THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1922. JAPANESE EMIGRATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18022, 22 February 1922, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1922. JAPANESE EMIGRATION.

The Washington Conference has laid many of the issues which most deeply disturbed relations between the United States and Japan. It is therefore in a good atmosphere that the two Governments will take up the vexed question of Japanese immigration into California. It may be said at once that the difficulty is as much one of administration aa it is of policy. Succcssivc Japanese Governments have recognised that they could not successfully argue against the right of white communities to exclude Asiatics. Their efforts have therefore been directed toward securing a form of restriction neither humiliating nor discriminatory in its character. A very excellent example of this, though it scarcely affects Japanese, who have never attempted to come to this Dominion in any numbers, is contained in the last amendment of the New Zealand law. Under this, without making invidious distinctions of any kiwi, the Government has secured complete control of immigration of all kinds and is able to regulate automatically the number of persons of any given nationality who will be admitted in any period. In commenting recently on the successful working of this Act Mr. W, Downie Stewart expressed the opinion that it would be generally copied. There is at least reasonable ground for this assumption since it embodies the most rigorous control of immigration that could be devised in terms which observe all the international amenities. In this i respect it is distinctly superior to j the " gentleman's agreement" upon which California relies for the main- . tenance of the purity of her population. The weakness of this agree- : ment is that its successful working 1 depends upon administrative efficiency in both the United States and Japan. American officials occasionally impugn the good faith of the Japanese Government, but on the whole their evidence is that Japan has honestly attempted to observe the agreement. Nevertheless the Japanese population of California has grown from 30,000 to 1 100,000 in a few years, and there is a real, if distant, danger of the Japanese element becoming economically as important as it is in Formosa, Korea, Manchuria, and the Hawaiian Islands. The principal point in the present negotiations is not the number of Japanese immigrants, but the extent of Japanese economic penetration. California would certainly prefer that the exclusion of Japanese should be by statute rather than by the "gentleman's agreement," but her chief preoccupation is to prevent certain classcs of small farming, particularly the culture of vegetables and fruifc, passing wholly under Japanese control. The State accordingly passed a law making it practically impossible for Japanese to own or lease land directly or indirectly. To this law the Japanese Government has taken the strongest objection. Baron Goto, a former Minister, has gone so far as to suggest that Japan is willing to put another check on emigration to the United States and is even willing to meet America half-way should the gradual elimination of the Japanese population be desired, but he protested strongly against the " persecution" of the Japanese now in California. Other representative Japanese have threatened that the issue will be carried before the League of Nations. Baron Goto's statement, however, reveals a possible, and indeed a probable, line of settlement. Negotiations between Baron Shidehara, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, and Mr. Roland Morris, United States Ambassador to Japan, reached a successful issue before the j Presidential election, but owing to the change in the Administration the agreement was never ratified. It will be the basis of the present conversations, and the indications are that California will be asked to respect Japanese property rights in exchange for a guarantee from the Japanese Government of stricter supervision over emigrants. There is one important weakness in the Japanese argument against the CaJifomian regulations. No country more carefully protects her economic standards than Japan, and none more rigorously limits the part played by foreigners in her national life. On the ground that their standard of living is lower than that of Japanese, Korean and Chinese labourers are practically excluded. Moreover, whole industries are specifically reserved for the native-born Japanese. Foreigners cannot hold land in Japan as individuals; they are forbidden to engage in agriculture or fishing, or to sell fruit or vegetables. The restrictions extend to the professions. Foreign doctors of medicine cannot practice except in missionary hospitals without passing a medical examination in the Japanese language, both written and oral, before a board composed of Japanese doctors. In commerce there are the same disabilities. . Foreigners cannot become the 1 owners of ships flying the Japanese flag, and all executive interest they can attain is subordinated by law to

Japanese control. Foreigners cannot become shareholders in Japancso national banks, agricultural or industrial banks, or the Bank of Japan. The articles of some private companies exclude foreigners from membership. Foreigners cannot, as individuals, engage in mining; they

cannot become members or brokerfl of the various exchanges j they cannot engage in the emigration business, either as individuals or as shareholders in companiesthey cannot hold any public office or become members of the Japanese Bar. They do not enjoy the franchise. These considerations go a long way toward justifying the Californian attitude, but on every ground it is better that sucli questions should not be permitted to arise. Exclusion is better than regulation, and if the white countries stand firm on this principle they will avoid the many serious complications which are inseparable from a mixed population and a dual standard of living,