this legislation as an indication of unfriendliness toward their people. ... ... we feel that the Imperial Government has been misled in its interpretation of the spirit and object of the legislation in question. It is not political. It is not part of any general national policy which would indicate unfriendliness or any purpose inconsistent with the best and most cordial understanding between the two nations. It is wholly economic. It is based upon the particular economic conditions existing in California as interpreted by her own people, who wish to avoid certain conditions of competition in their agricultural activities. your note calls attention to certain provisions of the California law which you conceive to be inconsistent with and to violate existing treaty stipulations between the two countries, and thus to threaten to impair vested rights of property. The law, however, in terms purports to respect and preserve all rights under existing treaties. Such is its declared intent. But in case it should be alleged that the law had in its operation failed to accomplish that intent, your Government is no doubt advised that by the Constitution of the United States the stipulations of treaties made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, and that they are expressly declared to be binding upon State and Federal courts alike to the end that they may be judicially enforced in all cases. For this purpose the courts, Federal and State, are open to all persons who may feel themselves to have been deprived of treaty rights and guarantees; and in this respect the alien enjoys under our laws a privilege which to one of our own citizens may not be in all cases available, namely, the privilege of suing in 1 The full text of this note dated May 9, 1913, may be found in American-Japanese Discussions Relating to Land Tenure Law of California, Department of State, p. 3. the Federal courts. In precisely the same way, our citizens resort and are obliged to resort to the courts for the enforcement of their constitutional and legal rights. Article XIV of the treaty, to which your excellency refers, appears to relate solely to the rights of commerce and navigation. These the California statute does not appear to be designed in any way to affect. The authors of the law seem to have been careful to guard against any invasion of contractual rights. Your excellency raises, very naturally and properly, the question how the case would stand should explicit treaties between the two countries expire or cease to be in force while, nevertheless, relations of entire amity and good will still continue to exist between them. I can only reply that in such circumstances the Government of the United States would always deem it its pleasure, as well as a manifest dictate of its cordial friendship for Japan and the Japanese people, to safeguard the rights of trade and intercourse between the two peoples now secured by treaty. I need not assure your excellency that this Government will co-operate with the Imperial Government in every possible way to maintain with the utmost cordiality the understandings which bind the two nations together in honor and in interest. Its obligations of friendship would not be lessened or performed in niggardly fashion in any circumstances. It values too highly the regard of Japan and her co-operation in the great peaceful tasks of the modern world to jeopard them in any way; and I feel that I can assure your excellency that there is no reason to feel that its policy in such matters would be embarrassed or interfered with by the legislation of any State of the Union. The economic policy of a single State with regard to a single kind of property can not turn aside these strong and abiding currents of generous and profitable intercourse and good feeling. . 7. Extract from a Communication of Secretary Bryan to the Japanese Ambassador at Washington. July 16, 1913 (American-Japanese Discussions Relating to Land Tenure Law of California, Department of State, p. 15) In my note of the 19th of May I did not omit to point out that the California statute, far from being indicative of any national discriminatory policy, was not even to be regarded as an expression of political or racial antagonism, but was rather to be considered as the emanation of economic conditions, which were in this instance of a local character. I can not help feeling that in the representations submitted by your excellency1 the supposition of racial discrimination occupies a position of prominence which it does not deserve and which is not justified by the facts. I am quite prepared to admit that all differences between human beings-differences in appearance, differences in manner, differences in speech, differences in opinion, differences in nationality, and differences in race- may provoke a certain antagonism; but none of these differences is likely to produce serious results unless it becomes associated with an interest of a contentious nature, such as that of the struggle for existence. In this economic contest the division no doubt may often take place on racial lines, but it does so not because of racial antagonism but because of the circumstance that the traditions and habits of different races have developed or diminished competitive efficiency. The contest is economic; the racial difference is a mere mark or incident of the economic struggle. 1 The representations here referred to consist of a note by the Japanese ambassador dated June 4, 1913, published in Department of State, American-Japanese Discussions Relating to Land Tenure Law of California, p. 6. All nations recognize this fact, and it is for this reason that each nation is permitted to determine who shall and who shall not be permitted to settle in its dominions and become a part of the body politic, to the end that it may preserve internal peace and avoid the contentions which are so likely to disturb the harmony of international relations. That the Imperial Government of Japan accept and act upon these principles precise proof is not wanting. ... In connection with the question of land ownership your excellency refers to the subject of naturalization in the United States, . . . Your excellency very properly acknowledges the fact that the question of naturalization "is a political problem of national and not international concern." I gladly assume that your excellency, in saying that Japanese subjects are "as a nation" denied the right to acquire American nationality, has not intended to convey the impression that the naturalization laws of the United States make any distinction that may be specifically considered as national either in terms or in effect. Nor would it appear, if the legal provisions in question were historically examined, that the Government and people of Japan have any ground to feel that any discrimination against them was intended. RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH 8. Address of the President to the Congress. (Congressional Record, L, 3803) Gentlemen of the Congress, it is clearly my duty to lay before you, very fully and without reservation, the facts concerning our present relations with the Republic of Mexico. The deplorable posture of affairs in Mexico I need not describe, but I deem it my duty to speak very frankly of what this Government has done and should seek to do in fulfillment of its obligation to Mexico herself, as a friend and neighbor, and to American citizens whose lives and vital interests are daily affected by the distressing conditions which now obtain beyond our southern border. Those conditions touch us very nearly. Not merely because they lie at our very doors. That of course makes us more vividly and more constantly conscious of them, and every instinct of neighborly interest and sympathy is aroused and quickened by them; but that is only one element in the determination of our duty. We are glad to call ourselves the friends of Mexico, and we shall, I hope, have many an occasion, in happier times as well as in these days of trouble and confusion, to show that our friendship is genuine and disinterested, capable of sacrifice and every generous manifestation. The peace, prosperity, and contentment of Mexico mean more, much more, to us than merely an enlarged field for our commerce and enterprise. They mean an enlargement of the field of self-government and the realization of the hopes and rights of a nation with whose best aspirations, so long suppressed and disappointed, we deeply sympathize. We shall yet prove to the Mexican people that we know how to serve them without first thinking how we shall serve ourselves. But we are not the only friends of Mexico. The whole world desires her peace and progress; and the whole world is interested as never before. Mexico lies at last where all the world looks on. Central America is about to be touched by the great routes of the world's trade and intercourse running free from ocean to ocean at the Isthmus. The future has much in store for Mexico, as for all the States of |