Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-08-02
That the Hawaiians Have No Right
to Exclude Any Of Her Citizens.
NOT TIE ORIGINAL CONTENTIOUS
Strained Interpretation of an Article
in the Treaty.
ROVES 1T HERSELF
Correspondence Of The Evening Star

Correspondence Of The Evening Star.
HONOLULU, July II, 1897
Since your last word from here, seventeen
days ago. our controversy with Japan has
narrowed down to a single but very broad
issue, namely, whether our treaty of 1871
with Japan leaves Hawaii any rights at all
In controlling or regulating immigration
from the former country. In one of his
first communications Minister Shimamura
admitted such right. His protest was
against the injustice and severity with
which 1t was exercised. Subsequently, in
consequence Of later instructions from
Toxic, which he has communicated to this
government, the broad claim is energetic
ally insisted on by Japan that any such
regulation or Limitation upon Japanese sub
| jects entering Hawaii is in derogation of
the treaty of 1871, and violation of article
2 thereof.
The earlier demands Of the japanese min
lister dwelt mainly upon the injustice charg-
ed In the manner of enforcing our immi-
grafton laws. whereby / ,125, or about one
third of the japanese arriving last spring,
were denied admission to this country. But
now his attitude has changed, and Mr..
shimamura totally declines to enter into
eny consideration of that subject.
Exclusion of the Immigrants.
Our government claims to have been ex-
tremely careful and considerable in the ex-
ecutfon of the law, and to have given ad-
| mission to every immigrant who could
show any plausible pretext of right TO
| enter. Wherever a doubt existed the deci-
| sion was in favor of the immigrant. All
| persons stating that they had been here
before were admitted. All women claiming
to have friends here were allowed to re-
main. The testimony in these cases fills
over thousand pages. This government
| Is willing carefully to go over the whole
| with the minister: but he now declines to
| consider that matter. 1t is to him of no
| consequence whether the law was properly
| applied or not: he insists that no such law
| can be valid. He is instructed to maintain
| the broad principle that by the terms of
| the treaty Hawaii is totally deprived of all
| right to control or restrict japanese immi
| grafton by any law whatever.
This position doubtless enables Japan to
escape the embarrassment which is certain
to attend any inquiry into the justice and
moderation with which we have enforced
our immigration statutes. That work was
done with the greatest care and leniency.
The inquiries made revealed the fact that
the immigration companies who brought
those people here were guilty of the most
wholesale and SystematiZed frauds in lend
ing thousands of them money, not their
| own. in order to make pretended COM
pliance with the law, which required each
immigrant to be in possession of $50,
to insure their not becoming burden upon
fraud was in furnishing individuals with
pretended contracts to labor upon planta-
tons. some of which had no existence. BY
the labor convention of 1886 all japanese
contract laborers were to have free egress
from Japan and admission here, subject to
specific regulations, one of them being pre-
vious approval Of the contracts by permits
sion of this government. The alleged con-
tracts had no such approval, and We're,
therefore. invalid, and the holders were
sent back to Japan.
No Right to Exclude. Says Japan.
1t would certainly be quite disagreeable
for the representative Of Japan to engage
| in an investigation which would compel
him to face such mass of evidence Of
wholesale fraud, and of the necessity Of
preventing it, which this government has
had to meet, in order to avoid the total
subversion of it's wholesome regulations. AT
any rate, he now ignores his original con-
tention. Japan plants its cause upon the
broad, if unfounded, basis that the terms
of the old treaty totally debar us from
limiting or regulating immigrants at all.
And upon this same basis she POUNDS fur
ther claims, not yet fully formulated for
extensive privileges for her subjects, in
Guiding right of naturalization and fran
chise in Hawaii. All this objection to our
right to make immigration regulations is
shown to be an after thought by the fact
that those regulations had long been well
known In Japan and evasion of them pro-
vided for, no protest against them having
been made by that government in the
meantime.
Such Interpretation Of the old treaty ap-
pears to be entirely extreme and untena ble
as well as an afterthought. It is based
upon single brief clause in the middle Of
article II of the treaty, as follows:
Article H. The subjects of each of the
two high contracting parties, respectively
shall have the liberty freely and securely
to come with their ships and carsoes to all
places. ports and rivers in the territories
of the other. where trade with other ma
tions is permitted: they may remain and
reside in any such ports and places,
| spectively. and hire and occupy houses and
warehouses, and may trade in all kinds of
| lawful commerce. (enjoying at all times the
same privileges as may have been, or may
hereafter be, granted to the citizens or sub
jects of any other nation). paying at all
times such duties and taxes as may be ex-
acted from the citizens and subjects of
other nations doing business or residing
within the territories of each of the high
contracting parties"
Claim Denied by Hawaii.
For the above clause. which have put in
paranthesis. Japan now claims the power Of
most favored nation" provision in the
fullest possible breadth and force. But our
government positively contends that it has
no such meaning. The privileges treated
of in this article are solely commercial
ones. The clause to which such breadth Of
meaning is imputed forms a small part of
a sentence. of which the preceding and
succeeding clauses, separated only by
commas, relate explicitly to commercial
privileges and duties, and to no other. The
position of this clause, and its intimate
connection with the clauses of the same
sentence between which it stands, forbids the
broad and all inclusive construction which
Japan is now endeavoring to force upon 1t.
So important an endowment of rights upon
the subjects of another country would GER
tainly not have been lodged in the middle
of sentence relating to other matters.
Such a weighty provision in treaty would
certainly have been definitely and unam-
biguously expressed in separate article.
How Japan Treats Havniians.
This view of the subject finds support in
the precedents given by the construction
which Japan has always placed upon the
treaty in relation to Hawaiian citizens or
subjects when sojourning in Japan, where
they have always been subjected to mar
row limitations in their movements in the
interior For example, Attorney General
w. o. Smith, in a recent visit to Japan,
was compelled. as foreigner, to obtain a
otolv 10 x,lcS