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

II. /
with the spirit of il.
i" Taking larger view of the matter
continued Minister Shimamura, would II
not have been best not to have imposed |
upon the ignorant people after they have
broken up their homes and sold their eff
fects, only to be rejected here, simply
because they have not complied with the
Board of Immigration? You have been
misinformed.' continued the Minister. re
garding the second class, as to the nature
OF that memorandum of agreement. 1t |
was the result of the general laws of the
japanese Government pertaining TO all |
emigrants from Japan. so as TO provide |
against what might be serious suffering |
OF Japanese emigrants in this country |
This regulation should have the approval |
of your Government as providing a means |
means of support for the emigrant after |
he arrives here This class came, not as |
contract labor, but as free immigrants.
Having presented the required $50. in ac-
cordance with the treaty. they should |
have been permitted TO land.
- cannot See continued Minister |
Shimamura in this same letter, that a |
distinction should be made between Jap |
anese who have resided in this country
and those who have not
Following this said Minister Cooper.
he deals with our proposition to suspend
immigration when conducted by private
parties. He contended that the Govern
ment has not the right TO limit nor mod
fly except by an alteration OF the treaty.
Under date of Toxic. April 18th, and
received by me at the hand of Minister
Shimamura on May 18th, was letter,
written by Count Okuma, Japanese Min
lister of Foreign Affairs, in which he re-
cites the fact of the nature of the emf
grants by the Shinshiu Maru on April
eth. In this communication Count Oku-
ma informs this Government that he has
given thoughtful and deliberate consid-
| Grafton to all the questions involved and,
although Influenced by friendly desire
10 accord due weight to every extenuat-
| ing circumstance the Government con-
siders that the inhospitable acts com
| planned of were in derogation of the con-
ventional rights of Japanese subjects.
Directly under the treaty of 1871 and
| indirectly by application of the most ia
vored nation principle to treaties now in
| force between Hawaii and other coun-
| tries, Japanese subjects, absolutely and
| equally with Hawaiian citizens are one,
| at liberty, freely and securely to enter
with their ships and cargos all places,
ports and rivers in Hawaii which are
open to foreign commerce.
80 They have the right TO travel, trade,
| reside and exercise every profession or
industry in all parts of Hawaii
20. They are entitled to constant and
| complete protection from the Hawaiian
Government for their persons and prop
erty, well as in regard to civil rights.
Il. They are also entitled TO free and
easy access TO the courts of justice of
Hawaii in prosecution and defense of
their rights, in every instance and degree
of Jurisdiction established by the laws
and,
80 They are at liberty. under any and
all circumstances, to choose and employ
lawyers and solicitors, advocates or
agents from any class whom they may
see fit TO authorize TO act for them or in
their name.
In disregard of these rights wrote
Count Okuma, AGO japanese subjects, af-
ter being confined for some considerable
time, and without any judicial determi-
nation, without having access to the
: courts without having permission TO con-
suit with our representative, were igno
! miniously expelled from the country.
1T is not suggested that similar treat
ment would, under any circumstances
be melted out TO Hawaiian citizens. II
( fact, the action was based upon the fac
that persons concerned were aliens. who
I by a statutory fiction, We're deemed to be-
4 without the territorial limits of Hawaii
u Count 0xuma said, also, that his Gov
s eminent was convinced that Act II o
e 1895 and Act IS of the preceding year, i
: correctly Interpreted by Hawaiian au
o thorities, is in contrayentton of the eN
: listing treaty between the two Govern
q ments The proper regulation of immi
grafton, he admits is the legitimate eX
a ercise of the police power of the State
6 and reasonable laws on that subject rea
n sonably administered by Hawaii, vii
A | provoke no remonstrance from Japan
: In the present case the laws were re
versal of the existing precedents arbitra
n | lily and capnciously enforced, and tina
n the extra judicial proceedings of the Ha
n waiian authorities We're not conclusive
and the refusal of the court appealed To
TO intervene was a denial of justice. Tn
II conclusion being that the Japanese Gov
u eminent entertained the expectation tina
II this Government will recognize the prin
II ciple of decentralization and, further, tina
they ask for the additional assuranc
/ -, a.1fs- mill NOT a rod
The particulars regarding the amour
~ of the claim, Count Okuma wrote, woul
- be made the subject of a further com
n munication, but l may say here, that tn
A communication has not yet been re
= ceived.'
4 Mr.. Cooper, continuing his converse
!, ton, said: You will understand tina
- my first letter was not one of argumen
- or defense. 1t was a mere statement o
Il | facts The correspondence which has fol
= lowed, has brought out other points, an
- now this Government has been charge
= with shifting its policy to suit the occa
sion.
Il replied to this letter on May oath
and my answer TO the first point in hi
communication was that the examina
= ton of the immigrants was before com
= petent tribunal, and the decision of tn
:, Supreme Court, sustaining the Custom
| authorities, was founded upon wel-estah
lished principles, and the result havin
: been arrived at, ii is a complete assur
|
II rights guaranteed them by the treaty
The acts mentioned were reasonable reg
/, ulations to protect residents of this coun
= try against undesirable immigrants, an
y that the validity of the acts cannot b
y successfully assailed on the ground tina
Ii they are in violation of the treaty, a
they make no discrimination between tn
e subjects of Japan and any other country
{ That the provisions of Section l, Act s.
e of the Laws of 1894, are well within tn
; reasonable exercise of the police powe
u of the State, that such laws are neces
d sary TO the peace and well-being of
l. nation. The right to pass such laws
inalienable and well within the laws.
i insisted that this Government, in com
II mon with other independent nations
e maintains the right to protect itsel
: against injurious consequences whic
le would arise, both from unrestricted i'm
migration of individuals, dangerous [
! the country in its moral, sanitary an
economic interests and from an immigra
u ton, stimulated beyond its natural cours
:; through the enterprise of individuals an
- companies promoting such immigratio
Z from motives of profit, which stimulate
emigration, tends to the embarrassment
le of the labor condition and, indirectly, t
> the orderly status of the community ant
@ possessing this power, is to be exercise
le for the protection and security, is clothe
: with the right to determine the occasio
IL on which the power may be called forth
/ Il am not aware" continued Ministe
u Cooper, that the favored-nation claus
q in any treaty has ever been construed t
e this great length, and, at the same time
q while not agreeing to the claim of Hi
/ Excellency, that Japanese subjects hav
the right to travel, trade, reside and ex