{"1": {"fulltext": "n", "height": "4713", "width": "2822", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "tf\\n1", "height": "4313", "width": "2702", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "s\\nsf.\\nv^~^-^-^\\n-H_ O\\ny.^.st\\nANNEXATION OF HAWAII.\\nREMARKS\\no:?\\nHON.J.B.FO RAKER,\\nOF OHIO,\\nIN THE\\nSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,\\nJUNE 25 t 1898\\nWASHINGTON.\\nI898.", "height": "4313", "width": "2702", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "1\\nV\\n1", "height": "4313", "width": "2702", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "A\\nV\\nV\\nREMARKS\\nOF\\nHON. J. B. FORAKER.\\nThe Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259)\\nSroviding for the annexation of Hawaii, and Senator Tukle* having the\\noor\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. TURLE Y. The next point which is made was made by the\\nSenator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker], and I believe by the Senator\\nfrom Massachusetts, but I will quote from the Senator from Ohio.\\nHe first said:\\nI am loath to interrupt the Senator, hut I have been desiring for some\\nminutes since he got on this proposition to put a question to him. The ques-\\ntion 1 desire to put is this: Would it not be competent for the Congress of the\\nUnited States to prescribe by law certain terms and conditions upon which\\nany independent government might come in and become a part of the terri-\\ntory of the United States by complying with the terms ^and conditions pre-\\nscribed by the Congress of the United States?\\nSuppose, for instance, to mate plain what I have in my mind, we should\\nprovide that any independent people or government, doing what this pre-\\namble recites the people of Hawaii have done, should, upon complying with\\ncertain conditions, those and others that we might see fit to mate, become a\\npart of our territory, they notifying us that they had complied with all the\\nterms and conditions, could we not thereupon declare them to bo annexed\\nand make them a part of the territory of the United States, and would not\\nthat be a more competent power for the Congress than it would be for the\\ntreaty-making power?\\nNow, Mr. President. I submit this idea in reply to that propo-\\nsition: Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution which\\nsquints at any power to pass any such law. The only line on this\\nsubject in the Constitution, outside of that lodging the treaty-\\nmaking power in the Senate and the President, is the provision\\nabout the admission of new States. This proposition involves the\\nidea of a general law, directed to every independent country in\\nthe world.\\nIf it is good for one, if it is good for two, it is good for all. If\\nthe proposition is true, to-morrow Congress could pass a law pro-\\nviding that every independent power in the world, any or all of\\nthem, could become a part of the United States upon complying\\nwith certain conditions; that the most ignorant population could\\ncome in on the same terms with the most educated and intelli-\\ngent; that the Malays in the Philippine Islands, or these Kanakas\\nin Hawaii, or the negroes in Africa, any government that was an\\nindependent power, could come in on these terms and conditions.\\nMr. FORAKER. Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faulkner in the chair).\\nDoes the Senator from Tennessee yield to the Senator from Ohio?\\nMr. TURLEY. Certainly.\\na3i3 3", "height": "4281", "width": "2694", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Tennessee allow me to\\nsuggest that the point he is now making will not go to the ques-\\ntion of power, but only to the question of policy, about which I\\nwas not talking when I made the remarks from which he is quot-\\ning. It might be good policy or bad policy in any given case.\\nMr. TURLEY. Now, in reply to the Senator from Ohio, I sub-\\nmit that when you are unable to find in the Constitution of the\\nUnited States an express grant of power to do what you are seek-\\ning to accomplish, or, in other words, if a proposition is submitted\\nas constitutional and it can not be found expressly within the\\nConstitution, or it does not appear to be necessary and inherently\\nproper to carry out some expressly granted power, then it is a legit-\\nimate argument to see where it leads in order to determine whether\\nthe framers of the Constitution have intended to vest it where it\\nis claimed it has been vested. In other words, I submit that in all\\ndoubtful questions\\nMr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Tennessee excuse me\\nfor interrupting him again?\\nMr. TURLEY. Certainly.\\nMr. FORAKER. I did not mean to express, and I hope the\\nSenator did not understand me by anything I said when making\\nthe remarks which he has quoted to express, an opinion as to\\nwhether that would be good policy or bad policy. I was simply\\nspeaking of the question of power and giving that as an illustra-\\ntion of what I thought might possibly be done, and constitution-\\nally. It does not follow that because I think that could be consti-\\ntutionally done I would advocate it as a good measure.\\nMr. TURLEY. Certainly I did not understand the Senator\\nfrom Ohio as saying that any such proposition would be good\\npolicy, but I understand him to say to me now that the position\\nI am arguing is one of policy, and that what I say throws no light\\non the question of power. I do not think I mistake him on the\\npoint that my argument is applicable to the question of the policy\\nof the idea and not to the question whether the power really exists.\\nNow, what I am attempting to reply is, if you are seeking in the\\nConstitution some power which is not expressly gran ted or which\\nis not clearly granted, in other words, if as a court or as Senators\\nhere determining upon the constitutionality of the question there\\nmay be doubt as to whether power exists under the Constitution\\nto do certain things, it is a legitimate argument to see where that\\npower would lead us to if it exists. In other words, we may\\nargue against the existence of the power from the fact that great\\ndanger and peril would come to the country if such power really\\nexists. I mean in all doubtful cases.\\nOf course, if it is an expressly granted power there can be no\\nquestion of it; but wherever it is a question of doubt as to whether\\nthe power exists, if we see that the existence of the power would\\nbe dangerous, that its exercise would threaten the destruction of\\nthe country, we may then look to that as a reason for saying the\\nframers of the Constitution never intended to vest in any branch\\nof the Government the right to exercise such power.\\nSo I say now that if the question had been asked in the conven-\\ntion which framed the Constitution, Have we invested Congress\\nor do we intend to invest Congress with power to pass a law un-\\nder which every independent nation existing on the globe can\\ncome into this compact and into this Government and become in-\\nherent parts of it? the reply would have been in the negative,\\nthat it never entered the minds of the framers of the Constitution\\n3513", "height": "4313", "width": "2702", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "that they were investing Congress or any department of the\\nGovernment with the power by any such law as is referred to in\\nthis proposition to admit into this Union or into this Government\\nas component parts of it any existing power in the world.\\nNow, I go a step further to the next proposition. The Senator\\nfrom Ohio very frankly admits that if a foreign power were by\\nagreement to cede us a part of its territory upon certain terms\\nand conditions agreed upon, it would necessarily have to be done\\nby treaty. I will read the whole quotation:\\nMr. Foraker. If the Senator will allow me just one word further, I agree\\nwith almost all he has said; but at the point where I differ from him the dif-\\nference becomes vital. I think that when you make a compact with a foreign\\npower it must be in the nature of a treaty, but that contemplates the con-\\ntinued existence of the foreign power. Therefore, if a foreign power were\\nby agreement to cede to us a part of its territory upon certain terms and\\nconditions agreed upon, it would necessarily have to be done by treaty.\\nAnd further on he says:\\nIn a word\\nIn order to understand this proposition, I will read a little from\\nwhat the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] said:\\nMr. President, I am utterly unable to see the force of that argument. It\\nis in either case an agreement by which sovereignty existing over certain\\nterritory is abandoned, or rather annulled, and by which the sovereignty of\\nthis country is given to it. Why should the change of sovereignty as to a\\npart be the subject-matter of negotiation and the change of sovereignty as to\\nthe whole be not the subject-matter of negotiation?\\nThe Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker] replied:\\nIn a word I can answer that. Because there is no continuance of a com-\\npact. The whole thing is at an end by its consummation.