I I L I California s Answer to Japan Japan's Honor Not Hurt by the Immigration Act Story of the Facts A Reply to the Special Edition of the Japan Times (of Tokyo) and its Friendly "Message from Japan to America" Published by CALIFORNIA JOINT IMMIGRATION" COMMITTEE 910 Humboldt Bank Bldg. San Francisco Foreword The "Japan Times" of Tokyo, the oldest Eng- lish language newspaper of Japan, now owned and published by Japanese, issued on October 1, 1924, a special edition of 20 pages under the title "Message from Japan to America," devoted entirely to consideration of the question which has arisen between the two nations in connection with the subject of immigration. In this issue, between 60 and 70 of the most prominent Japanese in various walks of life pre- sent their views on the subject partly in answer to a comprehensive questionaire from the "Times." The contributors include officials of the govern- ment, peers of Parliament, heads of the great financial, shipping and commercial interests, prominent educators and journalists, leaders of the great civic organizations, and private citizens of international repute, like Viscount Shibusawa, Motasado Zumoto, the "Col. House" of Japan, and others. The edition presents a striking symposium of Japanese opinion on the subject, such as had not been offered before. The object sought by the publication is aptlv expressed in an editorial explanation, one para- graph of which reads as follows: — "The Japan Times has solicited the letters and articles herein published in order to present them as a message from Japan to America in the hope that this message will rekindle the fires of true understanding, and in the future hope that this publication of views and opinions will elicit a message from America to Japan in the form of as equally a frank and broad expression of American views." The editorial further declares the belief of the editors that such an exchange of honest opinions will clear away existing misunderstandings and lead to renewal and permanent maintenance of the old international friendship, and states that if an answering message be had from America it will be published in a bi-lingual edition. The tone of the contributed articles is generally restrained, showing pain rather than anger, and an apparent inability to understand the motive which impelled Congress to take action providing for exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship. A resume of catagorical answers to the questionaire discloses the following interesting picture of indi- vidual Japanese opinion. "Is immigration a purely domestic question" is answered affirmatively by 27, negatively by 16, and conditionally by 21. These conditional replies concede the theoretical and moral right to exclude, but claim it should not be exercised so as to dis- turb international relations, or as between nations of equal honor and dignity, or where there is understanding such as the "Gentlemen's Agree- ment," or if it violates rights already acquired, or if it disregards the friendly attitude of Japan, etc. The exclusion paragraph of the Immigration Act is held discriminatory against Japanese by 58 while 5 say "It cannot be helped." A quota provision based on the census of 1890, and restricting Japanese as immigrants on the same basis as other nationalities but allowing entrance of only 100 Japanese per year, would be satisfactory to 9 and unsatisfactory to 37, while 20 express acquiescence in such a restriction for various reasons such as : — "it would be the best obtainable," "it is better than exclusion," "it is in- convenient to Japan's interest but we must accept the theory," "Japan had already agreed under the Gentlemen's Agreement to send no emigrants to America," etc. Japan's policy in allowing the lower coolie class to form the bulk of Japanese immigration to America is deprecated by 32, while 11 hold that Japanese immigrants were not inferior to European immigrants, IS say the natural eco- nomic law was followed, and 7 declare America's demands responsible for the class introduced. As to President Coolidge's statement that "the incident is closed," 8 agree, 52 hold to the contrary and 4 "do not care." As to the motive which impelled Congress to act, 40 ascribe it to race prejudice, 10 to the in- ferior type of Japanese immigration and the eco- nomic competition fostered thereby, 5 to momen- tary impulsiveness, 4 to party politics, and 2 to suspicion of Japan's policy in the Far East. The articles which accompany the answers to the questionaire from many of the contributors exhibit even more strikingly the general misunder- standing which exists among the Japanese in Japan as to the facts and as to the motives of Congress. Realizing that no satisfactory adjustment of our relations with Japan can be reached until there is on both sides full knowledge of the facts, and desirous of doing its part to promote the necessary understanding of those facts, the California Joint Immigration Committee was prompt to accept the friendly suggestion of the Japan Times and mailed on Dec. 23rd, a letter, reprinted herewith, for consideration of the contributors to the special edition of the Times. In that letter there is an attempt to set forth without color the facts as they are understood on this side of the Pacific by those intimately familiar therewith, and particularly as to certain phases which are clearly misapprehended in Japan. The misunderstanding as to these matters has been encouraged undoubtedly by misinformation, advice and suggestion sent by friends of Japan in this country, acting in good faith, but without sufficient knowledge and certainly with little discretion. For full understanding of the points at issue, and of the manner in which. Japanese opinion has been misled, the letter to the Times, Dec. 23rd, reproduced herewith, should be read in conjunc- tion with the letter of July 23rd, to the Editor of Nichi Bei, San Francisco, to which reference is made. This latter letter is also in reprint, under the title "Congress and Japan." JAMES K FISK dept. adj. american legion [chairman] PAUL SCHARRENBERG sec.