Dangerous Words: Popular Rhetoric, the Immigration Act of 1924, and the Rise of U.S. Hegemony in East Asia

Original writing by Mary Kate Murray
Submitted for East Asian International Relations
Professor Michael Schneider
Winter 2014, Knox College

The United States had not yet reached a state of hegemony in the East by 1924, but there was a definite overarching presence of “American” cultural values in international diplomacy. Wilsonianism was an American approach to international relations which promoted free trade, democracy, self-determination, and openness among nations, as opposed to the European imperialist vision of exclusivity, neo-mercantilism, and secret alliances.[1] Because of the open nature of Wilsonianism, diplomacy itself was colored by public opinion when, in the past, the public had been uninvolved in political happenings.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, racial differences between the West and East awakened cultural anxiety in Americans as East-Asians began immigrating to the United States.  Past oppression by the West fueled agitation in Asians, who rightly believed the restriction of immigration and trade laws to be unjust. In 1924, America’s tenacity in upholding the values of openness proposed by Wilsonianism diminished with the ratification of the Anti-Japanese Immigration Act, which prohibited Japanese from entering the United States.

In the sphere of international politics, the credibility of American policy was under scrutiny due to its contradictions; namely, its promotion of friendly international relations in contrast to its racist legislation. Nevertheless, diplomatic correspondence between America and Japan often referenced the previously sheltered public as a force for change, signaling the increased universality of Wilsonian values and the burgeoning of American cultural hegemony in the East.

American Perspective

Popular debate of the Anti-Japanese Immigration Act of 1924 in the United States focused on the ethics of the law and whether it mattered that American policy was subject to disagreement or dispute by another country. The Immigration Act of 1924 passed with strong Congressional support, restricting U.S. immigration quotas based on national origin.[2]

Leading up to the ratification of the Act, Americans were surrounded by language of racial segregation and white superiority. After the Civil War, Jim Crow laws went into effect across the country, legalizing the notion that African Americans were “separate but equal.” [3] By the twentieth century, Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection had given way to eugenics and the cultural desire to define whiteness became almost hysterical.[4]

Popular books like The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy by Lonthrop Stoddard and The Passing of the Great Race; or The Racial Basis of European History by Madison Grant were well read in America, and had an effect on public attitudes toward race. Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1918, was a book of scientific racism that gave motivation and justification to increased immigration laws. Grant argued that immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, Asia, and Africa were of a lesser breed than true Nordic Americans. Grant speculated that competing governments were sending “the weak, the broken, and the mentally crippled of all races” to “careless, wealthy, and hospitable America,” resulting in the intentional degeneration of the American population. He stated, “Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with their human flotsam and the whole tone of American life, social, moral and ‘political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”[5]

In the late 1800’s, the catchphrase “yellow peril” was given to the notion that Asian races–Japanese or not–would invade the United States and corrupt the predominance of Nordic power. People were worried about the presence of European immigrants as well, but “only against Orientals was it seriously charged that the peaceful immigrants were but a vanguard of an invading horde to come.” [6]

After excluding Chinese immigrants in 1882, effectively eliminating one source of Asian intruders, Americans worried about increased Japanese immigration in the early twentieth century. This anxiety crept into the political realm when Congress proposed the limitation of immigration quotas in 1924. California Senator V.S. McClatchy took a firm, well-publicized stand for the exclusion of Japanese, arguing the presence of Japanese in the United States threatened the nation’s security and the fabric of American identity.

The Japanese are less assimilable and more dangerous as residents in this country than any other of the peoples ineligible under our laws….They do not come here with any desire or any intent to lose their racial or national identity. They come here specifically and professedly for the purpose of colonizing and establishing here permanently the proud Yamato race.[7]

It is unsurprising that a law excluding Japanese passed, given the prevalence of xenophobia throughout the nation; however, there was considerable opposition to the Immigration Act as well. By 1924, China had lost its status as a hegemon in East Asia, but Japan was considered a budding world power. Maintaining amiable relations with Japan would have been beneficial to the United States if Japan were to become a stronger force in the international realm.

