an opportunity for personal examination of the applicant and could not form an opinion whether the person taking the oath was a responsible trustworthy individual. Section 1750 of the Revised Statutes of the United States contains provisions respecting the effect of oaths administered by consular officers of the United States and it might be useful to have the oaths taken in these cases come within the provisions of that section. It is accordingly suggested that the part of Section 6 (f), above quoted, should be amended to read as follows: "The application shall be signed by the immigrant in the presence of the consular officer and verified by the oath of such immigrant administered by the consul. Section 8 (c) provides in part as follows: "The petition shall be made under oath before any individual having power to administer oaths. In the Committee report of the House Committee the word "resident" in the first line of Section (b) is changed to "citizen" of the United States. It would therefore be possible for an American citizen residing abroad to execute an application before a foreign officer "having power to administer oaths. For the reasons above stated it is believed that the part of Section 8 (c), above quoted, should be amended to read as follows: "The petition shall be made under oath before any individual having power to administer oaths if executed in the United States, but if executed abroad the oath shall be administered by a consular officer of the United States." I am, my dear Mr. Johnson, Very sincerely yours, Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, CHARLES E. HUGHES. Chairman Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives. NO TREATIES DEALING WITH IMMIGRATION EXCEPT TREATY WITH CHINA Hon. JOHN E. RAKER, House of Representatives. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 21, 1924. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of February 9, 1924, in which you inquire whether the United States has entered into any immigration treaties in addition to the treaties concluded with China on November 17, 1880, and March 17, 1894. It appears that the United States has not concluded any immigration treaties other than those above mentioned. Provisions of possible interest to you, however, appear in Article V of the treaty of trade, consuls and emigration, concluded by the United States and China on July 28, 1868. As you are doubtless aware, the treaty of March 17, 1894, was terminated, effective December 7, 1904, on notice given by China. Your attention is also invited to the following provision contained in Article XVII of the treaty as to commercial relations, signed by the United States and China on October 8, 1903: "It is agreed between the high contracting parties hereto that all the provisions of the several treaties between the United States and China which were in force on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1900, are continued in full force and effect except in so far as they are modified by the present treaty or other treaties to which the United States is a party." In Article XV of the treaty signed by the United States and Siam on December 16, 1920, it is provided among other things that the immigration laws of the two counties shall not be affected by the stipulations of the treaty. A reservation with reference to the immigration act of 1907 was made by the Senate when it gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty of commerce and navigation signed by the United States and Japan on February 21, 1911. On the occasion of the signing of that convention the Japanese ambassador made the following declaration, which is printed on page 2718, Volume III, of the publication entitled "Treaties, conventions, international acts, protocols, and_agreements between the United States and other powers, 1910-1923": "In proceeding this day to the signature of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Japan and the United States, the undersigned, Japanese ambassador in Washington, duly authorized by his government, has the honor to declare that the Imperial Japanese Government are fully prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation and control which they have for the past three years exercised in regulation of the emigration of laborers to the United States. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES E. HUGHES. LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE FROTHINGHAM IN RE H. R. 7995 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, Chairman of Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, MY DEAR MR. JOHNSON: I beg to state that I have received a request from Representative Frothingham for a statement of my views respecting H. R. 7995 as reported by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, of which you are chairman. In compliance with his request I forwarded a letter to him on April 7, 1924, suggesting amendments to the bill. I inclose a copy of my letter. Representative Frothingham has asked me whether I would object if he had my letter printed in the Congressional Record. I have informed him that I have no objection to such action. I am, my dear Mr. Johnson, very sincerely yours, CHARLES E. HUGHES. APRIL 7, 1924. Hon. Louis A. FROTHINGHAM, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. FROTHINGHAM: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated April 4, 1924, in which you request the views of this department on H. R. 7995 as reported by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives. Since the consular officers under the jurisdiction of this department will participate to a large extent in the enforcement of the immigration act, I shall first comment upon the administrative features of the bill. There are two important questions which are presented