Japan and the California Problem Part 7

Much has been heard to the effect that the j.a.panese are not honest in contractual relations.... So far as it relates to the business relations of the farmers, there has been not a little complaint. Much of it, however, appears to have been due to their inability to understand all the details of a contract they could not read. In recent years more care has been taken to understand all of the conditions of the contract entered into, and the charges of breach of contract have become much fewer. Another source of misunderstanding has been that some of the j.a.panese, who think more in personal terms and less in terms of contract than the Americans, have sought to secure a change in their leases when they proved to be bad bargains, and have occasionally left their holdings in order to avoid loss. A third fact is that formerly some undesirable j.a.panese secured leases.

These, however, have gradually fallen out of the cla.s.s of tenants, so that most of those who remain are efficient and desirable farmers.[31]

Another charge is that they work for lower wages than the white laborers.

This may have been true several years ago, but at present it is claimed that the exact reverse is the case. The answers received by the State Board of Control of California to questionnaires sent out by it (one of which was, "Give wage comparisons, with notes on living conditions,") to the County Horticultural Commissioners and County Farm Advisers in the State, agree on one essential; namely, that j.a.panese farm hands are receiving wages equal to or higher than those paid the white workers.[32]

Mr. Chiba, the managing director of the j.a.panese Agricultural a.s.sociation of California, gives the following figures as to wages of j.a.panese and white farm laborers[33]:

_During Harvest._ _After Harvest._

j.a.panese common laborers, $4 per day with $3.50 per day meals. with meals.

White common laborers, $3.50 per day $3 per day with with meals. meals.

White teamsters, $4 per day with $3.50 per day meals. with meals.

The charge that the living conditions of j.a.panese are lower is a thing which cannot be determined by off-hand judgment. Reliable statistics are lacking in this line. In fact, the standard, by which we may safely p.r.o.nounce our judgment on the question, is not easy to establish scientifically. Food, dress, and dwelling may, on the whole, be taken as the criteria for comparison. The food, however, when it happens to be different in kind between two groups of people, unless the prices are compared, cannot be taken as a sure measure for estimating the higher or lower standard of living. The diet of the j.a.panese farmer is different in kind from that of the American; but it will be rash to conclude that the j.a.panese standard of living is thereby lower than that of the American. As a rule, the j.a.panese feed and dress well. There is perhaps no more liberal spender than a j.a.panese youth. His weakness lies rather in taking too much delight in making display than in taking to heart the qualities of a miser. In dwellings the j.a.panese have nothing to compare with the comfortable and durable homes of the Americans. The reason for this deficiency is that the j.a.panese have no a.s.surance for the future; hence they have no incentive to build permanent homes. At any rate, as long as the j.a.panese are getting higher wages than the white laborers, and are not underbidding the latter, frugal living and money-saving are wholly a matter of individual freedom, which should not give cause for criticism.

That there are still other shortcomings in j.a.panese farm laborers must be conceded. They are irascible, unstable, complaining, unsubmissive. These are inborn tendencies of the j.a.panese, and it is not easy to correct them in a short time.

Concerning the question as to what extent the Orientals displace white labor, the replies given by the County Horticultural Commissioners and the County Farm Advisers of California disclose this interesting fact; namely, that in most counties where j.a.panese are engaged in farm work they are not displacing white labor, and only in a few counties where fruits are the chief products do they appear to displace white labor to any extent.[34]

The truth is that the supply of j.a.panese farm labor has been diminis.h.i.+ng noticeably since the virtual stopping of immigration, while the demand has been on the increase. In 1910, it was reported that 30,000 j.a.panese were engaged in farm labor in California[35]; in 1918, there were only 15,794 employed.[36] Professor Millis observed

The number of j.a.panese available for employment by white farmers has diminished, and in certain communities to a marked degree. The total number of such laborers has decreased with restriction on immigration, and the increase in number of j.a.panese farmers.[37]

j.a.panese Farmers.

While j.a.panese farm labor has been diminis.h.i.+ng, the responsible farmers have been increasing. As already stated, in 1909 the j.a.panese controlled 1816 farms, covering 99,254 acres; but in 1919 they cultivated 6000 farms, embracing 458,056 acres. The value of the annual farm products also jumped from $6,235,856 to $67,145,230 during the ten-year period. Thus the increase of cultivation area has been approximately four-fold and that of the crop value ten-fold.

For three outstanding reasons the rapid progress of j.a.panese farmers is envisaged with serious apprehension. The first reason is found in the words of the Governor of California:

These j.a.panese, by very reason of their use of economic standards impossible to our white ideals--that is to say, the employment of their wives and their very children in the arduous toil of the soil--are proving crus.h.i.+ng compet.i.tors to our white rural populations.

This statement, that the j.a.panese are crus.h.i.+ng compet.i.tors of California farmers, is in a measure true, but it greatly exaggerates the situation.

