The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-12-08
A PRO.HATCH
RESOLUTION

! Section So provided that the leeisla-
tive power of the Territory shall ex-
tend to all rightful subjects of lesis-
lation not inconsistent with the Com
stitution and laws of the United States
locally applicable. -
Section IS enacted: ssThat the Ieeis-
lature may create counties and town
and city municipalities within the Ter
ritory OF Hawaii and provide for the
government thereof thus withdraw
ing the whole subject of counties and
municipalities from Congressional ac-
ton and eonfiding it to the territorial
legislature.
All the departments of the Territor-
ial government were established on
the same basis. The local courts. as
to rights. remedies and procedure, were
maintained in a similar way, and the
distinction between them and the Fed
eraI Court definitely marked out, as
will be readily seen from Chapter w,
Sections 81, 50, SO and S.
/ Under Section 4, all citizens of the
Republic of Hawaii, on August 18th,
/ 1898, became citizens of the United
| States, and, by Section 100, five years
residence in the Islands prior to June
| 14th, 1900, was made tantamount to
| the five years residence prescribed by
| the general naturalization laws, and,
| as to these residents, declarations of
| intention and remuneration of former
allegiance were waived.
| After the Organic Act had been APP
proved, but before it took general eff
! feet, four appropriation acts adopted
| by the local Council of State were sent
| to the President for his signature, and,
| on May 23rd, 1900, the Secretary of
| State replied: THE President has care
| fully considered these Acts and the
/ circumstances under which they were
passed. He does not think it was
necessary to embody in the Acts the
provision making his approval neces-
| sary to their validity. He therefore
returns them to you with the sugges-
| ton that they be enacted anew, omit
ting the section providing for the APP
| prevail of the President of the United
States
These facts might be greatly multi
piled but time is short, and they appear
to me sufficient. The decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States in
the Mankichi case is in line with the
differences that necessarily result
AS I have already said, / am not
here to express professional opinions
upon strictly legal questions, but. as
| a kamaaina in the United States and
a citizen of the Territory of Hawaii, 1
have the right to say, and / do say,
with absolute sincerity, that the Fed
eral Government and the people Of
the United States, in honor are bound
| to respect local self government in
these Islands, and that to the full ex-
tent of my ability and influence, pro-
pose to hold them to their position.
If this Territory had been acquired
by conquest or purchase. and had pre-
viously been in an uninhabited and
unorganized condition, the facts would
have been different, but, even then,
Home Rule, not as party designation
but as an American principle, equally
endorsed by all parties, would have
been applicable. Under our system,
irrespective of surrounding circum-
stances, territor-. is added to the ma
tional domain for the express purpose
Of conversion into States, with the
attributes of State sovereignty as linn
tied by the Federal Constitution. The
proposition was specifically incorpor-
!, ated into the ordinance accepting the
Northwest Territory and in the treat
les for the acquisition of Louisiana
and Florida, and it has pervaded our
national extension. At the time of
annexation, in every respect but the
tropical labor situation and the pre-
/ ponderance of Asiatic population, the
Hawaiian Islands were ripe for the
ol1 90 70 nd
for admission into the Union, under
a State government. They were so
| treated, and, to recede from that atti-
tude, would mot only be unjust and
unfair, bat it would disturb the bal
ance of our constitutional system.
! 1t is common and proper where, I'M,
der the provisions of a State or Ter
ritorial statute, some possible Federal
claim or question is involved, to Sc
cure Congressional endorsement and
thus reduce the emoluments of the pro-
fession to which I am attached. But,
! after definitely comforting the power
upon a territorial legislature, 4 am
not aware of any instance in which
Congress has undertaken municipal
legislation in territories. There may
be such a precedent, but l am I'M
conscious of its existence I do not
believe, therefore, that Congress will
attempt, and 1 feel that it ought not
to undertake to pass upon the County
Government Act, as enacted by the
Hawaiian legislature, or to legfslate
municipality for this Territory. 1t may
restrict or hberalize voting qualifica-
, lions. 1t may act upon franchises
granted to corporations or individuals.
There are many directions in which 1t
may heneficially exercise its functions.
But to abridge or interfere with self
government in established commune
ties, and emphaticaily in the special
case of Hawaii, is not within its legit-
innate province.
1t follows that, as an individual cit
izen, antagonize all proposed amend
ments to existing laws that attempt to
withdraw from the people Of this ter
ritory the right of self-government and
to officers, judicial and executive, Sc
lected from among themselves, and
rartjplIIarly with anv interference BY