The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1897-07-23


stepped to the telephone and told him
that l would be glad TO have him go over
with me in my boat and to meet me at
Brewers wharf. Minister Shimamura
kept the appointment, and with him were |
Attorney Humphreys and the Secretary |
of the Legation. on arrival at the sta |
ton. and as l was going into the room |
to begin the investigation, Mr.. Humph- |
reys stepped forward and stated that Mr.. |
Shimamura requested private and per- |
sonal investigation. Immediately asked |
the purport of it, and Mr.. Shimamura |
declined to give it, He and his party |
then left the station.
Afterwards l received a letter from
Mr. Shimamura, asking for private and
personal investigation, and this was Civ
en- him. The Japanese Government has
stated that immigrants were denied per-
mission to see their representative or to
consult a lawyer. l particularly investi-
gated this and found that the immi-
grants had never asked to see Minister
Shimamura, nor did they ask for law
yer
Then there was the contention over
taking the immigrants from the ship. In
touching this point in my communica-
ton, l explained that II was done in
order to perform quarantine duties and
make the confinement less a hardship.
AS a matter of fact. it was an act OF hu-
manity to the immigrants.
1T is true enough that Hawaii was in
strumental in instituting the emigration
of the Japanese to this country, but only
under a specific understanding. more par
ticularly set forth in the convention en-
| tered into between the two Governments
in 1856 but in no instance has Hawaii
| ever sought to effect a colonization by
| emigrants from Japan. and has ever
| claimed the right to suspend emigration
| from Japan when conducted by private
parties. There has been no reversal of
any precedents heretofore established.
| The Government has made repeated
| attempts to prevent the Illegal immigra
| ton which it has felt satisfied has been
in progress for considerable period. but
| which until the case of the immigrants
| of the Shinshiu Maru had been unsuc-
| cessful. AS a matter of fact, l was in
| receipt of letters from the agents of two
| rival immigration companies, informing
| me of the fact and offering to give bonds
for the proper performance of their du-
ties as immigrat ton agents, provided they
| were given exclusive right to bring the
| immigrants here. 1t was on this mfor-
nation that l acted.
1.-The immigration laws are not in con-
| travention of the treaty." wrote Min
lister Cooper, and their enforcement was
justifiable. This Government refuses to
recognize that any principle of indemni-
tication applies in the premises. In re-
gard to the assurance that the acts of
this Government should not be re-
peated, we claim that we were justified
in former action. If a similar infrac-
ton should take place like action would
necessarily follow.
| Following this" said Minister Cooper
Il received request from Minister Shi-
mamura, asking for an interview. l an
swered this by saying that If the inter
view was confined to matters in the cor
respondence, / would be glad to accord
il TO him, but If other matters were Il
be brought up, 1 would insist that the!
be by correspondence. We had one Of
two interviews, and, finding that tn,
l l,.o, ,.,I,i,
views were dropped and the negotiations
have since been conducted by correspon
dence.
Under date of June 18th, Minister Shi
: mamura wrote, inquiring about the eX
| tended quarantine. | explained to hin
that German measles had broken out tn
J day the quarantine period expired, an,
I under the quarantine regulations, it wa
necessary TO continue it. Then came
}, | letter of many pages. We call it her
{ | the '7S-page letter in which the Who'll
|. matter was reviewed. Referring to tn
: question of the connection of Kinney
y Ballou with the case, he said they wer
Il | advocates of the immigrants.
: THE day Minister Shimamura, his Sec
: rotary and Mr. Humphreys went with m
/ to the Quarantine Station" said Minis
/ ter Cooper, and the Minister asked TO
: the private interview you will remem
p Der, asked the purport. Evidently Their
Il was misunderstanding, for it seems h
II understood me to say result and in thi
!. long letter he discusses pretty freely thi
: part of the subject and also the fact c
! the immigrants being removed from tn
II ship. He says:
Your Government is responsible, mo-
e withstanding the laws. if they infring
,, on international precedents. Havin
e come within the jurisdiction of you
e, courts, they are clearly within the tel
IL ritory of the Republic. l do not mea
! at all, wrote Minister Shimamura, to Ell
II ter into discussion of the nature of tn
~ -
and whether that examination is final c
II not. The Hawaiian Government mu:
u naturally responsibility for the fan
ness and righteousness of examination
-e Reference was made in this letter
case in November, 1896 when Chic
Justice Judd, acting as a single Justice
= decided that man, with certificate {
u deposit on a bank here, was eligible I
II land, as the certificate of deposit was |,
u , gal under the act.
l, But under a later decision, continue
~ | Minister Cooper, the Supreme Court d.
"a cided that it has no jurisdiction otht
than to inquire whether the law has bee
complied with.
4, Minister Shimamura, in his letter. sta
y ed that the immigrants did not know til
! decision of the Customs authorities, an
= that they were returned to the shi
le through menace and cheat. The Ministe
Is said, further:
D but what wish to know is, why I'll
. Hawaiian Government has not taken til
trouble to notify US? II you had intima
~ ed to us a change in your immigratio
policy, then these people would not hav
come. l am sure the Japanese Govern
= ment will not stop in this matter unit
u 1t has received the most satisfactory al
'e swer' This was answered by me on Jun
II 18th, in which 1 stated the cause of tn
= | extension of quarantine. l also reviewe
le the connection of Kinney & Ballou an
= repeated that there had been no requeS
o. made upon them by the immigrants fc
le a writ of labeas corpus. I stated tha
4 Kinney & Ballou, when the case was
court, repeatedly refused to answer m
d question as to who retained them. Thi
- supports the previous contention that tn
immigrants had not asked to see couns
/ and consequently were not denied tn
p | right to see attorneys. They never aske
II and were never denied. l stated that hi
n complaint that he was denied a privat
! examination amounted to nothing b,
y cause he had been granted the request
~ Regarding the jurisdiction of the 81
preme Court, / stated that the Legisls
e ture had the right to establish the tr
~ bunal as 1t may see fit, and that the d.
% cision is final. The fact remains that tn
5 petition of S. NJ. Ballou was not onl
II heard on behalf of the immigrants, bl
70 the decision was to the effect that tn
u, Supreme Court has decided that all pre-
% ceedings relative to their rights of in
y migrants to enter country have bee
"a properly conducted, so that, after all ha
q. been said, nevertheless they have ha
II their day in court.
"a Il wrote him that 1 understood frol
a his letter that he did not intend to di:
is cuss the merits of the proceedings befor
70 the Customs authorities. Regarding tn
L hay inc rel1 tive