{"1": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0ft?", "height": "4913", "width": "3294", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4457", "width": "2798", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0080\u00a24\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0Q/b\\nANNEXATION OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.\\nAmerica is a fortunate country; she grows by the follies of European\\nnations. Napoleon Bonaparte.\\nSPEECH\\nHON. JOHN W. GAINES,\\nOF TENNESSEE,\\nIN THE\\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,\\nWednesday, June IS, 1898.\\nWASHINGTON.\\n1898.\\nJT.1.", "height": "4457", "width": "2798", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "68112 A\\nT\\nV\\nK\\nSf\\nSPEECH\\nTfc.\\nCF\\nHON. JOHN W. GAINES.\\nCo\\nk\\nj The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to\\nprovide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. GAINES said:\\na\u00c2\u00a3/ Mr. Speaker: It is admitted by the champions of annexation\\nthat if we acquire the Hawaiian Islands we must not only increase\\nour Navy to protect us as we now are, hut that we must further\\nincrease it to defend these islands.\\nOf course, if our Navy is not already equal to the increasing\\nneeds of the Government, it must he made and kept so.\\nWhat does an increased Navy mean? Does it mean reduced or\\nincreased taxation? If taxes must be increased, why should we cut\\noff by annexation the sources of taxation? If we begin now the\\npolicy of colonization, will we not, as it were, climb out upon the\\nend of the tariff limb and saw it off behind us? Will we not shut\\noff, by annexing, the very sources of revenue that we now have\\nwith which to pay for an increased Navy to protect our existing\\nStates and Territories?\\nAh, but you say, We will not increase the tariff. What, then,\\nwill you do? You will not pass an income tax. You say an in-\\ncome tax is held to be unconstitutional. You say we can not raise\\nthese increased taxes by an income tax. But you fail to even\\npropose an amendment to the Constitution, and we can not retry\\nthe question until an income-tax law is reenacted.\\nWhat must follow? Does it not mean that we must issue more\\nbonds? What do more bonds mean? More taxation and an in-\\ncreased demand for gold, which will increase the fall in prices and\\nfurther intensify the distress and penury of our people.\\nMr. Speaker, if we are to have more taxation, where is the prop-\\nerty to be found to tax? You have taxed everything in sight that\\nthe wealth of the country would allow you to tax to carry on this\\nwar.\\nAgain, Mr. Speaker, I receive in my mail every day communi-\\ncations and marked editorials saying that we want and must\\ntake and hold everything in sight.\\nWere we not to be satisfied with simply freeing Cuba and aiding\\nthe Cubans in establishing a stable form of government? Have we\\nnot so solemnly declared? We are not to be satisfied with this,\\nbut we must annex Hawaii, and go still further\u00e2\u0080\u0094 take, hold, and\\ngovern the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the Ladrones, and the Caro-\\nlines! And while we stud the seas with our new possessions, we\\nmust also people the ocean with grim-visaged war dogs to x^rotect\\nthem, and thus enter the arena where force and gunpowder are\\nthe controlling arguments and where war and aggression and\\nentangling vexations constitute the normal condition.\\nMr. Speaker, if this policy of greed and colonization is to be\\ninaugurated at this late day, then we must reverse the fixed\\n2 3572", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "policy of this country for over an hundred years, while our Navy\\nmust be so increased that it will belt the world!\\nThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has\\nexpired.\\nMr. HENRY of Mississippi. I move that the gentleman have\\nfive minutes longer.\\nThe SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has no control of the\\ntime. Under the rule the speaker can extend his remarks.\\nMr. GAINES. Then I will not take up more of the time of the-\\nHouse if I may be allowed to have read the excerpts which I send\\nto the Clerk s desk.\\nMr. -DINSMORE. I yield that time to the gentleman.\\nMr. GAllsES. I hope the House will give this an attentive..\\nhearing.\\nThe Clerk read as follows:\\nWASHINGTON S FAREWELL ADDRESS, SEPTEMBER 17, 1795.\\nAgainst the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe\\nme, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly\\n[italics his] awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence\\nis one of the most baneful foes of republican government.\\nThe great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extend-\\ning our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection\\nas possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be ful-\\nfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.\\nEurope has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very\\nremote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the\\ncauses of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore,\\nit must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordi-\\nnary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions\\nof her friendships or enmities.\\nOur detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different\\ncourse. If we remain one people, under an efficient iiovernment, the period\\nis not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance;\\nwhen we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at\\nanytime resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent na-\\ntions, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly\\nhazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our\\ninterests, guided by justice, shall counsel.\\nWhy forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own\\nto stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that\\nof any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of Euro-\\npean ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?\\nIt is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion\\nof the foreign world.\\nANDREW JACKSON INDORSES IT.\\nOn March 4, 1837, Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address, in\\nalluding to Washington s Farewell Address, said:\\nThe lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his coun-\\ntrymen should be cherished in the heart of every citizen to the latest gener-\\nation; and perhaps at no period of time could they be more usefully remem-\\nbered than at the present moment; for when we look upon the scenes that are\\npassing around us and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his pater-\\nnal counsels would seem to be not merely the offspring and wisdom and fore-\\nsight, but the voice of prophecy, foretelling events and warning us of the\\nevil to come. Forty years have passed since this imperishable document was\\ngiven to his countrymen.\\nTHOMAS JEFFERSON ENUNCIATES THE DOCTRINE.\\nIn his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801, Jefferson said:\\nLet us then with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Re-\\npublican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.