Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-17
JAPAN'S INSINCERITY
Conditional Agreement to Arbitrate
Of No Value.
WANTS VITAL ISSUES EXCEPTED
This Exclusion Would Leave Hawaii
Without Case.
RECENT CORRESPONDENCE
of The Evening Star.

you cannot put 1t too strongly, that
Japans consent to arbitrate is no. gen.
uine"
Such was the language used yesterday 10
your correspondent by high official. My
last letter of August 25 said much.
japan is only making show of willingness
to arbitrate. In fact, she absolutely re-
fuses to submit to arbitration any question
of Importance. All favorable impressions
and hopeful expec tations, based upon her
message to Washington in July that she
would accept Hawaiis proposition to arbi-
trate. are delusiye. She unbendingly and
persstentIy adheres to all the demands she
has made, and the extreme positions she
has taken.
By the steamer Peru, on the 3lst ultimo,
Minister Shimamura forwarded to Toxic
the reply of our foreign minister. Cooper.
to the letter of Count Okuma, which pro-
fessed to state the terms under which the
latter was willing to accept arbitration, the
main substance Of which l communicated
ten days ago The full text of Okuma's let
ter and Coopers reply were given TO the
public on the I'd instant. Mr.. Cooper's
answer Is careful and diplomatic, but plain
ly declines to accede to the imperial pro-
posals until they made more definite.
Commenting upon this correspondence,
| it becomes evident that Count Okuma's
letter is practically evasive. He had pro-
fessed to accept in principle the sugges-
ton for arbitration. He now goes on to
explain the nature Of the terms and con-
ditions'' considered to be essential He
proposes the King of the Belgians sole
arbitrator All other conditions he wells in
general terms with the exception of two
points which the imperial government can
not consent to submit to the decision of
the arbitrator. 1t happens that those are
the two points at issue upon which the
Hawaiian government had taken its stand.
and which are the only questions of inn
portance.
/ The one named first by Count Okuma as
not possible to be questioned is that "of
the bona fides of the possession of $50 by
each of the rejected free laborers." He
cannot permit the question 10 be raised
whether the coin exhibited by those immi-
grants as required by law was really their
own property or was, as our authorities
judged proven, money temporarily lent
them in order to deceive the government
and evade the laws. But this is precisely
the point upon which the case of Hawaii
rests. in justifying their action in sending
back the 1.125 rejected immigrants last
March and April. for the injury thus done
to whom Japan claims damages The
measure" of those damages. Count Okuma
fntfmates, that he expects to submit TO
arbitration. Damages there must be. Ha-
wall was unquestionably wrong and tnju-
ffous In her action. He will not permit her
to present any justification before the ar
bltrator. What kind of arbitration is
this which Japan processes to accede to?
L. Is transparent sham.
The other point excepted, which Count
Okuma says lis due to frankness'' for him
to state, Is the immensely broad and i'm
portant one "of the applicability of the
treaty of 1871 to Japan's subjects, other
than those belonging to the merchant
class" This fundamental point at issue
he refuses to submit to arbitration. But
for Hawaii to surrender that point is to
surrender everything, and to lie helpless at
the mercy of Japan. 1t is certainly very
doubtful whether in safety or honor Ha-
70 ho o1J
ton OF such matter. But she did meekly
propose 1t, and now Japan imperiously as
serts her tndefeasible claim as not to be
questioned, of right by treaty to pour in
an unrestricted swarm of her subjects who
are entitled to all the rights and priv
iieges of the natives of Hawaii For this
Is actually the broad extent of the claim
which Japan has been making, and which
she now refuses to submit to arbitration.
Basis of Japan's Contention.
At the risk of blame for repeating what
has twice before been stated let it be said
that Japans entire contention rests upon
a brief clause IN article of her treaty
of 1871 with Hawsii. That article is ex-
clusfvely occupied with specifying at length
the mutual rights of subjects of either
country engaged In trading in the other
In the middle of long sentence concern
ing sIch traders occurs the expression.
enjoying at all times the same privileges
as may have been, or may hereafter be-
granted to the citizens or subjects of any
other nation" This clause Is so placed
between commas as to make it necessarily
refer to the class of persons named IN
the sentence of which it forms a part, to
wit. traders. Hawaii so contends. and de-
nies, as Okuma expresses 1t, 1.-The applica-
bility of the treaty of 1871 to Japan's SUBJ
jects other than those belonging to the mer-
chant class" 1t cannot be construed to
refer. as Japan now contends, to japanese
subjects and immigrants of all classes. 1t
is by no means. as Japan claims, most
favored nation provision" So very serious
and wide-reaching provision would neces-
ate article and would have been made
unambigCous.
Japan. however. puts the most extreme
construction upon this clause. It con-
fers upon all Japanese entering Hawaii
ell the rights, privileges and franchises
that have ever been conferred upon the
subjects of any other and most favored
nation" In order to construe such privi-
leges as widely as possible, Japan has sue
ceeded In unearthing "a practically obSO-
lete treaty made with Spain in 1868, in
article 4. of which occurs the clause: "In
fine, they shall in all respects enjoy the
same rights and privileges which are grant,
ed to natives, and they shall be subject to
the same conditions" This Japan under
stands to confer on Spanish subjects all
rights and franchises enjoyed by natives |
of Hawaii: and, therefore, all Japanese |
subjects coming here are also entitled by |
treaty to all privileges and franchises of
everything else. Such L. the enormous
breadth of the Japanese claim.
No other nation has ever thought of |
making such claims. Even Spain, whose |
treaty is appealed to. has never done SO. |
Her treaty has really been a dead letter, |
she having no subjects residing In Hawaii, |
and no representative, except vice con- |
sui Moreover, the language used is in |
connection like that in the japanese ar |
ticle, with right accorded to traders, and |
evidently refers only to that class Spain |
would certainly be most chary of confer /
ring civil rights upon foreigners in her own |
dominions. Japan Is alone in appealing to /
our obsolete treaty with Spain. and her |
use Of It is a piece Of special pleading for |
the purpose Of obtaining extreme and dis |
honest advantage.
Refuses to Arbitrate the Claims.
And now Count Okuma imperiously re- /
fuses TO submit to any arbitration this /
great point of what right the treaty OF |
1871 was intended to confer. The whole |
dispute between Hawaii and Japan hangs |
upon that question. That withdrawn from /
adjudication. leaves Hawaii NO case what /
ever. It seems not too much to eay that /