CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT
Together with Debates and Congressional Action on Other Matters
Concerning the Hawaiian Islands in the 56th Congress, First Session,
December 4, 1899-June 7, 1900.
Photostatic Reproductions from the Congressional Record, Vol. 33,
Parts 1-8.
FOREWORD
This compilation of pages reproduced from the Congressional Record has been prepared in order to provide a
convenient reference source for studyof the debates in Congress at the time of enactment of Hawaii's Organic Act. Several
considerations prompted the photographic reproduction of pertinent parts from the Congressional Record in a single volume. Debate at
the time of the passage of the Organic Act furnishes, as do the debates of Constitutional Conventions for the federal and state constitutions,
a valuable source of information in understanding and interpreting provisions of the Organic Act. These debates in the original binding
are contained in sets of volumes of from six to seven thousand pages for each session of Congress and are printed without full subject
indices, making necessarythe reading and handling of a large number of volumes and pages in order to cite debate regarding a particular
section of the Organic Act. In addition, these volumes, dating from 1900, are now well worn and in danger of loss byfrequent use.
The present volume, one of a series which will ultimatelycontain reproductions of all Congressional debates concerning
Hawaii, the Organic Act and its amendments, deals with the debate on the original Bill which ultimatelybecame the Organic Act.
Hawaii was annexed as a part of the territoryof the United States byJoint Resolution (H. Res. 259) of the 55th Congress,
Second Session. In the Third Session of the 55th Congress, meeting from December 5, 1898 to March 3, 1899, two Bills were
introduced which would have provided a government for the Hawaiian Islands. These were S. 4893 and H. R. 10990, neither of which
passed or received extended debate at that session.
SenateBill 4893 was introduced December6, 1898, byMr. Cullom, read twice byits title and referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations. It was reported from the Committee with amendments December 21, and was brought before the Senate March 1,
1899 byMr. Cullom, who made an explanatory speech. No further action was taken. H. R. 10990 suffered much the same fate. It was
introduced December 6, 1898, and referred to the Committee on Territories. The Committee reported it with amendments January23,
1899, accompanied byReport No. 1808, and it was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. The 55th
Congress adjourned before it was debated or acted upon.
At the First Session of the 56th Congress, meeting from December 4, 1899 to June 7, 1900, Bills were introduced both in
the Senate and in the House of Representatives providing for an Organic Act for the Territory of Hawaii. These were H. R. 2972 and S.
222. It is the latter Bill which finallybecame the Organic Act. Extended debate was given to this Bill in both the Senate and the House,
and House amendments were added to theSenateBill.
i
For the sake of completeness in one volume every reference to action on these two Bills as
well as action on other Bills concerning the Territory have been included in this compilation, although
many of the matters here reproduced are simply routine forms of actions. In order to reduce expense of
photostating, a number of these routine items, not in the nature of debate, and matters not directly
related to the Organic Act, have been presented in typed form rather than in exact reproduction. All
debate on, and all references to, the Bills providing for the Organic Act have, however, been
photostated as exact reproductions.
As an aid in using this compilation, marginal notes giving the date and citation have been
added. Also, a more complete subject index has been prepared, although the Index as it appears in the
Congressional Record has also been reproduced as a part of this compilation.
In order to avoid two separate systems of pagination, photostated pages in this compilation
have not been numbered. The original Congressional Record page numbers appear in the marginal note
to each excerpt and at the top of the pages of any continuation of it. This, of course, leaves omissions in
the page numbers, but the pages are consecutive and the excerpts chronologically arranged as they
appear in the Congressional Record for all matters dealing with Hawaii and the Organic Act.
This compilation was prepared by the staff of the Legislative Reference Bureau, largely
through the work of Mrs. Kathleen M. Schutte, and was made possible through funds provided by the
Attorney-General's Department. To Mr. C. Nils Tavares, Attorney-General of the Territory, goes the
credit for the suggestions leading to this compilation. Credit also goes to Dr. Ralph S. Kuykendall,
Associate Professor of History, University of Hawaii, for valuable suggestions and lists of additional
documents relating to the subject; and to Miss Charlotta M. Hoskins and Miss Janet E. Bell of the
University of Hawaii Library staff, for the list of Selected References in U. S. Government Documents
to Annexation and the Organic Act, prepared by them and included in this volume.
Gilbert G. Lentz, Director Legislative
Reference Bureau
Honolulu, T. H.
May, 1946
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
i-ii
Excerpts from Index to Congressional Record
iii - vi
Listing Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, etc., applying to the
Hawaiian Islands, with page numbers.
Subject Index
vii - xix
Index to Congressional debates on the Hawaii Organic Act, by subject.
Chronological Table of Action on Senate Bill 322
xx - xxi
Congressional Record, 56th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 33,
Parts 1-8, December 4, 1899 to June 7, 1900
57 - 6857
Pages and Sections pertaining to the Hawaiian Islands
reproduced from the Congressional Record.
Appendix to the Congressional Record, Vol. 33
App. 200-201
Speech by Mr. Newlands on "Government for the Territory of Hawaii".
Congressional Record Index
Index 347-691
Sections pertaining to: Hawaiian Islands New Possessions Territories
Senate Bill 222 (To provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii).
House Bill 2972 (To provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii).
List of Congressional Reports and Publications
Supplement 1-3
Selected References in U. S. Government Documents to
Annexation and the Hawaii Organic Act,
compiled from the Document Catalogues,
v. 4, 55th Congress, July 1, 1897-June 30, 1899, and
v. 5, 56th Congress, July 1, 1899-June 30, 1901.
EXCERPTS FROM
INDEX TO CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD 56th Congress, 1st Session
Vol. 33, Parts 1-8 Dec. 4, 1899 June 7, 1900
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Bills to provide government for
(S. 222; H. R. 2972)
Bill to extend immigration laws
Pages
89, 233, 643, 1559, 1836,
1869-1872, 1918-1934, 1978,
1979-1992, 2022-2033, 2122-2126, 21282133, 2179-2196, 2240-2257, 2316-2329,
2386-2401, 2438-2448, 2449, 2490, 2637,
2740, 3702-3715, 3746-3752, 3769-3777,
3800-3813, 3814-3822, 3851-3864, 3865,
3866, 3907, 3964-3965, 4072, 4357-4358,
4409-4411, 4454-4460, 4460-4470, 4508,
4528, 4648-4651, 4733-4737, 4766, 4800,
4806, 4892; 165, 1739.
94
to (S. 600)
Bills to extend laws relative to
commerce, navigation, and
Merchant seamen over (S. 729,
2439; H. R. 5065)
Bill to extend immigration, contract
and Chinese-exclusion laws
of United States to (S. 2244)
Bill placing under jurisdiction
of Secretary of Navy appropriation
for improvement of Pearl Harbor (S. 2708)
Bills for establishment of naval
station in Pearl Harbor island of Oahu
(S. 4290, H. R. 11649)
Bill to provide for officers in
customs district of (S. 4560)
Bill to facilitate entry of steamships engaged in coasting
trade between United States
and (S. 4615)
Bill to amend act to provide
government for (S. 4650)
96, 642; 801; 638, 1962
2453, 2546.
701 labor,
1154, 1711, 1893.
4452, 5672.
5020, 5477, 5827, 5924,
5992, 6014, 6078.
5263, 5361, 5603-5604,
5880, 6103, 6180, 6186,
6369.
5362, 5477, 5602.
iii
Index to Cong. Record, Vol. 33. (Page 2)
Bills to extend anti-contract-labor
laws to (H. R. 2971, 8874)
165, 2172
Bill to extend customs and internal
revenue laws over (H. R. 4599)
556
Bill relative to silver coinage
and silver certificates of (H. R. 7091)
1106, 3459
Bill providing for appeals and writs
of error from supreme court of (H. R. 11668)
5730.
Joint resolution to reserve certain
lands in city of Honolulu,
island of Oahu (S. R. 76)
1250, 1487, 1648, 1727,
3409, 5856, 5992, 6014, 6369.
Resolution of inquiry in House relative to banks or other institutions used by Govern
ment for deposit of public moneys in (H. Res. 208)
3663.
Resolution of inquiry in Senate re-
lative to regulations for travel in, debated and referred.
5362-5363.
Amendments in Senate to bill (S 222)
. to provide government for
1112, 1327
Amendment in Senate to guarantee
republican form of government
601
Estimate of additional appropriation
for expenses of United States courts in (S. Doc. 347)
5307
Estimates of appropriations to
carry out certain provisions of act to provide
government for (S. Doc. 348)
5307
Estimate of appropriation for investigation of fisheries of (S. Doc. 366)
5580
Estimate of appropriation for
quarantine service in (H. R. Doc. 666)
5304
iv
Index to Cong. Record, Vol. 33 (Page 3)
Letter of Secretary of Navy relative
to jurisdiction of appropriation for improvement of Pearl
Harbor (S. Doc. 90; H. R. Doc. 323)
1021, 1023.
Letter of Secretary of State transmitting reports of decisions of supreme court of Hawaii
in certain cases relative to application of Constitution
of United States to (H. R. Doc. 237)
628, 636.
Conference report on bill (S. 222)
to provide government for
4358.
Memorial of citizens of Honolulu
favoring extension of American Territorial laws over
559.
Statement of financial resources of
Statistics relative to trade,
area, population, churches, newspapers, etc.
2189.
4466.
Paper relative to land system of
(S. Doc. 72)
735.
APPENDIX
Newlands, Francis G. - Government
for the Territory of Hawaii
Appendix 200.
NEW POSSESSIONS
Bill regulating appointments to
and removals from civil offices in (S. 2000)
630, 3207, 4011, 55375540, 5544-5546.
Bill to extend laws enacted by
Congress for the Territories to (H. R. 6870)
971.
Resolution in Senate declaring
obligation of United States
601.
Resolution of inquiry in House
relative to banks or other institutions used by Government for deposit of public moneys in (H. Res. 208)
3663.
Amendment in Senate declaring policy .... 601. of United States concerning
v
Index to Cong. Record, Vol. 33 (Page 4)
TERRITORIES
Bills to amend act to prohibit
passage of special or local
laws in (S. 4075, 4229;
H. R. 8355, 9708, 10737, 10843)
3872, 4156, 4713, 6531,
6780, 6799, 6857, 6867; 4210;
1740, 3063, 3662, 6780; 4204,
4448.
Bill prohibiting legislatures
57.
from creating new counties by special act (H. R.
1025)
Bill to confer appellate jurisdiction on circuit courts of
790.
appeal to review judgments of supreme courts of (H. R 6053).
Bill to prohibit passage of local
or special laws and to limit Territorial
indebtedness in (H. R. 9708)
3063, 3662, 6780.
Bill to amend act regarding rights
659, 753.
of aliens to hold and own real estate in territories (H. R. 5297)
Policy of administration on acquisition of territories
3719-3720.
Manifest destiny
3721-3723.
Territorial expansion
3717-3718, 3763-3769.
vi
INDEX
Admiralty, jurisdiction of courts in
(S 222) 2124, 2389.
Agricultural land
(S 222) 3851-3852.
Agriculture and Forestry
(S 222) 1927-1928, 1990-1992, 2022.
Aliens, right to hold real estate
(H R 5297) 659, 753.
(S 2011) 630.
Annexation
Treaty and Joint Resolution
3717, 3720.
(S 222)1918-1919, 1926-1927, 2028, 2124, 21902192, 2248-2249, 2391, 2400-2401, 2444, 24452446, 3703, 3747, 3764-3769, 3776.
Appeals from Supreme Court of Hawaii
(S 222) 2028.
Apportionment of legislature
(S 222) 1989, 2386.
Appropriations
By Congress for Government of Hawaii
By Territorial legislature or treasurer
5307.
(S 222) 1929-1930, 2241, 3707, 3810.
Area of Territory (See Geography)
Asiatics (See also Japanese, Chinese)
Citizenship of
Deportation of
Imported for labor
(S 222) 3704-3709.
(S 222) 4734-4735.
(S 222) 2319-2324, 3746-3747, 3749,
3861-3862, 3863, 3865.
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222
Appendix 200.
Attorney General of Hawaii
Appointment of
Condemning of fishing rights by
(S 222) 3771.
(S 222) 1871.
Banks, Savings
(S 222) 2250-2257, 2316, 2318.
Banks, deposit of public funds in
(H Res. 208) 3663.
Bonds and indebtedness
(S 222) 1979, 3810.
(S 4075) 3872, 4156, 4713, 6531, 6780, 6799,
6857, 6867.
(S 4229) 4210.
(H R 8355) 1740.
(H R 9708) 3063, 3662.
(H R 10737) 4204.
(H R 10843) 4448.
Vii
Index
Bishop Estate
(S 222) 3706, 3802-3805.
Bubonic Plague
(S222) 1930, 2125, 2400.
Charitable institutions, property owned by
(S222) 3706, 3802-3805.
Chinese
Deportation
(S 222) 4734, 4735.
Exclusion laws
(S 2244) 701.
Importation for labor
(S 222) 1924-1925, 2182, 2195, 3707-3708,
3709, 3710, 3711, 3747, 3748-3749, 3775, 3800,
3816, 3861-3862.
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S 222
Appendix 200.
Churches
(S 222) 4468.
Circuit Court
(S 222) 3852.
Duties in District Court (U. S.)
(S222) 2388-2389.
Judges, tenure and appointment
(S222) 1871, 2023-2026, 2029-2030, 2122-2124,
2126, 2180-2181, 2182, 2186, 2191, 2193, 2194,
2195, 2246, 2329, 3747, 3771.
Judges, salaries
(S 222) 2326-2328, 2386.
Circuit Court of Appeals
(H R 6053) 790.
Citizenship
(S 222) 1919, 2182, 2387, 3704-3705, 3707-3708,
3767, 3770, 3800, 3801, 4454-4455.
Civil Offices, Appointments to and removals from (S 2000) 630, 3207, 4011, 5537-5540, 5544, 5546.
Coasting trade
4737.
(S 222) 2246, 3861, 3946, 4465, 4733, 4734, 4736(S4615) 5361, 5880, 6180, 6186, 6369.
Coffee
(S 222) 1991.
Commerce
(S 222) 4466-4467, 3720, 3721.
Extension of laws
(S729) 96, 642.
(S 2439) 801.
(H R 5065) 638, 1962, 2453.
Under monarchy and republic
(S 222) 3767.
Commercial importance of islands
(S222) 3770.
Commissioner, Territorial
(S 222) 3770, 3853-3854.
viii
Index
Conference on S 222
(S 222) 4072, 4357-4358, 4409-4411,
4469-4470, 4508, 4528, 4628, 4648-4651, 4733.
Report adopted
Constitution and laws of the United States
Effect in Territory
(S 222) 4766.
(Resolution)
628, 636.
(S 222) 1869, 1923-1925, 1933-1934, 2032-2033, 21242125, 2130-2131, 2252, 2255, 2390-2400, 3704-3705,
3708-3709, 3714, 3749-3752, 3767,3800-3802, 3858,
4455.
559.
Constitution of Republic of Hawaii
1869.
Contract labor
(S 222) 1923-1924, 1979-1985, 2184-2186, 2190,
2194-2195, 2240-2241, 2319-2324, 2388, 3704, 3705,
3710-3715, 3746-3748, 3771, 3775, 3776-3777, 3800,
3806-3809, 4455, 4469, 4650-4651, 4733-4734.
Contract labor laws, extended to Hawaii
(S 2244) 701.
(H R 2971) 165.
(H R 8874) 2172.
Cooper, Henry E. - Secretary of Hawaii
5327.
Corporate influence in Hawaii
(S 222) 2182.
Corporations, land held by
Appendix 201.
Counties
(S 222) 1988-1990, 3814, 4458.
(H.R 1025) 57.
Court, U. S. District(See District Court)
Courts
(S 222) 1928-1929, 1931-1934, 1988-1989, 2033,
2122-2124, 2126, 2133, 2180- 2181, 2182, 2186-2193,
2195, 2250, 2327-2328, 2329, 2386, 2388-2389, 23922400, 2438-2442, 3747, 3771, 3852, 4733, 4734.
(H R 6053) 790.
Appeals from
(H R 11668) 5730.
(S 222) 2028.
Appropriation by Congress for
5307.
Judges
(S 222) 2246, 2326, 3820-3821, 4464.
Crown lands
(S 222) 1926-1927, 2248-2249, 3775, 3819, 3861.
Payment to Liliuokalani for
(S 222) 2442-2449.
ix
Index
Currency, legal tender
(S 222) 2318-2319.
Customs
District
(S 222) 3707, 3776.
Judicial court for
(S 222) 2124.
Laws
(S 222) 1112, 1929.
(H R 4599) 556.
Officers, Honolulu
6014, 6078.
(S 4560) 5263, 5477, 5827, 5924-5925, 5992,
Date effective, S. 222
(S 222) 2387.
Debt, limit of territorial
(S 4075) 3872, 4156, 4713, 6531, 6780,
6799, 6857, 6867.
(S 4229) 4210.
(H R 8355) 1740.
(H R 9708) 3063, 3662.
(H R 10737) 4204.
(H R 10843) 4448.
Debt, Republic of Hawaii
Postal savings
(S 222) 1919, 2251-2252, 2255, 2257.
(S 222) 2318.
(S 4650) 5477, 5602.
Delegate to Congress
(S 222) 1112, 3771, 3776, 3853-3854, 4464.
District Court, Territorial
(S 222) 3771.
District Court, U. S.
(S 222) 2388-2389, 2392-2400, 2438-2442, 3771,
3859, 3965, 4358, 4465, 4733, 4734.
Appropriation by Congress
5307.
District Attorney, Salary
(S 222) 1871, 4733.
District Judge
Appointment
Dog tax
(S 222) 1871, 2438-2442, 3859.
(S 222) 2123, 2125, 2392-2400.
(S 222) 4459.
Dole, Sanford B. - Governor of Hawaii
5327.
Education
3723
(S 222) 2028, 3766, 3771, 3775.
Elections
General
Special
of Delegate to Congress
Contest of
Registration
(S 222) 1870,2193,2195-2196,3707,3747,3767
(S 222) 1870.
(S 222) 3819.
(S 222) 1112.
(S 222) 1987.
(S 222) 3965, 4458-4460.
x
Index
Electors
(S 222) 1112, 1870, 1920-1923, 2023,
Educational qualifications
Poll tax
Qualifications of
Tax payment of
2024., 2026-2027, 2031-2032, 2181, 2184., 2187, 2188,
2190, 2195-2196, 2241-2243, 2387, 2449, 3705, 3708,
3747, 3767, 3771, 3773-3774, 3854-3858, 4460-4462.
(S 222) 3817, 3818.
(S 222) 38U-3815, 4454, 4458-4460.
(S 222) 4358, 44-55, 4733.
(S 222) 4649.
Federal Court (See U. S. District Court)
Appropriation by Congress for
5307.
Fisheries
5580.
Fishing rights
(S 222) 1871, 3860, 4464.
Franchise, Elective (See also Electors and voting
qualifications)
Frear, Judge
(S 222) 1922.
Geographical aspects of Hawaiian Islands
3719-3720.
(S 222) 3765, 3770, 4467.
Government for Hawaiian Islands
(S 222) 89, 233, 643, 1559, 1836,
1869-1872, 1918-1934, 1978, 1979-1992, 2022-2033,
2122-2126, 2128-2133, 2179-2196, 2240-2257, 23162329, 2386-2401, 2438-2448, 2449, 2490, 2637, 2740,
3702-3715, 3746-3752, 3769-3777, 3800-3813, 38143822, 3851-3864, 3865-3866, 3907, 3964-3965, 4072,
4357-4358, 4409-4411, 4454-4460, 4460-4470, 4508,
4528, 4648-4651, 4733-4737, 4766, 4800, 4806, 4892.
Index 8.
(H R 2972) 165, 1739. Index 239.
Amendments to S. 222
Republican form of
(S 222) 1112, 1327.
(S R 45) 601.
Governor of Hawaii
Appointment of
Appointment of judicial officers
officers
(S 222) 1985-1986, 3747.
(S 222) 2023-2026, 2122-2124, 21932194, 2182.
Appointment and removal of
(S 222) 2024-2025, 2180-2181, 2186-
2191.
Confirmation of appointment
Executive
(S 222) 3770-3771.
Residence requirements
(S 222) 4462-4463.
Salary
(S 222) 1871, 4464.
Special elections and special sessions (S 222) 2241.
Veto
5327.
(S 222) 3810
xi
Index
Hawaii, island of
(S 222) 4467.
Hawaiian Islands
Government of (See Government)
History of
Health, Public
See Index 347.
(S 222) 3764-3768, 3770, 3719-3720,
3722-3723.
(S 222)
4468.
History of Senate Bill 222
Home rule for Territory
Homesteads
Hospitals
(S 222)
(S 222)
(S 222)
(S 222)
1918, 1987, 3767-3769.
1986, 2181-2182, 2186, 2188.
1926, 3776, 3819.
3805.
House of Representatives (Territorial) (S 222) 1920, 1922, 2196, 3771. (See also Legislature)
Electors for
(S 222) 3747, 4459, 4649.
Qualifications for
(S 222) 3810.
Immigration
(S 222) 2124, 2185, 2389-2390, 3705,
3709,
3710. (S 600) 94.
(S 2244) 701.
(S 222)
2246, 3853.
(S 222)
2030.
(S 222)
1871.
Impeachment of judges
Indian tribes, Government of
Instruction, Commissioner of Public
Internal Revenue
Laws extended to Hawaii
(S 222) 2124, 3776.
(H R 4599) 556.
Japanese
Citizenship of
(S 222) 3707-3708.
Exclusion and deportation of
(S 222) 1983-1984, 4734, 4735,
Labor, contract
3720.
(S 222) 1924-1925, 2195, 2388, 37043705, 3711, 3747, 3775.
Population (See also Population) (S 222) 2182. Speech by Mr. Newlands on S.
222 (S 222) Appendix 200.
Joint Resolution of Annexation
(S 222) 1918-1919, 2028, 2248-2249, 3776.
Judges
(S 222) 1871, 1928-1929, 2028-2029, 2030,
2122-2124, 2126, 2182, 2191, 2193-2194,
2246, 2329, 3852-3853.
2026, 2180-2181, 2186, 2326-
Appointment, salaries and tenure of
(S 222) 2023-
2328, 2386, 3747, 3820-3821, 4464,4733
xii
Index
Judges (Cont.)
Citizenship of
District Court
Juries
(S 222) 3851.
(S 222) 2388-2389, 2392-2400, 24382442.
(S 222) 2438, 3707-3708, 3709.
Kalakaua, King
(S 222) 1923.
Kamehameha Schools, Property of
(S 222) 1919.
Kauai, Island of
(S 222) 4467.
Labor, Commissioner of
(S 222) 3862, 3865, 4358, 4462, 4733,
4734-4736.
Appendix 200-201.
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222
Labor contracts and laws
(S 222)1923-1924, 1979-1985, 2184-2186,
2190, 2194-2195, 2240-2241, 2319-2324, 2388,
3704, 3710-3715, 3746, 3747-3748, 3771, 3775,
3776-3777, 3800, 3806-3809, 4455, 4469, 46504651, 4733-4734.
(S 2244) 701.
(H R 8874) 2172.
Survey of labor
U. S. laws extended to Hawaii
(H R 2971) 165.
White labor
(S 222) 3863, 3865.
Lanai, Island of
(S 222) 3813.
(S 222) 4468.
Land, Crown (See Crown land)
Land laws
3723.
(S 222) 1970-1871, 1919, 1925-1928,
1990-1992, 2022, 2028, 3706,
3802-3805, 3814, 3819-3820.
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222
Land monopoly
Appendix 201.
(S 222) 3903-3805, 3812-3813, 3814,
4457-4458, 4735.
Land system of Hawaiian Islands
(Document) 735.
Lands, Public (See also Public domain) (S 222) 1870-1871, 1919, 1925-1928,
1990-1992, 2022, 2028, 2247-2249, 2447,
3747, 3748, 3775-3776, 4733, 4734.
Land on island of Oahu, withdrawn for
Royal Mausoleum
(S R 76) 1250, 1487-1488, 1648-1649,
1727, 3409, 5856, 5992, 6014.
xiii
Index
Laws of Hawaii
(S 222) 1869, 1919, 2192-2193, 22502257, 2328-2329, 2390-2392, 3705, 3706, 3806.
Leases
Legal tender
(S 222) 1926, 2247, 2448, 3728.
(S 222) 2318-2319.
Legislature of Territory
Apportionment
Contest of elections
Counties
Creation of counties
Punishment of members
Qualifications of members
Special Sessions and elections
Voters for (See also Voting Qualifications)
(S 222) 1870, 1920, 1929, 2387, 37063707, 3712, 3771, 3775, 4456, 4457.
(S 222) 1989.
(S 222) 1987-1988.
(S 222) 3814.
(S 222) 1988-1990, 4458.
(S 222) 2241, 3809-3810.
(S 222) 3810.
(S 222) 2241.
(S 222) 2196.
Leprosy and the leper settlements
(S 222) 2125, 3770, 4464.
Liliuokalani, payment for lands to
(S 222) 2442-2449.
Liquor
(S 222) 3810-3812, 4358, 4458.
Lunalilo Home
(S 222) 3802.
"Manifest Destiny"
3721-3723.
Marshal, U. S. - Salary
(S 222) 1871, 4733.
Maui, Island of
(S 222) 4467.
Mausoleum, Royal
(S R 76) 1250, 1487, 1488, 1648-1649,
1727, 3409, 5856, 5992, 6014.
Merchant seamen
(S 222) 3807-3808, 4470, 4733.
(S 729) 96, 642.
(S 2439) 801.
5065) 638, 1962, 2453, 2546.
Molokai, Island of
Municipal bonds
(S 222) 4468.
(S 4075) 6531, 6780.
Naturalization
(S 222) 3708.
Naval base
(S 222) 3703, 3770, 4467.
1021, 1023 (S 4290)
4452. (H R 11649) 5672.
xiv
Index
Navigation, Extension of laws
(S 729) 96, 642.
(S 2439) 801. (H R 5065) 638, 1962, 2453, 2546.
(H R
New possessions
Index 515.
Newlands, Francis G (Nevada)
Speech on Government for Hawaii (S 222)
Appendix 200-201.
Newspapers and periodicals
Niihau, Island of
Oahu, Island of
Lands on, for mausoleum
(S 222) 4468.
(S 222) 4468.
(S 222) 4467.
(S R 76) 1250, 1487-1488, 1648-1649,
1727, 3409, 5856, 5992, 6014,
Oat, John M. - Postmaster, Honolulu
5327.
Oath of office
(S 222) 3809.
Oath to support constitution
(S 222) 2031-2032.
Office, public
Residence requirement
(S 222) 1870, 3809, 3851.
(S 222) 4649.
Offices, Civil (See Civil offices)
Outline of proposed government of
Hawaii (Chart)
Pearl Harbor
(S 222) 3772.
Poll tax
(S 222) 3708, 3814-3816, 4454, 4458-
1021, 1023
(S 222) 3703, 3770, 4467. (S 4290) 4452.
(H R 11647) 5672.
4460, 4460-4462, 4468, 4649, 4733.
Population
3723.
(S 222) 1919, 2023, 2028, 2182, 2446,
3704, 3711, 3748, 3765, 3774,
4467, 4736.
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222 (S 222) Appendix 200.
Portuguese
3723.
(S 222) 1919, 1923, 2182, 3704.
xv
Index
Postal Savings bank
(S 222) 2250-2257, 2316-2318, 3864.
(S 4650) 5477, 5602.
Postal system
Postmaster, Honolulu
(S 222) 2183, 2254, 2316.
5327.
President of the United States
Appointments by
3723.
(S 222) 2023-2026, 2029-2030, 2122-2126, 2180-2181, 2182, 21862193, 2246, 2392, 3747, 3820-3821, 4464.
(S 222) 2247. Use of money in Hawaiian Treasury
(S
Proclamation re: Public lands
222) 2386, 3810.
Prison system
(S 222) 4468.
Property held by aliens (See Aliens)
Property held by religious or charitable organizations
(S 222) 1919.
Property qualifications, voters
and office holders
(S 222) 1920-1923, 2023-2024, 20262027, 2188, 2241-2243, 2245, 3767, 3771, 3773-3774.
Public domain
Withdrawing lands on Oahu from
(S 222) 1870-1871, 1919, 1925-1928,
1990-1992, 2022, 2028, 2247-2249, 2447-2448, 37473748, 3775-3776, 3819, 3861, 4733, 4734.
(S R 76) 1250, 1487-1488, 1648-1649,
1727, 3409, 5856, 5992, 6014.
Public officers, appointment and
removal
(S 222) 2024, 2180, 2187.
Public works
(S 2708) 1154, 1711, 1893.
Quarantine
5304.
(S 222) 2124.
Racial prejudice and discrimination
(S 222) 1923, 3709, 3771.
Real Estate
Held by aliens
Held by corporations
Held by religious organizations
(H R 5297) 659, 753.
(S 2011) 630.
(S 222) 3812-3813, 4457-4458.
(S 222) 3706, 3802-3805.
xvi
Index
Reapportionment by Legislature
(See Apportionment)
Register of vessels
(S 222) 2324-2326, 3860-3861, 4465,
4650.
Registration of voters
(S 222) 2032, 2242, 3707, 3708, 3709,
3814-3816, 3818, 3965, 4358, 4454, 4458-4489, 44604462, 4468, 4648-4649.
