The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1897-12-10
Hawaiian Annexation

greatest repugnance, mas received
scarcely any attention, and among
the advocates OF annexation none at
all This is the fact that the Amer
lean republic, based upon the doc
trine that all governments derive
their just powers from the consent
OF the governed, proposes to change
the government OF distant country
without asking the consent of the
governed in any way whatever.
Does this betoken a change in our
selves7 So it would seem, for when
we were negotiating for the acquisi-
ton OF the Danish West Indies
thirty years ago, the terms OF the
treaty provided expressly for its sub
mission to a vote of the people OF
the islands, aud such a vote was
taken before the question of ratiic-
alton was considered by the Senate
of the United States. If we act
differently now, the reason must be
that some change has come over us
in respect of the most fundamental
principle Of our institutions.
1t is noteworthy also that while
we have been going backward in
this particular other nations have
been going forward. "There is
tendency in quite recent times"
says Woolsey in his eatise on In
ternational Law, "to ;tt in interna
tional arrangements upon the prin-
ciple that the consent OF the inhabi-
tants of coded territory ought to
be obtained" Instances are cited
in the treatise. 1t was provided in
the treaty OF Prague in 1866 that the
inhabitants of northern Schleswig
should vote upon the question OF
forming part ef Prussia or joining
Denmark. In 1860 the people of
Sicily were allowed to vote by uni
versal suffrage upon the question OF
joining the kingdom of Italy.
When Nice and Savoy were annexed
to France, the first article of the
treaty provided that "this union
shall be effectuated without con-
straining the will of the inhabi-
tants." A vote was accordingly
taken by universal suffrage upon
the question of annexation to
France, and it was decided in the
affirmative. A vote was not taken
in the case OF the annexation of
Alsace and Lorraine to Germany in
1871, because that territory was con-
quered by war. IT it had been
peaceful tran saction, it is quite in-
conceivable that the will of the in
habitants should not have been con-
suited.
1t may he answered that all these
are cases where the inhabitants are
civilized and in some sense enlight-
ened, and that the parallel does not
hold good as to Hawaii. There are
several answers to this kind of spe-
cial pleading. One is, that these
islands have been under civilizing
influences of the very limited class
who are trying to overthrow their
government without their consent,
for more than half century. There
fore they cannot be put in the cate
CORY OF barbarians. We know, in
fact, that they are not such. Another
answer is, that a people must be very
degraded indeed if they are not able
to vote intelligently on the question
whether they shall remain indepen-
dent or be transferred to a distant
and foreign Power, This is not a
question OF ability to read and write,
or to understand chapter of the
constitution or verse of the Bible.
1t is much simpler, as we'll as more
vital to the people concerned, A
third answer is that the very reason
why the question of annexation is
not submitted to the inhabitants of
Hawaii is that they would vote
against it by an enormous majority.
We are not now speaking of con-
tract laborers from Asiatic countries,
but Of the native population and