JAPANESE IN AMERICA

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 155, 29 December 1925, Page 9

JAPANESE IN AMERICA

"UNSOLVED PROBLEM OF THE PACIFIC"

RELYING ON THE LEAGUE OF

NATIONS,

'iiie Acting Consul-General for Japan, in circulating among newspapers a book by a compatriot entitled "The Unsolved Problem of the Pacific," refers to it as "the last word upon the subject of the Pacific by a capable and qualified Japanese author." The writer, Professor Kyo Sue Inui, is lecturer in international relations at the Tokio University of Commerce, and was formerly lecturer in political science at the University of South California (states the Melbourne "Argus"). His academic qualifications therefore are obvious. And as he only completed the book as recently as June last he had available practically all the material that there is for such a work. But why the problem should be described as belonging to the Pacific is not so clear, seeing that with the exception of two pages dealing with British dominion restriction laws the entire book is given up to a discussion of the Japanese question as it affects the United States, which is as much an Atlantic as it is a Pacific nation. The problem happens to be acute in California, but that is only because San Francisco is the gateway to America on' the side nearest to Japan. Feeling against Orientals may have originated on the Pacific slope. Any action that lias been taken in response, however, has been national, and the last authoritative word has always been pronounced at Washington.

The author of "The Unsolved Problem of the Pacific" used the argument somewhere that in these days of electricity and gasoline communication between nations is too swift to allow of the existence of old-time restrictions. That is the very reason why in a single continent like the United States a problem in one part 1 cannot be segregated. It is well, therefore, 'to regard Professor Inui 's book for what it is—propaganda. He has gone to immense pains in its preparation. At the end of the book there are sixty-three appendices, and a chronological list of United States Immigration Acts,, with every one of which he is familiar. The author does not deny that "fundamentally speaking it lies within the inherent power of each State to limit and control immigration to its own domain," but he contends that when "in the exercise of such right an evident injustice is done to a foreign nation in disregard of its proper self-respect, of international understanding, or of the ordinary rules of comity, the question necessarily, assumes an aspect which justifies diplomatic discussion and adjustment." The first of these justifications exists, he says, because though the Japanese differ only in degree and form from Western people in fundamentals, in instincts, and in : attributes of nature they are regarded in America as belonging to another type of civilisation. "If there is any difference between the East and the West," he writes, i some of it might be due to the difference in the stage of evolution and not necessarily to the inherent difference in quality or kind." Ho points as proof of this to the rapidity with which Japanese born in the United States develop and become I Americanised both in looks and in ! manner. At the same age babies of the first generation weigh more in America than in Japan. Dealing with the second justification for Japanese protest, namely, America's disregard of international understanding, the author refers particularly to the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907, whereby Japan voluntarily restricted the emigration of her labourers to America. The substitution for it by Congress of definite legislation aimed directly At Japanese, and placing Japanese in inferior position compared with other races is looked upon by the author as "one of the greatest blots on the pages of Pacific international history." He traverses the arguments used against the 1907 agreement—the'fact that by its, very nature it took restrictive legislation out of the hands of Congress and placed it in the hands of a foreign Power, that smuggling, in which Japanese officials were involved, was taking place, and that no allowance had been made for the remarkable birth rate among Japanese women in Amer d an — ca j reaches the conclusion that the substitute act which is in operation to-day is not only offensive to Japan but a breach of an agreement which was recognised and accepted by the American nation for seventeen years. Though he does not enter into an elaborate defence of Japan's position on the grounds of the rules of comity, I he goes far enough to indicate that she is mainly relying upon the League of Nations for support in gaining her due treatment and recognition. The first approach to the League was made, as we know, at the Labour Congress at Geneva, in 1924, and again at the Assembly of the League of Nations later in the same year. The last Assembly was apparently not considered an opportune occasion on which to revive the mutter. In a remarkably sennt reference to the restrictive' legislation of pavta of tho British Empire, the author makes this somewhat occult statement: — "Although it must be observed that all of the self-governing British Dominions and colonies actually discriminate against tho Oriental people, such discrimination has operated with less offence because a prior understanding has been reached through consultation between the Governments concerned. And, moreover, they have enlistedthe co-operation of the Orient, particularly of Japan." The Japanese delegates at Geneva in 1924 were not disposed to be so complacent towards Australia, at any rate.

In spite of the fact that, as we think. Professor Inui has written this book for purposes of propaganda, no exception can be taken to his methods. He never fails to draw from both sides when quoting speeches and documents. But he does not make full allowance for the sentiments of the people whom he criticises. Nor irf his assumption that California is iilone concerned and that the rest of America is indifferent correct. There is only one way in which the problem can bo solved, and that is by un understanding between the two nations. The Gentlemen's Agreement, which endured for seventeen years, proved that. Control of immigration is so palpably a domestic concern that for one outside the family circle to assert rights is to make tho breach the wider. And in eff6ct that is what the author of this Book is doing, though he will not admit it.