Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1924, Volume II

711.945/1042

Memorandum by the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State¹²

[Washington, undated.]

résumé of the administrative measures proposed by united states government for adoption by japanese government, and acceptance thereof or counter proposals by japanese government, 1907–1908 (“the gentlemen’s agreement”)

References, following quotations, are to the following documents:¹³

(1) Secretary of State Root to Mr. O’Brien, American Ambassador at Tokyo (Telegram), November 18, 1907,¹⁴ communicated to Japanese Foreign Office, November 27.

(2) Secretary of State Root to Mr. O’Brien, American Ambassador at Tokyo (Telegram), January 23, 1908,¹⁵ communicated to Japanese Foreign Office, January 25, 1908.

(3) Memorandum of Japanese Foreign Office to American Ambassador, Tokyo, December 30, 1907.¹⁶

(4) Memorandum of Japanese Foreign Office to American Ambassador, Tokyo, February 23, 1908.¹⁷

(5) Memorandum of Japanese Foreign Office to American Ambassador, Tokyo, February 18, 1908.¹⁸

Proposition of United States No. 1

“The Imperial Japanese Government to continue to require all Japanese or Korean subjects who leave their countries to have passports; all such passports to be written on distinctive, durable paper; to be dated the day of issue; to be signed by a regularly designated official, of whom there shall be a limited number, so that there may be no difficulty in promptly recognizing such a signature; and to describe the person to whom granted and his occupation in such detail as to make his identification as the rightful holder thereof both easy and certain.” (1)

Modifications of Proposition No. 1

“Passports should be exact and specific and be [sic] issued with the greatest care to prevent forgery and false personation.” (2)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 1

The Japanese Government feels that there has been some misunderstanding on the part of the American authorities regarding the Japanese passport system. (3) The Japanese Government will “introduce certain modifications into passport form now employed, including various matters of detail.[”] No safeguards to be omitted against fraud. (3) [5] But such Government is not willing to print on the passport a warning against improper use thereof or even to print such warning on a separate slip of paper to be attached to the passport. Said Government is ready, however, to give instructions under which persons to whom passports are granted will be warned in clear and unmistakable terms, orally, at the time the passport is delivered or to have the prefectural authorities issue general official notices admonishing applicants regarding false representations and fraudulent use of passports. (4)

The Japanese Government does not question the utility of a rule permitting the issuance of passports by a limited number of specially authorized officials only; in fact, such a rule is already followed to a certain extent, the practice being to require local officials to refer to the Foreign Office all cases involving serious doubt, and instructions have been issued widening the scope of this rule. If certain plans receive legislative sanction, the clerical force of the Foreign Office will be sufficiently increased to permit of a still further application of said rule. (4)

Proposition of the United States No. 2

“The Imperial Japanese Government to continue its declared policy of issuing no passports good for the continental territory of the United States to Japanese or Korean laborers, skilled or unskilled, and hereafter likewise invariably to refuse such passports to all those who from choice or from force of circumstances are likely to become laborers if they enter the United States. The economic status after arrival in the United States to be carefully investigated in advance and [sic] to determine the classification irrespective of previous occupation.” (1)

Modifications of Proposition No. 2

(a) “The issuance of passports to laborers who have formerly been in American territory, or to the parents, wives, or children of laborers already there, to [should] be carefully safeguarded and limited.” (2)

(b) “It is quite important also that the Japanese Government’s definition of ‘laborer’ should [sic] be conformable to our own.” (Rule21–j) (2)

(c) “It is understood that a ‘settled agriculturist’ is a small farmer-capitalist, and not merely a farm laborer paid under contract out of the produce of his agricultural work, and that with this criterion a reasonable number of passports only to be issued to persons of such economic status. … Unless the alleged character of farmer is accompanied with [by] actual title to land it is quite likely to be merely a cover for a violation of our contract-labor laws, and this should be specifically guarded against.” (2)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 2

“The Japanese Government are determined to continue their announced policy of issuing no passports good for the mainland of the United States for either skilled or unskilled Japanese laborers, except those who have previously resided in the United States, and the parents, wives, and children of Japanese residents in America.” (3)

Said Government intends, however, to continue to grant passports to settle[d] agriculturists, but will continue to exercise a careful and rigorous supervision and restriction. (4)

“As for the latter part of Section II, i. e., the proposal to decline to issue such passports to all such as it is [sic] likely to become laborers on entering the United States, the Japanese Government have decided and have already instructed the local authorities to make the strictest and most minute investigation in each case of application for a passport by students or merchants or persons belonging to other classes than laborers.” (3)

Passports to laborers previously domiciled in the United States will be issued “upon the production … of the certificate of a (Japanese) consular officer in the United States,” and will be issued to the parents, wives, and children of laborers resident in United States “upon the production of such certificate and of a duly certified copy of the official registry of the members of the family in Japan.” No local official in Japan will be allowed to issue a passport except upon the presentation of such certificate or certificates, and both consular officers and local officials have been instructed to guard against fraud in the exercise of these duties. (5)

All applicants for passports as settled agriculturists must pass through the Foreign Office, and detailed reports of consular officers cognizant with the circumstances, as well as certificates of notaries attesting the bona fides of the necessary land titles, are required. (4) (5)

“The definition of ‘laborer, skilled and unskilled,’ given in the executive order of April 8, 1907, … contains no particular which the Imperial Government can regard as inapplicable in determining the status of persons of that class.” (5)

Proposition of the United States No. 3

“The Imperial Japanese Government not to issue to laborers or to those of the economic status above indicated more than 1,000 passports per year good for the Hawaiian Islands.” (1)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 3

For various considerations “based upon fundamental differences existing between the Hawaiian Islands and the mainland of the United States … the Japanese Government earnestly desire that the territory of the Hawaiian Islands be set outside the scope of the present discussion.” (3)

“It is the present intention of the Imperial Government experimentally to stop all emigration to those islands for some time to come, except in isolated cases of returning emigrants and of the parents, wives, and children of those already resident in the islands.” (3)¹⁹

“If at any time hereafter it should appear desirable to depart from the present policy of prohibition, that step should only be taken after ascertaining through an American official source the labor conditions prevailing in the islands and the need thereof.” (4)

Proposition of the United States No. 4

“The Imperial Japanese Government to consider as having forfeited his rights under his passport anyone to whom they shall hereafter grant a passport as a nonlaborer and who may engage within continental American territory or the Hawaiian Islands in manual labor, in contravention of the provisions of his passport, or any person holding a passport as a laborer, not good for such American territory, and who attempts to enter or succeeds in surreptitiously entering such territory.” (1)

Modifications of Proposition No. 4

“With regard to the fourth suggestion, it has not for one moment been contemplated that the holder of a passport should be deprived of any of his general rights thereunder, but only that the passport under the circumstances mentioned should not suffice to enable him to remain in American territory in violation of the conditions of emigration originally imposed by his own Government—that is to say, that successful evasion of the limitations imposed by the Government of Japan upon its own subjects should not be held to create a right to be relieved from those limitations.” (2)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 4

“The domestic control and restriction of emigration are purely administrative functions, and confer no power on the Japanese Government to agree in advance that the evasion of such control, and restriction at home, or the violation of similar laws or regulations abroad, shall deprive the offender in toto of the protection guaranteed to him by treaty.” (3)

“It is therefore highly desirable that any rigorous measures of restriction or control over Japanese immigration to the United States shall stop with the landing of the passenger, relying upon the effective administration of the precautionary measures adopted by the Japanese Government to prevent the occurrence of fraud.” (3)

“It is the intention of the administrative authorities, in every case of evasion of the limitations under which passports are issued, that comes to their knowledge, to refuse further applications for passports from the persons guilty of the fraud, and to extend the prohibition to applications for passports for the parents, wives, and families of such persons.” (5)

