Japan and the California Problem

(1) All aliens not eligible to citizenship and whose home government has no treaty with the United States providing such right cannot own or lease land;

(2) All such aliens cannot become members or acquire shares of stock in any company, association, or corporation owning agricultural land;

(3) These aliens cannot become guardians of that portion of the estate of a minor which consists of property which they are inhibited by this law from possession or transfer;

(4) Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act by aliens shall escheat to and become the property of the State of California.

The difference between the old and the new laws is that in the new law evasion is made entirely impossible by prohibiting the Japanese from buying or selling land in the names of their children or through the medium of corporations.A novel feature of the new law is that it forbids the three-year lease which was allowed by the old law.

The opponents of the newly enacted law claim that it is unwise because, if it proves effective, it will have driven a large number of capable and industrious farmers out of agriculture, thereby causing no little inconvenience to the people in getting an abundant supply of table delicacies.Even the report of the State Board of Control admits that “the annual output of agricultural products of Japanese consists of food products practically indispensable to the State’s daily supply,” and adds that their sudden removal is not wise.[42] If, on the other hand, the law fails—and that there is abundant possibility of it the sponsors of the law themselves admit—critics insist that it will result in no gain, but “it merely persecutes the aliens against whom it is directed, and sows the seed of distrust in their minds,” and further it will occasion an unnecessary ill-feeling between America and Japan. Presenting the reasons for opposing the new land measure, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce stated:

The clause denying the right to lease agricultural lands is ineffective in operation. It may prove irritating to the Japanese people, but it will not prevent them from occupying lands for agricultural purposes under cropping contracts for personal services, which cannot be legally prohibited to any class of aliens.

This is what Governor Stephens referred to when he confessed that the law can be evaded by legal subterfuge, which it is not possible for the State to counteract.And California has no lack of lawyers, who are resourceful and ready enough to teach the Japanese the technical way of evading the law.

The advocates of the new law, on the other hand, argued that anything is better than nothing to show their disapproval of Japanese domination in agriculture, and pointed to the Japanese law regarding foreign land ownership as an example of foreigners not being allowed to own land.If Japan does not permit the ownership of land by Americans, they argue, by what right do the Japanese demand the privilege in America?This apparently does not hit the point since in case of Japan the prohibition of land-ownership is not discrimination against any single nation or people, whereas the case of California is.We may, however, cursorily touch here upon the status of foreign land ownership in Japan.

Land Laws of Japan.

Under present regulations there are three ways in which foreigners may hold land in Japan, viz.:

(1) By ordinary lease running for any convenient term and renewable at the will of the lessee.The rent of such leased property is liable to a review by the courts, after a certain number of years, on the application of either party;

(2) A so-called superficies title may be secured in all parts of Japan, save what is called the colonial areas, running for any number of years.Many such titles now current run for 999 years.These titles give as complete control over the surface of the land as a fee-simple title would do.

(3) Foreigners may form joint stock companies and hold land for the purposes indicated by their charters.They are juridical persons, formed under the commercial code of Japan, and are regarded just as truly Japanese legal persons as though composed solely of Japanese.It will thus be seen that in practice foreigners can take possession of land in Japan about as effectually as in fee simple.

On April 13, 1910, the Japanese Diet passed a land law which embodied, among others, the following provisions:

This law was severely criticized by both liberals and foreigners on account of its too conservative provisions, and as a consequence it was not promulgated by the Emperor for the time being.In the legislative session of 1919, the Government introduced to the Diet a revised bill embodying more liberal principles and omitting all features in the law of 1910 considered objectionable by foreigners.Unfortunately the Lower House was suddenly dissolved by the deadlock encountered on the issue of universal suffrage before the proposed law was voted on.The Japanese Government, it is reported, has drafted a new law with the intention of introducing it to the session of the Diet now sitting (January, 1921), the notable feature of which is the inclusion of Korea and other territories among the available lands for ownership by foreigners.

Effect of the Initiative Bill.

Already there are indications that the action of California has had its effect on the neighboring States.Similar legislation is mooted in Texas, Washington, Oregon, and Nebraska.When we consider that in those States the number of Japanese is very small and the amount of land-holding is simply negligible, the only explanation for the proposal is the influence of California, which has been deliberately strengthened by the direct appeal of Governor Stephens to other States for coöperation.In this way California is rather making the local situation worse, for by limiting the scope of discriminatory activity within her doors, she might have found a remedy for relieving the tension found therein through the dispersal of Japanese into other States.

It is not the purpose of this book to enter into a detailed examination of the legal aspects and technicalities of the new land law voted on by the California electorate.It may be found in contravention to the American Constitution by depriving certain residents legally admitted into this country of the “equal protection of the law” as guaranteed by that instrument.The Japanese Government may lay before the Federal Government a formal protest against the land law on the theory that it infringes on the Japanese-American Treaty of 1911, by running counter to the spirit of fairness pervading the document in withholding from Japanese aliens the rights and privileges enjoyed by aliens of other nationalities. Or it may be the intention of the Washington and Tokyo Governments to reach a mutual agreement by concluding a new treaty which will specifically state the rights to be conferred upon each other’s subjects, so that subterfuge will no longer be possible, and, on the other hand, will completely prevent the entrance of Japanese immigrants. We are not in a position to gauge the intent and nature of the proposed treaty, which is understood to be under way between the Japanese Embassy and the State Department, while it is in the stage of negotiation or discussion. Whatever may be the nature of the pourparler, it must be based on the conviction that neither legal contention nor diplomatic dispute will ever settle the vexed question.

America is the country of the people, and the Government is powerless unless it is supported by the people. The key to the solution, accordingly, must be found in the attitude of the people and not exclusively in legal or diplomatic arrangements. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the surest way of removing the difficulty is to study the causes that constitute the present California unrest and endeavor to eliminate them so far as it is within our power to do so.Only by regaining the genuine friendship of the people of California in this way can the Japanese in that State expect to free themselves from the unfortunate unfriendly pressure.

 

 

---

CHAPTER IX

ASSIMILATION

Nationalism and Assimilation.

In the question of assimilation we find the heart of the Japanese problem in California. The reader will probably recall that, in discussing California’s effort to counteract the progress of the Japanese in agriculture, we stated that there would be no ground for justification of the recent rigorous measure except on the assumption that the Japanese are unassimilable, and that they should not, therefore, be allowed to flourish in that State. He will also remember that we stated, in discussing the Japanese population in California, that, were it not for the apprehension of the probable impossibility of assimilating the Japanese, their increase in number either in California or in the United States was not an occasion for anxiety. These arguments implied our belief that the entire problem of the Japanese-California situation would finally resolve itself to one crucial point; namely, the question of assimilation. It is our profound conviction that if it be established that the Japanese are unassimilable, then decisive steps—much more decisive than any so far adopted—should be taken by both America and Japan in order to forestall a possible tragedy in the future.

We hold this view because the present state of world affairs allows us to entertain no other opinion.As long as our world order is such that its constituent units are highly organized, composite nations with independent rights and marked individualities, it is only natural that each nation should demand that foreigners entering for the purpose of permanent settlement conform in a large measure to the social order and ideals of the country.In case this is deemed impossible, the nation opposes any large influx of foreign races because of the necessity of maintaining its national unity and harmony.

Naturally, this tendency of conserving strict national integrity is strongest among the oldest and most highly organized States, and weakest among the new and loosely integrated countries.Countries like Japan and England, which have long, proud histories and traditions, and which are highly organized, are more strict about the way they take foreigners into their households.On the other hand, new countries like Australia and the South American republics, which have short histories and few traditions, are more or less liberal in admitting foreigners. This truth has been exemplified by the history of the United States. She has shown a marked laxity in this regard during the colonial and growing periods; but as soon as she achieved a more perfect national unity and consciousness, she began to manifest a strong tendency toward integration, exerting her energy on the one hand upon consolidation of her population and on the other upon excluding “squatters” who would not readily assimilate.

Whether or not such a nationalistic policy may be considered just, and whatever change the future may witness in this regard, the fact remains that not a single nation in the world at present discards or rejects the policy in practice.In the face of such a situation the only alternative for the Japanese in the United States, when they obstinately cling to their own ways of living and thinking, would be to go elsewhere.

