orchardists and farmers and better tenants than the white men seeking land to lease; and the point is made that in many cases tenant farming by Asiatics is incidental to developing ranches from reclaimed land, or orchards or vineyards from waste or "hay land," and that where this is true, the tenants' contribution to the physical development of the community is an important one. Needless to say this is quite true. One needs only to note the development of the thousands of acres of reclaimed land along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and the gradual expansion of orchards at Watsonville and of vineyards at Florin with incidental strawberry growing by Japanese, to appreciate the contribution to California agricultural development by Asiatic tenant farmers that has been made. There is still much land it would be well to develop in the same way.

Little to be said for and Much against a Prohibition of Leasing. Though tenant farming causes a large number of Japanese to settle in a restricted area and this presents its problems, though the Asiatics generally pay higher rents than other would-be tenants and compete upon an undesirable plane, though their farming tends to prevent rapid progress in the subdivision of large tracts now farmed to be settled and cultivated by the owner and his family, little more can be said in favor of a prohibition of leasing. Much ought to be said against it. To prohibit leasing by Asiatics would be regarded as an unfriendly act and would be far more impolitic than the enactment of the present

law has proved to be. It would be extremely unjust. It would deprive several thousand of a substantial right they have already availed themselves of in leasing many thousands of acres and a right which American subjects would have in Japan if they wished to exercise it. A majority of the tenant farmers have equipped themselves with work animals, tools, and machinery which would be worth little to them if they could neither buy nor lease land. A majority of them have their wives and children here. One object in leasing is to provide them with a home. Were leasing now prohibited, they would be under the necessity of going to other states, returning to Japan, immigrating to the cities, or becoming a part of the more or less migratory labor supply. Perhaps they would most frequently accept the third of these alternatives. If they did, it would be to fit square pegs into round holes, to cause greater competition between small shops in the laundry and other trades, and to place a premium on poor living in the towns and cities. If they reverted to the earlier position of agricultural laborers, it would be cruel in many cases to wives and children. Moreover, most of the good in the social life of the Japanese in the agricultural communities has come with the wives and children who have helped to form a settled population. The prohibition of leasing would not only stand in the way of the assimilation of the Japanese who are here, but would prove to be demoralizing to them.

Thus, while investigation would lead one at

least not to inveigh strongly against the motives of most of those who favor alien land legislation, and to recognize that farming by Asiatics has brought with it its problems, the discriminatory legislation, actual and proposed, is to be deplored. The present prohibition of land ownership is unjust, impolitic, and, with a restricted immigration, unnecessary. The proposed prohibition of leasing would be still It is more unjust, more impolitic, and more objectionable on social grounds than prohibition of ownership, and on the plea of necessity has still slighter excuse.

worse.

CHAPTER IX

JAPANESE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE WESTERN

MIND

Many Measures discriminating against Japanese have been presented to Legislatures. Alien land legislation is only a part of the discriminatory measures which have been proposed against Japanese, most of them in California. For ten years or more numerous bills of a discriminatory character have been presented in the legislature at Sacramento. In 1913 no fewer than thirty-four were introduced. In addition to those relating to land tenure, were bills increasing the license fee of Japanese fishermen, providing for the segregation of Asiatic school children, prohibiting the issuance of liquor licenses to Japanese, forbidding the use of power engines by them, providing for the imposition of a special poll tax upon them, and prohibiting the employment of white women by Asiatics. Discriminatory measures, though far less numerous, have been introduced in the legislatures of some of the other western states also. Thus in Montana a school segregation bill was introduced some years ago but it was unfavorably reported by the committee on military affairs. During the session of 1909 of the Nevada legislature strong anti-Japanese resolutions commending the Japanese land bill and the school

segregation bill then pending in the California legislature were adopted by the lower house, but were defeated in the senate as a result of influence brought to bear from Washington through the United States senators from Nevada.1

Likewise in City Councils. Corresponding to these have been discriminatory ordinances in city councils and other legislative bodies. Reference need be made only to the school segregation order of the San Francisco School Board in 1906 and the refusal, until recently, on the part of the Board of Supervisors of that city to grant Japanese the permits necessary to operate steam laundries.

Most of them not aimed at Real Problems. — Some of these measures were designed to deal with real problems, but most of them have had even less reason than the California alien land law of 1913. They were more than anything else anti-Japanese, just as a great deal of legislation of a few decades ago was anti-Chinese.

Also much Discrimination of an Unofficial Character. Along with the numerous attempts at discrimination in the law much discrimination of an unofficial character has been practiced. Reference has been made to the fairly general discrimination against Japanese practiced by white barbers in the cities of the Pacific Coast. Many "middle price" restaurants, lodging houses, and hotels have, also, discriminated against them. Here and there they are denied admission to moving picture shows or are assigned to special and the less desir1 Immigration Commission, Reports, Vol. 23, p. 172.