The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1897-09-16

any accusation that may be made to his
injury? There is absolutely no reason
WHY he should not. A man who Is
afraid to make charge openly is almost
certainly liar, and with equal certainty
is actuated by the meanest and most
unworthy motives.
Let us have all pension matters tried
in open court, with every material fact
or allegation spread upon the records.
Certainly, if the pensioners are anxious
for the fullest publicity, the Government
should not be reluctant. The charge
against pensioners heretofore has been
that their claims would not bear full in
vestigation. Now we have the accusers
of the pensioners trying to sneak around
in the dark, with the pensioners demand
ing the full light of day.
THE HAwAIIAN-JAPANEs CONTRO-
yERSY.
The public mind may we'll become
befogged by the example of Asiatic di-
plomaey furnished by the correspond
ence between Japan and Hawaii, and the
claims of the former Government for
damages for alleged wrongs against her
citizens. The facts in the case when
plainly stated are simple. In 1871 a
general commercial treaty was negotiated
between the then Kingdom of Hawaii
and the Empire Of Japan. Nothing
was said about emigration, and the
Hawaiian planters assumed that the
rights of ingress and egress stood upon
ordinary grounds and without restriction.
They therefore contracted for japanese
labor, but Japan, not wishing to en-
courage the migration Of her people,
objected, and actually sent naval vessel
to Hawaii and gathered up her citizens
at work in the plantations and took
them home. This led to the making Of
a new treaty, known as the Labor Con-
vention,' under the terms Of which all
japanese laborers in future should 60
under contract with the Hawaiian Gov
eminent, which thus became responsible
for their wages and their protection.
The planters who employed the labor
acted simply as the agents Of the Ha-
waiian Government.
About two years ago Japan suddenly
changed her attitude on the emigra-
ton question and entered upon a
policy Of encouraging it. Then the
japanese began to arrive in Hawaii in
such numbers that it was apparent to
the Honolulu Government that it would
be necessary to check the flood Of
Asiatics for It's own safety. A law was
passed, therefore, regulating immigra-
ton, copied after the general statute OF
the United States, against contract,
criminal, and pauper classes. This the
Government claimed to have the right
to do under the Labor convention on
the one hand, and under the admitted
right Of nations to regulate immigration
on the other.
One clause Of this law, which, by the
way, was general, and applied not tc
japanese alone, provided that all i'm
migrants should come possessed of a
least $50. 1t was discovered that Thu
law was being violated and pauper
were being supplied with the $50 Ions
enough to land, when it was returned
to those engineering the swindle. Lit
CATION and prosecutions followed, anC
immigrants were refused the right t.
land. Upon Japan's protest the Ha
waiian Government proposed to arbi
trate the matter The willy Asiatic re
sponded that they would arbitrate, blu
there must be no consideration as t.
Uawaiia's claim to the right to rejec
. immigrants under the treaty, nor he
alleged right to investigate the violation
of the $50 provision of her immigration
law
In other words, the two questions a
S issue from the Hawaiian contention mus
be barred.
To this the Hawaiian Minister c
Foreign Affairs responds by asking upo
what points did Japan propose to arb
!, trate.