certain occupations, but there is no exclusion. Foreigners may become citizens of Japan by naturalization, by adoption, or by marriage into a Japanese family. Foreigners cannot purchase land in Japan in fee simple, but they may lease for as long as 999 years. They may also become "a juridical person" by incorporation, "securing privileges identical with those possessed by corporations of natives." In the matter of birth-rate, the Japanese birth-rate in California is high, as with the first generation of all immigrants, but it is already showing signs of decline. In Hawaii the Japanese birth-rate is lower than that of Chinese, Porto Ricans, Spanish, and some other nationalities. In the matter of dual citizenship, Japan was simply following the general custom, since even American children born in Japan retain their American citizenship and must be registered at an American consulate. But a law was passed by the Japanese Diet, July 1, 1924 (effective December 1, 1925), which provides that all Japanese born in foreign countries shall lose their Japanese nationality from birth "unless formal action be taken to preserve their rights to Japanese citizenship." All things considered, the putting of Asiatics on the quota basis would have well served the purpose of those who wished to exclude them practically from our shores, without introducing the new principle of race discrimination. Under the quota only 146 Japanese and 100 Chinese would have been eligible annually.

The "grave consequences"1 predicted by Mr. Hanihara2 as a result of the passage of the bill have certainly come. Many Japanese who in no wise resented the exclusion were deeply wounded by the manner in which it was carried out. Large classes were embittered against our whole civilization. Tendencies have already manifested themselves in the Orient toward a drawing together of Japan, China, and Russia in defense of things Oriental.

As fears and prejudices are the children of ignorance, it may reasonably be hoped that with the dissemination of knowledge

1 See Mr. Hughes's letter to Mr. Hanihara, quoted by Inui as Appendix 52. 2 Then Japanese Minister to the United States.

fears will be scattered and racial animosity allayed. Some good work along these lines has already been accomplished. Since the Washington Conference the nightmare of a sudden naval descent upon our shores has been dispelled. The Immigration Act should at least in equal measure dispel the fear of any peaceful penetration. The great thing now is to deal fairly and justly with the alien populations in our midst, and so to use our commercial rivalry on the Pacific that it may yield healthful intercourse and good understanding, to take the place of the old suspicion and mistrust.

Along the line of commerce there is a great opportunity for Americans, but as yet the most striking feature of the situation is the way in which the opportunity is neglected. Mr. J. B. Powell of Shanghai has said that "the mere fact of being an American citizen is a handicap to doing business in China." He justifies the statement by speaking of the small number of the laws since the creation of the United States Court for China in 1906 - passed to safeguard the interests of Americans in the East. Hence he declares, "We are not foreign traders

we are merely order-fillers." Of course the passing of the China Trade Act has given much encouragement to Americans having business in the East, but this is only a beginning.

The truth is that no phase of our relations with the Orient, political, commercial, or social, can much advance until the country as a whole attains to a world consciousness. In a delightful little symposium, entitled The Island of Sleep, by "Cadmus and Harmonia," the members of a singularly representative house-party are agreed that "foreign affairs are as much a part of politics as an increase in the income tax. "They declare that the least important aspect of the League of Nations is as a guaranty of peace, and conclude: "We must create an international mood." It would seem that the creation, not only of an international mood, but also, within this mood, of an international conscience, is the most pressing of the many problems now being forced upon the attention of the United

