America and Japan - Their Treatment of Foreigners and Resulting Conditions

7/30/2019 America and Japan - Their Treatment of Foreigners and Resulting Conditions

1/24


2/24

3 1223 06235 2324

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 1223 06235 2332


3/24


4/24


5/24

JAPAN AND Ai:EFICA


6/24


7/24


8/24

AMERICA AND JAPANBy V. S. McCLATCHY

Under the leadership of Sidney L. Gulick andGeorge W. Wickersham, a nation wide campaignwas inaugurated in April, 1925, to induce Congressto so amend the law excluding aliens ineligible tocitizenship as to except Japanese from the opera-tion thereof and grant them the same privilegesunder immigration quota as are conceded to Euro-peans.This campaign promises to reopen public discus-

sion of the entire exclusion question, with littleprobability of securing any change in the law, butwith the certainty of reviving racial friction andmisunderstanding which has been declining steadilyunder friendly advances on both sides. PresidentCoolidge has said, "The incident is closed. Wemust seek by some means besides immigration todemonstrate the friendship and respect which wefeel for the Japanese nation." If the publishedstatements of the leading members of the Immigra-tion Committee of each House furnish reliableindication, Congress is firmly determined not toopen the door to Asiatic immigration by any exception, however slight, to the established principle ofexcluding aliens ineligible to citizenship.

A CHURCH MOVEMENTThe Gulick-Wickersham movement has the back

ing of the Federal Council of Churches of Christin America, in which organization are listed mostof the Protestant denominations; the Commissionfor International Justice and Goodwill, an auxiliary of the Federal Council; the National Committee for Japanese-American Relations; and the National League for Constructive Immigration Legislation. >r. Gulick is Oriental Secretary of the firstnamed and Executive Secretary of the others, twoof which he organized. Wickersham is nominalhead of the second and third named organizations.Hamilton Holt's name appears as head of the lastmentioned body.


9/24

Hr. Gulick, since his arrival, about 10 years ago,in this country from Japan on leave from DoshishaUniversity, has spent much of his time and abilityin the attempt to secure some modification of ourestablished policy and laws, so as to admit Japan-ese to permanent residence and citizenship on thesame basis as Europeans.Wickersham, formerly U. S. Attorney General,

has acted as attorney for the Japanese before theU. S. Supreme Court in cases wherein they soughtto have certain State and Federal laws set asideso far as they apply to Japanese. He acted asattorney for Mitsui & Co. of Japan, in 1922, whenCongress was investigating charges of fraudagainst two American war-time airplane companieswhich, it developed, were owned or controlled byMitsui & Co. The investigation was quashed byAbraham S. Meyers, who was placed in charge ofall war-time fraud cases, his selection for that posi-tion having been secured through influence ofWickersham, according to charges made on thefloor of the House by Congressman Woodruff,April 22, 1922.

Hamilton Holt organized the first Japan Societyin this country at New York, and was decorated bythe Mikado for friendly services to Japan.

In furtherance of the campaign for amendmentof the present law to meet Japan's demands, nationwide distribution has been made among Church andWomen's organizations of a leaflet by SidneyGulick entitled "America and JapanFacts Bear-ing on Popular Misinformation," the object being,as stated, "to correct many mistaken assertions re-garding Japanese in America and Americans inJapan." The effect, however, is rather to increasemisinformation and misunderstanding on the partof those not familiar with the facts. The followingdiscussion of certain points covered in the leafletindicates the manner in which the omission of somefacts and incomplete explanation of others tend tocreate entirely incorrect impressions of the situationin the mind of the reader.The statements made in this leaflet by Dr.Gulick furnish a fair sample of many by means

of which he has misled sentiment in church andother organizations on the subject of Japanese im-


10/24

migration. Other statements made by him can beanswered as conclusively by anyone familiar withthe facts.

