Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1921-01-22

american dIilDdsotloOl " pam
declared that the Japanese were
fearful that California and western
states might extend the classifica-
tion of aliens on the basis of eligi-
bility to citizenship. not only as~to
property rights but also to consti-
tutional rights.
Ambassador Morris, who has
been conducting the negotiations
with Baron Shidehara, the Japa-
nese ambassador, with a view to
laying the basis of treaty between
| the United States and Japan, furth-
er declared that the japanese pro-
test against the California anti
alien land law, and presented to
the American people the definite
question of whether in the larger
view of Americas relations with
the Orient, it is wise to classify
aliens on the basis of their eligibil-
ity to citizenship.
Ask Equal Rights.
In present negotiations, Mr.. Nor
ris said the Japanese were not COM
planning because it's nationals resi-
dent in the United States are melt
gible to citizenship, not asking any
greater rights for its nationals
than those conceded to others: .,o
questioning the right of the United
States government to pass, subject
to treaty obligations, legislaung
covering admission or residence of
foreigners, nor seeking removal of
present restrictions on japanese
immigration. The japanese gov
ernment, he added, does contend
that it is unjust and unfair to pick
out a particular group of aliens
who are under certain political dis
abilities and deprive them of rights
which all other aliens are permit
ted to enjoy.
Laws Discriminate.
Japanese aliens resident in the
United States" said Ambassa dor
Norris, after asserting that he was
not discussing the merits of the is
sue, but its definition, "are not ELI
gible to citizenship, our nationali-
cation laws having been interpreted
as applying only to white persons
or persons of African descent. This
| is in a sense a discrimination or,
perhaps better, selection of those
whom for one reason or another we
are willing to admit to the privilege
of American citizenship. But that
is clearly not a discrimination OF a
character which could properly be
The subject of complaint by a gov
ernment whose nationals might be
excluded. No government would
consider II proper or expedient to
protest because its citizens were
not permitted to expatriate them
selves. A friendly state must re-
gret and deplore such a policy and
even hope that some day it would
be changed, but it would undoubt-
edly claim for itself and concede
to other states the inherent right of
a sovereign state to determine the
conditions and limits of naturaliza-
tion.
Citizenship Not Asked.
May I ask you, therefore, to
note carefully this point: .he Japa-
nese government is not complain
ing because Japanese aliens resi-
dent in the United States are ineli-
gible to American citizenship.
Nor is the government of Japan
asking for its citizens resident
among United States any greater
rights than those conceded to 9TH
or aliens. It accepts and in its own
domestic legislation has often acted
upon the principle that any state
has the right to impose reasonable
restrictions upon the property
rights of foreigners who choose to
live or pursue their occupations
within its borders.
May l ask you therefore to note
in the second place that the gov
ernment of Japan is not in any way
questioning the right of our gov
srnment to pass, subject only to it's
,reaty obligations, any legislation it
may see fit covering the admission
u residence of foreigners among
us? II is true that by the treaty
Of 1911 Japanese were granted full
rights of admission to and resi-
dence in our country. But this right
was granted only upon the express
undertaking that the japanese gov
ernment would continue voluntar-
lily to limit immigration as provid-
"a in the so-called 'gentlemen's
agreement Of 1908.
Issue Is Defined.
"In the third place, therefore,
may / ask you to note that the
Tos,anaea erouarpvanpF ,pd 81, 80,
pie are not clamoring for the re-
moval Of any of the present restric-
tions on Japanese immigration. On
the contrary the government has
shown a willingness to examine and
correct any of the defects and
abuses OF the existing arrangement
What then is this much talked
Of 'Californiaissue? OF what does
Japan complain? Let me try to
answer. Japanese aliens are ineli-
gible to citizenship under the ad-
ministration Interpretation of our
naturalization laws. But personal
and property rights they have
shared equally with other aliens.
In 1913. however. California devils
ed the plan OF classifying aliens on
the basis OF their eligibility to citi-
zenship and then proceeded to de-
prive those who were ineligible Of
certain property rights previously
enjoyed by all aliens. In 1920 this
legislation was amplified by an ini-
tiative and referendum act. other
states are now considering similar
legislation and the people Of Japan
are fearful lest this method may be
used not only in property right but