts concerning the Korean independence demonstration commencing on March 1 -- perhaps the most wonderful instance of national self-control and organized passive resistance for accomplishment of an ideal that the world has ever known. It is too early to prophesy, but it seems not unlikely that this Korean demonstration ultimately will have an effect on the Japanese policy and the future history of the Far East which a revolution could not have accomplished.


Japan attempted, and I think unwisely, to suppress the facts as to this demonstration and permitted the publication in the Japanese vernacular papers of expurgated, exaggerated, and colored accounts calculated to prejudice the world as to the motives and the acts of the Koreans.

For instance, every effort was made to suppress and prevent outside knowledge of the original proclamation published all over Korea at the opening of the demonstration -- a temperate, dignified, eloquent statement which declined to deal in recrimination, which blamed the Koreans themselves, partly, for their troubles, but which insisted that they were entitled to national existence, of which they had been forcibly and unfairly deprived. It suggested that Japan, in restoring Korean independence, would do more toward regaining confidence of the world and insuring permanent peace in the Far East than could be done in any other way.

Every effort was made to prevent copies of this document getting out of Korea. Houses and individuals were searched; even while I was in Seoul two Americans connected with the Y. M. C. A. were arrested and searched in the belief they had copies of the document.


So far as I know, the first accurate translation of that document was brought out by myself and offered to the Japan Advertiser at Tokyo for publication and to the Associated Press. The Government forbade its publication. And, so far as I can learn, the first copy to reach the United States is that which I brought to San Francisco and which was given out by the Associated Press there.

In Honolulu I was informed that the newspapers there could not receive reliable accounts of the Korean trouble through letters from their Tokyo correspondents sent by special messengers because no steamer passenger from the Orient was permitted to land on the Honolulu dock carrying letters for delivery or mailing unless such letters were turned over to postal officials, by whom they would be submitted to censorship.

It is within my own knowledge that fellow passengers on the Shinyo Maru who had with them correspondence concerning the Korean troubles for delivery to Honolulu newspapers were asked to surrender them to the customs and post-office officials at the gate, and when they refused, were ordered to take them back to the ship and threatened with $1,000 fine if they attempted to deliver the letters. In my own case I was not permitted to carry off the Honolulu dock for mailing a letter plainly addressed to the American minister at Peking, but, at order of the customs official, turned it over, with a nickel for postage, to the uniformed postal employee at his side.


With Mrs. McClatchy I was in Seoul, the capital of Korea, for two days and a half during the demonstration and secured a fair knowledge of the matter through intercourse with a number of Americans and Europeans long resident in Korea, thoroughly familiar with the situation and enjoying the confidence of Koreans, and, in several cases, eyewitnesses of leading incidents.

During these two days and a half we were permitted to go about freely in our rickshaws through the crowded streets taking snap pictures; but we attempted no conversation with Koreans, lest we get them into trouble. We were early warned that we were being followed by two detectives in plain clothes who made inquiries wherever we stopped as to our business and conversation, and particularly as to whether we talked to Koreans.

We traveled by rail through the length of Korea from Antung to Seoul and from Seoul to the southern end of the peninsula at Fusan, a journey of two daylights, and met on the train a number of Americans, long resident in the country, some of them Californians, and even Sacramentans, interested or employed in the American quartz-mining and gold-dredging operations below Seoul. The first half of this journey was made on March 3, the second on March 6.

From sources in Japan after our arrival there I learned more. And this, then, is the story of the Korean independence demonstration as I understand it.


On Monday, March 3 [1919], the funeral of the former Korean Emperor Yi was to take place. Yi was not entitled to particular consideration at the hands of his people, and up to the time of his death did not enjoy their affection. But his death transformed him into a national hero, for it was reported, and generally believed by the Koreans, that he had committed suicide in order to force a postponement for three years, under Korean custom, of the marriage of young Prince Yi, a boy, to a Japanese princess. The prince, nominally a guest of the Japanese nation, is really a prisoner in his palace, permitted no intercourse with the Koreans, and never leaving the palace grounds unless in charge of Japanese guards. The marriage was dictated by Japan as one means of sinking Korean nationalism and aiding in assimilation of her people, and was correspondingly resented by the Koreans.

And so the worthless old emperor suddenly became a hero to his former subject, 20,000,000 people, a captive nation under Japan's iron rule. They desire to give him burial according to the ancient Korean rites, but this was refused them by the military government which rules Korea, and arrangements for a great Japanese military funeral with Shinto ceremonies went on apace.

From all parts of the Korean Peninsula the Koreans flocked to Seoul, the capital, for 10 days preceding the funeral, coming at the rate of 5,000 a day. Even on Monday, March 3, as we traveled by train down the peninsula we saw almost a steady procession of white-robed and curiously hatted Koreans walking on the highway toward the nearest railway station that they might take train for the capital. There had never been before in the history of the country such a crowd in Seoul.


Suddenly, on the Saturday preceding the funeral, March 1, at 2 o'clock p. m., without warning or hint to the foreign population and without suspicion evidently on the part of the Japanese rulers, there was inaugurated in every large city of Korea on behalf of its 20,000,000 subject people, a peaceful demonstration and demand for national independence. This demonstration continued in various forms throughout the Korean Peninsula up to the date of our departure from Yokohama on March 17. Since that time the veil which conceals or distorts happenings in the Far East has dropped for us, as it has for all westerners.

In Seoul the demonstration consisted of a reading of the proclamation in a public park; of the rushing of many thousands of the white-robed Koreans down the wide main street shouting "Mansei," the Korean equivalent of the Japanese "Banzai"; of exhortation to students of the various schools to join in the demonstration and to maintain a peaceful agitation until they secured national freedom; of an attempt to enter the palace gates and present a petition to the young Prince Yi, etc.

The police and gendarmes could not stop the crowd at first, but soldiers were called out, and clubbed muskets and swords were used effectively, over 150 prisoners being taken to jail that afternoon, some of them rather severely injured.

Somewhat similar demonstrations were made on Monday and on Wednesday, but they did not last long, the Japanese being prepared and several hundred demonstrators being made prisoners, among them some girl students. The demonstrations in other cities took on similar character.


There was more or less severity attached to the arrest of the Koreans. Eyewitnesses have told me of girl students being set upon by Japanese coolies with clubs and stamped upon, and being marched off by the gendarmes and tied together in couples by their thumbs. Up to the time we left Seoul, March 6, firearms had not been used by the Japanese in that city as far as I could learn, and while there were numerous injuries from clubs, clubbed muskets, and swords, no Koreans had been killed.

The astonishing thing about the demonstration was that under the terms of the proclamation and exhortation of the leaders no injury was done to property, and no violence attempted by the Koreans, even in retaliation for what seemed unnecessary brutality on the part of the gendarmes and soldiers in making arrests. This is the more astonishing when the temperamental character of the Koreans is had in mind, and their inclination to frenzy in mob formation, which in the early days of the Hermit Kingdom caused the death of several missionaries, who were torn to pieces by Korean hands and teeth.

The vernacular press of Japan during the first week of the demonstration was filled with accounts from special correspondents, declaring that in Seoul and elsewhere throughout the peninsula the Koreans had attacked, injured, and even killed gendarmes, police, and soldiers, and injured property.

Up to the morning of March 6, when we left Seoul, I am confident no such thing occurred in that city; and I have reason to believe it did not occur elsewhere. The most conclusive evidence on this point is the interview published in the Japan Advertiser by the Japanese minister of communications, Noda, who, with other high officials of the Government, went to Seoul to attend the funeral of former Emperor Yi. Noda did not leave Seoul until March 5, and his interview, published on his return to Tokyo, declared that the Koreans had not committed acts of violence or injured property, either in Seoul or anywhere else in Korea.


On the morning on which we left Seoul, five days after the demonstrations commenced, there appeared on posts and walls a second proclamation from the Korean leaders, though unsigned, in which the people were congratulated on the manner in which they testified to Japan and to the world their desire to be free, and on the self-control and forbearance with which they had endured injury and arrest. They were reminded that as Koreans they must stand up for the sacred cause to the last man, and they were cautioned again to do no violence and no injury to property. "He who does this," the proclamation said, "is an enemy to his country, and will most seriously injure the cause." A free translation of the document was given me while waiting for the train, by a missionary who had seen a copy of it.

It is not unlikely that in country districts the Koreans later may have been incited to retaliation by the methods of their rulers. The vernacular press of Japan for a few days gave increased circumstantial accounts of death or injury to single members of local gendarmerie, coupled usually with the significant statement in each case, that "casualties" among the Koreans amounted to 40, or 60, as the case might be. According to these accounts the Japanese in the outside districts were, in instances, using firearms. The Koreans could secure no weapons unless clubs or stones. But these accounts had practically ceased when we sailed for California.

Meanwhile the Koreans had carried on the policy of passive resistance by closing up all the schools -- the Korean children having ceased to attend, and by ceasing work in various public utility and manufacturing enterprises.


The Government had made arrests of about 4,000 agitators, and the trials of these Koreans, it was officially declared, would be commenced toward the end of March, after the "examinations" had been completed. Preliminary examinations preceding trial at the time of the Korean conspiracy cases some years ago meant inquiry by torture, under which the helpless victim confessed to anything with which he was charged. In those conspiracy cases 106 prisoners thus confessed full guilt and were sentenced on trial by punishment accordingly. The world having received an inkling of the facts, and the American and British minister, it is whispered, having suggested to the Japanese Government the propriety of further investigation, a second trial was ordered, and 98 of the 106 were adjudged innocent and discharged. Among them was one who was in prison at the time the offense with which he was charged was committed. I met in Korea Americans who had seen the scars inflicted by torture on some of these Koreans.

Some apprehend that the prominent leaders of the independence demonstration will be similarly induced during the "examinations" to make confession as to their pernicious activities and what was behind them. But it is doubtful if Japan, with her past experience, and with the eyes of the world upon her now, will resort to torture. There is a growing sentiment in Japan against the despotic rule of the military in Japanese colonies, and that sentiment is quite sensitive to the world's opinion.


The original proclamation was signed by 33 prominent Koreans, religious leaders and teachers, carefully selected so as to represent the Chundokyo, the Buddhists, and the three Christian religions most prominent in Korea -- the Methodist Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Catholic. It was intended thus to demonstrate to the world that the movement for independence was not factional. These leaders were, of course, at once arrested.

The first signature to the proclamation was that of the head of the Chundokyo; and here again the Japanese rulers received a distinct shock, for on the Chundokyo and on its head they had confidently relied for effective assistance in so subjugating the Koreans that there would be no trace left of their nationality in the coming generations.

The Chundokyo is a cult whose teachings are said to be a combination of Buddhism and Taoism and ancestral worship and Korean superstition. The cult was encouraged by the Japanese on the theory, it is said, that it would stop the spread of Christianity, whose teachings, with the flavor of democracy which accompanied them, were believed to be bad for the political digestion of the Koreans. Once the cult had supplanted Christianity it could be made to serve the purpose of the Japanese by eliminating from its teachings those features which reminded the Koreans of their wonderful history as a nation, and it would thus assist in their racial absorption by the Japanese.

However this may be, it is certain that the Chundokyo and its leader were playing the Japanese game, apparently, for years by inducing the Koreans to submit quietly to Japanese rule; that the Japanese encouraged its growth -- it is said to have now about 3,000,000 members; and that, notwithstanding the Japanese espionage system and the spies who were doubtless located in various branches of the cult, Korean intrigue was a match for Japanese intrigue, and a nation kept the secret until the time was ripe.


In Japan a number of Korean students shortly before issued a proclamation for Korean independence, which was in effect a declaration of war. These students were arrested, tried, and convicted, and are already serving terms in prison. That situation was easy to handle. The Korean national movement under leadership of the Chundokyo will prove a more difficult problem for Japan.


As to the inception of this Korean movement there is of course much of which I know nothing. I have reason to believe, however, that it was inspired in a way by the war and its assumed influence in making the world safe for democracy; by a mistaken belief on the part of the Koreans that the principle of self-determination of peoples, as enunciated by President Wilson, and as made the basis for certain decisions of the Paris peace conference, could be applied at this time to Korea; and that it was only necessary for Korea to declare her wish to be free, and Japan would be compelled to give her independence. I know personally some of the Koreans had that idea, and it would explain in part their carefully planned demonstration, indicating unanimity of sentiment, and their determined abstention from violence or retaliation, in order that the world might not be prejudiced.

The forcing of the young Prince Yi into a Japanese marriage, the belief that the old Emperor killed himself to frustrate that plan, the refusal to allow him burial by Korean rites -- all these doubtless helped to fan the sentiment of the impressionable people into flame and make it easy to set the stage for the demonstration.

Then Japan has steadily made enemies of the Koreans, when she might have made friends. After another year, for instance, they will not be permitted to learn their own language in the schools -- they must use Japanese exclusively. At present they are taught both languages. In countless other ways, following the German system of treating a conquered people, the Japanese have outraged the pride and sentiment of the Koreans when the action would not seem necessary for the maintenance of Japanese sovereignty.

Koreans are gradually being deprived of all offices, even the patriarchal heads of villages being supplanted by Japanese with an increase of salary. It is made impracticable for Koreans to attend the high school. A Korean rickshaw man in Seoul is not permitted to earn his living in that occupation unless he discards his national costume and adopts the Japanese. And I myself saw Japanese railroad officials and civilians treat inoffensive Korean passengers like dogs.


The Koreans impress most observers who have studied them as a kindly people who could be readily assimilated by the Japanese, if, after the first forcible acts of repression, military methods and control had given way to civil government; if Korean superstition had been wiped out by education, but their language and their pride of race respected, and ambition created in them by conferring public positions on some of those who qualified for it.

It is claimed, with truth, that Japan has done many excellent things for development of Korea and improvement of sanitary and other conditions; and some insist that the Korean people as individuals are in a better way to progress under Japanese rule, rough and unkind and unfair as it is, than would have been possible as an independent nation under the misrule of their emperors and the grafting official class.

The Korean woman, who was a slave, subject to the pleasure of her master, her husband, to work as he ordered, and to be discarded when he wished, has now certain rights, and may secure a divorce on proper showing. Under the old system, the Korean man or woman, because of official graft and social conditions, had every incentive to develop into a bully or a coward, and withal a liar and a thief. The Japanese rule, notwithstanding the iron hand of the conqueror, is helping to improve some of these conditions. And this, notwithstanding that the Koreans, who claim they were originally free from venereal disease, and who had no prostitutes, have been introduced to the one by the Chinese, while the Japanese have forced on them the Yoshiwara system, under which a woman may be sold or pledged to a brothel keeper for five years, though she may claim cancellation of the contract by appeal to court.

The Japanese have built a good railroad running the entire length of Korea; are pushing forward the construction of excellent highways; have done remarkably good work in forestation of the barren hills; have made property and life safe; have inaugurated compulsory education -- and even a common-grade course for everyone is better than ignorance for the multitude. But they have wiped out any semblance of liberty; and liberty, with all peoples, is now the first consideration.

The Korean pays for all these improvements, and for the profit of his conqueror, in very high taxes; but he knows what those taxes are, and though they may amount to as much as 40 per cent, they still do not handicap him as did the confiscation which faced the old Korean who was found by an envious official to be acquiring a surplus.


One of the interesting phases of the situation is the manner in which Japan faces the problem. Quite evidently she is nonplussed by the passive resistance of 20,000,000 people who offer no possible excuse, according to the world's standards, for acts of brutal repression, and who simply ask in a dignified and temperate declaration or petition for the exercise of that self-determination which their good friend, "Mister Weel-son," has assured them is the right of every people.

The stories of the vernacular press of Japan that acts of violence were committed from the start by the agitators were frankly and publicly denied by two of Japan's high administrative officials. The efforts to make ill will by declaring that American missionaries had instigated the movement have been defeated by the result of an official Japanese investigation, which acquits those accused even of knowledge of the matter.

Apparently the Japanese administration can not save its face by making outside agencies responsible. A few Japanese journalists and publicists who hold that the government of Japanese colonies by military authorities is a mistake certain to make trouble for Japan, have not failed to take advantage of this situation.

In the Japanese Parliament the administration has been asked some very pointed questions looking to the merit of military repression in securing results in Korea and elsewhere and indicating a desire, if not an intention, on the part of some to call for an investigation and to demand that civil commissions instead of military governors shall hereafter control Korea and other outside tributary territory.

From statements made to me by Japanese of standing, I gather that the Korean movement has made such an impression on thinking Japanese that something will be done, probably. Not immediately, of course -- the administration must save its face; and it would not do to yield to a demand of this land from a subject people and thus acknowledge a blunder; but later, and gradually, when the action need not occasion international comments. Of course, independence will not be granted. If anything is done, it will be in the way of reforms in governing the Koreans and in an attempt to make them feel less a subject people.

If I read aright between the lines of certain published statements, an effort will be made to have the Koreans modify their declaration or petition and ask rather for reform in government and some voice in public affairs in place of the independence upon which they have set their hearts.

This Korean declaration, with the comment it causes, is only one of many evidences of a change that is taking place in Japan, which may before long treat its military rulers to a disagreeable surprise.



Occasional reference is made in the telegrams from Washington to the presence there of Manuel Quezon, president of the Philippine Senate, and of a commission from the islands asking Congress to grant independence to the Philippines. There have been recommendations favoring this petition from Burton Harrison, Governor General of the islands (who has done more to discredit the American Nation in the Far East than any other official who has been there) and kindly messages from President Wilson and some of his Cabinet.

There is a very interesting story concerning this matter which any visitor to Manila will hear, much of which I know to be true and none of which I have any reason to doubt.


The great political leaders in the islands at present are Quezon and Sergio Osmena, who is speaker of the lower house of the Philippine Congress. Quezon is said to have more magnetism, Osmena to have the better balance. Aguinaldo commands the admiration of the natives and could easily become a political leader if he would. Up to this time he has busied himself with farming and commercial pursuits and has abstained from making a cry for independence the excuse for securing political position.

Quezon and Osmena were elected on the independence issue, on their impassioned insistence that the islands should be independent and the assurance if they and their followers were elected the end would be attained.


I met in Manila an American who attended some of the political meetings in the various islands, and who, unknown to the leaders, understood the three principal dialects. He told me that he heard some of these leaders assure the ignorant natives that if they secured independence they would be free of all taxes and obnoxious laws and restraint imposed by the Americans, and would be in a position to do what they pleased and to become rich while doing it. They were told that steady agitation for independence would bring it; and quite naturally they cast their franchises for the men who promised them all these things.


As time progressed the United States gave a steadily increasing measure of autonomy to the islands, but there was no indication of immediate grant of independence. As a matter of fact, the intelligent leaders among the Filipinos became convinced that independence would bring destruction instead of prosperity to the islands.

They satisfied themselves that the United States could not afford to make them independent and at the same time guarantee that independence, thus becoming sponsor for the international policy and acts of a people who are not yet fitted to steer their state bark unaided: and if they were left entirely without the protection of the great powers they would fall prey almost at once to Japan, which could easily find a pretext for hostile action.


So while the leaders still talked independence they did it with decided mental reservations. In 1916 the Jones bill for government of the Philippines was before Congress, and the Senate unexpectedly passed the Clarke amendment providing for absolute independence in four years from that date.

