{"1": {"fulltext": "CI. (o\\nE 713\\n.812\\nC~5 Copy 1\\nHAWAIIAN ANNEXATION.\\nThe Joint Resolution\u00e2\u0080\u0094 An unconstitutional usurpation of the prerogativo\\nof the President of the United States and Senate\\nas the treaty-making power.\\nSPEECH\\nHON. A. O. BACON,\\nOF GEORGIA,\\nIN THE\\nSENATE OE THE UNITED STATES,\\nMonday, June 20, 1893.\\nWAtJMIiNOrO.M.\\n1898.", "height": "3760", "width": "2272", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": ".T)\\nj(^\\n72", "height": "3661", "width": "2080", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "SPEECH\\nOF\\nHON. A. 0. BACON.\\nThe Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to\\nprovide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States-\\nMr. BACON said:\\nMr. President: I presume it will be recos-nized by all that\\nthere can be no more important question than this before the coun-\\ntry to-day. It is not simply the question of the annexation of a\\nvery small piece of territory, but, considered with reference to the\\nmerits of the case, it is one which involves the utter revolution of\\nthe practice and traditions of our Government with reference to\\nits benefits to the people and the obligations which it lavs upon\\nthem.\\nIt is not my purpose at this time to discuss the general merits\\nof this proposition. I am inclined to address the Senate at this\\ntime because the particular branch of the discussion to which I\\nshall direct my attention is one which goes to the root of the\\nmatter and which ought, if my contention is correct, to control\\nthe action of the Senate.\\nBefore proceeding with it, I think, however, I may be excused\\nfor remarking that certainly this is a strange presentation to the\\ncountry, that in a matter of such gravity, that in a matter of such\\nwide-reaching importance, the advocates of the measure have\\nnothing to say. Ordinarily in measiires of importance which come\\nfrom the Foreign Relations Committee we have a report. In this\\ninstance the committee have not even honored us with a report.\\nOrdinarily not only do we have a report, but we have from the\\nchairman of that committee or some member representing the\\ncommittee an elaborate presentation of the reasons why the legis-\\nlation is recommended by that committee. But here we have\\nneither report nor presentation. We have simply presented to tlie\\nSenate a bill which has been passed by the Houss and witliout re-\\nport and without discussion those who hold to the allirmative ask\\nthe Senate to act. It is as if, confident of a majority, they should\\nsay, We propose to do thus and so, right or wrong, and give no\\nreason for it; and what are you going to do about it? That is the\\nattitude which the committee occupy in coming before tlie Senate.\\nMr. President, as I stated, it is not my purpose to discuss the\\ngeneral merits of the proposition to annex the islands of Hawaii,\\ncertainly not at this time; but I propose to present to the Senate\\na in-oposition and to ask that they may give me their attention\\nwhile I discuss it, which, if it be true, as 1 have previously said,\\nought to control the action of the Senate and make them say that\\nthey will not pass the bill which the House lias sent to us.\\n3505 3", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "The proposition which I propose to discuss is that a measure\\nwhich provides for the annexation of foreign territory is neces-\\nearilv. essentially, the subject-matter of a treaty, and that the as-\\nsumption of the House of Representatives in the passapre of the\\nbill, and tlie proiiosition on tiie part of the Foreign Relations\\nCommittee that the Senate shall pass the bill, is utterly without\\nwarrant in the Constitution.\\nI\\\\rr. President, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller] saj s\\nthat he would be very glad to vote on this question to-day; that\\nhis mind is made up. The Senator from Colorado is one of the\\nSenators whom I am anxious to speak to to-day, not because I be-\\nlieve 1 can change his mind or his opinion on the general merits\\nof this question but because I desire to ask him and all Senators,\\nespecially those who are lawyers, to consider the question whether\\nor not they have the right, under their constitutional obligations,\\nto vote for this resolution, however much they may favor the an-\\nnexation of Hawaii.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator permit me to answer that\\nMr. BACON. I beg that the Senator will hear me before he\\nanswers.\\nMr. TELLER. I want to say that I will hear the Senator, but\\nthe Senator is not to understand that I have not myself considered\\nthis question verv carefully. J will hear the Senator, of course.\\nMr. BACON. Mr. President, of course I do not presume that\\nthe Senator from Colorado had not considered this question, but\\nwe are here for the purpose of interchanging views. I have great\\nconfidence in the Senator from Colorado, and am gratified by the\\nfact that I seldom differ from him, and I shall be more than grati-\\nfied if we can get together upon this question.\\nI assume that Senators will not vote for a resolution if they can\\nbe satisfied that it is unconstitutional. I assume that they will\\nnot vote for an unconstitutional resolution which directly impairs\\nand strikes down one of the highest prerogatives of the Senate; and\\nit is to that question that I propose to address myself to-day and\\nupon which 1 am extremely anxious to have the hearing of Sena-\\ntors who favor the annexation of Hawaii.\\nThe proposition which I had stated before the interruption was\\nthis: That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign terri-\\ntory was necessarilv and essentially the subject-matter of a treaty,\\nand that it could not bo accomplished legally and constitutionally\\nby a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii is to be annexed, it\\nought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method: and if\\nby a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator\\nought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give\\nhis support to an unconstitutional measure.\\nI trust, Mr. President, that the time has not come when a Sen-\\nator can not appeal with confidence to his fellow-Senators in op-\\nposition to a measure on the ground that it is unconstitutional.\\nIt matters not how important it may be that Hawaii should be\\nannexed, it matters not how valuable it may be. it will be too\\ncostly if its price is the violation of a great fundamental provision\\nof the Constitution of the United States.\\n]Mr. President, it is a painful fact that not only people at large,\\nbut officials are losing to some extent the reverence which they\\nought to have for constitutional obligations. It is a matter of a\\n3oaj", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "smile ^Mtll somo v/heu yon oppose a measure on the ground that\\nIt s unconstitutional, and I confess that I have been pluned vheu\\nI have heard, as 1 have heard in this Chamber, learned and dis-\\ntinguished Seimtors say tliat they would approve and applaud the\\naction of the President of the United States if he Sou d seize\\nHawaii and run up upon it the flag of the United States, and take\\nESSr property of the United States as a wa?\\nI say I have been pained when I have heard that as I have\\nqSSnv^ this Chamber from very learned and very distinguished\\nJf +1 TT L T than gratified that the President\\not the United Stateshas notsutiered himself to be guided bvsmh\\ntoo ish and sucn unwise counsels. If he had done %o, every lover\\no. his country must have been grieved that such a blow had\\nbeen stricken at the integrity of the Constitution\\nMr. President, it surprises me that I even liave to mention such\\nfin^feTwnr ^f P^^^^^^*^^^* of the United Stages can ?S\\ntime ot war, or at any other time, without the action of Congress\\nin the performance of its constitutional functions, take possession\\not the terntory of a friendly power, proclaim it as the territory of\\nthe Lmted States, run the flag of the United States up over it S\\nthe insignia of its power and its dominion-if he can do so in oiie\\ncase, he can do so in an v.\\nIf the President of the United States can do it in the case of\\nHawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case\\no. Jamaica, and I repeat that 1 am more than gratified. althoiS\\nmy apprehensions were aroused by the source from which tlurse\\nintimations came, that the President of the United States has\\nnot seen proper to listen to their unwise counsels\\nAnd 3-et, Mr President, if my view of this question is correct\\nthe President of the United States would have as mnch powJi to\\ntake possession of the Island of Hawaii bv a proclamation as would\\nthe Congress of the United States have the Vowe to gain posses\\nsion of It by a .lo.nt resolution of the two Houses. The po^?el s of\\nthe executive department and the legislative department are as\\ndi.stinctly divided the one from the other as are the powers of thi\\njudicial department and the legislative department\\n1 here are tAvo kinds of law which are recognized bv the Consti-\\ntution of the United States and which are prmnd^d for bv the Con-\\nstitution of the United States, and each of these IdncL^^ofhiw^a\\ntermed m the Constitution of the United States the supivn r la v\\nof the land. One class of these laws is statute law. and it is i r^\\nvided tha statute law shall be enacted by Congress: that sta u\u00c2\u00a3\\nlaw shall be 111 ade by a majority vote of the House of Re presen a\\ntWiM;f.\u00c2\u00b0 1 approval of the President or\\nbv the Kvn l\\\\V,T^^\\\\ V disapproval of the President,\\ntZiff- i\u00c2\u00b0 ptt^ ot^ Hepresontativesand the\\ntwotlnrds vote ot the Senate, overriding his veto and that law\\nwhen made, is dec-lared by the Constitut];.n of the tf t a sS\\nJnH^*^Vl?^ r-^ ^t^^ I the same way the cS\\ntilt o of the United States declares that there are other laws\\nwhich are also .supreme, and tliose laws arc made as 1 reaties The\\nSho n;;. of .V^ S*^^^*-^^ the same section declares\\nboth ot the^e as the supreme law of the land\\ntint, f V* t the United States in construing the ,iues-\\nt on of supremacy has ruled that each is supremo. It has ruled\\nthat a treaty may be nullified by a statute anil that a statute may", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "6\\nbe nullified by a, treaty, and tliat where they come in conflict\\nthe question of the later is the one invoked to determine which\\nshall prevail. As to those two classes of law, each one of them\\nsupremo, there is provided in the Constitution an entirely distinct\\nmethod by which they may be enacted or mjfde. I have stated\\nthe manner in which the statute law is made. Now, in an en-\\ntirely different manner, the Constitution of the United States de-\\nclares how a treaty, which is also a supreme law, shall be made.\\nIt declares that a treaty must be made by the President of the\\nUnited States, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of\\nthe Senate present. I am not quoting literally, but stating it sub-\\nstantiallv.\\n1 ask the attention of Senators to this most marked provision in\\nthe Constitution of the United States and the two distinct classes of\\nlaw, each of them declared by the Constitution to be supreme, each\\nof them declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in con-\\nstruing that provision to be equally supreme with the other, which\\nare made and enacted in specific ways in the manner pointed out\\nin the Constitution, one totally different from the other. Is that\\nprovision of the Constitution a vital principle? Does it mean any-\\nthing? Is it possible that the power which is clothed by the Con-\\nstitution with the authority to make one class of laws can make\\nthe other class of laws?