Japan has no objection, once a month to the exchange of statistics covering incoming and outgoing Japanese. (4)

Proposition of the United States No. 5

“In order to protect those laborers already legally within, respectively, the continental territory of the United States or the Hawaiian Islands, to distinguish them from those who are there in violation of their passports, and to protect them in their privilege of returning, after absence, to such residence, the Imperial Japanese Government to instruct its consular officers in such American territory to keep a register of Japanese and Korean laborers legally within their consular districts, and for the period of one year only, beginning January 1, 1908, to issue to each such laborer, upon application, a certificate of registration, with complete English translation, prepared on distinctive and durable paper, under seal, and visaed by the proper American authority and showing his name, age, sex, place of birth, date, and place of entry into American territory, number of previous passport, height, and physical marks or peculiarities; and to cooperate with the proper American officials in obtaining data when necessary for the identification of Japanese or Koreans engaged in labor. After the lapse of one year from January 1, 1908, the possession of the certificate above described to be regarded by the Japanese Government as the only and indispensable evidence that a Japanese or Korean is engaged in labor in the American territory concerned without violation of his Government’s original passport, provided that in the Hawaiian Islands passports need not be replaced by certificates during one year after the arrival of those laborers to whom passports may be issued within the annual limit of 1,000.” (1)

Modifications of Proposition No. 5

“With regard to the fifth suggestion, … the need of identification therein contemplated … exists only in the case of those who are engaged in manual labor, and in no case would a non-laboring Japanese be concerned. The Government of the United States, however, does not wish to press any of the ideas contained in the fifth suggestion to an extent not agreeable to the Government of Japan. The Government of the United States entertains the hope, however, that the Imperial Japanese Government will take satisfaction in providing in its own way for some such systematic preservation of data as to its subjects who come to the United States with the permission of their own Government as may enable the two Governments acting in harmony to prevent violation of the limits fixed by Japan upon emigration.” (2)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 5

“The Imperial Government … have now the intention of establishing a system for the registration of Japanese resident[s] in the United States as nearly similar to that described in the ambassador’s note as circumstances will permit. Certain practical difficulties to which attention has already been drawn will have to be overcome, such, for example, as our [are] incident to the large areas included within the jurisdiction of the Imperial consular establishments in the United States, the widely scattered places of residence of Japanese residents, the nomadic habits which the occupations of laborers in particular frequently entail, and the absence of anything in the nature of a legal sanction whereby registration may be rendered absolutely obligatory. … The Imperial Government, as a matter of principle, were and still are averse to adding to the obligations already incumbent on such Japanese subjects another obligation which might under easily supposable circumstances work unmerited hardship. At the same time they fully realize the value of frank and harmonic [harmonious] cooperation by the officials of the respective Governments in this as well as in all other matters connected with emigration, not only as one of the most effective means of preventing fraud, but also as the strongest safeguard of the rights of those mistakenly accused of it. … While no effort will be spared to make the registration as complete as possible, the Imperial Government will not consider that the absence of registration constitutes a reason for the forfeiture of residential rights.” (5)

Proposition of United States No. 6

“The Imperial Japanese Government, in enforcing the purposes of its passports and of the certificates above mentioned, to cooperate with the Government of the United States, and, by such system of surety or other arrangement as it may deem proper, to join in compelling the steamship company concerned to return at its own expense, within three years of his arrival, any Japanese or Korean person who in entering or laboring in American territory has violated the conditions of his emigration; or in any event, and at any time when it is found that such person has violated the conditions of his emigration, to share equally with the United States in the expense of returning such person.” (1)

Modification of Proposition No. 6

“With regard to the sixth suggestion, the United States is easily able to impose upon companies whose steamships touch American ports the duty of returning at any time within three years aliens who enter American territory in violation of American law. By existing agreements this duty is assumed also by British lines to Canada. The Government of the United States hopes that the Imperial Japanese Government, upon reexamining the technical legal bearings of this question, may after all find it possible either to induce the Japanese steamship companies to join in such agreements, or else may discover administrative means to obtain the cooperation of the companies.” (2)

Response of Japan to Proposition No. 6

“In order to compel a steamship company to carry back, without expense to the Japanese Government, any Japanese subjects who may have acted in contravention of any regulations … legislation will be necessary. The Japanese Government can entertain no hope that such legislation, if submitted to the Diet, will receive its approval.” (3)

[Annex A—Telegram]

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (O’Brien)²⁰

Washington, November 18, 1907.

Our immigration authorities believe that the following administrative measures on the part of Japan would be effective:

• “1. The Imperial Japanese Government to continue to require all Japanese or Korean subjects who leave their countries to have passports, all such passports to be written on distinctive, durable paper, to be dated the day of issue, to be signed by a regularly designated official, (of whom there shall be a limited number, so that there may be no difficulty in promptly recognizing such a signature), and to describe the person to whom granted and his occupation in such detail as to make his identification as the rightful holder thereof both easy and certain.
• 2. The Imperial Japanese Government to continue its declared policy of issuing no passports good for the continental territory of the United States to Japanese or Korean laborers, skilled or unskilled, and hereafter likewise invariably to refuse such passports to all those who from choice or from force of circumstances are likely to become laborers if they enter the United States. The economic status after arrival in the United States to be carefully investigated in advance to determine the classification irrespective of previous occupation.
• 3. The Imperial Japanese Government not to issue to laborers or to those of the economic status above indicated more than 1,000 passports per year good for the Hawaiian Islands.
• 4. The Imperial Japanese Government to consider as having forfeited his rights under his passport any one to whom they shall hereafter grant a passport as a non-laborer and who may engage, within continental American territory or the Hawaiian Islands, in manual labor, in contravention of the provisions of his passport, or any person holding a passport as a laborer, not good for such American territory, and who attempts to enter or succeeds in surreptitiously entering such territory.
• 5. In order to protect those laborers already legally within, respectively, the continental territory of the United States or the Hawaiian Islands; to distinguish them from those who are there in violation of their passports; and to protect them in their privilege of returning, after absence, to such residence, the Imperial Japanese Government to instruct its consular officers in such American territory to keep a register of Japanese and Korean laborers legally within their consular districts, and for the period for one year only, beginning January 1, 1908, to issue to each such laborer, upon application, a certificate of registration, with complete English translation, prepared on distinctive and durable paper, under seal, and visaed by the proper American authority, and showing his name, age, sex, place of birth date and place of entry into American territory, number of previous passport, height, and physical marks or peculiarities: and to cooperate with the proper American officials in obtaining data when necessary for the identification of Japanese or Koreans engaged in labor. After the lapse of one year from January 1, 1908, the possession of the certificate above described to be regarded by the Japanese Government as the only and indispensable evidence that a Japanese or Korean is engaged in labor in the American territory concerned without violation of his Government’s original passport, provided, that in the Hawaiian Islands passports need not be replaced by certificates during one year after the arrival of those laborers to whom passports may be issued within the annual limit of 1,000.
• 6. The Imperial Japanese Government in enforcing the purposes of its passports and of the certificates above mentioned, to cooperate with the Government of the United States and by such system of surety or other arrangement as it may deem proper to join in compelling the steamship company concerned to return at its own expense, within three years of his arrival, any Japanese or Korean person who in entering or laboring in American territory violated the conditions of his emigration; or, in any event, and at any time when it is found that such person has violated the conditions of his emigration to share equally with the United States in the expense of returning such persons [sic.]”

You will discreetly and informally place the foregoing suggestions in the hands of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and at the same time hand him a memorandum in the following sense:

“In a communication to the Embassy on February 23, the Imperial Japanese Government expressed confident belief that their settled policy of not issuing passports good for the mainland of the United States, to Japanese and Korean laborers, complemented by the amendment and the Executive Order of last March, would work satisfactorily and make further measures unnecessary. It was further stated that if this belief were not realized, the Imperial Japanese Government would be prepared to consider with the United States the question of a new treaty.