This conviction of ours should not be confused with the hasty, groundless conjecture that the Japanese are a race utterly impossible of assimilation to American ways by nature and constitution.Most of the careless agitators who put forth statements to this effect start from the wrong end in their reasoning.They assume what ought to be proven, and forthwith proceed to formulate a policy on this assumption.They assume that the Japanese are unassimilable and conclude that, therefore, they should not be given an opportunity to progress. This is analogous to saying that because a child is ignorant he should not be sent to school, forgetting that the very ignorance of the child is due to the fact that he has been denied an education. They fail to see that their conclusion is the very cause of their premises. What we maintain is that when the Japanese shall have proved unassimilable, after all means for their assimilation have been exhausted, they should then be persuaded to give up the idea of establishing themselves in America.

Meaning of “Assimilation.”

A great deal of confusion arises from the ambiguity of the term “assimilation.”Its interpretations vary from the idea of a most superficial imitation of dress and manners to that of an uncontrollable process of biological resemblance or identity.Those using the term in the former sense, in face of the fact that the Japanese in their midst dress, talk, and live like Americans, consider it indisputable that they are assimilable.Those who use the word in a narrow sense of ethnological similarity, on the contrary, insist with equal conviction that the assimilation of the Japanese is absolutely impossible.Neither is wrong in reasoning, for assimilation, according to the accepted diction, means the process of bringing to a resemblance, conformity or identity—it is a relative term. Hence, in order to determine whether it is possible for the Japanese to become Americanized, it is necessary to find a standard by which the process can safely be gauged. Without this it is wholly absurd to say either that they are or are not assimilable. If the standard be fixed at physical identity with Americans, the Americanization of the Japanese is hopeless—at least for a few generations; but if it be fixed at conformity with American customs and social order, the Japanese have to a certain degree already been assimilated.

How is the criterion to be determined?Perhaps it may be found, like the standard of our morality, in practical usage; that is, in the accepted usages and customs of the United States.Here we can do no better than point out the traditional spirit of cosmopolitanism, or firm adherence to the policy of racial non-discrimination, which was sustained even at the costliest of sacrifices and which is inscribed in the immortal fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” If the supreme law as well as the traditions and customs of the land do not deny, on account of color or race, any person born in America the right of citizenship, it is apparently un-American to make racial similarity or conformity the standard of assimilability.

A nation, however, cannot maintain its own rights and honor among the family of nations without upholding its individuality.But America’s individuality does not consist in ethnological unity alone.It consists more in cultural and spiritual solidarity.America upholds her dignity and national rights with the strength of that patriotism of her people which is born of their active sharing in her culture and ideals, as well as of their common experiences of American life.Clearly, then, one criterion of Americanization is unmixed devotion and allegiance to the cause and welfare of the United States—devotion and allegiance not blindly compelled by force of imposition, but born of voluntary and unrestricted participation in American culture and ideals, religion, and industry; in short, in the entire American life.More concisely expressed, the required standard of assimilation in America is an active share in American life as a whole to such an extent that unmixed love and the will to devote self to the United States are no longer resistible.

The essence of Americanization was elucidated in simple and beautiful words by President Wilson in his memorable speech delivered at Philadelphia in 1915 before an audience of naturalized citizens of that city.He said in part:

Biological Assimilation.

With this clarified meaning of assimilation or Americanization, let us examine the assimilability of the Japanese.First of all, we shall take up the matter of racial amalgamation.Immediately the questions arise, “Is it possible to amalgamate the Japanese?Is it desirable to do so?Is it necessary to do so?”

To the first question, paradoxical as it may seem, careful observations compel us to reply that it is, and that it is not, possible to amalgamate the Japanese blood with the American.Just as there is no national boundary in science, so there is no human barrier in marriage.Truth and love appear to transcend all natural and artificial obstacles.That love defies racial difference has been amply proven in the United States, where all races are in the process of being fused together.It has no less conclusively been proven by the number of happy marriages that have taken place between Americans and Japanese in this country and in Japan.On the other hand, it is unthinkable that the Japanese should begin wholesale intermarriages with Americans in the near future, to the extent of losing their racial distinction.This is unthinkable because of the social stigma—and Americans as well as Japanese are extremely sensitive on the question of social environment—and the legal and economic handicaps which cause thoughtful persons of both nationalities, who take into consideration the welfare of themselves as well as of their descendants, to refrain from indulging in uncustomary marriages. It is more likely, therefore, that while here and there sporadic cases of intermarriage will continue to take place, and that such cases will gradually increase as the Japanese raise the degree of Americanization, it is wholly out of the question that under the present conditions of social, economic, and political encumbrances, the practice will prevail to any large extent.

This being the case, our second query—“Is intermarriage desirable?”—appears superfluous.Indeed, had it not been for the dangerous dogmatism inculcated by some willful propagandists that the result of intermarriage between Americans and Japanese is “the germ of the mightiest problem that ever faced this State; a problem that will make the black problem in the South look white,”[43] the subject would be purely an academic one. To allow this sort of baseless assertion to go unchallenged is extremely dangerous, because it exaggerates an unimportant point to misrepresent maliciously the whole question of the Japanese in the United States.

The conclusions of able observers, such as Dr. Gulick and Professor Millis, invariably confirm the fact that, as far as the ordinary means of observation go, the offspring of a Japanese and American couple is in no respect inferior to those of either American or Japanese unmixed descent.Professor Millis states:

So far as experience shows, there is nothing inherently bad in race mixture, if it takes place under normal conditions, and neither race is generally regarded as inferior and the offspring therefore given inferior rank, as in the case of the negro.[44]

From his extensive association with Japanese, Dr. Gulick has been able to make some valuable observations on this topic. He states in his important book, The American Japanese Problem:

The offspring of mixed marriages are oftentimes practically indistinguishable from Caucasians.The color distinction is the first to break down.The Japanese hair and eye exert a stronger influence.So far as the observation of the writer goes, there is a tendency to striking beauty in Americo-Japanese.The mental ability, also, of the offspring of Japanese and white marriages is not inferior to that of children of either race.[45]

These observations are valuable in refuting the kind of vile allegations we have quoted.But because of the limited number of cases observed, and the necessarily unscientific character of the observation, the utilization of these studies must be confined to pointing out the absurdity of the opposite extreme dogmatism and not extended to the constructive argument.

Even less reliable are the opinions of speculative biologists who by the use of analogy—that is, by examples of hybridization of plants and animals—try to throw light on the subject of racial intermarriage.In general, the assertions of these biologists agree that the intermixture of races too far apart is undesirable because it results in a breakdown of the inherent characteristics of each, but that the combination of races slightly different is more desirable than intra-racial marriage because it tends to invigorate the stock.To this extent, opinions concur; but as to the question what races may be considered similar and what races different they begin to disagree.Most of them divide the human races by the color of the skin, and state that the case of the black and white races is that of extreme intermixture, and cite that between two white races as a desirable one.When they are pressed to pass a verdict on the result of mixture between the yellow and white races, most of them give only vacillating replies, as in the following extracts:

Yellow-white amalgamation may not be fraught with the evil consequences in the wake of the yellow-black and the white-black crosses.At the same time, it should be pointed out that the Caucasians and the Mongolians are far apart in descent, and that the advantages to be gained by either in this breaking up of superior hereditary complexes developed during an extended past are not clear.[46]

Professor Castle is more precise in his assertion.He says:

Here, Professor Castle touches on the important question involved; namely, social inheritance.Indeed, human civilization is not all that is contained in germplasm.Mankind developed and accumulated an elaborate system of living conditions which operate independently of biological processes.However wonderful a brain a child has, he will have to remain a savage if he is born in a savage tribe of Africa or in a place where the level of culture is extremely low. In discussing the possible effect of intermarriage upon progeny, therefore, the cultural level of parents and their environment must first of all be taken into consideration. It is here that we find ground for opposition to intermarriage between Japanese and Americans at present. With some marked exceptions, the cultural standard attained by the mixed couples has on the whole been not of a very high order. This is inevitable when we consider that intermarriage between Japanese and Americans has not yet received full social sanction, thus obstructing free play to the process of natural selection. Aside from the purely biological consideration, this want of social approval of intermarriage, with its concomitant, an unenviable social position of the parents, results in an undesirable environment for the offspring.

