The chronicle=news., 1914-07-16

in question was wholly economic
Ithea the conclusion is natural that
ltbe approximations upon which the
enactment was based are uniustifi-
liable and without sanction of good
treason"
The ambassador then called atten-
tion to the American laws under
which Japanese are not eligible to
citizenship, which. he said. ARE NOR
|tifying to the government and the
people of Japan" and .'hurtful to
their just national susceptibility"
But. he continued, the question OF
naturalization is a political prob
lem Of national and not interaation-
al concern. So long. therefore. as
the distinction referred to was en-
lily political nature, the imperial gov
ernment had no occasion to approach
the government OF the United States
on the subject. But when that dis
tinction is made use OF. as in the
present case. for the purpose of de-
priving japanese subjects of rights
and privileges of a civil nature,
which are principally granted In the
United States to other aliens. 1t be-
comes the duty of the imperial gov
esnment to express frankly its con-
lviction that the racial distinction
does not afford valid basis for the
discrimination on the subject of land
tenure"
On July 16 the State Department
replied, pointing out that the suppo-
sition Of racial discrimination occu-
pied in the representations of japan
an undeserved position of promin-
ence. "R
The American reply went on to a
long discussion Of the economic ques-
tion and to point out that the treaty
made no reference to ownership of
land. and that japan had similar
laws
In reply the Japanese ambassador
presented long discussion on the
INTERPRETATION of the treaty, still
maintaining the claim of rights con-
lferred on Japanese. 1t was argued
that the power to regulate questions
of land ownership did not reside in
the states exclusively, otherwise the
United States could not have agreed
Ito the treaties of 1894 and 1911.
Tho ambassador argued that It was
the first time that nation having a
favored nation treaty had been
placed at disadvantage as compared
with nontreaty countries"
On July 16 the State Department
contended that the California law in
lexpress terms required the recogni-
ltion of any rights secured by the eX
listing treaty, and that the Japanese
Theory that ownership OF property
carried with 1t a vested right to dis
pose of such property in any manner
[went too far. for it would make 1t
Impossible for q country to alter its
of property. sa
The department said the owner
skip OF land, Ind seldom been treat
led in the practice of the United
fStates as q matter OF most favored
nation treatment. and that favored
nation clauses have almost univer-
sally related to matters of commerce
and navigation.
The department added that the
to use its good offices to obtain
prompt and efficacious determination
lof any suits brought In the courts OF
the United States.
In reply the Japanese ambassador
tsent to the department on August &c
q copy OF telegram from the Jap
anese foreign minister. This COM
munication stated that the Califor-
lnia act has established discrimin-
alton of the most marked and invid-
ious character against Japan. unjust
tier and spirit of the treaty of 1911,
lat variance with the precepts of good
neighborhood aud mortifying to the
nation Of Japan.
This was the gravamen of Japans
complaint. The notes OF the depart
ment. 1t said, contained nothing
which answers fundamentally to
that complaint or which tends to
shake conviction regarding the main
lquestiou." If the treaty was violat-
ed. it contended. there was but one
remedy. and the duty of applying
the remedy devolved solely upon the
limited States
! The impertol government re-
serves for the present the further
discussion of the question at issue"
said the reply which then referred
to certain statements and conclus-
ions advanced in the departments
communications, in effect as follows:
\ Japan does not consider the dis.
Termination to he national policy
of the United States. although 1t is
clearly indicative of racial antagon-
ism: the result of the most favored
nation principle among nations had
been TO cQualize economic opportuni-
ties; the statement that nontreaty
|aliens were unable by reason of the
most favored nation clause to enjoy