Official statistics, the gist of which has already been communicated, prove conclusively that the existing arrangements have been quite futile in their utter failure to prevent, in accordance with the policy of the two Governments, the increase of the number of Japanese laborers arriving in the United States, and of Japanese who have left Japan as non-laborers but have become laborers after entering this country.

It is evident, therefore, that the moment contemplated in the Foreign Office’s communication above referred to has now arrived.

Understanding, however, that the Imperial Japanese Government is averse at this time to making the matter of immigration the subject of further conventional agreement, although discouraged by the complete failure of the administrative measures hitherto taken, still, in deference to the attitude of the Japanese Government and believing that there is no real divergence of policy in the premises, this Government invites Japan to join in fresh efforts adequately to meet the situation by frank and cordial cooperation expressed in really effective administrative measures, which alone, if promptly adopted and strictly enforced, may make the alternative, legislation by Congress, unnecessary.”

Root

[Annex B]

The Japanese Foreign Office to the American Embassy²¹

[Memorandum]

Although the Imperial Government, as has already been explained, cannot enter into any fresh conventional agreement regarding the emigration of Japanese laborers to the United States, they are willing to meet the situation to which their attention has been called by the American Ambassador by frank and cordial cooperation with a view to the adoption of more effective administrative measures. They are not prepared to admit without qualification, however, that the administrative measures at present enforced by both Governments to prevent the emigration of Japanese laborers to the American mainland have been so complete a failure as the communications of the Ambassador would seem to indicate. Their belief is that the partial failure of those measures to secure the results hoped and expected has been due to causes which, for the sake of convenience, may be divided into two categories, first, those which are of a temporary nature; and, second, those which, with the experience gained, can be eliminated by the adoption of more stringent precautions hereafter.

In the first category may be included the migration of laborers from the Hawaiian Islands to the United States by the way of British Columbia, and from Mexico to adjacent American territory. The Imperial Government are confident that it can be shown to the satisfaction of the American Government that this movement was of an entirely temporary nature, which was unanticipated at the time the present administrative measures were adopted, but the continuation of which under new arrangements now in contemplation and soon to be adopted will be practically impossible.

The second category has reference to Japanese subjects claiming to belong to the commercial and student classes to whom passports to the American mainland have been given. It is true that it has come to the knowledge of the Japanese Government that in certain cases of this kind persons not entitled to the privilege, that is to say, laborers in the guise of merchants or students, have obtained passports. But in justice to the officials charged with the duty of issuing such passports it should be pointed out that in the beginning the enforcement of administrative measures necessitating a great deal of careful investigation rendered some mistakes both natural and inevitable. The just conclusion is that these mistakes were due to inexperience and most emphatically not to wilful dereliction of duty on the part of the officials concerned. The Imperial Government are of opinion that with the experience already gained the observance of their strict instructions in the premises would be assured and causes for complaint reduced to a minimum, even under existing circumstances. But in order to set at rest all possible doubt upon the subject they are prepared to adopt additional precautionary measures which will be explained in due course.

It seems appropriate in this connection to draw attention to the fact that the number of Japanese laborers alleged to have entered the United States in violation of existing administrative measures appears to be exaggerated. It is not meant by this to impugn the motives of the officials responsible for these statements, presumably the Bureau of Immigration, but Japanese official statistics clearly show that the figures given are too high. In some cases they appear to be estimates merely, and aside from the specific cases of violation which are comparatively few in number, there is nothing to show that the other immigrants referred to, even admitting the numbers given to be correct, should properly be included in the prescribed class. The Imperial Government have no desire, however, to take advantage of mistakes of this kind, or to cite them as a reason for nonaction. They quite agree that the situation calls for some effective remedy in the interests of both countries. They call attention to this phase of the subject because they feel sure the American Government will agree with them that overstatements of this nature, even when unintentional and made in complete good faith, can have no other effect than to further complicate the delicate and difficult situation which confronts the two Governments.

The following comments have reference to matters referred to in the memorandum enclosed with the American Ambassador’s note of November 26th [27th?], last.²²

The Hawaiian Islands

The immigration of Japanese laborers to the Islands of Hawaii has hitherto been regulated in accordance with the labor conditions actually prevailing in those islands. The Planters Association from time to time informs the Japanese Consul-General of the actual condition of labor on the various plantations, and, the latter communicates to the Japanese Government the estimated number of laborers who may be needed. In response the Japanese Government grants passports and permits only up to the limit of such number. Even in this case they have from other considerations reduced the number in many instances to one half or even one third of that suggested by the Consul-General. These steps, being in accord with the economic law of supply and demand, have generally speaking proved successful. It is a matter of common knowledge that American labor never has been, and is not now employed in the sugar industry, the predominant industry of the Islands and consequently the argument advanced in His Excellency the American Ambassador’s despatch dated November 16th, last,²³ based upon the so called ruinous competition of labor can hardly apply so far as labor conditions there are concerned.

From these and other considerations based upon fundamental differences existing between the Hawaiian Islands and the mainland of the United States, economically, geographically and historically, the Japanese Government earnestly desire that the territory of the Hawaiian Islands be set outside the scope of the present discussion. It is by no means their intention however to insist upon the permanent continuation of the present system for those islands. On the contrary they will be prepared to take into careful consideration any special condition which makes it desirable to take certain measures with a view to regulate Japanese immigration into such islands. Their only desire is that the question concerning the Hawaiian Islands be separated from the question under consideration.

Section I

There appears to be some misunderstanding of the Japanese system of passports on the part of the American authorities which an explanation of the processes pursued may clear away. All passports issue originally from the Foreign Office. They are not signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but bear the seal of his office. Passports for intending emigrants are sent as required to the Governors of the various prefectures. Such passports are consecutively numbered and a list is kept of all which are issued. At regular intervals reports are required from prefectural offices, all passports issued must therein be accounted for and every passport not used must be returned. Upon the arrival of the emigrant at the port of embarkation he is again examined by the local authorities on land and shipboard. If everything is found to be in order his passport is viséd, the date of his departure being stamped upon the document with a perforating stamp. These various examinations, verifications and other precautionary measures may, however, be taken if it is found upon examination that they are practically applicable.

Section II

The Japanese Government are determined to continue their announced policy of issuing no passports good for the mainland of the United States for either skilled or unskilled Japanese laborers except those who have previously resided in the United States, and the parents, wives and children of Japanese resident in America. It is understood, moreover, that it is their intention to continue to grant passports to settled agriculturists, i. e. farmers owning or having an interest or share in the produce of crops of agricultural lands under the same measure of control as was explained to Mr. O’Brien’s predecessor on May 26th last. As for the latter part of Section II, i. e. the proposal to decline to issue such passports to all such as it is [sic] likely to become laborers on entering the United States, the Japanese Government have decided and have already instructed the local authorities to make the strictest and most minute investigation in each case of application for a passport by students or merchants or persons belonging to other classes than laborers. They are confident that under administrative measures amended and strengthened as suggested by the experience already gained, and through the strict observance of precise instructions issued in accordance therewith, the occurrence of cases of fraud from this source will be rendered extremely improbable.

Section III

As this section relates exclusively to the Hawaiian Islands, it is proposed to set aside its consideration apart from the question herein considered.

Section IV

As His Excellency the American Ambassador is doubtless aware, the context of the passports issued by the Japanese Government consist of an expression of the desire that the bearers, subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, shall be accorded proper protection in the foreign countries through which they may pass or where they may stay. This is a general right guaranteed to Japanese subjects by existing treaty stipulations. It is a right upon which all Governments are wont to insist as regards their subjects or citizens abroad even where the latter are accused of violations of the law. The domestic control and restriction of emigration are purely administrative functions, and confer no power on the Japanese Government to agree in advance that the evasion of such control, and restriction at home, or the violation of similar laws or regulations abroad, shall deprive the defender [offender?] in toto of the protection guaranteed to him by treaty.