A letter to Congress by Secretary of State Charles Hughes published in The New York Times February 14, 1924, outlines the reasons why Japanese exclusion would not be beneficial to the United States. Most of these reasons were political, such as the undoing of the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907 and hope for continued cordial relations with Japan, but Hughes obviously had some ethical backing for his arguments, such as, “[T]his enactment would be regarded as an insult not to be palliated by any act of charity,” and “In appropriately providing for a restriction of immigration, the importance of which I fully recognize, I hope that it will be possible to find some basis which will be proof against the charge of discrimination.”[8] However opposed to the racism of the legislation Hughes might have been, his language is still laced with condescension toward Japan, possibly to appease citizens and representatives who disagreed with his claims. Hughes referred to Japanese as “a sensitive people” instead of a potential political ally, and still encouraged a low immigration quota of “250 or less,” to establish a proper power dynamic between the United States and Japan.[9]

Responses to the publication of Hughes’s letter varied. One article, “Affronting Japan,” agreed wholeheartedly with Hughes, calling the House’s passage of the Immigration Act, “unwisdom.” The author went on to say, “Not only would this exclusion, as Secretary Hughes pointed out six weeks ago, undo much of the good that came from the Washington Conference, but it would place upon the Japanese people an affront that is wholly uncalled for.”[10] Other editorials consider the legislation to be a misrepresentation of the American people and extend sympathy to Japanese. In “Differing Standards,” published April 24, 1924, the author feared that the racial quality of the Immigration Act overwhelmed the “real” reason behind the Act, which was economic.

One of the most unfortunate results of the Senate’s action in the matter of Japanese exclusion has been that in Japan the old cry has been raised that the Americans which to brand the Japanese as an ‘inferior’ race. Nothing could be further from the truth…. [T]he real issue is economic rather than social. Whatever element of ‘inferiority’ may be found, when it is considered in terms of economics, rests on the side of the whites rather than of the Asiatic races.[11]

The writer pinned the source of economic struggle in the United States on American demands for extravagance and high standards of living. Asians, he claimed, “worked harder and lived more simply than Americans,” which hardly made them inferior.[12] F. Milton Willis, Secretary of the World Federation League, agreed with the writer of “Differing Standards,” saying,

Your statement of the situation between Japan and our country respecting immigration is wise, kind, and true, and it should go far…to bring to the attention of the Japanese and our own people that America is not to be considered as accurately represented always by its servants at Washington.[13]

The “respecting” American public was not being properly represented by its government, which was promoting Wilsonianism, whose values lent to international respect and acceptance. By the 1920’s, however, the Wilsonian ideal had already become a utopian goal, rather than a vehicle for political practice. According to scholar Frank Ninkovich, though Americans allegedly subscribed to Wilsonian ideals, “a global harmony of interests seemed less a utopian possibility than a commonsense truth. Commitment seemed beside the point as long as there were no fundamental threats to the nation’s existence or sense of identity.”[14] Because the racial identity of the United States was “threatened” by the presence of Japanese immigrants and the United States had enough power to enact effective international legislation, the Anti-Japanese Immigration Act of 1924 succeeded in Congress. Based on the incredibly racist media in circulation at the time, American practice contradicted the values it promoted.

Japanese Perspective

In mainstream Japanese press, rhetoric surrounding immigration was professional, and respectful toward Americans, despite the discussion of overtly discriminatory legislation. Japanese adopted polite language in corresponding with the United States as a way to uphold the friendly diplomatic relations between the two nations.  In press that was readily available to Americans, this was especially the case. Large newspapers, such as The Japan Times “maintained a calm and reserved approach, apprehensive about the damages it would make to the bilateral relationship [between Japan and the U.S.] as well as to the Japanese immigrants in America.”[15] Some articles legitimize the American legislation by adopting language of compromise, despite Japan’s displeasure.

