March 1, 1900SenateT. 35 (3)p. 2438-2449

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. CULLOM. I ask the Senate to resume the consideration of the Hawaiian bill.The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a

government for the Territory of Hawaii.Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I understand an amendment is pending offered by the Senator from

Colorado [Mr. TELLER].The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HANSBROUGH in the chair). The pending amendment is the one

offered by the Senator from Colorado.Mr. CULLOM. I think the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MOR-

GAN] has the floor if he desires to occupy it.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado will be stated.The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike out all of section 88 down to and including the word "court" in

line 5, on page 44, and to insert in lieu thereof the .following:That there shall be established in said Territory a district court, to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district

judge. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the United States for the said district; and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President. Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court. Writs of error and appeals from said district court shall be had and allowed to the circuit court of appeals in the Ninth judicial circuit, in the same manner as writs of error and appeals are allowed from circuit courts to circuit courts of appeals as provided by law.

Mr. MORGAN. Has the amendment which has just been read been printed?Mr. TELLER. Mr. President——The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Colorado?Mr. MORGAN. Certainly.Mr. TELLER. I think the extension of the laws over Hawaii will extend the jury law; but as some

Senators have doubt about it, I desire to add at the close of my amendment:And the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said district court.That is the court we are discussing.Mr. CULLOM. With the United States judge.Mr. TELLER. The United States judge.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It is called a district court.Mr. TELLER. It is called a district court.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification proposed by the Senator from Colorado will be stated.The SECRETARY. It is proposed to modify the amendment by adding at the end thereof the following:And the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said district court.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be modified as indicated by the Senator from

Colorado.Mr. MORGAN. I do not find a printed copy of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. I should

like to see it before I proceed with my remarks.Mr. CULLOM. It has been printed, I think.Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, in the effort here to cut down the term of office—for that is the only

question that is in the matter, I believe—possibly the salary of the judge who is to execute the laws of the United States in Hawaii, I think the Senator from Colorado has dug a pit on the constitutional question and has fallen into it. I understand that it is the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado to give this district court in the island of Hawaii all the powers of the circuit court and of the district court of the United States. That would include all civil and all criminal jurisdiction of every kind.

The bill does not provide, however, that the judge of this district court shall have the powers and privileges that belong to the judges of the district courts of the United States. They are not properly jurisdictional, conferred upon the court as a court, but they are conferred upon the judge who oftentimes exercises them at chambers, in vacation, and at various places.

The part which relates to the powers of the district judge is not embraced in this act; it is only the court. A judge construing this statute would be obliged to say, "I do not find any authority here to exercise any of the powers that are conferred by the statutes of the United States upon a judge sitting in chambers or a judge who grants interlocutory orders of any find; I find none ofthose powers." Obviously they can not be conferred upon this judge when he occupies a position that has been denominated here as a judge over a legislative court. For instance, that judge could not sit in the district court of California. If by any chance at all any district court of California, Oregon, or elsewhere should not have a presiding officer and it was necessary under the rules of law, which are so plain about it, to have a judge assigned to the district to hold the court, this judge could not do it. He is not a judge of a district court of the United States so far as the amendment of the Senator is concerned. He is the legislative judge of a court created for the Territory and holding functions not under the Constitution of the United States strictly, but holding such functions as the Congress of the United States has bestowed upon him. So he could not go and occupy a seat on the bench of California like a district judge of the United States in Oregon could do.

More than that, it is a legislative court, as constituted by this act of Congress, in which a circuit judge or a district judge of the United States could not preside. If that judge in Hawaii was dead, or if his office was vacated in any way, a circuit judge or a district judge of the United States could not preside in that court. In other words, you can not make the functions and powers of the two courts identical unless yon make this a Federal court, deriving its authority from the Constitution of the United States, as the district and circuit judges derive them.

I do not deny that this judge or this court may be empowered by this act of Congress to exercise the functions and jurisdiction that belong to the circuit and district courts of the United States. I do not deny that, but I do deny that when he does that it is in any sense a court with the plenary, full powers of a Federal court organized under the Constitution of the United States, and I have just pointed out some

reasons which obviously show that that result can not take place.Now, Mr. President, to my mind it is very doubtful whether the Congress of the United States can

confer upon a judge of a district court in Hawaii created by an act of Congress, which is not a district court of the United States, all of the powers that belong under the Constitution to a district court or a circuit court of the United States. I am quite sure that that could not be done if the tenure of office is changed.

Whenever this judge is appointed under this act, of course he is removable at the will of the President. The other judges hold their offices during good behavior and are liable only to impeachment, and by impeachment to be removed from office. It is the only legal way of taking a judge from his office. So the want of legal identity is very plain between the court that is sought to be created by this amendment and the courts created by the statutes of the United States as inferior tribunals under the Constitution of the country.

I believe that whenever the question is made, it will be held that this court, created by this statute as a legislative court, has not and can not exercise all of the necessary powers of a district or circuit court of the United States unless there is conferred upon that court by a special statute a sweeping provision that it shall have the jurisdiction of a circuit court out and out.

I have pointed out that conferring jurisdiction upon the court does not confer the powers upon the judge which the statutes of the United States confer upon a judge of a district court or a circuit court. So we are creating there an abnormal tribunal for the purpose only of gratifying a particular idea, which is that the terms of office of the judges of the district courts and circuit courts of the United States are too long. They are for life.

Mr. BACON. The Senator has the statute before him. Will he kindly read the clause which relates to the jurisdiction conferred upon the circuit or district judge, so as to see whether the discretion is so broad? 1 only ask him in case he should have the statute before him.

Mr. MORGAN. I have it not before me.Mr. BACON. I saw the book open and I thought the Senator had it. I saw that the Senator had the

Statutes at Large before him and I thought he had that statute. I withdraw the request.Mr. MORGAN. I was referring in the course of my remarks to the amendment proposed by the Senator

from Colorado.Mr. BACON. I understood that, but the Senator said that that amendment fell short from the fact that it

did not confer certain powers upon the judge relating to certain acts in chambers. I simply desired, if he had the statute as to United States judges, that that be read in order that we might see how far it did fall short in that particular.

Mr. MORGAN. I think the Senator must be aware that there are quite a number of powers in the statutes of the United States that the judges of the circuit and district courts may exercise; that they have authority to make interlocutory orders and the like of that. In combining the power of a local court, as was done in the cases of the other Territories, and the power of a Federal court, we create a new tribunal that is scarcely akin to a circuit or district court of the United States, although it may have the same general jurisdiction, for the judges of these different2439

courts can not exercise the functions that are committed to the judges of the district courts and the circuit courts of the United States I do not know that as an original principle of government I would be in favor of a judicial establishment, even a Federal establishment, that would hold office by a life tenure. There are some very strong objections to that. At the same time, the whole Federal judicial system of the United States proper is based upon that idea, and associated with that is the power of appointment and the power of removal, except in those cases where the Constitution restrains the power of removal and substitutes for it the power of impeachment. There is not an election held under the laws of the United States anywhere of an officer of the United States proper. We can enable men in the Territorial government to elect their officers, but it does not follow from that that they are officers of the Gov-ernment of the United States by any means. It would be a queer idea if we should undertake to impeach a man by a proceeding in the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate whom the President of the United States has the power to remove. There is not I repeat, any feature of the elective system under the Constitution of the United States in respect of supplying the Federal Government with Federal officers. The officers of this body or of the other House are not Federal officers. They are State officers accredited to the Federal Government under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. When the Government of the United States set up that system of appointments to office and fixed the tenure of the judges of the Supreme Court, the circuit courts, the courts of appeal, and all inferior jurisdictions that might be created under that provision of the Constitution daring good behavior, there was a great reason for it, and that reason exists as strongly to-day as it has ever been. There is no movement in this country for the purpose of having the judges of the Supreme Court or of the district or circuit courts elected by the people or of having their life tenure abbreviated. There is no movement to change the Constitution in that particular, and I think a movement of that kind would find very little support amongst the people of the United States. But the objection to the eighty-eighth section of this bill is based upon the ground that these men ought not to have a life tenure. Now, that ground is just as available and just as important against a man who holds a district judgeship in Alabama as it is in the Territory, for he belongs to the same jurisdiction and executes the same powers of the Federal Government. If Hawaii should ever be admitted as a State into the Union, we see that all Territorial legislative offices that are created, called district judges or whatever name you please to give to them, must fall. They will go by the board whenever the State is admitted into the Union, for the reason that the Constitution itself,

political offices. No man would think of going down to the Executive Mansion here to apply for a position in Hawaii after this act is passed unless he was a well-established Republican. A Democrat has no chance. The bill as we have got it now legislates out of office in Hawaii every Democrat who has got an aspiration to any such place, and I believe that that is one of the leading purposes of this change. I believe that Senators on this floor are determined that a political complexion shall be given to the judicial establishments in Hawaii as well as other establishments. The object is to get the control of the patronage, to use it for purposes of power. Well, I oppose that. I am willing enough to have it in all the Executive Departments, because we have got to submit to it. We can not make the world exactly right and exactly clean in one half hour. 1 am willing, or at least I consent to it, as to the Executive Departments; but when you come to the judicial establishment, Mr. President, I say it is a very dangerous practice to put the disposal of the lives and the property and the liberty of any set of people in this world into the hands of a man because he happens to be a Republican or happens to be a Democrat, when there is another man in an opposing party better qualified and whom the people have a more earnest wish that he should keep the office. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to me? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I should like to suggest an amendment to the amendment, which I think is unnecessary, but which I think would meet the criticism which the Senator is making. It is in line 12 of the amendment, after the words "circuit court," to insert a comma instead of a period and the words: And said judge shall have and exercise all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of district and circuit courts of the United States.I do not think it is necessary, but it can do no harm. Mr. TELLER. I will accept that modification. Mr. MORGAN. Now, that brings the constitutional question squarely up. Please read it again. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Secretary has it. The SECRETARY. After the words "circuit court," in line 12 of the amendment, add the following:And said judge shall have and exercise all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of district and circuit courts of the United States.Mr. MORGAN. That amendment, Mr. President, plainly violates the Constitution of the United States. The Senators have admitted that it is necessary to the completion of their amend-ment here, because unless that amendment is adopted, you are running the court on one wheel. You are exercising the judicial functions that a man as a judge may perform there on the bench

operating of its own vigor, carries the Federal system in full force into the State when it is admitted into the Union, and the office that was created legislatively and for the purpose of serving a Territory necessarily falls on the admission of the State into the Union. I think it has been a great misfortune that we have undertaken heretofore to resort to these expedients in filling up the judicial appointments in the different Territories of this country. As I observed on yesterday, it has a direct effect upon the independence of the judiciary. A judge who is elected by the people in a State or in a Territory feels his responsibility directly to those people, and it is a very doubtful question in the States that have adopted the system of electing their judiciary, and for short terms, whether it is a valuable system or not. Men are found of sufficient character, of sufficient honesty and integrity, to overcome the temptations of such a position. I will admit that. In my State, which has chancellors and judges of the supreme court elected by the people, 1 think that the system has worked very well. But we have been very happy in finding a number of men upon the bench who are above the temptation to yield to popular influence or popular power. At the same time there was a judge of the supreme court of Alabama who was nominated and elected because he was a silver man. Of course, I was for him, Mr. President, but I was not for him because he was a silver man. I was for him because he was a very excellent man, a very great man. Nevertheless, the influence pervades political parties, and they will seize upon any opportunity whatever to convert judges on the bench into the agents of political parties and measure their title to office by their fidelity to a political party. The President of the United States never fails to do that. Whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, the judges in the Territories - are always appointed with reference to their politics. Of course, there is an effort made to get the best man who can be found in a certain party, but very few ever think of going to the opposing party to get a better man than yon can find in your own party. That was my objection, Mr. President, to a good deal of what we are doing here on this subject of appointing judges. I did not want the judge of the supreme court of the Territory to be put into the hands of the President of the United States, because I knew that that office and all the other offices that were to be filled by the President and subject to his removal would at once become

and you take away from him those functions that he may perform in chambers. The amendment is all right except that it is uncon-stitutional, and it makes the whole provision unconstitutional for this reason —— Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President —— Mr. MORGAN. If you will allow me a second — it makes it unconstitutional for this reason, that in our effort to confer upon this court and this judge all the powers of the district court and a district judge of the United States, a circuit court and a circuit judge of the United States, we are attempting to confer upon him the power to sit in a court in California. You can not do it, be-cause no man can sit in a district court or a circuit court of the United States, the Federal court in California, unless he is qualified for that place and appointed under the Constitution of the United States, and there is no pretense that this is under the Constitution of the United States. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I do not think the amendment is necessary, but I thought it would meet the criticism which the Senator from Alabama was making, and therefore I was quite willing to offer it. I think it is true that the Territorial judges, as they are called, the judges of Territorial courts, when United States jurisdiction has been conferred upon those courts, have, without any special authority, exercised the powers and functions of judges of the district court. Senators who have lived in Ter-ritories know better than I, but I think that is true. Mr. MORGAN. Well, Mr. President, if this amendment before it was amended, or even this amendment since it was amended, includes the powers of a judge of a district or circuit court of the United States within its purview it is evidently unconstitutional, for it undertakes to confer upon a legislative judge those powers which belong under the Constitution, and can only belong under the Constitution, to a judge appointed by the President of the United States in virtue of the Constitution as a Federal judge. Now, here is an appellate court in the District of Columbia —— Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Will the Senator yield to me?

2440

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Wyoming? Mr. MORGAN. I should like very much indeed to be permitted to state my case before I am interrupted. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. MORGAN. Here is a judge of the supreme court of the District of Columbia and judges of the appellate court of the District of Columbia. Who would be more surprised than the Senator from Colorado if one of these judges should go over to Baltimore and sit on the bench in an appellate court or a circuit court or a district court of the United States? Nobody; and yet his tenure is for life." He has got all the powers of a circuit judge and a circuit court: but he is not a Federal officer, or at least the contention is that he is not a Federal officer, that he does not belong to the Federal judiciary. He is an outsider; he is a legislative construction, and not a constitutional fabric. , That is the difference between the two people. Now, who would be more astonished than the Senator from Colorado if one of the judges of the supreme court — Judge Cole or anyone else on that bench — should be invited to go to Baltimore to sit on the Federal bench there in the Federal court in the State of Maryland? And yet Judge Cole has got all the powers of a district judge of the United States; every one, both those that are exercised while he is on the bench as the judge of a court and those that are exercised while he is off the bench as a district judge of the United States; and he has a life tenure, too. At the same time, Mr. President —— Mr. TELLER. Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Colorado? Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. Mr. TELLER. Does the Senator mean to say that I want this judge to sit in a California court? Mr. MORGAN. No; I do not suppose you would want him to do it. Mr. TELLER. That is the very purpose I have, that he shall not attempt it. I know he has not any right to do it. I know you can not give any right to one man in that Territory, under the conditions we propose, to go to California and sit. I do not want him to go there. Mr. MORGAN. Then the language is too broad, for the language carries him there. Mr. TELLER. No; in my judgment it does not carry him there. Mr. MORGAN. Well, that is a difference of opinion between the Senator and myself that I hope can be reconciled without any personal difficulty at least. Mr. TELLER. I do not want the Senator to assume that I am endeavoring to do such an absurd thing. Mr. MORGAN. No; the Senator has an amendment here —— Mr. TELLER. I am willing to give this man just the jurisdiction that we have given to judges, a hundred of them, and they have exercised it for a hundred years. I will show when the Senator gets through that that is true. Mr. MORGAN. If you will give me a chance to get through, then yon can go ahead; there is no trouble about that. The absurdity of which the Senator speaks is not in his mind at all, but it is in his amendment. You have got it all in the amendment, every bit of it, for the amendment as it stands now attempts to confer upon this district judge in Hawaii all of the powers, rights, and privileges of a district judge of the United States. Well, it is one of the powers of the district judge of the United States that he can sit in a court of appeals, if you please. He can sit in the circuit court, if you please, when the occasion arises; or he can go and occupy the bench when there is a vacancy, or when there is a necessity for it under the laws of the United States. A district judge of the United States can do all that. But the Senator, while conferring upon a district judge of the Territory all the powers of a district judge of the United States, says: "I do not mean that he should do that thing; I am against his doing that thing." Then, if you are against it, you must qualify it by saying: "All the powers are conferred upon the judge of the district court, except that he shall not sit on a circuit bench or an appellate bench or another district bench in any State of this Union.'' Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Wyoming? Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I hope the Senator will not consider me discourteous, because I am very much interested in this discussion; but I should like, to ask him what he considers the powers of the Territorial judges as they have been heretofore appointed by the President of the United States in the various Territories in relation to this very question that he is discussing. Mr. MORGAN. I do not think that any Territorial judge who now holds a commission has any right to go and hold a district court in any State.

Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. But is not the Senator aware of the fact that upon one side of the court those Territorial judges can deal with all the Federal questions that may arise within their jurisdiction? That is, when I say jurisdiction, I mean within their Territorial jurisdiction. Mr. MORGAN. I am perfectly aware of that fact; and that provision in the Territorial laws is an extremely dangerous one. It is very irregular and quite unnecessary. Here is a Territorial legislature, if you please, enacting laws. I am going to make an illustration. They enact laws which permit contract labor, or what amounts to contract labor, to come in there from Japan under certain circumstances. The judge on the bench, as a judge of the Territory of Hawaii, for instance, says, "Well, this law appears to me to be constitutional; it is within the purview of the powers of the Hawaiian government; it is sustained by public opinion here; my friends are interested in the enactment of this law, and I will sustain it." He turns to the next docket, the criminal docket of his court, and he will find one of these men indicted as violating the laws of the United States for making a contract and bringing that man in. He determines, for we place the duty upon him of determining, whether he will sustain the Territorial law or whether he will sustain the other law. Now, Mr. President, that is too great a temptation to put before any judge, and there is no necessity for it. To divide up a court into two separate jurisdictions, one of them Federal exclusively and the other local exclusively, is to divide the house against itself and to make the decisions of such a tribunal as that extremely unworthy of confidence. We have resorted to that system heretofore, and Senators who have practiced under that system at the bar and elsewhere, I have no doubt, found it convenient, but I think it would be a very sore place in a country that is as far from our coast as is Hawaii if we had down there a judge who had fell Federal jurisdiction and exercised it on the same bench where he exercised full Territorial jurisdiction. I do not know of any man in my acquaintance who I think is great enough to do that anyhow; I do not know of any man in my acquaintance who could sit on the supreme court bench of Alabama and do his duty on that bench, for instance, and at the same time hold a district court of the United States, if that were permissible, or a circuit court, and perform the duties of a circuit and district court of the United States. To take a man and give him a four-years' term, to appoint him under political influences, with a tenure of office dependent entirely upon the will of the President, so that he trembles upon his seat at every decision he makes; then to give to that man plenary jurisdiction in all local matters, all matters arising under the laws of the Territory; and then to turn around and give to him plenary jurisdiction in all local matters that arise under the laws of the United States, and make him as broad and as powerful in the exercise of jurisdiction as a judge of the circuit court and a judge of the Federal court, is a solecism, an absurdity; and no matter how well these gentlemen in the West, who have been practicing before those courts, found it to work there, we ought not to be invited to accept any such situation now. This is the first time an opportunity has been distinctly presented and the necessity has become urgent for having a distinct and separate Federal power of judiciary and judicial administration in a Territory of the United States. Nobody pretends to deny that it will be necessary to have it. It will be necessary, if this court should be created under the eighty-eighth section of this bill, to have one of the very ablest judges we can secure to take a seat on the district or circuit bench to go down there and occupy that seat, and he will have his hands full. He would have the marine contracts, maritime jurisdiction, admiralty, and whatnot. The whole great breadth of that vast jurisdiction will go into his hands and he will need to be a very able and a very learned man if he performs his whole duty to the Government of the United States in that new situation. To take that vast sweep of jurisdiction, all of it, and confer it upon a judge who holds a political office for four years, liable to removal by the power that put him in, or by the man who is elected next time because he does not suit his politics, and to burden that man with his little four-years' tenure with this vast jurisdiction, and then full jurisdiction, plenary jurisdiction in regard to all local matters, it is not within reasonable expectation that yon will find a man who is able to discharge the duties of the office with this vast incumbrance of jurisdiction piled upon him. It has been intimated here that this was the wish of the people of Hawaii. The intelligent men, the merchants, particularly the men connected with foreign commerce, the shipowners, and all of that class are interested in having a tribunal of that sort there. The great body of the people of Hawaii do not ask for it at all, but they need it, and they ought to have it. The judicial power of the United States ought to be just as prominent and just as certainly present in all of its majesty in the islands of Hawaii as the Executive power or the Congressional power. We send two of our departments there, clothed with all

2441

the powers that the Constitution confers upon them, the executive and the legislative. But when we come to the judicial depart-ment we give it no show; we do no not allow it to exercise its proper constitutional functions and legitimate influence upon that country. The difficulty which has attended this subject for many, many years is fully illustrated in the difference which these statutes show, where Congress has conferred one jurisdiction upon the Territorial courts in a certain Territory, and turned around in the same or next the section, conferring a different jurisdiction Upon a court of the same sort in a different Territory. There are a great number of instances — I do not care to stop to enumerate them — but the instances that are cited in the Revised Statutes are enough to show anybody who will look the subject over that it is impossible to get any real system out of it. All of these appointments have been made heretofore for the purpose of suiting the legislation of Congress to the peculiarities of the situation in the particular Territory. So one has one law and another has another law upon this subject. That has been because Congress has departed from the rule that ought to have been established in the outset, of establishing district courts in the Territories. Because it has not done so heretofore, but has conferred a cheap jurisdiction and a short jurisdiction as to the term of office upon the local courts, we are in the trouble we now find ourselves. The Hawaiian Commission sought advice, information, and instruction from the laws of the United States and looked through all the different Territorial acts and examined the laws relating to those courts carefully, to see if there was any one we could adopt. I want to call attention to one particular case, found in section 1913 of the Revised Statutes, which reads;The supreme and district courts of each Territory, and the respective judges thereof, except for Idaho and Montana, may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are grantable by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia.There was general legislation conferring upon all of these courts of the different Territories — that is, of every Territory of the United States — the power to grant writs of habeas corpus on the same terms that the district courts of the United States for the District of Columbia might grant them, with an exception as to Idaho and Montana. How are we to contend that there has been any regularity of legislation or any system adopted by the Congress of the United States in regard to the Territories, when we find in regard to this matter of granting writs of habeas corpus two of the Territories are not permitted to grant writs of habeas corpus in the same manner as they are granted by judges of the district courts of the United States? Our legislation on this subject has been entirely fragmentary and irregular, and I believe that in this bill there is the first effort which has ever yet been made to give to the judicial department of a Territory and of the United States — both of them — their full and just authority. I do not see any reason, Mr. President, and certainly there is no objection to be found in the Constitution of the United States, why we should not take this course; and if there is no reason, if there is no objection, I think I have sufficiently shown, and the report of the committee has sufficiently shown, that the necessity for this court in the islands is supreme, urgent, and we ought to adopt it. Of course I have the greatest possible respect for the opinion of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] and all the other Senators who have opposed this view of the subject, and who have argued so laboriously here against its constitutionality; but I submit that I nave not yet seen that any argument has been produced which shows that the Congress of the United States has not got the power to locate a district court of the United States in a Territory. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President —— Mr. MORGAN. There is another point about this which I desire to state, and then I will yield in one second, if the Senator will allow me to go on. Mr. TELLER. Certainly. Mr. MORGAN. I want to call attention to this matter for a moment. There is a provision of this act by which the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States in a Territory may be extended over a county in Texas. That is a strange provision. I will admit that it is given in this statute. Congress seemed to have concluded that it had jurisdiction and control of matters, both in the State and outside, in respect to the organization of the Territorial courts, and they have conferred upon them more power than has ever been conferred upon any other class of courts. That is my objection to the whole system. I want the power divided. I want the Government of the United States to have its judicial system in the Territories, as well as the local government, and not take the judicial powers from the Government of the United States and confer them, along with local jurisdiction, upon these courts. I think I am right about it; but Congress has heretofore legis-

lated in a most irregular manner, and sometimes in the most un-accountable manner, upon this subject of Territories. There is an excuse for it; and that is that every Territorial government that came in here had its representatives, and they had peculiarities which had to be overcome or provided for in some way. So, there are a great variety of judicial establishments, a great variety in organization and in jurisdiction and in powers conferred upon the judges in vacation. Some of these courts had the power to assign district judges to certain circuits, and all of that, in the different Territories. It was the building-up process, where we in Congress took things as we found them and attempted to do for them the best we could on the occasion, all the time having in view the propo-sition that we were establishing in these different Territories, ac-cording to the mandate of the Constitution, as I have frequently said in this debate, a republican form of government. That is the limit of our duties, that is the mandate that is upon us, and that is what I am trying to do. Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, the provision in this bill for this court is unlike any other provision in any of the statutes of the United States. In all other cases we have conferred upon the legislative court, as it is called in the Territories, the power of a State court, and we have conferred also the power of a Federal court, and those courts have exercised those powers without any controversy whatever. The United States courts, as has been stated repeatedly, have exercised those powers of the State courts as to controversies between citizens, but not as to controversies that arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. They do not have entirely the same power that the Federal court has in this respect, that there is no recognition of a citizen of one State having any rights in the courts of another State. There is no jurisdiction given because a plaintiff lives in one State and the defendant in another State; but these courts are given jurisdiction of all cases arising under the Federal Constitution. Therefore the jurisdiction is infinitely greater than of a circuit or a district court. I do not believe that the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] commits the absurdity of saying that this judge may sit in a Federal court in California. He will not be invited there, and he can not get there otherwise. I am not going to waste any time on that. I intend to place the amendment in such form that the Senator can have no objection whatever to it. I am going to modify the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] , which I accepted, after the word "exercise," so that it will read as follows:And said judge shall have and exercise in the Territory of Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of the district and circuit courts of the United States.I shall ask to have that inserted. I desire to say that I have lived and practiced law assiduously in a Territory and did nothing else for fifteen years. I know that these judges in the Territories exercise all the rights of judges under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK] who sits near me has had experience in the same way, and there are other Senators who know this to be so. There is not any trouble about it. I wanted to give to each of these circuit courts that jurisdiction, and then get rid of this court. In deference, however, to the Hawaiian Commissioners, I waived that point; and I said, "If you think you ought to have a court specially charged with the disposition of the cases which arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, I will yield that;" and so 1 made this suggestion. Mr. President, if there is any advantage in having a district court in Hawaii, the people there will get it under this provision. We are denying nothing whatever to those people; and the complaint the Senator makes that we are not treating them fairly is not well founded, it seems to me. I do not want to have a political court over there any more than does the Senator from Alabama. I have seen the evils of that system. I was inclined to think that we would escape a political court if we followed the judgment of the commission in the first place, and let the governor appoint the judges of the circuit court; but that was voted down by the Senate. I hope the Senator will accept my amendment and not feel that anybody here is attempting to do anything to interfere with the proper discharge of the business in Hawaii, or to offer anything that is intended to discredit the action of the commission because they may have recommended something else. I believe, as the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] said yesterday, that there is no power to establish this court as a national constitutional court. I am not going to discuss that at this late hour. I was prepared to do so yesterday, but there was no time. I shall content myself with saying what I have said, and let the proposition be voted upon. I know very well if this court is established as a Federal court — no, I do not know that, but I am very confident of it — the court will be no court at all; and there is great doubt whether it will be established. In that

2442

event I do not know where the jurisdiction will be, unless we confer it upon the circuit court, which the commission do not want done. It seems to me we have got, then, to accept this court. Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to say a word? Mr. TELLER. Yes. Mr. CULLOM. There is a special reason why the commission did not desire it done, and that was because we found, on very careful inquiry, that the courts, as they now exist in Hawaii, have more work than they can perform. The supreme court of the Territory is behind and struggling to catch up with its business; and those interested there feel that unless we have this additional court they will be very much embarrassed by the situation. Mr. TELLER. I want to say that that was my reason for not insisting on striking it out. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment as finally modified by the Senator from Colorado will now be read. The SECRETARY. On page 43, section 88, it is proposed to strike out all of the section down to and including the word "court," in line 5, on page 44, and to insert in lien thereof the following:That there shall be established in said Territory a district court to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district judge. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the United States for the said district, and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for four years unless sooner removed by the President. Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary Jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court, and said judge shall have and exercise in the Territory of Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of district and circuit courts of the United States. Writs of error and appeals from said district court shall be had and allowed to the circuit court of appeals in the ninth judicial circuit in the same manner as writs of error and appeals are allowed from circuit courts to circuit courts of appeals as pro-vided by law, and the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said district court.Mr. CULLOM. Before the vote is taken, I want to make a sug-gestion which I hope will be agreed to. We have all expressed a desire to avoid making this a political court in any sense. I myself know, and so does every other man who has been in Ha-waii, that it is very important that we should have the very best judges there we can secure, and the question of the character and ability of the judge will be determined somewhat by the tenure. I should therefore like very much that by consent the word "four " should be stricken out of the amendment where the term is fixed at four years, and make it "six years." I hope my friends will agree to that. I think it is important that the term should be for that length of time. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asks unanimous consent —— Mr. CULLOM. I will make the motion, if a motion be in order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves to amend the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] by striking out and inserting what will be stated. The SECRETARY. In line 7, in the printed amendment, before the word "years," it is proposed to strike out "four" and insert "six." Mr. TELLER. I will not object to that. Mr. CULLOM. I think, with that provision, we shall have a court the appointments to which would not be made for political reasons at any time by any President. Mr. PETT1GREW. I am very much opposed to that amendment. If we have good judges, they can be reappointed; and if we have bad ones, six years is too long a term. The matter is completely in the control of the President of the United States. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator knows the judges can be removed. Mr. PETTIGREW. No; they are never removed. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. But they can be. Mr. PETTIGREW. I have lived in a Territory a good while. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. 80 have I. Mr. PETTIGREW. We had men who never saw a law book in their lives who came out to serve as chief justices of the Territory of Dakota; and we could not get them removed. We had a coffin maker once from Maine sent out as a judge. [Laughter.] Mr. BACON. I understand that the increased term is limited to the district judge and does not apply to the Territorial judges. Mr. CULLOM. To the United States district judge. Mr. BACON. I understand. Mr. CULLOM. I hope the amendment will be adopted. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER]. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] as it has been amended. The amendment as amended was agreed to. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President, we have had four hours' discussion on law and constitutional law. I now offer an amendment based on equity and good conscience, an amendment

that ought to be adopted, an amendment that I sincerely hope will be adopted. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming offers an amendment, which will be read. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to amend section 101 by adding thereto the following:And the sum of $250,000 is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be paid Liliuokalani, late Queen of the Hawaiian Islands, for all right, claim, or interest she may have or claim to have in or to the said crown lauds herein mentioned, the same to be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury upon the execution of proper deeds of relinquishment by said Liliuokalani: And provided further, That said sum of $250,000 shall, to that amount, be a charge upon the revenues of said lands, and shall be repaid to the United States from the revenues of said lands in live equal annual payments.Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President, I do not care to discuss this matter. It seems to me that section 101 is one of the most marvelous and stringent and outrageous pieces of legislation that was ever sought to be perpetrated by the American Congress. I can not believe that the men who formulated this bill contemplated what section 101 does. Unless there is a desire on the part of the Senate for information I will make no remarks whatever upon the proposed amendment. If it shall fail I have one upon the desk of the clerks which I will urge instead. Mr. BACON. Let me ask the Senator from Wyoming a question. What is the value of the Crown lands? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The value of these lands it is difficult to estimate. Some of them are worth a thousand dollars an acre. At the time of the overthrow of the monarchy, I will say to the Senator from Georgia, the annual rental therefrom was $50,000, or about that, and since that time, by the ending of leases that were then in effect and the renewal of leases upon land by the present republic, it amounts to somewhere between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum. Those lands were confiscated absolutely. Mr. TELLER. By whom? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. By the republic of Hawaii, at the overthrow of the monarchy, and were thrown into the general land system of the government. Mr. TELLER. May 1 ask the Senator a question? Was it rec-ognized that they were private property before that? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It was recognized that the revenues of the Crown lands all went to the Crown for the expenses of the reigning sovereign. Mr. TELLER. And he disposed of it as he saw fit? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. He disposed of that revenue as he saw fit. It is an amendment which in good conscience and equity ought to pass. Mr. BATE. What has become of the $50,000 of rentals per annum? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It has gone into the coffers of the present government of Hawaii and is there now; and this amendment proposes that out of the revenues of those Crown lands the ex-Queen, who by virtue of her right as reigning sovereign before the revolution was entitled to all the revenues from the land, shall be paid $350,000 in lieu of all claims upon the Crown lauds, whatever they may be, now or hereafter. Mr. BATE. Does she consent to that? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I can not say to the Senator whether she consents or not. If she does not, it will be inoperative. Mr., BATE. This bill takes the land from her and puts it in the hands of the Hawaiian government? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Section 101 absolutely cuts off by legislative action any claim she might have before the world or in any court. Mr. BATE. There is no question that she had title to it before? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There is no question on earth that she had title to it before. Mr. CULLOM. She had no title. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I beg the Senator's pardon; she did have title. Mr. BATE. I ask that the amendment may again be read. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will again be stated. The Secretary again read the amendment. Mr. BATE. Then I understand from this amendment that the money comes out of the proceeds of that land. It is not to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Treasury of the United States is to be reimbursed from the revenues of the lands which are now under lease. Mr. BATE. The Senator from Wyoming is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes. Mr. BATE. I am unfamiliar with this matter, because I am not connected with the committee in any way, and I can only learn these facts as they are presented now in considering the bill. Do I understand the Senator to say that the Crown lands undoubtedly belonged to the Queen?