\\nIs it possible that the power which is conferred upon the Con-\\ngress of the United States, the lawmaking power, the Senate and\\nthe House, with the approval of the President, can be used to\\nmake that other supreme law which the Constitution says shall\\nbe made in a different way, to wit, by the President, with the ad-\\nvice and consent of the Senate? If it is possible for the House of\\nRepresentatives and the Senate and the President, acting in the\\nlawmaking capacity, and known generally in the Constitution as\\nCongress, can make a treaty, and in so making it make it the\\nsupreme law of the land, then tliis joint resolution is. constitu-\\ntional. But if it be true that when the Constitution devolved\\nupon the Pre=^ident and the Senate the power to make treaties it\\ndenied to the Congress of the United States the right to make\\ntreaties, then the joint resolution is necessarily unconstitutional,\\nas I shall endeavor to show.\\nJMr. Pre^dent, the Constitution gives to the President the power\\nto appoint all officers of the United States by and with the advice\\nand consent of the Senate. If Congress can by statute make a\\ntreaty, why may it not by a statute make an ambassador or a\\nchief justice or a general of the Army?\\nMr. President, there are two ways in which the provision in\\nthe Constitution conferring upon the President of the United\\nStates and the Senate the power to make treaties can be absolutely\\nnullified. One is the manner I have suggested, by Congress openly\\nand boldly assuming to make a treaty; and if constitutional re-\\nstrictions are not to be respected, if no man is bound by the Con-\\nstitution, if a Senator or a Representative, because forsooth he\\ninay be in the majority can effect his purpose by overriding the\\nConstitution and disregarding it, then that is the simplest way to\\ndo it. There is still another way in which this provision in the\\nConstitution can be nullified, and that is by undertaking to put\\ninto the form of a statute that which in reality is a treaty. Now,\\none method is just as effective as the other, and either method is\\nas absolutely illegal as the other.\\narm", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "Before goinj? further in that line of argument, in order that I\\nmay^have the attention of Senators and that thev may not think\\nthere is an answer which I do not recognize. I desire to say that\\nI of course fully understand the argument which is made in reply\\nthat the State of Texas was admitted in tliis way. I can not stop\\nto interrupt the thread of the argument at the present point to\\nshow that that reply is not a good one. Not to elaborate it fur-\\nther, I will merely state that it is the distinction between the au-\\nthority of Congress to admit a State, to do wiiich it is given the\\npower in words in the Constitution, and the power to ac(ii;ire for-\\neign territory not for the purpose of making it a State, which, as\\nI shall endeavor to show, is essentialh and necessarily the subject-\\nmatter of treat}- between two governments.\\nMr. President, when the framers of the Constitution put the\\nword treaties into the Constitution without any other defining\\nwords or without any limitation, is it to be supposed for a moment\\nthat they did not recognize the fact that the term treaties had\\na distinct, legitimate, necessary, well-understood meaning? Is it\\nto be supposed that they for one moment contemplated that when\\nthe question came up whether a certain measure which involved\\na negotiation and agreement between this country and another\\nshould l,e accomplished in the way it provided, through a treaty\\nby the President and the Senate, or whether it should be remitted\\nto Congress, that the question of the form of the measure would\\ncontrol?\\nIs it to be supposed for a moment that they supposed that that\\nwhich is essentially a treaty, and which they had provided should\\nbe made only by tlie President and the Senate, would be by any\\nspecies of legislative legerdemain converted into the form of a\\nstatute, and another power or department of the Government,\\nwhich had had distinct powers conferred ujion it and which liad\\nbeen denied this power, would usurp it and that its usurpation\\nwould be recognized?\\nMr. ELKINS. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to in-\\nterrupt him?\\nMr. BACON. Certainly.\\nMr. ELKINS. Does the Senator admit now that Congress can\\nadmit a State into the Union?\\nMr. BACON. Undoiibtedlv.\\nMr. ELKINS. And it adm itted Texas?\\nMr. BACON. Yes; but I will say to the Senator that I am com-\\ning to the distinct discussion of that branch of the case.\\nMr. ELKINS. I merely want to put this (luestion\\nMr. BACON. And I would be very glad if the Senator would\\npretermit the question until I reach that ])oint, and I shall be\\nvery happy at that time to take it up. I am now discussing an-\\nother line. I am coming to the question of tiie power to admit\\nStates, and that will be the time for the {jucstion.\\nMx ELKINS. Having it in mind now, I sliould like to ask why,\\nif it can admit a State, it can not admit anything less than a State;\\nsomething that is not a State?\\nMr. BACON. I am coming to that, and would be very glad if\\nthe Senator would repeat his question if I do not answer it before\\nI get through, because 1 do the Senator the justice to say tliat I\\nbelieve if I can possibly satisfy him of tlio unconstitutionality of\\nthe joint resolution lie will not vote for it, however much he may\\ndesire the anne.xatiou of Hawaii. It is true I am very much dis-\\n3oU5", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "8\\ncourap;ed by the fact that the Senator said to me, in private con-\\nversation, when I asked him if he was bound by the Constitution,\\nyes, as he interpreted it.\\nJMr. ELKINiS. No; now tell the v.-hole of it. I beg the Sena-\\ntor s pardoji. I said as the Supreme Court of the United States\\ninterpreted it and as I interpreted it.\\nMr. BACON. Very well.\\nMr. ELKINS. And not as the Senator interpreted it.\\nMr. TELLER. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me?\\nMr. BACON. Let me answer the Senator from West Virginia\\nfirst. If the Senator from West Virginia will stand to that prop-\\nosition, I Avill jjromise to show him a decision of the Supreme\\nCourt of the United States which says that the United States Grov-\\nemnient has no right\u00e2\u0080\u0094 I do not go so far as the Supreme Court go\\nin this particTilar, and I am merely stating this for the benefit of\\nthe Senator from West Virginia\u00e2\u0080\u0094 to annex territory which it does\\nnot intend to make into a State, and Senators themselves say they\\ndo not intend to make a State of Hawaii.\\nMr. ELKINS. You can not state what will be the intention of\\nthe Government a hundred years from now.\\nMr. BACON. I am not puttmg it on that ground at all. Now\\nI yield to the Senator from Colorado.\\nMr. TELLEE. The position of the Senator from West Virginia\\nis good Democratic doctrine, a doctrine which old Jackson pressed\\non the country with great force, that every Senator and every\\nRepresentativecould construe the Constitution as he understood it.\\nMr. BACON. Of course.\\nMr. TELLER. And it was his duty not to look to the Supreme\\nCourt of the United States, but to hisown judgment and conscience\\nin these matters.\\nMr. BACON. I am perfectly satisfied if that shall be the rule.\\nI was discouraged by the fact that the manner of the reply of the\\nSenator from West Virginia indicated that he would not be con-\\ntrolled by what some of the more distinctive lawyer members of\\nthe Senate might consider to be the law. He was going to take it\\ninto his own hands.\\nBut to return, I am coming to a discussion of the question, to\\nwhich I ask the attention of Senators, as to what the framers of\\nthe Constitution meant when they said treaties and what they\\nmust necessarily have meant. I asked the question whether it was\\npossible that the framers of the Constitution when they imt the\\nword treaties into the Constitution in this connection under-\\nstood that it simply meant an agreement or a negotiation piit in\\na certain form, and that if it were not put in that certain form,\\nit could be refined away and the exercise of the function could be\\nusurped by Congress which had been denied the right to make a\\ntreaty. I had asked that question when the Senator from West\\nVirginia interrupted me.\\nNow, Mr. President, has the word treaty a definite, well-fixed\\nmeaning? Is a treaty only that which is put in the form of a treaty\\nas we usually see it when submitted to the Senate on the part of the\\nPresident, or does a treaty mean a certain thing regardless of the\\nform? I say the latter. The distinction between a statute and a\\ntreaty does not depend on the form. A statute may be in various\\nforms. It may be in the ordinary form of a statute or in the form\\nof a joint resolution. One has the same effect as the other. A\\ntreaty dejiends for the fact that it is a treaty according to the sub-\\nstance of it and what it proposes to accomplish.\\n3505", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "Now, a statute is this: A statute is a rule of conduct laid down\\nby the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those\\nwithin the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the\\nCongress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who\\nis a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute\\ncan not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be\\nbinding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent\\nof the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their con-\\ngent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a\\ncertain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes\\nthe necessity for a treaty.\\nA treaty is that which is binding upon the people of two coun-\\ntries by mutual agreement that it shall be binding upon the two\\ncountries. A treaty is bimling on two countries because the au-\\nthority in each country undertakes that it shall be binding in its\\nparticular country, and that is the essential element and feature\\nof a treaty, that it is binding on two countries because the au-\\nthority wliich makes it binding is the particular authority in each\\ncountry, not having a general authority over both.\\nIf it were practicable for a statute to be made obligatory upon\\nthe citizens of another country, there would be no need of a treaty.\\nWe could simply enact what we wanted, and the people in the\\nother countrv would have to obey. But as we can not do it, we\\nhave to invoke the consent of the people or the authority in that\\nother country that they will also be bound by the same law, and\\nthat makes a treaty.\\nNow, Mr. President, I repeat possibly, but I desire to state it m\\nanother shape, that the distinction between a treaty and a statute\\nis this: The statute affects only the people within the jurisdiction\\nof the authority by Avhich it is enacted. There is no consent re-\\nquired on the part of those who are subject to such a statute. It\\nis made obligatory upon them by the authority of those who\\nenact it.