The Ambassador in Japan ( Morris ), on Detail in the Department of State, to the Acting Secretary of State
Sir: I have the honor to submit a report on the informal discussion which you authorized me to undertake with Baron Shidehara, the? Japanese Ambassador, covering the questions of Japanese immigration to the United States and the alleged discrimination against Japanese aliens resident in California. In order to understand the scope and object of these discussions, it would seem advisable briefly to state the immediate circumstances and the successive steps which led up to the conference.
On March 13, 1920, the Minister of Foreign Affairs informed me at Tokyo that, according to a report which he had received from the Japanese Consul General at San Francisco, there was a movement on foot in California to legislate against the Japanese by means of a direct initiative at the ensuing November election. I reported this conversation to the Department by cable under date of March 16.68 [Page 324]It appears that the Department had no further information on the subject until March 23, when the Japanese Ambassador handed in a memorandum on the subject.69 …
The delivery of this memorandum was followed by a number of conversations between, the Ambassador and the Department. The conversations were necessarily of a general character as the text of the proposed legislation was not available at that time. In May, 1920, Messrs. McBean and Lynch, President and Vice President respectively of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, came to Washington and presented their views to you, giving the first authentic information which had been received from any citizens of California. They were of the opinion that the petition, then being circulated and a copy of which they presented, would receive the necessary signatures and that the legislation thus initiated would be adopted by popular vote in November. Their prediction was correct. On December 9, 1920, the Governor of California informed the Department that the measure had been adopted at the polls by a vote of 668,483 to 222,086, that it would go into effect on December 10, and that it was his duty and intention to enforce it.70 This initiative legislation contemplates two fundamental purposes:
- To prevent entirely the leasing of agricultural lands by aliens not eligible to citizenship;
- To inaugurate a system to prevent all evasions of the prior legislation of 1913, which was designed to prohibit the ownership of land by aliens ineligible to citizenship.
Messrs. McBean and Lynch urged the Department seriously to consider the situation with a view to devising some method which would assure a final solution of the recurrent agitation on the Pacific Coast.
In the meantime, I had been instructed to leave my post, about the middle of May, and to return to the United States for consultation with the Department. I reached Washington in June, and was authorized to proceed to California to confer personally and informally with citizens of that State with a view to ascertaining the facts underlying the Japanese agitation. You were in San Francisco early in July and, as you will recall, we conferred at considerable length with prominent men of all groups.
Upon our return to Washington, we found a letter from the Governor of California,71 addressed to you, enclosing a report from the California State Board of Control. This letter and report dated June 19, had reached Washington while you were in California, and [Page 325]had been acknowledged during your absence. The letter and report clearly reflected the feeling in the State, and the determination of California to enact further legislation against land holding by Oriental peoples.
On July 22, I had an interview with Baron Shidehara and I took occasion to express to him fully and frankly the personal view I had formed as a result of my visit to California. I submitted to you a memorandum of this conversation73 and was authorized by you to make a careful study of the various papers on file with the Department covering previous negotiations with the Japanese Government.
On August 28th, you conferred personally with Ambassador Shidehara;74 in reply to his persistent representations of the seriousness of the issue raised by the proposed California legislation, as well as the prior legislation of 1913, you suggested that he seek authorization from his Government to confer unofficially and informally with me in the hope that we might succeed in reaching a fundamental solution of this perplexing problem for submission to and consideration of our respective governments. On September 11, the Ambassador advised the Department that he had permission to proceed with the informal negotiations as suggested,75 and we commenced our conversations on September 15 last, and have continued them at frequent intervals until the present time. (The written record covering these successive steps and the memoranda of the several conversations are herewith submitted and marked R. S. M. Exhibit A.76)
Before proceeding to submit for your consideration the comments and conclusions suggested by my study of the questions involved and by my conversations with Baron Shidehara, I submit herewith a brief summary of our Government’s previous negotiations in reference to Japanese immigration and to alleged discrimination against Japanese aliens resident in the United States.
(1) History of the Japanese immigration question
The regulation of Japanese immigration to the United States appears first to have become a question between the two countries in 1892, when a number of Japanese were excluded at the port of San Francisco on the ground that they were contract laborers, and as such ineligible to admission. This action caused considerable newspaper comment in Japan, and was the occasion of informal discussions between the American Minister and the Japanese Foreign [Page 326]Office.77 The discussions resulted in the issuance of instructions by the Japanese Government to local provincial officials to exercise greater care in the granting of passports, and to refuse them to persons who were proceeding to the United States under contract or under such circumstances as would lead to the inference that they were or might be contract laborers entering in violation of the American immigration laws.
On February 21, 1894, Edwin Dun, then Minister at Tokyo, informed the Secretary of State that he had been approached by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to the negotiation of a new treaty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had stated to him that negotiations were under way with the British Government and that he would like to take up the matter with the American Government simultaneously with a view to securing the abolition of extraterritoriality and the conclusion of treaties with all countries which would be reciprocal in all features.
The Secretary of State replied to this despatch on June 11, 1894, that the draft of the treaty which had accompanied Mr. Dun’s despatch had been carefully considered, especially that feature which embodied reciprocal rights of residence and travel which was apparently a new proposition. The Secretary further stated that
“this Government has at no time sought extension of residential privileges [for its citizens] throughout Japan. The offer to open the empire to foreigners has come from Japan itself on condition of the surrender of extraterritorial rights under existing treaties, and the United States have shown their friendly regard for Japan by their willingness to consider that offer. The proposition now advanced, that Japanese subjects shall be secured reciprocal rights of unrestricted residence in the foreign country appears to be a new claim engrafted [up] on the former proposal. Moreover, it has not been possible for the President to ignore the fact that the policy of the United States evinced by our legislation during recent years has not favored unrestricted immigration.”
The Secretary added that the Japanese Minister in Washington had given him a draft of the new treaty, but that the Minister had been informed that the reciprocal feature might cause the treaty to fail in the Senate. The United States, however, was in sympathy with the desire of Japan for absolute national autonomy. On July 31, the Secretary wrote to Mr. Dun that the obstacles to the conclusion of the Japanese proposal for a new treaty were domestic merely involving the marked tendency of our national policy in regard to labor immigration.[Page 327]
In the meantime, the Japanese Minister in Washington had, on June 28, 1894, written to the Secretary of State urging the opening of negotiations for the new treaty, stating that it was vital to Japan. This note was followed on July 19, by a similar note enclosing a draft of the treaty which the Japanese Government proposed to make the basis of negotiations. This draft contained a clause in Article I providing for full mutual rights of residence and travel, as well as a phrase in Article II stating that the treaty provisions
“do not in any way effect [affect] the special laws, ordinances and regulations with regard to trade, police and public security in force in each of the two countries and applicable to all foreigners in general.”
