The San Francisco call., 1898-03-18
THE DEFEAT OF ANNEXATION.

! the final and entire defeat of the annexation
 treaty without risking vote which would ex- hibit its weakness.
 As substitute the committee proposes a joint resolution, which rectes that "the said Hawaiian Islands be and they hereby annexed as part ot the territory of the United States"
 The committee submits a report which makes the argument for the joint resolution. This report quotes the admission of Texas and says: "This i'm portant, clear and far reaching precedent established by the annexation of the republic of Texas is suff cent guide for the action of Congress in the passage of the joint resolution herewith reported"
 Without dsrespect to the Senate committee we in- sst that the admission of Texas into the Union State by joint resolution is precedent at all for the annexation of Hawaii. From the beginning of the discussion of modes by which our borders may be extended every statesman and writer on public and constitutional law who has referred to it has drawn plain distinction between the admission of foreign domain into the Union State and its annexation as territory. The former may be done by act of Congress; the latter by treaty alone Texas was ad- mitted directly into the Union without territorial novitiate under that clause in the constitution which says Congress may admit States into the Union. The joint resolution admitted Texas State. In the Texas act the words annex and annexation do not That resolution recites that:
 Congress doth consent that the territory prop erly included within and rightfuy belonging to the republic of Texas may be erected into State, to be called the State of Texas, with republican form of government to be adopted by the people of the said republic by deputies in convention bled, with the consent of the existing Government, Ill order that the may be admitted of the States of this Union" This action was taken March l. 1895 It provided that the question should be first submitted to the vote of the people of Texas. On December 2o, IS45, the question meantime having been submitted to the people of Texas and their sent having been given by ballot, the second joint resolution finally admitting Texas as a State was passed It recites:
 Whereas the Congress of the United States by joint resolution approved March l. I845 did consent that the territory included within and rightfuy be- longing to the republic of Texas might be erected into State, to be called the State of Texas, which consent of Congress was given upon certain conditions specified, and whereas the people of Texas * did ordain and declare that they assented to and accepted the proposals, therefore resolved, That the State of Texas shall be one and is hereby declared to be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union equal footing with the original States of the Union in all respects whatever"
 There is no resemblance, analogy or legal contact between the two At point in the proceed ings are they on all fours with each other The de bates on the admission of Texas amply disclose the
 
 difference between them.
 We annexed Louisiana territory by treaty, as we did Florida, and after conquest annexed what we took from Mexico by the treaty of Guada- lupe Hidalgo. We annexed the territory of Alaska also by treaty.
 It is, indeed, trifing with the constitution to say that in case of annexation of foreign territory the treaty power and joint resolution are alternative and interchangeable methods Such theory was never proposed before. In the San Domingo case it clearly stated by Allen G. Thurman and other lawyers in the Senate that the right of the Texas rested entirely upon the constitutional power of Con gress to admit States into the Union.
 In the details of the two cases there is lack of correspondence as great as their failure of resem- blance on constitutional lines The Texas resolution provided that evidence of the adoption and ratihca- ton of State constitution by the people be sub mitted In the San Domingo Senator Thurman said, "We cannot in honor annex San Domingo without the consent of her people" To this Sen ator Edmunds added, "The United States should never any people without their consent" The careful reading of the Hawaiian joint resolution fails disclose any mention of the people of that country of their assent
 It recites that "the Government of the republic of Hawaii having in due form signihed its consent D etc. That government has been submitted to the people President Dole was never voted for nor elected by the people. He appointed majority of the Constitutional Convention and the minority of that body was elected by minority of the people, because he had, by military force, arms and ar btrarily disfranchised majority of the people
 It is government that has no authority to assent to anything for the people because they did nor delegate it. It is not their servant but their master, completely the Ameer is master of the Afghans
 The Congress of the United States will not be found willing to lacerate the constitution in order that such government may murder the autonomy and fch the sovereignty that belong to the people of Hawaii
 THE JIIDV RNX C~1NNHI