By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Japan and the California Problem
Author: Iyenaga, Toyokichi, Sato, Kenoske
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Japan and the California Problem" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)

  The California Problem

  T. Iyenaga, Ph.D.
  Professorial Lecturer in the Department of Political Science,
  University of Chicago


  Kenoske Sato, M.A.
  Formerly Fellow in the University of Chicago

  G. P. Putnam's Sons
  New York and London
  The Knickerbocker Press

  Copyright, 1921
  by G. P. Putnam's Sons

  _Printed in the United States of America_




    INTRODUCTORY                                                         3


    JAPANESE TRAITS AND PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE                               9

      Emotional Nature--Æsthetic Temperament--Group Consciousness--
      Adaptable Disposition--Spirit of Proletarian Chivalry--
      Philosophy of Life--New Turn in Thought.


    JAPAN'S ASIATIC POLICY                                              33

      Korean Situation--Policy of Self-Preservation--Shantung
      Settlement--Coöperation with China--Understanding with
      America--Japan's Proper Sphere of Activity.


    BACKGROUND OF JAPANESE EMIGRATION                                   50

      Causes of Emigration and Immigration--Japan's Land Area--
      Agriculture--Population--Industry--Social Factors.


    ATTEMPTS AT EMIGRATION: RESULTS                                     64

      Australia--Canada--South America--The United States--Results.


    CAUSES OF ANTI-JAPANESE AGITATION                                   75

      Modern Civilization--Various Attitudes Towards Japanese--
      Psychological Nature of the Cause--Chinese Agitation
      Inherited--Local Polities--"Yellow Peril"--Propaganda--
      Racial Difference--Japanese Nationality--Modern Nationalism--
      Congestion in California--Fear and Envy Incited by Japanese


    RATE                                                                90

      Number of Japanese in California--Immigration--"Gentlemen's
      Agreement"--Smuggling--Birth Rate--What we May Expect in the


    LAWS                                                               120

      History of Japanese Agriculture in California--Causes of
      Progress--Japanese Farm Labor--Japanese Farmers--Anti-Alien
      Land Laws--Land Laws of Japan--Effect of the Initiative Bill.


    ASSIMILATION                                                       148

      Nationalism and Assimilation--Meaning of "Assimilation"--
      Biological Assimilation--Is Assimilation without Intermarriage
      Possible?--Cultural Assimilation--Assimilability of Japanese
      Immigrants--Native-Born Japanese.


    GENERAL CONCLUSION                                                 178


    APPENDIX A                                                         198

      Charts on Comparative Height and Weight of American,
      Japanese-American, and Japanese Children.

    APPENDIX B                                                         201

      Extracts from the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation and
      Protocol between Japan and the United States of America,
      of February 21, 1911.

    APPENDIX C                                                         204

      California's Alien Land Law, Approved May 19, 1913.

    APPENDIX D                                                         207

      Alien Land Law, Adopted November 2, 1920.

    APPENDIX E                                                         216

      Crops Raised by Japanese and their Acreage.

    APPENDIX F                                                         217

      Japanese Immigration to the United States.

    APPENDIX G                                                         218

      Japanese Admitted into Continental United States; Arrivals
      and Departures.

    APPENDIX H                                                         218

      Immigrants and Non-Immigrants.

    APPENDIX I                                                         219

      Distribution of Japanese and Chinese Population in the
      United States.

    APPENDIX J                                                         220

      Distribution of Japanese in the United States, According
      to the Consular Division, as Reported by Foreign Department,

    APPENDIX K                                                         221

      An Abstract of Expatriation Law of Japan.

    APPENDIX L                                                         223

      A Minute of Hearing at Seattle, Washington, before the
      House Sub-Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

    APPENDIX M                                                         230

      Comparative Standing of Intelligence and Behavior of
      American-born Japanese Children and American Children
      Discussed by Several Principals of Elementary Schools of
      Los Angeles, California.

  LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT                                            238

  INDEX                                                                247

Japan and the California Problem

Japan and The California Problem



When, during the middle years of the last century, thousands of stalwart
pioneers moved westward to California in quest of gold, they had no idea
whatsoever of the part of destiny they were playing. When, synchronously
with that movement, Commodore Perry crossed the Pacific and forced open
the doors of Japan with the prime object of securing safe anchorage,
water, and provisions for the daring American schooners then busily
engaged in trade with China, he never dreamed of the tremendous result
which he was thereby bringing about. What those men were doing
unconsciously was nothing short of preparing the way for contact and
ultimate harmonious progress of two great branches of mankind and
civilization which originally sprang from a common root, but which in the
course of thousands of years of independent development have come to
possess strikingly different characteristics.

Culture is aggressive and masculine; it craves conquest and vaunts
victory. Once let loose in the open field of the Pacific, the East and
West are now involved in a mighty tournament, the outcome of which is yet
beyond mortal imagination. The most we can hope for is the speedy
realization of Kipling's vision:

  But there is neither East nor West,
    Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
  When two strong men stand face to face,
    Though they come from the ends of the earth.

The Oriental problems in California, originating as they did in the
conflict of local, economic, and political interests, have in recent years
come to assume more and more the character of cultural and racial
questions. The forms and motives of the movement for the exclusion of the
Orientals are vastly diverse, often counteracting and contradictory, but
deep in the bottom of the whirl there lies the fundamental question of
race and civilization. To say the least, the present unrest in California
with reference to the Japanese problem is the intensified, miniature form
of the general struggle in which East and West are now being involved.
Says Governor Stephens of California in his letter to Secretary of State

    California stands as an outpost on the western edge of Occidental
    civilization. Her people are the sons or the followers of the
    Argonauts who wended their way westward ... and here, without
    themselves recognizing it at the time, they took the farthest westward
    step that the white men can take. From our shores roll the waters of
    the Pacific. From our coast the mind's eye takes its gaze and sees on
    the other shores of that great ocean the teeming millions of the
    Orient, with its institutions running their roots into the most
    venerable antiquity, its own inherited philosophy and standards of
    life, its own peculiar races and colors.

This being the case, the magnitude of the Japanese problem in California
can hardly be exaggerated. Enveloped in a state under the guise of local
conflict, the problem is, nevertheless, a gigantic one, involving vital
questions of world destiny. Shall the races of Asia and Europe, brought
together by the progress of science, be once more strictly separated?
Cannot different races, while remaining biologically distinct, form
together the strong factors of a unified nation? Should white races
organize in defense of themselves against "the rising tide of color" and
invoke race war of an unprecedented scale and consequence? Is it not
possible to arrive at some principle by which the contact of white and
yellow races may be rendered a source of human happiness instead of being
a cause for all the evil consequences imaginable? These are some of the
questions which are contained in the Asiatic problem in California.

Already a considerable quantity of literature has appeared which sounds an
extremely pessimistic forecast of the future of Eurasiatic relationship.
Some writers erroneously divide mankind into so many races by the color of
the skin, as if each were a pure, homogeneous race, and they indulge in
the risky speculation of "inevitable" race war between the white race,
which hitherto held supremacy, and the yellow race, which is now attaining
a position of serious rivalry. Others urge the imperative need of
organizing the white nations into a supernational state in order to enable
them to weather the threatened attacks from the yellow races. All these
arguments are based on the presumption that the Asiatic races wherever
they go--in Australia, Canada, or America--create conflict with the Aryan
race. The fallacy of such arguments lies in envisaging the large problem
of East and West from its partial expression. The anti-Asiatic movement in
the new world is certainly a significant problem, but it is only an
incidental and local phenomenon of the great process under way of cultural
unification. That the California problem is not all that is involved in
the relationship of Asia and America can readily be seen by the incessant
increase, in spite of it, of close coöperation between them. In science,
in art, in religion, in ideals, in industry, and commerce, and, last but
not least, in sentiment, the peoples of these continents find themselves
ever more closely bound together, learning to appreciate the inestimable
value thereby created, and fast widening the scope of their group
consciousness so as to embrace all mankind, thus concretely vindicating
the futility of the idle speculation of race war based on the mere
difference of skin pigmentation.

If the error of race-war theory arises from absorption in parts,
overlooking their relations with the whole--from magnifying out of
proportion the local racial conflict to the extent of eclipsing the value
and significance of vastly more important relations--it behooves us to
avoid such grievous mistakes and to view the situation in a broader
perspective. Indeed, the key to the understanding and the solution of the
difficulty of the Pacific Coast is in viewing it in the light of
friendship and coöperation between America and Japan. Then, and only then,
does it become clear how important it is to approach the problem with
prudence and foresight, and to endeavor to solve it in a spirit of
fairness and justice. It then becomes plain, in the face of the vastly
important tasks involved in wisely conducting the relationship of Orient
and Occident, how foolish and cowardly it is to assume a negative attitude
of fear and withdrawal from the natural circumstance which time has
brought about. Whether one likes it or not, the world is already made one,
and any human attempt to divide it into air-tight compartments is
hopeless. We are bound to have yet closer contacts among all races and
nations. The way to a satisfactory solution of the California problem
clearly lies in a closer and more intimate association--in a word, better
mutual understanding between Orientals and Occidentals.

Let us then honestly seek to comprehend the heart of the difficulty and
frankly discuss the question, untrammeled by any bias, prepossessions, or
fear; with eyes steadily fixed on the larger aspects of the problem; eager
to arrive at some constructive principles of solution satisfactory to all



The national traits of different peoples are, like our faces, similar in
rough outline but infinitely different in the finer details. The people of
Japan are in the larger characteristics not different from any other
people; they are part of the aggregate of human beings and they possess
all the instincts and desires which are common to humanity. But, as
distinguished from other peoples, they display certain individual
characteristics which are the product of a unique environment and history.

Emotional Nature.

Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of the Japanese is their
excitable, emotional nature, which among the ignorant is often expressed
in turbulent and irascible action, and which among the refined takes the
form of a fine sentimentality and temperamental delicacy. This is rather
the direct opposite of the American disposition, which is stable, blunt
and big, hearty and generous. Such difference is greatly responsible for
mutual misunderstandings, such as the Japanese charge that the American is
discourteous and inconsiderate, and the American impression that the
Japanese is dissimulating, not to say tricky.

The emotional temper of the Japanese has played a large rôle in their
history and constitutes a conspicuous factor in their national life. If
the history of the Anglo-Saxons is primarily a story of competition and
struggle for the control of power and the pursuit of material interests,
that of the Japanese is a drama of sentimental entanglement largely
removed from material issues. Without due regard to the rôle played by
emotion, the history of the Japanese people is wholly incomprehensible.
What, for instance, incited Hideyoshi to invade Korea in 1592? What made
the Japanese accept so readily the teachings of the Jesuit Fathers during
the latter half of the sixteenth century? What more recently induced Japan
to insist at the Paris Conference on recognition of racial equality by the
League of Nations?

If the emotionalism of the race has been deeply influential in the
historic drama, it has been no less persuasive in the political and social
life of the present-day Japan. Compare the Constitutions of America and
Japan. If the outstanding features of the American Constitution are the
safeguarding of the interests and rights of the individual, the states,
and the nation, those of the Japanese Constitution are the expressions of
the people's anxiety to recognize and perpetuate their beloved head, the
Emperor, as the great, the divine ruler of their ideals. Although the
onslaught of materialism has wrought some changes in recent years, there
yet remains the ineradicable proof of Japanese emotionalism in the realm
of marriage and love, where all earthly considerations are forgotten, if
not tabooed, and in the realms of family and of society, where the
relations between parents and children, and between friends and neighbors,
are conducted with an assured sense of devotion, love, and good will. The
same tendency is to be recognized in almost all Japanese institutions,
educational, military, and political, while it is particularly true in the
realm of æsthetics, including, art, literature, and music--a realm that is
ruled by sentiment.

In the common daily life of the Japanese their emotionalism expresses
itself in almost infinitely diverse ways. Their peculiarly strong sense of
pride and dignity, individual, family, and national, a sense for which the
Japanese will make any sacrifice, comes from their highly-strung nervous
system. Their keen sense of pride gives rise to another marked Japanese
peculiarity--an excessive susceptibility to the opinions and feelings of
their fellow men. Social ostracism to the Japanese is a punishment which
is often more unbearable than the death penalty. The peculiarly high rate
of suicides in Japan is explained by statisticians as being largely due to
some mistake or sin for which the offender would rather die than be
chastised by society. The cold-blooded _hara kiri_ was an institution by
which the Samurai could sustain his honor or save his face when involved
in disgrace. High-spirited temper, suppressed by ethical teachings, social
conventions, and rigorous discipline, results in a singular contrast
between external physical expressions and internal feelings. The placid
faces, reserved manners, and reticence are but masks of the intense,
burning spirit, whose spontaneous expression has been inhibited by
centuries of stoic training. It is most unfortunate that this virtue in
the Oriental sense has frequently been a cause of misunderstanding, making
the Japanese appear dissimulating, and, therefore, untrustworthy.

But at heart the Japanese are neither as inscrutable or deceitful as some
believe, nor are they as intriguing or profound as these terms would
imply. They are kind and sympathetic, easily moved by the attitude of
others, quite simple-minded and honest, lacking tenacity, audacity, iron
will, or cold deliberation. In these respects, as in many others, the
Japanese possess some of the weaker traits of the South European peoples.
They have proved heretofore not a great people, but a little people "who
are great in little things and little in great things."

The simple explanation of Japanese sentimentalism may be found in one of
the original race stocks which migrated from southern islands of tropical
climate, where emotion rather than will guides the conduct of the people.
The topographical and climatic conditions of Japan have also had their
influence, and these, with the numerous volcanic eruptions, frequent
earthquakes, and recurrent typhoons, have given the people the disposition
of restlessness and excitement. Perhaps also the social system of the
Middle Ages, which was unduly autocratic and despotic, irritated the lower
classes, driving them to turbulent and "peppery" conduct.

Æsthetic Temperament.

The next characteristic of the Islander is one which is closely related to
the preceding trait. It is artistic temperament. Some scholars of
archæology attempted to trace this characteristic to the original settlers
of the empire, but the resultant opinions are so diverse as to deny
scientific validity. Some of them maintain that the Ainu, the earliest
known settlers in Japan, a now dwindling race living in the northern
island called Hokkaido, were originally a very artistic people,
contributing much to the æsthetic temperament of the Japanese. There are
other scholars who insist that the Yamato race, and not the Ainu, was the
most artistic, while there are still others who uphold the view that it
was the vast horde of migrators coming from Korea, Tartary, and China who
brought with them the love of beauty. But these are speculations of
prehistorical conditions which are largely hidden from us by the veil of
mythology. What we can be sure of is that the influence on the people of
the exceptionally beautiful natural surroundings reflected itself in their
artistic genius. Encouragement of art and literature and of artistic
productions generally through the patronage of aristocrats, who enjoyed
from the earlier ages leisure and wealth, has also had much to do in
making the Japanese artistic.

What influence has this æsthetic temperament exerted on the life of the
Japanese? In the first place, it has rendered Japanese civilization
markedly feminine. This is shown by the fact that the creative efforts of
the people were mainly directed to personal and home decoration and to
literary and artistic pursuits, instead of to masculine efforts to fight
and conquer the forces of nature, from which alone the sciences are born.
Particularly noticeable was the almost total absence of science in Japan,
in striking contrast to the remarkable wealth of art at the time, some
half a century ago, when the country began a critical introspection of
itself in comparison with other nations.

In the second place, it had the effect of making the people inclined to
underestimate the value of material things and to exaggerate the glory of
the spiritual aspects of life. This is most clearly seen in the teachings
of Bushido,[1] which laid strong emphasis on the baseness of the conduct
that has for its motive pecuniary or material interests, and which taught
the subordination of the body to the soul as the most essential virtue of
the Samurai. The traditional custom of sacrificing the material side of a
question for the satisfaction and upholding of the emotional side still
survives in present Japan, and constitutes one of the marked
characteristics of the Japanese. His strong inclination towards
imagination, meditation, and religious belief is too well known a fact to
require more than a mention here.

It seems true that people gifted æsthetically are more apt to turn
hedonistic. While it remains doubtful whether the Japanese are more
immoral than other peoples, as is so frequently charged, it is quite true
that they take more delight in a leisurely comfort of living, going to
picnics, attending theaters, calling upon friends, and holding various
ceremonies and feasts. Generally speaking, although not given to excesses,
they show no puritanic disposition about drink and are lavish spenders for
luxuries. In the tea houses and other places of social amusement they
spend money often beyond the reasonable proportion of their income. They
are not a thrifty people.

Group Consciousness.

Next to the artistic disposition must be mentioned their strong group
consciousness. It is true that all people have a certain degree of group
consciousness which emerges out of the facts of common biological and
cultural heritage and experience. But in the case of the Japanese this
group spirit is markedly strong, expressing itself in loyalty and
patriotism. Most strangely, the spirit of _Yamato_, or the Japanese group
spirit, has had its source more than anywhere else in primitive myths. Two
ancient books of mythology, _Kojiki_ and _Nihongi_, record the story of
the Japanese ancestors who were originally born of the gods of heaven and
earth, and who settled in Japan and established there through their brave
deeds the majesty of the Empire of Nippon. From these ancestors sprang the
people of Japan. This myth is faithfully believed by the Japanese, and the
people worship at the shrines where the spirits of their heroic ancestors
are supposed still to reside and guard the country. So strong is this
belief in myth even to-day that, in spite of the anthropological discovery
that the original settlers of the island were of diverse races and
possessed no advanced culture, the people still cling to the idea that the
Japanese are a pure and glorious race, having sprung from one line of
ancestors which was divine and which is now represented by its direct
descendant, the Emperor.

In addition to mythology, what bound the Japanese so close together was
the natural environment and the lack of cosmopolitan associations.
Marooned as they were on little islands, the mutual association and
intermarriage of people took place freely, and in the course of time
established a substantially complete homogeneity of the population. The
internal unity was further strengthened by the policy of national
seclusion, which gave the common people the idea that Japan was the only
universe and that the Japanese were the only people on earth. In modern
times, the group spirit or patriotism has been skillfully encouraged and
enkindled by utilizing the national experience of the wars with China and
Russia, and by a system of education which aimed to impress on the minds
of children the glory of their people and history, the absolute duty of
being loyal to the Emperor, and the hostile tendency of foreign countries
toward their own.

What the people gain by narrow patriotism in the maintenance of national
integrity they lose in their failure to take a broad view of things. This
stubbornly obstructs the Japanese in their efforts to view their country
in its proper relation to other countries; it hinders them from being
"Romans when in Rome"; it makes the idea of following the example of
England, the policy of loose national expansion, wholly
unthinkable--Japanese colonies must be exclusively Japanese. The chief
cause of the failure of Japanese colonization and emigration must be
attributed to the strong consciousness of the Yamato Minzoku (Yamato
race). This has made the Japanese noticeably narrow-minded, quite awkward
in their relations with different peoples, and more or less given to race
prejudice. The reputation of the Japanese as poor mixers is well known.
Their strong race prejudice has been exemplified by their attitude toward
the Chinese, Koreans, and the outcast class of their fellow countrymen,
called _Eta_, which has been nothing short of prejudicial discrimination.

In spite of the desperate efforts of the militarists and bureaucrats to
conserve narrow patriotism and racial pride, it has been found
increasingly difficult to do so, since the facts and thoughts of the West
became accessible to the people. When the marvelous scientific
achievements of the Occidental peoples, their advanced political and
social systems, their profound philosophies of life and of the universe,
together with their superior physique and formidable armament, were
appreciated, it became all too apparent, even to the most conceited mind,
that the culture and racial stock, in which the Japanese had taken so much
pride, were sadly inferior, and that years of hard toil would be necessary
before they could be the equals of the Occidentals. The pathetic cry of
Japan for recognition of racial equality by the League of Nations is a
reluctant admission of this fact.

The outcome of this disillusionment has been the appearance of three
currents of thought with reference to the national policy. One is the
ultra Occidentalism which sees nothing good in their own country and
people, and hence is extremely merciless and outspoken in denunciation of
things Japanese, but which admires even to the point of worship almost
everything that is European and American. To this school belong many
younger radicals who are more or less socialistically inclined and who
would like to see Japan converted into a republic or a Bolshevik
communism. Categorically opposed to this thought is another school, which
its adherents call "Japanism." This school sees nothing new or worth while
in things Occidental, and advocates, after the reasoning of Rousseau, a
return to natural Japan. Between these two extremes stand the majority of
sane intellectuals, who clearly perceive both the limitations and the
strength of Japan, and endeavor to benefit through learning and
assimilating the valuable experience of advanced nations.

Adaptable Disposition.

Another notable feature of the Japanese is their meager endowment of
originality and, conversely, their marked aptitude for adaptability. A
glance at the outline of Japanese history shows how much the Japanese
borrowed from other peoples in almost all phases of civilization and how
little they themselves have created. Indeed, there is hardly anything
which belongs to Japan that cannot be traced originally to the earnest
creative effort of other peoples. The same may be said of modern peoples,
who, with the exception of scientific inventions, have mainly derived
their culture from the Greeks and Romans. Whatever difference the future
may witness, the Japanese thus far have been borrowers and receivers of
other races' accomplishments. Perhaps this is the cause of the rapid
development of the Japanese, who have succeeded in imitating and
assimilating the strong points of nations in succession from the lower to
the top of the hierarchy--from Korea, China, India, to Europe. When the
process reaches the top of the ladder, let us hope that Nippon will start
for the first time real creative work.

Spirit of Proletarian Chivalry.

The discussion of Japanese traits would be very incomplete if we omitted
one outstanding idiosyncrasy that has not yet been mentioned. So peculiar
is this trait to the Japanese that there is no adequate word to designate
it in other languages. The Japanese express it by such words as _kikotsu_,
_otokodate_, and _gikyoshin_. The nearest English equivalents for these
terms would be heroism and chivalry. It is a mixed sentiment of rebellion
against bully power, sympathy for the helpless, and willingness to
sacrifice self for the sake of those who have done kind acts. This
admirable sentiment must be strictly distinguished from the spirit of
Bushido, because it has arisen among the plebeians in place of Bushido,
which was the way of the Samurai or aristocrats, although it may have
been, as some scholars claim, the source of inspiration for the growth of
proletarian chivalry. Bushido has found an able propounder in Dr. Nitobé.
Under the Tokugawa régime the Samurai was the flower and the rest were
nothing. The Samurai often abused their privilege and oppressed the common
people not a little, disregarding their rights and personality. Then a
class of plebeians appeared who called themselves "men of men," and who
made it their profession to defy the bullying Samurai and to defend the
oppressed people. It was the virtue of this class always to help the weak
and crush the strong, and to be ready to lay down their lives at any
moment. The story of Sakura Sogoro, who fell a martyr to the cause of
oppressed peasants, has become a classic.

Thus originating in defiance of despotism, the spirit of proletarian
chivalry permeated among the lower classes of people, and to this day it
forms the bulwark of the rights and freedom of the common people. Refined
and enriched by the embodiment in it of enlightened knowledge and ideals,
the sentiment came to be on one side a keen appreciation of kindness and
sympathy, and on the other a strong hatred of oppression and injustice.
The present proletarian movement in Japan, a movement which is destined
presently to become a mighty social force, owes its source and guidance to
"the ways of the common people."

If Dr. Nitobé is right in predicting that Bushido, "the way of the
Samurai," will eventually enjoy the glory of "blessing mankind with the
perfume with which it will enrich life," we may reasonably hope that
proletarian chivalry will succeed in bringing about general freedom and
democracy in Nippon, in defiance of military and imperialistic domination.

The understanding of this trait of the common people of Japan goes far to
explain what has puzzled those Americans who wonder why the Japanese
immigrants in this country are so unsubmissive and rebellious. In his
letter to the Legislature of Nevada, the late Senator Newlands stated:
"The presence of the Chinese, who are patient and submissive, would not
create as many complications as the presence of Japanese, whose strong and
virile qualities would constitute additional factors of difficulty."
Governor Stephens of California, too, observes in his letter to the
Secretary of State: "The Japanese, be it said to their credit, are not a
servile or docile stock." Acquired by centuries of opposition to arbitrary
power, the trait has become almost instinctive, and expresses itself even
under democracy whenever they think they are unjustly treated.

In discussing the features of Japanese character thus far, we have taken
care to state the known causes which gave rise to each trait. This has
been done with a view to preparing ourselves to answer the question; To
what extent are these characteristics of the Japanese inherent in the race
and to what extent acquired? The answer which the foregoing discussion
suggests is that they are both inherent and acquired, biological and
social. While racial stock is responsible to an extent, other factors,
such as natural environment and social conditions, have helped to develop
the characteristics of the Japanese. Perhaps the best criterion by which
we can determine the relative strength of heredity and environment in this
case is to observe how and in what respects the Japanese, born and reared
in other countries, undergo transformation in their mentality and
characteristics. We shall touch on this point again later when we discuss
the characteristics of the American-born Japanese children.

Philosophy of Life.

It is but natural that the philosophy of a nation developed from the life
and experience of people should be deeply colored by their temperament.
After having discussed the essential features of the Japanese disposition,
it may be easy to anticipate the character of philosophy which rests on
it. We shall now consider the outstanding features of Japanese thought,
with a view to interpreting and evaluating the spiritual side of Japan's

True to the characteristics of the Japanese, who lack initiative, the
thought of the people also manifests a marked absence of originality.
Until, in the early part of the sixth century, Buddhism and Confucianism
came into the country, the Japanese seem to have had no system of religion
or philosophy save fetichism and mythology. The advent of new doctrines of
ethics and religion caused a rapid transformation of the life and ideas of
the people, elevating them by one stroke from barbarian obscurity to
civilized enlightenment. From this time on a childish admiration of
mythological characters and stories began to be superseded by an earnest
effort for the perfection of the individual character and the realization
of social ideals; and crude superstitions were gradually replaced by the
profound teachings of Gautama. Out of the religious zeal were developed
admirable art and literature, and from the moral effort were born
elaborate ethical codes, social order, and social etiquette. Thus, with
raw materials imported, the Japanese worked diligently and carefully to
turn out finished products well adapted to their tastes and needs. If the
Japanese were people endowed with great originality, they would surely
have given evidence of it during nearly three hundred years of national
seclusion (1570-1868), when almost all conditions requisite for a creative
impulse were present, including peace, prosperity, need, and
encouragement. In fact, however, the people were interested and absorbed
in stamping out the feeble hold of Christian influence, in assimilating
the teachings of Wang Yang Ming, and in recasting the doctrines of
Confucius and Buddha. When the flood gates of Japan were thrown open and
the tides of Occidental learning swept in, the Japanese were almost
overwhelmed, and found themselves too busy in coping with them to think of
the original contribution.

Lack of ability to start new things is generally compensated by the
capacity to borrow new things. In the point of borrowing new ideas and
then working these to suit their own tastes, the Japanese are probably
second to no nation on earth. Japan first borrowed Confucianism and
Buddhism, and within a short time remodeled them in ways peculiar to her,
rendering their identity with the original almost unrecognizable. Thus the
stoic, pessimistic character of Buddhism was greatly modified, becoming
more or less epicurean and optimistic in the hands of the Japanese. The
casuistic, practical, individualistic ethics of Confucius were radically
changed to general principles of ideal conduct, with the addition of
æsthetic elements, and a strong emphasis laid on group loyalty rather than
on filial piety. It is to this ability of the Japanese to assimilate new
thought and new belief that the unexpected success of early Catholic
propaganda was chiefly due. To this capacity of assimilation is also due
the origin of Bushido, which is essentially an eclectic of Confucian,
Taoist, and Buddhist doctrines. The later-day Shintoism, the so-called
cult of ancestor worship, is also a product of the skillful combination of
native mythology, Taoism, and Confucianism, with an infusion of certain of
the Buddhist doctrines. That the present Japanese civilization is largely
a product of assimilation by native genius of American, French, German,
and English ideas and institutions is an established fact. It may be that
therein lies the hope, as many Japanese thinkers cherish, of making Japan
a modern Alexandria, where centuries of human achievements in Asia and
Europe may be harmoniously woven together for the realization of a more
perfect fabric of civilization.

In literature it is asserted that the creative period is uncritical and
the critical period is barren. It seems that the critical tendency is the
antithesis of creative effort. This applies to the Japanese, who do not
create but who are keenly critical. Instinctively bent on absorbing new
ideas, they immediately react to any new schools of thought--turning from
Eucken to Bergson, again to Russell, now to Einstein--but they soon begin
to analyze their doctrines and to find fault and fallacy here and there,
and, finally, are ready to depreciate them wholesale. In so doing, of
course, they assimilate some of the good points involved in various
systems. The chief obstacle which Christianity, as interpreted by
healthy-minded missionaries, encounters in Nippon is the sceptical temper
of the Japanese intellectuals.

A strong appeal to emotionalism and to the sense of beauty rather than to
cold reason and unpleasant realities is another common characteristic of
Japanese philosophy. The Japanese have always taken pride in expressing
great truths in a short verse form called _Uta_, with choice words and
exquisite phrases. Until the advent of European learning, poetry and
philosophy were never clearly distinguished in Japan. Love of emotionalism
naturally leads Japanese thought to humanism rather than to metaphysical

From this it may be thought that English positivism would find great vogue
in Japan. In fact, the influence of Adam Smith, Bentham, Mill, Malthus,
and others was a considerable factor in shaping modern Japanese thought.
But at bottom the Japanese are not utilitarians. They are by temper
idealists. The magical power by which German idealism as propounded by
Kant, Hegel, and Fichte, and more recently by Lotze and Eucken, controls
the Japanese mind is astounding. Nearly all the prominent philosophers of
the Meiji era may be classed under some branch of German idealism. The
fact that of American thinkers Emerson is more widely read than any other,
and that Royce is more popular than James, is no accident. If pragmatism
appeals to the Japanese mind, it is not in the logical form of Professor
Dewey but rather in the æsthetic presentation of Santayana.

New Turn in Thought.

Recently, however, or more particularly since the war, the trend of
Japanese thought has began to follow a somewhat different path. Industrial
revolution, which has been rapidly advancing during the past twenty years,
reached its culmination during the war, when various forces accidently
combined in bringing about universal recognition of the need for radical
social reorganization. Capitalism, which had in the course of time grown
to be a gigantic power, proved unable to adapt itself to the changing
conditions of the day, and it thus obstructed the onward march of
liberalism and democracy. Labor, however, shook off the dust of long
humiliation, and began with united front to demand recognition of its
rights and of humanity. The struggle naturally forced the attention of the
people to the actual condition of society, where the poor majority are
sadly left in destitution, where sins and crime are sapping the very
vitality of the people, where the rich are abusing their fortunes for
deplorable ends. Then came the European downfall of autocracy and the
triumph (at least for a short time) of democracy. Liberty, equality, and
fraternity became once more the slogan of the time. All these forces
united and started a reform movement, upsetting to a certain degree the
age-long social system of Nippon.