LAND OWNERSHIP IN JAPANReference is made by Dr. Gulick to the "Wide

spread misstatement that Japan allows no foreign-ers to own land." He concedes that foreigners maynot buy land in fee simple in Japan, but says that238 foreigners own a total of S51 acres; that 671foreigners hold 977 acres under lease or super-ficies; and that 234 acres of the land thus owned orheld is farm land. He fails to state, however, thatcertain old rights under which a foreigner mightown land in Japan are no longer granted; and thatregardless of title or lease, no foreigner may useagricultural land for profit. (See House Doc. 89,69th Congress, 1st Session, p. 11).As a matter of fact, the conditions under whichJapanese own and may cultivate agricultural landin California for profit, are very much more favor-able even under the existing restrictive laws thanare granted to foreigners, including Americans, inJapan today. In 1920 the Japanese owned andcultivated 74,769 acres of California's richest lands(see "California and the Oriental," State Board ofControl Report, 1920, page 47) title to which hadbeen acquired previous to passage of the alien landlaw in 1913. They have been steadily adding tothat acreage since then by purchase on behalf ofJapanese, born in the United States, and entitledthereby to the rights of American citizens. Japanwisely allows no such privilege to children ofAmericans born in Japan. All this acreage ofCalifornia land is being used by Japanese in truckgardening, orcharding, etc., in competition withwhite American citizens, a privilege forbidden toforeigners in Japan, even if they have leaseholdto a few acres of land. While alien Japanese, asaliens ineligible to citizenship, may not lease agri-cultural lands in California, they have the rightin accordance with the Japan Treaty and the Cali-fornia law, to lease land for commercial and resi-dence purposes; and hundreds of Japanese haveavailed themselves and are availing themselves ofthat right in the large and small cities of the StateThe few leases granted to foreigners in Japan areseverely restricted.

4


11/24

The following authorities establish beyond ques-tion Japan's policy and law in forbidding owner-ship of land to foreigners:

Foreigners' have no right of land ownership inJapan.'" (Excerpt from decision of the Tokyo Dis-trict Court, May, 1913, in the case of Rev. W. D.Cunningham, an American Missionary, vs. Hiran-uma Hachitaro, a Japanese)."Japan does not permit ownership of her land

by foreigners." (Language contained in statementmade to the Japanese Diet on January 30, 1921, byBaron Cchida and published in the AssociatedPress report in this country).

"In Japan the right of ownership of land is notgranted to foreigners." (Extract from article byM. Maita in December, 1920, number of the Japan-ese Review of International Laws).

"It is certain that tho the leasing of land isallowed to foreigners in Japan the pursuit of agri-culture is not." (Extract from the Kobe, Japan,Chronicle, September 25, 1920."The law of 1S73 denied to aliens the posses-sion of rights in land in Japan. This law was tobe repealed by an enactment of 1910 which, how-ever, was not put in operation." (Extract fromletter from T. Taketomi, Consul General of Japanat San Francisco, to V. S. McClatchv, April 11,1925).Great Britain has a treaty with Japan (the terms

of which in this particular matter were acceptedby only one of her Dominions, Canada) underwhich Japanese are conceded the rights of citizensin land ownership and other matters. Under thattreat}- Japanese have been acquiring land in BritishColumbia. The treaty, however, contains also aclause as to reciprocal treatment of the respectivecitizens of each country in the other; and BritishColumbia has recently claimed, and has been con-ceded by official opinion from Dominion authoritiesat Ottawa, the right, under that provision, to denyland ownership to Japanese. The reason is thatJapan denies land ownership to all foreigners, in-cluding Canadians.

In March, 1925, the Japan Diet passed a lawwhich, it was claimed, would give, when promul-gated, reciprocal rights in Japan in the matter ofland ownership to citizens of such countries as


12/24


13/24

country in any large force the welfare of our labor-ers will be seriously affected."About a year ago 1,000 or more Chinese who hadcome into Tokyo and other Japanese cities as um-brella merchants were deported on the allegationthat they had become laborers. The statement waopublished in this country by the Associated Press.On December 9, 1924, a steamship Captain, justarrived in Victoria, B. C, in an interview whichwas telegraphed to the United States, said thatJapan was about to deport 6,000 Chinese whohad located in Tokyo, Osaka, and outside pre-fectures.

