The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-07-04
Treaty vs.. seln. Rcso,n zion.
(New York Mail end Express

: Z L s 81 /. Z. 4.
reasy w. Jolne Resolution.
New York Mail end Express>
AS the treaty for the annexation Of
HAWAII VIII probably not be acted on by
the senate until Congress meets In reg
uiar session In December, the opponents
OF tEat measure will devote their ener-
sles meanwhile to an effort toward Sc
OF votes to render Impossible the nee
esshry two-thirds In ats favor. we do
not OF course. believe that thcy can
succeed; but the fact that stch q cam
patgn VIII be vigorously and persist
elptiy conducted lends interest to specu-
latlon aus to what would probably han
pen In the remote contingency of their
success. -
This possible situation recalls the
method by which Texas, a young re-
public like Hawaii. and enjoying an in
dependence just won from Mexico, but
tached to the United States and FUR
nished the basis Of our war with the
Mex6ans. The acute political issues re-
spons!b!e for the defeat Of the treaty
or annexation by the Senate need not
now be set forth In detail
Presiaent Van Buren, had declined a
nrNpos:tion made by Texas to enter the
union IN 1897, but President Tyler was
devoted to the scheme for annexation.
IeHas was favorable. To destroy a for
midahfe obstacle Webster had been
forced out OF his place as Secretary Of
SHate. Secretary Upshur had died sud-
denly after setting on foot and progress
ing toward completion negotiations with
me Texas Government. Calhoun was
called to the head Of the State Depart
ment late In March. 1874. In less than
ten days. the Texan Commissioners be-
ing established in Washington. the
treaty of annexation was signed, despite
Mexico's notice that this would be re-
Garded by her as AN act or war
Inc treaty was defeated in the SEN
ate on June s, 1874. by a vote of IS to 16.
and the subject then became the chief
ISSUE IN the PRESIDENTIAL campaign Of
| tnat year Folk. champion Of imme-
diate annexation, was elected, and at
the ensuing session Of Congress, before
MS Inaugural ton, Joint resolutions for
receiving Texas. into the Union were
ADOPTED, with an amendment embrace
s1aI an alternative provision, giving the
president the option between SUBMIT ting
these to the Texas Government and on
| enlng negotiations for a new treaty.
| Calhoun8 anticipated Tyler, and hur-
nled a messenger to Texas to bring her in
under the first provision. The JOINT re-
solutions bore the stamp OF the major
ny sentiment Of this country in a SEN
enc vote Of 81 to 25 and a House vote
or l32 to Is. 1t was on our Indepcnd-
ence Day. July 4, 1S45, that President
Jones. OF Texas, WHO had succeeded
| sam Houston In that Office In the pre-
Sous december, called a convention OF
s'Nty-one delegates. This convention
prempty ratified the annexation promo
sIion. and drafted q State constitution.
"nlch was approved by vote OF the
people. On December % following. a
1oint resolution Of the United States
Texas. 5# 's''o" u
Like Texas. Hawaii once knocked and
was turned away by the President. AS
~ the case or Texas. the ACQUISITION Of
- tiaNral1 became an Issue in the succeed
ms Federal election. and was Endorsed
~ majority Of the people. If as In
the case of Texas, the pending treat,.
should be defeated in the Senate7which
rs we nave said, is scarcely possible
Ghen. as IN the case of Texas. Hawaii
Mouiu probably be admitted by Joint
resolution. 7-'''>> 'o''i'
The power to do this would unones-
- attonapiy pe contested by the opponents
tory or Texas. We do not doubt that
one contest would fall; although. as q
,iiauler OF TACT, the case Of Hawaii differs
IN one particular from that of Texas
ua'd on that difference the contest would
De based. There seems to he a, vide
spread misapprehens.on of the genera,
situation, which. In our opinion is are
| follows: '' % Wv
!, Many assume that the pending treaty.
successful. will be sufficient. mas
iliucn as the annexation represents a
no,lpaot with foreign power This is
,iot ue' Tor the reason that there must
De financial provision for executing the
act and an appropriation can he made
! ont5 Dy congress. An act of Congress-
therefore,. must supplement the treaty
shd Congress cannot appropriate money
r roa new Territory without formally
l hnn
iitorY. Hence an act Of Congress is
essential to the admission Of Hawai-
despite the treaty. /" ~
ne case OF Texas proves that the res
M the United States can he extended
Mltnout the aid Of a treaty, and by Joint
ra alone. Endorsed by the other
pdity 10 Inc agreement. But the nnno
nents or annexation Will hold that the
cases are not pau-al!el. Tor the reason
Lliat Lexas was annexed as a State
Wnlie Hawaii will be annexed as a. Tor,
rltory. In the Texas case action was
s .aheh under the clause Of the Constitu-
non which says that new States NAV
ne admitted by the Congress 10 th;s
unEon'' " ''.s
nowhere else Is provision made for the
admission of States. But as the con
stituttonality Of annexing foraipn
power without the formality of a treaty
was recognized in 1915, IT IS our frn,
belief that the Supreme Court would
! nold This TO be q precedent, If necessary,
TOT annexing Hawaii In like manner, in
a.sEnuch as Territory is a State in
embryo, and annexation. as in 1S45,
would be the result not OF purchase from
a sovereign power, as in the case Of
ether new Territories, but OF direct
agreement with a sovereign people for
their own transfer The Issue would
sea rcely admit Of a doubt.
AGrenL Remedial Agent.
/ A1tho1,rh phyo joi,n,