“OLD GLORIOUS FRIENDSHIPS."

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 20 June 1924, Page 7

“OLD GLORIOUS FRIENDSHIPS."

Appeal to American People. SPEECH BY JAPANESE AMBASSADOR. By Cable—Press Associatiou —Copyright. NEW YORK, June 18. in a speech at Brown University (Providence, Rhode island), when acknowledging an honorary degree ol Doctor ot Laws, Mr Hanihain, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, declared that Japan, m dealing with the United States always believed that between inends no question was incapable ot amicable adjustment. Iho question in the minds ol the Japanese is: Was it the true sentiment ol the American people to make light ol lls friendship with the people of Japan, which was built up ‘by the hard, conscientious labour of both people:' The Ambassador did not mention specifically the immigrant law, but expressed a hope that friendship might survive. He believed it would if the countries remained time to the worthy traditions embodying the great human spirit of mutual toleration and esteem. Japan always felt, and still feels, that she owes America a lasting debt of gratitude “This debt of gratitude Japan lias not failed and will never fail to repay, as opportunity offers,” Mr Hanihara continued, “Japan has for years been America’s gi'eatest Pacific customer, and the United States has been the greatest market for Japanese products. Evil forces began after the Russian War to mar these happy and mutually beneficial relations. At last the Washington Conference entirely removed tho discord and restored the old happy glorious friendship.” b TOKIO, June 18.

More moderato counsels are prevailing, and the Japanese Christians have dropped the proposal to break away from the American mission.

OFFICIAL REPLY TO JAPAN. LIBERTY OF ACTION FOR BOTH DEMANDED.

By Cable —Press Association —Copyright, Received 9.30 p.m., June 19. WASHINGTON, June 18.

The State Department has published Mr Hughes’. reply to the Japanese protest against exclusion. The reply declares that the legislation affects neither the letter nor the spirit of the Treaty of 1911, nor violates the “Gentlemen’s Agreement.” M’- Hughes asserts that the President desired to deal diplomatically, but was unable to go beyond Congress. He observes that the exclusion provision does not materially differ from the operation of the policy of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” saying that the Government fully and gratefully appreciate Japan’s voluntary, assistance in executing the long ' established policy which evidences no lack of esteem of Japanese character and achievements. He notes an important change in the determination of Congress to exercise the prerogative of legislating 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 full liberty of action of either party. Mr Hughes, reviewing the treaties, points out that the United States has been careful to negative any intention that the Treaty of 1911 should derogate the full right of discretionary control of immigration, which right Japan unhesitatingly asserted domestically. Mr Hughes expresses regret that Congressional action allows no latitude to exercise executive discretion and acquiesces in Japan’s view that Japan is released from further obligation. In conclusion, he expresses conviction that the recognition of the right of each Government to legislate in control of immigration should not derogate the mutual goodwill and cordial friendship, which have always characterised their relations.