Sections V and VI

1. The Japanese Consulate-General in New York has seventeen states and one district within its Consular district; the Consulate at Chicago has twenty states and one district; the Consulate-General at San Francisco has four states and two districts, while the Consulate at Seattle has six states in its district. Most of these states and districts extend over several hundred miles, and Japanese residents in the United States, more than one hundred thousand in number, are scattered over these great areas. The Japanese Consuls can have no exact knowledge as to the whereabouts of these Japanese residents or means of communicating with them all. The result will be that with the suggested system of registry most, if not all, of these residents will find themselves after one year from January 1, 1908, unqualified to remain legaily in the United States and may be dealt with accordingly, without the least fault on their part.

2. In order to compel a steamship company to carry back, without expense to the Japanese Government, any Japanese subjects who may have acted in contravention of any regulations, possibly it may be months or years after the alleged offense is said to have occurred, legislation will be necessary. The Japanese Government can entertain no hope that such legislation, if submitted to the Diet, will receive its approval.

3. The suggestions made by the American Government under sections V and VI would appear therefore wholly impracticable if not entirely impossible, to say nothing of the indignity and humiliation to which Japanese residents in the United States would be liable at any moment. The Japanese Government are afraid moreover that if those Japanese who have entered the United States and are peacefully earning their livelihood were to be subjected to the same rigorous measures of personal examination, and vexatious identification as on the occasion of entry an almost intolerable amount of injustice and humiliation would be inflicted upon Japanese residents other than laborers. A number of unfortunate instances in the past where Japanese gentlemen and sometimes even members of the Embassy have been the victims of wholly unwarrantable treatment at the hands of the American immigration officials justifies this apprehension on the part of the Japanese Government. It is therefore highly desirable that any rigorous measures of restriction or control over Japanese immigration to the United States shall stop with the landing of the passenger, relying upon the effective administration of the precautionary measures adopted by the Japanese Government to prevent the occurrence of fraud.

Tokyo, December 30, 1907.

[Annex C]

The Japanese Foreign Office to the American Embassy²⁴

Memorandum

The personal conference which took place at the Foreign Office on the 30th instant having placed His Excellency the American Ambassador in possession of the views of the Imperial Government upon the question of Japanese emigration to the United States, and having, it is hoped, demonstrated to His Excellency their earnest wish to arrive at a mutually satisfactory understanding, the moment seems opportune for more detailed comment upon the Ambassador’s communications relating to the subject than was possible upon that occasion, as well as for a formal statement of the measures which the Imperial Government are prepared to adopt in order effectively to meet the situation.

It affords Count Hayashi sincere pleasure to express at the outset his appreciation of the genuinely friendly and conciliatory spirit which is so conspicuously present in the Ambassador’s official and personal utterances regarding this subject. The importance His Excellency naturally attaches to the reasons which prompt the American Government to desire the removal of what is deemed to be a possible cause of grave economic embarrassment has manifestly not led him to lose sight of the countervailing difficulties with which the Imperial Government have to contend. Fully realizing as they do the weighty character of the considerations which influence the opinions of the American Government, the Imperial Government are gratified to perceive in the views expressed by the Ambassador on behalf of his Government reciprocal recognition of the delicate and difficult nature of the problem which confronts Japan. Count Hayashi is confident that he does not err in believing that this mutual acknowledgment of the difficulties to be overcome on both sides will aid materially in reaching a satisfactory settlement of the matters at issue.

Count Hayashi has noted with interest the Ambassador’s remarks in the letter of November 16th²⁵ concerning several of the collateral issues connected with the question under consideration, and craves indulgence for some allusion thereto. For example, as regards the San Francisco school question, the attitude of the Imperial Government may be briefly summed up in the statement that they had no desire to secure special or unusual privileges for children of Japanese parentage, but only the privileges voluntarily and without question generally accorded to other children of alien parentage. Those privileges they were convinced were assured to them by the letter and spirit of the Treaty, and while it was far from their intention to raise any question, which either on account of the relations existing between the Federal and State and Municipal Governments in the United States, or because of the condition of affairs then prevailing at San Francisco, could prove a source of embarrassment to the Government at Washington, they adopted the only course which appeared to be open to them and to be justified by precedent. The Ambassador is apparently inclined to the belief that this incident has an important bearing upon the agitation regarding Japanese immigration. To that view there is no objection to be urged if the incident is regarded as a phase merely of that agitation, but not, if it is to be considered as a cause thereof. Unfortunately the agitation hostile to Japanese immigration, and in fact to Japanese interests generally, had been set on foot and had gained considerable headway at San Francisco and elsewhere in California long before the school question was raised. Happily then, as always, the Imperial Government found the Federal Government prompt and active in applying measures of relief dictated by the traditional American policy of justice and right dealing, and the incident was duly closed. It is alluded to here somewhat at length, not because of its intrinsic importance, but for the purpose merely of emphasizing its symptomatic character, and on account, moreover, of the Ambassador’s remarks concerning alien attendance in Japanese schools, in particular those in Formosa. It should be explained that in the latter case the practice followed, so far from being an example of discrimination, was adopted entirely out of consideration for the wishes of Chinese parents. Chinese children may attend the Japanese schools if the parents so desire, but the majority of the latter prefer education according to Chinese methods, and accordingly the two systems are maintained side by side. The schools of the Empire itself are open to all aliens and the large number of foreign students in attendance in public institutions of learning bears witness to the liberality with which this privilege is accorded.

The phase of the subject which the Ambassador aptly describes as vastly more far reaching and difficult than the foregoing, namely, the question of labor conditions in America is one of such purely domestic concern that any expression of opinion on Count Hayashi’s part, no matter how innocently intended, might seem out of place. The Imperial Government recognize as a matter of course the right of the American Government to regulate such matters in the manner best calculated to promote American interests. They are confident, however, that the Government at Washington, while acting upon this principle, will deal with the situation to which the Ambassador refers in the same liberal and enlightened spirit which has been such a marked characteristic of American intercourse with Japan. Whether that situation is sporadic rather than general; and whether, so far as Japan is concerned, it demands a special remedy which, even though it has technical sanction, cannot fail to be regarded as detracting from the parity of intercourse so essential to the genuine cordiality of international relations, are matters concerning which Count Hayashi would prefer to express no opinion. It is sufficient for the purpose which both Governments have in view to assure the Ambassador that the Imperial Government, appreciating the manifest intention of his communications and of the views of his Government as explained therein, are desirous by frank and cordial cooperation to reach an understanding which will eliminate all the difficulties of the present situation.

Count Hayashi has already had the honor personally to explain to the Ambassador several of the other matters touched upon in his communication. For the sake of the record the salient features of those explanations may be briefly recapitulated. The most important point had reference to the belief evidently entertained by the American authorities that existing administrative regulations have proved inadequate for the regulation of the influx of Japanese laborers to the American mainland. As Count Hayashi stated, the Imperial Government are not prepared to admit without qualification that this view is entirely correct. They believe that the partial failure of the measures in question to accomplish the results hoped and expected has been due partly to causes of a temporary nature, the recurrence of which will be rendered extremely improbable in the future; and partly to causes which the measures which they are willing to adopt will wholly remove.

Count Hayashi also drew the Ambassador’s attention to what appeared to him to be some inaccuracy in the figures reported by the American immigration authorities. To illustrate, it is stated that the number of Japanese coming to the United States, instead of decreasing, has largely increased—12,407 having arrived during the last twelve months, as against 6,454 during the preceding year, and that the number of laborers coming in has increased, 1,858 Japanese laborers having passports for the continental territory of the United States having been admitted during the six months ending September 30th.

