Ditty 

Ws 





•lA/5' 

ANNEXATION OF HAWAII. 




SPEECH 



HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE, 



OF" CALIFORNIA, 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 






June zi and 22, July 5 and 6, 1S9S. 



WASHINGTON. 
I898. 






* 



6868* 



y 






SPEECH 

OF - . 

HOK STEPHEN M. WHITE. 

Tuesday, June 21, 1S0S. 



The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to 
provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. WHITE said: 

Mr. President: The correct determination of the issues now 
before the Senate is not only of vital national importance, but in- 
volves questions more grave than any dealt with in this gener- 
ation. Heedless and thoughtless is the man who thinks otherwise. 
Some outside of this Chamber, persons ordinarily considerate, are 
in numerous instances carried away either by interest or by the 
excitement incident to the conditions surrounding us. They 
may clamor for immediate judgment, for no debate; but if this 
body is impotent to examine with care, with patience, and with 
at least some ability a crisis of this grave import, it has failed to 
accomplish the object for which it was called into existence and 
it has responded not to the aspirations of the framers of the Con- 
stitution. 

Our differences, Senators, may be radical. There are a number 
upon one side of this issue and upon the other who are taking 
their positions honestly and with some degree, I trust, of intelli- 
gence. It will not, I think, prevent proper deliberation, I know 
it will not hasten consideration, to insist that there shall be no 
discussion and that in this body there shall be assigned no reasons 
for our action. The duty demanding reasons for our conduct 
will be discharged regardless of the demonstrations of arrogance. 

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ANNEX FOREIGN TERRITORY BY 
RESOLUTION, CERTAINLY NOT OTHERWISE THAN AS A STATE. 

Whatever may be said of the past history of this country or of 
the records to which Senators have adverted, there is one propo- 
sition which can not be contested, namely, that there is no prece- 
dent for this proposed action. States have been admitted into the 
Union, territory has been acquired and has been annexed by 
treaty stipulation, but there is no instance where by a joint reso- 
lution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far 
remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to with- 
draw from the sovereign societies of the world a government 
which, in the opinion of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Mor- 
gan] , is the best government of which he has any cognizance — 
no instance where an act of such supreme importance has been 
advocated as mere legislation. 

It is well to reflect upon this subject and to do so not merely as 
it affects our obligation to obey the Constitution, but also as it 
pertains to our destiny and refers to the reasons for our existence. 
Senators may say that this, that, or the other should induce us to 
render ready acquiescence to an imperious and sudden demand, 
but I believe that every member of this bo:ly should record his 
3-1 3 



vote after patient and careful thought, and that the judgment 
which he enters here should be one to meet the approval of his 
conscience. We are building for time to come, as well as for the 
present. We can not shift responsibility. The advice of the un- 
informed or criminal will not mitigate our mistakes, even though 
their views are momentarily indorsed. 

Undoubtedly it is pleasant to be with the majority. The ac- 
claim of victory never falls upon an unsympathetic ear when it 
reaches the person who has joined in bringing it about, but the 
obligation which attaches to our position requires, it seems to me, 
something beyond the reward of popularity. The Republic will 
never be safe if her people depend upon the mere guesses of Sena- 
tors. The demands of honesty and the candid discharge of the 
Senator's duty as he sees it are but expressions of the same idea. 

Mr. President, what are we asked to do? The resolution which 
has been presented comes from the House of Representatives, and 
is but a repetition of the resolution prepared by the Committee on 
Foreign Relations of this body, and is to my mind upon its face, 
irrespective of the constitutional questions involved, I was about to 
say absurd in its inaccuracy. Without for the time being debating 
the desirability of the annexation of the islands, gaze upon this 
proposed resolution. I appeal to Senators who are opposed to me 
upon the merits of this subject, and especially to those Senators, 
eminent at the bar, whose views have always been zealously 
guarded by their respect for that law which they have sworn to 
support and that Constitution to which they have here and else- 
where given their unqualified and repeated adhesion. 

The joint resolution is entitled "A joint resolution to provide 
for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States." It is as 
follows: 

Joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United 

States. 

Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, 
signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede ab- 
solutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of 
sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their 
dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute 
fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public build- 
ings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public 
property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the 
Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto 
appertaining: Therefore, 

Resolved by ike Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That said cession is accepted, ratified, and 
confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, 
and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States 
and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singular 
the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United 
States of America. 

The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not 
apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands; but the Congress of the United 
States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition: Pro- 
vided, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such 
part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval pur- 
poses of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local gov- 
ernment, shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Ha- 
waiian Islands for educational and other public purposes. 

Until Congress shall provide for the government of stich islands all the 
civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing 
Government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons and shall 
be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct ; 
and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacan- 
cies so occasioned. 

The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall 
forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, 
or as may bo hereafter concluded, between the United States and such for- 
eign nations. The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted 
3571 



for the fulfillment of the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with 
this joint resolution nor contrary to the Constitution, of the United States 
nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until 
the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine. 

Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs 
laws and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands the existing customs relations 
of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall re- 
main unchanged. 

The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of 
the passage of this joint resolution, including the amounts due to depositors 
in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government 
of the United States: but the liability of the Unitei States in this regard 
shall in no case exceed §1,000,093. So long, however, as the existing Govern- 
ment and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are con- 
tinued as hereinbefore provided said Government shall continue to pay the 
interest on said debt. 

There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Is- 
lands, except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed 
by the laws of the United States; and no Chinese, by reason of anything 
herein contained, shall be allowed to enter the United States from the Ha- 
waiian Islands. 

The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall 
be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall, as soon as reasonably prac- 
ticable, recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Hawaiian 
Islands as they shall deem necessary or proper. 

Sec. 2. That the commissioners hereinbefore provided for shall be ap- 
pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Sec. 3. That the sum of §100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, 
is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasiiry not otherwise ap- 
propriated, and to be immediately available, to be expended at the discre- 
tion of the President of the United States of America, fur the purpose of 
carrying this joint resolution into effect. 

I repeat, quoting from the resolution: 

Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, 
signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede abso- 
lutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sov- 
ereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their de- 
pendencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the absolute 
fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, etc. 

The resolution thus refers truly to the grant contained in the 
Hawaiian constitution, but utterly disregards the facts when it 
assumes that an unratified treaty means anything. I continue 
the quotation: 

That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed. 

What cession, Senators? Has any cession been made? Is there 
a lawyer upon either side of this Chamber who is willing to say 
that there has been a grant, a cession by Hawaii of Hawaii? Can 
a cession be made when a proposition emanates from one party 
unaccepted by the other? Is there anyone who has regard for 
those attainments which he possesses who will claim that such 
contract has been made? Is there any ambiguity in the meaning 
of the word "cession?" Is there any doubt about it? In Ander- 
son's Dictionary of the Law, "cession" is defined "a yielding up, 
a transfer, a grant, as of land," and so on. 

Has there been any grant? Mr. President, the people of Hawaii 
under their constitution provided how the islands might be ceded 
to the United States. They defined and limited in their organic 
instrument the method of conveyance by which they were to oper- 
ate the divestiture of empire. Has that method been followed? 
Does anyone pretend that it has been followed? 

Will anyone speak to me of a " treaty" when we are confronted 
with a mere proposition negotiated between the plenipotentiaries 
of two countries and unratified by a tribunal— this Senate— whose 
concurrence is necessary? There is no treaty; no one can reason- 
ably aver that there is a treaty. No treaty can exist unless it has 
attached to it not merely the acquiescence of those from whom it 
emanates as a proposal. It must be accepted — joined in by the 
8571 



6 

other party. This has not been done. There is, therefore, no 
treaty. 
Black defines a treaty thus: 

In international law an agreement between two or more independent 
states— an agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or 
sovereigns formally signed by commissioners properly authorized and sol- 
emnly, ratified, etc. 

Hence the declaration in the resolution that a treaty has been 
made is manifest falsehood. 

Whence, then, do we derive the right to speak of a cession, of a 
concession — of a grant? There is no grant, Senators. Whatever 
may be your views of the situation, that you can not deny. Yet 
in this instrument which you put before us, and which you ask 
us to support, you tell us that there is a cession, when 3 t ou know 
that a cession can not be made without the concurrence of both 
parties to the agreement. That this resolution involves untruth 
is palpable. 

Not only Mr. Frelinghuysen, a former Secretary of State, but 
other eminent publicists speak of a treaty as a contract and of 
rights conferred as contractual. We know, however we may re- 
gard a treaty, that it is absolutely ineffective, a veritable nothing, 
until it has received the approval of all parties who are necessary 
to it and who are named in it as such. Is a deed of any efficacy 
simply because I sign it, though I may have the title to property, 
if it is not duly delivered? Is a contract which mentions A and B 
as essential parties of any validity or any better than waste paper 
unless A and B concur and join in it? And yet in this remarkable 
resolution you treat this instrument as a concession, as an abso- 
lute accomplished fact, when you concede that it has no effectu- 
ality unless the same is given it by one party. 

Mr. President, if this so-called treaty were executed by both 
parties, if it received the indorsement of this Government and 
was ratified by the Senate, then you would treat it as a cession. 
Would your treatment of it be any different from that which you 
now give it? Would you speak of it in any other way than you 
now speak of it when you say that the cession is accepted? And 
will you tell me, or can any one tell me, with any face or counte- 
nance, that a treaty which has not been accepted by the United 
States or ratified by the Senate is upon exactly the same plane as 
a similar compact which has been made complete under our laws? 
Yet such is the tenor of this resolution— such the ridiculous theory 
upon which we are asked to pass it. 

Whatever may become of this subject in the end, I should be 
ashamed of the Senate if it indorsed a proposition involving such 
a manifest contradiction as this resolution. I should be regretful 
of the Senate and doubtful of the ability of its members if it 
voted for a resolution declaring that a cession had taken place by 
treaty, when upon our own records we find the indisputable evi- 
dence that there has been no ratification of such a treaty, and that 
there has been no cession or grant whatever. Yet it is not even 
proposed to change this phraseology— so ardent, if I may be per- 
mitted to use the expression, have some folk in this world become 
that they are willing to adopt anything if it involves the grant of 
Hawaii to this country, whatever may be the authority or what- 
ever may be the language. 

Mr. President, some may be surprised that gentlemen of ability 
and erudition, whose duty commands them to this Chamber, pay 
but little attention to this momentous subject. Many of them do 
not hesitate to announce elsewhere than in their seats that they 

2571 



are not in sympathy with this resolution, but they have made up 
their minds to swallow it, whatever it is or may be, and the less 
they know about it the less strain upon consciences already some- 
what exerted. 

But there are many matters other than the mere form of this 
resolution, there are numerous propositions besides those involved 
in the power of Congress; yet I think that, before entering into 
inquiries as to the merits of the case outside of the Constitution, 
it may not be amiss to ascertain whether we contemplate tram- 
pling upon the organic law in which we all profess to believe. I 
have heard it said upon this floor by a Senator not now in the 
Chamber, but a very ardent annexationist, that the Constitution, 
after all, has nothing to do with annexation. Well, Mr. President, 
if we may select from the many topics before us those which in 
our opinion had better be regarded in the absence of the Consti- 
tution, if that be a field for personal discretion and whim, we 
might as well eliminate that instrument from all thought and 
avoid its application to any controversy whatsoever. 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon], in a very powerful ad- 
dress delivered yesterday, pointed out, from the debates in this 
body, that there never was a time or a day when any lawyer here 
claimed that the Congress of the United States, by .-joint resolu- 
tion, had a right to appropriate territory or to do anything save ad- 
mit new States. It is a stock argument for those who are in favor 
of Hawaiian annexation to declare that Texas is an example; that 
that State was admitted by joint resolution after a treaty had 
been rejected, and that, therefore, we may admit Hawaii, not as 
a State, but as a dependency, a Territory, or what not, upon that 
precedent. I repudiate this so-called argument. I deem it my 
duty to call attention to some of the decisions relied upon by the 
Committee on Foreign Relations in support of their contention 
on this point, and to certain precedents in the way of declarations 
of statesmen in both Houses, which have not yet been cited. 

I assume, to begin with, as I have said, that we are for the first 
time endeavoring to annex extraneous territory, not as a " new 
State," by joint resolution, and that there is no precedent for such 
legislation. What was the condition in Texas? The Congress of 
the United States did not adopt an y such monstrous piece of con- 
tradiction and false statement as that reposing in the joint reso- 
lution to which I have adverted. It did not declare that there 
had been a cession when there was no cession. On the contrary, 
the first resolution adopted was as follows: 

No. 8.— Joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the terri- 
tory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of 
Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with 
a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said repub- 
lic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing 
government, in order that the same mas'- be admitted as one of the States of 
this Union. 

)l. And be it further resolved. That the foregoing consent of Congress is 
given upon the following conditions, and with the following guaranties, 
to wit: First, said State is to be formed subject to the adjustment by this 
Government of all questions of boundary tnat may arise with other gov- 
ernments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its 
adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the 
President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, 
on or before the 1st day of January, 18i0. Second,' said State, when admitted 
into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifi- 
cations, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, maga- 
zines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the 
public defense belonging to said Republic of Texa-,, shall retain all the public 
3571 



8 

funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or may be 
due and owing said Republic, and shall also retain all the vacant and unap- 
propriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the 
debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, 
after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may 
direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon 
the Government of the United States. Third, new States of convenient size, 
not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having 
sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed 
out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the 
provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed 
out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36° 30' north latitude, com- 
monly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the 
Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission 
may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said terri- 
tory north of said Missouri compromise line slavery or involuntary servitude 
(except for crime) shall be prohibited. 

3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States 
shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of pro- 
ceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas as an 
overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with 
that Republic; then, 

Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of 
Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two Representatives in 
Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted 
into the Union by virtue of this act. on an equal footing with the existing 
States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission and the cession 
of the remaining Texan territory to the United States shall be agreed upon 
by the Government of Texas and the United States: and that the sum of 
§100,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of 
missions and negotiations to agree upon the terms of said admission and ces- 
sion, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate or by articles to be sub- 
mitted to the two Houses of Congress, as the President may direct. 

Approved March 1, 1845 (5 Statutes at Large, page 798). 

After this, such proceedings were had in Texas that the Con- 
gress of the United States on the 29th day of December, 1845, 
adopted another joint resolution, as follows: 

No. 1. — Joint resolution for the admission of the State of Texas into the 

Union. 

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution approved 
March 1, 1845, did consent that the territory properly included within and 
rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas might be erected into a new 
State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, 
to be adopted by the people of said Republic by deputies in convention as 
sembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the same 
might be admitted as one of the States of the Union, which consent of Con- 
gress was given upon certain conditions specified in the first and second sec- 
tions of said joint resolution; and 

Whereas the people of the said Republic of Texas, by deputies in conven- 
tion assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, did adopt a con- 
stitution and erect a new State with a republican form of government, and 
in the name of the people of Texas, and by their authority, did ordain and 
declare that they assented to and accepted the proposals, conditions, and guar- 
anties contained in said first and second sections of said resolution; and 

Whereas the said constitution, with the proper evidence of its adoption by 
the people of the Republic of Texas, has been transmitted to the President 
of the United States and laid before Congress, in conformity to the provisions 
of said joint resolution: Therefore, 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the State of Texas shall be one, and is 
hereby declared, to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted 
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects 
whatever. 

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved. That until the Representatives in Con- 
gress shall be apportioned according to an actual emimeration of the inhabit- 
ants of the United States, the State of Texas shall be entitled to choose two 
Representatives. 

Approved, December 29, 1815. (9 Statutes at Large, page 10S.) 

Mr. President, it will be observed that in the Texas instance 
there was no unsustained reference to any cession, no pretense 
that the people of Texas had made any grant of their territory to 
the United States, and yet that statement might have been made 

o5Tl 



9 

in the face of the defeat of that treaty in the Senate with the same 
propriety that it is asserted in the pending joint resolution, for 
the Hawaiian so-called treaty stands unratified by the Senate. 
Equally impotent is it as a document of legal effect, equally value- 
less as a grant, equally nugatory for any other purpose, standing 
unratified as though it had been rejected. 

Perhaps there may be this qualification, that it is subject to 
ratification, whereas a defeated treaty can not be made the basis 
for any affirmation; but so far as its legal potentiality is con- 
cerned, it is just as worthless to-day in the hands of the Secretary 
of this body unratified as though it had been rejected. It is not 
a treaty. The essential element of ratification here is wanting. 
And yet the Committee on Foreign Relations and the advocates 
of annexation, in the face of this obvious truth, speak of this 
attempted and unconsummated act as a cession, and ask the Sen- 
ate to place itself upon record as holding that an unratified treaty 
involves the cession or grant of a republic. 

Mr. President, there was no such contradiction in the Texas 
case. There was a proposition made by the Congress of the United 
States, and the conditions contained in the first joint resolution 
already read were accepted by Texas, and thereupon the Congress 
passed another joint resolution making it of record that those 
conditions have been complied with, and then everything was 
complete. There was no cession of territory in the joint resolu- 
tion. Texas was admitted as a State under the specific language 
of the Constitution. That phraseology has already been men- 
tioned, but perhaps it will do no harm to read it again. How- 
ever futile, as far as its effect upon those who do not care to listen 
may be, it is well to register here that some one has some regard 
for the organic law and is not disposed to ignore it. Section 3 of 
Article IV" of our Constitution is as follows: 

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but nonew 
State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; 
nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or part of 
States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concarned as 
well as of the Congress. 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] , with that clearness 
which is his characteristic, gave us the true reading and inter- 
pretation of that paragraph. I do not intend to fully traverse 
the field which he so ably considered except as it may be neces- 
sary in an incidental way, but I wish to incorporate here the ap- 
propriate language cited by the Senator from "Georgia from Mr. 
Thurman. (Congressional Globe, part 1, third session Forty-first 
Congress, page 193.) 

Mr. Thurman. I believe, sir, it is proper enough for me to say, for I think 
the President himself says it in his annual message, that a treaty was negoti- 
ated for the annexation of Dominica to the United States, and that that 
treaty failed to receive the requisite votes in favor of its ratification, thus 
disclosing the fact that between the President of the United States and the 
Senate there is a direct opposition of opinion upon the subject of this acqui- 
sition. 

Now, not willing to defer to the opinion of the Senator— and I do not say 
that in order to blame him; he has a right to his own opinion— the President, 
with very great earnestness, urges upon Congress and upon the country the 
desirableness of this acquisition, and hegoas so far as to suggest the mode by 
which Dominica may be annexed. Seeing that it is not likely to be annexed 
under the treaty-making power for want of the requisite support in the Sea- 
ate, he suggests that it may be annexed by joint resolution, as in the case of 
Texas; and it is with a view to carry out, no doubt, the wishes or opinions of 
the President in this particular that the Senator from Indiana has introduced 
the joint resolution. 
Now, the first thing that strikes me is this: Is the Senate ready to recede 
3571 



10 

from, its position? Is the Senate willing to ratify a treaty for the annexation 
of Dominica, or is the Senate ready to annex Dominica by joint resolution? 

And in that connection I beg leave to call the attention of the Senate to 
the fact that you can not by joint resolution annex Dominica as a Territory; 
you must annex her as a State if you annex her by joint resolution. There 
is no clause in the Constitution of the United States that provides for the 
acquisition of territory by joint resolution of Congress unless it be one single 
provision, and that is that the Congress may admit new States into the Union. 
And it was upon the argument that there was no limitation upon that power 
to admit new States into the Union, that it was not limited to territory be- 
longing to the United States, but that territory belonging to a foreign power 
might be admitted into the Union as a State. 

It was upon that doctrine that the resolution in the case of Texas was 
passed. But no one has ever pretended that you could by joint resolution 
annex territory as a Territory without admitting it as a State. Then, if a 
treaty is to be abandoned, the proposition which is before the Senate is, Is 
this Senate prepared to annex Dominica in its present condition? 

* * * * * * * 

Nobody, I think, has the least idea that any treaty for its annexation can 
be ratified. This Senate is not so ignorant that it did not know every essen- 
tial thing in this resolution when it voted on the treaty. It would be to stul- 
tify ourselves to say that there is one single material inquiry in all this reso- 
lution that was not known to the Senate when it voted on the treaty; and 
unless the Senators who were opposed to that treaty are willing to recede 
from their opposition and ratify a treaty that may be formed, it follows that 
this resolution can only be put forward with the view of annexing Dominica 
by joint resolution, and that, as I said before, you can not do unless you are 
willing to take her in as a State. 

That is what Allen G. Thurman said in this Chamber in the 
year 1870. 

I say again that no man on this floor, I think, has the least idea that a 
treaty of annexation can receive the requisite number of votes for its ratifi- 
cation, and therefore—and I can not, perhaps, repeat it too often— the only 
question is, Will you annex Dominica as a State? 

I will quote from several able men who were heard from in the 
Texas debate, showing that in that remarkable discussion every 
advocate of annexation grounded his faith upon the specific grant 
contained in the Constitution to admit new States. Indeed, in 
that great controversy, notable not only for the learning which 
was evolved, but for the statesmanship which was manifested, 
there was no one who took the ground of a recent eminent states- 
man who said that we can admit Hawaii under the ' ' general-wel- 
fare " clause of the Constitution. 

This novel extension of the general-welfare clause deserves to 
be classed with the somewhat more candid utterance of another, 
who asked, "What is the Constitution between friends?'' 

Without taking time to read in full speeches which I have tried 
to examine, I will quote very briefly from some of the addresses 
made during the Texas debate in enforcement of the statement 
which I have just made. Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards 
President of the United States and then in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, on the 21st of January, 1815, said: 

The admission of a sovereign State into the Union is not an acquisition of 
territory in the sense that territory is or can be acquired under the treaty- 
making power. Tbey are wholly different. * * * 

Mr. Johnson was talking of admission by joint resolution. He 
recognized the distinction upon which I insist. 

I quote from page 222, Appendix, Congressional Globe. 

Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, also in the House of Representatives, 
on the 6th of January, 1845, page 67 of the Appendix to the Con- 
gressional Globe, said, in alluding to the proceedings of the Con- 
stitutional Convention: 

All of the propositions, after meeting with some favor at first, were finally 
rejected, and the general clause as it now stands in the Constitution, provid- 
ing that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union," was 
3571 



11 

adopted in lion of them. Thus it will be perceived that instead of restricting 
the power as it existed in the articles of confederation, it was greatly en- 
larged in the Constitution so as to authorize Congress to admit new States 
by a vote of a majority of each House, whether within the original limits 
of the United States or not. 

Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, on January 13, 1845. page 110 of the 
same Appendix, said: 

Mr. Madison, who was the author of that number (fourteenth nxrmber of 
the Federalist), says: "The immediate object of the Federal Constitution is 
to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be 
practicable, and to add to them such other States as may arise in their bosoms 
or in their neighborhood, which we can not doubt to be equally practicable." 
Thus, according to the interpretation given this power by Mr. Madison, 
the Constitution provides, first, for the union of the then existing thirteen 
States; secondly, for the admission of new States which arise out of the orig- 
inal States; and thirdly, for the admission of such other States as might 
arise in the neighborhood of the thirteen primitive States. 

Mr. Bowlin, of Missouri, whose remarks are found on page 93 
of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, said: 

Now, sir, what says the Constitution itself upon the subject of the admis- 
sion of new States into the Confederacy? It says: "New States may be ad- 
mitted by the Congress into this Union.' 1 This is the express language of the 
Constitution, and without any restriction, except so far as it concerns the 
division or amalgamation of existing States. Can language be more compre- 
hensive than this? The power is here given in the very broadest terms. 

Mr. Colquitt, of Georgia, a Senator, on page 254 of the Appen- 
dix to the Congressional Globe, said: 

Honorable Senators seem to blend the idea of acquiring territory and ad- 
mitting States and thereby produce confusion. It is insisted that we nrust 
acquire territory by treaty! Let this be so, and it does not touch the argu- 
ment. For it is absolutely certain that you can not admit a State into the 
Union by treaty, that power being conferred alone upon Congress. 

And here will be. found throughout all that discussion the state- 
ment by every advocate of Texas's annexation— and I have only 
read from them — that the right and the authority of the United 
States to admit Texas were granted and delegated by the explicit 
phraseology of the Constitution itself; that the power to "admit 
new States" was not limited to the original thirteen, nor even, as 
Mr. Madison had said, to those in their immediate neighborhood, 
but that it was a grant to Congress to bring into this sisterhood 
another member; a grant explicitly made, and one which could 
not be denied in the case of Texas without imposing a limitation 
upon the constitutional phraseology not to be discovered in the 
instrument itself. 

It never struck any of those great statesmen who at that time 
discussed this matter of momentous import that there was any 
other authority than that to which they referred, and from that 
time to this I imagine the action of the Congress has been justi- 
fied by reason of that power in the Constitution. There was a 
powerful element holding that the power to admit new States 
was limited to the area described by Mr. Madison, but no one pre- 
tended to seek refuge in or under the general- welfare clause. 

Again I quote from Senator Colquitt, page 254 of the same doc- 
ument: 

The argument I have just made is based upon the supposition that by ad- 
mitting Texas as a State this Government acquires the territory of Texas. 
I have thought proper to enforce this view because it seems impossible for 
some minds to conceive how Texas can become a member of the Union un- 
less this Government does thereby acquire her territory. To my mind the 
distinction is manifest, and that by the resolutions from the House we ac- 
quire no territory, but leave Texas as a State, possessed of her entire domain, 
to dispose of as she pleases, under our Constitution, fixing only the terms by 
which she may become a confederate. The acquisition of territory is one 
thing; the admission of a State is another and totally different. 

£o71 



12 

Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, on the 7th of January, 1845, page 86, 
same Appendix, said: 

ISTo man can doubt the constitutional power to admit Texas as a "new 
State." That being so, some such proposition must be united on. 

Senator Woodbury, who was one of the ablest of the advocates 
of the annexation of Texas, said, among other things, during the 
same debate: 

And upon what grounds, then, did the honorable Senator from Virginia 
say that the House, in passing these resolutions, were assuming an executive 
power? In adopting these resolutions, did it not leave the ratification of 
treaties to the Senate, as it was before? Gentlemen will say, " How can this 
be when the Senate refused to ratify the treaty of Texas at the last session, 
when the matter was referred to them?" He would explain the difference. 
In that case the attempt, by treaty, was not to admit Texas into this Union. 
No such proposition was made. We might buy one acre or a million of acres 
of territory by treaty, but that was not admitting her into the Union as a 
State. There was no proposition in that treaty to admit her into the Union 
as a State. He said then, when that treaty was pending, that if ever she was 
admitted as a State, it must be by Congress. That was what was now un- 
dertaken to be done. Do we propose to admit her as a Territory, not as a 
State? On the contrary, the treaty is repudiated, and we proceed to admit 
her as a State by this resolution. 

At the last session of Congress we were acting under the grant in the 
Constitution given to the treaty-making power. He need not talk of that. 
We were now acting upon the power conferred upon Congress and not upon 
the treaty- making power to admit new States. G-entlemen, therefore, made 
nothing by saying that we refused to ratify the treaty presented to us at the 
last session of Congress. There was no treaty before us now. It was an en- 
tirely different subject— that of making Texas a State. It was different in 
substance as well as in form. Now the attempt is made to deny to Congress 
this express grant. 

* * * Mr. Woodbury, in continuation, remarked that the question dis- 
cussed in those letters was the acquisition of territory; the question of tho 
admission of new States did not arise till nine years afterwards. Mr. Jeffer- 
son was not, like Mr. Nicholas or Mr. Madison, a member of the convention, 
and therefore not so well acquainted with the grounds of argument which 
had prevailed in it. But even if the inference drawn from Mr. Jefferson's 
opinions were fairly deducible from them, the cases are not parallel ones. 
The propriety of admitting territory by treaty and new States by legislation 
can not be treated as the same issue. The treaty- making power and legisla- 
tive power in those different cases are not in conflict. 

There are many similar enunciations occurring during that 
discussion, and all of which tend, as far as those who took this 
view, to the point that under the Constitution the power is given 
to Congress to admit new States, and that such admission is au- 
thorized regardless of locality, but that the right to act does not 
include anything outside of the terms of the instrument, viz., 
"new States." 

Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be opera- 
tive? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it 
extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach 
out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of 
Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where 
is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we 
find it? Some assume to discover it in the supposition that there 
has been a cession, which has in truth never been made. Hawaii 
is foreign to us. We base our jurisdiction upon a falsehood de- 
sired to be made conclusive in a resolution the verity of which it 
is said can not be attacked, however groundless it may be. The 
committee in this document assert that a cession has been accom- 
plished, because they well know that we have otherwise no power 
to act. 

The right of Congress to admit new territory by treaty has been 
often considered. It puzzled Mr. Jefferson in the Louisiana case, 
and notwithstanding the assurances of Mr. Gallatin, he always 

3571 



13 

appeared to have doubts as to the propriety of his course. But 
eminent statesmen who have succeeded him, jurists who have con- 
strued the Constitution have not found any considerable difficulty. 

Mr. Justice Story, in his great work upon the Constitution, has 
adverted to the treaty-making power, and has sought, in so far as 
it is pertinent to this matter, to some extent to define and explain 
it. I may be pardoned perhaps if I refer to Justice Story. It is 
becoming in this new era an improper thing to rely upon the fathers 
of the Republic and those who succeeded them. When one reads 
from Washington a smile passes over the countenances of the 
hopeful investors in the Philippines. Washington was of the old 
and nonprogressive time! 

The man who to-day will pin his faith to the doctrines of those 
men who laid the foundations of this Republic and recorded in 
constitutional monuments their definitions of human rights and 
their ideas of the true limitations of the powers of government 
is becoming somewhat of a fogy. We are told that there is a 
new era dawning upon us; that a better time has come. Light 
which did not shine upon earlier statesmen illumines the under- 
standing of to-day. No man who can pen a line and who aspires 
to popularity and to the advocacy of what he calls progress ques- 
tions the superiority of his own attainments as contrasted with 
Washington, Hamilton, or Jefferson. 

But, Mr. President, enough as to that now. Judge Story (2 
Story on Constitution, section 1324) says: 

As the General Government possesses the right to acquire territory either 
by conquest or by treaty, it would seem to follow as an inevitable consequence 
that it possesses the power to govern what it has so acquired. The territory 
does not when so acquired become entitled to self-government, and it is not 
subject to the .jurisdiction of any State. It must consequently be under the 
dominion and jurisdiction of the Union, or it would be without any govern- 
ment at all. In cases of conquest the usage of the world is, if a nation is not 
wholly subdued, to consider the conquered territory as merely held by mili- 
tary occupation until its fate shall be determined by a treaty of peace; but 
during this intermediate period it is exclusively subject to the government of 
the conqueror. In cases of confirmation or cession by treaty the acquisition 
becomes firm and stable, and the ceded territory becomes apart of the nation 
to which it is annexed, either on terms stipulated in the treaty or on such as 
its new master shall impose, etc. 

And Kent, who belongs to the same race of statesmen, not the 
later edition, says (1 Commentaries, thirteenth edition, page 166): 

The department of the Government that is intrusted by the Constitution 
with the treaty-making power is competent to bind the national faith in its 
discretion, for the power to make treaties of peace must be coextensive with 
the exigencies of the nation, and necessarily involves in it that portion of the 
national sovereignty which has the exclusive direction of diplomatic nego- 
tiations and contracts with foreign powers. All treaties made by that power 
become of absolute efficacy because they are the supreme law of the land. 
There can be no doubt that the power competent to bind the nation by treaty 
may alienate the public domain and property by treaty. * * * The power 
that is intrusted generally and largely with authority to make valid treaties 
of peace can, of course, bind the nation by alienation of part of its territory. 

This authority, unless repudiated, ought to set at rest the con- 
tention that territory can not be acquired by treaty. 

Mr. President, when we reflect as to the lines which demark 
the jurisdiction of the legislature, we must confine that depart- 
ment to our own nation. We can not, as I said before, extend 
our legislative right to act without until there has been some 
authority by which that which is without is brought within. 
Whence do acts of Congress go? Upon whom do they operate? 
Upon the people of the United States. They have no efficacy be- 
yond the United States except in so far as they influence the con- 
duct of her people in certain excepted cases, and those exceptions 
3571 



14 

are more apparent than real. They are impotent to effect the 
title or the status of the property of those who live upon alien 
soil. Where, then, do we obtain the authority to annex unless by 
some treaty provision? As Chancellor Kent has well said in 
speaking of treaties: 

The power to make treaties of peace— 

Which he was then considering, and his remarks apply, of 
course, to treaties in general — 

must be coextensive with the exigencies of the nation, and necessarily in- 
volves in it that portion of the national sovereignty which has the exclusive 
direction of diplomatic negotiations and contracts with foreign powers. 

And, indeed, we have acted upon that theory. We have sought 
wherever we have attempted to bring foreign territory within 
our confines to make a treaty of peace. Does it matter that in 
the case which resulted in the acquisition of California and adja- 
cent territory domain still was left to the grantor, to Mexico? If 
the power to alienate a part requires a treaty, shall we say that 
less consultation must be had when it is intended to convey all? 

Reflection for but a moment must convince, it seems to me, the 
impartial mind that prior to the extension of our legislative juris- 
diction something must happen bringing the foreign nation to us. 

In the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations there is a 
brief reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. In many instances jurists of not only ordinary repute 
but who stand in the front rank of their profession have used ex- 
pressions not pertinent to the actual issue under consideration, 
which, when applied to other questions directly involving the mat- 
ter thus incidentally treated, may not be considered strictly ac- 
curate. 

These are called obiter dicta. They are to be encountered, I be- 
lieve, in every line of authority in this country and elsewhere. Yet 
upon the topic concerning which I am now addressing the Senate 
there is but little in this regard that requires explanation or com- 
ment from me. It will be found that about the only phrase which 
pervades any of the opinions cited and which can be relied upon at 
all to justify the acquisition of foreign territory by legislative act 
is the declaration of the competency of Congress to acquire by 
treaty or conquest; the treaty being the result of a negotiation of 
the Executive and the Senate, the other the assertion of the war 
power. 

Let us for a moment — the task will not, I trust, be uninstruct- 
ive or tedious — consider what has been said in some of these opin- 
ions. All, I believe, save two are adverted to in the report of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. 

In American, etc., Company (1 Peters, 540), Chief Justice Mar- 
shall said, in speaking of the cession of Florida, which, as we 
know, was acquired by treaty: 

The treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to 
the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the 
United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condi- 
tion independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in polit- 
ical power; they do not share in the Government till Florida shall become a 
State. In the meantime Florida continues to be a Territory of the United 
States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers 
Congress "to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory 
or other property belonging to the United States." 

