which the table was constructed. This analysis of the population of the United States has been reduced to a diagrammatic form as shown in Appendix "B". An examination of the first diagram demonstrates that according to this table, the northwestern European stock derived from all sources amounts to 75.4% of the total population; 13.2% of our population is derived from national strains originating in southern and eastern Europe; all other elements of our population which include American aborigines, negroes and Asiatics, amount to 11.4%. Although it is possible to present in diagrammatic form the relative proportion of quotas assigned to northwestern Europe and southern and eastern Europe, respectively, under both methods of computation, that is the Census of 1890 and national origins, as shown in plates 2 and 3, it would be misleading to assume that these diagrams will represent correctly the proportion of immigrants properly to be credited to the two sources of supply indicated, the reason being that the great preponderance of immigration rising to approximately 70% of the total prior to the outbreak of the European War originated in southern and eastern Europe, consequently, it is this element which will benefit principally by the exemptions and preferences accorded to relatives under the provisions of the Act. While it is not possible to make an accurate estimate as to what proportion of immigration in the future will be derived from relatives, it is probable that the proportion will be nearer 70 to 30, rather than 85 to 15, for the respective classes. In any event, since the minimum number of immigrants allotted to southern and eastern Europe amounts to 15.5% of the quota, on the basis of the census of 1890, and 16.3% on the basis of national origin, it will be observed that the so-called new immigration is accorded a minimum allotment considerably greater than that to which it is entitled in accordance with the proportion which that element bears to the population as a whole. However, leaving quite to one side the arguments brought forward in the course of the debate respecting the relative merits of immigrants from northwestern Europe and southern and eastern sections of that continent, there can be no doubt in the minds of any student of the immigration question that had not some such provisions as those embodied in Section 11 of the Act of 1924 been adopted by Congress, a few generations would have seen a complete

1 Appendix "B."

change in the racial structure of the people inhabiting the United States.1

EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES

(Sections 3, 4, 13 and 28)

The protest of the Japanese Government by its Ambassador, Mr. Hanihara, against the incorporation of Section 13, subsection (c) providing for the exclusion of aliens ineligible for citizenship, has focused the attention not only of Asia but of the world upon the problem of oriental immigration. This protest on the part of Japan and the reply thereto by the Secretary of State are printed as an appendix of this pamphlet. While these documents are illuminating, particularly the letter of Mr. Hughes, embodying correspondence relating to the negotiation of the Treaty of 1911, an accurate understanding of the exclusion provisions of the Act demands at least a brief presentation of the underlying facts. It must be accepted as axiomatic that where! the white and yellow races live side by side, in direct economic competition, the white succumbs. It is not necessary that we should discuss the reasons for this condition, but it is a fact. We may even go so far as to say that in entering upon the Gentlemen's Agreement, Japan recognized the reasonableness of the American contention, that subjects of that Empire be excluded, both as a matter of right, and as an economic necessity. As the Secretary of State points out in his reply to Mr. Hanihara, the Japanese Government itself has not failed to exercise a similar authority "in its own discretion with respect to the admission of aliens and the conditions and location of their settlement within its borders." 3

The following figures taken from Vol. II of the Census of 1920, will illustrate some phases of the situation which have been developing in the United States since 1880. According to the census of that year, there were 105,465 Chinese within the borders

1 "Mr. Speaker, with this new immigration act the United States is undertaking to regulate and control the great problem of the commingling of races. Our hope is in a homogeneous Nation. At one time we welcomed all, and all helped to build the Nation. But now asylum ends. The melting pot is to have a rest. This Nation must be as completely unified as any nation in Europe or in Asia. Self-preservation demands it. I believe the new act to be of vital importance to the future of the United States." Remarks of Hon. Albert Johnson, printed in Congressional Record of June 24, 1924, page 11744. 2 Appendix "C."

Text of note as printed in New York Times, issue of June 19, 1924.

of our country, and upon the same date, the number of Japanese enumerated amounted to only 148; in the following decade, the number of Chinese was 107,488 and the number of Japanese, 2,039; in 1900, it will be noted that the number of Chinese had fallen to 89,863, whereas, the Japanese had increased to 24,336, an increase of say over 1100%; by 1910, the figure for Chinese was 71,531 and Japanese 72,157; and finally, in 1920, China is credited with 61,639, and Japan with 111,010.

