Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 5, 1898

Mr. Buck to Mr. Day.

Legation of the United States,
Tokyo, Japan, July 15, 1898.

No. 166.]

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a memorial of American citizens at Kobe, addressed to the President; also a copy of a joint letter to the President from the “chairman of the American Memorial Committee” and the “secretary of the International Memorial Committee of Kobe;” also a copy of a report made to the chairman of the international committee by the director of the International Hospital of Kobe, relative to a visit of inspection made by him to the Hiogo Prefectural Prison; together with a copy of a joint letter to me from the president and secretary of the committees above mentioned, accompanied by a copy of a letter of transmittal from Samuel S. Lyon, esq., United States consul at Kobe.

These papers relate to matters of complaint touching “land tenure” in Japan, the “existence of foreign newspapers” under the revised treaty soon to go into effect, and the conduct of the legal authorities under the code of criminal procedure as to the bail of prisoners, the condition of Japanese prisons, and the hardship and distress that will be incident to foreigners confined in Japanese prisons as now conducted, and asking that influence be brought to bear by our Government through diplomatic intercession to obtain amendments of the treaty to correct the evils existing and those to be apprehended after the revised treaty goes into operation.

Though recognizing as I do the force of the facts set forth in the memorial, and believing that the fears of our citizens at Kobe are to some degree well founded, yet I do not think that at this time it is wise to make any attempt to obtain additional treaty stipulations from the Japanese Government for further concessions of rights and privileges to our citizens.

In respect to some of these complaints, they are concerning matters which the courts under the new codes may determine more to the satisfaction of our people living in Japan than they now anticipate. As regards others, the Government itself may make changes which will be more satisfactory before the time arrives for the operation of the revised treaties.

As to the matter of land tenure and the existence of foreign newspapers, the Government and the courts may so interpret the law as largely to remove any cause of complaint. There has been considerable controversy between the newspapers in respect to what interpretation should be put upon certain provisions of the code touching the rights of parties as to the term of years for which property can be held under a contract for use of the superficies and under an emphyteusis (lease), as well as to the exact rights and privileges the lessee may acquire under the law in the use of property. The duration of a lease, in cases of controversy to be determined by the court, may be for twenty or fifty years, according to its character; and under the treaty and the code, article 2, providing that “foreigners enjoy private rights except as prohibited by law, regulation, or treaty,” it would seem that no discrimination could legally be made against foreigners in that respect.

Except then as to actual ownership of land by foreigners not now allowed by law or guaranteed by treaty, the Japanese courts are supposed to mete out justice to foreigners and natives alike. Whatever belief there may be that injustice will be done to foreigners in the administration of the law and treaty in respect to land tenure, time will soon show whether it be well founded. It is believed by many that in the near future the law will be so changed as to permit the actual ownership by foreigners of real estate in Japan.

While there is some apprehension that the Japanese Government may hold that newspapers owned, conducted, and published by foreigners shall not continue to exist, on the ground, perhaps, that such ownership and publication are not wholly within the limits of private rights granted by law and treaty, yet the opinion of many foreigners of long residence here and well informed in respect to the spirit and purpose of the Japanese Government with reference to foreigners, seems to be confident that such newspapers will continue to be published, as they now are, without any attempt to harass or suppress them.

Of late there has been much discussion in the vernacular and foreign newspapers upon the subject of the treatment that foreigners in Japanese prisons may expect, and there is doubt whether foreign prisoners will be kept in such prisons subject to the same accommodations, food, and in other respects as the native prisoners, or whether they will be confined apart from the Japanese prisoners with different accommodations, food, etc.

In a conversation on the subject which I have recently had with the vice-minister for foreign affairs, I learned that the Government is giving attention to the matters of the treatment to be given to foreign prisoners. To the suggestion by me that perhaps it would be well to make use of the jails of the foreign powers in the open ports for the confinement of foreign prisoners, he agreed that it was perhaps the best thing to do, and stated that he thought it could be done.

I learned that some time before my arrival here a council was formed termed “The Revised Treaty Operation Investigation Council,” with Prince Konoye, then president of the House of Peers, at its head, to determine upon, among other matters, the question, “Is there any necessity for affording different treatment to foreigners, owing to difference in their customs and manners, in case they are detained in Japanese prisons for criminal offenses after the enforcement of the revised treaties? If such necessity exists, how is it to be dealt with?” and to make such recommendations to the Diet as in its wisdom might be necessary. That council has not yet made its report, but is still in existence, and is expected to report to the next Diet.

