The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1914. JAPAN AND MEXICO.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 282, 1 May 1914, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1914. JAPAN AND MEXICO.

Some little time ago there were various reported movements and proposals connected with .Japan and Mexico which gave rise to a theory that General Huerta was willing to grant or had actually granted concessions to the Government of Japan, in return for the latter supplying him with munitions of war. The concessions to Japan were alleged to take the form of giving a harbor to the Government and offering facilities for the settlement of Japanese in Mexico. From this it was but a step to the alarming conclusion that tlie Japanese had actually agreed to give moral and material support to Huerta in the event of the United States Government intervening in the Mexican quarrel. It was even alleged that a knowledge of this understanding between Mexico and Japan was the roason for the extreme reluctance shown by President Wilson to actively intervene with a view to ending the disorder in Mexico. Now that intervention has taken place, it may be well to examine these rumours, with a view to discovering whether the Mexican situation is likely to be further complicated by Japan allying herself with the Huerta faction or Government. There appears to be no doubt that Japan is very desirous of obtaining a foothold on tho western seaboard • of Jforth America, and it is significant that, when her protests against the Californian exclusion law were disregarded, she immediately turned her attention to Msxico, where General Huerta holds pointed Mr. .Masanao Ilanihara to bo its official representative in the city of Mexico, where General Huerta holds sway, and it was resolved to send this representative in a warship. The cruiser Idzumo, on which. Mr. Hanihara went from Japan to Mexico, had a very remarkable "send-off" from Yokohama. Scores of high officials from Tokio weut to Yokohama to assist at tho demonstrations, and much popular enthusiasm was displayed. The Idzomo had a cordial reception from the Mexicans, and Mr. Ilanikara has been very active in furthering Japanese interests since )ii« arrival at the Mexican capital. Another significant circumstance was the fact that among munitions of war imported from Japan to Mexico were found a number of field pieces and small arms that were captured from tho Russians during the Manchurian campaign. It is now explained that the Japanese Government had nothing to do with the sale of these, arms to Mexico. The Japanese armament firm of Mitsui and Co. had purchased tho arms from the Government years ago in the ordinary course of business, and when latqly the firm received an order from Huerta, the Russian guns and rifles formed part of the arms supplied. This is a plausible explanation, and may be accepted as satisfactory. Similarly it is explained that the Japanese demonstrations on the occasion of sending an official representative to Mexico did not in any way denote that there was an understanding between the two Governments, but merely indicated the joy of the Japanese "jingoes" at a new departure ill the way of a spirited foreign policy. The demand for moi'e vigorous assertion in external affairs has been the constant cry of' Japanese agitators. That cry was heard in relation to China, and it was raised anew when California offended Japanese "amour propre" by passing laws discriminating against her countrymen. This explanation does not deny that there is among certain Japanese a feeling of strong hostility to tho United States; but it is maintained that this feeling is not shared by the Government or by responsible statesmen, and it is alleged that the great official "send off" to Mr. i Hanikara was simply intended as a sop to the "jingoes." There is said to be not the slightest foundation for the reported acquisition of a port in Mexico by Japan, or for the rumoured alliance with Huerta. When these facts and assurances were placed before President Wilson, it is assumed that his objection to intervention in Mexico was overcome. We are inclined to believe that British influence with Japan was responsible for the assurances being offered to the Government of the United States, and that in return for Britain's good offices the American President resolved to repeal the law giving preference to American shipping in the matter of Panama Canal tolls. It is to be hoped, at any rate, that -Japan has recognised the extreme unwisdom of interfering in Mexican affairs and that the scope of hostilities will not bs extended. Tho statesmen of Japan know that their country is not, financially, in a position to embark upon a foreign war, but at the same timo they [are aware that something must bo done to appease the agitators who threaten to cause internal revolution. Hence the foreign policy of Japan appears to be a great deal more bellicose than it is In reality. A recollection of this may help to allay the alarm that is from time to time felt because of the rumours of in tended Japanese aggression against Australia or New Zealand, '

THI OROWN| OF JUSTICE. Tie efforts that have been made towards securing a remission of the sentence passed on Henry Holland by the Chief Jnstice, after Holland had been found guilty of sedition, have so far ; proved futile. Neither the finding of the | jury *oi" ttie sentence inflicted aro in any way questioned, for at all cost law and order must be upheld, and this ;a clearly recognised by all law-abiding sympathisers with Holland. , At the same time there is a justifiable feeling that there are exceptional circumstances in this particular case which deserve consideration, not in the directiom of palliating tho crime, but in favor of the exercise of that olemenoy which is the crown of justice. Once the majoaty of the law bas been vindicated, the way is open for magnanimity in cases where the upholding of a principle is at stake. Especially is this the case in connection with the rights of free speech and comments by the press. That there are and should be limitations is only right, otherwise ehaos and disorder would be rampant. Tho offence of sedition for which Holland was convicted is one that should be regarded as extremely serious under certain circumstances, buj; it is also capable of being stretched so as to cover a wider area than its gravity warrants. For that reason it is essential to take into consideration the circumstances under which the offenca is committed. Presumably this course was taken by the Chief Justice, with the result that what the Red Federation call a revengeful and cruel sentence, and what the Minister of Justice describes as a reasonable sentence, was imposed. The deputation to the Hon. Jas. Allen, which was headed by the Hon. J. T. Paul, placed Holland's case fairly before the Minister, who said he recognised that the deputationists were men who stood for law and order. Mr. Paul pointed out that the offence was eommitted at aa abnormal time of excitement; that the law had been vindicated; that the exercise of mercy would tend to strengthen the law; and that tho state of Holland's health would render a long term of imprisonment very injurious. Few people will be disposed to cavil at suck » sensible summary of re;\ ■ sons for clemency, and, apparently Mr Allen was sympathetic, and he stated that the Government did not want to be vindictive, their object being to maintain law and order. It is well known that there are many precedents for shortening sentences imposed in similar cases. No stronger example could be quoted than that of the South African Government, which had to face a far more serious state of labor upheaval than was the case in New Zealand. Stern ar.J drastic as were the measures adopted by that Government to quell tho labor revolt, yet when order was restored and the law vindicated, the Government did not hesitate to exercise clemency towards the men who had been arraigned for sedition. That magnanimous act was emphatio evidence that tlia ability of the Government to maintain law and order had been conclusively proved, that the necessary lesson had been implanted in the minds of the disturbing element of the population, and that there was more to be gai»ed by mercy than by a policy of vindictiveness. In this view the Government showed commendable wisdom and deserve to be honored for having the courage to take the humano course. Vindictiveness is ever a sign of weakness of mind, just as magnanimity indicates greatness of purpose. Had the New Zealand Government been a strong and wise one they would doubtless have followed the South African example, and released Holland. Unfortunately the Laborites are just now a thom in the flesh of the Reform Ministry, and they have last, at all events for the time beim*. a golden opportunity of showing that they Can viafl superior to petty politics and become strong in their own strength. By refusing to exercise the quality of mercy in Holland's ease they show their weakness, as well as lay themselves open to the charge of vindictiveness. far better would it have been to take the risk, if any, of hostile criticism for performing a kingly act, than expose their weakness under the plea that Holland's release would make the administration of justice ridieuloup. The Minister must know only too well that Jnstice can never be made ridiculous. What he seems to close his eyes against is the maxim that justice should ever be tempered with mercy. Instead of gaining kudos for a wise and generous policy, the Government loses caßte by adopting a vindictive attitude, and fans the smouldering fires of discontent that were rapidly subsiding.