The Philippine leaders were stricken with consternation, and cablegrams and messages from the islands asked that the bill do not pass.
"Yes, of course, we are all talking independence -- as a matter of fact, you see, we can not talk anything else; political exigency -- but for God's sake don't give it to us."
Their prayer was heeded and they did not get what they were publicly clamoring for.


It is also reported and quite generally believed in Manila's political circles that Quezon, before the Paris peace conference commenced its labors, requested President Wilson to instruct the delegates from the United States not to bring up the subject of Philippine independence. Certainly so far as the public knows the subject was not brought up.

Meanwhile the opposition party, meaning, of course, the "outs," was making it extremely uncomfortable for the Government, meaning the Quezon-Osmena contingent, which is in.

The opposition claimed that the Government leaders had been elected on the independence issue, had pledged themselves to secure it, and yet had accomplished nothing in that line, and apparently had no intention of doing so.


As a result the native voters were being betrayed: they were not to enjoy all the beautiful things promised with independence. Was it to be tolerated ? Of a certainty, no. Then rise, my friends, valiant members of a puissant race. Throw out these men and elect us -- the opposition -- in their place. We will be faithful to the trust.

There is nothing the matter with that argument, for it provides just the sort of molasses necessary to catch this particular kind of fly at this particular season. And, mark you, the elections are approaching. There was produced what Messrs. Quezon and Osmena would perhaps acknowledge in private to be an embarrassing situation.

There was but one way to solve it apparently. The opposition was put in the same boat by the appointment of a nonpartisan commission whose members were named from both parties: and this committee was intrusted with the duty of approaching Congress at Washington with a demand for independence.


Now, if that demand fails, the opposition must share the blame with the Government, and the Quezon-Osmena party will be safe. If it succeeds -- and Manila insists that the knowing ones are praying it will not -- then they can only hope for long postponement of the day when Japan will find the foreign policy of the independent Philippine republic objectionable and take steps accordingly. What is to be will be, and at least they did what they could to avert the fatal day. Kismet. Also manana.

And, then again, should the republic of the Philippines be established as an entirely independent government, it would be necessary to have a President. Now, I ask who could discharge the duties of the position with greater dignity and credit than Quezon, or, let us say, Osmena? And to secure enjoyment of that honor for a few years by either one of those patriots is it not worth while to risk having the young republic Koreanized by the voracious Japanese? For look you, my friends, nations, like men, must take chances sometimes.

If this story be all true, the lack of backbone and political honesty which could not frankly say, "We want independence with protection; we can not afford to accept it at this time without," will be equally in evidence in governing an independent but helpless nation. And then the consequences will be more serious.

It is the general opinion of those familiar with conditions in the Far East and with the development of the Philippines in self-government that it would be no kindness on the part of the United States to remove its protecting hand for some time yet.



(In five articles.)


Commencing on June 12, 1919, the House Committee on Immigration, Hon. Albert Johnson of Washington, chairman, held at Washington. D. C, an extended hearing in connection with the proposed bill offered by the "League for Constructive Immigration Legislation." Dr. Sidney Gulick, the founder and secretary of the league and originator of the plan, explained it in detail.

Subsequently there were read into the record of the hearing, in refutation of Dr. Gulick's theories and assertions, certain articles from the Sacramento Bee, written by the publisher thereof, V. S. McClatchy, and published June 9, 11, and 13. Subsequently, on September 25, Mr. McClatchy appeared before this committee, and later, on October 10, before the Senate Immigration Committee. The facts and figures thus presented by him have stood since without disproval; and they covered not only the features of the bill and probable results of its passage, but also the existing conditions in connection with Asiatic immigration.

In response to many requests, the articles (slightly revised) are published in this form for general distribution.

It developed during the June hearing, in the testimony of Dr. Charles McFarland, secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ of America, that the organization named was not then furnishing funds for Dr. Gulick's work and that he was being financed, partly at least, by Andrew Carnegie, through the Commission on Peace and Arbitration.


(Editorial from Sacramento Bee, June 17, 1919.)

The experience of the past four years has convinced most Americans that our immigration and naturalization laws are entirely too liberal, and that if we are to preserve the high standards of American citizenship we must be more careful in the selection of material from which that citizenship is molded. The sentiment is general that immigration, if it be not stopped for some years, should be restricted and carefully selected.

With the prevalence of that sentiment, it has been an easy matter during the past year to organize what is called the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation and to secure for it indorsement and subscriptions from a long list -- 1,000, it is said -- of representative and loyal Americans from all walks of life and entertaining many shades of political opinion. In that list are found governors, public officials and politicians, university presidents, bank presidents, prominent editors, lawyers and physicians, national labor leaders, and heads of chambers of commerce.

It now develops that the main object of the promoters of the enterprise is not the same as the intent of this long list of indorsers; that the "constructive immigration legislation" suggested is intended by those promoters simply as a means for opening our gates to Asiatic immigrants and making them eligible for naturalization; and that this purpose was not generally apparent to the 1,000 national committeemen of the league when their indorsement and their subscriptions for a movement ostensibly to restrict foreign immigration in the interests of American citizenship were solicited.

The whole story, with an overwhelming array of facts and figures, largely from the promoters themselves, was told in three articles written by the publisher of the Bee.

Under the "gentlemen's agreement," whose spirit called for a restriction of Japanese immigration similar to that enforced against the Chinese by law, Japan is sending us 10,000 to 12,000 of her subjects a year openly, and more across the border clandestinely. Our Japanese population, instead of decreasing, has multiplied sixfold since 1900. The Chinese population has decreased to between one-half and one-third of the original number. And the Japanese birth rate per thousand in California communities where they have concentrated is five times the white birth rate and increasing.

Nearly half the population of Hawaii and more than half the annual births are Japanese; and that Territory will be governed in a few years, under present conditions, as a Japanese Province, though under the American flag. What has happened there is an indication of what has already commenced in California.

It has been conclusively proved that the two civilizations will not exist together; that under economic competition, and because of difference in standards of living and in racial characteristics, the Anglo-Saxon is displaced by the Japanese.

The "constructive immigration" plan and the proposed legislation will increase the evil and hasten the end. They are shown to be the work of Sidney Gulick, who has spent his time in this country, since his arrival from Japan five years ago, in the effort to secure adoption of his "new oriental policy," which would open our gates to Asiatics as immigrants and citizens.

The chief value of plan and bill at this time is to offer proof of the Bee's charge that Japanese propaganda is carried on as systematically in this country now as was German propaganda before the war, and that the most efficient propagandists are loyal but misled American citizens.

The facts presented in the Bee's articles seem to demand at once such protective measures as can be applied to diminish the consequences of our blunder and Japan's bad faith.

The "gentlemen's agreement" should be at once canceled, and all Japanese immigration, including picture brides, forbidden by law, as is done in Canada and Australia -- such a law as Japan herself imposes against China and Korea; Japanese should be prevented, if possible, leaving Hawaii for the mainland, and laws forbidding ownership of land by aliens not eligible to citizenship should be made effective.

It is pertinent at this time to ask why this country should adopt, at the request of Japan or any other nation, a principle under which races are to be admitted in the future, not on the basis of their value to us as citizens but in proportion to the number of their fellows who are already here; why we should admit as immigrants, much less as citizens, the various peoples of Asia in the face of present knowledge and the experience of Hawaii and California; why, if it be desirable to restrict immigration, we do not fix the number we are willing to admit and select, on merit and because of their value to us in upbuilding a homogeneous people, the most likely individuals from those offering?

Shall we hereafter conduct this Nation so as best to preserve its institutions and insure its perpetuity? Or shall we, as in the past, open our doors on request or demand, to the elements that will make for disunion in a national crisis and invite a yellow flood that will eventually dispossess the white race?

These are questions which must be decided now; and on a wise decision may depend the future salvation of the world's great Republic.



(From the Sacramento Bee, June 9, 1919.)

Japanese propaganda is being carried on in this country as determinedly and as successfully as was German propaganda before we entered the war. The end sought is the same -- the conquest of the United States. The means are different. Conquest by arms was shown within the past two years to be impracticable. Conquest by "peaceful penetration" is now the plan.

There is now openly operating in the United States an organization whose work, if successful, will make the country in a comparatively few generations a province of Japan.

The promoter and manager of the organization is a professor of the Imperial University of Kyoto, Japan, who has been in this country on furlough for five years and engaged during that time in this work. The president of the organization is one of the organizers of the Japan Society of America.

So cleverly has the plan of organization been carried out under the guise of protection to American citizenship and restriction of immigration generally that 1,000 representative American citizens in various States of the Union have given it innocently their indorsement and financial support.

The organization has prepared a bill for presentation to Congress which will let down the bars and pave the way for future contributory legislation to hasten the end.

The first work of the promoter five years ago was to secure the indorsement and financial assistance of a combination of Protestant churches representing over 100,000 ministers and over 17,000,000 members, which organization pledged itself to the scheme and efficiently aided it -- also undoubtedly in ignorance of its full significance.

Hawaii is already hopelessly Japanese, that race now comprising one-half the total population of the Territory, and having more than four times the number of Caucasian or any other race.

In a few years the Hawaiian-born Japanese will rule the Territory by their votes, and rule it not as Americans, but as Japanese, while under the proposed legislation the Japanese vote would be given immediate preponderance. What has already happened in Hawaii is now rapidly progressing in California, and it is only a question of time under existing conditions -- and even without the aid of the proposed legislation -- when all the fertile spots of the State will be peopled by Japanese to the exclusion of whites.

Our civilization can not exist beside theirs in the face of economic competition and a birth rate per 1,000 five times or more as great as ours.

What is happening in California will be brought about in all spots of the United States sufficiently fertile and advantageously located to attract the settlement of the Japanese, provided conditions permit their steady and rapid increase within our borders, as contemplated by the promoters of the plan.

If the plan now urged upon Congress be adopted this year, the Japanese population of the United States will be 100,000,000 in 140 years from now, on the basis of a ratio of natural increase about half of that now shown by the Japanese in California.

Under the gentlemen's agreement, as now operated by Japan, the process would be slower, but equally effective. In either event this country would become a Province of Japan.

This article is opened with the several remarkable statements above. By the great mass of Americans who do not know the writer, these statements will be classed as the vaporings of an inspired lunatic. They will appear particularly ridiculous to citizens east of the Mississippi River, who have no point of contact with the peoples of the Far East.

There are many thousands, however, confined almost entirely to the Pacific slope, who know the general situation, but most of these will be astounded at the details.

The statements are not only true in all particulars, but conclusive proof will be furnished in this and the succeeding articles.


In previously published articles I have called attention to some of the methods of propaganda pursued by Japan for lulling this country into fancied security and keeping her eyes closed, so that Japan's objects could be the more readily and the more quickly accomplished.

There are the various Japan-American societies, organized ostensibly to promote friendly relations, but used generally to secure the active but innocent assistance of prominent Americans in propaganda work; the commercial and trade organizations used in the same way; the entertainment in Japan of prominent Americans, who come back with a dazzling picture of one side of the shield, and who apparently do not know that the shield has a reverse side; men like Gary of the Steel Corporation, Jacob Schiff, the banker, and others who in public speeches and interviews make assertions and give assurances which any one familiar with far eastern conditions knows are entirely wrong; banquets and speeches where most publicity can be secured; special annual Japanese numbers of American newspapers; public lectures and interviews with hired propagandists, both Japanese and American; Japanese news bureaus and magazines. Generally, these means are resorted to along the Atlantic seaboard and east of the Mississippi, where there is no oriental question, where the public, being ignorant, will not question statements made, and where the greatest number of Americans can be reached with least effort and least expense.

It is thus that Japan has created a public sentiment in this country which must be corrected if the Nation is to be saved.

As will be seen from these articles, the propaganda has now taken on the form of enlisting the churches in a demand based on the brotherhood of man and an assumed willingness to risk national interests in order to promote evangelization, and enlisting the intelligent classes of the community in so-called "constructive, immigration" legislation saddled with conditions which will give Japan what she wants.


The organization referred to, whose promoters aim to secure in this, the most favored land in the world, homes for the surplus population of Japan, is known as the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation, with offices at No. 105 East Twenty-second Street, New York City.

The president is Hamilton Holt, of New York City, editor of the Independent, one of the organizers of the Japan Society of America, and the recipient from the Mikado of the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure.

In its published list of 1,000 sponsors and subscribers will be found the names of men of State and National reputation from every section of the country -- ministers, lawyers, doctors, college presidents, newspaper editors, captains of industry, national labor leaders, heads of chambers of commerce, merchants, governors, and capitalists. The great majority of these sponsors are men who would not knowingly associate themselves for a moment with a movement whose result would be such as here charged as the intent of the promoters of the league.

The organization is a remarkable tribute to the cleverness of the Japanese in the work of propaganda in this country. And in this case, as in the case of German propaganda before we entered the war, most of the effective work is being done by earnest and well-intentioned American citizens cleverly deceived and skillfully led.

The plan proposes to restrict all annual immigration from each race to a fixed percentage of the number of people of that race who are American citizens, whether naturalized or born here. The promoter explains that, so far as Chinese and Japanese are concerned, the number admitted under such a plan will be negligible and easily assimilated; and that a policy of the sort will salve the wounded pride of Japan by giving her nationals the same treatment as is accorded Europeans, and thus obviate chance of international complications.

Any measure for restricting immigration appeals to the average thinking American since the war, and under such an explanation it is not remarkable that prominent men throughout the country, who know nothing of the experience of Hawaii and California with the Japanese and who had no time for investigation, gave indorsement and support to the movement.


The moving spirit in this enterprise, the promoter and manager, who bears the modest title of "secretary," is Dr. Sidney L. Gulick, who describes himself on the title-pages of some of his writings as "Professor in Doshisha University and lecturer in the Imperial University of Kyoto, Japan."

Dr. Gulick was born of missionary parents in the Far East and reared there with adopted oriental children. He was educated in America and returned to Japan as a missionary about 30 years ago and has made his home there since. He is an able man, speaks Japanese, and has written books on the Japanese.

In 1913 he left Japan on a furlough and has been in America since, at work in promoting his "new oriental policy." This policy, briefly stated, contemplates "granting to Asiatics in this land the same privileges which we grant to citizens of the most favored nations," and "placing in the Federal Government, instead of in the State, responsibility in all legal and legislative matters involving aliens." This policy would necessitate changes in the immigration and naturalization laws, and probably in the Constitution as well.


Dr. Gulick's first work on coming to this country was to secure indorsement of his “new oriental policy” by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ of America, and he was employed, under salary, by the council to promote the plan.

The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ comprises constituent churches of 30 Protestant denominations, with 103,023 ministers and a membership of 17,438,826. The list of denominations includes Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist (all branches), African (all branches), Presbyterian, Episcopal, Reformed, United Brethren, and others. (Flowers.)

The Federal Council has a "committee on relations with Japan," and in 1914 one-fifth of all the council's revenues were used by this committee. The council had then no committee on relations with any other Asiatic nation. (Flowers.)

The council has indorsed the "new oriental policy" of Dr. Gulick, probably in the belief that an adjustment of international and race relationship along lines satisfactory to Japan would render more easy the promotion of the Christian Gospel among the Japanese.

It is unlikely that the ministers of the 100,000 American churches who have been committed thus to this movement have much knowledge of the facts which appear in these articles; it is certain that they do not realize the gravity of the situation. The 17,000,000 church members, with few exceptions, probably have little knowledge of the matter, but the action of the council gives them a definite interest therein.


The measure proposed by the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation and indorsed at a called meeting in Washington of persons interested in immigration problems -- presumably members of the league -- is apparently the same as suggested tentatively by Dr. Gulick. It proposes to so amend the immigration and naturalization laws as to conform to his "new oriental policy," and incidentally it imposes certain restrictions on general immigration.

The measure limits the maximum number of immigrants in a single year from any nation, race, or group having a single mother tongue to 3 to 10 per cent of those from the same land who are already naturalized American citizens, and of the native born, according to the United States census.

There are other features, however, which are important, to be considered in connection with this declared principle, because they affect materially its practical operation.

First. Originally the 10 per cent limit did not include aliens coming to join a husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, or granddaughter. Later this exception was limited to father or grandfather, wife, mother, grandmother, or unmarried or widowed daughter coming to join relatives already here.

Second. All laws and understandings as to exclusion of Chinese and Japanese are to be canceled, and all such nationals now here, or such as may come hereafter, are to become eligible for citizenship.

Third. Any alien who seeks admission to the United States because of religious persecution in his own country, either in overt act or through law or regulation, is to be admitted and become at once eligible for citizenship.

Fourth. Any number of aliens may be admitted if they come as "students," and no provision is made for their return to their own country.

Further study may disclose other features having equally vital bearing on the operation of the proposed measure.


Criticism of this proposed legislation in these articles is confined generally to consideration of its effect upon our Japanese problem, and is based on the postulate that the Japanese is for us an undesirable immigrant and an undesirable citizen.

He is an undesirable immigrant for economic rather than for racial reasons, and the strongest of these reasons are creditable rather than discreditable to him.

His standards of living are lower than ours; he will work longer hours for less money: he is thrifty, industrious, and ambitious; he is a competent farmer, truck gardener, and orchardist; he can and does underbid American labor whenever necessary in any community, until he has driven it out; then his wages rise to American standards; ultimately he declines to work for wages, insisting on leasing where he can not buy the farm or orchard. The white owner finds it more profitable to lease on shares to the Japanese, who will work, under the cooperative plan, 12, 15, or 18 hours a day than to operate the place himself with white or Japanese labor, at high wages, for 8 or 9 hours' work. The whites will not mix with the Japanese and gradually leave the community.

It is not in one industry, but in many, that the Japanese displace us. It has been repeatedly proven that our civilization does not survive in open competition with theirs -- it can not, unless we accept their standards of living.


The Japanese is an undesirable citizen because he does not assimilate. He does not intermarry, nor is it desirable that he should. He does not become an American, save in very rare instances, always remaining a Japanese. Even when born in this country, and educated in our common schools, he is still compelled to attend Japanese school before and after the public school hours. He is taught by Japanese teachers, who usually speak no English, and who have neither knowledge of nor sympathy with the principles of American government and citizenship. He absorbs Japanese ideals and patriotism, and that contempt for all other nations which is the spirit of every Japanese school textbook.


The testimony of Dr. Gulick on this point, as given on pages 19 and 20 of his pamphlet, "Hawaii's American-Japanese problem," will perhaps be considered conclusive. He says:
"It is not to be assumed that the education they (Japanese children) receive in the public schools, which they leave at 14 or 15 years of age, is adequate to prepare them for citizenship during the six or seven years after they get out from under the influence of their American teachers. Most of these boys will be isolated from English-speaking Americans; they will be associated chiefly with men of their own race, imbibing, therefore, the oriental ideas as they approach manhood. The mere fact, accordingly, of American birth, public school education, and the requisite age should not be regarded as adequate qualification for the 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 schools by Japanese teachers, many of whom have little acquaintance, and no sympathy with American institutions or a Christian civilization."
Again, Dr. Gulick says on page 14:
"If, as Asiatics, they maintain their traditional conceptions 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."

