{"1": {"fulltext": "f\\n7/3", "height": "2989", "width": "1908", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "1. ii^2c.A.,i^\\nE713\\nI f? Copy 1\\nHAWAIIAN ANNEXATION AND OUR\\nFOREIGN POLICY.\\nS P Ii E C H\\nHON.JAMES D.RICHARDSON,\\nOF TENNESSEE,\\nHOUSE OP REPRKvSENTATlVES,\\nTuesday, June 14, 1898.\\n\\\\v A H I J I X o r X.\\n1898.", "height": "3587", "width": "2298", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0003.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "of\\n?7\\n/3\\nGSS^\\njA:", "height": "3483", "width": "2023", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0004.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "SPEECH\\nOf\\nHON. JAME8 D.11I0HAI1D80N.\\nThe House Laving under consider.ation the joint resolution (H.- Res. 350) to\\nprovide for annexing- the Hawaiian Islands to the United States-\\nMr. RICHARDSON said:\\nMr. Speaker: The proxiosition to annex the Sandwich Islands to\\nthe United States, with or without the consent of their popu-\\nlation, meets with my unqualified and unalterable opposition. I\\nam also opposed to the permanent conquest and acquisiton of\\nCuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and all other isles of the sea.\\nNations have always acted, and should govern themselves at all\\ntimes, upon principles entirely different from those which actuate\\nindividuals. I admit that individuals do. and should oftentimes,\\nact for the good of others regardless to a greater or lesser extent\\nof the resxtlt of their action on themselves. But this is not true\\nof nations.\\nGovernments must base their action upon purely selfish consid-\\nerations. In looking at the question of the annexation of Hawaii,\\nor of any foreign territory, the only question that should enter into\\nconsideration by us is the one question: Is it best for the United\\nStates? The weal or woe, the misery or happiness, the poverty or\\nprosperity of the foreigner or those to be annexed is not involved,\\nand not to be considered in making up our minds as to the annexa-\\ntion of foreign territory.\\nI am so devout and devoted a lover of my own country that I\\nadmit without a moment s hesitation that there is no territory\\nremote from or lying near by us that wotild not be better oft in\\nmost if not all its conditions by annexation to and by becoming\\namalgamated with ours. The superiority of our institutions and\\nthe excellence of our form of government, which to my mind is\\nthe worlds ideal, place this matter beyond peradventure or dis-\\npute.\\nThe chief question, then, involved in the resolution before us to\\ndecide is, Shall we for our own benefit annex the Sandwich\\nIslands? The laboring oar in this contention and in the effort to\\nanswer this interrogatory in the affirmative is upon those who\\nfavor the passage of the pending measure. The procedure or\\nplan of annexation is of doubtful constitutionality and involves\\nfundamental principles. The annexation of Hawaii and the ac-\\nquisition of far-away colonies involves a ]iermanent policy that is\\nfar-reaching and of paramount importance to this Reimblic. It\\nis, in my judgment, in palpable violation of all our traditions and\\nour past conduct.\\nWe have not only not heretofore entered upon a policy of tho\\nacqtiisition of foreign territory and of outlying colonies from\\n3HV] :j", "height": "3546", "width": "2189", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0005.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0svbicli we are sopavatctl by seas and oceans, but, on the contrary,\\nwo. have persistently and nnit ornily maintained a different policy.\\nWe have been demonstrative and aggressive in the jjursuit of our\\npolicy. At tlie very outset of our existence as a nation the great-\\nest of our great and tlie Avisest of our vrise men earnestly and elo-\\nquently aclvocated the policy we have pursued. The policy of\\nthis (jrovernmcnt in respect to this matter, and indeed of all for-\\neign questions, was laid down in tlie beginning by Washington,\\nJetferson. INIadison, and Monroe, each of whom, in terras which\\ncan not be misunderstood, warned us of the dangers of foreign\\ncomplications, of entangling alliances with other nations, and of\\nannexing territory beyond the sea.\\nFor more than a century the policy so firmly established by\\nthese great men has been pui sued with unbroken harmony, has\\nproved a bulwark of strength to our own people, and at the same\\ntime has won for us the respect and admiration of the world.\\nFor one I shall not violate this policy and advocate another\\nwhich to my mind is so un-American, unwise, and fraught with\\n60 much danger to the Republic. I will not make a complete de-\\nparture from the safe course we have followed so long and so\\nprofitably.\\n1 am opposed to the new policj- provided in the pending measure\\nbecause it is plainly in contravention of the Monroe doctrine. We\\ncan not as an enlightened people saj to all the nations of the earth,\\nYou shall not extend your possessions on this hemisphere, and at\\nthe same time reach out ourselves for lands and colonies in theirs.\\nMr. BERRY. I desire to ask the gentleman a question right\\nhere, because he is conversant with the Monroe doctrine. Does\\nhe say that the Monroe doctrine prohibits us from taking as a part\\nof our countrj an island 2,000 miles from our shores and 4,000\\nmiles from the nearest point of the Eastern Continent? Might not\\nthat island be more properly the jiroperty of the United States\\nthan of anv countrv that lies bevond the seas?\\nMr. WJNi. ALDEN SMITH. Is it not in the Western Hemi-\\nsphere?\\nMr, RICHARDSON. I do not understand that the fact that\\nHawaii may be nearer to us than to any other country will interfere\\nwith or prevent the application of the Monroe docti ine. That\\ndoctrine in essence and spirit forbids our going out into the sea\\nand the ocean to acquire territory.\\nj\\\\Ir. TAWNEY. Did we not do that in the Alaska purchase?