Exclusion of Grown Japanese Is Approved
PRESIDENT SEES NO OBJECTION TO AN AGE TEST
Metcalf Told to Threaten Use of Federal Power "to Enforce Observance of Our Treaty, Supreme Law of Land."
President Roosevelt today transmitted to Congress Secretary Metcalf's report on the Japanese situation in San Francisco, accompanying it with recommendations of his own.
Extracts from message and report follow:
THE PRESIDENT SAYS:
Secretary Metcalf's report deals with exclusion of Japanese children from San Francisco schools: boycotting of Japanese restaurants and acts of violence committed against Japanese.
There would be no objection whatever to excluding from the schools any Japanese on the score of age.
If * * * failure to protect persons or property then the entire power of the Federal Government within the limits of the Constitution would be used * * * to enforce the observance of our treaty, the supreme law of the land.
SECRETARY METCALF SAYS:
Protests were mainly against Japanese boys and men ranging from 15 to 22, 23, and 24 years of age attending the primary grades and sitting beside little girls and boys of 7 and 8 years of age. When these complaints became known to Japanese residents, I am informed that SOME of the older pupils left the primary grades.
If it should be held that there was a discrimination operating in violation of the treaty with Japan the state would exclude from the use of its public schools all alien children.
A most effective boycott was maintained against nearly all of the Japanese restaurants located in San Francisco for a period of at least three weeks.
The overwhelming sentiment in the state is for law and order and for the protection of Japanese in their persons and their property.
CALIFORNIANS FOR LAW AND ORDER, SAYS METCALF
Secretary Finds Protests Concerning Schools Are Mainly Against Boys and Men Sitting Beside Little Girls.
SAYS OBJECTION IS A REASONABLE ONE
State Has Remedy if Forced to It in That it Can Exclude All Foreigners From Its Public Schools.
Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 18. -- President Roosevelt today sent to Congress a message accompanying the report of Secretary Metcalf upon the relations of Californians and Japanese with reference to the schools, boycotting and assaults upon Nipponese residents in San Francisco. The text of the message follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I inclose herewith for your information the final report made to me personally by Secretary Metcalf on the situation affecting the Japanese of San Francisco. The report deals with three matters of controversy -- first, the exclusion of the Japanese children from the San Francisco schools; second, the boycotting of Japanese restaurants, and, third, acts of violence committed against the Japanese.
As to the first matter, I call your especial attention to the very small number of Japanese children who attend school, to the testimony as to the brightness, cleanliness, and good behavior of these Japanese children in the schools, and to the fact that, owing to their being scattered throughout the city, the requirement for them all to go to one special school is impossible of fulfillment and means that they can not have school facilities.
Let me point out further that there would be no objection whatever to excluding from the schools any Japanese on the score of age. It is obviously not desirable that young men should go to school with children. The only point is the exclusion of the children themselves. The number of Japanese children attending the public schools in San Francisco was very small.
The government has already directed that suit be brought to test the constitutionality of the act in question; but my very earnest hope is that such suit will not be necessary, and that as a matter of comity the citizens of San Francisco will refuse to deprive these young Japanese children of education and will permit them to go to the schools.
The question as to the violence against the Japanese is most admirably put by Secretary Metcalf, and I have nothing to add to his statement. I am entirely confident that, as Secretary Metcalf says, the overwhelming sentiment of the State of California is for law and order and for the protection of the Japanese in their persons and property.
Both the chief of police and the acting mayor of San Francisco assured Secretary Metcalf that everything possible would be done to protect the Japanese in the city.
I authorized and directed Secretary Metcalf to state that if there was failure to protect persons and property, then the entire power of the Federal Government within the limits of the Constitution would be used promptly and vigorously to enforce the observance of our treaty, the supreme law of the land, which treaty guaranteed to Japanese residents everywhere in the Union full and perfect protection for their persons and property; and so this and everything in my power would be done, and all the forces of the United States, both civil and military, which I could lawfully employ, would be employed.
I call especial attention to the concluding sentence of Secretary Metcalf's report of November 26, 1906.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
The White House, December 18, 1906.
SCHOOLS, BOYCOTTS AND ASSAULTS
Secretary Metcalf Finds That State Has Means of Excluding All Japanese if Desired.
Secretary Metcalf's report to the President follows:
November 26, 1906.
The President:
I have the honor to submit the following:
In my previous report I said nothing as to the causes leading up to the action of the school board in passing the resolution of October 11, and the effect of such action upon Japanese children, residents of the City of San Francisco, desiring to attend the public schools of that city. A report on this matter will now be made, there; and after describing the local public sentiment concerning the recent disturbances with regard to the Japanese, an account will be given, first, of the boycott maintained by the Cooks and Waiters Union of San Francisco against Japanese restaurants doing business in that city, and, second, of the several cases of assault or injury inflicted upon the persons or property of Japanese residents.