The theory of the Japanese Government has always been that once a Japanese always a Japanese, and that the children of Japanese, wherever born and under whatever circumstances, are Japanese, subject to the power of the Japanese Government. Even where an individual Japanese claims the right to expatriate himself, he is subject to the requirement that though he might be naturalized by another nation, if he had not already served his term in the Japanese army he must respond, no matter where he might be. In the same way, all children born of Japanese anywhere are considered subjects of Japan; and she exercises in California and in Hawaii the same rigid discipline over them as to schooling and other matters as would be exercised in Japan itself.

Dr. Gulick says, in the pamphlet already quoted, at page 38:
"The Japanese alone, of all immigrants, educate their children most earnestly in their national language and customs."
The Japanese Parliament, some two years ago, passed what was called the nationality option bill, under which foreign-born Japanese children might declare at the age of fifteen whether they wish to remain Japanese or become citizens of the land in which they were born; but Japan reserves the right to grant or withhold permission. So that even in this bill Japan specifically calls attention to the fundamental principle that a child born of Japanese parents anywhere is a Japanese subject, with the duties and obligations thereof, and may not renounce those obligations save with permission. It should be noted, too, that this bill, like all bills passed by the Japanese Parliament, does not become operative unless and until promulgated by the Emperor; and so far as my knowledge goes, it has not yet been promulgated.



(From the Sacramento Bee, June 11 1919.)

Explanation has been made of the endorsed plan of the Federal Council of the Churches of America and of the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation, as proposed and promoted by Sidney L. Gulick, "professor in Doshisha University and lecturer in the Imperial University of Kyoto, Japan," and as now presented by him on behalf of the organizations named, to the American public and to the Congress of the United States; the organization of the two associations has been gone into and some hint given as to the probable interest which their chief promoters have in the subject of "constructive immigration" legislation, so formulated as to carry out the "new oriental policy" of Dr. Gulick; the probability of making good American citizens out of Japanese, even if born here and educated in our public schools, has been considered; and, on the authority of Dr. Gulick, himself, that probability appears to be so remote that, unless the Japanese change their present characteristics and customs, "the permanent maintenance in Hawaii of American democracy, American homes, and American liberty is impossible."


The admission of Japanese to this country under such conditions as would permit their increase means the ultimate surrender of the country to them, as Hawaii has already been surrendered, and as California will be unless protective measures are at once adopted. It would then be only a question of time before the desirable sections of the United States, one after another, are peopled and controlled by the Japanese, and the land of the free and the home of the brave becomes a province of Japan.

Dr. Gulick insists that his plan will effectually limit the influx of Japanese and other nationals to a number which can be readily assimilated. I do not attempt to discuss the application of the measure to European nationals whom we may invite to come.

But so far as concerns Asiatics generally, and particularly Japanese, it is certain that this Nation can not with safety assume that any number, however, small as compared to our population, can be admitted with hope of assimilation or without grave danger to some or many American communities.

It must be remembered that the Japanese are the most prolific nation with which we have to deal in immigration; that their births exceed their deaths annually by 700,000 or more, and that they are driven by necessity to find place for that excess population. No European nation faces any such condition. The Japanese naturally are looking for the most desirable location for their people. But do we wish to surrender this country to them? Or shall we insist that this country shall be preserved for the white race? The issue is squarely before us, and we can not afford to evade or compromise with it.


In this connection it must be remembered that the opposition to Japanese immigration on the part of those who have studied it is not based on racial prejudice, but on unanswerable economic grounds. Because of different standards of living, different tastes and different discipline, the Japanese easily drive the whites out of any community in which the two civilizations meet in economic competition. It is for this reason that the Japanese is an undesirable immigrant, for it is assumed that the American Nation desires to retain this country for the white race.

The economic factor referred to is recognized by the Japanese in their own environment. They forbid under Imperial Ordinance No. 352 the immigration into Japan of Chinese and Korean labor. The reason which they assign for this policy is precisely that offered by the Pacific coast, and by Canada and by Australia for excluding the Japanese. They say that the standards of living of Chinese and Koreans are very much lower than the Japanese, and they can not, therefore, in fairness to their own people, permit this cheap labor to come into Japan in competition. And because of the greater differences in various ways the American Nation needs more protection against Japanese immigration than Japan needs against Chinese or Koreans.

In December, 1918, 200 Chinese coolies were imported into the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan, to work in a charcoal factory under contract for two years at 1 yen {50 cents) per day. Under instructions from the Government in Tokio the Japanese provincial governor refused to sanction their stay. Early in January 1919, the coolies were shipped home from Shimonoseki, and the entire expense of the enterprise ($25,000) had to be paid by the Chugoku Iron Works of Hiroshima, which imported the coolies.

The Herald of Asia of Tokyo, in commenting on the facts, said in its issue of December 28, 1918:
"This is the first importation of Chinese labor into Japan. We hope that it will be the last experiment ever to be made. If it is brought into this country in any large force the welfare of our laborers will be seriously affected."
Japan's demand before the Paris conference for "racial equality" was simply for the purpose of establishing a principle under which she might force her excess population into the United States, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere on the same terms as might be accorded other nationals. That demand was made in charming disregard of her own stand against the Chinese and Koreans; but Japan has learned that it is not necessary for her to be consistent in her dealings with America. She has thus far been conceded what she demanded, regardless of its absurdity or impropriety.


Before consideration is given to the changes which will be made by the operation of the proposed legislation it is worth while to examine conditions as maintained under existing laws and regulations, and consider the inevitable results therefrom if the present policy is continued. Afterwards it will be shown how this condition will be made worse and the end hastened by the so-called "constructive immigration" legislation.

Hawaii and California afford at present the most illuminating example of what Japan seeks for her people under the Stars and Stripes, and what will be left for the white American if she succeeds. Remember, too, that the conditions to which attention will be called have been and are being brought about under a so-called "gentlemen's agreement," the theory of which, as carefully explained to the Pacific coast at the time, was that Japan was to restrict under her own regulations Japanese immigration to this country as effectually as Chinese immigration was restricted by our prohibitive laws.


We commence with Hawaii, and in this matter we shall make Dr. Gulick our principal witness. In March, 1915, he made certain investigations in the Hawaiian Islands, the results of which were embodied in the pamphlet hereinbefore quoted, "Hawaii's American-Japanese Problem," published in Honolulu by the Star-Bulletin. Unless otherwise stated, quotations credited to Dr. Gulick are from that publication.

There (p. 8) Dr. Gulick states that for the preceding seven years (1908-1915) under the "gentlemen's agreement" no fresh labor immigrants had come from Japan. In 1910, he says, out of a total population in the islands of 191,909 the Japanese numbered 79,674, of which 24,891 were females. In 1914 the total population was 213,000, of whom 89,715 were Japanese, 24,550 Hawaiian, 24,450 Caucasian, 23,299 Portuguese, 21,631 Chinese, 14,992 Filipinos, and 14,518 all other races. In that year the Japanese school enrollment in the Territorial schools was 30 per cent of the total.

In 1918 (according to a statement of the superintendent of schools of Hawaii-San Francisco Examiner, May 18, 1919) the Japanese population had increased to 103,000, "nearly one-half the total population," while Japanese school children comprised 40 per cent of the entire enrollment, and of the increase in school children in 1917 and 1918 more than one-half was Japanese.

The 1918 report of Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane places the Japanese population of Hawaii in 1917 at 106,000, while the United States Bureau of Commerce estimates the total population at 219,000.

The American Yearbook for 1917 says, as of June 30 of that year: "The estimated population (Hawaii) was 250,627. The Japanese contributed more than half the increase."

Japanese newspapers in Honolulu today have a large circulation, and one prints an English section.

In 1915 in Honolulu out of a total of 107 prostitutes, 82 were Japanese (Gulick). In 1914 the official register of Hawaii shows that out of 3,149 marriages, 1,806 were Japanese. In 1915 a large majority of the Japanese men -- perhaps two-thirds -- were married, women having been permitted to come from Japan to marry them (Gulick). The proportion has doubtless been increased since.

So in eight years the Japanese population of Hawaii has increased 24,000, or about 30 per cent, and now the total annual increase in population in this Territory is more than half Japanese; while in four years past the Japanese school children have increased 30 per cent, and they already comprise more than 50 per cent of the yearly increase of school enrollment.

In the absence of immigration from Japan, as claimed by Dr. Gulick, the increase in Japanese population of Hawaii can be accounted for only by the great birth rate, stimulated by the importation of "picture brides." In 1907, when the "gentlemen's agreement" went into effect, the Japanese in California were nearly all males; in Hawaii, while I have not the figures, there were probably nearly four males to one female. The "picture brides" have been coming from Japan in a steady stream since. The census of school children shows the result.


The "picture bride" plan was doubtless originated to get around the intent of the "gentlemen's agreement;" to increase as rapidly as possible the number of Japanese under our flag, and particularly to defeat the operation of the alien land laws passed by several States, including California. Apparently the plan could have had no value in Japan itself, where the average density of population is 389 per square mile, the highest in the world for a similar stretch of territory, and where, if all the available women were staked out at equal distances throughout the Empire they would be only 300 feet apart in any direction.

This is the plan: A Japanese male who has secured admission to the United States sends his photograph back to Japan, and his friends, or the officials, secure for him a complaisant bride who weds the picture. For purposes of emigration to the United States, Japan recognizes the procedure as a marriage, and our Government, on request, has so recognized it. The bride, with the photograph she has wedded, sails for the American port, and there on the dock, with the aid of the photograph, she selects her husband from the prospective bridegrooms waiting, and is admitted as an immigrant under agreement had subsequent to adoption of the "gentlemen's agreement."

That woman promptly fulfills her duty by bearing children, as many as one a year, and each child is carefully registered as an American citizen, entitled to all privileges as such, including the claimed right of possessing land through a guardian.

Incidentally the woman swells the labor market, for she works continually in the shop or store, or field, with her child near her. She does the work of a man wherever she may be placed.

The accusation has been made that the "picture bride" does not always confine her usefulness to one husband, or even to one State, but is available where her services will have most value, and that is in the States which have passed anti-alien land laws.

The official figures by fiscal years obtained at Washington show that the total number of picture brides sent from Japan to the United States and Hawaii in less than five years past (July 1, 1914, to April 30, 1919) is 20,323, of whom 6,864 landed in Hawaii.


Dr. Gulick says (p. 15): "Within a score of years the majority of voters in the Territory of Hawaii will be of Japanese and Chinese ancestry." As a matter of fact, the Chinese cut very little figure, and the Japanese already outnumber the Caucasian, or any other race in the islands, in the proportion of at least 4 to 1.

In the English section of the Honolulu Japanese newspaper, the Daily Nippu Jiji, May 26, 1919, appears the statement that "10 or 15 years hence there will be a great hope for a dominating influence of the Japanese." That "hope" receives ample justification in these figures offered by the Nippu Jiji. The number of Japanese electors in Hawaii in 1910 was only 13; in 1912, 48; in 1914, 112; in 1916, 179. In 1919 there were 207 Japanese electors on the island of Oahu alone (Honolulu is on this island), and many on the other islands. The Japanese children in the schools as they come of age will furnish in 1923, 897 male electors and 558 and 682 additional in the two years following. The total number of Japanese male electors in 1933 will be 7,934. If the vote be extended to women the number will be about doubled.

This situation induces the Japanese newspaper to proudly announce that in 1933 the Japanese vote in Hawaii will decide whether Republicans or Democrats shall win.

In Hawaii, therefore, it is only a question of a few years when, under existing laws and regulations, the Japanese born under the American flag will outvote any other race, and in a generation they will probably outvote all other races combined.

The Gulick plan, which makes every resident Japanese eligible for citizenship, would give the Japanese at once almost as large a voting strength as all other races combined.


The situation as outlined induces the belief on the part of many that Hawaii is already practically lost to Americans and to the United States, and that there is not any feasible plan by which she can be reclaimed.

Indeed the Nippu Jiji in the issue above quoted declares that the Japanese now -- to-day -- "are in the position to exert dominant influence in the political and social affairs of Hawaii."

That this is no idle boast on the part of the leading Japanese daily of Honolulu is sufficiently attested by the following news item:
"Honolulu, May 31, 1919.

"The foreign-language school bill, requiring teachers desiring certificates to show a knowledge of the English language, American history, and American civics, has been tabled by the upper house of the Territorial legislature. The bill was strongly opposed by Japanese educators and editors on the ground that it would force Japanese schools to close."
Consider in connection with this item the facts which have been stated before, as to the control of her people exercised by Japan in this country, the manner in which children are forced to attend Japanese schools and imbibe Japanese principles and ideals. If a Territory of the United States may not refuse a teacher's certificate to one who can not speak English, and who knows nothing of American government and American ideals; if a Territorial legislature is subject to Japan's views as to American principles before the resident Japanese have secured the necessary voting strength, what will be the result after they exercise the franchise in sufficient number?


The dominance of the Japanese in Hawaii has naturally given them exclusive control of various industries, such as shoemaking, which in years gone by employed only white labor. The Japanese is very adaptable and he reaches out, as soon as possible, for position and control in the most favorable localities, and in such occupations as offer least toil, shortest hours, and most compensation. While he came to Hawaii as a sugar-plantation laborer, he gets away from that toil when he can. The young generation particularly seek town occupations, and most of them wish to go to the mainland because of the greater opportunities there.


What has happened already in Hawaii is simply an indication of what is now happening in California. The Japanese does not waste his time on poor prospects when he can command good ones. California is to him the favored spot of the world, and in California he is carefully picking out the richest lands and choicest surroundings, and systematically driving the white race from them. His predilection for California is sufficiently attested by the fact that two-thirds, perhaps more, of all the Japanese in continental United States are living in California. California therefore offers the best and really the only opportunity for studying the problem and correctly estimating the results likely to follow the continued and increased immigration of Japanese into this country.

California is the outpost of American civilization, fighting against the "peaceful penetration" of the Japanese, and thus far she has had only abuse therefore from the States east of the Rockies, which she is defending. The present policy of the United States Government in permitting admissions under the "gentlemen's agreement," in opening the gates to "picture brides" and in discouraging -- and preventing, when it can -- the passage of State laws limiting the effects of the evil, has created a critical situation which makes remedial measures the more difficult.


It is very difficult to ascertain the number of Japanese now in the United States. There are no official Government figures since the census of 1910. The only figures available are those furnished by the six Japanese consulates in continental United States for their respective districts. According to these reports, the total Japanese population in continental United States in 1916 was 94,370, of which only 2,381 were in the Chicago district and 2,781 in the New York district. All the balance are credited to the four Pacific coast districts, and of these San Francisco and Los Angeles districts have 74,556, Seattle district 9,232, and Portland district 5,403. San Francisco and Los Angeles districts cover six States, but the greater portion of the population credited to those two districts is in California, to wit -- 55,095.

In 1916, 1917, and 1918, the Japanese population must have been largely increased. Dr. Gulick says that Japanese immigration in 1918 alone amounted to 10,213 and that for 1919 it will probably be 12,000. In California alone in the three years named there were 12,000 Japanese births. It is not unreasonable to say that, on the basis of these estimates, the Japanese population of continental United States is not far short of 150,000.

Again, the United States census of 1910 gives the number of Japanese in the United States as 72,157, of which 41,356 were in California. The Japanese births in California alone from 1910 to 1918 have been over 23,000. The official reports of the United States as quoted by the New York Evening Post in its Japanese number, March 16, 1918, show that the number of Japanese entering the United States, 1910 to 1917, exceeded the number departing by 54,317. Allowing for births elsewhere than in California, and for immigration in 1918 as estimated by Dr. Gulick, and for deaths, the present Japanese population would be well over 150,000.


It is safe to say that not less than two-thirds of the total, or 100,000, live in California. In California, too, the Japanese have concentrated to a great extent in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, where rich lands and agricultural advantages attract them. For instance, it is noted that of 4,108 Japanese births in the State in 1917, over 3,000 are credited to 7 of the 58 counties. This concentration is one of the phases of their "peaceful penetration," and it enables us the better to judge of results when their number will have become sufficiently large to take possession of all the favored locations in the State instead of the few they now hold. It furnishes sufficient answer, too, to the argument that 150,000 Japanese distributed among 100,000,000 Americans can work no harm. The 150,000 are not distributed so as to make the weak solution referred to. They throw their entire force into a few communities where they can make their numbers, with their economic advantages, tell, and they choose those communities, those industries, and those conditions which will yield them most return for least effort.


As to the increase in Japanese population in this country which may be looked for under present conditions, and without any contributory legislation of the "constructive" character suggested by Dr. Gulick, these facts are significant:

The United States Census showed that in 1900 there were in the United States 24,326 Japanese, of which 985 were females -- a proportion of about 25 to 1. In 1910 the Japanese population had trebled, the figures showing 72,157, of which 9,087 were females -- a proportion of 7 to 1. The estimates already made above indicate that since 1910 the Japanese population has more than doubled, and it is known the proportion of females to males has very largely increased.


In 1910, three years after the "gentlemen's agreement" went into effect, there were in this State about 6 Japanese males to 1 female. With the introduction of the "picture bride" plan, the proportion of females has very rapidly increased. It is now perhaps 1 to 4 or less. The result is sufficiently attested by the fact that Japanese births in California in 1917 numbered twenty times as many as in 1907, though the Japanese official reports claim that the total Japanese population of the State had increased in that time only about 40 per cent.

The biennial report of the California State Board of Health, July, 1916, to July, 1918, shows the following as the registered number of Japanese births for the respective years, from 1906 to 1918, inclusive: 134, 331, 455, 682, 719, 995, 1,467, 2,215, 3,874, 3,342, 3,721, 4,108, and 4,365. Total for 13 years, 25,298.

Due to the increase in Japanese births above indicated, the percentage of white births to the total in the State has steadily decreased from 98.4 in 1906 to 90.6 in 1917.

In Sacramento city Japanese authorities claim to-day a Japanese population of 2,580. The United States Census for 1910 showed 1,437 Japanese in the city. The total white population of the city now is about 75,000. The report of the State board of health for the year 1918 shows within the city 177 Japanese births and 1,073 white births.

That is to say, the Japanese birth rate per 1,000 in Sacramento City is already five times as great as the white birth rate. As the influx of "picture brides" raises the proportion of females in the Japanese colony, the birth rate will steadily increase without a doubt. The average Japanese births per month in Sacramento City have doubled since 1914; that is, from 10 to 20.

The report of the State board of health above quoted shows that in the rural portion of Sacramento County, outside of Sacramento City, in 1918 there were 236 Japanese births and only 221 white births, although the white population is many times as great as the Japanese. There are no population statistics available for this year, but in 1910 the census shows 2,437 Japanese and 19,335 whites in the county outside the city.

According to the Los Angeles Times of June 30, 1919, the Japanese births in the county of Los Angeles, outside the incorporated cities, for the month of May, 1919, were one-third as numerous as the white births. Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the State, with a large suburban and country population. The Japanese population of the districts referred to is a small fraction only of the white population in those districts.

The increase in Japanese population in the Pacific Coast States will receive additional impetus under, the Gulick plan from the fact that all Japanese in Hawaii, whether born there or born in Japan, will be free to come to the mainland, and that most of them will wish to do so because of the attractions it offers to them. See Dr. Gulick's statement in his Hawaiian pamphlet before referred to.


