Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-06-26

perial government had no occasion to ap-
| proach the government or the oni.eu
States on the subject. But When tndt
distinction is made use of, as in the
present case, for the purpose OF aeplN
ing japanese subjects OF rights ana PR
ileges of a civil nature when are pllat =.
pally granted in the Un,ted STATES ~
other aliens, it becomes the DUTY OF the
imnerial government to express
frankly their conviction that the raeiai
distinction does not aHoro
valid basis for the discrimination Oh 'he
subject of land tenure.
July Is the State Department Iepileo,
pointing out that the supposlt1on OF raciai
discrimination occupied in the repre-
sensations of Japan an undeserNeu posi
ton of prominence.
The American reply went on to a long
discussion of the economic question ana
to point out that the treaty mace no
reference to ownership OF lana, ana thai
Japan has similar laws. A reciprocal
privilege was discussed. 1t was pointed
out that the California law permitted
leasing of land. right not conferred
by the treaty.
In reply, the Japanese ambassador pre-
scented a long discussion on the IN
terpretation of the treaty. still main
tanning the claim of rights conferred
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
would not have agreed to the treaties
OF 1894 and 1911. The ambassador
argued that it was the first time that
a nation having a favored nation treaty
had been placed at a disadvantage as
compared with non-treaty countries.
Rights in Treaty Recognized.
July 1e the State Department con-
tended that the California law in eS-
press terms required the recognition
ofe any rights secured by the existing
treaty, and that the Japanese theory
that ownership of property carried with
property in any manner went too
far, for it would make it impossible
for country to alter its laws with re-
gard to the transmission OF property
The department said the ownership of
land has seldom been treated in the
practice of the United States as mat
ter of most favored nation treatment,
and that favored nation clauses have
almost universally related to matters
of commerce and navigation.
The department added that the United
States stood ready at all times to use
its good offices to obtain prompt and eff
cacious determination of any suits
brought in the courts of the United
States.
In reply the Japanese ambassador sent
to the department August 26 copy of
telegram from the japanese foreign min
lister. This communication stated that
elimination of the most marked and in
vidous character against Japan. unjust
and inequitable, contrary to the letter and
spirit of the treaty of 1911, at variance
with the precepts Of good neighborhood
and Notifying to the nation of Japan.
This was the gravamen of Japans com
plant The notes of the department. it
said. contained nothing which answers
fundamentally to that complaint or which
tends to shake conviction regarding the
10
! lated. it commended, there was but one
remedy and the duty Of applying the rem
edy devolved solely upon the United
States.
The imperial government reserves for
the present the further discussion of the
question at issue said the reply. which
then referred to certain statements and
conclusions advanced in the departm ent's
communications in effect as follows:
Racial Antagonism Seen.
Japan does not consider the discrim-
ination to be a national policy of the
United States, although it Is clearly in
dicative of racial ntagonism; the result
of the most favored nation principle
among nations had been to equalize eco
nomic opportunities; the statement that
non-treaty aliens were unable by reason
of the most favored nation clause to
enjoy the right of land ownership in the
mted states causes surprise to the i'm
perial government and they confess their
inability to understand it,
June 10, 1914, the Japanese ambassador
left at the department a copy of an in
struction from his foreign office, reiterat-
ing previous arguments and saying that
the projected treaty on the subject would
tend to create new difficulties, and the
Japanese government therefore are:
"Disinclined to continue the negotia-
tons looking to the conclusion of con-
vention on the lines of the project which
has been under discussion, but they pre-
fer to recur to the correspondence, which
were interrupted-and they will now look
for an answer to the note-handed Mr..
Bryan the 26th of August last, hoping
case fundamental solution of the cues
ton at issue may happily be found
The instruction concluded that, an ad-
justment by means of a convention hay
ing failed, 1t seemed unnecessary to with
hold longer the correspondence from the
public.
Negotiations Continued.
TOXIC, Japan, June 26.-The CORE
spondence between Japan and the United
States in connection with the California
anti-alien land law was published here
today. 1t was preceded by a summary
showing that the Japanese government
abandons its proposal for a new conven-
ton. but continues negotiations with the
American government, contending that
the land act is discriminatory.