The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-08-09
HOW Do WE STAND?


communications which discuss the ex
tension of the Constitution to Hawaii
but they do not add to our information
on the subject. The case however may
be restated with advantage.
In the discussions over the ratifica
tion of the treaty of Paris, the Demo
Gratis urged that the cession of Porto
Rico and the Philippines to the United
States would extend the Constitution
by its own force to these new ter
ritories, and therefore all sorts of com
pfications would follow. The Republi-
cans, including the President and his
Cabinet and the leading men in the
Senate and House, declared that the
Constitution would not by its own
yigOr extend to these new acquisitions
and no trouble could therefore arise
from this source. The debate was in
teresting and exhaustive. Representa-
tive James r. Man of Illinois, in an
elaborate discussion, cited the words
used by Daniel Webster, who was re-
garded as the great Expounder of the
Constitution by Northern men, in his
argument in the case of Fleming VS..
Page, which were: Hence the part of
the Constitution which directs that the
duties must be equal in all the ports
of the United States does not apply
to Territories" And further: Con
gress has full power over the subject
1.-THE government of the Territories)
1t may establish any such government
and any such laws in the Territories
of course, subject to the rules of JUS
tice and propriety, bit it is under no
Constitutional restaints.'
IF Hawaii must plead her own case
before Congress, it would be unwise
and dangerous to take the position
which the Republicans, and the great
Expounder deemed untenable, and
which the Supreme Court has refused
to take
But Hawaii must stand on the sound
proposition, that the cession of the
Islands, together with the Newlands
Resolution, contained clear and we'll
understood contract for the extension
OF the Constitution to Hawaii, with the
contained an agreement for the incor-
poratiOn of that Territory into the
Union, and under the Constitution
This is a proposition which the Presi
dent stands upon and the Republican
party stands upon. 1t avoids the
necessity of resorting to the Supreme
Court for a judgment in the case,
especially when that court has been
in many opinions to lean tow
ards the position that the Constitution
does not extend to the Territories, eX-
cepting in some vague and indirect
ways.
In the enactment of laws for the
government of this Territory, the
Democratic members of Congress must
take the ground that the Constitution
extends over Hawaii. They have so
declared. They need no suggestion
from Hawaii, if she could give it. The
Republican party will, ON the other
hand, extend the Constitution to Ha-
wall, as it did to the Territory of Utah |
in 1850, and on the ground that there
is a contract for this extension which |
must be fulfilled.
On the whole our case is clear and
there is little reason to believe that a
Congress will repudiate it's
obligations unless We provoke it TO |
acts of hostility. We do not help our
ease by telling them they do not know |
the law, and that Daniel Webster did
not know the law.