{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4139", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3642", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII.\\nTo take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our traditional policy\\nas to colonial aggrandizement and abolish the Monroe doctrine, but it means\\nto absorb a population that are alien to our form of government and stran-\\ngers to our institutions.\\nSPEECH\\nOF\\nHON. THOS. H. BALL,\\nOF TEXAS,\\nHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,\\nWednesday, June IB, 1898.\\nWASHINGTOM.\\n1898.", "height": "3695", "width": "2168", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": ":B/s:\\n72988\\nSPEECH\\nOF\\n^HON. THOS. H. BALL.\\nThe House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. j9) to\\nprovide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States-\\nMr. BALL said:\\nMr. Speaker: In the limited time allotted me I can not at-\\ntempt a full or satisfactory discussion of the pending resolution.\\nI would not speak at all did I not in my heart believe that the\\nquestion under consideration involves the most crucial period in\\nour national history, not excepting the fratricidal conflict between\\nthe States.\\nThe glowing picture presented by those who would lightly set\\naside the traditional policy of this Government and enter upon a\\ncareer of colonial aggrandizement supported by a great army and\\nnavy, is certainly no more alluring than was Napoleon s dream\\nof universal empire. Let us hope that, once entered upon, the re-\\nsult may not prove equally disastrous,\\nMr. Speaker, in opposing this measure I shall present for the\\nconsideration of the House three propositions only. The annexa-\\ntion of Hawaii by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unneces-\\nsary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to sup-\\nport the Constitution, we should inqitire no further. I challenge\\nnot the advocates of Hawaiian amaexation, but those who advo-\\ncate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or\\nauthority in oiir organic law for such acquisition of territory.\\nTo do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land\\nbut to strike down every precedent in our history. I know, as was\\nsaid by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr, Di:csmoreJ that the\\nmention of the Constitution in this body often invokes a smile,\\nand yet it can not be that a majority of this body agi ee with tlie\\ninsignificant few that there is a higher law than the Constitu-\\ntion; or with that former member of this House who, in his good\\nfellowship, did not think the Constitution should ccme between\\nfriends,\\nWhy, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result\\nof a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be\\nlawfully done. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Tawxey],\\nin a very able argument in support of annexation on March 15\\nlast, rested his case upon the general i)ower in our (\\\\)nstitution\\nand the express power in the constitution of Hawaii, conferred\\nupon the Presidents and Senates of the two countries, to conclude\\na treaty of annexation. Now that, in pursuance of those powers,\\nthe President has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate\\n2 81S7", "height": "3464", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "and has been miable to obtain the consent of two-tlurds of that\\nbody we are called upon to override the constitutions of both parties\\nto the proposed contract in order that we may do this thing. _\\nWhen Louisiana was acquired, when Florida was received, wnen\\nAlaska came to us, no statesman connected witn the executive\\nor lei?islative branch of the Government dreamed the teintoiy\\nsought to be added to our possessions could be received, except by\\ntreifty duly ratified. In their desperation, grasping- at shadows\\nfor substahce, those who now resort to ^his subterfuge cite the\\nadmission of the imperial State from which I hail\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Texas-as\\nwarrant and authority for their purpose.