{"1": {"fulltext": "E7/5", "height": "3700", "width": "2363", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3692", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "ANNEXATIOX OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.\\nSPEECH\\nHON. STEPHEN R. MALLORY,\\nOF FLORIDA,\\nSENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,\\nFriday, July 1, 1898.\\nAA.^ ASHING rOX.\\n1898.", "height": "3692", "width": "2210", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "68516\\nSPEECH\\nV OF\\nfeoN STEPHEN E. MALLOEY.\\nThe Senate havin|: under consideration the joint resolntion (H. Rss. 259)\\nto provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States-\\nMr. MALLORY said:\\nMr. President: This measure is one which, in my jiidgment,\\nentitles it to as grave and deliberate consideration as any meas-\\nnre whicli has been before Congress since the organization of the\\nRepublic. It involves a new departure in the policy of the Gov-\\nernment of the United States; it involves an increase of our Army\\nand Navy; it involves the establishment of a system of govern-\\nment in a colony of the United States such as never heretofore\\nhas existed.\\nIn addition to the very grave questions which present them-\\nselves when we come to consider the policy or the expediency of\\nannexing these islands, we are confronted with another question,\\nand one which meets us at the very threshold of the subject,\\nwhich, in my humble judgment, is far more important, and will\\nbe more far-reaching in its influences and effects upon our \u00c2\u00aboun-\\ntry than any of the other questions that are involved in the meas-\\nure.\\nThis is a joint resolution emanating from the House of Repre-\\nsentati\\\\ es, proposing to ratify and accept an alleged proposed\\nagreement made by a sovereign power to this separate and distinct\\nsovereign power, the United States of America. For it we have\\nno precedent; against it, in my humble judgment, Mr. President,\\nthere are arguments to be urged which are so irresistible that\\nthose who give them adequate and due consideration must neces-\\nsarily hesitate before they take the fatal plunge which the adop-\\ntion of this resolution means.\\nAnd yet, notwithstanding the important, grave, and solemn\\nquestions which underlie this measure, it has not been discussed,\\nit has not been presented to the deliberate consideration of the\\npeople of the United States. And even in this body, when we who\\nare opposed to the measure are undertaking to invite the attention\\nof our colleagues to the consideration of the points which we con-\\nsider to be good as against annexation, even here we hear com-\\nplaints and innuendoes and insinuations as to the purpose of those\\nwho are opposing it which are certainly both unfounded and un-\\njust.\\nIt has been said in the public press, or at least that element of\\nthe pttblic press which favors the annexation of the Hawaiian\\nIslands, that the matter has been before the country for many\\nyears; that the people are informed as to the merits and demerits\\nof the proposition, and that it is a useless waste of time for Sena-\\ntors to consume day after day in delivering their speeches upon\\nthe subject. But, Mr. President, while the question possibly has\\n2 3531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "been mooted from time to time, while in the past there have on\\ndivers occasions been movements looking to the consummation of\\nthe result which is sought to be attained by the pending joint\\nresolution, still we are all aware of the fact that none of the great\\nparties of the country has committed itself to any view or ex-\\npression of views which can be construed into an indorsement of\\nthe proposition that is now before the Senate.\\nI have the aiithority of the venerable and respected Senator\\nfrom Vermont [Mr. Morrill], who addressed the Senate upon\\nthis subject some days ago, for the assertion that this measure\\nhas not received anything like adequate consideration. In that\\nspeech he said:\\nOne prominent objection to the pending measure is that the people o\u00c2\u00a3\\nneither Hawaii nor of the United States have been consulted or taken into con-\\nfidence in i-elation to the impending compact. The promoters have been re-\\nluctant to trust the people with it. The country is to wake up nest week\\nand find a new but unwelcome member incorporated, as Mr. Sherman,\\nthe Secretary of State, described it, into the body politic of the United\\nStates. At Hawaii something leaked out about it after its final determina-\\ntion. Here the Senate was informed about it after the Secretary had signed\\nthe treaty; but even the Senate did not permit itself to discuss ii except in\\nsecret session until its paucity of votes was disclosed; and it came originally\\nin the form of a treaty, not to hide the fact that a treaty was not a courageous\\nbut a cowardly way to bring a State into the Union, as some people thought,\\nbut for the reason that the Hawaiian promoters of the compact could fix up\\ntheir part of it in that way with less lubrication. The authorship of this\\nstate i^aper appears to have baen miscellaneous and partly unknown, having\\nbeen cut and dried in Honolulu, and yet it was to have been consented to by\\nthe Unit(5d States Senate without subtraction or addition, as the committee\\nreporting it seem to have regarded it as properly inspired and inerrant.\\nThere is the testimony of the Nestor of the Senate, the testimony\\nof a gentleman who but recently declared on the floor of the Sen-\\nate that he had but one ambition in life and that was to be right,\\nthe sincerity of which expression no one will question a gentle-\\nman for whom all of us, irrespective of party affiliations, have\\nthe most exalted esteem, respect, and veneration. And yet we\\nhear it said here, and we see it in the public press from day to day,\\nthat this matter has been discussed to an extent that renders it\\nabsolutely unnecessary for anything more to be said upon it; that\\nthe people are unanimous almost in their desire to have the Sen-\\nate take action upon it, and that those Senators who dare to stand\\nupon this floor and consume the time necessary to express their\\nA iews on this vast and important question are resorting to methods\\nwhich are not legitimate and are exposing themselves to popular\\ncondemnation.\\nMr. President, I desire to be understood as of those who believe\\nthat it is their duty to express their views upon this subject with-\\nout reference to whether they meet with the favor of a majority\\nor a minority in this body. I am here as one of the representa-\\ntives of a sovereign State, and I am free to state that it is impos-\\nsible for me to say now what are the wishes of a majority of the\\npeople of that sovereign State. But I know what my views are;\\nI know that they are honest; I know that they are based upon a\\ncareful, deliberate examination of the question; and knowing\\nthat, I propose to express those views; I propose to put them on\\nrecord; and if in doing so I incur the censure of any gentleman or\\nany set of men, I am willing to abide the result.\\nJlr. President, I said this question has not been discussed.\\nWhose fault is it that the people are iminformed, that the people\\ndo not know the facts which have been disclosed in the debate\\nhere within the last few days by gentlemen who are opposed to\\nannexation the facts as to the distances between points ou the\\n3534", "height": "3666", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "Pacific coast and the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippine Islands,\\nand the distances between ports on the same coast and ports in the\\nAleutian Islands, equally as good as any port in the Hawaiian\\nIslands, and other facts of importance as bearing on certain phases\\nof this qixestion? But conceding for the sake of argument that\\nsome consideration has been given to those points of detail, expe-\\ndiency, and policy, I think I can say with truth that the other\\nquestion, the great vital question, the constitutionality of the step\\nwe are about to take, has received, outside of this (Jhamber, no\\nconsideration whatever.\\nIf there has been any such discussion in any of the papers of this\\ncoiintry in which the question of annexation has been treated of,\\nI have not seen it. We had the opportunity six, seven, or eight\\nmonths ago to inform the people of the United States as to all the\\nmerits and all the details of this important step. I am disclosing\\nno secret when I say it was within the power of a majoritj of this\\nbody to deliberate in public instead of secret session on the ques-\\ntion of the ratification of the treaty of this country with the Ha-\\nwaiian Islands. It was within their power to bring this question\\nout in open Senate and to have the arguments and debates printed\\nin the Record, so that the people at large could have the time and\\nopportunitj to consider the pros and cons of the question.\\nThey speak of their immense majority. We are told that the\\nminority here is almost insignificant and that it is practically\\nrunning the Senate. As one of the minority, at least Lean say\\nthat in connection with my desire to put myself and my views\\nupon record on this great question my other and only pui-pose is\\nto endeavor to impress upon the people with whom I live and\\nwhom I in part represent a belief and a conviction that the step is\\nnot only inopportune, not only impolitic and inexpedient, but that\\nin the way in which it is sought to be taken at this time it is in\\ncontravention of the fundamental law of the land.\\n[At this point Mr. TURPIE suggested the absence of a quorum,\\nand the roll was called.]\\nMr. MALLORY. Mr. President, in addition to the constitu-\\ntional question to which I have adverted there is also presented\\nfor our consideration in connection with the action proposed a\\nquestion which, in my judgment, is a highly moral question. It\\ninvolves complicity on our part in the violation of the constitution\\nof a sovereign State. The authority on the part of the Hawaiian\\nGovernment which it is contended will justify the passage of the\\njoint resolution of annexation by Congress is found in the thirty-\\nsecond article of that constitution. It provides that the President\\nof Hawaii, with the approval of the cabinet, is authorized to make\\na treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of\\nHawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratifica-\\ntion of the Senate of Hawaii.\\nThe constitution of Hawaii expressly pro^^des that in the event\\nof political or commercial union with the United States being\\nsought hj that Government, it shall be done in a particular way\\nby a treaty. Yet the advocates of annexation under the joint res-\\nolution tell us that if we pass the joint resolution there will be no\\ndifficulty whatever about its being accepted by the Hawaiian Gov-\\nernment, notwithstanding that solemn provision in its constitu-\\ntion. While we have a perfect right, undoubtedly, in my view,\\nto do so, and to do many other things that may be unjust, im-\\nmoral, and inequitable, it is a question I think worthy of consid-\\neration whether we should bring oui selves to the point of becom-\\n8531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "ing pavticeps criminis in the deliberate, willful violation of the\\nconstitution of a sovereign countrj\\\\\\nMr. President, we have now upon our table a treaty proposed to\\nbe ratified by the Government of the United States for the purpose\\nof carrying out and accomplishing the identical objects sought to\\nbe accomplished by the joint resolution. That treaty came to u3\\nfrom the executive branch of the Government as the power to\\nwliich is confided the duty of making treaties, and it remains upon\\nour desk unacted on, it is true, but still not rejected. What mo-\\ntive has led to the abandonment of the effort to ratify the treaty\\nI shall not undertake to name.\\nI can not sav that it was inspired by a fear that if subjected to\\na vote in this ^Chamber in secret session it would fail to receive\\nthe requisite two-thirds vote prescribed by the Constitution, be-\\ncause I can not undertake to say how any particular man or set\\nof men under certain circumstances will vote. But it is a fact\\nthat in the regular process and in the manner prescribed by the\\nConstitution there is an instrument waiting to be acted upon by\\nthis body which, if acted on by the constitutional majority of\\ntwo-tliirds, will consummate the purpose sought to be accom-\\nplished by the joint resolution. Yet, while the instrument is\\nhere, and while it has not been rejected, we are suddenly con-\\nfronted with a joint resolution from the other branch of Congress,\\nnot emanating from the Executive, but coming spontaneously\\nfrom the House of Representatives, proposing to accomplish the\\nidentical thing which the President has undertaken under the\\ntreaty-making power to submit to the judgment and action of\\nthis body.\\nI claim, Mr. President, that there is not only no authority for\\nthis action, but that a correct interpretation of the Constitution\\nreveals as a necessity that such action is in contravention of the\\nConstitution. Who has undertaken to sustain the proposed action?\\nAlthough it is said that there is nearly a two-thirds majority in\\nthis Chamber in favor of it, how many of that excessive majority\\nhave undertaken upon the floor of the Senate to justify the pro-\\nposed action? They can be counted upon the fingers of the one\\nhand.\\nThe Committee on Foreign Relations, which made a report\\nrecommending the adoption of the joint resolution, did in that\\nreport present an argument in favor of their view in connection\\nwith the measure, and they also undertook, in the absence of an\\nopposite side, to present the arguments of the opposition and to\\nmeet those arguments. I shall not refer to the arguments based\\nupon the expediency and necessity as a war measure and as a com-\\nmercial advantage, which are urged on all hands, but I will con-\\nfine myself to the manner in which the committee undertook to\\nmeet the alleged objections to the constitutional question involved\\nin this measure. Let us see what they are.