JAPAN AND AMERICA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18689, 21 April 1924, Page 7

JAPAN AND AMERICA.

EXCLUSION CONTROVERSY. SENATE PASSES THE BILL. MODIFICATION UNLIKELY. PRESIDENT'S PREDICAMENT WHAT VETO WOULD MEAN. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. (Received 5.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z.Keuter. WASHINGTON, Apl. 18 The U.S. Senate finally passed the Immigration Bill by 62 votes to 6. t Previously an amendment had been adopted, permitting an increase of the quotas to bo admitted to a maximum of 25 per cent, from all countries whose immigrants are skilled farm labourers. These will, under this provision, be required to go to any section in the United States where farm help is needed. The Senate refused to extend the quota restrictions of the North to South American countries as was proposed by Senator Willis, of Ohio. Democratic and Republican leaders opposed this move, as tending to destroy pan-American harmony. While there is no evidence that either side at the Capitol will recede from the position taken up regarding the total exclusion of the Japanese, observers call attention to the possibilities offered for a modification of the clause in the conference, which must take place between the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is remarked that the exclusion of Japanese puts the President in a serious predicament. There is a very slight hope that when the House and Senate confer on the question of equalising slight disimilarities in the measure,, they will decide to reject the exclusion clause. The President will therefore be faced with the question of applying his veto. This, however, would mean the negation of the complete Immigration Bill, which has taken months to formulate. At the same time it might mean a loss of the support of the Pacific Coast States in the coming election. It is known that Mr. Coolidge is very much opposed to the exclusion clause, which Mr. C. E. Hughes, Secretary of State, has officially repudiated. • - The President's political counsellors are urging him to take no action when the measure arrives for his signature. It would thus become law within ten days without signature. Mr. Hughes has published a letter in which the Japanese Ambassador, Baron Hanihara, disclaims any intention of employing an offensive threat in his prior communication, in which he referred to the grave consequences which might follow the adoption of the exclusion, provision in the bill. The letter states:— my supreme duty of maintaining and drawing closer the bond of friendship so happily existing between our peoples, I honestly believe that ill-feeling and misgiving would reasonably follow such an enactment. These I described as " grave consequences." I had no thought of being disagreeable nor discourteous, still less did I intend to convey a So-called " veiled threat." On the contrary it was in a spirit of the most sincere respect, confidence, and candour that I used the words. This spirit I hope I have manifested throughout this letter.

Mr. Hughes, in a letter of reassurance, saysl have no doubt your words will be taken in the sense you have stated. I am quite sure that it was far from your thought to express or imply a threat.,