The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-28
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION
70 ANNEX ALTON.

Those who oppose the annexation of
Hawaii on constitutional grounds take a
very narrow and mistaken view of that in
strument. II is true the Constitution makes
no express provision for the acquisition of
new territory, probably because it's franz
ers, with all their wisdom. did not fore
see that it would ever become desirable,
but it is equally true that it does not
prohibit such acquisition. This could have
been done in very few words, if the
trainers had so desired, but if they had
done so we could not have acquired the
magnificent Louisiana territory in 1903 with
OUT either changing or openly violating the
Constitution. Happily and wisely the franz
ers OF the Constitution made no provision
OH the subject, leaving every future ques-
ton of the acquisition or annexation of ter
ritory to be decided on its merits. The poll
icy of the government has construed the
Constitution in favor of the extension Of ter
ritory, the question having been so decided
whenever it has been so presented. Those
who aver that the annexation of Hawaii
would be q departure from our traditional
policy are either ignorant of history or will
fully misrepresent it.
1t is interesting TO note that fourteen
years after the adoption of the Constitution
Jefferson, who was a strict constructionist,
made the largest acquisition of territory We
have ever made Notwithstanding the Con-
stitution did not expressly authorize it. JEFF
fersoE had some constitutional misgivings
on the subject, and he proposed to lay them
and legitimate his action nv an amendment
to the Constitution. He actually prepared
the following amendment, which to
have been Article XIII:
Louisiana, as coded by France to the
United States, is made part of the United
States, its white inhabitants shall be citi-
ZenS, and shall stand, as to their rights and
Obligations, on the same footing with other
citizens of the United States in analogous
situations, save only that as to the por-
ton thereof lying north of an east and west
line drawn through the mouth of Arkansas
river, no new State shall be established,
nor any grants of land made, other than
to Indians in exchange for equivalent por-
tons of land occupied by them until an
amendment of the Constitution shall be
made for these purposes.
This proposed amendment to the Constitu-
ton does not impress one with Jefferson's
wisdom. If it had been adopted the gov
eminent would have had it's hands tied in
disposng of the territory referred to, and
the States of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and several
others could not have been formed without
amending the Constitution. 1t is creditable
to the good sense of Congress and the peo-
pie that the proposed amendment received
no serious attention. Public sentiment ap-
proved of the acquisition of Louisiana, and
tional objection to the acquisition of terri
tory has had no weight. If it had, the Con-
stitution should be amended, for a consti-
tuition that would not permit the acquisition
of territory when the public welfare re-
quired it would be an incubus upon the
growth and development Of the Nation.