RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS CALLING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF SECTION 12 (B) OF THE HOUSE IMMIGRATION BILL, H. R. 6540.

Whereas the proposal in the immigration bill (H. R. 6540) to deny to aliens "ineligible to citizenship" the privilege of admittance to the United Statessec. 12 (b)-contravenes the existing treaty with Japan and abrogates the gentlemen's agreement without conference with the Japanese Government; and Whereas acts of Congress overriding treaties and international agreements, while constitutional, in effect invade the function of the treaty-making power and are unnecessarily offensive to nations affected thereby, tending as they do to the creation of unfriendly feelings and to the disturbance of stable international conditions: Therefore

Resolved, That we respectfully urge the Senate and House of Representatives to eliminate said proposal-sec. 12 (b) from said bill now under consideration (H. R. 6540) before passing it.

NEW YORK, March 10, 1924.

The statement by Mr. Wickersham is as follows [reading]:

THE BEARING OF THE HOUSE IMMIGRATION BILL (H. R. 6540) ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS.

[A statement by George W. Wickersham.]

In conveying to the Senate Committee on Immigration the accompanying resolution of the National Committee on American-Japanese Relations, permit me to emphasize the following points:

1. Were there no other possible way of dealing with the situation the case would be different. The proper way by which to change a treaty or an international agreement, it would seem to me, is by treaty or agreement negotiated through the Department of State. If Congress deems such change advisable, a request made to the Executive will without doubt bring such action. 2. Responsible Japanese have repeatedly declared that if the gentlemen's agreement is not satisfactory, the Japanese Government will gladly reconsider the whole matter and make some new arrangement. In the face of such assurances from Japan of desire to maintain neighborly relations with us, and in view of their earnest desire that the United States should not pass discriminatory and inevitably humiliating legislation aimed at Japan, the passage of the proposed act by Congress would certainly be resented by Japan as a gratuitous act of unfriendly character.

3. The need for the proposed measure is far from obvious when we consider the facts in the case. The statistics of admittances and departures of alien Japanese, published by the Commissioner General of Immigration, show that since the gentlemen's agreement went into effect (1909-1923) 22,737 more males left the United States (including Hawaii) than entered; and that the net increase by immigration of Japanese in the continental United States during these 15 years has been 8,681, consisting of women and children.

It is evident that the Japanese Government has been administering the gentlemen's agreement with careful fidelity. Naturally the proposed measure would convey an implication to the contrary which a proud and sensitive nation would resent.

4. The statement that the proposed measure (H. R. 6540)-section 12 (b)— is not particularly aimed at the Japanese, for it concerns all peoples 66 ineligible for citizenship," is too specious to need extended reply. It is enough to point out that practically all such peoples are now excluded by existing laws, the Chinese by name, and the Hindus, Thibetans, Dravidians, and many other peoples of Asia and Polynesia by definition of latitude and longitude. The real purpose of the proposed measure is the abrogation of the gentlemen's agreement with Japan.

If there is any sound reason for such congressional action, I have not seen it stated publicly.

NEW YORK, N. Y., March 10, 1924.

Those, Mr. Chairman, are the resolutions and judgment with regard to this matter by Mr. Wickersham, which I wish to submit in

his name. And with this I wish to submit for your record a statement of the purposes and the policy of the national committee on American-Japanese relations. I will not read it. (The statement submitted is as follows:)

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS,

287 Fourth Avenue, New York.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS.

The United States and Japan have for two generations maintained unique relations of mutual consideration and good will. The earliest treaty pledged perfect, permanent, and universal peace, and a sincere and cordial amity between the United States and Japan and between their peoples, respectively, without exception of persons and places." The return by the United States to Japan of the Shimonoseki indemnity (1883), the generous gift by Japan to San Francisco for the relief of suffering at the time of the great earthquake and fire (1906), the mutual agreements by the United States, Japan, and other powers for maintaining the peace of the Pacific and for limiting naval building programs, the relief funds sent by America for sufferers in Japan by earthquake and fire, and other acts on both sides have throughout the decades manifested the spirit and fulfilled the mutual pledge of that first treaty.

Growing contacts and intimacy of relations have brought to light questions of exceeding difficulty resulting in ominous states of mind and feeling. They are questions concerning the significance of race difference, immigration, assimilation, and naturalization, treaty rights, population and territory, relations with China, economic competition, and national policies. On all these matters there is much misunderstanding in both countries, and no little positive misinformaton. Unethical practices also on both sides of the Pacific aggravate the situation. These questions manifestly require careful, broadminded, and impartial consideration. They can not be stated, much less can they be solved by offhand, popular dogmatism.

Causes of irritation must not be left to work out their inevitably disastrous consequences. Courageous and loyal patriots in America and in Japan must face the facts. They must insist that all matters of difficulty can and should be settled by reason, conference, and conciliation. Steps should be promptly taken in both countries to provide the people with the needed information, and to secure the necessary changes in the national mind. "Sincere and cordial amity must be maintained, misunderstanding removed, wise policies adopted, and appropriate legislation enacted in both countries.