\\nNow, the idea seems to be this, if I understand it, and ifc is very\\nplainly and clearly expressed, that even though the right to be\\ngained has its inception in a compact or agreement, still if it\\nis not a continuing compact, if, in the language of the Senator, there\\nis no continuance of a compact, then it ceases practically to be the\\nsubject-matter of treaty; in other words, that only those things\\nhave necessarily to be done by treaty which are done between two\\nnations which continue in existence, and where there is a conti-\\nnuity of the contract or a continuance of the contract.\\nI produced authorities yesterday and discussed the proposition\\nthat a treaty is simply a contract between two sovereign powers;\\nthat nations deal with each other by treaty like individuals do by\\ncontract. It is no objection to the validity of a contract as a con-\\ntract, it does not deprive it of its character as a contract, that it\\nis consummated in its execution; that there is no continuity in it;\\nthat it ends when it is made; that it is one act and there is nothing\\nfurther to be done.\\nEvery deed, every grant where the money is paid, is a contract\\nof that sort. There is no continuity in it. There is no continu-\\nance; nothing further to be done. It is ended completely, just as\\nthe treaty by which Russia conveyed to us Alaska. When the\\nmoney was paid, it was an ended contract, as every executed con-\\nMr. FORAKER. Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennes-\\nsee vield to the Senator from Ohio?\\nMr. TURLEY. Yes, sir.\\nMr. FORAKER. If the Senator will not be interrupted I\\nshould like to ask a question.\\n::,1)", "height": "4281", "width": "2694", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "6\\nI listened with a great deal of interest to his discussion of the\\nterm treaty and his definition of what is meant by the word\\ntreaty. I understood him to define it yesterday, as he has re-\\npeated to-day, that a treaty is simply a contract between sover-\\neign powers. He also insisted, as other Senators have done, that\\nthe treaty is not a treaty until it is consummated.\\nOf course everybody agrees with him as to that. The treaty\\nthat was negotiated between this Government and the Hawaiian\\nRepublic, therefore, has never become a treaty. It has been sim-\\nply negotiated. It will be a treaty if it shall be ratified, and not\\notherwise. Until the moment of its ratification there is no con-\\ntract between Hawaii and the United States.\\nMr. WHITE. Mr. President\\nMr. SPOONER. What of the cession which you say you ac-\\ncept?\\nMr. WHITE. That is exactly what I was about to ask.\\nMr. FORAKER. The one referred to in the joint resolution?\\nI will come to that in a moment. A great deal has been said, if\\nthe Senator from Tennessee will not object\\nMr. TURLEY. I do not object.\\nMr. FORAKER. I will take occasion now, as other Senators\\nhave interrogated me, to make answer to that.\\nMr. TURLEY. I do not object.\\nMr. FORAKER. A great deal has been said about the word\\ncession being used here.\\nMr. WHITE. It is in the preamble.\\nMr. FORAKER. It might be that in framing this, if I had\\nframed it, I would not have used that word, but I see no objection\\nto the use of it, used as it has been used. The said cession, the\\nresolution reads, is accepted. What cession? That which is re-\\nferred to in the preamble which immediately precedes, and in the\\npreamble the facts are correctly recited, for the preamble recites\\nthat a treaty has been negotiated; in other words, that, in accord-\\nance with the provision of the constitution of the Hawaiian Re-\\npublic, the Hawaiian Government has negotiated and done all it\\ncan do and all that it is necessary for it to do to manifest its will-\\ningness to make an agreement on its part to cede the territory be-\\nlonging to the Republic of Hawaii. Then follows the resolution,\\nand referring to that preamble and to that transaction, it uses\\nthe expression, said cession. Nobody can misunderstand that\\nlanguage as it is thus employed.\\nMr. LINDSAY. Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio\\nyield to the Senator from Kentucky?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly.\\nMr. LINDSAY. If it will not disturb the Senator, I should like\\nto present this idea to him.\\nMr. FORAKER. I am answering a question and I hope not to\\nget too far away from it.\\nMr. LINDSAY. This will be pertinent, I think, to the question.\\nMr. FORAKER. Very well.\\nMr. LINDSAY. The cession named in the act is the cession\\nprovided for in the treaty, as I understand it.\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes, sir.\\nMr. LINDSAY. Article 7 of the treaty provides:\\nThis treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and\\nwith the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part.\\n3513", "height": "4313", "width": "2702", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "I wish to ask the Senator whether a joint resolution, concurred\\nin by the two Houses but passed through the Senate by less than\\na two-thirds majority, can be treated as equivalent to the ratifica-\\ntion of a treaty by the President of the United States, by and with\\nthe advice and consent of the Senate?\\nMr. FORAKER. It is not precisely the same thing, but the\\nlegal effect of the whole transaction is necessarily the same, ac-\\ncording to the view I entertain of the power of Congress with\\nrespect to that particular matter, because the result is an absolute\\ncession of the territory belonging to the Republic of Hawaii and\\nan absolute acceptance of it on the part of the United States.\\nNow, I shall show why that is so.\\nMr. LINDSAY. One other question, and then I will not inter-\\nrupt the Senator further.\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly; with pleasure.\\nMr. LINDSAY. After this joint resolution shall have been\\nadopted and approved by the President and presented to the\\nHawaiian authorities, I ask the Senator if they will not have a per-\\nfect right to refuse to accept the benefit of the joint resolution\\nupon the ground that a treaty has not been ratified by the Presi-\\ndent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the\\nUnited States?\\nMr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly they would have a right to ig-\\nnore all the action that they took previously having reference to\\nthe negotiation and ratification of the treaty. They could treat\\nthis whole question de novo and take action with respect to this.\\nI do not know that anybody ever contended for the contrary.\\nWhat I am commenting upon is that which the Senator from\\nCalifornia called my attention to. The employment of the word\\n1 cession here is not ambiguous and it is not an inappropriate word\\nto employ, because it has reference to something that immediately\\nprecedes, which is clearly defined, and which is in strict accord-\\nance with the facts.\\nMr. WHITE. Mr. President\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio\\nyield to the Senator from California?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly.\\nMr. WHITE. We all know the Senator from Ohio is distin-\\nguished in law as he is in other avocations. I wish to ask him\\nwhether he does not think a cession means a grant, and whether\\na grant does not presuppose not merely the execution of an ade-\\nquate instrument, but its acceptance by the grantee, and if that\\nmust not be so in the case of a cession?\\nMr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly. I stated when I first touched\\nupon this matter that if I had been drafting this resolution I\\nmight have employed a different word. But what the word ordi-\\nnarily means is not necessarily what we are to be governed by\\nhere. We must look at the whole instrument and see what it is\\nthat the word is intended to mean. When you look at the whole\\ninstrument the word cession, as there employed, has reference\\nto the preamble, and whether it be a correct description of that\\nwhich the Hawaiian Republic has done or not, it can not mislead\\nanybody, because, interpreted in the light of the context, it simply\\nmeans to refer to the fact that the people of Hawaii have done all\\nin their power necessary for them to do to manifest to the people\\nof the United States a willingness on their part to cede all their\\nterritory to the United States upon the terms and conditions here\\nimposed.\\nSol3", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "8\\nNow, that is all that word means; all it can be made by anybody\\nto mean all that it can be claimed that it means. Of course it\\nis true that the ordinary interpretation of the word cession\\nwould imply a consummated transaction\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a deed, a bargain, sale,\\nconveyance but we have to interpret this word according to its\\ncontext.\\nNow, coming back to the point where I was when I was inter-\\nrupted and addressing myself to the point I wanted to make to\\nthe Senator from Tennessee, if I recollect correctly I had gotten\\nfar enough along to call attention to the fact that he had been\\narguing there could not be any treaty or any contract until the\\nconsummation of it. His contention was that a treaty was simply\\na contract and that there was not a contract until the treaty was\\nratified. That contention is correct. A treaty can not be anything\\nbut a contract, and there can not be a contract until we approve.