Page:American Diplomacy in the Orient - Foster (1903).djvu/382

 but there was an irreconcilable divergence of views on the jurisdictional question. After long discussions, the conferences extending into the year 1887, the Japanese were finally brought to agree that to the native judges there should be added a body of European and American experts, who should constitute a majority in every court before which aliens might be required to appear. But when this important concession was offered, the European representatives insisted that the foreign judges should be nominated by the diplomatic body, and that it should control the laws, rules of procedure, and the details of the administration of justice.

When the concession tendered by Count Inouye and the demands of the diplomatic representatives became known to the Japanese public, a storm of indignation spread through the land, and the opposition became so threatening that the conference was dissolved, and Count Inouye was forced to resign his portfolio. Again the American minister alone was on the side of Japan. To signalize the attitude of his government, an extradition convention was negotiated by Minister Hubbard, ratified, and proclaimed in 1886, while the conference was in progress. In submitting the treaty to the Senate, President Cleveland stated that it had been made not only because it was necessary for the proper execution of the criminal laws, "but also because of the support which its conclusion would give to Japan in her efforts towards judicial autonomy and complete sovereignty."

This treaty originated in questions which were raised through an American, charged with a crime committed