These two provisions appear to have been the stumbling block to the speedy conclusion of the treaty which was so much desired by Japan, as the Japanese Minister seems to have had numerous conferences with the Secretary of State without reaching a definite agreement. On October 20, 1894, the Japanese Minister informed the Secretary of State that the Japanese Government was willing to alter the last paragraph of Article II so as to include the American proposal in regard to the regulation of immigration, but with an added phrase which made such regulation applicable to all foreigners in general, and it was not until November 18, that the Japanese Minister accepted the American draft of the treaty of 1894 which definitely made the immigration of laborers a matter for domestic legislation in the following terms:
“It is, however, understood that the stipulations contained in this and the preceding Article do not in any way affect the laws, ordinances and regulations with regard to trade, the immigration of laborers, police and public security which are in force or which may hereafter be enacted in either of the two countries.” (Last paragraph, Art. II.)
Japanese immigration was comparatively light in the years immediately succeeding the ratification of the Treaty of 1894,78 and the rights then reserved to pass exclusion legislation were not exercised by the Congress. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898, and the creation of a territorial government there in 1900 had the effect of allowing members of the large Japanese colony in the Islands to proceed to the Pacific Coast without interference. Japanese immigration to the Islands had for some years previous to annexation been governed by a law of supply and demand under a contract system. While this practice ceased after annexation, it was found that Japanese laborers resident in Hawaii were removing to the United States and though [Page 328]the Japanese Government had issued instructions prohibiting labor emigration to the United States and Canada from Japan, large numbers of Hawaiian Japanese continued to arrive in California. After their arrival in the United States, they sent for their parents, wives and children in Japan, thereby increasing the Japanese population on the Continent.
In 1906 and 1907, about the time of the San Francisco School troubles and riots, (the reports of which were greatly exaggerated), the question of Japanese immigration from Hawaii to the United States was taken up with the Japanese Foreign Office. A great deal had been made of what really were minor incidents, for the damage to Japanese property was settled by the City of San Francisco for $450, and the School Board rescinded its action, permitting Japanese children of school age to attend the ordinary public schools. The action debarring them seems to have been taken originally during the scarcity of accommodations following the fire, and because a good many of them came from outside the city.
The Japanese contention in the correspondence that ensued was that they had already stopped the emigration of laborers to the United States, that those who went to Hawaii went with passports limited to the Islands, and that if they subsequently went to the mainland, they went of their own accord, and were not under the control of their Government when they did so.
After some discussion on this point, there was inserted in the Immigration Law of 1907,79 a provision permitting the President to refuse admission to immigrants to Continental United States whose passports entitled them to proceed only to our Insular possessions or to the Canal Zone. This feature of our immigration law is in force today. On February 23, 1907, the Japanese Foreign Office assured the American Ambassador that the Imperial Government
“have no intention of canceling or modifying the order now in force under which no passports are granted to either skilled or unskilled [Japanese] laborers for the mainland of the United States other than settled agriculturists, farmers owning or having an interest or share in their produce or crops,”
and added that
“the existing practice of inserting in all labor passports the destination of the laborers”
should, in view of American legislation,
“obviate the necessity of [adopting] additional measures.”
This arrangement, however, was not found to give satisfaction, as the number of Japanese immigrants continued to increase instead of decrease, and our Ambassador was instructed to impress this fact upon the Japanese Foreign Office. After negotiations extending over some months, the Japanese Government finally acceded to what is generally known as “The Gentleman’s Agreement” by which it voluntarily undertook:
- To exercise great care in issuing passports and to warn the applicants therefor of the consequence of making false representation and the fraudulent use of passports.
- Not to issue passports to laborers, skilled or unskilled, except to those who have been domiciled in the United States, or to the families of such persons.
- Temporarily to suspend all further emigration to Hawaii (new emigration).
- To refuse further applications made by parties who had evaded the limitations placed upon the issuance of passports, such refusal to apply also to the families of the parties mentioned.
- To undertake the establishment of a system of registration (Consular registration in the United States); failure to register, however, not to involve the forfeiture of residential rights.
- An arrangement was also made for exchange of emigration statistics.
As American labor had never been employed in the Hawaiian sugar industry to any extent, and no competition could result, and in view of the long standing relations existing, the Japanese Government desired to have Hawaii excluded from the scope of the discussion regarding emigration to the United States.
The Japanese Government, however, undertook, at the time the questions were under discussion to stop all further emigration of laborers to those Islands, except in the cases of returning wives and children of those already resident, and not to depart from the policy of prohibition (of emigration) without ascertaining through an American official source the labor conditions prevailing in the Islands and the need thereof.
The Japanese Government stated at the time these negotiations were proceeding, its intention to regulate emigration to foreign territory adjacent to the United States. Emigration to Canada is regulated by an agreement with that country, the details of which have not been published, concluded about the same time as our agreement. Emigration to Mexico is controlled by administrative regulations of much the same character as those obtaining in regard to the United States. These various arrangements were finally completed and became effective in the latter part of 1908, and their immediate [Page 330]result was a large reduction in the number of Japanese arrivals in the United States. The figures are significant: in 1907, 12,888 Japanese immigrants entered the United States; in 1908, the number had fallen to 8,340; and in 1909, had decreased to 1,596, and it was not until 1913 that an examination of the statistics revealed the fact that arrivals were again exceeding departures and that relatively large numbers of Japanese women of the laboring class were coming to the United States as the wives of Japanese laborers in this country. These women were married to their husbands by the process which obtains in Japan of being registered upon the husband’s koseki, or family register, as his wife, after which they were able to obtain passports to proceed to America. Under the provisions of “The Gentleman’s Agreement” such a form of proxy marriage which would enable emigrant women commonly known as “Picture Brides” to come to the United States had not been contemplated at the time the Agreement was made. This apparent evasion of the spirit if not the letter of the Agreement was the subject of serious criticism on the Pacific Coast and immediately upon the conclusion of the Armistice it was brought earnestly to the attention of the Japanese Government. As a result the Japanese Government undertook to discontinue the issuance of all passports to “Picture Brides” and notice of this action was given in a formal note from the Japanese Embassy, dated December 13, 1919.80 The note, and accompanying memorandum, stated that the Japanese Government intended to discontinue the issuance of this class of passports after the last day of February, 1920. As passports are good for six months, it is probable that numbers of these “Picture Brides” continued to arrive in the United States until the end of August last.