It seems that for several years the board of education of San Francisco had been considering the advisability of establishing separate schools for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean children, and on May 6, 1905, passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the board of education is determined in its efforts to effect the establishment of separate schools for Chinese and Japanese pupils, not only for the purpose of relieving the congestion at present prevailing in our schools, but also for the higher end that our children should not be placed in any position where their youthful impressions may be affected by association with pupils of the Mongolian race."
And on October 11 the board passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That in accordance with Article X, section 1662, of the school law of California, principals are hereby directed to send all Chinese, Japanese, or Korean children to the Oriental Public School, situated on the south side of Clay Street, between Powell and Mason Streets, on and after Monday, October 15, 1906."
The action of the board in the passage of the resolutions of May 6, 1905, and October 11, 1906, was undoubtedly largely influenced by the activity of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, an organization formed for the purpose of securing the enactment by the Congress of the United States of a law extending the provisions of the existing Chinese exclusion act so as to exclude Japanese and Koreans.
The league claims a membership in the State of California of 78,500, three-fourths of which membership is said to be in the city of San Francisco. The membership is composed almost entirely of members of labor organizations. Section 2, article 2, of the constitution of the league is as follows.
"The league as such shall not adopt any measures of discrimination against Chinese, Japanese or Koreans now or hereafter lawfully resident in the United States."
Yet, on October 22, 1905, at a meeting of the league held in San Francisco, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle of October 22, 1905, a resolution was adopted by the league instructing its executive committee to appear before the board of education and petition for separate schools for the Mongolian children of San Francisco.
Complaints Mainly Against Men Pupils.
Prior to the action of the League, the board of education, as I am informed, received many protests from citizens of San Francisco, whose children were attending the public schools, against Japanese being permitted to attend those schools. Those protest were mainly against Japanese boys and men ranging from 16 to 22, 23, and 24 years of age attending the primary grades and sitting beside little girls and boys of 7 and 8 years of age. When these complaints became known to Japanese residents, I am informed that SOME of the older pupils left the primary grades.
On the day when the order of October 11 went into effect, viz, October 15, there were attending the public schools of the City of San Francisco 93 Japanese pupils. These pupils were distributed among 23 schools of the primary grades. There are eight grades in the public schools of San Francisco, the first grade being the lowest and the eighth grade the highest -- graduates of the eighth grade going into the high school. Of this total of 93 pupils, 68 were born in Japan and 25 in the United States. Those born in the United States would, of course, under section 1 of Article XIV, of the Constitution of the United States, be citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside, and as such subject to the laws of the nation as well as of the state.
The ages of the pupils attending the public schools on the day when the order went into effect ranged from 7 to 20 years. Those born in the United States occupy about the same position in the different grades as American children of the same age, while those born in Japan are very much older.
The number of schools in San Francisco prior to April 18 was seventy-six. Of this number twenty-eight primary or grammar schools and two high schools were destroyed by fire, and one high school was destroyed by earthquake, leaving forty-five schools. Since April 18 twenty-seven temporary structures have been erected, making a total number of school buildings at the present time seventy-two.
The Oriental School, the school set apart for the Chinese, Japanese and Korean children, is in the burned section. There is only one Japanese student attending this school at the present time, and there are no Japanese children attending any of the other public schools. I visited the Oriental School in company with the Japanese consul and found it to compare favorably with many of the new temporary structures erected in the city. The course of instruction is exactly the same as at the other public schools, and competent teachers are assigned for duty in this school. Nearly all of the pupils attending this school have to be taught the English language.
An examination of the map attached hereto will at once clearly show that it will be absolutely impossible for children residing in the remote sections of the city to attend the Oriental School. The conditions in San Francisco are such, owing to the great conflagration, that it would not be possible even for grown children living at remote distances to attend this school. If the action of the board stands, then, and if no schools are provided in addition to the one mentioned, it seems that a number of Japanese children will be prevented from attending the public schools and will have to resort to private instruction.
I found the sentiment in the state very strong against Japanese young men attending the primary grades. Many of the people were outspoken in their condemnation of this course, saying that they would take exactly the same stand against American young men of similar ages attending the primary grades. I am frank to say that this objection seems to me a most reasonable one. All of the political parties in the state have inserted in their platforms planks in favor of Japanese and Korean exclusion, and on March 7, 1905, the state legislature passed a joint resolution urging that action be taken by treaty or otherwise to limit and diminish the further immigration of Japanese laborers into the United States.
