at this time in order that the peaceful relations of the world shall continue, because as a matter of fact our relation to the Japanese immigrant is something more than that; it covers the broader relations of the Occident with the Orient.

As a matter of fact, to-day Japan is really the leader of Asia. We often wish it were not true, but it is a fact, just the same; and as you go through China you find that China is copying after Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say that you wish it were not true? Mr. MURPHY. Because of the danger behind it. There is in Japan the Liberal Party and the old military caste, and there is also that same sort of a cloud over Korea, and that feeling and that division is as intense in Japan as it is here. All of the modern elements are made up of practically what we call the liberal element. As a matter of fact, I am very much surprised at the attitude of a great many people in California. I am sure if the men from California, the leaders of California, really understood what we were proposing to do, the opposition to our proposition would cease. But if it is to be carried to the point that Mr. McClatchy's letter is to represent the attitude of Californians, then of course the whole question is opened up again. That is my opinion in regard to it. We hoped that would not be so.

Dr. Gulick has already referred to the fact that this attitude toward the Japanese is hindering the progress of democracy in Asia. You probably noticed yesterday a cablegram from China to the effect that the anti-Japanese agitation would probably extend to all foreigners. The boycot is already on. No doubt you recall what the boycott did for China long years ago. The Chinese are saying what the Japanese are saying that apparently the white man proposes to have associations for himself and by himself, if you are to have equality applying to the white man only. Apparently our legal attitude at the present time supports that contention; it places us in a very embarrassing position, that is those of us who stand for the liberal element.

I referred to the students who are graduates of American institutions and who have gone back to Japan. There are more than 2,200 of them. They understand America, and because of that fact Japan has been able to hold itself much steadier during this agitation on both sides.

So far as the naturalization question is concerned, America is the only nation, so far as I have been able to find, that has a discrimination on race lines. The Japanese naturalization laws are somewhat like ours, except that there is no discrimination. Germans living in Japan have become naturalized Japanese, since the war began. The naturalization laws there apply to all alike. There is no demand on the part of the Japanese that aliens shall own land, those who, because of our naturalization laws, must remain alien.

For instance, our State of Washington has an anti-alien land law. It applies to all alike. The question has been raised as to the assimilability of the Japanese. I think it is absolutely unreasonable to question whether people can become assimilated when we refuse them that privilege.

I judged yesterday from some of the questions asked here that apparently the American attitude is that because a man is an Asiatic, because a Japanese man is an Asiatic, the Japanese child born

of Asiatic parents is essentially different from other children, and the statement was made in a letter which was read here that the Japanese are undesirable.

What constitutes undesirability? As I see the California attitude, undesirability is confined to the fact that they are different in race. We have to recognize that fact, and that is why this bill is being supported. We recognize there is a difference in race, and it would be dangerous, at the present time at least, to allow more of those people who expect to become American citizens to come here. But the attitude that just because a man has a different color from us he is undesirable is a false attitude. The Japanese in Canada, for instance, have become Canadian citizens.

When Gen. Crowder comes before you he will undoubtedly say that the Japanese claimed exemption. But what would Gen. Crowder do if he were living in another country and were absolutely refused citizenship? If the Japanese in California had volunteered and gone to France and been killed and had had no American issue, his property would have been sold and distributed, and his own heirs in Japan could not have inherited his property. Under those circumstances, you can not blame the Japanese from claiming exemption. As to the Americanization of the children here, I speak from direct knowledge, having been for a good many years engaged in getting American and Japanese born children into our Sunday schools. We have no trouble in getting them into the regular public schools. We have trouble in keeping them out. They try to get them in as quickly as possible, and sometimes lie about the children's ages in order to get them in school as young as they can. We have trouble in keeping those numbers down. But we did have difficulty in getting them into our American Sunday schools.

Dr. Gulick has spoken of the condition at Livingston. Mr. Nobi, a Japanese living in Livingston, is a member of the Methodist Church there, and is a member of the official board. His daughter graduated at the high school there and was elected president of the Epworth League, the young people's society of the Methodist Church, by the American young folks there. There are two sides to this question.

