Mr. Nabeshima to Mr. Hay.
Washington, June 7, 1900.
Sir: Ref erring to the question of the discrimination against Japanese subjects in the adoption of quarantine measures in California, concerning which I had the honor to address you in my Nos. 18, 19, and 21, I beg to state that I am in receipt of information from His Imperial Majesty’s consul at San Francisco which discloses the fact that similar but even less justifiable discrimination is being practiced in the State of Colorado. The inclosed copy of a letter from Mr. T. H. Goodman, general passenger agent of the Southern Pacific Railway, to Count Mutsu explains the nature of the discrimination. I should state in explanation of the first paragraph of Mr. Goodman’s letter, that Count Mutsu had been told that the health authorities of Texas and Louisiana, as well as those of Colorado, had established quarantine against Japanese and Chinese only. But it seems from Mr. Goodman’s statement that the quarantine in the two former States is general against all persons coming from San Francisco. The health board of Colorado, however, has, according to Mr. Goodman’s information—
quarantined against Chinese and Japanese from everywhere, the only condition upon which they would be allowed to proceed through the State being that they should present health certificates showing that they had not been exposed to the bubonic plague within six months preceding the date of the certificate.
If Mr. Goodman’s information is correct, I have no hesitation in pronouncing the action of the health authorities of Colorado as most extraordinary and unusual, and the enforcement or attempted enforcement of the rule they are said to have adopted as most unjustifiable discrimination against Japanese subjects. I have the honor, therefore, to ask your good offices for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is the fact that such a regulation has been adopted by the Colorado board of health. If it is, I trust that prompt action may be taken to abrogate or amend a measure that is in such palpable violation of conventional and personal rights. I beg to express the further hope that I [Page 747] may be favored with an early reply to my communications above alluded to with reference to the action of the health authorities at San Francisco, and with a statement of the views of the Government of the United States regarding the question of principle involved in that case as well as in the one under consideration.
Accept, etc.,