The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-07-03
HA WAILAN ANNEXATION.
Condensed from the Suu, New
York, June 5th.

In the June Forum the Hon.
Thomas NJ. Cooley makes an able
argument against the annexation
of Hawaii. With persuasive reas-
oning, in precise and eloquent
language this distinguished pro-
fessor Of constitutional law points
out what he regards as grave OBJ
stacles to the acquisition of the
islands.
His argument is entitled to the
most careful and respectful ex-
animation and in the most re-
spectful manner possible we shall
endeavor to show that there are
holes in it through which you
might pitchfork not only Hawaii
and Maui and Kauai and Oahu
and the minor members of the
Sandwich group, but all the little
islands of the seas.
Briefly and fairly summed up,
his constitutional obstacles are
these:
1. Hawaii is a sovereign and
independent state, and the annex
alton is to be by mutual consent.
not by purchase, as in the case of
Louisiana and Florida and Alaska.
To this we reply that the exact
constitutional precedent for Hawaii
is found in the case of the occu-
patton of independent Texas by
mutual consent.
2. No attempt was made to as
certain the wishes of the native pop
ulation of Hawaii. This may have
been done in the case of Texas,
and to some extent in the case of
Louisiana and Florida. 1t certain
ly was not done in the case Of
Alaska.
3. Hawaii is not contiguous
like the Louisiana acquisition,
Florida and Texas it is separated
from us by a broad eXpanse of
ocean. To this we reply that the
exact precedent for a case of nom
contiguity and distance across the
ocean is found in the annexation
of Alaska.
Thus it will be seen that if Judge
Cooley is right as 10 the main rea-
sons given for the unconstitution-
atty Of Hawaiian annexation,
either the annexation of Texas was
unconstitutional or the annexation
of Alaska * unconstitutional.
10 matters stand, we suppose he
would rather accept the latter
alternative. Every argument save
that of sovereignty of the nation
asking admission applies with
equal force 20 Hawaii and to
Alaska. The argument as to
the independence of the asking
nation applies with equal force to
Hawaii and Texas. If there is no
constitutional precedent for the
annexation of Hawaii, and if
Texas rightfully belongs to the
Union, then Alaska was unconsti-
tutionally annexed. It's non-con-
tiguity, the failure to consult the
wishes of its inhabitants, the fact
that it was not needful for the ex-
pansion of our natural growth, the
homogeneous character of its popu-
lation, and the dissimilarity Of
their institutions, its immense dis
lance from our boundaries, all
serve to establish the unconstitu-
tionality of its annexation, if we
accept Judge Cooley's "true rule of
constitutional construction on the
subject" And if this be true, who
owns that vast region to-day?
We leave this question to the
Hon. Thomas NJ. Cooley of Michi-
gan. He is an eminent expounder
of constitutional law and we love
to read his writings. But on the
present subject, which he has SO
LUMINOSITY and serenely discussed,
the judges position is as illogical
and impossible as that of a full
moon shining down from the zen
it'll upon sunlit sea.-Literary
Digest for June.