\\nMr. RICHARDSON, I will come to that in a moment. The\\ncase which the gentleman mentions is not parallel with this.\\nMr. TAWNEY. Have we not done it in the case of fifty-seven\\nislands which we have annexed, exclusive of the Aleutian Islands?\\nMr. RICHARDSON. I think not. Though separated in some\\ndegree, like the Florida reefs from Florida or the Aleutian Islands\\nfrom Alaska, they are part and parcel of the territory annexed;\\nand if we have annexed others of a different character it has been\\nfor mere coaling stations, or something ot that kind.\\nMr. TAWNEY. The fifty seven islands that I referred to are\\nexclusive of the Aleutian Islands and in no way connected with\\nthe Alaska imrchase.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. They have not been annexed in the sense\\nin wliich we propose to annex Hawaii. I will come to that point,\\nI think, a little further on.\\n]\\\\Ir. TAWNEY. Tlie Island of Midway, a part of the Hawaiian\\ngroup, is certainly an analogous case.", "height": "3541", "width": "2080", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0006.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "Mr. RICHARDSON. If we are to (leinand of other nations that\\nthey keep their hands olf American colonies and not intermeddle\\nwi til American affairs, it certainly behooves us, nay, it is impera-\\ntively required of ns, to set them the exami)le by refraining from\\nintermeddling with the affairs of Europe, in the Orient, and else-\\nwhere, I am a firm believer in the Monroe doctrine in all its force\\nand consequences. I would not modify it at all, and for this rea-\\nson I would not invite its violation in letter or spirit by other\\nnations by our attempting the conquest of territory beyond the\\nseas.\\nIf I believed or could be convinced that such conquest and acqui-\\nsition were essential to our longer existence as a free and inde-\\npendent people, I might hold a different opinion. If I believed\\nthat such a course contributed even remotely to our happiness\\nand prosperity, I might entertain the abandonment of the views\\nI am expressing. But, sir, a departure from the course we have\\npiirsued under the guidance and inspiration of the fathers is not\\ndemanded for our happiness as a people, and, in my judgment,\\ninstead of bringing increased prosperity and blessings to our coun-\\ntry, will entail upon us decay and disaster, and finally dissolu-\\ntion and death. I know it is claimed, in the consideration of thi3\\nmeasure to annex Hawaii, that the acquisition of Cuba, the Philip-\\npines. Puerto Rico, and other colonies is not necessarily involved\\nand should not be taken into consideration. If gentlemen are\\nhonest and sincere in this contention, they will not hesitate to\\nsupport an amendment to the measure annexing Hawaii which I\\nshall offer at the proper time, if no other gentleman does, declar-\\ning that a colonial policy is not to be entered upon and that acqui-\\nsitions are to stop with Hawaii.\\nBut, sir, this measure is but the forerunner of others. It is the\\nbeginning of a new policy on our part. The boldest, if not the\\ndiscreetest, of its advocates admit this. If the question stood by\\nitself and did not involve other conquests or acquisitions, I should\\noppose it then as unwise. It is claimed that the annexation of\\nHawaii would strengthen tlie strategic position of the United\\nStates by giving us a great naval advantage; that, is the command\\nof the eastern Pacific Ocean, thereby protecting our western\\ncoast. This contention must fail, as all will admit who listened\\nattentively to the able argument of the gentleman from Arkansas\\n[Mr. Dinsmore] on this point. But supposing this were admit-\\nted in a partial sense; what protection do we need that the pos-\\nBession of Hawaii would afford?\\nIn our present condition we do not need any such protection. It\\nis only after we shall have entered upon the policy of conquest\\nand annexation of outlying colonies that it can be truly said we\\nneed such protection. I concede if we ai-e to change our policy\\nand enter upon that of colony and land grabbing as a nation, then\\nwe should need Hawaii and other remote islands and colonies.\\nThe acquisition of one creates at once the demand and a necessity\\nwhich becomes urgent for others. When we start out on this\\nnew policy, we can not stop with the acquisition of one, but must\\ngo on until we absorb all.\\nLet us enter upon such a policy and get our appetite once whetted\\nin that direction, there will be no way of satisfying that appetite\\nTintil all the isles of the sea have been engulfed by us. Then our\\nforeign complications will multiply beyond computation and war\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0will ensue. Indeed we should not emerge from one war before\\nwe would be plunged into another, until our Republic, which has\\n3165", "height": "3530", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0007.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "hitherto loved peace and the ways thereof, will become the bully\\not the world and the despised of all peoples.\\nI do not mean to disparage or put in question our ability to fight\\nsuccessfully all the world it they only come to our shores and fight\\nus upon our chosen ground. We might do this by reason of our\\ninexhaustible resources, indomitable courage, and unfaltering i)a-\\ntriotism. But why provoke such a stupendous controversy? Can\\nit be supposed that we can with one breath forbid all other nations\\n(many of them of great power and fighting ability) to enter upon\\nthis hemisphere for an.y purpose whatever, and at once ourselves\\nenter iipon the conquest or acquisition of or even interference\\nwith provinces in the Eastern Hemisphere or elsewhere? The\\nposition of this Republic has always been that of concentration\\nand not diiiusion.