The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-07-22
PRICE FIVE CENTS.

on international precedents. Having
come within the jurisdiction OF your
courts, they clearly within the ter
ritory of the Republic. i do not mean
at ALL wrote Minister Shimamura, TO en-
ter into discussion OF the nature OF the
examination of the Customs authorities
and whether that examination is final or
not. The Hawaiian Government must
naturally have responsibility for the fair
ness and righteousness OF examination
Reference was made in this letter to
a case in November, 1895. when Chief
Justice Judd, acting as single Justice.
decided that man, with certificate OF
deposit on a bank here, was eligible to
land, as the certificate of deposit was le-
gal under the act.
but under later decision continued
Minister Cooper. 1.-The Supreme Court de-
cided that II has no jurisdiction other
than to inquire whether the law has been
complied with.
Minister Shimamura. in his letter. stat
ed that the immigrants did not know the
decision of the Customs authorities. and
that they were returned 10 the ship
through menace and cheat. The Minister
said, further:
- But what wish to know is. why the
Hawaiian Government has not taken the
trouble to notify us? If you had intimat-
ed to us a change in your Immigration
policy, then these people would not have
come. / am sure the Japanese Govern
ment will not stop in this matter until
it has received the most satisfactory an
swer.' This was answered by me on June
25th. in which L stated the cause of the
extension of quarantine. 1 also reviewed
the connection of Kinney q Ballou and
repeated that there had been no request
made upon them by the immigrants for
a writ of habeas corpus. i stated that
Kinney & Ballou, when the case was I'm
court, repeatedly refused to answer my
question as to who retained them. This
supports the previous contention that the
immigrants had not asked to see counsel
and consequently were not denied the
right to see attorneys. They never asked
and were never denied stated that his
complaint that he was denied a private
examination amounted to nothing; be-
cause he had been granted the request.
Regarding the jurisdi ction of the Su-
preme Court, 1 stated that the Legisla-
ture had the right to establish the tri-
bunal as 1T may see fit and that the de-
cision is final The fact remains that the
petition of S. NJ Ballou was not only
heard behalf of the immigrants. but
the decision was to the effect that the
Supreme Court has decided that all pro-
ceedings relative TO their rights Of i'm
migrants to enter a country have been
properly conducted, that, after all has
been said, nevertheless they have had
their day. in court.
''I wrote him that 1 understood from
his letter that he did not intend to dis
cuss the merits of the proceedings before
the Customs authorities: Regarding the
admission of women, having relatives
here, 1 stated that this was in accord
ance with a previous ruling by this de-
partment, and as to men who previously
resided here, they were admitted for the
reason that the Government considered
their status different, and did not care
to raise the question of vested rights.
1.-THE Japanese Government contends
that we cannot go behind the simple pos
session of the $50. The law constructs IT
differently; in this case possession is
synonymous with ownership. 1 cannot
give you money merely to be handed
back to me as you step off the gang
plank. The money these men had. IL APP
pears, was handed them to show the
Customs official, an act in itself suffi-
cient to warrant their being sent back.
/ contend that the burden OF proof is on
a inn iggTa mt n tha nm
ment; he is to prove ownership OF money.
understand that the memorandum
which these men carried, comes within
the puBview of Section /, Act H. Laws of
1895, and the mere fact that it might,
under certain circumstances, be optional
for the immigrant to avail himself of the
employment guaranteed, does not take IT
out of the provisions of Section /, Act IL.
1t became very apparent, by the guar
antee given by the immigration company,
that it would do everything in it's power
to supply employment for the men, could
not be carried out by it.
"It was well known to the Executive
that the planters had been supplied with
all the labor necessary, and that through
the proper channels more men would
clearly shown that these immigrants
were all agricultural paborers, and as
such did not come widlin the terms OF
the treaty of 1871, which clearly limits
the immigration of the Japanese subjects
to the merchant class. This interpreta-
ton of the treaty has been adopted by
the Japanese authorities regarding the
emigration of Hawaiian citizens and the
mere fact that heretofore the immigrants
from Japan of this character have been
allowed to enter this country is
swer to the question. The position is, I'm
fact, limited in it's scope, and does not
bind this country to accept immigrants
from Japan of the class in which the
person in question belongs.
This is more conclusively shown that
when the immigrat tion of this class was
about to begin it was found necessary to
enter into a convention under which the
immigration japanese subjects was Sue
cessfully carried on to the satisfaction Of
this Government. Emigrants who have
left Japan, not under the auspices of the
convention, but under contracts for serv-
ice, the form of which has been approved
by the Board of Immigration, may well
be considered to be voluntary emigrants.
coming neither under the provisions of
the treaty or the convention. This Gov
ernment was glad to welcome such sub