1056-1057

From TheMorganReport
Revision as of 07:33, 11 December 2005 by Jere Krischel (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Previous Page Next Page

Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations 1789-1901 Volume 6 pp1056-1057 300dpi scan (VERY LARGE!)

Text Only


-p1056-

"ANNEXATION THE MORE DESIRABLE.

"On the assumption that the United States ultimately means to do anything with Hawaii other than to crush it or let it alone severely, there are two solutions of the question pending. One is annexation, the other a protectorate. Of the two, annexation is altogether the more desirable to both countries. The better way would be to provide for annexation on a plan similar to that by which Alaska was admitted. Hawaii does not ask to come in as a State until the islands have grown to somewhere near the stature, in population and importance, of a full-grown State. The older States, after the late experiences on the silver bill and in other respects, feel like going slow in admitting any new State with a population of, say, not more than 150,000, with two Senators, whose votes in the Senate would equal the votes of the New York Senators, who have a constituency back of them of now nearly 7,000,000, or would have as great a voice in the Senate as Pennsylvania with its more than 5,000,000, or Ohio and Illinois with their more than 3,000,000 of population each, or of five other States with more than 2,000,000 population each, or of eighteen other States with more than 1,000,000 population each, that would naturally object to admitting Hawaii as a State with two Senators, until she grows up to a stature more nearly approaching in population and resources the average size of all the States.

"The average population of these twenty-seven States is about 2,000,000 each, and the average population of many more than one-half of all the States is more than 1,000,000 each. These larger States will doubtless hereafter object to the admission of a new State that has not a population of at least a quarter of a million. That the islands once annexed as a Territory would speedly double in population and go on increasing at a rapid rate there can be no doubt. But for the present Hawaii, if annexed, should remain a Territory governed very much as Alaska is governed.

"NOT A SOUND OBJECTION.

"Senator Perkins, of California, and other Western Senators desire that the Hawaiian Islands should be acquired and annexed to California as a county with a county government. That proposition will do to think about, but is too large a question to be discussed here. Honolulu, as to location, is 2,100 miles from San Francisco. The argument is often used against annexation that the Hawaiian Islands are too far off and too far west to be annexed to this country. From the center of the American Union, now somewhere in the vicinity of Indianapolis, Hawaii is not so far off as portions of some of our Northwestern States, and is nearer than Alaska. Besides the Aleutian Islands, a part of Alaska, are more than 300 miles west of the parallel of the Hawaiian group. With fast railroads across the continent, and steamers that regularly make the trip from San Francisco to Honolulu in six days now, and could in four or five, the 'too far off' and 'too far west' objection don't count. Honolulu is in point of time no further from New York than Washington was from Boston when the Revolution broke out. As to a protectorate, Governor Marcy, when Secretary of State, was thoroughly in favor of annexing the Hawaiian Islands, and ably showed the utter absurdity and folly of the United States establishing a protectorate over the Hawaiian Islands or any other territory. He said that a protectorate gave no sovereignty to the protector. The protected got the substance, while the protector got

-p1057-

only the shadow-and paid all the costs. And he was right. It is notable that every American Secretary of State, including Bayard, who has written upon the subject, except Gresham, and every President down to Cleveland has favored the American acquisition of Hawaii.

"AREA AND POPULATION.

"The Hawaiian Islands have an area of 6,470 square miles-about the size of Connecticut. The population in 1890 was 89,990. Of this number the natives (of the Hawaiian race) counted only 34,436, being in a minority in the population amounting to 21,115. There were 6,186 half-castes. Counting all the natives and all the half-castes as native Hawaiians they still lack 4,373 of being half the population, and are outnumbered by what are classed 'foreigners,' by 8,746 in the population table. All Hawaiians born on any of the islands of foreign parents are classed as 'foreigners,' although native whites born on the soil were ignorantly styled as a class by Secretary Gresham as 'aliens.' These 'foreigners,' Hawaiian native born, number 7,495, are all whites and mostly the children of American missionaries. The other Americans not born there number 1,928, so that the American native-born Hawaiians, or those who have located there, in round numbers count up 9,500. Statistics show that about 91 per cent of all the business of Hawaii and a proportionate amount of all the private property should be classed as American.

"There were 27,661 Japanese and Chinese, mostly coolies, employed in sugar-making; also, besides nearly 9,000 Portuguese, mostly similarly employed. These latter, being white, are admitted to citizenship and may vote, while the Orientals are excluded from the ballot. The Portuguese are almost to a man annexationists, are American in sentiment, and have a representative in the executive and legislative body of the Provisional Government. All of the other 'foreigners' of Hawaii, exclusive of 588 Polynesians, number only 2,494, of whom 1,344 are Britons and 1,034 Germans. A majority of the Germans are for annexation-the Britons are not. The latter compose all the real substance among the white population opposed to annexation. It was this body of 20,596 white 'foreigners,' nearly all of whom are Hawaiian citizens under the law and belonging to the constitutional voting class, numbering about two-thirds as many as all the native Hawaiians, that the ex-Queen undertook to disfranchise and to deprive of their civil rights under the old constitution, by suddenly proclaiming a new constitution putting all the political power and rule in the islands in the hands of the natives, that caused the revolution in January last and the deposition of the Queen.

"A CORRUPT LEGISLATURE.

"The last Hawaiian Legislature was guilty of notorious bribery and corruption. It passed the odious lottery and opium bills, which were signed by the Queen. The Queen arbitrarily selected her cabinet in defiance of constitutional principles, and the new revolutionary government in justification of her overthrow made this assertion, which never has been and can not be truthfully controverted: 'Her Majesty proceeded on the last day of the session to arbitrarily arrogate to herself the right to promulgate a new constitution, which proposes among other things to disfranchise over one-fourth of the voters and the owners of nine-tenths of the private property of the Kingdom, to abolish the

S. Doc 231, pt 6----67


Previous Page Next Page