3857

Mississippi has alluded to Connecticut and to New Haven, I wish to say this in reference to that matter. The State of Connecticut was organized on a different plan from any other State in the nation —— Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I do not want to seem to be in the slightest degree discourteous. The gentleman knows that it has always been my habit to yield whenever interrupted, and I thought I was yielding to the gentleman for a question. Mr. SPERRY. No sir; I rose for the purpose of making some remarks. Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I can not yield for that purpose. The gentleman can get time of the House subsequently. I can not yield for the purpose of allowing him to inject a speech into my remarks. Now, Mr. Chairman , either Hawaii is a part of the United States or Hawaii is not a part of the United States. Gentlemen have contended in the case of the Philippine Islands and Puerto Rico, which are in military occupancy and which were taken by conquest, that they are not a part of the United States until Congress expressly declares them to be. But that contention, sound or unsound, can not have sway in the case of Hawaii, because Hawaii was admitted into the Union by her own petition, upon her own request, and by our consent. She has become a part of the United States. Whatever the constitutional situation may be or may not be in connection with the Philippines and Puerto Rico, bused upon the idea that they are in military occupancy, that sort of argument can not apply to Hawaii. Now, then, if Hawaii is a part of the United States, she is entitled to all the rights of every other Territory in the United States, and one of those rights is to be represented, by the power of speech at any rate, upon this floor. [Applause.] Now, I thank the House for its courtesy and attention and for waiving in my behalf its rule of procedure for the moment. Mr. HILL. Will the gentleman answer me a question? How about Alaska and the District of Columbia? Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I would to-morrow organize a Territorial government for Alaska, and give Alaska a representative upon this floor, and it ought to be done at the very earliest practicable moment. I would do the same thing for the District of Columbia, and in both cases I would have a restricted suffrage. [Applause.] Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, the debate on this matter has been exhausted, and I ask for a vote. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a remark or two, by unanimous consent. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri asks unanimous consent that he may have five minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Now. Mr. Chairman, originally I was opposed to taking in the Sandwich Islands. Mr. KNOX. Will the gentleman from Missouri pardon me a suggestion? I will not take up any of his time. Air. CLARK of Missouri. Yes. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I move that the debate on this section close with six minutes to the gentleman from Missouri and five minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I wish you would make it ten. I may not be able to close my remarks in six minutes. Mr. KNOX. Ten minutes to the gentleman from Missouri and five minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SPERRY]. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves that the debate on this section be closed at the expiration of fifteen minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, originally I was opposed to taking in the Sandwich Islands. If that were still an open question, I would be just as much opposed to it as ever, but the incident of annexation is closed. We have them for better or for worse, and it is our duty both to ourselves and to them to do the best we can in a difficult situation. Therefore I am in favor of giving these people a Delegate upon this floor of the character they see fit to send hither to explain their situation and their wants. If they wish to send a white man, all well and good. I hope they will. If they want to send a Kanaka — if that is the proper name — all well and good. That is their business, not ours. I am teetotally opposed to any portion of the people of the United States being taxed without having representation. That is the principle for which we waged the Revolutionary war, and it was well worth fighting for. Now, I wish to reinforce what my friend from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] said. It does not lie in the mouth of the people of New England to come hero and taunt Southerners about their methods of running elections. In Missouri every man, great or small, rich or poor, white or black, has the right to vote once and to have his vote counted; but I am a Southern man in feeling and in thought, and I know that what they do down there they do under an impulse of self-preservation too strong to be resisted. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILL] quoted approvingly part of my speech, delivered here in the summer of 1898, against the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. He describes it as "a remarkable and prophetic speech." I am obliged to him for his flattering indorsement; I wish he had quoted it all. 1 am willing to rest my fame not only as an orator but as a prophet upon that speech. [Laughter.]

