New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-01-08
WHY Not ANNEK HAWAII

Sonn'o If the opposition to the annexation OF
Hawaii is of the old well damn the Niger
anyway" type. neither open TO argument nor
worthy of reply Some Of II Is. however. based
on what its makers deem reasonable grounds
and merits the answer and refutation when
can easily he made. one Of the commonest
objections is that a majority Of the inhabitants
of the islands have not expressed desire lor
annexation. and 10 take them in wl'L0ut such
eyDresson would be a violation OF the Aln"rl-
can nrinciple that governments derive their
inst bowers from the consent of the governed
II is not known. however, that the consent OF
Tho original inhabitants Of this country was
secured before an alien government was esiaD-
Ushed over it and them. in Massachusetts ana
In virginia. There is no record of the consent
Of the inhabitants Of Louisiana having been
given 10 the transfer OF government over them
from French hands TO American, nor Of those
of Florida when Spain sold and traded that
territory 10 the United States. History Is
silent as to the consent of the governed when
this Nation set up it's rule over Ncw-MexlcO.
and any account of plebiscite among the
Thlinkcts and Aleuts when Alaska was pur-
chased is rs little known IA the lost books OF
Livy. WHY the Tanakas should be favored
been convincngy set forth.
II is also objected that Hawaii Is not NJ for
Statehood and that TO admit it az a State
would be to create another of those rotten
bcroughs" OF which, they say. the United
States already contains too many. That OBJ
lection is wellmeant and would be valid were
ii not aimed against a man Of straw. The
islands are not fit for Statehood and no objec-
ten 10 their admission as such could be TOO
strong But there is no thought Of making
State of them. any more than OF Alaska. Well.
them pursue the DIRECTORS. their status would
be anomalous for there Is no Constitutional pro-
vision for acquiring and holding territory OK
cept as a State or with a view 30 Statehood.
That is not exactly true. There is Indeed no
provision for acquiring new territory AZ
State or with a view to Statehood but merely
for the admission OF new States. presumably
from the territory owned or claimed by the
United States ut the date Of the adoption OF
the Constitution There was no warrant for
the acquisition Of Louisiana. or Florida, or
New Mexico, or Alaska. But neither is there
any Constitutional prohibition Of II; and hay
inc once acquired territory. the Federal Gov
eminent is under not the slightest obligation
10 erect it into state. or even into an organ
lied Territory. The Constitution does specifi-
callv settle that point by declaring that Con
prcss shall have power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory belonging 10 the nited States. That
rule has been acted upon. This country ac-
ouired Alaska with no thought Of ever making
il State. II is holding it without the slightest
view To Statehood, and seems 10 be getting
along pretty well in 50 doing. No reason is
apparent why It should not acquire and hold
Hawaii IN precisely the same way
The Constitution has been invoked IN almost
every cause, good or bad for the last hundred
years. for or against. according 10 the taste
and fancy Of the expounder. The cOmmoncst
argument based on II Is that. because the Con-
stituton does not specifically authorize the
doing OF n thing, that thing cannot properly
be done. Nothing could be more fallacious
Under such Interpretation half the acts Of the
Government since It's foundation would have
10 he reckoned unconstitutional. Certainly
Jcffersons acquisition OF Louisiana would, and
Monroe's acquisition OF Florida. Those who
argue thus strangely forget the very first
words Of the instrument 10 which they appeal
The Constitution declares It's own reasons for
existence TO be Ito form a more perfect Union.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defence promote the