2443

Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There is no question on earth about it; that is, under the monarchy. Mr. BATE. Then the recent government seized those lands? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. They took them all. Mr. BATE. They have also taken the rentals annually of those lands and appropriated them to themselves? I Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes, sir. Mr. BATE. And this woman has got none of the rentals and none of the lands? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. She has none of the lands and none of the rentals. Mr. BATE. The United States Government proposes to take all those lands into its own possession and keep them as property belonging to the United States? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes; that is the proposition exactly. Mr. BATE. And offers to her $230,000 for them as a bonus. I suppose. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Well —— Mr. BATE. As compensation, then. But she has not been consulted about that matter. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Not that I know of, by the Government. If she is willing to take it, as the amendment proposes, that ends all claims she has upon the Government of the United States or upon the Territory "of Hawaii in regard to this matter. Mr. BATE. It seems to me, upon that kind of a showing, it is not very creditable to this Government that it should be done. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is not creditable to the Government the way it is now. Mr. KYLE. Will the Senator from Wyoming allow me? Were these lands the personal property of the Queen? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. They were not the personal property of the Queen in the sense that she could alienate them. They were the personal property of the Queen or the reigning sovereign in the sense that the revenues of these lands went to the reigning sovereign. Mr. KYLE. The annual income from these lands was set aside by the monarchy for the support of the Queen. Was not that all? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes. Mr. KYLE. The same as it is in Great Britain? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. KYLE. But they were not her personal property at all? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Not in the sense that she could give any deed in fee simple. Mr. KYLE. She had no other right to them than any other woman who might have been upon the throne as queen. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator is right. Mr. KYLE. It was not her property at all, as I understand. Mr. PETTIGREW. What is the income derived from these lands? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I can not give the exact figures, but the income at present is between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum. Mr. PETTIGREW. What was it at the time the Queen was deposed? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Fifty thousand dollars. Mr. PETTIGREW. She was deposed in 1893? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes, sir. Mr. PETTIGREW. She is still living? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes, sir. Mr. PETTIGREW. It seems to me we can not afford to pass this bill without providing for the Queen, inasmuch as we dethroned the Queen. Nobody else did it. The United States did it. We landed our troops there. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator is perfectly right. Mr. PETTIGREW. We took her government away. No other forces did it than the forces of the United States. Then we made a treaty with the puppets we set up for title to that country. Therefore, it seems to me, it would be shameful to pass this bill without making some such provision. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the Senator from Arkansas? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. If I have the floor. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. One difficulty about this, it occurs to me, is that this provision in the bill seems to be a recognition In the Queen of the ownership of these lands. It is on that ground that we propose to make a one-sided trade, without her consent, and to give her $250,000. So if she does not take it, she can come back and say that we having recognized that she owns these lands, she is entitled to the million and a half or two millions and a half that they are worth. Now, if these lands belonged to the Queen, that is one thing. If they belonged to the crown, it is another thing. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I should like to ask the Senator to

state the difference, as he understands it, between belonging to the Queen and belonging to the crown. Mr. KYLE. There is a great difference. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There is no difference. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. One belongs to the office: the other belongs to the person. The office was organized by the government that existed there, and this was the means of supporting the office which those people had organized and continued until they chose to abolish it, and the property which they had sot apart to maintain that office was not needed to maintain an office that did not exist. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. May I ask the Senator a question? Is he aware of the fact that the reigning sovereign of the country by the law of the land was entitled to name his or her successor? Mr. JONES of Arkansas. That made no difference. It did not give the person the ownership of property which belonged to the office. That cuts no figure whatever in it. The Queen of the Sandwich Islands is no more the owner of the Crown lands than the President of the United States is the owner of the Executive Mansion during his term. Mr. MORGAN. Or of the public lands. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Or of the public lands of the United States. The public lands of the United States belong to the people, the body of the people, the whole people. Whatever they may be set aside for, they belong to the body of the people, the whole people. The sovereign of the United States would not be the owner if we had a sovereign. The President is not the owner when we have a President. It seems to mo the Senate ought to be cautious about taking a step of this kind. While I am opposed generally to the whole of this legislation, and believe it is a mistake from the beginning, and agree fully with the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW] about the action of our Government in overthrowing that government, still I think we had better look a little carefully before we put our foot down in a case of this kind. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President, I do not care at this late hour to take any time on this question; but I believe that a great wrong has been done. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I believe that. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. We all know that revolutions, if successful, are just; they are legal; and the successful power has the right to do what it pleases. It is not often that I agree with the Senator from South Dakota on political questions, but there is no man in this Chamber, if you get him out in a corner of the cloakroom, who will not acknowledge that the revolution in Hawaii was made possible only by the arms of the United States of America. Now, can we not afford to be at least equitable and just and honest in this matter? We took those islands? They had to go somewhere. I do not regret that we took them. I am very glad of it, because I think that of all the domain over which the American flag flies to-day the Sandwich Islands are the fairest and give promise of the most in the future. But, Mr. President, there was a great wrong perpetrated. It may not be news to any Senators, but at the time of the revolution which displaced the monarchy and displaced the Queen there was not a thing that was not sequestered and confiscated — not only the Crown lands, to the revenue of which she was entitled, but everything in her household from the blue china on the sideboard to the tin dipper in the kitchen. Mr. KYLE. I have no objection to setting apart something for the Queen. That is not my objection at all, but I take exactly the position occupied by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. JONES] , that she has no right whatever to the Crown lands. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. She has no right? Mr. KYLE. No. I put it upon a different ground. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I put it upon the ground of equity and good conscience, that a great Government like this taking possession of those islands can afford to be generous and just and equitable. I do not go into the law side of the court to urge this claim. I come into the equity side of the court. We took all these lands, and the minute this bill passes we get a hundred or a hundred and fifty thousand per annum from them. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. For the benefit of the people of the Hawaiian Islands, however. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. That is all right. It may be for the benefit of the people, but can the Senator from Connecticut say that in equity and good conscience something ought not to be done for the government that has been revolutionized? Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the Senator wishes a reply, I will say that I think whether we shall donate something to the Queen is one question. The question whether we should recognize her title to the lands and admit that we have been to blame about that revolution is an entirely different thing. I am not disposed to do that. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. My amendment does not meet the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut. It simply provides that we shall pay her $250,000 upon her relinquishment of all claims that she may have or claim to have upon those lands. That is all.

2444

I was not aware of the enormity of section 101 of the bill when it came out of the committee of which I have the honor to be a member; but it not only says that she shall not now have any right, but that she shall be forever debarred from all claim of right in any court or in any tribunal that may now exist or may hereafter be constituted, 1 have spoken longer than I cared to, and I should like to have a vote on the amendment, and upon that vote will depend whether or not I will call up another amendment I have submitted. Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, 1 have never been able, so far as I am concerned, to satisfy myself entirely whether or not the late Queen of the Hawaiian Islands had any interest after she was overthrown which would give her a right to recover anything from the United States, but I supposed that if she had she would not undertake to get it by a direct appropriation by Congress. I presumed she would pursue her remedy, if she had one, in the courts of the United States, and the courts, if she had any title and interest in the Crown lands, so called, would render such a verdict as would be just to her. I still think that that is the right course and that it is not a good thing to come in here with an amendment proposing to appropriate $250,000 for her without knowing whether she is entitled to half that much or twice that much. Everybody knows that if we adopt the amendment it will not be two years before she will come for another installment, more or less. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. If the Senator will read the amendment he will see that she could not. She is barred absolutely. Mr. CULLOM. If she is barred absolutely, she perhaps would not take the money unless she thought it was all she was entitled to or more. She had no title to those lands at all, but she had a sort of arrangement by which she got rentals, from year to year, under the old system that existed for years back. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Will the Senator from Illinois permit me to interrupt him? Mr. CULLOM. Certainly. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The provision of this amendment is that this amount is to be paid to the "late Queen * * * for all right, claim, or interest she may have or claim to have in or to the said Crown lands herein mentioned;" and the Senator himself admitted that she had no personal right in the land — that it belonged to the crown. His idea is to make this provision by way of compensation for the wrong of the Government of the United States in overthrowing her and depriving her of this power; but the trouble, it occurs to me, is that we are recognizing the right of ownership in her personally to these lands which never did exist. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator from Arkansas is splitting hairs there. Mr. CULLOM. I hardly understand the temper of the Senate or of any body apparently on these questions. After we have gone on and recognized what took place there and after we have finally accepted the cession of the islands, Senators in this body turn around and begin to abuse the Government of the United States for everything it has ever done with reference to those islands, when all of us in this Chamber pretty nearly voted for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I did not. I beg pardon. I was paired against the joint resolution. Mr. BACON. 1 did not. Mr. CULLOM. A great majority of the Senate did, as I remember. Mr. BACON. I did not. Mr. CULLOM. But whether they did or not, after it is finished, after we have accepted the islands, it seems to me there ought to be some time in our history when we will talk about something else and stop abusing the people or the Congress or the country for accepting the islands or the manner of their acceptance. There ought to be a statute of limitations, it seems to me, which would run to stop Senators and Representatives and other people from finding fault eternally with what the Government does after it has been done for years and years, especially when in the judgment of the people of the United States we did right. So far as I am concerned, I do not want to abuse the Queen. She was overthrown. She substantially abdicated, as a matter of fact, voluntarily, by her own act. But I am not going to discuss that. The question is now what we ought to do, whether anything, for her now that she has become a private citizen. I happen to know that she is here in this city now. or has been until recently. I do not know whether she is actually here now. But she has been consulting lawyers in the District of Columbia to know what her rights are. Now, we propose to appropriate $250,000 for her to live on. If the Senate wants to do it, it can do so; but in my judgment there ought to be a more intelligent way of determining whether she has any rights, and then what those rights amount to. Mr. TELLER. What section is this? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Section 101. Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator a question. Why did the committee see fit to put in section 101 and cut off any right

she might have? Why do they not let her go to the courts, if she has any chance? Mr. CULLOM. That was my idea; that she should go to the courts. Mr. TELLER. Strike out section 101. Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] and one or two others explained that section the other day, and I should be glad to have the Senator from Alabama explain it again for the satisfaction of the Senate. I confess that I have always felt that it was not right to insert it, because it deprives her of the opportunity to do what I think she has a right to do, if she has. any interest in the land, and that is to find out what it is through the courts of the country. Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, in January, 1893, there was a friendly government existing in the Hawaiian Islands, possessing treaty relations with the United States and maintaining itself, preserving order, life, and property. About that time 18 men, some of whom were citizens of Hawaii, some of them citizens of the United States, and some subjects of Germany, met in an office in Honolulu and conspired together to overthrow the established friendly government. These revolutionists sent one of their number to the United States minister and told him what their plans and purposes were and made an arrangement with, him by which the marines of the United States on the war ship Boston in the harbor of Honolulu were to land and protect the conspirators and help to overthrow this friendly government. The marines did land. These men addressed a letter to our minister, asking him to land the marines and troops to protect life and property, and they fixed the hour at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. After they had made the request for the landing of troops and he had arranged for their landing, these 13 men sent one of their number to our minister asking him to defer the landing until the next day. If there was danger to life and property, why did they want to defer the landing until the next day? There was no danger to life and property. Life and property were being protected, and peace and quiet and safety existed. The troops were to be landed to enable the conspirators to overthrow a friendly government. The minister had already ordered the landing of the troops, and while their emissary was at the office of our minister the troops were put ashore from the vessel, a hundred and eighty of them, and they marched not to any point in the city where they could protect life and property, not to the American consul's office or the resident minister's office, not to the heart of the business section of the city of Honolulu, but to Arion Hall, a little building 75 yards from the government building. Why did they march to that point? Simply because our minister had agreed that if these 13 conspirators would take possession of the government building and there read their proclamation declaring the government overthrown, he would recognize them. The next day these 13 men marched to the government building in two squads, so as not to attract attention, marched on two different streets, and having come to the government building, where there was no armed force, no revolutionists, nobody but the janitor and the clerk inside, they proceeded to read their proclamation declaring the government of Queen Liliuokalani overthrown. The marines in the meantime had been drawn up in line with their Gatling gun within 75 yards of the scene. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] said the Queen abdicated; that she surrendered her government. What are the facts? Immediately upon reading this proclamation, without any armed force to protect them except the marines of the United States, they went to the American minister and secured a recognition of the government instituted by the 13 men, and sustained by nothing unless it was the marines of the United States. The marines had assumed a threatening attitude. The committee also sent an emissary — Mr. Damon— to the Queen. Here is what she said. Here is her letter upon this subject:I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Ha-waiian kingdom, Queen, So hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional government of the Hawaiian kingdom by certain persona claiming to have established a provisional gov-ernment of and for this kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said provisional government. Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands. Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A. D. 1893.LILIUOKALANI, R.SAMUEL PARKER,Minister of Foreign Affairs. WM. H. CORNWELL, Minister of Finance. JNO. F. COLBUBN, Minister of the Interior. A. P. PETERSON, Attorney-General.

2445 Mr. President, we had landed 180 armed men with Gatling guns. Our minister had said that he would sustain this provisional government of thirteen men backed by no force at all; and the Queen, the Senator from Illinois says, surrendered her government. Mr. LINDSAY. He says "voluntarily." Mr. PETTIGREW. She says she surrendered it to the superior force of the United States until the United States could pass upon the question and settle the contention upon the basis of justice. Now what induced her to do this? These men, shrewd and capable men, who owned the sugar plantations, had gone and persuaded her that the United States would do what was right; that the United States would, when they understood the facts, restore her government, inasmuch as we had overthrown it by force of superior numbers, and persuaded the Queen not to fight the United States and thus save bloodshed. Years before this an English admiral had sailed into the bay of Honolulu and with his armed forces had overturned the king and dethroned him and taken charge of the government. The then king surrendered under a protest similar to this one formulated by Queen Liliuokalani and submitted the question to the English Government; and to the honor and credit of the English Government, they restored the king and repudiated the acts of their admiral. No wonder the Queen then believed that this great Republic, that had been in the habit of doing right, would be more certain to do what was right than the Kingdom of Great Britain. Therefore she submitted under this protest this question to us. These thirteen men, or a part of them, signed a statement declaring that Stevens did not recognize this provisional government until after the Queen had surrendered and turned over to them the arsenal, the government buildings, the guns, and arms. It turns out that their statement was absolutely false; that Mr. Stevens recognized this provisional government, although the Queen had at the time 275 armed men under her command; that she also had two or three Maxim or Gatling guns; but that she simply surrendered provisionally until the question could be submitted to us. What did we do? We put up our flag over the buildings, and for sixty days the Stars and Stripes floated over the government headquarters of Hawaii. During that time these 13 men armed their followers, gathered together a considerable force, hired able-bodied men, no matter of what nationality, passing through that port on their way to Australia or elsewhere, and gathered together a force of 400 armed men. In the meantime, with our flag floating over the transaction, they searched every house in the islands, confis-cated every gun that they could find, disarmed everybody, passed a law by which they made it a criminal offense to import a gun of any sort, and through these proceedings thoroughly consolidated their power. With 400 armed men, when our flag was taken down, they were able to maintain themselves against the inhabitants of that country. They ran along for a year, or two or three years, and finally these usurpers declared that they would adopt a constitution. They never had adopted any. There never had been any government except the self-constituted government of these 13 men. By the way, they had added to their number until there were 19 of them. There were those, however, who had agreed to meet in the first instance, as the lurid Thurston, for example, the most eloquent fellow among them all, the man who wanted to aid other people to overturn the monarchy. He was not seen whenever there was any meeting through which he might be classed as a traitor. So they increased their number by voluntary acquisition until they had 19. The 19 men constituted the government, and they ran it along for over a year, for a year and a half, and then concluded they would adopt a constitution, and thus they organized the republic of Hawaii. This is the way they adopted the constitution. They said that the people of Hawaii might elect eighteen delegates to a constitutional convention to sit with the 19 self-constituted and self-elected and self-appointed men who had been running the government. So the people, those whom they would allow to vote, elected 18 delegates, and the 18 delegates sat with the 19 men who had made themselves the government, and were not elected by anybody, being merely conspirators, and they formed a constitution; but after they had formed it they gave the aggregation a high-sounding title, the Republic of Hawaii, and declared for religious liberty and against slavery, and then proceeded to import slaves from Asia and Europe for their sugar plantations. This constitution was never submitted to a vote of the people and was not voted upon by the people of Hawaii; it was never voted upon by anybody, only the 19 men who constituted it and the 18 men who were allowed to be elected by some sort of popular suffrage, but it was simply promulgated, and that is the government which existed in those islands up to the time we took possession. We refused to take possession for several

be annexed to the United States. We could not ratify the treaty be cause a two-thirds vote could not be obtained in this body to ratify it. After trying for weeks they finally succeeded in passing through both Houses a joint resolution of annexation. I do not know whether that was ever agreed to by the people of the islands or not. It makes no difference. It may have been agreed to by those 19 men; it never was agreed to by the people of Hawaii; and if a vote had ever been taken of the legal and lawful voters of that country any resolution to annex the islands to the United States would have been defeated 5 to 1. Now, what was the purpose of all this? Not to advance the interests of the people of the United States. We had made a treaty in 1875 by which we agreed to admit sugar from those islands free of duty. We were charging 2 cents a pound upon all the sugar that came from every other country in the world, and 2 cents a pound was equivalent to $40 a ton bounty on sugar. It came in free from Hawaii and they could raise it with slave labor at $6 or $7 a month and board themselves, and it paid an enormous profit. So they came here and railroaded through this reciprocity treaty, as they called it, in 1875. The sugar interests flourished. New plantations were opened up. The remitted duties amounted to millions of dollars. In 1890 we passed a law admitting sugar into the United States free of duty from everywhere, and, therefore, they had to sell their sugar in this country or wherever they could in the markets of the world without the advantage of the duty which we had theretofore imposed on sugar from every other country but their own. Their bonus was gone. But we had enacted a law by which we paid 2 cents a pound bounty on sugar, maple sugar, beet sugar, and sugar from Louisiana, and therefore the sugar planters, who found their industry waning and their profits slipping away, concluded that they wanted to be annexed to the United States so as to get the bounty. If they were a part of the United States they would be entitled to the 2 cents a pound bounty; and this is the reason why the movement was set on foot to annex those islands to this country. This is the reason why those 13 men interested in the sugar industry, a part of them citizens of Hawaii, a part of them citizens of England and Germany, and one or two of them citizens of the United States, entered into the enterprise to overturn a friendly government and annex the islands to this country. Shortly following the effort at annexation we reenacted a duty upon sugar, so that the advantage returned to them. We have remitted in duties to those people already the sum of over $80,000,000. Each year we remit in duties now more than $10,000,000, and that money comes out of the pockets of the people of the United States. Ten million dollars a year for the privilege of having the name of governing this rotten borough in the Pacific! It comes out of the people of the United States, because, although they raise 300,000 tons of sugar, the amount which they raise is not sufficient to lower the price one particle in the United States, and therefore the duty which we remit, for we charge no duty upon their sugar, is added to the price of the sugar to the Hawaiian planter and comes out of the pockets of our people. In other words, if those islands were not a part of the United States, and if we collected duty upon the sugar which they ship to us, we would collect a duty of over $10,000,000 a year. Mr. CULLOM. I inquire of my friend if he is in favor of putting a duty on sugar now that they are a part of the United States. Also, while I am on my feet, if the Senator will allow me; I will ask him whether he does not know that under the reciprocity treaty sugar was coming in free a very long while before we got the islands? Mr. PETTIGREW. I stated that we made an agreement in 1875 by which sugar came in free from those islands, and that when in 1890 we made sugar free from everywhere they ceased to have an advantage and therefore they wanted annexation in order to get the bounty of 2 cents a pound which we were paying upon the domestic sugar produced. I will briefly answer the Senator's question before I finish. Now, with regard to these islands, what have we acquired? Mr. President, there are 3,085 people of American blood in the Hawaiian Islands. There are about 1,100 men who can vote. Of those 3,085 people, 1,900 are males and 1,100 are females, showing almost 2 to 1 of males over females among the population of American blood, showing the same thing that exists in every tropical country in the world where the European has gone. In other words, the European, the American, does not go to the Tropics to raise children, to have a family, and therefore the disproportion between the males and the females for every Anglo-Saxon settlement in the Tropics throughout the world is from 2 to 5 to 1. In Singapore there are probably 6,000 Europeans, English and Americans, and less than 1,000 of them are females. So it is in Hong Kong; so it is in every tropical country throughout the world; so it is in Hawaii, and so it will always be in Hawaii. What were we told? Why, that this was the paradise of the Pacific, that Americans would go there and raise

years, and so matters ran on until the Spanish war broke out. Then we passed a joint resolution by which we annexed the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. We made a treaty, however, previous to that time with aforesaid 19 men, and that treaty provided that the islands should

families, and that we would soon build up an American State. Mr. President,

2446

the moment we annexed those islands we were notified by every lodge of Odd Fellows and Masons and Knights of Pythias that it was no place for an American to stay unless he had enough money to take care of him as long as he wanted to remain there and to get away with when he tired of staying; that the labor market was overcrowded; that there was no place for American laborers or American toilers. But in the meantime they imported, after we annexed the islands, 37,000 contract laborers from Asia. Now, what have we annexed? We have annexed 3,083 people of American blood, many of them citizens of Hawaii, whose fathers went to that country to carry the blessings of a Christian religion, and whose sons had become the prosperous sugar planters of that country. We have annexed 5,000 or 6,000 Germans, English, Scandinavians, etc. We do not know whether they will become citizens of the United States or not. We have annexed about 16,000 Portuguese, whose ancestors went to those islands as con-tract laborers from Madeira years ago, and we have annexed 32,000 Kanakas and 8,000 mixed bloods, half Kanaka and half missionary and half Chinese —— Mr. GALLINGER. That makes three halves. Mr. PETTIGREW. Three halves; and we have annexed Asiatics by the thousand. We have annexed 37,000 contract laborers and 25,000 or 30,000 Asiatics who are not contract laborers, and now we try to flatter ourselves over the delusion that we are going to make a Territory in the center of the Pacific and ultimately admit it as a State into this Union. Is this the material out of which an American State is made, with less than 1,200 voters who are Americans, with a population of Asiatics whose males and females are in the proportion of 10 to 1, for under their system of importing labor the contract provides that 1 woman only shall be brought for each 10 men. . So where they bring in 10,000 Asiatics they bring in 1,000 women. Does this brothel, then, in the Pacific possess the elements, and will it ever possess the elements out of which you can construct an American State? It is all nonsense; it can not be done. We must hold them as a subject colony. We must hold them as a part of an empire. We must undertake to maintain under our flag two forms of government. For that reason, Mr. President, I would allow the Hawaiian people again, if they choose to do it, to set up a republic of their own and maintain it as best they can. They have no right to become a part of our system. I would impose duties against their products the same as we impose them against the rest of the world. You can not maintain there, neither can you maintain in the Tropics anywhere throughout the world, the form of Government under which we live. I believe that every people throughout the world are capable of a form of government best suited to them, and that they are capable of maintaining as good a form of government as they are entitled to; but I do not believe that every people wherever you may find them are capable of maintaining our form of Government. Therefore I am opposed to this expansion. I am opposed to the acquisition of those islands. I am opposed to any effort to impose a government upon an unwilling people who do not understand and comprehend our institutions. I do not believe our flag should go to any land where our Constitution can not go. It should go where men are capable of comprehending that Constitution and are able to maintain free institutions, where men live who love and adore the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to any effort that we may make to furnish a government for a people Who can not live under our institutions. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. 1 hope the Senator will vote for the amendment. Mr. QUARLES. Mr. President, I understood when the Senator from South Dakota rose to discuss this question that he was in favor of this amendment, but his argument is very persuasive against it. If we have made such a wretched bargain in obtaining this so-called rotten borough, which for the various reasons mentioned by the distinguished Senator will prove like ashes in our hands, why should we pay a bonus now of $250,000 on the trade? The argument of my learned friend proves too much. His argument would be in favor not of paying this solace to a deposed queen, but of putting the crown back on her head, placing the faded emblems of monarchy back in her hands; and he would have the Senate on this amendment consider that major question. Our distinguished friend has an assortment of skeletons which h e brings periodically before this body. I thought we had seen them all and had become familiar with the gruesome gyrations of each one. But here is a bogy man from the Sandwich Islands, brought up now to harass the imagination of this body when it is simply considering at the end of this bill a question not germane to the suggestions of the distinguished Senator, but simply whether we shall from a supposed equity pay as a consolation to this deposed Queen, who has no semblance of legal right, the sum Of $250,000.

It is stated here, Mr. President, that this amendment is proposed without the knowledge or consent of the Queen. On the other land, it is stated that she has employed her attorneys and pro-Doses to go into the courts and enforce her claim as a legal obli-gation. How untimely, then, it would be for the Senate to pass such an amendment, which amounts to a tacit recognition of some legal right on her behalf. The attorneys who are waiting to begin that suit would be glad that such a recognition should be given to her claim by this body. Now, Mr. President, there are knocking at the doors of Congress to-day hundreds of poor, old, maimed soldiers and sailors, asking us to increase their little bounty or pension, and I for one would much prefer to take the $250,000, which is a gratuity at best, and give it to those poor old cripples rather than to place the Queen of the Sandwich Islands on our pension rolls. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I quite agree with the proposition that there can be no possible legal claim by the Queen against the United States Government or against the Hawaiian government on account of these Crown lands. Whether in conscience right or wrong, the results of a revolution always affect legal rights, It is simply a question, as has been suggested by Senators who have already spoken upon the subject, whether under all the circumstances under which the Queen was deprived riot only of her crown, but of all her property of every sort and description anything is due in equity and good conscience to this deposed Queen. The circumstances I will not repeat, because I have no desire to fall under the criticism of having any disposition to speak dis-paragingly of any part taken by the United States Government in that matter. I think it would be a mistake to adopt the language which is in " the amendment, which calls for a relinquishment by the Queen of her right and the execution of deeds to such relinquishment, because that would be a recognition on the part of the Government of the United States of a claim which she might afterwards rely upon with some degree of confidence. I therefore propose to offer to the amendment submitted by the Senator from Wyoming an amendment, striking out certain words and inserting others, which I will send to the desk. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia offers an amendment, which will be read. The SECRETARY. After the words "Hawaiian Islands," in line 4 of the printed amendment, strike out all the section down to and including the word "Liliuokalani," in line 8, and insert the words:In full settlement of any claim for interest, legal or equitable, she may now have or may have had in said Crown lands or the usufruct of the same, and in full settlement of any and every claim she now has or may have had against the United States and against the Hawaiian government on any account whatsoever.Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. That accomplishes the object I intended by my amendment, and, so far as I am concerned, I accept the modification. Mr. BACON. I understand the Senator from Wyoming accepts the amendment. I simply desire to say in response to the suggestion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. QUARLES] that this money practically does not come out of the coffers of the Treasury of the United States. It is to be paid practically out of the revenues of these lands. As stated by the Senator from Wyoming, these lands in 1893, at the time when the Queen was deposed, were producing a revenue of $50,000 a year, and they are now producing a revenue of over §100,000 a year. . None of that fund can be devoted to the very laudable and excellent purposes which the Senator from Wisconsin has suggested. In other words, under the law as it stands, what may arise from these lands will necessarily be devoted exclusively to the Hawaiian Islands, and this is simply subtracting from the general purposes now contemplated by the law for the benefit of the Hawaiian Islands and devoting that much of it to the compensation of the Queen. So that really the United States Government will not pay one cent of it. The fund, unless it is devoted in part to this purpose, will all go to certain purposes in the Hawaiian Islands. If it is devoted to this purpose, no single dollar is subtracted from what will ultimately be the property or the money of the United States, but it is simply subtracted from what will go to certain funds and certain purposes in the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. SCOTT. Will the Senator allow me? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Georgia yield? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. SCOTT. I rise for the purpose of asking the Senator a question for information. I inquire if, at the time of the insurrection, all property, personal as well as state property, was taken from the Queen? Mr. MORGAN. It was not. Mr. BACON. I will state to the Senator from West Virginia that I have very little personal familiarity with this matter, for I had no knowledge of it until it was brought to the attention of the Senate to-day by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK],

2447

But it was stated, possibly while the Senator from West Virginia was not in the Chamber, that at the time of the deposition of the Queen every particle of her personal property, even to her tableware and kitchen furniture, was taken from her; that she was absolutely turned out without anything whatever. Mr. SCOTT. I am much obliged to the Senator. Mr. MORGAN. That statement is not correct. Mr. BACON. I am only saying that that is the statement of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK] . I have no knowledge of the matter myself. I think the amendment puts the matter in an entirely different position before the Senate from what it would be otherwise. It does not recognize any legal claim, and nothing is said therein upon which any claim can be based in the future if we should fail to pass the amendment or if we should pass it. Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, it seems to me most unfortunate that this amendment has been proposed to this bill. I can not think the object that the Senator from Wyoming had in view was to raise again in the Senate the question of whether this Government has dealt unfairly with the Queen. We had that discussion years ago, and it is entirely out of place, as it seems to me, to revive it now. I do not think, from hearing all that has been said, that there is any occasion now for this Government to appropriate $250,000 for the Queen of the Sandwich Islands. I do not see upon what ground it is based, except upon the ground that we took away From her her lands. . Mr. President, the revolution in the Sandwich Islands is an ac-complished fact, and was an accomplished fact years ago. The Queen had no interest in the lauds, except that as Queen she derived a revenue from them for the support of the royal household. Under every principle of law and under every principle of right when a government changes, the interest of the former monarch, the interest of the former government, in any of the lands passes to the new government. The right to these lands is in the people of Hawaii to-day, and not in the former Queen. If we pass this amendment, we propose to take from the people of Hawaii that which rightfully belongs to them — $250,000 of the revenues to be derived from their lands — and appropriate it to the uses of the Queen. That is all there is about it. I think, Mr. President, that the United States ought to hesitate, and hesitate long, before it does such a thing. At least a proposition of this sort ought to come before the Senate as an independent proposition, be referred to a committee, reported upon, and discussed; so that if anything of this character is to be done it should be done with our eyes open. This is not a donation. Even if it were put upon that ground, I see no reason why we should make it. There is a kind of sympathy in the breast of everyone and a kind of sentimentalism which, when there is any proposition to pay any money to anyone, at first blush inclines Senators to favor it. But I see no reason why the United States should donate $250,000 to the former Queen. I see still less reason, if there be any, why we should take $250,000 from the people of Hawaii and give it to the Queen. That is an arbitrary proceeding that can not be justified for a moment. This amendment, as originally introduced and even as proposed to be amended by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON], counts upon some interest of the Queen, some right of hers, some property of hers, which has been taken away from her either by the people of Hawaii or by the United States, If we pass this amendment it can in no sense be said to be a donation to her which we, out of the goodness of our hearts, take from the Treasury of the United States and transfer to her pocket. It is a recognition of a right, and the arbitrary enforcement of that right upon the people of Hawaii; and we should not enact any such legislation. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] most sincerely for his rebuke. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. There was no rebuke about it. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. But so long as I shall remain in the Senate I shall reserve the right to offer any and every amendment which I think is proper to any and every bill which comes before the Senate. I do not want to transgress the privileges of the Senate; I do not want to transgress the rules of the Senate; but I do want to see justice done, and I think that is one of the things which the Senate of the United States sits for. The Senator from Connecticut says there is no legal right in the matter which is involved in the amendment which has been proposed by myself arid amended by the Senator from Georgia. I grant it, because in the politics of the world might means right, and the nation that is strong enough to throttle a smaller nation never has to answer in any court of justice for its action, and it may go "unwhipped of justice" for all its ill deeds. But that does not alter the fact that a great nation can afford to be generous and just and honest. There is no legal claim. The minute that the republic of Hawaii in its might, aided — I repeat it again — by the Government of the United States, made a revolution and took over the Crown

lands, that minute all legal right ceased. But the Senator from Connecticut, and every other Senator, knows that there is some-thing besides legal rights in this world. There is a moral obliga-tion that rests upon every government to treat its subjects and the subjects of other governments in a moral and in an equitable way. Notwithstanding what has been said by the Senator from Connecticut, at the time of her overthrow the Queen of those islands had $50,000 annual profit — constitutional profit — from the Crown lands of those islands. The republic took them over. and. as has been said, it not only took the Crown lands over, but it made such a confiscation as has never been made by a revolution, not even the French Revolution. It took every article of personal apparel; it took every article in the kitchen; it took every article in the palace; it took every article everywhere; arrested the deposed monarch upon the streets and kept her in close confinement in a government building for months and months, without allowing her to visit her home. I am not specially interested in the individual. I am simply interested in seeing that this Government does justice. I am simply interested that we do at least equity. Mr. KYLE. May I ask the Senator a question? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Certainly. Mr. KYLE. I ask the Senator if the Queen was the only one dispossessed of rights at the time of the overthrow of the mon-archy? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. She was, so far as I know. I do not know of any others. Mr. KYLE. Were there not a great many others? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There may have been. Mr. KYLE. Then it might be right to include them all in the bill. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I do not think there were any others — there were no others. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wyoming yield? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Certainly. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Is it not the truth that all this property which is said to have been confiscated was afterwards turned over to the princess by the government of Hawaii? Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. No; that is not true. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I so understood. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Part of it was, but the most of it was sold at auction or in some other way, and went into the coffers of the government. So it seems, Mr. President, not only an act of justice — as the Senator from Connecticut very well says, legally there is no claim — but morally and equitably, and under all the laws that ought to govern a body of this kind, something ought to be done to correct what was done, at least with our connivance, if not with our concurrence. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment as modified will be stated. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to add to section 101 the following:And the sum of $250,000 is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be paid Liliuokalani, late Queen of the Hawaiian Islands, in full settlement of any claim for any interest, legal or equitable, she may now have or may have had in said Crown lauds or the usufruct of the same, and in full settlement of any and every claim she may now have or may have had against the United States and against the Ha-waiian government on any account whatsoever: And provided further. That said sum of $250,000 shall, to that amount, be a charge upon the revenues of said lands, and shall be repaid to the United States from the revenues of said lands in live equal annual payments.Mr. MORGAN. That proviso ought not to be in there. Mr. CULLOM. No. Mr. MORGAN. When those lands were taken over by the republic they were leased and they were converted into the public domain, and are now subject to homestead entry. Under the laws of Hawaii persons are now proceeding to take them up. It will leave the lien of the government upon them; and, of course, the government of Hawaii, instead of letting those lands go into private ownership, must keep them and lease them for a long time, indefinitely, according to this bill. We have got to keep them and hold them in trust, in order that this woman shall get the advantage of the income from them, if the Government of the United States is to be reimbursed for paying this $250,000. If we do anything for her benefit at all, it ought to be a benevolence, and it ought to be an act of recognition that there is some duty or some privilege resting upon us to reinstate her, so far as her private fortunes are concerned, for anything she might have lost by virtue of the abdication of her crown; for the fact of the business is that she did abdicate her crown, Mr. President. That proviso ought not to go into this bill; it ought to be stricken out. I hope it will be withdrawn. It is not necessary at all that the Government of the United States should be reimbursed this sum of money. It only takes the amount out of the

2448control of the Hawaiian government, so as to compel the lands to be leased "from this time forward forever. The land can not be devoted to homestead settlement at all. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I do not suppose the Senator understands that any of the land that is now under lease is subject to homestead entry. Mr. MORGAN. I do. As fast as the leases expire the land is subject to homestead entry. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. But not so long as the land is underlease.

Mr. MORGAN. But many of the leases have expired or areMr. CLARK of Wyoming. If the Senator will remember and look at his data, he will find that very few leases will expire during the term of five years mentioned in the amendment. Mr. MORGAN. My impression is that quite a number of the leases have expired, or are about expiring. What is the use of having the Government of the United States set apart those lands as a fund to reimburse this $230,000 and take them out of the land system in Hawaii, entirely out of the public domain? We have dedicated those lands by the act of annexation to the use of the people of Hawaii, not to the use of Liliuokalani, nor to the use of the United States. Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me just a moment? Mr. MORGAN. Yes. Mr. BACON. The proviso expressly limits this to a charge upon the revenues from those lands especially, and those which have been disposed of by settlement or otherwise can not be affected. The proviso can not affect any lands except those which remain under lease and from which revenues are derived. Mr. MORGAN. There is no use for it and no need for it. It is a sort of Indian gift— give it and take it back. If we are going to do the decent thing about it, if Senators insist that it is a decent act to do, then let us do it without reservation and without embarrassing the land system of Hawaii in order to get the measure through the Senate. Mr. CULLOM. May I ask the Senator, by his leave, a question? Mr. MORGAN. Certainly. Mr. CULLOM. I ask whether the Senator does not think that this whole subject of what should be paid to the Queen, if any-thing, should be the result of a special investigation, and that we should then act with all the light possible before us? Mr. MORGAN. It ought to be the subject of a separate bill. The committee have not had any opportunity of considering this question at all as a claim against Hawaii or the Government of the United States. It has not been presented either to the com-mission or to the committee. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The bill as prepared and reported absolutely cuts off any possibility of action in that regard. Mr. MORGAN. No; it does not do that. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. If section 101 does not do that, I should like to have the Senator from Alabama interpret it. Mr. MORGAN. I will interpret it in a moment. The Government of the United States took over the title of those lands in Hawaii and devoted the proceeds of the lands entirely to the people of Hawaii, acting merely as a conduit or trustee for the purpose of holding title for the benefit of those people. In doing that, the commission and the committee were afraid that the Government of the United States might have thrust upon it a liability or incumbrance claimed by Liliuokalani, and therefore cut it off so far as this Government is concerned, without touching her right, whatever that might be. The only provision of the bill on the subject is that this Government does not assume, and will not assume, any claim of trust or obligation resting upon that public domain that we got from the Hawaiians; which was a just, proper, and necessary provision, and did not affect her at all. I know what has been said about this thing very frequently. Men have been here for a year or two years; have been here almost all the time. They came here before annexation took place with powers of attorney, coupled with an interest, to have this claim vamped up and paid. Suits have been threatened, but lawyers have not yet been found who had the temerity to bring the suits against the republic of Hawaii. This claim ought at least to have gone before the Committee on Foreign Relations on the part of the Senator who now offers it, who is a member of that committee.

terday, the amendments and the bill are now to be voted upon without debate. Mr. MORGAN. I call for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator demand the yeas and nays on the proposed amendment? Mr. MORGAN. I move to strike "out the last clause of the amendment: The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] moves to strike out the proviso; and on that motion he calls for the yeas and nays. Mr. CULLOM. The proviso to what? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proviso to the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK]. Mr. CLAY. Is it the proviso to the amendment offered by my colleague, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON]? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the proviso which was offered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK] to his amendment. : Mr. CLAY. I understand. Mr. GALLINGER. I move to lay the entire amendment on the table, Mr. President. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. GALLINGER] , to lay the amendment and the proposed amendment to it on the table. The motion was agreed to. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I offer as a new section the amendment which I send to the desk. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert as a new section, to precede the last section of the bill, the following:Nothing contained in this act shall be construed, taken, or held to imply a pledge or promise that the Territory of Hawaii will at any future time be admitted as a State, or attached to any State. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment which has just been read. Mr. CULBERSON. I call for the yeas and nays. Mr. CH1LTON. Mr. President, it seems to me that the amendment ought not to be adopted. I am not in favor of admitting Hawaii as a State —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. Mr. CHILTON. It is not in order? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not, under the agreement made yesterday. Mr. CHILTON. Excuse me; I was not aware of that. Mr. MORGAN. If the amendment is not debatable, I make the point of order that it was not pending at 4 o'clock. Mr. CULLOM. It was pending. Mr. MORGAN. No, sir; it was not then offered in the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the peculiar wording of the unanimous-consent agreement the Chair would hardly feel authorized to rule that the amendment could not be offered now. Mr. MORGAN. If it is offered now, it ought to be debated. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As the agreement appears in the RECORD it does not say "and amendments then pending;" but it says "to-morrow at 4 o'clock the Senate will proceed to vote upon the amendments and the bill." Mr. MORGAN. That, of course, means pending amendments. Mr. CULLOM. And without debate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It does not say "on amendments then pending," which is the usual way in arrangements of that kind. Mr. MORGAN. Well, Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PlATT]. Mr. CHILTON, Mr. STEW ART, and others called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PETTUS. Mr. President, I move to amend the amendment by inserting, after the word "will," the words "or will not;" so as to read: Nothing contained in this act shall be construed, taken, or held to imply a pledge or promise that the Territory of Hawaii will or will not at any future time be admitted as a State, or attached to any State.Mr. HOAR. That is not in order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. PETTUS] to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT]. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Let the amendment be stated from the desk. Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order. I came in when the Chair was announcing his ruling. Did the Chair announce that he should hold that no new amendment is in order? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair did not. Mr. HOAR. What was the Chair's ruling? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The agreement is in peculiar wording. It is not as usual in unanimous-consent agreements.

