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 ]

3805
Mr. FINLEY.   I should like to state this: If the purpose of this 
amendment was to put an end to the land monopoly in Hawaii, I 
would vote for it. Mr. KNOX.   If the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. FINLEY] will allow me, I will accept the amendment, Mr. 
FINLEY.   I am not in favor of the amendment. Mr. KNOX.   Very 
well. Mr. FINLEY.   As I have stated, if the purpose of this amend-
ment was to put an end to land monopoly in the Hawaiian Islands - a 
monopoly which now exists, not by religious and charitable in-
stitutions, but by speculators and capitalists - I would heartily 
support the amendment.   But, Mr. Chairman, this is not the case, and 
I submit that the amendment should not prevail.   The same reasons 
which make it necessary to limit the holdings of real property by 
religious and charitable organizations in the Territories of the 
United States do not apply to the Hawaiian Islands. Our existing 
Territories are undeveloped, so to speak.   Not so with the 
Hawaiian Islands.   They come to us a sovereign State at the time of 
annexation - not only a sovereign State, but one developed, with an 
abundant population and with institutions which exist much the same 
in all respects as institutions of our older States.                    Now, 
Mr. Chairman, there is more necessity for religious and charitable 
institutions in the Hawaiian Islands than there is in any Territory of 
the United States, because, situated as those islands are on the 
highway of travel between Asia and the two Americas, all the 
plagues and different forms of disease to which man is heir find a 
lodgment there. Those people suffer in many ways from diseases and 
plagues, making it necessary to have hospitals and institutions of a 
charitable nature which do not exist in the Territories of the United 
States. Now, I would like to ask the gentleman urging this amend-
ment, would a provision of this kind be applicable in the State of 
New York, in the State of Arkansas, in the State of Maine, or in the 
State of South Carolina?   Is it not true that in almost every State of 
this Union there are charitable institutions for the purpose of 
administering to the wants and relieving the sufferings of the afflicted 
having a much larger capital than $50,000? I can see no reason for 
not exempting the Hawaiian Islands from the provisions of section 
1890, and I hope the amendment will be voted down.                                                 
Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   Mr. Chairman -- Mr. KNOX.   
Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that debate upon this section 
is exhausted. The CHAIRMAN.   Debate upon this section is 
exhausted under the rule.   The question is upon the adoption of the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. MCRAE] . 
The question being taken, the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. Mr. McRAE and Mr. WILLIAMS of 
Mississippi demanded a division. The committee divided; and there 
were - ayes 24, noes 29. Mr. McRAE.   Tellers, Mr. Chairman. 
Tellers were refused, ten members, not a sufficient number, rising 
in support of the demand therefor. Accordingly the amendment of Mr. 
McRAE was rejected. Mr. NEWLANDS.   Mr. Chairman, I now move 
-- The CHAIRMAN.   The amendment now pending is the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SNODGRASS]. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi,   Mr. Chairman, is debate exhausted 
upon that amendment? The CHAIRMAN.   It is not. Mr. WILLIAMS 
of Mississippi.   I should like to be heard upon it for a few moments. 
The CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   Now, Mr. Chairman, in answer to 
what was said by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. FINLEY] a 
moment ago, this amendment would not interfere with any vested 
rights in the Territory of Hawaii.   That is the first thing to be 
considered. It would not interfere with vested rights, even without the 
saving clause of this amendment, which says that it shall not do so. 
It could not, because the courts would not permit it to do so. The 
second consideration that presents itself to my mind is this: I admit 
that the situation in Hawaii is somewhat different from that of the 
other Territories of the United States.   It is, as the gentleman has 
said, upon the thoroughfare where diseases from the Orient first 
make their approach.   But there is nothing in the amendment that 
would interfere with public hospitals.   They are not religious or 
charitable corporations within the sense of the law. Mr. KNOX.   
Are they not charitable institutions? Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   
Not in the sense of the legal phrase when they are public and 
maintained by the government of the Territory or by the State.   No 
court has ever held that they. fell within the inhibition against 
charitable corporations.

