APPENDIX VII

THE PACIFIC COAST AND THE

NEW ORIENTAL POLICY

To the Commission on Relations with Japan of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.

DEAR BRETHREN:

In response to the invitation from the Committee on International Relations of the California State Federation of Churches, acceptance of which invitation you recommended, I went to the Pacific Coast July, 1915, and remained there until the middle of December. I now take pleasure in presenting you herewith the report in brief outlines of what was done.

March 15, 1916.

New York City.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) SIDNEY L. GULICK.

FOREWORD

Shortly after the return from Japan (March 30, 1915) of Dr. Shailer Mathews and the writer, the Federal Council Christian embassy to that land, we were invited by the Commission on International Relations of the California State Federation of Churches to undertake in California a campaign of education on the Oriental problem. Dr. Mathews, unfortunately, was unable to comply. The writer, how

NOTE.-Immediately following the above letter of transmission, the first place in the pamphlet was given to a statement by the president and general secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, and to two resolutions by the Commission on Relations with Japan and by the administrative committee of the Federal Council, which are here omitted as they have already been given toward the close of the report of the commission (see pages 38-40).

ever, responding to the invitation and in compliance with your own recommendation to that effect, visited nearly all of the important centers, not only preaching in the churches, but also addressing important groups of business men, women's clubs and ministerial gatherings, and meeting not a few of the leaders of organized labor.

In California the addresses delivered numbered ninety-four all told, while in Oregon and Washington they numbered seventy-four. Although I made San Francisco my headquarters, three trips were made to Los Angeles and San Diego, and two to Seattle and the state of Washington. The final trip through Oregon and Washington occupied three weeks, closing December 14 at Walla Walla.

THE VISIT TO CALIFORNIA OF LABOR REPRESENTATIVES FROM JAPAN

On July 6, Messrs. Suzuki and Yoshimatsu landed in San Francisco. They came representing, as fraternal delegates, the laborers of Japan. While in Japan in February, the writer had several conferences with representatives of organized labor and with others, whereby the coming of these delegates was finally arranged. Mr. Paul Scharrenberg, secretary of the California State Federation of Labor, to whom the initial suggestion for their coming is to be credited, rendered valuable aid in making their visit to California a success. I met them upon their arrival and introduced them to Mr. Scharrenberg. After satisfying himself as to their credentials and character, he introduced them to representatives of organized labor and secured for them seats as fraternal delegates in the annual meeting at Santa Rosa of the California State Federation of Labor. Mr. Suzuki's addresses at that annual meeting, as well as before various Central Labor Councils of cities in California, and especially before the annual convention of the American Federation of Labor (San Francisco, November 8-20) won him many friends and overcame no little suspicion and opposition.

The friendly reception accorded to the Japanese delegates is not, however, to be interpreted as in any way indicating a lessening of opposition to Japanese immigration on the part of organized labor. It indicates rather a clearing up of the issue, helping to remove its race character and making it more evidently an economic problem. This indeed was the clear utterance of many of the addresses made by representatives of organized labor introducing the "brother from Japan.”

Mr. Suzuki himself was careful to make clear that his visit had nothing to do with the immigration question. He came "in order to

learn the best methods of organized labor in America." He appealed to labor in the United States for sympathy and aid for the labor movement in Japan. His assertion of the identity of labor's problems and interests in Japan and America elicited repeated applause.

The San Francisco Labor Clarion has recently published (February, 1916) correspondence that took place last October between Senator · James D. Phelan of California and Secretary Paul Scharrenberg of the California State Federation of Labor. Senator Phelan criticized the reception accorded the Japanese delegates by the California Federation of Labor.

"I wish" he writes, "to respectfully call attention to the fact that anything which weakens the hands of your representatives in Washington weakens the cause in which we are all concerned-the prevention of the displacement of the white population of California by the Japanese. If . . . it may appear that our workingmen are not sincere in their opposition and have been won over to the 'brotherhood of man' sentimentality skilfully preached by Japanese proponents and carried on in various forms by the Japanese propaganda in this country, then Washington may be confronted with the serious problem which for the time being is held in abeyance by the 'Gentlemen's Agreement' existing between the United States and Japan."

To this letter Secretary Scharrenberg promptly replied showing that the Japanese delegates had been seated in the state convention only after due examination of their purposes and credentials. He states that the Japanese delegates "came to America to learn something about our working-class movement, our methods of organization, and, if possible, to use the knowledge thus acquired to improve the conditions of working people in Japan." They were accordingly "received and extended every courtesy by the labor organizations of California. . . . It is entirely clear that the kindness and courtesy toward our visitors should not be construed to mean a weakening in labor's demand for the exclusion of all Asiatic laborers from our shores."