\\nKindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc\\nof one-quarter of the globe; two high-minded to endure the degradations of\\nthe others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descend-\\nants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense\\nof our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisition of our\\nown industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not\\nfrom birth but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a\\nbenign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man;\\nacknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dis-\\npensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his\\ngreater happiness hereafter\u00e2\u0080\u0094 with all these blessings, what more is necessary\\nto make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-\\ncitizens\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from in-\\njuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own\\npursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of\\nlabor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this\\nis necessary to close the circle of our felicities.\\nTHE MONROE DOCTRINE.\\nPresident Monroe, in his seventh annual message, December 2,\\n1823, said:\\nWe owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing be-\\ntween the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider\\nany attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hem-\\nisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or\\ndependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not\\ninterfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence\\nand maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration\\nand on just principle, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for\\nthe purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their\\ndestiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation\\nof an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.\\nMr. Speaker, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands means\\nthe abandonment of the Monroe doctrine. We notified the powers\\nof the earth many years ago that they must keep their hands off\\nthis side of the earth and we accompanied that notice with the\\ndeclaration that we would keep our hands off their side. The\\nimplied compact is universally accepted and recognized, and the\\nconsequence has been the gradual emancipation of Central and\\nSouth America and the increasing expansion of liberty and free\\ngovernment.\\nWe have leavened the earth with the love of liberty, and now\\nwe are to turn our backs upon our own policy. To forsake and\\nabandon the great saving policy enunciated by Mr. Monroe we\\nlay our hands upon their lands, and we can not complain when\\nforeign powers begin their conquests on our own hemisphere.\\nThe Monroe doctrine, that has protected us and kept these islands\\nas they are for years, is about to be broken down. That doctrine\\nhas left these islands to their own ways and to make their own\\nlaws and customs. Have we suffered by it?\\nBy that doctrine we say to the whole world, and the whole world\\nso understands it, that we have all the territory that we want; but\\nwe do not intend that any great nation shall come and establish\\nitself at our gateway, and in so doing destroy these weak nations\\nthat are working out their own salvation without being our ene-\\nmies in fact or in spirit; and if they were, would be incapable of\\ndoing us any injury.\\nThe Monroe doctrine is now the common law of nations. They\\nall so understand jt. They have legislated up to this dead line in\\nthe ocean and stopped. They live up to it and they dare not break\\nover.\\nHaving forced them to respect it, shall we now break it down\\nourselves? Can we longer demand of them hands off* when\\nwe begin to lay our hands upon foreign territory?\\nLAW OF TREATY.\\nMr. Speaker, it is proposed to acquire these islands by a joint\\nresolution, which can be passed by a simple majority of the two\\nHouses, to be approved or disapproved by the President, and if\\nthe after, the resolution can be passed, and made the law of the\\nland, until avoided, over the veto of the President, the sameas other\\n3573", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "legislation. We have never acquired any territory by a joint\\nresolution, and we have the very highest authority holding that\\nterritory can not be acquired as territory and held as such by a\\njoint resolution. It must be, if done legally, by conquest or treaty.\\nAs early as 1828 the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice\\nMarshall, in 1 Peters, 540, said:\\nThe Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the United\\nStates the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that\\nGovernment possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest\\nor by treaty.\\nThis court was then composed of Judges Marshall, Washington,-\\nJohnson, Duval, Story, Thompson, and Trimble. This decision\\nhas been repeatedly reaffirmed and never doubted.\\nWhat is a treaty?\\nBlack defines a treaty thus:\\nIn international law an agreement between two or more independent\\nstates\u00e2\u0080\u0094 an agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or\\nsovereigns formally signed by commissioners properly authorized and sol-\\nemnly ratified, etc.\\nIt will be thus seen by the very definition of the word treaty\\nthat it pertains and is confined, to negotiations with foreign pow-\\ners, whether those powers are located on this or any other con-\\ntinent.\\nIt is known as an Executive power; that is, one to be exercised\\nby the President, and are the very words of the Constitution, by\\nand with the advice and consent of the Senate. We know by\\ncommon experience and observation that legislation as contra-\\ndistinguished from treaty making is enacted by the Senate, House\\nthe Congress with the approval of the President or over his\\nveto is ex parte and confined to the limits of the United States and\\ntheir territory.\\nChancellor Kent well says:\\nThe power to make treaties of peace must be coextensive with the exigen-\\ncies of the nation, and necessarily involves in it that portion of the national\\nsovereignty which has the exclusive direction of diplomatic negotiations and\\ncontracts with foreign powers.\\nThe department of the Government that is intrusted by the Constitution\\nwith the treaty-making power is competent to bind the national faith in its\\ndiscretion, for the power to make treaties of peace must be coextensive with\\nthe exigencies of the nation, and necessarily involves in it that portion of the\\nnational sovereignty which has the exclusive direction of diplomatic nego-\\ntiations and contracts with foreign powers. All treaties made by that power\\nbecome of absolute efficacy because they are the supreme law of the land.\\nThere can be no doubt that the power competent to bind the nation by treaty\\nmay alienate the public domain and property by treaty. The power\\nthat is intrusted generally and largely with authority to make valid treaties\\nof peace can, of course, bind the nation by alienation of part of its territory.\\n(1 Kent, thirteenth edition, page 166.)\\nIn Holden vs. Joy, in 17 Wallace, 211, Judge Clifford, in speak-\\ning for the court, said:\\nExpress power is given to the President, by and with the advice and con-\\nsent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators\\npresent concur, and inasmuch as the power is given in general terms, with-\\nout any description of the objects intended to be embraced within its scope,\\nit must be assumed that the framers of the Constitution intended that it\\nshould extend to all those objects which in the intercourse of nations had\\nusually been regarded as the proper subjects of negotiation and treaty, if\\nnot inconsistent with the nature of our Government and the relation between\\nthe States and the United States.