793.94/240
The Counselor for the Department of State ( Lansing ) to the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: It seems to me that the suggestions made by Mr. Williams in his memorandum of February 26th, which is enclosed,5 are worthy of careful consideration.
This Government could take the position that, while, it has reason to complain of the Japanese “demands” on China on the ground that they infringe the treaty rights of the United States and are contrary to the formal assurances heretofore made by the Japanese Government, it appreciates the internal pressure of the increasing population of the Empire and the necessity for oversea territory to relieve this pressure by emigration.
It could be stated that in the opinion of this Government this necessity for expansion has been in a large measure the cause of Japanese [Page 408] emigration to the United States, and the underlying reason for the controversies which have taken place over exclusion laws and California land-legislation.
I would suggest for your consideration whether it would not be well for this Government to state that if it refrains from urging its undoubted treaty rights relative to Southern Manchuria and Shang Tung, it would do so as a friend of Japan who is solicitous for her welfare, recognizing her economic situation and the relief which would doubtless result from an opportunity to develop Southern Manchuria through Japanese emigrants into that region.
It could be further stated that, if this Government adopts such a policy out of friendship for Japan and with an earnest desire to see her wishes accomplished, it may justly expect reciprocal friendly treatment on the part of the Japanese Government, and similar evidence of good will on their part.
It could be pointed out that this spirit of friendship could be shown by Japan by a declaration that in view of the announced attitude of the United States in regard to Southern Manchuria and Shan Tung that the Japanese Government:
- (1)
- Will make no further complaint in regard to legislation affecting land tenures in the United States unless such legislation is confiscatory in character, or materially affects vested rights;
- (2)
- Will reaffirm explicitly the principle of the “Open Door”, making it particularly applicable to the territories affected by the demands;
- (3)
- And will prevent any monopolization by Japanese subjects of particular trades in these territories, and any preferential rates or treatment by Japanese railways or other transportation concerns for the benefit of Japanese subjects or their merchandise.
If a bargain along these lines could be struck it would relieve us of the vexatious California land controversy, and prevent in large measure future disputes which seem almost inevitable if the “demands” of Japan are permitted at the present time to pass unchallenged.
In any event can there be any harm in attempting to reach a reciprocal understanding, such as the one outlined above? We would certainly be no worse off than we were before; and I think, even if our proposal is rejected, we would be in a far better position to discuss Japan’s conduct when a more propitious time comes to take up with other interested powers the question of the “Open Door” and the respective rights of the Powers secured through the application of that principle.
In view of the situation it has seemed to me advisable to wait until this matter could be considered before preparing a memorandum on the subject of the Japanese “requests”.
Very sincerely yours,
- Not printed.↩