“The Mere Meaningless Calling of Names Can Do Nothing But Further Racial Prejudice”: E. Manchester Boddy’s “Japanese in America,” 1921

by Paul R. Spitzzeri

It was a pleasure to again represent the Homestead at the fifth annual Nikkei Festival in Boyle Heights last Saturday and to share artifacts in the Museum’s collection regarding Japanese-Americans in Los Angeles before 1930, including photographs, government reports and business documents. One of the items considered for display, but left out because of space considerations is a remarkable 1921 book, Japanese in America, by E. Manchester Boddy (pronounced Bow-dee), a recent arrival to Los Angeles who was all but unknown here, but who went on to be a prominent figure in succeeding years.

Boddy was born in 1891 in a log cabin in a remote area east of Tacoma, Washington and his father was a British-born coal miner, farmer and “huckster,” likely meaning a peddler, who was married and had a son in his home country and then, in the United States, married Susan Morgan, a native of Illinois. Several more sons were born, including Elias Manchester, named for his maternal grandfather and the family lived at other Washington locations, including the small town of Harrington, southwest of Spokane, where Elias, as he was known before he turned to Manchester, or Chester, was one of two graduates at the local high school.

Two qualities stood out during his school years, including his leadership as president of classes in high school and college and his oratorical skills in debate clubs (he was also a track and field athlete). Lacking financial means, Boddy worked to pay for tuition at Washington State College (now University), which he attended for a year or two and then headed east to Montana, where he studied at the University of Montana and was later said to have graduated from its law department. He then worked for the Montana Development Company, was part of a Pocatello, Idaho streetcar company, and, in 1914, narrowly lost an election to a seat in the state House of Representatives, running as a Republican.

Boddy’s next stop was New York City, where he worked for the Encyclopedia Britannica, first as a door-to-door salesperson and then as a sales manager for the Big Apple area and New England region. Just after the United States entered the First World War, his number was called in the draft and Boddy joined an infantry company. He went through an officer’s training program, during which time he married Illinois native Berenice Klotz with whom he had two sons, and was commissioned a second lieutenant.

Sent to France in April 1918, Boddy was with Company C of the 129th Infantry Regiment, 33rd Division and participated in the incredibly intense fighting at the Argonne Forest (Joseph Kauffman, the brother of Homestead owner Walter P. Temple’s business manager, was killed in a battle there). Though a news report stated that he was “slightly injured,” Boddy’s service card shows that he was “severely” wounded in action in early October, a little more than a month before the end of the conflict, and it was noted that he was “cited for gallantry in action.”

Discharged on 23 January 1919 and reported 25% disabled, Boddy returned to New York City and the publishing field, including with the New York Times, but it was apparently for his health, likely his war injuries, that he and his family decamped in 1920 for Los Angeles where he ran distribution for the New York Times-published Current History Magazine. He then formed the Mexican Year Book, which published economic, financial and statistical information about our southern neighbor.

Boddy was hired to write Japanese in America, which was printed by the new Times-Mirror Press established by the Los Angeles Times, by the Japanese Association of America (JAA), which was formed at the beginning of the 20th century in San Francisco, with an early reference to a group of this name being from 1900 with respect to a quarantine order in that city, while articles of incorporation filed on 1 July 1907 included the statement that the Association’s purpose was to “form a more perfect union of the Japanese people in this country; to preserve and maintain the rights of the Japanese in the United States; and to assist its members to obtain a knowledge of their rights and liabilities, civil and political.”

This followed the informal Gentlemen’s Agreement of 15 February in which Japan agreed to significant restrict the immigration of Japanese male workers to the United States, though children and women were not subject to its terms, while the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt brokered a deal to rescind a San Francisco ordinance to segregate Japanese children in public schools.

In his chapter on the JAA, Boddy recorded that “perhaps no one activity of the Japanese has been more constantly the target for unfriendly propaganda than that of the Japanese Association of America.” He continued that “the Association was incorporated under the California State Law in August, 1900, and became the central organization for 40 affiliated associations” in the Golden State, Colorado, Nevada and Utah.” It was added that,

While its original purpose was entirely social, the executives of the Association soon found that it could be of the utmost value in disseminating information as to American customs, and in generally assisting the incoming Japanese to place themselves. It will be remembered that the primary motive actuating the Japanese immigrant is his own economic betterment,—exactly the same motive which actuated 99% of our immigration.

