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

2388
Alabama [Mr. MORGAN], in the last session of Congress, when 
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. FAIRBANKS] was pressing the pas- 
sage of the bill extending the contract-labor laws or the immigra- 
tion laws of the United States to Hawaii, objected upon the ground 
that it would be ruinous to the people of Hawaii to extend those 
laws to that people.   The Senator from Alabama rose and stated 
that he had not taken that attitude.   I spoke from recollection, for 
I remembered distinctly one part of what the Senator had uttered 
in that debate. 
Upon examining the RECORD I find that there were two bills 
pending, a bill to give a government to Hawaii and a bill also to 
extend to Hawaii the contract-labor laws and the immigration 
laws of the United States.   On reading the RECORD of what was 
said upon the subject, I find that the objection made by the Sen- 
ator from Alabama to the proposition of the Senator from Indiana 
was not directed to the merits of the extension or the proposition 
to extend the contract-labor laws and the immigration laws of the 
United States to Hawaii, but was addressed to the proposition that 
to extend the one - in other words, to pass the one bill without 
passing also the other - would produce great confusion in Hawaii 
and lead to great embarrassment in the administration of the law, 
and therefore would be ruinous. 
I avail myself of the first opportunity possible to me to place 
upon the record here my statement that I did injustice to the Sen- 
ator from Alabama.   I hope that will be satisfactory to him, 
as I would not be willing to do an injustice to any of my brother 
Senators on any subject. 
Mr. CULLOM.   1 only want to say one word in this connection. 
I thought at the time the Senator was making the statement that 
the remarks of the Senator from Alabama were as they are found 
in the RECORD, and did not apply to the case, as was supposed at 
that time by the Senator from Wisconsin. 
Mr. MORGAN.   Mr. President, the bill to which the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] refers - the bill to repeal all the 
laws in regard to the importation of labor and to prohibit the 
further importation of labor - was brought into the Congress just 
about the time of our adjournment, perhaps two days before the 
final adjournment.   There was no possibility of getting up the 
general bill which is under consideration now, and which disposes 
of the whole subject of the government of Hawaii; and I objected 
to putting in a special clause, which was reported by the Com- 
mittee on Immigration, I believe, in regard to the labor system 
of Hawaii, on the ground that it would disconcert the whole sys- 
tem of the law there, and we had not an opportunity to know 
exactly what the effect of it would be.   Such a measure as that, 
if provided at all, ought to be provided in the general bill; and it 
was provided in the general bill that all the laws of Hawaii on 
this subject should be repealed and that the laws of the United 
States should take effect, which, of course, would introduce there 
the laws of the United States. 
I have always maintained that the act of annexation repealed 
the laws of Hawaii on the subject of the importation of labor, be- 
came that act of annexation in dealing with this question of im- 
migration, as it did in regard to the Oriental peoples, established 
a public policy under which those laws of Hawaii would necessa- 
rily, in my opinion, go down.   I did not suppose that we were 
improving the law really by the provision to repeal the laws of 
Hawaii that we put into the bill.   The real substance of those 
acts, the provision we have in this bill now for the repeal of those 
laws, had already been enacted in the act of annexation. 
There is an established, fixed policy of the United States against 
the importation into any part of the United States of contract 
labor.   Whether it is prohibited in a particular spot or not makes 
no difference; it is a general law; it is a general public policy; 
and I hold that no man can now import a coolie or any man that 
is under a contract obligation into the United States, although 
there might not be a special statute applicable to the particular 
place.   It could not be done, for instance, as was stated. I think, 
perfectly to-day, in Puerto Rico.   Coolie labor could not be law- 
fully imported into Puerto Rico to-day, although we have no 
statute on the subject at all, for such importations are contrary 
to the public policy of the United States as declared in a general 
system of laws upon that subject. 
So I was not only gratified but I was anxious that the labor 
laws of the United States should be extended over Hawaii.   1 had 
been there and I bad seen the effect of it, and while it was not at 
all. apparently, injurious to any Japanese who had come into that 
country or anyone else, while I could not see that there was any 
disadvantage to those people in consequence of the labor laws, 
yet it was a system that our people were opposed to and that our 
country was opposed to, and have always advocated the laws 
for its suppression. 
Having been there and having observed the situation of the 
country, I became aware also of the fact which I have stated on 
the floor here, without it being contradicted at all, that the great 
sugar estates in Hawaii, upon which this labor is almost exclu- 
sively employed, belong to corporations who were either created

