The system as applied to the Japanese farmer ought to be classi-
fied into two—leasing simple and quasi-leasing. The former
requires no explanation, but the latter is peculiar. The lessee
pays the leasor a fixed cash rent for an industry he undertakes at
his own risks, the leasor still having an absolute control over the
management of the industry as well as over the disposition
of the crops. He gets his rent “out of the sale of first crops.”
This is not leasing in the strict sense of that word. All of these
systems were initiated by white farmers for their own con-
venience and economic gains to them were thus secured.

Just when Japanese began to cultivate their own land is not
known. But the State investigation of 1909 disclosed that the
farm land owned by Japanese was 10,791 acres, which were
divided into 199 farms. These farms were assessed at $330,401
on land, and $46,927 on improvements, making a total of $397,-
298, and were mortgaged to the extent of $173,584. In 1912
that acreage increased to 12,726, which were assessed at $609,605.
There was an increase in the amount of 1,935 acres, and in value
of $212,307. So much for Japanese who cultivate their own land.

Concerning these farmers and tenant farmers the report of
the State investigation says: “1,733 Japanese farms were visited
of which 132, containing 3,876 acres, were operated by Japanese
owners; 1,170 farms containing 46,480 acres by Japanese cash
lessees ; and 431 farms containing 33,028 acres, by Japanese share
lessees. These farms produced crops valued at, approximately,
over $6,000,000. The most important crop grown was vegetables,
which amounted to, approximately, $2,500,000, the next being
deciduous fruits, $1,750,000, and berries, $730,000.”

Thus Japanese farmers occupy rather an important position
in certain agricultural industries in California. But it must
be borne in mind that the majority of these Japanese farmers
are tenant farmers and these of a peculiar character as it has
been already explained. Therefore, when their true character
is revealed, at least their financial importance sinks down con-
siderably. Their real status is succinctly but clearly brought out
by the following conclusion of the Immigration Commission:

    

|
|
36 |