The Yokohama General Chamber of Commerce (foreign) has had a committee appointed by that body to investigate Japanese prisons, with a view to ascertain and report upon what changes and improvements, if any, should be suggested for the proper treatment of foreign prisoners, and I have no doubt but that the conclusions of this committee will have some weight with the Japanese Government.

It may be proper for me to add in this connection that it is to be supposed that in adopting the revised treaties all points were taken into consideration by the Governments of both countries, so far as they could be foreseen and considered, touching the rights and privileges of United States citizens in Japan, and that whatever in these respects may be found to require more specific declaration, on the revised treaties being put into operation, can be better known and more properly considered by our Government than now.

I have, etc.,

A. E. Buck.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 166.]

Mr. Lyon to Mr. Buck.

Consulate of the United States of America,
Hiogo, July 5, 1898.

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a communication addressed to me by J. S. Happer, esq., an American citizen and chairman of the American Memorial Committee, also honorary secretary of the International Committee, which associations have recently been formed at this port for the purpose of helping to secure certain necessary concessions toward foreigners in anticipation of the operation of the new treaties, in which communication he requests me to transmit to your excellency—

• First. A communication from him to yourself, in which he incloses and requests you to transmit an original memorial signed by American citizens, and having in view the end as above stated, to the President of the United States.
• Second. A copy of the report made to A. H. Groom, esq., chairman of the International Committee aforesaid, by Thomas C. Thornicraft, M. R. C. S. and L. R. C. P. Ed., medical director of the International Hospital at Kobe, relative to a visit of inspection by him to the Hiogo Prefectural Prison.
• Third. A communication by the chairman and secretary aforesaid to the President, transmitting the said original memorial and medical report.

There is also inclosed for your inspection a copy each of the medical director’s report on the condition of the Hiogo Prefectural Prison and of the original memorial of resident Americans to the President of the United States.

I have, etc.,

Samuel S. Lyon, Consul.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 166.]

Mr. Happer to Mr. Buck.

Kobe, Japan, July 1, 1898.

Sir: On behalf of my fellow memorialists, I have the honor to forward to your care, through the United States consul at this port, an appeal to the President of the United States, relating to questions growing out of the new treaty between the United States and Japan.

In sending this memorial to the President, it is our wish to strengthen such action as your excellency may already be taking with regard to several serious defects in the treaty that may shortly come into force, and to impress upon our Government the importance of obtaining definite diplomatic guarantees for the protection of United States citizens.

We hope that your excellency will accompany this memorial with a dispatch giving such further information and making such recommendations as may seem wise to your excellency with a view to supplementing and strengthening our representations.

I also have pleasure in handing your excellency extra copies of the memorial and medical report.

I am, etc.,

J. S. Happer,
Chairman American Memorial Committee,
Honorary Secretary International Memorial Committee.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 166.]

Kobe (Hiogo-Osaka), Japan, July 1, 1898.

To the President of the United States of America.

Mr. President. I have the honor to forward to you a memorial signed with practical unanimity by citizens of the United States residing at or in the vicinity of the treaty port Kobe (Hiogo-Osaka), Japan, asking the Government of the United States to obtain for them certain safeguards which they consider necessary under the new treaty between the United States of America and Japan. Such safeguards they consider especially necessary with regard to questions connected with land tenure, press laws, and prison regulations, for, unless some definite diplomatic guaranties are secured, your memorialists have grave reasons for apprehension that serious injustice will ensue, and possibly their lives and the lives of their families be endangered.

I have further the honor to call your attention to the accompanying medical report on the Japanese prison at this port, which speaks eloquently as to the inadequate preparation so far made for the treatment of Europeans and Americans who will under the present difficulties as to obtaining bail be detained there not only during sentence, but on false accusation or the merest suspicion of guilt, and before trial.

I have, etc.,

J. S. Happer,
Chairman American Memorial Committee,
Honorary Secretary International Memorial Committee.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 166.]

To the President of the United States of America.