This committee on American-Japanese relations has been formed in order to attain these ends, in so far as their attainment depends on the people and Government of the United States. We rely on enlightened leadership in Japan to take corresponding action in that land. International good will between America and Japan depends on what America and Japan both do. We both must practice the inescapable principles of right international relations. Deeds are what count, not words.

For the attainment of the ends thus defined, this committee adopts the folJowing statement of objects, and urges its wide indorsement by Americar citizens and organizations.

PROGRAM.

1. Cultivation of an informed and rational public opinion in the United States in regard to Japan, inspired by a friendly spirit and sympathetic understanding of her needs and problems.

2. A square deal for Japanese in the United States.

3. Specifically we propose:

(a) To oppose actively the jingo, anti-Japanese agitation in the United States by frank and scientific discussions of the problems involved.

(b) To advocate the cultivation of friendly relations, both for their own sake and for their effect on American-Japanese friendship, between each of these nations and the Government and people of China and the other countries of the Asiatic mainland.

(c) To advocate the adoption of a new treaty between the United States and Japan to take the place of the present gentlemen's agreement, providing—

(1) That on the part of Japan the further issue of passports to those coming to the United States for permanent residence be rigidly restricted.

(2) That on the part of the United States privileges of citizenship be granted to all who personally qualify.

(d) To urge the enactment of adequate Federal legislation for the protection of aliens and for the enforcement of their treaty rights, as urged by PresidentsHarrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft.

(e) To urge the recognition, either by treaty or by legislation in Japan, of the right of expatriation, so as to abolish the evils of dual citizenship of children of Japanese parentage born in the United States.

(f) To correspond with societies and persons in Japan who believe in settling international difficulties by conference and mutual consideration and in accordance with our existing arbitration treaty with Japan, and to cooperate with them in urging both countries to adopt policies, make treaties, and enact laws bearing on international relations, based on justice and good will.

(All communications and checks should he sent to Sidney L. Gulick, executive secretary, 287 Fourth Avenue, New York City.)

MEMBERS.

Geo. W. Wickersham, chairman; Hamilton Holt, vice chairman; Edwin G. Merrill, treasurer; Linley V. Gordon, secretary; Charles H. Levermore, secretary; Sidney L. Gulick, executive secretary; Henry A. Atkinson, Nehemiah Boynton, F. S. Brockman, Arthur J. Brown, John Bates Clark, Stephen P. Duggan, Mrs. J. Malcolm Forbes, James H. Franklin, William I. Haven, James G. McDonald, Mrs. William F. McDowell, Paul Monroe, Frank Mason North. George A. Plimpton, Lindsay Russell, Fennell P. Turner.

HONORARY MEMBERS (PARTIAL LIST).

Jane Addams, James R. Angell, George Gordon Battle, Percival P. Baxter. Franklin Q. Brown, Luther Burbank, Thomas Burke, M. L. Burton, Carrie Chapman Catt, Francis E. Clark, George W. Coleman, Seymour L. Cromwell, R. Fulton Cutting, Henry W. DeForest, Robert W. DeForest, Cleveland H. Dodge, George Eastman, Livingston Farrand, W. H. P. Faunce, Elbert H. Gary, Franklin H. Giddings, Howard Heinz, John Grier Hibben, Otto H. Kahn, Henry Churchill King, Samuel Mather, Shailer Mathews, Francis J. McConnell, William P. McDowell, Mrs. Wm. A. Montgomery, John R. Mott, E. Y. Mullins, Mrs. Henry W. Peabody, Francis G. Peabody, Mrs. Percy V. Pennybacker, Clarence Poe, Julius Rosenwald, Chester H. Rowell, Charles M. Schwab, Kobert E. Speer, W. C. Sproul, Frank A. Vanderlip, William Allen White, Stephen S. Wise.

And I would also like to submit, if you will, for your records, two pamphlets, entitled "New Factors in American-Japanese Relations" and "Japanese in Hawaii."

The former, I may say, is a pamphlet I have prepared recently, giving full statistics and outlining a constructive policy.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. By leave of the chairman, Doctor, in the pamphlet you have prepared, a copy of which was furnished me, presumably by you or at your suggestion

Mr. GULICK (interposing). Yes, sir.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Do you give the present Japanese population in California?

Mr. GULICK. No; I do not. The second pamphlet deals with the Japanese in Hawaii. The bulk of this pamplet is a result of a careful statistical study by Prof. Romanzo Adams, professor of economics and sociology at the University of Hawaii. There are copious tables of various kinds dealing with the Japanese there, which I have reason to believe have been very carefully worked up and are thoroughly reliable, and it seems to me that they correct many popular misconceptions and misstatements regarding the Japanese situation in Hawaii.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Does that statement give the total Japanese population on the Island?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Have you that immediately before you? By leave of the chairman I would like to have it inserted right at this point in the record.

Mr. GULICK. It is here.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, do not delay, if you can not find it. Mr. GULICK. Well, I do not find it immediately.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Very well.