The welfare of their progeny is not the only determining point of intermarriage.Is it, then, sufficiently happy for the couple?Our observations lead us to answer in the negative.To be sure, there are cases of fortunate marriages in which it seems impossible for the couple to be happier.But, on the whole, the husband and the wife often find it difficult to harmonize their sentiments and ideals on account of different antecedents.The inharmony seems to grow as the couple advance in age, rendering their lives miserable. The greatest stumbling block, however, seems to be economic. The Japanese in the United States who are engaged in the ordinary walks of life are offered very little opportunities save in farming on a small scale and in petty businesses. Regardless of their ambition or ability, the Japanese cannot get what are considered in America good positions. Hence, neither their positions nor incomes improve very rapidly—perhaps no advance is made. Most American women are not satisfied to follow a blind alley. They turn back and get a divorce. Exceptional cases, of course, are found in the American-Japanese couples, whose husbands have won distinction and wealth by extraordinary personal ability or by scientific or literary attainments, or by representing great firms of Japan.

Our discussion of intermarriage seems to suggest that it is not likely to occur, for some time at least, in large numbers; that as far as hereditary effect on progeny is concerned, it is wholly premature to pass any judgment at present because of our limited knowledge; but that the social as well as the economic position of the contemporary Japanese in America does not seem conducive to the happiness of either the children of such unions or their parents.

Is Assimilation without Intermarriage Possible?

Let us now consider the third question:—“Is intermarriage necessary for the assimilation of the Japanese?”The people, who argue that the Japanese should be discriminated against because they are biologically unamalgable, thereby commit themselves to maintaining that intermarriage is the only way by which Japanese may become true Americans.Governor Stephens states that California’s effort at Japanese exclusion is “based entirely on the principle of race self-preservation and the ethnological impossibility of successfully assimilating this constantly increasing flow of Oriental blood.”[48] Without questioning whence he derived the authority for the assertion that the Japanese are ethnologically impossible of assimilation, we wish to refute the contention that the Japanese are unassimilable because they are racially impossible of amalgamation. We believe that racial amalgamation is not a prerequisite of assimilation. We have already shown that the customs and traditions, as well as the supreme law of the United States, do not demand that all Americans be of one and the same race. This fact alone is sufficient condemnation of those baseless utterances which seek an excuse for failure and negligence in successfully fulfilling the duty of Americanizing aliens by the camouflage of race difference.

But there are other powerful reasons to support our view that race intermixture is not the only way to Americanize the Japanese.And this we find in the strong influence of environment on the physical and mental make-up of man.Perhaps the most significant anthropological contribution of recent times is the establishment of the truth that race is not a fixed thing, but that it is a changeable thing; changeable according to the conditions of environment.Professor Boas, a recognized authority on anthropology, found, in a strictly scientific investigation concerning the changes in bodily form of immigrants and their descents in America, that aliens change considerably in physical form after they come to America.His conclusions are:

A very similar result has been reached by Dr. Fishberg in his study[50] of the Jews in America, in which he found that the physical features of the Jews in the United States are changing considerably as the result of change in social elements.

Because of lack of scientifically established data pertaining to the physical change of Japanese descendants in America, we forbear from making any bold assertion on that topic. Yet, even to the casual observer, it seems almost undeniable that American-born Japanese children are fast departing from the type which their parents represent, thus corroborating the truth discovered by scientists. The Japanese Educational Association of San Francisco once conducted an extensive physical examination of Japanese children in twenty different grammar schools in California, and found (1) that they are generally superior in physical development to children of corresponding ages in Japan; (2) that in height they are from one to two inches taller than children in Nippon; (3) that in weight they are from three to seven pounds heavier; (4) that they have fairer skin when compared with that of their parents born in Japan; (5) that their hair is dark brown and not jet black, as is that of their parents; and (6) that their general posture is much better than that commonly seen among the children of Japan.[51]

These purely bodily changes of American-born descents may be attributed to the difference in diet, in mode of living, in climate, and in the mysterious power of the social milieu, of whose influence upon the physiology of man we are yet uninformed.It is well to remember that America is a wonderful melting pot which does not depend, in its functions, solely upon the biological process of cross-breeding, but also in a good measure upon the social and natural process of automatic conformity to type.

Cultural Assimilation.

The real criteria of Americanization being, as we have seen, a genuine patriotism and cultural refinement, it is in the light of these two points, more than in any other regard, that the question of Japanese assimilability must be examined.Patriotism is a peculiar emotion manifesting itself in love of one’s own country, in willingness to devote one’s self for the maintenance of national honor and welfare.It arises in us from our association, since early childhood, with things that surround us.We love things that we are used to; we cherish the mountains, rivers, and trees among which we were brought up; we hold dear the friends and people with whom we associated in our early childhood, and as we grow mature, we take pride in finding ourselves members not only of local communities and societies of various sorts but also of the family of a great nation whose ideals and history we inherit.These and numerous other things become a part of our life for which we do not hesitate to fight, and if necessary to lay down our lives.

This suggests that two things are necessary for the genesis of patriotism—native birth and a free sharing in the goods of life. While no generalization can be made off-hand, introspection reveals that, when we migrate to another country after we have grown up, it seems well-nigh impossible to find ourselves emotionally attached as closely to the adopted country as to the country of our birth. To be born in a country is the strongest factor in one’s patriotism. The Constitution of the United States in claiming all persons born in America as its citizens is clearly a product of master minds. Nativity alone, however, is not often sufficient to enkindle the fire of patriotism in our hearts. In the slave, to whom most of the goods of life were denied, to whom no active share in communal life was allowed, who was treated not as a member of the nation but as a tool, could mere nativity arouse strong love for his country? Only when the child is brought up in an environment of friendly spirit, encouragement, and sympathy does he learn to identify himself with the country.

How do we find the patriotism of the Japanese in America?Are they patriotic in relation to the United States?For all those Japanese who came to America as immigrants of mature age with the prime object of making money, the answer must be made in the negative.Born and reared in the beautiful country of Nippon among a most hospitable people, their love of Japan is surely stronger than their love of America. Trained and educated in the customs and traditions of Japan, imbued with the belief, ideas, and ideals that are peculiar to Japan, they would not know even how to avail themselves of the opportunity, supposing they were granted the rights and the freedom to share in the now forbidden privileges. To complete the inhibition, there are all sorts of handicaps placed on them, making it unthinkable that they should love this country. They cannot vote, they cannot get public positions, and now they can neither own nor lease the land in California. No; the Japanese immigrants in America do not love America more than they love Japan.

Assimilability of Japanese Immigrants.

How, then, about their cultural conditions? It is impossible here to compare the culture of the Japanese en masse with that of other people. We can take only a few specific points and see how they stand. Of course, in the absence of accurate data our conclusions are necessarily unscientific.

It is often alleged that the Japanese in the United States have a different standard of morality from that of the Americans, and as evidence of this allegation the attitude of Japanese men towards women is pointed out.Japanese men are really “bossy” in their attitude toward women, but that is the outcome of custom and should not be charged against their morals.They are often accused of being tricky, untrustworthy.We have already seen that there have been cases that justify such accusations, but that the cause was mostly due to their ignorance of legal processes and obligations, in which they sadly lack training.On the whole, the Japanese in America are law-abiding; they very rarely become public charges, and are peaceful and industrious.These facts even the most uncompromising Japanese exclusionist, Mr. J.M.Inman, admits as true, and states further that they are “sober, industrious, peaceful, and law-abiding, and contain within their population neither anarchists, bomb-throwers, Reds, nor I.W.W.’s.”[52]

That the Japanese in America have been able to make rapid progress in the Christian religion has been due to the generous aid and wise direction of the American churches. Within less than thirty years Christianity has become deeply rooted among the Japanese communities, exerting the most wholesome and powerful influence in uplifting their living conditions. In 1911, the Den Do Dan, or Japanese Inter-Denominational Mission Board, was organized with a view to carrying on a systematic campaign for evangelistic as well as community service.The Mission Board has been successful in propagating Christianity among the Japanese.This is clearly shown by the fact that at the present time there are sixty-one Protestant churches on the Pacific Coast, besides fifty-seven Sunday schools.The greatest success of the Board, however, has been attained in the field of practical social service, where the organization of young people’s Christian associations, the campaign against gambling and other vices, relief work among the needy, and the promotion of Americanization, have been successfully carried out.[53]

Judging from the small percentage of illiteracy and the complete system of Japanese compulsory education, the Japanese in America do not seem to be much behind the corresponding elements in the American population in average intelligence.Only in English are they markedly weak.The importance of a knowledge of the language in assimilation can hardly be exaggerated.It is the gate through which the alien can arrive at an understanding of American institutions and culture.The weakness of the Japanese in English is chiefly due to the radical difference of the language from their own. Statistics indicate, however, a decided increase in the number of those who can command English. The census of 1900 showed that less than 40 per cent. of the Japanese in America could speak English, but in the census of 1910 the rate increased to 61 per cent.[54] The rate for foreign-born whites in 1910 was 77 per cent.

