CHART II European Immigration Showing number who would have been admitted under the plan of the National Committee 250+000 200+000 150 000 100+ 000 50+000 CHART III Italian Immigration (Not including transients or children) Key Actual Maximum Permissible under Plan of National Committee 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Thursday, June 19, 1919. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert Johnson (chairman), presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee agreed to hear Prof. Jenks this morning, but I understand, Dr. Gulick, you have a letter and also a short statement you would like to submit to the committee? FURTHER STATEMENT OF REV. SIDNEY L. GULICK, D. D., SECRETARY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION, NEW YORK, N. Y. Dr. GULICK. Yes, I have a letter I would like to submit for the record, and I would also like to make a short statement. The statement was made the other day that a bill introduced in the Hawaiian Territorial Legislature for the regulation of Japanese language schools had been turned down because of the political opposition of the Japanese. I wrote to Mr. Will Cooke, in New York City, who is the agent there of the Sugar Planters' Association, and asked him if he had any recent information on that particular point. I have just received a letter this morning from him in regard to that matter, which I would like to submit for your record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter will be printed in the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:) ALEXANDER & BALDWIN (LTD.), 82 WALL STREET, Mr. SIDNEY L. GULICK, Hotel Continental, Washington, D. C. New York, N. Y., June 18, 1919. DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 17th instant makes inquiries regarding status of the present Hawaiian Territorial Government Legislature. You can refute the statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Immigration and definitely state that there are no Japanese members of the 1919 Territorial legislature. Herewith please find clipping from the "Star Bulletin" of May 31, containing an editorial regarding the Japanese problem in Hawaii. From this, kindly note the statement that at the last election there were only 207 Japanese electors voting; that, due to the presence of Japanese children born in the Territory, by 1930 about 10,000 Japanese voters are expected to be added to the Territorial electorate. The bill that you speak of did fail to pass this legislature. It came about due to a misapprehension on the part of some of the members, who voted against it. It seems to be the opinion of all that some such legislation will be adopted at the next session of the legislature. The Hawaiian Senate has appointed a committee to submit their recommendations to the 1921 legislature for the solution of the language school question. It is the hope in Hawaii that through proper education even the Japanese who are citizens of the Territory in the course of the next decade will use the franchise for the betterment of material conditions rather than to exercise it blindly. This is the point brought out in the editorial referred to above. Our Mr. W. M. Alexander called upon you when he was in New York. He left for San Francisco to-day. He wished me to tell you that he was very sorry to find you out both times that he called. He had some Japanese questions to take up with you in person. You probably are aware that he has just returned from an extended trip to Japan for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. In talking to Mr. Alexander to-day, I found out that he confirms what I have written in this letter about the Hawaiian-Japanese situation. He stated that on his way through Honolulu he called upon the Japanese consul, Mr. Morio. The latter advised Mr. Alexander that he was himself favorably disposed toward the proposed language school legislation, giving as his opinion that the postponing of the adoption for two years would give time for the Japanese in Hawaii to adjust themselves to it. If you want any more advices, kindly command me. Yours, sincerely, WM. G. COOKE. Dr. GULICK. There were entered in the record two letters from Mr. McClatchy, which were partly read, the first partly read and the second entered in the record. The CHAIRMAN. You refer to the letters printed in the Sacramento paper? Dr. GULICK. No; I refer to the letters you received from him, dated May 15 and June 5. I have read them very carefully, and I am confident that they are open to very serious criticism. I am am prepared to show, first, that he does not apparently understand the real nature of the percentage restrictive plan as proposed by the National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation; and second, that a large part of his discussions is accordingly irrelevant. I can take up his letter point by point, if it is desired, and I can prove these statements I have made. The CHAIRMAN. I think it will not be necessary to go into an analysis of his statements at this time. The purpose of these hearings is to get an understanding of the development of the plan you presented. The committee has given a good deal of time to that. Dr. GULICK. You have, indeed. Mr. VAILE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Gulick a question or two before we start with another witness. This point may have been covered in the previous testimony, and if so, I am sorry to go over it again. It is in regard to the matter of intermarriage. You made the statement yesterday, and I notice you make the point in your book entitled "American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship," that "the privilege of citizenship, regardless of race, has no relation whatever to intermarriage of races," and you argued that that was a matter of local law. Aside from the question as to whether it can be prohibited or not, do you think it is desirable to have a class of immigrants with whom intermarriage is not desirable? Dr. GULICK. No; I do not. Mr. VAILE. Do you think it is undesirable to have intermarriage between whites and Japanese? Dr. GULICK. That is where my mind-I am not prepared to make a dogmatical statement in response to that question. For the time being I am content to let the laws stand as they are, especially in California, where there are large numbers of Japanese who have recently come from Japan, whom I think ought not to be permitted intermarriage with the whites. What ultimately might be the situation with regard to their descendants is quite another matter. I would like to have adequate time to study the question as to whether the law should be permanently in that form, whether intermarriage should be prohibited. Mr. VAILE. I am assuming that we conclude that intermarriage between the whites and Japanese is not desirable. Taking that as a starting point, would it then be expedient to admit immigrants who suffer from such undesirability? |