born on the soil, before he attains seventeen years of age, can theoretically renounce his Japanese citizenship, provided Japan consents. That is the "joker!" Japan, rarely asked, never consents.

If the native Japanese were not ineradicably Japanese, without power biologically to assimilate so as to maintain the standards of our civilization, we might tolerate a temporary evil. "The Melting Pot," however, rebels. It is not temporary. We cannot, side by side, have two contending races without perpetuating a race problem, and of this have we not had enough? The Civil War is a monument to non-assimilability. For this reason the constitution should be amended so that not all persons, born on the soil, but only those granted the precious privilege by Congress, should become citizens. It is treating too lightly a great inheritance. Shall not at least one patriotic society-like the American Legion, which has already expressed itself on the Japanese question-take the leadership of this movement? Prohibition and Woman's Suffrage organizations have shown the way to constitutional reform.

Because they are born in the sugar plantations of Hawaii, a brood of Japanese, formidable in numbers, are now free to come to continental United States, where they can own and lease land and lay deep the foundation of an alien colony, already a menace. So, too, the equally large brood, generating day by day in the Golden State, swarming it and overwhelming white civilization, brings in a yellow tide. These are two alarming breeding grounds, endangering the whole country.

Unless we check the fecundity of the Japanese in America-Continental and Insular-the danger will grow daily;

but that we cannot do. More brides are coming in than before the alleged restrictions imposed by Japan. Japan apparently encourages in every way, as by the extension of the period of time within which a returned subject is exposed to military duty at home, the building up of its colonial empire by births. Steamship rates are so made for the round trip on their own ships that the expense of a bride is no greater than by the former photograph marriage. Our "Gentleman's Agreement" permits the laborer to go to Japan and return with a wife. Our national policy of preserving our population and our institutions should be sternly declared, and to effect it a new leadership should demand these changes:

(1) The termination of the Treaty of 1911. (Six months'
notice is required.)

(2) The passage of an Exclusion Law like the one now
applying to Chinese, which would end the so-called
"Gentleman's Agreement."

(3) An amendment to the Federal constitution, which
now unhappily gives citizenship to all persons born
on the soil.

(4) Universal disarmament; or, as an alternative, the
maintenance of the American Navy at its highest
efficiency.

Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, October 18, 1921.

California at the Disarmament Conference

THEN it was proposed to call a disarmament conference there was a general manifestation of approval among the nations. Then it became complicated by including in the agenda other questions not strictly related. The policy of Japan calls for expansion, an outlet for her subjects; and the other powers desire to limit such expansion, or require concomitantly trade privileges in the far East, such as "the open door." America is in a position to speak, because, asserting the Monroe Doctrine, she has never attempted to deny in South America equal trade opprotunities to foreign commerce. A Monroe Doctrine is being asserted by Japan in the far East by our precedent. This could only mean the preservation of the territorial integrity of Asia. But Japan seeks the acquisition of territory and would herself be barred from aggression by such a doctrine, which she mistakenly invokes as one parallel to

our own.

At the conference Japan and the United States will face each other. Japan will urge the need of territorial expan

sion. She will seek to confirm her shadowy title to the German islands in the Pacific, but she will be doubtless made to realize that they afford an inadequate field for expansion, and that such a claim can only be construed as a step towards the military domination of the Pacific. Japan is the only country that protested the acquisition of Hawaii by the United States. Since then she has poured her people into the Islands, permitted by the foolish and futile "Gentleman's Agreement" and the complacent attitude of our terrorized or hypnotized representatives in Washington. She has now one-half of the whole population of the Territory of Hawaii, the vital military outpost of the United States in the Pacific.

The national conscience has been at last stirred by the invasion of the Japanese (because the Pacific Coast is fast becoming another Hawaii); and by the aggresive character of the Japanese Government itself. In this matter California is the point of contact for the United States.

Is it possible that California may be sacrificed in a panic-stricken desire to preserve world peace? The Taft treaty of 1911, against the loud and indignant protest of Theodore Roosevelt, took from us the right to exclude without Japan's consent. Japan, exceptional among all nations, was given the privilege of controlling immigration into the United States from Japan. When she certifies a prohibited laborer, we cannot go behind it. When the State attempts the registration of these aliens and taxes them a fee that would cover the cost, the courts find that the same treaty gives them the same exemptions from taxes reserved for and enjoyed by American citizens.

Now, Japan is demanding full equality for her subjects.

She has a case in the Federal Supreme Court, contending that they are entitled to citizenship under our existing naturalization laws. She has smuggled into citizenship, by the sheep-like docility-even stupidity-of our officials, a large number of her subjects who were enlisted as mess boys in the Navy during the war, perverting the statute that facilitated the naturilzation only of those who otherwise were eligible. The Treasury Department has just ruled that such "citizens" may draw pay from the Navy and serve as members of the crew of "The Mayflower," the Preisdent's Yacht, where Japanese are employed. The Attorney General hesitates for some reason to bring the case into the Supreme Court. But vain is our subserviency. It must titillate the oriental mind to "roars of laughter" to see the numerous dividends which its cunning and "sensitiveness" pay.

California, within her undisputed jurisdiction as a State, forbids by law the ownership or leasing of agricultural lands by persons ineligible to citizenship. That is one reason why the Japanese are seeking naturalization. California would, I believe, be willing to extend this law to all aliens, which would sound better, but, so far as the Japanese are concerned, would mean nothing. The Japanese could still take the land by their children.

But here is the rub. Bureaucratic Washington has been whispering that the President and the Senate-the treatymaking power-can set aside laws of Congress and the statutes of individual States in matters wholly within state jurisdiction, as immigration, naturalization and land laws, when they become "international." When does a domestic question ever become "international?" Is it