University of Hawaii at Manoa Library

Home: The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Document

Hawaii Organic Act: Congressional debates on Hawaii Organic Act

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

                             2132
insidious attacks dictated by political necessity, we are undermining the 
Constitution, and, like the deadly crevasse upon the Mississippi River, we are 
commencing with a minute but fatal assault upon the levee that defends the 
rights of the people.
Mr. President, if it be said that we are compelled to refuse these people in the 
islands citizenship, and that they are not fit for it, why not content yourselves 
with saying the time has not come to give them self-government?
I heard the distinguished Senator, the young and brilliant Senator, from 
Indiana [Mr. BEVERIDGE], in his carefully prepared address, declare here that 
these people in the Philippine Islands could never become citizens of the United 
States. How, then, do you propose to hold them? Are they colonies? Are the 
people there subjects? The Republican party claims that it deserves the gratitude 
of all humanity for having placed on the Constitution these great amendments 
for personal and civil rights, declaring that slavery should no longer exist, that 
the immunities and privileges of every citizen shall be held sacred by the States.
How can you in the Republican party forget those things, and against our 
history, against our traditions, against the memory of the men who fought 
through the Revolutionary war to escape this very thing, now impose upon the 
people of the United States the issue, Is this a republic or an empire? If you can 
ignore the Constitution, trample upon all that we have taught our people to 
believe for a hundred years, and, in order to secure the votes to retain your 
party in power, appeal to the glamour of conquest, gold, and glory, Mr. 
President, our professions of republicanism and democracy are the merest 
travesty in public life. I am no Cassandra shrieking calamity through the 
streets of Troy; bat if the people of this country deliberately, next November, 
indorse the position the Republican party assume to-day, then yon should pass, or 
the State of New York should pass, an act taking down the Statue of Liberty at 
the mouth of New York Harbor, with the lamp in hand to guide the oppressed of 
all lands to this country. You should tear down the statue, extinguish the lamp, 
and leave us to the gloom and darkness of colonial despotism.
Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, at this late hour I shall omit to say much that 
I would say if I were to follow at an earlier hour in the day the Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. VEST] after such a speech as we have listened to. But it seems to 
me that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, it is the duty of some one, 
and I might as well discharge it as anybody else, to ask the indulgence of the 
Senate until at least a few remarks may be made in answer to those to which we 
have just been listening.
The Senator from Missouri is always interesting, no matter how much he may 
be in error, and he is especially interesting when he deals in reminiscences. But I 
have no disposition to take the time which under other circumstances I would 
take to follow him in the suggestions that have flown from the reminiscences in 
which he has indulged.
I do want to say, however, before passing to that which I have it especially 
in mind to say, that with respect to his remarks in regard to the Dred Scott 
case, all that was gone over fully in the last Congress; and, in answer to a 
speech somewhat like that which he has just now made, in respect to that 
decision it was then pointed out that all the judges of that court did not 
agree with Chief Justice Taney in his declaration of his opinion that territory 
could be acquired by the United States only for the purposes of ultimate 
statehood; that a present purpose of statehood must accompany the acquisition.
It was pointed out at that time, by, I think, a very careful analysis of that case, 
that instead of the other judges agreeing with Chief Justice Taney in that 
respect not one single member of that court agreed with him in that regard, 
unless it was Mr. Justice Wayne. There is some ground for supposing that he 
was in ac-cord with the Chief Justice, but there is not a line, I undertake to say, 
in the decision of any one of the other members of the court that will warrant 
any such claim. If there is I have not been able to find it.
That is all I care to say at the present time about the Dred Scott decision. 
The debate of last year will fully reveal the authorities relied upon for the 
statements I have made.
What I rise for more particularly, Mr. President, is to answer that which 
was said by the Senator that has immediate relation to the question that is 
pending now before the Senate. We have been told by the Senator that the 
proposition of those who favor the character of legislation which we have 
pending here is iniquitous; that it is without precedent; that it is astounding; 
that it is unrepublican, undemocratic, un-American; that it is in contra-
vention of the Constitution, in contravention of the Declaration of 
Independence, and in contravention of the Farewell Address of George 
Washington.
Now, Mr. President, all this declamation illustrates that there is, in fact, 
nothing new under the sun. Neither the legislation proposed nor the 
criticisms of the Senator are new. Both are old, and very old at that. I hold in 
my hand McMaster's History of the People of the United States, and will read 
from page 24 of 


