Waterbury Democrat., 1901-01-15
HE HAWAIIAN CASE.
Richards Makes Reply to
 Smiths Argument.
Congress- Intention In Regard to the New Territory-Richards Says It Was to Treat It as Part of the United States.

Was to Treat It as Part of the
 United States.
 Washington, Jan 15.-Solicitor-Gen efal Richards to-day made reply to Mir smiths argument in the Hawaiian in sular case now in hearing before the United States supreme court. in this case, he said. it was obviously the in tentlon of congress, as sooE as practi- cable. to treat the territory as a part of the United States. for legislative purposes, so that the revenue and con- mercilal laws which apply in the United States should operate there. 'But," he went on. ''before these laws could be put ill operation in the Ha Wai:aI Islands it was necessary that a period of preparation should inter- vene after the passage of the resolu- ton or annexation. On July ', 1898, when the annexation resolution was passed, there were no customs laws of the United States in operation in Ha- waii and no customs officers of the United States there. The customs laws of the republic of Hawaii Were in force and they Were the only laws of that character It is obvious, there fore, that if the resolution of anneXa- tion immediately abrogated the cus- toms laws of the islands. the territory would have been left without any cus- toms laws, open to the ships of the world.
 If. then, the resolution of annexa- ton threw open the ports of Hawaii to the world at the same time, according to the contention of opposing counsel, it threw open the ports of the United States to ships coming from Hawaii. The effect of this would have been to give an open door through Hawaii into our ports. We could not require, when goods came into the United States from Hawaii whether they had been brought into Hawaii as an entrepoC to the United States.''
 MT Richards argued that this sort of thing could not be permitted and he expressed the opinion that if congress had believed that such q consequence would ensue the resolution of annexa- ton would not have passed when it did, nor until arrangements could have been made to put in operation our customs and commerce regula- tions immediately. So far as customs matters are concerned evidently the islands were not to be deemed part of the United States for customs puf- poses until congress should further leg islate on the matter by a law extend ing the United States customs laws and regulations to the islands. He called attention to the act of anneNa-
 tion, saying that it did not make the Hawaiian Islands q part of the United States, but part of the terri tory of the United States. "It is." he said, obvious that territory annexed or ceded to the United States becomes 1 a part of the territory of the United States. but it does not become a part
 of the United States in either con. stitutional or legislative sense until l congress shall so determine"
 In conclusion Mir Richards said: ..In the annexation resolution it was expressly provided that the customs regulations of the republic of Hawaii | should continue until congress should extend the customs laws of the United States to the islands. It was not untll | the passage of the act of April 3o, l9oo' | that the islands became a part Of the United States for customs purposes Dy l tha extension of our laws to them.