ernors of the Provinces in Brazil were appointed by the Imperial Government, the latter may be regarded as specially responsible for their acts in all cases where the law of nations may have been infringed, and justice may be unobtainable through the courts." As is stated in Department's note of the 16th instant, the subjects of His Imperial Majesty will find in the courts of the United States, in the manner provided by the Constitution of the United States, full protection for all their legal rights, held under treaty or otherwise. and this Government will stand ready at all times through its proper officials to use its good offices to secure the prompt and efficacious determination of such suits. Such appears to be the proper and feasible course in the present matter, in which questions of various kinds may arise, in respect of which it is scarcely possible to forecast the appropriate forms of action. The courts of the United States, as is well known, deal only with actual questions, with actual infractions of rights, and not with infractions merely mooted or apprehended. The California School case and the Horcon Ranch case presented questions of a different order from those now under consideration. In the California School case a single and actual treaty question, Hot relating to a matter of property, had arisen and was ready for adjudication. In the Horcon Ranch case a suit in equity was brought by the Government of the United States against an irrigation company for the purpose of preserving an international boundary to which the United States was directly a party. The United States is no doubt interested in the maintenance of all its treaties; but, as the numerous adjudicated cases cited in the aide-mémoire clearly show, questions concerning private titles to land, whether such titles be assured by treaty or not are adjudicated upon the suit of the parties in interest without any interposition on the part of the Government of the United States. Not only is this the practice, but it is greatly to the advantage of individual suitors that it is so. As Governments not infrequently differ in the interpretation of treaties, the private individual, if dependent for judicial protection upon the motion of the Government within whose jurisdiction he asserts that his treaty rights are denied, might be deprived of an effective remedy altogether, in case that Government should hold that the treaty was not violated. Moreover, the individual suitor, in presenting his arguments and allegations, is not restrained by the responsibility which necessarily attaches to the declarations and contentions of an immediate party to the international compact. His dependence upon the action of such a party would hamper his efforts and diminish the opportunity for redress. For these reasons the judicial defense of private rights, and particularly of rights of private property, even where they may have vested under a treaty, is left to the suit of the individuals concerned. In the present instance, however, this Government has offered to go beyond the usual practice and to use its good offices to facilitate the progress of the judicial procedure, out of deference to the susceptibilities of a friendly power to whom this Government wishes ever to be bound by the closest ties of amity and respect. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 16, 1913. File No. 811.52/190. The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Japanese Ambassador. [Telegram.] The two communications addressed to you by the Honorable the Secretary of State on the 16th of July last, in further discussion of the question of the recently enacted alien land law of California, have been received and carefully considered by the Imperial Government. That act, by depriving the Japanese subjects of the right of land ownership, while freely continuing the right, not only in favor of the subjects and citizens of all the other powers with which the United States maintain reciprocal treaty relations, but in favor of many nontreaty aliens, has established a discrimination of the most marked and invidious character against Japan. The measure is, moreover, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, unjust and inequitable, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Japanese-American treaty, as well as at variance with the accepted precepts governing and regulating the intercourse of good neighborhood, and being admittedly ex industria discriminatory against this Empire as compared with other states, it is also mortifying to the nation and disregardful of the national susceptibilities of the Japanese people. This is the gravamen of Japan's complaint. The notes of the Honorable W. J. Bryan contain remarks in explanation and extenuation of the action of California, but nothing, in the estimation of the Imperial Government, which answers fundamentally to that complaint or which tends to shake their conviction regarding the main question. If, as is confidently believed, the existing treaty between Japan and the United States has been violated, there is but one remedy, and the Imperial Government are unable to escape the conclusion that the duty of applying that remedy devolves solely upon the Government of the United States, as the measure complained of has, despite the protest lodged by you, been permitted to