In this connection it may be worth while to point out that, according to the reports of the governors of the three kens of Kanawaga, Hiogo, and Nagasaki, who were instructed to investigate the number of Japanese passengers who returned to Japan from the United States and Hawaii since January up to May last, those who returned from the continental United States were 1,993, including 170 cabin passengers, and those from Hawaii 1,732, including 10 cabin passengers. In this number it may be necessary to make certain allowance as to its accuracy owing to the haste used in the investigation, but it is considered that the actual number of those passengers will not be found to be less than that above given, and the comparison of the number of Japanese passengers from the continental United States less the first-class passengers, which is 1,823, with the total number of emigrants from January to May, which is 908, shows that the number of those who returned to Japan is more than double that of the emigrants who left for the continental United States, and that the number of Japanese subjects living there is much decreased. JAPANESE REFUSAL TO ISSUE PASSPORTS TO JAPANESE SERVANTS DESIRING TO ACCOMPANY EMPLOYERS TO UNITED STATES. Mr. Jay to Mr. Root. [Telegram.] TOKYO, July 9, 1908—1 p. m. Foreign Office wishing to reduce, generally speaking, number of Japanese departures for the United States, has decided to refuse passports to all Japanese servants, male or female, even if accompanying their masters, American citizens resident here, who may be going to the United States of America on a visit. Embassy already approached on several occasions by Americans who, wishing to take family servants, nurses, etc., with them, claim hardship put upon their wives, often in ill health, if deprived of Japanese service, other servants being nonprocurable here. Foreign Office willing to make exceptions if I will make application in writing for each case as it occurs. I have informed Foreign Office unofficially that in my opinion Rule 21-j does not include purely domestic servants, but Foreign Office replies alleging exceeding anxiety to reduce monthly general totals of Japanese passports. Am I authorized to inform Foreign Office that no objection is entertained purely domestic servants accompanying Americans and, if necessary, (shall I?) in each case make specific request? JAY, Chargé. Mr. Loeb to Mr. Bacon. [Telegram.] OYSTER BAY, N. Y., July 10, 1908. Referring to cable from Jay, Tokyo, regarding departure of Japanese servants for United States, in the President's judgment Jay should make no such request. Nothing whatever should be done by this Government to give the impression that we discourage stringent action in this matter by the Japanese Government. WM. LOEB, Jr., Mr. Adee to Mr. Jay. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 11, 1908. Your telegram 9th. Abstain from requesting exception for Japanese servants accompanying American employers. We should not do anything tending to relax or discourage stringent action by the Japanese Government to effectively restrain all phases of labor emigration. ADEE, Acting. Mr. Jay to Mr. Root. [Telegram.] TOKYO, July 14, 1908-2 p. m. (Received 9.44 a. m.) In memorandum relating to emigration just received from Foreign Office it is pointed out that while total number of laborers proceeding to America from January to June, inclusive, of this year was 1,054, all of whom belonged to the three privileged classes (see embassy's 335 of May 28), during the same period 2,111 steerage passengers, most, if not all, belonging to laboring class, left the United States for Japan. Foreign Office believes that if the United States Government would, when publishing the classes and numbers of Japanese entering America, also announce at the same time the numbers of those who leave, the statistics would go far towards allaying the uneasiness felt upon the subject by a section of American people. JAY, Chargé. Mr. Loeb to Mr. Root. THE WHITE HOUSE, OYSTER BAY, N. Y., July 23, 1908. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The President sends you the inclosed letter from Ambassador Takahira for your confidential information. Very truly yours, WM. LOEB, Jr., IMPERIAL JAPANESE EMBASSY BUENA VISTA, MD., July 20, 1908. MR. PRESIDENT: With reference to Your Excellency's note of the 8th of July, I telegraphed to my Government what was therein contained, in conformity with your desire, and I have received a message from Vicount Terauchi, new Minister for Foreign Affairs ad interim, a translation of which runs substantially as follows: "You will assure to the President that the new Cabinet will not only strictly enforce the limitation of emigration to the full extent in accordance with the understanding already arrived at between the two countries, but endeavor to promote more and more the friendly relations happily existing between them. "As regards the proposed despatch of American agents to Japan to investigate the condition of emigration, you may state that the Imperial Government will be ready to extend every appropriate consideration to them.' I may be permitted to add that when my telegram reached Japan the Cabinet then in power was retiring, and it seems the answer had to be delayed until after the formation of the new one. You may inform Minister Foreign Affairs results shown by immigration statistics for June and July are regarded by Government of the United States as a fair promise for the future and as indicating that economic questions growing out of emigration and immigration may be successfully solved by cooperation on the part of the two Governments. SIR: Relative to the negotiations with the Japanese Government respecting the issuance of passports to persons of certain classes to proceed to the United States, I have to inclose herewith, for your information, a copy of a memorandum, dated July 30, 1908, prepared by the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of the Department of Commerce and Labor, and constituting a summary of an appeal taken by seven Japanese farm laborers rejected at the port of Seattle, Wash., as seeking admission to the United States in violation of that portion of section 2 of the immigration act, approved February 20, 1907, relating to alien contract laborers. In bringing this matter to the attention of the Foreign Office you may express the belief of this Department that a thorough understanding between the two Governments with regard to the question which it illustrates would be of distinct advantage to all concerned. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE. No. 51938 22.] