They exclude all such questions from the scope of jurisdiction which they confer upon this body. If it is only a meeting to confer and hold conversations. wly was it necessary to take away from it all consideration with respect to domestic questions? The makers of this pact well understood that they were turning over to the jurisdiction of this socalled conference power to determine questions. and therefore they did not dare to confer upon them jurisdiction over such questions as Japanese immigration on the Pacific coast. If they are only to meet and hold conversations. why are they not to hold conversations h)out that as well as other questions? I suppose that under this declaration or reservation if a controversy arose between Japan and the United States over the admission of Japanese to this country that it would be said that this was a question within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.
Keywords matched
immigration