As regards the first of these statements it may be noted that the official Japanese statistics show that the total number of passports issued to persons of all classes proceeding to American territory in 1906 was 19,888, of whom 14,726 went to the Hawaiian Islands, and 5, 162 to the mainland, the latter number including all persons in transit to other countries. In 1907 from January to October, inclusive, the total number was 15, 168, of whom 10,732 went to the Hawaiian Islands and 4,436 to the mainland.

Of the latter 3,648 belonged to the non-laboring classes and 752 were laborers, either persons returning to the United States, the members of the families of laborers already resident there, or agricultural settlers. Count Hayashi is at a loss to account for the discrepancies thus disclosed, but believes it may confidently be stated that the number of passports alleged to have been granted to laborers emigrating to the mainland in 1907 cannot possibly be correct. It is true that it has come to the knowledge of the Japanese Government that some laborers in the guise of merchants or students have obtained passports to the American mainland, but making reasonable allowance for all cases of that description the total number must fall far short of that reported to the Ambassador.

Count Hayashi desires it to be well understood, however, that the Imperial Government have no wish to take advantage of mistakes of this character or to cite them as a reason for non action. They quite agree that the situation calls for some remedy in the interests of both countries, and only call attention to this phase of the subject because they feel assured that the American Government will agree with them that overstatements of this kind, even when unintentional and made in complete good faith, can have no other effect than further to complicate and embarrass their joint efforts to reach a reasonable and adequate understanding.

The Ambassador states in his communication of November 16th that it is the opinion of his Government that,

“The great number of Japanese coming to the Pacific Coast constitutes a case of emigration in mass, which is entirely different from that of ordinary and incidental travel and residence contemplated in the treaty, and injurious to the working people of the Pacific Coast, due to the lower standard of wages and cost of living of the Japanese, which enables them to supplant the American workman.”

To this statement His Excellency adds the following comment:

“I need not point out that Japan not only recognizes the right to protect her own laboring people against competition from foreign laborers, but in the late instance has shown such activity to make exclusion effective as to leave no doubt of her intention in the future. I have in mind the exclusion of the Chinese, and the enacting of certain ordinances excluding foreign workmen from the interior, except on special permit.”

These paragraphs are quoted in juxtaposition because it appears to Count Hayashi, with all deference to the views expressed, that the premise contained in the one hardly bears out the conclusion implied in the other. As a matter of fact, the ordinance referred to in the latter paragraph concerns only laborers from non-treaty States, or States which do not concede to Japanese subjects the privilege to go and carry on their avocations outside of certain specified treaty limits. It in no way implies the adoption of a policy of exclusion regarding laborers generally, or, in fact, regarding labor from the countries in question when the formalities required by law are observed. The large number of Chinese laborers of all classes in Japan, among them nearly 9,000 in the island of Formosa alone who go there annually under the terms of the ordinance, is proof of the fact that a policy of exclusion is not enforced against Chinese labor in the Empire.

Count Hayashi confesses to a certain degree of hesitancy in recurring to the paragraph first quoted, as it comes within the category of matters of domestic concern about which, as stated in another place, he would prefer to refrain from comment. The mention of the subject in the particular connection in which it appears will, he trusts, be regarded as sufficient warrant for mentioning certain reflections which suggest themselves. The interests which Japan and the United States have in common, their geographic neighborhood, the tempting opportunities which the as yet only partly developed natural resources of the Pacific Coast offer to all forms of legitimate enterprise, and the scarcity of labor would seem, a priori, to render Japanese immigration welcome. As a matter of fact that immigration has never, at its highest flood, equalled in one year the number of immigrants who frequently enter in one day at the port of New York, and Count Hayashi believes it may be stated without fear of authoritative contradiction that among the latter will be found a much larger number of persons whose standard of living and of wages is no higher than, or even so high as that of a greater number of Japanese from the same class of life. Nor, in Count Hayashi’s opinion, has it ever been clearly shown that the presence of Japanese in large numbers upon the Pacific Coast has lowered those standards for the American workman. The wages of the latter are nowhere higher than there, and the rates have steadily increased during the years when the influx of Japanese laborers was greatest. The latter have themselves profited by securing the highest obtainable payment for the forms of labor in which they are engaged. In fact it is one of the peculiar ironies of the situation that while they have been charged, on the one hand, with injuring the American workman by competition with which he cannot cope, they have been persistently accused, on the other, of greed in demanding the highest market rates for their labor.

These are, however, details upon which it serves no useful purpose to dilate. The immediate object which the Imperial Government have in view is to overcome the practical difficulties of the situation by meeting the wishes of the American Government so far as it can be done with due regard for Japan’s interests and the dignity of the State. It was for this purpose that Count Hayashi had the honor yesterday frankly to explain the views of the Imperial Government both verbally and in the form of the notes pro memoria handed to His Excellency the Ambassador.

By way of recapitulation and of additional explanation Count Hayashi now begs to present, for the information of the American Government, the following summary of the views of the Imperial Government and of the measures they are prepared to take.

1. The Imperial Government are determined to continue their announced policy of issuing no passports good for the American mainland to either skilled or unskilled Japanese laborers, except to those who have previously resided in the United States, or the parents, wives or children of Japanese residents.

2. They intend, however, to continue to grant passports to settled agriculturists. As was known to the predecessor of His Excellency the Ambassador on the 26th of May last the Japanese Government have exercised with reference to those persons very careful and rigorous supervision and restriction. The privilege has only been granted to bona fide agriculturists intending to settle in certain specified localities. In order to avoid all possible subterfuge, the central administration will continue rigidly to apply the precautionary measures set forth in the explanatory memorandum of May 26th.^25a

3. The Imperial Government have formulated instructions to local Governors that in every case of application for a passport to the United States by a student, merchant, tourist or the like, thorough investigation must be made to determine whether the applicant is not likely to become a laborer after reaching the United States. A material and indispensable part of this investigation relates to the financial status of the applicant. If he is not rich enough in his own right to assure the permanence of his status as a student, merchant or tourist, surety will be required of his family or special patron in the case of a student, or of his firm or company in the case of a merchant or mercantile employe, guaranteeing the payment of expenses and a monthly allowance of say 40 yen; and, in the case of tourists, the payment of sufficient travelling expenses. The passport applied for will only be issued after this surety has been given. As a further precaution in the case of students no such passports will be issued except to students who have passed through the middle schools.

4. So far as concerns the Hawaiian Islands, which it is proposed to set aside from the scope of the questions under consideration, it is the present intention of the Imperial Government experimentally to stop all emigration to those islands for some time to come, except in isolated cases of returning emigrants and of the parents, wives and children, of those already resident in the Islands.

5. The Imperial Government intend to take measures regarding the emigration of Japanese laborers to foreign territory adjacent to the United States, which, in their opinion, will effectually remove all cause for complaint on that account.

Count Hayashi sincerely trusts that His Excellency the Ambassador and his Government will find in the foregoing recapitulation ample evidence of the desire and the intention of the Imperial Government to adopt administrative measures of regulation and control which will effectually meet the requirements of the situation.

[Annex D—Telegram]

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Japan (O’Brien)²⁶

Washington, January 23, 1908.

Reply formally in the following words to Foreign Office communications reported by telegraph January 1st.²⁷

“The Government of the United States has received a telegraphic summary of His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs two memoranda and is very sensible of the spirit of mutual helpfulness and frank and cordial cooperation in which the Imperial Japanese Government has received and commented upon the administrative measures which in November last the United States ventured to suggest in the same spirit and in hope of the speedy accomplishment in the manner most agreeable to Japan of a result equally recognized by the two governments as essential to their best interests.