The three years of confusion did a lasting good. The German systems of
government, diplomacy, education, military affairs, and philosophy, to
which the Japanese had hitherto adhered too blindly, were, one after
another, filtrated and purified, thereby removing much of the scum that
was in them. It is, of course, impossible for hardened militarists and
bureaucrats to get rid of the beliefs in which they were born and brought
up and which have become endeared; but the old generations are gradually
dying off, carrying with them to the grave the skeleton of systems which
are now dead. In open rebellion against these falling autocrats there
arose a great number of brilliant young people, bred and trained in the
new school of liberty and democracy, with courage and foresight to
complete the second Restoration--that of the rights of humanity belonging
to the common masses. Already the status of the working classes is greatly
improved through a persistent, costly struggle against the misused power
of capital; wages have been increased, hours shortened, and, in the near
future, we may expect the triumph of industrial democracy, a triumph which
will secure for labor the deserved right of industrial copartnership.
Already the status of the women has been greatly improved by their
emancipation from the traditional and social bondage under which they
suffered so long. Political rights have been greatly enlarged, and
universal manhood suffrage is now within view. The educational system,
too, has just been revised, rendering its spirit a great deal more liberal
than ever before. In this way, though the road is yet long and uncertain,
true liberalism in Nippon at last stands firmly on its ground, ready to
march towards its ordained goal.

Such a great social innovation is but a concrete expression of changes
that are taking place in the underlying currents of thought. It indicates
the breaking up of classic systems of moral and political philosophy,
which by dint of age-long prestige had never ceased to exercise a strong
influence upon the minds of the people. It discloses the bankruptcy of
that German idealism which so precisely fitted in with the _à priori_,
passive, spiritual temper of the people but which proved hopeless in the
face of vital problems of life and society. It means the exposure of the
inadequacy of English utilitarianism, with its over-emphasis on
individualism, to help the people effectually to solve many difficulties
of society. The changes now taking place in Japanese thought imply the
failure of those philosophies which belittle the value of the material,
slight the position of mankind in the universe and fail to satisfy man's
inherent craving for ceaseless progress. The new direction of Japanese
thought is decidedly towards pragmatic humanism at its best, with due
emphasis on the importance of the practical and social phases of life,
enriched with the spirit of a sentimental delicacy and an æsthetic
proclivity singularly characteristic of the people.



Colonel Theodore Roosevelt once remarked to one of the authors of this
book, with his accustomed emphasis and gesture: "The United States' proper
sphere is in this hemisphere; Japan's proper sphere is in Asia." With this
text the great statesman was propounding an idea of deep political
significance. What is suggested by the text is, of course, not that either
of the two nations should resume its traditional policy of isolation or
confine its activities within the specified zones, but rather it is to the
effect that each should know its bounds and play the part which destiny
and geography have assigned to it.

In further elucidating the same idea, in his book entitled _Fear God and
Take Your Own Part_, Roosevelt says:

    Japan's whole sea front, and her entire home maritime interest, bear
    on the Pacific; and of the other great nations of the earth the United
    States has the greatest proportion of her sea front on, and the
    greatest proportion of her interest in, the Pacific. But there is not
    the slightest real or necessary conflict of interests between Japan
    and the United States in the Pacific. When compared with each other,
    the interest of Japan is overwhelmingly Asiatic, that of the United
    States overwhelmingly American. Relatively to each other, one is
    dominant in Asia, the other in North America. Neither has any desire,
    nor any excuse for desiring, to acquire territory on the other's

President Roosevelt had a unique opportunity of making himself thoroughly
conversant with the situation in the Far East without even setting foot on
the soil. The Portsmouth Treaty of 1905, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" of
1907, the Root-Takahira Agreement of 1908, negotiated on behalf of America
by the able Secretary of State, Elihu Root, and the American recognition
of the amalgamation of Korea into the Japanese Empire in 1910, are the
outstanding acts of the Roosevelt administration wherein the foregoing
idea has been translated into deeds. These acts have proceeded from a
thorough appreciation of the history and development of modern Japan. Nor
did Colonel Roosevelt cease on his return to private life to follow
closely the march of events in Asia. He wrote many articles on Far Eastern
affairs which showed his remarkable grasp of the situation. No wonder,
then, that the Japanese people reciprocate this generous appreciation by
paying the highest respect to, and entertaining a genuine admiration for,
the late American statesman.

Korean Situation.

Recently Japan has been made the target of attack from many quarters with
reference to her Asiatic policy. The Shantung settlement, the Korean
administration, and Japan's activities in East Siberia have been severely
assailed by her critics. Patriotism imposes upon a citizen no obligation
to condone any mistakes and wrongs which his country has committed. We
deplore the gross diplomatic blunder which Japan made in 1915 in her
dealings with China, which, although perfectly justifiable in the main
proposals presented,[2] had the appearance of browbeating her to
submission by brandishing the sword. We deplore the atrocities perpetrated
in the attempt to crush the Korean uprisings. Whatever may have been the
advisability of adopting drastic measures to nip the Korean revolt in the
bud, a revolt which, if leniently dealt with, might have resulted in far
greater sufferings of the people, it can never be proffered as a plea for
the committing of inhuman deeds. Fortunately, a change of heart has come
to the Mikado's Government, which, by uprooting the militaristic régime,
is now resolutely introducing liberal measures and reforms in Korea. The
most significant of the measures is the system of local self-government
which has just been inaugurated. It creates in the provinces,
municipalities, and villages of Chosen (Korea) consultative or advisory
Councils whose functions are to deliberate on the finances and other
matters of public importance to the respective local bodies. The members
are partly elective and partly appointive. Besides these deliberative
Councils, there will be established in each municipality, county, and
island a School Council to discuss matters relating to education. This is
the sure road to complete self-government in Chosen. The same process of
evolution, which brought local autonomy and a constitutional régime to
Japan proper, which took thirty years to perfect, is now being applied to
the newly joined integral part of the Mikado's Empire. The step may be
slow, but the goal is sure. Korea's union with Japan was consummated after
the bitter experience of two sanguinary wars and the mature deliberation
of the best minds of the two peoples. Its revocation is out of the
question, unless it is demanded in the future for most cogent reasons. The
privilege of taking a hand in the government of the empire, however,
should be extended as speedily as possible to its subjects in the

Policy of Self-Preservation.

Many as are the pitfalls into which Japan has fallen in pursuance of her
Asiatic policy, it may confidently be asserted that the road she has
trodden has, on the whole, been straight. She can face with a clean
conscience the verdict of history. When Far Eastern history, from the
China-Japan War to the conclusion of the Versailles Treaty, is carefully
examined and rightly understood, it will be conceded that the course which
Japan has adopted, so far as its general principles are concerned, is the
one which any nation of self-respect and right motive would pursue.
Fundamentally Japan's Asiatic policy is the policy of self-preservation,
the policy of defense, and never of aggression. The Anglo-Japanese
Alliance, which was and still remains the cornerstone of Japan's Asiatic
policy, was formed for purely defensive purposes, in order to maintain
peace in Asia and safeguard mutual interests vested therein of the two
Powers. Only the "inexorable march of events" has brought Japan into
Korea, Manchuria, and East Siberia. None of the statesmen who took part in
the Meiji Restoration could ever have dreamed that their country would in
the course of time be driven through sheer force of circumstances to
plant its flag on the Asiatic mainland. It was solely in self-defense that
Japan took up arms against China and Russia. Once enmeshed in continental
politics, however, it became imperative for her to take such measures as
would ensure and consolidate the position and gains that were won through
enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure. Herein, in short, is the genesis
of Japan's present status in Korea and Manchuria.

Even at the present time, the heavy arming of Japan is a case of
necessity, so long as the Far East remains in such an unstable condition
as exists there to-day, and is not free from the menace of the Bolsheviki,
who, professing pacifism, are not slow to emulate the military machine of
Imperial Russia. Nothing could be more welcome to the Japanese people than
to see the curtailment of their naval and military equipments, for the
maintenance of which they have to bear the burden of crushing taxes, and
to behold the day when they can, without fear of interference by force of
arms, win their spurs in the Far East by engaging in the peaceful
enterprises of farming, trade, and industry.

Precisely as the position of Japan on the Asiatic mainland was the result
of arbitrament by the sword, drawn in response to a challenge made by
others, and is now upheld by the prestige of arms, her Asiatic policy,
although conceived in self-defense, came to assume in the eyes of the
outside world a semblance of military aggrandizement. As a consequence,
Japan is looked upon as a militaristic nation, bent upon conquest.
Suspicion and fear are thereby engendered. This is, to say the least,
extremely unfortunate. No stone should be left unturned to smooth the
sharp edges cut by this historical retrospect and to obliterate the
unpleasant memories of the past. No effort would be too great for Japan to
convince the world of her genuine faith that her future lies "not in
territorial and military conquest, but on the water in the carrying trade
and on land in her commercial and industrial expansion abroad." Her
erstwhile failure to dispel the suspicion of the world about her
intentions and to take it into her confidence is the root of many ills
with which she has been afflicted for the past few years.

Shantung Settlement.

The storm of criticism we have witnessed in America about the Shantung
settlement is a good illustration. Whatever part party politics in the
United States may have played in raising the furor, had Japan secured the
complete confidence of the American people, all the eloquence expended
for the denunciation of the Shantung clause in the Versailles Treaty
would surely have fallen on deaf ears. That our judgment is not wrong is
sustained by the fact that the Portsmouth Treaty evoked not a word of
protest in America. We need not remind our readers that the Treaty
concluded through the good offices of President Roosevelt and the
settlement made at Versailles are not only based upon the same principles
but are exactly identical in many respects, with this most important
exception--namely, that the former Treaty transferred to Japan the lease
of the Kwantung territory, and she still holds it, while in the latter
case she pledges herself to relinquish the leasehold of Kiaochow, thereby
restoring the complete sovereignty of China over Shantung, which had been
infringed upon by Germany. The Shantung settlement is, consequently, of a
far greater advantage to China. What Japan secures in that province is
only the same economic rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other
Powers in other parts of China. There is, therefore, no justifiable ground
for singling out Japan for attack with regard to the international
arrangement now in vogue in China. Were the complete reconstruction of
China, the re-writing of her history, to be attempted, international
justice would demand that the parties interested should all share equal
responsibilities and sacrifices. Discrimination against Japan alone is
unjust, unfair. The would-be builders of the new heaven and the new earth
can ill afford to lay the cornerstone of their edifice on such an unsafe
and unlevel ground. Manifestly, the dawn of the millennium is still far
away. We have to make the best of the world as it is. To ignore this fact
is to make the confusion in the world worse confounded. As a result of
this misapprehension of history, the Shantung question still remains in
abeyance, because of China's refusal to enter into negotiations with Japan
for the restoration of Kiaochow, thus delaying perfect accord between the
two Oriental neighbors whom destiny has called to be on the best of terms.
The foregoing interpretation of the Shantung question could not in
ordinary circumstances have failed to convince the practical American
people of the appropriateness of the Versailles settlement, were they not
tempted to indulge suspicions of Japan and, hence, ready to be easily
misled by false stories, misrepresentations, and slanders concocted by her

Rather unfortunate, one is sometimes tempted to think, has been the
heading of the clause in the Versailles Treaty, that has readjusted the
German-China Treaty of 1898 and its sequel, and disposed of the rights and
privileges Germany had secured thereby in the province of Shantung. Like
"the three R's" and other catchwords that have in American history often
proved so powerful in misleading the people, so this curt phrase "Shantung
clause," which was seized on and skillfully utilized by Japan's critics,
has been a cause of mountains of misunderstanding that have crept into the
heads of the American people, who, as a rule, take neither time nor pains
to examine the subject carefully and thoroughly. As a result, they imagine
that the whole province of Shantung was ceded to Japan by the Peace
Treaty. Great, indeed, as is this mistake, it would be extremely difficult
to correct it, as the mischief has already been done, except by the actual
restoration of Kiaochow. Japan cannot, of course, be held responsible for
the misinterpretations of other people, but at the same time it would be
well for her to spare no effort to convince China of the wisdom of
entering into negotiations for the recovery of the leased territory, and,
consequently, of her complete sovereignty over the province of Shantung.
Until this pledge is redeemed, Japan's credit will suffer, and all her
pronouncements on justice and humanity fall flat on the ears of the world.

Coöperation with China.

While Japan's Asiatic policy was, of course, primarily formulated to
further her own interests, it has also been inspired with the laudable
ambition of rendering a good record of stewardship over the people who
have come within the orbit of its influence. No one who knows the work
undertaken in Korea and South Manchuria will grudge a word of praise for
the record. It has bestowed untold benefits on the inhabitants. Theodore
Roosevelt, in reviewing the enterprise of Japan in Korea, grew
enthusiastic over it. The same story is repeated in South Manchuria, where
the South Manchurian Railroad Company, acting as a civilizing agent, has
wrought marvels. We should like to dwell here with patriotic pride on
these reforms and undertakings in some detail, were they not out of place
in this book.

Commendable as are these civilizing measures adopted by Japan, the fact
remains that she has signally failed in one great essential, namely, in
winning the good will and friendship of her neighbors. This is the weakest
spot in the armor of her Asiatic policy. She is thereby jeopardizing her
future. The sentiment of good will is as much a fact, though imponderable,
as any other fact, and is a force of immense consequence. How vital this
moral asset is to Japan can easily be gauged when we consider that in her
neighboring lands are found the indispensable materials for her industrial
expansion and the best market for her commerce. Japanese leaders are
thoroughly aware of the importance of this moral asset, and have done all
that they could to secure it.

The failure to win it is partly due to the pettiness of Japanese
officialdom, so bitterly complained of by Lafcadio Hearn with his fine
poetical irony--the pettiness which tries to bring everything within its
prescribed order and does not allow free play to the idiosyncrasies and
peculiar characteristics of other peoples. No less responsible are the
shortsightedness of Japanese nationals, their too great eagerness to
accomplish things within a short time, their haughtiness and overbearing
manners, which are decidedly offensive to their neighbors. The fault,
however, is not Japan's alone. There are tremendous difficulties which
confront her in the way of winning the friendship of her neighbors. The
first to reckon with are their weak and unstable qualities, which have so
sadly but too clearly been shown by their incapacity to organize a strong
nation or to put their house in order. To deal with these neighbors is no
easy task. It requires the highest statesmanship. The task is made
difficult a hundredfold by the counteracting influences exerted on Japan's
neighbors, as they are in the vortex of international rivalry. And not all
foreigners are the friends of Japan. There is a considerable number of
those who entertain, for one reason or another, a dislike of the Island
Empire, and ceaselessly labor to defeat its purpose. They paint, either
wittingly or unwittingly, every act of Japan so maliciously that it
instills fear and hatred of her among her neighbors. Undiscriminating and
unfair attacks of Japan's critics play into the hands of the jingoistic
elements in the countries concerned and make the task of the liberals
extremely difficult. Whatever the obstacles, however, they must be
surmounted, for the future road to tread is clear. Japan's salvation,
together with that of her neighbors, lies in their genuine friendship and

Understanding with America.

A brief review of Japan's Asiatic policy was deemed advisable in
connection with the discussion of the Japanese-California problem in order
to see how Japan proposes to solve the question of human congestion at
home and to meet her other urgent needs. The succeeding chapters will show
what an unparalleled predicament Japan is facing. Circumscribed within a
narrowly limited area, only 16 per cent. of which is fit for cultivation,
and crowded with two thirds as many people as the entire population of the
United States, with an annual increase at the rate of seven hundred
thousand, Japan must perforce find a way whereby her people may live
contentedly and develop robustly. Emigration and industrial expansion are
manifestly the exits from the dilemma of slow strangulation. Emigration,
however, is found a difficult exit, for the Japanese find themselves
barred from the most favorably placed lands of the earth. Australia,
Canada, and the United States, with their vast lands yet sparsely peopled,
and their immense resources left unexploited, while welcoming every race
and creed of Europe, shut their doors against the Japanese.

Japan has acquiesced without much ado in the restrictive immigration
measures adopted by America and by British colonies from the higher
consideration of international comity. She saw that there lies at the
bottom of these measures the delicate question of race difference, which
requires a long period for its proper adjustment. To ignore this fact and
force the race issue, however just in principle, would be to court
disaster. It might result in the loss of friendship of her best associates
in international affairs and of the vital interests involved in that
friendship. At the same time, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" which Japan has
entered into is evidence of her sincere solicitude to avoid embarrassment
of her friends by the influx of an alien race. It is then but just that
they reciprocate the courtesy by a sympathetic understanding of Japan's

Barred in the east and south, it is natural for Japan to strive to find
room and employment for the surplus of her population in her neighboring
lands--the sparsely peopled Manchuria, Mongolia, and East Siberia.
Climate, cheap and efficient native labor, and the unfavorable economic
conditions, however, preclude the immigration in large numbers of Japanese
laborers into these regions. Only by building up large plants and
inaugurating big agricultural enterprises, in coöperation with the
natives, could Japan hope to transplant in these lands some portion of her
skilled laborers and traders. During the stay of a decade and a half in
South Manchuria, limited as it was until the conclusion of the China-Japan
Treaties of 1915 to the Kwantung territory and the railway zones, Japan
can count therein as colonists only a little over 150,000 of her sons and

The only alternative which remains and which is the most feasible
proposition to absorb the energies of her crowded population is found in
her commercial and industrial expansion. Here again, however, she is
terribly handicapped, as we shall see in the next chapter, by the
conspicuous absence and scarcity of raw materials indispensable for
industrial development. Fortunately, in the territories of her
neighbors--China and East Siberia--there are vast stores of these
materials untouched and unused, the unfolding of which will not only meet
her wants, but will equally benefit her neighbors. The supreme importance
of winning their good will thereby becomes accentuated a thousandfold, for
without their willing coöperation nothing can be accomplished. In the
participation of the benefits accruing from the development of her
neighbors' natural resources Japan need not ask for special privileges.
The faithful and effective execution of the "open door" policy is all she
requires. Here she stands on common ground with Occidental Powers. She
entertains no fear of the outcome of the "open door" policy, for she is in
a position to secure every advantage accruing from its operation.

Japan's Proper Sphere of Activity.

As Colonel Roosevelt pointed out, "Japan's proper sphere is in Asia," and
it is but proper that her activities therein develop in intensity and
vigor. She is entitled to use every peaceful and legitimate means that is
open to her for the extension of her influence in the Far East, for it is
there that she can assure herself of her right to live. America and Great
Britain, while reserving to themselves the right of opening or closing
their own doors to the Japanese, will not be playing a fair and even game
if they grudge to recognize this fact. In the strict adherence on the part
of Japan to the spirit which gave birth to the "Gentlemen's Agreement,"
and in the just appreciation on the part of America of Japan's
difficulties at home and abroad, lies one of the fundamentals of an
equitable solution of the Japanese-California problem.



Causes of Emigration and Immigration.

Diverse as are the causes that induce emigration and invite immigration,
the most fundamental of all, with the exception of a few extraordinary
cases, such as that of the Pilgrim Fathers, is economic pressure. There is
a close relationship--a mutual give and take--between the immigrants and
those who receive them. Generally speaking, human activities have their
main-spring in man's desire to improve his conditions of living. The
motive which induces the people of one country to go out and settle in
another country is the same as the motive which induces another people to
invite immigrants from other countries. True, in the former case, the
direct reason for the move is generally the overcrowding and poor natural
environment at home. In the latter case, it is the lack of man-power and
the presence of great unexploited natural resources. But in both cases the
real motive is the pursuit of interest, which may be reciprocally
promoted by the transaction. It is well to keep this point clearly in mind
at the outset, because much of the confusion in discussing the Japanese
problem in California arises from forgetting the real cause which brought
Japanese immigrants to America and which induced America to invite them.

During the early colonial period the American colonies invited refugees
from political and religious oppression to come and settle in the new
world of freedom and democracy. The remnant of this early spirit still
remains embodied in the present immigration laws of the United States.
Nevertheless, it is almost a dead letter, with great historic interest but
with no practical significance. The real motive for welcoming immigrants
has been the acquisition of man-power for the exploitation of vast natural
resources and for the development of industry. This is a fact which may be
observed in almost all "new worlds," including the South American
republics, Canada, and Australia, where the dearth of human energy is the
capital reason of slow economic development. With settlers, however, the
economic motive is not the only one, though it is predominant. Here the
motives are diverse and complicated. With the Japanese there are
particular causes which have been driving them to seek opportunities in
new worlds.

Japan's Land Area.

The first and foremost cause is Japan's limited and unresourceful land.
The land area of Japan Proper is 147,655 square miles, which is about
8,000 square miles less than that of California. The terrain of Japan is
mountainous and volcanic, being traversed by two chains of mountains. One
runs down from Saghalien towards the center of Honshu and the other from
China via Formosa headed towards the north, both meeting at the middle of
Honshu, thereby producing rugged upheavals popularly known as "the
Japanese Alps." Being thus rocky and mountainous, the area contains a very
small portion of plain land. Hokkaido, the extreme northern island, has
seven plains. Honshu, the main island, has between the mountains five
small plains, and Kyushu, the large southern island, has one. The total
area of plains forms about one fourth of the entire area of Japan. The
consequence of this geological formation is that about 16 per cent. of the
total area is fit for cultivation, while over 70 per cent. of it is made
up of mountains and forests.


The Japanese having always been primarily farmers, agriculture still
remains the principal occupation of the people. More than half the
population is earning a livelihood wholly or partially by agricultural
pursuits. The large number of farmers and the small amount of agricultural
land allotted to them has given rise to the most intensive cultivation,
which probably has no parallel in the world. Nearly five and a half
million families, or thirty million people, cultivate fifteen million
acres, which means less than three acres per family, and half an acre per
individual farmer. It is little wonder that the law of diminishing return
has long been operating, rendering the agricultural pursuit less and less
remunerative, driving farm hands to industry and other work. The average
daily wage of the farm laborer was 56 sen in 1917, while that of the
industrial laborer was 1 yen.[4]

In recent years the Government undertook a thorough examination of the
tillable land in the country and reported as a result that there is yet a
possibility of reclaiming about five million acres. By way of experiment,
the Government began, with the approval of the 41st Session of the Diet
(1918-19), to undertake the work of partial reclamation of seven hundred
thousand acres on a nine-year program, with an outlay of some four million
yen. It is yet uncertain how the enterprise will turn out; but it is
fairly doubtful, in view of the fact that already the land is utilized
almost to the limit of cultivation, including narrow back yards and rugged
hillsides, as well as sandy beach, whether the program can materially
increase the present amount of farm acreage.

Parallel with the effort to extend the tillable land, everything has been
done to increase the productivity of the soil under cultivation. Thanks to
the application of scientific methods in agriculture and the use of
fertilizer, the average yield of all crops per acre has increased since
1894 by about 35 per cent. But experts assert that owing to the excessive
employment of land the soil now indicates signs of exhaustion, and that
accordingly any further increase of productivity cannot be hoped for. On
the contrary, the tendency will be toward a gradual decrease of
productivity in the future. This is a grave forecast for Japan, and makes
that country dependent more and more upon the food supply from abroad. The
average yield of staple crops in Japan during the past few years
comprises: barley, nine million koku (a koku is approximately five
bushels); rye, seven million koku; wheat, five million koku; millet, four
million koku, and rice, the most important crop, fifty-two million koku.
The crops are far from being sufficient to feed a population of fifty-five
millions, and Japan buys annually millions of koku of staple food from
abroad. Taking rice, for instance, the average annual consumption is
fifty-eight million koku, which exceeds by six million koku the average
annual yield of Japan, so that the deficiency is made up by imports from
Korea, China, and India.

Naturally, the Japanese, being very good farmers and fond of agriculture,
and yet having so small a prospect of success at home, look with eager
eyes for an opportunity to cultivate land abroad. In the north there are
the vast plains of Manchuria; towards the south the fertile soil of
Australia; in the east, California and Hawaii appear to offer golden
opportunities for industrious farmers. Manchuria, however, turned out to
be too cold, and competition there with cheap Chinese labor proved
unprofitable. Australia, from the beginning, never welcomed the yellow
races. Only Hawaii and California seemed in all respects satisfactory for
Japanese emigration. Hence, large numbers of Japanese farmers migrated to
these places during the years between 1891 and 1907.


Another big factor of Japanese emigration is the overcrowded status of the
home population. Strangely, during the three centuries of national
isolation, Japan's population remained fairly static, varying only
slightly around twenty-six millions. A reasonable explanation of this
peculiar phenomenon may be found in the rigid social structure of
feudalism, which allowed no swelling of population beyond a certain
number. Malthusian factors, such as pestilence and famine, as well as
artificial means of control, operated in effectively thwarting the
increasing forces of population.

When, however, feudalism was at last destroyed and in its place were
established new forms of political and social systems which were much more
liberal and advanced, the population suddenly began to swell at a
tremendous rate. The advent of Occidental enlightenment which went far to
improve the economic conditions of the country, and hence the conditions
of living among the people, greatly encouraged the rapid multiplication of
the number of people. Within the last fifty years the population of Japan
has nearly doubled, increasing from thirty millions to fifty-five
millions. At the present time the population is increasing at the rate of
650,000 to 700,000 per annum within Japan proper alone. The census taken
on October 1, 1920, shows the total population of the Mikado's Empire as
totalling 77,005,510, of which that of Japan proper is 55,961,140.

The significance of Japan's population cannot be appreciated unless it is
considered in connection with her land. The total area of Japan proper we
have seen to be 147,655 square miles and the population close to
56,000,000. That is to say, the number of inhabitants per square mile is
380. This is rather a high figure when compared with that of other
countries. Germany with her dense population counted, in 1915, 319 per
square mile; France had 191, America 31 (1910), India and China, famous
for density, had populations enumerated respectively at 158 and 100. Great
Britain has rather a dense population (370 per square mile), but she has
vast colonies, the population of which is extremely thin. This comparison
of the number of people per square mile does not tell the true story until
the quality and resources of each square mile are also compared. It has
already been made clear that only 16 per cent., or fifteen million acres,
of the land of Japan proper is tillable. This gives only one quarter of an
acre of agricultural land per capita of population. In Great Britain
agricultural land occupies 77 per cent. of the total area; in Italy, 76
per cent.; in France, 70 per cent. and in Germany 65 per cent.


Handicapped as she is in agriculture, and holding on the other hand a vast
and ever-increasing population, the best, in fact the only, policy for
Japan to follow has been to utilize her vast man-power for the development
of industry. Firmly convinced that the future of Japan depends solely on
her ability to stand in the world as an industrial nation, the far-sighted
statesmen of Japan long ago formulated plans for a steady industrial
expansion. These plans were furthered by Government subsidy and have been
faithfully carried out step by step by the authorities. The creation of a
vast merchant marine; the building of railroads throughout the country,
closely knitting all parts of the empire together; the enactment of a
carefully drafted protective tariff; the national and municipal
monopolization of public utilities and important industries; the
establishment of a stable financial system with facilities for financing
healthy enterprises; the establishment of technical schools throughout the
empire for the training of experts and skilled workmen, and thousands of
other remarkable undertakings were accomplished within a very short time
by the direct and indirect efforts of the State.

The people, too, were not behind in their devotion to the cause of making
Japan an industrial power. They toiled most willingly under all kinds of
disadvantages and hardships; they shouldered extortionate taxes with
smiling faces; they worked in unison, disregarding for the time being
petty private interests; they calmly and bravely met all privations and
adversities. There is little wonder indeed that Japan established herself
within only a few decades as an industrial nation of the first rank.

In order to get a general idea of Japan's industrial strides, a few
figures will perhaps suffice. Take, for instance, the number of factories.
There was not one factory, properly so-called, in the country at the time
of the Restoration in 1868; as late as 1885 there were but 496 industrial
companies, joint stock or partnership, with a total capital of seven
million yen. In the year 1900, however, there were 7000 typically modern
factories, and this number rapidly multiplied, subsequently reaching over
25,000, with billions of paid-up capital. The number of factory
operatives, too, correspondingly multiplied during that period. Less than
500,000 twenty years ago, they now total 1,500,000. The increase in the
output of production and multiplication of various kinds of industries has
been particularly phenomenal. In the textile industry the production has
increased more than 300 per cent. during the past twenty years, cotton
yarn having increased from 30,000,000 kan (one kan is approximately equal
to 8.27 pounds avoirdupois) in 1900 to 100,000,000 kan; and in the silk
textiles from 2,500,000 kan to 7,500,000 kan. In cloth fabrics, similarly
the value turned out in silk weaving increased from $42,000,000 to
$100,000,000; in cotton weaving from $30,000,000 to $200,000,000 between
the years mentioned. The corresponding increase of output has been
realized in almost all established industries, and the same ratio obtains
in the many new industries which have sprung up in recent years. Generally
speaking, the industry of Japan, which was established on a firm footing
by the year 1900, has trebled during the last twenty years.

The World War, too, by absorbing for military purposes all the energies of
the belligerent Powers in Europe and America, was greatly instrumental in
stimulating the industrial growth of Japan, who, after accomplishing her
allotted task at the initial stage of the great conflict, was thereafter
called upon by her Allies to do her utmost in supplying their urgent needs
in ships and industrial products.

The development of industry naturally accompanies a similar expansion in
commerce. The total amount of foreign trade, which started with the meager
sum of $13,000,000 in 1868, jumped to about $250,000,000 in 1900, and in
1920 reached $2,124,000,000. That is, within the past twenty years only,
Japan's foreign trade increased roughly ten times, and during the past
fifty years 163 times.

Yet, with all this remarkable development, the future of Japanese
manufactures does not allow unqualified optimism. In several important
respects the foundation of Japan's industrialism is seriously hampered. In
the first place, the supply of raw material is pitifully meager. With the
exception of silk, Japan has in store hardly any raw material worthy of
mention. She produces no wool or cotton and has only a limited store of
iron. With the exception of coal, in which alone she is fairly
independent--at least for the present--Japan depends for these
indispensable factors of modern industry mostly on foreign supply.
Scarcity of iron, in particular, is a notable weakness of Japan as an
industrial nation.

The many mistakes Japan made in her labor policy, which were the
inevitable outcome of the extreme difficulty she confronted in adjusting
the sudden transition from the Feudal régime to the modern industrial
stage, must also be counted as a cause in retarding the progress of her
industry. Due to exceedingly low wages, long working hours, and lack of
adequate protection of labor from exploitation, the man-power of Japan has
been greatly lavished and wasted. The paternal social systems inherited
from the feudal days long refused to allow the voice of the working
classes to be heard and to give them freedom to improve their status.
Strikes and labor unions, whatever their motive and character, have always
been frowned upon in Japan. It is by no means too much to say that the
present development of Japan's industry has been achieved largely by the
costly sacrifice of health and the rights of millions of laboring men and
women. Considering how costly was the present achievement of industry,
there remains some doubt as to how far Japan can carry on its progress in
the future.

It may seem that the development of industry must have brought a marked
improvement in the standard of living of the masses. Such, however, is not
the case. It has indeed immensely swelled the pockets of plutocrats, but
has not much benefited the rank and file. While the income of the lower
classes has not increased to any large extent, the cost of living has gone
up by leaps and bounds, aggravating the severity of their struggle.

