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

3856
in Hawaii just as I had stood for it in Mississippi, and I will. The 
gentleman speaks of restricted suffrage, as if restricted suffrage were 
dishonest or unfair suffrage.   He knows better.   There is nobody in 
the United States that ought to know better than a Connecticut man 
about that.   I do not know of a better State government in the 
Union to-day than that of Connecticut, with the possible exception 
of that of the State of Mississippi, speaking politically, and yet in the 
State of Connecticut the town of New Haven and other cities are 
represented in the State legislature, under old antediluvian charters 
of the kings of England, by a few representatives, and many 
superannuated villages are represented by two or three times as many 
representatives. Mr. HENRY of Connecticut rose. Mr. WILLIAMS of 
Mississippi.   Now, why?   The gentleman speaks of restricted 
suffrage and I speak of restricted representation, and the two things go 
together. Mr. HILL.   Will the gentleman pardon me a moment? I 
spoke of unrestricted representation and a restriction of votes. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I am speaking of that, too, and 
Connecticut is with unrestricted representation upon this floor, with 
a restricted representation in the State of Connecticut of your cities 
compared with your rural districts.   And, by the way, that you are 
right in having it just as you have.it I do not dispute. It is your affair, 
and I have nothing to do with it, and I am not quarreling with it. 
Mr. HENRY of Connecticut.   Will the gentleman allow me to 
correct him? Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi   Certainly. Mr. HENRY 
of Connecticut.   We have no restricted suffrage in Connecticut. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I am speaking of restricted 
representation. The CHAIRMAN.   The time of the gentleman from 
Mississippi has expired.   Mr. KNOX.   I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman's time be extended, and that he be given such time as 
he desires. The CHAIRMAN.   The gentleman from Massachusetts 
asks that the time of the gentleman from Mississippi be extended with-
out limit.   Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   The gentleman has misunderstood me. 
Mr. HENRY of Connecticut.   There is no restriction as to that. Every 
qualified voter may cast a vote for Representatives in Congress, for 
State officers, and members of the general assembly. Mr. WILLIAMS 
of Mississippi.   I understand you think I have said restricted 
suffrage.   I meant restricted representation.  Mr. HENRY of 
Connecticut.   We have unrestricted representation and we have 
unrestricted suffrage.   Our system of representation in our State 
legislature is two hundred and fifty years old.   We elect our 
Representatives in Congress by an unrestricted suffrage. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I know it is over two hundred years old.   
Mr. HENRY of Connecticut.   But everybody votes.   There is no 
disqualification except for crime. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I 
understand the gentleman from Connecticut.   But there is also in 
Connecticut, if I have learned its system right, an educational 
qualification. Mr. Chairman, in expressing myself if I used the 
phrase "restricted suffrage" with regard to Connecticut, I meant to 
use the phrase " restricted representation."   What I meant to say 
was that "restricted representation" is essentially the same as "re-
stricted suffrage," and unequal representation is essentially the 
same thing as unequal suffrage. Now, we might just as well be 
honest with one another, my friends, upon both sides of this House.   
Let us lay aside for a moment the fact that I am a Democrat and you 
are Republicans, and let us talk as men who have had forced upon us, 
and also in your case forced upon yourselves by your own action, a 
problem which we must solve, and which we must solve as wise men, 
as statesmen, as men with some view to the future, as men with 
common sense, and not merely as Republicans and as Democrats. 
Now, taking that view of it, I am prepared to say that the very worst 
thing that can happen to the Hawaiian Islands to-day or to-morrow 
would be to have Kanaka rule or colored-race rule in Hawaii.   I 
speak advisedly, not only with my own personal observation and 
experience, but with all history behind me.   Now, then, how are yon 
going to avoid it?   You must avoid it by restricted suffrage. I am not 
talking to you as Republicans or Democrats.   And what sort of 
restricted suffrage must you have?    Something which, while it is 
not based upon an express discrimination on account of race or 
color, is based upon something which actually discriminates against 
color and race.   Else you must have Kanaka rule.   Take your choice.   
For my part I have taken mine long since.   1 asked you, in God's 
name, to relieve me, as one of the

