711.945/1103½

Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the Japanese Ambassador (Hanihara), May 28, 1924, 4 p.m.

The Ambassador called at the Secretary’s request.

The Secretary said that he desired to speak of the Immigration Bill which had been passed by both Houses of Congress and was now before the President. The Secretary called attention to the efforts which he had made and which the President had made to secure the elimination or modification of the provision relating to the exclusion of aliens ineligible for citizenship. The Secretary said that despite these efforts the overwhelming opinion of Congress was in favor of the retention of the provision. This was not due to a lack of friendship on the part of the American people toward the Japanese people. That friendship and cordial interest had been abundantly demonstrated. It was due to the strong sentiment in [Page 394] Congress that the question of immigration should not be dealt with by international agreements or understandings but by legislation enacted by Congress. Congress was intent upon asserting its prerogative in this matter and had rejected all overtures of the President and the Secretary for securing opportunity for mutually satisfactory agreements by which the question of admission could be dealt with.

The Secretary said that he wished to call the attention of the Ambassador to the exact situation with which the President was now confronted. The exclusion provision was not before him as a separate matter. If it were, the President would unhesitatingly disapprove it. But this exclusion provision was part of a comprehensive immigration bill. While the Secretary believed that there was strong sentiment throughout the country supporting the position taken by the President and the Secretary as to the exclusion provision, it was also true that there was a very strong sentiment demanding general legislation in restriction of immigration. The Bill was a comprehensive measure dealing in great detail with this subject and providing the necessary administrative machinery. It was necessary that legislation should be passed of this sort before the expiration of the present law on June 30th. It was necessary that such legislation should be passed well in advance of that date so that instructions could be given to consuls. If the President disapproved this measure there would be great confusion and the most serious difficulties might result. On the other hand, the sentiment in Congress was so strong, as the Ambassador had observed from the votes already taken, that there was very little doubt but that if the bill were vetoed, it would be passed over the veto, and no good would have resulted but there would be considerable bitterness and probably acrimonious debate. The President felt in view of all these considerations that he could not properly disapprove the Bill. But he desired that the Japanese Government should know that his approval of the Bill did not imply any change in his sentiment with regard to this provision or any lack of cordial feeling toward Japan. The President had fully endorsed the position the Secretary had taken.

The Secretary then referred to the retirement of Ambassador Woods; that this was not due to the immigration question but solely to the illness of his wife’s mother. The Ambassador emphasized strongly the high esteem in which Ambassador Woods was held by the Government and people of Japan. …

The Ambassador expressed his appreciation of what the Secretary had said. He said that he could understand the Secretary’s [Page 395] view and that he would try to make it clear to his Government, but that while the Foreign Office might appreciate the difficulties of the situation, he was quite sure that the Japanese people would not understand it and would be greatly disappointed. The Japanese people were now basing their hope upon the President’s action and if the President approved the Bill it would cause the keenest disappointment. The Ambassador hoped that there would be no disorder but feared that there would be violent manifestations of that disappointment. The Ambassador said that he would try to explain the matter and thanked the Secretary for the information he had given.

The Ambassador then asked if the President would make a statement in connection with the approval of the Bill. The Secretary said that he did not know, and asked the Ambassador whether he thought a statement would do any good. The Ambassador said that he did not know, but merely asked for information. The Ambassador said that there had been reports in the press that the President might send the Bill back with a recommendation as to the exclusion provision. The Secretary said that this would serve no useful purpose; that the President had talked fully and earnestly with the representatives of the House and the Senate and had made certain suggestions; that these suggestions had been modified and limited and in this form had been proposed and accepted by the Conference Committee; that then the Conference Committee had reported to both Houses and these had turned down the suggestions by overwhelming votes. It would not be of any use for the President to renew a recommendation upon this point as to which both Houses of Congress had taken a determined position. The Ambassador asked the Secretary when it was likely that the President would approve the Bill and the Secretary said that he could not say, but that he thought in the very near future.