Evening star., 1924-10-03

The acceptance of the protocol by
the League of Nations. through which
it is claimed international disarna-
ment will be practicable. has brought
into the spotlight certain questions of
great Importance. These relate par
ticularly to Japan's attitude in claim
ing as fundamental her right to force
Japanese emigration upon an unWill7
ing nation and to refer to the league
any obstructions thereto. The league
would be called upon to decide
whether the objecting nation was an
"agEreSSor" in the event that Japan
desired to force immigration demands
by the extreme of war Japan takes
the position that objection to permit
ting her race to enter the boundaries
of any nation, as settlers. is equlVa-
lent to racial discrimination, which
she cannot tolerate.
The protocol, which has been accept
ed by the league binds the members
of the league to outlaw the "aggres-
sor" which resists admission of Japa-
nese Immigrants, and all nations OF
the league will agree to accept sane
tionS'' to cease commercial and dlplo-
matte relations with such "aggressor
and to extend such other cooperation
as they may deem proper. Such IN
ternationai coercion, it is assumed,
would bring serious. and in most cases,
compelling pressure upon the recalcl-
trant 'aggreSsor,' and make even de-
fensive war impossible.
The Japanese representative at the
league desclaims the idea that the
protocol, as amended by motion of
Japan and finally adopted by the
league. had any direct reference to
JapaneSe desire to enforce immigra =
tion upon the United States. He
pointed out that japanese are treat
ed with more contumely in Australia
and South Africa than in America
Upon motion of Japan the protocol
was amended in its definition of an
"aggressor." 1t now reads:
"A state can only be- assumed to
be an aggressor if it has not pre-
viously submitted the question in
dispute to the league council or to
the assembly, in accordance with Ar
ticle III of the League of Nations
covenant"
In view of the non membership of
the United States in the league, 1t Is
assumed that this country would not
submit to the league any question OF
our international relations, much
less any question of what is held In
this country to be or strictly oonnes.
tic concern. Hence, under that
amendment if Japan undertook to
invade the United States with 1mmi-
grants. and we refused them en-
trance. she might refer the contro-
yersy to the league with an ex parte
statement, and, failing to appeal to
the league, we would be adjudged
the "aggressor," subject to interna-
tional boycott and other penalties.
The japanese position is expressed
| by it's press, as involving the tree
ad indication by the league of all
questions. including what are claimed
| to be domestic matters over which In
ternational law has no jurisdiction
The Chugai Shooyo, leading journal.
says:
How an alleged domestic question
| is really international is illustrated
by the United States immigration act
which raised a question of grave con-
sequences for both nations.
The government organ of France,
| LIE Temps, supporting M. Adachi, one
of the delegates to the league, said:
"Since such a difference may well
arise between Japan and the United
States because, especially, OF the nu-
initiating measures against the clti-
zens of a great country, which the
| Immigration policy DEGREES against
the japanese. we can understand. In a
measure, the scruples of M. Adachi."
| Another French paper, the journal
des Debats, says in reference te
| Japanese immigration into the United
States:
..There is no color line in the
| League of Nations"
There is ''color line" in the laws
| of citizenship of the United States.
! Tho law, as adopted by our hrst Con-