Johnson Signs Bill; Note Goes To Japan.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 20, 1913:
Alien Land Act Scarcely Made Law When Bryan Presents Reply to Tokio's Protest.
REFERENDUM FIGHT IS ON
Threefold Opposition to New Measure Starting in California May Halt Its Operation.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, May 19.— The long-awaited signature of the Alien Land bill to-day by Gov. Johnson of California was the signal for the prompt presentation to the Japanese Ambassador of this Government's reply to the protest from Tokio against the legislation proposed by the Pacific Coast State.
    Within, an hour after he had verified unofficial dispatches from Sacramento that the California Executive had approved the bill. Secretary Bryan read personally to Viscount Chinda the reply, drafted by the State Department officials in co-operation with President Wilson, in answer to Japanese objections to the alleged discriminatory measure. Exchanges are in progress concerning simultaneous publication of the protest and the response in the newspapers of Japan and the United States, but it is not likely that such publication will be possible for several days. In fact, it may be decided that the interests of the two Governments in the conduct of the negotiations or the differences that have arisen require that the documents be not made public at this time.
    Viscount Chinda went to the State department at 4 o'clock this afternoon at the invitation of Secretary Bryan.
    Although the Secretary and the Ambassador were together fifty-five minutes, it was said afterward that most of this time was taken up in the reading of the American note by Secretary Bryan, leaving very few minutes for a discussion of the question raised by Japan in connection with the California land legislation.

Disagrees with Japan's Attitude.
    While the terms of Japan's protest are not made known, it seems certain that underlying the entire argument of Japan is the contention that the alleged discrimination against Japanese in California is based on racial and not on economic or other material reasons. The impression is general that the Wilson Administration does not share the view said to have been taken by the Japanese Government.
    The fact that the Japanese cause found hearty sympathy in this country during the war with Russia and the belief that anti-Japanese feeling is confined to a small part of the continental United States are pointed to as indicating that Japan has no cause to fear that racial discrimination plays any part in whatever attitude the Government has assumed.
    Another thing that has served to show the purpose of the Wilson Administration to maintain the old-time friendship with Japan is the official deprecation of "war talk." President Wilson has not only been provoked by the false and sensational statements that have gained currency, but he has also shown by his instructions to officials that he will not tolerate anything that might give rise to an impression in Japan that preparations were being made for a possible hostile contingency.
    Another favorable feature of the situation is the amicable spirit in which the oral exchanges between the Japanese Ambassador and the State Department officials are being conducted. There has been no suggestion on either side that Japan or the United States was acting unfairly.
    Considering all these matters, and the apparently growing realization in Japan of this Government's good-will, the outlook for an ultimate adjustment of the difficulties resulting from the anti-Japanese feeling in California has materially improved. But the Administration, while making no comment on that phase of the situation, feels that Gov. Johnson could have made conditions easier by taking a different attitude. If there had been any real danger of a clash with Japan, the course of Gov. Johnson, it is held in some quarters, would have put the United States at a marked disadvantage. Some think that the Governor in his disregard of President Wilson's broad intimations has not shown the highest spirit of patriotism.
    Army officers are now recalling that the movement of a few troops from this country to Hawaii, which was seized upon by the alarmists as a sign of war, was in accordance with a report of the General Staff of the army approved by Secretary Stimson on Aug. 10, 1912, and made public at the time. The specific movement to Oahu is being carried out in part in accordance with general orders published on Feb. 6 last.