Republic of Hawaii
Debt of
(S 222) 2445-2446.
(S 222) 1919, 2251-2252, 2255-2256,
2318.
(S 222) 2032-2033, 2190-2193, 3800.
Function until 1900
Laws and constitution of
Voting in
(S 222) 1869, 2328-2329.
(S 222) 2449, 3767.
Republican form of government
(S R 45) 601.
Residence qualifications, Judges and
Governor
(S 222) 1985-1986, 2180, 2188-2189,
4462-4463, 4649-4650.
Resolution from Hawaii asking extension
of U. S. laws to
559.
Revenues
Revolution of
(S222)
1893
Roads, public
2182-2183, 2189.
(S222)
(S222)
2444-2446.
1928, 1991, 2022.
Salaries
(S 222) 1871, 2122, 2182, 2326-2328,
2386, 3859-3860.
Saloons
Schools, support from public lands
(S 222) 3810-3812.
(S 222) 3776.
Secretary of Hawaii
Confirmation of appointment
Salary and appointment
5327.
(S 222) 1871, 3747, 3771.
Senate, Territorial (See also Legislature)
Qualifications of electors of
Qualifications of senators
(S 222) 1920, 1922, 2196, 3747, 3771.
(S 222) 2241-2243, 2245, 3818.
(S 222) 3810, 4455.
Sheriffs
(S 222) 1989, 3818-3819.
Shipping laws (See also Vessels, Coastal
trade)
(S 222) 4736-4737.
Ships (See Vessels)
xvii
Index
Silver coinage
(S 222) 2318-2319.
(H R 7091) 1106, 3459.
Southern vote
(S 222) 2183-2184, 2185-2186, 2195,
2243-2244.
Statehood
(S 222) 1983, 1987, 2129, 2132, 2180,
Steamships, coastal trade
(S 4615) 5361, 5603, 6103.
Sugar industry
(S 222) 3770.
Sugar interests and plantations
Labor importation
Land ownership
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222
Supreme Court
Appeals from
Appointment of judges of
Supreme Court Justices
Appointment by President
Citizenship
Contested elections
Salaries
Tenure
Surveyor
2194, 2446, 2448, 3704, 3817, 3855, 3864, 3865.
(S 222) 1926, 2185, 2388, 2445-2446,
3711, 4735-4736.
(S 222) 2319-2324.
(S 222) 3812.
Appendix 200-201
(S 222) 3771, 3852, 4464.
(S 222) 2249-2250.
(H R 11668) 5730.
3723.
(S 222) 1871, 1928-1929, 2029-2030,
2122-2124, 2126, 2193, 2194, 2195, 2326-2328,
2329, 2386, 3747, 3771, 3820-3821.
(S 222) 2023-2026, 2180-2181, 2182,
3852-3853, 4464.
(S 222) 3851.
(S 222) 1987-1988.
(S 222) 2246, 4733.
(S 222) 2024-2026, 2180-2181, 2183,
2186-2191.
(S 222) 3851-3852, 4462.
Surveyor-General
Speech by Mr. Newlands on S. 222
Appendix 201.
Taxation (See also Poll Tax, Dog Tax, etc.) (S 222) 2182-2183, 3768, 4463, 4649,
4733.
Territorial Commissioner
(S 222) 3770.
Territories
Counties in
Laws enacted for
Part of the United States
Index 691.
(H R 1025) 57.
(H R 6870) 971.
(S 222) 2128-2133.
xviii
Index
Travel in Hawaiian Islands, regulation
5362-5363
Treasurer
Appropriations by
Postal savings
(S 222) 2241.
(S 222) 2316.
Trees
(S 222) 1927-1928.
United States, Hawaii a part of
United States District Court
(S 222) 2128-2133.
2195, 2392-2400, 2438-2442, 3771,
3859, 3965, 4358, 4465, 4733,
4734.
Appropriation by Congress for
Vessels, Hawaiian register for
(S 222) 1931-1934, 2124-2125, 2133,
5307.
(S 222) 2324-2326, 3860-3861, 4465,
4650.
Voting qualifications
Educational qualifications
Poll tax (See Poll Tax)
Registration
Y M C A, Property of
3722.
(S 222) 1112, 1870, 1920-1923, 2023-2024, 2026-2027, 2031-2032,
2184-2186, 2187-2188, 2190, 2193, 2195-2196, 22412245, 2387, 2449, 3705, 3708, 3709, 3747, 3767, 3771,
3773, 3854-3858, 4454, 4455, 4458-4460, 4460-4462,
4468, 4648-4649,4733.
(S 222) 3817, 3818.
(S 222) 3814-3816.
(S 222) 3965, 4358.
(S 222) 1919, 3802.
xix
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ACTION ON SENATE BILL 222 -
To Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii - 56th Congress, First Session.
December 6, 1899 - Introduced in the Senate by Mr. Cullom, read twice
by its title and laid on the table ( p . 89).
December 12, 1899 - Referred to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
(P. 233).
January 4, 1900
- Reported back with amendments (p. 6-43).
February 6, 1900
- Passed over ( p . 1559).
February 15, 1900
- Debated in Senate (p. 1836).
February 16, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 1869-1872).
February 19, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 1918-1934).
February 20, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 1979-1992).
February 21, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
( p . 2022-2033).
February 23, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 2122-2126, 2128-2133).
February 24, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
( p . 2179-2196).
February 26, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
( p . 2240-2257).
February 27, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 2316-2401).
February 28, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 2386-2401).
March 1, 1900 - Debated and amended in Senate Committee of the Whole
(p. 2438-2449).
March 1, 1900 - Reported to Senate as amended, read a third time and
passed ( p . 2449).
xx
Chronological Table of Action on S. 222 (Cont.)
March 2, 1900 - Read twice by its title and referred to House Committee on Territories ( p . 24-90).
March 7, 1900 - Reported back with amendment ( H . R. Report 549).
Referred to Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union (p. 2637).
March 10, 1900 - Made special order ( p . 2740).
April 2, 1900 - Debated and amended in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union ( p . 3702-3715).
April 4, 1900 - Debated and amended in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union ( p . 3763-3777).
April 5, 1900 - Debated and amended in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union ( p . 3800-3813, 3814-3822).
April 6, 1900 - Debated and amended in Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union ( p . 3851-3866).
April 6, 1900 - Reported to the House an amended, read a third time
and passed ( p . 3866).
April 7, 1900 - Laid on table in Senate with House amendment ( p . 3907).
April 10, 1900 - Senate nonconcurs in House amendment, requests conference (p. 3964-3965).
April 11, 1900 - House insists on its amendments and agrees on conference ( p . 4072).
April 18, 1900 - Conference report made in Senate and printed in
Record ( p . 4357-4358).
April 19, 1900 - Conference report debated in Senate ( p . 4409-4411). April 20, 1900 - Conference report debated in
Senate ( p . 4454-4470).
April 21, 1900 - Conference report rejected by Senate, disagreement
to House amendment insisted, and further conference requested ( p . 4508).
April 21, 1900 - House further insists upon its amendment and agrees to
a second conference ( p . 4528)
April 25, 1900 - Conference report made in Senate, debated and agreed
to ( p . 4648-4651).
April 26, 1900 - Conference report made in House, debated (p.4733-4737). April 27, 1900 - Conference report agreed to ( p .
4766-4767).
April 28, 1900 - Examined and signed by President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House ( p . 4800, 4806).
May 1, 1900
- Approved by the President (p. 4892).
xxi
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
December 5, 1899
House
v. 33 (1)
p. 57
December 6, 1899
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 89
December 6, 1899
Senate
v. 33(1)
p. 94
By Mr. Knox: Also, a bill (H. R. 1025)
prohibiting the legislatures of the Territories of the United States from creating
new counties by special act, and for other
purposes - to the Committee on the Territories.
Mr. CULLOM introduced a bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii; which was read twice by its
title.
Mr. CULLOM. I desire to have the bill referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, because it was formerly before that
committee and reported by it, and two of the commissioners who
were appointed to visit the Hawaiian Islands are members of the
Committee on Foreign Relations. I make this statement frankly. I should
like to have the bill referred to the same committee that considered it
heretofore.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I wish to have the reference of the bill
delayed for a while. Let it lie on the table for the present.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection, if the Senator from Connecticut
is anxious that that coarse shall be pursued.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill, at the request of the
Senator from Connecticut, and without objection, will lie on the table.
Mr. Perkins also introduced a bill (S.600)
to extend the laws regulating immigration
over the Hawaiian Islands ceded to the United
States; which was read twice by its title,
and referred to the Committee on Immigration.
December 6, 1899
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 96
Mr. Nelson introduced a bill (S. 729) to
extend the laws relating to commerce, navigation, and merchant seamen over the Hawaiian
Islands ceded to the United States.
December 8, 1899
House
v. 33 (1)
By Mr. McRAE: A bill (H.R. 2971) to extend the anti contractlabor laws of the United States to Hawaii—to the Committee on
the Territories.
p. 165
By Mr. HITT: A bill (H. R. 2972) to provide a government for
the Territory of Hawaii—to the Committee on the Territories.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
December 12, 1899
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 233
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. On a previous day of the session
I asked that the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, which was introduced by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], might lie on the table, and that action was
taken. I supposed at that time that the bill would more properly
be referred to a committee which might be appointed by the Senate; but I have no objection to its reference to the Committee on
Foreign Relations, as it came from that committee last year.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope that will be done, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill, having been read
twice, will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
December 16, 1899
House
v. 33 (1)
p. 556
December 18, 1899
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 559
By Mr. PAYNE: A bill (H. R. 4599) to extend the laws relating
to customs and internal revenue over the Hawaiian Islands ceded
to the United States—to the Committee on Ways and Means.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair presents resolutions
adopted at a public meeting in the Hawaiian Islands.
Mr. CHANDLER. I ask that they be read.
Mr. HALE rose.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolutions are very short.
Mr. HALE. How do the resolutions come before the Senate?
Are they in the form of a memorial?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. They are directed to the President pro tempore of the
Senate as a memorial to the Senate.
Mr. HALE. It is in the nature of a memorial?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. CHANDLER. It is in the nature of a petition, I understand. As it is brief, I ask
that it he read to the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Secretary will read the
resolutions.
The resolutions were read, and referred to the Committee on Pacific Islands and
Puerto Rico, as follows:
To the President of the United States Senate:
At a public meeting of the citizens of Honolulu, Hawaiian Inlands, held on July 4, 1899,
to celebrate the one hundred and twenty-third anniversary of the declaration of American
independence-, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted, viz:
Whereas under and by virtue of the joint resolution of annexation the Hawaiian Islands
have been annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and arc now subject to
the sovereign dominion thereof: and
Whereas the said resolution further provides that the municipal legislation of the
Hawaiian Islands not inconsistent therewith nor contrary to the Constitution of the United
States shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise
determine; and
Whereas by the failure of the last Congress of the United States to enact necessary
legislation at its late session much uncertainty exists as to the present status of the
Hawaiian Islands in their relation to the Government, Constitution, and laws of the
United States: and
Whereas this is deemed a fitting occasion for a public expression of opinion on the
matter: Now. therefore, it is
Resolved, That this assemblage earnestly and respectfully asks of President McKinley and his
advisers and the Congress of the United States to take such action as will cause the speedy
extension of American Territorial laws to Hawaii.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the United
States, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Signed on behalf of citizens as above.
GEORGE W. SMITH,
Chairman of Public Meeting.
B. HAY
WOOD WBIGHT,
Secretary. HONOLULU,
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, November 23, A. D. I899.
POLICY REGARDING NEW POSSESSIONS.
December 20, 1899
Senate
senate
v . 33 (1)
p. 601
Mr. MORGAN. I submit an amendment to Senate joint resolution No. 45, and ask that it be read and printed and laid on the
table.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Secretary will read the amendment.
The SECRETARY. Strike out all after the resolving clause in the
joint resolution (S. R. 45) declaring the purpose of the United States with reference to
the Philippine Islands, introduced by Mr. BACON on the 18th instant, and insert:
That in pursuance of section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution, the United States
will guarantee to the people of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippine Islands, and all
other States and peoples within its sovereign jurisdiction and control, a republican
form of government, and will protect them against invasion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama asks that the amendment
may be printed and lie on the table subject to his call. Is there objection? The Chair
hears none, and it is so ordered.
January 3, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 628
The President pro tempore. The chair
lays before the Senate a communication from
the Secretary of State, transmitting copies
of dispatches from the special agent of the
United States at Honolulu, inclosing reports of decisions of the supreme court of Hawaii in the
oases of Peacock & Co, vs. The Re-public of Hawaii, Lovejoy & Co. vs. The Republic of
Hawaii, The Republic of Hawaii vs. Edwards, and the Hawaiian Star Newspaper's Association
vs. Saylor; all relating to the application of the Constitution of the United States to the
Hawaiian Islands. The letter and accompanying papers will be referred to the Committee on
Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico. Without objection, the decisions of the court will be printed.
The reports accompanying the decisions will not be print-ed.
January 3, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 1 )
p. 630
Mr. Ross introduced a bill (S . 2000) regulating appointments to and removals from
civil offices in outlying dependencies of
the United States; which was read twice by
its title, and referred to the Committee to Examine the Several Branches of the Civil Service,
January 3, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 1 )
p. 630
Mr. McMillan introduced a bill (S. 2011)
to amend the act entitled "An Act to better
define and regulate the rights of aliens to
hold and own real estate in the Territories,"
approved March 2, 1897.
January 3, 1900
House
v. 33 ( 1 )
p. 636
Executive Communications, etc. A letter
from the Secretary of State, transmitting
copies of dispatches from the special agent
of the United States at Honolulu, inclosing
reports of decisions of the supreme court of
Hawaii in certain cases involving the
application of the Constitution of the United States to the Hawaiian Islands - to the Committee on
the Territories, and ordered to be printed with all inclosures.
January 3, 1900
House
V. 33 (1)
p. 638
January 4, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 1 )
p. 642
January 4, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 643
By Grosvenor - a bill ( H . R. 5065) to extend the laws relating to commerce, navigation, and merchant seamen over the Hawaii
Islands ceded to the United States - to the
Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Elkins, from Committee on Commerce, to
whom was referred the bill (S.729) to extend
the laws relating to commerce, navigation,
and merchant seamen over the Hawaiian Islands
ceded to the United States, reported it with-out
amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I am directed by the Committee on Foreign
Relations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 222) to provide a
government for the Territory of Hawaii, to report it with amendments.
I desire to give notice that at the very first opportunity I can
get I wish to call up the bill for consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be placed on the
Calendar.
January 4, 1900
House
v. 33 (1)
p. 659
By Mr. Babcock: A bill (H. R. 5297) to
amend the act entitled "An act to better
define and regulate the rights of aliens to
hold and own real estate in the Territories,"
approved March 2, 1897 - to the Committee on
the District of Columbia.
January 9, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 701
Mr. Fairbanks introduced a bill ( S . 2244)
to extend the immigration, contract-labor,
and Chinese exclusion laws of the United
States to the Hawaiian Islands; which was
read twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico.
LAND SYSTEM OF HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
January 10, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 735
Mr. MORGAN. I wish to ask for the printing of a document
prepared by the land agent of Hawaii, J. P. Brown, under the
supervision of the officials of the government of Hawaii, which
explains fully but still briefly the complicated land system of those
islands. I ask that it be printed and lie over, inasmuch as the bill
to which it relates is probably to be taken up very soon, and the
committee, I think, have had great difficulty in understanding this
question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request
of the Senator from Alabama? The Chair hears none, and it is so
ordered.
January 10, 1900
House
v. 33 (1)
p. 753
Mr. JENKINS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 5297) to
amend the act entitled "An act to better define and regulate the
rights of aliens to hold and own real estate in the Territories,"
approved March 2, 1897, reported the same with amendment,
accompanied by a report (No. 30); which said bill and report were
referred to the House Calendar.
January 12, 1900
House
v. 33 ( 1 )
p. 790
By Mr. Perea: also a bill ( H . R. 6053) to
amend an act entitled "An act to establish
circuit courts of appeals, and define and
regulate, in certain cases, the Jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States, and for other
purposes," approved March 3, 1891 - to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
January 15, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (1)
p. 801
Mr. Elkins also introduced a bill ( S . 2439)
to extend the laws relating to commerce,
navigation, and merchant seamen over the
Hawaiian Islands ceded to the United States;
which was read twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
January 18,
House
v. 33 (1)
1900
By Mr. Graham: A bill ( H . R. 6870) to
extend laws enacted by Congress for the
Territories to our new islands - to the
p. 971
Committee on Insular Affairs.
January 20, 1900
Executive Communications, etc. A letter
House
from the Secretary of the Navy, recommending
v. 33 ( 2 )
the transfer of the appropriation for the
p. 1021
improvement of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to the
Jurisdiction of the Navy Department - to the Committee on Military Affairs, and ordered
to be printed.
January 22, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1023
The President pro tempore laid before the
Senate a communication from the Secretary of
the Navy, transmitting information relative
to the appropriation of $100,000 for improving Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in accordance
with the report submitted by Rear-Admiral
Walker, United States Navy, June 11, 1894,
and suggesting the desirability of transferring that appropriation to the jurisdiction
of the Navy Department; which was referred
to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered
to be printed.
January 23, 1900
House
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1106
By Mr. Knox: A bill ( H . R. 7091) relating
to Hawaiian silver coinage and silver certificates - to the Committee on the Territories.
GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII.
January 24, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1112
Mr. PLAIT of Connecticut. I give notice of an amendment
which I propose to offer to the bill (S. 222) to provide a governfor the Territory of Hawaii. I ask that it maybe read,
printed , and. as the bill has been reported, lie on the table.
The amendment was read, and ordered to lie on the table, and
To be printed, as follows:
Strike out section 95 and insert in lieu thereof as follows:
" That until further legislation by Congress the existing customs relations of the
Hawaiian Islands w i t h the United States shall remain unchanged."
Also strike out the following:
"Sec. 87. That a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to
serve during each Congress, shall be elected by the voters qualified to vote for
members of the house of representatives of the legislature. The times, places, and
manner of holding elections shall be as fixed by law. The person having the greatest
number of votes shall be declared by the governor duly elected, and a certificate shall
be given accordingly."
January 25, 1900
Senate
y. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1154
Mr. Frye (Mr. Kean in the chair), from the
Committee on Commerce, to whom the subject was
referred, reported a bill ( S . 2708) to amend
an act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for
other purposes, approved March 3, 1899; which
was read twice by its title.
January 29, 1900
Mr. Clark of Wyoming introduced a joint
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1250
resolution ( S . R. 76) withdrawing certain
lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, from the
public domain; which was read twice by its
title, and referred to the Committee on Public
Lands
AMENDMENTS TO BILLS.
January 31, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1327
Mr. WARREN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 222) to provide government for the
Territory of Hawaii; which was ordered to lie on the table and
be printed.
LANDS ON TUB ISLAND OF OAHU, HAWAII.
February 5, 1900
Senate
V. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1487-1488
1488
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I am directed by the Committee on
Public Lands, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R.
76) withdrawing certain lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii,
from the public domain, to report it favorably, and I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be
read for information.
The Secretary read the joint resolution.
Mr. FORAKER. I understand that a joint resolution in regard to certain lands on the island of
Oahu, Hawaii, has been reported from the Committee on Public Lands. I was not aware there was
any such resolution pending before the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is a report from the Commit-tee on Public Lands.
Mr. FORAKER. When was that joint resolution introduced?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It was introduced something like a week ago, when it was
referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and it has been unanimously reported from
that committee. It is with reference to the withdrawal from the public lands of the royal
mausoleum, containing something like 120,000 square feet in the outskirts of Honolulu.
Mr. FORAKER. I must certainly have been absent from the Senate when that joint
resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Public Lands. As chairman of the
Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico,. I shall insist that all matters affecting those
islands shall be referred to the committee having control of that subject.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Certainly the Senator from Ohio will see the justice of having
referred this matter to the Commit-tee on Public Lands, when by resolution and a proclamation
of the President the public lands of Hawaii have been taken over to the United States. It seems to
me that there is but one commit-tee to which that joint resolution and that subject should
have gone. It certainly was not such a reference of the joint resolution as could properly have
been objected to, I think.
Mr. FORAKER. It may be as the Senator from Wyoming says; I have no doubt it is; but I did
not happen to be present when the joint resolution was introduced and was not aware that any
such resolution had been introduced or any such reference had been made.
I only want to say, as chairman of that committee, that every-thing affecting those islands the
Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico will feel inclined to claim should be referred to
it. If everything affecting the public lands in those islands is to go to the Committee on
Public Lands, if everything referring to finance is to go to the Finance Committee, and
everything refer-ring to navigation is .to go to the Committee on Commerce, we might as well
dispense with the Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico. We shall claim the reference
of everything of this character, in the first instance, to that committee.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I had no thought of discourtesy to the Senator or to the Committee
on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico.
Mr. FORAKER. I am sure of that. I am not disposed to make any question on this joint
resolution; but, as I have already said.
I want to serve notice that our committee will make claim to everything connected with those islands in the way of legislation that
may be brought before the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present
Consideration of the joint resolution.
Mr. ALLEN. I object. I think morning business ought to be
transacted before anything else is taken up.
GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.
February 6, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (2)
The bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of
Hawaii was announced as next in order.
Mr. COCKRELL. Let that be passed over. There is no need
p. 1599
of wasting time in debating that now.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.
LANDS ON OAHU ISLAND, HAWAII.
February 8, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1648
1648
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Some days ago I asked unanimous
consent for the present consideration of the joint resolution (S.R.
76) withdrawing certain lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, from
the public domain, which I then reported from the Committee on
Public Lands. I see that both of the Senators who had some
questions about it on that day are present to-day, and I again ask
for its present consideration. I deem it a matter of sufficient importance to make the request.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming asks unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the joint resolution indicated by him. Is there objection?
There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider
the joint resolution.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution has heretofore been read.
Mr. SPOONER. I should like to ask the Senator to explain in a word, if he can, what the
object of the bill is?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is simply this: There is a tract of probably a hundred and
twenty thousand square feet of land in the suburbs of Honolulu which has been for many
years dedicated to the purposes of a royal mausoleum. It has upon it buildings built by the
Hawaiian government, and the people there are very solicitous lest it shall become a part of
the public domain of the" United States and either be divided up or let out for show
purposes. It may be a mere sentiment on their part, but they are very solicitous about it, and
on my visit to the island I was asked to take up the matter—and I do so in this manner—to
withdraw it from the public domain.
Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Wisconsin asked one of the questions I wanted to ask.
There is another he did not ask, and it is one which has not yet been answered. There are
about 120,000 square feet. Can the Senator tell us whether it is all occupied or all in use?
That is a considerable tract of ground for the royal family alone to have for burial purposes.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is not so very large when you come to consider the dimensions. I
think perhaps it is 250 feet on the street, extending backward so as to contain in all about
120,000 feet. There are upon that ground one or two buildings, one a building for the
caretaker of the grounds, the other a mausoleum, a Gothic building of stone, and one or two
subterranean vaults. The land is all needed for the purpose for which it has been re-served,
and is all properly cared for and set out in walks, with trees, etc.
Mr. COCKRELL. What is the depth of it?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator's arithmetic will tell him. I should say it is 250 feet
in front. The dimensions are all given in the joint resolution. That would make it——
Mr. COCKRELL. I did not hear the joint resolution read. In fact, it has not been read today.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There are 120,000 square feet, and I think it is not more than 250 feet
in front, extending back——
Mr. COCKRELL. Is there anything more than a reasonable space around the
mausoleum and the buildings?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. 1 think it is only a reasonable space.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to inquire what was the condition of the title
before the annexation of the islands by Congress?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It was public land.
Mr. FORAKER. Was not this a part of the Crown land?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. No; it was a part of the public land.
Mr. FORAKER. It was part of the land set aside originally for the government.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. For the government.
Mr. FORAKER. I understand that originally the public do-main was divided into three
classes.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Three classes—the government one-third, the Crown one-third, and
individuals one-third.
Mr. FORAKER. One-third for the government, one-third for the Crown, and one-third for
the people.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. This belonged to the public lands, and was taken over by our
Government the same as the Crown lands.
Mr. GALLINGER. There is one matter which troubles me, and probably the Senator from
Wyoming can readily explain it.
This relates to a mausoleum for the-royal family of Hawaii, and
the bill provides that the land "shall * * * be forever reserved for the purpose to which the said lands have been heretofore dedicated." I presume we are not going to have a royal
family of Hawaii continued in that possession which now
Belongs to the United States?
Mr. SPOONER, The Senator from New Hampshire would not be unwilling to allow those who
are of the royal family to be buried where their kindred are buried?
Mr. GALLINGER. Certainly not; but they would hardly want 25 or 30 acres for that purpose.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Oh, there are probably not over 5 or 6 acres.
Mr. GALLINGER. I have not figured it out.
Mr. TELLER. There are about 2 1/2 acres.
Mr. COCKRELL. Why make a dedication of it now? I move to strike out all that part of the bill
which dedicates it.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. There is no part at all that dedicates it. The land is simply
withdrawn from the public domain, so that a constituent of the Senator from Missouri or a
constituent of mine from Wyoming can not go in and file on it for a home-stead whenever the
public-land laws are extended over it.
Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator from Wyoming if this land was not dedicated by
the existing government for that purpose?
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Nothing has ever been done by the existing government in regard to
it. I will say to the Senator that it has been kept up by private enterprise.
Mr. TELLER. There are less than 2 1/2 acres, as I understand from the statement;
somewhere in that neighborhood.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The Senator from New Hampshire is figuring it out.
Mr. TELLER. It is less than 3 acres, anyway.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is very small, but it is one of those matters of sentiment which
I think ought to prevail.
Mr. TELLER. There are less than 3 acres.
Mr. GALLINGER. That is right.
Mr. COCKRELL. I have no objection to reserving the land from sale, but I object to dedicating
it and keeping a guard at the tomb.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The bill does not do that.
Mr. TELLER. Does this bill do any more than allow the President to withdraw the land? .
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. The bill simply withdraws the land from public sale under the land
laws.
Mr. SPOONER. It does provide for withdrawing the land for-ever.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Yes, sir.
Mr. FORAKER. Let the joint resolution be reported.
Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be again read.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be read.
The Secretary proceeded to read the joint resolution.
Mr. FORAKER. Pass over the description.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I will say to the Senator from Ohio that this description is taken from
the official records.
Mr. FORAKER. We assume that it is right.
The Secretary read as follows:
Area, 119,610 square feet, be withdrawn from sale, lease, or other disposition under the public-land laws of the
United States, and that said lauds shall, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may from
time to time prescribe, be forever reserved for the purpose to which the said lands have been heretofore
dedicated and for which they have been hereto-fore used.
Mr. FORAKER. Is it sufficient to answer the purpose of the Senator to simply withdraw
the land from sale or lease?
Mr. CULLOM. Strike out the word " forever."
Mr. COCKRELL. In pursuance of that suggestion, I move to strike out, in line 15. all after
the words " United States;" so that the land will be " withdrawn from sale, lease, or other
disposition under the public-land laws of the United States."
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I do not think the portion proposed to be stricken out is material. I
am satisfied with that amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri will
be stated.
The SECRETARY. In line 15 it is proposed to strike out:
1649
February 12, 1900
Senate
v. 33 ( 2 )
And that said lands shall, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may from time to
time prescribe, be forever reserved
for the purpose to which the said lands have been heretofore dedicated and
for which they hare been heretofore used.
The amendment was agreed to.
The joint resolution was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred
in.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
The bill ( S . 2708) to amend an act making
appropriations for the construction, repair,
and preservation of certain public works on
p. 1711
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes,
approved March 3, 1899, was considered as in
Committee of the Whole. It proposes to amend section
1 of the act by adding at the end of the paragraph
making an appropriation for the improvement of Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, the following languages .
To be expended under the direction of the
Secretary of the Navy.
The bill was reported to the Senate without
amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, read the third time, and passed.
February 12, 1900
House
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1727
Senate Bills & Resolutions Referred - S. R.
76. Joint Resolution withdrawing certain
lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, from
the public domain - to the Committee on the
Territories.
February 12, 1900
House
v. 33 (2)
p. 1739
Mr. KNOX, from the .Committee on the Territories, to which
was referred the bill of the House (H. B. 2972) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, reported the same with
amendment, accompanied by a report (No. 305); which said bill
and report were referred to the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union.
February 12, 1900
House
y. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1740
By Mr. Wilson of Arizona: A bill ( H . R. 8355)
to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an
act to prohibit the passage of local or special
laws in the Territories, to limit Territorial
indebtedness," and so forth - to the Committee
on the Territories.
February 15, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1836
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
Several SENATORS. Oh, no.
Mr. WOLCOTT. I withdraw the motion for the present. Mr.
Mr. CHANDLER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of
executive business. Mr. CULLOM. My motion is pending.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of a bill the title of which will be stated.
The SECRETARY. A bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of
Hawaii.
Mr. CHANDLER. Pending which motion, I move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of executive business.
Mr. THURSTON. Will the Senator yield to me for morning business?
Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Senator from New Hampshire will withdraw his
motion until the Hawaiian bill can be placed before the Senate.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
1836
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, it seems to me it is not worth
while at this late hour, after a somewhat tedious day, to undertake to determine now what business the Senate will proceed to
take up to-morrow.
