acutely before the United States. This ordinance was passed

in May, 1905, in pursuance of the power granted under Art.X., Sec.1662 of the Political Code, and read as follows: "Resolved that principals (of schools) are hereby directed to send all Japanese, Chinese and Korean children to the Oriental School, on and after Monday, October 15, 1906." Many reasons were given in justification of this measure. One writer claimed that the Oriental was contributing nothing towards the support of the school, he says: "The Cailfornians a re taxing themselves to educate foreigners whose education they are taught to believe, not only is of no interest to them but is even a positive detriment, since by the rise of the Japanese industry and commerce, California may be worsted in their own markets."l Another writer says the

objection to the Japanese attending the same school, is that
the Jap boy of 18 or 20 begins with the American child in
the first grade and the association is not desirable.2 In
commenting on the general undesirability of the Japanese the
same writer says: "In business he is unscrupulous and will
enter into no trade agreement, he will respect no standard of
price, he is a law unto himself, and his only rule is to get
the business at any and every cost. 3

1. John S.Bennett, Japanese in Calif. Chant 26:186
Sidney G.P.Coryn, Ann. Am. Acad. 34:262 (1909)
Ibid., p.263

2.

3.

Ann.Am.

On the passage of the school board ordinance, a storm

of protest went up fran Japan that rights guaranteed by the treaty of 1894, were abrogated. Although this controversy

dence and travel

-

has been settled for the time being, a consideration of the treaty then in force will not be out of place at this time. This treaty of Commerce and Navigation was negotiated in 1894. Article I reads: "The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel or reside, in any part of the territory of the other contracting party. In whatever relates to rights of resithe citizens or subjects of each contracting party shall enjoy in the territories of the other the same privileges, liberties and rights, and shall be subject to no higher imposts or charges in these respects than native citizens or subjects or citizens of the most favored Were this all that were said in regard to the privileges and immunities in the treaty, Japan would undoubtedly have a clear case against the United States because the "most favored nation" clause would place her on an equal footing with all foreigners and we could not have discriminated against her in the way we did. But we find in the last clause of Article II the following: "It is, moreover understood, the stipulations contained in this and the preceding

nation."