\\nThe Constitution ordains, Article II, section 2, that\\nHe [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent\\nof the Senate, to make treaties, provided two -thirds of the Senators present\\nconcur.\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "6\\nNote the language. Make that is, create\u00e2\u0080\u0094 treaties. Who?\\nThe President and Senate make the treaty, while the Congress\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthat is, the Senate and House of Representatives and the Presi-\\ndent, or possibly the Senate and House over the veto of the Presi-\\ndent, may enforce or abrogate the treaty.\\nIt is significant that the treaty-making power is confined to the\\nPresident and the Senate, while this resolution, as stated, may\\npass the House and the Senate by a simple majority, or over the\\nveto of the President by the usual vote, and yet takes the place of\\na treaty and strips the President and Senate of their executive\\nfunctions, and by a majority vote! The Constitution nowhere\\nsays that the President and Congress shall make treaties, or that\\nthe President and the House shall make treaties, or that the Senate\\nand House combined may do so. It is specific and easily under-\\nstood and says the President and Senate shall.\\nIt is a fact that the treaties heretofore proposed to annex Hawaii\\nhave failed to meet the approval of the Senate in fact, have not\\nreceived the necessary two-thirds vote. Is this the reason why the\\nannexationists seek now to acquire these islands by a joint reso-\\nlution, which requires, as stated, a simple majority vote?\\nA recent author sums up the law of treaty, in these words:\\nCongress has the power to abrogate its treaties. The treaty-making power\\nis vested in the President and the Senate, and with the consent of the other\\ncontracting parties it is competent for the President and Senate to annul the\\nexisting treaty; but the power to abrogate a treaty is vested in Congress.\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nBoutwell on the Constitution of the United States for the First Century, page\\n291.\\nThe authorities on the subject are ably reviewed in Chan Ping\\nvs. The United States (130 U. S. 600) J ustice Bradley, in discuss-\\ning the abrogation of our treaty with China, by which Chinese\\nimmigration from China was prohibited, says:\\nThe Constitution of the United States speaks with no uncertain sound\\nupon this subject. That instrument, established by the people of the United\\nStates as the fundamental law of the land, has conferred upon the President\\nthe Executive; has made him commander in chief of the Army and Navy;\\nhas authorized him, by and with consent of the Senate, to make treaties, and\\nto appoint ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls. As was said by this\\ncourt in Chae Chan Ping s case (130 U. S., 600), following previous decisions:\\nThe treaties were no greater legal obligations than the act of Congress.\\nBy the Constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof and treaties made un-\\nder authority of the United States are both declared to be the supreme law\\nof the land, and paramount authority is not given to one over the other. A\\ntreaty, it is true, is in the nature of a contract between nations, and is often\\nmerely promissory in its character, requiring legislation to carry it into\\neffect. Such legislation will be open to future repeal or amendment. If the\\ntreaty operates by its own force, and relates to a subject within the power\\nof Congress, it can be deemed in that particular only the equivalent to a leg-\\nislative act, to be repealed or modified at the pleasure of Congress. In either\\ncase the last expression of the sovereign must control. (149 U. S., 711,712.\\nFong Yue Ting.)\\nIf the President and Senate make a treaty that is not self-\\noperative, Congress can enact enabling legislation.\\nWe have made no treaty with Hawaii, and that offered has been\\ndefeated by a failure of the Senate to sanction it. This measure\\nis not a treaty. We have seen this House has no power to make\\na treaty.\\nIt is not proposed to acquire these islands by treaty or con-\\nquest. It is not contended that we have conquered these Hawaii-\\nans. It is not held that this is a treaty, but simply a joint reso-\\nlution for the purpose of annexing these islands. Not having\\nconquered these people, we can not take or hold this territory as\\nconquerors. To conquer we must dispossess, and take not only\\n3572", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "physical possession of the individuals conquered, but their posses-\\nsions, personal and real.\\nHence it is that by conquest the people who conquer, being then\\nsovereigns, at least for the time being, acquire the possessions of\\nthe conquered, and in this way, even if we had no Constitution,\\nbut simply exercised our natural rights as human beings, we could\\nthus acquire property of and from the vanquished. We say, in\\nbrief, that we, as a nation, acquire territory as a result of war\\nas an incident of war, some contend, but it would seem as a direct\\nresult and one of the means of conquering.\\nBut that is not this case. We are not undertaking to acquire\\nthese islands by conquest, but in a time of profound peace with\\nthis nation. We are therefore, and the annexationists should be,\\nconfined to the limitations of our written Constitution. We are\\ntherefore bound, under our oaths, to support this Constitution and\\nto acquire these islands, if at all, according to the fundamental\\nlaw of the land\u00e2\u0080\u0094 by conquest or treaty.\\nIn 1870 certain jobbers or land sharks undertook to annex the\\nSanto Domingo Islands by a joint resolution, but met with such\\nserious opposition in and out of Congress that finally it was aban-\\ndoned. It was bitterly opposed, because such a means of acquisi-\\ntion was unwarranted by the Constitution, by Senators Thurman,\\nSherman, Bayard, Stockton, Davis of Kentucky, Sumner, and by\\nRepresentatives Cox of New York and Hoar of Massachusetts\\n(now a distinguished Senator, who now favors the annexation of\\nthe Hawaiian Islands), and many others.\\nSenator Thurman was for many years a most distinguished\\nchief justice of the supreme court of the State of Ohio. He was\\nequally illustrious as a statesman and a jurist while he adorned\\nthe Senate, and his great learning cast more light upon constitu-\\ntional and abstruse matters, as shown by the debates in the Sen-\\nate, than any other member of that august body. In discussing\\nthe unconstitutionality of the annexation of the Santo Domingo\\nIslands by a joint resolution, he said:\\nI believe, not only with all the fathers of the Constitution but with the ex-\\npounders of it of all parties, a doctrine affirmed as strongly by Daniel Web-\\nster as it was by John 0. Calhoun, that the Government of the United States\\nhas no powers except such as are delegated to it by the Constitution, and that\\nthe absence of a delegation is just as fatal to a power as would be its express\\nprohibition, and that nowhere in the Constitution is the power granted to the\\nGeneral Government to acquire territory in any other way than by treaty\\nand by conquest, of course, which would follow war. You may acquire by-\\nconquest as an incident to the war-making power; but in time of peace, when\\nthere is no war, there is no other power contained in the Constitution con-\\nferred upon the Government under which it can lawfully acquire territory\\nexcept the treaty-making power.