The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-06-24
WAS NOT POSTED
The Philadelphia's Officer
Made Some Mistakes.
An Answer to the Letter Deal
ing With Hawaiian
Affairs.

munlIy people are quite apt " NC CoA
serious and sometimes rather sharply.
This is suggested by reading the ex-
tracts from a letter of an officer of the
Philadelphia, published in your issue
of last Thursday, after hearing the
sharp comments thereon, talked about
the streets. They are harsher than the
letter merits. An officer does not alb
solutely surrender his individuality
when he enters the Navy. He may still
have opinions and may express them,
provided, no breach of discipline is
committed But, perhaps, from his po-
sition, he is a little more apt to be
criticized, if he makes such mistakes
as appear in that letter.
He says: There is not a shadow Of
doubt that the Government of this
country committed a grave error when
it refused to allow the immigrants to
land, as in it's treaty with Japan it in
serted a clause allowing three-year
contract laborers to land"
No such treaty exists. That is part
of the Labor Convention of 1886; now
suspended. None of the rejected i'm
migrants came or offered to land under
that convention.
The treaty of 1871, so far as the
writer knows, is the only compact ex-
listing between the two Governments,
and it is pretty generally understood
that whatever claims are advanced by
the Japanese Government relate to the
rights established Hereunder.
Again, Mr. officer says: "There is
no doubt that Japan is right in assum-
ing the stand it has" and, elsewhere:
'HThis Government claims that 1T can
make any change in its immigration
laws, but I do not think the
law of nations permits such
changes, as would abrogate treaty
with another nation" He can hardly
be acquainted with the political and
judicial history of his own country,
for it is recognized throughout the
civilized world that American writers
on international law are authority and
il is an established principle there that
Congress may enact laws, the effect OF
which is to suspend or abrogate treat
les.
American precedent in that respect,
ground. that a treaty cannot be either
suspended or abrogated by the Legis-
lature without consent Of the other
contracting party.
If the public is correctly Informed,
japan. in its communication with our
Government, assumes certain things as
facts, without knowing the Hawaiian
case at all: nor is the tone of its let
ter such as would have been used to-
wards one of the great powers. 1t is
likely that France, Great Britain, Rus
STA and the United States would have
returned it for revision, or would have
demanded an apology. 1t is, of course,
unite possible that we do not know the
exact language: but if it is true that
two departments of the Government
are charged with indecent haste or
lack of consideration, any other GOV
eminent would have sharply resented
such terms If such were used, it
simply goes to show that Japan is
young in its adaptation OF western
diplomatic forms. The British Govern
ment in the matter of arrests and i'm
prisonment of certain British subjects,
courteously asks this little country for
statement of its side of the case.
Why is it that Japan, (which seems to
he well yersed in diplomacy, and
know their demands are just" is ex-
cused from following the same course?
If that Government really wants to
know the facts on which Hawaiian
officials based their action, it can cas-
ilv he ascertained through the chan
nels of diplomatic intercourse.
Mr.. officer sees the errors daily
committed by this Government" and
instances the publication of portions
of the answer to Japan's communica-
ton. before it was received by her Min
lister, but no other error is stated. How
about the present conduct of the jap
anese case through the papers? If
mistake was committed or even part,
and it certainly was a rather grave
slip. it is we'll excused and condoned by
Mr.. Shimamura' s present method
But back of the whole matter, I'M
portant principles lie which must be
sustained. The Supreme Court fol-
lowed the decisions Of the Supreme and
Circuit Courts of the United States, on
| the same points, and those decisions
are in accordance with law and the
usage of nations. These questions
don't appear to have arisen in the
courts of most other countries, because
| it does not appear to be disputed that
the immigration of foreigners may be
checked and restrained, even II there
are the usual terms of treaties. a re-
cent decision of the highest court il
England recognizes and maintains tbs
same views as are declared to be law
| In the United States courts.
1t is an important principle recog-
nized by all courts, and in all coun-
tries, that the sovereign power in the
State has the right, without regard &c
! the express term of treaties, to do any
thing, or not to permit the doing OF
anything, which may jeopardize the
well-being or. existence of the nation
But it is not necessary to apply thi:
| principle here, and in this case fol