He has set forth even more fully the fact that we now have an eflicient and proper means for carrying out the object of this bill. The following are extracts from a communication from Secretary Hughes and tie recent correspondence between the Japanese ambassador and the Secretary. It should be noted the several clauses of the bill have been modified since the letter of Secretary Hughes was written to the Committee on Immigration: [Extract from letter of Secretary Hughes] It is apparent that section 12. subdivision (b). taken in connection with sections 3 and 4 of the proposed measure. operates to exclude Japanese. This is inconsistent with the provision of the treaty of 1911 above mentioned. and with respect to those defined as immigrants who do not come within the treaty. it establishes a statutory exclusion. So far as the latter class is concerned. the question presented Is one of policy. There can be no question that such a statutory exclusion will be deeply resented by the Japanese people. It would be Idle to insist that the provision is not aimed at the Japanese. for the proposed masure (see. 25) continues in force (he existing legislation regulating LXV394 Chinese Immigration and the barredzone provisions of our immigration laws which prohibit Immigration from certain other portions of Asia. The practical effect of section 12 (b) Is to single out Japanese immigrants for exclusion. The Japanese are a sensitive people. and unquestionably would regard such a legislative enactment as fixing a stigma upon them. I regret to be compelled to say that I believe such legislative action would largely undo the work of the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament. which so greatly improved our relations with Japan.
Identified stereotypes
The practical effect of section 12 (b) Is to single out Japanese immigrants for exclusion. The Japanese are a sensitive people, and unquestionably would regard such a legislative enactment as fixing a stigma upon them.