The press of San Francisco pretty generally upholds the action of the board of education. Of the attitude of the more violent and radical newspapers it is unnecessary to speak further than to say that their tone is the usual tone of hostility to "Mongol hordes," and the burden of their claim is that Japanese are no better than Chinese, and that the same reasons which dictated the exclusion of the Chinese call for the exclusion of the Japanese as well.
Finds State Has Remedy at Hand.
The temper and tone of the more conservative newspapers may better be illustrated by an epitome of their argument upon the public school question.
That argument practically is as follows: The public schools of California are a state and not a federal institution. The state has the power to abolish those schools entirely, and the federal government would have no right to lift its voice in protest. Upon the other hand, the state may extend the privileges of its schools to aliens upon such terms as it, the state, may elect, and the federal government has no right to question its action in this regard.
Primarily and essentially the public schools are designed for the education of the citizens of the state. The state is interested in the education of its own citizens alone. It would not for a moment maintain this expensive institution to educate foreigners and aliens who would carry to their countries the fruits of such education.
Therefore, if it should be held that there was a discrimination operating in violation of the treaty with Japan in the state's treatment of Japanese children, or even if a new treaty with Japan should be framed which would contain on behalf of Japanese subjects the "most-favored-nation" clause, this could and would be met by the state, which would then exclude from the use of its public schools all alien children of every nationality and limit the rights of free education to children of its own citizens, for whom the system is primarily designed and maintained, and if the state should do this the federal government could not complain, since no treaty right could be violated when the children of Japanese were treated precisely as the children of all foreign nations.
The feeling in the state is further intensified, especially [especially] in labor circles, by the report on the conditions in the Hawaiian Islands as contained in Bulletin 66 of the Bureau of Labor, Department of Commerce and Labor. The claim is made that white labor has been entirely driven from the Hawaiian Islands, and that the Japanese are gradually forcing even the small white traders out of business.
Many of the foremost educators in the state, on the other hand, are strongly opposed to the action of the San Francisco board of education. Japanese are admitted to the University of California, an institution maintained and supported by the state. They are also admitted to, and gladly welcomed at, Stanford University. San Francisco, as far as known, is the only city which has discriminated against Japanese children. I talked with a number of prominent labor men and they all said that they had no objection to Japanese children attending the primary grades; that they wanted Japanese children now in the United States to have the same school privileges as children of other nations, but that they were unalterably opposed to Japanese young men attending the primary grades.
The objection to Japanese men attending the primary grades could very readily be met by a simple rule limiting the ages of all children attending those grades. All of the teachers with whom I talked while in San Francisco spoke in the highest terms of the Japanese children, saying that they were among the very best of their pupils, cleanly in their persons, well behaved, studious and remarkably bright.
The board of education of San Francisco declined to rescind its resolution of October 11, claiming that, having established a separate school for Chinese, Japanese and Korean children, the provisions of section 1662 of the political code became mandatory.
Gives Details of Boycott.
A boycott was maintained in San Francisco from October 3 to October 24 by members of the Cooks and Waiters' Union against Japanese restaurants doing business in that city. Nearly all of the leaders of labor organizations in San Francisco, interviewed on this subject, disclaimed any knowledge of any formal action being taken for the boycotting of these restaurants. They admitted, however, that there was a decided sentiment in the unions against patronizing Japanese restaurants, and that that sentiment was created and fostered by speeches in union meetings and by personal action of the different members, with the object of not only preventing union labor men, but the public as well, from patronizing these restaurants.
The secretary, as also the business agent of the Waiters' Union, Local No. 30, headquarters at 1195 Scott Street, San Francisco, said that no resolution against Japanese restaurants had been passed by their union, but that it was urged in their meetings and by different members of the union to themselves refrain, and keep the public as well, from patronizing such restaurants; that for three weeks in the early part of October men were employed by the Cooks and Waiters' Union to stand in front of Japanese restaurants on Third Street and distribute match boxes on which was pasted a label as follows: "White men and women, patronize your own race;" that this was not, strictly speaking, a boycott, as a boycott must be instituted through the labor council.
Perhaps a better idea of the feeling in labor organizations against the Japanese restaurants and the methods that were resorted to for the purpose of preventing white people from patronizing those restaurants can be gained by reading the following extract from the minutes of the meeting of the executive board of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle of June 25, 1906:
"The executive board of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League at the meeting held Saturday evening listened to complaints that many wage-earners, laborers, and mechanics patronize Japanese restaurants, while eating houses conducted by white persons are as easy of access and more inviting than those of the Mongolians. Secretary Yoell was instructed to communicate with all central labor bodies in this city, informing them of that state of affairs -- apprizing them of the fact that among the patrons of Japanese restaurants are supposed to be men who hold membership in unions affiliated with central councils.