\\nA treaty, on the other hand, is something which involves nego-\\ntiation with another country. It requires the consent of the duly\\nauthorized department in this GoYernment, and it also requires\\nthat they shall negotiate and obtain the consent of the power in\\nthe other Government. This is stated with very great clearness\\nin a report made by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations\\nin 1844\u00e2\u0080\u00941 have forgotten the number of the Congress\u00e2\u0080\u0094 when\\nit had under consideration the Texas resolutions. I will read\\nit. This is a definition of a treaty. I read from Senate Docu-\\nments, volume 3, 1844 and 1845. It is broken up so that the pages\\ncan not be told, as the documents are bound together, but it is\\nDocument No. 79, page 5 thereof; not the page of the volume.\\nBut let it be rememberecl\\nAnd I ask the attention of Senators now to this definition of a\\ntreat}\\non the other liand, that iilthough this treaty only arts for other powers\\nand in the sini, ular sphere of exterior concerns, within this sphere no ottior\\npower has privileso to intrude; the domain is all its own; in a property ex-\\nclusive. If the affair to bo accomplished bo exterior and requiro the inter-\\nvention of compact to accomplish it, hero with the treaty-making power is\\nthe office, and sole office, to accomplish it. No other power has privilege to\\ntouch.\\nI do not know whether or not I make my distinction clear, but\\nthe framers of the Constitution bad in view certain actions by\\nthis Government when they set up a distinct and separate de-\\npartment of Government for the making of treaties and when\\n3505", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "10\\nthey conferred upon that department exclusive power to make\\ntreaties; and I sng.u;est and urge as the crucial feature in this con-\\nsideration tiiat tlie framers of the Constitution necessarily, when\\nthey said that the President sliould have the power to make trea-\\nties with tlie consent of the Senate, meant to put within that de-\\npartment the power to conduct all negotiations between this\\ncountr}^ and another country, and to come to any agreement with\\nthat other country as to what should bo a rule of conduct between\\nthem.\\nIf that be true, necessarily everything which is of that nature,\\neverything which can be that and nothing else, iniist be the sub-\\nject-matter of a treaty. If not, as I have said before, the framers\\nof the Constitution made a great mistake when they unnecessarily\\njiut into the Constitution this machinery by which the power was\\nconferred upon the President of the United States, by and with the\\nadvice and consent of tlie Senate, to make treaties.\\nMr. President, I said that it was within the power of Congress\\nto nullify this provision of the Constitution in two ways, either\\nby directly making a treaty witli another foreign Government or\\nby putting into the shape of a statute that which in reality is a\\ntreaty. Let me illustrate as to the latter, because that is what is\\nattempted to be done here now. The attempt here is to make a\\ntreaty by statute. The treaty, as I understand it, which was pro-\\nposed and negotiated by the President of the United States with\\nthe authority of Hawaii, and all the reports in connection with it\\nhave been made public, so that I can with propriety speak of\\nthem liere.\\nA treaty was negotiated between the President of the United\\nStates and the Hawaiian Government. Why did the President\\nof the United States and the Hawaiian Government negotiate a\\ntreaty for the annexation of those islands? I hope Senators who\\nare considering this question and who propose to answer it will\\nconsider this particular featui-e of it. Why did the President of\\nthe United States negotiate with the Hawaiian Government by\\nmeans of a treaty for the annexation of those islands except that\\nthe President of the United States and the authorities of the\\nHawaiian Islands recognized that it was the proper subject-\\nmatter of a treaty?\\nWhy did the Senate of the United States, when the President\\nsubmitted the treaty here, undertake to consider it and to give its\\nconsent to the treaty which had been negotiated between the\\nPresident of the United States and the Hawaiian authorities?\\nWhy was it that it did not return it to the President and say\\nThis is not the subject-matter of a treaty, and we should not be\\nasked for our advice or consent? Simply because of the fact\\nthat the Senate of the United States, without exception, regard-\\nless of what the opinion of any Senator might bo on the merits,\\nrecognized that it was the proper subject-matter of a treaty.\\nAside from this direct recognition it comes within the general\\ndefinition of that which must be a treaty. It is to accomplish\\nsomething which can not be accomplished by the unaided act of\\nthe United States. It is to accomplish something which repiires\\nuot only the consent of the United States, but the consent of\\nHawaii, a7id therefore must be in its essence and in its character\\na treaty. And yet. Mr. President, as I have said, in the joint res-\\nolution now bolore the Senate there is an effort made to nullify\\nthis provision in the Constitution in the second of the methods\\nai05", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "11\\nwhich I suggested, to wit. in the method of putting in the form\\nof a statute that which of necessity can be nothing else but the\\nsubject-matter of a treaty.\\nMr. WHITE. If the Senator from Georgia will permit me, in\\nline with the point he is making, it may be that the ti-eaty was\\nsuggested because of the provision of the Hawaiian constitution,\\nfound in the thirty-second article of that instrument, which pro-\\nvides specifically for annexation to the United States by treaty,\\nwhich treaty, of course, has never been made.\\nMr. BACON. I understand that. I have no doubt that point\\nwill be fully brought out by the Senators who discuss the merits\\nof the question.\\nWhat is it that the House of Representatives has done? And I\\nsay the House of Representatives, not in any spirit of criticism of\\nit particularly, because the Senate, through its Foreign Relations\\nCommittee, had previously proposed the same thing. Here was\\nthe case of a treaty, which was not only recognized by both par-\\nties as a treaty and acted upon by both parties as a treaty, but\\nwhich, in its essence, must of necessity be a treaty, which was\\npractically abandoned in the Senate for the reason that in the\\nmanner and the method pointed out by the Constitution it could\\nnot be made law. The framers of the Constitution, in their wis-\\ndom, had provided that the Pi-esident of the United States should\\nmake a treaty if tvv^o-thirds of the Senators present concurred in it.\\nNow, whether wise or unwise, that is the law. If only a ma-\\njority concur, the treaty can not be made. Therefore the effect\\nof the failure in the Senate to ratify that treaty was the same as\\nthe failure of an attempted passage of a statute law. The friends\\nof annexation, seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in\\nthe manner pointed out by the Constitution, attempted then to\\nnullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in\\nthe form of a statute, and here we have embodied the provisions\\nof the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to us from the\\nHouse.\\nI will state the object I have in calling attention to this point.\\nIt is perfectly within the power of Congress\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and when I speak of\\nCongress in this discussion I mean the lawmaking power\u00e2\u0080\u0094 if it\\nhas a majority in each House, if it can pursue the method legally\\nwhich is sought to be pursued here, it is perfectly within the\\npower of Congress not only to nullify and destroy that provision\\nin the Federal Constitution, but to effect by statute any treaty\\nthat can not command a two-thirds vote in the Senate.\\nMr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator if he thinks\\nthere is any treaty that we can not annul by a direct act of Con-\\ngress?\\nMr. BACON. I do not. I have so stated already. But I ask\\nthe learned Senator\\nMr. TELLER. Then the legislative power can not be inferior\\nto the treaty-making power.\\nMr. BACON. The learned Senator has certainly not read the\\ndecisions of the Supreme Court on this subject.\\nMr. TELLER. I have.\\nMr. BACON. The law on the subject is not in doubt. I have\\nstated it already. The Senator probably did not hear it when I\\nfirst began.\\nMr. TELLER. Yes, I did.\\nMr. BACON. It was that the Supreme Court have decided\\n3o0o", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "12\\nthat a treaty and a statute were each supreme, and tbat when\\nthey came in conflict the latter woiild prevail as being of a later\\ndate; in other words, that a statute may be set aside by a treaty,\\nand a treaty may be set aside bj^ a statute.\\nMr. TELLER. I ask the Senator if that is not simply a recog-\\nnition of the statutory right to annul a treaty. We have done\\nthat repeatedly. It has been discussed here for daj s.\\nMr. EJAC ON. Nobody disputes that. And in the same way a\\nstatute can be annulled by a treaty.\\nMr. TELLER. I recall that the Senator from Oregon not now\\nhere. Mr. Mitchell, made perhaps a lialf day s argument on that\\nsubject to show by the authorities and by argument the absolute\\ncontrol of the legislative department over any treaty that might\\nbe made.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator and myself are not differing upon\\nthat point. I had announced that before he interru[)ted ine. I\\nsay that a treaty may be annulled by a statute, and I say also\\nthat a statute may be annulled by a treaty. Now, the point I\\nwant to call the Senator s attention to is that wliile a statute has\\nthe power to annul a treaty, and while a treaty has the power to\\nannul a statute, neither one of them has the power to usurp the\\nfunctions of the other. Let the Senator point out, if he can. any\\nauthority for that. In other words, while a treaty made by the\\nPresident and Senate can be annulled by an act of Congress,\\nthat does not imply that the treaty itself can be made by act of\\nCongress. They are two very different things. It can set the\\ntreaty aside, but it can not create a treaty.\\nMr. TELLER. That is right.\\nMr. BACON. That is right, the Senator says, and I am glad\\nthat we have gotten now on common ground. It can annul, it\\ncan destroy, but it can not create. Now, the point I want to call\\nthe attention of the Senator and the attention of the Senate to is,\\nthat if the joint resolution under consideration is constitutional,\\nit is within the power of Congress by such a joint resolution to\\ncreate a treaty.\\nMr. TELLER. There is just where the contention come? in.\\nMr. BACON. Of course; and I want to try to prove it, if the\\nSenator will permit me.\\nMr. TELLER. I say it is no assertion of the treaty-making\\npower, but clearly the legislative power. I want to call the\\nattention of the Senator to another point, if he will allow me.\\nHe has spoken of this treaty not having been ratified by the\\nSenate. He must remember very well that when the attempt\\nwas made to annex Texas to this country it absolutely failed.\\nThe Senate voted the treaty down and declared that they would\\nnot have the treaty.\\nMr. BACON. I am coming to that. I will read to the Sena-\\ntor all about that before I get thi-ough.\\nMr. WHITE. Congress did not rely upon a treaty. They did\\nnot consider it to be of any etl ect.