white persons; and to aliens of African nativity, and to persons of African descent." What we propose is the following:

That the act of February, 1875, amending the act of July 14, 1870, be amended by substituting for the words, "The provisions of this title apply to aliens being free white persons; and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent," the following words: "The privilege of citizenship by naturalization is open to every alien who fulfills all the intellectual and moral requirements of the law specified in paragraph (a) above, and also the requirements, technical and moral, specified in the act of June 26, 1906, and its later amendments."

In other words, what we propose is the raising of the standard, and then saying that anybody who will fulfill this standard is eligible for citizenship. I shall say very frankly and directly that the purpose I had in making such a suggestion is to remove the irritation felt by the Chinese and Japanese at present because of special laws and interpretations applied against them.

Of course it follows from this general proposition that all our special laws dealing with the Chinese would be rescinded, and that is made clear in section 7, which says:

That all acts and parts of acts relating to the exclusion of Chinese from and of special treatment of Chinese in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico, shall be and the same are hereby repealed; namely, the act of July 5, 1884, September 13, 1888, May 5, 1892, November 3, 1893, July 7, 1898, April 30, 1900, June 6, 1900, March 3, 1901, April 29, 1902, February 20, 1907, August 24, 1912, June 13, 1913, and all amendments to the same.

Then there is a law in the last act, the act of 1917, which specifies a certain geographical zone in the Pacific Ocean and including also India and going up to Siberia, from which no native is allowed to come. It seemed to us that having set up the general principle of dealing on a basis of absolute equality for everyone, the geographical zone prohibition should be removed, because it is fundamentally opposed to the principle we are advocating, namely, the equality of race treatment.

Also, there is a clause in the act of February 5, 1917, which is a very curious clause. I will read it to you. It is in the second part of section 8 of the present law and reads in this way:

No alien now in any way excluded from or prevented from entering the United States shall be admitted to the United States.

We propose that that shall be repealed. Then the final provision of our proposal is the separation of the citizenship of a wife from that of her husband. Section 9 of our proposed bill reads:

That the act of March 2, 1907, be amended by striking out sections 3 and 4 and by substituting therefor the words: "The citizenship of a wife is hereby declared to be independent of that of her husband, male and female aliens being required to qualify for naturalization independently. If a female citizen of the United States shall marry. an alien, she shall not forfeit her United States citizenship. If a female alien shall marry a citizen of the United States, she shall not thereby acquire the status of a citizen of the United States, but shall be required to qualify for naturalization in accordance with the provisions of the law.”

We are coming now to universal suffrage, and as the laws now stand a woman who is the wife of a foreigner who becomes naturalized become automatically naturalized and she also becomes a citizen of the United States regardless of her personal qualifications. In view of the fact that there are probably several million women in this country who will in the course of the next few years become

citizens, through the naturalization of their husbands, it seemed to our committee very desirable that for the wholesome assimilation of these people we should put some incentive upon the woman to learn English and come up to the standards. In order to do that it seemed desirable to separate the citizenship of the wife from that of the husband.

Those are the items in the proposals we have to submit dealing with the general treatment of immigration from all countries.

Now, I woud like to pass on to a consideration of the question from the standpoint of Japan and China. This has been one of the very difficult questions for the United States for many years. Since the beginning of large Chinese immigration in the latter part of the sixties and during the seventies, there began to be felt upon the Pacific coast a consciousness of the danger of that immigration. As you know, the treaty which provided for free immigration from China was made in 1868. But when the sentiment of this country began to change on that matter we sent a special embassy to China to arrange for the modification of that treaty, and that resulted in the treaty of 1880, which allowed the United States to suspend Chinese labor immigration for a period.

In view of that changed treaty, Congress passed laws suspending Chinese labor immigration for a period of 10 years, and after those 10 years for another 10 years, and after those 10 years for still another. 10 years; but in 1904, because of certain misunderstandings, I can not doubt, Congress passed a law providing that all the laws dealing especially with Chinese should be reenacted permanently without modification and without any change.

