The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better see these once more before they are inserted.

Mr. WATKINS. I would like to have also put in the record the statement dealing with the colloquy that took place at Geneva between the Japanese delegate and the Italian delegate about women coming from Japan to America. The Associated Press gives a dispatch under Geneva date line of April 12.

Mr. SABATH. Does the gentlemen know that such an interview actually took place. We frequently read reports in the newspapers purporting to be reports of the Associated Press and still on investigation it is found that people are not correctly quoted. Should we go to that extent in giving credence to articles appearing in the newspapers without knowing that they are statements that have been actually made.

Mr. VINCENT. As I understood the chairman's announcement to the committee, this is to be a separate pamphlet in the form of a hearing of this committee for the purpose of preservation of various letters from the State Department, showing the developments with respect to Japanese exclusion largely, and some other questions with respect to immigration. I doubt the advisability of adding to that.

The CHAIRMAN. I know of some matter given out by unofficial representatives here from other governments, but I doubt if they should go into this particular hearing. I know also of an unofficial note sent by the ambassador from Japan to a prominent Member of Congress. I doubt if that should go into this hearing.

Mr. RAKER. The treaty with the note referred to should go in the record as the treaty of 1911, commerce and navigation, between the United States and Japan, as found on pages 77 to 82, of volume 3 of Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, and Agreements between the United States and Other Powers, 1910-1913.

Mr. SABATH. And have the footnote embodied.

Mr. RAKER. That is part of it.

(The treaty referred to is, in part, as follows:)

ARTICLE I

The citizens or subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

They shall not be compelled, under any pretext whatever, to pay any charges or taxes other or higher than those that are or may be paid by native citizens or subjects.

The citizens or subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall receive, in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native citizens or subjects, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native citizens or subjects.

They shall, however, be exempt in the territories of the other from compulsory military service either on land or sea, in the regular forces, or in the national guard, or in the militia; from all contributions imposed in lieu of personal service, and from all forced loans or military exactions or contributions.

DECLARATION

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

The CHAIRMAN. Referring to certain letters from Secretary Davis to myself, and others from Secretary Hughes, I have the original letters on which the committee action was based. Some of these have been quoted from in our previous hearings. The text of these letters will be filed with the Clerk of the House by the clerk of this committee, as required under the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Box. I have had a great number of inquiries for that little statement I filed here in reference to selection of immigrants at the source. I would like to have inserted whatever merit there is in that part of it which deals with the regulation of immigration by treaty, but not the other part of it, but to put in especially that part dealing with the question of controlling the matter by unratified Executive agreements. If in this hearing, the American people may see that side of it.

Mr. VAILE. It is an important document.

The CHAIRMAN. I have this morning three or four letters asking for it. Without objection, it will be placed in the record.

(The document referred to is published hereafter as an appendix.) Mr. SABATH. Some time ago an article was written or statement prepared or a petition sent to the committee from the organization of which Mr. Stanton is the president, and also another article of the Churches of Christ of America, of which Mr. Gulick is secretary. I wonder if we should not insert also that side of the question or their contention?

Mr. BACON. These are official documents only that we have already put in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. If those go in, I have here a response by Mr. McClatchy, and if we start that, we are beginning again to go into evidence and getting statements pro and con. We now purpose to preserve these official letters and documents in the form of a hearing. Mr. RAKER. We cross-examined Doctor Gulick four years ago, when he claimed to represent a committee of a thousand and he had to admit before this committee that not hardly a man knew that his name was used in the Gulick propaganda.

(Thereupon, the committee adjourned to meet again at the call of the chairman.)

APPENDIX

SELECTION OF IMMIGRANTS AT THE SOURCE

[By John C. Box]

From time to time for many years there has been talk of selecting immigrants at the source. If it were possible to adopt such a plan and make it work, and if its adoption and application did not involve the sacrifice of important principles and vital practical interests, it would be a good thing. Manifestly, though, this is like saying that if it were possible for government to be maintained without levying taxes, that would be a good thing.

The writer has been surprised to hear intelligent business men and others, who are supposed to have reached conclusions based on information and consideration, criticize their Government for not having adopted a proposition, which according to the easy words of the critics, would be so "humane," "scientific," "simple,' "practicable," and "easy" that any legislator could provide for it. Many people who would not be expected to adopt or indorse any important business or legislative suggestion without having thought out what was involved in it, have urged the adoption of this measure, and, when questioned, have frankly confessed that they have not inquired whether the Government has considered such a plan and found it unworkable, or whether other governments would permit us to maintain immigration inspecting stations and forces in their countries, or whether such a plan entails consequences which we must avoid. Such questions as whether it could be done at all, whether it would work, and whether foreign governments would permit it, are passed over as of no importance, while people speak and print their criticisms of the Government of the United States for not having done this thing which they treat as so simple and easy. Unfortunately, those who make and administer law have to deal with facts as they are. Lecturers, speakers, newspaper and magazine writers, and others who discuss public questions, can ignore or assume facts, as may be convenient, but facts bristle in the paths of those who have to do things instead of talking about them.

