Commissioner had just made an investigation of employment of Japanese, and his findings were similar to those made for China years before, in which opposition to the Chinese had been so vigorously declared.10 At this same time (1900), as a direct result of the annexation of Hawaii, there came into the United States a large influx of Japanese. In that one year 10,000 Japanese reached our ports at San Francisco, while within the next seven years 40,000 had arrived in the United States, which condition directly influenced the negotiation of the "Gentlemen's Agreement" with Japan." This immigration of Japanese en masse from Hawaii to the United States soon created the formidable opposition which quickly assumed such proportions on the Pacific Coast. In the early spring of 1905, the Japanese problem was pushed sharply! to the forefront of public attention owing to a series of articles in the San Francisco Chronicle. On Sunday, May 7, 1905, in San Francisco there was held the first Japanese exclusion meeting. The labor unions had taken the initiative in sponsoring the gathering, and prominent labor union men addressed the audience.12 At this same time a resolution was adopted protesting against Japanese immigration and "the national policy, laws and treaties which allow Japanese to enter our ports, to the great detriment of our citizenship, our standard of living and the progress of American citizenship."12 In early May the Asiatic Exclusion League was organized, with the avowed aim of applying the principle of Chinese Immigrant Exclusion to the Japanese. San Francised School Board com SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD CONTROVERSY On May 6, 1905, the municipal authorities in San Francisco passed a resolution declaring that Japanese students should be segregated from white pupils in the schools. 10 Kawakami, Keyoshi K., "American-Japanese Relations," 1912, p. 300. 11 Gulick, Sidney L., " New Anti-Japanese Agitation," p. 4. 12 San Francisco Chronicle, May 8, 1905: Speakers at Lyric Hall, May 7, 1905: O. A. Tveitmoe, Secretary, Building Trades Council; Walter McArthur, Coast Seaman's Union; Andrew Furuseth, Coast Seaman's Union; W. J. French; E. I. Wolf, State Senator from San Francisco; Mayor E. E. Schmitz of San Francisco. 66 12 Kawakami, Keyoshi, American-Japanese Relations," 1912, p. 306 President Roosevelt immediately got in touch with the local California authorities. He contended that there were two points involved in the issue in which the national government was interested: (1) To meet every reasonable wish and every real need of the people of California or of any other state in dealing with the people of a foreign power; and (2) to reserve to itself exclusively and fully the right of dealing with this foreign power. He added that, as soon as any state legislation affected a foreign nation, then the matter automatically became one with which the national government must deal, and to further that end he would use every resource of the national government to protect the Japanese in their treaty rights." 13 66 The action of the San Francisco Board of Education aroused the greatest indignation in Japan and protests were made to the federal government by the Japanese government. At the request of President Roosevelt, the order on the part of the school board was rescinded on the ground of its bearing on international relations, and at the same time Roosevelt sharply reprimanded the people of the State of California for their opposition to the Japanese.14 The resolution, therefore, was not carried into effect by the San Francisco School Board. This inaction on the part of the San Francisco School Board evidently was a reason for the petition of the newly organized Japanese and Korean Exclusion League on October 22, 1905, that the San Francisco' Board of Education establish separate schools for Japanese children. Again this agitation for separate schools for the Japanese had no direct result. Theodore Roosevelt, in his message to Congress of December 5, 1905, deals with this question of immigration, and is strong in his belief that an immigrant's "standard of living should be such that he will not, by pressure of competition, lower the standard of living of our own wage-earners; for it must ever be a prime object of our legislation to keep high their standard of living." He also adds that the Chinese come under the head of undesirable immigrants of this country, "because of their numbers, the low wages for which they work, and their low standard of living." 13 Autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt, 1913, p. 413. "15 14" Japan and the Japanese-American Relations," edited by G. H. Blakeslee, 1912, P. 7. 15 Congressional Record, December 5, 1905, 59th Cong., Vol. XL, p. 101. SECOND SCHOOL RESOLUTION After the San Francisco fire in 1906, when the entire section of Chinatown was destroyed, a temporary schoolhouse was erected in the neighborhood. As there were no Chinese children attending school, the teacher appealed to the school board to send her Japanese students.16 Under the "most favored nation" clause of the Treaty with Japan, all school privileges were open alike to all Japanese subjects, and by the action of the board it seemed as though the treaty had been violated. Mr. Elihu Root was Secretary of State on the 11th of October, 1906, when the board of education of San Francisco, in accordance with Article 10, Section 1662 of the School Law of California, passed a resolution that after October 15, 1906, Japanese children would be received only at the Oriental Public School. The effect of this resolution was to compel all Japanese children to attend this Oriental Public School, especially provided for Chinese, Japanese and Korean children. The order involved only about 90 Japanese children, but the segregation of “Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other Mongolians" was an affront upon the honor of the Japanese race, which the Japanese Government would not allow to pass unnoticed. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE INITIATES ACTION TO PLACATE JAPAN Secretary of State Root cabled Ambassador Wright at Tokyo to convey the views of the federal government to the Japanese Government, which were that the United States Government would not allow any treatment of the Japanese people other than that accorded the people of other nations. The cable further added that the Department of Justice had been directed to investigate the entire subject.17 16 Japan and Japanese-American Relations," edited by G. H. Blakeslee, 1912, p. 7. San Francisco Chronicle, December 20, 1906: "Whereas, By resolution dated October 11, 1906, the Board of Education of this City and County, acting under the authority of Section 1662 of the Political Code of the State of California, established the Oriental School for the instruction of Chinese and Japanese, and directed principals to transfer forthwith such Japanese as were enrolled in their respective schools to the Oriental School; " 17 San Francisco Call, October 28, 1906. 66 The responsibility for the maintenance of the school system fell upon the taxpayers, according to the statutes, since the state comptroller would estimate the amount necessary to be raised by ad valorem tax for the school purposes during the year." All Japanese children were included in the census for estimating the amount necessary to be raised by taxation, and the funds necessary for the support of the school were raised by general taxation upon all property, whether or not that of resident aliens or citizens.18 Immediately following this act, which taxed the alien for maintaining nearby schools to which his children were forbidden to go and compelled his children to attend a school perhaps several miles from his home, the Japanese Government protested to the government of the United States. ROOSEVELT THREATENS CALIFORNIA WITH THE ENTIRE Power OF THE CIVIL AND MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES President Roosevelt despatched Secretary Metcalf of the Department of Commerce and Labor, to California to investigate the school question, and upon receiving his statement, dated November 26, 1906, addressed a special message to Congress in which he dealt with the alarming agitation against the Japanese in California. In his message to Congress, of December 3, 1906, he voiced his disapproval of the recent action of the California school authorities and expressed the fear that it might result in the gravest consequences to the nation, since, up to the present, the Japanese had been a most friendly people in their relations with the United States. He even suggested that naturalization of the Japanese would be a benefit to both nations. The report of Secretary Metcalf covered the exclusion of Japanese children from the schools in San Francisco, the boycotting of restaurants managed by Japanese, and acts of violence committed against the Japanese. President Roosevelt called the attention of Congress to this report and added that he had authorized Secretary Metcalf to state to the San Francisco officials: "The entire power of the Federal Government within the limits of the Constitution would be used promptly 18 See Root, Elihu, "The Real Questions under the Japanese Treaty and the San Francisco School Board Resolution," American Journal of International Law, 1907. and vigorously to enforce the observances of our treaty, INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES-JAPANESE TREATY OF 1894 "The government of Japan made representations to the government of the United States that, inasmuch as the children of residents who were citizens of all other foreign countries were freely admitted to the schools, the citizens of Japan residing in the United States, were, by that exclusion, denied the same privileges, liberties and rights relating to the right of residence which were accorded to the citizens or subjects of the most favored nations." 20 The construction of the Treaty of November 22, 1894, between the United States and Japan was one of the points at issue. The first article of that treaty reads as follows: "The citizens or subjects of each of the two high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the territory of the other contracting party, and shall enjoy full and perfect protection for their persons and property. "In whatever relates to rights of residence and travel; to the possession of goods and effects of any kind; to the succession to personal estate by will or otherwise; and the disposal of property of any sort and in any manner whatsoever which they may lawfully acquire, the citizens or subjects of each contracting party shall enjoy in the territories of the other the same privileges, liberties, and rights, and shall be subject to no higher imports or 19 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. XVII, p. 7364. 20 See Root, Elihu, "Real Questions Under the Japanese Treaty," "American Journal of International Law," 1907. |