The Chinese and the Japanese have been mentioned in the same category by the proponents of the "constructive immigration" legislation in such a way as to give the impression that the conditions affecting both and the Nation's problem as to both are the same. That is an entirely erroneous impression. The Chinese, under the operation of the exclusion act, have steadily decreased in number. The Japanese, under the "gentlemen's agreement," which was supposed to secure the same result without hurting Japan's pride, have steadily and rapidly increased.

In Hawaii in 1900 the Chinese numbered 15,301; in 1910 there were 21,674, but there has apparently been no increase since then, Dr. Gulick's figures for 1914 being 21,631.

In the United States there were in 1900 89,863 Chinese; in 1910 the number was 71,531. There are no available figures since then.

In California the Chinese numbered in 1890, 72,472; in 1900, 45,753; in 1910, 36,248 -- a decrease of 50 per cent in 20 years, and there has been a steady decrease since.

Sacramento County shows the same decrease -- 1890, 4,371; 1900, 3,254; 1910, 2,143. These are all United States Census figures.

The Chinese births at present are only about one-tenth the number of the Japanese births. In the entire State the total births for 1917 were: Japanese 4,107, Chinese 419.

The Chinese, in addition to having no increase from immigration, are steadily decreasing from departures to China and from a death rate which is now about twice the birth rate. The State totals for 1917 were: Deaths 818, births 419; and for the 12 years, 1906-1917, deaths 8,547, births 3,683.

In contrast therewith not only do the Japanese receive large accessions from immigration, but their birth rate is now between four and five times as great as their death rate, while in 1906 their death rate was several times their birth rate. The steady increase of birth percentages has been due, of course, to the importation of "picture brides." In 1917 the births were 4,108, deaths 910; in 1906, births 134, deaths 384; and for the 12 years, 1906-1917, births 20,933, deaths 6,775.

The Chinese therefore do not present a national problem because of probable increase under existing conditions and laws, while the Japanese do present a very serious problem.


Now for another phase of the problem: The destruction of home and family life and the wiping out of American communities under stress of Japanese competition and methods.

The town of Florin in Sacramento County, 8 miles southeast of Sacramento city, in the heart of the strawberry district, has a Japanese population of 1,050, supplemented in picking season by about 500 more. The Japanese proudly point to it as a monument to their methods and enterprise. It is all that they claim for it. It is more. It is a gravestone to the hopes of the former American population of Florin, almost entirely wiped out by contact with far eastern civilization. It is a warning finger post to California and to the American Nation as to the inevitable end in all favored spots in this country if the "peaceful penetration" of the Japanese is not arrested.

The Japanese did not create Florin or the strawberry business. The Japanese do not create. They imitate, improve, appropriate. In the memory of young people of to-day, Florin was an exclusively American settlement of 5, 10, 20 acre farms, devoted largely to strawberry and grape culture, on each farm a happy home, the Sacramento daily newspaper delivered at each doorstep. The town was the center of the district and from it were shipped berries and grapes in carload lots as far east as the Missouri River.

The Japanese saw and coveted. They secured a few farms in the center of the district and gradually added more, and they improved the culture. The economic and social pressure gradually drove the white families away, and in time even the town and its business passed into the hands of the Japanese. To-day there is no American newspaper distributed in that district, and it is in effect a part of Japan transplanted into the heart of California. The school for the entire district has a total attendance of 147, and 101 are Japanese. In one class there are 41 Japanese and 6 white children.

Walnut Grove, on the Sacramento River in Sacramento County, is now a Japanese settlement. Most of the rich river ranches in the delta of the Sacramento River are now managed by Japanese under lease, where they could not secure ownership under law, and the white resident and his family have melted away.


On the American River, about 12 miles east of Sacramento City, is the little station of Mayhew, the shipping point for the productive orchards and vineyards for miles around. In years past white labor was employed in these orchards, and many families resided in the district, the women and children assisting in the work of picking and packing the crop, while the little red schoolhouse did its work in constructive American citizenship.

To-day, while the orchards are still owned by whites, they are leased to Japanese, the help is all Japanese, and most of the white families have disappeared. There is only one owner who still manages his own property, and with white help; but to do it he must send out during the busy season for transient labor, working short hours at high wages. And he is in competition with the surrounding Japanese-managed orchards, operated under the cooperative system, with ambitious, interested labor, working sometimes 15 and 18 hours a day. And he must send his young children by stage to Sacramento City every day for schooling. For the district school is attended by Japanese, interested in learning English for business purposes, and no American mother will permit her little girl to remain in school with grown Japanese youths. When it is said that this orchardist could make more money from his holding by leasing to Japanese than by operating himself, with white labor, or even with Japanese labor, the great economic pressure will be better comprehended.

There are similar instances in the adjoining county of Placer, where, it is said, 80 per cent of the orchards are leased to Japanese, and some schools show as many as five Japanese children to one white. Through the San Joaquin Valley will be found similar settlements of Japanese; and similar results as to displacement of whites.

Japanese authorities claim -- and it is probably true -- that the Japanese produce in California 90 per cent of the strawberry and cantaloupe crop; 80 per cent of onions, asparagus, tomatoes, celery, lettuce, and cut flowers; 55 per cent of cabbage and seeds; 40 per cent of potatoes; 20 per cent of beans, and 10 per cent of the grapes, fruit, and rice.

This estimate was made early in 1918, probably based on 1917 statistics. In the items of rice and fruit it is certain that the percentage is now much greater than quoted.

In June, 1919, the consumers and dealers in San Francisco were forced to protect themselves by boycotting strawberries, because the Japanese growers in combination were forcing dealers to pay as high as $17 per chest, while the canneries were given a price of $9.10.


California passed in 1913, notwithstanding the earnest protests of the Federal administration, an alien land law bill similar to that already passed in certain other States. In those other States the same measure had met no opposition from the administration, the reason being that the Japanese are more solicitous as to securing privileges in California, where for the present they are centralizing their efforts, and had made no protests as to such legislation in the other States.

The California act forbids the selling or leasing for more than three years of land to any person not eligible for American citizenship. Some good resulted, but recently the Japanese have evaded the provisions of the act by placing title to land in the names of Japanese babies born in California, and by organizing corporations with dummy directors and purchasing land in the name of the corporations. The secretary of state reports 72 such corporations formed between January 1, 1918, and March 1, 1919. One such corporation took over a 171-acre Fresno County orchard in May, 1919, at a price of $171,000. In Tulare County it is declared that the Japanese bought last year over 5,000 acres of bearing orchards.

The session of the California Legislature in March, 1919, attempted to remedy the matter through a bill amending the act by forbidding leasing entirely, and by preventing the use of incorporations for the purpose named. The bill was killed at the request of the Federal administration lest there be complications with Japan.

At the same session a bill was introduced limiting the age of admission to the lower grades of the public schools, the association of little girls with grown Japanese youths having been found objectionable. The bill was killed at the request of the Federal administration lest there be complications with Japan.

At the same session a measure was introduced looking to stopping the further admission of "picture brides" into the State. The measure was killed at the instance of the Federal administration lest there be complications with Japan.

At the same session a bill was introduced to segregate the Japanese and other Asiatics into separate schools. Killed at the request of the administration lest there be complications with Japan.

In Collier's for June 7, 1913, will be found an article by Peter Clark MacFarlane, describing conditions of Japanese settlement in California as he found them. He was sent out by Collier's to investigate the matter because of the general opinion in Eastern States that California was unduly prejudiced.


The rich Imperial Valley lies astride our national border, partly in California and principally in Mexico. It is already peopled largely by Japanese, who find it an easy matter to evade custom officials and enter the United States here. The Japanese are displacing whites in the valley, not only in agricultural pursuits but also in business, by cleverly concerted economic pressure.

In this valley is located a large tract of land, nearly 1,000,000 acres, owned by Americans of Los Angeles and elsewhere, which a Japanese syndicate some time since endeavored to purchase. Public attention was called to the matter through the press at the time, and the plan frustrated.

In Seattle, in the State of Washington, the Japanese have commenced to displace the whites in general lines of business to an extent thus far not seen in any other large city. This condition is undoubtedly due to the encouragement offered by the people of Seattle in the belief that the city's trade with Japan would be thereby materially increased. It is now a question with the Seattle people, as expressed in published interviews, whether they are not already paying dearly for their whistle and whether the price to be paid in the future will not be alarming.

It is important to study these and similar phases of the problem, for they demonstrate with certainty what will happen in every desirable agricultural section of California as soon as there are here enough Japanese to accomplish the result.

The figures already given prove conclusively that, even without more favorable immigration legislation, the Japanese only needs time to take possession of what he finds desirable in California.

And what he will do in California he will do later in other States that offer attractive advantages.



(From the Sacramento Bee, June 13, 1919.)

In the two articles preceding an outline has been presented of our present Asiatic immigration problem, more particularly with regard to the Japanese. Following is a brief of the points thus far made:


So far as the Chinese are concerned, there is at present no problem. The statistics show that under the operations of the exclusion act and because of the scarcity of women and great excess of deaths over births, the Chinese population is very rapidly decreasing. In 20 years it decreased 50 per cent. In Hawaii there are now about one-fifth as many Chinese as Japanese; in continental United States perhaps about one-third.

Again, the Chinese is more valuable and less undesirable as immigrant and born citizen than the Japanese. That is the general opinion on the Pacific coast, where there is the best opportunity for judging. The Chinaman is reliable and honest -- no other countryman, not excepting the American, has so high a standard of commercial honesty. He is less aggressive than the Japanese, less inclined to take offense, and with a higher sense of humor. He is more inclined to remain in fixed occupation and less dangerous to American labor and to American institutions. The American-born Chinaman makes a better citizen because China has not the hold on him that Japan has on the Japanese.

The Japanese as a people -- as their statesmen and high-class merchants regretfully admit -- are at present neither honest nor reliable.


The Japanese problem, on the other hand, is a very serious one. While the introduction to these articles assumed as a postulate that the Japanese is an undesirable immigrant and an undesirable citizen, that assumption was later reasonably well established by the record of his accomplishments in Hawaii and California, and by the published testimony of his present champion, Dr. Sidney Gulick.

The declared purpose and promised effect of the "Gentlemen's agreement" when it was adopted in 1907, in deference to Japan's representations, was that it would accomplish through Japan's action a restriction on Japanese immigration similar to that secured by our exclusion act on Chinese immigration.

The agreement has been grossly violated in letter and in spirit. At present 10,000 to 12,000 Japanese are being sent through our continental ports each year openly, and unnumbered others are secretly crossing the Mexican border. United States Senator Phelan charges that this border immigration is promoted with the knowledge, if not assistance, of Japanese authorities, including Consular officials, and anyone conversant with the manner in which the Japanese Government retains authority and control over Japanese in this country, even over those horn here, knows that this secret immigration could not continue without knowledge thereof in consular offices.

In order to increase the resident-Japanese population as rapidly as possible over 20,000 "picture brides" have been admitted in five years past, and they have performed their allotted task of bearing Japanese children as rapidly as possible -- frequently, if not usually, at the rate of one per year. In California the Japanese birth rate per thousand is already five times as great as the white birth rate, and increasing.

Under the understanding, the Japanese population of continental United States should have decreased since 1900, as has the Chinese. Instead it has multiplied sixfold. There are already 150,000 Japanese in this country, about two-thirds of them in California, and three-quarters of that allotment have settled in 7 of the State's 58 counties, where they are concentrated generally in a few communities.

The manner in which the Japanese displace white labor in industries and entire communities has been explained and concrete examples furnished. It is evident therefrom that Japanese to the number of a small fraction of the whites in any State can take absolute economic control of the most favored sections of that State if they once secure entrance.

Hawaii's situation under existing conditions is hopeless. The Japanese already comprise almost half the entire population and four times as many as the Caucasian or any other race. More than half the yearly increase in births and school enrollment is now Japanese. In a few years the native-born Japanese vote will hold the balance of power, and in a generation can defy a combination of all other races in the Territory. The proposed "constructive immigration" legislation would bring about that result immediately by making Japanese eligible to citizenship; and the power thus obtained will be used by them as Japanese, not as Americans. Nothing could be more conclusive on this point than the testimony of Dr. Sidney Gulick himself.

Dr. Gulick explains how the Japanese, even when born under the American flag and taught in our public schools, is drilled in loyalty to Japan and her ideals by compulsory attendance in Japanese schools and by association with his own race. He says that if the Japanese in Hawaii maintain their traditional conception of themselves, their neighbors, and their duties "the permanent maintenance in Hawaii of American democracy, American homes, and American liberty is impossible."

The leading Japanese newspaper of Honolulu has been quoted in its boast -- well founded -- that the Japanese soon will control the Territory of Hawaii by their votes. It adds that they are even now in position to exert dominant influence in the political and social affairs of the Territory; and that statement was fully confirmed when the Territorial Legislature in May, 1919, on the demand of the Japanese, killed a bill which provided that the Territory should not issue teachers' certificates to those who did not have some knowledge of the English language and of American history and civics.

What has happened in Hawaii is happening in localities in California and will be extended if protective measures are not adopted over this coast, and ultimately throughout the Nation.


To one who has studied the situation, it is evident that our immigration and naturalization laws should be amended at once so as to minimize as far as possible the evils existing and the greater ones which threaten in the future from the maintenance in our midst of an alien, unassimilable and rapidly increasing Asiatic population. It would be suicidal to inaugurate a policy which will inevitably increase that evil and lead in time to the conquest of the white race by economic elimination.

It is the purpose of this article to show how the passage of the proposed "constructive immigration" legislation, formulated by Dr. Sidney Gulick and indorsed by the league he has organized, or the adoption of the policy therein outlined, would increase the evil rather than alleviate it.

An outline of the bill which Congress is to be asked to pass was presented in the first of these articles. It proposes to make effective Dr. Gulick's "new oriental policy " of opening our gates to all orientals on the same basis as accorded to the most favored nations. Incidentally it limits immigration in any year from any race to a fixed percentage -- 3 to 10 -- of the members of that race citizens of the United States, either by birth, as per the census of 1920, or by naturalization in any year, and has several minor provisions. The outline of the bill as used in these articles was secured from the printed matter issued by the New York headquarters of the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation.

First there are offered for consideration a few suggestions as to the general principles embodied in the bill.

1. Why establish at this time a principle under which we shall obligate ourselves in a measure to accept any percentage at all of the nations of the earth as immigrants and citizens?

Even if such policy is wise now it may not be a few years hence, and the precedent established may cause awkward complications.

2. Why include all nations in the category? The mere fact that one race has been permitted to secure citizenship for some of its nationals in the past is not proof that the action admitting them was wise, or that others of the same race may be accepted as immigrants and citizens with advantage.

3. Why place all nations on an assumed basis of equality when it is clear that some nations will generally furnish much more desirable citizens and immigrants than others? And is it not possible that certain nationalities may be regarded favorably as immigrants and citizens now and unfavorably some years hence?

4. Why base the number of admissions from each race in the future on the number of those already here? If we have made mistakes in the past are we not to be permitted to correct them? In the past, with the exception of orientals, those came to our shores who desired to come, not those whom we selected. Under such circumstances are we to bind ourselves to exclude desirable immigrants and citizens because undesirable ones have more racial brothers already here?


Let us see to what the bill of the League for Constructive Immigration legislation would commit us in the way of selective immigration. Consulting the tables of the census abstract for 1910, so far as they can assist in the matter, to ascertain the number of citizens naturalized and born, of the different cases, which must serve as the basis of our admissions annually, we get the following astonishing result:

For every single immigrant that we are willing to accept under the Gulick plan from France, Holland, Wales, or Mexico, after the first thousand to which any Nation is entitled, we are committed to accept the following number from each of the respective countries named: Germany, 60; Ireland, 30; England, 15; Canada, 15; Russia, 10; Austria, 8; Sweden, 7; Italy, 7; Norway, 6; Scotland, 4; Denmark, Hungary, and Switzerland, each 2. From Belgium, Portugal, and Spain we could not admit a single immigrant unless we admitted from 100 to 600 Germans, and a corresponding number of other nationalities as enumerated. As between Chinese and Japanese we would be called on in a short time to admit 10 of the latter to 1 of the former.

Slightly different results in estimates of this character will be obtained according to the sources of basic information as to citizens, born and naturalized, and according to incidental assumptions indulged in. Dr. Gulick furnishes an estimate according to which we would have to admit only 30 Germans for every Frenchman, Hollander, or Mexican.

Estimates of this character, no matter by whom prepared, if based on any reliable statistics will furnish results demonstrating the utter absurdity, from an American point of view, of the percentage plan of restriction.

If we are to amend our immigration laws so as to maintain or raise the standard of American citizenship and insure the perpetuity of the American Nation, we should not commit ourselves to admit the peoples of the earth in any such proportions as called for by this plan.


In estimates of this kind it must be borne in mind that the basic factor of native born under the Gulick plan will be taken from the 1920 census, which will be first available in 1922. There is an incentive for a large birth record prior to that date. It may, or may not, have any significance that during the five years of Dr. Gulick's activity in the interests of this matter, 1914 to 1919, Japan sent over 20,232 picture brides who have faithfully performed their allotted task of increasing the Japanese birth record.

If there be an undesirable element in our immigration, which will not intermarry or assimilate, it may not therefore be so much the actual number admitted as their future increase which should give us most pause. It should be remembered that in California the official records show that in certain localities where they have concentrated the Japanese have a birth rate five times as great as the whites, although their females, in proportion to males, are only perhaps one-fourth as numerous as among the whites. Under such conditions it would be only a question of time when the Japanese in this country would exceed in numbers another race which at this time might be twenty times as numerous here. Even the advantage which the other race might have at the start in allotment because of its number of naturalized citizens would not prevent it being overtaken in time.


The proposed measure makes all Asiatics here or to come eligible to citizenship and encourages their coming inasmuch as it fixes a proportion within which they may be admitted, while under existing understanding they are classed as undesirable.

Dr. Gulick says in his pamphlet, published in 1915, "Hawaii's American-Japanese Problem," as quoted in the first article:
“If as Asiatics they (the Japanese) 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."
The Japanese born and educated in Japan, with very rare exceptions, certainly do retain these conceptions even while living in the United States.

Dr. Gulick again says that the Japanese born here and taught in our public schools are not thereby prepared for American citizenship since they are drilled before and after public school hours at home and by Japanese teachers, most of whom do not speak English and "many of whom have little acquaintance and no sympathy with American institutions or a Christian civilization."

Why then is Dr. Gulick so solicitous to have the United States establish a principle by which the Japanese will be formally recognized as desirable immigrants and citizens and encourage conditions which will greatly increase the number of native-born Japanese? The answer appears in the same pamphlet, and is quoted below:

"Is it not axiomatic that the successful welding together of the many races now in Hawaii in such wise as to make possible the maintenance of genuine democracy, with progressive victory over graft, lust, venereal disease, and alcohol, depends upon the substantial Christianization of the rising generation of Asiatics?".....