\\nMr Speaker, no one familiar with the history of that transaction\\nshould make such claim. Advocates of the annexation of Texas\\nrested their case upon the express power conferred upon Congress\\nin the Constitution to admit new States. Opponents of the annex-\\nation of Texas contended that even that express power did not\\nconfer the right to admit States not carved from territory already\\nbelonging to^the United States or some one of the States forming\\nthe Federal Union. Whether, therefore, we subscribe to the ono\\nor the other school of thought in that matter, we can find no prec-\\nedent to sustain the method here proposed for admitting foreign\\n^^Members need only refer to the extended debates in Senate and\\nHouse of Representatives while the annexation of Texas was being\\nconsidered to be assured of the correctness of this conclusion,\\nThe original proposition as otfered comtemplated the formation\\nof a State from certain prescribed limits within the territory em-\\n7 braced in the Republic of Texas, while the balance of the area of\\nthe Republic was to be ceded as territory to the United States. The\\ntreaty having failed of ratification by the Senate, annexation by\\nioint resolution was resorted to, and the outcome of the who e\\nmatter was that the entire Republic of Texas was admitted as one\\nState, with the right to carve therefrom four additional States,\\nthis being done fSr the purpose alone of coming withm the con-\\nstitutional power to admit new States and m recognition of the\\nfact that territory could only be constitutionally acquired by\\n^^Flfave not time to review much that was interestingly said\\nabout the matter. I shall quote only a few of the opinions ad-\\nvanced duSng the discussion of that matter. The Senate com-\\nmittee on Foreign Affairs consisted of five members, four of whom\\n^uest oned ?he ?ight to admit new States out of foreign territory\\ndaiming it could only be done by treaty, the other member of .the\\ncomSee admitting that foreign territoiT could only^^^^\\nby treaty, but contending that Texas could be admitted as a State\\nMr Walker, of Mississippi, claiming to be the aiithor of the\\nidea to have Texas admitted under the clause of the Constitution\\nauthorizing Congress to admit new States, said\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat he was reioiced that the great American question of the veaiincxa-\\nJanuary, 1844.\\n3187", "height": "3442", "width": "2178", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0080\u00a2within tlio Union. The general power was in express words, and no man had\\na right to interpolate restrictions, especially restrictions which the f rainers\\nof the Constitution had rejected.\\nMr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, the dissenting member of the\\nForeign Affairs Committee, advocating the resolution, said:\\nAll the reasoning and ingenuity in the world could not abolish the plain\\nlanguage of the Constitution, which declared that new States might be ad-\\nmit ted by Congress into the Union.\\nMr. Henderson, of Mississippi, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, and other\\nable advocates of the annexation of Texas urged the same argu-\\nments in support of the measure.\\nIn the House of Representatives Mr, Yancey, of Alabama, sup-\\nporting the resolution, advanced the same line of argument. On\\nthe other hand, the opposition, insisting that the power to admit\\nnew States was confined to territory already belonging to the\\nUnited States, put forward many able advocates.\\nMr. Morehead, of Kentucky, speaking for the Foreign Affairs\\nCommittee of the Senate, contended\\nIn the case now under consideration it was not proposed by the joint resolu-\\ntion before the Senate that Texas should be acquired according to what ho\\nconsidered the constitutional mode of proceeding, by tlie ti-eaty making\\npower. The proposition is for Congress to admit her as a State. IN ow\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nHe asked\\nwhen this Government was about to add a foi eign domain to ours, was\\nthere any other mode of accomplishing that object except by the interposi-\\ntion of the treaty-making power, composed of the President of the United\\nStates in conjunction with the Senate? Was it constitutional t3 annex Texas\\nby the treaty which was submitted to the Senate last session?\\nHe believed there were few, if any, constitutional objections made. If,\\nthen, the power to annex foreign territory by treaty does appertain to the\\ntreaty-making power, he should like to see upon what ground it could be\\nheld that the Congi-ess of the United States possesses concurrent legislative\\npower upon this subject. If that which it is competent for the treaty-making\\npower alone to accompli-sh. the majority of a quorum of both Houses of Con-\\ngress could accomplish. The argument, he apprehended, would be this, that\\nas a constitutional mode of proceeding we do not deny that foreign territory\\ncan be admitted into this Union by the treaty- making power. But there is\\nanother clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to admit\\nnew States into the Union. He proposed now to consider what was the char-\\nacter of that article and upon what conditions it rests. [Mr. Buchanan: That\\nis the true ground.] His friend from Pennsylvania said that was the ques-\\ntion, and to it he proposed to call particular attention.