The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-28
AGAINST THE ANNEXATION
Speech of Hon. Thomas X. Ball of Texas, in tn,
House of Repre- sentatvos, Against tho
Annexation of Hawaii.

the foreign affairs committee of the SEN
ate. rontcnded.
In tne case now under confederation
IL MAS not proposed 0y tut lv,nt reso,u
non before Tue senate INIT IeAas shOuii
be a>qulred according 10 wnat he con-
sidertd she CONSTITUTIONAL moae Of pro-
eeeusng, ny the tIea,s -inahlng power,
4 he proposition is lor congress TO Ad-
init ner rs a state. Now
lie asked
Wntn this government was about 10
add foreign domain TO ours, MIS- therc
any other mode OF accomplishing that
object except by the interposition of
the treaty making power. composed OF
the president Of the United States N
eoniunctioa with the senate? Was 1t
constitutional TO annex Texas by the
treaty which was submitted 10 the SEN
ate last session.
He believed there were few, IL any.
constitutional objections made. H. then,
the power TO annex foreign territory
by sreaty does appertain to the treaty
making power. he should like TO see
upon what ground 1t could be held that
the congress OF the United States pos
seSses concurrent legislative power up
on this subject If that which II is
competent for the treaty making power
alone TO accomplish, the majority OF a
quorum Of both houses of congress
could accomplish The argument. he
apprchended. would he this, that as a
constitutional mode OF proceeding we
do not deny that foreign territory can
be admitted into this Union by the
treaty making power. But there Is
ANOTHER clause in the constitution which
gives congress the power to admit new
States into the Union. He proposed
now to consider what was the character
of that article and upon what condi-
tlons Il rests tMr, buchanan: That
is the true ground,) His friend from
PENNSYLVANIA said that was the dues-
tion. and to 1t he proposed to call par
ticular attention,
Mr. Choste for three hours reviewed the
whole question, bringing to bear his knowl
edge Of the constitution. clothed IN redun-
dant 0djectives. He denied that the clause
in The fourth article In the constitution
giving the power To congress Of admitting
new States into the union was given with
the most remote idea OF its being ever APP
piled to anything but domestic territory
said he;
No man could believe that by that
provision IL was Intended 10 confer the
tremendous power OF admitting new
States In any part Of the world without
Limitation az to habits. customs, LAM
EuuBfa Dllhilll'bt W any Aiihb NV INV
semblance OF republication Until 1t
was found the treaty Of laat session
had no chance of passing the senate, no
human being save enc. no man,
woman. or child in the union. or out OF
the union. wise or foolish. drunk or
sober Nas ever heard TO breathe ono
syllable abou' this power Of the consu-
tuition Of admitting new states beinG
applicable to the admission of foreign
rations. governments or States. IL wea
new and II onstrous heresy on the
constitution, got up not from any we'll
founded faith IN Its orthodoxy. but for
the mere purpose of carrying a measur,
by n sarc majority of congress that
could not be carried by tWo-tbirda
majority of The senate in accordance
with the treaty making power.
Mr. Speaker. ] will not further quote
from this discussion. The language used by
Mir Choato certainly applies with peculiar
force TO the proposition now pehdins, and
the entire debate upon roth sides OF that
shows conclusively that the ad-
v0cates OF this measure have no ground 10
stand lpon 20 far as tho annexation Of
Texas is concerned.
The gentleman fNm North Carolina tMr.
and the gentleman from Ohio tMr
GrosvCnor) seek to aid their contentious In
favor OF this measure by the decision Of
chief Justice Marshall. Let us see II they
are sustained thereby;
THE course
Said Judge Marshall
which the argument las taken will
require that IN deciding this question
the court should take into view the re-
lation In which Florida Glands 10 the
Unlted States. The constitution confers
absolutely upon the government the
nf
consequently that government possesses
the power OF acquiring territory either
by conquest or by treaty"
II VIII be seen Mr.. Speaker that Chief
Justice Marshall not only fails 10 sustain
these gentlemen, but bases the acquisition
Of territory, either by conquest or tr5aty.
upon the war making and treaty making
powers conferred by the constitution upon
the government. Certainly, the treaty
having failed TO pass, no gentleman Will
contend that we are attempting to take
Hawaii by conquest or by the power 10
admit States, They must therefore stand
with the chairman OF the foreign affairs
(Mr. HitU, who Insists in sub
stance, that the National government has
the Inherent right TO acquire territory IN
this manner. The constitution having
pointed out the several ways in which tor
rltory may be lawfully acquired | Tor
one decline to aecep, this new doctrine by
which territory can eventually como iuto
with the States and have equal
rights and representation on the no)r of
aud elsewhere without first
running the gauntlet OF every coGstitu-
tional safeguard.
Mr. Speaker shall even venture to
differ with those who declare this meas
ure TO be a military necessity. Even the
array Of expert testimony they bring -
their support Is not conclusive. a leading
member OF the bar once defined unreliable
testimony as Of three classes: 'Ordinasy
liars, accomplished liars. and expert wit
nesses." naughter) While ! do not ac-
ceie 70 this classification, | do know that
great military and naval authority Is not
agreed at all times. II Is also true that
only WITNESSES In the matter were called
who favored annexation. Even then, as
stated by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Clark. General sohoheld. upon cross
examination. admitted that Pearl Harbor,
now possessed by this country, was the
only harbor that could be successfully for
tilted and defended viii say IN passi 9
that we possess this harbor by treaty that
can not be abrogated except by the consent
OF this government. Again, we should
bear In mind that, by professional instinct
army and navy officers are naturally pre-
disposed toward that policy which would
m al this rountrv "a proaf military and