The same gentleman asks: "Do you want a Congressional Delegate from the District of Columbia?" Nobody has yet answered his query, so I will proceed to do so myself. Yes; I want a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia. Not only that, but I introduced a bill in the last Congress, also one in this, erecting this District into a Territory and reenfranchising the people thereof, conferring upon them the right of self-government, and authorizing them, inter alia, to elect a common council and a Delegate to this House; but I have never been able to get a report on the bill: In the next Congress the Democrats will have the House, and I will have a favorable report on that bill or worry the committee into insanity or the apoplexy. [Laughter.] Mr. HILL. Why did you not present and urge your bill when your party had the House? Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Because I was a green hand in Congressional legislation; but I am "green" in that respect no longer. I will print my bill as part of my remarks, so as to set members to thinking seriously about it. Here it is:A bill to create a Territory of the District of Columbia by the name of the Territory of Columbia and to grant Territorial government to the same.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the District of Columbia is hereby created a Territory by the name of the Territory of Columbia. SEC. 2. That all male citizens of said Territory over 21 years of age, who have not been convicted of a felony and who have resided within said District one whole year prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, A. D. 1900, are qualified electors to vote for all Territorial officers and upon all Territorial questions. SEC. 3. That the existing District government shall continue until January 1, 1901, and the laws now in force shall continue In force until changed or repealed by the Territorial legislature. SEC. 4. That prior to January 1, 1901, the President of the United States shall appoint a governor, secretary, and marshal for said Territory from among the qualified voters thereof, who shall hold their offices for a term of four years from said 1st day of January, A. D. 1901, unless sooner removed for good and sufficient cause. SEC. 6. That the legislature of said Territory shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. The senate shall be composed of 11 members, who shall be qualified voters of said Territory at least 30 years of age, whose term shall be four years. The house shall be composed of 22 members, who shall be qualified voters at least 25 years old, and whose term shall be twoSEC. 6. That the said Territory shall be entitled to a Delegate to the House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States. SEC. 7. That it shall be the duty of the present Commissioners of the District forthwith to divide the said Territory into 11 legislative districts, as nearly equal in population as possible, each of which shall be entitled to 1 senator and 2 representatives in the Territorial legislature. SEC. 8. That on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1900, an election shall be held within said Territory for the purpose of electing senators and representatives in said Territorial legislature and a Delegate to the Congress of the United States. SEC. 9. That it is hereby made the duty of said Commissioners to provide polling booths, poll books, tally sheets, printed ballots, and other appliances necessary for said election, and to appoint judges and clerks for the same in such numbers as to them shall seem best: Provided, however. That not more than one-half of such judges and clerks shall be appointed from one political party.SEC. 10. That election returns shall be certified to said Commissioners, and they shall canvass the same and issue certificates of election to those elected. SEC. 11. That each house of said legislature shall be the sole judge of the election and qualifications of its members. SEC. 13. That at high noon January 1, 1901, both houses of said legislature shall meet at places prepared by said Commissioners and shall organize for business by electing such officers as shall be necessary, and may continue in session for ninety days and no more. SEC. 13. That senators and representatives in said legislature shall receive $10 per day during the session, to be paid out of the revenues of said Territory.SEC. 14. That said legislature shall have power to enact all necessary laws, to levy taxes, to disburse the revenues, to do all things usually done by Territorial legislatures, and to provide for the election and appointment of all subordinate officers and to fix their compensation.Last Saturday night, while delivering a lecture before the faculty and students of the University of Michigan, at Ana Arbor I received a telegraphic order from Senator JAMES K. JONES, OF ARKANSas, chairman of the Democratic national committee, directing me to go to Rhode Island and make two Democratic speeches. I went and I learned a great deal. I found a state of affairs which utterly amazed me. They have such an outrageous apportionment there that the great city of Providence has only 1 State senator out of 87 and 13 representatives out of 72 in the lower house of the legislature. Ex-Governor Davis told me of some town with only 267 voters which elects a senator. Mr. CAPRON. Will the gentleman allow me? Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I yield for a question only. Mr. CAPRON. What the gentleman speaks of is the result of a provision of our State constitution which we have attempted

3858