\\nMr. Choate for three hours reviewed the whole question, bring-\\ning to bear his knowledge of the Constitution and its formation\\nand the history of the country, clothed in redundant adjectives.\\nHe denied that the clause in the fourth article in the Constitution\\ngiving the power to Congress of admitting new States into the\\nUnion was given with the most remote idea of its being ever ap-\\nplied to anything but domestic territory. Said he:\\nNo raan could believe that by that provision it was intended to confer the\\ntremendous power of admitting new States in any part of the world without\\nlimitation as to habits, customs, language, principles, or anything but the\\nsemblance of republicanism. Until it was found the treaty of last session\\nhad no chance of passing the Senate, no human being save one, no man,\\nwoman, or child in the Union or otit of the Union, wise or foolish, drunk or\\nsober, was ever heard to breathe one syllable about this power in the Consti-\\ntution of admitting new States being applicable to the admission of foreign\\nnations, governments, or states. It was a new and monstrous heresy on the\\nConstitution, got up not from any well-founded faith in its orthodoxj-, but\\nfor the mere purpose of carrying a me.-isure by a b.are majority of Congress\\nthat could not bo carried by a two-thirds majority of the Senate iu accord-\\nance with the treaty-making power.\\n:Ji87", "height": "3464", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "Mr. Speaker, I will not further quote from this disciission. The\\nlanguage used by Mr. Choate certain!}- applies with peculiar force\\nto the proposition now pending, and the entire debate upon both\\nsides of that proposition shows conclusively that the advocates ci\\nthis measure have no ground to stand upon so far as the annexa-\\ntion of Texas is concerned.\\nThe gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Pearson] and the\\ngentleman from Ohio [Mr. Grosvexor] seek to aid their conten-\\ntions in favor of this measure by the decision of Chief Justice\\nMarshall. Let us see if they are sustained thereby:\\nThe course-\\nSaid Judge Marshall\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nwhich the argument has taken will require that in deciding this question\\nthe court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands lo the\\nUnited States. The Constitution confers absolutely upon the Government\\nthe powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that Gov-\\nernment possesses the power of acquii-ing territory either by conquest or by\\ntreaty.\\nThus it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that Chief Justice Marshall\\nnot only fails to sustain tliese gentlemen, but bases the acquisi-\\ntion of territory, either by conquest or treaty, upon the war-\\nmaking and treaty-making powers conferred by the Constitution\\nupon the Government. Certainly, the treaty having failed to pass,\\nno gentleman will contend that we are attempting to take Hawaii\\nby conquest or by the power to admit States. They must there-\\nfore stand with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee\\n[Mr. Hitt] who insists, in substance, that the National Govern-\\nment has the inherent right to acquire territory in this manner.\\nThe Constitution having pointed out the several ways in which\\nterritory may be lawfully acquired, I for one decline to accept\\nthis new doctrine by which territory can eventually come into\\npartnership with the States and have equal rights and representa-\\ntion on the floor of Congress and elsewhere without first runmng\\nthe gantlet of every constitutional safeguard.\\nMr. Speaker, I shall even venture to differ with those who de-\\nclare this measure to be a military necessity. Even the array of\\nexpert testimony they bring to their support is not conclusive. A\\nleading member of the bar once defined unreliable testimony as of\\nthree classes: Ordinary liars, accomplished liars, and expert wit-\\nnesses. [Laughter.] While I do not accede to this classifica-\\ntion, I do know that great military and naval authority is not\\nagreed at all times. It is also true that only witnesses in the\\nmatter were called who favored annexation. Even then, as stated\\nby the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] General Schofield,\\nupon cross-examination, admitted that Pearl Harbor, now pos-\\nsessed bv this country, was the only harbor that could be success-\\nfully fortified and defended. I will say in passiug that we possess\\nthis harbor by treaty that can not be abrogated except by the\\nconsent of this Government. Again, we should bear in mind that,\\nby professional instinct. Army and Navy ofificters are naturally\\npredisposed toward that policy which would make this country a\\ngreat military and naval power.