\\nBut, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee will not differ\\nfrom me when I say there can be no contract unless there be at\\nleast two parties to it.\\nThe very minute that there ceases to be two parties to it there\\nis no longer a contract; it is something else; there is no mutuality.\\nThe Senator and all the other Senators on his side of the question\\nhave argued that there is nothing here, no cession, no contract, on\\ntreaty, until this transaction is consummated. Now, I ask Senators\\nto state whether or not there is a contract after it has been con-\\nsummated. I am speaking of the treaty and not of this resolu-\\ntion. After this treaty shall have been ratified by the Senate, as\\nwe were requested by the President of the United States to ratify\\nit, will there be any continuing contract?\\nNo, certainly not; for in the consummation of that transaction\\nthe Republic of Hawaii ceases to be, and it is an absurdity on the\\nface of things to say that there can be a continuing contract and\\nthat it ought to be a treaty for that reason between the United\\nStates and a power that is no longer in existence. Therefore it is\\nthat I say\\nMr. WHITE. Mr. President\\nMr. FORAKER. If the Senator from California will allow me\\njust a moment, I say there are cases in which territory may be\\nceded where it is not at all the proper subject-matter, according\\nto the view I take of it, for a treaty.\\nMr. WHITE. I desire to inquire of my friend from Ohio whether\\nthe Committee on Foreign Relations, of which he is a member,\\ndid not report and earnestly advocate, until within a very short\\nperiod past, the adoption of such a treaty absurdity as that which\\nhe describes?\\nMr. FORAKER. Mr. President, I did not mean to say that this\\nparticular case was an absurdity. I should have said there might\\nbe cases where it would be an absurdity to contend that a cession\\nof territory could be acquired only by treaty. But I will say to\\nthe Senator from California that I never did have the idea that\\nthis was a proper subject-matter for treaty, and I will tell you\\nwhy. Let me put a case. When we took the Louisiana purchase\\nby treaty, we did not take all the territory of France, but only a\\ncertain designated portion of it that in this country, and that\\ndescribed by the treaty.\\nIf we had taken that territory without anything more being\\nstipulated for than merely the payment of a certain sum of money,\\nthe whole transaction would have been consummated when the\\ntreaty was signed and the money was paid, and that would have\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "9\\nbeen the end of it. That might have been done, I contend, by an\\noffer on the part of France to cede to us that territory and an\\nacceptance on the part of the Government of the United States\\nand the appropriation of the money by the Congress of the United\\nStates and the payment of that money. That would have closed\\nit all.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President\\nMr. FORAKER. But, if you will allow me just a moment,\\nthere was something else in that treaty. Certain rights were pre-\\nserved to the people living in that territory, and we stipulated\\nthat those rights should be preserved to them. Therefore, there\\nwas a continuing obligation, and there were two contracting\\nparties continuing after the consummation of the transaction, the\\none to enforce the transaction as against the other. That was a\\ncase of a continuing contract. It was a proper case for a treaty.\\nIt could not have been anything else, having that continuing\\nobligation, except only a case of treaty.\\nNow, suppose another case. Suppose England were to-day to\\noffer to cede to the United States the Bermuda Islands for the pay-\\nment of a stipulated sum of money and that was all there was of\\nit. Suppose she were to say to us. in a proper way, Pay us\\n$5,000,000 and take those islands. I think we could take them,\\nand take them constitutionally, if we would simply say, Here is\\nyour money; we accept your offer. It would not have to be by\\ntreaty, although there would be two parties remaining in exist-\\nence to the transaction to enforce the contract, if there were any\\ncontract to enforce or anything to be enforced.\\nBut suppose that instead of saying, Take these islands for so\\nmuch money, cash down, England should say, We propose that\\nyou shall take them for so much money, but you shall guarantee\\nto us the enjoyment of a coaling station, which we reserve, and\\nguarantee to us certain other rights in these islands which here-\\ntofore we have enjoyed, and suppose we had accepted her offer\\nupon those terms; that would of necessity be the subject-matter\\nfor a treaty, because, after the consummation of the contract\\nby the signing of it, there would remain two existing parties to\\nit, one to enforce it against the other, and there would remain\\ncertain rights and conditions upon which they had stipulated. It\\ncould not be anything else than the subject-matter of a treaty.\\nBut this is a wholly different case. Here comes the Republic\\nof Hawaii and says: We are authorized by the constitution of\\nour Government to enter into a treaty for the cession of these\\nislands to the United States. We have entered into such a treaty\\nupon our part; here it is; we propose it; we offer it to you. Will\\nyou ratify it?\\nMr. WHITE. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to ask\\nhim whether there can be a treaty unless both parties have agreed\\nto it, and whether, therefore, the provisions of the Hawaiian con-\\nstitution have been to any extent complied with?\\nMr. FORAKER. I will answer the Senator from California at\\nas full length as he desires if he will only let me finish the propo-\\nsition which I was about to put.\\nThe Hawaiian Republic comes and says not that we are willing\\nto cede to you one of our group of islands in order that you may\\nmake a coaling station there; not that we are willing to cede to\\nyou a part of our territory for some stipulated purpose and upon\\ncertain stipulated conditions; but she says, We come and we\\na5i3", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "10\\ngive to you all our territory, and upon your acceptance of this\\nproposition we cease absolutely and forever to be.\\nMr. President, there is not any contract, and, therefore, no\\ntreaty, until that proposition has been accepted and ratified by\\na two- thirds vote of the Senate\u00e2\u0080\u0094 until that moment there is abso-\\nlutely nothing that has any legal effect or binding force whatso-\\never upon anybody.\\nIs there anything in the nature of a treaty remaining after its\\nacceptance? There are two parties to a contract necessarily. Can\\nthere be two parties- when only one party is still in existence? The\\nHawaiian Republic, according to this proposition, ceases to exist\\nthe very moment this transaction is consummated. In the con-\\nsummation of it one party perishes.\\nTherefore, Mr. President, there is not any contract remaining;\\nand, according to the definition insisted upon by Senators who are\\narguing here in opposition, there is no treaty, for they tell us with\\ngrave emphasis that a treaty is a contract. That is true; but you\\ncan not have a contract, and therefore you can not have a treaty,\\nunless you have two parties to it. The very moment you destroy\\none of the parties your treaty is gone, your contract is gone. But\\nsuppose now within a year after this treaty, if it should be rati-\\nfied and would be consummated suppose within a year after its\\nratification we should refuse to pay the money or do something\\nelse that it is stipulated we are to do upon the consummation of\\nthat transaction, would there be anybody in existence to compel\\nus to do it?\\nThe Republic of Hawaii would be no longer in existence; the\\nRepublic of Hawaii, with all the machinery of government, per-\\nishes the very minute this transaction is consummated, and the\\npeople of Hawaii become subjects of the United States; they be-\\ncome merged with us; they cast in their lot with us; they can not\\ncall us to account; it is our common obligation, and they treat\\nwith us, relying that we will act in good faith, and they take the\\nrisk of that. There would be a treaty, an executed instrument,\\nbut no longer in existence except only as a consummated trans-\\naction, because there would be nobody to enforce the provisions\\nof it.\\nTherefore it is, Mr. President, that I say with respect to this\\nmatter of acquiring territory that there are cases where of neces-\\nsity, it seems to me, the acquisition should be by treaty, and there\\nare cases\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and this is one of them\u00e2\u0080\u0094 where the acquisition should\\nbe by a legislative act of Congress. I see no difficulty about the\\nacquisition of the territory of Hawaii in this way for the reasons\\nI have undertaken to state.\\nI have occupied so much of the time of the Senator from Ten-\\nnessee that I owe him an apology. I did not think I would inter-\\nrupt him to this extent, and would not have done so had not other\\nSenators joined in with interrogatories.