That committee has never had an opportunity of passing upon this question, and the amendment ought to go by the board. I would vote against it, or I would move to lay it on the table; but for one reason. I am willing that the Government of the United States shall exercise whatever of generosity it chooses to do toward Liliuokalani for the purpose of healing up the scars and wounds which have been inflicted by the annexation of Hawaii upon Senators on this floor. That is the object. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President —— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of 4 o'clock has arrived; and, under the unanimous-consent agreement made yes-

2449

that "the vote shall be taken on the amendments then pending and on the bill," but it is "on the amendments and the bill." Mr. HOAR. If a vote is to be taken at 4 o'clock on the amendments and the bill, how can any time after 4 o'clock be occupied by offering new amendments? I might offer an amendment that would take a half an hour to read. I submit respectfully to the Chair that "the vote shall then be taken on the amendments and. the bill" implies that nothing can be done but voting after 4 o'clock; that no new motions can be made. Mr. STEWART. I would suggest to the Chair that if the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] is in order, every other amendment would still be in order without limit. Mr. FORAKER. It seems to me not exactly right that we should have new propositions advanced now that have had no time to consider and no time to discuss. I understood when I was giving consent yesterday that when the hour of 4 o'clock was reached to-day, we would have been advised of all the proposed amendments and would have been given an opportunity to discuss them. Mr. CULLOM. It was certainly meant that no amendment should be offered after 4 o'clock. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has not ruled that amendments are in order, but the inference from his putting the question on the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] was that that was his understanding. Mr. PLATT or Connecticut. Mr. President, of course debate is not in order. I wish simply to say, by unanimous consent, that I have had that amendment before me for the last two days, trying to get an opportunity to offer it. I supposed certainly that the privilege existed after 4 o'clock of offering amendments and having votes upon them. I knew that the amendment could not be debated. I want to debate it, but I know that I can not under the agreement. I thought, however, I could have the privilege of offering the amendment and then of having a vote upon it. Mr. HOAR. I very much desire to debate that amendment, and to debate it at length. It attacks the doctrine upon which I myself took the very grave responsibility of voting for the Hawaiian treaty. I do not want to be led into what seems to be a repudiation of that principle by an amendment offered which can be dealt with by the Senate without debate, and after we had agreed that the vote should be taken at 4 o'clock. I must enter my protest against it. Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Chair will rule. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No point of order has yet been made that the amendment is not in order. Mr. MORGAN. I made the point of order, Mr. President, distinctly that that amendment was not in order because it had been offered after 4 o'clock. Mr. CULLOM. That is correct. The Senator did. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is inclined to think the Senator is correct. Mr. MORGAN. Of course I did. Mr. ALDRICH. If the Chair will read the statement made by the Presiding Officer yesterday, I think it will dispose of this question. That statement reads as follows:And that to-morrow at 4 o'clock the Senate will proceed to vote upon the amendments and the bill, and that all debate shall then cease.Of course we can not vote precisely at 4 o'clock upon all these amendments and the bill, but the general understanding of the Senate has been to commence voting at the time fixed, and that all debate should then cease. Mr. CULLOM. No new amendments to be offered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The point made here is that this amendment was offered after 4 o'clock. Mr. ALDRICH. "All amendments" must be in the nature of things — the plural being used — any amendment of which notice had been given by any Senator; and that, I think, has been the universal custom of the Senate: otherwise it would be technically confined to one single amendment, and no Senator could offer any other. Mr. HOAR. I desire to call the attention of the Chair, if I may have leave, to the fact that under the rules of the Senate — I am not now speaking of appropriation bills, but on all other bills— any other measure whatever can be offered as a substitute or an amendment to a pending bill. It is known very well that one of the most important pieces of legislation we ever passed was offered as an amendment to a pension bill in the last hours of the session. Suppose the bill which is now the subject of a conference report-the currency bill — was offered at this moment as an amendment to this measure. It would be clearly in order under our rule. At the same time the Senate would be compelled to vote on it without debate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair sustains the point of order. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Then, if I may be permitted, be-cause I do not wish hereafter to be accused of anything that would

look like interfering with the business of the Senate, I do not propose to give any further assent to the taking of a vote upon any bill in which I am interested at any time. Mr. HOAR. Without reserving the right at the time. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is in the Senate and still open to amendment. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I have an amendment upon the desk to strike out section 101, which I offered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming offers an amendment, which will be stated. The SECRETARY. On page 50 it is proposed to strike out section 101, as follows —— Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. How is that amendment in order? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was sent to the table and printed. • Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But that does not make the amendment in order. It is offered after 4 o'clock. Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is an amendment which has been pending. It is an amendment of which I gave notice and which I sent to the desk long before 4 o'clock. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If we are to be technical, let us be technical about everything. Mr. MORGAN. It never has been offered. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It has not been offered, and if I —— Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It surely was offered. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It could not be offered, because an agreement was pending. That was the reason why I could not offer my amendment. 1 tried to get the attention of the Chair to offer it. If we are going to be technical against one amendment, let us be technical against all. Mr. STEWART. I do not think that rule applies, because it has been the universal custom to regard all amendments of which notice has been given as pending within the meaning of the understanding. They are not pending technically, but I refer to amendments of which notice has been given and which are on the table. No amendment has ever before been offered after the time agreed upon, and there is no precedent for it. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I make the point of order that this amendment was not offered before 4 o'clock. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair overrules the point of order. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. CLARK] , which will be stated. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike out section 101, in the following words: SEC. 101. That the portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been on the 12th day of August. 1898, and prior thereto, the property of the Hawaiian government, and to be free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever upon the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and shall be subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by the laws of the United State*. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Wyoming. The amendment was rejected. Mr. PETTIGREW. I now call up the amendment which I offered yesterday, to strike out all of section 18 down to and including the words "United States," in line 16, and insert what I have sent to the desk. I call the attention of the Senator from Illinois to the amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota offers an amendment, which will be stated. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike out all of section 18 on page 11 of the last print, down to and including the words "United States," in line 16, at d insert the following: That no person shall be deprived of the right to vote because of his failure or refusal to qualify and take the oath required by the republic of Hawaii, but all such persons possessing the qualifications required by this act shall, upon taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, be entitled to vote at all elections hereafter held in the Territory of Hawaii.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota. The amendment was rejected. Mr. PETTIGREW. I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. MORGAN. It is too late. Mr. PETTIGREW. The amendment relates to the question of suffrage. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota demands the yeas and nays on the amendment. Is there a second? The yeas and nays were not ordered. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

March 1, 1900 House v. 33 (3) p. 2453

Mr. Jones of Washington (when the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries was called). Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to report the bill (H. R. 5065) to extend the laws relating to commerce, navigation, etc., over the Hawaiian Islands ceded to the United States. I call up that bill for immediate consideration. The bill was read at length. Mr. McRae. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if this bill is on the House Calendar? Mr. Richardson. I want to reserve the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that it is not properly on the House Calendar, if it is there. The Speaker. The Chair understands that the bill called up by the gentleman is on the Union Calendar. That can not be taken up in the morning hour. The Clerk will proceed with the call.

March 8, 1900 House v. 33 (3) p. 2490

SENATE BILLS REFERRED.Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, Senate bills of the following titles were taken from the Speaker's table and referred to their appropriate committees as indicated below: S. 222. An act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii — to the Committee on the Territories.

March 5, 1900 House v. 33 (3) p. 2546

Extension of Navigation Laws, etc., over Hawaii. Mr. Jones of Washington. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill which I send to the desk. The bill (H. R. 5065) to extend the laws relating to commerce, navigation, and merchant seamen over the Hawaii Islands ceded to the United States was read. The Speaker. Is there objection to the consideration of this bill? Mr. Knox, The matter embraced in ills bill is all provided for in the general bill. It is not worth while to take up this subject piecemeal. The Speaker. Objection is made.

March 7, 1900 House v. 33 (3) p. 2637

Mr. KNOX, from the Committee on the Territories, to which was referred the bill of the Senate (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, reported the same with amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 549); which said bill and report were referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

March 10, 1900 House v. 33 (3) p. 2740

HAWAII.

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order on Tuesday, April 3, after the reading of the Journal, to consider Senate bill 222, Calendar No. 82, an act providing Territorial government for the Territory of Hawaii, to be considered in Committee of the Whole House oil the state of the Union; that general debate be limited to Tuesday. April 8, and Wednesday, April 4. and that the committee rise on each day at 5 o'clock; that on Thursday, April a, the bill be read for amendments and debate under the five-minute rule, continuing until 4 o'clock, when the bill shall be reported to the House, where the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments to its passage.

2740I would say, if I may be permitted, that there is the most urgent need for this legislation, and it is with great regret that we

have concluded to ask for a time so remote. I would also say that the time provided for debate is agreed to by members on both sides of the House, so far as I am advised, and unanimously agreed to by the members of the committee.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent that April 3, 4, and 5 be set apart for the considera-tion of the Senate bill on Hawaii; that the first two days be for general debate, the third day for debate under the five-minute rule; that at 4 o'clock the committee will report the bill and amendments back to the House, the previous question being considered as ordered on the bill and amendments to their passage. Is there objection?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is the first intimation I have had of any such request. I do not know whether the members of the minority of the committee had made any agreement or not.

Mr. KNOX. I will say to the gentleman from Tennessee that he will remember a few days ago I spoke to him in connection with the gentleman from South Carolina, a member of the committee, and he said that any agreement we would make would be satisfactory to him. The gentleman from South Carolina says it is entirely satisfactory to members of committee on that side.

Mr. RICHARDSON. If the minority of the committee agreed to the proposition submitted to the gentleman from Massachu -setts, 1 have no disposition to interfere with any agreement that they have made.

Mr. FINLEY. I will state for the information of the House that this bill has been under consideration by the Committee on Territories — the House bill and Senate bill — and the statements as made by the chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts, are correct. I think that the request he makes is a reasonable one, and the minority of the committee join him in this request, which I think is entirely satisfactory.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and the order is accordingly made.March 19, 1900 House v. 33 (4) P. 3063 By Mr. Flynn A bill (H. R. 9708) to amend an act to prohibit the passage of

special or local laws in the Territories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, and so forth - to the Committee on the Territories.

March 23 t 1900 Senate T. 33 (4) p. 3207 Mr. Ross, from the Committee to Examine the Several Branches of the Civil Service, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2000) regulating appointments to and removals from civil offices in outlying dependencies of the United States, reported it with amendments.

March 27, 1900 House v. 33 (4) p. 3409 Mr. Knox, from the Committee on the Territories, to which was referred the joint resolution of the Senate (S. R. 76) withdrawing certain lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, from the public domain, reported the same without amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 778); which said Joint resolution and report were referred to the House Calendar.

March 28, 1900 House v. 33 (4) p. 3459 Mr. Knox, from the Committee on the Territories, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 7091) relating to Hawaiian silver coinage and silver certificates, reported the same with amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 831); which said bill, and report were referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

April 2, 1900 House v. 33 (4) P. 3662

Mr. Flynn, from the Committee on the Territories, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 9708) to amend an act to prohibit the passage of special or local laws in the Territories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, and so forth, reported the same with amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 894); which said bill and report were referred to the House Calendar.

April 2, 1900 House v. 33 (4) p. 3663

By Fitzgerald of Massachusetts: A resolution (H. Res. 208) requesting the Secretary of the Treasury to report to the House of Representatives the names of all banks or other institutions used by the Government for the deposit of public funds in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, and the names of all officers connected with these institutions - to the Committee on In-sular Affairs.

April 2, 1900 House v. 33 (4) p. 3702-3715

GOVERNMENT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I call up the special order of the House for to-day, and move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union to consider the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii. Pending that motion, I desire to state that, while the report is unanimous, inasmuch as gentlemen on both sides desire to speak, it has been considered fair to divide the time equally be-tween the other side of the House and this side, and it has also been agreed, subject to the approval of the House, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McALEER] shall control the time on that side and that I shall control it upon this side. It is also desired that gentlemen who speak may have leave to extend their remarks in the RECORD, and I ask unanimous consent that that request may be granted. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to consider Senate bill 222, and, pending that motion, asks unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between the two sides, the gentleman from Massachusetts to control one-half of the time, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McALEER] to control the other half; also that all gentlemen making remarks upon this bill be permitted to extend their remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection? Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, pending this request, I have not the order before me, but I believe there was an agreement as to the length of time the debate was to last. Mr. KNOX. For to-day and to-morrow, closing each session at 5 o'clock, the debate on Thursday to be under the five-minute rule until 4 o'clock, when the bill is to be reported to the House. The SPEAKER: With the consent of the House, the Chair will have the order read for the information of the House. The Clerk read as follows:On motion of Mr. KNOX, by unanimous consent, it was ordered that on Tuesday, April 3, it be in order, after the reading of the Journal, to consider S. 222, "An act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii;" that it be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, general debate to be limited to Tuesday. April 3, and Wednesday, April 4; to close each day at 5 o'clock; that on Thursday, April 5, the bill shall be read for amendments and debate under the five-minute rule, to continue until 4 o'clock, when the bill shall be reported to the House; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments to its passage. (Order made March 10.)Mr. RICHARDSON. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize the fact that it would be too late to change the order just read unless unanimous consent could be obtained to do so; but the objectionable feature of that order is that two days are given for general debate and then only a portion of the third day for the reading of this bill under the five-minute rule. The effect of carrying out that order as adopted will be to bring us to a vote at 4 o'clock on Thursday.

3703

unanimous consent. This bill, however, before the final vote, should be read entirely through under the five-minute rule, in order that each section may be open to debate and amendment. It occurs to me that it would be better now to modify the order, appropriating one day for general debate and the two remaining days for amendment and debate under the five-minute rule. It seems to me desirable that we should reach some agreement by which we may be relieved from so much of the order as brings us to a vote at 4 o'clock on Thursday. In other words, the bill should be read through. I regret that the order as read has been made. I was going to suggest that if it can be done we modify the order so that the general debate may be concluded in one day; or if that can not be done, that we rescind the order for a vote at 4 o'clock on Thursday and let the bill be read through for debate and amendment. If that can be concluded by 4 o'clock on Thursday, all right; if not, then let us devote another day to this business. We have plenty of time, and it seems to me we ought not to bring ourselves to a vote on this bill without reading each section for amendment. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. RICHARDSON] whether it would not be well to go on for at least one day of general discussion under the rule as adopted. Perhaps at the expiration of that time the desire for general debate may not be so pressing as it has been. There has been a very great demand on both sides of the House for time to speak generally on this bill — a demand so Pressing that it could not be fully yielded to. Another answer to the gentleman's objection is this: This bill is for the establishment of a Territorial government; it contains 103 sections. A very large, part of the bill comprises, of course, provisions for the governor, the legislature, etc., such provisions as we are all familiar with. I think the amendments will be con-fined probably to a very few sections, involving differences of view among members as to what the government ought to be. I am not myself apprehensive (I may be mistaken) of a back of time to give the bill due consideration. Mr. RICHARDSON. There are over 100 sections in this bill; and if the reading under the five-minute rule should commence at half past 12 o'clock on Thursday, it would take two hours — possibly it would take till 4 o'clock — without allowing any time for offering and discussing amendments. For that reason it would be better if we could get rid of the part of the order to which I have referred. If the offering of amendments and the discussion thereon can be concluded by 4 o'clock Thursday, all right; but I insist, if we do not get through that stage of the bill by 4 o'clock on Thursday, we ought not to bind ourselves to take a vote at that time. ' The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request which has been made by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. KNOX]? Mr. BELL. I object. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Pending that, and before 1 object —— The SPEAKER. Objection has been made. —— Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I have made no objection. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. BELL] objected. The question is now on the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for the consideration of Senate bill No. 222, to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii. The motion was agreed to. . The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union (Mr. MOODY in the chair) , and proceeded to the consideration of Senate bill No. 222. Mr. KNOX. I ask unanimous consent that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with. There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, in presenting to the House this bill creating a government for the Territory of Hawaii, I do not think it would be profitable or pertinent to discuss the general question of the desirability and wisdom of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. No subject of public policy has received the consideration of the American people more extensively than this. It has been debated for the larger part of the century now closing, both in Congress and the popular forum. It has been the subject of numerous Executive messages, and two treaties of annexation have failed. But however great has been the difference of opinion in the United States upon the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, there has been, and is to-day, no difference of opinion as to the danger and menace

tion. Its end was in the events of the Spanish war, events which form an epoch in the history of this country and of the world. That war made generally apparent to the people of the United States the strategic necessity of those islands, in view of war and a hostile fleet in the Pacific Ocean. They furnish the only base of naval operations in the Northern Pacific. In all that vast ex-panse of water, as is said in the report of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT] , from the Equator to Alaska, from the shores of Asia to the shores of the United States, there is but one spot where a ton of coal, or a pound of bread, or a gallon of water can be obtained, and that place is in Hawaii. Hawaii also contains Pearl Harbor, one of the best and easiest defended in the world, an inland lagoon practically surrounded by land, with a narrow arm extending into the sea. and before that entrance a coral reef with a passageway of but five hundred to a thousand feet in width, where by guns in fortification the navies of the world may be stopped. But there was something else besides the naval and strategic importance of these islands that was demonstrated by the war. We obtained a great island empire upon the shores of the Orient, drawing sharply the attention of the American people to the great market for American produce existing in the East, especially in China. The acquisition of that territory came at a time when China, both territorially and politically, was being divided and changed; when a civilization, the oldest in the world, extending back thousands of years, older than Rome, older than Greece; a civilization that extended far back into the dim half light of tradition, beyond Egypt and Thebes and the Sphinx; a civilization that was old in the days of the Persian and the Babylonian Empire, was breaking up, emerging into the light and life of the present day. The possibilities of that market for American produce — and America now produces more than she can consume, and the disparity will increase as the years go on — can not be overestimated. The possibilities of that great market have been secured to the people of the United States by a triumph of diplomacy achieved by a Republican President and a Republican Secretary of State, a triumph that challenges the admiration of the world. So that both in a military and naval sense and commercially the importance of the acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands can not be exaggerated, and we may say to-day in fact what was said in argument for years in the past, that Hawaii is the Gibraltar of the Pacific in war, the key of the Pacific in peace, the paradise of the Pacific ever. But whether the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands may be considered as the consummation of a long-settled policy upon the part of the United States or as the commencement of a new era of territorial expansion and commercial development, the step that has been taken can not be retraced. Hawaii is American territory by the solemn and the mutual agreement of two sovereign Republics. It is American territory absolutely and, humanly speaking, forever. But while it is American territory, it does not possess American government. A part of the United States, it has no government of the United States. The annexation resolution, by which Hawaii became part of the United States, provided only for the continuance of a government in such manner and to be exercised by such persons as the President should appoint. Its provisions were substantially the acceptance of the cession, a provision that the land laws of the United States should not extend to Hawaii, for a government by the President, for the continuance of the customs laws of Hawaii, for the exclusion of the Chinese, and for the assumption of the debt of Hawaii to the extent of $4,000,000. Such a government, could be in its nature but temporary, a government depending simply upon the will of the President in the appointment of agents and in the decision as to the manner in which it should be exercised. It is a government that is un-American, a government constituted against every principle and tradition of our country. If it were to remain, it would be a most offensive monarchy. Its only justification is that it was temporary. There was no provision for expression of the popular will; no provision for a legislature; no provision for the future needs of the people. No courts of United States jurisdiction were established. It was intended to be, and was in itself, and by its nature must have been, a mere makeshift, to remain in force only until Congress should act and give

should they fall into the possession of any foreign nation. And it has been the uniform position of the Government that acquisition of these islands by a foreign nation would be regarded by the United States as an unfriendly act. The discussion which had been continuous for so great a part of our national existence came to a sudden and unexpected termina-

to the people of Hawaii a government suitable to their needs and suitable to their fitness. And that was the way the government was put in practical operation, by the proclamation of the President on May 18, simply continuing in power those then in office, except those who bad relation to the foreign affairs of the islands, and continuing in force the municipal law of Hawaii that was not in violation of our own Constitution. . That government has utterly failed to meet the needs of the

3704

Hawaiian people. It has proved cumbersome, expensive, inade-quate. Many doubtful questions of admiralty jurisdiction have arisen. Under Article IV of the Constitution the judicial power of the United States extends to all questions of maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. Here is the harbor of Honolulu, congested with shipping, with such questions arising almost daily, with no tribunal to pass upon them. Other questions have arisen in the administration of criminal law, as there is no provision in Hawaii for a grand jury, and a provision exists for a majority verdict of juries. There has been no power to make appropriations for public improvements, for roads, or to extend the wharves or harbor facilities. The suspension of the conveyance of the public lands was ordered by the President in September, 1898. Persons who have had inchoate rights, homestead rights, and others have been unable to perfect their title. The Attorney-General rendered an opinion that although the municipal laws of Hawaii remained, yet the conveyances of the public lands were not authorized. In addition, under this government large numbers of Japanese contract laborers have been imported into the island. By the last report which I have here, which has just been received, of the collector-general of customs of Hawaii, it appears that the immigration for 1899 was as follows: That there arrived in Hawaii 975 Chinese, 26,103 Japanese, and 5,647 of all others, and that there departed during the same time 1,514 Chinese, 2,780 Japanese, and 4,769 others. Twenty-five thousand contract Japanese laborers have been imported into Hawaii since it was United States territory, subject to the United States laws, waiting for the United States Congress to give them a government. It is time that this reproach upon the United States be removed, and the importation of con tract labor into Hawaii be forever ended by the action of Congress. Now, the duty is laid upon Congress to provide a government for these islands. In providing that government no question of general policy as to the people of other islands should have any weight. The government that we provide is to be decided, and decided alone, upon the needs of the Hawaiian people and upon their fitness for a representative and free government. In this way alone can we do justice to the people of Hawaii. They are entitled to a government for the Hawaiian people, not for the Puerto Rican, not for the Filipinos. As to the character of the government that we provide, we should not be deterred by the fear of establishing any troublesome precedent for the future. If the conditions in Hawaii are not like those in Puerto Rico, in Cuba, or in the Philippines, then the establishment of the government that is made in Hawaii can form no precedent for such government, if any, as Congress may establish in other islands. Upon the merits of the case alone as applied to the Hawaiian people we ask you to provide a government for them. Neither should we be deterred as to the character of the government we provide by any fear of a claim of statehood hereafter on the part of the people of Hawaii. They may never ask it. It may never be considered proper to grant it. But upon that question we can not bind the future. We can not bind a single Congress that shall succeed this one. We can not bind the next session of this Congress. If claim is ever made for statehood upon the part of Hawaii, it must be de-cided by the Congress then representing the American people, and we can not make one hair black nor white in reference to that decision. - But there is nothing to fear, I believe, in this matter. I believe the Hawaiian people are content to go on under the free, representative government of a United States Territory, that shall give them the protection of the flag of the country and an opportunity to develop their wonderful resources, their marvelous, their beautiful country. The American people can be trusted. For more than fifty years the Territory of New Mexico has been an organized Territory of the United States, often seeking statehood at the hands of Congress and uniformly refused. For more than a generation the vast Territory of Alaska, the richest of land, one of the most valuable possessions of the United States, peopled with the boldest, the truest, and most enterprising American citizens, has existed, and yet has not an organization as a Territory. There is no fear of haste upon the part of the people of the United States or of Congress in granting the right of statehood. I think I represent the opinion of every member here in saying that if it is possible for us to grant Territorial government to these islands like that of the other Territories of the United States — governments of which we have had experience, which have been perfected in the long years that Congress has dealt with them, governments which have had their particular laws generalized under statutes, and laws made applicable to all Territories — it is desirable to do so.

We are not met at the threshold of action by the question of the extension of the Constitution to Hawaii, for the annexation resolution provided that the municipal law of Hawaii that was not in contravention of the Constitution should remain until action by Congress. And this bill, in so many words, extends the Constitution to Hawaii: so that there has not been practically a moment of time since the Hawaiian Islands were annexed to the United States that the Constitution has not been the standard by which all the laws of that country must be measured. Before the annexation resolution and before our Constitution was extended there its spirit had gone. For sixty years the spirit of the American Constitution, the foundation of our traditions and our history, has existed in Hawaii, permeating the body politic, enlightening the legislation of the islands. Together with the Constitution has gone the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the great guaranty of personal freedom that we extend to Hawaii is extended by the consent of the governed. Can we, then, extend a free representative Territorial government to the people of Hawaii? There has been no time since the Northwest Territory that there has not been several organized Ter-ritories under the jurisdiction of Congress. Twenty-eight Territories in all have been organized. It has been the standard of government which we have adopted for all Territories of the United States where there was not a State organization. Now, the question I ask the members of the House to consider, and one that seems to me to be a fundamental one, are the people of Hawaii fitted for it; will it meet their needs; are they fitted to receive suffrage; will they appreciate the great responsibilities of government that is put upon them? A word, then, as to the people of Hawaii. We have there about 110,000 people, the majority of them Asiatic — more than half Japanese and Chinese. But under our laws, under the bill as well as in the past, these Asiatics are and were not citizens of Hawaii in the sense of being entitled to suffrage or taking part in the government: and the moment that this bill is passed, the moment Hawaii is given Territorial government of the United States, the Asiatics, Japanese, and Chinese can never be citizens of Hawaii and can never exercise suffrage. Now, what as to the remainder of the populace of the Hawaiian Islands? There are native Hawaiians, some 40,000 in number. The Hawaiians are a slowly dying race, fading out, soon to be wiped out from among the peoples of the earth. The first census of Hawaii was taken in 1836, and from that time up to 1874, when the reciprocity treaty with the United States started business and enterprise in Hawaii, every census has shown a large and rapid decrease in the Hawaiian people. No one can tell exactly the reason for it. The chief reason, perhaps, is that they more quickly take to the vices of civilization than to the virtues. They imitate its excesses; they do not possess its restraints. Like the American Indian, wherever they come in touch with civilization they fade and die away. The position of the Hawaiian Islands also as a place for the calling of vessels of all nations has at all times offered inviting ground for epidemics, which have swept off the people in vast numbers. Whatever the cause may be, they are a rapidly dying, fading nation. Those that remain who will take any part under this government are fairly intelligent, simple, generally orderly; they are educated either in the English or in the Hawaiian language. All the younger portion of the Hawaiians speak the English language; the older ones speak the Hawaiian language, and the newspapers are published in both the Hawaiian and English languages. In the early days of the missionaries — in 1830 — the Bible was translated into the Hawaiian language. There are about 15,000 Portuguese. Of these more than half were born in the islands of Hawaii. More than half have been educated in the public schools of Hawaii, where the English language has been taught. They are orderly, peaceful, law abiding. We in America do not debar them from citizenship, and I think it will be admitted that in the large cities where there are many Portuguese they are among the best, most industrious, orderly, and tractable people. The chief consideration as to the wisdom of extending the Territorial government to Hawaii and as to the fitness of the people to receive it is that there is in Hawaii a controlling class, American, English, and German, not oppressive, but that has guided the people, shaped legislation, and been faithful to the best interest of Hawaii through all the vicissitudes of its later history. Among those who have favored the reactionary tendencies, who have opposed the present government, this has been called the missionary class. The missionaries went to Hawaii first in 1820 — went there to plant the seeds of a Christian civilization. They went from New England. The king at that time, recognizing their great work and what they could do in the future for Hawaii, gave them and their families in the islands valuable lands. These missionaries were followed by other missionaries and their families. They acquired other lands, and they lived there, intermarried, and were soon after joined by other pioneers, business men, those who looked to

3705

their own profit in going to Hawaii. They laid the foundation, industrial and commercial, of Hawaii upon broad grounds; they shaped its legislation in accord with the nigh model of American tradition. They will be in the future, as in the past, the great vital, ennobling force that shall make Hawaii the fairest and best of the islands that have become part of the nation. For the citizenship that is created, those who will have the ballot, this bill provides for an educational qualification. We give to Hawaii the intelligent ballot by providing in Hawaii the voter must be able to read, to write, and to speak either the English or the Hawaiian language. If. there is any danger in this country to-day, it is the ignorant ballot. If there is any safety for the people of Hawaii in the future, it is the intelligent ballot. Thus we propose to create and to give to these people a government of a free, representative, United States Territory, founded on justice and equality, and depending for its preservation and advancement upon the intelligent ballot of the United States citizen. [Applause.] Now, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, Senate 222, the House reports the bill, striking out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and inserting that of the House. The report that goes with the latter is not the report that was made with the House bill, and is very short. The full report, which I would be glad for all members to have and to see, was made upon the House bill when it was reported, and is numbered 305; and I have endeavored to see that there should be a sufficient number by a reprint, so that each member of the House might have one in his possession. I do not propose to go over in detail the provisions of this bill. Members of the committee are ready and will be glad to answer all questions and give all information upon the bill that may be desired. The first two sections simply define what is meant in the bill by the laws of Hawaii. They are the laws which have been enacted by past legislatures of Hawaii and the constitution that was adopted by the republic. Mr. RIDGELY. Will the gentleman allow me a question? Mr. KNOX. Certainly. Mr. RIDGELY. If I understand you, we are extending the same laws as to immigration and the importation of contract labor to Hawaii that we have in the United States, and the bill provides for a restricted franchise. Mr. KNOX. Provides an educational qualification. Mr. RIDGELY. Can the gentleman tell us as to about what per cent of population will be entitled to franchise under the provisions of this bill? Mr. KNOX. About 80 per cent of the people are able to read and write. Mr. RIDGELY. Of the entire population? Mr. KNOX. Yes. Mr. RIDGELY. Including the Japanese and Chinese? Mr. KNOX. No. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. This conversation might as well take place in Hawaii for all we can hear. The CHAIRMAN. Members of the House complain that they are unable to hear. Mr. CANNON. I would suggest that the strong-lunged gentleman from Kansas go over to his side of the Chamber, and then the gentleman from Massachusetts, standing where he does now, will probably make himself heard. Mr. RIDGELY. I availed myself of the liberty to come over to this side of the Chamber to hear the discussion, but 1 will get back on the other side. Now, if the gentleman will permit me, I will repeat my question. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to the gentleman from Kansas? Mr. KNOX. I do. Mr. RIDGELY. I understand from the gentleman that the bill restricts the right of franchise to an educational qualification. My question is. What part of the entire population will be able to vote under this bill? Mr. KNOX. About 80 per cent of all there is, except the Asiatics, who can not become citizens. Mr. RIDGELY. What per cent are Asiatics? Mr. KNOX. A little more than one-half — nearly 60 per cent. Mr. RIDGELY. What part of the actual population of the island is affected by this bill? Mr. KNOX. Less than half, perhaps 47 per cent, as to the right of citizenship and voting. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I would like to ask the gentleman what provision, if any, is made in this bill to prevent Asiatics born in the island of Hawaii from becoming voters? Mr. KNOX. None whatever in this bill. They would stand under the existing United States laws, under which a Chinaman can not be naturalized either in a Federal court or a State court. So, too, Japanese can not be naturalized.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. But Chinamen born in the United States become American citizens. Mr. KNOX. Under the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Yes; and so it would be if they were born in Hawaii. Is there no provision in the bill that would curtail their right of suffrage there in any way except the educational qualification? Mr. KNOX. No. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I understand. I merely asked the question because I was afraid the gentleman's answer to a previous question, put him by the gentleman from Kansas, would leave a wrong impression. Mr. KNOX. I am very much obliged to the gentleman. I do not wish to have any misunderstanding. Mr. BARTLETT. I wish to ask whether section 102, the last section of the bill, will not be somewhat in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court to which the gentleman has referred? Mr. KNOX. In what regard? Mr. BARTLETT. It provides that Chinese who may be in the Hawaiian Islands when this act takes effect may within one year obtain certificates of residence under the act of May 5, 1892 — the very act which the Supreme Court of the United States decided did not apply to Chinese children born in this country. If Hawaii became, in July, 1898, a part of this country, then children born there since July, 1898, of Chinese parents would be citizens of the United States. Mr. KNOX. I should not agree that July 8 —— Mr. BARTLETT. I did not say July 8; I said July, 1898. Mr. KNOX. I should not agree that on July 8 the Constitution and laws of the United States went into operation in Hawaii, except as they went there under the annexation resolution. Mr. BARTLETT. The gentleman must admit that there might be a conflict of opinion on this point, and the Supreme Court of the United States might apply the principle of the decision contained on page 168 United States Reports. Mr. KNOX. I do not see how we could provide for that in the bill. Mr. BARTLETT. It struck me that the provision of the bill was in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in that case. Mr. KNOX. This section does not refer to children born in Hawaii since the annexation. It simply provides a means by which Chinese who are there may obtain within a year certificates of residence which would entitle them to remain there. That is all it undertakes to deal with; it applies only to Chinese who are actually there. Now, the provisions of section 6 continue in force the municipal legislation of Hawaii — its municipal laws as they have existed in the past, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Constitution and laws of Hawaii, which are in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, are repealed or abrogated. . Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. In reference to section 6 I would like to ask a question. That section provides — That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States.Now, this bill, when passed, will be a "law of the United States;" and when we have said that "the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment," we have said, it seems to me, as much as ought to be said. Mr. KNOX. If there are any provisions of this bill which are inconsistent with the laws of Hawaii, then the laws of Hawaii must give way in the same manner as they would give way to our existing Constitution and laws. The language to which the gentleman refers may not be absolutely necessary, but certainly it can do no harm. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. No; I do not see that any harm will be done; but it is always preferable to have the expressions in a statute as plain and concise as possible. Mr. RIDGELY. I would like to ask another question. Does this bill permit the immigration of Asiatic people after its passage? Mr. KNOX. The bill makes Hawaii United States territory, extending to it the laws of the United States. Immediately upon this bill becoming a law, all our laws restricting immigration and prohibiting the importation of contract laborers take effect at once in Hawaii, and that is the reason of our desire that the bill may be promptly passed. As 1 before stated, since July 8, the date of the annexation resolution, there have been some 30,000 Japanese contract laborers imported into Hawaii. . Mr. RIDGELY. That was my understanding of the bill, but the question and answer a while ago did not bring out that fact clearly.