"The league requests the councils to urge upon all affiliated unions to enforce the penalties imposed by their laws for patronizing Japanese or Chinese. The league also offers to supply proof of the flagrant violations complained of, and proposes to have the offenders photographed in order to submit copies of the photographs to the central councils and through them to their affiliated unions. In this way the league hopes to accomplish a double purpose -- to deter union men from patronizing Asiatics, or establish the fact that the offenders are not union men, and thus refute what is said to be a persistent slander against Union men.
"The attention of councils and unions is also to be directed to the fact that many berries sold in San Francisco are grown and shipped to market by Japanese and Chinese, and wage-earners are to be cautioned against the danger of their health and that of their families in eating berries picked and packed by unclean and unhealthy Asiatics.
"The plans for holding a series of mass meetings in coast and interior towns in California were discussed at length, but final arrangements were deferred until the project shall be approved by the league, which will hold its next convention on Sunday, July 1."
Gives Details of Boycott.
As a matter of fact, a most effective boycott was maintained against nearly all of the Japanese restaurants located in San Francisco for a period of at least three weeks. Pickets were stationed in front of these restaurants and every effort was made to prevent people from patronizing them. At times stones were thrown and windows broken, and in one or two instances the proprietors of the restaurants were struck by these stones.
I personally interviewed the restaurant keepers and took down their statements.
George Sugihara, a restaurant keeper at 177 Third Street, stated that the boycott commenced on October 3 and continued until October 24; that on the first day the boycotters distributed match boxes on which was written "White men and women, patronize your own race;" that at about noon of the second day a large number of men came to his place of business and asked the people who were about to enter his restaurant not to patronize the Japanese restaurants; that customers attempting to enter his place of business were sometimes restrained by force, and that blows were also struck; that on or about the 10th or 15th of the month the boycotters came three times a day -- morning, noon, and evening; that sometimes they threw bricks and stones into his place; that one of the waiters asked them the reason why they did these things and they replied, "Ask the policeman;" that it was very seldom that a policeman was seen on the scene, that he complained to the policeman on the beat; that sometimes the policeman spoke to the boycotters and appeared to be friendly with them; that whenever a policeman appeared who was unfriendly to the boycotters the boycotters left; that on one occasion when he asked the boycotters how long they intended to keep up the boycott they replied, "Until the end -- until the Japanese give up their business, pack up their goods and return to the place whence the came."
Mr. Sugihara also said that there was an agreement to pay the boycotters for the purpose of declaring the boycott off; that all the facts were known to Mr. S. Imura, president of the Japanese union, and that the proposition, to pay cash to the Cooks and Waiters' Union was made by Mr. Imura, representing the Japanese union, and that the amount to be paid was $350; that he, Sugihara, did not know the name of the person to whom the money was to be paid; that he was present on October 25 or 26, when $100 of the $350 was paid; that he saw the money paid; that it was paid by Imura, as president of the Japanese union; that he did not know the name of the man to whom the money was paid, but would recognize him if he saw him again.
The windows of the Golden Gate restaurant, H. Sugiyama, proprietor, 256 Third Street, were broken on October 17 or 18. Mr. Sugiyama stated that whenever any customers were all white people; that it was impossible for him to stand at the cash register near his window, as they broke his windows; that one of the stones struck him on the side; that on the first day of the boycott he went to the Japanese consul and applied for assistance, and that the consul said he would write a letter to the chief of police; that on the second day he went to police headquarters, at the corner of Pine and Larkin Streets; that he did not remember the name of the officer whom he saw, but that he was directed by that officer to go to the southern station; that three or four days after his visit to the police station a special policeman and the regular policeman on the beat came to his place at the noon hour and remained from 12 to 1 and watched the place; that there was no violence after the policemen came, but that the men with the match boxes were always there; that when the policemen came there between five or six of the boycotters were present at the noon hour.
S. Imura, proprietor of the White Star restaurant, 596 Third Street, corroborated the statements made by George Sugihara and H. Sugiyama as to the breaking of windows and assaulting of customers. Y. Kobayashi, restaurant keeper at 20 Ellis Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for three days only. I. Kawai, restaurant keeper at 1213 Folson Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for twenty-one days. M. Shigegawa, of 226 Third Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for three weeks. Y. Noda, of 1905 Geary Street, state that his restaurant was boycotted for about a month. G. Nishi, of 1625 O'Farrell Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for four days. R. Tamura, of 705 Larkin Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for two days, and O. Matsumodo, of 1459 Ellis Street, stated that his restaurant was boycotted for two days.
