The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-12-23
THE CONVENTION Or 1886.

Tuesday, that President MCKINNEY
was in error in stating that the
dispute between Hawaii and Jap
an related TO the Convention of
1886. because "all of the cores
pOndence" the Advertiser said,
"between the Governments of Ha-
wall and Japan makes little or no
reference to the Convention of
1886" This is frantically denied
by the Bulletin, on the ground
that the Convention of 1886, large
ly controls the issue.
The quickest way of convicting
the Advertiser of ''bumptuOus
fatulence" is to publish the dip
lOmatic correspondence, and let
every man read it for himself. 1t
should settle at once "the second
hand views from Toxic" said to
be held by the Advertiser, and
clearly present the ''first-hand
views" of the Foreign Office, quot
ed by the Bulletin. If Minister
Cooper will publish his letter to
the japanese Minister of the oath
of May last, it will disclose the
real issue.
The other facts, all of record,
and not of hearsay are: First. In
the case of the first rejection of
immigrants, by the Togo Maru,
Minister Cooper personally APP
peared i'm Court, on the habeas
corpus return, and put the rea-
SONS for the rejection, on the
ground that under the immigra-
ton laws of "a and '95 no immi-
grant could land without the per-
mission of the Board of Immigra-
ton. ,NO allusion whatever was
made by him to the Convention of
1856. Second fact. Mr.. Cooper
claimed that the case must be de
cided by the Collector under the
laws of "a and %. Go allusion is
made to the Convention of 1866.
Third fact. The Supreme Court de
cided the case, and excluded the
Convention from any cOnSldera-
ton. Fourth fact. The Japanese
Government made no claim under
the Convention. but did claim that
the treaty of 1871, carrying with
it the rights of the most favored
nation" clause, had been violated.
Our Government, in reply did not
set up the Convention, but it did
claim, in the correspondence
which can speak for itself, that
the Acts of "a and 90 were rea-
sOnable regulations for controls
ing immigration, and the right to
control was: ''an inalienable right
and incident of sovereignty" This
was derived from international
law. and was not claimed to be de-
rived from the Convention of 1886
If the Minister authorized the
Bulletins statement we challenge
him to publish the correspond
ence. We want the cold" facts
and nothing more. And because
the proceedings in our Courts, and
the very lengthy diplomatic cor
respondence shows that the case
is not put by either party under
the Convention of 1886. we stated
that the President was in error
That the case, on behalf of Ha
wall, should have been made tt
rest upon the Convention of 1885,
is quite another and very impOr
tant affair. The Government
made it's own case, in its own way
The position taken by Minister
Cooper in Court, and in the cor
respondence is broadly backed by
the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States. The
opinion of that great tribunal is
entitled to great weight, and if the
arbitrator follows it, Japan will
be flung out of Court in a jiffy
The eff is important.
The Convention of 1886, Art. III
provides that the Hawaiian Gov
eminent engages to appoint a
special agent of the Hawaiian
Board of immigration, to reside
at Yokohama" "Whenever emf
GRANTS ara desired tha said aUoOt