But the most crucial item in the Japanese feeling of resent ment is in reference to matters of naturalization. We do not allow Japanese to become citizens of the United States, That, however, is not a matter of law; it is a matter of the interpretation of law. We have excluded only the Chinese by law. The Japanese are being refused opportunity for citizenship upon the basis of the old law that was put in its final form in 1875, which provides that citizenship by naturalization shall be given to aliens who are "free white persons and to aliens of "African birth or descent."

We need to study that to understand the Japanese attitude. The phrase "Free white persons" was first coined in 1790 in the first law which the United States Congress passed with regard to naturalization. It was worded in that way, as we know, to exclude slaves. It was the feeling of our ancestors at that time that this should be a free country and that slaves should have no part in the sovereignty, and it was worded in that way to keep out slaves and American Indians. There were many changes in the naturalization law, but with regard to that particular point there were no changes until after the Civil War.

In 1870 the phrase was put in this way, "This privilege is extended to persons of African birth or African nativity." By this wording of the law it was soon discovered that "free white men" had been dropped out; so that from 1870 to 1875, although citizenship was being given to people from Europe, it was being done without the sanction of law. In 1875 the section was worded as it is now in section 2169. Under the law of 1870, modified in 1875, all the courts understood that the privilege of naturalization was open to everybody, from the extreme white to the extreme black, and that understanding was actually in force. The Chinese were receiving citizenship, and that went on to 1882, for a period of 12 years, during which that was the interpretation. In 1882 came the exclusion of the Chinese. There were very few Japanese in the country at that time; the Japanese question had not arisen, but gradually Japanese began to come in in small numbers and some began to become American citizens. They were receiving citizenship. In 1906 there was a general revision of the whole immigration and naturalization law, but there was no change in the law with regard to who might become citizens. When, however, the Bureau of Investigations prepared its pamphlet, sending out the rules which were to govern the actions of the clerks of the courts in giving applications blanks, this rule was set up, that clerks of courts whall give these application forms only to "free white men" and to "persons of African birth and African descent."

By that time the anti-Japanese agitation had become pretty strong. It was commonly understood that the exclusion from citizenship applied to all Mongolians. Many lawyers still hold Mongolians are excluded. But that is not the law.

In 1906 then clerks of courts were ordered to give the blanks only to free white men and to persons of African birth and African descent. That is the history of the way by which Japanese had been excluded. Until 1906 Japanese were given citizenship, and even in 1907 there was one in Florida who was naturalized.

But why do the Japanese object to this limitation? Have we not the right to decide whom we may make citizens? Of course, we have. This matter is popularly expressed in this way. A person has the right to decide whom he will admit to his home. Surely. But the

trouble lies here we admit many races to our national home; that is, to our country; yet, after letting them in, we treat them differently. Some we favor and others we legislate against. Under the definition of "white men" we are not only naturalizing Caucassians from Europe, but we are also Tartars and Magyars, Turks and Syrians, Parsees and Hindus. We are even naturalizing Mexicans, although the courts acknowledge that ethnologically speaking they were neither white men or Africans. We are admitting to citizenship people from South America, not merely those who are full-blooded Spaniards or Portuguese; and, of course, under the law we are admitting to citizenship Zulus and Hottentots, and anybody whatsoever who comes from Africa or whose ancestors lived in Africa. The Japanese say, "If you are admitting all these persons, we wish to be put on a basis of equality." Moreover, on the basis of a refusal of citizenship to the Japanese, some States have passed certain laws dealing with economic relations which puts them at a serious disadvantage.

Responsible Japanese are not asking for free immigration. I have talked with many of them and they have told me that the plan for restricting immigration on a percentage basis is satisfactory, no matter what the percentage might be. They are not concerned with the rate. What they want is equality of race treatment. There is the point. I am confident that if this general plan can be adopted our relations with Japan will be set right. And I would like to say right here that our committee is making these suggestions with the hope that this House Committee on Immigration will study this matter and make our proposals their own. Our national committee does not wish to bring in a bill of its own; we wish rather to give you this information and these ideas, and would like to have you take these propositions, state them in proper legal terminology, and make them a part of the bill of your committee. If you should do this, the amount of immigration coming from Europe will be controlled by a flexible standard, our standards of Americanization, and our capacity for employment. When the economic conditions are favorable we can open the doors; when the conditions are unfavorable we can shut the doors, and at the same time we can improve our relations with China and Japan, dealing with them in a spirit of equality and brotherhood. We will thus do away with the most immediate causes for irritation. which they have against us.