several times to change, bat our efforts have been defeated by the Democrats. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. I will tell you about that, too, a little later on. Mr. CAPRON. That was repealed years ago. Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Wait; I am making this speech. I yielded for a question; not for a speech. Governor Davis stated further that under the present unfair and un-American arrangement it could be shown by mathematical demonstration that about 36,000 people out of over 400,000 elect a majority of both branches of the legislature, and thereby absolutely control the political affairs of the State. Yet, we hear loud lamentations about unfair election laws in the South. In Rhode Island they still have that relic of barbarism known as a "property qualification." If a man owns $134 worth of real estate, he. is a voter for all purposes. If he does not own that much realty, but owns and pays taxes on $134 worth of personal property, he is a voter for all purposes. The almighty dollar and not intelligence is the qualification for full suffrage. Then they have what they call registered voters, who are voters for certain purposes and are not voters for certain other purposes. Yet we hear a great deal of hypocritical whining about the suppression of voters down South. I commend to these philanthropic doctors the Scripture, which says, "Physician, heal thyself." Under this outrageous Rhode Island apportionment for legislative purposes the Democrats would have to carry the State by 23,000 or 30,000 majority in order to have a majority on joint ballot in the legislature, whereby they could elect a Senator of the United States, and by a much larger majority in order to control both houses of the State legislature. I was told by Mr. Green, chairman of the State Democratic committee, that the Republican supreme court judges had given the Republican governor an opinion to the effect that there is no power lodged anywhere to authorize the people of Rhode Island to hold a constitutional convention to frame a new constitution to cure this outrageous apportionment and other ills and oppressions from which the people of Rhode Island now suffer! The only way they can secure a constitutional convention to form a new constitution is first to submit and adopt an amendment authorizing the calling of such a convention! Here is the peculiar modus operandi of adopting a constitutional amendment: The proposed amendment must be passed by a majority of each house of two different legislatures and then be adopted at the polls! As the little towns now elect a large majority of each house of the legislature, and as such amendment would deprive the small towns of a large portion of their present unjust power and unfair representation, the chances are that no such amendment can be parsed through each house of two succeeding legislatures. It looks like nothing short of a revolution would give Republican Rhode Island a fair and modern system of voting — such as we have in Democratic Missouri. I was told that in the city of Woonsocket 400 men begged the assessor to put them on the tax list, offering to swear and to prove that they possessed the 8134 of property necessary to entitle them to vote under Rhode Island's mediaeval constitution. The assessor, who was a Republican, refused to put them on the tax list. They were Democrats and undertook to mandamus the assessor and compel him to do so, but the judge, a Republican, decided that they were too late in their application, as the tax lists had already been made up! [Laughter.] The next time they endeavored to compel the assessor by mandamus to put them on before he completed his lists: but the judge decided that the assessor was not required to put them on on any particular day of the designated time, and that he might intend to put them on the next day or the next, and again denied them the prayer of their petition — the right to be taxed and to vote. Once they were too late. Next time they were too early. [Laughter.] I guess that that is the only instance in the entire history of the human race where men asked, begged, and instituted a lawsuit to be permitted to be taxed. The gentleman from Connecticut says that the government of the District of Columbia, where nobody can vote, is a model government — the best in the United States, as I understood him. I deny that proposition. It is a carpetbag government, for the most part. 1 am not criticising the individuals who compose it. They may be good and efficient men. or they .may be the reverse; but the people who fill the District of Columbia offices — not the Federal offices, but the local offices — ought to be bona fide citizens of the District and not broken-down politicians from the States fastened upon this people to eat up their substance. Congress sits here two days in the week as a common council

for the city of Washington — a duty for which it is unfit by reason of ignorance of the wants of the people and of the proper relation of one thing to another. The fact that under the shadow of the nation's Capitol 800.000 American citizens, white and black, are completely disfranchised, not permitted to vote, on any proposition under the sun, are reduced to the low estate of being the nation's wards; have no more voice in the government under which they live than have the in-habitants of Africa, is the saddest commentary to be found anywhere on the theory of representative government. "Why should they not vote? It is a manly, invigorating exercise. I would like to be here the day they elect the first Delegate to Congress. It would double discount a Donnybrook lair. There would be 800 candidates at least. [Laughter.] During the Fifty-third Congress there waste be a meeting down-town to agitate for the restoration of self-government. I was invited to speak. I accepted the invitation. It was so announced in some of the papers. A delegation composed of Democrats and Republicans waited on me to protest. I asked them why the people of the District should not enjoy the right of suffrage. A Re-publican answered: "The damned niggers and poor whites would vote us into bankruptcy!" A MEMBER. Do you say