\\nOur policy has been to foster and build uxi the nation as a land\\npower in contradistinction to sea power. Our position among na-\\ntions is unique. No reason exists for a change in our policy. By\\nits pursuit we have won and liave held the esteem and the admira-\\ntion of the world. We should not be beguiled now by the glamour\\nof conquest or the excitement of the hour engendered in a large\\ndegree by a recent great naval victory in a distant sea to abandon\\nour well-chosen position. So long as we pursue the policies of\\nthe fathers and founders of the Republic and adhere to the prac-\\ntices of the hundred years of the past which they bequeathed to us,\\nand which have brought us unparalleled jirosperity and unalloyed\\nhappiness, we need no protection for the Pacific coast other than\\nthat which God has given us.\\nOur position on our western coast and as a nation at large is\\nexceptionally strong. We have no insular territories to defend.\\nAll our possessions are on our own continent, and, with the excep-\\ntion of Alaska, all is continuous land territory. No navy of the\\nworld nor the combined navies of all nations can cut us off from\\nour possessions. Our vast area and limits, with our opportuni-\\nties for defense, stand as imxiassable barriers to invasions from\\nan} part of our coast.\\nWashington, in discussing our relations with foreign countries\\nand reviewing subjects closely akin to the one involved in the\\npending resolution in his Farewell Address to the people of the\\nUnited States, uttered words which I shall presently quote of un-\\nsurpassed wisdom. I would rejoice to-day if they could be read\\nand understood in all their force, power, and beauty by all of our\\nl)eoi)le everywhere. The following are his words:\\nThe great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreicrn nations is, in extend-\\ning jur commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as\\nI)t)ssiljle. So far as we have already formed cngajjemeuts, let them be ful-\\nlilled with perfect good f.iith. Hero lot us stop.\\nEurope has a sot of primary interests which to us have none or a very re-\\nmote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the\\n(;anses of which are es.sentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it\\nmu.st bo unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary\\nvicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her\\nfriendships or enmities.\\nOur detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif-\\nferent cour.se. If wo remain one people, under an efficient (jovernment, tho\\nIteriod is not far off when we may defy material iniury from external annoy-\\nance; when we may take such an attitude as will c.-iuse the neutrality wo\\nmay at any time resolve iipon to be scrupulously respected: when beUiger-\\ncnt nations, under tho impossibility of maki7ig aoquisitious upon us, will not\\nli^ litly liazard the giving us provocation: when we may choose peace or war\\nas out interest, guided Vjy justicf, shall counsel.\\nWhy forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own\\nto stand upon foreign ground? Why, by intcfweaving our destiny with that\\n316(i", "height": "3442", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0008.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "of any part of Europp, entangle onr peace aud prosperity in the t-)ils ol\\nEuropean ambition, rivulship interest, humor, or caprice?\\nAgain Mr. Jefferson tanght ns that the true doctrine was anil is:\\nPeace, commorce, and honest friendship with .ill nations\u00e2\u0080\u0094 entangling alli-\\nances with none.\\nMr. GAINES. The gentleman will allow me to ask whether if\\nwe should acquire these islands it will not necessitate our hnild-\\ning and continuing to build a larger navy.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. Yes; I will come to that point directly.\\nMr. Speaker, President Washington, it seems to me, coald see as\\nif with the natural eye our present situation.\\nSir, we want no islands away out in the sea which can in a few\\ndays at any stage of our existence become the prey of hostile navies.\\nThe other great powers of the world, England, Frjince, Germany,\\nItaly, and Spain, indeed, all the great nations, except, possibly,\\nRussia, have such colonies and islands to defend; and while no\\none can truthfully say that the United States could not success-\\nfully defend them, if she had them, it is the unwisdom of the policy\\nof seizing and annexing them I am attempting to demonstrate.\\nI am opposed to the new policy for another reason. It involves\\nthe building of a mighty navy and the maintenance of a standing\\narmy at all times of stupendous proportions and magnitude.\\nThese two thiugs will be absolutely necessary for the respectable\\nenforcement of the new order of things. Why should we incur\\nihe enormous expense of a great navy for the Atlantic Ocean, an-\\nother for the Gulf of Mexico, and a third for the Pacific Ocean?\\nA corresponding increase will be required for a standing army.\\nMr. Speaker, we have had enough of war and of the expend-\\nitures incident thereto. As a nation we are now, year by year,\\nand every year, paying a tribute to war of $150,000,000 in the\\nform of pensions alone. I fail to see in the near future any hope\\nfor a reduction on this account. On the other hand, the war with\\nSpain in which we are engaged is to add how much no one can\\ntell to our pension roll. In addition to this immense sum, we\\nare also paying as a further annual tribute in the shape of inter-\\nest on our public debt about \u00c2\u00a730,000,000 and to a sinking fund\\nfor its retirement the further sum of about \u00c2\u00a751,000,000.\\nWhy, then, should we incur the additional expenses for great\\narmies and navies? They serve to provoke war sometimes when\\nwithout them war could be avoided with honor. Enter upon tho\\nnew policy I am discussing and add to our present enormous ex-\\npenses the still greater and more oppressive expenditures incident\\nthereto, and we will lay excessive burdens on our people which\\nwill be without a parallel in their history. For one, representing\\na constituency as proud, patriotic, and intelligent as any repre-\\nsented on this floor, I will not give my voice and votetoanymeas-\\nnve or policy which in my judgment will create the necessity and\\nlay the foundations for the fearful and extravagant expenditures\\nto which I have referred. No nation prior to this period has\\nsought or desired a conflict of arms with the United States.