The economic status of the Japanese appears to be about the same as that of European immigrants.This is indisputable from the sheer fact that the earnings of both are about the same.The only difference is that the Japanese show a tendency to mediocrity of earning power without becoming either paupers or millionaires.This is due to the fact that while there is an abundance of work offered to Japanese which enables them to earn a comfortable living, all avenues for a greater economic success are closed to them.No sooner do the Japanese show signs of some small success in agriculture than the privilege to till the soil is denied them.A similar restraint is now being attempted on the Japanese progress in fishing in California.In a sense, economic welfare is the foundation of cultural and spiritual progress, and to be denied the opportunity to make progress in this field is a heavy disadvantage.

The gravest defect of the Japanese is their lack of training in democratic institutions.Having been given little opportunity to share in public or political activities in Japan, their understanding and training in civic duties is notoriously weak.Obviously this must hinder the process of Americanization to a great extent.To counteract this weakness the dissemination among them of a knowledge of American civics is necessary.It may be most effectively done by allowing them to share in a measure the American communal activities.But this is a privilege denied them.

The foregoing discussion of the cultural conditions of the Japanese in America is important, not in determining whether or not the Japanese immigrants are qualified to become American citizens—for this is out of the question at present, since the right of naturalization is not granted to them—but to show what is the character of the influence which is exerted upon the native-born Japanese, Americans by birth, by their parents.The core of the Japanese problem in America is, in our opinion, whether or not American citizens of Japanese descent can become worthy Americans.Those immigrants who came from Japan will die out in the course of time, and further immigration can be stopped.In this way it is possible to curtail to a minimum the number of alien Japanese in the United States. But the American-born Japanese are American citizens and they are here to stay. Whether these young Americans will become a strong and successful element of the American people or whether they will degenerate to a kind of parasite and become America’s “thorns in the flesh” is really a question of cardinal importance. But this depends much on the freedom and opportunity which are extended to their parents in this country. Thus the treatment of the Japanese in California or elsewhere in the United States assumes an aspect of vital significance to the nation. It is not a question of the abstract principles of justice or equality alone, but one of concrete and vital interest to America’s own welfare.

It is in this connection that all sorts of pressure and oppression—economic, political, social, and spiritual—exerted on the Japanese population, become most objectionable and harmful.These discriminatory efforts against the Japanese obstruct the Americanization of native-born Japanese in two ways.They prevent the parents from becoming well-to-do and refined people, and from getting permanent occupation and homes, all of which are essential if parents are to bring up their sons and daughters to a respectable standard.They also unconsciously imprint on the tender minds of children the idea that their fathers and mothers were not treated kindly in America, whose loyal citizens they are destined to become. What do those exclusionists really mean, when they insist that the Japanese should be given no opportunity to progress either in agriculture or industry because they are unassimilable people? Do they mean thereby to check Japanese immigration? They surely cannot mean this, for there are other and more friendly ways of achieving their object, since Japan has more than once expressed her willingness to coöperate with America in this respect. What else can they mean but that they want to hinder the American citizens of Japanese descent from becoming worthy Americans by ostracizing and persecuting their parents?

Native-Born Japanese.

Fortunately, in spite of all unfavorable influence and environment created for them, the native-born Japanese show very hopeful signs of realizing perfect Americanization.Here again we do not wish to dogmatize, in apparent lack of scientific data, and assert that we need feel no apprehension.Yet the few data gathered on the subject from observation strongly point to the hopeful conclusion that as greater numbers of them approach mature age they are gradually becoming Americans by the accepted standard.They proved their patriotism to America during the great war by enlisting in the American army and navy. In their manner, address, and temperament these boys and girls are American, with an unconcealed air of American mannerism. In their fluent and natural English, in their frankness and bold recklessness, in their dislike of little and irksome tasks and love of big and adventurous undertakings, in their chivalry and gallantry, in their tall and well-built stature, these young people are wholly American, no longer recognizable as Japanese except in their physical features. Indeed, it is the common testimony of the Japanese visiting America that the Japanese children born and reared here differ so distinctly from children in Japan that in their manners, spirit, and even in the play of expression on their faces, they appear characteristically American. We cannot help being surprised by the completeness with which the so-called racial traits of the Japanese are swept away in the first generation of Japanese born in America.

The explanation for such a remarkable fact must be sought in the strong influence of social, national, and spiritual environment.We have seen how even the most stable elements of man’s physiological constitution may change in a new environment.This being the case, it may not be entirely surprising that less stable elements, such as temperament and expression, should change more rapidly and completely in a new social milieu. This fact is a deathblow to the theorists who uphold the à priori view of race, that it is a fixed, pure, unchangeable reality. It attests the truth of Mr. John Oakesmith’s thesis in which he so ably establishes that “the objective influence of race in the evolution of nationality is fiction,” and that the sole foundation and unifying force of nationality is the “organic continuity of common interest.”[55]

In the cross-examination of native-born Japanese children by the Congressional Sub-Committee on Immigration and Naturalization conducted on the Pacific Coast last spring, it was found that in almost all cases the children expressed the feeling that they like the United States better than Japan because they are more familiar and closely associated with things and people in America.This is doubtless an honest confession of their sentiment.They generally do not read or write Japanese because it is wholly different from English and so difficult.They learn from their parents that the life is hard and competition is keen in Japan.They know America is a great country, a land of liberty and opportunity.Naturally their interest in Japan is very slight, and they think they are Americans, and they are proud of it.[56]

These are the hopeful signs which offer us reason for being optimistic.We cannot, nevertheless, be blind to the fact that there are many obstacles which if left unchecked will tend to defeat our hopes.These obstacles we find, first, in the congested condition of the Japanese on the Pacific Coast.For convenience and benefit the Japanese have been living more or less in groups, speaking their own language to a large extent, and retaining many of the Japanese customs and manners.This tendency has been a great obstacle in the assimilation of the Japanese.Their dispersal in many other States of the Union is one of the first requirements of Americanization, and consequently of an equitable solution of the Japanese-California problem.We shall touch upon this subject in the concluding chapter.

 

 

---

CHAPTER X

GENERAL CONCLUSION

In dealing with the Japanese problem in California, we started with a general account of Japanese traits and ideas. We did so because we believed that a knowledge of the Japanese disposition is essential to a comprehensive understanding of the problem. No attempt was made to determine whether the traits of the Japanese—their emotional nature, their well-developed æsthetic temperament and strong group consciousness, and the unique feature of chivalry and virility prevailing among the lower classes—are inherent in the race or acquired; but we concluded that the question may best be answered by observing those of Japanese descent born and reared in different countries. Later, when we examined the characteristics of the American-born Japanese and discovered that they appear to have lost most of the Japanese traits, and, in turn, have acquired mental attitudes that are peculiar to the American, it was suggested that none of the racial characteristics is necessarily fixed, and that, similarly, the Japanese traits must have been largely acquired through peculiar natural surroundings and social systems.

Next we reviewed in a brief way Japan’s Asiatic policy in order to envisage the international situation in which she finds herself and to see how she proposes to meet her difficulties at home and abroad.We commented on the manifest shortcomings of that policy.In view of the fact that Japan’s industry—her only hope in the future—has to depend largely on the supply of raw material from her Asiatic neighbors, the assurance of good-will and friendly coöperation with them is essential for her welfare.It is in the failure to obtain this assurance that the defect of Japan’s past Asiatic policy becomes apparent.We expressed our conviction that under the circumstances the best that Japan can do is to so reconstruct the principle of the policy as to convince her neighbors of her genuine sincerity.

In the chapter on the background of Japanese emigration, an attempt has been made to discover its causes.The principal causes found are the small amount of land, the dense population, and the limited prospect of industrial development due to the scarcity of raw material.Moreover, the peculiar social and political conditions in Japan are such as to obstruct, by numerous fetters and restraints, the free development of ambitious youths. The exaggerated stories of great opportunities in the new worlds kindle the desire of the young people to go abroad.

Tentative attempts were made some thirty years ago in emigration to Australia, Canada, and the United States.Nearly a quarter of a century’s effort at emigration into the new worlds, with the exception of partial success in Brazil, had proved a complete failure, and thus attempts at migration towards the North came into vogue.

