AGAINST THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII. To take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our traditional policy as to colonial aggrandizement and abolish the Monroe doctrine, but it means to absorb a population that are alien to our form of government and stran- gers to our institutions. SPEECH OF HON. THOS. H. BALL, OF TEXAS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, "Wednesday, June IB, 1898. \ WASHINGTOM. 1898. :B/s: 72988 ^'^ ^ SPEECH . OF <^*'^HON. THOS. H. BALL. The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. ~'j9) to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- Mr. BALL said: Mr. Speaker: In the limited time allotted me I can not at- tempt a full or satisfactory discussion of the pending resolution. I would not speak at all did I not in my heart believe that the question under consideration involves the most crucial period in our national history, not excepting the fratricidal conflict between the States. The glowing picture presented by those who would lightly set aside the traditional policy of this Government and enter upon a career of colonial aggrandizement supported by a great army and navy, is certainly no more alluring than was Napoleon's dream of universal empire. Let us hope that, once entered upon, the re- sult may not prove equally disastrous, Mr. Speaker, in opposing this measure I shall present for the consideration of the House three propositions only. The annexa- tion of Hawaii by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unneces- sary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to sup- port the Constitution, we should inqitire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian amaexation, but those who advo- cate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in oiir organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. I know, as was said by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr, Di:csmoreJ , that the mention of the Constitution in this body often invokes a smile, and yet it can not be that a majority of this body agi"ee with tlie insignificant few '• that there is a higher law than the Constitu- tion;" or with that former member of this House who, in his good fellowship, " did not think the Constitution should ccme between friends," Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be lawfully done. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Tawxey], in a very able argument in support of annexation on March 15 last, rested his case upon the general i)ower in our (\)nstitution and the express power in the constitution of Hawaii, conferred upon the Presidents and Senates of the two countries, to conclude a treaty of annexation. Now that, in pursuance of those powers, the President has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate 2 81S7 and has been miable to obtain the consent of two-tlurds of that body we are called upon to override the constitutions of both parties to the proposed contract in order that we may do this thing. _ When Louisiana was acquired, when Florida was received, wnen Alaska came to us, no statesman connected witn the executive or lei?islative branch of the Government dreamed the teintoiy sought to be added to our possessions could be received, except by treifty duly ratified. In their desperation, grasping- at shadows for substahce, those who now resort to ^his subterfuge cite the admission of the imperial State from which I hail— Texas-as warrant and authority for their purpose. , ,, ^ ^ ,. Mr Speaker, no one familiar with the history of that transaction should make such claim. Advocates of the annexation of Texas rested their case upon the express power conferred upon Congress in the Constitution to admit new States. Opponents of the annex- ation of Texas contended that even that express power did not confer the right to admit States not carved from territory already belonging to^the United States or some one of the States forming the Federal Union. Whether, therefore, we subscribe to the ono or the other school of thought in that matter, we can find no prec- edent to sustain the method here proposed for admitting foreign ^^Members need only refer to the extended debates in Senate and House of Representatives while the annexation of Texas was being . considered to be assured of the correctness of this conclusion, ® The original proposition as otfered comtemplated the formation * of a State from certain prescribed limits within the territory em- 7 braced in the Republic of Texas, while the balance of the area of ^ the Republic was to be ceded as territory to the United States. The treaty having failed of ratification by the Senate, annexation by ioint resolution was resorted to, and the outcome of the who e matter was that the entire Republic of Texas was admitted as one State, with the right to carve therefrom four additional States, this being done fSr the purpose alone of coming withm the con- stitutional power to admit new States and m recognition of the fact that territory could only be constitutionally acquired by ^^Flfave not time to review much that was interestingly said about the matter. I shall quote only a few of the opinions ad- vanced duSng the discussion of that matter. The Senate com- mittee on Foreign Affairs consisted of five members, four of whom ^uest'oned ?he ?ight to admit new States out of foreign territory daiming it could only be done by treaty, the other member of .the comSee admitting that foreign territoiT could only^^^^ by treaty, but contending that Texas could be admitted as a State Mr Walker, of Mississippi, claiming to be the aiithor of the idea to have Texas admitted under the clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to admit new States, said— That he was reioiced that the great American question of the veaiincxa- January, 1844. 