\\nIf nations act upon the principle I mentioned at the outset of\\nmy remarks that is, that they govern themselves in their course\\nand conduct toward other nations upon selfish grounds why\\nshould they desire war with us? What could any nation gain by\\nsuch a conflict of arms? All great powers realize that they have\\nmore to lose than to gain by war v.-ith us. Then let us not pro-\\nvoke them to attack us, but go on for all ages to come, growing in\\nprosperity as the years and decades and even centuries go by.", "height": "3556", "width": "2220", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0009.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "8\\nadding each j ear to the sum of human happiness by giving our\\njjeople the freest, the best, and most prosperous Government on\\nthe globe.\\nTlie otlier great nations I have mentioned have their outlying-\\ncolonies, and must maintain their powerful armies and navies,\\nfor the support of which excessive burdens in the shape of taxes\\nare annually laid upon their people. Let i;s not grind the faces\\nof our people bj* exorbitant taxation and make ourselves weak\\nby enforcing a policy of colonial possessions.\\nGentlemen in their stress for pjlausible arguments upon \\\\vhich\\nto place their advocacy of the annexation policy they now favor\\nhave referred to the former acquisitions of territory by our be-\\nloved country. They cite the Louisiana i^urchase by Jefferson,\\nand the annexation of Texas, with the actiuisitions of the Cali-\\nfornias, etc., by Polk, and of the Floi idas by Monroe. These,\\nsir. are not parallel cases to the proposition we are now discussing.\\nIf Hawaii or the Philippines touched California, or Cuba touched\\nFlorida, there might be plausibility in such arguments and com-\\nparisons. The former acquisitions by us of territory meant no\\nchange in our land or sea policy, no increase of our Army or Navy,\\nno abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, and no entangling alli-\\nances with foreign peoples and courts.\\nThese acquisitions were almost or quite essential to our exist-\\nence as a republic. It is shocking to compare the aiinexation of\\nHawaii with the acquisition of the Louisiana territory alone, to\\nsay nothing of Texas and the Californias. I resent the compari-\\nson as one totally unworthy to be made. Mr. Blaine, in his great\\nbook, speaking of the acquisition of the Louisiana territory by\\nMr, Jefferson, said:\\nIt brought incalculable wealth, power, and prestige to the CJnion, and must\\nalways bo regarded as the master stroke of policy which advanced the United\\nStates from a comparatively feeble nation lying between the Atlantic Ocean\\nand the Mississippi River to a continental power of assured strength and\\nboundless promise.\\nMr. Speaker, this was the largest conquest of territory ever\\nachie ved without war. The cost v/as only about \u00c2\u00a715,000,000, a sum\\nwhich does not equal the revenue which is collected by the Gov-\\nernment on its soil in a single month. The territory thus acquired\\nwas then, much of it\\nA solitude of vast extent, untouched\\nBy hand or art, where nature sowed herself\\nAnd reaped her crops.\\nThis territory to-day comprises the States of Louisiana. Arkan-\\nsas, Missouri, Iowa. Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota,\\nWyoming, and Montana, nearly all of Minnesota, a portion of\\nColorado, and the Indian Territory. Reasonable and fair-minded\\nmen should not cite this as a precedent for the annexation of\\nHawaii. Let us look for a moment from that ])icture to the other.\\nWhat do we get when we atinex Hawaii? According to the cen-\\n.sus of 189G the population of these islands consisted of the follow-\\ning elements (omitting some of the smallest):\\nPopulation.\\nNumber.\\nPopulation. JSTumber.\\nlTawniiaEs(puro and mixed)\\n39,504\\n2.5, 407\\n1.5,291\\nAmericans\\n3,080\\n.lai)auo.sc\\nBritish\\n3,2.50\\n1,433\\nChinese\\nPortuguese\\nCiOG", "height": "3442", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0010.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "It will be seen that in a population of about 109,000 only 3,080\\nare Americans, 2,250 British, and 1,4:J2 Germans, the remainder,\\nabout fifteen-sixteenths, or nearly 16 to 1, being Japanese, Chinese,\\nPortuguese, and natives of the Sandwich Islands, wholly unfit\\nfor free representative or local self-government.\\nThe advocates of the annexation of Hawaii have not told ua\\nwhat we shall do with it after we get it. That is to say, they do\\nnot agree in their conclusions on this point. The able chairman\\nof the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Hitt, failed and refused\\nto tell us, when pointedly asked to do so, in his opening speech.\\nHe frankly admitted he did not know. Is it to become a State of\\nthe American Union? Heavenforbid! Two Senators in the other\\nbody and one Representative upon this floor Iroin the tree and\\nsovereign State of Hawaii! Three more votes in the electoral col-\\nlege, enough sometimes to settle the Presidency! May we ba\\nspared such a travesty on our politics and institutions.\\nMr. JOHNSON of Indiana. The gentleman from Tennessee wiU\\nallow me to remind him that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gros-\\nvenor], one of the most zealous advocates of annexation, said a\\nfew moments ago in the course of some very carefully prepared\\nremarks: I scorn to discuss what is to come from this annexa-\\ntion, That is the kind of statesmanship we are invited to fol-\\nlow a statesmanship that does not see an inch ahead of its nose.