is the family, family in its broadest sense. The idea of a family composed of different nationalities is foreign to the Japanese conception of a homogeneous "house." In view of modern legislation in Belgium, France and the United States of America, relating to the nationality of married women, the provisions of the Japanese law of nationality would seem to afford material for reflection. It may seriously be doubted whether the modern tendency in this respect is in the final analysis conducive to the happiness of mankind. In the ardent wish to give room for free play to individualism, are not the nations of European civilization legislating in a manner that is diametrically opposed to the conservation of family? It has generally been supposed that the civilization of Europe that flourished in the 19th century and is still marching forward, is the product of the Christian conception of husband and wife as the nucleus of a family. If the ties of family are weakened by modern legislation based on the respect for individualism, where are we going to land? Such random thoughts as these naturally suggest themselves when modern legislation is examined in the light of the provisions of certain juridical systems such as I have presented. It is precisely for this reason that I have thought that an article on the Japanese law of nationality might be of interest to you.

LOSS OF JAPANESE NATIONALITY

We now come to a subject on which much ignorance regarding the provisions of Japanese law has been manifested in connection with the anti-Japanese agitation in California and other Pacific coast states of America, namely, the question of the loss of Japanese nationality.

Article 18 provides that a Japanese woman who has become the wife of a foreigner and has thereby acquired the nationality of her husband loses her Japanese nationality. We have already examined the provisions of Article 19 which in effect provides that a foreigner who has acquired Japanese nationality by marriage or adoption does not lose his or her Japanese nationality merely by the fact that the domestic relation which was the cause of his or her acquisition of that nationality has come to an end. The law preserves his or her public status as a Japanese national until and unless such person acquires again his or her original nationality. Article 20 provides that a person who by his or her own free volition acquires foreign nationality

shall lose Japanese nationality. Japanese law, therefore, not only recognizes voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality by Japanese subjects, but declares that in case a Japanese has acquired foreign nationality he shall ipso jure cease to be a Japanese subject. Article 20 bis, as it now stands, provides that a person who has acquired foreign nationality by the fact of his birth in a foreign country may divest himself or herself of the Japanese nationality with the permission of the Japanese Minister of State for Home Affairs, provided that such person is domiciled in the country of his or her birth. Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that the application for divesting oneself of Japanese nationality may be filed by one's legal representative in case one is not quite fifteen years old, and that in the case of a minor of fifteen years or more, or in case such person has been declared incompetent by a court of proper jurisdiction, he or she may file application with the Minister of State for Home Affairs with the consent of the legal representative or guardian. The concluding paragraph of Article 20 bis provides that a person whose application for divesting himself or herself of Japanese nationality has been accepted, ceases to be a Japanese subject. Article 21 of the same law provides that the wife and the children of a person ceasing to be a Japanese subject shall likewise lose their Japanese nationality in case they have acquired the nationality of the husband or father. Article 23 provides that a Japanese subject who by legitimation has acquired the nationality of his father who is a foreigner shall lose Japanese nationality, provided however that in case such Japanese so legitimized is the wife of a Japanese or has become the so-called incoming-husband, or has become an adopted child of another Japanese subject he shall not acquire foreign nationality through legitimation by his father.

From all that I have stated it will be apparent that according to the Japanese law the wife and the children follow in principle the nationality of the husband or father. There is no difference in nationality between the children and the parents, or between husband and wife, so far as such discrepancy can be avoided. The ideals and the traditions of family life in Japan are too strong to permit the existence of different nationalities among members of the same family. The claim in California and the Pacific coast generally of the United States, to the effect that the Japanese Government does not permit the loss of Japanese nationality in case of a possible acquisi

tion of American nationality by children of Japanese parentage born in the United States, arises from a specific provision of Article 24 of the same law which is a sort of corollary to the general conscription law of Japan. According to that law every male Japanese must serve in the army or the navy at certain stages of his life. To make the matter perfectly clear, let us give a faithful translation of Article 24 as it stands. It reads as follows:

"A male subject of seventeen years of age or more shall not lose his nationality in spite of the provisions of the six preceding articles, except when he has served in the army or the navy or when his duty to so serve shall have ceased to exist."

