FACTS ABOUT THE JAPANESE IN CALIFORNIA—FARMERS AND ALIEN LAND LAWS

Agriculture is by far the most important occupation of the Japanese in California. Out of the total Japanese population of 70,196 in California, 38,000 belong to the farming classes including those who are sustained by breadwinners. Besides, there are thousands of laborers who seek farm work during the summer. Perhaps owing to the facts that most of the Japanese immigrants are drawn from the agricultural communities in Japan, that the climate and soil of California are especially suited to the kinds of farming in which the Japanese are skilled—such as garden-trucking and berry-farming—the Japanese in California have been markedly successful in agricultural pursuits.

History of Japanese Agriculture in California.

The history of Japanese farming in California dates back to the time when the Chinese Exclusion Law was enacted in 1882. A number of Japanese laborers were employed in the Vaca Valley and another group in the vineyards of Fresno as early as 1887-1888. Since that time the number of Japanese farm laborers has steadily increased. They have distributed themselves widely in the lower Sacramento, San Joaquin River, Marysville, and Suisun districts. Later many Japanese settled in Southern California. During that early period the Japanese farm laborers were warmly welcomed by the California farmers because of the dearth of farm hands and because of their skill and industry in farming.

But the Japanese were not satisfied at remaining mere farm hands. They saved their wages and attempted to start independent farming. In many cases independent farming was not as profitable as wage labor, since the former involved risk and responsibility. Yet because of the incalculable pleasure which independence brings, because of the ease with which leases could be obtained, and because of the social prestige attached to the “independent farmers,” the Japanese developed a distinct tendency to lease or buy land and to take up farming by themselves rather than be employed as wage earners.

This tendency, however, did not manifest itself distinctly until some time later, when they had saved sufficient sums of money to launch such undertakings. Thus the census of 1900 records only 29 farms, covering 4698 acres, which were operated by Japanese. The number steadily increased during the following ten years. According to the census of 1910 they operated 1816 farms, covering 99,254 acres of land. At present it is reported that they own some 600 farms covering 74,769 acres and operate some 6000 farms embracing 383,287 acres under lease or crop contract, bringing the total farm acreage under Japanese control to 458,056 acres.

The brilliant success of the Japanese farmers in California may be better appreciated when the amount and value of the crops turned out by them every year are considered. Governor Stephens, in his letter to Secretary of State Colby, quotes in part the report prepared by the State Board of Control, and states:

... At the present time, between 80 and 90 per cent. of most of our vegetable and berry products are those of the Japanese farms. Approximately, 80 per cent. of the tomato crop of the State is produced by Japanese; from 80 to 100 per cent. of the spinach crop; a greater part of our potato and asparagus crops, and so on.

In another part of the letter he remarks:

... In productive values—that is to say, in the market value of crops produced by them—our figures show that as against $6,235,856 worth of produce marketed in 1909, the increase has been to $67,145,730, approximately ten-fold.

Causes of Progress.

There are many causes for this rapid development. In the first place, the Japanese as a rule are ambitious. They do not rest satisfied, like the Chinese and the Mexicans, with being employed as farm laborers. They save money or form partnerships with well-to-do friends, and start independent farms. This is made easy by a form of tenancy which prevails in California. That is, the landowner advances the required sum of money to a tenant, offers him tools and shelter, and in return receives rent from the sale of the crops. This is a modified form of crop contract, but it is decidedly more secure for the owner, because he assumes less risk. It is more profitable to the tenant because he gets a due reward for his effort. On account of the ease with which this kind of lease is obtained, ambitious Japanese farm laborers soon become tenants, and when successful—and usually they are—they buy a piece of land with the intention of making a permanent settlement.

That Japanese farmers are usually favorably regarded by landowners is an important factor in their success. Although there have been cases in which the Japanese provoked the hatred of landowners by not observing promises or failing to carry out contracts, on the whole, the Japanese are preferred to other races, because they are more peaceful, take better care of the land, and pay higher rent.[30]

The reason why Japanese take better care of the land and can pay higher rent than ordinary farmers may be found in their previous agricultural training in Japan. There the farming is conducted on the basis of intensive cultivation. Moreover, in order to prevent exhaustion of land the farmers are accustomed to taking minute care that the soil’s fertility be retained. This habit of intensive cultivation and the minute care of the soil, which are really inseparable, are maintained by the Japanese farmers when they undertake agriculture in California. Furthermore, it so happens that the climate and soil of California are especially suited for intensive cultivation. Such products as vegetables and berries, which grow so abundantly in California, are precisely the kinds of crops which demand careful and intensive cultivation. The notable success of Japanese farmers in this form of production, therefore, is not an accident. By the introduction of methods of intensive cultivation they have been able to take good care of the land and to pay high rent to the landowners.