In our discussion of the causes of anti-Japanese agitation in California, it was made clear that the explanation of much of the trouble lies in the conditions of the Japanese themselves, such as congestion in particular localities and different manners and customs. The nationalistic policy of Japan was also pointed out as a factor making for resentment.What renders the situation unnecessarily complicated, leading to a general misunderstanding, is the employment of the issue in local politics—exploitation of the subject for private ends by agitators and propagandists.

Then our study entered the heart of the California problem, the fact of the existing Japanese population. It was discovered that the rate of increase of Japanese population in California has been rapid, but that it shows a tendency to slow down, while the rate of increase of the entire population of the State shows a tendency to steady increase.We found that in comparison with the total number of Japanese in the United States the percentage of Japanese in California is remarkably high, nearly 60 per cent.of them being domiciled in that one State.Then we examined the factors—immigration, smuggling, and births—which contributed to the increase of the Japanese population in California.Under the subject of immigration it was made clear that the net gain from immigration has become small since the restrictive agreement was concluded, but that the number of those entering the country increased because the number of those who are passing through or temporarily visiting America has increased.We expressed our opinion that in order to quiet the excitement of the people of the Pacific Coast it is entirely desirable to stop sending Japanese immigrants to America.

We have somewhat fully treated the subject of birth because it is a vital part of the question.It was discovered in the discussion that the birth rate of the Japanese in California is exceptionally high, due to the fact that a high percentage of the immigrants are in the prime of life and that the percentage of married people is remarkably high.In forecasting the future of the birth rate we stated that if immigration is stopped the present generation will in time pass out without being re-enforced, leaving behind American-born children, who, with higher culture and more even distribution with regard to age and marriage, will not multiply at nearly so high a rate as their parents. We concluded, therefore, that the present is a transitional period and that apprehension over the high birth rate is entirely unwarranted.

The chapter on Japanese agriculture in California gives report of a degree of progress that has been remarkable.As to the causes of this progress the peculiar adaptation of the Japanese farmers to the agricultural conditions of California was presented as the principal one.Then we considered separately the Japanese farm labor and the farmers.What we found in treating the subject of Japanese farm laborers was that they are indispensable to California’s agriculture, inasmuch as they have several important peculiarities which are useful.Their ability to farm and their aptitude for bodily and manual dexterity, as well as their highly transitory character under the system of contract labor, are useful assets to the farmers of California.Under the topic of the Japanese farmer, we examined the reasons given for the discrimination against Japanese in agricultural pursuits.The first reason—that they are “crushing competitors of California farmers”—was criticized on the ground that there is not much competition between white and Japanese farmers, since there is a pretty clear line of demarkation between them, the former being engaged in farming on a large scale and the latter engaged in small intensive agriculture. The second apprehension—that the Japanese farmer, if left unchecked, will soon control the greater part of California agriculture—was characterized as an entirely exaggerated fear, since the portion of land which the Japanese till is quite negligible and there are vast tracts of land yet uncultivated. The third objection—which finds reason for opposition in the unassimilability of the Japanese—we held as the weightiest count, and withheld criticism until we had fully treated the subject of assimilation in the succeeding chapter. What we insisted on was that it is unwise to maltreat the Japanese on the surmise that they are unassimilable. Whether they are assimilable or not—and this is not the question, for they are not allowed to become American citizens—their children, who are Americans by virtue of birth, will suffer much from a hostile policy towards their parents.

The anti-alien land laws were considered briefly, and the views of their critics were introduced.As an effective measure to cope with the legislation, we suggested that neither legal nor diplomatic disputes will bring about a satisfactory result, but that only through obtaining the good-will and friendship of the people of California can there be a true solution.

The topic of assimilation discussed in the preceding chapter needs no recapitulation.

The foregoing study, which we have undertaken from the outset with an open mind and fair attitude, has, it is to be hoped, disclosed that the underlying cause of the entire difficulty is a conflict or maladjustment of interest.There are four parties whose peculiar interests and rights are seriously involved in the situation.First and foremost, we have to consider the rights and interests of California.Then we have the United States, which is no less directly concerned with the problem.For the Japanese living in California, the issue is a matter of life and death; their entire interests and welfare are at stake.Japan also is as much concerned with the fate of her subjects in America as the United States would be with the welfare of her people living abroad—say in Mexico.The Japanese problem in California is the concrete expression of the maladjustment of the interests and rights of these four parties concerned.

Various measures, wise and unwise, have been proposed for the solution of the problem, but none of them has so far been put into effect, since each has failed to adjust the interests and rights of all parties concerned in an harmonious way, and hence has met with violent protest at the outset.

Take, for instance, the proposal that the Japanese should be granted the right of naturalization.The promoters of the project insist that the denial to the Japanese of the right to become citizens of the United States is the cause of the anti-Japanese exclusion movement, and, accordingly, that the granting of the privilege will annul all discriminatory efforts.Undoubtedly the proposal was well meant, but it has perhaps done more harm than good.In the first place, it confuses the cause and method of discrimination against the Japanese.The Japanese ineligibility to citizenship has certainly been seized on as a weapon for discrimination, but it is by no means the cause.The cause is elsewhere.In the second place, the advocates of the proposal argue that, if adopted, it will defeat the entire discriminatory efforts of the Californians.It is, however, decidedly unwise to attempt to defeat the effort without removing the cause of the difficulty.No wonder the proposal has provoked the wild criticism of California leaders.The granting of citizenship to refined and Americanized Japanese is in itself a proper and desirable step, but to use it as a weapon to defeat the exclusion movement is clearly unwise.

The solution of the Japanese problem in California, if it be equitable at all and satisfactory to the four parties involved, must rest on the following basic principles:

1.That it should be in consonance with justice and international courtesy; it must redress Japan’s grievances and meet America’s wishes.

2.That it should be fair to Californians; that is to say, operate to allay the fear they entertain of the alarming increase of Japanese in numbers and economic importance.

3.That it should be fair to the Japanese residents, both aliens and American-born, so that they may enjoy in peace, without molestation or persecution, the blessings of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and participate, as all American-born are entitled and in duty bound to do, in the promotion of the State’s well-being.

The new treaty, which is reported to have been laid for final decision before the Washington and Tokyo Governments by the two negotiators, Ambassador Morris and Ambassador Shidehara, has not been made public at this writing.We have, therefore, no means of knowing the contents or nature of its provisions.It may, however, be presumed that it will go a long way toward redressing Japan’s grievances and meeting America’s wishes.The latter will probably be met by Japan’s adoption of drastic measures to check completely the influx of her immigrants. Knowing that Japan has always been sincere and ready to yield to the wishes of the United States, we hold it only just that she be saved the embarrassment arising from discrimination against her subjects in America. Proud and sensitive, Japan takes to heart the abuses or indignities which she deems seriously detrimental to her national honor.

The conclusion of the Treaty and its ratification by the Senate, however, may not prove the panacea for all evils, for governmental action is naturally circumscribed in its sphere.To solve the perplexing question once for all, the Treaty must be supplemented by the patriotic efforts of public-spirited citizens of both countries to heal and adjust the irritated parts in the scheme of American-Japanese relations which are beyond the reach of governmental action.Viscount Shibusawa and some of his compatriots have, during the last year, held many conferences with some prominent Americans—those representing the Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco and the party headed by Mr. Frank Vanderlip.A better understanding of the situation must have resulted as a consequence of the conferences.The earnestness of the Viscount and his friends to do what they could for the good of both countries is beyond praise.But we fear they have been measuring America by Japan’s standard and trying to cure the trouble without remedying the cause. In Japan the counsel of a few influential men often proves effective even in local affairs, but in America, where local autonomy is strongly entrenched, a man, however prominent a figure he may have cut in national affairs, will think twice before he pronounces judgment on matters of local concern, lest it be construed as an intrusion, and thus defeat the good intention. The California question can only be settled by or in coöperation with the Californians, and right on the spot, not elsewhere.

We believe that the time has come, therefore, when those public-spirited citizens of both countries should replace academic discussion by action.As a means of alleviating the situation we venture to offer the following modest suggestion:

1.That a Committee of a dozen or so members, consisting of public-spirited men of broad vision of both countries, and particularly of California, be formed with the object of formulating and putting into effect the project of relieving the congestion of Japanese in California.

Such a Committee would doubtless be able to secure the hearty coöperation of The Japan Society of New York and other cities, as well as of the Japanese Association of America and similar organizations, all of which exist with a view to promoting friendly relations between America and Japan.

2.That the said Committee appoint an administrator of proved executive ability and a staff for the prosecution of the project.

3.That to finance the project an initial fund of half a million dollars be raised by contribution from the 120,000 Japanese living in this country.