"American and Asiatic civilizations rest on postulates fundamentally different and antagonistic. The two civilizations can not be assimilated, but this does not prevent an Asiatic under proper social conditions from giving up his inherited civilization and adopting the American. Exactly because Hawaii is the meeting place of so many diverse races is the propaganda and practice of vital Christianity the more pressing."
Evidently Dr. Gulick is satisfied, notwithstanding all the difficulties he points out, that a Japanese may be turned into a valuable American citizen by acceptance of Christianity, assisted doubtless by other minor agencies.

It would appear, therefore, that Dr. Gulick, in promoting his "new oriental policy" and urging the adoption of his proposed "constructive immigration" legislation, is willing to risk a grave menace to American citizenship and the safety of the American Republic in order to promote a doubtful experiment in evangelization.

But should we permit Dr. Gulick's optimistic enthusiasm in evangelization to lead the Nation into serious difficulties? And will the Japanese Government encourage or permit the Christianizing of its people in return for our indorsement of Dr. Gulick's "new oriental policy?" And if the Japanese are unanimously or generally evangelized under this arrangement, may we safely assume that they will at once lose all those characteristics which have made them, in Dr. Gulick's opinion, poor material for American citizenship?

I do not wish to be considered a pessimist, but it would be untruthful to say that I do not entertain grave doubts in the matter.


Dr. Gulick insists, too, that the United States will benefit by the proposed law, as the number of Japanese immigrants admitted will be less than under existing conditions. He declares that in 1918, 10,213 Japanese were admitted, and that in 1919 the number will be 12,000; and that the number admitted under his plan, even on a 10 per cent basis, will be much less. As shown later, he is clearly mistaken on this point, but concede for the moment that he is right.

Dr. Gulick frankly allows that the adult Japanese, when he arrives here, is an undesirable American citizen, and that even the American-born Japanese, under existing conditions, is not likely to make a good citizen. His figures prove that the Japanese Government is steadily violating the spirit of the "gentlemen's agreement," under which the Japanese were to be kept out; and yet he recommends urgently that we formally recognize the Japanese as eligible to citizenship and encourage them to come in by establishing an annual Japanese immigration quota.

Dr. Gulick claims American citizenship, but I am at a loss to understand his reasoning. It would seem to me, under such circumstances, since the Japanese make poor citizens and the Japanese Government is deliberately violating the intent of the agreement, a staunch American citizen would urge our Government to cancel at once the "gentlemen's agreement," to stop the importation of "picture brides," to bar further Japanese immigration, and to encourage the individual States to pass alien land laws.

In other words, the first care of an American citizen would naturally be for the protection of American institutions and the American franchise, rather than solicitude to meet the demands, inconsistent and probably harmful to us, of a foreign nation, however friendly we might be with that nation.


It has been suggested already that the bad faith of Japan in shipping to us each year 10,000 or more Japanese in violation of the letter and spirit of the gentlemen's agreement is not a good reason for formal recognition by us of the Japanese as immigrants and citizens, even if thereby we receive annually a smaller influx legally than is now forced on us illegally. While Dr. Gulick claims the admissions will be smaller, the facts contradict him. He has published tables showing the highest allotment to Japan annually under the percentage plan as 5,800. But this estimate is for 1918 and preceding years based on the assumption that the plan had been put into effect in 1910. He offers no figures for the future in which we are really concerned, so far as I have read, except in an article published in the New York Independent in May, 1919, wherein he declares that the Japanese immigration under this plan in 1935 will not exceed 5,400.

I have carried Dr. Gulick's tables beyond 1918, where he stops them, and far into the future -- 200 years -- which is short enough time to consider in the life of a great nation like this. The details of those tables will be reserved for another article. This summary will suffice for present purposes.

If the Gulick plan were in force on July 1, 1919, and no immigrants were admitted in excess of the "allotment" to each race, the Japanese immigration for each of the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 would be cut down to 2,500. In 1922 it would be 7,500 -- the census for 1920 being then available with the record of native-born. In 1923 or 1924 the allotment would be increased by 10 per cent of the number of present residents who would have become naturalized, say less than 25 per cent, 50,000; and each year thereafter it would be increased by 10 per cent of the number of those immigrants coming in five years before who had become citizens.

The annual immigration in either 1923 or 1924 would therefore jump to a figure in excess of 12,500, and would steadily increase thereafter, reaching 16,000 in 1933 and 23,000 in 1943.


The increase in total Japanese population is, however, the important and the alarming feature. At present the records in California show a net annual increase of Japanese population, due to excess of births over deaths, of between 3 and 4 per cent. Assuming that this increase will be only 2 per cent in the future, and that the total Japanese population in 1923 will be 300,000 (the present population is estimated at 250,000), the population including immigration would double in less than 20 years. In 1943 it would be 875,000.

At the same rate in 40 years from 1923 the Japanese population of the United States under operation of the Gulick plan would be, in round figures 2,000,000; in 80 years, 10,000,000; in 140 years, 100,000,000.

Long before then the white race would have succumbed in the economic competition and the world's glorious Republic would have become a Province of Japan.

Results under the gentlemen's agreement as now operated by Japan will be slower of attainment but equally certain in the end.


The bill makes all Asiatics on admission to the United States eligible for citizenship. The effect of this in the Territory of Hawaii would be to create at once a citizenry of Japanese almost equal in number to the voters of all other races combined and four times as numerous as those of the Caucasian or any other race.

These Japanese would manage Hawaii -- not as a Territory of the United States but as a Province of Japan. The testimony offered on this score in these articles is convincing.

Another effect of this provision would be to permit the newly made citizens in Hawaii to come to the mainland and swell the number of their race in California. They would come, as they are eager to settle in California because of its superior advantages in many ways. They could come many thousands strong and still leave enough of their race in Hawaii to control it. They are not supposed to come to the mainland now under the "gentlemen's agreement."

There are many Asiatics who are less desirable as citizens and immigrants than the Japanese
. Our objections to the Japanese are based on grounds which are in a measure creditable to them; but certain other Asiatics, while not offering the danger in economic competition which we find in the Japanese, are objectionable on other grounds -- sanitary, physical, and mental.


The student provision permits any number of "students" to come in, and no provision is made as to their occupation while here or as to their return. Under this provision many thousands of Japanese could come into the United States, attend school for a few months, and then distribute themselves through the country as laborers. This is so patent that it seems strange it should have escaped the attention of the framers of the bill.


Again, it is proposed that any alien claiming religious persecution in his own country, either in overt act or through law or regulation, shall be admitted into this country on application and become at once eligible for citizenship.

This country can not longer afford to serve as an asylum for everyone claiming persecution elsewhere, however unfitted he may be for American citizenship, if we are to maintain a standard of citizenship which will insure the perpetuity of the Nation.

Under the provision named we would have to admit without question every Russian Jew, every Armenian, and every Christian Asiatic who might be persecuted in his own country. There would be in all of these classes individuals who would make desirable citizens, but it would be unwise to pledge ourselves to admit everyone who applied.

It can not be doubted that the responsible heads of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ of America, and nearly all -- possibly all -- of the 1,000 national committeemen who stood sponsors for the "new oriental policy" and the percentage plan for restriction of immigration put forth in the name of the League of Constructive Immigration Legislation had no knowledge of the facts given to the public in these articles and no conception of the results which may be feared from any encouragement of Asiatic immigration.


Consideration of the facts presented in these articles naturally suggested the following as points worthy at least of careful thought on the part of Uncle Sam in connection with the immigration problem:

Why not decide now and for all time that our immigration policy, our naturalization policy, and all our national policies shall be based, not on what someone else desires or demands, but on what is best for the comfort and happiness of the loyal American citizen, for the maintenance of the American home, and for the preservation of the American Nation?

If it be wise to restrict immigration, and our experience indicates that it is wise to do so, why not decide on the number we care to admit each year, and select them from the most desirable who present themselves, regardless of the number of their respective races who are already here? Let each applicant be judged on individual merit.

So far as the Japanese are concerned, since the facts conclusively demonstrate that their continued immigration threaten our labor, our industries, our economic life, and eventually our existence as a nation, why hesitate to adopt at once the only remedial measures which can save us. These remedies, as originally suggested by me are:
First. Cancellation of the "gentlemen's agreement."

Second. Exclusion of "picture brides."

Third. Absolute exclusion of Japanese as immigrants, as other Asiatics are excluded.

Fourth. Confirmation and legalization of the principle that Asiatics shall be forever barred from American citizenship.

Fifth. Amendment of section 1 of Article XIV of the Federal Constitution so as to provide that no child born in the United States of foreign parents shall be eligible to American citizenship unless both parents are eligible to such citizenship.

Against these suggestions there will be raked at once the objection that all or any part of the measures proposed will hurt Japan's pride, and must not be attempted. There does not occur to me any other objection that might be offered.

They should not hurt Japan's pride, for they are based on economic and not on racial grounds. They are in effect the same measures which she enforces against the Chinese and Koreans, who are, too, of the yellow race, and for precisely similar reasons. They are measures enforced against Japan by Canada and Australia, notwithstanding that Great Britain is Japan's ally. And the Paris conference declined to consider Japan's demand for recognition of the question under the head of "Racial discrimination," because Australia most vigorously protested, and because Japan's claim was inconsistent and untenable.

And if, notwithstanding all this, Japan shall insist that her pride will be hurt if we protect ourselves in the manner indicated, and that we must not do it, then it would seem to be up to the American Nation to say, very politely, that, much as it pains us to run counter to the susceptibilities of our good friends in Japan, our first care must be for the perpetuity of American institutions, and the freedom and happiness of our people, as the first consideration of Japan must be for her own people and their ideals.



(From the Sacramento Bee, July 29, 1919.)

The Saturday Evening Post is the first American magazine of large circulation published in an Atlantic environment to give a fair, intelligent, statesmanlike, and American presentation of the vexed subject of Japanese immigration.

This is done in a lengthy article by Herbert Quick under the title "Seventeen Year People," published in the issue of June 28th, and devoted to a consideration of the undesirable, damaging, and locust-like elements which descend upon American citizenship through the open immigration gates, and from which we must be protected if American institutions are to be preserved.


Mr. Quick puts the matter fairly when he says in effect that this is our country and we are under no obligations to admit any foreigner; that we should tactfully but firmly let the world know that we claim the right to exclude anyone we wish to exclude; that the life of this democracy depends upon the sort of immigrants admitted; that the discussion of the Japanese immigration problems should be encouraged and not frowned upon; that there is nothing discreditable to the Japanese in our attitude on this question; that we will not admit them because they do not and can not assimilate, and because, in economic competition, they drive our people to the wall; that we will not admit immigration freely under such conditions from any country, no matter what the consideration offered or the consequences involved; and that we have the right to make such a decision and the power to enforce it.


He says:
"We have become unfitted for competition with such a race as the Japanese. It is because they know their superiority to us in industrial competition that they desire to come, such of them as do so desire.

"They come to underlive us and drive us to the wall unless we adjust ourselves to their competition. They can pay more for land than an American can pay, and prosper at the higher prices; and this means that they have the power to establish a lower scale of actual wages."

And again he says:
"One of our most insoluble troubles as a Nation rises from the existence among us of a colored race; and, make no mistake, we shall never allow another similar problem to grow up among us."

The principles outlined by the Saturday Evening Post author are precisely the principles for which the Pacific coast has contended for many years; they are the principles for which California contended when she attempted to protect her little girls by compelling grown Japanese youths to attend separate schools, and when she attempted to protect her agricultural population by passing an alien land law; they are the principles which up to this time it has been difficult for a man east of the Rockies to appreciate or understand, while he insisted that the Pacific coast attitude is simply a manifestation of racial prejudice against a friendly nation.


The question is an economic rather than a racial one, and where the element of race enters as a factor there is no question of inferiority involved. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that the Japanese can not be transformed in the melting pot into desirable material for citizenship, as can most Europeans; and that in the attempt to so transform him the white people of this Republic must go to the wall.


That is sufficient reason for refusing to permit the entrance of Japanese; and when Japan insists that such refusal is humiliating to her pride she is indulging in diplomatic camouflage in order to win her point. She will follow that policy as long as it promises success.


While the author of the Saturday Evening Post article has admirably outlined the principles upon which the great problem must be solved for the permanent protection of the American Republic, he has been misled in two important matters concerning existing conditions and the imminence of the danger.


He says, for instance, concerning the present arrangement, that "Japan and the United States are working under a gentlemen's agreement under which Japanese laborers do not come to the United States. It is a gentlemen's agreement, which is kept in a gentlemanly manner;" and again that "Japan keeps her agreement faithfully, but she is not satisfied."


The fact is that there could not be more flagrant violation of a gentlemen's agreement than Japan has been guilty of in this case.

She boasts that she always keeps her agreements, and through skillful propaganda some Americans have commenced to believe so. Her bad faith is boldly placarded on her record in China, in Korea, in Manchuria, in Siberia, in Shantung, where those who have had relations with her have experienced it, and where the student and investigator may readily read it. In this immigration matter the record, as will be shown, is unmistakable.


Herbert Quick has been misled again into believing, on the authority of Sidney L. Gulick, that the bill proposed by Gulick in the name of the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation, restricting immigration to a percentage basis, would permanently "confine oriental immigration to limits of absolute harmlessness," and that it would therefore satisfactorily solve the Japanese problem.

On the contrary, the Gulick plan would insure a greater immigration from Japan than is now coming to us, and by which in time the Pacific coast, and ultimately the Nation, would be submerged.


The gentlemen's agreement provides a guaranty on Japan's part that she will not permit Japanese laborers to come to this country. But every year a number of Japanese, guaranteed by Japan under the agreement, are turned back at our entry ports by United States customs officials because of indisputable evidence that these men are laborers.


Japan's explanation is that it is not practicable for her to avoid being made the victim of deception at times by those seeking to come to the United States.

The statement that the Government of Japan would not know, or could not readily ascertain, the occupation and intimate personal history of any one of her subjects will be hailed as a joke by anyone familiar with the German-like intelligence system maintained by that Government.

12,000 COMING.

Japan sent us last year over 10,000 immigrants. This year there will be 12,000, according to Dr. Gulick. Each immigrant comes bearing Japan's passport and her word as a gentleman that the newcomer is not a laborer.

Most of them will be found at labor, skilled and unskilled, within a few weeks after they step ashore.

Japan may class them as dilettanti for passport purposes, but they are laborers in fact or intent before they start, because of the chance of earning here from five to ten times what they can in Japan. Our officials admit them presumably because there is no evidence to disprove Japan's assurance.


Since Japan passed her word as a gentleman in this matter in 1907 there have settled in California alone about 50,000 Japanese, duly certified as nonlaborers.

The number is ascertained by comparing California's Japanese population in 1907 and 1918, and making allowance for the recorded births and deaths in that interval.

It is comparatively easy for any investigator to satisfy himself that most of these immigrants secured places at once as laborers, and, with exception of those who graduated into bosses, have been laborers since.

Of those who did not labor the greater part went into gainful occupations that, directly or indirectly, displaced white residents and American citizens.


In less than five years past Japan has sent over 20,323 "picture brides," of which number all but 6,864 came to the mainland. Most of these picture brides are laborers, doing a man's work in field or shop, and incidentally bearing children, frequently at the rate of one per year.


Every Japanese who came to this country since the date of the agreement in 1907, and who has earned his livelihood by labor since, scores a violation of the agreement and of Japan's word; and anyone familiar with the situation knows that these violations are already numbered by the tens of thousands.

No; Japan's bad faith and Uncle Sam's blind complaisance have made a scrap of paper of the gentlemen's agreement.

If Japan is to be permitted to continue sending these people in at the rate of 12,000 a year through the immigration office, and unnumbered others across the border, let us at least cease to fool ourselves as to what is occurring and who is responsible therefore.


Now, as to the remedy, enticingly offered by Sidney Gulick and his League for Constructive Immigration Legislation in his proposed percentage plan for restricting immigration. Dr. Gulick explains -- and Herbert Quick accepts the explanation -- that as Japan is faithfully keeping the gentlemen's agreement, the percentage immigration plan is a desirable thing because the Japanese immigration under it will be less than under the present agreement.


Assuming -- for the moment only -- that Japanese immigration under the Gulick plan would be less, the plea to adopt the plan is a piece of quiet and of course unintentional humor. The case is parallel with that of the highway robber who, having exacted annual tribute of $10,000 to $12,000 in violation of his word "as a gentleman," makes a proposition to his victim that for certain valuable concessions and considerations he will inaugurate a plan under which he claims the tribute shall be much less, though it will really be more in a short while.


In the present case the consideration demanded is the permanent acceptance of the Japanese as immigrants and citizens.

The plan proposed, too, while it is guaranteed to decrease Japanese immigration, .as now sent in violation of the gentlemen's agreement, will really increase it.


The Gulick plan proposes to restrict the immigration from any race in any year to a percentage, say 10, of (a) the American-born children of that race, according to the census of 1920 when the figures are available, and, until then, according to the census of 1910; plus (b) the naturalized members of the race according to the last census; plus (c) the members naturalized since such census (and the Bureau of Naturalization is instructed to compile and furnish such data annually).

Tables are offered in support of the contention that the percentage plan would permit less Japanese immigration than the present arrangement with Japan. But these tables deal only with the past, showing that if the proposed measure had been adopted in 1910 the highest annual "allotment" to Japan between 1910 and 1918 would have been 5,800, while the average immigration was greater, being 10,000 in 1918.

In addition, Dr. Gulick in the New York Independent of May 10, 1919, claimed that the Japanese immigration under his plan would be 40 per cent less in 1935 than had entered the United States in 1917, i.e., 40 per cent less than 8,991, say 5,400.

Gulick's tables, however, avoid showing results under the plan in future years: and no mention is made of the fact that the bill provides for admissions outside the "allotment," which would multiple that allotment several fold.


Let us assume that the bill will be passed by Congress this year, and see what the future would have in store for us. The Japanese allotment for each of the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 would be, in rough numbers, 2,500, being 10 per cent of the native-born Japanese, according to the census of 1910.

In 1922 the figures for the census of 1920 would be available, and based on a native-born population in 1920 of 75,000 (easily demonstrable by statistics and the birth rate), the Japanese allotment would jump at once to 7,500.

In 1923 the allotment would receive its first addition from the naturalized element, as it would take five years for aliens to receive final papers. If it be assumed that 50 per cent of the adult Japanese now under the American flag could and would qualify for citizenship, this factor would be 100,000, and 10,000 would be added to the annual allotment, making it 17,500.

If it be assumed that only 20 to 25 per cent would qualify, the factor would be 50,000, and 5,000 would be added to the allotment, making the total 12,500. Even in this case the allotment would be in excess of the high mark of actual immigration for 1918 or of that estimated for 1919.

It may be said in passing, however, that a race demanding American citizenship, which fails to qualify at least 50 per cent of those here, after, five years' residence, is not good material for citizenship; they are here for their profit, and not for our benefit; and if they will not make good citizens, they are undesirable as immigrants and permanent residents.


But the allotment is only a small measure of the immigration which must be admitted under the provisions of the Gulick bill. Every immigrant who comes in and every one now here is entitled to bring, or send for, a wife (and "picture brides" are wives under Japan's procedure) and certain relatives; and "students," who may turn at once to labor, and those who claim to be objects of religious persecution must be admitted, without limit or restriction.