Feeling unjustified in the assumption that the measures contemplated, when reduced to definite and detailed form and placed in actual operation, will cover the ground of the first three of the suggestions submitted, it is still impossible for the United States to lay aside the conviction that an application in principle of some measures such as the fourth and fifth measures suggested would contribute to the practical effectiveness of the others and to the enforcement in this country of the Japanese Government’s own passport system, to which object alone have been addressed the steps hitherto taken.

It is quite evident that the meaning of these two suggestions has not yet been made clear, and entire confidence is felt that upon further sympathetic examination of the subject the Imperial Japanese Government will find it possible to concur in the substance of these suggestions or to devise alternative measures designed to aid in attaining the ends which they were intended to subserve.

With regard to the fourth suggestion it has not for one moment been contemplated that the holder of a passport should be deprived of any of his general rights thereunder, but only that the passport under the circumstances mentioned should not suffice to enable him to remain in American territory in violation of the conditions of emigration originally imposed by his own Government: that is to say that successful evasion of the limitations imposed by the Government of Japan upon its own subjects should not be held to create a right to be relieved from those limitations.

With regard to the fifth suggestion there is evidently a misunderstanding, for the need of identification therein contemplated as a matter of course exists only in the case of those who are engaged in manual labor and in no case would a non-laboring Japanese be concerned. The Government of the United States, however, does not wish to press any of the ideas contained in the fifth suggestion to an extent not agreeable to the Government of Japan. The Government of the United States entertains the hope, however, that the Imperial Japanese Government will take satisfaction in providing in its own way for some such systematic preservation of data as to its subjects who come to the United States with the permission of their own Government as may enable the two governments acting in harmony to prevent violation of the limits fixed by the Government of Japan upon emigration. The Government of the United States is now calling upon its citizens in all foreign countries to register at the United States consulates in the Districts where they reside, and has authorized its consuls to issue to them certificates of registration which are designed to be used by the citizens registered as readily producible evidence of their status and treaty rights. (See Executive Order April 8, 1907, amending paragraph 172, consular regulations, and Department circular, April 19, 1907).²⁸

The fact that it has been found expedient and unobjectionable to apply such a policy to American citizens was in mind when the fifth suggestion was made. It may well be that the United States will find it necessary for the enforcement of the numerous provisions of its immigration laws, which there are frequent attempts to violate on the part of immigrants from all parts of the world, to adopt more stringent general provisions for the purpose of enabling American governmental officers to ascertain what aliens are lawfully and what aliens are unlawfully within American territory. In that event the Government of the United States will expect to proceed in entire harmony in every case with the government of the country of origin. In the meantime, however, the Government of the United States will be much gratified if the Imperial Japanese Government will give the subject its serious consideration.

With regard to the sixth suggestion, the United States is easily able to impose upon companies whose steamships touch American ports the duty of returning at any time within three years aliens who enter American territory in violation of American law. By existing agreements this duty is assumed also by British lines to Canada. The Government of the United States hopes that the Imperial Japanese Government, upon re-examining the technical legal bearings of this question, may after all find it possible either to induce the Japanese steamship companies to join in such agreements, or else may discover administrative means to obtain the cooperation of the companies.

As to the discrepancies discovered between the Japanese and American statistics, the Government of the United States can only say that its official statistics have been most carefully compiled from the manifests of incoming vessels and from actual count of arriving immigrants and their passports, and that these bear certainly every internal evidence of correctness. Under these circumstances there would seem to be some ground for the fear that fraud on no inconsiderable scale may have been practised by unscrupulous persons upon the passport system of the Imperial Japanese Government.”

In an aide-mémoire after a conversation you may also lay before the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following points as requiring emphasis with reference to our suggestions.

• “1st. Passports should be exact and specific and issued with the greatest care to prevent forgery and false personation.
• 2d. The issuance of passports to laborers who have formerly been in American territory or to the parents, wives, or children of laborers already there, should be carefully safeguarded and limited, otherwise abuses are, it is feared, certain.
• 3d. With reference to settled agriculturists, the gist of the precautionary measures to be taken is noted and it is understood that a settled agriculturist is a small farmer capitalist and not merely a farm laborer paid under contract out of the produce of his agricultural work, and that with this criterion a reasonable number of passports only will be issued to persons of such economic status. It is to be observed that unless the alleged character of farmer is accompanied by actual title to land it is quite likely to be merely a cover for a violation of our contract labor laws and this should be specifically guarded against.
• 4th. It is quite important also that the Japanese Government’s definition of laborer be conformable to our own. (See rule 21, J.)²⁹ For illustration, from December 27 to January 10 there arrived at Pacific ports 118 Japanese who were laborers according to our rules but who had obtained passports otherwise than as laborers. During that period only four arrived with passports as laborers.”

We cannot believe that the Imperial Japanese Government will find serious difficulty in devising some quite unobjectionable system of registration or of certificates, or of renewed passports, or other evidence by which may be identified those engaged in manual labor in American territory lawfully and without violation of their passports.

We hope that you will be able to secure agreement upon the four points as specified at the close of yours of January 1st.

Root

[Annex E]

The Japanese Foreign Office to the American Embassy³⁰

Memorandum

In the memorandum³¹ accompanying Count Hayashi’s note of December 31st, he outlined the additional administrative measures for the regulation and control of emigration which the Imperial Government are prepared to enforce. The necessary steps are being taken to put those measures into effective operation, and Count Hayashi is confident that they will be found to cover the ground of the first three of the suggestions made in the memorandum transmitted with the Ambassador’s note of November 26th [27th?].³² In the meantime, as His Excellency is aware, the Imperial Government have anticipated the enforcement of these additional measures by strictly limiting emigration to the American mainland and by suspending for the time being fresh emigration to the Hawaiian Islands.

So far as concerns the fourth and fifth suggestions embodied in the Ambassador’s memorandum above cited, the Imperial Government still find it impracticable to agree to the adoption in their entirety of the measures therein proposed.

There seems to be some misapprehension on the part of the American Government regarding the Japanese passport system, arising apparently from the belief that the passports themselves contain conditions the violation of which would justify the infliction of a penalty. This is not, however, the case. Passports are issued in all cases under fixed limitations, that is to say, only to persons possessing certain special qualifications, which must be proved to the satisfaction of the responsible authorities, who are instructed to exercise the most careful scrutiny, and who, by aid of the new administrative measures, will have additional and it is hoped more effective means of determining the actual status of applicants. But while by these means it may be confidently expected that the number of evasions will be reduced to a minimum, the passports themselves contain no conditions for the violation of which the Imperial Government can inflict a penalty after the offender has passed beyond their jurisdiction.

But even if it were possible to exact such a penalty there are cases where its imposition might amount to a positive injustice. It may happen, for example, that the bearer of a student’s or merchant’s passport, obtained in good faith, may be reduced through some unanticipated misfortune to the necessity of manual labor.

Moreover there is another class of cases, also, in connection with which a declaration of that kind might create embarrassment. This includes a large number of Japanese laborers in the United States with passports for the Hawaiian Islands, British Columbia and Mexico who entered prior to the promulgation of the executive order of March 14th, 1907.³³ It is quite apparent that the suggestion in the Ambassador’s memorandum was not intended to be retroactive and consequently has no reference to cases of this kind. But from circumstances which have occurred since the issuance of the order and from the greatly exaggerated statements which continue to appear in the public press concerning the number of surreptitious entries alleged to have taken place since then, it is evident that serious confusion has arisen between those laborers who violated no law when they entered the United States and the much smaller number of persons possessing similar passports who have evaded the prohibitions of the executive order and administrative regulations. While the Imperial Government sincerely deprecate the complications which have resulted, they fear that a declaration on their part invalidating a certain class of passports, even if they had the power to make it, so far from remedying the situation might even lead to fresh complications. With the enforcement of the precautionary measures now in contemplation or in actual operation it may reasonably be expected that similar causes of complaint will be of very rare occurrence. As an additional precaution it is the intention of the Administrative Authorities in every case of evasion of the limitations under which passports are issued that comes to their knowledge to refuse further applications for passports from the persons guilty of the fraud, and to extend the prohibition to applications for passports for the parents, wives and families of such persons. This is the only practicable sanction which can be imposed, but experience will doubtless prove its value, in cooperation with other preventive measures, as a deterrent to fraud.