This proposal is not a new one; it has been brought forward and received thorough consideration before. Decades ago our Government even went so far as to try to find a way for the adoption of the plan, though the writer has no doubt that this was done with foresight that the adoption and working of the proposition was improbable. In 1910 Senator Lodge, now chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate; Senator Dillingham, long a leading member of the Senate Committee on Immigration; Hon. John L. Burnett, afterwards chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization; Senator McLaurin; Prof. Jeremiah W. Jenks, long an immigration expert, as members of the National Immigration Commission, said of this proposition: "This plan was so strongly urged that this Government a few years ago made official inquiry respecting the probable attitude of European governments toward it. At that time one or two governments" (among several scores whose consent was necessary) "expressed a willingness to permit such an inspection by American officials; others made indefinite replies to the inquiry, while others were positively opposed. No attempt was thereafter made to further the plan. After an investigation by the commission of the situation at all the principal ports of Europe it is clear that even were its consummation possible, such an arrangement would not materially improve conditions." The reader will note that the suggestion for the adoption of such a plan had been strongly urged some years before these gentlemen investigated and reported their findings, which they did more than a decade ago.

The suggestion involves, first, grave, and probably insuperable, diplomatic difficulties; it is unworkable; while its adoption and use, if possible, would involve consequences which the country must not accept. The reader's attention is invited, first, to the diplomatic difficulties which have heretofore barred the way to the adoption of the plan. The passage quoted above shows that these are not new and that they have heretofore been too serious to be overcome. In a statement published during the fourth session of the Sixty-seventh Congress, First Assistant Secretary of Labor Henning, who is in charge of immigration matters and acquainted with the facts, as contra-distinguished from the theories, concerning it, published a statement in which he is quoted as saying: "Foreign countries steadfastly have refused to allow the United States to examine immigrants at ports of departure on the ground that the exercise of that function by any nation would be an invasion of sovereignty. Attempts to extend these powers to include direct action in examination and selection of immigrants who

have been consistently objected to by France, Italy, and other foreign governments." Let the reader note and consider Assistant Secretary Henning's use of the words "steadfastly and "consistently' " in connection with the words of Senators Lodge and Dillingham, Hon. John L. Burnett, and others, some 12 years earlier.

Since the above was written the Hon. Edward J. Henning, Assistant Secretary of Labor, who has actual charge of the administration of the immigration laws, in an address before the twenty-sixth annual convention of the American Mining Congress, published in the Mining Congress Journal of October, 1923, said on this subject:

"The countries of Europe refuse flatly to let us actually examine aliens in their countries. You read the sob stories of hardships. Every mail brings us many letters from good men and women all over the country abusing us like beggars and saying, 'Why do you tolerate this awful thing of people leaving their homes and coming to Ellis Island and being turned back? Oh, what brutes you are!' They say 'Why do you not go to Europe and pass on them before they come?' To date, there isn't a country in Europe that would permit that for one moment. The proposition of examination abroad has often been before Congress. Always there was objection from the countries involved. They come and say to us, 'You are invading the sovereignty of our country by proposing to come over there and saying who may leave our country.' They intend to do the selecting themselves. The gentle art of 'unloading' is as old as Europe, and they are not seeking to give us the flower of their manhood and womanhood."

The House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization has considered the suggestion, and, doubtless in deference to the repetition of the proposition, in its report to the Sixty-seventh Congress, No. 710, accompanying House Joint Resolution No. 268, said:

66 OBJECTIONS TO EXAMINATIONS OVERSEAS

"The hearings of the committee have covered all phases of the subject. Considerable time was spent in attempting to develop a plan of examination of immigrants at ports of embarkation, but these efforts were made with a letter from the Secretary of State."