So that the "allotment" may be only one-half, or one-quarter, or even a smaller proportion of the actual immigration for the year, and the Japanese immigration in 1923 might be anywhere between 30,000 and 75,000.

These misleading tables and statements claiming less immigration under the percentage plan than under the present agreement, have been published for two years or more past, while the authorized versions of the proposed bill given out at the same time contained the provisions above noted and others. Within the past few weeks, under public criticism, modification of some of these provisions has been made, but their presence in the original bill sufficiently indicates the intent of the authors thereof.


The real menace in Japanese immigration is found in three elements. The Japanese do not intermarry with the whites and are never assimilated; they have a birth rate greatly in excess of the average in this country; and the white race can not face them in economic competition.

The Japanese birth rate per thousand in Sacramento City and elsewhere in California where opportunity for comparison exists is five times as great as that of the white population, as shown by State board of health records.

In Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the State, the Japanese births for the month of May, 1919, outside of the incorporated cities, were one-third as many as the white births in those districts. (Los Angeles Times, June 30, 1919.) The suburban and county population of Los Angeles County is large.

In San Joaquin County during the six months ending July 1, 1919, there were 282 births. Of this number 113 were to native-born American parents, 104 were to Japanese, and the remaining 65 to European foreigners. There were 178 white births and 245 deaths; and 104 Japanese births and only 17 deaths, i.e., the deaths among the whites exceeded the births by 40 per cent; the deaths among the Japanese were only one-sixth of the births. (Stockton Record, July 19, 1919.)

The actual number of Japanese immigrants therefore does not afford an adequate idea of the danger that their coming creates for this country. The number, however small, concentrates in a few chosen localities, thus making their numbers and their racial characteristics tell so that in economic competition they displace the whites. As more of their race come in, other localities are selected and the same plan followed.

Europeans, even of objectionable peoples, would intermarry and in time be assimilated, but the Japanese, never.

It is evident with these racial characteristics and economic advantages, and their overwhelming birth rate, it would require only time for a few hundred thousand Japanese to displace millions of Americans. Even the handicap of a small naturalized population at first would only delay the inevitable result under the percentage immigration plan, while the advocates of that plan insist it would keep the Japanese proportion down permanently.

Make a table showing the "allotments" and birth and population statistics for 20 years under the percentage plan, for the Japanese and any other race, conceding that the Japanese at the start have only one-twentieth as many naturalized citizens as the other race, but their birth rate is five times as great.

In 20 years, the Japanese annual births will equal their annual immigration allotment, and that 20-to-l proportion, notwithstanding the comparatively small Japanese allotment, will show each five years a slow decrease as to immigrants, and a rapid decrease as to total population.


Under the Gulick plan the Japanese will steadily gain on any and all races which send over immigrants, first, because the allotment factor of their native born under the 1920 census will represent a greater proportion of their naturalized citizens than will be the case with any other race; and, second, because those who find admission will reproduce much more rapidly than the immigrants of any other race.

To demonstrate mathematically that the percentage plan will materially increase even the present Japanese immigration unfairly sent to us under violation of the "gentlemen's agreement," I have prepared a table along the lines followed by Dr. Gulick, but showing what he does not show -- the results of the next 25 years, if Congress should adopt the plan this year.

That the plan might have every reasonable chance consistent with the facts, to make a good showing, the table is based on the following assumptions: That all provisions allowing immigration in excess of the annual "allotment," will be stricken from the bill; that only 50,000 Japanese will qualify for citizenship five years hence; that of the new immigrants coming in each year, two-fifths only will qualify at the end of five years' residence; that the native-born Japanese under the census of 1920 will number 75,000; that the total Japanese population in the United States in 1923 will be only 300,000, and that the annual increase in population due to excess of births over deaths, will be 2 per cent (the present record in California is nearly 4 per cent).

And this is what the table shows. The total Japanese immigration admitted under the allotment for each of the years 1919, 1920, and 1921, will be only 2,500. In 1922 there will be 7,500; in 1923, 12,600 (7,500 plus 5,100); in 1933, 16,316 (7,500 plus 8,816); in 1943, 22,987 (7,500 plus 15,487).

The partial increase of population measured by births less deaths will be, in 1923, 6,000; in 1933, 9,800; in 1943, 16,100.

The total annual net increase in population, measured by the last two factors, will be 18,600 in 1923 and 39,000 in 1943.

The total Japanese population of the United States will be -- at the end of 1923 -- 318,600; at the end of 1933, 542,000; at the end of 1943, 875,000.

Present conditions justify the prediction that most of this population will be centered in the Pacific Coast States, and that one-half to two-thirds will be in California. That number of Japanese will go far toward owning those States, economically speaking, and Japanese immigration in the years following can take possession in turn of the more favored of the remaining States, until all that seem worth while to discriminating Japanese taste have been fully colonized.


But let us look still further ahead into the future. Twenty-five years should be but as a month in the life of a great nation like ours. Under the percentage plan for restricting immigration, our Japanese population will have increased nearly threefold in 20 years from 1923. To be exact, the increase is 266 percent, the native-born under the 1920 census, a fixed annual amount, contributing 50 per cent, and the other 216 per cent being composed of the naturalized element of the annual allotment, plus the annual births, and less the deaths -- a constantly increasing amount.

At that same rate in 40 years from 1923, the Japanese population of the United States under operation of the Gulick plan would be, in round figures, 2,000,000; in 80 years, 10,000,000; in 140 years, 100,000,000; in 160 years, 216,000,000.

Long before then the white race would have succumbed in the economic competition and the world's glorious Republic would have become a Province of Japan.

The objection will be made to these tables that the ratio of increase used in preparing them will not be maintained; that if it were, the Japanese population of the United States in a few hundred years would run into billions.

It is undoubtedly true that the ratio used will not permanently maintain. Those who have made close study of this subject say that the birth rate of a race decreases with higher standards of living and adaptation to western civilization; but they also say that in a case of the kind under consideration the invading race maintains a superior birth rate at least until the invaded race has succumbed through economic competition or force of arms.

In my tables there has been used a ratio which is only one-half of the present ratio of natural increase of the Japanese in California. The ratio in Hawaii is about the same as in California. That half ratio, augmented by immigration, doubles the population in 20 years. In Japan at present the population without immigration doubles in about 50 years it is said.

If the Japanese continue to come into the United States the rate of increase here will not drop to the present standard of Japan for many generations in all probability.

The reasons are that 90 per cent of those admitted here in the past 20 years were between 14 and 44 years of age. They were in the vigor of life and, with imported "picture bride," and with the incentive of citizenship for native-born children, established a high birth rate. The clearly defined policy of Japan in "peaceful penetration" of this country will continue to send over the same class of immigrants who will rapidly reproduce and conditions here as to land ownership and control will encourage such increase. The continued influx of this vigorous element alone would maintain here a higher birth rate than in Japan, and when the Japanese birth rate here drops to the standard in Japan or even lower it will still be far above the average white birth rate here.

So that at best all that critics of these figures can hope for is that the final collapse of the American Republic under the proposed percentage immigration plan may be postponed a generation or two.

Results under the gentlemen's agreement as now operated by Japan will be slower of attainment but equally certain in the end. This is the situation which we face. What is the remedy?


Herbert Quick has properly sensed the importance of the Japanese problem to the American people. But he did not, apparently, have the information which would have shown him the extreme gravity of the existing situation and the danger that lies either in a continuance of present conditions or in the adoption of the plan proposed by the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation.

Those things are made plain by the facts and figures contained in this article and the three preceding ones published last month.

At present, apparently, there are three alternative courses open to the United States in this matter. It may either:

1. Continue the present arrangement and permit Japan to send us a steady and increasing stream of Japanese labor under cover of the gentlemen's agreement, though in flagrant violation of its express terms; or,

2. Replace the gentlemen's agreement by the Gulick League plan for restricting immigration upon a percentage basis and incidentally insuring Asiatics admission to the country as immigrants and citizens in a guaranteed proportion; or,

3. Cancel the gentlemen's agreement and join Canada and Australia in barring Japanese and all undesirable Asiatics from citizenship or permanent residence in the country as a measure of protection for the white race and American institutions.


It has been shown that under the present plan the Japanese population in this country has multiplied sixfold since 1900, while the Chinese population has decreased over one-half; that the Japanese births in California multiplied twentyfold in the past 12 years; that the Japanese birth rate per thousand in communities in that State is five times as great as that of the whites; that in industries and entire communities whites have been displaced by Japanese, who by concentration make their numbers count; that California sees ahead of her the fate of Hawaii, which already is hopelessly Japanese; that the Japanese in Hawaii comprise half the total population and more than four times that of any other race, and now dominate social and political matters, while in a comparatively few years they will rule the territory by the votes of native-born Japanese who are not Americans but Japanese in sympathies, ideals, and loyalty; that what has happened in Hawaii and is steadily progressing in California will be brought about inevitably in time in other favored portions of the United States under continuance of existing conditions until eventually this country becomes a province of Japan.


So far as concerns the second alternative, the Gulick League plan, the facts presented show that it promises much but performs little; that under it the tide of Japanese immigration coming in gross violation of the gentlemen's agreement would not be lessened but would be steadily increased; that it formally indorses as desirable immigrants and citizens members of a race which experience has shown can not be assimilated into our Nation and which in economic competition has driven the white race to the wall wherever the two have met; and that any indorsement of the plan by intelligent and loyal Americans must have been given in ignorance of these facts necessarily.


The plain statement of the case should remove either the first or second alternative course from further serious consideration by the country. There remains, then, the third course -- cancellation of the gentlemen's agreement and absolute exclusion for the future of Japanese and other undesirable or economically dangerous Asiatics, either as immigrants or citizens.

That course certainly would prevent spread of the evil, so far as spread thereof may be legally or justly prevented, and it is obviously, as shown by careful consideration of the situation, the only method by which any adequate remedy may be applied.

Even that remedy will fail to effect a cure in Hawaii for many generations, if it ever can be done, and districts of the Pacific coast must bear for years the burden placed upon them by the bad faith of Japan and the blind complaisance of Washington.

As Herbert Quick says, this Nation has the right and power to protect itself in this way. There are only two arguments that have been or can be offered against it, and both have been gently urged by Dr. Gulick in his campaign and would have been pressed, doubtless, upon the House Committee on Immigration had it, in compliance with the request made, held executive sessions on the subject.


One argument is that such a course would be hurtful to the pride of Japan, a friendly nation.

Japan's pride can be hurt only if it insists on being hurt when she demands and is refused an unfair and unjust thing and a thing which she in turn has fairly and justly refused to other nations of her own color -- to wit, Korea and China.

And if she does insist on feeling humiliated, or so declares, shall we be governed in our conduct of this nation by the false pride, even of a friendly power, or by the unmistakable requirements of our own safety?


The other argument is that if Japan resents our action in the matter the peace of the world may be disturbed, meaning that the United States may have to go to war.

Is it not about time that the world, and particularly the United States, ceased to accord to Japan everything she demands, just or unjust, under the threat, sometimes veiled and sometimes outspoken, that otherwise she will not play in our back yard and may even throw bricks through our exposed windows?

What kind of Americanism is it that demands or suggests such a humiliating national policy when we are plainly in the right and when our compliance with demands or even acceptance of existing conditions spells certain danger and possible disaster to the American home and American institutions?

Herbert Quick says, referring to the countries of Asia, "We simply will not admit immigration from those countries freely, no matter what the consequences."

To which might be added: "If there be any American who, after careful consideration of the facts as now offered to the public, favors yielding to the demands or desires of Japan, whether presented formally through her own representatives or in a roundabout way through some of our misguided or misinformed citizens, let him stand up and be counted."

The situation calls for action -- action deliberate and tactful, so far as tact does not mean delay or diversion from the main purpose -- but, above all, action prompt and decisive.



Under the title of "Indisputable facts and figures proving California will become Japanized unless yellow peril stamped out," the December number of the Grizzly Bear, official organ of the Native Sons and Native Daughters of the Golden West, publishes the following article by V. S. McClatchy, publisher of the Bee:

Position and privilege carry with them obligation and responsibility. We, who were born under the sunny skies of California, who feel and profess a love for the glorious State, certainly owe her support and protection in her hour of need and danger.

The Native Sons and Native Daughters of the Golden West, who have sought through their organization to make public profession of the love and fealty that is in them can not strive in a better cause than in safeguarding the State's future freedom from foreign enslavement and in insuring to their children and to their children's children the enjoyment of California's hills and valleys in the glorious years to come.

And when the same danger that threatens the State threatens equally, in time, the entire Nation, then is their duty as Californians reinforced by their greater duty as Americans to meet and overcome the impending peril.

The State and the Nation are faced now by such a danger. It has already developed within our State and, unless opposed and conquered, will destroy the State for white occupation within a comparatively short time and then rapidly extend until other States and all States eventually succumb.


Even under existing conditions it will be a matter of a few generations only before the Japanese will have so increased in this State that, with the advantages possessed by them in economic competition, they will have successfully ousted the white races from desirable industries and from all desirable localities, as has been done already in a few locations. The result will be hastened if legislation now urged in Congress shall be passed.

This is not simply the expression of an individual opinion, open to criticism and possessing no weight in the face of opposing opinion; it is the statement of an incontrovertible fact, mathematically demonstrated by acknowledged conditions and by statistics which have not yet been contradicted or met, though they were first presented by me in opposition to the proposed bill of Sidney L. Gulick before the Congressional House Immigration Committee in June of this year.

It is a source of gratification, therefore, to know that the native sons and native daughters have risen already to the occasion and launched in Los Angeles an organization -- the Los Angeles County Anti-Asiatic Association -- in favor of Asiatic exclusion, and that individual parlors of these orders throughout the State have adopted ringing resolutions asking their congressional Representatives to commence remedial measures.


The brotherhood of man and the golden rule are appealed to by those who would inundate us gradually with the yellow tide from Japan; but neither principle calls for the surrender by the white race of their favored land to a yellow race which covets it because it offers advantages superior to those which can be found elsewhere. Remember, always, that this problem in its final analysis is simply, "Shall this country of ours be held for our white descendants, or shall it be turned over to the Japanese, that they may rule those descendants as they rule in Korea to-day?"

Remember, again, that there is involved in the subject no question as to racial equality, no reflection upon the Japanese. In fact, our stand upon this matter includes a frank admission that the Japanese are so much our superiors in certain admirable qualities, such as economy, industry, and discipline, that, coupled with their lower standards of living, they would drive the white race to the wall in open economic competition, and that this disaster will inevitably follow if the Japanese are admitted to the country, or to certain portions thereof, in sufficient numbers to make their economic advantages count.


And remember, too, that the right which we claim of protecting our people and our institutions against the importation of cheap labor with lower standards of living is precisely the right claimed and exercised by Japan herself, notwithstanding her vociferous protestations against our attitude and her demand for "racial equality," as a basis for free admission for her immigrants to the United States, Canada, and Australia; that under Imperial Ordinance No. 352, Japan does not admit, and never has admitted, the cheap labor of Korea and China, notwithstanding it is also yellow in color, and says publicly that she excludes these people because their lower standards of living would make their competition unfair to the Japanese.

It is assumed that no one will question the propriety of the principles outlined above, provided the facts are as represented. It remains only to present those facts. Incidentally, it should be said that in the space of a magazine article the matter can be presented in outline only, and those who desire fuller explanations and details and the statistics are referred to statements made by me before the House Immigration Committee, September 25, and before the Senate Immigration Committee, October 10, of this year, and now in print; or to my published articles which have since been issued in booklet form.


The established policy of the United States is against Asiatic immigration, because the lower standards of living of these immigrants and their possible number would seriously endanger the happiness and prosperity of our people, and the perpetuity of our institutions. The Chinese are kept out under the exclusion act. Japan was touched in her pride, or said she was, by having her laborers excluded by law, and offered to exclude them voluntarily if she was not placed in the same category with China. Hence the "gentlemen's agreement," which has been in operation since 1907, and under which Japan, it was understood, would restrict immigration of Japanese to this country as immigration of Chinese was restricted by law. The declared object of the agreement was to prevent Japanese laborers, skilled and unskilled, coming into continental United States. No Japanese, unless born under the American flag in Hawaii, and therefore a citizen, may enter any port of continental United States unless he carries Japan's passport, which is in effect Japan's word as a "gentleman" that the immigrant is not a laborer, and does not come to labor.

The agreement has been grossly violated by Japan. It is only necessary to say that the Japanese population of the United States since 1900 has increased sixfold, while the Chinese population has decreased over one-half; and Japan was to have secured under the agreement results as to the Japanese similar to those secured as to the Chinese by the exclusion act.

So that, even if the agreement had been kept in good faith, it has failed entirely to accomplish the clearly declared purpose for which it was entered into, and should therefore be abrogated. As a matter of fact, it could have accomplished that purpose had Japan acted up to its letter and its spirit. Under that agreement as now operating it would require only a few generations to make of California an economic principality of Japan, and drive Californians to other States, where, in time, they would have to succumb to the ever-increasing yellow tide from Japan.


From 10,000 to 12,000 Japanese immigrants are coming in each year under this agreement; and most of them are at labor within a few weeks after their arrival, while others go into gainful occupations which displace whites.

The Japanese population of California by immigration has increased about 50,000 since 1907, when the agreement was made, and most of these immigrants are laborers. Each laborer forms a separate violation of the "gentlemen's agreement."

"Picture brides" have been imported at the rate of over 4,000 a year for the past five years, most of them being laborers and performing the work of men in field or shop, in addition to bearing children, at the rate usually of one a year. In 1918 the total Japanese immigration was 10,168, of which over one-half, 5,347, were females. In 1900 in the United States there were 25 male Japanese to 1 female. In 1910 there were 7 males to 1 female. At present it is estimated that the proportion is about 3 to 1.


The "picture bride," when she is a laborer, is a direct violation of the "gentlemen's agreement." As a mother, she is a cunning subterfuge for evading the intent of the agreement and increasing the Japanese population of the United States. Notwithstanding the fact that the Japanese females are outnumbered by the males in this country about 3 to 1, while among the white races the sexes are about equal in number, the birth rate per thousand among the Japanese in Sacramento and other cities in California is five times as great as among the white population.

In the 10 years following the adoption of the agreement Japanese births in this State multiplied twentyfold. Last year they numbered 4,365. The Chinese births in California are less than one-tenth of the Japanese, and their death rate is twice as large as the birth rate. The Japanese birth rate is between four and five times as great as their death rate.


There are in California about 25,000 Japanese native sons and daughters, each one claiming the right to hold land through a guardian, and many of them utilized for that purpose.

Los Angeles is the most populous county in the State, and in that county in May, 1919, outside of incorporated cities, the number of Japanese births was one-third of the aggregate births among all white races, as noted in the Los Angeles Times of June 30, 1919.

In Sacramento County, outside of Sacramento city, in 1918 the Japanese births exceeded the white births. The 1910 census showed eight times as many whites as Japanese in that district.


Since my articles have called attention to these matters there has been continuous comment in the Japanese newspapers of the State. One of them published in San Francisco urged the Japanese to import as many "picture brides" and secure as much California land as possible before restrictive measures are adopted by the State or the Nation.