that a Republican said "damned niggers?" Mr. CLARK of Missouri. Yes; I was told by one who claimed to know that he was a Republican. It appears to me that it is rather late in our history to give color to the absurd and unjust proposition that a poor white is not fit to vote by disfranchising a whole populous city and district. The refusal of the right of suffrage to the people of this District turns back the hands of the clock more than a century. It is a dangerous performance, because the plan may be copied in some other part of the Union and in every other part. It is an open confession in the face of the world that pro tanto our experiment in representative government is a failure. I want to say here and now that if a colored man is good enough to vote in the Ninth Congressional district of Missouri, he is good enough to vote in the District of Columbia and to say how his taxes shall be levied and disbursed — to take a hand in running his own government. I am not in favor of making ah experimental governmental political station of the Sandwich Islands, as you are making one out of the District of Columbia. The truth is that for sixty years every bad piece of legislation that Congress wanted to adopt was first tried on the helpless people of this District. If it did not destroy them, then they extended the experiment to the rest of us. [Laughter.] I agree fully with my distinguished friend from Illinois [Mr. HITT] that we can not bind the future. I wanted to bind the future when we annexed the Hawaiian Islands. We can not bind future Congresses by saying that we will not make a State out of them; but we can say that those people, being ours now, shall have a chance to educate themselves in the difficult art of self-government, and that we will not treat them in the outrageous manner in which we treat the people of this District. I want to say further that every time we take in a new island, so far as I am concerned, you will have to extend to it the Constitution of the United States and the liberties that we enjoy. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CLARK] asks unanimous consent to print as a part of hid remarks the bill in regard to the District of Columbia and to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Without objection, it will be so ordered. There was no objection. Mr. SPERRY. Mr. Chairman, I should not arise at this time to say anything concerning this matter, but I want to set one thing right which has been said by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] about the State of Connecticut. The State of Connecticut has been alluded to here, and so has , the city of New Haven. When the State of Connecticut was formed, it was formed of the little towns which made up the State. Those little towns were unlike any other towns that I know of in the United States. Those little towns were 1ittle republics of themselves, and when the constitution of 1818 was formed a provision was inserted in the preamble that all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the people of Connecticut had received from their ancestors were vouchsafed to them under the new constitution, besides all of the original towns were given two representatives. Now, some towns have increased largely in population. At the time our constitution was formed the towns were substantially equal in population. There was but little difference; but since then a town here and there has arisen, like New Haven, like Hartford, like the towns up through the valley of Nangatuck. Those towns have increased, but the original towns have their two representatives in the general assembly. The small original towns which have not greatly increased in population still have their

3859

two representatives. It is a constitutional provision; it is a right which they received from their ancestors, and the reason why the representation is not changed in Connecticut to-day is as I have stated. The city of New Haven has 125,000 population, and the city of Hartford probably 80,000, but they are only entitled to two representatives under the constitution. Now. we should not care to change places with the other towns in the State. New Haven has grown, and Hartford has grown, and yet they have only their two representatives. Now, when an attempt is made to amend the constitution, or if an amendment is offered to the constitution, the little towns largely outnumber the large towns, and the little towns are jealous of their rights, for which 1 do not blame them, and they do not propose to give to the cities any more representation in the general assembly than they originally had, to wit. two from each town, and only two. That is the situation in Connecticut, and 1 thought it was but right that I should have you understand our position, and bow we have come into the situation that we are in, and how it is impossible, in my judgment, to change that system of representation. Yet the good old State of Connecticut has a history that she may well be proud of. Connecticut was the first State to give civil liberty to man by a written constitution. The Newman barn constitution at New Haven, and the Hartford. Windsor, and Wethersfield constitution will remain for all time a monument to the judgment, the wisdom, and the patriotism of the early settlers of Connecticut. [Great applause.] Mr. KNOX. I ask for a vote. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut. The amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows:FEDERAL COURT.Sec. 87. That a judicial district court of the United States is established for the Territory of Hawaii, to be called the district of Hawaii, which shall be includedin the ninth judicial circuit of the United States. The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall appoint a district judge, a district attorney, and a mar-shall of the United States for the said district. The district court for the said district shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of district courtsof the United States, jurisdiction of all cases congnizable in a circuit court,and shall proceed therein to the same manner as a circuit court. The laws of the United States, relating to appeals, writs of error, removal of causes,and other matters and proceedings as between the courts of the UnitedStates and the courts of the several States shall govern in such matters andproceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the Territory of Hawaii. Regular terms of said courts shall be held at Honolulu on the second Monday in April and October and at Hilo on the last Wednesday in January of each year; and special terms may be held at such times and places in said district as the said judge may deem expedient. Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to that section which I wish to offer. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa offers an amendment which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:Section 87, page 91, line 7, add the following: "The said district judge shall appoint a clerk for said court at a salary of $3,000 per annum, and shall appoint a reporter of said court at a salary of $1,200 per annum."The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I offer the amendment which I Bend to the Clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out section 87 and insert the following:"FEDERAL COURT. "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 for the said district, and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for six 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, and said judge shall have and exercise in the Territory of Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges of district and circuit courts of the United States. Writs of error and appeals from said district court shall be 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. and the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said district court. The laws of the United States relating to appeals, writs of error, removal of causes, and other matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the several States shall govern in such matters and proceedings as between the courts of the United States and the courts of the Territory of Hawaii. Regular terms of said court shall be held at Honolulu on the second Monday in April and October and at Hilo on the lust Wednesday in January of each year: and special terms may be held at such times and places in said district as the said judge may deem expedient."Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I will state to the chairman of the committee and to the members of the House that this provision is a Senate provision. I desire to call the attention of members to the further fact that by the section read in the House bill no term is fixed for the judge, the marshal, or the district attorney, nor is any reference made as to how long they shall hold.

Mr. KNOX. The court established by the House bill is a constitutional court, and the terms of its officers are regulated by law — the judge for life and the marshal for four years. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. The Senate provision is to limit the terms of these three officers to six years. I think that accords with the vote of the House the other day in limiting the terms of the circuit judges to four years There has been a theory that these officers ought to hold for a long time. In my judgment, we ought to limit the time. The amendment I offer, which is a Senate provision, limits the term of each of these officers to six years. The Senate provision also says that they shall reside in the Territory. That provision is absent in the section that I desire to have stricken out. This provision was well considered by the Senate, and in my judgment, after carefully looking over both sections, the Senate provision which I have offered as an amendment is the better of the two. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does not seem to take in the broad distinction which there is in the bill of the House from that of the Senate bill. He picks out different items without considering the broad distinction. The Senate creates a legislative court under the general power of the Constitution that Congress has authority to regulate and provide for the Territory and other property of the United States. If I may be permitted to refer to the discussion in the Senate, it turned, not upon the wisdom or desirability of a Federal court, but upon the constitutional power of Congress to create a Federal court in a Territory. Now, this provides for a Federal court, a constitutional court. If it is a constitutional court, then the tenure of its officers is regulated by the Constitution, and there is no power in this House to change it. If, on the other band, it is changed and made a legislative court, then, of course, all its provisions are entirely within the jurisdiction of the House to change. Now, the desirability of establishing a constitutional court is for the purpose of entirely separating the local and Territorial litigation from the Federal litigation. We make a Federal court having strictly Federal jurisdiction, from which appeals and writs of error lie to the Supreme Court and circuit court of appeals. The Senate, on the other hand, creates a district court with some Federal jurisdiction, at the same time providing that appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of the Territory shall lie to the Ninth judicial circuit. We have there a court of mixed jurisdiction, from which confusion will inevitably result. A great deal of time was spent upon the consideration of this provision and, the House provision was unanimously agreed to by the committee. Let me suggest that we will have trouble if we legislate according to the gentleman's prevision. Suppose a judge is sick and that he has to go away: perhaps the President would not like to remove him, and. not being a constitutional court, the judge of the district of California could not go there to preside. I think the only fear that there was when this question was first mooted among lawyers as to Hawaii courts and the establishment of a Federal court in the Territory has passed away upon reflection and consultation, and it is for the benefit of Hawaii as a Territory that this jurisdiction be kept separate, and that they have a regular Federal court of Hawaii. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. The suggestion of the amendment is that they might have an appeal to the Ninth or California district. Mr. KNOX. Of course it does, and if that court is established they may appeal from the supreme court of the Territory, because you have a double jurisdiction. It is our purpose to entirely separate them: and I would say to the gentleman that if there is any doubt about the constitutionality of this question in conference, why, then, of course, a special provision will be adopted. I wish that the gentleman would not offer the amendment. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Upon the suggestion that this matter will go into conference anyway. I will not insist upon it. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. LANE. What about my amendment? The CHAIRMAN. It is adopted. The Clerk read as follows: SEC. 92. That the public property ceded and transferred to the United States by the republic of Hawaii under the joint resolution of annexation, approved July 7, 1898, shall be and remain in the possession, use. and control of the government of the Territory of Hawaii, and shall be maintained, managed, and cared for by it. at its own expense, until otherwise provided for by Congress, or taken for the uses and purposes of the United States by direction of the President or of the governor of Hawaii.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: On page 93, section 92, line 2, add the following: "And all moneys in the Hawaiian treasury and all the revenues and other property acquired by the republic of Hawaii since said cession shall be and remain the property of the Territory of Hawaii."The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:SEC. 93. That the following officers shall receive the following annual salaries, to be paid by the United States: The governor, $5,000; the secretary of

3860

the Territory, $3,000; the United States district judge, $5,000; the United States marshal, $2,000; the United States district attorney, $2,000. And the governor shall receive annually, in addition to his salary, the sum of $500 for stationery, postage, and incidentals; also his traveling expenses while absent from the capital on official business, and the sum of $2,000 annually for his private secretary.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I desire to offer to that section. The Clerk read as follows: On page 98, section 93, in line 6, after the word "dollars," add the words "and the chief justice of the supreme court of the Territory, $5,500 and associate justices, $5,000." The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I offer an amendment to follow the last amendment I would like to have the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to this amendment. The Clerk read as follows:Add, after the word "judge" of the last amendment, "salaries of the said chief justice and associates of the supreme court and the judges of the circuit court, as above provided for, shall be paid by the Territory of Hawaii." Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. That provides that the salaries of the United States courts, the stenographer, and clerk shall be paid by the United States, and the salaries of the Territorial judges shall be paid by the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. KNOX. What salaries? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. The salaries of the Territorial judges shall be paid by the Territory. Mr. KNOX. The circuit court judges? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. And the judges of the supreme court of Hawaii. Mr. KNOX. Well The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:PROCEEDINGS FOR OPENING FISHERIES TO CITIZENS. SEC. 97. That any person who claims a private right to any such fishery shall, within two years after the taking effect of this act, file his petition in a circuit court of the Territory of Hawaii, setting forth his claim to such fishing right, service of which petition shall be made upon the attorney-general, who shall conduct the case for the Territory, and such case shall be conducted as an ordinary action at law. That if such fishing right be established, the governor of the Territory of Hawaii may proceed, in a manner provided by law for the condemnation of property for public use, to condemn such private right of fishing to the use of the citizens of the United States upon making just compensation, which Compensation, when lawfully ascertained, shall be paid out of any money in the treasury of the Territory of Hawaii not otherwise appropriated. Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amend section 97 by striking out the last five words, to wit ——Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. There was a break in the section. When I drafted the amendment it occurred to me that that was not the section. What I meant to offer as an amendment is this: In line 23, section 97, the last five words are, "an ordinary action at law." I want to insert in lieu of those words " ordinary actions at law or in equity." The committee seem to assume that —— The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will please suspend and send the amendment to the desk. It will then be reported to the committee. The Clerk read as follows:Amend section 97 by striking out the last five words in line 23, to wit, "an ordinary action at law," and substitute these words: "ordinary actions at law or in equity."Mr. GILBERT. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said, the amendment is not very material, but it ought to be inserted, because the report of the committee seems to assume that in settling controversies in the court upon questions of that sort it is always a purely legal issue. Lawyers know that that sort of question is very frequently by equity suit, and it ought to be ordinary actions at law and actions in equity. Mr. FINLEY. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. GILBERT. Certainly. Mr. FINLEY. If I understood the gentleman's amendment, it is this: If in the settlement of property rights condemnation proceedings were necessary, it should be in courts of law or in courts of equity. Is that correct? Mr. GILBERT. It is. Mr. FINLEY. I would like to ask the gentleman this question: Does he not think that the provision of the Constitution of the United States providing that no property shall be taken for public use without due process of law means a trial by jury, and therefore is an action at law? Mr. GILBERT. In the Kentucky practice in a proceeding for the condemnation of property for public uses we do not necessarily have a jury. I think this means process by due course of law in the courts. We do not necessarily have a jury trial. Mr. KNOX. I wish to say that this question does not deal with the right but with the method of procedure. Some method of procedure must be provided, in the same way as taking lands for a public highway. When you condemn property for a public use

and compensation is made according to a certain method of pro-cedure, we provide the method by which it shall be done, the same as an action at law. If you include equity in it, then no method of procedure is provided. Mr. GILBERT. The gentleman does not catch the force of my amendment. The bill restricts the procedure to common-law cases. By the terms of your bill the vested right is destroyed unless the party can vindicate it in court by a common-law issue, by a trial by ordinary proceedings at common law. Now, by this « amendment I merely broaden the rights of the man who is claiming the vested right, so that if he can show the courts that he has a vested right in the property, as the issue is an equitable one, he can maintain it. His right to property is none the less if it is an equitable one, but upon the terms of this bill he is confined to a common-law action as contradistinguished from an equitable pro-ceeding. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered . by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GILBERT]. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:On page 91, section 97, line 84, strike out; the words "the governor" and insert in lieu thereof "the attorney-general."The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to return to the amendment adopted on the question of salaries of judges being paid by the Territory of Hawaii, and ask to add an amendment. Mr. KNOX. What section is it? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I will ask the Clerk to read the original amendment. The Clerk read as follows:The salaries of said chief justice and associate justices of the supreme court and the judges of the circuit court as above provided shall be paid by the Territory of Hawaii.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. That was the amendment adopted. Now, I propose an amendment to that. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent to return to section 93 for the purpose of offering an amendment. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows:The judges of the circuit courts, of whom the two judges for the first circuit shall each receive an annual salary of $4.0000, and the judges for the second, third, fourth, and fifth circuits, respectively, an annual salary of $3,000 each.The amendment was disagreed to. The Clerk, proceeding with the reading of the bill, read as follows:SEC. 09. 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, Euterpe, Star of Russia, Falls of Clyde, and Wilscott, shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefits and privileges appertaining thereto.Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to hear from the chairman of the committee some explanation of this section of the bill, which, in my judgment, ought not to be in the bill at all, because of the superior jurisdiction of the maritime laws of the United States over the Territorial law, and particularly because of certain dangerous provisions in the bill, or rather the lack of a careful provision, in my judgment. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, this section provides that Hawaiian ships — ships that had a Hawaiian register at the time of annexation — are given a United States register. They could have no other register; they would be sailing without a flag and without a nationality. The Hawaiian flag went down upon the government building in Hawaii on August 12, 1898. and the American flag was raised with proper ceremonies. No flag of Hawaii from that moment means anything, and a vessel sailing under a Hawaiian flag is sailing under no flag and no nationality. Now. there were brought to the attention of the committee by many gentlemen claims that there were other vessels than those which had a Hawaiian register that were entitled to a Hawaiian register upon this ground; that they had been bought in good faith by Hawaiians and intended for a Hawaiian register, but sailing under a temporary register, or sea letter, and without any notice of this transfer of sovereignty or of the annexation resolution. Now, if that were so. then they should be entitled to the benefits of this register; but there were statements made that there were very many vessels that would claim the benefit of this American register, and you can see that it would be a matter of thousands of dollars in the pockets of anyone who could obtain an American register by claiming that they were purchased and intended for a Hawaiian register. So the committee, fearing the result of a general provision, and the number who would claim that they owned vessels intended

