of such significance in relation to the problem we have had under consideration, that it cannot be disregarded.

3. The Permanent Court of International Justice, as now constituted, is an appendage of the League. It is inevitable, therefore, that it should reflect, in a measure, the political forces therein embodied. These forces, as have already been demonstrated, are not in accord with our ideas, or for that matter, our ideals. Therefore, before this agency, or the League itself, has occasion to interpret or modify the generally accepted rules of international law, respecting those questions which an independent sovereign state rightfully considers to be solely within its jurisdiction, we should consider, in concert with all nations within the sphere of the Monroe Doctrine, or elsewhere, when the interests of a body politic are in line with our own, all phases of the immigration problem, administrative and legal, in relation to the law of nations.

VI. CONCLUSION

The problem of Japanese exclusion has been reviewed in its varied aspects, not, from the standpoint that we are a mere aggregation of assorted peoples engaged in the economic exploitation of the area over which we have spread, but from the standpoint that this Republic represents an ideal, based upon the conception that we are a nation-a nation evolved from the genius of those races from which the vast majority of the people are derived. Therefore, it is obvious that it is upon the merging and assimination in blood, as in ideals, that the success of this democratic experiment must ultimately depend. It has been demonstrated by the testimony of eminent authorities that cultural_and_biological assimilation of a Mongolian people is impossible. The Japanese are not only a Mongolian people, but represent the highest development of civilization and power of the people of all Asia. The close connection between the settlers from the island empire, migrating to our shores, and the official representatives of the Japanese Government, has been laid before Congress by the Committee on Immigration of the House in the record of its investigations on the Pacific Coast in 1920. Consideration has been given to the efforts made by our government to arrive at a solution of the problem of Japanese immigration through diplomatic channels. Although our efforts in this direction extended to a virtual cession of sovereignty, the evasion of the spirit of our agreement with Japan on the part of its officials, rendered impossible a continuation of an agreement along these lines. For one hundred and thirty years, it has been the policy of our nation to restrict the privileges of citizenship to those elements of the world population embodied in our social structure since the foundation of the Republic. This is known to all the world, and it would seem that no government of any people has a right to allege a discrimination against its nationals, where the fact is incontestable that the policy upon which exclusion is based, was adopted almost a century before contact took place between our respective nations.

APPENDIX A

TEXTS OF NOTES EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF JAPAN AND OF THE UNITED STATES

1].

Honorable CHARLES E. HUGHES, Secretary of State.

JAPANESE EMBASSY, Washington, April 10, 1924.

SIR: In view of certain statements in the report of the House Committee on Immigration-Report 350, March 24, 1924-regarding the so-called gentlemen's agreement, some of which appear to be misleading, I may be allowed to state to you the purpose and substance of that agreement as it is understood and performed by my Government, which understanding and practice, are, I believe, in accord with those of your Government on this subject.

The gentlemen's agreement is an understanding with the United States Government by which the Japanese Government voluntarily undertook to adopt and enforce certain administrative measures designed to check the emigration to the United States of Japanese laborers. It is in no way intended as a restriction on the sovereign right of the United States to regulate its immigration. This is shown by the fact that the existing immigration act of 1917, for instance, is applied to Japanese as to other aliens.

It was because of the fact that discriminatory immigration legislation on the part of the United States would naturally wound the national susceptibilities of the Japanese people that, after thorough but most friendly and frank discussions between the two Governments, the gentlemen's agreement was made for the purpose of relieving the United States from the possible unfortunate necessity of offending the natural pride of a friendly nation.

The Japanese Government have most scrupulously and faithfully carried out the terms of the agreement, as a self-imposed restriction, and are fully prepared to continue to do so, as officially announced at the time of the conclusion of the present treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States. In return the Japanese Government confidently trust that the United States Government will recommend, if necessary, to the Congress to refrain from resorting to a measure that would seriously wound the proper susceptibilities of the Japanese nation.

One object of the gentlemen's agreement is, as is pointed out above, to stop the emigration to the United States of all Japanese laborers other than those excepted in the agreement, which is embodied in a series of long and detailed correspondence between the two Governments, publication of which is not believed to serve any good purpose, but the essential terms and practice of which may be summed up as follows:

(1) The Japanese Government will not issue passports good for the continental United States to laborers, skilled or unskilled, except those previously domiciled in the United States, or parents, wives, or children under 20 years of age of such persons. The form of the passport is so designed as to omit no safeguard against forgery, and its issuance is governed by various rules of detail in order to prevent fraud.

The Japanese Government accepted the definition of "laborer" as given in the United States Executive order of April 8, 1907.