-treas. state fed. of labor GEO. R. HARRISON MASTER STATE GRANGE California Joint Immigration Committee 910 Humboldt Bank Building PHONE GARFIELD 2697 San Francisco, Cal. EDWARD J. LYNCH GRAND PRES. NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN WIST HON. U. S. WEBB STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HON. JAMES D. PHELAN [treasurer! V. S. McCLATCHY [secretary] December 23, 1924. To the Editor of the Japan Times, Tokyo, Japan: Sir: The special issue of the Japan Times of October 1st, "A Message from Japan to America" is most interesting for it sets forth the views of many of the leaders of Japan as to the existing misunderstanding between the two nations on the subject of immigration. This statement is written in response to your expressed desire (page 3) that the publication would elicit a frank expression of American views in order that, thru such exchange, misunderstand- ings might be removed and the friendship between the two countries restored to a secure footing. The statement is written on behalf of the Cali- fornia Joint Immigration Committee, representing four state organizations — American Legion, State Federation of Labor, State Grange and Native Sons of the Golden West — which have been prominent for some years past in urging exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship, but which have been equally urgent in insisting on just and cour- teous treatment for all aliens of that class, now legally resident in the country. In the many expressions of opinion which you publish, two things stand out prominently; the desire of the Japanese to retain the friendship of the United States, if it can be done without sacri- fice of their own self respect, and a general mis- understanding of the point of view of this nation, and of the basic facts and reasons which seemed ample justification to Congress for its practically unanimous action in enacting into a general law our long established and strictly maintained policy of excluding aliens ineligible to citizenship. Many of these points are discussed in my letter of July 23, 1924, to my good friend, Mr. K. Abiko, Editor of "Nichi Bei," of this city, copy of which is en- closed. Other points suggested by your special edition will be considered here. NEITHER ILL WILL NOR POLITICS First, and most important. The action of Con- gress was not prompted by ill will on its part, or on that of the American people, toward the Japanese. The exclusion paragraph of the Im- migration Act would have been passed if the Hanihara letter, with its suggestion of "grave consequences," had not been written, tho doubt- less not with such unanimity. Nor is there in- volved any question of assumed racial superiority. In the face of what Japan and the Japanese have done and are doing, and what we know of them thru contact, such a belief on the part of this nation would convict it of lack of intelligence. It is equally a mistake to assume that the result was due to local racial prejudice, or was manipu- lated by political schemers. The practically unani- mous action of Congress in the matter, without distinction as to party, or class, or district, or administration affiliations, and the close co-opera- tion of such widely different national organiza- tions as the American Federation of Labor, the American Legion and the National Grange (farmers), furnish conclusive disproof of such charges. NOT RACIAL PREJUDICE In the editorial comment made by the Japan "Times" reference is had to the unanimity with which its correspondents ascribe the action of Congress to "race prejudice unaffected by either economic or labor Question." That conclusion is not shared by well-informed Japanese living in California, where race prejudice, if it existed, would be most rampant. In fact, one of your contributors, Mrs. Ito-ko Niizuma, who had lived in California, bears witness to the contrary. If there had been here the intense racial prejudice which the "Times" edition stresses, nothing could have saved the Japanese in California from seri- ous mistreatment during the past few years when they were displacing white men and women in economic competition, as at Turlock and else- where. There is always more or less dormant racial feeling between races widely different, based on misunderstanding of each other; and racial fric- tion will inevitably ensue, when an alien race, thru peaceful penetration, commences to displace the home race in its own country. That would be true anywhere, and perhaps more so in Japan than elsewhere. President Roosevelt called at- tention to the fact that racial strife would ensue if Japanese penetration were encouraged in this country. Conditions which existed early in this year undoubtedly did encourage such penetration, and the basic reason for the action by Congress was the certainty that racial trouble on the Pacific Coast could be averted only by prompt and de- cisive action promising actual remedy. It was charged many years ago that racial prejudice inspired passage of the Exclusion Act against the Chinese. But there is found in Cali- fornia today no antagonistic feeling against the Chinese. Why? Because they have ceased to be an economic menace under the