I quote: "If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them and is found by the council to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party. the council shall so report and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement. " This section was the subject of broad discussion and interpretation at the peace conference by those who will constitute the council and the assembly of the league of nations. The Japanese representatives contended that under the construction of such paragraph governments such as the United States. Canada. and Australia could continue to cast upon the Japanese race the alleged stigma of inequality by excluding them from their shores under their immigration laws. The peace conference recognized that the question of immigration is a domestic question. and it therefore refused to adopt the amendment offered by the Japanese representatives in attempting to change the paragraph in this effect. "We only limit Japanese immigration through a gentlemans agreement with Japan. while Canada and Australia have long had upon their statute books stringent Japanese exclusion acts. "The protection of our domestic jurisdiction is of vital importance to us. So is the protection of the domestic jurisdiction of Canada and Australia equally vital to those countries. It is but natural that every nation should be jealous of its domestic jurisdiction. and in this we find conclusive assurance against interference by the league with matters within the domestic jurisdiction of our own Nation.
Keywords matched
immigration exclusion act