In the same opinion he further said: 

The Constitution confers additionally on the Government of the United 
States the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that 
3571 



15 

Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest 
or by treaty. 

Mr. President, is there any pretense in this case that we are about 
to acquire dominion over Hawaii by conquest? Arguments were 
made in this Chamber by many Senators some time ago having for 
their object the maintenance of the proposition that we had really 
subdued or were responsible for the subjugation of Hawaii. But 
that hour is past. No such decision was rendered by the Senate, and 
the free and independent character of the Hawaiian Government 
was accepted not merely by a recognition by our Executive of its 
ministers, but by the explicit resolution of the Senate and its declara- 
tion that no foreign government would be permitted to intervene. 
Indeed, the resolution was broader than that, and is somewhat sig- 
nificant as applicable here and as involving the then unanimous 
opinion of this body. 

On the 31st of May, 1894, in the Journal of the Senate, page 218, 
of that time, the following will be found: 

Resolved, That of right it belongs wholly to the people of the Hawaiian 
Islands to establish and maintain their own form of government and domes- 
tic policy; that the United States ought in no wise to interfere therewith: 
and that any intervention in the political affairs of these islands by any other 
government will be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States. 

There was a roll-call upon the passage of that resolution. The 
yeas were 55, the nays none. There is, therefore, no question here 
as to any right acquired by conquest. There can be no justifica- 
tion for the pretense that this Government, in aid of its interests 
in war, has seized upon hostile territory and occupied it, and holds 
it by that force and by that right. There is no such case here. 
How then, taking the language of Chief Justice Marshall cited 
in justification of the pending resolution, can that phraseology be 
tortured into an indorsement of this anomalous, this unique pro- 
cedure suggested for the first time in the history of this Govern- 
ment? Have we acquired Hawaii by treaty? No. Against the 
assumption of this resolution every Senator here knows that there 
has been no acquisition. 

Continuing the examination of the authorities relied upon and 
others noted elsewhere, we find in New Orleans vs. Armas 
(9 Peters, 235) that Chief Justice Marshall construed the treaty 
with France by which Louisiana was acquired, referring to the 
fact that she was admitted as a State by an act after the treaty of 
cession had been ratified. 

Mr. President., a few moments ago I said, and it will do no harm 
to repeat it now, that those who discussed the Texas case pointed 
with unerring accuracy to the fact that there was there no cession 
of territory whatever, but that Congress by virtue of its power to 
admit new States brought in that Commonwealth as such. Here 
we are expected to reach out the legislative arm beyond the do- 
main of the United States, under whose laws this Senate exists, 
and to assert dominion not only without our shores but beyond 
the confines of the Government with which we are concerned. 

[At this point the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger) 
announced that the hour of 2 o'clock had arrived; and, by unani- 
mous consent, the consideration of House joint resolution 259 was 
proceeded with.] 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, a case much relied upon is Flem- 
ing vs. Page (9 Howard, 611), where the Chief Justice refers to 
the fact that Mexico had been conquered, and he says: 

The United States, it U true, may extend its boundaries by conquest or 
treaty, and may demand the cession of territory as the condition of peace in. 
3571 



16 

order to indemnify its citizens for the injuries they have suffered, or to re- 
imburse the Government for the expenses of the war; but this can be clone 
only by the treaty-making power or the legislative authority, and is not a 
part of the power conferred upon the President by the declaration of war. 

The expression "or the legislative authority" has been fre- 
quently cited as justifying the statement that Congress had the 
power itself to annex foreign territory. It will "be noticed, taking 
the phraseology all together and reading the opinion in toto, that 
the point under consideration was as to the war power of the Ex- 
ecutive; and it is of some significance, in connection with recent 
rumors as to a supposed stretch of authority that it was said the 
President intended to exert, and which I have no idea he ever did 
intend to exert, that he can not, as the Commander in Chief of the 
armies of the United States, seize territory and appropriate it to 
the use of this nation, and therefore, a fortiori, he may not absorb 
by his own will the soil the territory of a friendly power. 

No^loubt, in pursuit of the objects outlined in a declaration of 
war and as the leader of the armies of this Republic, its Com- 
mander in Chief has a right to invade and to appropriate property 
of the enemy coming within his reach and which he may have the 
power to hold. He derives that authority under the war grants 
of the Constitution. But he has no right to seize territory with- 
out the enemy's lines. His taking of the enemy's territory is for 
the object and purposes of war — to accomplish peace by removing 
opposition. The Executive can not alone annex a State or a Ter- 
ritory. He can capture the foe and his property. 

But, Mr. President, it will be found by a perusal of this opinion 
that there is nothing more in it than a statement that by con- 
quest or treaty this Government has the right to extend its limits. 
In neither event can the proposed resolution be justified, however 
we may construe this declaration of the Chief Justice, because 
neither by treaty nor pursuant to conquest is the legislative au- 
thority or the treaty-making authority now invoked. 

The following extract from the opinion of Justice Taney in the 
celebrated Dred Scott decision (19 Howard, 393) is relied upon as 
sustaining the authority of Congress to annex a Territory: 

We do not mean, however, to (Question the power of Congress in this re- 
spect. The power to expand the territory of the United States by the ad- 
mission of new States is plainly given; and in the construction of this power 
by all the departments of the Government, it has been held to authorize the- 
acquisition of territory, not fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted 
as soon ar, its population and situation would entitle it to admission. It is 
acquired to become a State, and not to be held as a colony and governed by 
Congress with absolute authority; and a.3 the propriety of admitting a new 
State is committed to sound discretion of Congress, the power to acquire ter- 
ritory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suit- 
able condition to become a State upon an equal footing with the other States, 
must rest upon the samp discretion. It is a question fur the political depart- 
ment of the Government, and not the judicial; and whatever the political 
department of the Government shall recognize as within the limits of the 
United States, the judicial Department is also bound to recognize, and to ad- 
minister in it the laws of the United States, so far as they apply. 

It must be remembered that the question involved in that case 
was not whether the territory could be annexed by joint reso- 
lution or by treaty, and the phraseology of the court can only be 
deemed effective in so far as it holds that the political department 
of the Government may take in outside possessions, intending to 
have in view their erection into a State or States. This opinion 
appears to be considered of importance by many who have here- 
tofore vigorously questioned it. 

In the same decision, Judge Taney said: 

There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Gov- 
ernment to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or 
£571 



17 

at a distance to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure, nor to enlarge its 
territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new States, etc. 

Evidently the author of this much controverted opinion did not 
anticipate the bringing in of Hawaii or the Philippines. 

In Holden vs. Joy, in 17 Wallace, 211, Judge Clifford, in speak- 
ing for the court, said: 

Express power is given to the President, by and with the advice and con- 
sent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators 
present concur, and inasmuch as the power is given in general terms, with- 
out any description or ihe objects intended to be embraced within its scope, 
it must l*e assumed that the framers of the Constitution intended that it 
should extend to all those objects which in the intercourse of nations had 
usually been regarded as the proper subjects of negotiation and treaty, if 
not inconsistent with the nature of our Government and the relation between 
the States and the United State.?. 

Hence it is that under the treaty-making power as thus defined 
the right to acquire territory exists. Hence it is that without 
negotiation between this Government and the other interested 
government culminating in a stipulation or a treaty, there can be 
no accession of territory, no addition of soil. 

It is not germane to this discussion to say that we can admit 
Hawaii as a State, because no one proposes to do so. No enthu- 
siast here or elsewhere claims that Hawaii is ready for statehood. 
Every argument made upon this subject by annexationists carries 
with it a disclaimer that it is intended in our own time or for 
years and years to come to bring that region within the list of 
American States. Of course this claim must be made because 
the people of this country are not prepared, notwithstanding the 
declarations of the able and distinguished Senator from Alabama 
[Mr. Morgan] that this is the best Government the sun has ever 
shone upon, to bring those many alien incompetents within our 
confines — that heterogeneous compound of manifest inefficiency. 

In the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations attention 
is called to the late case of the Mormon Church vs. The United 
States (13G U. S., 42). I claim that this is an authority directly 
against the distinguished Senators who cite it, and that there is 
nothing to be found in it warranting the pretense that this joint 
resolution, if adopted, is constitutionally potential for the pur- 
poses attributed to it. Said the Supreme Court in that case: 

The power to acquire territory other than the territory northwest of the 
Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the adoption of the Con- 
stitution ) is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare 
and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are those of national sov- 
ereignty and belong to all independent governments. The power to make 
acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession is an incident 
of national sovereignty. 

Senators all recognize and admire the great abilities of Mr. 
Hamilton. His participancy not only in the formation of the 
Constitution, but his advocacy of that great instrument and his 
defense of the principles upon which it wai based and the form in 
which they were expressed have been transmitted to us and con- 
stitute a part of the choicest literature of that remarkable time. 
Mr. Hamilton discussed the treaty-making power with his usual 
force and his accustomed clearness. 

I call the attention of Senators to the remarks made by this law- 
yer and statesman, hoping that, however little the argument then 
made may be reenforced by anything that I can say, his powerful 
reasoning will not be disregarded by those who are examining this 
resolution. I refer to page 508 of the seventh volume of the 
"\7orks of Hamilton, from which I will very briefly quote. 

The power to make laws is " th3 power of pronouncing authoritatively the 
Will of the nation as to all persons and things over which it has jurisdiction;'' 
oo71— 2 



18 

or it may be defined to be "the power of prescribing rules binding upon all 
persons and things over which the nation has jurisdiction." It acts compul- 
sively upon all persons, whether foreigners or citizens, and upon all things 
within the territory of such nation, and also npon its own citizens and their 
property without its territory in certain cases and under certain limitations. 
But it can have no obligatory action whatsoever upon a foreign nation, or 
upon any person or thing within the jurisdiction of a foreign nation. 

The power of treaty, on the other hand, is the power by agreement, con- 
vention, or compact to establish rules binding upon two or more nations, 
their respective citizens and property. The rule established derives its re- 
ciprocal obligation from promise, from the faith which the contracting par- 
ties pledge to each other— not from the power of either to prescribe a rule 
for the other. It is not here the will of a superior that commands. It is the 
consent of two independent parties that contract. 

The means which the power of legislation employs are laws which it enacts, 
or rules which it enjoins. The subject upon which it acts is the nation of 
whom it is, the persons and property within the jurisdiction of the nation. 
The means which the power of treaty employs are contracts with other 
nations, who may or may not enter into them. The subjects upon which it 
acts are the nations contracting and those persons and things of each to 
which the contract relates. Though a treaty may effect what a law can, yet 
a law can not effect what a treaty does. These discriminations are obvious 
and decisive; and however the operation of a treaty may in some things 
resemble that of a law, no two ideas are more distinct- than that of legislating 
and that of contracting. 

I have cited Mr. Hamilton's view for the purpose of showing to 
the Senate that the statement made by me as to the jurisdiction 
of the legislative body over a foreign" territory was not either a 
creation of my imagination nor in the slightest degree inaccurate. 
Certainly it received this distinguished sanction, and it is enforced, 
I think, by general reflection. 

In the same article from which this extract has been read we 
find the following, also from Mr. Hamilton: 

Laws are the acts of legislation of a particular nation for itself. Treaties 
are the acts of legislation of several nations for themselves jointly and recip- 
rocally. The legislative powers of one State can not reach the cases which 
depend on the joint legislation of two or more States. For this resort must 
be had to the pactitious power, or the power of treaty. This is another atti- 
tude of the subject, displaying the fallacy of the proposition that the legisla- 
tive powers of Congress are exceptions to or limitations of the power of the 
President, with the aid of the Senate, to make treaties. 

Whenever it becomes necessary to enter into any sort of a com- 
pact or agreement with a foreign power, we can not proceed by 
legislation to make that contract. We can violate a treaty made 
with a foreign power by our own legislative act in defiance of 
morals. There have been cases in the history of this country where 
the abrogation and overthrow of treaties by legislative acts have 
involved us in considerable diplomatic controversy; but as a legal 
proposition there has never been any doubt of the power of the 
legislative department of the Government to destroy the effect of 
a previous treaty. While we may thus release ourselves by our 
own power from its obligation in the form of law, we cannot force 
another nation to enter into an agreement with us merely by our 
own act in the form of legislation. No such one-sided performance 
is known to either international law or to any system of jurispru- 
dence in the world. 

A treaty, I have said, is defined by many to be a contract. So 
accustomed have authors become to that expression that we find 
in the ordinary and well-accredited law dictionaries of the day a 
recognition of this proposition. In Anderson's Dictionary of Law 
the word "treaty " is defined thus: 

By the general law of nations, is in the nature of a contract between two 
nations; not a legislative act. 

A contract between two or more independent nations. 

Contracts between States may be called conventions or treaties. Treaties 
allowed by the law of nations are unconstrained acts of independent powers, 
placing them under an obligation to do something which is not wrong. 
3571 



19 

Bouvier takes a similar view. He says: 

Treaty. In international law. A treaty is a compact made between two 
or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare. Treaties are 
for a perpetuity or for a considerable time. Those matters which are accom- 
plished by a single act and are at once perfected in their execution are called 
agreements, conventions, and pactions. 

The pending resolution does violence to basic and elementary 
principles, and indicates to the outside world a wholesale dis- 
regard or absolute ignorance of the most fundamental, common, 
and usually known principles of jurisprudence. 

Mr. President, if it be true as stated in this decision that the 
authority to acquire territory is derived from the treaty-making 
power, and the power to declare and carry on war, where do we 
rind the right to annex these peaceful islands of the sea? Where 
is the grant, where is the authority for which Senators contend? 
When we speak of the power to do this, that, or the other thing 
in pursuance of the right to declare war, we are alluding to a con- 
dition of affairs which makes it necessary to strike down our foe. 
When we talk about the jurisdiction of this Government in days 
of peace when dealing with nations with whom it is friendly, a 
different condition surrounds us. 

It is not with the sword, it is not with weapons of destruction, 
that we are approaching the Hawaiian Republic, but it is the 
subtle negotiator of peace and ostensible good will who longs to 
fasten Hawaii upon this Union. It is by diplomacy that we are 
solicited to bring her to us. It is by an instrument executed by 
plenipotentiaries from both Governments and awaiting our rati- 
fication that we are expected to bring that nation here, and it is 
by that means alone that Hawaii herself contemplated annexa- 
tion, for in her organic law — and I refer to the thirty-second arti- 
cle of her constitution, as follows: 

Article 32.— Treaties. 

The President, with the approval of the cabinet, shall have the power to 
make treaties with foreign governments, subject to the ratification of the 
Senate. 

The President, with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly au- 
thorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union 
between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject 
to the ratification of the Senate. 

THE HAWAIIAN CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT ANNEXATION BY JOINT 
RESOLUTION. 

Mr. President, here in this so-called constitution of this so-called 
Republic, which by this so-called resolution of annexation is to be 
made a part of the American Union, as a Territory or a depend- 
ency, we find phraseology directly conferring the authority upon 
President Dole and the Senate to make a treaty of political or 
commercial union with the United States. 

Under the expression "political union" the negotiation of the 
treaty which we had before us was sought to be justified. It was 
well known by the able and shrewd men who have had this an- 
nexation scheme under control that the power of Mr. Dole and of 
his cabinet and his Senate to deed away their country would be 
denied. We, claiming to be a Government of limited powers and 
to derive our authority from a Constitution granting either di- 
rectly or by implication whatsoever authority we may have, were 
not expected to sanction or approve of a treaty destined to destroy 
a nationality unless in the instrument under which that nation- 
ality claimed to act there was plainly conferred authority to make 
that great cession. Therefore it was that in the Hawaiian con- 
stitution there was inserted the thirty-second article, giving juris- 

3571 



20 

diction to make treaties, as therein stated, of political as well as 
commercial union. 

Mr. President, it was thus recognized, not only here but in 
Hawaii, that by treaty alone could this deed be done. The neces- 
sity of two parties, each sui juris, to concur in formulating a valid 
contract certainly is no less obvious in the case of two nations 
than in that of individuals, and in recognition of this commonly 
known truth the people of Hawaii, if they spoke at all, limited 
the method of alienation in their organic instrument. They lim- 
ited it in the terms and language to which I have adverted, and 
we accepted that limitation when our President negotiated a 
treaty, which is slumbering in the desk of the Secretary. 

Hence, from the outset it has been apparent not only to the peo- 
ple of the Hawaiian Islands, but to the people of the United States, 
that the circumstances are such as to require a treaty, not only 
because of the difficulties of the situation so far as we are con- 
cerned, but because there was no power in the Hawaiian Govern- 
ment to deal with the subject-matter otherwise than by treaty. 
Are we to ignore not only the lessons of our own history, not only 
the precedents which have been written through years of study 
and careful thought, but are we to take at this moment a nation 
within our bosom which, by its own organic law, has declared 
that its alienation shall be accomplished in a certain definite, de- 
fined, and restricted method, which method has been ignored. 

Do we care, I ask again, Mr. President, anything not only for the 
proprieties of the case, but for the rules prescribed in our own 
laws and in those of the country which we design to absorb? Are 
we disposed to play the role of the freebooter, or are we inclined 
to act according to law? 

HAWAII NOT THE ONLY ISSUE— ACQUISITIONS BY CONQUEST DESIRED BY 
ANNEXATIONISTS— THE AMERICAN FLAG. 

Mr. President, it is not merely the Hawaiian group which is in- 
volved in this disputation. Some suppose that the issue is thus 
limited. By no means. True, that object, and that alone, can be 
directly and at once accomplished; but there are other issues 
tied to this. I have heard it said here and elsewhere, and I have 
read it in this and that newspaper, that Hawaiian annexation 
must be considered alone; that its effect upon other questions is 
not proper for debate. On the other hand, almost each hour of 
the day the advocates of this annexation make use of expressions 
resembling this: " When once the American flag is raised any- 
where, there it must forever float. " 

Mr. President, the American flag we revere and honor because 
it is not only the flag of our country, but because we believe that 
the Government which it represents is based and acts upon prin- 
ciples of honor, upon maxims and policies which will stand the 
scrutiny of ages and remain untarnished and unquestioned when 
the strongest of us shall be summoned hence, when tyranny shall 
be driven from the earth. 

Whether that flag should float or should be taken down depends 
upon whether it was raised in justice and maintained in righteous- 
ness. If miscreant schemer shall place it where it should not be 
placed; if the hand of the invader and spoliator shall seize it, 
and under it conduct a campaign of disorder and rapine, of op- 
pression and robbery, it will not be for the honor of this Republic 
or the glory of that flag that it shall continue to wave over such 
an accomplishment. Nay, that man is a patriot who will take it 
from the hand which held it for disgrace, who will return it to 

3571 



21 

its true home, where it may float as the representative of progress 
and freedom: who will visit prompt and adequate penalty upon 
him who has insulted the emblem of a virtuous and Christian 
people. 

When our banner rises over soil where it ought to wave, let it 
be maintained and defended if it requires all the strength, all the 
money, and all the blood of our land. But it must not be used 
for evil. So to do is to desecrate it. 

Mr. President, do our friends who speak thus of the continued 
support of our flag wherever and for whatsoever raised remember 
that when Mr. Foster communicated with Mr. Stevens, the, Ha- 
waiian minister, on the 14th of February, 1893— and we know 
that Mr. Foster was an ardent annexationist; and we know that 
Mr. Stevens was an annexationist of annexationists; and we know 
that the Administration then in authority sympathized with the 
idea of annexation — do Senators remember that when Mr. Foster 
communicated to Mr. Stevens, after the coup d'etat which re- 
sulted in the change of authority, he said: 

So far as your course accords to the de facto sovereign Government the 
material cooperation of the United States for the maintenance of good order 
and protection of life and property from apprehended disorders, it is com- 
mended: but so far as it may appear to overstep that limit by setting the 
authority of the United States above that of the Hawaiian Government in 
the capacity of protector, or to impair the independent sovereignty of that 
Government by substituting the flag and power of the United States, it is 
disavowed. 

Here, Senators, is a declaration, not of Mr. Cleveland or of Mr. 
Gresham. not of any of those who, succeeding the Harrison Ad- 
ministration, sought to overturn and negative the conduct of that 
Administration, but here was the declaration of Mr. Foster, in 
which he disavowed the action of Mr. Stevens in the phraseology 
which I have just read. Let us recollect that. 

This is not the place, it seems to me, wherein to allude to the 
necessity of maintaining the flag wherever it may be hoisted. 
This capital ought to be near the abode of justice. I trust we are 
not in barbarous days. If an officer of the United States plays 
the part of a usurper, does his illicit conduct bind this country? 
The United States ought to be the last of nations to sanction crimes 
committed under assumed powers untruly alleged to have been 
lawfully bestowed. 

When Senators state that they will never favor the withdrawal 
of our power from any locality where, in the midst of war or as 
the result of criminality or assumption, we may have taken pos- 
session and lifted our ensign, they make a broad assertion; and 
when that statement is uttered in this Chamber, when it is made 
in this presence, it suggests a situation that extends far beyond 
Hawaii and to which we had well give heed. The doctrine con- 
tended for by some is almost piratical. 

Mr. President, it has been asserted by gentlemen who declare 
that they are opposed to the annexation of" the Philippines or the 
Carolines or any other lands that we need the Sandwich Islands. 
In the next breath we find either the same advocates or those 
upon the same side of this issue declaring that the result of this 
war is to be the acquisition of a number of distant and remote 
countries an 3 the presentation of new questions for our considera- 
tion. Then may we not wait in thought, not only because of the 
intrinsic difficulties concerning which we must decide regarding 
Hawaii, but because of the bearing elsewhere? I shall discuss the 
subject, then, not only in connection with Hawaii and not merely 
3571 



22 

with reference to the situation so far as that country is concerned, 
but also as to the bearing of her disposition upon other matters. 

Is it not true, Senators, that intelligence and capability for wise 
discernment and judicial decision are necessary for the perpetuity 
of the Republic; that the greatest amount of intellectual devel- 
opment that we can evolve means advanced and desirable results? 
Do we not justly think that the interposition of alien and inferior 
races must work our injury? As we look upon the present situ- 
ation and observe not only this case, but its adjuncts, and those 
things which must follow it, we may well hesitate and give heed 
to the admonitions of the past. 

It has often been asserted that our policy has always been in 
favor of Hawaiian annexation. We are told that our ablest men 
have ever looked upon that island community as virtually belong- 
ing to the United States, or occupying such a status, at least, that 
we must finally take possession. Mr. President, I can not read 
history thus. It will be necessary for me to refer to several states- 
men, and in as brief and terse a way as I am capable of expressing 
my thoughts I will mention some of the utterances of historic 
characters which seem to bear upon the subject. Mr. Madison 
said: 

A second observation to be made is that the immediate object of the Fed- 
eral Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States, 
which we know to bo practicable; and to add to them sucii other States as 
may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which we can 
not doubt to be equally practicable. The arrangements that may be neces- 
sary for those angles and fractions of our territory which lie on our north- 
western frontier must be left to those whom further discoveries and experi- 
ence will render more equal to the task.— The Federalist, Hamilton's edition, 
page 134. 

Washington, to whom I trust I may be permitted to refer with- 
out censure, said: 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif- 
ferent course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the 
period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external an- 
noyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we 
may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belliger- 
ent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not 
lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when wo may choose peace or war, 
as our interests, guided by our justice, shall counsel. Why forego the ad- 
vantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon for- 
eign ground? * * * Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable es- 
tablishments on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to 
temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.— 13 Washing 'ton' [ s Works, 
pages 317, 318. 

In the same document the Father of his Country referred to the 
interests of Europe as being "a very remote relation." 

Mr. Jefferson said in a communication addressed to the Presi- 
dent in 1823: 

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take 
active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely 
distinct from ours; their mutual dealings, their balance of power, their com- 
plicated alliances, their forms and principles of government are all foreign 
to ours. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended 
in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people. On our 
part, never had a people so favorable a chance of trying the opposite system 
of peace and fraternity with mankind and the direction of all our means and 
faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction.— 7 Jefferson's 
Works, page 288. 

April 27, 1809, Mr. Jefferson, in writing to Mr. Madison in ref- 
erence to the situation in Cuba, said in language already quoted: 

It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit can then be drawn 
to our future acquisitions. Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and 
this develops the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should 
3571 



23 

ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it.— Jefferson's Worlzs, 
page 44o; 1 Wharton's International Lair, page 557. 

Secretary Frelinghuysen, in a note to Mr. Langston, dated June 
20, 1883, says: 

The policy of this Government, as declared on many occasions in the past, 
has tended toward avoidance of possessions disconnected from the main con- 
tinent. Had the tendency of the United States been to extend territorial 
domain beyond seas, opportunities have not been wanting to effect such a 
purpose, whether on the coast of Africa, in the West Indies, or in the South 
Pacific. 

He also wrote to the same minister: 

A conviction that a fixed policy, dating back to the origin of our constitu- 
tional Government, was considered to make it inexpedient to attempt terri- 
torial aggrandizement which would require maintenance by a naval force in 
excess of any yet provided for our national uses, has led this Government to 
decline territorial acquisitions. Even as simple coaling stations, such terri- 
torial acquisitions would involve responsibility beyond their* utility. Tho 
United States has never deemed it needful to their national life to maintain 
impregnable fortresses along the world's highways of commerce. 

Mr. Wharton, in referring to the purchase of Florida, states that 
the argument chiefly pressed by John Quincy Adams, then Secre- 
tary of State, when advocating the treaty, was one of contiguity. 

Mr. Monroe stated the doctrine which bears his name, and to 
which I shall later advert, and in the same message in which he 
enunciated that remarkable proposition he said: 

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system 
to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and hap- 
piness, nor can anyone believe that our Southern brethren, if left to them- 
selves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, there- 
fore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. 
If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new 
Governments and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she 
can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to 
leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue 
the same course. 

And if I may be allowed to state in the shortest possible words 
the Monroe doctrine, it is this: 

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we 
have- never taken any part nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It 
is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that, wo resent in- 
juries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this 
hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected and by causes 
which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. * * * 
We owe it. therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing be- 
tween the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider 
any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this 
hemispfiere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies 
or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not 
interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence 
and maintained it, and w r hose independence we have, on great consideration 
and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition 
for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their 
destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation 
of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.— 2 Richardson's Mes- 
sages and Documents, etc., page 218; 1 Wharton's International Laic, page 273. 

Mr. President, in the mad race of conquest which appears to 
be upon us in the effort to acquire dominion, and this assertion of 
what is called "the new doctrine ; ' by lately developed statesment 
there is much involved. Let us halt a moment; let us reflect a 
minute upon this doctrine of Monroe. It is idle for Senators to 
say that there is no issue involved regarding foreign acquisition, 
especially in the face of the contention urged here within the last 
twenty-four hours. It is idle in the face of the general argument 
quite commonly urged by those who favor annexation that we 
must extend our dominion all over the world. 

Where is the strength and where is the power of the Monroe 

35,1 



24 

doctrine? We have declared that on this hemisphere we desired 
no further interference by European powers, while we explicitly 
'disclaimed any intention of interfering with those powers in their 
then possessions here. Plainly it was in the contemplation of Mr. 
Monroe and those who acted with him that there was no inten- 
tion, no design, to assault or question the possessions of other 
nations outside of this hemisphere. Yet it is common knowledge 
this moment that the doctrine of Monroe, like the Farewell Ad- 
dress of Washington, is, in the annexation view, ancient, effete, 
out of date, can not meet the exigencies of the times, and does 
not supply the statesmanship of the nineteenth century. 

Mr. President, this is not a deliberate sentiment. Much of it 
follows from unfortunate conditions antagonistic to proper exam- 
ination. Not long ago, in the presence of a threatened war. a large 
majority of the Senate recorded their adhesion to resolutions 
worded as follows: 

Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three 
years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral 
sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian 
civilization, culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States 
battle ship, with 266 of its officers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the 
harbor of Havana, and can not longer be endured, as has been'set forth by 
the President of the United States in his message to Congress of April 11, 1898, 
upon which the action of Congress was invited: Therefore, 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled. First. That the people "of the Island of Cuba 
are, and of right ought to be, free and independent. 

Second. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of 
Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba 
and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. 

Third. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed 
and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, 
and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the sev- 
eral States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions 
into effect. 

Fourth— 

I call the attention of the Senate to this statement — 

That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to 
exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for the 
pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, 
to leave the government and control of the island to its people. 

Yet, Mr. President, men high in public station, and not strangers 
to this presence, have not hesitated to aver that these war resolu- 
tions are meaningless and that we must proceed to false possession 
of the enemy's territory as conquerors. 

Are we prepared to overturn the precedents written in our 
country's history up to the date of the passage of the resolution — 
April 20, 189S? It can not be successfully disputed that the annex- 
ation of Hawaii will constitute the entering wedge for an impe- 
rialistic policy as foreign to the purposes and views entertained 
when this Government was organized as are the objects and 
theories of the most despotic government upon the earth strangers 
to our system. 

I have called attention not only to the radical nature of this 
change, but to its suddenness. How, then, can it be considered 
inappropriate to dwell with care upon this threatened change? 
Do we know so much more than those who have gone before us? 
We have electric lights, perhaps, where earlier Americans used 
tallow candles, and many of those productions and conveniences 
which we are wont to call the blessings of life are around us in 
rich profusion; but in all that involves deep reflection upon the 
rights of humanity, upon the theories of free government with 

3571 



reference to all of the temptations, the passions of life, the fail- 
ings and shortcomings of men. concerning the propriety of con- 
stitutional limitations and a clear demarking of power there is 
little to be gained. Our so-called wisdom has come to us from 
the past. 

The philosophers of antiquity wrote lessons which we read to-day 
with profit, and to which succeeding ages and students have con- 
tributed but little. The men who fashioned our system did not 
do so in moments of passion, in an insane race for wealth, for terri- 
tory, for acquisition. They were not forming any corporations 
or syndicates to control franchises or to usurp popular rights; they 
were not planning to introduce an alien race that they might 
bring down the price of labor, or to interject new theories into a 
social system evolved from patient toil. They moved forward 
without doubt, convinced of their personal rectitude and careless 
of punishment for the doing of duty. 

They knew their grievances. Their knowledge was accurate; 
their information thorough. Modern juveniles in statecraft are 
babies at their shrines. They risked their all to rid themselves 
of encroachment; they knew evils from which their efforts have 
absolved us. The perils into which we are in danger of plunging 
were sought to be avoided in their governmental plan. They had 
studied the problems of self-control, and brought to bear upon 
this intricacy intellects as reliable surely as any here; and if they 
were not disinterested, their interest was for the people, with 
whom they stood, of whoin they were, and for the Republic with 
whose destinies their lives, their properties, and their sacred hon- 
ors were inseparably linked. 

Before we divorce ourselves from these alliances and enter upon 
new, and for us untried, fields let us reflect. "Untried fields " for 
us, I have said, but not "untried fields" elsewhere. The story of 
man is polluted with the stains of the arrogance of those who rose 
to power by virtue and frugality and descended to vice from that 
weakness which has existed from Adam to this instant and is 
blended with humanity. The rewards of patient honesty are many, 
and after they have been reaped how often in every generation has 
man's folly compassed his fall. The brilliant, the remorseless ty- 
rant was once perhaps solicitous for moderate competency. The 
prosperous have often yielded to temptation. The Fourth of July 
approaches. Are we to speak of love of man, of the rights of man, 
or of title derived from the sword? These are old subjects. From 
generation to generation they throng history. 

I will resume the citation of authority. 

Mr. Webster has been often cited as favoring the annexation of 
the Hawaiian Islands. The authority of Mr. Webs'er is directly 
the other way. In the sixth volume of his works, pages 4G3-464, 
we find the following: 

It can not but be in conformity with the interest and wishes of the Govern- 
ment and the people of the United States that this community, thus existing 
in the midst of a vast expanse of ocean, should be respected and all its 
rights strictly and conscientiously regarded, and this must also be the true 
interest of all other commercial states. 

Far remote from the dominions of European powers, its growth and pros- 
perity as an independent State may yet be in a high degree useful to all whose 
trade is extended to those regions, while its near approach to this continent 
and the intercourse which American vessels have with it, such vessels con- 
stituting five-sixths of all which annually visit it, could not but create dis- 
satisfaction on the part of the United States at any attempt by another 
power, should such attempt be threatened or feared, to take possession of 
the islands, colonize them, and subvert the native Government. Consider- 
ing, therefore, that the United States possesses so large a share of the inter- 
3571 



26 

course with those islands, it is deemed not unfit to mate the declaration that 
their Government seeks, nevertheless, no peculiar advantages, no exclusive 
control, over the Hawaiian Government, but is content with its independent 
existence and anxiously wishes for its security and prosperity. 

Again referring to Mr. Webster, I wish to cite from a letter 
written by him on the 19th of December, 1842. to be found 6 Web- 
ster's Works, 478, in which he says: 

The United States therefore are more interested in the fate of the islands 
and of their Government than any other nation can be; and this considera- 
tion induces the President to be quite willing to declare as the sense of the 
Government of the United States that the Government of the Sandwich 
Islands ought to be respected, that no power ought either to take possession 
of the islands as a conquest or for purpose of colonization, and that no power 
ought to seek therein undue control over the existing Government or any ex- 
clusive privileges or preferences with it in matters of commerce. 

There can be no stronger language than that which I have read 
from this distinguished statesman. He remarked that we desired 
no peculiar advantages, no exclusive dominancy. He said that we 
were content with Hawaii's independent existence, and further 
asseverated that no power ought to seek undue control in island 
affairs. He went so far as to say that there should not be any 
exclusive privileges or preferences as to matters of commerce. 

Never did Mr. Webster write a word to indicate that he had 
changed his mind. Taking this doctrine, which has often been 
referred to by annexationists, is there any difference in the posi- 
tion assumed by Mr. Webster and that which is taken here by 
those who antagonize annexation? In 1894 we warned the world 
that no one should interfere. Mr. President, before I close this 
discussion I trust I may be able to show that all of the talk about 
the intervention of other powers is a mere creation of the imagina- 
tions of 'some who entertain the notion in good faith and many 
who circulate the canard for the purpose of influencing the minds 
of Senators and leading them to suppose that foreigners are about 
to absorb the entire Hawaiian group. 

THE COALING BUGABOO. 

Here I wish to give expression to a thought that may deserve 
some amplification? If there be any question as to the character of 
our relations with the prospective Hawaiian coaling station called 
Pearl Harbor, or if there be any doubt as to our title, is there any 
difficulty in amending and changing the present compact, if it 
needs any alteration, so as to remove all doubt? 