3706Mr. KNOX. There is no question that the existing laws of the United States regulating immigration and the importation of contract labor will apply. Now, in section 7 —— Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Before the gentleman goes to that section will he allow me a remark? I notice on page 53 of the bill a provision that section 1890 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii. That is the statute, as I understand, which prohibits any religions corporation from owning more than $50,000 worth of real estate in a Territory of the United States. What was the idea in the minds of the committee when they prohibited the application of that statute to Hawaii? It seems to me it would be a good idea to provide against the dangers of mortmain, and there ought to be some limitation, whether $50,000 or some other sum, as to the amount of real estate that may be acquired by any such institution. Mr. KNOX. The reason for that provision in the bill was that there are now existing in Hawaii quite a number of charities very largely endowed, which are performing a very meritorious charitable work in the islands; and if this provision were extended it would militate against these institutions, which all the people there and all the Americans who have ever been there consider to be of the highest and most meritorious and beneficial character to the people of the islands. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. But, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will excuse me, it being once admitted — and I think he himself will admit that the policy underlying the statutes of mortmain and the policy underlying all of our prohibitions against the ownership of property beyond prescribed amounts by religious corporations and charitable corporations, is a good policy — it being once admitted that that is a wise policy, then it seems to me that the fact that there are a good many charitable institutions in Hawaii which are doing a great deal of good does not militate against the wisdom of the statute. If any of these corporations now own over $50,000 worth of real estate, it might militate against the idea of fixing that particular amount, because that particular limit might act as taking their property without due process of law, and might interfere with their vested rights; but why not fix some limit in the statute? Mr. KNOX. There is great force, of course, in the gentleman's suggestion, but to answer frankly, I do not think that the House would probably limit it to any sum that would cover these large charitable institutions in Hawaii. For instance, they run up to very huge amounts — $500,000. They hold that property now, and a greater amount probably. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I understand that we can not interfere with those who already own it, but why not say that charitable and religions corporations shall not hereafter acquire an amount exceeding 150,000, leaving those that have their vested right the land which they now possess. Mr. KNOX. Of course, considering the small number of people in Hawaii who constitute the thrifty class, the intelligent and controlling class there, and the great demand made on account of those who may become or are subjects of charity, and the great work these institutions do, it seems that the reason for the limitation upon the amount does not exist. There is another thing to which I call the attention of the gentleman —— Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. In that connection —— Mr. KNOX. Just a moment. There is another thing that I call the attention of the gentleman to, and that is that while in America we have a vast country, consisting of many States, Hawaii is a small community, with probably less than half the number of people in the gentleman's district, and while the benefits are great in so small a community the evils can be but small. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Well, they may be coextensive with the territory and with the population. Now, is there not an actual danger that the majority of the real estate of Hawaii will go into dead hands — that is, into the hands of charitable and religions institutions? Mr. KNOX. There would be nothing for anybody if the majority of the property of Hawaii went into the hands of such organizations. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. That is a very bad condition far any country to be in, no matter how small. Mr. KNOX. Well, it is very small, and I think the evil does Dot call for legislation. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman —— The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman

there are several institutions of a charitable and educational nature —— Mr. RIDGELY. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. It is absolutely impossible for us to hear a word, and many of us are interested in this presentation of facts. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. KNOX. I would state to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, as this is quite a long list and we have a perfect list here, would it answer or satisfy him if this should be inserted in the RECORD? Mr. HAMILTON. I simply suggest to the gentleman that I will incorporate that statement into some remarks which I shall have occasion to make during the consideration of the bill. It covers all of these charitable institutions and the conditions sur-rounding each of them. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I notice that the opening paragraph of that statement is in language like this:Aside from the religions and charitable organizations there are certain others.Mr. KNOX. Aside from the religious and charitable institutions in Hawaii there are some —— Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. That is just what I want to know. What are the religious and charitable institutions? You say there are certain other institutions aside from those. How much property on the islands do the charitable and religions institutions own? Mr. KNOX. I am unable to answer that. I have received no figures. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Is not that the vital question that is raised by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS]? Mr. KNOX. I can say to the gentleman that education in Hawaii is not connected with any church or any denomination, but is absolutely unsectarian. Under the laws of Hawaii the schools are entirely separated from sectarian control. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Is there any limitation in the bill on the amount of property that a religious charitable institution or organization can own or acquire? Mr. KNOX. There is none. Now, in section 7 we undertake to give a list of the laws of Hawaii that are repealed, that are no longer in force on account of this provision that all laws must come up to the standard of the Constitution and laws of the United States. I think the very names of these laws will suggest a reason for their repeal. That is, by looking at the names or them you will see that they apply to an independent republic other than the United States, and would not be applicable to a country over which the laws of the United States were extended. But in the report, to which I invite attention, there is a statement of the laws which are repealed, with a brief description of them, so that any gentleman may find out for himself on examination the laws that have been repealed by this bill. The offices which are abolished by this bill are no longer applicable to the United States territory. They are the president of the Republic, the minister of foreign affairs, of the interior, of finance, etc. The amendment to official titles requires no expla-nation. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman permit another interruption right there? Mr. KNOX. Certainly. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Section 7 of this bill says that chapter 32, relating to ramie, and chapter 38, relating to taro flour, are repealed. Why are they repealed? What is the nature of them? Mr. KNOX. They have no relevancy to anything existing now under United States laws. The report explains every one of these. By another section we simply undertake to keep all obligations, contracts, and rights of action which now exist, to secure and preserve vested rights, to provide for the continuance of litigation that has been begun in the courts of Hawaii, that it may go on to final judgment in courts of the United States and Hawaii, and that execution and judgment shall be properly enforced by proper officers of the United States or the Territory. The same provision applies both to civil and criminal proceedings, pending and unfinished, in the courts of Hawaii at the time that this bill shall take effect. Chapter 2 provides for the legislative power. I would say that this whole provision in regard to a legislature for Hawaii does not differ from the general legislative provision as to Territories of the United States, nor does it differ from the provisions of our general Territorial laws as to legislatures. The number of the house is made 80 and the number of the senate 15. I believe under the republic of Hawaii both houses were made up of 15 members. We have simply doubled the number in the

yield? Mr. KNOX. Yes. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman please state what these charitable organizations are, how they are organized, and for what purposes? Mr. KNOX. I have a statement here of the charitable institutions in Hawaii Aside from religions and charitable institutions, of which there are a number, Protestant and Roman Catholic,

popular branch, making it 80 instead of 15, and keeping the old number of 15 in the senate, preserving the names of house of representatives and senate, although our general Territorial law provides that the upper house shall be called the council and the lower the house of representatives.

3707The sessions of the legislature are biennial; the election is in the fall, and they meet in February. The provision is generally the provision of our law, that each House shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members, and disqualifies all those who are employed by the government in other positions, and providing for the oath. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. I would like to make a suggestion to the gentleman as to section 18, which reads:That no person shall be entitled to register or vote at any election in the Territory of Hawaii unless he shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.Does not the gentleman think that the verbiage of that section might be improved somewhat? There seems to be some question of whether a man every time he went to register should take a constitutional oath, and I would suggest that there be inserted "unless he shall theretofore have taken the oath." Mr. KNOX. I suppose the gentleman would agree that the oath is a proper one, that he should support the Constitution of United States? Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. Oh, yes; I do not disagree with that. I am not criticising requiring a man to take the oath. This language might impart the idea that at each and every registration had and every election held each voter should take the oath, not-withstanding he may have taken it a half a dozen times before. It seems to me that if you would make it read "unless he shall have theretofore taken the oath to support the Constitution of the United States "it would be much better. Mr. KNOX. I hardly think the section is susceptible to the objection which the gentleman makes:That no person shall be entitled to register or vote at any election in the Territory of Hawaii unless he shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.After he has once taken the oath and once registered, he is a voter. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky, Yes; but does that say that? Mr. KNOX. Would not that be a fair construction? Mr. SMITH of Kentucky, Yes; but I want you to make it sure that it is that way. Mr. KNOX. I think that would be the fair construction. If the gentleman thinks it doubtful, it could be changed, and there would be no objection to that. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. I would like to have it made plain and direct. Mr. KNOX. The provision for the yeas and nays, the rules, the punishment of persons not members, are so like those of the United States' provisions that I do not think it necessary to refer to them. The compensation of members of the legislature is $400 for a session that is limited to sixty days, and $200 for an extra session, limited to 30 days, and mileage at 10 cents a mile each way. I believe under our general Territorial laws the Territorial council receives compensation at $6 per day and mileage. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. Will the gentleman answer a question? Mr. KNOX. Certainly. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. Referring to section 4, it is provided—That all persons who are citizens of the republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens ofthe Territory of Hawaii. ,Who were citizens then? Does that include any Chinese or Japanese? Mr. KNOX. Under that provision the republic of Hawaii made citizens of the republic all persons born or naturalized in the republic of Hawaii. When the republic of Hawaii was formed, there were a few Chinese who had been granted citizen-ship, and the republic did substantially what this bill does; and with the exception of about 700 Chinese who had previously been naturalized in the days of the monarchy, there are no Chinese citizens, and that was the extent of the Asiatic naturalization; and of that 700 a very large number have departed. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. Now, can you tell me how many come in under this act? Mr. KNOX. None come in not already naturalized. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. How many are there of them? Mr. KNOX There were not over 700 previous to the formation of the Hawaiian republic. Mr. WILSON Of Idaho. Of course, all Chinese born in Hawaii would be? Mr. KNOX. They all are under our laws by this bill. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. About 700 would include all Chinese citizens? Mr. KNOX. And according to the best estimate, half of these have gone from Hawaii. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. Will the gentleman tell me why the 12th of August was fixed? Mr. KNOX. The 7th day of July was the date of the passage of the annexation resolution. The President in his proclamation provided for the transfer of sovereignty — the actual ceremonies of

the transfer of sovereignty from the Hawaiian republic to the United States, which was to take place on the arrival of the Philadelphia with Admiral Walker. That Vessel arrived, and the ceremonies took place on August 12. That was the day that the Hawaiian flag was run down and the American flag went up. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. RICHARDSON. I ask unanimous consent that the gentle-man be allowed to conclude his remarks. Mr. HITT. The gentleman is in control of the time. How could his time have expired? The CHAIRMAN. Even if he were in control of the time, be must speak in subjection to the rules, which limits him to sixty minutes. Mr. HITT. I thought an agreement had been made. Mr. RICHARDSON. No; it was not made. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may be permitted to conclude his remarks. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts may be permitted to conclude his remarks. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I have already stated the number of members of the senate, and that general and special elections may be had to fill vacancies which may be occasioned in either house. Now, the provisions as to the division of senatorial districts are contained on pages 63 and 04 of the bill. I will not read those. The universal testimony was that these districts were divided as fairly and with as much consideration for the convenience of the people and the voters as it was possible under all the circumstances, and no objection came from any quarter; and I would say the same in regard to the representative districts contained on pages 05 and 66. The qualifications of a representative are simply the attainment of the age of 23 years, citizenship of the United States, and residence in the Hawaiian Islands for a space of three years. Mr. MORRIS. I see that those are the qualifications of a senator: where are the qualifications for a representative? Mr. KNOX. That comes later on, and differs in no way. The first session of the legislature will take place in 1901. It is provided that the English language shall control in the title to laws and the enacting clause. The reading of the bill is in accordance with our own provisions, and the certification of bills from one house to another and the signing of the bills by the governor are in conformity to our own rules. The governor has the usual veto provided by the Territorial law. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. Have you provided in the bill that the final passage of bills in the assembly shall be by a yea-and-nay vote? Mr. KNOX. Yes, and the governor is obliged to return a bill vetoed, with the reasons for the same. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. Have yon made it mandatory? Mr. KNOX. We have. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I notice on page 93, section 04, in connection with imports from Hawaii into the United States, this language:That imports from any of the Hawaiian Islands into any State or any other Territory of the United States, of any dutiable articles not the growth, production, or manufacture of said islands, and imported into them from any foreign country after July 7, 1896, and before this act takes effect, shall pay the same duties that are imposed on the same articles when imported into the United States from any foreign country.What was the date of our establishment of custom-houses out there? Mr. KNOX. The customs laws of the United States have not been extended to Hawaii. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I thought we passed an act extending them some time ago. Mr. KNOX. I think we passed it in the House at the last Congress, but it failed in the Senate. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I knew we passed it in the House at some time. Mr. KNOX. Now, the appropriations on page 69, which the legislature may make, are to be made biennially. They are made upon estimates submitted by the governor substantially in accordance with our own provisions. The provisions of section 54 are perhaps a little different in providing that the governor, in case of failure to appropriate, may extend the appropriations that have been made before. The legislative power, page 70, is but a repetition of our own law as to the subjects upon which Territorial legislation may be had. Mr. GILBERT. I have not studied the bill carefully, but I would like to know whether, under the provisions of this act, the Chinese and Japanese and other Asiatics are entitled to give evidence, to serve on juries, and to perform all the other functions of citizenship except to vote? Mr. KNOX. As I understand the laws of Hawaii, the juries

3708are drawn from citizens. Neither Japanese nor Chinese are citizens; they never have been and will not be.

Mr. H1TT. They are denied naturalization by law.Mr. GILBERT. Are they permitted to serve on juries?Mr. KNOX. No.Mr. GILBERT. Are they permitted to make contracts?Mr. KNOX. Yes.Mr. GILBERT. To sue and be sued; to give evidence in court?Mr. HITT. They are aliens.

Mr. GILBERT. If yon give them to that extent the right of citizenship, how are you going to deny them the equal protection of the law? Mr. KNOX. In what way?

Mr. GILBERT. For example, the Supreme Court has held), as the gentleman knows, that the colored race have not secured a fair trial and have not secured the equal protection of the laws in these States where, by statutory enactment, they were not per mitted to serve on the jury. Now, if yon by this statute preclude the Asiatics from serving on the jury, has the Asiatic, when he is indicted and tried and convicted, been tried according to the law of the land?

Mr. KNOX. But the African in this country is a citizen and is entitled to vote.Mr. GILBERT. The gentleman does not catch my point. Where the local State or Territory by legal statute precludes any particular class on account of race

or color from serving on the jury or from being deprived of any of the rights of the white cit izen, he has not been secured the equal protection of the law. Now, if this act deprives an Asiatic of the right to serve on a jury, can you convict him, under the Constitution of the United States, by a jury made up of another race, which other race has the exclusive right to sit on the jury?

Mr. KNOX. The colored man, or the African, is a citizen under our laws. He votes. The right that is withheld from the Japan ese or the Asiatic is not taken away by this bill nor by the Hawaiian law. But under the existing laws of the United States Japanese and Chinese can not become citizens of this country. That is the effect of existing laws of the United States, which are simply extended over Hawaii by this bill. Those people are not a part of the body of citizenship under the general United States law, and they can not go on the jury list.

Mr. GILBERT. I was asking simply for information. Now, there is another question. Before the war we bad a great deal of learned discussion down South as to what constituted a colored man or a negro. Now, it is conceded that the Japanese and the Chinese are not citizens of the United States. I do not know to what extent miscegenation is carried on out there, but suppose an Asiatic intermarries with an American citizen; is the offspring of such a marriage a citizen? Are half-breeds citizens under this bill?

Mr. KNOX. I have answered that before. Under an express provision of the law of 1883 we do not naturalize Chinese.Mr. GILBERT. I am aware of that.

Mr. KNOX. That law provides that no Chinese shall be naturalized either in a Federal court or a State court. We do not naturalize Japanese, not by virtue of any express provision of law, but by a judicial decision. It is true this matter rests only upon a decision of a circuit court—a circuit court, I think, in Boston. But Japanese are held not to be free white persons under the provisions of our laws. The constitutional amendment is held to be for the benefit of persons of the African race.

Mr. GILBERT. Exclusively. Mr. KNOX. Yes; exclusively; and a Japanese is not considered a free white person. I have a little brief in regard to the citizenship of Japanese; but I

understand the whole matter rests upon the decision of a circuit court that they are not free white persons. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. This bill has been sprung on us rather suddenly, and hence I desire to ask another question. I notice the suffrage

provision—— Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I wish to ask this question: The Supreme Court has decided, has it not, that the child of a China man who can not himself

be naturalized is a citizen of the United States if born in the State of California?Mr. KNOX. That is a recent decision.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Now, would not a child of Chinese parents born in Hawaii become a citizen?Mr. KNOX. Undoubtedly, when our laws are extended there. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. If of mixed blood, would not that child be a citizen?Mr. KNOX. It would. If children of Chinese parents, who can not themselves be naturalized, are citizens, a fortiori children of the half-blood, born in

the United States, would be citizens. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to the suffrage provisions on page 78 and 74 of this

bill. And, by the way, I have no quarrel with them. I think they are admirable in their character-almost a transcript of the Mississippi constitution and tending strongly toward the preservation of white supremacy and civilization in Hawaii. Mr. KNOX. We are very much complimented. [Laughter.] Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I notice on page 74 a provision in these words:

Prior to registration the person undertaking to vote must have paid a poll tax of $1 for the current year. Now, if the poll tax could be paid upon the day of the election, or but a very short time in advance, politicians could, of course, come in and virtually

buy votes by paying the poll tax for those desiring to vote; whereas if the poll tax is required to have been paid a considerable time in advance of the election—nine months in Mississippi—the class of people who sell their votes would hardly be trusted by politicians during that length of time. Hence, I should like to know about how long a time is to pass between the last day on which the poll tax can be paid and the day of the election.

Mr. KNOX. Under one provision which it was proposed to insert in this bill the voter must have paid all his taxes; and he is taxed for many things, the individual tax alone amounting to $5. In order to extend suffrage as far as possible this provision was modified so as to require the payment simply of a head tax; and according to that provision, as I recollect it, the time of registration extends close up to the time of election; but the tax must be paid before registration.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I understand that. What I desire to know is how long before the election the registration closes. This is a very important matter, in order to consummate what you desire to consummate.

Mr. KNOX. That is all in the report that is before you. I will have to turn to it in order to give you the length of time that registration must precede the election.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The object of my inquiry was to know how to vote when we came to it, because a poll-tax pro vision, the payment of which can entitle a man to vote if the payment be made immediately prior to an election, is no safeguard of any sort; whereas if a considerable time passes, it is a very estimable safeguard.

Mr. KNOX. The provision of the bill is simply that he shall pay his poll tax prior to registration, and in the report which you have before you, and which I will look at in a moment, the exact time when registration closes is provided. The exact time when he may register is provided there.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. And he must pay the poll tax "prior to registration." Mr. KNOX. Yes; he must pay it prior to registration. I agree with the gentleman that allowing the poll-tax to be paid up to the time of voting used to be

quite a common practice and might be liable to abuse.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Yes. Mr. KNOX. That was done away with in our State by abolishing the poll tax as a requisite for voting. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. We did away with the evil by providing that all poll taxes due up to the February of the year preceding the election

should have been paid on or before February 1, and in that way the politician had no temptation to buy voters by paying the poll tax. Mr. KNOX. The provision here is that it must be paid previous to registration, and I will give you the exact time for registration in a moment.Mr. R1UGELY. Will the gentleman permit a question.Mr. KNOX. Certainly. Mr. RIDGELY. Does this bill treat all the inhabitants of Hawaii as citizens when it goes into effect?Mr. KNOX. All except the Asiatics. Mr. RIDGELY. The Asiatics are not admitted to citizenship in the island?Mr. KNOX. They can not be under our United States laws. The laws of the United States are extended to Hawaii, and the Chinese and Japanese, as I

have tried to explain, can not be citizens of the United States. Mr. RIDGELY. Now, one other question. Do you hold that the Constitution now applies to Hawaii?

Mr. KNOX. We extend it by this act, when it goes into effect. Mr. RIDGELY. And yon hold that it never has applied until extended by legislation? Mr. KNOX. I do not believe, as the gentleman does, that the Constitution of itself goes to the islands after we have acquired them; but fortunately that

question does not arise in reference to Hawaii, because the resolution which annexed the islands to the United States provided that all the municipal law of Hawaii that was not in contravention of the Constitution of the United States should be extended to it, so that the annexation resolution nega tively extended the Constitution. This bill affirmatively extends it, and there never has been a time when there has been a hiatus, or when the Constitution of the United States was not the controlling3709

power in Hawaii, since the annexation by special legislative enact-ment, which nobody denies the power of Congress to make.) Mr. RIDGELY. And if I understand the gentleman, the Asiatics now in the islands can not come into this country because of their being there at the time this law goes into effect? Mr. KNOX. That is another question which will arise under the last section. There are some gentlemen in the House who apprehend that under the provisions of the last section of the bill the Chinese may, within a year, obtain their certificates of residence in Hawaii, and that they may then come into California or Oregon and take the benefit of the wages and employment they can get there. I do not think, and the committee do not think, that can be done, but there is some doubt about it, and an amendment is to be prepared covering that, and I will say to the gentleman that we entirely agree that that should not be allowed, and provision will be made to prevent it. Mr. RIDGELY. Another question, and I am done. Mr. KNOX, Oh, certainly; anything yon desire to ask. Mr. RIDGELY. All who may be born on the islands of Asiatic parents will, by reason of their birth, be entitled to come into this country as citizens? Mr. KNOX. They will be citizens. That is a decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. They would be citizens if born here. Mr. KNOX. They become citizens if born under this jurisdiction. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. They would be citizens if born in Washington. Mr. KNOX. We can not change that. Mr. RIDGELY. And over 60 per cent of the population of the islands are Asiatics. Mr. KNOX. More than half. Mr. RIDGELY. Then we have a pretty wide door open for the admission of the Asiatics as citizens of this country. Mr. KNOX. Let me say to the gentleman that of all the Asiatics who come over, very few are females. The Chinese come to Hawaii with the intention of remaining a few years and acquiring what is to them, in their own country, a competency and then returning So do the Japanese. Their whole purpose, and the whole dream and object of their life, is to return, and they do return. I am not giving exact figures, but they are approximate. Out of 50,000 Asiatics in Hawaii there are not 5,000 females. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. Will not our Chinese-restriction laws apply to Hawaii as soon as this bill passes? Mr. KNOX. Precisely. The laws of the United States cover that subject; and I will say to the gentleman from Kansas that the Asiatic births in Hawaii are exceedingly small in number and scarcely worth counting. Mr. WILSON of Idaho. And if the gentleman will allow me to refer to subdivision 6, under the restriction of qualifications of voters for representatives, page 74, I notice a provision that they shall be able to speak, read and write the language of the United States or the Hawaiian language. I think that is a very admirable provision, which ought to be a statute of every State in the Union. It is an educational qualification, but I believe it is a new departure in Congressional legislation. I do not know of Congress ever having made an educational qualification before. I think that will ultimately restrict, perhaps, the voting of native-born Chinese. 1 would like to have the gentleman's opinion as to why that provision was inserted in the bill, it being a departure in Congressional legislation. Mr. KNOX. Well, it was the unanimous opinion of the committee that it was wise, and it was the unanimous desire of the persons from Hawaii who were here, who bad had experience and had observed the people there, that the provision should be in the bill. They thought it was a safeguard and the best that could be adopted. Mr. GILBERT. May I ask the gentleman a question? Mr. KNOX. Oh, certainly. Mr. GILBERT. I want to refer to section 1877 of the Revised Statutes of the United States: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the game rights in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue —And so forth — and to the full and equal benefit of all laws— And so forth. Now, that section, of course, remains in force under the provisions of this act. I do not understand, and I would like to have you explain, how that statute can remain operative and at the same time by this act make a discrimination between the two races. Mr. KNOX. We extend the laws of the United States. Mr. GILBERT. But do you extend this statute there, too? Mr. KNOX. Precisely. Now, where does the bill make any discrimination which you think is a distinction?

Mr. GILBERT. Why, by this statute all race distinctions are obliterated. Every man is secured the equal protection of this law. By your bill you preserve race distinctions and discrimination. Mr. KNOX. In what regard? Mr. GILBERT. As to their political rights. They are in conflict if yon discriminate at all. If they have existed, they are in conflict with this statute which I have just read. Mr. KNOX. By this very bill we extend the provisions of sec-tion 1077 to the people of the Hawaiian Islands. It does not apply to their political rights, but civil rights. We take away none of them, and the purpose is to take away none of them. Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky a question, which I think will answer his. Mr. GILBERT. Well? Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. Does the gentleman know where any Chinaman in any Territory of the United States can serve on a jury? Mr. GILBERT. I do not know whether he can or not; but that does not meet the difficulty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where a statutory enactment deprives a colored citizen, or a colored person, of his right to serve on a jury, that is to that extent a restriction of his political rights, and he is thereby deprived of equal protection of the laws. I want to know if we can have Hawaiian laws with race distinctions, notwithstanding the court has said that that is a discrimination and that it would deprive them of the equal protection of the law? Mr. KNOX. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States will be equally operative in Hawaii as in any portion of the United States as to any constitutional right which he possesses. It does not apply to his right to vote. Mr. GILBERT. I said in the outset that I was asking questions for information. Mr. KNOX. I fear I can not give the gentleman all the information that he desires, but what I can I freely give. Mr. GILBERT. This bill does not disclose who were citizens in the particular time designated in the bill. Will you please, for my benefit, tell me who were citizens? Mr. KNOX. All persons who at the time this bill goes into effect were citizens of the republic of Hawaii and made citizens of the United States and the Territory of Hawaii. Now, when the republic of Hawaii was formed, four years before the passage of the resolution, of course those there who were citizens under the monarchy were citizens under the republic. And these are made citizens by the bill. Mr. GILBERT. Were there any marriages there between Asiatics and others? Mr. KNOX. I do not know. I think that matter was not called to the attention of the committee at all. On pages 8 and 0 of the report the whole matter that the gentleman inquires about is put in figures. In the provisions of the bill, on page 74, is given the method of voting for senators. In that provision we did away with the accumulative voting which had prevailed in Hawaii. Of course the provision as to registering in Hawaii had to be taken and entirely changed, or changed in a great degree, because there was a property qualification under the old law. The names of the officers of the republic had to be changed; and in the report the gentleman will find the registration laws that are repealed by the bill and all that are continued in force. The governor has the same power substantially as under our own Territorial laws. The secretary of the Territory corresponds to ours; the attorney-general and the treasurer are substantially the same as our own. In regard to the public lands of Hawaii, the laws applicable to . them and the reasons for the provisions are stated fully in the report. So as to the commissioner or superintendent of public works, the superintendent of public instruction of Hawaii, the surveyor, the sheriff, and also the appointment, removal, and tenure of office. The judiciary is to consist of a supreme court and such inferior courts as the legislature may from time to time establish. There is also to be a Federal court, with jurisdiction entirely distinct from the Territorial. It was the unanimous opinion of all before the committee that with the increased commerce at Honolulu and the various new questions arising there would be ample business for a Federal court in the islands. The provision as to a Delegate in Congress is substantially that of the general Territorial law which has existed for many years. Mr. WILSON of Arizona. Will the gentleman be kind enough to tell me on what page the judiciary is provided for? Mr. KNOX. On page 86 of the bill, and the Federal court is provided for on page 90 of the bill. Hawaii is made a customs district and an internal-revenue district. Now, Mr. Chairman, with these remarks, unless there is something more to be said or inquiries to be made by other gentlemen, I will yield to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.. MCALEER] such time as he desires or such time as he wishes to yield.

3710

Mr. McALEER. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish at this time to speak on this bill, but perhaps later on I may say something on the subject. I find there are a large number of gentlemen on this side anxious to be heard, and I will yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON] . Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Before the gentleman from Indiana begins, I would like to suggest that an attempt be made to make another agreement as to the time. Mr. KNOX. I thought that would have to be done in the House. I will say that if there is no objection we will act as if the agreement was made, and when we come into the House again I will ask unanimous consent. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I will ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to make the request that he made this morning. The gentleman from Colorado was under a misapprehension. Mr. KNOX. I will do so, and in the meantime we will act as if the request had already been made and granted. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. If the gentleman does not make the request I will do it. The gentleman from Tennessee was going to do it. Mr. KNOX. Very well, we will follow it as if it had already been granted. Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the committee can not now rise and let that agreement be made in the House. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the committee has the power to control the time. Mr. KNOX. Then, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous con-Bent that the remainder of the time be controlled by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McALEER] upon that side of the House, and by myself upon this side, and that the time be equally divided. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent that the remainder of the time be divided equally between the two sides of the Chamber, one-half to be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts [ Mr. KNOX] and the other by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McALEER]. Mr. KNOX. And that gentlemen who make remarks have permission to extend their remarks in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that the committee has not the power to do that. But the House having made no order as to the time, it is in order for the committee, by unanimous consent, to agree to the proposition of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. McALEER. Now I yield one hour to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON]. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, in these troublous times of acquiring and governing outlying island possessions and efforts at once to sustain the Constitution the interest of labor seems neglected. I yield to no man a superior regard, but am willing to concede to each an equal regard, for labor as that which I have myself. Here and now we have our opportunity, not by promises, but by performance, not by words, but acts, to show our fidelity to that great cause not only in the Hawaiian Islands but here at home. I approach this subject of labor in those islands with feelings of sadness as well as of responsibility. The American Federation of Labor on December 19, 1890, in convention assembled at Detroit, Mich., resolved as follows:We affirm our previous position on this question, namely, that there must be no slavery or serfdom by ownership or contract tolerated under the American flag, and that we will make anyone whose action shall in any way militate against this principle of human freedom responsible for such action in every legitimate manner open to us.On the 7th day of July, 1898, a joint resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate was approved by the President. Among other things, it provided "that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof;" and "the municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands not enacted for the fulfillment of the treaties so extinguished and not inconsistent with this joint resolution, nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine; "and further, that "the President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall be residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Hawaiian Islands as they shall deem necessary or proper." Under this resolution the President appointed Senators CULLOM, of Illinois, and MORGAN, of Alabama, and Mr. HITT, of Illinois, of this country, and ex-President Sanford B. Dole and Judge W. F. Frear, of the Hawaiian Islands. A hundred thousand dollars was appropriated to carry out the purpose of the resolution. The resolution also provided that "there shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands."

That commission, after an excursion to the islands, filed their report in December, 1898, and with it presented a bill with their recommendation, which is the same as the bill presented by one of the commissioners in the Senate and one of the commissioners in the House of Representatives. Never before has a commission presented a measure to either body with provisions so un-American, so hostile to the genius of our institutions, as the bill recommended by this commission. The bill now before the House is that bill torn to pieces and dismantled by the committee, and, save on the subject of contract labor, it might be identified as American. This Hawaiian bill nowhere and in no wise protects or encourages American labor, here or there, and this policy is in keeping with the actions of this and last Congress dating back from this hour to the hour of the admission of the Hawaiian Islands. It is time to call a halt and to make an inquiry. You of the majority have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to prohibit the importation of contract labor into the Hawaiian Islands, because influences there and here believe they can exploit them for commercial ends — the only motive that moves them — better by contract labor, and I will prove it. You call caucuses to pass party measures. Why not go to some extremes to protect labor and destroy this infamous contract-labor system? On the contrary, you provide by section 10 of this bill "that all obligations, contracts, and rights of action shall continue to be effectual," and that "penal proceedings shall be carried on, "etc.. without destroying the slave contracts already existing. Are they so inviolate that you dare not put your finger upon them? This means that 40,000 laborers' contracts shall be continued in force and that the penal proceedings to enforce them shall continue; that slave men and women shall be imprisoned for failure to keep a civil contract. It means that involuntary servitude shall exist in the mills and on the plantations; that involuntary imprisonment with a felon's stripes shall be the remedy for enforcing civil rights between the favored masters of Hawaii and the cringing contract-labor slaves. It means that yon would crucify labor on the cross of landlordism and money in Hawaii. True, the Senate amendment, which I hope will prevail here, strikes these contracts down. Yielding to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, than whom none is more popular here or in his State, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HITT] — yielding to him the highest character for probity and goad intentions, ability and skill as a lawmaker, and as to his colleagues on the commission in the Senate 1 say the same, yet — I measure my words — these three American lawgivers, as commissioners, were seduced and buncoed by their Hawaiian conferees and by the influences on the islands. Passing over the wining and dining of the commission over on those delightful islands by the notables and the government officers, I pass to the result of the inspiration produced, as reflected in their report. First, on page 17, they say:The question whether white labor can be profitably utilized in the sugar plantations is yet a problem, but the planters are preparing to give such labor a trial, and some of them believe it will prove superior to the labor of either Chinese or Japanese. S. M. CULLOM, Chairman.Most remarkable language for an American commission. Again they say in this report, on page 2:The commission visited several of the most important Islands of the Hawaiian group in company with persons representing important agricultural and commercial interests and others representing the government.Under this influence they found, in the absence of any repre-sentatives of labor, that white labor "is yet a problem," not yet solved, but that some think that white labor will prove superior to "Chinese and Japanese labor." Disagreeable as it is, the proof is clear to me that those in power here and interested in profit and dollars in Hawaii seek to have this Government sanction the contract-labor system, and will claim, as the proof shows they do claim now, that only by contract labor can Hawaii be worked. It is probably more profitable to work the islands thus, but it remains to be seen whether this Congress will put money above manhood, contract slave labor above free labor. If so, better for labor that those islands had never rose from the bottom of the sea, or that some volcanic convulsion had sunk them, than that they should have been a part of our territory and be a constant menace to our labor. The bills introduced in Congress by the representatives of that commission and set out and recommended in this report are outlandish and un-American, and amount to a rape and destruction of American labor. Those who are ready to pass a bill to exclude the best class of immigrants from this country had better scan well the policy that has invited undesirable oriental contract labor to our islands and the system of slave contracts by which they are held. We were told in both Houses as a reason for annexation that the climate was temperate and salubrious, the soil fertile, and that

3711

by annexing Hawaii we opened up a vast field for the profitable and remunerative employment of American labor. How changed the picture! Now the commission says. "Some think that white labor may be superior to Chinese and Japanese labor." Analyze the contract-labor system; see the contract laborers stored in steerage like sardines in a box, huddled together, men, women, and children; see them on the plantations, the whole family working under contract, the men for from $15 to $18 a month to pay their passage and board and clothe themselves: see them huddled together in prison for failure to keep their contract, and then tell me whether American white labor can compete in a country prompted by such sentiments and under such conditions. When it does, it will be when the sun shines at midnight and the moon at midday, when nature stops to take a rest, and when men forget to be selfish. The population of the islands in December, 1898, as affirmed by the report, was: "Hawaiians and mixed blood, 39,000; Japanese, 25,000; Chinese, 21,500; Portuguese, 15,000; Americans, 4,000; British, 2,250; Germans and other Europeans, 2,000; Polynesians and miscellaneous, 1,250; total, 110,000." The Japanese and Orientals predominate in numbers. Hawaii had a treaty with Japan that gave the citizens of the latter free ingress, being a "favored nation clause." By the resolution of annexation we struck this down and established our own treaty relations with Japan. This was only the enforcement of a well-established principle of international law. Our treaty with Japan provides that the United States may at any time control or prohibit the immigration of Japanese laborers to the United States. The party in power has never invoked this right to protect the interest of labor. Note the number of Chinese and Japanese we have added to our population. Since annexation, July 7, 1898, thousands of foreign contract labor have been flowing into the Hawaiian Islands, so that to-day 40,000 contract laborers, or more than one third of the population, are on the islands because Congress did not prohibit this infamous dealing in human chattels in the resolution of annexation. It could have been done. The Chinese were excluded by a section of the resolution; but it was not the policy of the annexationists; it was not the policy of the administration of Hawaii, nor of those in charge here, to do it, because it is thought that the islands can be more cheaply and profitably worked by foreign contract labor. Those voices which were raised for annexation proclaimed that Hawaii was near to us — she is far enough away, but near enough to infect our laboring men with the pestilence of her labor system. Hear this proof: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF IMMIGRATION, Washington, February 9, 1900. SIR: I hare the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 8th Instant, and to state in reply thereto that this Bureau has no means by which to secure statistics of Japanese immigration to Hawaii, for the reason that its jurisdiction has not as yet been extended over that Territory. However, it is ascertained that under date of January 6, 1900, Mr. Joshua K. Brown, Chinese inspector at Honolulu, forwarded the following information to the supervising special agent, this Department: Prom August 12, 1898, to December 31, 1898: Japanese arriving under contract... ........................................ 4,652 Japanese arriving "free" ........................................................ 669Total for fractional part of 1898 ........................................... 5,321From January 1, 1899, to December 31, 1899: Japanese arriving under contract ......................................... 20,561 Japanese arriving "free" ........................................................ 5,377 Total for year 1889. ............................................................. 25,938Total from August 12, 1898, to December 31, 1899......... .... 31,250 Japanese under contract to arrive within the first three months of 1900..................................................................................... 2,750Total admitted and under contract to arrive............................. 34,009Number who have departed from the islands during the same period. 242 This is all the data in possession of this office concerning the subject referred to, and it is trusted that it will answer your purpose. Respectfully, yours, T. V. POWDERLY, Commissioner-General. Hon. JAMES M. ROBINSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.This shows the importations from Japan only. Other nations are contributing contract laborers to this Hawaiian system. It will be seen, that of 34,009 Japanese arriving, only 342 have departed in the same period, thus showing that the statement made that they leave is misleading. The Pittsburg Dispatch (Independent) of September 26, 1899, referring to the dispatch from Yokohama that the sugar interests of Hawaii had collected 10,000 Japanese contract laborers for shipment to the islands. "and that Japan was alarmed at the exodus present and future contemplated, remarked significantly, "that it was a cause of more just alarm to the United States."