I have now presented the main outline of the things I wish to say. There are many lines which I might have expanded, but it is impossible to cover every phase of this enormous subject in a single address.

I have not said anything about immigration from Asia as a whole. I would like to call your attention to this fact. Our laws say that there shall be no labor immigration from China. There is, however, a certain amount of immigration; in these columns of this chart you can see what happened in the three years 1912, 1913, and 1914. If a 10 per cent principle had been adopted for the year 1919 the permissible immigration from China would have been 2,353 and from Japan the immigration for 1919 would be 2,481, instead of 8,000 for 1917, and of 10,000 for 1918. I have tried to figure out in a very tentative way what would happen if the figures were based upon the census of 1920. Beginning in 1921 and making such estimates as were possible as to the number of American-born Japanese in continental United States and in the Hawaiian Islands, and adding to

that those whom we roughly estimate will become American citizens and also those who would become American citizens during the succeeding years, I roughly estimate that the immigration would go along like that [indicating on chart].

I have several pamphlets here which I would like to leave with the committee. One is entitled "Immigration," that contains the charts I have referred to. There is another pamphlet entitled "Asia's Appeal to America," and then there is a table of statistics containing all the figures in regard to what I have been saying. I also put in your hands a pamphlet entitled, "Adequate Protection for Aliens." It is a remarkable fact that our Federal Government is not in a position to protect aliens from any land. They are under the protection of the States. If there should be any crimes committed by any of the aliens, and there should be a lynching by a mob the Federal Government is not in a position to give protection which ought to be done. There are items in connection with that matter which I would like to speak about, but this is a public meeting and there are certain considerations of grave importance which perhaps had better not be discussed here at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. You might tell us about those in an executive session.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I protest against any executive sessions on questions of immigration. I am in favor of an open session, of doing business in the open, so that the public may know what we are doing, and before the committee takes any vote on that proposition, I want my objection to be on record and desire to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gulick has not asked for an executive session. I would like to say to the committee that I have received a letter which has been handed to me by Representative Curry, of California, the letter being dated May 15, 1919, at Sacramento, Calif., sent by a well-known editor and publisher there, Mr. V. S. McClatchy, stating plainly the Japanese question as seen in California. I wired to Mr. McClatchy for permission to place that letter in the record, and he has written me another letter under date of June 5, 1919, elaborating his first letter, and inasmuch as he can not come here personally, it seems to me this should be read to the committee.

Mr. SABATH. I move that the letter be read now. (The motion was carried.)

The CHAIRMAN. The letter is as follows:

Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON,

Chairman Committee on Immigration,

SACRAMENTO, CALIF., June 5, 1919.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: In response to your telegraphed request of June 4, for a statement from me in connection with the legislation proposed by the League for Constructive Immigration Legislation, to be forwarded by mail and considered by your committee at a hearing June 12, 1919.

The matter was first brought to my attention last month by an inquiry from a newspaper publisher in Wisconsin, who sent me the printed data issued by the league, and to whom I replied, after casual inspection of such data, by letter of May 15, of which you have a copy.

Conditions prevented an investigation of the subject by me, until within the past few days. A statement hurriedly prepared so as to reach Washington for the committee hearing, and without opportunity for proper investigation, can not hope to cover the ground as the importance of the subject demands. I can only offer an outline of the facts disclosed by my incomplete study and the conclusions that may be drawn fairly therefrom.

THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

The proposed legislation, as outlined by Dr. Sidney L. Gulick, secretary of the League, in several documents which I have, limits the maximum number of immigrants in a single year from any nation, race, or group having a single mother-tongue, to 5 per cent, of those from the same land who already are naturalized American citizens, including the native born American children.

