Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T21:51:35.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landless by Law: Japanese Immigrants in California Agriculture to 1941

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Robert Higgs
Robert Higgs
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Japanese occupy a unique place in the history of America's immigrants. They were denied the privilege of naturalization (until 1952), forbidden to purchase or lease farm land (in California, 1913–1956), driven from their homes by the wartime evacuation and confined in concentration camps (1942–1945). Yet the Japanese are now one of the most successful of all ethnic groups in America. The narrative of this remarkable experience has been written often and well, and detailed studies of its political, legal, and social aspects have been made. Economic historians, however, have done relatively little to analyze and learn from the Japanese-American experience.

Type
Papers Presented at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 205 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Chinese and Japanese in the United States, 1910, Bulletin no. 127 (Washington, 1914), p. 7Google Scholar; Millis, H. A., “Some of the Economic Aspects of Japanese Immigration,” American Economic Review, 5 (Dec. 1915), 789Google Scholar.

2 U.S., Congress, House, Tolan Committee, National Defense Migration, 77th Cong., 2d sess., 1942, no. 2124, p. 94; Thomas, Dorothy Swaine, “Some Social Aspects of Japanese-American Demography,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 94 (Oct. 19, 1950), 459–62Google Scholar; Petersen, William, “A Note on Statistics,” in his Japanese Americans: Oppression and Success (New York, 1971), pp. 14–19Google Scholar.

3 U.S., Immigration Commission, Reports, XXIII (Washington, 1911), p. 61Google Scholar.

4 Japanese American Yearbook of 1911, cited in Strong, Edward K., The Second-Generation Japanese Problem (Stanford, 1934), p. 216Google Scholar. Millis, H. A., The Japanese Problem in the United States (New York, 1915), p. 103Google Scholar, cites similar estimates by the California Commissioner of Labor.

5 House Reports [Tolan Committee], pp. 105, 117–18.

6 U.S. Census, Agriculture, 1920, V (Washington, 1922), p. 312Google Scholar.

7 For a much longer and more detailed survey of the subjects discussed in this section, see Iwata, Masakazu, “The Japanese Immigrants in California Agriculture,” Agricultural History, 36 (Jan. 1962), 25–37Google Scholar.

8 [J. D. Mackenzie], “A Summary by Labor Commissioner J. D. Mackenzie of the Report of the ‘Special State Investigation of 1909’ of the Japanese in California. Given to the Press May 30, 1910,” printed in Gulick, Sidney L., The American Japanese Problem (New York, 1914), pp. 316–23Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., pp. 317–18.

10 U.S., Immigration Commission, Reports, XXIII, pp. 66–67; see also pp. 61–67.

11 Ibid., XXIV, p. 40; see also pp. 33–43.

12 Millis, The Japanese Problemp. 124; idem, “Economic Aspects,” p. 796.

13 State Board of Control of California, California and the Oriental: Japanese, Chinese, and Hindus, rev. ed. (Sacramento, 1922), pp. 58, 60, 115, 229, 239–40.Google Scholar

14 U.S., Immigration Commission, Reports, XXIII, p. 82; Millis, The Japanese Problem, pp. 142–43.

15 Chambers, Clyde R., Relation of Land Income to Land Value, USDA Bulletin no. 1224 (Washington, June 11, 1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 58; U.S., Immigration Commission, Reports, XXIII, p. 82; Millis, The Japanese Problem, pp. 141–44; idem, “Economic Aspects,” p. 800.

17 Chambers, ldquo;Relation of Land Income,” pp. 58–59 (italics added).

18 Millis, The Japanese Problem, pp. 204, 223–24; T. Iyenaga and Kenoske Sato, Japan and the California Problem (New York, 1921), pp. 123–24; C. McWilllams, “Once again the ‘Yellow Peril,’ ” Nation, 140 (June 26, 1935), 736; Daniels, Roger, The Politics of Prejudice (Berkeley, 1962), p. 48Google Scholar.

19 Cal. Stats., Ch. 113, 1913 (May 19, 1913) took effect Aug. 10, 1913. On the political machinations that surrounded the passage of this law, see Daniels, Politics of Prejudice, pp. 46–64.

20 Speech before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Aug. 9, 1913, cited in Chuman, Frank F., The Bamboo People: The Law and Japanese-Americans (Del Mar, Calif., 1976), p. 48Google Scholar.

21 Pajus, Jean, The Real Japanese California (Berkeley, 1937), pp. 131–34Google Scholar; see also pp. 135–36; and U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Japanese Immigration: Hearings, 66th Cong., 2d sess., 1921, pp. 404, 873–76.

22 Miyamoto, Kazuo, Hawaii: End of the Rainbow (Rutland, Vt., 1964), pp. 237–39.Google Scholar

23 House Committee, Japanese Immigration, p. 263. For Landsborough's full testimony, see pp. 244–74. See also Thomas, Dorothy Swaine, The Salvage (Berkeley, 1952), p. 181Google Scholar.