In California, large farms still predominate, and the average size of a farm is about two hundred acres. The size of the j.a.panese farm is usually small, the average being about fifty-seven acres. The contrast is due to the difference both in the method of cultivation and in the crops raised by white and j.a.panese farmers. The crops cultivated exclusively by white farmers are such as corn, fruit, nuts, hay, and grain, which require extensive farming and the employment of machines and elaborate instruments. The j.a.panese, being accustomed to intensive cultivation, almost monopolize the state production of berries, celery, asparagus, etc., which require much stooping, squatting, and painstaking manual work.

Thus there is a clear line of demarkation between white and j.a.panese farmers based on the difference of training and physical const.i.tution.[38]

It must also be remembered that the crops which are exclusively raised by white farmers are those which const.i.tute the more important products of the State, a greater acreage of land being devoted to each of them. Most of the products which are monopolized by the j.a.panese are newly introduced kinds, total crop values of which are small, a very limited amount of acreage being used for their cultivation. This being the case, it is clearly misleading to represent the j.a.panese farmers as "crus.h.i.+ng compet.i.tors" of all other agriculturists in California. Some of those who follow the j.a.panese methods of intensive cultivation perhaps find themselves injured by the more efficient and successful j.a.panese farmers, but the number of such farmers is very small.

That the j.a.panese work longer hours than the white farmers is true. That they occasionally work on Sundays is also true. The explanation for this is that, being discouraged from taking part in the communal life and activities, they naturally tend to spend more time in work and to seek recreation in work itself. On many of the j.a.panese farms it is frequently the custom to have a day off during the week instead of on Sunday for the purpose of going to town to shop or to go visiting. It is true that the women and children are often found working in the fields with the men, but this is due to the fact that in intensive cultivation there is much trivial work which children and women can undertake without undue physical exertion. The children are usually allowed to play in the fields around their parents while the parents work, and this is often represented as compelling children of tender age to engage in "arduous toil."

We cannot, of course, ascertain how far the j.a.panese farmers will in the future push and drive the white farmers out if they are given a free hand; but it is certain that at the present time the sharp compet.i.tion has not yet commenced on account of the clear division of labor established between the j.a.panese and white farmers. That the unparalleled success of j.a.panese farmers should give rise to jealousy and hatred among intolerant American farmers is an inevitable tendency.

The second reason given for apprehension is that the j.a.panese might soon control the entire agricultural land of California unless preventive measures are promptly adopted. This particular fear was by far the most powerful factor in ushering in and pa.s.sing the land laws prohibiting either lease or owners.h.i.+p of agricultural land by an Oriental. The groundless nature of the premonition becomes apparent when a few figures are introduced. California has 27,931,444 acres of farm land, of which about half has been improved. The j.a.panese at the end of 1920 owned 74,769 acres and leased 383,287 acres.[39] It may be true that the lands under j.a.panese control are usually good lands, but they were not so invariably at the time of purchase. As a matter of fact, most of the lands which j.a.panese have secured were at first either untillable or of the poorest quality, and only by dint of patient toil have they been converted into productive soil. Many thrilling stories are told of the hards.h.i.+p and perseverance of j.a.panese farmers, who have after failure on failure succeeded in their enterprise. They have indeed reclaimed swamps and rehabilitated many neglected orchards and ranches. Whatever may be the nature of the land owned by j.a.panese, however, its amount is truly insignificant. It forms only 0.27 per cent. of the agricultural lands of California, or one acre for every 374 acres; while the amount leased is 1.40 per cent. or one acre for every 72.8 acres. This is saying that the j.a.panese in California, who const.i.tute 2 per cent. of the native population, cultivate under freehold and leasehold 1.67 per cent. of the farm lands of California. When we recollect that more than half of California's agricultural land--16,000,000 acres--is still left uncultivated, it seems almost preposterous that so much vociferation should be raised because of the very limited amount of acreage held by the j.a.panese.

The weightiest reason offered for the necessity of checking j.a.panese agricultural progress is the one which almost all leaders of the anti-j.a.panese movement have emphasized; namely, that the j.a.panese are una.s.similable. If they were an a.s.similable race, and in the course of a few generations were to blend their racial ident.i.ty with the American blood, California would have no reason to oppose their progress in agriculture. But they are a distinct people who amalgamate with difficulty, if at all. Were they allowed unhindered development in agriculture, in which their success has been most marked, in the opinion of the exclusionists, they would multiply tremendously in number and correspondingly increase in power to the extent of not only overwhelming the white population of California but also of endangering the harmony and unity of American nationality. This is precisely the line of argument which the Governor of California advanced in his letter to Secretary of State Colby. In its conclusion he states:

I trust that I have clearly presented the California point of view, and that in any correspondence or negotiations with j.a.pan which may ensue as the result of the accompanying report, or any action which the people of the State of California may take thereon, you will understand that it is based entirely on the principle of race self-preservation and the ethnological impossibility of successfully a.s.similating this constantly increasing flow of Oriental blood.

Accordingly, the question whether or not California is justified in prohibiting the j.a.panese from the pursuit of agriculture is not to be determined by a consideration of the amount of land they cultivate or the comparative wages they receive, but by the consideration of their a.s.similability. We shall discuss this pertinent question in the next chapter.

