oHAP. Iv] IMMIGRATION OF COLOURED RACES 1089
unreservedly the free right of immigration given, though
the danger was pointed out by the Imperial Government.!
Things went smoothly until 1907, when the influx of Japanese
due to inducements held out by steamship companies and to
an exodus from Hawaii through the rivalry of Portuguese
labour, lead to a riot in Vancouver in September, in which
a good deal of damage to property was done, which the
Dominion Government at once made good. But Mr. Lemieux
was sent to Japan, and with the Ambassador’s aid nego-
tiated a treaty for a more restricted immigration from
Japan, and since then, January 1908, there has been no
fresh trouble.?2 Canada has decided not to adhere to the new
treaty of 1911 with Japan, but the two countries have agreed
to give each other for two years, pending a special negotiation,
most favoured nation treatment; the arrangement as te
immigration being unaffected. In 1908 the British Columbia
Immigration Act (c. 23) was questioned in the Courts before
it could be disallowed and pronounced void alike as regards
Japanese and British Indians; in 1907 the Lieutenant-
Governor had declined to assent to the Bill.
In the case of British Indians the riot was due to the
influx of such Indians from Hong Kong. It was found
necessary to use the powers of the Government under the
Immigration Acts of 1906 and 1908 to impose a property
qualification of twenty-five and later two hundred dollars,
and to insist on the possession of through tickets from India, a
plan which has reduced the immigration to reasonable limits.3
But protests have been made against the prohibition by
which Indians are denied the franchise in British Columbia.
! See the summary in Canadian Annual Review, 1907, pp. 382-98 ;
Act 6 & 7 Bdw. VII, c. 50; in re Nakane and Okazake, 13 B. C. 370; in
+e Behari Lal et al., ibid., 415.
* See House of Commons Debates, 1907-8, pp. 694-753, 2025-159.
' Mr. Mackenzie King negotiated with the Indian Government and the
[mperial Government on the matter in 1908, and reported on his mission
to the Dominion Parliament; Parl. Pap., Cd. 4118. See Act 9 & 10
Edw. VIL c. 27, ss. 37, 38.
¢ Upheld by the Privy Council in Cunningham v. Tomey Homma,
[1903] A. C. 157, in the case of a Japanese. Cf. Parl. Pap., Cd. 5745,
op. 407, 408; 5746-1, pp. 279-8L.
12792 Mm
