know Californians can not compete with them and maintain an American standard of living. And we have been in hopes that our kind treatment of the two delegates from Japan, and our own efforts to have them understand fully and unequivocally that we have no grievance against the Japanese as long as they remain in Japan, might have a tendency to bring about a better understanding between the wage workers of Japan and the wage workers of America. If we have failed in this honest endeavor it will be no fault of ours. have at least tried.

We

In labor circles there was considerable discussion upon the question throughout the year, but when Suzuki returned from Japan a year later he was again seated in the convention with only a few dissenting votes. At that time (October, 1916) Delegate Suzuki extended a formal invitation to the convention to send a fraternal delegate to the fifth anniversary of the Laborers' Friendly Society in Japan, to be held the following spring in Tokio.

The invitation was referred to a committee, and in due time the committee submitted the following report:

Upon invitation of the Japanese Fraternal Delegate to send a Representative to that Country, your committee submits the following resolution and recommends its approval:

Whereas, The organized labor movement of California and of America stands ever ready to assist the workers of every country, color and creed, to emancipate themselves from exploitation, and

Whereas, It has been necessary at times for the working class of this country to protect their standard of living by favoring the exclusion of foreign competition, in the spirit alone of imperative necessity and self-protection, and

Whereas, We have learned, with interest and gratification, that the workers of Japan are organizing into industrial unions for their own welfare; a movement we can endorse; therefore, be it

Resolved, By the Seventeenth Annual

Convention of the California State Federation of Labor, that we give to Mr. Suzuki, the fraternal delegate from the Laborers' Friendly Society of Japan, our expression of good will and a message of hope and encouragement for a brighter future of the working class of his country; and be it further

Resolved, That, in assuming this position of a greater friendship between the workers of the East and the West, we must continue our unswerving stand upon exclusion until such time as immigration will not prove a menace to our own unions, our working people and our standard of living; and be it further

Resolved, That the question of sending a fraternal delegate from this body to the labor convention in Japan be referred to the Executive Council of this Federation, with the hope that a delegate can be selected to carry a message of good will and encouragement to the laboring class of Japan.

The report of the Committee was adopted.

In November of the same year Suzuki attended the annual convention of the American Federation of Labor which met at Baltimore. This convention was equally emphatic in defining the position of organized labor upon American-Japanese working-class relations, by the unanimous adoption of the following:

Resolved, By the American Federation of Labor in annual convention assembled at Baltimore, Md., that we note with extreme pleasure and satisfaction the fact that the working people of Japan are organizing into unions and federated under the Laborers' Friendly Society of Japan; that we bespeak for them and their movement all the success possible; that we recommend that the Executive Council continue its friendly office in an effort to be helpful to the organization of the workers of Japan in every way possible by correspondence, and that it send a message of fraternal greeting, good will and best wishes for the success of the movement to organize more thoroughly and practically the wage-workers of Japan to bring light in their work and their lives.

more

It had been hoped that the American Federation of Labor and the California State Federation of Labor would each send a fraternal delegate to the meeting in Japan but the international situation became more and critical and finally resulted in America's entry in the war. That put an end to plans for developing a clearer understanding and promoting mutual good will between the workers in America and Japan.

Suzuki did not return as a fraternal delegate but since his last visit the workers of Japan have been represented at two international labor conferences held under the auspices of the League of Nations and in each instance the Japanese representative gave an excellent account of himself.

M. Masumoto, Japan's labor delegate to the International Labor Conference held in Washington, during 1919, was a man with the courage of his convictions. Addressing the conference on November 27, Masumoto characterized his government as an autocracy which is the enemy of social justice. Pointing to the Japanese flag, he declared that under it "there is a police regulation whose aim is to interfere with the organization of labor." Describing what he termed the danger of extending to the Government of Japan special treatment, Masumoto said the industrial workers of Japan were mostly women and children, and that their lives approached almost that of slavery.

A second international labor conference was held at Genoa, Italy, in June and July, 1920, to consider the problems of seamen. Just prior to said conference representatives of the world's seamen held an opening meeting in Genoa for the purpose of comparing notes and, if possible, to agree upon a joint program for submission to the official international conference.

At both of these meetings the seafarers of Japan were represented by Ken Okasaki, an able, courageous and resourceful champion of those who go down to sea in ships.

It has been my good fortune to come in personal contact with all three of these Japanese labor representatives— Suzuki, Masumoto and Okasaki-and it is not stretching a point to assert that men of this type are truly a credit to the working people in Japan.

Through association with these three men, often under decidedly trying circumstances, it has become a fixed belief with me that American-Japanese relations can be adjusted on a basis entirely satisfactory to the working people in both nations. No claim is made that this can be done by professional diplomats. But a series of heart to heart talks between workers' representatives from America and Japan will accomplish wonders. In fact there will be scarcely any ground for disagreement after a perfectly frank exchange of views has taken place. Of course, there must be honesty of purpose and discussion without disguise.

Japanese and American diplomats have so beclouded the main issue that the average man who is not a member of the diplomats' union, and hence not versed in the fine points of that game, can not possibly follow the play.

For years we have been told that the Japanese are peeved because of the anti-Japanese campaign in California. But is it reasonable to assume that any Japanese duly acquainted with the immigration policy of Australia and Canada can have any grievance against California's efforts to similarly protect herself?