\\nMr. TURLEY. I am glad to yield to the Senator.\\nMr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me to ask him where\\nhe gets his constitutional power to annex by a joint resolution?\\nMr. FORAKER. I will ask the Senator from Nebraska where\\nhe gets his constitutional power to annex by treaty? The Consti-\\ntution of the United States is silent on that subject. What does\\nthe Constitution of the United States say about the annexation of\\nterritory? Not one word. It is one of the implied powers; and\\nI contend that it is inherent. But Senators here take exception\\nto that, and say this is a Government of limited powers; that the\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "11\\norganic law of this country is the Constitution made by the peo-\\nple thereof; and they say the General Government has no power\\nexcept only that which is delegated.\\nPass by, for the sake of argument, the proposition that it is an\\ninherent power of our sovereignty, as it is of sovereignty generally,\\nand I answer the Senator that it is included within the implied\\npowers. The Congress of the United States is especially empow-\\nered to promote the general welfare. If the acquisition of an\\nisland in the sea be necessary to the promotion of our general\\nwelfare, Congress is expressly endowed by the Constitution with\\npower to acquire it.\\nIt is not necessary that I should speak about the war power. I\\ndo not rest my purpose to vote for this acquisition upon anything\\nconnected with the war. I was just as unequivocally and un-\\nqualifiedly for the acquisition of Hawaii a year ago or ten years\\nago as I am now. The war has but developed the necessity which\\nthose favoring the acquisition of Hawaii foresaw years ago would\\nbe developed whenever we might come to such a time as we have\\nnow reached, when we are in war, and when we are required to\\nkeep a navy in the Pacific in order that we may protect our in-\\nterests.\\nSo I say, Mr. President, if the Congress of the United States\\nsees fit, in the exercise of her power to promote the general wel-\\nfare, to annex this island or any other, it is competent for Con-\\ngress to do so.\\nMr. ALLEN. Then I will ask the Senator another question,\\nwith his permission\\nMr. FORAKER. I will say I mean in this kind of a case, with\\nthe limitations I stated a while ago.\\nMr. ALLEN. Have we the power to deal with any foreign\\nnation except by treaty?\\nMr. FORAKER. I think so, undoubtedly.\\nMr. ALLEN. I think we have not.\\nMr. FORAKER. There is no provision in the Constitution\\nwhich says we can not deal with other nations otherwise than by\\ntreaty.\\nMr. ALLEN. That is not the question. The question is\\nwhether we have the power to do it.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Supreme Court of the United States held\\nthat there was such a power under the reciprocity clause of the\\nMcKinley Act\\nMr. ALLEN. That was by treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. It was not by treaty.\\nMr. ALLEN. Certainly it was.\\nMr. FORAKER. No; we simply provided by law that when-\\never the President of the United States should ascertain a certain\\nfact, he then might make a certain declaration which would\\ngovern the rates of duty on imports from certain countries.\\nThere was no treaty about it.\\nMr. ALLEN. We authorized the President of the United\\nStates to enter into a treaty by reciprocity.\\nMr. FORAKER. But the Senate did not ratify it, and the Presi-\\ndent did not enter into any treaty. He simply ascertained certain\\nfacts. The Supreme Court of the United States held that it was\\nconstitutional for Congress to so provide, because it was only an\\nexercise of administrative power, and the President was engaged\\nonly in administrative acts when he ascertained those facts.\\nMr. ALLEN. Congress authorized the President to consum-\\n3513", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "12\\nmate certain things if he found the existence of certain facts.\\nThe act of Congress, together with the act of the President, made\\na treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. But the House did not join in it except to\\nhelp make the law. The Senator was talking about a treaty which\\nthe Senate ratified. The Senator from Nebraska, if he will stop\\nand think for a minute, will see that the suggestion involved in\\nhis interrogatory is not at all tenable, not only in that case, but\\nin many others, doubtless.\\nMr. ALLEN. I can not myself conceive of an instance where\\nwe can deal with another nation involving the question of juris-\\ndiction or territory independent of the methods of a treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. We did so deal in the case I put. I do not\\nthink of any others now, but there are doubtless others, and I will\\ntry to think of some of them by the next session of the Senate.\\nBut, however that may be, this is a case where, if I am right in\\nthe view I have undertaken to express, it is not proper to deal\\nwith it by treaty, at least not so proper as to deal with it by an\\nact of Congress.\\nWhen I so express myself as to indicate that I think it might\\nin some sense be proper to deal with it by treaty, I want to be\\nunderstood. The explanation is this: When they undertake to\\nnegotiate a treaty on the other side, and we join with them in\\nagreeing to a treaty, and it is submitted to the legislative branch\\nyonder and to the Senate here, and is ratified and becomes a treaty,\\nalthough it may not be the proper subject-matter of a treaty, it\\namounts to the same thing in legal effect as legislation, because\\nit is the expression of a willingness and the offer on their side to\\nmake a cession and a willingness and an actual acceptance on\\nour part of that which has been offered.\\nThat is all there is in the legislative act, and the one is there-\\nfore the equivalent of the other in ultimate results. I think it is\\nmore regular to do it as we are now proposing to do it than by\\ntreaty, because, as I say, you can not have a treaty without having\\na contract, and you can not have a contract without having two\\nparties to it.\\nMr. ALLEN. That is true.\\nMr. FORAKER. And if one party disappears on the signing\\nof the contract you no longer have a contract.\\nMr. WHITE. What becomes of it?\\nMr. ALLEN. There are two parties to the contract up to the\\nmoment of its execution.\\nMr. FORAKER. But there is no contract until it is executed.\\nMr. ALLEN. Very well; the moment the contract is signed\\nand delivered it is an executed contract.\\nMr. FORAKER. But one party is dead and the contract can\\nnot continue as the term treaty implies.\\nMr. ALLEN. Very well; but that party did not die until after\\nthe delivery of the contract.\\nMr. FORAKER. Suppose you do not pay the money, who will\\nthere be to enforce payment? The people of Hawaii become\\nmerged into the United States.\\nMr. ALLEN. What is true of a treaty with the United States\\nis true of any treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. No; it is not true of any treaty, because\\nwhen the term treaty is properly employed it has relation to a\\ncontinuing contract between sovereignties\u00e2\u0080\u0094 sovereignties which\\nwill exist after the contract.\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "13\\nMr. ALLEN Not necessarily.\\nMr. FORAKER. As in the case I undertook to put before, as\\nan illustration, of England ceding to us the Bermudas. She\\nwould part with a portion of her territory by treaty. That would\\nbe by contract, and she would remain in existence to execute and\\nenforce the contract according to its terms and provisions, if we\\ndid not.\\nMr. ALLEN. But the fact that one party may die after the\\nexecution of the contract does not change the binding force of the\\ncontract.\\nMr. FORAKER. What I wanted to say to the Senator, and what\\nI have been trying to say all the while, is that while you can legiti-\\nmately annex these islands by what we call a treaty, yet you can\\njust as legitimately do it, and more appropriately do it, by an act\\nof Congress, by a joint resolution. You can do it more appro-\\npriately, because, in the first instance, when you undertake to do\\nit by treaty the transaction amounts to nothing more than a tender\\non the part of one side and an acceptance on the part of the other,\\nand that is all there is in the legislation that we are now consid-\\nering.\\nMr. ALLEN That is a ground I contest seriously.\\nMr. FORAKER. Allow me to say further to the Senator, I\\nwanted to finish the answer to the other question.\\nMr. ALLEN. I should like to say this, that I have not anymore\\ndoubt about the lack of power to annex the Hawaiian Islands\\nthe lack of constitutional power outside of treaty methods or reg-\\nulations than I have of my existence,- not the slightest. It is\\nonly an indirect way of undertaking to destroy the necessity of\\nhaving a two-thirds majority for a treaty in this Chamber.\\nMr. FORAKER. Mr. President, whatever may be the purpose,\\nthe Senator can have any interpretation of that he wants; that is\\nnot what I am talking about. If we had two-thirds, no doubt\\nthe treaty would have been ratified; but from the beginning, as I\\nhave been contending throughout this debate whenever I have\\ntaken occasion to say anything at all, I have contended that it is\\nmore appropriate to do this by legislation, for the reasons I have\\nindicated.