(2) History of alleged discrimination
The question of discrimination against Japanese residents in the United States appears never to have arisen until after the earthquake and fire in San Francisco in 1906. During the reconstruction period following that disaster, a riot occurred in which some Japanese were injured and a restaurant belonging to a Japanese subject was partly destroyed. At the same time an effort was made by the San Francisco School Board to segregate Japanese in the elementary schools and have them attend a school especially designated for pupils of the Mongolian race. These efforts were greatly resented by the Japanese generally and were made the subject of diplomatic representations by the Japanese Government which, combined with the [Page 331]immigration question, were the subject of the arrangements of 1908 already referred to. A short résumé of attempts to enact alleged discriminatory legislation prior to 1911 will be found in Exhibit B, Part III.81
In 1911, a bill was introduced in the Legislature of California to prohibit the ownership of land by aliens ineligible to citizenship, but its passage was withheld at the suggestion of the Federal Government. In 1913, however, the bill was again introduced, and despite the efforts of the President and the Secretary of State, it was placed upon the statute books.82 It deprived aliens ineligible to citizenship of the right to own land except in so far as such right was guaranteed by treaty, but granted them the right to lease agricultural land for a period of three years.
This law was the subject of extended diplomatic correspondence with the Japanese Government during the years 1913 and 1914. The first note from the Japanese Embassy was dated May 9, 1913, to which the Department replied on May 19.83 On June 4, following, the Japanese Embassy filed a note with an aide-memoire in support of their position and the Department replied with a note and aide-memoire on July 16.84 To this an answer was received from the Japanese Embassy on August 26, in the form of a copy of a telegram which the Embassy had received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Tokyo.85 In this correspondence the Japanese contend that they are discriminated against because the law as enacted by the Legislature of California makes use of a political distinction to deprive them of property rights and because it also places them in a disadvantageous position compared with other aliens. The enactment is referred to as being without historical parallel in discriminating against the subjects of a friendly power as compared with the nationals of other countries, some of whom have no treaty relations whatever with the United States. The Department of State in its replies has relied upon the wording of the Treaty of 1911.86
After the exchanges of notes above referred to no further formal correspondence took place for nearly a year, as efforts were made in the meantime to adjust the difficulty in California by means of a treaty or convention. This project was withdrawn by the Japanese Government and on June 10, 1914, the Japanese Ambassador filed a [Page 332]copy of a telegram which he had received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs87 stating that the Japanese Government desired to resume the correspondence which had been interrupted in 1913. In replying to this note the Department of State on June 23, 1914,88 requested a detailed answer to the Department’s note and aide-memoire of July 16, 1913. The reply asked for was made by the Japanese Ambassador on November 25, 1914.89 This note remains unanswered and is the last formal communication between the two Governments on the Alien Land Law adopted in California in 1913. The problems growing out of the great war were so pressing and immediate that further consideration of this question was left in abeyance.
There has been, however, since the passage of the Act of 1913, considerable discussion as to the legal validity of this legislation, and also as to whether under a proper interpretation of our naturalization laws it would apply to persons of the Japanese race. It has been the contention of some able lawyers that the legislation of 1913, and the initiative legislation of 1920 are both invalid as offending against the provisions of the American-Japanese Treaty of 1911, and also as being contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Some years ago, Ambassador Guthrie90 filed with the Department of State a carefully prepared brief91 in support of the unconstitutionality of the California Act of 1913. Only recently a case has arisen in the Federal Courts in California which raises definitely this issue. The case appears in the docket of the Southern Division of the United States District Court of the Northern District of California as Robert H. Strahan, complainant, versus Howard B. Hanvey and Virginia C. Hanvey, defendants. The case has been argued in the District Court and the constitutionality of the California legislation of 1913 has been affirmed in a pro forma opinion of the District Judge presiding. I understand that an appeal has been perfected directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that the case appears on the docket as No. 645.92
The California legislation of 1913 has also been attacked on the ground that under a proper interpretation of our present naturalization laws, persons of the yellow race are eligible to citizenship. There is admittedly some ambiguity in the provisions of the naturalization law, and some years ago a test case was instituted by a [Page 333]Japanese alien resident in Hawaii to determine this question. This case is now before the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal, and appears on the docket of the United States Supreme Court as Takao Ozawa versus the United States, No. 20.93 It has been reached for argument on several occasions, but each time has been postponed by agreement of counsel, or on the request of appellant. Should the contention of the appellant prevail, the question of discrimination under the California Acts would be disposed of as persons of the yellow race would then be eligible to citizenship.
Thus the situation remained until the Spring of 1920. There had been recurrent agitation from time to time against the growth of Japanese communities in California, and early in 1919 an effort was made to force a special session of the State Legislature to consider more drastic laws with a view to ending their activities in land and agriculture, but the action was postponed pending the conclusion of the Peace Conference.
To meet this growing demand, the Governor of California, in the Autumn of 1919, directed the State Board of Control to conduct an investigation of the Oriental population and their activities in the State, and announced that he would not call a special session of the Legislature to consider further alien land legislation until the report was filed.
The agitation continued, however, and in the Spring of 1920, an initiative petition was filed. The circulation of this petition was the immediate cause of my conferences with the Japanese Ambassador.
After the adoption of the initiative legislation by the voters of California at the November election the Japanese Embassy on January 3, 1921, filed a memorandum complaining of the action of the State of California and referring to the correspondence between the two Governments in 1913 and 1914. To this the Department replied on January 18 reaffirming the position it had taken in the correspondence of seven years ago. The text of the last two communications follows:
Thus the formal record stands at this date.
Turning now to the subject matter of the informal conferences, the object of these conferences was a frank discussion of the issue thus raised in the hope that we might find some common ground of agreement and adjustment which we could submit for the consideration of our respective governments. The extent of the discussion will appear [Page 334]from the following brief headings of the subjects which we considered:
Part one. Immigration
- Treaty provisions in regard to rights of Japan’s citizens to enter the United States.