In August, 1924, China sent her seventh formalprotest to Japan, concerning exclusion of Chinese,and called attention to Japan's inconsistent attitudein thus excluding people of her own color whiledemanding admission of Japanese into the UnitedStates.An Associated Press telegram from Tokyo, May28, 1925, states: "The 'Chuo' says that the SocialBureau of the Home Office has decided to put astrict embargo on the entrance into Japan of Chi-nese laborers."No one familiar with the facts, unless it be Dr.Gulick, denies that Japan systematically excludesChinese. Japanese writers say that such course isnecessary in protection of Japanese labor, becauseof the lower standard of living of the Chinese. Itis well known that Japan's attempts to colonizeKorea and Manchuria failed because the Japanesecould not compete economically with Chinese orKoreans. Japan's policy of exclusion of Chinese is,therefore, a wise and proper one, in her own in-terest, and follows the recommendation made toher by Herbert Spencer over forty years ago. Ourreasons for excluding Asiatic peoples, including theJapanese, are very similar, and are equally wiseand necessary in the interest of our citizens. Itmay be added that, even if Japan, for any reason,saw fit to admit Chinese immigration, the factwould furnish neither reason nor excuse for theUnited States admitting races ineligible to citizen-ship, or barred for other good reasons in the na-tion's interest.Our new immigration law is liberal in the mat-ter of admission of aliens, including those ineligible


14/24

to citizenship, as merchants, tourists and students,for temporary residence. The Japanese newspa-pers of San Francisco report that under it thenumber of Japanese entering under the classifica-tions named is very much in excess of the numberwho came during a similar period under the Gen-tlemen's Agreement, and that there is less incon-venience to them in the formalities of admission.The new law does not permit any alien ineligibleto citizenship and who had already acquired theprivilege of permanent residence to bring in wifeor relatives, however. It was the abuse of thisprivilege, particularly in the matter of "picture"and' "kankodan" brides, which brought into SanFrancisco and Seattle each year, up to passage ofthe new immigration act, between 2,000 and 3,000Japanese women for wives, to found average fam-ilies of five each.INCREASE OF JAPANESE POPULATIONIn the effort to show that Japanese population in

continental United States has not increased suffici-ently to become a menace, Dr. Gulick declares thatJapanese immigration since 1908, when the Gentle-men's Agreement was put into effect, "has prac-tically stopped." He claims that the net increaseof foreign born Japanese in continental UnitedStates in sixteen years following 1908, due to immi-gration, was only 10,959, and that during that pe-riod 21,869 more males departed than entered theUnited States.These conclusions are reached only by a misuse

of statistics, the figures for "immigrant" and "non-immigrant" classes having been combined. We areconcerned only in the immigrant class that comesfor permanent settlement. "Japanese Exclusion,"by John B. Trevor, (Document No. 600, issued bythe House Immigration Committee, February 4,1925), answers the Gulick contention fully andshows that the increase of the Japanese "immi-grant" class for the period referred to was 72,906(the difference between those arriving and thosedeparting). Of this total gain of 72,906, 17,126were males and 55,780 were females. Again thereport of the Secretary of Labor, 1923, table 4, page133, "Immigration and Emigration, and Net Gain


15/24

M Loss, 1908 1923, by Race." shows for the Jap-anese an immigration of 125,773 and an emigra-tion of 4-1,781, a net gain for these fifteen yearsunder the Gentlemen's Agreement, of 83,992.