\\nThe report, under a black-letter heading, announces Twenty\\nobjections to the annexation of Hawaii, and replies thereto;\\nand in italics we find the objections stated. These objections are\\nrepresented as urged by the opponents of annexation, and the\\nCommittee on Foreign Relations having decided to make a favor-\\nable report, feel in duty bound, for the edification and instruc-\\ntion of the Senate and of the country, because copies of this report\\ngo to the country broadcast, to state what those objections of the\\nopponents of annexation are and to meet them in the iraniier in\\n353i", "height": "3676", "width": "2174", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "wbicli the Committee on Foreign Relations can meet them. Now\\nvre have the first objection:\\nThe committee says that the opponents of annexation contend that it is\\nunconstitutional because the General Government is limited in its powers\\nto those expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution.\\nThe Constitution does not specifically grant power to annex a territory,\\nand therefore the power does not exist.\\nI ask Senators if it is true that that objection has been offered\\nby the opponents of the annexation of the Ha\\\\vaiian Islands?\\nIs it true that that argument has been urged at anytime within\\nrecent days, within recent times, or recent years as a reason why\\nthe Hawaiian Islands should not be annexed?\\nWe are charged with claiming that\\nThe Constitution does not specifically grant power to annex territory, and\\ntherefore the power does not exist.\\nIs there any Senator v -ho is opposed to the annexation of the\\nHawaiian Islands who has presented such an argument or such a\\nproposition as a reason why they .should not be annexed? I think\\nI am safe in saying that no one has done so. Not only no Sena-\\ntor, but no one who understands the question, no one who under-\\nstands a little law has enunciated such a proposition, and yet the\\nCommittee on Foreign Relations devotes two pages to the demoli-\\ntion of this alleged objection of the anti-annexationists.\\nAgain, as a second objection, they say that those who are op-\\nposed to annexation claim it is unconstitutional because Hawaii\\nis not contiguous to the United States. I submit that that is not\\na fair presentation of the constitutional objection which is enter-\\ntained by Senators to this step. No Senator on this floor, and I\\ndo not think any member of the other House, nor anyone in the\\ncountry, has contended that it is unconstitutional because Hawaii\\nis not contiguous to the United States. There may be a question\\nof policy arising out of that fact, but with the decisions of the\\nSupreme Court of the United States, with the utterances of our\\ndistinguished statesmen from the days of Mr. Jefferson down to\\nthe present time, it would be absolute folly for any intelligent\\nman to undertake to claim that that is a constitutional reason\\nwhy Hawaii should not be annexed, and none has done so.\\nThe third objection alleged to be entertained by those who are\\nopposed to annexation is:\\nIt is unconstitutional because its inhabitants are not homogeneous with\\nthe people of the United States.\\nMr. President, I can see very well how that may be the basis of\\nan argument against the policy or expediency of such a step, but\\nI do not think the Committee on Foreign Relations will be able\\nto find anyone here or elsewhere who is opposed to annexation who\\nwould ever base his grounds of unconstitutionality to annexation\\non the fact that the inhabitants of those islands are not homoge-\\nneous.\\nThat is all the constitutional question pertaining to this subject\\nthat the Committee on Foreign Relations have thought proper to\\ndiscuss. They have presented in their report three propositions,\\nwhich they tell us and the people of the country are all the ob-\\njections based on alleged constitutional grounds by those who are\\nopposed to annexation\u00e2\u0080\u0094 men of straw, dummies, set up to be\\nknocked down, and they gravely and solemnly proceed to knock\\nthem over, and then dismiss the question of the constitutionality\\nof this proceeding as established.\\nC531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Florida allow me to\\ninterrupt him?\\nMr. MALLORY. Certainly.\\nMr. MORGrAN. The Senator has, I think, not read the report\\nof the committee. If the Senator will read the first two or three\\npages of the report, he will find that the committee discuss in fall\\nthe constitutional status of the question not only npon their inter-\\npretation of that instrument, bnt upon the interpretation given\\nby Congress to it in the annexation of Texas. The Senator makes\\nno allusion at all to that part of the discussion by the committee.\\nMr. MALLORY. It is not my purpose to deal unfairly either\\nwith the committee or its report I have read the report, and I\\nthink that the most salient points which have been made or at-\\ntempted to be made in favor of the annexation are those which\\nare put in italics and refuted as the arguments of the opposition\\nunder the heading, on page 4.j of the report, entitled Twenty\\nobjections to the annexation of Hawaii, and replies thereto. But,\\nMr. President, they do go into an argument, and under the first\\nhead say that\\nIt is unconstitutional, because the General Government is limited in its\\npowers to those expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution.\\nThe Constitution does not specifically grant power to annex territory, and\\ntherefore the power does not exist.\\nThe Committee on Foreign Relations has furnished us some\\nauthority in support of its refutation of those heretical proposi-\\ntions.\\nThe instances of interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States\\nof the constitutionality of annexation are four in number-\\nSay S the report\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nviz, one in 1828, two in 1850, and one in 1889.\\nThe first was in the case of the American Insurance Company r.5. Canter,\\nto be found in 1 Peters, 512. The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice\\nMarshall, in the course of which the following words were used:\\nThe Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the\\npower of making wars and of making treaties. Consequently that Govern-\\nment possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or treaty.\\nThe two decisions rendered in 1S5U were by Chief Justice Taney. The de-\\ncision in 1889 is the case of the Mormon Church vs. The United States, con-\\ntained in 136 United States Eeports, page 42. In the course of the decision,\\nthe court used the following words:\\nThe power to acquire territory is derived from the treaty-making power,\\nand the power to declare and carry on war.\\nThe incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty and be-\\nlong to all independent governments.\\nThose authorities are cited in support of the contention that the\\nGovernment of the United States has the power to annex terri-\\ntory, a i)roposition which all, I believe, unquestionably all, those\\nwho are opposed to this annexation resolution, are in hearty ac-\\ncord with. We do not deny that the United States Government\\nhas the power whenever she thinks proper, whenever she can do\\nso consistently with the rights of others, to annex territory. There\\nhas not been a word said in this Chamber, or anywhere else that\\nI know of, in opposition to that proposition. The authorities that\\nare cited here are authorities in support of the contention which\\nwe make that the Government, the sovereign power of the L^nited\\nStates, has the right to annex territory, but that right must be\\nexercised in a particular way and through a particular branch of\\nthe Government of the United States.\\nLater on, under the second objection, the committee, in its dis-\\ncussion, uses language to which I call the attention of Senator.-?.\\n3534", "height": "3676", "width": "2174", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "8\\n.The second objection which they say is urged by those opposed to\\nannexation is that\\nIt is unconstitutional because Hawaii is not contiguous to the United\\nStates.\\nThe committee says:\\nThe opponents of the constitutionality of annexation, finding the prece-\\ndents and reasoning strongly against them, have fallen back from the position\\nthat annexation is directly prohibited by the Constitution to the Claim that\\nthere are certain implied prohibitions in the Constitution which are as\\nbinding as those which appear on its face and that among these implied\\nprohibitions is the one above stated.\\nIt is a man of straw, as I have said\u00e2\u0080\u0094 something set up to be\\nknocked down\u00e2\u0080\u0094 because no one among those who are opposing\\nthis measure has for an instant contended as they are charged in\\nthis report as contending.\\nThe only reason\\nSaj s the committee\\npresented why the annexation of noncontiguous territory is unconstitutional\\nis that the poojile of the day did not discuss uor contemplate the aunosa-\\ntiou of such territory.\\nYou remember it was a constitutional question.\\nWe have seen by the authoritative decision\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nSays our committee\\nof the Supreme Court in 1889\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat was the Mormon Church case-\\nthat the power to acquire territory is an incident of national sovereignty.\\nThe Supreme Court says that the power to acquire territory\\nis an incident of national sovereignty. Now, the committee is\\narguing this question and is undertaking to upset what it says is\\na contention on the part of the opposite side, and it uses the fol-\\nlowing argument:\\nWe have seen by the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in 1889\\nthat the power to acquire territory is an incident of national sovereignty;\\nthat is to say, the United States has the right to acquire territory, or any\\nother property, because it is a nation.\\nWe admit that.\\nIt has the same rights and powers in this respect that any other nation\\nhas\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that, for example, England has.\\nI call the attention of Senators to this reasoning. I do not mean\\nto say that the committee has undertaken to deliberately distort\\nthe language or the reasoning of the Supreme Court in that case,\\nbut I invite the attention of Senators to the reasoning which is\\nhere pursued in connection with that case. Taking the doctrine\\nlaid down by the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect\\nthat the right to annex is a sovereign right, an incident of sover-\\neignty, and that the United States as a nation, like all other na-\\ntions, has that right\\nIt has the same rights and powers-\\nSays the committee\\nin this respect that anv other nation has\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that, for example, England has.\\nThere is manifestly no limitation upon the power of England to acquire terri-\\ntory. How, then, can there be any limitation upon the power of the United\\nStates to do so?\\nNow, to one who does not examine critically this piece of rea-\\nsoning it would appear the conclusion had been reached that there\\nwas no limitation as to the manner in which the power can be\\nexercised. There is manifestly no limitation upon the power of\\nEngland to acquire territory. In a country where the sovereign\\nis simply a figurehead who can do no wrong and very little good,", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "9\\nwhere Parliament is omnipotent, there is no limitation either upon\\nthe authorit} and power or upon the method or instrumentality\\nwhich may be employed for a certain purpose.\\nBut while the Constitution of the United States, which is an\\ninstrument of limitation, gives to the people of the United States\\nthe power to annex territory by the usual methods employed by\\nnations of the world, it nevertheless distinctly, unequivocally,\\nputs that power in the hands of one particular branch of the Gov-\\nernment, and necessarily and impliedly, from the magnitude of\\nthe power, from the fact that it has no limitations as to the sub-\\njects it will treat of, intended that that power should be exclu-\\nsively in the hands of the Executive.\\nThese, then, Mr. President, are the arguments which the Com-\\nmittee on Foreign Relations have furnished us against the alleged\\nargument that the proposed proceeding here is unconstitutional.\\nBut there have been other champions who had the courage of their\\nconvictions and who presented to the Senate their views and argu-\\nments, setting forth the reasons why they thought there was no\\ninfringement of the Constitution by this proposed action.\\nThe Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller] who I regret is not\\nnow in his seat, delivered a speech in which he gave his views. I\\nhave here an extract from his speech in which he very tersely and\\nwith that clearness which is characteristic of the gentleman stated\\nv, hat he believed to be the constitutional justification of the pro-\\nposed action. He said,\\nThe right of Jefferson (and Jefferson himself had some doubt upon it, it\\nseems) to acquira territory by treaty or in any other way was denied. It\\nseems to me we fail to see what I think everybody ought to recognize, that\\nit IS the right of every sovereign power, every nation, to add to its territory\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0whenever it sees fit. I assert here that the Government of the United States\\nmay add territory to territory without any constitutional provision what-\\never, and that must have been understood by the fathers, because that was a\\nrecognized power of sovereignty which they could not have overlooked; and\\nif they had not intended at the time that that should be done, they would\\nhave provided against it. They did not provide against it, and in the very\\nbeginning of our administration of public affairs we took in the Louisiana\\npurchase.\\nNow, I have no quarrel with the distinguished Senator from\\nColorado as to the right of the United States to acquire territory.\\nI agree with him fully. I could not undertake to disagree with\\nhim without at least putting myself in opposition to the opinions\\nof the most distinguished jurists of this country and some of the\\nablest law writers and statesmen we have had. But I do differ\\nwith him as to the manner in which that power should be exer-\\ncised. I say the Constitution puts in the hands of the President\\nthe power to annex all the territory that is necessary or proper to\\nannex to this couutrr. It is true that power\\nMr. SPOONER. You do not mean the President alone.\\nMr. MALLORY. I was going to say with the consent of the\\nSenate. The President, however, is the mover. The power which\\nthe Senate exercises is simply a veto power; it is not the mover.