\\nSenator Bayard, in speaking on the same point, said:\\nMy honorable friend from Ohio [Mr. Thurman] ably demonstrated to the\\nSenate the utterly unconstitutional nature of this proposition, that Congress\\nhave no power by joint resolution to annex territory to the United States;\\nand that even with the doubtful example of the State of Texas before us, it\\nmust be recollected that in that case we are dealing with a State, and a\\nState, in the precise language of the Constitution, we are authorized to admit\\nby vote of Congress.\\nBut who pretends, or who can pretend, that this island, peopled with a\\nsemibarbarous population, this chaotic mass of crime and degradation, can\\nbe dignified into a State, or that from among such a people proper or de-\\ncent selections can be made to take part in the government of this great\\ncountry? No, sir; Congress has no authority, no lawful power, to annex\\nforeign territory by joint resolution. By treaty stipulation alone can we be-\\ncome possessed of territory, an unorganized political society.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Congressional\\nGlobe, volume 82, page 226.\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "8\\nSenator Sherman said:\\nYou can not by joint resolution annex San Domingo as a territory; you\\nmust annex her as a State if you annex her by joint resolution. There is no\\nclause in the Constitution that provides for the acquisition of territory by\\njoint resolution, unless it be that Congress may admit new States.\\nNo one has ever pretended that we could, by joint resolution, annex terri-\\ntory as a Territory without admitting it as a State.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Congressional Globe,\\nthird session Forty-first Congress, pages 183, 193.\\nPresident Grant in 1871 abandoned the plan of annexing Santo\\nDomingo by treaty and recommended its annexation by joint res-\\nolution, and that fell through.\\nSenator Davis severely criticised the President and these meas-\\nures in the following language:\\nHe [the President] had not the hardihood, the audacity, to submit to the\\nCongress of the United States that they should receive Dominica as a State\\ninto the Union. He would not so insult the understanding and the dignity\\nof Congress, tbe understanding. and the rights of the American people, as to\\nmake any such monstrous proposition. Still there is a general vague and\\ncovert proposition that Dominica shall be received into the Union by joint\\nresolution of Congress, and as he in effect repudiates and does not give any\\ncountenance to the idea of its admission by joint resolution as a State into\\nthe Union, what is the effect and purpose of the President s elaborate con-\\nsideration and dissertation upon the subject in his message?\\nSimply that Congress shall advance beyond the principle and the provision\\nof the Constitution, beyond all the precedents, and admit Dominica, not as a\\nState into the Union, but as a Territory, whose inhabitants are incompetent\\nto take upon themselves the duties and responsibilities of citizens of the\\nUnited States in the business of self-government in adopting a constitution\\nand acting the part of a State in the Union.\\nThat is the purpose of the President; that is his recommendation; that is\\nhis proposition. It is in furtherance of that proposition, as I understand,\\nthat this joint resolution has been introduced. It is simply to take up this\\nfurtive, unconstitutional project of the President, to be effected without au-\\nthority of the Constitution, and perverting and usurping its powers by Con-\\ngress assuming the prerogative of the treaty -making power in admitting into\\n-the Union as a Territory territory that now forms part of a foreign country.\\nIt is to forward and give impetus, strength, and power to this covert and\\nmonstrous proposition that this resolution is introduced.\\nMr. Wood, of New York, in the House, on the same subject,\\nsaid:\\nTherefore I concur in these views and contend that if Dominica is to be\\nannexed to the United States as a Territory it must be by a treaty made\\nwith the Dominican Government, which is a foreign power. It is impossible,\\nconstitutionally, to bring Dominica into the Uniou as a Territory by joint\\nresolution, as is proposed. I have other authorities upon this subject. I\\nhave the opinion of some of the ablest expounders of constitutional law now\\nliving directly to that point, but I have not time nor will I detain the House\\nto refer to them.\\nI say, therefore, again, if Dominica is to be acquired at all, except by treaty,\\nshe must come in as a State, with all the rights and privileges of other States.\\nTo this there are grave objections, to which I will refer hereafter.\\nThe contention was, then, that if foreign territory could be ac-\\nquired at all, it must be done by the treaty-making power the\\nPresident and Senate\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and that Congress could not by legisla-\\ntion do so. That while new States might be admitted into the\\nUnion by the House of Representatives and Senate, even over the\\nveto of the President, yet they were without power to annex ter-\\nritory as territory by simple legislation.\\nLet us see just how we have procured our various acquisitions\\nsince the formation of our Constitution:\\n1. Louisiana was annexed in 1803 by purchase, consummated\\nin advance, and ratified by treaty.\\n2. Florida, in 1819, by treaty. Texas was never annexed, but\\nwas admitted into the Union as a State in 1845.\\n3. New Mexico and California were acquired by conquest and\\ntreaty.\\n4. The Gadsden purchase by treaty in 1853.\\n3572", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "9\\n5. Alaska was acquired by treaty in 1867.\\nThe annexationists cite in support of this unprecedented meas-\\nure the admission of Texas into the Union by joint resolution as\\nauthority for annexing this territory as territory, to be held as\\nterritory, by a joint resolution. The two cases are not parallel.\\nShe was admitted under that explicit provision of the Constitu-\\ntion which ordains that\\nNew States maybe admitted by Congress into this Union,\\nnot annexed, but admitted by the Congress into this\\nUnion.\\nFirst. Texas was a free and independent State before we ad-\\nmitted her. The United States, as early as 1837, recognized her\\nindependence as a free State; England, Belgium, and France soon\\nthereafter.\\nSecond. She had her own State government President, Sam\\nHouston, of Tennessee\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and her Congress.\\nThird. She made her own laws, and was peopled principally by\\nemigrants from the United States.\\nFourth. She was admitted not as, or to be, a Territory, but im-\\nmediately as, and because she was already, a State.\\nFifth, The treaty-making power can not admit a State as a State;\\nCongress can.\\nSixth. Texas was formerly a part of the United States and until\\n1819, when by treaty we ceded her to Spain.\\nSeventh. Texas is contiguous territory.\\nSenator Thurman, in discussing the Santo Domingo resolution\\ngave the reasons why Texas was admitted as a State by a joint\\nresolution. He said:\\nNow, the first thing that strikes me is this: Is the Senate ready to recede\\nfrom its position? Is the Senate ready to ratify a treaty for the annexation\\nof Dominica, or is the Senate ready to annex Dominica by joint resolution?