Mr. MCCLATCHY. I think not, from President Roosevelt's language. You must remember that we are denied access to the documents, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it has been published, I think, in the House reports somewhere.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. It has never been published. Secretary Hughes in a letter to the House committee, which was published in its hearings within two years at least, specifically said, in response to the request of the committee to be permitted to see what the agreement contained, that it was a confidential correspondence between Japan and the United States and that it could not be shown even to the House Committee on Immigration without the express permission of Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Waiving that for a minute, we entered into that treaty with Japan in 1911, did we not?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a clause of the treaty:

The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

In our consideration of this subject we must draw the distinction between the immigrant; that is, the laborer, if you please, and persons coming here for purposes of trade under the commercial treaties which we have with various countries. Now, the question I was going to ask is whether the Johnson bill would not operate to repeal this provision of the treaty?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I would rather that Attorney General Webb should answer that question. But I understand, of course, that any action along this line by Congress

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, absolutely; a statute repeals a treaty and a treaty repeals a statute.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. May I say just a word right there? There is no doubt whatever as to what was contemplated and agreed to in or by the so-called gentleman's agreement. It was contemplated that there would be a falling off or a decrease in the Japanese population in California, and in so far as Japan could they promised to carry out that agreement.

Now, the agreement has not been carried out, and there has been a very great increase in the population. When it came to the treaty of 1911, a portion of which you have just read, this bar as against immigration was removed. The activities of the immigrants from Japan were limited by the treaty, but there was no limitation in that treaty as to the number that might come. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld our State legislation, which prevents the owning of real property for agricultural purposes, for subleasing, etc. But the gentleman's agreement was to limit and to reduce the population or immigration. The treaty of 1911 removed all limitation as to immigration, but accompanying that treaty of 1911 was the declaration of the ambassador that the existing gentleman's agreement would be carried out in good faith.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. And that, I understand, Mr. Chairman, was done because the Senate in passing upon the treaty and approving it specifically provided that it was not to interfere with the immigration act. I think Senator Phelan can tell you more about that.

Now, let me indicate from President Roosevelt's own language just exactly what he meant in that agreement in regard to the particular point which you raised; that is to say, as to whether they were going to admit, regardless of the increase of population, traders, business men, and so on. I will read now an extract from a letter to the Hon. William Kent, written by President Roosevelt, dated February 4, 1909, just a few days before he sent that telegram to the California Legislature, which would indicate what was in his mind at the time:

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 noninternational character. That is, keep out of Japan those Americans who wish to settle and become part of the resident working population, and keep out of America those Japanese who wish to adopt a similar attitude. This is the only wise, proper policy.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you hit, it seems to me, one phase of this question.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I think that meets your suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not a new question. It arises with regard to other commercial treaties that we have with other nations, whether the immigration quota is not in violation of them. It is argued with great force that the immigration law does not include traders who come here temporarily for trade purposes and then go back. Mr. MCCLATCHY. Oh, yes; I think that is conceded.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the Japanese agreement intended to include those who come here for trade purposes, etc.?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Provided they did not remain permanently. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I mean.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. But the trouble was that those who came here for purposes of trade remained here.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not the Johnson bill exclude them from coming here temporarily for purposes of trade?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No; my understanding is that it makes a specific exception of tourists.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the Johnson bill an immigrant is anybody coming to the United States from outside the territory of the continental United States. It covers everybody coming.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. But they make exceptions.

The CHAIRMAN. They make exception, but those exceptions are specifically stated in the nonquota classes, and the Japanese are not included.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. My understanding is that they except tourists, professional men, men who come for business, for temporary residence.

The CHAIRMAN. The State Department has taken the position that coming over here for temporary residence or for business is not broad enough to include the commercial traders covered by the

commercial treaties, and therefore that there should be in the nonquota classes those who come under any treaty or agreement.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I want, if I may, to confine myself to the subject of the ineligible alien, because I think I would take up too much of your time otherwise.

Roosevelt says, further:

They have little recognition of the fact that in the present status 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 any mingling on a large scale, and the effort is sure to bring disaster.

So that, clearly, the idea which Roosevelt had was that an increase of the Japanese population, whether of laborers or business men or professional men, should not be permitted, because any increase of alien and unassimilable population was sure to make trouble between the two countries.

The danger which Roosevelt foresaw has been foreseen elsewhere in regard to the Japanese and the Asiatic population. Many years ago Great Britain made a treaty with Japan and she specifically provided therein that Japanese citizens should have access to the dominons of Great Britain, with the privileges and rights of citizenship, as any other favored nation. But she made a reservation to the effect that any one of the dominions could except to or modify that so far as it affected its own territory in any way desired. South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand did most materially modify that agreement so as to absolutely exclude Japanese, and Australia, as you perhaps know, did it in a most discriminatory way. They have a law there which says, in effect, that incoming immigrants must submit themselves to an educational test, and the educational test is that they may be forced to read and talk in any one of 20 different languages. They say, "Now, you are the inspector here, and you can hold the job if you do not let in any Japanese." So he asks the Japanese to read in Arabic, or Yiddish, or anything else. Great Britain specifically warned her dominions separately to modify that treaty as to their own territories if they saw fit.

