The San Francisco call., 1898-03-20
THE ANNEXATION RESOLUTION.

I should be noted that the annexation resoiutoh | offered by the Senate Committee contains none oi
 the reservations that boasted as prime features of the treaty There is abrogation ot existing treaties between Hawaii and other countries Even the shadowy restriction of the immigration of As1ac coolies to Hawaii has disappeared. The resolution simply extends the sovereignty of the United states to the islands.
 The Hawaiian treaties under which eoolie contract labor now fills the islands are left in force. When sovereignty is exchanged without restriction 1t car ries over from the abrogaed to the acquired uris- dction all of it's treaties agreements, contracts and obligations When the sovereignty of France expired in the empire and transferred to the republic no treaty fell by the waysde in the exchange The new sovereignty acquired them all with their obligations and burdens
 So we take Hawaii, under the joint resolution for better for worse debts treaties, contract labor and all, and make 1t a part of our territory, to be gov erned under an undsclosed system which may either set up inequality of law between that and the rest of our domain may extend to the rest of the coun- try the labor system and other things now unknown to us which inhere in "the peculiar conditions" of that country
 Will the annexation press tell us what has become of the boased restrictions, reservations and safe guards of the treaty without which they were but gently admitting that annexation would not be de sirable1
 This whole matter must be stripped now of its dis gtise and pretense The debate must be in the open. The inquiry into the constitutonality of the joint resolution must be complete. As appears now it cannot be vindcated out of the text spirit of the constitution. As this republic exists written con- stuton, which grants to 1t all of the powers and authority may exercise that constitution is to be the test of our right to exercise sovereignty in Hawaii Suppose that by this joint resolution as sume such sovereignty and testis made as it will be- by the refusal of citizen to acknowledge our authority de ure in the islands Such test must go to decide whether the constitution has been followed in annexation. Does any one believe that 1t will find warrant for this proposition in the constitution? II SO, where? The burden of proof IS on the annexa- tionists They have so debauched logic in their guments that they have trained themselves for de- bauchery of the written law. Why don't they pro- ceed? From the standpoint of the fundamental law we cannot take Hawaii because 1t is "a paradise of the Pacific because strong enough to take it any way because 1t is round in the ladder of manifest destiny. This Government has power, DO destiny no right outside of its constitution A thing may be desirable, or expedent, ambitious, but we derive no right from any of these reasons. Our sole derivation is from the constitution. Is 1t possible that Benton and Clay, Thurman and Ed munds and all the great lawyers and expounders of the constitution have been wrong in their decara- ton that Congress may only admit new States while new territory may be annexed only by treaty?