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. That is true.\\nIf it is not to become a State, what then shall we do with it?\\nShall it be held permanently as a Territory? Will it be contended\\nthat the inhabitants of those islands can govern themselves by\\nand through a Territorial legislature? No one will make such a\\nclaim.\\nMr. BERRY. The gentleman will allow me to remind him that\\nthe treaty with reference to annexation provides that there shall\\nbe three commissioners representing this country and two repre-\\nsenting the Hawaiian Islands, who shall recommend measures to\\nbe passed upon by the Congress of the United States for the future\\ngovernment of the territory which we acquire. It is possible that\\nin these two bodies there might be found wisdom enough to gov-\\nern these islands.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman has anticipated a point to\\nwhich I will come in a moment. We know that the attitude of\\na Territory with us has always been one of expectation and hope.\\nExpectation and hope that it would soon be permitted to take\\nupon itself the form, conditions, and responsibilities of a proud\\nand equal State in the American Union. There is no reasonable\\nhope that by time or circumstance the conditions in Hawaii will\\nso radically and materially change and improve as to render the\\ninhabitants thereof qualified to become citizens of a sovereign\\nState.\\nA hot sun, the tropical climate, the rough, barren, mountain-\\nous lands of a large portion of the islands, not to enlarge upon\\nthe fatal plague which unhappily afflicts them, all forbid their\\ngeneral occupation and tillage by our people. It seems to me\\nthey must inevitably remain the heritage of the Sandwich Islander,\\nthe Asiatic races, and half-breeds who can never approach to our\\nAmerican civilization nor partake of nor participate in our Amer-\\nican institutions.\\nThe only form of government then left for them would be a\\nboard or commission of some kind, appointed by the President of\\nthe United States to manage and control the affairs of the islands.", "height": "3556", "width": "2220", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0011.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "10\\nThese boards would vary and change as Adminiatrations come\\nand go with us. They woukl not be permanent, and, if they were,\\nwould be utterly and entirely in contravention of our hiws and\\ninstitutions, which are rooted and grounded on the principles of\\nequality and self-government.\\nI oppose annexation again in the interest of labor and the labor-\\ning classes of our people. We have been enacting immigration\\nlaws for the protection of our homes. Congress has exhausted\\nits resources in the efforts to pass wise measures prohibiting cer-\\ntain classes by reason of their poverty, their ignorance, or diseased\\nconditions from entering our ports and coming in competition\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0with our laborers and demoralizing our people. By the projiosed\\nmeasure we annex the very classes we have sought to exclude by\\nlegislation from our shores.\\nIt is the supremesfc folly in Congress to formuhxte legislative\\nanathemas against undesirable immigration from Europe and\\nclose the Pacitic coast, and, indeed, all ways of ingress to our coun-\\ntry, to the Chinese, and then in one act admit nearly 80,000 Chi-\\nnese, Japanese, and Hawaiians to become a part of our popula-\\ntion. We will probably by this act admit more Chinese than San\\nFrancisco now contains, besides many other obnoxious and objec-\\ntionable foreigners.\\nMr. BERRY. Permit me to say that the treaty which we have\\nbeen negotiating provides that no citizen of China and no native\\nof the islands shall by reason of annexation become a citizen of\\nthe United States.\\nMr. SMITH of Arizona. We are not considering their citizen-\\nship, but their presence.\\nMr. BERRY. But the gentleman from Tennessee is arguing\\nthat they are to be admitted as citizens.\\nMr. BLAND. Will the gentleman from Kentuckj^ say that any\\ntreaty with those people is above the Constitution?\\nMr. BERRY. You have now laws upon your statute books pro-\\nhibiting Chinamen from becoming citizens of this country, and\\nthat provision is only reasserted in the constitution of that country.\\nMr. BLAND. The constitution makes every native of that\\nisland a citizen.\\nMr. BERRY. Yes. but you have done away with that.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. The trouble is that we undertake to an-\\nnex to our country and make a part of it a population that can\\nnot come among us and bo a part of us; and that is really incon-\\nsistent with the idea of our Cxovernment under our Constitution.\\nMr. Speaker, in this connection I desire to say, in my opinion,\\nit is monstrous to contemplate the evil effects upon the laboring\\npeople of our land and upon the American farmer if this Govern-\\nment embarks upon the plan of imperial colonization.\\nThe cheap cooly labor of the tropical colonies we would ac-\\nquire, directed and managed by competent hands, and their prod-\\nucts manipulated by world-wide trusts would close wp all our\\nsugar industries, both of cane and beets, destroy our tobacco\\ngrowing and tobacco manufacture, and so cheapen our Southern\\nl)roducts of cotton, rice, hemp, and all fiber crops, by the compe-\\ntition and increased prodiiction in the East and West Indies, and\\nother tropical colonies as to forever destroy these industries in\\nthe United States. We have been forced to endure prices below\\nthe cost of the production of nearly all of these commodities for\\nyears past under a high protective tariff system, but these former\\nlow prices would be prosperity itself as compared with those\\nwhich would obtain under the new system.\\n3^Cj", "height": "3442", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0012.