\\nl\\\\Ir. TELLER. Of course; they voted it down.\\nMr. WHITE. You rely upon the treat} here.\\nMr. TELLER. We do not.\\nMr. BACON. 1 hope I may have the judicial ear of the Senator,\\nnot his controversial ear. I hope I may have the judicial ear of\\nthe Senator, because I wish to suggest, so far as I ani able, a logical\\npresentation of this matter. The Senator comes to the conclusion", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "13\\nwith me that while Congress in its lawmaking capacity may de-\\nstroy a treaty, it can not make a treaty. The Senator admits ithati.\\nMr. TELLER. I do not want the Senator to understand that\\nhe has first put that idea in my mind.\\nMr. BACON. Oh, no; by no means.\\nMr. TELLER. I have not come to that conclusion from any-\\nthmg in the Senator s argument. That is one of the things that\\nI think every ordinary lawyer in this body would recognize.\\nMr. BACON. Well, I am not claiming any very great origi-\\nnality m this matter, I am simply trying to suggest a view of it,\\nand, I hope, with becoming modesty; and I am not assuming to\\nbe suggesting anything which the Senator did not know before.\\nI am sorry, I say, that there is this contraversial spirit, because I\\nwas m hopes we might have a judicial consideration of this ques-\\ntion. If, therefore, not by reason of my argument, but by reason\\nof a fundamental principle which every ordinary lawyer recog-\\nnizes, it be true that Congress can not by statute make a treaty,\\nthen if this procedure is one by which Congress does make a treaty\\nthere is no answer to the proposition that it is unconstitutional. I\\npropose to show that by this process Congress does make a treaty;\\nand when Congress assumes to make a treatv, I sav it violates the\\nConstitution, and not only so, but it strikes a blow at one of the\\nfundamental and most important prerogatives of the President of\\nthe United States and also of the Senate.\\nNow, why do I say that if this method can be proceeded with\\nsuccessfully it does put within the power of Congress the oppor-\\ntunity to make a treaty? I will have to repeat a little in order to\\nshow it, because of the interruptions, to which I do not object.\\nI have called attention to the fact that here was the subject-matter\\nof a ti-eaty. It was a negotiation between this Government and\\nanother government. It was something which could not be made\\neffective by the independent action of this Government.\\nIt was something which required the action of this Government\\nand the reciprocal action of another government. And I say, rec-\\nognizing that to be a necessity, the President of the United States\\nand the Hawaiian authorities had, for the purpose of effecting it,\\nentered into a negotiation and had come to an agreement to make\\na treaty; that, recognizing it as a proper subject-matter of a treatv,\\nin obedience to the commands of the Constitution of the United\\nStates, the President sent the treaty to this body; and that this body,\\ncomposed as it is nine-tenths of lawyers, and some of them very\\ngreat lawyers, recognized it as a proper subject-matter of a treaty\\nand considered it for weeks and months as a treaty; whereas if it\\nhad not been the subject-matter properly of a treaty they would\\nhave refused to consider it; and that b-cause of the fact that\\nthey could not command the two-thirds majority required by\\nthe Constitution the treaty was abandoned, and the same treaty,\\nword for word, is embodied in a joint resolution passed by the\\nHouse of Representatives, and it comes here and we are asked that\\nwe shall pas.s it; and that that which would have been law as a\\ntreaty if it could have commanded two-thirds majority in this\\nbody, shall now become law in the absence of two-thirds bv virtue\\nof a majority vote in the House and the Senate, which is only\\nrequired for a statute, and which is not sufficient for a treatv.\\nNow, Mr. President, if that is effected, if the joint resolution\\nwhich has passed the House passes the Senate an l receives the\\napproval of the President, what has become lawV The treaty?\\n3505", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "14\\nYes, the treatj which could not command two-thirds A^ote here\\nhas, if it passes the Senate, become a law. Where is the answer\\nto the proposition that by so doing the Congress of the United\\nStates has made a treaty in totidem verbis the same as the treaty\\nwhich could not get a two-thirds vote in tlie Senate?\\nNow, Mr. President, that is not the only illustration. What is\\nsought to be done in this case can be done in any other case. We\\nliad before this body during two Congresses, the last Congress\\na;id a part of this, a treaty with (xreat Britain known as the arbi-\\ntration treaty, from which also the injunction of secrecy has been\\ntaken so far as the treaty itself is concerned and the fact that it\\nwas rejected ])y this body.\\nWhat prohibited tlie House of Representatives from taking that\\ntreaty and embodying it in a joint resolution, copying it word for\\nword, and sending it to the Senate; and if this joint resolution, by\\nreceiving a majority vote of the two Houses, can become a law,\\nwhat would have prevented the arbitration treaty from becoming\\na law when it had a majority vote in the House and the Senate, if it\\nhad been embodied in a joint resolution and had been approved by\\nthe President? Would not that have been making a treaty? Is\\nthere any other treaty which can be conceived of which, although\\nit has been rejected by the Senate, still, if it once had the assent\\nof the foreign power, could not be made into law in this country\\nby an act of Congress by copying it into a ))ill or joint resolution?\\nMr. HOAR. Would it disturb the Senator if I should ask him\\na question?\\nIMr. BACON. Not in the least.\\nMr. HOAR. It seems to me to touch the point of his entire\\nargument. Perhaps he will allow me to follow my question with\\na single illustration, so that it may be understood. I shall not\\ntake sixty seconds in doing so.\\nIs not the essence of a treaty the incurring an obligation to a\\nforeign nation? Therefore, if we choose to make a bargain with a\\nforeign state that we will annex it in future, that may be done by\\na treaty concurring in the obligation to a foreign nation. Biit if\\nwe strip it of all that and incur no obligation whatever to any\\nforeign nation, but only pass an act that a certain Territory shall\\ncome into the Union, it is only oi)erated upon; it conies in by its\\nconsent, as a domestic transacjtion.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator is speaking of the admission of a\\nState?\\nMr. HOAR. I will say Territory, which is the same thing. I\\nmean the admission of territory under our control. I do not speak\\nof annexing it to the United States. Let me repeat. I shall not\\ntake any time. Is it not the essence of a treaty, the incurring of\\nan obligation to a foreign country? And therefore, although the\\ntaking of territory under our dominion, not as a State, might be\\naccomplished by incurring an obligation to a foreign country to\\ndo it. if it can be done without that obligation, by a mere legis-\\nlative act. is not that valid legislation?\\nMr. BACON. I say the rule is very much broader than that\\nstated by the Senator. It is not simply the question of incurring\\nan obligation; it is the making of any agreement. It is an agree-\\n7nent by which bej ond the jurisdiction of a statute in this coun-\\ntry something is made lawful in another country; and whenever\\nit involves the absolute abnegation of authority in the foreign\\ncountry and the putting it under the authority of this country,\\nj j5", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "15\\nthat is certainly a most fundamental and vital agreement between\\nthe two.\\nMr. President, we could not annex Hawaii by a statute or bj- a\\njoint resolution if Hawaii had not consented. It would be brutum\\nfulmen unless we proposed to enforce it by war. We can only\\nannex Hawaii by a joint resolution or a statute in case Hawaii\\nhas herself assented to it. Therefore it involves a feature of ne-\\ngotiation, and necessarily the feature of agreement. Whenever\\nyou have the feature of negotiation. and of agreement you have\\nthe essential characteristics and (lualitics of a treaty, and when-\\never you have a treaty you have that which the Constitution says\\nmust be made in a particular way and which can not be made in\\nanother way.\\n]\\\\Ir. HOAR. Take the case of Texas.\\nMr. BACON. I will come to that. If I do not diifercntiate\\nTexas from this case. I will give up the question.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will the Senator permit me?\\nIMr. BACON. Certainly.\\nMr. PLATT of Counecticiit. The Senator seems to think that\\nthere can be no acquisition of territory without a treaty or by war.\\nMr. BACON. Yes, or by war.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. Suppose that, as on a former oc-\\ncasion, without any previous negotiation whatever, Hawaii had\\nmade a cession of her territory and sovereignty to the United\\nStates, does the Senator hold that Congress could not accept that?\\nMr. BACON. Most undoubtedly; it would reqiiire the treaty-\\nmaking power to do it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?\\nMr. BACON. Certainly.\\nMr. SPOONER. Only for information. The first line of the\\njoint resolution reads as follows:\\nThat said cession\\nMr. BACON. I have the joint resolution in my hand for the\\npurpose of reading that clause, but I am very glad to have the\\nSenator read it.\\nMr. SPOONER. Very well.\\nMr. BACON. No; go on. I insist that you go on.\\nMr. SPOONER. It reads:\\nTliat said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not disciissing this question.\\nMr. SPOONER. In other words, has there been any attempted\\ncession\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not discussing that.\\nMr. SPOONER. I have not finished my questson. Has there\\nbeen any attempted cession except by treaty? I understand my\\nfriend from Georgia is arguing the question whether Congress\\nhas the power to accept, ratify, and confirm a cession made by\\ntreatv not ratified by the Senate?\\nMr BACON. Yes, sir.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not as familiar with what\\nhas been done as the Committee on Foreign Relations, but I un-\\nderstand that there has been an offer to cede.\\nMr. SPOONER. An otter to cede is not a cession.\\nMr. PLATT of Connecticut. One moment. I was not discuss-\\ning this case particularly, but I was asking a question which, as\\n3oOG", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "16\\nit seemed to mo, went to the whole argument of the Senator from\\nGeorgia, wlicther if there should have been an actual cession\\nwithout any previous negotiation on the part of the United States\\nwe could not accept that without making a treat}-?\\nMr. FORAKER. IMr. President\\nMr. BACON. I will answer the Senator from Connecticut, hut\\nI yield to the Senator from Ohio.\\nMr. FORAKER. I am loath to interrupt the Senator, but I have\\nbeen desiring for some minutes since ho got on this proposition to\\nput a question to him. The question I desire to ptit is this:\\nWould it not l;e competent for the Congress of the United States\\nto prescribe by law certain terms and conditions upon which any\\nindependent government might come in and become a part of the\\nterritory of the United States by complying with the terms and\\nconditions prescribed by the Congress of the United States?