2322hard labor "until he should consent to return to his master and consent to serve according to law;" and Sayewiz was sentenced to pay a fine of $5 and costs, and to be imprisoned at hard labor until said fine and costs be paid.

The supreme court decided that this sentence should be enforced; that the imprisonment of those people was not a penal, but a civil action. Under this sentence those men could be kept in jail for life, because they could be imprisoned until they would return to their service. This man, who was beaten and bruised, refused to go back and was therefore sentenced until he would go back.

Mr. ALLEN. I should like to ask the Senator with what offenses these men were charged?Mr. PETTIGREW. I read a statement of the offenses.Mr. ALLEN. I did not hear it. I thought the Senator was reading the syllabus of the opinion of the court. What was the specific crime with

which the men were charged?Mr. PETTIGREW. A violation of the contract to labor for three years upon one of those sugar plantations.Mr. ALLEN. Declining to labor? Mr. PETTIGREW. Simply declining to labor, and one of them showed that he had been punched and bruised and pounded by his

taskmaster, and he preferred to go to jail rather than to return to such service. I should add that these were white men. Mr. ALLEN. I should like to ask the Senator if he has a copy of the Hawaiian statutes which are in force on the subject of contract labor?Mr. PETTIGREW. Yes; I have the Hawaiian statutes here.Mr. ALLEN. I shall be glad to have the Senator insert those statutes in his remarks.Mr. PETTIGREW. I will insert the sections which apply to this case. They are as follows: sec. 1417. Any person who has attained the age of 20 years may bind himself or herself, by written contract, to serve another in any art,

trade, profession, or employment for any term not exceeding five years. sec. 1418. All engagements of service contracted in a foreign country to be executed in this shall be binding here: Provided, however,

That all such engagements made for a longer period than ten years shall be reduced to that limit, to count from the day of the arrival of the person bound in this republic.

sec. 1419. If any person lawfully bound to service shall willfully absent himself from such service without the leave of his master, any district or police justice of the republic, upon complaint made under oath by the master, or by anyone on his behalf, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring him before said justice; and if the complaint shall be maintained, the justice shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and he shall be compelled to serve the remainder of the time for which he originally contracted.

sec. 1420. If any such person shall refuse to serve according to the provisions of the last section, or the terms of his contract, his master may apply to any district or police justice where he may reside, who shall be authorized, by warrant or otherwise, to send for the person so refusing and, if such refusal be persisted in, to commit such person to prison, there to remain, at hard labor, until he will consent to servo according to law. And in case such person so bound as aforesaid shall have returned to the service of such mas ter in obedience to such order of such justice, and shall again willfully absent himself from such service without the leave of his master, such district or police justice may fine such offender not exceeding $5 for the first offense, and for every subsequent offense thereafter not exceeding $10, and in default of payment thereof such offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor until such fine is paid: and at the expiration of such imprisonment such justice shall order such offender to be returned to his master to serve for the remainder of such original term of service.

Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a moment?Mr. PETTIGREW. I will.Mr. CULLOM. I simply want to say that the purpose of this bill is to repeal all such laws as those, and then to make the bill so very thorough in

that regard as to render it impossible that such conduct shall be carried on toward those people.Mr. ALLEN. With the permission of the Senator from South Dakota, I will say I have looked at section 10 of this bill, which I apprehend is the

section to which the Senator from Illinois refers, and I do not think the amendment offered is broad enough to cover the idea of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. CULLOM. We have been trying to get it broad enough for two or three days.Mr. CARTER. I suggest that it is impossible, unless the Senator from Nebraska will speak louder, to hear what he says.

Mr. ALLEN. I was saying that I do not think the amendment which I find in section 10 is broad enough to cover this question. It strikes me that it might all be covered in a very few words by referring to the sections of the Hawaiian statutes which the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pettigrew] has read, and enacting that those sections shall be repealed which provide that contracts for labor which are enforcible by penal statutes or by enforced servitude shall be annulled, and that hereafter there shall be no involuntary service.

Mr. PETTIGREW. I have offered such an amendment. Mr. CULLOM. I was about to say that the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, to which he was speaking in part, I supposed covered

exactly what the Senator from Nebraska suggests; and, so far as I am concerned, I am in favor of adopting it.Mr. ALLEN. It does partially.Mr. CULLOM. I suppose the amendment the Senator refers to

goes far enough to absolutely prohibit any such thing in the future; and if it does not, I am for an amendment that will do it. Mr. ALLEN. If I may be indulged for a moment by the Senator from South Dakota, I wish to say that I have not had an opportunity for the last few days to be present in the Senate. I find that there is an objectionable feature in the very first section of the bill, a sentence that might be construed to include exactly what the Senator from South Dakota is now endeavoring to get rid of, and, with his indulgence, I want to read it. It is as follows:

sec. 1. That the phrase "the laws of Hawaii," as used in this act without qualifying words, shall mean the constitution and laws of the republic of Hawaii, including regulations having the effect of low and the decisions of the supreme court in force on the 12th day of August, 1898.

Mr. PETTIGREW. I wish to say to the Senator that those sections are, as I understand, specifically repealed by this bill. If the Senator will allow me to go on I will give my reasons for offering the amendment which I offer, since I am discussing this question.

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. Mr. PETTIGREW. I think this bill specifically repeals those sections of the Hawaiian laws which I have been reading. Is not that correct, I

ask the Senator from Illinois?Mr. CULLOM. Yes; there is no doubt about it.Mr. PETTIGREW. That is my opinion; but when I found that the supreme court of Hawaii had decided that these labor contracts were civil

contracts and that this imprisonment was a civil process, I felt that it was necessary that something more specific and definite should be done than simply to repeal those sections. The committee agreed to an amendment which did do something more specific and definite, but it also said that remedy might be had in a civil action against a breach of one of these slave contracts. That I was not satisfied with, and therefore I brought in my amendment. I am not content that those men should bring in under our flag, knowing that it is in violation of our laws, 30,000 slave laborers, and then that there should be no remedy under heaven to prevent it, and that the Congress of the United States shall stand committed to the proposition that the planters may sue those people by civil process. Therefore I brought in the amendment. I have felt it my duty to expose these things, because the Committee on Foreign Relations chose to bring this bill here with section 10 in it, which was clearly intended to continue such contracts for slave labor until they expired.

Further than that, Mr. President, a year ago, when we tried to repeal the slave-labor clauses in the Hawaiian law, one of the commissioners we sent to Hawaii, and one of the framers of this bill, stood on this floor and objected to and prevented the repeal of those slave-labor clauses of that law. Since he did that 30,000 slave laborers have been taken into Hawaii under our flag. Therefore I determined to put the record of these infamous facts in the congressional record and let the people of the United States pass upon this question.

I now read a clipping from the Hawaiian Independent, which was sent me by Mr. Joseph O. Carter, whose character is above reproach; who is one of the few exceedingly able men of high character who descended from missionary stock in those islands. Most of them are a tough lot. I remember when the proposition first came here during Harrison's Administration for the annexation of Hawaii those missionary sugar planters signed a deliberate lie and Bent it to the Senate of the. United States to influence our ac tion—Thurston and several of those people signed a deliberate falsehood; they knew it was false; they admitted afterwards that it was false, and wanted to know what difference it made. They

undertook to rush through the treaty annexing those islands in the last days of Harrison's Administration by sending out a de liberate falsehood, signed by the sons of missionaries whose fathers went to Hawaii to convert the inhabitants to Christianity and whose sons have stolen all the lands of those people and their government beside.

Now, let us see what they have been doing since our flag went up. They have been importing slave labor; arid, what is more, the pillars of the Congregational Church in Hawaii, the sons of those missionaries, own stock in the Ewa plantation, and they have been boasting that they were importing Asiatics who were heathens so that they could come under the blessings of the in fluences of Christianity. Last year they imported a Buddhist priest and set up a Buddhist temple, because they said it made the laborers more quiet, attending church every Sunday, while the planters went on with this performance.

The article in the Hawaiian Independent to which I have referred is as follows: We daily see a large number of Galicians in the chain gang working at the quarries and on the roads. They are white men; they are the class

that our philanthropist of the official organ wants to make the sinew and bone of these islands as "small (d—— small) farmers," and yet they prefer to remain under the tender care of Mr. Dole's jailer to returning to slavery on a plantation.

There have been a number of comments In regard to the Galician laborers

2323lodged in Oahu jail since the Independent took up the cudgels for the poor The manager has a bad habit of going into the laborer*' quarters and pull-men and criticized the outrageous laws which permit men to be treated as ing them outcriminals for refusing to work under contracts which virtually place them Lam Hing Wing, cook for a gang, said he never got full pay, though heon par with slavery. We certainly blame the infamous laws which force the worked all the time. Two Hawaiians told me they had worked on the plan-Galician’s to take the choice of going to jail or returning to the slave drivers tation, but had left, as the manager was a very hard man to work for.on the sugar estates, but we fail to see how Mr. Dole could interfere in the The laborers' quarters are the filthiest I have ever been in; in fact, thematter. If he to-morrow asked the council of state to pardon the men who whole plantation is in need of a cleaning up. The inside of the rooms arerefuse to work under a contract, and if a pardon were granted, the "civil" black with cobwebs, and it looks as if whitewash was unknown on the place,part of the contracts would be enforced and every man rearrested. to go to Mr. Hanneberg said he intended to whitewash the houses at once. I sincerelywork in the cane fields. • Mr. Dole can no more break our laws than Mr. hope he has done so.Judd can. The treatment of sick laborers on the plantation is such that it practically

amounts to cruelty. Near the beach, a good distance from the men's quar-Here is another sample of the humane conduct of those mission- ters, is a room about 12 by 12 used as a hospital. The laborers call it the jail,any sugar planters: I found in it at the time of my visit five Chinese and four Japanese laborers,

all sick. The room was in a filthy condition. These sick men have to leaveDr. Alvarez. of this city, has also had the necessity for a public hospital • their quarters early in the morning when the whistle blows and go to thebrought very forcibly to him by reason of some Spanish plantation laborers hospital, remaining there all day until the evening whistle blows, when theybeing thrust upon him for medical attention. He is keeping them until they are allowed to return to their quarters. Is this humane treatment? I hardlyare strong enough to work. One young Spaniard, who was brought to the think so. I questioned Mr. Hanneberg on this matter, and he said that if theHawaiian Islands on the Victoria from Madeira and Spanish ports, has been men were allowed to stay in their quarters their friends visited them, andwith him for nearly two weeks. He is an educated man, having matriculated there were other reasons given by him.at the University of Salamanca, taking the bachelor degree of that institu- This is not the first time that complaints have been made against Olowalu.

tion. Previous to coming to Honolulu he worked on a Maui plantation. He The place is isolated, and I think there is a good deal going on on the planta-

was weak in his legs, entirely unused to agricultural work, and before long tion that is not heard of. Some time ago I talked to Mr. W. O. Irwin and

was a fit subject for the plantation hospital. Instead of putting him there. Manager Hanneberg about the complaints made by the laborers. The man-

his contract was called for and later returned to him with cancellation of ager should be made to understand that be must keep his hands off the labor-

contract marked thereon "By mutual consent." ers: must be less severe in his system of docking; must keep the laborers'

quarters in better condition, and, above all, must put an end to the confine-In other words, they turned him loose. They found he was not ment in hospital. If he is not willing to do so, then no more contract labor-capable physically, so they abandoned him. ors should be allowed to go to Olowalu.

1 have the honor to be, your obedient servant,He had a little money and came to Honolulu as a deck passenger, and is WRAY TAYLOR.now on Dr. Alvarez's hands, having been directed to him as a countryman of Secretary Bureau of Immigration.his. He was a very sick man upon arrival and is yet in a low state. The Capt. Jas. A. King,sewer contractors could not afford to give him work, as he was not strong President Board of Immigration.enough. Through persistent medical treatment Dr. Alvarez has been able toafford the man great relief, but he says he should have been in the hospital In the supreme court of the Hawaiian Islands. Special January term, 1899.from the beginning. Honomu Sugar Company vs. A. Sayewiz. Honomu Sugar Company vs.Here is another case: Nikoleg Gzeluch. Appeals from district magistrate of South Hilo, island

An old man, a Spaniard, nearly 60 years of age, is also under medical treat- of Hawaii. Submitted January 19,1899. Decided June 18,1899. Judd, C. J.,ment and being cared for at the Doctor's house. He, too, was a plantation Whiting, J., and Circuit Judge Perry, in place of Frear, J., absent.laborer in Kau. Hawaii, and was a good worker. One day he was in a small Actions under the masters and servants act are civil actions, and shouldpit in a cane field when three Japs, in a mischievous mood, hurled a large be so entitled. (Coolidge vi. Puaaiki, 3 Haw., 811.)stone upon him, breaking his shoulder and rendering him unconscious. He Certain provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not in forcewas found some three hours afterwards. He, however, was given no medical in Hawaii during the present transition period, to wit: Amendments V, VI,attention and was taken into a Portuguese family, which cared for him for VII, VIII, and XIII, and Article III, section 2. (See Peacock & Co. vs. Repub-four weeks. lic of Hawaii, ante, page 27. and Republic of Hawaii vs. Edwards, ante, page -.)

The plantation gave him no attention, and he came to Honolulu via Hilo, Opinion of the court by Whiting, J.absolutely penniless, and still in a bad way with his broken shoulder. He had The defendants are laborers brought from Austria under contract to serveno friends and was preparing to sleep on the slopes of Punchbowl, when some the Honomu Sugar Company, whose sugar plantation is situated in the dis-Portuguese warned him that for that he would be arrested. He asked the trict of Hilo, island of Hawaii. Quitting their employment in September,Portuguese to take him to a hospital. This man also was denied admittance 1898, and before the expiration of the period of three years, which they hadunless he paid in advance. He told them he did not want that kind of a hos- contracted to serve, they were arrested upon warrants issued by the district

pital, but wanted a charity hospital. magistrate of South Hilo, and tried and convicted upon the charge of desert-ing their contracts of service. Zeluch was sentenced to imprisonment at

Here, then, was one of their Slaves. The very moment they are hard labor " until he should consent to return to his master and consent tounable to work they are cast aside. They let them die. What be- serve according to law," and Sayewiz was sentenced to pay a fine of $5 andcomes of the Asiatics, if this is the treatment accorded Europeans costs and to be imprisoned at hard labor until said fine and costs be paid.in that country? And yet we have heard unlimited praise of this The masters and servants act, section 1384, Penal Laws, is as follows:gang of sugar planters, and we have been urged to adopt and “If any person lawfully bound to service shall willfully absent himself

from such service, without the leave of his master, any district magistrateperpetuate forever the system of government by which these sugar of the republic, upon complaint made under oath by the master, or by anyplanters will be in absolute control, their courts established for one on his behalf, may issue a warrant to apprehend such person and bring

him before the said magistrate; and if the complaint shall be maintained thelife, and their legislature one that no citizen of the United States magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master, and hecould vote for if he went to those islands. Of course this has been shall be compelled to serve the remainder of the time for which he originally

contracted”amended. The bill is in fair shape. With the adoption of my Section 1385 of the same act is as follows:amendment, so that the laborers on the remote plantations will "If any such person shall refuse to serve according to the provisions ofget notice of the termination of their contracts, and so that those the last section or the terms of his contract his master may apply to any dis-contracts which have been made since our flag went up will be at trict magistrate where he may reside, who shall be authorized by warrant or

otherwise to send for the person so refusing, and if such refusal be persistedOnce annulled, we will give some measure of relief to this infa- in, to commit such person to prison, there to remain at hard labor until hemous condition which has existed there for the last year and a half, will consent to serve according to law. And in case such person so bound -

as aforesaid shall have returned to the service of such master in obedienceI ask to have the report Of the immigration bureau published to such order of such magistrate, and shall again willfully absent himself fromin the RECORD and also the decision of the supreme court of such service without the leave of his master, such district magistrate mayHawaii upon this subject. I ask for the adoption of my amend- fine such offender for the first offense not exceeding $5, and for the secondment. offense not exceeding $10; and in default of payment thereof such offender

shall be imprisoned at hard labor until such fine is paid; and for every sub-The papers referred to are as follows: sequent offense thereafter the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor not

exceeding three months, and at the expiration of any such imprisonmentDepartment of Interior, Bureau of Immigration, the magistrate shall order such offender to be restored to his master toHonolulu, H.I., June 19,1897. serve for the remainder of such original term of service."

SIR: I have the honor to present the following report of a visit made by me The defendants appealed on points of law; in the Sayewiz case, as certifiedto the Olowalu Sugar Company's plantation. Island of Maui, on the 9th day of to us, " that the proceedings, arrest, trial, and judgment are contrary to theJune, for the purpose of investigating certain complaints made by the Constitution of the United States, and that sections 1384 and 1385 (Penal LawsChinese contract laborers on that plantation in a letter to Mr. Goo Kim, of Hawaii), under which these proceedings are had, are contrary to the Con-Chinese commercial agent, which letter I took with me. Ng Chan, Chinese stitution of the United States;" and in the Zeluch case, "whether or not theinterpreter, accompanied me to Olowalu. proceedings had in this case are in conflict with the Constitution of the

When I arrived there the manager, Mr. Aug. Hanneberg, was several United States and therefore void, and whether sections 1384 and 1385 of themiles away in the fields, and I had been there fully two hours before he re- Penal Laws of 1897 are contrary to the Constitution of the United States andturned. However, in the meantime I went on with my investigation among therefore void."the laborers. Their letter to Mr. Goo Kim complained of persistent docking These are the only points certified up by the district magistrate. The de-of their wages and harsh treatment. fendants claim that the proceedings and the law under which they were

With regard to the former complaint, I had before I went to Olowalu and charged and convicted are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution ofstill have in my possession one of the plantation time books, showing the the United States in that—Chinese laborers' time for each month from March, 1896, to April, 1897. The 1. The masters and servants law directly contravenes the thirteenthbook speaks for itself, and proves on every page that the men's complaint is amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides thatnot without foundation. The manager admitted he docked the men for " neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment forworking slow; it was the law, and he would do it. He is too severe, and if crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist withinthis docking habit of his is not checked, there will always be trouble with the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction."laborers at Olowalu. 2. The offense comes within the provisions of Article V, amendments to

As to the second complaint, harsh treatment, I examined sixteen of the the Constitution of the United States, requiring a presentment or indictmentlaborers on the plantation,, ten of whom signed the letter to Mr. Goo Kim. I by a grand jury.asked two of them—before the manager—if he had ever kicked them, and 3. The law under which defendants are imprisoned denies to them the rightthey replied, through the interpreter, that not only had he kicked them, but of trial by jury (in the first instance) and to that extent the protection ofothers, too. Mr. Hanneberg denied their statements, but admitted to me be the Federal Constitution. (Article IH, section 2, and the fifth, sixth, andhad pulled the men out of their quarters for various reasons and pushed seventh amendments.)them around. 4. The masters and servants act makes imprisonment for life a possibleAh Mun, a free laborer, who has been at Olowalu some time, said that the punishment for violating its provisions, in contravention of Article VIII offree laborers were treated better than those under contract. the Federal Constitution.