3187 •within tlio Union. The general power was in express words, and no man had a right to interpolate restrictions, especially restrictions which the f rainers of the Constitution had rejected. Mr. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, the dissenting member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, advocating the resolution, said: All the reasoning and ingenuity in the world could not abolish the plain language of the Constitution, which declared that new States might be ad- mit'ted by Congress into the Union. Mr. Henderson, of Mississippi, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, and other able advocates of the annexation of Texas urged the same argu- ments in support of the measure. In the House of Representatives Mr, Yancey, of Alabama, sup- porting the resolution, advanced the same line of argument. On the other hand, the opposition, insisting that the power to admit new States was confined to territory already belonging to the United States, put forward many able advocates. Mr. Morehead, of Kentucky, speaking for the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, contended — In the case now under consideration it was not proposed by the joint resolu- tion before the Senate that Texas should be acquired according to what ho considered the constitutional mode of proceeding, by tlie ti-eaty making power. The proposition is for Congress to admit her as a State. IN ow— He asked — when this Government was about to add a foi'eign domain to ours, was there any other mode of accomplishing that object except by the interposi- tion of the treaty-making power, composed of the President of the United States in conjunction with the Senate? Was it constitutional t3 annex Texas by the treaty which was submitted to the Senate last session? He believed there were few, if any, constitutional objections made. If, then, the power to annex foreign territory by treaty does appertain to the treaty-making power, he should like to see upon what ground it could be held that the Congi-ess of the United States possesses concurrent legislative power upon this subject. If that which it is competent for the treaty-making power alone to accompli-sh. the majority of a quorum of both Houses of Con- gress could accomplish. The argument, he apprehended, would be this, that as a constitutional mode of proceeding we do not deny that foreign territory can be admitted into this Union by the treaty- making power. But there is another clause in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to admit new States into the Union. He proposed now to consider what was the char- acter of that article and upon what conditions it rests. [Mr. Buchanan: That is the true ground.] His friend from Pennsylvania said that was the ques- tion, and to it he proposed to call particular attention. Mr. Choate for three hours reviewed the whole question, bring- ing to bear his knowledge of the Constitution and its formation and the history of the country, clothed in redundant adjectives. He denied that the clause in the fourth article in the Constitution giving the power to Congress of admitting new States into the Union was given with the most remote idea of its being ever ap- plied to anything but domestic territory. Said he: No raan could believe that by that provision it was intended to confer the tremendous power of admitting new States in any part of the world without limitation as to habits, customs, language, principles, or anything but the semblance of republicanism. Until it was found the treaty of last session had no chance of passing the Senate, no human being save one, no man, woman, or child in the Union or otit of the Union, wise or foolish, drunk or sober, was ever heard to breathe one syllable about this power in the Consti- tution of admitting new States being applicable to the admission of foreign nations, governments, or states. It was a new and monstrous heresy on the Constitution, got up not from any well-founded faith in its orthodoxj-, but for the mere purpose of carrying a me.-isure by a b.are majority of Congress that could not bo carried by a two-thirds majority of the Senate iu accord- ance with the treaty-making power. :Ji87 Mr. Speaker, I will not further quote from this disciission. The language used by Mr. Choate certain!}- applies with peculiar force to the proposition now pending, and the entire debate upon both sides of that proposition shows conclusively that the advocates ci this measure have no ground to stand upon so far as the annexa- tion of Texas is concerned. