COOLIDGE SIGNS JAPANESE BAN!
ORIENTAL BAR GIVEN RELUCTANT APPROVAL
President Criticizes Congress for Not Delaying Operation of Immigration Bill, but Affixes Signature.
NEED FOR NEW GENERAL LAW CAUSED ACTION
If Measure Holding Back Mikado's Subjects Had Stood Alone, Says He Would Have Vetoed It.
By Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Monday, May 26. -- The immigration bill was signed today by President Coolidge.
It was pointed out that inasmuch as the present immigration law expires on June 30, a veto might have made it necessary to rush through an emergency measure in the closing hours of the session.
Such a step, the President felt would not be practicable in view of the tangled legislative situation and the certainty that any emergency provision would be beset by many attempts at amendment and possibly block altogether.
Despite the provision making Japanese exclusion effective next July 1, put into the measure over his vigorous opposition, the President decided because of other considerations to give the executive approval necessary to spread the legislation on the statute books.
President Prepares Statement.
As soon as he had fixed his signature to the bill, however, the President prepared a statement, expressing his disapproval of the failure of Congress to provide for a longer delay in the effective date of Japanese exclusion.
The President's signature was affixed to the bill after he had conferred with Secretary Hughes and had devoted a week end to study of the measure and the reports made on it by the state and labor departments.
The President's statement declared he had approved the bill because of the necessity of considering "the bill as a whole, and the imperative need of the country for legislation of this general character."
If the exclusion provision stood alone, the president said, he would have disapproved it without hesitation.
Besides the Japanese exclusion feature the bill contains a number of provisions which were the basis of stubborn contests when the legislation first was under consideration in the Senate and House. One question long in dispute was the method of determining national quotas, which under the measures as finally passed are reckoned at 2 per cent on the basis of the 1890 census.
Considered Veiled Threat.
This, and all other disagreements over the bill's provisions, have been subordinated to the Japanese exclusion issue ever since Ambassador Hanihara on April 11, sent a note to the state department suggesting that the possibility of "grave consequences" be considered before an absolute legislative barrier was reared against the Japanese. The note was characterized in both Senate and House as a veiled threat, and both reaffirmed quickly and by overwhelming majorities their desire for exclusion.
The House passed the bill 322 to 71 and the Senate 62 to 6. Under the House measure exclusion would have been effective July 1 of this year, but the Senate to make it effective immediately. While the legislation was in confrence [conference] the President appealed directly to the conferees to write in a postponement until March 1, 1926 so as to permit negotiation of an agreement with
Subsequently the conferees did agree to a postponement until March 1, 1925, but when their report was brought into the House it was voted down 191 to 171. A new conference report was drafted, making the effective date July 1, 1924, and it was adopted by the House, 308 to 58, and by the Senate 69 to 9. In each case the majority was far in excess of the two-thirds that would be necessary for passage over a veto.
The President's statement follows:
"In signing this bill which in its main features I heartily approve, I regret the impossibility of severing from it the exclusion, which, in the light of existing law, affects especially the Japanese.
"I gladly recognize that the enactment of this provision does not imply any change in our sentiment of admiration and cordial friendship for the Japanese people, a sentiment which has had and will continue to have abundant manifestation.
"The bill rather expresses the determination of the Congress to exercise its prerogative in defining by legislation the control of immigration instead of leaving it to international arrangements. It should be noted that the bill exempts from the exclusion provision government officials, those coming to this country as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure, those in transit, seamen, those already resident here and returning from temporary absences, professors, ministers of religion, students and those who enter solely to carry on trade in pursuance of existing treaty provisions.
"But we have had for many years an understanding with Japan by which the Japanese government has voluntarily undertaken to prevent the emigration of laborers to the United States, and in view of this historic relation and of the feeling which inspired it, it would have been much better, in my judgment, and more effective in the actual control of immigration, if we had continued to invite that cooperation which Japan was ready to give and had thus avoided creating any ground for misapprehension by an unnecessary statutory enactment.
Considers Bill as Whole.
That course would not have derogated from the authority of the Congress to deal with the question in any exigency requiring its action. There is scarcely any ground for disagreement as to the result we want, but this method of securing it is unnecessary and deplorable at this time.
"If the exclusion provision stood alone I should disapprove it without hesitation, if sought in this way at this time. But this bill is a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole project of immigration and setting up the necessary administrative machinery. The present quota act of 1921 will terminate on June 30 next. It is of great importance that a comprehensive measure should take its place and that the arrangements for its administration should be provided at once in order to avoid hardship and confusion.
"I must, therefore, consider the bill as a whole, and the imperative need of the country for legislation of this general character. For this reason the bill is approved."
Soon after the President had signed the bill, Ambassador Hanihara called at the State Department and had a long talk with Secretary Hughes. He was furnished with a copy of Mr. Coolidge's statement and will cable it to Tokyo. Neither he nor the secretary would discuss their conference.
Recent dispatches from Tokyo have indicated that Mr. Hanihara would not desire to remain long in Washington as ambassador after the bill became a law, but there was nothing to show that the question of his resignation had been considered during his call today at the State Department.