Anti-Alien Land Laws.

The significance of the land issue in itself being slight, as shown by the foregoing study, a casual discussion will suffice on the issue of the anti-alien land laws. The land law of 1913, which was enacted in spite of strong opposition among certain groups of the people of California and on the part of the Federal Government, provided, in summary:

(1) An alien not eligible to citizens.h.i.+p cannot acquire, possess, or transfer real property, unless such is prescribed by the existing treaty between the United States and the country of which he is a subject. This provision takes advantage of the fact that in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation concluded in 1911 between America and j.a.pan, no specific mention is made concerning the owners.h.i.+p of farm land. The Treaty provides:

Article I. The subjects or citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall receive, in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native subjects or citizens, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native subjects and citizens.[40]

(2) An alien not eligible to citizens.h.i.+p cannot lease land for agricultural purposes for a term exceeding three years.

(3) Any company or corporation of which a majority of the members are aliens who are ineligible to citizens.h.i.+p, or of which a majority of the issued capital stock is owned by such aliens, shall not own agricultural lands or lease for more than three years.

(4) Any real property acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act shall escheat to, and become the property of, the State of California.[41]

This ingenious law was rendered ineffective because the j.a.panese kept on buying and leasing land in the names of those of their children who are citizens of this country. Moreover, they resorted to the formation of corporations in which a majority of the stock was owned by American citizens.

The outcome of the situation was the adoption in November of last year of a new land law more carefully framed. The new law naturally aims to correct the defects which led to the evasion of the former law. It is in substance as follows:

(1) All aliens not eligible to citizens.h.i.+p and whose home government has no treaty with the United States providing such right cannot own or lease land;

(2) All such aliens cannot become members or acquire shares of stock in any company, a.s.sociation, or corporation owning agricultural land;

(3) These aliens cannot become guardians of that portion of the estate of a minor which consists of property which they are inhibited by this law from possession or transfer;

(4) Any real property hereafter acquired in fee in violation of the provisions of this act by aliens shall escheat to and become the property of the State of California.

The difference between the old and the new laws is that in the new law evasion is made entirely impossible by prohibiting the j.a.panese from buying or selling land in the names of their children or through the medium of corporations. A novel feature of the new law is that it forbids the three-year lease which was allowed by the old law.

The opponents of the newly enacted law claim that it is unwise because, if it proves effective, it will have driven a large number of capable and industrious farmers out of agriculture, thereby causing no little inconvenience to the people in getting an abundant supply of table delicacies. Even the report of the State Board of Control admits that "the annual output of agricultural products of j.a.panese consists of food products practically indispensable to the State's daily supply," and adds that their sudden removal is not wise.[42] If, on the other hand, the law fails--and that there is abundant possibility of it the sponsors of the law themselves admit--critics insist that it will result in no gain, but "it merely persecutes the aliens against whom it is directed, and sows the seed of distrust in their minds," and further it will occasion an unnecessary ill-feeling between America and j.a.pan. Presenting the reasons for opposing the new land measure, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce stated:

The clause denying the right to lease agricultural lands is ineffective in operation. It may prove irritating to the j.a.panese people, but it will not prevent them from occupying lands for agricultural purposes under cropping contracts for personal services, which cannot be legally prohibited to any cla.s.s of aliens.

This is what Governor Stephens referred to when he confessed that the law can be evaded by legal subterfuge, which it is not possible for the State to counteract. And California has no lack of lawyers, who are resourceful and ready enough to teach the j.a.panese the technical way of evading the law.

The advocates of the new law, on the other hand, argued that anything is better than nothing to show their disapproval of j.a.panese domination in agriculture, and pointed to the j.a.panese law regarding foreign land owners.h.i.+p as an example of foreigners not being allowed to own land. If j.a.pan does not permit the owners.h.i.+p of land by Americans, they argue, by what right do the j.a.panese demand the privilege in America? This apparently does not hit the point since in case of j.a.pan the prohibition of land-owners.h.i.+p is not discrimination against any single nation or people, whereas the case of California is. We may, however, cursorily touch here upon the status of foreign land owners.h.i.+p in j.a.pan.

Land Laws of j.a.pan.

Under present regulations there are three ways in which foreigners may hold land in j.a.pan, viz.:

(1) By ordinary lease running for any convenient term and renewable at the will of the lessee. The rent of such leased property is liable to a review by the courts, after a certain number of years, on the application of either party;

(2) A so-called superficies t.i.tle may be secured in all parts of j.a.pan, save what is called the colonial areas, running for any number of years.

Many such t.i.tles now current run for 999 years. These t.i.tles give as complete control over the surface of the land as a fee-simple t.i.tle would do.

(3) Foreigners may form joint stock companies and hold land for the purposes indicated by their charters. They are juridical persons, formed under the commercial code of j.a.pan, and are regarded just as truly j.a.panese legal persons as though composed solely of j.a.panese. It will thus be seen that in practice foreigners can take possession of land in j.a.pan about as effectually as in fee simple.