Mr. President: Your memorialists, citizens of the United States resident in Japan, would respectfully direct the attention of their Government to certain matters of urgent public importance in view of the coming into operation on July 16, 1899, of the treaty signed with Japan on November 22, 1894. Before dealing with certain defects and omissions in that treaty which materially affect their interests, both as regards their business and their private life, your memorialists wish it to be distinctly understood that they are not attacking or deprecating the principle of “equity and mutual benefit” upon which the treaty is avowedly based. What they complain of is that in certain important respects the equity is wanting and the benefit extremely one-sided.

These defects are especially conspicuous in the matter of land tenure. In the majority of the States in the Union a Japanese can purchase as much real estate as comes into the market. He is in a similar advantageous position in Great Britain and in European countries, with the exception of Russian Poland. But neither a citizen of the United States nor any other foreigner resident in Japan can purchase and own a single rood of Japanese soil. Your memorialists respectfully submit that this is a serious departure from the principle of “equity and mutual benefit,” and that it practically nullifies the advantages nominally extended by the terms of this treaty in exchange for the surrender by the treaty powers of extraterritoriality.

It is provided in the treaty that citizens of the United States “may * * * lease land for residential and commercial purposes.” But by the new codes which are shortly to come into operation the period for which land may be leased is limited to twenty years (Section VII, paragraph 604), and it is absurd to suppose that citizens of the United States will attempt to build workshops for carrying on a manufacturing business on land which at the expiration of that time may pass out of their hands or may be subject to such an increase of rent that business would be rendered impossible. If it is replied that the Japanese owners of the land would not be likely to drive out good tenants by the imposition of a rack rent, your memorialists would point out that in many cases it would be distinctly to the advantage of Japanese landowners to adopt such a policy, as they would thus be enabled to acquire for a very small sum the buildings and machinery for carrying on the business established on such insecure conditions. Unfortunately, too, the very low standard of commercial morality prevailing in this country (vide “A report comparing the foreign trade of Japan, etc.,” by Consul J, F. Connelly, dated February 27, 1897) suggests that such methods would be by no means uncommon.

Further, in the event of a foreigner leasing land from a Japanese and afterwards being desirous of assigning his lease to another foreigner for the unexpired portion of the term, the authorities refuse to register such assignment without the written consent of the Japanese landlord, who must attend the ceremony of transfer and must produce the counterpart of the original lease for indorsement and sealing by the proper officer. And this is so although the lease is to a foreigner and his assigns. For instance, say that A, a citizen of the United States, obtains a lease for twenty-five years of a lot of land in the zone of mixed residence and builds a house on it, and ten years later desires to sell it to B, another citizen of the United States, he can not do so without the consent of the Japanese ground landlord, who in many instances has, without giving any reasons, declined to consent. In fact, in some instances where the value of the property has appreciated the landlord has instituted legal proceedings for ejectment of the assignee of the lease on the ground that his consent had not been previously obtained.

Definite diplomatic stipulations form the only safeguard upon which foreigners can rely, and to be effective they must be vigilantly enforced. It is only too certain that the Japanese Government has not hitherto kept strictly to its engagements in the matter of the tenure of land by foreigners. When the port of Hiogo (Kobe) was opened to foreign trade, in 1868, an agreement was concluded between the Imperial Government and the foreign representatives for leasing land and renting or buying houses within what is called zakkyochi, or the mixed-residence zone. This agreement was ultimately published in the form of a letter to the consuls by Mr. Ito Shunske (now Marquis Ito), who was then governor of Hiogo, and it states that “foreigners and Japanese may hereafter make agreements between themselves and at their own convenience for leasing land or houses at this port,” within certain limits, all such agreements having to be reported by the respective parties “to the Japanese authorities and to the consul of the nation concerned, in order that the agreement may be sealed and registered as a proof of validity.” This agreement had absolutely the character and the value of a diplomatic instrument. Yet sixteen years later, in 1884, without any communication with or notification of the foreign consuls or diplomatic representatives, the Japanese Government secretly issued instructions to the prefectural authorities wherein the duration of leases—which foreigners and Japanese were by diplomatic instrument permitted to make “at their own convenience”—was limited to twenty-five years, and a penalty both of fine and imprisonment imposed on Japanese subjects for any infraction of the regulation.

