The sun., 1893-06-05
Light on the Hawaiian Question-Is
Alaska Ours or Russia's To-day?

Alaska Ours or Russia's To-day?
In the June Forum the Hon. THOMAS VI.
COOLEY makes an able argument against
attracted much attention, and very justly.
With persuasive reasoning in precise and
elegant language. this distinguished pro-
fessor OF constitutional law points out what
be regards as grave obstacles TO the acQut-
eition OF the islands.
We observe that Judge CooLEY's presen-
tation Of the constitutional aspects OF the
question has brought not little comfort
to the thick-and-thin opponents OF Aneri-
can extension. They find this publication
most opportune. 1t will be remembered
that when annexation was first proposed
by Hawaii. such opposition as was then de-
veloped rested almost exclusively on the
charge that the whole business was mer-
cenary enterprise OF CLAUS SPRECkELs and
the sugar planting interests, which hoped to
work annexation for their own pecuniary
profit. When Mr.. SPRECKELs turned out
to be the bitterest enemy OF annexation. the
ground was promptly shifted. The anti
anne1ationists fell back on the position
that President DoLEs Government did not
represent Hawaiian opinion. but owed its
existence. original and continued. solely to
the circumstance that Minister STEVENS
had improperly hoisted the American flag
on the islands. and had called ashore the
Boston's marines. Then Mr.. CLEVELAND.
wisely ON the whole. as we think. although
by q somewhat unusual II not questionable
method OF procedure. abolished the tenn
porary protectorate which Gen. HARRISON
had already repudiated; but the Provisional
Government did not collapse. as expected.
Instead OF falling to pieces it stood firmer
than ever. to the disappointment Of the OBJ
structionists here at home: while on the
islands the annexation sentiment kept
steadily on. gathering diameter like roll
ing SNOWFALL.
That Is why the anti-annexationis.s
tempt to prove that the United States
Government has no constitutional power
to annex these islands. and that there
Is no precedent for such q proceed
ing. II the project is unconsttu-
tonal and without o precedent. that ends
the whole business. We need not say that
every American citizen worthy OF the fran
chise entertains the highest respect for the
Constitution: and he will never advocate
except under pressure OF supreme national
necessity. any proceeding which mani
testify violates the provisions OF that
reyered instrument. When Judge Coo
LEY has once demonstrated the uncon-
stitutionality Of Hawaiian annexation.
he has proved his case and rendered an
nexAtion impossible. He need not waste
q single word on the question OF expediency.
or on the question OF the desirability OF ac-
any other branch OF the subject.
For this reason we attach the greatest
importance to tho article in the Forum
against annexation. Coming from SO
learned and eminent an expounder OF con-
stitutional law. the argument Is entitled 10
the most careful and respectful eIamina-
ton: and In the most respectful manner
possible we shall endeavs' to show that
there are holes in IL ii gh which you
might pitchfork not onsSsiawaii and Maui
and Kauai and Oahu and the minor mem
bers Of the Sandwich group. but also any
and all OF the little islands OF the seas.
Before considering the several instances
In American history since tho adoption Of
the Constitution whore our Government
has effected an increase Of It's territory.
Judge COOLEY takes pains 20 establish the
fact that this latest case Of proposed terri
torisl increase concerns not any mare pos
session or appanage Of q foreign power, but
an independent country. peer and equal in
the society Of nations. Tho question OF
power to annex Hawaii" he says. "is pre-
cisely the same that 1t would be II 1t were
proposed to annex any other Independent
country In the world TO tho United States |;
Russia. for Instance. or France" Quite
true: ana whenever Russia or France ap-
plies for admission % the United States.
and public opinion this country regards
the admission Ct Russia or France as desir-
able. 1t will be hign time to discuss that
particular question on It's merits. But
1t may be remarked In passing that the
sAme grave obstacle" would be encoun-
tered In the case OF Canada. should the
Dominion. after separation from Great
Britain. seek admission as an independent
power 10 tie American republic. When that
day comes, with public sentiment
on both sides Of the border demanding union.
We venture to prophesy that neither Judge
COOLEY nor any other distinguished con-
srtutional lawyer will discover in the cir
cumstaace OF CanGda's independence
grave obstacle 20 annexation. More than
that: Texas had been recognized as an In
dependent State and member OF the family
o! nations before We annexed IL: ani the
area Of Texas. while not equal TO that o.
hussla.is greater than Frances, and forty
fold that OF Hawaii. II the autonomy OF
Hawaii is n constitutional barrier TO It's
annexation. Texas has no constitutional
right TO its place In this Union.
Is there or Is there not precedent for tho
annexation of Hawaii under the existing
Judge COOLEY labors 70
prove that there IS not He admits that this
country has previously engaged IN several