Within the last two years a large number of Japanese have returned to Japan, which probably accounts for the discrepancy between the total of this estimate and the total immigration since 1904. This estimate does not include the Japanese military. A striking result of Japanese administration is that the number of Japanese officials and employees in the Korean government now exceeds the Koreans, who are being removed from even the meanest occupations to make way for Japanese. What probably will impress the sociological student in this estimate is that the Japanese immigration is of a character directly to compete with the native population. Instead of opening new avenues of production, this immigration so far merely has brought an additional population to live upon the present resources of the country, which means that it has had the immediate effect of accentuating the struggle for existence, and has subjected Koreans to a severe and unfamiliar competition.

The character of this competition can only be appreciated when political conditions in Korea under Japan's rule, and its application to the situation of the natives, are understood; and as I lack space in this paper to give details illustrating this phase of the matter, I will repeat a summary which is included in my recent work "America and the Far Eastern Question:"

"The scope of this work will not permit relation in detail of detriments which Koreans of all classes suffer under the Japanese regime. Bare mention of specific instances which, supported by reliable testimony, were called to my attention during my last visit would fill pages. These detriments may be summarized as follows: Siezure of land and other property of Koreans by Japanese without proper compensation or legal warrant; exclusion of Koreans from participation in commercial and industrial development of the country; subjection of Koreans to abuse and indignities at the hands. of Japanese immigrants, military and civil officials; the practical impossibility for Koreans, except in flagrant cases, to obtain justice in issues against Japanese; superior advantages of Japanese over Korean tradesmen and merchants, through preferential treatment accorded by the Japanese administration; debauching of Korean morals by Japanese immigrants, by the introduction of thousands of Japanese prostitutes and by the introduction of pernicious vices, such as opium and lotteries. The detriments thus summarized are not based upon scarce or isolated cases, but are so numerous and

1

widespread as unmistakably to indicate that they are the result partly of premeditated general policy, and partly due to laxity and indifference of Japanese administrators."

The truth is that Japanese in Korea demean themselves not as ordinary immigrants, but as overlords; and this is as true of the Japanese coolie, in his sphere, as it is of the highest official. The average Japanese in Korea assumes the attitude of conqueror, and seems to regard Koreans as an inferior and subject race. Moreover, they are supported in this attitude by the policy of the Japanese government, and by actions of Japanese officials. in Korea. Indeed, the plight of a Korean in his own country is now a sorry one; yet, curiously enough, he may not himself emigrate without permission of the Japanese authorities. Recently, acting upon representations of Japanese emigration companies and their affiliated interests, the Residency [Japanese administration in Korea] made new regulations affecting Korean emigration. This regulation is ostensibly designed to "protect" Koreans who emigrate to foreign countries. In recent years there has been little Korean emigration except to Hawaii and Mexico, where it competes with Japanese immigrants in the labor field. The new regulations make it practically impossible for Koreans to emigrate except under conditions which discourage such disposition. To believe that any solicitude for Koreans animates the Japanese government in this matter taxes the credulity of anyone who is familiar with conditions in Korea.

It is probable that this brief criticism of some effects of Japanese immigration into Korea will interest Americans chiefly by whatever light it throws upon its predominating characteristics. Japanese immigrants into Korea are not responsible for the Korean policy of Japan, but their demeanor under the circumstances is interesting and perhaps illuminating. That Japanese of all classes in Korea are, in their attitude toward the natives and institutions of the country, contemptuous, truculent and overreaching is my firm conviction; and as their political and social situation there is favorable, compared to that of Japanese immigrants to western countries, their conduct may afford an insight into what they might do elsewhere should circumstances permit.

THE EXCLUSION OF ASIATIC IMMIGRANTS IN

AUSTRALIA

BY PHILIP S. ELDERSHAW, B.A., and P. P. OLDEN,
University Law School, Sydney, New South Wales.

In the history of the Australian colonies, now forming the Australian Commonwealth, the frequent recurrence of legislation directed against Asiatic immigrants is impressive. To quote one example, no sooner did the colony of Victoria obtain responsible government in 1855 than a restriction act was passed, imposing duties on the masters of vessels bringing Chinese to Victorian ports. This is typical of the attitude of all six colonies on the subject. Intermittently restrictive legislation continued till 1890, when public opinion seems to have subsided, to awaken again, with renewed apprehension, in the twentieth century-chiefly owing, be it said, to Japan's prominence in the East, dating from her entry into the family of nations in 1899. It is by no means difficult to realize the causes of this uneasiness.