Is it any wonder that the labor interests and organized labor is crying out against this infamous system that is trending toward their own enslavement? Can they not well doubt a government and their security for the future when that government tolerates such a scourge? Cardinal Gibbons, in his able paper to the Knights of Labor, said:The time has come in the world's history when the church should seek an alliance with the masses and should abandon special efforts to conciliate the mighty in war, the powerful in trade, the great ones of the earth, because in the future the control of the destinies of the world rests with the people.Sir, some Hawaiians are in this country, representing the people and the labor interests, which class, they say, were not represented before the Hawaiian commission. One is Mr. Robert W. Wilcox, a native of the islands, who, as a young man, was sent for six years to a military school in Italy by King Kalakaua, and the other, Mr. Edgar Caypless, a lawyer, of Honolulu, formerly of New York, and a graduate of the South Carolina University. The latter says "that over 25,000 Japanese have been imported there during the past year and a half under contract to labor for a term between three and five years." These contract laborers were brought to Hawaii for the money that is in them. Let us be honest. This editorial of the Washington Post of Sunday, January 21, 1900, which has favored the Administration's policy of island acquisition, is candid and honest with the laboring masses. It reads:LET US BE HONEST. Why can not we be honest in our utterances touching the territories we have recently acquired? Really it would save time and trouble, to say nothing of life and treasure, to come out frankly with the announcement that we have annexed these possessions in cold blood and that we intend to utilize them to our profit and advantage. All this talk about benevolent assimilation; all this hypocritical pretense of anxiety for the moral, social, and intellectual exaltation of the natives; all this transparent parade of responsibility and deep-seated purpose; all this deceives nobody, avails nothing, helps us not an inch in the direction of profit, dignity, and honor. We all know down in our hearts that these islands, groups, etc., are important to us only in the ratio of their practical possibilities. We value them by the standard of their commercial usefulness, and by no other. All this gabble about civilizing and uplifting the benighted barbarians of Cuba and Luzon is mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. Foolishly or wisely, we want these newly acquired territories, not for any missionary or altruistic purposes, but for the trade, the commerce, the power, and the money there are in them. Why beat about the bash and promise and protest all sorts of things? Why not be honest? It will pay. As a matter of fact, we are not concerned in the ethical or religious uplifting of the Filipinos. After all. the difference between a breechclout and a starched shirt front is a mere matter of climate and personal opinion. Dishonesty, untruth, crime, and general wickedness are here in our midst — present with us as part of our daily life and growing with our growth. We need not go to the West Indies or the Philippines in search of material for moral rescue. Our own slums abound with opportunities for missionary zeal. Why not tell the truth and say— what is the fact— that we want Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Luzon, together with any other islands in either ocean that may hereafter commend themselves to our appetite, because we believe they will add to our national strength, and because we hope they will some day become purchasers at our bargain counters? We might as well throw off the pious mask and indulge ourselves in a little honest candor. It will cost us nothing, and it may profit much. At any rate, we shall have the comfort and satisfaction of being honest with ourselves and the privilege of looking into the mirror without blushing.Now, after this plain avowal from a competent and reliable source, with the evidence all one way to prove it, it is clear that the ruling money power interested there under the Dole regime desires to hold the Hawaiian Islands for a like purpose and from like motives. With 40,000 laborers imported under the eye and by the aid of the United States, Hawaiian government officials since annexation, where is the protection to American labor? The chairman of the Committee on the Territories, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. KNOX], in January, 1899, by his objection, and on another occasion by a point of order raised, denied consideration to and prevented the passage of a bill which would have destroyed this nefarious system of contract labor. The proceedings thereon are as follows: Mr. GARDNER of New Jersey, chairman of the Labor Committee, asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a bill to extend the labor laws of the United States to Hawaii. Mr. KNOX (Massachusetts) said: "Mr. Speaker, I object, as that matter is provided for in a general bill relating to Hawaii;" as shown on page 932, volume 32, part 7, third session of the Fifty-fifth Congress. The bill sought to be enacted then reads as follows:Be it enacted, etc., That the act approved February 20, 1885, to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners, aliens, under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, be, and the same are hereby, extended to the Hawaiian Islands.The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. KNOX] a long time after, in explanation of his obstruction to this salutary legislation at that early and opportune time, by voice and vote then confessing, said his only ground of objection was that he was "opposed to piecemeal legislation," and that his own committee had a bill including other provisions. His committee was then nursing and trying to have considered the bill with the outrageous provisions to which I have referred. But time was of the essence of this action in the House, and

3712

and defeated labor, and prevented the passage through the Senate of a bill of like import which he voted for later, bat which reached the Senate too late for passage, though favorably reported by committee. The Republican party in power then in the House is responsible for his action, and he is responsible for the failure to pass a law that would have kept out contract labor from the Hawaiian Islands, for in his hands lay the power and in his party was the power, as it was charged with the duty of legislating against this crying evil. Let me read the words that came from the chairman of the Committee on Labor [Mr. GARDNER of New Jersey] as to the an-ticipated and evil consequences of that objection: Mr. GARDNER of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the facts as officially ascertained, which makes it undesirable to delay longer such legislation as this, are that 3,000 contract laborers are already known to hare reached the Hawaiian Islands since the annexation, and that the very day following the passage of the resolution of annexation contracts for the importation of only a few less than 6,000 laborers were approved by the government, and that some 3,900 of those laborers are to be brought in during the first quarter of 1899. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. KNOX] is unfair when he says that these contracts were made before the bill was introduced. The making of the contracts was the cause for the introduction of the bill. There is nobody in the United States, so far as I know, that wants the door left open for the introduction of these Japanese coolies save only the gentleman from Massachusetts, and he wants them for a special purpose, to wit, to assist the House of Representatives in passing a bill for the Committee on Territories.Mr. KNOX. The reason of the objection to the bill that the gentleman has referred to was that there was a general bill before our committee, of which that bill, if it contained desirable legislation, should have been a part. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. The bill you had then in your committee? Mr. KNOX. Yes; the bill which was being considered in our committee. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. "The Lord hath delivered mine enemies into my hands." Mr. Chairman, what bill was it that was before the gentleman's committee? It was the bill containing the outrageous provisions to which I have referred. Mr. KNOX. Not at all. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. It was the bill providing that the supreme court should be appointed by the governor of the Territory, and provided a life tenure. It was the bill which prescribed a property qualification of $1,000 as a condition of the right to vote. It was a bill that provided that neither house of the legislature, without the consent of the other, should adjourn for more than three days, and if either house did so adjourn, the other should proceed to legislate, and their legislation should be valid. If I am in error about this last matter, I can be corrected. I want to call attention to the fact that such was the provision of the bill recommended by the commission. That provision may not have been in the gentleman's bill. His was a bill that provided in section 10, as does the bill you now ask the House to pass, that these labor contracts should be continued in force and that penal proceedings should be continued to enforce them. Mr. KNOX. Now, if the gentleman will allow me — I know he would hot do injustice to anyone —— Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Surely not. Mr. KNOX. The bill before the Committee on Territories in the last Congress was a bill reported by the commission appointed by the President, who went out to Hawaii —— Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. A bill containing these outrageous provisions. Mr. KNOX. A commission, the leading member of which was the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Senator MORGAN. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan question. Mr. KNOX. Pardon me one moment. The bill that is now before the House, which the gentleman has stated continues the penal provision for the punishment of violations of the labor laws, distinctly repeals that provision. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Section 10, which you recommended in your last report reporting this very bill now before us, says that that provision shall be continued. Mr. KNOX. Not at all. The penal laws now in force for the enforcement of labor contracts are repealed by this bill. The trouble is that the gentleman has not read the bill. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Another provision of the bill of which the gentleman has spoken, and which he now gives as the reason why he kept that labor law from being considered, was a provision providing that the supreme court of Hawaii should pass upon the election returns and qualifications of the members of the senate and house of Hawaii. Mr. KNOX. That is not in this bill. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. No; but it was in the one which you were seeking to pass, and which yon urged the passage of as the reason for objecting to this labor legislation against importations. Mr. KNOX. That was in the bill originally reported. We have stricken it out.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. What is the secret? The secret is that the American commissioners were hypnotized by President Dole. Motives are difficult to ascribe, but consequences are easily felt. I know not the real motives and purposes of the gentleman from Massachusetts. But few would arrogate the insubstantial ones he assumed, that it was to secure the passage of his own pet measure. His was the bill of the commission, which provided, among other things:SEC. 10. That all obligations, contracts, rights of action, * * * prosecutions, and judgments existing prior to the taking effect of this act shall continue to be * * * effectual as if this act had not been passed. * * * All criminal and penal proceeding * * * shall be prosecuted to final judgment. * * *Which is the same language as section 10 of the bill now before the House, and members have it before them and can read it. SEC. 15. That in case any election to a seat in either house is disputed and legally contested the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii shall be the sole judge of whether or not a legal election for such seat has been held and, if it shall find that a legal election has been held. It shall be the sole judge of who has been elected. SEC. 62 (qualification of voters for senators). * * * In addition thereto, he shall own * * * real property in the Territory of the value of not less than $1,000, * * * or shall have actually received a money income of not less than $600 during the year next preceding. * * * SEC. 80. The governor shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate of the Territory of Hawaii, appoint the chief justice and justices of the supreme court. * * * All such officers shall hold * * * except the chief justice and justices of the supreme court, who shall hold office during good behavior.By section 43 of the bill recommended, as shown on page 29 of this report of the Hawaiian commission, it was provided that neither house should adjourn without the consent of the other for more than three days, and that if it did so the legislative acts of the other was the law, as if passed by both. This provision does not seem to have been included in the bills presented to Congress. The Republican party refused to pass a law in the Fifty-fifth Congress excluding contract labor in the Hawaiian Islands; refused to ingraft it on their reported resolutions in this House, and defeated the amendment in the Senate. We have islands here where people for years have gone "like the galley slave, scourged to his dungeon," for not obeying the terms of a civil contract to labor for another, into which they were induced to enter by the cupidity of navigation corporations, and into which many were induced to enter by the false hopes and the false representations held out for purposes of gain by plantation and mill owners. On July 7, 1898, the American flag was raised over the Hawaiian Islands amid the booming of cannons and the playing of bands and while the children sang "The Star Spangled Banner, long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." Near that place now men are imprisoned at Oahu for violations of labor contracts, imprisoned with felons, wear stripes like robbers and thieves, are worked on the roads and in the quarries, and over the prison that entombs them is a flag floating that bears a picture of a bloodhound trailing, and this nearly two years after annexation. You might as well cease to ring the chimes of old liberty bell, for they do not reach your Territory — the Hawaiian Islands. This stands for the law — the labor law — of the islands. Where is the flag which should stand for law and order, for the Constitution, for the Declaration, for the law against slavery, for the law against contract labor? These people are slaves in form and in fact; their condition is a disgrace to American manhood and American statesmanship. Hear the condition that prevailed on July 27, 1899, more than a year after our flag floated over the islands. The Seattle Times has repeatedly denounced this practice, as have other influential papers on the Pacific coast. Hear it from the San Francisco Examiner in the language of a minister: Slavery and involuntary servitude of the most degrading type exist in the Hawaiian Islands to-day as a means for the enforcement of contracts made by laborers to work on the sugar and coffee plantations. Thirty-six Galicians, subjects of the Austrian Empire, are now confined in Oahu prison, Honolulu, because they refused to comply longer with the onerous conditions imposed on them by their owners. They were convicted of "deserting contract service," and were sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. They can gain release only by buying their way out of prison or going back to the cane fields. Their tale is told by Rabbi M. S. Levy, of this city. It is one to cause auger and astonishment among those that boast that freedom lives wherever floats the American flag.Here is the contract:This memorandum of agreement entered into at Bremen 30th April. 1808, by and between Oahu Sugar Company, Limited, Hawaiian Islands, and the laborer Teper Yakob, now residing at Creszanow, Galicia, witnesseth: That Whereas the said laborer is desirous of going to the Hawaiian Islands, there to be employed as an agricultural laborer, and in consideration of free steerage passage to the Hawaiian Islands to be furnished to him and his wife and —— of his children by the employer, the following contract has been concluded between the aforesaid parties to the said agreement: The said employer, in consideration of the stipulations hereinafter contained to be kept and performed by the said laborer, covenants and agrees as follows: To furnish to the said laborer and his wife and —— of his children, whose names and ages are noted at the bottom of this agreement, free steerage passage, including proper food and medical attendance, from Bremerhaven to Honolulu, and also to produce proper lodgings for the said laborer and his family at Honolulu, proper transportation from Honolulu to the place where he is to be employed as an agricultural laborer. On arrival at Honolulu the employer agrees to provide employment for the said laborer as an agricultural laborer for the full period of three years

3713from the date such employment actually begins, and also proper employment for the wife and grown-up children of said laborer. The employer guarantees to the said laborer wages at the rate of $18 for each month of twenty six days' labor performed, and to his wife and grown-up children, if they desire to work, wages as follows: To wives and daughters 20 years old, for labor performed, wages at the rate of 40 cents per day; daughters from 18 to 20 years, 35 cents per day; daughters from 16 to 18 years, 30 cents per day; daughters from 14 to 16 years, 25 cents per day; sons from 16 to 18 years, 50 cents per day; sons from 14 to 16 years 40 cents per day; sons from 12 to 14 years, 25 cents per day. And besides, the laborer is to have, free of charge, for himself and family unfurnished lodgings, also fuel and water for cooking, and medical attendance and medicine. During the continuance of this contract the said laborer shall be free of all personal taxes. The employer guarantees to him and his family the full equal, and perfect protection of the laws of the Hawaiian Islands, also free primary instructions in the public schools to his minor children. The said laborer, in consideration of the stipulations hereinbefore mentioned to be kept and performed by the employer, covenants and agrees as follows: To proceed to Honolulu by the vessel provided for him in accordance with this agreement. On arrival at Honolulu to accept such employment as the employer may, under this contract, assign to him. During the continuance of this contract, being the full period of three years from the date such employment actually begins, to fulfill all the conditions of this agreement and to diligently and faithfully perform all lawful and proper labor and to obey all lawful commands of the employer, his agents, or overseers, and to work during the night and rest during the day. it called upon to do so, and to work on all days which are not holidays and as such recognized by the Hawaiian government, except when said laborer may be employed on domestic service, in which case the usual and indispensable work shall be done on these days also. A day's labor shall mean ten hours' actual work in the fields or twelve hours' actual work in the sugar factory, the hours not being continuous, but allowing the necessary time for taking food and rest. The hours of labor are counted from the moment regularly established for the departure to the work in the factory or the fields, and the laborer must not exceed the time reasonably necessary to arrive there. And twenty-six days' actual work as aforesaid shall constitute one month's labor. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in duplicate, at Bremen, the day and year first above written. TEPER YACOB. CARL MUNCHP.These contracts are acknowledged, and across the acknowledgment of Jacob Teper is this record of conviction: Oahu Sugar Co., Ltd., vs. Jacob Teper. Deserting contract service. Found guilty and ordered to return to work. Costs, $3.20. W. L. WILCOX, District Magistrate, Oahu. HONOLULU, Nov. 11. 1898.I have read the contract that binds these unfortunates to slavery. They are all alike. They are the same this year as they were last year and the year before, printed in three languages. Here is the law that has governed since annexation: SEC. 1384. If any person, lawfully bound to service, shall willfully absent himself from such service, any district magistrate, upon complaint made, under oath, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring him before the said magistrate; and if the complaint shall be maintained, the magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and he shall be compelled to serve the remainder of the time for which he originally contracted. SEC. 1385. If any such person shall refuse to serve for the term of his contract, his master may apply to any district magistrate where he may reside, who shall be authorized, by warrant or otherwise, to send for the person so refusing, and, if such refusal be persisted in, to commit such person to prison, there to remain at hard labor until he will consent to serve according to law; and in case such person bound as aforesaid shall have returned to the service of such master in obedience to such order of such magistrate and shall again willfully absent himself from such service without the leave of his master, such district magistrate may fine such offender for the first offense not exceeding $5 and for the second offense not exceeding $10, and in default of pay-ment thereof such offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor until such fine is paid, and for every subsequent offense thereafter the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding three months, and at the expiration of any such imprisonment such magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master to serve for the remainder of such original term of service. SEC. 1386. The magistrate's warrant or order, mentioned in section 1384, when directed to any officer or other person by name, shall authorize him to convey the offender to the place of residence of the master, although it may be in some other island of the republic. SEC. 1387. All the costs incurred in any process against a servant shall be paid, the first instance, by the complainant, and, if the complainant shall be sustained, the master shall have judgment and execution thereof against the offending servant. This good minister went about and raised funds to purchase the freedom of Teper, who was an Israelite. Here is the money paid for the purchase of a slave's freedom: HONOLULU, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, July 3, 1899. Received of Rev. Levy the sum of $120 for release of contract of Jacob Teper, contract laborer for Oahu Sug. Co. H. HACKFELD & CO., LIMITED. But what became of the other 85 prisoners? They remained in prison till William H. Marshall, of the Sunday Volcano, denounced the infamous system, exposed that one Hackfeld was acting as consul for Austria-Hungary and at the same time for himself, and as agent for other sugar planters and mill owners. This worthy representative of the favored Hawaiian system of slave labor, without conscientious compunctions, served in the dual capacity of agent for the slaves who came from that country and for the masters who bound them and sent them to prison. He was forced to resign, and his company — the Hackfeld Company, Limited — was finally forced to release these prisoners. Marshall, who rained fire upon these methods and the ones engaged in them, was thrown in prison on some charge to atone for his

offense, and was only able to secure his release by giving an unnatural bond, and on appeal his case stands without hope of trial, but with prospects of dismissal. Such is the encouragement given to this odious system by those in power officially and otherwise in Hawaii, both before annexation and after it became part of the United States, and the same encouragement has been given by the same powers that be, down to this very hour. Three distinct powers have encouraged the importation to and use of contract labor in Hawaii since annexation: First, the navigation corporations; Second, the plantation and mill owners, and Third, the United States — Hawaiian officers in stations giving them opportunity to encourage it — from Sanford B. Dole down to the most minor officer. From the third class I do not except the judiciary. For proof of these statements I refer to the report of the commission which was appointed by the resolution of annexation, and to the advance sheets of consular reports found in February, 1900, Consular Report, page 223, dated Januarys, 1900, containing a report of Mr. Sewall, former minister of the United States to Hawaii, and now special agent of the United States at Honolulu, and by information from Mr. Joshua K. Brown, United States Chinese in-spector at Honolulu, and from the report of the United States and Hawaii bureau of immigration, J. A. King, president, and Wray Taylor, secretary, and Charles A. Peterson, inspector of immigration, and to the decisions of Judge Frear and the other judges of all the courts. The whole official life of Sanford B. Dole has been an indorse-ment of contract labor. He was one of the commissioners who made this report, and the traces of his dominant handiwork is found through its pages. The commissioners met the government officers. Dole was one. They met the nobility, the men with special privileges. Did they meet the man with the hoe? Did they meet the contract laborers? No; Commissioner Dole led them not by the disturbed waters, but the government officials led them "into the green pastures beside the still waters." If it had been otherwise, if the American members of that commission saw the contract-labor system and saw the prisons whore compliance was enforced, which I can not affirm or deny, they should at once have returned to their own free-labor country and passed a law to protect labor, and to stop the thousands who have been pouring in at the command of the corporation shipowners and the masters of those islands. What more was to be expected of the Hawaiian representatives one hat commission? President Dole's whole official life under the Hawaiian laws and under the laws of the United States has been intimately associated with contract labor. The other, Judge Frear's, career likewise has been a sanction of it even in judicial station, both as Hawaiian judge and as a judge since annexation. These two are a part of an administration under United States laws since annexation that is styled by those not in the circle as "Dole's family compact." Another member of this "Dole family compact" is Minister of Finance S. M. Damon, who, after annexation, imported 17 Italian contract laborers via Canada, and now has those 17 Italians working as contract laborers on his estate within sight of Honolulu. Hawaiian dispatches report that early in November President Dole received a letter from Mr. Damon containing a report of his trip to Italy, whose language he speaks, in the interest of contract-labor importations, and that his contemplated visit to Portugal was in the same interest. Mr. Damon's connection with this slave-labor system while in official life and since annexation has been open and notorious. It will be remembered that this worthy representative of the contract-labor system and of the United States and of Hawaii last November resigned by a direct cable to President McKinley from Italy. The dispatch said, further, that his resignation was a surprise to official circles in Hawaii. It should not have been. All knew he was engaged in this labor-contract system while he was an official, and if his resignation was a surprise the surprise has no doubt abated, as. on his return, he was installed in his old position as minister of finance in Hawaii, and holds it to-day. These were the officials of Hawaii who accompanied our American commissioners to find out from the bound how they liked contract labor. It is difficult to conceive, but the proof is patent, that the Americans were hypnotized by the Hawaiians and led away from the disagreeable facts of contract labor,

cruelty to labor, child and woman contract labor, and imprisonment and stripes as a penalty for violation of terms of contracts with iron masters, all of which were but slightly touched upon in their elaborate report or passed over altogether. The report of Special Agent Sewall, while frank and open in many respects, shows an aversion to disagreeable exposures. The Hawaiian members of he commission, through the American members, press upon our attention un-American slaveholding laws suited only to the system of slavery in those islands.

3714

I am willing to grant an amnesty to the American members of this distinguished junketing commission if it will do them any good, bat can not under the proof grant them an acquittal. In the report of the Bureau of Immigration of December. 1898, signed by Wray Taylor, our United States Hawaiian officer, we find among others the following, November 3, 1898:Applications for 5,935 Japanese laborers were approved at this meeting, on the understanding that no more applications were to come in until April, 1899, from plantations represented at or obtaining permits at this meeting.Mr. Sewall, who makes the report on the labor conditions of Hawaii, was formerly our minister to the islands.[Mr. Sewall's report. Labor In Hawaii. United States Consular Reports, February, 1900.] The purpose of the following is * * * to trace an outline and fill in just enough detail to Rive a correct view and intelligent idea of Hawaiian labor conditions as they exist to-day. * * * Contract labor, consisting of Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Hawaiian, and others, is held under contract for three years when coming direct from foreign countries under agreement, and for the same or a shorter period when contracting after a previous sojourn in this country. * * * When contract laborers are needed from abroad, application is made to the government for permission to import laborers of the desired nationality. * * * The order to recruit them is given to immigration companies authorized by law. * * * These companies are then responsible for the delivery of the men. * * * In obtaining European labor the planters have the benefit of the authority, forms, and official connection of the board of immigration. * * * Expenses are met by the planters in the first instance, afterwards a sum, not to exceed $130 for each family, is paid by the government to cover recruiting expenses and passage of women and children accompanying the immigrants. In this case the immigrant contracts with the board of immigration and signs his agreement before the Hawaiian consul at the port of departure in his own country. * * * The board of immigration assigns these laborers to their several employers. * * * The only other laborers now imported are Japanese. The companies supplying these are chartered by the Japanese Government and have their principal offices in Japan. * * * Laborers are shipped from the recruiting offices' to the immigration company, which then bears all expense and responsibility for maintenance, transportation, quarantine expense, etc., until assigned and delivered to the planter employer. In order to protect themselves against desertion, these companies exact securities in the shape of mortgage, bond, or deposit from the laborer or his friends to an amount equal to all expenses. * * * * * * The laborers are apportioned to their several employers, signing their special contracts before an authorized Hawaiian official assisted by interpreters. * * * His photograph is taken for identification, and he is then assigned to a particular corporation. * * * 'Chinese, being single men, are housed in barracks with from 6 to 40 men in a room. Single Japanese are often provided for in the same way. * * * These quarters furnish only a shelter and a place of rest, In barracks where many single men are collected a platform 6 to 8 feet wide and raised 2 feet above the floor runs the length of the building, and each man has about 3 feet in width of space for himself to sleep on. * * * Again, tiers of shelves 8 feet wide along the sides of the room, sometimes three or four tiers high, with some slight low partitions give about 3 by 6 feet for a man. Contract laborers are expected to do agricultural and mill work. * * * From the contract-labor class the carpenter, blacksmith, engineers, and sugar boilers select their assistants. * * * * * * In a few places men nave been allowed to take small pieces of land and cultivate them at their leisure. In order to do this they are compelled to work early and late, Sundays and holidays, and the mill buys the cane at a fixed rate per pound. Between one-third and one-half of the women work in the field and about the mill at the lighter kinds of labor. * * * The number of hours is settled in the contract, being usually ten hours in the field and twelve in the factory. * * * * * * A rising bell or whistle wakes, the men at, say, 4.30 a. m. At 5.30 they are ready to proceed to the field, and at 6 o'clock the work day commences. * * * The mill man begins at 5.30 a. m. and is relieved by the night shift at 6 p. m. * * * * * * The contract price is now $15 per month for oriental and $18 for European laborers. * * * Women receive $7.50 to $10 per month. Only actual time spent in labor is paid for. A man receives no pay for enforced idleness, whether caused by sickness or anything else. * * * * * * The individual presents his identifying tag and receives the amount that is to the credit of that number. * * * Men work in gangs, * * * supervised by an overseer, who directs their work, corrects mistakes, * * * stimulates the lazy. He leads them out in the morning. * * * Force * * * is fast giving place to other methods. * * * Recourse to legal fines and imprisonment are the means used. The physician employed by a sugar corporation occupies a peculiar position with reference to his patients and his employer. It must be remembered that usually in the rush to make the progress of the work match with the season the management demands every available man among his employees, and looks with suspicious and jealous eye upon anyone who claims exemption through sickness. * * * Now. it becomes the duty of the medical man to determine between the really ill and the malingerer, and naturally the malingerer often goes away dissatisfied. * * * Treatment is unsatisfactory and is carried out with very little aid from the patient. * * * To take a general view of the real state of affairs one must consider that every labor camp is a busy hive. Work is going on, and work is paid for and is what the men come here for. Now, what are the hardships? The main one is compulsory work under a master. Here the law compels. At home need held the whip. They expected to work when they came; but the comparison with free men makes compulsion seem a hardship. * * * Sunday is a day for rest in most* * * Let some real or fancied grievance break the monotony, and the scene changes. A tin pan is beaten noisily to alarm and summon the camp. The motley crowd gathers, generally at night. The leaders harangue their followers, and the mob, most of them ignorant of the real cause, rush off to demand redress or punish the offender. The grievance is generally an assault by the overseer upon some laborer, a fine considered unjust, a compulsion used to obtain unwilling work, or a privilege withdrawn. * * * The question may be asked. "Why, if they are contented, do they desert?"

There are several reasons. Natural causes may render the work disagree able and burdensome, as rain, cold, mud. and overgrowth of weeds. A severe overseer will render all discontented, and the boldest will desert. Accumulated debt is a prolific cause. * * * The prospect of getting better wages * * * entice many away from their contract master. * * * A Japanese will live on from $4 to $6 per month, a Chinaman from $9 to $11 per month, and a European, $11 to $13. * * * The foregoing is a brief and unadorned statement of facts as found. * * * Plantations furnish all that the law demands, but are not carried on primarily for the purpose of elevating the laborer to the standard of Western civilization and morals any more than other corporations. * * *I gladly give currency to the recent utterance of Senator MORGAN, one of the Hawaiian commission:We extend over those islands the laws and Constitution of the United States in full force, so that there is not a shred of a contract left standing in Hawaii if it is opposed to the laws of the United Slates. * * * * * * * * But contracts have been made since, and the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, 1 believe, invalidates those contracts. That amendment in its present form is an outrage upon the Constitution of the United States, for the reason that men have made contracts in Hawaii with companies in Japan for the purpose of importing labor. Those contracts can not be, or ought not to be, invalidated by any act of Congress. * * * How can we afford to say that contracts which were valid, made since the 12th day of August, 1893, shall be made invalid by the operation of positive law! * * * We are cutting into them in such a way as would be utterly disastrous if we had any power to do it. We are merely raising questions that we have no power to enforce, for I take it that, after all, the Supreme Court of the United States, when it comes to sound this question to the bottom, will hold that the Constitution of the United States operates as a prohibition upon Congress to invalidate any contract that was valid at the time it was made. I think so.Does the Constitution of the United States govern the Hawaiian Islands? Does it cover our whole land, or are we part free, part slave — slavery sicklied over with the pale cast of words of inter-pretation? If the Constitution governs in the islands, then strike these contracts down as unconstitutional. Does the Hawaiian constitution, adopted on July 3, 1894, govern. Then strike them down as contrary to it, for it provides that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist except for crime. If neither govern, then strike them down as un-American, as against public policy, as inhuman. You need not search for causes in the codes of law, morality, humanity. Compel the courts to enforce the law, a custom that has not been followed for many years. Will you take refuge from your duty by the provision in the American Constitution that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts? But here is a contract against the thirteenth amendment, which provides that involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United, States nor in any of the Territories subject to its jurisdiction. This confronts you if the Constitution prevails; and if it does not, then it does not protect these labor contracts, and you have the original right of governing in all things, past, present, and future, by the right of acquiring. Yon struck down all treaty rights of Hawaii with other nations and substituted your own. Will you now save its slavedom? Do your duty and sweep away a plague more dreadful than the leprosy among those 1,200 people on one of our Hawaiian Islands; more dreadful than the bubonic plague that has swept so many from the face of that country. Was this refusal to pass a law prohibiting contract labor in Hawaii in last Congress, and so far in this Congress, by the ruling party caused by a doubt whether the Constitution shall prevail over our country — over our territory? Are you doubtful whether the flag represents freedom, the Declaration, the Constitution, and free labor? Do you hesitate, and will you write in words in the Constitution, in our statutes, in our Supreme Court decisions, that will make the words "United States" mean less than our whole country? If you do this, labor will rise up to plague you, to haunt you, to defeat you. Will our Constitution be the constitution of those islands; of those contract laborers? I do not know; you do not know; no one knows. Such is the chaotic condition created by a departure from our traditions. Let me describe this contract-labor system in the Hawaiian Islands. It is cheaper and more profitable to the landlords and mill owners than free labor; and as it is encouraged in every form, it unfortunately exists and shuts out American labor. If a corporation — mill or plantation — wants men, its agent applies to the government for laborers, and the board of immigration, a government department, then makes application through a Japanese immigration company, that, under the regulations and officialdom, has a monopoly, the plantation advancing the money and the laborer signing a contract to the shipping com-pany, which contract is transferable, and thereafter is transferred to the corporations purchasing the laborers. The usual term of the contract is three years, but thousands have been rushed in since the United States controlled the islands whose contracts run from three to five years. On arrival they are photographed, and a brass tag completes their badge of identification, their badge of slavery, and they are taken out to the plantation — laborers, indeed.

3715Shades of Kossuth, Washington, and Lincoln, behold the slavery under the American Constitution, beneath the American flag! On the plantations of from 5,000 to l0,000 acres, with from 500 to 1,200 laborers on each, are lunas, or, as commonly called there, "slave drivers." A luna is over from 40 to 100 contract laborers, and he stands over them with a long or loaded whip, docks them, when it suits his fancy, a quarter or a half day, and drives them back and forth to work. A whistle is carried to summon other lunas to subdue refractory spirits. If any of the laborers grow refractory at the conduct of the drivers and revolt, the manager telephones some miles to the local attorney, who then swears to an affidavit (invokes the sacred law to enforce slavery) charging the laborers with disobedience, and officers are sent to seize and bind them and drag them into court, before a judge appointed and not elected, and who is a part of the anti-labor Dole combine. These men, singly or in bunches of scores, sometimes are driven into what is called a court and fined and costed, for the first offense, $3.50 to $4.50; the second. $8.50, and the third may be imprisonment not exceeding ninety days. The date of conviction, penalty, and a mount of fine and cost is written across the contract of labor by this court, not of record nor of justice, and the laborer is ordered to return to work. If be complies, the amount of fine and costs is deducted from his monthly wages; and if he refuses, he boards it out in prison at 50 cents a day at hard labor. In these prisons on American soil, like on the boat that brought them over, they are crowded into rooms with ten or fifteen in a department, wearing stripes like criminals. If any man can read these conditions without his heart revolting I question whether his heart is human. Of course the people over there in that part of our country are unhappy and unfortunate; all are unfortunate — the master, the slave, the free — all, all are unfortunate, for the bubonic plague is upon them. Those who are not suffering are fleeing in mind and in body from its ravages and deaths. What is the condition of these 40.000 contract laborers, what their plight in this misfortune in that part of our country? What chance for charity will they stand either in indulgence or in money from the exorbitant masters of the Hawaiian islands, who, paying their managers from $7,000 to $12,000 a year, are yet able to pay annual dividends of 60 per cent? What will the masters do for the contract laborers during this plague? They brought these laborers there who are peculiarly susceptible to this disease. Who knows but they brought this disease to the American islands? But the inquiry now is, what can be expected of men and corporations in this exigency who will countenance and continue such a system of slave labor? The masters will deduct the time that the slave suffers from it or flees from it and add the lost time to the end of the service. The Government of this country will appropriate hundreds of thousands to quarantine the suspicioned, to relieve the distressed, and to bury the dead, but the masters will hold their ill-gotten gains while they add to the deaths and the fury of the disease by imprisoning in coops the slaves for violation of their civil contract. This may be harsh treatment for the violation of a contract, but some of the prisoners told Rev. Levy last summer that prison was preferable to service under brutish and slave-driving masters and landlordism and tyranny on the plantations.

Once in a while a luna is killed, but oftener a laborer. Conflicts and personal beatings are common. What is the price they get for submitting to this slavery? For Orientals $15 and for Europeans $18 a month and board and clothe themselves. Wives and daughters and sons are paid as follows: Wives and daughters 20 years old. 40 cents a day; 18 to 20 years old, 35 cents a day; 16 to l8 years old, 30 cents a day; 14 to 16 years old, 25 cents a day; sons, from 10 to 18 years old, 50 cents a day; 11 to 10 years old, 40 cents a day; 12 to 14 years old, 25 cents a day. To show the power, and self-executing power, lodged in the hands of the masters, it only need be stated that before leaving their countries the immigration company exacts security in money or from friends that the laborer will continue his service, and the immigration company on desertion returns to the master a pro-portionate share of the guaranty. The Dole official family compact and the officialdom, under the influence of the immigration and the slave mill and plantation managers, enforce these nefarious practices, and the supreme court decides that all these practices are lawful, and decides that they are not in violation of the Hawaiian constitution, that declares that involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall be duly convicted, shall not exist in the islands. What do Americans think of such a judiciary, such officials, such a slavery? Talk to Americans about a judiciary that supports such practices! It ought to be pulled up root and branch. Get ft judiciary that knows the law and will enforce it — one that is free from the con-trolling influence of officers appointing and officers surrounding. But, sir, would you expect any decency in politics or fairness in a land that works men and women and children as slaves, imprisons them for debt, where involuntary servitude exists and flourishes? What is to be expected from a government of slave owners, slave drivers, slavery apologists? Let us call upon the press to protect labor against such abuses, on the pulpit to denounce this crying evil, and may we not hope that Congress will crush it out now and forever and its members be held responsible to labor for a continuance of this infamous contract-labor system? [Loud applause.] Mr. KNOX. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LANE] such time as be may desire.

April 3, 1900 House v. 33 (4) p. 3717-3718

3718

Mr. THOMAS of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, by an interesting coincidence the ceremony of the final annexation of the Hawaiian Islands took place on August 12, 1898, the very day upon which the protocol of peace with Spain was signed. The year 1898, therefore, witnessed the acquisition by the Government of the United States of a vast extent of new territory. The Hawaiian Islands, by annexation pursuant to joint resolution of Congress, and Porto Rico and the Philippines by cession, pursuant to the treaty of peace with Spain, in that year became a part of the United States. I believe they are part and parcel of the United States, though the Republican party seems to have some doubt upon that point since its attitude in this Congress on the Porto Rican tariff. These new possessions have necessarily involved our Government in much new legislation relating to their disposition, control, and management. . It was the ambition of Sancho Panza to govern one island, but in the past two years the United States has suddenly become the governor of islands without number, containing populations of such number and such character as the founders of the Republic never dreamed could or would become a part of our territory. Cervantes says, in his celebrated history of the renowned Don Quixote, that the faithful squire, Sancho Panza, exclaimed at the termination of his governorship of the island of Barataria:Since I became a governor and mounted upon the towers of ambition and pride a thousand miseries, a thousand toils, and four thousand disquiets have entered my soul.I sincerely trust that the people of the United States, having acquired by annexation and cession not only the Hawaiian Islands and Porto Rico, but the numerous Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, the island of Guam, and part of the Samoan Islands, may not in the future find these possessions a source of so much disquietude as did Sancho the possession of one island. It is, indeed, Mr. Chairman, a serious condition which confronts the American people in the possession of this new territory. How we shall govern, how control, how legislate for the people of these islands, as well as for the best interests of the American people, presents to the Congress of the United States and to the Execu-tive grave problems demanding the most careful thought and wisest statesmanship now and in the future. If the present policy of imperialism of the present Administration is to be continued, I am convinced the solution of these problems will be of many years' duration, and perhaps they may be solved only by a material departure from the principles of our republican institutions, or may lead finally to their complete overthrow and destruction.

April 3, 1900 House T. 33 (4) p. 3719-3720

THE POLICY OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION.The policy of the present Administration is clearly outlined to be not a policy of legitimate expansion, but one imperial or colonial in its nature, as evidenced by the Administration resolution in regard to the Philippine Islands known as the McEnery resolution, which passed the Senate of the United States on February 14, 1899. by the vote of the Administration party. This resolution is as follows:Resolved, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended to Incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States.The policy of the Democratic party has been to acquire all territory for the purpose of making the same States and the inhabitants thereof citizens. But the policy of the Republican party, as outlined in the McEnery resolution, is not to make States or citizens; and if not to make States or citizens, what does that policy mean except a colonial system such as exists under the English Government to-day? I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, we should embark upon any such policy. I do not believe either that we want these people as citizens of this government, or that they will be valuable to us even from a commercial standpoint held as colonies, even if I were in favor of a colonial system. An exaggerated impression has been created as to the benefit to American commerce, and the business of the country to be derived from the acquisition and retention of our island territory. Let us for a few moments, and very briefly, form some conception from history and the most authentic sources of what sort of territory we have acquired in Hawaii and the Philippines.

