President Roosevelt, who gave perhaps more consideration and thought to this subject than any other President of the United States, was very firmly of that opinion. His evidence is all the more striking, because in 1906, in a message to Congress, he suggested the propriety of admitting Japanese to citizenship. He entirely changed that attitude afterwards when he had the facts before him, and then afterwards was firmly and determinedly side by side with California in the declaration that the two races were so unassimilable that it was dangerous and suicidal to permit them to maintain in this country communities of Japanese. He stated that view frankly to the Japanese themselves, and it was because of his attitude that the so-called gentlemen's agreement was afterwards entered into.

As illustrating Roosevelt's point of view, let me read to you only a couple of paragraphs from his autobiography. I will leave the balance to be considered by the committee in the exhibits:

There has always been a strong feeling in California against the immigration of Asiatic laborers, whether these are wageworkers or men who occupy and till the soil. I believe this to be fundamentally a sound and proper attitude which must be insisted upon.

*

*

*

*

In the present state of the world's progress it is highly inadvisable that peoples in wholly different stages of civilization, or of wholly different types of civilization, even although both equally high, shall be thrown into intimate contact.

This is especially undesirable when there is a difference in both race and standard of living. In California the question became acute in connection with the admission of the Japanese.

*

*

*

*

But the Japanese themselves would not tolerate the intrusion into their country of a mass of Americans who would displace Japanese in the business of the land. I think they are entirely right in this position. I would be the first to admit Japan has the absolute right to declare on what terms foreigners shall be admitted to work in her country, or to own land in her country, or to become citizens of her country. America has and must insist upon the same right. The people of California were right in insisting that the Japanese should not come thither in masses; that there should be no influx of laborers, of agricultural workers, or small tradesmen-in short, no mass settlement or immigration.

He devotes a whole chapter of his autobiography to the California question, and I refer the committee to it for further consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, was not President Roosevelt willing to leave it to Japan as a question of honor rather than to have the United States pass a statute of exclusion?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was not that the essence of the gentlemen's agreement?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. No, sir. I will say briefly now and explain it later

The CHAIRMAN. This is merely for my own understanding.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. To a certain extent you are right, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. Here we have a proud people. We know their standing in the family of nations as one of the great nations of the world. Here is this great question of racial discrimination. Now, I thought Japan said to the United States, "Don't pass a law which would denote our inferiority. Leave it to our honor," and that

that was the essence of the gentlemen's agreement—that is, the absence of a statute of exclusion, leaving it to the honor of Japan.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. You are right to that extent, Mr. Chairman; but let me supplement it.

It was agreed between Japan and Roosevelt, representing the United States, that further Japanese immigration was going to be a very serious menace to the friendship of both peoples, and that it should cease. California demanded an exclusion act. Japan, as you say, said that would be a blow to her pride, and if permitted she would under her own system voluntarily prevent Japanese immigration coming into this country. Roosevelt said, "All right; I will depend upon you in this matter." But Roosevelt did more. While he said he would depend upon her honor in the matter, he had a club, and that club was an agreement with Japan that if she failed through her passport system to prevent a further increase of Japanese population in this country, and even, if possible, to decrease it, he would under the agreement with her put into effect an exclusion act.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. I am going to show you that from the brief prepared for the consideration of the State Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Then does not your proposition lead to this inference, that Japan has failed, practically?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Absolutely. That is to say, the agreement has failed to accomplish what was its acknowledged purpose.

This whole matter is set forth very clearly in the correspondence which ensued between President Roosevelt and the legislature of 'California in connection with this subject. I think it is a matter that has not been before the committee and is not generally known.

The CHAIRMAN. This is perhaps a rather unusual question. Do you think that if Roosevelt were alive, and President of the United States, he would say that the gentlemen's agreement with regard to the issuing of passports had been a failure, and that he would. therefore come to the second proposition, that it is time now to pass this exclusion act?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, I not only think so, but Roosevelt has in effect declared so, as I will show in a few minutes. To understand this matter you will have to have the story.