operation of the exclusion act. There would be today no symp- toms of racial feeling against Japanese on the Pacific Coast if the Gentlemen's Agreement had successfully removed the menace of economic competition and increase of alien unassimilable population, as it was intended to do. The present friction in California will disappear as Japanese penetration gradually decreases, unless Japan and the Japanese keep the friction alive by unwise action. PUBLIC OPINION SUPPORTS CONGRESS Japan has been misled, too, in believing that the sentiment of the nation does not support the action of Congress. Congress would not have dared with unanimity to take such an important step unless assured of public endorsement. It is true that there was much publicly expressed op- position to the action, both before and after pas- sage of the bill. But that criticism was due in greater part to ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts and reasons in which Congress saw justification of its policy. As those matters be- come generally known Congress is receiving the endorsement which it confidently believed would follow such knowledge. NOT DISCRIMINATORY The "Times" criticizes the act of Congress on the ground that it "affects the Japanese alone of all races heretofore eligible to enter the United States." It is a mistake to assume that the Japanese were recognized as eligible to enter continental United States any more than any of the other races ineligible for citizenship under our laws. Chinese, Hindus and other nationalities of the yellow and brown races entered under suf- ferance for a time, but were barred when their numbers justified concern. The same is true of the Japanese; but in the case of the latter, at Japan's request, it was agreed the exclusion measure should be carried into effect by Japan, instead of by this government as was done in other cases. What Japan has gained since then in entrance of her people and in increase of Japanese popu- lation in continental United States has been secured thru failure of the Gentlemen's Agree- ment in operation to accomplish what Japan , — 8— agreed with President Roosevelt it should ac- complish. President Coolidge, who thruout this matter has certainly shown his friendship for Japan, cor- rectly described the situation when he said in his -speech of acceptance of the nomination for President, August 14, 1924, "Restricted immigra- tion is not an offensive but a purely defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and gov- ernment will fail unless America be kept Ameri- can." The charge that discrimination was shown against Japan falls to the ground on investigation. The exclusion provision itself certainly is not dis-" criminatory, since it simply reiterates a general policy in force for over forty years, the pro- priety of which Japan conceded when she made the Gentlemen's Agreement; and since it applies to half the population of the globe, of which por- tion the Japanese constitute perhaps seven per cent. Congress followed this plan to accomplish a necessary result, because the plan was not dis- criminatory, and because the only other practical plan, an exclusion act against the Japanese, would have been discriminatory on its face and a wound to Japan's pride. Nevertheless, such an exclusion act would have been in strict accord with the understanding had by President Roosevelt with Japan under which an exclusion law was to be enacted if the Gentlemen's Agreement failed in operation. The Times editorial insists that Japan does not object to exclusion, but does object to discrimina- tion against her people. Careful investigation, however, shows that it is really exclusion to which Japan objects, and that she would protest as dis- criminatory any exclusion of her people which did not at the same time exclude all peoples on the globe. THE UNITED STATES PROBLEM In the past two or three decades the United States has received as immigrants many millions of alien people who have not been assimilated and who apparently cannot be assimilated for some —9— generations at least. Thru them the standard of citizenship, particularly in certain localities, has depreciated, and we were threatened with an an- nual inflow of 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 of still less desirable immigrants if the gates remained open. Public opinion demanded, as a protective measure, either drastic restriction of immigration or abso- lute exclusion for a term of years; and Congress, in obedience to that sentiment, passed the present radical measure. European immigration has been cut down thereby to about 260,000 annually, whereas, under the previous restrictive act about 600,000 had been coming in, and before the great war, under our open gate policy, the number had been as high as 1,250,000. In the new lengthy restricted immigration act of 20 pages, the so-called exclusion provision oc- cupies only one short paragraph of seven lines, and provides simply that no alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted unless he come as student, diplomat, tourist or merchant. In a law intended to limit to a minimum the entrance of elements difficult of assimilation it is certainly logical to exclude those who under our own laws may not become citizens and are there- fore hopelessly unassimilable. (Assimilation is used in this connection by me always in the sense of absorption or amalgamation.) The law which makes individuals of the yellow and brown races ineligible to citizenship has been in force for 134 years; and the exclusion feature of the immigration act simply enacts into a general law the established policy of the nation