In regard to the number of Japanese and Chinese who would probably be naturalized, the representative from California is entirely mistaken when he says that practically all Chinese (Japanese?) can write and speak enough of the English language to meet their requirements. As a matter of fact, not more than 10 per cent of them in San Francisco can write and read their own language. The vast majority of them can not write and read their own language. That is one of the reasons they insist that their children shall have a knowledge of the Japanese language, so they can write letters for their parents home. I myself was opposed to the Japanese having their own schools originally. I was talking with Superintendent Cooper of the Seattle schools in reference to this matter, and I also had a statement from the gentleman who was superintendent of schools in San Francisco, and have talked with many of the teachers directly, and their statement is that the Japanese children who go from the public schools to the Japanese language schools receive not only language instruction, but receive instruction in etiquette and politeness, and they make better students than those who do not go.

I would also like to refer to a subject which I have already brought to the attention of the chairman either by communication or in conversation as to the increase in the number of reasons for deportation. I hope that will be seriously considered.

We would like on the coast, I am speaking for the better element of Japanese and Chinese, to add to the provisions for deportation. The present law provides that prostitutes shall be deported. We would like to add to those provisions another provision to the effect that persons who conduct gambling games shall be deported. If we can do that, we can break up most of the gambling that is going on on the Pacific coast. There are only a few gambling games going on on the coast now. Coming through Chicago not long ago I found a number of circulars in Chinatown advertising these games. We should make gambling a deportable offense. The Japanese have repeatedly attempted to secure deportation of these people through the immigration officers, but so far they have failed to do so. We would now have an antiprostitute question on the Pacific Coast had it not been for the fact that the many persons engaged in prostitution there are now deportable. To my knowledge there are just three Japanese prostitutes on the entire coast at the present time. Because they are liable to be deported the Japanese are afraid to conduct such places.

Another matter which should be included is with reference to the moonshiners. There are a great many Japanese aliens and Italians enaged in that, and we would like to deport them. There should also be added a provision against dealers in opium. You will never break it up unless you deport the old Chinese who are engaged in that business. Then we should also require passports. As the bill introduced by the gentleman from California suggests, we should require passports from all persons coming from those countries, require that all persons who come to the United States in the future shall bring their passports, just as the Japanese do now. If you do that you cut down our expensive immigration machinery. You gentlemen know that it is now practically a farce. What can we accomplish by our examination here in order to find out what a man has been in his old home country. We should compel him when he comes into this country to have a passport.

In other words, in the broad sense of the term, it seems to me, having grown up to the point of having naturalization of all nations on an equal footing, as the plan before you proposes, it seems to me the time is opportune if possible, to put our entire immigration problem on a permanent basis and make the provisions so they will not be offensive to Asia.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe the Chinese exclusion act passed when it was passed was a wise step on the part of the United States! Mr. MURPHY. The proposition was pefrectly correct, if we could have reached it by a satisfactory method. The purpose was all right. If the Chinese had still been allowed to come to America, California would probably be populated by a million Chinese now. The CHAIRMAN. And San Francisco would have been a second Hong Kong by this time?

Mr. MURPHY. Probably, yes; or even worse.

The CHAIRMAN. And if the gentlemen's agreement with Japan had not been put into effect Seattle would have been Tokio number

two.

Mr. MURPHY. As I have already said, the Japanese passed up the immigration situation for the gentlemen's agreement. Under that there would be more people coming than under the proposed bill. But that is not the point.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the gentlemen's agreement is violated at all?

Mr. MURPHY. I would say the gentlemen's agreement, from my experience is the best observed regulation or rule that was ever in effect between any two nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think when a Japanese comes in and we admit him as a student, he carries out the effect of the gentlemen's agreement when he goes into a Y. M. C. A. school for six months, then quits, goes into business, or becomes a porter in a hotel?

Mr. MURPHY. That is a question that is up to us here.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think six months in a Y. M. C. A. school qualifies him under that agreement as a student?