For these reasons, the Imperial Government believe they have good ground for hesitating to declare in advance that all acts in contravention of the representations upon which passports were secured shall per se be tantamount to a forfeiture of any right guaranteed by treaty or otherwise, the passport itself, as has hitherto been explained, being merely the expression of the request of the Japanese Government that the bearer, a Japanese subject, shall be accorded the enjoyment of such rights.

Count Hayashi begs to thank His Excellency for the copy of the Order establishing the registration of American citizens abroad and notes with pleasure the considerate attitude of the American Government with reference to the suggestion. The Imperial Government have studied the subject with great interest, and have now the intention of establishing a system for the registration of Japanese residents in the United States as nearly similar to that described in the Ambassador’s note as circumstances will permit. Certain practical difficulties to which attention has already been drawn will have to be overcome, such, for example, as are incident to the large areas included within the jurisdiction of the Imperial Consular establishments in the United States; the widely scattered places of residence of Japanese residents, the nomadic habits which the occupations of laborers in particular frequently entail, and the absence of anything in the nature of a legal sanction whereby registration may be rendered absolutely obligatory. This latter obstacle may in a measure be overcome, by refusing certain privileges to non-registered persons which it is optional to accord, but even under the most favorable circumstances the task of establishing and keeping such a record will be a difficult one. It was not this circumstance alone, however, which at first inclined the Imperial Government to regard the suggestion as unacceptable, but the apprehension that the adoption of such a system might be regarded as equivalent to an admission that Japanese subjects not registered, although entitled to be, might be held to have forfeited their right of residence in the United States, or might at least be subjected to trouble and expense difficult to bear. In other words, the Imperial Government, as a matter of principle, were and still are averse to adding to the obligations already incumbent on such Japanese subjects another obligation, which might under easily supposable circumstances work unmerited hardship. At the same time they fully realize the value of frank and harmonious cooperation by the officials of the respective Governments in this, as well as in all other matters connected with emigration, not only as one of the most effective means of preventing fraud, but also as the strongest safe-guard of the rights of those mistakenly accused of it. Recognizing in the explanations of His Excellency the importance which his Government attach to procedure thus inspired, and highly appreciating, also, the cordially conciliatory spirit which his comments display, the Imperial Government have modified their opinion as above indicated, and will establish a system of registration as soon as practicable. It should be added, however, that while no effort will be spared to make the registration as complete as possible, the Imperial Government will not consider that the absence of registration constitutes a reason for the forfeiture of residential rights.

With regard to the sixth suggestion, that the Imperial Government shall cooperate with the Government of the United States to compel steamship companies to carry back ineligible emigrants, Count Hayashi regrets to say that there is no provision in Japanese law, similar to that in force in the United States, granting this power to the Administrative Authorities, and that at the present juncture it would be useless to attempt to secure the passage of such a measure by the Diet. It occurs to him, however, that by reason of the measures of restriction upon emigration to territories adjacent to the United States the cause for anxiety on this score will disappear.

Since the receipt of the Ambassador’s note of the 25th ult.,³⁴ Count Hayashi has caused renewed and thorough examination to be made of the statistics of emigration during the past two years. This investigation has not only included the official statistics but also the passenger lists of steamship companies. The result confirms in all essential details the statement made in his memorandum of December 31st. He is quite at a loss to account for the discrepancies thus disclosed, although possibly a partial explanation may be found in the fact that the American annual statements are for the year ending September 30th, while the Japanese statistics are for the calendar year; and, also, as regards the respective monthly statements, in the differences incident to the enumeration at the time of the arrival in the one case and of departure in the other. However that may be, Count Hayashi begs to repeat that the Imperial Government have no wish to lay undue stress upon any mistakes of this kind which may have occurred, particularly since at the present time the subject possesses more interest as a matter of record than as one of practical moment.

His Excellency the Ambassador did Count Hayashi the favor to transmit with his note of the 25th ultimo a copy of the Executive Order of April 8, 1907, defining the term “laborer, skilled and unskilled”, and also certain supplementary measures, the administration of which, in conjunction with those already proposed, it is thought “will make still more effective the policy of the Japanese Government in respect to the subject under discussion.”

Taking these measures in the order in which they are stated in the enclosure with His Excellency’s note, Count Hayashi beg[s] to submit the following observations:

• First. The passports of foreign countries, some fifteen in number, have been examined and compared and as a result it has been resolved to introduce certain modifications into the passport form now employed including various matters of detail embodied in most foreign passports. The Ambassador no doubt understands from the explanations already made to him that the forgery of the passports at present in use is thought to be virtually a negligible danger. That, however, will not be regarded as a reason for omitting whatever additional safeguards the above changes may afford against the perpetration of fraud of all descriptions.
• Second. Passports to laborers who have already been in America and to the parents, wives and children of laborers resident there, are issued upon the production, in the former case, of the certificate of a Consular officer in the United States and, in the latter, upon the production of such certificate and of a duly certified copy of the official registry of the members of the family in Japan. No passport can be issued by any local official in Japan except upon the presentation of such certificate or certificates, duly authenticated, and both Consular Officers and local officials are instructed to omit no precaution against possible fraud in the exercise of the duties entrusted to them.
• Third. With reference to the term “settled agriculturist” the understanding expressed in the Ambassador’s memorandum virtually agrees with that of the Imperial Government as explained in the note to His Excellency’s predecessor dated May 16, 1907.³⁵ The settled agriculturist must in every case be a person who has invested capital in the enterprise, and whose share of its proceeds, if it is carried on in partnership, will of course be in proportion to the amount of his investment. Nor is any such undertaking sanctioned unless title to the land, whether by leasehold or in fee simple, has actually been acquired. The greatest care is exercised with reference to this point and not only are detailed reports required from Consular officers cognizant with the circumstances, but also the certificates of Notaries Public attesting the bona fides of the transaction. Local officials are not authorized to issue passports in this class of cases, but all applications therefor, as well as all other applications relating to the matter, must pass through the Foreign Office and receive its direct sanction.
• Fourth. The definition of “laborer, skilled and unskilled” given in the Executive Order of April 8, 1907, (a copy of which was transmitted with the Ambassador’s note), contains no particular which the Imperial Government can regard as inapplicable in determining the status of persons of that class. Count Hayashi notes, however, that it is stated in the Order that the definition is subject to change, and consequently he cannot go so far as to say that the meaning attached by the Imperial Government to the term will always conform to the definition as thus amended.
• Fifth. In the informal memorandum which Count Hayashi had the honor to hand to His Excellency on the 30th of December³⁶ the system hitherto followed with reference to Japanese emigration to the Hawaiian Islands was explained, and it was added that from considerations based upon the fundamental differences between the Hawaiian Islands and the American mainland, economic, geographic and historical “The Imperial Government earnestly desire that the territory of Hawaii be set outside the scope of the present discussion.” It was added that this desire by no means implied an intention on the part of the Imperial Government to insist upon the permanent continuation of the present system. It signified merely, as the context indicated, the belief that the exceptional labor requirements of the Hawaiian Islands and the equally exceptional circumstances under which Japanese emigration thither originated and reached its present proportions differentiated the question from that of ordinary emigration and rendered its separate consideration both logical and mutually desirable. As was also explained, Japanese emigration to Hawaii has hitherto been almost exclusively in response to the requirements of the industry to which the Territory owes its present high standard of wealth and prosperity, in other words, to the operation of the law of demand and supply. Recognizing the value of the mutual benefits which have followed in such full measure, the Imperial Government have no other wish than that future emigration to Hawaii shall proceed upon the same lines, but in no case in excess of natural and legitimate demands, since it is self-evident that excessive emigration would be as harmful to the interests of the emigrants themselves as it could possibly be to any other.