If the conscription law required each Japanese male subject to give a certain number of years of his life to naval or military service, then it was logical in order to carry out that requirement that no one was to be exonerated from that obligation by divesting himself of Japanese nationality. In the case of Japanese born in California and other parts of the United States, who according to the AngloAmerican principle of allegiance based on territorial sovereignty, were Americans, Japanese law nevertheless claimed them to be Japanese subjects. When the so-called Japanese question became acute on the Pacific coast of the United States, the Japanese Government immediately recognized that the provisions of Article 24 of the law of nationality presented obstacles to the maintenance of happy relations between Japan and the United States. Thus a draft law amending that provision and other articles in the Law of Nationality of 1899 was introduced into the House of Peers by the Cabinet and would have passed both Houses of the Imperial Diet early in the spring of 1924 if it had not been for the fact that the House of Representatives was dissolved for political reasons into which it is unneccessary to enter. The recent Immigration Act of the United States containing clauses obnoxious to Japan and prohibiting the immigration of Japanese, except in very limited cases, was enacted when the Japanese Government had already introduced into the Imperial Diet a law abolishing the provision under which double nationality was made possible.

In the Extraordinary Session of the Imperial Diet which convened on June 28th, 1924, the Government introduced a draft law further

amending the Law of Nationality of 1899 as amended in 1916. That session terminated on July 18th and the press despatches from Tokyo have reported the passage of said amendatory law by the two Houses of the Diet. At the writing of this paper1 it is not quite certain whether the law as passed was precisely the same as the draft law introduced into the Diet by the Government; but practically it may be assumed that the amendatory law as passed was the same as reported in the minutes of the proceedings of the House of Representatives at its session of July 9th, 1924. On that date the bill was at its first reading stage in that House. I believe therefore it is worth while to give a careful translation of some parts of the draft amendatory law:

Article 20 bis is amended to read as follows:

"A Japanese subject who has acquired the nationality of some foreign country or one of the countries to be designated by an Imperial Ordinance, through the fact of his or her birth in such country shall, unless he or she declares the intention to retain Japanese nationality in accordance with the rules to be prescribed by an Ordinance of the Japanese Government, retroactively lose Japanese nationality from the time of his or her birth.

"A Japanese who has retained his or her Japanese nationality in pursuance of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, or a Japanese who has acquired the nationality of the country referred to in the preceding paragraph through his or her birth in that country prior to the designation of such foreign country by an Imperial Ordinance, may divest himself or herself of Japanese nationality if he or she so chooses, provided that such person is a national of the country of his or her birth and is domiciled within its territories.

"A person who has declared the intention to divest himself or herself of Japanese nationality according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall lose his or her Japanese nationality."

Article 20 ter is introduced into the law of 1899 by the amendatory law of 1924, and reads as follows:

The draft law was passed by the Diet precisely as introduced and was promulgated July 22, 1924.

"A Japanese who has acquired the nationality of a foreign country other than that referred to in the preceding paragraph, through the fact of his or her birth in such country, may divest himself or herself of Japanese nationality with the permission of the Minister of State for Home Affairs, provided that such person is domiciled in the said country.

"The provisions of the third paragraph of the preceding article shall correspondingly apply to persons who have divested themselves of Japanese nationality in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph."

Article 24 which relates to the retention of Japanese nationality by children of Japanese parentage born in the United States, has likewise been amended. By the draft amendatory law the words "the provisions of the six preceding articles notwithstanding" are amended to read: "notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 19 and 20 and the three preceding articles," with the result that the provisions of Article 20 bis are always applicable without exception and the children of Japanese parentage born in the United States will be free to divest themselves of their Japanese nationality without exception, whether they are younger than fifteen years of age, between fifteen and seventeen, or above seventeen.

Certain verbal amendments are also introduced into Article 26, being the result of the changes in the number of articles that precede. A new Article 27 is added, declaring that the procedure relating to expatriation and the resumption of Japanese nationality shall be prescribed by Ordinance. The date from which the amendatory law is to take effect is to be determined by an Imperial Ordinance.

RIGHTS OF FOREIGNERS IN LAND

As we have referred to the alleged non-existence of the right of expatriation on the part of Japanese subjects as one of the legal grounds for discriminating against Japanese immigration to the United States of America, it might be interesting to refer in this paper to Japanese legislation on the subject of the rights of foreigners in land, the misunderstanding of which on the Pacific coast of the United States has been the basis for discrimination against Japanese in the matter of the tenure of land.