which for 42 years has excluded by government act any of the barred races, when it showed an undue increase in this country. Therefore, until the present law and policy of the nation is changed at the command of public opinion, Con- gress would have no alternative save to act as it did. THE ONLY FEASIBLE PLAN Some claim that the intent of this nation's policy could have been carried out by Congress in some way less hurtful to the pride of Japan; but Japan and her friends suggested only three substitute plans— agreement, treaty and quota — and Con- gress showed that no one of the three could be considered for reasons partly explained in my — 10— letter to Mr. Abiko, and partly in this communi- cation. The difficulty was, apparently, that any plan which Japan was willing to consider as properly recognizing her national dignity and pride in- volved a sacrifice either of a sovereign right of this nation, or a Constitutional prerogative of Congress, or made an exception in favor of Japan alone to our general and long established naturali- zation and immigration laws and policies. National pride and dignity are not confined to the Far Eastern shores of the Pacific Ocean; and when these things were understood manifestly Congress would not yield. The Japanese Diet, under similar conditions, would have been forced to adopt a similar policy. It is not necessary for the purposes of this article to consider the justice or injustice, propriety or impropriety, of the policy of this nation in making the yellow and brown races ineligible for citizen- ship, in excluding such races as immigrants, and in refusing to make an exception in favor of the Japanese. It is sufficient to call attention to the established law and policy in these matters, and to say that Congress has no discretion while public sentiment supports the law and policy. If Japan has a legitimate complaint in this mat- ter it is against our nation's established policy as to naturalization and exclusion of those aliens ineligible for citizenship, and not against Congress, which performed its manifest duty in following that policy. Under the circumstances it would seem that Japan's friends in this country, in encouraging her to assume an attitude of criticism and protest against Congress, have shown either a lack of information as to the reasons which induced Con- gressional action, or a lack of discretion in giving advice. It was doubtless the logic of the situation, as thus explained, that led President Coolidge to say in the speech referred to, that while he "should have preferred to continue the policy of exclusion by some method less likely to offend the sensibili- ties of the Japanese people" and while he did what he could "to minimize any harm that might arise, - ' "the law has been passed and the incident is closed. We must seek by some means besides —11— immigration to demonstrate the friendship and respect we feel for the Japanese nation." JAPANESE INCREASE IN NUMBERS In the "Message to America" edition it is said editorially "that Japan does not resent restriction from the United States was evidenced *by the willingness with which this country entered into the 'Gentlemen's Agreement,' which agreement Japan has most scrupulously observed to such an extent that today there are fewer Japanese sub- jects in the United States, including Hawaii, than fifteen years ago." The agreed intent of the Gentlemen's Agree- ment was in line, with the results which are thus credited to it; that is, to prevent an increase of Japanese population in this country. President Roosevelt pointed this out in his telegram to the California Legislature, Feb. 9, 1909, when he assured California that in the arrangement with Japan the Federal Government was "doing the very thing which the people of California wish to have done" ; that the plan was working satis- factorily inasmuch as during the preceding six months (the first six months operation under the Agreement) "the total number of Japanese in the United States had diminished by over 2,000" ; and that "if, in the next year or two the action of the Federal Government fails to achieve what it is now achieving it can be made entirely efficient." By the last statement he meant, as shown by other documents, that if Japan, in her operation of the Gentlemen's Agreement, failed to keep down the Japanese population, then the United States would enact an exclusion law against the Japanese in accordance with the understanding. Unfortunately, you are mistaken in your under- standing as to the results obtained under the Agreement in operation. Far from decreasing in the past 15 years, as you believe, the number of "Japanese subjects in the United States, in- cluding Hawaii" has increased over 123,000. Today there are 275,000 Japanese in the United States— 125,000 in Hawaii, over 100,000 in Cali- fornia, and the remainder in other states of the Union. In 1910, according to the United States Census, there were 151,832 Japanese in the states and territories of the Union, so that in less than 15 years there has been the increase mentioned. —12— Of this entire number, 275,000, all are Japanese subjects with the exception of less than 2,000 who have been permitted to expatriate. And this ■ large Japanese population is being increased by birth alone at the rate of about 13,000 a year, nearly 6,000 of which are credited to Hawaii, and over 5,000 to California. In continental United States, which the Gentle- men's Agreement aimed specially to _ protect against an increase of Japanese population, the increase has been nearly 80,000 — from 72,157 in 1910, to over 150,000 in 1924, while the increase since 1907, when