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 ]

4469
I should like to have pursued is this: If the conference report can 
be disagreed to, the Senate could then accept the House amend- 
ment without more, which I believe is a proper amendment. 
Mr. CULLOM.   The Senator is mistaken, I think, as to the regu- 
lar order. 
Mr. BACON.   Possibly. 
Mr. CULLOM.   The conference report, as I understand par- 
liamentary law, must either be rejected as a whole or ratified or 
confirmed as a whole. 
Mr. BACON.   Certainly; the Senator is undoubtedly correct; 
but he does not understand what I said. 
Mr. CULLOM.   It is not in the power of the Senate to make any 
amendment to it, and naturally it would have to go back to the 
conferees. 
Mr. BACON.   The Senator is correct in part.   We of course 
can not amend the conference report, but when we reject the con- 
ference report it is perfectly competent for the Senate to adopt the 
House amendment, which was in conference. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   I think not. 
Mr. BACON.   We are not obliged to send it back to the confer- 
ence committee at all.   We may accept the entire House amend- 
ment after that and agree to it. 
Mr. SPOONER.   We have to agree to it or reject it and send it 
back. 
Mr. BACON.   Rejecting it is not sending it back; it is failing 
to agree to it. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I should like to hear the Presiding Officer on 
that point. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   The matter in disagreement be- 
tween the Senate and the House is upon one amendment of the 
House, which is an entire bill.   That is what is in disagreement 
between the Senate and the House.   It is the Senate bill as it left 
the Senate; it is the House amendment as the House adopted it; 
and that is one amendment, and covers the whole ground. 
Mr. BACON.   I admit that the Senator from Connecticut is 
correct.   That view of it had not suggested itself to me. 
'   Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   Now, one other word.   If we re- 
ject it, we are at liberty then, I think, though I am not sure about 
that, to accept the entire House amendment, but we can not change 
it in one particular. 
Mr. BACON.   The Senator is wrong in that, I respectfully sub- 
mit.   Whenever a bill passes the Senate and goes to the House 
and comes back to the Senate with an amendment, while we can 
not amend any part of the bill which we sent to them, we can 
amend any of their amendments, and we could amend the entire 
bill, which is an amendment, in any one particular that we saw 
proper, upon the general proposition that we can always amend 
an amendment of the House.   Of course that would presuppose 
the fact that the conference committee reports the other way. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   That is true, until the matter has 
gone to a conference.   This has been to a conference.   It comes 
back here.   The question and the only question is, Will the Senate 
agree to the report of the conference committee?   Then, as I 
understand it, the only question after that is whether we will 
agree to the entire amendment of the House, or whether we will 
insist upon our disagreement and send the entire amendment 
back to the conference committee.    I have never understood 
that we could, after rejecting the report of a conference commit- 
tee, proceed to make amendments to the House amendment. 
Mr. HOAR.    I ask the Senator from Connecticut if we can not 
recede now from our disagreement to the House amendment? 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   Yes. 
Mr. HOAR.   Or disagree to the amendment of the House and 
agree to it with an amendment? 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.   I think not, Mr. President. 
Mr. HOAR.   I supposed we could. 
Mr. BACON.   Oh, yes; undoubtedly. 
Mr. PETTIGREW.   The conference report is still in our pos- 
session.    I think we can. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I do not think so. 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.   Will the Senate agree to the 
report of the committee of conference? 
Mr. TILLMAN.   Mr. President -- 
Mr. CULLOM.   I began to state that I myself was inclined to 
postpone the further consideration of the conference report to-day, 
so that the conferees on the part of the Senate might have time 
to consult.    If the conference report is likely to be rejected. I 
would rather withdraw it and make such amendments to it by 
another conference as would be necessary to fairly satisfy the 
Senate, if we could do it. 
Mr. TELLER.   I suggest to the Senator whether he can with- 
draw it? 
Mr. CULLOM.   I do not know whether I can or not.   If I can 
not, there is only one thing to do, and that is to agree to it or re- 
ject it. 
Mr. TELLER.   We can dispose of it either by accepting it or 
rejecting it.   If we want a further conference, we will reject it.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas.   It seems to me also that this matter 
can only go back to a conference by the action of the Senate. 
