The record-union., 1893-12-21

matter in these communicati ions will be un-
derstood to represent only the views of the
writer's All communications must be accom-
panied by the name of the writer, not for
publication unless so desired, but as guaran-
tee OF good faith.-EDS.
Another Thrust at the Old Monster,
Precedent.
EDS. RECoRD-UNIoN: l want to bend
up another pin and place it in the chair
of that old monster-tyrant, Precedent, for
him to sit down upon.
We who live in this lauded land of lib
erty and freedom and equality, are accus-
toned to scoff at the Difference of people
of other nations to those who claim to be
the Lords anointed rulers; yet we prac-
tice the same Difference to our own peo-
ple's anointed (or ell ected) rulers.
don't think l can give any good rea-
son why this should not be so without
some study or research, especially if we
are to be dragged at the tail of Precedent
eternally; for | recognize some truth in
the old sentence asserted many centuries
ago. which rendered into English Ian
gaage reads: 1.-THE voice of the people is
the voice Of God" Still [ am unwilling
to admit as many assume, that the utter
ance of one person who is elected by the
people is the utterance of the people.
am also unwilling to admit that the
assertion of our forefathers who founded
this Government that ''all men are born
free and equal, and are endowed with
certain inalienable rights, among which
are life. liberty, and the pursuit OF hap
Diness," has already become meaningless
phraseology; and as the old clause in the
Constitution which guarantees the right
TO free speech and free press has never
been formally abolished | assume the
natural equality and the constitutional
/ -i,-I,f to o1-iti hn nj
and language of even our National
President. L have just read his
message TO Congress on the Ha-
waiian situation, and notice that after
an evidently Intentional fair statement of
the condition as he understands 1t Il can
not say full and exact statement, because
think the notorious condition of that
Government for the past twenty years
should be considered in determining the
question: he catches hold of the tail of Pre-
cedent, to be dragged before the public in
| the customary style ofall ofour public offl-
| GERS. and refers to how we treated Texas.
! Can any man of common sense point out
wherein such reference Strengthens his
position or justites him in his course OF
action?
Can any man show where, and how,
any person on earth was benefited by the
delay in doing what was subsequently
done by the admission of Texas?
We're the undesirable consequences of
that act any less because of the delay?
Are we to infer that from his citation of
our treatment of Texas as a precedent,
that after Hawaii has had massacre or
two, and few battles-such as occurred
in TeXas-that we would be justified in
! anneXing the islands?
| always had some doubt about any
| benefit accruing to us by such annexa-
ton, but | never had any doubt about the
| benefit which would accrue to the inhab-
itants of those islands; consequently |
can understand how strong is the desire
of the more Intelligent portion of that
community for such connection.
Being SO far away from our coast [
think their protection might require
| power which would weaken Us at home;
and the Molokai colony and portion of
the inhabitants are very undesirable for
citizens. There is no doubt in my mind
/ but what we are competent to take charge
! of these islands Tor even more arduous
undertakings and if precedents are nec-
! essary, the world is full of them. Look
at Africa Look at the way the American
Indians have been treated Look at
! India Look at the common treatment
| by so-called Christian nations, OF most,
or many so-called barbarous peoples!
The world is full of precedents for any
kind of treatment, no matter how unjust.
! And now | am afraid that our beautiful
! country-wh is already cursed with
| the atfllction of innumerable detestable
precedents-is about tc have another exc
cradle sample of this dire infiction added
| to the list.
! can remember back to Jackson's ad-
/ ministration, and l do not recollect an in
| stance where a treaty had been formU-
lated and presented to the Senate for con-
currence, or non-concurrence, which any
! President withdrew before the Senate had
acted upon it. Is the judgment of one
man, however honest his intentions may
| be, superior to the combined Judgment of
! the United States Senators?
Such action looks too much like parti-
sanship, and appears Ito me- somewhat
/ insulting, not only to the President who
| formulated the treaty, but also to the
Senate to which the treaty had been sub
mitted.
| But this does not trouble me. What [
am afraid of is, that this action will be set
up as precedent to be followed here
after, and be another step away from true
civilization, adding another receding
track to those already made. NJ. A. B.
Sacramento, December 10, 1888