in California or are owned there.   Our own people in the United 
States are the men who are forcing these importations of Japa- 
nese.   It is not the native Hawaiians or the people who are in 
control of the government there.   They were resisting it so far 
as they could, and made various modifications in the arrange- 
ments and contracts that were made under the existing Hawaiian ' 
law.   They took them to be laws that were existing.   I did not. 
So I had no purpose at all in trying to encourage and maintain 
the importation of Japanese labor into Hawaii under contract. 
The absurdity of the imputation to me of any such position is 
this: Japanese have a perfect right to come to the United States 
or Hawaii or any part of the United States to-day; as much so as 
a German or a Frenchman.   There is no prohibition against their 
coming here.   The only prohibition that operates upon Japan in 
that connection is that which operates upon every other nation of 
the world equally.   We can import a Japanese laborer without 
making a contract with him for his service after he gets here. 
Therefore, I had not any motive at all in undertaking to fill up 
that country with Japanese laborers.   On the contrary, all my 
impressions were against it. 
Mr. SPOONER.   All I care for is whether the Senator from 
Alabama is satisfied with the statement I made. 
Mr. MORGAN.   I am entirely satisfied. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS.   Mr. President, I made a similar observa- 
tion with respect to the attitude of the Senator from Alabama 
[Mr. MORGAN] that was made by the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. SPOONER].   My statement was based upon the utterance of 
the Senator during the debate at the last session.   He objected to 
the consideration of the bill which was in my charge extending 
the immigration and anti-contract labor laws of the United States 
to Hawaii,   He said in reply to the request to take up the bill:
I will state that whenever the bill is taken up, I shall undertake to amend 
it in such way as to try to save those people from ruin in consequence of this 
legislation, and I will take all the time that it is necessary to do it.
I recalled the other day simply that observation, but since read- 
ing the entire debate. I do not think it can be said that he was 
unfriendly to the ultimate extension of our immigration and anti- 
contract labor laws to Hawaii.   He preferred, possibly, the exten- 
sion of those laws through his own bill rather than through the 
one I had in charge. 
In this connection, Mr. President, I would like to ask the Sen- 
ator in charge of this bill whether as amended it provides for the 
absolute elimination of the, contract-labor laws of Hawaii?  There 
should be no ground for doubt upon that proposition.   I think we 
are all agreed that in this legislation we should absolutely destroy, 
root and branch, the contract-labor system which has maintained 
in Hawaii; and if the bill does not as it stands at present accom- 
plish that purpose, it should be amended so that it will do so.   Sir, 
the contract-labor system which has existed in the Hawaiian 
Islands is repugnant to our American institutions and must be 
eradicated.   I dare say that the Senator in charge of the bill has 
not failed to provide suitable provisions to accomplish this pur- 
pose, but I shall be obliged if he will kindly inform us upon the 
subject. 
Mr. CULLOM.   In the first place, all the Territorial statutes on 
this subject are repealed.   In the second place, the Senator will find 
on. the eighth and ninth pages of the last print of the bill section 
10 and section 10 1/2, the latter being an additional section put in 
yesterday on the motion of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 
PETTIGREW].   Taking them all together, it seems to me that it is 
utterly impossible for contract labor to exist in those islands here- 
after when this bill takes effect. 
Mr. TELLER.   Mr. President, I desire to offer the amendment 
of which I gave notice last night.   On page 44, I move to strike 
out all of section 88 down to and including the word "court," in 
the fifth line, and to insert in place of it what I send to the desk. 
The SECRETARY.   Strike out section 88 down to and including 
the word "court," in line 5, on page 44, and insert in lieu thereof 
the following:  
That there shall be established in said Territory a district court, to con- 
sist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district judge. 
The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal 
of the United States for the said district; and said judge, attorney, and mar- 
shal shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President. 
Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district 
courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit 
court and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court.   Writs 
of error and appeals from said district court shall be had and allowed to the 
circuit court of appeals in the Ninth judicial circuit in the same manner as 
writs of error and appeals are allowed from circuit courts to circuit courts 
of appeals as provided by law.
Mr. TELLER.   I wish to say that yesterday I was under the 
impression that we were providing for more judges than were 
necessary, but on consultation with some of the members of the 
committee and the commission who were over there I find it is 
quite different from what it would be in the contiguous territory. 
The judges are scattered, necessarily, because of the different 
islands, and there seems to be in the minds of the commission at 
least a necessity for this particular judge, who is to be clothed only

Return to Top