ABSTRACT
THESE events, while they were like a flame passing over Korea, were never more than of secondary interest in Japan, where other excitements following the war held the public attention. Too fervid patriots raised hopes doomed to disappointment by loudly proclaiming that Japan had won Shantung and the German Pacific colonies by conquest, and there were others, like Dr. Tomidzu, nicknamed Dr. Baikal, who insisted on the annexation of Eastern Siberia. A more definite and hopeful interest was aroused by the announcement that the Japanese delegates at Versailles were instructed to introduce a racial equality clause into the Covenant of the League of Nations; and there was a still keener interest in the anticipated struggle between the Japanese and Chinese delegations over the question of Shantung. Japan was not much interested in the terms of peace in Europe, and would have agreed easily enough to a generous treatment of the enemy countries or equally readily to their partition among the victors. Whether the diplomatists really desired to see their racial equality issue incorporated in the League Covenant is doubtful. A keen observer expressed the opinion at the outset that this was merely a demand to be withdrawn in favour of something more vital.1 Racial equality
was itself a rather vague term. Everybody would be ready to concede that we are all “equally God’s creatures,” but those countries which saw in the motion an endeavour to secure the free entry of Oriental labour were not inclined to incorporate this affirmation of equality in any international treaty. Prince Saionji arrived in Paris on March 2nd, and within a week public interest in the question was stirred up by messages that the racial equality issue was to be dropped. Viscount Ishii, Ambassador in Washington, however, was quoted as hinting that the equality clause was an essential condition to Japan’s joining the League, but towards the end of the month there were fresh reports of the question being withdrawn for the present, to be raised later. So much canvassing and lobbying went on that the fate of the resolution was really known before it came to the vote at the meeting of the Commission on the League of Nations. Viscount Uchida, the Foreign Minister, breaking the news to the Diplomatic Advisory Council, said that at first the Imperial Government had had in view the impartial and equal treatment of all participating peoples in the League of Nations in matters of immigration, residence, mining, and coastal trade, but that this was modified owing to America’s objections to the immigration clause. It was rather a curious assortment of equalities, and it was pointed out that Japan herself was an outstanding opponent of them all, since she did not allow Chinese immigration, foreign ownership of land, or participation in the coastal trade, and permitted mining only on unacceptable conditions.
