"There is absolutely no foundation for these stories of Hawaii being menaced by Japan. There is absolutely nothing in it. There is nothing in the relations between our country and Japan that hurried me to America." And yet for weeks and days the American people were humbugged with the statement that unless the United States annexed Hawaii Japan or some other nation would. And Mr. Dole is reported to have also said, in answer to a question as to what would become of the present Government should the United States refuse to annex the islands: "Well, the Republic is there. I don't know that anything would happen except that things will go on as usual. I don't see any immediate danger from possession by any other country." And so, too, the "commercial" argument has ceased to be used. So that the reasons on which this annexation "scheme" were originally based, to a very considerable extent, have dropped entirely out, and we have mere sentiment left. The latest scheme to secure free sugar for the Hawaiian trust is to have Mr. Dole duplicate the visit of King Kalakaua here. MR. PETTIGREW: I ask to have the Secretary read a statement in relation to the controversy between Japan and Hawaii with regard to this labor question. I propose to set at rest forever this talk that Japan is trying to capture the islands. * * During the months of March and April, 1897, the Hawaiian Government refused permission to 1,185 Japanese subjects to land in Hawaii, and compelled the steamers which brought them to Hawaii to take them back again to Japan. The first case was that of the Shinshiu-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on the 27th of February, 1897, having on board 864 Japanese immigrants, 463 of whom were expelled. The second case was that of the Sakura-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on March 19, 1897, having on board 315 Japanese immigrants, 164 of whom were expelled. The third case was that of the Kinai-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on the 9th of April, having on board 684 Japanese immigrants, 558 of whom were expelled. All of the persons thus expelled while in Hawaii were detained on shore and practically deprived of their liberty. They were not allowed to hold communication with their friends and countrymen in Hawaii, or to employ lawyers or agents or to take legal advice. During their detention they were examined by the Hawaiian minister for for eign affairs, the collector-general of customs, and the deputy collector of customs, but by no one else, regarding their rights and qualifications under the law to land in Hawaii. For the purpose of conveniently describing the grounds upon which the Hawaiian Government based its action the immigrants who were expelled may be divided into two classes. The first, 1,039 in number, were refused permission to remain in Hawaii and were expelled therefrom because they had in their possession agreements with the immigration companies under whose auspices they went to Hawaii, by the terms of which the companies bound themselves to endeavor to find employment for the immigrants in Hawaii, and in case of failure or inability to do so, or in case of illness or other misfortune, to provide the immigrants with means of subsistence or, if necessary, with return passages to Japan. These agreements are required by the law of Japan, and are intended to protect the immigrants and to prevent the immigration companies from inducing immigrants to go to any country where they can not find employment and where they might consequently become a public charge. The Hawaiian authorities construed this agreement to be a contract, and this was the sole reason alleged for the expulsion of the 1,039 persons in question at the time. Subsequently, however, in the correspondence which ensued between the two Governments, it was alleged that these immigrants were not the bona fide possessors of $50 each, as required by the law of Hawaii, although it was not denied that each one of the 1,039 was found to have at least that much money in his possession when examined by the Hawaiian authorities. From June, 1894, to December, 1896, between 1,500 and 2,000 Japanese subjects, whose case was precisely similar to that of the 1,039 thus expelled, were permitted by the Hawaiian Government to land and reside in Hawaii; and previous to April 2, 1897, when the Hawaiian minister for foreign affairs first informed the Japanese diplomatic representative at Honolulu of the reason for the expulsion of the immigrants, no notice was ever given to the Japanese Government that the possession of agreements of the kind above described would be held to disqualify Japanese subjects for admission into Hawaii. It may also be added in this place that no decision of the Hawaiian authorities respecting the qualifications of the 1,185 expelled immigrants to land in Hawaii was ever communicated by the said authorities to the immigrants, neither were the latter ever informed by the said authorities of the reasons why they, the said immigrants, were refused permission to remain and reside in Hawaii and were expelled therefrom. The other immigrants who were expelled, 146 in number, came by the Shinshiu-maru. They were all contract laborers employed by the Kobe Immigration Company, a company organized under the laws nations of the world, and have it said of our flag, as Labouchere, in the London Truth, said of the flag of England? WHERE IS THE FLAG OF ENGLAND? Let the winds of the world make answer! To coddle, coerce, or scare, You may look for the vaunted emblem- Aye, it waves o'er the blazing hovel The Maori full oft hath cursed it It has floated o'er scenes of pillage And assassination, dire and grim, And has heard the shrieks of its victims Where is the flag of England? Seek the land where the natives rot, Go to the once fair islands Where disease and death are rife, And the greed of a callous commerce Where is the flag of England? Go sail where rich galleons come Seek the land where brute force hath triumphed And hypocrisy hath its lair, And your question will thus be answered For the flag of England is there. * 1 * Mr. President, it is late in the session and I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I wish to speak of one more thing before I do. Is it the desire of the jingoists in this Chamber that they shall have the pleasure of seeing this worthless population represented on this floor? I imagine I see the Senator from Hawaii pleading for an additional appropriation for the relief of 1,200 lepers or urging on the floor of the Senate that we must repeal our contract-labor laws because of the declining sugar industry carried on by contract labor. It seems to me we already have problems enough; that we can not afford to add more of the dark-skinned races to our population. With the negroes of the South, the Chinese of the Pacific Coast, the Indians of the West, and the dagoes of the East, I believe that every problem we are able to solve will be presented to us in the near future; and that it is out duty rather than to add this unfit population to ours to maintain our present area and pass those laws which will give every man an equal opportunity and promote the more even distribution of wealth throughout our borders. Our duty is to educate and elevate the population we already have, and thus perpetuate our institutions. In the past every republic has sown the seeds of its final destruction by gratifying the desire for conquest and for glory. Let us profit by their example and pursue a course that will make the masses happy and prosperous rather than dazzle and allay the mutterings of misery and discontent by the march of armies and the glory of conquest. 1. Speech in the Senate March 2, 1895. T CHAPTER IX WHO STARTED THE WAR? HE Senate having under consideration the following resolution, submitted by MR. PETTIGREW on the 3d instant. "Resolved, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to inform the Senate whether General Torres, one of the officers of the Philippine army, came to General Otis with a flag of truce on February 5, 1899, the day after the fighting commenced between our forces and those of the Filipinos, and stated to General Otis that General Aguinaldo declared that fighting had been begun accidentally and was not authorized by him, and that Aguinaldo wished to have it stopped, and that to bring about a conclusion of hostillities he proposed the establishment of a neutral zone between the two armies of a width that would be agreeable to General Otis, so that during the peace negotiations there might be no further danger of conflict between the two armies, and whether General Otis replied that fighting having once. begun must go on to the grim end. Was General Otis directed by the Secretary of War to make such an answer? Did General Otis telegraph the Secretary of War on February 9, 1899, as follows: 'Aguinaldo now applies for a cessation of hostilities and conference. Have declined to answer.' And did General Otis afterwards reply? Was he directed by the Secretary of War to reply; and what answer, if any, did he or the Secretary of War make to the application to cease fighting?"— So far1 as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that both of the Senators from Massachusetts should make such inquiries as they choose and seek such information as they desire. I think it is entirely proper. If they believe the information is necessary in order that they may the better discharge their duties, they ought to seek it, and the Senate ought to give them the opportunity to seek it. Of course the details of the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Massachusetts [MR. LODGE] might be 1. Speech in the Senate January 11, 1900. |