These restaurant keepers were all examined by me at the Japanese consulate at San Francisco. They all said that they were not assaulted by the boycotters, but that the efforts of the boycotters were mainly directed toward preventing customers from entering their places of business. The restaurant keeper who was struck with the stone said he did not think the stone was thrown at him, but that it was thrown for the purpose of smashing the windows and frightening his customers.
Japanese Have Their Own Union.
It appears that the Japanese restaurant keepers of San Francisco have a union of their own, of which S. Imura is president. They made application, so they say, to the Cooks and Waiters' Union of San Francisco for admission to membership in that union, but their application was denied. After the boycott had been maintained for a few days the Japanese restaurant keepers held a meeting for the purpose of discussing the boycott and of devising some way of stopping it. They discussed first the obtaining of an injunction, and appointed a committee. This committee visited the Japanese American Association located in San Francisco and asked the association to consult a lawyer. They were informed that a test case would cost $500, and that if the test case failed it would cost each restaurant keeper $200 for each case tried.
A second meeting of the Japanese restaurant keepers was then held, at which the matter was again discussed. The impression seemed to prevail that even if an injunction was obtained it would take too long, cost too much money and be ineffective. They then determined to pay money to the boycotters and appointed a committee for that purpose. The committee consisted of S. Imura, G. Sugihara, Y. Kobayashi, and Mr. Nakashima. The sum of $350 was collected by this committee from the restaurant keepers, in amounts ranging from $17.50 to $25. An arrangement was entered into with the leader of the boycotters, whose name was only known to S. Imura, for the payment of the sum of $350 for the purpose of declaring the boycott off. Imura declined to give the name of the man to whom the money was paid, claiming he had promised not to do so, but if necessary he would furnish the name to the Japanese consul.
Before leaving San Francisco the consul informed me that W.S. Stevenson was the man to whom the money was paid. One hundred dollars was paid by check at the Japanese-American Bank on Sutter Street, in San Francisco, the check being made payable to the order of W.S. Stevenson. There were present at the time this check was paid, S. Imura, G. Sugihara and some members, so Imura said, of the bank, probably clerks. The balance of $250 agreed upon was to have been paid on Monday, October 29, but the man Stevenson did not call for the money, and I was informed that it had not been paid up to the time of my departure from San Francisco. The boycott stopped with the payment of the money.
All of the restaurant keepers united in stating that their business had fallen off at least two-thirds during the period of the boycott.
There have been a number of boycotts of white restaurants in San Francisco, Oakland and other cities in California in the past five or six years growing out of labor disputes. These boycotts have been maintained for weeks at a time, and during their maintenance threats have been made and acts of violence have been committed. Pickets have been stationed in front of the restaurants and the names even of customers entering the restaurants have been taken down and reported.
I saw the chief of police, as also H.H. Colby, captain of police in charge of the district in which most of the Japanese restaurants are located, and was informed by both of these officers that as soon as their attention was called to the disturbances on Third Street, officers were detailed at each of the Japanese restaurants at each meal hour, and that the officers were instructed to arrest if any violation of the law was committed and that after the officers were so stationed there were no disturbances or violations of the law.
The chief of police assured me that every effort would be made by him to protect the Japanese restaurants in San Francisco, and that all violators of the law would be promptly arrested and punished. The acting mayor of San Francisco also assured me that he would cooperate with the police department of the city, and would see that everything possible was done to protect Japanese subject and prevent violations of law.
I am satisfied, from inquiries made by me and from statements made to me by the Japanese restaurant keepers, that the throwing of stones and breaking of windows was not done by the men picketing the restaurants, but by young men and boys who had gathered in front of the restaurants as soon as the boycott was instituted.
Allege Assaults Upon Japanese.
Assaults have from time to time been made upon Japanese subjects resident in the City of San Francisco. I was informed by the chief of police that upon receipt of a communication from the Japanese consul he at once instructed captains of police to make every effort to stop these assaults, and, if necessary, to assign men in citizens' clothes to accomplish the purpose.
I deemed it best, in order to get at the exact facts, to take the statements of the Japanese who claimed to have been assaulted. These statements were taken at the Japanese consulate in San Francisco by Mr. J.S. McD. Gardner, interpreter in the immigration service at San Francisco, and Mr. K. Kawasaki, a Japanese student in the senior class of the University of California. Since these statements are in the words of the victims themselves and show, as nothing else could, such grounds as there are upon which to found a complaint of violence, they are here given in full:
S. Inatsu, 121 Haight Street -- "I am a student and a member of the Japanese Y.M.C.A. On October 28, at 7:15 p.m., I was attacked on the corner of Laguna and Haight Streets by about eight young men, from eighteen to twenty years of age; they rushed up behind me and struck me in the face and then ran away. I looked around for a policeman, but could not find one. I went to the Y.M.C.A. and was treated by the doctor there. I made complaint about the matter to the Japanese association, but not to the police department."