When both farming and manufacturing failed successfully to cope with the
ever-increasing population, the only alternative for the Japanese was
emigration. Among the students, the talk of another alternative, namely
birth-control, is becoming a fad.

Social Factors.

Besides the economic reasons so far discussed there are social reasons
which induce Japanese youths to go abroad. Socially an old country like
Japan contains a vast accumulated crust of custom and tradition which
refuses to adapt itself to the changing conditions and ideals of the age,
and which, therefore, is objectionable to the younger generation who know
something of the value of freedom and democracy. Again, the national
conscription for military service is becoming increasingly distasteful to
the youths of individualistic inclination. It is but natural, in the face
of such powerful and numerous fetters which obstruct the free development
of lives and personalities, that the young people of Nippon should seek
opportunities abroad.

All these factors above described would not have constituted the effective
motive forces for Japanese emigration had it not been for the assumed
external advantages. Attractive narratives in which some of the new
countries, more especially America, were represented as places where
economic opportunities are really boundless and where an ideal state of
freedom and democracy prevails, took an exaggerated form in the
imagination. The glaring contrast which the visualized America presents
with the actual Japan stimulates the desire of young men to turn to
America and try their fortunes.



The history of Japanese emigration began only a few decades ago.
Immediately after the conclusion of treaties with the Western Powers many
Japanese youths were sent abroad to acquire advanced Occidental knowledge.
A number of adventurous persons and travelers also knocked at the doors of
western countries, but they were not immigrants. Real immigration movement
did not start until the facts of other countries became more or less
known; until the colossal task of economic and social "revolutions" was
well started; until the influence of European imperialism began to take
root in the empire. Then came a brief period of "emigration fever" towards
the end of the eighties, lasting some twenty years. What follows is a
brief history of the various attempts made by Japanese to emigrate into
different countries, and the results of the experiment.


Because of the geographical proximity and alluring temptations that the
vast uncultivated lands and rich natural resources presented, Australia
was the place which early attracted the Japanese. A few hundreds of them
began to migrate to several colonies, chiefly to Queensland, New South
Wales, and Victoria. But they soon found the conditions exceedingly
uncomfortable, owing to the hostile feeling already prevalent there
against the Asiatics. The Australian fear of an influx of Asiatic races
was early aroused by Chinese immigrants, who, as early as 1848, attained a
sufficient number to cause agitation and race riots in several colonies.
These colonies subsequently enacted rigorous anti-Asiatic immigration laws
restricting the number of immigrants admitted per annum to a few hundred.
Since then, filled with the fear, real or imaginary, of a menace of
Asiatic inundation from across the equator, where one-half of the planet's
population live congested on one-tenth of the total area of the earth, the
great task of Australia during the last sixty years has been to keep the
country clear of Asiatics.

The immigration policy of the Commonwealth of Australia presents perhaps
the most clear-cut and radical example of racial discrimination. While, on
the one side, she spares neither effort nor money to attract and welcome
white settlers, on the other side she leaves no stone unturned to exclude
all Asiatic immigrants. With an immensely large area--about 50,000 square
miles more extensive than that of the United States--yet almost untouched,
and a population less than that of the City of New York, Australia really
needs farmers, artisans, and all other classes of people. It is the
function of the Commonwealth Department of Home and Territories to
advertise in Europe, through lectures, films, exhibitions, and posters,
for the purpose of inviting laborers and settlers to Australia. Each State
of the Commonwealth has extended assistance in money and privilege to
hundreds of thousands of European immigrants. The cause for lamentation by
the government is that with all this effort and sacrifice she has not been
successful in getting any considerable number of people as settlers.

Unsuccessful in attracting white settlers, she has been most successful in
repelling the yellow race. She has an immigration law which requires
immigrants to pass a dictation test--a test in writing of not less than
fifty words of a European language--which is dictated to them by an
officer. Examination in a European language for the Asiatics! And what is
more, the Europeans are exempt from it. The law provides, furthermore,
that Asiatic immigrants may be required to pass a test at any time within
two years after they have entered the Commonwealth. Even for the
reception of those Asiatics who have been lawfully admitted, some of the
States, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania in
particular, do not allow them the right of owning or leasing land, under
the pretext that they are not eligible to citizenship. The Commonwealth of
Australia does not extend the right of naturalization to Asiatics. No
wonder, then, that there is only a handful of Orientals in that vast
country--35,000 Chinese and some 5000 Japanese.


Until recent years, no record was kept of the number of Japanese
immigrants arriving in Canada and consequently the development of the
movement cannot be accurately traced. The Canadian census of 1901 shows
that 4674 persons born in Japan were in the Dominion at that time; 4415
were in the Province of British Columbia, the rest being scattered in the
Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. After that year the
number of Japanese immigrants coming to Canada gradually increased, and
when the United States placed restrictions on the influx of Japanese from
Hawaii, and the latter began to seek entrance into Canada, the number grew
considerably and soon caused serious concern to the people of Western
Canada. It was estimated that in 1907 the Japanese domiciled in Canada
had reached eight thousand. Determined opposition soon arose among the
western provinces, and protests were sent by the Canadian Government to
Hawaii and Tokyo requesting them to control the sudden immigration tide.
An agreement was reached in 1908 between Japan and Canada by which the
number of passports to be granted in any one year to Japanese emigrating
to Canada was limited to four hundred. In this way the question was
satisfactorily settled.

Canada's treatment of the Asiatic races lawfully admitted has been marked
by leniency. She has extended to the Orientals the privilege of
naturalization and of securing homesteads. Even in British Columbia, the
center of anti-Oriental agitation, the Japanese and Chinese are permitted
to conduct business and cultivate land on an equal basis with British
subjects in Canada. They may own land, both urban and rural, and in
provinces other than British Columbia they are entitled to voting
privileges when naturalized; only in that province the Orientals are not
allowed to cast ballots, though free to become citizens. It is reported
that there are 13,823 Japanese residing in Canada to-day, engaged in
fishing and logging and sawmill industries, as well as in agriculture.

South America.

For some years past a number (about six thousand) of Japanese immigrants
has been sent every year to Brazil in compliance with the request of the
Republic. They have been mostly engaged on coffee plantations in Sao
Paulo. The colonization is still in an experimental stage, and it is a
little premature to forecast its future at this time. Altogether about
twenty thousand Japanese immigrants have gone to the South American

The United States.

Perhaps attracted by the wonderful stories of the discovery of gold in the
Sacramento Valley, or possibly cast ashore in boats on the Pacific Coast
of America, there seem to have lived in the early sixties in California
about a hundred Japanese. Early California papers record the story of
quaint-looking Japanese settlers, who were received with great favor.
Although accurate records are lacking, it would seem that the number of
Japanese did not begin to increase until the late eighties, when a few
hundred began to come in every year. The census of 1890 reported the
number of Japanese residents as 2039. From that time on the number of
immigrants steadily increased, reaching the highest mark in 1907, when
about ten thousand of them entered continental America in one year.[5]

The direct incentive for Japanese emigration was furnished by a few large
emigration companies,[6] which were formed with a view to supplying
contract labor to Hawaii and America, where the demand for labor was
insatiable. In the former case, the rapid growth of the sugar plantations
demanded a large supply of cheap labor. In the latter case, the need for
cheap labor was urgent, due to the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Law
in 1882, which soon began to effect a decrease in the number of Chinese
laborers, resulting in a dearth of labor on the farms and in railroad
work. It was in response to the urgent demand of capitalists and
landowners in Hawaii and America for Japanese labor that the emigration
companies sprang into existence with the object of facilitating the
complex process of immigration.

The Japanese coolies so brought in were welcomed and prosperous--at least
for a while. Their industry and frugality won them the confidence of their
employers. In agriculture, in railroad-building, in mining and fishing,
they proved useful hands. They saved money and remitted to their native
country a considerable portion of it. Some of them returned home with a
fortune and a degree of refinement which a superior environment could
bestow upon a laborer. These incidents stimulated the desire of ambitious
Japanese to leave for and work in California and Hawaii, and the number of
applicants for emigration greatly multiplied.

In the meantime, between 1895 and 1900, changes had taken place in the
attitude of the people of California toward the Japanese. For various
reasons the friendly feeling of the Californians was gradually replaced by
a more or less hostile sentiment. It so happened that just about this time
California was the stage for a struggle between organized labor and
capital. It was with a great deal of effort and sacrifice that the
organized labor of California succeeded in excluding the Chinese coolies.
But their hard-won victory was shattered to pieces by the advent of
Japanese laborers, whom capital, taking advantage of their ignorance of
American customs and language, wisely utilized as a powerful weapon to
defeat the unions. To the union men it made no difference whether the
strike-breakers were Chinese or Japanese; whether strike-breaking was
voluntarily or unwittingly performed; they were enemies just the same.
The cry for exclusion was a natural consequence.

Then there also seems to be some truth in the report[7] made in 1908 by W.
L. Mackenzie King, the Deputy Minister of the Government of Canada, which
states that it is suspected that much of the anti-Japanese agitation in
California was deliberately fermented by the interests of the Planters'
Association of Honolulu, who, alarmed by the tendency of Japanese laborers
engaged on the sugar plantations to seek work on the Pacific Coast of
America, where wages were much better, started a campaign to check the
exodus by causing ill feeling toward the Japanese along the Pacific Coast.
The report states in part:

    It is believed ... that the members of the Asiatic Exclusion League in
    San Francisco were not without contributions from the Association's
    incidental expense fund, to assist them in an agitation which by
    excluding Japanese from the mainland would confine that class of labor
    to the islands, to the greater economic advantage of the members of
    the Association.[8]

For these two chief reasons, and perhaps for many other minor ones, there
arose the persistent social movement for Japanese exclusion in
California, which first took definite shape in 1900, when a mass-meeting
held at San Francisco for the express purpose of more rigidly excluding
the Chinese, adopted a resolution urging Congress to take measures for the
total exclusion of Japanese other than members of the Diplomatic Staff.
Following this came the first of the anti-Japanese messages delivered by
the Governor of California, and of the resolutions voted on by the State
Legislature calling upon Congress to extend the Chinese Exclusion Law to
other Asiatics. The climax of the movement was reached when, immediately
after the earthquake, the Board of Education of San Francisco passed the
"separate school order," and Japan protested. A series of diplomatic
negotiations followed, which finally resulted in the repeal of the school
discriminatory order and the conclusion of the "Gentlemen's Agreement,"
whereby Japan pledged herself to restrict the number of immigrants to the
United States.

Leaving to a later chapter the detailed discussion of the result which the
"Gentlemen's Agreement" has brought about in the status of Japanese
immigration, it will suffice to mention here that the agreement has
faithfully and loyally been carried out by Japan, and that since then the
Japanese problem has in fact ceased to be an immigration issue.


Twenty years of emigration attempts, chief of which we reviewed in this
chapter, have resulted in failure in every case, and Japan's effort to
plant her race in other lands has proved futile. There are many causes for
this failure, for which Japan is partially, but not wholly, responsible.
But this is a matter which we shall more fully discuss in the next
chapter. Excluded and maltreated wherever they went, the Japanese returned
home with shattered hopes and wounded feelings, and the mooted question of
population once more confronted them with intensified severity. Giving up
as entirely hopeless the attempt at settling in places where the white
races held supremacy, they now appear to have made up their minds to
migrate towards the north, where climatic and economic disadvantages,
together with political revolution in Eastern Europe, have freed the land
temporarily from the strong white grip, offering the line of least
resistance for Japanese.



Modern Civilization.

The major cause of the agitation against Japanese in California must be
attributed to modern civilization, which, with scientific devices, has
conquered time and space and thereby destroyed the high walls of
international boundaries. Indeed, had it not been for the steamboat,
railroad, telegraph, and other civilized instruments, which bind the
nations of the world into a composite whole, and modern industrialism,
which civilization brought about and which in turn assisted in unifying
the world, Japan for one would have remained a peaceful hermit nation,
undisliked or unsuspected by any other. She, of course, has no reason to
regret the adoption of European culture, which brought her untold values
and happiness; but the fact remains that the present anti-Japanese
agitation in California, as well as elsewhere in the world, would never
have occurred had she not followed the lead of Occidental nations.

Clearly, such a conflict is one of the by-products of the complex
international relations brought about by modern science, which, simply
because of the lack of experience and regulation due to their short
history, remain deplorably defective. This suggests the point already
brought out in our introduction, that the principle of the solution of the
California problem lies not in an attempt at separating Japan and the
United States, which time and destiny brought together, but in a yet
closer, more regulated relationship, and in the promotion of a better
mutual understanding.

Various Attitudes Towards Japanese.

With reference to the attitude toward the Japanese, it is possible to
discern four classes of critics in California. There are the veteran
exclusionists, whose only hope in this world seems to be the realization
of the slogan, "All Japs must go!" There is the majority of people which
is too preoccupied with its own affairs to investigate the facts and is
ready to accept anything said or asserted by the exclusionists. Then there
are those, intellectually more critical, who hold independent opinions as
to why the Japanese must be excluded. There are also others who stoutly
oppose, rationally or irrationally, any attempt at excluding the Japanese.

The reasons offered for justifying the exclusion of the Japanese widely
vary according to the class of people, and they are often mutually
contradictory and conflicting. To those agitators whose motive is purely
self-interest, agitation is a profession, and hence it transcends the
consideration of justice or international courtesy. They have no scruples
about lying or resorting to any means which they think would serve their
purpose. The masses, generally speaking, accept what is given to them by
the agitators, unthinkingly echo their voices, and so play directly into
their hands. Only fair, rational exclusionists study the facts of the
case, consider the significance involved therein, and present arguments
supporting their conviction. It is in this class of people, and not in
professional agitators or whimsical populace, or irrational friends of the
Japanese, that the hope of the solution of the problem may be found.

From the fact that so much agitation is going on in California, some may
think--especially those in Japan--that all Californians are unkind or
hostile to the Japanese. This, however, is far from being the case. It is
precisely in California that the most earnest, devoted friends of the
island people are found--found in great numbers.[9] These sympathizers
are wholly unable to share the opinions of the exclusionists, and are
simply at a loss to comprehend the reason why so much fuss should be made
because of a handful of Japanese who compare favorably with European

Psychological Nature of the Cause.

The fact that right in the midst of the hotbed of the Japanese exclusion
movement there are goodly numbers of unqualified friends of the Japanese
suggests that the motives of exclusion as well as inclusion are primarily
personal; that is, psychological. We are all human and are prone to pass
judgment from personal incidents or experience. A single disagreeable
experience with a Japanese may drive a level-headed politician to a frenzy
of Japanese exclusion, just as the memory of one Japanese friend may make
another individual a consistent advocate of a friendly attitude toward all
Japanese. Inevitably limited in the scope of experience, we can only
generalize from a few particulars. This is why there are such
contradictory attitudes to be found among Californians toward the same
problem. In generalizing from particular experience we are more apt to
arrive at a conclusion which suits our desires and emotions. We reach our
conclusions in ways which we think promote our interests and please our
feeling. Gain or loss, like or dislike, are two pivots determining our
judgment. Those who think they gain from the presence of Japanese and
those who like the Japanese, from whatever reason, naturally tend to
welcome them; those who feel the contrary, incline to advocate their
exclusion. At bottom, therefore, the effort of discrimination arises from
a direct or indirect personal experience with Japanese which resulted in
some sort of an unfavorable impression.

Chinese Agitation Inherited.

With this preliminary we shall see what are the more obvious factors which
give rise to anti-Japanese sentiment on the Pacific Coast. It is perhaps
beyond doubt, as most authorities insist, that the Japanese inherited the
ill-feeling that early prevailed against the Chinese, and this for no
other reason than that the Japanese are similar to the Chinese in many
respects and were placed under the same conditions which caused hostility
to the Chinese. We have already discussed how the Japanese coolies were
used by capital as weapons to pit against the ascendency of organized
labor. Under the general term "Asiatics" the Japanese shared at first, and
later inherited, the painful experience of the Chinese.

Local Politics.

That the Japanese issue was frequently made the football of minor
political games in California is an undeniable truth. Wholly apart from
the consideration of right and wrong, we cite a case of political activity
which illustrates such a situation. Writing in the January (1921) issue of
the _North American Review_, Mr. R. W. Ryder observes:

    All during the late war--while the Japanese fleet was protecting our
    commerce and other interests by patrolling the Pacific--the most
    cordial relationship existed between the two peoples. But the
    Armistice had hardly been signed before agitation against the Japanese
    again manifested itself; however, not until it had been resuscitated
    and energized by one of California's United States Senators who was
    soon to be a candidate for reëlection. This Senator, Mr. Phelan,
    appeared in California early in 1919, and at once made a visit to the
    Immigration Station at San Francisco and Los Angeles; whereupon he
    issued a statement characterizing the Japanese situation as a menace.
    Next, he addressed the State Legislature on the Japanese question.
    Prior to his address, although the Legislature had been in session for
    almost two months, it had done nothing regarding the Japanese. But a
    few days afterward several anti-Japanese measures were introduced....

The particular susceptibility of the Japanese issue to political agitation
in California may be attributed to the safety and advantage with which it
may be manipulated. The Japanese in California having practically no vote
are safe toys for play. The possibility of magnifying the "menace" of the
Asiatic "influx" is immensely tempting in this case, rendering it a most
effective smoke screen for the tactics of private interests.

The San Francisco _Chronicle_ stated, in its editorial on October 22,
1920, under the heading, "It Would Probably Have Been Settled without
Trouble but for Politicians," as follows:

    Had no attempt been made to drag California's Japanese question into
    politics we would probably have settled the question satisfactorily
    and with no fuss....

    We think it probable that if the question had not been appropriated by
    politicians seeking to make capital for themselves it would have been
    possible to have obtained the coöperation, at least the acquiescence,
    of the intellectual Japanese leaders in the State, in measures
    designed to prevent the presence of their countrymen from being or
    becoming an economic menace to California....

    That the question has been brought into politics, where it was not an
    issue and could not be, that it has been made a cause of irritation
    between Japan and the United States, and has given Japan a lever to
    use against us in all matters affecting the Orient, is due to the
    senior Senator from California, who sought to use the problem to
    advance his own personal interests.

"Yellow Peril."

The imaginary fear of an Asiatic influx, cleverly fermented by agitators,
is certainly a strong cause of Japanophobia. Somehow we have a historical
fear of foreign invasion. This fear is inculcated and whetted among the
Californians by a hideous picture of a Japanese Empire, that, like
medieval Mongolia, would send a storming army of invasion. One might
gather from the reports of the Hearst papers in California that the
Pacific Coast of North America was invaded by a Japanese army on an
average of once a month. Whether misled by jingo journalism or aroused by
the exaggeration of agitators--whatever the cause--it is simply amazing
how large a portion of the California people honestly fear the utterly
impossible eventuality of a Japanese invasion.

Quite recently another form of menace was suggested, which, because of its
more plausible nature, has been widely circulated. It is the fear based
upon conjecture that the Japanese will soon control the entire
agricultural industry of California and that they will ere long overwhelm
the white population in that State. This apprehension was by far the most
effective force in deciding in the affirmative the initiative bill voted
on by the California electorate on November 2, 1920.


Propaganda is autocratic power in a democratic state; it is a subtle
attempt at controlling social sentiment by influencing the people's mind
through its unconscious entrance. Freud teaches us that each of us is in a
sense a complex of boundless wishes. We wish vastly more than our
environment offers us; hence, most of our wishes have to be suppressed,
thwarted. Now, propaganda appeals to this weakest part of man; it promises
us an opportunity to satisfy our arrested wishes. "You are badly off, my
friends," a propagandist would say to honest laborers, "because the Japs
are here to bid your wages down. We are trying to get rid of them for you,
and for this we want your help." A similar appeal can be made with
immediate good results to almost all classes of people who have some
unsatisfied wish--and all men do have such wishes.

Racial Difference.

It is clearly untenable, however, to argue that the Japanese agitation in
California is wholly due to imaginary fear and aversion created in the
minds of people by politicians and propagandists. The Japanese themselves
are responsible for conditions which often justify some of the
accusations, and which prompt exaggeration and misrepresentation. In the
first place, the Japanese are a wholly different race, with different
customs, manners, sentiment, language, traditions, and--not of least
importance--of different physical appearance. Were these differences
merely in kind, they would not be very repugnant, but when such
differences involve qualitative difference they are particularly
repulsive. It is, of course, impossible to pass judgment upon the relative
superiority in all respects of things Occidental and Oriental; but western
civilization naturally seems incomparably superior to American eyes. Mere
difference of race alone gives no unpleasant feeling. When it is also a
difference of quality, at least in appearance--and in this all must
agree--it arouses our æsthetic repulsion.

Even if a man be of different race and as ugly as a Veddah from Ceylon, if
he remains a solitary example, or one of a very limited number of his
kind, he would not only not arouse our antipathy but would even stimulate
our curiosity, and many of us would spend money to see his quaint customs
and manners. But when his followers increase in number and establish
themselves in our midst, and carry on the struggle for existence until
they are in the way of fairly matching ourselves, we begin to be alarmed
and unconsciously learn to hate them. This is an exaggerated illustration,
but it is precisely the process which has been taking place in California
relative to the Japanese. The fact that the Japanese are looked upon
rather favorably in the East is because there they are comparatively few
in number and are not competitors of the Americans in the struggle for

Japanese Nationality.

To a certain extent, the anti-Japanese sentiment in California as well as
elsewhere is accentuated by the national principles of the Japanese
Empire. It has a system of government which for various good reasons is
unique. It embraces many points that are considered, from the standpoint
of the Anglo-Saxon, undemocratic. The smooth operation of democracy has
been hindered by some inherent defect in the national system, by lack of
experience in representative government, and by the influence exerted
through an unconstitutional power represented by the elder statesmen. To
make the situation worse, by means of unscrupulous journalism, the
American mind is duly impressed with the assumed bellicose and Prussian
character of the Japanese Empire, the hatred of which becomes
anti-Japanese sentiment in general.

The Japanese Government, again, adheres to a policy of extreme paternalism
with regard to her colonists abroad. It seems true that in case of an
aggressive and military government it is from necessity the devotee of a
pure race and a solidified population, as Mr. Walter Lippman stated.[10]
At any rate, Japan does not wish her subjects to be naturalized nor does
she encourage them to lose their racial or national consciousness. This is
clearly seen in her policy of dual nationality (which we shall have
occasion to discuss later), which aims to retain the descendants of the
Japanese who are born in America, and hence are citizens thereof, as
subjects also of the Mikado. It is likewise observable in the spirit of
Japanese education, which is fundamentally nationalistic, as it was
referred to in the second chapter. Such a policy of nationalism inevitably
incites the suspicion of countries to which Japanese immigrants go, and
discourages the people from making an attempt at assimilating the
Japanese. This, together with their nationalistic training and education,
renders the assimilation of the Japanese exceedingly difficult.

Modern Nationalism.

What accentuates the difficulty in the situation is that the countries
which receive such Japanese immigrants also uphold a policy of
nationalism, which runs full tilt against the "influx" of immigrants who
do not readily become amalgamated or assimilated. The inflow of such a
population, they claim, threatens and endangers the unity of the nation,
and therefore it must be stopped or resisted. This is the capital reason
which is being ascribed for the discriminatory effort against the Japanese
in California by the leaders of the movement.

Congestion in California.

The Japanese, moreover, manifest a strong tendency to congregate in a
locality where they realize a social condition which is a poor hybrid of
Japanese and American ways. The tendency to group together is not a
phenomenon peculiar to Japanese immigrants alone. Such a tendency is
manifested by almost all immigrants in America in different degrees. In
the case of the Japanese, however, several additional factors operate to
necessitate their huddling together--they are ethnologically different;
English is an entirely different language from theirs; their customs are
wholly different from those of Americans; their segregation offers
advantages and facilities to some Americans who deal with them. The
external hostile pressure naturally compresses them into small groups.
Whatever the cause, it is true that this habit of collective living among
themselves retards the process of assimilation, and, moreover, makes the
Japanese problem loom large in the eyes of the white population living in
adjoining places.

Fear and Envy Incited by Japanese Progress.

In addition to this, a point to be noted is the increase in number of
Japanese and their rapid economic development within the State of
California. The question of immigration becomes inextricably mixed up in
the minds of the populace with the problem of the treatment of those who
are already admitted. They act and react as causes and effects of the
agitation. The apprehension of a Japanese "influx" expresses itself in a
hostile attitude toward the Japanese already domiciled there. Conversely,
the conflict arising from the presence of Japanese in California naturally
prompts opposition against Japanese immigration. Now, it so happened that
recently, and especially since the war, the number of Japanese coming to
the United States through the California port has decidedly increased.
This is due to the increased arrival of travelers, business men,
officials, and students, as a consequence of the closer relationship
between America and Japan, as we shall see in the next chapter.
Nevertheless, it incites the fear of the Californians and induces them to
adopt more stringent measures against the Japanese living in that State.

On the other hand, the economic status of the Japanese in California has
been steadily developing. They are entering in some directions into
serious competition with the white race. Thus, in agriculture, their
steady expansion through industry and thrift has caused alarm among small
white farmers. Added to this is the high birth rate among the Japanese,
which, because of their racial and cultural distinction, forms a problem
touching the fundamental questions of the American commonwealth.


By the foregoing analysis of the situation, we see that although the
problem of the Japanese in California has been made the subject of
political and private exploitation, and thereby rendered unnecessarily
complicated and acute, it is, nevertheless, a grave problem which contains
germs that are bound to develop many evils unless it is properly solved.

In the following chapters we shall study the status of the Japanese in
California in respect to population and birth rate, their agricultural
condition, their living and culture, and their economic attainments, with
a view to elucidating just wherein lie the precise causes of the



A knowledge of the facts regarding the Japanese population in California
is important, because it has been a point of sharp dispute between those
who insist on exclusion and those who oppose it, the former arguing that
the Japanese are increasing at an amazing rate through immigration,
smuggling, and birth, threatening to overwhelm the white population in the
State, the latter contending that they are not multiplying in a way
menacing to the State of California. The fact that such a dispute prevails
in the matter of the number of Japanese suggests that it is, at least, one
of the crucial points on which the whole problem rests. This is true in
the sense that, if the Japanese in California were decreasing in number as
the American Indians are, it would be totally useless to waste energy in
an attempt to quicken the final extinction. If, on the other hand, they
were to multiply in a progressively higher rate so as to overwhelm the
white population, it would certainly be serious both for California and
for the United States.

Number of Japanese in California.

This being the case, it is but natural that the enemies of the Japanese
should exaggerate the number of Japanese living in California. The leaders
of the movement for excluding Japanese estimate their number as no less
than one hundred thousand. The report of the State Board of Control of
California, prepared for the specific purpose of emphasizing the gravity
of the Japanese problem in California, enumerated the population of
Japanese in that State at the end of December, 1919, as 87,279. This
number turned out to be 13,355 higher than the number reported by the
Foreign Office of Japan,[11] which was based on the Consular registrations
(including American-born offspring of the Japanese) and the count made by
the Japanese Association of America. Most fortunately, the preliminary
publication of a part of the United States Census for 1920 removed the
uncertainty arising from the discrepancy by stating the exact number of
the Japanese in California to be 70,196. The possible cause of the
over-estimation by the Board of Control is to be found in its method of
computation. Instead of counting the actual number of residents, it simply
added the number of net gain from immigration and the excess in birth over
death statistics to the returns of the census of 1910, overlooking the
fact that in the meantime a great number of Japanese were leaving
California for Japan as well as other States of the Union.

The present number of Japanese is a minor matter compared with its dynamic
tendency. The rate of increase of the Japanese population in California in
the past may be easily obtained by comparing the returns of the United
States Census.

The following table indicates the number and rate of decennial increase:


  Year.|Number.|Decennial|  Percentage of
       |       |Increase.|Decennial Increase.
  1880 |     86|  .....  |  .......
  1890 |  1,147|   1,061 |  1,234  %
  1900 | 10,151|   9,004 |    785  %
  1910 | 41,356|  31,205 |    307.3%
  1920 | 70,196|  28,840 |     69.7%

We see from the above table that after half a century of Japanese
immigration to the United States, California's net gain amounts to a
little over 70,000, the number having increased at an average rate of
14,025 per decade, or 1603 per annum. We also observe that the percentage
of decennial increase gradually decreased from 1234 per cent. to 69.7 per

It is useful to compare this development of the Japanese population with
that of California in general, because it gives an idea of the relative
importance of the Japanese increase. This is shown in the following table,
in which the decennial rates of increase between them are compared:


  Year.|  Number.  | Decennial | Rate of | Rate of |  Percentage of
       |           | Increase. |Decennial|Japanese | Japanese to the
       |           |           |Increase.|Decennial|Total Population
       |           |           |         |Increase.| of California.
  1880 |   864,694 | ......... |  ....   | ....    |    .0099%
  1890 | 1,213,398 |   348,704 |  40.3%  | 1234  % |    .095 %
  1900 | 1,485,053 |   271,655 |  22.3%  |  785  % |    .68  %
  1910 | 2,377,549 |   892,496 |  60.0%  |  307.3% |   1.73  %
  1920 | 3,426,861 | 1,049,312 |  44.1%  |   69.7% |   2.04  %

Thus we see that while the percentage of decennial increase of Japanese
has been fast decreasing since the census of 1890, descending from 1234
per cent. to 785 per cent. in the next census, and to 307.3 per cent. in
1910, and 69.7 per cent. in 1920, that of California is headed, on the
whole, towards an increase. We also notice that the percentage of the
Japanese population to the total population of California also shows a
tendency to slow growth, increasing only three tenths of one per cent.
during the last decade. As a general conclusion, therefore, we may say
that the rate of increase of Japanese in California is slowly declining
while that of the total population of California is steadily increasing.

In the next place, how does the status of the Japanese population in
California compare with that in the continental United States? In the
following table, we compare the rate of increase in California and the
United States, and enumerate the percentage of the number of Japanese in
California to the total number of Japanese in the United States:


  Census.|Japanese in| Decennial | Rate of |  Rate of  | Percentage of
         |Continental|Increase of|Decennial| Decennial |  Japanese in
         |United     |Japanese in|Increase.|Increase of| California to
         |States.    |Continental|         |Japanese in|entire Japanese
         |           |  United   |         |California.| population of
         |           |  States.  |         |           |United States.
   1880  |      148  |  ......   | ....... |  ......   |    58.1%
   1890  |    2,039  |   1,891   | 1,277.7%|  1234.0%  |    56.2%
   1900  |   24,326  |  22,287   | 1,093.0%|   785.0%  |    41.7%
   1910  |   72,157  |  47,831   |   196.6%|   307.3%  |    57.3%
   1920  |  119,207  |  47,050   |    65.2%|    69.7%  |    58.8%

The table indicates that the percentage of Japanese in California to the
total number of Japanese in the United States is rather high, justifying
the complaint of the Governor of California that during ten years, between
1910 and 1920, "the Japanese population in California _increased_ 25,592,
but in all of the other States of the United States it _decreased_ 10,873.
Perhaps, in this last-named fact may be found the reason that makes
Oriental immigration a live subject of continued consideration in

The truth of this statement, which in other words means that the cause of
anti-Japanese agitation in California is due to congestion in that one
State, becomes almost indisputable. It is doubly apparent when we consider
the reason why the Chinese no longer constitute the objects of exclusion
in California while the Japanese do. The Chinese have shown, ever since
the launching of the agitation against them in the early '80's, a wise
tendency to disperse into other States, thus avoiding conflict with the
Californians. The Japanese, on the other hand, appear to cling tenaciously
to California, and the more they are maltreated and slandered the more
steadfastly they remain in that State. This is apparently due largely to
the recognition of the desirability of California, even with its
handicaps, over other States, but it is also due to their helplessness to
extricate themselves from the situation in fear of a great financial loss
involved in the change.