Your memorialists understand that these facts are already more or less known to the Government of the United States, and they are recited here simply as showing that citizens of the United States have good grounds for fearing that the discrimination which has been exercised against them in the past may be exercised against them in the future unless their rights in the matter of land tenure are clearly defined. It appears that the new codes, which must be in operation for one year before the new treaty comes into force, contain certain provisions relating to superficies by which it is claimed that foreigners, by arrangement with Japanese landowners and by mutual convenience, can acquire what will be practically tenures in fee simple for periods of any duration; but examination of the said provisions shows them to be of such a vague and inconclusive nature that it is extremely doubtful what view a Japanese law court would take of them and whether foreigners would derive any advantage therefrom. Certainly no foreigner would be likely to invest capital on such insecure conditions. It therefore comes to this, that, instead of the new treaty improving the position of foreigners with respect to the tenure of land, it actually, by reason of its indefinite wording, makes their position worse, for while it has hitherto been possible to lease land for terms of twenty-five years, the new code now published definitely limits the term to twenty years. It is presumed that such a result was not for a moment foreseen by the United States plenipotentiary when the treaty was negotiated.

Your memorialists believe that if the Japanese Government were now approached on this matter it would not be averse to mending the treaty in the direction of granting rights of land tenure of a more liberal nature than those in the present instrument. When the United States Japanese treaty was under negotiation, there was undoubtedly a very strong feeling among Japanese against granting land-owning rights to foreigners. Within the last few months, however, a complete change has come over Japanese opinion on this question. It has become evident to the Japanese that if they wish for the introduction of the foreign capital which is so necessary for the development of their industries and commerce, such can only be secured by allowing foreigners to own land on precisely the same terms as the Japanese themselves. The mercantile and industrial classes are rapidly becoming unanimous in this opinion, and your memorialists therefore believe that if the Japanese Government were now applied to the concession which citizens of the United States consider should be theirs by right of equity will very easily be obtained. Your memorialists urge this, in the words of the treaty, on principles of “equity and mutual benefit.” Without this concession the other concessions of the treaty as to rights of manufacture and trade in any part of the Japanese Empire are rendered null and void, and your memorialists will be in the position of seeing the extremely important rights of extraterritoriality abandoned without receiving any compensating advantages.

In the second place, there is the question of the existence of foreign newspapers after the new treaty comes into force. With one exception foreign newspapers published in Japan are owned by aliens, and your memorialists hold that citizens of the United States are, under the terms of the treaty, as much entitled to carry on a newspaper as any other business. But the Japanese press law contains a clause that none but Japanese subjects shall be allowed to own, edit, or publish a newspaper in Japan, and though this law was revised last year, neither the Government nor any member of the Diet proposed that this clause should be dropped in view of the impending operation of the new treaty. Exactly the same course, in fact, was adopted as in the case of the raw silk export law, which, in direct defiance of the terms of the treaties, proposes to pay to Japanese exporters exclusively bounties on the export of raw silk. It is understood that, in consequence of the attention directed to this question by the foreign press, this law will be repealed before it comes into operation, but nothing has yet been heard of any intention to repeal the obnoxious clause in the press law. A Japanese semiofficial journal has recently claimed that the Japanese Government will possess the right to refuse to foreigners the liberty to publish newspapers if it should see fit, but that the Japanese Government is not likely to use such power. Your memorialists, on the other hand, claim that by the terms of the new treaty foreigners will be able as of right to publish newspapers, of course conforming themselves in all matters of procedure to the regulations imposed on Japanese newspapers by the press law. Under the present liberal-minded ministry, that of Marquis Ito, they do not believe that any attempt will be made to discriminate against foreigners in this matter, but the present ministry may not be in power when the new treaty comes into operation, and your memorialists would respectfully urge that to prevent the matter being left in doubt, His Imperial Majesty’s Government should be urged to rescind the objectionable clause in the press law without delay. Your memorialists beg to point out that it is of essential importance to the business carried on by citizens of the United States in Japan that they should have the assistance of newspapers published in their own language, and that no injustice can accrue to the Japanese by a recognition of this right, seeing that all connected with a foreign newspaper will be subject to the very stringent press law of Japan.

But over and above all this, which simply affects their commercial and tradal interests, your memorialists would further direct the attention of the Government of the United States to two matters of the gravest importance, affecting not only their liberties but their lives. They refer to the respective questions of bail in Japan and of the condition of Japanese prisons. In July, 1899, citizens of the United States will lose the privilege of extraterritoriality which has been enjoyed for forty years, ever since Japan was opened to foreigners, and will become subject to Japanese law. By reason of her progress during the last thirty years, Japan may conceive herself entitled to demand this concession, and the Government of the United States may be justified in granting it. Even assuming that this matter has been decided beyond the possibility of recall, your memorialists would respectfully urge that they are entitled to be protected against harmful and perhaps fatal consequences to some of their number due to the difficulty of obtaining bail and to the condition and administration of Japanese prisons and laws.