representatives of the American people, of this additional problem; 
but you annexed Hawaii. Do you imagine that I do not recognize that 
the symmetry, the rounded proportions of a Democratic system are 
marred by the necessity of a restricted or qualified suffrage, even 
though the end and purpose, the aim ana object, be the 
preservation of civilization itself?  No wonder California did not 
want Hawaii as a county in California and part of it.   Why?   
Because California has had some little experience with race 
problems, too. Soon after I came to the Congress of the United States 
I said to the Representatives of California and the Pacific slope, from 
my place upon this floor, that I was willing to leave to the white peo-
ple of the Pacific slope the business of attending to their Chinese race 
problem, and was willing to vote with them with that aim in any 
measure they desired enacted here - believing that, while they had 
the strength of a giant, they would not be brutish or foolish enough 
to use it like a giant; and that I arrogated to myself and my own people 
the claim that, when faced with a problem of the same kind, we 
would not use the power intrusted by circumstances to us with the 
force of brutish giants. I say now, as I said then, that it is the duty 
of the white race everywhere to lift up those below them so far as 
they can, but that there is no injunction in sacred or in human law 
calling upon me or calling upon you to "herd with narrow 
foreheads, ignorant of our race's gains."   They will progress as time 
passes, and so will we; and as we mount one rung higher on the 
ladder of civilization we will hold our hands down to them and raise 
them to the rung next below.   I have no idea on my own part that 
they will ever be on the same rung; and I have no hypocrisy about 
it. Now, then, having taken the position that there must be re-
stricted suffrage in Hawaii, 1 come to the question of whether 
representation ought to be restricted.   It ought not.   Why, it is bad 
enough to be compelled by the exigencies of the situation to deprive 
the people there of an equal partnership in the destinies of their own 
country.   For remember that it is not a problem of governing a 
white man's country with white supremacy, as it is ere, but there 
you have carried yourselves over to a colored man's country.   You 
have superimposed yourselves there until as a matter of necessity 
you must now govern them in accordance with your ideas, and your 
ideas are those of Caucasian civilization. It is bad enough to be 
compelled by the exigency of the situation, I say, to restrict the 
suffrage.   It would be absolutely mean to deprive them of a 
representation, merely by speech in your presence; to refuse even 
the poor right of petition to somebody standing here speaking for 
these people, saying, as such an one will have the right to say, "I 
represent not only the white people of Hawaii, but I represent 
Hawaii.   I know the conditions of whites and Kanakas alike and 
have authority of knowledge to call your attention to them." Why, 
does the gentleman imagine that because New Haven has not a proper 
representation in the Connecticut legislature that therefore New 
Haven ought to have no representation in the Connecticut legislature 
at all? Mr. HILL.   I will answer the gentleman that he fails to com-
prehend the state of representation in the State of Connecticut. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   How many representatives has the city of 
New Haven? Mr. HILL.   We have two representatives.   The 
senate is the popular body in the State of Connecticut, and the house 
of representatives is the representation of towns.   It is precisely 
the reverse of the Congress of the United States, and when the gen-
tleman makes the statement that there is no popular body in the 
general assembly in the State of Connecticut, he states that which 
gives a false impression; and I will say further, that if there are any 
inequalities in the popular body it is due to Democratic legislation. Mr. 
WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I have not made the statement that there 
is no popular body in your general assembly, but I do state that your 
general assembly as a whole is not a body of either popular or equal 
representation.   I am not quarreling with the fact that Connecticut 
manages her own affairs to suit herself.   I think as a rule she has 
managed them wisely and well.   I differ with the gentleman in 
politics, but I do believe that Connecticut has had one of the most 
honest and one of the most incorrupt State governments in the 
nation, mainly owing to the fact, perhaps, that her rural vote and 
country gentlemen have dominated her politics. Understand me, I am 
not quarreling about that, but I am merely illustrating the idea that 
you, of all men, can not stand upon this floor and contend for the 
idea that the people ought to have no representation, because you 
are unwilling to give your own people equal representation. Mr. 
SPERRY.   Mr. Chairman -- Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi.   I 
will yield to the gentleman. Mr. SPERRY.   Mr. Chairman, as my 
distinguished friend from

Return to Top