\\nThe President is the originator or designer, and the two-thirds of\\nthe Senate concurring give vitality and life to the proposed meas-\\nure and it becomes a part of the supreme law of the land. The\\ncontention, however, of the Senator from Colorado is that there\\nis some other power; that there is a power innate and inherent in\\nall sovereigns that authorizes them to annex territory.\\nGranting that, granting that if we did not have that limitation\\nupon it in the Constitution confining the exercise of the treaty-\\nmakmg power to the Executive, then some other branch of the\\n3534", "height": "3676", "width": "2174", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "10\\nGovernment, and possibly Congress, ought to exercise the power,\\nas was the case under the old Confederation, still we have to bear\\nin mind the fact that the framers of the Constitution, knowing at\\nthe time what had been the rule under the Confederation and that\\nall treaties had to be subjected to the ratification and approval of\\nCongress, in their deliberations over that branch of the great sub-\\nject committed to them saw proper and deemed it but just and\\nright that that great power should be confided to the Executive,\\nsubject to the approval or disapproval of two-thirds of the Senate.\\n[At this point Mr. Turpie suggested the absence of a quorum,\\nand the roll was called.]\\nMr. MALLORY. Mr. President, when I was interrupted I was\\nreviewing the statements or arguments presented by those gentle-\\nmen who favor the adoption of this resolution who have addressed\\nthe Senate in support of their views, and I had referred to the\\nexpression of view of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller],\\nwho at the time was absent, but whom I see here now, and was\\ncalling attention to the view expressed by him. He stated, and I\\nquote his exact language:\\nI assert here that the Government of the United States may add territory\\nto territory withovit any constitutional provision whatever, and that must\\nhave been understood by the fathers, because that was a recognized power of\\nsovereij?nty which thev could not have overlooked; and if they had not in-\\ntended at the time that that should be done, they would have provided\\nagainst it.\\nMr. President, I do not purpose just now to criticise the view\\nexpressed by the Senator from Colorado, but I would say that the\\nGovernment of the United States has not overlooked the question\\nof annexation; that there is provision in the Constitution for\\nthe exercise of that sovereign power, and that provision, as I\\nthink I will be able subsequently to show, amply provides for the\\nannexation of any territory that, in the judgment of those who\\nare exercising the power of this Government, is desirable terri-\\ntory to annex.\\nAnother Senator, who favors the annexation of Hawaii, took\\noccasion to give his reasons as to why this proceeding was con-\\nstitutional and to combat the views expressed by Senators who\\noppose this resolution with his expression of opinion as to why\\nthe proposed action is constitutional.\\nThe Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker] who is undoubtedly\\nvery keen in his ability to appreciate a point, and whose fairness\\nin argument, I think, is a model for the Senate, stated in the fol-\\nlowing language his opinion as to why this resolution could be\\nadopted without any injury to the integrity of the Constitution.\\nHe said:\\nSenators talk about it being unconstitutional to annex except only by\\ntreaty, as though the Constitution of the United States had provided that\\nthere should be annexation by treaty. Mr. President, the Constitution of\\nthe United States is silent on the question of the annexation of territory.\\nIt does not seem to have entered into the minds of the framers of the Con-\\nstitution to put into that instrument any express provision on that subject.\\nThey contented themselves, as they wisely did with other subjects, in regard\\nto this subject with a general provision. They gave to Congress the power\\nto promote the general welfare, and that carries along all the implied powers\\nessential to the consummation of that purpose.\\nWhen they came to the treaty-making power they did not say in the Con-\\nstitution what should be the subject-matter of a treaty. They simply said\\nthat treaties might be negotiated by the President, subject to ratification by\\nthe Senate; they did not say what we should treat about, and I agree with\\nSenators on the other side that a treaty is a contract. You can not have a\\ncontract unless you have two parties to it, and you do not have any contract-\\nthat has been your contention throughout\u00e2\u0080\u0094 until the treaty has been signed\\non both sides. The very minute that is done one of the parties is gone, and\\n.S53-1", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "11\\nthere is no continuing contract. Therefore it is simply a cession on their\\npart and an acceptance on ours, and it might be done just as well by legisla-\\ntion as otherwise.\\nThe same Senator in another portion of his remarks gave utter-\\nance to the following:\\nBut that is not this case, and I want to distinguish this case from that. I\\nsay, as a broad proposition, that the Congress of the Jnited States has\\npower expressly given to it to promote the general welfare, and if we deem\\nit a promotion of the general welfare to acquire any island of the sea that has\\nits own government\u00e2\u0080\u0094 but I will take the case before us\u00e2\u0080\u0094 if we deem it to be a\\npromotion of the general welfare to accept the cession from the Republic of\\nHawaii of all its territory, one of the conditions being that the Republic of\\nHawaii ceases to be, it is not a proper case for a treaty, for the very minute\\nthe treaty is consummated there is no treaty\u00e2\u0080\u0094 there is no contract, for one\\nof the contracting parties is politically dead and gone.\\nThe Senator from Ohio takes the position that a treaty of an-\\nnexation of an entire country is not a treaty. He takes the posi-\\ntion that the proposed treaty which is now upon the desk of this\\nbody is not a treaty, and necessarily was not rightfully proposed\\nby the Executive to this body for ratification, and it being an im-\\npossibility by reason of the fact that this was not a treaty arising\\nfrom the extinction of one of the parties almost simultaneously\\nwith the signing of the treaty, there must be some other method,\\nand that method is to be found in the general- welfare clause. I\\ndo not exactly understand which one of the two clauses in the\\nConstitution referring to the general welfare the Senator from\\nOhio had in mind, and I should be glad if he would specifically\\nstate whether the general welfare mentioned in the preamble to\\nthe Constitution or the general welfare referred to in the taxing\\nprovision is the particular general welfare that he refers to, or\\nwhether there is any other.\\nMr. FORAKER. I understood the Senator to address an inquiry\\nto me?\\nMr. MALLORY. Yes.\\nMr. FORAKER. I did not have the Constitution before me,\\nbut I had in mind, when I used the language to which the Senator\\nhas called attention, the general provision of the Constitution\\nempowering Congress to do certain things, among others to pro-\\nvide for the general welfare.\\nMr. MALLORY. The Constitution in its preamble speaks of\\nthe general welfare, and also in section 8 of Article I.\\nMr. FORAKER. My contention, as 1 recalled at the time the\\nprovision of the Constitution without stopping to look at it, was\\nsimply that Congress was especially invested with the power to\\nprovide for the general welfare. I was not undertaking to quote\\nthe language of the Constitution,butImerelyreferred to the fact,\\nas I understood it, that it was competent for Congress to .judge\\nwhat was the promotion of the general welfare and provide ac-\\ncordingly. In the section to which the Senator doubtless refers,\\nsection 8 of Article I, it is provided as follows:\\nThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, impost.?,\\nand excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and gen-\\neral welfare, etc.\\nI was speaking in a general way, without having any particular\\nsection in mind, of what I conceiVe to be the unquestioned power\\nof Congress, namely, to take care of the interests of this country,\\nand whenever they require the doing of something, even though\\nit be the acquisition of an island in order that our general welfare\\nmay be promoted, that the Congress can do it.\\n353-1", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "12\\nI think there have been snch cases. Since I made the remark to\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2which the Senator has called attention, the Senator from Massa-\\nchusetts [Mr. Hoar] has called my attention to a case which oc-\\ncurred while Mr. Webster was Secretary of State\u00e2\u0080\u0094 a case where\\nproperty was acquired from another country without any treatj\\nand simply by act of Congress. I will ask the Senator from Mas-\\nsachusetts to call the attention of the Senator from Florida to that\\ncase. It did not seem to occur to Mr. Webster, who had some\\nreputation in his day as a constitutional lawyer, that there was\\nany infirmity in the power of Congress to do that.\\nMr. MALLORY. I desired merely to understand the point\\nmade by the Senator from Ohio, because 1 did not wish to mis-\\nrepresent liim or to misstate his argument. As 1 understand his\\nargument, it is that by reason of the fact that as soon as the treaty\\nis ratified, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands ceases, there\\nis no treaty. Consequently, there must be some other way in a\\ncase of that kind of annexing territory, and therefore the power\\nmust reside in Congress. Why should it rest in Congress any\\nmore than in the judiciary or in the executive does not appear,\\nbut that, I believe, is the argument, which I desire to state fairly,\\nbecause it is the argument of the opposite side that we have to\\nmeet. We have had but few: very able, it is true.\\nAnother distinguished Senator, advocating the adoption of the\\njoint resolution, had the courage of bis convictions and favored\\nhis brethren of this body with them. The Senator from Nevada\\n[Mr. Stewart] took occasion not so much to answer any objec-\\ntion as to the unconstitutionality of the measure, as to tell us how\\nthe job could be done, and if I am not mistaken\u00e2\u0080\u0094 it is not my\\nwish or i)urpose to misstate the Senator s position\u00e2\u0080\u0094 his position\\nwas that this could be done, because if we did it, whether rightly\\nor wrongly, whether constitutionally or unconstitutionally, once\\ndone it was irrevocable, and there was no power on earth that\\ncould inquire into its propriety, its rectitude, or its constitution-\\nality. That, Mr. President, I do not think is an overstatement of\\nthe view expressed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada.\\nHis remarks in that connection have not yet appeared in the\\nRecord; at least they had not when I yesterday endeavored to\\nlook for them, and I have to state from memory the position which\\nhe took.\\nBut as I understand his contention, it is that it makes no dif-\\nference whether the Constitution authorizes this proceeding or\\nwhether it prohibits it, impliedly or expressly; that if we do it, no\\ncourt in the United States has the right to investigate it: there is\\nno proceeding by which it can be inquired into; and that once\\ndone, it will be accomplished and that will be the end of it. That\\nis an enunciation of political ethics that I think has been made in\\nthis Chamber for the first time. I shall not undertake to do more\\nwith reference to it than merely to announce it. I confess I was\\nsurprised that such a proposition should be submitted to the Sen-\\nate, but 1 do not think it is entirely out of keeping with some of\\nthe arguments which I have heard urged in favor of this measure.\\nOne more of the advocates and exponents of this measure has\\nbeen lieard upon the floor of the Senate, and that is the distin-\\nguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pettus] who spoke to-day.\\n1 was unable to follow entirely the argument of the distihguished\\nSenator, but as far as I could observe as to its bearing on the con-\\nstitutional question involved in this case the Senator argued that\\nCongress had the war-making power, that it could by war annex\\n;5534", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "13\\nterritory, and that it was absurd to argue that when Congress\\ncould plunge this country into a condition of war and could annex\\nthereby any quantity of territory, Congress did not have the power\\npeaceably and bj- the processes of legislation to annex the same\\nterritory.\\nThe Senator contended that a great part of the territory of this\\ncountry was acquire d by war, and I imderstood him to defy any-\\nbody to show that the tenitory of New Mexico was not acquired\\nby war. I have great respect for the Senator from Alabama.\\nMr. PETTUS. I admitted that the title was quieted by treaty,\\nbut not acquired.\\nMr. MALLORY. That is a question I will not undertake to\\ndiscuss with the Senator. I merely wish to call the Senator s at-\\ntention to the fact that there was a treaty, which I have here.\\nMr. PETTUS. I so stated.\\nMr. MALLORY. I did not catch the Senator s remark at the\\ntime of his speech. However, while the war power is undoubt-\\nedly one of the powers under which territory can be annexed, in\\nthe majority of instances, even when the war power is invoked,\\nwhile territory is held by our Government in the custody of the\\nmilitary it is not annexed, and in the majority of instances it is\\nnever annexed until the treaty steps in. I know the Senator dis-\\nputes that. The Senator draws a distinction between the annex-\\nation of the Territorj- of New Mexico and the acquiring of title.\\nChief Justice Marshall, in a case which has been referred to in\\nthis debate incidentally, touched upon this subject, and while it\\nmay be considered obiter dictum, it was the opinion of that dis-\\ntinguished gentleman and I think was pertinent to the case which\\nwas before the court. It is the case of the American Insurance\\nCompany and others vs. Canter, 1 Peters. The Chief Justice, in\\nspeaking of the treaty power, says:\\nThe Constitution confers absolntelj- on the Government of the Union the\\npowers of making: war and of making treaties. Consequently that Govern-\\nment possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by\\ntreaty.