THE MAIN EMPHASIS

The major part of my time, however, from July to December, was consumed in efforts to explain to individuals and to groups the nature of the policy and program by which the pending problem between the United States and Japan may be solved.

In general the policy seeks to provide for protection for the Pacific Coast states from swamping or even large Asiatic immigration,

which protection they justly demand, and also to provide for Japan's earnest plea that there shall be no discriminating and humiliating race legislation.1

In addition to describing in my addresses, so far as the time limitations allowed, the main feature of the proposed policy, I usually left with those interested, copies of two pamphlets entitled "Asia's . Appeal to America" and "The American-Japanese Problem."

So far as I was able to judge, all the audiences to which the above policy and program were presented with any degree of fulness were favorably impressed. No audience, however, was asked to give on the spot any expression of its judgment.

Since, however, it is needful that leaders of national life should give the policy and program serious consideration, from the middle of October and onward I sought by letter and personal conversation to secure definite expressions of opinion. This effort brought a goodly number of personal letters and resolutions from those who may well be regarded as representatives of the responsible citizenship of the Pacific Coast.

1The full statement of this proposal is given in The American-Japanese Problem, chapter XVII (Scribner's). A more recent statement is available in a pamphlet entitled "A Comprehensive Immigration Policy and Program" (105 East 22d Street, New York). In briefest terms the proposal is that all immigration should be restricted and that the principle of restriction should be proven capacity to enter wholesomely into our life. The law would read that the number of male aliens fourteen years of age and over to be admitted annually as immigrants from any race or people should be a definite per cent. (say five) of the sum of the American-born children of that people plus the naturalized citizens of the same people.

This principle would not restrict present immigration from North Europe; it would restrict it somewhat from South and East Europe; while the amount that would be admitted annually from Japan and China would be about 1,200 and 1,100 respectively, being less than is now admitted annually from those lands. In addition, however, to restriction, provision should also be made for the rapid and wholesome incorporation into our life and institutions of those whom we do admit for permanent residence here. For this we need federal Bureaus of Registration and of Education; we should also adjust our laws whereby privileges of citizenship should be given to all who qualify, regardless of race. These provisions the percentage method for numerical limitation of immigration and the giving of citizenship to all who qualify-would completely solve the American Asiatic problem, for it would thoroughly protect the Pacific Coast states from large immigration and it would also remove the differential race legislation which is so keenly resented by Japanese and Chinese.

EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS1

1. BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER

President of the University of California, Berkeley, Cal.

I have always looked to your plan of proportional immigration as involving the possibility of a fortunate solution for the much vexed question of Oriental immigration. It meets the main factors of the situation. Our objection to wholesale immigration is that the opposite shores of the Pacific Ocean, now that civilization has made its westward circuit of the globe, represent the most widely different economic standards in regard to living and the remuneration of toil. To allow these two opposite communities to mix with absolute freedom would mean that we should annul at a stroke the differentiations of centuries. Our objections to immigration are not racial, but industrial and economic. I cannot at this date and with this present light see why your plan should not work. It cancels out the violent and brittle features of absolute exclusion, and appeals to gradualness. Gradualness is what we want. We are only contending for reasonable time.

2. LEROY A. WRIGHT

Member of California State Senate (1906-1912), San Diego, Cal.

I have examined very carefully your plan of proportional immigration. I am pleased to say that in my opinion it contains the proper basis of settling a perplexing question which has in the past and may in the future vex our relations with foreign nations.

Whether the percentage suggested in your plan is the correct one, and whether it will have to be altered from time to time must be determined by the circumstances. The question of the rate, however, does not affect the principle. I am satisfied that you have arrived at the correct principle for a solution of the problem, and I sincerely trust that the men and women of this country who have time to think and the ability to think rightly on such questions, will cooperate with you to the fullest extent. Had your plan been adopted, there would have been no friction in 1907 and the years that followed, between the United States and Japan.

If I can be of any service to you in advancing the good work which you have undertaken, I beg to assure you that it will give me great pleasure.

3. WARREN OLNEY, JR.

Attorney and Counselor at Law, San Francisco, Cal.

Replying to your letter of yesterday I would say that it seems to me that your suggestion that this country should have a compre1 In the chronological order of their receipt.