3720The people of the Hawaiian Islands, according to the authorities, in their present condition and as a whole, among all our new

possessions, are perhaps best fitted for the representative government of a United States Territory. Even in these islands, however, it has been found necessary to restrict suffrage and safeguard by legislation their admission as a Territory.

The Hawaiian group numbers seven inhabited islands and a dozen rocky or sandy reefs and shoals, with a total population of a little over 109,000. In this estimate of population the Japanese laborers imported since the passage of the annexation resolution (about 20,000) are not included.

These islands are directly in the track of the ocean-going steamers between our western coast and China, and valuable to us for coaling stations, for their trade, and because of their proximity to our coast.

We can easily care for and protect them. A considerable part of the population, composed of the Asiatics — the Chinese and Japanese — and part Hawaiians (mixed Hawaiian and foreign blood; is undesirable; but the native Hawaiians are orderly, peaceable, intelligent, industrious, and have shown steady advancement under the influence of education and Christianity since the advent of the first missionaries from New England in 1820. In the language of the report of the Hawaiian Commission —

The free school, free church, free press, and manhood suffrage have marked their progress. The government of the islands has shown the same progres-sive development. For sixty years it has been administered under a written constitution. The first constitution was promulgated in 1840.The trade of the islands with the United States, considering their size and population, is valuable and extensive. According to the best statistics. the exports of the United States to the Hawaiian Islands in 1899 amounted to more than $10,000,000. THE imports from the Hawaiian Islands into the United States amounted in 1899 to more than $31,000.000; and, Mr. Chairman,whether it true, as a general proposition, that trade follows the flag, certainly in relation to Hawaii it seems to be true, anddoubtless the annexation of the Hawaiian islands will in the future be of advantage to the United States, as it already has been, by reason of this extensive trade and the character of the majority of its people.

With the Philippine Islands, however, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely different. These islands, lying as they do about 680 milesfrom Hong Kong, in China, and about 7,000 miles from the westerncoast of the United States and in the far Orient, requiring as theyare now doing, and will continue to do, a large standing armyand navy and involving an immense expense, as well as possibleforeign complications, can not eventually prove advantageous toour people.

The total number of islands in the Philippine Archipelago is unknown. According to the best authorities they have never been counted, but their estimated number ranges all the way from 600 to 2,000. It is said by Morris in his handbook:

The actual number does not probably exceed 1,200, if every barren rock be included.The best estimate of the land area in these islands is about 115,000 square miles. Many of them are unimportant in size,

mere rocks in the ocean. Several hundred are large enough to be inhabited. The largest two of the Philippine Islands, respectively the farthest north and the farthest south, are Luzon and Mindanao. As compared in area with the American States, the whole group of the Philippines, according to the best authorities, is of nearly the same extent as the New England States with New York and New Jersey added.

The population, like the number and area of the islands, isequally indefinite. According to the best statistics, the population of the group is variously estimated at from 7,000,000 to12.000,000, The missionaries made an estimate in 1885 whichshowed 9,500.000.

The inhabitants of these islands belong to three distinct races, namely, the Malayan, the Indonesian, and the Negrito. The Negritos do not number to-day more than 25,000. It is stated in a recent compilation upon the Philippine Islands, made pursuant to a resolution of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE], Senate Document No. 171, that within a comparatively short time this race of Negritos has completely disappeared from several of the islands which it formerly inhabited.

So far as at present known, the Indonesian race is found only in the large island of Mindanao, the surface of which constitutes about one-third of the total land area of the archipelago. The remainder of the archipelago is occupied by the Malayans, composing the great majority of the inhabitants of the Philippines. These Malayans have intermarried with Chinese extensively, and to a limited extent with Spaniards and other Europeans.

These people, Mr. Chairman, I insist, we do not want and we should not have as an integral part of the American people. We can not and ought not to make citizens of them, and to hold them as colonies is contrary to the genius and spirit of our GovernmentApril 3, 1900HouseT. 33 (4)p. 3721-3723

iApril 3, 1900 House T. 33 (4) p. 3721-3723"MANIFEST DESTINY."Are we to sacrifice the principles of the Declaration of Independence to sell a few bales of cotton or a few bushels of wheat? Trade is valuable; but, purchased by the sacrifice of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of the Farewell Address of Washington and of the Monroe doctrine, it is not worth the price. There is a good deal of talk about "manifest destiny" in connection with the Philippines. I am one of those who believe that the hand of God is in the affairs of the world. "By Him kings reign and princes decree justice." But I do not believe the hand of God is in this business. If it is, I fear it is to discipline and teach us the dangers to our Government from an imperial or colonial policy. Mr. Chairman, some of the

must it be in a government like ours to see its citizens adopt, individually, the views, the interests, and the conduct which their country should pursue, divesting themselves of those passions and partialities which tend to lessen useful friendships and to embarrass and embroil us in the calamitous scenes of Europe.The following sentiments of the Father of his Country are also applicable, it seems to me, to the present situation:MAXIMS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON — THEY WERE UTTERED A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, BUT THEY ARE AS APPLICABLE NOW AS THEN. Separated as we are by a world of water from other nations, we shall, if we are wise, surely avoid being drawn into the labyrinth of their politics and involved in their destructive wars. America may think herself happy in having the Atlantic for a barrier.THE TRUE POLICY OF AMERICA.The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is to have with them as little political connection as possible.A SAFEGUARD OF NATURE.Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one-quarter of the globe; too high minded to endure the degradations of others; possessing a chosen country with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from

same people who are loudest and most persistent in the birth, but from our actions and our sense of them; * * * with all these 3722of our expenses under the policy of imperialism pursued by President McKinley of more than $800,000,000 per annum since the Spanish war, including the appropriations for 1901:The appropriations for 1897 were................................. $469,409,010.41 For fiscal year ended June 30, 1898, they were ..................... 485,002,044.72A total for the two years of................................... 954,496,055.13 This was an average each year of ............................. 477,248,027.56Now take appropriations for fiscal year 1889. ......................... 898,231,615.55 Now take appropriations for fiscal year 1900........................ 674,981,022.29 Take the estimates and appropriations for 1901.................... 767,850,540.94The total for the three years is ........................... 2,338,063,178.78Or an average each year of .................................... 778,687,726.26 The average per year before the Spanish War was. ................. 477,248,027.56Or — As Mr. RICHARDSON remarks —an increase in three years over what the appropriations would have been, but for the changes from a republic to an empire, of over $800,000,000.Objection is made, Mr. Chairman, by those who favor the Administration policy to the use of the words "empire" and "imperialism." They cloak imperialism behind the catch phrase "expansion." I am not an anti-expansionist, but I am opposed to imperialism. And when the Republican party repudiates the doctrine, as it has done in Porto Rico, that where the flag goes the Constitution goes as well and embarks upon a colonial policy, that is imperialism pure and simple, to which I am opposed.THE MEANING OF THE ADMINISTRATION POLICY.To summarize, Mr. Chairman, the permanent retention of the Philippines means a total departure from the past theory and practice of our Republic for the sake of trade with these islands, China, and Asiatic countries, the advantages of which have been greatly exaggerated. It means the subjugation and forcible annexation of our former allies. It means not a legitimate, homogeneous expansion, but, according to the McEnery resolution, the English colonial system or a similar system. It means that the spirit of gain and commercial greed, the lust for gold, is to override and obscure the advice and warnings of the founders of the Republic under the plea of manifest destiny. It means foreign alliances and foreign entanglements, from which heretofore we have happily been free. It means a practical abandonment of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Monroe doctrine, which heretofore has preserved the peace and happiness, in a large measure, of the Western Hemisphere. If we meddle — if we interfere in the affairs of Europe and of Asia, what right have we — how can we assert that doctrine if they meddle with the affairs of the Western Continent? The permanent retention of the Philippines means also a large standing army and a navy quadruple at least its present size, the growth of militarism, and a constantly increasing expense for maintaining our fleets and armies and our position in the Philippine Archipelago. It means the beginning of a career of acquisition and conquest upon which other republics have entered with the same belief in their superiority and their integrity, only to find that the end was disaster and the destruction of a republican form of government. Mr. Chairman, the President asks, Who will haul down the flag? I reply, none but the same people who alone have the fight to unfold that flag over our new possessions — the free people of this great Republic. But the people — the representatives of the people in the Congress of the United States — may and should haul it down if ever it becomes the emblem of conquest or oppression. I trust it may never float over conquered provinces. I trust it may never be hailed by any people in any part of our country, except in the spirit of love and reverence and loyalty, and float over them always by their free consent. By pursuing a policy like this, by observing the admonitions of the founders of the Republic, by maintaining the integrity and spirit of our institutions, by preserving a compact territory and homogeneous people and government on this continent, free from foreign complications and possessions on the Asiatic coast, we will keep that flag, as the emblem of liberty and of a happy and free Republic, in all its pristine purity, representing the principles for which our fathers struggled and toiled in 1770, and which we should and must transmit unimpaired to our children. [Applause.] Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. MONDELL] such time as he may desire. Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Chairman , I congratulate

ing efforts in connection with the bill which it now presents for the consideration of the House "for the government of the Territory of Hawaii." I congratulate the people of the new Territory on the prospect of the early passage of this bill, which will give them the long hoped for and much needed legislation as an American Territory. I congratulate our common country on the provisions of this bill as an earnest and a promise of the wise and patriotic manner in which Congress may be depended upon to deal with the questions of government in our new possessions, as evidenced by this legislation for our first insular territory. Fortunately for us, some of the important questions which must necessarily be met and courageously decided with reference to other insular possessions do not present themselves in the con-sideration of this legislation to a degree that demand any considerable departure from our Territorial legislation in the past. This fair daughter of the Republic came into the family circle, the legitimate offspring and growth of Christian, American influences, containing an educated citizenship, most of whom have had some experience in the exercise of the elective franchise. American missionaries three-quarters of a century ago landed on the islands at an opportune moment when, by some mysterious movement in the law of racial evolution, the natives were in the process of discarding their ancient superstitions, carried to them the merciful dispensation of the gospel to succeed the cruel, barbarous reign of the Tabu. The native Hawaiian did not escape the effect of that seemingly inexorable law of fate which attends the first contact of barbarous peoples with civilization. The missionaries were not the only white men who visited their beautiful shores, and while they brought the best features of civilization, the whaler and the adventurer brought the worst, and, unfortunately, the better influences were not powerful enough to overcome those evil influences and contaminations which led to the constant decrease in the numbers of the splendid race which Captain Cook found upon these islands. But the better influences, while not the most powerful at all times, have been the most insistently applied, with the result that the remnant of the native Hawaiian race has made notable progress in all the arts of civilization, is almost universally possessed of a fair education, and still retains the many splendid qualities which have ever characterized them. It is to the credit of the early missionary influences that next to the unswerving loyalty and devotion to his hereditary chieftain, which has always characterized him, the Hawaiian has continu-ously displayed a sincere regard for and attachment to the Government and the people of the United States, while in the breasts of those of our countrymen who made these summer isles their homes there has ever burned the ardent fires of patriotic devotion to their native land, which have been transmitted to their chil-dren born and reared there, with scarcely diminished fervor, coupled with an attachment to the isles of their nativity, whose warmth can only be appreciated by those whose good fortune it is to have been brought for a brief space of time within the magic witchery of these gems of the Pacific. Surrounded from the time of their arrival in the islands by such American influences and sentiments, it was but natural that all other immigrants to Hawaii, the dark-skinned Portuguese from the Azores as well as those from Europe, should catch some, at least, of that spirit which constantly drew the hopes of the islanders to the great Republic and which, in my opinion, was always a stronger bond of unity between native and foreign born than ever was the government which was evolved from the old feudal sys-tem and which passed by regular and generally orderly changes through successive stages of despotic, limited, and constitutional monarchy, and finally emerged by bloodless and inevitable evolution into the republic. To the men in the island of American birth and American parentage, and not only to them, but to many others, who, through their influences, had learned to value our institutions and look to us for defense and development, the final raising of the Stars and Stripes, never more to be lowered, on August 12, 1898, above the palace of the Kamehameha's, was the consummation of a long, earnest, and unselfish effort to be brought within the protection of the banner of the free, an earnestly longed-

the Committee on Territories on the result of its patriotic, earnest, and painstak-

for "coming home." The committee in its bill provides for manhood suffrage, with an educational qualification, which will place the ballot in the hands of a great majority of male citizens, but exclude Asiatics from that privilege. This is a change in the original bill, which contained a property qualification for the voters for Senators; and in my opinion the change is a wise one. It is wise, first, that it puts all electors on an equality; and. second, because in my opinion there is no condition existent in Hawaii warranting such a departure from our former Territorial legislation as is contained in a proviso for a property qualification of electors. It is true that some patriotic and intelligent men, both here and in the islands, consider a small property qualification necessary

3723.

for the maintenance of a safe and stable government, arid I do not pretend to say that a thirty days' sojourn in the islands better qualifies me to judge on this point than those who have thorough personal knowledge of the conditions. I am, however, on general principles, opposed to a proposition to deprive those who are able to read and write and therefore inform themselves, and who have had a reasonable training by participation in or by actual contact for a considerable length of time with the institutions of self-government, of the right to exercise the elective franchise for the reason that they are not the possessors of real estate. It is pointed out by those who desire to restrict the franchise in Hawaii that the number of Caucasians in the islands is but a fraction of the entire population, as though upon our race rested the entire responsibility of government there: and those Who hold this view seem to regard the less than 10,000 native and foreign born of American, English, French, and Scandinavian parentage as the saving remnant, the leaven which must be depended upon entirely to leaven the whole lump of Hawaiian citizenship. I should feel much discouraged about the future of the newborn Territory did I share in the views of those who imagine that its future political weal depended entirely upon this restricted contingent of her citizenship, though I am willing to admit that undoubtedly the great proportion of her leaders in all matters, for the immediate future at least, will come from these latter classes, and for the comfort of those whose faith in the future of the islands is pinned solely to its Anglo-Saxon citizenship, I wish to bear testimony to their high character and intelligence. Almost without exception, they are people of education and refinement, of industry and force, of energy and of high ideals, and I think 1 can also safely say, generally, or earnest piety. The new Territory of Hawaii seems never to have been the haven of those "who left their country for their country's good." The foundation of this portion of the citizenship was the families of the first missionaries, from which has sprung and to which has been added traders, planters, professional men, and latterly a liberal sprinkling of stalwart young Americans, rich only in honest character and ambition, who have sought these shores to establish homes and build up communities. Such is the character of the men whom we all will admit are the first line of defense, the strongest bulwark of the Territory. While all this is true, those who fail to appreciate the sterling qualities of the 18,000 representatives of the Latin race who came to these shores first as contract laborers but a few years ago from the Azores mistake greatly the character of the people upon whom they pass judgment. I know no people who in the same length of time have so much improved their conditions as have these Portuguese, and I give more credit for this to their good qualities than to any advantageous conditions which have surrounded them. They are the best gardeners and small farmers in the islands, and their little farms are scattered over every island from Hawaii to Niihau. They are mechanics in the towns, the machinists, engineers, and teamsters on the plantations. Their little homes each with its garden spot, luxuriant with its well-tilled profusion of the products of this favored clime, are models, and their youth eagerly seek the advantages of the splendid school system there established. A people who seek education, till the soil, learn trades, and have good homes can be depended upon anywhere to maintain the institutions of free government. But, Mr. Chairman, the new Territory which we shall create will not have to depend, for the maintenance of the institutions which by this legislation we perpetuate, rather than establish, by any means wholly upon aliens to her soil or their descendants. Her native sons of the aboriginal blood will furnish the majority and by no means the least desirable element of her electorate. These people who have been so loyal in their devotion to the government of their fathers are and will be no less loyal to the great Republic whose honored citizens they now become. It is but, natural and in fact commendable in them that they clung tena-ciously to the monarchy, even when it had become but a shadow of the authority of their race over the land of their birth and affections. Let us remember that though barbarians they were not savages when the first white man's bark approached their shores. The ruins of their temples and the water courses hewed from solid rock are still eloquent reminders of their skill and industry. When the Caucasians first sighted these isles of enchantment, their kuleanas, or homesteads, in a high state of cultivation dotted the lowlands and extended high up the hillsides, made verdant by ingenious and laborious irrigation, and their cunning handicraft fashioned from the woods and fibers of the land cloths and utensils of utility and beauty; endowed by nature with splendid build and form, kindly and generous to a fault, courageous and, under proper incentive, industrious, always venturesome and seldom vicious, they possessed, even as a primitive people, many of the

virtues which other races have only attained after centuries of civilization and have now comparatively few of the vices that ordinarily characterize a primitive people's contact with civilization. Thanks to a good school system and a laudable ambition to secure an education, illiteracy is rare among them and many members of the race have distinguished themselves in business affairs, statesmanship, and in the professions. Their young men and young women will compare favorably with the young men and young women of any race in ability and aptitude to learn, and of their grace and charm of manner our race may well take lessons. In working out the future destiny of their country they will perform an important and honored part; if I mistake not, a more important part than they performed even under their native mon-archy. The committee very wisely, in my opinion, amended the original bill by providing for the appointment of the judges of the supreme court by the President of the United States instead of by the governor of the Territory, as provided in the original bill; and I am of the opinion that the committee would have done well to have also provided for the appointment of the judges of the circuit court by the President of the United States, providing, as in the case of the judges of the supreme court, that such judges should be citizens of Hawaii. I know of no reason why we should depart from the established custom in other Territories in this respect; in fact, I believe there are even stronger reasons why the judiciary of this new Territory should be appointed by the President than exist in connection with the appointments of this character on the mainland. I am an ardent believer in home rule, and I think under all circumstances men appointed to these positions should be citizens of the Territory, but I fear the centralization of authority which might result in leaving those appointments in the hands of the governor. It is with somewhat of reluctance that I call attention to one amendment made by the committee in the bill, which I understand was given careful consideration, but which I believe is neither wise nor necessary. I refer to the proviso in section 73 which provides for the reference to the Secretary of the Interior of all transactions under the public-land laws, with the power to confirm, reverse, modify, suspend, or annul. From a somewhat careful though, I admit, hurried investigation of the Hawaiian land laws and their workings, I am of the opinion that the present land laws of the Territory are better adapted to the conditions there and to accomplish the actual settlement, cultivation, and improvement of their public domain than are the land laws of the United States to-day, under the conditions existing, to bring about the same results here. I believe these land laws have been honestly and, in the main, wisely and intelligently administered, and in my opinion a people who had the wisdom to enact wise laws and who have satisfactorily administered them should be trusted to continue the administration of those laws, unhampered by a supervisory authority 5,000 miles distant, which can not, in the very nature of things, judge accurately of the equities or give proper weight to the testimony in real-estate transactions under laws and conditions essentially dissimilar from those existing here. This legislation marks the beginning of Territorial government for insular possessions and is not necessarily a criterion for legislation for other territory, and in view of the much discussed question of a tariff for Puerto Rico it may not be out of the way in this connection to again call attention to the fact that nearly two years ago Congress legislated for these islands over which our sovereignty unquestionably extended and provided that its people should pay on goods shipped to our ports not 15 per cent or 25 per cent but 100 per cent of our tariff rates, and that our merchan-dise going there should pay the full rate of the Hawaiian duty, a rate which is absolutely prohibitory on many classes of our goods, and these rates are still in force and will be until this bill becomes law. If the question is a constitutional one, how is it it did not apply to Hawaii as well as to Puerto Rico, if one of policy, and it be claimed that the tariff rate proposed for Puerto Rico is an injustice? Can it be said we owe more to Puerto Rico than to the people of these fair isles, the only people who have voluntarily brought their territory under the flag in all our history? This legislation meets the hopes and expectations, I believe, of those for whom it is to be enacted, and in my opinion is admirably suited for them. They deserve the most generous treatment at our hands, for they became freely, voluntarily, and gladly part of us and our territory. Every American citizen should rejoice that our flag waves over these beautiful islands; that here, at the meeting place of the thronging trade and commerce of the Pacific, where the Orient first meets the Occident, shall be seen of all men an object lesson of that peace, progress, and liberty which ever abides beneath the starry banner of the free. [Applause.]

April 4, 1900Housev. 33 (4)p. 3746-37523747

GOVERNMENT FOE THE TERRITORY OP HAWAII.On motion of Mr. KNOX, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and resumed consideration of the hill (S. 222) to provide a government in the Territory of Hawaii, with Mr. MOODY in the chair.Mr. McALEER. I yield thirty minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McDOWELL].Mr. McDOWELL. Mr. Chairman, two years ago, when the proposition of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States was before Congress, I was opposed to annexation for what, in my judgment, seemed very good reasons.First, annexation was desired by a very small proportion of the inhabitants of these islands, and these few desired it for selfish and mercenary purposes. It was the "Dole oligarchy" or "family compact" that had usurped all power to itself and now desired to be perpetuated in power under the protection of the United States.Second. I believed, as 1 now believe, that by making these islands a part of the United States we bring the cheap Asiatic laborer into direct competition with the American laborer. To bring under our own flag 40.000 Japanese contract laborers and 25,000 Chinese contract laborers means to limit to a considerable extent the opportunities of our own American laborers.Later developments and conditions confirm very strongly my first views on this subject.But annexation is an accomplished fact, and we are now confronted with the problem to provide a good Territorial form of government for the islands. I am gratified to say that it seemed to be the unanimous idea of the Committee on Territories, of which committee I have the honor to be a member, to give the Hawaiian Islands a government similar to that given to other acquired Territories of the United States. To my knowledge no member of the committee even suggested any discrimination in the commercial intercourse between the United States and the islands, or "taxation without representation." However, it has been intimated that some imperialistic amendments may be proposed to the bill while it is under consideration in the House.

BAD FEATURES OF THE BILL REPORTED BY THE COMMISSION.The annexation resolution was approved July 7, 1898. As provided by the joint resolution annexing the islands, the President appointed five commissioners to recommend to Congress such legislation concerning the Hawaiian Islands as they might deem necessary and proper. The Hawaiian commission consisted of Sen-ators JOHN T. MORGAN and SHELBY M. CULLOM and Representative ROBERT R. HITT, of the United States, and Sanford B. Dole and W. F. Frear, the two latter being residents of the Hawaiian Islands. The commissioners met at Honolulu August 18, 1898, and at the beginning of the last session of the Fifty-fifth Congress the President of the United States transmitted their report to Congress.Among things recommended in this report was "A bill to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii." A reading of the bill recommended by the commission would lead any patriotic American to declare that it was not the product of the brain of any American statesman or legislator. My first impression was that the Hawaiian members of the commission had hypnotized our own distinguished members of the commission. The more I studied the bill the more confirmed was my conclusion in the matter, I had heard that the members of the "Dole family compact" were skilled in the arts of diplomacy and strategy; that they easily controlled, for their own selfish purposes, the kindly, friendly, liberal, affectionate, and confiding native Hawaiians. Yet I had confidence that our own able members of the Hawaiian commission would be able to withstand their wiles and cunning.3747

I do not believe that there was ever a bill to provide a government for a Territory presented to the American Congress more un-Democratic, un-American, and unprecedented than House bill 2972 in its original form. 1 doubt if the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, without a very painful (Paynefull) effort, could produce a bill more "un Republican, un-American, unwarranted, unprecedented, and unconstitutional" than this bill. [ Applause.] I invite your attention to a few of its most pernicious provisions: The governor and the secretary of the Territory were to be appointed by the President. The governor should appoint the judges of the supreme court, judges of the circuit courts, and all other officers of the Territory except the members of the legislature. The supreme judges were to be appointed for life, or during good behavior. The supreme court was to be the judge of the qualifications and elections of the members of the legislature. No one was to be eli-gible to election as a senator, nor could anyone vote for a senator, who did not have property to the value of $2,000, or an income of not less than $1,000. This meant the continuance of an oligarchical form of government in the Hawaiian Islands. The governor could make and control the courts. The supreme court could make and control the legislature. The governor and his favorites would have a corner on the public offices. The commission framed a bill under which it might not have been possible for anyone outside of the "Dole family compact" to hold a public office in the Territory. It is reported that every officer under the Dole regime is grandfather, or father, or father-in-law, or uncle, or brother, or brother-in-law, or son, or son-in-law, or nephew, or cousin, of some other public officer. The persons who have been in control of affairs in the Hawaiian Islands of late years are called "missionaries" — improperly so. There is evident need of the instrumentality of the genuine missionaries to remove the selfishness from the hearts of these people and make them more Christian-like. [Applause.] Who ever heard of the judges of any Territory of the United States being appointed for life? The bill framed by the commission provided that the present incumbents of the supreme court should continue in office until their respective offices became vacant, which would be by death or impeachment, and then their successors should be appointed for life or during good behavior. It may be proper to remark that one of the supreme court justices was a member of the Hawaiian commission and a member of the committee to consider and report on the judiciary. He evidently believes that "self-preservation is the first law of life." The Committee on Territories has amended the bill, with the view of eliminating the objectionable features already pointed out. The chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court are to be appointed by the President, and for a term of six years, instead of for life or during good behavior. The judges are not to have jurisdiction over elections and qualifications of members of the legislature. The property qualification provision has been stricken out. We believe that all these changes are in the interests of a good government and a popular government in the Territory of Hawaii. The commission's bill provides that the public lands of Hawaii shall be under the control of a land commissioner appointed by the governor. This might afford an opportunity for land grabbing and favoritism in the sales, grants, and lenses of lands. After the annexation, the Dole administration proceeded to dispose of large tracts of the public lands, and it became necessary for the President to put a check to this wrongful procedure by an Executive order. An amendment to the bill very properly refers the administration of the sales, grants, and leases of the public lands of Hawaii to the Commissioner of Public Lands here in Washington.

LABOR CONDITIONS IN HAWAII.The labor conditions in Hawaii are disastrous to the best interests of the American laborer. The sugar planters, the rice growers, the mill owners, and others have been for years importing the cheap oriental labor. The contract-labor system is in vogue. Since the date of annexation it is estimated that the wealthy syndicates have brought to the islands from 25,000 to 30,000 Japanese contract laborers, under contracts of three to five years. More than one-half of the population of the islands is made up of Chinese and Japanese. There is no opportunity for the American laborer in the Territory of Hawaii. He would be brought to starvation in competition with the cheap Asiatic laborer. The American laborer at home must also feel the harmful effect of the competition of this oriental labor. The acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands has not enlarged the opportunities of the American laborers, but it will make it harder for many of them to gain a livelihood. Asiatic laborers are paid $15 per month and European laborers $18 per mouth. What will the American laborer, brought into competition with this cheap labor from the East, say of the party responsible for this condition of things? The commissioners in their report to the President, on page 139, say:That as a commercial or business proposition the matter of the employment of cheap labor, imported from various islands and countries, became the important subject of Hawaiian consideration. The large profits resulting from the cultivation and manufacture of sugar where inexpensive Asiatic labor was to be obtained produced the legitimate result of aggregating capital in large amounts for the purchase or leasing of sugar lands, where this class of labor could be employed most profitably. The facilities which existed under the Hawaiian monarchy for obtaining grants, concessions, and leases of government lands were availed of by speculative favorites and others, and large plantations by wealthy planters instead of small holdings by industrious heads of families became the rule upon the islands.Notwithstanding the fact that the President and Congress were apprised of the contract-labor system in the islands and the system of farming by corporations, for almost two years the Hawaiian Islands have been under the American flag and not a thing has been done to check the progress of these un-American systems. The number of contract laborers has been greatly augmented. During the last year more than 25,000 Japanese contract laborers have been imported into the island. Several hundred acres of land have been leased to the sugar syndicates. Will some one of our Republican friends explain why these things have been permitted to be done? Why this delay in legislating for the Territory of Hawaii? We had the report of the Hawaiian commission sixteen months ago. If it was ever of any value as an index as to what should be done it was as useful in the last session of Congress as in this. It certainly has not improved with age. Perhaps there was method in this long delay. Up to the outbreak of the war with Spain the annexation of the Hawaiian Is-lands was considered hopeless. It bad failed to be done by treaty ratification in the Senate. The Speaker of the House, and certainly a majority of the members, were strongly opposed to the proposition of annexation. But the leaders of the Administration took advantage of the situation in war times, when enthusiasm and not judgment controlled the action of many, and urged the annexation of the islands as a war measure. A majority of the members yielded to the deception. Now, annexation came rather unexpectedly. The large corporations of the islands were taken by surprise, notwithstanding they desired annexation. They needed time to import many thousands of contract laborers before Congress would legislate for the islands. It would seem that the

3748former Republican Congress and this Republican Congress have been very considerate of the interests of the sugar syndicates of the islands. What have we secured by this acquisition of territory? Let me enumerate some of the most tangible things: Forty-five thousand Japanese contract laborers; 25,000 Chinese; 15,000 Portuguese; 1,000 South Sea Islanders; 1,200 lepers; the bubonic plague; a class of political speculators who were planning to have an oligarchy under the protection of Uncle Sam. Your committee has endeavored, so far as possible, to frame a bill that would rectify many evils existing in these islands. But there are very many bad conditions which can not be changed by legislation. Only time itself will make many desired changes possible. It will be along time before the conditions of the islands will afford any remunerative employment to any considerable number of American laborers. I can not support this bill unless it is further amended relative to the labor system and the land system. We

imagines a vain thing. If a tariff bill is passed, every line written against it in the Republican press will be so much ammunition for the Democrats when the national campaign begins.But the distinguished Speaker of this House, who assisted to bring Republican members into line for tariff on Puerto Rican products, in a letter recently given to the public press, has this to say:What the Senate is going to do is problematical. It has its share of cowards. The Senate is always the body upon which the great interests concentrate their efforts to defeat proper legislation. But this fact remains, that I have the knowledge that 1 have done my simple duty, and have done it in consultation and in cooperation with the President of the United States, whoso heart, is quick to feel the afflictions of this little island; I have done it in conference with such men as ALLISON, FORAKER, and the earnest patriots of the Senate.Now, who is the real mouthpiece of the President? It is "confusion confounded " to have such state of affairs existing. Has the President changed his mind? Did not members on this floor say that they had changed their minds because the President had changed his mind? Had

should legislate now to prevent the enforcement of contracts under the contract-labor system, no matter whether the contracts were made heretofore or shall be made hereafter. We want no semislavery or serfdom anywhere under the American flag. Give the sugar planters, rice growers, and mill owners of Hawaii to understand that they are under the Constitution of the United States and that they must respect our laws. I shall favor the following amendment to section 10: Provided, That no suit or proceedings shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into for personal labor or service, nor shall any remedy exist or be enforced for breach of any such contract, except a civil suit or proceedings instituted solely to recover damages for such breach.There should also be specific legislation to put in force the laws of the United States prohibiting the creation or continuance of long leases of valuable lands and directing the survey and subdi-vision of all the public lands as a part of the heritage of the people. The commissioners in their report, in speaking of this subject, say: The large holdings [of land] have become larger, and the small ones have been driven out or absorbed. Thus the prime object of American citizenship, the making of homes and the complete development of the family as the unit of our social system, seems in a degree to have been lost sight of in the Ha-waiian Islands. HAWAII AND, PUERTO RICO.It seems that Hawaii is to fare far better at the hands of the American Congress than poor, starving Puerto Rico. It would perhaps take a ponderous statesman from New York, or a profound expounder of the Constitution from Pennsylvania, or an Athenian lawyer from Ohio to tell why this should be. The Committee on Territories has tried to do its "plain duty" in this matter, guided by the injunctions of the Constitution and the promptings of the sense of justice, honor, and right. No tariff customs are to be imposed on products coming from Hawaii into this country or on products going from this country into Hawaii. There will be free trade. It is unfortunate for the Puerto Ricans that the matter of legislating for them was not referred to the Committee on Territories. It is personally gratifying to me to say to the members of this House that I can safely count a majority of our committee in favor of free trade with Puerto Rico, and the others, I believe, are open to conviction without any sugar-coated, tobacco-steeped, or ruin-soaked influence. [Applause.] Had the legislation for Puerto Rico been intrusted to the Committee on Territories, no doubt the Republican party would have been saved from the sorry predicament that it is now in. The President's recommendations as to "our plain duty" would have been carried out. He. would have been saved from the humiliating position in which he is now placed. How distressing it must be to him to be misrepresented by his friends! How harassing it must be to him to note the contradictions of those who profess to speak for him! The Washington Star of March 27, a consistent and ardent Administration paper, speaks thus editorially:The President has, in his annual message, made recommendation to Congress, and that calls for legislation. The people expect and demand legislation. If, therefore. Congress shows itself incapable of action, what is more likely, what would be more justified in the circumstances, than the election of a House next fall instructed to do what the country manifestly wants done about this business? If a Republican House disappoints the people and embarrasses the situation in the Senate, the alternative naturally is a Democratic House. Are the Republicans maneuvering to lose the next House? Suppose the question, by the cowardice of Congress, is left to the President. The President is committed to free trade with Puerto Rico. His message to Congress on the subject is so far his only quotable deliverance. This man and that, after a visit to the White House, has said this thing and that, going to show that the President has changed his mind, but the message is official and still stands. The President will be his party's standard bearer In the campaign. He will want to succeed himself in the White House. The people will be demanding free trade with Puerto Rico. If he is left with a free band, will ho not act in conformity with his views and his own and his party's interests? But while that might save him, it would not be likely to cave the next House. Let the free traders stand to their guns: and let the tariff men take notice. The storm is not going to blow over. The man who imagines that

they all been to see "Dr. HANNA," the wonderful mind changer? Hawaii is to have free trade with this country; representation in Congress; all the privileges and rights that any other of our organized Territories enjoys. Yet, her population is the most heterogeneous mass of humanity to be found on any equal area on the globe. More than half of the inhabitants are Asiatics. They are not citizens, and they do not intend to become citizens. Only about a third of the people will be given the right of franchise. No one will deny that the inhabitants of Puerto Rico, in the aggregate, are superior to those of Hawaii. They are better material out of which to make a good American Territory. The population is more homogeneous than that of Hawaii. The Puerto Rican labor system is not cursed by any species of slavery or serfdom. The land is quite generally in small tracts. The following pertinent editorial on this subject appeared in the Philadelphia North American (Republican) March 9:THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Whatever may happen to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, at least, is fairly on the way to American government. The Senate has passed the bill creating it a Territory, with a governor, legislature, courts, and a full outfit of civil offi-cials. The internal revenue, customs, and navigation laws of the United States are extended to the islands, and the new Territory is to be repre-sented by a Delegate in Congress. Every argument in favor of extending these favors to Hawaii applies with double force to Puerto Rico. Hawaii is over 2.000 miles from our western coast. Puerto Rico is within half that distance of the shore line of our original thirteen States. Hawaii has a little over a hundred thousand people, of whom the great majority are Kanakas. Japanese, and Chinese. Puerto Rico has nearly a million people, among whom those of European race predominate. In Hawaii any government that takes account of fitness as we understand it must necessarily be a pure oligarchy. In Puerto Rico the materials of democracy are present; all that is necessary are schooling and experience. The Puerto Ricans are the same sort of people-that have been governing themselves for over half a century under our flag in Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and California, except that they are of purer white stock. Of the same race in the United States we have made governors, Congressmen, and ministers to foreign capitals. If we establish public schools in which every Puerto Rican child can gain an education, there is no reason why a home-rule government may not be maintained there with credit both to us and to the islanders. Bat Hawaii makes a good beginning. "The extension of the American system to that group assures us that expansion is not to be entirely divorced from republicanism. The American who reclines under the flag at Honolulu may feel that he is truly at home. In honor, in justice, and in right we are bound to treat Puerto Rico as favorably as we do Hawaii. I congratulate Hawaii that she has fallen into the hands of friends. I pity Puerto Rico that she has seemingly fallen into the clutches of despoilers. [Applause.] Mr. MCALEER. I yield thirty minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DE ARMOND]. Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, there are a few features of this bill to which I desire to call the attention of the House. One is the concluding section with relation to the Chinese now in Hawaii. It provides: That Chinese in the Hawaiian Islands when this act takes effect may within one year thereafter obtain certificates of residence as required by "An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States," approved May 5 1893, as amended by an act approved November 3, 1893, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States,' approved May 6, 1893." and until the expiration of said year shall not be deemed to be unlawfully in the United States if found therein without such certificates. Everyone is aware, I suppose, that the Hawaiian Islands are filled with Chinese; that a large number of people of that race were there when those islands came under the dominion of the United States, and that great hordes of Asiatics have been im-ported since. All here are also aware, I suppose, that but a few short years since a tremendous agitation shook this country, and especially the Pacific slope, over the menace of Chinese cheap labor, and that it was thought necessary that legislation, extremely drastic and denounced by some as uncivilized and cruel, should be resorted to in order to deal with the Chinese problem and exclude he competition that threatened our white domestic labor.