2324The decisions rendered in the cases of Peacock & Co. vs. Republic of Hawaii (ante, page 27), Republic of Hawaii vs. Edwards (ante, page —),and

Hawaiian Star Newspaper vs. Saylor (ante, page —) apply to these cases and practically determine the point that the provisions of the Constitution of the United States above cited are not in force here during the present transition period.

The defendants further claim that the prosecution should have been in the name of the republic of Hawaii, under section 3. article 92, constitution of the re-public of Hawaii, which provides that "all criminal and penal proceedings arising or now depending within the limits of the Hawaiian Islands shall be prosecuted to final judgment and execution in the name of the republic of Hawaii. * * * The style of all processes shall be 'The Republic of Hawaii,' and all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by authority of the republic of Hawaii."

We are of the opinion that this section does not apply to cases of this na ture, and does not change the decision in the case of Coolidge vs. Puaaiki (3 Haw.. 814), where it was held that suits of this character are civil actions and should be so entitled; "and in no respect do they fall within the duties of the public prosecutor." Affirmed in the Honomu Sugar Company vs. Sayewiz and Zeluch cases, decided September term, 1898.

The appeals are dismissed and judgments affirmed.Kinney, Ballou & McClanahan for plaintiff.

Hitchcock & Smith, Monsarrat & Weberfor defendants.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARTER in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the

Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW].The amendment was agreed to.Mr. CULLOM. I have an amendment which I send to the desk to take the place of section 100. It gives the names of a

certain number of vessels there which are under Hawaiian register instead of having the section in general terms as it is in the bill. The friends of the amendment are very anxious that it shall be adopted, and I understand that the Committee on Commerce or several members of it have made the same request. I ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.The SECRETARY. In lieu of section 100 it is proposed to insert the following:That all vessels carrying Hawaiian registers, permanent or temporary, on August 12, 1898, together with the following-named vessels claiming

Hawaiian register: Star of France, Star of Italy, Euterpe, Star of Russia. Falls of Clyde, The Wilscott, and Star of Bengal, shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefits and privileges appertaining thereto.

Mr. CULLOM. Those are all the vessels, I understand, and it is desired that they shall be named so that there shall be no question about it. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BACON. I hope the Senator from Illinois will explain in what particular, if any, this varies the general law.Mr. CULLOM. It does not vary from the general bill, except——Mr. BACON. I am not speaking about the bill. I am speaking about the general law, the present law.Mr. CULLOM. The general law. of course, requires that the vessels shall be built in the United States or a certain

proportion of the value shall have been put on in the United States. But these vessels are now in Hawaiian waters or on the Pacific coast, and are flying the Hawaiian flag, or were before annexation, and are now under Hawaiian register, and a great many Americans are interested in them. It simply recognizes the registration that they are under there now, under the Hawaiian government.

Mr. BACON. That is the point I desire to have elucidated.Mr. CULLOM. They are engaged in the coastwise trade.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Is not this the fact about it, that the section provides that all vessels having Hawaiian

registers on the 12th day of August, 1898, shall be admitted, but those vessels having attempted to register since the 12th day of August, 1898, have been refused, although they are in exactly the same condition as to ownership, and all that, that the other vessels are which were admitted before that time?

Mr. CULLOM. I understand each of these five vessels is under Hawaiian register now. I get that information from the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON] who is on the Committee on Commerce, and I think the list was submitted to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce and consented to by him.

Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me for a moment, I desire to know why these vessels do not come under the general designation which is employed in the bill and why they have to be specifically named?

If the Senator will allow me for one moment, under the state-ent of the Senator from Connecticut it would seem that there had been a denial to the vessels of registration; and if so. we

ought to know the reason. There may be good reasons why they should not be allowed this privilege, and the fact that the Hawaiian government has denied them, if that be a correct statement, would indicate that there is some reason.

Mr. CULLOM. I should be glad to hear from the Senator from South Dakota, who is familiar with the facts.Mr. PETTIGREW. I have just sent for a list of vessels that have received Hawaiian register since the annexation of the

islands and a list of vessels that have applied for register and been refused. Of course those that had Hawaiian registers when we annexed the islands come in under our flag; and I can see no reason why

they should not. They are owned by citizens of the United States. Since the 12th day of August, 1898, registers have been granted to the following vessels: Malalo, September 20 1898, 23.61 tons; Kilohana, October 19, 1898, 247.07 tons: Star of Italy. November 11, 1898, 1,534.01 tons; City of Columbia, June 27, 1899, 1,177.89 tons; Niihau, June 30, 1899. 200.92 tons. Those probably include the vessels the names of which have been given here. This letter is dated July 27, 1899.

Applications for registers now pending are—

And then follow the names of nine or ten vessels. That was in July a year ago.Mr. CULLOM. That is a larger list. The list I received was from the Senator from Minnesota who has just come in.Mr. PETTIGREW. There were about four vessels a year ago when we undertook to pass the bill.Mr. CULLOM. This makes five.Mr. NELSON. If the Senator will allow me, I can explain it.Mr. CULLOM. The amendment of the Senator from Minnesota has just been read.Mr.: NELSON. Mr. President, there were seven vessels in all that were admitted between the time we passed the resolution

of annexation and January 1, 1899, a year ago. They were admitted to Hawaiian registers. They were vessels that were owned by Americans, and they have ever since been engaged in the trade between the Hawaiian Islands and the Pacific coast. Afterwards the question was raised whether the Hawaiian government had a right to give them licenses after annexation, and the question was finally submitted here by the President to the Attorney-General. It was not until September 12, 1899. that the opinion was given by the Attorney-General declaring that the Hawaiian authorities had no right to grant any licenses; that that right belonged to the Government of the United States.

Mr. CULLOM. I stated a moment ago that the Senator had examined this question and that I thought several members of the Committee on Commerce had done likewise, and that the vessels on this list ought to be recognized as coming under the American flag.

Mr. NELSON. Certainly.Mr. PETTIGREW. Here are ten more. What are you going to do with them?Mr. CULLOM. I do not know.Mr. PETTIGREW. It is a great privilege to get under the American flag. It is worth a great deal of money to those people. I

think you had better leave this until the shipping bill is considered, which we are going to have up soon, extending the navigation laws, and thus dispose of the matter. It does not relate to this really.

Mr. BACON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Minnesota if there is any information as to whether these are or are not American-built vessels or Hawaiian-built vessels?

Mr., NELSON. They are vessels purchased by Americans and admitted to Hawaiian registers between the time of annexation and the 1st day of January, 1899.

Mr. BACON. I understand that to include vessels intended to be specified in section 100. The particular point of inquiry is as to these vessels now named and which are not so included.

Mr. NELSON. I will explain that to the Senator.Mr. BACON. I desire to get the information specifically as to whether or not the Senator knew where these vessels were built,

whether they were built in America or in Hawaii.Mr. NELSON. I am unable to state where they were built.Mr. PETTIGREW. They were built neither in America nor in Hawaii. They are foreign-built vessels.

Mr. FRYE. They are foreign-built vessels, built for the American trade, and they have been engaged in the American trade. They are peculiarly sugar ships.

Mr. NELSON. These vessels were purchased by American citizens for use in the trade between the Pacific coast and the Ha-waiian Islands and for the purpose especially of the sugar trade. This question was before the Committee on Commerce at the last session of Congress, and we agreed on an amendment to cover all vessels that had been licensed prior to January, 1899, but the report of the Commissioner of Navigation and all the information we could gather made it plain that it could include but seven vessels, the vessels named on the list in the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois.

Now, to leave those vessels out and deprive them of American registers at this time would throw that many vessels out of the traffic and trade there. There is a great scarcity of vessels on the Pacific coast. There was such a scarcity, I remember, during the Spanish war that in several -instances we had to pass special laws to give American registers to foreign-built vessels in order to get vessels to carry troops and supplies to the seat of war in the Philippine Islands. There has ever since been a great scarcity. The object of the amendment is simply to allow these vessels to

2325continue in the trade. If they fail to get American registers theyare wiped out of that trade, there are so many vessels displaced,and that makes the scarcity of vessels still greater.Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow me toask him a question?Mr. NELSON. Certainly.Mr. SPOONER. Are these vessels which would have receivedAmerican registers in any event, or under any circumstances, butfor the Hawaiian annexation resolution?Mr. NELSON. How?Mr. SPOONER. Are these vessels which could have been ad-mitted or which would have been admitted by Congress to Ameri-can registers had it not been for the Hawaiian annexationresolution?Mr. NELSON. They could not have been admitted under ourlaws, but they were entitled to admission under the Hawaiianlaws.Mr. SPOONER. Then they come in under cover of the Ha-waiian annexation or the action of the government there?Mr. NELSON. They come in just as vessels come in that wereadmitted to Hawaiian registry before annexation. Under theirlaws foreign-built vessels could be admitted to Hawaiian register.Mr. BACON. These are vessels which have not been admitted?Mr. NELSON. They have been admitted to Hawaiian registry,but not to ours.Mr. BACON. All of them?Mr. NELSON. They are vessels which have been admitted toHawaiian registry. If Hawaii were a republic to-day, an inde-pendent government as it was before, they would be Hawaiianvessels and entitled to consideration as such.Mr. CHILTON. Does the Attorney-General hold that the regis-tration is valid.Mr. NELSON. The Attorney-General, in his recent opinion,held otherwise, but the supreme court of Hawaii, in a case thatcame up involving this question, decided that they had a right tolicense them, and that that system continued until Congress passedlegislation.Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator will allow me, this provision ofthe bill reads as follows:That all vessels carrying Hawaiian registers, on the 12th day of August,1898, shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefitsand privileges appertaining thereto.Mr. BACON. Why do we not stand on that?Mr. CULLOM. I supposed when the Senator called my atten-tion to the amendment that there was a little pride of feeling onthe part of the owners that this list should be named, as it cov-ered, as was stated to me, all vessels that were to be benefited, andthat they desired the names of the vessels specifically stated inthe bill. Supposing that was all there was to it, I consented tolet it take the place of the section as I have read it.Mr. PETTIGREW. That is not the situation, I think. Thesevessels are vessels that would be shut out by the bill as it stands,because they received Hawaiian registers after annexation, andour Attorney-General decided that they could not grant such reg-isters. Therefore they will be shut out from American registersunless they are named or some later date fixed in the bill.Now, there are ten more that have applied over there. Perhapsthey have issued registers to the other ten. How do we know?Why have they not an equitable case? If we bring in these seven,four of which were admitted to Hawaiian register previous toJanuary, 1899, and the rest of which have been admitted since,why have they not an equitable case, and can they not come hereand almost compel us to give registers to the whole flock? Howmany more will be registered when they find out what we havebeen doing?Mr. CULLOM. I am inclined to stand on the original sectionin view of the developments here.Mr. PETTIGREW. I hope the Senator will.Mr. CULLOM. I withdraw the amendment, if I may be allowedto do so.Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask somebody who knows whatwill become of these vessels? Where did they come from? Wherewere they registered? What flag were they flying before theywere registered?Mr. FRYE. They will be obliged to go into business somewhereelse. I found that they were registering ships in the HawaiianIslands m order to get them under the American flag whenHawaii should be admitted. I wrote to the president and calledhis attention to it and to a decision of the court in the HawaiianIslands, which held that they had the right to register these ves-sels. I think notice was given to the authorities in the HawaiianIslands that they could not admit any more of those vessels toHawaiian register. Therefore Hawaii stopped admitting them toHawaiian register.

there were four or five or six vessels that had been admitted toHawaiian registers under the authority of the court of the Ha-waiian Islands, and our committee concluded, that being the caseand they being vessels engaged in the sugar trade and peculiarlyfitted for it and new vessels, that it was just as well to extendthis provision to them. Indeed, there was no really good reasongiven why it should not be extended to them. I think the vesselsthat the Senator from South Dakota is talking about are vesselsthat never have been admitted to Hawaiian register.Mr. PETTIGREW. I will state that 1 gave the names of sevenor eight vessels that had been admitted, and there are nine or tanothers that have applied for admission. I will say further thatprevious to the passage of the resolution annexing Hawaii the lawof Hawaii required that a vessel should be owned by a citizen ofHawaii in order to get a Hawaiian register, and the SouthernPacific Railroad took, for instance, the China, one of the largestships in their whole line, down there and made a bill of sale to animpecunious Hawaiian; and under that bill of sale to a man whocould not buy one of the bolts in the ship, and everybody knew it,the vessel was admitted to Hawaiian register. The supreme court,which has been so much boasted of here, great lawyers that theyare, decided, in the face of these facts, knowing that this fellow could not buy a fraction of the ship, that it was valid and thatthe vessel could be admitted as a vessel which was owned by thisHawaiian. It was Huntington's ship. They not only admittedthis, but three or four more vessels, because they felt that annexa-tion was a sure thing and when they came in they would getAmerican registers, which would be worth thousands of dollars toforeign-built vessels.Since annexation these sugar planters have admitted six or sevenmore vessels to Hawaiian registry, and now they want the Con-gress of the United States to ratify that. The supreme court overthere has already. Our Attorney-General has said that it is notvalid; and there are nine or ten more that have applied. Whoknows but what they have got Hawaiian registers by this time,and next winter they will be in here for American registers. Ofcourse it is a valuable concession. It is a valuable franchise. Ican not, for my part, see any justice in admitting any of them.Mr. FRYE. There is rather an interesting incident connectedwith the admission of the China, which, as the Senator from SouthDakota says, was one of the largest ships in the service and one ofthe best. The Government was in great distress ——Mr. PETTIGREW. I understand that. We gave it a register.Mr. FRYE. The Government was in great distress for vessels.The supply seemed to have come to an end, and the Secretary ofWar sent for me one day and wished to know, I having had some-thing to do with ships, whether there was any possibility of theirfinding any more ships anywhere. I asked him what he had donewith the Pacific Mail; if he had taken any of their ships. I toldhim that there was the China, which I understood had been ad-mitted to Hawaiian register, which could carry more troops thanany other vessel that they had found anywhere.The Secretary of War said they had been trying to find Hunt-ington; that nobody else in the Pacific Mail Company seemedto have any authority to give consent. They had been trying tofind him in order to get this ship. I ascertained that he was on atrain somewhere between New York and California, and theyfinally reached him by a telegram on the train. He telegraphedback yes: that the Government could have anything he had thatwas required for service in the war, and that the Governmentcould adjust the prices to suit themselves.Mr. PETTIGREW. I should like to ask just one question.Did he not make as a condition the admission of the China to anAmerican register?Mr. FRYE. No. She had been admitted to Hawaiian register.Mr. PETTIGREW. I know; but we had to admit her. Wepassed an act of Congress admitting her to American registry,and he made that a condition.Mr. FRYE. No; he did not make it as a condition.Mr. PETTIGREW. Why did we do it. then?Mr. FRYE. Because the Secretary of War wanted her admittedto American registry so that she could fly the American flag wherever she went.Mr. PETTIGREW. We admitted her to American registry.We passed an act of Congress to do it.Mr. FRYE. We reported in favor of admitting her.Mr. PETTIGREW. I am glad he had patriotism enough not toimpose that as a condition, and I am very much pleased with thephilanthropic generosity of the committee, which granted such aprivilege without it being asked for.Mr. TELLER. I have been one of those who for many yearshave insisted that the ships flying our flag should be built in thiscountry, but gradually I have seen from time to time Congressadmit to registry, under some pretense or another, ships not builtin this country. I have seen the carrying trade passing out of the

Now, between the date fixed in the bill, 1898, and the time thatthat proclamation was issued or that conclusion was arrived at

2326hands of the United States almost entirely. I believe we carry expense that would not be justifiable. I speak now of the sub-less than 11 per cent of our imports and exports. sidies. I will take great pleasure in looking over this report andMr. PERKINS. About 9 per cent. joining the Senator in any reasonable scheme for securing to theMr. TELLER. About 9 per cent, the Senator from California American people a marine of their own.says. I suppose we will get down to nothing. Mr. PERKINS. I was absent in committee room when the

Mr. President, I do not think we would suffer very much if we amendment was proposed by the committee. Do I understand

admitted to registry these vessels. We want to be a little bit that it is now withdrawn?respectable and have our flag go somewhere. We hear a good Mr. CULLOM. I proposed it myself, understanding that itdeal about trade following the flag, and all that kind of stuff. We was the wish of the Committee on Commerce or several membersdo not have our flag on the ocean any more except as we may of it. It was suggested to me by the junior Senator from Minne-carry it on our .battle ships, and they are not so numerous, per- sota [Mr. NELSON] . I supposed there would be no question abouthaps, as they ought to be. We have reached a point where we it: but as the Senator from South Dakota seemed to have a list ofare told that in order to maintain what little carrying trade we a large number of vessels that did not appear to be included inhave, or possibly with the hope of acquiring a little more, we are the amendment, and it became a question rather for investigationto grant subsidies to the ships. I wish to say now that I am going of the Committee on Commerce, I determined to withdraw it if Ito vote for free ships, but I am going to vote for some modifica- was at liberty to do it, and I did so.tion of the shipping laws, if I ever get a chance, that will encour- Mr. PETTIGRE W. Mr. President,

I do not know that I objectage either the Americans to build ships or will encourage the to the enlargement of the merchant

marine, but I do object to itsforeigners to bring their ships here and sail them under our flag, enlargement by subsidy. I do not

know that I. would object toRather than to vote for subsidies, if I have to do that, or for free free ships. I see no reason why we

should be very solicitous aboutships, I am going 10 vote for free ships. I do not believe it is nee- carrying our freight on the water

when we do not own the rail-essary to do either. roads that carry it on land. The reason why

we are not on theMr. CULLOM. Mr. President—— seas is because w« find a more profitable

investment at home, andMr. TELLER. Let me get through. the reason why we do not own our railroads,

which carry ourMr. CULLOM. I was going to ask the Senator a question. freight by land, which is most of our

commerce, is because weMr. TELLER. I do not see why we should not take in these can borrow money in Europe and

produce at home cheaply theships, even if it is a pretended Hawaiian registry. They were articles with

which to repay our loans.registered there under a pretense at least on the part of the Until we can carry our freight which goes by land, which isHawaiian authorities that they had a right to register them. I the chief part of our commerce, why should we be so crazy todo not believe we will suffer very much if we take them in. As carry it on water that we wish to tax the people of the Unitedwe need them in our trade particularly, I think the committee States to pay a subsidy to somebody, perhaps foreign owners underwould be justified in extending the time, so as to take in those the guise of American ownership, and foreign money, too, to carrythat were registered apparently under Hawaiian law. our flag? The reason why we do not have more ships on the Pa-Mr. FRYE. Mr. President, just one word. I hope the Senatorcine Ocean is because a ship becomes American soil when it be-from Colorado, before he votes for free ships, will read the report comes an American ship, and the business of the Pacific Ocean iswhich the Committee on Commerce has to-day presented to the done by ships that have Chinese crews, and a member of the Chi-Senate on the question of reviving the American merchant marine, nese crew gets 15 Mexican dollars a month and boards himself.It has been carefully prepared and has a good deal of information Now, all the British ships, all those splendid ships that cross thein it. But as to admitting foreign-built ships, the War Depart- Pacific, are manned by Chinamen from Canton, who receive $15ment was obliged to purchase or charter some vessel, and four or for each month's labor and board themselves, or seven and a halffive, perhaps six, ships that were purchased were admitted to dollars a month in our money.American registry at the request or the Government itself, that Mr. TELLER. They receive Mexican dollars,they might fly the flag over them. Mr. PETTIG-REW. Yes, Mexican dollars.