Now, there are out there, and there always will be, hospitals, with 
immense endowments, under the charge of the state, so to speak, 
although the state has now become a Territory of the United States 
- in other words, governmental institutions.   This does not apply to 
them. Now, the gentleman said a moment ago that this same sort of a 
law would not do for the States.   But it is a matter within our 
knowledge that nearly all the States in the Union have laws limiting 
the amount of land which may be owned and controlled by 
charitable and religious.corporations.   Not only is it a fact that most 
of the States now have such laws - doubtless the gentleman's own 
State; mine, at any rate - but it is a fact that one of the fundamental 
principles of the English law is the statute of mortmain, and it is a 
matter of the very highest public policy that land especially should not 
fall into the possession, control, and title of "dead hands," as the law 
calls it. Now, this amendment having done away with some of the ob-
jections of the other one, namely, having expressly saved the point 
of interfering with existing institutions, it seems to me that all 
reasonable opposition which can be made to it has disappeared. I want 
to call the attention of the committee to another feature.   Following 
section 1890 of the Revised Statutes is section 1891, which makes 
section 1890 applicable to "all the Territories hereafter to be created."   
So that if you make 1890 inapplicable to Hawaii, but leave 1891 
upon the statute book, it seems to me that you may raise a question 
of law that it is unnecessary to raise.   So that if the House is going to 
render section 1880 inapplicable, then it ought to go further and 
render section 1891 inapplicable.   But I believe that both ought to 
be applicable to the Territory of Hawaii, as well as to the other 
Territories of the United States, first saving all question about 
existing institutions ' and vested rights, which saving is made by the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SNODGRASS]. 
Mr. SNODGRASS.   Mr. Chairman -- Mr. KNOX.   I make the 
point that debate on this amendment is exhausted.    Mr. 
SNODGRASS.   I hope the gentleman will not do that.   I did not 
occupy my full five minutes when I offered the amendment. Mr. KNOX.   
How much time does the gentleman want? Mr. SNODGRASS.   I 
only want three or four minutes. Mr. KNOX.   I move that debate on 
this section close in five minutes.                     The CHAIRMAN.   
The gentleman from Massachusetts move's that all debate on this 
section close in five minutes. The motion was agreed to.   Mr. 
SNODGRASS.   Now, Mr. Chairman, the section which this bill 
intends to make inoperative in Hawaii is section 1890 of the Revised 
Statutes of the United States, which reads as follows:
SEC. 1890. No corporation or association for religions or charitable purposes shall 
acquire or hold real estate in any Territory, during the existence of the Territorial 
government, of a greater value than $50,000; and all real estate acquired or held by 
such corporation or association contrary hereto shall be forfeited and escheat to 
the United States: but existing vested rights in real estate shall not be impaired 
by the provisions of this section.
Now, as I stated at the outset, I believe that the Constitution is there 
to protect vested rights; but if the contention of gentlemen on the 
other side is true that whatever law Congress may enact is absolute 
in the Territory of Hawaii, then I assume that this provision, 
providing that this section shall not apply to Hawaii, is for the sole 
purpose of preventing the confiscation of the property that is held 
by religious or charitable institutions. As I say, I do not apprehend 
that danger, because I think the Constitution is there to protect such 
property; but if it is not there, then it is absolutely essential that 
some such provision be enacted, because otherwise, if the laws of 
the United States go there with this section, the property so held 
above the limit would be confiscated. The amendment that I offer will 
carry those provisions of the laws of the United States there, this 
section included, but will provide that this shall not operate so as to 
disturb existing rights, but the section will be there for the purpose of 
circumscribing the amount of property that may be held hereafter by 
any institution now existing there or that may hereafter go there.   I 
think its terms are sufficiently protected so that it ought to be 
adopted, and allow this section to go there with the others, so as to 
prevent other institutions, which may be there now, or which go 
there hereafter, acquiring the title to the whole of these lands and 
establishing monopolies.   So I think my amendment ought to pass. 
The CHAIRMAN.   The question is upon the adoption of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SNODGRASS] . 
The question being taken, the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it. Mr. SNODGRASS and Mr. WILLIAMSof 
Mississippi demanded a division. The committee divided; and there 
were - ayes 20, noes 84, Mr. SNODGRASS,  I ask for tellers 

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