Now, an examination of these figures will make it clear to the reader that since the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act, approved May 6, 1882, there has been not only a steady, but a very heavy fall in the number of Chinese enumerated within the borders of the United States. On the other hand, under an arrangement designed to accomplish in respect to the Japanese, a similar result, the latter element has increased by leaps and bounds; for example,—if you take the decade 1910-1920, which includes only ten years of the period in which the Gentlemen's Agreement was in force, we find a very heavy increase in the Japanese population computed by the Census, to be approximately 54%. While it is true that the expansion of the Japanese population during these ten years amounting in all to 38,853, includes increase by birth, the census enumeration of foreign born during that period discloses an addition to our population of 13,758 by immigration; that is to say, the difference between a foreign born Japanese population of 67,744, in 1910, and 81,502 in 1920.2 On the other hand, the Japanese Ambassador, quoting from the reports of the United States Commissioner of Immigration, asserts in his note to the Secretary of State, dated April 10, 1924, that "in the years 1908-1923, the total numbers of Japanese admitted to and departed from the continental United States were, respectively, 120,317 and 111,636. In other words, the excess of those admitted over those departed was in 15 years only 8,681." 3 Against these latter figures, however, must be placed the following table taken from the annual report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1923, page 30:4

"3

1 Vol. II of the Census of 1920, page 29.

2 Vol. II of the Census of 1920, page 694.

Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate. Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S. 2576, page 168.

The situation which has developed in Hawaii as a result of oriental immigration is fraught with political, social and economic problems, of such complexity, that consideration of space precludes any detailed discussion. Suffice it to say, that out of a population amounting to 255.912 persons, 109,274 are Japanese, of whom 60,888 are foreign born. (United States Census, 1920,

Bringing the statistics down to date, we find in the Report of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration, that between July 1923 and April 1924, a period of ten months, 4,362 Japanese immigrant aliens were admitted and 1,896 Japanese emigrant aliens departed, or a net increase to the Japanese population in the United States of 2,466, with the complete record for the fiscal year not yet available. While it may be impossible to reconcile these figures, the reader can be left in no doubt that there has been a substantial increase by immigration of an element which is generally regarded as unassimilable.1

Vol. III, page 1173.) While the balance of 48,386 Japanese born in Hawaii may be classified as citizens and, therefore, free to migrate as suits their interest, it is not probable that the alien element will be permitted to land in continental United States. The provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1917, considered in conjunction with Sections 13, 25 and 28 of the Act of 1924, would seem to preclude such a contingency.

1 Letter written by L. E. Ross, State Registrar of Vital Statistics of California printed in the Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S. 2576, page 165; also, letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, from V. S. McClatchy, to be found on page 164, of the same publication; also, Statesman's Year Book for 1924, page 1054, from which the following is quoted: "Up to October 1, 1920, 581,647 Japanese emigrated, and of these 75,985 men and 39.539 women were living in the United States (including Hawaii)", or a total amounting to 115.524.

Also see page 20 of the record of Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S. 2576, from which the following is quoted:

"Senator Shortbridge. The Japanese admitted 13,000 more than those figures showed.

Mr. McClatchy. Since you ask the question I will say that the Japanese, under authority of their Government, had a census, and you will find in the proceedings of the House committee a statement of the secretary of the Japanese Association of America in which he acknowledges that they found by this census in California 83,000 Japanese, and they found them under a most in

The situation is complicated by some considerations of a political nature which must be considered owing to the fact that they have a distinct bearing upon certain provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924. For example-the Gentlemen's Agreement was an understanding between the United States Government and that of Japan, by which the latter voluntarily undertook to adopt and enforce administrative methods designed to check immigration to the United States from Japan.1 Yet, it was only after prolonged negotiation and continued pressure that the Japanese Government since March 1, 1920, has discontinued the issuance of passports to the so-called picture brides. Now, a picture bride has been regarded by the people on the Pacific slope as not merely a prospective wife and potential mother of large families of Japanese children, but also she was in fact a field laborer. Obviously, therefore, the entry of an indefinite number of picture brides tended to render null and void the effect which was unquestionably intended on the part of the United States, in entering upon the Gentlemen's Agreement, even if in fact, there was no technical violation of the understanding. Unfortunately so far as reaching an ultimate solution of the immigration problem was concerned, the Japanese Government introduced the system of Kankodan brides; that is to say-"In order to assist the Japanese laborers and colonists in this country to get a Kankodan bride instead of a picture bride, the Japanese Government officially made this change in the law, that where visitors from California and the coast going back to Japan had only 30 days in which to stay there, unless they were prepared to do their conscription duty, that period was extended to 90 days in the event that they came for the purpose of getting a bride, and financial interests so arranged matters that the laborer desiring a bride could enter into a Kankodan party and secure his bride from Japan at a cost which was not much, if any, in excess of the price which would have been paid by him under the picture bride system."2

complete system of census, which he explained. They sent out postal cards which had to come back, and they charged every man who sent his return 25 cents. And yet, under that system, incomplete as they acknowledge it to have been, they counted 13,000 in California in excess of the United States census."

1 cf. Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S.2576, page 167, note of Ambassador Hanihara.

2 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration, United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session on S. 2576, page 27, testimony of Mr. McClatchy.