Within a few days' steam of the northern shores lie the densely populated eastern countries, which demand expansion as a result of economic and other social forces. There are three whose inhabitants are represented in our alien population (which does not, however, exceed 5 per cent of the total). These are India, China and Japan, which together have a population of 715,000,000 people. The following table is eloquent in its possibilities:1

It is only of recent years that the true position of affairs has been apprehended by the mass of the people; this tardy recognition being mainly due to the isolation of Australia from world politics.

1Official Year Book Commonwealth, No. 2.

But even from the first, hidden under economic and other reasons, there has been an instinctive idea that to allow Asiatics to obtain a footing on the continent would be fatal. Twelve thousand miles from the parent and, at present, protecting state, the full recognition of the problem or rather the crisis has been seen in late years in the feverish desire for the desirable immigrant, the white who is quickly naturalized under laws suitable to the situation in which we find ourselves.

State Legislation

State legislation is interesting from an historical point of view, and as illustrating the general trend of public opinion, but it should be remembered that state legislation has been practically superseded by the commonwealth acts to be discussed later. This is true, however, only so far as the state legislation conflicts impliedly or expressly with federal legislation. The power which the Parliament possesses of making laws with respect to immigration and emigration is not an exclusive power.2

The first act we notice is the Victorian restriction law of 1855, imposing a fine of £10 on the masters of ships bringing Chinese passengers to Victoria, for every Chinese landed. These provisions. were afterwards adopted by South Australia in 1857, and by New South Wales in 1861, to be soon afterwards repealed owing to pressure by the British colonial office. In 1877 Queensland adopted practically the same act, with the further imposition of a poll tax, in 1884, of £50 to be paid by each Chinaman. Meanwhile the other five states had passed exclusion laws limiting the number of Chinese allowed to land from a vessel to the proportion of one to every hundred tons burden. These provisions were generally disregarded till 1888, when a sudden influx of Chinese took place, and popular apprehension grew. Several boat loads of Chinese immigrants were prevented by force from effecting a landing at Sydney and Melbourne. An intercolonial conference was held the same year and affirmed the general principle of the exclusion of Chinese and the desirability of uniform legislation on the subject. Exclusion bills were rushed through the various colonial parliaments. To take the New South Wales act as typical, the following provisions are prominent :

"Constitution Act, sec. 51, ss. XXVII.

1. The poll tax was raised to £100.

2. No ship to carry Chinese passengers in the proportion of more than one to every 300 tons burden.

3. The penalty on shipmasters for a breach of this law was £500.

This marks the end of anti-Chinese legislation, chiefly because the end of the acts had been attained; the inflow of Chinese had practically ceased in 1901. In the census of 1891 their numbers had been estimated at 38,000. In 1901 32,000 were the official figures of the number of Chinese in Australia.

Still in the six years preceding 1901 the arrival of colored aliens had exceeded the departures by 5,500. Japanese, Afghans and coolies from British India began to stray through the colonies. At an intercolonial conference, 1895, the desirability of extending the anti-Chinese laws to all colored aliens was affirmed. Attempts were made to do this at the same time in all the colonies (1896), but the British colonial office refused to confirm these acts, despite the important privy council decision in Chung Teong Toy v. Musgrove (1891), that a colonial government had the unrestricted right to shut out aliens. The acts were modified and finally passed, the main provision of each being the exclusion of any person who failed to write in some European language an application for admission to the colony. The inadequateness of this test is apparent. An application learned parrot-fashion would not be difficult for an intelligent Asiatic to master. This requirement was not completely amended till later federal legislation in 1901. The penalty for evasion was fines and imprisonment for the prohibited immigrant, followed by expulsion, and heavy fines directed against shipmasters and owners. Two principles seem to have been reached as the result of all these laws, and both have been embodied in the Commonwealth Alien Immigration Restriction Act, 1901. These are:

(1) That the better method of excluding undesirable immigrants is not a poll-tax, but a test of character and education. In other words, complete exclusion has taken the place of restriction.

(2) If the responsibility for undesirable immigrants is made to rest upon the shipmaster or shipowner exclusion legislation will be more efficacious.

This brings the history of anti-Asiatic legislation down to 1901. Its importance has always been recognized in colonial politics. In