Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-09-22
JAPAN'S ATTITUDE.
Reply to the Criticisms ON the COndi-
lions for Arbitration.

The japanese minister has made an elab-
OF ate reply to the criticisms which have
been made upon the conditions attached
by his government to its acceptance Of the
proposal to arbitrate existing differences
with Hawaii. There appears, in his opin-
ion, to be an effort to produce in this coun-
try the impression that Japan is not will
ing to arbitrate, and has consequently i'm
posed conditions which Hawaii cannot ac-
cept. Nothing, he ASSERTS can be further
from the truth; the japanese government
il perfectly willing to fully and freely SUBJ
nit to arbitration every point in dispute
with Hawaii which can be fairly consider
ed proper subject for such a method OF
settlement. This, he says, may be con-
ciusively shown by an examination of the
correspondence which has passed between
the two governments relative to the exclu-
sion of Japanese immigrants from Hawaii.
The minister says that the question of
the bona fide possession of $50 by each free
immigrant was not advanced until long af-
ter those immigrants had been expelled.
Mr.. Cooper's first official explanation of the
action of his government gave entirely diff
ferent reasons for the expulsion. So far as
mis- statements went, the bona fide posses
Sion or non-possession of the sum in Ques-
ton formed no part OF the material facts.
TIE japanese government denies that it
was at any time incumbent upon the immi-
grants. as subsequently claimed by Mr.
Cooper, to prove that the possession in
question was bona fide. To maintain that
they must now do so. the minister says,
would be to impose condition as onerous
as 1t is violative of the plsinest rules of
law. But even Il this burden of proof had
originally rested upon the immigrants, he
contends, 1t was shifted by the action of
the Hawaiian government in definitively
assigning another reason for the acts of
expulsion. without calling in question the
bona fides of such possession. Equally, the
Japanese government cannot consent to
join issue with Hawaii on the question
whether the treaty Of 1871 Is limited to the
merchant class. For more than a quarter
of century the contrary has been con-
slstently held by both governments The
Japanese government cannot perceive that
1t Is consistent with the dignity the in
terests OF either party to submit to arbi-
tration the stipulatfons Of an international
compact clearly expressed and hitherto
clearly understood.
The japanese government is earnestly de-
sirous that the questions at issue shall be
definitely settled. and while 1t believes that
the justice of its demands is too apparcn.
to render arbitration absolutely necessary,
1t has, in spirit of conciliation, agreed to
the suggestion of Hawaii, subject only to
the object of reaching such settlement as
speedily as possible. To charge, therefore,
that the Japanese government is seeking to
delay final adjudication of it's differences
with Hawaii by imposing difficult condi-
tions, implies. ia Mr.. Hoshi's opinion, a
grave injustice to Japan. as web as a total
Misrepresentation of the real situation
The only question at issue. he says, is
whether or not the Hawaiian government
had the right, in accordance with law and
the stipulations of compacts whose binding
force both parties have hitherto recognized
to exclude the Japanese subjects whose
grievances furnish the foundation of the
claims now made. Nothing that Japan has
done, the minister asse3ts.s is calculated to
interfere in the least with the scope of fhe
arbitration upon this point. or to abridge or
restrict the ability Of an impartial arbitra-
tor to reach a conclusive decision.