in examining the bill from an administrative standpoint: 1. The requirement that an immigration certificate shall be issued by the consular officer as provided in section 2 (a) of H. R. 7995 instead of having a visé or certificate stamped or printed on the immigrant's application, as suggested on page 3 of my letter dated February 19, 1924, to Senator Colt, a copy of which I inclose. I have sent Representative Johnson a copy of my letter to Senator Colt. 2. The proposal that nonquota certificates shall be issued to immigrants from countries in the Western Hemisphere. With respect to the first question I desire to emphasize the statements made in my letter to Senator Colt respecting the large increase in the personnel that would be required to copy the information contained in the application into a certificate, the fact that the certificate contains no information in addition to that already contained in the application, and the increased cost and delay in the handling of immigrants at the consulates resulting from such a provision. With a view to submitting a concrete proposal for saving the expense involved in employing additional consular personnel and in avoiding the other difficulties mentioned I inclose a copy of H. R. 7995, on which suggested amendments have been indicated, which I believe will take care of this objection. With respect to the provisions of section 4 (c), which require immigrants from countries in the Western Hemisphere to obtain nonquota certificates, I desire to invite your attention to the fact that under existing law the quota provisions do not apply to immigrants from countries in the Western Hemisphere. In case nonquota certificates are to be issued to immigrants from the Western Hemisphere it will be necessary to increase very largely the staffs of the consular offices in this part of the world. This, of course, will involve a large increase in appropriation and the employment of personnel on short notice. It will be extremely difficult to obtain trained personnel to administer these provisions of the act and have them carry out the work contemplated in the proposed measure in case the act becomes effective on July 1, 1924. In any event it is believed that the suggestion that the certificate should be stamped or printed on the application instead of being a separate certificate applies equally to the nonquota certificate. It is observed that the immigration bill introduced as H. R. 7995 does not adopt the suggestions I made in my letter of February 8, 1924, to Representative Johnson that section 12 (b), which excludes Japanese immigrants should be omitted. I desire to invite your earnest consideration of the statements made in my letter of February 8 to Řepresentative Johnson, a copy of which is inclosed. I may add that as the base quota provided by section 10 ̊ (a) is now reduced to 100 the quota for Japan on the basis of the 1890 census would be 146. From the report of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization it appears that there is a misunderstanding respecting the working of the so-called gentlemen's agreement with Japan. It is stated in this report that the Japanese Government is given the right under this agreement to determine who shall come to the United States. The proposal that I have recommended provides for a double control of immigration from Japan. It contemplates the continuance of the gentlemen's agreement, whereby we have the cooperation of the Japanese Government in excluding laborers. It also provides for the check on immigration from Japan by means of the quota restriction. On account of our long frontier lines I am of the opinion that such a double control would be more effective to prevent the entry of undesirable aliens than an exclusion provision resulting in the loss of the cooperation of the Japanese Government. I am suggesting to Representative Johnson an additional provision in section 11 (b) which will deal appropriately with the territories which have been placed under mandates as a result of the war. Some other slight amendments to this section which appear desirable are indicated in the inclosed copy of a letter I am sending to Representative Johnson to-day. I am, my dear Mr. Frothingham, very sincerely yours, CHARLES E. HUGHES. LETTER TRANSMITTING NOTE OF AMBASSADOR HANIHARA TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, House of Representatives. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith for your consideration a copy of a note of April 10, in which, referring to the recent report of your committee (Report No. 350, March 24, 1924), the Japanese ambassador has taken occasion to state his Government's understanding of the purport of the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" and that Government's practice and purposes with respect to emigration from Japan to this country. I also inclose a copy of my reply of to-day's date stating that the ambassador's statement of the essential points constituting the gentlemen's agreement corresponds with my own understanding of that arrangement. I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, CHARLES E. HUGHES. NOTE OF JAPANESE AMBASSADOR JAPANESE EMBASSY, Washington, April 10, 1924. Hon. CHARLES E. HUGHES, Secretary of State. SIR: In view of certain statements in the report of the House Committee on Immigration-Report No. 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 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 had 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 reports 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 repeating 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 my 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 (sec. 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. 1 See Table B of the annual reports. |