The official figures presented above will prepare the reader to consider seriously and to credit the astounding statement that tables carefully compiled show that under existing conditions the Japanese population of this country will increase so rapidly that in a few generations they will drive the whites out of California, and in much less than 200 years can annex the United States as a principality of Japan, the Americans and their descendants outnumbered, driven to the wall through economic competition, and Koreanized.


Under the Gulick plan, as urged upon Congress, the Japanese immigration would be increased in a few years beyond the present figures. Careful tables of increase of Japanese population in the United States under that plan, and assuming that the excess of births over deaths will be only one-half of that now shown, place the total in 1923 at 318,600; in 1933 at 543,000; in 1943 at 875,000; in 1963 at 2,000,000; in 2003 at 10,000,000; in 2063 at 100,000,000.

Examination of results secured by Japanese colonization in Hawaii and California will convince anyone that long before the last date named the whites would have been driven to the wall either by economic competition or by force of arms, and that the world's glorious Republic would have become an appendage of Japan. Under operation of the "gentlemen's agreement," as now working, the result would be equally certain, but it might take a little longer.

A year ago this statement would have been laughed at. Remember, today, that the facts and figures upon which it is based have been before the American public and before the House Committee on Immigration since June of this year and neither Sidney L. Gulick nor any other champion of the Japanese, or of the policy of opening our ports to them, has attempted to disprove their correctness.


The numbers of the Japanese and the manner in which they will inevitably increase in this country form but one factor, however, in the menace which they offer.

They do not assimilate. The melting pot does not affect them as it does in time the most refractory of the European races. They remain always Japanese. They maintain their racial purity more jealously than any other race which comes to our shores. They preserve their ideals, their customs, their language, their loyalty to Japan, even when born here, partly because Japan never ceases to hold them as Japanese citizens, and partly because they are taught in Japanese schools by Japanese teachers who frequently speak no English, and have no sympathy with American ideals. It is a dangerous experiment to attempt to make good American citizens of such material.


The nature of this problem is well illustrated in Hawaii. Concerning the lesson taught there, Sidney L. Gulick himself declared in 1914, in his pamphlet "Hawaii's American-Japanese problem":
"If, as Asiatics, they maintain their traditional conceptions 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."
The standards of living of the Japanese are much lower than ours. Unless we are willing to work 12, 15, or 18 hours a day, to forego recreation and pleasure, and the comforts of American homes, and to have our women slave in the fields, and incidentally bear a child a year, then it is hopeless for us to attempt economic competition with the Japanese. In such a competition in this country the white race, even the industrious, hard-working immigrants from Europe, must inevitably go to the wall.


The Japanese do not distribute themselves throughout the country so as to make a weak solution of Japanese in a great reservoir of Americans. They concentrate their numbers in those localities and industries where most profit can be secured with least effort and least discomfort, and have a cooperation which is more effective than that shown by any American labor union. In this State, for instance, there are, say, 100,000 Japanese in a total population of 3,600,000, but three-quarters of that 100,000 are found in 7 of our 58 counties, and concentrated generally in a few favored localities in those counties.

Under such policy, and with their economic advantages and the assistance received from their Government through banks and commissions, it is comparatively easy to conquer one district, drive the whites therefrom, and let newcomers concentrate in other localities. So, in time, the favored spots of the State must succumb -- and, unless the remedy is applied, the favored spots of other States.


Here are before us, then, the three elements which make Japanese immigration such a grave danger to the country:

First. They do not, and perhaps never will, assimilate.

Second. They have a birth rate so much greater than the whites that time only would be necessary for them to outnumber the whites in communities to which they are admitted.

Third. Their low standards of living, cooperation, and thrift give them advantages in economic competition against which it is hopeless for whites to compete.


Let us glance, now, at what the Japanese, because of the factors named, have already accomplished under the American flag. A brief outline of the facts, coupled with the undisputed figures as to the rate at which their numbers will increase under existing conditions, furnishes conclusive reply to those who insist that the danger is a fancied and not a real one, and that we can afford to wait until it matures further.

Hawaii is under the American flag, but it has been practically conquered by the Japanese. Half the entire population of the Territory is now Japanese, and they number four times as many as those of any other race. They boast in their newspapers that by the votes of native-born Japanese they will hold the balance of power as between Republicans and Democrats before 1933, and it is equally certain that within a generation they will outvote a combination of all other races in the Territory. Their influence is already so great, in advance of the actual voting strength, that they defeated a bill before the Territorial legislature in June of this year which would have forced teachers in Japanese and other foreign-language schools to know enough of the English language and American civics and history to teach the young American citizens some of their duties and obligations. The Japanese teachers do not fulfill these requirements.

The Japanese naturally control a number of industries in Hawaii, in which white or native labor was formerly employed.


What has already happened in Hawaii is now in progress in California. Look at Florin and Walnut Grove, in Sacramento County, and various communities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, where the white population has already been displaced. Look at the orchard districts now largely dominated by Japanese, at blocks of thousands of acres now being colonized by them; note their increased ownership of land through dummy corporations and native-born Japanese under guardians; see their increased control of the rice fields; consider the Imperial Valley; recall entire districts in the fine residence portion of San Francisco and other cities from which the whites have been driven. Will we heed the lesson?

In Oregon a large tract of 11,000 acres has just been purchased by Japanese, on which these people will concentrate for growth of garden truck, largely potatoes.


In Seattle, 47 per cent of all hotels and lodging houses, including the big, pretentious hotels, are owned by the Japanese, and a corresponding number of restaurants, garages, commission houses, and small business enterprises.

In the Hood River apple district of Oregon they have already secured control of a large percentage of the orchards. In Colorado they own practically the Rocky Ford melon business, with control of 85 per cent of the district and the crop.

It should be apparent to the intelligent investigator that what has already happened in Hawaii is now taking place in California; that unless drastic remedies are at once applied existing conditions will in a comparatively short time produce here such results as are noted there; that other favored sections of the Pacific Coast States will suffer in turn; and gradually, as the incoming yellow tide increases, first the most favored districts of other States must succumb, and ultimately all desirable portions of all States.

The problem, therefore, is not a California problem, or even a Pacific coast problem, but a national problem. Adequate relief can come only from the Federal Government, which has, unwittingly, imposed the burden upon us and blindly permitted it to grow.


As proof of the necessity for immediate action and continued vigilance in the matter, it should be remembered that for over five years Japan conducted a wonderful propaganda in the United States, through Sidney L. Gulick, for the purpose of securing admission of all Asiatics to this country as immigrants and citizens on the same plane as Europeans, and taking away from the States any authority in handling matters in connection with the rights of aliens.

Gulick secured indorsement of that policy from the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, the most powerful church federation in the country, comprising over 100,000 churches and 17,000,000 members, and was employed by the council under salary while he conducted his propaganda.

He organized, a year or more ago, the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation, for the ostensible purpose of protecting American citizenship by restricting undesirable immigration, and secured the names of nearly 1,000 prominent Americans in the various States of the Union as sponsors for the league. He formulated a bill which he presented in the name of the league to the House Committee on Immigration in June of this year, which bill proposed to safeguard immigration by limiting it to a percentage of those various races who now claim, or may hereafter claim, American citizenship.


Incidentally, however, that bill was a framework in which reposed his main objective -- throwing open our ports to the admission of Asiatics as immigrants and citizens. As before stated, the bill would permit the admission of more Japanese than now come in under the violations of the "gentlemen's agreement." And under its provisions, too, we could not admit one Belgian, Spaniard, or Portuguese unless we admitted from 100 to 600 Germans; nor 1 Chinaman unless we admitted 10 Japanese.

It is gratifying to know that most of Gulick's committee of 1,000, on learning the facts, have repudiated the league; and that his measure is dead in Congress because he could not make reply to those facts, a few of which are herein quoted.

But Senator Dillingham, of Vermont, has introduced in the Senate, and had referred to the Senate Committee of Immigration, a similar bill, which, while it does not admit Asiatics to citizenship, would enormously increase the number of Japanese who could come in as immigrants, not only above the number now coming, but even above the number which could come under the Gulick plan.


Through lack of understanding of the subject, and the impression that the Californians are influenced in this matter simply by race prejudice, Congress and the East have been disinclined in years past to consider the menace of Japanese immigration seriously. Shantung and Siberia have given these doubters cause for thought as to Japan, and they are now in a receptive mood. It is the psychological moment for spreading the light of facts throughout the Nation, and creating a mental impression which will stand against Japanese propaganda in the future, and afford substantial basis for remedial action by Congress.

It is through the weak complaisance and the blindness of our Federal Government, and the bad faith of Japan, that the burden has been placed upon us. It is only through Federal action that adequate remedies can be applied. And concerted effort should be made to secure remedial legislation before the menace has become too deeply intrenched. The remedies which I have suggested are:

First. Cancellation of the "gentlemen's agreement."

Second. Exclusion of "picture brides."

Third. Absolute exclusion of Japanese, with other Asiatics, as immigrants.

Fourth. Confirmation and legalization of the principle that Asiatics shall be forever barred from citizenship.

Fifth. Amendment of section 1 of Article XIV of the Federal Constitution, providing that no child born in the United States of foreign parents shall be eligible to American citizenship unless both parents are eligible to such citizenship.


The facts properly marshaled and considered in their relation to each other furnish striking evidence of the undoubted policy of Japan to secure, by "peaceful penetration," a place in this favored land for an unlimited number of her people, and ultimately to obtain through them absolute control of the country. In this matter economic conquest would be quite as effective as conquest by force of arms.

The facts, too, show that we have to deal with a cunning, persistent, and implacable antagonist, much our superior in adroitness and in the use of diplomatic subterfuges; and that the Nation can not be saved without the creation of a public sentiment which will put backbone into the Federal administration, which in the past has permitted Japan to cajole and bluff it on any and all issues.

Japan and her friends have intimated that there will be a serious break, and possibly war, between the two nations if we insist on protecting our people and the future of the Republic by any such restrictive measures as are herein suggested -- the only ones which will prove effective. That has ever been the insidious suggestion from Japan, supplementing her plea that the pride of her people must be respected.


If Japan is fair in this matter, there will be no war, for our position is not only just and similar to that of Japan in Asia, but is necessary for our future welfare. If Japan insists on being unreasonable, is it not about time that Americans should demand that the Federal administration govern this country for the benefit, present and future, of Americans, and not in accordance with the request or threat of a foreign nation?

Our present problem has been created by our weak yielding to such demands, or threats, in the past. Japan does not attempt such tactics with Canada or Australia, which rigorously exclude Japanese under the same laws as govern the immigration into those countries of other Asiatics.

This is our country. It rests with us to say whether we shall share it with the yellow races or not. It is time that we spoke in unmistakable terms to the world on this subject, and that we back up our announced policy in anyway necessary for its maintenance.



(By V. S. McClatchy, publisher Sacramento Bee. From Organized Labor, San Francisco, Sept. 6, 1920.)

When the House Immigration Committee was in the State of Washington in July and early August investigating the Japanese immigration problem, it invited organized labor, at both Seattle and Tacoma, to express itself on the subject. There seems to have been no authorized or formal response to that request. One member of organized labor, however, who was before the committee, in reply to a direct question from Congressman Raker, declared that organized labor in Tacoma and Seattle was not interested in the question sufficiently to appear before the committee, because in both places members of organized labor were employed by the Japanese on the docks and had wages and good treatment.

From others the intimation came that years ago, when organized labor in the Pacific Northwest had been eager to fight Japanese immigration, it had been given no support by the community generally, and now it was disposed to permit the fight to be carried on by the farming and commercial interests that had commenced to feel the pinch.

Whether either or both of these expressions supply the reason, it is evident that organized labor in the Pacific Northwest has not yet given formal indication that it recognizes the menace of Japanese immigration and is anxious to do its part in affording necessary protection to the Nation. Its attitude in this matter is so diametrically opposed to that of organized labor in California that the difference must be ascribed to a difference in local conditions, which in one case had encouraged or forced a thorough investigation of the problem and in the other has hidden from those most vitally concerned the realization of the grave menace involved.

It is certain that organized labor is no less patriotic and no less mindful of its own interests in Washington than in California; it will not knowingly sell its birthright for a mess of pottage served on the Japanese docks, nor will it deliberately encourage or permit conditions which must lead in time to control of this white man's country by an alien, nonassimilable race of yellow people.


Wherein then lies the difference in conditions which has made California labor as well as California farmers and business men, fraternal organizations, civic bodies, women's clubs, and unattached individuals practically a unit in fighting this evil with all the State's power, and demanding of the Federal Government that it exert its authority to put an end to it?

California has better opportunity to study the problem, and has improved that opportunity during the past year to the limit. In this State reside more than 100,000 Japanese, two-thirds of all those in continental United States, twice as many as have located in the 47 other Sates combined, and in this State the 100,000 have concentrated in a few localities where their plans of peaceful penetration can secure best results with least effort, 75 per cent being found in 7 of our 58 counties.

Then, for a year past, California has cast the limelight of searching investigation on the effects of Japanese immigration here, and the efforts to deceive the American people in regard thereto through clever propaganda. In June, 1919, the writer's statement before the House Immigration Committee exposed the inevitable effects which must follow the success of Sidney Gulick's plans for extending privileges as immigrants and citizens to Asiatics, through passage of his percentage Immigration bill. Hearings before both House and Senate Immigration Committees in September and October, 1919 drew still further attention thereto. The American Legion, the Native Sons of the Golden West, organized labor, two exclusion leagues (one operating above the Tehachapi and one below), and other instrumentalities took up the fight in California, and as a result we will vote in November on an initiative protective measure. In Congress Senator Phelan and other members of the California delegation were most active.

Under instructions of the State legislature, the State Board of Control made an exhaustive study of the effects of Japanese immigration in California, and presented the result thereof in an admirable and convincing report, given to the public in August of this year. The calm and deliberate statement of facts made therein will convince any intelligent and unprejudiced American investigator. Upon this statement Gov. Stephens based his letter to the State Department at Washington, presenting in a dignified manner the reason why the Federal Government should at once protect the States of the Union, including California, from the grave menace threatening them. And to cap all, there have been the hearings in California of the House Committee with the opportunity to present the various findings on the subject in proper shape for official consideration.

What, then, are the conclusions drawn from this assembling of facts and data, which have unified the State on this issue? And particularly, wherein is organized labor so much concerned in the result?


What the Japanese will do to white labor whenever the opportunity offers, and whenever the rewards are sufficiently enticing, is well demonstrated by the recent incident at Turlock, in Stanislaus County, which came under observation of the Congressional Committee, and was given wide publicity in the newspapers. There, in July of this year, 1,000 Japanese were brought in to take the handling of the cantaloupe crop away from white labor, the moving reason being that white labor was receiving 35 cents a crate for the service, while the Japanese offered to do it for 26 cents. As a result 600 white laborers, many of them returned soldiers, were thrown out of work and compelled to scatter, thus defeating the plans of the Fruit Workers' Association, which had so organized its white labor, in an effort to solve the migratory labor problem, that such labor could move from section to section as the various crops matured and had to be handled. Among those who testified before the Congressional Committee on the subject was Charles Perry Taylor, general organizer of the American Federation of Labor, who was attempting to aid the white workers in their defensive fight against the Japanese.

If the whites are permanently driven out of the labor field in the Turlock cantaloupe district, results will follow there similar to those which have obtained in the Rocky Ford melon district in Colorado, and which have been noted in various districts in California. First, Japanese wages will rise to and beyond the price before asked by the whites; next, the Japanese will decline to handle the crop as wage earners and will insist on leases, or crop contracts; and finally, they will secure entire control of crop and district through lease or ownership, or both.

Our pro-Japanese friends insist that Japanese do not compete with whites because they insist on high wages. They do demand high wages, after the whites are driven out of business, or for any reason are not available as competitors.

And so, members of organized labor, now complacently enjoying good wages and good conditions under Japanese employment on the docks of Seattle and Tacoma, will find their jobs melt away when the Japanese are sufficiently strong to supplant them by Nipponese. How many white men are now employed in any capacity whatever on the big Japanese liners traveling between San Francisco and the Orient? There used to be many.

These, however, are only immediate and local results of Japanese immigration. Organized labor is intelligent enough and broad enough to recognize that these results, serious as they may be, are not so grave as the general results to the white community and to the American Nation which must follow fruition of Japan's carefully laid plans to colonize the richer portions of the United States. Labor, which is dominant in Australia, has been far-sighted in entirely excluding the Japanese, with other Asiatics, from that land.


Under the Japanese plan of peaceful penetration, effort is concentrated in one or a few localities until control thereof is secured. As the Japanese increase in numbers through immigration and birth, other favored localities will be invaded and control wrested from the whites. Turlock provides a glimpse of the initial stage. In this State, in the Imperial Valley, Florin, portions of Merced, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento, Placer, and other counties are seen various progressive stages leading up to absolute control, with thinning out of the white population.

What we see very clearly in this State has now commenced in Seattle; in the Hood River, and other districts of Oregon; in Colorado and Nebraska; in western Texas and eastern New Mexico; in northern Florida and notices of progress made and advantages offered in these various localities, as published in the Japanese newspapers, encourage migration of newly arriving or unsettled Japanese to these growing communities.

So that what has already happened in Hawaii, where more than half of the total births and school registrations are now Japanese, what is happening in California, and what has commenced in a few other States is simply a forecast of what will inevitably take place in every State in the Union where there is rich agricultural land unless the Japanese immigration movement be stopped.

Remember that it is hopeless for the white race to meet the Japanese in economic competition; not even the thrifty races of northern Europe can do that. Their lower standards of living, their willingness to work long hours (both men and women), their cooperation and concentration, their thrift and industry, combine to make the Japanese easy victors in such a competition.


Their birth rate is another factor of danger pointing inevitably to the time when they will conquer this country by sheer force of numbers, if present conditions continue. The California State Board of Health announces that for 1919 the Japanese birth rate per 1,000 in California was 46.44, and that of all other races, including whites, only 16.59 -- nearly three to one. This in face of the fact that among Japanese in California the adult males outnumber the females three and one-half or four to one, while among other races the proportion is about one to one.

Give the Japanese an equal proportion of females, as was urged before the Congressional Committee, and their birth rate per thousand would be 10 times that of the whites. Dr. J. L. Pomeroy, health officer of Los Angeles County, declares that on the basis of the established birth rates the Japanese would equal the whites in number in California in 100 years if no further immigration of any kind came into the State. At present the whites outnumber the Japanese about 30 to 1.


What adds immeasurably to the menace is that the Japanese, with their overwhelming birth rate and their advantages in economic competition, are unassimilable, and if they increase greatly in number in this country, or in any section of it, must create another race problem. For biological reasons, the races differing so materially, assimilation by intermarriage is impracticable, and probably not good for either race. To create an alien, unassimilable community in our midst is certain to lead to trouble. When that community is composed of members of a war-like nation like Japan the trouble would be serious. Similar trouble would occur if 100,000 Americans were to establish themselves in Japan on agricultural lands and in business communities. In such case the trouble would come much sooner, because the Japanese would be less tolerant.