\\nThat proposition is repeated again and again in the decisions of\\nthe Supreme Court down to a comparatively recent decision, the\\nMormon Church case, in 136 United States Reports. Chief Justice\\nMarshall, going on, says:\\nThe usage of the -world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider\\nthe holding of ^conquered territory as a mere military occupation until its\\nfate shall be detei-mined at the treaty of peace.\\nI invite the attention of the Senator from Alabama to that ex-\\npression.\\nIf it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded\\nterritory becomes a part of the nation to which it is iinuesed either on the\\nterms stipulated in the treaty of cession or on such as its new master shall\\nimpose.\\nThere the learned Chief Justice lays down the proposition that\\nunless we actually subdue the countr\\\\-, so long as there is any ves-\\ntige of its own sovereignty left, the territory is acquired by treat)\\nnotwithstanding it is in the military iDOSsession of the Govern-\\nment.\\nIn the case of New Mexico, the Government of Mexico was not\\nentirely subdued, and if the Chief Justice s opinion is worth any-\\nthing, our holding of that territory was simply a military hold-\\ning; and while it may have been, to a certain extent, an instru-\\nmentality in acquL ing the territory, it was not the instrumen-\\n3534", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "14\\ntality by which the territory was acq^uired, for that was acquired\\nby the treaty.\\nI have gone now over the arguments, I believe. These are all\\nwhich have been urged in this body in behalf of the constitution-\\nality of the joint resolution. We have the report of the commit-\\ntee with its refutation of alleged objections by those opposed to\\nannexation. We have the argument by the distinguished Sena-\\ntor from Colorado [Mr. Teller] giving it as his opinion that the\\nUnited States has the sovereign power and can exercise that sov-\\nereign power in the acquisition of territory at any time. We have\\nthe argument by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. FOR-\\nAKER] that a treaty which annexes an entire sovereignty is not a\\ntreaty, and therefore we must fall back upon some other inherent\\nand innate power of Congress to annex territory.\\nMr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Florida allow me?\\nWhat I said, when fairly construed, was that it was not a con-\\ntinuing contract; that it was consummated by the transaction; it\\nwas concluded.\\nMr. MALLORY. The Senator did, I believe\\nMr. SPOONER. The Senator from Ohio said it could not be a\\ntreaty; that one party to it died by the terms of the contract, and,\\ntherefore, it was not a contract. In other words, it was not a\\ntreaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. It was not a treaty; rather it was not any\\nlonger a treaty, according to the definition contended for by Sen-\\nators in opposition; their definition was that a treaty was a con-\\ntract. I say there can not be a contract without contractual re-\\nlations, and there can not be contractual relations without the\\nexistence of at least two parties. It would be simply an exe-\\ncuted contract.\\nMr. MALLORY. I understood the Senator also to contend\\nthat it could not be a treaty even beforehand.\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes. I was simply replying to the argument\\nmade on the other side in that connection and agreeing witli Sen-\\nators who made that contention, that there was not, of course, any\\ntreaty until the instrument was signed and ratified, and that\\nthere could not be afterwards any treaty, because in the very\\nmoment of signing and ratifying one of the parties perished.\\nMr. MALLORY. But there was a signing before the disap-\\npearance or the destruction of the party took place.\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly. There was the signing before,\\nbut the signing which we now have is not effectual to create a\\ntreaty until it has been ratified by the Senate. The very minute\\nthe last act is done there is nothing but an executed transaction,\\nand until it is consummated there is nothing\\nMr. SPOONER, Will the Senator allow me for a moment?\\nMr. FORAKER. I was contending that the term treaty\\nimplied an existing and continuing contractual relation between\\nexisting parties, and therefore any transaction that did not in-\\nvolve that idea was not so properly the subject-matter of a treaty\\nas it was of legislation, if it could be effected by legislation, and\\nmy contention was that it could be effected by legislation.\\nMr. SPOONER. The Senator says not so properly. His\\nai-gument was that it could not at all. It is not a question of de-\\ngree. It is a question of possibility. The Senator correctly says\\na treaty is a contract between two sovereign States. There could\\nnot be a unilateral treaty.\\nMr. FORAKER. In using the word properly I was referring\\n3534", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "15\\nto wliat I said the other day. If the Senator vrill recall what I\\nsaid, I used that term aud modified my claim in that way, because\\nI was contending that while this was, in my judgment, the more\\nproper way to proceed, yet in legal effect the result by treaty was\\nthe same, because the very moment it was consummated the party\\nceased to be, that was the end of it, and there was nobody left to\\ncomplain.\\nMr. SPOONER. My friend the Senator from Ohio is a good\\nlawyer. He is analytical and he is accurate. But there is no\\nmiddle ground. He has to take one side or the other. A contract\\nbetween nations, by the very terms of which the moment it be-\\ncomes effective one dies, the Senator says is not a treaty. Now,\\nthat being true, how can he say that it may be more properly done\\nby legislation than by some way that is not a treaty?\\nMr. FORAKER. It does not seem to me that there is any diffi-\\nculty about it at all. There is a contract even in the case of the\\nparty ceasing to be who enters into the contract with us: it is a\\ncontract, but not a continuing one. There is a contract whenever\\nthe minds meet. But because it is not a continuing contract, but\\na consummated transaction, I do not think it requii-es a treaty for\\nits consummation.\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. FORAKER. When the minds meet, there is an agreement\\nwhich is to be formulated; they put it into legal fonn and exe-\\ncute it; and my contention is that the contract ceases to be, ex-\\ncept only as an executed contract, with its execution. I used the\\nword properly, having relation to what I have said here briefly\\nand what I said at some length when I spoke upon this subject\\nthe other day.\\nMr. SPOONER, I understood the Senator the other day to say\\nthat the very idea and essence of a treaty, which is a compact be-\\ntween sovereign states, was that there should be two parties and\\na continTiing obligation.\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly 1 did; and I sav so still.\\nMr. SPOONER. Allow me for a moment. That where, by the\\nvery terms of the contract itself, the moment it became effective\\none party to it was to be effaced, was to die: that that was not and\\ncould not be a treaty within the meaning of that word as used in\\nthe Constitution.\\nMr. FORAKER. And as used ordinarilv.\\nMr. SPOONER. V/ell, as used in the Constitution, because the\\nword as used in the Constitution has to be construed in its ordi-\\nnary acceptation. There is great power\u00e2\u0080\u0094 there is no question\\nabout that\u00e2\u0080\u0094 in the position of the Senator from Ohio, aud there\\nnever has been such a treaty made by the United States. Now.\\nwhat I want to ask my friend is, accepting that as true and that\\nunder the Constitution a treaty or the power to make treaties dees\\nnot cover such an arrangement as was proposed with Hawaii, leav-\\ning the field of diplomacy and treaty and going into the field of\\nlegislation, where does he find the authority to admit by resolu-\\ntion a sovereign country as a territory? As I understood the Sen-\\nator the other day, he finds it under the general-welfare clause.\\nMr. FORAKER. I said under the inherent power and also\\nnnder the general- welfare clause; but I said in the same connec-\\ntion there are Senators here who have been taking eAception to\\nthe proposition that there was this inherent power, and for that\\nreason I would not then stop to discuss that question.\\nMr. SPOONER. Which does my friend say it is?\\n\u00c2\u00a3531", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "16\\nMr. FORAKER. For the sake of argument I would pass it by,\\nalthough I thought the power was to be i ound inherent in our\\nsovereignty\u00e2\u0080\u0094 attached to it necessarily as a part of our sover-\\neignty as a nation; and I said it was also to b3 found in the Con-\\nstitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094expressly conferred upon Congress by that provision\\nof the Constitution which authorizes Congress to provide for the\\ngeneral welfare.\\nMr. SPOONER. Does my friend claim that the source of power\\nis to be found in both?\\nMr. FORAKER. I do. I think so.\\nMr. SPOONER. It is the higher law?\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not call it any higher law. The proposi-\\ntion is that it is inherent in sovereignty to do whatever sover-\\neignty may see fit to do, and among other things to acquire terri-\\ntory. The Senator from Wisconsin will admit that sovereignty\\nordinarily carries with it the inherent power to annex territory.\\nI assume that he will admit it. If he will not, he will dissent\\nnow. His contention is that the United States\\nMr. SPOONER. I have made no contention.\\nMr. FORAKER. Well, so far as 1 understand the views of the\\nSenator from Wisconsin, judging from the intimations he has\\nthrown out here, his idea is that because our Government is one\\nof limited powers\\nMr. SPOONER. Yes.\\nMr. FORAKER. Having no power except only that which is\\nexpressly delegated by the Constitution\\nMr. SPOONER. Not at all. I understand thatthe constitution\\nof a State is a limitation. I understand that the Constitution of\\nthe United States is a grant.\\nMr. FORAKER. Now, that is just the same thing\\nMr. SPOONER. Allow me to finish. I understand that the\\nCongress of the United States has such legislative power as is\\ngranted to it expressly by the Constitution or by reasonable and\\nnecessary implication under the Constitution. When you leave\\nthe granted and implied powers, I want to know where the Sen-\\nator gets his theory of inherent sovereignty outside of the Consti-\\ntution.\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not leave the granted and implied pow-\\ners. I find it in the implied power. I do not differ from the Sen-\\nator from Wisconsin as to the definition he gives as to the power\\nof the States and the powers of the General Government.\\nMr. SPOONER. Exactly.\\nMr. FORAKER. It is true, of course, that the constitutions\\nof the States are instruments of limitation and the Constitution\\nof the United States is an instrument of grant. The Constitu-\\ntion of the United States grants certain powers, but the powers\\ngranted are not only those which are expressed, but also those\\nwhich are implied.\\nMr. SPOONER. Now, what I want to ask my honorable\\nfriend\\nMr. FORAKER. And among the implied powers is this power\\ninherent in every other sovereignty.\\nMr. SPOONER. Oh, well, inherent.\\nMr. FORAKER. Now, let me put a point to the Senator from\\nWisconsin. I was talking with him in his seat a few minutes ago,\\nand I trust 1 may with propriety recur to that conversation now.\\nHe was discussing this same proposition, and I know what his\\nidea is about it, and I answered it then as I want to answer it here.\\n8534", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "17\\nWe must agree that as to the thirteen States before they came in,\\nwhen they were States, before they accepted the Constitution,\\neach one was a sovereignty. Each one of those sovereign States\\nhad every power that sovereignty enjoys ordinarily, and among\\nthe j)owers so enjoyed by each one of the sovereign States was the\\npower to make treaties witli foreign nations, and any kind of a\\ntreaty it might choose to make, because there was no restriction\\ntmless by itself upon the exercise of that power. It could make\\nwar; it could make a treaty for the acquisition of territory; it\\ncould annex in any way it saw fit to annex.\\nBut, Mr. President, no Senator here will contend that any State\\nin this Union has that power now. That power has been lost to\\neach and every State of the Union. As the price for coming into\\nthe Union, it was required to surrender it. The Constitution of\\nthe United States prohibits to the States the exercise of the treaty-\\nmaking power with foreign nations. It prohibits all kinds of\\ntransactions on the part of States with foreign nations. No State\\ncould acquire territory by treaty or in any other manner.\\nTherefore each one of the States in the Union has surrendered\\nthat power of sovereignty. No one of them has it. Are we to be\\ntold that that inherent power of sovereignty, which every Stato\\nenjoyed before it came into the Union, has been lost to the States\\nand has not been given to any other power? What has become of\\nit? Where has it gone? Our contention is that when to the\\nStates was denied this power, which they had a right to exercise\\nas a sovereign power, it went by implication to the General Gov-\\nernment among the implied powers, and it is not any higher\\nlaw. It seems to me it is but the necessary and legitimate re-\\nsult of a fair construction of the pi ovisions of the Constitution.\\nMr. SPOONER. Now. will my friend allow me?\\nThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida\\nyield to the Senator from Wisconsin?\\nMr. MALLORY. Yes, sir.\\nMr, SPOONER. I am only asking for information.\\nMr. FORAKER. I shall be very glad to give any information\\nI can to the Senator from Wisconsin, but it is very difficult to in-\\nform the Senator from Wisconsin on a legal proposition.\\nMr. SPOONER. The Senator from Ohio says there are two\\nforms of States, and that under the Confederation the States had\\nthe power to enter into treaty with foreign Governments, as I\\nunderstood him.\\nMr. FORAKER. I did not say under the Confederation. I said\\nindependently and without regard to the Constitution when they\\nwere free to act as States as they saw fit to act, to determine\\nwhether they would come into the Union or remain States.