In 1909 the California Legislature had before it a number of anti-Japanese bills, and President Roosevelt, as we know, was very anxious that that friction between California and Japan should cease. He believed that some of those bills were unfair, while he held that the general attitude of Califórnia as to Japanese immigration was proper.

A commission of Californians, at the President's request, took the matter up with him. Senator Flint was one, Congressman Julius Kahn was another, and Franklin K. Lane was the third. Following that conference President Roosevelt telegraphed back to the legislature, in a telegram of February 9, 1909, to the speaker of the house. In that telegram he said what he had said to this commission, that he desired California to recede from this anti-Japanese legislation, which was only going to make friction, and some of which he believed to be unfair; that California's position generally was right; that he had taken the necessary measures to protect her; that he had

101220-24-2

an agreement with Japan under which Japan by her own act was to keep out Japanese immigration; at that time it had worked so successfully for the first six months of its operation the Japanese population in the continental United States had decreased 2,000; and that if in the future similar satisfactory results were not obtained from it, then California had just ground for complaint and the Federal Government could and would apply the necessary remedy-meaning enforcement of an exclusion act.

I want to read that telegram to you, because it is the foundation of our claims. This is the telegram:

I trust there will be no misunderstanding of the Federal Government's attitude. We are zealously endeavoring to guard the interests of California and of the entire West in accordance with the desires of our western people. By friendly agreement with Japan we are now carrying out a policy which, while meeting the interests and desires of the Pacific slope, is yet compatible not merely with mutual self-respect but with mutual esteem and admiration between the Americans and Japanese.

The Japanese Government is loyally and in good faith doing its part to carry out this policy, precisely as the American Government is doing. The policy aims at mutuality of obligation and harmony.

In accordance with it, the purpose is that the Japanese shall come here exactly as Americans go to Japan, which is in effect that travelers, students, persons engaged in international business, men who sojourn for pleasure or study, and the like, shall have the freest access from one country to the other and shall be sure of the best treatment; but that there shall be no settlement en masse by the people of either community in the other.

During the last six months under this policy more Japanese have left the country than have come in, and the total number of Japanese in the United States has diminished by over 2,000. These figures are absolutely accurate and need not be impeached. In other words, if the present policy is consistently followed and works as well in the future as it is now working, all difficulties and causes for friction will disappear, while at the same time each nation will retain the self-respect and good will of the other.

But such a bill as this school bill accomplishes literally nothing whatever in the line of the object aimed at, and gives just cause for irritation, while in addition the United States Government would be obliged immediately to take action in the Federal courts to test such legislation, as we hold it to be clearly a violation of the treaty.

On this point I refer you to the numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court in regard to State laws which violate treaty obligations of the United States. The legislation would accomplish nothing beneficial, and I would certainly cause some mischief. In short the policy of the administration is to combine the maximum of efficiency in achieving the real object which the people of the Pacific slope have at heart, with the minimum of friction and trouble, while misguided men who advocate such action as this against which I protest are following a policy which combines the very minimum of efficiency with the maximum of insult, and which, while totally failing to achieve any real result for good, yet might accomplish an infinity of harm.

If in the next year or two the action of the Federal Government fails to achieve what it is now achieving, then through the further action of the President and Congress it can be made entirely efficient.

I am sure that the sound judgment of the people of California will support you, Mr. Speaker, in your efforts. Let me repeat that at present we are actually doing the very thing which the people of California wish to have done, and to upset the arrangement under which this is being accomplished can do no good and may do harm. If in the next year or two the figures of immigration prove that the arrangement which was worked so successfully during the past six months is working no longer successfully, then there would be good ground for grievance and for the reversal by the National Government of its policy. But at present the policy is working well, and until it works badly it would be a grave misfortune to change it, and when changed it can only be changed effectually by the National Government.

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that written?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. That was February 9, 1909, Mr. Chairman. Promptly, the very next day, in response to the assurance of President Roosevelt that the United States had an agreement which would fully protect California in this matter, and that she would be protected under that agreement or under another agreement already provided for, the California Legislature killed all those bills to which the President had taken exception.