Has there been any effort to do that? Has there been any at- 
tempt to cure any defect in the grant, if there is such defect? 
Has there been any effort to do aught else than to put the Ha- 
waiian Islands in such a situation as to make it as nearly neces- 
sary as possible to annex them? Have not the struggles of those 
in authority in this Administration been to bring about annexa- 
tion regardless of coaling necessities, and have not our present 
diplomats utterly failed to enter into any negotiations to remove 
the supposed difficulties of which they themselves complain re- 
garding coal? The coal proposition, like the Presidential-seizure 
proposition, is a mere bugaboo jointly created by the Dole and the 
present American administrations. 

FURTHER PRECEDENTS. 

Attention is sometimes directed to Mr. Webster's letter to Mr. 
Rives, which, it is stated, shows a change in his opinion.- It is 
found in 1 Wharton's International Law, page 419. He says: 

The United States, true to its treaty obligations, has in no case interfered 
with the Hawaiian Government for the purpose of opposing the course of 
3571 



27 

. its own independent conduct or of dictating to it any particular line of 
policy. In acknowledging the independence of the islands and of the Gov- 
ernment established over them it was not seeking to promote any peculiar 
object of its own. * * * This Government still desires to see the nation- 
ality of the Hawaiian Government maintained, its independent administra- 
tion of public affairs respected, and its prosperity and reputation increased. 

Afterwards, in a letter forwarded by Mr. Webster, as Secretary 
of State, to Mr. Severance, July 14, 1851 (1 Wharton's Interna- 
tional Law, page 420), he said: 

The annunciation of this policy will not surprise the governments of 
Europe, nor be thought to bo unreasonable by the nations of the civilized 
world; and that policy is that while the Government of the United States 
itself, faithful to its original assurance, scrupulously regards the independ- 
ence of the Hawaiian Islands, it can never consent to see those islands taken 
possession of by either of the great commercial powers of Europe, nor can it 
consent that demands, manifestly unjust and derogatory and inconsistent with 
a bona fide intention, shall be enforced against that Government. * * * 

Mr. Legare, who was Secretary of State in 1843, wrote to Mr. 
Everett (1 Wharton's International Law, page 418): 

The Hawaiian Islands bear such a peculiar relation to ourselves that we 
might even feel justified, consistently with our own principles, in interfer- 
ing by force to prevent their falling by conquest into the hands of one of the 
great powers of Europe. 

This reference ii also frequently cited, as is also that of Mr. 
Clayton, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Rives, dated July 5, 1850, 
where he declared: 

We do not ourselves covet sovereignty over them [the Hawaiian Islands]. 
We would be content that they should remain under their present rulers, 
who, we believe, are disposed to be just and impartial in their dealings with 
all nations. 

And in writing to the same minister, Mr. Webster said (June 
19,1851): 

If, therefore, it should not be too late, it is hoped that you will make such 
representations upon the subject to the minister of foreign affairs of France 
as will induce that Government to desist from measures incompatible with 
tne sovereignty and. independence of the Hawaiian Islands, etc.— 1 Whar- 
ton's International Laze, page 419. 

President Tyler, in speaking of the Texas case, said: 

The Government and people of the United States have never evinced, nor 
do they feel, any desire to interfere in public questions not affecting the rela- 
tions existing between the States of the American Continent. * * * If 
annexation in any form occur, it will arise from the free and unfettered action 
of the people of the two countries.— k Richardson's Messages, etc., page 320. 

Mr. Fillmore, in his second annual message, December 1, 1851 
(5 Richardson's Messages, etc., page 120), says: 

It is earnestly to be hoped that the differences which have for some time 
past been pending between the Government of the French Republic and that 
of the Sandwich Islands may be peaceably and durably adjusted so as to se- 
cure the independence of those islands. * * * 

Mr. Fillmore continues, in explanation of the interest which this 
Government has in the Hawaiian group, and proceeds: 

We were also influenced by a desiro that those islands should not pass 
under the control of any other great maritime state, but should remain in aE 
independent condition, and so be accessible and useful to the commerce ol 
all nations. 

Here again it is manifest that our policy was not annexation; 
that the only end and main object we had in view was absolute 
independence, not only for our own benefit, but because we deemed 
that the commerce of all nations was entitled to look upon the 
Government of Hawaii as absolutely free, unfettered, and inde- 
pendent. 

President Taylor took up the same question in his first annual 

3571 



28 

message, December 4, 1849 (5 Richardson "s Messages, etc. , page 17). 
He said: 

We desire that the islands may maintain their independence and that 
other nations should concur with us in this sentiment. "We could in no event 
be indifferent to their passing under the dominion of any other power. 
The principal commercial states have in this a common interest, and it is to 
he hoped that no one of them will attempt to interpose obstacles to the entire 
independence of the islands. 

Here again it is plain that the Executives of whom I have made 
mention and the Secretaries of State whom I have quoted and 
the other statesmen upon whose words I have sought to comment 
claimed, asserted, and demanded that there should be no interpo- 
sition by any other power, and that the Hawaiian Islands must 
remain free and independent, enjoying their liberties not only for 
their own benefit, but for the advantage of commerce. Our wishes 
in this regard have ever been conclusive on the world. 

We announced through President Fillmore that we were not 
seeking to augment our territory, but merely demanded that others 
like ourselves should keep their hands off. The idea of the acqui- 
sition of territory by conquest and the forcible introduction into 
this Republic of other races was a stranger to the state papers of 
the United States and to the proceedings of Congress until within 
a very few days. Yet those of us who object to the committal of 
the United States to the monstrous fallacy now enthusiastically 
advocated here are denounced in unmeasured terms — not however 
by persons familiar with their country or her system, but by those 
who are happy because of ignorance of their own peculiarities. 

NO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE— ENGLAND, FRANCE, JAPAN. 

It is of interest in this connection to note that although there 
has been unauthorized interference with Hawaii on the part of 
English and French officers, both of those nations disavowed the 
misconduct, and this disavowal was couched in the most positive 
and satisfactory terms. 

Mr. President, without perhaps intending that it should be so, 
the Committee on Foreign Relations in their report have referred 
to the attempt of other nations to obtain possession of the Hawaiian 
Islands, and we have had more than one statement not only of 
present perils but of dangers which in times bygone encompassed 
those islands. A consultation of the record is conclusive that 
while there was, as I have said, momentary trouble, and while 
there was intrusion, there was never any justification by the 
parent government either in the case of England or in the case 
of France, and both of these great nations, in the solemn form of 
a treaty, absolved themselves from such intention. 

Mr. Fox, in a letter to Mr. Upshur, dated June 25, 1843, said: 

I am directed by the Earl of Aberdeen to state to you, for the information 
of the Government of the United States, that the occupation of the Sandwich 
Islands was an act entirely unauthorized by Her Majesty's Government, and 
that with the least practicable delay due inquiry will be made into the pro- 
ceedings which led to it.— Foreign Relations of the United States, Appendix 2, 
Affairs in Hawaii, page 115. 

Mr. Upshur, in another communication to Mr. Fox, of date July 
5, 1843, says: 

Seeking to establish no undue advantages in the Sandwich Islands for citi- 
zens of the United States at the expense of other powers, the President re- 
ceives with much pleasure the assurance contained in Mr. Fox's note that 
none such are sought for Great Britain, etc. (Page 117.) 

Here, Mr. President, observe the peculiarity of this phraseology. 
Our Government, in noting with pleasure the disclaimer of the 
3371 



29 

Earl of Aberdeen, proceeded to avow that we did not seek to as- 
sert any undue advantage in the Hawaiian Islands. Is this an 
annexation claim? 

Mr. Rives, in writing to Mr. Webster, October 30, 1851. from 
Paris, referred to a call made by him upon the representative of 
the French Government, in which the latter stated — 

That tlio French Government had never had the slightest intention of 
pursuing any measures toward the Sandwich Islands inconsistent with a, 
just respect of their independence; that, after the receipt of the letter I had' 
addressed to the minister of foreign affairs in July last, Monsieur de Sartiges 
had been instructed to give you the fullest and most formal assurances to 
that effect. * * * Ho alluded also to the circumstance that the United 
States had been invited to become a party to the convention concluded be- 
tween France and England in 18-13 for mutually respecting the independence 
of the Sandwich Islands, but the invitation had been declined, a circumstance 
which, he thought, should protect France from the suspicion of having im- 
proper designs upon the independence of the islands.— Idem, page 105. 

As further evidencing the disposition of France and England to 
let Hawaii alone, those Governments, upon the refusal of the 
United States to enter into any joint declaration regarding the 
matter, concluded an agreement between themselves on the 28th 
of November, 1843, whereby it was announced that— 

Her Majesty, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- 
land, and His Majesty, the King of the French, taking into consideration the 
existence in the Sandwich Islands of a Government capable of providing for 
the regularity of its relations with foreign nations, have thought it right to 
engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent State 
and never to take possession, either directly or under a title of protectorate, 
or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are com- 
posed.— Fore ign Relations, Appendix 2, page 61, 1891. 

Now, Mr. President, here is an explicit and never disavowed 
compact, entered into in the broad light of civilization by these 
two great nations, whereby they explicitly and in direct terms 
declare that they will not interfere with Hawaii, and here are the 
communications, which I have repeated, by which the proper repre- 
sentatives most satisfactorily denied any responsibility for the acts 
of those who attempted to meddle with Hawaii. 

The views of Mr. Marcyupon annexation have been often relied 
on by those who favor that consummation, and it may not be 
amiss to quote briefly from them. In a letter written by him to 
Mr. Gregg December 22, 1853, he says: 

While we do not intend to attempt the exercise of any exclusive control 
over them [the Hawaiian Islands], we are resolved that no other power or 
state will exact any political or commercial privileges from them which we 
are not permitted to enjoy, far less to establish any protectorate over them.— 
1 Whar. Int. Laic, &L. 

On the 16th day of December, 1853, he wrote to Mr. Mason thus: 

It seems to be inevitable that they [the Hawaiian Islands] must come under 
the control of this Government, and it would be but reasonable and fair that 
these powers [England and France] should acquiesce in such a disposition of 
them, provided the transference was effected by fair means.— 1 Whar. Int. 
Lair, 422; Appendix 2, page 106. 

Later on, April 4, 1854, he says, in a letter to Mr. Gregg: 

It was foreseen that at some period not far distant such a change would 
take place and the Hawaiian Islands would come under the protectorate of 
or be transferred to some foreign power. You were informed that it was 
not the policy of the United States to accelerate such a change: but if in the 
course of events it became unavoidable, this Government would much prefer 
to acquire the sovereignty of these islands for the United States rather than 
to see it transferred to any other power.— Foreign Relations United States 
Appendix 2, page 121. 

At the date referred to it was feared that foreign intervention 
would certainly occur, and the situation was regarded as ex- 

3571 



stated that- 

A flood of emigration -would pour in from California the moment our flag 
was raised, sufficient to put a check upon all fixture British and French pre- 
tensions.— Foreign Relations United States, Appendix 2, page 125. 

Mr. President, there is nothing to prevent a " flood of emigra- 
tion " going to the islands now if they are really so desirable. 
They have a Government, we are told (I confess I doubt the state- 
ment), which is an admirable one, which is administered upon all 
the broad lines of freedom and right, and yet there is no remark- 
able emigration, for reasons which can be very readily surmised. 

In the first place, -it will not be difficult to show that the pop- 
ulation now contained in the Hawaiian Islands subsist not in con- 
sequence of any of that sort of employment, either agricultural or 
otherwise, which is inviting to the labor interests of the United 
States; that sugar and coffee and other productions are raised 
because of the character of labor, the cheapness of the labor, and 
the necessity for the employment of low-priced people. 

Mr. Gregg, on September 15, 1854, in writing to Mr. Marcy, 
states that he "insisted upon the immediate signature of the 
treaty/' (Republished in Foreign Relations United States, Ap- 
pendix 2, page 126, 1894.) 

On the same page Mr. Gregg, who seems to have in some re- 
spects resembled the late Mr. Stevens, remarked: 

The moment our flag was raised a flood of immigration from California 
would pour in, sufficient, at least, to make the islands thoroughly American 
and to secure an equitable and fair arrangement if the terms of the present 
treaty are deemed unsatisfactory.— Idem. 

The proposed treaty with the King of the Sandwich Islands 
commenced with the recital: 

His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, being convinced that plans 
have been and still are on foot hostile to his sovereignty and to the peace of 
his kingdom, which His Majesty is without power to resist, etc. — Foreign 
Relations United States, Appendix 2, page 127. 

Article 2 of this proposed treaty declares that the kingdom shall 
be incorporated into the American Union as a State, etc. (Idem. ) . 

The proposed treaty was never ratified. Kamehameha III died 
on December 15, 1854. 

Mr. Gregg, on the 29th of December, 1854, in a letter to Mr. 
Marcy, stated: 

From information which has recently come to my knowledge, I am in- 
clined to entertain the opinion that the present head of the Government will 
be disposed to preserve, if possible, the separate independence of the Ha- 
waiian Islands.— Idem, page 132. 

At this point it may be well to reflect that Kamehameha III 
was obviously induced to make the proposition to resign his 
crown because of his fear of foreign attack. His son and successor 
did not seem disposed to do so. 

All of these years, Mr. President, have come and gone, and no 
attack has been made. There has never been a moment from that 
day to this when there has been any intrusion which has had be- 
hind it the sanction of any government on earth. There has 
never been a time in the history of the Hawaiian Islands when 
they were as absolutely safe from the interference of any power 
as they are at this moment. No one wants them; no one threat- 
ens them. They are free from all dangers— more secure than 
ever. 

In this connection I call the attention of the Senate to a state- 
ment contained in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
3571 



31 

with which I have no doubt Senators are familiar. Referring 
to the condition of our relations with Japan, I have never thought 
that the views of the distinguished members of that committee 
upon this subject have had any support in reason, and the publi- 
cation before the world of that report, with its ill-founded refer- 
ence to Japan, brought out a protest, of which, I think, I have a 
copy, which I believe to be accurate, and as I deem it exceedingly 
important in this connection, I will ask that it be read at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gallinger in the chair). 
Without objection, the Secretary will read it. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

On the 16th of last March Hon. C. K. Davis introduced a joint resolution, 
from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, providing for the 
annexation of Hawaii to the United States, and submitted in support of the 
resolution a report signed by seven members of the committee. This report 
disclosed the fact that the gentlemen who signed it have conceived certain 
serious misapprehensions regarding Japan's attitude toward Hawaii. The 
following extracts will serve as illustrations of this statement: 

"Japan,''' says the report, "has openly protested against the annexation 
of Hawaii to the United States upon grounds which indicate an unjust sus- 
picion of our national honor in cur future dealing with her subjects in those 
islands. The blunt refusal of the President to consider this protest caused 
Japan to make a formal withdrawal of it," etc. 

The members of the Committee on Foreign Relations must, as a matter of 
course, be familiar with all the details of the correspondence which passed 
between the United States and Japan in regard to tlie annexation of Hawaii. 
Bearing this in mind, it is surprising to find in their report such a statement 
as that above quoted. The reasons underlying Japan's protest were fully 
and frankly stated in the correspondence, but nothing was said in that con- 
nection which bore even the faintest semblance of suspicion of the good faith 
or the good will of the United States. On the contrary, all the representa- 
tions made on behalf of Japan were carefully guarded by assurances of com- 
plete confidence in the friendly intentions ot the United States, and those 
assurances were cordially reciprocated. 

But from the Japanese standpoint the friendship of the two countries, 
however close and cordial, could not be regarded as the factor which would 
decide the effects of annexation upon the interests of Japan. The question 
was one of fact and not of sentiment; and the result was notably dependent 
upon the circumstance that the situation which had been created in Hawaii 
by the treaties between that country and Japan, and by the laws in force, 
must necessarily be changed by the application of United States laws. Of 
those laws in themselves, Japan had no complaint to make; her relations 
with the United States are harmoniously conducted under them. Her ob- 
jection was based upon the injurious effects which her Government believed 
the sudden and in some measure unexpected change in existing conditions 
in Hawaii would have upon her interests and the interests of her people in 
the islands. 

The United States did not agree with this view, but the discussion was con- 
dncted in a spirit of frank friendliness which gave no cause for offense and 
left no semblance of bad feeling on either side. Therefore the statement that 
Japan was actuated by an "unjust suspicion" of American national honor 
finds no warrant in what actually occurred, and does grave injustice, more- 
over, to a nation which has always maintained unusually cordial relations with 
the United States. To add also that the President's refusal to consider the 
respectful protest of a friendly Government was "blunt" implies a lack of 
ordinary courtesy which happily the facts of the case do not confirm. 

The cause assigned by the report for Japan's protest is, in effect, the hope 
ascribed to the Government of Japan that the Japanese in Hawaii will gain 
control of affairs there by means of an indiscriminate use of the electoral 
franchise. Alluding to the protest, the report proceeds to state that "this 
diplomatic intervention can not be dissociated from its real predicate, which 
is the demand made by Japan upon the Republic of Hawaii, which has not 
been withdrawn, that her subjects in Hawaii shall have equal privileges 
with the natives in voting at elections and in holding offices." And, in an- 
other place, " The immigrants from Japan retain their allegiance to that Em- 
pire, and yet they claim full political rights in Hawaii, notwithstanding their 
alienage. In this* demand they have the undisguised encouragement of the 
Japanese Government. These privileges are demanded as rights." 

These statements are based upon a complete misapprehension of the facts. 

Several years ago there was some discussion between the Japanese and the 

Hawaiian Governments concerning the exercise of the electoral franchise by 

Japanese in Hawaii, but no demand was ever made on behalf of Japan that 

3571 



32 

her people should enjoy any other or greater privileges in this regard than 
were accorded to aliens in general under the constitution and laws of Hawaii. 
The Japanese Government never hesitated to admit that everything which 
that constitution and those laws established as a condition precedent to the 
assumption of Hawaiian citizenship by other aliens was of necessity binding 
upon Japanese subjects. All that it asked was equality before the law; ail 
that it protested against was discrimination. 

The correspondence on the subject clearly shows that from Japan's point 
of view the matter was important only in so far as it involved a question of 
principle. In no manner did it imply the hope or expectation that Japanese 
subjects would gain control of Hawaiian political affairs. That charge has 
been made before and has been proved to be baseless. At best it rests upon 
a mere surmise, which finds no support either in the actions of Japan or in 
the course of affairs in Hawaii. So far from having been the pivotal motive 
of the protest against annexation, as the report of the committee woiild seem 
to indicate, the official explanation of that protest shows that it had no place 
among the considerations urged by Japan. 

The report further states that " of these subjects of Japan in Hawaii the 
larger number were soldiers in the war with China, and are still subject to 
the military orders of the Emperor." This is a mistake. Possibly some of 
these Japanese served as soldiers in the war with China, but the majority of 
them could not have done so. Even if the statement were correct, however, 
it is difficult to see what bearing it can have upon the Hawaiian situation. 
In Japan, as in some European countries, there is a general conscription law 
under which every able-bodied male, not exempt for causes defined by the 
law, must serve at some time or another in the army. 

But after such service the conscript ceases to be a soldier and returns to 
the pursuits of civil life. Some of the advocates of annexation, without tak- 
ing this fact into consideration, have gone so far as to allege that the Japan- 
ese Government was flooding the islands with soldiers in the peaceful guise 
of laborers. The absurdity of this statement has been demonstrated, among 
others, by no less a person than President Dole. In two interviews published 
by authority during his recent visit to this country he stated that the Japan- 
ese immigrants were not soldiers; that some of them had doubtless served in 
the army under the conscription law of Japan, but that this circumstance 
did not occasion any anxiety in Hawaii. 

Commenting upon the pending controversy between Japan and Hawaii 
concerning immigration, the report makes the following statement: 

'Almost the entire number of Japanese in Hawaii are coolies, who were 
brought there under the authority of the two Governments, and were to 
return to Japan at the end of their term of service. They claim the right to 
remain in Hawaii under a general treaty which applied only to such persons 
as came for temporary or permanent residence as voluntary immigrants. 
This claim is disputed by Hawaii and there is still trouble over it. Under 
such circumstances the presence and constant inflow of Japanese in great 
number is an evil which threatens the native people with the less of their 
means of living and the whole country with the overflow of paganism. It 
also threatens the overthrow of the Republic and the destruction of the lives 
and property of the Republicans through an insurrection or combination of 
the lower classes of natives, who are for the most part adherents of royalty 
and are under the control of the kahunas, who are sorcerers, with the Jap- 
anese." 

The Japanese immigrants, to whom reference is made in this paragraph, 
are those who emigrate to Hawaii under the stipulations of the convention 
of 1886. The Hon. tlenry E. Cooper, Hawaiian minister for foreign affairs, 
in his report to President Dole for the biennial period ending December 31, 
1897, describes the negotiations which led to the conclusion of that conven- 
tion. As he correctly states, their inception was due to the efforts of the 
Hawaiian Government to secure labor from Japan. "The experience of 
those who had to deal with the labor problem at that time " (1883), he says, 
"was to the effect that the large preponderance of Chinese on the planta- 
tions would likely prove a disturbing element. In order to offset this, it was 
thought wise to secure laborers from Japan. Negotiations were accordingly 
opened, which resulted in the signing of the convention in 1SS6." 

The negotiations, it will be perceived, extended over three years. This 
was due to the fact that the Japanese Government was reluctant to permit 
anything like " collie" emigration. The convention was especially framed 
to overcome this difficulty, care being taken to safeguard the welfare of the 
emigrants and to remove from the whole project the odium which justly at- 
taches to that form of semiservile labor. The emigrants were, as a rule, 
small farmers and agricul tural laborers, selected from among those who freely 
volunteered to go to Hawaii. After arriving in that country they were iii 
some sense the wards of the Government, their status being distinctly differ- 
ent from that of contract laborers brought to the islands under private aus- 
pices. Nor did their residence in the islands necessarily terminate with the 
fulfillment of their contracts. They were free to renew those contracts, to 
return home, or to remain, as some have done, without contracts. 
3571 



33 

There has never been any dispute between the two Governments on any 
of these points, and there is at present no "trouble" concerning them. On 
the contrary, the Hawaiian planters are anxious to have these people remain 
when their contracts expire, and the Hawaiian Government has never of- 
fered any objection to their doing so. The pending controversy between the 
two Governments regarding immigration involves an entirely different ques- 
tion. As far back as 1893, when the question o£ annexation was first mooted, 
the Hawaiian Government began casting about for means of obtaining 
labor for the sugar plantations under a system not involving labor con- 
tracts, which, it was thought, were prejudicial to the success of annexation. 

Various plans were proposed, and some experiments were tried, among 
others the importation of Portuguese. But none of these quite met the de- 
mands of the situation, and consequently, with the apparent approval of the 
Government, voluntary immigration from Japan was instituted. Immigra- 
tion under the convention of 1886 practically ceased thereafter, although the 
convention still remained in force. The voluntary immigrants supplied the 
demand for labor and continued freely to come, until suddenly in the spring 
of 1887, without previous notice of any kind, several shiploads of these peo- 
ple, 1,174 persons in all, were denied the right of landing in Hawaii and were 
compelled to return to Japan under circumstances which subjected them to 
grave hardship. 

It was to this action that the Japanese Government tGok exception, and 
this alone caused the claim for indemnification which is still pending. In this 
connection it is interesting to note that although one of the reasons for the 
expulsion of these voluntary immigrants was the openly expressed appre- 
hension that the islands would be flooded with Japanese, for whose labor 
there was no demand and whose presence was deemed detrimental to the 
best interests of Hawaii, since then more than 2,000 laborers have been 
brought there under the convention, with the express sanction of the Ha- 
vraiian Government. 

While on this branch of the subject it is in place to note that the commit- 
tee asserts in another part of the report that the United States owes to 
Americans in Hawaii and to the native population "the duty of rescuing 
them from the silent but rapid invasion of the pagan races from Asia," which 
" is concerted and is far more dangerous to Hawaii than if it came on ships of 
war for the avowed purpose of subjugating the Hawaiin Islands." being 
* k the stealthy approach of a ' destruction that wasteth at noonday.' " 

Aside from rhetorical purpose, it is difficult to determine precisely what 
meaning these statements are intended to convey. Surely not that the Jap- 
anese Government is craftily plotting the overthrow of the Hawaiian Gov- 
ernment by a "concerted'" movement of its people upon the islands. Aside 
from the inherent improbability of such a proposition, the facts of the case 
warrant a very different and a much more reasonable conclusion. The great 
majority of the Japanese in Hawaii have gone there solely in response to the 
demand for their service". They have gone because Hawaiian employers 
needed them and because the Hawaiian Government recognized the neces- 
sity of their presence. 

If the native population of Hawaii had sufficed for the purposes of the 
planters and other employers, there would be very few Japanese in the 
islands. It can not be successfully maintained, therefore, that their pres- 
ence has interfered with the prosperity or the welfare of the natives. On 
the other hand, it can easily be demonstrated that their labor in the past has 
aided materially in the development of Hawaiian resources and has added 
largely to American wealth in the islands. In like manner it can be proved 
that without that labor in the future, or some substitute which has not yoi 
been discovered, the continued prosperity of the agricultural interests of 
Hawaii is problematical. 

It can also be safely asserted that the Japanese people in Hawaii are indus- 
trious and law abiding, and that they will compare favorably with persons 
from the like condition of life in other countries. President Dole stated this 
to be the fact in the interviews already alluded to, and other intelligent and 
influential residents of the islands have expressed the same opinion, and yet 
the committee alleges that they "are not trustworthy as laborers nor honest 
in their dealings with merchants." Mr. Thurston, on the other hand, in the 
document which the cormhittee appends to its report, asserts that "individ- 
ually the Chinese and Japanese in Hawaii are industrious, peaceable citi- 
zens." This latter, it may be said without fear of successful contradiction, 
will be found to be the consensus of authoritative, well-informed opinion on 
the subject. 

Throughout the report under review the thought, already noticed, appears 
first in one form and then in another, that there is danger to Hawaii from 
an uprising among the Japanese, through concerted design, instigated and 
supported, it is openly hinted, by Japanese authority. Without pausing to 
comment upon the undeserved stigma thus cast upon the honor and good 
faith of the Japanese Government, it may be asserted most emphatically 
that there is nothing either in past or in current events in Hawaii to justify 
3571-3 



34 

such a "belief. During all the troubles which occurred when the monarchy 
was overthrown, and during all the vicissitudes which beset the new Gov- 
ernment, the Japanese in Hawaii made no hostile demonstration and gave 
no trouble of any kind whatever. 

Subsequently they pursued the same course, even at a time when the Ha- 
waiian Government appeared to be treating a number of their countrymen 
with unmerited harshness. At no time has there been anything like a sign 
of union between them and the lower order of Hawaiian natives, such as the 
Committee on Foreign Relations refer to, and at no time have they given the 
slightest pretext for apprehension. They have shown no wish, as the com- 
mittee states, "to participate in government," nor are they in any wise un- 
der the control or direction of "managers set over them in authority by the 
Government agents in Japan." There are no such managers, unless over- 
seers are meant, and these are appointed by the employers. 

The committee makes another grave error when it asserts that "the pol- 
icy of Japan toward Hawaii will become aggressive and determined so soon 
as the United States refuses to annex the islands, and makes the return to 
monarchy possible." This statement embodies a charge which the Japanese 
Government some time ago took occasion to refute in the most authoritative 
manner. In the correspondence concerning annexation the Japanese minis- 
ter made the following statement regarding a similar assertion: 

" With reference to the mischievous suggestion or report, which has 
been so industriously circulated in this country and elsewhere, that Japan 
has designs against the integrity or sovereignty of Hawaii, I am further 
instructed by the Imperial Government to state most emphatically and un- 
equivocally that Japan has not now and never had such designs or designs of 
any kind whatever against Hawaii." 

In response to this declaration the Secretary of State made the following 
reply: 

" So far as you [the Japanese minister] take occasion to deny what you 
aptly call ' the mischievous suggestion or report ' that Japan has designs 
against the integrity or sovereignty of Hawaii, I am glad to assure you that 
such denial was entirely unnecessary, inasmuch as this Government has not 
doubted and can nut for an instant doubt the sincerity and friendliness of 
Japan in all that concerns her relation to the United States and the Hawaiian 
Islands. " 

These extracts form only a part of the assurances which were exchanged 
between the two Governments on this point. They utterly preclude the idea 
that Japan will ever adopt anything like an "aggressive" policy toward 
Hawaii, since the adoption of such a policy would be tantamount to a species of 
bad faith of which Japan has never been guilty. The statement of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations is, therefore, wholly conjectural, and finds no 
justification in the past or present relations of Japan and Hawaii. As was 
stated in the correspondence already referred to, "Japan has absolutely no 
designs of any kind whatever inimical to Hawaii, and no motive in her deal- 
ing with that country except to secure by legitimate means the due observ- 
ance of just obligations." 

Before the reading was concluded, 

Mr. MORGAN. I should like to interpolate just there in that 
report my protest that no foreign minister has the right to send 
to this Senate in any form whatever a criticism upon a report of 
a committee of this body. 

Mr. WHITE. He has not sent it here. I have brought it here 
and make the criticism as my own. 

Mr. MORGAN. How does the paper appear here? Is it of- 
ficial? 

Mr. WHITE. I have presented the paper here. It has been 
nearly read, and I ask that the reading be continued as part of 
my remarks. I think that it is apposite and relevant to the state- 
ments made by the Committee on Foreign Relations, which I am 
challenging and criticising, as I have a right to do, and which. I 
shall continue to do for a while. 

Mr. MORGAN. I wish to ask the Senator from California if 
this is an official paper? 

Mr. WHITE. All I have to say about it I have said about it. 

Mr. MORGAN. I do not know whether it is an official paper 
or not. I only inquire for information. - 

Mr. WHITE. I have nothing to add to what I have already 
said, except that I wish to have the reading completed. 

3571 



35 

Mr. MORGAN. I wish to say that if it is an official paper from 
a foreign minister 

Mr. WHITE. It is not. I never spoke to the minister or had 
any communication with him. 

Mr. MORGAN. If it is an official paper, it is a very serious and 
very outrageous assault upon this Senate and a committee of the 
Seuate to have him send a paper here or to have it brought here in 
any way criticising the action of the Senate. It is clearly to deny 
to us the right of free speech and holding us accountable in another 
place for words uttered in debate or uttered in the progress of 
proceedings in this body. I have just noticed it, and I enter my 
protest against it and I wish the Senate to understand it. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the remain- 
der of the paper. There are only four lines left. 

The Secretary resumed and concluded the reading of the paper 
as above given. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, there is nothing astonishing about 
this paper, nor is it any infringement upon the rights of a Senator, 
nor calling a Senator in question, as the technical expression is 
used, for anything that he may have said. I am calling the mem- 
bers of the Foreign Relations Committee in question in so far as 
the logic of their report is concerned. There is nothing personal 
about it. I am discussing them, as I have a right to do. 

Nobody has a higher regard for the attainments of every mem- 
ber of that great committee than have I, but I have the privilege, 
I presume, to differ from them in this or upon any matter. This 
protest is no novelty; it has been advertised all over the country 
for weeks, and I have availed myself of a privilege, common not 
only to a citizen of the United States but of the world, to present 
and employ it. If it is not a copy of an authentic document, the 
argument is good, very good; I will adopt it. I can not certify to 
it, and I do not propose to do so. Still I will use it. 

Mr. MORGAN. If the Senator will allowme to interrupt him, 
I do not object to the Senator using or adopting any argument 
which he thinks is pertinent or relevant, or to make use of any 
material which he sees proper under any circumstances in debate 
on this floor. What I was objecting to, Mr. President, was what 
I consider to be the wrong of the Department of State in receiving 
such a paper as that from the minister of Japan, if it is an offi- 
cial paper, and I rose to inquire whether it was or not. I have 
never seen or heard of the paper before. 

Mr. WHITE. I can not state to the Senator whether it was 
ever certified by anybody. I have been told that such a docu- 
ment has been presented and filed, but I do not know that it has 
been. 

Mr. MORGAN. Filed with the Secretary of State? 

Mr. WHITE. I have heard so, but I do not know; I have not 
seen it on file, and I have not my information from the Secretary 
of State. I have availed myself of public channels and utilized 
an argument which I think shows a great deal of sound sense. 

Mr. MORGAN. I am not complaining of the Senator from Cal- 
ifornia using anything he pleases in argument. What I complain 
of— and it is a just complaint— is that the Secretary of State should 
permit such a paper as that to be filed in his office as a state paper, 
a paper in which an open criticism is made upon the Senate of the 
United States and one of its committees, and in which there is 
imputed to them, as I caught the reading of it, ignorance, and per- 
haps worse— prevarication, as I understood it. 



36 

We have had here recently, within the last three or four years, 
several instances of very flagrant outrage upon the Senate of the 
United States in just such a way as this. The Senate will re- 
member that at one time, when we were discussing here the Nic- 
araguan Canal bill, a foreign minister injected into this body, 
through the Assistant Secretary of State, a diatribe against the 
members of the Senate who were conducting that legislation upon 
a bill which had' been pending before the Senate— a long argu- 
ment of a very incisive, not to say unjust and outrageous, charac- 
ter against the bill and against the action the Senate had taken, or 
was proposing to take, and I had to put in then a protest against it. 

Prior to that time, in a session of the Senate, there was brought 
into this body, through diplomatic action, the opinions of the 
British minister upon the question of the Bering Sea matter, in 
which there was an arraignment not only of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives but of political parties in this country, 
and a direct appeal from the Congress of the United States to the 
people of the United States, made in this state paper brought into 
the Senate. 

I only mention, Mr. President, that we have come upon times 
when the other departments of this G-overnment seem to have no 
regard at all for the rights of the Senate or of the House of Rep- 
resentatives in matters of this kind. The time was, in the days 
of Mr. Webster and General Jackson, and Mr. Jefferson also, that 
when foreign ministers undertook to make criticisms upon mes- 
sages of Presidents of the United States, and also upon the pro- 
ceedings in Congress, they were not only silenced for it, but they 
were dismissed from this court on that account. 

The Senator from California is perfectly at liberty, so far as I 
am concerned, to use this or any other paper. My inquiry was 
not addressed to his right or the propriety of the Senator doing 
it — not in the slightest degree — but it was addressed only to the 
point that the Secretary of State ought not to allow a paper of 
that kind to find its way into the archives of the State Depart- 
ment as an official document. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I have no right to speak for the 
Secretary of State. I have had no communication with the Sec- 
retary of State or any Assistant Secretary of State or any official 
of the State Department regarding this matter. I have not 

Mr. SPOONER. I suspect, if the Senator will permit me, that 
there is no very good foundation for the statement that the Sec- 
retary of State has been guilty of any indiscretion in this matter. 

