The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1893-07-05
Continued from Fourth Pdge.)

certain in time to become the property
of the Union" More than all, from
Judge Cooleys point of view, Alaska
was not Contiguous
Observe the remarkable ingenuity
of his plea to avoid the necessity of
admitting that if the annexation of Ha-
wall is unconstitutional, the annexation
of Alaska was unconstitutional
"This country bordered upon terri
tory which upon plausible reasons aDe
had claimed to o5gR, but which, in the
settlement of our northwestern bound
airy with Great Britain, had been as
signed to that power 1t was, there
fore, not at the time Of its acquisition
strictly contiguous to any territory of
the United States. 1t was, neverthe-
less, upon the continent; 1t was not
very far away; it was unoccupied eN
cept by a race of savages, it would be
open to occupation by American people,
and in due time, if sufficient popula
ton should be found there, would be
provided with a territorial government,
and might become State OF the Am
erican Union without seeming to cor.
hict especially with what we herein
before have claimed to be the true rule
of constitutional construction on the
subject. Had it been annexed byeT-
ionS to the settlement of the Oregon
boundary, no one could have raised
any question of constitutional pro
prlety
The true rule of constitutional con
struction? Judge Cooley's true
rule seems to be any rule that will
lie. in what has been let in already, and
at the same time bar Hawaii out.
Summed up fairly and in brief, his
grave constitutional obstacles in the
way of Hawaiian annexation are these :
I. Hawaii is a sovereign and indie
pendent State, and the proposed an
nexation is to be by mutual consent,
not by purchase, as was the case with
the Louisiana and Florida anneXatlOns
and with Alaska. To this we reply
that the exact constitutional precedent
for the annexation of independent Ha-
wall by mutual consent, is found IN the
case Of the annexation Of independent
Texas by mutual consent.
?. No attempt was made 10 ascertain
the wishes of the native population;
the desire of the people in the premises
was not expressed, nor was 1t called
for. This may have been done in the
case of Texas, and to some extent IN
the cases of the Louisiana region and
Of Florida. 1t certainly was not done
in the case of Alaska.
:. Hawaii is not contiguous like the
Louisiana acquisition, Florida and
Texas it is miles away from the nearest
American border and separated from
us by a broad expanse of ocean. TO
this we reply that the exact precedent
for a case of non Contigulty and distance
across the ocean is found in the annex
alton of Alaska,
Thus it will be seen that If Judge
Cooley is right in his main reasons
WHY the annexation of Hawaii would
be unconstitutional either the anneXa.
ton of Texas was unconstitutional or
the annexation of Alaska was unCon
stitutiUnal As matters stand, we sup
pose he would rather accept the lattel
alternative. Every argument, save tha
based on the sovereignty OF the natlor
asking admission, applies with equa
force to Hawaii and to Alaska. | he
argument as to the independence Of
the nation asking to be annexed apple:
with equal force to Hawai- and tC
Texas. If there is no constitutional
precedent for the annexation of Ha-
waii, and if Texas rightfully belongs II
the Unlon-and few readers, we ven
ture to say, entertain any doubt as tt
that-then Alaska was unconsttutlon
ally annexed. Its non-COntlgulty, tht
failure to consult the wishes of a vas
majority of its inhabitants, the fact tina
it was not needed for the expansion o
our natural growth, the lncongruou
character of its population and the dis
similarity of their institutions, the i'm
mense distance Of its islands from GU
boundaries, all serve to establish tn
unconstltutionality of the process b
which it was acquired, if we accep
Judge Cooleys ''true rule OF const'tu
tional construction on the subject.
And if the annexation of Alaska wa
unconstitutional, who owns that vas
region to-day? Certainly not tn
United States Government. Our It'll
failing, does Alaska still belong t
Russia, or does it revert to the Eskl
mos, the Haidas, the Athabascans' tn
Chimmesyans, and the Thingllts'
We leave this question to the Hor
Thomas NJ. Cooley Of Michigan. II
is an eminent expounder of consttu
tional law and we love to read hi
writings. But on the present subJec
which he has so luminousy and Sc
reney discussed in the June For""
the Judges position is as illogical an
impossible as that of full moon shin
ing down from the zenith upon suni'