The Japanese code of criminal procedure contains a whole chapter devoted to the question of bail, and to read this chapter it might be thought as easy to obtain bail in Japan as in the United States. In practice, however, it is not so. It is only in the rarest cases and with the greatest difficulty that bail is ever secured in Japan. The practice is to arrest a man and keep him in prison under repeated private examination, at which his advocate is not allowed to be present, until he is brought up for public trial and either condemned or acquitted. The judge has the power to order an accused person under examination to be subjected to solitary confinement for a period not exceeding ten days, during which his advocate, relatives, and friends are denied all access to him—avowedly in the interests of justice, but practically with the object of making the prisoner confess. Cases are frequent in which accused persons are kept in prison for thirty, fifty, a hundred days, even for twelve months, denied bail all this time, and then finally acquitted. And their treatment during this period, if they are friendless, is to all intents and purposes that of convicted prisoners. If they have friends, they can be supplied with food and clothing from outside the jail; if not, they must put up with prison fare.

A case which has recently been made public will afford the best illustration of the dangers to which citizens of the United States will be exposed when they come under Japanese law. A respectable Japanese named D________, bearing a good reputation, was arrested upon a charge of being implicated in certain frauds. He was at once taken to the prison and placed in one of the cells for convicted prisoners. This was a room 9 by 12 feet, from which must be deducted the space occupied by a privy and a tub for the purposes of ablution. Upright battens from 1 inch to 2 inches apart formed the end of the cell facing a corridor, which was patrolled by the warders. Along the further side of the corridor were the usual paper shoji, or windows, through which the winter wind blew with keenness. There were no means whatever of warming the cell. Upon the floor was a thin straw matting. In this cell during D________’s imprisonment eight or nine persons were frequently placed, all these persons being unconvicted. So crowded was the cell at times that when night came the prisoners had difficulty in getting room enough to lie down at full length. Coolies with the itch and covered with sores were among the prisoners who were thrust in to share the apartment of the unconvicted prisoners—some of these being men accustomed to a certain amount of luxury, others at least to cleanliness. As already stated, the privy and the lavatory (a simple tub of water) were in the same cell, divided therefrom by a partition 3 feet high, and, together with the crowding of eight or nine persons, some of extremely dirty habits, produced a sickening stench. Such was D________’s experience in winter; it is, as your memorialists have ascertained from others, much worse in summer, when there is added the torment of mosquitoes and of the vermin brought in by the dirtier prisoners.

As soon as D________ was taken to the prison he was told to remove his clothes and put on prison garb, unconvicted though he was. His own clothes were taken away from him to be searched and were not returned until the following day. Meanwhile he had to wear a scanty thin cotton loose garment—scarcely enough to cover even a Japanese frame—which constitutes the prison garb, and he was given a thin futon, or cotton quilt, with which to protect himself at night as he lay on the boards. Food was served three times a day. It consisted on each occasion of imperfectly boiled barley mixed with a little rice and a small piece of daikon (the Japanese radish), also a little miso (bean sauce). With this was provided a little warm water to quench thirst, and this water on several occasions had such an offensive smell that it was impossible to drink it. On the second day D________’s clothes were returned to him, and on the third day his friends were permitted to send in some bedding and also food. So wretched and inadequate was the food supplied that D________ believes he would have died if he had not had friends to supplement it with supplies from outside. D________ was in prison for seven days before he was examined, or had any opportunity of showing that he was innocent of the charge brought against him. After the one examination to which he was subjected he heard nothing whatever until his release. Altogether he was in prison, under the conditions described, for forty-seven days, every offer of bail by substantial persons being refused. Such is a plain statement of what is possible—what has actually happened and is happening every day—under Japanese law and prison administration.

In relating the circumstances of this man’s imprisonment, which they have on the very best authority, your memorialists would point out that such circumstances are by no means exceptional. They did not occur at some small prison in the interior, but at a prison situated at one of the largest and most important of the treaty ports.