Now, AmericansAs to admitting other ships to American registry, it has been will not work for that sum. Our seamen have an organization,done under a law on the statute books which provides that if a and you can not expect them to do it. You will pay a subsidyship is wrecked within 8 marine leagues of our coast, is recovered, that will more than make up the difference in wages to man shipsand in our yards two-thirds of her value is expended in fitting her under the American flag; and as long as money is so much cheaperfor the sea, the Secretary of the Treasury may admit her to an in Europe than it is here, so that our railroads are owned in Eu-American register. Now, once in a while there comes a case be- rope, you can not get American money to build ships. It will before Congress where a ship has been wrecked outside of the 3 ma- European money that will build those ships; the title will appar-rine leagues, and it being a mere technicality, the committee— ently be held by Americans to get the subsidy, and we will go onthey are obliged to come to Congress, of course, then—has gener- just as we have done before. .ally taken the view that if they complied with the law in every Mr. TELLER. I presume the Senator 'might have added thatother respect, the fact that she was wrecked a little outside of the probably they would still be run by Chinamen, too. What I want3 marine leagues would not prevent her from receiving an Ameri- to do, and what my interest is, is to get some ships that fly ourcan register. Those are about all that have been admitted. flag and employ Americans, if possible. I have never seen a

Mr. CULLOM. May I ask the chairman of the Committee on scheme yet that has been presented here that really seemed to be

Commerce a question? In view of the development that there are in that direction with any promise of success—that is, any promiseother ships which possibly may be registered and possibly pot, of securing American sailors on these ships. I would just as lief,had not the amendment that I offered myself arid withdrew bet- until we can do that, that an English ship that is run by China- :ter be left to the Committee on Commerce, to report just exactly men would do the work as to have an American ship run bywhat ships ought to be admitted to American registry, and leave Chinamen. I would like to see American sailors once more suchthe whole question out of this bill? as we used to have. They would come in very handily in some

Mr. FRYE. The Committee on Commerce were entirely satis- cases, in times of war, in times of difficulty. That is my interest,

fled from evidence produced that the ships which were named in It is not simply so much to cover the freight with our flag as it isthe amendment had began properly registered—that is, under the to get the benefit that we would get by having American laborauthority of the Hawaiian court they had been admitted to a Ha- employed on the ships. \waiian registry—and that we would extend to them an American Mr. CULLOM. As the Senate has provided that the judges ofregistry. There are no other ships known to the Committee on the supreme court of the Territory and also the circuit judges ofCommerce entitled to any such equities. the Territory shall be appointed by the President, it takes them

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, if I may be allowed, I will say out of the category of being paid by the people of the Territory,

to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce that I am not and I offer an amendment fixing the salaries to be paid by theliable to vote for free snipe without some consideration of the pro- United States Government.visions of the proposed law to retrieve our former position as to The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read tothe carrying trade. I think, though, that there have been some the Senate.ships admitted to registry outside of what the Senator speaks of. Mr. CULLOM. It comes in at the end of page 45.I do not object to those. I think it is very proper that the class The SECRETARY. Amend section 94 by adding the following: .Of ships he has mentioned Should be admitted. I recollect a few Chief Justice and associate justices of the supreme court shall eachyears ago we admitted two great ships on condition that the com- receive an annual salary of 15,000; and the judges of the circuit courts, of ,pany should build two more. So we nave been making a struggle whom the two judges for the first circuit shall each receive an annual salaryto get a marine to carry our products abroad and to bring backthings we want to buy. We nave failed absolutely. Now, if the Respectively, an annual salary of 13,000 each.committee has a scheme that will do that and that is fair, I shall Mr. CULLOM. The salaries of the circuit judges are fixed atbe very glad to support it. But up to the present time, Mr. Pres- the exact salaries that they were receiving in the islands,ident, I have not seen anything that I believe would, in the first Mr. SPOONER. How many are they?place, give as a marine, and if I did, I believe it would be at an Mr. CULLOM. There are six judges.2321

Mr. ALLEN. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois if interrupt him any further than to give him in perfect good faiththese are Territorial judges? . whatever information I can with reference to the matter.Mr. CULLOM. Yes; they are Territorial judges. Mr. ALLEN. I have no doubt about that.Mr. ALLEN. And it is proposed to pay them out of the Treas- Mr. CULLOM. Three supreme judges, so called, one of themury of the United States? a chief justice, existed there under their system of government.Mr. CULLOM. Out of the Treasury of the United States. They have been paid over there §6,000 a year each. I do not knowMr. ALLEN. Why should they be paid in that way? but that the chief justice gets a thousand dollars more than theMr. CULLOM. The original bill, according to the system circuit judges. Two of them receive §4,000, and the others §3,000adopted by the commission and the committee, made them ap- apiece.pointive by the governor and paid by the Territory. The Senate, Mr. ALLEN. Are the circuit judges ex officio judges of the however, on yesterday changed the bill and provided for their supreme court?

appointment by the President of the United States. It would Mr. CULLOM. No. sir; they are not. It is a different system.

seem that they ought to be paid by the United States, as we pay We found that system of government there, and we tried to let it

in that way all of the judges of the present Territories in our own alone so far as we could. We provided that when their terms

country, I understand. should expire the governor should appoint and that the Territory

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator holds to the idea, then, that because should pay them. But there seemed to be a disposition to requireit has been done it should be done. the President to appoint them, and such an amendment

has beenMr. CULLOM. That is a question for the Senate. It would adopted. The original bill embodied the idea of a commission,

seem that when the President appoints them, and takes them out that all the expenses of the Territorial government there should be

of the hands of the Territory entirely, perhaps the Government paid by the Territory itself, including the legislature. I may say

of the United States ought to pay them. in our Territories here, Arizona, New Mexico, and so on, the

Mr. ALLEN. With the Senator's permission, I do not think it United States pays the courts and pays the expenses of the legis-makes much difference one way or the other, whether we have lature as

well.been paying Territorial judges out of the Treasury of the United We still require that the Territory shall pay all the

expenses ofStates or not, so far as the right or wrong is concerned. the administration of the government, except these

judges ap-Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to say a word in pointed by the President of ,the United States, and, of course,

theaddition to what I have said. district judge of the United States, the United States

marshal,Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir. district attorney, the governor, and secretary of the

Territory.Mr. CULLOM. This bill turns all the money received from All of the rest of the establishment there is to be paid by the

Ter-customs, internal revenue, posi-offices, and all that into the ritory. Now, the Senate thought, I think, that in view of the

United States Treasury, so that we are taking away a very large fact that we are taking away from them all their customs and in-

share of the income that they received as they have been existing ternal-revenue receipts and putting them into the United States

heretofore. Treasury, the people of the Territory will have about as much as

Mr. ALLEN. I suppose the customs duties are to pass into the they can do to pay the balance.hands of the Government the same as the customs duties of the Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to United States proper; but as I understand this bill, in the short interject a word there? time I have had to look into it, it preserves the distinction between Mr. CULLOM. Yes; two of them.a Territorial court established under the United States statutes Mr. SPOONER. We are not only taking away from them cer-and a Federal court proper—that is, there is a Federal court to be tain revenues, but we are imposing our own revenue taxes uponestablished there in addition to these Territorial judges. them.

Mr. CULLOM. There is to be one United States judge to ad- Mr. ALLEN. I do not think there is any misunderstandingminister United States statutes, about that..Mr. ALLEN. The district judge who will exercise the powers Mr. BACON. Will the Senator from Illinois please state howof a circuit judge? these salaries compare with the salaries of other TerritorialMr. CULLOM. Yes. judges?

Mr. ALLEN. Probably with powers a little more enlarged Mr. CULLOM. They are a little higher than we pay. than our circuit judges have. Now, I can see no reason why the Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Some of them. Government of the United States should pay all these judges and Mr. TELLER. Some of them are higher than we pay, and some bear the expenses of the judicial department of that Territory, are the same that our Territorial judges receive. There may be some reason, Mr. President, that I do not under- Mr. CULLOM. I do not know exactly what we pay. stand, but I see no reason except as was suggested by the Senator Mr. ALLISON. In Indian Territory we pay §5,000 a year. To from Montana a moment ago, that it has been that way heretofore, the others we pay §3,000.

Mr. ALLISON. All Territorial judges have always been paid Mr. SPOONER. The statute makes the pay of the others §3,000.

by the Government. Mr. CULLOM. But I want to say that the expense of living in

Mr. ALLEN. And I suppose as it has existed heretofore, there- those islands is much higher than it is anywhere in the United

fore it should always exist, whether it is right or wrong. States; so that, in my judgment, the salaries fixed are as small as

Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Mr. President—— they ought to be. I beg pardon for interrupting the .Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, when the Senator from Illinois

yield to the Senator from Wyoming? kindly interrupted me I was just in the act of saying that when-

Mr. ALLEN. Certainly. ever a man wants to fortify a thing which he can not fortify in

Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. If I may suggest to the Senator one logic or reason he always resorts to precedents. I have no doubt

thought, it is that these judicial officers are officers of the United the man who taught the doctrine that the world was flat and

States Government, appointed by the President and confirmed by rested upon a serpent invoked that precedent in subsequent dis-

the Senate, and that appears to me to be a very good reason why cussion.

they should be paid by the Government of the United States. Now, a precedent has value just as it is based upon reason andMr. ALLEN. They are officers of the United States Govern- principle, and no further. It maybe that in interpreting prop-ment only in a qualified sense. They are Territorial officers ap- erty rights it is sometimes better to stand by a precedent whichpointed by the President of the United States, and they sustain was wrong in the first instance than to make a change, by reasonno different relations to the people of that country than the elect- of the consequences that would follow a change. But that rea-ive judiciary of the State of Wyoming to the people of that State, zoning does not apply to a case of this kind. Here are a distinctexcept in the method of their appointment, the method of holding people, 2,000 miles from our shores, who have maintained a dis-their office. tinct government in the Sand-wish Islands for a great many years.Now, Mr. President, it may be idle for me to argue to the con- They have had their judiciary; they have had their legislativetrary and to contend to the contrary. It may be that this bill department; they have had their executive departments. Theywill go through without any objection and that this amendment were brought into this country by an act of Congress annexingwill become a part of the bill. But if that judiciary is calculated, them in 1898—leprosy, bubonic fever, and everything that afflictsas it is in its nature, to deal with the local affairs of those islands, the country. They are a part, and parcel now of the Unitedit is a local judiciary to all intents and purposes, and should be States, according to modern construction.supported by local taxation. There is not the slightest reason Now, we propose to give them not only a Territorial judicialwhy the expense of that judiciary should be borne by the Gov- department, but a Federal judicial department distinct from thateminent of the United States any more than to say that a justice Territory, which, I submit, is without a precedent. Heretoforeof the peace or any other local officer should be paid by the Gen- the Territorial judges have been ex officio judges of the Federal,eral Government. and have determined questions arising in their Territories. Now, II know there is a good deal of force in precedents, and, Mr. we propose to give this archipelago some four or five ordinary

cir-President, whenever a man has no reason to give for the opinion cuit judges, such as we find in our statutes, and then a

districtbe seeks to enforce he always resorts to precedents. supreme court to which appeals are to be taken, and I

presumeMr. CULLOM. If the Senator will allow me, I do not want to with a writ of error from that court of appeals to the circuit

court

2328"Penal Laws," respectively, and in the Session Laws of the Legislature forthe session of 1898, are referred to in this act as "civil laws," "penal laws,"and "session laws."

These, I understand, by subsequent provisions of the act, are car-ried into force.Mr. MORGAN. No; either carried into force or repealed.Mr. ALLEN. Do not those penal statutes, in the codificationby Mr. Ballon, embrace many things that are in direct violation,of the Constitution and statutes of the United States?Mr. SPOONER. If so, they are repealed.Mr. ALLEN. This bill repeals them, then? I did not knowthat.

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator will find, by consulting the reportwhich accompanies the bill, that each one of those acts has beengone over.

Mr. ALLEN. That is one reason why I want to-night to studythis bill.

Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to allowing the Senatorthat privilege.

Mr. ALLEN. The first section, I think, with proper deferenceto the Senator from Alabama, is ambiguous in its words, "includ-ing regulations having the effect of law." What are those regulations?Mr. MORGAN. They are part of the laws of Hawaii.Mr. ALLEN. But laws are laws.Mr. MORGAN. But conflicting laws are repealed.

Mr. ALLEN. A law is statutory, or it is judicial. It is madeby the bench, or it is common law. But what is a regulation?Did the Senator ever hear of the legislative department of a government passing a regulation?

Mr. MORGAN. We have our Treasury regulations. The Treasury Department is full of them, and so are the other ExecutiveDepartments.

Mr. ALLEN. But those are executive.Mr. MORGAN. And men can be indicted for violating them.Mr. ALLEN. But those originate in the executive departmentand not in the legislative department. Therein consists the ambiguity and the danger of this provision. I take it that the executive department, through many of its different subdivisions in theHawaiian government, has promulgated many regulations, someof which may be in direct violation of their constitution and theirstatutes, many of which may perhaps never have received a judicial interpretation at the hands of their own courts, and yet allthose regulations, without exception, are carried into force by thisbill and given the effect of statutes.

Mr. SPOONER. I agree with the Senator that the bill can notbe acted upon to-night, but I want to submit to him that theHawaiian government was a government when the act of annexa-tion was passed; the people out there had their own statutes andtheir own regulations; they had their own customs; and customssometimes have, of course, the effect of law and are enforced bythe courts. It is absolutely impossible for us, is it not, to sup-plant by specific regulations in this bill the local laws, the localcustoms, and the local regulations as to health and otherwisewhich are in force out there?

What I rose to ask the Senator was this, mainly, whether thatis not sufficiently guarded by the committee bill by the provisionwhich continues them in force only where they are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States?Mr. ALLEN. That may be possible. I would not say, becauseI have not read the bill sufficiently to know all its provisions.Mr. SPOONER. But I do know.Mr. MORGAN. Perhaps the Senator from Nebraska wouldpermit me to say a word in explanation.Mr. ALLEN. Yes. sir.

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator will find on examination of thereport of the committee, which is part of the bill, that there isincluded in brackets the repeal of a large number of statutes andthe constitution of Hawaii. Fearing that might not coyer every-thing, that there might be something still left that was in conflictwith the Constitution and the laws of the United States and theprovisions of this act, this provision was put into the bill by thecommittee for the purpose of defining all the balance, the residuum,that is not specifically repealed in this act, and providing that allof that residuum, I will call it, which might have escaped thescrutiny of the committee in remodeling this statute:

SEC. 6. That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution orlaws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force,subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congressof the United States.

"The laws of Hawaii" become technical terms, which includethe decisions of the supreme court and regulations.

SEC. 7. That the constitution of the republic of Hawaii and the laws ofHawaii, set forth in the following acts, chapters, and sections of the civillaws, penal laws, and session laws, and relating to the following subjects, arehereby repealed.

By these provisions we thought we had covered the groundabsolutely.

of appeals somewhere or to the Supreme Court. I have not readthe bill in that respect. In addition to that, we propose to set upa distinct Federal judiciary, the same there as we have in ourStates, and all the salaries of these judges are to be paid out ofthe revenues of the United States Government.

Now, because heretofore in some of the Territories we havepaid the salaries of the Territorial judges, in most instances whereto do otherwise would be to create a greater burden upon the people than they were able to bear, it is invoked as a precedent herethat we should follow and the soundness of which no man oughtto question.

But, Mr. President, I did not rise to discuss this question. Irose more particularly to suggest to the Senator having this billin charge, now that it is well along in the evening, to let the measure go over until to-morrow, that we may have an opportunity toexamine its provisions during the night. I want to read it verycarefully before voting on it.

Mr. CULLOM. I want to go on until 6 o'clock at any rate.Mr. ALLEN. I think the bill has been amended so frequently

that it ought to be reprinted as amended.Mr. CULLOM. It is as nearly perfected as we can make it, and

I should be very glad to pass it or have the Senate vote upon it.Mr. ALLEN. I have just returned to the Senate after an absence of ten days, and 1 have not had an

opportunity to read thebill through. I have run through some of its provisions, andupon their face they seem to be objectionable. When I come to

read the bill through consecutively and in order those objectionsmay disappear.

