EXCLUSION LAW

Southland Times, Issue 19276, 21 June 1924, Page 5

EXCLUSION LAW

JAPAN’S PROTEST THE AMERICAN REPLY RESENTMENT GROWING IN THE EAST. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and NJZ. Cable Association.) WASHINGTON, June 18. The State Department has published Mr Hughes’s reply to the Japanese protest against exclusion. The reply declares that the legislation affects neither the letter nor spirit of the Treaty of 1911 nor violates the “Gentlemen’s Agreement.” Mr Hughes asserts that the President desired to deal diplomatically but was unable to go beyond Congress. He observes that the exclusion provision dots not materially differ from the operation or policy of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” saying the Government fully and gratefully appreciates Japan’s voluntary assistance on the execution of a long-established policy which evidences no lack of esteem of Japanese character and achievements.

Referring to the important change in Congress’s determination to exercise its prerogative of legislation on immigration, Mr Hughes points out that the Government does not feel itself limited by prior international arrangements. Furthermore, existing negotiations and past negotiations do not impair fuH liberty of action of either party. Mr Hughes, reviewing the Treaties points out that the United States has been careful to negative any contention that the Treaty of 1911, derogated from the full right of discretionary control of immigration, which right Japan unhesitatingly asserted domestically. Mr Hughes expressed regret that Congressional action allows no latitude to exercise executive discretion, and acquiesced in Japan’s view that Japan is released from further obligation. In conclusion, he expressed the conviction that recognition of the right of of each Government to legislate in control of immigration should not derogate the mutual goodwill and cordial friendship which has always characterised their relations. AMERICAN INFLUENCE WEAKENED. PAN-ASIATIC MOVEMENT EXTENDING NEW YORK, June 19. “(Received June 20, 8 p.m.) The Evening Post’s Tokio correspondent says that officials are, not prepared to comment on the American reply to Japan’s exclusion protest, but reliable sources reveal that it will not augment the anti-American movement, change the Cabinet’s policy, or erase private resentment at the discrimination. However, indications of graver consequences continue to multiply. These are only surface evidences, but all confirm the outstanding fact that America’s influence in the Orient has weakened. Observers point out that friendly relations are perhaps academically unimpaired, but the former quasi Entente Cordiale has been replaced by a polite tension which impels Japan to consider adopting another friend. Already she has shown a readiness to meet France half-way, while Moscow, seizing the opportunity, is offering Japan such concessions as will assure recognition of the treaty. The Chinese Students’ Society have persuaded numbers of Japanese to join the panAsiatic movement, thereby strengthening the anti-foreign movement. This apparently furnishes a common ground on which former enemies may meet. The latest recruit is Dr Sun Yat Sen, who on behalf of the South China anti-foreign movement, is sending an emissary to Tokio, who will be received with honour. Evidently Japan will retain American trade, but has almost done with American principles and policies. The appropriateness of the policy has been confirmed rather than questioned by the voluntary action of the Japanese Government in aiding its execution. The Note cites provisions of the commercial treaties and the negotiations leading thereto, to show thot the sovereign right of freedom to control immigration was always fully reserved by the American Government. The Japanese Government is advised that the effective date of exclusion is July 1. The 'Washington Government must consider itself released from further obligation under the Gentlemen’s Agreement.