The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1897-09-11
NEW AND NASTY.
Annexation Is Not True Amer
lean Policy.

Our ueighbor The Sun is one OF
the defenders Of Hawaiian annexa-
tion. 1t attempts to show that the
absorption OF this island two thou
sand miles distant from our coast 10
merely continuation of the policy
Of expansion which prompted the
Louisiana purchase and the acquisi-
ton of California and New Mexico
and the buying Of Alaska. The Sun
might as we'll try to prove that Ha-
waii was really one OF the thirteen
original States which was left out OF
the Union by clerical error.
We quote The Suns recitation OF
facts upon which it bases the asser-
ton that the talking in Of the Hs-
waian Islands is not 'new policy"
"In tie early days of the Repub-
lie, under Jefferson, we annexed, by
purchase from France, the vast area
stretching from the gulf northward
to the Canadian line and westward
to the Pacific, known as Louisiana.
This greatest of all our expansions
was accomplished in 1903, ninety.
four years ago, and only twenty
after the defnitive treaty of peace
with Great Britain. Next, nearly
fourscore years ago, un3er Monroes
Administration, we acquired Florida
by purchase from Spain. Our third
great expansion brought in Texas,
that. also being more than half a
century ago, while the ensuing war
with Mexico gave us California and
New Mexico. These by the force of
arms were then pieced out by the
Gadsden purchase. Finally from
Russia we acquired by purchase in
1867 the great Territory of Alaska,
this latest OF our six great acquisi-
tions being thirty years Old"
Fortifying its resolution but not
its case by reference to President
Grants attempt to acquire st.
Tb omas-it wisely omits the San
Domingo escapade-The Sun makes
this audacious assertions:
SIT is clear, therefore, that dis
tinction between mainland and in
sular possessions was never made by
leading American statesmen"
On the contrary, territorial con-
tinuity or contiguity has almost
uniformly been held to be the es-
sential condition Of increase. Jeffer-
son was most careful to insist on
that condition in his advocacy Of
the taking of Cuba, He wrote to
Madison in 1909:
cit will be objected to our receiv-
ing Cuba that no limit can then be
drawn to our future acquisitions.
Cuba can be defended by us without
a navy, and this develops the prn-
ciple which ought to limit our views.
Nothing should ever be accepted
which would require a navy to de-
fend it,"
Language cannot be palmer. The
promoter of the Louisiana purchase
had definite idea, that of a "limit
to our future acquisitions" Cuba
was within those limits. Hawaii is
as plainly without them as if Jeffer-
son had said 80. Edward Everett's
eloquent paper on Cuba makes its
nearness to our shores the sole basis
OF his contention that our interest
in it's affairs must be admitted to be
greater than the interests of Eu-
ropean powers. John Quincy Adams
who spent vast amount Of time
and labor over the negotiations for
the cession of Florida, had no very
high opinion of the value OF the
peninsula, except as its acquisition
would extend our mainland bound
airy to the sea. 1t was desirable be-
cause it was a part of the continent
To come down to later times, Sec
rotary Frelinghuysen declared in a
letter to Mr., Langston in regard to