The Japanese domiciled in this country have the keenest interest in the subject; they are directly or indirectly affected by the anti-Japanese agitation in California; they would not grudge a contribution of a small sum for the purpose of uprooting the cause of that annoyance.The Japanese in California who have interests at stake would surely be more than willing to contribute their quota to the fund.The native Californians, too, we strongly feel, in their calm and considerate mood, would obey the dictates of wisdom to adopt a more liberal and logical method of relieving the local tension than to resort, as at present, to measures of repression and persecution.

We are of the opinion that there would be a fair demand in other States of the Union for such skilled farm hands as we have found in the Japanese in California if the facts were well advertised.If proper precaution be taken so as to avoid the repetition of the same story of congestion as that in California, the plan of dispersal above outlined might prove a boon to all concerned. If the initial stage of the plan be earnestly carried out before the eyes of the Californians, a totally different atmosphere might be created among them so as to win their good will and enlist their coöperation. When such a happy outcome is obtained, a solution of the Japanese-California problem is assured.

There is certainly a great deal which the Japanese in California can and must do.In the first place, they must thoroughly grasp the psychology of the Californians.They must indicate, if they are to remain in this country, their willingness to become Americans regardless of barriers or opposition.They must show this willingness not only in intention but also in practice.They must improve their command of English, alter many of their customs and manners.They must endeavor to elevate their standard of living and culture.They must give up beliefs and ideals which are Japanese and which run counter to the American.It would be well for them to refrain from building in California Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples and from maintaining language schools.They must above all learn to take an interest in the national life of the United States.

There is also much that the Japanese Government can do. Its policy of paternalism, extending too much care to Japanese domiciled abroad, and even to Japanese born abroad, must, in our opinion, be altered. The claim of allegiance to the home country by the children born in another country, whatever may be their status in the land of birth, is an international practice still adhered to by most European nations—France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Greece. From this results what is called a “dual nationality” of a subject. In a country like the United States, where its Constitution endows children born therein with citizenship, the so-called “dual nationality” gives rise to an awkward situation in case its mother country adopts the military conscription system. To avoid this awkward situation, Japan enacted in the year 1916 a law which provides that a Japanese boy who has acquired a foreign nationality by reason of his birth in a foreign country may divest himself of Japanese nationality if his father, or other parental authority, takes the necessary steps to that end before he is fifteen years of age, or, if he has attained the age of fifteen, he may himself take the same steps, with the consent of his father or guardian, before he reaches the age of seventeen.[57] This law is objectionable because it fixes the age limit of expatriation at seventeen, when the subject is yet a minor and is not competent to exercise his own choice. Fixing the age limit at seventeen is a provision in consonance with the Japanese military law, which imposes on all male Japanese subjects above that age the duty of military service. Consequently, all American-born Japanese males who have failed to expatriate before they have reached the age of seventeen are claimed as Japanese subjects and are subject to conscription, while at the same time they are American citizens. The existence of such a discordance in the laws and Constitution of the two countries has the possibility of giving rise to a serious international complication, and it seems advisable that some sort of settlement be made on this point between the American and Japanese Governments. The difficulty could, of course, be overcome if the Japanese parents who are determined to stay permanently in this country would take the necessary steps to expatriate their children as soon as they are born, or at the proper time. The hesitation they have heretofore manifested was greatly due to the uncertainty in which their future and that of their children was shrouded.

We cannot omit to emphasize in this connection the part which America can and has to perform.Of the numerous things America can do with profit we believe the task of Americanizing the Japanese to be the foremost. We wish to make it clear that, whether Japanese aliens are worthy or not, their children born in America are in any case Americans, and it is America’s duty to make them worthy members of the nation. They are not foreigners or aliens, and, accordingly, it is clearly wrong, as well as unwise, to deal with them as if they were. Upon what we can do to guide the rising generation depends the future of the Japanese problem in America. This in turn must depend upon how America treats their parents. Disappearing gradually as they are, they are bequeathing their impressions and accomplishments to their children. Any generosity and kindness extended to them are acts not so much of altruism as of vital interest in the welfare of America herself, for they are the guardians of the Republic’s sons and daughters of Japanese blood.

It is certainly not fair to slander and maltreat those people, who were originally brought in to fill the need of man-power and who have contributed much towards making the Pacific Coast what it is to-day.To prevent the influx of Japanese immigrants, to avoid the possible future development of difficult problems with Japan, there certainly ought to be some better means than gradually strangling the innocent people who individually are in no way to be blamed for the present strained relations on the Pacific Coast.

All these considerations lead us to a belief that the time is now ripe for the American people, and especially for the people of California, to reconstruct their attitude and policy towards the Japanese domiciled in this country.Every indication seems to suggest that if, in place of the discriminatory policy so far resorted to with no better effect than general irritation, a new policy be initiated, a policy of constructive Americanization based upon generosity, sympathy, and understanding, the result will surely be far-reaching.It is a common fact of human experience that one’s attitude is directly responded to by other people with whom we deal.It was Thackeray, we believe, who said that “the world is like a looking-glass; if we smile, others also smile.”What cannot be achieved by a hostile policy is often easily and satisfactorily accomplished by sympathetic attitude and friendly dealing.Give the Japanese the opportunity and see what good use they will make of it.

We hardly need to reiterate that the Japanese-California question—the main theme of this book—is only a part of the vast problem which confronts America and Japan.The present world tendency is to bind increasingly all parts of the world into one.The process of civilization, like a revolving body, exerts centrifugal and centripetal force and gradually unifies all civilizations into a cohesive system. At present there are two centers of such forces, one in the East and another in the West, each trying to influence the other. By virtue of being the youngest and the most vigorous representatives of the two spheres, Japan and America, respectively, are naturally destined to shoulder together the great task of harmonizing and unifying these two great currents of human achievement. The task involves, from its gigantic nature, a great many difficulties and risks of which the present California issue is certainly one. All these difficulties must be squarely met and surmounted with courage and wisdom, since to shrink from the job is to commit the future relationship of the East and West to the cruel law of natural selection.

It is, however, generally true that the perfect understanding of the common aim settles the incidental difficulties arising in the process.This is particularly true in the case of the California-Japanese question, which is a partial issue of the great undertaking between America and Japan.The core of the California problem, our study has shown, is the question of assimilability of the Japanese.But what is the assimilation but the approach to the common standard of culture and ideals? The approach to the common standard of culture and ideals between the peoples of Asia and Europe and America is precisely the task in which Japan and the United States are engaged in unison. Herein is the explanation of our earlier assertion that the California problem is a miniature form of the problem of the East and West. Herein also is the support of our contention that to accelerate the coöperative effort of America and Japan for mutual understanding is the only and the best method of bringing about the solution of the Japanese problem in California or elsewhere in the United States. We wish, therefore, to emphasize once more that the wisest policy to follow in the future for America and Japan is not foolishly to sharpen the edge of swords for imaginary race wars, which are absurd, but to devote themselves wisely to learning and appreciating each other’s accomplishments and greatness, from which alone true friendship can arise.

 

 

---

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

---

APPENDIX B

EXTRACTS FROM THE TREATY OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION AND PROTOCOL BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OF FEBRUARY 21, 1911.

His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, and the President of the United States of America, being desirous to strengthen the relations of amity and good understanding which happily exist between the two nations, and believing that the fixation in a manner clear and positive of the rules which are hereafter to govern the commercial intercourse between their respective countries will contribute to this most desirable result, have resolved to conclude a treaty of commerce and navigation.

Article I.—The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other, to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade, upon the same terms as native subjects or citizens, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

They shall not be compelled, under any pretext whatever, to pay any charges or taxes other or higher than those that are or may be paid by native subjects or citizens.

The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall receive, in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native subjects or citizens, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native subjects and citizens.

Article IV.—There shall be between the territories of the two high contracting parties reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation.The subjects or citizens of each of the contracting parties, equally with the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation shall have liberty freely to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports, and rivers in the territories of the other which are or may be opened to foreign commerce, subject always to the laws of the country to which they thus come.

Article V.—Neither contracting party shall impose any other or higher duties or charges on the exportation of any article to the territories of the other than are or may be payable on the exportation of the like article to any other foreign country.

Nor shall any prohibition be imposed by either country on the importation or exportation of any article from or to the territories of the other which shall not equally extend to the like article imported from or exported to any other country.