The Report of the State Board of Control of California uses the fact of
the decreasing number of Chinese and the increasing number of Japanese in
California as evidence of the success of the Chinese Exclusion Act in
accomplishing its purpose, and of the failure of the "Gentlemen's
Agreement" in restricting Japanese immigration.[13] But, in so doing, it
fails to take into consideration the very fact which it points out
elsewhere, which we have just quoted; namely, that the number of Japanese
has decreased in all of the other States combined while it has increased
in California. It also fails to take into account the fact that the number
of Chinese, contrary to the Japanese tendency, has shown a marked tendency
to grow in eastern and middle western States and to decrease in
California. Thus, for example, the number of Chinese in New England, the
Middle Atlantic, and Eastern and North Central States increased from 401,
1227, and 390 respectively in 1880 to 3499, 8189, and 3415, respectively,
in 1910, while it decreased in the Pacific division from 87,828 to 46,320
in the corresponding period.[14]

The foregoing examination establishes the fact that much of the
anti-Japanese agitation in California is due to the congestion of Japanese
in that one State, as pointed out by the authorities of California, and as
confirmed by the extinction of anti-Chinese sentiment in California,
consequent upon the exodus of large numbers of Chinese from that State.

We have seen that the Japanese population in California increased from 86
in 1880 to 70,196 in 1920 at the annual rate of 1403. We shall now see how
each of the three factors--lawful entrance of Japanese into the United
States, smuggling, and birth--has contributed to this increase.


Without question, the coming of the Japanese who are legally permitted to
enter the United States has been the largest factor contributing to their
increase in California. Of the total Japanese entering the continental
United States since its beginning up to the end of 1920, estimated at
180,000,[15] California claims to have received about two thirds,[16] or
approximately 125,000. Since California's present Japanese population is
70,196, of which about 25,000[17] are American-born children, it means
that out of the total number of Japanese immigrants (125,000) who entered
California, only 45,196 survive now in that State, the rest having either
migrated to other States, or died out, or returned home.

One reason why the Japanese immigration is viewed with so much
apprehension is because the facts of the situation are not rightly
understood. The number of Japanese coming to the United States has
decidedly increased in recent years, especially since the war, the annual
number reaching the ten thousand mark. This would certainly be alarming
were it not for the correspondingly large number of Japanese who returned
every year. The following table shows the percentage of those who returned
out of the total arrivals:

  Year.|Arrivals.|Returned.| Percentage
       |         |         | of Returned
       |         |         |Against Total
       |         |         |  Arrivals.
  1916 |   9,100 |   6,922 |   76%
  1917 |   9,159 |   6,581 |   72%
  1918 |  11,143 |   7,696 |   69%
  1919 |  11,404 |   8,328 |   73%
  1920 |  12,868 |  11,662 |   90%

The growing number of Japanese coming into America and the increasing high
rate of their return, as shown in the above table, clearly indicate the
fact that the character of the Japanese now entering the United States has
decidedly changed. The explanation of the high rate of Japanese entrance
is to be sought in the growing business, diplomatic, intellectual, and
other relations between America and Japan which the recent war brought
about. In the field of business, the number of branch offices of Japanese
firms employing Japanese clerks and managers rapidly increased in the
large cities of the United States. Students who formerly went to Europe
for study now flock to America and enter the large universities of this
country. Many of the newly rich whom the unique opportunity of the World
War has created, have taken it into their heads to see the post-war
changes in America and Europe. But these Japanese visitors are not
immigrants; they are not coolies; they do not come to America to work and
settle. They will give America no trouble, for they stay in this country
only a brief period of time. They are America's guests, as it were, and
they should not be treated as immigrants. The rough handling of these
visitors, as sometimes happens in the Western States, gives them a bad
impression of the American people at large.

That most of the Japanese now coming to this country are temporary
visitors is shown by the following table which distinguishes non-laborers
from laborers:

  Year.| Total.|Laborers.|Non-Laborers.|Percentage of
       |       |         |             |Non-Laborers
       |       |         |             |Against All.
  1916 |  9,100|  2,956  |    6,144    |    67.5%
  1917 |  9,159|  2,838  |    6,321    |    69  %
  1918 | 11,143|  2,604  |    8,539    |    77  %

"Gentlemen's Agreement."

It is useful to remember the above fact when discussing the workings of
the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement." It is often alleged that Japan has
not been observing the agreement in good faith. Thus Governor Stephens

    There can be no doubt that it was the intent of our Government by this
    agreement (the "Gentlemen's Agreement") to prevent the further
    immigration of Japanese laborers. Unfortunately, however, the
    hoped-for results have not been attained. Without imputing to the
    Japanese Government any direct knowledge on the subject, the
    statistics clearly show a decided increase in Japanese population
    since the execution of the so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement." Skillful
    evasions have been resorted to in various manners.

Such an accusation appears plausible when it is examined solely in the
light of the high number of annual Japanese arrivals. The accusation,
however, falls to the ground when we consider two other facts already
pointed out; namely, the correspondingly high and ascending rate of
departures, and the increasingly high percentage of non-immigrants against

It is provided in the "Gentlemen's Agreement" that "the Japanese
Government shall issue passports to the continental United States only to
such of its subjects as are non-laborers, or are laborers who in coming to
the continent seek to resume a formerly-acquired domicile, to join a
parent, wife, or children residing here, or to assume active control of an
already possessed interest in a farming enterprise in this country."
Accordingly, the classes of laborers entitled to receive passports have
come to be designated "former residents," "parents, wives, or children of
residents," and "settled agriculturists." Of these, the last item, the
"settled agriculturists," has practically no significance, because under
that class only four entered America since the conclusion of the
agreement. According to the agreement, then, only two classes of
immigrants, former residents and the families of residents, are admitted.

This agreement leaves the question of the admittance of non-laborers
entirely untouched, permitting the Japanese Government to decide as to
who may be classed laborers and who non-laborers. The lack of concrete
understanding between Japan and the United States in this respect is a
grave defect in the agreement. True, the executive orders issued in
connection with the "Gentlemen's Agreement" provide a definition of term
"laborer," and state:

    For practical administrative purposes, the term "laborer, skilled and
    unskilled," within the meaning of the executive order of February 24,
    1913, shall be taken to refer primarily to persons whose work is
    essentially physical, or, at least, manual, as farm laborers, street
    laborers, factory hands, contractors' men, stablemen, freight
    handlers, stevedores, miners, and the like, and to persons whose work
    is less physical, but still manual, and who may be highly skilled as
    carpenters, stone masons, tile setters, painters, blacksmiths,
    mechanics, tailors, printers, and the like; but shall not be taken to
    refer to persons whose work is neither distinctively manual nor
    mechanical but rather professional, artistic, mercantile, or
    clerical--as pharmacists, draftsmen, photographers, designers,
    salesmen, bookkeepers, stenographers, copyists, and the like.[19]

The weakness of the provision, however, is in the difficulty it gives rise
to in practical application and in the liability of wrong construction to
be placed by the American public in the administration of the "Gentlemen's
Agreement." The difficulty lies not at all in the lack of mutual
understanding between the American and the Japanese Governments in respect
to this question. The _modus operandi_ arrived at between these two
Governments has worked satisfactorily. But because of the lack of a
specified definition of "non-immigrants" and "immigrants," the distinction
to be made between them, and, consequently, the granting of passports, as
already stated, is left in a large measure to the discretion of the
authorities of the Foreign Office of the Japanese Government.

The foregoing defect and the confusion on the part of the American people
suggest that the adoption of a specific definition of "immigrants" and
"non-immigrants"--in other words, laborers and non-laborers--on the basis
of whether a person is coming to America for work and settlement or for a
temporary visit, seems quite essential.

The Japanese method of distinguishing non-immigrants from immigrants,
however, has not been altogether irrational or arbitrary. The established
custom is that the Government issues two kinds of passports, one with a
lavender color design on the front page with the word "non-immigrant"
stamped on it, and the other with a green color design with the word
"immigrant" printed on the front page. The former is given to those who
desire to go to America for business, educational, or traveling purposes,
expecting to return home after a brief stay, and who have strong financial
assurance. The latter passports, namely, the immigrant's, are given to
those who are entitled to enter America, according to the already
specified provisions of the "Gentlemen's Agreement," viz. "former
residents," "parents, wives, or children of residents," and "settled
agriculturists." The passports, however, are not granted even to these
classes unless they file a petition to the Government with a certificate
from a Japanese Consulate in America certifying the breadwinner in America
to be an honest man, with a clean record, who is capable of comfortably
supporting a family. In this way, although without a definite standard of
regulation, the Japanese Government faithfully adheres to the provisions
of the agreement, even to the point of being charged with an extreme
rigidity. The following table given in the Report of the
Commissioner-General of Immigration shows in detail how the agreement has
been operating:


_According to Annual Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration._

        |  In possession of proper passports. |
  Fiscal|     Entitled to passports under     |
  Year  |      "Gentlemen's Agreement."       |
  June. |  Former  | Parents, |   Settled     |    Not   | Without  |Total.
        |Residents.|  Wives,  |Agriculturists.| Entitled |  Proper  |
        |          |   and    |               |    to    |Passports.|
        |          | Children |               |Passports.|          |
        |          |    of    |               |          |          |
        |          |Residents.|               |          |          |
   1910 |     245  |     373  |       1       |    47    |    39    |   705
   1911 |     351  |     268  |      ..       |    88    |    25    |   732
   1912 |     602  |     224  |      ..       |    60    |    27    |   913
   1913 |   1,175  |     178  |      ..       |    41    |    13    | 1,407
   1914 |   1,514  |     119  |      ..       |    84    |    51    | 1,768
   1915 |   1,545  |     585  |       1       |    54    |    29    | 2,214
   1916 |   1,695  |   1,199  |       2       |    39    |    78    | 3,013
   1917 |   1,647  |   1,115  |      ..       |    36    |    87    | 2,885
   1918 |   1,774  |     507  |      ..       |    88    |   235    | 2,604
   1919 |   1,265  |     422  |      ..       |    48    |   241    | 1,976
  Total |  11,813  |   4,990  |       4       |   585    |   825    |18,217

The table indicates that out of the total immigration of 18,217 from 1909
to 1920, 11,813 of this number were people who temporarily visited Japan;
4990 belonged to the families of residents; 4 were "settled
agriculturists," and 585 were persons not entitled, for reasons
unexplained, to passports. It also shows that 825 were persons without
proper passports. The latter category included immigrants bound for
Canada, Mexico, and South America who were sidetracked on the way, those
who lost their passports, as well as deserting seamen and smugglers. For
these cases of illicit endeavors to enter America, the Japanese Government
can hardly be held responsible. It would be absurd to put forth the
negligible number of 585 cases, that are recorded during the period of ten
years as persons who are not entitled to passports, as an evasion of the
"Gentlemen's Agreement" on the part of the Tokyo Government. It is one
thing to point out the defects of the agreement, but it is an entirely
different matter to charge bad faith in its execution.

By way of summary, then, it may be stated that ever since the "Gentlemen's
Agreement" was put into effect in 1907, the number of immigrants has
gradually decreased, those admitted having been mostly former residents,
although the total number of Japanese coming to the United States has
increased, due to the growing number of tourists and business men. The
agreement, as far as its execution is concerned, has been carried out with
the utmost scruple, but it is defective in that it does not clearly
distinguish immigrants from non-immigrants, and this leads to confounding
visitors with immigrants, and hence to the unfounded claim that it is
being ignored, evaded. Judging from the sentiment prevailing in
California, and in other Western States, against the Japanese, it is
desirable that the agreement be so amended as to forbid the advent of all
Japanese, except well-defined non-immigrants and former residents
temporarily visiting Japan. This will prevent the further increase through
immigration of Japanese settlers in California or elsewhere in the United
States. This step is deemed advisable, not that a handful of immigrants as
such is serious, but that the main question at issue--the treatment of
Japanese already in America--becomes thereby liberated from further
complication. It will go far to reduce the fear of Californians, and
thereby alleviate the difficulty of the main issue.


There is no room for doubt that smuggling is responsible for a part of the
Japanese population in California. From the nature of the case, it is,
however, impossible to estimate the number of Japanese who have entered
the United States through this illegal method. During the visit to
California last summer, of the House sub-Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization for the investigation of Japanese conditions, a rumor was
circulated and published in the principal papers of the country to the
effect that the Committee had discovered amazing facts as to the
systematic smuggling of Japanese into this country through Guaymas. Later,
it was made clear that the rumor owed its source to the machinations of
certain anti-Japanese agitators who willfully concocted the canard. While
it is possible that from the Mexican and Canadian borders a few scores of
Japanese may be smuggled in every year, it is absurd to imagine that any
wholesale smuggling is being practiced through the connivance of Japanese
officials and under the noses of competent officers who patrol the borders
and coasts.

It may also be remembered that Japan and Canada have an agreement
restricting the number of Japanese entering Canada. This renders the
northern borders of the United States comparatively free from the danger
of smuggling. Except through desertion of seamen, which numbered 315 cases
during the past ten years, it is almost impossible to enter secretly by
way of the Pacific Coast. The only danger zone is the Mexican border. But
here again there are good reasons for believing that smuggling from Mexico
cannot be practiced on a large scale. In the first place, the number of
Japanese in Mexico amounts only to 1169,[20] and no passports have been
granted by the Japanese Government since 1908 to laborers who wish to go
to Mexico.[21] In the second place, the American Government would take
care to see that its border-patrol is efficient enough to arrest
smugglers. The Mikado's Government, too, has been sincere in cooperating
with the American authorities to prevent the evasion of the law.

Birth Rate.

The cardinal question relating to the Japanese population in California is
the question of birth rate. Immigration can be restricted, smuggling may
be completely prevented, but the fact of the high birth rate is something
which cannot be very easily combated without infringing upon traditionally
sacred principles and personal freedom. It is quite true that the high
birth rate among the Japanese in California would not have been a serious
matter if the nationalism of America were as broad as that of Ancient
Rome, or if the Japanese were a race which will readily and speedily lose
its identity in the great American melting pot. But the fact remains that
the United States of America is not merely a mixture of different races
and colors; she is a solid, unified, composite country, although she draws
race material from all over the world. Nor are the Japanese a race likely
to amalgamate completely with Americans in a few generations. Thus the
question of Japanese birth rate in America becomes a vital matter,
touching the fundamental questions of national and racial unity in the
United States.

With the importance of the question clearly kept in mind, we shall see
what are the facts as to births among the Japanese in California. The
following table, prepared from the reports of the California State Board
of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, shows the number of annual births
of Japanese from 1906 to 1919, and its percentage of the total number of
births in California:


  Year. |Total Births  |Japanese Births|     Japanese
        |in California.|in California. |Births--Percentage
        |              |               |     of Total.
   1906 |   ......     |      134      |    ....
   1907 |   ......     |      221      |    ....
   1908 |   ......     |      455      |    ....
   1909 |   ......     |      682      |    ....
   1910 |   32,138     |      719      |    2.24%
   1911 |   34,828     |      995      |    2.86%
   1912 |   39,330     |     1,407     |    3.73%
   1913 |   43,852     |     2,215     |    5.05%
   1914 |   46,012     |     2,874     |    6.25%
   1915 |   48,075     |     3,342     |    6.95%
   1916 |   50,638     |     3,721     |    7.35%
   1917 |   52,230     |     4,108     |    7.87%
   1918 |   55,922     |     4,218     |    7.54%
   1919 |   56,527     |     4,378     |    7.75%
  Totals|  459,552     |    29,469     |

The table indicates in the first place that the birth rate of California
as a whole is steadily growing, and in the second place that the birth
rate of the Japanese was very low until 1906 or 1907, but since then it
has been rapidly growing. The relative percentage of Japanese births in
the total births of California, however, indicates the tendency to
diminish, having reached the highest mark in 1917, when it was 7.87 per
cent., but decreasing slightly in the last few years.

The exceedingly high birth rate of the Japanese in California becomes
clearer when considered in terms of the rate of birth per thousand of
population. In the year 1919, the number of births in California was 1.79
per thousand population. In Japan, where the birth rate is high, it was
2.53 during the past decade. The birth rate of Japanese in California is
more than three times as high as that for the total of California, and
more than double that in Japan.

There are several reasons for this abnormally high birth rate among the
Japanese in California. In the first place, a large portion of these
Japanese are in the prime of life, and moreover they are selected groups
of vigorous and healthy individuals. Commenting on the age distribution of
Japanese in this country, the report of the Bureau of Census states[22]:

    The most noteworthy fact about the age distribution of the Japanese is
    their remarkable concentration on the age groups 25 to 44, nearly
    two-thirds of the Japanese being in this period of life. Only 4.5 per
    cent. of the Japanese are over 45 years of age, as compared with 44.7
    per cent. of the Chinese. The explanation is, doubtless, to be found
    in the fact that the Japanese represent more recent immigration than
    the Chinese.

The truth of this statement was borne out by the recent investigation
conducted by the Japanese Association of San Francisco, which obtained the
following result in thirty-six northern counties of California:


  Age.    |Male. |Female.|Total. |Percentage
          |      |       |       |  of Age
          |      |       |       |  Group.
  Under 7 | 4,078|  3,786|  7,864|   18.%
  8  to 16| 2,035|  1,663|  3,698|    8.%
  17 to 40|17,037|  8,535| 25,572|   59.%
  Above 40| 5,683|    805|  6,488|   15.%
  Total   |28,833| 14,789| 43,622|  100.

Thus, out of the total number of 43,622 investigated, 25,572 or nearly 59
per cent. are between the ages of seventeen to forty, only 5 per cent. of
females being those who passed the age of fertility.

Another reason for the high birth rate of the Japanese in California is
the high percentage of married people. The rate of married people among
the Japanese in California suddenly rose since some ten years ago when a
great number (between 400 and 900 per annum) of wives began to come in
under the popular name, _picture brides_. The ratio maintained between
male and female among the Japanese in California was one to six ten years
ago, but at present, it is one to two.[23] Since it is estimated that
there are 16,195 Japanese wives in California,[24] it is obvious that
there are double that number, or 32,390 married Japanese, in California,
which means that 46 per cent. of the total population are married. This is
apparently a high rate, since it is 17 per cent. in Japan, 36 per cent. in
Great Britain, 37 per cent. in Italy. Although exact data is lacking,
judging from the fact that only less than a half of California's white
population are of ages above twenty-one,[25] it may not be too far-fetched
to estimate the percentage of married people at 25 per cent. of the total

From the foregoing considerations we can deduce this, that the Japanese
are mostly at the prime of life, and that the percentage of married people
is exceedingly high. Now, in comparing the birth rates of two groups such
as those of the Japanese and of the Californians in general, a mere
comparison of rates without taking into consideration the difference in
age distribution and marital conditions is not only useless, but it is
absolutely misleading. California has only 20 per cent. of people between
the ages of eighteen to forty-four,[26] while the Japanese group has 59
per cent.; California has about 25 per cent. or less of married
population, including those who have passed the fertile period; while the
Japanese community has 46 per cent. of married population, all of whom are
in the zenith of productivity. No wonder, then, that the Japanese in
California have three times as high a birth rate as that of California as
a whole.

There is another factor which accounts for the high birth rate of the
Japanese. It is the sudden rise of the standard of living. It is an
established principle of immigration that when immigrants settle in a new
country and attain a much higher standard of living than they were
accustomed to at home they tend to multiply very rapidly through high
birth rate. Among the European immigrants in this country, a birth rate of
fifty per thousand is not rare.[27] In the careful researches made in
Rhode Island concerning the fertility of the immigrant population,[28] it
was found that their birth rate was invariably high, 72 per cent. of the
married women each having upwards of three children, with an average of
4.5 children for each one of them. This fact holds equally good for the
Japanese immigrants, most of whom came from the poor quarters of the
agricultural communities, where not only economic handicaps but customs
and social fetters operate to check their multiplication. When, therefore,
they come to California, where food is abundant, work easy, climate
salubrious, and personal freedom is incomparably greater, they naturally
tend to multiply.

What we May Expect in the Future.

We have seen, then, that the high birth rate among the Japanese settlers
in California is due primarily to the facts that the largest portion of
them are in the prime of life; that the percentage of married people is
remarkably high, the larger part of them, especially the women, being at
the zenith of productivity, and that their standard of living suddenly
improves when they settle in California. The question naturally arises as
to what will be the future development of Japanese nativity. Remembering
that a prediction, however scientific, cannot at best be more than a
possibility, we shall venture to forecast the future of the Japanese birth
rate in California.

In doing so, the proper way would be to examine any possible future change
in the causes which constitute the present high birth rate. How, then,
about the age distribution of the Japanese? It has been shown that 59 per
cent. of them are between the ages of seventeen and forty, and that 15 per
cent. of them are above forty. In other words, 74 per cent. of the
Japanese are mature, while only 26 per cent. are minors. Now, we are all
mortals, and grow old as time passes; even the Japanese do not have
magical power to retain perennial juvenility, as some agitators seem to
think. They grow old, the Japanese in California, as years come and go,
passing gradually into the age when childbearing is no longer possible.
Therefore, if fresh immigration is checked, which we have already
indicated is desirable, it is manifest that a large portion of the present
Japanese in California will die out without being reinforced by youths
save those who are born in America, and hence are citizens thereof. That
this tendency has already set in may be seen from the increase of the
death rate among the Japanese in California, as the following table


       |       | of Death
       |       | per 1000.
  1910 |   440 |  10.64%
  1911 |   472 |  .....
  1912 |   524 |  .....
  1913 |   613 |  .....
  1914 |   628 |  .....
  1915 |   663 |  .....
  1916 |   739 |  .....
  1917 |   910 |  .....
  1918 |  1150 |  .....
  1919 |  1360 |  20.00%

The rate of death per one thousand population increased twice during the
past ten years.

When the age distribution becomes normal by the passing away of the
middle-aged group which constitutes the majority at present, rendering the
population evenly distributed among the children, middle-aged, and the
old, the present high percentage of married people also will disappear,
descending to the normal rate ruling in the ordinary communities, which is
but half as high as that now prevailing among the Japanese living in
California. When the number of young people relatively lessens, and that
of married people also decreases, what other result can we expect but the
marked fall in numbers born?

Improved standards of living as a cause of the high birth rate will also
cease to operate as new immigrants will no longer enter; and the
American-born generations will gradually take their parents' place. The
younger generations of Japanese are as a rule higher in culture and ideals
than their parents. Accordingly, it is unthinkable, other things being
equal, that they should go on multiplying themselves as their parents did.
It is an established principle proved conclusively by the thoroughgoing
Congressional researches in Rhode Island,[29] that the birth rate among
foreign-born immigrants is exceedingly high, and that it steadily
decreases in successive generations, reaching the normal American rate
within a few generations. We are, then, on a safe ground in inferring that
a similar tendency will also manifest itself among the Japanese in the
United States.

Our discussions concerning future birth rate then, seem to point decidedly
to the conclusion that since the present high percentage of the middle-age
group and the married group is bound to diminish as time passes, and since
the fertility of the future generations is not likely to be as high as
that of their parents, it will decrease markedly by the time the present
generation passes away. It is, therefore, only a question of time. The
present is a transitional period, a turning-point, in the history of the
Japanese in America. It is surely unwise, then, to become unduly excited
over the passing phenomenon, and thereby defeat the working of a natural
process which promises to bring about a satisfactory solution in the not
distant future.



Agriculture is by far the most important occupation of the Japanese in
California. Out of the total Japanese population of 70,196 in California,
38,000 belong to the farming classes including those who are sustained by
breadwinners. Besides, there are thousands of laborers who seek farm work
during the summer. Perhaps owing to the facts that most of the Japanese
immigrants are drawn from the agricultural communities in Japan, that the
climate and soil of California are especially suited to the kinds of
farming in which the Japanese are skilled--such as garden-trucking and
berry-farming--the Japanese in California have been markedly successful in
agricultural pursuits.

History of Japanese Agriculture in California.

The history of Japanese farming in California dates back to the time when
the Chinese Exclusion Law was enacted in 1882. A number of Japanese
laborers were employed in the Vaca Valley and another group in the
vineyards of Fresno as early as 1887-1888. Since that time the number of
Japanese farm laborers has steadily increased. They have distributed
themselves widely in the lower Sacramento, San Joaquin River, Marysville,
and Suisun districts. Later many Japanese settled in Southern California.
During that early period the Japanese farm laborers were warmly welcomed
by the California farmers because of the dearth of farm hands and because
of their skill and industry in farming.

But the Japanese were not satisfied at remaining mere farm hands. They
saved their wages and attempted to start independent farming. In many
cases independent farming was not as profitable as wage labor, since the
former involved risk and responsibility. Yet because of the incalculable
pleasure which independence brings, because of the ease with which leases
could be obtained, and because of the social prestige attached to the
"independent farmers," the Japanese developed a distinct tendency to lease
or buy land and to take up farming by themselves rather than be employed
as wage earners.

This tendency, however, did not manifest itself distinctly until some time
later, when they had saved sufficient sums of money to launch such
undertakings. Thus the census of 1900 records only 29 farms, covering 4698
acres, which were operated by Japanese. The number steadily increased
during the following ten years. According to the census of 1910 they
operated 1816 farms, covering 99,254 acres of land. At present it is
reported that they own some 600 farms covering 74,769 acres and operate
some 6000 farms embracing 383,287 acres under lease or crop contract,
bringing the total farm acreage under Japanese control to 458,056 acres.

The brilliant success of the Japanese farmers in California may be better
appreciated when the amount and value of the crops turned out by them
every year are considered. Governor Stephens, in his letter to Secretary
of State Colby, quotes in part the report prepared by the State Board of
Control, and states:

    ... At the present time, between 80 and 90 per cent. of most of our
    vegetable and berry products are those of the Japanese farms.
    Approximately, 80 per cent. of the tomato crop of the State is
    produced by Japanese; from 80 to 100 per cent. of the spinach crop; a
    greater part of our potato and asparagus crops, and so on.

In another part of the letter he remarks:

    ... In productive values--that is to say, in the market value of crops
    produced by them--our figures show that as against $6,235,856 worth
    of produce marketed in 1909, the increase has been to $67,145,730,
    approximately ten-fold.

Causes of Progress.

There are many causes for this rapid development. In the first place, the
Japanese as a rule are ambitious. They do not rest satisfied, like the
Chinese and the Mexicans, with being employed as farm laborers. They save
money or form partnerships with well-to-do friends, and start independent
farms. This is made easy by a form of tenancy which prevails in
California. That is, the landowner advances the required sum of money to a
tenant, offers him tools and shelter, and in return receives rent from the
sale of the crops. This is a modified form of crop contract, but it is
decidedly more secure for the owner, because he assumes less risk. It is
more profitable to the tenant because he gets a due reward for his effort.
On account of the ease with which this kind of lease is obtained,
ambitious Japanese farm laborers soon become tenants, and when
successful--and usually they are--they buy a piece of land with the
intention of making a permanent settlement.

That Japanese farmers are usually favorably regarded by landowners is an
important factor in their success. Although there have been cases in
which the Japanese provoked the hatred of landowners by not observing
promises or failing to carry out contracts, on the whole, the Japanese are
preferred to other races, because they are more peaceful, take better care
of the land, and pay higher rent.[30]

The reason why Japanese take better care of the land and can pay higher
rent than ordinary farmers may be found in their previous agricultural
training in Japan. There the farming is conducted on the basis of
intensive cultivation. Moreover, in order to prevent exhaustion of land
the farmers are accustomed to taking minute care that the soil's fertility
be retained. This habit of intensive cultivation and the minute care of
the soil, which are really inseparable, are maintained by the Japanese
farmers when they undertake agriculture in California. Furthermore, it so
happens that the climate and soil of California are especially suited for
intensive cultivation. Such products as vegetables and berries, which grow
so abundantly in California, are precisely the kinds of crops which
demand careful and intensive cultivation. The notable success of Japanese
farmers in this form of production, therefore, is not an accident. By the
introduction of methods of intensive cultivation they have been able to
take good care of the land and to pay high rent to the landowners.

That the Japanese are good farmers is attested by the fact that they
actually produce more per acre than the other farmers. The
Japanese-American Year Book of 1918 has the following comment to make
regarding the efficiency of Japanese farmers in California:

    In the year 1917 there were 12,000,000 acres of irrigated farm lands
    in California. From this, California produced crops valued at
    $500,000,000; that is to say, the value of the product turned out per
    acre was about $42. Japanese cultivated 390,000 acres and produced
    $55,000,000 worth of farm products, or $141 per acre. The value of the
    Japanese farms turned out per acre was, therefore, three and a half
    times as much as that obtained by California farms in general.

Perhaps the patience and industry with which the Japanese have developed
some of the "raw" land of California into productive farm land accounts
for their prosperity in such localities as Florin, New Castle, the
Sacramento district, and the Imperial Valley.

Japanese Farm Labor.

We may now inquire to what extent the Japanese farmers constitute a menace
to the California farmers and to the State of California. In considering
this question, it is useful to distinguish between the Japanese farm
laborers and the regular farmers.

There are in California at present about fifteen thousand Japanese who are
employed in various kinds of agriculture. The number varies according to
season. In the summer months it increases considerably, while in the
winter it greatly decreases. When the seasonal work is over in a locality,
the men seek other jobs in other localities. There is work for them
throughout the year, since the climatic conditions of California are such
that some crop is raised in some part of the State in almost all months.
The agency which adjusts the demand and supply of farm labor is known as a
"Japanese Employment Office." There are over three hundred, at least, of
such agencies facilitating the supply of labor.

The chief advantage which the employment of Japanese farm laborers offers
to employers is, in the first place, their highly transitory character.
Most of the Japanese laborers, being men of middle age with no settled
homes, go to any place where wages are high. The convenience which the
farmers receive from this rapid supply of necessary labor is immense,
since the crops handled by the Japanese are perishables demanding
immediate harvesting. The transitory facility of Japanese labor is one
thing which California farmers cannot easily dispense with and is a thing
which the white laborers with families cannot very well substitute.