Mr. CULLOM. There is a full Senate present.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from New
Hampshire, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. CULLOM. I ask that the vote may now be taken on the question of proceeding to the
consideration of the Hawaiian bill, the title of which has been road.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Illinois, that
the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill named by him.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the
consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
February 16, 1900
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1869-1872
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURROWS in the chair). The
Calendar under Rule VIII is in order.
Mr. CULLOM. It is within a few minutes of 2 o'clock. As the
preliminary work on the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for
the Territory of Hawaii will be its reading, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to its consideration now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from
Illinois?
Mr. PETTUS. I should like to have it written down. I did not hear what it is.
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator from Alabama refer to the bill which I propose to
call up? If he did not hear the announcement, I will make it again.
Mr. PETTUS. I did not hear a word you said.
Mr. CULLOM. I am very sorry; it was my fault, I presume. As it is within a few
minutes of 2 o'clock. I ask that the Senate now, by unanimous consent, proceed to the
consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. HALE. It will come up at 2 o'clock anyway.
Mr. CULLOM. It will come up at 2 o'clock as the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from
Illinois?
Mr. PETTUS. I do not object, but I am a little afraid of general consents that I do not
hear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and the bill will be
proceeded with.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 222) to
provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, which had been reported from the
Committee on Foreign Relations with amendments.
Mr. CULLOM. In the reading of the bill by the clerks, I will ask that the few
amendments which are reported by the commit-tee may be considered and acted upon as
they are reached, if that course is agreeable to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the bill, and if there be no
objection the amendments of the committee will be acted upon as they are reached.
The Secretary proceeded to read the bill. The first amendment reported by the Committee
on Foreign Relations was, in section 1, page 1, line 9, after the word "force," to insert "on
the 12th day of August, 1898;" so as to read:
That the phrase " the laws of Hawaii," as used in this act without qualify-in g words, snail
mean the constitution and laws of the republic of Hawaii, including regulations having the effect
of law and the decisions of the supreme court in force on the 12th day of August, 1898.
immediately prior to the transfer of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States
of America.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, in section 5, page 3, line 23, after the word "That," to insert
"except as herein otherwise provided;" and on page 3, line 2, after the word
"applicable," to strike out "except as herein otherwise provided;" BO as to make the section
read:
That, except as herein otherwise provided, the Constitution, and all the laws of the United
States locally applicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as
elsewhere in the United States: Provided, That sections 1850 and 1880 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. CULLOM. There seems to have been a word left out. The word
''applicable" ought to be "inapplicable." The word "not'' should be inserted
between
the words " States," in the first line of page 3, and "locally," and then "inapplicable"
instead of "applicable " in the second line; so as to read:
The Constitution and all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the
same force, etc.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment as amended was agreed to.
The reading of the bill was continued to line 5 on page 8.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I find myself compelled to be absent during the reading of
the remainder of the bill and 1 wish to have some little understanding about it. I see that
the amendments are being voted upon as we go along. Some of them might
1870
meet my approbation and some might not. I should like to know whether it is intended to go farther to-day than the reading of
the bill and the amendments which the committee proposed. I suppose that after that the whole matter will be open to
amendment and that the amendments which have been voted on will, when the bill comes into the Senate, be still open to
consideration.
Mr. CULLOM. I understand that Senators are a little anxious for a tolerably early adjournment to-day on account of some
matters, and I did not suppose that I would be able to get the Senate to consider the bill much beyond the reading and
adoption of the amendments of the committee, and then some little amendments that I desire to offer myself in behalf of the
committee, that will not be disputed, I think. They are rather corrections of the chapter that has just been read; that is to say,
putting in the word "inclusive" in certain places where it ought to be inserted in order to make sure just what is meant.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I simply wish to know that the bill will not pass to-day and will be open to amendment
hereafter.
Mr. TELLER. Oh, it is not likely to pass to-day.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. There are some matters, as we come along in the bill, which, it seems to me, should receive
more careful attention than has been given. This may all be premature, but, for instance. I find that we have repealed the law
with regard to other Territories, requiring them to submit their laws to Congress.
Mr. HALE. Not in this bill?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Yes; we have, in this bill.
Mr. HALE. That can not be.
Mr. TELLER. It would be the case if the bill passes in that shape. It is section 1850.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. We have already passed the proviso that section 1850 shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to make an inquiry?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. I should like to inquire whether this bill is on its passage. I understood that it was. simply the formal
reading of the bill.
Mr. CULLOM. That is all at this time.
Mr. TELLER. I have several amendments that I propose to offer.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It was agreed that the com-mittee amendments should be acted upon as they are reached
in the reading of the bill.
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The bill will be open for action by the Senate.
Mr. TELLER. I should like to know what are the committee amendments. This is a Senate bill?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. What are the committee amendments that we are to consider at this time? Are any amendments to be
considered that did not come from the committee?
Mr. MORGAN. All the amendments of the committee are printed in italics.
Mr. CULLOM. The committee itself reported some amend-ments when they brought the bill back.
Mr. TELLER. There are no committee amendments except what the bill contains.
Mr. CULLOM. No, except——
Mr. TELLER. Then that is all right.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. There are other amendments, I understand, from the committee besides those which are
printed in the bill.
Mr. CULLOM. I have stated that in the chapter which the Secretary has just been reading a number of sections have repealed the local laws, and there are places——
Mr. HALE. The local laws of Hawaii?
Mr. TELLER. The Hawaiian laws.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, the Hawaiian laws. And there are sections cited here where the word "inclusive" ought to be inserted
between certain numbers, and that I thought could be done this afternoon.
Mr. TELLER. Oh, there is no objection to that.
Mr. CULLOM. There is nothing in those amendments except to make that change.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If we are going no further than that, the whole matter will be open another day. That is all I
desire.
Mr. CULLOM. I wish to say that I am very anxious to get this bill passed us quickly as we can, and yet I do not desire to
interfere with our friends on the other side this afternoon, who I understand wish to have a conference of their own.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to say a word to the Senator who has the bill in charge. I do not want to delay the passage of the bill,
but there are some provisions in it that I am going to suggest some changes in.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator will have ample opportunity to move to amend the bill.
Mr. TELLER. I have had some experience in living under Territorial law, and there are some things in the bill that I do not
think ought to be enacted.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator will have an opportunity to propose the changes he desires to have made.
Mr. TELLER. If the Senator is not going to railroad it through there will be time to examine it.
Mr. CULLOM. I am not seeking any special haste about it be-yond what is reasonable in the premises, and I have not manifested any such disposition.
Mr. TELLER. No.
Mr. FORAKER. The understanding is simply that the bill shall be read and the amendments, as they appear in print before
us, shall be acted upon as reached. That is as far as we shall get this afternoon.
Mr. CULLOM. I apprehend that by the time we get the bill read and the few amendments are acted upon which were made
in the committee before the bill was reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, it will be about the time When I had agreed,
so far as I was concerned, to allow the Senate to adjourn.
Mr. WARREN. I desire to offer an amendment to the pending bill. I wish to offer it at this time, so that it may be printed
and we may have printed copies at the earliest moment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be received and go to the table.
Mr. FORAKER. Let it be read, so that we may know now what it is!
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed amendment will be read.
The SECRETARY. Insert, on page 25, after the word "language," in line 2, the following proviso:
Provided, however. That the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii may at any time after January 1,1'.USS, submit to the lawfully qualified voters of
such Territory such changes and modifications in the qualifications for electors as they shall see fit. and the same being adopted by a majority vote,
taken in the mode prescribed by the legislature, shall be valid and binding as law.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be printed. The Secretary will proceed with the reading of the bill.
The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment was, in section 14, page 9, line 14, after the word "
November," to strikeout "1899" and insert "1900;'' so as to make the section read:
That a general election shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, 1900, and every second year thereafter.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, in section 17, page 10, line 7, after the name "Hawaii," to strike out "including notaries public and
agents to take acknowledgments;" so as to make the section read:
SEC. 17. That no person holding office in or under or by authority of the Government of the United States or of the Territory of Hawaii shall be
eligible to election to the legislature or to hold the position of a member of the same while holding said office.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, in section 18, on page 10, line 25, after the words "convicted of," to strike out "larceny, bribery,
gross-cheat, or of;" and on page 11, line 8, after the word " exceeding," to strike out "two years" and insert "one year;" so as
to read:
No idiot or insane person, and no person who shall be expelled from the legislature for giving or receiving bribes or being accessory thereto,
and no person who, in due coarse of law, shall bare been convicted of any criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, whether with or without
hard labor, for a term exceeding one year, whether with or without fine, shall register to vote or shall vote or hold any office in or under or by
authority of the government, unless the person so convicted shall have been pardoned and restored to his civil rights.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, in section 42, on page 17, line 22, after the word "other," to insert "house," so as to make the
section read:
SEC. 42. That neither house shall adjourn daring any session for more than three
days, or sine die, without the consent of the other house.
The amendment was agreed to.
The reading of the bill was continued to the end of section 62, on page 25, prescribing the " Qualifications of voters for
senators."
Mr. MONEY. Would it be in order to make an inquiry for in-formation about the qualifications of voters for senators, I ask
the Senator who reported the bill?
Mr. CULLOM. I will state to the Senator that there is an understanding that nothing shall be done to -day except formally
reading the bill and acting upon the amendments reported by the committee.
Mr. MONEY. Very well. I was not aware of that.
The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the Committee on Foreign Relations was, in section 73, on
page 82, line 4, relative to the "Commissioner of public lands," after the word "Provided," to insert:
That all sales, grants, leases, and other disposition of the public domain and agreements concerning the same, and all franchises granted by the
Hawaiian Government in conformity with the laws of Hawaii prior to the 11th day of September, 1899, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The reading of the bill was continued to the end of section 75, on page 33, relative to the " Investigation of land laws."
1871
Mr. HANSBROUGH. I desire to ask the Senator from Illinois in charge of the bill if he does not think it would be more appropriate to place the charge
of the public lands in Hawaii under the Secretary of the Interior, rather than the Secretary of Agriculture?
Mr. CULLOM. One or two Senators have made inquiries regarding the provisions of the bill, but I will say to the Senator there was an
understanding that the bill should only be read this afternoon and the amendments of the committee acted upon. I should prefer to defer any
explanation of the provisions of the bill until the reading shall have been completed and the Senate is more fully attended than it is at the present time.
Mr. HANSBKOUGH. I just came into the Chamber, and -was not aware that such an arrangement had been made.
The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the Committee on Foreign Relations was, in section 81, page 36, line 18, after the word
"office," to strike out "during good behavior" and insert " for a term of nine years;" so as to read:
All such officers shall hold office for four years and until their successors are appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed, except the chief justice and justices
of the supreme court, who shall hold office for a term of nine years, and the judges of the circuit courts, whose terms of office shall be six years, and except the
commissioners of public instruction and the members of said boards, whose terms of office shall be as provided by the laws of the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I ask that the amendment may be passed over. This whole section proposes to introduce into a Territory which we are creating
an entirely new system of appointment of judges and some other officers.
Mr. CULLOM. This is only the reading of the section. It is not being adopted.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I want this amendment to be passed over, because I do not want it even adopted now.
Mr. CULLOM. Very well.
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. What page is it?
Mr. CULLOM. Page 36.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Page 30, line 18.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Section 81, to which I refer, commences on page 35.
Mr. President, we are giving to this new Territory of ours powers and privileges which we have given to no other Territory that has ever been organized in the
United States.
In every Territory that has been organized we have reserved to the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the appointment of
judicial officers—judges, marshals, and other officers of that character. Here we commit it entirely to the governor of the Territory. If this section passes,
neither the President of the United States nor the Senate can have anything to say about who shall be judges in that Territory.
Now, one single thing more. We have provided that the judges of all our legislative courts should have a tenure of office of four years only. This bill not
only takes entirely away from the President and the Senate the power of appointment of the chief justice and justices of the supreme court, but it continues
in office by legislation the chief justice and justices of the supreme court for a term of nine years. We never had a Territory of the United States where
judges had a tenure of office longer than four years. I merely speak of it now. I should like this amendment to be passed over. I do not want to go into the
matter at length at this time.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I merely wish to say a word, inasmuch as the Senator from Connecticut is disposed to discuss the bill as we go along,
which I have tried to avoid as we are only having it read now.
The commission which was sent to Hawaii found there a very good civil government. Of course there were many things not entirely satisfactory and
which we propose to change, but the commission desired to recognize the situation as it was and, so far as we could, consistently with the interests of the
United States, allow conditions to remain there that were not entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the Government of the United States at home. We
found a supreme court there, not to administer United States statutes, but to administer the laws of the Territory, which is preserved in the bill and which is
in harmony, as we thought, with the general principles and interests of the Government of the United States as well as of that Territory.
The plan of the bill is to retain the legislature, the system of local courts, purely to administer Territorial statutes, and to provide a United States judge
to administer the United States laws. The .commission believe that the wisest course for us to pursue is to retain in force the laws, so far as they are
consistent with our ideas of government, and the courts to administer them; and we found there a life tenure of judicial officers. The Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate thought perhaps that that was not exactly the right thing to do, and so we limit the terms of the judges of the supreme court
to nine years and of the circuit judges of that Territory to six years.
We believe there is no occasion for changing everything there simply because we can and because in the Territories here In our own country we have United
States judges to administer Territorial statutes as well as United States statutes. We believe it is wise to allow the judges of the local courts there to have
entire control and jurisdiction over the local statutes of the Territory and a United States judge to administer the United States laws. I do not know
whether in any of our States there is a life tenure. I do not remember any; but there are in different States different laws controlling the terms and
qualifications of the officers. I believe myself that while it is a little different from what we have in New Mexico or Arizona, yet it is more beneficial to
recognize the situation there as nearly as we can rather than tear up the whole system of their local government and create it anew.
As the Senator from Connecticut knows, the United States judges here, who are appointed to go to the Territories, in performing their duties there
administer the local laws of the Territories as well as the United States statutes generally. But as to Hawaii, it seemed to the commission that we ought
to adopt the plan they have there, supplementing it with a provision for a United States judge. The plan is to constitute the different islands into a Territory
and have a judge administer United States laws, pure and simple, and officers to execute and administer them. That is all I want to say now. I did not
care to discuss the matter at all.
Mr. FORAKER. Would it not be better to allow the amendment to be passed over, as the Senator from Connecticut suggested, until we can take up
together all the points that are objected to. We may in that way be able to conclude the reading of the bill this afternoon.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Connecticut insisted upon discussing it, and I was trying to answer him a little.
Mr. FORAKER. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to say that he did not care to discuss the matter now. He merely wanted to call attention to
the point and to have the amendment passed over.
Mr. CULLOM. He has been discussing it.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I was giving reasons why I thought the amendment should be passed over.
Mr. FORAKER. That was all.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the Senator from Illinois thought I was really discussing the matter, I will try to enlighten him hereafter as to why I
think no such provision as he has in section 81 should be adopted.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Shall the amendment be passed over?
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to its being passed over, and had not in the first place.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be passed over.
The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment was, in section 85, page 39, line 1, after the word "have," to strike out the words '' either directly or
through such relative;" so as to make the section read:
SEC. 85. That no person shall sit as a judge or juror in any case in which his relative by affinity or by consanguinity within the third degree is Interested, either
as a plaintiff or defendant, or in the issue of which the said judge or juror may have any pecuniary interest. No judge shall sit on an appeal or new trial in any case In
which he may have given a previous judgment.
The amendment was agree* to.
The next amendment was, in section 94, page 43, line 11, after the word "dollars," to insert "United States district judge, $5,000;" and in line 18,
after the word "dollars," to insert "annually;" so as to make the section read:
SEC. 94. That the following officers shall receive the following annual salaries, to be paid by the United States: The governor, $5,000; the secretary
of the Territory, $3,000: United States district judge, $5,001); the United States marshal, $2,000; the United States district attorney, $2,000. And the
governor shall receive annually, in addition to his salary, the sum of $500 for stationery, postage, and incidentals; also his traveling expenses while
absent from the capital on official business, and the sum of $2,001) annually for his private secretary.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was, in the last paragraph of section 98, page 45, line 10, after the word " the," to strike out " governor " and insert "attorney-general;"
inline 11, after the word "Hawaii," to strike out "may" and insert "shall;" in line 13, after the word " in," to strike out "a" and insert "such;" and in the
same line, before the word "provided," to insert "as may be;" so as to make the paragraph read:
That if such fishing right be established, the attorney-general of the Territory of Hawaii shall proceed, in such manner as may be provided by law for the
condemnation of property for public use, to condemn such private "right of fishing to the use of the citizens of the United States upon making just compensation,
which compensation, when lawfully ascertained, shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury of the Territory of Hawaii not otherwise appropriated.
The amendment was agreed to.
The reading of the bill was concluded.
Mr. CULLOM. I desire, in behalf of the committee, to move to strike out sections 104 and 105 and to insert in lieu of those sections:
SEC. 104 That this act shall take effect sixty days on and after the date of the approval thereof.
The adoption of this amendment I will state is very important.
Mr. PETTUS. Is not the phrase "on and after the date" mis1872
leading?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is wrong. If the Senator
from Illinois will look at it he will see that it is wrong.
Mr. CULLOM. I took it out of the House print. Let it read "from and after its
passage."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the amendment as
modified.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed to strike oat sections 104 and 103, in the following words:
SEC. 104. That the legislature of the Republic of Hawaii may enact laws not
inconsistent with the foregoing provisions prior to the taking effect thereof.
SEC. 105. That this act shall take effect on the 4th day of July, 1900, except section
104 hereof, which shall take effect immediately after the approval of this net.
And in lieu thereof to insert:
SEC. 104. That this act shall take effect sixty days from and after the date of
the approval thereof.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. I believe it was understood that on the completion of the reading of
the bill there would be an adjournment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator gave notice that he wished to insert the
word "exclusive" in two or three places.
Mr. CULLOM. There are quite a number of those places, and as I think Senators are a
little anxious that the Senate shall now adjourn, I will defer that for a future day. I
move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to: and (at 3 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.) the Senate
adjourned until Monday, February 19,1900, at 12 o'clock meridian.
February 17, 1900
House
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1893
Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, Senate bills
of the following titles were taken from the
Speaker's table and referred to their appropriate committees as indicated below:
S. 2708. An Act to amend an act making appropriations
for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain
public works on rivers and harbors, and for other
purposes, approved March 3, 1899 - to the Committee on
Military Affairs.
TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
February 19
Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1918-1934
1900
Mr. CULLOM. It is so nearly 2 o'clock that in the absence of
anything else apparently that is ready for consideration, I will call
up Senate bill No. 222, to provide a government for the Territory
of Hawaii.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.
Mr. CULLOM. I ask leave to make a few formal amendments to the bill which I did
not have made on last Friday. I ask that they be made now. These are simply to connect
the statutes which are repealed.
On page 3, line 31, after the words "sections thirty to thirty-three," I move to
insert "inclusive." .
On page 4, line 1, after the words "sections one hundred and fifty to one hundred
and fifty-six," I move to insert " inclusive."
On page 5, line 4, after the words "eleven hundred and seventy-eight," I move to insert
"inclusive."
On the same page, line 8, after the words "thirteen hundred and fifty-four," I
move to insert " inclusive."
On the same page, line 9, after the words " fifteen hundred and fourteen," I move to
insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 15, after the words "seventeen hundred and fifty-eight,'' I move
to insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 17, after the words " eighteen hundred and thirty-two," I
move to insert " inclusive."
On the same page, line 19, after the words " sixty-seven," I move to insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 21, after the words " three hundred and seventy-one," I move
to strike out "to" and insert " and."
On the same page, line 23, after the words "four hundred and thirteen," I move to
insert " inclusive."
1918
On page 6, line 1, after the words "six hundred and five," I
move to insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 6, after the words " seven hundred and fifty-five," I move
to insert ''inclusive."
On the same page, line 7, after the words " eight hundred and nine," I move to
insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 10, after the words "eight hundred and fifteen," I move to
insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 12, after the words " nine hundred and six," I move to
insert ''inclusive."
On the same page, line 15, after the words "eleven hundred and seventy-nine," I
move to insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 16, after the words, " twelve hundred and nine," I move to
insert "inclusive."
On the same page, line 17, after the word " seventy-six," I move to insert
"inclusive."
These amendments are simply to make certain the chapters or sections that are
to be repealed. The amendments were agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I did not intend, when this bill was
last before the Senate, to make any remarks at all, except as they might be called
forth in the consideration of the different sections of the bill. But since that
time 1 have concluded that perhaps I ought to say a few words in a general way in
reference to the measure as a sort of introduction to the consideration of the bill
itself. It is perhaps expected that some member of the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate should say some-thing, in advance of its consideration by
the Senate generally, about the bill reported to the Senate and which is now
before this body; and as the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN]
and myself were on the commission appointed by the President to recommend to
Congress such legislation concerning the Hawaiian Islands as the commission
should deem necessary or proper, it is perhaps expected of us especially to explain
the bill.
Going back to a period beyond the passage of the joint resolution annexing the
islands, it might be well to say that the joint resolution recited the language in part
of the treaty of annexation concluded at Washington on the 16th of June, 1897,
where the preamble to the resolution states that the Republic of Hawaii ceded
absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of
sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their
dependencies, and also ceded and transferred to the United States the absolute fee
and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands, public buildings,
harbors, etc.
I desire to say that the language used in the joint resolution was the same
language substantially as that used in the treaty which was ratified by the
Hawaiian government, but finally not ratified by the Senate of the United States;
but the joint resolution was taken up and passed in place of the treaty; so that
when the joint resolution in its whereas recites what the Hawaiian government did, it
relates to the treaty which had been ratified by the Hawaiian government.
1919
The joint resolution declared also that said cession is accepted,
this country. Hence the bill under consideration recognizes the
ratified, and confirmed and that the islands and their dependencies
existence of their system of courts, recognizes their legislature,
are annexed as part of the territory of the United States and sub- and provides for many local offices for administering the laws of
ject to the sovereign dominion of the United States. The joint
the Territory.
resolution of annexation also provided that the laws of the United
The commission also made a pretty thorough examination of the
States relative -to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the
laws then in force, and, in view of the change from an independent
Hawaiian Islands, but that the Congress of the United States
government to a Territorial government of the United States, proshould enact special laws for their management and disposition,
pose to repeal in the bill before us such laws as we found in their
and that all revenue from or proceeds of the same should be used
statutes would necessarily have to be repealed either by their leg-
solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands
islature or by the Congress of the United States; so that in the
for educational and other public purposes.
work which the commission performed the laws to be left in force,
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President——
if the bill should pass, are embodied as an appendix to the report
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PERKINS in the chair). Does
itself made to the President and laid before Congress,
the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. President, I know it will be said that these laws referred to
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
To be repealed and laws referred to to be continued are unknown as to
Mr. LINDSAY. With the Senator's consent, I will ask him
exactly what they are by the Senate or by Congress or by any body
whether the provisions of the joint resolution of the two Houses of
else outside, unless they have looked into them. But the laws to
the American Congress were ever ratified or accepted by any legbe retained are in a volume connected with the report, and the
islative action on the part of the government of Hawaii?
subject wag thoroughly investigated by the commission, having
Mr. MORGAN. They were.
on it two gentlemen, President Dole, of the republic, and Judge
Mr. CULLOM, I think they did accept it.
Frear, of the supreme court, both of them very familiar with the
Mr. MORGAN. Yes.
statutes, and both of them assisted largely, if they did not do most of
Mr. CULLOM. As I said, the joint resolution followed the volthe work, in selecting for repeal those laws which would evidently
untary cession by the Hawaiian-government, as expressed in the
and plainly be in antagonism with the provisions of the bill which
treaty which we failed to ratify.
.
we reported; and most of them also are unnecessary in view of
Mr. LINDSAY. The treaty failed?
the changed condition of that government into a Territorial govMr. CULLOM. The treaty failed here.
ernment belonging to the United States.
I will not discuss the other provisions of the joint resolution
The bill also by its fourth section declares that all persons who
further than to say that the public debt of the Republic of Hawaii,
were citizens of the republic of Hawaii on the 12th of August,
existing at the date of the passage of the joint resolution, includ- 1898, are. declared to be citizens of the United States, and in the
ing the amounts due to depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings fifth section it is declared that all the laws of the United States
Bank, should be assumed by the Government of the United States,
not locally inapplicable, except as specified, shall have the same
but the liability of the United States in this respect should in no
force and effect within the Territory as elsewhere in the United
case exceed $4,000,000.
States. The section provides, however, that section 1850 of the
Mr. President, the commission charged with the duty of invesRevised Statutes of the United States shall not be applicable to the
tigating and reporting to Congress undertook the duty imposed
Territory. But it is provided in the sixth section that the laws of
upon it by the act, and made their report, which is before the
Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United
Senate, and a year and more ago reported the bill which was reStates or the provisions of the bill when it shall become a law shall
ferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, considered and
continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislareported to the Senate, but not acted upon by the Senate during ture of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States. >
that session, but which was reintroduced at the beginning of this
The question is raised whether, under that section, any act
session, acted upon by the Foreign Relations Committee, and repassed in the future would be subject to repeal or amendment by
ported again to the Senate.
the Congress of the United States. That section ought perhaps
The bill under consideration is the result, first, of the work in
to be amended so that it shall read that the laws of Hawaii now
part by the commission, but subsequently amended in a number
in force or hereafter to be enacted not inconsistent with the Conof particulars and reported to the Senate for consideration.
stitution or laws of the United States shall continue in force,
I will not undertake to call attention of the committee to each
subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or
of the sections as they appear in the bill, because it would require
the Congress of the United States.
more time than I deem necessary to claim at the hands of the
Section 1890, referred to in the fifth section, provides that no
Senate, and secondly, because I do not think there will be much
corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes
opposition to many sections of the bill. The committee undershall acquire or hold property valued at over $50,000. This seetook to prepare a bill which would be most in the interest of the
tion, if allowed to apply to the Territory of Hawaii, would interpeople of those islands and as near as possible, as we thought,
fere with the Kamehameha schools and the Young Men's Christian
satisfactory to the people of the States. In the first place, we
Association ownership of property, as either amounts to more in
regarded it as proper to name the islands as the Territory of Hawaii,
value than $50,000. Hence it was insisted by the friends of the
the island of Hawaii being much the larger island of the group. <
school as well as of the Young Men's Christian Association that
The bill under consideration provides substantially for a Territheir educational and charity work should not be interfered with,
torial government, very largely in harmony with the governments
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Would it interrupt the Senator if
of our Territories as they have existed in this country. There is,
I should ask him a question?
however, this difference: We found in Hawaii a very substantial,
Mr. CULLOM. No, sir.
well-administered government existing, and which has existed for
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois
very many years. I desire that the Senate shall realize that the
yield to the Senator from Connecticut?
government over there; now called the republic, has existed very
Mr. CULLOM. I do.
nearly as it is now for very many years, in other words, that that
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I inquire of the Senator whether I
is an old country and an old government. It is true it has been
he thinks that the right to hold property by such a corporation I
most of the time under a monarchy, but it is now called the reshould be entirely unlimited or whether some other limit ought |
public of Hawaii. As I said, it has existed for many years; first,
to be fixed?
'
under a monarchy and, secondly, under what was styled the reMr. CULLOM. I think, perhaps, there ought to be a limit, bat
public of Hawaii, with a president and cabinet, with a legislature this school is a great institution, founded many years ago. I rapand constitution and a code of civil and penal laws, with a supreme
pose that the property came from the Kamehameha estate. I
court, and with circuit courts and other minor judicial offices.
think it would be very unfortunate that Bach, an institution should
When the commission visited those islands we found that, acbe interfered with by limiting the amount to the nun specified in
cording to their last census, the population numbered from 110,000
the original statutes.
.' .
to 120,000 people and that there is about 7,000 square miles of terMr. PLATT of Connection*. I think the Senator la quite right
ritory, much the larger island being the island of Hawaii and
about that, but the question arose in my mind whether therecontaining 4,210 square miles, the other islands ranging from 760
should not be some limitation as to the amount of property to be
to about 100 square miles. The population of those islands is
held. There is almost always such a limitation in Territorial
composed of about 31,000 native Hawaiians, about 8,000 halfbills.
castes, about 2,500 British, 1,400 or 1,500 Germans, between 3,000
Mr. CULLOM. That is true; and if I knew how much the inand 4,000 Americans, 15,000 Portuguese, 24,000 Japanese, 21,000
stitution held, I might be able to answer definitely as to what the
Chinese, and then a few hundred from several other nations. It limit should be; but I really do not know. I should be willing to
is believed now that there are perhaps 150,000 people in the Ter- limit the amount to what the institution now has.
ritory.
The eighth section of the bill provides for the abolition of the
The commission and the committee deemed it wiser to prepare offices of president, minister of foreign affairs, minister of the inand report a measure disturbing conditions there as little as
terior, minister of finance, minister of public instruction, auditormight be consistent with the best interests of both the islands and general, deputy auditor-general, surveyor-general, marshal, and
1920
deputy marshal of the republic of Hawaii. These offices were, of course, created as a part of the civil establishment of an independent government and, of course,
ought to be abolished.
The bill recognizes the legislative department of the Territory, consisting of two houses—senate and house of representatives— after the fashion of our three great
departments of government. It also provides that the senate shall be composed of fifteen members, who shall hold office for four years, but that of the senators elected at the
first general election seven shall be elected for two years only and the eight for four years each, and the districts in which they shall be elected are as they now exist in
the Territory under the republic of Hawaii. The commission thought they ought not to be disturbed at present.
