It is useful to compare this development of the Japanese population with that of California in general, because it gives an idea of the relative importance of the Japanese increase. This is shown in the following table, in which the decennial rates of increase between them are compared:
Comparison of Population Increase of California and of Japanese in California.
| Year. | Number. | Decennial Increase. | Rate of Decennial Increase. | Rate of Japanese Decennial Increase. | Percentage of Japanese to the Total Population of California. |
| 1880 | 864,694 | ..... | ..... | ..... | .0099% |
| 1890 | 1,213,398 | 348,704 | 40.3% | 1234 % | .095% |
| 1900 | 1,485,053 | 271,655 | 22.3% | 785 % | .68 % |
| 1910 | 2,377,549 | 892,496 | 60.0% | 307.3% | 1.73 % |
| 1920 | 3,426,861 | 1,049,312 | 44.1% | 69.7% | 2.04 % |
Thus we see that while the percentage of decennial increase of Japanese has been fast decreasing since the census of 1890, descending from 1234 per cent. to 785 per cent. in the next census, and to 307.3 per cent. in 1910, and 69.7 per cent. in 1920, that of California is headed, on the whole, towards an increase. We also notice that the percentage of the Japanese population to the total population of California also shows a tendency to slow growth, increasing only three tenths of one per cent. during the last decade. As a general conclusion, therefore, we may say that the rate of increase of Japanese in California is slowly declining while that of the total population of California is steadily increasing.
In the next place, how does the status of the Japanese population in California compare with that in the continental United States? In the following table, we compare the rate of increase in California and the United States, and enumerate the percentage of the number of Japanese in California to the total number of Japanese in the United States:
Japanese Population in the United States and California.
| Census. | Japanese in Continental United States. | Decennial Increase of Japanese in Continental United States. | Rate of Decennial Increase. | Rate of Decennial Increase Japanese in California. | Percentage of Japanese in California to entire Japanese population of United States. |
| 1880 | 148 | ..... | ..... | ..... | 58.1% |
| 1890 | 2,039 | 1,891 | 1,277.7% | 1234.0% | 56.2% |
| 1900 | 24,326 | 22,287 | 1,093.0% | 785.0% | 41.7% |
| 1910 | 72,157 | 47,831 | 196.6% | 307.3% | 57.3% |
| 1920 | 119,207 | 47,050 | 65.2% | 69.7% | 58.8% |
The table indicates that the percentage of Japanese in California to the total number of Japanese in the United States is rather high, justifying the complaint of the Governor of California that during ten years, between 1910 and 1920, “the Japanese population in California increased 25,592, but in all of the other States of the United States it decreased 10,873. Perhaps, in this last-named fact may be found the reason that makes Oriental immigration a live subject of continued consideration in California.”[12]
The truth of this statement, which in other words means that the cause of anti-Japanese agitation in California is due to congestion in that one State, becomes almost indisputable. It is doubly apparent when we consider the reason why the Chinese no longer constitute the objects of exclusion in California while the Japanese do. The Chinese have shown, ever since the launching of the agitation against them in the early ’80’s, a wise tendency to disperse into other States, thus avoiding conflict with the Californians. The Japanese, on the other hand, appear to cling tenaciously to California, and the more they are maltreated and slandered the more steadfastly they remain in that State. This is apparently due largely to the recognition of the desirability of California, even with its handicaps, over other States, but it is also due to their helplessness to extricate themselves from the situation in fear of a great financial loss involved in the change.
The Report of the State Board of Control of California uses the fact of the decreasing number of Chinese and the increasing number of Japanese in California as evidence of the success of the Chinese Exclusion Act in accomplishing its purpose, and of the failure of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” in restricting Japanese immigration.[13] But, in so doing, it fails to take into consideration the very fact which it points out elsewhere, which we have just quoted; namely, that the number of Japanese has decreased in all of the other States combined while it has increased in California. It also fails to take into account the fact that the number of Chinese, contrary to the Japanese tendency, has shown a marked tendency to grow in eastern and middle western States and to decrease in California. Thus, for example, the number of Chinese in New England, the Middle Atlantic, and Eastern and North Central States increased from 401, 1227, and 390 respectively in 1880 to 3499, 8189, and 3415, respectively, in 1910, while it decreased in the Pacific division from 87,828 to 46,320 in the corresponding period.[14]