Home: The Annexation Of Hawaii: A Collection Of Document
[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]
3801 The Clerk read as follows: On page 53, lines 24 and 25, strike out the words "the Constitution and." Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to detain the committee upon this question. It is simply a proposition to take from the section that part of it which purports to extend the Constitution to the Hawaiian Islands, leaving it to extend the laws so far as they are applicable. Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have order. I can not hear at this distance the gentleman from Missouri. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, and gentlemen will cease conversation and resume their seats. Mr. DE ARMOND. The section as it stands, Mr. Chairman, purports to extend to Hawaii not only the laws of the United States locally applicable, but the Constitution. The section, if the amendment I propose were adopted, would extend to that Territory the laws of the United States locally applicable and leave the Constitution to take care of itself. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I do not care to occupy the time of the House in anything like an extended argument on the proposition involved in the amendment. My belief is that either the Constitution will be embodied in the act as statute law and carried to Hawaii in that way if the section remains unamended or there will be absolutely no effect, nothing accomplished, by the incorporation of those words. What argument can be made by gentlemen for the retention of these words, except that it will be taken as an evidence that in order to carry the Constitution to Hawaii, or make it effective there, it becomes necessary to have this Congressional action? That the inhabitants of these islands will have more or less of the protection of the Constitution, in consequence of the passage or failure to pass this provision, I do not believe; but that the presence of these words in this section will be used elsewhere and at other times and upon other questions to propagate what to me seems a dangerous heresy, 1 do not doubt. Now, if there is a good reason why these words should remain, I would be very glad for some gentleman to state it. If it be seriously contended that in the absence of these words the laws of the United States will be carried to Hawaii, while the Constitution will have no force and effect there, I would be ex- ceedingly glad if some gentleman would point out how and why that is or could be. If it be true that the inhabitants of those islands and the islands themselves will be under the force and effect of the Constitution just the same without this legislation "extending" the Constitution as with it, the words which I move to strike out are useless, and, under existing circumstances, misleading. Why do that which maybe called a "precedent," for legislation which ought not to be enacted, at some other time and concerning some other territory? Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, this is section 5. I was unfortunate enough not be able to hear the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. The amendment he has offered is to page 62 of the bill, section 5, on lines 24 and 25, which provides: SEC. 5. That except as herein otherwise provided the Constitution and all the laws of the.United States locally applicable shall hare the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States: Provided, That sections 1850 and 1390 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii. Now, the gentleman moves to strike out the words "the Con- stitution and," upon the ground, as I understand it, of the doctrine which he advocates, and which so largely prevails among gentlemen upon the other side of the House, and to some extent among gentlemen upon this side of the House, that the Constitution goes to our island possessions by its own inherent force and without this provision. Now, we have had a very liberal time allowed in this House for the discussion of that question, with ample opportunity for every gentleman entertaining views upon that subject to express his views. I believe, with many others, that the Constitution does not go there except it goes by legislative enactment or by treaty. Other gentlemen believe the other way. o . Mr. NEVILLE. Will the gentleman yield to a question? Mr. KNOX. Oh, yes. Mr. NEVILLE. Who will decide what portions of the Constitution are locally applicable to the Hawaiian Islands, and under what authority will that tribunal act in so deciding? Mr. KNOX. What portion of the Constitution and laws extended are applicable to the island will be a question for litigation in the courts. By this bill there is a court established with Federal jurisdiction alone to deal with all these questions that come up in Hawaii. Now, then, the point I make is this, and the only point; for I do not wish to precipitate a discussion upon this bill upon the Constitution, because if the contention of the gentleman from Missouri is right, and the Constitution extends by its inherent force to the islands of Hawaii, then no harm is done by extending it by this section. It is simply declaratory. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman yield to me for one moment? Mr. KNOX. Yes, indeed, Mr. COX. I just simply want to follow the question asked. Yon say that there will be a court in Hawaii to establish this question. That court decides how far it is applicable. Is that a final decision, and no appeal lies from that? Mr. KNOX. We establish a Federal district court with a jurisdiction of the circuit court, that upon constitutional questions appeal may be had and a writ of error may lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no question but that any constitutional question arising there will go to the United States court for decision. Now, then, I say again that if the contention of these gentlemen is right, no harm is done by this provision. It is simply declaratory. Shall we plunge the people of these islands into uncertainty as to what the laws are that apply to that island? Shall we raise at once questions of doubtful jurisdiction, questions that start with litigation which will imperil every right of property, that will block every step of progress, because men can not act unless the question of the laws that apply to the territory and the conn-try in which they live are settled to a certainty? Mr. HITT was recognized. Mr. POWERS rose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois has the floor. Mr. HITT. I will yield to the gentleman from Vermont. Mr. POWERS. I wish to inquire whether under this bill the people of Hawaii are citizens of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired. Mr. POWERS. I ask that his time be extended five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vermont that the time of the gentleman from Massachusetts be extended five minutes? Mr. HITT. The gentleman from Massachusetts does not ask for the time, and I ask to be recognized in my own right. Mr. KNOX. I want to answer the question of the gentleman from Vermont. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. KNOX. They are citizens. Mr. POWERS. Inasmuch as you declare that the people of the islands are citizens of the United States, can you not obviate the objection proposed by the gentleman from Missouri by simply adding a further provision after declaring them citizens of the United States, that they shall be entitled to all the rights, immunities, and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States? Mr. KNOX. Oh, yes; but there are other questions that arise besides those of citizenship. Those are not the only questions. Mr. POWERS. I understand my friend from Missouri claims that we can not legislate the Constitution into Hawaii, and I very much doubt the proposition. Mr. KNOX. Well, I respect the doubt of the gentleman from Vermont, and I say that we do not propose to raise the question. Mr. POWERS. I recognize the right of Congress to declare that these people shall have all. the immunities and privileges of citizens of the United States. Mr. KNOX. They are citizens of the United States by this bill, and the Constitution and laws are extended as far as they are applicable to these islands. Now, one further consideration. Mr. DE ARMOND. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts yield for a question? , Mr. KNOX. I will. Mr. DE ARMOND. I wish to ask the gentleman what parts of the Constitution he regards as locally applicable to Hawaii and what parts he regards as not locally applicable? Mr. KNOX. It is perfectly apparent, Mr. Chairman, that I can not answer that question in one hour, two hours, or three hours. The Constitution and body of the law that is locally applicable to the Territory of Hawaii are extended to the islands by this bill. Mr. DE ARMOND. One question further. Can the gentleman indicate any provision of the Constitution not locally applicable to Hawaii? Mr. KNOX. The provision as to electing Presidential electors, as to determining the succession, and very many constitutional questions can be cited. Mr. DE ARMOND. Let me ask another question. Can he mention any provision applicable to the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico that is not applicable to the Territory of Hawaii? Mr. KNOX. I should suppose that there were many provisions applicable to a great maritime republic like Hawaii that would not be applicable 'to Arizona or New Mexico. For instance, the provision of Article IV of the Constitution, if I have the number of the article in my mind right, that the jurisdiction of the United States courts shall extend to all questions of maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. That would not be claimed as applicable to an inland Territory like Arizona, but would be exactly applicable to the Territory of Hawaii. \