The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-08-12
Exclusion and Hawaii


acknowledged the principle of exclu-
sion. to the extent that Chinese labor
ers in the United States, who revisited
China could be prevented from return
ing but failed to ratify the treaty
TO that effect which was signed March
18th, 1888, in consequence of which the
act of October 1st, 1885, prohibiting
ANY Chinese person" with certain
specified exceptions, from entering the
United States. was passed. On May
5th 1892, the Geary Act, containing new
and stringent provisions, extended ex.
clusion for ten years from that date,
and under habeas corpus proceedings,
on May 18th, 1898, the validity of that
act was sustained by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Further
and drastic amendments and supple
ments We're enacted November 3rd
1898; August 18th, 1894; June 9Th, 1900,
and March 3rd, 1901. Meanwhile, on
December Sth, 1894. a treaty had been
ratified, by which it was provided that,
for ten years from that date, except
under conditions not substantially af-
fecting the inhibition the coming s'of
Chinese laborers to the United States
shall be absolutely prohibited" This
last treaty was to remain in force for
ten years after December Sth 1904, I'M
less either party gave six months notice
of it's termination. The notice was
given by China, and the treaty has not
been renewed. Nevertheless, on April
n on aof yfnp ir,rp
all the exclusion laws indefinitely,
which We're not inconsistent with
treaty obligations" and applying those
laws to the whole island territory, as
they had been previously applied to
Hawaii by the joint resolution of July
18th, 1893.
TERRITORIAL POLICY
In the face of this legislation and
its causes, thus shortly reviewed, how
can any reasonable man expect that
the exclusion policy of the United
States. sustained by the great mass OF
American citizens, without distinction
of party, can be abandoned Or even
substantially changed? 1t ought to be
apparent that such a demand is the
most impolitic and suicidal course, in
reference to the special needs of this
territory, that could possibly be pur-
sued. Every sovereign power has the
inherent right to exclude undesirable
elements Of population, without refer
ence to treaties which do not prohibit
the exercise of the right. This is an
elementary doctrine, fully recognized
by the highest judicial authority, and
it is as sound in morals as it is in
law. All independent nations are the
sole judges Of their own internal con-
ditions and necessities. The act of ex-
Guiding Chinese, Japanese or other
Monaghan laborers, in no degree inter
feres with commercial relations and
the free intercourse essential to pro-
mote them, and does not bear even an
unfriendly complexion. The American
people have sympathized with Japan
in her present struggle with Russia.
The American, the British and the Jap
anese governments are cordially unit
ed in commercial policy, adapted to
the Twentieth Century. But all this
does not mean that a Japanese labor |
er has the absolute right to lodge him.
self on American soil or an American |
laborer on Japanese soil, if interdict-
ed by law. A man has no privilege to
enter his neighbours house, which is
his castle" without invitation, and
still less if prohibited. The territory !
of a nation is its castle, which it can |!
open or close as it pleases. The enor- !
nous growth, now and potentially, of
commerce and trade on the Pacific and +
in Asia. the prospective opening of the .
door in China to enterprise and energy. !
are in themselves among the grandest
proofs of modern progress, but they
supply no reasons for, but convincing
reasons against. submission to the
of the United States by Asia
tic hordes. Intelligent Japanese and
Chinese statesmen perfectly under
stand the situati ton. and they well know
hat, if the conditions were reversed.
neither Japan nor China would yield
o an inundation Of American laborers.
OUR SPECIAL NEEDS.
1t is useless, a mere waste of time,
% argue against the exclusion policy
IN the mainland. 1t has crystallized
nto principle, which is also endorsed
by American citizens in this territory.
The special needs of Hawaii, however,
is already stated, depend upon peculiar
ana local conditions, and, when these
are clearly explained and
he demand properly circumscribed, ap-
peal with peculiar force to the Amer
can people and to Congress, on the
ground not only of justice but of MAIN
and interests. When Hawaii was an
lexed, as also above mentioned, it was
oreseen and urged against annexation
hat there would be serious difficulty
n reconciling American institutions
and mainland policies with the condi-
ions and necessities of the islands The
a Dor question in connection with the
was both fully and clearly
discussed, and it was pointed out that
upon this matter, the laws existing on
he mainland would be unsuitable. The
answer was that Congress had ample
power to legislate, exceptionally and
lirectly, for the territory. Annexation
became an accomplished fact, that can
rot be obliterated, that indeed it would
De undesirable TO obliterate and Con-
sress is virtually pledged to guard and
OSTar ON local ir1 4ria t.