- Terms of Gentlemen’s Agreement.
- Practice of Japan’s Government under Gentlemen’s Agreement.
- Alleged Defects of the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
- Proposed Remedies.
Part two. Japanese citizens resident in the
- Rights conferred by Provisions of Treaty.
- Actions of Japanese residents in the United States.
- Suggested action to prevent alleged discrimination.
- Dual Citizenship.
At the conclusion of each conference a brief memorandum was made setting forth the substance of the views expressed and suggestions offered. The memoranda are found in the section marked “R.S.M. Exhibit A”,94 already referred to. It was expressly stipulated that these views and suggestions were purely personal and were in no sense binding upon our respective Governments to which, however, they would be submitted for consideration and criticism. This permitted a freedom of expression otherwise impossible, and it was our hope that through such frank and informal conversations we might reach some plan of settlement which would meet the issues which were a continuing cause of friction between our peoples.
It is not my intention to review the details which we discussed during the conferences. They are fully set forth in the memoranda of our meetings; but I shall endeavor, as briefly as possible, to state certain conclusions which I have reached as a result of the discussions, and the inferences which I have drawn from them, and then submit, for your consideration, suggestions looking to a possible solution of the questions involved.
The provision of the Treaty of 1894 with Japan which made the immigration of laborers a subject for regulation by domestic legislation was deleted in 1911 when the Treaty was revised. This deletion was consented to in consideration of an undertaking on the part of the Japanese Government95 to continue the restrictions upon the emigration of laborers to the United States which were inaugurated in [Page 335]1908, and which are popularly referred to as the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. The character of these undertakings has been previously referred to and is set forth in full in Exhibit A.96 (Conference of September 28, 1920.)
The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” has, in my judgment failed to effect the purpose for which it was devised. In the first place, the Agreement itself allowed far too many exceptions. While providing against the immigration of laborers, it permitted the issuance of passports for the parents, wives, children, and even adopted children of laborers already resident in the United States. I am convinced that immigrants and resident Japanese have abused the privileges granted under these exceptions. How extensive this abuse has been is a disputed question, but the official immigration figures supplied by the Department of Labor, (See Exhibit C,)96 show that from 1909 to 1919 inclusive, 51,370 Japanese immigrants entered the United States. It was hoped at the time the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” was concluded that it would result in a gradual reduction of the number of immigrant laborers—that the number returning to Japan would exceed the number entering. The hope has not been realized, and the figures show that from 1913, (the first year for which exact figures are available), until and including 1919, the increase of Japanese arrivals over departures, totals 18,044 for Continental United States alone. These figures do not allow for those who have entered surreptitiously, and this suggests what I believe to be the fundamental defect of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. It provides no method by which the Government of the United States can exercise any effective control at the ports of entry. This creates an anomalous and dangerous situation. It gives rise to suspicion and resentment among our own people and to exaggerated and unjust charges of bad faith. All the evidence I have been able to examine indicates that the Japanese Government has endeavored in the face of considerable pressure to carry out the letter of the Agreement. But I submit it is almost too much to expect that any Government will enforce rigorously against its own people a self-denying regulation which is wholly in the interest of another people. It should not be required to do so. I, therefore, conclude that no amendments to the present “Gentlemen’s Agreement” will be effective that do not include some provision for its legal enforcement at our own ports. This can be done and still retain the form of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. The Japanese Government is most sensitive in the matter of racial discrimination. It would keenly resent the passage by our Congress of an exclusion law similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act. But my conferences with [Page 336]Baron Shidehara have convinced me it would not seriously object to the enforcement by our Federal Government of discriminatory measures imposed by the Japanese Government on its own people. This distinction which may appear somewhat subtle to us is vital to the Japanese people. For centuries, the Japanese Government has enforced rigid regulations controlling, and even totally prohibiting, emigration from Japan. It would find little difficulty in continuing such regulations and our Government should enforce them vigorously at our ports and in our territory. This we can not do effectively under the present arrangement. The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” is not the law of our land, and it is extremely difficult for our Government to deport surreptitious entrants or persons who have secured passports in Japan by misrepresentation or fraud. They can only be dealt with under the provisions of our general immigration laws. These difficulties could be overcome and at the same time the appearance of discrimination avoided if a new agreement included an understanding with Japan that our Government would take the necessary legislative action to make the agreement effective at our ports and within our territory.
The experience of the past ten years raises the question of whether Japanese immigrants and their descendants can ever wholly assimilate into our social and political life. Attached and marked Exhibit C–298 are the figures of the Census for 1920 which the Census Bureau kindly prepared in advance for this report. These figures show that at present the total Japanese population in the Pacific Coast States is 91,332; of this number, 70,196 are in California; 4,022 are in Oregon; 17,114 are in Washington. They are grouped largely in certain centres; they are highly organized among themselves and have little contacts with the other people in the communities where they dwell. They hold strongly to their racial, religious, and national ideals. In general, they show, as yet, little, if any, tendency to assimilate. Our Western States, where the Japanese population largely centers, will find it a hard task to make these alien communities an integral part of their social and political life. It will, in my judgment, prove an impossible task if new arrivals in any number are permitted to continue. The situation calls for total exclusion and this, I think the Japanese Government appreciates. As the result of my experience in Japan and of my conferences with Baron Shidehara, I am convinced that the Japanese Government is prepared in good faith to meet our wishes in regard to the total exclusion of immigrant laborers provided we can avoid the appearances of racial discrimination, but asks that at the same time some method be devised to meet the discrimination against Japanese aliens resident [Page 337]in California. The alleged discrimination is based on the two California enactments of 1913 and 1920.
The act of 1913 divided aliens into two classes on the basis of eligibility to citizenship. Aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States were permitted to acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit and inherit real property, or any interest therein in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of the United States except as otherwise provided by law. Aliens other than those eligible to citizenship or companies or corporations in which they held a majority interest were allowed only those rights in real property which were granted by treaty. They were, however, permitted to lease agricultural lands for three years. The law also provided that aliens not eligible to citizenship could not inherit property which they could not legally acquire by purchase. Property acquired in violation of the act escheated to the state.
