ing something of the temper and spirit of Japan, is that that confidence shall never be broken, and I feel that upon that confidence the best men in America and the best men in Japan can face fairly and squarely any question that might arise. And I am thoroughly convinced of this, that a very large initial group of Japanese menand I would say it of other orientals-I believe it of the Chinese definitely that granted the same body of facts they will come to the same moral judgment, and that is something upon which we can build, and because of this deep confidence I can not believe there is that impassable wall between the East and the West.

Therefore I feel that in dealing with the question of immigration as touching the orientals it ought to be upon the basis of conference, and I hope that will be the attitude in the future, not only in relation to the Japanese but also the Chinese.

Just one further word, a definite illustration. Doctor Sawanagi, who has been the president of two of Japan's Imperial universities, returned from a world tour in early August of 1922. The first statement that he gave out through the press was to this effect:

My observation of the educational ideals and systems of the world at the present time has brought me back to Japan with the very deep conviction that any system of education that is not international and world-wide in its spirit and its scope is doomed.

Doctor Sawanagi is helping to shape the educational policy of Japan along that line, and to that end he was the leader in organizing in Japan an association for international education. That association sent to the conference held in San Francisco this last summer five or six delegates who went back to Japan carrying the spirit of that great conference.

A word as to the experience of our own son born in Japan. Up to the time he was 17 years old he had spent only two years in America. Landing in San Francisco and going to southern California to find a position to work during the summer of 1921, he reported to me later that he found the Japanese attitude toward Americans dif ferent from that which he had found in Japan. When he approached them at first-he was accustomed to talking with them in their own language, as he speaks Japanese as freely as English-he said it was difficult to get through that crust of reserve. He said that granted a common attitude on the part of the people where Japanese live, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to open their own minds and hearts, and therefore it becomes increasingly difficult, and in my own opinion it becomes impossible, for Americans living in the same community to understand heart and mind granted that attitude on the part of Americans.

But I am certain, from experience in moving about in California. and Washington and Idaho and mingling with Japanese and meeting with them when we go back to Tokyo and hear them speak in their own language to their own people, that whenever American people maintain toward the Japanese that attitude recognizing them as members of the common human family, recognizing that they are not separated from us by that impassable wall of the division between the Occident and the Orient-but there is a common ground of our common humanity, and as we come to know them we find that their moral judgment will agree with the best of the Japanese—

I am sorry I can not say that for all of them or for all Americans, but I say the best Japanese and those who are shaping the Japan that is to be. I think upon that we may build, and that is the thing that makes me hope as an American citizen living in Japan and knowing the Japanese that we shall continue to deal with this problem and with all of the problems which are before the two nations and which will come from time to time on the basis of frankness.

I may say here that I agree with Doctor Schneder and with Doctor Gulick, and I believe I voice the opinion of practically all missionaries in Japan in that they believe that under present conditions, economic and social and psychological, very strict limitation is the thing to do, and granted that and granted a fair deal and granted proper cooperation in distribution with opportunities for citizenship in the future, there is no reason why this very perplexing question may not be settled in a way to meet the legitimate demands of those who do feel the economic and social pressure involved.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Doctor, assuming the word in its political sense, are you an internationalist?

Mr. BOWLES. What do you mean when you say in a political sense?

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, as I said. I use it in its political sense. Are you what we call in modern political literature an internationalist?

Mr. BOWLES. In spirit I am, although recognizing my loyalty to the United States Government and working as an American citizen, and I may say that whatever international work I have done in Japan has been always with the full knowledge of and closest cooperation with our accredited representatives in Japan; such as arranging meetings from time to time at which our American Ambassadors at least I remember four-have spoken at meetings so arranged, and I think, if I understand your term, I am an internationalist in the sense that I believe international cooperation is possible for nations, but that does not mean the breaking down of loyalty to our own Nation, and giving up our institutions except as time and experience prove that they ought to be changed. I do not know whether that answers your question or not.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Well, it is your answer.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANCIS R. TAYLOR, REPRESENTING THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the Religious Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers of Philadelphia, and appear on their behalf in opposition to clause 12-B of the bill, amounting practically to a restriction of admission of Japanese to this country.

I think I need trespass very little upon the time of the gentlemen of the committee, because I believe the atmosphere has been very much cleared by the telegram received this morning from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and by the very lucid and cogent suggestion that the chairman of the committee threw out this morning at the opening of the session.

I must confess I was very considerably disturbed last evening by what appears to me to be the reckless disregard of the gentlemen

101220-24- -7

from California in their presentation of the subject, the reckless disregard of the international relations in pressing for the obtaining through legislation of what probably through diplomatic channels could be just as readily obtained and probably more readily obtained as through the regulation of admission of Japanese citizens or immigrants to this country; more readily changed and that without hurting in any particular whatsoever the feelings of the Japanese people.

It seems to me that any action which this committee may take, any recommendations which this committee may make, upon what is admittedly a domestic policy, that is, a domestic regulation of immigration and emigration, with which I grant no other nation has a right to meddle-that whatever action this committee may take, if those things which have to do with the larger policy of the Government as shall be delegated to that portion of the Government that has to do it, namely, by the executive end of the Government, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate

The CHAIRMAN. I was in no sense speaking of what the committee might do.

Mr. TAYLOR. I used the word "suggestion" advisedly on that account rather than "decision."

