John Bassett Moore to Sutemi Chinda

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of May ninth, laying before my Government the representations of the Imperial Government of Japan with regard to the law just adopted by the State of California concerning the holding of agricultural lands by aliens. The Government of the United States regrets most sincerely that the Imperial Government of Japan should regard this legislation as based upon an unfair discrimination against the Japanese settlers in California as an indication of unfriendliness towards their people. Being apprised while that legislation measure was still under consideration by the Legislature of California that that might be the feeling of the Imperial Government, the President and I very earnestly attempted to induce the legislative authorities of California to reconsider, to forego, or radically to modify their plans in the matter, urging that the State should not act as a separate unit in the this case but, rather, in cooperation with the federal government. Under the Constitutional arrangements of the United States we could do no more than that, and we most sincerely regret that the authorities of California did not feel at liberty to act upon our representations.At the same time, we feel that the Imperial Government has been misled in its interpretation of the spirit and object of the legislation in question. It is not political. It is not part of any general national policy which would indicate unfriendliness or any purpose inconsistent with the best and most cordial understanding between the two nations. It is wholly economic. It is based upon the particular economic conditions existing in California as interpreted by her own people, who wish to avoid certain conditions of competition in their agricultural industries activities.I have not failed to observe that your note calls attention to certain provisions of the California law which are supposed you conceive to be inconsistent with and to violate existing treaty stipulations between the two countries, and thus to threaten to impair vested rights of property. The law, however, in terms purports to respect and preserve all rights under existing treaties. Such appears to be is its declared intent. But in case it should be alleged that the law had in its operation failed to accomplish that intent, your Government is no doubt advised that by the Constitution of the United States the stipulations of treaties are superior to state legislation, made in pursuance thereof are the Supreme law of the land, and that they are expressly declared to be binding upon the courts state and federal courts alike to the end that they may be judicially enforced in all cases. For this purpose the courts, federal and state, are open to all persons who may feel themselves to have been deprived of treaty rights and guarantees; and in this respect the alien enjoys under our laws a privilege which to one of our own citizens may not be at once all times in all cases available, namely, the privilege of suing in the federal courts. In precisely the same way, our citizens resort and our are obliged to resort to the courts for the enforcement of their constitutional and legal rights. Article XIV of the treaty, to which Your Excellency< refers, appears to relate solely to the rights of commerce and navigation. These the California statute does not appear to be designed in any way to affect. The authors of the law seem to have been careful to guard against any invasion of contractual rights. Your Excellency raises, very naturally and properly, the question how the case would stand should explicit treaties between the two countries expire or cease to be in force while, nevertheless, relations of entire amity and good will still continued to exist between them. I can only reply that in such circumstances the Government of the United States, so far as the present Administration can speak for it, would always deem it its pleasure, as well as a manifest mandate dictate of its cordial friendship for Japan and the Japanese people, to safeguard the rights of trade and intercourse between the two peoples now secured by treaty. I need not assure Your Excellency that this Government will cooperate with the Imperial Government in every possible way to maintain with the utmost cordiality the understandings which bind the two nations together in honor and in interest. Its obligations of friendship would not be lessened or performed in niggardly fashion in any circumstances. It values too highly the regard of Japan and her cooperation in the great peaceful tasks of the modern world to jeopard them in any way; and I feel that I can assure your Excellency that there is no reason to feel that its policy in such matters would be embarrassed or interfered with by the legislation of any state of the Union. The economic policy of a single state with regard to a single kind of property cannot turn aside these strong and abiding currents of generous and profitable intercourse and good feeling.In conclusion let me thank your Excellency for the candor with which you have dealt with this Government in this matter and express the hope that this episode in the intercourse of the two great countries which we represent will only quicken our understanding of one another and our confidence in the desire of each to do justice to the other.