Fundamentally, it is open to question whether a group of persons has any moral right to refuse newcomers on the ground of previous occupation. But after all we must take this selfish world as it is, and find some practical means to ameliorate the evils. Otherwise we shall make a mess of the whole matter. So let us agree that there is such a thing as "sovereignty" to regulate immigration.

But, if we conceive of sovereignty as absolute and unlimited, just as eighteenth and nineteenth century jurists thought of private property as absolute and unlimited, international life would become unbearable and no sound international cooperation in the cause of world civilization would be possible. Therefore, I submit that "sovereignty" of the state as applied to immigration be so exercised that the interests and requirements of all of mankind be duly taken into account, that the desires of the people of other nations as well as those of its own people be not unduly restricted, or that the feelings and sensibilities of other nations or races be unduly injured by too vigorous assertion of the so-called "sovereign right." With this wider outlook in mind, allow me to consider what the immigration policies should be in the countries bordering on the Pacific.

With regard to the conditions on which the admission of immigration should be based, I submit the following:

1. The conditions or standards of admission should be objective and open.

2. They should not disregard the principle of equality of states.

3. They should be administered not arbitrarily, but according to rules. 4. They should not make any discrimination on the grounds of race or nationality.

5. They should be based on personal merit, such as age, health, education, moral and pecuniary conditions of the immigrant.

With regard to the rights and duties of the immigrant, who has been already admitted, we must on one hand, pay due respect to the desires or demands of the people already there that their minimum economic welfare be not threatened by overflow of unlimited immigration or by cut-throat competition of cheap labor. On the other hand, the immigrant must be placed in a fair situation to be able to work out his own destiny by the sweat of his brow. Balancing these desires or demands, I submit:

1. Once an immigrant resides in a new country, he must be allowed fair and equitable economic and social treatment, equal to that of the oldtimers.

2. He should receive the same scale of wages, so that the equilibrium of the labor market be not unduly disturbed.

3. He should be admitted to cooperate in the establishment and maintenance of conditions of labor in that community.

4. In return for obtaining fair and equitable treatment, economic and social, the immigrant should, so far as possible, merge himself into the general condition of life of the community.

5. With regard to political rights to be accorded the new immigrant, different considerations enter into the question.

a. If the immigrant intends to stay temporarily, it is just that he should not be allowed to participate in political affairs of the receiving state, for he owes allegiance to his mother state, and double allegiance is not desirable.

b. But if the immigrant intends to stay permanently, the receiving state should make the way smooth for him to obtain the status of a citizen. Lastly, I should like to say a few words about "assimilation." Fundamentally, we have no moral right to deny a person the choice of any kind of culture he pleases. But it should be recognized that in order for a state to allow an alien to live in its territory, a certain degree of assimilation (a respect for and obedience to the social custom of the people) is desirable, if not absolutely necessary. Thus, I submit:

1. The receiving state should not do anything to prevent assimilation, but rather should take active steps to facilitate it.

2. The immigrant should not lead an isolated life with his fellows by the establishment of separate schools, organizations, etc. Much less should the emigrant State encourage emigrants to do so.

The above principles, which I humbly submit for your consideration, are the postulates for future immigration policies formulated in view of the exigencies of state sovereignty on one hand, and of international solidarity on the other. The details must be worked out by further studies, but I hope that rough as they are, they may serve as the critiques for more enlightened immigration as well as emigration policies.

17. THE INTERESTS OF LABOR IN THE PROBLEMS OF THE PACIFIC

BY PAUL SCHARRENBERG

Ever since communication and transportation became established between the countries bordering on the Pacific labor's interest has been largely centered upon the problems incident to immigration.

In America the Oriental immigration problem has always been distinctively a California problem. For seventy years the working people of California have striven for legislation prohibiting the further immigration of Oriental laborers. Certain internationalists and intellectuals of various

shades have expressed doubts about the wisdom of adopting an exclusion policy. Men and women whose occupations have brought them into direct contact with the Chinese and Japanese have never had but one opinion as to the significance of their admission. Whether in the mining camps in the early fifties, in the factories and workshops of the later period of industrial development, or as tillers of the soil, we find the same bitter complaint of the evils of such competition.

If Californians had been able to legislate on the subject the question would have been settled long before the Chinese had arrived in sufficient numbers to constitute a serious problem. However, under our system of government Congress claims exclusive right to regulate immigration, hence it was necessary to convince the nation before the desired relief could be obtained. This was not an easy task. The small minority within the State whose interests were opposed to restrictive legislation were greatly reinforced by the merchants of older states, who feared to jeopardize the rich trade of the Orient, and by idealists who were loath to recognize the world-old significance of race in the application of their theories of political and social equality. Only by the persistent and sustained effort of the working people of California first the State and then the Nation were converted to the policy of Chinese exclusion.

No sooner had the Chinese immigration problem been disposed of when the menace of unrestricted Japanese immigration came to the front with startling rapidity.

