Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-01-31
The japanese Dix7lcully

ThefANwill be a disposition in some, quarters to
attribute the failure in replying to the Japanese note
of last August to Secretary Bryan's activities. in
lecturins, Such a criticism will he unfair. Ia the
official statement made Nf FoEeign Minister Maxine
to thef japanese ParHan4edt, disclosing the line OF
negotiations up to the pooints. 1here they were termi-
mated hyssthe failure to reply to the last Japanese
note he made it clear that Secretary Bryan had
then exHdNIstedaa all Of the diplomacy 1t would be pos-
sible for us to urge against the Japanese contention.
This contention was. in brief that the Webb law of
California denying Japanese the right of land owner
ship mi that stale was. violatiye of the treaty be.
tween Japan aid the United States,.Jss The Japanese
foreign minister's statement. discl6ses what was al
ready known, that Secretary, Bryan had claimed the
California law to be not yiolative OF the treaty. The
Japanese government declined acceptance of that
Interpretation, and appears, from what can be gath
cred from the foreign minister's address, to have
pressedF-in its answer, for an assertion Of the SOW
ereignty of the treaty making power Of our govern.
ment over the laws of any state. IA
This much can be gathered when the minister
says: while the protests of the imperial govern
ment and the replies of the United States govern
ment are as have been outlined, the details of which
the imperial government is unable to publish, the
replies Of the United States, igDyeFqment were not
found satisfactory, and the imperial government has
come TO see the necessity of some other ways for
solution of the question" 1t being shown that Japan
had rejected a proposal to raise a case for edjudica-
ton in the United States courts, and had insisted
upon her Interpretation Of the treaty. it is easy to
see how it became impossible for Secretary Eryan to
continue the negotiations along that line. His failure
to answer the third Japanese note was neither negli-
gcnce nor discourtesy, but merely the polite and
diplomatic way of notification that this government
could neither add anything to its previous presenta-
tons of the case, nor concede any of the claims
which the Japanese government had been advancing.
The present misunderstanding could be. and was,
foreseen some time before August. We early dis
counted the possibility Of such & people as the Jap
anese, claiming rights under a treaty, taking their
case into any court of this country. Their rejection
of that proposal was doubtless as prompt as we ex.
pected it to be. 1t was equally plain, from the be-
ginning of the trouble over the Webb law, that this
government would not raise an issue with any state
in the enforcement of a treaty as vague, on the con-
tested point, as the one we have with Japan. Arbl-
mutually unacceptable. EARLY in the discussion we
insisted that a new treaty was the shortest way out,
and a new treaty is in all probability what the. Jap.
anese minister had in mind in making reference to
'sone other ways for solution of the question" Or
it is. possible that arbitration of the existing treaty
might now be regarded more f~avorably by Japan,
though this is not likely. The controversy As one
whichsait is to be feared, will not be settled by efforts
at new treaty making. But negotiations toward the
making of a new treaty, during which the difficulties
Of both peoples in handling the question, and their
mutual respect Of mutual rights, might go far toward
removing the feeling of irritation now plainly exist
ing in both countries.