The commission found that under the constitution of the re-public of Hawaii the qualification of voters for Territorial senators and representatives, as also the
qualifications of senators and representatives, were not the same. The qualification of a voter for a candidate for the senate required that the citizen desiring to vote for
a candidate for the senate should own real property in the Territory of the value of $2,500—1 think in the law it is $1,500—should pay his taxes on such valuation, etc., and
that a candidate for the senate should also own the same amount of real property and pay his taxes, etc., while a voter for a candidate for the house of representatives
should not be required to own any real estate, and the qualification of a voter for a senator or a representative was that he should, in addition to the property
qualification named, be a male citizen, 21 years of age, and be able to speak, read, and write the English or Hawaiian language, etc.
Since I prepared this statement I have been furnished with a memorandum which I wish to have inserted. It is from the hearing before the commissioners, and is as
follows:
Commissioner DOLE. Voters for members of the house are not required to hare a property qualification, but the members themselves have a property qualification.
The voters have an intelligence qualification.
Mr. COOPEB. It is practically a free franchise for native-born people for the house of representatives. For the senate there is a qualification of an income of $600
per annum, or real estate equal to $1,500, or personal property equal to $3,000.
This question of property qualification in addition to educational qualification, I confess, gave me some trouble, and yet the condition existing there and the
appeals to the commission for a retention of a property qualification in the bill convinced the commission, and I think the judgment of the Committee on Foreign
Relations agreed with it, that some property qualification should be required of voters for senators in the Territorial legislature, while it was deemed
unnecessary to be required of voters for members of the house of representatives or of the representatives themselves.
Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President, w old the Senator mind stating what those reasons are?
Mr. GULLOM. I will state them before I get through. I would rather the Senator would not interrupt me just now.
Mr. TILLMAN. I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but it is a very important matter he is discussing, and most of the Senators seem to be absent. I notice there is
no quorum present, and I should like to get Senators here and have them listen to what is being said.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut I think that is a very good idea.
Mr. CULLOM. I think so, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum being suggested, the Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary called the roll; and the following Senators answered to their names:
Aldrich,
Allison,
Burrows,
Chilton.
Clark, Wyo.
Clay,
Cockrell,
Culberson,
Cullom,
Davis,
Deboe,
Fairbanks,
Gallinger,
Hansbrough,
Harris,
Hawley,
Heitfeld,
Jones, Ark.
Jones, Nev.
Kean,
Lindsay,
McBride,
McComas,
McCumber,
McEnery,
McMillan,
Martin,
Money,
Morgan,
Nelson,
Penrose,
Perkins,
Pettus,
Platt, Conn.
Platt, N. Y.
Quarles,
Rawlins,
ROSS,
Shoup,
Simon,
Spooner,
Stewart,
Tillman,
Turner,
Vest,
Warren,
Wetmore.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven Senators have answered to their names. A quorum is present.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I am sorry that the Senate is not disposed to give attention to this subject. If I were permitted to do so, I should endeavor to have the
bill passed in their absence, if the Senators present would vote for it. The pending subject is one of very great importance, and it seems to me the Senate of the
United States ought to give to it a little attention.
The commission and the committee agreed that the amount of property required, however, by the constitution and laws of the Territory as they now exist ought
to be reduced, and hence the bill provides only that the qualification of a senator and the qualification of a voter for a senator should be reduced to $1,000 in real property
in the Territory, or to the amount of $600 income for the year previous to voting, and that the voter and senator should be required to pay their taxes, etc. This
qualification, in the
judgment of the committee, was regarded as proper for the time being, in the belief that in a little while, after matters became somewhat more settled in
the Territory, such property qualifications could be safety gotten rid of.
I am not myself certain that such a provision is needed. On the contrary, I am somewhat inclined to the belief that it is not; but for the sake of being sure and
safe I consented that this provision should be placed in the bill and retained for the present. The bill provides now for simply an educational qualification for
voters who vote for members of the house of representatives and a receipt showing that they have paid their taxes, while a property qualification is
required of the voter who seeks to vote for any candidate for the senate, and the same property qualification shall be required of any man who becomes a
senator.
This question is perhaps one of as much importance as any other in the bill, and as likely to produce a difference in the minds of Senators as to what is the
proper course to pursue on that subject.
I have a paper here, which was prepared by the late attorney-general of the Hawaiian Islands on this subject, which I intend to read, because I think it
sets out as well and as fully that side of the question as it can be set out by anybody. It proceeds——
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator state how long this property qualification, which now obtains, as I understood nun to say, in the islands, has been in
existence?.
Mr. CULLOM. There has been a property qualification there for very many years.
Mr. TILLMAN. For how long?
Mr. CULLOM. I do not remember the number of years, but almost all the time.
Mr. TILLMAN. Did it exist under the former government?
Mr. CULLOM. It has always existed, under the monarchy as well as under the republic. The republic has only lasted, of course, for four or five years, as the
Senator knows, but there was a property qualification before that time under different rulers.
Mr. TILLMAN. So that the innovation of a property qualification for voters is not new under the Dole administration?
Mr. CULLOM. No; it is not new.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. It is very much less than formerly.
Mr. CULLOM. The property qualification which now exists is to the effect that a representative shall own property as well as a senator, but it does not
provide—and I think there has been no such provision for some time back—that a voter for a representative shall own any property, but that he shall simply
be able to speak, read, and write the English language or the Hawaiian language.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The members of the upper house were appointed by the monarchy?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question, not particularly pertinent, perhaps, to what he is saying?
Mr. CULLOM. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. SPOONER. How many voters, if the Senator knows, are there now qualified under the laws of Hawaii?
Mr. CULLOM. I can answer that in a moment, if the Senator will allow me.
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. CULLOM. The statement continues:
Conceding that the foreign-born Chinese and Japanese will be hereafter, as they are now, excluded from the elective franchise, there remain as factors in the
political problem the Americans, the British, the Germans, the Hawaiians, and the Portuguese.
Now I come to that which will answer in part the inquiry of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The last registration of voters under the monarchy was in 1891 as follows: Hawaiians, 9,551; Portuguese, 2,091; foreigners, 1,770; total, 13,415.
That answers the Senator's question partly.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, partly.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not know that I can answer it more definitely without referring to the records.
Mr. SPOONER. Is the Senator able to tell me in the last registration under the monarchy how many qualified voters there were in Hawaii?
Mr. CULLOM. I can not do so for the reason that when the republic was established upon the ruins of the monarchy there was required a more rigid
registration, and there has not been a very large vote of any kind since, nor a very large registration. Those who were not entirely satisfied to identify
themselves fully with the republic declined to register, and therefore could not vote. Besides that, when there is no opposition the vote is very light, as is the
case everywhere else.
Mr. SPOONER. Can the Senator tell me the largest vote under the republic?
Mr. CULLOM. I do not think I have the figures here, bat I can furnish them to the Senator.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000, was it not?
Mr. CULLOM. In the neighborhood of three or four thousand
1921
votes. Ordinarily it was about that many, and it has been about the same under the republic.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. President——
Mr. SPOONER. Has the Senator any estimate of the number of people who would be voters under the provisions of this bill, if passed?
Mr. CULLOM. I have no doubt myself that if those who were entitled to vote should register and vote under this bill there •would be anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000
voters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CLAY]?
Mr. CULLOM. I do.
Mr. CLAY. The Senator has already answered the question I intended to ask.
Mr. CULLOM. My views on the question are partially on the information which has been furnished me. I am reading now from the paper of the attorneygeneral:
My views on the questions are partially based on the facts of this registration above given, which shows that the native and Portuguese vote is largely in excess of
the " foreign " vote.
When he says "foreign vote " he means as against the natives of the islands.
This foreign vote included Americans. British, and Germans, but it may be considerably reduced, because the British generally and the Germans to a large
extent will not become American citizens.
They seem to be unwilling to identify themselves with the United States to the extent of becoming American citizens.
The number of Anglo-Saxon voters may therefore be decreased, while, on the other hand, the Portuguese male inhabitants who can read and write are largely
increasing.
That would give an indication that the vote would be other than that given in the estimate I read a while ago.
Under manhood suffrage with educational qualifications only, you will see that the native voters (9,551) will largely outnumber the white or Anglo-Saxon voters
(1,770), and the Portuguese voters outnumber the Anglo-Saxon voters.
The Portuguese number some 15,000, while the Americans, Ger-mans, and English number between six and seven thousand.
Unless some means are adopted to control the native vote the Territorial legislature would probably pass quickly into the hands of the natives, and the only
check upon their acts would be the veto of the governor. There is no reason to believe that a single white person or American should be able to obtain a seat in
either branch of the legislature if the natives combined, as they might, on racial grounds. Even the Portuguese, as against the Anglo-Saxon, could exclude the
latter from taking any part in legislation.
Under the monarchy the upper house was composed of nobles appointed for life.
That is the way the senate would be established.
Under the new constitution of 1887, forced upon the king by the whites, and after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, a property qualification was imposed
by the Republicans upon the electors for senators. This created a distinct class of conservative men, who held in check the lower house. Without this property
qualification, the thrifty—those who had built up the country by their labor and capital, those who were properly regarded as the intelligent part of the community—
would have been largely without representation.
Mr. TILLM AN. I understand, if the Senator will allow me——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. CULLOM. I want to say further—and then I will yield to the Senator—that what I have been stating is not my view, but the view of the ex-attorney-general
of Hawaii.
Mr. TILLMAN. Was that the attorney-general under the re-public?
Mr. CULLOM. Under the republic; yes, sir. He has resigned his office since the commission was in Hawaii, a year and a half ago.
Mr. TILLMAN. Is he an American?
Mr. CULLOM. No, sir; he is a native of one of the Hawaiian Islands, and his grandfather lived there before him, I think.
Mr. TILLMAN. 1 understand the Senator to say these are not his views, but yet he has adopted them in the bill he has presented.
Mr. CULLOM. No; I have not fully. I am giving the views, however, of a man who is familiar with the subject, so that the Senate may understand the whole
case as it appears to a man who has identified himself with the islands and is now living in Honolulu. He was born on one of the other islands and is thoroughly
interested in the prosperity of those people.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, if it will not disturb the Senator, I should like to ask another question.
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. SPOONER. Is the Senator able to afford any estimate of the number of natives who would have the right to vote upon a fixed educational test?
Mr. CULLOM. Nearly all of them who are of age. The fact is that the native Hawaiians, except the very old, are able to speak, read, and even write the English
language, and substantially all of them speak, read, and write the Hawaiian language.
Mr. MONEY. If the Senator will allow me, I will say, in response to the Senator from Wisconsin, that they have had a compulsory system of education there
for many years. Everybody there was compelled to attend school.
Mr. SPOONER. I was aware of that; but I wish to know how many people who are capable so far as education is concerned would be disfranchised
because of the want of property?
Mr. CULLOM. It would disfranchise a great many.
Mr. TILLMAN. Now, will the Senator permit me to ask him how many would be voters or eligible to vote for senators under the property qualification?
Has he any data upon that point?
Mr. CULLOM. I have not. Does the Senator mean as to the natives?
Mr. TILLMAN. I simply want to know how many voters there would be who would have the property qualification necessary to vote for senators, and I
would like to know what their nativity is?
Mr. CULLOM. So far as their nativity is concerned, I do not suppose I could very well answer the question.
Mr. TILLMAN. Or their nationality, I should have said.
Mr. CULLOM. Before we get through with this subject I shall furnish statistics on that point to the Senator or to the Senate, if that be agreeable.
The attorney-general proceeds as follows:
My own experience, as well as that of others who took part in public affairs, convinces me and them that with an excessively largo native vote with-out property
qualifications, the government of the islands would be in the control of the natives, to the great detriment of the interests of the whites and of the Territory.
The danger to be apprehended from the native voter: (1) They can cast about 4 votes to the Anglo-Saxon 1, and, under the new provisions of the bill
regarding citizenship, may cast even a larger vote in proportion.
That is under the educational qualification.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Natives?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes; natives. I may say this is not appropriate here, because the attorney-general is referring to the bill pending in the House of
Representatives.
The statement continues:
This enormous power is of itself liable to great abase. A party of Polynesians dominating over the Americans by 8,000 votes to 1,500 or less will not hesitate to use
that power.
(2) The native has lived for one generation under the American system of jurisprudence and American institutions owing to the strong influence of the
Americans who have resided in the islands, the most of whom are known as "missionaries." But the native is only one generation removed from serfdom, the
despotic rule of the king and chiefs. He had little education or training in the practice of self-government. More than all, he has not acquired the habit of selfgovernment, which is the safety and staying power of the Anglo-Saxon. If Polynesians, recently " civilized," were now capable of self-rule, they would stand as
the most remarkable example in history of the rapid rise of a people, and utterly distance the Anglo-Saxon in the rapidity of their development of political
wisdom.
(3) The natives yet remain " children of the Tropics," and have hardly parted with the economic ideas which the race has held for over a thousand years. They
have had few wants, and a little labor supplied their wants.
I desire to say that so far as the natives are concerned they are a kindly, affectionate, docile, listless class of people, not desiring to give any trouble to
anybody or to have any themselves, but wishing to be let alone; and if they could get rid of the demagogues they would always support the Government in its
best interests.
Mr. President, I shall not take up the time of the Senate by reading further from this paper, but the end of it is that the substantial people there, who
have been intimately identified with the government in its struggle for independence, in the effort to get rid of the monarchy, and to assist in the
establishment of good government, believe that some property qualification ought to be provided for in the bill, so that, as an experiment, if you
please, they would feel that they were safe in not having their statutes overturned and their government and the prosperity of their people destroyed.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. Perhaps the Senator stated it at a time when I was not in the Chamber. Has there been a property qualification imposed there heretofore?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Under the republic.
Mr. CULLOM. Under the republic. Under the monarchy, as I ought to have stated in the first place, the body equivalent to the senate was a council appointed by
the monarch, so that it did not make much difference what the house did.
Mr. TELLER. The house was elected?
Mr. CULLOM. The lower house was elected. I think there was a property qualification for house members, but none for the voters, and that existed under the
republic as it is now.
Mr. TILLMAN. As a matter of fact, was not the monarchy which instituted that property qualification under duress and was it not forced by the revolutionary
party, led by Mr. Dole and others, to put that very provision in the decree?
Mr. CULLOM. I do not care to go into a discussion as to how the republic came to be established.
Mr. TILLMAN. I am not talking about the republic. I am
1922
talking about the property qualification under the monarchy be-fore the republic was established.
Mr. CULLOM. The council, which existed before the senators who are to take its place, was appointed by the monarch himself.
Mr. TILLMAN. Was not the monarch himself largely under the control of Mr. Dole and his associates?
Mr. CULLOM. Not at all.
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Not at all.
Mr. MORGANrose.
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator from Alabama wish to say something?
Mr. TELLER. I want to ask one more question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Senator from Illinois has already yielded to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. TELLER. The question is whether he does not think that having an educational qualification for voters would enable them to dispense with the
property qualification?
Mr. CULLOM. I answered that a moment ago.
Mr. TELLER. It must have been before I came in.
Mr. CULLOM. I said that personally I had been inclined so to believe, but that the commission and the Committee on Foreign Relations both
thought a property qualification ought to be required, and so it is in the bill.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to say to the Senator who has charge of the bill that I should like very much to vote for this bill, but I think some corrections
ought to be made. I do wish to hear some member of the Committee on Foreign Relations tell me why at this late hour we are to put in not only an
educational qualification, but a property qualification also. I myself am unable to vote for any proposition of that character, and I do not intend to.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not on the Committee on Foreign Relations, but I suppose the question which arises is just this: Under the old
regime there had been friction between the native population and the American population, and bitterness and conflict, and the fear is that the native
population, so largely outnumbering the American population or the Anglo-Saxon population, may conceive the idea that they can ran that government
by votes as against the Anglo-Saxon people and the Anglo-Saxon idea, and that they will be liable to be influenced by demagogues-people who still hold, in a
way, to the old monarchy—and that there is great danger that all Anglo-Saxon influence there may be over-turned. I suppose that must be the situation.
Mr. CULLOM. That is the whole story.
Mr. TELLER. I should like to debate that when I can do it without trespassing on the time of the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator from Alabama wish to say something?
Mr. MORGAN. I thought I could clear up this question a little by reading from the report of-the committee made to the com-mission on the subject, in
which the facts as to suffrage are stated.
Mr. CULLOM. Proceed, if you wish.
Mr. MORGAN. I will premise by saying that Kamehameha in, who was an educated man, drew with his own hand the first constitution of
Hawaii while he was King, and had it ordained by an assembly that he brought around him, which he called the house of nobles and the commons or
representatives. I have not understood historically that any person assisted him in the preparation of that draft of the constitution. Doubtless he advised
with Dr. Judd, who was at that time his great friend and legal adviser, and who did not go out there as a missionary, but as a physician. He may also
have advised with an Englishman, whose name I can not call, who was then a member of his cabinet. But Kamehameha wrote that constitution and
ordained it, not by a vote of the people, bat by the power of his supreme authority. In that constitution he created two houses for legislation; one was
the nobles, and the other was the house of representatives. I forget the particular names they gave to those houses.
Mr. CULLOM. A council and a——
Mr. MORGAN. I mean the Hawaiian names.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not know, either.
Mr. MORGAN. The two houses sat together. The senators held their appointments for life. The members of the house were elected by the people after a
while.
Mr. TELLER. Both houses?
Mr. MORGAN. The members of the house.
Mr. TELLER. I thought the Senator said ''houses."
Mr. MORGAN. The subject was referred to a subcommittee of the commission which was sitting there, and they prepared a report on it. It is not long,
and I think it win probably give the Senators a more distinct idea of the situation than perhaps could be derived in any other way:
The question of the elective franchise and of representation in the legislative body is a delicate and most important question, as upon this depends the general
character of the local government.
Two classes of qualifications have been relied on chiefly in the past to pre-serve a fair standard of membership in the legislature. These are the educational and the
property qualification*. The educational qualification merely
requires members and voters for members of each branch of the legislature to be able to read, write, and speak the English or Hawaiian language. This qualification has long been
required in Hawaii, and no objection has been offered to it from any quarter. Practically all the native Hawaiians possess this qualification.
That is the educational qualification.
The property qualifications are more restrictive, and this subcommittee, while believing that the time will come when these can be removed entirely, are of the opinion that
for the present they should be retained to some extent. The property qualifications should not, however, be increased. They might perhaps with safety be reduced. Conditions in
this respect in Hawaii differ from those in the United States. The people of Hawaii have always been accustomed to restrictions in the matter of representation, especially In the upper
branch of the legislature. A review of the past will show this clearly, and will show also that the recommendations of the commission are decidedly in the direction of
extension rather than of restriction of the privilege of representation.
Under the present constitution of Hawaii members of the lower branch of the legislative body are required to own property valued at not less than $1,000, or to have an
annual income of not less than $600. It is recommended that these figures be now reduced to 1500 and $250, respectively.
I believe those are the figures in the bill.
Under the present constitution members of the upper house are required to own property valued at $3,000 or to have an annual income of $1,200. It is now recommended that
these figures be reduced to $2,000 and $1,000, respectively.
These restrictions upon membership in the two houses are good as far as they go, and yet they are not as effective as might at first appear, for there are always some
men of every class who possess these qualifications. The only effective way to obtain a fairly conservative legislature under conditions such as exist at present in Hawaii
is to require proper qualifications of the voters themselves.
That the committee has disregarded.
For many years, under the monarchy, voters for members of the lower house were required to own property to the extent of $150, or a leasehold on which the annual rent
was at least $25, or to have an annual income of 375. These restrictions were finally removed under the monarchy. There has been no property qualification whatever ;for
voters for members of the lower house under the republic, and it is recommended that there shall be none in the future.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. And there are none in the bill.
Mr. MORGAN. No; none in the bill for the lower house.
As to the upper house, the people were for many years not permitted to vote at all for its members. At first its members were appointed' by the king, and membership was hereditary.
Afterwards they were appointed for life. It was not until 1887, under the monarchy, that they were elected by the people, and then the voters were required to own property, real or personal,
valued at $3,000. or to have an annual income of $600. Under the republic the amount of real property required was reduced to $1,500, the amount of personal property remaining at $3,000 and the
annual Income at $600. It is now proposed to remove the personal-property qualification altogether, to reduce the real-property qualification to $1.000, and to allow the income qualification to remain at
$600. This seems to be as great a reduction as can safely be made at the present time. This is evident from the history of the past, especially daring the last years of the monarchy, when the property
qualifications were greater than It is now proposed to make them.
The qualifications proposed are more liberal than have ever existed before in Hawaii, and under them a large portion of the native Hawaiians can vote for members of the upper house and practically all
of them for members of the lower house. The suffrage has been extended in the past in Hawaii by degrees. It is believed to be wisest to continue this process of growth. To remove the property
qualifications gradually is probably the quickest way to obtain their entire removal ultimately. To sweep them all away at the present time might prove so disastrous as to produce a reaction, by
which the franchise ought be restricted much more than it is at present, if not taken away altogether. The two houses sit separately, and by requiring a property qualification for voters for the
upper house and no such qualification for voters for the lower house, all classes are fairly represented and each class may act as a check upon the other, since no bill can. be passed without the
concurrence of both houses.
To materially reduce the qualifications below what ft is now proposed to make them would be to practically turn the legislature over to the masses, a large portion of whom have not yet fully learned
the meaning of representative government, and to practically deprive the more conservative elements and property owners of effective representation.
Heretofore the two houses have been equal in membership, each containing fifteen members. It is now proposed to double the membership of the lower house. This will increase the representation of
the masses and at the same time give the lower house greater protection from outside influences.
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator tell as what report that is? Whose is it? Who made it?
Mr. MORGAN. A report by myself and Judge Frear, a sub-committee to the general commission.
Mr. TILLMAN. Is Judge Frear a native Hawaiian? Is he one of the commissioners appointed by President Dole?
Mr. CULLOM. He was appointed by the President of the United States.
Mr. MORGAN. He was appointed by the President of the United States.
Mr. TILLMAN. He is a native?
Mr. MORGAN. No; he is not a native. He was born——
Mr. TILLMAN. He is living there?
Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. TILLMAN. He is interested?
Mr. MORGAN. He has been for years chief justice of the supreme court of Hawaii and is one of the ablest lawyers, I think, I ever knew.
Mr. CULLOM. Is the Senator from Alabama through?
Mr. MORGAN. I merely wished to read the extract I have read; that is all.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. Frear is not chief justice, bat he is one of the associate justices of the supreme court.
1923
Mr. MORGAN. I thought he was chief justice.
Mr. CULLOM. No; Judge Judd was chief justice and recently resigned. Judge Frear may be chief justice now, perhaps, since I understand the chief justice
tendered his resignation on account of ill health.
Mr. President, this goes upon all fours with what is talked here all the time, that these governments must be set up, so far as the United States has anything
to do with them, as nearly as we can on a basis which will result in conserving the best interests of the people of that country as well as the United
States generally. Hence, if it is thought best to impose a property qualification it is on the-ground that the natives are not trained in civil government
sufficiently to be trusted entirely with the control of the legislative department of the government. That is all I desire to say on that branch of the subject.
Mr. T1LLMAN. Before the Senator leaves that part, I suppose the idea that the small minority of white people in Hawaii must be protected in their
property and in their civilization against the ignorance of the majority of colored people meets his hearty approval?
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator need not suppose anything about it. I do my own supposing.
Mr. TILLMAN. I thought that was a fair interpretation of the bill which the Senator has presented here and which he is advocating.
Mr. CULLOM. I can not prevent the Senator's placing his own interpretation upon it. I will answer the Senator by saying I should be sorry to see any
condition occur as the result of the passage of any act relating to that Territory which would result in confusion and the destruction of property and
breaking down the great business interest of that country, which is as prosperous to-day as any Territory or section of this country.
Mr. TILLMAN. In other words, the Senator would object, and he is endeavoring to object, by legislation, to having ignorance and vice control
intelligence and property.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not say that 1 want ignorance or vice to control, or that I believe in it. What I do say is that the commission and the Committee on
Foreign Relations took into consideration everything they could think of connected with this subject, and the majority of the commission and the majority of
the Committee on Foreign Relations believed that the provisions of this bill were necessary in the interest of the prosperity and the welfare of that
people.
Mr. TILLMAN. I hope the Senator does not understand that I am arguing in favor of ignorance and vice controlling the white people over there.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not say I understand anything of the sort.
Mr. MONEY. If the Senator from South Carolina will permit me, the Senator from Illinois, on behalf of the committee, submits the bill here which
presents the best thought of the Commit-tee on Foreign Relations as to the proper government to be provided for this new Territory. The report of the
subcommittee {has been read. The Senator has presented here a bill which, in the opinion of the committee, is necessary in its provisions to se-cure good
government and order in those islands, and to attain that there is a necessity of making certain restrictions on account of the small number of white
people.
Now, the Senator from Connecticut says there are seventeen hundred Anglo-Saxons. There are seventeen hundred white people, but a large number of
them are Germans and French, as well as English and American; Anglo-Saxons from America as well as from England. But the white people were so
outnumbered, as the Senator read from the statistics, that the committee did not think it was safe that the affairs of that Territory should be turned over to
a body of voters who for any reason could take control and who would, as he read there, on account of racial prejudice, speedily unite to overthrow
what was really the intelligent and dominating influence there even under the monarchy. It was the white influence that dominated then. Everybody will
recollect that in the time of Kalakaua it was American interests for Kalakaua against the English interests, which advocated the election of Queen Emma
to the throne. Since then American influence has been dominant. It led to the treaty and finally to the act of annexation.
So I take it the Senator from Illinois has presented here what the committee believe to be the very best thing to be done for these islands, and if
these restrictions were not necessary they would not be put in the bill But something had to be done under the peculiar circumstances surrounding that
country, this small body of white men owning the land and the large number of natives—about 9,000—who have divested themselves of all they had,
and 2,091 Portuguese voters, really not Portuguese but a mixed race from the Madeira Islands, hardly equal to the natives in character. So it was
necessary that this provision should be put in.
Mr. TILLMAN. I will only interject right here the remark that I should like to have the Senator from Illinois give us some
information as to how far it applies. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution reads:
The right of citizens of the United States to rote shall not be denied or •bridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.
It looks to me like that is a very sweeping provision and covers all these people.
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator want to ask a question?
Mr. TILLMAN. Yes, sir. I should like to know whether this article applies to those Kanakas and others who are now being die-criminated against?
Mr. CULLOM. There is no discrimination in this bill against any race of people. It simply provides a property qualification in addition to the
intelligence qualification which there is in the bill also.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That applies to all races and all colors.
Mr. CULLOM. To all colors and all conditions.
Section 10 provides that all obligations, contracts, rights of action, suits at law and in equity, prosecutions, and judgments existing prior to the
taking effect of this act shall continue to be as effectual as if the act had not been passed, etc.
I assume that Congress can not invalidate contracts, but Congress can prohibit the penal enforcement of labor contracts, and I certainly am in favor of
doing so; but I think the extension of our labor laws over the Territory will prohibit any criminal prosecutions or penal proceedings for the enforcement of
labor con-tracts that exist in that island to-day. The law of Hawaii per-mitting the securing of labor under contract has been in force in that island for
forty or fifty years and arose from the shipping of men on the whaling ships going into Hawaiian ports, enabling masters to secure sailors for a definite
period, to whom they paid an advance in view of a contract for service to be rendered. As we all know, sailors throughout the world are under similar
restrictions to-day, and a master of a ship may resort to the law to compel fulfillment of seamen's contracts, even to the extent of imprisonment or other
punishment. When the labor laws are extended over the Territory, of course there will be no further right to make contracts to bring in laborers by sugar
planters or any-body else.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I should like to ask one question for information. We commit the subject of making laws to the legislature of the Territory
of Hawaii. Of course all our laws prohibiting the importation of alien laborers under contract will be enforced there, but will they have the right to
continue their laws respecting laborers?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly not. If our labor laws are extended over that Territory, they will prohibit bringing in labor under contract.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But will that prohibit the passing of laws by their legislature after the laborers are there?
Mr. CULLOM. I should think so. If it does not, it ought to; I will say that. I think it does.
Mr. FORAKER. I understand section 5 of the bill contains the provision the Senator from Connecticut inquires about. That section extends and
applies to Hawaii all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Exactly; but there has been a great deal of talk here as to their laws regarding laborers after they get there, by which,
if they refuse to labor, they may be punished.
Mr. CULLOM. What is the law of our country on that subject, now in force?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. We have no such laws. We have no laws relating to it, I understand. What I want to inquire about is whether there is
anything which prohibits the Hawaiian legislature from making laws with reference to contracts which may be entered into in Hawaii between the laborer
and his employer containing provisions which we would not think were in accordance with the spirit of our institutions?
Mr. FORAKER. Every law of that island in force now is re-pealed by this proposed act in so far as it may be inconsistent with the laws or Constitution of
the United States. I suppose that will answer the Senator.
Mr. SPOONER. Not locally inapplicable.
Mr. FORAKER. I think there is still another provision.
Mr. CULLOM. I think the bill as it is will cover that question.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It ought to, if it does not.