[Japan]’s government… must thoroughly understand that it is not because [Americans] pretend any kind of superiority over the Japanese as a race, but because the differences between the races in character, habit of thought, traditions and aspirations are so great and immovable that there is no hope of assimilating Japanese immigrants or of the two races living side by side without conflict leading to national hatred. Realizing these conditions the two governments are arranging to work the matter out so as to inflict the least loss on the Japanese now here.[16]

Japanese knew the newspaper was a public representation of their nation. By eliminating accusation and instead focusing on how the legislation might be beneficial to the relationship between Japan and America, reporters served as filters for the immigration discussion occurring across the nation.

Government officials were careful in addressing the immigration issue, and statements sent to the United States often favored the U.S. as a just nation. An article by the Tokyo correspondent for The New York Times, Wilfred Fleisher, quoted Japanese Premier Kiyoura, who complimented America, assured of the moral integrity of the government.

We are somewhat concerned at the present moment over your prospective legislation with regard to immigration, but we are sure your sense of justice and your consideration both for the sensibilities of others and for the further development of that fine accord that already exists will determine your ultimate actions.[17]

Much of the correspondence released to America is nearly apologetic. In a statement to the Associated Press, Japanese Foreign Minister K. Matsui said Japan’s attitude toward the legislation was “conciliatory and well-meaning.” He turned an argument for Japanese rights back to the comfort of Americans, stating, “Being particularly anxious for American good-will, we have gone far in many matters to meet the American viewpoint.” Excessive value was put on Japanese relations with the United States in order to guide discussion away from the question of race: “Sentiment apart, we fully realize that an accord and understanding with the United States would be of incalculable value to Japan.”[18] Official Japanese publications used values that the United States supposedly stood for–Wilsonian democracy, negotiation, and openness–in attempting to counteract legislation that undermined those values.

This does not mean that all published representations of the American government were colored with positive language. Editorials, opinion pieces, and less popular periodicals “wrote sensationally about the anti-Japanese aspect of the act, and induced an emotional and active response.”[19] Since before the 1920s, Japanese were critical of American intervention in Japan’s immigration policies. A 1909 article in The Japan Daily Mail analyzed criticism of the American government in Mainichi Dempo and Hochi Shimbun, two popular journals at the time.

Both the Mainichi Dempo and the Hochi Shimbun criticise the policy of concentration which was announced in the House of Representatives a few days ago….The Mainichi simply declares the Government’s scheme to be impossible; the Hochi admits its possibility, but denounces the methods taken to effect it.[20]

An April 1924 editorial in The Japan Times cited the immigration issue as “A Grave Situation,” painting America as a traitor. “Two gentlemen may shake hands on any occasion,” it says, “but there may be a difference in the sentiment, either warm or cold that would be felt at the moment. Such will be the issue at stake between Japan and her old friend across the Pacific.”[21]America was no longer depicted with benevolence or camaraderie.

One of the more controversial statements to be released in Japan was after the passage of the Immigration Act in the Senate. President Kiroku Hayashi of Kelo (Gijuku) University publicly criticized the American race, and his statement was later published in The Japan Times. Hayashi targeted racial tension and the government as the source of the problem, claiming that Japan should have given up hope for just legislation.

We have abided by the old adage that the just will triumph in the end and had hoped American public opinion would relieve the Japanese in America of the unfair treatment they were receiving. But that hope is now gone and it is most grievous that the American legislators have found it fit to trample on the armour propre of the Japanese race, especially as there is nothing of pressing necessity on America’s part to justify the solution taken.[22]

In addition to these overt statements of disdain, articles like “Are America’s ‘Young Folks’ Going to the Dogs?” were released, demeaning the moral “decline” of American culture.[23] Overall, the Japanese public opinion was very anti-American, but Japanese government officials still played the part of a humble ally in order to maintain the façade of peaceful relations.