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "11\\nIt is contended by some persons that we must enter upon the\\npolicy ol annexation in order to extend our commerce and to\\nplant our flag in all harbors. In order to do this they say we\\nmust of necessity change our former course and conduct and must\\npossess a powerful navy. I grant you it is desirable to widen our\\nmarkets and extend our trade with other nations. They i-ay, and\\ntruthfully, that commerce follows the flag. But let me as!c,how\\nare we to inaugurate and pursue this new policy successfully unless\\nwe abandon that old policy which its advocates proudly denomi-\\nnate the American policy, a policy which we have heretofore pur-\\nsued and which is altogether at variance with the proposed new\\none?\\nIt is all ver J well to talk of commerce following the flag and of\\nsending our merchant ships abroad until their sails whiten every\\nsea. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But I sub-\\nmit we can not hold fast to the policy of a high protective tariff\\nand at the same time whiten every sea with the sails of our mer-\\nchantmen. Commerce will never follow very enthusiastically the\\nflag of that nation which hedges itself in as by a Chinese Wall\\nwith high protective tariff rates and schedules. We can not ex-\\npect nations and peo]jles to come to us to buy when by law we\\nforbid them to bring something to sell to us. And thus we find\\nagain that the friends and advocates of the new policy are con-\\nfronted with another insurmountable obstacle.\\nMr. HEPBURN. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a\\nquestion?\\nMr. RICHARDSON. Yes, if it is along the line of what I am\\ntalldng about.\\nMr. HEPBURN. Does not the gentleman think that the ex-\\nperience of this year, when our exports wdl exceed our imports\\nby \u00c2\u00a7600,000,000, disputes his proposition and disproves it?\\nMr. RICHARDSON. No; I do not think that at all. The gen-\\ntleman is speaking of present conditions, while I am speaking\\nof and attempting to depict the future condition which will be\\nbrought about by reason of the new ijolicy, which I am attempt-\\ning to show is unwise.\\nMr. HEPBURN. The condition of a protective tariff exists\\nnow, and the exports this year exceed the imports by SGOO.000.000.\\nMr. BERRY. That is on account of the exportation of wheat.\\nMr. GAINES. Hungrv Europe did that.\\nMr. RICHARDSON. That may be for some reason which I\\nam not going to discuss now, but the conditions will materially\\nchange then, and if they are at all prosperous now, they will fail\\nto be under the new policy which I am attempting to describe.\\nMr. Speaker, unless they can batter down and demolish the hith-\\nerto impregnable fortress of protection their contention in favor\\nof annexation and an increase in our Navy, to the end that our\\ncommerce may be extended and our markets increased, must\\nfail.\\nI heard a distinguished member of this Hoiise in a public speech\\na few days ago say we hud already entered upon the new era, that\\nour time-honored policy had been abandoned, and that henceforth\\nwe were to acquire and permanently hold colonies everj wliere.\\nThis thought, too. was liberally app auded by his audience. Like\\nthe commercial firm in the well-known play of the Gilded Fool,\\nwe are to progress, Vv e are to reach out. I do not subscribe\\nto this doctrine. I deny that that is to be our policy.\\nWhat, sir, was the first solemn declar:ition made by this Con-\\nSi66", "height": "3556", "width": "2220", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0013.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "12\\ngress. and whicli was approved by the Chief Executive of the na-\\ntion, when we entered upon the present war a httle over thirty\\ndays gone by? In declaring war we announced openly to all the\\nworld a wholly different course of conduct. That policy we then\\navowed with emphasis and unanimity is contained in the resolu-\\ntion I now quote, and which forms a part of our solemn declara-\\ntion as we took up arms and made our appeal to Him who controls\\nthe destiny of nations. It is as follows:\\nResolred, That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or inten-\\ntion toexerciso sovereignty, jiirisdietiou, or control over said island [meaning\\nthe Island of CubaJ except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its deter-\\nmination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of\\nthe island to its people.\\nMr. Speaker, many of us thought and undertook to teach our\\npeople that when our Government, speaking through its repre-\\nsentatives, solemnly gave this pledge to all mankind we were hon-\\nest and sincere; that when she drew her sword and unfurled her\\nflag in this contest, it was to wage a holy war (if war can ever be\\nholy) for humanity. It was not supposed it was to degenerate\\ninto a campaign of conquest or boodle.\\nDuring this entire controversy Spain, our adversary, through\\nher statesmen and public journals, has persistently charged that\\nthe sole object of the war on our part was not humanity, but that\\nwe were bent on despoiling her of her territory. We have denied\\nit. Shall we by our own action now or hereafter prove that her\\nallegations were true and that our own were false? If we are to\\nbe justified at all before the world for our part in this terrible\\nwar, for all war is terrible, let us not take advantage of the situa-\\ntion to add one foot of territory to our now already ample domain.\\nLet us demonstrate not only to Spain but to all the world that\\nthe people of the United States had but one object and purpose\\nin this great controversy, and that was and is to see that justice\\nis done oven though the heavens fall. Let Cuba be made free and\\nSpain removed with all her mediaeval cruelties and atrocious\\ncrimes from this hemisphere, and then the only pui pose we have\\nor can have in this war will have been accomplished.