For 250 years prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry, Japan had excluded all foreigners (barbarians), except a small number of Dutch traders who were, however, restricted to a small island. Commodore Perry anchored off Uraga on July 7, 1853. Five years later the first official treaty between the United States and Japan was signed to take effect on July 4, 1859.

Only 33 years later, in 1892, the American Federation of Labor convention adopted resolutions demanding extension of the Chinese exclusion act so as to include Japanese. And fifteen years after this demand was made, that is, in 1907, a so-called "gentlemen's agreement" was arrived at through diplomatic negotiations whereby the Japanese government agreed to keep laborers from America.

But the "gentlemen's agreement" did not settle the problem. As is well known the agitation for "exclusion by law" continued and finally led to the passage of the present immigration restriction law, reluctantly approved by President Coolidge on May 26, 1924.

Since that time, in replying to certain violent critics, President Coolidge declared, "The incident is closed, we must seek by some means beside im

migration to demonstrate the friendship and respect we feel for the Japanese nation." Notwithstanding this clear and concise statement certain well meaning, but badly misguided folks still insist that America's laws relating to immigration and naturalization should be modified to meet the objections raised by certain other nations. In considering this subject the following points should be borne in mind:

Immigration is a domestic problem. International law so recognizes and so defines it.

A sovereign nation has the right to determine who shall be admitted to citizenship. It is an inalienable right of sovereignty and self-government. It is a necessary law of self-preservation.

A nation which yields or delegates this right becomes a subject nation, subject to the will of other nations which have no immigration problem.

Organized labor of America can fully understand, even sympathize with the viewpoint and some of the objections to the exclusion law which have been advanced by the Japanese themselves. But it is extremely difficult to follow the arguments constantly presented by the self-appointed American spokesmen for Japan. In fact, it is becoming the fixed opinion of many Americans that our Japanese friends would not be nearly so indignant about America's exclusion law were it not for the American missionaries and some of America's own diplomats. These self-labeled friends of Japan have worked overtime to convince the Japanese that they have been insulted and grievously wronged.

So far as American labor is concerned let me say with all the emphasis at my command that no insult was intended and no wrong doing contemplated.

In common with the views of big business the American labor movement heartily favors an equalization of wages and working conditions in the countries bordering on the Pacific. However, there is this difference in the mutual desire for equalization. Big business wants to equalize downwardto bring all the workers to the level of the exploited toilers in China; American labor wants to equalize things in the opposite direction—to raise wages and improve the living conditions of all workers so that there will be no further need for discriminatory exclusion laws.

True, there has been a growing tendency in America to discriminate. against Orientals in other respects. In considering this subject let me remind my friends from the Orient that Americans are prone even to discriminate against each other.

Many of our states virtually disfranchise the native born negro and heap more shameful indignities upon him. Our Ku Klux Klan openly advocates and practises discrimination against all foreign born citizens and

against many millions of Americans who worship at any other altar than do the bigoted members of the Klan.

Present discrimination against the Japanese is largely based upon fear and apprehension-not upon a belief in race superiority or upon race prejudice.

When Japan has frankly accepted the exclusion law as a settled fact, when the people of Western America feel that migration from the Orient has really come to an end, when as a natural sequence all unpleasant agitation has ceased, then the desire for discrimination will pass away. sure labor in America will do its utmost to hasten the coming of the brighter day when nothing but unpleasant memories shall remind us of discriminatory practises.

The candid exchange of opinion at this conference will undoubtedly help to allay distrust and remove misunderstanding in all the lands facing the great Pacific ocean. To me, it has been truly inspiring that men and women of attainment and real vision have been able to meet in this beautiful island to frankly discuss the problem of human relations on the Pacific. Surely, there is every reason to hope that the story of the human race inhabiting the shores of the Pacific will read different from the tragic history of Europe where peace has reigned only for brief and precarious interludes.

The fine example already set by this Institute should go a long way to remove distrust and friction. And unless all signs fail, a Pacific Labor Conference, to be held in the not distant future, will further consider and develop some of the beautiful thoughts expressed at this convention. Here on the Pacific the men and women who toil are surely facing a better and brighter future. The gospel of organized self-help has taken a firm hold in Japan and China. Bolshevism and other brands of extreme radicalism may delay the perfection of a strong and self-reliant labor movement in the Orient, but the leaven is working. The wonderful story we have heard about the mass education movement in China gives comforting assurance that ignorance will not much longer hold the masses of the Orient in poverty and abject submission. No power on earth can prevent the workers from making progress when the path is blazed by education and well diffused knowledge.

I hope the day is not far distant when so-called military attaches to embassies will have been dispensed with and labor attaches substituted. The republic of Mexico has already appointed a labor attache to its embassy at Washington.

Military attaches have studied everything relating to fighting. The duty of labor attaches will be to study everything pertaining to living and, above all, how to live in peace and harmony with our neighbors.