Reply

Simultaneously there was made public in Tokyo and Washington the reply of the U. S. Government to the recent Japanese protest against the U. S. Immigration Act of 1924 (TIME, Apr. 28).

The note was couched in the most conciliatory tones, but firmly defended the right of the U. S. to control immigration into its own domains, which Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes claimed "is an essential element of sovereignty." It pointed out that the substitution of the Immigration Act for the so-called Gentlemen's Agreement was in no sense intended as a slight to the Japanese people. The Japanese Government was also reminded that President Coolidge would have preferred to continue the Agreement and to have negotiated for any necessary modifications. But it was stated that "this Government does not feel that it is limited to such an international arrangement or that by virtue of the existing understanding or of the negotiations which it has conducted in the past with the Japanese Government it has in any sense lost or impaired the full liberty of action which it would otherwise have had in this matter."

After reviewing some historical precedents for the action of the U. S. Congress in controlling immigration, the note released Japan from the understanding known as the Gentlemen's Agreement.

The note ended: ". . . I desire once more to emphasize the appreciation on the part of this Government of the voluntary cooperation of your Government in carrying out the Gentlemen's Agreement and to express the conviction that the recognition of the right of each Government to legislate in control of immigration should not derogate in any degree from the mutual good-will and cordial friendship which have always characterized the relations of the two countries.

"Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) "CHARLES E. HUGHES."

The Japanese Government received the note in the spirit in which it was written. No official statement was made, but the rumor circulated in Tokyo that no further protest would be despatched to the U. S., at least until after the U. S. Presidential elections. But there was every indication that this painful chapter in American-Nipponese relations had been closed.

The press, however, received Hughes' answer in the bitterest spirit:

The Yamato: "The note is filled with sophistry from beginning to end. This injustice is intolerable. It is the duty of the Japanese people to fight it to the end."

The Jiji Shimpo: "America has merely wasted thousands of words. The reply is a complete disappointment to Japan. If the United States had been genuinely sincere she would not have indulged in empty theoretical arguments."

The Asahi said the Japanese were not satisfied with the reply, "which evades the real issue--racial discrimination."

The Kokumin called upon the Government to reoerient its foreign policy, "in view of Japan's altered internal position as a result of exclusion."

The Yorozu: "The only thing left is to leave the question thus unsettled."

The Chugai Shogyo: "An empty profession of friendship, it shows fine words but a false heart."

The Nichi Nichi: "Perhaps it is better to drop the matter here, since the reply shows that the United States will not really answer the real points raised by Japan."