\\nSuppose, for instance, to make plain what I have in my mind,\\nwe should provide that any independent people or government,\\ndoing what this preamble recites the people of Hawaii have done,\\nshould, upon complying with certain conditions, those and others\\nthat we might see fitto make, become a part of our territory,\\nthey notifying us that they had comx lied with all the terms and\\nconditions, could we not thereupon declare them to be annexed\\nand make them a part of the territory of the United States, and\\nwould not that be a more competent power for the Congress than\\nit would be for the treaty -making power?\\nMr. BACON. You can do that if you absolutely nullify the\\nprovision of tlie Constitution which says that a treaty shall bo\\nmade in another way.\\nMr. FoKAKER rose.\\nMr. BxVCON. Now. if the Senator will pardon me.\\nMr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me just one word\\nfurther. I agree with almost all he has said; but at the point\\nwhere I differ from him the difference becomes vital. I think\\nthat when you make a compact with a foreign jiower it must be\\nin the natiiVe of a treaty, but that contemplates the continued ex-\\nistence of the foreign power. Therefore, if a foreign power were\\nby agreement to cede to us a part of its territory upon certain\\nterms and conditions agreed upon, it would necessarily have to\\nbe done by treaty.\\nBut where the whole foreign country comes in and ceases to be\\nan independent power, as is proposed in this case, it is not prop-\\nerly done by treaty, or at least not so properly l)y a treaty, I will\\nput it. as by an act of Congress in the nature of legislation. That\\nwas the case with Texas. She had ceased to be a part of Mexico;\\nshe had acquired her independence; she was an independent Re-\\npublic: she had a right to stipulate for herself, and she stipulated,\\namong other things, that she would cease to be as an independent\\npower, and therefore she could accept a treaty or she coukl come\\nin by the door of legislation. While the treaty-making power\\nmight l;e properly invoked, this other power is equally so.\\nMr. BACON. i\\\\Ir. President, I am endeavoring to present with\\nsome degree of sequence, if possible, an argument. It is mani-\\nfestly impossible for me to do so if I am interrupted by Senators,\\nnot for the purpose of a question, btit for purposes of inter.iecting\\narguments. I do not think I can be accused of being unwilling to\\nhave interru])tions, but I will ask Senators to permit me to pursue\\nthe argument with some degree of continuity, and when 1 have\\n3rm", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "17\\nreached a stopping place at any particular division I shall be mora\\nthan happy to yield for any question Senators may wish to ask.\\nMr. FORAKER. I hope the Senator will not think that I was\\nundertaking to do more tiian make plain to him wliat was in my\\nmind.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator s interruption was very much less\\nthan that of some others.\\nMr. FORAKER. I wished the Senator to know while he was\\non the floor what I had in mind.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator from Ohio makes a verv important\\nconcession, and if he stands by that I think he will be bound to\\nvote against this joint resolution. Tlie Senator from Ohio con-\\ncedes that if the purpose were to cede to this Government a ])art\\nof the territory of another government it must necessarily be in\\nthe form of a treaty, but that if the purpose is to cede the entire\\ncoimtry a treaty is not necessary.\\nMr. President, I am utterly unable to see the force of that ar-\\ngument. It is in either case an agreement by which sovereignty\\nexisting over certain territory is abandoned, or rather annulled,\\nand by which the sovereignty of this country is given to it. Why\\nshould the change of sovereignty as to a part be the subject-matter\\nof negotiation and the change of sovereignty as to the whole be\\nnot the subject-matter of negotiation?\\nMr. FORAKER. In a word I can answer that. Because there\\nis no continuance of a compact. The whole thing is at an end by\\nits consummation.\\nMr. BACON. I do not agree with the Senator, for this reason:\\nThe vital essence by which this agreement is made binding is not\\nthat anything is enacted in this country which can have force\\nthere, but it is because by an agreement in consideration that it\\nshall have force there we say it shall have force here.\\nBut, Mr. President, I was on a practical point, and I want the\\nconsideration of Senators to it. The Constitution has clothed us\\nwith the high function, in conjunction with the President, of\\nmaking a certain class of laws, which the Constitution says shall\\nbe supreme, to wit, treaties. Now, if this joint resolution can be\\nlegally passed, constitutionally passed, I submit the proposition as\\none which can not be successfully answered, that there is no treaty\\nrejected by the Senate because of a lack of two-thirds vote, if the\\nforeign government had given its assent thereto, as it has done here,\\nor as it did in the arbitration treaty, which could not be made\\nlaw by the enactment of a statute in the Houi-eof Representatives\\nand in the Senate and by it being signed by the President. I see\\nthe Senator from Colorado assents to that.\\nMr. TELLER. 1 do not know that I assent to it: but I do not\\nthink that the fact that that can be done is anv argument.\\nMr. BACON. That may be. We shall see whether it is an ar-\\ngument or not. But. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators, if\\nthere is any treaty which could be entered into between the Presi-\\ndent and a foreign government, which, wlien it failed to receive a\\ntwo-thirds vote in the Senate, could not bo mule law by tliis\\nprocess, although it could not command a two-thirds vote in the\\nSenate, I want Senators to point it out. If there is anv trcatv\\nwhich can be devised which can not command a two-thirds vdte\\nin the Senate, which can command a majority in the Senate, which\\ncan not be made a law by this procc.-^s, Iwant Senators to suagest\\nwhat that treaty is.", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "18\\nWhat does that lead ns to, Mr, President? If it be true that\\nwhenever a treaty fails to get two-thirds majority in the Senate,\\nbut can command a majority here and also command a majority\\nin the House of Representatives and command the approval of\\nthe President\u00e2\u0080\u0094 if it be true that such a treaty, although it can not\\nbe enacted or made in the v^^ay the Constitution provides, can be\\nmade in the way of putting it in the form of a statute or of a joint\\nresolution, do we not, when we give our assent to such a proposi-\\ntion, absolutely surrender the power which the Constitution con-\\nfers upon us for the making of treaties?\\nMr. President, what does that load to? The Senator from Colo-\\nrado said he did not know that that would be any argument\\nagainst the proposition. It leads to this: The President of the\\nUnited States is the Executive, clothed with the power to make\\ntreaties. It can not possibly be denied that it was the contempla-\\ntion of the Constitution that no treaty should be made which was\\nnot initiated by him. Is there any denial of that proposition? If\\nso, let Senators, when they come to speak, answer it. It was the\\ndesign of the Constitution that every treaty should be made by\\nthe President and should be initiated by him, and it was the de-\\nsign of the Constitution and the command of the Constitution that\\nthere should be no treaty which did not have his approval; and\\nyet, if this can be done, the House of Representatives can orig-\\ninate a treaty.\\nThe House of Representatives, when England, for instance, has\\nsignified her assent by an act of Parliament, or in any other way,\\ncan pass a joint resolution sa5ang there shall be such and such an\\nagreement between this country and another country. It can pass\\nthe House of Representatives; it can come to the Senate: it can\\nreceive a majority of each; and it can go to the President and re-\\nceive his disapproval. It can go back to the House of Representa-\\ntives and get two-tliirds in that body, and come to this body and\\nget two-thirds in this body, and we have a treaty absolutely over\\nand above the consent of the President.\\nDo not let Senators conf iise this proi^osition. It can not be said\\nthat at last it would rest with the President wliether he would\\nproclaim that treaty, because, if this form is adopted, it becomes\\nlaw, and law binds the President as well as everj body else.\\nWhenever he disapproves it, and it is ])assed by a two- thirds vote\\nof the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote of the Sen-\\nate, it is a law which binds him, and it would be an impeachable\\noffense in him if he refused to carry it out.\\nOn the contrary, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution,\\nhe is part of the treaty-making power. A treaty is not obligatory\\nuntil he himself proclaims it as a treaty. It may be even ratified\\nby the Senate and he can withdraw his approval, for there is\\nnothing that makes it law until he does proclaim it; but when\\nyou put it in the form of a joint resolution or a statute it becomes\\nlaw whenever it has what the Constitution says shall be requisite\\nto make a law, and it is then as binding on him as on anyone else.\\nSo I say there is no escape from the proposition that if that which\\nin its essential character is a treaty can be enacted in the form of\\na statute or a joint resolution, it is perfectly practicable to have a\\ntreaty in its essence and substance which the President of the\\nUnited States not oidj has not initiated, not only has not approved,\\nbut which he has distinctly disapproved.\\nMr. President, I am defending this great prerogative of the\\n3505", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "19\\nPresident as well as that of the Senate. His is the principal pre-\\nrogative, and the pvoro.i^^alive of the Senate is an incident to it.\\nIt this precedent can be established, it will return in an evil hour\\nto plague the President as well as the Senate.\\n]Mr. President, this is a very serious consideration; and it is the\\nduty ot all of us to maintain every provision in the Constitution\\nIt IS doubly the duty of Senators to see that they do not absolutely\\nabdicate the power which the Constitution confers on the Senate-\\nand I can not, for tlie life of me, see any escape from the argu-\\nment that, if this method is constitutional, then, wherever the\\nassent of a foreign government can be gotten in another way,\\npractically a treaty can be made without the consent of two-thirds\\nof this bod}\\\\\\nMr. President, I want to read what a great man said on this\\nsubject. It IS not simply the fact that we abdicate our power- it\\nIS not Simply the fact that we fail to maintain the authority which\\nthe_ Constitution gives us; it is the fact that if we permit that\\nwhich is m substance a treaty to be enacted bv anything less than\\ntwo-thirds in this body, we violate a great ]n-inciple of the Consti-\\ntution and we violate the rights of the States stipulated for when\\nthey entered the Federal Union.