Another case which has come to their knowledge was that of a man imprisoned during the summer, who was so terribly bitten by bugs and other vermin investing the prison woodwork that his body swelled up and his face was so disfigured that his friends scarcely recognized him. Only a few weeks ago a man suffering from lung disease was arrested and taken, ill as he was, to the Kobe prison, and refused bail; he lingered a fortnight and then died in the jail. Within the last two or three months a man and his wife, accused of a comparatively trivial offense against local regulations, were arrested and taken to prison, examined by the police on the first day, brought before a judge on the third day, left without any further examination for fifty days, then placed on their trial and acquitted, but detained for two days longer in case the public procurator should enter an appeal. Thus these two persons, for an offense which if proved would have entailed a sentence probably not exceeding a month in duration, were actually detained in prison for two months and then declared innocent. Pages could be covered with similar cases, but these will suffice to show that the apprehensions of foreign residents as to what is likely to occur when they come under Japanese law are not without cause.

Considerable discussion has taken place in the Japanese press during the last few months as to whether special treatment should be accorded foreigners in the prisons, and much difference of opinion has been expressed, some of the journals being strongly opposed to any discrimination being made. Your memorialists respectfully submit to the Government of the United States that this is a matter of very grave and serious moment, likely to lead to vexatious complications as soon as foreigners come under Japanese law, and certain, if left unsettled, to imperil the amicable relations subsisting between the Government of the United States and that of His Imperial Japanese Majesty. They have no hesitation in saying that to imprison citizens of the United States under the conditions prevailing in Japanese jails, the cells of which are absolutely unwarmed in winter, being in many cases barred dens resembling nothing so much as those in which wild animals are kept, the clothing insufficient, and the food such as few if any foreigners can digest, will be for many literally a sentence of death. Only a few weeks ago the vernacular papers reported that 50 Japanese in the Saga prison had been frost-bitten, and if this is possible with Japanese who are accustomed in winter to houses unwarmed by artificial heat, it may readily be imagined that foreigners simply could not survive under such conditions. At Poronai, in the Hokkaido, where the thermometer frequently marks 16 degrees of frost, the prisons are constructed in the same way as in southern Japan, being merely cells with bars quite open to the air.

Besides the practical impossibility of obtaining bail, which would lead to the incarceration of many who are innocent of any crime, it must be remembered that, while crimes of violence are regarded with lenity and punished with nominal sentences, Japanese law provides imprisonment for many trivial offenses which in the United States would be purged by a small fine. For allowing his house to be used for opium smoking a Chinese was recently sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, while two coolies, who caused the death of an American man-of-war’s man named Epps in Nagasaki Harbor a few months ago, were merely ordered to pay fines of 100 yen, respectively. Gambling of all descriptions is punishable by heavy penalties, and it may easily happen that a small party of tourists discovered playing a game of cards for money will be removed to jail and sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the conditions described for what in other countries would be regarded as a crime punishable at the utmost by a fine—that is to say, they would be in danger of losing their lives or suffering lifelong ill health for what at most is a self-regarding offense.

Your memorialists hope that they will not be regarded as exceeding their province if they make one or two practical suggestions with a view to the negotiation of a compromise. As the existing prisons are utterly unfitted for the reception of foreigners charged with any offense, they would suggest that at each of the present treaty ports a building should be constructed for the reception of unconvicted foreign prisoners and the incarceration of those who are convicted. Such prisons should be modeled on those of Western countries and the food should be such as foreigners are accustomed to eat and should be prepared under foreign superintendence. (It may be pointed out that the limit of expense for the food of prisoners ranges from about 2½ to 4 cents per day, and it may be easily estimated that with this allowance not much foreign food could be purchased, however willing the prison authorities might be.) While such special prisons could be placed wholly under the control of Japanese, the foreign consuls should be able to enter and inspect them at any time, to receive complaints, and to give directions as to food and treatment without requiring any authorization or permit from the Japanese Government or local authority. A difficulty which will probably be suggested is that when the new treaties come into force and mixed residence is permitted foreigners will to some extent tend to be distributed over the country instead of being collected at the treaty ports; but the difficulty should be by no means insuperable. In the first place, it is extremely improbable that for some years to come the rights as to residence in the interior will be largely availed of, seeing that the channels into which trade has drifted in Japan will not be readily abandoned. In the second place, the Japanese Government might fairly be asked under the circumstances to give an undertaking that all foreigners arrested in the interior should be brought to the nearest treaty port at the earliest possible opportunity, there to be examined and tried, and if convicted committed to serve their sentence in the prison reserved for foreigners.