Another convenience derived from the employment of Japanese farm labor is
the "boss system." It is a form of contract labor in which a farmer
employs workers on his farm as a united body through its representative or
boss. This frees the farmer from the care of overseeing the work, of
arranging the wages with the workers, and of taking other troubles.
Although this system has given rise to many regrettable complications
through the occasional failure of the Japanese to observe their contracts,
which leads to the general belief that the Japanese are unreliable and
dishonest; nevertheless, this "boss system" remains as the one distinct
feature of Japanese farm labor which is welcomed by the California

There is one more characteristic of the Japanese farm laborers which is
unique and extremely important. They are by habit and constitution adapted
to the garden farming which prevails in California. Fruit and berry
picking, trimming and hoeing, transplanting and nursery work, which
require manual dexterity, quick action, and stooping over or squatting,
are singularly suited to the Japanese. No other race, save possibly the
Chinese, can compete with the Japanese in this sort of field labor. With
their training in intensive cultivation, with physical adaptation to the
important agricultural industries of California, and with the rapid
transitory capacity and advantageous system of contract labor, the
Japanese farm laborers constitute an important asset to the agriculture of

There are, however, serious charges made against this class of Japanese.
Perhaps the most pertinent criticism of them is that they do not observe
contracts or promises. This question was very ably discussed by Professor
Millis in his valuable book, _The Japanese Problem in the United States_,
as follows:

    Much has been heard to the effect that the Japanese are not honest in
    contractual relations.... So far as it relates to the business
    relations of the farmers, there has been not a little complaint. Much
    of it, however, appears to have been due to their inability to
    understand all the details of a contract they could not read. In
    recent years more care has been taken to understand all of the
    conditions of the contract entered into, and the charges of breach of
    contract have become much fewer. Another source of misunderstanding
    has been that some of the Japanese, who think more in personal terms
    and less in terms of contract than the Americans, have sought to
    secure a change in their leases when they proved to be bad bargains,
    and have occasionally left their holdings in order to avoid loss. A
    third fact is that formerly some undesirable Japanese secured leases.
    These, however, have gradually fallen out of the class of tenants, so
    that most of those who remain are efficient and desirable farmers.[31]

Another charge is that they work for lower wages than the white laborers.
This may have been true several years ago, but at present it is claimed
that the exact reverse is the case. The answers received by the State
Board of Control of California to questionnaires sent out by it (one of
which was, "Give wage comparisons, with notes on living conditions,") to
the County Horticultural Commissioners and County Farm Advisers in the
State, agree on one essential; namely, that Japanese farm hands are
receiving wages equal to or higher than those paid the white workers.[32]

Mr. Chiba, the managing director of the Japanese Agricultural Association
of California, gives the following figures as to wages of Japanese and
white farm laborers[33]:

                             _During Harvest._  _After Harvest._

  Japanese common laborers,  $4 per day with    $3.50 per day
                              meals.             with meals.

  White common laborers,     $3.50 per day      $3 per day with
                              with meals.        meals.

  White teamsters,           $4 per day with    $3.50 per day
                              meals.             with meals.

The charge that the living conditions of Japanese are lower is a thing
which cannot be determined by off-hand judgment. Reliable statistics are
lacking in this line. In fact, the standard, by which we may safely
pronounce our judgment on the question, is not easy to establish
scientifically. Food, dress, and dwelling may, on the whole, be taken as
the criteria for comparison. The food, however, when it happens to be
different in kind between two groups of people, unless the prices are
compared, cannot be taken as a sure measure for estimating the higher or
lower standard of living. The diet of the Japanese farmer is different in
kind from that of the American; but it will be rash to conclude that the
Japanese standard of living is thereby lower than that of the American. As
a rule, the Japanese feed and dress well. There is perhaps no more liberal
spender than a Japanese youth. His weakness lies rather in taking too much
delight in making display than in taking to heart the qualities of a
miser. In dwellings the Japanese have nothing to compare with the
comfortable and durable homes of the Americans. The reason for this
deficiency is that the Japanese have no assurance for the future; hence
they have no incentive to build permanent homes. At any rate, as long as
the Japanese are getting higher wages than the white laborers, and are not
underbidding the latter, frugal living and money-saving are wholly a
matter of individual freedom, which should not give cause for criticism.

That there are still other shortcomings in Japanese farm laborers must be
conceded. They are irascible, unstable, complaining, unsubmissive. These
are inborn tendencies of the Japanese, and it is not easy to correct them
in a short time.

Concerning the question as to what extent the Orientals displace white
labor, the replies given by the County Horticultural Commissioners and the
County Farm Advisers of California disclose this interesting fact; namely,
that in most counties where Japanese are engaged in farm work they are not
displacing white labor, and only in a few counties where fruits are the
chief products do they appear to displace white labor to any extent.[34]
The truth is that the supply of Japanese farm labor has been diminishing
noticeably since the virtual stopping of immigration, while the demand has
been on the increase. In 1910, it was reported that 30,000 Japanese were
engaged in farm labor in California[35]; in 1918, there were only 15,794
employed.[36] Professor Millis observed

    The number of Japanese available for employment by white farmers has
    diminished, and in certain communities to a marked degree. The total
    number of such laborers has decreased with restriction on immigration,
    and the increase in number of Japanese farmers.[37]

Japanese Farmers.

While Japanese farm labor has been diminishing, the responsible farmers
have been increasing. As already stated, in 1909 the Japanese controlled
1816 farms, covering 99,254 acres; but in 1919 they cultivated 6000 farms,
embracing 458,056 acres. The value of the annual farm products also jumped
from $6,235,856 to $67,145,230 during the ten-year period. Thus the
increase of cultivation area has been approximately four-fold and that of
the crop value ten-fold.

For three outstanding reasons the rapid progress of Japanese farmers is
envisaged with serious apprehension. The first reason is found in the
words of the Governor of California:

    These Japanese, by very reason of their use of economic standards
    impossible to our white ideals--that is to say, the employment of
    their wives and their very children in the arduous toil of the
    soil--are proving crushing competitors to our white rural populations.

This statement, that the Japanese are crushing competitors of California
farmers, is in a measure true, but it greatly exaggerates the situation.
In California, large farms still predominate, and the average size of a
farm is about two hundred acres. The size of the Japanese farm is usually
small, the average being about fifty-seven acres. The contrast is due to
the difference both in the method of cultivation and in the crops raised
by white and Japanese farmers. The crops cultivated exclusively by white
farmers are such as corn, fruit, nuts, hay, and grain, which require
extensive farming and the employment of machines and elaborate
instruments. The Japanese, being accustomed to intensive cultivation,
almost monopolize the state production of berries, celery, asparagus,
etc., which require much stooping, squatting, and painstaking manual work.
Thus there is a clear line of demarkation between white and Japanese
farmers based on the difference of training and physical

It must also be remembered that the crops which are exclusively raised by
white farmers are those which constitute the more important products of
the State, a greater acreage of land being devoted to each of them. Most
of the products which are monopolized by the Japanese are newly introduced
kinds, total crop values of which are small, a very limited amount of
acreage being used for their cultivation. This being the case, it is
clearly misleading to represent the Japanese farmers as "crushing
competitors" of all other agriculturists in California. Some of those who
follow the Japanese methods of intensive cultivation perhaps find
themselves injured by the more efficient and successful Japanese farmers,
but the number of such farmers is very small.

That the Japanese work longer hours than the white farmers is true. That
they occasionally work on Sundays is also true. The explanation for this
is that, being discouraged from taking part in the communal life and
activities, they naturally tend to spend more time in work and to seek
recreation in work itself. On many of the Japanese farms it is frequently
the custom to have a day off during the week instead of on Sunday for the
purpose of going to town to shop or to go visiting. It is true that the
women and children are often found working in the fields with the men, but
this is due to the fact that in intensive cultivation there is much
trivial work which children and women can undertake without undue physical
exertion. The children are usually allowed to play in the fields around
their parents while the parents work, and this is often represented as
compelling children of tender age to engage in "arduous toil."

We cannot, of course, ascertain how far the Japanese farmers will in the
future push and drive the white farmers out if they are given a free hand;
but it is certain that at the present time the sharp competition has not
yet commenced on account of the clear division of labor established
between the Japanese and white farmers. That the unparalleled success of
Japanese farmers should give rise to jealousy and hatred among intolerant
American farmers is an inevitable tendency.

The second reason given for apprehension is that the Japanese might soon
control the entire agricultural land of California unless preventive
measures are promptly adopted. This particular fear was by far the most
powerful factor in ushering in and passing the land laws prohibiting
either lease or ownership of agricultural land by an Oriental. The
groundless nature of the premonition becomes apparent when a few figures
are introduced. California has 27,931,444 acres of farm land, of which
about half has been improved. The Japanese at the end of 1920 owned
74,769 acres and leased 383,287 acres.[39] It may be true that the lands
under Japanese control are usually good lands, but they were not so
invariably at the time of purchase. As a matter of fact, most of the lands
which Japanese have secured were at first either untillable or of the
poorest quality, and only by dint of patient toil have they been converted
into productive soil. Many thrilling stories are told of the hardship and
perseverance of Japanese farmers, who have after failure on failure
succeeded in their enterprise. They have indeed reclaimed swamps and
rehabilitated many neglected orchards and ranches. Whatever may be the
nature of the land owned by Japanese, however, its amount is truly
insignificant. It forms only 0.27 per cent. of the agricultural lands of
California, or one acre for every 374 acres; while the amount leased is
1.40 per cent. or one acre for every 72.8 acres. This is saying that the
Japanese in California, who constitute 2 per cent. of the native
population, cultivate under freehold and leasehold 1.67 per cent. of the
farm lands of California. When we recollect that more than half of
California's agricultural land--16,000,000 acres--is still left
uncultivated, it seems almost preposterous that so much vociferation
should be raised because of the very limited amount of acreage held by
the Japanese.

The weightiest reason offered for the necessity of checking Japanese
agricultural progress is the one which almost all leaders of the
anti-Japanese movement have emphasized; namely, that the Japanese are
unassimilable. If they were an assimilable race, and in the course of a
few generations were to blend their racial identity with the American
blood, California would have no reason to oppose their progress in
agriculture. But they are a distinct people who amalgamate with
difficulty, if at all. Were they allowed unhindered development in
agriculture, in which their success has been most marked, in the opinion
of the exclusionists, they would multiply tremendously in number and
correspondingly increase in power to the extent of not only overwhelming
the white population of California but also of endangering the harmony and
unity of American nationality. This is precisely the line of argument
which the Governor of California advanced in his letter to Secretary of
State Colby. In its conclusion he states:

    I trust that I have clearly presented the California point of view,
    and that in any correspondence or negotiations with Japan which may
    ensue as the result of the accompanying report, or any action which
    the people of the State of California may take thereon, you will
    understand that it is based entirely on the principle of race
    self-preservation and the ethnological impossibility of successfully
    assimilating this constantly increasing flow of Oriental blood.

Accordingly, the question whether or not California is justified in
prohibiting the Japanese from the pursuit of agriculture is not to be
determined by a consideration of the amount of land they cultivate or the
comparative wages they receive, but by the consideration of their
assimilability. We shall discuss this pertinent question in the next

Anti-Alien Land Laws.

The significance of the land issue in itself being slight, as shown by the
foregoing study, a casual discussion will suffice on the issue of the
anti-alien land laws. The land law of 1913, which was enacted in spite of
strong opposition among certain groups of the people of California and on
the part of the Federal Government, provided, in summary:

(1) An alien not eligible to citizenship cannot acquire, possess, or
transfer real property, unless such is prescribed by the existing treaty
between the United States and the country of which he is a subject. This
provision takes advantage of the fact that in the Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation concluded in 1911 between America and Japan, no specific
mention is made concerning the ownership of farm land. The Treaty

    Article I. The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting
    parties shall receive, in the territories of the other, the most
    constant protection and security for their persons and property, and
    shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or
    may be granted to native subjects or citizens, on their submitting
    themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native subjects and

(2) An alien not eligible to citizenship cannot lease land for
agricultural purposes for a term exceeding three years.

(3) Any company or corporation of which a majority of the members are
aliens who are ineligible to citizenship, or of which a majority of the
issued capital stock is owned by such aliens, shall not own agricultural
lands or lease for more than three years.

(4) Any real property acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of
this act shall escheat to, and become the property of, the State of

This ingenious law was rendered ineffective because the Japanese kept on
buying and leasing land in the names of those of their children who are
citizens of this country. Moreover, they resorted to the formation of
corporations in which a majority of the stock was owned by American

The outcome of the situation was the adoption in November of last year of
a new land law more carefully framed. The new law naturally aims to
correct the defects which led to the evasion of the former law. It is in
substance as follows:

(1) All aliens not eligible to citizenship and whose home government has
no treaty with the United States providing such right cannot own or lease

(2) All such aliens cannot become members or acquire shares of stock in
any company, association, or corporation owning agricultural land;

(3) These aliens cannot become guardians of that portion of the estate of
a minor which consists of property which they are inhibited by this law
from possession or transfer;

(4) Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the
provisions of this act by aliens shall escheat to and become the property
of the State of California.

The difference between the old and the new laws is that in the new law
evasion is made entirely impossible by prohibiting the Japanese from
buying or selling land in the names of their children or through the
medium of corporations. A novel feature of the new law is that it forbids
the three-year lease which was allowed by the old law.

The opponents of the newly enacted law claim that it is unwise because, if
it proves effective, it will have driven a large number of capable and
industrious farmers out of agriculture, thereby causing no little
inconvenience to the people in getting an abundant supply of table
delicacies. Even the report of the State Board of Control admits that "the
annual output of agricultural products of Japanese consists of food
products practically indispensable to the State's daily supply," and adds
that their sudden removal is not wise.[42] If, on the other hand, the law
fails--and that there is abundant possibility of it the sponsors of the
law themselves admit--critics insist that it will result in no gain, but
"it merely persecutes the aliens against whom it is directed, and sows the
seed of distrust in their minds," and further it will occasion an
unnecessary ill-feeling between America and Japan. Presenting the reasons
for opposing the new land measure, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

    The clause denying the right to lease agricultural lands is
    ineffective in operation. It may prove irritating to the Japanese
    people, but it will not prevent them from occupying lands for
    agricultural purposes under cropping contracts for personal services,
    which cannot be legally prohibited to any class of aliens.

This is what Governor Stephens referred to when he confessed that the law
can be evaded by legal subterfuge, which it is not possible for the State
to counteract. And California has no lack of lawyers, who are resourceful
and ready enough to teach the Japanese the technical way of evading the

The advocates of the new law, on the other hand, argued that anything is
better than nothing to show their disapproval of Japanese domination in
agriculture, and pointed to the Japanese law regarding foreign land
ownership as an example of foreigners not being allowed to own land. If
Japan does not permit the ownership of land by Americans, they argue, by
what right do the Japanese demand the privilege in America? This
apparently does not hit the point since in case of Japan the prohibition
of land-ownership is not discrimination against any single nation or
people, whereas the case of California is. We may, however, cursorily
touch here upon the status of foreign land ownership in Japan.

Land Laws of Japan.

Under present regulations there are three ways in which foreigners may
hold land in Japan, viz.:

(1) By ordinary lease running for any convenient term and renewable at the
will of the lessee. The rent of such leased property is liable to a review
by the courts, after a certain number of years, on the application of
either party;

(2) A so-called superficies title may be secured in all parts of Japan,
save what is called the colonial areas, running for any number of years.
Many such titles now current run for 999 years. These titles give as
complete control over the surface of the land as a fee-simple title would

(3) Foreigners may form joint stock companies and hold land for the
purposes indicated by their charters. They are juridical persons, formed
under the commercial code of Japan, and are regarded just as truly
Japanese legal persons as though composed solely of Japanese. It will thus
be seen that in practice foreigners can take possession of land in Japan
about as effectually as in fee simple.

On April 13, 1910, the Japanese Diet passed a land law which embodied,
among others, the following provisions:

    Article I. Foreigners domiciled or resident in Japan and foreign
    juridical persons registered therein shall enjoy the right of
    ownership in land, provided always that in the countries to which they
    belong such right is extended to Japanese subjects, and Japanese
    juridical persons....

    Article II. Foreigners and foreign juridical persons shall not be
    capable of enjoying the right of ownership in land in the following
    districts: First, Hokkaido; second, Formosa; third, Karafuto; fourth,
    districts necessary for national defense.

    Article III. In case a foreigner or a foreign juridical person owning
    land ceases to be capable of enjoying the right of ownership in land,
    the ownership of such land shall accrue to the fiscus [the Imperial
    Treasury], unless he disposes of it within a period of one year.

    Article IV. The date for putting the present law into force shall be
    determined by Imperial ordinance.

This law was severely criticized by both liberals and foreigners on
account of its too conservative provisions, and as a consequence it was
not promulgated by the Emperor for the time being. In the legislative
session of 1919, the Government introduced to the Diet a revised bill
embodying more liberal principles and omitting all features in the law of
1910 considered objectionable by foreigners. Unfortunately the Lower House
was suddenly dissolved by the deadlock encountered on the issue of
universal suffrage before the proposed law was voted on. The Japanese
Government, it is reported, has drafted a new law with the intention of
introducing it to the session of the Diet now sitting (January, 1921), the
notable feature of which is the inclusion of Korea and other territories
among the available lands for ownership by foreigners.

Effect of the Initiative Bill.

Already there are indications that the action of California has had its
effect on the neighboring States. Similar legislation is mooted in Texas,
Washington, Oregon, and Nebraska. When we consider that in those States
the number of Japanese is very small and the amount of land-holding is
simply negligible, the only explanation for the proposal is the influence
of California, which has been deliberately strengthened by the direct
appeal of Governor Stephens to other States for coöperation. In this way
California is rather making the local situation worse, for by limiting the
scope of discriminatory activity within her doors, she might have found a
remedy for relieving the tension found therein through the dispersal of
Japanese into other States.

It is not the purpose of this book to enter into a detailed examination of
the legal aspects and technicalities of the new land law voted on by the
California electorate. It may be found in contravention to the American
Constitution by depriving certain residents legally admitted into this
country of the "equal protection of the law" as guaranteed by that
instrument. The Japanese Government may lay before the Federal Government
a formal protest against the land law on the theory that it infringes on
the Japanese-American Treaty of 1911, by running counter to the spirit of
fairness pervading the document in withholding from Japanese aliens the
rights and privileges enjoyed by aliens of other nationalities. Or it may
be the intention of the Washington and Tokyo Governments to reach a mutual
agreement by concluding a new treaty which will specifically state the
rights to be conferred upon each other's subjects, so that subterfuge will
no longer be possible, and, on the other hand, will completely prevent the
entrance of Japanese immigrants. We are not in a position to gauge the
intent and nature of the proposed treaty, which is understood to be under
way between the Japanese Embassy and the State Department, while it is in
the stage of negotiation or discussion. Whatever may be the nature of the
_pourparler_, it must be based on the conviction that neither legal
contention nor diplomatic dispute will ever settle the vexed question.

America is the country of the people, and the Government is powerless
unless it is supported by the people. The key to the solution,
accordingly, must be found in the attitude of the people and not
exclusively in legal or diplomatic arrangements. We are of the opinion,
therefore, that the surest way of removing the difficulty is to study the
causes that constitute the present California unrest and endeavor to
eliminate them so far as it is within our power to do so. Only by
regaining the genuine friendship of the people of California in this way
can the Japanese in that State expect to free themselves from the
unfortunate unfriendly pressure.



Nationalism and Assimilation.

In the question of assimilation we find the heart of the Japanese problem
in California. The reader will probably recall that, in discussing
California's effort to counteract the progress of the Japanese in
agriculture, we stated that there would be no ground for justification of
the recent rigorous measure except on the assumption that the Japanese are
unassimilable, and that they should not, therefore, be allowed to flourish
in that State. He will also remember that we stated, in discussing the
Japanese population in California, that, were it not for the apprehension
of the probable impossibility of assimilating the Japanese, their increase
in number either in California or in the United States was not an occasion
for anxiety. These arguments implied our belief that the entire problem of
the Japanese-California situation would finally resolve itself to one
crucial point; namely, the question of assimilation. It is our profound
conviction that if it be established that the Japanese are unassimilable,
then decisive steps--much more decisive than any so far adopted--should be
taken by both America and Japan in order to forestall a possible tragedy
in the future.

We hold this view because the present state of world affairs allows us to
entertain no other opinion. As long as our world order is such that its
constituent units are highly organized, composite nations with independent
rights and marked individualities, it is only natural that each nation
should demand that foreigners entering for the purpose of permanent
settlement conform in a large measure to the social order and ideals of
the country. In case this is deemed impossible, the nation opposes any
large influx of foreign races because of the necessity of maintaining its
national unity and harmony.

Naturally, this tendency of conserving strict national integrity is
strongest among the oldest and most highly organized States, and weakest
among the new and loosely integrated countries. Countries like Japan and
England, which have long, proud histories and traditions, and which are
highly organized, are more strict about the way they take foreigners into
their households. On the other hand, new countries like Australia and the
South American republics, which have short histories and few traditions,
are more or less liberal in admitting foreigners. This truth has been
exemplified by the history of the United States. She has shown a marked
laxity in this regard during the colonial and growing periods; but as soon
as she achieved a more perfect national unity and consciousness, she began
to manifest a strong tendency toward integration, exerting her energy on
the one hand upon consolidation of her population and on the other upon
excluding "squatters" who would not readily assimilate.

Whether or not such a nationalistic policy may be considered just, and
whatever change the future may witness in this regard, the fact remains
that not a single nation in the world at present discards or rejects the
policy in practice. In the face of such a situation the only alternative
for the Japanese in the United States, when they obstinately cling to
their own ways of living and thinking, would be to go elsewhere.

This conviction of ours should not be confused with the hasty, groundless
conjecture that the Japanese are a race utterly impossible of assimilation
to American ways by nature and constitution. Most of the careless
agitators who put forth statements to this effect start from the wrong end
in their reasoning. They assume what ought to be proven, and forthwith
proceed to formulate a policy on this assumption. They assume that the
Japanese are unassimilable and conclude that, therefore, they should not
be given an opportunity to progress. This is analogous to saying that
because a child is ignorant he should not be sent to school, forgetting
that the very ignorance of the child is due to the fact that he has been
denied an education. They fail to see that their conclusion is the very
cause of their premises. What we maintain is that when the Japanese shall
have proved unassimilable, _after all means for their assimilation have
been exhausted_, they should then be persuaded to give up the idea of
establishing themselves in America.

Meaning of "Assimilation."

A great deal of confusion arises from the ambiguity of the term
"assimilation." Its interpretations vary from the idea of a most
superficial imitation of dress and manners to that of an uncontrollable
process of biological resemblance or identity. Those using the term in the
former sense, in face of the fact that the Japanese in their midst dress,
talk, and live like Americans, consider it indisputable that they are
assimilable. Those who use the word in a narrow sense of ethnological
similarity, on the contrary, insist with equal conviction that the
assimilation of the Japanese is absolutely impossible. Neither is wrong in
reasoning, for assimilation, according to the accepted diction, means the
process of bringing to a resemblance, conformity or identity--it is a
relative term. Hence, in order to determine whether it is possible for the
Japanese to become Americanized, it is necessary to find a standard by
which the process can safely be gauged. Without this it is wholly absurd
to say either that they are or are not assimilable. If the standard be
fixed at physical identity with Americans, the Americanization of the
Japanese is hopeless--at least for a few generations; but if it be fixed
at conformity with American customs and social order, the Japanese have to
a certain degree already been assimilated.

How is the criterion to be determined? Perhaps it may be found, like the
standard of our morality, in practical usage; that is, in the accepted
usages and customs of the United States. Here we can do no better than
point out the traditional spirit of cosmopolitanism, or firm adherence to
the policy of racial non-discrimination, which was sustained even at the
costliest of sacrifices and which is inscribed in the immortal fourteenth
amendment of the Constitution, which states that "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If the supreme law as well as the traditions and customs of the land do
not deny, on account of color or race, any person born in America the
right of citizenship, it is apparently un-American to make racial
similarity or conformity the standard of assimilability.

A nation, however, cannot maintain its own rights and honor among the
family of nations without upholding its individuality. But America's
individuality does not consist in ethnological unity alone. It consists
more in cultural and spiritual solidarity. America upholds her dignity and
national rights with the strength of that patriotism of her people which
is born of their active sharing in her culture and ideals, as well as of
their common experiences of American life. Clearly, then, one criterion of
Americanization is unmixed devotion and allegiance to the cause and
welfare of the United States--devotion and allegiance not blindly
compelled by force of imposition, but born of voluntary and unrestricted
participation in American culture and ideals, religion, and industry; in
short, in the entire American life. More concisely expressed, the required
standard of assimilation in America is an active share in American life as
a whole to such an extent that unmixed love and the will to devote self to
the United States are no longer resistible.

The essence of Americanization was elucidated in simple and beautiful
words by President Wilson in his memorable speech delivered at
Philadelphia in 1915 before an audience of naturalized citizens of that
city. He said in part:

    ... This is the only country in the world which experiences this
    constant and repeated rebirth. Other countries depend upon the
    multiplication of their own native people. This country is constantly
    drinking strength out of new sources by the voluntary association with
    it of great bodies of strong men and forward-looking women out of
    other lands. And so by the gift of the free will of independent people
    it is being constantly renewed from generation to generation by the
    same process by which it was originally created.

    You have just taken an oath of allegiance to the United States. Of
    allegiance to whom?... to a great ideal, to a great body of
    principles, to a great hope of the human race.... You cannot dedicate
    yourself to America unless you become in every respect and with every
    purpose of your will thorough Americans. You cannot become Americans
    if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of
    groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular
    national group in America has not yet become an American....

    My urgent advice to you would be, not only always to think first of
    America, but always, also, to think first of humanity. You do not love
    humanity if you seek to divide humanity into jealous camps. Humanity
    can be welded together only by love, by sympathy, by justice, not by
    jealousy and hatred.

Biological Assimilation.

With this clarified meaning of assimilation or Americanization, let us
examine the assimilability of the Japanese. First of all, we shall take up
the matter of racial amalgamation. Immediately the questions arise, "Is it
possible to amalgamate the Japanese? Is it desirable to do so? Is it
necessary to do so?"

To the first question, paradoxical as it may seem, careful observations
compel us to reply that it is, and that it is not, possible to amalgamate
the Japanese blood with the American. Just as there is no national
boundary in science, so there is no human barrier in marriage. Truth and
love appear to transcend all natural and artificial obstacles. That love
defies racial difference has been amply proven in the United States, where
all races are in the process of being fused together. It has no less
conclusively been proven by the number of happy marriages that have taken
place between Americans and Japanese in this country and in Japan. On the
other hand, it is unthinkable that the Japanese should begin wholesale
intermarriages with Americans in the near future, to the extent of losing
their racial distinction. This is unthinkable because of the social
stigma--and Americans as well as Japanese are extremely sensitive on the
question of social environment--and the legal and economic handicaps
which cause thoughtful persons of both nationalities, who take into
consideration the welfare of themselves as well as of their descendants,
to refrain from indulging in uncustomary marriages. It is more likely,
therefore, that while here and there sporadic cases of intermarriage will
continue to take place, and that such cases will gradually increase as the
Japanese raise the degree of Americanization, it is wholly out of the
question that under the present conditions of social, economic, and
political encumbrances, the practice will prevail to any large extent.

This being the case, our second query--"Is intermarriage
desirable?"--appears superfluous. Indeed, had it not been for the
dangerous dogmatism inculcated by some willful propagandists that the
result of intermarriage between Americans and Japanese is "the germ of the
mightiest problem that ever faced this State; a problem that will make the
black problem in the South look white,"[43] the subject would be purely an
academic one. To allow this sort of baseless assertion to go unchallenged
is extremely dangerous, because it exaggerates an unimportant point to
misrepresent maliciously the whole question of the Japanese in the United

The conclusions of able observers, such as Dr. Gulick and Professor
Millis, invariably confirm the fact that, as far as the ordinary means of
observation go, the offspring of a Japanese and American couple is in no
respect inferior to those of either American or Japanese unmixed descent.
Professor Millis states:

    So far as experience shows, there is nothing inherently bad in race
    mixture, if it takes place under normal conditions, and neither race
    is generally regarded as inferior and the offspring therefore given
    inferior rank, as in the case of the negro.[44]

From his extensive association with Japanese, Dr. Gulick has been able to
make some valuable observations on this topic. He states in his important
book, _The American Japanese Problem_:

    The offspring of mixed marriages are oftentimes practically
    indistinguishable from Caucasians. The color distinction is the first
    to break down. The Japanese hair and eye exert a stronger influence.
    So far as the observation of the writer goes, there is a tendency to
    striking beauty in Americo-Japanese. The mental ability, also, of the
    offspring of Japanese and white marriages is not inferior to that of
    children of either race.[45]

These observations are valuable in refuting the kind of vile allegations
we have quoted. But because of the limited number of cases observed, and
the necessarily unscientific character of the observation, the utilization
of these studies must be confined to pointing out the absurdity of the
opposite extreme dogmatism and not extended to the constructive argument.

Even less reliable are the opinions of speculative biologists who by the
use of analogy--that is, by examples of hybridization of plants and
animals--try to throw light on the subject of racial intermarriage. In
general, the assertions of these biologists agree that the intermixture of
races too far apart is undesirable because it results in a breakdown of
the inherent characteristics of each, but that the combination of races
slightly different is more desirable than intra-racial marriage because it
tends to invigorate the stock. To this extent, opinions concur; but as to
the question what races may be considered similar and what races different
they begin to disagree. Most of them divide the human races by the color
of the skin, and state that the case of the black and white races is that
of extreme intermixture, and cite that between two white races as a
desirable one. When they are pressed to pass a verdict on the result of
mixture between the yellow and white races, most of them give only
vacillating replies, as in the following extracts:

    Yellow-white amalgamation may not be fraught with the evil
    consequences in the wake of the yellow-black and the white-black
    crosses. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the
    Caucasians and the Mongolians are far apart in descent, and that the
    advantages to be gained by either in this breaking up of superior
    hereditary complexes developed during an extended past are not

Professor Castle is more precise in his assertion. He says:

    Mankind consists of a single species; at least no races exist so
    distinct that when they are crossed sterile progeny are produced.

    Offspring produced by crossing such races do not lack in vigor, size,
    or reproductive capacity....

    Racial crosses, if so conducted as not to interfere with social
    inheritance, may be expected to produce on the whole intermediates as
    regards physical and psychic characters.[47]

Here, Professor Castle touches on the important question involved; namely,
social inheritance. Indeed, human civilization is not all that is
contained in germplasm. Mankind developed and accumulated an elaborate
system of living conditions which operate independently of biological
processes. However wonderful a brain a child has, he will have to remain a
savage if he is born in a savage tribe of Africa or in a place where the
level of culture is extremely low. In discussing the possible effect of
intermarriage upon progeny, therefore, the cultural level of parents and
their environment must first of all be taken into consideration. It is
here that we find ground for opposition to intermarriage between Japanese
and Americans at present. With some marked exceptions, the cultural
standard attained by the mixed couples has on the whole been not of a very
high order. This is inevitable when we consider that intermarriage between
Japanese and Americans has not yet received full social sanction, thus
obstructing free play to the process of natural selection. Aside from the
purely biological consideration, this want of social approval of
intermarriage, with its concomitant, an unenviable social position of the
parents, results in an undesirable environment for the offspring.