In connection with the first act forbidding Chinese immigration, there was also a law passed forbidding the giving of citizenship to Chinese. We not only suspended Chinese immigration for 10 years, but we forbade the giving of citizenship to any Chinese no matter what his personal qualifications might be. During the following 10 years there came to be a very considerable consciousness upon the Pacific coast of lack of cheap labor, and representatives from California-I have been told by those whom I have reason to believe. know the facts and also representatives from the Hawaiian Islands went to Japan and after some hesitancy on the part of Japanese authorities, secured the beginning of Japanese immigration to the Hawaiian Islands and the Pacific coast. They went at first very largely to the Hawaiian Islands under the form of peonage or contract labor. That early immigration to the United States was very small, continuing during the nineties only in the vicinity of 1,000, or running perhaps to 1,500. This was in response to the desires of employers of cheap labor who wished to get Asiatic labor.

In 1898 we had our conflict with Spain as a result of which we annexed the Hawaiian Islands. There was in the Hawaiian Islands a very large amount of coolie labor, the lowest class of the Japanese labor population. One of the conditions we imposed upon the Hawaiian Islands in accepting the proposition for annexationbecause they came to us-was that all peon labor should be stopped; that all contracts under which they had been brought to the Hawaiian Islands should be given up, and that labor should be free in the Hawaiian Islands as it was in continental United States. They accepted the proposition, but presently those thousands of Japanese

who had been working on the plantations, and who were living in barracks away from their homes, of course, without the benefit of family relationships-for these young men who had left their homes for a short period of money making those men began to find out that they had an opportunity to get where they could get larger wages; they found they could get to California, and in 1900, 10,000 Japanese came to San Francisco in one year. That was the beginning of the Japanese difficulty.

I am not at all surprised that these conditions developed very rapidly which caused ill feeling on both sides. As I have described to Japanese audiences the coming of those laborers to America with their Japanese clothing and their absolute ignorance of American customs, many of which we regard as essential, such, for instance, as our care in the exposure of the person, the Japanese audiences have immediately seen the point. And I would like to say right here that my experience in Japan has led me to believe that there are no people, on the whole, more reasonable than are the Japanese. I have talked with a great many individuals, and I have discussed these matters with popular audiences, and I have repeatedly found that it is not difficult to present to a Japanese audience the California viewpoint with regard to the danger of large immigration from Asia. Well, the difficulty started at that time, and when I studied this matter in 1913 I visited the towns and villages where they had been congregated in large numbers. I have talked with the Japanese and with the Americans, and I feel I have gotten a pretty comprehensive knowledge of both sides of the case.

It has been an inevitable situation. The conditioms were such that it was inevitable that there should come a demand for a cessation of the Japanese immigration. It fluctuated rapidly, rising from 3,000 in 1902 to 30,000 in 1907.

Under those conditions the State of California was beginning to ask that the same laws which had been applied so successfully in keeping the Chinese out should be applied to the Japanese. But the Japanese leaders were very anxious that this should not be done. The responsible leaders of Japan already began to recognize that there was a real danger to international friendship if that large immigration were to continue; that the Californians were right in the main in their desire to be free from such dangers, and the Japanese Government was quite willing to enter into some arrangement by which that could be done.

But they wished it to be done, not on the basis of animosity or suspicion or unfriendliness, but on the basis of friendliness. What they virtually said to President Roosevelt was-"Do not legislate against us; we have been friends for many years-ever since 1854 when the first treaty was made between Japan and America; American dealings with Japan have been quite ideal. Thousands of Japanese have been in America and have received benefits. We recognize that something must be done. We are friends, let us settle this on the bas's of friendship." That was the basis of the gentleman's understanding which went into effect at the very end of 1907 when the immigration reached its maximum.

I would say there that one of the reasons why the immigration grew to be so large was because of the setting up in Japan of immigration companies that would finance these young men from all over the

country that had no means. There families were very poor; but these companies would pay their expenses and send them to the United States and take the first receipts from their earnings to pay off their loans and then most of them would send money to their homes. That was one of the causes for stimulating immigration to such rapidly increasing proportions. It is perfectly easy to understand how that could take place, when a man could go to the United States and earn five, ten, fifteen or twenty times as much in 'one month as he could earn in Japan. The story would spread like wildfire through Japan, and when there was an agency which would finance the business, it was the easiest thing in the world to get a largely increasing immigration. To my mind it was very important that that it should be stopped, and it is well it was stopped when it was. This agreement was only an understanding, it has never been defined in a treaty of any kind. The Japanese Government has insisted in recent years that it was going to carry it out.