Mr. CULLOM. Well, I should like to go on and see whetherthere are any other amendments to be made to-night. It is nowonly 5 o'clock. We ought to sit until 6.

Mr. ALLEN. Of course the Senator would not want to conclude the consideration of all amendments to-night, because itmight be proper to-morrow to introduce some.

Mr. CULLOM. Of course I am not seeking to do that, but Ishould like to see whether there are any other amendments to beoffered that we can discuss this evening.

Mr. ALLEN. For instance, here is the first section to whichI called attention some time ago. That seems to be at least ambiguous and rather misleading.

Mr. CULLOM. What section?Mr. ALLEN. Section 1, defining the laws of Hawaii in this

language:Including regulations having the effect of law and the decisions of the supreme court in force on the 12th day of August, 1898.Now, according to this section, regulations, whether they are

public or private customs and usages, are to be recognized as partof the law of those islands, and the decisions of the supreme courtare by this section to have the force of statutes. I submit to theSenator from Illinois that when Congress once gives to the decision of a court the force of a statute it takes another statute to re-peal it, and it will not be within the power of the supreme courtof that Territory or within the power of the Federal judiciary toannul or set aside the decision. Now, I look upon that as some-what important.Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Nebraska allow me togive an explanation?Mr. ALLEN. I will.

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator is a jurist and just fresh fromthe bench. It was necessary in order to get full swing of all thelaws of Hawaii, whether they were statutes, supreme-court decisions, or regulations, that some definition should be given tothem, and therefore the first section provides:

That the phrase "the laws of Hawaii," as used in this act without qualifying words, shall mean the constitution and laws of the republic of Hawaii,including regulations having the effect of law and the decisions of the supreme court in force on the 12th day of August, 1898, immediately prior tothe transfer of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United Statesof America.

If the Senator will look at section 6, which is headed "The lawsof Hawaii" — that means all the judicial decisions, regulations,and customs — he will find it reads:That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws ofthe United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force, subjectto repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of theUnited States.Then section 7 provides:

That the constitution of the republic of Hawaii and the laws of Hawaii,set forth in the following acts, chapters, and sections of the civil laws, penallaws, and session laws, and relating to the following subjects, are hereby re-pealed.

The object was to repeal the decisions of the supreme court, allthe regulations, and all the statutes which were in conflict withthe Constitution and laws of the United States or in conflict withthe provisions of this act.

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator from Alabama will permit me,what is to be said of the latter part of section 1, which reads:

The constitution and statute laws of the republic of Hawaii then in force,set forth in a compilation made by Sidney M. Ballon under the authority ofthe legislature, and published in two volumes entitled "Civil Laws" and

2329Mr. ALLEN. Possibly I may make myself more perfectly understood by the Senator from Alabama if I call attention to thisfact: An executive interpretation of a statute may be correct orit may be incorrect. I think I am safe in saying it is as frequentlyincorrect as it is correct. That executive interpretation becomesa regulation or is itself a regulation, and finds its existence in thepromulgation of an order or a system or a custom of doing business in the executive department. It may have as its basis a statute. The statute may be repealed according to this bill, and yetthe custom or the regulation itself be maintained by the bill.Where the statute would disappear by positive repeal, the regulation and all the evil consequences flowing from it and from its enforcement would be maintained by the bill. So nothing is to begained from the argument of the Senator from Alabama, so faras I can see.I again say that I should like time to investigate this bill. I regret to say I have necessarily been absent at my home for tendays and only returned last evening. I want to vote upon thebill, and I want to vote my convictions on it. I can not do thatuntil I read it and study it at least a few hours. I should like toappeal to the Senator from Illinois to let the bill pass over untilto-morrow. It may be my desire in the morning, after I haveread the bill over carefully, to suggest some amendments to avoidthe difficulties which now present themselves to my mind, and Ishould like that privilege.Mr. CULLOM. I can not, of course, resist the appeal of theSenator from Nebraska.Mr. COCKRELL. I hope the Senator will obtain an order fora reprint of the bill as it has been amended, so that we may seehow it now. stands.Mr. CULLOM. I was going to make that suggestion, in view ofthe bill going over again, and of the various amendments madesince it was last printed, that the bill be now again printed withthe amendments which have been adopted.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an amendment nowpending at the Secretary's desk.Mr. CULLOM. That may go over.Mr. CARTER. I suggest to the Senator that probably otheramendments are prepared to be presented to-morrow, and if so,that such amendments likewise be printed.Mr. CULLOM. I have been hoping that all the amendmentswhich were likely to be offered to the bill might be those whichhave been presented; but if any Senator has an amendment whichhe desires to offer to the pending bill, I hope he will offer it thisevening before we adjourn, so that it may be printed and theattention of Senators called to it.Mr. ALLEN. I will say to the Senator, with his permission,that if I offer any amendment it will be more likely to be in thenature of some eliminations from the bill than additions to it.Mr. TELLER. I should like to say to the Senator having thebill in charge that when it is taken up to-morrow I shall feel itmy duty to try to eliminate from this bill the court called thecircuit court of the United States, and to confer upon the courtsin the Territory of Hawaii the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts of the United States, as has been done in the Territories and is now in existence in Oklahoma, Arizona, and NewMexico. Mr. COCKRELL. That is, make the judicial system of Hawaii correspond to the judicial system in our Territories?Mr. TELLER. That is what I want to do. If the judges inHawaii are to be appointed by the President of the United States,I see no reason why that should not be done: and I want to do it,because it is very evident that we are providing a judiciary verymuch beyond the needs and wants of those people. We had asmaller judiciary in Colorado when we had 400,000 people, andthen we had a great deal more business than they will ever havein Hawaii.Mr. ALLEN. We give Hawaii eight judges under this bill.Mr. TELLER. And when Colorado was a Territory we hadbut three. Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator has his amendments prepared,I hope he will offer them now.Mr. TELLER. I can not offer them to-night. I simply givenotice. I want the Senator to understand it is my intention tooffer them to-morrow.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asksthat the bill may be reprinted as amended.Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I understand the Senator from Illinois requests that all amendments which are to be presented maybe presented this evening, so that they may be printed. I haveone amendment that I wish to offer, but which 1 do not wish todiscuss until to-morrow.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proposed amendment willbe printed and lie on the table. Is there objection to the request

ments and be on the table by 12 o'clock to-morrow, so that we canthen proceed with it without delay.It is suggested to me by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.PETTIGREW] that I ask unanimous consent that we vote finallyon the bill and amendments some time to-morrow. I hope therewill be an understanding that we can dispose of the bill to-morrow.Mr. CARTER (to Mr. CULLOM). Ask unanimous consent.Mr. CULLOM. I ask unanimous consent that that may be done.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asksunanimous consent that the pending amendments and the bill maybe voted on finally to-morrow? Is there objection?Mr. COCKRELL. What is that?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That the amendments to thepending bill and the bill itself shall be voted on to-morrow.Mr. NELSON. 1 wish the Senator would include any otheramendments that may be offered to-morrow.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That will include all amendments up to the final vote, under the ruling of the Chair. Is thereobjection?Mr. ALLEN. I hope the bill and amendments will be printedin ample time so that they can be examined.Mr. CULLOM. I have made that request.Mr. ALLEN. With that understanding, I have no objectionto the vote being taken to-morrow.Mr. CARTER. Before adjournment.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is soordered.Mr. ALLISON. I suggest that some hour be fixed when thevote shall be taken.Mr. CULLOM. I should be glad to have that done; but I apprehend there will be objection to it.Mr. CARTER. Let the vote be taken before adjournment to-morrow.Mr. FORAKER. Four o'clock is a pretty late hour. I do notsee why we could not agree to vote by that time. That, I think,would satisfy everybody.Mr. ALLISON. We would then know at what hour we wouldbe likely to adjourn.Mr. ALLEN. I do not see how that can be done.Mr. ALLISON. I withdraw the motion.Mr. CULLOM. Has the order to print the bill with the amendments been made?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order has been made.EXECUTIVE SESSION.Mr. ALLISON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 25minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday,February 28, 1900, at 12 o'clock meridian.NOMINATIONS.Executive nominations received by the Senate February 27, 1900.CONSUL.Henry B. Miller, of Oregon, to be consul of the United States atChungking, China, vice George F. Smithers, recalled.SECOND LIEUTENANT IN MARINE CORPS.Daniel W. Blake, a citizen of Mississippi, to be a second lieu-tenant in the United States Marine Corps, from the 20th day ofFebruary, 1900, to fill a vacancy existing in that corps.TO BE SECOND LIEUTENANT OF CAVALRY.Daniel Van Voorhis, of Ohio, to be second lieutenant of cavalry,to rank from February 1, 1900.WITHDRAWAL.Executive nomination withdrawn February 27, 1900.Daniel Van Voorhis, of Ohio, to be second lieutenant of infantry, to rank from February 1, 1900 (submitted to the Senate February 26, 1900).CONFIRMATIONS.Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 27, 1900.UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.Francis H. Parker, of Connecticut, to be attorney of the UnitedStates for the district of Connecticut.APPOINTMENTS IN THE MARINE CORPS.To be second lieutenants in the United States Marine Corps, fromthe 17th day of February, 1900.Yandell Foote, of California.C. T. Wescott, jr., of Maryland.

February 28, 1900 Senate v. 33 (3) p. 2386-2401

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Sen ate the unfinished business.The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 223) to provide a government for the

Territory of Hawaii. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment will be stated,The SECRETARY. On page 46 it is proposed to insert the following at the end of section 94:And the chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court shall each receive an annual salary of $5,000; and the judges of the circuit courts, of

whom the two judges for the first circuit shall each receive an annual salary of $4,000, and the judges for the second, third, fourth, and fifth circuits, re -spectively, an annual salary of $3,000 each.

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. CULLOM. I desire to offer an amendment to section 52,

and I ask that it may be read. The SECRETARY. It is proposed to amend section 52 by addingat the end thereof the following:

Provided, however. That pending the time when this act shall take effect and until a session of the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii shall be held, the President may in his discretion authorize and direct the use of such money in the treasury of the republic of Hawaii as well as of the Territory of Hawaii as he shall think requisite and proper for the carrying on of the government of the Hawaiian Islands, the preservation of the public health, the completion of the sewerage system of the city of Honolulu, and such other expenditures as in the President's judgment shall seem to be appropriate.

Mr. COCKRELL. I do not understand the amendment. Mr. CULLOM. The amendment seems to be necessary for this purpose. The Hawaiian Islands have now no legislature.

The people are in great trouble over there on account of the bubonic plague which broke out, and in consequence of which a large portion of the city of Honolulu was destroyed, and there are several new cases there now, according to the advices by last steamer, which has just arrived. The people there, except as they make contributions themselves, are substantially helpless, and the purpose of this amendment is to allow, under the direction of the President, the Hawaiian authorities to use money in the Hawaiian treasury for the purpose of taking care of the islands and protect ing them from this plague as nearly as possible. There is no way of getting any money now until this bill is passed, and for from fifty to sixty days afterwards. The bill provides that the governor, when appointed, may call a special session of the legis lature after thirty days; but it will be thirty days before he gets the bill, perhaps, after it is passed, and that is so far ahead that those here representing the islands beg of Congress to do something that will enable them to get money to use for their protection in this interim of time, not from the United States Treasury, but from the treasury of the Hawaiian Islands. That is the purpose of it,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Illinois.The amendment was agreed to. Mr. COCKRELL. On page 23, line 8, of the last print, section 55——Mr. CULLOM. Has the Senator the print of yesterday or of to-day? Mr. COCKRELL. The last print. I do not know whether you call it yesterday's print or to-day's.Mr. CULLOM. The last one.Mr. ALLISON. The present print.Mr. COCKRELL. After the word "applicable," I move to insert—— Mr. CULLOM. What line is that?

Mr. COCKRELL. Line 8, page 23. I move to insert after the word "applicable" the words:And the legislature, at its first regular session after the census enumeration shall be ascertained, and from time to time thereafter, shall

reapportion the membership in the senate and house of representatives among the senatorial and representative districts on the basis of the population in each of said districts who are citizens of the Territory.

Mr. CULLOM. And of the United States.Mr. COCKRELL. Yes; citizens of the Territory and of the United States.Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to that.Mr. MORGAN. There is no such thing as citizenship in Hawaii. The word "Territory" should be stricken out.Mr. COCKRELL. I will make it "citizens of the United States." The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri will be stated.

The SECRETARY. After the word "applicable,'' in line 8, page 22, section 55, it is proposed to insert:And the legislature, at its first regular session after the census enumeration shall be ascertained, and from time to time thereafter, shall reapportion

the membership in the senate and house of representatives among the senatorial and representative districts on the basis of the population in each of said districts who are citizens of the United States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri.The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Should not a period follow the amendment, and should not the word "but" be stricken out?Mr. CULLOM. I think that ought to be done.Mr. COCKRELL. I think you had better leave the word ''but" in there—"but the legislature shall not grant." It comes in. I

2387information I desire. I have the impression in my mind someway that there is a very limited citizenship in that country, andthat the citizenship rests upon a property qualification. I shouldlike to ask the Senator from Illinois if that is not true?

Mr. CULLOM. I think not, Mr. President. The voting islimited.

Mr. ALLEN. Probably I should distinguish between citizen-ship in its comprehensive term and the elective franchise.

Mr. CULLOM. There was a property qualification under therepublic for those who voted for senators larger than that whichwas found in this bill. I think I can anticipate what the Senatorfrom Nebraska desires to know especially. There were a portionof the people there who declined to take the oath to the republicand become citizens of the republic, who were residents of theisland, and my recollection is (the Senator from Alabama per-haps will correct me if I am wrong) that there were possibly 800or 900 who declined to take the oath to the republic and refusedto vote on that ground; and they have not yet voted, as I under-stand it. I ask the Senator from Alabama whether that is a correct statement or not. I do not recollect very distinctly thenumber.

Mr. MORGAN. The statement has been fully made on therecord in this debate. It has been fully made according to whatthe Senator is now suggesting.

Mr. CULLOM. I suppose that is what the Senator from Nebraska was trying to ascertain.Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Were all male persons 21 years of age, whowere domiciled in those islands, who were compos mentis and notdisqualified by crime, eligible to vote on the 12th of August, 1898?Mr. CULLOM. Not all persons.Mr. ALLEN. I do not mean all persons; I mean all males.Mr. CULLOM. They were eligible to vote for. representatives,provided they could speak, read, and write the English or theHawaiian language, but they were not all eligible to vote for senators unless they had at that time more than $1,500 worth of property or had an income perhaps of $1,000. The voting capacity waslimited by that kind of a property qualification.Mr. ALLEN. Are those restrictions removed by this bill?Mr. CULLOM. This bill allows all persons to vote who arecitizens of the United States and of the islands who can speak,read, and write the English language or the Hawaiian language.So that substantially all the population of the islands who aremale citizens 21 years of age are to be voters.

Mr. ALLEN. What I wanted to know and what I wanted toinsist upon if this bill does not cover that feature, and I want toinsist upon it in good faith, is that suffrage in those islands shallbe unrestricted, or restricted no more, I should say, than it is restricted in the United States, in the State of Illinois, or the Stateof Nebraska.

Mr. CULLOM. There is no restriction that does not prevail inthe Senator's State and mine except the intelligence provisionthat the voter shall be able to speak, read, and write the Englishor Hawaiian language.Mr. ALLISON. That ought to be satisfactory.Mr. ALLEN. I find on page 13 of the bill, section 25, prescribing punishment of persons not members of the legislature, itprovides for certain things, some of which I will read:

That each house may punish by fine, or by imprisonment not exceedingthirty days, any person not a member of either house who shall be guilty ofdisrespect of such house by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in itspresence: or

Who shall, on account of the exercise of any legislative function, threatenharm to the body or estate of any of the members of such house; or

Who shall assault, arrest, or detain any witness or other person orderedto attend such house, on his way going to or returning there from; or

Who shall rescue any person arrested by order of such house.

I thought that those provisions, necessary and well enough inthemselves, ought to be supplemented by a provision that wouldgive power to a committee duly appointed by either house to con-duct an investigation, the authority to punish witnesses for a failure to attend when properly subpoenaed, or for contumacious con-duct, such as declining to answer proper questions when beforethe committee. If this bill is to stand as the constitution or inlieu of the constitution for the government now being erected inthe Hawaiian Islands, it ought to be specific, and the legislativebranch of that government ought to have full power to ascertainthe truth that may affect its own standing or the standing of itsmembers, or that may affect the condition of legislation. With-out some provision of that kind both the legislative bodies would

be powerless to act. Yet I do not know that it is my duty to offeran amendment. I do not think it is. I call attention to it, how-ever, as a defect in the bill.

Mr. SPOONER. Is the Senator from Nebraska through?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield the floor?Mr. ALLEN. Yes; I yield.Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, some days ago in the debate

upon this bill I stated it as my recollection that the Senator fromthink, and makes perfect sense of it. It is only a comma. It doesnot make a full sentence after the amendment.But the legislature shall not grant to any corporation, etc.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there further amendmentsas in Committee of the Whole?

Mr. CULLOM. I think section 104, which is the section thatprovides that the act shall take effect sixty days after the date ofthe approval thereof, ought to be transferred and made the lastsection of the bill. That can be done by the clerks after we getthrough. I merely thought I would call attention to it.

Mr. PETTIGREW. I should like to ask the Senator why heconsiders it necessary to defer the taking effect of the act forsixty days, if there is such great haste in its passage. If theycan not have a legislature or protect themselves, and this law isnot to take effect for sixty days, it seems to me there is no verygreat haste.

Mr. CULLOM. The trouble is, there is a good distance betweenus and the islands.Mr. PETTIGREW. It is only twelve days from Washington.Mr. CULLOM. I want to make the time as short as we canconsistently, so as to have the law go into execution as soon aspossible.

Mr. PETTIGREW. Thirty days is certainly an abundance oftime, because it is only twelve days from here to Hawaii.

Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator from South Dakota thinkthat is enough time?Mr. PETTIGREW. Undoubtedly it is an abundance of time.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That is a pretty short time.Mr. PETTIGREW. I should like to terminate these slavelabor laws as soon as possible.Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to making it thirty days.Mr. PETTIGREW. Certainly that is an abundance of time.Mr. CULLOM. I will consent to that change so far as I amconcerned now. If I find by inquiry that it will be impossible toretain that clause, we will change it. But I will consent to makeit thirty days instead of sixty.

