Japanese, Italians

The Johnson Immigration Bill (TiME, Oct. 8), introduced by Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, was reported by the House Immigration Committee, of which he is Chairman. At once a storm of opposition broke.

The chief provisions of the bill are:

1) Reduction of alien quotas to 2% of the number of that nationality resident in the U. S. according to the 1890 census.

2) The issuing of quota certificates by consular officers abroad, so that hereafter immigrants need not be turned back after reaching American shores, on the ground that they are in excess of quota.

3) Refusal of admission to all aliens ineligible to U. S. citizenship, unless bound here on a temporary visit.

Attacks on the measure came from several directions and for a variety of reasons.

The cutting of quotas from the pres-ent 3% to 2% and taking the census of 1890 instead of 1910, as at present, as basis for the quotas would reduce gross immigration from about 358,000 to about 159,000. This alienates from the bill large manufacturers who want a well stocked labor market. To counterbalance this group there is organized labor which favors even greater restrictions. The alteration of the basis of the quota from 1910 to 1890 has the effect of a greater proportionate quota for northern and western European countries and smaller proportionate quotas for southern and eastern European countries. Until 1882 immigration from northwestern Europe was almost all our immigration, and 1882 (with less than 600,000 such immigrants) was the peak of that immigration which declined irregularly but continually to about 200,000 annually before the War. On the other hand, it was not until 1886 that southeastern Europe furnished 100,000 immigrants in a year. It never went below that mark until the War, and contributed between 500,000 and 1,000,000 annually from 1902 to 1914. Hence it can be appreciated why, although quotas are nominally reduced one-third by the Johnson bill, it cuts the Italian quota from about 44,000 to about 4,000.

This has aroused southern and eastern European countries to protest against the "discrimination" of the Johnson bill. Citizens of foreign birth likewise protest against the exclusion of their countrymen. Politically this results in opposition to the bill from the representatives of urban districts such as New York, in which the foreign born population is largely concentrated. It also presents a problem to the Republican Party--the possibility of losing New York's electoral votes this year on account of the "foreign born vote." The Japanese Government has protested the provision of the new bill: "No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted into the United States," which is practically aimed at the Japanese. Secretary Hughes last week in a letter to the Immigration Committee, pointed out that this contravened our treaty with Japan. He added: "The Japanese are a sensitive people and unquestionably would regard such a legislative enactment as fixing a stigma upon them. I regret to be compelled to say that I believe such legislative action would largely undo the work of the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament, which so greatly improved our relations with Japan."

He pointed out that we now have an agreement with the Japanese Government whereby Japan undertakes to prevent the immigration of laborers to the U. S. and to supervise its immigration to Canada and Mexico, from which Japanese may be smuggled into this country. If we prohibit all entrance of Japanese, the Japanese Government will doubtless abrogate this agreement, and increased smuggling of Japanese might result. Mr. Hughes suggested that it would be wiser, and actually do more to prevent Japanese immigration to include Japan under the regular quota, which would give it only 246 immigrants annually. Pacific Coast congressmen opposed Mr. Hughes' suggestion.

The bill will probably come before the House for action after the tax reduction bill. Its opponents declare they can defeat it. Of them Mr. Johnson declared: "They are gloating too soon."