\\nI propose to read what George Washington said about it The\\nHouse of Representatives called upon President Washington in\\n1796 to lay before the House copies of instructions to the ministers\\not the United States who had negotiated a treaty with Great\\nBritain, and the President, replying to the House of Representa-\\ntives, asserts the power of the President and of the Senate to the\\nexclusive control of all matters which are treaties, and gives the\\nreasons for it. I read from the first volume of Messages and Pa-\\npers of the Presidents, by Richardson, page 194:\\nUnited States, March jo, UOG.\\nTo the House of Rei)rcsentaiives of the United States:\\nWith the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the 24th\\ninstant, requesting mo to lay before your House a copy of the instructions to\\nthe minister of the Lnitcd States who negotiated the treaty with the King\\not Great Bntaui, together with the correspondenee and other documents\\nrelative tc5 that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing\\nnegotiation may render improper to bo disclosed. Jo\\nIn deliberating upon this suoject it was impossible for me to lose sight of\\nthe principle which some have avowed in it.s discussion, or to avoid extendine\\nmy views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that\\nThe very principle now under discussion.\\nI trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to with-\\nhold any information which the Constitution has enioinod upon the Presi-\\ndent as a duty to give or which could bo rci|uin,Ml of him by either House of\\nCongress .as a right; and with truth I aihrm that it has been, as it will con-\\ntinue to bo while 1 have the honor to preside in the Government, my con-\\nstant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches ther.-of so far .as the\\ntrust delegated to me by the people of the United States and my sense of tho\\nwni^KM-mt to preserve, protect, and defend tho Constitution\\nThe nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their succc.-w\\nmust often depend on secrecy; ;uid even when brought to a c.nclusion a full\\ndisclosure ot all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which mav\\nhave been propcsed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic, for this\\nmight have a pernicious influence on future n( gotiations or i)rodnce immedi-\\nate inconvcnieiK-os, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers\\nIhe necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reas,)n for vest-\\ning tho power of m.aking treaties in the President, with the advice and con-\\nt!^ J. tj l -il lo on whi.-h that body was formed confining it\\nto a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the Hou.se of Rep-\\nresentativos to demand and to have, as u matter of course, all the i)anei-s re-\\n3505", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "20\\nspectingr a negotiation witli a foreign power would be to establish a danger-\\nous precedent.\\nIt does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can berehitivo\\nto any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, ex-\\ncoi)t that of an impeachment, which the resolution has not expressed. 1\\nrepeat that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the\\nduty of my station will permit or the public good shall require to bo dis-\\nclosed; and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Brit-\\nain were laid before the Senate when the treaty itself was communicated\\nfor their consideration and advice.\\nMr. President,! ask the attention of every Senator to what I am\\nnow about to read, becanse that which is to follow is that which\\nI had in view when 1 proposed to read this communication to the\\nSenate:\\nThe course which thedobate hastakon on the resolution of the House leads\\nto Komo observations on the mode of making treaties under the Constitution\\nof the United States.\\nHaving been a member of the general convention, and knowing the prin-\\nciples on which the Constitution was formed, 1 have ever entertained but\\none opinion on this subject: and from the first establishment of the Govern-\\nment to this moment my conduct has exemplified that opinion\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that the\\n)iower of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with\\nthe advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators\\npre.sent concur; and that every treaty so made and promulgated thencefor-\\nward became the law of the land.\\nIt is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign\\nnations, and in all the treaties made with them we have declared and they\\nhave believed that, when ratified by the President, with the advice and con-\\nsent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the\\nConstitution, every House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced, and\\nuntil the present time not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my knowl-\\nedge, that this construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than\\nacquiesced; for till now, without controverting the obligation of such treat-\\nies, they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.\\nThere is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opin-\\nions entertained by the State conventions when they were deliberating on\\nthe Constitution, especially by those who objected to it because there was not\\nI cquired in commercial treaties the consent of two-thirds of the whole num-\\nber of the members of the Senate, instead of two-thirds of the Senators pres-\\nent, and because in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rigiits\\nand claims the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole number of the\\nmembers of both Houses, respectively, was not made necessary.\\nAs stated by him, some States objected to the ratification of the\\nConstitution because when it came to the question of the acqui-\\nsition of territory the votes of three-fourths both of the Senate\\nand of the House of Representatives were not required. Then he\\ngoes on to say:\\nIt is a fact declared by the general convention and universally understood\\nthat the Constitution of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity\\nand mutual concession; and it is well known that under this influence the\\nfimaller States were admitted to an equal repre.sentation in the Senate with\\nthe larger Statng, and that this branch of the Government was invested with\\ngi-eat powers, for on the equal participation of those powers the sovereignty\\nand political safety of the smaller States were deemed essentially to depend.\\nIf other proofs than these and the plain letter of the Constitution itself be\\nnecessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be foundin\\nthe jfiuriials of the general convention, which I have deposited in the office\\nof the Department of State. In those journals it will appear that a pronosi-\\ntion was made that no treaty should be binding on the United States which\\nwas not ratified by a law, and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.\\nIn other words, it appears by the journals of the convention\\nwhich framed the Constitution of the United States that there\\nwas a proposition that if the President and the Senate made a\\ntreaty it should not be binding until an act of Congress approved it,\\nand that proposition was explicitly rejected. That is what George\\nWashington said about it.", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "21\\nThe concluding sentence is as follows:\\nAs^ therefore.it is perfe-ctly dear to my iniderstandincj that the assent of\\nthe House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty\\nas the treaty with Ureat Britain exhihits in itself all the objects reriuiriiiff\\nlegislative provision, and on these the pajx-rs called for can throw no lii, ht\\nand as It IS essential to the due administration of the Government tliat tho\\nboundaries fixed by the Constitution between tho different departments\\nshould be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to tho duty of mv\\noflice, under all the circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with\\nyoiir request.\\nGO. WASHIXGTON.\\nMr. President, I desire that Senators will mark the peculiar\\nsignificance of this utterance by Washington. The distinct ques-\\ntion which he was having under consideration was whether tho\\nHouse of Eepresentatives had the right to any consideration\\nwhatever of the subject-matter of a treatv. They had called oa\\nhmi for information with reference to a treaty, and he had stated\\nto them, practically, Jt is none of your business; that is a mat-\\nter which belongs to the President and to the Senate, and does\\nnot belong to the House of Representatives.\\nI confess that I am utterly unable to understand how anvone\\ncan possibly get away from the proposition which I have submit-\\nted, which is, that if what is here contended for is legal, whenever\\na treaty is rejected by the Senate because it can not get a two-thirds\\nvote, and whenever the project can command the assent of a for-\\neign government, a majority of the Senate and a majority of the\\nHouse of Ptepresentatives, with the approval of the President, any\\ntreaty thus rejected by two-thirds of the Senate can be enacted\\ninto law. If that is so, the provision in the Constitution which\\ngives to the President and two-thirds of the Senate the treaty-\\nmaking power is not worth the paper or the ink which it has taken\\nto express it; it can be nullified at will.\\nMr. President, It is contrary to every rule of construction that\\nsucn a construction shall be put upon anv constitutional provi-\\nsion as will enable it to be utterly nullified and made of no effect.\\nThe strongest argument which you can make against any con-\\nstruction of any provision of any constitution or any law is that\\nthat construction -^vill nullify it.\\nA great many people, ofBcials and others, have jumped to a con-\\nclusion as to the power of Congress on what occurred in the ad-\\nmission of the State of Texas. There is no doubt tliat Texas was\\nadmitted by a joint resolution, but it is equally undoubted that it\\nwas admitted under the express grant of power in the Constitution\\ngiven to Congress to admit new States, and that the claim that\\nthere was no power in Congress to negotiate what in substance\\nwould be a treaty was absolutely disavowed by the men who wero\\nmost prominent in effecting it.\\n_ I have here the Congressional Globe, in which there is a discus-\\nsion in the Senate at the time the resolutions were under consid-\\neration for the admission of Texas as a State. I read from the\\nspeech of Robert J. Walker, of Mis. ?issippi, who was not only a\\nvery able man, so recognized throughout the length and breadth\\nof this country, a man of very great learning, of admitted promi-\\nnence, but one of the most earnest advocates for the passage of\\nthe resolutions by wliich Texas was admitted into \\\\hc Un:ou. I\\nread from the Congressional Globe, second session Twontv-cighth\\nCongress, page 24(j:\\nMr. Walker said that he was re.ioiccd that the great American que.stion of\\nthe reannexatioii of Texas was being ])re.-:euted on nil hands ou the grounds\\n350", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "22\\n(in which it was placed originally Ijy him (Mr. Walker) in hLs Texas letter of\\nthe 8th of January, 1844.\\nHo (Mr. V. alker) then proposed, more than a year since, to admit Texas\\nas a Stat 3 of the Union by the action of Coni^ress under that clanso of the\\nConstitntion which authorizes Congress to admit new States into the I ^niou.