(2) Passports are to be issued by a limited number of specially authorized officials only, under close supervision of the foreign office, which has the supreme control of the matter and is equipped with the necessary staff for the administration of it. These officials shall make thorough investigation when application for passports is made by students, merchants, tourists, or the like, to ascertain whether the applicant is likely to become a laborer, and shall enforce the requirement that such person shall either be supplied with adequate means to insure the permanence of his status as such or that surety be given therefor. In case of any doubt as to whether such applicant is or is not entitled to a passport, the matter shall be referred to the foreign office for decision. Passports to laborers previously domiciled in the United States will be issued only upon production of certificate from Japanese consular officers in the United 43

States, and passports to the parents, wives and children of such laborers will be issued only upon production of such consular certificate and of duly certified copy of official registry of members of such laborer's family in Japan. Utmost circumspection is exercised to guard against fraud.

(3) Issuance of passports to so-called "picture brides" has been stopped by the Japanese Government since March 1, 1920, although it has not been prohibited under the terms of the gentlemen's agreement.

(4) Monthly statistics covering incoming and outgoing Japanese are exchanged between the American and Japanese Governments.

(5) Although the gentlemen's agreement is not applicable to the Hawaiian Islands, measures restricting issuance of passports for the islands are being enforced in substantially the same manner as those for the continental United States.

(6) The Japanese Government are further exercising strict control over emigration of Japanese laborers to foreign territories contiguous to the United States in order to prevent their surreptitious entry into the United States.

A more condensed substance of these terms is published in the annual report of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration for 1908, 1909, and 1910, on pages 125-126, 121, and 124-125, respectively.

As I stated above, the Japanese Government have been most faithfully observing the gentlemen's agreement in every detail of its terms, which fact is, I believe, well known to the United States Government. I may be permitted, in this connection, to call your attention to the official figures published in the annual reports of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration, showing the increase or decrease of Japanese population in the continental United States by immigration and emigration. According to these reports, in the years 1908-1923, the total numbers of Japanese admitted to and departed from the continental United States were, respectively, 120,317 and 111,636. In other words, the excess of those admitted over those departed was in 15 years only 8,681; that is to say, the annual average of 578. It is important to note that in these 8,681 are included not only those who are covered by the terms of the gentlemen's agreement but all other classes of Japanese, such as merchants, students, tourists, Government officials, etc. These figures, collected by the United States immigration authorities, seem to me to show conclusively the successful operation of the gentlemen's agreement. Besides this there is, of course, the increase through birth of the Japanese population in the United States. This has nothing to do with either the gentlemen's agreement or the immigration laws.

I may add, in this connection, that if the proposition were whether it would not be desirable to amend or modify some of the terms of the agreement, the question would be different, and I personally believe that my Government would not be unwilling to discuss the matter with your Government, if such were its wishes.

Further, if I may speak frankly, at the risk of repealing what, under instructions from my Government, I have represented to you on former occasions, the mere fact that a certain clause, obviously aimed against Japanese as a nation, is introduced in the proposed immigration bill, in apparent disregard of the most sincere and friendly endeavors on the part of the Japanese Government to meet the needs and wishes of the American Government and people, is mortifying enough to the Government and people of Japan. They are, however, exercising the utmost forbearance at this moment, and in so doing they confidently rely upon the high sense of justice and fair play of the American Government and people which, when properly approached, will readily understand why no such discriminatory provision as above referred to should be allowed to become a part of the law of the land.

It is needless to add that it is not the intention of the Japanese Government to question the sovereign right of any country to regulate immigration to its own territories. Nor is it their desire to send their nationals to the countries where they are not wanted. On the contrary, the Japanese Government showed from the very beginning of this problem their perfect willingness to cooperate with the United States Government to effectively prevent by all honorable means the entrance into the United States of such Japanese nationals as are not desired by the United States, and have given ample evidences thereof, the facts of which are well known to your Government. To Japan the question is not one of expediency but of principle. To her the mere fact that a few hundreds or thousands of her nationals will or will not be admitted into the domains of other countries is immaterial, so long as no question of national

susceptibilities is involved. The important question is whether Japan as a nation is or is not entitled to the proper respect and consideration of other nations. In other words, the Japanese Government asks of the United States Government simply that proper consideration ordinarily given by one nation to the self-respect of another, which after all forms the basis of amicable international intercourse throughout the civilized world.

It is indeed impossible for any Government and people, and I believe it would be impossible also for your Government and for those of your people who had made a careful study of the subject, to understand why it should be necessary for your country to enact as the law of the land such a clause as section 12(b) of the House immigration bill.