The act of 1920 which was adopted at the last general election kept the same classification of aliens, and defined their rights in the same manner as the previous enactment, but deleted the provision of the law of 1913 which allowed aliens not eligible to citizenship and companies and corporations in which they held a majority interest to lease lands for agricultural purposes. The law also provided that an alien other than one eligible to citizenship could not act as the guardian of such portion of the estate of a minor citizen of the United States as consisted of real property which the guardian himself was legally incapable of acquiring in his own right. This prohibition of guardianship extended to corporations or companies which could not under the terms of the law acquire real property.
The provision in regard to guardianship was inserted in the act of 1920 because it was found that aliens ineligible to citizenship were purchasing land in the names of their children born in the United States. The objection of the Japanese Government to this legislation is stated in the note of the Japanese Embassy of January 3rd, 1921, as follows:
“It will be recalled that the California Enactment of 1913 gave rise to a formal protest of the Japanese Government as being in its manifest intent repugnant to all principles of fairness and justice and disregardful of the letter as well as the spirit of the existing Treaty between Japan and the United States. These objections apply to the new law of 1920 with still greater force and cogency and the Japanese Government are unable to conceal from themselves the sad disappointment with which they view the adoption of that measure.”
The objection thus stated is based on two grounds: First the illegality of the legislation as in defiance of our treaty obligations with Japan and Second its essential unfairness and injustice which, [Page 338](to quote further from the note of January 3rd, 1921) “by such acts of glaring discrimination against Japanese, has blazed a wrong trail in legislation with consequences which it is difficult to foresee”.
In regard to the legal validity of the California Legislation of 1913 and 1920, I can see no sound answer to the argument contained in the note of our Government to the Japanese Ambassador under date of July 16, 1913.99 In reply to the contention of the Japanese Government that the California Land Act of 1913, violated the provisions of our Treaty of 1911 with Japan the Department of State said:
“The treaty to which your excellency’s note refers is that which was signed at Washington on February 21, 1911, by Mr. Knox, Secretary of State, representing the United States, and by Baron Uchida, your immediate predecessor, representing the Imperial Government.
“This treaty was based upon a draft presented by the Imperial Government. In Article I of this draft there is found the following clause:
“3. They [the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties]1 shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy the houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises which may be necessary for them, and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial, manufacturing and other lawful purposes.
“It will be observed that in this clause, which was intended to deal with the subject of real property, there is no reference to the ownership of land. The reason of this omission is understood to be that the Imperial Government desired to avoid treaty engagements concerning the ownership of land by foreigners and to regulate the matter wholly by domestic legislation.
“In the treaty as signed the rights of the citizens and subjects of the contracting parties with reference to real property were specifically dealt with (Art. 1) in the stipulation that they should have liberty “to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops”, and “to lease land for residential and commercial purposes”. It thus appears that the reciprocal right to lease land was confined to “residential and commercial purposes”, and that the phrases “industrial” and “other lawful purposes”, which would have included the leasing of agricultural lands, were omitted.
“The question of the ownership of the land was, in pursuance of the desire of the Japanese Government, dealt with by an exchange of notes in which it was acknowledged and agreed that this question should be regulated in each country by the local law, and that the law applicable in the United States in this regard was that of the respective States. This clearly appears from the note of Baron Uchida to Mr. Knox of February 21, 1911,2 in which, in reply to an inquiry of the latter on the subject, Baron Uchida said: [Page 339]
“In return for the rights of land ownership which are granted Japanese by the laws of the various States of the United States [of which I may observe, there are now about 30,]2a the Imperial Government will by liberal interpretation of the law be prepared to grant land ownership to American citizens from all the States, reserving for the future, however, the right of maintaining the condition of reciprocity with respect to the separate States.
“In quoting the foregoing passage I have italicized the last clause for the purpose of calling special, attention to the fact that the contracting parties distinctly understood that, in conformity with the express declaration of the Imperial Japanese Ambassador, the right was reserved to maintain as to land ownership the condition of reciprocity in the sense that citizens of the United States, coming from States in which Japanese might not be permitted to own land, were to be excluded from the reciprocal privilege in Japan.
“From what has been pointed out it appears to result, first, that the California statute, in extending to aliens not eligible to citizenship of the United States the right to lease lands in that State for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years, may be held to be beyond the measure of privilege established in the treaty, which does not grant the right to lease agricultural lands at all; and secondly, that, so far as the statute may abridge the right of such aliens to own lands within the State, the right has been reserved by the Imperial Government to act upon the principle of exact reciprocity with respect to citizens of the individual State. In a word, the measure of privilege and the measure of satisfaction for its denial were perfectly understood and accepted. [”]
I therefore conclude that viewed merely in its legal aspects the Japanese Government has no just ground of complaint. In the matter of naturalization our Government, has seen fit to select those whom it is willing to admit to American citizenship. Of this action no Japanese subject can legally complain. In the matter of land owning or leasing the State of California has enacted certain discriminatory legislation which does not violate any of the solemn Treaty obligations of our Federal Government.
If these conclusions are sound, as I believe they are, it follows that the contention of the Japanese Government rests on the second ground of protest and involves a question of policy and not of law. In order to determine this question of policy it is necessary to analyze briefly the exact character of the contention as I understood it after my very frank conversations with Ambassador Shidehara. In the first place it should be noted that the Japanese Government is not protesting because Japanese aliens resident in the United States are ineligible to American citizenship. It could hardly file a formal protest because its citizens were not permitted to expatriate themselves. It does regret and deplore this policy of our Government [Page 340]and wishes that as an act of friendship and evidence of racial equality the policy might be modified. But it would undoubtedly claim for itself and does concede to other States the inherent right of a sovereign State to determine those whom for one reason or another it is willing to admit to the privileges of citizenship. Nor is the Government of Japan asking for its citizens resident among us any greater rights than those conceded to other aliens. It accepts and in its own domestic legislation has often acted upon the principle that any nation has the right to impose reasonable restrictions upon the property rights of foreigners who choose to live and pursue their occupations within its borders. It is to be noted therefore in the second place that the Japanese Government is not in any way questioning the right of our Government to pass, subject only to its Treaty obligations, any legislation it may see fit concerning the admission or residence of foreigners among us. It is true that by the Treaty of 1911 Japanese were granted full rights of admission to and residence in our country. But this right was granted, as I have previously pointed out, only upon the express understanding that the Japanese Government would continue voluntarily to limit emigration as provided in the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” of 1908. It is to be noted therefore in the third place that the Government and people of Japan are not clamoring for the removal of any of the present restrictions on Japanese immigration. On the contrary as already stated the Japanese Government appreciates the necessity of amending the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” in order to make it more effective.