24 House Committee, Japanese Immigration, pp. 428–34; see also pp. 215–20, 325–26, 503–8, 841–42, 900 for additional evidence on the services of attorneys for Japanese farming corporations.

25 Ibid., pp. 420–;24.

26 Personal correspondence, Masakazu Iwata to the author, June 22, 1977 and Aug. 5, 1977.

27 State Board of Control, California and the Oriental, p. 69.

28 Cal. Stats., 1921, Initiative Act of 1920, p. lxxxiii (approved Nov. 2, 1920; became effective Dec. 9, 1920). On the political machinations that surrounded the passage of this law, see Daniels, Politics of Prejudice, pp. 79–91.

29 The most important amendments were: 45 Cal Stats. 1020 (June 20, 1923), declaring sharecropping agreements to constitute an interest in real property; and Cal. Stats., 1927, Ch. 528, Sec. 9a and 9b, placing the burden of proof on the alleged ineligible alien in cases of contested citizenship.

30 Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225 (Nov. 12, 1923); Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (Nov. 19, 1923); Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (Nov. 19, 1923).

31 The best treatments of the legal and constitutional aspects of the alien land laws are Chuman, Bamboo People, passim, and McGovney, Dudley O., “The Anti-Japanese Land Laws of California and Ten Other States,” California Law Review, 35 (Mar. 1947), 7–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 188 Cal. 645 (May 1, 1922).

33 Pajus, The Real Japanese California, pp. 136–41; Chuman, Bamboo People, p. 119; McGovney, “Anti-Japanese Land Laws,” pp. 28–30. The Yano doctrine was later sustained in People v. Fujita, 215 Cal. 166 (1932) and in Kiyoko Nishi v. Downing, 21 C.A. 2d 1 (May 11, 1937).

34 Mears, Eliot Grinnell, Resident Orientals on the Pacific Coast: Their Legal and Economic Status (Chicago, 1928), p. 253Google Scholar; Strong, Second-Generation Japanese Problem, pp. 211–12; Thomas, The Salvage, p. 182.

35 Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82 (Jan. 8, 1934).

36 McWilliams, “Once again the ‘Yellow Peril,’ ” p. 736. See also Grace Cable Keroher, “California's Anti-Orientalism,” in Peters, Clarence A., comp., The Immigration Problem (New York, 1948), p. 183Google Scholar.

37 Strong, Second-Generation Japanese Problem, pp. 45, 212. See also McWilliams, “Once again the ‘Yellow Peril,’ ” p. 736; Ferguson, Edwin E., “The California Alien Land Law and the 14th Amendment,” California Law Review, 35 (Mar. 1947), 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, The Salvage, p. 24.

38 Mears, Resident Orientals, p. 254. Chuman (Bamboo People, pp. 117–18) finds 16 reported escheat cases between 1920 and 1940. Undoubtedly others took place in the superior courts but were not appealed and hence not reported.

39 “My own father who was a farmer seemed to have little difficulty in southern California in renting land without resorting to devious means to get around the law. The law was possibly not enforced with rigidity here” (personal correspondence, Masakazu Iwata to the author, June 22, 1977). ldquo;[I]n the 1920's it may have been necessary for father to rely on one of his Caucasian friends, a banker in San Fernando by the name of Walker, to sign lease papers. But as far as my own recollection goes, in the latter 1920's and the 1930's he acquired land simply on an oral promise. There seemed not to be any hassle regarding this as for as he was concerned” (idem, Aug. 5, 1977).

40 45 Cal. Stats. 1020 (June 20, 1923); Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (Nov. 19, 1923).

41 U.S. Census, Population, 1920, III (1922), p. 128; U.S. Census, Population, 1940: Characteristics of the Nonwhite Population by Race (1943), p. 98.

42 Table 3 above; and House Reports [Tolan Committee], p. 105.

43 The alien rural Japanese population of all ages fell from 18,479 in 1920 to 8,915 in 1940, a decline of over half. See U.S. Census, Population, 1940, II (1943), p. 518.

44 Mears, Resident Orientals, p. 178; House Reports [Tolan Committee], pp. 85–86; McGovney, “The Anti-Japanese Land Laws,” pp. 51–52; Ferguson, “The California Alien Land Law,” p. 72; Strong, Second-Generation Japanese Problem, p. 46.

45 McWilliams, “Once again the ‘Yellow Peril,’ ” p. 736.

46 Petersen, Japanese Americans, pp. 104–8.

47 Statement of Dr. George P. Clements, manager of the agricultural department, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, printed in House Committee, Japanese Immigration, p. 1008.

48 Testimony of K. Kanzaki, ibid., p. 655.

49 Testimony of Yo Suzuki, president of Stockton Growers' Exchange, ibid., p. 516.