« AnteriorContinuar »
whether there is not a way to have the inapplicable provision amended out of simple fairness and logic.
It is remembered that when the law was voted by the Congress it was said in both the Senate and the House that the rules would have been modified gradually when they would prove to be inefficient or unworkable. Has not an evident case of inapplicability been pointed out?
The Italian Embassy is not asking for any favor or privilege but merely to be put in a position to comply with the United States law and to spare to Italian citizens hardships which so far it is not possible to foresee or avoid.
Before closing, the Chargé d'Affaires takes the liberty of submitting, by way of analogy, the case of Italian citizens from the island of Rhodes, politically Italian, who as such can obtain no passport nor other guidance while emigrating to the United States, than from Italy. And the Chargé d'Affaires begs to re-iterate the request made last year by the Italian Embassy to the Department of State (see Embassy's note of Dec. 17th, 1921 ?) to have Rhodes considered for the purposes of the United States Immigration Law, as Italian territory; the inhabitants of the island admissible under the Italian quota; the Italian passport to give them the right to be included in such quota. In fact a number of Rhodites is now facing deportation because the quota “ Other Asia” to which the Rhodes group seems to have been assigned, is exhausted.
WASHINGTON, September 13, 1922.
The Secretary of State to the Italian Chargé (Rosso)
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to the Royal Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of Italy, and has the honor to acknowl. edge the receipt of his note of September thirteenth, 1922, having further reference to the provision of the restrictive Immigration Act of May 21, 1921, which requires that nationality shall be determined by country of birth, and inquiring whether there is not a way to have this provision amended so that the passport and not the place of birth may be the element on which to establish the assignment of aliens to their respective national quotas.
The Secretary of State informs the Chargé that, as the method of determining the nationality of an alien for quota purposes is specifically stipulated in the Act of Congress above mentioned, a strict adherence to this provision is mandatory. The question of future amendments to this law will have consideration at the appropriate time.
*42 Stat. 5. Act extended until June 30, 1924, by joint resolution of May 11, 1922 (42 Stat. 540).
WASHINGTON, October 6, 1922.
811.111 Quota/338 : Telegram
The Chargé in Italy (Gunther) to the Secretary of State
ROME, December 2, 1922—2 p.m.
[Received 5:40 p.m.] 240. Already Mussolini has indicated to me that he is anxious to have an increase in the quota of immigrants from Italy into the United States. He spoke of the possibility that emigrants might be selected to suit the needs of the United States and indicated that he hoped to have the number increased to 100,000 annually. As I suggested in my despatch 508, November 18, pages 3 and 4,' the Italian Government will inevitably turn to increased immigration in order to decrease the amount of unemployment which is sure to grow with the carrying out of Mussolini's program for a reduction in the numbers employed in the public services, Fascisti units, and armed forces. It may well be that Italian immigration will become the most important subject in the relations between Italy and the United States.
I would therefore suggest that if possible before the new Italian Ambassador brings up this question, I be given an instruction, even if it is premature, to say nothing more than that this problem is a matter of concern to you also. Mussolini is distinctly friendly in his attitude toward us.
811.111 Quota/338: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Italy (Gunther)
WASHINGTON, December 13, 1922–6 p.m. 185. Embassy's 240, December 2, 2 p.m. The Department understands the importance which Mussolini's Government attaches to the subject of Italian immigration into this country.
The Department will keep you fully informed with respect to any representations which the new Italian Ambassador may make on this question.
FAILURE TO SECURE RATIFICATION OF THE CABLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, GREAT BRITAIN, AND ITALY, SIGNED AT THE PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF 1920
(See volume I, pages 538 ff.)
CANCELATION OF THE LANSING-ISHII AGREEMENT OF
NOVEMBER 2, 1917"
Message of President Harding to the Senate, March 8, 1922 2
TO THE SENATE:
I have received the resolution (S. Res. 251) requesting me, if not incompatible with the public interest to advise the Senate as to the present status and binding effect of what is known as the Lansing-Ishii agreement between the United States and the Empire of Japan.
Secondly, as to whether or not the four-power pact,s now before the Senate for consideration, if ratified, will abrogate, nullify, or in any way modify such agreement; and as to what will be the status of said agreement after the ratification of said four-power pact.
The so-called Lansing-Ishii agreement, signed November 2, 1917, was not a treaty, but was an exchange of notes between the Secretary of State of the United States and Viscount Ishii, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Japan on special mission. It was described in the notes themselves as a public announcement of the desires and intentions shared by the two Governments with regard to China. This exchange of notes, in the nature of things, did not constitute anything more than a declaration of Executive policy. It is hardly necessary to point out that such a declaration, or exchange of notes, could not have any effect whatever inconsistent with treaty obligations whether existing or thereafter coming into force.
The statement in the notes in question which apparently called forth your resolution is as follows:
The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial propinquity creates special relations between countries, and, consequently, the Government of the United States recognizes thať Japan has special interests in China and particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.
For text of agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 264-205.
In the light of the other declarations of the notes in question, it has been the view of the Government of the United States that this reference to special interests in China did not recognize any right or claim inconsistent with the sovereignty or political independence of China or with our “ open-door" policy.
That this was not an erroneous construction appears from the meaning ascribed to the phrase “ special interests in China," which is found in the final statement made on behalf of Japan at the recent conference. (S. Doc. No. 126, 67th Cong., 2d sess., p. 223.) The phrase was interpreted to mean that propinquity gave rise to an interest differing only in degree, but not in kind, as compared with the interests of other powers. It was said to intimate “ no claim or pretension of any kind prejudicial to China or to any other foreign nation” and not to connote “any intention of securing preferential or exclusive economic rights in China."
Happily, as a result of the conference, it is not now necessary to consider any possible ambiguity in the expressions used in the Lansing-Ishii agreement of 1917, as any question which they might have raised has been completely set at rest by the treaty, now before the Senate, to which the United States and Japan are parties. I refer to the treaty between the nine powers, which explicitly sets forth the principles and policies to be maintained by the signatory powers in relation to China.*
It is thus agreed to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government; to use their influence for the purpose of effectually establishing and maintaining the principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations throughout the territory of China; to refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to secure special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States, and from countenancing action inimical to the security of such States.
More specifically, the signatory powers agree that they will not seek, nor support their respective nationals in seeking, any arrangement which might purport to establish in favor of their interests any general superiority of rights with respect to commercial or economic development in any designated region of China, or any such monopoly or privilege as would deprive the nationals of any other power of the right of undertaking any legitimate trade or industry in China, or of participating with the Chinese Government or with any local authority, in any category of public enterprise, or
* See vol. I, p. 276.