X. TREATMENT OF JAPANESE BY OTHER COUNTRIES

A number of Latin-American countries exclude Asiatic immigration. Costa Rica forbids the entrance of persons of the Asiatic race, particularly Arabs, Turks, Armenians and Syrians. Ecuador and Cuba forbid the entrance of Chinese. Guatemala prohibits Asiatic immigration generally. The Republic of Panama forbids the admission of Chinese, Syrians, Turks, and North-Africans of Turkish race. Paraguay and Uruguay likewise prohibit the admission of persons of the yellow or black races. Venezuela does not admit non-European immigrants, with the exception of yellow races coming from islands in the northern hemispherean apparent reference to Japan. As an international problem, Oriental immigration has been important-apart from the United States-only in the case of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand -dominions of the British Empire. Their policy toward the Japanese has to a certain extent been controlled by London.

THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND RACIAL EQUALITY

In 1896 the Prime Ministers of Australia decided to extend the anti-Chinese laws to the Japanese. But this action was reserved by the British Crown. At the Colonial Conference of 1897, Mr. Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for Colonies, said that the colonies should "bear in mind the traditions of the Empire, which makes no distinction in favor of, or against race or color." He suggested that Japanese exclusion could be effected by a dictation test, originally adopted by Natal in 1897, to be described later. In a dispatch of October 20, 1897, Mr. Chamberlain said that M. Kato, the Japanese Minister, would be satisfied with the dictation test as a method of excluding Japanese. This finally resulted in the adoption of the Immigration Act of 1901.

Emigration and Immigration: Legislation and Treaties, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1922, pp. 177-188; cf. also Immigration Situation in other Countries, Report of the Immigration Commission, (1910) Sen. Doc. 761, 61st Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 40.

Proceedings of a Conference between the Secretary of State for Colonies, and the Premiers of the Self-Governing Colonies, Chap. 8596, Vol. LIX (1897), pp. 13, 14. *Cf. p. 339.

In this year the Commonwealth of Australia passed a Post and Telegraph Act which forbade mail contracts being made with ships manned by colored labor. This brought forth criticism from the Secretary of State in a dispatch of April 17, 1903, in which he said, "His Majesty's Government have shown every sympathy with the efforts of the people of Australia to deal with the problem of immigration, but they have always objected, both as regards aliens and as regards British subjects, to specific legislative discrimination in favour of, or against race and colour." Following anti-Japanese outbreaks in British Columbia in 1897 a large number of anti-Japanese statutes were passed. These acts were protested against by the Japanese Ambassador who asked that the British authorities set them aside. Between 1897 and 1907 more than a dozen anti-Japanese bills of this nature were disallowed. On July 20, 1898, Mr. Chamberlain wrote the Earl of Aberdeen, Governor-General of Canada, urging the adoption of the dictation test, a request which he repeated in two other dispatches.3

TREATMENT OF INDIANS

The Indian being a British subject, his status in the Empire has been of even more serious concern. The subject of Indian immigration was discussed at the colonial conferences of 1897 and 1911. At the Imperial War Conference of 1918 a resolution was passed, stating that it was an "inherent function" of each of the Dominions to exercise complete control over the composition of its own population, but that British citizens should be admitted from one community to the other for purposes of pleasure, trade or education. And Indians permanently domiciled in other British communities should be allowed to bring in their wives and minor children. At the Imperial Conference of 1921 a further resolution was passed reiterating the power of each "com"Australian Mail Service," Cd. 1639, Vol. XLIV (1903), p. 4.

2Cf. "Return to Addresses of the House of Commons, dated the 12th and 18th December, 1907, for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Imperial Authorities" relating to the Anglo-Japanese Convention of 1894, etc. Sessional Paper 74b passim, 7-8 Edward VII, 1909.

"Sessional Paper 74b, pp. 8, 25, 28.

Extracts from Minutes of Proceedings, Imperial War Conference, 1918, Cd. 9177, pp. 195, 201.

munity" within the Commonwealth over immigration, but recognizing the "incongruity between the position of India as an equal member of the Empire and the existence of disabilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled in some parts of the Empire." The Conference was of the opinion that the rights of such Indians to citizenship should be recognized.1 South Africa was unable to accept this resolution. Following its passage, Mr. Sastri, a representative of the Indian government, visited the different Dominions with a view to removing existing disabilities upon Indians.2

In 1920-1923 a serious controversy arose between the white and Indian settlers in the British Crown Colony of Kenya, in which the former demanded a restriction of Indian immigration. In a statement issued in 1923 the British Colonial Office declared, "Only in extreme circumstances could His Majesty's Government contemplate legislation designed to exclude from a British Colony immigrants from any other part of the British Empire. Such racial discrimination in immigration regulations, whether specific or implied, would not be in accord with the general policy of His Majesty's Government . . ." But immigration would be restricted for economic reasons, in order to protect the African natives.3

CANADA

Immigration. On July 16, 1894, Great Britain and Japan signed a treaty of commerce and navigation which granted to the subjects of each party "full liberty to enter, travel and reside in any part of the dominions and possessions of the other contracting party." The treaty, however, did not apply to the Dominion of Canada and to the Australian and South African colonies, etc., except upon notice being given by the British Government within two years. The Canadian Government passed an Order

1Summary of Proceedings, Imperial Conference, 1921, Cmd. 1474, p. 8.