[Annex F]

The Japanese Foreign Office to the American Embassy in Japan³⁷

Memorandum

With reference to the question of embodying in the context of passports to Japanese subjects proceeding abroad some form of warning against false representations in obtaining them, Count Hayashi has already had the honor to explain to His Excellency the American Ambassador the reasons why the Imperial Government object to such a departure from ordinary usage. His Excellency now suggests that such warning, if not made a part of the text of the passport itself, might without objection, be placed upon a separate piece of paper attached to, or delivered with the document. Count Hayashi believes, however, that the end in view can be attained by other means as effectively as in the manner suggested. The requisit[e] warning, for example, can be given in clear and unmistakable terms to the applicant at the time the passport is issued; or the prefectural authorities can issue general official notices admonishing applicants regarding false representations and the fraudulent use of passports. By these means it may be confidently expected that there will be left no room for reasonable doubt that persons obtaining passports will clearly comprehend the nature and scope of the obligations they assume.

The Ambassador refers to certain features embodied in his note of December 25th [26th?] last,³⁸ and afterwards made the subject of personal conferences, but which he remarks are not embodied in either of Count Hayashi’s notes. Count Hayashi begs to state that this omission on his part formally to reply to the suggestions in question was due to the impression that the explanations already given had apprised His Excellency of his views regarding them.

The first of these matters has relation to the suggested issuance of passports by a limited number of officials especially designated for the purpose. The Ambassador now calls attention to the desirability, “at least in respect to all cases of doubt, notably small merchants, students and others of like type, as well as settled agriculturalists”, of having passports issued directly by the Foreign Office, Count Hayashi does not question the utility of such a rule, particularly under existing circumstances. As a matter of fact it is already followed to a certain extent, the practice being to require the reference to the Foreign Office by local officials of all cases involving serious doubt of the qualifications of applicants for passports. In the way of additional precaution, having in view exigencies arising from the enforcement of new administrative measures, instructions have been issued to local officials widening the scope of this rule. One of the obstacles to its application in all cases is the great amount of additional labor which that would entail, but a plan for the increase of the clerical force of the Foreign Office has been formulated, which, if it receives legislative sanction, will make it possible to bring all cases involving questions of doubt within the sphere of the department’s direct action.

The observation of His Excellency the Ambassador concerning the advisability of strictly scrutinizing the qualifications of settled agriculturalists are quite in harmony with the views and intentions of the Imperial Government as explained in Count Hayashi’s previous communications. It may be added however that while settled agriculturalists are laborers in the same sense as farmers, they are also, from the other point of view different to ordinary laborers, since it is an absolute prerequisite that they must have a bona fide pecuniary interest in the enterprises in which they engage apart from the returns derived from their own manual labor.

In conformity with the verbal assurances already given to the Ambassador, Count Hayashi has the honor to state that there is no objection to the proposal that the two Governments should furnish each other, as promptly as possible, after the first of each month, statistics as to Japanese subjects belonging to the classes to whom this correspondence refers going to, or returning from the ports of the respective countries.

Count Hayashi has hitherto refrained from alluding formally to the proposal that Japanese subjects should be registered at the ports of arrival, because he had hoped that the plan of registration he had the honor to suggest in his note of the 18th instant³⁹ would meet the requirements of the situation; and because, moreover, the proposal appeared to him to be open to objections which rendered its adoption unadvisible. Among these might be mentioned the additional serious detention to which Japanese passengers of all classes would be subjected if the registration were carefully performed, and the very probable contingency that it might not after all be final as the destinations of the immigrants might be other Consular districts where the process would have to be repeated.

Count Hayashi observes in the Ambassador’s note of the 22nd [21st?] instant⁴⁰ indications of a certain degree of disappointment because the plan of legislation [registration?] proposed in his note of the 18th instant was not of a more positive and affirmative character. As was explained in that communication, however, it is the only plan which it is in the power of the Imperial Government to put into operation. The efficiency of such a plan must of course depend upon the sanction enforcing compliance with its provisions. In this case, although the Imperial Government are unable directly to compel the Japanese subjects to register as desired, they can indirectly make registration highly desirable if not indispensable in the majority of instances, by refusing to grant certain consular certificates to non-registered persons. These include certificates relating to conscription and various matters affecting personal rights and status the possession of which, in view of the processes of Japanese law, is of great importance to most Japanese residents abroad.

Count Hayashi is gratified to find in the Ambassador’s statement with reference to the course to be adopted in the event of future renewal of Japanese emigration to Hawaii substantial accord with the opinion entertained by the Imperial Government, which is that if at any time hereafter it should appear desirable to depart from the present policy of prohibition, that step should only be taken after ascertaining through an American official source the labor conditions prevailing in the Islands and the need thereof.

12. A copy of this résumé was given to Mr. Taketomi, Secretary of the Japanese Embassy, Apr. 8, 1924.
13. The documents listed, together with a Japanese Foreign Office memorandum of Dec. 31, 1907, are printed, infra, as annexes to this memorandum.
14. Annex A, post, p. 345.
15. Annex D, post, p. 359.
16. Annex B, post, p. 347.
17. Annex F, post, p. 367.
18. Annex E, post, p. 361.
19. Quotation is not from the Japanese Foreign Office memorandum of Dec. 30, 1907, as indicated, but from the memorandum of Dec, 31, 1907, post, p. 352.
20. Filed separately under file no. 2542/164a. Copy transmitted to the Japanese Foreign Office Nov. 27, 1907.
21. Filed separately under file no. 2542/331–334. Copy transmitted to the Department with the Ambassador’s despatch no. 120, Jan. 2, 1908.
22. See instruction of Nov. 18, 1907, to the Ambassador in Japan, supra.
23. Not printed.
24. Filed separately under file no. 2542/331–334. Received by the American Ambassador as an enclosure to a note of Dec. 31, 1907, from the Japanese Foreign Office; copies transmitted to the Department by the Ambassador in his despatch no. 120, Jan. 2, 1908.
25. Not printed.
26. Not printed.
26. Filed separately under file no. 2542/258.
27. Telegram not printed; it transmitted substance of Japanese Foreign Office memoranda of Dec. 30 and Dec. 31, 1907, printed ante, pp. 347 and 352.
28. Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. i, pp. 6 and 8.
29. See Immigration Laws and Regulations of July 1, 1907, Department of Commerce and Labor, doc. no. 78 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1908), p. 42.
30. Filed separately under file no. 2542/453–455. Received by the American Ambassador as an enclosure to a note dated February 18, 1908, from the Japanese Foreign Office; copies transmitted to the Department by the Ambassador in his despatch no. 197, Feb. 19, 1908.
31. Ante, p. 352.
32. See telegram of Nov. 18, 1907, to the Ambassador in Japan, p. 345.
33. See Reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 1908 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1909), p. 221.
34. See telegram of Jan. 23, 1908, from the Department to the Ambassador in Japan, which was communicated to the Foreign Office Jan. 25, 1908, p. 359.
35. Not printed.
36. Memorandum, ante, p. 347.
37. Filed separately under file no. 2542/471–474. Received by the American Ambassador as an enclosure to a note dated February 23, 1908, from the Japanese Foreign Office; copies transmitted to the Department by the Ambassador in his despatch no. 204, Feb. 25, 1908.
38. Not printed.
39. Ante, p. 361.
40. Not printed.