Слике страница
PDF
ePub

In this connection, Japan raises the further question as to what will become of the rights which Japanese subjects now have in California under the treaty and the law in case the treaty should cease to be in force, and points out that the rights assured to other aliens in this respect are not dependent upon treaty engagements. As to this, the Secretary of State assures the Ambassador that, in the event of such a contingency, the Government of the United States would safeguard the rights now secured by treaty.

More particularly, the Japanese Government alleges that the legislation violates the express stipulations of the treaty of commerce and navigation of 1911 in the following respects:

(a) That so far as the act takes away from Japanese subjects the capacity, hitherto freely enjoyed by them, to acquire, by devise and descent, houses for all purposes, and leasehold of land for residential and commercial purposes, it is in conflict with the first clause of Article I of said treaty, since that clause accords to Japanese subjects liberty to own houses and to lease lands upon the same terms as American citizens, and it will not be contended that the liberty of such citizens in that respect has been annulled or abridged;

(b) That, so far as the act deprives Japanese subjects of the capacity to bequeath and transmit to their devisees and heirs real property and interest therein, duly acquired by them under said treaty, it is inconsistent with the first and third clauses of Article I, since, in addition to the guarantee of equal treatment which is contained in the first clause above mentioned, property of Japanese subjects is, by the third clause aforesaid, assured of the same most constant protection, the same equal protection of equal laws, that is accorded to the property of American citizens, and it goes without saying that property rights of such citizens still remain complete and undisturbed; and

(c) That, so far as the act takes away from Japanese subjects the capacity of bequeathing and transmitting real property and interest therein, already duly acquired by them under the laws of California, it is repugnant to the above-mentioned third clause of Article I of the treaty, since it impairs obligations of the contracts under which such property was acquired and is held, and thus deprives Japanese subjects of that equal protection for their property which the treaty extends to them. It is also contended:

(d) That the act in question, so far as it takes away from Japanese subjects the right to dispose, in any manner whatsoever, of the real property or interest therein, lawfully acquired by them prior to July 17, 1911 [the date on which the treaty of 1911 went into effect], is an impairment of vested rights created under the treaty of 1894.

(e) That the legislation discriminates against Japanese subjects not only as compared with American citizens, but as compared with the subjects of other countries, and is therefore a denial of the most favored nation treatment guaranteed by Article XIV of the treaty.

The United States answers:

(a) That Article I of the treaty, which refers to real property, makes no reference to the ownership of land, but merely stipulates that the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties shall have the liberty "to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops" and "to lease land for residential purposes."

The Secretary continues:

The question of the ownership of land was, in pursuance of the desire of the Japanese Government. dealt with by an exchange of notes in which it was acknowledged and agreed that this question should be regulated in each country by the local law, and that the law applicable in the United States in this regard was that of the respective States. This clearly appears from the note of Baron Uchida to Mr. Knox of February 21, 1911, in which, in reply to an inquiry of the latter on the subject, Baron Uchida said:

"In return for the rights of land ownership which are granted Japanese by the laws of the various States of the United States [of which, I may observe, there are now about 30] the Imperial Government will by liberal interpretation of the law be prepared to grant land ownership to American citizens from all the States, reserving for the future, however, the right of maintaining the condition of reciprocity with respect to the separate States."

From the foregoing the Secretary of State concludes:

First, that the California statute, in extending to aliens not eligible to citizenship of the United States the right to lease lands in that State for agricultural purposes for a term not exceeding three years, may be held to go beyond the measure of privilege established in the treaty, which does not grant the right to lease agricultural lands at all; and secondly, that, so far as the statute may abridge the right of such aliens to own lands within the State, the right has been reserved by the Imperial Government to act upon the principle of exact reciprocity with respect to citizens of the individual State. In a word, the measure of privilege and the measure of satisfaction for its denial were perfectly understood and accepted.

(b) The Department reiterates its assertion that, inasmuch as the California statute in express terms requires the recognition of treaty rights, it is not to be assumed that any such right would not be fully protected.

(c) That the Japanese contention extends "too far the theory that the ownership of property carries with it a vested right to dispose of such property in all the ways in which property may be transferred, by sale, by gift, or devise, or by descent, without future limitation or restriction." It is added that "such a theory would render it impossible

for a country to alter its laws with regard to the transmission of property."

(d) As to the fear of the Japanese Government that vested rights of property are impaired by the statute, the Secretary of State assures that Government that such rights will be fully protected by the courts. He goes further and states that:

If a case should ever be disclosed in which it was maintained by the Imperial Government that the existing property rights of one of its subjects had been impaired by the statute, this Government would stand ready to compensate him for any loss which he might be shown to have sustained, or even, in order to avoid any possible allegation of injury, to purchase from him his lands at their full market value prior to the enactment of the statute.

(e) In answer to the allegation that the act is repugnant to the most favored nation clause of the treaty, the Department points out that most favored nation clauses universally relate to matters of commerce and navigation; that the alien ownership of land has seldom been treated in the practice of the United States as a matter of most favored nation treatment but has been secured only by special treaty stipulations.