the Gentlemen's Agreement was negotiated, has been nearly 100,000 — from 53,000 to over 150,000. In 1880 there were no Japanese in Hawaii and only 134 in continental United States. To find 275,000 here now, with a steady increase from the coming of relatives, new wives and surep- titious entries, as well as by birth, has caused justifiable concern on the part of those who realize what troubles may be occasioned by the presence in this country of a large unassimilable alien element of a different race, and with superior advantages in economic competition. CONDITIONS IN HAWAII In the Territory of Hawaii today, as shown by the report of Governor Farrington, just pub- lished, the Japanese comprise over 43 per cent of the total population but they furnish more than 50 per cent of the school children. In 1940, ac- cording to estimates of the American Museum of I History, the Japanese will have control of the electorate of the territory; and in the recent elec- tion the Japanese electorate was urged by one of the Japanese newspapers of Honolulu to combine to defeat one of the candidates for Congressional representative who was unpopular with the Japanese. White mechanics and laborers are warned to keep away from Hawaii because in- dustries and trades are controlled by the Japanese. Certain districts in California, where the Japanese had concentrated and secured control of land and industries were threatened with similar results in the future. Entirely apart from the injury thus inflicted upon our own people by a competition which they cannot meet successfully, racial strife would be —13— certain to result in time unless the districts affected had positive assurance that the government was doing what was possible to put an end to the menace thus outlined. It is with difficulty that serious overt acts invited by this situation have been prevented in the past. The action taken by Congress, therefore, while it may seem precipitate to many in Japan, in absence of intimate knowl- edge of all the details, was inspired by necessity, and was taken really to insure future peace be- tween the two nations. EXCLUSION BY JAPAN AND OTHERS No other English speaking country has permitted the Japanese, a virile race with superior advan- tages in economic competition, to gain such a foothold in its territory as has the United States. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have excluded Japanese from the first; and Canada, having had unsatisfactory results from a "Gentle- men's Agreement" under which a comparatively small number of Japanese were supposed to enter each year, is now attempting to exclude absolutely. Please consider that under no circumstances would Japan have permitted the development in her territory of communities of Americans aggre- gating 275,000, or even 100,000, securing control, thru numbers and perhaps use of labor-saving machinery, of certain districts and certain indus- tries; and if the government had been careless in the matter, the Japanese people would have demanded action, and very decisive action. Remember that Japan, in the exercise of her sovereign right, and with a wise discretion, in order to protect the economic welfare of her people, has refused to allow immigration into Japan of the Chinese, who are people of the same color; that China in consequence has made formal protest to Japan against this policy, declaring it most inconsistent in view of Japan's demands upon the United States; and that on Dec. 9th, officers of the Ss. Empress of Russia, in an inter- view at Victoria, B. C., called attention to certain action contemplated by the Japanese Government, which would result in deportation of about 6,000 Chinese, who had located in Tokyo, Osaka and outside prefectures. It is claimed that Imperial ordinance No. 352, under which exclusion of Chinese is enforced, —14— does not specifically exclude Chinese, but gives the authorities in the various prefectures discre- tion to act in the matter. But that discretion is always exercised along the line of the nation's established policy in excluding Chinese. If consistent, Japan would offer no opposition to exclusion of her people from United States, provided it were accomplished under a United States statute granting authority to the respective states to exercise their discretion in the matter, and if the various states adopted exclusion meas- ures against the Japanese. That, however, is precisely the plan under which land ownership and control is regulated in the United States, the Federal Constitution con- ceding to each state supreme authority in such matters so far as concerns lands within its own boundaries. And yet Japan has bitterly protested the action of California and other states in exer- cising this right, not in a discriminatory way against Japan, but as against all aliens ineligible to citizenship, the reason for such protest being that the regulations incidentally apply to Japa- nese. AN UNSATISFACTORY AGREEMENT It has been said in behalf of Japan that if the Gentlemen's Agreement were unsatisfactory in operation to the United States, Japan would have been willing to take up consideration of any modi- fication of its terms desired. To that suggestion this frank reply is made; for good understanding can come only thru frankness on both sides: For a number of reasons, some of which are indicated in the Abiko letter, and some here, Congress would not consent to a continuance of the existing Gentlemen's Agreement, or a modifi- cation thereof, or the adoption of another similar Agreement. Any one of these reasons would seem to furnish justifiable grounds for the decision, but taken together they