\\nAnd in that connection 1 beg leave to call the attention of the Senate to the\\nfact that you can not by joint resolution annex Dominica as a Territory; you\\nmust annex her as a State if you annex her by joint resolution. There is no\\nclause in the Constitution of the United States that provides for the acquisi-\\ntion of territory by joint resolution of Congress, unless it be one single pro-\\nvision, and that is that the Congress may admit new States into the Union.\\nAnd it was upon the argument that there was no limitation upon that\\npower to admit new States into the Union that it was not limited to terri-\\ntory belonging to the United States, but that territory belonging to a for-\\neign power might be admitted into the Union as a State. It was upon that\\ndoctrine that the resolution in the case of Texas was passed. But no one has\\never pretended that you could by joint resolution annex territory as a Ter-\\nritory without admitting it as a State.\\nIt will be interesting here to briefly give the history of Texas\\nup to her admission as a State of this Union:\\nPrevious to 1819 the United States had claimed as part of the Louisiana\\npurchase the region known as Texas as far as the Rio Grande River, but by\\nthe Spanish treaty of that year yielded its claim. Soon afterwards inhab-\\nitants of the United States b^gan to remove to Texas, where they obtained\\ngrants of land and settled. It thus grew into a State which was closely allied\\nto the United States.\\nIn 1827 and 1829 Clay and Calhoun, as Secretaries of State, tried to obtain,\\nbut without success, Texas by purchase, offering \u00c2\u00a71,000,000 and $5,000,0U0. In\\nMarch, 1836, Texas, dissatisfied with the Government of Mexico, declared its\\nindependence. A short war followed. The Mexicans committed massacres\\nat Goliad and the Alamo, but on April 10, at the San Jacinto, Santo Anna,\\nthe Mexican President, with 5,000 men, was badly defeated by 700 men under\\nGen. Sam Houston, the commander of the Texan forces.\\nSanta Anna agreed to a treaty which recognized the independence of\\nTexas. This was not ratified by Mexico, but in March, 1837, the United States\\nrecognized the independence of the Republic of Texas, and soon England,\\nFrance, and Belgium did likewise. In 1837 Texas made application to Con-\\ngress for annexation, but with no immediate result. The Presidential cam-\\npaign of 18-14 turned largely on this question. The Democratic convention\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "10\\nnominated Polk, who favored annexation, instead of Van Buren, who op-\\nposed it. Clay, tne Whig candidate, was also sxrpposed to be against the\\nproject. In the meantime Calhoun, Secretary of State, had negotiated a\\ntreaty of annexation with Texas in April, 184:4, including the territory be-\\ntween Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, disputes as to which finally led to the\\nMexican war.\\nThis treaty failed of ratification at the hands of the Senate. Polk was\\nelected but his election was taken as a sign of popular approval of annexation,\\nand Congress and Tyler s Administration now became attached to the proj-\\nect. Early in 1845 Congress authorized the President to negotiate a treaty\\nof annexation. Tyler hastened to accomplish the object, though without a\\ntreaty, and on the last day of his term sent a special messenger to Texas.\\nThis emissary on June 18 secured the consent of the congress of Texas,\\nwhich was ratified by popular vote on July 4. A resolution for the admis-\\nsion of Texas as a State was passed in the House of Representatives by a\\nvote of 141 to 50 on December 16, 1845. and in the Senate by a vote of 31 to 13\\non December 22, and Texas was declared a State of the Union December 29,\\n1845.\\nMr. Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards President, in the House,\\n1845, said:\\nThe admission of a sovereign State into the Union is not an acquisition of\\nterritory in the sense that territory is or can be acquired under the treaty-\\nmaking power. They are wholly different.\\nBear in mind that we are annexing these islands as territory,\\nand not as, or to be, a new State of this Union.\\nMr. Colquitt, of Georgia, a Senator, said:\\nHonorable Senators seem to blend the idea of acquiring territory and ad-\\nmitting States and thereby produce confusion. It is insisted that we must\\nacquire territory by treaty. Let this be so, and it does not touch the argu-\\nment. For it is absolutely certain that you can not admit a State into the\\nUnion by treaty, that power being conferred alone upon Congress.\\nAnd again said:\\nThe argument I have just made is based upon the supposition that by ad-\\nmitting Texas as a State this Government acquires the territory of Texas.\\nI have thought proper to enforce this view because it seems impossible for\\nsome minds to conceive how Texas can become a member of the Union unless\\nthis Government does thereby acquire her territory. To my mind the dis-\\ntinction is manifest, and that by the resolutions from the House we acquire\\nno territory, but leave Texas as a State, possessed of her entire domain, to\\ndispose of as she pleases, under our Constitution, fixing only the terms by\\nwhich she may become a confederate. The acquisition of territory is one\\nthing; the admission of a State is another and totally different.\\nMr. Van Buren, in a letter to Mr. Hamrnett, said:\\nThe Executive and Senate may, as I have already observed, by the exer-\\ncise of the treaty-making power, acquire territory; but new States can only\\nbe admitted by Congress; and the sole authority over the subject, which is\\ngiven to it by the Constitution, is contained in the following provision, viz:\\nNew States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.* The only\\nrestrictions imposed upon this general power are, first, that no new States\\nshall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor, secondly,\\nany State formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States\\nwithout the consent of the legislatures concerned, as well as of Congress\\nrestrictions which have no bearing upon the present question.\\nThe matter therefore stands as it would do if the Constitution said, New\\nStates may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, without addition\\nor restriction. That these words, taken by themselves, are broad enough to\\nauthorize the admission of the Territory of Texas, can not, I think, be well\\ndoubted; nor do I perceive upon what principle we can set up limitations to\\na power so unqualifiedly recognized by the Constitution in the plain, simple\\nwords I have quoted, and with which no other provision of that instrument\\nconflicts in the slightest degree.