88

seminary or university, particularly designated by him and approved by the Secretary of Labor, may be admitted. These provisions are the exemptions provided for in sub-sections (b), (d) and (e) of Section 4. Finally, more important than these classes of persons is that group defined in sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act, which entitles Japanese or any of the people to whom the provisions of the section applies, who desire to enter the United States solely to carry on trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a present existing treaty of commerce and navigation, to admission at our ports.8 A careful consideration of the provisions described in the preceding paragraph makes it clear that the essential difference between the situation as it existed prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and what may be expected to eventuate now that the law has gone into effect, lies in the fact that the United States Government will now determine the qualifications of any individual ineligible for citizenship seeking admission into the United States; that is to say, the responsbility for a determination of the eligibility and good faith of such persons to enter regardless of the country of their origin, will be determined by the American Consul at the point of departure for our shores, and by the Immigration Inspectors at the ports of entry of the United States.8

89

An interesting comment upon the practical operation of the Act is to be found in an article printed in the November 28th issue of Nichi-Bei, which reads as follows:

About four months have passed since the new American immigration law, which so aroused public opinion in the old country, went into effect. But the immigration law which at first was thought to be very severe has turned out to be very mild and smooth in its application. According to recent advices from the old country this new immigration law which seemed to be very severe proves to be such in regard to laborers only; but students, traders and members of mercantile houses find it even easier than under the gentlemen's agreement and are coming to America in large numbers. In the municipality of Tokyo alone upwards of six hundred students, officials and merchants have already come and the number throughout the entire country is said to be exceedingly large.

In the case of students who live in the interior all they have to do is to secure in advance permission for entering previously designated schools in America. In the case of mercantile houses it has become comparatively easy. Persons who are visiting America for purposes of observation or on business may remain six months, if necessary, the time can be extended.

66

But in the case of students, since it has been made obligatory upon the heads of the institutions attended by Japanese to report details with regard to attendance, graduation, etc. to the Secretary of Labor, the sons of rich men will not be permitted as hitherto merely to register in college for the amusement. Furthermore, the question how to deal with ghost students" who never even show their faces at schools and a number of other riddles in connection with the new immigration law remains to be cleared up. "But," says Mr. Akamatsu, the chief of the Bureau of Emigration, "after all, in many respects going to America has become easier." 90

While the article which has just been quoted gives the pleasant impression that friction respecting Japanese immigration is beginning to die down in Japan, unfortunately recent advices from the Pacific Coast indicate that a method has been evolved by which a resident Japanese seeking to import a Japanese wife may evade the provisions of the statute. The procedure is described in a statement recently issued by the California Joint Immigration Committee, which reads as follows:

The provision of the new immigration law excluding aliens ineligible to citizenship was intended to prevent, among other things, the continued entry

88 Treaty proclaimed April 5, 1911.

89"An analysis of the American immigration act of 1924," by John B. Trevor, International Conciliation, Bulletin No. 202, p. 295.

90 Nichi-Bei, November 28, 1924, Increase of students and members of mercantile houses coming to America-600 from Tokyo alone since new immigration law took effect."

of new wives who did their part in increasing the Japanese population of the United States by becoming mothers of average families of five.

But the Japanese have already found a way to evade this intent of the law by sending over women as tourists who play the part of wives while here for the six months stay permitted as such tourists, then return to Japan, to come again next year or the year after as tourists. So in turn we had picture" brides, then "Kankodan brides, and now "tourist" brides. Doubtless the visits will be so timed that the children will be born here and thus acquire American citizenship.

66

The following translation of a Yokohama dispatch is from the Seattle Japanese newspaper, Taihoku Nippon, Nov. 5th, under the heading "Instead of Wives being sent for, Tourist Women coming to America increasingly: " "Since the new American immigration law went into effect last July the Japanese in America have been absolutely unable to take their families with them to America. And so they have been carefully studying the matter and as a result have discovered that there is a provision of the law under which women of proper character may visit America as tourists. Recently mates for Japanese in America, under the name of tourists, have been appearing one after another, expecting to spend six months or a year in America. The other day the Shosen Kaisha SS Company's Arabia Maru took an excursion party of nine women of this class. When the fixed period of their stay in America ends these women will leave their husbands and return to Japan to await opportunity to return to America again. From now on this class of women will be going back and forth across the Pacific in considerable numbers."

It is difficult to say at this moment, whether it will be possible to deal adequately with a situation such as has been described through close scrutiny respecting the good faith of applicants for visés under the provisions exempting tourists from the quota. In all probability, however, evasions along this line will be confined to the entry of women seeking to marry foreign born Japanese, resident of the United States, not entitled to bring in their families under the various exemptions enumerated in the statute, because under a recent decision of the District Court of Massachusetts,91 it is held that a woman falling within the category of persons ineligible for citizenship, if the wife of an American citizen, is not deportable; that is to say, assuming this decision represents the law, it would appear that persons of the Japanese race born in the United States, and citizens thereof under our laws, may import brides from Japan under the Kankodan system 92 in vogue during the latter part of the period in which the Gentlemen's Agreement was in force.

