The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-06-28
ANNEXATION DEBATE.
Speeches by Senator'S Clay, Roach and
Cnffery in Opposition.


WASHINGTON, June 27-At II o'clock
this morning the Senate convened, and a
few minutes afterward adopted the resolu-
ton of Mr. Davis, chairman of the foreign
relations committee, providing that hereaft-
er. until further action shall be taken, the
Senate convene daily at II a. m. Consider
alton of the Hawaiian annexation resolu-
tons were resumed, and during the session
Mr.. Clay Dem., Ga.), Mr.. Roach (Dem.
N. d. and Mr. Caffery Dem, La.) ad-
dressed the Senate in opposition to them.
Mr.. Caffery had not concluded his speech
when the Senate adjourned.
The annexation of Hawaii would Mr.. Clay
insisted start this country on a career of
conquest which was opposed to the true
destiny of the United States. He claimed
that to make the present war an excuse
for the adoption OF a colonization policy
would be violation of the declarations
made in the Cuban resolution, and would in
volve the country in tremendous difficulties
and possible ruin. He declared that The
United States had no business to capture
the Philippine islands, as the war had not
been begun Tor any such purpose.
Following Mr.. Gays speech, Mr.. Roach
delivered a carefully prepared argument
against the annexation proposition.
The messages OF the president relating to
Naval Constructor Hobson, Commander
Frank h. NeWcomb and Captain Hodgsdon
were read.
Mr.. Catfery then began speech in oppo-
sition to the annexation of the Hawaiian
islands. He said the policy proposed was
dangerous to the safety and perpetuity of
the United States and opposed to the fun
damental principles of the government.
During brle1 colioquy ABOUT the debt of
Hawai-, to which Mr.. Caffery, Mr.. Faulkner
and Mr.. Morgan were parties, the last
named said that $4,UCJ000 more than covered
the. debt, and that amount would be the
tn he nv
In return for this sum Mr.. Morgan said
the United States would receive unincum-
bered property to the value of eight of nine
mlllions OF dollars. That, he thought, would
be a tair financial exchange for the United
states.
Mr. Caffery then entered upon a consti-
tutional argument against annexation. Mr..
Caffery and Mr. Stewart became involved in
a sharp exchange over the formers asser-
ton that the United States, under the Con-
sutution, could not acquire foreign terri
tory by legislative act To this statement
Mr. Stewart took issue. Further, in re-
spouse to an inquiry by Mr.. Faulkner, Mr..
Caffery said that he had never known any
nation to acquire foreign territory by pure
ly legislative act.
Mr. Faulkner declared all governments
recognized the fact that the peaceful ac-
QUESTION of foreign territory was an execu-
tive function and had been such always.
In reply to this point Mr.. Stewart IN
stanced the fact that Great Britain had
successfully acquired parts Of India by act
OF Parliament.
tent" suggested Mr.. SpooEer. Does the
Senator from Nevada claim that Congress
is omnipotent?'
Yes; it is replied Mr.. Stewart, within
the limits of the Constitution. He pointed
out that the annexation of Alaska had not
been perfected until Congress had taken ac-
ton the question.
In response to an inquiry by Mr.. Mallory,
Mr. Stewart maintained the Supreme Court
had held repeatedly that ii could not in
quire into the acquisition of territory! When
the political power of the government had
taken action the transaction was closed.
In resuming his remarks Mr. Canery
said that if the argument of Mr. Stewart
were carried to its legitimate conclusion
it would constitute Congress an absolute
despotism.
At o'clock. Mr.. Caffery not having con-
cluded his speech, yielded the floor and the
Hawaiian resolutions were laid aside until
tomorrow.
Mr.. Allison called up the conference re-
port on the Indian appropriation bill and
asked that ii be agreed to.
Mr.. Jones, of Arkansas, expressed the
hope that the report might be rejected be-
cause of the provision which allowed In
dams to lease mineral lands. on their reser-
The report was rejected. the special
grounds of objection were those stated by
Mr. Jones and one by Mr.. Pettigrew. who
insisted that the Senate conferees should
insist upon the free homes provision.
At 5:35 D. M, on motion of Mr.. Davis, the
Senate went into executive session and at
5:55 adjourned.