The President then sent out two wires, which are a part of the record, and are significant. One was to the speaker of the assembly:

Accept my heartiest thanks and congratulations for the great service you have rendered on behalf of the people of the United States. I thank the people of California and their representatives in the legislature.

The second was, however, very much more significant. It wea a telegram to Governor Gillette:

Gov. J. M. GILLETTE, Sacramento:

WASHINGTON, February 10.

Accept my heartiest congratulations. All good Americans appreciate what you have done. Pray extend my congratulations individually to all who aided you. I feel the way in which California has done what was right for the Nation makes it more than ever obligatory to safeguard the interests of California. All that I can do to this end either in public or private shall most certainly be done.

I want to impress upon the committee this: That there was a contract between the State of California and the Federal Government, under the terms of which the Government was indorsing California's position as to the exclusion of Japanese immigration, and that if she would do certain things which would placate Japan and not provoke friction the Government itself would see that this agreement would be carried out, either in the way in which Japan proposed to carry it out or forcibly by an exclusion act.

Now, then, what happened? According to President Roosevelt's testimony, his successor, President Taft, made in the treaty of 1911 with Japan a concession which destroyed the very safeguard which Roosevelt had placed in that agreement by providing that the nationals of Japan might have admission as residents and for business purposes. Even there, however, Japan, by a note which was appended to the bottom of the treaty and signed by the Japanese ambassador, specifically said

The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the treaty of 1911?

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you have it there you will notice a note at the bottom

The CHAIRMAN. I have only an excerpt from it.

Mr. MCCLATCHY (continuing). In which it is specifically said that Japan guarantees to carry out the intent of the agreement as to the exclusion of Japanese labor.

Now, then, the result has been, as we shall see later, that under the agreement which has been in effect since then the very purpose of the agreement in preventing the increase in Japanese population of this country, with the obvious injuries and consequences which would result, has not been fulfilled, and that population has steadily and very largely increased.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it increase by reason of the Japanese coming here for purposes of trade under the treaty?

Mr. MCLATCHY. Partly, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course that might be temporarily or for a long time, you know.

Mr. MCCLATCHY. Yes. This is the footnote that was appended to the treaty and signed by the Japanese ambassador:

In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States, the undersigned, Japanese ambassador in Washington, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Imperial Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation of the emigration of laborers to the United States.

That was practically a pledge on the part of Japan to the United States that, notwithstanding the removal of Roosevelt's safeguard, they would on their honor and through their own efforts still serve the purpose for which that agreement was made and specifically outlined, to wit, prevent the increase of Japanese population in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything said about the increase of Japanese population in this country in the papers themselves? Mr. MCCLATCHY. No; there is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClatchy, is there not a distinction between what you call the laborer or immigrant and traders and merchants coming from Japan under the commerce clause of the treaty?

Mr. MCLATCHY. Mr. Chairman, I have shown you from President Roosevelt's own language that the danger which he and Japan foresaw was that the development of Japanese communities in this country was going to lead to racial and international friction, and that it was the intent of that agreement to prevent an increase of Japanese population in this country. He says that specifically in some of these things which I have read to you.

Now, the difficulty with this Japanese agreement is this: It is not a document which is accessible to the country. It is a secret understanding, consisting of an interchange of notes, and even the House Committee on Immigration has been refused permission to see what that gentlemen's agreement is and just what it says and what it means. And the best evidence which we have been able to produce is that of Mr. Roosevelt himself, who made the agreement.

Just think! In a nation like this we have conceded to Japan under that agreement the right to say how many Japanese shall come into this country. The fact is that under the orders of the department to the officials in each port any Japanese who presents himself with a passport from Japan must be admitted unless he has contagious disease. No such relinquishment of sovereignty has ever been made by any other nation on the face of the earth, and we have never made it ourselves to any nation save Japan; and Roosevelt did it, relying absolutely on Japan's honor that she would fulfill the conditions of the agreement; and apparently Taft, even after the removal of the safeguard, relied on it that she would still do it under the footnote to the treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's agreement, so far as we know it, did not exclude traders from coming, did it? It was directed specifically, was it not, at the laborers, the immigrants?