that no overwhelming wave of Asiatic immigration will be allowed. The density of population-86 per square mile is already greater than that of any other part of Oceania except Java.

THE POLICY OF THE BRITISH

DOMINIONS

Asiatics are more or less effectively excluded from the four great selfgoverning British Dominions, as follows: Australia and New Zealand require applicants for admission to pass a test in the writing of a European language; New Zealand also requires an entrance fee of £100 and Australia has other restrictions, e.g., relative to contract labor. Since 1904 Canada has required a payment of $500, and from December, 1913, successive Orders-inCouncil have prohibited the landing in British Columbia of skilled and unskilled artisans.155 In 1904 South Africa totally excluded adult male Chinese and in 1913 extended the prohibition to all male Asiatics over

sixteen years of age. 156 The Indian Government, resenting the treatment of Indians in South Africa, had already prohibited the recruiting of Indian laborers and the last shipment had left for South Africa in June, 1911.

Indians were introduced into South Africa in 1860-66 and in 1874-1911, and the census of 1911 showed that 64,000 out of a total of 150,000 had been born in South Africa; but the Indian Commission recommended (1920) the repatriation of a large part of the total number. Five sixths of the Asiatics in South Africa are in Natal, where there were in 1911, 133,000 Indians and only 88,000 whites; but since 1911 the number of Indians has been decreasing. Except in South

155 Canada Yearbook, 1915, p. 110; 1919, p.

122.

156 Official Yearbook of South Africa, 1918, p.

186.

Africa small numbers-up to a few thousand a year-of Asiatics are in various ways admitted to the different Dominions.

Kenya and Uganda, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Mozambique and Madagascar on the East Coast of Africa present an area of some 1,300,000 square miles inhabited by only about 18 million people or 14 to the square mile. Most of this territory is in the tropics where, except for limited areas of high plateaus, it is unsuited for white settlers. Indian immigrants have a foothold in all these territories, for nearly all of the Asiatics are East Indians. They are largely peddlers and small traders and most of the retail trade of the country is in their hands.

The peoples of India regard the race question in Kenya as a test case. The Round Table says:157

The Indian regards Kenya Colony as a test case by which to prove the sincerity of his admission to the rights of Empire citizenship which were, he points out, admitted by the Imperial Conference in 1921.

In this connection, Article VII of the British Mandate for Tanganyika is pertinent. It reads: 158

The Mandatory shall secure to all nationals of States Members of the League of Nations the same rights as are enjoyed in the territory by his own nationals in respect of entry into and residence in the territory, the protection afforded to their person and property, the acquisition of property, movable and immovable, and the exercise of their profession or trade, subject only to the requirements of public order, and on condition of compliance with the local law.

The real issue in Kenya is not primarily between the whites and the

157 Round Table (London), June, 1923, p. 507. See resolution of Imperial War Conference, 1918, on Restriction of Immigration.

158 League of Nations Official Journal, 3rd year, No. 8 (Part II), August, 1922, p. 867.

Asiatics, but between these two groups on the one side and the native African on the other.

The future importance of the exclusion of Asiatics from northern Australia transcends all other race issues. Sir Joseph Cook, Australian High Commissioner in England (former prime minister of Australia), stated in an interview in London, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor (Boston) of February 20, 1922: "We mean to keep Australia white and for preference would have a white British Australia, although we welcome all good citizens from any white country." This statement is in line with previous pronouncements by responsible Australian political and governmental authorities.

The only important politician who has opposed this policy, at least within recent years, is H. N. Barwell, premier of South Australia, who would admit Asiatics to the tropical Northern Territory, which formerly was a part of South Australia but is now a separate territory administered by the Federal Government. Only 4,000 whites live in the Northern Territory, which has an area of 523,000 square miles. It is believed by most Australians that the Northern Territory is not and never will be a "white man's country," and Premier Barwell proposes to allow Asiatic immigration into that territory -perhaps also into northern Queensland and into the tropical section of Western Australia, but to permit none to come south of a certain line. Few leaders agree with him as to the feasibility of keeping Asiatics, if admitted, within such bounds, and Mr. Barwell himself as recently as January 10, 1922, declared his opposition to allowing any Asiatics in the temperate parts of Australia.

