in Latin American countries. This was, however, as much of the policy of his government as he cared to forecast at that time.

THE FAR EAST

A week after his statement respecting his attitude toward Latin America the President was impelled to issue another statement, this time in response to a request by a group of American bankers that he signify the position of the administration upon their participation in a Six Power loan to China.1 (Statement No. 2.) Representatives of the banking houses concerned had called upon Secretary Bryan on March ninth and had stated explicitly that they would not participate unless expressly requested to do so by the administration.2 President Wilson declined to make such a request, disapproving of the conditions of the loan and consequently of the implied imposition of a responsibility upon the government of the United States. It might lead to an interference in the political affairs of China. Responsibility for such a possible result was "obnoxious to the principles upon which the government of our people rests." But the American people did wish to aid the people of China, particularly in view of their

1 The participants were bankers of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States.

2 An American group of bankers, consisting of J. P. Morgan & Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co., First National Bank of New York City and National City Bank, had been formed in the spring of 1909, upon the request of the Department of State that a financial backing be given for participation by the United States in the railway loan agreement then under negotiation between China and groups of British, French and German bankers.

1

recent awakening. Here also the United States was interested in trade relationships but, said he, "our interests are those of the open door-a door of friendship and mutual advantage. This is the only door we care to enter."

"2

Within two weeks of taking office, President Wilson had made public the basic principles upon which he was to conduct relations of the United States with less powerful nations. Detailed programs developed in due time. The principles remained the same. He next was faced with the necessity of dealing with a diplomatic question involving one of the Great Powers and touching upon matters within the boundaries of the United States.

JAPANESE IN AMERICA

On April 4, 1913, the Japanese ambassador at Washington called the attention of the Department of State to legislation pending in the California state legislature, the purport of which, he averred, was discrimination against the Japanese in the owning or leasing of lands. The proposed act did discriminate against aliens not eligible to citizenship, and in fact was designed to strike at the ownership of land by Japanese subjects.

President Wilson attempted to prevent the development of a controversy with Japan by appealing to the California

1 Revolution in China culminated on February 12, 1912. The Republican government of China was recognized by the United States on May 2, 1913.

2 The official announcement of the withdrawal of the American group, issued March 19, 1913, may be found in Commercial and Financial Chronicle, XCVI, 825.

authorities, if they thought action necessary at all, to exclude from the privileges of land ownership all aliens who had not declared their intention to become citizens. (Statement No. 3.) This was of course not the object of the proposed legislation nor would it meet the Japanese charge of discrimination. But it was state legislation that the President thought should be such as could not be "fairly challenged or called in question." His purpose was plainly to put the burden and responsibility upon the national government.

A week following this appeal the President requested Secretary Bryan to go to California for a conference with the legislature and Governor Johnson. The mission was not a success. On May third the legislature passed the bill without material change and Governor Johnson signed it on the nineteenth.1

In the interim between passage and the governor's action the Japanese ambassador, on May ninth, laid an urgent and explicit protest" before the Department of State, and this led the administration to dispatch a second appeal to Governor Johnson in which national responsibility was again stressed and delay was requested that an attempt might be made to settle the matter through diplomatic channels. (Statement No. 5.) Governor Johnson's action made such effort impossible, but on the day of the signature the Department of State

1 California Statutes, (1913) p. 206. The law may be found also in J. H. Deering, General Laws of California (1916 ed.), Act 129, p. 40, and in American Journal of International Law, VIII, Supplement, 177.

made formal reply to the Japanese protest.1 (Statement No. 6.)

In stating its position the government of the United States admitted that beyond protesting it could do nothing to prevent legislative action by one of the states. It was pointed out, however, that the legislation in question was not political in the sense that it was part of any general national policy inconsistent with complete friendship between the two nations. It was asserted that it was wholly economic. The people of the State of California desired "to avoid certain conditions of competition in their agricultural activities."

Secretary Bryan took pains to assure the Japanese government that his government desired to further the understanding that bound the nations together. Besides the attempts to induce California to modify its legislation there was other evidence of this desire. The Japanese government, in common with the other governments of the world, had before it at this time a plan for world peace laid before the diplomats at Washington by Secretary Bryan April 24, 1913.2 (Statement No. 4.)

The Japanese ambassador informed the Secretary of State on June second that Japan accepted the plan “in principle." Moreover, toward the close of the month the

1 Diplomatic exchanges upon this subject may be found in Department of State, American-Japanese Discussions Relating to Land Tenure Law of California, 3-28.

2 It was announced by Secretary Bryan on May 30, 1913, that favourable responses had been received from Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, Peru and Norway. An arbitration treaty with Great Britain was renewed on May 31, 1913.

general arbitration treaty between the two countries was renewed.1 On June fourth, however, Japan presented a second formal note of protest against the California land legislation, to which Secretary Bryan replied on July sixteenth. (Statement No. 7.) It was a reiteration and elaboration of the first reply. No more than in the first reply did the California attitude receive clear treatment. The Department of State put its emphasis upon the purpose and attitude of the national administration. It insisted that there was no question of discrimination on account of race, and also that the right to determine "who shall and who shall not be permitted to settle in its dominions and become a part of the body politic" must necessarily be left to the municipal law of each nation to "avoid the contentions which are so likely to disturb the harmony of international relations." Japan was naturally not satisfied. A third protest was made on August twenty-sixth and a fourth late in September.2

The policy of the Wilson administration embodied two distinctions, the one drawn between economic and political legislation, the other between action by a state and the expression of the good will of the nation. Moreover, it maintained that there was no violation of a treaty right. If assurance of harmony of interests represented the contribution of the administration in this crisis, it was in

This treaty of May 5, 1908, was one of a series of arbitration treaties negotiated during the secretaryship of Elihu Root. It would have expired August 24, 1913. The renewal was ratified by the Senate February 21, 1914, and ratifications exchanged May 23, 1914. 2 For subsequent discussion of Japanese protests see American Journal of International Law, VIII, 571.

L