As is justly pointed out in your letter of February 8, 1924, to the chairman of the House Committee on Immigration, it is idle to insist that the provision is not aimed at the Japanese, for the proposed measure (section 25) continues in force your existing legislation regulating Chinese immigration and the barred-zone provisions of your immigration laws which prohibit immigration from certain other portions of Asia-to say nothing about the public statements of the sponsors and supporters of that particular provision as to its aim. In other words, the manifest object of the said section 12(b) is to single out Japanese as a nation, stigmatizing them as unworthy and undesirable in the eyes of the American people. And yet the actual result of that particular provision, if the proposed bill becomes the law as intended, would be to exclude only 146 Japanese per year. On the other hand, the gentlemen's agreement is, in fact, accomplishing all that can be accomplished by the proposed Japanese exclusion clause except for those 146. It is indeed difficult to believe that it can be the intention of the people of your great country, who always stand for high principles of justice and fair play in the intercourse of nations, to resort, in order to secure the annual exclusion of 146 Japanese, to a measure which would not only seriously offend the just pride of a friendly nation, that has been always earnest and diligent in its efforts to preserve the friendship of your people, but would also seem to involve the question of the good faith and therefore of the honor of their Government, or at least of its executive branch.

Relying upon the confidence you have been good enough to show me at all times, I have stated, or rather repeated, all this to you very candidly and in a most friendly spirit, for I realize, as I believe you do, the grave consequences which the enactment of the measure retaining that particular provision would inevitably bring upon the otherwise happy and mutually advantageous relations between our two countries.

2]

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

His Excellency Mr, MASANAO HANIHARA,

Japanese Ambassador.

EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of April 10, in which, referring to the recent report of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives (Report No. 350, March 24, 1924) you took occasion to state your Government's understanding of the purport of the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" and your Government's practice and purposes with respect to emigration from Japan to this country. I am happy to take note of your statement concerning the substance of the so-called "gentlemen's agreement resulting from the correspondence which took place between our two, Governments in 1907-8, as modified by the additional undertaking of the Japanese Government with regard to the so-called picture brides" which became effective four years ago. Your statement of the essential points constituting the "gentlemen's agreement" corresponds with my own understanding of that arrangement.

66

Inasmuch as your note is directed toward clearing away any possible misapprehension as to the nature and purpose of the "gentlemen's agreement," I am taking occasion to communicate copies of it, as also of my present reply, to the chairmen of the appropriate committees of the two Houses of Congress. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration. CHARLES E. HUGHES.

H. Doc. 600, 68-2- -4

31

JAPANESE EMBASSY, Washington, April 17, 1924. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In reading the Congressional Record of April 14, 1924, I find that the letter I addressed to you on April 10, a copy of which you sent to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Immigration, was made a subject of discussion in the Senate. In the Record it is reported that some of the Senators expressed the opinion, which was apparently accepted by many other members of that body, that my letter contained "a veiled threat." As it appears from the Record that it is the phrase "grave consequences", which I used in the concluding part of my letter that some of the Senators construed as a veiled threat", I may be permitted to quote here full text of the sentence which contained the words in question:

66

66

Relying upon the confidence you have been good enough to show me at all times, I have stated or rather repeated all this to you very candidly and in a most friendly spirit, for I realize, as I believe you do, the grave consequences which the enactment of the measure retaining that particular provision would inevitably bring upon the otherwise happy and mutually advantageous relations between our two countries."

Frankly, I must say I am unable to understand how the two words, read in their context, could be construed as meaning anything like a threat. I simply tried to emphasize the most unfortunate and deplorable effect upon our traditional friendship which might result from the adoption of a particular clause in the proposed measure. It would seriously impair the good and mutually helpful relationship and disturb the spirit of mutual regard and confidence which characterizes our intercourse of the last three-quarters of a century and which was considerably strengthened by the Washington conference as well as by the most magnanimous sympathy shown by your people in the recent calamity in my country. Whereas there is otherwise every promise of hearty cooperation between Japan and the United States, which is believed to be essential to the welfare not only of themselves, but of the rest of the world, it would create, or at least tend to create, an unhappy atmosphere of ill feeling and misgiving over the relations between our two countries.

66

As the representative of my country, whose supreme duty is to maintain and if possible to draw still closer the bond of friendship so happily existing between our two peoples, I honestly believe such effects, as I have described, to be grave consequences". In using these words, which I did quite ingeniously, I had no thought of being in any way disagreeable or discourteous, and still less of conveying "a veiled threat". On the contrary, it was in a spirit of the most sincere respect, confidence, and candor that I used these words, which spirit I hope is manifest throughout my entire letter, for it was in that spirit that I wrote you. I never suspected that these words, used as I used them, would ever afford an occasion for such comment or interpretation as have been given them.

You know, I am sure, that nothing could be further from my thoughts than to give cause for offence to your people or their Government, and I have not the slightest doubt that you have no such misunderstanding as to either the spirit in which I wrote the letter in question to you or the meaning I intended for the phrase that I used therein.

In view, however, of what has transpired in the course of the public discussion in the Senate, I feel constrained to write you, as a matter of record, that I did not use the phrase in question in such a sense as has been attributed to it.

MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: I am gratified to receive your letter of the seventeenth instant with your frank and friendly explanation of the intent of your recent note in relation to the pending immigration bill. It gives me pleasure to be able to assure you that reading the words "grave consequences in the light of their context, and knowing the spirit of friendship and under