\\nThati-lauso was not confined to our then existing territory, hut was without\\nlimitation; and the framers of the Constitution had expressly i-ofused to\\nlimit tlie goiicral power contained in this clau.so to the territory then em-\\nluftced within the Union.\\nThe general power, then, was in express words, and no man has a right to\\ninterpolate restrictions, and especially restricti ms which the framers of tho\\nConstitution had rejected. But when this mode of admitting Texas as a\\nState bv Congress was suggested by him (Mr. Walker) in January, 1.S44, ho\\nwas held up as the author of a new proposition, unwarranted by authority\\nor precedent. Sir, said Mr. W., Mr. Madison, one of tho principal founders\\nof tho Constitution, had expressly sanctioned this mode of admitting States\\nby Congress out of foreign territory: and one of the most distinguished\\njudges of the Supreme Court of tho United States had expressed a similar\\nopinion, all which ho (Mr. W.) would show in due time. This opinion was\\nalso supported by numerous precedents.\\nNorth Carolina, Vermont, Rhode Island, and the Florida parishes of Loui-\\nsiana were admitted into the Union as Statesor parts of foreign States by the\\naction of Congi-ess alone. In the case of Rhode Island, she was not repre-\\nsented in the convention which framed the Constitution of the Union, and\\nafter tho ratification of the Constitution she became the foreign State. Sho\\nwas treated as such by Congress for several years, and duties were imposed\\nupon goods imported from Rhode Island into the Union.\\nSho was treated in every respect as a foreign state, and by the adoption of\\ntho Constitution and her withdrawal from the confederacy she became a for-\\neign state and was admitted as such by Congress, being the same question, so\\nfar as constitutional power is concerned, whether sho had been a foreign\\nstate two years or two hundred years, when she was admitted by Congres as\\na State of the Union.\\nI read on page 3GI of the same volume from Mr. Buclianan:\\nMr. Buchanan said ho might have assumed the privilege of i-eply which\\nlieloiiged to him from tho position he occupied on the Committee on Foreign P\\nRelations, but he waived it. Not because the arguments on the other side\\nhad not been exceedingly ingenious and plausible and in-ged with great abil-\\nitv, but because ail tho reasoning and ingenuity in the world could not abol-\\nish the T)lain lauijuago of the Constitution, which declared that New States\\nmight b\u00c2\u00ab! admitted bv Congress into the Union. But what new States?\\nTho convention had answered that question in letters of light by rejecting\\ntho proposed limitation of this grant which would have confined it to States\\nlawfully arising within tho United States. The clause was introduced with\\nthis limitation^ and after full disctission, it ended in tho shape it now held,\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0without limitation or restriction of any kind. This was a historical fact.\\nMr. Prcsiilent, I could go on and cite innumerable utterances\\nfrom the Senators and Representatives who were active in that\\ndebate to show that while in some instances there were proposi-\\ntions looking to enact what really would have been a treaty be-\\ntween the United States and the Republic of Texas, they were all\\nabandoned, and the advocacy of them was abandoned and the ad-\\nmission of Texas put exclusively on the groimd that she was ad-\\nmitted as a State under the provision in the Constitution which\\nspecifically authorizes Congress to admit States.\\nThe President and two-thirds of the Senate could not admit a\\nState. A State could not be admitted by treaty. A State can\\nonly be admitted by act of Congress, and the Congress of the\\nUnited States in passing the law Avhich did admit Texas did not\\nannex Texas and did not acquire one single foot of foreign terri-\\ntory. It admitted Texas as a State, and Texas herself reserved\\nevery inch of territory within her borders.\\nTliis question was again under consideration twenty-five years\\nafter that in this Cliamlier. That discrission occurrecl in the old\\nChamber, ])ut in this Chamber twenty-five years ago or more,\\ntwenty-eight years ago, when there were as great lawyers in this\\n3y)o", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "body as ever graced it, tins very question was ajrain under dis-\\ncussion, v. heu the qi-ostion of the annexation of Santo Domingo\\nwas before the Senate.\\nThere had been a treaty negotiated by the President with the\\nDominican Government which had been rejected by the Senatei,\\nand the President had sent a message to Congress in which, while\\nhe did not recommend the annexation of the island, he used lan-\\nguage that indicated that such was the design; and upon a reso-\\nlution which was introduced to send commissioners for the pur-\\npose of getting certain information this debate came up. and this\\nquestion was discussed by the great lawyers then in the Senate as\\nto whether or not by joint resolution foreign territory could be\\nannexed.\\nIn the Senate were such men as Carpenter and Conklin and\\nThurman and Edmunds and Morton and Garret Davis and Sum-\\nner, and every utterance that there was, was either in accordance\\nwith the doctrine which I have stated here or else was an utter\\nfailure to accept the challenge when it was laid down to them\\nthat that was the doctrine.\\nMr. President, what was good law in 1844 and 1870 is good law\\nnow. What such men as Carpenter and Sumner and Edmunds\\nand Thurman thought to be good law we can not go far astray in\\nrecognizing as good law, for I repeat no greater lawj ers have ever\\nbeen members of the Senate of the United States. 1 do not pre-\\ntend that each one of the lawyers whose names I have mentioned\\ngave distinct utterance to the proposition I make, but I do say\\nthat it was given distinct utterance in the debate, and that in that\\ndebate Thurman, Garret Davis, Sumner, Morton, Edmunds, and\\nTiTimbull all participated.\\nNot only were they present but they participated in the debate,\\nand while the doctrine was boldly avowed by some, it was denied\\nby none and taken issue with by none. I read from the Con-\\ngressional Globe, part 1, third session, Forty-first Congress, page\\n19:3, what Judge Thurman said on the subject. If ever there was\\na man in this Chamber who was recognized by everybody, not only\\nin this body but outside, as a great lawyer that man was Thurman.\\nIf ever there was a man who cast a doubt on the question as to\\nhis standing in the very front rank of lav/yers I never heard him.\\nHere is what he said:\\nMr. THURiFAX. I believe, sir. it is proper enough for me to say, for I think\\nthe President himself says it in his annual message, that a treaty was negoti-\\nated for the annexation of Dominica to the United States, and that that treaty-\\nfailed to receive the requisite votes in favor of its ratifiiatimi, thus disclos-\\ning the fact that between the President of the United States and tlie Senato\\nthere is a direct opposition of opinion upon the subject of this acquisition.\\nCertainly directly parallel to the case we now have before us.\\nNow, not willing to defer to the opinion of the Senator\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and I do not say\\nthat in order to blame him; ho has a right to his own opinion\u00e2\u0080\u0094 the President,\\nwith very great earnestness, urges upon Congi ess and upon the country the\\ndesirableness of tliis acquisition, and ho goes so far as to suggest tho mode by\\nwhich Ddininica may be annexed. Seeing that it is not liliely to 1)0 annexed\\nunder tlie treaty making power for want of the ro iuisite support in the Sen-\\nate, he suggests that it may bo annexed by .ioint rt snlution. as in tho case of\\nTexas; and it is with a view to carry out, no doubt, the wislies or (ii)iui()ns of\\nthe President in this particular that the Senator from Indiana has introduced\\nthe joint resolution.\\nI repeat that tlie joint resolution which was introduced was not\\nfor annexation, but for the purpose of sending jvarties thereto get\\ninformation. The discussion, however, proceeded upon the ground\\nthat that was the object.\\n3:0", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "24\\nMr. PASCO. A i)reliniinary step to it.\\nMr. BACON. A preliminary step to it, and, therefore, Mr. Tluir-\\nnian conies to the discussion as to whether or not that conkl be\\ndone. If it coukl not be done, why the preliminary step? He was\\nopposing the preliminary step.\\nNow, the first tliinpr that strikes mo is this: Is the Senate ready to recede\\nfriim its position? Is the Senate \u00e2\u0096\u00a0williii.i? to ratify a treaty for the annexation\\nof Dominica, or is the Senate ready to annex Dominica by joint resolution?\\nAnd in that connection 1 beg leave to call the attention of the Senate to the\\nfuct-\\nListen. This is what Thurman, this great lawyer, said:\\nAnd in that connection I beg leave to call the attention of the Senate to\\nthe fact that you can not by joint resolution annex Dominica as a Territory;\\nyou must annex her as a State if vou annex her by joint resolution. There\\nis no clause in the Constitution o f the United States that provides for the\\nacquisition of territory bv joint resolution of Congress unless it be one single\\nprovision, and that is that the Congress may admit new States into the Union.\\nAnd it was upon the argument that there was no limitation upon that power\\nto admit now States into the Union, that it was not limited to territory be-\\nlonging to the United States, but that territory belonging to a foreign power\\nmight be admitted into the Union as a State.\\nI am now answering the question of the Senator from West Vir-\\nginia [Mr. ElkixsJ by reading to him what Mr. Thurman said.\\nIt was upon that doctrine that the resolution in the case of Texas was\\npassed. But no one has ever pretended\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThis is very strong language, because he had reference to the\\nformer debate in 18-14\\nthat you could by joint resolution annex territory as a Territory without\\nadmitting it as a State. Then, if a treaty is to be abandoned, the proposition\\nwhich is before the Senate is, Is this Senate prepared to annex Dommica in\\nits present condition?\\nNobodv, I think, has the least idea that any treaty for its annexation can\\nbe ratitied. This Senate is not so ignorant that it did not know every essen-\\ntial thing in this resolution when it voted on the treaty. It would be to stul-\\ntify ourselves to say that there is one single material inquiry in all this reso-\\nlution that was not known to the Senate when it voted on the treaty; and\\nunless the Senators who were opposed to that treaty are willing to recede\\nfrom their opposition and ratify a treaty that may be formed, it follows that\\nthis resolution can only bo put forward with the view of annexing Dominica\\nby joint resolution, and that, as I said before, you can not do unless you are\\nwilling to take her in as a State.\\nThat is what Allen G. Thurman said in this Chamber in the\\nyear 1870.\\nI say again that no man on this floor, I think, has the least idea that a\\ntreaty of annexation can receive the requisite number of votes for its ratifi-\\ncation, and therefore\u00e2\u0080\u0094 and 1 can not, perhaps, repeat it too oftea- the only\\nquestion is, Will you annex Dominica as a State?