The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-19

decided by the treaty making power OF the
| oountry-certainly a good deal which does
not get at the real root Of the controversies
arguments based on the duty OF this
| government toward the further civilization
| OF those islands sound well and may ret
leVor with few sentimentalists hut ii
such duty does exist il should not be On.
ercised TO the detriment OF the interee,e OF
the people of the country as 1t is now con-
stitnted; on the other hand, the tail,
against annexation because OF the charac-
ter OF the present population should cut
no figure in the controversy, for anneAa-
tion would bring about complete change
IN that respect within q few months ar u
few years at most. and it is the future
which must be considered
II there is good reason why there should
never be a State created from these is
lands there ought to be some way % pro-
vide against such contingency without
affecting the main question. Why would It
not be possible 10 amend the constitution
so as to provide that no territory not a
part of the mainland shall ever become a
separate State? To be sure that would
apply TO Cuba when we get her, and some
OF those who are making the point against
Hawaii would be willing to see CuSa u
State of this Union; but II the separation
from the mainland Is a reason against
statehood in the one case 1t should hold in
the other. For myself can see no &c cd
reason why Hawaii should not be State
at some time in the far future when ii ros-
sesses the requirements any more than
that Providence and Newport should each
be given senator because they happen 10
comprise the State of Rhode Island. or
that the Pennsylvania railroad should own
and control two or three senator's Serious
ly If we can not rely on the honesty of
States, why not make the new Territory
a part OF California or provide for per-
manent Territorial government?
THE MEAT IN THE CoCoANUT.
But all of these seem TO me side issues.
There are two sides TO tho question ami
when carried down to its last analysis the
real arguments for and against are about
these:
To hold her own as one of the first-class
nations of the world the United States
must push her commerce into the markets
OF the world. That is good democratic doc
trine as opposed TO the republican Idea
that we can develop and grow by erecting
Chinese wall around this country, de-
pending upon our home market. Practical
ly the only markets left open 20 us Ger
tainly the most inviting field for pushing
our oommerce--is that to which the Pa
cific is the great highway. AS long as sea
transportation is by means OF ships which
are dependent upon coal for fuel, Just so
long will Hawaii remain the Key 10 the
Pacific. You only nave to glance at the
map TO realize this. Now is il more of
benefit to this country to hold that key
than danger?
1t is argued that in time of war Ii would
be dangerous 10 have 10 guard those is
lands out in The Pacific: that would be
costly to fcrtify them and would require
a much greater navy to guard them ana
the Pacific coast than it would to guard
the coast alone; that great increases to our
navy would be necessary as the result VI
their possession and that the farther We
stick our toes into the Pacific the more
liable are we to have them trod upon.
WE GET IT OR SOMEBODY ELSE DOES.
AS against this argument the friends of
annexation contend that in times of peace
there can be no question of the very great
value to the commerce of the United States
to hold this key to the Pacific.
The question which presents Itself Is not |
as between our having them or their re-
naming a republic friendly with us, as
nov; but IL is whether we Will take them |
Or lei them 80 to some other nation. II |
We refuse the offer that Is made up we will /
saw TO the Hawaiian government. eve 10 |
not want YOU 10 wherever else yoi |
please That would be the effect OF gu.
refusal. For certainly none OF those now |
opposing annexation VIII contend thai u |
would be wise 10 refuse TO take the conn
nv ard yet 20 ahead and contend for the |
ioctrine which has governed our state de- |
1artment for fifty years that this Is
,art of The American system and no other
,ation has q right 10 IT, That would mean |
hat we would be called upon to fight for |
bose Islands although we did not wan.
hem ourselves and would not take them
xhen they offered to come for the asking.
There seems no question that IN times 81 l
,eace our commerce would be greatly ben
's,,sd hv INC possession OF Hawaii. How
would n bo IL. in backing up the rights OF
,,,r ,itjzeus 10 enter into the commerce o.
NJ wrrld or OF resenting insult. We were
brown into a war?
STRENGTH OR WEAKNEss'
THE wars OF the future are 10 be In the
s,s Here the question presents ITSELF
,-o,,,d uawaii be source OF strength or
/ weakness Here is the Ifihc'pai pol
1 contention IN the argument oyer the rs-
.ai;an question. There is an honest dliler-
l, ! ~ oriolon among men over this guess
M, ann n IL this difference which in the
81 DECADES them for or against anaexa-
,nn same believe that me expense OF
affecting Hawaii would be gfeaisr ttau
H. ,g,,Irrs Mould warrant. and that tht
esye.s son oil those outlying isisi,os Nou'
4 an element OF weakness otns,s cvl- !
40 ,hat from, a purely commercial senss
81 vslue 81 The land annexed y greater
- ~ aeb, which we are called upon 10
as,,,,s. mat looking 10 the future. the
s ',,,a 4, The pcssession Of the Islands |
, The he commerce OF the country IS ainiast !
s,oad computation, and NAT .nsssaa 9
~ ,.xsssi9n OF this ehaiu OF ihiands md
y y i ~ Il an element Of great sifenstn
u 'Tho ,sstiIncay OK Captain Aahan. nc
,ts,se, wIiter on nasal matters VIZ havs, Z
=, ssxnr N this latter view, snd GER
inv bis estimate o. the s'ratezie vsllr