\\nMr. Spooner rose.\\nMr. FORAKER. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will wait\\nuntil I answer the Senator from Nebraska. I shall be glad to\\nanswer the Senator from Wisconsin or anybody else if the Sena-\\ntor from Tennessee will allow me. This is one of those questions\\nI have convictions about. They may be wrong, but I have them\\nand I have my reasons for them, and nobody can ask me any ques-\\ntion which I can not at least undertake to answer and give the\\nreason why I entertain that opinion.\\nSenators talkabout it beingunconstitutional to annex except only\\nby treaty, as though the Constitution of the United States had pro-\\nvided that there should be annexation by treaty. Mr. President,\\nthe Constitution of the United States is silent on the question of\\nthe annexation of territory. It does not seem to have entered\\ninto the minds of the framers of the Constitution to put into that\\ninstrument any express provision on that subject. They con-\\ntented themselves, as they wisely did with other subjects, in\\nregard to this subject with a general provision. They gave to\\nCongress the power to promote the general welfare, and that car-\\nries along all the implied powers essential to the consummation of\\nthat purpose.\\n3513", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "14\\nWhen they came to the treaty-making power they did not say\\nin the Constitution what should be the subject-matter of a treaty.\\nThey simply said that treaties might be negotiated by the Presi-\\ndent, subject to ratification by the^Senate; they did not say what\\nwe should treat about, and I agree with Senators on the other\\nside that a treaty is a contract. You can not have a contract\\nunless you have two parties to it, and you do not have any con-\\ntract that has been your contention throughout\u00e2\u0080\u0094 until the treaty\\nhas been signed on both sides. The very minute that is done one\\nof the parties is gone, and there is no continuing contract. There-\\nfore it is simply a cession on their part and an acceptance on\\nours, and it might be done just as well by legislation as otherwise.\\nMr. CLAY. I understood the Senator to say that a treaty was\\na contract which required two parties\\nMr. FORAKER. At least two.\\nMr. CLAY. Two parties or more; and if we accepted this ter-\\nritory one party was done away with, and therefore this is not a\\ntreaty, and that we could acquire this territory by legislation in-\\nstead of by a treaty.\\nNow, I should like to ask the Senator, if that be true, is not his\\nposition simply this: That if we treat with the Government of\\nthose islands for a part of the islands, they reserving the balance\\nof them, then it would be a treaty and it would require a treaty\\nto acquire that territory; in other words, if we simply take a part\\nof the country, then a treaty is necessary to acquire it; but if we\\ntake the whole of it, then it requires simply legislation. Is that\\nthe position of the Senator from Ohio?\\nMr. FORAKER. I stated that position here without any quali-\\nfication in that way a few days ago when engaged in a colloquy\\nwith the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] I want to\\nqualify it, as I should have done at the time, to this extent:\\nThere may be cases, as I have already illustrated in the remarks\\nI have been making now, where it is not necessarily the subject-\\nmatter of a treaty to accept a part of the territory of a foreign\\ncountry, but in most cases it would be, and I illustrated that the\\nSenator was not here, and I will be pardoned for repeating the\\nillustration\u00e2\u0080\u0094 by supposing that England were to-day to offer to\\ncede to us the Bermuda Islands\\nMr. CLAY. Or Canada.\\nMr. FORAKER. Or anything. Suppose she would offer to\\ncede to us one of her islands in the sea for a stipulated sum of\\nmoney and the Congress of the United States, or the President of\\nthe United States, representing both, would signify our willing-\\nness to accept and we should appropriate the money and pay it,\\nit would not be necessary to have any treaty about it, I apprehend.\\nThere is nothing in the Constitution which requires a treaty.\\nIt is a tender on one side and an acceptance on the other, but if,\\ninstead of making it in that simple way, she were to tender to us\\none of those islands for so much money, saying: I will give you\\nthe island, subject, however, to the right, which I reserve, and\\nwhich you guarantee to me for the enjoyment through all time\\nto come, of a coaling station, or of some other right or privilege\\nthere, where she has been heretofore supreme, and we were to\\naccept the cession subject to the terms and conditions, there would\\nbe a continuing obligation, and there would be two continuing\\ncontracting parties, one of which could enforce it against the\\nother, and that would of necessity, as it seems to me, be a proper\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "15\\ncase for a treaty, and not a case for acceptance by an act of\\nCongress.\\nBut that is not this case, and I want to distinguish this case\\nfrom that. I say, as a broad proposition, that the Congress of\\nthe United States has power expressly given to it to promote the\\ngeneral welfare, and if we deem it a promotion of the general wel-\\nfare to acquire any island of the sea that has its own govern-\\nment but I will take the case before us if we deem it to be a\\npromotion of the general welfare to accept the cession from the\\nRepublic of Hawaii of all its territory, one of the conditions being\\nthat the Republic of Hawaii ceases to be, it is not a proper case\\nfor a treaty, for the very minute the treaty is consummated there\\nis no treaty there is no contract, for one of the contracting parties\\nis politically dead and gone.\\nMr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me again a moment?\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio\\nyield?\\nMr. FORAKER. I yield by the permission of the Senator from\\nTennessee [Mr. Tl t rley], who is entitled to the floor.\\nMr. ALLEN. I beg the Senator s pardon. This resolution re-\\ncites in the preamble that the Republic of Hawaii having, in\\ndue form, signified its consent for the cession of its sovereignty.\\nThen it resolves:\\nThat said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed.\\nIs not that a treaty, if the joint resolution passes?\\nMr. FORAKER. If it is, then all the objections which have\\nbeen urged to this resolution fall to the ground, for the objectors\\nsay they would not object if it was a treaty. I am assuming, for\\nthe sake of this argument, that their objections are well taken,\\nthat it is not a treaty, but a joint resolution or an act of Congress.\\nI have said it is equivalent to a treaty.\\nMr. ALLEN. What I want to call the attention of the Senator\\nto is this, that it recognizes the existence of two parties to this\\ntransaction, the Republic of Hawaii on the one hand and the\\nGovernment of the United States upon the other, and the neces-\\nsity of the consent of both of these parties to annexation. What is\\nthat contract, treaty, or stipulation between these sovereigns?\\nMr. FORAKER. With that question I am not concerned.\\nMr. ALLEN. I think the Senator ought to be concerned.\\nMr. FORAKER. I am perfectly willing to be concerned in\\norder that I may accommodate the Sen ator from Nebraska. What\\nI meant to say was not to cavalierly dismiss the question the\\nSenator would ask the character of my argument does not in-\\nvolve a consideration of that matter.\\nThe question before us is whether it is competent to acquire this\\nterritory by act of Congress, it being conceded that it would be\\ncompetent, as I understand it is conceded to acquire it by treaty.\\nI have said I think it would be competent to acquire it either way,\\nand I explained why. But I have said also that I think it would\\nbe more appropriate to acquire it by joint resolution or by bill, by\\nact of Congress, as we are now proposing to acquire it, than by\\ntreaty, for the reasons I have given.\\nIt is true that the joint resolution recites that the Republic of\\nHawaii have indicated a willingness to make a cession of that ter-\\nritory. We do not say they have ceded it.\\nMr. ALLEN. Yes.\\n3513", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "16\\nMr. FORAKER. Let us see if we do. I interpreted that word\\na while ago, but I think the Senator from Nebraska was not in\\nthe Chamber at the time. Let me read the whole of it, so that it\\nmay go into the Record, and so that what we are saying may be\\nunderstood:\\nJoint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United\\nStates.\\nWhereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form,\\nsignified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat is true, is it not?