\\nMr. SPOONER. Very good. Then I will change the phrase of\\nthe proposition, although it means the same thing. Prior to the\\nadoption of the Constitution the States had the power to enter into\\ntreaties with foreign governments, and they surrendered to the\\nFederal Government by the adoption of the Constitution the power\\nto enter into treaties with foreign governments, did they not?\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes.\\nMr. SPOONER. To what branch of the Federal Government\\ndid they give that power?\\nMr. FORAKER. It would necessarily go to ihe political de-\\npartment and branch of the Government. It woiild not, of course,\\ngo to the judiciary without express provision; it goes as an im-\\nl)lied power to the General Government.\\n3531-2", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "18\\nMr. SPOONER. That is as universal as the air we breathe.\\nMr. FORAKER. Does the Senator mean to assert that the\\nGeneral Government has the power hut is incapable of exercising\\nit because no agency has been designated in the Constitution for\\nthe exercise of it?\\nMr. SPOONER. No; but an agency was designated in the Con-\\nstitution for the exercise of the power to make treaties with foreign\\ngovernments, which by the adoption of the Constitution the States\\nsurrendered.\\nMr. FORAKER. But has not the Senator from Wisconsin just\\nnow contended that this could not in the nature of things be a\\nti eaty?\\nMr. SPOONER. I am not talking about\\nMr. FORAKER. If it is not a treaty, are we not entirely es-\\ntopped by the argument of the Senator from Wisconsin from\\nacquiring territory when we take in the whole of a territory and\\nnot simply a part?\\nMr. SPOONER. The trouble with my friend from Ohio is that\\nhe decides mv proposition before he knows what it is.\\nMr. FORAKER. The trouble with the Senator from Ohio is\\nthat he does not want the Senator from Wisconsin to misstate his\\nproposition.\\nMr. SPOONER. I did not intend to do so.\\nMr. FORAKER. Of course he would not do so intentionally.\\nMr. SPOONER. All I meant to say was this: I agree entirely\\nwith the Senator from Ohio that beyond the limitations of the Con-\\nstitution, treating the Stateseach as independent sovereignties, the\\nStates had the right to enter into contracts with foreign govern-\\nments, and when they entered into the Union and became a part of\\nthe Constitution of the United States they surrendered, of course,\\nthe right to enter into contracts with foreign governments, whether\\nyou call that a treaty, or an agreement, or a compact. But by the\\nConstitution itself, to which they agreed, they designated the de-\\npartment of the Federal Government to which they surrendered\\nthepovrer to enter into contracts and compacts and treaties with\\nforeign governments. That was not the Congress of the United\\nStates, but the President of the United States and the Senate.\\nThat is all I meant to say, and that, I think, my friend will not\\ncontrovert.\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes; I do controvert it most positively, for\\nmy contention is that novfhere in the Constitution is it ex^^ressed\\nwhat shall be the siibject-matter of a treaty.\\nMr. SPOONER. I agree to that.\\nMr. FORAKER. Nor a proper case for a treaty.\\nMr. SPOONER. I agree to that.\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not understand that the annexing power\\nmust be exercised in the way indicated by the Senator from\\nWisconsin, but when we have a case arising which it is admitted,\\nas the Senator from Wisconsin admits, is not a proper case for\\ntreaty\\nMr. SPOONER. No.\\nMr. FORAKER. I understand the Senator to say no, but\\nsurely he has been arguing that he agrees with me that this is\\nnot a proper case in the ordinary sense for a treaty, that a treaty\\nimplies a continuing contract. I will state the difference between\\nus, as I xmderstand it. His contention is that when we come to\\na place where we can not act by ti eaty we can not act at all. He\\nagrees with me that we should not act by treaty when the whole\\n353i", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "19\\nforeign country is to be brought in. There I differ .from him. I\\nsay when it comes to a case not proper to be dealt with by treaty,\\nthen we can act by the Congress of the United States, where all\\npowers are lodged that belong to the Government not expressly\\nlodged elsewhere.\\nMr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me to ask him if a con-\\nstitution or a statute can operate extraterritorially?\\nMr. FORAKER. Certainly not. We went over that a few\\ndays ago pretty thoroughly, and it seemed to be agreed all around\\nthat that proposition was well taken.\\nMl ALLEN. If the Constitution is confined to the territory\\nof the Government and can not reach to the territory and people\\nof another government, and the statute is confined to the territory\\nand the people of the Government and can not reach the people of\\nanother government, how can you annex those people by a law?\\nMr. FORAKER. You can not annex that people by a law or\\nbv a joint resolution without the consent of the people.\\nMr. ALLEN. No; but\\nMr. FORAKER. We can simply propose if we originate the\\ntransaction, or accept if they originate it.\\nMr. ALLEN. If the Constitution and statute begin and end\\non territorial limitation, how can you annex a people beyond that\\nlimitation bv statute?\\nMr. FORAKER. We have this kind of a law in the State of\\nOhio, applicable to cities of the first grade of the first class. It\\nprovides that in any city of the first grade of the first class there\\nmay be an annexation of territory whenever outlying, contiguous\\nterritory will comx^ly with certain terms and conditions, with a\\nview of annexation, which the statute designates. Now, the first\\nstep is for the city to legislate by ordinance its side of the con-\\ntract. That has no jurisdiction or no effect beyond the city lim-\\nits. But when it is met on the other side by proper action on the\\npart of contiguous territory, then it is provided that it may be\\nregarded as annexed, and the city jurisdiction extends to it. Now,\\nit is upon the same general principle, though, of course, not in\\nthe same way.\\nMr. ALLEN. That is a case of municipal extension.\\nMr. SPOONER. As I understand the argument of the Senator,\\nit is that any agreement or contract, sub modo, I submit, which\\nunder the Constitution can not be entered into with a foreign\\ngovernment by the President and the Senate must of necessity\\nbe entered into by Congress with a foreign government.\\nMr. FORAKER. I did not fully answer the Senator from Ne-\\nbraska, but, if he will allow me, I will make answer now to the\\nsuggestion of the Senator from Wisconsin. My contention is that\\nthis Government is not without power to annex the Hawaiian Is-\\nlands, and inasmuch as the proposition comes to us from the Gov-\\nernment that covers the whole of the territory belonging to it,\\nand inasmvich as that contracting party is to be absolutely ab-\\nsorbed by us\u00e2\u0080\u0094 territory, people, government, all powers and all\\nfunctions, and they are to cease to exist I contend that not by\\ntreaty but by the joint resolution which we have under consid-\\neration is the most appropriate way for the annexation.\\nMr. SPOONER. Of course\\nMr. FORAKER. I am not willing to admit that we are with-\\nout power to accept the whole of the territory when it is offered\\nto us, and I do not understand how Senators can conceive that\\nwe can take a part and then deny to us the power to take it all.\\n3531", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "20\\nMr. ALLEN. I agree with the Senator, if the Senator will per-\\nmit me\\nMr. SPOONER. Then the Senator will say, if the Senator from\\nNebraska will excuse me a moment, we can not find in the Con-\\nstitution the power to take another sovereignty and government;\\nwe must find it somewhere else.\\nMr. FORAKER. I contend that we do find it in the Consti-\\ntution.\\nMr. SPOONER. Where?\\nMr. FORAKER. In the implied power and\\nMr. SPOONER. What implied power?\\nMr. FORAKER. You admit that the^\\nMr. SPOONER. No matter what I admit. What implied\\npower?\\nMr. FORAKER. That our Government has the power inher-\\nent in all sovereigntv unless denied\\nMr. SPOONER. I did not say that.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator agreed with me a while ago, as I\\nunderstood, that if a State of the Union could step hack out of\\nthe Union and be a State independent of the Union and not be\\nbound by the Constitution, it would have a right to negotiate a\\ntreaty.\\nMr. SPOONER. I think Great Britain inherently could annex\\nthe United States, but I doubt whether Congress coiild annex\\nGreat Britain.\\nMr. FORAKER. I understand the proposition. Does the Sen-\\nator think that Great Britain has more sovereign power than one\\nof the States of this Union would have if she were to step back\\ninto her statehood?\\nMr. SPOONER. I did not say that.\\nMr. FORAKER. I did not think the Senator would.\\nMr. SPOONER. I do not have to say that.\\nMr. ALLEN. There comes the distinction between the con-\\nstruction of a State constitution and a Federal Constitution.\\nMr. FORAKER. Let me finish so as to have in full my answer\\nto the Senator from Wisconsin. My contention is that each and\\nevery State of this Union has exactly the same power to annex\\nterritory that England has, were the State separated from the\\nUnion and not bound by the Constitution and not limited by her\\nown constitution; that is, that the people are a sovereign power.\\nThev have a right, of course, to place upon the government they\\nmav institute in their States such limitations as they see fit; but\\nif they do not limit the power of sovereignty, each and every\\nState has a ri^ht to annex Great Britain if she sees fit to do it and\\ncan agree with Great Britain upon the terms; and I contend that\\nthat same power thus conceded to the State is lodged some-\\nwhere to-day. The State that comes into this Union must sur-\\nrender the power. Where does it go? I contend that it goes to\\nthe General Government. That is my view of it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Could Great Britain annex the United States\\nwithout a contract with the United States?\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not suppose she would annex us without\\nhaving our consent in some form or other.\\nMr.^SPOONER. Where does Congress get the power to enter\\ninto a compact or contract or agreement with-a foreign nation?\\nMr. FORAKER. My contention is simply that the inherent\\npower of sovereignty, which you must admit belongs in the State,\\n3534", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "21\\nin the people of the State, exists still somewhere, and that it now\\nbelongs to the General Government.\\nMr. SPOONER. No, but\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator admits it is not in the State?\\nMr. SPOOiS ER. Yes.\\nMr. FORAKER. It has been given to the General Government.\\nIt is one of the implied powers of government. You ask what\\nparticular department of the Government has it. No particular\\ndepartment of the Government is expressly empowered by the\\nConstitution to exercise that power, but the Congress of the United\\nStates has all the powers of government that belong to the Gov-\\nernment delegated by the States that are not expressly given to\\nsome other department of the Government, and if that power be\\nnot given to some other department of the Government and yet\\nbe given to the General Government, where can it reside except\\nonly in Congress?\\nMr. ALLEN. If wc have the implied power to annex a country\\nby an implication of sovereignty, have we also the implied power\\nto surrender our country to be annexed to another?\\nMr. FORAKER. I suppose if the people of this country should\\ndesire it to be annexed to some other country, they could bring it\\nabout.\\nMr. ALLEN. I am now talking about Congress, or the Gov-\\nernment proper.\\nMr. FORAKER. I think not at all.\\nMr. ALLEN. Why not? Is not that a corollary of the other\\nproposition?\\nMr. FORAKER. We have simply delegated powers, and it is\\nnot an express power or an implied power that we should barter\\naway the sovereignty of our country and the control of govern-\\nment of our country. But in the case before us it is different.\\nThe Government of the Republic of Hawaii is expressly empow-\\nered to do this identical thing by the constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the organic\\nlaw of those islands.\\nMr. ALLEN. I beg the Senator s pardon.\\nMr. SPOONER. Can Hawaii make a treaty with the Congress\\nof the United States?\\nMr. FORAKER. As I said the other day, that is a question\\nthat Hawaii can take care of.\\nMr. SPOONER. That is the question we have got to take\\ncare of.\\nMr. FORAKER. Suppose Hawaii has made a treaty?\\nMr. SPOONER. Will the Senator answer my question? The\\nconstitution of Hawaii authorizes the cession, if you call it so, of\\nthe land and the sovereignty by treaty. Now, can Congress make\\na treaty with Hawaii?\\nMr, FORAKER. I do not know what interpretation they put\\nupon that. I should have some hesitation in saying that she\\ncould, but I do not have any hesitation in saying it is exactly\\nwithin the spirit and intent of the framers of that organic law,\\nthat if she comes forward and accepts the tender we now make\\nby this joint resolution, and we take possession of the island, I\\nthink the annexation will be effectual.\\nMr. ALLEN. I should like to ask the Senator one more ques-\\ntion, with the permission of the Senator from Florida. Where\\nthe -Constitution points out specifically a method of annexation,\\ndoes it not by implication exclude all other methods?\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes; I would think so.\\n3534", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "22\\nMr. ALLEN. When the Constitution provides that these things\\nshall be accomplished by a treaty which shall be initiated by the\\nPresident and concurred in by two-thirds of the Senate, does not\\nthat exclude every other method of annexation?\\nMr. FORAKER. If any such provision as that were found in\\nthe Constitution, that might be contended for; but as I said the\\nother day in the colloquy I had with the Senator from Nebraska,\\nI do not imderstand that there is any such jjrovision in the Con-\\nstitution.\\nMr. ALLEN, I understand that to be there.\\nMr. FORAKER. I can not qtiote the exact language, but the\\nConstitution of the United States simply provides that this Gov-\\nernment may make treaties.