I have seen the letter which the prime minister of Great Britain sent to Canada warning them specifically in the matter, calling their attention to what South Africa had done in the way of protection, and urging, in a confidential way, that something of that same sort be done by Canada. But Canada did not do it, and the result was that she found herself in a few years confronted with a possible influx of numberless Japanese. Then she entered into a gentleman's agreement with Japan under which but 400 were to be admitted each year. I see from the official reports that 1,200 or 1,600 are coming in, and Canada has been very much aroused over it, because she has now over five times as many Japanese in proportion to the population as the United States has.

In the Dominion Parliament of 1922 the representatives from British Columbia, Vancouver, and the west induced the parliament to pass a resolution under which the Government was called upon to bring about as speedily as possible an absolute exclusion by law of all the Japanese.

Bear in mind that in all this matter Japan has been the close ally of Great Britian, that she never excepted to any of these proceed

ings, that she has never alleged discriminatory treatment against herself, and yet she comes here and in the face of the fact that our act is not discriminatory, but general, she excepts and protests and even makes covert threats.

Now, what has been done actually under the Japanese agreement, so far as the United States territory is concerned? And here I am only going to skeletonize it with reference to the many exhibits which I offer.

In Hawaii in 1880 there were no Japanese. In 1920 almost half the population were Japanese, having the control of many and varied industries. In 1940, according to investigations extending over nearly two years, made by Louis Sullivan for the American Museum of History, the number of voters of Japanese parentage will exceed the number of voters of all other races in Hawaii, and Hawaii will be hopelessly Japanese. In consequence, Hawaii, which a few years ago sent a commission to Washington asking for statehood, knows now that she will not only never get statehood, but she will have to relinquish her territorial form of government and be placed under a Federal commission.

What has happened in California? What has happened in Hawaii has already happened in some districts of California, and is going to happen in many of them unless those conditions are remedied. In 1880 there were no Japanese in California. In 1920 there were 100,000. And while those figures do not agree with the census figures, you will find in a brief which I shall submit here, proof that the census is entirely wrong. In fact, the Japanese themselves found 13,000 more than the census figures give.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the figures given by the census?
Mr. MCCLATCHY. About 72,000.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Japanese admitted 13,000 more than those figures showed.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Since you ask the question I will say that the Japanese, under authority of their Government, had a census, and you will find in the proceedings of the House committee a statement of the secretary of the Japanese Association of America in which he acknowledges that they found by this census in California 83,000 Japanese, and they found them under a most incomplete system of census, which he explained. They sent out postal cards which had to come back, and they charged every man who sent his return 25 cents. And yet, under that system, incomplete as they acknowledge it to have been, they counted 13,000 in California in excess of the United States census.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the State census make it 100,000?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No; there was no State census. But the estimate of the State board of health is 100,000, and I have various proofs. in the way of estimates of that same number.

f Mr. PHELAN. The United States census broke down, confessedlyI was pretty familiar with it at the time--because of the system by which the Census Bureau undertook to enumerate the aliens, at 10 cents a name. The Japanese were scattered in the country so far that the agents gave up their jobs and would not enumerate them for 10 cents. There was no other provision of law by which they might be compensated. We counted the 10-cent Japanese, the Attorney General suggests, and they were in the towns.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. So much for population. One person in every 40 in the population in California is Japanese, and 1 birth in 11 is Japanese. The birth rate per thousand is about three times that of the whites (this statement is from the report of the State board of health) although the proportion of adult females to males is only 1 to 2 or 3. They are increasing in number about 10 times as fast as the white, because practically all the women are wives and mothers of families. If present conditions continue-this is a statement from the register of vital statistics of the State board of health-it is only a question of time when the Japanese will exceed the whites in California.

In certain districts of southern California the number of Japanese births exceed the white births. In Sacramento County, outside of Sacramento City, in 1922 there were 252 Japanese and 273 white births. In 1923 there were 268 white births and 250 Japanese. The white population of the district is over five times that of the Japanese, according to the 1920 census. In Sacramento City in 1922 the Japanese, constituting about 3 per cent of the population, furnished 22 per cent of the births.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee can sit this afternoon until 5 o'clock, and I think we had better take the usual recess now until 2.15.

STATEMENT OF REV. CHARLES S. MacFARLAND, GENERAL SECRETARY THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Doctor MACFARLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit certain papers here without discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be submitted.

Doctor MACFARLAND. They show the action of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, and may be discussed when you reach them by my associates, Doctor Gulick, and others. I simply ask permission to submit them at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The documents submitted by the witness were filed with the committee.)

(Whereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m. a recess was taken until 2.15 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reconvened at 2.15 p. m., Tuesday, March 11, 1924, pursuant to the taking of recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. McClatchy, you may continue, please.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF V. S. McCLATCHY.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, at the recess I was about to take up consideration in brief of what Japanese peaceful penetration had done in California under the gentlemen's agreement. I had shown what it had done in population. The agreement has been in force for about 15 years. In 1920, as shown by the report of the State board of health, under instructions from the California Legislature to investigate and report at