(310) 782-4987

Call Us Now

Which of These Statements Is True about the Gentlemen`s Agreement of 1907

Another note from the Japanese government telling our government that the terms of the first note could be published and that it would not consider any law offensive that provided for the following: This law was the subject of extensive diplomatic correspondence with the Japanese government in 1913 and 1914. The first note from the Japanese Embassy was dated May 9, 1913, to which the Ministry responded on May 19, 83. On June 4, the Embassy of Japan submitted a note with a warrant officer`s brief in support of its position, and the Ministry responded on July 16 with a note and a warrant officer`s brief. A response from the Embassy of Japan was received on 26 August. in the form of a copy of a telegram the embassy received from the Secretary of State in Tokyo.85 In this correspondence, the Japanese claim that they are discriminated against because the law, as enacted by the California legislature, makes a political distinction to deprive them of property rights, and because it also puts them at a disadvantage compared to other foreigners. The regulation is described as having no historical parallel in discriminating against subjects of a friendly power compared to nationals of other countries, some of which have no contractual relationship with the United States. The State Department based its responses on the wording of the 1911 treaty.86 A few years ago, Ambassador Guthrie90 filed a carefully prepared brief91 with the State Department in support of the unconstitutionality of California`s 1913 law. Just recently, a case surfaced in federal courts in California that definitively raises this issue. The case is listed in the Southern Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Robert H. Strahan, appellant, against Howard B. Hanvey and Virginia C. Hanvey, defendants.

The case was heard by a district court and the constitutionality of the 1913 California legislature was upheld in a pro forma statement from the district judge. As far as I know, an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court has been refined, and the case appears on the note as 645.92 On September 13. In March 1920, the Secretary of State in Tokyo informed me that, according to a report he had received from the Consul General of Japan in San Francisco, there was a foot movement in California to legislate against the Japanese through a direct initiative in the following elections in November. I reported this conversation to the ministry by telegram on March 16, 68 [page 324] It seems that the department had no further information on the subject until March 23, when the Japanese ambassador submitted a memorandum on the subject.69 ⦠In 1909, under certain bills introduced in the California legislature, which were considered anti-Japanese, were designed to prevent all foreigners from owning real estate in California. Commenting on this bill, Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, said, “To the extent that it is a matter of owning or leasing land for agricultural purposes, as far as Japan is concerned, it is clearly up to [page 341] the State of California to pass its own laws, and it is gratifying to note that the purpose of this bill is to generalize those laws with respect to foreigners. The above considerations have led me to the general conclusion, which I respectfully adopt. I would like to ask the Commission whether it is prepared to look to the Commission to see if the Commission will be able to take the necessary measures to combat unemployment and unemployment. Having reached this general conclusion, I now make the following recommendations, on which Ambassador Shidehara and I have agreed following our lengthy conferences, for your comments and criticisms and as a possible basis for formal negotiations with the Government of Japan. The purpose of the treaty`s provisions is to prevent, to the extent possible, discrimination between aliens, as applied in California law and now under serious threat in several other states.

Ambassador Shidehara urged a most-favoured-nation clause that would give Japanese foreigners the rights that most-favored-nation citizens or subjects could enjoy through legislation or treaty provisions. He presented me with the draft treaty prepared by Ambassador Chinda in 1913 for consideration. I could not agree with this proposal because I thought it would be unwise to include in this complementary treaty all the rights that could be conferred on foreigners from other countries by special legislation or by treaties. I have endeavoured to formulate this Convention in such a way that it corresponds directly and definitively to the question raised by California law as it came into force, or as proposed with respect to vocation or profession. The treaty, if executed, I believe, would nullify much of California`s law, but it would probably not affect the part dealing with land-owned corporations. However, it would allow individual Japanese foreigners to own land in California as long as other foreigners enjoy the privilege. I confess that I have found unexpected difficulties in the formulation of the Treaty in order to express precisely its limited intention. My agreement with Ambassador Shidehara is not limited to the form submitted, and I could respectfully ask you for the most careful and critical consideration of the wording of the submitted draft. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for the continued support I have received from Mr Neville of our consular service, whose in-depth knowledge of the results of previous negotiations has been invaluable; Mr. MacMurray, Head of the Far East Department; Mr. Nielsen, lawyer at the Department of Foreign Affairs; by Mr.

McClatchy of California for valuable data that helped me a lot in my conversations with Ambassador Shidehara and my friends, the Honorable Thomas J. OâBrien, the former ambassador to Japan, and the Honorable [page 349] Paul S. Reinsch, the former minister in China, who were very generous in useful proposals. One. It was an agreement between Japan and the United States that limited the migration of people from Japan to the United States. b. It is an agreement between China and the United States that has allowed the migration of people from China to the United States. It was an agreement between Japan and Russia that they would end their military differences over China and Korea.

It was an agreement under which Latin American countries would limit immigration to the United States in exchange for political autonomy. None Of the legislation proposed in 1909 was not passed, but in 1911, Senator Sanford of the California Senate introduced a bill that provided that foreigners who are not entitled to citizenship should be deprived of the right to land ownership. Senator Larkins also introduced a bill that deprives all foreigners of the right to own land. The experience of the past decade raises the question of whether Japanese immigrants and their descendants can one day fully integrate into our social and political life. Attached is and marked with the 1920 Census counts, which the Census Bureau kindly prepared in advance for this report. These figures show that currently the total Japanese population in the Pacific Coastal States is 91,332; of these, 70,196 are located in California; 4,022 are in Oregon; 17,114 are in Washington. They are largely grouped in specific centres; they are very well organized among themselves and have little contact with other people in the communities in which they live. They strongly adhere to their racial, religious and national ideals. In general, they still show little, if any, tendency towards assimilation. Our Western states, where the Japanese population is largely concentrated, will have the difficult task of making these foreign communities an integral part of their social and political life. In my opinion, this will be an impossible task if newcomers are allowed to continue in any number.

The situation requires total exclusion, and I think the Japanese Government appreciates that. As a result of my experience in Japan and my lectures with Baron Shidehara, I am convinced that the Japanese government is willing in good faith to comply with our wishes regarding the complete exclusion of migrant workers, provided that we can avoid the appearance of racial discrimination, while asking for a method to combat discrimination against Japanese foreigners residing in California [page 337]. The alleged discrimination is based on the two California executive orders of 1913 and 1920. . .