Mr. WHITE. I was about to say that. 

Mr. SPOONER. I doubt -very much the propriety — although I 
make the suggestion with very great reluctance and deference — 
of the sort of comment which the Senator from Alabama has in- 
dulged in in open session. 

Mr. MORGAN. What particular part of my comment does 
the Senator object to? I shall be pleased to have him quote it. 

Mr. SPOONER. Oh, let it go. 

Mr. MORGAN. No; I will not let it go at all. I want the 
Senator to quote the particular part of my comment that he ob- 
jects to. 

Mr. SPOONER. I will have it written out. 

Mr. MORGAN. No, sir; the Senator will not find it in the 
Record. 

Mr. SPOONER. I thought the Senator was commenting upon 
the propriety of such a criticism by a foreign minister upon the 
report of a committee of this body. 
£571 



37 

Mr. MORGAN, That is exactly what I was commenting upon. 

Mr. SPOONER. I am entitled to my opinion— which is very 
likely wrong— that such a comment perhaps had better be made 
in executive session. 

Mr. MORGAN. No, Mr. President, not when the paper itself 
is brought out in open session of the Senate. The first time I 
heard it was when it was read here just now. 

Mr. SPOONER. I did not know that it was read. 

Mr. MORGAN. It was read here. 

Mr. SPOONER. I understand it was published in a newspaper. 

Mr. MORGAN. 1 do not know about a newspaper, whether 
this came from a newspaper or from the archives of the State De- 
partment, or from the Japanese legation, or where it is from; and 
the Senator from California [Mr. White] does not inform us, and 
I have no right to ask him, and do not" ask him. The paper is 
here purporting to be a statement made by a foreign minister; 
and being such a paper as that, I have the right to say that, how- 
ever it may have gotten here, that minister has no right to make 
any such comment as he has made upon the proceedings in this 
Senate, and if he made it through the public prints or made it in 
a communication to the State Department, or if he made it to 
the Senator from California with a view of its being brought here 
as a criticism upon the conduct of a committee of this body, he is 
entirely outside of the privileges and outside of the ordinary de- 
corum of a foreign minister, and he deserves a rebuke for it. 

I for one, sir, will not let this matter rest just where it is, not 
because of its effect upon this case at all — not at all— but because 
I have the right as a Senator and a member of that committee to 
bring in question this abuse, as I conceive it to be a very gros3 
one, of the privileges of a committee of this body. 

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I would not for a moment 
quarrel with the attitude of the Senator from Alabama if it i3 
definitely determined and ascertained that this is a document 
which is official and has been filed with the Department of State. 
I do not know that that is true, and the Senator does not know 
that that is true. That was the entire point of my suggestion. I 
quite agree with the Senator that no representative of a foreign 
government should be permitted in open, in this way, in disregard 
of the conventionalities of intercourse between this Government 
and other governments, to criticise either of the bodies or the 
committees of either of the bodies. I have no question or dispute 
with the Senator about that. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, it appears that the document is 
not certified to— I am not in a position to say that it was ever cer- 
tified to — by the Japanese minister. I stated once — but in view 
of the last statement of the Senator from Alabama I may be in- 
dulged in a repetition of the statement— that I am not acquainted 
with the minister from Japan and am not, as I should be, to any 
extent familiar with the legation or its members; but if I were a 
minister from Japan and had seen this report of the Committee. 
on Foreign Relations I would have thought very much as that 
document or paper expresses itself. At all events, it is a criticism 
which I adopt. 

Mr. President, in this same connection it is not unimportant to 
consider the attitude of Japan: it is entirely germane to this dis- 
cussion; and, with due deference, it is my judgment that the 
Committee on Foreign Relations ought not to attack foreign gov- 
ernments unless there is some absolutely plain reason justifying 
such assault. 

o571 



38 

I have in my hand an article which, like the unsigned paper, I 
did not obtain from the office of the Secretary of State or from 
any other official. There is in Harper "s Magazine for November, 
1897. an interesting article signed by Mr. Hoshi, who I understand 
to be the Japanese minister. There is much of it which refers to 
subjects that are not pertinent to this discussion, though very en- 
tertaining from various standpoints, but there is a part of the pub- 
lication which applies to the issue before us, and I wish to have 
the same read and made a part of my remarks. 
. The Secretary read as follows: 

Japan is so new as a factor in the world's calculations, so little studied, 
and so little understood, that her motives and her actions are sometimes 
seriously misconstrued. This is a topic upon which I must speak with due 
caution, but even at the risk of seeming impropriety I can not allow the op- 
portunity to pass of saying a word upon subjects which have lately been at- 
tracting widespread attention. 

No citizen of this country should be ignorant of the fact that among the 
people of Japan there is a genuine and deeply rooted attachment to the 
United States. It is not a merely sentimental liking, but a feeling founded 
upon the memory of many kindnesses received. The United States has 
been a friend to Japan, helpful in the hour of need, considerate at all times. 
If there was a nation upon whose sympathy they could rely in the effort to 
improve their condition, and of whose appreciation they were certain in 
whatever successes they might 'gain, that nation, the Japanese people have 
thought, was the United States. Such being the case, the tone of many re- 
cent utterances in the American press will be to them like an angry blow 
from a friend. 

That the American, people should regard Japan as an aggressor, lustful of 
aggrandizement, eager to quarrel, and ready, if need be, for war, will seem 
to them incomprehensible. And that this clamor should have arisen because 
their Government, in pursuance of clear and legitimate duty, has chosen to 
present, in a respectful, calm, and moderate way, certain reasons why a cer- 
tain thing should not be done will add to the mystery. There are jingoes in 
Japan, as a distinguished countryman of mine said the other day, but I have 
heard of none so forgetful of right, of friendship, and of interest as to make 
the declaration recently attributed to Japan by a prominent American jour- 
nal, kt Let us send a few war ships to the United States." 

This is a delicate subject, I know, but I can not refrain from saying that 
Americans especially should appreciate the solicitude which Japan feels in 
the welfare of her subjects in foreign countries. The Japanese Government 
has never permitted the establishment of anything like a " cooly " system 
among her people. If they go abroad, it desires that they shall go as men, 
and not as numbers, and it asks and expects for them the same treatment 
and the same protection as are accorded to other strangers. Whatever may 
be said to the contrary, the Japanese are not an emigrating people; but, to pro- 
vide for all contingencies, an emigration law has been enacted, carefully 
framed, to protect the emigrant and to prevent him from going to countries 
where he would not be welcome. 

Japanese emigration to Hawaii involves this, among other questions. 
That emigration was instituted upon the solicitation of Hawaii under the 
strictly guarded stipulations of a special treaty. The welfare, much less the 
independence, of Hawaii has never been endangered by the operations of 
that treaty. On the contrary, Japanese immigration was zealously promoted 
and encouraged in the islands until political contingencies rendered another 
nolicy advisable. Japan did not seek the treaty, but her people have been 
induced to resort to Hawaii under the guaranties it provides, and certainly 
no one with any sense of justice can now blame her for endeavoring to con- 
serve their rights. 

Touching upon another, yet a cognate subject, it may be said most emphat- 
ically that the Japanese nation has no tendency toward territorial aggran- 
dizement. Neither in the past history of the empire nor in its modern annals 
can there be found any trace of such a spirit. Formosa was taken from 
China, but that was in lieu of indemnity which it was inconvenient for China 
to pay; besides, the status of Formosa as an appendage of China has not 
always been strictly maintained. At one time the Japanese, Chinese, and 
Dutch simultaneously occupied different parts of the island. More recently 
Japan sent an expedition thither, with the consent of China, as was supposedt 
to punish the savages for their cruelty to shipwrecked seamen. 

Historically, therefore, there were close relations between Japan and 
Formosa. The most conclusive reason, however, in favor of the cession of 
the island is that by geographical position it is a natural addition to the Em- 
pire. The cession of the Liao-tung peninsula is the only other instance of 
the forcible acquisition of territory by Japan. The peninsula was returned 
3571 



39 

to China, and although the return excited some popular disapproval, it was 
not so much on account of the loss of territory as because of the manner of 
retrocession. I repeat, therefore, that history affords no example of greed 
of territorial aggrandizement on the part of Japan. It is as foreign to the 
genius of her people as it is to the designs of her Government. The charge 
that she intends, either by forcible seizure or by peaceful occupation, to ac- 
quire possession of a country thousands of miles distant and totally without 
the sphere of her territorial influence can therefore only be accounted for 
in one of two ways. It is cither prompted by ignorance or by interested 
motives. 

Japan's real ambition lies in quite another direction. In her geographical 
position, her natural resources, as well as in the capacity and adaptability of 
her people, she perceives the surest means of attaining national greatness. 
The watchwords of the Japan of to-day are enterprise and industry. The 
people have turned their attention to commerce, to manufactures, and to the 
arts. They realize the advantages their country possesses, and are doing 
what they can to utilize them. They may not yet have reached the full 
measure of their ambition, but they loolc forward hopefully to the time when 
Japan will be the emporium of tiie Orient, firmly bound to her neighbors, 
east and west, by the strong ties of mutual interest. 

Mr. WHITE. I have called attention to these declarations for 
the purpose of showing the attitude taken by leading Japanese 
with relation to Hawaii and as containing a fair and clear expres- 
sion entirel} T at variance with the assumed hostility which it is 
sought to charge upon the Japanese nation with reference to our 
course in the Pacific. I shall have occasion, no doubt, to call the 
attention of the Senate to several happenings in Hawaii bearing 
upon this topic and to the fact that the presence of a labor ele- 
ment not considered either homogeneous or desirable by our peo- 
ple is occasioned not by any means solely because of the will of 
Japan, nor because of legislation antedating the establishment of 
the Republic, but since then contract laborers have not only been 
imported, but their number has been materially 'augmented. 

It may not be out of place to say that although when some 800 
ordinary immigrants from Japan were about to be landed a dis- 
pute arose and they were excluded, nevertheless since then more 
than 2,000 contract laborers have been admitted by the Hawaiian 
board of immigration. These recent importations are far less de- 
sirable than those who have been denied entrance. Hence the 
Hawaiian Government — the best on earth, as we are told by an- 
nexationists— has permitted and is permitting the importation of 
a class against which they and their friends are ostensibly pro- 
testing. 

But, Mr. President, we see that the theory upon which the great 
men whose views I have attempted to cite was based regarding 
Hawaii is not infringed upon or interfered with by anything that 
is happening to-day. Their constant and unalterable, continued 
and universal, statement was that we would not suffer the islands 
to pass into hostile hands, but that we were anxious for their 
freedom and the maintenance there of an independent govern- 
ment. 

Senators may say that the sentiments of the Japanese Govern- 
ment as mentioned by me are of late date, and that that nation 
did formerly entertain different views. I do not think so. But, 
occupying her vantage ground, the American Republic contem- 
plates all the world, and at this hour finds no people willing to 
dispute her oft-expressed edict that Hawaii must be free. 

Those who are attempting to grant Hawaii to us find it to their 
interest to insist that there is danger of foreign interference. But 
this is not true. No proof has been adduced. Mere assertion in 
such a case must be unavailing to warrant important action. 

Mr. President, there is scarcely a break in the line of authority 
an 



40 

upon this subject, and the occasional expression in favor of annex- 
ation is uniformly predicated upon the fear that some other power 
may intervene. Never did any statesmen assert that if the Ha- 
waiian Islands were capable of maintaining their own govern- 
ment, whether a republic or such other form of rule as they might 
elect, we should interfere. 

Mr. Marcy, on January 31, 1855, made this most positive declara- 
tion. In writing to Mr. Gregg he said that the policy of the 
United States was — 

Not to accelerate or urge on any important change in the government of that 
country, but if it has or should become so far enfeebled that it can not be 
continued, and the sovereignty of the islands must be transferred to another 
power, then a state of things will exist in which it will be proper for the 
United States to have a regard to the future condition of that country.— 
Idem, page 133. 

In the same letter Mr. Marcy declares that the draft of the 
treaty was not satisfactory, that the President believed that strong 
objections to the immediate incorporation of the islands as a State 
existed, and that there were other objections; that the amounts 
to be paid as annuities, etc., were too large, and that the treaty, 
deviating in many particulars from the terms suggested by thV 
United States, was not acceptable. 

This about concluded the incident as far as Mr. Marcy was con- 
cerned, and while he did attempt to bring about annexation, it will 
be observed, whatever the fact may have been, that he professed 
throughout the entire negotiations that we should accept Hawaii 
in order to escape European domination. But the experience of 
forty-odd years shows conclusively that there never was any dan- 
ger of foreign interference that could not be promptly checked by 
the declaration Of the intention of the United States. 

Heretofore the mere announcement of its policy through the 
Executive has been adequate, even though the situation looked 
serious. Now it is proposed to add to the warnings heretofore 
given a joint resolution which will manifest the views of all de- 
partments of the Government, and which will plainly notify the 
world that the United States does not wish this independent Gov- 
ernment interfered with. Such a resolution is pending, having 
been introduced by myself. 

Why such warning will not be effective now, when we are much 
stronger than formerly and far better able to cope with important 
questions, is more than I can conceive. 

Mr. McBride, the representative of this Government at Hono- 
lulu in 1863, was an ardent annexationist, and the main purpose 
which seemed to animate him was the protection of the Americans 
on the islands by annexation. He represented, in addition to the 
other attractions which might be found on the islands, that a 
deputation which had been sent by the British Government to 
report upon the cotton-growing industry made a report which was 
said to be favorable; and he continues: 

The cotton-growing capacity of these islands has been sufficiently tested 
to demonstrate it as a fact that it is not at all inferior to Alabama, Georgia, 
or Mississippi, either as to quality or quantity per acre.— Foreign Relations 
United Stages, Appendix 2, pages 135-13t>. 

He also refers to the coffee industry, which he says is propitious. 

On the 5th of February, 1864, the Secretary of State reported 
that an application had been made for the revival of a treaty which 
had been negotiated during the Administration of President Pierce, 
but which was not approved by the Senate. Says the Secretary: 

After due consideration, however, especially in connection with the prob- 
able effect of such a measure on the public revenue at this juncture, it is not 
3571 



41 

Seemed advisable further to entertain the subject. — Foreign Relations 
United States, Appendix 2, page 136. 

In acknowledging the receipt of Mr. McBride's note Secretary 
Seward made no definite statement as to the policy of the Govern- 
ment. The fears of Mr. McBride regarding the British invasion 
turned out to be purely visionary. 

Mr. McCook, under date of September 3, I860, refers to the fact 
that many of the American residents have rendered themselves 
obnoxious to the King and his cabinet by unwarranted interfer- 
ence, etc., in the political affairs of the Kingdom. He also says: 

Another class of Americans, the missionaries, have controlled the political 
affairs of the country since 1820. They are dissatisfied because within the 
last few years they have lost their hold upon the Government and its offices. 
The first class of Americans are generally disappointed adventurers; the 
second class are religionists, who, having once exercised supreme power in 
church and state, feel all the bitterness of disappointment at seeing their po- 
litical power pass into other hands, and knowing that the native population 
is beginning to listen to a religion preached from other pulpits than their 
own, etc.— Foreign Relations United States, Appendix 2, page 138. 

Mr. McCook expressed the opinion that a test would find the 
people of the islands " demanding, by votes freely expressed, an- 
nexation to the United States." 

In a letter from Secretary Seward to Mr. McCook, dated Sep- 
tember 12, 1867 (Foreign Relations, United States, Appendix 2, 
page 143) , there are expressions showing that Secretary Seward 
preferred " a lawful and peaceable annexation of the islands to 
the United States with the consent of the people of the Sandwich 
Islands." Those are the terms in which the Secretary framed his 
sentiments. 

Afterwards, July 5, 1868, Mr. Seward, in communicating with 
Mr. Spalding, said, and his letter is quite interesting: 

Sir: Your letter of the 14th of April has been received and carefully read. 
The information which you give of the excitement which is prevailing in 
Honolulu in regard to the annexation of the Sandwich Islands is very inter- 
esting. You suggest a system of proceeding here with reference to that ob- 
ject which could not possibly, at the present time, obtain the sanction of any 
Department of this Government. 

Without going into an explanation of the causes for the condition of na- 
tional sentiment which temporarily exists, it is enough to say that the public 
attention sensibly continues to be fastened upon the domestic questions 
which have grown out of the late civil war. The public mind refuses to dis- 
miss these questions, even so far as to entertain the higher but more remote 
questions of national extension and aggrandizement. The periodical Presi- 
dential and Congressional elections are approaching. Each of the political 
parties seems to suppose that economy and retrenchment will be prevailing 
considerations in that election, and the leaders of each party, therefore, seem 
to shrink from every suggestion which may involve any new national enter- 
prise, and especially any foreign one. 

How long sentiments of this sort may control the proceedings of the Gov- 
ernment is uncertain, but in the meantime it will be well for you not to allow 
extravagant expectations of sympathy between the United States and the 
friends of annexation in the islands to influence your own conduct. You 
will continue, however, to write me upon the subject freely, as you have 
hitherto done.— Foreign Relations United States, Appendix 2, page 144. 

From this it appears that Mr. Spalding was probably engaged 
in a revolutionary scheme which Secretary Seward promptly dis- 
posed of. Whatever ideas Seward may have entertained favoring 
annexation in 1867, he changed his mind later on, as this corre- 
spondence witnesses. 

Much has been said with reference to the message of President 
Johnson of December 9, 1868, in which he said: 

A reciprocity treaty, while it could not materially diminish the revenues 
of the United States, would be a guaranty of the good will and forbearance 
of all nations until the people of the islands shall of themselves, at no dis- 
tant day, voluntarily apply for admission into the Union.— Foreign Relations 
United States, Appendix 2, page 146. 
3571 



42 

Care was always taken by the officials until very recently to 
note that the acquiescence of the people was necessary. And 
while perhaps this matter may be further on elaborated, we must 
not forget the distinction attempted to be drawn by the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Relations when they say that we can only deal 
with a government; that every people act through and by a gov- 
ernment, and that we can not otherwise hold official intercourse. 

Mr. President, in the case of the annexation of Texas there was 
registered a free and untrammeled vote favoring annexation; and 
in every word that was written or spoken upon that issue there 
was evinced a determination to act in accordance with the will of 
the people of Texas. I grant, as a legal proposition conclusive, 
that in dealing with a foreign power we must treat with the organ- 
ized government; but when we propose to annex a nation, to sweep 
from the family of sovereignties one of its members, we, a gov- 
ernment organized by the people and claiming to exercise our 
functions pursuant to the will of the people, can not afford to 
bring within this communion masses of men unwilling to come. 
Grant that the technical right of alienation exists in a government 
which pro hac vice may be lawfully empowered so to act, still we 
have the authority to go behind the mere form. The question 
within our discretion is, Shall we annex a people not desirous of 
the affiliation? 

Never should this Republic, based upon universal suffrage and 
dependent for its life and for its existence upon the common 
acquiescence and support of all its citizens, compel to its mem- 
bership men who are alien to it in sympathy and feeling, or who 
wish to remain without it. They are foreign and hope to so 
remain. 

President Johnson also Remarked in the same document that 
the— 

attitude of the United States toward these islands is not very different from 
that in which they stand toward the West Indies— Idem., page 146. 

Mr. Spalding, in a letter which appears in the document and on 
the page last above cited, says: 

I feel that the desire for annexation is stronger to-day than it has been at 
any time since my arrival on the islands, simply because the prospects of the 
treaty are felt to be almost hopeless and the planters must have relief by 
annexation. — Idem, page 147. 

For such relief did these planters then work: for that relief they 
have since toiled. The relief mentioned took the form some years 
ago of a virtual bonus or bounty on sugar— or, more correctly, 
tariff exemptions equivalent to a bounty — indirectly paid to them 
by the Government of the United States under an existing treaty. 
Asses?ments, as I understand, are being levied to-day upon every 
ton of sugar produced in the island to forward the interests of an- 
nexation. The planters are strong; millions are involved. The 
treaty may any day be stricken dead either by the hand of legis- 
lation or by failure to continue it. Annexation means continued 
absence of tariff taxation. Hence this struggle. 

The situation referred to by Mr. Spalding years ago was evi- 
dently similar to that now prevailing. The planters needed re- 
lief, viz, exemption from tariff taxation. They were practically 
looking out for a bounty. The scheme was then, as it is now, 
utterly selfish. 

In another place in the same letter Mr. Spalding says: 

The truth is that so long as there was a chance for receiving the benefits 
of free trade with the United States and escaping taxation men who had 
capital invested here were generally opposed to annexation. — Idem. 
8571 



43 

Tims it comes about that there is very little patriotism con- 
nected with this matter, so far as leading annexationists upon the 
island are concerned. They are looking out for themselves. They 
are not to he blamed for doing so. They are struggling as many 
struggle, and as we all struggle more or less in the private walks 
of life to augment our fortunes and better oar conditions. While 
not censuring them for these interested efforts, while not wonder- 
ing that they thus exert themselves for their own advantage, yet 
it behooves us, under the circumstances in which we are placed, 
■ to judge of this matter from a wholly different and, I may be 
permitted to say, a loftier standpoint. 

The letters of Mr. Pierce to Mr. Fish (Foreign Relations United 
States, Appendix 2, pages 152-153) show that annexation was 
simply considered as an alternative in the event that reciprocity 
could not be accomplished. And it is to be noted that in the first 
of these communications (February 10, 1873) Mr. Pierce states 
that it is expected to succeed in procuring reciprocity — 

By offering to the United States a quid pro quo. the cession of the sover- 
eignty and proprietorship of the spacious, landlocked, easily defended harbor 
or estuary known as Ewa or Pearl River, in this island, 10 miles distaut from 
Honolulu, and also to include the territory surrounding it, say 10 miles 
square in all. 

This was before the treaty was negotiated, and perhaps the 
statement may be more or less of value in construing the grant in 
the treaty, which we will do later on. 

After this General Schofield was sent to the islands with Colonel 
Alexander for the purpose of investigating Pearl Harbor. 

The opinions of Mr. Blaine were undoubtedly favorable to an- 
nexation. His views as to the extension of the domain of the 
United States are quite well understood, and the theories which 
were carried out in the Samoan folly failed to prevail as to Hawaii. 

Mr. Blaine, in his letter to Mr. Comly of December 1, 1881, de- 
clares, in speaking of the islands, that— 

Their fertile resources for the growth of rice and sugar would not only be 
controlled by American capital, but so profitable a field of labor would attract 
intelligent workers thither from the United States.— Foreign Relations of 
United States, Appendix 2, page 170. 

A statement without anything to support it; and there never 
will be a day when the coffee planters of the Hawaiian group or 
the sugar raisers there located will furnish any field for intelli- 
gent American labor. It is somewhat singular that Mr. Blaine 
should have been so ill informed as to American labor. Although 
the sugar plantations have been under American control for a 
long time, and while the same may be said of the coffee planta- 
tions, American labor has not been attracted thither, and the 
American laboring man will never work in rice or cane fields. 

This may be said to be generally the history of our policy as far 
as Hawaii is specifically concerned, and from it we glean that the 
idea of annexation has, as a rule, emanated from the sugar peo- 
ple, and that because American planters needed protection our 
consular officers have assumed that the whole country must be 
captured. 

The earlier statesmen, and those whose views are most entitled 
to respect, have not concurred in this theory. 

[At this point, without having concluded his speech, Mr. White 
yielded the floor for the day.] 

3571 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE, 

of california, 
In the Senate of the United States, 

Wednesday, June 22 ', Tuesday, July 5, and Wednesday, July 6, 180S» 

The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) 
to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. WHITE said: 

Mr. President: I am aware that a full consideration of this 
interesting subject can not be had if we are to regard those only 
who are prepared to subject the important to the frivolous — 
affairs of international moment and permanent domestic policy 
to local interest and selfish view. Did I not firmly believe that 
the issues now before us are far-reaching I would not detain the 
Seriate longer. 

I attempted yesterday to criticise the pending resolution, not 
merely as to the merits of the case, but in view of its inherent 
contradictions and manifest absurdities. I have faith the com- 
mittee will either withdraw the resolution or certainly alter its 
form fundamentally. 

Mr. President, I endeavored yesterday to enlist the attention of 
those charged with the duty of knowing something about this 
subject to the opinion expressed by eminent statesmen who have 
passed away, and I quoted from them quite liberally. Looking 
over the reports of the Committee on Foreign Relations here and 
elsewhere— and the reports made in both bodies of Congress are 
practically identical, and may, therefore, I suppose, be referred to 
with indifference — I find it is said that the late Secretary of State, 
Mr. Sherman, favored annexation. 

It is true that he signed a document connected with and accom- 
panying the message of the President of the United States in 1897 
which contained the proposed treaty which we were expected to 
ratify. I do not know whether the Secretary of State examined 
that message with care, but various circumstances have occurred 
to indicate that he did not. 

However that may be, when he was compiling the work which 
is called The Recollections of John Sherman, he not only used, at 
the close of that book, the phraseology which has been quoted 
3571 45 



46 

here already in this debate, but he made another declaration, 
which has not been cited, and which I shall venture to read in a 
moment. 
The following is in Mr. Sherman's works, volume 2, page 121G: 

The events of the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I hope that 
our people will be content with internal growth and avoid the complications 
of foreign acquisitions. Our family of States is already large enough to cre- 
ate embarrassment in the Senate, and a republic should not hold dependent 
provinces or possessions. Every new acquisition will create embarrass- 
ments. Canada and Mexico as independent" republics will be more valuable 
to the United States than if carved into additional States. The Union al- 
ready embraces discordant elements enough, vnthoiit adding others. If my 
life is prolonged, I will do all I can to add to the strength and prosperity of 
the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add new dangers by 
acquisition of foreign territory. 

But this is not all, Mr. President. The same distinguished 
statesman, selected by the present Administration for its Secre- 
tary of State, and who entered into the public service on the same 
day, I believe, that signalized the acceptance of office by the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Vermont [Mr. Morrill], this man of 
wide knowledge, acquired not only in both Houses of the National 
Legislature but in two Cabinets, again declared, on page 1039 of 
his book already cited, as follows: 

It is not worth while to follow the line of events that resulted in making 
Great Britain. Germany, and the United States the guardians of these far- 
distant, half-civilized, mercurial, and combative orientals. 

He refers to the Samoan tribes, in which we have a third inter- 
est. 

The only interest the United States had in these islands was the possession 
and ownership of the Bay of Pago Pago, acquired by a treaty in 1878 between 
the United States and the King of Samoa. The repeated wars on a small 
scale that have occurred since that time and the complications and expense 
caused by the tripartite protectorate of the islands furnish another example 
of the folly of the United States in extending its property rights to lands in a 
far-distant sea. Our continental position ought to dissuade us from acquiring 
outside possessions which, in case of war, would cost the United States more 
to defend than their value. 

This, Mr. President, was written by Mr. Sherman when he was 
a member of this body— written by him deliberately— penned in a 
work through which he desired to give to posterity not only a 
statement of his career but an elucidation of his opinions. Since 
he ceased to be Secretary of State there was published— and I think 
there has been no denial of the accuracy of the statement— in a 
prominent newspaper of the United States, on May 16, 189S, the 
following interview: 

NOT A AVAR FOR CONQUEST. 

This is not a war for the acquisition of territory. We do not want to in- 
crease our territorial lines. It is a war in the interest of humanity and 
Christianity. We could not blindfold ourselves to the fact that cruelty and 
oppression existed under our very eyes. The sentiment of Congress— and 
Congress voices the sentiment of the country— was clearly in favor of war, 
if need be, to free Cuba from Spanish rule. The President and his Cabinet 
did all they could to stem the tide, but they failed. Congress was of one 
mind, and a war with Spain was the result. 

When we demanded of Spain that she relinquish her control and domi- 
nation of her possessions in the Western Hemisphere, we made a demand 
which was unusual. It is not the custom at this end of the century to formu- 
late a demand upon a foreign power such a3 we made upon Spain, but we 
were forced to it. Misrule in Cuba became unbearable, and there was only 
cue thing to do, and that was to demand the freedom of Cuba from Spanish 
pule. This Congress did. 
3571 



47 

War having been declared, it becomes the duty of every good citizen to 
support the Government that it may be able to carry the struggle to a suc- 
cessful conclusion. 

As I said before, this is not to be a war of conquest. We do not want terri- 
tory- We do not want the spoils of war, but we want justice- to humanity. 
If I were in public life, I should oppose to the fullest extent of my ability the 
retention of any of the Spanish possessions. As I oppose the annexation of 
the Hawaiian Islands, I would fight against the annexation of Cuba, the Phil- 
ippines, or Puerto Rico. If these islands were to become a part of the terri- 
tory of the United States, we would have everything to lose and nothing to 
gain. We might easily have secured a coaling station in the islands without 
assuming sovereignty over them. The same would apply with equal force 
and effect if we were to take in Cuba and the other Spanish possessions. 

THEY WOULD BE A SOUECE OE WEAKNESS. 

To my mind there is no reason why we should annex either Cuba, the 
Philippines, or Hawaii. They would be a source of weakness rather than of 
strength. Our Navy would have to be largely increased, an increased stand- 
ing Army would have to be maintained, and we would have under our care 
a mongrel population, partly uncivilized. There is no reason why we should 
establish a protectorate over any of these islands. 

Mr. President, it will be observed that I have referred to the 
distinguished statesman from Ohio and have given his estimate 
of annexation made some time ago in his work and also his ideas 
disclosed last month. It would appear that the judgment which 
he gave to the world in the first instance has been approved by his 
more mature and latest expression. 

The Committee on Foreign Relations tells us by citing from the 
Presidential message that Mr. Sherman favors annexation. We 
have, as I have observed, his early protest against it, and the later 
interview, when he stood unfettered by the courtesies and embar- 
rassments of the office of Secretary of State. His sole motive was 
then to give to the country the same candid sentiments which are 
embodied in his Recollections. Certainly the citation made by 
the Committee on Foreign Relations is not worthy of very serious 
consideration. 

Thus we have practically a uniform expression upon this sub- 
ject, extending to this day and debate. 

THE HAWAIIAN GROUP— ITS SITUATION. 

At this point I will venture to allude to the location of the 
islands and the possibility of their value to us. 

First, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the situation 
of the Hawaiian Islands. It is common talk that everyone under- 
stands this branch of the controversy thoroughly, and yet I read 
not long ago a statement made by a prominent judicial officer of 
California to the effect that the argument urged in this Chamber 
by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pettigrew] that Manila 
was not as far from San Francisco via Unalaska as via Honolulu 
was unfounded, and even observed that an inspection of any map 
would sustain his criticism. 

Mr. President, this gentleman and others adopting the same 
argument forget that they reside upon a globe. It is to be sup- 
posed that such critics at some time were aware of this fact and 
are merely suffering from want of memory. 

I requested the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Sur- 
vey to give me a statement of the sailing distance from San Fran- 
cisco via Honolulu to Manila, and the sailing distance from San 
Francisco via Unalaska, touching at Yokohama, to the same 
point, and taking into consideration the deviations necessary to 
touch at both points. As a result of that inquiry the Superin- 
tendent forwarded me the note which I ask may be read. 

3571 



48 

The Secretary read as follows: 

Treasury Department, 
Office of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, 

Washington, D. C, June 15, 1808. 
Sir: In reply to your letter received yesterday I beg leave to forward the 
following data. 

Computed distances of steamer routes (on great circles and allowance for 
rounding of capes or islands) : 

Nautical miles. 

San Francisco (Point Bonita) to Unalaska 2,035 

TJnalaska to Yokohama (via Cape Mela) 2,550 

Yokohama to Manila 1,790 

Fan Francisco to Honolulu.-. 2,083 

Honolulu to Manila (via S. Bernadino passage) 4,710 

■ Respectfully, yours, HENRY S. PRITCHETT, 

Superintendent. 
Hon. Stephen M. White, 

United States Senate, V/ashington, D. C. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, it will be observed, taking these 
courses as indicated by the Superintendent of the Coast and Geo- 
detic Survey and which are most favorable to the Honolulu route, 
that the aggregate distances from San Francisco to Manila are 
more than 400 miles less with all these deviations via Unalaska 
and via Yokohama than via Honolulu, and if those who are in- 
terested in the matter examine the Philippine group it will be 
noticed that the route referred to by the Superintendent of the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey is by the south end of the Island 
of Luzon, which is not always the course adopted. It is the 
shorter. So that if we touch at the two points which I have 
named and make the necessary allowances mentioned in this let- 
ter, we still have a difference of about 418 miles in favor of the 
Unalaska route: and if we make none of these allowances and 
take the ordinary sailing route, the saving is much more. 

Mr. President, there are other things which perhaps are not 
always thought of by those who consider this subject in a cursory 
way. I refer to the matter of distances. We often hear it said, 
and we have heard it remarked here during the last few weeks, 
that we need the Hawaiian Islands in order to defend the Nica- 
ragua Canal. I am in favor of the construction of the Nicaragua 
Canal. I need not say that here, for I have publicly and privately, 
and in every way possible, advocated its building, and am anxious 
to-day to forward the intention of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. 
Morgan] . who presented a measure to the Senate yesterday which 
I know will meet the support of many of us regarding that very 
important and most material enterprise. 

But if we are anxious to learn anything about this matter, if 
we really wish to know anything about it, if it is not our purpose 
to remain in the fog and to avoid knowledge that we may not do 
too much violence to our prejudices, let us look at the facts. 
Honolulu is distant from Brito, the western terminus of the pro- 
posed canal, 4,210 miles. I have heard it said in debate in this 
Chamber that Honolulu looks into the mouth of the Nicaragua 
Canal. 

If there were any canal, and if there was any mouth to be looked 
into, it would be very difficult to make the observation from a 
point 4,210 miles distant, not only because that distance is some- 
what beyond the ordinary capacity of human observation, but 
also because it is somewhat difficult to gaze through that much of 
the earth or the ocean (our friends must still remember the form 
of the earth). But do we need Honolulu to defend the mouth of 
the canal, 4,210 miles away? 
f.571 



49 

How far is San Francisco from Brito, the western terminus of 
the Nicaragua Canal? San Francisco is 2,700 miles from Brito. I 
imagine that no nation will be justified in assuming a difference to 
be immaterial which consists of 1,510 miles; and if we are to de- 
fend the western mouth of the Nicaragua Canal when that canal 
is constructed, it would be well for us to do so from San Francisco 
and not from Honolulu, unless indeed we wish to give the enemy 
an immense advantage. 

Again, San Diego is about 500 miles nearer the intended western 
terminus of the Nicaragua Canal than San Francisco, and thus if 
we go to San Diego and make that the headquarters of our army 
of defense, we will have about 2,200 miles to sail as against 4,200 in 
case of Honolulu. Is that immaterial? Are 2,000 miles of any 
importance? Still, Mr. President, there are not a few, many of 
whom conceive themselves peculiarly qualified to seats in this 
Chamber, who may not know of these distances. 

