Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-10-11

Four decisions of the supreme court
supporting the constitutionality of annex
alton are cited.
The first was decided in 1928. 1t is writ
eten by Chief Justice Marshall. in the case
of the American Insurance Company vs.
Canter reported in I Peters Reports, page
$40. The decision holds that
The constitution confers absolutely or
the government of the Union the power OF
making wars and of making treaties.
Consequently that government possesses
the power of acquiring territory, either
by conquest or treaty."
The last decision was rendered in 1889,
in the case of the Mormon Church VS.. the
United States. reported in 1876 U. S. Re-
ports, page ~. a. a'i"
In the course Of the decision the court
says:
1.-The power to acquire territory is de-
rived from the treaty-making power and
the power to declare and carry on war.
THE incidents of these powers are
those of national sovereignty and belong
to all independent governments"
SECOND OBJECTION.
1t is unconstitutional because Hawaii
is not contiguous to the United States
The opponents of annexation claim that
this Is an implied prohibition" although
not prohibited by the text of the constitu-
ton. b.,
The supreme court holds that the power
to acquire territory is an incident of ma
tional sovereignty. that the United States;
has the right to aceAlire territory because
1t is nation. 1t has Me same rights and
powers in this respect that England has.
There is manifestly no Aiimitation upon
the power of England to acquire territory.
How, then, can there be any limitation
so?
The fact that territory is continuous or
otherwise. affects the value, the policy,
the expediency of the annexation. buk not
the constitutional power to annex.
On general principles, contiguous teffi-
tory is more easily governed and defend.
cd But this depends upon circumstances.
In these days distance IS not a matter of
miles but of hours. When California was
annexed. it was two months distant from
civilization. Honolulu today lies only ten
and half days from Washington.
The precedents in are all against this
objection. Alaska is separated from the
United States by Canada. Midway Island
is 1000 miles from California. The Aleu-
tan islands extend 1900 miles west of
Alaska, and the guano islands are scat
tered all over the Pacific and the Carri-
bean sea.
THIRD OBJECTION.
1t is unconstitutional because it's in
habitants are not homogeneous with
the people of the United States.
This is another of the alleged implied
prohibitions" Again, this is fact af-
fecting the value of the acquisition but
not the power to annex.
Is Is conceivable that regardless Of the
advantages of annexing any given terri
tory, the United States are prohibited
from annexing such territory, IL its in
habitants are not up to the full American
standard?
The presidents are all opposed to such
view. When Louisiana was annexed. its
population consisted of a few thousand
Frenchmen and several hundred thOusa nd
Indians. Florida had population of a
few Spaniards and Indians. Texas. nrio,
to the great influx of Americans, had a
population of Mexicans, Spaniards and
Indians. At the time of it's annexation
| California had an American population OF
only a few traders and a military post
Alaska had few hundred Russians and
| some forty thousand Arctic Indians
Were these homogeneous populations ur
to the American standard of citizenshin.
If not. and If 1t is unconstitutional to an.
mex non.homogeneous people. then such
constitutional principle 1t cannot he va
| ried by circumstances
There is no principle direct. or imnlied
In the constitution of the United States
Which makes the title of the United
pend upon the quality of the people livine
therein at the date of annexation.
FOURTH OBJECTION.
| Whether the annexation of a non.
homogeneous people is constitutional O,
not, the population of Hawaii is unfi
for incorporation into, and will bt
dangerous to the American politica
| system.
Whether the Hawaiian population is IN.
III ior incorporation into the American