\\nAlthough Texas was already a free and independent State, for-\\nmerly a part of the United States, peopled by emigrants from the\\nUnited States, with perfect governmental machinery patterned\\nafter our own, with Samuel Houston (once govern or of Tennessee)\\nas President, and a Congress elected by her people; and although\\nimmediately adjoining the United States and naturally a part of\\nthis continent, Senator Choate contended that Congress could not\\n375.", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "11\\nadmit her as a State of this Union, though the Constitution ex-\\npressly gives Congress the power to admit new States, He said:\\nIt was not until it was found that the treaty of last session had no chance\\nof passing the Senate, no human being, save one, no man, woman, or child in\\nthis Union or out of the Union, wise or foolish, drunk or sober, was ever\\nheard to breathe one syllable about this power in the Constitution of admit-\\nting new States being applicable to the admission of foreign nations (Texas\\nbeing an independent foreign nation), governments, or states. With one\\nexception, till ten months ago, no such doctrine was ever heard of or even en-\\ntertained. He insisted that the joint resolution was gotten np not from\\nany well-founded faith in its orthodoxy, but for the mere purpose of carry-\\ning a measure by a bare majority of Congress that could not be carried by a\\ntwo-thirds majority of the Senate in accordance with the treaty-making\\npower. Congressional Globe, second session Twenty-eighth Congress, page\\nm.\\nWhen we have acquired territory by the treaty-making power,\\nit has been with the distinct understanding expressly stated that\\nsuch territory would be given a Territorial government until it\\nbecame sufficiently inhabited to be admitted into full statehood\\nwith the old States. In this way many of our States, and partic-\\nularly in the Southwest and West, have gone from Territory into\\nfull statehood. But there is no provision in this resolution to\\nadmit these islands as a State into this Union now or hereafter.\\nOn the contrary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hitt], the\\nchairman of the committee reporting this bill, when asked by my\\nneighbor, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Clardy] this ques-\\ntion\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nSuppose these islands are received into the United States under this reso-\\nlution, what does this Administration intend, or what do the people of the\\n3 United States intend, to do with them? Will they be admitted as a State?\\n.\u00e2\u0080\u00a2It seems to me that is a very important question-\\nHere is his remarkable answer:\\nMr. Hitt. I am not a mind reader, and the Almighty alone can answer\\nwhat is in men s minds. The gentleman will have to find that out\\nfrom other sources. By the terms of this resolution all such ques-\\ntions will be determined by Congress.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Congressional Record, volume 31,\\npage 6770.\\nBy Congress, you see. when we have already seen that Con-\\ngress is only given the right to admit new States. The next\\nstep, the gentleman [Mr. Hitt] suggests, will be to admit as a\\nState these islands, stricken with leprosy since 1856, with 1,400\\nlepers already there, and her conglomerate population Japanese,\\n25,400; Chinese, 21,616 (which we have excluded from this coun-\\ntry); Portuguese, 15,291; British, 2,250; Germans, 1,432; Hawaiians\\n(pure and mixed), 39,504; Americans, 3,031 (who are really run-\\nning the whole thing and forcing this movement), making a total\\nof 109,000 people.\\nThis is the mass, the refuse of all creation, that will soon be\\nknocking at the doors of Congress for statehood, that two Sena-\\ntors, leprous suspects, and two Representatives, leprous suspects,\\nmay be elected and sit in Congress to make laws for this country\\nand that unfortunate people. With such prospects, with such a\\nfuture as this, we are not surprised that the distinguished gentle-\\nman from Ohio [Mr. Grosvenor], a zealous annexationist,\\nsquirmed around the question when asked what we would do with\\nthis country when she is annexed, and said:\\nI scorn to discuss what is to come from this annexation.\\nBut as the heat of debate increased the annexationists became\\nbolder, and the noblest Roman of them all frankly stated that we\\nwould do as England does. That he preferred to take advice\\nof her and other foreign nations than to be guided by our past\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "12\\nhistory or advised from his own people. I allude to the distin-\\nguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Hepburn], who says:\\nAnd while I listen to gentlemen who are full of forebodings, while I have\\ngreat respect for their learning, yet I have more respect for the statesman-\\nship of England, of Germany, of Russia, of France\u00e2\u0080\u0094 nations that are to-day\\npursuing successfully and to our detriment the colonial system that gentle-\\nmen here tell us is to be ruinous to us if we follow their example. The states-\\nmanship of the earth to-day is in favor of this system of colonization, of ter-\\nritorial expansion, of breadth and greatness and grandeur, of extension of\\nempires. All the statesmanship of the world, save that of the Democratic\\nparty here in the United States, says lt aye to the proposition; they alone are\\nhalting in the procession. [Laughter.]\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Congressional Record, volume 31,\\npage 6662.\\nThe sentiment here expressed is amazing when its meaning is\\nmeasured by the only experience this country has had. We were\\nonce in the very relation with respect to England that is sought\\nto be established for Hawaii. We were once a colonial depend-\\nency of England and a victim of the glorious policy the gentle-\\nman so lauds, and what was our fate? Go read the scathing\\narray of abuses embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the\\nlong series of oppressions and wrongs set out in that withering\\nindictment of King George, and then bow your head with shame\\nthat such audacious sentiment as that uttered by the gentleman\\ncan find expression in the American Congress. It is in keeping\\nwith that other policy of the Republican party which sees no good\\nin home-made financial policies and must look to England for ex-\\nample and sit at the feet of English statesmen for the only financial\\nwisdom. God save America from ever having such an indictment\\nfound against her, and God save this people from being dragged\\ninto a condition where such shameful thing may be possible.\\nThe Republicans laugh,_the annexationists smile, when the\\nteachings of Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson, Webster,\\nand the policy and principles of our Government for over one\\nhundred years are thus smote and condemned by the mouthpiece\\nof the Administration, whose backs, we see, are turned upon this\\nGovernment, and the statesmanship of England, Germany, Rus-\\nsia, and France is pointed to as the beacon lights for our future as\\na nation. I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it not time to\\nThrow out the life line-\\nThere is danger ahead.\\nYUCATAN WAS DENIED ADMISSION.\\nIn 1848 Yucatan knocked at the door of the Union and sought\\nadmittance. Worn out with internecine strife, its commissioners\\ncame to President Polk praying for protection from the Indians,\\nand offered to transfer the dominion and sovereignty of the\\npeninsular to this Government. Mr. Polk, in a message dated\\nApril 29, 1848, submitted the facts to Congress and said:\\nIn this condition they have, through their constituted authorities, implored\\nthe aid of this Government to save them from destruction, offering in case\\nthis should be granted, to transfer the dominion and sovereignty of the\\npeninsular to the United States. Similar appeals for aid and protection have\\nbeen made to the Spanish and English Governments. Whilst it is not my\\npurpose to recommend the adoption of any measure with a view to the ac-\\nquisition of the dominion and sovereignty over Yucatan, yet, according to\\nour established policy, we could not consent to a transfer of this dominion\\nand sovereignty either to Spain, Great Britain, or any other Euiopean\\npower.