The irony of the situation is that the Japanese who spoke out for their country had a very self-determinist attitude, which was essential to Wilsonianism. They also vied for the openness between the U.S. and Japan that they were being denied. After World War I, Pan-Asianist thinker Ôkawa Shûmei discouraged Japan from joining the League of Nations, arguing that “the league was simply a neocolonial institution benefiting Anglo-American strategic and economic interests and affirming white supremacy in the world.”[24] He did not deny the value of the League, saying that it would be “a real blessing to humanity, in that it will do much to prevent future wars,” but reminded Japanese to be skeptical of powerful nations working toward “white domination.”[25] Though Japanese had an anti-American outlook, they adopted the values that America stood for: equality, independence, and national strength.

International Perspective

Newspaper articles surrounding immigration in the 1910’s and -20’s, both in the United States and Japan, approached the issue of Japanese immigration with rhetoric that could be accusatory, misconstrued, and littered with ethnocentrism. Although editorials are a matter of public opinion, popular dialogue surrounding the issue of Japanese immigration was important to government officials by the early 1920’s, so much so that international correspondence was requested outside the United States.

A letter from American Intellectual John Dewey in London to the U.S. Secretary of State Charles Hughes enclosed various clips of an editorial conversation spurred by American journalist S.S. McClure’s article on Pan-Asian solidarity, “West v. East.” Published in The Times, a British newspaper, on January 15, 1921, McClure’s article used language suggestive of violence between the West and East, titling and subtitling the article “West v. East; Ferment of the Orient; White Races in Danger; Anglo-American Bulwark.”[26] The article proposed a British-American navel alliance against the Japanese in order to prevent war with Japan over sea-trade, and also, to keep Japanese focus away from immigration: “At the moment we are at peace with Japan. Tomorrow the immigration question may bring us to the edge of war again. That question, immigration, is one that we cannot and must not undertake to arbitrate.”[27] McClure’s perspective affirms that the public viewed American relations with Japan are not just tense, but hostile, and that any agitation on either side could result in global warfare.

Some British agreed with McClure. H. H. Johnston wrote a Letter to the Editor of The Times stating,

All reflective Britons–we might say all reflective Europeans, Australians, South Africans–must agree with Mr. McClure in the proposition that the one hope for the maintenance of peace and civilization is an indissoluble alliance between the English-speaking nations of America and the British Empire. And a condition of such an alliance is the reservation of the American continents from Japanese and Chinese colonization on any considerable scale.[28]

However, many British were critical of America’s approach to race relations and immigration. Another Timesarticle, “Yellow Peril,” criticized McClure’s anxiety from a British perspective, writing with disdain about his speculations of war between races and fear of Japanese conquest.

[McClure] is sure that [war] is inevitable; all we can do is betimes to prepare for meeting it…. Nothing less than the whole fabric of Western civilization will be in jeopardy…. Such is the description which this intelligent American citizen gives to the ‘Yellow Peril,’ and he views it today. It is not without elements of truth, but to most British readers it will seem strangely exaggerated, and quite needlessly alarmist.[29]

The British editorial comment gave insight to differing global perspectives on U.S.-Japanese relations, discrediting Americans with whom Britain was supposed to ally.  A letter to the editor of The Times by J.O.P. Bland was also critical of McClure’s stance, but called attention to the fact that McClure was an educated man with access to other intellectuals and American higher-ups. The author highlights the contradictory nature of the debate over Asian empowerment in America, a nation who boasts ideals of freedom and global unity.

The chief interest of Mr. McClure’s article ‘East vs. West,’ … lies in the fact that the views which it represents have been very prevalent in the United States and that their underlying fallacies originate not in popular prejudice, but in the political opinions of professors, closet-philosophers, and sentimental theorists….This idea of Asiatic solidarity (of a Pan-Asian, or even a Pan-Coloured, Alliance) is no new thing, and it has naturally been stimulated by the Japanese immigration question; but the remarkable thing about it is that it should emanate from the same intellectual centres as the ideal of a world-wide League of Nations.[30]

Britain recognized the contradictions between American practice and ideology, but also leaned toward the side of American policy which helped maintain global white superiority.