Each of the several colonies forming the Australian Commonwealth had prohibited or restricted immigration of

Asiatics. These laws were superseded after the Federation by the commonwealth immigration law of 1901, amended in 1905, 1908, 1910 and 1912. The federal law does not expressly exclude Asiatics. It excludes criminals, persons suffering from unwholesome diseases, etc., and "any person who fails to pass the dictation test, that is to say, who fails to write out not less than 50 words of a language prescribed by regulation when dictated to him by an officer administrating the Act." It is under this last clause, which gives the administrating officer wide discretion, that Asiatics are kept out of Australia. It is officially stated159 that in general practice the dictation test is not imposed upon persons of European race.

Official commonwealth statistics show that at the time of the last census 98 per cent of the total population of Australia has been born either in Australia or in the United Kingdom. The largest non-British element in the population was German: three fourths of one per cent.

Sir James Mitchell, premier of Western Australia, in a speech at Bradford, England, May 25, 1922, quoted in the Daily Mail of May 26, said that, while Australia would always do her utmost in an emergency, she could not hold the country with five and a half million people and must have England's assistance in increasing her population in the next twenty or thirty years. Increase of population in Australia, by immigration, has averaged in the past five years only about 20,000 per annum (excess of arrivals over departures). Increase by excess of births over deaths has averaged about 75,000 per annum. In face of the expansion of Asiatic populations, deepseated fear of Asiatic aggression agitates all Australian statesmen, who feel that 159 See Commonwealth Yearbook No. 12, 1919,

p. 1167.

without the protection of the British Navy the danger might become immediate. They appear to be determined to oppose in every possible manner any such "peaceful penetration" as might result from any relaxation of the present policy of rigorous exclusion of Asiatics.

FACTORS IN THE ASIATIC ISSUE

Exclusion laws are the product of a situation which should have the thoughtful, earnest consideration of the people of both the East and the West. They dam the tide; they do not touch the issue in the background. Factors in the issue are:

(a) Population presses on the resources of a country and people instinctively are driven to seek better feeding places. When the margin of subsistence is reached, as it has been in many parts of Asia, thousands die from disease and famine but, if knowledge of better opportunities in other lands is available, the desire to migrate arises, and sometimes great masses of people move blindly.

(b) When the Asiatic tries to migrate, he finds that the white race has signs up in certain valuable areas telling him to keep off. As Asiatic peoples become more conscious of their nationality, this policy of the white race is resented not only by individuals but by whole races. The fact that parts of Asia and South America in the temperate zone and large areas in the tropics are open to Asiatics does not greatly lessen this resentment. But mere migration is not an ultimate solution of the problem.

(c) Asiatic resentment is not only against laws and regulations restricting the migration of Asiatics but against Occidental commercial and financial methods and against Occidental ideas. Asiatics by no means admit the superiority of our civilization over theirs. Nor are they in most cases anxious to follow the meth

ods of the West. The most thoughtods of the West. ful of them resent our materialistic philosophy, our standardized existence, and the very conception of life in the West.160

(d) Nevertheless, the industrialization of the East under the leadership of the West goes forward. Western capital and commerce are introducing capitalistic methods into the Eastern countries. Great quantities of machinery-textile, electrical, and otherwise are being exported to Asia. Japan has taken over completely the business methods and the material structure of our Western economic life. In India the cotton manufacturing industry is gradually taking from Lancashire its markets.

(e) In the next few decades the forces in Asia now operating at times at cross-purposes and without direction may converge. They are: the overwhelming man power of Asiatic countries, the growing consciousness of nationality and unity among Asiatic peoples, and the adoption of the material methods and concepts of Western civilization. Suppose these forces do converge and Asia as a whole adopts, as Japan has done, the imperialistic methods of the West? Exclusion laws and regulations will then be flimsy barriers.

Before this time comes we shall be wise if we consider, not only for our own but for Asia's good, what our material civilization really leads to and to what extent it should be thrust upon the Asiatics.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

Our material civilization is not above criticism. We should not insist upon other peoples in every quarter of the earth accepting it. Our economic progress has, it is true, achieved much. Nothing will be gained by turning back. We must get on. The question is

160 Peffer, Nathaniel: "The Real Revolt against Civilization." The Century Magazine, February,

1923.

whither? No simple formula will solve this problem-as complex as human society itself. But a few conclusions are obvious. Western nations should stop wasting the lives and wealth of their citizens in internecine strife. The white race is exhausting its vitality, morale, and material goods over such issues as the Ruhr, and the Eastern peoples not only smile at our professions of Christianity but bide their time. Western peoples should also begin to realize that they can learn something from the people of the East. We do not live by bread alone. Life is more than meat and the body than raiment. We can begin to solve the great issues

between the East and the West only when we develop toward the East an understanding and a sympathetic mind.