\\nWr. Frederic R. Coudert, who is a recognized authority on in-\\nternational questions, was asked his views on the subject I am\\ndiscussing, a few days ago. I take the liberty of quoting here\\nwhat he said, for he expresses the opinion of many thinking men\\nin our country. He said:\\nIn a very few words I can tail you what, in my opinion, the United States\\nshould do with the Philiiipino Islands\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nIn tlu! first place, Rear-Admiral Dewey should blow up the fortifications,\\nturn the islands over to the insurgents, and then sail with his fleet for home.\\nThe iusni eiits are the ones to settle all questions as to the future govern-\\nment of th(3 :ii-i-lui)elago, and we should put them in a position to do so, and\\nthen leavi^ them alone.\\nWe started to accomplish one single, declared, definite object, a most noble\\none, based i)urely on humauir;irian grounds. Our sincerity in our philan-\\nthropic- professions is the only possible excuse for the war. To maintain\\ngood faith and our reiiutation with the rest of the w^orld is worth a dozen\\nPhilippines and millions of ccjolies, Chinamen, and Malays.\\nWe may count upon the symi)athy of Europe so long as we adhere to our\\nprogramme as deliberately set forth to the entire world. We can only de-\\npend upon .iealousy and distrust if wo depart from it. Wo told Spain she\\nmust leave Cuba. The war was entered upon to drive her from the island.\\nThat was our declared object, and we should do all that is properly neces-\\nsary under the laws of war for the purpose without departure from that\\nobject.\\nI quote the following from the American Agriculturist:\\nThe j) )li y of colonial exjian-iion, now so extravagantly urged in interested\\nquarters, may not at present cjntemiihite interference in European politics.\\nMm", "height": "3504", "width": "2251", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0014.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "13\\nbut such interference would be loss .1 iloparturo from tlio now policy tbau\\nthis policy is a departure from the Monroe doctrine. The new idea sounds\\nvery grand at first, and in the Hush of victory the appeal to extend our dom-\\nination beyond the seas is so alluring that the consequences of such uctioa\\nare lost sight of.\\nThe policy ot colonial empire would at once expose us to embroilment with\\nother nations. It would vastly magnify the power and expense of Army and\\nNavy. It would perpetuate increased taxes. It would inaugurate an era\\nof corruption in our forei.gn possessions, a debasement of the blood, that\\ncould not fail to in time affect the physical and mental stamina of our pcoplo\\nat home. It woiild be un-American, unwise, unconstitutional, and in results\\nunworthy of the effort.\\nOn still higher ground a colonial policy is objectionable. It would degen-\\nerate the holiest war ever waged for humanity into a campaign of conquest.\\nThis would lower the United States before the world, but its moral effect\\nupon our own people would be still worse.\\nThe gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dinsmore] in his opening\\nremar.is quoted Hon. John Sherman, as he gave his opinion in his\\ngreat book a few years since, as to the conquest or acquisition of\\nforeign territory. He showed that Mr. Sherman in his pahny\\ndays opposed such a policy. I now quote here from a recent in-\\nterview with him published in the St. Louis Republic of May 29.\\nThis interview shows he is still opposed to conquest of territory.\\nOn the subject of the war he was asked:\\nWill it become a war of conquest? He replied;\\nCertainly not. We want neither the Philippines nor Ctiba. We want no\\nforeign outposts which we will have to defend with our ships. We do not\\nwant to be constantly in trouble with France, Germany, and possibly Eng-\\nland. This is a self-contained nation. It has limitless resources in itself.\\nIt wants no entanglements with forei.gn nations. It wants to keep them off\\nits shores and it wants to keep off theirs. Our trade treaties with every\\ncivilized nation on the globe are sufficient.\\nMr. Speaker, I could quote other eminent authorities, but time\\nand space will not permit.\\nThere may be something alluring in a policy of annexation and\\nconquest of territory. An individual naturally feels as if he were\\nadding riches and wealth to himself when he acquires lands and\\ntenements. This is true of a nation under some circumstances.\\nThere are no colonies or possessions open to us, however, the ac-\\nquisition of which would add to our wealth. We should not then\\ndemoralize our people by a departure from our uniform course of\\naction for more than a century and that which I have just shown\\nwas our avowed policy at the oittset of our impending war with\\nSpain.\\nIf we reach out, as we are advised by some to do, and ex-\\npand our policies and rule of action, we will assuredly neglect our\\ndomestic interests. Our Army and Navy will be increased, our\\nforeign policy will be developed, our interest in other nations will\\nIbe enhanced, but our home interests, which vitally concern and\\ndeeply affect all our home people, will be neglected or abandoned.\\nLet us give more careful and serious attention to our internal\\naffairs and foster and develop our home concerns.\\nLet us strive to give our people better educational opportuni-\\nties, a better banking system, more mail facilities, free deliveries\\nand cheaper postage, better roads, improved waterways, better\\nprotection against monopolies, better laws to control corporate\\ngreed and extortion, better laws for the regulation of trtists. b; ttcr\\nlaws for the distribution of the currency, and impose lighter bur-\\ndens of taxation upon the country, and, in short, the reform of all\\nexisting abuses. We do not want the enemies of social progress\\nand of good government to hold high carnival at home while Na-\\ntional and State legislatures are entirely engrossed concerning\\nthemselves with our newlj^ acquired wards, many of them much\\n31GG", "height": "3556", "width": "2220", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0015.