The author continued that “the Japanese Association has done a very great deal for the immigrant, not only in assisting him to find himself economically, but in efforts to acquaint him with the customs and laws of the section he settles in,” while remarking that the organization “must find some way of teaching their members English and of ultimately Americanizing them.”

Moreover, Boddy discussed the way in which the Association was comprised to demonstrate that “it is on the order of any American corporation,” while discountenancing claims that it was “directly responsible to the Imperial Japanese Government” and noting that it was “a self-perpetuating, independent body . . . just as a thousands other organizations of different nationals living here.”

The JAA modified its purpose statement in the fourteen years since its incorporation as it was recorded that,

The purpose of this Association shall be to elevate the character of every Japanese resident in America; to promote his or her happiness and prosperity and to cultivate a better understanding between our people and the American people.

The Association maintained an immigration office at all post cities where Japanese migrants landed and which “assists the newcomer through the formalities” and “sees that he has a fair conception of what is expected of him as a resident of this country,” mainly through literature provided to immigrants. One such example was for Japanese women that explained “American customs and manners, mode of living and dress, and etiquette, both private and public,” while the JAA also had a legal component so that any statutes “that may have a direct bearing upon the Japanese here is promptly translated and a copy of the translation sent to their membership.”

Also of note was the remark that JAA leaders “realized early that 90% of the difficulty which an immigrant might get into would arise from his failure to understand elementary facts of American civilization,” which meant that the organization was adamant that immigrants knew that “assimilation is the first and foremost step in their success, and to convince them that by contributing to the national interests they can attain their own economic development.”

As pamphlets were issued for Japanese women, such as “Care of the Children” and “Prenatal Guide, Boddy remarked that the Association supported federal Americanization efforts that included the study of the English language and lectures “given by men and women of prominence,” on a panoply of topics, such as civics, economics, education, health, history, hygiene, industry and more. A bureau of statistics tracked the population and industrial activity of Japanese-Americans, as part of a program for a “fair and impartial judgment of the Japanese question,” though it was commented that “these statistics are not published by the large number of prejudiced American newspapers.”

During the late war, moreover, the JAA managed Liberty Bond drives and assistance for the Red Cross and, in the postwar period, “this energy was directed into the channel of finding a means for the better understanding of questions arising between the Japanese and American people.” When it came to “picture marriage,” in which women were sent to the United States to marry Japanese men based on photos sent from Japan, it was observed that the Association agreed to oppose these, but not because of any immorality issues. Rather, it was felt that the custom would never “be fully understood by the average American, and therefore would always be a subject that would produce inharmony.”

Boddy summarized this section on the JAA by noting,

It is apparent in reviewing the activities of the Association, that they do no differ from those of many other organizations, such as the various Polish societies, French societies, Italian societies, etc., except that the Japanese Association is decidedly more energetic in keeping track of its membership and in directing their activities.

With respect to the Japanese-American population in the Golden State, Boddy referred pointedly to the hysteria of the “yellow peril” that animated racist Californians, including in the media, and observed “as though the ratio of 87,279 Japanese to the total population of 3.426.861 could be dangerously alarming!” To address claims that Japanese men were illegally entering the country from México, or obtaining false passports, the writer cited the fact that net migration was only a positive 3,000 and he provided a table showing the arrivals and departures in the dozen years following the Gentlemen’s Agreement.

While some male laborers did enter the country under the stipulations of that arrangement, a second table showed that the numbers were far fewer than those of “non-laborers,” meaning women and children, so the 1919 figures were under 2,300 for the former and more than 9,000 for the latter. There was also a roughly 25% percent decline in the number of so-called “picture brides” entering the country from 1912 to 1919, although there were fluctuations and the latter year’s total of almost 670 was an increase of almost 150 from the prior year, which, of course, was a war yar. Boddy added that there were cultural factors for the selection of mates in marriage, mainly the primacy of parents in making these decisions.

