The record-union., 1897-06-28

designs against Hawaii. This they
consider a most important point, be-
cause of the talk about colonization
which they say has apparently had so
much weight in the discussion of the
question.
They contend that the Japanese first
went to Hawaii in response to the de-
mand for labor on the island, under
provisions of a treaty concluded in 1886
at the solicitations of the Hawaiian
Government. They call attention to
the fact that the japanese Govern
ment has always been averse to having
their people go abroad as coolies" as
the Chinese do, and that the Govern
ment has always striven to prevent
such immigration. AS a consequence,
the Hawaiian treaty was so worded
as to prevent even the suspicion of
anything like coolie labor The inter-
ests of all parties were, they say, pro-
tected, and as a consequence, the Ha-
Waiian planters secured high-class of
agricultural labor upon fair terms and
under circumstances that did not give
the least occasion for dislike and
opprobrium which generally attach to
contract labor. This treaty, they say,
worked admirably for years and until
the planters became restive under the
conditions imposed by the treaty,
thinking, the Japanese hold, that they
could secure labor more cheaply with
the restrictions removed
At the same time the question of an
nexation came up, and the adherents
of union with the United States thought
1t would be necessary to make change
in the method of obtaining the labor
absolutely necessary to the prosperity
of the sugar industry of the islands.
This was, they claim, the origin of the
so-called voluntary system of immi-
grafton of Hawaii.
The development of this situation
led to the framing by the Japanese
Government of it's immigration law.
This law is very strict in prohibiting
the expectation of Japanese labor ex-
cept where employment is assured, and
it is claimed that under its provisions
it would be impossible to flood the Ha-
waiian Islands, as has been asserted to
be the japanese purpose, without the
connivance of the Japanese authorities.
This, they hold, could not be secured
in view of the policy of the Japanese
against expectation of coolie labor and
in view of the repeated denials of ia
pan of any designs upon Hawaii.
They assert that Hawaii took no
steps to restrict immigration from ia
pan until last February, when a sud
den and surprising demand was made
upon Japan to this end
This, they claim, is evidence suffi-
cient that there was no flooding of the
Islands. They regarded this from the
Island Government as capricious. and
concluded that it was made for the
purpose of increasing the agitation in
the interest of annexation and to fur
nish pretext for speedy action in that
direction. To the same end they con-
slider the cry of danger from Hawaii
on account of Japanese aggression to
have been raised. They hoot the idea
that this fear has any foundation in
TACT, and say that the danger existed
only in the minds of the Jealous ad-
vocates of annexation. They assert
that Japan has freely explained everv
step taken in this controversy with Ha
wall to the United States, and they hold
that the fact that such legislation has
been made should be accepted as proof
positive that Japan has no ulterior de-
signs upon the Islands.
In view of this explanation on their
part TO the United States they com
plain of the suddenness of the an
nouncement of the Hawaiian treaty of
annexation, and say that the treaty
was consummated when they had rea-
son from official assurances for believ-
ing that no hasty action in that direc
ton was contemplated. They consider
that many subjects of Japan are en-
utled TO damages on account of Ha-
WallS S summary refusal to permit them
to land, and that they are denrived
OF their remedy by the consummation
OF this treaty On this account thev
are inclined to declare the action TO
be unjust and arbitrary They also
hold that Japan has rights under
treaties with Hawaii other than those
detailed, including reciprocal immuni-
ties, which they fear may not be re-
neWed II Hawaii becomes a Dart of
the United States. The present pur-
pose, they hold, appears to be to ter.
inmate these rights without privilege
of appeal, and against this proceeding
they protest. They hold that while
Japan has no purpose of asserting anv
authority in Hawaii, the japanese Gov
ernment has the right to demonstrate
IN the interests of her citizens and To
demand that their legitimate RIGHTS
be respected.