The herald., 1897-06-28


Japanese base their opposition to an
nexation almost entirely on the ground
that 1t is an interference with the treaty
rights Of Japan and complain that the
treaty was negotiated in the face of
most friendly protestations from Japan
and at a time when the Japanese au-
thorities had been led to believe that no
such treaty would be undertaken. The
following may be accepted as an abso-
lutely accurate outline of the position Of
the Japanese legation in Washington:
The Japanese insist, as on all former
occasions, that the Japanese govern
ment has not now and has never had any
designs against Hawaii. This they con-
slider most important point, because Of
the talk about colonization, which, they
say, has apparently had SO much weight
in the discussion of the question.
They contend that the Japanese first
went to Hawaii in response, to the de-
mand for labor on the islands, under
provisions Of treaty concluded in 1886
at the solicitations of the Hawaiian gov
ernment. They call attention to the
fast that the Japanese government has
always been averse to having their peo-
pie go abroad as coolies" as the Chi
nese do, and that the government has
always striven to prevent such immi-
grafton. As consequence the Hawaiian
treaty was 90 worded as to prevent even
the suspicion of anything like coolie
labor. The interests of all parties were,
they say. protected. and as a conse-
quence the Hawaiian planters secured
a high class of agricultural labor at fair
terms and under circumstances that did
not give the slightest reason for the dis
like and opprobrium which generally
attach to contract labor. This treaty.
they say, worked admirably for years,
and until the planters became restive
under the conditions imposed by the
treaty, thinking, the Japanese hold. that
they could secure labor more cheaply
with the restrictions removed.
At the same time the question Of an
nexation came up and the adherents
of union with the United States thought
it would be necessary to make change
In the method of obtaining the labor
absolutely necessary to the prosperity
of the sugar industry Of the islands.
This was, they claim, the origin Of the
so-called voluntary system Of immi-
grafton of Hawaii.
The development Of this situation led
to the framing by the Japanese govern
ment Of its immigration law. This law
is very strict in prohibiting the exporta-
ton Of Japanese labor except where en-
ployment is assured, and 1t is claimed
that under its provisions 1t would be
impossible to flood the Hawaiian
islands, as has been asserted to be the
Japanese purpose, without the con-
nivance Of the Japanese authorities.
This, they hold. could not be secured, in
view of the policy Of Japan against the
exportation Of coolie labor and in view
of the repeated denials Of Japan Of any
designs upon Hawaii.
|. They assert that Hawaii took no steps
to restrict immigration from Japan until
last February, when sudden and sur
prising demand was made upon Japan
to this end This, they claim, is evidence
sufficient that there was no flooding Of
the islands. They regarded this from
purpose Of increasing the agitation in
the interest of annexation and to furnish
pretext for speedy action in that direc-
ton. To the same end they consider the
cry of danger from Hawaii on account
OF Japanese aggression to have been
raised. They hoot the idea that this
fear had any foundation in fact, and say
that the danger existed only in the
minds Of the jealous advocates of an
nexation. They assert that Japan has
fully explained every step taken in this
controversy with Hawaii to the United
States, and they hold that the fact that
such explanation has been made should
ha %tok
has no Interior designs upon the islands.
In view of this explanation on their
part to the United States, they complain
of the suddenness of the announcement
Of the Hawaiian treaty Of annexation,
and say that the treaty was consum-
mated when they had reason from off,
cial assurances for believing that no
hasty action in that direction was con-
templated. They consider that many
subjects Of Japan are entitled to dam
ages on account of Hawaii's summary
refusal to permit them to land, and that
they are deprived Of their remedy by
the consummation of this treaty On this
account they are inclined to declare the
action to be unjust and arbitrary. They
also hold that Japan has rights under
treaties with Hawaii other than those
detailed, including reciprocal immunities
which they fear may not be renewed If
Hawaii b comes a part Of the United
States The present purpose. they hold,
appears to be to terminate these rights
without privilege Of appeal, as against
this proceeding they protest. They hold
that while Japan has no purpose of as
serting any authority in Hawaii, the
Japanese government has the right to
demonstrate in the interest of her citi-
zens and to demand that their legitimate
rights be respected.