Those figures, however, do not cover the totalincrease in Japanese population in continentalUnited States due to, or resulting during, operationof the Gentlemen's Agreement. A certain portionof the increase is due to introduction of "picturebrides'' and "kankodan brides," each producing onthe average a family of five children, and to sur-reptitious entries. The Gentlemen's Agreement wasentered into, as explained by President Roosevelt,who made it, for the express purpose of preventingincrease of Japanese population in continentalUnited States, since such increase was calculated,in his judgment, to provoke racial conflict and in-ternational trouble. This intent was evaded bythe importation of Japanese brides; while in thecase of Chinese such importation of women wasnot permitted.The objectionable conditions resulting from oper-ation of the Japanese Agreement, are indicated bythe following comparative statistics furnished byrecords of the Immigration Department: For thelast year, under the Gentlemen's Agreement, end-ing June 30, 1924, the number of Japanese of the"immigrant" class entering the United States, was8481, nearly all of them coming for permanentsettlement. For the first six months, under the newImmigration Act ending December 31, 1924, thenumber of Japanese of the "immigrant" classentering was 453, none of ivhom came for perma-nent settlement. It should be explained that theImmigration Department includes in its "immi-grant" classification not only those coming for per-manent settlement, but also those who come formore than a year's stay, such as diplomats andstudents.

OUR PRESENT JAPANESE POPULATIONThe Japanese population of the United States in

lf25 is not less than 300,000, of which 125,000 arein Hawaii and the balance in continental UnitedStates. This is exclusive of between 30,000 and35,000 Japanese minors, born under the American


16/24

flag and now receiving education in Japan, andentitled to return to this country, and who may beexpected to return almost without exception, beforethe age of twenty.The correctness of the 1925 population figuresfor Hawaii is conceded. Dr. Gulick's figures for

Continental United States would be about 137,000instead of 175,000, because of a difference betweenthe census figures of 1920 and reliable official esti-mates, for the Pacific Coast states. For instance, thecensus showed only 71,952 Japanese in California,while the estimates referred to agreed on 100,000.The figures were made by the State Board ofHealth and received partial confirmation from va-rious sources, official and non-official. Even theJapanese census, gathered under order of the Jap-anese Government, by postal card and conceded tobe incomplete, showed in California 11,000 moreJapanese, and in the Pacific Northwest 5,000 moreJapanese, than did the United States census. (SeeMcClatchy "Brief," prepared for the State Depart-ment, October, 1921, Sections 68 to 83). Dr. Gulickconcedes that the Japanese population in Californiahas increased 21,000 or 22,000 since the 1920 cen-sus. The Japanese population of the United Statesincreases by birth alone about 12,000 per year, ofwhich nearly 6,000 are credited to Hawaii andbetween 4,500 and 5,000 to California.

THE JAPANESE BIRTH RATEIn the effort to prove that the Japanese birth

rate is not high and does not therefore constitutea menace, Dr. Gulick shows that the Japanese inHawaii have a lower birth rate than Chinese andcertain other races now excluded from entry. Heis silent, however, as to birth rates in California.Already nearly half the population of Hawaii isJapanese. In California figures of the StateBoard of Health show that the birth rate per thou-sand population among Japanese is three times thatamong the whites, even where the proportion ofadult males to females is three to one among tl*eJapanese while it is practically one to one amongthe whites. L. E. Ross, Registrar of Vital Statisticsof the State Board of Health of California, says "Astudy of the vital factors affecting the several race

10


17/24

stocks in California, as shown by the vital-statisticrecords leads to the conclusion that there is no racewithin our borders that can compare with the Jap-anese in rate of reproduction and vitality. Theirbirth rate is high and their death rate is low * * *In 1920 alone the Japanese increased their popula-tion 5.4 per cent by reproduction, while the whiterace increased 0.5 per cent, one-tenth as fast."(State Board of Health Bulletin October, 1921.)

JAPANESE VOTERS IN HAWAIITo prove that Hawaii is safe from Japanesedomination, the Gulick statement quotes Prof. Ro-manzo Adams, of the University of Hawaii, to theeffect that Japanese voters in 1941 will probablyconstitute only twenty-two per cent of the totalvoters of that territory, and will not increase ap-preciably thereafter.

Louis R. Sullivan made investigations into theracial question in Hawaii, extending over a periodof a year and a half, on behalf of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History and the Bishop Mu-seum of Honolulu. He published in the "Asia"magazine for July, 1923, an article covering hisconclusions, in which he said "It is estimated thatin 1940 there will be 31,000 Japanese voters in atotal electorate of 66,000." The year 1940 is stillfifteen years ahead, and, even now more than halfthe school children of the territory are Japanese,all of them over six years of age.LOYALTY OF AMERICAN-BORN JAPANESEThe Gulick statement assumes that Japanese chil-

dren born in this country will be loyal to theUnited States rather than to Japan, basing theopinion on statements made by young Japaneseschool children in the public schools.