\\nHe then quoted, reaffirmed, and applied the Monroe doctrine.\\nHere is an exact precedent, almost identically analogous, differing\\nonly in that it had the advantage over the case now being consid-\\nered in not being foreign territory, but lying within this hemis-\\nphere and almost immediate vicinity, and yet Congress refrained\\n3572", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "13\\nfrom accepting the transfer of the dominion, and the President\\nspecifically declined to recommend it. The Constitution afforded\\nno such power, and no one ever dreamed that it did.\\nMr. Jefferson, in a letter to W. C. Nicholas, September 7, 1803,\\nsaid:\\nBut when I consider that the limits of the United States are precisely\\nfixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself to\\nbe made for the United States. I can not help believing that the intention was\\nnot to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States which should be\\nformed out of the territory for which, and under whose authority alone,\\nthey were acting.\\nI do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland,\\nHolland, etc., into it, which would be the case upon your construction. When\\nan instrument admits two constructions\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the one safe, the other dangerous;\\nthe one precise, the other indefinite\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I prefer that which is safe and precise.\\nI had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation when it is found\\nnecessary than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers\\nboundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitu-\\ntion. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.\\nI say the same as to the opinion of those who make the grant of the treaty-\\nmaking power boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has\\nbounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which the\\ninstrument gives. It specifies and delineates the operations permitted to\\nthe Federal Government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry those\\ninto execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law.\\nCongress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of\\ntreaty, the President and Senate may enter into that treaty; whatever is to\\nbe done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass that sentence.\\nWe see that in addition to the prospect now of having Hawaii\\nas a State, the process of colonization is just begun, and soon\\nother such countries are to be annexed and later admitted as States\\nof this Union. Are we ready for this? Was it ever intended that\\nwe should be ready? Mr. Speaker, can we ever be ready to sub-\\nmit to such a calamity? Not content with illegally annexing ter-\\nritory the foreign territory of one people this movement of im-\\nperialism is now inaugurated and to be perpetuated.\\nMr. Jefferson, Mr. Quincy, Mr. Webster. Chief Justice Taney,\\nand others denied the power of the United States to acquire for-\\neign adjoining territory even by treaty and for the immediate\\npurpose of making new States of the territory thus acquired. But\\nhere islands throughout the world are to be acquired and to be held\\nas territory, as colonies, and that, too, not by treaty, as the Consti-\\ntution, if at all, permits, but by the simple legislation of Congress.\\nMr. Speaker, it is plain, by the very words of the Constitution\\nand as expressly intended by the framers, that out of portions\\nof the old States Congress had the right to make new States,\\nwhich has been done. For example: Maine, Vermont, and New\\nHampshire were portions of old Massachusetts, West Virginia of\\nVirginia, Tenneseee of North Carolina, while the Western States\\neast of the Mississippi were formed of portions of that territory\\nceded to the United States by the old States, acquiring it, as the\\npeople then contended and courts held, as a result of the Revolu-\\ntionary war.\\nIt was surrendered, ceded by the old States, to pay off our then\\nwar debt and to make into new States to be admitted into the\\nUnion, the States when united. This cession settled a contro-\\nversy between the States that this vacant territory was territory\\nbought by the people by the blood they spilled in gaining our\\nindependence.\\nIt was doubted that the United States had the right or power to\\nacquire by treaty or otherwise than by conquest, of course, addi-\\ntional territory for the purpose of adding new States to the United\\nStates. But to prevent war Jefferson yielded, on the condition\\n3572", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "14\\nthat the Constitution be thereafter amended, and urged the pur-\\nchase by treaty of Louisiana and other territory in that section,\\nthat our people might have free access to the Mississippi River.\\nOur citizens use of that river and our right of deposit in\\nthat section was invaded and withdrawn. Their commerce on\\nthat river was broken up. This our people, Mr. Jefferson said,\\nwould not stand longer. Louisiana, and the right to navigate the\\nMississippi River\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a natural right, he contended\u00e2\u0080\u0094 must be ac-\\nquired or war was inevitable. Jefferson yielded, and by treaty\\nLouisiana was acquired to relieve this situation, not by joint res-\\nolution, but by treaty, and for the further purpose of making\\nnew States, which was done. Mr. Jefferson was not alone in\\nbelieving that the right of the United States to acquire new States\\nwas limited to its original confines.\\nMr. Chief Justice Taney, in. the celebrated Dred Scott case,\\nused this language:\\nThere is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Gov-\\nernment to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or\\nat a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure, nor to enlarge\\nits territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new States.\\nThat power is plainly given; and if anew State is admitted it needs no fur-\\nther legislation by Congress, because the Constitution itself defines the rela-\\ntive powers and duties of rhe State and citizens of the State and the Federal\\nGovernment. But no power is given to acquire territory to be held and gov-\\nerned permanently in that character.\\nMr. Webster, in a speech delivered at Buffalo, N. Y., May 22,\\n1851, said:\\nIt was inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or thought\\nto be so, in Mr. Jefferson s time, to attach Louisiana to the United States.\\nMy opinion remains unchanged that it was not within the original\\nscope or design of the Constitution to admit new States out of foreign terri-\\ntory.\\nMarch 15, 1837, he said again:\\nI say, then, gentlemen, in all frankness, that I see objections, I think insur-\\nmountable objections, to the annexation of Texas to the United States. When\\nthe Constitution was formed, it is not probable that either its framers or the\\npeople ever looked to the admission of any State into the Union except such\\nas then already existed and such as should be formed out of territories then\\nalready belonging to the United States.\\nSenator Morgan, in a letter addressed to Mr. James K. Kaulie\\nand published in the Honolulu Independent of October 19, says:\\nNor could we in any event accept Hawaii as a dependency or colony. We\\nhave no such powers under our Constitution.