Then there may be a way out. The problem in the East is how to give those teeming millions in some degree the material comforts which we enjoy and not at the same time destroy the spiritual verities of their civilization. The problem in the West is to prevent our material civilization from breaking down in quarrels among ourselves or in struggle with the peoples of Asia and to benefit from the art, the calm reserve, and spiritual understanding of the civilization of the East.

Imperialism is the overseas economic expression of Western civilization. It has brought into existence the two great conflicts which constitute the major problems of the modern world. The first is the conflict between industrialized nations for the control of markets and sources of raw materials, for opportunities to invest capital, for the facilities of international communication, for colonies, and for spheres of influence in economically backward areas of the earth. The second conflict is between the peoples of the Occident and of the Orient. The former rests on the conception that a nation under modern conditions cannot be a first-class power unless it has economic strength. The latter arises from the resentment of Asiatic peoples against Occidental exploitation and from the economic pressure of population on the resources of Asia.

THE FACTS OF IMPERIALISM

In considering imperialism it is highly important first of all to under

stand just what this movement is. Little is gained by undiscriminating condemnation. The methods of imperialism have served, one must admit, in many ways to develop the world economically. At this stage of the world's progress probably no better methods are possible. The choice is between employing them or standing still. Indeed, it is not a choice at all, for forces are operating which inevitably bring about the economic expansion of those nations which have adopted the capitalistic methods of production and distribution. Upon this expansion follow new issues and results.

No progress in comprehending modern industrial problems can be made by mere denunciation of imperialism as buccaneering. Imperialistic methods undoubtedly have been misused. Private enterprises have been employed as smokescreens behind which aggressive political policies have been furthered. Such use of commercial and financial power should be condemned unqualifiedly, but deliberate economic pene

tration is not to be confused with legitimate business enterprises in regions where the government is weak and resources are relatively undeveloped and where it is desirable for the home government to retain some oversight of the activities of its nationals and to see that they get fair play. Complications may, in this manner, be avoided and a semblance of regulation introduced into international relations which otherwise would be left largely in a state of anarchy. No useful purpose, it should be repeated, is served by general denunciations of foreign trade and finance. It is incumbent on those who do not like them to point out constructively the way to some better method for getting on.

Moreover, we cannot understand our world by continually trying to explain away economic rivalry or by dressing up modern imperialistic policies in the robes of disinterested justice and liberty. Surely Sir John Cadman, President of the Institute of Mining Engineers of Great Britain, does not expect full acceptance of his statement that the "principal object" of the San Remo oil agreement "was to secure an arrangement that would be of lasting benefit to the Arab state when constituted."161 We should be candid with ourselves. Nations as such, as distinguished from self-sacrificing individuals and private humanitarian organizations, do not engage in altruistic enterprises in parts of the world where they neither have nor seek material interest.

The United States is interested in the Caribbean countries and in the Panama Canal because complications there concern directly our prosperity and our security. Great Britain is interested in the Near East because she desires to safeguard her communications with India and with other markets 161 Mining and Metallurgy (New York), February, 1922, p. 8.

and her access to the sources of raw materials, including petroleum, in the Middle East. The Mesopotamian campaign has even been described as "the one sound commercial enterprise of the World War."162

These comments are not made either in defense or in condemnation of imperialism. We cannot, however, make any progress toward correcting the evils of existing international relations, or toward abolishing harmful imperialistic practices entirely if we continue, as the spokesmen of all nations do, to inject into the situation professions of fictitious morality. Once we get over the fright that the mere mention of imperialism occasions, and once we recognize that material factors among many others affect the policies of states, we shall be able to consider, with some prospect of success, measures to regulate international relations and to set up machinery which will assist in the adjustment of international disputes. Imperialism represents a stage in the world's economic development. It is not an end in itself. If it has failed to work in the modern world, constructive thinking must point the way to better methods for developing the world economically and for improving the material environment in which mankind shall live.

THE NATION IS THE BASIC UNIT

In devising a plan of coöperation by which the conflicting world forces of our present day may be reconciled it is not only necessary to face the hard and brutal facts of imperialism, but we must begin to build at the foundations and with the materials at hand. Any practical solution of the world's problems must begin with the recognition of the nation as the basic unit in our present civilization. Not only is the

162 Eckel, Edwin C.: Coal, Iron and War, (1920) p. 130.