« ÎnapoiContinuă »
nese population comprise about one-half the total number of people dwelling in those islands. In California, the gravity of the situation is evidenced by the determination of its people to cure the malady from which they suffer in its inception, and not wait inevitable extinction while the futility of palliative treatment is being demonstrated at their expense.
It is true that the land area of the State of California amounts to over ninety-nine million acres, but a glance at the map will satisfy the reader that a very large part of this area is mountainous. Something over eighteen million acres are national forests, and some twenty million acres more are unappropriated public lands. (July 1, 1919.) The balance is made up of Indian reservations, school lands, private timber holdings, and farm lands, of which some 3,893,500 acres are irrigated and constitute very largely, the best lands in the State.
The following quotation taken from the report of the State Board of Control of California, is the essence of the situation:
Of this total (3,893,500), Orientals, on December 31, 1919, occupied 623,752 acres, approximately 16 per cent of the total, of which 88,944 was owned in fee or under contract of purchase and 534,808 acres was held by lease or crop contract. Japanese and Japanese corporations occupy 458,056 acres of the whole total.
While it is not absolutely true that all lands occupied by Orientals are irrigated, this is so nearly the fact that for all practical calculations, the figures given for Oriental holdings may be taken as irrigated lands. A few counties, notably San Luis Obispo and Solano, show Orientals occupying considerably more acreage than the total number of irrigated acres given in the schedule for these counties. However, the very nature of the crops raised by the Orientals necessitates irrigation.
With this slight qualification in mind, it is interesting to note that in some of the richest counties in the state, Orientals occupy a total acreage ranging from fifty to seventy-five per cent of the total irrigated area, notably San Joaquin County with a total of 130,000 irrigated acres with Orientals occupying 95,829 acres; Colusa County with a total of 70,000 with Orientals occupying 51,105; Placer County with 19,000 total, Orientals occupying 16,321; and Sacramento County with 80,000 total, Orientals occupying 64,860.
It is but fair to state again that this comparison is not absolutely accurate because the total irrigated areas given on land Schedule No. 2 are actual irrigated lands, whereas the totals of acreage occupied by Orientals in each ~_county include all acreage irrigated and unirrigated occupied by Orientals. However, very little grain crops or other unirrigated crops are raised by Orientals and a very small percentage of the total acreage occupied by Orientals is uncultivated and without crops of any kind; the total idle acreage uncropped being about 64 per cent of the total acreage occupied by Orientals.
Under the schedule of Japanese Farm Products, the figures compiled by the State Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1909 show the total acreage occupied by Japanese at that time to be 83,252 and the acreage shown for the year 1919 by the Japanese Agricultural Association of California is 427,029, an increase in the ten year period of 412.9 per cent. The report for crop valuations for 1909 shows $6,235,856 and for the year 1919 a total of $67,145,730, a total increase in value of crops raised by Japanese during the ten year period, of 976.8 per cent. Because of the character of the crops raised by
to conclude that their protests against the renunciation of the right to put the western islands in an adequate state of defense were overruled by the Washington Cabinet on political grounds.
"In any case Japan scored a signal triumph in securing the adoption of the status quo agreement with regard to Pacific fortifications. From her point of view it was a strategical gain of the first magnitude, which more than compensated for the reduction of her battle fleet." (Reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, February, 1923, in the Congressional Record, of February 17, 1923, pp. 3928 to 3932.)
Japanese, their activities are confined almost entirely to twenty-nine counties in the state, these being the highly developed agricultural sections.
According to the Japanese Association of America in their memorial address to the President of the United States upon his visit to the coast in 1919, "The Japanese in agriculture constitute the most important element in number as well as in other respects," this statement having been made in reference to Japanese in California.
Mr. Toyoji Chiba, Managing Director of the Japanese Agricultural Association of California, says in his Truth of the Japanese Farming in California that 58 per cent of the Japanese living in California are settled in agricultural production in the country.
Should the American farmer view with alarm this rapid increase in agricultural lands occupied by Orientals, with the attendant increase in total annual crop valuations? 29
The following table, entitled "Percentage of Total of Each Crop Delivered to Canneries that is Supplied by Japanese Growers," so is illustrative of the inroads made by the Japanese farming population upon the total production of certain specialties to which they devote their attention:
Sacramento district (fully 50 per cent is operated exclusively by Japanese, while another 30 per cent is dependent on Japanese labor with whom the American owners are in partnership on a share basis; these two, taken together, made up the 80 per cent) Turlock district.