are unanswerable. The main reasons may be thus briefly summarized: — 1. The Gentlemen's Agreement is a secret compact; and neither Congress nor the American public is satisfied to have matters of vital national concern regulated by a secret understanding. Our motto is now and for the future, "open covenants, openly arrived at." Even the House Immigration Committee, which originates or passes on all —15— immigration legislation, was not permitted to see this Agreement at a time when intimate knowledge thereof was necessary if the Committee were to pass intelligently on the request of the Territory of Hawaii for certain amendments to the Immi- gration Law. Secretary of State Hughes, in his letter to the Committee, Aug. 16, 1921, (published in House Immigration Committee Report "Labor Problems in Hawaii," page 928) stated that the correspondence embodying the Agreement is con- fidential and cannot be shown without Japan's permission. The Department of Labor, which, thru its im- migration section, formulates regulations for handling immigration under the general authority of Congress, has not seen and has not access to the Gentlemen's Agreement (see letter Feb. 15, 1924, quoted in report of House Committee, March 24, 1924, at page 7). The only official statement issued by our Government in explanation of the terms of the Gentlemen's Agreement, appears in the report of the Commissioner of Immigration, 1908. That statement is entirely misleading as to the intent and purpose of the Agreement, according to the testimony of President Roosevelt, under whose direction the Agreement was made (see Roose- velt's telegram to the California Legislature, Feb. 9, 1909, his letter to Hon. Wm. Kent, Feb. 6, 1909, and his autobiography, pages 411 to 414). 2. The Agreement surrendered to Japan this nation's sovereign right of determining how many and what particular Japanese should enter this country, our immigration officials at the ports of entry being compelled to allow entrance of any Japanese who presented himself with Japan's passport, unless he were afflicted with disease. 3. Immigration is a domestic question, the control of which, under our Constitution, rests with Congress. Regulation of immigration by the Executive, thru treaty or agreement, is an invasion of the Congressional prerogative, which Congress decided should no longer be permitted. During the present century our immigration from every nation except Japan has entered under the terms of general or special acts of Congress. Congress saw no reason why Japanese immigra- tion alone should be given a special dispensation. —16— 4. Under the Agreement, as operated, Japa- nese aliens were given privileges refused to American citizens in bringing in alien wives. Certain citizens of California who married wives in Australia and England, were not permitted to bring them in, because the respective quotas of those countries had been exhausted; but in that same year, 1923-24, over 2,000 alien Japanese, living in the states of Washington and California, were permitted to bring in that number of alien brides from Japan; and any additional number could have been brought in under the Agreement as operated. 5. The Agreement was made nominally to protect continental United States from an in- crease of Japanese population. Incidentally, it sacrificed Hawaii, giving Japan an entirely free hand in colonizing there, with the result that this American territory is now a Japanese colony, nearly one half the entire population and over one half the school children being Japanese. Con- gress decided that Hawaii is as much entitled to protection as any other territory or any state of the Union; and that, therefore, the Agreement must be cancelled. 6. The Agreement has failed in operation to accomplish its agreed purpose — that is to prevent an increase of Japanese population in continental United States, as explained earlier in this letter. The Agreement should have been cancelled by the government as soon as this fact became evi- dent. California has called attention to this situa- tion repeatedly during a number of years past; and Congress was compelled to act, since the Administration refused or failed to do so. It would be unfair to say that all or any of these counts against the provisions or the opera- tion of the Gentlemen's Agreement are chargeable to bad faith on the part of Japan, since the con- ditions created by or following operation of the Agreement were tolerated, where they were not approved, by the United States Government. The facts conclusively prove, however, that the results obtained under the Agreement; first, have not. been such as President Roosevelt agreed with Japan should be obtained; and second, have been such as to demonstrate conclusively the unwisdom —17— of making the Agreement originally, and of the continuance of that or any similar plan. RECAPITULATION To recapitulate then the points of this state- ment : — The action of Congress in excluding all aliens ineligible to citizenship was not inspired by feeling on its part against the Japanese, nor by local prejudice, nor by political schemers. There is no proof, even in California, and among those most insistent on an exclusion policy, of ill will against the Japanese. The Japanese themseh r es and the well informed friends of Japan in this state bear witness to that fact. The action was taken by Congress in line with the long established policy of the nation to protect its citizens and its institutions thru exclusion of certain elements of immigration — a similar policy to that followed justly and rigidly by Japan. The plan inaugurated in agreement with Japan more than 15 