Mr. PETTIGREW. There are copies of this bill in Hawaii, andthe moment the bill becomes a law the telegraph will take the newsto San Francisco, and it is seven days from San Francisco toHawaii. So that in fact ten days would be abundant time.

Mr. CULLOM. I will consent to the change suggested by theSenator from South Dakota.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Chair understand theSenator, from South Dakota to make a motion to strike out "sixty "and insert "thirty?"

Mr. PETTIGREW. I understood the Senator from Illinois toaccept the amendment, striking out "sixty" and inserting"thirty."Mr. CULLOM. I consent to that.Mr. PETTIGREW. It ought to be twenty days.Mr. CULLOM. I am afraid that would not operate.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment to strike out"sixty" and insert "thirty" before "days " will be agreed to ifthere is no objection.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have no desire to speak on theamendment, but there is another matter which I desire to call tothe attention of the Senator from Illinois.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is agreed to.Mr. ALLEN. I wish to call the attention of the Senator fromIllinois to section 4, defining citizenship. I notice that section 4provides:

That all persons who were citizens of the republic of Hawaii on August12, 1898, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

Who were citizens of those islands on the 12th of August, 1898?Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether I understand the question.Mr. MORGAN. All persons who were born in the islands or

naturalized up to that time.Mr. ALLEN. That is rather indefinite. How many personswere there and how many persons were deprived of citizenship?Mr. MORGAN. We were not sent there to take a census, andwe could not have done it. We had no opportunity to do that,and we could not find out in any other way.

Mr. ALLEN. Relatively speaking, how many citizens werethere?

Mr. MORGAN. I do not want to make a guess about a matterthat I do not know anything about.

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Alabama was sent there tofind out something about these matters.

Mr. MORGAN. We discharged our whole duty.Mr. ALLEN. I have no doubt of that; but it has never fallen

to my lot to even inquire successfully into this matter. My fieldof operation, so far as our foreign relations are concerned, hasbeen somewhat circumscribed, and I presume it will be here-after. Therefore I must appeal to learned and distinguished Senators who, presumptively at least, know all these things for the

2388Alabama [Mr. MORGAN], in the last session of Congress, whenthe Senator from Indiana [Mr. FAIRBANKS] was pressing the pas-sage of the bill extending the contract-labor laws or the immigration laws of the United States to Hawaii, objected upon the groundthat it would be ruinous to the people of Hawaii to extend thoselaws to that people. The Senator from Alabama rose and statedthat he had not taken that attitude. I spoke from recollection, forI remembered distinctly one part of what the Senator had utteredin that debate.Upon examining the RECORD I find that there were two billspending, a bill to give a government to Hawaii and a bill also toextend to Hawaii the contract-labor laws and the immigrationlaws of the United States. On reading the RECORD of what wassaid upon the subject, I find that the objection made by the Senator from Alabama to the proposition of the Senator from Indianawas not directed to the merits of the extension or the propositionto extend the contract-labor laws and the immigration laws of theUnited States to Hawaii, but was addressed to the proposition thatto extend the one — in other words, to pass the one bill withoutpassing also the other — would produce great confusion in Hawaiiand lead to great embarrassment in the administration of the law,and therefore would be ruinous.I avail myself of the first opportunity possible to me to placeupon the record here my statement that I did injustice to the Senator from Alabama. I hope that will be satisfactory to him,as I would not be willing to do an injustice to any of my brotherSenators on any subject.Mr. CULLOM. 1 only want to say one word in this connection.I thought at the time the Senator was making the statement thatthe remarks of the Senator from Alabama were as they are foundin the RECORD, and did not apply to the case, as was supposed atthat time by the Senator from Wisconsin.Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, the bill to which the Senatorfrom Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] refers — the bill to repeal all thelaws in regard to the importation of labor and to prohibit thefurther importation of labor — was brought into the Congress justabout the time of our adjournment, perhaps two days before thefinal adjournment. There was no possibility of getting up thegeneral bill which is under consideration now, and which disposesof the whole subject of the government of Hawaii; and I objectedto putting in a special clause, which was reported by the Committee on Immigration, I believe, in regard to the labor systemof Hawaii, on the ground that it would disconcert the whole sys-tem of the law there, and we had not an opportunity to knowexactly what the effect of it would be. Such a measure as that,if provided at all, ought to be provided in the general bill; and itwas provided in the general bill that all the laws of Hawaii onthis subject should be repealed and that the laws of the UnitedStates should take effect, which, of course, would introduce therethe laws of the United States.I have always maintained that the act of annexation repealedthe laws of Hawaii on the subject of the importation of labor, be-came that act of annexation in dealing with this question of immigration, as it did in regard to the Oriental peoples, establisheda public policy under which those laws of Hawaii would necessarily, in my opinion, go down. I did not suppose that we wereimproving the law really by the provision to repeal the laws ofHawaii that we put into the bill. The real substance of thoseacts, the provision we have in this bill now for the repeal of thoselaws, had already been enacted in the act of annexation.There is an established, fixed policy of the United States againstthe importation into any part of the United States of contractlabor. Whether it is prohibited in a particular spot or not makesno difference; it is a general law; it is a general public policy;and I hold that no man can now import a coolie or any man thatis under a contract obligation into the United States, althoughthere might not be a special statute applicable to the particularplace. It could not be done, for instance, as was stated. I think,perfectly to-day, in Puerto Rico. Coolie labor could not be law-fully imported into Puerto Rico to-day, although we have nostatute on the subject at all, for such importations are contraryto the public policy of the United States as declared in a generalsystem of laws upon that subject.So I was not only gratified but I was anxious that the laborlaws of the United States should be extended over Hawaii. 1 hadbeen there and I bad seen the effect of it, and while it was not atall. apparently, injurious to any Japanese who had come into thatcountry or anyone else, while I could not see that there was anydisadvantage to those people in consequence of the labor laws,yet it was a system that our people were opposed to and that ourcountry was opposed to, and have always advocated the lawsfor its suppression.

in California or are owned there. Our own people in the UnitedStates are the men who are forcing these importations of Japanese. It is not the native Hawaiians or the people who are incontrol of the government there. They were resisting it so faras they could, and made various modifications in the arrangements and contracts that were made under the existing Hawaiian 'law. They took them to be laws that were existing. I did not.So I had no purpose at all in trying to encourage and maintainthe importation of Japanese labor into Hawaii under contract.The absurdity of the imputation to me of any such position isthis: Japanese have a perfect right to come to the United Statesor Hawaii or any part of the United States to-day; as much so asa German or a Frenchman. There is no prohibition against theircoming here. The only prohibition that operates upon Japan inthat connection is that which operates upon every other nation ofthe world equally. We can import a Japanese laborer withoutmaking a contract with him for his service after he gets here.Therefore, I had not any motive at all in undertaking to fill upthat country with Japanese laborers. On the contrary, all myimpressions were against it.Mr. SPOONER. All I care for is whether the Senator fromAlabama is satisfied with the statement I made.Mr. MORGAN. I am entirely satisfied.Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President, I made a similar observation with respect to the attitude of the Senator from Alabama[Mr. MORGAN] that was made by the Senator from Wisconsin[Mr. SPOONER]. My statement was based upon the utterance ofthe Senator during the debate at the last session. He objected tothe consideration of the bill which was in my charge extendingthe immigration and anti-contract labor laws of the United Statesto Hawaii, He said in reply to the request to take up the bill:I will state that whenever the bill is taken up, I shall undertake to amendit in such way as to try to save those people from ruin in consequence of thislegislation, and I will take all the time that it is necessary to do it.I recalled the other day simply that observation, but since reading the entire debate. I do not think it can be said that he wasunfriendly to the ultimate extension of our immigration and anti-contract labor laws to Hawaii. He preferred, possibly, the extension of those laws through his own bill rather than through theone I had in charge.In this connection, Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator in charge of this bill whether as amended it provides for theabsolute elimination of the, contract-labor laws of Hawaii? Thereshould be no ground for doubt upon that proposition. I think weare all agreed that in this legislation we should absolutely destroy,root and branch, the contract-labor system which has maintainedin Hawaii; and if the bill does not as it stands at present accomplish that purpose, it should be amended so that it will do so. Sir,the contract-labor system which has existed in the HawaiianIslands is repugnant to our American institutions and must beeradicated. I dare say that the Senator in charge of the bill hasnot failed to provide suitable provisions to accomplish this purpose, but I shall be obliged if he will kindly inform us upon thesubject.Mr. CULLOM. In the first place, all the Territorial statutes onthis subject are repealed. In the second place, the Senator will findon. the eighth and ninth pages of the last print of the bill section10 and section 10 1/2, the latter being an additional section put inyesterday on the motion of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.PETTIGREW]. Taking them all together, it seems to me that it isutterly impossible for contract labor to exist in those islands here-after when this bill takes effect.Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I desire to offer the amendmentof which I gave notice last night. On page 44, I move to strikeout all of section 88 down to and including the word "court," inthe fifth line, and to insert in place of it what I send to the desk.The SECRETARY. Strike out section 88 down to and includingthe word "court," in line 5, on page 44, and insert in lieu thereofthe following: That there shall be established in said Territory a district court, to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district judge.The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshalof the United States for the said district; and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President.Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of districtcourts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuitcourt and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court. Writsof error and appeals from said district court shall be had and allowed to thecircuit court of appeals in the Ninth judicial circuit in the same manner aswrits of error and appeals are allowed from circuit courts to circuit courtsof appeals as provided by law.Mr. TELLER. I wish to say that yesterday I was under theimpression that we were providing for more judges than werenecessary, but on consultation with some of the members of thecommittee and the commission who were over there I find it isquite different from what it would be in the contiguous territory.The judges are scattered, necessarily, because of the differentislands, and there seems to be in the minds of the commission at

Having been there and having observed the situation of thecountry, I became aware also of the fact which I have stated onthe floor here, without it being contradicted at all, that the greatsugar estates in Hawaii, upon which this labor is almost exclusively employed, belong to corporations who were either created

least a necessity for this particular judge, who is to be clothed only

2389with the powers with which we have usually clothed a Territorialjudge — that is, to do the business of the United States. I am toldthat there is going to be a large business there in the way of admiralty affairs and various things. The effect of my amendment isthat this is a Territorial judge and not an attempt to create aconstitutional court.Mr. CHILTON. Will there be no constitutional judge thereat all?Mr. TELLER. There will be no constitutional judge. Thisjudge will be clothed with all authority of a constitutional judge,but his time is limited to four years.Mr. CHILTON. And you confer admiralty jurisdiction on aTerritorial judge?Mr. TELLER. That has been done repeatedly. All the authorities are that way. Every jurisdiction that could be conferred ona district judge can be conferred on a legislative judge. That hasbeen repeatedly held by the Supreme Court. Take, for instance,Colorado. Full jurisdiction was conferred upon the Territorialjudges there, absolutely, except as to admiralty, there being nobusiness of that character in Colorado; but they had every otherjurisdiction. There was some question as to whether we couldlegally create a constitutional court out there — there was no question in my mind about it — but we could create a court, and we didcreate a court with the powers of a constitutional court.Mr. HOAR. Do I understand that in substance and principle —I shall not go into details — this judge is like the judge of the supreme court of a Territory?Mr. TELLER. Practically.Mr. BACON, In listening to the amendment I was unable tocatch its full import. I should like the Senator to state what isthe line of demarcation between the jurisdiction of the court pro-vided for in another portion of the bill and this particular court.Mr. TELLER. The other judges, the five or six circuit judgesscattered around, will not have charge of infractions of the lawsof the United States. What would be called national questionswill come to this court.Mr. BACON. What court will have charge of local questions?Mr. TELLER. Local questions are left to the other courts. Inthe Territories every judge exercises that power, but the commission seemed to think it was not wise to confer that power on thesejudges. There must be, however, some judge there to exercise it,and therefore he is provided for in this way. I believe it will besatisfactory to the people out there and accomplish everything thecommission desire.Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I regret to say that I do not thinkthe amendment proposed by the Senator from Colorado [Mr.TELLER] will remove the objection to this part of the bill. Thisseems to be exceptional in our legislation. Heretofore we havebeen contented with permitting Territorial judges to exercise exofficio the jurisdiction of a Federal judge or a Federal court proper.The Senator from Colorado says that he is now satisfied thatthe number of judges is not too great in consequence of the islandsbeing somewhat scattered; but I fail to observe any provision inthe bill which requires those judges to come from any particularisland or to reside on any particular island during their term ofservice. They can all be appointed from the city of Honolulu,and reside there.Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me?The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PERKINS in the chair). Doesthe Senator from Nebraska yield?Mr. ALLEN. I do.Mr. CULLOM. The local statute of the Territory creates circuits for the circuit judges, and each of them holds his court inhis particular jurisdiction, as is provided, and those laws are pre-served.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the Senator will permit me,this provision is in the laws of Hawaii:Every judge of the circuit court shall reside in the circuit for which be isappointed.Mr. ALLEN. Yes.Mr. HOAR. This provision is not so drawn as to cover that.Mr. CULLOM. The supreme court sits in the capital of theisland, and, of course, appeals are taken to the court there, anddisposed of by the supreme court.Mr. ALLEN. Suppose a litigant wants to begin his case in theFederal court before the judge provided for in the amendment ofthe Senator from Colorado, it would not make any difference inwhat island he lived, he would have to go to Honolulu for the trialof that case.Mr. CULLOM. I think the bill provides for the holding ofcourt at two different places, Honolulu and Hilo, which are thetwo principal cities. That is the statute.Mr. SPOONER. You can not hold a Federal court in every

it after some deliberation and some investigation — to invest, inthe first instance, all Federal power in the State judiciary, to beexercised by them, with the right of appeal and the right of awrit of error to the court of last resort, to the Supreme Court ofthe United States, or an intermediate court of appeal.Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me?Mr. ALLEN. Certainly.Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator contend that it is in thepower of Congress to vest admiralty jurisdiction under the Constitution in a State court?Mr. ALLEN. There may be some question about that underthe Constitution; but I am not speaking now of constitutions ortechnical questions. I am speaking of a question of policy. I dobelieve it would be the wisest thing the people of the UnitedStates could do, and that it would be conducive to purity in theadministration of justice — a thing we much need nowadays — ifall judicial power of the United States Government were investedin the first instance in the nisi prius of general jurisdiction of thedifferent States and Territories of the United States.That position, Mr. President, is not without precedent. Heretofore we have made the Territorial courts, which stand to theTerritories very much as the State courts stand to the States,courts of general jurisdiction, and invested them with Federaljurisdiction as well; and they have exercised it as wisely, I presume, as courts generally exercise their jurisdiction.Now, we have eight judges in those islands, seven of them exercising one kind of jurisdiction and one of them exercising a separate jurisdiction. It can not be presumed that the gentlemenwho will be appointed to the circuit bench by competent authorityin those islands will not possess the qualifications necessary tothe discharge of Federal duties. Ordinarily, one man possessesabout as much qualification as another in that respect. Yon pro-pose to have four circuit judges of general jurisdiction, criminaland civil; then you propose to have a distinct court of appeals ora supreme court; then, distinct from that, a court of review; youpropose to have a Federal court or Federal courts, and that, too,in seven or eight islands that have not got, all told, 200,000 peopleto-day.I do not believe that I am extravagant, whatever others maythink, when I say that three good judges of competent health andmental qualifications, who will attend to their duties, can discharge every necessary judicial function in those islands everyyear without impairing their health by labor. They can sit as acourt in banc, in review of appeals from each other, with a writof error to the Supreme Court of the United States for final hearing. When you come to put seven or eight judges upon the people of those islands you are putting at least five more men therethan are necessary. It is like taking the money we pay to thosemen and burning it up, for it is no more valuable to the taxpayersof the United States or to the taxpayers of those islands than itwould be if it was put in a stove and burned up. But I supposethere must be a political Botany Bay somewhere, where the political nondescripts, the halt and the blind, and those who fall out-side of the breastworks can find positions at the expense of theGovernment.Mr. President, I started a moment ago, when I was cut off, tospeak of some defects in this bill, in my view; and I will nowbriefly state them. One of the defects of this bill is that it opensevery port in those islands to unrestricted immigration. You donot carry the exclusion act over those islands; and the Hottentotcan within a few mouths become domiciled in the Sandwich Is-lands, and within a short time thereafter can become a citizen ofthe United States.Mr. ALDRICH. And he can in Nebraska.Mr. ALLEN. No, Mr. President; Hottentots can not in Nebraska.Mr. ALDRICH. Why not?Mr. ALLEN. They might be imported there, but the people ofNebraska would drive them out.Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me. what law isthere which would prevent a Hottentot going into Nebraska?Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I do not care to say anything inreply to an argument such as that, but I am perfectly willing thatSenators shall interrupt me with proper questions. I do not careanything about it one way or the other.But I am speaking of a great question, a question which is vitalto this country, vital to the people you represent, Mr. President[Mr. PERKINS in the chair], and to the people I represent, that thecitizenship of this country shall not be contaminated and debasedby the unrestricted importation of this class of people. I am notindulging in the light and trivial question of whether some Hottentot, literally speaking, may be in Wisconsin, Rhode Island, orNebraska.

county of a State.Mr. ALLEN. Yon could hold terms of a Federal court in everycounty of every State in this Union if you wanted to, and I am notprepared to say that it would not be the wisest thing — and I say

Now, what restrictions have yon put upon immigration? Nothing at all. All the rag-tag and bobtail elements of the world cango there.