Immediately with the operation of the gentleman's understanding immigration fell off. In a half year it reduced immigration so that for the whole year the immigration was but 15,000, and in the following year the immigration fell to 3,000, but since 1910 the immigration has gradually been rising. I have a chart here which sets out this matter with some degree of detail, and I think you will find it illuminating.

Mr. RAKER. Those charts can go in the record in connection with the statement?

Mr. SIEGEL (presiding). Oh, yes.

Dr. GULICK. One chart shows the course of Japanese immigration, beginning at the period of 1893. The early immigration was so small that it was hardly worth looking at. It rose in this fashion (indicating on chart). This in 1900, when 10,000 came over. Then it fluctuated in that way (indicating on chart), and when the gentleman's agreement went into effect it fell rapidly in that year and a half, and since the operation of the gentleman's agreement it has been coming up in this fashion (indicating on chart).

One of the factors which our immigration bureau reports do not indicate and which it is very important we should have is the knowledge of how many of these Japanese which have been coming here are new immigrants from Japan and how many of them were in America before and are now returning. We know there is a very considerable movement back and forth of the Japanese, and while this figure would seem to indicate that there was considerable immigration, yet, if we exclude those who were passing back and forth and all those who had already been in America before, this figure would certainly not rise to such a degree as that. I will give you the exact figures on that.

The question of course arises, how would the proposed plan of our immigration committee affect immigration from Japan. These figures I have indicated by the red line on the chart. Supposing the law had gone into effect in 1910, based upon the census of 1910. Then supposing we were to make some kind of an estimate as to how many Japanese would probably have been naturalized. It is a very common statement in America that no Japanese would be naturalized; that the Japanese are loyal patriots to their own land that no Japanese would give up his citizenship. But I know very well that it is not so.

142055-19- -2

There are many Japanese who came in this period and have been living here and are staying here and now they have brought over their wives. There are probably 30,000 Japanese families on the Pacific coast. Many of these men have made up their minds that they are going to stay here permanently and they would like to become American citizens. It is impossible to know how many because the clerks of the courts do not give application blanks to the Japanese; they understand they are forbidden from doing that, so that it is impossible to know exactly.

But, trying to make some kind of an estimate I have arrived at certain conclusions, and on the basis of the slowly increased number of those who will qualify and become citizens we have this general line, which would indicate a gradual increase [indicating on chart]. After the reservoir of those who are already here has been exhausted, the increase would be very small indeed.

I would like to say a few words with regard to the importance of including in this proposition equal treatment for the Chinese and the Japanese. To my mind one of the most and perhaps the most important problem emerging in world history to-day is the problem of the white and yellow races. We are struggling now with the problems of the relations between Europe and the United States. We will have that fairly well in hand in the course of the next 20 or 30 years, but the problem of the relation of the white and yellow races is going to be a long and difficult problem. We are so different, and we are in such large masses, and it is so difficult to get adequate information through the great masses of our population, and the interests of one part of the world are in some respects so diverse from the interests of the other part of the world, that there is some real danger of an ultimate collision unless we can find a way for solving the problems. The ultimate solution of this question can only be along lines of brotherhood and fair dealing, and consideration for their needs, their aspirations, and their ideals, as well as consideration of our own civilization and our ideals and our needs. It is not easy to lay down absolutely correct principles. It is easy to dogmatize one side or the other, but to hold a balanced view of the two things is not easy. I have lived in Japan so long that I feel that I know the Japanese. I may be permitted to say that I speak the Japanese language, and I do all my work in the Japanese language. I have given many courses of lectures in history and in science and in philosophy and in comparative religion. I say these things to let you know that I am familiar with the Japanese mind. My father was in China for many years, I have many friends who have been in China, and the admiration which the Chinese missionaries gain for the Chinese people and the good will that develops between them is one of the remarkable phenomena of modern times.

It has become a clear conviction of my life that in no proper sense are the Chinese and Japanese an inferior race. It is true they have a civilization of very different order from ours. But one of the things that these people have been learning to their cost during the past 50 years is that they can no longer carry on their life regardless of the West.

Japan, you know, shut herself up for 250 years and said, "We will have nothing to do with the people of the western lands." In carrying that out she was consistent. In 1615 she forbade all foreign trade