3749Now, according to this bill, as I understand it, we are providing that great numbers of Chinese, resident in the Hawaiian Islands, not only those who were there when we acquired those islands, but the many thousands brought there under contract since, shall obtain certificates and possess the right to go anywhere in the United States and, in any line of business which they may see proper to enter upon, to compete with our own laborers. This is one of the fruits of reaching out and gathering in islands here and there, without reference to what the islands are, without refer-ence to the people who inhabit them, and without proper care to prevent those islands from being overrun, while under our own control, with the most undesirable class of Asiatics. We have in the Hawaiian Islands not only many who are entirely undesirable, but many others who are a serious menace to our own institutions, and provision is here made for domesticating them. I find in this bill another provision not novel, but worthy, I think, of a word of comment. That is section 5, which provides —That except as herein otherwise provided, the Constitution and all the laws of the United States locally applicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States.In this is not only a formal enactment but a philosophy com-paratively new in the United States and, I suppose, tolerably new to philosophers in general. This section is to be made an exem-plification of the doctrine that the Congress of the United States possesses power to extend the Constitution, to limit the force and scope of the Constitution, to determine when and where the Con-stitution, shall have effect and when and where it shall have none. Now, the old doctrine was, and the correct doctrine to-day, I think, is, that Congress is absolutely without any power to float the Constitution anywhere, to anchor it at any place, or to de-prive any inch of the territory of the United States legislated for as a continuing possession or any of its inhabitants from coming and being under the influence and effect and domination of the Constitution. . I do not know exactly what the draftsman of this bill meant; whether he meant to extend the laws so far as locally applicable or whether he meant also to extend the Constitution so far as locally applicable. The phraseology would bear either construction. . The Constitution as extended, "shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States!" That is, perhaps, the Constitution, wheresoever locally applicable, shall have the same force and effect within the Territory of Hawaii as elsewhere in the United States! Now, to me it is a strange thought, although it is a very popular one, I admit, with a certain element (and in that sense it has lost its strangeness) , that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land — that by which the Congress itself is created; that which is made to govern everything that belongs to the American Republic and to control every agency under the Republic — is itself so trivial and insignificant a thing that the Congress can extend it to any Territory or any part of any Territory where "locally applicable," or restrain its operations and prevent its having effect in any Territory or in any part of any Territory. It may seem singular that this new doctrine should have been evolved as it has been in the last year or two. The exigencies which called it forth certainly must be extraordinary. It is not a natural deduction; it is not a natural development. I submit that it is not a natural inspiration. There must be particular occasion for it; there must be particular use for it. There must be necessity for the existence and the application of such a doctrine, or certainly it would not have been invented, and certainly so many would not be repeating and preaching it. What has called forth this doctrine? What has suggested its promulgation? What has caused so many gentlemen to insist upon it, so often and so loudly, and, apparently, with so much sincerity? I say apparently because 1 wish to cast no reflection upon the sincerity of anyone, and yet to me it is strange how a man who permits himself to think upon the subject can, in sincerity, believe in the soundness of the doctrine. Of course we have not far to go and not much investigation to make to determine why this doctrine has been promulgated or why some men cling to it with such desperate energy. If the Constitution takes care of itself, if the Constitution is the one masterful law in this country, superior to all other laws, the supreme law by which all other laws are tested, then what may be done in any particular quarter, at any particular time, by any particular agency, must be determined by the Constitution itself. And in ascertaining what the Constitution means and what it is, after studying its own words and recurring to the history of the convention which framed it, and the concurrent facts surrounding it, appeal and reference must be made to the expositions of it by the Supreme Court of the United States. And neither in that great instrument itself nor in anything connected with the history of its formation, neither in the declarations of those who framed it nor

in the decisions of the Supreme Court, can be found any foundation or pretext for this new and strange doctrine, which makes the Constitution subject to the whim, wish, or will of Congress or any incident or accident of Congressional legislation. Ought not our friends who invoke this doctrine to pause before they push it as far as it seems now their determination that it shall go? Ought they not to realize that it is far better to be upon sound constitutional ground, and to do the things which they desire to do only so far as the Constitution will permit, and to stop the doing of them at the point where their action would become unconstitutional? Would not that be far safer and better than to proceed as they have begun, to continue in the way they are going? If the Constitution can be annulled by Congress, what is the Constitution worth? Who can draw the line, who can mark the point, to which Congressional interference with the Constitution, or Congressional annulment of the Constitution, may go, and the point or the line beyond which Congress can not annul, limit, check, or interfere with that instrument, regarded by many as sacred, and by many more as the supreme law of the land, the test for all other laws? Gentlemen would say that only with respect to the territory of the United States has Congress this ample power. That as to the States, of course the Congress can not dispense with the Constitution or interfere with it, can not carry it to a State and can not withhold it from a State; but as to the Territories of the United States, there Congress is supreme, and there the Constitution has no place unless Congress shall see fit to give it place. How does it happen, or how can it happen, that Congress is supreme in the Territories, independent of the Constitution? What is the foundation for that contention? What is the support for it, if it has any? If one holds to that doctrine, he must maintain either that the Constitution gives this power to Congress, this ample and supreme power of legislation over the Territories and their inhabitants, or that from some other source, independent of the Constitution, Congress has acquired it. Does the Constitution give it to Congress? If the Constitution gives the power to Congress, whatever it is, then the Constitution goes to the Territory and is in the Territory and over the Territory, and Congress legislates under the Constitution, exercising the powers given by the Constitution. If the Constitution conveys to Congress ample and unrestrained power of legislation in the Territories, then how can you dispense with the Constitution when Congress would exercise that power? Why talk about there being no Constitution in or over the Territory unless Congress carries it there, if by virtue of the Constitution itself and by exercise of the power given by the Constitution Congress legislates for the Territory and the people who dwell in it? Now, if it be true that the power to legislate respecting the Ter-ritories is derived from the Constitution, then the Constitution must determine the power. Then every time the power is exer-cised — whenever the question of exercising it arises — the Consti-tution must be appealed to, and the decision of the Constitution must be final and conclusive. Some gentlemen deal with this Congressional power to legislate with strange inconsistency. At one time, in one breath, they say that the Constitution does not extend to a Territory except by Congressional action, by Congressional extension, and quote from the Constitution a clause from which they deduce the power to legislate free from constitutional restraint. They find in the Constitution a clause giving Congress power to deal with the Territories, and at the same time find that the Constitution has nothing to do with the Territories, but that the Congress has complete control not only over them but also over the Constitution itself beyond the State lines. And this is the paragraph of the Constitution which not only makes the Congress omnipotent, but which at the same time makes the Constitution itself impotent indeed — provided always, however, that the new school of philosophers are not in error:The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.Some insist that the power of Congress is absolute, not only over the Territories but over the Constitution also, outside the States, because the Constitution confers such unlimited power in and by the paragraph just quoted; that absolute power is absolutely granted by the Constitution over the Constitution. I deny that in creating Congress through and under and by the Constitution, the Constitution in any particular was made subordinate to Congress. The Constitution did not perish in the throes of maternity in giving birth to Congress. Moreover, this paragraph refers to the territory belonging to the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and there is no convincing reason for believing that the framers of the Constitution had any other territory in mind. This Congressional power, however great, however far it

may

3750

extend, however many things it may reach, however extraordinary it maybe, must be a ceded power, and therefore not superior to the higher power which grants it. Is there any trouble with that proposition? What gentleman dare assert that the warrant for Congressional action is found in the Constitution and yet deny, when the extent of the Congressional power is questioned, when the question is as to what Congress can do and what Congress can not do with a Territory, that the Constitution itself must be appealed to for answer? When a dispute arises as to whether Congress has or has not any particular power, or extent of power, logically, naturally, constitutionally, the controversy must be settled by appealing to the Constitution, by getting the correct decision from the words of the Constitution, or, if necessary, from the proceedings of those who founded it, by the aid of the light of concurrent history, or from the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the Constitution, The Constitution is the fountain head, the Congress one of the streams flowing from it. Can the stream rise higher than its source? Hardly, 1 think, even under the pressure of "expansion." I care not to dwell longer upon that proposition. I know how easily one may be wrong while most confident that he is right; and although I am confident of the correctness of my proposition, I may be entirely in error: but I would be very much obliged to any gentleman on the other side if he would be kind enough to show me wherein I err, if that be error. If you quote the Constitution for the power, you are bound by the Constitution; your power must be derived from it. Whether you have it or have it not in any particular instance must be determined by the Constitution and the exposition of the Consti-tution by the only authority appointed by itself to give us an exposition of it, the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, if that be not true, tell me wherein lies the fallacy. If it be true, tell me what goes with your doctrine that the Constitution must be extended to a Territory; "that the Constitution, so far as locally applicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory (or any Territory) as elsewhere in the United States" only when Congress is pleased to say so. How can Congress determine what the power and the effect of the Constitution is or shall be? How can Congress determine that the Constitution shall have a certain effect in one place and a different effect in another place? How is that possible, as a matter of law or as a matter of reason? Can a director of a corporation cast aside the charter which created the corporation which made him? But perhaps the Congressional power is derived from some other source than the Constitution. The difficulties are no less great in the way of the man or party who would maintain that doctrine. Do you choose to take the position that the Constitution does not give to Congress the unrestrained power to legislate for the Territories, but that Congress has it independent of the Constitution? Who takes that position? Who is here to maintain that doctrine? I will be under great obligations to the proponent of that doctrine if he will explain it and give us the philosophy upon which it rests. Then we would have the Constitution, not the supreme law of the land; then we would have the Constitution, made to govern the affairs of the American people, not governing in all particulars; then we would have Congress, which can not exist independent Of the Constitution, to which it is subject with everything it does and can do, completely independent of the Constitution, by reason of some power derived elsewhere. Now, who dares to state that proposition and endeavor to maintain it? Upon what ground other than one of these two can the contention be made that the Constitution has to be carried by an act of Congress to a Territory to get there at all; that the Constitution for its vitality anywhere, respecting any subject, depends upon Congressional legislation? Where can such a proposition have started? I submit — I do it confidently — I submit that nowhere in authority, nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the decisions of the Supreme Court, nowhere in reason and logic, can the warrant for the contention or the support for it be found. And yet our friends are put into such sore straits; they put themselves into such an awkward position; they so recklessly and defiantly entered upon the work of doing this, that, and the other thing, without reference to the Constitution; of legislating in ways new and strange to our people and contrary to the genius of our Government; that, relying to-day upon this and the next day upon that, proclaiming to-day free trade and to-morrow protection, in grasping for straws, hoping by their aid to float, they fastened upon this new and strange doctrine that we have the Constitution outside of the State just where, and only where, the Congress chooses to put it. Now, then, let us look at this question in another light. What is the Constitution in the Territory when Congress carries it there? Is it there as a Constitution or is it there as statute law? When Congress, by a provision like this section 5, extends to Hawaii the laws of the United States locally applicable, Congress does no more and no less than Congress would do if it were to write out

word for word the entire body of those laws, embrace them in a bill, or in any number of bills, pass them, let them be approved by the President, and written anew in the statute book. That is just exactly what extending laws to the Territory amounts to-just that; no more and no less. This is the short way of enacting for the Territory the existing laws locally applicable to it. Now, then, is there anything more done with respect to the Constitution? Does the Congress of the United States make a constitution, as we understand the term — make a constitution (as the Constitution of the United States is for the States) the constitution also for a Territory by embodying it in an act of the Congress of the United States? Can that be done? Is that the way constitutions are made? Can constitutions be made in that way? Then in extending the Constitution so far as "locally applicable" to Hawaii, the Congress of the United States is doing no more, and can do no more, than the Congress would do if we were to embody in a bill the Constitution of the United States word for word: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled," and then follow with the words of the Constitution. Let the President, after both bodies have passed the bill containing the Constitution and nothing else, affix his signature in approval, and then you have the Constitution "extended" to Hawaii just as completely, and no more completely, than it is extended by this act. When the legislation is completed, what have yon done? Yon have put the Constitution into the statute law of Hawaii, if you have done anything. That precisely and nothing more. Now, then, is that what gentlemen wish to accomplish by this measure? Did the gentleman who drew the bill wish to enact the words of the Constitution of the United States into statute law for Hawaii? Is that the purpose? I venture to say that it is not. Assume, if you please, that the Constitution is not in force in Hawaii — those islands so very desirable for us, as so many people have said; those islands where the plague prevails, where contract labor is the rule, and slavery the result; where slavery, in fact, has been fostered and built up since the islands came under the control of the United States; the islands overrun with the cheapest labor of the Orient — if the Constitution is not over Hawaii, if the Constitution has not force and effect there, what force and effect will this legislation give it? Can yon make a constitution for Hawaii by legislation of Congress? Why, sir, heretofore when our States have required constitutions they have made them themselves; they have been made by the people of the State. Then can you make the Constitution of the United States the constitution of Hawaii by Congressional enactment? It seems to me it is ridiculous to make such a contention. Then how does this enactment carry the Constitution there? How can it carry the Constitution to Hawaii? How can a legislative act make over Hawaii a law supreme, as the Constitution of the United States is supreme over every sovereign State of this Union? How can it be done? And then when it is done, if it can be done, what about this vast Congressional power of which we have heard? The Congress which has the power to extend the Constitution to Hawaii — the Congress which, if it is right in now maintaining that Hawaii has not the Constitution of the United States and that it can put Hawaii under the shadow and protection of that Constitution — if it possesses that ample power — if it possesses that power which can not be derived from the Constitution, does it possess also the power to unmake, to undo? If it be true that the Constitution of the United States does not throw its protection over Hawaii and the people who dwell there to-day — if it be further true that after the passage of this act, if this section remains in it (but not otherwise), the Constitution of the United States will be over Hawaii — then I ask whether it is not also true that the same power which gives Hawaii the Constitution of the United States could take from Hawaii that Constitution? Who denies that proposition? If it is denied, why is it denied? [Applause on the Democratic side.] Now, can it be that Congress possesses this ample power-power so vast, so transcendent, that the Constitution does not restrain it, either because the Constitution has granted the power beyond recovery or because the power is derived from some other source — can it be true that the Congress of the United States possesses the vast and ample power to determine that a particular Territory of the United States or all of the territory outside of the States shall or shall not have the Constitution of the United States as the supreme governing law? Can that be true? And can it be true also that having once exercised this power, having once spread the Constitution over the Territory, Congress is powerless to withdraw it? I suppose these gentlemen who contend for this ample power on the part of Congress will hardly assume or hardly assert that Congressional legislation, from the time of the extending of the Constitution to a Territory, and during the time the Constitution is permitted to have an abiding place there, can be independent of the Constitution. I think that can not be true. When the Constitution is there or gets there, when the aegis of the Constitution is over Hawaii, then, for the time being, Congress, in legislating

3751for the Territory, it would seem, must legislate under the Consti-tution. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. MCALEER. I yield five minutes more to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DE ARMOND]. Mr. DE ARMOND. If it be true that no part of the territory of the United States outside of the States is or can be tinder constitutional protection until Congress has put the territory and the people under the Constitution, then Congress must have the power and right to withdraw the Constitution from that territory and that people whenever it pleases. Now, who will dispute that proposition? Who finds fault or who can find fault with that reasoning? It seems to me that those who would have Congress so mighty and the Constitution so weak are driven then to this absurdity — that the Constitution being carried by Congress to a Territory, the people of the Territory once being under the Constitution, Congress for the time being must legislate in subordination to the Constitution: but whenever Congress concludes to reassert its vast power, all it has to do is, by another act, to lift the Constitution, to gather the Constitution in and fold its wings of protection, and then to resume its own absolute sway, independent of the Constitution. Gentlemen, what do you think of that doctrine as you follow it out? What respect, my friends, do you really have for your own judgment and your own logic, your own premises and your own treatment of them, when you proclaim or subscribe to the doctrine that the Constitution is nowhere outside of the States except where Congress carries it — that in legislating for the Territories the Constitution does not interfere with Congress? I understand, and you understand, that this proposition lies at the very foundation of the Philippine question and the Puerto Rican question and the Hawaiian question, and the other questions that have arisen and will arise in this career which some gentleman call progress, which others might properly call adventure — gathering in all that is loose around about, and then in providing a government, throwing away our constitutional safeguards in order to deal with our acquisitions, "our newly acquired possessions," in the way that necessity or cupidity may suggest. [Applause.] I believe that no department or agency of the Government can escape from constitutional control otherwise than by violating the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution is in and over every act and act: on of Congress to sanction and sustain because in harmony with it, or to condemn and annul because in conflict with it. I believe the Constitution floats in the current of all Congressional legislation and directs the course of the stream. It is to Congressional life and action what the air we breathe is to human life and achievement. No legislation can escape from its supervising control, and wherever a law of Congressional enactment is in a Territory as well as in a State there is the Constitution also, having traveled in its own way, by its own conveyance, commanding Congress always and never commanded by Congress. I did not intend to go into this question at length. It is worthy of some discussion. I may be wrong about it, but I think the time is coming and is not far distant when this proposition upon which so many gentlemen rest so much will receive more consid-eration than as yet has been given to it. I believe the time is not far off — and I am warranted in that belief by reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court, by everything that we have upon that subject that deserves the name of authority, and, I am almost tempted to say, by everything which deserves the name of reason — I am led to the belief, and am confident in it. that the time is not far off when the doctrine in this country will be reestablished, to the satisfaction of many and the confusion of some others, that the Constitution is not merely a convenient little, thing like a garment, to be taken off and put on; that the Constitution is not to be handled by the Congress of the United States as an overcoat might be handled by a servant in waiting — put on, pulled off, hung up or laid down, or even folded and stored away with spices and anti-moth preparations until a more convenient season for taking it out. [Laughter.] I believe the doctrine soon will be reestablished in this country, to the satisfaction of many and to the confusion of some others, that the one thing that abides here, the one thing to which all of us must bow, the one thing to which all of us owe allegiance, the one thing which determines and measures the powers of Congress and of the President, whether the greatest or the smallest, that protects the feeblest and the mightiest, is the Constitution of the United States [applause on the Democratic side]; that it lives without Congressional action, and that the highest duty of Congress is to legislate under it and not against it. [Applause on the Democratic side.] )) [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. KNOX. I yield forty-five minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. BOREING]. Mr. BOREING. Mr. Chairman, our Government was created without a pattern, and its founders commenced business without

a dollar and without a foot of territory. Guided by the flag and not by the Constitution, they fought England seven years for our first possessions. To-day the American Republic stands in the forefront of the world's powers, without a peer in existence or a parallel in history. We have spanned this continent, compassed the seas, and planted our outposts at the threshold of the Asiatic countries, where we can command the trade and commerce of the world and protect our missionaries in all lands, and are now engaged in enacting a constitution for the islands of the Pacific Ocean. We have the praise and admiration of the great civilized powers of the earth and no enemy in our front to stop our onward inarch around the globe. Yet there is a voice that calls us to halt and retreat. That voice comes from the rear. It is not the voice of Grant. It is not the voice of Stonewall Jackson. The men who wore the blue and the men who wore the gray are at the front up-holding the flag, with a united people and a prosperous country behind them. The voice that calls us back is the voice of the Tory in the Revolutionary days; the voice of Vallandigham and the Copperheads in the days of the civil war. It is the voice of the demagogue, the pessimist, and a few constitutional lawyers. Shall we obey that voice, or shall we state the philosophy of our politics and the religion of our Government in a broader patriotism, looking to a wider and higher national destiny? I am well aware. Mr. Chairman, that our able statesmen are not all agreed about these matters. This comes of our free institutions and is the result of free thought, free speech, and a free press. But, Mr. Chairman, the people of this country may be divided into two classes. The time has never been when they might not have been divided into two classes. One class live for themselves alone, and the other class live for others as well as themselves. To the latter class we are indebted for American independence. To this class we are indebted for the preservation of the Federal Union and for the absolute freedom of all American citizens. This class have built our churches, endowed our colleges, and inaugurated our systems of public instruction, and to them alone I am willing to intrust the destiny of our people and the fate of this nation. Mr. Chairman, the idea of self-government was not born upon this continent. It came to us from across the seas, and after a trial and approval of a century and a quarter, may we not send it back with our greetings? The idea is modern, but it is not new. It is modern because it is imperishable. It is too pure to decay. Forms decay, words become obsolete, and languages die, but great ideas, .truths, and principles live forever. The great Nazarene teacher, who taught as man never taught, and who spake as never man spake, suggested the idea of self-government to the human race and taught the doctrine of civil liberty two thousand years ago. When he appeared upon the scene as a teacher human slavery existed in every civilized nation in the world; but these wicked and degrading institutions have melted down before the sunlight of the gospel. Our German ancestry, the Angles and the Saxons, carried the spirit of self-government from Germany into England in the fifth century. It struggled there for more than ten centuries against monarchical forms of government before it was driven to this country in search of a more congenial soil where it might develop and mature. It found lodgment in the patriotic heart of Washington and the brilliant intellect of Franklin; it found expression in the language of Jefferson; it found interpretation in the conscience of Lincoln, and it is finding dissemination in the patriotic judgment of William McKinley, to the credit of his brilliant Administration and the honor and glory of this nation. [Applause on the Republican side.] When Mr. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he stated a powerful governmental fact — all men are created equal — the full meaning of which I do not believe he comprehended. It remained for Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipationist of the nineteenth century, the type of the American Republic, who was endowed by nature and, as Mr. Watterson claims, was inspired by the Almighty, to so interpret this fact as to make it speak the whole truth. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin saw only the white man in that declaration, because they all indorsed the Constitution of the United States, which provided for the enslavement of the black man. But Mr. Lincoln, who possessed that invisible power of the human mind that could detect the invisible power that lurked in the great fact, saw as clearly as a sunbeam that it included the black man, and it is now dawning upon Mr. McKinley that the interpretation of Lincoln, that emancipated not only the bodies but the minds and consciences of men and gave this country a new civilization founded upon enlightened civil liberty, includes every shade of color between the white and the black man. But how have we acquired our territory in this country? How has our Government grown up like its great type, Mr. Lincoln, from nothing to become everything? In 1783 Great Britain ceded to us the 13 original colonies, embracing 815,000 square miles of territory. We obtained this under

3752

the flag and not under the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, we ac-quired our first possessions without having to ran the gantlet of the constitutional lawyers, which every annexation has had to encounter. I am always pleased to hear the speeches of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DE ARMOND] on account of his learning. I remember not long ago he took occasion to contrast the Constitution with the flag, claiming that the Constitution was the residuum of the Revolutionary war, that it was the guide and charter of the American people. I would remind him that the flag was the inspiration of the Revolutionary war. It expresses the patriotism of our people and the spirit of self-government. I have as great respect for the Constitution as any man upon this floor. I would nut speak disparagingly of that instrument, but I would also remind the gentleman that wherever there has been a conflict between the teaching of the Constitution and the teaching of the flag the Constitution has been in error and the flag has been correct. I remember when I was a boy the Constitution taught me that the black man was property. The flag taught me that he was a man. The teaching of the flag prevailed and the Constitution was amended. The flag has never been amended, but the Constitution has been amended fifteen times to conform to the growth and development of the country and new conditions that have arisen, and to keep it in harmony with the teaching of the flag. You had as well think of amending the heavens that declare the glory of God or the firmament that showeth His handiwork, which day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge, as to think of amending the American flag. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that our fathers thought when they obtained this grant from England that they had all the ter-ritory they would ever need, for they made no express provisions in the Constitution by which we might acquire more. I have no doubt they had the idea then that they were forming a government within and for themselves and their posterity. But within twenty years from that date the great Louisiana purchase was made by Thomas Jefferson. He was censured and condemned for his reckless disregard of the Constitution and extravagant expenditure of the people's money — $15,000,000 — for the purchase of territory for which the country had no use. How is it to-day? That territory is worth $3,000,000,000. Why, its intelligent, cultured, and prosperous citizens propose to expend $15,000,000 in 1903 to celebrate the Louisiana purchase. There is not money enough in this country, gold, silver, and paper, to buy the Louisiana purchase. Mr. Jefferson admitted that he stretched the Constitution until it cracked in order to make that purchase. He asked that the act ratifying the purchase be made in silence and without debate; and, in point of fact, there was more silence and secrecy about the passage of that act than there was about the act of 1873, by which some of our people think we lost our silver money. Here was the beginning of the American policy which was broader than the Constitution. From that day to this the American policy has been broader than the Constitution. We have had seven great annexations of territory, by which we have increased our possessions to nearly 4,000,000 square miles of territory. Every great question that agitated the people of this country in the nineteenth century grew out of annexation. The public-land question, the tariff question, and the slavery question all grew out of annexation. If there had been no public domain added, there would have been no public-land question to be fought over between Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. By reason of these annexations, farming lands became very cheap and farming very profitable. The statesmen saw that in order to encourage our people to manufacture their own goods, wares, and merchandise they must make manufacturing as profitable as farming, so they inaugurated a tariff system that has built up this country; and from that day we have had the tariff agitation until recent times. It commenced between Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina. I can not fix the day of the death of "tariff for revenue only," but I can come within four years of it. I believe that it appeared for the last time in the national Democratic platform of 1892. It failed to appear in the national Democratic platform of 1896. Somewhere between these two dates it winked out. Both the country and the Democratic party had an experience about that time that neither will soon forget. The slavery question likewise grew out of annexation, because the doctrine of slavery was firmly planted in the Constitution. It required a contempt of law and a revolution to free the original thirteen colonies from slavery. Whenever a new State was made the question arose as to whether it should be free or whether it should be slave. This controversy culminated in the irrepressible conflict that the eminent statesmanship of Henry Clay deferred for a third of a century, but could not prevent. Mr. Chairman, the country we have acquired is the richest and most fertile and its people are the most cultured, intelligent, and happy of any race of people on the earth. Our country is, indeed,

a chosen land. When you consider it from an agricultural standpoint, we could feed, clothe, and shelter twenty times our present population by agricultural pursuits alone. If you consider it from a manufacturing aspect, with our great producing capacity, that has been built up by our protective system and with the constantly increasing foreign demand for our manufactured articles, we could dispense with farming and support our population by manufacturing alone. When you come to consider the wealth that is imbedded in the earth — our gold, silver, and copper mines, our coal fields, our oil, gases, and other minerals, our granite and marble of every hue and shade of color — this wealth is like the stars of heaven; it declares the glory of God. We are also a chosen people. In 1702 it was estimated that 85 per cent of our people were of the Anglo-Saxon race. It was very fortunate that we fell under the Anglo-Saxon civilization in the beginning, and it is exceedingly fortunate for us that every annexation made displaced Latin civilization, which has been succeeded by our Americanized Anglo-Saxon civilization. We also have a chosen Government. It is conceded that the American Republic has been the most successful experiment of self-government the world has ever known. Now, with our brilliant history behind us and the enlightening power of our schools and churches, with our books and newspapers as numerous as the leaves of the forest, shall we not, in the faith of Caleb and Joshua, "go up and possess the land" that has come to us by the fortunes of war and by the act of purchase, not to deprive the inhabitants that come with these islands of their rights or possessions, but by our superior civilization teach them the arts of industry and inspire them to the pursuits of peace, cultivating among them the knowledge of a more enlightened civil liberty, and, if possible, secure to them and their posterity the blessings of that method of self-government that came to us as a heritage from our fathers. Mr. Chairman, if by the pursuit of this beneficent policy we find a market for the surplus products of our farms and factories, who shall impugn, or have the right to impugn, our motive, question our patriotism, or criticise our policy? Certainly not they of our own household. I have been much pleased with what I have seen in this House with regard to our action in providing the pending bill. The Hawaiian Islands were converted to Christianity by American missionaries early in the twenties. In 1825 they incorporated into their code of laws the Ten Commandments. In 1829 they were recognized by the United States as a treaty-making power. In 1844 they were recognized by us as an independent government. In 1900 they are knocking at our doors for admission and asking us to enact for them a constitution and code of laws. In doing so the Committee on Territories undertook as much as possible to make them conform to American ideas and American customs. I was pleased to see that the committee unanimously voted against a property qualification for the right of suffrage. I was pleased to know that we unanimously agreed to give them a fair election law and leave them as much as possible to control their own local affairs. I have been pleased at the spirit that has been shown here in regard to Puerto Rico on both sides of this House, notwithstanding we differ very widely as to what is the best method of relieving their distress. But, Mr. Chairman, while we are providing for the islands of the sea, extending our civilization, holding up American national life before the world, are we going to allow the torchlight of liberty to be extinguished at the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln and the home of Henry Clay? It is in no spirit of partisan acrimony that I refer to the situation in Kentucky. So far as the election law is concerned, we would be glad to exchange places with either the Hawaiian Islands or Puerto Rico. If yon would rid us of the Goebel election law, you might put a tariff for two years on our products and tax to the full extent, if you please, of the Dingley law. We have two great trusts in Kentucky that would bear the burden of taxation; and if they were both taxed to death, the youth of the land would be safer and the country all the better off. Our Democratic friends get the benefit of both of them — the whisky trust and the tobacco trust. [Laughter.] Mr. TALBERT. Democrats do not drink. [Laughter.]

April 4, 1900Housev. 33 (4)p. 3763-37693764

Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, during the past one hundred and twenty-four years the United States has many times extended its boundaries or expanded its territory. First, the Louisiana purchase, in 1803, out of which has been carved the States of Arkansas, Kansas. Louisiana, apart of Minnesota, a part of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, a part of Wyoming, Indian Territory, and Oklahoma Territory, and these Territories, together with Arizona and New Mexico, will at some time be admitted as States; next, the Florida purchase from Spain, by treaty, in 1819, first organized as a Territory, and then admitted as a State in 1845, and by the same treaty a large scope of terri tory, out of which has been carved the States of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington; and third, the annexation of Texas by act of Congress in 1845. followed soon after by other acquisitions from Mexico, under treaty, out of which has been carved the States of California, Colorado in part, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming in part, and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico in part. All of these acquisitions were adjoining the territory of the United States, and were secured from a standpoint of national necessity, or in order that we might be rid of dangerous or troublesome neighbors, living in close proximity to us.

France, when in possession of the Louisiana Territory, including the western bank of the river, had control of the mouth of the river, and this was a serious annoyance to American citizens inhabiting the part of the United States on the east side of the Mississippi, and drained by it. This being before the days of railroads, the Mississippi River was the great commercial highway for all the people living within this boundary.

The mouth of the river being in possession of the French, and our right of exit and entrance being secured only by treaty, which could be annulled by France at any time, it was a matter of extreme national necessity that the Louisiana territory should be secured in order that the citizens of the United States living in the eastern part of the valley of the Mississippi might have an unrestricted outlet for their commerce, a dangerous neighbor removed, and our western border secured — a direct application, so to speak, enunciated years afterwards, in what is called the Monroe doctrine, that America should not be considered a field for exploitation and colonization purposes by the powers of Europe.

In the case of Florida, held as it was by impotent and bigoted Spain, its proximity to the southern part of the United States rendered it a fertile field for breeding troubles to our Government.

In the case of the annexation of Texas it was a matter of contract between two intelligent and sovereign nations, advantageous to both.

In the case of the other territory secured from Mexico by treaty, it was but the result of a theory long held by many of our wise and sagacious statesmen that, by the laws of nature and geographically speaking, the entire area from the Atlantic on the east to the Pacific on the west, from the Gulf of Mexico on the south to the Great Lakes on the north, was intended for one great country under one national government.

So, in this way, expansion of our territory was brought about by constitutional methods, and, except in the case of Texas, which was admitted as a sovereign State, always with a view to organizing the lands so secured into Territories with local self-government, and, eventually, to the admission of these Territories into the Union as sovereign States.

This wise and statesmanlike policy has been carried out to such an extent that to-day there are only four Territories, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Indian Territory, within the bounds Of the above acquisitions.

In 1867 we purchased from Russia Alaska. This purchase, I believe, was not so much because the territory was valuable at the time, or that it was considered that it would ever be of any great use for purposes of emigration and settlement, or from a commercial standpoint, but because, the Russian Government being in the humor to sell, it was thought advisable for the United States to purchase, rather than at some time this territory should fall into the hands of Great Britain, it being held then, as it had long been held, that it would be unwise on our part, from a national standpoint, to permit England to secure any further acquisition of territory in North America.

Mr. Chairman, in all this those in charge of governing and shaping the national policies of the United States were wise and sagacious: the territory acquired being in all instances, practically speaking, an unsettled wilderness and needing only the hand of an intelligent, industrious, and liberty-loving American citizen to be applied in order that it might become an important and valuable part of our great Republic.

National security from external dangers, the perpetuation of our republican form of government, the welfare, prosperity, and happiness of the people of the United States, made it necessary that these acquisitions of territory should be made. This was expansion in its best and truest sense.

Prior to the war with Spain no territory was acquired by the United States outside of North America, nor was any of this ac-3764quired except in the furtherance of a policy based on the Monroe doctrine and political necessity.

