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 ]
3804 semislave labor. There the lands have been drifting into large holdings. We should in this very bill limit the number of acres which any corporation should hold; and if any existing cor- porations hold land in excess of the limit, we should by some just provision, extending over a period, compel the disposition of those lands by sale, so that this land monopoly may be broken up, otherwise we will have -- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. NEWLANDS. I ask two minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada asks that his time toe extended two minutes more. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. NEWLANDS. Otherwise we will have in the Hawaiian Islands an oligarchy stronger than the one that has existed there in the past, with an absolute monopoly of the lands in the hands of the few, and an abject, servile population, incapable of resisting oppression or of exercising the rights of freemen. It does seem to me that in our initial legislation, intended to meet the conditions of these islands, where the present tendency toward land monopoly is great and where the tendency will be greater as the value of these lands rise, as the trade with this country increases, we ought to make a provision here and we ought to extend this wise provision of the general law applying to all Territories hitherto admitted into the Union to Hawaii, coupling it with such a provision as will protect existing vested rights. Mr. CANNON. I would be glad in my time to have the attention of the gentleman, in the shape of a question and a remark at the same time. I am quite in harmony with him as to his general views: but here is a statute that absolutely prohibits a charitable organization from having more than $50,000 worth in a Territory Mr. NEWLANDS. Well, we can increase the limit. Mr. CANNON. Now, it that law were enforced in a State, or in the District of Columbia, such an institution as the Louise Home, founded by Mr. Corcoran, could not exist, and at once all the property of that home over and above $50,000 would escheat to the United States; and so of many others all over the States and in the gentleman's own State of Nevada. Now, in the Sandwich Islands, as I understand and was informed when I was there for a few days three or four years ago, they have a number of very worthy charities that speak much for the head and hearts of the people who formerly had possessions there, who left testamentary bequests. I think it would be a great hardship for them if they were eliminated. The gentleman from Michigan referred, to them. Now, while I have no objection to a limitation, I believe in making that limitation it ought to be placed beyond question that the present charities, especially those referred to by the gentleman from Michigan, that are real charities, should not be interfered with. Subject to that observation, I would be glad with my vote to cooperate with the gentleman, and I would be glad to know what he thinks of the proposition about making an exception in the case of these real charities. Mr. NEWLANDS. I will say to the gentleman from Illinois that I agree with him that all vested rights should be protected. So far as Hawaii is concerned, I do not understand that the monopoly of land by religious organizations has grown to any very large proportions. What we want to do is to prevent anything of that kind in the future. Now. then, this statute of 1890 does protect all that these religious and beneficial corporations have now. As to the limitations of the future, I am willing to make it $100,000 or $150,000. It should be recollected that the limitation only applies to real estate. Such corporations can hold bonds, stocks, and other personal property without limit. Mr. CANNON. If my friend will allow me, I thought the statute, as he says, would apply to these institutions, but my colleague. Mr. HITT, says the vested rights preserved in the statute of 1890 are vested rights which were in existence at the time of the enactment of that law. The enactment of that law was at the time of the revision, as I recollect, of the statutes in the early seventies; so that where property has been acquired since that time in Hawaii it would not be saved by this provision. I think the gentleman and myself both agree that we do not want to interfere with those charities as they exist to-day. Mr. NEWLANDS. I quite agree with the gentleman that the amendment ought to be carefully framed. Section 1890 is con- tained in a general law regarding Territorial government, and provides that religious corporations shall not hold real estate in excess of $50,000, but that it shall not affect vested rights. I imagine that that would not be held to affect rights which were vested at the time of the passage of this bill. Mr. KNOX. But, if the gentleman will allow me a suggestion, the statute says "existing vested rights." 1 think, as a matter of law, it would be held that section 1890 did not apply. Mr. NEWLANDS. Well, we can change it so that it will not affect rights existing to-day. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nevada baa expired. Mr. SNODGRASS. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to offer a substitute at this time for that proviso in section 5? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman propose an amendment to strike out the whole section? Mr. SNODGRASS. I propose to offer a substitute. The CHAIRMAN. That would not be in order until the section is perfected. Mr. McRAE. Mr. Chairman, we want to reach the evil, and I am willing to modify my amendment. Mr. SNODGRASS. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman, myself, which I think will overcome the difficulty. It is that section, 1830 shall not operate so as to disturb vested rights in the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. CANNON. I will say to the gentleman that the section is 1890; I think that is the one that the gentleman intends! Mr. SNODGRASS. I will accept the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois and make it 1890. I did not have the number of the section before me. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chair-man, I am not disturbed about vested rights, because I believe the Constitution is there to protect them, but there can be no objection to the passage of this substitute, which would carry that section into these islands so as to prevent hereafter any violation of its provisions; if the proviso were adopted, it would not disturb vested rights. Mr. McRAE. Mr. Chairman, if I can be permitted to modify my amendment, I will do so. I see no particular necessity for striking out section 1850. So I would strike out all after the word "and," in section 3, down to the end of the paragraph, and insert "but section 1890 of the Revised Statutes shall apply and is hereby reenacted as of this date." The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman send the amendment to the desk to be reported by the Clerk? Mr. NEWLANDS. Will the Clerk read the section as it is proposed to be when amended? The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will first report the amendment, as offered by the gentleman from Arkansas. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the word "fifty" In line 3, page 53, down to and Including the word "Hawaii," and insert "but section 1890 shall apply to the Territory of Hawaii, and is hereby reenacted as of this date." The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand that the gentleman from Arkansas desires to withdraw the amendment first proposed by him? Mr. McRAE. I desire to modify my amendment, as indicated in the proposition just read by the Clerk. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment as first proposed by the gentleman from Arkansas will be considered as withdrawn. The Chair hears no objection. Mr. CANNON. I suggest to the gentleman that he insert the words "of the Revised Statutes of the United States" after the words "section 1890." Mr. McRAE. Certainly. I intended to make that modification. The CHAIRMAN. In order that the Chair may understand exactly the parliamentary status, he desires to ask the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SNODGRASS] whether his proposition was to insert the words sent to the desk as a proviso to the section or to strike out some part of the proviso as printed and insert the lan- guage he proposes? Mr. SNODGRASS. My object is to substitute the proviso which I send to the desk for the proviso reported by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Then the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas will be first in order. Mr. MORRIS. I should like to have the proviso read as it will read after the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas is adopted, if it should be adopted. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the proviso in that form: The Clerk read as follows: Amend the proviso so as to read: "Provided,.That section 1850 and section 1890 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall apply to the Territory of 'Hawaii, and is hereby re-enacted as of this date." Mr. MORRIS. The gentleman from Arkansas will allow me to suggest that the language is incomplete, and should read that "Section 1850 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii; but section 1890 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall apply to the Territory of Hawaii, and is hereby reenacted as of this date." Mr. McRAE. That is correct and as I intended. By inadvertence my amendment as drawn struck out more words than I intended should be, and I modify it as suggested, and thank the gentleman for calling my attention to it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas, as modified. Mr. FINLEY. Do I understand the chairman of the committee to accept that amendment? Mr. KNOX. Not at all. But I hope the gentleman will let us have a vote.