It will thus be seen that the Japanese contention is confined entirely to the alleged discrimination among aliens which the California legislation imposes on the ground that it is unjust and unfair to pick out a particular group of aliens who are under certain political disabilities and deprive them of rights which all other aliens are permitted to enjoy. The formal protests if I have analyzed them correctly present to our Government this single question of policy: In the larger view of our relations with the Orient and with Japan in particular is it wise to classify aliens in regard to their property rights on the basis of their eligibility to citizenship?
The Executive Department of our Government has consistently maintained that such State legislation is unwise, impolitic and dangerous.
In 1909 among certain bills introduced in the California Legislature, which were regarded as anti-Japanese in character, was one designed to prevent all aliens from holding title to real estate in California. In commenting on this proposed legislation Mr. Root then Secretary of State said: “To the extent of owning or hiring land for agricultural purposes, so far as Japan is concerned, it is [Page 341]clearly competent for the State of California to enact its own laws and it is gratifying to observe that it is the purpose of this bill to make these laws general as to aliens.”
Commenting on this memorandum President Roosevelt said: “To this memorandum I have little to add. The United States Government has no objection to the enactment of a law in California as regards the rights of aliens to hold real estate, provided that the suggestions of the Secretary of State are complied with as contained in the above memorandum. Such a law would not be in any substantial respect different from similar laws that have been passed in other states.”
The legislation proposed in 1909 failed of passage but in 1911, Senator Sanford of the State Senate of California introduced a bill which provided that aliens ineligible to citizenship should be deprived of the right to own land. Senator Larkins at the same time introduced a bill depriving all aliens of the right to own land.
In a letter to the Governor of California commenting on these bills, Senator Knox, then Secretary of State, said: “It may be observed that Section one of the bill introduced by Senator Sanford is open to the charge of discrimination against certain classes of aliens, a criticism not to be fairly made against Section one of the bill introduced by Senator Larkins.”
Both of these bills failed of passage but in 1913 a bill was again introduced in the Legislature of California depriving aliens ineligible to citizenship of the right to own land. On this occasion, Mr. Bryan, then Secretary of State made a personal visit to California and submitted more fully the views of President Wilson as expressed in the following telegram to the Governor of California:
“I speak upon the assumption, which I am sure is well founded, that the people of California do not desire their representatives—and that their representatives do not wish or intend—in any circumstances to embarrass the government of the United States in its dealings with a nation with whom it has most earnestly and cordially sought to maintain relations of genuine friendship and good will, and that least of all do they desire to do anything that might impair treaty obligations or cast a doubt upon the honor and good faith of the nation and its government.
“I therefore, appeal with the utmost confidence to the people, the governor and the legislature of California to act in the matter now under consideration in a manner that cannot from any point of view be fairly challenged or called in question. If they deem it necessary to exclude all aliens who have not declared their intention to become citizens from the privileges of land ownership, they can do so along lines already followed in the laws of many of the other states and of many foreign countries, including Japan herself.
“Invidious discrimination will inevitably draw in question the treaty obligations of the government of the United States. I register [Page 342]my very earnest and respectful protest against discrimination in this case, not only because I deem it my duty to do so as the chief executive of the nation, but also, and the more readily, because I believe that the people and the legislative authorities of California will generously respond the moment the matter is frankly presented to them as a question of national policy and of national honor. If they have ignored this point of view, it is, I am sure, because they did not realize what and how much was involved.”
In spite of the views of the President and the Department of State the legislation of 1913 was enacted and became the subject of vigorous diplomatic protest by the Japanese Government,—a protest renewed even more vigorously in the memorandum of the Japanese Ambassador dated January 3rd, 1921, after the adoption by the people of California of the Initiative Act of 1920.
In seeking a solution of the question presented by the considered action of the State of California and the protest of the Government of Japan I would respectfully submit the following general considerations:
- It appears to me that there can be no reasonable doubt of the deep feeling of resentment which has been roused among the people of Japan by the California legislation. It touches both their racial feeling and their national pride. It would in my judgment be a serious mistake to treat this feeling lightly or to attribute its existence to political propaganda or diplomatic agitation. It is far deeper than that and carries with it an angry sense of injustice and humiliation.
- As previously noted the attitude of the Executive branch of our Federal government has been one of consistent opposition to legislation of the character enacted in California. A careful reading of the record on file in the Department clearly demonstrates that this opposition has been based on the fundamental conviction that such legislation was discriminatory and therefore unjust and unfair. Americans of such differing temperaments and views as Presidents Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson are united in the expression of this conviction. But thus far the Federal Government has advised and counseled but has not been called upon to act.
- The Federal Government has, quite naturally, hesitated to act. Only the most serious considerations would impell it to exercise its powers in contravention of the expressed will of a sovereign state and particularly when the rights immediately involved relate to the ownership of land within the State.
- Nor should we ignore the earnest convictions of the people of California. They are determined if possible to prevent the further increase by immigration of the Japanese population and also to protect their land from further Japanese ownership. Personally I [Page 343]sympathize with these objects but cannot escape the conclusion that the method adopted by the State of California to accomplish them will prove ineffective. This feature was pointed out by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. In a letter to the Chairman of the Asiatic Exclusion League dated May 17, 1920, the Chamber refused to support the initiative on the ground that it would probably not be the means of removing any Japanese from the soil, because the Japanese would make crop contracts, and continue as numerous in the fields as they were at the time the letter was written. I also think that by ignoring larger considerations of public policy, racial discrimination will seriously threaten our country’s best interests on the Pacific and in the Far East. It is not within my province to dwell upon these interests. You are in a better position to appreciate and value them. But of one thing I am convinced. If we would conserve these interests and exercise the influence in the Orient which our position and resources justify, we must as far as is compatible with our own national safety avoid actions which are certain to create among the people of Japan feelings of deep resentment and antagonism—feelings which may easily spread to other Asiatic peoples having commercial relations with us. This can only be done as I view it, by keeping clearly in mind the distinction between the prohibition of further Japanese immigration and discriminatory legislation against those Japanese aliens who are already lawfully resident in the United States.