The author also observed that there were more Japanese students in America because of the war, with many unable to study in Europe, as intended, while growth in trade between Japan and the United States was also noted, while those travelers going to Europe generally passed through America and were, therefore, double-counted. Boddy added, “a thorough investigation and a review of the actual statistics does not show any alarming immigration from Japan to this country, and it certainly does not show any willful or wholesale violation of the ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ in the admittance of laborers.” With more students and business figures in the nation, it was posited that “the quality of Japanese immigration is and has been in every way superior to that received from many other countries which were practically without restriction,” though that would change in 1924 with the country’s first comprehensive immigration laws.

Boddy commented that, allowing for significant increases in the Japanese population in California, from just over 10,000 in 1900, to four times that a decade later, and more than doubling by 1920, it was to be noted that the overall population well more than doubled, going from about 1.5 million to nearly 2.4 million and then to over 3.4 million by 1920 and he pointedly remarked, “certainly no one could possibly conceive that 2% of the total population could be a menace to the other 98%.” The JAA, however, asserted that the the population of Japanese-Americans was about 4,000 lower than what the state enumerated.

Another concern of the fear-mongers was that a high birth rate among the Japanese would lead to a population of 1,000,000 by 1970 “and the whole population [of whites] outnumbered, and that at no distant period.” Even accounting for a birth rate that was nearly triple, “they still do not prove the menace that the anti-Japanese propagandists would have us believe,” especially because there were other factors to consider, including ages, the social conditions, educational levels and income of the persons involved. Boddy added, as well, that white immigrants had a higher birthrate than white Americans, but, importantly, cited the fact the successive generations had lower rates.

Also of interest is a section on “Occupations of the Various Japanese,” in which it was stated that a large number, about 55%, practiced farming, with only a very small percentage, around 7%, owning land because of the restrictive law passed in 1913. Truck farming in fruits and vegetables predominated and these were lower-value and very labor-intensive operations, so the Japanese ran 92% of all berry farms, near 90% of those raising celery, about 83% involving asparagus, more than three-quarters of onion farms and around two-third of those raising tomatoes and cantaloupes. When it came to fruits and nuts, as well as field crops like hay and grain, which were far more profitable, the numbers were just 4% and 0.6%, respectively.

Boddy stated that, in language familiar to the 19th century anti-Chinese propaganda and what is stated today regarding immigrants such as Mexicans and Central Amreicans:

Much of the reclamation work in certain sections of California has been possible only because of the Japanese. Their ability to work under adverse conditions, combined with their meager standard of living, permits them to succeed where white labor will not and cannot.

The Japanese, however, were also criticized for their ambition to own farmland, which Boddy remarked was “the most striking of American characteristics, and the author cannot see why the Japanese should be singled out and legislated against because of their marked success and their ambition.” It was, he added, abundantly clear that “these farmers fill a gap created by the unwillingness of others to engage in that class of farming requiring exclusive hand labor.” The Homestead, in fact, was leased to Kuhii Yatsuda when Walter P. Temple bought the 75-acre tract in late 1917 and there was significant population of Japanese farmers in the La Puente Valley during that period.

With respect to the other 45% of employed Japanese in the Golden State, Boddy wrote that “they are found chiefly in merchandising, dealing particularly with a class of merchandise that is manufactured in Japan.” This point was another one to reinforce his observation that “one of the chief arguments against them is disposed of” because there was no real competition with American business. It was added that the Japanese were rarely found in criminal cases in California courts and this meant that “from the standpoint of law observance, the Japanese are among our best citizens.”

Elsewhere, Boddy undertook to expose fallacies about the nature of low wages and standards of living, pointing out that, while the conditions that fostered these were not what most Japanese residents desired, they wished to quickly advance on both counts. He also addressed racist views on the existence of Japanese language schools, including the remark that children rapidly picked up English but needed to retain or learn Japanese to communicate with their parents or other older family members. Naturally, the retention of the culture of the homeland, including the language as well as religion and other social elements, was essential, as well, even the Japanese Educational Association stipulated, in 1913, that “the child who shall live and die in America” should be educated “in the spirit of the instruction” in public schools.