Mr. CULLOM. If it does not, it certainly ought to do so; and I shall be favorable to any amendment that will make it absolutely certain, if it is doubtful,
that no such contracts shall be made as now exist
Mr. TELLER. The Senator says he thinks the bill will do that. I hare been over the bill with all the care I could bestow upon it. That is one of the things I
want to inquire about. If he will indicate that provision, it will relieve me.
Mr. CULLOM. I had the impression that when we extended
1924
the labor laws of the United States over that Territory the extension carried with it the prohibition, either directly or indirectly, of any such contracts as exist
there now in respect of laborers.
Mr. TELLER. Let me say one word. The difficulty I found was that there are a great lot of Hawaiian laws repealed, nullified, and not having the laws
before me I could not tell by the references in the bill whether the Hawaiian labor law, which is practically an enslaving law, is to be repealed or not.
Mr. CULLOM. I think the Senator will find that all such laws are repealed in the repealing sections which we have here.
Mr. TELLER. I hoped to find it, but I could not. I hope the Senator will look it up and let us know about it.
Mr. CULLOM. I will be glad to look it up and find out the exact fact, and bring in an amendment to cover the case if it is needed.
Mr. FAIRBANKS. I have had the same difficulty that the Senator from Colorado has had. I have examined the bill with some care, and have failed to
find any provision which would prohibit the introduction of contract labor. I would be glad if some reference to the provision of the bill which guards against
its introduction would be furnished.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I think, so far as that is concerned, that extending the laws of the United States over those islands will extend our laws against
the introduction of alien Contract labor. I think that is so.
Mr. CULLOM. Undoubtedly it does that.
Mr. TELLER. Why not say so in an emphatic manner?
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I think that is provided for in the bill. The only trouble I have had about it is whether the legislature, dealing with contracts
between laborers and employers in the islands, made in the islands, could pass obnoxious laws.
Mr. CULLOM. I see the force of the Senator's suggestion.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I do not know what the fact is.
Mr. CULLOM. I confess that I have gone on under the impression all the time that the extension of those laws would wipe out all such contracts as now exist
and prevent such contracts being made at all hereafter. But we will look at the bill more carefully later.
Mr. FORAKER. Before the Senator from Illinois leaves this point, if he will allow me, I will call the attention of the Senator from Connecticut to section
10 of the proposed act. There is a provision which preserves and continues in force all obligations, contracts, rights of action, etc., which have been entered
into or have accrued prior to the taking effect of this act. It may be that under that section there would result the consequences which the Senator apprehends.
I think that is the section to which we should turn our attention when we take that up.
Mr. CULLOM. I should like to ask the Senator from Connecticut a question, to see what answer he, as a lawyer, will give. There are contract-labor laws
there now existing, made perhaps a year ago, to run for three years. Now, what I should like the Senator to answer is whether, if such a contract as that
exists and has not yet terminated, when this law takes effect, it abolishes or wipes out the contract or not. I assume that it would prevent the prosecution or
punishment penalty of a contract laborer who violated it, but whether it annuls the contract civilly, absolutely, has been a question in my mind. I should like to
have the Senator make a statement as to .what he thinks about that.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. No, I think not; because section 10 provides that all obligations and contracts and judgments shall continue to be as effectual as
if this act had not been passed.
Mr. CULLOM. Suppose that was not there?
Mr. FORAKER. I think it would be well to insert there an exception as to contract labor.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If there is anything in their acts inconsistent with the laws of the United States, then their laws are so far repealed and
modified?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But we have no laws on that subject.
Mr. CULLOM. Why have we not? Do we not prosecute people for——
Mr. FORAKER. We have laws prohibiting the importation of contract laborers.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Exactly, and their laws of that sort are undoubtedly repealed.
Mr. FORAKER. But I ask the Senator, would it repeal such a law in view of the provisions of section 10, that every contract that shall have been entered
into before this act takes effect shall remain in full force and effect as though this act had not been passed? That is a specific reference to that particular
subject, and at seems to me it would control as against the general provision that the laws of the United States should take effect.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the contracts they have entered into there, running three years, with alien laborers brought in under contract are to be preserved
to the end of the term——
Mr. CULLOM. Now, can they be annulled by a statute?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut, Well, if they are to be preserved, I certainly want to know that the penal laws which they have passed punishing these
contract laborers for not fulfilling their contracts shall in some way be abrogated and annulled.
Mr. CULLOM. In answer to that I desire to say that I have an amendment now attached to the bill, which I propose to insist upon being adopted, as to
the penal portion of the law or the con-tract. Whether we could annul a civil contract by an act of Congress is more than I know.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I have no doubt we could. Whether we ought to do it or not, whether it is policy to do it, or right and justice demand it, I do
not know; but I suppose that we can interfere with the obligations of contracts if we choose to do so.
Mr. FORAKER. I suggest that we might amend section 10 without doing any violence to the vested rights, it seems to me, by excepting that class of
contracts—certainly all such contracts belonging to that class that may have been entered into since the date when Hawaii was annexed—because if any
such contracts have been made to run for a term of years they were made with knowledge to everybody concerned that they were in violation of the laws of
the United States, which were shortly to be extended. They are certainly in violation of the spirit of our institutions, and such contracts ought to be
abrogated if it is possible.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. What language does the Senator suppose there is in section 10 which operates to abrogate them?
Mr. FORAKER. No; I say it does not operate to abrogate, but it operates to confirm and to continue them; and I say in that section 10 I think there ought
to be an amendment injected excepting the operation of section 10 from those contracts.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I did not understand the Senator. I think he is quite right.
Mr. FORAKER. That is the point I make.
Mr. CULLOM. 1 have an amendment right here that I in-tended at the proper time to offer, and I will read it. It is to add to section 6,1 believe, the
following:
Provided, That none of said laws nor the decisions of any of the courts of the Republic of Hawaii shall be in force or effect so as to allow imprisonment for debt or for the nonfulfillment of a labor contract.
Mr. FORAKER. Is there anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding, in view of section 10, that ought to be added?
Mr. CULLOM. The amendment is there, I think, as far as I have read.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think that is right.
Mr. CULLOM. Now, if Senators are satisfied——
Mr. NELSON. I suggest that the amendment ought to be inserted in section 10, "that all obligations, contracts, etc.," are ratified. There ought to be
an amendment in that section excepting contracts for labor entered into subsequent to the time when the island was annexed to the United States.
Mr. CULLOM. I have got this amendment for that section. Perhaps that will help out some. On page 8, after section 10, add the following:
Provided, That no contract for labor or for personal service shall be in force, either by injunction or other legal process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator desire to offer that amendment at this time?
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to both amendments being adopted now, if the Senate desire.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I do not know that I want to have it adopted in that form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Which amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment just read by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut I should like to be heard a little about that last amendment. 1 think we had better take those amendments up when we
come to them.
Mr. CULLOM. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the Senator from Illinois is in the midst of his speech, and it is by his tolerance that the question
is presented.
Mr. CULLOM. My speech is more to get the attention of the Senate to the bill than for a set speech. I want the bill, in some form, adopted as quickly as we can,
because it is needed exceedingly in that Territory, and I am ready, so far as I am personally concerned, to yield to any reasonable amendment that will perfect the bill; and
of course the Senate has a right to that, whether I am willing or not.
Much complaint has been made against Hawaii because of the existence of these labor-contract laws. They have existed for many years back, and for the reason
that it was difficult for sugar-plantation owners to secure labor for the islands adequate to the apparent emergency. That is the way it has come about.
Our laws in this country prohibit the importation of Chinese labor, but do not prohibit Japanese labor, and one of the effects of the labor laws of that country has been
to keep out Japanese, who
1925
would come there in great numbers if the government of the islands had not exercised authority to keep them out by virtue of labor-contract laws.
That seems to be rather an unusual statement, and yet I am told by men there identified with the business interests of the country that really in the
beginning, after the republic was established, the fear was that they would be overrun by Japanese coming to that island, and the labor laws of that
country seemed to act as a restraint upon the Japanese coming there except as they wanted to come for labor purposes.
Mr. TILLMAN. Has the Senator any figures as to the number of Japanese who have come there since the islands were annexed?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes; I have them somewhere here.
Mr. TILLMAN. I understand there are upward of 30,000 now.
Mr. CULLOM. I think between 25,000 and 30,000 have come in since the flag of the United States was raised over the government building in that island.
Mr. TELLER. How many are there all told?
Mr. CULLOM. There are nearly 40,000 Japanese there.
Mr. MORGAN. I think the Senator from Illinois is wrong about that, because at the expiration of these labor contracts the Japanese have all gone
back. Since the contracts have expired they have gone back. They have not settled in the island.
Mr. CULLOM. That is true. They do go back generally when the contracts expire.
Mr. MORGAN. I should like to make one more observation about it. All those men retained their allegiance to Japan when they came to the islands
and never had any idea of changing it at all, and many of them are alleged to be regular soldiers in the Japanese army.
Mr. TILLMAN. If the Senator will permit me, that was the plea, under which the islands were annexed, that Japanese soldiers had come over there in
disguise and would seize the islands for Japan.
Mr. CULLOM. Of course at the time of the annexation that was the fear of people in this country as well as on the islands. But we did not
understand that to be the case.
Mr. TILLMAN. No one has any fear of that now?
Mr. CULLOM. I think not.
When our laws are extended over the islands it is somewhat questionable what the effect will be, and whether the islands will not fill up more rapidly
with such laborers than they do now. The total number of laborers of the Hawaiian Islands is about 40,000, and about one-half that number is under
contract, those under contract being mainly Japanese and Chinese. Very few, if any, of the Portuguese laborers are under contract. As a matter of fact, as I
have stated, there have been no importations of Chinese into those islands since the annexation act was passed.
Mr. RAWLINS. Mr. President——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. RAWLINS. I should like to state to the Senator, from in-formation I have—I was so informed by a man from those islands— that since the adjournment of
Congress, on the 4th of March last, there have been imported into those islands some 18,000 Chinese.
Mr. CULLOM. That is an entire mistake, unless all the testimony that comes to me is untrue. But -there have been some-where between 23,000 and
80,000 Japanese who were brought into that country or who came in; I do not know whether they were brought in or not.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. And we have no law against the coming of Japanese.
Mr. CULLOM. They could come here just as freely as they go there, if they choose.
One of the important provisions of the bill which makes some legislation necessary without long delay is the fact that under the annexation act or joint
resolution it was determined by the President, on the llth of September last, that the authorities in the Republic of Hawaii had no power whatever to
dispose of or make any agreements touching the disposition of the public lands in those islands.
Mr. President, before going on again with my remarks regularly, my attention has been called to the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, and I call the attention of the Senator from Connecticut to it. It would seem to prohibit the sort of punishment that is provided over there
for contract laborers in case they violate their contracts. It reads:
Neither slavery nor Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Now, whether that would do away with it or not, I do not know.
Mr. FORAKER. I do not understand that that would do away with contract labor if a man wants to contract to labor for a term of years.
Mr. CULLOM. But it would do away, I think, with the penal portion.
Mr. FORAKER. I suppose he would have a right to do so.
Mr. SPOONER. It certainly would do away with the right to imprison him for violating a contract. It would do away with the penal part.
Mr. FORAKER. It would do away with the penal part of it.
Mr. CULLOM. That is what I said.
I was referring to the public-land business. The authorities there supposed that as the annexation act provided that until Congress shall provide for the
government of such islands all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in such islands should be vested in such
officer or officers and should be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States should direct, and the Government of the United States took
substantially the same view, but upon closer investigation the President came to the conclusion that there was no authority whatever left in the republic of
Hawaii to deal with the question of the disposition of the public lands.
Senators will see upon reading the joint resolution of annexation that every vestige of power apparently (and that was the construction the Attorney-General
and the President gave to it) was taken away from the authorities of those islands ns to public lands, so that they could not under the annexation law do
any-thing looking to the disposition or use of them even. So the whole territory there is held up by the condition that exists, so far as dealing in the lands is
concerned, either for homesteads or for uses or leases or in any other way. Therefore it is important that something shall be done, in the first place, to pass a
bill getting an organization there and establishing the Territory and putting somebody in authority, as well also as to validate the transactions that have
been in good faith carried on there while the authorities in the island supposed that they had the power to go on and sell or lease land or make agreements
about them as they chose.
Under this provision the President continued the establishment as it existed when the annexation act passed, and the result was that the authorities
supposed that they could go right on as be-fore in the disposition of lands as the situation might require. The result was that sales of land were made,
though not to any very large extent, agreements were made, leases were made, con-tracts .for homesteads were made, and on the date I have indicated—the
llth of September—an Executive order was made by the President notifying the Hawaiian republic that that government had no power to make any sale or
disposition of the public lands in the islands; and that all contracts or agreements for such sale or other disposition of public lands should be discontinued,
and that the purchaser should be notified that the same were null and void, and any consideration paid to the legal authorities on account thereof should be
refunded.
This order put a sudden stop to all transactions touching in any way the public lands or realty of the islands, and greatly embarrassed the people thereby,
so that the representatives of that government have strongly appealed to Congress to pass some act giving relief, and the committee has placed in the bill
under consideration an amendment which reads as follows:
That all sales, grants, leases, and other disposition of the public domain and agreements concerning the same, and all franchises granted by the
Hawaiian government in conformity with the laws of Hawaii prior to the llth day of September, 1899, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
That is made for the purpose of curing the situation and con-firming the contracts that have been made. Senators will find the document in the
Document Room, I suppose, which gives in detail every single transaction that has been made by that government or its officers in reference to the lands
referred to.
This provision is believed to be right for the reason that every transaction which has taken place on the part of the Government there has been
examined, and the committee have found no reason against confirming the agreements which have been made in connection with the lands of that
Territory.
Grants were made of 254 parcels of land, which included 15,334 acres, valued at seventy-eight thousand and odd dollars. Of this area, however, about
8,000 acres were granted for land patents made in pursuance of agreements entered into before the act of annexation, and 4,500 acres were granted under
the right of purchase lease system, and the applicants for these lands were residents in nearly every case who desired to improve the lands and acquire
homesteads, etc.
The committee therefore believed that the sales made after the annexation of the islands and before the President's order should be ratified, because
they were all made in good faith and in the interest of the growth and increased wealth of the islands.
The annexation act relative to public lands, as the Senate will remember, provided that all revenue from or proceeds of such lands, except as regards
such part thereof as might be used or occupied for civil and military or naval purposes of the United States, or assigned for the use of the local
government, should be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian
1926
Islands for educational and other purposes, and while the Government has control of the subject whatever maybe realized from the lands goes not to the United
States generally ,but to the islands, for the purposes of education or other public use.
There is no land to be sold for the benefit of the United States Treasury generally, because all the proceeds of it are to go into the treasury there for
educational and other public purposes, determined, as I suppose, by that government when we set it up.
1 have heard inquiry whether there are any lands really belonging to descendants of the crown. All the lands called crown lands, not now actually owned by
individuals, obtained by deed or other conveyance, have been treated and held as any other public or government lands; and according to the record I nave no
doubt of the fact that whatever title to lands once belonging to the king existed, that title passed to other parties, and that there are no lands in the islands today subject to just claim by any descendant of the crown. Whoever may suppose he has a claim will have to go to the courts for its adjudication.
In my judgment, when in 1893 the monarchy ended, the lands reverted to the provincial government and then to the republic.
A word about the leases in- connection with the real estate in the island. As the leases expire it is the policy of the Government to dispose of the lands as
homesteads for the people as rapidly as it can be done. A large proportion of the sugar plantations be-longs to the corporation or individual in fee. The general
impression has seemed to be that the great sugar plantations were all government lands, but that is not correct. Some of them, perhaps, are, but the great body of
them are lands owned by some individual or corporation having an actual title to them.
Mr. WARREN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. WARREN. I wish to ask the Senator what is to be the final disposition of the public lands and where the proceeds are to be applied. Are they, like the
lands of the public-land States and Territories, the property of the United States, and are the proceeds to go into the General Treasury or are they to be the
property of Hawaii?
Mr. CULLOM. I have just been stating, if the Senator will allow me, that under the annexation act, the joint resolution, all the public lands of those
islands go to the islands for educational and other public purposes. I think the general impression there is that the great body of the money for that purpose
will be for educational purposes and for the construction of highways over the island, so that the people can get about from one section to another.
Mr. HALE. Is there a special segregated fund provided for that absorbs this money?
Mr. CULLOM. How does the Senator mean?
Mr. HALE. From the sales of public land for the purpose of education. Where will it actually go?
Mr. CULLOM. It will go into the Hawaiian treasury, I sup-pose.
Mr. SPOONER. As a school fund?
Mr. CULLOM. As a school fund.
Mr. HALE. As a separate fund?
Mr. CULLOM. As a fund separate and distinct from anything else.
Mr. HALE. The Senator is pretty certain about that?
Mr. CULLOM. The annexation act requires it.
Mr. HALE. It provides for that?
Mr. CULLOM. It provides that it shall go for educational and other public purposes; that to be determined, as I suppose, by the authorities of the islands
themselves.
Mr. HALE. That would not be an educational fund? How-ever, I have not examined that act, and I do not know.
Mr. CULLOM. I will read the clause which refers to it
Mr. HALE. Let us see what that says.
Mr. CULLOM. It is as follows:
The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lauds in the Hawaiian Islands; bat the Congress of the United States shall enact special laws for
their management and disposition: Provided, That all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military, or naval
par-poses of the United States, or may be assigned for the use of the local government—
That is, portions of the land—
shall be used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.
I suppose under that provision the Congress of the United States might perhaps control the use of the fund, provided it kept within those limits. I do not know
whether that is so or not. It is a matter of construction.
Mr. HALE. The provision as to the educational fund does not seem to be very carefully guarded. I do not see but what that fund might be spoliated for
almost any purpose, and under emergencies it might be taken for a great many other purposes. I have not examined as to that.
Mr. CULLOM. That is the joint resolution we passed for annexation.
Mr. HALE. My question led to this point: Whether this bill which the Senator has reported carries out what is evidently the intention and purpose of
that act, and whether in form it guards and establishes an educational fund that shall not be spoliated for other purposes?
Mr. CULLOM. There maybe some additional legislation necessary to what is in this bill or in the annexation act.
Mr. HALE. I should say so, for that purpose.
Mr. CULLOM. I am inclined to think there ought to be some additional legislation.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. The bill has this provision——
Mr. HALE. From what is the Senator reading?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. From the Hawaiian bill.
Mr. HALE. What page?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Page 82, line 23:
All funds arising from the sale or lease or other disposal of such lands shall be appropriated by the laws of the government of the Territory of Hawaii
and applied to such uses and purposes for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Territory of Hawaii as are consistent with the joint resolution of
annexation, approved July 7,1898.
The joint resolution says that Congress shall legislate with reference to the subject.
Mr. SPOONER. But the joint resolution does not dedicate the proceeds of the public lands to educational purposes.
Mr. HALE. It does not.
Mr. SPOONER. It says'' for educational and other public purposes." It may all be devoted to educational purposes, or none of it.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think this provision needs some amendment.
Mr. HALE. I think so, too.
Mr. CULLOM. As a matter of fact, I think the authorities now in control of the islands regard education and the public roads and highways as the most
important subjects for attention, and the probabilities are that, if left alone, they will divide that fund for those purposes.
Mr. HALE. That is quite likely; but I do not think we should leave this in the realm or probabilities. Here is to be a very considerable fund. It seems
to be the purpose and the expectation that it shall be devoted to education. It consists of valuable tracts of lands; and everybody knows if you leave the
disposition of any funds or the avails of any property without guarding it and tying it up for a special purpose, in emergencies it may be taken for
anything, and the design will be thwarted.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. SPOONER. It is perfectly plain from the provisions of the bill that that whole subject is remitted by Congress to the local legislature.
Mr. CULLOM. To their direction.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut Bat the resolution of annexation retains it in Congress.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes. The bill reads:
All funds arising from the sale or lease or other disposal of such lands shall be appropriated by the laws of the government of the Territory of Hawaii and applied to such
uses and purposes for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Territory of Hawaii as are consistent with the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7,1898.
The joint resolution of annexation did not dedicate these funds or the proceeds of the sales of public lands to educational purposes.
Mr. CULLOM. Not fully.
Mr. SPOONER. Not at all.
Mr. HALE. But "to educational and other purposes."
Mr. SPOONER. "And other public purposes." Under this bill as it stands the Senator from Maine is perfectly right, it seems to me, in saying that the
legislature of Hawaii may appropriate the proceeds of the public lands to any public purpose.
Mr. CULLOM. I am not raising any question on that.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But there is an unrepealed act of Hawaii that you do not repeal by this bill:
SEC. 203. All proceeds of sales of public lands shall be set apart as a special fund for the payment of the bonded indebtedness of the government or for the purchase of other lands, as
provided by section 191.
Mr. CULLOM. That has been repealed.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut That has not been repealed.
Mr. CULLOM. It is repealed by the fifth and sixth sections of this bill, if in conflict with its provisions.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It is not repealed specially, and many special repeals are made by the bill.
Mr. HALE. But still it would be clearly repealed by a subsequent law which makes other provisions. If the Senator will permit me—the bill, of course,
will take some time, as it is important—I think his committee bad better prepare an amendment to come in at the end of the section which specifically
dedicates this fund for educational purposes, and not leave it subject to any previous determination.
1927
Mr. CULLOM. And by that means amend the annexation act.
Mr. HALE. The annexation act is not so specific; and it is important that this matter should be provided for here.
Mr. CULLOM. It says, "for educational and other public purposes."
Mr. HALE. Even that is simply amending by way of limitation. I would add a provision which would make the intention of Congress certain.
Mr. WARREN. Mr. President——
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. WARREN] is entitled to the floor, the discussion having proceeded for some time by his courtesy.
Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, I have obtained some of the in-formation I wanted to get. I should like to know something about the final disposition of the
lands. I assume from what has been said that there will be some amendments offered, because we seem to be sadly out of line in the proposition contained in
the bill, whichever way we turn it, with our own land policy. Take our Territories, and even our States. Local legislation as to public lands is not considered
either safe or desirable, notwithstanding we have unrestricted suffrage.
If I understand the measure before us, the disposition of these lands will lie with the local legislature. I should like, before we get through with this
discussion, to know just what the proposition is. Is the legislature of Hawaii to dispose of the lands, and how? I should also like to know what are the
reasons, if there are such, for such a different departure from our present land laws, and why it is that the public lands there are to be handled so differently
from the manner in which they are handled here, In that connection I hope Senators will consider the subject of what we are going to do eventually with
our own United States Government public lands to relieve the situation between the United States and the several States and Territories.
Mr. TILLMAN. With the consent of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] , I call the attention of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. WARREN] to the provision in
the joint resolution for the annexation of Hawaii, which is as follows:
The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands, but the Congress of the United
States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition.
Therefore, we are not going to turn them over to the Hawaiian local legislature unless we abrogate the implied contract we made with those people when
we annexed them. We are doing, how-ever, what we think is right in not turning them over to the selfish fellows there, who are going to steal the balance
of the lands.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I dislike to interrupt the Senator from Illinois, even for a moment, because he has been interrupted until his speech is now
scattered over many pages of the RECORD.
Mr. CULLOM. That does not make any difference. We want to get at the f acts.
Mr. MORGAN. The question suggested by the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] and also by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. TILLMAN] seems to
make it necessary for me to enter into an explanation of some things which I think escaped the attention of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] .
When the commission got to Hawaii they found a land system there which had sprung from the ancient customs of the Hawaiian people, the chiefs, who
are the owners of all the soil. Some time after Kamehameha I established his dynasty there—I think it was in the time of Kamehameha II or III—the
government undertook to divide the lands into three parts; one part for the people for homesteads, places to reside, who before that time had no title
whatever, but only the mere right of occupancy at the will of the feudal lords; another for the Crown lands proper—lands that be-longed to the Crown as an
emolument of the Crown and descended with the Crown upon the royal family, or whoever might be in-ducted into the ruling office; and the other for the chiefs.
There-upon the government of Hawaii surveyed the lands that went to the people, and included in those surveys the homesteads on which they resided.
A Hawaiian plantation, a very good one, ranges all the Way from 3 acres up to 20. A 20-acre Hawaiian plantation is a very large one. The people live almost
entirely upon taro, a little root which grows in the water and furnishes them with bread. So a man with an acre of taro plant can keep a family of five or six
persons supplied with food through the year, hire a Chinaman to do the work for him, and pay him out of the profits of the crop.
Those homesteads were located and the people were located upon the homesteads, plats were made, and title given to every individual who was the head of a
family. For those who were not connected with families a separate provision was made. That left, then, the residue of the land to the government—that is
to say, to the King and to the nobles and the chieftains.
By a later provision the King was prohibited from alienating the Crown lands, because speculators were going in there, getting the King drunk sometimes,
and getting deeds from him for lands that
ought not to be sold. So the people demanded of him, and he conceded very readily to that demand, that none of the Crown lands should ever be alienated.
The nobles holding their lands in fee simple alienated them to different persons. Out of those lands have come the larger amount of the sugar estates in Hawaii—
the lands that belong to the chieftains. Some of the smaller holders, the homestead holders, have sold their lands also; but the larger body of the people of
Hawaii still live upon their homesteads and cultivate their taro patches, living as they did originally, having a fee simple title, each one of them, to his own tract
of land. The government was benevolent and just in the distribution of the land among the people, and they have always been entirely satisfied with it.
Now, when we look at that situation and look at the fact that each one of those respective homesteads and all of those princely estates held by the
chieftains had to be surveyed, mapped, and plotted, and when we come to the fact that they all have been regularly surveyed, mapped, and plotted, we find
that a very great work has been done there by the white people who have been in their midst in distributing the land and giving them for the first time homes
upon their own property and in their own country.
The government of Hawaii, commencing with the King, not having the right to alienate them, leased the Crown lands to sugar planters. The chiefs, however,
sold their lauds to the sugar planters. So there are two classes of owners of sugar lands in Hawaii—those who have leased from the government the Crown
lands and those who have titles in fee simple derived from the chieftains.
Those Crown lands are assumed by the act of Congress annexing Hawaii to belong to the government and to have passed from the Crown when royalty was
banished out of the island, to have passed from that royal government into the hands of the republic.
Mr. DA VIS. And became public domain.
Mr. MORGAN. Yes; became public domain. Off of that public domain the Hawaiian government has been selling lands in email quantities to actual
settlers. It has not sold any land in large bodies at all, unless it may be a few pieces of land very far up on the heights of Manna Loa, where there is
nothing to be raised except cattle—sold in larger bodies for grazing purposes— but the arable lands, the agricultural lands, have been sold in very small bodies,
particularly the coffee lands, to actual settlers, and they had not exactly a homestead right there, but one very similar to it. That was a very just and wise
law.
In consequence of this, the number of titles, and the source of title, there has been a great deal of legislation and a great deal of judicial action in Hawaii
upon which titles are now based. The Congress of the United States has, since its attention has been called to the subject by the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. TILLMAN] , reserved to this Government the final right of the disposal of those lands and of the proceeds, with the qualification that whatever
proceeds were realized from them should be given for the benefit of the people of Hawaii, but in what particular way is not designated in that statute.
There were some funds in the treasury when we got there, de-rived from the sale of the public lands, and the commission sup-posed, under the arrangement
that was made under this act of Congress, that the local government there, having a general right of legislation and the powers of government, would proceed to
sell those smaller parcels of this land and realize funds from those sales. The commission concluded, therefore, that the money that was received from such
sales and the money that was in the treasury derived from such sales should be disposed of by the local government; but they provided in section 75 for the
investigation of all of these land questions, hoping that Congress would pro-vide for the investigation in this bill, and that it could be sooner accomplished
and that we could have a thorough statement of the entire situation there, which, I think, is covered by section 75, which reads:
SBC. 75. That the sum of $15,000, or BO much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to be immediately available, to enable the Secretary or Agriculture to examine the laws of Hawaii relating to public lands, agriculture, and
forestry, the proceedings thereunder, and all matters relating to public lands, forests, agriculture, and public roads, bearing upon the prosperity of the
Territory, and to report thereon to the President of the United States, which duties shall be performed with all convenient speed.
The first question that arises in the mind of everyone who hears this language is, Why do you propose to confer this power upon the Secretary of
Agriculture instead of the Secretary of the Interior? The main reason is that the cultivation of trees in Hawaii is a necessary pursuit for the good of the
people. That government now is cultivating large orchards of trees upon the heights of the different ranges of mountains and hills, where the land is very
fertile but still high, and distributing those trees through the islands, and thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of trees have been grown on the
islands at places that were hitherto entirely barren.
I will give an illustration. There is a tree that is well known
1928
in Texas, called the chaparral plant, or the chaparral bean. That used in Hawaii was introduced, from Peru. It is not precisely like the Texas tree, but very
like it, and is called the algaroba. It is a tree that bears a long pod, with very fine, rich seed in it. The pod, the hull itself, and all of its contents are as sweet as
sugar. The tree bears very abundantly, throws off its pods every morning during the entire year, there being no frost in that country, and furnishes a large
supply of most excellent forage for all kinds of industrial animals. The beeves get very fat. The fattest beeves I have ever seen in my life were in Hawaii. They were
really disfigured with fat. They were fattened upon these pods.
Another very fine quality of the tree is that it is most excellent firewood, an article that is a little scarce in Hawaii, or was scarce when this new system
was inaugurated; but all kinds of fruit, all kinds of flowering plants, and shrubs are cultivated in those mountain ranges by the government, and it is very
essential that it should be done.
