FACTS ABOUT THE JAPANESE IN CALIFORNIA--FARMERS AND ALIEN LAND LAWS
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
farmers.
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
California.
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
constitution.[38]
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
chapter.
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
provides:
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
citizens.[40]
(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
California.[41]
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
citizens.
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
land;
(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
stated:
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
law.
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
do.
(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 cooeperation. 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.