The Japanese Government is prepared to cooperate in effectually prohibiting further immigration. If this is accomplished and if as a result no more Japanese immigrants are permitted to enter or settle in the United States the problem is narrowed to the limited number of those Japanese aliens already here and who are not eligible to American citizenship. In one generation this entire class will have disappeared and there will remain only persons of Japanese blood born in the United States who will be American citizens under the provisions of our Constitution. It seems therefore, unnecessarily harsh and short sighted to deprive this generation of Japanese aliens of rights which their children will possess and which are enjoyed by other aliens. There is a further consideration: if we wish to assimilate into our national life the Japanese born here, we can do nothing that would more effectively defeat that purpose than to discriminate unfairly against resident aliens of that race.
The above considerations have led me to the general conclusion which I respectfully submit, that no solution of this question can be reached which does not provide for a prohibition of Japanese immigration in effect as drastic as the present Chinese exclusion law and [Page 344]which does not further guarantee to Japanese aliens resident here the same rights without discrimination as are accorded under our laws, to other aliens. Having reached this general conclusion I now submit for your comment and criticism and as a possible basis of formal negotiations with the Japanese Government the following recommendations which Ambassador Shidehara and I have agreed on as the result of our extended conferences.
First. In the matter of Japanese immigration we recommend that in place of the present “Gentlemen’s Agreement” the following method of prohibition be adopted by our Governments:
An undertaking by the Japanese Government which would be incorporated in a formal note substantially to this effect:
“Sir: Under instructions from my Government, I have the honor to communicate to you, Herewith enclosed, a copy of the instructions, in English translation, which have just been issued to the competent Japanese authorities embodying the rules adopted in Japan with regard to passports for the Continental United States and Hawaii.
“These rules are to come into effect on 1921. It is to be understood that all passports already issued, or to be issued, shall be valid, provided that the persons holding such passports have left or shall have left Japan within six months from the dates of their respective passports.
“I am further authorized by my Government to inform you that passports to be issued under the new rules in question shall contain description of the objects for which their holders intend to travel to, or reside in the Continental United States or Hawaii.
“Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances, etc.
draft of regulations
“Article I. Passports for the Continental United States and Hawaii shall be issued only to persons coming under any of the following categories:
- Government or public officials, or persons of a similar status.
- Business men, merchants, office clerks, travelers, professional people including physicians, authors, teachers, clergymen, artists and actors, and other persons who are not engaged in any manual or mechanical work.
“It is understood that persons classed under category (a) aforesaid shall include their families and domestic servants, and that passports may also be issued to the families and domestic servants of persons classed under category (c) aforesaid, in cases calling for special consideration.
“Article II. Independently of the restrictions contained in the preceding Article, passports may be issued or permission given for proceeding to the Continental United States or Hawaii, to those persons who have been previously lawfully resident therein and who have temporarily returned to Japan but have not been staying in Japan for a period exceeding one year.[Page 345]
“Passports may likewise be issued for proceeding to Hawaii, to the wives and children of those persons who have been lawfully resident therein.
“Article III. Applications under category (b) of Article I shall be required to present statements of their curricula vitae and to specify in the applications names of the schools to which they desire to be admitted and the course of learning which they intend to pursue, upon arrival in the Continental United States or Hawaii.
“Article IV. Applicants under category (c) of Article I shall be required, except when they are of distinguished status and career, to present statements of their curricula vitae, and to specify in the applications the business or profession in which they intend to engage in the Continental United States and Hawaii.
“Article V. Passports shall not be issued to persons under categories (b) and (c) of Article I, unless they possess sufficient means to give reliable sureties in order to insure their not becoming laborers, while remaining in the Continental United States and Hawaii.
“Nor shall passports be issued to persons under category (b) of Article I, who have not completed their secondary education.
“Article VI. When the Governors of Prefecture receive applications for passports for the Continental United States or Hawaii, they shall examine the reputation, career, financial standing and other qualifications of the applicants, and shall, before taking action, communicate with the Director of the Commercial Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, setting forth their proposed action on the application.
“Such procedure may be dispensed with in case of those applicants under the provisions of Article II, who hold valid certificates issued by the competent Consular Officers of Japan testifying to their qualifications under said provisions.
“Article VII. If any persons, after having arrived in the Continental United States or Hawaii, have been persuaded in good faith to change the objects of their travel or residence, specified in their passports, and if such change is not of a nature to make the persons unfit to obtain passports in accordance with the foregoing provisions, the competent Diplomatic or Consular Officers of Japan may, upon their application, certify to the change in the specified objects of their travel or residence.
“Such certificates of the Diplomatic or Consular Officers of Japan shall be either embodied in or affixed to the passports.”
A further note from the Japanese Government advising our Government that the terms of the first note could be made public and that it would not deem objectionable any legislation which provided that:
“In the cases of those countries who under their own laws or regulations issue only limited passports for the emigration of their nationals to the United States or the territory of Hawaii which passports designate the status of the holder and the object or purpose for which he emigrates, the President is hereby empowered to authorize by executive order the deportation of any national of such country who may hereafter enter or remain in the United States for any objects or purposes contrary to the express provisions or conditions of such limited passport.”
The two notes would in my judgment accomplish these objects: They would cure the defects as previously pointed out in the present “Gentlemen’s Agreement” by prohibiting hereafter the entrance of wives, children or parents of any Japanese aliens, now resident in the United States. They would prevent the reentry of persons resident who had remained away from this country for a period of more than one year. They would require every passport issued by the Japanese Government for emigration to the United States to show on its face the object of the holder’s visit. Finally they would make it possible for our Government without offence to a friendly nation to deport any one who attempted to enter or who remained here for any purpose contrary to that stated on the face of the passport. I am fully convinced that this method would in its operation prove as satisfactory as any exclusion legislation by Congress and would avoid the offense which legislation by Congress would give to the Japanese people.
