The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-10-31

/ expansion. IS viewed from the standpoint
/ OF constitutional lsg and history. IS i.
/ follows:
/ Daniel Webster was OF the same opin
( ion - the iuris-s and statesmen who's
| views were set forth in the preceding ar
tieIe. regarding the constitutional IN
capacity OF the general government L
hold colonies He maintained respecting
the territories that THE territorial exist
enee" was but the preparatory state il
which il was TO remain until il was ready
TO come into the union as one of the
family Of states" tCong. Globe. Appen-
dix. Second Session 30th Congress. p
2T3l
At another time he declared in the
senate:
"In the part which ] have acted in
public life it has been my purpose to
maintain the people OF the United States
what the Constitution designed to make
them-one people, one in interest. one in
character and one in political feeling. If
we depart from that We break il all up.
Arbitrary governments may have terri
tories and distant possessions, because
arbitrary governments may rule them
by different laws and different systems /;
Russia may rule in the Ukraine and the
provinces of the Caucasus and Rants
ckatka by different codes. ordinances or
ukases. We can do no such thing. They
must be IT Us, part of US. or else strang
ers." fWorLs, Vol. V, p. SO0.)
John C. Calhoun held the same opin-
ion with equal decision. In opposing the
annexation Of the provinces of Mexico
to the United States he pointed out in Il
mastery speech in the senate that. if an
nexed. it would be necessary 10 Sule them
as colonies or dependencies. which he de-
clared would be totally Incompatible with
the Constitution, and in the end subyer-
siye of our free institutions.
Can we incorporate" said he. "a peo-
pie so dissimtlar In every respect-so lit
tn qualified for free and Popular govern
snent-witboW certain destruction TO our
political institutions? No.
these difficulties are insurmountabie. The
question, then, recsrs What shall we do
with the country? Shall we hold it as
subject province? Consequences not
less fatal will result from this dspo
sition Of it. 1t viii end in the loss Of
liberty. as it ever has where free states
undertook to hold in subsection extended
provinces" Works, Vol. ". p. 325.
The many and important limitations
which Mr.. Calhoun conceived were fast
erred by the Constitution upon the power
of congress over the territories will be
presented IN a subsequen; article.
Henry Clay's views conceded With
those of Calhoun and Webster as to the
inhibition upon the federal government
to acquire and maintain colonies. Oppos-
ing the movement which obtained in 1913
in various quarters Of The United States
to retain the conquered domain OF Next
co, Mr.. Clay said:
Il suppose it would be impossible that
those who favor-if there be any who
annexation of Mexico to the
United States can think that it ought to
be perpetually governed by military
sway. Certainly no friend OF human lib
erty could deem it right that this viola
ton should be perpetrated Of the right
principles of our own Revolution, accord
ing to which laws ought not to be enacted
and taxes ought not TO be levied withou,
on the part of those who
are 20 obey the one and pay the other.
Those whom God and geogra
ply have pronounced shall live asunder
could never be permanently and harmo-
niously united together"
Reverdy johnson, facile princeps
among constitutional lawyers, maintained
that the sole constitutional OBJ |
ject in the government of territory was
its introduction into the uniAn-" While |
MARYLAND in the senate of |
the United States he fully argued the |
question of the nature and extent of the |
power of congress over territory obtained |
~ the union. Upon the branch Of the |
subject now under consideration. as to
he power of the government TO hold |
'olonies. his opinion eoncurred entirely |
With that Of Chief Justice fancy and of
he other American publicists whose views
have been alrea1s cited Said he:
The power of the government over /
territories is one that looks TO its ter
nination. IL is temporary aud scos so
1t s. exercised eth yter 20
10 eai-asS rhet exdl The isccrpord-
ioa of the territories &c states iHto the
'-isa-" (19 Cong. Globe. PIP. 90o-1.)
His opinion was the same as that Of
dr. Calhoun on the subject of Mexican
olonies. concerning which he said
II think l can see as clearly as the
honorable senator from South Carolina
he results of Incorporating Mexico into
his Union"
He declared ;tn, n he thought that
och "a. the object Of the Mexican war
e would willingly submit 20 the with
travail Of troops rather than prosecute
he war In hour longer" tCong
ilche. XIX. pa 1850. also p. SaSD
Such. too. were the opinions OF John
dcR Berrisa. the leader of the southern
rhiys and one time attorney general of
- y,,;.~1 C&>te, RIO Ca,y Cloha N |