Santa Clara Valley district_.
Contra Costa district--
That this table does not exaggerate the situation will be demonstrated by a comparison with the following table quoted from the statement of Mr. Kiichi Kanzaki, General Secretary of the Japanese
29 Report of the State board of control of California to Gov. William D. Stephens, California and the Oriental, June 19, 1920, pages 50 and 51.
30 Report of the State board of control of California to Gov. William D. Stephens, California and the Oriental, June 19, 1920, page 50.
H. Doc. 600, 68-2- -2
Association of America, and compiled by the Japanese Agricultural Association at the end of 1918:1
While Mr. Kanzaki challenges the accuracy of the data presented by the State Board of Control in their report, on the ground that the figures for 1909 are not taken from the same source as that from which the statistics for 1920 were derived and therefore not comparable, the discrepancy which he alleges to exist is insufficient to justify any qualification of the contention that Japanese occupation of land and penetration of markets in California, has progressed by leaps and bounds throughout the period, 1909 to 1920; that is to say, Mr. Kanzaki states that the total increase in the land occupied by the Japanese during the 10-year period is only 217.9%, instead of 412.9%, and in respect to the value of the crops produced, there is an increase of only 503.7%, instead of 978.8%. Obviously it is possible to concede the alleged discrepancy, and yet find in Mr. Kanzaki's figures, ample basis for grave anxiety.
Now, this progressive development of Japanese settlements upon the land and control of certain markets leads up to the subject matter with which we are about to deal; that is to say, the encroachment upon the sovereignty of the state and the problem of dual allegiance. Whatever may be the means by which the white population is eliminated from certain areas of the state by an alien people, the mere fact of elimination involves the eventual cession of political control. Upon this phase of the question, Dr. Yoshi Kuno has this to say:
The Japanese are not living in this State as emigrants. In my opinion, they are establishing plantations of their own, introducing their peculiar civilization and governmental, as well as educational institutions right in the midst of American civilization. With the recognition of their home Government through their consulate offices, they have established a sort of quasi-government in leading cities, towns, and districts, wherever the size of the Japanese population warrants. They levy a tax on Japanese males and Japanese families under the caption of a membership fee. With the permission of the consulate, they collect fees for all official services rendered the Japanese by that office. All the Japanese who live in the United States, whether they were born in this country or have come from Japan have many affairs to be at
Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, page 739.
tended to in connection with the home Government, because all are claimed as subjects by the Japanese Government. However, though these matters must be handled in the Consulate office, that office will have nothing to do with anything that does not reach it through the channels of the quasi-Japanese Government established in the towns and cities in California, and otherwise known. as The Japanese Association.82
On page 6 of the pamphlet from which this quotation has been taken, it says that the Japanese Association of America, through its Secretary, Mr. K. Kanzaki, "has issued a general denial of Dr. Kuno's charges, so far as they affect the objects and acts of the Association." Ít, therefore, behooves us to examine carefully the evidence tending to support or disprove the statement that the Japanese Association acts as agents of the Japanese Government in the United States. Now, Article 3 of the Agreement and By-Laws, of the Japanese Association of America, Section I-General Rules, reads thus:
ART. 3. This association is organized by the local Japanese association under the jurisdiction of the Japanese consulate general of San Francisco.
Since this article tends to directly support the statement of Dr. Kuno, it is strange that Mr. Kanzaki in his written statement filed with the House Committee on Immigration, pages 675 and 685, makes no mention of this clause, or attempts in any way, to controvert the inference which may reasonably be drawn from its incorporation in the By-Laws of his organization, although to be sure, he prints the document as Appendix "A" to his statement.34 It would seem, however, that his explanation of the method by which the Japanese consuls ascertain the facts on which the applications for the importation of wives by resident Japanese under the terms of the Gentlemen's Agreement were based, precludes a denial of the fact that the Japanese Association of America and its branches are at least semiofficial agencies.35
Corroboration of Dr. Kuno's contention respecting the activities of the Japanese Association of America, is to be found in a translation of an article published by Nichi-Bei, January 29, 1920, which reads as follows:
ASSOCIATION IS CONSUL'S TOOL
The present Japanese Association of America, the Japanese Association of America of the past year or two, has absolutely nothing of the nature of a selfgoverning body of the resident Japanese.