That the Japanese are good farmers is attested by the fact that they actually produce more per acre than the other farmers. The Japanese-American Year Book of 1918 has the following comment to make regarding the efficiency of Japanese farmers in California:

In the year 1917 there were 12,000,000 acres of irrigated farm lands in California. From this, California produced crops valued at $500,000,000; that is to say, the value of the product turned out per acre was about $42. Japanese cultivated 390,000 acres and produced $55,000,000 worth of farm products, or $141 per acre. The value of the Japanese farms turned out per acre was, therefore, three and a half times as much as that obtained by California farms in general.

Perhaps the patience and industry with which the Japanese have developed some of the “raw” land of California into productive farm land accounts for their prosperity in such localities as Florin, New Castle, the Sacramento district, and the Imperial Valley.
Japanese Farm Labor.

We may now inquire to what extent the Japanese farmers constitute a menace to the California farmers and to the State of California. In considering this question, it is useful to distinguish between the Japanese farm laborers and the regular farmers.

There are in California at present about fifteen thousand Japanese who are employed in various kinds of agriculture. The number varies according to season. In the summer months it increases considerably, while in the winter it greatly decreases. When the seasonal work is over in a locality, the men seek other jobs in other localities. There is work for them throughout the year, since the climatic conditions of California are such that some crop is raised in some part of the State in almost all months. The agency which adjusts the demand and supply of farm labor is known as a “Japanese Employment Office.” There are over three hundred, at least, of such agencies facilitating the supply of labor.

The chief advantage which the employment of Japanese farm laborers offers to employers is, in the first place, their highly transitory character. Most of the Japanese laborers, being men of middle age with no settled homes, go to any place where wages are high. The convenience which the farmers receive from this rapid supply of necessary labor is immense, since the crops handled by the Japanese are perishables demanding immediate harvesting. The transitory facility of Japanese labor is one thing which California farmers cannot easily dispense with and is a thing which the white laborers with families cannot very well substitute.

Another convenience derived from the employment of Japanese farm labor is the “boss system.” It is a form of contract labor in which a farmer employs workers on his farm as a united body through its representative or boss. This frees the farmer from the care of overseeing the work, of arranging the wages with the workers, and of taking other troubles. Although this system has given rise to many regrettable complications through the occasional failure of the Japanese to observe their contracts, which leads to the general belief that the Japanese are unreliable and dishonest; nevertheless, this “boss system” remains as the one distinct feature of Japanese farm labor which is welcomed by the California farmers.

There is one more characteristic of the Japanese farm laborers which is unique and extremely important. They are by habit and constitution adapted to the garden farming which prevails in California. Fruit and berry picking, trimming and hoeing, transplanting and nursery work, which require manual dexterity, quick action, and stooping over or squatting, are singularly suited to the Japanese. No other race, save possibly the Chinese, can compete with the Japanese in this sort of field labor. With their training in intensive cultivation, with physical adaptation to the important agricultural industries of California, and with the rapid transitory capacity and advantageous system of contract labor, the Japanese farm laborers constitute an important asset to the agriculture of California.

There are, however, serious charges made against this class of Japanese. Perhaps the most pertinent criticism of them is that they do not observe contracts or promises. This question was very ably discussed by Professor Millis in his valuable book, The Japanese Problem in the United States, as follows:

Much has been heard to the effect that the Japanese 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 Japanese, 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 Japanese secured leases. These, however, have gradually fallen out of the class 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 Japanese farm hands are receiving wages equal to or higher than those paid the white workers.[32]

Mr. Chiba, the managing director of the Japanese Agricultural Association of California, gives the following figures as to wages of Japanese and white farm laborers[33]:

