File No. 811.52/164.
The Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State.
Washington, May 9, 1913.
Sir: I have the honor to acquaint you that my Government have learned, with painful disappointment, of the measure recently passed by the Legislature of the State of California on the subject of alien land tenure, and that they feel constrained to offer to the American Government their urgent and explicit protest, which, in pursuance of their instructions, I now respectfully beg to lodge with you against the new legislation.
In the opinion of the Imperial Government the act in question is essentially unfair and discriminatory, and it is impossible to ignore the fact that it was primarily directed against my countrymen. Accordingly, this protest is based upon the proposition that the measure is unjust and inequitable, and that it is not only prejudicial to the existing rights of Japanese subjects, but is inconsistent with the provisions of the treaty actually in force between Japan and the United States, and is also opposed to the spirit and fundamental principles of amity and good understanding upon which the conventional relations of the two countries depend.
It seems to the Imperial Government that the enactment in effect deprives my countrymen of the right to transmit to their legal heirs their already lawfully acquired landed property. Full right of such transmission was a right running with such property, when so acquired, and consequently the annulment of that right at this time is clearly in conflict with the third clause of Article I of the treaty, which guarantees to Japanese subjects, in reciprocity, the most constant protection for their property. Moreover, in its relation to house property, the legislation appears to be, in a much wider sense, repugnant to the provisions of the first clause of the same article, by which Japanese subjects are granted, in reciprocity, and upon the same terms as American citizens, the right to own houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops. All exceptional limitations and restrictions upon or in respect of that right, either in the matter of its transmissibility or otherwise, are thus believed to be irreconcilable with the first and third clauses of Article I of the treaty.
Again, in regard to the right of my countrymen to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, all limitations and restrictions upon the right contained in the act, which are not equally applicable to American leaseholders, are, it seems, also contrary to the treaty provisions above referred to.
I beg further to point out that the provisions of the enactment relating to companies, associations, and corporations appear to be no less objectionable. Thus, in case an association, in proceeding to dissolution, decides to distribute among its members any real property now owned by it all Japanese members would, in discrimination, be excluded from such distribution in abridgment of their vested rights. Other instances of grave injustice in disregard of already existing rights of my countrymen may readily be imagined, more especially in case of an institution whose stock is purchasable in the open [Page 630] market. For instance, lawful interests of Japanese subjects in such an institution might become liable to escheat without any unlawful act on their part, since the innocent purchase of its stock by aliens of other nationalities laboring under the same disabilities as the Japanese might lead to that result. But, practically speaking, the enforcement of the measure in question would have the effect of depriving my countrymen of the right to own any stock in any company, association, or corporation liable to become possessed in California of any real property or any interest therein, for no business man of ordinary business acumen and prudence would take the hazard of confiscation. Nevertheless, such hazard would exist in view of that act, notwithstanding the parity engagement on the subject of trade contained in Article I and the most-favored-nation stipulation in all that concerns commerce appearing in Article XIV of the treaty.
Further, the act [Section 2] provides in effect that aliens ineligible to citizenship may acquire, possess, enjoy or transfer real property or any interest therein, only in the manner, and to the extent, and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the United States and the country of which such aliens are subjects or citizens. Apart from the question as to whether the term “any treaty now existing” is intended to cover any treaty which may hereafter be concluded in supplement to, or in supersession of, the existing compact, it frequently happens that two friendly nations cease to have any commercial treaty in force between them, without impairing in the least their mutual relations of amity and good will. Should such contingency present itself in the intercourse of Japan and the United States, Japanese subjects will apparently be denied all rights relating to real property in California, now guaranteed by the treaty, whereas aliens eligible to citizenship are placed on the national footing, in the matter of such property rights, independently of treaty engagements. Accordingly, the security of the rights acquired lawfully and in good faith by the Japanese would, under the new enactment, be in constant and serious danger, from which aliens eligible to citizenship are safely guarded. Those just rewards of long and honest toil, upon which so many Japanese families depend for their livelihood, might be deprived of all protection under the act, by causes for which they are in no way responsible.
It may be contended by the framers and supporters of the bill, that in the event of any concrete cases, arising, in which the Japanese find that their rightful claims are disregarded, it will be open for the aggrieved parties to resort to ordinary process of law for remedy. Considering, however, that such process necessarily involves much delay of time and great hardships for the parties in interest, and that those disadvantages will be wholly unknown in respect to aliens whose eligibility to citizenship has never been called in question, it will be readily conceded that the enactment will operate in effect as a discrimination against my countrymen whose right to become American citizens has not yet been definitely established.
The Imperial Government, while reserving for future consideration other objectionable features of the enactment in question, desire to have it made entirely clear that they attach the utmost importance to the discriminatory phase of the legislation in those affairs of ordinary international commercial concern, in which nations usually accord [Page 631] to peaceful and friendly aliens equal-treatment either as a matter of comity or by application of the principle of the most favored nation clause.
The sympathetic and accommodating disposition with which the American administration has invariably extended its helping hands to the Imperial Government, in the cause of humanity and international good understanding, encourages them in the hope that the present difficulties will be set at rest in a manner worthy of the historic relations of cordial friendship between the two neighboring nations.
Accept [etc.]