The welfare of their progeny is not the only determining point of
intermarriage. Is it, then, sufficiently happy for the couple? Our
observations lead us to answer in the negative. To be sure, there are
cases of fortunate marriages in which it seems impossible for the couple
to be happier. But, on the whole, the husband and the wife often find it
difficult to harmonize their sentiments and ideals on account of different
antecedents. The inharmony seems to grow as the couple advance in age,
rendering their lives miserable. The greatest stumbling block, however,
seems to be economic. The Japanese in the United States who are engaged in
the ordinary walks of life are offered very little opportunities save in
farming on a small scale and in petty businesses. Regardless of their
ambition or ability, the Japanese cannot get what are considered in
America good positions. Hence, neither their positions nor incomes improve
very rapidly--perhaps no advance is made. Most American women are not
satisfied to follow a blind alley. They turn back and get a divorce.
Exceptional cases, of course, are found in the American-Japanese couples,
whose husbands have won distinction and wealth by extraordinary personal
ability or by scientific or literary attainments, or by representing great
firms of Japan.

Our discussion of intermarriage seems to suggest that it is not likely to
occur, for some time at least, in large numbers; that as far as hereditary
effect on progeny is concerned, it is wholly premature to pass any
judgment at present because of our limited knowledge; but that the social
as well as the economic position of the contemporary Japanese in America
does not seem conducive to the happiness of either the children of such
unions or their parents.

Is Assimilation without Intermarriage Possible?

Let us now consider the third question:--"Is intermarriage necessary for
the assimilation of the Japanese?" The people, who argue that the Japanese
should be discriminated against because they are biologically unamalgable,
thereby commit themselves to maintaining that intermarriage is the only
way by which Japanese may become true Americans. Governor Stephens states
that California's effort at Japanese exclusion is "based entirely on the
principle of race self-preservation and the ethnological impossibility of
successfully assimilating this constantly increasing flow of Oriental
blood."[48] Without questioning whence he derived the authority for the
assertion that the Japanese are ethnologically impossible of assimilation,
we wish to refute the contention that the Japanese are unassimilable
because they are racially impossible of amalgamation. We believe that
racial amalgamation is not a prerequisite of assimilation. We have already
shown that the customs and traditions, as well as the supreme law of the
United States, do not demand that all Americans be of one and the same
race. This fact alone is sufficient condemnation of those baseless
utterances which seek an excuse for failure and negligence in successfully
fulfilling the duty of Americanizing aliens by the camouflage of race

But there are other powerful reasons to support our view that race
intermixture is not the only way to Americanize the Japanese. And this we
find in the strong influence of environment on the physical and mental
make-up of man. Perhaps the most significant anthropological contribution
of recent times is the establishment of the truth that race is not a fixed
thing, but that it is a changeable thing; changeable according to the
conditions of environment. Professor Boas, a recognized authority on
anthropology, found, in a strictly scientific investigation concerning the
changes in bodily form of immigrants and their descents in America, that
aliens change considerably in physical form after they come to America.
His conclusions are:

    The investigation has shown much more than was anticipated, and the
    results, so far as worked out, may be summarized as follows:

    The head form, which has always been considered as one of the most
    stable and permanent characteristics of human races, undergoes
    far-reaching changes due to the transfer of races of Europe to
    American soil.

    The influence of American environment upon the descendants of
    immigrants increases with the time that the immigrants have lived in
    this country before the birth of their children.

    The differences in type between the American-born descendant of the
    immigrant and the European-born immigrant develop in early childhood
    and persist throughout life.

    Among the East European Hebrews the American environment, even in the
    congested parts of the city, has brought about a general more
    favorable development of the race, which is expressed in the increased
    height of body (stature) and the weight of the children.

    There are not only decided changes in the rate of development of
    immigrants, but there is also a far-reaching change in the type--a
    change which cannot be ascribed to selection or mixture, but which can
    only be explained as due directly to the influence of environment. We
    are, therefore, compelled to draw the conclusion that if these traits
    change under the influence of environment, presumably _none of the
    characteristics of the human types that come to America remain

A very similar result has been reached by Dr. Fishberg in his study[50] of
the Jews in America, in which he found that the physical features of the
Jews in the United States are changing considerably as the result of
change in social elements.

Because of lack of scientifically established data pertaining to the
physical change of Japanese descendants in America, we forbear from
making any bold assertion on that topic. Yet, even to the casual
observer, it seems almost undeniable that American-born Japanese children
are fast departing from the type which their parents represent, thus
corroborating the truth discovered by scientists. The Japanese Educational
Association of San Francisco once conducted an extensive physical
examination of Japanese children in twenty different grammar schools in
California, and found (1) that they are generally superior in physical
development to children of corresponding ages in Japan; (2) that in height
they are from one to two inches taller than children in Nippon; (3) that
in weight they are from three to seven pounds heavier; (4) that they have
fairer skin when compared with that of their parents born in Japan; (5)
that their hair is dark brown and not jet black, as is that of their
parents; and (6) that their general posture is much better than that
commonly seen among the children of Japan.[51]

These purely bodily changes of American-born descents may be attributed to
the difference in diet, in mode of living, in climate, and in the
mysterious power of the social _milieu_, of whose influence upon the
physiology of man we are yet uninformed. It is well to remember that
America is a wonderful melting pot which does not depend, in its
functions, solely upon the biological process of cross-breeding, but also
in a good measure upon the social and natural process of automatic
conformity to type.

Cultural Assimilation.

The real criteria of Americanization being, as we have seen, a genuine
patriotism and cultural refinement, it is in the light of these two
points, more than in any other regard, that the question of Japanese
assimilability must be examined. Patriotism is a peculiar emotion
manifesting itself in love of one's own country, in willingness to devote
one's self for the maintenance of national honor and welfare. It arises in
us from our association, since early childhood, with things that surround
us. We love things that we are used to; we cherish the mountains, rivers,
and trees among which we were brought up; we hold dear the friends and
people with whom we associated in our early childhood, and as we grow
mature, we take pride in finding ourselves members not only of local
communities and societies of various sorts but also of the family of a
great nation whose ideals and history we inherit. These and numerous other
things become a part of our life for which we do not hesitate to fight,
and if necessary to lay down our lives.

This suggests that two things are necessary for the genesis of
patriotism--native birth and a free sharing in the goods of life. While no
generalization can be made off-hand, introspection reveals that, when we
migrate to another country after we have grown up, it seems well-nigh
impossible to find ourselves emotionally attached as closely to the
adopted country as to the country of our birth. To _be born_ in a country
is the strongest factor in one's patriotism. The Constitution of the
United States in claiming all persons born in America as its citizens is
clearly a product of master minds. Nativity alone, however, is not often
sufficient to enkindle the fire of patriotism in our hearts. In the slave,
to whom most of the goods of life were denied, to whom no active share in
communal life was allowed, who was treated not as a member of the nation
but as a tool, could mere nativity arouse strong love for his country?
Only when the child is brought up in an environment of friendly spirit,
encouragement, and sympathy does he learn to identify himself with the

How do we find the patriotism of the Japanese in America? Are they
patriotic in relation to the United States? For all those Japanese who
came to America as immigrants of mature age with the prime object of
making money, the answer must be made in the negative. Born and reared in
the beautiful country of Nippon among a most hospitable people, their
love of Japan is surely stronger than their love of America. Trained and
educated in the customs and traditions of Japan, imbued with the belief,
ideas, and ideals that are peculiar to Japan, they would not know even how
to avail themselves of the opportunity, supposing they were granted the
rights and the freedom to share in the now forbidden privileges. To
complete the inhibition, there are all sorts of handicaps placed on them,
making it unthinkable that they should love this country. They cannot
vote, they cannot get public positions, and now they can neither own nor
lease the land in California. No; the Japanese immigrants in America do
not love America more than they love Japan.

Assimilability of Japanese Immigrants.

How, then, about their cultural conditions? It is impossible here to
compare the culture of the Japanese _en masse_ with that of other people.
We can take only a few specific points and see how they stand. Of course,
in the absence of accurate data our conclusions are necessarily

It is often alleged that the Japanese in the United States have a
different standard of morality from that of the Americans, and as evidence
of this allegation the attitude of Japanese men towards women is pointed
out. Japanese men are really "bossy" in their attitude toward women, but
that is the outcome of custom and should not be charged against their
morals. They are often accused of being tricky, untrustworthy. We have
already seen that there have been cases that justify such accusations, but
that the cause was mostly due to their ignorance of legal processes and
obligations, in which they sadly lack training. On the whole, the Japanese
in America are law-abiding; they very rarely become public charges, and
are peaceful and industrious. These facts even the most uncompromising
Japanese exclusionist, Mr. J. M. Inman, admits as true, and states further
that they are "sober, industrious, peaceful, and law-abiding, and contain
within their population neither anarchists, bomb-throwers, Reds, nor I. W.

That the Japanese in America have been able to make rapid progress in the
Christian religion has been due to the generous aid and wise direction of
the American churches. Within less than thirty years Christianity has
become deeply rooted among the Japanese communities, exerting the most
wholesome and powerful influence in uplifting their living conditions. In
1911, the _Den Do Dan_, or Japanese Inter-Denominational Mission Board,
was organized with a view to carrying on a systematic campaign for
evangelistic as well as community service. The Mission Board has been
successful in propagating Christianity among the Japanese. This is clearly
shown by the fact that at the present time there are sixty-one Protestant
churches on the Pacific Coast, besides fifty-seven Sunday schools. The
greatest success of the Board, however, has been attained in the field of
practical social service, where the organization of young people's
Christian associations, the campaign against gambling and other vices,
relief work among the needy, and the promotion of Americanization, have
been successfully carried out.[53]

Judging from the small percentage of illiteracy and the complete system of
Japanese compulsory education, the Japanese in America do not seem to be
much behind the corresponding elements in the American population in
average intelligence. Only in English are they markedly weak. The
importance of a knowledge of the language in assimilation can hardly be
exaggerated. It is the gate through which the alien can arrive at an
understanding of American institutions and culture. The weakness of the
Japanese in English is chiefly due to the radical difference of the
language from their own. Statistics indicate, however, a decided increase
in the number of those who can command English. The census of 1900 showed
that less than 40 per cent. of the Japanese in America could speak
English, but in the census of 1910 the rate increased to 61 per cent.[54]
The rate for foreign-born whites in 1910 was 77 per cent.

The economic status of the Japanese appears to be about the same as that
of European immigrants. This is indisputable from the sheer fact that the
earnings of both are about the same. The only difference is that the
Japanese show a tendency to mediocrity of earning power without becoming
either paupers or millionaires. This is due to the fact that while there
is an abundance of work offered to Japanese which enables them to earn a
comfortable living, all avenues for a greater economic success are closed
to them. No sooner do the Japanese show signs of some small success in
agriculture than the privilege to till the soil is denied them. A similar
restraint is now being attempted on the Japanese progress in fishing in
California. In a sense, economic welfare is the foundation of cultural and
spiritual progress, and to be denied the opportunity to make progress in
this field is a heavy disadvantage.

The gravest defect of the Japanese is their lack of training in democratic
institutions. Having been given little opportunity to share in public or
political activities in Japan, their understanding and training in civic
duties is notoriously weak. Obviously this must hinder the process of
Americanization to a great extent. To counteract this weakness the
dissemination among them of a knowledge of American civics is necessary.
It may be most effectively done by allowing them to share in a measure the
American communal activities. But this is a privilege denied them.

The foregoing discussion of the cultural conditions of the Japanese in
America is important, not in determining whether or not the Japanese
immigrants are qualified to become American citizens--for this is out of
the question at present, since the right of naturalization is not granted
to them--but to show what is the character of the influence which is
exerted upon the native-born Japanese, Americans by birth, by their
parents. The core of the Japanese problem in America is, in our opinion,
whether or not American citizens of Japanese descent can become worthy
Americans. Those immigrants who came from Japan will die out in the course
of time, and further immigration can be stopped. In this way it is
possible to curtail to a minimum the number of alien Japanese in the
United States. But the American-born Japanese are American citizens and
they are here to stay. Whether these young Americans will become a strong
and successful element of the American people or whether they will
degenerate to a kind of parasite and become America's "thorns in the
flesh" is really a question of cardinal importance. But this depends much
on the freedom and opportunity which are extended to their parents in this
country. Thus the treatment of the Japanese in California or elsewhere in
the United States assumes an aspect of vital significance to the nation.
It is not a question of the abstract principles of justice or equality
alone, but one of concrete and vital interest to America's own welfare.

It is in this connection that all sorts of pressure and
oppression--economic, political, social, and spiritual--exerted on the
Japanese population, become most objectionable and harmful. These
discriminatory efforts against the Japanese obstruct the Americanization
of native-born Japanese in two ways. They prevent the parents from
becoming well-to-do and refined people, and from getting permanent
occupation and homes, all of which are essential if parents are to bring
up their sons and daughters to a respectable standard. They also
unconsciously imprint on the tender minds of children the idea that their
fathers and mothers were not treated kindly in America, whose loyal
citizens they are destined to become. What do those exclusionists really
mean, when they insist that the Japanese should be given no opportunity to
progress either in agriculture or industry because they are unassimilable
people? Do they mean thereby to check Japanese immigration? They surely
cannot mean this, for there are other and more friendly ways of achieving
their object, since Japan has more than once expressed her willingness to
coöperate with America in this respect. What else can they mean but that
they want to hinder the American citizens of Japanese descent from
becoming worthy Americans by ostracizing and persecuting their parents?

Native-Born Japanese.

Fortunately, in spite of all unfavorable influence and environment created
for them, the native-born Japanese show very hopeful signs of realizing
perfect Americanization. Here again we do not wish to dogmatize, in
apparent lack of scientific data, and assert that we need feel no
apprehension. Yet the few data gathered on the subject from observation
strongly point to the hopeful conclusion that as greater numbers of them
approach mature age they are gradually becoming Americans by the accepted
standard. They proved their patriotism to America during the great war by
enlisting in the American army and navy. In their manner, address, and
temperament these boys and girls are American, with an unconcealed air of
American mannerism. In their fluent and natural English, in their
frankness and bold recklessness, in their dislike of little and irksome
tasks and love of big and adventurous undertakings, in their chivalry and
gallantry, in their tall and well-built stature, these young people are
wholly American, no longer recognizable as Japanese except in their
physical features. Indeed, it is the common testimony of the Japanese
visiting America that the Japanese children born and reared here differ so
distinctly from children in Japan that in their manners, spirit, and even
in the play of expression on their faces, they appear characteristically
American. We cannot help being surprised by the completeness with which
the so-called racial traits of the Japanese are swept away in the first
generation of Japanese born in America.

The explanation for such a remarkable fact must be sought in the strong
influence of social, national, and spiritual environment. We have seen how
even the most stable elements of man's physiological constitution may
change in a new environment. This being the case, it may not be entirely
surprising that less stable elements, such as temperament and expression,
should change more rapidly and completely in a new social _milieu_. This
fact is a deathblow to the theorists who uphold the _à priori_ view of
race, that it is a fixed, pure, unchangeable reality. It attests the truth
of Mr. John Oakesmith's thesis in which he so ably establishes that "the
objective influence of race in the evolution of nationality is fiction,"
and that the sole foundation and unifying force of nationality is the
"organic continuity of common interest."[55]

In the cross-examination of native-born Japanese children by the
Congressional Sub-Committee on Immigration and Naturalization conducted on
the Pacific Coast last spring, it was found that in almost all cases the
children expressed the feeling that they like the United States better
than Japan because they are more familiar and closely associated with
things and people in America. This is doubtless an honest confession of
their sentiment. They generally do not read or write Japanese because it
is wholly different from English and so difficult. They learn from their
parents that the life is hard and competition is keen in Japan. They know
America is a great country, a land of liberty and opportunity. Naturally
their interest in Japan is very slight, and they think they are Americans,
and they are proud of it.[56]

These are the hopeful signs which offer us reason for being optimistic. We
cannot, nevertheless, be blind to the fact that there are many obstacles
which if left unchecked will tend to defeat our hopes. These obstacles we
find, first, in the congested condition of the Japanese on the Pacific
Coast. For convenience and benefit the Japanese have been living more or
less in groups, speaking their own language to a large extent, and
retaining many of the Japanese customs and manners. This tendency has been
a great obstacle in the assimilation of the Japanese. Their dispersal in
many other States of the Union is one of the first requirements of
Americanization, and consequently of an equitable solution of the
Japanese-California problem. We shall touch upon this subject in the
concluding chapter.



In dealing with the Japanese problem in California, we started with a
general account of Japanese traits and ideas. We did so because we
believed that a knowledge of the Japanese disposition is essential to a
comprehensive understanding of the problem. No attempt was made to
determine whether the traits of the Japanese--their emotional nature,
their well-developed æsthetic temperament and strong group consciousness,
and the unique feature of chivalry and virility prevailing among the lower
classes--are inherent in the race or acquired; but we concluded that the
question may best be answered by observing those of Japanese descent born
and reared in different countries. Later, when we examined the
characteristics of the American-born Japanese and discovered that they
appear to have lost most of the Japanese traits, and, in turn, have
acquired mental attitudes that are peculiar to the American, it was
suggested that none of the racial characteristics is necessarily fixed,
and that, similarly, the Japanese traits must have been largely acquired
through peculiar natural surroundings and social systems.

Next we reviewed in a brief way Japan's Asiatic policy in order to
envisage the international situation in which she finds herself and to see
how she proposes to meet her difficulties at home and abroad. We commented
on the manifest shortcomings of that policy. In view of the fact that
Japan's industry--her only hope in the future--has to depend largely on
the supply of raw material from her Asiatic neighbors, the assurance of
good-will and friendly coöperation with them is essential for her welfare.
It is in the failure to obtain this assurance that the defect of Japan's
past Asiatic policy becomes apparent. We expressed our conviction that
under the circumstances the best that Japan can do is to so reconstruct
the principle of the policy as to convince her neighbors of her genuine

In the chapter on the background of Japanese emigration, an attempt has
been made to discover its causes. The principal causes found are the small
amount of land, the dense population, and the limited prospect of
industrial development due to the scarcity of raw material. Moreover, the
peculiar social and political conditions in Japan are such as to obstruct,
by numerous fetters and restraints, the free development of ambitious
youths. The exaggerated stories of great opportunities in the new worlds
kindle the desire of the young people to go abroad.

Tentative attempts were made some thirty years ago in emigration to
Australia, Canada, and the United States. Nearly a quarter of a century's
effort at emigration into the new worlds, with the exception of partial
success in Brazil, had proved a complete failure, and thus attempts at
migration towards the North came into vogue.

In our discussion of the causes of anti-Japanese agitation in California,
it was made clear that the explanation of much of the trouble lies in the
conditions of the Japanese themselves, such as congestion in particular
localities and different manners and customs. The nationalistic policy of
Japan was also pointed out as a factor making for resentment. What renders
the situation unnecessarily complicated, leading to a general
misunderstanding, is the employment of the issue in local
politics--exploitation of the subject for private ends by agitators and

Then our study entered the heart of the California problem, the fact of
the existing Japanese population. It was discovered that the rate of
increase of Japanese population in California has been rapid, but that it
shows a tendency to slow down, while the rate of increase of the entire
population of the State shows a tendency to steady increase. We found
that in comparison with the total number of Japanese in the United States
the percentage of Japanese in California is remarkably high, nearly 60 per
cent. of them being domiciled in that one State. Then we examined the
factors--immigration, smuggling, and births--which contributed to the
increase of the Japanese population in California. Under the subject of
immigration it was made clear that the net gain from immigration has
become small since the restrictive agreement was concluded, but that the
number of those entering the country increased because the number of those
who are passing through or temporarily visiting America has increased. We
expressed our opinion that in order to quiet the excitement of the people
of the Pacific Coast it is entirely desirable to stop sending Japanese
immigrants to America.

We have somewhat fully treated the subject of birth because it is a vital
part of the question. It was discovered in the discussion that the birth
rate of the Japanese in California is exceptionally high, due to the fact
that a high percentage of the immigrants are in the prime of life and that
the percentage of married people is remarkably high. In forecasting the
future of the birth rate we stated that if immigration is stopped the
present generation will in time pass out without being re-enforced,
leaving behind American-born children, who, with higher culture and more
even distribution with regard to age and marriage, will not multiply at
nearly so high a rate as their parents. We concluded, therefore, that the
present is a transitional period and that apprehension over the high birth
rate is entirely unwarranted.

The chapter on Japanese agriculture in California gives report of a degree
of progress that has been remarkable. As to the causes of this progress
the peculiar adaptation of the Japanese farmers to the agricultural
conditions of California was presented as the principal one. Then we
considered separately the Japanese farm labor and the farmers. What we
found in treating the subject of Japanese farm laborers was that they are
indispensable to California's agriculture, inasmuch as they have several
important peculiarities which are useful. Their ability to farm and their
aptitude for bodily and manual dexterity, as well as their highly
transitory character under the system of contract labor, are useful assets
to the farmers of California. Under the topic of the Japanese farmer, we
examined the reasons given for the discrimination against Japanese in
agricultural pursuits. The first reason--that they are "crushing
competitors of California farmers"--was criticized on the ground that
there is not much competition between white and Japanese farmers, since
there is a pretty clear line of demarkation between them, the former being
engaged in farming on a large scale and the latter engaged in small
intensive agriculture. The second apprehension--that the Japanese farmer,
if left unchecked, will soon control the greater part of California
agriculture--was characterized as an entirely exaggerated fear, since the
portion of land which the Japanese till is quite negligible and there are
vast tracts of land yet uncultivated. The third objection--which finds
reason for opposition in the unassimilability of the Japanese--we held as
the weightiest count, and withheld criticism until we had fully treated
the subject of assimilation in the succeeding chapter. What we insisted on
was that it is unwise to maltreat the Japanese on the surmise that they
are unassimilable. Whether they are assimilable or not--and this is not
the question, for they are not allowed to become American citizens--their
children, who are Americans by virtue of birth, will suffer much from a
hostile policy towards their parents.

The anti-alien land laws were considered briefly, and the views of their
critics were introduced. As an effective measure to cope with the
legislation, we suggested that neither legal nor diplomatic disputes will
bring about a satisfactory result, but that only through obtaining the
good-will and friendship of the people of California can there be a true

The topic of assimilation discussed in the preceding chapter needs no

The foregoing study, which we have undertaken from the outset with an open
mind and fair attitude, has, it is to be hoped, disclosed that the
underlying cause of the entire difficulty is a conflict or maladjustment
of interest. There are four parties whose peculiar interests and rights
are seriously involved in the situation. First and foremost, we have to
consider the rights and interests of California. Then we have the United
States, which is no less directly concerned with the problem. For the
Japanese living in California, the issue is a matter of life and death;
their entire interests and welfare are at stake. Japan also is as much
concerned with the fate of her subjects in America as the United States
would be with the welfare of her people living abroad--say in Mexico. The
Japanese problem in California is the concrete expression of the
maladjustment of the interests and rights of these four parties concerned.

Various measures, wise and unwise, have been proposed for the solution of
the problem, but none of them has so far been put into effect, since each
has failed to adjust the interests and rights of all parties concerned in
an harmonious way, and hence has met with violent protest at the outset.

Take, for instance, the proposal that the Japanese should be granted the
right of naturalization. The promoters of the project insist that the
denial to the Japanese of the right to become citizens of the United
States is the cause of the anti-Japanese exclusion movement, and,
accordingly, that the granting of the privilege will annul all
discriminatory efforts. Undoubtedly the proposal was well meant, but it
has perhaps done more harm than good. In the first place, it confuses the
cause and method of discrimination against the Japanese. The Japanese
ineligibility to citizenship has certainly been seized on as a weapon for
discrimination, but it is by no means the cause. The cause is elsewhere.
In the second place, the advocates of the proposal argue that, if adopted,
it will defeat the entire discriminatory efforts of the Californians. It
is, however, decidedly unwise to attempt to defeat the effort without
removing the cause of the difficulty. No wonder the proposal has provoked
the wild criticism of California leaders. The granting of citizenship to
refined and Americanized Japanese is in itself a proper and desirable
step, but to use it as a weapon to defeat the exclusion movement is
clearly unwise.

The solution of the Japanese problem in California, if it be equitable at
all and satisfactory to the four parties involved, must rest on the
following basic principles:

_1. That it should be in consonance with justice and international
courtesy; it must redress Japan's grievances and meet America's wishes._

_2. That it should be fair to Californians; that is to say, operate to
allay the fear they entertain of the alarming increase of Japanese in
numbers and economic importance._

_3. That it should be fair to the Japanese residents, both aliens and
American-born, so that they may enjoy in peace, without molestation or
persecution, the blessings of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," and participate, as all American-born are entitled and in duty
bound to do, in the promotion of the State's well-being._

The new treaty, which is reported to have been laid for final decision
before the Washington and Tokyo Governments by the two negotiators,
Ambassador Morris and Ambassador Shidehara, has not been made public at
this writing. We have, therefore, no means of knowing the contents or
nature of its provisions. It may, however, be presumed that it will go a
long way toward redressing Japan's grievances and meeting America's
wishes. The latter will probably be met by Japan's adoption of drastic
measures to check completely the influx of her immigrants. Knowing that
Japan has always been sincere and ready to yield to the wishes of the
United States, we hold it only just that she be saved the embarrassment
arising from discrimination against her subjects in America. Proud and
sensitive, Japan takes to heart the abuses or indignities which she deems
seriously detrimental to her national honor.

The conclusion of the Treaty and its ratification by the Senate, however,
may not prove the panacea for all evils, for governmental action is
naturally circumscribed in its sphere. To solve the perplexing question
once for all, the Treaty must be supplemented by the patriotic efforts of
public-spirited citizens of both countries to heal and adjust the
irritated parts in the scheme of American-Japanese relations which are
beyond the reach of governmental action. Viscount Shibusawa and some of
his compatriots have, during the last year, held many conferences with
some prominent Americans--those representing the Chamber of Commerce of
San Francisco and the party headed by Mr. Frank Vanderlip. A better
understanding of the situation must have resulted as a consequence of the
conferences. The earnestness of the Viscount and his friends to do what
they could for the good of both countries is beyond praise. But we fear
they have been measuring America by Japan's standard and trying to cure
the trouble without remedying the cause. In Japan the counsel of a few
influential men often proves effective even in local affairs, but in
America, where local autonomy is strongly entrenched, a man, however
prominent a figure he may have cut in national affairs, will think twice
before he pronounces judgment on matters of local concern, lest it be
construed as an intrusion, and thus defeat the good intention. The
California question can only be settled by or in coöperation with the
Californians, and right on the spot, not elsewhere.

We believe that the time has come, therefore, when those public-spirited
citizens of both countries should replace academic discussion by action.
As a means of alleviating the situation we venture to offer the following
modest suggestion:

1. That a Committee of a dozen or so members, consisting of
public-spirited men of broad vision of both countries, and particularly of
California, be formed with the object of formulating and putting into
effect the project of relieving the congestion of Japanese in California.

Such a Committee would doubtless be able to secure the hearty coöperation
of The Japan Society of New York and other cities, as well as of the
Japanese Association of America and similar organizations, all of which
exist with a view to promoting friendly relations between America and

2. That the said Committee appoint an administrator of proved executive
ability and a staff for the prosecution of the project.

3. That to finance the project an initial fund of half a million dollars
be raised by contribution from the 120,000 Japanese living in this

The Japanese domiciled in this country have the keenest interest in the
subject; they are directly or indirectly affected by the anti-Japanese
agitation in California; they would not grudge a contribution of a small
sum for the purpose of uprooting the cause of that annoyance. The Japanese
in California who have interests at stake would surely be more than
willing to contribute their quota to the fund. The native Californians,
too, we strongly feel, in their calm and considerate mood, would obey the
dictates of wisdom to adopt a more liberal and logical method of relieving
the local tension than to resort, as at present, to measures of repression
and persecution.

We are of the opinion that there would be a fair demand in other States of
the Union for such skilled farm hands as we have found in the Japanese in
California if the facts were well advertised. If proper precaution be
taken so as to avoid the repetition of the same story of congestion as
that in California, the plan of dispersal above outlined might prove a
boon to all concerned. If the initial stage of the plan be earnestly
carried out before the eyes of the Californians, a totally different
atmosphere might be created among them so as to win their good will and
enlist their coöperation. When such a happy outcome is obtained, a
solution of the Japanese-California problem is assured.

There is certainly a great deal which the Japanese in California can and
must do. In the first place, they must thoroughly grasp the psychology of
the Californians. They must indicate, if they are to remain in this
country, their willingness to become Americans regardless of barriers or
opposition. They must show this willingness not only in intention but also
in practice. They must improve their command of English, alter many of
their customs and manners. They must endeavor to elevate their standard of
living and culture. They must give up beliefs and ideals which are
Japanese and which run counter to the American. It would be well for them
to refrain from building in California Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples
and from maintaining language schools. They must above all learn to take
an interest in the national life of the United States.

There is also much that the Japanese Government can do. Its policy of
paternalism, extending too much care to Japanese domiciled abroad, and
even to Japanese born abroad, must, in our opinion, be altered. The claim
of allegiance to the home country by the children born in another country,
whatever may be their status in the land of birth, is an international
practice still adhered to by most European nations--France, Italy,
Germany, Switzerland, Greece. From this results what is called a "dual
nationality" of a subject. In a country like the United States, where its
Constitution endows children born therein with citizenship, the so-called
"dual nationality" gives rise to an awkward situation in case its mother
country adopts the military conscription system. To avoid this awkward
situation, Japan enacted in the year 1916 a law which provides that a
Japanese boy who has acquired a foreign nationality by reason of his birth
in a foreign country may divest himself of Japanese nationality if his
father, or other parental authority, takes the necessary steps to that end
before he is fifteen years of age, or, if he has attained the age of
fifteen, he may himself take the same steps, with the consent of his
father or guardian, before he reaches the age of seventeen.[57] This law
is objectionable because it fixes the age limit of expatriation at
seventeen, when the subject is yet a minor and is not competent to
exercise his own choice. Fixing the age limit at seventeen is a provision
in consonance with the Japanese military law, which imposes on all male
Japanese subjects above that age the duty of military service.
Consequently, all American-born Japanese males who have failed to
expatriate before they have reached the age of seventeen are claimed as
Japanese subjects and are subject to conscription, while at the same time
they are American citizens. The existence of such a discordance in the
laws and Constitution of the two countries has the possibility of giving
rise to a serious international complication, and it seems advisable that
some sort of settlement be made on this point between the American and
Japanese Governments. The difficulty could, of course, be overcome if the
Japanese parents who are determined to stay permanently in this country
would take the necessary steps to expatriate their children as soon as
they are born, or at the proper time. The hesitation they have heretofore
manifested was greatly due to the uncertainty in which their future and
that of their children was shrouded.

