which in its connection is quite correct, but wholly misleading when isolated.

JAPANESE LABOR

This report gives much valuable and interesting information on the question of Japanese labor. It appears that "there are probably more white laborers working for Oriental farmers than there are Oriental laborers working for American farmers" (p. 101). White men evidently will work for and with Japanese an affirmation quite contrary to energetically cultivated popular opinion. Japanese, moreover, do not employ their own people exclusively. This explodes another popular opinion.

It appears that "sufficient American farm labor can be readily secured, provided comfortable housing, substantial food properly served and some opportunity for recreation is provided upon the farms" (p. 106). This is the experience of the Valley Fruit Growers' Association of Fresno, with a white membership of 3,000.

The report calls attention to the fact that since Japanese raise so large a proportion of the "food products practically indispensable to the States' daily supply," $67,000,000 $67,000,000 worth, "any sudden removal of the Japanese would be unwise" (p. 104). suggestion, however, is offered as to how that "sudden removal" is to be avoided upon the enactment of the new drastic land law.

No

fully and doubtless to a large extent.' This sentence is quoted from the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration. The state authorities furnish no original information on the subject.

The desire of the Board to give a fair report is well shown by the Appendix which contains two valuable monographs by Japanese. One is the Memorial Address Presented by the Japanese Association of America to President Wilson When He Visited San Francisco September 18, 1919. other is an article on Japanese Farming in California by T. Chiba, Managing Director of the Agricultural Association of California. Both are well written and full of highly valuable information.

The

HEARINGS IN CALIFORNIA AND WASH

INGTON OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA-

TION

The summary abstract of these Hearings shows that so far as the chairman and members were concerned effort was made to be thoroughly fair and to secure reliable information. From the nature of the case many conflicting opinions were expressed. Japanese witnesses were called in freely and also friends of the Japanese. So likewise were their bitterest critics. In California sixty-six witnesses were heard, and in Washington thirty-eight.

Senator Phelan and Mr. McClatchy testified at great length. Several witnesses had prepared carefully written statements and even extensive documents which were submitted without being read. Senator Phelan repeated his familiar charges of violation of the "Gentlemen's Agreement," of large land purchasing and of smuggling.

On a previous page a few sentences were quoted from witnesses favorable to the Japanese. These could be

largely multiplied. Many surprising statements of good will and fine relationships were made. Mr. Kanzaki stated that "the California State Commission on Immigration and Housing published pamphlets giving instruction as to American customs and manners in every language save the Japanese." Colonel Irish stated that "he had transacted several million dollars' worth of business with the Japanese and had never had one of them break his word or violate his contract." Mr. McClatchy admitted, on being questioned, that "his experience excluded any contact with prominent Japanese."

Practically none of the witnesses thought further Japanese immigration desirable. The chief difference between the pro-Japanese and the anti-Japanese seemed to be that the former desire to see absolute equality of treatment and fair play granted to those Japanese who are already here, while the latter would like to have drastic race-differential laws passed, humiliating in character and economically repressive.

Many witnesses insisted that the Americanization of Japanese is actually going on fairly well in spite of adverse circumstances. Many, on the other hand, insisted that Americanization and real assimilation is impossible without intermarriage, but that this is intolerable to think of.

Dr. Palmer, pastor of the Union Church in Hawaii, for many years a resident in California, testified as to the situation in Hawaii. "California has no idea how thoroughly Americanized the Japanese in Hawaii have become."

THE NEW ANTI-ALIEN LAND LAW Governor Stephens says in his letter that the state "will and should, in my (his) opinion, by an overwhelming majority, enact the proposed initiative

legislation." His desire was fulfilled. It was adopted by a vote of 666,483 to 222,086. The chief surprise in this vote was the size of the opposition.

This group doubtless believes with the rest that there should not be further immigration from Japan but it does not believe in humiliating and economically repressive legislation. They wish to prevent a "new race problem" by fair play and honorable treatment and full Americanization of all Japanese who are now here.

The report of the State Board of Control contains a copy of the then proposed-now adopted stringent law. It forbids all leasing of agricultural land to "aliens ineligible to become citizens of the United States." Such aliens may not form corporations entitled to purchase or lease such land, nor may they buy shares or stock in corporations entitled to acquire or own such land. The guardians of children whose parents are Japanese or Chinese, in whose name agricultural land is owned or bought, are to be appointed by the courts.

A COMING DISAPPOINTMENT TO
CALIFORNIA

Governor Stephens implies, and practically all the anti-Japanese agitators affirm, that if a rigid law is passed forbidding further Japanese immigration, the Japanese population in California will dwindle away, as the Chinese has, and finally disappear as a problem. This is what California has been led to expect.

This expectation is practically certain to be unrealized. The Japanese situation today is wholly different from that of the Chinese in 1882 when their immigration was stopped. Few Chinese women entered the United States either before that date or since. The annual births of Chinese in California for ten years has averaged only 374.

The Chinese population in California December 31, 1919 is estimated by the Board as 33,271-the decrease in ten years having been 2,977.