Mr. President, in connection with what I have already said 
with regard to distances, I wish here to give the figures regarding 
the distances from Brito via Honolulu to Yokohama: 

Miles. 

Brito to Honolulu 4,210 

Honolulu to Yokohama 3,445 

Distance from Brito to Yokohama 7,655 

From Brito to Yokohama via San Francisco the distances are: 

Miles. 

Brito to San Francisco 2,700 

San Francisco to Yokohama 4,536 

Total 7,233 

or 419 miles shorter calling at San Francisco on the voyage from 
Brito to Yokohama than when calling at Honolulu. 

Mr. President, if we take into consideration the rotundity of the 
earth and take the shortest route possible from Brito to Y~oko- 
hama, that route will be found to be within about 100 miles of 
the harbor of San Francisco. Now, these are facts which no 
amount of oratorical effort and no confused statements in confus- 
ing reports of any kind and no declaration of Army or Navy offi- 
cers or other estimable people can change or alter. I am not an 
expert in military matters, and probably not otherwise, but I have 
learned in my brief career that experts are not very valuable wit- 
nesses. 

I have learned that whenever a man becomes a partisan — I care 
not to what vocation he belongs or whence he comes — his testi- 
mony must always be considered in the light of his interests. In- 
deed, no writer upon the law of evidence, no man who has thought 
about the effect of testimony or the credibility of mankind, has 
failed to recognize that the interest and prejudice and the bias of 
witnesses must affect their testimony. These observations are 
daily made by the careful court and acted upon by the competent 
jury. 

When an expert, whether a naval or an army expert, whether 
he belongs to one department or the other, asserts that we need the 
Hawaiian Islands in order to defend the Nicaragua Canal, such 
assertion is unwarranted, for the simple reason that it is much bet- 
ter and easier to defend from San Diego or San Francisco. We 
have large fortresses at those points. The harbor of San Francisco 
is quite well defended to-day, and powerful batteries have recently 
been put in place at San Diego. Hence, unless we are to erect an 
£571— 4 



50 

island in the sea— and that has not yet been proposed— there is no 
place in the Pacific Ocean from which we can defend the Nicaragua 
Canal, but there are places in the Stats of California from which 
it may be adequately and thoroughly protected. 

Mr. President, we are told that we need the Hawaiian Islands in 
order to defend the Pacific coast. Perhaps I ought not to venture 
to take issue with the naval experts who have so announced; but 
when they contradict each other, when gentlemen occupying high 
positions in the Army and Navy of the United States vary in con- 
clusions, we are warranted, perhaps, in examining the subject, 
for we know that somebody has made a mistake. I have a very 
high regard for Admiral Belknap and General Schofield; they are 
able, patriotic, and true. I wish they would not contradict each 
other so much, for my task would then be much easier. General 
Schofield paid a visit, as we have already been told, to Honolulu for 
the purpose of examining into the defenses proposed or suggested 
at that point. He made his report May 8, 1873, and in referring to 
the subject of Honolulu Harbor he said: 

There are many other so-called harbors or places for anchorage, hut they 
are mostly open roadsteads, affording shelter only from certain winds, and 
they are all entirely incapable of being defended by shore batteries. Even 
the harbor of Honolulu itself can not be defended from the shore. It is a 
small harbor lying seaward from the land and only protected from the sea 
by outlying coral reefs. 

An enemy could take up his position outside of the entrance to the harbor 
and command the entire anchorage, as well as the town of Honolulu itself. 
This harbor would therefore be of no use to us as a harbor of refuge in a war 
with a powerful maritime nation. 

Admiral Belknap was a witness before the Committee on For- 
eign Relations, and he took up this subject. On page 711 of the 
report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations we find the 
following: 

The Chairman. And you also have a general acquaintance with the Bay 
of Honolulu? 

Mr. Belknap. Yes; in my judgment Honolulu is one of the easiest de- 
fended ports in the world. They talk about ships attacking that harbor. The 
fact is, they can not do it successfully. A few heavy guns properly located 
would keep them away. 

Here are two distinguished officers, one of the Navy and the 
other of the Army. One of them tells us that Honolulu Harbor 
can not be fortified and the other says that it is the easiest place 
in the world to fortify. Are we to consider these gentlemen 
experts? No doubt they are experts, but they are like other 
experts — their testimony must be taken in view of the circum- 
stances surrounding them and their liability to make mistakes. 
Here are declarations the one directly in the teeth of the other. 
Can I be blamed if I throw down this testimony and with wearied 
voice ask for more light? Can we be censured if after this want 
of harmony we examine the matter for ourselves? When one 
advises us that the harbor of Honolulu can not be fortified at all 
so as to repel an enemy, and the other declares it is the easiest 
place in the world to fortify, we may be pardoned if we cast 
aside the entire testimony and look at the facts that we may draw 
our own conclusions. 

While there are no more splendid specimens of brave and intel- 
ligent manhood in the world than can be found in our Army and 
our Navy, we can not be dead to the fact that their business is 
that of war, and we can not be dead to the fact that the greater our 
Navy, the more bellicose our policy; the more frequently we are 
involved in just war, the better our soldiers and sailors are 

3571 



51 

pleased. It is not to their discredit. We have educated them to 
the pursuit of arms that they may defend their Government and 
conquer her foes. They are well qualified for this work. They 
are not of peace, and often not for peace. War brings promo- 
tion and offers magnificent triumphs. 

Now, Mr. President, let us analyze some of the statements 
made by those who are seeking to expert us into an untried policy. 

DO WE REQUIRE HAWAII?— A COALING STATION. 

We are informed that we need the Hawaiian Islands, among 
other reasons, because a coaling station is necessary. Keeping in 
mind that we already have a coaling station at Pearl Harbor, let 
us take up the value of the Hawaiian Islands as a matter of defense 
to our western coast. Against whom are we to protect ourselves? 
Are we to fight the British? Some time ago— not very long ago — 
most belligerent declarations were made every three or four days 
by some of our friends in this Chamber with reference to the 
British lion, who was then supposed to be seeking to devour us. 
Now we are more friendly, but we can not tell when our minds 
will change. We not only have the right to alter our opinions 
often, but we do so with great frequency, and now and then 
under conditions not wholly sustainable. 

IS HAWAII IN DANGER? 

The English Government does not need the Hawaiian Islands. 
At Esquimault, close by the State of Washington, Great Britain 
is possessed of one of the finest fortresses in the world. Her de- 
fenses there are almost equal to Gibraltar. There she is right in 
sight of the smoke of our civilization. She is not compelled to go 
2,100 miles from anywhere and be dependent upon a precarious 
supply of coal and provisions, but she has her coal and her sup- 
plies and everything right at our door. Surely she does not wish 
the Hawaiian group for the purpose of attacking the Pacific coast. 

Who needs it? Hawaii is 3,500 miles from Japan. Does anyone 
really and sincerely think that Japan intends to engage in war or 
has the remotest notion of ever engaging in war with this Re- 
public? Her interests are to a great extent ours. She has devel- 
oped marvelously within the last few years. She has joined in 
the great procession of progress and has enlisted the sympathies 
and admiration of all true citizens of the American Republic. 
To-day in our great Eastern shipyard of Philadelphia and in the 
great Western shipyard of San Francisco there are vessels build- 
ing by our mechanics for her navy. She has solicited trade with 
us. Day by day and hour by hour we are advancing our material 
interests with Japan. 

Our cotton, our wheat, and our flour are there finding a ready 
market. She solicits our assistance. Shall we warn her off when 
she approaches us with the legitimate profits of traffic? She does 
not oppose us. Shall we challenge the world and seek to discover 
an opponent? Are we striving to create hostility and opposition 
so as to formulate a basis to ostensibly justify us in aggressive 
conduct? 

Japan is and must be our friend. Her development means en- 
larged opportunity for us. Why drive her away? Why doubt 
her sincerity? Why question her honor? If her actions toward 
Hawaii excite doubt, negotiation— friendly, manly negotiation- 
will solve all. If we are hunting for a quarrel, let us select some 
nation less anxious for our good will. 

Does Germany seek Hawaii? Does France covet Hawaii? 

3571 



52 

France and England have declared in a treaty, as I stated yes- 
terday, made years and years ago, that they did not advise or 
encourage Hawaiian discord. That treaty constitutes a solemn 
promise of abstention from conquest. There is no nation on the 
face Cc the earth challenging the integrity of Hawaii, It is but 
natural that this should be true. Does any power care to engage 
in warfare with us in order to possess Hawaii? When we have 
declared that we will not permit any interference with her free- 
dom, have we grounds for the insinuation that any nation will 
question our authority or meet us in deadly combat as to a propo- 
sition which has received the acquiescence of all men for fifty 
years? 

Mr. President, I would not spend a minute in considering this 
aspect of the subject were it not that 1 have heard it asserted here 
and in other places that there is danger that some one will gobble 
our coveted islanders? For what purpose can any nation desire 
the Sandwich Islands? To attack us? Some of our military ex- 
perts have been lately described by Admiral Belknap at a dinner 
in Boston, which has" probably been noted by Senators here, in a 
fashion that I might not have ventured to picture them. He de- 
scribed Captain Mahan as "a mere writer of books," and yet Ma- 
han is the leading authority relied upon by annexationists. 

But do our military experts really mean what they say when 
they speak about an enemy attacking us from Hawaii? Some 
time ago I procured a statement from Chief Engineer Melville 
with reference to the speed and capacity of the Oregon and San 
Francisco, which were selected as types of our vessels, cruisers 
and battle ships. From that statement, which I have not here in 
detail, this fact appears: 

The battle ship Oregon, which, as we know, is one of our best 
war vessels, can run' at forced draft, if there is no accident and 
without recoaling, 2,400 knots; at ordinary cruising rates she 
could travel 5,040 knots. Under forced draft, 16. 79 knots per hour, 
she consumes 253 tons of coal per day, and she can keep this up 
six days. Under ordinary cruising rates, 10 knots per hour, she 
consumes 73 tons per day and can maintain this for twenty-one 
days. According to a statement made to me later from the De- 
partment, at the most economical speed her consumption per day 
would be 69^ tons, at a speed of 10£ knots per hour. 

Let us take into consideration the case of a vessel running at 
forced draft. Suppose that Honolulu were in the possession of 
an enemy having a battle ship as good as the Oregon. War ordi- 
narily means haste. Such a ship making the journey at full speed 
would have one day's sailing left when she reached our coast. If 
she proceeded at ordinary cruising rates, she would be able to turn 
around and get home, and that would be about all. But would 
any vessel or would any sane individual send a ship abroad to en- 
gage in a mortal conflict, and as a matter of choice, unless that 
ship had the capacity to turn about and come home? No base of 
supplies 2,109 miles distant is adequate to meet the demands of 
the modern battle ship or the modern cruiser, and no nation de- 
pending upon a base of supplies 2,100 miles away can wage naval 
warfare in this day and generation. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator permit me a moment? Have 
we not just dispatched a fine fleet and large transports a much 
greater distance than that — to Manila? 

Mr. WHITE. Undoubtedly; but does the Senator deny the 
figures that I am giving? We provide for recoaling these ships; 



53 

we send transports with them. It is but a little while since it 
was denied on this floor by annexationists that there could be 
coaling from transports. Coaling from transports is a subject 
not depending upon the acquisition of Honolulu or any other 
place. My proposition is that no base of supplies 2,100 miles away 
can be utilized by the modern battle ship or the modern cruiser 
in the warfare of to-day, and I say it because of the mathemati- 
cal propositions which I have enunciated here, based upon data 
derived from the office of the Chief of Engineers of the United 
States Navy. The argument of annexationists is that Hawaii is 
so near that it can be used as a base of operations. This I de- 
nounce as absurd. If coaling can be done by transports, we can 
be invaded regardless of our occupancy of Honolulu. 

Mr. HAW LEY. Will the Senator pardon me again for a mo- 
ment? I should like to know how, under his theories, Great 
Britain gets on with possessions all over the world which she de- 
fends with her steamships? 

Mr. WHITE. Great Britain, I suppose, has coal near enough 
to supply the vessels to which the distinguished Senator alludes, 
wherever she has any contest; but the fact is certain that a vessel 
designed for cruising by steam power can not be operated without 
coal, and that if she can not get coal within 2,100 miles she can 
not afford the risk of combat. 

Mr. LINDSAY. I will ask the Senator if Great Britain in any 
part of the world relies upon a coaling station as far distant from 
the territories over which she holds control as Honolulu is from 
the United States? 

Mr. WHITE. I think not. But, Mr. President, whatever may 
be done by Great Britain or by any other power, there are certain 
facts which no amount of statement or eloquent utterance can 
elide from this record or destroy as to their effective, conclusive 
nature. One of them is that if it takes 253 tons of coal a day to 
operate a battle ship under forced draft, and that battle ship con- 
tains only 100 tons of coal, it can not maintain a struggle; and a 
battle ship sent from Honolulu to our coast and cruising for any 
considerable time after arriving would become practically a use- 
less hulk tossed about by wind and wave, as noncombatant as a 
dead whale. 

But, Mr. President, this branch of the discussion is really not 
very material because of the obvious fact, to which I have already 
adverted, that no enemy intends to take the island. We are con- 
juring up a knight-errant panoplied for battle and are calling for 
aid to strike him down. We are hunting dream-created enemies. 
Visions of serried columns, of ships lined for action, flit in our fer- 
vid brains. Mighty empires active in preparing to destroy us are 
born and die in fancy's moments. These are chimeras. No real- 
ity threatens us. No nation is hunting for a fight with us on this 
account, and no nation ever will. 

But, Mr. President, we are told that Hawaii would be very valu- 
able for self-defense; that we need the country to defend our Pa- 
cific coast. I am anxious for the welfare and happiness and safetj 
of the entire Union. I am certainly not less so for that great State 
wherein I reside, where are to be found the closest and most 
cherished of my associations. But will we make a weak defense 
stronger by acquiring that which must also be defended? If our 
coast is not well protected now, will we make its protection easier 
by obtaining an addition that also must be fortified? Is it any 
answer to say to me, as the experts already referred to declare. 

3571 



54 

that if we had these distant ocean specks no enemy could reach us? 
Will this claim stand examination? First, we must have the enemy; 
and secondly, it will be well to consider the value as a defense of a 
remote point, days away, as a substitute for domestic fortifications. 

Consider our position on the Pacific coast. Harbors, roadsteads, 
places of embarkation comparatively easy of approach, and hence 
needing defense. But, Mr. President, if an enemy were about to 
strike th e city of Washington , would we rush to the city of New York 
in order to get ready to repel him? If the Pacific coast were threat- 
ened by any power (and the only power capable of hurting us is 
Great Britain), would we not depend upon our domestic and con- 
tinental fortifications and upon the vessels located near our shores? 
Would we not have by our side and within easy calling distance 
means adequate to guard us, all duly armed and prepared for ac- 
tion, with supplies and equipments at hand? With no remote 
possession to protect, with everything needed and required for 
our own defense at our door, we can well consider ourselves im- 
pregnable if we care for our interests with ordinary solicitude. 

Mr. President, will it be easier to defend our Pacific coast if 
we have these islands than if we allow them to remain under their 
present control? In the first place, for many years we have got- 
ten along very well without Honolulu; but if we take possession, 
we will find ourselves the proprietors of islands extending over 
more than 400 miles. What must we defend? Are we to defend 
Honolulu, which we are told by Admiral Belknap is the easiest 
place in the world to defend, or are we to defend Pearl Harbor, 
which G eneral Schofield certifies to us is a place very easy to guard? 
These two harbors are located on the island of Oahu. Is it enough 
to fortify them only? Admiral Belknap suggests §5,000,000 as an 
adequate appropriation to make a good defense for Honolulu. 

Caring not for the time being as to what it costs, let us suppose 
that any amount of money necessary is expended to fortify both 
of those harbors, and that they are impregnable, are there any 
other places where a hostile force can be landed? Undoubtedly 
many places. The large island of Oahu, the largest of the group, 
has several landing places, at two of which, and notably at Hilo, 
there is adequate facility for the discharging of a cargo. A re- 
cently constructed wharf at Hilo, as I am informed, has proved 
successful. But we must protect the whole group, not only be- 
cause they are productive, but also because we can not afford to 
allow our enemy to land anywhere. 

Hawaii is the largest island and can not be left to the mercy of 
the invader. 

It follows that if we are to possess Hawaii for defensive pur- 
poses, we must make immense investments both for fortifications 
and navj^. If no such outlay is essential, it is only because there is 
no ground to apprehend foreign interference. But that very cir- 
cumstance demonstrates the inadequacy and folly of the argument 
made here that the islands are absolutely vital to our defense. 

[At this point the Presiding Officer (Mr. Jones of Arkansas) 
announced that the hour of 2 o'clock had arrived, and by unani- 
mous consent the consideration of House joint resolution 259 was 
continued.] 

Mr. President, when we consider the remoteness of this group, 
when we consider the absence of any danger either to the Repub- 
lic of Hawaii from external causes in the way of foreign inter- 
ference, when we reflect on the strength of our own location and 

3571 



55 

the facilities that we there may enjoy for local defense, how 
absurd doss it seem to speak of annexation as a part of our 
policy. 

n.VWATI AND THE PHILIPPINES. 

But we are told that if we are to hold the Philippines we must 
have Hawaii. In the next breath the same speaker will tell us 
that he is not in favor of holding the Philippine Islands, but that 
he is in favor of annexing Hawaii. 

I think there are very few Senators who doubt that if we are to 
engage in the business of foreign acquisition and are to seek dom- 
ination over the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans, we might 
as well start in and take Hawaii. If such is to be our polic} r , if 
we are to follow that plan and extend our flag in signification of 
permanent occupation. I am strenuously opposed to a colonial or 
imperial policy. Before we take such a step let us definitely un- 
derstand whither we are drifting. If we are to become filibus- 
ters, let it be with our eyes open and in full view of the startling 
change in our national scheme. 

But we are advised that as Admiral Dewey has destroyed the 
Spanish fleet at Manila, we must have Honolulu in order to send 
him supplies, and especially coal. Senators declare that the Ha- 
waiian Government has violated the neutrality laws and that 
they may be disturbed. By whom? Again do we conjure up im- 
aginary dangers. Who is to object? 

A few days ago a prominent newspaper enthusiastically advo- 
cating annexation declared that Spain would object. I will not 
speak of our right to procure coal or other contraband. It is un- 
necessary to dwell upon that proposition. Spain is now engaged 
in objecting to all our warlike procedure. A protest on the part 
of Spain we would, perhaps, expect to meet as we met her opposi- 
tion at Manila. Who else objects? Do any of the supposed hos- 
tile nations of the earth who are— in the minds of certain Sena- 
tors—threatening our possessions object? Have we anyone, any 
nation, any diplomat, any power, protesting against our conduct? 
But. assuming for the time being that we are not embarking upon 
a career of conquest and that we do not intend, except for purposes 
of indemnity, to hold the Philippine group, assuming for the mo-, 
ment that that is the case, is there any justification for annexingN 
the Hawaiian Islands merely because, for the instant, they may be 
of assistance to us? 

Mr. President, surely we do not intend to absorb a nation or to 
adopt a new policy merely for the purpose of meeting the exigency 
of a moment. No, Mr. President, the object and purpose is deeper; 
the motive is deeper, and it is but illy concealed. It is well known 
by those who are most earnestly in favor of the plan now out- 
lined that this acquisition will furnish a powerful argument for 
the continuation of the territorial-expansion idea. 

I remarked some time ago, before the present war was declared, 
and before, perhaps, it was contemplated, that if we took Hawaii, 
the next thing to happen would be the annexation of other islands 
nearer the Orient, and when I made that statement someone arose 
and said that there were no islands that could be annexed, and 
that there was nothing therefore in my declaration. And yet, 
earlier than I supposed^ do I find myself confronted with the con- 
dition which I then so truly feared. If we consummate this 
scheme, it will be urged that we must have the Philippines because 
Hawaii is not of great value unless in connection with other po3- 
3571 



56 

sessions. We have an interest in the Samoan Islands, and when 
we have grabbed the Philippines something else will be required; 
and thus we will finally extend our empire heaven knows where, 
and will sanction a policy essentially imperialistic. 

Mr. President, no one can deny that the possession of remote 
countries inhabited by numerous barbarians necessitates the ex- 
ercise of much power and the expenditure of vast money. We 
are all prepared to and are expending millions in maintenance of 
the war with Spain. But when peace shall spread her lovely 
wings over the land and contention shall have ceased the efforts 
of diplomacy will impose a heavy burden in the way of indemnity 
upon our adversary, probably requiring the possession, at least 
for a time and by way of security, of oriental lands. Then the 
Polynesians, Malays, Chinese, Negritas, and semi-orang-outang3 
will demand our care. A large army and adequate naval force 
will be requisite. Our soldiers will operate in unhealthful climes 
and the American people will be compelled to determine whether 
the objects for which this Union was established can be conserved 
or maintained if we bring to and within it such peculiar elements. 

In a recent article written by the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama [Mr. Morgan] , and to be found in the North American 
Keview under the caption "What shall we do with the con- 
quered islands? " I find the following: 

The question of greatest difficulty that will be presented for solution by 
the United States at the close of the war with Spain will be the disposal of 
the Philippine and the Caroline islands. In respect of all the islands from 
which Spanish power is expelled by our arms, there is a proper and necessary 
reservation, to be made at the proper time, of limited areas that will include 
certain bays and hai'bors that are best adapted to the purposes of military 
outposts, and for coaling stations and places of refuge for our war ships and 
other national vessels. 

It is clear enough that the programme of expansion is behind 
this resolution. But do we want the Hawaiian Islands for any 
purpose except as a coaling station? No military expert or naval 
expert has intimated that they are essential otherwise than for 
military uses. No one pretends, or assumes to pretend, that we 
must defend the entire Hawaiian coast, though I believe that that 
will be necessary if there is any force in the military argument. 
But it is urged with great vehemence that we need a coaling sta- 
tion at this point. If so, let us proceed to get a coaling station. 
Some .of us think we have one now. 

Let us for a moment examine the provisions of our treaty with 
Hawaii in reference to that subject. If there is in the existing 
treaty, as I said yesterday, any defect which can be remedied in 
any way, why do we not try to remedy it? If we need a coaling 
station near Honolulu or at Pearl Harbor or anywhere else in the 
world, why do we not attempt to obtain one? If we require a 
refuge for our ships in Pearl Harbor, and if there is a technical 
defect in the grant of that harbor, why do we not by diplomatic 
effort attempt to remedy that defect? No; we will not remedy it. 
We will not provide for a coaling station, but we will take the 
entire group upon the pretext that we need a coaling station at 
this single point. 

Mr. President, would it be difficult to negotiate an alteration of 
the treaty? With whom would we be compelled to negotiate? We 
would be compelled to negotiate with the Government over which 
Mr. Dole presides. Would he be willing to provide for a coaling 
station at Pearl Harbor with the necessary rights of property for 



57 

its proper use? Undoubtedly so. Has he been asked? Has there 
been any effort to negotiate a treaty? When Mr. Dole came to 
these hospitable shores, and was elaborately entertained by our 
Government here, did we ever suggest to him that it would be a 
good thing to arrange for a coaling station? 

Mr. President, there has been no movement, we have been ad- 
vised, looking to the acquisition of any rights with reference to 
coaling in Pearl Harbor or elsewhere, except the making of the 
treaty to which I have already adverted, the second article of 
which is to be found on page 171 of Appendix 2, to which I have 
already referred, and is as follows: 

His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government 
of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, 
in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and re- 
pair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the 
United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other 
things needful to the purpose aforesaid. 

Mr. President, this appears to be a very clear grant, but it is 
urged that because of certain declarations made by Mr. Bayard 
this explicit and plain phraseology must be construed as limited in 
its effect to the time during which the other clauses of the treaty 
are in operation. Some time ago this subject was elaborately de- 
bated in this body, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama 
[Mr. Morgan] and the then distinguished Senator from Oregon, 
Mr. Dolph, argued with great force, it seemed to me, and conclu- 
sively, I thought and think, that this was an absolute grant and 
did not depend for its efficacy on the existence of the treaty as a 
whole. Itcontains unlimited authority. The expression " grant," 
without other clause to modify it, appears to me to involve an 
alienation which it is not possible for the grantor to impair. 

But, Mr. President, is it for a coaling station that we intend to 
change the precedents of our history and for the first time to go 
out into the midst of the deep and seize territory? Is it a coaling 
station only that you desire? If so, let us acquire, if we have not 
already acquired, our coaling station, and let the Government of 
the Hawaiian Islands proceed to work out its destiny, whatever 
that may be. 

Will you tell me, Mr. President, can anyone say to me, that no 
compact can be made with that so-called Republic? Perhaps so, 
if the cunning annexation diplomat shall step around the back door 
and whisper into President Dole's ear, " Do not agree to it;" but 
does anyone doubt, if we in good faith enter into a negotiation 
looking to the perfection of our title, if our title is not good, that 
we can succeed? Why not? Is it for the interest of the Dole gov- 
ernment to refuse it? No, Mr. President. 

Of what does the management of this distant Republic com- 
plain? Where is their peril? They claim to fear invasion. Will 
they therefore refuse to permit us to place at their very doors our 
armies and our navies, to be utilized in carrying out that policy 
of freedom from foreign interference upon which we have always 
successfully insisted? 

Mr. FAULKNER. I wish to ask the Senator from California a 
question for information, if he will permit me. 

Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 

Mr. FAULKNER. I ask whether the Government of the Ha- 
waiian Islands have ever made a claim that that grant of Pearl 
Harbor was limited to the existence of the treaty under which it 
was made? 

3571 



58 

Mr. WHITE. I do not know that they have. I can not say. 

Mr. FR YE. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Faulkner], I will say that the minister from the 
Hawaiian Islands at the time the treaty was entered into wrote 
an inquiry to our Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, as to whether 
or not this was a cession. Mr. Bayard's reply was that it was 
pari passu with the treaty, and that if the treaty was abrogated 
the cession would be abrogated too. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, as a matter of law I believe the 
cession of Pearl Harbor was complete. In the Congressional 
Record, volume 26, part 7, Fifty-third Congress, second session, 
July 2, 189-1, page 7030, I find the following remarks of Mr. Sher- 
man: 

Mr. Sherman. Mr. President, I wish to place before the Senate the exact 
historical facts with regard to our acquisition of a coaling station in the Ha- 
waiian Islands and the treaty relations we have with those islands. By a 
convention concluded on the 30th of Janruuw, 1875, we stipulated: 

"For and in consideration of the rights and privileges granted by His 
Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands in the next succeeding article of 
this convention, and as an equivalent therefor, the United States of America 
hereby agree to admit all the articles named in the following schedule, the 
same being the growth and manufacture or produce of the Hawaiian Islands, 
into all the ports of the United States free of duty." 

Among those articles was sugar, then produced in a comparatively small 
quantity in the Hawaiian Islands. That treaty, containing reciprocal pro- 
visions, was to expire at the end of seven years, at any time on the demand 
of either Government. At the end of the seven years, when the treaty had 
expired, an effort was made to extend it seven years longer. That was con- 
tested severely in the Senate Chamber, and there was much opposition to 
the extension of the treaty, because the statistics, showed that we had then 
lost $23,000,000 more than we had gained during the seven years by the free 
admission into our country of sugar and other articles. Then a new treaty- 
was made, entirely separate and distinct from the old treaty, and that treaty 
contains this stipulation 

Mr. Dolpii. When was that made? 

Mr. Sherman. In 1834. It provides: 

"Whereas a convention was concluded between the United States of Amer- 
ica and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands on the 30th day of Jan- 
uary, 1875, concerning commercial reciprocity." 

Then follow the recitals about the provisions of the treaty. Then it pro- 
ceeds: 

" The high contracting parties agree that the time fixed for the duration 
of the said convention shall be definitely extended for a term of seven years 
from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof, and further, until the 
expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall 
give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the high 
contracting parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the 
end of the said term of seven years or at any time thereafter." 

When this treaty was before the Senate there was great opposition to it for 
the reasons I have stated. Therefore, in order to find a consideration to be 
paid by the Hawaiian Islands to the United States for this enormous bounty, 
the Senator from Vermont, if I remember correctly, offered this additional 
consideration; and, in my judgment, the second treaty would have been 
baaten at the time it was pending but for the provision he offered. Here is 
the provision, and here is the absolute grant in perpetuity, according to the 
legal language of the grant, which gives us these islands for these purposes 
as one of the considerations for extending the treaty seven years more: 

"His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government 
of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, 
in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and re- 
pair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the 
United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other 
things needful to the purpose aforesaid." 

Here is an absolute, unconditional, unqualified grant that has been paid 
for by $23,000,000 already, and we agreed to extend the term seven years 
longer. Thus we have given a double consideration for this right. I have 
no doubt the Senator from Maine [Mr. Frye] will estimate the value of that 
privilege far more than I, but certainly we have already paid a large sum, 
and we have agreed to pay another sum equivalent to twenty-five or twenty- 
six million dollars, and we now possess by virtue of this treaty an exclusive 
right to enter upon and improve that harbor. 
8571 



59 

The provisions of the treaty as to the seven years applied only to the ad- 
mission of articles entered into the several countries named therein, but this 
special provision was, standing by itself, an absolute and conclusive convey- 
ance, so far as one government can convey to another the absolute and ex- 
clusive right in perpetuity to occupy that place for a coaling station and for 
other naval purposes. 

So it seems to me there is nothing in the argument of the honorable Sena- 
tor from Maine. We have paid, and doubly paid, for that, harbor. We own 
it now; it is now in our possession, and we have the right to improve it. 

Mr. President, it will thus be observed that the distinguished 
Senator, who at that time was chairman of the Committee on For- 
eign Relations, construed article 2 of this treaty as containing an 
absolute grant, and his view as to the legal effect of that compact 
was not dissented from by the distinguished Senator from Ala- 
bama [Mr. Morgan] , for that Senator said: 

Now, I will suppose that this bill is passed and the treaty is abrogated. 
Hawaii is released from all of it that is not obligatory upon her. I believe 
that Hawaii is not released from that fee-simple title, as I understand it and 
read it, which is contained in the treaty extension to Pearl Harbor, and which 
was said here to be the consideration of that extension. Nevertheless, at the 
time the ratifications of that treaty were exchanged and contemporaneously 
with it, as a part of the question of the exchange of ratifications, Mr. Carter, 
who was then minister to the United States from Hawaii, insisted that if the 
treaty of reciprocity was determined according to its terms, upon giving a 
year's notice thereupon the Pearl Harbor would revert to Hawaii. 

Then, Mr. President, the discussion proceeded, elucidating the 
statements made Ly Mr. Bayard, and upon which the contention 
of the revocability of the treaty depends. Mr. Dolph, then a 
Senator from Oregon, discussed the issue at considerable length, 
pointing out, it seems to me conclusively, the impossibility of the 
claim that Mr. Bayard had any authority by his mere opinion to 
disturb or modify a contract entered into x>ursuant to the Consti- 
tution. It must, of course, be conceded that there are moral con- 
ditions connected with this affair and that the statements of Mr. 
Carter and Mr. Bayard might have induced the home Government 
to take affirmative action in the premises; but whether there be 
any such difficulty about the matter or not, trhere is nothing to 
hinder the making of a supplemental agreement or convention or 
an alliance giving us all the rights which we desire in Pearl 
Harbor, and all desirable coaling privileges. 

If we really need a coaling station in the Hawaiian Islands, it 
does not follow that we need the Hawaiian Islands. If we need 
a coaling station in China, it dees not follow that we need China. 
Mr. Dole, as the careful conservator of the interests of his people, 
and the whole Hawaiian people will be glad to have us on hand 
with our naval and military establishment. They will be pleased 
to have our guns and other protection to enforce the declaration 
to which I have already referred, whereby we inhibit interference 
from without. 

Let us have the evidence of any honest effort by anybody to 
enter into a negotiation to perfect the Pearl Harbor grant, and 
then I will consider with you whether we must engage in the 
business of appropriating the entire Hawaiian Republic. I regard 
it, for reasons already pointed out and for others that might 
readily be given, as immaterial; but my point is that, granted, 
for the sake of the argument, that we must have a coaling station, 
you do for that reason insist upon appropriating the Hawaiian 
Republic. 

Mr. President, we have a coaling station in the Samoan Islands, 

3571 



GO 



which we obtained by virtue of the tripartite agreement into 
which we entered with two monarchic powers, a treaty whereby 
we agreed to dethrone a king and to place another upon the 
throne. This Republic entered into that compact, and we are 
sow maintaining and carrying it out. By this peculiar arrange- 
ment we obtained a coaling station 4,000 miles from San Francisco. 

I do not believe that there has ever been anyone in our Depart- 
ment of State so inefficient that he could not negotiate a proper 
contract with reference to a coaling station either at Honolulu or 
at Pearl Harbor — the place to be selected by Admiral Belknap and 
General Schofield. 

if I am right in this regard, the whole annexation job is ended. 
Personally, I consider that there is no necessity for a coaling sta- 
tion at Hawaii. My belief is that Unalaska^and Kiska, in the 
Aleutian group, furnish more eligible sites. I assume, however, 
for the time being, that we have use for such a station in the 
Sandwich Islands, and even upon that basis it is obvious we are 
not required to assume the duty of governing such a population 
at such a point. 

I have already referred -to the coal capacity of modern vessels 
for the purpose of demonstrating that the Hawaiian Islands can 
never be made a base of operations against the United States, and 
also to prove how ridiculous is the assertion that Honolulu and 
Manila are near enough for naval-aggression purposes. 

For this purpose I in-ert a table "furnished by Chief Engineer 
Melville to the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Petti- 
grew]: 

"Washington, D v C, January 11, 1898. 

Sir: Your letter of January 5, 1893, addressed to the Secretary of the 
Navy, requesting certain information as to the coal capacity and steaming 
radius of first-class battle ships and cruisers of the first rate, has been re- 
ferred to this Bureau. 

In reply the Bureau transmits the following table, which contains the in- 
formation desired: 



Name. 


Type. 


Coal- 
bunker 
capacity. 


Steaming 
radius on 
this coal at 
most eco- 
nomic rate. 


Steaming 
radius on this 
coal at maxi- 
mum speed 
with forced 
draft. 


Iowa ---l 


First-class battle ship 
.. do .. 


Tons. 
1,790 
1,550 
1,560 
1,510 
1,300 
1,200 
1,600 
1,520 
1,100 


Knots. 

