Saturday, July 20, 2013

American Answer Disappoints Japan.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 20, 1913:
Bryan's Reply to Protests on Land Law Does Not Admit It Violates Existing Treaty
NOR OFFER ANY SOLUTION
But the Tokio Government, Desiring to Retain Our Friendship, Will Not Retaliate.
    TOKIO, July 10.— Deep disappointment is felt in Japan over the tenor of the American reply to the last two Japanese notes on the subject of the California alien land ownership legislation. The reply does not accept any of the Japanese contentions that the bill violates the Japanese-American treaty, and does not offer any suggestion for a solution of the difficulty.
    The Government has not yet decided on its next step, but is so desirous of maintaining friendly relations with the United States that it is not believed that it will adopt retaliatory measures, such as the denunciation of the treaty on the ground that it is useless or reducing the rights of American citizens in Japan.
    The Japanese public had been led by the press to believe that Washington would afford some relief of the situation, and, therefore, the Government's task has been rendered more difficult.
    The public generally, however, is absorbed in developments of the Chinese situation. Official advices show that the rebellion in Southern China has become serious.

    TOKIO, June 20.— The negotiations between the United States and Japan over the California land bill have stirred up wide discussion by publicists and preachers on the subject of the future of Japan in her relations with the countries of the West.
    This discussion has shown an earnest effort to seek the causes of the discrimination against Japanese in California and other places, including Canada and Australia. Some conservative newspapers criticise what they say is the practice of Japanese officials in California in encouraging the registration of children born of Japanese parent's as future subjects of the Japanese Empire, instead of allowing them to become citizens of the United States.
    Considerable publicity is given to an article by the Rev. Danjo Ebina, a Christian pastor and editor in chief of the Shinjin Magazine. The clergyman argues that the question between Japan and the United States is not one that will end with those two countries, but one that would develop eventually between Japan and many other nations. He holds that the great cause of Japanese isolation is the insistence upon ancestor worship, and contends that the solution of the whole question was a patient campaign to obtain the right of naturalization in America.
    "Must the Japanese live everywhere as sojourners," Dr. Ebina asks, "live everywhere as strangers and foreigners, everywhere except where they have conquered? The development of our race demands that this should not be so."
    Soroku Ebara, who was sent to California by the governmental party of Japan, has sent home a report in which he says that despite numerous strong points in favor of the Japanese abroad, they still retain their peculiar traits which prevent them from associating with people among whom they live. He strongly urges the Japanese to pay more heed to this point, as otherwise he fears for the future of Japanese in foreign lands.

EXPECT LONG DISCUSSION.
But Washington Officials Say Negotiations Are in a Satisfactory State.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, July 19.— Officers of the Government are not inclined to discuss the details of the latest note of the United States to Japan in regard to the controversy over the California land law, but there is authority for saying that the diplomatic situation is in a very satisfactory condition, and hopes are strong that a harmonious adjustment will ultimately be reached.
    Public knowledge here of the contents of the American-Japanese notes is very limited, but enough has been said in an official way to indicate that the controversy is in the argumentative stage, which is equivalent to saying that it will be long-drawn-out.
    Officials here do not doubt that there is disappointment in Tokio over the failure of this Government to accept the Japanese contention that the alien land law is a violation of the present treaty, but they believe that the Japanese Government is convinced that, as far as the Government of the United States is concerned, prejudice against the Japanese in California does not exist. In addition, the Wilson Administration has demonstrated to Japan, as well as it could be done without reflecting on the acts of a State of the Union, that it disapproves of the enactment of the alien land law.
    These things, it is believed, have all had their effect on Japanese official opinion. Recently the Japanese Ministry adopted the course of making known to important members of the opposition the details of the negotiations with the United States. Since that policy was adopted a much less hostile feeling toward the American Government has prevailed in Japan.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.