Agriculture, horticulture, floriculture in Hawaii are very important and very profitable lines of industry. Hawaii without roads, of course, is an
impassable country, except to men upon mountain ponies, or to goats, or something of that kind.
That government has devoted itself and the proceeds of the sales of the public lands very largely to the making of roads, so that there is no country I know
of now that is better supplied with very fine roads than Hawaii. One road from the volcano to the town of Hilo, 31 miles long, flanked with coffee
plantations on either side, is the most beautiful road I think I have ever seen, almost if not entirely, worthy of comparison with Pennsylvania avenue for
its solidity, for its grade, and everything else; so that a man can get on a bicycle, they tell me, at the mountain house on the mountain of Kilauea and run
into Hilo, 31 miles, with-out putting his foot on the pedals of the bicycle, except to hold back, and he has not very much of that to do. That is a very
beautiful road, and there are other roads of that kind.
The combination of agriculture and road making and the sale and disposal of the public lands are all put under this commission to be reported to the
Congress of the United States, in order that we may enact legislation here intelligently, and in the meantime that the money which has been derived from
the sale of lands, which was, before this commission reported, in the treasury, and that derived since, can be applied by that government there; that is to say,
it will be applied, and no doubt has been applied, by that government to the making of these same roads and to these same purposes. It is to authorize and to
justify that action on their part that the bill is in the form in which it is. It may be a little complicated, and I felt it was my duty to try to explain it.
Mr. CULLOM. I was myself quite anxious that the Senator from Alabama should make exactly the explanation he has made on the subject. I shall soon
conclude what I have to say, if Senators will be kind enough not to interrupt.
Mr. TILLMAN. I do not want to interrupt the Senator unless the Senator is willing; but there are so many things in this bill which need explanation
that I must be excused if I ask him a question.
Mr. CULLOM. I yield for a question.
Mr. TILLMAN. I notice on page 32 of the bill something that seems rather remarkable, and it is in italics, which makes it even more remarkable. It
reads:
That all sales, grants, leases, and other disposition of the public domain and agreements concerning the same and all franchises granted by the
Hawaiian government in conformity with the laws of Hawaii prior to the llth day of September, 1899, are hereby ratified and confirmed.
We, in the joint resolution annexing the Hawaiian Islands, took the public domain—the lands—out of the jurisdiction of those people, and set them apart
for a specific purpose—that is, for the use and benefit of those people, mainly for education. They may have granted or leased all the lands away. We do not
know what has been done or is to be done with them, and yet we are asked to ratify in the dark, without any facts before us, the action of the government
which has been in existence since the islands were annexed, now for over a year, without any appeal to our courts as to the justice of these grants or
leases, or any statement as to the quantity of the land which has been thus disposed of.
Mr. CULLOM. The trouble with the Senator is that he was not listening when I went over that a while ago.
Mr. TILLMAN. How much land has been alienated?
Mr. CULLOM. I have stated that I believe some 54 tracts or parcels, as the case may be, were alienated; and I explained what some of them were.
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator tell me, if he knows, how much land is involved in this legislation/ I shall be obliged to him for that information.
Mr. CULLOM. 'What I was going to say to the Senator was this: There is a document, printed for the use of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, giving, item by item, every land transaction which has taken place since the annexation of the islands, or since the flag went up there, to
the time when the
President of the United States made an order stopping any further dealing in lands by the government of those islands. The Senator can see that and look it
over at his leisure.
Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President, with a multitude of other matters that are piling in here every day, the Senator must not object to one who is not
particularly charged with the subject-matter asking those in charge of a particular bill to explain its provisions.
Mr. CULLOM. I am not objecting to the Senator's question.
Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator seems to think that I am hyper-critical.
Mr. CULLOM. I have not objected to any question of the Senator up to this minute, and I hope to continue in the same spirit.
Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator has always been courteous. I simply wanted to have some light on this remarkable matter.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope the Senator will secure the document to which I have referred and investigate it. I shall be glad to give him any
information I have that will throw further light upon the subject.
Mr. TILLMAN. I thank the Senator, and I will avail myself of his kindness to ask him a great many more questions about this bill before we get
through with it.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no doubt of it.
There have been questions raised as to the court system of those islands. I will leave the land business. We found in the republic a system of courts which
seemed to be satisfactory to the substantial people of those islands and to everyone else, so far as I know. They have there a supreme court, composed of
three members, who are appointed for life or during good behavior. The Americans in that country desire that the court system should not be disturbed,
nor should the tenure of office of the judges. The committee, however, felt that a life-tenure office of a Territorial judge was not in harmony with our
ideas in this country, and we determined to fix the term of the judges of the supreme court at nine years.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the Senator will permit me, as he submits to interruptions kindly, I should like to ask him a question.
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. While the Senator is on this point, I should like to inquire of him how long a term the justices or judges of the supreme
court will have after the nine years' term for which they are continued?
Mr. CULLOM. The purpose of the bill was to fix the term at nine years.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But it does not do it, I think.
Mr. CULLOM. If it does not, it ought to do it.. The further fact is, as I understand, that one of the judges of the supreme court, the chief justice—
who is an American, by the way, I believe an American born—on account of ill health, has resigned, so that there are only two others.
Mr. PETTUS. Mr. President, on that very subject I desire to call the attention of the Senate to the last clause in that section, which seems to me to
give the judges a life tenure; and that is in conflict with the other part of the section, which gives them a nine years' term, as the Senator will see if he will
read the section.
Mr. CULLOM. There may be some little amendments necessary to that provision in the bill, so as to make its purpose entirely clear.
Mr. PETTUS. The bill says the judges are to hold office until there is a vacancy. I suppose it was intended to mean until their successors should be
appointed and qualified.
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. PETTUS. That is what I am informed was the intention; but if you will look at the bill, you will see it reads " until there is a vacancy."
Mr. CULLOM. It ought to be until their successors are appointed and confirmed.
The committee believed, as I said, that it was in the interest of good government and in harmony with the wishes of the people of that Territory that
we should not overturn their system of government either in the courts or otherwise where it could be avoided consistent with our ideas of republican
government.
I want Senators to bear in mind that we are dealing now with an old government, a well-established government of a people, which has existed for
many years, and not dealing with a few scattered settlements over the prairies or in a land which has not been settled, but with a government existing,
which has been running for years, and a very good government at that, so far as order and honesty and everything of that kind can make it so.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question while he is dealing with the subject of the judiciary in Hawaii?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. SPOONER. Is any appeal provided by this bill from any judgment of the supreme court?
Mr. CULLOM. Of the Territory?
1929
Mr. SPOONER. Yes.
Mr. CULLOM. None whatever. There Is a system of courts there.
Mr. SPOONER. That is peculiar, is it not?
Mr. CULLOM. It is peculiar to that country. It does not exist in our Territories, either in Arizona or anywhere else. There we have an appeal. But the
theory of this bill is that they have a supreme court, a circuit court, and other inferior courts, and there are appeals from one to another of the territorial
courts, and those judges, either of the circuit or supreme court, have nothing to do with decisions on other statutes than those local to the islands. They
exist just as in a State.
Mr. SPOONER. The trouble is Hawaii is not a State.
Mr. CULLOM. No; it is not a State.
Mr. SPOONER. They have in the Territories, of course, the nisi prius judges in the courts, and then they have a supreme court, but there is in certain
cases an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. SPOONER. In capital cases. For instance, a man is tried for a capital crime, and he believes that errors have intervened in the trial, or that he has
been deprived of some rights under the Constitution, and he has a right to appeal. Why should not that right be given as to this Territory as well as to
all the rest of the Territories?
Mr. CULLOM. Possibly it ought to be; but still there is a government which has existed with this system of courts for very many years, and so far as
anybody knows justice has been meted out to the people in civil suits as well as in criminal proceedings.
Mr. SPOONER. The same thing may be said of some of our own Territories.
Mr. CULLOM. Possibly it may; but why is it necessary to provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court or a circuit court of the United States when
there is a system there which already provides for appeals from one court to another and which seems to be satisfactory? The commission thought that all
that was necessary was to maintain the condition as it exists there, it being thoroughly established and satisfactory to the people.
Mr. SPOONER. It seems to me, if the Senator will permit me to make the observation, that the difficulty is we are dealing with this as a Territory and at the
same time as an independent government.
Mr. CULLOM. That is true, in a sense. Yet is there any reason in the Constitution why we should not have a system of courts in Hawaii just as there
now exists?
Mr. SPOONER. Is there any reason in the Constitution why we should have a right of appeal from the courts in our Territories?
Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether it is needed or not, but there is a system, and the people are familiar with it. They have been living under it for
years and years, and they understand it, and it seems to answer all their purposes. Now, why upset that and establish a new system when that is entirely
satisfactory to the people?
Mr. SPOONER. My suggestion does not contemplate upsetting it, but simply giving in the case of Hawaii as in other Territories the right of appeal in
certain cases to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. CULLOM. If it is the desire of the Senator to add that, I have no objection; but I do not think we ought to incur any additional expense unless it is
necessary to good government.
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him again, to remark right here that so long as Hawaii was an independent government of
course it was not going to appeal to any other jurisdiction, but now that those islands have become a Territory of this country, it does seem to me a remarkable
proposition that their laws were so perfect and are so perfect now and their administration is so just and righteous that we would deny even our own
citizens who go there the right to appeal to our court of last resort here?
Mr. CULLOM. When our citizens go there and identify themselves with that
country they do not want any, so far as I know. They are very happy as they are,
with their present system of courts.
Mr. TILLMAN. That must certainly be the garden of the gods. If it is
such a happy place, we ought to emigrate there.
Mr. CULLOM. Let the Senator go there and see if they do not convert him to that system.
I am not going to take up the time of the Senate much longer. The fact is it is pretty difficult to speak here at all with any continuity of thought. I have
been disposed to yield to everyone, because I want to bring out as a matter of fact whatever objections there are to the bill, so that we may know how
to deal with it.
Mr. President, I believe an amendment is pending here to be offered, the purpose of which is to delay the extension of our customs laws over the Territory
to some future time, and in meantime allow the present relation as to customs laws, treaties, and regulations to remain as they are. I am opposed to
any such
amendment to the bill. There has existed substantial free trade between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands for several years. The great product
raised in the islands is sugar and has been for many years. Common sugar comes to the United States free under the reciprocity treaty.
There seems to me to be no reason for delaying the extension of our customs laws over the islands, the States making nothing by such a policy, but, as I
believe, will lose; and besides, I am unable to sympathize with a policy of government that reaches out to annex new territory and when it is obtained to
adopt a policy detrimental to the territory acquired, lest some interest in some of the States may be in some way affected by treating such territory as we
deal with our Territories nearer to us. This Territory occupies a different relation to the United States from any of the acquired territory as the result of
war. We may be said to have claimed it for fifty years. The people of the islands who have made the islands prosperous and happy are Americans and as
intelligent and patriotic as can be found in any portion of this Union, and let us not deal with them as though they were vassals or unworthy of our
confidence.
Mr. VEST. Mr. President——
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Missouri?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. VEST. Before taking up "the question of customs and treaties, which will certainly give rise to much debate, I wish to ask the Senator from
Illinois in charge of the bill to explain to me the provision on page 20 as to appropriations. It is a very important question. As I understand the provision, if
the legislature of the Hawaiian Islands fail to provide the necessary sums to carry on the government and adjourn, the governor can call them in extra
session. So far that is the ordinary course. There is nothing remarkable about it.
Mr. CULLOM. No.
Mr. VEST. But in the meantime, before the next legislature meets in extra session or the same legislature, the treasurer, with the advice of the
governor, can proceed to expend the money in the treasury on the basis of the preceding year's appropriation.
Mr. SPOONER. It is declared to be reenacted.
Mr. VEST. Yes; for that purpose. I have never seen any such provision as that, and it seems to me it is liable to very serious objection, because there
may be very large appropriations during one year which are not necessary in the next year.
Mr. CULLOM. That provision, as the Senator will observe, can only be brought into requisition after the governor, as I remember, has actually
reconvened or made proclamation reconvening the legislature, and only for the time, after there is exhausted the appropriation which was made by a previous
legislature, until a new legislature or the same legislature can make an appropriation. It is an unusual provision, I admit.
Mr. VEST. There can be no question of exhaustion about it, because it goes on specifically to provide that the treasurer shall advance the money—
that is, take it out of the treasury—on the basis of the preceding year's appropriation, and expend it.
Now, the objectionable feature of it, as I was going to say, is to having this extraordinary power, which ought to be exercised alone by the legislature,
vested in the treasurer, with the advice of the governor.
Mr. CULLOM. That power is in their constitution now, and it was insisted upon by the commissioners from Hawaii and finally yielded on the part of the
commissioners from this side. It baa been guarded as well as we could do, so that it will only be used when the governor convenes the legislature and
until they can come together and make an appropriation.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But it is .until the legislature shall have acted?
Mr. CULLOM. Of course.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If they never act, the treasurer will go on and expend the money.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes; the government has to live in some way.
Mr. VEST. I am not indulging in hypercriticism; I think this is a very good bill, but I do not see how this is practicable. I do not see how the
treasurer can take appropriations which were necessary and right for one year as the basis for his expenditure when the legislature has failed to make
appropriations for an-other year. That is the trouble. I never saw any such provision.
Mr. MORGAN. We do it all the time here with permanent appropriations.
Mr. VEST. Yes; but the amount is fixed, and we continue it.
Mr. MORGAN. It is fixed and continued by this, proposed act.
Mr. CULLOM. Usually by joint resolution we extend the appropriations from month to month.
Mr. VEST. That is the ordinary provision.
Mr. C ULLOM. We in that way extend the appropriations heretofore made.
Mr. VEST. That is the ordinary practice in Congress. It is entirely different from this.
1930
Mr. CULLOM. I know it is.
Mr. VEST. Suppose we were to permit the Treasurer of the United States, or even the Secretary of the Treasury, when Congress had adjourned, and for
good reasons to itself had not made an appropriation, to take the money in hand himself, and with the advice of the President go on and expend the tax
money of the people on the basis of a year which was gone, and when certain circumstances prevailed and Congress had in its discretion made
appropriations. Here is a case where the legislature fails or re-fuses to appropriate. The governor then calls an extra session. He does not know whether
that extra session is about to make appropriations or not. And, without waiting for that legislature to act at all, the treasurer comes to the governor and
says, " The legislature adjourned without making an appropriation, and I want to expend the money that is in the treasury." There is no case of
exhaustion about it. He goes on and expends what is in the treasury. The governor says, "All right." The legislature meets and again refuses to
appropriate. It may think that the condition of affairs does not justify an appropriation, and the treasurer in the meantime has expended the money.
Mr. FORAKER. Now, conceding that all that the Senator from Missouri suggests would occur in the contingency he sup-poses, would not that be
better than a suspension of government? Would not the latter be the absolute consequence otherwise?
Mr. VEST. If the Senator will permit me, that thing has occurred frequently in Congress and in State legislatures, and there has been no suspension of
government. If the government has credit and is a stable government, there is no trouble about existing upon credit or obtaining supplies upon credit.
That occurs every year.
Mr. FORAKER. I make this inquiry because when this matter was considered in committee the same ideas occurred to me that have been expressed by
the Senator from Missouri; but I thought it was better to incorporate this provision than to have the con-sequences which would inevitably result if there
were not some way to meet the necessary expenses of the government. It did not seem to me a very dangerous provision, because it relates only to the
current expenses of government.
Mr. VEST. I do not think it would stop the government. The government can always get money enough to pay.
Mr. FORAKER. It does not cover appropriations that may be made for unusual necessities or for improvements, but only the necessary current
expenses of the government.
Mr. CULLOM. The provision reads:
That in case of failure of the legislature to pass appropriation bills providing for payments of the necessary current expenses of carrying on the government and meeting its legal obligations as the same are provided for by the then existing laws, the governor shall, upon the adjournment of the legislature, call it In extra session for the consideration of appropriation bills, and until the legislature shall hare acted the treasurer may, with the
advice of the governor, make such payments, for which purpose the sums appropriated in the last appropriation bill shall be deemed to have been
reappropriated.
The treasurer will have no right to go outside of the lines specified and spend the money for a purpose for which an appropriation has not heretofore been
made, so that if the provision is allowable at all, which I have always doubted a little, it is pretty well guarded, I think, so that there is no probable danger in
al-lowing it to be done.
Mr. VEST. Mr. President, one objection to it, if the Senator will permit me, is that the money is to be expended by the treasurer in this emergency upon
the basis of a former appropriation and not in view of the necessities of the government at the time the money is to be expended.
But the serious objection to it is that yon take the power of appropriation away from the legislative department, where it ought always to rest, and put it into
the hands of one man who is advised, not directed even, by another. It is hardly necessary to say that this power of appropriation and taxation has
convulsed the civilized nations of the world from time to time. England was drenched in blood in 1688 over this very question of the power of the King in a
monarchy to take the tax money of the people and spend it without the consent of Parliament. But I do not want to go into that.
Here is an entire departure from the American system of appropriations. Instead of the legislature fixing the amount to be expended, and whether
anything shall be expended or not, if they in their legislative discretion refuse to appropriate and adjourn, here is a treasurer who may be the tool of the
governor, and the governor himself not a very reliable person—it might happen, of course—and they take this extraordinary power in their own hands and on the
basis of a former year exhaust the treasury.
My friend the Senator from Alabama says it is the same power that we exercise. I do not see that we exercise any such power. Has the Secretary of the
Treasury ever had it or has the President ever had it? We have a provision that no money shall be taken out of the Treasury except by an act of Congress—
not a dollar— and it is one of the wisest provisions we could possibly have.
Mr. MORGAN. What I referred to, if the Senator will allow me, is the fact that we have a number of permanent appropriations.
Mr. VEST. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. MORGAN. And whether Congress meets or does not meet, those appropriations stand and the Secretary of the Treasury can pay the money out on
those appropriations, although they are not renewed.
Mr. VEST. But that is where Congress has acted.
Mr. MORGAN. That is all this provides for.
Mr. VEST. That is where Congress has acted. Here there has been no such action.
Mr. MORGAN. Oh, yes; the legislature has acted and fixed the basis of appropriations.
Mr. VEST. But for a different year, and have made no appropriation that year, and have adjourned.
Mr. MORGAN. It makes no difference what year it is for. It is a permanent appropriation.
Mr. VEST. I do not so understand it.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President——
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. MORGAN. I hope the Senator from Illinois will conclude his remarks this morning. I want to see them in the RECORD.
Mr. CULLOM. I want to make only one more remark about the situation.
Mr. TILLMAN. Please pardon me once more. Does the pro-vision giving the governor and the treasurer the power to expend money as though it had
been reappropriated carry with it the power to relevy taxes? We know that the power to appropriate money is limited by the amount of money in the
treasury, and if there is no more there, this provision can do no harm; but I wish to know whether this gives the autocratic government by one man
the power of levying taxes as well as appropriating money?
Mr. CULLOM. There is no power to levy extra taxes. So the Senator is safe on that.
Mr. TILLMAN. The treasurer can go no further than the bottom of the strong box?
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, the condition of affairs now in Hawaii is most deplorable. Unfortunately for those people, they are now being seriously
afflicted and scourged by what is known as the bubonic plague. It broke out there some time ago in what was called Chinatown, and the author! ties and
people of the islands have been compelled to destroy some 30 acres of the city. The portion destroyed was thickly settled by Chinese, Japanese, and
possibly some other nationalities. The whole tract was burnt, not perhaps entirely by order of the authorities, but in attempting to burn a portion of it
the fire got beyond their control and the whole 30 acres were swept away. The result is that some 8,000 people are now in quarantine, their property,
even much of their clothing, being destroyed. The people of the city of Honolulu are taking care of them largely at their own personal expense, giving up
their various avocations of business to that work of humanity.
I understand as a matter of fact that a business man does not open his business door until he has spent two or three hours trying to do something for
these unfortunate people, and they close their business houses at 3 o'clock and resume the work of caring for the unfortunate sufferers.
That government is appealing to the United States for action upon this bill, so that they may have as quickly as possible some legal authority for the
expenditure of money and for putting the city in such condition as to prevent the further spread or breaking out of that terrible disease. I believe it is
true that the President of the United States has authorized the president of the republic, Mr. Dole, to use such funds belonging to the Territory or the republic as may be necessary for the immediate care and protection of those suffering people and for the construction of temporary quarters for their use.
And also the President has authorized the president of the re-public to appoint a commission to investigate and allow such amounts as those
unfortunate people have suffered from the necessary destruction of their property. All this, however, is embarrassing to the Administration,
embarrassing to the authorities of the islands, and call for action by this Government, so that their affairs may be conducted strictly according to law,
and that they may know what their rights are in the premises.
I hope, therefore, Mr. President and Senators, that there may not be unnecessary delay in the passage of this bill. Humanity calls for immediate
action, and I am sure that the history of the Senate and of Congress has shown their willingness to answer promptly such appeals.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, there is one point to which the Senator from Illinois failed to advert in his explanation of the bill which I
wish he would think of over night. I will premise what I have to say about it by stating that I am as anxious to have a bill passed establishing a civil
government for the Territory of Hawaii as he is, I think.
1931
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But we ought at least to scrutinize it with a good deal of care. I know that is the intention of the committee, and therefore he will
pardon me for referring to the matter to which I am about to refer.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope the (Senator will realize from what has happened this afternoon that I am anxious for a free, full, and critical investigation and discussion
of the bill, so as to make it as nearly right as we can before it goes out of this Chamber.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I do appreciate that. But section 88 proposes to establish a court there which I do not think we have any power under the Constitution of
the United States to establish in that Territory. We have been providing governments for Territories now for a hundred years, nearly. It is nearly a hundred years
since we acquired Louisiana, and at an earlier period than that we provided a government for the Northwest Territory. But we have never yet established a
constitutional court in a Territory. I have always supposed that the reason why we did not was because we could not under the Constitution.
The Constitution says:
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
It has been the universal acceptation of judges and lawyers and legislators that that section of the Constitution referred to courts to be established in the States only.
Consequently we have one Supreme Court and we have our circuit courts, more recently our circuit courts of appeal, and our district courts in the States. We have
never established a constitutional court in a Territory. The courts which we have established in the Territories have been established under the provision of the
Constitution which pro-vides that—
Congress shall have power to * * * make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.
Those courts have repeatedly been adjudicated to be not constitutional courts, but legislative courts. It has been the practice in constituting the legislative courts of
the Territories to give them jurisdiction over cases arising under the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Admiralty jurisdiction has been
conferred upon them, and a variety of jurisdictions, as relating to the laws of the United States. But I am very firm in my opinion that we can not do that which
it is proposed to do in section 88. That proposes to establish a court in the Territory of Hawaii in all respects like the district and circuit courts of the United States
in the States, and consequently says nothing about the tenure of "the judge, as by the Constitution a judge of such a court has to be appointed during good behavior
and with life tenure.
I will read the section to show how completely it is such a court as is contemplated by the Constitution, and called there an inferior court, and how completely it
resembles and is like the district and circuit courts of the United States. Now listen. There is no escape from it. If it be said that the giving a term of office during good
behavior takes it out of the category of constitutional courts, there is other language here which makes it impossible to take it out of that category.
That a judicial district of the United States is established for the Territory
Of Ha wail-The judicial districts of the United States are the judicial districts referred to or authorized by article 8. They are judicial
districts within the States, not within the Territories.
That a judicial district of the United States is established for the Territory
of Hawaii, to be called the district of Hawaii, which shall be included in the
ninth judicial circuit of the United States.
It never has been supposed before that you could extend a judicial circuit under the Constitution beyond the limits of the States
The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent o the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the
United States for the said district. The district court for the said district shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts o the United States,
jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court, am shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court
So it gives it the power both of the district and circuit courts of the United States as organized in the States.
The laws of the United States relating to appeals, writs of error, removal of causes, and other matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United
States and the courts of the several States shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the
Territory of Hawaii. Regular terms of said court shall be held etc.
Mr. President, I do not wish to go into a further argument o this matter at the present time. I desire to point it out simply for the purpose of the consideration of
the committee.
Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, I have listened with very great interest and appreciation to what the Senator from Connecticut has said as to section 88. It is true, as
the Senator has stated,
that we have never yet in legislating for a Territory seen fit to create a constitutional court in a Territory.
Mr. SPOONER (in his seat). We can not do it.
Mr. FORAKER. I do not understand that there is any prohibition in the Constitution against our doing it. The practice has been that we have not. If the
Senator will allow mo to conclude he sentence I was about to utter, then he can interrupt me if ho o desires.
Mr. SPOONER. I did not interrupt the Senator by rising, did I?
Mr. FORAKER. No; but the Senator did by a very proper injection. If it were true, as stated by him, that we have no power
o do it, that would be the end of this debate. But where does
he Senator get authority to say that we have no power in legislating for a Territory to create a United States district court proper
there if we see fit to do so?
Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator mean by that question the phrase as used in the Constitution, " in which shall be vested the judicial power of the United
States?"
Mr. FORAKER. I do.
Mr. SPOONER. I get it from several decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. FORAKER. I have read the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and I do not get any such conclusion therefrom. On the contrary, the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are simply to this effect, as stated by the Senator from Connecticut, that we have never yet seen fit to create a
constitutional court, but only legislative courts, for the Territories. But the Supreme Court has nowhere said, so far as I am advised, that it would not be
competent for Congress to do so if Congress should see fit.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. SPOONER. I will read for just a moment from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the American Insurance Company vs. Canter (1
Peters, 511).
Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir; I have it before me.
Mr. SPOONER. The Supreme Court said:
These are not constitutional courts——
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly not.
Mr. SPOONER (reading)—
These are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the General Government can be vested. They are created by
virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the Government; or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the Territories. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of the judicial power denned in this article of the Constitution.
Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, that is true; but what the Senator reads does not meet the question at all. What the Senator reads has reference to the courts that
were in fact created, but the Supreme Court does not say in the case of Canter that Congress might not have created a constitutional court in the Territory. If the
Senator will bear with me a minute, he will see the point plainly. What Congress did there was to create a court with a limited tenure of office for the judge, and the
court was also given a jurisdiction that did not belong to the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States, but local
legislation as well. The Supreme Court said these are not constitutional courts, because created as they are they are in-capable of receiving the jurisdiction that
belongs to a constitutional court of the United States. Then they comment on the fact that they were not intended to be constitutional courts, because they were given
a limited tenure instead of a tenure during good behavior, and that was conclusive in that case.
The courts as established in Florida, which were under consideration in the Canter case, have been continued with respect to our Territories, as the Senator from
Connecticut said. Their tenure has always been restricted. It has never been a life tenure. The Supreme Court has simply said from that fact it is to be inferred that it
was not the intention of Congress to create a constitutional court, but only a legislative court.
I invite the Senator's attention to the case which is the lending case on the subject, McAllister vs. United States, reported in 141 U. S., at page 174 et seq. All the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States made prior to the giving of this decision are here reviewed, and the point I make with respect to them is
recognized throughout in all that the court says.
They find that the courts in Utah and the courts in various Territories were not constitutional courts, because Cong IBS had not made them so, had not sought to
make them so, and cited as a fact supporting that proposition that they had limited the tenure, which it was incompetent for Congress to do if it was a constitutional
court, and they cited the further fact that in all of these Territorial courts the courts were given not only the jurisdiction of the United States district and circuit
courts, but the jurisdiction of State courts as well.
Now, there is no objection to Congress giving a life tenure and creating a court with district and circuit jurisdiction alone.
1932
That is recognized in this case to which I have called attention. At page 180 the majority of the court, in discussing the proposition, say that in all of this legislation the
significant fact is—I am trying to read the substance of it; I had better read the whole sentence, and that will put it in better form.
Mr. TELLER. That is better.
Mr. FORAKER. The court say:
The significance of these enactments, as well as of the acts of 1867 and 1869, and of section 1768 of the Revised Statutes, is in the fact that Congress has uniformly
proceeded upon the theory that the judges of Territorial courts were merely legislative courts, and were not entitled, by virtue of their appointment and the
Constitution of the United States, to hold their offices during good behavior, unless it was so declared in the respective acts providing for the organization of such
courts.
In other words, they come back right to the fact that Congress did not see fit in legislating to establish the court to give a life tenure, but they recognized that
Congress might have done so if Congress had seen fit, for Congress in so legislating is without any limitations, as I understand it.
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Senator if that language was not used with reference to the question simply whether the President could remove within the term for
which the appointment was made—four years?
Mr. FORAKER. No, Mr. President, the language which I have read was not used with reference to that alone. It is true that in this case the question before the
court was as to the power of the President to remove a district judge pf Alaska. That district judge had been appointed for a tenure of four years. He was removed
without any cause except only that the President wanted to displace him and substitute another man. The Supreme Court say that the civil-tenure law which excepted
judges of the United States courts did not except this judge, because Congress evidently intended that he should be only a legislative judge and not a constitutional judge,
and they interpreted the civil-tenure act to have reference only to constitutional courts and constitutional judges. But, as I say, in disposing of it they recognized, by
the quotation I have made from the opinion of the majority of the court, that Congress might have made that life tenure if Congress had seen fit to do so. In all these
cases you will find the court is careful to point out that the reason why they are not constitutional judges is, as in the Canter case, that they have jurisdiction that
does not belong to the United States courts, the constitutional courts, as well as that jurisdiction, and because their tenure is made for years instead of for life.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President——
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the Senator from Connecticut?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Senator has evidently over-looked a portion of this opinion of the majority of the court. On page 184, after citing all the former
decisions, Judge Harlan says:
These cases close all discussion here as to whether Territorial courts are of the class denned in the third article of the Constitution. It must be regarded as
settled that courts in the Territories, created under the plenary municipal authority that Congress possesses over the Territories of the United States, are
not courts of the United States created tinder the authority conferred by that article.