Referring to the decision of Judge Lowell, in the case of Chiu Shee, Judge Kerrigan in deciding two cases brought before the United States District Court of San Francisco, said:

* * * The discrepancy between section 4 (a) and section 13 (c) can be reconciled by construing the latter as applying only to aliens who are not the wives of American citizens.

I conclude, therefore, that it would have been the duty of the respondent in the case now under consideration to permit the petitioners to enter if their husbands, being citizens of the United States, had complied with the provisions of section 9, subdivisions (b), (c) and (d), of the act by filing with the commissioner general the petition therein specified, resulting in the issuance to said petitioners of an immigration visé by the consular officer to whom application therefor had been made. But as it appears that no such proceedings were

91 In re Chiu Shee, opinion by Judge J. Lowell, October 17, 1924. See Appendix D for full decision.

92 The term "Kankodan brides" was applied to Japanese women brought into the United States by husbands, legally resident in this country, who went abroad in organized parties for the purpose of marriage, the Japanese Government having extended to such husbands, who were liable to military service under the conscription law of Japan, special exemptions for the purpose.

taken by or on behalf of the petitioners, they have not established their right to enter. The demurrer to the petition is therefore sustained.93

It is thus evident that in the cases which have so far arisen relating directly or indirectly, to the phase of the question which we have been discussing, the weight of judicial opinion is against the interpretation of the statute adopted by the Department of Labor. However this may be, the Attorney General has been requested to appeal from the decision rendered in the case of Chiu Shee, and, therefore, it is impossible until the Supreme Court passes upon the questions involved, to say whether or not, that decision has opened a serious breach in the barriers erected by Congress against an influx of Oriental immigration.

Having reviewed in the preceding paragraph, the substance of the exclusion provisions of the Act of 1924, and the interpretation of the scope of the section relating to the entry of persons ineligible to citizenship, in so far as the courts have passed upon that matter, it behooves us now to consider the international reaction created by the passage of the Act. It is perfectly clear, as has already been pointed out, that from the standpoint of international law the control of immigration is a domestic question, but it is equally obvious that Japan is not alone in its contention that circumstances attending the settlement of a domestic issue may be a matter of international concern. In other words, we must recognize the fact that it is within the realm of possibility, in fact of probability, that some phase of the administration of an immigration act or other law, adopted by any nation bearing upon the treatment of nationals of a foreign state, domiciled abroad, will be challenged by some member of the League of Nations, and laid before that body for determination and adjustment. The following excerpt from a special cable to the New York Times, presents in vivid colors, a picture of the groundwork being laid for such a proceeding.

At 9:30 o'clock tonight, when the Arbitration Commission had practically completed its revision of the Protocol text, M. Adachi arose and formally moved the suppression of the clause in the Protocol draft which proclaims an aggressor State any country refusing to abide by the decision of the World Court of Justice. The clause in question refers to disputes which one party declares to have arisen over a subject which is exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction. If the World Court accepts this view and rules that the matter is in fact domestic in nature, and the other, the opposing State, refuses to accept the decision and goes to war, it then becomes an aggressor and will be punished as such by the other members of the League.

M. Adachi wanted this clause stricken out altogether, asserting that it involved great injustice to the plaintiff State and shut off all avenues of peaceful settlement. Reading his statement dramatically and slowly amid tense, almost painful, silence, the Japanese delegate accused the League of Nations of not fulfilling its high mission, because it was proclaiming a State criminal without offering any solution of the difficulty.

He argued that questions judged by the Court to be within the exclusive internal jurisdiction of a State might cause the gravest kind of injustice to the other State which should have the right to prove the righteousness of its complaint.

94

93 Decision by Judge Kerrigan in the Southern Division of the District Court of the United States in and for the Northern District of California, Second Divison. No. 18516. In the matter of Cheung Sum Shee et al. on habeas corpus; and No. 18517. In the matter of Chan Shee et al. on habeas corpus.

94 Dispatch dated September 28, 1924, from Geneva, published in New York Times, issue of September 29. under title of "Japanese imperil league peace plan by new demands."

Supplementing this digest of Mr. Adatci's remarks, is a statement made by a member of the Japanese delegation to a representative of the Associated Press, which reads, with explanatory interpolations by the correspondent, as follows:

We are determined in our opposition to the Protocol as it now stands, because it puts Japan in a most unfavorable position. Japanese public opinion will never permit the Government to subscribe to a document which closes the door on us and virtually makes diplomatic negotiations impossible on subjects which the World Court decides are solely within the national jurisdiction of a state with which we have differences.

What we particularly object to is that Japan would be proclaimed immediately an aggressor State if she declined to abide by an arbitral decision which declared that the dispute had arisen out of a question domestic in nature. It is not only the question of immigration with the United States. When you consider how the Japanese are mistreated in South Africa, we are treated very well in the United States as a nation; for in South Africa the Japanese are even forbidden accommodations in hotels.

