surmises, not reality, that control the situation. The student of the situation feels bound to challenge the truth of nine-tenths of the statements and the validity of most of these local arguments.

We Americans dragged Japan out of her enjoyable hermitage. As zealous as Macedonians were we in our cry, first to the Chinese, to "come over and help us." We wanted the Japanese badly and we invited them here. Alas, they have turned out to be so unlike the Christians we get from the most othodox part of Christian Europe! These "very respectable and fullhanded farmers," as George Washington would have called them, do not patronize our liquor-saloons, or fill our almshouses and prisons, or buy our guns and pistols to kill, nor imitate our abominable manners and vulgar extravagance. On the contrary they are so wickedly zealous in reclaiming our waste land, so offensively industrious, and so shamefully eager to learn our language, read newspapers, patronize libraries and life-insurance companies, become builders and supporters of Christian churches (over fifty of which they have organized on the Pacific coast) that we are on the brink of ruin through their cheap labor! Verily, with fewer than seventy thousand Japanese in the continental United States, "the hordes of Asia" are precipitating themselves on us to the overwhelming of free institutions!

Forum. 50:66-76. July, 1913

Japanese-American Relations. Edwin Maxey

Given a traditional friendship resting on the recollection of of kindness shown and an admiration for achievements, added to a community of interests resting on mutually advantageous trade relations due to a difference in resources and emphasized by the fact of geographical location, it would be most unfortunate if these relations were to be disturbed by hostile legislation and unfair discrimination by a state legislature. But the recent act passed by the California legislature and signed by the governor raises substantially the same question as that raised six years ago by the order of the San Francisco school board in excluding the Japanese children from the public schools of San Francisco. Now as then there is no emergency which calls for drastic action by the local unit. At that time the local unit

attempted a discrimination against aliens whose rights were protected by a treaty between the United States and their government containing a "most favored nation" clause. That the federal government had a right to negotiate such a treaty there is not now and has not for a century been any doubt. The treaty-making power is by the constitution conferred upon the federal government, without limitation. The federal government had therefore the same power to make treaties as had the government of other independent states at that time. And at that time, and for a long time previously other independent states had been making treaties containing the "most favored nation" clause. This power has never been taken away from the federal government and has been frequently exercised without any question as to the legal right to exercise it, when considered expedient to do so. Nor is there any doubt that when a treaty containing such a clause is made it becomes, in accordance with the constitution, "the supreme law of the land." It may be unwise for the federal government to insert such a provision in its treaties but of this the federal government and not a state legislature is to be the judge.

In the school case the matter was finally settled not by the local authorities but by the federal government to whom it should have been referred in the first place. The intervention by the local authorities settled nothing. It served merely to cause useless irritation to a friendly state, to embarrass our own government and to show that the question was one to be dealt with by the federal government, not by the local authorities. If the rights of California, in respect to matters governed by a valid treaty, were interfered with they had the undoubted right of appealing to the federal government for protection, which, if merited, would no doubt have been accorded. But this method was far too tame and prosaic for Californians. They chose rather to make what political capital they could by independent action which would inevitably cause irritation and make the question more difficult of handling; and then, having secured what advertising they could get out of it, they turned the question over to the federal government for adjustment.

One would suppose that the above experience would have taught the Californians something. But it did not. At the beginning of the present session of the legislature a whole crop of bills, thirty-four in number, was introduced for the purpose of gain

ing immortal fame and votes for their authors, by insulting the citizens of a friendly state. One of these was a bill to increase the license to Japanese from ten dollars to one hundred dollars. Another was to place a special poll tax on Japanese, notwithstanding the fact that the treaty of 1911 between the United States and Japan contains the following provision: "They shall not be compelled under any pretext whatever to pay any charges or taxes other or higher than those that are or may be paid by native citizens or subjects." Another was a bill to prevent Japanese from owning power engines, the purpose of this being to drive them out of the steam laundry business. If such legislation is valid, then any state can make it impossible for aliens to make a living within it, regardless of "most favored nation" clauses in our treaties with governments of said aliens.

