The Washington herald., 1914-06-26
JAPAN CALLS OFF
PARLEY With u. 5.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE


CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE.
criminatory. as aimed at Japan as a
nation. as unjust and inequitable. as dis
elimination Of the most marked and
invidious character"
Japan adds that the legislation clearly
indicates racial antagonism. and Is at
variance vita the principles Of good
neighborhood. and IL mortifying TO Japan.
In these expressions, Japan clearly
shows that II is not the economic feature
Of the legislation that rankles, II Is the
assumed slur on Japan's national honor.
and 1t is this phase Of the question that
makes II serious.
Japan contends that the California law
constitutes violation Of her treaty
rights. and from the beginning to the
end of the correspondence. evidences her
intention to hold the Federal government
as the sole party to grant relief.
No Treaty Violation.
The United States maintains that there
is no treaty violations by the California
law, and Secretary Bryan's suggestions
have been devoted chiefly to urging
Japan to submit the question Of treaty
violations to the United States courts
InlS. Japan mas 10 uOs
though the United States has offered
to facilitate such procedure.
This government also has offered TO
make good any impairment of the vest
ed rights Of any subject OF Japan in
California as the result of the alien land
law legislation.
Secretary Bryan today replied to the
last note OF the new ministry in Toxic.
but this note was not made public 1t
H.
suggestion, but merely puts this govern
ment in the attitude of awaiting a pro-
posal from Minister Of Foreign Affairs
Ksto in place of the one withdrawn.
There Is a suggestion that japan may
propose arbitration, but many doubt this
because OF the unpopularity OF such "a
course among the japanese people
Passed Law in 1913.
The California legislature passed the
alien land law on May 3, 1913, and six
days later the japanese Ambassador in
Washington. viscount Chinda. handed to
Secretary Bryan the note which opened
the controversy. In this note the Jap
anese Ambassador informed the govern
ment that Japan had learned of the legis-
lation with painful disappointment,
and that his government felt constrained
urgent and explicit protest"
The Ambassador pointed out that the
act passed by the California legislature
deprived his countrymen Of the right to
transmit TO their heirs their acquired
land and property-a right running when
such property was acquired. This, he
contended. was clearly in conflict with
the third clause OF Article of the treaty
granting the japanese the most con-
slant protection" for their property.
In relation to house property the act
as viewed by the Japanese Ambassador.
appeared repugnant to the nrst clause
OF the same article granting the right to
the japanese to own houses. factories
warehouses. and shops. Again. in re-
spect to leasing property for residential
and commercial purposes those llmita-
tIons and restrictions OF the California
act which were not equally applicable to
American leaseholders, were. II was as
serted. likewise contrary to the pro-
visions Of Article I. OF the treaty.
Further. In regard to the dissolution
OF companies and corporations. the Am
bassador pointed out that all Japanese
members would be excluded from dis
tribution Of the corporate property in
abrIdgment of their vested rights. The
Ambassador stated that no business man
Of ordinary prudence would own any
stock in any company or corpora ton
whose real property was likely TO be
taken away. and this. he intimated, so
far as the japanese are concerned. was
contrary to the reciprocal trade agree
ment contained in Article I. OF the
treaty. and also contrary to the most
favored nation stipulation
Would be Denied Rights.
II the DreSapt treaty With Japap ubgrb
is specifically excepted in the act. should
be terminated, then. the Ambassador
said. Japanese subjects would be denied
all rights relating to real property in
California, whereas. aliens eligible to
citizenship are placed on a national foot
ing in the matter Of such property rights
independently OF treaty ENGAGEMENTS.
Those rights lawfully acquired by
japanese would, therefore. be in constant
and serious danger. Any possible remedy
by resort to the orginary process Of law,
the Ambassador pointed out. would be
necessary for aliens eligible to citizen
ship. This marked. he said, a further
discrimination because such a process
in the courts would necessarily involve
much delay Of time and much hardships
for the Japanese.-
On May 1s, ten days later. the State
Department acknowledged Ambassador
The government Of the United States"
said Secretary Bryan in his reply. re
grets most sincerely that the imperial
government Of Japan should regard this
legislation as an indication of unfriend-
illness toward their people. Being ap-
prised while that measure was still un-
der consideration by the legislature ~
California, that that might be the feel
ing of the imperial government. the
President and l very earnestly attempt
ed to induce the legislative authorities
of California to reconsider or to modify
their plans in the matter. urging that
the State should not act as a separate
unit In this case, hut. rather. in. CO.
operation with the Federal government
Under the constitutional arrangement Of
the United States We could do no more
than that.
Feared IL Was MIsIed.
AT that time, we feel that the i'm
perial government has been mislead
in its Interpretation of the spirit and
object of the legislation in question. II
is not political II is not part Of any
general national policy. which would
Indicate unfriendliness, or any purpose
inconsistent with the best and most
cordial understanding between the two
nations. II is wholly economic It
is based upon the particular economic
in California