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Pearson] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Grosvexor] seek to aid their conten- tions in favor of this measure by the decision of Chief Justice Marshall. Let us see if they are sustained thereby: The course- Said Judge Marshall— which the argument has taken will require that in deciding this question the court should take into view the relation in which Florida stands lo the United States. The Constitution confers absolutely upon the Government the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that Gov- ernment possesses the power of acquii-ing territory either by conquest or by treaty. Thus it will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that Chief Justice Marshall not only fails to sustain tliese gentlemen, but bases the acquisi- tion of territory, either by conquest or treaty, upon the war- making and treaty-making powers conferred by the Constitution upon the Government. Certainly, the treaty having failed to pass, no gentleman will contend that we are attempting to take Hawaii by conquest or by the power to admit States. They must there- fore stand with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee [Mr. Hitt] , who insists, in substance, that the National Govern- ment has the inherent right to acquire territory in this manner. The Constitution having pointed out the several ways in which territory may be lawfully acquired, I for one decline to accept this new doctrine by which territory can eventually come into partnership with the States and have equal rights and representa- tion on the floor of Congress and elsewhere without first runmng the gantlet of every constitutional safeguard. • Mr. Speaker, I shall even venture to differ with those who de- clare this measure to be a military necessity. Even the array of expert testimony they bring to their support is not conclusive. A leading member of the bar once defined unreliable testimony as of three classes: " Ordinary liars, accomplished liars, and expert wit- nesses." [Laughter.] While I do not accede to this classifica- tion, I do know that great military and naval authority is not agreed at all times. It is also true that only witnesses in the matter were called who favored annexation. Even then, as stated by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clark] , General Schofield, upon cross-examination, admitted that Pearl Harbor, now pos- sessed bv this country, was the only harbor that could be success- fully fortified and defended. I will say in passiug that we possess this harbor by treaty that can not be abrogated except by the consent of this Government. Again, we should bear in mind that, by professional instinct. Army and Navy ofificters are naturally predisposed toward that policy which would make this country a great military and naval power. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Will the gentleman allow me an m- terruption? Mr. BALL. Yes; certainly. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I want to make one statement, and 3487 it is the gospel truth, that every one of these statements in favor of annexation was an ex parte statement, and I believe that any ordinary lawyer, just a plain, ordinary, average lawyer, can take every one of these men and on cross-examination make him swear to the same thing that General Schofield swoi;e to, that that is the only harbor that can be fortified. Mr. BALL. All right, put that in ray speech. Now, against their judgment we have the safest of all guides — experience. For more than fifty years the Atlantic Ocean has bounded our eastern, the Gulf and Republic of Mexico our southern, the Pacific our western, and the British possessions our northern borders. Dur- ing this period we have made marvelous strides in progress, the development of our resources, and increase of population. We have waged the greatest of all wars in our own borders, placing in hostile conflict two armies either of which could have whipped the combined legions of Napoleon or Wellington. Since then we have nearly doubled our resources and popula- tion, and even now we are demonstrating to the world that the foreign power which breaks oiir peace must whip every man within our borders from Maine to Texas, from New York to California, before they can successfully give tis battle. Why, then, extend our borders more than 3,000 miles in the Pacific Ocean? To do so will be a breach of public and national faith. December 19, 1840, Mr. Webster announced that — The Govornment of the Saudwich Islands ought to he respected ; that no power ought to take possession of the islands, either as a conquest or for pur- poses of colonization. President Tyler, two years afterwards, reiterated the same doc- trine. In 1843 Secretary of State Legare notified our minister to Eng- land— That wo had no wish to acquire or plant colonies abroad, but would, if necessary, feel .I'ustified in using force to prevent their acquisition by one of the great powers of Europe. This, Mr. Speaker, has been our established policy. Twice England has occupied the islands and as often peacefully retired. Does anyone believe that in the face of all this that even a re- mote possibility exists that any foreign power would dare incur our displeasure by attempting to possess themselves of these islands? I must pass on. Mr. Speaker, it is not only unwise that we an- nex Hawaii, to do so will be a blunder approaching the gravity of a crime. I know that by many it is not considered up to date to quote Mr. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, and yet I can not believe that the great and unselfish advice of these men, to whom we owe so much, should be lightly set aside. I would certainly, when in doubt, prefer to go to him who used his private means to aid the Government and declined to accept compensation as Commander of the Army and President of the United States, and refused a crown, rather than those who would convert a war for liberty and humanity into a vehicle of conquest and commercial gain. In his farewell message to the Congress ho warned us against a large standing army and cau- tioned us against entangling foreign alliances. With patriotic, far-seeing statesmanship, he adviseel against political connection 3187 with any foreign nation, called attention to tlieir mterests anvolv- to<; them in controversies foreign to our concerns. Said he. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif- f erent course. Wliy— should we forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand on foreign grounds.' _ That we mi«-ht be the more secure in our position, m I8.0 Mr. TVTnni o-lt-irtle 1 the world by putting the nations of the earth on Sethlrwe would not pe/mit foreign powers "to extend their Sem to am po? on this hemisphere." These po icies have blcome Sto the American people, without regard to party. Guided thSeb?, we have P-servedom^ Government ^^^^^^^^ ctvii-.rpfl all nations in the race for supremacy. \V e na . e surpabtea S^?v power mSntaining a colonial policy, having none ourselves. We ha?e seenthe flags of monarchies go down in South America, Central America, and the islands of the sea, and flags over liberty- invino- rpnublics hoisted in their stead. „..,»• We"ha??seen a foreign emperor left to his fate m Mexico upon a simple li-otest ly us and upin the ruins of his throne a Republic creSecl What more can we ask? Why no continue along the Une of our greS. destiny, settling our internal questions npon nust and properfinesand cleveloping our magnificent resourc^^^^^ Tippd have we for the sugar lands of Havv^^n? i tni tj -sixtnousanu ?aSaie miles of sugar land in Texas, as fertile as the valley of the Nile Iwait development. Louisiana calls for money and men to m icker-ner fertile^ soil, while Nebraska and other l^eet-sugar pro- ducinl&Ses demand our attention. Only the other day the Washington Post stated: Imperial Texas can produce food products for the entirepopulation of the United States. Vpq and furnish the wool and cotton to clothe them and the IpIhe'rtS shoe them. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Johnson] i?ho?t wh le agoTn this House made a correct statement "that Texas c^ud deceive the population of the Union without being Sded '' Do?oi, gentleien. not find it difficult now to .Irame lawl that will satisfy Maine and Texas, California and Louisiana, SneStalndSouthCarolina.PennsylvaniaandAlabama? Why^^ ?ie fi?st thiSg they found when we captured Manila and desired to colllct thetr customs, was that the Dingley bill, whose authors prom4ed un've?^^ prosnerity, was not adapted to the Phihppme hlands and we retained the Spanish laws. ..,,,., 4. u Fnthusiasts may paint glowing pictures of Hawaii, but the stub- born fact remaTns-that white xSen can network under a tropical snn Thev may prate of Ataericanizing it, but can not deny that Serimerkan influence for nearly three-quarters of ^-^ century tW ai-e no more than 2,000 American male citizens, less even StS numbei- of lepers there now. They can not controvert Sniitof anonulationof about 110,000, more than two-thirds arfm?n iooEKfHa^iians, 2^,000 are Japanese, 22,000 ai;e Chinese 15 000 are Portuguese, 1,000 are South Sea Is:anders 4 000 S white foreigners, and only 8,000 are Americans male and Salt Suih as th?se we have legislated against; such as these So not desire as competitors with free-born American laborers. To take Hawaii, therefore, means not only to change our tradi- tional policTas to colonial aggrandizement and abohsh the Monroe 34ir doctrine, but it means to absorb a population that are alien to our form of government and strangers to our institutions. It means that the American flag, consecrated to the cause of liberty, shall float over a people wliere there can be no "union of hearts nor union of hands;" where the principle that "all men are created equal" must stand aside, while the franchised few must control the disfranchised many. Hawaii is but the entering wedge for other colonial possessions. What right have we to change a policy that has turned the eyes of the liberty loving of every land to our shores as an asylum for the oppressed? Dare we take the chances for all time to come when so little is at stake on the one side, our all on the other? If we stand by the faith, keep in the paths our fathers trod, not a hundred years hence 250,000,000 American citizens within our present borders will command the peace of the world and shape its civilization. May God forbid that we take passage upon an unknown sea, and When, too late, we are asked from the watchtowers of liberty and free government. " Sentinels, what of the night? " we may not be able to say, "All is well." [Ai^plause.] mi O LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 744 710 1 % Hollinger Corp. pH8.5