go into operation. The Imperial Government reserve for the present the further discussion of the question at issue. There are, however, some statements and conclusions advanced by Mr. Bryan which the Imperial Government feel it their duty forthwith to call in question. This instruction is designed to answer those observations. I hasten, in the first place, to say that the Imperial Government do not for a moment imagine that the discrimination complained of was the outcome of a national policy. They regard, and have from the outset regarded, the action in question as of a local character. But, whatever causes may have been responsible for the measure, it can not be denied that, in its final manifestation, it is clearly indicative of racial antagonism. Nor, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, can any justification for such enactment be found in the assertion that it was "the emanation of economic conditions." It is the high office of modern treaties of commerce to prevent undue international discriminations, and the most favored nation principle, which finds a place Received by the Ambassador August 23, 1913, and received at the Department of State August 26, 1913. in nearly all such compacts, has had the effect, in an international sense, of equalizing opportunities in all the various avenues of commercial and industrial life. It is true that special privileges are, in exceptional circumstances, sometimes granted by one nation in favor of another, but the present case stands out, it is believed, as the one single instance without historical parallel, in which a state maintaining, by treaty, the reciprocal most favored nation relations with another state, has ever, in a matter such as that under discussion, essayed to discriminate against such other state, as compared with third powers with which no such relations exist. The action of Mexico in 1863, which was so strongly condemned by the United States, furnishes no such parallel, since the law in that case was, it appears, based upon considerations of a geographic nature exclusively. The Secretary of State denies the proposition advanced by you to the effect that the California statute discriminates against the Japanese subjects, and that in the matter of land ownership aliens are usually, internationally speaking, placed on national or most favored nation footing. In support of that denial he cites the practice which prevails in the United States on the subject of alien land ownership, and he adds. "that the citizens of countries not having such treaty with the United States (i. e., treaty granting, either expressly or by inference, under the most favored nation clause, the right of land ownership) were unable to enjoy the right of ownership." This statement has naturally caused surprise to the Imperial Government, and they confess their inability to understand it. It not only conflicts directly with the California law in question and is irreconcilable with the statutes of many States of the Union by which the right of alien ownership is accorded independently of a treaty stipulations, but it declares, in effect, that the discrimination complained of, which has been repeatedly recognized as a fact, is without foundation. In these circumstances it is quite sufficient for the Imperial Government to repeat their contention that, by the California enactment, the Japanese subjects are denied the right of real estate ownership in localities in which that right is freely conceded to aliens belonging not only to the states which have no treaty engagements with the United States on the subject, but to the powers which have no commercial treaties whatever with the United States. Recurring to the subject of the Mexican incident, I desire to say that the Imperial Government are unable, upon the record in the case, to concur with Mr. Bryan in the view that the United States was in the end, obliged practically to abandon its contention. Reading in natural sequence the correspondence exchanged between the United States and Mexico, the conviction is, it seems to me, irreprovable, that the quoted words of the Secretary of State on the occasion, instead of being regarded as an argument, must be accepted as a deliberate conclusion of the American Government on the subject. It is unnecessary, it seems to me, to follow Mr. Bryan in his remarks concerning the negotiations connected with the conclusion of the treaty of 1911. It is sufficient to say that the reason, why no stipulation regarding land ownership was inserted in the treaty, is because neither contracting party desired at that time such a stipulation, the United States equally with Japan. The assurance contained in Viscount Uchida's note of February 21, 1911, on the sub ject of liberal interpretation of the Japanese land law, was given at the instance of the United States, because of the condition of reciprocity contained in that law. The assurance was given, as stated in the note, "In return for the rights of land ownership which are granted to Japanese by the laws of the various States of the United States." The laws of Japan on the subject of alien land tenure are not illiberal, but, in any case, they contain no provisions discriminating, in any manner whatever, against the citizens of the United States. On the contrary, in all that relates to land ownership, as