In addressing assimilation, the writer commented on several aspects, including the willingness of most Japanese to become Americanized, discountenancing racist claims regarding intelligence, and citing prejudice against them, including a recent City of Los Angeles ordinance banning their using public tennis courts. Boddy admonished that “this particularly stupid and petty legislation and its kind cannot help but hamper their assimilation.” He also made a pointed distinction between this and amalgamation, writing that the latter was not advocated, though he observed that “there are no particular biological reasons why intermarriage should not be practiced,” and this clearly changed in later decades.

With respect to citizenship and claims that the Japanese could not be good American citizens as they were said to have ultimate allegiance to the home country, Boddy cited a 1916 Law of Nationality from Japan to show that these views were false. He also remarked on birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to counter the assertions that “a Japanese is always a Japanese,” this, however, hardly being limited to them. After all, in the 1928 presidential election, Roman Catholic Al Smith was smeared with accusations that, if elected (and he wasn’t), he would be subject to the dictates of the Vatican.

Summarizing the main points covered in his work, Boddy, in his “Conclusions,” remarked that,

A group of California politicians and the yellow press has created a mythical problem, which in the minds of some people who do not understand the circumstances, may seem to be real. California has depended upon the support of the other states in her ill-treatment of the Japanese, and the yellow [sensationalist] press has sought to create a national problem by misuse of them.

In a section dealing with “A Solution of the Japanese Problem,” the writer asserted that “the mere meaningless calling of names can do nothing but further racial prejudice” and called for “a sympathetic feeling for the sensibilities of the other side” as a means that “will solve all our misunderstandings.” He cited that State Department as the only real arbiter of the issue and stated that “the petty restrictive legislation of California and other states must cease, and the Japanese accorded the exact rights that are given other nationals” because “that after all is only justice.”

The Times, the Times-Mirror Press subsidiary of which, as noted above, printed the book reviewed Japanese in America in its 7 May 1922 edition, calling it a “judicious and kindly estimate of the Japanese as we find them in our country,” though it added that “his work has the qualities and the limitations of the journalist,” citing his view on religion, while, in quoting Boddy on citizenship, offered the hope that “the citizenship question will be treated in a just and magnanimous way by the federal government, now that the immigration question as a whole is directly before the country.” The piece concluded that, “whether we are inclined to agree with Mr. Boddy or not, his book is a helpful contribution to a live subject.”

Not quite a few weeks later, Boddy took the JAA to court alleging that he was due $6,500 on the delivery of 2,500 copies of the book in two lots, but only received $1,000 and “a demand for the balance was refused.” The writer also sought $22,500 in damages, though nothing further could be located about the conflict, including why the Association allegedly declined to pay the remainder of the funds and what the adjudication of the matter entailed.

Boddy was very soon afterward hired by the paper to work with the Times-Mirror Press, while he followed this work by writing and publishing two works of Western fiction. When the Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News, launched in 1923 by Cornelius Vanderbilt IV quickly foundered financially, Boddy audaciously engineered a takeover of the paper, employing some creative financing schemes to do so. Finding his groove as a critic of Angel City political corruption, which was rampant, Boddy built the paper into a success and ran it for more than a quarter-century.

In 1937, Boddy bought a large property in what is now La Cañada-Flintridge, bordering Glendale on the east, and developed the Rancho del Descanso (Ranch of Rest), which became widely known for its gardens of camellias (this is the official flower of Walter Temple’s Temple City). After the Japanese owners, the Yoshimuras, of the Mission Nursery were sent to concentration camps by order of the federal government during World War II, Boddy purchased the business at a fair price and added a bonus for its workers. After their release, the Yoshimuras opened the San Gabriel Nursery, which still is in operation.

With much of his stock at the Rancho del Descanso coming from the Mission Nursery, Boddy’s gardens achieved much renown and, when he sold the property to the county in 1953, it was first denoted a public camellia garden, though it is now known as Descanso Gardens and is a regional botanical treasure. Boddy, who lost the Democratic primary for United States Senator in 1950, and his wife moved to the Pauma area of northern San Diego County and changed the name of the Old Mill Ranch to Wilderness Gardens, while he published a couple of magazines, as well as helped with restoration of the Mission San Antonio de Pala, a submission of the Mission San Luis Rey. He died at Huntington Memorial Hospital of congestive heart failure in May 1967 and has largely been forgotten in the half-century since, though his Japanese in America is an interesting work that should perhaps be better remembered.