The Japanese, with few exceptions, can not and will not assimilate, even in ideals and socially, because of national inhibition through heredity and teaching, because of inclination and religion, and because their Government insists that the Japanese, even when born under our flag, is a Japanese citizen, owes full allegiance as such, and must be educated along the lines of a true subject of the Mikado. No people who believe that their Mikado is the living God, to whom all subjects owe their very existence, and who hold that, because of superiority, their mission is ultimately to conquer or lead the nations of the earth, as do the Japanese, can be counted on to furnish good material for our brand of American citizenship. And if they can not make good citizens, their presence in large numbers is a menace.


It is evident that labor and all other interests of the nation are dependent upon production in the agricultural districts. A general strike among the farmers of the country would drive the city workers to starvation. It is equally evident that no nation can afford to permit control of its agricultural production to pass into the hands of an alien, virile, unassimilable race, which it has permitted to peacefully penetrate the country. But that is precisely what is happening in certain districts of the United States, notably California, where the Japanese are fast securing control of the rich lands through ownership and lease.

It will inevitably happen in all districts of the nation unless the necessary remedy is speedily applied. In some of our counties, orientals, largely Japanese, already control from 50 to 75 per cent of the rich irrigated lands.


California's citizenship, including labor solidly massed, has sprung to the defense in promoting an initiative measure -- No. 1 on the November ballot -- which will prevent for the future either lease or ownership of our agricultural lands by aliens negligible to citizenship. The majority rolled up for that measure will undoubtedly be a very large one -- but let it be remembered that the larger the majority the more convincing will be the demonstration to the people of other States, who have not had our opportunity for investigation and conclusion. It will bear witness to our deep conviction that Japanese immigration is a most serious national problem, grave beyond measure, and calling for immediate action; that it menaces labor, and all interests of the nation alike, and that the Federal Government, in protection of other States, as well as California, should act at once.

That initiative measure, to which Japan is offering strenuous diplomatic objection, at Washington, accords to Japanese in this State all rights as to agricultural lands which an American may enjoy in Japan -- it insures to the Japanese all rights conferred by treaty, but specifically withholds rights not so granted, where they concern agricultural lands. The various provisions are designed to put a stop to the deliberate violation of the intent of the alien land law of 1913.

By what right do Japan and the pro-Japanese Americans demand that we shall grant -- to our ultimate undoing -- rights to Japanese in California which Japan wisely forbids to Americans in Japan?

Let every red-blooded Californian remember that the Japanese deliberately and frankly announce their intention of colonizing this country, whether we like it or not. The following extracts are from an editorial published in October, 1919, in Shin Sekai, The New World, a leading Japanese newspaper of San Francisco, and translated for the Sacramento Bee:
"Let us consider the land law. Supposing... that we Japanese were prohibited from owning or cultivating land... If we can not conveniently do so in California we shall go to other States and devise some plan. Even the laws of California are not forever unchangeable."

"The day will come when the real strength of the Japanese will make a clean sweep of all laws."

"Even the Kaiser's Empire was destroyed when its time came."

"What can Phelan and Inman... do to stop the forward movement of our Yamato race?"
Californians, in this trying situation, owe it to themselves and to the cause to countenance no overt or unfriendly act against the Japanese, but to express themselves unmistakably at the polls and by other legal methods, to the end that the necessary remedies may be applied by State and Nation. Any less decided course must earn for us the contempt of those familiar with the facts.


Yesterday the Bee published a special from Auburn giving authentic particulars of the dismissal from employment by the Placer Packing Association of eight or nine white girls and the hiring of six Japanese men to take their places.

Manager Culper of the Association was quoted as saying that it was more than satisfied with the change; that the white girls had worked only 8 hours a day, while the Japanese were willing to work 15 hours, or even more, on a pinch, and were packing twice or two and a half times as many boxes in a day as the girls had done.

His only excuse -- if it be an excuse -- was that the packing plant was too small to permit of hiring as many girls as would be needed to handle all the fruit coming in, arid he said that if there were more room no Japanese would have been employed.

This is a case highly illustrative of the evil and danger of Japanese immigration, and of the impossibility of white competition with Japanese or other oriental labor without degradation to low Asiatic standards of living.

With Japanese willing to work 15 hours or even more a day, what show has white labor to compete with them?

California has laws to protect girls and women from being obliged to work too many hours a day, but there is no protection against such health-wrecking competition as this.

Accordingly, where Japanese or other oriental laborers are to be had, there is nothing but public sentiment to prevent their getting jobs away from white girls and women, as in this Placer County instance.

The Placer Packing Association, in displacing white girls by Japanese men, has not distinguished itself in public estimation.

But it has at least furnished a striking and historic example of the need of the Oriental Exclusion League and of all such measures of self-protection as California has taken or is seeking in this regard.




Eight or nine white girls employed in the plant of the Placer Packing Association here have been dismissed and Japanese laborers taken on to fill their places.

The association, of which F. Culper is manager, and which includes in its membership J. A. Teagarden, A. Ammon and other prominent fruit growers, is more than satisfied with the results of the change. This is according to Culper.


Culper stated to-day that the girls only turned out from 200 to 250 packages of fruit a day, while the six orientals who took their places are packing from 400 to 500 packages a day.

Culper declared that this was possible because the white girls could work only 8 hours a day while the Japanese work 15 hours a day and more in a pinch.

"It was simply a case of moving the fruit," Culper said.


Culper stated that the plant is a small one with only 10 stalls at most for the fruit packers.

"We simply did not have the room to employ enough white help to pack the fruit as it came in," was his explanation. "If we had room for 30 people to work in the packing house, no Japanese would be employed."



(From Sacramento Bee, Oct. 24, 1919.)

Abolishment of birth control, and immediate population of America with Japanese, is the principal step looking toward the solution of the so called Japanese American problem, according to a writer signing himself Kochiku Higashi, in Nichi Bei, the Japanese American, a San Francisco Japanese newspaper. The writer, who by his use of language shows himself to be highly educated, stakes everything upon the plan to crowd this country with Japanese.

He deals at length with the glories of Japanese civilization and says Americans have suddenly changed their admiration of Japan to fear of that country.


"They wish to kick Japan down to international isolation," he says, "and confine development of her people to one small island country. Truly it is a laughable and villainous plot.

"Let those who live in separate houses immediately get together in one house. Let newly married people at once adopt sons and have them registered. Let married people without children adopt sons and bring them immediately a lovely bride. And let everyone who has dependent relatives bring them here. Awake -- even we can not expand our country's borders, let us expand with all speed the race of which we are justly proud.

"Well, as I am about to leave Los Angeles for the East, I venture earnestly to advise our beloved fellow countrymen on this coast as follows: 'Beget! Beget! Beget!' I have many things to advise our good countrymen, more than could be counted on my 10 fingers, but at this time I emphasize this one thing, leaving the others for another occasion.

"What I mean is simply this, I firmly believe it is only by the propagation of Yamato race by every good Japanese that we can solve the anti-Japanese, nay American Japanese problem. And this is the conclusion (without giving explanations and arguments) to which I have arrived during the past year. For the next 10, 20, 50, or 100 years, beget, beget. Children, boys and girls, will be treasures more valuable to your countrymen than hundreds of millions of gold. And at the same time, they are the supreme treasures for the development of our race."


(Correspondence of the Associated Press.)

Tokyo, September 15.

A relatively small number of American-born Japanese have applied to the Japanese consulate at San Francisco for expatriation, or removal of Japanese citizenship, but the cases of refusal of expatriation have been few in proportion to those where permission has been granted, according to a statement to the Associated Press by the Japanese foreign office.

In view of the interest surrounding the question of "dual citizenship" which was brought up at the recent sessions at San Francisco of the Congressional Committee on Naturalization and Immigration, the correspondent requested the foreign office to furnish an authentic statement explaining the Japanese viewpoint with reference to petitions from Japanese in California and Hawaii for release from their Japanese citizenship.

Y. Matsuoka, who was attached to the Japanese delegation at the Paris peace conference, and who is now the active head of the bureau of information, acted as spokesman for the foreign office, after several days investigation of the subject at issue.

Taking up the testimony of Rev. Albert W. Palmer, of Honolulu, at the San Francisco Inquiry that several thousand Hawaiian-born Japanese had signed a petition asking Japan to release them from Japanese citizenship so that they might be privileged to exercise full American citizenship without "dual citizenship," Mr. Matsuoka said that the truth is that the Japanese section of the Legion of Honolulu in Hawaii presented, in the name of its secretary, a petition to the Japanese Government to urge the latter to take the necessary steps to modify the provisions contained in the Japanese law of nationality, so that they might not have dual citizenship. He added: "This petition came from persons above the age of 17 years and from men enrolled in the American army under the selective service law of 1917. Let me say that the Japanese Government replied to this petition that the modification of the law of nationality as desired by the petitioners is not an easy matter for the moment, as it requires special legislative preparations." Mr. Matsuoka said that the Tokyo government had received no general applications from Japanese children in Hawaii, but if such arrived each case would be treated on its merits in accordance with the law.

This led to the question of age in making the applications. The Japanese law permits a Japanese boy born abroad to apply for expatriation between the ages of 15 and 17. A San Francisco Japanese newspaper has been quoted as saying that a California-born Japanese, living at Port Angeles, Wash., had been refused expatriation because, although he was not 17 years of age according to the American method of computation, he was a little over 17 according to the Japanese method which counts the months previous to birth.

"Such an information must have been based upon a misunderstanding," declared Mr. Matsuoka. "It is true that Japanese custom at home gives the child one year of age at the moment of birth, but this custom is not followed in our law of nationality. The method of age computation therein fixed and followed is quite similar to that of the American law, namely, the age is computed by the number of months after birth and one year of age is a full 12 months of earthly existence."

Mr. Matsuoka was asked about a statement appearing in the official report of the California State Board of Control on Japanese immigration that Mr. Ishii, the Japanese vice consul at San Francisco said that not over a dozen American-born children had signed the "Declaration of losing nationality" provided by the Japanese law and pointing out that so far as could be learned none of these have been accepted by the Japanese Government.

Mr. Matsuoka thought the alleged statement of Mr. Ishii should be interpreted, as stated above, that only a small number of Japanese had applied. Some of them were refused, he explained, for reasons specified in the law of nationality, but he added: "Against 64 permissions given, there are only 9 cases of refusal on applications of expatriation made by Japanese in the United States."

"Now to get down to the nationality law itself," Mr. Matsuoka went on, "let us see if I can throw any light on this complicated question of dual citizenship. In the first place, the fundamental of our law known as No. 66, which was promulgated in May 1899, is that a person who has acquired a foreign nationality of his own choice loses Japanese nationality. The law then proceeds to explain under what conditions a Japanese may be permitted from our standpoint to acquire foreign nationality, mentions limitations and provides processes. Article 20 bis stipulates that a Japanese subject acquiring foreign nationality by birth abroad may be expatriated with the permission of the home minister. In case the person is under 15 the application can be made by a legal representative; if a minor above 15 the application can be made with the consent of his legal representative. The obligation to military service undoubtedly forms a basis for the conditions. Under the conscription laws of Japan a boy of 17 is liable to military service. Article 24 of the law we are discussing is designed to prevent a Japanese subject from shirking military service by expatriation. It declares that notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding articles, a male of 17 years or upward does not lose Japanese nationality unless he has completed active service in the army or navy, or he is under no obligation to enter into it. But of course when expatriation is granted the obligation to military service ceases."

Mr. Matsuoka continued: "Now it may not be useless to give a brief explanation of the underlying legal principles of our law, because they are entirely different from those of Anglo-Saxon countries.

"The Japanese law, like the laws of continental Europe and unlike the Anglo-American system, recognizes allegiance to the state by reason of blood-descent and not according to the place of birth. The Japanese law adopts the so-called jus sanguinis principle on the question of nationality, contrary to that of jus soli adopted in the American jurisprudence. A Japanese child is a Japanese if his or her father is a Japanese at the time of his or her birth, regardless of whether the child is born in Japan, in the United States, or in Russia. A child whose father is not known or possesses no nationality is a Japanese, provided that his or her mother is a Japanese.

"The Japanese law does not follow the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. Article 20 of the Law of Nationality recognizes the right of expatriation.

"To remedy the difficulty which may result from the regulations for a Japanese born in foreign countries where jus soli is adopted, the Japanese Government presented in 1916 an amendatory law to the Diet, which became article 20 bis of the Law of Nationality. The object of this amendment is to open the way, under the present law of conscription of expatriation for Japanese boys born in Hawaii or in any States of the American Union. Article 20 bis provides that a Japanese boy who has acquired a foreign nationality by reason of his birth, provided he has domicile in that country, may divest himself of the Japanese nationality, if his father or other parental authority takes the necessary step for him before he is 15, or, if he has attained the age of 15, he may take the step himself with the consent of his father or other parental authority before he attains the age of 17.

"This amendment is a concession made in favor of the Anglo-American territorial principle by Japan, whose legislation on nationality observes strictly the principle of personal allegiance jus sanguinis.

The aforementioned points may be summarized in a few words:

"That the Japanese legislation adopts in the matter of nationality the principle of jus sanguinis, that the Japanese laws of conscription do not permit the expatriation of a soldier, that a way of expatriation is opened for Japanese under full 17 years of age, and that this measure has been introduced into the Japanese law in order to avoid the difficulties which may result from the difference of legal principles adopted in different countries of the world.

"The dual citizenship of a Japanese born in the United States is an inevitable consequence of the difference of legal principles adopted by Japan and the United States on the subject of nationality. The Japanese legislation has given, however, a reasonable facility for the expatriation of Japanese boys born in foreign countries, including the United States."



(The Sacramento Bee, June 13, 1921.)

In a statement which appeared in the Sacramento Bee May 18, concerning personnel of the so-called American League (or Committee) of Justice, which was active during the initiative campaign last year in favor of the Japanese, and is now pursuing similar activities in the Eastern States, reference was made to Col. John P. Irish as a paid attorney of the Japanese Association of America. The statement was made on behalf of the Japanese Exclusion League of California by V. S. McClatchy, who had just returned from Washington, where he had represented the league.


A letter received by the Bee within the past few days from F. Takimoto, general secretary of the Japanese Association of America, explains that this statement as to Col. Irish is incorrect and apparently based upon misunderstanding; that the reorganized Japanese Agricultural Association of California has affiliated, but not consolidated, with the Japanese Association of America, and remains an independent body; and that the only purpose of affiliation is to assist in carrying out a program of agricultural development in the State.

"Col. John P. Irish was nominated," Secretary Takimoto explains, "as an adviser -- not a counselor or attorney -- and not in any way for hire -- of the Agricultural Association."


The advisers of the agricultural association, he says, are to be those who have given distinguished service for the achievements of the association, and Americans or Japanese of high social standing or education. Under the by-laws, these advisers may meet several times a year, "to promote friendly and cooperative relations between Americans and Japanese in agricultural processes."

Mr. Takimoto also explains that "the Japanese Association of America has considered plans for the creation of a legal aid bureau, but the agricultural association has nothing whatever to do with such plans."


Mr. McClatchy stated to a Bee reporter that he accepts Mr. Takimoto's statement as conclusive that Col. Irish is an unpaid adviser and not a paid counselor or attorney for the Japanese Agricultural Association. The assumption that Col. Irish was paid for his services arose, Mr. McClatchy says, from the fact that the Japanese newspapers explained the close relations brought about in reorganization between the Japanese Association of America and the Japanese agricultural associations, the establishment of a paid legal department whose services are to be available for the agricultural associations, and a failure to observe the distinction in translation between advisers and counselors or attorneys.


The following details as to the affiliation between the various Japanese organizations of the State and activities in connection therewith are gathered from translations of items which appear in Nichi Bei and Shin Sekai, the two daily Japanese newspapers of San Francisco, during the past three months:

It is to be remembered first that the Japanese Association of America is governed, as an instrument of the Japanese Government, by the Japanese consul general of San Francisco. That is affirmed by Shin Sekai, the Japanese daily newspaper of San Francisco, and also by Dr. Yoshi Kuno, Japanese professor of oriental languages at the University of California. Dr. Kuno has also explained in published articles how the individual Japanese of the State are kept subject to control of the various Japanese associations by being refused consular certificates for personal and business matters unless they are good, and a particular Japanese never knows how soon he may be in serious need of such a consular certificate.

Under the reorganization the agricultural associations have been placed in closer touch with and under more direct control of the Japanese Association of America, as shown by the plan adopted.


The Japanese Agricultural Association of California, of which Toyoji Chiba is managing director, has not been consolidated, it is claimed, with the Japanese Association of America, but remains "an independent body." It has certainly been made in effect a department of the Japanese Association of America, its selected officers being subject to approval by the latter organization, its legal affairs being cared for by, and its revenues going partially to, the greater association.

For instance, at a meeting of directors of the California Agricultural Association, May 5, as reported in Shin Sekai, May 6, appointments were made of new directors to fill vacancies at Sacramento and Stockton, and also of an assistant manager, Mr. Matsuoka, all "subject to approval of the board of directors of the Japanese Association America." It was decided also that each local Japanese association is to choose its committeemen "after consultation with the board of directors of the Japanese Association of America." Also the budget of the agricultural department for the current year was fixed at about $5,000, "subject to approval of the board of directors of the Japanese Association of America."


On April 5, at San Francisco, according also to Shin Sekai, under call of the Japanese Association of America, managing directors of local Japanese organizations met with officers of the parent association to confer on various matters, including the new legal department, a new official organ, immigration, and expatriation. The organizations represented included those of Marysville, Courtland, Florin, Watsonville, Walnut Grove, Fresno, San Benito, Lodi, Isleton, Santa Cruz, Vacaville, Kings County, Intermountain District, Stanislaus, Berkeley, San Mateo, Northern California, Palo Alto, Stockton, Oakland, and San Francisco.

At this meeting the opening address was made by Mr. K. Kanzaki, then secretary of the Japanese Association of America. He explained the necessity for closer union between that organization and the local associations in view of the fact that the problems confronting the Japanese in California are no longer merely local but common to all. There must be, therefore, cooperation in all plans and purposes.


Plans for various departments were discussed and elaborated, the agricultural department to include all agricultural associations; a law department to employ and pay white attorneys, the expense to be met out of a fund secured from assessments of local organizations, landholders, and leaseholders, and the legal expenses of all local associations to be paid therefrom; an educational department, etc. The plan very carefully provided for control of all local associations by the Japanese Association of America through a veto on election or appointment of officers of such associations and through control of their legal business and through supervision of their finances. These measures of control are supplemented by the power of the consul general at San Francisco, as representative of the Japanese Government, in extending or withholding consular certificates necessary for business and personal transactions and in making trouble for the individual with the home Government.


Later announcements mention, in addition to Col. John P. Irish, others who have been named as "advisers" either for the Japanese Association of America or for the Japanese Agricultural Association of California. These advisers seem to have been taken in large part from members of the American committee of justice, which was active in opposition to the initiative alien land law during the campaign last fall. That committee included Col. Irish, Guy Calden, leading attorney for the Japanese in cases involving violation of law; L. M. Landsborough, who held land for Japanese in violation of the law; missionaries, coast heads of Japanese Sunday schools, large landowners who rent to Japanese because the profits are greater; and others actuated by personal feeling or interest in securing for the Japanese rights in opposition to the law.

Preservation of a People - Table of Contents