T. Kadono, 121 Haight Street -- "I am a student and a member of the Japanese Y.M.C.A. On the 5th day of August, 1906, on Laguna Street, between Haight and Page Streets, at 10:40 a.m., on my way to church, I was attacked by about thirty people, men ranging from fifteen to twenty-five years of age. They followed me down the street ad beat me over the head and face with their fists. I tried to resist them, but they were too strong for me. They made my nose bleed. I went to St. Thomas Hospital for medical treatment. I complained to the superintendent of the Japanese Presbyterian Mission and was advised by him not to make any complaint to the police. I was laid up for a week on account of this attack. I have the blood-stained shirt, which I can produce if necessary."
C. Obata, 1823 Sutter Street -- "I am an artist. On September 20, 1906, at about 1:45 p.m., on Sutter Street, between Pierce and Steiner, in front of the skating rink, as I was on my way home, I was attacked by about twelve young men, ranging from sixteen to twenty years of age. They beat me and threw bricks and stones at me. I picked up a stick and started to go for them, and then they ran away, three of them falling down as they ran. A special policeman came along at this time, and the people told him that I knocked the three people over; so he took me to the police court, where I was dismissed. This finished the case. I was released on bail, as I had been arrested for disturbing the peace."
I. Ikeda, 1608 Geary Street -- "I have a fruit store. About a month ago -- October 5, 1906 -- some bad boys came to my store and stole fruit and threw stones into the store. On September 2, 1906, down in the wholesale district (I do not know the name of the street), as I was driving my wagon some men started to throw fruit at me, then pieces of brick, hitting my back. The reigns of my rig got loose, and I was obliged to stop and get down to fix them. I had no sooner gotten down than somebody came up and hit me in the face, and gave me a black eye. I made complaint about this to the Japanese Association. I could identify the man who hit me."
K. Kai, 1815 Sutter Street -- "I have a provision store, Masu & Co. On September 6, 1906, about twenty young men from eighteen to twenty-one years of age came to my store and stole a bunch of bananas. My clerk, S. Ichishita, ran after them and asked them what they were doing. Whereupon some of them turned on him and beat him so badly that he was laid up in bed for two days. On the 8th of September, 1906, as a white person was buying fruit in my store, someone threw a stone into the store, which hit my wife on the leg and hurt her quite badly. I made complaint about this to the Japanese Association."
S. Ikusa, 578 Cedar Avenue -- "I am a restaurant keeper. On August 29, 1906, about 8 p.m., some children, about sixteen of them, stood in front of my restaurant and broke the windows; they then pulled down my sign and ran away with it. I made complaint about this to the Japanese Association."
Y. Sasaki, 121 Haight Street -- "I am a member of the Japanese Y.M.C.A. and a student. On August 8 or 9, at 4 p.m., at the corner of Steiner and Sutter Streets, I was attacked by about ten young men, ranging from sixteen to twenty years of age, who were playing baseball. They called me bad names, and when I paid no attention to them they threw the baseball at me, but missed me. They then ran after me and beat me over the head and on the face, causing my nose to bleed and stunning me. Then they ran away. I looked for a policeman, but could not find any, so returned home. I made no official complaint of this to anyone."
Y. Fujita, 121 Haight Street -- "I am a student and a member of the Japanese Y.M.C.A. On August 18, 1906, at about 11:30 a.m., on the corner of Haight and Lyon Streets, about eight young men, ranging from eighteen to twenty-two years of age, threw stones at me, but missed me. They ran after me and beat me on the head, knocking me down. Some people on the street saw this and offered to help me. When the young fellows saw this they ran away. I met a policeman and complained to him. I do not remember the policeman's number, but he told me that he would help me, and took my name and address; but as the young men had run away he let the matter drop."
K. Kimura, 121 Haight Street -- "I am a student and a member of the Japanese Y.M.C.A. On September 6, 1906, at 11:30 a.m. on Webster Street, between Haight and Walla Streets, as I was walking along, five young men, about eighteen years of age, stuck a big stick, about six or seven feet long, between my legs and lifted me up, throwing me on my face and cutting my mouth badly. After I had fallen they ran away. I made no official complaint of this to anyone."