82 6 Japan's Secret Policy," ," pamphlet published by the Sacramento Bee, page 4. Original articles_copyrighted by the Oakland (Calif.) Tribune in the latter part of October, 1920. Doctor Kuno is stated to be the son of General Kuno, of the Imperial Japanese Army, and professor in the department of oriental languages in the University of California.
3 Report of the State board of control of California to Gov. William D. Stephens, California and the Oriental, June 19, 1920, page 127.
34 The wording of Article 3 as given by Mr. Kiichi Kanzaki, does not correspond to that printed in the official report of the State Board of Control. Mr. Kanzaki's version reads as follows:
"ART 3. This association is organized by the local Japanese associations within the jurisdiction of the Japanese consulate general of San Francisco." (Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, p. 735.) In view of the fact that the report of the State Board of Control is an official document, the writer has deemed it appropriate to abide by its interpretation of the General Rules. It will be observed that there is a possible difference in the inference to be drawn from the two versions.
35 Cf. testimony of Mr. Joseph Holmes, hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, page 306.
The fact that it is nothing more than a branch shop of the consulate general would be hard to deny. On the surface, in its organization and system, though imperfect, it has the appearance of a self-governing body and makes a pretense of self-government in the election of officers and directors, but in fact its officers and directors consist of only such persons as are approved by a certain office.
If popular opinion opposes the secret service fund is used to send agents in all directions to repress it by crafty expedients, and this is carried even to the extent of abusing official authority for that purpose. With the directorate of the Japanese Association of America organized in such a way, is it not a natural result that the directors trample on the will of the people?
PUPPET OF BUREAUCRACY
In the present crisis we do not think it wise to produce proofs that the Japanese Association of America is nothing more than a branch office of the consulate general, and, therefore, we shall not write much about it, but no one would have the hardihood to deny the clear and important facts of the movement started the latter part of the year before last and continued into last year for the amendment of the land law; and the photograph-marriage question last year and this; and the movement which is expected to be carried out during the present year. The Japanese Association of America has degenerated and is the puppet of bureaucracy. From first to last it moves at the bidding of a certain office. Moreover, it employs an opaque policy in dealing with the anti-Japanese question.36
A translation from the Los Angeles correspondence column in Shin Sekai (San Francisco) May 19, 1920, is even more explicit as to the relationship existing between the Secretary of the Central Japanese Association and Consul Oyama of Los Angeles, which reads as follows:
This is the first step in the national census of Japan, and by special order from Premier Hara the minister for foreign affairs has directed the consulates to take the census of Japanese residing abroad. The consul, on the basis of the registration referred to above, is to make up his report to be forwarded by December 10 (or, according to another report, by October 31). The local Japanese associations are requested to exert themselves for the completion of the registration of all Japanese by the date fixed, August 21,37
The State board of control of California, in its report to Governor Stephens asserts:
Japanese agricultural activities are thoroughly organized. There are 55 local associations in the State of California, 19 in the nine counties of southern California, affiliated with the Japanese Agricultural Association of southern California, and 36 associations in northern and central California affiliated with the Japanese Agricultural Association and the California Farmers' Co-operative Association. All of these local associations are in turn closely connected with the Japanese Association of America in California, which organization is under the direct supervision of the Japanese consul general at San Francisco, and he in turn is directed by the Japanese ambassador at Washington. The indiivdual members in these associations pay dues monthly which range from $3 to $15 per year per member, the sum total of the dues thus raised amounting to approximately $135,000 per year in the State of California. This sum is used in such manner as seems advisable to the parent association for the advancement of the agricultural, educational, and financial interests of the Japanese.3 38
From the evidence which has been offered in the forgoing paragraphs, there is obviously good ground for the belief that
36 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, page 393.
37 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Sixty-sixth Congress, page 403.
38 Report to Gov. William D. Stephens, June 19, 1920, page 118.