We cannot omit to emphasize in this connection the part which America can
and has to perform. Of the numerous things America can do with profit we
believe the task of Americanizing the Japanese to be the foremost. We
wish to make it clear that, whether Japanese aliens are worthy or not,
their children born in America are in any case Americans, and it is
America's duty to make them worthy members of the nation. They are not
foreigners or aliens, and, accordingly, it is clearly wrong, as well as
unwise, to deal with them as if they were. Upon what we can do to guide
the rising generation depends the future of the Japanese problem in
America. This in turn must depend upon how America treats their parents.
Disappearing gradually as they are, they are bequeathing their impressions
and accomplishments to their children. Any generosity and kindness
extended to them are acts not so much of altruism as of vital interest in
the welfare of America herself, for they are the guardians of the
Republic's sons and daughters of Japanese blood.

It is certainly not fair to slander and maltreat those people, who were
originally brought in to fill the need of man-power and who have
contributed much towards making the Pacific Coast what it is to-day. To
prevent the influx of Japanese immigrants, to avoid the possible future
development of difficult problems with Japan, there certainly ought to be
some better means than gradually strangling the innocent people who
individually are in no way to be blamed for the present strained
relations on the Pacific Coast.

All these considerations lead us to a belief that the time is now ripe for
the American people, and especially for the people of California, to
reconstruct their attitude and policy towards the Japanese domiciled in
this country. Every indication seems to suggest that if, in place of the
discriminatory policy so far resorted to with no better effect than
general irritation, a new policy be initiated, a policy of constructive
Americanization based upon generosity, sympathy, and understanding, the
result will surely be far-reaching. It is a common fact of human
experience that one's attitude is directly responded to by other people
with whom we deal. It was Thackeray, we believe, who said that "the world
is like a looking-glass; if we smile, others also smile." What cannot be
achieved by a hostile policy is often easily and satisfactorily
accomplished by sympathetic attitude and friendly dealing. Give the
Japanese the opportunity and see what good use they will make of it.

We hardly need to reiterate that the Japanese-California question--the
main theme of this book--is only a part of the vast problem which
confronts America and Japan. The present world tendency is to bind
increasingly all parts of the world into one. The process of civilization,
like a revolving body, exerts centrifugal and centripetal force and
gradually unifies all civilizations into a cohesive system. At present
there are two centers of such forces, one in the East and another in the
West, each trying to influence the other. By virtue of being the youngest
and the most vigorous representatives of the two spheres, Japan and
America, respectively, are naturally destined to shoulder together the
great task of harmonizing and unifying these two great currents of human
achievement. The task involves, from its gigantic nature, a great many
difficulties and risks of which the present California issue is certainly
one. All these difficulties must be squarely met and surmounted with
courage and wisdom, since to shrink from the job is to commit the future
relationship of the East and West to the cruel law of natural selection.

It is, however, generally true that the perfect understanding of the
common aim settles the incidental difficulties arising in the process.
This is particularly true in the case of the California-Japanese question,
which is a partial issue of the great undertaking between America and
Japan. The core of the California problem, our study has shown, is the
question of assimilability of the Japanese. But what is the assimilation
but the approach to the common standard of culture and ideals? The
approach to the common standard of culture and ideals between the peoples
of Asia and Europe and America is precisely the task in which Japan and
the United States are engaged in unison. Herein is the explanation of our
earlier assertion that the California problem is a miniature form of the
problem of the East and West. Herein also is the support of our contention
that to accelerate the coöperative effort of America and Japan for mutual
understanding is the only and the best method of bringing about the
solution of the Japanese problem in California or elsewhere in the United
States. We wish, therefore, to emphasize once more that the wisest policy
to follow in the future for America and Japan is not foolishly to sharpen
the edge of swords for imaginary race wars, which are absurd, but to
devote themselves wisely to learning and appreciating each other's
accomplishments and greatness, from which alone true friendship can






His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, and the President of the United States
of America, being desirous to strengthen the relations of amity and good
understanding which happily exist between the two nations, and believing
that the fixation in a manner clear and positive of the rules which are
hereafter to govern the commercial intercourse between their respective
countries will contribute to this most desirable result, have resolved to
conclude a treaty of commerce and navigation.

=Article I.=--The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting
parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories
of the other, to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and
occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of
their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and
generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade, upon the same
terms as native subjects or citizens, submitting themselves to the laws
and regulations there established.

They shall not be compelled, under any pretext whatever, to pay any
charges or taxes other or higher than those that are or may be paid by
native subjects or citizens.

The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall
receive, in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and
security for their persons and property and shall enjoy in this respect
the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native subjects
or citizens, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon
the native subjects and citizens.

=Article IV.=--There shall be between the territories of the two high
contracting parties reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation. The
subjects or citizens of each of the contracting parties, equally with the
subjects or citizens of the most favored nation shall have liberty freely
to come with their ships and cargoes to all places, ports, and rivers in
the territories of the other which are or may be opened to foreign
commerce, subject always to the laws of the country to which they thus

=Article V.=--Neither contracting party shall impose any other or higher
duties or charges on the exportation of any article to the territories of
the other than are or may be payable on the exportation of the like
article to any other foreign country.

Nor shall any prohibition be imposed by either country on the importation
or exportation of any article from or to the territories of the other
which shall not equally extend to the like article imported from or
exported to any other country.

=Article XIV.=--Except as otherwise expressly provided in this treaty, the
high contracting parties agree that in all that concerns commerce and
navigation, any privilege, favor, or immunity which either contracting
party has actually granted or may hereafter grant, to the subjects or
citizens of any other State shall be extended to the subjects or citizens
of the other contracting party ... on the same or equivalent


In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and
navigation ... the undersigned has the honor to declare that the Imperial
Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain with equal
effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past
three years exercised in regulation of the immigration of laborers to the
United States.

(Signed) Y. UCHIDA.

February 21, 1911.



(Approved May 19, 1913)

_The people of the State of California do enact as follows_:

=Section 1.=--All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the
United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real
property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the same manner and
to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise
provided by the laws of this State.

=Section 2.=--All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this
act may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any
interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for
the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government
of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a
citizen or subject and not otherwise, and may in addition thereto lease
lands in this State for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding
three years.

=Section 3.=--Any company, association, or corporation organized under the
laws of this or any other State or nation, of which a majority of the
members are aliens other than those specified in section one of this act,
or in which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such
aliens, may acquire, possess, enjoy, and convey real property, or any
interest therein in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for
the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government
of the United States and the nation or country of which such members or
stockholders are citizens or subjects, and not otherwise, and may in
addition thereto lease lands in this State for agricultural purposes for a
term not exceeding three years.

=Section 4.=--Whenever it appears to the court in any probate proceeding
that by reason of the provisions of this act any heir or devisee cannot
take real property in this State which, but for said provisions, said heir
or devisee would take as such, the court, instead of ordering a
distribution of such real property to such heir or devisee, shall order a
sale of said real property to be made in the manner provided by law for
probate sales of real property, and the proceeds of such sale shall be
distributed to such heirs or devisee in lieu of such real property.

=Section 5.=--Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of
the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this
act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section
three of this act, shall escheat to, and become and remain the property of
the State of California. The attorney general shall institute proceedings
to have the escheat of such real property adjudged and enforced in the
manner provided by section 474 of the Political Code and title eight, part
three of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the entry of final judgment in
such proceedings, the title to such real property shall pass to the State
of California. The provisions of this section and of sections two and
three of this act shall not apply to any real property hereafter acquired
in the enforcement or in satisfaction of any lien now existing upon, or
interest in such property, so long as such real property so acquired shall
remain the property of the alien, company, association or corporation
acquiring the same in such manner.

=Section 6.=--Any leasehold or other interest in real property less than
the fee, hereafter acquired in violation of the provisions of this act by
any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company,
association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall
escheat to the State of California. The attorney general shall institute
proceedings to have such escheat adjudged and enforced as provided in
section five of this act. In such proceedings the court shall determine
and adjudge the value of such leasehold, or other interest in such real
property, and enter judgment for the State for the amount thereof together
with costs. Thereupon the court shall order a sale of the real property
covered by such leasehold, or other interest, in the manner provided by
section 1271 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Out of the proceeds arising
from such sale, the amount of the judgment rendered for the State shall be
paid into the State Treasury and the balance shall be deposited with and
distributed by the court in accordance with the interest of the parties

=Section 7.=--Nothing in this act shall be construed as a limitation upon
the power of the State to enact laws with respect to the acquisition,
holding or disposal by aliens of real property in this State.

=Section 8.=--All acts and parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed.



(Adopted November 2, 1920)


    =Alien Land Law.= Initiative Act. Permits Acquisition and Transfer of
    Real Property by Aliens Eligible to Citizenship, to Same Extent as
    Citizens Except as Otherwise Provided by Law; Permits Other Aliens,
    and Companies, Associations, and Corporations in Which they Hold
    Majority Interest, to Acquire and Transfer Real Property Only as
    Prescribed by Treaty, but Prohibiting Appointment Thereof as Guardians
    of Estates of Minors Consisting Wholly or Partially of Real Property
    or Shares in Such Corporations; Provides for Escheats in Certain
    Cases; Requires Reports of Property Holdings to Facilitate Enforcement
    of Act; Prescribes Penalties and Repeals Conflicting Acts.

    _An act relating to the rights, powers, and disabilities of aliens and
    of certain companies, associations, and corporations with respect to
    property in this State, providing for escheats in certain cases,
    prescribing the procedure therein, requiring reports of certain
    property holdings to facilitate the enforcement of this act,
    prescribing penalties for violation of the provisions hereof, and
    repealing all acts or parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict

_The people of the State of California do enact as follows_:

=Section 1.=--All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the
United States may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real
property, or any interest therein, in this State, in the same manner and
to the same extent as citizens of the United States, except as otherwise
provided by the laws of this State.

=Section 2.=--All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this
act may acquire, possess, enjoy, and transfer real property, or any
interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for
the purpose prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government
of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a
citizen or subject, and not otherwise.

=Section 3.=--Any company, association or corporation organized under the
laws of this or any other State or nation, of which a majority of the
members are aliens other than those specified in section one of this act,
or in which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such
aliens, may acquire, possess, enjoy, and convey real property, or any
interest therein, in this State, in the manner and to the extent and for
the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government
of the United States and the nation or country of which such members or
stockholders are citizens or subjects, and not otherwise. Hereafter all
aliens other than those specified in section one hereof may become members
of or acquire shares of stock in any company, association or corporation
that is or may be authorized to acquire, possess, enjoy or convey
agricultural land, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes
prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United
States and the nation or country of which such alien is a citizen or
subject, and not otherwise.

=Section 4.=--Hereafter no alien mentioned in section two hereof and no
company, association or corporation mentioned in section three hereof, may
be appointed guardian of that portion of the estate of a minor which
consists of property which such alien or such company, association or
corporation is inhibited from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or
transferring by reason of the provisions of this act. The public
administrator of the proper county, or any other competent person or
corporation, may be appointed guardian of the estate of a minor citizen
whose parents are ineligible to appointment under the provisions of this

On such notice to the guardian as the court may require, the superior
court may remove the guardian of such an estate whenever it appears to the
satisfaction of the court:

(_a_) That the guardian has failed to file the report required by the
provisions of section five hereof; or

(_b_) That the property of the ward has not been or is not being
administered with due regard to the primary interest of the ward; or

(_c_) That facts exist which would make the guardian ineligible to
appointment in the first instance; or

(_d_) That facts establishing any other legal ground for removal exist.

=Section 5.=--(_a_) The term "trustee" as used in this section means any
person, company, association or corporation that as guardian, trustee,
attorney-in-fact or agent, or in any other capacity has the title,
custody or control of property, or some interest therein, belonging to an
alien mentioned in section two hereof, or to the minor child of such an
alien, if the property is of such a character that such alien is inhibited
from acquiring, possessing, enjoying or transferring it.

(_b_) Annually on or before the thirty-first day of January every such
trustee must file in the office of the Secretary of State of California
and in the office of the county clerk of each county in which any of the
property is situated, a verified written report showing:

(1) The property, real or personal, held by him for or on behalf of such
an alien or minor;

(2) A statement showing the date when each item of such property came into
his possession or control;

(3) An itemized account of all expenditures, investments, rents, issues,
and profits in respect to the administration and control of such property
with particular reference to holdings of corporate stock and leases,
cropping contracts, and other agreements in respect to land and the
handling or sale of products thereof.

(_c_) Any person, company, association or corporation that violates any
provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(_d_) The provisions of this section are cumulative and are not intended
to change the jurisdiction or the rules of practice of courts of justice.

=Section 6.=--Whenever it appears to the court in any probate proceeding
that by reason of the provisions of this act any heir or devisee cannot
take real property in this State or membership or shares of stock in a
company, association or corporation which, but for said provisions, said
heir or devisee would take as such, the court, instead of ordering a
distribution of such property to such heir or devisee, shall order a sale
of said property to be made in the manner provided by law for probate
sales of property and the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed to
such heir or devisee in lieu of such property.

=Section 7.=--Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of
the provisions of this act by any alien mentioned in section two of this
act, or by any company, association or corporation mentioned in section
three of this act, shall escheat to, and become and remain the property of
the State of California. The attorney general or district attorney of the
proper county shall institute proceedings to have the escheat of such real
property adjudged and enforced in the manner provided by section four
hundred seventy-four of the Political Code and title eight, part three of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the entry of final judgment in such
proceedings, the title to such real property shall pass to the State of
California. The provisions of this section and of sections two and three
of this act shall not apply to any real property hereafter acquired in the
enforcement or in satisfaction of any lien now existing upon, or interest
in such property, so long as such real property so acquired shall remain
the property of the alien, company, association or corporation acquiring
the same in such manner. No alien, company, association or corporation
mentioned in section two or section three hereof shall hold for a longer
period than two years the possession of any agricultural land acquired in
the enforcement of or in satisfaction of a mortgage or other lien
hereafter made or acquired in good faith to secure a debt.

=Section 8.=--Any leasehold or other interest in real property less than
the fee, hereafter acquired in violation of the provisions of this act by
any alien mentioned in section two of this act, or by any company,
association or corporation mentioned in section three of this act, shall
escheat to the State of California. The attorney general or district
attorney of the proper county shall institute proceedings to have such
escheat adjudged and enforced as provided in section seven of this act. In
such proceedings the court shall determine and adjudge the value of such
leasehold or other interest in such real property, and enter judgment for
the State for the amount thereof together with costs. Thereupon the court
shall order a sale of the real property covered by such leasehold, or
other interest, in the manner provided by section twelve hundred
seventy-one of the Code of Civil Procedure. Out of the proceeds arising
from such sale, the amount of the judgment rendered for the State shall be
paid into the state treasury and the balance shall be deposited with and
distributed by the court in accordance with the interest of the parties
therein. Any share of stock or the interest of any member in a company,
association or corporation hereafter acquired in violation of the
provisions of section three of this act shall escheat to the State of
California. Such escheat shall be adjudged and enforced in the same manner
as provided in this section for the escheat of a leasehold or other
interest in real property less than the fee.

=Section 9.=--Every transfer of real property, or of an interest therein,
though colorable in form, shall be void as to the state and the interest
thereby conveyed or sought to be conveyed shall escheat to the State if
the property interest involved is of such a character that an alien
mentioned in section two hereof is inhibited from acquiring, possessing,
enjoying or transferring it, and if the conveyance is made with intent to
prevent, evade or avoid escheat as provided for herein.

A _prima facie_ presumption that the conveyance is made with such intent
shall arise upon proof of any of the following groups of facts:

(_a_) The taking of the property in the name of a person other than the
persons mentioned in section two hereof if the consideration is paid or
agreed or understood to be paid by an alien mentioned in section two

(_b_) The taking of the property in the name of a company, association or
corporation, if the membership or shares of stock therein held by aliens
mentioned in section two hereof, together with the memberships or shares
of stock held by others but paid for or agreed or understood to be paid
for by such aliens, would amount to a majority of the membership or the
issued capital stock of such company, association or corporation;

(_c_) The execution of a mortgage in favor of an alien mentioned in
section two hereof if said mortgagee is given possession, control or
management of the property.

The enumeration in this section of certain presumptions shall not be so
construed as to preclude other presumptions or inferences that reasonably
may be made as to the existence of intent to prevent, evade or avoid
escheat as provided for herein.

=Section 10.=--If two or more persons conspire to effect a transfer of real
property, or of an interest therein, in violation of the provisions
hereof, they are punishable by imprisonment in the county jail or State
penitentiary not exceeding two years, or by a fine not exceeding five
thousand dollars, or both.

=Section 11.=--Nothing in this act shall be construed as a limitation upon
the power of the State to enact laws with respect to the acquisition,
holding or disposal by aliens of real property in this State.

=Section 12.=--All acts and parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with
the provisions hereof are hereby repealed; _provided_, that--

(_a_) This act shall not affect pending actions or proceedings, but the
same may be prosecuted and defended with the same effect as if this act
had not been adopted;

(_b_) No cause of action arising under any law of this State shall be
affected by reason of the adoption of this act whether an action or
proceeding has been instituted thereon at the time of the taking effect of
this act or not and actions may be brought upon such causes in the same
manner, under the same terms and conditions, and with the same effect as
if this act had not been adopted.

(_c_) This act in so far as it does not add to, take from or alter an
existing law, shall be construed as a continuation thereof.

=Section 13.=--The legislature may amend this act in furtherance of its
purpose and to facilitate its operation.

=Section 14.=--If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this act. The
people hereby declare that they would have passed this act, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.



                  |    Total   |Acreage by|Percentage of Japanese
     Product.     | Acreage of | Japanese.|  Cultivation Against
                  |Cultivation.|          |   Total Cultivation.
  Berries         |     6,500  |    5,968 |        91.8
  Celery          |     4,000  |    3,568 |        89.2
  Asparagus       |    12,000  |    9,927 |        82.7
  Seeds           |    20,000  |   15,847 |        79.2
  Onions          |    12,112  |    9,251 |        76.3
  Tomatoes        |    16,000  |   10,616 |        66.3
  Cantaloupes     |    15,000  |    9,581 |        63.8
  Sugar Beets     |   102,949  |   51,604 |        50.1
  Green Vegetables|    75,000  |   17,852 |        23.8
  Potatoes        |    90,175  |   18,830 |        20.8
  Hops            |     8,000  |    1,260 |        15.7
  Grapes          |   360,000  |   47,439 |        13.1
  Beans           |   592,000  |   77,107 |        13.0
  Rice            |   106,220  |   16,640 |        10.0
  Cotton          |   179,860  |   18,000 |        10.0
  Corn            |    85,000  |    7,845 |         9.2
  Fruits, Nuts    |   715,000  |   29,210 |        4.0
  Hay, Grain      | 2,200,000  |   15,753 |         0.0

Reported by the Japanese Agricultural Association of California, 1919.



  Year.|No. of Japanese
       |  Immigrants.
  1869 |      63
  1870 |      48
  1871 |      78
  1872 |      17
  1873 |       9
  1874 |      21
  1875 |       3
  1876 |       4
  1877 |       7
  1878 |       2
  1879 |       4
  1880 |       4
  1881 |      11
  1882 |       5
  1883 |      27
  1884 |      20
  1885 |      49
  1886 |     194
  1887 |     229
  1888 |     404
  1889 |     640
  1890 |     691
  1891 |   1,136
  1892 |   1,498
  1893 |   1,648
  1894 |   1,739
  1895 |     480
  1896 |   1,110
  1897 |   1,526
  1898 |   2,230
  1899 |   2,844
  1900 |   6,618
  1901 |   4,908
  1902 |   5,325
  1903 |   6,990
  1904 |   7,771
  1905 |   4,319
  1906 |   5,178
  1907 |   9,948
  1908 |   7,250

  Year.| Admitted.|Departed.|Balance.
  1909 |   1,593  |  5,004  | -3,411
  1910 |   1,552  |  5,024  | -3,472
  1911 |   4,282  |  5,869  | -1,587
  1912 |   5,358  |  5,437  | -   79
  1913 |   6,771  |  5,647  | +1,124
  1914 |   8,462  |  6,300  | +2,162
  1915 |   9,029  |  5,967  | +3,062
  1916 |   9,100  |  6,922  | +2,178
  1917 |   9,159  |  6,581  | +2,578
  1918 |  11,143  |  7,691  | +3,452
  1919 |  11,404  |  8,328  | +3,076
  1920 |  12,868  | 11,662  | +1,206

The above is taken from the Annual Report of the Commissioner General of



             | Number of |           |Total Gains
      Year.  | Arrivals. | Departed. |Up to Date.
   1861-1870 |     218 } |           |
   1871-1880 |     149 } |           |
   1881-1890 |   2,270 } |   25,000  |
   1891-1900 |  20,829 } |(estimated)|
   1901-1910 |  54,838 } |           |
   1911-1920 |  87,576   |   70,404  |
  -----------|-----------|           |
      Total  | 165,880   |           |
             |           |           |
  No. of     |           |           |
  transient  |           |           |
  immigrants |           |           |
  from Hawaii|  15,000   |           |
             |(estimated)|           |
      Total  | 180,880   |   95,404  |   87,476



       | Total   |           |           | Percentage of
       | Number  |           |   Non-    | Non-Immigrants
  Year.|Admitted.|Immigrants.|Immigrants.| Against Total
       |         |           |           |Number Admitted.
  1909 |   1,593 |     255   |   1,338   |      84.0
  1910 |   1,552 |     116   |   1,436   |      92.5
  1911 |   4,282 |     736   |   3,546   |      83.0
  1912 |   5,358 |     894   |   4,464   |      83.3
  1913 |   6,771 |   1,371   |   5,400   |      79.7
  1914 |   8,462 |   1,762   |   6,700   |      79.1
  1915 |   9,029 |   2,214   |   6,815   |      75.5
  1916 |   9,100 |   2,958   |   6,142   |      67.5
  1917 |   9,159 |   2,838   |   6,321   |      69.0
  1918 |  11,143 |   2,604   |   8,539   |      76.6

Taken from Kawakami, _Japan Review_, vol. iv., p. 76.




        Census.      |  1880  |  1890  |  1900  |  1910
  Total United States|   148  |  2039  | 24,326 | 72,157
  New England        |    14  |    45  |     89 |    272
  Middle Atlantic    |    27  |   202  |    446 |  1,643
  East North Central |     7  |   101  |    126 |    482
  West North Central |     1  |    16  |    223 |  1,000
  South Atlantic     |     5  |    55  |     29 |    156
  East South Central |   ...  |    19  |      7 |     26
  West South Central |   ...  |    42  |     30 |    428
  Mountain           |     5  |    27  |  5,107 | 10,447
  Pacific            |    89  | 1,532  | 18,296 | 57,703


        Census.      |  1880   |  1890   |  1900  |  1910
  United States      | 105,465 | 107,488 | 89,863 | 71,531
  New England        |     401 |   1,488 |  4,203 |  3,499
  Middle Atlantic    |   1,277 |   4,689 | 10,490 |  8,189
  East North Central |     390 |   1,254 |  2,533 |  3,451
  West North Central |     423 |   1,097 |  1,135 |  1,195
  South Atlantic     |      74 |     669 |  1,791 |  1,582
  East South Central |      90 |     274 |    427 |    414
  West South Central |     758 |   1,173 |  1,555 |  1,303
  Mountain           |  14,274 |  11,572 |  7,950 |  5,614
  Pacific            |  87,828 |  85,272 | 59,779 | 46,320

Taken from Gulick, _American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship_, pp. 152,



(_According to Consular Division as Reported by Foreign Department,

    Districts.  | Male.  | Female. | Total for 1919.
  Seattle       | 14,568 |   4,397 |      18,965
  Portland      |  5,829 |   1,637 |       7,466
  San Francisco | 37,375 |  16,578 |      53,953
  Los Angeles   | 22,644 |   9,861 |      32,505
  Chicago       |  2,336 |     378 |       2,714
  New York      |  3,320 |     284 |       3,604
                | 86,072 |  33,135 |     119,207



=Article XVIII.=--When a Japanese, by becoming the wife of a foreigner, has
acquired the husband's nationality, then such Japanese loses her Japanese

=Article XX.=--A person who voluntarily acquires a foreign nationality
loses Japanese nationality. In case a Japanese subject, who has acquired
foreign nationality by reason of his or her birth in a foreign country has
domiciled in that country, he or she may be expatriated with the
permission of the Minister of State for Home Affairs. The application for
the permission referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be made by the
legal representative in case the person to be expatriated is younger than
fifteen years of age. If the person in question is a minor above fifteen
years of age, or a person adjudged incompetent, the application can be
made with the consent of his or her legal representative or guardian. A
stepfather, a stepmother, a legal mother, or a guardian may not make the
application or give the consent prescribed in the preceding paragraph
without the consent of the family council. A person who has been
expatriated loses Japanese nationality.

=Article XXIV.=--Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding six
articles a male of full seventeen years or upwards does not lose Japanese
nationality, unless he has completed active service in the army or navy,
or he is under no obligation to enter into it. A person who actually
occupies an official post--civil or military--does not lose Japanese
nationality notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing seven

=Article XXVI.=--A person who has lost Japanese nationality in accordance
with Article XX may recover Japanese nationality provided that he or she
possesses a domicile in Japan, but this does not apply when the person
mentioned in Article XVI has lost Japanese nationality. In case the person
who has lost Japanese nationality in accordance with the provision of
Article XX is younger than fifteen years of age, the application for the
permission prescribed in the preceding paragraph shall be made by the
father who is the member of the family to which such person belonged at
the time of his expatriation; should the father be unable to do so, the
application shall be made by the mother; if the mother is unable to do so,
by the grandfather; and if the grandfather is unable to do so, then by the




  July 27, 1920.
  Evening Session

  JAMES SAKAMOTO,  produced as a witness, having
                            been first duly sworn, testified
                            as follows:


_Q._ What is your name?

_A._ James Sakamoto.

_Q._ Where do you live?

_A._ 1609 Yesler Way.

_Q._ You were born in the United States?

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Where were you born?

_A._ In Seattle, Washington.

_Q._ Right here?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ Are you full of Seattle spirits?

_A._ You bet.

_Q._ You only refer to one kind. How old are you?

_A._ Seventeen. I was born in 1903; March 22d.

_Q._ You go to school here?

_A._ Oh, yes.

_Q._ In the high school?

_A._ The Franklin High.

_Q._ About how many boys are there here in and about Seattle that were
born here, along about your age, from three or four years younger to two
or three years older?

_A._ Well, I only know of the fellows that I associate with. I can't tell
you the fellows that I don't know about.

_Q._ Do you know a number?

_A._ I don't know many of them.

_Q._ A half a dozen?

_Q._ How many in your high school are Japanese boys?

_A._ I think I am the only one.

_Q._ Are there many young ladies? Do you know this young lady that just

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Are there many such nice looking girls as she is in Seattle?

_A._ You better ask them.

_Q._ You get along all right in school?

_A._ Oh, yes, sir.

_Q._ You don't have any trouble with your classes, and boys?

_A._ I have lots of fun.

_Q._ You have a good time?

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Did you attend the Japanese Language School?

_A._ Yes, sir; eight years.

_Q._ What did they teach you there?

_A._ Taught me Japanese.

_Q._ The Japanese language?

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Did they teach you Japanese history?

_A._ I wasn't able to learn very quick.

_Q._ You were not very quick to learn, but they did that, teach the
history of Japan?

_A._ They tried to.

_Q._ Didn't they succeed with a boy as bright as you are, going to high

_A._ They were successful, but I did not succeed. See?

_Q._ You read the Japanese language now?

_A._ I can't read it; it is too hard.

_Q._ You really can't read any?

_A._ There are three different kinds of words and letters. I can read the

_Q._ In other words, you have adopted the road of least resistance with
the Japanese language?

_A._ Sure.

_Q._ You talk Japanese with your parents?

_A._ In a simple, broken language.

_Q._ Do they talk English?

_A._ They can't talk English. They have been here quite long, but they
have never had a chance to talk English.

_Q._ Let me ask you this; do you get along very well with them?

_A._ In my home?

_Q._ Yes.

_A._ Sure. They are my father and mother.

_Q._ (Mr. Siegel.) And you say that you don't understand the Japanese
language sufficiently well to carry on a conversation with them?

_A._ I understand them, but that is about all.

_Q._ How do they arrange to get along with you, if you can't speak the
language orally?

_A._ They just about guess what I am trying to tell them.

_Q._ In other words, you are always asking for money. Is that the
principal idea?

_A._ May be, not any more, but I used to.

_Q._ When they talk to you, you understand them all right?

_A._ Oh, yes; I understand them.

_Q._ (Mr. Raker.) Would you tell us why, you haven't, or didn't, and
haven't given more attention and worked harder to become familiar with the
Japanese language and history?

_A._ That is a hard question to ask me just now.

_Q._ I know it is, but I think you know, my boy; tell us in your own
language, in your own way?

_A._ Well, suppose we go to school five hours a day, the American school.
We attend Japanese school for two hours; that is overwork two hours, you
see, and we don't get paid for over time.

_Q._ I guess you are about pretty near right, didn't I? You are the kind
of a fellow that is going to be thinking a little about money as you grow
up, and you are going to make it in Seattle.

_A._ I haven't got a business.

_Q._ (Mr. Raker.) What I was asking that question for, I am going to put
it direct. I want you to give me your good frank answer, which I know you
will. Is it your determination when you get a little older, and begin to
think over the situation, that you want to become familiar with the
English language and understand the American ways rather than to devote
your time to Japanese ways and language?

_A._ Well, I want to be an American more than a Japanese. I was born here.

_Q._ That is one of the reasons you haven't devoted your time to the
Japanese language. How old were you when you started?

_A._ I started the same year when I went to Grammar School.

_Q._ That was when?

_A._ Five years old. Five years old I started to kindergarten, and at six
I started to Grammar School.

_Q._ So when you started to kindergarten did you start in the Japanese

_A._ No, when I was six.

_Q._ And you did that from the time you were six until you were fourteen?

_A._ I think that is right, fourteen.

_Q._ How old are you now?

_A._ Seventeen.

_Q._ You have to renounce the Japanese Emperor before you are seventeen?

_A._ I don't know a thing about it.

_Q._ You know, don't you, that you are claimed as a citizen by Japan, and
also by the United States.

_A._ I don't care. I was born here.

_Q._ Is it your intention to remain an American citizen or be a Japanese

_A._ Why shouldn't I remain an American? I was born here. Why should I go
back there? This is my home here.

_Q._ You intend to remain an American citizen?

_A._ Nobody is going to stop me.

_Q._ That's what I want to get at. Do you remember when you were first
told that you were a native-born American citizen; do you remember when
that was first told you?