\\nMr. CLARK of Missouri. Will the gentleman allow me an m-\\nterruption?\\nMr. BALL. Yes; certainly.\\nMr. CLARK of Missouri. I want to make one statement, and\\n3487", "height": "3442", "width": "2178", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "it is the gospel truth, that every one of these statements in favor\\nof annexation was an ex parte statement, and I believe that any\\nordinary lawyer, just a plain, ordinary, average lawyer, can take\\nevery one of these men and on cross-examination make him swear\\nto the same thing that General Schofield swoi;e to, that that is the\\nonly harbor that can be fortified.\\nMr. BALL. All right, put that in ray speech. Now, against\\ntheir judgment we have the safest of all guides experience. For\\nmore than fifty years the Atlantic Ocean has bounded our eastern,\\nthe Gulf and Republic of Mexico our southern, the Pacific our\\nwestern, and the British possessions our northern borders. Dur-\\ning this period we have made marvelous strides in progress, the\\ndevelopment of our resources, and increase of population. We\\nhave waged the greatest of all wars in our own borders, placing\\nin hostile conflict two armies either of which could have whipped\\nthe combined legions of Napoleon or Wellington.\\nSince then we have nearly doubled our resources and popula-\\ntion, and even now we are demonstrating to the world that the\\nforeign power which breaks oiir peace must whip every man within\\nour borders from Maine to Texas, from New York to California,\\nbefore they can successfully give tis battle. Why, then, extend\\nour borders more than 3,000 miles in the Pacific Ocean? To do so\\nwill be a breach of public and national faith.\\nDecember 19, 1840, Mr. Webster announced that\\nThe Govornment of the Saudwich Islands ought to he respected that no\\npower ought to take possession of the islands, either as a conquest or for pur-\\nposes of colonization.\\nPresident Tyler, two years afterwards, reiterated the same doc-\\ntrine.\\nIn 1843 Secretary of State Legare notified our minister to Eng-\\nland\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat wo had no wish to acquire or plant colonies abroad, but would, if\\nnecessary, feel .I ustified in using force to prevent their acquisition by one of\\nthe great powers of Europe.\\nThis, Mr. Speaker, has been our established policy. Twice\\nEngland has occupied the islands and as often peacefully retired.\\nDoes anyone believe that in the face of all this that even a re-\\nmote possibility exists that any foreign power would dare incur\\nour displeasure by attempting to possess themselves of these\\nislands?\\nI must pass on. Mr. Speaker, it is not only unwise that we an-\\nnex Hawaii, to do so will be a blunder approaching the gravity of\\na crime. I know that by many it is not considered up to date to\\nquote Mr. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, and yet I\\ncan not believe that the great and unselfish advice of these men,\\nto whom we owe so much, should be lightly set aside.\\nI would certainly, when in doubt, prefer to go to him who used\\nhis private means to aid the Government and declined to accept\\ncompensation as Commander of the Army and President of the\\nUnited States, and refused a crown, rather than those who\\nwould convert a war for liberty and humanity into a vehicle of\\nconquest and commercial gain. In his farewell message to the\\nCongress ho warned us against a large standing army and cau-\\ntioned us against entangling foreign alliances. With patriotic,\\nfar-seeing statesmanship, he adviseel against political connection\\n3187", "height": "3464", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "with any foreign nation, called attention to tlieir mterests anvolv-\\nto them in controversies foreign to our concerns. Said he.\\nOur detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif-\\nf erent course. Wliy\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nshould we forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our\\nown to stand on foreign grounds. _\\nThat we mi\u00c2\u00ab-ht be the more secure in our position, m I8.0 Mr.