R. Koba, 1274 O'Farrell Street -- "I am secretary of the Japanese Association of San Francisco. On August 16, 1906, at 9 p.m., as I was walking up Post Street and had turned into Laguna Street, three unknown men jumped out of the darkness of Cedar Avenue and hit me on the neck from behind two or three times. I stopped, and started to fight them back. One of them tried to hit me in the face, but missed, then one of them drew a revolver and threatened me. Just at this time some friends of mine came along, and the three men ran away. I reported this attack to the chief of police next morning, and he told me that he was very sorry and would try his best hereafter to protect the Japanese."
Y. Shinohara, corner Eleventh Avenue and Fulton Street -- "I work in a saloon. On September 15, 1906, at 10 p.m., on Sutter Street, near Webster, three men, ranging from twenty-six to thirty years of age, grabbed me and knocked me down, and then ran away. I was not badly hurt, so went home and went to bed. I did not make any complaint about this matter to anyone."
N. Akagi, 115 Church Street. "I have a furniture store. On October 20, 1906, at 7 o'clock p.m., on Page Street, between Steiner and Pierce Streets, as I was delivering goods to my customers, two young men, about 17 or 18 years of age, knocked the merchandise out of my hands and slapped my face. I took no action, and did not report this case to the police. On October 30 I applied to Weidenthal & Goslinger, electrical workers, 151 Church Street, to make electrical connections at my store. On November 8 the manager of the establishment flatly refused, saying that he was a member of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League and could not work in a Japanese establishment; otherwise he said he would be fined $50 by the league. On this account my store is still without electrical connections."
I. Takayama, 1401 Scott Street. "I am a laundryman. On September 12, 1906, as I was on my route delivering, at the corner of Laguna and Eddy Streets, about 11 a.m., four men, aged from 27 to 36 years, with gas pipes about four feet long, accosted me and struck my wagon with such force that two holes, about three by four inches, were made in my wagon. They threatened me with bodily violence and I hurried away. About a month ago, as I was delivering laundry work on Scott Street, seventy or eighty school children threw stones at my wagon, like stones of rain, and several holes were made. So continuous was this act on the part of the school children that I desisted from calling in that section of the city thereby losing seven or eight customers. On September 9, on O'Farrell Street, near Laguna, several hoodlums attacked my person, as well as Mr. Kawasaki, of the Japanese Association. This was about 2:30 p.m. The matter was reported to the police department. For the last three or four weeks they have annoyed me continuously at my place of residence. During the afternoon or in the middle of the night rotten fruit, stones, etc., have been thrown into my shop. The night watch has not been very effective. I did not report this case to the police."
G.N. Tsukamoto, 3500 Twenty-third Street. "I am proprietor of the Sunset City Laundry. Soon after the earthquake the persecutions became intolerable. My drivers were constantly attacked on the highway, my place of business defiled by rotten eggs and fruit; windows were smashed several times. I was forced to hire, on September 6, two special policemen at great expense, and for fully two weeks was obliged to maintain the service. The miscreants are generally young men, 17 or 18 years old. Whenever newspapers attack the Japanese these roughs renew their misdeeds with redoubled energy."
S. Takata, 1158 Haight Street. "I am a lodging-house keeper. On August 28, 1906, about 9 p.m., my window was smashed by a person or persons unknown. Again on August 30, about 11 p.m., some one broke my large front window. I reported these incidents to the Japanese Association, but not to the police."
T. Tamura, 1612 Laguna Street. "I have an employment office in San Francisco. On August 5, about 7 p.m., a large number of youngsters passed through the streets with drums and trumpets denouncing Japanese. One hour later a gang of rough looking laborers, thirty or forty strong, came to my place and smashed my windows. I telephoned to the police department several times, but to no avail. On the afternoon of the succeeding day a policeman called and inquired what was the matter. That same night all the remaining windows were completely broken by persons unknown to me."
M. Sugawa, 1722a Devlsadero Street. "I am a shoemaker. On August 17, 1906, at 8:40 p.m., as I was passing on Sutter Street, near Scott, three boys, 21 or 22 years of age, attacked my person. I nearly fainted. Upon rising to my feet they again assaulted me. This time they smashed my nose. I grabbed the coat of one of the trio, and after having my nose dressed at one of the nearby hospitals, I went home. The next day a policeman came, requesting me to give up the coat. I at first refused, but finally, upon his assuring me that it would be deposited at the police station, I gave it up. I reported the matter to the police. When the case came up for the trial the youngster was dismissed on the plea of insufficiency of evidence."