\\nto cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all\\nrights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands\\nand their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States\\nthe absolute fee and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands,\\npublic buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other\\npublic property of every kind and description belonging to the Government\\nof the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance there-\\nunto appertaining: Therefore,\\nResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of\\nAmerica in Congress assembled, That said cession is accepted, etc.\\nNow, what I say is that while the word cession ordinarily\\nwould imply that a cession had been actually made, that the deed\\nhad been signed, that it was in full force and effect, you must\\nconstrue the word cession as there employed in the light of\\nthe context it refers to, the preamble; and when you refer to the\\npreamble you see the word cession properly interpreted means\\nnothing more as here used than a declaration on our part that we\\nwill accept the tender which they have expressed a willingness\\nto make. Whether the word was appropriately used or not, that\\nis what it means of necessity.\\nMr. ALLEN. When we pass this resolution and it becomes a\\nlaw, the transaction is consummated except the delivery of the\\nproperty.\\nMr. FORAKER. It would have to be accepted on the other\\nside. This is not the ratification of a treaty. We can not by a\\njoint resolution annex Hawaii.\\nMr. ALLEN. But the joint resolution says so.\\nMr. FORAKER. We can recite the fact that they have mani-\\nfested a willingness, as shown by the treaty which we had in\\nmind when that joint resolution was drafted, to make a cession\\nto us; but when we do not ratify the treaty, but do something\\nelse, namely, pass a joint resolution, the transaction is not con-\\nsummated until they agree to it.\\nMr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me a word further?\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes.\\nMr. ALLEN. The joint resolution reads:\\nThat said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Ha-\\nwaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a\\npart of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign\\ndominion thereof, and that all and singular the property and rights herein-\\nbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America.\\nMr. FORAKER. I say the whole phrase must be interpreted,\\nas I said a while ago, in the light of the preamble. The language of\\nthe resolution refers to the preamble; and what is already recited\\nin the preamble? Not a cession actually made, but a willingness\\nto make a cession, an expressed, manifest desire that they should\\nbe annexed to the United States, and that we are willing to accept\\nthem.\\nI admit that ordinarily the language would go further than\\nthat, but you must interpret it in the light of the preamble. I\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "17\\nsay it is not a consummated transaction; it does not seem so to\\nme, at any rate, when we simply pass this resolution, because we\\ncan not by a resolution affect the territories of other countries\\nwithout their consent.\\nMr. ALLEN. If I make a written proposition to transfer to\\nthe Senator certain property for a certain consideration and he\\naccepts that in writing, is not that a consummated contract except\\nso far as the mere fact of delivery is concerned?\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes, it is.\\nMr. ALLEN. Very well. When the Hawaiian Government,\\nwithout any restriction or proviso, say they transfer their sov-\\nereignty to us, and we say we accept the transfer and thereby\\nassume jurisdiction over that property, is not that a consummated\\ncontract?\\nMr. FORAKER. I say this in regard to that, if the Senator\\nfrom Nebraska will allow me, that they have made a tender to us.\\nThat is consummated upon our unqualified acceptance of it; but\\nthe recital of the preamble is only that they have manifested this\\nwillingness: but if this resolution goes to the extent that the Sena-\\ntor from Nebraska contends, I certainly do not object to it. I\\nshould be glad if the transaction were closed by the mere passing\\nof this resolution. It may be possible that that may be the con-\\nstruction of it, and, if so, I would be pleased.\\nMr. ALLEN. The question I regard as of the most importance\\nis this: The proffered cession by the Hawaiian Government and\\nthe passage of this resolution recognize two parties to the trans-\\naction. Is not that correct?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly.\\nMr. ALLEN. Now, suppose one of the parties dies absolutely\\non the passage of this law as completely as by an ordinary treaty?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly; and for that reason and because\\nthe whole transaction is ended I say it ought to be by act of Con-\\ngress instead of by treaty.\\nMr. ALLEN, if one of the parties dies by virtue of the passage\\nof the joint resolution, why should we adopt this form?\\nMr. FORAKER. We ought to adopt this form, as I have been\\ntrying to explain all the while, because, in my judgment, it is\\nbetter to make a contract by legislation for the acquisition of the\\nHawaiian Islands than by a treaty, which is not, rightly consid-\\nered, a contract executed by its consummation, but a continuing\\ncontract.\\nMr. ALLEN. Not necessarily so.\\nMr. FORAKER. I think it is necessarily so, or, at least, more\\nproperly so. Take the case I put a while ago of a cession by Eng-\\nland to this country of an island, with the reservation of certain\\nrights which we guarantee to preserve for her and protect her in\\nthe enjoyment of. That is a case for a treaty, because there is\\nan existing contract which is to continue through years, and\\nthere are two parties to it. If it is a transaction that is consum-\\nmated by merely signing the documentary evidence of it, I do not\\nthink it is necessary to have it by treaty.\\nMr. ALLEN. I wish to say that there can be no force in what\\nthe Senator says, if he will permit me, on this proposition, because\\nthe Hawaiian Republic dies as quickly and as effectively by the\\npassage of this resolution as by the adoption of the treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly; that is what I claim. It dies, no\\nmatter which way you consummate it; and because it dies alike\\nin both cases, this is the preferable way.\\n3513-2", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "18\\nMr. ALLEN. Then, why should we throw aside all the tradi-\\ntions of our Government and all the precedents and undertake to\\navoid the constitutional objections of the necessity of two-thirds\\nto ratify a treaty and adopt this resolution by a majority?\\nMr. FORAKER. I say you do not throw away any tradition,\\nnor do you throw away any precedent; on the contrary, you con-\\nform to the precedents in so far as precedent has anything at all\\nto do with it. I know the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon]\\nmade a very able argument the other day to distinguish between\\nthe acquisition of Texas and the annexation of the Hawaiian Re-\\npublic, the one being the admission of a State into the Union and\\nthe other the admission of territory, but in no case similar to this\\nhas it been held that you could not annex by statute or by joint\\nresolution, because we have never had any such case. Then why\\nshould Senators talk about precedents and traditions?\\nMr. ALLEN. I submit to the Senator that the question was\\nsubmitted to a popular vote of the people of Texas.\\nMr. FORAKER. If that is the point of objection, we are not\\ntalking about that. I have heard a great deal said about the peo-\\nple of Hawaii being consulted on this matter and about the in-\\niquities of this thing on that account; that we should order a\\nplebiscite and take the sentiment of the people there. Why, Mr.\\nPresident, Senators who manifest such concern about the people\\nof Hawaii being consulted about this matter seem to have over-\\nlooked the fact that the people of Hawaii have never in all their\\nhistory been consulted in respect to the character of their govern-\\nment. They adopted a constitution in 1840, the first they ever\\nhad. Until that time they had an unlimited monarchy.\\nHow did they get that constitution? The King simply promul-\\ngated it. Nobody was consulted. In 1852, when that constitu-\\ntion was changed, the people were not consulted. The King then\\nsimply promulgated an amended constitution. In 1864 they had\\nthe same thing over again; in 1887 the same thing again, and in 1893\\nQueen Liliuokalani was proceeding to do the same thing, and\\nthat precipitated the rebellion of that time.\\nMr. WHITE. Mr. President\\nMr. FORAKER. Let me say further, before I conclude, that\\nher predecessor had been elected by a legislative body, which con-\\nsisted, I believe, of thirty or forty members. He had a majority\\nof the legislative body, a very large majority, but when he was\\nelected, the people, whom we are told must be consulted in all\\nthese things, rose in a riot; they had anarchy, they broke into the\\nGovernment house, and undertook to murder the man who had\\nbeen elected to be their King; and why and how was murder pre-\\nvented?