\\nMr. ALLEN. The President, by and with the advice and con-\\nsent of the Senate.\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes, the President shall make a treaty and\\nit shall be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. But it is\\nnowhere stated in the Constitution, and nowhere else is it stated\\noutside of the Constitution that I know of except only by Senators\\nin this debate, that the annexation of territory must of necessity\\nbe by ti eaty. We all agree that it is a proper subject-matter in\\ncertain cases. Some of us deny that it is a proper subject-matter\\nin particular cases. My contention is that it is not in this case\\nnecessary to resort to a treaty.\\nMr. ALLEN. What is the treaty-making power, and to what\\ndoes it extend?\\nMr. FORAKER. It is the President of the United States and\\nthe Senate.\\nMr. ALLEN. It embraces every subject-matter that may be in\\ncontroversy between nations, does it not?\\nMr. TELLER. No. it does not.\\nMr. FORAKER. The Senator from Nebraska has said so. I\\ndo not concur in that proi^osition. That is what I have been ar-\\nguing.\\nMr. TELLER. Our treaty-making power would not include\\neverything that could be done.\\nMr. ALLEN. What is there in the relation between two nations\\nthat does not fall within the treaty-making power of the United\\nStates?\\nMr. TELLER. Mr. Jefferson said he had looked over the treaty\\nmade with Great Britain before the Jay treaty was made, before\\nany other treaty, and he found a few things, not more than five\\nor six, which might not have been included under the Constitu-\\ntion. He does not say what they were, but there were some. I\\ncan name one to the Senator, and that is the question of revenue.\\nThere can be no treaty made that will bind the Government of\\nthe United States concerning the raising of revenue.\\nMr. ALLEN. Very well; that in its very nature is altogether\\ndomestic and can not be the subject of a treaty.\\nMr. TELLER. It is not because it is domestic; it is because\\nthe Constitution has put that business in the hands of Congress\\nexclusively.\\nMr. ALLEN. No, Mr. President, not necessarily so, because the\\nraising of revenue is purely a domestic matter. It lies at the foun-\\ndation of the life of the nation, and it must be exercised by the\\nGovernment alone without the consent or participation of a foreign\\npower. But I say that neither Mr. Jefferson nor any other man\\nin the history of this country has ever held that there is a solitary\\nS531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "^3\\nthing wLicli mny be in controversy between nations as sncli that\\nis not properly reached by the treaty-making power, including the\\npower of annexation. That being true, the Constitution x:)ointing\\nout substantially the course to be i^ursued, it impliedly excludes\\nevery other power or everj other method.\\nMr. FORAKER. I intended to draw attention, and will do so\\nin order that it may appear in the Record in this connection, to\\nthe third paragraph of section 10 of the first paragraph of the Con-\\nstitution, which is as follows:\\nNo State shall, \u00e2\u0096\u00a0without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage,\\nkeep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or\\ncompact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, imless\\nactually invaded, or iu such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.\\nThere, in other words, is a denial to the State of the exercise of\\nthe treaty-making power. No State shall be allowed to make any\\ncontract with any other State or with any foreign power, and the\\ndenial of that power to the State, a power that it did admittedly\\nhave before it came into the Union, was by implication a grant of\\nit to the General Government, because the power must, of neces-\\nsity, rest and abide somewhere.\\nMr. ALLEN. If the Senator will follow that up, he will find\\nanother provision which invests the treaty-making power in the\\nPresident of the United States and two-thirds of the Senate.\\nMr. FORAKER. Yes; that is true.\\nMr. ALLEN. When that power is expressly conferred on the\\nPresident and on two-thirds of the Senate, can it be exercised by\\nthe other House?\\nMr. FORAKER. Of course, the treaty-making power can not\\nbe exercised by Congress. The only point in the whole contro-\\nversy is whether or not this is necessarily the subject-matter of a\\ntreaty, whether or not this is an exercise of the treatj -making\\nl^ower. My contention is that it is not necessarily so.\\nMr. MALLORY. The position which the Senator from Ohio\\nhas taken struck me at the time when he assumed it some days\\nago as being the only position that those who advocate with him\\nthe annexation of ths Hawaiian Islands under this resolution\\ncould sustain.\\nThe Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart] proclaimed the fact\\nthat he did not believe that you could annex any territorj by\\ntreaty at all, in the face of the history of this country and the\\nprecedents established by the annexation of Louisiana, Florida,\\nand other territories to this countrj\\\\ The Senator from Nevada\\nfound it was necessary, in order for him to maintain his position,\\nthat he should adopt that extraordinary attitude before the Sen-\\nate; that is, that the treaty-making power did not include the an-\\nnexation of territory from foreign countries.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques-\\ntion?\\nMr. MALLORY. Certainly.\\nMr. TE LLER. The Senator refers to my position which I think\\nhe does not quite fully understand.\\nMr. MALLORY. I should be glad to be corrected.\\nMr. TELLER. I did not mean to say, and 1 do not think I\\nhave said, that there might not be specific power under the Con-\\nstitution to acquire territory. It may be included in the power\\nto admit new States. I do not say that it is not. What I intended\\nto say was that if the power could not there be found which has\\nbeen a mooted question, and very ably discussed on very many\\n3534", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "24\\noccasions by very strong men on both sides if it could not be\\nfound there, it certainly could be found in the general authority\\nof every sovereign power.\\nNow, I want to read, without committing myself to either prop-\\nosition; that is to say, I do not wish now to commit myself to the\\nproposition that you may not under the power to admit States\\ntake in territory which did not belong to the Government at that\\ntime; but I want to read to the Senator from Florida, who is a\\nDemocrat, what Mr. Jefferson said about this question when the\\nConstitution was new. I suppose the fact that Mr. Jefferson sub-\\nsequently modified his views about twenty years later will not at\\nall militate against the strength of his statement as he then made\\nit. After he had taken the step and made the treaty he wrote a\\nletter to Mr. Breckenridge which is dated on the l 2th of August,\\n1803. I will not read the whole of the letter; but I will say, if I\\nget an opportunity for half an hour, I shall hereafter present some\\nauthorities on this constitutional question, but I do not want to\\ndo it in the time of the Senator from Florida.\\nMr. SPOONER. Will half an hour be sufficient time for the\\nSenator s deliverance?\\nMr. TELLER. I tliink I can fau-ly present the initiatory in\\nhalf an hour.\\nSpeaking of this treaty, Mr. Jefferson says:\\nThis treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have\\nimportant lunctions to exercise respecting it.\\nThat is, the House of Representatives had to appropriate for\\nthe payment of the money.\\nThey, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying and pay-\\ning for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwiso probably be never\\nagain in their power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for\\nan additional article to the Constitution approving and confirming an act\\nwhich the nation had not previously authorized. The Constitution has made\\nno provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating\\nforeign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occur-\\nrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act\\nbeyond the Constitution.\\nIt is not possible for language to more plainly set out the opin-\\nion of Mr. Jefferson upon that act of his. He continues:\\nThe Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risk-\\ning themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw\\nthemselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we\\nknow they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to\\ndo it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in pur-\\nchasing an important adjacent territory and saying to him when of age: I\\ndid this for your good. I pretend to no right to bind you. You may disa-\\nvow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to\\nrisk myself for you.\\nThen he speaks of what the nation will do, and he says:\\nBut we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity\\nwill confirm and not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out\\nits lines.\\nThe remainder of the letter does not refer to this question.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator will doubtless remember the fact\\nthat in that same communication, I think it was, Mr. Jefferson\\npointed out the fact that what he had done had to be followed by\\na treaty by the Senate and by an appropriation by Congress. I\\nthink the Senator will find it in the same document,\\nMr. TELLER. I think not.\\nMr. BACON. If not in that document, there is no question\\nabout the fact that Mr. Jefferson does lay down the proposition\\n3531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "25\\nthat it must be by treaty, and that the money to pay for it mnst\\nbe appropriated by Congress.\\nMr. TELLER. He does not lay it down that it must be by\\ntreaty; and if the Senator will show nie where that is, or that it\\ncan be done in any. other way, I shall be glad.\\nMr. BACON. I can do it.\\nMr. TELLER. I shall be glad of it. Undoubtedly Mr. Jeffer-\\nson understood at that time that that was the proper method. I\\nam not myself assailing that method, but I do not recollect that\\nMr. Jefferson said it could only be done by treaty. When he de-\\nclared under the Constitution that it could not be done at all, how\\ncould he have said that?\\nMr. BACON. JMr. President\\nMr. TELLER. Wait a minute. How could Mr. Jefferson have\\nsaid it could be done by treaty and treaty alone, when he declared\\nit could not be done at all within constitutional limits? Any\\nother method would have been just as legal as this method, and\\nhe said you could not do it at all without a violation of the Con-\\nstitution.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator will recognize the fact, as everybody\\nrecognizes it, that Mr. Jefferson was not correct, and the Supreme\\nCourt of the United States have held that for the purpose of erect-\\ning a Territory into a State the United States Government is com-\\npetent to acquire territory, and the only question is how it shall\\nbe done.\\nBut, if the Senator will pardon me a moment, as he challenged\\nthe correctness of my statement\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and I will get the book directly\\nand show it to him\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the statement of Mr. Jefferson was this: That\\nwhat had been done must be followed by two things by a ratifi-\\ncation of the act by the treaty-making power and by an appropri-\\nation of money to pay for it by Congi-ess.\\nMr. TELLER. Oh, yes.\\nMr. BACON. It must be done in that way.\\nMr. TELLER. But Mr. Jefferson does not say anywhere that\\nI have been able to find in his writings\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and I have been somewhat\\nfamiliar with them for many years\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that that is the only method,\\nbecause he says that was not the method at all at that time. I\\nbelieve about 1823 there could be found some expressions in Mr.\\nJefferson s writings from which it would appear that he changed\\nhis views where he was speaking of the power of the Government\\nthrough a treaty, but he is very exijlicit\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and I shall, if I have an\\nopportunity, present the authorities\u00e2\u0080\u0094 in the declaration that there\\nwere some things that could not be done by treaty.\\nMr. BACON I desire to ask the Senator there, with his per-\\nmission and the permission of the Senator from Florida, one ques-\\ntion, and that is, whether he recognizes that it is legitimate to\\nacquire territory of a foreign government by treaty with this\\nGovernment?\\nMr. TELLER. I have stated that.\\nMr. BACON, I understand the Senator to say that it is. Am\\nI correct?\\nMr. TELLER. Yes.\\nMr. BACON. Then I want to ask the Senator if he contends\\nthat there is concurrent jurisdiction to acquire foreign territory\\nboth in the treaty-making power and in the Congress? Is that the\\nposition of the Senator?\\nMr. TELLER. That is exactly my position, and that has beeu\\nthe position of the Government of the United States.\\nS531", "height": "3666", "width": "2132", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "20\\nMr. BACON. I think not.\\nMr. TELLER. That is exactly the position. You may take it\\nby treaty, and if your treaty requires anything to be clone by Con-\\ngress, Congress may repudiate the treaty by tailing to do it.\\nMr. BACON. That is not the question.\\nMr. SPOONER. BiTt Congress does not make a treaty.\\nMr. TELLER. No; it does not. You might admit territory\\nwithout a treaty, because you did it in the case of Texas.\\nMr. BACON. No.\\nMr. TELLER. Yes, you did.\\nMr. BACON. Never.\\nMr. TELLER. Yes: vou admitted Texas without a treaty.\\nMr. SPOONER. Texas was not a Territory.\\nMr. TELLER. When I speak of aumitting territory. I do not\\nmean admitting it as a Territory. I mean that you take under\\nthe jurisdiction of the United States what before has not been\\nunder its jurisdiction.\\nMr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Florida allow mc a\\nmoment?\\nMr. MALLORY. Y^es. sir.\\nMr. SPOONER. Nobody can pretend that Congress has not\\nthe power to admit a State. It must be considered settled now\\nby the case of Texas that Congi ess may admit a State: but where\\nhas Congress ever admitted a Territory as a Territory?