L. F. Rushbrook Williams, India in 1922-23, a statement prepared for presentation to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the 26th Sec. of the Government of India Act, pp. 7-11; Indian Year Book, 1923, p. 526.

The Gazette of India, Simla, August 18, 1923 (registered No. L. 848). Also "Indians in Kenya," Parl. Pap. (1923) Cmd. 1922.

"Treaty of July 16, 1894, Arts. I, XIX, British and Foreign State Papers, LXXXVI, p. 39.

in Council on August 6, 1895, stating that before adhering to the treaty it desired a "stipulation with respect to Japanese immigration similar to that inserted in the treaty between Japan and the United States, and they desire a further definition of the word 'labourers', by adding thereto the words 'including artisans. After negotiations, the Japanese Government in February, 1896, agreed to the accession of Canada upon these terms.2 But on July 29, 1896, the Canadian Government decided not to adhere to the treaty of 1894 because of certain difficulties in regard to the "most-favored-nation" clause. In August, an exchange of notes between Great Britain and Japan extended for one year the time in which the dominions might accede." Meanwhile, Newfoundland and Natal acceded to the treaty of 1894 without reservation, while Queensland acceded subject to the above reservation in regard to immigration."

On June 7, 1905, the Canadian Government finally declared that the obstacles to acceding to the treaty of 1894 had been removed. The British Government sent two telegrams, at least, inquiring if Canada wished to accede to the treaty of 1894, subject to the original stipulation in regard to immigration laws." But the Canadian Government appeared to believe that the immigration question had been solved by the Japanese restriction law and that Japan would not now agree to the original immigration proposal. On September 25, 1905, it passed an Order in Council stating that Canada would adhere to the Japanese treaty of 1894 "absolutely and without reserve."10 On January

Quoted by Prime Minister R. L. Borden, April 2, 1913, Debates, Canadian House of Commons, 1912-13, p. 6950. For the immigration provision in the United States treaty of 1894, see p. 289.

"Letter of February 20, 1896, Mr. Chamberlain to the Earl of Aberdeen, Governor-General of Canada, "Return to Addresses of the House of Commons, dated the 12th and 18th December, 1907, for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Imperial Authorities, and a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and any person or persons, and of all reports communicated to the Government in respect to the Anglo-Japanese convention regarding Canada; also relating to the immigration of Chinese and Japanese into Canada.' Sessional Paper No. 74b, 7-8 Edward VII, A. 1908, p. 138. 'Ibid., p. 139. $Ibid., p. 147. Ibid., p. 146. "Telegrams of July 14, and September 26, 1905, Sessional Paper 74b, pp. 146, 147. 8Cf. p. 287.

Ibid., p. 140.

'Report of Committee of Canadian Privy Council, September 26, 1905, Sessional Paper 74b, p. 148.

10 Ibid., p. 148.

31, 1906, the British and Japanese Governments signed a supplementary convention at Tokyo (ratified July 12), which extended the treaty of 1894 to Canada. The treaty itself-which gave Japanese "full liberty to enter, travel and reside” in Canadawas approved by the Canadian Parliament in an act of January 30, 1907.2

THE CANADIAN GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT

In January, 1907, there were about 7,500 Japanese in Canada, but in the following ten months 4,429 entered. This great increase- a large part of which came from Hawaii-finally led Rodolphe Lemieux, Canadian Minister of Labor, to go to Tokyo to bring about a diplomatic settlement. Upon the basis of these negotiations, a Canadian "Gentlemen's Agreement" was entered into. On December 23, 1907, T. Hayashi, the Japanese Foreign Minister, sent a letter to M. Lemieux, stating that although the existing treaty between Japan and Canada guaranteed to Japanese subjects full liberty to enter, the Japanese Government would not insist upon these rights, and that in view of recent occurrences in British Columbia, it would take "efficient measures to restrict emigration to Canada." Subsequent regulations provided that passports should be issued only to (1) previous Japanese residents of Canada and their wives and children, (2) domestic and agricultural laborers, the number of which should not exceed four hundred annually, (3) contract emigrants.

CANADA AND THE TREATY OF 1911

On April 3, 1911, a new treaty of commerce and navigation was entered into between the British Empire and Japan, Article I of which again provided, "The subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel, and reside 'British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 99, p. 139. 26-7 Ed. VII, Chap. 50. Report of the Deputy Minister of Labor, September 1, 1908, Sessional Paper No. 36, pp. 958, 959, Ed. VII, A. 1909. For the situation in Canada in regard to immigration from Japan, China, and India, see W. L. Mackenzie King, Report of the Royal Commission Appointed to inquire into the Methods by which Oriental Labourers have been induced to come to Canada, Ottawa, 1908.

'Sessional Paper No. 36, 1909, cited, pp. 99, 100. Cf. Sir W. Laurier, Canadian House of Commons Debates, April 2, 1913, p. 6971, 1912-1913; also Mr. Neil, ibid., April 15, 1924, No. 32, p. 1438.