The Democratic party has always been in favor of this kind of expansion, and except in the case of Alaska, practically speaking, is entitled to the credit for the acquisition of all territory to that time. In all the territories acquired, as I have stated, we have acted in the acquisition of and in governing them strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. I stand with my party on the question of expansion, and in opposition to the policy of imperialism and militarism advocated by the Republicans.Mr. Chairman, the causes leading to the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands are not in all respects the same as those leading to all former acquisitions. Along this line it may not be out of place to mention some facts in connection with the acquisition of these islands and their history. They were discovered by Captain Cook in 1789, and at that time were populated by a warlike, vigorous, and hearty race. They were a higher type of what may be termed "barbarous Asiatics." The islands are situated in the Pacific Ocean, some 2,000 miles from the coast of North America and about 4,000 from the coast of Asia.The people of the islands were almost entirely isolated from the outside world up to the time of their discovery by Cook. The population then numbered between four and five hundred thousand. The area of the islands being only in the neighborhood of 6,000 square miles, this would give a per capita population of upward of 75 to the square mile. Since 1789, when the islands were discovered, to 1819, the islands were greatly reduced in population by the ravages of war and disease. Since then the death rate of the Hawaiians has increased to such an extent that to-day there are only about 40,000 natives and Hapas, or half-castes.Prior to 1819, idolatry was a part of the religious practice of the Hawaiians.May 8, 1819, Kamehameha I (then King of all the islands) died. By his will he left to his son, Liholiho, the sovereignty of all the islands, with the title of King Kamehameha II, and appointed Kaahumanu (his widow) premier, to exercise equal authority with the young king. These two almost immediately

abolished idolatry and destroyed the infamous Tabu system, so that when the pioneer missionaries arrived at the islands, October 23, 1819, they found these people self-redeemed from idolatry and casting aside the superstitions of their fathers.When the Christian missionaries from New England landed in the island, they were most kindly received by the natives. The people of the islands having some knowledge of western civilization from the occasional visits of passing ships, willingly received the teachings of the missionaries, and in a short while the greater part of them were converted to Christianity; and the Christian religion being the foundation stone of all lasting and progressive civilization, the Hawaiians have from that day to this made rapid progress. Up to 1820 they had no written language other than crude hieroglyphics, amounting to very little in the way of education from a practical standpoint, being symbolic only.Until January 17, 1893, the islands continued under a monarchy which had existed from time immemorial. During this period of time, from 1819, when idolatry was abolished, to 1893, when the monarchy was abolished, education became general throughout the islands and Christianity common among all the people.In 1893 a part of the foreign population, dominated and led by Americans or people of American extraction, successfully rebelled and overthrew the existing government, deposed Queen Liliuokalani, abolished the monarchy, and set up a republican form of government, modeled for the most part after that of the United States; and, with the government securely in their own hands, they promulgated a constitution for the islands, containing, amongst other things, a provision looking forward to and providing for annexation to the United States whenever it could be effected. This government continued until the 7th of July, 1898, when the Hawaiian Islands, by a joint resolution passed by Congress, were annexed to the United States.The causes leading up to annexation were, first, the islands being of prominence on account of their situation in the Pacific Ocean, on the usual route of travel between Asia and North and South America, and on account of agricultural and trade resources; and, second, its government being weak from a standpoint of force and ability to maintain itself against a strong and aggressive power. The governing power or Hawaii earnestly desired annexation by the United States as a security for their welfare for all time to come.When war was declared by the United States against Spain, in 1898, and after Dewey had sunk the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Manila, the United States was under the necessity of transporting to the Philippine Islands ships, soldiers, and supplies. As a matter of convenience, and sometimes of necessity, our ships and vessels of war had occasion to stop at the ports of Hawaii for coal and other supplies.The Hawaiian government treated the United States in all these matters with the utmost consideration and as if there were

3765

existing between the two countries a treaty of alliance, amity, and friendship, offensive and defensive, demanding that the Hawaiian government should place at the disposal of the United States her ports to be used in tune of war in the same manner that she would use her own, thus clearly violating the principle of International law requiring friendly nations to preserve strict neutrality between belligerents. This course of procedure on the part of the Hawaiian government had Spain been victorious in the war would undoubtedly have brought upon her serious consequences. Not waiting for any of these contingencies and possible troubles, the Hawaiian government, being most anxious for annexation to the United States, in due form signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reservation to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States absolute fee and ownership of all public property, etc. The United States, on July 7, 1898, during the continuance of the war with Spain, passed a joint resolution for the annexation . of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, and amongst other things in the resolution of annexation, which is nothing more or less than a contract between the people of Hawaii and the United States, it is provided that —Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States custom laws and regulations, existing customs relations of the Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain unchanged.Leaving to the Congress of the United States final action in the premises. The following statements in reference to the Hawaiian Islands in geographical, historical, and educational matters are taken from a handbook of information issued by the Hawaiian government in 1899:GEOGRAPHICAL.They are not in the "South Seas," the Hawaiian Islands are not, though often placed there erroneously. The group proper is situated between 18° 54' and 22° 15' north latitude and 154° 50' and 160° 30' west longitude. Therefore the islands must be in the North Pacific Ocean. If there be any further difficulty about finding the Hawaiian Islands, just steer due west from Mexico and stop when you see the Stars and Stripes flying over dry land. That will be they. The islands of any account number eight, in order of size being Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Niihau, and Kahoolawe. Kauai is the most northern and Hawaii the most southern. Draw a line northwestwardly from the farthest south point of Hawaii to the farthest north point of Kauai and you leave all the other islands north of it excepting little Niihau, close westward of Kauai, and a vessel following the same course would hug Honolulu BO closely that she might as well come in for water and news. Beyond the boundaries given in the foregoing there are nine or ten uninhabited islets — mere rocks and reefs— extending in an irregular chain west and northwest, over which, severally, jurisdiction has been taken by different Hawaiian governments. Some of these specks are known for their guano deposits, others as shark-fishing grounds, but too many of them for their sad record of shipwreck. The five islands of the group proper, already named — Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Kauai, and Molokai — are the only ones considerably populated. Hawaii, the largest island, gives its name, in accepted parlance, to the whole country and its government. It is 90 miles long from north to south, and 74 miles broad from east to west. The area is 4,210 square miles. Topographically the island is bold and majestic in feature, being an aggregation of vast volcanic mountains. Three sublime dome's are visible at once from various points of view, and their bases conjoining entitle them to the name they sometimes receive, "The Triplets." Mauna Kea is 13,805 feet in height. It is the highest mountain in the group. Mauna Loa is distinguished for containing all the living volcanoes in the islands. Indeed, the occasionally active crater of Mokuaweoweo forms its summit, the elevation of the loftiest point of its rim being 13,675 feet. The crater of Kilauea — never failing in strong manifestations of fire and often furiously active — is hollowed into the side of the mountain at an elevation of 4,000 feet. Hualalai, third of the trio, is 8,275 feet high. Hail and snow are frequent at and above 9,000 feet elevation, and the summits of Manna Kea and Mauna Loa glisten like diamonds with caps of snow a great portion of the year. In the extreme north of the island rise the Kohala Mountains, the highest peak being 5.505 feet. The coast line is regular, bays are few and natural harbors entirely wanting. Hilo Bay, on the east, contains an eligible site for harbor works, which it is confidently expected the United States Government will not long delay supplying. As it is, the port is constantly frequented by shipping, having tolerably safe anchorage and a small wharf newly constructed. Other bays are Kealakekua and Kailua, on the west, and Kawaihae, on the northwest. Landings are established at more than a score of places for the coasting traffic. Hawaii leads the other islands in production. It has many large sugar plantations, by far the greater portion of the coffee-raising industry, and a number of extensive stock ranches. With the regular steam communication, at this moment having good promise of being permanently established with the Pacific coast, the island of Hawaii will figure proportionately large in fruit cultivation. There is good soil at such a variety of altitude that the products of temperate climates can be successfully cultivated within the very sight of tropical vegetation. , Maul, the second island in size, has an area of 760 square miles, the greatest length being 48 miles and breadth 30 miles. It is composed of two mountainous formations of unequal size. The smaller part is a cluster of serrated ridges, the loftiest peak having a height of 5,800 feet. Deep and fertile valleys between these spurs produce a variety of tropical fruits without culti-vation. Steep precipices overlook the ocean on the north, while on the southwest and northeast coasts there are sugar plantations and pasture lands. Iao Valley, extending westward from the town of Wailuku, is one of the most beautiful valleys in the islands. The larger portion of the island, having the appearance of a body supporting the portion just described as a head, contains the vast dome of Haleakala. This is 10,030 feet high and has the distinction of being the largest extinct volcano in the world. Its base is surrounded with sugar plantations, and upon its slopes temperate and tropical agriculture blend into each other. Maalaea Bay, in the south of a low neck of land joining the two sections of

the island already mentioned, contains landing places, but is too exposed to the sea for a shipping resort. Kahului Bay, in the north of the same neck, has good anchorage in its inner part, and has direct trade, by sailing vessels, with the Pacific coast. Hana is a small harbor. Oahu, although third in size, holds the highest rank from its containing the capital city, Honolulu, and having much more than one-third of the population of the group. According to its size it is also the greatest producer, while it is far and away the leader in manufactures, leaving out sugar milling. Oahu has an area of about 600 square miles. It has a length of 46 miles and a breadth of 25 miles, but, being irregular in shape, the average breadth of its eastern half is probably less than half of the latter figure. Oahu is as mountainous as any of the islands. The Koolau Range extends from the extreme eastern point to the northwestern coast, a distance of about 35 miles, and for half that length its transverse ridges run nearly from sea to sea. The Waianae Range, in the southwest, runs about 20 miles and has on that side lofty spurs extending to the coast. These are the principal elevations: Lanihuli Peak, in the Koolau Range, 2,780 feet; Konahuanui. same, 3,105 feet; Palikea Peak, Waianae Range, 3.110 feet; Kaala, same, 4,030 feet; Pali, 1,207 feet; Tantalus, 2,013 feet; Koko Head, 1,205 feet. Honolulu Harbor is the only properly improved harbor in the islands. It admits to dock the largest steamships that ply the North Pacific. Pearl and Koolau harbors, on the south and north, respectively, are capable of being made, at moderate expense, among the finest havens for deep-sea shipping in the world. Kalihi Harbor is available to be connected by an inexpensive channel, inside the line of breakers, with and made an annex of Honolulu Harbor. There are several other lagoons on the island which admit small coasting vessels, although their entrances are more or less dangerous. Kauai has an area of 590 square miles. Its length is 25 miles and breadth 22 miles. It is the oldest, in geological formation, of the group. Waialeale is a large mountain mass in its center, the lower parts of which slope easily toward the sea. Kauai is better supplied with streams than any of the other islands. It is called the "Garden Isle," from its very general fertility. Sugar plantations are upon every side, besides which the cultivation of rice is extensive. The northwestern part of the island is very precipitous, forming a line of lofty cliffs for 7 miles. There are several bays and inlets, but no secure haven. Niihau is a very interesting little island. Its entire land, comprising 70,-000 acres, or 97 square miles, belongs to one firm and is almost wholly devoted to sheep raising. It has a mountain range attaining an elevation of 800 feet, and much cut into by ravines. Feathered game abounds on Niihau. The whole island would make a magnificent health and pleasure resort. Civilization was introduced to the Hawaiian Islands by Captain Cook's discovery in 1778. It is believed that the group was inhabited as early as A. D. 500. The aboriginal people are supposed to belong to the same race as the tribes of Samoa, Fiji, and Tahiti. Their language is much like the languages of those groups, and it is certain that there was much intercourse, in canoes navigated by the aid of the stars, between the southern archipelagoes named and Hawaii during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The ancient Hawaiians were barbarians rather than savages. They never were cannibals. Up to the time of Kamehameha's subjugation of all the islands, at the dawn of the nineteenth century, feudal government prevailed and wars, not only between islands, but between districts, were almost constantly being waged. The islands were discovered by foreigners several times. A Japanese junk drifted into Kahului Bay in the thirteenth century, and its crew stayed and intermarried with the natives. In the first quarter of the sixteenth century, a Spanish vessel, belonging to an expedition sent out by Cortez from Mexico, for a farther destination, was wrecked on Hawaii and the captain and his sister, the only survivors, were received as welcome acquisitions to Hawaiian society. They intermarried with natives and their descendants were high chiefs. The islands were discovered again by the Spanish navigator, Juan Gaetano, but nothing came of the event, except getting the group placed 10° too far east on charts. Soon after Cook, the benevolent Vancouver paid three visits to Hawaii. This was just as Kamehameha was beginning the game of conqueror. Vancouver, besides presenting the ruling chiefs with useful plants, cattle, and sheep, had a vessel built for Kamehameha and gave him excellent advice. He also told him that the heathen tabus were all wrong, and that there was but one living and true God. There were persons of high rank about the king who laid the bluff commander's words up in their hearts. Kamehameha died in 1819 without having renounced his gods, but immediately the two queens, Keopuolani and Kaahumanu, deliberately broke the tabus — which had always been enforced with the penalty of death — and priests and people made bonfires of the idols. When, early the following year, the first band of American missionaries arrived, they found the fences of idolatry leveled to the ground. The Kamehameha dynasty ended with the death of Kamehameha V in 1872. As he died without appointing a successor, the legislature elected Prince William C. Lunalilo king. The government had for some time been a constitutional monarchy. Lunalilo died after a reign of a little more than a year, and, ho also failing to name a successor, the legislature elected David Kalakaua. The reign of Kalakaua was marked by two notable events, the making of a treaty of reciprocity with the United States and the coercion of the king, by an, armed demonstration of foreign residents, to promulgate a new constitution, materially limiting the prerogatives of the sovereign. Kalakaua named his sister. Princess Liliuokalani, as his successor. He reigned nearly seventeen years, and died at San Francisco on January 20, 1601. In his absence Liliuokalani was regent, and at his death she became queen. Upon attempting to promulgate a new constitution of her own authority on January 14, 1893, she was confronted by a revolution that culminated three days later in the abrogation of the monarchy. A provisional government was placed in control of affairs until annexation to the United States could be obtained; but as that consummation seemed to be long in coming, a constitutional convention prepared the way for the proclamation of the republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. By a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States passed on July 7, 1898, the Hawaiian Islands came under the sovereignty of the United States of America. The formal transfer of sovereignty took place on August 12, 1898, and a commission, appointed by President McKinley, has, doubtlessly, before this book has been issued, recommended to the Congress a form of government for Hawaii under the Star and Stripes. By the census of 1896, the population of the Hawaiian Islands was 109,020, subdivided by nationalities as follows: Nationality. . Male. Female. Total.Hawaiian............................ .............................. 16,399 14,620 31,019 Part Hawaiian ................................................... 4,249 4,236 8,485 Born of foreign parents...................................... 7,058 6,675 13,733 Foreign born, all kinds ....................................... 44,811 10,972 55,783Grand total......................................................... 72,517 36,603 109,020

3766Below is an analysis of nationalities, counting all of Hawaiian blood together, also adding into one lot the foreigner of each nationality born in and oat of the islands:Race. Male. Female. Total.Native Hawaiian....................................... 20,648 18,856 39.504 American......... ....................................... 1,975 1,111 8,086 British...................................................... 1,406 844 2,250 German.................................................... 866 566 1,432 French...................................................... 56 45 101 Norwegian................................................ 216 162 378 Portuguese................................................ 8,202 6,989 15,191 Japanese................................................... 19,212 5,195 24,407 Chinese. ................................................... 19,167 2,449 21,616 South Sea Islanders................................... 321 134 455 Other nationalities...................................... 448 152 600Grand total.. ............................................. 72,517 86,503 109,200The population, by the census of 1890, was 89,990. By islands, the population in 1890 was as follows: Island. Male. Female. Total.Oahu................................................ 26,164 14,041 40,205 Hawaii............................................... 22,632 10,653 33,285 Maui..... ........................................... 11,435 6,291 17,726 Kauai.. ............. .............................. 10,824 4,404 15,228 Molokai. .......................................... 1,335 972 2,307 Lanai. .............................................. 51 54 105The preponderance of males over females in the population of the Hawaiian Islands, by nearly two to one, is accounted for by the large immigration of male laborers for work on the sugar and rice plantations.EDUCATIONAL.Hawaii has a thoroughly organized school system. By an act of the legislature of 1896 its administration was elevated in rank from that of a bureau, without representation in the executive, to that of a department of the government, with a cabinet minister as its official head. By that enactment the minister of foreign affairs became also minister of public instruction and president ex-officio of a board of six commissioners of education. It is pro-Tided that two of the commissioners may be ladies, and two ladies are, at present, members of the board. Schools were first established in the Hawaiian Islands by the American pioneer missionaries. Though dead, they hare left records that speak. E. W. Clark was one of the instructors of the Lahainaluna Seminary, and he wrote an article upon that institution in the Hawaiian Spectator of October, 1838. This was a quarterly magazine," conducted by an association of gentlemen," as appears from its title page, and printed for the proprietors by Edwin O. Hall, the mission printer at Honolulu. Mr. Clark wrote: "When the Sandwich Islands Mission commenced its operations in 1820 nothing like education was known at the islands. The vernacular tongue had not even been reduced to a written language." Compare the condition thus stated with that described by a writer in the North American Review for July 1897 — seventy-seven years later — of the status at that time: "For many years in the past it was rare to find a native Hawaiian who could not read and write his native language. There is a change now, but without retrogression. It consists of a rapid advance toward an equally universal command of English by the native people." Mr. Clark, in his writing of sixty years ago, went on to tell of the course pursued by the missionaries to remedy the condition of gross darkness covering this people: "To reduce the language, as they found it in the months of the people, to a written form was their first object. A few elementary school books were then prepared, and the business of education commenced. * * * Soon multitudes were able to read and write (imperfectly, it is true) their own language. Schools were established throughout the islands, and supplied with such teachers as could be obtained." The instructor of Lahainaluna tells of the difficulties obstructing progress in the educational work, such as "the pressing engagements of the members of the mission in preaching, translating, and other labors," and goes on to tell of the birth of Lahainaluna Seminary, thus: "In this state of things, it was unanimously resolved, at a general meeting of the mission in June, 1831, to form a high school for raising up school-teachers and other helpers in the missionary work." The design of the high school, later called the Mission Seminary, was quoted from its printed laws by Mr. Clark. It was in part "to disseminate sound knowledge throughout the islands, embracing general literature and the sciences and whatever may tend to elevate the whole mass of the people from their present ignorance and degradation, and cause them to become a thinking, enlightened, and virtuous people." In September, 1831, the school went into operation at Lahainaluna, island of Maul, under the care of Lorrin Andrews as principal. Mr. Andrews was the maternal grandfather and patronymic of Hon. Lorrin Andrews Thurston. lately Hawaiian minister to Washington. Lahainaluna is now an institution of the public school system of Hawaii. It occupies a commanding situation, overlooking the village of Lahaina and the Pacific. Industrial training is one of its strong features. Mr. Clark, telling of its earliest days, mentions that "a printing press was established in connection with the school, and placed under the charge of Mr. E. H. Rogers as printer." It is interesting, therefore, to note that to day an educational monthly paper, The Progressive Educator, is printed and published at Lahainaluna — the pupils doing the mechanical work — under the auspices of the department of public instruction, which has recently provided a modern printing plant for the institution. So much space is given, to Lahainaluna, not only because it is the oldest superior school in the system as it now stands, but because it is one of several high schools in the islands where industrial education is made prominent. With this statement, the others of the class need not be separately mentioned. The discovery of the old missionary quarterly quoted in the foregoing, which happened in turning over a heap of musty tomes in the foreign office, enables another remarkable comparison to be made between the schools of those days and of the present. Edwin O. Hall has an article in the same number of The Spectator on "Common Schools of the Sandwich Islands," in which he gives the number then, the year 1838, under instruction as at least 15,000 children. . He remarks that some of the reports did not give numbers, and that probably 18,000 would come nearer the truth. The figures he gives, by islands,

total up 15,818, which is singular as being about 800 more than the number of pupils officially reported in all schools of the islands for 1897, viz, 14,522, but "probably 18,000 would come nearer the truth "for the latter part of 1898, judging from the fact of a constantly increasing condition of schoolhouse overcrowding. Here is a comparison of school attendance in 1838 and 1897, by islands:

Islands. 1838. 1898.

Hawaii......................................................... 7,194 3,828

Maui, 2,743 and .......................................... Lanai, 149.................................................... 2,892 2,488Molokai......................................................... 1,061 157 Oahu............................................................. 2,233 6,428 Kauai and Niihau........................................... 1,933 1,621Total............................................................. 15,313 14,522In 1838 Maui and Lanai are given separately, whereas they are coupled in 1897, and Niihau is not mentioned in 1838. This comparative statement shows a great falling off since two generations in the number of children attending school on the islands other than Oahu, with a proportionate increase on that island, owing to its containing the capital city, Honolulu. In another country such a condition might be taken, offhandedly, as an illustration of the process of the country losing to the town. It is something more than that here. They were, virtually, all native Hawaiian children, those attending school in 1838. The total number of Ha-waiian and part Hawaiian children enrolled as pupils in 1897, for the whole group, was 7.869, or but a few hundred more than the school attendance on the island of Hawaii alone in 1838. So the situation simply reveals one phase of the diminution of the Hawaiian race, a fact that has been touch deplored but which is not for discussion in this connection. The comparison just instituted naturally leads to an inquiry as to the composition of our schools by nationalities. What a conglomerate and polyglot mass of young humanity the teachers of Hawaii are expected to ground in the elements of intelligence and good citizenship is exhibited in this official table of school attendance in 1897:Nationality. Number of pupils. Nationality. Number of pupils.Hawaiian....................... 5,330 Scandinavian....................... 106 Part Hawaiian.... ........... 2,479 French................................ 2 American.................... 484 Japanese ....................... 560 British.......... ....... ...... 280 Chinese........................... 1,078 German....................... 302 South Sea Islanders......... 10 Portuguese ....................... 3,815 Other foreigners................. 76

Attendance was divided between public and private schools thus:

Male. Female. Total.Public schools .......................................... 5,925 4,643 10,568 Private schools ......................................... 2,092 1,862 3,954Grand total................................................ 8,017 6,605 14,522There were 132 public and 60 private schools in 1897. One of the public schools on the little island of Niihau was the last survivor of schools taught in the Hawaiian language. The number of pupils under 6 years of age, in all schools, was 805; between 6 and 15, 12,466, and over 15, 1,161. Sexes were fairly well balanced in numbers, excepting in the case of Chinese, who had 773 boys to 305 girls in school. Deducting their excess of boys from the total excess, there will be only on excess of 44 boys to be divided among all other nationalities. The teaching force in all Hawaiian schools for 1897 was composed of nationalities as follows: Hawaiian, 57; part Hawaiian. 62; American, 253; British, 69; German, 12; French, 6; Scandinavian, 6; Portuguese, 20; Japanese, 3; Chinese, 13; other foreigners, 6. There were 123 male and 175 female teachers in the public, and 82 male and 127 female teachers in the private schools, a grand total of 507, or an average of 28.64 pupils for each teacher. In this connection, especially in view of the object of this book, a circular letter prepared by Mr. H. S. Townsend, inspector-general of schools, for replying to many inquiries from abroad is here quoted : "There is but one system of public schools in Hawaii. One board employs all teachers. Permanency being an important consideration, candidates are favored who are, or who are expected to become, permanent residents of Hawaii. All schools are in session ten months of each year, and all teachers are engaged by the year. In consequence there are few vacancies in, the teaching force to be filled after the 1st of September. There is no great educational reorganization in progress in the islands, though there is educational progress and development. Our public-school system is older than those of most of the States, and the teaching force is more permanent. There is no scarcity of teachers, though there is difficulty in finding suitable teachers for some of the less desirable positions in the country districts, owing to the lack of suitable boarding places. Cottages are sometimes furnished teachers so that they may be able to board themselves. There are 298 teachers in the public schools, 134 of these being classified as Americans; but the majority of those so classified are of island birth. The average annual salaries of men ore $745.50; of women, $551.80; of all teachers, $631.80. Qualifications required here are similar to those required in those States having school systems of the better sort, though not quite so high as the requirements in California. The standard is, however, gradually rising. "It is a waste of time and patience to send in applications from abroad. With these facts in view, those desiring to join the teaching force here should decide for themselves whether the prospects will justify the risks of

the journey and the venture." Education is compulsory as to schools in general, and, with an exception herein noted, free as to the public schools. The law requires that every child from 5 to 15 years of ago, inclusive, shall attend either a public or private school taught in English. Special police, called "truant officers," are appointed in every district, to enforce the compulsory-attendance clause. English education in Hawaii gradually grew upon the Hawaiian stalk first planted by the missionaries, as already seen. When schools were first started as state institutions, they were taught in the Hawaiian language. English wag introduced as the foreign population increased. When, in the course of time, the better classes of

3767

Hawaiians manifested a desire for English instruction, English schools were instituted in localities upon the request of a certain number of residents. Thus the large school in Honolulu, still called the "Royal School" and flourishing as part of the public system, was established and given its name to become the place where the scions of royalty and chiefly rank were to be educated. King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani attended this school. English was early taught as a classic in the large mission schools. It was recognized as the vernacular in 1876 at Lahainaluna Seminary, afterwards becoming there the dominant medium of instruction. Gradually the transformation went on until 1896, when teaching in this language became obligatory in all schools. American text-books are employed almost exclusively in the public schools, those for the higher grades including the cream of English classics. The only exceptions to the rule are Hawaiian geography and history. Select schools, where tuition fees are charged, are permitted in the state system, and, as a matter of fact, exist in a group centering in the Honolulu High School. This is under a section of the law which provides "that the department may, in its discretion, establish, maintain, and discontinue select schools, taught in the English language, at a charge of such tuition fees for attendance as it may deem proper: Provided, however, That such select schools shall be established only in places where free schools of the same grade for pupils within the compulsory age are readily accessible to the children of such district." The Honolulu High School is organized in three departments of English, mathematics, and natural science. Good work is also done in foreign languages. Under the constitution of the republic of Hawaii, aid from the public treasury to sectarian schools was prohibited. Formerly it was the regular practice of successive legislatures to pass grants of money to schools under the control of different denominations. Instead of becoming weaker from the withdrawal of public aid, the independent schools in 1890 exhibited an in-crease of attendance proportionate to that of the public schools. There are several noble institutions, under both Protestant and Catholic auspices, established in the islands. Oahu College, at Honolulu, a foundation of the American mission, has a handsome group of public buildings. It has chairs in the ancient and modern languages and natural philosophy, besides the usual academic branches. St. Louis College, also at Honolulu, is conducted by Roman Catholic brothers, giving instruction from primary to classical grades, with music and drawing as specialties. It is exclusively for boys and has the longest roll of all the schools in the islands. Iolani College, owned and directed by the Anglican bishop of Honolulu, with an able staff of instructors, does substantial work. There are schools for girls, giving industrial as well as scholastic instruction, conducted by the successors of the American mission, the Anglican, and the Catholic sisters, respectively, not only in Honolulu but in country towns. The Kamehameha schools, for native boys and girls, were founded by the will of the late Mrs. Charles R. Bishop, a Hawaiian princess eligible for the crown, but refusing nomination therefore. These, besides giving tuition from primary to high school grades, inclusive, afford the benefits of manual training in various branches of mechanical and domestic industry.For many years past the greater part of the trade of the islands has been with the United States. In 1897 the exports to the United States amounted to $15,311,685; in 1898, $16,587,311, and in 1899, $22,188,206. During these and many previous years the balance of trade has been largely in favor of the Hawaiian Islands. In 1897 we exported to the Hawaiian Islands $5,478,224; in 1898, $6,827,848, and in 1899, $11,305,587. The trade of the islands during these years with nations other than the United States has been very small, and it is a remarkable showing of the fertility and capabilities of the islands from an agricultural standpoint. The average in their favor for each of the three years amounting to nearly $10,000,000. The trade of the islands, amounting now to more than $33,000,000 annually, will probably within the next decade amount to $60,000,000 or $70,000,000; and I do not know of any reason why, when the agricultural resources of the island are fully developed, we may not count on a trade of $100,000,000 annually. It must not be concluded, however, that the Hawaiian people reap all the advantages of this enormous and greatly increasing trade. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the valuable sugar, coffee, and rice lands in cultivation are owned and controlled by great corporations, and very few Hawaiians are interested in these corporations. Some of the great sugar plantations make enormous profits. One of them, it is said, on a capital of more than $2,000,-000, in one year made a profit of about 80 per cent. Nor is it true that all of the stockholders in these great and money-making corporations are residents of the islands. Numbers of them reside elsewhere; consequently the blighting effects of absentee landlord-ism, so much complained of in Ireland, are in evidence to some extent in the Hawaiian Islands. In other words, the islands have been developed largely through the efforts of speculators and capitalists, and one result of this has been to place the bulk of the rich sugar, coffee, and rice producing lands in cultivation in the hands of persons other than the native Hawaiians. The statement has been made that the average native Hawaiian owns between 2 and 3 acres of land and the corporations and persons other than Chinese and Japanese own, on an average, 400 acres each. These figures, if true, show to some extent how the lands have passed into the hands of persons other than the natives. The citizens of Hawaii are, as a rule, educated. My information is that of male citizens, 21 years of age and upward, more than 95 per cent can read and write the English or Hawaiian languages. This high degree of intelligence in educational attain-ments has been brought about by eighty years of persistent effort by the government in educational matters. It must not be supposed, however, that in Hawaii where among the citizens education and intelligence is and for many years past has been the rule, and where illiteracy is the exception, that since the overthrow of the monarchy any considerable

number of citizens have participated in the elections, as the fol-lowing statement, taken from the official records, shows : In the last election under, the monarchy, in February, 1893, the total vote was 14,217; of these 9,931 were Hawaiians. This is about the usual proportion of one voter in five of population. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, the first election was for a constitutional convention under the Republic, May, 1894. The total vote cast was 8,853; of these, 939 were Hawaiians; and in the next general election, held September, 1897. the total vote cast was 2,693; of these, 1,126 were Hawaiians, and this, too, with a population of 110,000. I wish to call the attention of my Republican friends to the fact that in the Hawaiian Islands, as in the South, the government is in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon race. Wherever this race has gone they have demonstrated that they are the superior race, and when it comes to matters of government they are stronger and more vigorous than other races, and rule accordingly. The bill before the House provides a strictly republican form of government for the Territory of Hawaii under the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. We give to them local self-government in unequivocal terms, and to the general assembly of the Territory power is given to enact all local legislation necessary not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. We place in the hands of the citizens of the Territory, by this bill, the means of redressing any local grievances that may now or hereafter exist. The Committee on Territories, having in charge the bill, have endeavored to follow and improve upon all bills heretofore passed by the Congress of the United States for the government of Territories, and to give to the Hawaiian Islands most liberal form of government, strictly in accordance with the letter and under the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Whatever criticism may be made upon the action of the committee in other respects, it can not be charged that the members were wanting in liberality, in providing for the future government of the Hawaiian Islands; nor can it be said that by the provisions of the bill the Hawaiians are denied any rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution to any citizen of the United States. The people of the Hawaiian Islands understand that annexation means that the islands shall become a part of our territory and be governed under our Constitution as all other Territories of the United States have in the past been governed; and along the line of carrying out this contract between the people of Hawaii and the United States, the President, in his message to Congress in December last, states that "the people of these islands are entitled to the benefits and privileges of our Constitution." The bill declares all persons who were citizens of the republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, to be citizens of the United States, and that the Constitution and the laws of the United States, locally applicable, shall have the same force and effect there as elsewhere in the United States. The right to vote is extended to all male citizens residing in the Territory for one year and in the district in which they register not less than three months, who shall register, pay a poll tax of $1, and be able to read and write the English or Hawaiian language. These provisions as to suffrage are largely modeled after the constitution and laws of many of the most progressive States of the Union, among others those of Massachusetts and South Carolina. The committee deemed it wise to strike out the provisions in the original bill requiring voters for certain offices to be possessed of property of the value of $1,000 or have an annual income of not less than $600, because it is not believed that the same are necessary to secure good government in the Territory, and because such provisions are contrary to the spirit of a republican form of government, and, if permitted and practiced, would inevitably place the government of the Territory in the hands of a moneyed oligarchy, and in effect would amount to placing dangerous power in the hands of men who happen to be possessed of wealth, and, politically speaking, would tend to make a serf of a man possessed of the highest mental and moral attainments, should he happen not to be the owner of $1,000 worth of property or have an income of $600 a year. To my mind it is not conceivable that the Hawaiian people could be secure in their rights under the Constitution of the United States and continue prosperous, happy, and be good citizens , with the right to vote and have a voice in the government of the Territory restricted in this way. By the passage of this bill Congress admits that what some of the States have done in the way of denying the right to vote to the ignorant and vicious is not only necessary, but right and proper, and therefore commendable. Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the war with Spain many serious and vexed questions have come before Congress for settlement. While that war was in progress, as a matter of necessity

3768

growing oat of the war, we annexed the Hawaiian Islands. At the conclusion of that war we had obtained by treaty with Spain the cession of Porto Rico and, so far as Spain could rive to us by treaty, the Philippine Islands. The Hawaiian Islands are a part of the United States to-day, as much so as is the Territory of Oklahoma, or the State of Pennsylvania. Not only is this true of the Hawaiian Islands, bat it is also-true as to the island of Porto Rico. The Hawaiian Islands annexed by joint resolution of Congress, carrying into effect the offer and agreement of the government of those islands, and Porto Rico ceded to us by treaty with Spain, the inhabitants of the island being most willing, both stand on the same footing as Territories of the United States, and each of them is entitled to the same consideration, for over both Territories the Constitution of the United States extends equally and to the same extent that it extends over any Territory or State under the jurisdiction of the United States. In the bill before the House no attempt is made to legislate for the Hawaiian Islands except under the provisions and strictly within the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Particularly is this true in the matter of taxation.) In the bill before the House the trade of the Hawaiian Islands with other Territories and States of the Union stands upon the same footing in that there is no discrimination whatever. In dealing with Porto Rico the majority in this House have attempted to treat her in a very different manner. For Porto Rico, the effort is made to treat the island as if the same was not a part of the United States and to impose a tariff upon certain of her products coming into our ports. Why this discrimination? Why treat the island of Porto Rico differently to the way we treat and deal with the Hawaiian Islands? If one is a part of the United States and under its juris-diction the other is. We treat the Hawaiians as Citizens of the United States, why not treat the Porto Ricans in the same way? Both are entitled to all the benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred by the Constitution of the United States upon any citizen. In the matter of impost duties or taxation the products of these territories must be treated the same in all respects as we treat the products of Pennsylvania or California. Mr. Chairman, in a few words I will give my opinion as to why the Hawaiian Islands have been treated as a part of the United States and why Porto Rico has been treated as a foreign territory. It has been said by those advocating the imposition of a duty on the products of Porto Rico shipped into the United States that, first, Congress has a right to do so under the Constitution; second, that in order to raise money to relieve the sufferings of the people of the island it must be done, and third, that to do so is to strike a severe blow at the sugar and tobacco trusts; therefore it is necessary. In answer to the first proposition, Mr. Chairman, I will say that Congress has no right or authority under the Constitution of the United States to levy a tariff on the products of Porto Rico coming into our ports, because Porto Rico is a part of our territory. As to the second proposition, in my opinion no good, but only harm, can result to the Porto Ricans from the imposition of this tax. As to the third proposition, I think it amounts to jesting with a serious question. If this is true, would it not be equally a blow at the trusts to impose a tax upon the products of the Hawaiian Islands coming into the United States? Why, if it is necessary in dealing with Porto Rico to impose a tariff upon her products in order to strike a blow at the trusts, is the necessity and the argument not equally as strong in the case of Hawaii? If it is necessary to strike a blow at the trusts in one case, it is in the other. No, Mr. Chairman, these are not the reasons for the imposition of a tariff upon the products of Porto Rico. In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the reason is that in the Hawaiian Islands the greater part of all that is valuable and productive to any great or considerable extent, including the land and franchises, is owned by capitalists, speculators, and trusts. On the other hand, in Porto Rico this state of facts does not exist. Since we acquired Porto Rico from Spain there has not been time for the capitalists, the speculators, and the trusts to manipulate and obtain possession of the valuable lands and franchises. Mr. Chairman, if like conditions existed in Porto Rico that exist in the Hawaiian Islands in the ownership of lands, franchises, and other valuable property, I submit that no fight would have been made by the sugar and tobacco trusts, or anyone else, to impose a tax upon the products of Porto Rico. Mr. Oxnard and Mr. Myrick would never have been heard of in connection with Porto Rican legislation. Mr. STOKES. Will it disturb the gentleman to interpose a question? . Mr. FINLEY. Not at all. Mr. STOKES. Do I understand you to imply that that probably is the reason why the tariff was imposed upon the products of Porto Rico?

Mr. FINLEY. I think that is why the sugar and tobacco trusts are in favor of the Porto Rican bill. I take it that the trusts reasonably suppose that by proper effort on their part during the continuance of the tariff that the trade of Porto Rico will be hampered by the iniquitous and unlawful burden imposed upon her trade. The value of property in the island, now very low, will continue so, and they will be enabled to obtain possession of the greater part, and then they will be most anxious for Congress to treat Porto Rico as we propose to treat the Hawaiian Islands in the bill under consideration. Mr. STOKES. A pretty good deduction. . Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that we are treating the Hawaiian Islands as we should treat them in this bill, as I understand the Constitution of the United States and as I believe its provisions imperatively demand. We give to them the rights of citizenship. We deny to them nothing that is given to other citizens of the United States as such, whether they reside in a Territory or in a State. I believe that this is the correct construction of the Constitution of the United States. Something has been said in the debate to the effect that the bill before the House extends the Constitution of the United States over the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with this argument. In my judgment, the Constitution of the United States can not be extended over territory belonging to the United States by an act of Congress, for the reason that over all territory of the United States the Constitution extends by its own force, and any act of Congress for this purpose is a nullity. Mr. Chairman, in admitting the products of Hawaii to our ports, without taxation or any discrimination whatever, we but obey the Constitution of the United States and carry out the practice of our Government in the past, and act in accordance with an unbroken line of judicial decisions by our Supreme Court construing the Constitution. In denying to Porto Rico the same rights the majority go contrary to all precedent in the history Of our Government, and in the teeth of both the Constitution of the United States and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Porto Rican bill was under consideration in this House, the Republican position was that the Constitution of the United States did not follow the flag, and its provisions were not coextensive with the jurisdiction of the United States over territory, and that territory within our jurisdiction, over which Congress had not extended its provisions, did not fall within the provisions of the Federal Constitution. It was argued strenuously by the majority that the Constitution could only be extended to newly acquired territory by an act of Congress. It seems from an examination of the arguments made in support of the position of the Republicans in this matter that the reasons for their position are: to avoid its provisions in some of our new possessions or territories, first, as to citizenship, and, second, its limitations as to taxation. In a republic, such as ours, there can only be citizens and uniformity of taxation; and free intercourse between all citizens of the republic is absolutely necessary. These two propositions are the groundwork and underlying principles without which there can be no republic. Section 3 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that — This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall he made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; am! the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.The language of this section is not that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the various States in the Union, or the supreme law of the States and Territories, but that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. It is immaterial whether that land is within the boundaries of a sovereign State or whether it is comprised within the boundaries of a Territory not yet admitted into the Union as a sovereign State. Over all land, including States and Territories, where the jurisdiction of the United States extends, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. The only question, then, as to where the Constitution extends, is one of jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction exists, the flag and the Constitution go along with it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Republicans, having recognized in a practical way this principle, in the case of Hawaii, will find some difficulty in explaining to the American people their course in ignoring the principle in the case of Porto Rico. The action of the Democrats and Republicans in the House, in the case of Hawaii, is an unanswerable argument that the Republican majority is wrong in the proposed legislation for Porto Rico. Section 1 of Article XIII is a further expression in the Constitution of the United States that the provisions of the Constitution extend to all territory over which our flag floats, and that it is coextensive with jurisdiction. Section 1 of Article XIII reads:Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place; subject to their jurisdiction.This article expressly provides that the provisions of the Con-stitution shall extend to all territory over which the United States