Some Members of the House and Senate had introduced bills adopting this suggestion. That gave rise to the writing of the following letter to Secretary of State Hughes by the Italian ambassador:

"MEMORANDUM FROM ROYAL ITALIAN EMBASSY

"The royal chargé d'affaires for Italy presents his compliments to his excellency the Secretary of State and has the honor of bringing the following to his attention: "During the special session of this Congress there have been presented bills— one in the Senate and two in the House of Representatives-by the terms of which, among other provisions, it is proposed to have United States medical and immigration officials in the United States consulates, or elsewhere, to exercise functions not purely informative in character but of direct action in the medical examination and definite selection of the emigrants, connecting such functions with that of the granting of the consular visé to passports.

"Such action, even if exercised in the interior of the consulate offices, would go beyond the usual consular functions recognized by treaties, and pertaining, as it does, to interests connected with emigration whose regulation is reserved to the sovereignty of each State, could not be considered as conforming with either treaty or law on emigration in Italy.

"It is true that this is a matter relating merely to proposed legislation; nevertheless, the intense desire to avoid later any possible motive for discussion between our two countries inspires the friendly intention of the present recommendation, especially since it has been stated to the Secretary of State that the Italian Government would be most willing to meet the wishes of the United States in conforming the action of its emigratory services so as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the American regulations if both can be made the subject of a specific agreement beforehand, as already suggested.

"The embassy would certainly have hesitated to approach the Secretary of State on this matter were it not that the Secretary of Labor, in recommending the above-quoted bills, according to public press statements, had not made it

97711-24-SER 4-A-3

felt that the measures before Congress probably expressed views not contradictory to those entertained by the United States Government, whereupon any assurance on the subject, if possible, on the part of the Department of State, so that in time it be forwarded to the Italian Government, would be highly appreciated by the Italian Embassy.-Washington, D. C., September 15, 1921."

The letter of the Secretary of State follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 28, 1921. MY DEAR MR. JOHNSON: I inclose copy of a memorandum of September 15 from the chargé d'affaires ad interim of Italy, in which he discusses certain bills which have been introduced in Congress providing for the examination in American consulates of aliens desiring to emigrate to the United States.

Informal objections to the proposed legislation have been made by representatives of other countries, and I shall endeavor to keep you informed as to any further objections which may be received by this department from representatives of interested foreign countries.

As this matter touches upon the foreign relations of the United States, I would ask that you be so kind as to keep me informed concerning the progress of the proposed legislation.

I am, my dear Mr. Johnson, sincerely yours,

CHARLES E. HUGHES.

In the second paragraph of his letter to Chairman Johnson, Secretary Hughes informs him that "informal objections to the proposed legislation have been made by other countries." It must not be understood that Italy is the only country making these objections. The country which does not make them is an exception. On June 2, 1922, as will appear in the Congressional Record of that date, the writer, while presenting this situation to the House of Representatives, was interrupted by Hon. Albert Johnson, long a member, and now chairman, of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, who then remarked:

"I would suggest that he (the writer, who then had the floor), do not omit from his present discussion the fact that other governments are at this time making protests quite similar to the one that he has just read from the Italian Government, against proposed provisions in the so-called shipping bill, clauses of which would authorize investigation overseas. I am told that these protests against the new legislation, now being considered before another committee, are much stronger than have been made heretofore."

During the same discussion the writer was again interrupted by Mr. Connally of Texas, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who said:

"Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will permit, in that connection I would say that, as I recall now our hearings on the passport control bill, it developed that practically all of the foreign countries objected to the setting up in their countries of agencies for the investigation and examination of immigrants."

These official statements by a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, by the chairman of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, the National Immigration Commission, the Assistant Secretary of Labor in charge of immigration administration, and by Mr. Hughes, the present able and experienced Secretary of State, all showing that this suggestion is not a new one, and that the proposition has again and again met insuperable diplomatic difficulties, ought to remind writers and speakers interested in helping the country solve its great immigration problem that they are doing a vain and hurtful thing in inconsiderately leading public thought into a blind alley.

Students of the problem will probably inquire by what right and for what reason foreign governments prevent our doing this, if we want to do it. First, let us understand that the maintenance of embassies and consulates in foreign countries is entirely a matter of diplomatic usage and treaty agreements. We can not maintain an ambassador, a minister, or a consul, or any kind of an official representative in any foreign country against its will. Diplomatic usage sanctions the maintenance of embassies and consulates which promote ends desired by both parties to the agreement. Their establishment and activities are wholly subject to treaty agreement and the consent of foreign powers. Their withdrawal may be demanded and enforced by such power at any time.

The scopes of the activities of consuls, ministers, and ambassadors are fixed or limited by usage and agreement and can be extended only by consent. The selection of would-be immigrants is not one of the usual functions performed by consuls or diplomatic representatives. The treaties under which such repre