\\nMr. President, it was prevented by the marines of two United\\nStates ships, which happened to be there in the harbor, being\\nlanded and being marched up to the Government house, taking\\npossession, holding it for ten days, until that King who had been\\nelected without any consultation of the people could be firmly\\nestablished upon the throne he had taken. This talk about con-\\nsulting the people of Hawaii is unusual in two respects.\\nThe idea that our Government should go behind the Govern-\\nment of Hawaii in order to consult the citizens of that Republic is\\na thing unheard of in international law and diplomacy, and in the\\nsecond place it is an extraordinary manifestation of interest in the\\nsuffrage rights of a people who never had any suffrage rights,\\nwho never were consulted in any case.\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "19\\nMr. ALLEN. Does the Senator hold to the doctrine that the\\nlegislative and executive power of the Hawaiian Islands can trans-\\nfer the sovereignty of that power and destroy its Government\\nwithout consulting the people?\\nMr. FORAKER. 1 hold that there is a Government in Hawaii,\\nand that Government is called the Republic of Hawaii. It is ac-\\nknowledged to be the lawful Government and the only Govern-\\nment in the islands of Hawaii, acknowledged not only by this\\nGovernment, but by all the governments of the world that have\\nacted in the matter at all, recognized as the true and lawful Gov-\\nernment of the islands of Hawaii, and I say it is competent for\\nthat Government to act.\\nIt is not for us to look how it was established, although I have\\nno hesitation to look at that. I find no trouble about that. When\\nthat Government thus recognized sees fit to enter into a treaty\\nwith us, it would be an extraordinary thing if we were to under-\\ntake to consult the people behind it in order to see whether or not\\nthey were willing that their constituted authorities should make\\nthe kind of treaty they have proposed.\\nMr. ALLEN. *Then the Senator holds to the doctrine that the\\nlegislative branch of the Government, or any branch, or all com-\\nbined, who are the agents of the Government to carry out its\\npurpose, may lawfully and constitutionally overturn and destroy\\nthat of which they are the agents?\\nMr. FORAKER. Unquestionably, when they are authorized\\nto do so; and they are authorized by the constitution of Hawaii\\nto do that very thing.\\nMr. ALLEN. But it was established during a revolution.\\nMr. FORAKER. Suppose it was. Is it not the lawful govern-\\nment? What was the revolution in Hawaii? There was not any-\\nthing done in connection with the revolution that you and I and\\nevery Senator would not have joined in doing if we had been\\nthere.\\nMr. BACON. I beg to enter a disclaimer for myself.\\nMr. GAFFER Y. Mr. President\\nMr. PETTIGREW. There is not a Senator on this floor who\\nwould be a party to such a transaction, and I will show that\\nclearly before I get through.\\nMr. FORAKER. That is a matter of opinion. I have read the\\nhistory of that transaction in Hawaii, and I do not see that there\\nwas anything done by the representative of the United States in\\nHawaii that ought not to have been done to protect the property\\ninterests of our citizens and to protect the honor and dignity of\\nthis country.\\nMr. ALLEN. If the Senator will permit me to say it it may\\nnot be very germane, but I have no doubt\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I was in the Chamber\\nwhen the revolution took place that the act of Mr. Stevens was\\nabsolutely and inexcusably unlawful, and if President Cleveland\\nhad promptly taken steps to right it and had not waited months\\nand months until a change of government took place, I would have\\nbeen one of the Senators who would have supported him.\\nMr. FORAKER. After all that has been said, I say again, as\\nI said before, that that is a matter of opinion. 1 have my opinion,\\nand I say, having read the history of this transaction, that the\\nrepresentatives of the United States, and particularly Mr. Stevens,\\ndid not do anything in Hawaii with respect to the revolution\\nwhich it was not their duty to do; and the fact that they landed\\nthe marines there is no more potent objection than when the\\n3513", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "20\\nmarines were landed a few years ago, to which I called attention\\na few minutes ago.\\nMr. CAFFERY. This discussion is very interesting. I have\\nnot heard the whole of it, but I should like to know the Senator s\\nposition on the matter of the treaty. If I state his position cor-\\nrectly, I will follow it with a question. If I do not, the Senator\\nwill correct me. I think he stated that the Hawaiian Govern-\\nment authorized a tender, made a tender, of the territory of Ha-\\nwaii; did not absolutely cede it, because they could not do so, but\\nmade a tender of cession.\\nMr. FORAKER. Pardon me. What I said was this: I said\\nthe facts as recited in the preamble amounted to an expression of\\na willingness to cede it.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Very well; amounted to a willingness to cede it.\\nMr. FORAKER. To an expression of willingness.\\nMr. CAFFERY. The Senator says when we accept it, when\\nwe meet that willingness by a joint resolution, that that does not\\namount to a full alienation of the territory of Hawaii to the United\\nStates; in other words, it is not a contract consummated.\\nMr. FORAKER. Now, the Senator must remember what I\\nsaid about that. I said that was a matter about which I was not\\ndisposed to raise any contention, but I thought it might be con-\\ntended that because they expressed that willingness in the form\\nof a treaty, which we had refused to ratify, they might say that\\nthey were not bound by such action as we are proposing to take,\\nby joint resolution, because when they made the offer it was in\\nthe form of a treaty which we refused to ratify. Whether they\\nwill regard themselves as bound by this I have no doubt they\\nwill is a matter about which there might be debate. In my\\njudgment, it would not be held that this was the end of the trans-\\naction, because the proffer was by treaty. But upon that I have\\nno disposition to be contentious. I may be in error.\\nMr. CAFFERY. In other words, they made the proposition in\\nthe form of a treaty, and we accept it in another form.\\nMr. FORAKER, We made a proposition to take them at the\\nsame time they made a proposition to come. We both acted by\\ntreaty, and it was in the contemplation of both that we would act\\nby treaty. I can understand, if the Senator will allow me to state\\nmore plainly what is in my mind, how the Republic of Hawaii\\nmight say, lam perfectly willing to go in by treaty, as was\\nagreed and contemplated and as I expressed a willingness to do,\\nbut I have some question about this procedure. I have read the\\ndebates of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Turley]\\nand the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] and other\\nSenators to the effect that it is unconstitutional to take me in in\\nthis way, and I do not want to go in unconstitutionally. There-\\nfore I decline to go in. This is a different road from the one we\\nagreed upon. I have in my mind the thought that they might see\\nfit to take some such action as that, if they are not willing to\\ncome now as they were when we negotiated the treaty, and in\\nthat event I think they would be free to take such position.\\nMr. CAFFERY. I understand that if the Government of Hawaii\\naccepts this joint resolution, it would then amount to a contract.\\nMr. FORAKER. I think it would.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Is that the Senator s contention?\\nMr. FORAKER. It would be an executed contract, certainly,\\nand the Government of Hawaii would pass out of existence. So,\\nif we ratified the treaty, it would pass out of existence and there\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "21\\nwould not any longer be a treaty. It would be an executed con-\\ntract. There would be no longer two parties to the contract.\\nMr. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator from Ohio a\\nquestion in this connection. If, on the other hand, the Govern-\\nment of Hawaii were to refuse to stand by what it has hereto-\\nfore agreed, would not the joint resolution be absolutely null and\\nvoid and of no effect?\\nMr. FORAKER. It is possible. That is what I have said.\\nMr. BACON There is no possibility about it. Must it not\\nnecessarily be so?\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not say necessarily.\\nMr. BACON. Unless we are going to enforce it by war, as a\\nmatter of compulsion.\\nMr. FORAKER. I can explain to the Senator, if he will allow\\nme, just what I have in my mind when I say possible. If the\\nview which I suggested as possible to be taken by Hawaii should\\nbe taken, that this was not a ratification of the treaty, that she\\nhad never proposed to come in in this way if she should take that\\nview of it and refuse, it might be construed that she has a right so\\nto construe it. So it is one of the debatable propositions, because\\nshe did not offer to come in by a joint resolution. She offered to\\ncome in by treaty. If, on the other hand, she should say I regard\\nthis as an acceptance, and I think she will, then she will come in.