Mr. GULICK. Now, with reference to these two pamphlets, in the course of my discussion I wish to make further references to them. But those constitute the two or three matters presented in the name of Mr. Wickersham.

Then here is another document; this is a document from California, prepared by David Starr Jordan, as follows [reading]:

In current discussions of the problem of the Japanese in California, several matters have been misunderstood and others perversely stated.

Those of us opposed to anti-alien legislation are for the most part not in favor of admission of Asiatic laborers. Our interest is in fair treatment of those legally here, and in honorable and friendly conduct on the part of our own Nation. Most of our Japanese farm laborers came to California on the annexation of Hawaii. They had been brought to Hawaii by American sugar interests before the Japanese system of compulsory schools had been established. Hence they are naturally often ignorant and clannish.

It is not true, so far as known, that the Root-Takahira gentlemen's agreement" has been violated even in a single case. It is moreover evident that an exclusion agreement, with Japan cooperating, is more effective than any arbitrary act could be. Some 14 years ago Count Hayashi, of the Japanese foreign office, for the purpose of reducing friction or criticism, ceased to issue passports to Mexico. This measure has been usually ignored by agitators in California. Having proved ineffective it may be rescinded, in which case the much exaggerated emigration from Mexico might become a serious matter, which it is not now.

It is not true that the Japanese Government is trying now, or ever has tried, to secure a foothold in California or anywhere else in America. The Magdalena Bay scare of 1912 was about as idiotic à piece of yellow journalism as could be imagined.

It is not true that agitation in California has done anything toward exclusion of orientals nor is it likely to drive any away or to reduce their number. Something may be said for the limitation of alien land holding provided in the act of 1913, but the referendum act of 1920 represents a dangerous policy. So long as these people are foreign citizens they must be controlled from home through consular agents. Any act concerning them, if affecting their accepted rights, is international in nature. The international interests of the United States can not be safely left at the mercy of haphazard local referendum. One can hardly imagine a more reckless way of dealing with international affairs. As a matter of fact, most of the 600,000 voters for the act of 1920 supposed that it concerned Japanese immigration; 200,000 voted against it, and about 400,000 who had voted for State officers did not cast any ballot on this question. The birth rate among Japanese laboring classes is high, as with Italians, Portuguese, Irish in the same financial condition. As with all other races, it falls with the competition of other interests inside the family.

The word " assimilation" has two meanings-interbreeding and comprehension of political and social conditions. In the latter sense, the young Japanese are more readily assimilated than people of several European races; in the former, fortunately, scarcely at all, for a certain pride of ancestry makes Japanese, as a whole, averse to "mixed marriages."

That all races resident in our country should have means of becoming citizens is vital to the integrity of the Nation. We should condemn no race of men to permanent outlawry-a line of policy disastrous wherever it has been tried.

Sincerely yours,

DAVID STARR JORDAN.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to speak in my own capacity as executive secretary of the National Committee on American Japanese Relations, and I wish, first, to express my appreciation for the opportunity of discussing this rather important subject and these rather important matters before your committee. In the beginning, I wish to confine myself to a discussion of a matter that is really to the point. This whole broad Japanese question is not before this committee at the present time, I understand. There are three or four very broad questions which need consideration and answer, and it seems to me, if I may be permitted to say so, that a good deal of the material introduced into the discussion yesterday is really irrelevant to the matters here in issue.

Now, what are those issues? I think we may bring them under four heads.

First, what is the real proposal in this House immigration bill as it bears upon Japan?

Second-and this is a very vital thing-has or has not Japan been observing the gentlemen's agreement? I think that is vital.

Third, would the provision in H. R. 6540, section 12 (b) be offensive to Japan and would a quota law really meet California's need better than the present gentlemen's agreement?

And, fourth, is there still a better way of dealing with the whole situation?

Now, those are the general heads under which I wish to speak briefly.

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor Gulick, the question in my mind is this: Whether we should by statute adopt a policy of exclusion; that is, by statute law adopt a policy of exclusion, taking into consideration that we already have a gentlemen's agreement and a treaty with Japan, the treaty of 1911. Is the menace of the Japanese so great that this country should, for the purpose of self-protection, pass a statute without consulting in any way with the nation with whom we have a gentlemen's agreement and with whom we have a treaty? What good would treaties be if the United States at any time is going to pass a statute which abrogates a treaty? That comes down to the question of the menace or the peril, and the immediate menace or peril. Is the policy of the United States going to be as a general principle to abrogate by statute law any treaty? Of course, we know that the effect of a statute is to supersede a treaty. Now, I pay attention to the fact that we already have a treaty and a gentlemen's agreement with Japan; and should the United States now, without cooperation with the other nation, pass an act which abrogates that treaty and that agreement?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I may say, in answer to that particular question, the statement is admirable. And I may say that those are the things which the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and the National Committee on American Japanese Relations stand for. If I understand your question, I will say those are exactly the things that we stand for.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in beginning my affirmative statement here I would like to stress this point for a moment. I do not think that the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and the National Committee on American Japanese Relations are very far

101220-245