The average Japanese laborer in California, unlike the Chinese but like the European, is eager to establish his home here. This is the reason why so many Japanese women have been coming to America. Japanese labor immigration was stopped in 1907. But the men then here have established families to the extent of about 15,000. There still remain between 20,000 and 25,000 unmarried men. The recent decision of the Japanese Government to stop granting passports to young women coming to join husbands in America, whom though legally married they had not met in Japan, will retard somewhat the increase of Japanese families in California, but is not likely to stop it. Prosperous Japanese men can return to Japan for a visit, get married and return with their wives. In case that is stopped it would seem altogether probable that they would go to Hawaii and find American-born wives.

But however that may be, the number of Japanese families in California is already large enough to insure a permanent and a growing Japanese population. The births recorded for the three years 1917, 1918 and 1919 respectively were 4,108, 4,365 and 4,378.

The enactment by Congress of a drastic Japanese exclusion law is to be expected in the near future. It will be obnoxious and humiliating to Japan because of her consciousness of having faithfully administered the "Gentlemen's Agreement" during the past twelve years. Its results will be disappointing to California because it will not make any marked diminution in the number of Japanese in California. On the contrary that population is certain to grow.

Misrepresentations as to the past and false expectations as to the future. are likely to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous politicians to start renewed agitation a few years hence by which again to gain personal and party advantage.

APPENDIX

THE UNITED STATES CENSUS 1900, 1910 AND 1920

The Bureau of the Census issued November 16, 1920 a preliminary announcement of a few figures in regard to the Japanese population in the states of California, Oregon and Washington and in the territory of Hawaii. We give these figures in tabular form and call attention to some of the surprising facts disclosed.

1. The total population of California increased from 1,485,653 in 1900 to 2,377,549 in 1910 and to 3,426,861 in 1920. At those same dates, the Japanese population numbered respectively 10,151, 41,358 and 70,196. Stated in percentages the Japanese population constituted 0.7 per cent, 1.7 per cent and 2 per cent of the total population in 1900, 1910 and 1920 respectively. The point to be noted is the large increase of the general population.

2. In Hawaii, the Japanese population constituted 39.7 per cent of the total population in 1900; 41.5 per cent. in 1910, and 42.7 per cent in 1920, the figures being 61,111, 79,675 and 109,269 respectively. In other words, the relative increase of the Japanese population has been very small indeed.

3. The Japanese population in California showed an increase of 307.4 per cent between 1900 and 1910, immigration having been free until 1908; while during the decade between 1910 and 1920 the increase was 69.7 per cent, consisting chiefly of women and children.

3. Her people are here under treaty rights and agreements, and were by us thereby invited to come. Can we afford to be the first to ignore those rights and insult our guests or exploit their labors? They were invited to Hawaii to aid the sugar planters. They were permitted to acquire property in our Pacific Coast states under the laws of said states. They did not force the land from the people. They did not acquire it by condemnation or confiscation, but they went into the market under the laws of our states and purchased the property from willing and anxious citizens and often at a very much inflated value. Are we going to be the first to violate our own laws and rob the foreigner of lawfully acquired property? We were willing for him to toil almost incessantly to furnish our table with rare and fresh vegetables and fruits, but when he began to reap the just and legitimate harvest rewards of his labors we desired to drive him from the land. Are we to be the first to repudiate our boasted doctrine of the right to life, labor and the pursuit of happiness?

If we and our native sons are too lazy to till the soil and feed the people why amputate the hand which is now feeding us?

Perhaps it is a mistake to congregate any group of foreigners in any locality in any state. The east side of New York is perhaps committing the same error. They should be scattered over all the state, and they should be distributed throughout the states of America. If we permit them to congregate, remember it is our fault and not theirs. They should not suffer because of our short-sightedness.

4. The agitation is unreasonable and un-American. It is not based upon facts. There are about 150,000 Orientals in this whole country of ours. That means the entire yellow race

population of America. Think of that small number in our vast population of over 100,000,000. The agitation, therefore, is without foundation. There are about 80,000 Japanese in California, which has a population of about 3,000,000. There are only 17,000 Japanese in Washington, which has a population of over 1,500,000. Why, then, this unjust agitation? Who could see danger except the person who manufactures it for a premeditated reason?

Japanese immigration is fixed by treaty and can not be handled any other way and be true to America's honor. Japan has not violated her treaty with us and sent her people here unlawfully. Her picture brides came by treaty authority, but when we objected she gladly refused to issue passports to them. Her adopted sons came by treaty authority. If you had a son adopted by law and given you by law you would be lawfully bound to give him every right that a son by birth inherits. Therefore, the treaty says that a legitimately adopted son of a rightfully admitted Japanese merchant has a right to enter. That is true American justice. Would you be the first to belie the true fatherheart of America?

Racial and national prejudice and suspicion are un-American. Japan is not seeking anything unlawful nor unfriendly. All statements to the contrary are without a single fact to sustain them. How could Japan overrun this country when her people are admitted under treaty conditions fixed by us? We make the treaty conditions. Japan is not making our treaty nor does she fix our terms. It is all in our hands. Why manufacture false alarms just to justify our unholy, un-Christian and un-American prejudice? Such conduct is damnable.

They say no people should be ad