1 For text of the Immigration Act of 1924 see Inui, op. cit., Appendix 23.

States. It seems, further, that the most significant thing about the challenge of the time for as a challenge it comes — is the apparent blindness of the vast mass of our people to its presence and its insistency. Have we failed at the critical moment to remember the familiar lines of American poetry which tell of the "Crises, God's stern winnowers, from whose feet earth's chaff must fly"? The former segregation, of which some Americans (like the Japanese) are so inordinately proud, was not, under the circumstances, bad or unnecessary. It was one of those things which are good in their time. There was in it, so Royce has shown, "the positive value of a wholesome provincialism." It was the appointed means for keeping together the product of diverse stocks long enough to blend them into one homogeneous whole. But that condition no longer exists. Nor can it exist in the future. We have moved away from it as completely as the general civilization has moved away from the old potamic and thalassic stages. Even oceans are no longer barriers. Marconi has rendered even the Monroe Doctrine (in the old sense) a nugatory if not a meaningless thing. Physically the continents are a thousand times closer together than were the several parts of the Roman Empire. The rapid dissemination of news makes us all contemporary participants of the emotion and experience of Europe and Asia. Racial affinities and family ties make the United States merely the projection of foreign problems into another hemisphere. We cannot escape the daily looking back to the pit whence we were digged. Moreover, by a will more potent than the policies of our statesmen, our national prestige is now bound up with the maintenance of American honor in the far parts of the earth. China and Japan touch America on their own shores and in their own harbors, as well as in New England or in California. Henceforth, to parody Rudyard Kipling, it may be said: "What do they know of America who only America know?" In this new world-consciousness of the United States Asia is bound to have her large and significant place.

CHAPTER XXIII

CHANGING ALIGNMENTS IN ASIA

ON May 26, 1924, the President of the United States approved the "Act limiting the immigration of aliens into the United States, and for other purposes." By this law aliens ineligible to citizenship were barred from entry to the United States unless admissible as non-quota immigrants; namely, (a) persons previously admitted lawfully to the country and returning from a temporary visit abroad; (b) persons who continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the time of application for admission have been (and are seeking entrance to the United States solely for the purpose of) carrying on the profession of minister of a religious denomination, or professor of a college, seminary, or university, together with the wives and unmarried children (up to the age of eighteen) of the same, accompanying or following; (c) bona-fide students at least fifteen years of age who are entering the country to attend some designated school, college, or university, approved by the Secretary of Labor, and who shall report to the Secretary the termination of such attendance.1

The term "ineligible to citizenship" applies of course to the majority of Asiatics. The naturalization of Chinese is expressly prohibited by statute. The Supreme Court has held, again, in the Ozawa case, November 13, 1922, that Japanese are likewise ineligible to citizenship. Once again, in the Bhag Singh Thind case, the Supreme Court has decided that Hindus are likewise ineligible. Thus at least 750,000,000 of the people of Asia 1 See Inui, op. cit.

are debarred from the quota provisions of the Immigration Act.

This fact by itself, without reference to the Alien Land Laws passed in the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Idaho, Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, and Kansas, between 1913 and 1925, must necessarily have its important repercussions in Asia.

It is unfortunately beyond question that all Asia felt hurt by the Act. This was not so much because of the exclusion. Most people everywhere understood the need for restriction of immigration. But it was generally believed that this might have been accomplished - as in some other countries-without the implication that Asiatics were people of inferior breed and undesirable because of race. It was felt that the introduction of this new principle of ethnocracy was specially aimed at Japan. But in addition to the general grievance, by which Japan's pride of race was wounded, it was felt that suspicion had been cast upon the sincerity of her "gentleman's agreement," which had worked satisfactorily for no less than seventeen years.1

The feeling had its manifestations on both sides of the Pacific. In Japan venerable statesmen who had labored all their lives long for good understanding between the United States and Japan were tempted to doubt the value of the efforts made. From the United States some Japanese went home permanently embittered against the civilization which had hitherto been their model. Others remained, and, expelled from their farms and leaseholds, found the greatest difficulty in starting life. afresh. Some found the line of least resistance in bootlegging and gambling. Many thoughtful Japanese felt the possibility of grave consequences, not in the direction of an incredible war but in the rekindling of animosities which had been assuaged in the generous days of the earthquake relief. Dr. K. Ikuba2 expressed the fears of many when he wrote: "It may create

1 See Inui, op. cit., ch. Ix.

Moderator of the Japanese Presbyterian Church.