In matters affecting foreign relations, if there is doubt as to the right of the local political unit to act, such authority owes it to the federal government to proceed slowly, rather, than hasten to act lest its excuse for action should be removed by a friendly and diplomatic adjustment of the question by the branch of the government having charge of foreign relations. True, the act of the legislature may be tested in the federal courts and, if in violation of the treaty, its enforcement may be enjoined. This would arrest the mischief at that point, but a part of it would have been completed. The irritation would already have been caused; so that while the state would have derived no benefit, needless embarrassment and annoyance to the federal government would have resulted. It is not clear to the lay mind why a state should display such over-anxiety to place itself in such position. If, after diplomatic means have failed, it should have recourse to this as a last resort, its act could be justified, provided there was a reasonable hope of accomplishing some good by it. By virtue of its position as a state in the Union, California, in common with every other state in the Union, is under some obligations to the federal government. And among these obligations one is to refrain from making it unnecessarily difficult for the federal government to conduct its foreign relations, particularly where there is doubt as to the legality of action contemplated by the state.

The true explanation of this epidemic of anti-Japanese legislation in California is not to be found in any real fear that the Japanese will monopolize the agricultural lands of California or

that the ownership of a part of them by Japanese will depreciate the value of adjoining lands, for it does not, as would be the case if they were slovenly farmers. As a matter of fact the Japanese increase the productiveness of lands owned by them, which tends to increase the value of adjoining lands. Neither are the Japanese laborers what can be styled cheap laborers. The Commissioner of Labor for California, Mr. Mackenzie, in his report for 1911 admits that the immigration of more Japanese would be a benefit to the state. It may as well be admitted frankly that the real explanation of the present outburst of antiJapanese legislation is to be found in race prejudice. That this prejudice has not a sufficient reason upon which to rest matters not. Prejudices do not rest upon reason, they rest upon passion. It you ask one inoculated with the virus of race prejudice for an explanation of his action you are met with the statement that it is natural. This I deny. If it were natural we should find it in children from one to ten years old, as children at that age are far more natural than older persons. Children do not draw the color line. They play as readily with children of another race as with those of their own. It is only after their conduct is governed by the conventionalities of society that they draw the color line. Race prejudice is a form of bigotry much less defensible or rational than that which afflicted the Pharisee, for the latter based his claim to superiority upon acts, not upon the accident of birth or the color of his ancestors. A due respect for the rights and feelings of others and usefulness in promoting a larger and more perfect life among those influenced by our thoughts and acts, rather than color or pedigree, constitute the only valid claim to superiority among men. Race prejudice is therefore too dim and fitful a light to guide the course of states in their relations with each other.

Not to be given free rein in dealing with the Japanese may be irksome to California. The presence of Japanese among them may be disagreeable, may be so disagreeable that their impulse would be to proceed at once to a general deportation. It was also disagreeable for South Carolina to pay tariff duties in 1832. But while a state continues to be a member of the Union it may as well expect to bear the burdens as well as reap the advantages of that relation. By far the major part of the sympathy which California now receives comes from a section having an exalted notion of states' rights and what in the lan

guage of art would be called an over-emphasis of the importance of the color scheme.

Equally uncalled-for and equally unwise with the outburst of anti-Japanese feeling in California are the intemperate predictions of war with Japan.

War between the United States and Japan is unnecessary and unlikely. The surest guarantee against it is the good sense of the two states. Neither wants war and neither can afford it. Notwithstanding sporadic outbursts on both sides, each still has confidence in the other, which makes it easy to adjust differences. It is to be hoped that the lesson taught by the present strain on international friendships will not be lost and that it will lead to a readjustment of powers between our state and federal governments which will prevent a recurrence of such unfortunate and awkward situations.

Survey. 31:720-2. March, 7, 1914

Problem of Oriental Immigration. Sidney L. Gulick.

The new American Oriental policy must hold as its major premise the principles announced by President Wilson in that notable address at Mobile. He was speaking, it is true, with the South American nations in view, but the principles he announced apply equally to the nations of the Orient. As reported, he said:

We must prove ourselves their friends and champions upon terms of equality and honor. You cannot be friends upon any other terms than upon the terms of equality.

You cannot be friends at all except upon the terms of honor; and we must show ourselves friends by comprehending their interests, whether is squares with out interests or not.

Upon such principles consistently applied, would I found America's new Oriental policy.

America should treat the Oriental on a basis of complete equality with the citizens of other races, granting to them as to the most favored nation, treatment even as we give it to others and demand it for ourselves.

The policy needed is one that shall conserve all the permanent interests of California and of the entire United States, shall do so in harmony with the dignity of the peoples of the Orient, and shall provide likewise for their permanent welfare.