2390 Mr. MORGAN. I will say to the Senator that we have extended the laws of the United States over Hawaii.Mr. ALLEN. You have not extended the exclusion act over the Territory of Hawaii.Mr. MORGAN. We have extended all the laws of the United States over Hawaii.Mr. ALLEN. And yon have not extended the exclusion act to any other territory in our new possessions. Mr. MORGAN. I beg the Senator's pardon. He is wrong about it. This bill extends all the laws of the United States over the

Hawaiian Territory.Mr. ALLEN. . If that is true, Mr. President, why are not those laws enforced?Mr. SPOONER. We have not yet extended them. The bill has not yet been passed.Mr. ALLEN. Yon ought to have extended them. You have had possession of those islands now for pretty nearly two years. Mr. MORGAN. They have been under the laws of the United States. Mr. ALLEN. They have not been under the laws of the United States. What laws of the United States have they been

under?Mr. MORGAN. By the act of annexation we continued in force the laws of Hawaii until Congress shall change them.Mr. ALLEN. That is a singular reason—most singular. Mr. MORGAN. It is no reason at all; it is a mere statement of a fact on the statute book.Mr. ALLEN. A moment ago I understood the Senator to say that when we annexed those islands there were extended over

them by their own force the laws of the United States.Mr. MORGAN. I did not say that; but by this bill, when it is passed, those laws will be extended. Mr. ALLEN. When we pass this bill the exclusion act, so the Senator says, is to be extended over those islands.Mr. MORGAN. Of course it is.Mr. ALLEN. I fail to find any provision in the proposed law to that effect. The Senator from Alabama may asseverate it if

he sees fit, but there is a difference between the provisions of this bill and the ipse dixit of the Senator from Alabama, or of any other Senator, that it is in the bill by inference or expressly.

Mr. CULLOM. Section 6 provides:That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force.Mr. ALLEN. Those are the laws of Hawaii.Mr. CULLOM. The section proceeds:Subject to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States.Then sections provides: That, except as herein otherwise provided, the Constitution and all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the same force

and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States: Provided, That sections 1850 and 1890 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the Territory of Hawaii.

Mr. HOAR. From what is the Senator reading?Mr. CULLOM. • Section 5, page 3.Mr. ALLEN. There is another one of the mysteries of this bill—" not locally inapplicable." Mr. MORGAN. That is in every Territorial act which has passed the Congress of the United States.Mr. ALLEN. Suppose it is in every Territorial act in the United States, what does it mean?Mr. CULLOM. What it says.Mr. ALLEN. Who is to determine whether it is "locally applicable " or not? Why, Mr. President, there is an unlimited field

to guess in. One man will declare a thing locally applicable which another man will declare inapplicable. I believe that hidden beneath that language is the purpose of making the exclusion act inapplicable to the islands of Hawaii.

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, the commission looked through the United States Revised Statutes and copied them, and also copied from the other Territorial acts.

Mr. ALLEN. There is altogether too much of that kind of work done.Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Nebraska allow me to put him a question, or to make a suggestion, in line with and in

support of what he is saying?Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir; I will.Mr. HOAR. I should like to have an explanation of what is meant by the language in section 5:Except as herein otherwise provided—That was an amendment put in by the Senate—

the Constitution and all the laws of the United States not locally Inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States.

That only extends to the laws of the United States except as " herein otherwise provided." Then does not section 6 otherwise provide in regard to this very matter? That section says:

That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force, subject

to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of theUnited States.

Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?Mr. HOAR. Certainly.Mr. SPOONER. Would not, under that language, any act of Hawaii which permitted contract labor and absolutely unlimited

immigration be in conflict with our laws? Mr. HOAR. That would present the question which I was just about to state when the Senator put his interrogatory to me.

Does that mean inconsistent with the laws of the United States in their effect in the United States? We have got a law of the United States now which does not extend to Hawaii. That is clear. The Hawaiian laws now existing are not inconsistent with the laws of the United States, because the United States has no laws extending to Hawaii, but they relate to different Territories.

Let us see. Would not section 6 maintain and preserve the Hawaiian law? All of this can be made clear by a phrase, if it is necessary, because the meaning of the committee is undoubted. You have got, in other words, two systems of laws. The United States laws extending to the United States, and the Hawaiian laws extending to Hawaii. They are not inconsistent with each other, because they relate to different territorial spots on the earth's surface. Is it, then, sufficient to abolish one of those by saying that the laws of the United States are now to have force and effect within that Territory "except as herein otherwise provided? " Then you have, in substance, herein otherwise provided that a particular Hawaiian law shall continue. I am dealing with a very narrow question of phraseology; but it seems to me there is not any doubt about it.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President——Mr. HOAR. I beg the Senator's pardon, but my interruption was in support of what he was saying.Mr. ALLEN. I am dealing with the general proposition that the ports of those islands are open to unrestricted and unlimited

immigration.Mr. SPOONER. Under this bill?Mr. ALLEN. That they will be under this bill.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator is entirely mistaken.Mr. ALLEN. I may be mistaken, and, if so, it will not be the first time in my life I have been. I hope I may be mistaken, but

I do not want to see the character of citizenship of this country or any other territory that has become permanently a part of the United States debased. I think I am liberal in my views on immigration laws. I am in favor of the most liberal laws for the reception of people of kindred tongues and races who come to our country and become a portion of our people—an assimilable class of people. I believe this country was designed for that class of people, and from them, Mr. President, in the past we have received great aid. The German, the Irishman, the Bohemian, the Englishman, the Scotchman, the Frenchman, the Swede, the Scandinavian, and all those kindred classes of people have added much to the wealth, the intelligence, and the glory of our country.

But, Mr. President, we have gone out to the Sandwich Islands and have annexed to ourselves, inseparably I suppose, a class of people upon whom seems to rest the curse of God, and now we propose to use the Sandwich Islands as a stepping-stone or as a door giving entrance, and unrestricted entrance, to all classes of people of all nationalities to this country. Senators may bicker and talk and chop logic on the question of the construction of this bill, but the fact remains—it remains patent to all people—that the Sandwich Islands are to be used as a doorway through which all classes of people, who may be alien to our institutions and hostile to a republican form of government, are to be admitted to debase our population and to demoralize our citizenship.

I shall vote against this bill from top to bottom. I shall not criticise it unnecessarily, I think. I do not intend to do so, at least; but it is a slipshod affair. To speak of it in respectful terms, it is crude, ungrammatical, not properly constructed in any re -spect, disjointed, not properly arranged; but nevertheless it is probably in keeping with the majority of bills that come before the Senate for final passage in those respects.

But the thing I object to most of all, Mr. President, is the wild, unrestrained dream for power, to acquire somebody, to get hold of people who do not belong to us, whether they contaminate us or not. Have we reached that period in the history of our country that all of its glories and its sacred institutions must go down in dust that we may extend our commerce, as I heard the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. MCLAURIN] argue this afternoon? The Constitution is a mere rope of sand. So say some of these gentlemen, and the decisions of the Supreme Court construing the Constitution throughout the history of our nation have no force, according to their opinion. The whole course of our nation, which has been to build up a strong domestic government and keep us free from alliances that will bring about nothing but contamination and injury to the country, is to be abandoned, and we are to get some poor people, and the more helpless they are the more

\

2391 willing we are to take charge of them, and we are to govern them, assimilate them, their government, their commerce, their laws, their institutions, and all. Mr. President, I do not deem it my duty to stand here and offer amendments to this bill. I believe it is the duty of the

Senator to withdraw the bill, or of the committee which has passed upon . this bill to present it in the form it should be. I shall not offer an amendment to it. If it were so drawn, Mr. President, that you could drive an ox team through it, I would not offer an amendment to cure its defects; it is that broad in some respects.

But, Mr. President, it is offered to accomplish a purpose—that is, to take those people, all the driftwood, the wash of the future, into the citizenship of the United States. There is not a people upon the known globe morally and physically so inferior, so turbulent, and so unfitted for American citizenship that you do not propose to admit through the gates of Hawaii. You do not care about its effect upon the American home; that signifies nothing. It may debase the scholarship of this country; it may, as it will, debase the citizenship of the laboring man for these people to come here in daily contact with him as a laborer and reduce the scale of living of his wife and children; but you care nothing for that; that signifies nothing. If you can extend your commerce, reap the rewards of the labors of those people, and reduce the condition of the laboring man in the United States, you will have served your purpose.

And all this, is to be done, Mr. President, in the name of patriotism and of the Divinity. It reminds me of a story that was told at one time about a section of this country—I shall not locate it— where a great scandal occurred in consequence of the misappropriation of public money, a scandal that shook the very foundations of the nation at the time. It was said that the chief in those scandals, the man who disbursed the Government funds, was a regular attendant at prayer meeting, and when his associates were gathered around him at a Thursday evening prayer meeting, he always opened the services by saying, " In the name of God, let us rob somebody." [Laughter.] So it is every time that we seek to despoil a weak people of their property or of their institutions, we are doing it in the name of the lowly Nazarene.

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, we all take the same oath when we become members of this body. Each Senator determines for himself what the obligation of that oath is and what duty rests upon him flowing from it. I confess I can not understand the principle upon which the Senator from Nebraska acts about this bill or any other bill that is presented for the consid -eration of the Senate when he says if he saw defects in it, if he saw objectionable provisions in it, he would not offer any amendment. The Senator, I believe, voted against the annexation of Hawaii.

Mr. ALLEN. I did. Mr. SPOONER. So did I, Mr. President, or I was paired against it; but Hawaii was annexed; the Congress of the United

States made it a part of the United States, and we are now engaged in framing for it a government as a part of the United States. I can not reconcile it with my duty as a Senator to neglect it or to be indifferent to the provisions of the bill.

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me?The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Nebraska?Mr. SPOONER. Certainly. Mr. ALLEN. I utterly repudiate the power of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution such as passed

the Senate. It is ipso facto null and void.Mr. SPOONER. I had my questions about that. I have my conviction about it now.Mr. ALLEN. My constitutional conviction is clear. Mr. SPOONER. But that is a political question, not subject to review by the courts.Mr. ALLEN. I beg the Senator's pardon.Mr. SPOONER. . I grant it. Mr. ALLEN. The Senator ought to. . It could be made the subject of review by the courts. It could be very easily made the

subject of review by quo warranto or some other process.Mr. SPOONER. Quo warranto? How? Mr. ALLEN. I am not going into the details of it. Suppose a citizen of the Hawaiian Islands should be arrested. Could not

that be raised by a question of habeas corpus?Mr. SPOONER. Of course not. Mr. ALLEN. Of course not? Of course it could. But I want to say to the Senator—he seems to be delegated to take charge

of me on almost all occasions——Mr. SPOONER. I beg the Senator's pardon. That is not true. I decline that responsibility.Mr. ALLEN. It will take lots of the Senator's time if he discharges his duty fully. But what I want to say, and then I will

quit, is that I have no respect whatever for the judgment of the Senate in passing a joint resolution to annex the Hawaiian Islands, and I discharge my full constitutional duty, in the light of my

responsibility to God and to my country, when I vote against every measure of this kind.Mr. HOAR. I rise merely to ask the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TELLER] a question. I do not wish to take the floor.Mr. TELLER. I will wait until the Senator from Massachusetts gets through.Mr. HOAR. I thought the Senator was through.Mr., SPOONER. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.Mr. HOAR. I beg pardon. I thought the Senator had concluded. I merely wish to ask a question.Mr. SPOONER. The Hawaiian Islands were annexed to the United States by a joint resolution passed by Congress. I reas -

sert, although my distinguished legal friend the Senator from Nebraska is absent, that that was a political question and it will never be reviewed by the Supreme Court or any other judicial tribunal. That is too well settled to admit of any doubt except perhaps in Nebraska.

1 think the Senator from Nebraska is mistaken, and I think the suggestion made by the Senator from Massachusetts is not without question. Section 5 says:

That except as herein otherwise provided, the Constitution and all the laws of the United States—That has been amended so as to read "not locally inapplicable"—

shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States. That is the language which has been employed always in legislation for the erection of Territories and the government

of Territories. But that is not all.Mr. HOAR. I want to ask my honorable friend a question. The laws of the United States, unless they are locally

inapplicable, like laws establishing light-houses or other laws having a local significance alone, are extended to Hawaii. Now, what meaning can section C have, that being the case, if the Senator be right? Will he state, for instance, a law of Hawaii on any general subject of legislation which would be inconsistent with the laws of the United States?

Mr. SPOONER. I suppose there are a great many.Mr. HOAR. Suggest one as an example.Mr. SPOONER. I am not familiar with the laws of Hawaii.Mr. HOAR. Suppose you were applying this to Wisconsin. Mr. SPOONER. We are not proposing here to provide in every possible detail laws for Hawaii. Mr. HOAR. But there are laws of the United States Territories as to marriage, divorce, crimes, misdemeanors, and all

those things. Now, all the laws of the United States are to go over the Territory.Mr. SPOONER. Hawaii was a republic. Mr. HOAR. Now, they have saved some by Section C. What have they saved? Mr. SPOONER. I will tell the Senator what I think they have saved. Hawaii was a republic. It was an independent

government. They had a system of laws of their own enactment. When Hawaii became a part of the United States by the passage of the annexation resolution those laws remained in force, except so far as they were modified for the time being by direction of the President of the United States. Otherwise it would have been anarchy.

Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Wisconsin allow me?Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. MORGAN. I desire to make a correction of his proposition. All the laws of Hawaii, by the act of annexation,

except so far as they conflict with the Constitution of the United States,. were continued in force by an act of Congress just as they are today and have been all the time since the annexation, and they will remain in force until an act of Congress shall change it, if it is a hundred years.

Mr. CULLOM. Unless the legislature repeals them. Mr. MORGAN. Unless they are repealed by their own legislature. That included the whole system of government in

Hawaii, including the republic by name and by organization and everything relating to it, excepting the laws connecting that republic with foreign nations. So the laws in Hawaii in force to-day are expressly kept there in force by an act of Congress, and the President has no power in regard to them except to designate the people who are to execute them.

Mr. SPOONER. And to direct the manner in which they are to be executed? Mr. MORGAN. And to direct the manner in which they are to be executed.Mr. SPOONER. Certain laws are repealed expressly by this bill, and that is what is meant by this exception:That, except as herein otherwise provided, the Constitution and laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect

within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States.Now, section 6 reads:That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act shall continue in force, sub ject

to repeal or amendment by the legislature of Hawaii for the Congress of the United States.

2392 Now, there is by this bill left of the body of the laws which have been enacted under the republic of

Hawaii, as I understand it, those not expressly repealed, and such of those laws as shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Senator from Massachusetts, construing this language——

Mr. HOAR. I am inclined to think, on further examination, that the Senator from Wisconsin is right.Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from Massachusetts construed properly the language "not locally

inapplicable" to include a few subjects of legislation; but the general laws of the United States as to alien labor, contract labor, and immigration just as certainly extend when this bill passes—not now—over the Territory of Hawaii as they extend to any other Territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I am not to rail about the act of Congress annexing this Territory, although I was not in favor of it. It was done. It has been made a part of the United States, and I wish to aid as far as I may as a member of the Senate in providing for that people a good government and adequate laws; and whatever my friend the Senator from Nebraska may say about it in the heat of debate, I venture to say that he has the same purpose and the same desire.

Mr. President, I rose merely to speak for a moment upon the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. I wish the Senator from Alabama were present. I do not think it changes at all in legal effect, although I agree it ought to be made plain, and it is made plain by his amendment, section 88 as it stands in the bill. That section is as follows:

That a judicial district of the United States is established for the Territoryof Hawaii, to be called the district of Hawaii, which shall be included in theNinth judicial circuit of the United States. The President of the UnitedStates, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the United States for thesaid district.

No tenure of office is fixed by this section or by the bill for the district judge or the district attorney or the marshal. There is, however, a general provision of statute which declares that the term of office of a Territorial judge and of a marshal and of a district attorney shall be four years; and unless this is a constitutional court, and unless under the provisions of the Constitution this judge as a judge of a

constitutional court is to hold for life, which I deny, the legal effect of this provision, no matter what you call the court, no matter what you call the judge, would be to create a Territorial judge of a Territorial court, whose term of office would either be indefinite or would be under the general law limited to four years.

I have been unable to escape the conviction that it is not within the constitutional power of Congress to create a constitutional court—and by that I mean a court the tenure of whose judge is fixed by the Constitution—in the Territories of the United States. To avoid misunderstanding, and to avoid trouble hereafter, we ought, in legislating upon this subject, to consider it with some care with reference to the Constitution upon the subject. The Constitution is very plain. I wish to call attention to it for a moment:

The judicial power of the United States—And by that, I understand, is meant the Union of States-shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress

may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

I admit the right of Congress to erect Territorial courts. I admit the right of Congress to confer upon such courts the jurisdiction which Congress chooses. I admit the right of Congress to make the term of office of the Territorial judge four years or ten years or during good behavior, so far as the question of power is concerned. Generally the tenure has been limited to four years, but not always. As to Indiana, I think, as to Michigan, as to Wisconsin, as to Minnesota, as I recollect it, the tenure was made during good behavior; but notwithstanding all that they were Territorial courts. Those courts are not inferior courts within the language of section 1 of Article III, the tenure of the judges of which is beyond the reach of Congress and is fixed entirely by the Constitution.

Those courts are established, as I understand, not under that section of the Constitution at all, but under the section which gives the Congress the power to make rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States. It has been decided so time and time again by the Supreme Court of the United States. To my mind the test whether this is a constitutional court or not lies in the question whether or not we have any right to fix the tenure of the judge at all.

This bill was drawn upon the theory that this is a constitutional court under section 1 of Article III of the Constitution, and that, being silent upon the tenure of office under that provision of the Constitution, it creates a life judge.

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me?

Mr. SPOONER. Certainly, Mr. ALLEN. I did not suppose there was any doubt about a Territorial court being purely the

creature of a statute.Mr. SPOONER. I do not think there is, and in a sense—— Mr. ALLEN. And the section of the Constitution to which the Senator from Wisconsin refers

provides for constitutional courts that are to preside in different districts in the States.Mr. SPOONER. I agree with the Senator, but I suggest he does not cover the whole ground. The

district courts and the circuit courts of the United States are, in a sense, legislative courts. The constitutional provision is that " the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator will permit me. These Territorial courts are extra constitutional courts. Mr. SPOONER. The Senator is quite right. As I was saying a moment ago, the test to my mind is

this: As to Territorial courts, we may make the tenure of the judges of the Territorial courts what we choose. We may make it one year; we may make it four years; we may make it ten years, or we make it, if we adopt a bad and, I think, a vicious policy, during good behavior; but with the tenure of the office of the judge of the inferior courts mentioned in article 3 we have nothing whatever to do. Once we create the court and the Constitution fixes the tenure. It is not possible for Congress to make it any less than during good behavior.

