[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

1929

Mr. SPOONER.   Yes.

Mr. CULLOM. None whatever. There Is a system of courts there.

Mr. SPOONER. That is peculiar, is it not? 

Mr. CULLOM. It is peculiar to that country. It does not exist in our Territories, 
either in Arizona or anywhere else. There we have an appeal. But the theory 
of this bill is that they have a supreme court, a circuit court, and other inferior 
courts, and there are appeals from one to another of the territorial courts, and 
those judges, either of the circuit or supreme court, have nothing to do with 
decisions on other statutes than those local to the islands. They exist just as in 
a State.

Mr. SPOONER.   The trouble is Hawaii is not a State. 

Mr. CULLOM.   No; it is not a State.

Mr. SPOONER.   They have in the Territories, of course, the nisi prius 
judges in the courts, and then they have a supreme court, but there is in certain 
cases an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Mr. CULLOM.   Yes.

Mr. SPOONER. In capital cases. For instance, a man is tried for a capital 
crime, and he believes that errors have intervened in the trial, or that he has 
been deprived of some rights under the Constitution, and he has a right to 
appeal. Why should not that right be given as to this Territory as well as to all 
the rest of the Territories?

Mr. CULLOM. Possibly it ought to be; but still there is a government which 
has existed with this system of courts for very many years, and so far as 
anybody knows justice has been meted out to the people in civil suits as well as in 
criminal proceedings. 

Mr. SPOONER. The same thing may be said of some of our own Territories.

Mr. CULLOM. Possibly it may; but why is it necessary to provide for an 
appeal to the Supreme Court or a circuit court of the United States when there is 
a system there which already provides for appeals from one court to another and 
which seems to be satisfactory? The commission thought that all that was nec-
essary was to maintain the condition as it exists there, it being thoroughly 
established and satisfactory to the people.

Mr. SPOONER. It seems to me, if the Senator will permit me to make the 
observation, that the difficulty is we are dealing with this as a Territory and at the 
same time as an independent government.

Mr. CULLOM. That is true, in a sense. Yet is there any reason in the 
Constitution why we should not have a system of courts in Hawaii just as there 
now exists?

Mr. SPOONER. Is there any reason in the Constitution why we should have a 
right of appeal from the courts in our Territories? 

Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether it is needed or not, but there is a system, 
and the people are familiar with it. They have been living under it for years and 
years, and they understand it, and it seems to answer all their purposes. Now, 
why upset that and establish a new system when that is entirely satisfactory to 
the people?

Mr. SPOONER. My suggestion does not contemplate upsetting it, but simply 
giving in the case of Hawaii as in other Territories the right of appeal in certain 
cases to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. CULLOM. If it is the desire of the Senator to add that, I have no 
objection; but I do not think we ought to incur any additional expense unless it is 
necessary to good government.

Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him again, to remark 
right here that so long as Hawaii was an independent government of course it 
was not going to appeal to any other jurisdiction, but now that those islands have 
become a Territory of this country, it does seem to me a remarkable proposition 
that their laws were so perfect and are so perfect now and their administration 
is so just and righteous that we would deny even our own citizens who go there 
the right to appeal to our court of last resort here?

Mr. CULLOM.   When our citizens go there and identify themselves with that
country they do not want any, so far as I know. They are very happy as they are, 
with their present system of courts. 

Mr. TILLMAN.   That must certainly be the garden of the gods.   If it is 
such a happy place, we ought to emigrate there.

Mr. CULLOM. Let the Senator go there and see if they do not convert him to 
that system. I am not going to take up the time of the Senate much longer. The fact is it 
is pretty difficult to speak here at all with any continuity of thought. I have 
been disposed to yield to everyone, because I want to bring out as a matter of 
fact whatever objections there are to the bill, so that we may know how to 
deal with it.

Mr. President, I believe an amendment is pending here to be offered, the 
purpose of which is to delay the extension of our customs laws over the Territory 
to some future time, and in meantime allow the present relation as to customs 
laws, treaties, and regulations to remain as they are. I am opposed to any 
such amendment to the bill. There has existed substantial free trade between the 
United States and the Hawaiian Islands for several years. The great product 
raised in the islands is sugar and has been for many years. Common sugar 
comes to the United States free under the reciprocity treaty.

