The opponents of the newly enacted law claim that it is unwise because, if it proves effective, it will have driven a large number of capable and industrious farmers out of agriculture, thereby causing no little inconvenience to the people in getting an abundant supply of table delicacies. Even the report of the State Board of Control admits that "the annual output of agricultural products of Japanese consists of food products practically indispensable to the State's daily supply," and adds that their sudden removal is not wise.[42] If, on the other hand, the law fails--and that there is abundant possibility of it the sponsors of the law themselves admit--critics insist that it will result in no gain, but "it merely persecutes the aliens against whom it is directed, and sows the seed of distrust in their minds," and further it will occasion an unnecessary ill-feeling between America and Japan. Presenting the reasons for opposing the new land measure, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce stated: The clause denying the right to lease agricultural lands is ineffective in operation. It may prove irritating to the Japanese people, but it will not prevent them from occupying lands for agricultural purposes under cropping contracts for personal services, which cannot be legally prohibited to any class of aliens. This is what Governor Stephens referred to when he confessed that the law can be evaded by legal subterfuge, which it is not possible for the State to counteract. And California has no lack of lawyers, who are resourceful and ready enough to teach the Japanese the technical way of evading the law. The advocates of the new law, on the other hand, argued that anything is better than nothing to show their disapproval of Japanese domination in agriculture, and pointed to the Japanese law regarding foreign land ownership as an example of foreigners not being allowed to own land. If Japan does not permit the ownership of land by Americans, they argue, by what right do the Japanese demand the privilege in America? This apparently does not hit the point since in case of Japan the prohibition of land-ownership is not discrimination against any single nation or people, whereas the case of California is. We may, however, cursorily touch here upon the status of foreign land ownership in Japan. Land Laws of Japan. Under present regulations there are three ways in which foreigners may hold land in Japan, viz.: (1) By ordinary lease running for any convenient term and renewable at the will of the lessee. The rent of such leased property is liable to a review by the courts, after a certain number of years, on the application of either party; (2) A so-called superficies title may be secured in all parts of Japan, save what is called the colonial areas, running for any number of years. Many such titles now current run for 999 years. These titles give as complete control over the surface of the land as a fee-simple title would do.