The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-06-17

the annexation OF the country whose PEG
pie desired to enter the Union. A Join
resolution for this purpose was passed b,
the lower house at once, but when It wa!
sent to the Senate, there was hesitation
about concurrence. There seems to bt
no question that a majority of the Senate
perhaps wo-thirds Of the whole number
were in favor OF annexing Texas to the
United States If it could be done honor.
ably and without taking war upon
the harhs of our own people: war
which would obviously be unjust to a
country with which at the time we had
no quarrel.
While the matter was pending In the
Senate, there was added to the Joint reso-
luton, with the approval of Mr.. Benton.
who had opposed the treaty, provision
for the opening anew Of negotiations upon
the subject, the purpose being to ncgol
tate not merely with Texas but With
Mexico as well, in order that the annex
alton, if accomplished at all, might be
brought about with the goodwill of the
other country concerned. Tho rosou-
ton as thus amended was passed by the
| Senate and went back to the House for
! concurrence.
As adopted. the joint resolution left it
with the President to accept either one
or the other of the two methods for effect
ing annexation as he should prefer, Mr..
Benton. however, having first been as
sured by the intimate friends of the Presi-
dent, who was then in the last days of
his term, that commission for annex
alton should be sent forward with power
to nagotiate. Benton very likely
himself expecting to be one of the com
missioners
Instead of TINT being done. Mr. TYLER,
on the third day before his term expired.
snnt forward a messenger secretly with
directions to proceed at once to Texas.
and there complete the negotiations
under Tho joint resolution, and in this
manner tho matter was taken out of the
hands of tho trnaty-malting power. and
was disposed of finally und ar authority of
the joint resolution without regard to the
provision for further negotiation. Texas
aSsanted to annexation through a
delegated convention. and the union was
completed by Congressional action the
following winter.
Prof. Won Hoist, in his life of Calhoun.
has referred to this matter and has
spoken of it as if it were something that
was entirely outside the proper province
of the legislative power of the two coun-
tries. 1T appears to him in the nature of
an appeal by the President from the
treaty-mrking power, which had already
acted and refused to annex Texas to the
lawmaking power. the former being
unable constitutionally to complete the
negotiation except by "A vote of two thirds
of the members of the Senate, while in
the two houses. it might ba carried into
effect by simple majority of each of the
two houses; and thus, as he seems to sup
pose, the treaty. once properly rejected,
could be taken into new hands and more
easily accomplished.
The complaint however in this case, if
any is to be made on the ground of
propriety or Of rightfulness, would seem
rather to come from the law-making
power of the country. thrn from the
treatysmaking power. for this was case
in which two distinct powers were ex-
ercisl that were conferred by the Con
stitution not upon the President and
Senate but upon Congress. Texas was
to b. taken into the Union ;is STATE on
equal terms with the other states. and the
| power to admit new states to the Union
was one of the enum ,rated powers OK
pressly given to Congress. Then under
the circum stances the completing of the
annayltion was equivalent to a daclara-
ton OF W., AMI the power to nclara war
WIS vested in Congress as explicitly as
was the other.
The authority of Congress in the case
was at any rate nn1uestionlble. and there
Is NJ doubt. w suppose, that this autho-
rity might have been exercised at any
time without waiting for action by thu
Senate upon the treaty which the Presi-
dent had placed before it. and quite as
we'll after TINT action had been taken
Indeed If we conceIe that tn, Constitu-
ton. iu comforting these grants upon
Congress, did not exclude the action of
the treaty-m liking power in a case of this
nature, it would still be apparent that
there was much reason why the legiSla-
lures Of the two governments should deal
directly with each other, especially as
treaties are likely to require Congress
sional action for their complete and final
fulflmant and must often be supple
mentca by legislation which it is con
ceivabla there may b, difficulty in obtain
ing. When the legislatures act directly
with elch other their action is Xix rely to
IN ,at all tn, nee ,SsitieS of the clse. AMI
unler n grant of power 50 unlimited as is
mlda to Congress by the Federal Con sti-
tuition no one can claim that the action
taken in this case is not so complete and
final and absolute as it possibly could
have been, had the annexation been
otherwise accomplished.
This case is particularly referred to
for the purpose of pointing out that it
affords no precedent for the annex
alton to this country of another indie
pendent country under the treaty
making power. There was an attempt
to effect the annexation under that
power. but it failed because the Senate
rejected the treaty that had been form
ed for the purpose.
In regard TO the country itself we
may repeat here what has already
been said in respect to Louisiana and
Florida. It's acquisition brought no
homogeneous element into the federal
union. a state was brought in, being
admitted to the Union on an equal
footing with the other states. The
population was homogeneous with our
own; its institutions were similar to
those which prevailed in the other
states of the Union. Nothing was done;
nothing was promised; nothing was
contemplated in the annexation that
was not perfectly harmonious with our
/ existing system. The treaty rs form
| ed looked to the acquisition Of terri
/ tory that already constituted an estab-
, lishcd state, and il WAS upon this basis
/ that the negotiations completed by the
action of the two legislatures proceed
4 4 ,s.rl,t