Article XIV.—Except as otherwise expressly provided in this treaty, the high contracting parties agree that in all that concerns commerce and navigation, any privilege, favor, or immunity which either contracting party has actually granted or may hereafter grant, to the subjects or citizens of any other State shall be extended to the subjects or citizens of the other contracting party ... on the same or equivalent conditions....

Declaration

In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation ...the undersigned has the honor to declare that the Imperial Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation of the immigration of laborers to the United States.

(Signed) Y.Uchida.

February 21, 1911.

 

 

---

APPENDIX C

CALIFORNIA’S ALIEN LAND LAW

(Approved May 19, 1913)

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

Section 1.—All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this State.

Section 2.—All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this act may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a citizen or subject and not otherwise, and may in addition thereto lease lands in this State for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years.

Section 3.—Any company, association, or corporation organized under the laws of this or any other State or nation, of which a majority of the members are aliens other than those specified in section one of this act, or in which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such aliens, may acquire, possess, enjoy, and convey real property, or any interest therein in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such members or stockholders are citizens or subjects, and not otherwise, and may in addition thereto lease lands in this State for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years.

Section 4.—Whenever it appears to the court in any probate proceeding that by reason of the provisions of this act any heir or devisee cannot take real property in this State which, but for said provisions, said heir or devisee would take as such, the court, instead of ordering a distribution of such real property to such heir or devisee, shall order a sale of said real property to be made in the manner provided by law for probate sales of real property, and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed to such heirs or devisee in lieu of such real property.

Section 5.—Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall escheat to, and become and remain the property of the State of California.The attorney general shall institute proceedings to have the escheat of such real property adjudged and enforced in the manner provided by section 474 of the Political Code and title eight, part three of the Code of Civil Procedure.Upon the entry of final judgment in such proceedings, the title to such real property shall pass to the State of California.The provisions of this section and of sections two and three of this act shall not apply to any real property hereafter acquired in the enforcement or in satisfaction of any lien now existing upon, or interest in such property, so long as such real property so acquired shall remain the property of the alien, company, association or corporation acquiring the same in such manner.

Section 6.—Any leasehold or other interest in real property less than the fee, hereafter acquired in violation of the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall escheat to the State of California.The attorney general shall institute proceedings to have such escheat adjudged and enforced as provided in section five of this act.In such proceedings the court shall determine and adjudge the value of such leasehold, or other interest in such real property, and enter judgment for the State for the amount thereof together with costs.Thereupon the court shall order a sale of the real property covered by such leasehold, or other interest, in the manner provided by section 1271 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Out of the proceeds arising from such sale, the amount of the judgment rendered for the State shall be paid into the State Treasury and the balance shall be deposited with and distributed by the court in accordance with the interest of the parties therein.

Section 7.—Nothing in this act shall be construed as a limitation upon the power of the State to enact laws with respect to the acquisition, holding or disposal by aliens of real property in this State.

Section 8.—All acts and parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed.

 

 

---

APPENDIX D

ALIEN LAND LAW

(Adopted November 2, 1920)

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DISABILITIES OF ALIENS IN CALIFORNIA

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

Section 1.—All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this State.

Section 2.—All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this act may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for the purpose prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and not otherwise.

Section 3.—Any company, association or corporation organized under the laws of this or any other State or nation, of which a majority of the members are aliens other than those specified in section one of this act, or in which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such aliens, may acquire, possess, enjoy, and convey real property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such members or stockholders are citizens or subjects, and not otherwise.Hereafter all aliens other than those specified in section one hereof may become members of or acquire shares of stock in any company, association or corporation that is or may be authorized to acquire, possess, enjoy or convey agricultural land, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and not otherwise.

Section 4.—Hereafter no alien mentioned in section two hereof and no company, association or corporation mentioned in section three hereof, may be appointed guardian of that portion of the estate of a minor which consists of property which such alien or such company, association or corporation is inhibited from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or transferring by reason of the provisions of this act.The public administrator of the proper county, or any other competent person or corporation, may be appointed guardian of the estate of a minor citizen whose parents are ineligible to appointment under the provisions of this section.

On such notice to the guardian as the court may require, the superior court may remove the guardian of such an estate whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the court:

(a) That the guardian has failed to file the report required by the provisions of section five hereof; or

(b) That the property of the ward has not been or is not being administered with due regard to the primary interest of the ward; or

(c) That facts exist which would make the guardian ineligible to appointment in the first instance; or

(d) That facts establishing any other legal ground for removal exist.

Section 5.—(a) The term “trustee” as used in this section means any person, company, association or corporation that as guardian, trustee, attorney-in-fact or agent, or in any other capacity has the title, custody or control of property, or some interest therein, belonging to an alien mentioned in section two hereof, or to the minor child of such an alien, if the property is of such a character that such alien is inhibited from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or transferring it.

(b) Annually on or before the thirty-first day of January every such trustee must file in the office of the Secretary of State of California and in the office of the county clerk of each county in which any of the property is situated, a verified written report showing:

(1) The property, real or personal, held by him for or on behalf of such an alien or minor;

(2) A statement showing the date when each item of such property came into his possession or control;

(3) An itemized account of all expenditures, investments, rents, issues, and profits in respect to the administration and control of such property with particular reference to holdings of corporate stock and leases, cropping contracts, and other agreements in respect to land and the handling or sale of products thereof.

(c) Any person, company, association or corporation that violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) The provisions of this section are cumulative and are not intended to change the jurisdiction or the rules of practice of courts of justice.

Section 6.—Whenever it appears to the court in any probate proceeding that by reason of the provisions of this act any heir or devisee cannot take real property in this State or membership or shares of stock in a company, association or corporation which, but for said provisions, said heir or devisee would take as such, the court, instead of ordering a distribution of such property to such heir or devisee, shall order a sale of said property to be made in the manner provided by law for probate sales of property and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed to such heir or devisee in lieu of such property.

Section 7.—Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall escheat to, and become and remain the property of the State of California.The attorney general or district attorney of the proper county shall institute proceedings to have the escheat of such real property adjudged and enforced in the manner provided by section four hundred seventy-four of the Political Code and title eight, part three of the Code of Civil Procedure.Upon the entry of final judgment in such proceedings, the title to such real property shall pass to the State of California.The provisions of this section and of sections two and three of this act shall not apply to any real property hereafter acquired in the enforcement or in satisfaction of any lien now existing upon, or interest in such property, so long as such real property so acquired shall remain the property of the alien, company, association or corporation acquiring the same in such manner.No alien, company, association or corporation mentioned in section two or section three hereof shall hold for a longer period than two years the possession of any agricultural land acquired in the enforcement of or in satisfaction of a mortgage or other lien hereafter made or acquired in good faith to secure a debt.

Section 8.—Any leasehold or other interest in real property less than the fee, hereafter acquired in violation of the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall escheat to the State of California.The attorney general or district attorney of the proper county shall institute proceedings to have such escheat adjudged and enforced as provided in section seven of this act.In such proceedings the court shall determine and adjudge the value of such leasehold or other interest in such real property, and enter judgment for the State for the amount thereof together with costs.Thereupon the court shall order a sale of the real property covered by such leasehold, or other interest, in the manner provided by section twelve hundred seventy-one of the Code of Civil Procedure.Out of the proceeds arising from such sale, the amount of the judgment rendered for the State shall be paid into the state treasury and the balance shall be deposited with and distributed by the court in accordance with the interest of the parties therein.Any share of stock or the interest of any member in a company, association or corporation hereafter acquired in violation of the provisions of section three of this act shall escheat to the State of California.Such escheat shall be adjudged and enforced in the same manner as provided in this section for the escheat of a leasehold or other interest in real property less than the fee.

Section 9.—Every transfer of real property, or of an interest therein, though colorable in form, shall be void as to the state and the interest thereby conveyed or sought to be conveyed shall escheat to the State if the property interest involved is of such a character that an alien mentioned in section two hereof is inhibited from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or transferring it, and if the conveyance is made with intent to prevent, evade or avoid escheat as provided for herein.

A prima facie presumption that the conveyance is made with such intent shall arise upon proof of any of the following groups of facts:

(a) The taking of the property in the name of a person other than the persons mentioned in section two hereof if the consideration is paid or agreed or understood to be paid by an alien mentioned in section two hereof;

(b) The taking of the property in the name of a company, association or corporation, if the membership or shares of stock therein held by aliens mentioned in section two hereof, together with the memberships or shares of stock held by others but paid for or agreed or understood to be paid for by such aliens, would amount to a majority of the membership or the issued capital stock of such company, association or corporation;

(c) The execution of a mortgage in favor of an alien mentioned in section two hereof if said mortgagee is given possession, control or management of the property.