*6,000 
4.805 
4,797 
5,205 
4.342 
4,486 

*7,000 
6,824 
6,105 


Knots. 

t2,355 
12,671 




...do. 


t2,265 


Oregon 

Brooklyn 


do 

Armored cruiser 

do 


£2,448 
1 1,404 
1 1,344 


Columbia 


Protected cruiser 

do 


11,840 
t 1,565 


Olympia 


do 


t 1,403 









* Estimated. 

tFrom official trial on basis of 2.4 pounds of coal per 1 horsepower. 

JFrom official trial, actual figures. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. MELVILLE, 
Engineer in Chief, United States Navy, Chief of Bureau. 

Hon. R. F. Pettigrew, 

United States Senate, Washington, V. C. 
3571 



61 

AS TO THE CLAIM THAT IF WE DO NOT TAKE HAWAII THAT REPUBLIC WILL 
BE TAKEN BI ANOTHER. 

Mr. President, if we should refuse to adopt this resolution then 
it is threatened Hawaii will go elsewhere. Hawaii is located in 
the Pacific Ocean, 2,100 miles from the California coast. She can 
not move her foundations by any process of oratorical legerde- 
main, and her interests can not be altered in so far as they depend 
upon her location. As before stated, those interests are with us. 
When the McKinley Act was in force, and when we paid a bounty 
to our domestic sugar producers and abolished all sugar tariff, 
there was no discrimination in favor of Hawaii. 

The sugar industries in Hawaii languished. She pined for a 
resuscitation of the advantages of the past, and yet she did not 
leave us; she did not go to England or to France or to Germany 
and negotiate a treaty with them. The pretense that a refusal of 
annexation will induce her to trade elsewhere is, in common par- 
lance, a mere " bluff." 

Nature, Mr. President, not the disposition of Mr. Dole and his 
cabinet or anybody else, incited the Hawaiian people to trade 
with the United States, and no action that we take here upon this 
proposition, no action that we may take regarding annexation, 
can in any way prevent them from continuing to trade with us. 

Trade is unfeeling. Men deal in sugar, rice, coffee, and other 
articles because they make or think they make money by such 
dealing. The people of Hawaii do not send their goods, wares, 
and merchandise to California, or to any other part of the United 
States, merely because they are fond of our people, but they send 
them to us and trade with us because they find, it is to their in- 
terest to do so. We have the market, and they will continue to 
deal with us regardless of the fate of this resolution, just as they 
dealt with us when the McKinley law was in force and notwith- 
standing its provisions and regardless of our tariff, which yielded 
them no advantage. Clearly there is nothing in this contention. 

THE PRETENSE THAT WE CAN NOT WARN OTHER NATIONS AWAY IF WE 
REFUSE TO ACCEPT HAWAII. 

We are informed that we can not consistently announce to 
other nations "You shall not interfere with Hawaii" when we 
decline annexation. Why not? Did we not often make such a 
declaration, when at the same time our Presidents and our Sec- 
retaries of State declared that we did not intend to assert control; 
that all we desired was that Hawaii should be preserved to the 
impartial trade of the world? 

When we told Great Britain at the time of unauthorized inter- 
ference by one of her officers, when we told France when a simi- 
lar transaction was happening, that we would not brook their in- 
terference — and that was many years ago — we did not threaten or 
intimate annexation. Nevertheless we dictated foreign absten- 
tion, and our wishes have been ever respected. And we to-day 
assume and have a right to assume the power to repeat this same 
thing. Have we no right to warn away other nations unless we 
see fit to take the islands ourselves? Are the islands upon the 
block offered to the highest bidder for cash? Must we bid or sub- 
mit to foreign ownership? 

I repeat that in my judgment no nation wants Hawaii; but at 
all events there is no country which will demur to our positive 
announcement that there shall be no foreign aggression. There 
is no inconsistency, no impropriety in warning away other na- 
tions, although we do not take the country ourselves. The 
3571 



62 

strength of our position consists in our avoidance of conquest. 
Must we obliterate the Hawaiian Republic? Must we annex and 
take to ourselves that territory in order to justify our claim of 
noninterference from abroad? If so, the history that we have' 
made for fifty years has been ill made; and, if so, we have had no 
right to do that which the world has admitted and conceded for 
half a century was our right to do. Surely there is absolutely 
nothing in this part of the argument of the other side. 

THE LABOR QUESTION. 

Mr. President, all sorts of statements have been made to induce 
the public to favor this acquisition. Among other suggestions is 
the assertion that there will be a great field for labor in the Ha- 
waiian Islands. I stated upon another occasion that if such a mag- 
nificent chance for the laboring man existed it was somewhat sin- 
gular that he had never discovered that hisMeccawas therelocated. 
The truth of it is that there is no opportunity for the white man, 
the intelligent American laboring man, or the negro in the Ha- 
waiian Islands. Of course there may be an occasional carpenter 
employed, a few mechanics, a limited number of superintendents 
of coffee plantations and sugar industries, but speaking of the 
labor of the islands, as referring to a large and material class of 
men, there is nothing for those of our toilers who wish for better 
things. 

Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of some of my Repub- 
lican friends to the remarkable effect of the policies which they 
seem to some extent to be outlining. They have asserted and 
claimed in many a forum and have received credit in many a place 
for the declaration that they have guarded and cared for the labor- 
ing interests of the United States. They have referred to the 
high wages paid in our factories, the large salaries which skilled 
mechanics have obtained, and have designated this elevation of 
the working class as their greatest achievement. 

The policy, Senators, which you are now initiating and the 
channel into which you seek to compel us to drift will lead us 
inevitably to this result, that the pauper labor, the servile labor, 
the cooly labor of the Orient will be brought into competition 
with that which you have often declared it to be your policy to 
defend. This first step, whereby you introduce within the bound- 
aries of our Government some 50,000 orientals, is but a premoni- 
tion of that other and more disastrous movement which will 
swell the aggregate of ignorance to millions and millions. When 
you obtain all the land upon which you look with covetous eye, 
you will likewise add a population destructive of wages and inimi- 
cal to civilization. 

Mr. President, some years ago in the State of California and 
throughout the entire West there was a movement against Chi- 
nese labor, and it had behind it the greatest merit. We saw our 
people threatened by an oriental invasion. We knew that the 
Chinese possessed sufficient ability and sufficient knowledge of 
our conditions to find it profitable to engage in competition here. 
We learned that there could be no intelligence or competent 
American citizenship in an element struggling for 10 cents per 
day. We legislated in the most drastic manner, and have, to a 
large extent, kept them from our shores. 

We passed acts of Congress having that object in view and were 
clwrged with violating treaty rights. We finally reduced the 

3571 



63 

number of Mongolians in the United States to about 100,000. Now 
we are to bring in between twenty and thirty thousand Chinamen 
by this measure. True, the joint resolution reciting the language 
of the treaty attempts to keep the Chinamen in Hawaii. I doubt 
whether under a treaty we can enter into a compact of that sort, 
but I am clear that we can not by a joint resolution admitting a 
territory, if it be assumed for the time being that we have the 
power to admit the islands at all, curtail or restrict the movements 
of the residents of that territory— a part of this country. How- 
ever this may be, the abandonment of the former claimis manifest. 

Mr. President, our consul at Honolulu, Mr. Haywood, has made 
a report with reference to the coffee industry to which our atten- 
tion has been lately directed. He points out with great elabora- 
tion and detail that the men who do the actual work are Japanese 
and Chinese, and that they labor for $15 a month and board them- 
selves. In a few instances they are paid $16, but the wages are 
usually $15 a month, and it is certain there is no opportunity in 
this business for American citizens. It is clear that we will not 
enter into active competition with a person who is working upon 
coffee and sugar plantations for from ten to fifteen dollars per 
month. 

Hence the statement that annexation will afford a splendid 
opening for labor has nothing whatever to maintain it. Never 
in any part of the world has the raising of cane sugar and the 
production of coffee teen considered important to enlightened 
white labor, and to-day the coffee production of the world is fully 
equal to the demand and somewhat ahead of it, and a careful 
reading of the elaborate report which I have cited will show the 
impartial man that the assertion that there is anything for labor 
in .the Hawaiian Islands is a mere pretense. We have heard much 
about the present Hawaiian Government and its friendship to this 
country and to those who toil. 

In this connection I refer to the following Hawaiian legislation: 

Act 66.— An act relating to the landing of aliens in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Be it enacted by the executive and advisory councils of the provisioned gov- 
ernment of the Hawaiian Islands, It shall be unlawful for aliens of the fol- 
lowing classes to land in the Hawaiian Islands, to wit: Idiots, insane persons, 
paupers, vagabonds, criminals, fugitives from justice, persons suffering from 
a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, stowaways, vagrants, and per- 
sons without visible means of support, which means of support may be shown 
by the bona fide possession of not less than $50 in money or a bona fide writ- 
ten contract of employment with a reliable and responsible resident of the 
Hawaiian Islands. 

Sec. 2. The master or other officer of any vessel or any person who shall 
bring within the Hawaiian Islands and land, or attempt to land, or permit to 
be landed, any alien not lawfully entitled to enter the Hawaiian Islands, shall 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be pun- 
ished by a fine of not more than 8500 nor less than $100 for each and every such 
alien not entitled to enter the Hawaiian Islands, so brought and landed, or 
attempted or permitted to be lauded, and may be imprisoned for a term not 
exceeding one year; and any such vessel shall not have clearance from any 
port of the Hawaiian Islands until such fine is paid. 

Sec 8. Upon the arrival of any vessel from any foreign land at any port 
of the Hawaiian Islands with passengers on board it shall be the duty of the 
master of such vessel to report the name, nationality, last residence, desti- 
nation, occupation, and object of coming to the Hawaiian Islands of every 
such passenger, before any of them are landed, to the collector-general of 
customs or his deputy, or the collector of customs of the port at which such 
vessel has arrived, who shall thereupon inspect all of siich passengers who 
may be aliens, either on board of such vessel or at a designated place on 
shore. But such removal of such passengers from the said vessel for the 
purposes of such inspection shall not be considered to be a landing. The 
inspecting officers shall have the power to administer oaths and to take and 
consider testimony touching the right of any such alien passengers to land 
8571 



64 

•within the Hawaiian Islands, all of which shall be entered of record. All de- 
cisions made by the inspection officers touching the right of any alien to land 
shall be final: Provided, That the collector-general of customs may reverse the 
decisions of his deputy and the several collectors of customs in case appeal 
shall betaken to him from their decisions. It shall be the duty of the master 
and officers and agents of such vessel to adopt due precautions to prevent the 
landing of any alien at any place or time other than that designated by the 
inspection officers, and any master, officer, or agent of such vessel who shall, 
either knowingly or negligently, land or permit to land any alien at any place 
or time other than that designated by the inspection officers, or other than 
those who may have received a permit to land by the inspection officers, shall 
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be liable to the penalties above men- 
tioned. Any such vessel shall not have clearance from any port of the Ha- 
waiian Islands until such fine is paid. 

Sec. 4. All aliens who may unlawfully come to the Hawaiian Islands shall, 
if practicable, be immediately sent out of the country on the vessel by which 
they were brought in. The cost of their maintenance while here, as well as 
the expense of removing such aliens out of the country, shall be borne by 
the owner or owners of the vessel on which such aliens came; and if any 
master, agent, consignee, or owner of such vessel shall refuse to receive 
back on board such aliens, or shall neglect to detain them thereon, or shall 
refuse or neglect to carry them out of the country or pay the cost of their 
maintenance whilo here, such master, agent, consignee, or owner shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be liable to the above-mentioned penal- 
ties for each and every offense, and any such vessel shall not have clearance 
from any port of the Hawaiian Islands until such fine is paid. 

Sec. 5. Any alien who shall come into the Hawaiian Islands in violation of 
law may be returned, as by law provided, at any time within one year there- 
after at the expense of the person or persons, vessel or corporation bringing 
such alien into the Hawaiian Islands; and, if that can not be done, then at 
the expense of the Government; and any alien who becomes a public charge 
within one year after his arrival in the Hawaiian Islands, from causes exist- 
ing prior to his arrival, shall be deemed to have come in violation of law, and 
may be returned as aforesaid. And any alien who shall come into the Ha- 
waiian Islands in violation of law shall be detained by the marshal or hia 
deputy or any sheriff or police officer until there if an opportunity for his 
deportation. 

Sec. 6. The circuit judges and district magistrates are hereby vested with 
full and concurrent jurisdiction of all misdemeanors arising under the provi- 
sions of this act; and the collector-general of customs, his deputy, and the 
several collectors of customs are invested with full jurisdiction in matters 
touching the right of any alien to land or the question whether any alien who 
has landed has done so in violation of law, subject, however, as to said deputy 
and collectors, to the review of the collector-general of customs in case of 
appeal. 

Sec. 7. This act shall take effect upon publication. 

Approved this 1st day of March, A. D. 1S91. 

SANFORD B. DOLE, 
President of the Provisioned Government of the Hawaiian Islands. 

J. A. KING, 

Minister of the Interior. 

Act III.— An act to amend act No. 66 of the laws of the provisional gov- 
ernment, entitled 'An act relating to the landing of aliens in the Hawaiian 
Islands," approved March 1, 1894. 

Be it enacted by the Executive and Advisory Coxmcils of the Republic of Ha- 
waii, Section 1 of act No. 66 of the laws of the provisional government, enti- 
tled "An act relating to the landing of aliens in the Hawaiian Islands," ap- 
proved March 1, 1894, is hereby amended by adding at the end of said section 
following words, viz, " binding such aliens to work as an agricultural laborer 
for a term of less than two years." 

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect from the date of its approval, this 9th day 
of August, A. D. 1891. 

SANFORD B. DOLE. 

Act XVII. —An act relating to the immigration of aliens and foreigners 
under contract of service. 

Be it enacted by the executive and advisory councils of the Republic of Ha- 
waii, From and after the passage of this act, it shall be unlawful for any 
person, company, partnership, or corporation in any manner whatsoever to 
prepay the transportation, migration, or introduction of any alien or aliens, 
any foreigner or foreigners, into the Hawaiian Islands, under contract or 
agreement, made previous to the importation, migration, or introduction of 
'6o7L 



65 

such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform agricultural or do- 
mestic labor or for service in mills or factories in the Hawaiian Islands: Pro- 
vided, liowever, That any person, company, partnership, or corporation may 
bring aliens or foreigners into the Hawaiian Islands as aforesaid upon re- 
ceiving from the board of immigration its written approval of the contracts 
under which it is proposed to introduce such aliens or foreigners. 

For the purpose of this act all aliens and foreigners arriving within the 
jurisdiction of the Republic of Hawaii in any vessel or who, having so arrived, 
may be performing quarantine on shore shall be deemed to be without the 
Hawaiian Islands and the provisions of this act regarding the importation, 
migration, or introduction of aliens and foreigners so arriving or in quar- 
antine. 

Sec. 2. All contracts or agreements which may hereafter be made by and 
between any person, company, partnership, or corporation and any aliens, 
foreigner, or foreigners to perform agricultural or domestic labor or for 
service in mills and factories in the Hawaiian Islands previous to the migra- 
tion, importation, introduction, or arrival of the person or persons whose 
labor or service is contracted for into the Hawaiian Islands shall be void, ex- 
cept such contracts and agreements as shall have been approved by the board 
of immigration as aforesaid. 

Sec. 3. For every violation of any of the provisions of section 1 of this act 
the person, company, partnership, or corporation violating the same shall 
forfeit pay for th3 benefit of the treasury for every such offense the sum of 
$300 for each alien or foreigner introduced or landed in the Hawaiian Islands, 
or whose passage has been paid, encouraged, or arranged for contrary to the 
provisions of section 1 of this act, upon conviction thereof before a district 
magistrate. 

Sec. 4. The master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the 
Hawaiian Islands on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed from any 
foreign port or place any alien or foreigner who. previous to embarkation on 
such vessel, had entered into contract or agreement to perform agricultural 
or domestic labor or service in mills or factories in the Hawaiian Islands, 
which contract or agreement had not been approved by the board of immi- 
gration as aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay for benefit of the treasury the sum 
of 8100 for each alien or foreigner so introduced or landed upon conviction 
thereof by the district magistrate. 

Sec. 5. This act shall not apply to immigration of laborers under contract 
under the provisions of the convention between this country and Japan of 
January 28, A. D. 1886. 

Sec. 6. This act shall take effect from the date of its publication. 

Approved this 1st day of February, A. D. 1895. 

SAN FORD B. DOLE. 

It has been for some time asserted that the new organization in 
the Sandwich Islands favored American labor, and that because 
the missionary element had become dominant the high-priced 
white laborers of the United States could confidently rely upon 
splendid remuneration if the Hawaiian Islands were annexed. It 
is therefore important to examine the treaties prevailing between 
Hawaii and Japan, from which latter country it is supposed dan- 
ger is to be anticipated. These treaties, so far as they relate to 
this subject, have already been printed, at my suggestion, as a 
Senate document. They are as follows: 

TREATIES BETWEEN JAPAN AND HAWAII. 

Whereas a treaty of amity and commerce between His Majesty the King, 
and His imperial Majesty the Teuno of Japan, was concluded at Yeddo, on 
the lUth day of August, 1871, which has been ratified by His Majesty the 
King, and His Imperial Majesty the Tenno of Japan, and the ratifications 
duly exchanged— which treaty is, word for word, as follows: 

His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, and His Imperial Japanese 
Majesty the Tenno, being equally animated by the desire to establish rela- 
tions of friendship between the two countries, have resolved to conclude a 
Treaty, reciprocally advantageous, and for that purpose have named their 
plenipotentiaries, that is to say, His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian 
Islands, His Excellency C. E. De Long, appointed and commissioned by His 
Majesty envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Kingdom 
of Hawaii near the Government of His Majesty the Tenno of Japan, and 
His Imperial Majesty the Tenno, His Excellency Sawa Iusanme Kiyowara 
Noluyoshe. minister for foreign affairs, and His Excellency Terachima Jusee 
Fugiwara Munemori, first assistant minister for foreign affairs, who, having 
3571-5 



66 

communicated to each other their respective full powers, which are found in 
good order and in proper form, have agreed upon the following articles: 

Article I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His 
Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands and His Imperiarjapanese Maj- 
esty the Tenno, their heirs and successors, and between their respective 
subjects. 

Article II. The subjects of each of the two high contracting parties, re- 
spectively, shall have the liberty freely and securely to come with their ships 
and cargoes to all places, ports, and rivers in the territories of the other 
where trade with other nations is permitted; they may remain and reside in 
any such ports and places, respectively, and hire and occupy houses and 
warehouses, and may trade in all kinds of produce, manufactures, and mer- 
chandise of lawful commerce, enjoying at all times the same privileges as 
may have been or may hereafter be granted to the citizens or subjects of 
any other nation, paying at all times such duties and taxes as may be exacted 
from the citizens or subjects of other nations doing business or residing 
within the territories of each of the high contracting parties. 

Article III. Each of the high contracting parties shall have the right to 
appoint, if it shall seem good to them, a diplomatic agent, who shall reside 
at the seat of the Government of the respective countries, and consuls and 
consular agents, who shall reside in the ports or places within the territories 
of the other where trade with other nations is permitted. The diplomatic 
agents and consuls of each of the high contracting parties shall exercise ail 
the authority and jurisdiction, and shall enjoy within the territories of the 
other all the rights and privileges, exemptions, and immunities which now 
appertain or may hereafter appertain to agents of the same rank of the 
most favored nations. 

Article IV. It is here stipulated that the Hawaiian Government and its 
subjects, upon like terms and conditions, will be allowed free and equal par- 
ticipation in all privileges, immunities, and advantages that may have been 
or may hereafter be granted by His Majesty the Tenno of Japan to the Gov- 
ernment, citizens, or subjects of any other nation. 

Article V. The Japanese Government will place no restrictions whatever 
upon the employment by Hawaiian subjects of Japanese in any lawful capac- 
ity. Japanese in the employ of foreigners may obtain Government passports 
to go abroad, on application to the governor of any open port. 

Article VI. It is hereby agreed that such revision of this treaty, on giv- 
ing six months previous notice to either of the high contracting parties, may 
be made by mutual agreement, as experience shall prove necessary. 

Article VII. The present; treaty shall be ratified by His Majesty the King 
of the Hawaiian Islands, and by His Imperial Majesty the Tenno, and the 
ratifications exchanged at Yeddo, the same day as the date of this treaty, 
and shall go into effect immediately after the date of such exchange of rati- 
fications. 

In token whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty. 

Done at the city of Yeddo, this 19th day of August, A. D. 1871, correspond- 
ing in Japanese date to the fourth day of the seventh month of the fourth 
year of Meiji. 

(Signed) C. E. DE LONG. [SEAL.' 

S^WA IUSANME KIYOWAEA NOLUYOSHE. Tseal." 

TERACHIMA JUSEE FUGIWARRA MUNEMORI. [seal.; 

Now, all persons are hereby notified that the said treaty is a part of tho 
law of this Kingdom, and is to be regarded as stich. 

[L. s.] CHAS. C. HARRIS, 

For Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

Foreign Office, September 27, 1S71. 



convention between the empire of japan and the kingdom OF TnB 

HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 

Whereas a large number of the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of 
Japan have emigrated to the Hawaiian Islands; and whereas it is not un- 
likely that others of His Imperial Majesty's subjects may desire to take ad- 
vantage of the system of free and voluntary emigration which has been 
established, and which it is intended by this convention to confirm; and 
whereas it is equally the desire of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian 
Islands and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan to afford the emigrants the 
most ample and effectual protection compatible with the constitution and 
laws of Hawaii, His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands and His 
Majesty the Emperor of Japan, being resolved to treat upon these impor- 
tant subjects, have, for that purpose, appointed their respective plenipo- 
tentiaries to negotiate and conclude an emigration convention, that is to 
say: His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, Robert Walker Irwin, 
knight commander of the Royal Order of Kalakaua, His Majesty's charge 
3571 



67 

d'affaires and consul-general at Tokio, and His Majesty the Emperor of Ja- 
pan, Count Inouye Kaoru, Jusarnmi, His Imperial Majesty's ministet of 
state for foreign affairs, first class of the Order of the Rising Sun, etc., who, 
after a reciprocal communication of their respective full powers, found in 
good and due form, have agreed-upon and concluded the following articles: 

Article I. It is mutually agreed between the contracting parties that 
the several stipulations contained in this convention shall, so far as the same 
are applicable, embrace as well the subjects of His Majesty the Emperor of 
Japan, who have already emigrated to the Hawaiian Islands, as those who 
may hereafter emigrate thither. 

Article II. The Government of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan agree 
that in pursuance of the provisions of this convention, and so long as tho 
same shall remain in force, Japanese subjects may freely emigrate to the Ha- 
waiian Islands. But nothing herein contained shall be held to deprive His 
Imperial Japanese Majesty's Government of the right, in individual cases, to 
prohibit such emigration, or at their pleasure generally to limit, suspend, or 
prohibit such emigration, if in their judgment the exigencies of the Stats, 
or the welfare of the Japanese subjects, justify such action. It is, however, 
understood that this right shall not be arbitrarily exercised, neither shall it 
be enforced against intending emigrants, in respect to whom the Japanese 
Government shall have given the permission provided for in Article III 
hereof. 

Article III. All emigration under this convention shall be carried on be- 
tween tiie ports of Yokohama and Honolulu. The kenrei (governor) of 
Kanagawa shall, in all matters connected therewith, represent and act on be- 
half of the Japanese Government. His Hawaiian Majesty's Government 
engage to appoint a special agent of the Hawaiian board of immigration to 
reside at Yokohama. The appointment of such agent shall be subject to the 
approval of the Japanese Government. 

It shall be the duty of said agent to correspond and consult with said 
kenrei upon all matters connected with the subject of Japaneso emigration, 
to Hawaii, and he shall moreover be charged with the duty of making ali 
necessary arrangements with reference to the embarkation and transporta- 
tion of intending emigrants. Whenever emigrants aro desired, the said 
agent shall give the said kenrei at least one month's xjrevious notice, setting 
forth the number and class of persons desired, to which notice the said 
kenrei shall without unnecessary delay reply, giving the determination of 
His Imperial Majesty's Government in that behalf. In default of such notice, 
or in default of a favorable reply thereto from the said kenrei, the conclud- 
ing paragraph of the last preceding article hereof shall not apply. 

Article IV. All emigration under this convention shall be by contract. 
The contracts shall be for the period not exceeding three years, and shall be 
in accordance with a form to be approved by both Governments. The con- 
tracts shall be concluded at Yokohama, by and between the special agent of 
the Hawaiian board of immigration, in the name and on behalf of the Ha- 
waiian Government and the intending emigrants, and shall be approved by 
the kenrei of Kanagawa. During the continuance of any such contracts the 
Hawaiian Government shall assume all the responsibilities of employer to- 
ward the emigrants, and shall consequently be responsible for the due and 
faithful performance of all the conditions of such contracts. And, at the 
same time, the said Government of Hawaii guarantees to each and every 
Japanese emigrant the full and perfect protection of the laws of the King- 
dom, and will endeavor at all times and under all circumstances to promote 
the welfare and comfort of such emigrants. 

Article V. His Hawaiian Majesty's Government agrees, moreover, to 
furnish all emigrants, under this convention, free steerage passage, including 
proper food, from Yokohama to Honolulu, in first-class passenger steamers. 
The steamers selected for the purpose of transporting such emigrants shall 
be approved by the Kenrei of Kanagawa. 

Article VI. In order to insure the proper fulfillment of tho terms of the 
contracts entered into between the board of immigration of the Hawaiian 
Kingdom and any Japanese emigrants, and to afford full protection to such 
emigrants in the enjoyment of their rights under the laws of the Hawaiian 
Kingdom, His Hawaiian Majesty's Government will provide and employ 
during the continuance of any of the contracts aforesaid, a sufficient number 
of inspectors and interpreters, who shall be able to speak and interpret the 
Japaneso and English languages, and the services of such interpreters shall 
at all times be rendered without charge to such emigrants, in the courts of the 
Hawaiian Kingdom, in any suits arising out of or concerning any such con- 
tracts, in which such emigrants may be plaintiffs, defendants, complainants, 
or accused. 

Article VII. The Government of His Hawaiian Majesty will, during the 

continuance of any of the contracts provided for by this convention, employ 

a sufficient number of Japanese physicians to attend the emigrants, and will 

give to the said physicians the status of Government physicians, and will 

5571 



68 

station them in sv ch localities as may from time to time appear to be desira- 
ble in order to afford the emigrants all necessary medical aid. 

Article VIII. His Hawaiian Majesty's Government further agree that 
the diplomatic and consular agents of Japan in Hawaii shall at all times have 
free and unrestricted access to all Japanese emigrants; they shall be afforded 
every facility to satisfy themselves that the contracts are being fulfilled in 
good faith; and they shall also have the right, in case of violation thereof, to 
ask and obtain the protection of the laws and the local authorities of Hawaii. 

Article IX. The well-being, happiness, and prosperity of Japanese sub- 
jects emigrating to Hawaii, being equally objects of solicitude to both the 
contracting parties, His Imperial Japanese Majesty's Government consent 
that His Hawaiian Majesty's Government shall have the right to send back 
to Japan all evil-disposed, vicious, or vagrant Japanese subjects in Hawaii, 
who may create trouble or disturbance or encourage dissipation of any kind 
among the emigrants, or who may become a charge upon the State. 

Article X. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications 
shall be exchanged at Honolulu as soon as possible. 

Article XI. The present convention shall take effect immediately upon 
the exchange of the ratification thereof, and shall remain in force for the pe- 
riod of five years; and thereafter until six months' previous notice shall have 
been given by one of the contracting parties to the other of its intention to 
abrogate it. 

In testimony whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present convention in the English language, and have hereunto affixed their 



Done at the city of Tokyo this 28th day of the first month of the nineteenth 
year of Meiji, corresponding to the 28th day of January, in the eighteen hun- 
dred and eighty-sixth year of the Christian era. 

R. W. IRWIN. [l. s.] 

INOUYE KAORU. [l. s.] 
ISTow be it known that the above convention has been duly ratified by His 
Majesty the King and His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and the 
said ratifications have been duly exchanged. 

Therefore the said convention has become a part of the law of this King- 
dom, and all the provisions thereof are to be observed accordingly. 
[L. s.3 WALTER M. GIBSON, 

Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Foreign Office, Honolulu, March 5, 1SSG. 

Are these treaties inimical to Japanese interests as those inter- 
ests are interpreted by the present philanthropic possessors of the 
country? Is the prevailing Hawaiian dynasty struggling to aid 
the laboring man?' The Dole Government is not by any means 
solicitous for the welfare of the laboring man. A large number 
of contract laborers from Japan have been provided ever since the 
disturbance which resulted in the exclusion of some 800 Japanese 
in 1897. Two thousand contract laborers had been given per- 
mission to land by the board of immigration of Hawaii several 
months ago. The penal laws of Hawaii, published by authority in 
1897, are in some respects interesting reading. I have compiled 
very briefly portions of these laws which I think bear upon the 
subject, covering a couple of pages nearly. 

Section 1566 inhibits the importation of contract labor unless 
upon permission of the board of immigration, but section 1570 of 
the same code is in these words: " 

Sections 1566 to 1569 shall not apply to immigration of laborers under con- 
tract under the provisions of the convention between this country and Japan 
on January 28, A. D. 1886. 

This treaty contains a clause allowing either party to abrogate 
it upon six months' notice; but the Dole Government makes no 
attempt to do so, and not only continues contract labor in the is- 
lands, but such labor is subject to regulations savoring of slavery. 

The following sections of the Hawaiian penal laws disclose the 
situation quite correctly: 

Sec. 1383. All engagements of service contracted in a foreign country, to be 
executed in this, unless the same bo in contravention of the laws of this, shall 
be binding here: Provided, however, That all such engagements made for a 
£571 



69 

longer period than ten years shall be reduced to that limit, to count from the 
day of the arrival of the person bound in this Republic. 

Sec. 138-1. If any person lawfully bound to service shall willfully absent him- 
self from such service without the leave of his master, any district magistrate 
of the Republic, upon complaint made under oath by the master, or by any- 
one on his behalf, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring 
him before the said magistrate; and if the complaint shall be maintained, the 
magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and he shall 
be compelled to serve the remainder of the time for which he originally con- 
tracted. 

Sec. 1385. If any such person shall refuse to serve according to the provi- 
sions of the last section or the terms of his contract, his master may apply to 
any district magistrate where he may reside, who shall be authorized, by 
warrant or otherwise, to send for the person so refusing and, if such refusal 
be persisted in, to commit such person to prison, there to remain at hard 
labor until he will consent to serve according to law. And in case such per- 
son so bound as aforesaid shall have returned to the service of such master 
in obedience to such order of such magistrate, and shall again willfully ab- 
sent himself from such service without the leave of his master, such district 
magistrate may fine such offender for the first offense not exceeding So and 
for the second offense not exceeding $10; and in default of payment thereof 
such offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor until such fine is paid; and 
for every subsequent offense thereafter the offender shall be imprisoned at 
hard labor not exceeding three months, and at the expiration of any such 
imprisonment such magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his 
master to serve for the remainder of such original term of service. 

Mr. President, these provisions are the law, and those who are 
opposed to slavery will note that these resolutions do not repeal 
these infamous statutes, which are no doubt valid under the de- 
cision of our Supreme Court in Robertson vs. Baldwin (165 United 
States, 275) wherein it was determined that compulsory service of 
deserting seamen in fulfillment of their contracts is not in viola- 
tion of the thirteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution, 
which prohibits involuntary servitude; that no service which be- 
comes involuntary during its continuance is antagonistic to that 
amendment. 

Mr. President, it is asserted that the Dole Government has 
changed its views and that the coffee and sugar planters would 
prefer to pay high wages to white labor rather than lower wages 
to the Mongolians. I doubt this statement. The San Francisco 
Chronicle, a very prominent California paper favoring annexa- 
tion, published a brief and significant article under date of April 
2 of the present year, which I will read: 

CONTRACT LAW THEIR SALVATION— PLANTERS SAY ITS ABOLISHMENT 
WOULD MEAN THEIR RUIN. 

Honolulu, March 24, 1898. 

The sugar planters are up in arms against a bill now pending in the Legis- 
lature providing for the abolishment of the labor-contract system now in 
vogue, by which a laborer who deserts from a plantation can be arrested and 
thrown into jail until he is willing to return to his work and have all costs 
of his capture and detention assessed against him. The planters say that 
under the present condition the abolishment of the penal-contract law would 
mean th« utter ruin of every plantation on the islands. At a meeting of a 
committee representing the Planters' Association and the House committee, 
to which the bill was referred, such men as John H. Hackfeld, W. Gr. Irwin, 
P. M. Swansey, C. Bolte, and H. Renjes were present, and all expressed the 
opinion that the passage of the bill would deal a death blow to the sugar in- 
dustry. 

The planters explained that the laborers brought to Hawaii are picked 
from the lowest classes in Japan. It is necessary to advance from $130 to 
$150 to each laborer to get him here. If, when he arrives, he can not be held 
to his contract, the plantation not only loses the man but the money invested 
in him. 

Mr. President, our annexation friends do not intend to repeal 
these odious enactments. 

Mr. President, I have already mentioned the fact that there were 
a certain number of Chinese laborers excluded by order of the 
3C71 



70 

Dole Government and that afterwards a larger number were per- 
mitted to land. It must be remembered that the 800 whose advent 
was inhibited were not of the lowest class. They were ordinary- 
persons, seeking the rights of ordinary immigrants; but the 2,000 
who were afterwards permitted to come in were contract laborers 
and were allowed to appear in the islands because they were 
needed for servile purposes at a maximum rate of $15 per month. 

Another matter worthy of consideration is this: 

It is confidently stated that if we do not anne£ the islands, 
Japan will flood them with immigrants. It is therefore impor* 
tant to look over the history of the past. The immigration for 
the period 1889-1893 was 1 to 15, as contrasted with 1893-1897. 

In other words, there were nearly seven times more immigrants 
landed during the former period than during the latter. 

It has been asserted that laborers would appear from ill-paid 
European regions. This is answered conclusively and briefly: 
Between 1875 and 1880 a few natives were brought from Norway 
to Hawaii. The experiment was never repeated. Had it been 
successful the hardy, frugal, industrious, money-saving toilers of 
Norway would have gladly sought the benefits of Hawaiian set- 
tlement. Germany, or rather a few German immigrants, made 
the same effort shortly afterwards, and were even less successful, 
and no similar expedition was afterwards attempted. 

THE STATUS OF HAWAII WHEN ANNEXED. 

