professor of economics of the University of Tokyo, member of the House of Peers and adviser to Prince Tokugawa, during the Arms Conference held at Washington, D. C., 1921-22. As a result of several conversations with the Baron at this time, regarding these allegations, it would appear that there is an administrative measure in Japan which forbids employers in certain large industries from using contract laborers. Unskilled Korean and Chinese workers are the main sources of supply for certain branches of work in these plants, owing to the low wages at which these men may be hired. Therefore, this Japanese ordinance practically excludes these undesirable laborers from competing with the Japanese and lowering their standard of living and wages by making it an impossibility for these races to obtain work. The exclusion of undesirable workmen is secured by the Japanese by an intensive indirect method. In other words, Japan prevents the immigration into Japan of unskilled Korean and Chinese laborers to protect its standard of living, while to maintain its standard of living is the reason why California wishes to restrict the incoming Japanese into its lands.

CHAPTER IX

ANTI-ALIEN LEGISLATION IN THE WESTERN STATES

The narration of circumstances originating in various recent legislative acts dealing with the Japanese in California, with the nullification of said acts by the Supreme Court of the state, and relations of the United States Government with Japan as a direct result of alleged discrimination against the race.

ALIEN LAND MEASURES IN OREGON AND IDAHO

In 1917 alien land measures were introduced in the Oregon and Idaho Legislatures. Again the Japanese Government made emphatic protests to the United States Government. It was intimated that the Japanese Ambassador frankly informed the Secretary of State that the Japanese people would be difficult to check if such discriminatory measures were passed.

The State Department immediately took steps to bring pressure to bear upon the Idaho Legislature, and Secretary of State Lansing requested that the measure be shelved, as the passage would further complicate difficult international differences.1

The attitude of Japan toward these anti-Japanese measures pending in Idaho and Oregon brought forth the statement from Kijiro Shidehara, Vice-Foreign Minister, on behalf of his government, as follows:

"Of course we registered objections to the bills on the ground that they were discriminatory. Japan is convinced that Secretary Lansing has done everything possible to prevent the passage of the measures, but regrets the apparent revival of an anti-alien measure in one state. We realize the embarrassment of the central government owing to the system of state's rights, but it is our duty to protect the dignity, honor and interests of Japanese subjects." 2

1 See American Year Book, 1917, pp. 48-9.

2 See Commercial and Financial Chronicle of New York, March 10, 1917.

Baron Sato, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States, on February 1, 1917, interviewed Frank Polk, counsellor of the Department of State, regarding the proposed anti-alien land measures in Idaho and Oregon. He urged the prevention of the enactment of these bills into law, but did not lodge a formal protest. Mr. Polk then requested Senators Borah and Brady to use their influence with the Idaho State Government in preventing action.. He appealed in the same manner to Senators Chamberlain and Lane from Oregon, pointing out in each case the embarrassment to which the Federal Government would be subjected in its international relations with Japan. Senator Borah immediately telegraphed to the Idaho State Senate, expressing his belief that the Senate should refrain from passing this legislation, for the reason that he believed that the whole matter could be adjusted satisfactorily through diplomatic channels. On February 2, 1917, the Idaho State Senate decided that the passage of the Anti-Alien Land Ownership Bill passed by the lower house should be indefinitely postponed because of possible international complications. State Senator George R. Wilbour, who had sponsored the AntiAlien Land Bill in the Oregon Legislature, also decided not to handicap President Wilson in the international crisis by pressing the passage of the bill, with the result that it was withdrawn on the same day.3

Baron Shimpei Goto writes at length on the anti-Japanese question and states that "few international questions have been so openly laid before public attention and yet so misrepresented, as the anti-Japanese question in California," and he adds that legislation in California formally known by the name of the AntiAlien Land Law of 1913, "has ever been a subject of diplomatic protest by the Japanese Government.'

EXCLUSION ACT OF 1917

The Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, marked the successful culmination up to this time of the determined efforts of the advocates for exclusion of immigrants. This measure was directly aimed at the immigration from the southern parts of Europe, but a clause found in Section 3, establishing an "Asiatic Barred Zone," See Financial Digest Daily Bulletin, February 3, 1917.

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January, 1921, p 104.

is of special significance to the inhabitants of the Pacific Coast. The zone referred to in this section covers India, Indo-China, Siam, parts of Siberia, Arabia, Afghanistan, Dutch East Indies, Ceylon, Borneo, New Guinea, the Celebes, and the smaller Pacific Islands. All natives of these countries are excluded from the United States unless belonging to the exempted classes.

Geographically, parts of China are included within the scope of this section, but immigration from that country is already restricted by statutes in existence at the time of the passage of the Act of 1917. Nevertheless, there is an important provision which reads:

"No alien now in any way excluded from, or prevented from, entering the United States, shall be admitted to the United States." 5

This assures the continuation of the present policy of exclusion of Chinese immigrants, even though existing treaties and agreements should become nullified.

The "Barred Zone" clause also indirectly deals with Japanese exclusion because of the fact that, taken in conjunction with the Chinese Exclusion Acts, it excludes all Asiatics except the Japanese, who are excluded already under the "Gentlemen's Agreement."

The Japanese Ambassador protested to the Department of State relative to this portion of the Immigration Bill of February 5, 1917, which "prohibited the entry into the United States unless otherwise provided for by existing treaties, of natives of islands not owned by the United States adjacent to the coast of Asia, within certain parallels of latitude and longitude, drawn so as to embrace Japan." "

REVIVAL OF MAGDALENA BAY NEGOTIATIONS

Again a proposed sale of lands on Magdalena Bay to a Japanese syndicate was the subject of some correspondence between the representatives of the California-Mexico Land and Cattle Company and the Department of State between June 21, 1917, and March 21, 1919. At this time and on the former date, the attorney

U. S. Statutes at large, 64th Cong., Vol. XXXIX, pp. 874-6.

• American Year Book, 1917, pp. 48-9.

Stoddard, Lothrop, "Japanese Issue in California," World's Work, October, 1920.