Prolific Wives

The Johnson immigration bill (TIME, Feb. 25) so-called after Albert Johnson, Representative from Washington, Chairman of the House Immigration Committee, still lies in committee. In fact it is being considered by the Immigration Committees of both Houses, although it has been reported by neither. And still in committee, it is facing a considerable fight.

Its 2% quota based on the 1890 census (the present quotas are 3% on the 1910 census) have aroused many foreign groups and nations to protest. But last week's fight centred principally on the provision for absolute exclusion of all aliens ineligible for citizenship, meaning especially Japanese. Secretary of State Hughes had previously opposed that provision on the ground that it would offend Japan. The total exclusion provision would break the commercial treaty of 1911 which allowed Japan to send immigrants, but was accompanied by a "gentleman's agreement" that the Japanese Government would not issue passports to the laboring class. To save the treaty and the agreement and amity of Japan, Secretary Hughes, last week, suggested an amendment to the bill to admit any "alien entitled to enter the United States under an existing treaty."

Meanwhile Masanao Hanihara, Japanese Ambassador to the U. S., speaking before the Japan Society in Manhattan stated: "Not only did we declare our intention at the time of the conclusion of the present commercial treaty of 1911 between your country and mine to exercise voluntary control over the coming to this country of our emigrants who are not desired here, but we have been most scrupulously and effectively carrying it out in deed.

"With Japan the question is not one of expediency--of whether Japan be allowed to send a few hundreds more of her emigrants to this country or not-- but one of principle, of whether her self-respect as a nation should be given proper and friendly consideration or not."

But California thinks otherwise. A delegation of its citizens appeared before the Senate Immigration Committee to urge total exclusion of the Japanese. James D. Phelan, former Senator, presented the case of the far West.

Said he: "A man should be the judge of the guests of his own house and it is not only irregular but impertinent for others to seek admission. No offence can possibly be taken by Japan if this is done in a manly way for reasons which she will understand. She excludes the Chinese and Koreans from Japan, although they are racially not very divergent, if at all.

"The trouble has been the subservient character of our Government actuated by fear mostly in dealing with Japan. There is more danger of war in the creation of domestic friction by the warring of the races than in politely refusing the Japanese demand, which has been presented to the committee by missionary societies and high officials.

"Thirty-eight thousand women of Japanese birth have come into California since the gentlemen's agreement in 1908. These women are not only laborers, but are prolific wives, who work almost uninterruptedly in the fields by the sides of their husbands.

"The fact is that Japan is laying the foundation of a permanent colonization on the Pacific slope, which will spread quickly to other parts of the West."