\\nMr. TELLER. Mr. President, because we have not exercised\\nthe legislative power to admit to this country an inferior relation,\\nit does not follow that we have not that power when we have\\nexercised the greater power. However, I do not want to discuss\\nthat question now, because it is not fa?r to the Senator from Flor-\\nida [Mr. Mat^lory] who has the floor; but I shall take occasion\\nhereafter, if I can get the opportunity, to shovv- the absurdity of\\nthe proposition that you can admit a State by an act of law to the\\nhighest possible relation between the Government and the people,\\nand then that you can not admit a territory or a region of country\\nto an inferior relation. I want to hear some lawyer tell me why\\nthe exercise of the power which admits a State to that high rela-\\ntion can not admit a section of a foreign country to an inferior\\nrelation; that you can not acquire territory out of which a State\\ncan be created. It can not be defended upon philosophy, princi-\\nple, precedent, or anything else,\\nMr. MALLORY^. Mr. President, when interrupted I was about\\nwinding up my review of the arguments presented by Senators on\\nthe afSrmative of this question. Since then we have had some\\nadditional arguments by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller]\\nand the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker] explaining more fully\\nthe positions which they hold with regard to the question. The\\ntwo Senators differ, if I am not mistaken, in the positions which\\nthey have assumed. The Senator from Ohio holds that such a\\ncompact as is this now pending, whereby one of the contracting\\npowers is by the act of the compact itself stricken out of existence,\\nis not a treaty, and can not be a treaty, and therefore can not be\\ndealt with by the treaty-making power.\\nMr. FORAKER. I have not said that. I want to remind the\\nSenator again that what I have been saying is that it is not a con-\\ntinuing contract, and therefore not a treaty in the sense in which\\nwe ordinarily employ that term. It is of course a contract when\\nthe two parties minds meet. The fact is that it is executed by\\nthe consummation of the transaction, and by reason of that fact\\n3,-3l", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "27\\nit becomes a thing of the past, which makes it inappropriate to\\ncall it a treaty, as I contend, in the ordinary sense.\\nMr. MALLORY. Not a treaty in the ordinary sense?\\nMr. FORAKER. It is a past transaction; it is consummated.\\nMr. MALLORY. I should like to ask the Senator, in order to\\nunderstand his position exactly, Does he contend that the treaty\\nwhich is now ujion the table of the Senate is not an instrument\\nthat should be acted upon by the Senate because of the fact that\\nthe Hawaiian Islands will go out of existence as a sovereign power?\\nMr. FORAKER. No; I have said all the time that in my judg-\\nment you can act upon the treaty and you can consummate the\\ntransaction in that way; but because of the fact that the Hawaiian\\nRepublic ceases to exist there can not be any treaty continuing iu\\nthe future. It will end at once with the consummation of the\\ntransaction. Therefore, I say, while you can consummate the\\ntransaction in that way, yet that way is not exclusive, nor, in my\\njudgment, the most appropriate.\\nMr. MALLORY. In other words, the position of the Senator\\nfrom Ohio, if I understand it, is that j ou can effect this annexa-\\ntion by treaty, but that it is better to effect it in the manner pro-\\nposed by those who favor this legislation,\\nMr. FORAKER. I preferred that method personally before\\nthese resolutions wore introduced, just as I have since.\\nMr. MALLORY. In other words, the Senator from Ohio is in\\nthe same position regarding this proposition as the Senator from\\nColorado; that is, that either the treaty -making power or this in-\\ndefinite power possessed by Congress may be exercised with refer-\\nence to this mattei\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not think it is exclusive.\\nMr. MALLORY. Does the Senator think they are concurrent\\npowers?\\nMr. FORAKER. I do not think they are exclusive the one of\\nthe other.\\nMr. MALLORY. Mr. President, that is the position of two of\\nthe advocates of this resolution in justification of the constitu-\\ntionality of the measure. I shall not consume time by tmdertak-\\ning to review other arguments, but merely to refer to them, as I\\nhave referred to them, and take them up incidentally in the course\\nof my remarks.\\nThe Constitution of the United States names three distinct\\nbranches of power conferred by the people of the United States\\nupon this Government the legislative, the judicial, and the ex-\\necutive. All legislative power is confided to Congress; all execu-\\ntive power is conferred upon the President; and all judicial power\\nis conferred upon the judiciary. The three branches or elements\\nof this composite Government necessarily must be separate and\\ndistinct; and it has been the province of the judiciary, which has\\nthe construction and interpretation of the laws devolved upon it\\nit has been its province and its duty from the beginning to see\\nthat neither one nor the other branch of the Government tran-\\nscends the limits of its legitimate power, and consequently we\\nhave in the course of the century that has passed over our heads\\nas a nation any number of decisions of our Supreme Court bear-\\ning upon the question of the exercise of illegitimate power by one\\nor the other of these branches of the Government.\\nThe treaty-making power that is, the power of making con-\\ntracts with foreign sovereignties, not with foreign individuals^\\nthe power of making contracts or comijacts, conventions or agree-\\n3531", "height": "3666", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "28\\nments, with foreign nationalities, sovereignties, is confided to the\\nPresident, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the\\nSenate. It is embodied in the Constitution under the head of\\nExecutive power, and is so worded that the President is the one who\\nhas to take the initiative and upon whom the burden of acting\\nlies. The Senate has merely the power of veto, of approving or\\ndisapproving the action of the Executive in the matter of treaties.\\nThe treaty-making power, necessarily from the definition of\\ntreaties as given to us by the best legal authorities, includes all\\ncontracts, agreements, and negotiations of all kinds with the na-\\ntions of the earth, unless there is some limitation in the Constitii-\\ntion upon it.\\nOn this question, Mr. President. I read an extract from Duer s\\nConstitutional Jurisprudence, which I believe is familiar to most\\nof the Senators, at least those who are lawyers, bearing upon the\\nsubject. On page 231 he says:\\nThat department of the Govei nment which is intrusted with the power of\\nmaking treaties may bind the national faith at its discretion; for the treaty-\\nmaking power must be coextensive with the national exigencies, and neces-\\nsarily involves in it every branch of the national sovereignty of which the\\noperation may be necessary to give effect to negotiations and compacts with\\nforeign nations. If a nation have conferred on its executive department\\nwithout reserve the right of treating and contracting with other sovereign-\\nties, it is considered as having invested it with all the power necessary to\\nmake a valid contract, because that department is the organ of the govern-\\nment for the purpose, and its contracts are made by the deputed will of the\\nnation. The fundamental laws of the state may withhold from it the power\\nof alienating the public domain or other property belonging to it; but if\\nthere be no express provision of that kind, the inference is that it has con-\\nfided to the dep.irtment charged with the duty and the power of making\\ntreaties a discretion commensurate with all the great interests of the nation.\\nIn support of that he cites Yattel s Law of Nations, 3 Dallas,\\n199, and Grotius s Law of War and Peace. He then continues:\\nThe concurrence of each branch of the legislative power, we have seen, is\\nnecessary to a declaration of war, while the President, with the advice and\\nconsent of the Senate alone, may conclude a treaty of peace.\\nSomething that was denied, I believe, here to-day by a Senator,\\nwho claimed that the Congress also could conclude a treaty of\\npeace. To repeat:\\nThe concurrence of each branch of the legislative power, we have seen,\\nis necessary to a declaration of war, while the President, with the advice and\\nconsent of the Senate alone, may conclude a treaty of peace. Now, a power\\nto make treaties necessarily implies a power to settle the terms on which\\nthey shall be concluded, and foreign States could not deal safely with the\\nGovernment on any other presumption. That branch of the Government\\nwhich is intrusted thus largely and generally with authority to make valid\\ntreaties of peace can, of course, bind the nation by the alienation of part of\\nits territory; and this, according to an approved writer on the law of nations,\\nis equally the case whether that territory be already in the occupation of the\\nenemy or remain in possession of the nation, or whether the property be\\npublic or private.\\nI woiild have Senators bear in mind that there is no restraint,\\nlimitation, or qualification upon the trea,ty-making powers con-\\nferred on the Executive by the Constitution. It extends to every-\\nthing, and unless it can be shown that a proposed contract, such\\nas is pending here upon our table, between a foreign Government\\nand the United States is not a treaty, then we have, it seems to\\nme, necessarily to be governed by the action of the treaty-making\\npower in the premises.\\nMr. Hamilton, in his works, volume 7, page 504, speaking of this\\nsubject, says:\\n1. As to the theory of the Constitution.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 The Constitution of the United\\nStates distributes its powers into three departments\u00e2\u0080\u0094 legislative, executive,\\n3534", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "29\\njndiciary. The first article defines the structure and specifies the various\\npowers of the legislative depaitmeut; the second article establishes the or-\\nganization and povrers of the executive department; the third article does\\nthe same with respect to the judiciary department; the fourtli and fifth\\nand sixth articles, which are the last, are a miscellany of particular provi-\\nsions.\\nThe first article declares that all legislative power granted by the Con-\\nstitution shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall con-\\nsist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.\\nThe second article, which organizes and regulates the executive depart-\\nment, declares that the \u00e2\u0080\u00a2executive power shall be vested in a President of\\nthe United States of America, and proceeding to detail particular authori-\\nties of the Executive, it declares that the President shall have power, by\\nand with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided\\ntwo-thirds of the Senators present concur. There is in no part of the Con-\\nstitution any explanation of this power to make ti-eaties and definition of its\\nobjects or delineation of its bounds. The only other provision in the Consti-\\ntution respecting it is in the sixth article, which provides, as already noticed,\\nthat all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the\\nUnited States shall be the supreme law of the land: and this notwithstanding\\nanything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.\\nit was impossible for words more comprehensive to be used than those\\nwhich grant the power to make treaties.\\nNow mark the language of Mr. Hamilton:\\nThey are such as would naturally be employed to confer a plenipotentiary\\nauthority. A power to make treaties, granted in these indefinite terms, ex-\\ntends to all kinds of treaties and with all the latitude wliich such a power\\nunder any form of government can possess. The power to make implies\\na power to act authoritatively and conclusively, independent of the after\\nclause which expressly places treaties among the supreme laws of the laud.\\nThe thing to be made is a treaty.\\nWith regard to the objects of the treaty, there being no specification, there\\nis, of course, a carte blanche. The general proposition must tuerefore be\\nthat whatever is a proper subject of compact between nation and nation may\\nbe embraced by a treaty between the President of the United States, with\\nthe advice and consent of the Senate, and the correspondent organ of a for-\\neign state.\\nNow, we have the assurance of at least two Senators who have\\nably advocated the annexation cause that this instrument which\\nis now in a state of suspended animation and lying ui^on tlie table\\nof the Senate, namely, the alleged annexation treaty, is, to a cer-\\ntain extent at least, a treaty, or would be if it were ratified.\\nIf the annexation of a sovereignty is a matter that is a proper\\nsubject of contract between nation and nation and no one will\\ndeny that the annexation of one sovereignty to another is a proper\\nmatter of contract, for there is no other way, except by the exer-\\ncise of force, that it can be done\u00e2\u0080\u0094 it may be embraced by a treaty\\nbetween the United States, with the advice and consent of the\\nSenate, and the corresponding organ in a foreign state. Again,\\non page 518 of the same works, volume 7, Mr. Hamilton says:\\nThe manner in which the power of treaty, as it exists in the Constitution,\\nwas understood by the convention in framing it, and by the people in adopt-\\ning it, is the point next to be considered.\\nAs to the sense of the convention, the secrecy with which their delibera-\\ntions were conducted does not permit any formal proof of the opinions and\\nviews which prevailed in digesting the power of treaties. But from the best\\nopportunity of knowing the fact, I aver that it was understood b\\\\ all to be\\nthe intent of the provision to give to that power the most ample latitude\u00e2\u0080\u0094 to\\nrender it competent to all the stipulations which the e.xigencies of national\\nafl:airs might require; competent to the making of treaties of alliance, trea-\\nti?s of commerce, treaties of peace, and every other species of convention\\nusual among nations; and competent in the course of its exercise for these\\npurposes to control and bind the legislative power of Congress.