The sun., 1893-06-05

ouired and brought In under the flag. But
in reviewing the history Of previous annex
ations he tries to show that in each case the
constitutional principles involved were
quite different from those involved in the
proposed annexation OF Hawaii: 50 radically
different. In fact. as to mark the distinction
b~tween what is constitutional and what Is
unconstitutional.
In the absence OF any constitutional pro-
vision either permitting or prohibiting the
acquisition OF new territory by treaty or
otherwise. Judge COOLEY looks to the prec-
edcnts for his rule OF Interpretation. The
first annexation was that by the LOUISIANA
purchase. Mr.. JEFEERsoS saw very clearly
tho vast Importance and immeasurable ad-
vantages OF the purchase. but was SO
strongly convinced THAT tho Constitution
made mo provision for our holding foreign
territory. and still less for Incorporating
foreign nations into our Union" that he
thought the purchase should be made first.
when the opportunity was ripe. and that IL
should be confirmed afterward by a retro
active amendment. he went ahead, despite
his constitutional scruples. and so obvious
to every mind was the supreme wisdom OF
the transaction. that, after the annexation
was effected, Mr.. JEFFERSON " ceased TO
insist upon the necessity FOR amend
ment Of the Constitution" Here. then.
Is tho original precedent FOR the
general principle OF extension OF territory
BY purchase or otherwise. It's not in the
Constitution, but the man who to-day
should question the constitut!onality OF the
Louisiana purchase would Justly be re-
gsrded as crazy. Judge COOLEY Is not
crazy; he contents himself with pointing
out that every foot OF the territory ac-
auired in the Louisiana purchase was not
only needed to provide for the natural and
inevitable expansion Of the settlement then
going on in the territory Of the United
States, but IL also fitted perfectly into the
American system" The Louisiana terri
tory was contiguous 10 the United States as
then constituted: while Hawaii Is In the Pa
cific. separated from us by broad stretch
OF ocean. The Louisiana territory was an
other nations property. and we bought 1t,
and paid for it. Hawaii Is sovereign. In
dependent power. 1t cannot sell Itself. and
we cannot purchase 1t.
The Florida purchase was similar to the
Louisiana purchase. Here, again. says
bordering upon that OF the Union in the
hands of foreign nation. but needed to
provide for the gradual expansion OF the
population OF the Union. and certain IN time
TO become the property Of the Cnton. either
peoceably or BY the lduiess action Of those
who would covet 1t. and who would seem to
the people OF the United States to be its
natural and proper proprietors. 1t was
purchased for incorporation into the Union
in the ordinary and regular way" We
italicize one phrase in the foregoing pas
sage. because 1t embodies singular argu-
ment as coming from an eminent constitu-
tlonA e1pounder. engaged in exhibiting
the points OF difference between the con-
stitutional annexation OF Florida and the
unconstitutional annexation OF Hawaii. 1t
Is the argument OF manifest destiny. and
since it has been advanced by Judge COOLEY
worth remembering.
Texas was acquired under radically dif-
ferent circumstances. 1t had declared its
independence OF Mexico and we had recog-
nized it as an independent State. Like
Hawaii. It made through its de tacto Gov
eminent overtures for annexation to the
United States. These were accepted. al
though the acceptance involved US in war
with Mexico; and by a somewhat shady and
circuitous process Of legislation and execu-
tive action. the union was effected. Nobody
regrets 1t now; nobody expends any In
dignation upon the method by which 1t
was accomplished. But Judge COOLEY
points out again that the Texas case
differs from the Hawaiian case because
Its acquisition brought no incongruous
element into the Federal Union," because
"the population was homogeneous with
our own. and its institutions were similar
TO those which prevailed in the other States
Of the Union." and because it "bordered
upon States already admitted to the
Union" Hawaii. like Texas. is an inde-
pendent State. with political institutions
similar to our own. seeking admission TO the
Federal Union. But 1t is not contiguous,
not immediately essential to the expansion
OF our population: and. therefore. according
to Judge CooLEY's implied argument. its
annexation would be unconstitutional.
The next and last case was Alaska, ac-
quired from Russia by treaty Of purchase
This precedent puzzles the eminent consti.
tutionalist not little. but he faces the dit-
tlculties boldly. The doctrine Of contiguity
as a necessary element Of constitutional
annexation falls TO pieces here. Five or six
hundred miles OF foreign territory inter-
vene between Alaska and the nearest point
in the United States. The seal islands most
valuable Of the islands annexed by the treaty
OF 1867. are about as far from Sitka as Hawaii
is from San Francisco. The direct sailing
distance from San Francisco to Attou Isl
and Is nearly double the direct sailing dis
tance TO Honolulu The annexation Of Alas
la brought in an incongruous popula-
tion Of twenty thousand natives. and
their wishes were not consulted at
the time or subsequently. No at
tempt was made TO ascertain whether
they desired TO come in under the American
flag. or 10 remain subject to Russia. The
immense territory acquired by the Alaska
purchase was not needed for the natural
expansion Of our population. Manifest des-
tiny did not point 20 Alaska as certain In
time to become the property OF the Union"