The San Francisco call., 1898-05-24
ANNEXATION ARGUMENT.
TT HE New York Journal yes for Hawaiian an
 nexation with zeal which suggests contingent fee that is needed in its b1siness


 nexation with zeal which suggests contingent
 ! fee that is needed in its business
 In late issue the Journal says that annexation was the policy ot Presidents Tyler, Taylor Fillmore, Pierce, Johnson, Grant and Harrison, and Secre- taries Of State Webster Calhoun Buchanan, Clayton, Marcy, Seward, Fish, Frelinghuysen Blaine and Eos ter. This IS sweeping misrepresentation of history and palpable fasehood Of the lists of Presidents quoted only Harrison favored annexation and of the Secretaries only Foster. It is true that Marcy did negotiate annexation treaty, but it at the ns- l gaton of weak ruler of the islands, and was never ratified. Marcys real policy seems have been ex- pressed in the reciprocity treaty which he negotiated with MT. Lee, the Hawaiian representative. The other statesmen named are all on record for the autonomy and independence of the islands
 American statesmen have been aware of two possi- ble endorsements in the Hawaiian situation; one arising in their ownership as colony by the United States the other in their passing under the dominion of any European power. The latter amply pro- vded against by the Anglo French treaty of I842, by which Great Britain and France agreed never in any manner form, directly or indirectly to assume dominion or control of Hawaii While the United States was party that treaty in fact brought that two nations that into line with and made the acquisition of the islands by any European power impossible, since any attempting 1t must antago- nize Great Britain, France and this republic.
 The islands were guaranteed in their independence and neutrality with autonomy a state III the American system of nations and all the rights of government within the Monroe hemisphere. From that policy we have never varied until the rnachina- tions of Minister Stevens in 1893 put in power mi norty and erected military oligarchy sustained by per cent of the people. The position of all the American statesmen named by the Journal with the two exceptions noted was never better stated than by Blaine himself In his official letter of Novem- Der TO- 1884, to Comfy, our Minister at Honolulu, he said:
 "The Government of the United States has uth unOarpng consistency manifested respect for the in- dependence of the Hawaiian kingdom and earnest desire for the welfare of its people It has always felt and acted the conviction that the possession of the islands by peaceful and prosperous power with which there possibility of controversy col lison, most desirable, in reference to its own large and rapidly increasing interests in the Pacific It has declined, the request Of the Hawaiian people, to their affairs a protectorate, which would only be thinly disguised domination, and 1t has confined its efforts and influence to strengthening their government and opening to their commerce and enterprise the readest and most profit able connection with its markets"
 Now, that was a plain statement of our historic policy From that policy MT. Blaine contemplated only of deviation, which he said would be in tendency the part of the Hawaiian Govern nient to drift toward the Asatic system, in which event American solution would become necessary
 It will be that the Journals statement false the for it probably corrupt, and this is good time to suggest that the people should be on their guard against innovations and novelties in national policy which urged by newspapers like Hearsts notorious for blackmail, corruption and the leasing of their editorial opinions time contracts to anybody who will pay the price demanded
 Our policy toward Hawaii has been to support neu- traly and Independence and control her trade by the natural gravitaton of commerce. Nothing has hap pened make necessary change in this policy and it is unlikely that anything will happen to justify it.