Conclusion

The Immigration Act of 1924 sparked a lot of controversy in Japan, America, and abroad about the practices of international policy in relation to the ideology promoted by Wilsonianism and the League of Nations. Most intriguing, perhaps, is the contradictory nature of diplomacy and public media.

At a time of self-determination, when the government was supposedly informed by the people, much of the policy put into practice was rebelled against by the public, both in America and Japan. Racist literature floating around the West seemed to inform the implementation of the Immigration Act, but racist discourse was antithetical to the Wilsonian ideals that America was pushing into the international sphere. Also, many Americans rejected the moral implications of the Immigration Act, despite the prevalence of racial discourse, meaning the government was, indeed, an inaccurate representation of the people.[31]

In Japan, the discussion of American immigration policies was handled very adeptly by political leaders who understood that the press could serve as a representation of the country to the outside world. However, all over Japan, popular media shed light on the real opinions of Japanese citizens, which were generally against American immigration policies. There, the politics contradicted the populous in rhetoric. In the spirit of Wilsonian peace, the Japanese government continued to promote friendly relations with the United States despite Congress’ passage of overtly racist legislation. All the while, the people of Japan adopted anti-American ideas to protest the overreaching influence and power of the United States. This protest, however, was also a sign of Wilsonian influence in Japan due to the nationalist attitudes.

Internationally, contradictions in American legislation and ideals were recognized, but they were not combated. Britain media criticized America, but did not act against the United States in any way. Britain’s disapproval of American policy was probably unwarranted, due to the continuation of British imperialism in Asia and Africa. However, to appear morally just, the British maintained the pretense of peace and interest in the well-being of Asian countries.

In conclusion, Wilsonianism drew a lot of attention to the contradictory nature of international politics in the 1920s, particularly in the passage of the Anti-Japanese Immigration Act of 1924. The political rhetoric surrounding the Act often favored a Wilsonian outlook while the rhetoric of the people was negative and, sometimes, hostile.  The use of good-natured language in diplomacy indicates a preponderance of American power in the East (and across the globe) because there was a universal desire to maintain an image of equality and negotiation.


Bibliography

“Affronting Japan.” New York Times, April 15, 1924. ProQuest (103415942).

“Are America’s ‘Young Folks’ Going to the Dogs?” Japan Times, March 3, 1924.

“As America Sees It.” Japan Times, March 1, 1924.

Aydin, Cemil. The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Bland, J.O.P., “To the Editor of the Times,” Times, London, Jan.18, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

“Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow.” Understanding Race sponsored by The American Anthropological Association. 2007. Accessed March 14, 2014. http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/civilwar_recon_jimcrow.html.

Daniels, Rogers. The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion. Gloucester: Smith, 1966.

“Defining Whiteness.” Understanding Race sponsored by The American Anthropological Association. 2007. Accessed March 14, 2014. http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/civilwar_recon_jimcrow.html.

Dewey, John W. to Charles Evan Hughes, U.S. Secretary of State, London, Jan. 21, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

“Differing Standards.” New York Times, April 24, 1924. ProQuest (103360349).

Fleisher, Wilfred. “Japan Relies on Our Sense of Justice, Declares Premier on Immigration Bill.” New York Times, March 19, 1924. ProQuest (103306504).

Hughes, Charles. “Hughes Would Put Japan on Equality in Immigration.” New York Times, February 14, 1924. ProQuest (103420187).

“Imperialism vs. Wilsonianism.” Last modified February 19, 2014. https://moodle.knox.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=28705.

Itatsu, Yuko. “Japan’s Hollywood Boycott Movement of 1924.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 28, no. 3 (2008): 352-369, accessed February 23, 2014. http://ezproxy.knox.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hia&AN=33333472&site=ehost-live.

“Japan Press Views on Current Topics.” Japan Times, April 17, 1924.

“Japan Urges Parley to Fix Immigration.” New York Times, February 8, 1924. ProQuest (103261387).

Johnston, H.H., “East and West,” Times, London Jan. 18, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

“Madison Grant Warns of the Passing of the Great Race.” Ashland University. Accessed March 3, 2014. http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/madisongrant.htm.