It is not 'doubted that some Japanese childrenborn in this country would become loyal Americancitizens who could be depended on even in a crisis.It would be unwise to assume that all, or even amajority of the Japanese born in this country woulddevelop into dependable American citizens on nobetter foundation than a statement from youngschool children. It must be remembered that aftera comparatively few years of association with

11


18/24

American children in the public schools the averageyoung Japanese boy or girl returns to Japaneseenvironment, and, to a great extent, loses contactwith Americans. There is no opportunity forassimilation, and he drops back into Japanese trendof thought and ideals. Dr. Gulick himself calledattention to this in his pamphlet "Hawaii's Ameri-can-Japanese Problem," published in 1914, inwhich, speaking of Japanese boys after they leaveschool, he says "Most of these boys will be isolatedfrom English speaking Americans; they will beassociated chiefly with men of then own race, im-bibing therefore the Oriental ideas as they ap-proach manhood." And he adds this striking lan-guage"If as Asiatics they maintain their tradi-tional concept of God, nature and man; of maleand female; of husband and wife; of parent andchild ; of ruler and ruled ; of the state and the in-dividual; the permanent maintenance in Hawaii ofAmerican democracy, American homes, and Ameri-can liberty, is impossible."

Dr. Gulick suggested as a solution that theJapanese be converted to Christianity; but com-paratively few Japanese become Christians, andeven with such as do the efficiency of the remedyappears doubtful.Speaking of the alien races in Hawaii, Louis R.

Sullivan, quoted above, says "It is possible to pre-dict positively that the Chinese, Japanese and Ko-reans can never be assimilated or Americanizedin the sense in which these terms are wont to beused."

It is to be remembered, too, that the Japanesechildren in Hawaii and California have been per-sistently taught in the separate language schools,which they are compelled to attend after publicschool hours, the ideals and national and racialaspirations of Japan; that a Survey Commissionof the Department of Education at Washington in1920 denounced these schools in Hawaii as "un-American if not anti-American" and recommendedthey be abolished (Bulletin No. 16, 1920) ; and thatHawaii has been fighting since to secure such con-trol of these schools as will guard against Japan-ization of the young children who have receivedthe privileges of American citizenship.As further evidence in the same direction, thou-

12


19/24

sands of the young Japanese children born in Cali-fornia and Hawaii are sent back to Japan eachyear to remain there at school for from five to tenyears, until they have reached ages between 17 and19. They return then to the United States defi-nitely fixed in their loyalty to Japan, and yet en-titled to the rights of American citizenship. FromSan Francisco alone 6,649 children of ages gener-allv below ten years were sent back for this pur-pose in the three years ending July 1, 1922, asshown by immigration department records. In 1921the number of young American citizens of Japaneseparentage thus being trained in Japan in Japanesecitizenship included 20,000 from Hawaii and be-tween 12,000 and 15,000 from California.The best indication of the value of the material

in the average Japanese for American citizenshipis what they will do on the average, or en masse,after reaching maturity and under stress. Hawaiihas furnished an illustration. The Hawaiian sugarplanters encouraged the entrance of Japanese asplantation laborers, and for many years were warmadvocates of their value in that regard, and of themerit of their children as American citizens. In1921, following the general strike by Japanese, con-stituting a majority of the laborers employed onthe sugar plantations, the Hawaiian Legislaturesent a commission of planters to Washington, toask Congress to protect the territory against thethreatened domination of land and industry by theJapanese. The Commission urged that the Immi-gration Law be so amended that Hawaii mightimport Chinese, in the hope of driving out theJapanese thereby. In the course of a hearing be-fore the House Immigration Committee (see the pub-lished transcript) statements were made on behalfof Hawaii to the effect that the sugar strike was anattempt on the part of the Japanese, as a race, tosecure possession of the sugar plantations by caus-ing loss to the owners and then buying them inwith Japanese capital; that the strike had becomein effect a racial conflict, in which practically everyJapanese on the Island of Oahu, whether alien orAmerican born, whether Christian, or Buddhist orShintoist, and acting either voluntarily or underduress, was assisting his race in this fight, by sub-scription or action.