The immigration problem with the United States is serious, and has aroused the Japanese public but there is a vast variety of other problems affecting the Japanese which other nations might plead concern solely their national sovereignty, and hence are not subject to international arbitration. The Spanish-American War sprang out of the administration of Cuba. Tomorrow Japanese may be murdered by police in China and other countries, and the plea of State sovereignty can immediately be put forward as a reason for nonsubmission to arbitration.

Instead of accepting the Protocol which aggravates the stipulations of Paragraph 8, Article XV of the League Covenant, we would much rather stick by the Covenant without changing it, even if it does not completely satisfy us. The speaker was referring to the Covenant clause which provides that if a dispute is found by the League Council to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the State complained of, then the Council shall so report and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement. He continued:

That permits diplomatic negotiations; the Protocol prevents them. Yet diplomatic negotiations should be encouraged, not hindered. We merely want the Council of the League to continue its efforts at mediation, even when the World Court rules that a conflict is the outgrowth of a domestic question.

The Japanese spokesman concluded by saying that Japan was embarrassed because the United States would probably not be a signatory to the protocol, hence the Protocol would have no power as regards the United States."

As a result of the opposition to the draft of the Protocol raised by Japan, and the support her delegation received from the representatives of certain European nations, possessed of a highly congested population and, therefore potential sources of an immigration movement, a revision of the Protocol was secured which appeared to be acceptable to Japan. In view of the fact that the stenographic record of the proceedings before the Committees and the Assembly of the League of Nations are not available, and the "Journal" is an arid source from which to derive information respecting this controversy, it is impossible to assert with precision, the attitude assumed in the course of the debate by the representatives of the various nations. In this connection, it may be well to recall that when the specific issue of race equality was raised in the course of the Peace

95 In the course of a debate on the evening of September 29, it is interesting to note that Viscount Ishii charged that Mr. Lloyd George, while Premier, gave a solemn promise during the Peace Conference that Great Britain would aid Japan in securing race equality by a vote within the league at a later time if the Japanese Government would withdraw opposition to Article XV, paragraph 8, which was contrary to their interest. Lord Parmoor of the British delegation, denied knowledge of this pledge, and disclaimed responsibility for Mr. Lloyd George's activities in Paris. (Cf. dispatch dated September 29, 1924, from Geneva, published in New York Herald, issue of September 30, under title of " Japan forces issue for Asia; league offers concessions.")

Conference at Versailles, eleven out of seventeen votes cast, supported the Japanese contention. However, since the fate of the Geneva Protocol remains in doubt, and recent events abroad give but little ground for confidence that the great powers of Europe will prove amenable to the guidance of the League when issues which they regard as vital are at stake, it is useless to do more than lay before Congress and the American people, the following suggestions for consideration:

1. The interests of all European States, China and Japan, in respect to emigration and immigration are diametrially opposed to those of the United States and all immigrant receiving nations. Their population is congested, conditions of life are hard, and the margin between mere sufficiency and actual want is narrow-too often not apparent. On the other hand, in the Americas, North and South, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, population is relatively sparse, standards of living are high, and life holds out to the industrious not mere achievement of existence, but substantial rewards and possibilities of indefinite progressive development; therefore, emigration affords to the European States, China and Japan, not only temporary relief for congestion of population upon the land, and indirectly, a source from which a portion of the home population may derive support from the earnings of their relatives, but also, it affords an outlet for elements which rapidly merge downward into the classes technically described as socially inadequate, or, otherwise undesirable. Under these circumstances, it is inevitable that the interests of these nations will be reflected by their governments in the formulation of foreign policies. Most, if not all, of these States are members of the League of Nations.

2. Since it is one of the fundamental purposes of the League of Nations to secure a codification and restatement of international law, it is conceivable that either through gradual interpretation of international law, as evolved from controversies laid before the Permanent Court of International Justice, or through agreement and approval of a code by the League itself, domestic questions may be so defined as to materially curtail the rights of independent States in the administration of their affairs. The League constitutes the frame-work, fragile though it be, of a super-state, and in the discussion of the Peace Protocol at Geneva during the last session of the League, it became apparent that there was a strong "tendency to regard many so-called domestic problems as of international concern, and thus subject to international discussion for the good of all." 96 That is to say, while the great European and Oriental powers have found a ready means of evading obligations imposed upon them by the Covenant of the League, nevertheless, the machinery is in being for a consolidation of power against any nation which may decline to submit a controversy to arbitration, or refer it to the Permanent Court of International Justice. While it is true that the Geneva Protocol has not as yet been ratified, the circumstance that Article V gives the right of appeal to the League, from a decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice solely upon questions held to be within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, is

96 Dispatch dated September 30, 1924, from Geneva, published in New York Herald, issue of October 1, under title of "Tokio accepts concessions by league on alien issue."