Jennifer Wada at 01:14, 26 April 2006

2006-04-26T01:14:20Z

Jennifer Wada at 03:32, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T03:32:02Z

New page

unusual expedient of a joint
resolution of Congress to accomplish a
thing which ought to have been
accomplished nearly ten years ago*"
217/
The proceedings in the Senate also
confirmed the fear that the treaty
lacked votes• Senator Morrill, during
annexation debate, stated: "Here the
Senate was informed about it after the
Secretary had signed the treaty, but
even the Senate did not permit itself
to discuss it except in secret
session until its paucity of votes was
disclosed; and it came originally in
the form of a treaty..." 218/ The
argument for holding secret sessions
was weak and the weakness of the
argument is evident from reading the
proceedings of this session of May 31,
1898, in which senators in the session
questioned the secrecy of anything
discussed there.
The proceedings of the secret
session show that the proponents of
annexation desired a secret session
not because of concern for war
security, but because they feared
defeat of the proposed 1897 treaty of
annexation. They used the war with
Spain to provide "the heat that
generated annexation." 219/ As
Representative Alexander stated on
June 11: "The annexation of the
Hawaiian Islands, for the first time
in our history, is presented to us as
a war necessity." 220/ This idea was
echoed by other legislators such as
Representative Pearson who said: "I
shall give my vote for this resolution
for the same reasons that I supported
the war revenue bill. I believe that
this is a necessary step in the
successful prosecution of the war with
Spain." 221/
The final argument involved the
appropriateness and constitutionality
of the resolution, although Congressional
debate on Hawaiian annexation
did not concentrate on the constitutional
authority of the Congress
to annex territory, as it did with
Texas. After discussion of this
issue, the next section of this report
considers the constitutionality
question in the context of the lack of
a plebiscite in Hawaii on the issue of
annexation, as was the case in Texas.
(See below, pages 305 and 312.)
Congressmen stated that the
annexation of Texas by joint
resolution was a precedent to be
followed in the Hawaiian case. Mr.
William Alden Smith of the House of
Representatives commented on the
annexation issue:
While there can be no question,
Mr. Speaker, but that treaty
making was especially lodged by
the Constitution in the President
and Senate, and that the composition
of the Senate was so framed
that each State should have an
equal voice, nevertheless, the
exigencies which at times confront
the Republic warn us of the
importance of the popular branch
of Congress, coming direct from
the people; and the Texas
precedent has made the votes of a
majority of both branches of
Congress sufficient. 222/
Representative Parker also stated
that, in dealing with Hawaii, the
proper means of annexation would
necessarily come from Congress, rather
than the treaty-making power. He gave
the following explanation:
It is well understood to be a
proper exercise of the treatymaking
power that a nation may
contract to sell part of its lands
which another wishes to buy, but
it may well be doubted whether a
government can by treaty contract
itself out of existence...It may
acquiesce, it may agree, but the
authority over these islands will
303

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 resolution of Congress to accomplish a
 thing which ought to have been
-accomplished nearly ten years ago*"
+accomplished nearly ten years ago"
-/
+<u>217</u>/
 The proceedings in the Senate also
 confirmed the fear that the treaty
-lacked votes• Senator Morrill, during
+lacked votes. Senator Morrill, during
 annexation debate, stated: "Here the
 Senate was informed about it after the
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 session until its paucity of votes was
 disclosed; and it came originally in
-the form of a treaty..." 218/ The
+the form of a treaty..." <u>218</u>/ The
 argument for holding secret sessions
 was weak and the weakness of the
@@ Line 22: / Line 23: @@
 questioned the secrecy of anything
 discussed there.
 The proceedings of the secret
 session show that the proponents of
@@ Line 30: / Line 32: @@
 annexation. They used the war with
 Spain to provide "the heat that
-generated annexation." 219/ As
+generated annexation." <u>219</u>/ As
 Representative Alexander stated on
 June 11: "The annexation of the
 Hawaiian Islands, for the first time
 in our history, is presented to us as
-a war necessity." 220/ This idea was
+a war necessity." <u>220</u>/ This idea was
 echoed by other legislators such as
 Representative Pearson who said: "I
@@ Line 43: / Line 45: @@
 this is a necessary step in the
 successful prosecution of the war with
-Spain." 221/
+Spain." <u>221</u>/
 The final argument involved the
 appropriateness and constitutionality
@@ Line 58: / Line 61: @@
 annexation, as was the case in Texas.
 (See below, pages 305 and 312.)
 Congressmen stated that the
 annexation of Texas by joint
@@ Line 65: / Line 69: @@
 Representatives commented on the
 annexation issue:
 While there can be no question,
-Mr. Speaker, but that treaty
+:While there can be no question, Mr. Speaker, but that treaty making was especially lodged by the Constitution in the President and Senate, and that the composition of the Senate was so framed that each State should have an equal voice, nevertheless, the exigencies which at times confront the Republic warn us of the importance of the popular branch of Congress, coming direct from the people; and the Texas precedent has made the votes of a majority of both branches of Congress sufficient. <u>222</u>/
 making was especially lodged by
 Representative Parker also stated
 that, in dealing with Hawaii, the
@@ Line 87: / Line 78: @@
 than the treaty-making power. He gave
 the following explanation:
 It is well understood to be a
-proper exercise of the treatymaking
+:It is well understood to be a proper exercise of the treatymaking power that a nation may contract to sell part of its lands which another wishes to buy, but it may well be doubted whether a government can by treaty contract itself out of existence...It may acquiesce, it may agree, but the authority over these islands will
-power that a nation may
+{{p|303}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-303 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 01:14, 26 April 2006

Jennifer Wada at 03:32, 10 March 2006