McClure, S.S., “West v. East, Ferment of the Orient,” Times, London, Jan. 15, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

“The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigration.” Japan Daily Mail, February 5, 1909.

“News Strikes Nation Dumb.” Japan Times, April 17, 1924.

Ninkovisch, Frank. The Wilsonian Century: U.S. Foreign Policy since 1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Willis, F. Milton.“Immigration Action is Assailed as Violating American Opinion.” New York Times, April 28, 1924. ProQuest (103261339).

“The ‘Yellow Peril,’” Times, London,  Jan. 15, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.


Footnotes

[1] “Imperialism vs. Wilsonianism,” last modified February 19, 2014, https://moodle.knox.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=28705.

[2] Roger Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1966).

[3] “Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow,” Understanding Race sponsored by The American Anthropological Association, 2007, accessed March 14, 2014, http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/civilwar_recon_jimcrow.html.

[4] “Defining Whiteness,” Understanding Race sponsored by The American Anthropological Association, 2007, accessed March 14, 2014, http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/civilwar_recon_jimcrow.html.

[5] “Madison Grant Warns of the Passing of the Great Race,” Ashland University, accessed March 3, 2014, http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/madisongrant.htm.

[6] Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice, 68.

[7] Daniels, The Politics of Prejudice, 99.

[8] Charles Hughes, “Hughes Would Put Japan on Equality in Immigration,” New York Times, February 14, 1924. ProQuest (103420187).

[9] Hughes, “Equality in Immigration.”

[10] “Affronting Japan,” New York Times, April 15, 1924. ProQuest (103415942).

[11] “Differing Standards,” The New York Times, April 24, 1924. ProQuest (103360349).

[12] “Differing Standards.”

[13] F. Milton Willis, “Immigration Action is Assailed as Violating American Opinion,” New York Times, April 28, 1924. ProQuest (103261339).

[14] Frank Ninkovisch, The Wilsonian Century: U.S. Foreign Policy since 1900 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) 104.

[15] Yuko Itatsu, “Japan’s Hollywood Boycott Movement of 1924,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 28, no. 3 (2008): 354, accessed February 23, 2014. http://ezproxy.knox.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hia&AN=33333472&site=ehost-live.

[16] “As America Sees It,” Japan Times, March 1, 1924.

[17] Wilfred Fleisher, “Japan Relies on Our Sense of Justice, Declares Premier on Immigration Bill,” New York Times, March 19, 1924. ProQuest (103306504).

[18] “Japan Urges Parley to Fix Immigration,” New York Times, February 8, 1924. ProQuest (103261387).

[19] Itatsu, “Hollywood Boycott Movement,” 354.

[20] “The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigration,” Japan Daily Mail, February 5, 1909.

[21] “Japan Press Views on Current Topics,” Japan Times, April 17, 1924.

[22] “News Strikes Nation Dumb,” Japan Times, April 17, 1924.

[23] “Are America’s ‘Young Folks’ Going to the Dogs?” Japan Times, March 3, 1924.

[24] Cemil Aydin, The Politics of Anti-Westernism in Asia: Visions of World Order in Pan-Islamic and Pan-Asian Thought (New York: Columbia University Press 2007) 142.

[25] Aydin, The Politics of Anti-Westernisim in Asia, 143.

[26] John W. Dewey to Charles Evan Hughes, U.S. Secretary of State, London, Jan. 21, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[27] S. S. McClure, “West v. East, Ferment of the Orient,” Times, London, Jan. 15, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[28] H. H. Johnston, “East and West,” Times, London Jan. 18, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[29] “The ‘Yellow Peril,’” Times, London,  Jan. 15, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[30] J. O. P Bland, “To the Editor of the Times,” Times, London, Jan.18, 1921; Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Japan 1910-29 (Decimal file 894.56/41), Record Group 59; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[31] F. Milton Willis, “Immigration Action is Assailed as Violating American Opinion,” New York Times, April 28, 1924. ProQuest (103261339).

Advertisements