the third volume. At this place the author is giving the history of the legislation 
that was proposed and finally enacted creating a Territorial government for 
Louisiana. A bill was brought in and was under consideration. That bill was 
framed, as has always been understood, by James Madison and Thomas Jeffer-
son. They surely understood both the Constitution and the Declaration of 
Independence. Here is what was said about the bill:
This bill, said its enemies, violates a treaty, the Constitution, and every principle of 
American republican government. It does not show one trace of liberty. It denies to the 
men of Orleans rights solemnly promised them by the treaty of purchase. It sets up a 
complete despotism. The people have nothing to say in the choice of a legislative 
council. The legislative council have nothing to say in the choice of laws. The President 
fames the governor, and the governor, in the language of the bill, is to "make the laws." 
When he has made a law ho is to lay it before the council; but not for the purpose of 
debate, of amendment, of correction. No; with the air of an Eastern potentate he is to 
say:
Here is the law. Will you take it or reject it? There is no chance given them to suggest 
amendments. They must approve or disapprove, and nothing more. And suppose they do 
not approve; what then? Why, the governor may, if he choose, prorogue them, send them 
home, and as they are not paid when not in session such dismissal is the same thing as 
taking money out of their pockets. Thus it is that the governor has the legislative council 
in his power. If they will not do his bidding, he will not suffer them to meet; and if they 
do not meet, they can not get any pay. Was there ever such a government in this country 
since the days of the colonial governors? Was it not against just such government as this 
that the colonies rebelled?
Then the author goes on to call attention to the fact that another objection made 
by the enemies of this measure was that it denied trial by jury, one of the 
guaranties of the Constitution, in all criminal cases, except only those which 
were punishable capitally, and that it denied trial by jury in civil cases except 
when there Was involved at least $100 instead of $20, as the Constitution 
provides.
I mention all this for the purpose of showing not only that the comments of 
the Senator from Missouri have a precedent, that he is not telling the Senate 
anything new, but that the legislation also has a precedent; that the authors of 
the Constitution, and the author especially of the Declaration of Independence, 
did not entertain any such views as the Senator from Missouri has here 
expressed. Their proposition was denounced as ours is, and yet adopted as ours 
will be.
Enough as to that for the present. Now, one thing more. Instead of all the 
authorities being to the effect claimed by the Senator from Missouri, they are, as I 
understand them, to exactly the contrary effect, commencing with the 
Constitution itself.
What is it, Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States confers upon 
the Congress power to do with respect to the Territories? It is to prescribe all 
needful rules and regulations for territory belonging to the United States; not 
territory that is a part of the United States, but the territory belonging to the 
United States. The Constitution itself contradistinguishes between the territory 
that is comprised within the Union and territory which may be outside of the 
Union-which may be simply possessed by the United States. Thus the 
Constitution itself establishes, by its very language, that territory may belong 
to the United States without being a part of the United States.
I have here also, to which I wish to call attention in this connection, a 
decision that I have not heard quoted in this debate, though doubtless it has 
been cited-the case of Snow vs. The United States, reported in 18 Wallace, at 
page 317. Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court, says:
   The government of the Territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, 
and secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. During the 
term of their pupilage as Territories they are mere dependencies of the United States. 
Their people do not constitute a sovereign power. All political authority exercised therein 
is derived from the General Government.
It is, indeed, the practice of the Government to invest these dependencies with a limited 
power of self-government as soon as they have sufficient population for the purpose. The 
extent of the power thus granted depends entirely upon the organic act of Congress in 
each case, and is at all times subject to such alterations as Congress may see fit to adopt.
Without stopping to read other authorities to the same effect, I shall content myself 
with saying that all the authorities of the Supreme Court, where the question has 
been directly under consideration, have recognized the fact that there is the United States 
proper, composed of the Union, for which the Constitution is the organic law, and 
territory outside of the Union, simply belonging of the United States, which it is the 
province of Congress to govern as the Congress may see fit to govern it. Mr. Justice 
Bradley characterizes these outside Territories as mere dependencies. He was speaking 
of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. If they are mere dependencies, much more are 
our recent acquisitions only dependencies.
Ordinarily, almost without exception, heretofore in governing this outside territory, 
we have extended the Constitution as one of the first laws of the Territory; and 
having thus extended the Constitution, and having made it to apply there, we have 
taken that as our rule of action, and it has obtained as the organic law in that way, 
but in no other way.
Only a few days ago I had occasion to read here-as the Senator from Missouri has 
just said-what Mr. Benton said in his History

Return to Top

Terms of Use  |  UH Mānoa  |  UH System  |  Ask Us
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Library  |  2550 McCarthy Mall  |  Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA
808-956-7214 (Reference)  |  808-956-7203 (Circulation)  |  808-956-7205 (Administration)
808-956-5968 (fax)  |  library@hawaii.edu