The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1897-06-25
WAS NOT POSTED
The Philadelphia's Officer
Made Some Mistakes.
An Answer to the Letter Deal
ing with Hawaiian
Affairs.

MUMMY ptDp4E dAt AuAtc apt W Nc Ieu
serious and sometimes rather sharply
This is suggested by reading the ex
tracts from a letter Of an officer of tn
Philadelphia, published in your issu
o. last Thursday, after hearing tn
sharp comments thereon, talked abou
the streets. They are harsher than tn
letter merits, An officer does not alb
solutely surrender his individualit!
when he enters the Navy. He may still
have opinions and may express them
provided, no breach Of discipline i;
committed. But, perhaps, from his po-
siHou. he is a little more apt to be
criticized. If he makes such mistakes
as appear in that letter.
He SAYS: There is not q shadow OF
doubt that the Government Of this
country committed a grave error when
il refused 10 allow the immigrants tc
land. as in its treaty with Japan it in
serted a clause allowing three-year
contract laborers TO land"
No such treaty exists. That is part
o. The LaborsConventiOn 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 II 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:
This Government claims that it can
make any change in its immigration
laws. but I do not think the
law OF nations permits such
changes as would abrogate a treaty
with another nation" He can hardly
be acquainted with the political and
judicial history Of his own country,
for il is recognized throughout the
civilized world that American writers
On International law are authority. and
it Is an established principle there that
Congress may enact laws. the effect Of
which Is TO suspend or abrogate treat
les.
Hawaii however. does not follow
American precedent in that respect,
lut takes what seems to me the higher
ground. that a treaty cannot be either
SUSPENDED or abrogated by the Legis-
lature without consent of the other
contracting party.
T the public Is correctly informed
Japan. in is 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. It is
likely that France. Great Britain. Rus
sia and the United States would have
returned il for revision. or would have
demanded an apology. It is, OF course,
cutie POSSIBLE that we do not know the
exsrt language: hut if it is true that
two Departments Of the Government
are charged with indecent haste or
Iaclz Of consideration. any other Gov
eminent would have sharply resented
such terms. IF such were used, II
simply goes TO show that Japan is
Young in its adaptation of Western
Diplomatic forms. The British Govern
rent in the matter Of arrests and i'm
p-isonment Of certain British subjects,
courfeouslv asks this little country for
q statement OF its side OF the case.
Why Is II that Japan. (which seems to
he well versed in diplomacy, and
know their demands are just" is eX-
he, nprsrsceAN
II that Government really wants TO
know the facts on which Hawaiian
offcials based their action, it can cas-
ily be 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 10 Japan's eommunica-
tion. 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 il certainly was a rather grave
sin. It is well 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
il does not appear to be disputed that
the immigration of foreigners may be
checked and restrained, even if there
are the usual terms of treaties. A re-
cent decision of the highest court in
England recognizes and maintains the
same views as are declared to be law
in the United States courts.
II 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 to
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 this
principle here, and in this case, for
there is nothing in our treaty with
Japan authorizing or permitting the
indiscriminate landing of immigrants.
In all cases they are subject to the
laws of the land. And the execution
of those laws lies with the sovereign