The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-06-28

call attention to the fact that the Japan
ese government has always been averse
to having their people go abroad as "cool-
les" as the Chinese do, and that the
government has always striven to prevent
such emigration. As a consequence, the
Hawaiian treaty was so worded as to pre-
vent even the suspicion OF anything like
coolie labor.
The interests of all parties were, they
say, protected and as a consequence the
Hawaiian planters secured a high class of
agricultural labor upon fair terms and un-
der circumstances that did not give the
least occasion for the dislike and oppro-
brium which generally attach to contract
labor. This treaty, they say, worked ad-
miraby for years and until the planters
became restive under the conditions inn
posed by the treaty, thinking the Japan
ese hold, that they could secure labor more
cheaply with the restrictions removed. At
the same time the question OF annexation
came up and the adherents of union with
the United States thought it would be
necessary to make changes in the method
of obtaining the labor absolutely neces-
sary to the prosperity of the sugar indus
try of the islands. This was, they claim,
the origin of the so-called voluntary
system of immigration to Hawaii.
The development of this situation led
to the framing by the Japanese govern
nent of It's emigration law. This law Is
very strict In prohibiting the exportaton
of Japanese labor except where employ
ment is assured, and 1t is claimed that
under Its provisions 1t would be impossi-
BILE to flood the Hawaiian Islands with la
borers, as has been asserted to be Japan's
purpose, without the conniyance of the
Japanese authorities. This, they hold,
could not be secured In view of the policy
of Japan against the expectation Of coolie
labor and in view of the reported denials
by Japan of any designs upon Hawaii.
They assert that Hawaii took no steps
to restrict immigration from Japan until
last February, when sudden and sur
prising demand was made upon japan to
this end. This they claim, is evidence
sufficient that there was no flood
ing of labor on the island. They
regard this demand from the island gov
ernment as capricious and conclude that
It was made for the purpose of increasing
the agitation in the interest of annexation
and to furnish a pretext for speedy action
in that direction
They assert that Japan has freely ex-
planned every step she has taken in this
controversy with Hawaii 10 the United
States, and they hold to the fact that
such explanation as has been made should
be accepted as proof positive that Japan
has no Interior design upon the islands.
In view of this explanation on their part
10 the OnlteQ states, lHey cOtHpldlil VI luS
suddenness of the announcement of the
Hawaiian treaty of annexation and say
that the treaty was consummated when
they had reason from official assurances,
for believing that no hasty action in that
direction was contemplated. They consider
that many subjects Of Japan are entitled
to damages on account OF Hawaii's sum
mary refusal to permit them TO land, and
that they1FYe deprived Of their remedy by
the consuAnanatioh Of ehis treaty. On, this
account they are inclined to regard the
action as unjust and arbitrary.
They also hold that Japan has rights
under treaties other than those detailed,
including reciprocal immuntles, which
they fear may not be renewed If Hawaii
becomes a part of the United States. The
present purpose, they hold, appears to be
to terminate these rights without privi-
lege of appeal and against this proceed
ing they protest
They hold that while japan has no pur-
pose of asserting any authority in Hawaii,
the Japanese government has the right TO
demonstrate In the interests of her citi-
zens and to demand that their legitimate
rights be respected.