Your memorialists desire respectfully to point out that such a scheme might be expected to commend itself to the Japanese Government as well as to the treaty powers, for it must be to the interests of the former equally with the latter that everything likely to result in friction when the new treaties come into operation should be avoided. If the Japanese Government refuses to make these concessions, then your memorialists respectfully submit that the Government of the United States would be justified in refusing to receive the year’s notice which must be given by the Japanese Government before the new treaty can come into operation. They admit that this would be a step that could only be taken in the last resort, but they respectfully submit that the Government of the United States would be justified in taking such action in defense of the lives and liberties of its citizens in Japan. Indeed, refusal to grant such a concession as that here suggested could, it seems to them, only be interpreted as indicating that the Japanese Government was deliberately determined to adopt a policy aiming at driving the citizens of the United States and foreigners in general out of the country, causing them to abandon their business and the trade which they have built up under the protection of extraterritoriality, and thus securing to the Japanese the fruits of foreign industry. Your memorialists refuse to believe that such an unjust and iniquitous policy is contemplated by the Japanese Government, and they therefore hold that it only needs that attention should be directed to the question by the Government of the United States in order to secure from the Government of His Imperial Japanese Majesty the concessions which will do much to minimize the friction likely to result when the new treaty comes into operation. In conclusion, your memorialists hope that if they have spoken strongly on this matter the importance of the issues at stake will not be lost sight of. They speak not only for themselves, but for their wives and children, to whom committal to a Japanese prison as at present constituted, on suspicion of offending against the laws, and possibly by the denunciation of some hidden enemy, would veritably prove a sentence of death.

(Fifty names subscribed.)

[Inclosure 5 in No. 166.]

Kobe, Japan, May 9, 1898.

A. H. Groom, Esq.,
Chairman International Memorial Committee.

Sir: At your suggestion I have the honor to place before your committee a short account of a visit I paid on Monday, February 28, to the Hiogo Prefectural Prison. I was accompanied by a member of the foreign municipal council and the editor of the Kobe Chronicle.

The prison is situated on the banks of the Minatogawa; it covers a space of 10 acres, the buildings occupying about three quarters of an acre. At the time of the visit the jail contained 1,024 male and 171 female convicts, while of unconvicted prisoners awaiting their trial there were 219 males and 21 females.

I first visited the cells reserved for unconvicted prisoners. These are contained in a number of detached buildings, there being on the average about twelve cells to each building. The first impression on entering is of a number of cages for wild animals, and the impression is strengthened when it is observed that while the front of the cells is faced with wooden bars, the entrance thereto at the rear is by small doors about 4 feet square. The cells are in reality wooden structures, set in the middle of a room, around which the warders can patrol freely. Those for the unconvicted as well as for the convicted prisoners are exactly 9 feet square, and from this space must be deducted 2 or 3 feet divided off by a partition about 3 feet high for the lavatory, and another similar space not so divided where there is a tub of water for purposes of ablution. In this respect the cells for the unconvicted prisoners are distinctly inferior to those for the convicted, as in the latter case the partition dividing the lavatory off from the open part of the cell goes right up to the low roof, and is therefore a more satisfactory arrangement. It would naturally be thought that any distinction of the sort would be in favor of the unconvicted prisoners, but this is not the case, which is the more surprising seeing that with the convicted prisoners the cells are used only at night, while the unconvicted prisoners remain in their cells all day and night with the exception of one hour for exercise.

The cells are 12 feet high and raised about 2 feet from the ground. The floor is of wood, over which thin, coarse straw mats are laid, and as we passed through each building the various prisoners, among whom were several Chinese, sat on these mats facing the bars. It was not a very cold day, but the buildings struck a chill as they were entered, there being no method of warming them. The only protection from the outside air consisted of paper windows on the outer side of the corridor. The flooring of the cells is of wood, covered with coarse, thin matting, upon which the unconvicted prisoners were kneeling in Japanese fashion. All the cells appeared to be clean, the woodwork being well polished, but, in answer to a question, it was admitted that vermin, especially bugs brought in among the clothing of the unconvicted prisoners, had got into the woodwork and were very difficult to extirpate.