\\nTVTnni o-lt-irtle 1 the world by putting the nations of the earth on\\nSethlrwe would not pe/mit foreign powers to extend their\\nSem to am po? on this hemisphere. These po icies have\\nblcome Sto the American people, without regard to party.\\nGuided thSeb?, we have P-servedom^ Government\\nctvii-.rpfl all nations in the race for supremacy. \\\\V e na e surpabtea\\nS^?v power mSntaining a colonial policy, having none ourselves.\\nWe ha?e seenthe flags of monarchies go down in South America,\\nCentral America, and the islands of the sea, and flags over liberty-\\ninvino- rpnublics hoisted in their stead.\\nWe ha??seen a foreign emperor left to his fate m Mexico upon\\na simple li-otest ly us and upin the ruins of his throne a Republic\\ncreSecl What more can we ask? Why no continue along the\\nUne of our greS. destiny, settling our internal questions npon nust\\nand properfinesand cleveloping our magnificent resourc^^^^^\\nTippd have we for the sugar lands of Havv^^n? i tni tj -sixtnousanu\\n?aSaie miles of sugar land in Texas, as fertile as the valley of the\\nNile Iwait development. Louisiana calls for money and men to\\nm icker-ner fertile^ soil, while Nebraska and other l^eet-sugar pro-\\nducinl Ses demand our attention. Only the other day the\\nWashington Post stated:\\nImperial Texas can produce food products for the entirepopulation of the\\nUnited States.\\nVpq and furnish the wool and cotton to clothe them and the\\nIpIhe rtS shoe them. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Johnson]\\ni?ho?t wh le agoTn this House made a correct statement that\\nTexas c^ud deceive the population of the Union without being\\nSded Do?oi, gentleien. not find it difficult now to .Irame\\nlawl that will satisfy Maine and Texas, California and Louisiana,\\nSneStalndSouthCarolina.PennsylvaniaandAlabama? Why^^\\n?ie fi?st thiSg they found when we captured Manila and desired\\nto colllct thetr customs, was that the Dingley bill, whose authors\\nprom4ed un ve?^^ prosnerity, was not adapted to the Phihppme\\nhlands and we retained the Spanish laws. 4. u\\nFnthusiasts may paint glowing pictures of Hawaii, but the stub-\\nborn fact remaTns-that white xSen can network under a tropical\\nsnn Thev may prate of Ataericanizing it, but can not deny that\\nSerimerkan influence for nearly three-quarters of century\\ntW ai-e no more than 2,000 American male citizens, less even\\nStS numbei- of lepers there now. They can not controvert\\nSniitof anonulationof about 110,000, more than two-thirds\\narfm?n iooEKfHa^iians, 2^,000 are Japanese, 22,000 ai;e\\nChinese 15 000 are Portuguese, 1,000 are South Sea Is:anders\\n4 000 S white foreigners, and only 8,000 are Americans male and\\nSalt Suih as th?se we have legislated against; such as these\\nSo not desire as competitors with free-born American laborers.\\nTo take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our tradi-\\ntional policTas to colonial aggrandizement and abohsh the Monroe\\n34ir", "height": "3442", "width": "2178", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "doctrine, but it means to absorb a population that are alien to our\\nform of government and strangers to our institutions. It means\\nthat the American flag, consecrated to the cause of liberty, shall\\nfloat over a people wliere there can be no union of hearts nor\\nunion of hands; where the principle that all men are created\\nequal must stand aside, while the franchised few must control\\nthe disfranchised many. Hawaii is but the entering wedge for\\nother colonial possessions. What right have we to change a policy\\nthat has turned the eyes of the liberty loving of every land to our\\nshores as an asylum for the oppressed?\\nDare we take the chances for all time to come when so little is\\nat stake on the one side, our all on the other? If we stand by the\\nfaith, keep in the paths our fathers trod, not a hundred years\\nhence 250,000,000 American citizens within our present borders will\\ncommand the peace of the world and shape its civilization.\\nMay God forbid that we take passage upon an unknown sea, and\\nWhen, too late, we are asked from the watchtowers of liberty and\\nfree government. Sentinels, what of the night? we may not be\\nable to say, All is well. [Ai^plause.]\\nmi\\nO", "height": "3464", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3442", "width": "2178", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n013 744 710 1\\nHollinger Corp.\\npH8.5", "height": "3464", "width": "2116", "jp2-path": "againstannexatio00ball_0012.jp2"}}