States. The competency of both Chinese and Japanese to meet
all the requirements by these industries of the orchard, the vine-
yard and the field is unquestioned and unquestionable.”

Again, “Comparing the individual Japanese laborer and the
individual white laborer of the typical class that is now avail-
able in the field and from which is recruited all the white help
now obtainable, the investigation discloses a higher standard of
the Japanese individual.

“The report points out the peculiar adaptability of the
Japanese as one of the most important factors in his value as a
laborer. No matter how unattractable or undependable he may
show himself in the absence of active competition, he reforms
quickly in the face of competition, while the white man is the
same always, and will not adapt himself to disagreeable or un-
desirable conditions.” ?

This brings me to a discussion of Japanese competition.

Speaking of the wages of Japanese farm hands, the same report
says: “The average wage paid by white farmers to white help
was $1.38 per day with board and $1.80 per day without board,
and to the Japanese, $1.49 per day with board and $1.54 per day
‘without board. This, however, cannot be taken as the average
earnings of the Japanese, for 49.2 per cent of the entire number
employed were working by contract or piece work, under which
condition the earnings of the Japanese are much higher than
those of the whites.

 
  
 
 
 
 
    
   
  

_ “The average wages paid to Japanese farm labor by Japanese
farmers were $1.57 per day with board and $1.65 without board,
showing that the Japanese were better paid by their own country-
men than by the white farmer—this for two reasons: first, that
he is in greater demand by his own countrymen, and second, that
only 12.5 per cent of the total number employed by Japanese
farmers were working by contract or piece work.”

It may be interesting, in this connection, to introduce here
the facts gathered by the Immigration Commission. The follow-

1. The San Francisco “Chronicle,” May 30, 1910.

33