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, MEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY. In re appeal case of Kurihara Yusaki, aged 23; Migaki Tokichi, aged 24; Ikegami Teruo, aged 22; Fujii Kwanichi, aged 17; Nakamura Nimeji, aged 27; Kumazawa Umejiro, aged 27; and Ishiyama Zensaburo, aged 29; carried on steamship manifest as farm laborers and described in passports as "associate member" or as "to be partner" in T. Hayashi's, or Hayashi Teijiro's, or Sadajiro Hayashi's farm in Texas, the testimony of all the aliens giving the name of the farm proprietor as Hayashi Tejiro. The testimony of these seven Japanese is substantially to the same effect, and needs only to be generally summarized in order to gain a correct idea of the points. involved in the case. They are stated to be ordinary coolies in appearance, and have with them barely enough money to pay their transportation and expenses to destination, having tickets to San Francisco only. They all claim that they met Mr. Hayashi in Japan and arranged with him that they should become partners in a farming enterprise at Dacosta, Tex., which Hayashi claimed to control; that on the basis of this proposition of proposed partnership they applied for and received passports (copies of which are attached to the record, all being dated in the 5th month of the 41st year of Meiji-1908), and it is evident from their testimony that they realized they could not receive such passports unless they represented to the Japanese Government that they were nonlaborers. It is also clearly demonstrated by the testimony of the seven men that it was this promise of employment on Hayashi's farm in Texas which induced them to leave Japan and come to the United States. They all stated that the understanding with Hayashi (oral in every instance) contem plates that they shall invest more or less cash in the farming enterprise, shall receive no fixed wages in compensation for their toil on the rice plantation, but in lieu of such fixed wages shall receive a fixed percentage of the profits derived each year from the culture of rice on said farms. They all claim to be under the impression that Hayashi returned to Texas soon after reaching the understanding with them and that he now awaits their arrival at Dacosta. In most of the cases the passage of the aliens has been paid by their parents. In no case does the alien now own any interest in the leasehold; and each claims that, after looking the property in Texas, if satisfied with the prospects, he will send to Japan for money to invest. over Investigation at Dacosta shows that the Japanese farm located at that place is by one Sizuo Saki, who is represented in Texas by Saburo Kata and Sinsaku Owned Jurabayashi, agent and field manager, respectively. These two parties know nothing about the aliens applying for admission at Seattle, but stated that a Japanese named Tashami Hayashis was formerly manager of the plantation and that probably the applicants had heard of him and were coming to Dacosta with a view to securing work on his rice farm; that he, however, had returned to Japan in April, 1907, and apparently remained there; but that he still retains a lease on a 1,000 Of land which has not yet been placed in cultivation. The farm at Dacosta acres is owned by the above-named Saki, who lives in Tokyo and financially backs the enterprise; that Kata is Saki's personal representative in Texas; and that the farm is operated by Japanese farmers, who work in trios, each individual receiving 10 per cent of the gross receipts of the products grown by the combined efforts of the working together-seeds, implements, board and lodging, and all such expenses being supplied by the owner. three The disposition of the case involves a careful consideration of two principal within which all of the minor details fall: (1) The status of the applicants points, under the agreement with Japan regarding the issuance of passports to Japanese subjects proceeding to continental United States, and (2) the status of the applicants under the alien contract-labor provision of the immigration act of February 20, 1907. I. While the passports presented by the appellants contain no definite and positive assertion that the aliens are furnished therewith because their status has been found to be that of "settled agriculturists," it must be evident to anyone familiar with the negotiations regarding the subject of passports that it was upon this theory the credentials were issued in this instance. It must also be obvious to such a person that the Japanese Government has been imposed upon by the applicants or by its own officials, supposed to investigate applications for passports, or by both (probably the latter). "Settled agriculturists," according to the definition worked out during the course of the negotiations, are "farmers owning or having an interest or share in their produce or crops;" and the Japanese Government agreed, with respect to the issuance of passports to this class, as follows: "Issuance of passports to settled agriculturists will be based upon a certificate of Japanese consular officer, accompanied by certificates of American notaries public, showing that such applicant is a person who has invested capital in the enterprise and obtains a share of the profits in proportion to his interest; all such passports will be issued by the Foreign Office only.' It is evident that, from the facts of this case as above cited, the applicants have not been shown to be "settled agriculturists" in the manner prescribed; for it would be impossible to secure from the Japanese consular officer located nearest Dacosta, Tex., or from local notaries public, certificates truthfully showing that the appellants were partners in the farming enterprise at the time they obtained their passports, for their testimony shows that they are not even now such partners, their plans being prospective entirely. II. Section 2 of the immigration act excludes from admission to the United States "persons hereinafter called contract laborers, who have been induced or solicited to migrate to this country by offers or promises of employment or in consequence of agreements, oral, written or printed, express or implied, to perform labor in this country of any kind, skilled or unskilled;" also "any person whose ticket or passage is paid for with the money of another, or who is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown that such person does not belong to one of the foregoing excluded classes (including contract laborers), and that said ticket or passage was not paid for by any corporation, association, society, municipality, or foreign government, either directly or indirectly.' Under this point it is not necessary to enter into any minute discussion of the effect of the prepayment of the aliens' passages by their parents. The language of the statute on this matter is very plain, and shows an intention to place upon assisted aliens the burden of showing affirmatively that they are not contract laborers or otherwise excludable. Nor is it necessary to discuss here the question whether a "settled agriculturist," as defined by the Japanese Government, is necessarily in every instance a "contract laborer." During the negotiations this Department has been careful to reserve any definite expression of opinion upon this point, but has several times intimated quite clearly an impression that when a specific case should arise it was quite likely the Department would be constrained to hold that an alien induced to immigrate for the purpose of performing labor on a farm, although such labor was not to be paid for at a set wage rate, but by a participation in the profits derived from the produce of the farm, is, nevertheless, within the inhibition of the statute-that whether the remuneration is to be received in money or in kind could hardly be regarded as material. It has already been seen that the appellants are not properly to be regarded, at any rate, as "settled agriculturists," and the discussion is therefore reduced to the question whether the facts of their cases bring them within the definition of a contract laborer, as above set forth. |