There are other features, however, which are important to be considered in connection with this declared principle, because they affect materially its practical operation. First. The 5 per cent limit shall not include aliens coming to join a husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, grandfather, grandmother, grandson or granddaughter. (In another document this exception is limited to father or grandfather, wife, mother, grandmother, or unmarried or widowed daughter. I am in ignorance as to which of these two categories, if either, represents the present condition of this proposed provision.)

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

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

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

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

THE JAPANESE AS IMMIGRANT AND CITIZEN.

My statement on this subject will be confined to consideration of the Japanese, and is based on the postulate that the Japanese is an undesirable immigrant, and an undesirable citizen.

Mr. SABATH. That last sentence makes me think that perhaps there is something in this letter that should not be given to the press. The views of one man should not be heralded over the country as the views of the entire committee. There may be something in there due to a desire to print which will create news and there may be a great deal made out of that statement that may appear there. It seems to me that perhaps it would be well to read the letter first in executive session.

Mr. RAKER. A vote was had that the letter was to be read, and I think it ought to be read. This man is familiar with the subject, and there is no man better qualified to speak on the subject than this man. What he says corresponds to the fact, upon which we can bring hundreds of witnesses. I have a copy of this letter, and I propose to examine Mr. Gulick and get the full facts before the committee, not in executive session, but I want it to go on record. I believe if we have anything worth having in regard to immigration, it should be given to us in public. This letter was not sent for purposes of notoriety, but to get the true facts before the committee and before Congress. What Mr. McClatchy says is what can be borne out by the facts, and I know the committee wants the facts in regard to this question, not veneered, not camouflaged, but with all the light we can have, so that the American people may know exactly where we stand, and we may act and vote in the committee to the best interests of the country.

Mr. SABATH. Would not the committee get the facts if the letter is read first in executive session?

Mr. RAKER. We voted to read it here.

Mr. KNUTSON. I had no idea that there was anything of that sort in the letter. I do not think we should do anything here that will embarrass the administration in its foreign affairs. I am going to

make a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was agreed to read this letter in open session until we can determine what is in the letter. . Mr. WELTY. He starts in by saying that the Japanese is an undesirable citizen.

Mr. RAKER. That is true.

Mr. KNUTSON. I make the motion, Mr. Chairman, to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WHITE. The gentlemen who writes the letter assumes the responsibility for it. He is a private citizen of the United States; he has a right to print it in any paper in the United States. The committee assumes no responsibility. It should be read here, I think.

Mr. RAKER. In addition to what Mr. White has said, we have allowed a witness to come and speak on the other side of this question. The Chairman presented this letter. I was going to take a little different course and was going to examine Mr. Gulick in regard to it, but the distinguished gentleman on my left, in order to get it in the record moved that it be read, which was just exactly what I wanted to do, and the committee agreed to it.

Now, why should not this man's statement be read to the committee and go on record, irrespective of what he might say. He is responsible for it. He will come here and back up every word he states in that letter. Why should we have executive sessions?. Secrecy is the curse of the country, and I am going to continue to oppose executive session. I have been able to do it on this committee with the exception of one time when Mr. Bryan came before us, and I think we made a mistake then, because it was not an hour afterwards when the statement was given to every paper in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee will agree it is impossible to discuss the plan rut forward by the Committee on Constructive Immigration Legislation, which seems to have been indorsed in a general way by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, without discussing the question as to the desirability of the Jar anese as a citizen.

Mr. RAKER. Shall we do that in secret?

The CHAIRMAN. The motion which has been made is to reconsider the vote by which it was agreed that the letter should be read into the record.

Mr. RAKER. On that I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WILSON. I move that we adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning and that we request the witness to return at that time. (Thereupon, the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, Friday, June 13, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Friday, June 13, 1919.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Albert Johnson (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. When these hearings adjourned yesterday the reading of a letter from Mr. V. S. McClatchy, of Sacramento, was in progress. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the reading of that letter had been ordered was pending when a motion to adjourn was made.