To the objection that Hawaii is too remote for a State, and should not have 
privileges of statehood for various reasons, it is replied that nothing of the 
kind is contemplated, or wil] in any event happen. If not, why not? 

The joint resolution declares: " The Hawaiian Islands and their dependen- 
cies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United 
States, and arc subject to the sovereign dominion thereof," etc. 

The resolution also provides that the President shall appoint five commis- 
sioners, two of whom shall be residents of the islands, and who shall recom- 
mend to Congress proper legislation. 

Senator Morgan, in the San Francisco Examiner of October 20, 1897, in 
speaking of an address which he made to the Hawaiian people, says: 

"They were always in fear of a negro invasion from this country to crowd 
them out of their work. These fears have been removed. I tried, success- 
fully I think, to show them that once the islands were annexed all of its 
citizens would become citizens of the United States, with the same rights 
before the law as myself or any other American. All the natives are Ha- 
waiian citizens, and their status as citizens will not be disputed; on the con- 
trary, it becomes a part of the United States. * * * Supposing annexation 
is accomplished, Congress, through a commission of two Hawaiians and three 
Americans, will decide whether it shall be a Territory or an independent 
State. If a Territory, the United States could do nothing wiser than to retain 
President Dole," etc. 

While the distinguished Senator from Alabama was in the islands recently 
he at several times asserted that citizenship would be conferred upon the 
natives as soon as annexation was accomplished, and, as reported by the Ha- 
waiian press, he was very positive in these utterances. 

And from the nature of things it is manifest that statehood is in prospect. 

Senator Morgan, in a letter addressed to Mr. James K. Kaulia and pub- 
lished in the Honolulu Independent of October 19, says: "Nor could we in 
any event accept Hawaii as a dependency or colony. We have no such pow- 
ers under our Constitution." 

Those who believe that it is impolitic to annex any territory as remote as 
Hawaii, with the prospect of statehood in front of us, can not afford, without 
doing violence to their convictions, to support the present scheme. Annex- 
ation means possible statehood. This can not be denied. When political 
exigencies require it, some party, not more anxious for power than such 
organizations have heretofore been, will bring about the election of two 
Senators from this mid-ocean State. 

Mr. President, I have referred to these statements made by the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama not in any spirit of criti- 
cism, but merely to disclose the view of a very eminent man, one 
who has been a leader in this matter, at least one of the leaders, 

3571 



71 

indicating what we have a right to expect, showing that a strong, 
powerful, and well-considered sentiment already favors the incor- 
poration of Hawaii, with its 109,000 miscellaneous people, into the 
fraternity of States. This indicates in the plainest and clearest 
way the danger that is impending, 

ANNEXATION SHOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT CONSULTING THS 

PEOPLE. 

Mr. President, I said in commencing this discussion that one 
objection entertained in the best of faith by those of us who op- 
pose annexation is the fact that we do not believe the people of 
the Hawaiian Islands 
against their consent. 

THE TEXAS CASE. 

We have been several times referred to the conduct of other 
governments, and the. Texas case, so often cited by the opposition, 
is here referred to again. But the Texas incident confirms my 
statement: 

The constitution of Texas provided (Schedule, section 5, House Executive 
Document 16, Twenty-ninth Congress, first session) that immediately after 
the adjournment of the convention by which it was prepared il the President 
of the Republic shall issue his proclamation directing the chief justices in 
the several counties of this Republic, and the chief justices and their asso- 
ciates are hereby required, to cause polls to be opened in the respective 
counties," etc., * * * " for the purpose of taking the sense of the people of 
Texas in regard to the adoption or rejection of this constitution, and the 
votes of all persons entitled to vote under the existing laws or this constitu- 
tion shall be received," etc. 

The constitution contained an explicit acceptance of the provisions of the 
joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States. (Id., page 2.) 

The Texas constitutional provisions with relation to voting were as fol- 
lows (Id., page 4): 

Sec 1. Every free male person who shall have attained the age of 21 years, 
and who shall be a citizen of the United States, or who is, at the time of the 
adoption of this constitution by the Congress of the United States, a citizen 
of the Republic of Texas, and shall have resided in this State one year next 
preceding an election, and the last six months within the district, county, 
city, or town in which he offers to vote (Indians not taxed, Africans, and de- 
scendants of Africans excepted), shall be deemed a qualified elector; and 
should such qualified elector happen to be in any other county situated in 
the district in which he resides at the time of an election, he shall be per- 
mitted to vote for any district officer: Provided, That the qualified electors 
shall be permitted to vote anywhere in the State for State officers: And pro- 
vided further, That no soldier, seaman, or marine in the Army or Navy of the 
United States shall be entitled to vote at any election created by this consti- 
tution. 

Sec. 2. All free male persons over the age of 21 years (Indians not taxed, 
Africans, and descendants of Africans excepted) who shall have resided six 
months in Texas immediately preceding the acceptance of this constitution 
by the Congress of the United States shall be deemed qualified electors. 

The joint resolution of Congress for annexing Texas was adopted March 1, 
1815, and in the preamble it is provided that Texas may be erected into a 
State with a republican form of government to be adopted by the people of 
that Republic. 

After this resolution went into effect and on the 13th day of October, 1845, 
an election was held in the several counties of Texas in which the subject of 
ratification or rejection of annexation, in accordance with the joint resolu- 
tion, was directly voted upon, and the result was 4,245 votes in favor of an- 
nexation and 267 against, and at the same time there were cast in favor of 
the adoption of the constitution 4,172 votes and for its rejection 312 votes. 
(Idem, page 26.) 

And on the 10th day of November Anson Jones, the President of Texa=, 
issued his proclamation reciting that the polls were opened on the 13th of 
October for the purpose of taking the sense of the people of Texas. On 
December 10, 1845, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, re- 
ported a resolution for the admission of Texas, as follows: 

" Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution approved 

March 1, 1845, did consent that the territory properly included within and 

rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas might be erected into a new 

State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government 

3571 



72 

to be adopted by the people of the said Republic by deputies in convention 
assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the 
same might be admitted as one of the States of the union; which consent of 
Congress was given upon certain conditions specified in the first and second 
sections of said joint resolution; and 

" Whereas the people of the said Republic of Texas, by deputies in conven- 
tion assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, did adopt a 
constitution and erect a new State with a republican form of government 
and in the name of the people of Texas, and by their authority did ordain 
and declare that they assented to and accepted the proposals, conditions, and 
guaranties contained in the said first and second sections of said resolution; 
and 

" Whereas the said constitution, with the proper evidence of its adoption 
by the people of the Republic of Texas, has been transmitted to the President 
of the United States and laid before Congress, in conformity to the provi- 
sions of said joint resolution: Therefore, 

"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Texas shall be 
one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America and 
admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all 
respects whatever. 

"Be it further resolved, That until the Representatives in Congress shall be 
appointed according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the 
United States, the State of Texas shall be entitled to choose two Representa- 
tives." 

There are two features connected with the Texas case which deserve 
particular consideration. The first of these are the reasons actuating Con- 
gress, and the second the care that was taken by both Governments to act in 
accordance with the will of the people of the territory proposed to be annexed. 

President Tyler, in his message of June 30, 1841 (4 Richardson's Mess., etc., 
page 323), alludes to Texas as " a Republic coterminous in territory with our 
own," and he also uses the expression ll a territory settled mostly by emi- 
grants from the United States, who would bring back with them in the act 
of reassociation an unconquerable love of freedom and an ardent attach- 
ment to our free institutions." 

Again he says (page 326): '"If annexation in any form occur, it will arise 
from the free and unfettered action of the people of the two countries." 

Thus it will be observed that President Tyler deemed it of importance to 
direct the attention of Congress to the contiguity of the territory in question 
and to the fact that the same was mostly settled by emigrants from the 
United States; not, as in the present case, a mere handful of Americans; not 
a small minority of the people, but, on the contrary, the most of the people; 
and he was careful to qualify all his statements by the assurance that no an- 
nexation would be tolerated which was not in consonance with the "free and 
unfettered action of the people of the two countries." 

The proposed Texas treaty of annexation commences with this recital: 

" The people of Texas having, at the time of the adoption of their consti- 
tution, expressed, by an almost unanimous vote, their desire to be incor- 
porated into the Union of the United States," etc.— House Executive Docu- 
ment 271, Twenty -eighth Congress, first session, page 5. 

In this connection I refer to the following extract from the letter of 
Messrs. Van Zandt and Henderson to Mr. Calhoun, (idem, page 13): 

"In 1836, after the declaration of the independence of Texas, in pursuance 
of the orders of the convention and the expression of the popular will, the 
president ad interim, by his proclamation, ordered an election to be held 
throughout the Republic for the ratification or rejection of the constitution 
which had been adopted by the convention and for the expression by the 
people of their wishes in regard to the annexation of Texas to the United 
States. The result was that upon a full poll but 93 votes were given against 
annexation" 

It will be noted that there was no limitation to the exercise of the right of 
suffrage, as far as the free people of Texas were concerned. In fact, the 
proclamation mentions no limitation. 

See also message of President Tyler, of date April 22, 1841. (-4 Richardson's 
Messages, etc., page 309.) 

The general distinction to be observed as to our acquired terri- 
tory and Hawaii is thus pointed out by Judge Cooley (15 Forum, 
page 399) : 

The acquisition of Louisiana was made memorable in a constitutional 
point of view by the fact that the President who managed the negotiation 
and brought it to a successful conclusion did not believe that any power ex- 
isted under the Constitution for making the purchase. 

Mr. Jefferson saw very clearly the vast importance of whart he undertook 
3571 



73 

to do. It would add to the United States a great extent of territory which 
was already becoming important in order to provide for the emigration going 
on from the existing States into the interior. It would rid us of an undesir- 
able neighbor at the west. It would give us the Mississippi as a highway 
for the commerce of the interior with the outer world. It would secure its 
outlet as the entrepot of the trade of the world with our Western people; 
and it would relieve us forever from the danger that by and by the inhab- 
itants of the Western Territories would sever their connection with the Union 
and unite in forming a great republic upon the rivers which would constitute 
their chief international highways. 

This was the prize to be attained; but the Constitution, in his view, had 
made li no provision for our holding foreign territory and still less for incor- 
porating foreign nations into our Union." Under the circumstances, he 
thought the emergency should be met by first making the purchase and then 
appealing to the nation "for an additional article "in the Constitution ap- 
proving and confirming an act which the nation had not previously author- 
ized." He would have had this done as quietly as possible, avoiding public 
discussion, but ''shutting up the Constitution for some time " until the pur- 
chase was made. The Federal politicians of the day took what advantage 
they might of his scruples and made all the opposition they could; but states- 
men like Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris refused to make this a mere par- 
tisan question, and, while they made light of Mr. Jefferson's scruples, did all 
they could to favor the purchase. That it was an act of the highest wisdom 
no one at this day has the slightest doubt, and we think we may fairly as- 
sume that Mr. Jefferson, after it had once been accomplished, felt but lightly 
the scruples he had felt at the outset, for when he found that his party did 
not share in them, he ceased to insist upon the necessity for amendment to 
the Constitution. 

Every foot of the territory acquired in the Louisiana purchase was not 
only needed to provide for the natural and inevitable expansion of the set- 
tlement then going on in the territory of the United States, but it also fitted 
perfectly into the American system, and the purchase brought nothing of a 
discordant nature into the existing Union. The domain purchased would be 
formed into Territories with suitable governments as the needs of its grow- 
ing population should require, and these Territories would in time become 
States. There was at the mouth of the Mississippi a considerable settiement 
of people of another race from those who had colonized the existing States, 
but they were Europeans, and there was no question that in time they would 
become, as American citizens, an element by no means incongruous or unde- 
sirable. There is no ground whatever for question that had the condition of 
things which confronted Mr. Jefferson at the time of the Louisiana -purchase 
been foreseen when the Constitution was formed, the wisdom of leaving it to 
be dealt with by the Government as it was in fact dealt with would have 
been doubted by no one. 

What has been said regarding the acquisition of Louisiana is equally ap- 
plicable to the treaty for the annexation of Florida. Here, again, was a case 
of territory bordering upon that of the Union, in the hands of a foreign na- 
tion, but needed to provide for the gradual expansion of the population of 
the Union, and certain in time to become the property of the Union, either 
peaceably or by the lawless action of those who would covet it and who 
would seem to the people of the United States to be its natural a,nd proper 
proprietor. It was purchased for incorporation into the Union in the reg- 
ular and ordinary way, and the opportunity was also taken advantage of to 
extinguish claims on the Pacific coast which were likely in time to become 
troublesome. Everything that was done in these two cases tended to perfect 
the work of the founders of our institutions instead of bringing in any ele- 
ment of discord or incongruity. 

******* 

In regard to the country itself, we may repeat here what has already been 
said in respect to Louisiana and Florida. Its acquisition brought no incon- 
gruous element into the Federal Union. A State was brought in, being ad- 
mitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other States. The popula- 
tion was homogeneous with our own: its institutions were similar to those 
which prevailed in the other States of the Union. Nothing was done; noth- 
ing was promised; nothing was contemplated in the annexation that was not 
}>erfectly harmonious with our existing system. The treaty as formed 
ooked to the acquisition of territory that already constituted an established 
State, and it was upon this basis that the negotiations completed by the ac- 
tion of the two legislatures proceeded. The State, it was agreed, might be 
divided into other States, but there wasnothing here that looked to anything 
but the final incorporation of States into the Union on precisely the same 
terms with those already constituting members of the Union. The State 
annexed bordered upon States already admitted to the Union, and if it could 
have been acquired honorably and without taking upon ourselves a war with 
a country with which we had ourselves no quarrel, it would doubtless be 
3571 



74 

agreed without dissent by our people that annexation ought to have been as- 
sented to. 

In the year 1867 our Government, under the exercise of the treaty- making 
power, acquired the country known as Alaska. This country bordered upon 
territory which upon plausible reasons we had claimed to own, but which in 
the settlement of our northwestern boundary with Great Britain had been 
assigned to that power. It was therefore not at the time of its acqusition 
strictly contiguous to any territory of the United States. It was neverthe- 
less upon the continent; it was not very far away; it was unoccupied except 
by a race of savages; it would be open to occupation by the American peo- 
ple, and in due time, if sufficient population should be found there, would be 
provided with a territorial government and might become a State of the 
American Union without seeming to conflict especially with what we herein- 
before have claimed to be the true rule of constitutional construction on the 
subject. Had it been annexed previous to the settlement of the Oregon 
boundary no one could have raised any question of constitutional propriety. 

Mr. President, the statement thus made is sufficient to demon- 
strate that in the case of Texas the greatest care was exercised 
to ascertain the will of the people, and, as I before remarked, the 
mere fact that the Dole Government may have the technical au- 
thority to annex should not be of particular importance to- us, 
for the act which we are seeking to do is not merely a legal act, 
but should be a highly moral act, and we can not afford to 
compel these people to come into this Republic. They must not 
be unwilling colaborers. We have the physical power to do it, 
but the right which is based upon conscience is of a different na- 
ture. 

Although I have already considered the constitutional aspects 
of annexation, 1 wish to call attention to the thirty-second article 
of the Hawaiian constitution , wherein the power is given to effect — 
what? Not annexation, but a political or commercial union. 
What is a political union? Is it necessarily annexation? The 
views of international law writers upon the power to accomplish 
annexation are to some extent thus expressed by Mr. Woolsey: 

If the power of a sovereign or of a government is limited by a ground law, 
written or unwritten, a treaty can not override the constitution. No one 
can lawfully exercise power which does not of right belong to him. Thus, 
under constitutional forms, where the treaty-making power is placed in par- 
ticular hands, no others can exercise it, and where it is limited in extent it 
can not be lawfully exercised beyond that limitation. Where, however, an 
unlimited power of making treaties is given to a government, or to some 
department of it, the public domain and property may be alienated or indi- 
vidual rights may be sacrificed for public purposes. And yet even the most 
absolute despot may make treaties which neither his subjects nor third pow- 
ers ought to regard as binding. Could the house of Romanoff, for instance, 
resign the throne of Russia to whom it pleased? The true view here is that 
the province of absolutism is not to dispose of the national life, but to main- 
tain it without those checks on the exercise of power which exist elsewhere. 
No power, however uncontrolled, was given to destroy a nation or can law- 
fully do so. 

An interesting inquiry here arises, whether the treaty -making power in a 
federative union like the United States can alienate the domain of one of the 
States without its consent. Our Government, when the northeastern boitnd- 
ary was in dispute, declared that it had no power to dispose of territory 
claimed by the State of Maine. " The better opinion would seem to be," says 
Chancellor Kent, "that such a power of cession does reside exclusively in the 
treaty -making power uuder the Constitution of the United States, although, 
a sound discretion would forbid the exercise of it without the consent " of the 
interested State. But it might be asked whether the treaty-making power 
is not necessarily limited by the existence of States, parties to the confedera- 
tion, having control for most purposes over their own territory? Could the 
treaty-making power blot out the existence of a State which helped to create 
the Union by ceding away all its domain? Such fearful power was never 
lodged in the General Government by the Constitution and could never be 
lawfully exercised in the ordinary contingencies of the confederation. Only 
in extreme cases, where the treaty-making power is called upon to accept the 
fact of conquest or to save the whole body from ruin by surrendering a part, 
could such an exercise of power bo justified. (Comp., sections 53, 161.) 
3571 



75 

Mr. President, we have been in the habit of alluding to our 
Government as one of delegated powers, and we have claimed 
heretofore that the Congress has no authority except that con- 
fided to it either directly or by necessary implication by the Con- 
stitution. I suppose that any lawyer in this Chamber would, if 
he were not called upon by the political exigencies of the moment 
to vote in favor of the joint resolution, admit that under the Ha- 
waiian system the power to alienate that nation does not repose 
in the legislature or the treaty-making authority unless it is so 
ordained in her organic law, and yet the constitution of Hawaii, as 
I have pointed out. only gives authority in respect to political and 
commercial union to be exercised by treaty, and there is not one 
word anywhere, unless it is found in the treaty-making provis- 
ion, which I gravely doubt, authorizing denationalization. 

It will not be presumed that a people under republican forms 
ever organize a government for the purpose of granting the entire 
country to another. The agency created through the constitu- 
tion and laws must be regulated and controlled by them. No 
nation ever made a constitution or passed an act through its leg- 
islature or elected a legislature with the intention that that legis- 
lature should destroy the nationality. For the first time we are 
to accept the unauthorized act of the Congress as binding not only 
on ourselves but also upon Hawaii. 

We are confidently informed that if the President of that Re- 
public and his Legislature make no objection, that the country is 
ours, regardless of their constitution. Mr. President, if Senators 
would calmly reflect upon this situation the pending resolution 
would be consigned to the waste basket, where it belongs. 

Mr. President, passing from this to another subject, 1 wish to 
call the attention of the Senate to the argument made to some ex- 
tent here to-day, that as Hawaii is small its annexation will not 
amount to a very great deal. It is no doubt true that the Repub- 
lic of Hawaii is comparatively insignificant, but its absorption 
will nevertheless as completely establish our repudiation of the 
Monroe doctrine and of other theories of government heretofore 
adopted as though it covered a much greater area and was ten- 
anted by a much more numerous and powerful population. Every 
vast change has had a small beginning. Our independence was a 
matter of growth, and no one doubts that because of our success 
numerous monarchical establishments were destroyed and upon 
their ashes free governments arose. If we can annex these islands, 
we can take in any spot in the world under the same claim of 
right. 

In illustrating this phase of the question. Senator Morehead, of 
Kentucky, during the Texas discussion, said: 

Hg might be told that these were extreme cases. So they were; and he 
should not have introduced them hut for the sake of illustration, and tbey 
did illustrate the principle contended for and showed plainly the extremity 
of the proposition contained in the resolution from the House. If Cuba and 
Haiti and Liberia were received, we might soon have an application from 
China. We had had lately a brilliant mission to China and had become 
acquainted with many things before unknown touching the Celestial Em- 

Eire— the land of flowers. Very possibly we might become captivated by the 
eauty of their long tails and slanting eyes and wish to have among us their 
ladies with little feet. 

The annexation of an empire so large as China would, perhaps, go pretty 
far toward gratifying our appetite for acquisition of foreign territory. W« 
might then go south on our own continent, annex Mexico [this was already 
threatened] , and annex Bogota, and Bolivia, and Peru, and Chile, till at length 
we took in Patagonia. We were told by the geographers that the people of 
£571 



7G 

Patagonia were cannibals, or, in other words, man-eaters. Very well; if 
they were, it might probably exert a conservative influence on the public 
councils, and the annunciation from the Chair of " the Senator from Pata- 
gonia'' might well cause gentlemen to be extremely orderly. China— only 
think of it!— the Ultima Thule of the East! What a temptation to have her 
*2i this Union ! What a privilege ! The glorious privilege of our Constitution, 
that we could take in the world! — Congressional Globe and Appendix, Twenty- 
eighth Congress, second session, 1844-45, page 281. 

THE DANGER OF THE EXAMPLE. 

Mr. President, the point of this reference is that if we commence 
this work of expansion and accretion there will he no limit. The 
taste of conquest is dangerous. It may be well enough for any 
Senator to say that, after all, the annexation of so small a 
country is immaterial; that we would not seize a larger country 
similarly situated. But experience shows that this argument is 
valueless, and that the very vote which is given by the distin- 
guished Senator from Massachusetts who has so eloquently ad- 
dressed the Senate to-day in favor of the resolution will be re- 
ferred to as authority and be declared to be worthy of the greatest 
consideration in maintaining the theory that the Philippine Islands 
and other parts of the world are to be permanently acquired. 

Mr. President, in this body, among the most eloquent and able 
Senators who favor annexation are to be found those who have 
urged, as I said the other day, that wherever the American flag 
is raised it must forever remain. They will be sure to take ad- 
vantage of this precedent. When a treaty of peace with Spain is 
being negotiated the consequences of Hawaiian annexation will 
be manifested. 

This is the first step— the dangerous step— in the direction of 
territorial expansion. If there ever was a time when we should 
proceed slowly in such matters, that time is now. To-day, in the 
midst of the great triumphs of our arms; to-day, when everywhere 
in our land rise voices of praise and thanksgiving for the wonder- 
ful battles we have won, we must not be deaf to the circumstance 
that intense enthusiasm is not productive of the wisest conclu- 
sions, and that in the midst of the excitement incident to military 
success there is but little opportunity or ability to solve those 
numerous problems of free government which encompass the vic- 
torious Republic. 

Mr. President, in times when nations are struggling for life, 
when they are being emancipated from oppression, when they are 
admitted to the broad light of freedom and breathe again that in- 
vigorating air of liberty of which they were so long deprived — in 
those moments they understand the meaning of tyranny, and they 
know full well the distinction between civil government exercised 
and based upon the people's will and that which springs from 
military power. 

However virtuous men may be or may have been, however 
great their intellectuality, however superior their education, when 
they are suddenly invested with plenary jurisdiction and have 
the authority to dominate their fellow-men, the temptation is 
ever too great and they yield to its seductions. Hence the danger 
of vast military establishments and the necessity for thorough 
separation between the civil and military departments. When 
this Government was first organized and had around it and 
within it nothing save that which told of human rights vindicated 
and oppression subverted, it was far differently situated. But 
two or three years ago, but four or five months ago, we did not 

i.571 



'77 

hear Senators clamoring for extension and expansion and for im- 
mense navies and armies. 

OUR HOMOGENEITY IMPORTANT. 

Mr. President, is the homogeneity of the American people 
worth)' of consideration? What is it we most need in solving the 
problems of domestic government? We require not only that co- 
hesion which draws together the whole in an effort to preserve 
its every part, but we must have that moral sympathy and that 
moral strength which can only emanate from a people sufficiently 
educated to appreciate the basic principles of their government, 
sufficiently courageous to defend them, and sufficiently impartial 
to deal out to each other and to all men that justice upon which 
alone human institutions can permanently rest. 

Mr. President, see the problems which constantly confront 
American people. From the Atlantic shore to the Pacific Ocean 
we have a common people. We are used to regard ourselves as 
such. We speak of a common interest, of a common heart, and 
of a universal aspiration. We speak of these as the result of that 
educated development of just minds which has eventuated in the 
formation of a character and a capacity adequate to meet the 
grave necessities of self-rule. 

Yet, while that is true, do we not find wide diversity of opinion 
in this Republic? Do we not find in Massachusetts, for instance, 
a great difference of opinion as to financial matters as contrasted 
with the sentiment on the same topic that prevails in the State of 
Colorado? Do we not find certain parts of this country striving 
for the prevalence of theories in which they honestly believe, and 
which they enforce with great intellectual vigor? And do we not 
find in another part of this same land violently antagonistic no- 
tions upon that identical topic? 

And yet, sir, if this be true in this country of education, in this 
land where the schoolhouse and the church rise, where we are 
taught together and breathe the same atmosphere, where from 
ocean to ocean the railroads and other means of transportation 
carry us day by day. and where the constant intermingling of 
every class tends to dissociate from all anything in the nature of 
prejudice or sectionalism— if this be true here in our well-beloved 
Republic, what is to be the condition of things if we summon 
among us millions — not merely hundreds of thousands, but mil- 
lions — who not only are not masters of the theories of civil gov- 
ernment, but who, Mr. President, know less of it than the child 
who toddles at your knee? 

I wonder that anyone who feels a deep and abiding interest in 
his country will decline to pause a moment over this consider- 
ation. Is it contemplated that we are to educate newly imported 
races and that after years of trouble and difficulty they may be 
raised to our level? Have we attained perfection in government? 
Have we solved all its grave and momentous difficulties? Are we 
prepared to say that we possess not only the government par ex- 
cellence, which we do assert, but that there is no more for us to 
do, that the superlative has been reached, that there is no other 
question now important enough for us to solve, and that we must 
go forward as republican missionaries throughout all the nations 
to instill lessons of freedom and that reverence for law which 
we inculcate and in which we believe? Are we prepared to assert 
this? Surely not. 

There is scarcely a Senator here who does not look forward to 
3571 



78 

the near future as pregnant with grave contentions among our 
own people, not battles with the sword, but battles of intellect, 
battles of mind, battles where men earnestly and honestly con- 
tend for mastery as to principles affecting even our governmental 
structure. Shall we, thus confronted by these domestic problems, 
thus meeting day by day these grave issues, demanding our best 
thought and our most patriotic effort, affiliate with the ignorant, 
venal, and savage, living far removed and alien to us in language 
and ideas? 

Will the Malay make a good citizen? I do rot think so, not- 
withstanding encomiums passed upon him. Obliteration will 
come finding him not qualified to be of us. He should never be 
elevated to the position of American citizenship, and no country 
tenanted by incompetents should ever be acquired for permanent 
occupancy. The Negrito must share the same fate. Not every 
clime, not under every sun, not in the home of every race can 
the American citizen be found. 

He dwells where natural gifts and the advantages of education 
and free exercise of his best faculties lead him to see the best and 
to do it. He belongs to a dominating type. It must be through 
the processes of evolution, not born in legislative halls and that 
do not sx3ring from the sudden thirst of power on the part of an 
armed people, that men may be disciplined for freedom. In this 
day and generation, when we hear the approach of momentous 
questions, we are told that we must depart from tried paths and 
proceed into an undiscovered country. 

Mr. President, the following may be considered to some extent 
a summary of the positions which I have taken here. First, as to 
the statement that our policy has always tended toward annexa- 
tion. This is untrue. Jefferson declared that we should never 
accept any territory requiring a navy to defend it. Webster, 
while asserting that we had peculiar interests in the islands, ex- 
pressly disclaimed any intention of annexation. Presidents Tyler, 
Taylor, Fillmore, etc., held the same views. Marcy at one time 
favored annexation, but the scheme was not carried out, and his 
latest expression on the subject favored maintaining their inde- 
pendence. When Mr. Frelinghuysen was Secretary of State he 
adopted Jefferson's view against extracontinental acquisitions. 

Second, that we need Hawaii for military purposes. It is diffi- 
cult to see how such an addition to our country could otherwise 
than weaken us. We are now but moderately defended, both as 
to fortifications and naval development. Admiral Walker testi- 
fied before the Senate Committee on Coast Defenses that in case 
of war with a great maritime power our Navy would be inadequate. 

Its splendid achievements at Manila and Santiago in nowise de- 
tract from the correctness of that assertion, nor can we question 
that if we are to proceed to develop ourselves as an all-conquering 
power our Navy must be many, many times augmented. While 
vast improvement has been made, our Navy is not perfect. « Every- 
body admits that Hawaii would require naval defense. We are 
not protected as it is. Will it help us to take in something new 
also demanding defensive expenditures? 

It would cost not less than $100,000,000 to properly " protect " 
Hawaii. The town of Honolulu is located on the Island of Oahu 
and Pearl Harbor is also on that island. Admiral Belknap says 
that Honolulu can be well defended by fortifications costing 
§5,000, 0C0. General Schofield reported officially to the Depart- 

3571 



ment that it could not be defended from the land and would be 
useless as a naval station for that reason. Schofield reported in 
favor of Pearl Harbor. It will, in any event, take much money 
to fcrtify these two places, to say nothing of naval repair shops 
and sites for same, docks, etc. (We have no adequate docks any- 
where.) But when these two harbors are fortified, what have we 
got? A partial protection of one island containing only about 
600 square miles. There are six other inhabited islands, some of 
which are much larger than Oahu, viz, Hawaii contains about 
4,000 square miles, and Maui and Lanui are much more extensive 
than Oahu. Moreover, the islands are not closely grouped. 

The distance between their extremes is some 400 miles. While 
there are no extensive harbors outside of Honolulu and Pearl, 
there are yet landing places on each island. Especially is this true 
of Hawaii, At Hilo there is a wharf in process of construction. 
Unless a navy capable of successfully meeting any hostile force 
that may be sent is maintained and retained at the islands they 
can not be held, even if Pearl and Honolulu harbors are fortified. 
These ports would be blockaded and a naval station established 
by the enemy at some other port. The defending navy must pro- 
tect the very long coast lines of the group, and must patrol 400 
miles of water, without taking into consideration the deflections 
necessary in managing vessels sent from one coast to the other. 

The extent of the navy rendered thus essential is problematical. 
It would depend upon the resources of our enemy. Something 
over one year ago the English budget showed $100,000,000 appro- 
priated for naval purposes for a single year. The vessels to be 
constructed with this will form but a small part of the British 
navy; and if we assume that $100, 000,000 worth of hostile fleet is 
sent to Hawaii, we must be able to prevent a landing and must, 
consequently, have at least enough there to defeat an establish- 
ment by the enemy at any point of a naval station or the placing 
of any considerable body of men on shore. If w T e were contesting 
with England, $100,000*000 would not be enough with which to 
start our island defenses. That sum might do were we contesting 
with Germany, France, Japan, or Russia. Then, have we the 
supplies necessary to maintain an army and navy? 

In the testimony given by General Schofield before the House 
committee he referred to the possibility of employing natives of 
Hawaii to defend the island, but when those natives permitted 
the few individuals who took possession of the island and over- 
turned the former Government to take that remarkable step, 
when they have permitted that Government to be maintained in 
spite of their own numerical strength, it is absolutely useless to 
talk to me or I think to anyone, with effect, as to the ability of 
the natives to defend anything. 

Mr. President, I have heard a great deal about the value of allies 
in the prosecution of war. I heard a great deal of it in this Cham- 
ber for a couple of years when I was unable to vote for the alleged 
patriotic resolutions, which I did not think patriotic, regarding 
other people who were in insurgency, and 1 then said that whenever 
the American soldier planted his foot upon foreign soil, contesting 
for dominion, he, under the Stars and Stripes, must win his triumph 
and that his auxiliaries would be of comparatively little account. 
Upon a broken reed would this Government rest if she depended 
upon the natives of Hawaii to defend Hawaii in case of foreign 
invasion. She must rely upon her own gallant sons, and their 
3571 



80 

blood and their sacrifice alone can maintain her dominion in that 
distant sea. 

Here, as illustrating what I said a moment ago— and I mention 
it now lest it may escape my observation — no one has a higher re- 
gard—and I repeat it— for our soldiers and sailors than have I, 
but they are not the men to whom our Constitution has intrusted 
the maintenance or carrying on of civil government. They are 
not the men who in any age or in anytime have been safely given 
the investigation of those questions which involve the perpetuity 
of republican institutions. Wise and strong and able and brave 
though they are, brilliant and magnificent their victories, glori- 
ous the pages upon which their deeds are written, yet not to them 
has been conferred by our wise organic law the duties of the 
statesman. 

Mr. President, when Admiral Belknap was testifying some time 
ago before the Committee on Foreign Relations of this body, he 
said: 

Great Britain now lias Puget Sound, which she ought not ba permitted to 
hold a single day, in my judgment. 

I refer to the report of -the Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions, February 26, 1894, page 687. If it be true that the testi- 
mony was given, and I presume there is no one who will deny 
it, for it is an official report, we find a very brave and distinguished 
officer, for whom all of us have the highest regard, asserting that 
England ought not to be permitted to hold Puget Sound for one 
minute. 

I mention this as showing the different theories upon which the 
different officials of this Government proceeds Civil matters can 
not be safely intrusted to the military any more than military 
affairs can be assigned to civilians. What a peculiar declaration. 
As the result of an arbitration, which many of us and perhaps all 
of us here think did not reach a correct judgment, England ac- 
quired dominion on Puget Sound; and the Admiral's theory is 
that because it would be of great advantage to us to possess this 
region, we ought not to permit England to hold it for a moment. 
Again do I say that men, however brave and however able, who 
are engaged in vocations that tempt to conquest, are not good ad- 
visers in civil affairs. 

When we have paid out enormous sums we have not strength- 
ened our continental possessions at all. The Pacific coast is in as 
much danger as ever. We must have an Hawaiian squadron. The 
enemy will not move his ships to suit us. We can not leave the 
islands unguarded, because the foe may appear at any time. Cali- 
fornia is a long distance away, and the modern cruiser and battle 
ship can not go too far from a coaling station. We must defend 
California by a navy other than that employed at the islands. 

Engineer in Chief Melville writes that the battle ship Oregon, 
which is one of our best war vessels, can run at forced draft, if 
there is no accident, and without recoaling, 2,400 knots. At ordi- 
nary cruising rates she could travel 5,040 knots. Under forced 
draft (16.79 knots per hour) she consumes 253 tons of coal per 
day, and she can keep this up six days. Under ordinary cruising 
rates (10 knots per hour) she consumes 73 tons per day, and can 
maintain this for twenty-one days. 