Dr. S. Hashimoto, 1615 Gough Street. "I am a physician. Toward the end of August, as I was on my way to visit a patient in a great hurry, I was surrounded on Castro Street near Market by a group of boys ranging in years from 15 to 25. The number was soon increased to fifty. Seeing the situation was hopeless I ran with all my might. I was struck on the leg by a flying missile and my valise was injured. I did not report the case to the police."
I. Ikuda, 1608 Geary Street. "I am a clerk in a Japanese store. On November 2, 1906, as I was driving my wagon on Davis Street, between Vallejo and Broadway, five or six laborers, apparently over 28 years old, appeared from the baggage cars and threw potatoes and eggplants at me and my horse. Soon they began throwing pieces of brick, and I was forced to turn back a block or so. Since September 8 such incidents occurred five times. None of these were reported to the police because it would be of no avail."
Attacks Made Upon Distinguished Visitors.
These attacks, so I am informed, with but one exception were made when no policeman was in the immediate neighborhood. Most of them were made by boys and young men; many of them were vicious in character, and only one appears to have been made with a view of robbing the person attacked. All these assaults appear to have been made subsequent to the fire and earthquake in San Francisco, and my attention was not called to any assaults made prior to the 18th of April, 1906.
Dr. F. Omori, of the Imperial University of Tokoo, one of the world's most distinguished scientists, and, as stated by Prof. George Davidson, of the University of California, one of the greatest living authorities in seismography, sent to San Francisco by the Japanese government to study the causes and effects of the earthquake, was stoned by hoodlums in the streets of San Francisco. Prof. T. Nakamura, professor of architecture in the Imperial University of Tokyo, was also stoned in the streets of San Francisco by young toughs and hoodlums. Doctor Omori was also assaulted when visiting Eureka, Cal., Neither of these eminent gentlemen made formal complaint of these assaults, and wished that no official recognition be taken of them.
I attach hereto copy of letter of Professor Davidson, calling the attention of the press of San Francisco to these assaults, as also copies of letters of the postmaster of San Francisco, the Mayor of San Francisco, the Governor of the State, and the Mayor of Eureka, expressing their great regret for these assaults and apologizing that they should have been made.
I know that these assaults upon the Japanese are universally condemned by all good citizens of California. For months the citizens of San Francisco and Oakland have been terrorized by numerous murders, assaults and robberies, both at day and night. The police have been powerless. The assaults upon the Japanese, however, were not made, in my judgment, with a view of robbery, but rather from a feeling of racial hostility, stirred up possibly by newspaper accounts of meetings that have been held at different times rela
The police records of San Francisco show that between May 6, 1906, and November 5, 1906, 290 cases of assault, ranging from simple assaults to assaults with deadly weapons and assaults with murderous intent, were reported to the police of San Francisco. Of the number so reported, seven were for assaults committed by Japanese, and two complaints were made against Japanese for disturbing the peace. The Japanese population in San Francisco is about 6,000. The total population of San Francisco today is estimated to be between 325,000 and 350,000.
While the sentiment of the State of California, as manifested by the public utterances of the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, by articles in many of the leading newspapers in the state by declarations of the political parties in their platforms, and by the passage of a joint resolution by the state legislature on March 7, 1905, is in favor of the exclusion of Japanese coolies, yet the overwhelming sentiment in the state is for law and order and for the protection of Japanese in their persons and their property.
The chief of police of the city of San Francisco, as also the acting mayor of the city, assured me that everything possible would be done to protect Japanese subjects in San Francisco, and they urgently requested that all cases of assault and all violations of law affecting the Japanese be at once reported to the chief of police.
I impressed very strongly upon the acting mayor of the city, as also upon the chief of police, the gravity of the situation, and told them that, as officers charged with the enforcement of the law and the protection of property and person, you looked to them to see that all Japanese subjects resident in San Francisco were afforded the full protection guaranteed to them by our treaty with Japan. I also informed them that if the local authorities were not able to cope with the situation, or if they were negligent or derelict in the performance of their duty, "then the entire power of the Federal Government within the limits of the Constitution would be used, and used promptly and vigorously, to enforce observance of treaties, which, under the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and to secure fit and proper treatment for the people of a great and friendly power "while within the territory of the United States."
If, therefore, the police power of San Francisco is not sufficient to meet the situation and guard and protect Japanese residents in San Francisco, to whom under our treaty with Japan we guarantee "full and perfect protection for their persons and property," then, it seems to be, it is clearly the duty of the Federal Government to afford such protection. All considerations which may move a nation, every consideration prompted by fifty years or more of close friendship with the Empire of Japan, would unite in demanding, it seems to me, of the United States Government and all its people, the fullest protection and the highest consideration for the subjects of Japan.
Respectfully submitted,
V.H. METCALF.