years ago to secure the desired results, so far as concerns Japanese, had signally failed, the blame for that failure being chargeable in large part to the blunders and tolerance of our own government. Congress insists that the plan now adopted is the only practical one, which, while effective can- not be fairly considered offensive or discriminatory. None of the three other plans suggested by Japan and her friends could be followed for conclusive reasons developed in Congressional investigations. The protest made by Japan and her friends against this action of Congress is shown now to have been based largely on a misconception of the facts and the reasons which induced that action. Congress, certain that it was right, took action, notwithstanding the expressed opposition of cer- tain elements and interests in the nation; and as understanding of these matters becomes general that action steadily gains the aprpoval of loya. Americans who formerly criticized it. The American Congress, convinced that its position is right, is not likely to recede from its position under influence of actions or gestures which, however, diplomatically framed, or by whatever agency made, must be construed as —18— demands or threats in a matter involving this nation's sovereignty. And that portion of the American public which comprises Japan's friends and well wishers cannot continue to support her in the face of the facts, as they become generally known, without a serious strain on their loyalty to the nation. That situation will be better understood in Japan if it be assumed that conditions are re- versed, and that it is Japan which for good reasons in protection of her own people, is enforcing a long established policy of exclusion against the white race, and that the United States is pro- testing and demanding exception to the law in favor of her own people. Under these conditions how long would Japan receive formal protest and be made the object of appeal to the League of Nations and of abuse and threat on the part of the American newspapers and public gatherings without making sharp rejoinder? And how long would church and peace organizations of Japan support the United States in its contention, or be permitted to do so by the loyal people of Japan? This statement is not written for the purpose of criticism, however, but in the hope that a frank consideration of facts on both sides and incidental correction of misunderstandings which may have arisen will remove causes of friction and pave the way for satisfactory adjustment of existing problems and for permanent restoration of friendlv relations. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S SOLUTION President Roosevelt suggested the practical solution of the immigration problem, sure in its result and offering no offense to Japan's suscepti- bilities, when, in Feb. 1909, he wrote to Hon. Wm. Kent of California as follows: "Let the arrangement between Japan and the United States be entirely reciprocal. Let the Japanese and Americans visit one another's countries with entire freedom as tourists, scholars, professors, sojourners for study or pleasure, or for purposes of international business, but keep out laborers, men who want to take up farms, men who want to go into the small trades, or even in professions where the work is of a non-international char- acter; that is, keep out of Japan those Americans who wish to settle and become part of the resi- —19 — dent working population, and keep out of America those Japanese who wish to adopt a similar atti- tude. This is the only wise and proper policy. It is merely a recognition of the fact, that in the present stages of social advancement of the two peoples, whatever may be the case in the future, it is not only undesirable, but impossible, that there should be intermingling on a large scale, and the effort is sure to bring disaster. Let each country also behave with scrupulous courtesy, fairness and consideration to the other." If Japan and Japan's friends had recognized the necessity of an exclusion policy in the interests of both nations and had devoted their efforts to some such reciprocal arrangement as w r as sug- gested by President Roosevelt, instead of insisting that the long established policy of this nation must be changed in favor of the Japanese, the present friction might have been avoided. Or, if the facts, as they are now known, had been recog- nized and cenceded by Japan and her friends a year or more ago, and an attempt made to inaugurate a policy which would fit those facts, it is not improbable that Japan's diplomacy would have found in the action of Congress the same lack of discrimination, insult and injury as it concedes in the regulations of the Dominions of Great Britain for carrying out a similar exclusion policy. It is certain that this committee, and the four California organizations which it represents, and the leaders of Japanese thought in this state, and the more conservative and well informed among Japan's friends here, are doing what they can to prevent increased friction and to correct existing misunderstandings, and thus pave the way for perfect restoration of good will and cordiality between the two nations. It is fitting that this message from California to Japan should cross the Pacific at the Christmas time. In the hope that the message may be of service in helping to bring about the results so earnestly desired by the thoughtful and loyal and peace loving citizens of both nations, and believ- ing that it will be received in the kindly spirit in which it is sent, Sincerely, The California Joint Immigration Committee. V. S. McClatchy, 48 Secretary.