That is not all there is to it. The judge of the constitutional court can not be removed by the President of the United States. He can only be removed by the Senate of the United States upon an impeachment. We have the power to provide that the judge of the Territorial court—and that power has been often exercised, and it has been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States in the McAllister case and other cases—may be removed by the President of the United States. It is beyond our power to make any such provision for the removal of a judge of a constitutional court.

So I say, if my friend, the Senator from Alabama, will give me for one moment his attention, that in my opinion this section, as it is drawn, providing no limit to the tenure, saying nothing, in fact, as to the tenure of the judge, will be governed by the general provisions of the Revised Statutes as to Territorial judges, and will make the tenure of the judge four years. In all the legislation from the beginning this fact has been recognized, that there is a distinction under the Constitution between the Federal court in a State and the Territorial courts. We may clothe the Territorial court with the powers of a Federal judge; in other words, as we have the law side of the court and the equity side of the court, we may so frame our legislation that the court shall have the Territorial or local side on the one hand, and on the other hand the Federal side; but in my view we can not make the court a constitutional court with the tenure of the judge fixed by the Constitution.

Mr. BACON and Mr. NELSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from

Georgia?Mr. SPOONER. I yield to both Senators.Mr. NELSON. I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was through.Mr. SPOONER. No. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia. Mr. BACON. I quite agree with the Senator from Wisconsin as to the purpose which he favors in

support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. I quite agree with almost all he has said, and I do not wish to be understood as now disagreeing with him on the particular point which I suggest to him. I do so for the purpose of getting his views.

Section 1 of Article III is in these words:The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time

ordain and establish.The Senator in reading that draws the conclusion that that refers, in the use of the "United States," to

the Union of States, and from that he deduces the conclusion that it would be unconstitutional, aside from the question of policy, to establish one of these constitutional courts in a Territory. Did I understand the Senator correctly?

Mr. SPOONER. I say it has always been the theory upon which our legislation has proceeded that the constitutional court was the Federal court in the States and not in the Territories.

Mr. BACON. I quite agree with that. I understood the Senator to go further and to say that in his opinion it would be beyond the power of Congress to establish in a Territory one of these con-stitutional courts?

Mr. SPOONER. I think that is true.2393

Mr. BACON. I want to ask the consideration by the Senator of this question. The language is:The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time

ordain and establish. The Senator says that that refers to the Union of States by the use of the words "United States." The question I desire to

ask the Senator is this: I presume there will be no question about the fact that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in its appellate capacity would cover the Territories, although it would be beyond the territorial area of the Union of States.

Mr. SPOONER. It covers the territory if we provide by the act for writs of error from the territory. Mr. BACON. The Senator does not catch the point of my inquiry. I presume it will be conceded that the jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court would go beyond the territory represented by the Union of States. Now, the question I desire to ask the Senator, not for the purpose of taking issue with him, but for the purpose of asking his consideration of the point, is this: If the language used would extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond the territorial limits of the Union of States, would not the same language, in case it was seen proper by Congress under this clause to establish one of these inferior courts in the territory, also authorize the extension of the jurisdiction?

It is simply, if the Senator will pardon me, a suggestion in connection with what I understood to be his proposition, that the Congress would have no power to establish a constitutional court recognized in section 1 of Article III in a Territory, if it saw fit to establish a judicial circuit there. I repeat, I do not do this for the purpose of taking issue with the general conclusion to which the Senator comes. I think the amendment of the Senator from Colorado is eminently correct, and I shall certainly support it. That amendment will very largely remove one of the principal objections I have to the bill.

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President—— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Ohio.Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.Mr. FORAKER. I thought the Senator from Wisconsin was through.Mr. President, I have already said in the consideration of this bill as much as I care to say upon the question now raised

by the proposed amendment. I rise, therefore, not for the purpose of again debating or arguing the proposition so raised, but only to express my dissent from what I understand to be the proposition of the Senator from Wisconsin, that the Congress of the United States can not establish a constitutional court in the Territories of the United States.

Congress can not, I agree with him, establish a constitutional court within the territory of the United States outside the Union if Congress proceed under the clause of the Constitution empowering Congress to legislate for the Territories; but I do not know of any reason why Congress may not proceed under the judicial article of the Constitution, if it should see fit to do so, in establishing a court in the Territories. I understand that the very first territory we acquired was so legislated for by Congress when Congress undertook to establish a court for it. By the act creat ing a Territorial government for Louisiana——

Mr. SPOONER. I yielded for a question to the Senator from Georgia. Did the Senator from Ohio suppose I had yielded the floor?

Mr. FORAKER. I thought the Senator had concluded——Mr. SPOONER. I have not.Mr. FORAKER. Or I should not have proceeded. If you will allow me, I can say all I want to in a moment, and then you

can proceed, or I will give way to you now, as you prefer.Mr. SPOONER. No: go ahead. Mr. FORAKER. I should not have presumed to interrupt you, but I thought you were through.By the act establishing a Territorial government for Louisiana, passed in 1801, Congress did create, as I understand it, a

constitutional court. Clearly the Congress so understood its own action at that time, for after providing for Territorial courts and conferring upon them their jurisdiction and fixing the tenure of the judges, then Congress proceeded to make the Territory of Louisiana a district, and to provide a court for the district, and to provide a judge for the court, and Congress did not undertake to say what should be the tenure. Evidently Congress was proceeding upon the theory that the tenure would be a life tenure; and if you will consult the record, you will find, I am informed, that pursu ant to that legislation a judge was appointed who held for quite a long term of years—until after the State was incorporated into the Union. It was not for four years, nor ten years, nor for any number of years, but evidently intended to be a tenure for good behavior, as the Constitution provides.

Mr. President, what shows conclusively to my mind that Con-

gress thought they were establishing a constitutional court, and were intending to establish a constitutional court, is the fact that the jurisdiction they conferred upon the court is the same jurisdiction that was conferred by the judiciary act of 1789 on the court of the Kentucky district.

Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator from Ohio one question?Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator think that Congress could establish in the same Territory, if it saw fit, a constitutional

court and a court not constitutional? Mr. FORAKER. I am using the term "constitutional'' in contradistinction to the term "Territorial" or "legislative." All

courts must be constitutional in the sense that they are authorized by the Constitution.Mr. HOAR. I understand.Mr. FORAKER. I say this, if the Senator will allow me: It is competent for Congress, and Congress has usually so

proceeded, to establish a Territorial or legislative court, proceeding under ; that clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to legislate for the Territories; and the Supreme Court, in probably every in-stance where it has passed upon that question, has said that it appears that Congress was undertaking to establish a Territorial in contradistinction to a constitutional court, because Congress has fixed the tenure for a number of years, or Congress has conferred a local jurisdiction that, does not properly belong to a constitutional court of the United States.

Mr. HOAR. The Senator does not quite apprehend my question. I wish to understand him. The Senator says that Congress may establish in a Territory Territorial courts. Of course nobody doubts that. In the next place the Senator says, as I understand him, that Congress may establish a constitutional court, by which I suppose he means because

everything Congress does gets its own power from the Constitution.Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.Mr. HOAR. I suppose he means a court which is one of the courts described in the Constitution, and he must therefore

have a life tenure, a tenure during good behavior. Now, does the Senator claim that both kinds of courts—because that will be the test of another question I should like to ask him by and by—can be established by Congress in the same Territory? That is what we are doing now if we are going to have a constitutional court.

Mr. FORAKER. I do not so understand it. What we are doing now is to establish certain Territorial courts for Hawaii.

Mr. HOAR. But I understand, if the Senator will pardon me, that the debate is upon the proposition suggested by the Senator from Colorado. Having provided the ordinary courts, with their four years' tenure, and divided the Territory of Hawaii among them, now the Senator from Colorado moves another court, which he proposes to call the district court, which does not have its tenure provided for by the enactment which creates it, and which is claimed by him, or at any rate by some Senator in the debate, I do not say by him, to be a constitutional court. I understand the Senator from Ohio is defending the right to do that thing in the Hawaiian bill, to do it in a bill which already has in it pro visions for Territorial courts with a four-years tenure: and I wish to know whether in the Senator's judgment, he having given me his opinion in favor of the validity of the constitutionality of this amendment, he thinks that a constitutional court and a Territorial court may be established with authority over the same Territory.

Mr. FORAKER. Well, Mr. President, I do not think I fully comprehend what it is the Senator wants me to make answer to. If he will only allow me to conclude what I was undertaking to say. I know he can understand what is in my mind.

Mr. HOAR. If my honorable friend will allow me to make myself clear, then, by one further question——Mr. FORAKER. I would rather the Senator would wait until I get through.Mr. HOAR. I do not want to talk: I want to learn: and I am applying to one of the highest authorities I know of, who

was expressing his opinion on the very question. Mr. FORAKER. I am trying to give my opinion to the Senator, and I will take great pleasure in giving it for whatever

it may be worth; but the Senator, by interrupting mo before I had concluded, has stated with respect to my opinion some things that are not exactly accurate.

Mr. HOAR. I only asked a question with the Senator's leave. Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; I appreciate that: and I wanted to conclude a sentence; and that would perhaps convey to

you all the information that you desire to obtain from me.What I was undertaking to say had reference to a provision that is found in the bill, as I have already said before in

this debate, and that is one reason why I have been less particular to go over it carefully now. Whether you call it a constitutional court or a Territorial court, it is within the power of Congress to create exactly what we have undertaken to create here, if we want to do it. It is a question of policy and not of power; and I say that be-

High security alert!!!You are not permitted to download the file "oa149.doc".

URL = http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/hawaiian/annexation/organic/docs/oa149.doc

High security alert!!!You are not permitted to download the file "oa150.doc".

URL = http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/hawaiian/annexation/organic/docs/oa150.doc

High security alert!!!You are not permitted to download the file "oa151.doc".

URL = http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/hawaiian/annexation/organic/docs/oa151.doc

2398can not, if we see fit, provide that the judge shall be paid out of the revenues of the Territory or out of its treasury.

Mr. HOAR. Should not the amendment of the Senator from Colorado as modified be rend? Mr. CULLOM. It has been read.Mr. HOAR. I ask that the amendment of the Senator from Colorado as modified be read.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment as modified will be read. The SECRETARY. On page 43 it is proposed to strike out all of section 88 down to and including the word "court," on line 5 of page 44, and insert

in lieu thereof the following: That there shall be established in said Territory a district court, to consist of one judge, who shall reside therein and be called the district

judge. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a marshal of the United States fur the said district; and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President. Said court shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases cognizable in a circuit court of the United States, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court. Writs of error and appeals from said district court shall he had and allowed to the circuit court of appeals in the Ninth judicial circuit, in the same manner as writs of error and appeals are allowed from circuit courts to circuit courts of appeals as provided by law.

Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator if he does not intend to insert a provision also as to the method of impaneling juries, etc.?

Mr. TELLER. Yes; I will do that later. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, we have enough questions now before the Senate, I believe, to engage our attention for a while, at least.

The judicial power of the United States under our Federal Constitution and our State constitutions is divided into two branches, one of which is a Federal power or Federal jurisdiction, exercised exclusively under the authority and power of the Fed eral Government, the Government located at Washington", the other a State jurisdiction, which is local, which has nothing to do with the enforcement of Federal law, and not expected to be engaged in the exercise of that part of the judicial power. It is perfectly distinct.

The Congress of the United States, being in supreme sovereign authority over the Territories, has the right to establish in these Territories courts that combine the local powers that belong to State courts with the Federal power. That is in virtue of the fact of the supremacy of the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject. It has the power of the States to establish local courts or courts of local jurisdiction, applicable to local affairs, and also the power of Congress to establish Federal courts with Federal jurisdiction over Federal affairs.

The eighty-eighth section of this bill was intended to establish in the district of Hawaii a pure Federal district court. Of course, a pure Federal district court is a court of life tenure, fixed by the Constitution. Hitherto, in the organization of Territories, Con gress has exercised the dual power of conferring upon the supreme court of the Territory or the district court of the Territory jurisdiction over local affairs, and also a certain jurisdiction in respect of Federal affairs. That is perfectly legitimate. Congress has the right to do it. Equally, I contend, Congress has the right to separate the jurisdictions there and establish one jurisdiction for local affairs and a separate jurisdiction for Federal affairs. It has the same right to do that in Hawaii that it has in any State of the American Union. It has as much power to do it.

The argument on the other side of that question, as I understand it, is that the court established by an act of Congress for a Territory can not be a Federal court under the Constitution. It is what is called a legislative court, says the Senator from Wiscon sin; and there the confusion gets into the minds of the Senators, as I understand it, who have discussed this question, by using the word "constitutional" instead of "Federal" to describe the jurisdiction of the court that represents the United States in all of its actions and proceedings, civil and criminal. A district court of the United States is a constitutional court, and a supreme court of a Territory or a district court of a Territory is a constitutional court.

Mr. SPOONER. Sub modo. Mr. MORGAN. Not sub modo at all. They are both complete and full courts, one Federal and the other local.Mr. SPOONER. The Senator will allow me to interrupt him?Mr. MORGAN. Certainly.Mr. SPOONER. I admit that.

Mr. MORGAN. Then you admit your case out of court. I Mr. SPOONER. I do not. I admit that Congress has the constitutional power to create a territorial court. My claim is that those courts the judges of which, without any provision of law, have life tenure are courts provided for by section 1 of Article III of the Constitution.

Mr. MORGAN. This court, in section 88, as it was provided and reported by the committee, is a Federal district court, with a judge whose tenure is for life, which has all the jurisdiction and powers conferred by all the laws of the United States upon district courts, and also by this bill the powers that are conferred

upon circuit courts. That is legitimate. That is not disputed. So the only question between us at all is whether the Congress of the United States has the power to establish a Federal district court in a Territory. That is the question, and that is the only question in this whole business.

Congress has of ten exercised this power, in one case directly and in another case indirectly. They are very conspicuous cases. The District of Columbia is not a State, neither is it a Territory, and yet, on referring to the statutes giving jurisdiction to the Dis trict of Columbia, we find that the supreme court of the District of Columbia has the same identical jurisdiction that the circuit courts of the United States have; that is to say, the supreme court of the District of Columbia can exercise every power which can be exercised by circuit courts of the United States. There is the establishment of a court that is Federal, full Federal in its jurisdiction—not in a State, but in a district, the District of Columbia. So there is no restriction in the Constitution against the establishment of a circuit court of the United States or a supreme court of the District of Columbia with full circuit-court powers outside of a State and inside the District of Columbia. That is by direct legislation.

We have also more lately established a court of appeals in the District of Columbia which has a jurisdiction precisely coordi nate in all respects with the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeals of the United States. We have established also district courts of the United States in the District of Columbia, and we have conferred upon them all the powers that belong to district courts of the United States. So we have in this District district courts with all the powers of district courts of the United States; circuit courts with all the powers of circuit courts of the United States, and a court of appeals with the powers of circuit courts of appeals of the United States. All of those judges have life tenure. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They can not be removed except by impeachment. Now, there the personnel of the court is exactly like the personnel of the district, circuit, and circuit courts of appeals of the United States, and the jurisdiction is the same, but the location is not in a State or in a Territory, but it is in the District of Columbia.

Is there, therefore, a constitutional objection against the location of a district, circuit, or appellate court of the United States at any other place than within a State? Is there some prohibition of that sort? The Constitution is absolutely silent upon the question as to where the court shall be located, and the point, in determining whether it is a Federal court 6r a Territorial court, is ascertained by two facts. One is the jurisdiction yon confer—the leading one—and the other the tenure of office and the fact that it is created by act of Congress, although all those courts are, created by acts of Congress. I admit that.

Now, there is another case—an indirect case. I have cited one that is positive and direct. I refer now to the district court of the United States in Oregon, which has full jurisdiction of all the laws of the United States in Alaska, which is a Territory, and in the Pribilof Islands, which are islands out in the bosom of the sea. Now, let us see what has been done by Congress on that subject:

Until otherwise provided by law, all violations of this chapter and of the several laws hereby extended to the Territory of Alaska and the waters thereof, committed within the limits of the same, shall be prosecuted in any district court of the United States in California or Oregon or in the district courts of Washington.

Offenses against the United States committed in Bering Sea and Alaska, that mere chrysalis formation up there yet of a Territorial government, may be prosecuted in the district court of the United States of California or Oregon or, as it was when the law was passed, in the Territory of Washington. Here, then, is comprehended the Federal jurisdiction of a very important character indeed; a jurisdiction under which the arrest of British ships has been made and the vessels brought into port and condemned as prizes; captured for violations of the laws of the United States, condemned and sold to parties, right through court, as if they had been captured and condemned in a prize court in time of war. The jurisdiction of the United States, its power to punish offenses against its laws, and against all of the laws that were then or might afterwards be extended into Alaska was conferred upon either of three tribunals, one of which was a Territorial district court and the other two district courts located in States.

Having done all this with respect of this most important and difficult jurisdiction and power to enforce our laws in Bering Sea and the Pribilof Islands and in Alaska, how can it be argued against these provisions of proposed law that they are unconstitutional? The Supreme Court of the United States, at the suit of Great Britain—not by that name, but in fact—tested the question on a writ of prohibition of the jurisdiction of these courts to come to final decrees in causes where ships had been captured for violations of the fur-seal act. Are we to hold here that there was no power on the part of Congress to extend the jurisdiction of the United States into the waters and over Territories which had no organized government at all or one that was the mere simulacrum of an organized Territory in Alaska?

2399Could we not, under the precedent in the Alaska case, extend the jurisdiction, for instance, of the southern judicial district of the United States for California so as to include the Hawaiian Islands and make all Federal questions that arise in those islands triable in the court for the southern district of California? We can expand the jurisdiction exactly as it was done in the case of Alaska. If we can do that, then the question arises—and it must be a very important one in the mind of a statesman—as to whether the court can be located in Hawaii or in Alaska, or whether it must be located in the bosom of a State.

There is no ground whatever in logic or law for the assumption that the Congress of the United States has any limitation whatever put upon its power to locate a district court of the United States at any place within the boundaries of the sovereign jurisdiction of this nation. We can locate a district court of the United States in Hawaii. We can do it in Puerto Rico. I am not quite absolutely certain that we could not do it in Cuba to day, but surely with regard to the others we can. So we can in the Philippines, at Manila.