In the course of the discussion the Japanese Ambassador referred to the naturalization laws of the United States under which, he stated, "Japanese subjects are as a nation, apparently denied the right to acquire American nationality." This, he said, was "mortifying to the Government and people of Japan, since the racial distinction inferable from those provisions is hurtful to their just national susceptibilities." In reply, the Secretary of State denied that the naturalization laws of the United States make any distinction that may be considered as national, and stated that an historical examination of them would show that the Government and people of Japan have no ground to feel that any discrimination against them was intended. Inasmuch as the Ambassador had acknowledged that the question of naturalization "is a political problem of national and not international concern," the subject was not further alluded to.

From the point of view of international law, the issues thus raised between the two governments are very interesting and important, but it would not be possible within the limits of these columns to enter into a discussion of the questions involved with any expectation of satisfactorily treating them. The correspondence has been summarized in such a way, it is hoped, as to give to our readers a clear idea of the problem before the two governments for solution.

[ocr errors]

MEDIATION IN MEXICO

A comment on the situation in Mexico at the time of going to press (July 1) must necessarily be fragmentary and unsatisfactory, because of the lack of authentic and official information. It seems unwise, however, not to note the changes in the situation since the last comment, which appeared in the October number of the JOURNAL for 1913; but any statements made are subject to correction, and it seems only fair to inform the reader of this fact.

Leaving aside for the moment the mediation of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, the events of the past few months have not changed materially the attitude of the United States. It has refused, and does still refuse, to recognize General Huerta's government. The General has steadily refused to comply with the suggestions of the United States that elections be held and that he be not a candidate and he still controls the City of Mexico and a large portion of the country. General Carranza, the choice of the Constitutionalists for President, exercises the functions of such within the territory opposed to the Huerta régime, and the leader of the constitutionalist army in the field, General Villa, has had many notable successes, including the taking of Zacatecas, claimed to be the key to the City of Mexico.

The United States stands ready to recognize any government which, in its opinion, represents the Mexican people and which in fact exercises authority throughout the country. General Huerta appears steadily to have lost ground. The Constitutionalists appear to have gained; but neither party has as yet obtained or exercises that control which, in the opinion of the United States, would justify its recognition as the actual and existing government of Mexico. Such appears to be the situation, irrespective of mediation.

It is therefore necessary to inquire what change has been produced by mediation and the results which have already flowed from it. To understand, however, the task of the mediators it is necessary to consider some events which may be said to have led up to it. President Wilson stated in his address to Congress on August 27, 1913,1 that he would observe a strict impartiality in his treatment of the contending factions. He said:

I deem it my duty to exercise the authority conferred upon me by the law of March 14, 1912, to see to it that neither side to the struggle now going on in Mexico 1 American Journal of International Law, Supplement, 1913, pp. 279 et seq.

receive any assistance from this side of the border. I shall follow the best practice of nations in the matter of neutrality by forbidding the exportation of arms or munitions of war of any kind from the United States to any part of the Republic of Mexico -a policy suggested by several interesting precedents and certainly dictated by many manifest considerations of practical expediency. We can not in the circumstances be the partisans of either party to the contest that now distracts Mexico, or constitute ourselves the virtual umpire between them.

Had President Wilson recognized the government of General Huerta, the forces of Carranza and his followers, so far as the United States is concerned, would have been regarded as rebels in arms against a legitimate government. The situation was anomalous in that neither party having been recognized, there existed, in the view of the United States, no legal government. President Wilson, therefore, considered that the proclamation putting into effect the law of March 14, 1912, operated against the Constitutionalist party and in favor of General Huerta and his partisans, who, recognized as the legitimate government by many nations, were in a position to obtain arms and ammunition. Therefore, on February 3, 1914, he withdrew the embargo on the importation of arms into Mexico, thus placing, as far as he could, the contending factions upon an equality. So matters stood until April 9, 1914, when certain blue-jackets from the United States man-of-war Dolphin were arrested at Tampico. The facts surrounding this incident and the conclusions drawn from them are stated in the President's address to Congress of April 20, 1914:

On the 9th of April a paymaster of the U. S. S. Dolphin landed at the Iturbide Bridge landing at Tampico with a whaleboat and boat's crew to take off certain supplies needed by his ship, and while engaged in loading the boat was arrested by an officer and squad of men of the army of Gen. Huerta. Neither the paymaster nor anyone of the boat's crew was armed. Two of the men were in the boat when the arrest took place, and were obliged to leave it and submit to be taken into custody, notwithstanding the fact that the boat carried, both at her bow and at her stern, the flag of the United States. The officer who made the arrest was proceeding up one of the streets of the town with his prisoners when met by an officer of higher authority, who ordered him to return to the landing and await orders; and within an hour and a half from the time of the arrest orders were received from the commander of the Huertista forces at Tampico for the release of the paymaster and his men. The release was followed by apologies from the commander and later by an expression of regret by Gen. Huerta himself. Gen. Huerta urged that martial law obtained at the time at Tampico; that orders had been issued that no one should be allowed to land at the Iturbide Bridge; and that our sailors had no right to land there. Our naval commanders at the port had not been notified of any such prohibition; and, even if they had been, the only justifiable course open to the local authorities would

« ПретходнаНастави »