Mr. MURPHY. He does not enter on that. The weakness of our present plan is that we do not set any time limit. I think that is a mistake. Possibly Dr. Gulick has not had a chance to go into this, but each immigrant in his application for passport should be required to state how long he is going to be here, and when that time expires his passport should be null and void. Unless that is done you can see what will happen. With the people from every country you would have the same problem, with every other nationality.

The CHAIRMAN. In these statistics you handed me there is a statement of the Japanese population in the United States. Is that made up from figures compiled by the Japanese Association of America?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. These statistics show that there are 130,000 Japanese in the United States, of which about 28,000 are Americanborn children. You think those are the late and reliable figures? Mr. MURPHY. Those are the latest figures. There may be more than 28,000 American-born children, because those statistics were made up last year. As I understand the situation, the annual birth rate among the Japanese is between four and five thousand. Of course, you deduct from that the mortality rate.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a heavy birth rate, is it not?

Mr. MURPHY. No; that is just a normal birth rate. May I refer here to the statistics of Assemblyman Parker? He says the Japanese birth rate in 1916 was 67, in 1917 93, in 1918 123; and that the white birth rate for the same period was 119 in 1916, 79 in 1917, and 61 in 1918. In other words, the white birth rate was coming down and the Japanese birth rate was going up, but that the white families outnumber the Japanese three or four to one. But can you blame the Japanese because he does not raise a family on a Studebaker and a poodle dog?

Here are the exact figures from the board of health of Placer County. In 1916 Mr. Parker says the Japanese birth rate was 67, whereas as a matter of fact it was 80; he says in 1917 it was 93, whereas as a matter of fact it was 85. He says in 1918 it was 123, while as a matter of fact it was 91.

Then, in connection with the white birth rate, Mr. Parker says in 1916 it was 119, while the official figures in Placer County show that

the birth rate was 280. He says that the white birth rate in 1917 was 79, while the board of health says it was 257. Mr. Parker says the white birth rate in 1918 was 61, while as a matter of fact as the report of the board of health shows, it was 266.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it that there seems to be difficulty in securing statistics as to Japanese birth rate and population in the United States?

Mr. MURPHY. I did not know there was that difficulty. If you go to the State board of health you will get it. But the Japanese Association takes their census annually, and they know what it isthey have a fairly correct record. Yet it seems to me that the estimate of 130,000 Japanese is large, and the estimate of 28,000 children seems to me to be rather large, but those are the statistics of the Japanese Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statistics show that of students and business men there were about 17,000 or 18,000, 1,100 of whom are students; that there were 25,000 wives living here and about 67,000 male laborers, and several thousand children born in Japan. Most of the wives have come in as picture brides, have they not?

Mr. MURPHY. Recently, either as picture brides, or the Japanese have brought their wives in with them. According to the laws of Japan a Japanese wife must stay in the old home six months after she is married, and the husband comes ahead so that he will not have to pass the literacy test. Therefore he comes back and the wife follows him.

In reference to the picture bride business, I wish you would ask Mr. Caminetti what the result of his own investigations show on that line. I wish all American marriages would show such good results.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you favor the introduction as an American institution of the picture bride plan?

Mr. MURPHY. The picture bride plan resulted in 98 successful marriages out of 100. In our own States the divorces are increasing. The Japanese picture brides ought to be encouraged on that ground, but it would not work for Americans at all.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Murphy, you say you are now a missionary of the Japanese?

Mr. MURPHY. A missionary in a joint capacity, loaned by the Methodist Episcopal Church South and supported by the Japanese themselves. A few Japanese, mostly non-Christians, guarantee my support.

Mr. RAKER. You were formerly a missionary in Japan?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir; for 14 years, in Japan, under the Methodist Protestant Church at that time.

Mr. RAKER. Of course your interests are inclined, as far as you can in your way, to see that the Japanese are permitted to enter the United States, as well as the Chinese?

Mr. MURPHY. I thought I had made myself clear on that. I really think, as a matter of fact, that the demand for Japanese labor, as you know, in California there is a great demand for it

Mr. RAKER. I do not think there is, except by the great corporations and institutions that like to get cheap labor. I think that is the only place where the desire is.

Mr. MURPHY. Nevertheless there is the demand. I think we should admit more than we are, but in view of the feeling it would be danger