It has been supposed, at least the argument has assumed here, that this is a provision in this bill for the benefit of the Hawaiian people It is quite the reverse. It is an act to hold the Hawaiian people and all those who go to Hawaii and visit Hawaii from the high seas under the constraint of the judicial power of the United States Government, administered through one of her regular courts and one of her regular judges, with a life tenure, if you please. And I maintain that for every reason and for every consideration that is one of the most important sections in this bill.

The Government of the United States, in establishing this Federal system, indicated in the beginning, and that has been the development of every step of our legislative procedure from the date of the Constitution to the present time, a purpose to have an independent Federal tribunal wherever the laws of the United States were in force, for the purpose of executing and administering those laws under the Federal jurisdiction and by Federal judges. Why was this? One of the great arguments for it was that a government like the United States ought to have a judicial establishment. It must not depend upon the courts in the Territories to furnish them with judges and courts. It would be a very incomplete government unless it had a separate Federal judicial establishment. The reasons for that also were very various and very numerous and have been so elaborated in judicial action and decision that thousands of reasons have sprung up to justify the wisdom of our fathers when they established a Federal court for the purpose of exercising Federal jurisdiction.

A Federal court in a State, and so in a Territory, is not, Mr. President, a part of the local jurisdiction. It has no concern with the local laws, local litigation, or causes that may arise there, except so far as it may have a revisory power over those tribunals given to it by an act of Congress, such as the right of transfer of causes, or the like of that. But here we have a great volume of statutes, criminal laws of the United States. While I concede that a Territorial court may be empowered by Congress to administer all the criminal laws of the United States, is it wise to have in a Territory a judicial tribunal which has charge of all the local jurisdiction and at the same time charge of all the Federal jurisdiction? Is that safe?

Is it not better, wiser, and safer to separate these jurisdictions in Territories precisely as they are separated in the States? I maintain, Mr. President, that it is necessary for the complete occupation of one of these islands which have been annexed, particularly the insular portion of the country, that we should have established in them separate judicial tribunals, and one of the leading purposes of having a tribunal there is to correct and to control the population of those islands by the direct authority of the laws of the United States administered by United States officers.

I do not know how I would feel if I were to appear before the district court or the supreme court as it is organized in this act now of Hawaii, with a cause in which the United States was a party, whether it was civil or whether it was criminal, or a cause that involved the laws of the United States. I will take the immigration laws, the labor-contract law, the quarantine laws, and various others that I might cite. I do not know how I would feel when I should have tried a cause upon the local docket before that bench if I should then ask him if he would not turn over and try a cause on the United States docket.

I should feel, in many cases, that I had a court that was trying to serve two masters. There would be difficulty about that. I can imagine very easily—in fact we all can by looking back over our own recollections a little bit—cases in which the local courts have been quite antagonistic to the Federal court. There have been cases which have arisen in the Supreme Court of the United States where the State supreme court have refused to record decrees of the Supreme Court of the United States. There has always been, and there will always be, more or less of conflict between this jurisdiction, and the better plan is to keep them separate, to start that way, not mix them up, not having one set of judges to decide on Federal questions and the same judges to decide on local questions.

Now, in regard to the counterfeiting of coins, in regard to illicit distilling, in regard to the illegal importation of contract labor against the laws of the United States, or in the enforcement of our immigration laws, by which improper persons are shipped off and sent back to the country from which they came, at the charge and expense of the line of ships or the ship that brought them, can we not see at once that in cases of that kind the local court : might be very much disposed to lean in favor of the local law enacted by the local legislature and supported by the taxation of the people who are interested in having this law violated or administered in some slack and imperfect way? Can not we understand that? This commission, Mr. President, in looking forward to what we knew was coining and to what was surrounding us, undertook to carry to the islands of Hawaii as much and as full and as perfect a recognition of the influence and power of the Constitution of the United States as we knew how to do. So we subjected the islands of Hawaii to the customs system of the United States and to the internal-revenue system and to the postal system of the United States. We omitted nothing that we could think of. When we came to the judicial system, here was what was apparently an innovation—that is to say, a new thought created by a new necessity. We found the precedents that I referred to here and many precedents in the statutes of the United States that we thought fully justified us in putting there a distinct district court of the United States—a distinct Federal tribunal; and in doing that we would have the legislative, the executive, and the judicial establish -ment or power of the United States all represented on the islands.

Is there an objection to having the full sway of the powers of th e Government of the United States in any part of this Territory? I can conceive of none, and beyond all question I can not conceive of any prohibition; 1 have never seen anything that squinted at a prohibition of the exercise of these powers. Therefore the commission felt free and encouraged and greatly satisfied that there Was an opportunity there to exercise over those islands what the people wanted—the full power and jurisdiction of the United States. Why do we dole it out to them? Why do we give it to them piecemeal? Why do we apply to our Territorial laws here for the purpose of ascertaining what ought to be the laws enacted for Hawaii?

Are our Territorial laws consistent with each other? Have we got a Territorial system? In the Revised Statutes we attempted to put up a Territorial system, but could not do it. We had to make the general principles of the system apply to only four or five Territories, and make exceptions in almost every case in favor of some particular Territory of a very important power, a very important jurisdiction. Every one of these Territories had a special law applicable to itself, and it was impossible to put all these special laws in one general system. So the codifiers of these laws gathered together those that resembled each other most and put them in a classification, making the exceptions stand for the purpose of illustrating the differences between the respective governments. The first section, section 1851, provides:

The legislative power of every Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States—

That is, every Territory; they are all there—but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil. etc.

SEC. 1852. The sessions of the legislative assemblies of the several Territories of the United States shall be limited to forty days' duration.Justices of the peace are ordained by this act for all the Territories. Qualifications of voters:SEC. 1859. Every male citizen above the age of 21, including persons who have legally declared their intention to become citizens in any Territory here-

after organized, and who are actual residents of such Territory at the time of the organization thereof, shall be entitled to vote at the first election in such Territory, and to hold any office therein; subject, nevertheless, to the limitations specified in the next section.

Section 1864 provides that—The supreme court of every Territory shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and they

shall hold their offices for four years, and until their successors are appointed and qualified. They shall hold a term annually at the seat of government of the Territory for which they are respectively appointed.

SEC. 1865. Every Territory shall be divided into three judicial districts.That would not do for Hawaii. We can not include the Hawaiian Islands in three districts and have a resident judge within each district without

putting the citizens to an enormous expense and inconvenience.SEC. 1868. The supreme court and the district courts, respectively, of every Territory, shall possess chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction.Then it goes on with bills of exception. The next chapter takes up the distinct Territories and gives us the laws applicable to each one—and they are

as various as the Territories are themselves—the jurisdiction of the courts, and the method of electing and appointing officers, and all that.

Now, out of that jumble it was impossible for us to extract a systematic plan of government for this Territory of Hawaii. We thought that it was as proper to differentiate the government in Hawaii according to the necessities of the country as it was in

i

2400either of these other Territories, where they are so greatly differentiated. There are no two of them alike, and never have been.They each had their separate local government, conformable, asfar as was possible, to the wishes and the necessities of the people;| that is all.Therefore, shall we not take into consideration the fact thatHawaii is more than 2,000 miles from the coast of the UnitedStates; that it is a maritime state: that much the larger part ofall the property that is ever brought into litigation in Hawaii, excluding the lands, comes from the sea; that the breadth of themaritime jurisdiction — not the admiralty merely, but the maritime jurisdiction — is almost inconceivable; and that it requires ajudge to possess qualifications for that position that are not expected of a judge who resides, for instance, at Montgomery, Ala.,or at Nashville. Tenn., or Raleigh, N. C.. or anywhere in any ofthe interior? The judge in our interior States has nothing to dowith admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and he does not qualifyhimself for it.Now, it is a lifetime study for the best men in the UnitedStates to master admiralty and maritime law. It is the most intricate, difficult branch of jurisprudence that we have to deal with,and that which concerns, which is a very important matter, foreign people as much as it does American people. The controversies are very seldom between American citizens; they are between the citizens of the United States and foreign people. Ajudge appointed for four years, who has got to go to Hawaii,must find out first of all something about the laws of that country.He must entertain jurisdiction of all criminal offenses committedtin Hawaii against the internal revenue, the postal system, thecurrency system, the tariff system, and all of that. Then he mustacquaint himself broadly, as broadly as the mind can be cultivated, up to the proper pitch with all the great jurisdiction covering maritime affairs. That man is to hold his office for four years,and to be tumbled out by the next political Administration thatcomes along.Now, that is a travesty upon the real administration of justice.Ought we not to do better for those islands and for ourselves andour commerce, for the protection of the health of the coast and allthat, than to send a judge there to be appointed for four years,who is trembling upon his seat all the time while he is presidingin his court for fear he may do something that is contrary to thepolitical wishes of the administration that sent him there?What becomes of that most essential of all the elements of judicial power, the independence of the judiciary? If there is onepoint in the Federal system better than all the balance, it is thefact that the Federal judiciary are independent of the President.It is a department in our Government. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments comprise our Government.That department ought to be as independent as the executive, oreven more so; it ought to be as independent even as the great political department called the Congress of the United States, thelegislative department.I am for maintaining, Mr. President, the independence of thefederal judiciary in Hawaii. If that judge is appointed for fourBears or ten years, and can be removed at the beck and call of thepolitician who may be President of the United States, that manloses the great essential element of his office, its independence.That is my anxiety about this section of the bill.I hoped, and I hope yet, that in the report made by this commission and in the bill predicated upon it there will be found a needfor the exercise of the powers of the Government of the UnitedStates over the new possessions acquired from Spain. It may involve tariff questions or it may not. Yet I regard that as a merequestion of policy. But, Mr. President, in the exercise of thefunctions that are devolved upon us in the control of these newacquisitions it ought to be understood that it is the Governmentof the United States, panoplied with all its powers, that sets its footupon one of these islands. It ought not to go there grudgingly;it ought not to go there piecemeal and dole out its powers or itsjurisdiction into the hands of local people.Now, here comes another idea which is opposed to the viewsthat I have been presenting. We all desire that the people inHawaii and the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the Philippines shall enjoy all of the necessary powers of self-governmentthat are requisite to establish in those islands a government republican in form. That is the mandate of the Constitution.

tially foreign, but in that regard it is foreign, a power exercisedvery far from the place where the judge is to sit and hold hisoffice. However, the Senate has stricken out that provision and hasgiven to the President of the United States the power to appointthe three judges of the supreme court and the circuit judges there.We have not as yet provided, I believe, and I doubt if we do pro-vide, for their payment out of the Treasury of the United States.Mr. CULLOM. That is provided for. Mr. MORGAN. It was put in?Mr. CULLOM. That amendment was adopted.Mr. STEWART. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to mea moment?Mr. MORGAN. For a question?Mr. STEWART. No; to make a suggestion. I ask unanimousconsent that this bill be voted upon at half past 13 o'clock to-morrow. It is evident that we will not have a quorum hereto-night to vote upon it. After we reach an agreement to voteto-morrow, we can talk as long to-night as we please.Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, before I respond to that requestof the Senator from Nevada I wish to say a word about this bill.Hawaii to-day is in the enjoyment of a very excellent government,and will be until we change the law there. The laws of Hawaiiwere affirmed by Congress at the time of annexation, and there isno power to set those laws aside except the act of Congress. The •President of the United States was required to administer thoselaws in such manner as he shall see proper, and through suchagencies as he might select. That is as far as he can go. He cannot set aside a law of Hawaii, nor can he disregard it; he mustexecute it He can prescribe the manner of its execution and theofficer by whom it is to be administered under our act.Now, that government has had the right all the time to haveits legislature convene and to proceed with its legislative work,so it did not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.It has proceeded in its judicial tribunals to exercise the full breadthof their power, and, as I observed yesterday, men have been hungin Hawaii under the Hawaiian laws and under processes that runin the name of the republic of Hawaii.That republic, although it is embosomed in the United States,is to-day in full vigor and power, and has but one master, andthat is the President of the United States, who is required to exe-cute its laws and not to break them or to set them aside. He hasno power of that kind at all. Hawaii is collecting her own-revenues from customs. She is collecting her internal revenue fromher tax laws. That is the situation in which she is left.There has been an advice on the part of the Attorney-Generalof the United States that it would be unwise on the part of theHawaiians to go on and legislate and provide appropriations, forinstance, for the purpose of putting down the bubonic plague.Those people there have had to put their hands in their pockets toan amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars to supply the community with the money necessary to suppress this terrible ravage,which did not originate in Hawaii, but which was imported therefrom China, and is now in Molokai, in Maui, and also in the islandof Hawaii, and spreading through those islands, as it is to Aden,and to Lisbon and various other places in Portugal, and will bein San Francisco and in San Diego, no doubt, in a mouth's time.That power of legislative appropriation ought to be exercisedby the government of Hawaii, the Attorney-General's suggestionor request to the contrary notwithstanding, for they have got aperfect right to pass valid laws in that legislature. They have aright to the exercise of all their judicial functions and of all theirtax gathering powers. There is not a power that is wanting tothe government of Hawaii except the power to hold intercoursewith foreign countries and, in subordination to the will of thePresident, as to the manner in which laws shall be executed andthe agents by whom it shall be done.If I had to give advice to the people of Hawaii, I would advisethem to stand by what they have got for a hundred years ratherthan to put up with this bill as it stands to-day; and rather thansee this bill pass I would rejoice to see it defeated, for the Senate of the United States has not been willing at all to take anypart, or very little, of what the Hawaiian Commission and theCommittee on Foreign Relations have recommended, after themost studious and careful and impartial consideration of this situation; and they have attempted to create for Hawaii a government that is applicable to Arizona or to New Mexico, or somethingsimilar, entirely inapplicable to Hawaii — a poor, miserable, crippled affair; not only so, but a government that we hand out tothem in this dilapidated condition, in the most virulent outpouring of abuse and scandal and slander on the floor of the Senate.If I were a Hawaiian, Mr. President, or if I had my way aboutthis bill, I would rather vote it down than vote for it and letHawaii stand where she is. She can always vindicate herself.

Weare all anxious that the powers of local self-government shall beconferred upon those people as far as it is safe to do it, and thatthey shall be cultivated into a higher condition than they are now,Both as to extending the system of government and as to the practicing of the powers that we intrust into their hands.It would have been right to give to the governor of Hawaii onthe plan that we predicated and reported to the Senate the powerto appoint these circuit judges and the supreme court. But theSenate has taken that power out of the hands of the governor, andinstead of permitting it to be a power of local self-government itis a power to be exercised by the President of the United States,which, in that respect, may be called a foreign power; not essen-

Hawaii has not cost us a dollar since she has been in the American Union, and she will never cost us a dollar. She can stay thereunder her laws and make money. Her people are already prosperous; and their prosperity has been disturbed only by one thing,and that is, by a visitation from on high — that is all. I would

2401prefer to see this bill defeated, so far as I am concerned, ratherthan see it crippled up and the whole scheme and system of itbroken in two.

Hawaii is not suffering for our assistance, and if she is, it is herown fault. She has got the power, and the President of theUnited States does not dare to say that the Hawaiian legislatureshall not assemble when an act of Congress authorizes them to doso. So she is not here in the attitude of a beggar. We have beensupplicating Hawaii since the days of Franklin Pierce to comeinto the American Union. We sent our agent down there whenMarcy was Secretary of State to negotiate a treaty with Kamehameha III for annexation, but the King died after the treaty hadbeen agreed upon, on the day that his signature was to have beenaffixed to it, and that stopped it. From that day to this there hasbeen always a party in the United States in favor of the annexation of Hawaii. When I came to the Senate of the United Statesinstantly I joined that party, and I belong to it yet.

I do not know how much money I would take — in fact. I knowI would not take any amount that could be named — to releasethe jurisdiction of the United States upon Hawaii. I do not believe there is a decent man in the United States to-day whowants to remand Hawaii to the condition of a republic andwithdraw the jurisdiction and power of the United States.

Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to mefor a moment?

Mr. MORGAN. Yes.Mr. CULLOM. The arrangement made yesterday afternoon

was that this bill and all the amendments to it should be disposedof to-day. I do not know how long the Senator from Alabamadesires to speak, but there are some Senators present who arewaiting to vote, who have engagements for to-night. While I verymuch dislike that the bill should go over to-day, I should like toinquire whether, if we should by unanimous consent adjourn to-day, we could get a vote to-morrow at 3 o'clock on the bill andamendments by unanimous consent?

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Say 4 o'clock.Mr. CULLOM. Well, any way to get this bill disposed of. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PERKINS in the chair). Does

the Senator from Alabama yield?Mr. MORGAN. I yield for a suggestion.Mr. CULLOM. Then I ask unanimous consent that this bill

go over for the evening and that the bill and all amendments to itbe voted on at 4 o'clock to-morrow afternoon, all debate to cease.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent is asked by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] that the bill under discussion go over until to-morrow, and that to-morrow at 4 o'clockthe Senate will proceed to vote upon the amendments and the bill,and that all debate shall then cease. Is there any objection to therequest? The Chair hears none.

Mr. MORGAN. I have the floor. Mr. President.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is

recognized. Mr. PETTIGREW. Will the Senator yield to me to present an

amendment?Mr. MORGAN. I yield for that purpose.Mr. PETTIGREW. I wish to present an amendment to the

pending bill, which I ask to have printed and lie upon the table.The PRESIDING OFFICER. That order will be made in the

absence of objection.Mr. MORGAN. Under the arrangement the bill is to go over

until to-morrow, I understand?The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until to-morrow, to be voted

upon at 4 o'clock. Mr. MORGAN. I suppose that would, of course, take the bill

out of the jurisdiction of the Senate at the present time. I merelywant to retain the floor upon it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama willbe entitled to the floor.

Mr. ALLISON. I do not wish to interfere with the arrangement which I understand has been made, but I wish to statethat this bill will not be the regular order until 2 o'clock; and ifthe matter is to be debated at any length to-morrow it seems tome there ought to be some understanding as to the disposition ofthe morning hour.

Mr. CULLOM. I will state to the Senator from Iowa that theSenator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] gave notice that he de-sired to speak in the morning hour to-morrow on the Quay case.

Mr. ALLISON. Very well.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the

junior Senator from Georgia [Mr. CLAY] has given notice that hewill speak to-morrow.

Mr. ALLISON. Then I make no further suggestion.Mr. PETTUS. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.The motion was agreed to; and (at 0 o'clock and 23 minutes

p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, March 1,

1900, at 12 o'clock meridian.