The conferees have met, the report is made and signed, and it can 
not go back to conference except by order of the Senate.   Besides, 
the conferees ought to have the action of the Senate when they 
go into conference again to show the state of mind of the Senate, 
the objections that are made to the different amendments, and the 
reasons why the Senate will not agree to the conference report. 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.   The question is on agreeing to 
the conference report. 
Mr. CULLOM.   Mr. President, it seems to me, if the Senate 
consents, that I have a right to ask that the report be postponed 
for the time being. 
Mr. TELLER.   What is the use of postponing it? 
Mr. CULLOM.   Because I want to consult the other conferees 
before taking action. 
Mr. TILLMAN.   Will the Senator's consultation amount to 
anything if he has not the power to change it, and can not change 
it until he gets it out of the Senate? 
Mr. CULLOM.   Of course we may consent to take the vote 
and let the report be agreed to or rejected.   But I do not think it 
is exactly fair to press a disposition of it at this moment unless I 
consent to it. 
Mr. TELLER.   It seems to me we might just as well dispose 
of it.   I do not think under the parliamentary law the Senator 
can gain anything by taking a recess and consulting his colleagues 
on the conference committee.   We must either accept the report 
or reject it.   Now, if we are ready, if debate has gone on as far 
as it need to go, why not vote on it?   I do not know whether any 
Senator desires to speak on it further, but I will say to the Sena- 
tor I do not believe the Senate is very likely to accept the report 
with that provision in it.   The Senator himself says that he does 
not think it ought to be in there. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I agree -- 
Mr. TELLER.   He says that it may have been an oversight on 
the part of the conference committee.    The orderly way is for us 
to reject the report and let the Senator take it back into confer- 
ence.   There may be other things in it that are objectionable.   I 
do not know whether other Senators may not have other objec- 
tions, but that is certainly a fatal objection. 
Mr. PETTIGREW.   I want to call attention to another objec- 
tion. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I simply made the suggestion in perfect good 
faith that I should like to have the report go over for to-day so 
that I could consult with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MOR- 
GAN] , who is interested in it and who is present in town, but not 
able to be here to-day.   I think it is not unreasonable for me to 
ask that privilege. 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas.   I see no reason why the Senator from 
Illinois should not be gratified in this matter. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I have been perfectly square with the Senate. 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas.   The report is in the hands of the Sen- 
ate.   The Senate can do with it what it chooses. 
Mr. CULLOM.   Certainly. 
Mr. JONE6 of Arkansas.   If the Senator from Illinois wants 
the report to go over to another day for consideration or for any 
reason, he has charge of it, and it seems to me perfectly reason- 
able that he should have his request complied with. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I want to make one more remark before it goes 
over, if it does, and that is that since I sat down I have this note, 
Which answers the first question that was made:
All the subjects of the monarchy were made citizens of the republic by 
express provision of the constitution of the republic.   Those who wished to 
vote under the republic were required to take the oath.
Mr. BACON.   That is all right, then. 
Mr. SPOONER.   I wish, if this matter is to go over, that the 
Senator from Illinois, who is more familiar with this subject than 
I am and than most of us are, would give attention to the ques- 
tion whether under the bill as it would stand if it passes the law 
of Hawaii punishing a man by imprisonment and hard labor for 
failing to pay his poll tax would remain in force. 
Mr. CULLOM.   I shall certainly do so. 
Mr. TILLMAN.   That is a special objection. 
Mr. SPOONER.   I myself would not vote for any such provi- 
sion. 
Mr. TILLMAN.   Sections 863 and 864 of the Hawaiian code 
are the points we want absolute certainty on, as to whether those 
statutes are repealed or not. 
Mr. CULLOM.   Very well. 
Mr. PETTIGREW.   Mr. President, I want to call the attention 
of the Senator from Illinois to the provision on page 9.   We pro- 
vide with regard to contract laborers-
That no suit or proceedings shall be maintained for the specific perform- 
ance of any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into for personal labor 
or service, nor shall any remedy exist or be enforced for breach of any such 
contract, except in a civil suit or proceeding instituted solely to recover 
damages for such breach.

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