\\nIn the same debate Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, on the same\\nday used language which I will quote. I ask the attention of\\nSenators particularly to this, because Garrett Davis, in the course\\nof his speech, said he was a member of the House at the time the\\nTexas resolution was passed. I read now from the same volume,\\npage 195:\\nThe question so remained, and that was the judgment of the American\\npeople until the propositior. to annex Texas was presented to the consideration\\nof Congress and the people of the United States. There was a treaty first\\nnegotiated by Mr. Calhoun for the acquisition of Texas, and that treaty was\\nlaid by President Tyler before the Senate for its action, either of ratification\\nor rejection. The treaty was rejected by the action of the Senate. After\\nthat action a joint resolution was intro luc(vl to annex Texas as a State ot the\\nUnion-not as a Territory, but as a State of the Union; and the only power\\n3o )3", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "25\\nthat was relied upon to antliorizc Congress to ndmit Texas was that single\\nprovision of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to admit States into\\nthis Union. It was my fortune at that time to be a member of the House of\\nKepresentativcs.\\nGoing on, tlien, to discuss tlie message of the President, and\\ncoming to the point that he really attempted to annex it by joint\\nresolution, Senator Davis used this language, on the same page:\\nThat is the purpose of the President; that is liis recommendation; that is\\nhis proposition. It is in furtherance of that proposition, as I understand,\\nthat this joint resohition has been introduced. It is simply to take up this\\nfurtive, uncoustitTitional project of the President, to be elfected without\\nauthority of the Constitution, and perverting and usurping its powers by\\nCongress assuming the prerogative of the treaty-making power in admitting\\ninto the Union as a Territory territory that now forms part of a foreign\\ncountry. It is to forward and give impetus, strength, and power to this\\ncovert and monstrous proposition that this resolution is introduced.\\nAre Senators ready to subordinate the power of tlie Senate to such a pur-\\npose, to suchaproject? Suppose the honorable Senator from Indiana should\\nintroduce a joint resolution to-morrow that the country called Dominica, a\\npart of the island of San Domingo, be, and the same is hei-eby. annexed to the\\nUnited States of America as a part of the Territory thereof\\nJust the resolution you have here\\nwhere is the Senator-\\nSaid this Senator, speaking in the presence of such men as those\\nwhose names I have called here to-daj-\\nWhere is the Senator who would stand up and avow his willingness to\\nsupport such a proposition?\\nAnd nobody answered then or at any other time in that debate.\\nIt was denounced, scouted, and yet there was no man in the Sen-\\nate at that day who would say he favored such a proposition or\\nwould defend the right of the House of Representatives and the\\nSenate to pass a law under such circumstances and to such effect.\\nAnd j-et it is to forward this monstrous proposition, to give it strength\\nand a better chance of success; it is to minister to the pet project of tho\\nPi-esideut that, I understand, this resolution will operate. I do not say that\\nthat is tho motive with which it is introduced; but I say that will be the\\neffect, and the only effect, of the passage of such a resolution.\\nMr. STEWART. From whom does the Senator read?\\nMr. BACON. From the speech of Garrett Davis. 1 had read\\npreviously from the speech of Allen G. Thurman. The Senator\\nfrom Nevada was not present.\\nMr. STEWART. I can cite the Senator to others.\\nMr. BACON. I have no doubt the Senator would be very much\\nedified by reading them, and if the Senator had pointed them out\\nto me before I began I would have taken pleasure in reading\\nthem; but as it is I have trespassed so largely upon the time of\\nthe Senate that I hope that will be allowed to pass by.\\nMr, STEWART. They are not in line with the Senator s argu-\\nment.\\nMr. BACON. I presume the Senator will read them. He read\\nus a book the other day.\\nWhy should gentlemen who believe that tho Constitution does not author-\\nize such a resolution as that\u00e2\u0080\u0094 to acquire foreign territory, not to admit it as\\na State into the Union, but simply to acquire foreign territory\u00e2\u0080\u0094 why should\\ngentK iiicn who maintain the position that Congress has no such ]iower give\\nthis resolution the least counteiiance, when its only object is to effect such a\\nmonstrous and unconstitutional project?\\nI repeat that the debate that day was participated in by Thur-\\nman, Davis, Suiiiner, Morton, Edmunds, and Trumbull, and that\\n3505", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "26\\nin tlio face of .such enunciation and in the face of such denuncia-\\ntion tliere was no man in the Senate to rise up and say, You are\\nwrong: we can do this by joint resolution. On the contrary,\\ntlioy all acquiesced in it.\\nThere is a very significant fact connected with this matter.\\nThis, as was stated by Garret Davis, was a pet project of the\\nPresident of the United States. That President was Ulysses S.\\nGrrant, the very idol of the country at that time certainly. In this\\nbody were those who were his extreme partisans, and yet while\\nthe suggestion that it was his jmrpose to have a joint resolution\\npassed to annex Dominica was denoimced in this body, we do not\\nfind one single man who would defend the doctrine that there\\ncould be any right by a joint resolution to annex Dominica.\\nMr. TELLER. It was denied that there was any such proposi-\\ntion.\\nMr. BACON. The Senator from Colorado certainly is not can-\\ndid in that suggestion. The proposition before the Senate was\\nwhat was stated by Mr. Thurman to be a preliminary step to that\\nproposition. It was avowed by Mr. Thurman that the resolution\\nbefore the Senate was a preliminary stc]) to a joint resolution by\\nwhich Dominica cotild be annexed to the United States, and he\\ndistinctly stated it, and he stated that his opposition to it was that\\nthe second step could not legally be taken, that there cotild be no\\nsuch thing as annexation of Dominica by joint resohition, and\\nthat therefore it would be foolish to take the preliminary step\\nand incur the expense of making an investigation unless it was\\ngoing to be admitted as a State, which nobody claimed.\\nMr. FORAKER, I wish to ask the Senator from Georgia\\nwhether or not he deems it conclusive that Senators who were in\\ntheir seats conceded the correctness of the proposition advanced\\nby Senators on the floor when they did not rise to take issue with\\nthem?\\nMr. BACON. I will not say a Senator who was in his seat, but\\nI do say that when Senators participated in the debate on that\\ni: articttiar proposition, when that was the question involved and\\nupon which and around which the discttssion revolved, when Sen-\\nators did not take issue ^\\\\nth it, it was equivalent to saying that\\nthey could not succes-sfully do so.\\nMr. FORAKER. I simply desire to placo on record the nega-\\ntive of that proposition. Every day we sit here and to-day we\\nhave sat here and heard propositions advanced which Senators\\nwho are in their seats do not agree with and the correctness of\\nwhich they do not concede. We do not take issue simply because\\nwe do not wish to break the continuity of thought, the logical ar-\\nrangement of the argument which the Senator is presenting to\\nthe Senate.\\nAt the proper time we may have something to say in answer to\\nthe propositions of the Senator from Georgia. I as one. in view\\nof the position taken, want to say now that while I agree with a\\ngreat many of the propositions of the Senator from (Tcorgia, I do\\nnot at all agree with some of them. I think there is a fallacy lui-\\nderlying his whole argument which disposes of all of it whenever\\nit is presented; and at the proper time it will be presented.\\nMr. BACON. If the Senator thinks that, I hoi)e the avowed\\npurpose of those who sympathize with him, not to be heard in this\\ndebate, may be changed, and that we may hear from him and\\nother Senators: and 1 think we will before we get through.", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "27\\nMr. FORAKER. It is a question of policy in debate wliether\\nor not every proposition that is advanced shall be met in argu-\\nment. Sometimes there are othor considerations than the mere\\nmeetmg of argument that may induce Senators to sit still and\\nallow a Senator to proceed. All 1 want to register my protest\\nagainst is, it being taken for granted that because we do sit still\\nand listen to the Senator with pleasure, as we always do, for he is\\nalways entertaining, we are on that account to be presumed to be\\nin accord with everything he exDresses.\\nMr. WHITE. Mr. Presidents-\\nMr. BACON. Please pardon me. I am nearlv through. I have\\nnot taken any such position. I have not s^iid that Senators who\\nwere present upon that occasion and who did not particii)ate in\\nthe debate were to be taken as acceding to the propositions made,\\nbut I have said\u00e2\u0080\u0094 this was an isolated proposition\u00e2\u0080\u0094 that Senators\\nwho participated in the debate and who failed to take issue with\\nit virtually conceded it.\\nMr. President, I certainly did not expect to occupy so much of\\nthe time of the Senate, and it is fortunate that I said in the begin-\\nning that I did not intend to go into a discussion of the merits of\\nthe question. I desire to submit to the Senate what I consider to\\nbe a very grave question. It is a question, if we pass this joint\\nresolution, not only of one revolution, but of two revolutions. If\\nwe pass the joint resolution we enter upon a revolution which\\nshall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike\\ncountry. If we pass the joint resolution, we revolutionize this\\ncountry from one engaged in its own concerns into one which\\nshall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all\\nthe world. If we pass this joint resolution we inaugurate a revolu-\\ntion which shall convert this country from one designed for the ad-\\nvancement and the prosperity and the happinoss^of our citizens\\ninto one which shall se; k its gratification in dominion and domina-\\ntion and foreign acquisition. Mr. President, if we pass the joint\\nresolution we have entered upon a revolution which shall change\\nthe entire character of the Govei-nmeut. which is a government of\\nequals, a government solely for the benefit of its citizens, into a\\ngovernment in which the flag shall float over communities that we\\nwould never agree .should be equals with us in this Government;.\\nThat is a great enough revolution, Mr. President, but if we pass\\nthe joint resolution, we have entered upon a revolution which I\\nconsider greater and more to be objected to than that: that is a\\nrevolution where, because the majority has the power, it will in\\nthis body surrender the great function which the Constitution\\ngives to the President of the United States, and also to us as a\\npart of the treaty-making power, and we have entered upon a\\nfield where the restraints of the Constitution are no longer to bo\\nobserved and whore the will of the majority shall obtain regard-\\nless of constitutional restrictions.\\n3003", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3713", "width": "2205", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "LltJKHKY U\u00c2\u00bb- LJNbKLbb\\n013 744 706 P", "height": "3645", "width": "2231", "jp2-path": "hawaiianannexati00baco_0032.jp2"}}