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want it understood that I was in any way speaking for the committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. It was a great comfort to me that you made that suggestion. It seems to me that these supposedly insolvable conflicts that we have thrown to us in such books as The Rising Tide of Color and The Yellow Peril, and that sort of thing, are simply another element of those age-old conflicts that can be settled if they are anticipated in time. And all of us agree at the present time that the center of gravity of the world has shifted, owing to the events of the last decade, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and that the old policy of the United States, started, as we heard yesterday, in 1790, as to the exclusion of any line of color and modified following the Civil War as to the black race, the African-that that old policy of the United States in the interest of the amicable dwelling together of the peoples of the earth will have to be modified. But I take it that national legislation is not the way in which to modify those policies. I take it that the diplomatic end of the United States Government is the end of the Government that must undertake that and consequently that the provisions of the Johnson bill to which I have referred, section 12, subsection (b), that those are irrelevant and impertinent to the issue for legislation by Congress.

Now, these irrepressible conflicts have come down through the ages bearing upon different kinds of questions. There have been the territorial questions that have proved to be irrepressible conflicts. There have been political questions, and the history of the human race in the past shows that those things can be settled and in many instances have been settled, peaceably and without interposition of warfare if the parties involved-they usually have been nations rather than people-have quietly and candidly and in advance set themselves to the peaceable solution of them.

And now we have what seems to be the unsolvable problem-the problem of racial conflict. It is another one of the long series-a

conflict that seems to be as unsolvable as the conflicts in the wars of religion. And yet, as far as any fundamental differences are concerned, we hear nothing about the race religions of Christianity which for the past part of a century were pitted against each other— Catholicism against Protestantism. They have been solved, and I believe in all candor that the solution of the interracial problems is amenable to the same kind of candor and advance approach.

Our tariff legislation in the House, our immigration legislation in both Houses, our internal policies, necessarily cut across into all sorts of intricate relationships that have to do with our foreign relationships; and in so far as they do cut across, just to that extent they must be made subsidiary to the wider purposes of the Nation and handled through commercial treaties or treaties in amity and relationship by the diplomatic end of the Government.

The question that the gentlemen of California have put before us is one with which we can all sympathize with them. It is one that does not lend itself to an easy solution. And yet it is one of the three and possibly four problems of the same kind that face the country in three or four different sections.

I would be overjoyed if they would take with me next summer when the weather would be auspicious, a trip to the coal regions of Pennsylvania, where we have to exactly the same extent the same kind of an undigested population that they have in certain thickly populated districts in California. I will take them to places in Pennsylvania where the Pennsylvania Germans still speak German, although they have been in this country for 50 years. I will take them in half a dozen counties of Pennsylvania where they can find Hungarians and Italians, people who have been taken there by the force of circumstances of immigration and foisted down upon a stock of native-born Americans perhaps 100 years ago, where they retained their own relations as to marriage, their own language, their own institutions; where their churches have the appearance of a Mohammedan mosque with minarets rather than the cross of the Christians, where there is a foreign element present so that you can hardly understand a word when you go through the streets of the village.

Allusion has been made to the undigested elements in the South, to the great black belt of Alabama, for instance, where you can hardly see a white man in a day's travel. I do not say these things in order to alleviate at all the seriousness of the problem that California has before her. I simply mention them in order to show that other sections of the country, without calling upon the National Government for this kind of legislation of exclusion, or taking in what is considered as an undesirable alien population, and are indeavoring to work up against that proposition and by force of education or Americanization to alleviate that situation by education. It takes years to do it.

I have mentioned the Pennsylvania Dutch. They can talk English to a certain extent, but it is pigeon English; they can not converse in any language except a modification of the German language.

We saw in 1830 the great influx of Irish, and we can remember from our history the undesirable nature of those Irish. From Mr.

McClatchy's name, I would not be at all surprised if his ancestors were among them. They were considered at that time as a raw element.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the attitude of those undigested stocks, if you please, toward the American Government during the war? Mr. TAYLOR. The Civil War?

The CHAIRMAN. I mean the last war.

Mr. TAYLOR. They were absolutely faithful to the call of the American Government. And in the Civil War

The CHAIRMAN. No; I was not talking about the Civil War. was speaking about the last war.

Mr. TAYLOR. They were absolutely faithful to the call of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Both in subscriptions to the governmental loan. and in other respects they were loyal?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have no statistics to prove it, but my impression is that as far as that is concerned they were absolutely on a par. The CHAIRMAN. What injury, then, are they doing to our body politic, socially, politically, or in any other sense?

Mr. TAYLOR. Simply the injury, sir, of one generation, and it is to that point that I wish to address myself.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by the injury of one generation?

Mr. TAYLOR. The inability to adjust themselves to American circumstances during the passing of the first generation.

The CHAIRMAN. But while they are in the undigested state, while they are foreign born, what injury do they do?

Mr. TAYLOR. As a class, no injury; as individuals they do some injury.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want all Americans made up just the same, to look just alike, to dress just alike, and to be absolutely homogeneous?

Mr. TAYLOR. Not at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not there strength in variety?

Mr. TAYLOR. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Look at the Englishman and the Scotchman; absolutely different nationally and yet politically one; and in that diversity there is strength.

Mr. TAYLOR. And I believe therein lies the great strength of the future of America. I believe it is the interfusion of these great strains. There are no Simon-pure descents of America at the present time, and I believe by the infiltration of those national strains into this country of ours there will evolve into the American Nation a strain that will be dominant in the world for everything that the world holds best.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Racially, you mean?

Mr. TAYLOR. Racially.

The CHAIRMAN. Racially, every race is a composite race. The Scotch are made up of three or four different races, if you go back far enough.

Mr. TAYLOR. The English as well.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The Irish civilized the Scotch, did they not? The CHAIRMAN. I think they did if you go back far enough. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors were the greatest pirates ever known in the