The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1893-07-05
Confined from Third rage. !

ritory Florida, Texas and Alaska were
successfully acquired and brought in
under the flag. But in reviewing the
history of previous anneXatlons he
tries to show that in each case the con
stitutional principles involved were
quite different from those involved in
the proposed annexation OF Hawaii; So
radically different, in fact, as to mark
the distinction between what is con
stitutional and what is unconstitutional.
In the absence of any constitutional
provision either permitting or prohibit
ing the acquisition Of new territory by
treaty or otherwise, Judge Cooley
looks to the presidents for his rule of
Interpretation. The first annexation
was that by the louisiana purchase.
Mr. Jefferson saw very clearly the vast
importance and unreasonable ad |
vantages of the purchase, but was so
strongly convinced that the Consttu
ton made ono provision for our hold |
ING foreign territory and still less (, RI
incorporating foreign nations into our
Union that he thought the purchase
should be made first when the oppOr
tunity was ripe, and that it should bel
confirmed afterward by a retroactive
amendment. He went ahead, despite
his constitutional sCruples; and so OBJ
vious to every mind was the supreme
wisdom of the transaction, that, after
the annexation was effected, MIR. etfer.
son ceased to insist upon the neces
sity for amendment of the Constitu-
ton" Here, then, is the original pre-
cedent for the general principle of eN
tension of territory by purchase or
otherwise. 1t is not in the Constitu-
ton, but the man who to day should
question the Constitutionality of the
Louisiana purchase would justly be re.
garded as crazy. Judge Cooley is not
crazy; he contents himself with point
ing out that "every foot of the territory
acquired in the Louisiana purchase
was not only needed to provide for the
natural and inevitable expansion of the
settlement then going on in the terri
tory of the United States, but 1t also
fitted perfectly into the American
SYSTEM The Louisiana territory was
contiguous to the United States as
then constituted: while Hawaii is in
the Pacific, separated from us by a
broad stretch of ocean. The LouiSi-
ana territory was another nations pro
perty, and we bought it, and paid for
it. Hawaii is a sovereign, independ-
ent power. 1t cannot sell Itself. and
we cannot purchase it.
The Florida purchase was similar to
the Louisiana purchase. "Iiere, again,
says Judge Cooley, twas a case of ter.
rtory bordering upon that of the Union
in the hands Of foreign nation, but
needed to provide for the gradual eX.
pansion of the population Of the Union
and certain in time to become property
Of the Union, either bcdccabJ or BY thu
la7pleSS action Of those who could cove
it, and who would seem to the people o
the United States to be its natural anC
proper proprietors 1t was purchased
for incorporation into the Union in The
ordinary and regular way We ltallc
lie one phrase in the foregoing passage
because it embodies a singular argu
ment as coming from an eminen
constitutional eNpOunder, engaged il
exhibiting the points of difference be
tween the constitutional annexation o
Florida and the unconstitutional an
neXatien of Hawaii. 1t is the argumen
of manifest destiny, and since it ha
been advanced by Judge Cooley i
becomes even more than ever before
worth remembering,
Texas was acquired under radically
different circumstances, 1t had declared
its independence of Mexico and we haC
recognized it as an independent State
Like Hawaii, it made, through its dG
fdctO Government, overtures for annex
alton to the United States These
were accepted although the acceptance
involved us in war with Mexico; anC
by somewhat shady and ClrCuitouS
process of legislation and executive
action, the union was effected. No
body regrets it now; nobody eXpend
any indignation upon the method b,
which it was accomplished. But Judge
Cooley points out again that the TeXa
case differs from the Hawaiian case
because "its acquisition brought no in
congruous clement into the Fedora
Union" because ''the population wa
homogeneous with our own, and its in
stitutions were similar to those which
prevailed in the other States of the
Union" and because it "bordered upor
States already admitted to the Union.
Hawaii, like Texas, is an Independent
State, with political institutions simia
to our own, seeking admission to the
Federal Union. But it is not Contigu
Gus, not Immediately essential to thu
expansion of our population; and
therefore, according to Judge Cooley
implied argument, its annexation would
be unconstitutional.
The next and last case was Alaska
acquired from Russia by treaty Of pur
chase. This precedent puzzles tn,
eminent constitutionalist not a little
but he faces the difficulties boldly, Tit
doctrine Of Contiguity as a necessar,
element of constitutional annexation
falls to pieces here Five or six hun
dred miles of foreign territory intervene
b,.,,.a,, AloeLo o,,J the pearpct 1oip