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. If the Senator will allow me, that is not at all inconsistent with what I am contending.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think it is.
Mr. FORAKER. They are speaking of Territorial courts as they have been by Congress created. They are not speaking about the power of Congress to create something
different, but they say in every instance, reviewing every one of them, the Congress has not seen fit to create a constitutional court, but only a Territorial court.
Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. TELLER. I wish to read what Judge Nelson says in the case of Benner vs. Porter (9 Howard). He will find it in the McAllister case, page 181.
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. TELLER. After citing the judicial clause of the Constitution, Article III, section 1, the court said:
Congress must not only ordain and establish inferior courts within a State, and prescribe their jurisdiction, but the judges appointed to administer them must possess
the constitutional tenure of office before they can become in-rested with any portion of the judicial power of the Union. There is no exception to this rule in the
Constitution. The Territorial courts, therefore, were not courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government could be
deposited. They were incapable of receiving, it, as the tenure of the incumbents was but for four years.
Then the court cites the case of Marshall.
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly, the court give the reason why they are incapable of receiving them, because they are not constitutional courts. Congress did not
design to make them such, and Congress evidenced that fact when it denied to them a life tenure and limited them to a term of years.
Mr. TELLER. Then the court quotes from Marshall, who declared that they were not, I think, very emphatically.
Mr. FORAKER. In the Canter case the court decided and gave the reason why they were not constitutional courts, assigning as the reason that they
were given a different jurisdiction from that which belonged to United States courts and because the tenure was restricted to a number of years.
Mr. TELLER. If the Senator from Ohio will allow me, I agree the court gave the reason, but it did not by any means give the reason the Senator is
giving.
Mr. FORAKER. I so understand it
Mr. TELLER. The court said they were not appointed under that constitutional power to appoint courts, but they were appointed under another power.
Mr. FORAKER. What the court said was that these were courts created by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred upon Congress to legislate
for the Territories, and that Congress in the exercise of that power had seen fit here to set up a court with a different jurisdiction from that which
belonged to United States courts, and with a tenure limited to a number of years instead of a life tenure, and that was a conclusive fact to show that
Congress did not design to make them constitutional courts.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. President——
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the Senator from Nevada?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. STEWART. I thought the Senator was through. I just wanted to say a word upon this subject. It seems to me to be too plain to have much
controversy about it.
The constitutional courts provided have a limited jurisdiction; the State courts exercise large jurisdiction. It is a peculiar jurisdiction that is conferred
upon the constitutional courts. The constitutional court is a peculiar court. It is a special court. Congress does not derive the power to legislate for the
Territories under that provision at all. It derives the power, according to some of the authorities, in some places entirely from the power to dispose of the
public property of a Territory, but most of the works on constitutional law say that the power to legislate for the Territories would exist independent
of any provision in the Constitution. It is a sovereign power that necessarily belongs to the United States, and when Congress legislate for the Territories
they do not create a special court. They create a court with general jurisdiction, covering all the jurisdiction that the States exercise and that the Federal
Government exercises.
Mr. TELLER. That is it exactly.
Mr. STEWART. It is one complete jurisdiction. It is a different system altogether; and it may be just such a system as Congress may ordain and
appoint, But when you come to constitutional courts, they are very different. They are limited, and by the Constitution a limited jurisdiction is prescribed,
whereas a Territorial court may be endowed by Congress with all the jurisdiction, as it usually is, that the courts of the United States have in the States and
that the State courts have.
It is all combined in one. and it results from the power to govern the Territories, whether that power be derived from the Constitution or from the very
nature of the sovereignty. Most all the authorities refer it to the very nature of sovereignty possessed by the Government.
When you say you have got no constitution for the Territories I deny that. We have got a constitution for the Territories, one that has grown up by
custom, and it ought to be as binding upon us as the English constitution is upon England. Ever since the formation of the Constitution we have legislated
in one direction. We have given the Territories local self-government; we have given them all the freedom that we enjoy. Now, while you might have
power to do almost anything to injure the Territories, you might have power to do wrong as any monarch with unlimited powers would have, we
have a Constitution by precedent for a hundred years that tells us that we must be governed by the general principles of liberty, justice, and a republican
form of government. We have done it in all instances, and that now is binding upon us without regard to the abstract power that Congress may have.
Congress has power to do wrong. So has any unlimited monarch. So far as the Territories are concerned we have that power, and Congress might
exercise it if we were not governed by an unwritten constitution that has grown up, that we must give the Territories all the rights and privileges that we
enjoy; that they must have republican government; that they must have local self-government; that they must be governed according to the laws of the
most enlightened, being republican, as we are. That we have to do unless we violate every principle that governs us at all anywhere.
But there is no constitution for the Territories except that which has grown up by custom. That has become as binding upon us and as binding upon the
consciences of Congress as the Constitution of the United States. We dare not violate it, and we are not
1933
going to violate it. It is idle to talk about what Congress might do. Any power might do many wrong things; but in view of the constitutional precedents we
have, in view of the custom that has grown up to do justice, to give them free government, Congress is not going to change its policy and become a monster and
do wrong. It can not do wrong with regard to them unless we violate the unwritten law, the unwritten constitution that has governed this country from its
foundation. There is no danger of Congress violating it. If it makes a departure from that we shall hear from the people.
Mr. FORAKER. I am much obliged to the Senator for the question, but he has so prolonged it I do not know just how to answer it.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. I want to complete my reading, however.
Mr. SPOONER. I only want to get at the right of this thing.
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. SPOONER. There are some reasons why, if we can create a constitutional court in Hawaii, I think it might be wise to do it. I want to ask the Senator
this question, if he will permit me. I suppose he will admit that in creating a constitutional court we have nothing whatever to do with the tenure of the
judge,
Mr. FORAKER. No, sir.
Mr. SPOONER. It is fixed by the Constitution?
Mr. FORAKER. It is fixed by the Constitution.
Mr. SPOONER. And it can not be other than the constitutional tenure for life or good behavior?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly not.
Mr. SPOONER. Now, does the Senator think that court a constitutional court as to the tenure of the judge of which we are not restricted by the
constitutional provision at all, but are left entirely free to make it two years or four years or ten years or during good behavior?
Mr. FORAKER. I beg the Senator's pardon; I did not catch the point of his question, if he asked me one. Do I think what?
Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator regard that court a constitutional court as to the tenure of the judge of which Congress is entirely free?
Mr. FORAKER. Yes.
Mr. SPOONER. To fix it at two years, or ten years, or during good behavior?
Mr. FORAKER. I think if Congress fixes it at anything less than a life tenure that is evidence that Congress did not intend to create a constitutional
court. That is the very point I have been making. But if Congress wants to create a court and give the judge a life tenure it is within the power of Congress
to do it.
Mr. SPOONER. No; but my point is this: Congress can not create a constitutional court without a life tenure.
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly not. That is what I have been contending.
Mr. SPOONER. Now, is any court as to which Congress may create a shorter than a life tenure a constitutional court?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly not.
Mr. SPOONER. Is not this a court in regard to which we may make the tenure four years or ten years, if we choose?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly it is; undoubtedly. Mr. President, after a very careful consideration of this question, and that is the reason why I am particular
about it here, we propose in the bill providing a civil government for Puerto Rico that there shall be a United States district court; we call it by that name,
but the tenure is only for four years. We limited the tenure for the sole purpose of making it clear that we do not intend to constitute a constitutional court,
but only a territorial court within the meaning of all these decisions.
Now, Mr. President, there is no ground for controversy here, because in the case to which I have already alluded, at page 188, the Supreme Court expressly
say as follows:
The whole subject of the organization of Territorial courts, the tenure by which the judges of such courts shall hold their offices, the salary they
receive, and the manner in which they may be removed or suspended from office, was left by the Constitution with Congress under its plenary
power over the Territories of the United States.
And then, as I called attention a while ago, they say in effect, further on, that in all cases it will be regarded as an evidence that a constitutional court was
not intended when the tenure comes under consideration unless Congress has seen fit to give the life tenure, indicating clearly that Congress is invested
with plenary power and can make a tenure for life or for any number of years it might see fit. If Congress sees fit to give tenure for less than life, that is
conclusive evidence that Congress does not intend to create a constitutional, but only a Territorial court.
But, Mr. President, the Supreme Court calls attention in all these cases to the fact that the jurisdiction given is such as also to show that not a
constitutional, but only a legislative court was intended to be created. In the Territories they have the Federal
side and the State side or the Territorial side, the one contradistinguished from the other, the one having jurisdiction of all local matters, the other having the
jurisdiction that belongs to the courts of the United States. There is not, in my opinion, any question but that the Congress can constitute a court in a
Terri-tory and call it what it sees fit, and give the life tenure to that judge and invest him with such jurisdiction as Congress may see fit to invest him with.
Mr. President, there is a controlling reason in my mind why this court should be different from the ordinary Territorial court and should have the
jurisdiction, that belongs under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to district and circuit courts. That Territory is peculiarly situated from any
other Territory that we have. It is away off yonder in the sea and must have an admiralty jurisdiction in its most pronounced sense.
I have only another word to add, and that is, conceding that the power is given, that Congress could create such a court there as it may see fit, the question
of policy remains. The Supreme Court has said it has plenary power over and over again, as often as it has had occasion to say it. I have had some
misgivings about the question of policy, and I yielded to my associates in the committee as to this bill, but when the committee considered this question in
regard to Puerto Rico a few days ago, they took a different view as a matter of policy. There is no question about the matter of power to do it.
We thought it would be better to give to that judge in Puerto Rico but a four years' tenure and make it clearly a Territorial and not a constitutional court;
but if we had seen fit to give it the jurisdiction that belongs to United States courts, and then to give it a life tenure, I do not see any reason why we should
not have made a United States court and judge within the meaning of the Constitution.
Mr. ROSS. Will the Senator allow me a question?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.
Mr. ROSS. I understand the Senator to concede that if the tenure of a judge has been for four years, six years, twenty years, or forty years, it would not be a
constitutional court, but a legislative court.
Mr. FORAKER. I do not concede any such thing. That is a truism, under the Constitution, and there can be no argument about what the Constitution
explicitly says.
Mr. ROSS. That is true; and it is true, is it not, because the legislature so fixes it?
Mr. FORAKER. No; it is true because the Constitution so fixes it.
Mr. ROSS. The Constitution so fixes it, and it becomes a legislative court. Now, if Congress in an act relative to a Territory fixes the term of office of the
judge at life, it is no less fixed by Congress than it would be if it fixed it for two years or four years or ten years, and is it not just as much a legislative court
within the terms of those decisions as if it had been fixed at two years or four years or ten years?
Mr. FORAKER. Not at all; not necessarily so, because the jurisdiction conferred might be such as to show it was designed to make only a Territorial
court. There are two things to be taken into consideration, one of tenure and the other of jurisdiction. If the Congress confers upon the court which it
creates jurisdiction which does not belong to a constitutional court of the United States, that is one evidence that it was intended within the meaning of the
decisions to be only a legislative court: and if Congress saw fit, giving it the same jurisdiction as a United States court in one of the States would have, to
limit the tenure to less than life, that would be another conclusive evidence that it was intended to be only a legislative court; and so the courts have held
in every one of these cases, as I understand.
Mr. PETTUS. Could not Congress repeal the act the next day after the judge was appointed for life?
Mr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly.
Mr. ROSS. What was the question?
Mr. FORAKER. Could not Congress repeal the act after it was enacted and the judge had been appointed? Undoubtedly it could repeal the law.
Mr. SPOONER. Could Congress do that as to the judge of a constitutional court?
Mr. FORAKER. I am not speaking of what the effect would be on such a constitutional officer; but unquestionably Congress could repeal the law.
Whether he has a vested right in his office is another question. He undoubtedly would have a vested right of some kind; I do not know to what extent.
Mr. PETTUS. The question I designed to ask was, could not the Congress abolish the office in a week after the judge was given a life tenure by Congress?
Mr. FORAKER. I think so. I do not think the creation of an office and the appointment of an official to hold it binds Congress for the life of the official
who has been appointed and who has become the incumbent.
1934
Mr. ROSS. I wish to ask the Senator another question, if he will yield for that purpose.
Mr. FORAKER. Yes, certainly; with pleasure.
Mr. ROSS. Does the court in a Territory get its jurisdiction from the act of Congress or does it get it from the Constitution?
Mr. FORAKER. It gets it from the act of Congress.
Mr. ROSS. Then, is it not a legislative court instead of a constitutional court?
Mr. FORAKER. It is a legislative court.
Mr. ROSS. It seems to me the Senator is confounding the matter, because the tenure is for life and the judge is given the same jurisdiction by the act of
Congress that he gets under the Constitution. It is therefore not a constitutional court, but it is merely a legislative court, and gets its whole
jurisdiction and term of office from the act of Congress.
Mr. FORAKER. The Senator did not follow me closely in the remarks I just made or he would not ask that question. I stated at the beginning that
the decisions which have been cited, in which it has been held that the court under consideration was a Territorial court, were each and all cases
where the Congress had evidenced by the character of the legislation creating the court that it did not intend a constitutional court, but only a
legislative court, the court has pointed out that that intention is derived from the fact, first in the Canter case, and in all the other cases, I believe,
without exception, that there was a limited instead of a life tenure. In other cases they pointed out the jurisdiction was different, and they have said,
not being a constitutional court, the court was incapable of taking the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution.
I do not know any reason why, therefore, where we extend the Constitution to a Territory, we may not there create a district court. We have here
extended the Constitution of the United States, if we pass this bill, to Hawaii. I do not know of any reason why there should not be a district court
established there, if we see fit to adopt the policy of establishing such a court, which of course remains after the question of power has been settled.
There is much to be said in favor of making the court in Hawaii a United States district court, and conferring upon it all the jurisdiction which belongs to
district and circuit courts of the United States, because, as I was about to remark a moment ago, that is differently situated from any other Territory that we
have yet legislated for. It has need for an admiralty jurisdiction, which does not belong to any interior Territory at any rate, and certainly not in the
pronounced sense in which it belongs to that of Hawaii, and there is an abundance of work there for a court with that kind of jurisdiction to exercise.
What I rose to suggest was that a court that is given a clean-cut constitutional jurisdiction in a Territory belonging to the United States, to whom
we have extended the Constitution, and the judges of which have been given a life tenure, as is the case here, ought not to be confounded with
Territorial courts which have been under consideration in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which have been relied upon.
I now yield with pleasure to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. ROSS. I was simply going to ask the Senator if he was not confounding the difference between the source from which the power comes in so
characterizing the court, rather than the court itself, or the name of the court. The Senator called it a constitutional court.
Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator define to me what jurisdiction a United States constitutional court gets from the Constitution proper?
Mr. ROSS. It gets just what is named in the Constitution, and it can not have any other given to it.
Mr. FORAKER. I will ask if it is not necessary to legislate with respect to the jurisdiction of constitutional courts just as much as it is with respect
to Territorial courts; and if the term "constitutional court "means anything "more than it is a court created by Congress within the contemplation of the
Constitution, which authorizes Congress to establish courts?
Mr. ROSS. I understand a constitutional court, within the meaning of the decision, extends to the States only. When you go into the Territories
and legislate, then with unlimited power you can give the same term of office to the judges of a court in the Territories and the same jurisdiction, or
more or leas of it, as Congress may please.
Mr. FORAKER. I do not agree with the Senator that a United States- court can not be created except within the States. I do not know of any reason
why a United States court may not be created beyond the States, to sit and have jurisdiction outside of the States, in the Territories of the United
States, to which we extend the Constitution. I do not agree with the Senator that Congress can legislate for the. Territories outside of the States
without any limitation whatever.
I should like to ask the Senator what he would do were a measure proposed here prohibiting the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press in Hawaii? Would
he, because it is outside of the
States, vote for it in view of the fact that the first clause of the Bill of Rights says no law shall be passed by Congress doing any such thing?
I call the Senator's attention to that only to show that there are some positive prohibitions in the Constitution which rest upon us as Senators sitting under the
Dome of the Capitol, which we can not disregard, which accompany all legislation that we enact, no matter for whom it may be or whether they are in the
Union as an integral part of it or not.
I agree with the general proposition that we are unlimited in our power when legislating for Territories to which we have not extended the Constitution
particularly, except only by the positive prohibitions which are laid by the Constitution upon every man who sits here as a legislator, no matter what his
view upon the general subject may be. Therefore I say when we come to create courts, we simply say, by virtue of the authority conferred on us by the
Constitution, there shall be a court here, and it shall have the jurisdiction we give it, or the jurisdiction of a United States district court proper, and we give it
a tenure, which belongs to the judge. I do not know why it is not competent for us to do it. If it is competent for you to say that it is not a constitutional,
but only a Territorial court, because it is outside of the States which constitute the Union, you can say that just as well with it having one jurisdiction and
one tenure, as you can if it be given another tenure and another jurisdiction.
Mr. GALLINGER. If the Senator will permit me, it is evident that this interesting discussion can not be completed to-night; and, with the Senator's consent, I
will move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.
Mr. FORAKER. I yield.
February 19, 1900
House
T.
33 (2)
p. 1962
Mr. Jones of Washington, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
to which was referred the bill of the House ( H . R. 5065) to extend the laws relating
to commerce, navigation, and merchant seamen over the Hawaiian Islands ceded to the
United States, reported the same with amendment, Accompanied by a report (No. 375)}
which said bill and report were referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
February 20, 1900 Senate
v. 33 ( 2 )
p. 1978
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which is the bill (8. 222) to provide a
government for the Territory of Hawaii.
February 20, 1900 Senate
v. 33 (2)
p. 1979-1992
TERRITORY OF HAWAII.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of
Hawaii.
Mr. CULLOM. I desire to make two or three little formal amendments to the bill. On page 11, line 22, I move to strike out the
words " ayes and noes" and insert "yeas and nays;" and in line 23, same page, I move to strike out " ayes and noes" and insert "yeas
and nays." That is the form that is used in this country more particularly.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. On page 18, line 22,1 move to strike out "ayes and noes" and to insert "yeas and nays," and wherever those words
occur I desire that they should be stricken out and the •words " yeas and nays'' inserted.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. I move the same amendment on page 19, lines 22 and 23.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say at this moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HANSBROUGH in the chair). This bill is in Committee of the Whole, and open to amendment.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. There was an amendment passed over.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. I desire to offer an amendment in section 10,
'line 22, page 7, after the word "contracts," by inserting "except contracts for labor entered into since Hawaii was annexed to the United
States." I desire to except all labor contracts which have been entered into since the Territory was annexed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment submitted by the Senator from Minnesota will be stated.
The SECRETARY. In section 10, on page 7, line 22, after the word " contracts," it is proposed to insert " except contracts for labor entered
into since Hawaii was annexed to the United States."
Mr. NELSON. I will briefly state the object of the amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. NELSON. Very well.
1979
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON"].
Mr. FORAKER. I suggest to the Senator from Minnesota that, instead of the expression, "since Hawaii -was annexed to the United States," be adopt the
date which baa been adopted in this bill, August 12,1898.
Mr. NELSON. Very well; that is satisfactory.
The PRESIDING- OFFICER. The amendment will be stated as modified.
The SECRETARY. On page 7, section 10, line 22, after the word " contracts," it is proposed to insert" except contracts for labor entered into since August
12,1898."
The amendment -was agreed to.
Mr. VEST. On page 23, in section 65, line 8, I move to insert:
Nor stall any such bonds or indebtedness be incurred until approved by the President of the United States.
This bill provides that 3 per cent upon municipal assets may be issued in the way of bonds—not exceeding 3 per cent. Three per cent is a very large
indebtedness, and our experience is Missouri has been so fearful about municipal indebtedness that I am always anxious to curtail the power as much as possible.
The people of Missouri to-day pay 820,000,000 on fraudulent bonds issued by county courts under old charters, -which nobody had paid any attention to, for
railroads that never were constructed and never will be constructed, and there is no more possibility of their being constructed than there is of me carrying off this
Capitol. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Iowa cases, any bonds issued by lawful authority and negotiated before maturity
to an innocent holder for value assume the status of commercial paper and must be paid.
Mr. CULLOM. Do I understand that the bonds are not to be issued beyond a certain per cent?
Mr. VEST. The percentage is already fixed in the bill at 3 per cent.
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator mean by that that no indebtedness shall be incurred without the approval of the President or beyond such an amount?
Mr. VEST. I say "any such indebtedness." That retains the limitation of 3 per cent. I think that is too much. I think it ought to be 2 per cent. Any such
indebtedness or loan, I assume, would retain the limitation of 3 per cent.
Mr. CULLOM. I am inclined to accept that amendment, so far as I am individually concerned.
The PRESIDING OFFICES,. The amendment submitted by the Senator from Missouri will be stated.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert, on page 23, line 8, at the end of section 10, after the word "thereof," the-words "nor shall any such bonds or
indebtedness be incurred until approved by the President of the United States." The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. NELSON. I offer an amendment to section 10, page 8, line 7, after the word "offenses," to insert " except for violation of labor contracts." The clause if so
amended will read:
All offenses which by statute then in force were punishable as offenses, except for violation of labor contracts, against the republic of Hawaii
shall be punishable as offenses against the government of the Territory of Hawaii.
It is to prevent the enforcement by criminal punishment or to prevent criminal punishment for the mere violation of labor con-tracts.
Mr. MORGAN. I will say to the Senator that all the laws of Hawaii relating to punishment predicated upon labor contracts are repealed by this bill.
Mr. CULLOM. In so many -words.
Mr. MORGAN. They are all repealed.
Mr. CULLOM. I have the penal laws of Hawaii in my hand, and that particular provision in the repealing section repeals all of the statutes pertaining to
labor, servants, masters, etc.
Mr. HALE. I wish the Senator would state that to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Maine?
Mr. CULLOM. I yield, of course.
Mr. HALE. I thought we were considering the amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. We are.
MR. HALE. I wish the Senator would state for our benefit the theory upon which this bill proceeds as to the entire question of
1980
contracts for labor. The situation is and has been peculiar in Hawaii and in marked contrast to our conditions here. I have not been able to find—
because I have not examined the volumes of the statutes referred to—just what is the theory of the commit-tee with reference to this subject, and what the
bill contains and carries.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, to begin with, as I stated yesterday, there are about 40,000 laborers in those islands, about half of whom are supposed to be
under contract, and who were brought there under contract.
Mr. HALE. Under existing contracts?
Mr. CULLOM. Under contracts how existing in the republic, so called. This bill goes upon the theory that when the labor laws of the United States
are extended over these islands by the passage of this bill nothing more can occur in the way of the importation of contract labor. Then, in addition to
that, we go for-ward and repeal all the penal laws which justify the punishment in any way of a violation of labor contracts. So that, as the committee
think, and as I think, the whole question is put beyond the control of the islands in undertaking to make any further labor contracts.
Mr. HALE. If the Senator will allow me, what troubled me was the repeal of all legislation which punishes the violation of the labor-contract
provisions. As I understand the Senator, the bill proceeds upon this proposition, that there shall be no future contracts for the importation of foreign
labor.
Mr. CULLOM. There can not be after our laws are extended over the islands.
Mr. HALE. The operation of this bill is to extend our laws, which provide, just as they do for Illinois or for Maine, that there shall be no importation
of foreign labor by contract.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. HALE. And those laws which make that provision also provide punishments for their violation. The Senator does not mean that there is
anything in this bill which prevents the operation of the penal force of our laws or permits any violation of the labor-contract laws that we have.
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly not. We have just adopted a pro-vision which I offered here—as I stated yesterday, and I desired to do so specifically—
requiring by this bill that all prosecutions for violation of labor contracts should be prohibited. In addition to that, we repeal all the local laws which in
any way authorize such things.
Mr. HALE. All prosecutions not for the violation of labor laws, but labor contracts, so that they can not be enforced.
Mr. CULLOM. They can not be enforced.
Mr. HALE. Now, what does the Senator believe is the condition of the contracts which are now subsisting?
Mr. CULLOM. That raises a constitutional question, I might say, as to whether Congress or any other body can legislate right-fully, thereby invalidating
a civil contract.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. No doubt they can.
Mr. HALE. I think they can; but does this bill attempt to do that?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. No, it does not.
Mr. HALE. Then this bill excludes that in so many words.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I so understand. This bill in terms permits those contracts to exist and to run until they expire. Now, from the
Senator's examination, what does he think is the actual operation of existing contracts for labor upon persons who have been brought in under those
contracts, as to what numbers and what time, and how long they will continue? I do not know anything about that myself.
Mr. CULLOM. Those contracts run usually, I think, three years. That is my impression; but after the passage of this bill, the repeal of the laws
authorizing labor contracts to be made, and the prohibition of an attempt to punish anyone for violating such contracts, what the result will be I do not
know; but my judgment is it will result in the entire abolition of the contract system there.
Mr. HALE. The Senator believes that. Then, certainly in not more than three years it will all pass away.
Mr. CULLOM. My judgment is that it will pass away in less than one year, because they can not enforce such contracts by punishment as they have
been doing heretofore. So I think in a very short time the result will be that the contract laborers in those islands will be a thing of the past.
Mr. HALE. The Senator thinks that it is practically abolished by this bill?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will the Senator read the laws which are repealed?
Mr. CULLOM. If I should read all the laws which are re-pealed by this bill, I would be reading nearly all day.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I mean the penal laws with regard to the punishment of contract labor.
Mr. CULLOM. I have the chapter here before me. Here is the chapter with the title "Masters and servants." I shall not undertake to read all of
that.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That is repealed.
Mr. CULLOM. A part of that is repealed, I see. Here is one of the provisions:
TO REGULATE CONTRACTS BETWEEN MASTERS AND SERVANTS.
1368. All contracts for service between masters and servants, where only one of the parties is a native Hawaiian, shall be written or printed in both the
Hawaiian and English languages. No such contracts shall have any affect in law when executed in one language only: Provided, That nothing Herein contained
shall be held or construed to prevent any such contracts being written or printed in the Hawaiian language only where both parties thereto are native
Hawaiians.
SEC. 1360. The minister of the interior is hereby authorized to prepare. In both languages, printed forms of contract, as provided for in the foregoing section, in
blank as to place, time, and service, wages, name, place where engaged, and place of residence.
SEC. 1370. Every contract for service authorized by section 1382 shall, in order to its validity, be acknowledged by the master or his duly empowered agent, and
the servant before the agent to take acknowledgments of con-tracts, as hereinafter provided, and the certificate of acknowledgment shall be substantially as
follows:
SEC.
And so it goes on here for pages.
By this proposed law we will wipe that entirely out, so that there will be no statute in the Territory of Hawaii that pertains to the importation of labor or
labor contracts such as we under-stand to be now in existence.
Mr. TILLMAN. But if the Senator will permit me, do not the penalties attaching to the breaking of a labor contract still obtain? Are they not left?
Mr. SPOONER. They are eliminated by the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. TILLMAN. If you will read it, you will see that they are not eliminated.
Mr. CULLOM. I did not hear it read distinctly.
Mr. TILLMAN. They apply to contracts made since the islands have been in our possession, and not all the time.
Mr. NELSON. If the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] will allow me a moment, I want to say to him that the amendment I offered can do no harm. It covers the
exact case which he in-tends to reach. Here is the phraseology of the bill, commencing in line 5, on page 8:
All offenses which by statute then in force-That means in August, 1898—
were punishable as offenses against the republic of Hawaii shall be punishable as offenses against the government of the Territory of Hawaii, unless such statute is
inconsistent with this act or shall be repealed or changed by law.
It may be that your repeal covers the case; but should there be any question about it, it will do no harm to insert this clause, as I suggested, after the word "
offenses," in line 5; so that it will read:
All offenses except for the violation of labor contracts.
There can be no harm in that, and it "makes assurance double sure " on this point.
Mr. MONEY. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to say a word to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.
Mr. MONEY. If the statute which defines the crime and pro-vides the penalty is repealed, then how can it be in force?
Mr. NELSON. That may be true, technically.
Mr. MONEY. It is absolutely so.
Mr. NELSON. I have not had time to examine it.
Mr. MONEY. All of. those statutes are repealed by this bill. If P. part of a statute falls, everything else goes with it.
Mr. NELSON. Is the Senator sure that the repeal will affect all of those laws?
Mr. MONEY. They are named by sections in the bill itself; and if the Senator will compare that—I suppose he has the penal statutes of Hawaii before him, has
he not?
Mr. NELSON. No; I have not.
Mr. MONEY. I thought perhaps the Senator had a copy of the penal statutes. He will find that those statutes are repealed by this bill.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think they are.
Mr. MONEY. If they are repealed, there can be no offense and no punishment; and therefore the amendment would be entirely unnecessary.
Mr. CULLOM. The committee thought and believed that the bill had been so framed that it would get rid entirely of the con-tract-labor system which has
prevailed in Hawaii.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Chapter 78, if the Senator will permit me, which relates to masters and servants, reads:
If any person lawfully bound to service shall willfully absent himself from such service, without the leave of his master, any district magistrate of the republic,
upon complaint made, under oath by the master or by anyone on his behalf, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring him before the said
magistrate; and if the complaint shall be maintained, the magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and he shall be compelled to serve the
remainder of the time for which he originally contracted.