The San Francisco, one of our best cruisers, can steam only 
1,500 knots forced draft without recoaling, or 3.2 days, and at or- 
3571 



81 

dinary cruising rate she can travel 4,104 knots without recoaling. 
It is therefore evident that if the islands were in the possession of 
an enemy, that enemy would not send his cruisers or battle ships 
to California, for if he tarried to fight he would not have coal 
enough to get home and would float around helpless and useless. 
The sample cruiser and battle ship which I have named are about 
as good as any— at all events, above the average. I have made 
these estimates upon the most favorable showing the vessels have 
ever made. I have no doubt, however, that practically my calcu- 
lations are too high, as the average ship seldom comes up to the 
specifications after the actual trial has been made. 

Some one said in the House of Representatives that a battle ship 
of the first class could not be sent safely across the ocean. We 
have negatived that in the case of the Oregon, but because of 
numerous places at which she was able to coal. As a rule, this is 
no doubt true. No one would care to encounter a typhoon in a 
battle ship if she did not have an ample supply of coal. 

The above proves that a naval warfare can not be carried on 
with a base of supplies as distant as Hawaii. 

We are told that Honolulu "looks right into" the proposed 
Nicaragua Canal, and will be necessary for the defense of Brito, 
the western terminus of the canal. That this is all "moonshine " 
will appear when it is shown that Honolulu is 4,210 miles from 
Brito, while San Diego, where we are now erecting a fortifica- 
tion, is only 2,200 miles, and San Francisco only 2,700. Therefore 
it is palpable that, as San Diego is over 2,000 miles and San Fran- 
cisco about 1,500 miles nearer Brito than Honolulu, the California 
points, not Honolulu, must be relied upon. If Hawaii were in 
possession of an enemy, he could never send a modern battle ship 
or cruiser to Brito and "stay in a fight," even to say nothing of 
getting back. His coal would give out and we would tow him 
into port. 

I repeat in shorter form the figures which I have already laid 
before the Senate in this connection, epitomizing merely what I 
have said. 

We are informed that Honolulu is on the track of oriental 
commerce and that all vessels from Europe or Atlantic ports, after 
going through the canal, will make direct for Honolulu, and from 
there to Yokohama, and that therefore we need the islands to pro- 
tect canal commerce. 

The exact distance from Brito via Honolulu to Yokohama is 
shown on the official charts to be— 

Miles. 

Brito to Honolulu 4,210 

Honolulu to Yokohama 3,415 

Distance from Brito to Yokohama via Honolulu 7. 655 

From Brito to Yokohama via San Francisco the distances are: 

Brito to San Francisco 2.70.) 

San Francisco to Yokohama 4,530 

Distance from Brito to Yokohama via San Francisco 7,2=30 

Hence distance via the San Francisco route is shorter by 419 
miles. 

Obviously this fact and the other consideration that San Fran- 
cisco is a most important port will force practically all the canal 
Asiatic trade that way. This proposition is relied upon, and with 
3571-0 



82 

reason, by those who think that the canal will help California com- 
merce. The shortest route from Brito to Yokohama passes within 
176 miles from San Francisco and more than 1,800 miles from 
Honolulu. The shortest route from San Francisco to Yokohama 
passes near the Aleutian Islands and about 1,900 miles from Hon- 
olulu. Unless the mariner who uses the canal wants to kill time 
he will save 419 miles and go to San Francisco. He may save 
something more by passing within 176 miles of that city. 

3. It is said that unless we take the islands some other govern- 
ment will capture them. In the first place, there is absolutely no 
evidence to justify this assertion. About half a century ago Eng- 
lish and French officers, without authority of their Governments, 
made demonstrations against the islands. We protested, and Eng- 
land and France at once disavowed the unauthorized behavior 
of their agents and even offered to join us in securing their per- 
manent independence. 

We declined, no doubt, because of Washington's warning 
against entangling alliances; but England and France, to show 
their earnestness, made a mutual official declaration on Novem- 
ber 28, 1843, by which they engaged "reciprocally never to take 
possession, either directly or under the title of protectorate, or 
under any other form, of any part of the territory," etc. Ger- 
many has not evinced the slightest desire to interfere, and the 
same is true of Russia. As to Japan, there is no danger. A dis- 
pute as to damages for refusal to permit certain Japanese immi- 
grants to land has arisen, but will be arbitrated. Japan is nearly 
3,500 miles from Hawaii, and to defend Hawaii would require an 
enormous outlay, even more than would be required in our case. 

An interesting review of this part of the situation will be found in 
an article by Minister Hoshi in the last November Harper, to which 

I have already referred and which is now in the Record at length. 
Japan has every reason to be friendly with us and we with that 
Empire. The enormous increase in the consumption by that 
country of our manufactures of steel and iron and of American 
flour and cotton and the large importation into the United States 
of Japanese tea, raw silk, etc., are sufficient to establish the ab- 
surdity of any talk of war by Japan for the control of Hawaii. 
If England, Germany, or France waged war against us, their 
financial institutions, which control to a great extent their poli- 
cies, would be driven to the wall. The first gun fired at New 
York by either of these powers would shake Europe to its center 
and render it necessary to make a new map of that part of the 
world. If England were silly enough to fight us, she would oper- 
ate, as far as the Pacific coast is concerned, from Esquimalt, 
which is on our borders and where she has one of the finest forts 
in existence. 

For fifty years we have warned European powers away from 
the Hawaiian Islands. That warning has always been heeded. 
We are better able to take care of ourselves now than we were 
then. Where is there any new danger? 

If it is necessary to build fortifications and guard the islands, 
why not improve Pearl Harbor, which was ceded to us by Article 

II of the treaty of December 6, 1884, by which we were given "the 
exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River in the island of 
Oahu and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair 
station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end 

3371 



83 

the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and 
do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid? " 

4. It is said that the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty will 
annul the Pearl Harbor cession. This I have already considered. 

o. It is said that if we refuse to take the islands our position wiH 
be morally weakened. The contrary is true. Under the Monroe 
doctrine we do not claim or take nor would we have the South 
American republics or any of them. The same doctrine has al- 
wa} T s been applied to Hawaii and its application recognized by all 
powers. The strength of the Monroe doctrine consists in our ab- 
stention from conquest or absorption. We merely warn other 
governments not to oppress our sister republics. If Europe said 
to us, ; 'Take Mexico, or we will take it," we would reply, "We 
will not do so, and you must keep your hands off." This long- 
defined and carefully regarded policy we apply to Hawaii. If, on 
the other hand, we shall begin the plan of absorption, we must 
get ready to take the consequences. Army and Navy must be 
indefinitely increased. Onerous taxation and centralization will 
follow. The Monroe doctrine becomes a thing of the past, a myth, 
a memory, a mistake. 

Mr. President, in this connection let us reflect upon the conse- 
quences of our attitude upon those whom we have assumed to 
defend under the Monroe doctrine. In this Chamber we ap- 
plauded — a most uncommon circumstance — when Mr. Cleveland 
sent in his remarkable message, in which, in maintenance of that 
doctrine, he threw down the gantlet to a mighty empire, and, 
though we were unprepared to face any first-class power, we did 
not flinch. England, taking a correct view of the situation, agreed 
finally to arbitration, and the incident was, so far as concerned 
the strained relations, happily closed, and we congratulated our- 
selves upon this acquiescence in that time-honored declaration. 

Mr. President, does it not seem passing strange that at this day, 
so close to that hour when we were thus demonstrative in favor 
of that doctrine and declared in this Chamber that it was written 
so deeply and so firmly in our law that it had almost become 
crystallized in the Constitution itself — when we made that an- 
nouncement just a few months ago, did anyone here suppose that 
we would soon threaten an opposite policy? 

We said we would not even interfere with the possessions of 
foreign governments upon this continent, but that the Western 
Hemisphere must be consecrated to freedom, and that wherever 
liberty won in the battle she should remain intrenched and unas- 
sailed, and the armies and navies of the Republic would defend 
her against foreign aggression. But this day we are stretching 
forth for dominion elsewhere; we are abandoning this theory, be- 
cause we can not with any face or conscience assert that no other 
nation has the right to invade the sacred precincts of this hemi- 
sphere, when we claim the right to go abroad and with the sword 
bring within our control alien races. 

Mr. President, what will be the effect, I repeat, upon our sister re- 
publics on this hemisphere of this ' ' manifest-destiny " talk? They 
have looked upon us as their powerful guardian, adequate with 
our giant resources to shield them. They now see us breaking 
the moorings to which the ship of state was long since attached 
by patriotic hands and witness us about to engage in spoliation. 

Mr. President, is it wonderful that we already hear inurmur- 
3571 



84 

fogs, not perhaps very loud, against this policy which we are 
advocating, murmurings emanating from this continent, from the 
very peoples with whom we have attempted to form alliances, 
with whom our statesmen have attempted to make closer rela- 
tions, from our own hemisphere, from our sister Republics? 
^Taturally the extension of empire will excite jealousy and fear 
here. If we are to abandon our preconceived and announced the- 
ories and go abroad in pursuit of conquests, well may our neigh- 
bors say that we are not their defender, and that perhaps they, 
too, are in danger. 

Mr. President, this programme, which according to some we 
are about to outline and in the pursuit of which this is the initia- 
tive step, must infallibly bring upon us the condemnation or cer- 
tainly the warm regret of every other American Republic. Let us 
pause a minute if we are to throw away the lessons of generations. 
If this doctrine has been builded up through so many years and 
has stood every test to which the truth can be subjected and has 
bean found to be correct, let us not throw it aside in a moment. 
Neither in the storm of passion nor in the enthusiasm of victory 
let us discard it. 

Remember that it was not conceived in haste and indiscretion, 
but that it was born of reflection by those who thought and 
worked for the benefit and advancement of their country. Not 
in the clash of arms or the sound of martial tread or the acclaim 
of contesting or victorious armies was this statesmanlike declara- 
tion announced. Mr. President, it will be long before I forget it. 
1 do not arrogate any such knowledge as that which is professed 
by many, leading me to repudiate it as old and worn out. The 
truth, Mr. President, as well in matters pertaining to statesman- 
ship and civil government as elsewhere, will last longer than one 
age. Senseless is he who ignores it. 

Can we be indifferent, Mr. President, to the voice of those who 
live upon our continent? We may have power to do so, but the 
consequences of that indifference may be that instead of being 
the advocate and, defender of free institutions we will become 
the marauder of nations. 

6. It is claimed that annexation will be most beneficial to our 
laboring interests. This is untrue, and happily the absurdity of 
the claim is thoroughly appreciated by the laboring people of the 
United States, whohave not hesitated, from their national assem- 
blage to local meetings, to denounce the entire project. If Hono- 
lulu is a good place for white labor, why has not such labor gone 
there? In what direction is the new enterprise to be guided? 
Everybody concedes that our intelligent white people will not 
work in the cane fields. 

Notwithstanding the talk with reference to the genial character 
of the climate, it is certain that a cane field is a real furnace. 
While the temperature runs from 50° to 90°, the very absence of 
extreme cold and intense heat results in a warm sameness enervat- 
ing in the extreme. No climate that can produce coffee can be 
otherwise than unpleasantly warm. The absence of white labor 
establishes that there is no field for it. Sugar is the great indus- 
try. In the year 1897 over 500,000,000 pounds were produced. 
This is about enough to supply the whole population west of the 
Missouri River. We hear the claim often that the limit of pro- 
duction has been reached. The same assertion was confidently 
made when the output was only one-fourth of that of 1897. Sugar 

3571 



is the mainstay of the islands; without it there would be no con- 
siderable commerce and no talk of annexation. 

Much is said as to coffee raising. Our consul at Honolulu has 
recently made a very full report as to the status of this industry. 
He shows that the labor is wholly Asiatic; that the Chinese re- 
ceive $16 per month and the Japanese $15, without board; that 
the industry is not yet firmly established; that capital is neces- 
sary. He ventures the opinion that German labor could be profit- 
ably employed in planting, but does not pretend that " picking," 
the most expensive part of the transaction, can be done by any 
but inferior labor. The coffee supply of the world now fully 
equals the consumption. There is no tariff in this country upon 
coffee. The Hawaiian must compete with the low-priced labor of 
Brazil and Central America. Manifestly there is nothing in this 
outlook for either the American farmer or workingman. A few 
mechanics can get work now and then in Hawaii, but the market 
in this respect is quite limited. 

Much has been said of the intention of the Dole Government to 
prevent Japanese immigration. That there has been no such in- 
tention is evidenced by the documents and facts which I placed 
before the Senate on yesterday. Not long since 800 Japanese im- 
migrants were refused landing, and this was the basis for the 
controversy with Japan, that Government claiming that under 
existing treaties the interference was unjust. There is in force a 
convention between the two countries authorizing contract labor 
to go to Hawaii. This is, of course, the worst sort of immigra- 
tion. The 800 excluded were not, except perhaps in a few isolated 
cases, of this class. 

The treaty which provides for contract labor can be terminated 
on six months' notice by either power. Dole has never attempted 
to end it, but on the contrary, since the exclusion of the 800 non- 
contract Japanese, the Dole people, through their board of immi- 
gration, have agreed to the landing of 2,000 contract laborers 
from Japan. The sugar and coffee planters want cheap labor. 
They run the islands and will continue to do so, and they will 
have just the labor they wish— cheap labor— the only labor used 
anywhere in the world by coffee and sugar growers. 

If Dole wishes the treaties with Japan modified, why does he 
not endeavor to procure such modification? If he can not do so 
unaided, why does he not invoke the friendly offices of the United 
States? 

7. It is said that if we do not annex, Dole arid others will divert 
their trade elsewhere. There is nothing in this. The main sup- 
porters and instigators of this treaty are not philanthropists. 
They are after profits. They trade with us because they make 
money by so doing. Without any remission of duty they would 
send their sugar and coffee to us because here is their market. 
When the McKinley bill interfered with their sugar, they still 
came here. With the reciprocity treaty in force, they would be 
insane to go elsewhere. Were it necessary to discriminate to hold 
their trade, we could do so by a reasonable treaty. As a matter of 
fact, however, they will, as has been said, continue to deal with 
the people of the United States for their own financial benefit. 

It is said, Mr. President, that there are issues here involving 

the happiness and prosperity of the sugar trust of the United 

States. 1 suppose that upon a matter of international concern 

regarding a question which involves the alteration of our policy, 

3571 



86 



such a charge will not amount to a great deal; but yesterday the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Lindsay] very thor- 
oughly answered the entire pretense. Certain it is that whenever 
we have brought within our confines all the great sugar produc- 
ing regions of the earth— cane sugar, I mean — the sugar trust, so 
called, will be in clover. It to-day realizes more from the sugar 
produced by the planters of Louisiana than from any sugar which 
it imports, for it does not give those planters, as the Senators 
from Louisiana well know, the benefit of all the tariff, I suppose, 
not by at least half a cent per pound. 

Whenever the cane-sngar production of the world, oriental and 
all, is within the United States, it is said we may have competi- 
tion. Mr. President, the competition possible against great trusts 
is a mere theory. No more could a man with five or ten millions 
of money engage in a contest against the Standard Oil Company 
or the sugar trust or any of the other vast combinations in this 
country than could I, with my microscopic means, engage in a 
war of the sort with a millionaire. 

Therefore this annexation in the end, and pressed to its legiti- 
mate results, will have but one outcome, and that directly an- 
tagonistic and contradictory to that which is asserted by the ad- 
vocates of annexation. The sugar trust naturally favors and 
must favor annexation. But this is a collateral issue, designed 
merely to divert attention and to att9inpt by misstatement to 
lead people through prejudice or passion to vote contrary to their 
judgment. Those in this section of the country who have always 
supported the trust are for annexation. 

8. The sugar planters, who are not numerous but enormously- 
rich, have reaped their benefits for the most part from the reci- 
procity treaty with the United States, by means of which we have 
donated to them $75,000,000 — the extent of their exemption from 
duty. 

They fear that this treaty may be changed and made more truly 
reciprocal. They therefore are spending time and money to secure 
annexation, and when this is accomplished their ample income 
will be made permanent without any benefit accruing to the peo- 
ple of the United States. This accounts for the position of vari- 
ous newspapers and individuals who are interesting themselves 
vigorously in advocacy of annexation. 

9. The character of population we will bring in by annexation, 
as shown by the last census, is as follows: 



Nationality. 


Males. 


Females. 


TotaL 




16,399 
4,249 

1,975 

1,406 

866 

56 

216 

8,202 

19,212 

19, 167 

321 

448 


11.620 

4; 236 

1,111 

844 

566 

45 

162 

6,989 

5, 195 

2,449 

134 

152 


31,019 

8,485 






3,086 




2,250 




1,432 




101 




378 




15,191 




24,407 




21,616 




455 




600 






Total 


72,517 


36,503 


109,020 







3571 



87 

We do not exclude Japanese and will not do so if Hawaii is an- 
nexed. We exclude Chinese laborers, but we do not drive away 
those already here. Therefore, the Asiatics now in the islands 
will remain, and Chinese and Japanese "cheap labor" will be in- 
corporated. 

Mr. President, not very long ago the people of this country 
agitated the question of the restriction of immigration. It is bu& 
a few weeks since it was the subject of discussion in this Cham- 
ber. It is but a few years ago when it was almost provocative of 
a revolution upon the western coast of this country. We then ob- 
jected to importing Mongolians by the shipload, and now, as re- 
marked to me by a distinguished Senator, we propose to bring 
them in by the continent load. 

We assume to be fond of our laborers, and yet we design im- 
porting or forcing into this country, by extending our boundary, 
an element of competition with which our kindred can not possibly 
hope to compete. When our friends who argue for a protective 
tariff point to its benefits, they invariably advance or seek to ad- 
vance the argument that labor should receive munificent reward. 
In the prospective presence of 7,000,000 of an alien race, able to live 
upon a few cents a day, willing to work at starvation wages in 
cotton or woolen mills, we are still told that we pursue a " mani- 
fest destiny," that for which political organizations were called 
into existence. The Democratic party and the Republican party 
and the Populist party declare they are in favor of further edu- 
cating and further enlightening our own people. I do not think 
any great organization in the United States has ever heretofore 
said that it believed in diluting our intelligence and morality with 
the ignorance and crime of other lands. 

10. We are advised that most of the Hawaiian sugar land is 
held under lease and that there is plenty of fine land "for the 
people." Is anyone fool enough to think that the Hawaiian sugar 
barons will let an outsider in? If our land laws are extended 
over the islands, will the American farmer "get in" first? If 
there is a general grab, will he be considered? The truth is that 
it takes a fortune to develop and operate a plantation in Hawaii 
to get a start, and the poor man will be even less "in it" there 
than he is here. 

11. If there is anything the matter with the Japanese and Ha- 
waiian treaties; if there are troubles with Japan in contempla- 
tion; if there is difficulty regarding our improvement of Pearl 
Harbor, why not tender our good offices and we can fix these mafa 
ters to the satisfaction of all? If our ability to do this is ques- 
tioned, I answer, why not try? The advocates of annexation will 
not permit the making of any such negotiations, because they 
know that the same would be successful. 

It is said that the Japanese and natives will unite and overthrow 
the Government. 

Japan openly disclaims any such intention. If our interest re- 
quired it, we would intervene to prevent any such effort. 

The answer, however, to this pretense is that it is an annexation 
bugaboo. It is suggested by the very men who are importing 
contract laborers now. The Dole Government is doing this 
through its board of immigration. 

12. The present Hawaiian Government was formed as the result 
3571 



88 

of a conspiracy headed by our minister. Its organization is 
utterly unfair; its constitution is so framed that the masses of the 
people have nothing to do with the election of a president, and 
the natives are and always have been, in fact, disfranchised. 
They had nothing to do with the organization of the constitution; 
and yet we are informed that annexation can be accomplished 
without their cooperation. 

13. The proposed legislation is unconstitutional. Foreign ter- 
ritory can only be acquired through the treaty-making power. 
Our right to so acquire dominion has been maintained since the 
Louisiana case. It has been recognized by Story, Miller, and all 
writers upon constitutional law who have given their views upon 
the subject. This construction of the organic law found direct 
sanction in the opinion of Justice Clifford in Holden vs. Joy (17 
Wall., 211). 

14. The Texas case does not constitute a precedent, for Texas 
was admitted under section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution, 
which declares that "new States maybe admitted by the Con- 
gress into this Union." The Constitution" having thus designated 
the cases wherein the Congress might exercise jurisdiction to 
admit, and confined such exercise to " new States," excluded the 
granting of authority to admit any territory not constituting 
new States. The provision of section 3 supra, giving the Con- r 
gress power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regula- 
tions respecting the territory of the United States, refers to terri- 3. 
tory acquired not by the authority conferred in that section, but p 
pursuant to the treaty -making power. 

15. The jurisdiction of the Congress as to legislation is circum- 
scribed by the limits of the United States. " Without those limits 
Congress can not go, unless some explicit power can be shown. 
Hawaii can be annexed only pursuant to a valid international con- 
tract, i. e., a treaty. 

16. The cession of nationality is neither an executive nor a legis- 
lative function. The Hawaiian Executive cr Legislature or both 
have no general authority to alienate their functions and to deed 
away the nationality which they have been chosen to govern. If 
such authority exists, it must be discovered in the Hawaiian con- 
stitution. 

17. The only provision found in the Hawaiian constitution 
which anyone pretends conveys the right upon Dole and his asso- 
ciates to deed away the Government is found in section 32 of the 
Hawaiian constitution. That provision is to the effect that the 
President, with the approval of the cabinet, is empowered to make 
a treaty of political and commercial union between Hawaii and 
this country, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. 

The power to make a political union does not involve annexa- 
tion. No one will pretend that authority to make a commercial 
union affects nationality. Political union does not necessarily in- 
volve the extinguishment of either nation. The conferring of 
this authority upon Hawaii gives no right to sacrifice her entity 
or to merge the same into the American Republic. 

Granting the existence of the power to deed away sovereignty 
under the thirty-second article of the Hawaiian constitution, such 
grant has not been made, although a treaty was proposed by 
Hawaii and agreed upon by the plenipotentiaries of both nations 

3571 



89 

and transmitted by the President approvingly to the Senate, 
Nevertheless, a treaty being a contract, mutual in all respects, 
and dependent for its efficacy and validity upon the acquiescence 
of all parties thereto, and Article II, section 2, paragraph 2, of 
our Constitution subjecting the Presidential treaty-making pre- 
rogative to the advice and consent of the Senate, and such advice 
and consent not having been given, it follows that the Hawaiian 
so-called treaty is yet a mere unexecuted proposition, invalid, un- 
enforceable, and without the slightest potentiality. It is binding 
upon neither party, and is inadmissible in evidence for or against 
any party named within it. 

The resolution recites that which is absolutely false, for it de- 
clares that the "cession " has been made. No cession or grant is 
of the slightest validity or entitled to be called such until it is ef- 
fective, binding, and not requiring any acquiescence to make it 
complete. 

The assertion in the general resolution, " the Republic of Hawaii 
having, in due form, signified its consent in the manner provided 
by its constitution, to cede absolutely * * * to the United 
States all rights of sovereignty," etc., is misleading. The consent 
of Hawaii can not be shown otherwise than by treaty, and a treaty 
not accepted by the United States, pursuant to her Constitution, 
is a mere proposition, susceptible of withdrawal by the party pro- 
posing it and ignored by the second and material party. 

Granting that Hawaii has formally proposed to cede by treaty 
and that the power of cession is conferred in her constitution,- 
such cession can only become complete when the United States 
has ratified the treaty and thus made it effective and for the first 
time assented to the acquisition. 

18. The present acquisition threatens our dominancy on this 
hemisphere, because Mexico and Central and South America have 
heretofore believed us sincere in advocating the Monroe doctrine. 
Our abandonment of that doctrine must generate suspicion, im- 
pair confidence in our sincerity, and warn our neighbors that we 
intend to embark upon those marauding schemes which we have 
always hitherto condemned. 

19. The determination of Hawaiian annexation affirmatively is 
bad enough in so far as the result must be the acquiring of a 
country for the benefit of a few sugar growers and speculators, 
yet the serious evil is found in the example set. The Philippines, 
the Carolines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Ladrones tempt the 
covetous eye of the modern expansionist. 

20. Heretofore we have sought to defend our laboring interests 
by excluding shiploads of Chinamen. We will soon import con- 
tinent-loads of Malays, Negritos, id omne genus. 

21. The protectionists of the United States have heretofore de- 
clared themselves in favor of advanced wages. Tfee new policy 
will break down all restraint, for those who are brought within 
our confines must have equal rights. Slave labor— and all enforced 
contract toil is slave labor — is tolerated under our Constitution; 
because it has been held by our Supreme Court that contracts for 
services may be penally maintained. The labor contracts of Ha- 
waii are therefore legally defensible, and it is the policy of an- 
nexationists to maintain these contracts. They will vote against 
the amendment annulling the same. 

3571 



90 

23. The policy *n which we are about to enter will lead to enor- 
mous expenditure. The present Congress will be considered most 
economical in the light of that which is to come. Millions upon 
millions for the maintenance of an enormous army and an enor- 
mous navy are indispensable adjuncts to the expansion theory. 

23. The expansion' theory will lead us into complications with 
foreign nations. We will be brought in contact with all sorts of 
problems which do not now receive any consideration at our 
hands. We will be warlike and aggressive instead of peaceful, 
happy, and prosperous. 

There are several amendments before the Senate touching this 
matter, and there probably will be other amendments offered. I 
do not know that any advocate of annexation will be willing to 
take the position that any of these amendments ought to be 
adopted. I suppose that even the amendment which prevents 
slave labor in Hawaii may be voted down. I presume that the 
joint resolution in its present untruthful form, stating that there 
has been a cession when there is no cession, is also to receive the 
approval of those who are in favor of annexation. 

But at least we ought to be willing to submit to the Senate, 
with confidence in its adoption, an amendment authorizing the 
people of those islands to vote. I will not go into the character 
of the organization of that Government. I will not speak of the 
methods which were employed. The Senator from South Dakota 
[Mr. Pettigrew] will more fully and completely cover that sub- 
ject than I would be able to do, as he is, I believe, more familiar 
with it, though I have given it some study. But if ever there 
was a time when the American people should be careful not to 
incorporate within their confines any of those who do not wish 
to come in, it is now. Why not, then, adopt the amendment per- 
mitting a vote? 

Mr. President, I sympathize with the views expressed by the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar], as every 
one, I presume, here knows, with reference to the extension of 
dominion; but he must remember, when he asserts that the an- 
nexation of the Hawaiian Islands does not mean such extension, 
and can not be quoted in advocacy of that extension, that that 
argument is not recognized as valid by the advocates of a broader 
policy. They hail him as a powerful colaborer in the cause. 

Captain Mahan, from whom the advocates of annexation have 
often quoted, has said in an article published by him and called 
"Hawaii and our future sea power: " 

The United States finds itself compelled to answer a question— to make a 
decision— not unlike and not less momentous than that required of the Ro- 
man senate when the Mamertine garrison invited it to occupy Messina, and 
so to abandon the hitherto traditional policy which had confined the expan- 
sion of Rome to the Italian peninsula. 

Again he says: 

This is no mere question of a particular act. but of a principle, a policy, 
fruitful of many future acts, to enter upon which, in the fullness of our na- 
tional progress, the time has now arrived. The principle accepted, the an- 
nexation of Hawaii would be no mere sporadic effort, irrational because 
disconnected from an adequate motive, but a first fruit and a token that the 
nation in its evolution has aroused itself to the necessity of carrying its life— 
that has been the happiness of those under its influence— beyond the borders 
that have heretofore sufficed for its activities. 
3G71 



91 

There is a very brief comment taken from the Nation upon this 
article, which I will read: 

That is precisely the way to put it. " This is no mere question of a partic- 
ular act, but of a principle, a policy, fruitful of many future acts. " As such it 
is as important as anything which has occurred in the United States since 
the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and as such it ought to be debated. 
Considering this, the way in which the subject has been for four years left 
in the hands of sugar and other speculators, and bandied about as a means of 
making money for a few sons of missionaries, of keeping England out of an 
island, of curing lewdness and heathenism, and of securing a lockless '"key, 1 ' 
is certainly very odd. 

* * * # * * ' * 

Congress is becoming more and more aware of the gravity of the scheme. 
Captain Mahan has laid it perfectly bare. His illustration from the history 
of Rome is most apposite. When the senate directed the consul to occivpy 
Messina, it launched Rome on a new career, which was to build up the Roman 
Empire, but it sealed the fate of Roman republicanism. The age of Cato and 
Scipio and Gracchus, the ago of liberty and law, had come to an end. The 
age of Marius and Sylla and Pompey and Coesar and Augustus and Caligula 
had been entered on. The empire bad begun. As soon as provinces began 
to be acquired by conquest or fraud the rule of the people ceased and the 
oligarchical senate took charge. 

The senate had not been long in charge before the "princeps " or " boss " 
made his appearance and told it what laws to pass and how the sham offices 
should be filled. And 1 he princeps had not been long in command before the 
soldiers who won and h-ild the provinces made their appearance and put his 
office up at auction. And then, in another brief period, the whole fabric 
built-up by so much valor and ambition and love of "expansion " fell into 
hideous ruin. If it cU-es not point a moral as well as adorn a tale, no event 
of human history is Ltted to do so. 

Mr. President, it is unfair and wrong to charge those of us who 
oppose annexation with want of patriotism. I can understand 
that somebody who may have a financial interest in the result of 
this contest, who may, for instance, hold stock in some Hawaiian 
sugar companies, may do this, but those of us who are here in op- 
position to this scheme earnestly believe that its accomplishment 
will bring great disaster upon the Republic. 

We glory in the triumph of our arms, in all that the American 
citizen should deem worthy of praise, and we resent as infamously 
untrue any imputation to the contrary. Upon the deck of every 
battle ship where American blood has been poured, upon every 
field where American valor has transmitted to posterity in imper- 
ishable message the grandeur and splendor of her name— we have 
an interest in all that we have a share— it is the common heritage 
of American citizenship. Therefore, sir, when we contest for 
what we conceive to be the truth and the right we but exercise a 
right and perform a duty. 

The expressions of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] 
in the early part of his remarks this morning regarding the duty 
of a Senator were very appropriate. 

I have noticed, so far as I am personally concerned, that I have 
been attacked because in the legislature of my State in 1893 a res- 
olution favoring annexation was passed. To show the absolute 
impossibility of following any rule, if it can be called a rule, of 
that kind I will place in the Record as a part of my remarks the 
vote in the very next California legislature two years afterwards, 
in which in the State senate the Hawaiian resolution was de- 
feated, the vote being 9 to 22, the negative being composed of all 
the Democratic members and a majority of the Republican mem- 

S571 



92 

bers. Of course if we are to be guided by an inspiration of this 
kind, I presume the last expression must be deemed more binding 
than the first. 

Assembly joint resolution No. 8, relative to the annexation of Hawaii, was 
introduced January 24, 1895, by Assemblyman Bremster C. Kenyon, of the 
seventy-second district (Los Angeles), and. referred to committee on federal 
relations. — Assembly Journal, page 156. 

The resolution was favorably reported from committee on January 31, 
1895. — Assembly Journal, page 206. 

The resolution was read and adopted February IS, 1895.— Assembly Journal, 
page 458. 

The resolution reached the Senate in message February 18, 1895, and was 
referred to the committee on federal relations and immigration.— Senate 
Journal, page 552. 

The resolution was reported favorably to the Senate from committee and 
made special order for same day at 3.30 p. m. February 27, 1895. —Senate Jour- 
nal, page 701. 

The resolution was not reached at 3.30 p. m. February 27, 1895, and was 
made special order for March 1, 1895.— Senate Journal, page 708. 

The resolution was refused adoption, upon the roll being called, by a vote 
of 22 against and 9 for, on March 1, 1895.— Senate Journal, page 750. 

The resolution was defeated by the following vote: Ayes, Senators Beard, 
Franck, Henderson, Orr, Pedlar, Shine, Simpson, Voorhees, and Withing- 
ton— 9. Noes, Senators Arms, Androus, Bert, Burke, Denison, Dunn, Fay, 
Flint, Gesford, Gleaves, Hart, Hollaway, Mahoney, Martin. Mathews, Mc- 
Allister, McGowan, Seawell, Seymour, Shippee, Toner, and Whitehurst- 22. 

I take it that those of us who have come here, representing as we 
all do able and strong constituencies, are expected to exercise our 
judgments in accordance with the dictates of our consciences and 
the theories of government as we understand them. We are here 
with some independence of character, I trust, and sworn to follow 
a Constitution which we can not afford to violate as we inter- 
pret it, even though we are instructed to do it by the combined 
vote of the American people. We strive to do our duty. In this 
way only can we expect or do we deserve respect. 

I have the greatest confidence in the wisdom, the candor, the 
absolute ability of the American people, but it is impossible for 
me as an individual to know as much of a given question as an- 
other who has contributed toward it more thought, who has ex- 
amined it with more care, who has studied it with more painstak- 
ing deliberation, and who has had the weight of its decision directly 
upon his shoulders. So it takes time for these matters to be un- 
derstood. They are not to be solved in an instant. Hence that 
legislator who follows what he concedes to be his duty in a mat- 
ter involving principle and affecting, as he understands it, the 
basic principles of government is right. The legislator who does 
not thus act is wrong and proceeds contrary to his obligations, 
whether he be in this Chamber or elsewhere. 

The exciting incidents surrounding us may influence some, but 
no action we may take regarding this resolution can have the 
slightest effect upon the pending conflict. We will proceed until 
victory perches upon our standard and until conquest after con- 
quest shall attest our superiority. The difficulty will come later 
on. Stirring scenes may be in store for us. Battles may be fiercely 
waged. This will be so no matter what may be done regarding 
Hawaii. 

The influence of our action here is in another direction, and 
bears upon final settlement. I fear the effect of the example. I 
regard with deep solicitude the possible changes of our tried and 
3571 



93 

true policies. If annexation must come, it will be the hope of 
those who have opposed its consummation, with all the power at 
our command, that our views may have been mistaken. It will 
be our prayer that this great nation will not proceed upon a ca- 
reer of conquest; that she will not teach her sons and daughters 
that in the glory of martial triumph is to be found the supreme 
happiness of freemen. When the battle tide has passed and the 
calmness of reflection is about us, may we wisely consider those 
important teachings handed down from the great and gone, and 
may we never forget that not within our little circle or in our 
little day has been discovered all the wisdom of mankind, and that 
we are perhaps becoming heedless of the lessons that philosophy 
and patriotism have inculcated since the morning of time. 

3571 



LIBRARY OF CONGRFCc 

n iiiiiiiiii • 

019 944 354 9 



9 
Ws 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Jijf viflJ Hill Kill rllll lllll IIIH fllil llflf lllrl fl „ ll4 

019 944 354 9 # 



Hollinger Corp.