Second. In the matter of discriminatory legislation we recommend the execution by our governments of a supplementary treaty substantially in the following form:
“The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, being desirous of still further strengthening the relations of cordial friendship and good understanding which have so happily existed unbroken between their respective countries, and believing that a clearer establishment and definition of certain rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the territory of the other will contribute to such a result, have resolved to conclude for that purpose a convention supplemental to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of February 21, 1911, between the two countries, and have named as their Plenipotentiaries:
- The President of the United States of America;
- His Majesty the Emperor of Japan;
Who, have [having?] communicated to each other their respective full powers which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles:
Japanese subjects lawfully resident within any State or Territory of the United States shall enjoy, in each such State or Territory under the respective local laws thereof or under the general legislation of the United States, the same rights without discrimination as are accorded by such laws to the citizens or subjects of other countries with regard to the exercise of industries, occupations, or other lawful pursuits, or with regard to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, disposition, transmission, or inheritance of any real or personal property, or any interest therein, other than public lands, either Federal or State.[Page 347]
Reciprocally, citizens of the United States of America, lawfully resident in the Japanese Empire, shall enjoy the same rights without discrimination as are accorded to the citizens or subjects of other countries under any laws or ordinances of Japan with regard to the exercise of industries, occupations, or other lawful pursuits, or with regard to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, disposition, transmission, or inheritance of any real or personal property, or any interest therein, other than public lands.
It is understood that the words ‘the citizens or subjects of other countries’ as used in this article shall include all aliens who have not yet duly and finally acquired the nationality of either Contracting Party.
The present Convention shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at the City of Washington. The Convention shall take effect from the date of the exchange of ratifications, and it shall continue in force along with the said Treaty of February 21, 1911, and shall terminate in the manner prescribed by Article XVII thereof.
In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention in duplicate and have thereunto affixed their seals.
Done at the City of Washington the day of in the nineteen hundred and twenty-first year of the Christian Era, corresponding to the day of the month of the tenth year of Taisho.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .”
In submitting the above treaty I do so with the greatest hesitancy. My investigations have convinced me personally that the only thoroughly satisfactory method to provide against discriminatory treatment of Japanese aliens would be by Congressional action granting peoples of the Yellow race the privilege of naturalization. I wish that the Congress might feel justified in taking such action. Its effect as I have already pointed out elsewhere would be limited to one generation, and yet in so doing, we would totally change the existing spirit of irritation and resentment which now characterizes our contact with the Orient. We would remove from the peoples of China and Japan the stigma that is placed upon them in thus removing the racial discrimination, and we could the more vigorously enforce restrictions on immigration as an economic protection to our own people. As early as 1906, President Roosevelt seeing as he did so clearly throughout his entire public life the international value of the closest friendship and understanding with Japan, in [Page 348]his annual message to Congress3 said: “I recommend to the Congress that an act be passed specifically providing for the naturalization of Japanese who come here intending to become American citizens”. I recognize, however, that this is a question which properly belongs to the legislative department of our Government, and I mention it merely to emphasize my belief that the Treaty as submitted is not a permanent or fundamental solution of the issue, although it will allay the present increasingly acute conditions.
Referring then to the proposed Treaty as a temporary measure of relief, I submit the following comments:
The object sought to be attained by the Treaty provisions is as far as practicable to prevent the discrimination as between aliens as applied by the California legislation and now seriously threatened in several other States. Ambassador Shidehara urged strongly a most favored nation clause which would confer on Japanese aliens such rights as might be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation through legislation or through Treaty provision. He submitted for my consideration the proposed draft of a treaty prepared by Ambassador Chinda in 1913. To this suggestion I could not agree as I felt it unwise to incorporate by reference in this supplemental treaty any and all rights which might be conferred by special legislation or by treaty on the aliens of other countries. My effort has been so to word this Convention as to meet directly and definitely the issue raised by the California legislation as enacted or as suggested in regard to calling or occupation. The Treaty if executed would, I believe, nullify a large portion of the California legislation, but it would probably not affect that part dealing with land holding corporations. It would, however, permit individual Japanese aliens to own land in California so long as other aliens enjoyed the privilege. I confess that I have found unexpected difficulty in the wording of the Treaty in an endeavor to express accurately its limited intent. My agreement with Ambassador Shidehara is not limited to the form submitted, and I could respectfully ask from you the most careful and critical scrutiny of the wording of the draft presented. May I in conclusion express my grateful appreciation of the continued assistance I have received from Mr. Neville of our Consular Service, whose wide knowledge of the record of previous negotiations has been invaluable; from Mr. MacMurray, Chief of the Far Eastern Division; from Mr. Nielsen, Solicitor of the Department of State; from Mr. McClatchy of California for valuable data, most helpful in my conversations with Ambassador Shidehara, and from my friends the Honorable Thomas J. O’Brien, former Ambassador to Japan, and Honorable [Page 349]Paul S. Reinsch, former Minister to China, who have been most generous in useful suggestions.
Ambassador Shidehara has been earnest in his efforts to find some common ground on which our minds can meet. I know he represents the wish and purpose of his Government, and I am confident that if the plan here presented should prove unacceptable to you, he will be prepared to discuss in this same friendly spirit any other suggestions which may be offered.
I have [etc.]
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. iii, p. 20.↩
Ibid., p. 2.↩
Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. iii, p. 12.↩
- See memorandum of the Secretary of State,
Aug. 28, 1920,
ibid., p. 14.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- The correspondence exchanged in 1892 and 1894, referred to in this and succeeding paragraphs, was not printed in the Foreign Relations volumes for those years.↩
- Malloy, Treaties, vol. i, p. 1028.↩
- 34 Stat. 898.↩
Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. ii, p. 419.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Act of May 19, 1913, of the
State of California,
Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 627.↩
Ibid., pp. 629 and 631.↩
Ibid., pp. 632, 635, 641, and 645. The Japanese aide-mémoire referred to was dated July 3, 1913.↩
Ibid., p. 651.↩
Ibid., 1911, p. 315.↩
Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 426.↩
Ibid., p. 427.↩
Ibid., p. 428.↩
- George W. Guthrie, Ambassador in Japan, 1913–17.↩
- Not printed.↩
- 257 U. S. 668.↩
- 260 U. S. 178.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- See the declaration annexed
to the treaty of Feb. 21, 1911,
Foreign Relations, 1911, p. 319.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 641.↩
- Brackets which appeared in Mr. Bryan’s note of 1913 have been restored by the editor; the phrase therein enclosed was evidently Mr. Bryan’s interpolation.↩
Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 626.↩
- See footnote 1.↩
- Message of Dec. 3, 1906,
Foreign Relations, 1906, pt. 1, p. vii.↩