The enumeration in this section of certain presumptions shall not be so construed as to preclude other presumptions or inferences that reasonably may be made as to the existence of intent to prevent, evade or avoid escheat as provided for herein.

Section 10.—If two or more persons conspire to effect a transfer of real property, or of an interest therein, in violation of the provisions hereof, they are punishable by imprisonment in the county jail or State penitentiary not exceeding two years, or by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or both.

Section 11.—Nothing in this act shall be construed as a limitation upon the power of the State to enact laws with respect to the acquisition, holding or disposal by aliens of real property in this State.

Section 12.—All acts and parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions hereof are hereby repealed; provided, that—

(a) This act shall not affect pending actions or proceedings, but the same may be prosecuted and defended with the same effect as if this act had not been adopted;

(b) No cause of action arising under any law of this State shall be affected by reason of the adoption of this act whether an action or proceeding has been instituted thereon at the time of the taking effect of this act or not and actions may be brought upon such causes in the same manner, under the same terms and conditions, and with the same effect as if this act had not been adopted.

(c) This act in so far as it does not add to, take from or alter an existing law, shall be construed as a continuation thereof.

Section 13.—The legislature may amend this act in furtherance of its purpose and to facilitate its operation.

Section 14.—If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act.The people hereby declare that they would have passed this act, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

 

 

---

APPENDIX E

Crops Raised by Japanese and their Acreage.

Product.	Total Acreage of Cultivation.	Acreage by Japanese.	Percentage of Japanese Cultivation Against Total Cultivation.
Berries	6,500	5,968	91.8
Celery	4,000	3,568	89.2
Asparagus	12,000	9,927	82.7
Seeds	20,000	15,847	79.2
Onions	12,112	9,251	76.3
Tomatoes	16,000	10,616	66.3
Cantaloupes	15,000	9,581	63.8
Sugar Beets	102,949	51,604	50.1
Green Vegetables	75,000	17,852	23.8
Potatoes	90,175	18,830	20.8
Hops	8,000	1,260	15.7
Grapes	360,000	47,439	13.1
Beans	592,000	77,107	13.0
Rice	106,220	16,640	10.0
Cotton	179,860	18,000	10.0
Corn	85,000	7,845	9.2
Fruits, Nuts	715,000	29,210	4.0
Hay, Grain	2,200,000	15,753	0.0

Reported by the Japanese Agricultural Association of California, 1919.

 

 

---

APPENDIX F

Japanese Immigration to the United States.

Year.	No.of Japanese Immigrants.	Year.	No.of Japanese Immigrants.
1869	63	1891	1,136
1870	48	1892	1,498
1871	78	1893	1,648
1872	17	1894	1,739
1873	9	1895	480
1874	21	1896	1,110
1875	3	1897	1,526
1876	4	1898	2,230
1877	7	1899	2,844
1878	2	1900	6,618
1879	4	1901	4,908
1880	4	1902	5,325
1881	11	1903	6,990
1882	5	1904	7,771
1883	27	1905	4,319
1884	20	1906	5,178
1885	49	1907	9,948
1886	194	1908	7,250
1887	229
1888	404
1889	640
1890	691
Year.	Admitted.	Departed.	Balance.
1909	1,593	5,004	-3,411
1910	1,552	5,024	-3,472
1911	4,282	5,869	-1,587
1912	5,358	5,437	-     79
1913	6,771	5,647	+1,124
1914	8,462	6,300	+2,162
1915	9,029	5,967	+3,062
1916	9,100	6,922	+2,178
1917	9,159	6,581	+2,578
1918	11,143	7,691	+3,452
1919	11,404	8,328	+3,076
1920	12,868	11,662	+1,206

The above is taken from the Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration.

 

 

---

APPENDIX G

Japanese Admitted into Continental United States: Arrivals and Departures

Year.	Number of Arrivals.		Departed.	Total Gains Up to Date.
1861-1870	218	}	25,000 (estimated)
1871-1880	149
1881-1890	2,270
1891-1900	20,829
1901-1910	54,838
1911-1920	87,576		70,404
Total	165,880
No.of transient immigrants from Hawaii	15,000 (estimated)
Total	180,880		95,404	87,476

 

 

---

APPENDIX H

Immigrants and Non-immigrants.

Year.	Total Number Admitted.	Immigrants.	Non-Immigrants.	Percentage of Non-Immigrants Against Total Number Admitted.
1909	1,593	255	1,338	84.0
1910	1,552	116	1,436	92.5
1911	4,282	736	3,546	83.0
1912	5,358	894	4,464	83.3
1913	6,771	1,371	5,400	79.7
1914	8,462	1,762	6,700	79.1
1915	9,029	2,214	6,815	75.5
1916	9,100	2,958	6,142	67.5
1917	9,159	2,838	6,321	69.0
1918	11,143	2,604	8,539	76.6

Taken from Kawakami, Japan Review, vol.iv., p.76.

 

 

---

APPENDIX I

Distribution of Japanese and Chinese Population in the United States.

DISTRIBUTION OF JAPANESE POPULATION.

Census.	1880	1890	1900	1910
Total United States	148	2039	24,326	72,157
New England	14	45	89	272
Middle Atlantic	27	202	446	1,643
East North Central	7	101	126	482
West North Central	1	16	223	1,000
South Atlantic	5	55	29	156
East South Central	...	19	7	26
West South Central	...	42	30	428
Mountain	5	27	5,107	10,447
Pacific	89	1,532	18,296	57,703

 

DISTRIBUTION OF CHINESE POPULATION.

Census.	1880	1890	1900	1910
United States	105,465	107,488	89,863	71,531
New England	401	1,488	4,203	3,499
Middle Atlantic	1,277	4,689	10,490	8,189
East North Central	390	1,254	2,533	3,451
West North Central	423	1,097	1,135	1,195
South Atlantic	74	669	1,791	1,582
East South Central	90	274	427	414
West South Central	758	1,173	1,555	1,303
Mountain	14,274	11,572	7,950	5,614
Pacific	87,828	85,272	59,779	46,320

Taken from Gulick, American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship, pp.152, 177.

 

 

---

APPENDIX J

Distribution of Japanese in United States.

(According to Consular Division as Reported by Foreign Department, Japan.)

Districts.	Male.	Female.	Total for 1919.
Seattle	14,568	4,397	18,965
Portland	5,829	1,637	7,466
San Francisco	37,375	16,578	53,953
Los Angeles	22,644	9,861	32,505
Chicago	2,336	378	2,714
New York	3,320	284	3,604
	86,072	33,135	119,207

 

 

---

APPENDIX K

AN ABSTRACT OF EXPATRIATION LAW OF JAPAN

Article XVIII.—When a Japanese, by becoming the wife of a foreigner, has acquired the husband’s nationality, then such Japanese loses her Japanese nationality.

Article XX.—A person who voluntarily acquires a foreign nationality loses Japanese nationality.In case a Japanese subject, who has acquired foreign nationality by reason of his or her birth in a foreign country has domiciled in that country, he or she may be expatriated with the permission of the Minister of State for Home Affairs.The application for the permission referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made by the legal representative in case the person to be expatriated is younger than fifteen years of age.If the person in question is a minor above fifteen years of age, or a person adjudged incompetent, the application can be made with the consent of his or her legal representative or guardian.A stepfather, a stepmother, a legal mother, or a guardian may not make the application or give the consent prescribed in the preceding paragraph without the consent of the family council.A person who has been expatriated loses Japanese nationality.

Article XXIV.—Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding six articles a male of full seventeen years or upwards 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. A person who actually occupies an official post—civil or military—does not lose Japanese nationality notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing seven articles.

Article XXVI.—A person who has lost Japanese nationality in accordance with Article XX may recover Japanese nationality provided that he or she possesses a domicile in Japan, but this does not apply when the person mentioned in Article XVI has lost Japanese nationality.In case the person who has lost Japanese nationality in accordance with the provision of Article XX is younger than fifteen years of age, the application for the permission prescribed in the preceding paragraph shall be made by the father who is the member of the family to which such person belonged at the time of his expatriation; should the father be unable to do so, the application shall be made by the mother; if the mother is unable to do so, by the grandfather; and if the grandfather is unable to do so, then by the grandmother.

 

 

---

APPENDIX L

A MINUTE OF HEARING AT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUB-COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

DIRECT EXAMINATION