711.945/1042½
Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador (Hanihara), March 27, 1924
Immigration.—The Ambassador said that he was not at all excited in consequence of the report made by the Committee on Immigration of the House of Representatives10 as he understood that the Bill had not yet been passed, but that it was his duty to inform his Government as to every stage in the progress of the measure and his Government did not understand the situation as well as he did and would be likely to be somewhat aroused by the statements contained in the report. He called attention to what was said in the report on pages 7 and 8, that the Department of Labor had stated that it was not in possession of the Gentlemen’s Agreement and other references in the report, criticizing the action of Japan in relation to the Agreement. He also pointed out the statement on page 9 of the report that Japan was excluding the Chinese and Koreans and discriminating thereby against people of her own color. The Ambassador said that these statements were not accurate. He said that there was no such discrimination as was charged.
The Secretary said that he felt there were two points in connection with the report of the Committee upon the Gentlemen’s Agreement that disturbed him. The one was the statement that it was a secret Agreement the terms of which had not been disclosed. The Secretary said that it was necessary to meet this point, but the so-called Gentlemen’s Agreement was contained in long correspondence and it would not be satisfactory merely to produce the correspondence. Further, the Secretary said that he did not like the suggestion that the Agreement had not been effective for the purpose to which it was applied. The Secretary felt that some rejoinder should be made to these statements. It was difficult for him, however, to make an adequate rejoinder for the reason that in the first place the disclosure of a voluminous correspondence would only give opportunities for further discussion and that so far as the action of Japan was concerned under the [Page 338] Agreement it would be appropriate that Japan should make that statement for herself.
The Secretary said that he had an idea,—he did not wish to make a definite proposal,—that possibly the Ambassador could write a letter to the Secretary referring to these points in the report and stating that the Gentlemen’s Agreement was contained in a considerable correspondence, but that the Japanese Government understood its intent and effect to be as stated. Then the Agreement could be summarized in a brief and definite fashion and could be presented authoritatively. Similarly, Japan could state the course that she had taken under the Agreement in the actual control of emigration to the United States. It might be possible also in such a letter for the Ambassador to correct the statement to which he had referred with respect to the point of discrimination against Chinese in her own case. That might be a matter for further consideration, but it occurred to the Secretary that there was an opportunity to take the Gentlemen’s Agreement out of obscurity and of voluminous correspondence and put the matter in a direct and simple form. The Secretary said he would be glad to collaborate with the Ambassador in dealing with the matter in this way, if the Ambassador thought the suggestion could be followed up.
The Ambassador indicated his interest in the suggestion and seemed inclined to favor it, but said he would have to communicate with his Government, of course, before he could attempt it. The Secretary suggested that before the Ambassador communicated with his Government it might be well for the Ambassador to think the matter over and have another talk with the Secretary for the purpose of considering more definitely what such a communication should contain, so that the Ambassador could present a concrete suggestion to his Government which would not be misunderstood. The Ambassador said that he would give the matter further thought.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- H. Rept. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., committed to the Committee of the Whole House, Mar. 24, 1924.↩