_A._ I don't know.

_Q._ How long have you felt the pride that you are a young American
citizen? How long have you held that feeling of pride?

_A._ Since I went to Grammar School.

_Q._ Has every young Japanese boy here expressed that feeling as you do to
us; have you heard them talk about it?

_A._ They don't talk about it much. It is mostly their home training. My
father and mother don't care whether I am an American. They would rather
have me an American.

_Q._ And they have encouraged you to be an American?

_A._ Sure.

_Q._ And your teachers have?

_A._ Oh, yes, naturally.

_Q._ And you like the idea?

_A._ Sure.

_Q._ Your father and mother intend to remain here all their lives, do
they, as far as you know?

_A._ Well, I would like to have them go back and see their home once
again, but that is about all. I don't know what I can do.

_Q._ (Mr. Vaile.) As far as you know, their own intention is to live here,
except for a visit home, perhaps, the rest of their lives?

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Suppose you visit Japan. You know, don't you, that the Japanese
Emperor still claims you as his subject? Suppose you are required to
render military service to Japan, what would be your position on that

_A._ It would be a pretty difficult one, but I will get out of it.

_Q._ Following that, suppose you were required to render military service
to the United States, what will be your position?

_A._ I will get in.

_Q._ Exactly. We are glad to meet you. Good luck to you.

(_Witness Excused._)



_Request Sent to the Board of Education of Los Angeles, California._

December 24, 1920.

  President of the
  Board of Education,
  Los Angeles, California.


I am collecting data on the intellectual and moral status of American-born
Japanese children. Among the data the most important, I need hardly say,
are their school records.

I shall highly appreciate your courtesy if you will be pleased to provide
me with the valuable information you have at your command bearing on the
subject. What I am particularly interested in is the average record of
American-born Japanese children and its comparison with the record of
American children.

  Yours very respectfully,
  (Signed) T. IYENAGA.

_Method of Gathering Material_

December 31, 1920.


May I trouble you to select two of your schools in which you have the
largest Japanese attendance and secure for me at your earliest possible
convenience data as to the number of Japanese children in those schools
and the points about them that are touched upon in the accompanying

My thought is this--that if we secure records from two or three schools
where we have the largest Japanese attendance, this will suffice as a
basis for decision as to the other such schools.


January 7, 1921.

  Mrs. Adda Wilson Hunter, _Principal_, Moneta School,
  Miss Mary A. Colestock, _Principal_, Hewitt St. School,
  Miss Mary A. Henderson, _Principal_, Amelia St. School,
  Miss Lizzie A. McKenzie, _Principal_, Hobart Blvd. School.

A communication has been received from Dr. T. Iyenaga stating that he is
collecting data on the intellectual and moral status of American-born
Japanese children. He is anxious to know the average record of
American-born Japanese children in the schools and how it compares with
the record of American children.

Will you kindly send me statement concerning the results in your schools?

  Very truly yours,
  _Assistant Superintendent_.



_Office of the Principal of Hewitt St. School, District No. 151_

Report of American-born Japanese Children.

January 17, 1921.


The American-born Japanese children, who are enrolled in this school,
compare most favorably with the American children both intellectually and
morally. They are like all groups of children. We find some very bright
children and some very dull ones. As a whole, they are more persevering
and more dependable than the class of white children found in this school.

Miss Oliver, who has been working with the Japanese for the past four
years, said, "When with them I feel that I am in the company of well-bred

  Truly yours,


_Amelia St. School, City_

January 19, 1921.

  _Assistant Superintendent_,
  Los Angeles City Public Schools,
  Los Angeles, California.


My general observation has been that given anything of an equal chance,
children are children, human nature is human nature, and brains are
brains--whatever the mother tongue may be. Compared with our other foreign
children, or with other children born in America of foreign parentage not
Japanese, keeping in mind the differences in social position that exist in
all classes, whatever the nationality may be, I cannot see much difference
along any line between our Japanese children and our Mexicans, our French
and our Italians; nor do I think any of them differ radically from what we
are apt to term "American" children. Few families are many generations
away from some foreign ancestors....

Our Japanese children are called brighter and more studious, sometimes,
than the others. I think this is due to the fact that they have, in many
cases, ambitious, educated parents who follow school work up very closely
in the home. Where home restrictions are lifted, such conditions do not
always prevail, any more than in cases of other neglected children. _They
must_ be studious. Discipline of American-born Japanese children is not so
close in the home as it seems to be with children born in Japan and reared
along Japanese lines, yet such children show much more initiative in all
of their work at school. They catch the American spirit.

As summary, I would say that physically, mentally, morally, given the same
chance, there does not seem to me to be a great difference among children
of the different nationalities, but this difference is most readily
noticed. The other nationalities do assimilate quickly, and lose, to a
great extent, their parents' national traits in short time; but it is
exceedingly hard to get the same results with our Japanese children. They
cling to one another, to their own ways, and to their own language, even
after many years of work in public schools, where most social barriers are
broken down. My personal feeling in the matter is that this condition is
the result of lack of American education in the Japanese homes and lack of
American touch with the Japanese mothers.

Our Home teachers are doing much to help along this line, but it is slow
work, and work that takes much time, and requires great tact on part of
the workers.

Most important to me is the work our public schools are doing with the
Japanese girls, the mothers of tomorrow.

  Yours respectfully,


_Report of Intellectual and Moral Status of American-born Japanese


As a rule American-born Japanese children know no English when entering
school. Their progress at first, therefore, is more slow than that of
English speaking children. Japanese children require one year to complete
one half year's work through the first, second, and third grades. After
the third grade they complete the work in the time assigned.

They are especially good in handwork. Their chief difficulty is with
English. In application they rank high.

As to their moral status they are neither better nor worse than other

  _Principal Moneta School_.
  January 14, 1921.

_Report of Intellectual and Moral Status of American-Born Japanese

  Grade| Amer.-  |Time to |Standard|Average | Rank |Appli- |1. In What Do
       | Born    |Complete| Age of | Age of |  in  |cation.|   They Excel?
       |Japanese |Work of | Grade. |Am.-Born|Class.|       |2. What is
       |Enrolled.|  1/2   |        |Jap'se. |      |       |   Greatest
       |         | Year.  |        |        |      |       |   Drawback?
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  Kgn. |   13    |  1 yr. |4-1/2-6 |    5   |      | Good  |1. Handwork.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Do not speak
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-1  |   21    |  1 yr. |   6-7  |        |      | Good  |1. Drawing,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    writing,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    handwork.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Do not speak
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  A-1  |    4    |  1 yr. |   6-7  |    9   |      | Good  |1. Handwork.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Do not speak
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-2  |    2    |  1 yr. |   7-8  |    9   |      | Good  |1. Handwork.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Do not speak
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  A-2  |    3    |  1 yr. |   7-8  |   10   |      | Good  |1. Handwork.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Do not speak
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-3  |    2    | 5 mos. |   8-9  |   10   |Excel.| Poor  |1. Spelling,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    arithmetic.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  A-3  |    3    |  1 yr. |   8-9  |   10   | Fair | Good  |1. Spelling,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    arithmetic.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-4  |    1    | 5 mos. |  9-10  |    9   |Excel.| Excel.|1. Arithmetic.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  A-4  |    1    | 5 mos. |  9-10  |   11   |Excel.| Excel.|1. Arithmetic,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    spelling.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-5  |    2    | 5 mos. | 10-11  |   11   |Excel.| Excel.|1. Arithmetic,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    spelling.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. English.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  B-6  |    2    | 5 mos. | 11-12  |   10   | Good | Excel.|1. History,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    geography.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Arithmetic.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |
  A-6  |    1    | 5 mos. | 11-12  | 12-1/2 |Excel.| Excel.|1. Arithmetic,
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |    history.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |2. Geography.
       |         |        |        |        |      |       |


  January 13, 1921.

  _Assistant Supt. City Schools_.


In reply to your inquiry relative to the American-born Japanese pupils of
our school, I enclose statement as to results noted in the various

Trusting that this may serve the purpose desired, and appreciating your
very kindly interest,


  Hobart Blvd. School.          January 13, 1921.

_Report on Japanese Pupils_


Many of the Japanese fail in First Grade on account of inability to
understand the English language. In succeeding grades, progress is
satisfactory as shown by the following tabulation of current date:

           |  To Be
   B-1  16 |   10
   A-1   7 |    6
   B-2   5 |    5
   A-2   4 |    4
   B-3   1 |    1
   A-3   1 |    1
   B-4   2 |    2
   A-4   0 |
   B-5   2 |    1
   A-5   1 |    1
   B-6   1 |    1
   A-6   0 |

   Total enrolled, 40.
   Total promoted, 32.

We find these children as a rule clever in use of pen and crayon,
possessing light touch, having correct ideas of form, and excellent taste
in selection of color.

As pupils they follow direction well, and are usually free from faults of
rudeness or improper language. Of the forty above Kindergarten, three are
troublesome and are persistent cases. In general, it may be said that
these children as a class compare favorably with others in matters of
progress and of conduct as well.




_Present Day Immigration with Special Reference to the Japanese._

1909. _Chinese and Japanese in America._

GULICK, SYDNEY L. _American Democracy and Asiatic Citizenship._ Scribners,
New York, 1918. _The American-Japanese Problem._ Scribners, New York,

ICHIHASHI, Y. _Japanese Immigration._ Marshall Press, San Francisco, 1915.

KAWAKAMI, K. K. _American-Japanese Relations._ Revell, New York, 1912.
_Asia at the Door._ Revell, New York, 1914. _Japan in the World Politics._
Revell, New York, 1917.

MASAOKA, N. (Editor). _Japan to America._ G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York,

MILLIS, H. A. _The Japanese Problem in the United States._ McMillan, New
York, 1915.

PITKIN, WALTER B. _Must We Fight Japan?_ The Century Co., New York, 1921.

RUSSELL, LINDSAY (Editor). _America to Japan._ G. P. Putnam's Sons, New
York, 1915.

SCHERER, J. A. A. _The Japanese Crisis._ Stokes, 1915.

THE JAPANESE-AMERICAN NEWS. _The Japanese-American Year Book_, 1910 and
1918. San Francisco.


Annual Reports of the United States Commissioner-General of Immigration.

Bureau of Labor (California). Biennial Reports, and especially, "Report on
the Japanese in California."

California and the Oriental. Report of California State Board of Control,
with Governor Wm. D. Stephens's letter addressed to Secretary of State
Bainbridge Colby. California State Printing Office, Sacramento, 1920.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Chinese and Japanese in the
United States, 1910. Bulletin 127, Washington Printing Office, 1914.

Immigration Commission. Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of
Immigrant. Senate Document, No. 208, 61st Congress, 2nd Session.
Washington Government Printing Office, 1910.

Immigration Laws of the United States. (Revised Federal Statutes).

KAHN, CONGRESSMAN. Japanese-California Problem. Congressional Record, 60,
4: 78-82, December 9, 1920.

METCALF, SECRETARY. Report on the Japanese School Question.

Naturalization Laws of the United States. (Revised Federal Statutes.)

Reports of the Immigration Commission. Immigrants in the Industries, Vols.
23, 24, 25, Senate Document, No. 633, 61st Congress.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE. Presidential Message to Congress, 1907. House of
Representatives; Message of the President of the United States, and
Accompanying Documents. Part I; pp. 492-846. Ex. Doc. No. 1.


the Japanese in California_, 1919.

CLEMENT, E. W. _Expatriation of Japanese Abroad._ Japanese Association of
America, San Francisco, 1916.

ELIOT, CHAS. W. _Friendship between the United States and Japan._ Japanese
Merchants' Association, Portland, Oregon.

GADSBY, JOHN. _Foreign Land-Ownership and Leasing in Japan_, 1920.
Japanese Association of America, San Francisco, 1914.

GULICK, SYDNEY L. _How Shall Immigration be Regulated?_ 1920. _Japan and
the Gentlemen's Agreement._ 1920. _The New Anti-Japanese Agitation._ 1920.

ICHIHASHI, Y. _Japanese Immigration, Its Status in California._ 1913.

IRISH, JOHN P. _Campaign of Lies, Stolen Letters of Senator Phelan._ 1920.
_Shall Japanese-Americans in Idaho be Treated with Fairness and Justice or
Not?_ 1921.

KAWAKAMI, K. K. _Senator Phelan, Dr. Gulick and I._ Bureau of Literary
Service, San Francisco, 1920.


PEOPLE'S LEAGUE OF JUSTICE. _Petition by People's League of Justice_, Los
Angeles, California, 1920.

REA, GEORGE BRONSON. _Japan's Right to Exist._ _Far Eastern Review_,
Shanghai, China, 1920.

ROOSEVELT, T. _America and Japan._ Reprint from the New York _Times_.

SHIMA, GEORGE. _An Appeal To Justice._ 1920.

TAFT, HENRY W. _Our Relations with Japan._ Japan Society, New York, 1920.

THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF JUSTICE. _California and the Japanese._ Oakland,
California, December, 1920.

TYNDALL, PHILIP. _Proposed Initiative Measure to be Presented to the
Legislature of 1921_, Seattle, Washington.

VANDERLIP, FRANK. _Mr. Vanderlip's Message._

WALLACE, J. B. _Waving the Yellow Flag in California._ Reprinted from the
Dearborn Independent.

WILLIAMS, B. H. _The Case against the Japanese._ 1920.


"America and the Japanese Relations." WAINWRIGHT, S. H. _Outlook_, 124:
392, March, 1920.

"America's Responsibility on the Pacific." GREENBIE, S. _North American
Review_, 212: 71-79, July, 1920.

"Another Japanese Problem." MCLEOD, H. _New Republic_, 24: 184-6, October
20, 1920.

"Anti-Japanese Agitation." _Business Chronicle_, 9, 18: 137-49, September,

"Asia's American Problem." ROBINSON, GEROID. _Pacific Review_, 367-388,
December, 1920.

"California and the Japanese." KAWAKAMI, K. K. _Nation_, 112: 173-174,
February 2, 1921.

"California and the Oriental." The Letter of WM. D. STEPHENS to the
Secretary of State Colby. _The Pacific Review_, 349-361, December, 1920.

"California-Japanese Problem." _The Pacific Voice_, 5, 10: 4-10.

"California-Japanese Question." WOOLSEY, THEODORE S. _The American Journal
of International Laws_, Oxford Press, 15, 1: 24-26, January, 1921.

"Co-operation between Japan and America." KANEKO, K. _Japan Review_,
24-26, December, 1920.

"Discrimination against the Japanese." _New Republic_, 24: 135-6.

"Future of Japanese-American Relations." SHIDEHARA, K. _Japan Review_,
170-171, April, 1920.

"Hegemony of the Pacific." _Living Age_, 316: 638-40.

"Japan, a Great Economic Power." LONGFORD, J. H. _Nineteenth Century_,
523: 526-39, September, 1920.

"Japan and America." _Far Eastern Review_, 16: 335-36.

"Japan and the United States, a Suggestion." OTTO, M. C. _Japan Review_,
334-336, October, 1920.

"Japan and the Japanese-California Problem." IYENAGA, T. _Current
History_, 13, 1: 1-7, October, 1920.

"Japan as Colonizer." _Stead's Review_, 53, 7: 358-9.

"Japan Challenges Us to Control California." STODDARD, L. _World's Work_,
40: 48-85.

"Japan Our New Customer." STARRETT, W. A. _Scribner's_, 66: 517-18.

"Japan's Diplomacy of Necessity." _Living Age_, 316: 638-640.

"Japan's New Difficulties with China." _The New York Times Current
History_, 457-458, December, 1920.

"Japan's Use of Her Hegemony." FERGUSON, J. C. _North American Review_,
210: 456-459.

"Japan's Aggression." INMAN, J. M. _Forum_, 65, 1: 1-9, January, 1921.

"Japanese-American Relations." SHIDEHARA, K. _Outlook_, 125: 317-18, June
16, 1920.

"Japanese-American Relations." YOSHINO, SAKUZO. _Pacific Review_, 418-421,
December, 1920.

"Japanese and the Pacific Coast." RYDER, R. W. _North American Review_,
213, 1: 1-15, January, 1921.

"Japanese Farmers' Contribution to California." CHIBA, TOYOJI. _Japan
Review_, 212-13, May, 1920.

"Japanese Imperialism in Siberia." CHAMBERLAIN, W. H. _Nation_, 110:

"Japanese in America." TRENT, P. J. _Review of Reviews_, 61: 76-8, June,

"Japanese in California." BRIGGS, A. H.; JOHNSON, H. B.; LOOFBOUROW, I. J.
_Japan Review_, 166-170, April, 1920.

"Japanese in California." IRISH, JOHN P. _Japan Review_, 7-72, January,

"Japanese in California." JORDAN, D. S. _The Pacific Review_, 316-65,
December, 1920.

"Japanese Issue in California." STODDARD, L. _World's Work_, 40, 5:
585-600, September, 1920.

"Japanese Language Schools." KAWAKAMI, K. K. _Japan Review_, 14-15,
January, 1921.

"Japanese Problem in California." LOCAN, C. A. _Current History_, 13:
7-11, October, 1920.

"Japanese Pupils and American Schools." FULTON, C. W. _North American
Review_, December, 1906.

"Japanese Question." _Kawakami, K. K._ _Pacific Review_, 365-78, December,

"Japanese Views of California." _Literary Digest_, 67, 1: 20-1.

"Japanthropy." WOOLSTON, H. D. _Pacific Review,_ 289-96, December, 1920.

"Legal Aspects of the Japanese Question." MCMURRAY, ORRIN K. _Pacific
Review_, 396-403, December, 1920.

"Liberalism in Japan." DEWEY, JOHN. _Dial_, 63: 283-5; 335-7; 369-71.

"Light on the Japanese Question." KINNEY, H. W. _Atlantic Monthly_, 126:
832-42, December, 1920.

"Moral Factors in Japanese Policy." BLAND, J. O. P. _Asia_, 211-217,
March, 1920.

"Oriental Immigration from the Canadian Standpoint." BAGGS, THEODORE H.
_Pacific Review,_ 408-418, December, 1920.

"Oriental in California." IRISH, JOHN P. _Overland_, 75: 332-3, April,

"Oriental Problem, as the Coast See It." HART, J. A. _World's Work_,
March, 1906.

"Oriental Question and Popular Diplomacy." PRUETT, ROBERT L. _Japan
Review_, 291-92, August, 1920.

"Possum and the Dinosaur." MASON, G. _Outlook_, 125: 319-20, June 16,

"Race Prejudice: Psychological Analysis." SATO, K. _Japan Review_,
237-238, June, 1920.

"Shall East and West Never Meet?" SATO, K. _Japan Review_, 336-37,
October, 1920.

"Some Aspects of the So-called Japanese Problem." VANDERLIP, F. A.
_Outlook_, 125: 380-4.

"What are the Japanese Doing towards Americanization?" SASAMORI, JUNZO.
_Japan Review_, 22-24, December, 1920.

"What Japan Wants." ADACHI, K. _Nation_, 181-82, February 2, 1921.

"When East is West," GULICK, SYDNEY L. _Outlook_, 102: 12-14, April 3,


  Adaptability, Japanese disposition of, 20

  Æsthetic temperament of Japanese, 13

  Age distribution of Japanese in California, 112

  Agreement, Root-Takahira, 34

  Agriculture, Japanese, in California, 120-147;
    causes of Japanese progress in, 123-126

  Ainu, 14

  American-born Japanese, 174-177

  American disposition, 9

  Americanization, criterion of, 151-154

  Ancestors, Japanese, 16

  Anti-Alien Land Laws, 138-142;
    effect of, 145;
    Appendixes C, D

  Anti-Japanese Agitation, causes of, 75-89

  Asiatic policy, Japan's, 33-45

  Assimilation, 137; 148-177;
    and nationalism, 148-159;
    meaning of, 151-154;
    biological, 155-162;
    of Japanese immigrants, 168-174

  Australia, Japanese emigration to, 64-67

  Birth-rate of Japanese in California, 109-119

  Boas, Professor, quoted, 163

  Bolsheviki, 38

  Buddhism, 25

  Bushido, 15, 21

  California, causes of Anti-Japanese agitation in, 75;
    causes of Japanese influx to, 50-63;
    Christianity among Japanese in, 169-170;
    competition in, 133-135;
    congestion of Japanese in, 87-89;
    cultural assimilation of Japanese in, 166-168;
    genesis of hostility towards Japanese in, 71;
    population of, 93;
    problem, 7

  Canada, Japanese emigration to, 67-69

  Capitalism, 29

  Castle, Professor, quoted, 159

  Chiba, T., quoted, 129

  China, Japan's coöperation with, 42-45

  Chinese, 23, 95

  Chivalry, proletarian, 21

  Christianity, 28

  Colonization, Japanese policy of, 18

  Confucianism, 25, 27

  Congressional sub-Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 176

  Constitution, Japanese, 11

  Democracy, industrial, 31

  Democratic institutions, Japanese training in, 172

  Den Do Dan, 169-170

  Despotism, Japanese, 22

  Dewey, Professor John, 29

  Dispersal of Japanese in California, 189

  Disposition, Japanese, 20

  Dual nationality, 191

  East and West, 4, 195-196

  Economic status of Japanese in California, 171

  Education, system of, 31

  Emotional nature, of Japanese, 9

  English, Japanese ability to command, 170

  Eta, 18

  Eurasiatic relationship, 6

  Expatriation Law of Japan, Appendix K

  Farmers, Japanese, in California, 132-138

  Fishberg, Dr., quoted, 164

  "Gentlemen's Agreement," 100-106

  German, influence on Japan, 30;
    idealism, 32

  _Gikyoshin_, 21

  Group consciousness of Japanese, 16

  Gulick, Dr. Sydney L., quoted, 157

  _Hara kiri_, 12

  Hearn, Lafcadio, 44

  Hedonism, Japanese, 15

  Hideyoshi, 10

  History of Japanese, 10, 20

  Humanism, 32

  Immigration to
    Australia, 64-67
    Canada, 67-69
    South America, 69
    United States, 69-75

  Industrial democracy, 31

  Intelligence of Japanese in California, 170

  Intermarriage, 155-162

  Japan, topographical conditions of, 13;
    Nature of, 14

  Japan's, Asiatic Policy, 33;
    land area, 52;
    agriculture, 52-55;
    industry, 57-62;
    population, 55-57;
    social conditions, 62-63

  Japanese, ability to speak English, 170;
    age distribution of, in California, 112;
    agriculture in California, 120-147;
    ancestors, 16;
    assimilability of, 148-177;
    birth rate in California, 109-119;
    civilization of, 14;
    Constitution, 11;
    death rate of, in California, 117;
    descendants in California, 164-166, 174-177;
    economic status of, in California, 171;
    farm labor, 126-131;
    farmers in California, 132-138;
    immigration to America, 97-107;
    Land Laws, 142-145;
    morality of, in California, 168-169;
    nationality, 85-86;
    number of, in California, 91;
    philosophy, 24;
    sex distribution of, in California, 112;
    social system, 30;
    susceptibility of, 12;
    training in civics, 172

  Jesuit Fathers, 10

  Jones and East, quoted, 159

  _Kikotsu_, 21

  Kipling, quoted, 4

  Kojiki, 16

  Korea, amalgamation of, 34;
    local self-government in, 36;
    situation in, 35-37

  Koreans, 18

  Kusama, Shiko, note, 170

  Labor, 30

  Land, amount held by Japanese in California, 135-137

  Land Laws, Anti-Alien, 138-142;
    Appendixes C and D

  League of Nations, 19

  Lippman, Walter, note, 86

  Manchuria, 37

  Mankind, 6

  Marriage, Japanese, 11

  Millis, Professor H. A., quoted, 157

  Morality of Japanese in California, 168-169

  Morris, Roland, 186

  Myth, 17

  Nationalism, 148

  Native-born Japanese, 174

  Nevada, 23

  Newlands, U. S. Senator, 23

  Nihongi, 16

  Nitobé, Dr., 22

  Number of Japanese in California, 91

  Oakesmith, John, quoted, 176

  Occidental learning, 26

  Occidentalism, ultra, 19

  _Otokodate_, 21

  Pacific Coast, 193-194

  Passports, 103

  Patriotism of Japanese, 17

  Perry, Commodore, 3

  Philosophy, Japanese, 24

  Picture brides, 113

  Political rights of Japanese, 31

  Politics as a cause of agitation, 80-82

  Population of Japanese in California, 90-97

  Positivism, English, 28

  Pragmatism, 29, 32

  Pride of Japanese, 11, 19

  Propaganda, 83

  Race war, 7

  Racial difference, 83-85

  Radicals, Japanese, 20

  Relationship, American Japanese, 7

  Roosevelt, Theodore, 33

  Root-Takahira Agreement, 34

  Russo-Japanese war, 18

  Sakura, Sogoro, 22

  Samurai, 12, 15

  San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, 187

  Santayana, 29

  Science, lack of, in Japan, 15

  Sex distribution of Japanese in California, 113

  Shantung, 39

  Shibusawa, Viscount, 186

  Smuggling of Japanese to United States, 107-109

  Social, force, 23;
    _milieu_ as affecting man, 165;
    reorganization, 29

  South America, Japanese emigration to, 69

  State Board of Control of California, 96

  Stephens, Governor, quoted, 5, 23, 122

  Suicide in Japan, 12

  Thought, Japanese, 29

  Tokugawa régime, 22

  Traits, Japanese, 9

  Treaty, American-Japanese, 187, Appendix B

  United States, the, Japanese immigration to, 69-74

  Unity, national, 17

  Utilitarians, 29

  Vanderlip, Frank, 187

  Wang Yang Ming, 26

  White and yellow races, 5

  Wilson, Woodrow, quoted, 154

  Women, status of Japanese, 31

  Yamato race, 14

  "Yellow peril," 82

  Young Japan, 14


[1] _The System of Samurai Ethics and Obligations of Honor._

[2] See "The New Chino-Japanese Treaties and Their Import," by T. Iyenaga,
in _The American Review of Reviews_, September, 1915.

[3] According to the result of the census taken on October 1, 1920, the
Japanese population of South Manchuria stands at 154,998 souls. Of this
total, those living at Dairen number 63,745; Fushun, 12,659; Mukden,
12,268; Port Arthur, 9379; Antung, 7057, and Anshan, 6678, while those
resident in the jurisdiction of Kwantung Province number 74,893.

[4] One dollar U. S. currency is approximately two yen.

[5] For a complete tabulation of Japanese immigration see appendix F.

[6] Tokyo Emigration Co., Toyo Emigration Co., were the most conspicuous.

[7] Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the methods
by which Oriental laborers were induced to come to Canada in 1909.

[8] Report as cited, p. 54.

[9] Those who voted in the negative for the initiative bill were 222,086
against 668,483 in the affirmative.

[10] _Stakes of Diplomacy_, by Walter Lippman, p. 40.

[11] Report published on October 5, 1920, by the Bureau of Commercial
Affairs, Foreign Office, Tokyo, Japan.

[12] _California and the Oriental, State Board of Control of California,
1920_, p. 30.

[13] _California and the Oriental_, p. 27.

[14] For detailed comparison of geographical distribution of Chinese and
Japanese see Appendix I.

[15] See Appendix G.

[16] _California and the Oriental_, p. 31.

[17] Total number of Japanese born in California so far is approximately
30,000, of which about 5000 have either died or live in Japan.

[18] Annual Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration.

[19] _Immigration Laws--Rules of November 15, 1911_, published by U. S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Immigration, March 10, 1913.

[20] _Japan Year Book_, 1920, p. 34.

[21] _Pacific Review_, vol. i., No. 3, p. 363; "The Japanese in
California," by David S. Jordan.

[22] Bulletin 127, 1914, p. 8.

[23] The following data are reported by the Bureau of Census, Washington,
in preliminary publication of 1920 census:

The Japanese population by sex in 1920 is male 44,364, female 25,832; for
1910, male 35,116, female 6,240; and for 1900, male 9,598, female 553. The
per cent. distribution by sex of the Japanese in 1920 is male 63.2 per
cent., female 36.8 per cent.; for 1910 male 84.9 per cent., female 15.1
per cent.; and for 1900, male 94.6 per cent., female 5.4 per cent.

[24] Gulick, S. L., _Japan and the Gentlemen's Agreement_, 1920, p. 7.

[25] _World Almanac 1921_, p. 476-9.

[26] _World Almanac 1920_, p. 487.

[27] The birth rate of immigration population in Massachusetts was 49.1 in

[28] _Senate Document_, vol. lxv., 61st Congress.

[29] _Senate Document_, vol. lxv., 61st Congress.

[30] Of the forty-one answers to the questionnaires sent to the County
Farm Commissioners in California by the Board of Control asking them to
give pertinent facts concerning the methods used by these races
(Orientals) in securing land leases, twenty-five stated: "The Japanese pay
more rent in cash or shares"; ten said: "Japanese pay ordinary rent" or
"use ordinary means in obtaining lease." _California and the Oriental_,
pp. 56-61.

[31] _The Japanese Problem in the United States_, pp. 148-49.

[32] _California and the Oriental_, pp. 56-61.

[33] _Ibid._, p. 221.

[34] _California and the Oriental_, p. 58.

[35] _Immigration Commission Reports_, vol. xxiii., chap. iv.

[36] _Japanese-American Year Book_, 1918, p. 10.

[37] _The Japanese Problem in the United States_, p. 123.

[38] For detailed comparison of crops raised by white and Japanese farmers
see Appendix E.

[39] Figures taken from _California and the Oriental_, p. 47.

[40] See Appendix B.

[41] For full texts of land laws 1913 and 1920 see Appendixes C and D.

[42] _California and the Oriental_, p. 104.

[43] Mr. Newman in the hearings held at Sacramento, California, in 1913.

[44] Millis' _The Japanese Problem in the United States_, p. 275.

[45] Gulick, S. L., _The American Japanese Problem_, p. 153.

[46] Jones and East, _Inbreeding and Outbreeding--Their Genetic and
Sociological Significance_, p. 255.

[47] W. E. Castle, _Genetics and Eugenics_, pp. 233-38.

[48] _California and the Oriental_, p. 15.

[49] "Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants." _Senate
Document No. 208_, pp. 7-54.

[50] _The Jews: A Study of Race and Environment._

[51] See Appendix A.

[52] _The Forum_, January, 1921, p. 3.

[53] For this as well as other information the authors are indebted to Mr.
S. Kusama, who furnished us with the materials which were carefully
prepared by him from first-hand research in California.

[54] _Bureau of Census Bulletin 127_, p. 12.

[55] _Race and Nationality_, Frederick A. Stokes Co., New York, 1919.

[56] See example of testimony in Appendix L.

See also Appendix M in which the subject of comparative standing of
intelligence and behaviour of native-born Japanese children and American
children is discussed by several principals of elementary schools in
Southern California.

[57] For text of this law see Appendix K.

Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.

Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

Foonote 18 appears on page 104 of the text, but there is no corresponding
marker on the page.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Japan and the California Problem" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.