Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1897-07-22

IN, JULY %, 1897.
cedent heretofore established.
The Government bad made re
peated attempts 10 prevent illegal
immigration, which II was salts
fled had been in progress for a
considerable period, but which
until the case of the Shinshiu
Maru had been unsuccessful. For
tilted by information from rival
immigration companies, the Gov
eminent made Investigations re-
sulting in the conclusion that the
Immigration as conducted was
illegal.
Minister Cooper in conclusion
held that the immigration laws
we're not in contravention OF the
treaty, aud that their enforcement
was justifiable; and stated that tb 3
Government was forced to the
conclusion that no principle OF
naturalization should be recog-
nized, and that upon a similar
infraction Of the i'm migration laws
like action to that complained OF
would necessarily follow.
A PERSONAL INTERVIEW.
After the letter Just reviewed
Minister Shimamura asked for a
personal interview, in which be
sought an explanation Of some
of the terms of that letter.
Minister Cooper was willing to
give any necessary explanations,
but when the interview drifted
into a discussion Of facts he sti-
pulated it must be in writing.
MINISTER sHIMAMURA WRITES.
Mr.. Shimamura wrote asking
why the Shinshiu Maru was held
in quarantine from February q
to March 10, when the ship had
been out from japan the required
time to escape quarantine.
The Japanese Minister also
complained that Kinney & Ballou
were refused permission to enter
the quarantine station with their
clerks, tables, etc, when they
claimed that they were counsel
for the immigrants. Mr.. Cooper
had refused them this permission
as Attorney General while acting
in that Office.
Mr.. Shimamura held that this
Government was responsible for
it's acts regardless of any decisions
of its courts. He claimed that,
having come within the territory
of Hawaii, the immigrants were
clearly within the jurisdiction of
it's courts. He did not mean at
all to enter into consideration OF
the actions of the customs author.
tiles, nor whether their decision
was FINAL or not, but called stten.
ton to the case of the Togo Maru
in November, 1896, when Chief
Justice Judd took jurisdiction and
allowed man to land against the
port officers decision. The man
had the same memorandum from
an emigration company in his
possession as the rejected people
in controversy. Here the letter is
rather ambiguous, but seems to
question whether the laws was
fairly enforced, apart from the
treaties. Mr.. Shimamura alleges
discrimination in favor of some
who claimed to be here before and
of women with relatives in this
country.
Further Mr.. Shimamura com
plains that the rejected emigrsnts
were not informed of the decision
of the customs, and he was in
formed that they were put back
on board the steamer by "chest
and menace" But he was moi
prepared to discuss that matter
because he was not disposed tc
believe such a report. Notwith
standing the friendly relations,
the Hawaiian Government had no,
notified him in advance of a
change of policy with regard te
Japanese immigration. If they
had been forewarned the people
would not have come. The affair
was most seriously taken because
SO many people were mistreated
and the Japanese Government
would not stop without receiving
the most satisfactory answer.
HAWAIIAN REPLY AT LENGTH.