Can it be possible that any considerable number of Japanese, outside of diplomatic circles, will seriously claim certain rights for their countrymen in California when these "rights" have

threatens to supplant Anglo-Saxon civilization on this Coast."

THE

HE language here quoted is practically identical with the expres sions commonly used in the present discussion of the Japanese question. The object sought by the people of the Pacific Coast forty years ago has been attained. Chinese immigration ceased with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that phase of the general problem may be considered as settled. The problem of Japanese immigration is in all essentials one with the earlier phase of Asiatic immigration. Fundamentally, the whole question is a matter of race; not of the comparative qualities of the races, but solely of the difference between the races, a difference so wide and deep as to constitute a natural and permanent cleavage. From this viewpoint it would seem that a brief review of the history of Chinese exclusion may be of value in the present discussion.

Chinese immigration to California dates from the period of the gold rush, when a few members of the merchant class arrived at San Francisco. They were welcomed, and in fact honored, partly on their own account but chiefly because of the promise, which their presence afforded, of a great commerce with the Orient. They sent back favorable reports of their reception and the prospects of advancement in the new land. Immediately the tide of immigration set in. In little more than a year (1851) 14,000 Chinese had landed in the state. A large fleet of vessels was employed in the "coolie trade," as it was thus early designated, at the rate of fifty dollars per head. During the two years, 1853-1855, the approximate numbers of Chinese in California fluctuated between 22,000 and 39,000.

'Memorial to Congress by the Canorma Constitutional Convention, 1879.

The welcome accorded the firstcomers from the Flowery Land was short-lived. The great majority of the immigrants were of the coolie class, and of course sought employment in the mining industry. The characteristics of this class of immigration immediately became apparent. In 1852 (that is, within two or three years following the advent of the first immigrants) the public feeling against Chinese labor had reached an acute point. Then began the agitation for Chinese exclusion, which continued without intermission for fifty years, and which has been continued in the case of its correlated phase throughout the subsequent period of eighteen years, down to the present time, a total period of sixty-eight years.

From the beginning of the agitation the race factor was recognized as fundamental, and all efforts to cope with the evil were directed toward the ultimate object of exclusion. Probably the most comprehensive treatment of the subject is contained in A History of California Labor Legislation, compiled by Lucile Eaves and issued by the University of California. From that work we gather the following details of the exclusion movement.

In the period 1852-1872 numerous measures were enacted by the state and municipal authorities. In general these measures took the form of taxation. An example of the policy of "exclusion by taxation" is seen in the act of the California Legislature (1852) which, by requiring a bond of $500 for every alien passenger landed, sought to accomplish the object of state exclusion without running counter to federal authority. Many municipal ordinances were aimed in the same direction. A laundry tax, prohibitive in effect, was imposed. A cubic air space regulation, likewise prohibitive, was enacted. It was made a misde

meanor for any person on the sidewalks to carry baskets suspended on a pole across the shoulders. Another ordinance prohibited the employment of Chinese on public works. The principle of the latter measure, which was described as "exclusion by starvation," was subsequently embodied in the State Constitution (1879) in two provisions, one of which prohibited the employment of Chinese or Mongolians by any corporation, while the other prohibited their employment on public works, except in punishment for crime." The former of these provisions was declared unconstitutional, but the latter remains a part of the State Constitution.

66

In general these measures failed in their object, largely because the authorities were unable or unwilling to enforce them, but chiefly because they went beyond the legislative powers of the state and municipality. The polecarrying ordinance was upheld by the State Supreme Court, as a reasonable exercise of the police power. Practically all other measures aimed against the Chinese were declared unconstitutional, either by the state or federal courts.

The policy of actual exclusion by the state was attempted by an act of the Legislature passed in 1852. By the terms of that measure no Chinese or Mongolian was allowed to land in the state. Masters of vessels were subject to a fine of $400 to $600, or imprisonment for from six months to a year, or both such fine and imprisonment, for knowingly permitting the landing of Chinese. This attempt at direct exclusion was, of course, declared unconstitutional.

In every instance the failure of these attempts to deal with the question by the exercise of state or municipal powers resulted in increased agitation, accompanied by increasingly drastic

proposals and occasionally by open violence, culminating in the forcible expulsion of the Chinese from many localities. It is to be noted, however, that public feeling was the result of resentment against the failure of Congress to act upon the demand for exclusion, rather than of disappointment over the failure of the local measures. It appears that the real motive inspiring many of the local efforts was admonitory-that is to say, these efforts were designed as a warning to Congress and the people in other localities and to impress upon them the need of federal legislation. The resolutions and memorials issued by numerous public and quasi-public bodies uniformly recited the failure of all local efforts to secure relief, by way of prelude to the demand for Congressional action.

The Burlingame Treaty (1868) between the United States and China recognized the "mutual advantages of free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from one country to the other for the purposes of curiosity, of trade, or of permanent residence." A single reservation was made by amendment, to the effect that nothing in the treaty should be held to confer the right of naturalization in either case. Thus the action of the federal government increased rather than allayed the dissatisfaction of the people in the West. This condition was further aggravated by the discussion which shortly afterward (1870) took place in Congress in connection with a bill to revise the naturalization laws. During the debate on the proposal to extend the rights of citizenship to aliens of African descent and persons of African nativity, an effort was made to include "persons born in the Chinese Empire." The attempt to extend the rights of citizenship to the Chinese