\\nAnd it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded,\\nthe cooperation of two-thirds of the Senate, with the Pi-esident, being re-\\nquired to make any treaty whatever. I appeal for this with confidence to\\nevery memVior of the convention\u00e2\u0080\u0094 particularly to those in the two Houses of\\nCongress. Two of these are in the House of Representatives, Mr. Madison\\nand Mr. Baldwin. It is expected by the adversaries of the treaty that these\\ngentlemen will, in their places, obstruct its execution. However this may\\n3531", "height": "3666", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "30\\nbs, I feel a confidence that neither of them will deny the assertion I have\\nmade. To suppose them capable of such a denial were to suppose thorn ut-\\nterly regardless of truth.\\nIn other words, we have it from Mr. Hamilton and we have it\\nfrom the extracts whicli I have read from Professor Duers work\\nthat the treatj -making power of the Executive and the Senate is\\nadequate for all the stipulations which the exigencies of national\\naffairs may require. Chancellor Kent, also, in his first Commen-\\ntaries, thirteenth edition, page 1G6, says:\\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 bo coextensive with\\nall the exigencies of the nation, and necessarily involves in it that portion of\\nthe national sovereignty which has the exclusive direction of diplomatic ne-\\ngotiations and contracts with foreign powers. All treaties made by that\\npower become of absolute efficacy because they are the supreme law of the\\nland. There can be no doubt that the power competent to bind the nation\\nby treaty may alienate the public domain and property by treaty.\\nThe power that is intrusted generallv and largely with authority to make\\nvalid treaties of peace can, of course, bind the nation by alienation of part of\\nits territory.\\nThere Chancellor Kent goes to the extent of declaring, and so\\ndo others, and all others of any authoritative standing who have\\ndiscussed this question, that not only can you annex territory,\\nbut that the sovereign has the right, itnless there is some limita-\\ntion or qualification in the organic law to prevent, to alienate its\\nown territory, and I do not know that there is any qualification\\nCT any limitation on the treaty-making i)ower, possessed by the\\nPresident and the Senate under our Constitution, which would\\nprevent us from alienating territory if it were conceived advis-\\nable for the best interests of the nation that it should be done.\\nThe Supreme Court of the United States in 17 Wallace, page\\n242, in the case of Holden vs. Joy, referring to the same subject,\\nthe latitude of power possessed by the Executive and the Senate\\nin the exercise of the treaty-making function, says:\\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 f ramers 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 not\\ninconsistent with the nature of our Government and the relation between\\nthe States and United States.\\nTherefore we see that under the treaty-making power the Presi-\\ndent and two-thirds of the Senate are vested with plenary author-\\nity to do anything in connection with foreign relations that has\\never heretofore been done by treaty to engage in all stipulations,\\ncontracts, conventions, or pacts which national exigencies or na-\\ntional objects may require. I can conceive of no transaction of\\nthe character of a negotiation that can be undertaken between\\ntwo sovereignties in which there is any element of a contract that\\nis not a treaty; and it will not do to say, for the purpose of get-\\nting rid of the objections presented in this debate, that this in-\\nstrument which we have before us still pending, a proposed treaty\\nbetween the Hawaiian Government and the United States, is not\\na treaty because of the fact that its ratification will extinguish\\nthe existence of one of the parties thereto. It seems to me that\\nis not even a specious assumption, and that it can not be main-\\ntained. It must be a treaty before the sovereignty of the Hawaiian\\nIslands is extinguished.\\nC531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "31\\nUndoubtedly, on the ratification of the treaty the sovereignty of\\nthe Hawaiian islands would pass out of being; but before it passed\\nout of being, before that sovereignty ceased to exist, it would be\\nnecessary that the ti*eaty should be ratified, and that a tretity\\nshould exist, if only for an instant of time. If it was a treaty at\\none time, if it was for a single instant a treaty, then it was within\\nthe legitimate province and proper power of the President and\\nthe Senate to deal with it and constitute a subject which the Con-\\nstitution has expressly taken from the jurisdiction of Congress.\\nThe joint resolution which is under consideration is entitled\\nA joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands\\nto the United States/ and it begins with a preamble, a portion of\\nwhich I will read:\\nWhereas tbe Government of tho Republic of Hawaii having, in due form,\\nsignifled its consent, in the manner provided by its c.jnstitution, to cede ab-\\nsolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of\\nsovereignty, etc.\\nOn that representation of the facts the body of the joint resolu-\\ntion declares that said cession is accepted, ratified, and con-\\nfirmed. It is a singular fact, Mr. President, that the author of\\nthe joint resolution should have thought proper to indulge in siich\\na periphrastic method of expressing a very simi^Ie fact as he has\\nin the use of the language indue form signified its consent. It\\nis true the Hawaiian Republic has in due form signified its con-\\nsent in the manner provided in its constitution, but to whom has\\nit signified that consent and in v/hat way?\\nIn what manner has it signified it? They have signified that\\nconsent to the Executive of the United States, the power with\\nwhich they are properly treating, and he has presented their sig-\\nnification of consent to the body which has concern of the matter\\nin conjimction with him, the Senate of the United States, with\\nhis recommendation or approval of the treaty. In other words,\\nthe House of Representatives, by joint resolution sent to the\\nSenate, informs the Senate that whereas the Hawaiian Republic\\nhas by treaty proposed to be entered into between it and the\\nUnited States by the proper instrumentalities for dealing with\\ntreaties, namely, the President and the Senate, signified its pur-\\npose to do certain things, therefore the House of Representatives,\\nwithout any official or authoritative information upon the sub-\\nject, with nothing on its files to show that it has any knowledge\\nwhether the facts it alleges to be true are actually true\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the House\\nof Representatives, whicii is not a part of the treaty-making power\\nunder the Constitution, whether it is by wild implication or not,\\nwithout, as I say, any official or authoritJitive information as to\\nthe transaction in question between the Republic of Havv^aii and\\nthe Republic of the United States, undertakes to tell us that it\\nhas accepted, ratified, and confirmed what? The cession. What\\ncession, Mr, President? Has there been a cession of any territory\\nhere? There has not. But it was necessary, in order for the House\\nof Representatives to take jurisdiction of this matter, to get its\\ngrip, so to speak, upon the subject, to state that there was a cession.\\nMr. CAFFERY. It is nothing more than a willingness to cede.\\nMr. MALLORY. It is simply a proposition to our treat}--\\nmaking power to make us a cession. It was not made to the\\nHouse of Representatives. It is a matter that comes to this coun-\\ntry through its Executive without the intervention of the House\\nof Representatives, with which it has no concern, and while the\\nproposed treaty is still unacted upon and may be acted upon, for\\n3534", "height": "3641", "width": "2023", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "32\\nall the House knows, to-morrow or next day by a two-thirds ma-\\njority of the Senate, it undertakes to submit the same subject-\\nmatter, the same mutual obligations and stipulations that are\\ncontained in the proposed treaty to the Government of Hawaii\\nfor its acceptance and concurrence, whereby the object, end, and\\npurpose sought by the treaty will be accomplished by the action\\nof the President of the United States, a majority of the House of\\nRepresentatives, and a majority of the Senate.\\nBut the Constitution ordains that in order to do that there must\\nbe a majority of two-thirds in the Senate. With the treaty still\\njiending in the Senate, the whole matter is sought to be wrested\\nfrom the hands of those to whom the Constitiition has confided it,\\nand a precedent established which will probably come back again\\nand again to vex and distract the conscientious lawmakers of this\\ncountry. Why? Has anyone said why? I do not undertake to\\nanswer the question, though I think I can.\\nIt has been urged that we are in a state of great emergency;\\nthat this is absolutely essential to be done now. But, Mr. Presi-\\ndent, with all the clamor that has been raised we have not heard\\nany real reason why due consideration should not be given; we\\nhave heard no reason why such debate should not be had as would\\nenable not only the Congress but the people of the United States\\nto thoroughly understand the question; no reason why we should\\nnot ^Yix\\\\t until the next session of Congress in order to act finally\\nupon the question of the treaty. I have heard no reason from the\\nmost earnest advocate of the measure to justify this haste and\\nthe apparent willingness to subvert a principle of our Constitu-\\ntion and overturn doctrines that have been adhered to as funda-\\nmental by the ablest and most venerated of our legislators and\\nstatesmen.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Y\\\\ ith the permission of the Senator from\\nFlorida\\nMr. MALLORY. Certainly.\\nMr. CAFFERY. I ask him if the very attempt to annex Hawaii\\nby treaty that attempt persisted in by two Administrations, Har-\\nrison s Administration and this Administration does not show\\nthat the President at least is convinced that annexation is properly\\ndone and only done through the treaty-making power?\\nMr. MALLORY. I really do not know that I could answer\\nthat question, but I would say that so far as the Senate knows (I\\nam speaking now as knowing officially) the President believes\\nthat the only way to annex this territory to the United States is\\nby treaty, because the only communication the Executive has\\nfavored us with on this subject has been in connection with the\\ntreaty, whereby we are to infer at least that he is in favor of the\\nl^rompt and early ratification of that treaty. Whether there has\\nbeen any private or unofficial intimation from the Executive to\\ninspire this resolution in the other branch of Congress 1 do not\\npretend to say. I would not undertake to express an opinion\\nupon that point.\\nMr. CAFFERY. Is not the action of the President at least\\nsignificant that he thinks the treaty-making power is concurrent\\nwith the legislative power? And if that be so, is it not a universal\\nprinciple of law that where there is concurrent jurisdiction the\\nfirst jurisdiction which seizes hold of the subject-matter must ex-\\nhaust the jurisdiction?\\nMr. MALLORY. I do not know. The question is one which I\\n3531", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "33\\nhave not considered, and it involves some points that T would not\\nundertake to consider now.\\nMr. President. 1 have not referred, and I do not intend to refer,\\nto the questions of expediencj and policy involved in this propo-\\nsition. I regard them as important. I can see, as far as my judg-\\nment will permit me. a great deal that can be said on both sides\\nof that question. But to my mind, before we can enter upon the\\nconsideration of the policy of the measure it is necessary for us\\nto determine as to our power and authority in the premises, the\\nlegitimacy of the proceeding which is proposed to be followed for\\ncarrying out the object sought.\\nI have undertaken in a somewhat disconnected way to briefly\\nadvert to what has been said in favor of the right to take this\\nstep and to give the reasons which have presented themselves to\\nmy mind for believing that the authority for it is not to be found\\nin the Constitution and also for believing that what authority\\nthere is in the Constitution bearing on the subject is prohibitory\\nand antagonistic to it. I do not see any necessity for throwing\\noverboard the treaty, so to speak, and failing to take action on it,\\nbecause I think the matter of the annexation of Hawaii by treaty\\nis still one upon which a majority of our people have not yet\\nreached a conclusion. I am inclined to think that had not the\\nproposition been burdened with the weight of the constitutional\\nobjection which, in my judgment, necessarily attaches to tliis\\neffort, much of the earnest antagonism which it has excited would\\nhave remained unmanifested.\\nBut, sir, I can not, as a Senator, as one who believes that it is\\nhis duty to consider well the constitutional sanction of an act be-\\nC5 fore he undertakes, in his Senatorial capacity, to put such act in\\nS effect; as one who believes that the Constitution is a sacred instru\\nment which should be regarded with the reverence with which\\nwe were wont to regard the religious tenets that were taught us\\nin our youth, I can not permit the proposed action to be taken\\nwithout entering my protest. Believing as 1 believe, that any\\nlapse from the observance of the Constitutions sacred character\\nis a most dangerous step, and one that can hardly, if ever, be\\nretraced; knowing as I know, that there are to-day constant\\nassaults upon its intes4ritv. and that the necessities of party or of\\nfaction will not hesitate, if the opportunity presents, to make\\nfurther and more impudent attacks upon it, I have felt. Mr. Presi-\\ndent, that it was my duty to stand up in this Chamber and utter\\nmy protest, feeble as it is, against this ill-considered proposition,\\nbecause it involves not only great (luestions of iiolicy heretofore\\nuntried and unconsidered, but also and especially because it in-\\nvolves a flagrant, gratuitous, and most alarming infraction of the\\nfundamental law of the laud.", "height": "3479", "width": "1888", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "LIBKHKY Uf- CUNOKtbb\\nllllllllllllll|i||||||||lilll|l||||||||l||||fllllllilllllll{||||\\n013 744 802 6", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3666", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n013 744 802 6\\nHoUinger Corp.\\npH8.5", "height": "3661", "width": "2138", "jp2-path": "annexationofhawa00mall_0038.jp2"}}