\\nMr. BACON. In other words, the validity of the joint resolu-\\ntion must depend at least upon the consent and agreement of\\nHawaii. Is not that necessarily so?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly. That is what I have contended all\\nthe time.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator permit me to ask him an-\\nother question which I intended to ask? In response to my first\\ninquiry he stated that the act of the Government of Hawaii was\\na mere tender, a mere expression of willingness to cede.\\nMr. FORAKER. So the preamble recites.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Then, if we accept by joint resolution the\\noffer of willingness to cede, does that make anything more than\\nan executory contract?\\nMr. FORAKER. I say that is one of the debatable proposi-\\ntions. It is not necessary for me to pass upon it. I have called\\nattention to the fact that I think there might be controversy over\\nthat. There is room there for argument as to what the construc-\\ntion should be. It is not necessary that I should settle it. What\\nI am endeavoring to establish is that, according to my view, we\\nmay constitutionally accept the islands by legislative act.\\nMr. WHITE. Before my friend the Senator from Ohio leaves\\nthe floor, if I am not interrupting him, and I feel that I have in-\\nterrupted him several times, I should like to know whether he\\npays any attention to the thirty-second article of the Hawaiian\\nconstitution.\\nMr. FORAKER. I have called attention to it.\\nMr. WHITE. I should like to know whether he thinks that\\nthe general- welfare clause of the Hawaiian constitution covers all\\nthe omitted authority with reference to a grant of that Republic.\\nMr. FORAKER. I have called attention to it already, and I\\nwill say to the Senator that I think we can afford to dismiss it by\\nsaying that is Hawaii s part of the business.\\nMr. WHITE. If we are making a contract with a nation. I sup-\\npose the ability of the nation to contract is of some materiality.\\nIt is to me, although it seems it is not to the distinguished Sena-\\ntor from Ohio.\\n3TA\\\\i", "height": "4281", "width": "2614", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "22\\nMr. FORAKER. No; the Senator from California does rne in-\\njustice when he imputes that I have no regard for the ability of\\nHawaii to contract. What I had in mind I did not mean to be\\ndiscourteous\u00e2\u0080\u0094 in my answer to the Senator was that that is the\\nconstitutional provision. They have in making the treaty acted\\nin conformity with the requirements of that provision. The\\nSenator from California so contends, I believe.\\nMr. WHITE. I do not. I say there has been no treaty made.\\nMr. FORAKER. I know; in proposing the treaty, then. There\\nis no contract.\\nMr. WHITE. They have taken one step.\\nMr. FORAKER. I know. In proposing that they have acted\\nin conformity with the Constitution. If we should ratify the\\ntreaty and they should ratify it I believe they have ratified it\\nthere would be a treaty, and they would have acted in conformity\\nwith that provision of the Constitution. Now, then, how they will\\nact when the joint resolution is passed I do not know. That is\\nsomething to be hereafter dealt with. What I meant to say to\\nthe Senator was that it has no relation to the question I am argu-\\ning, of the constitutional power of Congress to accept the territory.\\nMr. WHITE. I feel, as the Senator from Ohio is a member of\\nthe Committee on Foreign Relations and the only member of\\nthe committee who has thus far ventured any defense of what I\\nconsider to be a very preposterous proposition\\nMr. FORAKER. Let me say to the Senator that he does the\\nForeign Relations Committee a very great injustice when he\\nmakes that remark. The Senator from California must remem-\\nber, and it ought to be made to appear in the Record, that we\\nconsidered the treaty for months in executive session, and in ex-\\necutive session this whole subject was most elaborately and\\nexhaustively discussed by the friends as well as the opponents of\\nannexation.\\nMr. WHITE. And having been so discussed, the distinguished\\nSenator comes here admitting the justness of criticisms made\\nupon the phraseology of this long-entertained resolution, and ex-\\npresses doubt as to whether the measure, which was thus long\\nconsidered and reported after great deliberation, was in reality\\nthe proper method of procedure.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator from California is unwarranted\\nin his statement that I admit that there is ground for criticism of\\nthe language employed. The fact that I might not have employed\\nthe word cession is not equivalent to criticising it. I contend\\nthat it is a perfectly appropriate word when considered in the\\nlight of the context, as it should be considered. There can not\\nbe any question as to what is meant by the word cession, be-\\ncause it says the said cession.\\nMr. WHITE. What the preamble says is very little said, as we\\nknow in usual matters of legislation. The word cession has a\\nwell-defined meaning, admitted by the Senator from Ohio to be in\\naccordance with the definition given to it by myself and other\\nSenators upon this side of the Chamber. That resolution is now\\nbefore the Senate. It is not a case where we are considering some-\\nthing done and attempting to find out the meaning of a legislative\\nbody which has passed a law, but we are now framing a law con-\\ntaining an admitted ambiguity which there is no suggestion to\\ncorrect.\\nMr. FORAKER. So the word\\nMr. WHITE. Certainly.\\n3513", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "23\\nMr. FORAKER. If you use it with respect to personal prop-\\nerty and the context shows it, every court would say it has refer-\\nence to the passing of personal property and interpret it accord-\\ningly.\\nI am much obliged to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Tl t r-\\nleyJ.\\nMr. WHITE. I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for his\\nliberality to me in the matter of interruption.\\nMr. CLAY. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to ask him\\na question?\\nMr. FORAKER. I have an engagement to be at the depot at\\n3.45, and it is now 3.30.\\nMr. CLAY. Just one minute. I understood the Senator to\\nstate on the floor of the Senate that it was absolutely necessary\\nto acquire the Louisiana purchase by treaty from the simple fact\\nthat there were continuing rights to be enforced by the United\\nStates to the people occupying that territory. If the Senator\\ntakes that position, is not the case now pending before us a simi-\\nlar one? If we adopt the joint resolution, are there not continued\\nrights due from us to the people of that island? Is it not true that\\nthe argument which he has applied to the purchase of Louisiana\\nwould apply in this case?\\nMr. FORAKER. Not at all. The case of Louisiana affords\\nground for the broad distinction which I have been making. The\\nFrench owned Louisiana and they ceded it to the United States.\\nThe French Government continued in existence. They ceded it,\\nnot merely for a sum of money, but upon certain stipulated con-\\nditions as to the rights of the occupants and inhabitants of the\\ncountry, which conditions continued into the future. Therefore,\\nI say it was a case where a contract was made and the contract\\ndid not perish when it was consummated, because both parties\\ncontinued to exist afterwards as before. But here the distinction\\nis that the minute you consummate the contract the Republic of\\nHawaii falls to the ground, and there can not be such a thing as\\na contract without parties.\\nMr. PETTIGREW. There are conditions in the treaty which\\nwe have to carry out.\\nMr. FORAKER. To pay money.\\nMr. PETTIGREW. We assume a debt.\\nMr. FORAKER. We assume to pay a debt, and the very mo-\\nment that the treaty is ratified, if it should be, the people of the\\nRepublic of Hawaii become citizens of the United States, become\\nour subjects, pass under the dominion of our law, and the Gov-\\nernment of the Republic of Hawaii passes out of existence.\\nMr. PETTIGREW. The only distinction is that there is no\\ncountry in existence that can punish us for breach of contract.\\nMr. FORAKER. The only distinction is that there is not any\\ncontract where there are not two parties.\\nMr. PETTIGREW. There are two parties when the contract\\nis made.\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly; and the contract was consum-\\nmated when it was made. That is all the distinction there need be.\\nMr. PETTIGREW Its terms do not carry consummation when\\nmade.\\nMr. FORAKER. It is not a question of good faith. We are\\ntalking about the constitutional power\u00e2\u0080\u0094 whether of necessity this\\nmust be done by treaty, and I say no.\\n3513\\nc", "height": "4281", "width": "2542", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n019 944 346 A", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "n", "height": "4281", "width": "2542", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\nmil\\n019 944 346 P\\nn li", "height": "4321", "width": "2638", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00fora_0028.jp2"}}