well as in the matter of all other civil rights, the American citizens, without distinctions and without conditions, are accorded in Japan full and complete most favored nation treatment, and there is no desire on the part of the Japanese administration to modify this state of things. What Japan claims is nothing more than fair and equal treatment. The Secretary of State, it is observed, dwells at length upon the subject of labor immigration into the United States, and, in the same relation, he refers to the action of Japan in circumstances somewhat analogous to those existing in America. The reason or necessity for this exposition is not understood by the Imperial Government. The question of immigration has nothing whatever to do with the present controversy, and any reference to it only tends to obscure the real issue. This announcement I wish to make very categorical. More than four years ago, the Imperial Government willingly cooperated with the American Government in adopting suitable measures in regulation of labor movements from Japan to the United States. The steps thus taken were entirely efficacious, so that during the past three years considerably more Japanese laborers left the United States than have entered that country. The Government of the United States has recognized and frankly admitted the sufficiency of the measures enforced by the Imperial Government in the matter. The Japanese Ambassador to the United States, at the time of the conclusion of the treaty of 1911, declared under the authority of his Government that the Imperial Government were fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which were then exerted in regulation of the emigration of laborers to the United States. Accordingly, in order to correct and finally dispel the popular error, I wish to say that there is no question whatever between Japan and the United States on the subject of the Japanese labor immigration into the United States. The present controversy relates exclusively to the question of the treatment of the Japanese subjects who are lawfully in the United States or may hereafter lawfully become resident therein consistently with the existing regulations. So far as such subjects are concerned, the Imperial Government claim for them fair and equal treatment, and are unable either to acquiesce in the unjust and obnoxious discrimination complained of, or to regard the question as closed so long as the existing state of things is permitted to continue. You are requested to explain the substance of this instruction to the Secretary of State and deliver a copy. LIBERIA. MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT, DANIEL E. HOWARD, TO THE File No. 882.032/11. LEGISLATURE. NOTE. The message of President Daniel E. Howard was communicated to the Legislature of Liberia December 17, 1913, and was transmitted to the Secretary of State by the American Chargé d'Affaires, Mr. Richard C. Bundy. [Extracts.] The trouble at River Cess' has claimed our serious attention this year. We do not now feel wholly warranted in saying that the disorder has been finally quelled, still peace reigns and law and authority are fully established and being maintained from River Cess to Lower Buchanan. An attempt was made by the Krus in June to take River Cess, but they were successfully repulsed with heavy losses by Lieu. tenant Smith, of the Frontier Force, of whose gallant conduct Major Ballard speaks in terms of merited praise. I am pleased to be able to inform you that the troubles in the Gio section, in the rear of Grand Bassa County, where the Rubber Corporation is, or was, operating, have been successfully settled. Conditions on the Franco-Liberian boundary, and particularly the Cavalla River Section, have been very peaceful save for a little trade incident which happened between the merchants of Maryland County and the natives on our side. We were informed that the traders of the Cavalla formed themselves into a combination and greatly reduced the prices formerly paid for produce, while they maintained in fact the selling prices of their goods. As a retaliation the natives elected to and did carry their produce over to the French side for sale. The matter was brought to our attention and was discussed with the General Receiver of Customs and, while we both preferred having the produce disposed of in our territory, we saw no legal way of compelling the natives to do so, since indeed in trading with the French merchants they complied fully with our laws. This is one of the proofs that we are not placing any barriers in the way of traffic with our neighbors on the southeast. The Secretary of State will submit to your Honorable Body the findings in the matter of the Attia claims against the Government; also the awards concerning the claims for losses sustained by the German merchants' at River Cess and points adjacent, at the settlement of Brewerville, and in the case of damages sustained by some clerks of the firm of A. Woermann at the hands of Krumen in Monrovia, It gives me very great pleasure to convey to you the information that our Consul General at Washington, U. S. A., Dr. Ernest Lyon, notified the Secretary of State on the 9th of October, that he had successfully concluded the transactions relative to the Donovan Fund, and 1 Printed post, pp. 655 et seq. and 682 et seq. |