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "14\\noff in color, in far-away colonies, and v.ath onr business rela-\\ntions with foreign nations.\\nAgain. Mr. Speaker, if the era of territorial pelf and pillage has\\nbegun with ns as a nation, and we are to start out for more terri-\\ntory and greater landed possessions, we should not begin the at-\\ntack iipon a poor, weak, and half-civilized nation, such as Spain.\\nAs a brave, courageous, and self-respecting people, we should\\ncommence this warfare with some government that ranks in the\\nfirst class in the family of nations. For our country to seize the\\ncolonies of Spain for permpvnent use and occupation would place\\nus on a i av in our action v,-ith that of the giant who robs a dwarf\\nor a big boy among school children despoiling the small boy of\\nhis favorite marbles.\\nAs a brave and powerful people, if we are really in need of other\\nlands and must have them, we should either buy them and pay for\\nthem or should say to Great Britain, You must withdraw from\\nthis continent. Why not say to her that we need Canada and\\nintend to have that country? This would be the manly thing to do\\nand would give u s contiguous territory of great value and resources.\\nIf a change of policy is determined upon and we must of necessity\\nrob somebody, why not attack Great Britain, a member of our class,\\nand proceed to take that v.iiich is valuable and worth possessing?\\nDo not despoil the weak by seizing that which is worthless, and\\ndegrade and dishonor ourselves in the act.\\nMr. Speaker, as I am about to close, allow me to sum np briefly\\nsomething of what the new i^olicy means:\\n1. It means the abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, a doctrine\\nwhich is the guiding star of the Western Hemisphere, and next\\nto the Constitution itself has been the greatest blessing to our\\nland.\\n2. It means the abandonment of economy and simple govern-\\nment, which Jefferson, the father of Democracy, said was a land-\\nmark thereof.\\n3. It means immense standing armies and powerful navies.\\n4. It means the admission of undesirable foreigners into our\\nmidst to corrupt our body politic and impair true American insti-\\ntutions.\\n5. It means the magnifying of the National Government and\\nnational power, as against local and State authority. It is central-\\nization itself.\\nIt means colonies abroad of foreign tongues and nationalities\\nruled by military satriips instead of self-governing States in har-\\nmony with republican institutions.\\n7. It means the neglect and consequent decay of our local home\\ngovernments and domestic concerns, the bulwarks of our strength\\nand glory in the past.\\n8. It means odious entangling alliances with other nations.\\n9. It means wars on land and wars on the sea.\\n10. It means the downfall of the protective system and the first\\nstep in the march toward free trade.\\n11. It means a very largo falling off in revenues from tariff\\nduties and a correspondingly large increase in internal taxes,\\nwhich so much imjioverish the country and vex the taxpayer.\\n12. It means the destruction of the American farmer, that happy\\nand independent class who have always been the peculiar pride of\\nour beloved and favored land.\\nThose are some of the things which will inevitably follow the\\nnew policy.", "height": "3442", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0016.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "15\\nMr. Speaker, we need no additional territorj Our domain is\\nnow ample and sufficient. We have an area exclusive of Alaska\\nof 3,025,000 square miles, and including Alaska of ;),5r)7,000 square\\nmiles. We have existed as a Republic something over one hundred\\nyears. Our development has been marvelous and our prosperity\\nunprecedented. We have now a population of 70,000,000 of peo-\\nple and can easily accommodate 500.000,000.\\nWe have a climate varied and temperate, in v\u00c2\u00bbdiich flourish\\nabundant crops of all the cereals, as well as the tropical fruits;\\nbroad acres which in fertility rival those of the famed banks of the\\nNile; mineral re sources comprising in part gold, silver, iron, coal,\\nlead, copper, zinc, etc. which are inexhaustible in supply; railroads,\\ntelegraph, telephone, and all other improvements which annihi-\\nlate time and space, uneriualed by any; the grandest lakes and the\\nmightiest rivers: a civilization which is unsurpassed; and have more\\nnewspapers and better ones to disseminate the news and elevate\\npublic thought; more churches in which to worship the true and\\nliving God; more manufactories in which are produced moretlian\\nthree- fifths of the manufactured products of the world; more\\nschoolliousesin which theyouthof our land is educated and trained\\nfor life s battles; more happy homes, and, in short, in every con-\\nceivable fashion we have more to bless our lands and people than\\nany nation on this globe.\\nLet us, then, be content with that which we have. We should\\nhold fast to the old and good, and strive not for the new and the\\nbad. And supremest and above all else, our people North, South,\\nEast, and West, from ocean to ocean and from the pines of the North\\nto the magnolias of the South, are once more lovingly united.\\nAll sectional animosities have been dissipated, a new era of peace\\nand good will among men has been inaugurated\\nAnd all the clouds that lower d upon our house,\\nlu the deep bosom of the ocean buried.\\nHenceforth and forever we are to be one people one in mind,\\none in sentiment, one in patriotic endeavor, one in our hopes and\\naspirations, one in all that make a nation great, one in all that\\nmake a free people contented, prosperous, and happy.\\nS46C\\nO", "height": "3556", "width": "2220", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0017.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "LiBKHKY Ul- CUNbKti i\\n013 717 918", "height": "3442", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00rich_0018.jp2"}}