The charge that the living conditions of Japanese 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 pronounce 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 Japanese farmer is different in kind from that of the American; but it will be rash to conclude that the Japanese standard of living is thereby lower than that of the American. As a rule, the Japanese feed and dress well. There is perhaps no more liberal spender than a Japanese 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 Japanese have nothing to compare with the comfortable and durable homes of the Americans. The reason for this deficiency is that the Japanese have no assurance for the future; hence they have no incentive to build permanent homes. At any rate, as long as the Japanese 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 Japanese farm laborers must be conceded. They are irascible, unstable, complaining, unsubmissive. These are inborn tendencies of the Japanese, 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 Japanese 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 Japanese farm labor has been diminishing noticeably since the virtual stopping of immigration, while the demand has been on the increase. In 1910, it was reported that 30,000 Japanese were engaged in farm labor in California[35]; in 1918, there were only 15,794 employed.[36] Professor Millis observed

The number of Japanese 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 Japanese farmers.[37]

Japanese Farmers.

While Japanese farm labor has been diminishing, the responsible farmers have been increasing. As already stated, in 1909 the Japanese 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 Japanese farmers is envisaged with serious apprehension. The first reason is found in the words of the Governor of California:

These Japanese, 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 crushing competitors to our white rural populations.

This statement, that the Japanese are crushing competitors 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 Japanese 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 Japanese 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 Japanese, 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 Japanese farmers based on the difference of training and physical constitution.[38]It must also be remembered that the crops which are exclusively raised by white farmers are those which constitute 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 Japanese 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 Japanese farmers as “crushing competitors” of all other agriculturists in California. Some of those who follow the Japanese methods of intensive cultivation perhaps find themselves injured by the more efficient and successful Japanese farmers, but the number of such farmers is very small.

That the Japanese 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 Japanese 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 Japanese 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 competition has not yet commenced on account of the clear division of labor established between the Japanese and white farmers. That the unparalleled success of Japanese 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 Japanese 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 passing the land laws prohibiting either lease or ownership 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 Japanese at the end of 1920 owned 74,769 acres and leased 383,287 acres.[39] It may be true that the lands under Japanese 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 Japanese 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 hardship and perseverance of Japanese 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 Japanese, 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 Japanese in California, who constitute 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 Japanese.

The weightiest reason offered for the necessity of checking Japanese agricultural progress is the one which almost all leaders of the anti-Japanese movement have emphasized; namely, that the Japanese are unassimilable. If they were an assimilable race, and in the course of a few generations were to blend their racial identity 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 Japan 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 assimilating this constantly increasing flow of Oriental blood.

Accordingly, the question whether or not California is justified in prohibiting the Japanese 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 assimilability. 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 citizenship 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 Japan, no specific mention is made concerning the ownership 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 citizenship 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 citizenship, 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 Japanese 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 citizenship 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, association, 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 Japanese 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 Japanese 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 Japan. 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 Japanese 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 class 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 Japanese 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 Japanese domination in agriculture, and pointed to the Japanese law regarding foreign land ownership as an example of foreigners not being allowed to own land. If Japan does not permit the ownership of land by Americans, they argue, by what right do the Japanese demand the privilege in America? This apparently does not hit the point since in case of Japan the prohibition of land-ownership 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 ownership in Japan.

Land Laws of Japan.

Under present regulations there are three ways in which foreigners may hold land in Japan, 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 title may be secured in all parts of Japan, save what is called the colonial areas, running for any number of years. Many such titles now current run for 999 years. These titles give as complete control over the surface of the land as a fee-simple title 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 Japan, and are regarded just as truly Japanese legal persons as though composed solely of Japanese. It will thus be seen that in practice foreigners can take possession of land in Japan about as effectually as in fee simple.

On April 13, 1910, the Japanese Diet passed a land law which embodied, among others, the following provisions:

Article I. Foreigners domiciled or resident in Japan and foreign juridical persons registered therein shall enjoy the right of ownership in land, provided always that in the countries to which they belong such right is extended to Japanese subjects, and Japanese juridical persons....

Article II. Foreigners and foreign juridical persons shall not be capable of enjoying the right of ownership in land in the following districts: First, Hokkaido; second, Formosa; third, Karafuto; fourth, districts necessary for national defense.

Article III. In case a foreigner or a foreign juridical person owning land ceases to be capable of enjoying the right of ownership in land, the ownership of such land shall accrue to the fiscus [the Imperial Treasury], unless he disposes of it within a period of one year.

Article IV. The date for putting the present law into force shall be determined by Imperial ordinance.