In one of these cells 9 feet square I counted eight men, while in others there were three, four, and five, and in a number of cases one person only. Passing to the buildings for convicted prisoners, I found that the cells were on exactly the same principle as those for the unconvicted, with the exception above noted, there being no washing arrangements in the cell, and the lavatory being partitioned off. I found that, according to the wooden tickets giving the numbers and names of the prisoners, in some cases as many as eleven persons slept in one cell 9 feet square. In order to allow this number to lie at full length, I was told six lay with their heads one way and five the other. Six, I was told, is properly the limit for each cell, but owing to the number of prisoners who, from the nature of the crime committed, must be segregated, the prison is at present overcrowded. In each cell the bedding of the prisoners was folded up, ready to be laid down at night when in use. In the courtyard in front of the cells was a row of taps, where the prisoners could perform their ablutions in the morning. The prisoners have a bath every five days. For the whole of the thousand or so prisoners there is only one bath tub, the dimensions of which are 6 feet by 10. Fourteen men enter the bath at one time, and each batch is allowed to remain for five minutes only.

The clothing of the prisoners consists of cotton of coarse texture, that for the convicted being of a red color, while that supplied for unconvicted prisoners who enter without decent clothes is blue. There is a cotton undershirt, close-fitting cotton trousers, and a cotton over-garment, wadded in winter. The clothing is changed once a week in winter and every five days in summer. There is besides a working garment, the prisoners, I was told, always changing their clothes before going into the workshop.

Most of the cells were empty, their occupants being in the workshops. In the one or two exceptions the men had been sentenced to solitary confinement for prison offenses or were dangerous criminals, men who had committed murder and such like crimes, and were serving sentences up to ten years. Criminals sentenced to longer terms are sent to the convict prison in the Hokkaido.

Corporal punishment, I was told, was never resorted to in Japanese jails. There were three different classes of punishment for unruly conduct or offenses against the prison regulations. The first was solitary confinement; the second, reduction in the quantity of food, and the third, imprisonment in the dark cell for a period not exceeding five days.

The dark cells were separate buildings 9 feet square, resembling tiny Japanese godowns, with a ventilating apparatus on the roof. When the door is closed, there is complete darkness, with the exception of a tiny ray through the ventilating apparatus in the door.

The prisoners must rise at 6 o’clock in the morning. At 6.30 a. m. bean soup with a mixture of rice and barley is served, at 12 noon there is rice and barley, with occasionally a little fish and vegetables, and at 5 p.m. more rice and barley with pickled turnips. The expense limit in Hiago prefecture as regards food is, I understand, 5 cents (equal to 5 farthings) per diem for each prisoner. The food is served in wooden boxes.

The workshops for the prisoners are large and long, but very cold, there being no method of heating them. Though the temperature was not under freezing point on the day of my visit, some of the prisoners seemed from the bluish color of their faces to feel the cold severely. Among the employments carried on are matchmaking, basket making, straw rope manufacture, matting, and so on. Work ceases at 4 p.m., and there is no work on Sundays.

The prison comprises an infirmary, where prisoners who are afflicted with disease of a noninfectious nature are treated. It consists of a large room with wooden bars like a huge cage, with a corridor running around it. On the outer side of the corridor were the customary sliding paper windows. The floor was of cement, not wood. There were low wooden beds on either side occupied by patients, one or two of whom appeared in the last stage of consumption. The bed clothing, etc., appeared ample, but the room or cell seemed bitterly cold, being, like the rest of the prison, quite unwarmed, and only protected from the outer air by the paper windows aforesaid.

There are a number of children in the prison, some not more than 10 years old.

In the women’s quarters the cells for the women were similar to those of the men, 9 feet square, with bare boards over which thin coarse mats were provided for sitting and sleeping purposes. There was no infirmary for the women, but a certain number of ordinary cells were set apart for this purpose.

I am of opinion from my inspection of this prison that it is totally unfitted for Europeans. The sanitary arrangements of the cells are defective. The cold in winter must be extreme, as the cells are open in front and are not warmed in any way. The infirmary is not heated in cold weather, so that the patients must suffer intensely. Both the character of the food and the quantity and quality supplied are quite inadequate and unsuitable. I am confident that lasting injury to health, and even in some cases death, must result to the majority of foreigners of even a brief imprisonment.

Thomas C. Thornicraft,
M. R. C. S. and L. R. G. P. Ed.,
Medical Director International Hospital, Kobe.