\\nIt is no answer now to this palpably correct view to say that\\nthis distinguished gentleman has changed his opinion.\\nNow, then, in the face of these learned opinions and our past\\nhistory, the annexationists insist that we have the power, by a joint\\nresolution, to annex this foreign territory as territory and hold it\\nas territory, no provision whatever being made for its admission\\nas a State now or at any other time. Judge Taney said:\\nThe different departments of the Government have recognized the right\\nof the United States to acquire territory which at the time it is intended to\\nadmit as a new State into the Union.\\nIt was doubted if Congress had the power to admit Texas, a\\nState free and independent before her admission, when Congress\\nhad the express right to admit new States, and now by implica-\\ntion it is contended that Congress has the power to annex this\\nterritory, confessedly not a State, but a territory 2,100 miles from\\nthe borders of California.\\nHere is an act about to be done without a precedent in the his-", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "15\\ntory of our country, upon a power implied from the grant expressly\\ngiven to admit new States. The rule is old and well-settled, that\\nThe United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the\\nConstitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly\\ngiven, or given by necessary implication. (1 Wheaton, 326.)\\nThis rule was enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall at an early\\nday in our history, but it is now too old, it is claimed, to be any\\nlonger the law of this land, and is being ignored here to-day by\\nthe friends of this measure.\\nWhat is the Constitution between friends? Let those who\\nhave taken the solemn oath to uphold and enforce it answer.\\nLet those who would spit upon the Constitution, upon the tra-\\nditions of this country for over a hundred years, ask this ques-\\ntion and laugh as they do it. As for me, I shall stand by the\\noath I have taken to support this sacred instrument. May I be\\nfalse first to my own self, if false I must be to anyone, but last\\nalways to my country and to the patriotic people whose trust I\\nhold in my hand and whom I have the honor in part to represent\\nin this House.\\nBut as step by step the annexationists lose their foothold they\\ncatch as a drowning man at straws and find, they think, a harbor\\nin the boundless welfare clause in the Constitution, and say that\\nthe public welfare requires the annexation of these islands.\\nIf they would say the private welfare of a handful of American\\nsugar and coffee growers who live there and who are prowling\\naround the precincts of this Capitol logrolling for this measure,\\nthe truth might te fully told.\\nOnly a few days ago, in a conversation with a high public official,\\nI was asked my views on this subject, which I gave. I found\\nhim an ardent annexationist. He said we need these islands\\nas a war support. As I turned to leave him he drew from his\\ndesk some large photographs and said, I own a coffee farm down\\nthere, and here are photographs of it, exhibiting them.\\nOn another occasion a resident of Washington, after a long con-\\nversation on the subject of annexation, as we parted, said, Of\\ncourse 1 am for annexation. It will make my land there worth\\n$50 per acre, but I don t blame you as a member of Congress for\\nopposing annexation. I would, too, situated differently.\\nDoubtless this is but a bird s-eye view of similar experiences of\\nother members with these patriots.\\nThat we have the power to annex these islands under the\\ngeneral- welfare clause is an unheard-of proposition. If it be true\\nthat we have such power, then why was the treaty-making power\\nconfined exclusively to the President and the Senate? Or why\\ndid the other provision of the Constitution grant to Congress the\\npower to admit new States?\\nWhy could not all of this have been done under the general-\\nwelfare clause without these provisions? If these acquisitions can\\nbe made under that clause, why were the other clauses inserted at\\nall, and, if inserted, why with such specific limitations? All the\\nadjudications of the Supreme Court of the United States and the\\npast history of this country are witnesses against the position\\ntaken here by the friends of this measure.\\nIf this clause admits of this construction, or if it was thus in-\\ntended by the framers of the Constitution, pray tell me why this\\nwise council of men, in lieu of all other clauses, failed to declare\\nthat the Congress shall have power to enact any legislation the\\npublic welfare requires? This would have saved them much time\\n3573", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "jrgRARY OF CONGRESS\\n019 944 332 A\\n16\\nand labor and succeeding generations oceans of contentions and\\nseas of lawsuits.\\nIt is true as charged that the Democratic party has always led\\nin extending the domain and the power and glory of this Govern-\\nment; but it is equally true that in every such movement the ways\\npointed out by the Constitution were rigidly followed. Gentle-\\nmen affect to deride that party and charge it with lagging in this\\nlatter-day colony-grabbing mania that has seized upon the Gov-\\nernments of Europe. They call that mania statesmanship and\\nwise diplomacy, and they hoot at and decry the safe and stable\\npolicies that have animated American statesmen; and that have\\nproved efficacious in building up a Government that leads all\\nothers in the benefits it bestows upon its people and upon human-\\nity. The Democratic party glories in its record of territorial ac-\\nquisition. It glories in the fact that every foot of land we have\\ngained came through its instrumentalities. It glories in the fact\\nthat every acquisition it has made has proven wise and good, and\\nhas served to extend the blessings of free government and lead to\\ngreater happiness and prosperity. It glories chiefly in the fact\\nthat in every instance it has tracked the way blazed out by the\\nConstitution, and it glories now in that it is able to withstand the\\nglittering allurements held out and stand by that sacred instru-\\nment.\\nThe Democratic party has held to the plain letter and meaning\\nof the Constitution and has been foremost in acquiring territory\\nout of which States might be made. By no imaginary stretch can\\nthe power be extorted which permits the acquisition of foreign\\nterritory. It is as clear as noonday that that instrument contem-\\nplates the acquisition of such territory only as States may be made\\nof contiguous territory with identical interests and associations,\\ncapable of being absorbed into one homologous whole, and all the\\nwise men who helped to build our institutions have all so held.\\nIf we are to fall now into this procession of powers marching on\\nto the savage realms of the East and seek a part in the entangle-\\nments and strifes that will constitute its chief heritage; if we are\\nto be allured from the old, safe, glorious landmarks by dreams of\\nconquest and follow this new idea born in European greed, then\\nour Constitution must either be amended or violated. As for my-\\nself, I prefer to remember my oath to uphold it.\\n357?", "height": "4417", "width": "2734", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4441", "width": "2726", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\nimmmm 332 ft j\\nHollinger Corp.\\npH8.5", "height": "4513", "width": "2782", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00gain_0020.jp2"}}