The Dominion SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1913. NATIONAL PRIDE AND ALIEN LAWS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1770, 7 June 1913, Page 4

The Dominion SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1913. NATIONAL PRIDE AND ALIEN LAWS.

Many careful observers of recent developments in international politics are of opinion that a trial of strength must come, sooner or later, between Japan and the. United States. Tho situation which has arisen over the Galifornian antiJapanese legislation is certainly disquieting, and though it would be an exaggeration at present to describe it as critical, there is a possibility that, if tho dispute is not handled in a conciliatory spirit on both sides, it may prove impossible to bring about a settlement by diplomatic methods. Recent cablegrams indicate that very little progress has been made, towards a satisfactory solution of the problem, and it was announced a day or two ago that Japan had officially requested the United States Government to endeavour to prevent a rupture between the two nations;. The Japanese contend that the action of the Californian Legislature tends to impair the equality of treatment to which they are entitled under the principles of international law. The question involved is not only the interpretation of the Treaty of 1911, for the Japanese are also asserting their right to the same treatment as is accorded to the subjects. of other nations. They strongly resent being regarded as an inferior people who cannot be permitted 'to associate on' equal terms with the citizens of the United States. Their national pride has been touched on a very sensitive point. Mass meetings in Japan have been clamouring for war to wipe out the insult, and even a responsible statesman like Count Okuma is reported to have stated that "the influence of Christianity" is the only thing that can prevent a conflict. President Wilson has done his best to relievo the strain, but California remains obdurate, and the Anti-Alien LandHolding Bill passed the Senate by 5G votes to 2.

The Japanese hold that this legis-' lation is contrary to the provisions of the treaty of 1911 between the >United States and Japan, in which it is declared that: TII9 citizens or subjects of each of tho high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in tho territories of the other, to carry on trade, wholesale or retail, to own, or lease and occupy houses, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential or commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to, or necessary for, trado up:>n tho same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to tho laws and regulations there established. There appears to be considerable difference of opinion in the United States as to whether the Californian Bill amounts to a direct violation of the above clause, but it is quite clear that no State has a right to pass legislation conflicting with the terms of any treaty with a foreign Power. The New York Evening Post points out that treaties when duly ratified become tho supreme law of the land, by which the Judges in every State shall be bound, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." If, therefore, the anti-Japanese law is found to be as flatly in violation of the treaty as the different versions of its tenor and effect seem to- show,

"Mr. Wilson can notify Japan that he will immediately have the legislation taken into the courts, where it is certain to bo declared invalid." The Post also thinks that the Californian authorities should be plainly and firmly told that any action disregarding a treaty or embroiling the United States with a foreign country will not be tolerated. There seems to be much difference of opinion as to whether the outcry in California is justified by the facts regarding the numbers and occupations of the Japanese in that State. According to the census of 1910 there were 41,356 Japanese in California, out of a total population of 2,377,5-19, and it is contended by many that there has not been any appreciable increase since then. Mr. Kiyoshi Kawakami, in a letter to the New York Times, states that it is more than twenty years since the Japanese began to bo interested in agriculture in California, and yet farm lands owned by them amount to only 17,000 acres, which is a negligible quantity in a Stat© which contains 12,000,000 acres of agricultural lands; but in addition to this there are about 170,000 acres rented bv them. Other writers declare that the Japanese are comparatively few,- that their .numbers are actually decreasing, and that the trouble has been created for political reasons. On the other hand, it is contended that the Japanese are land-grabbers who arc driving the native farmers off the land, and taking charge of entire communities. One writer, taking the case of fruit-growing as an example, states that Japanese labour drives out all other labour, as they work for less money. "Then when there is no other labour, they will refuse to work unless given a lease of the orchard. Later, they may force a sale of the orchard to them in the same manner. As soon as the Japanese become owners,- the surrounding property is no longer desirable." Outside California there seems to be a very general feeling in the United States that the Anti-Alien Rill is a mistake. One paper remarks that if California insists on the right to legislate against the Japanese, she should be left alone to do any fighting that may result; and another states that ther* might bo

some consolation in a war with Japan, as "California would probably get what is coming to it." Approaching the question from a more serious standpoint, the Florida Times-Union says: "It seems not at all improbable that California will force tho United States into a war with Japan for a cause for which not 10 per cent, of the people of this country feel any sympathy." Tho position taken up by the Japanese Government is that it is the business of the United States to find a way out of the difficulty in accordance with its treaty obligations, or that a new treaty be entered into which would definitely settle the matters at present in dispute. Tho President ccrtainly has a very hard task before him, and tho most that can reasonably bo expected is a more or less workable compromise which may relievo the tension for a time. The views of a large and increasing section of Americans are expressed by tho Philadelphia Inquirer, which states that the situation contains "the seeds of an irrepressible conflict which is certain sooner or later to occur, and which may be precipitated when it is least looked for."