That has all been repealed, and those were the objectionable features, as I understand.
Mr. CULLOM. On page 6 of the bill the Senator will find that
1981
chapter 78, in relation to masters and servants, will be repealed by the passage of this bill.
Mr. TILLMAN. But, if the Senator from Illinois will permit me, while they repeal those statutes which are for the punishment of contract laborers who break
their contracts, section 10 provides that "all obligations, contracts, rights of action, suits at law," etc., shall be continued as effectually as if this act had not
been passed.
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Those are contracts.
Mr. TILLMAN. Is not a contract for labor a contract?
Mr. FORAKER. That has been amended.
Mr. CULLOM. I proposed yesterday the following amendment:
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced either by injunction or by legal process.
Mr. TILLMAN. That applies to all contracts. Make it a little more sweeping, so as to apply either before or after annexation. .
Mr. CULLOM. It applies back to the beginning of time, so far as that is concerned.
Mr. HALE. It applies to all contracts that are subsisting at the time of the passage of this bill.
Mr. CULLOM. To all contracts.
Mr. HALE. Yes. Is that in the bill?
Mr. CULLOM. It is in an amendment which I propose, and which I referred to yesterday.
Mr. TILLMAN. You have not put it in the bill.
Mr. CULLOM. No; it is not in the bill, but I will offer it.
Mr. SPOONER, I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois if we do not by this bill confirm some labor contracts?
Mr. CULLOM. I think not.
Mr. SPOONER. Are there none entered into prior to 1898 still in force?
Mr. CULLOM. I suppose there are. I do not know about that; but if any Senator can draw an amendment which w ill close out those contract-labor importations and
the enforcement of such contracts afterwards, and show that his proposition is constitutional, I shall be glad to vote for it.
Mr. SPOONER. I have not any doubt about the constitutionality of it. The inhibition against the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts is upon
the States. It is not quite enough to eliminate punishment by the court after the fashion of the violation of some criminal act. The provisions themselves may be of
a character which are offensive to our sense of what is just and what is right. That is what led me to ask the Senator if we are expressly affirming here and continuing
any alien-labor contracts in Hawaii; and if so, to what extent? I wanted to follow that question by another, which perhaps I have not any need to ask, as to the
general character of these contracts.
Mr. HALE. The statute covers that.
Mr. SPOONER. No; it does not.
Mr. CULLOM. I have a document which shows that. I have it not on my table at present, but I can get it in a little while. It shows copies of numbers of contracts,
the exact contracts in letter and terms. I have not that here, but I will furnish it to the Senator, so that he can see exactly what the terms of the contracts are.
Mr. SPOONER. My recollection of these contracts, growing out of the debates on the annexation of Hawaii, is that they were brutal contracts that would not be
tolerated at all in this country.
Mr. TILLMAN. Here are some provisions which are on a par with the black codes of some of the Southern States, and you gentlemen of the Republican party are in
honor bound not to leave the people of Hawaii in the same condition in which the former slaveholders wanted to put their ex-slaves. If it is intended to repeal the
provisions regarding these contracts and to annul them, why not say expressly that the contracts for labor heretofore existing, punitive in their character, are
annulled, so as to make assurance double sure that you do not intend to leave those people over there in slavery?
Mr. CULLOM. That is just what we are trying to do, if the Senator will take notice. In the amendment which I propose to offer it is provided that no contract for
labor or personal service shall be enforced. That comes pretty near annulling such con-tracts.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Where does that come in?
Mr. CULLOM. I propose to offer it at the end of section 10, which is the section which proposes to keep alive all obligations, contracts, rights of actions, etc., as
Hawaii passes from one form of government to another. I inquire of the Senator from South Carolina whether he does not think that amendment would accomplish
just what he wants?
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator indicate where he proposes to put his amendment?
Mr. CULLOM. At the end of section 10.
Mr. TILLMAN. I hope the Senator will offer the amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I will move to add to section 10 the following:
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced either by injunction or other legal process.
Mr. NELSON. You ought to insert "criminal process."
Mr. CULLOM. This refers to any legal process. If the Senator thinks he can help the amendment or strengthen it in any way, I shall be glad to have him do
so.
Mr. HAWLEY. Would that forbid a citizen to bring a civil suit against a person violating an ordinary contract for labor?
Mr. CULLOM. It is a question with me whether that does not go so far as to interfere with civil contracts which are legitimate. There ought to be some way of
enforcing contracts other than by imprisonment.
Mr. HAWLEY. Does the Senator mean contracts for labor made before the person contracted for arrived in that Territory?
Mr. CULLOM. I mean contracts growing out of the importation of those men to that country.
Mr. HAWLEY. That can be easily denned, so as to leave all innocent contracts under the law.
Mr. HALE. In other words, the Senator proposes to leave the contracts as civil contracts existing and to strike out all penal regulations and laws for
enforcing them.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. No; Mr. President.
Mr. HALE. Is not that so?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The effect of the Senator's amendment is, I think, to prevent the enforcement by law of all con-tracts in the islands relating to
labor.
Mr. HALE. Any kind of enforcement, not only the penal pro-visions and punishments, but a civil suit or a civil process can not be maintained.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes.
Mr. HALE. Well, that in effect abolishes it in toto, does it not?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think it goes too far.
Mr. CULLOM. As I said a while ago, my judgment is that if we repeal the penal provisions affecting such contracts the result will be that the
whole business will break down, because it can not be enforced.
Mr. HALE. What does the Senator leave standing?
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator leaves, then, all in the bill, in the hope that the insertion of a provision preventing criminal prosecutions for
violating contracts is all that is necessary to be done by Congress.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Maine, it is proposed, at the end of page 8, to
insert:
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced either by injunction or other legal process.
If that means simply that no action shall be brought to compel a laborer to perform his contract either by injunction or application for specific performance, I
do not know that I have any objection to it; but if it goes so far as to prevent an employer bringing a suit against a person who may have entered into a contract for
labor to recover damages, I do not think that ought to be done.
Mr. HALE. Will not the Senator read that again?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut.
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced either by injunction or other legal process.
Mr. HALE. It seems to me that, in connection with the repeal of the penal provision, is extirpation of the whole thing, is it not? Does it not go to the root?
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It does.
Mr. HALE. It seems to me it does.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I do not know but that it goes too far.
Mr. HALE. It seems to me it is extirpation of the whole thing, and there is under that proviso no process that anybody on the other side can
invoke in criminal form, or any injunction or by suit for breach of contract, for damages.
Mr. CULLOM. I appreciate that, but it seems difficult to adopt an amendment that goes far enough and does not go too far. I think myself, and I
believe every body will agree, that if a business man, for instance, in this country or in Honolulu, makes a contract with another citizen there to perform
work, building a house or what not, if the man does not do it the other man ought to have the right to bring a suit against him, and I do not know
but that this would interfere with that. If it does, it would go too far. If not, it does just what I want to have done.
Mr. HALE. I suppose the committee intended that it should apply only to contract-labor matters, affecting the importation of foreign outside
labor, and nothing more than that.
Mr. CULLOM. I am satisfied to have that adopted, and if on further investigation it seems to go too far, we can modify it.
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Read it again.
Mr. HOAR. Have it read at the desk.
Mr. NELSON. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois that he change it to "criminal prosecution," so as to limit it to injunction and criminal
prosecution. That would leave the matter of the validity of the contracts to stand.
Mr. CULLOM. The amendment which is being discussed more or less referring to contract labor is as follows——
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. No; it does not refer to that.
1982
Mr. CULLOM. It does not refer to it in so many words, but the purpose of this amendment, while its phraseology may not exactly state it, is to
prevent a criminal prosecution against a violator of a contract after he is brought into Honolulu from Japan, if you please, under a contract, and then
violates it. We do not want him sent to jail.
Mr. HALE. It goes much further than that.
Mr. CULLOM. We do not want him prosecuted.
Mr. HOAR. The Senator was going to have the amendment read at the desk or read it himself, as he prefers.
Mr. CULLOM. I will read it myself. It is proposed to add to section 10:
Provided, That no contract for labor or personal service shall be enforced either by injunction or other legal process.
Mr. HALE. Why do you not say contract for foreign labor?
Mr. CULLOM. It means about the same thing, because they are all pretty much foreign who are laborers there.
Mr. PERKINS. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois a question. While in the islands investigating the question of labor, did the commission
hear any testimony as to the abuse of contract laborers, the manner in which labor was performed, and the penalties imposed for violations of their
contracts? I should also like to inquire if they ascertained whether there were any large con-tracts for the construction of canals or railroads or
aqueducts on the islands. We made every effort in the last session to extend to the islands our laws relating to contract labor and immigration, and it
failed by reason of an objection upon this floor near the closing hours of the session. It is a notorious fact that since Congress adjourned many
thousands of laborers have been brought into the islands of the Hawaiian group under contract for labor. I certainly think this amendment should be
so framed that there can be no ambiguity whatever in its language and so that it will not require a judicial body to construe its meaning.
Both of the Senators on this floor who are members of the com mission are thoroughly conversant with these great abuses, and I trust they will so
formulate the amendment that there can be no question or doubt about it.
Mr. HOAR. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois this phrase, which I think will accomplish all Senators desire and which goes as far as we ought
to go:
Provided, That there shall be no remedy for the specific performance of any contract for labor, and that the failure to comply with the same shall
net be punished criminally.
Those are the things you want to do, leaving an ordinary action for damages for breach of contract.
Mr. HALE. Would the Senator make that apply to general contracts for labor?
Mr. HOAR. I think so.
Mr. HALE. Not only foreign labor, bat ordinary contracts?
Mr. HOAR. We lived in Massachusetts without any remedy to compel the specific performance of ordinary labor contracts down to within a very
few years, and I suppose they did in most of the other States.
Mr. HALE. A contract for labor sometimes involves a large transaction, like the building of structures.
Mr. HOAR. That is not a contract for labor.
Mr. HALE. It may be.
Mr. HOAR. Say'' personal service."
Mr. HALE. I do not understand that the committee intends to go into that large domain of regulating contracts and controversies about labor
outside of foreign contract labor.
Mr. CULLOM. That is all.
Mr. HALE. Why not, then, limit this by terms so that it shall only apply to the subject the committee intend to take up, and not take up that larger
domain the Senator from Massachusetts suggests, which we have not had up? Let it apply only to contracts for labor.
Mr. HOAR. I have an impression that we have passed, certainly through the Senate, and I think through both Houses, a general domestic statute
containing that provision so far as the United States courts go. I do not believe, in other words, that it is expedient that labor contracts shall be
enforced by specific performance. Any other contract where specific performance is en-forced is discharged by the payment of a sum of money, by
the making of a deed of conveyance, or something of that kind, but holding a man to labor or service by law is repugnant to the genius of our
institutions, whether it be holding him to the labor or service of a slave or any other form. In the description of slavery in our Constitution by a
euphemism they avoided the term " slave" or " slaveholding" or "slaveholder," and the Constitution speaks of it as a person held to labor or service.
Now, when the immigrant comes over from a foreign country and gets to Hawaii, he is to a certain extent rather helpless if he has made an
improvident contract. It is taking the body for the supreme court to say to a man, "You go and work for A B on his farm and stay there six months."
It seems to me that wherever we
have the legislative power we should say that the right of a man to himself shall not be interfered with by law in consequence of any alleged or any actual
contract. You may come upon him for damages, if you can, but you shall not take him by the ear and lead him out to a day's work under the order of any
court.
I will take the responsibility of moving the amendment I pro-pose, and let the Senate do with it as it pleases. I move to insert:
Provided, That no proceeding shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract for labor or service, and there shall be no criminal proceeding for the breach thereof.
Mr. SPOONER. I hope the Senator from Illinois will accept that amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I think I will accept it, so far as I am concerned.
Several SENATORS. Say " personal labor."
Mr. HOAR. Insert the word "personal," so as to read "personal labor." I intended to put that in.
Mr. CULLOM. Question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON].
Mr. NELSON. My amendment is to insert the following words——
Mr. SPOONER. On what page?
Mr. NELSON. On page 8. I think, however, that the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts will cover it, and if that is adopted
mine will be unnecessary.
Mr. CULLOM. Withdraw it.
Mr. NELSON. I withdraw the amendment if the other amendment is to be adopted. I withdraw it for the time being at least.
Mr. CULLOM. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. HOAR. The Senator from Illinois has accepted my amendment to his amendment.
Mr. CULLOM. I accept the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] as modified by the
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR].
Mr. HALE. Let that as finally modified and offered by the Senator from Massachusetts be read, stating where it comes in.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed at the end of section 10 to insert
Provided, That no proceeding shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract for personal labor or service, and there shall be no
criminal proceeding for the breach thereof.
Mr. HALE. Certainly that goes very far. It goes a great way beyond what the committee contemplated. It does not in any way confine itself to the
evil which the committee sought to remedy, the continuance of contract labor and the enforcement of those contracts. That, I take it, was the only
subject with which the committee intended to deal.
Mr. CULLOM. It was the only subject it seemed to be necessary to deal with in connection with labor, so far as we heard over there. Hence it was
that we desired to break up the importation of laborers and contracts with laborers.
Mr. HALE. That, of course, is foreign imported labor.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. HALE. Now, the Senator from Illinois accepts this amendment to the amendment, and I think the Senate ought to under-stand that it is
incorporating a very far-reaching, a very wide provision, touching not only labor imported by contract, which we have forbidden here and mean to
forbid in Hawaii hereafter, but contracts touching any kind of business that involves personal labor. It declares that no proceeding shall be instituted
to en-force it. I think that is the language. What is the language?
Mr. HOAR. I beg pardon. I suggested to the Senator's ear, " No." I said it not with reference to his statement, but his language was "any kind of
business that involves personal labor."
Mr. HALE. That has been accepted. "Personal" has been incorporated.
Mr. HOAR. "Anything that involves personal labor "is not the language.
Mr. HALE. Let us have it exact.
Mr. HOAR. "Any contract for personal labor."
Mr. HALE. Any contract that involves personal labor, and no proceeding——
Mr. HOAR. The words "involving personal labor" are not there.
Mr. HALE. Well, for the enforcement of any contract for personal labor. It would apply to any large contract.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me?
1983
Mr. HALE. As a Senator suggests to me, it would apply not simply to a contract of a day laborer to perform work upon any building or any farm or any estate, but a
contract for larger services, for the superintendency of an estate, of a plantation, of a mill.
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Maine allow me?
Mr. HALE. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. HALE. Certainly.
Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator allow me one word here?
Mr. SPOONER. I thought the Senator from Maine yielded to me.
Mr. HALE. I yield to all.
Mr. NELSON. I think the Senator from Maine misapprehends the effect of the amendment. The effect of the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is simply to
prevent the enforcement of certain contracts by specific performance and to prevent criminal prosecution. That is exactly the law all over the country, in every State in this
Union. It has always been so. Yon can never enforce by specific performance a contract for personal labor in any case, from the President of the United States
down to the commonest laborer. Neither can you prosecute it criminally. This leaves the law, I want to say to the Senator from Maine, just as it is in respect to
remedies for breach of civil contracts. That is all.
Mr. HALE. I understand. I do not know so well as the Senator from Minnesota that there are not anywhere in any State pro-visions or laws or decisions which authorize
the enforcement of a specific contract for labor of any kind. Certainly this strikes all that out, and I think Senators should understand that it is a very wide-reaching,
far-stretching provision. It may be right. It may be that other States have such laws. I do not think we have in Maine. But it ought to be understood how far this
provision does go.
There are plenty of things in this bill I can see as plain as day that will come up to perplex us hereafter. The relations are new. It is bringing into our system
something about which none of us have any knowledge or experience—the application of laws to these people, the sustaining and upholding of certain
other laws of theirs in part and making them remain in the future. All the complications in this bill, as I look at it and as I hear discussion upon it, grow in
my mind, and I am afraid we will find, with all the care the committee has bestowed upon it and the scrutiny which Senators have given it, that when we get
through in operation we will find a bill that will come back to trouble us in a great many ways, and that we are going very far in certain directions and not far
enough in certain other directions. Therefore I call attention to this provision, which may be all right. It may be all right that every kind of contract involving
personal labor shall only be enforced by a suit for damages; but everybody knows that a suit of that kind in most cases is of no avail and has nothing on which it
can base a judgment. But it may be better to apply it here. We ought to understand it, of course, and I think we do understan d the extent of the
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, as is very well known, I have not been in favor of undertaking the government of subject populations, and all the reflection I
have given to the matter increases my opinion that it is not desirable, either for such populations or for us, that we should do it. But I am in favor of giving a
code of laws to a people whom I hope and expect some time may become, a prosperous and strong American State; and it seems to me that when we are legislating
for Hawaii, in regard to which I have such a hope and expectation, we ought, when we deal with any, subject, to make our legislation perfect as far as
possible in that particular.
Now, if it be sound public policy, in the judgment of the Senate, to prohibit a court from ordering anybody, humble or not humble, to be taken by the power of a sheriff
or a marshal and led out to his work in the morning and sent back, not exactly like a galley slave scourged to his dungeon, but sent back, confined and bound and
held in duress, I can not for the life of me see why that doc-trine ought not to be applied now to the island of Hawaii by proper enactment while we are dealing
with the specific subject. They are not going to make a law on the subject this year or next year. We are making a code which involves other large relations, and we are
going to say something in that code about the legal remedy on contracts to labor. We have the subject up. The question is, having the subject up, whether we
shall do the work or only half do the work. I am in favor of doing the work and not stopping when we have half done it. As the Senator from Minnesota has so
well said, we are only enacting in this code what other States, Home of which have codes and some have not, have for their law now.
Mr. CULLOM. Question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois as modified by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. RAWLINS. I ask that the amendment may be stated.
The SECRETARY. It is proposed at the end of section 10 to insert the following:
provided, That no proceeding shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract for personal labor or service, and there shall be no criminal
proceeding (or the breach thereof.
Mr. HALE. Would that description, no " contract for personal labor," cover the contracts that the committee originally intended to provide for—foreign labor? I do not know
enough about it to know whether they are made with the persons who labor or whether they are made with parties who agree to furnish con-tract labor. In providing
on the general ground that the Senator stated so strongly, I should not want to have this enacted and find that there slipped out the very provision that we started to put in
affecting contracts for imported foreign labor. I do not Know whether the contracts are made with those persons or with agents.
Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator will allow me, I have before me a document containing a contract.
Mr. HALE. The Senator from Illinois knows about that.
Mr. CULLOM. I will read a contract.
Mr. HALE. Read a portion of it.
Mr. CULLOM. Very well.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACOB COEBPER AND CERTAIN JAPANESE WORKMSH.
This agreement made and entered into this 16th day of February, A. D. 1898, by and between Jacob Coerper, party of the first part, of Kahului, North Kona, Hawaii,
and Koroyama (k), Yakoyarna (k), Iwata (k),and Takista (k), of the second part, of Kahului 2, North Kona aforesaid, witnesseth:
That the said parties have agreed and do agree by these presents as follows: The said parties of the second part will plant and properly cultivate under and by the
advice of said party of the first part, commencing within ten days from date, all that portion of land situate in Kahului 2, aforesaid——
Mr. HALE. The Senator need not go on. It appears that it is a contract made with each of the persons who are to perform the labor.
Mr. CULLOM. Who are to perform the labor.
Mr. HALE. And is signed by each of them personally?
Mr. CULLOM. It does not say how it is signed.
Mr. HALE. I suppose it must be.
Mr. CULLOM. I suppose it is.
Mr. HALE. In some of the California contracts the persons who performed the labor never signed any contract.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator will see that this contract is not only to labor, but it involves a sort of partnership by which these men are to raise sugar at certain
figures, and so on. You can scarcely say, in fact, that it is a personal labor contract, because it is an agreement between these parties to raise sugar on certain terms.
Mr. HALE. The last observation of the Senator from Illinois, that this does not come up to the legal description of a personal contract, raises a doubt. Has the
Senator any doubt that the amendment which he has accepted does entirely cover the system of foreign-labor contracts?
Mr. CULLOM. I have no doubt it will destroy the business, and my own judgment is that without this amendment, the Constitution and the laws of the United
States being extended over those islands, it will break up the whole thing, and there will be no more of it than there is in the United States.
Mr. PERKINS. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois if, in his opinion, the amendment will cover a contract made by a certain Japanese company
represented by its officers for a certain number of Japanese. As a matter of fact, thousands and thousands of Japanese workmen have been imported into the
Hawaiian Islands. They come there under contract made with the managers of those companies. As evidence of that fact, permit me to read an extract from the report of
Commissioner Powderly, made one year ago to our committee:
Detailed information of a confidential nature has been received, showing that since the passage of the joint resolution annexing the said islands immigration
thereto has been greatly stimulated; as many as 7,000 Japanese have been contracted for by residents and 250 Italians engaged to work on sugar plantations.
These figures, by a comparison with arrivals prior to the passage of the said act, indicate that interested parties are exerting them-selves to laud in said islands as
many immigrants as possible of such classes as would be excluded if the operation of our immigration laws were extended so as to embrace arrivals in Hawaii.
It is a notorious fact that since this, one year ago——
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I wish to ask the Senator what is the date of that report? I believe he said it was a year ago.
Mr. PERKINS. February, 1899.
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. How many of these Japanese laborers have been imported into Hawaii since that time?
Mr. PERKINS. The report is dated February 13, one year ago. I was about to say—I have it unofficially—that there have been fully 15,000 immigrants into the island
since that time.
Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. PERKINS. Certainly.
Mr. CULLOM. I stated yesterday what seemed to be as far as
1984
I could learn the fact, that there are about 40,000 laborers in the Hawaiian Islands now.
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Including Japanese?
Mr. CULLOM. Including Japanese and others.
Mr. PERKINS. And my friend was there a year ago or more,
Mr. CULLOM. A year ago last September.
Mr. PEEKINS. My friend was there a year and a half ago.
Mr. CULLOM. Bat what I wanted to say is that the statement made by those who seem to know about it is that about one-half of the 40,000 have been brought
there under contract, and about 25,000 of them perhaps, or a few more, have been brought there since the annexation.
Mr. PERKINS. It seems to me the point made by the Senator from Maine is worth our consideration. If this can only apply to personal contract and will not
apply to companies, the very object we have in view will be frustrated. It is a question of great importance to the honor of this country and to Congress in
legislating. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts gives no more nor no less to the islands than applies to labor in other States and
Territories of this Union. As I said before, the language should be so clear that he who runs may read. If the phrase "personal labor contracts" does not
apply to companies, then the amendment should be reformed so that it will do so.
Mr. HALE. Mr. President, right in line with what the Senator is saying, to confirm the doubt that arose in my mind as to the application of the amendment, the
danger in our scheme of larger benevolence of missing what is wanted in Hawaii, I have just been called out by a representative of that people, who is here with
some official recognition, I do not know just what. He is an active, practicing, experienced lawyer, and he has just told me at the door that he is satisfied, as a
lawyer familiar with their statutes and provisions, that this language, "personal labor," will not in any way affect the emigrant companies who have made these
contracts and assigned them from time to time in bulk. So I think before we pass it we had better include both the larger scheme for labor and also the plan
that the committee had originally of striking at this distinctive evil, so that it shall apply to personal labor and to all contracts involving imported foreign
labor—something of that kind.
Mr. HOAR. I have all the respect for the gentleman named. I do not know whether my honorable friend gave his name or not in the Senate.
Mr. HALE. I have his name.
Mr. HOAR. I have all the respect for him which is due to the indorsement of the Senator from Maine, and that is very great respect indeed; but I must
beg leave to suggest that the criticism comes from a very hasty and superficial notion of the matter. We are talking about contracts for specific performance
and punishments by criminal process. You ought not, I believe every Senator will agree, to have a remedy by specific performance or a remedy by criminal
process for the failure by a man to keep his engagement for personal labor and service. That, as has already been said, is the policy of most or all of the States
of the American Union. Now, then, that, it is said, does not interfere with one man's contract to deliver the labor of another.
Mr. HALE. Or of many others.
Mr. HOAR. Or of many others. But it certainly does if the man who has agreed to deliver the labor of a thousand coolies or a thousand Japanese could
not have any remedy against the man whose contract is to be delivered. The latter man is left free for-ever, and the other man, of course, can not have a remedy.
There can not be a remedy for a specific performance against him that would be of any value, and there could not be before. There is no reason why he
should not be liable in damages if he has made an imprudent contract of that kind which the man whom he undertakes to act for can not execute. In other
words, what more do you want in regard to these contracts for the delivery of a thousand workmen and furnishing their service for a certain fixed time
after they arrive in the island than a provision that the men whose service is sought are absolutely free in the matter, so far as these two proceedings go?
Mr. HALE. Now, let me put what might be an actual occurrence. An emigrant society—they call them that—signs a contract
with A B to furnish the labor of 500 coolies for three years or
five years. The contract is signed by the society upon the one
side, by A B, who employs the society, on the other, and not one
of the 500 persons either signs with the emigrant society personally, or with A B, who is to get the benefit of the labor; but it is a
general sweeping contract to furnish labor, not the personal labor
of the emigrant society, for it has none, but the labor of 500 different persons. Now, if we include in the operation of the bill nothing but contracts for personal labor, notwithstanding the great
authority and experience of the Senator from Massachusetts, I
should doubt whether, upon a question coming up between A B,
who takes this labor, and the emigrant society, who contracts for
it, the courts would decide that that was, tinder the language here,
a contract for personal labor.
Mr. HOAR. Suppose they will not. What harm would then happen?
Mr. HALE. Then we are doing nothing.
Mr. HOAR. Yon have made it absolutely impossible for this man to perform that contract except by the voluntary consent of the men who want to be employed.
Nobody objects to that.
Mr. HALE. It does not come up between the men who are employed and the society.
Hr. HOAR. Suppose it does not.
Mr. HALE. It comes up between the man who is to use the labor and get the benefit of it and the original society.
Mr. HOAR. Suppose it does; what happens?
Mr. HALE. He may enforce it.
Mr. HOAR. How can you enforce it?
Mr. HALE. Because we do not prohibit it.
Mr. HOAR. Yes; we have taken it out. The Senator fails to get my point, undoubtedly owing to my failure in stating it.
Mr. HALE. No; it is my failure to comprehend it.
Mr. HOAR. I can not for the life of. me see what, if you have said that these laborers are free from all legal constraint whatever except a suit against them for
damages, which nobody thinks is worth the paper on which the writ was printed, how the whole of this mischief is then cut up by the roots. In other words, the contract of the man to furnish 500 laborers is a contract which he is left utterly powerless to perform, and there is no remedy against him, of course, except the suit
for damages.
Mr. HALE. But, like any process, there are other things and there are other results. It may be an entirely responsible company. Do you want these processes? If
the Senator says, " Why, I have got as far along, in that I have exempted these persons and that nobody can trouble them, and these other parties may fight it out
with the contract for a specific performance just as they choose," that is an answer; the Senator does not care anything about that.
Mr. HOAR. You have taken all. What is the mischief ? Sup-pose the Senator from Maine and I make a contract that one shall furnish to the other 500 laborers in the
State of Maine. Now, what is the mischief of that contract? The mischief is that 500 men, who are not free agents by reason of their poverty, have put them-selves in a
position where they have got to be compelled to labor by a civil or criminal process for the specific performance, by an indictment, against their will. Of course, if the
contract between the Senator and myself is not enforced at all, it does not do any public harm or mischief. If it is enforced merely by a suit, it is not against me
in the sum of damages due to the Senator, but men who are not laborers. That does not do any_ public mischief at all. Neither of us would undertake to enter into
such a con-tract. He is only a public sufferer, but the public mischief of having involuntary labor kept to its task in that way is utterly gone by the result
of this amendment, and there is nothing left which can do any public harm. That is the answer to it.
Mr. HALE. In a contract such as I have stated I do not think that these 500 individuals would have anything to do with it any-way. They have not made any
contract. The bill does not apply to them at all.
Mr. HOAR. They could if they had made the contract.
Mr. HALE. But they have not made it.
Mr. HOAR. The trouble is this: The Senator from Maine agrees with somebody to furnish him 500 laborers for twelve months the 1st of next January;
and thereupon when the 1st of next January comes, he goes and gets the 500 laborers in a condition of poverty and distress, and brings them across the sea; and he
has got them where he can scourge them to that labor. I do not mean that he can literally scourge them, but he can compel them by criminal and civil process both;
and that is the mischief, that he should have 500 men compelled to labor at his terms in competition with 500 free laborers.
Now, that is the whole mischief. The fact that he has agreed to furnish me a certain amount of labor does not do any harm. This law comes in and says,
in other words, the man who has made that contract with you shall have no legal power what-ever to help him to keep it. You can only enforce it by the
voluntary action, voluntary all through the time up until the twelve months are over, of the men whom he expects to do the work. Therefore, that being
right, we say that can not be enforced, and nothing has happened except that one rich man has made a contract with another, which he can not keep by
any legal power and which he ought to be permitted to keep if the work-men are free all through the time, because there is no constraint on them, if they are
willing to help him to keep it. The only mischief, then, that has happened is that one rich man, a well-to-do man, has got a claim for damages against another rich
man, and we do not care anything about that at all. That is the whole of it.
Mr. HALE. I have been looking at this in a different way from what the Senator has. He has been looking at it at the end of the contract that is made by the
party furnishing the laborers. The contractor brings them over here. I have been looking at it, and