Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1897-07-21

and those who had not. lie deals
with the Hawaiian policy of sus-
pending immigration at pleasure
when conducted under the
auspices Of private parties, claim
ing that immigration cannot he
limited or modified except by
alterations of the treaty.
LETTER FROM COUNT oKUMA.
The next communication is from
Count Okuma, Minister OF For
eign Affairs of japan, dated at
Toxic on April 10 and handed in
10y Minister Shimamura on May
IL. 1t recites the facts OF the
return of the steamer Shinshlu
Maru with rejected emigrants on
April IL. The Cabinet had given
consideration to all the questions
involved in the matter. Though
influenced by friendly desire to
accord due weight to every ex-
tenuating circumstance, the Gov
eminent WAS driven to the conclu-
sion that this Governments action
was in derogation of conventional
rights of Japanese subjects, direct
ly under the treaty OF 1871 and
Indirectly under the most favored
nation clause in that treaty.
Minister Cooper here called
attention to the fact that he had
said nothing about treaty rights
previously.
Count Okuma specified where
the rights in question had been
violated.
l. japanese subjects had abso-
lutely the same rights as Hawaiian
in doing business at the ports of
these islands.
2. japanese have the right to
travel, trade and exercise any in
dustry or profession in all parts
of Hawaii-this based on the
most favored nation clause of the
treaty, which the Hawaiian Gov
eminent, Mr.. Cooper remarks,
claims to have only limited ap
plication.
3. japanese subjects are emit
tied to complete and constant pro-
lection from the Hawaiian Gov
eminent for their persons and
property as we'll as in regard to
their civil rights.
4 They are entitled to free
access to the courts of Hawaii in
pursuit or defense of their rights.
5. They are at liberty under
any and all circumstances to
choose and employ legal counsel.
In Disregard of sll those rights
AGO Japanese subjects, after being
confined for a considerable period
ashore, and without being allowed
access to any court, and without
being permitted in the early
stages Of the case to see and take
counsel with the representa-
tives of their Government,
were ANONYMOUSLY expelled
from the country. 1t is not sug-
gested that under any circum
stances similar treatment would
De msted out to Hawaiian citizens.
Such action was based on the
lain that the persons were aliens
outside the limits of Hawaiian
erritory.
The Japanese Government is
convinced that the Hawaiian laws
If 1894 and 1895 relating to INN
sration,lf correctly interpreted by
the Hawaiian Government, is In
,ontravention of existing treaties.
1t is admitted that the regula-
lion of immigration is q proper
of police power, whose
exercise would provoke |
no remonstrancs from Japan. In
present case the laws are a rever.
sal of existing precedents, being
arbitrarily and capriciously en-
forced. The extrajudicial pro-
ceedings of the Hawaiian author.
tiles were not conclusive and the
refusal to take jurisdiction by the
court appealed to was denial of
justice.
The conclusion is that the Jap
anese Government maintains that
the Hawaiian Government shall
recognize the principle of indem
and that the same cause
Of complaint will not occur again.
Particulars respecting claims
would be submitted in further
communication.
Mr. Cooper remarked that no
letter specifying claims has yet
been received.