INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES.
Naturalization Questions.— The allegiance of individuals is transferred by emigration fol lowed by naturalization. But if the laws of two countries prescribing the conditions of these processes are not identical, since the new allegiance involves protection, upon the return of the individual to his country of origin a legal conflict as to his allegiance may occur. So, too, it his emigration has been unpermitted, or has evaded military service. Owing to the copious immigration which has sought the United States, our diplomacy has been largely con cerned with just such cases. Our diplomatic remedy was to seek as a favor for the individ ual relief from the obligation or service still due which the naturalized German-American. for instance, visiting his mother-country, was held liable for. Some such had served in the Civil War, some had emigrated as mere boys. The law was clear, for a state may lay down its own conditions of emigration. Between 1865 and 1870 the situation became acute and a rem edy was eagerly sought. Another class of diffi culties arose where our laws naturalized emi grants of states like England, which held the allegiance of their subjects to be indelible. Here both countries had claims to the service of the same person. By the negotiation of treaties with the North German Union, 1868; Belgium, 1868; Hesse, Bavaria, Baden and Wiirttemberg, 1868-69; Mexico, 1868; Sweden and Norway, 1869; Austria and Great Britain, 1870; Den mark, in 1872, these difficulties were cured. By these treaties, the right of expatriation was allowed and our five years' residence require ment was recognized. (See NATURALIZATION).
The provisions of these treaties were reciprocal. Two withheld their privileges from youth who ran away when actually drawn for military service. The others made no such distinction. The subsequent working of these treaties has not been altogether without friction. It may he noted that the modern tendency is toward a uniform five years' residence rule for naturali zation, as under the new Cuban Constitution. These naturalization treaties were a very consid erable diplomatic achievement, due largely to our Minister resident at Berlin, George Ban croft.
The Diplomacy of the United States in the This has reflected commercial rather than political demands. Owing to the radical differences in law, in usage, in racial feeling, European intercourse with the East has insisted for its protection upon a fixed treaty tariff upon imports and upon that exemption from the local law and jurisdiction which we call exterritoriality. This was a limitation upon
the sovereignty of Oriental states. On the other hand, only certain ports in China and Japan were opened to foreign trade. These various features appear in our treaties with China, 1844, 1858, and with Japan, 1854, 1857, 1858. Between 1860 and 1880 both countries began to absorb the new civilization, Japan eagerly and China, vaster and not so centralized, without enthusiasm. Here was the parting of the ways. China thereafter allowed religious freedom, submitted to our drastic immigration restrictions, 1880 and 1894, but otherwise dealt with the United States on the old conservative basis. Japan meanwhile abolished feudalism in 1871- set up a representative Parliament, 1881, 1890; adopted a code of law framed on an European model and made rapid progress in the new ways. Her victory over China in 1895 gave her a position which compelled the powers to surrender their special privileges, as to duties and jurisdiction. In this our own coun try had prior to the war taken the initiative. A considerable influx of Chinese work people, intense local prejudice against them in the West, some deadly riots in which they have suffered and on the other hand outrages to missionaries and the Boxer attack on the legations in Peking have proved some mutual while in the main the respective governments have been on friendly terms. More important still was the war with Russia, 1904, ended by the Peace of Portsmouth, both Japanese triumphs of arms and diplomacy.
As a result Korea become a Japanese pro tectorate; the control of Manchuria was shared with Russia and China; Japan's influence upon China increased; her position in the entire Pa cific was enhanced; she became truly one of the great powers. As a result also a certain degree of friction has developed with the United States, owing to the hostile legislation of our Pacific States rather than to any Japanese act, it is true, but with a consciousness of conflict ing interests. China during the last decade has tended toward modern ways. She has encour aged railways and internal development; has driven out the Manchu dynasty; has assumed a republican form of government and a con stitution; all without serious bloodshed. Under the policy of the Open Door and the Golden Rule, we have watched these changes hopefully yet realizing that the new republic has neither the political unity nor the military strength to make its future certain. See JAPAN; CHINA;