13


20/24

THE PROBLEM OF DUAL CITIZENSHIPThe Gulick statement claims that the law passed

by the Japanese Diet July 1, 1924, and effectiveDecember 1, 1925, does away with the problem ofdual citizenship by "recognizing the exclusiveAmerican citizenship of American born children."That statement is a mistake.The United States is the only nation in the world

which confers the great privilege of citizenshipupon all children born to aliens within its borders,and entirely regardless of the fitness or desire ofthe recipients for citizenship when they shall reachmajority. The grave consequences following oper-ation of this provision of our National Constitu-tion are seen in the case of the Japanese. Up toDecember, 1925, the law of Japan practically deniedto its citizens the privilege of expatriation, for itpermitted such withdrawal from Japanese citizen-ship only between the ages of 15 and 17, and thenon application of parents, or guardians, and formalapproval by the Home Office. In consequence, in1920, out of 90,000 or more Japanese born underthe Stars and Stripes and holding thereby all rightsof American citizenship, only 64 had been permittedto expatriate by Japan, and only 72 had appliedfor that privilege. The publication of this fact inthe United States created so much adverse criti-cism, particularly in the Territory of Hawaii, thatmore applications for expatriation were receivedand more favorable consideration given to thosemade, particularly during the past two years, sothat by the end of 1924 when the new law referredto went into effect, Japan had granted the privilegeof expatriation to something less than 2,000 of the130,000 or more Japanese born in the United Statesup to that time.The new Japanese law, in the shape of anamendment to the act which has been in force formany years, provides that a Japanese born there-

after in any one of certain designated countrieswherein he shall have acquired nationality thereby,shall lose Japanese nationality from birth unless hedeclares the intention to retain that nationality;and that a Japanese born in Japan, or born priorto operation of the amendment, in a country con-ferring citizenship by birth, may renounce Japanese

14


21/24

nationality at will, if he retains the nationality ofthe foreign country and has domicile therein.

It will be seen therefrom that any Japanese al-ready born in this country and enjoying Americancitizenship does not lose his Japanese nationalityunless he formally renounces it. Arthur Henning,Staff Correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, inletters from Hawaii, May, 1925, stated that theJapanese had shown so little interest in renounc-ing nationality under the new law that the Jap-anese Consul was urging them to take steps thereto.It is equally plain that under the new law a Jap-anese born hereafter in this country may retainhis Japanese citizenship by registration with theJapanese Consul at the time of his birth; and thatcourse is still being generally, if not universally,pursued. The result is that with comparativelyfew exceptions, considering the great number ofJapanese in this country, the new law has madelittle change in the dual citizenship of Japanese.This disinclination of Japanese to relinquish

their citizenship is not a fault, but a virtue inthem, and furnishes one of the outstanding rea-sons for the great national solidarity of Japan,unique among the nations of the earth. But itfurnishes an equally good reason why the averageJapanese may not make a good citizen of theUnited States.

THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESSFrom public and private expressions of promi-

nent members of Congress, it is gathered that thequota plan for Japan, now demanded by Gulickand Wickersham, in the name of several organiza-tions, was fully considered by Congress and con-demned for a number of reasons, the action on thisissue in each House being practically unanimous.Adoption of the plan would entail abandonment ofthe Nation's established policy of excluding aliensineligible to citizenship and of the principle uponwhich that policy is founded; it would necessitategranting a similar privilege to all Asiatic races,or gratuitously offending many of them by discrim-inating against them and in favor of Japanese; itis known now that the quota plan alone would notsatisfy Japan and her friends, and that it would

15


22/24


23/24


24/24

America and Japan - Their Treatment of Foreigners and Resulting Conditions

Documents

Transcript of America and Japan - Their Treatment of Foreigners and Resulting Conditions