There seems to me to be no reason for delaying the extension of our customs 
laws over the islands, the States making nothing by such a policy, but, as I 
believe, will lose; and besides, I am unable to sympathize with a policy of 
government that reaches out to annex new territory and when it is obtained to 
adopt a policy detrimental to the territory acquired, lest some interest in some 
of the States may be in some way affected by treating such territory as we deal 
with our Territories nearer to us. This Territory occupies a different relation to 
the United States from any of the acquired territory as the result of war. We 
may be said to have claimed it for fifty years. The people of the islands who 
have made the islands prosperous and happy are Americans and as intelligent 
and patriotic as can be found in any portion of this Union, and let us not deal 
with them as though they were vassals or unworthy of our confidence. 

Mr. VEST. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.   Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the 
Senator from Missouri? 

Mr. CULLOM.   Certainly.

Mr. VEST. Before taking up the question of customs and treaties, which 
will certainly give rise to much debate, I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois 
in charge of the bill to explain to me the provision on page 20 as to 
appropriations. It is a very important question. As I understand the provision, if 
the legislature of the Hawaiian Islands fail to provide the necessary sums to 
carry on the government and adjourn, the governor can call them in extra 
session. So far that is the ordinary course. There is nothing remarkable about it.    

Mr. CULLOM. No.

Mr. VEST.   But in the meantime, before the next legislature meets in extra 
session or the same legislature, the treasurer, with the advice of the governor, can 
proceed to expend the money in the treasury on the basis of the preceding year's 
appropriation. 

Mr. SPOONER.   It is declared to be reenacted. 

Mr. VEST.   Yes; for that purpose.   I have never seen any such provision as that, 
and it seems to me it is liable to very serious objection, because there may be 
very large appropriations during one year which are not necessary in the next year.

Mr. CULLOM. That provision, as the Senator will observe, can only be 
brought into requisition after the governor, as I remember, has actually 
reconvened or made proclamation reconvening the legislature, and only for the 
time, after there is exhausted the appropriation which was made by a previous 
legislature, until a new legislature or the same legislature can make an appropria-
tion. It is an unusual provision, I admit.

Mr. VEST. There can be no question of exhaustion about it, because it goes 
on specifically to provide that the treasurer shall advance the money-that is, 
take it out of the treasury-on the basis of the preceding year's appropriation, 
and expend it.  Now, the objectionable feature of it, as I was going to say, is to having this 
extraordinary power, which ought to be exercised alone by the legislature, 
vested in the treasurer, with the advice of the governor.

Mr. CULLOM. That power is in their constitution now, and it was insisted 
upon by the commissioners from Hawaii and finally yielded on the part of the 
commissioners from this side. It baa been guarded as well as we could do, so 
that it will only be used when the governor convenes the legislature and   until 
they can come together and make an appropriation.

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But it is .until the legislature shall have acted?

Mr. CULLOM.   Of course.

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If they never act, the treasurer will go on and expend the money.

Mr. CULLOM.   Yes; the government has to live in some way.        

Mr. VEST.   I am not indulging in hypercriticism; I think this is a very good 
bill, but I do not see how this is practicable.   I do not see how the treasurer can 
take appropriations which were necessary and right for one year as the basis for 
his expenditure when the legislature has failed to make appropriations for an-
other year.   That is the trouble.   I never saw any such provision.      

Mr. MORGAN.   We do it all the time here with permanent appropriations.

Mr. VEST.   Yes; but the amount is fixed, and we continue it.     

Mr. MORGAN.   It is fixed and continued by this, proposed act.      

Mr. CULLOM.   Usually by joint resolution we extend the appropriations from 
month to month.       

Mr. VEST.   That is the ordinary provision.

Mr. C ULLOM.   We in that way extend the appropriations heretofore made.

Mr. VEST.   That is the ordinary practice in Congress.   It is entirely different 
from this.

Return to Top