3861for a Hawaiian register, heard and voted upon the particular cases presented in order to determine as a question of fact whether these vessels were purchased in good faith, purchased without the knowledge of a transfer of Hawaii to the United States. And the committee, having heard these cases, named these vessels in this section, so that there might be no mistake whatever, and no claim made hereafter by men seeking to get in and get a United States register by claiming that they were intended for the Hawaiian register. Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend by inserting, after the word "eight," in line 5 of section 09, these words:And which were owned bona fide by citizens of the United States or citizens of Hawaii.Mr. Chairman —— Mr. KNOX. I make no objection to that amendment. Mr. GROSVENOR. But I want to say a few words upon it Mr. KNOX. All right. Mr. GROSVENOR. This provision of the bill is an attempt to legislate about matters that do not belong to any Territorial organization; but to that I shall not make any strong objection A bill is already pending, and will no doubt be passed, with the proper limitations and restrictions, admitting to American registry all vessels that ought to be covered by any act of the United States. In the investigation which the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries has made it appears that following the annexation of these islands a very loose system of registry was in vogue and a great many ships suddenly took on Hawaiian registries, so MI to get into our coastwise trade by this loose system of registry when they could not have gotten in in any other way. These registries were issued to foreign ships, strictly foreign ships, that had no possible connection with our merchant marine. Now, the purpose of this amendment is to minimize at least the injury which I think this bill is liable to do by providing that at the time of registry these ships must have been owned by American citizens or citizens of Hawaii. As the bill stands now, anybody who during that period of time secured surreptitiously an American register can come right in under the provisions of the bill. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, only a word. As to our committee usurping any jurisdiction, let me say that this bill, with the provision to which the gentleman objects, was recommended by the commission which Congress authorized and the President appointed and which visited Hawaii. We took the bill as we found it, with this provision. The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. GROSVENOR, it was agreed to. Mr. CUSHMAN. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: *Immediately after section 99 add the following: "SEC. — . At the expiration of one year after the passage and approval of this act the coasting trade between the islands aforesaid and any other portion of the United States shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two coasting districts, except those pro visions relating to license and enrollment: And provided, That such vessels must sail under a register."Mr. CUSHMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered and which has just been read is one that was adopted upon my suggestion by the committee, and has the unanimous indorsement of that committee. This amendment, in substance, simply provides that the shipping laws of the United States governing the coasting trade shall be extended to and include the Territory of Hawaii; provided that such law shall not be in force and effect until one year from and after the passage and approval of this act. It may be said by some that this amendment of mine is not in favor of American shipping interests, because it will leave this field open to foreign vessels for the period of the next year. However, in truth and in fact, my amendment is designed for the benefit and encouragement of American shipping interests. Let me illustrate briefly the practical application of this amendment of mine. At the present time there are not anywhere near a sufficient number of vessels engaged in the trade between the United States and Hawaii, either to carry into Hawaii the products of this country or to carry from Hawaii her products. This present scarcity of vessels will be greatly increased during this summer, when every available vessel on the Pacific coast will be en-gaged in the Alaskan trade. The great gold excitement at Nome. Alaska, will take every available vessel on the coast, because the profits of the Alaskan run are much greater than those of the Hawaiian run. Then that will leave us with not enough American vessels to carry on this trade. If the coasting laws are now extended to this

There is no man in this House who is more anxious to build up American shipping than I am and who will go further with his vote to favor American shipping; but I do not want this bill passed without my amendment, for in effect it would destroy our traffic with Hawaii by taking away our foreign ships without giving us anything in their place. Do not let us destroy what we now have until we are ready to replace it with something else equally as good. It will take at least a year for any shipyard to build a ship suitable for the trade between the Pacific coast and Hawaii. If my amendment shall prevail, this will be notice to every Hawaiian transportation line that within a year after the passage of this act, if they expect to continue in this trade, they must have American ships to do the carrying trade. Hence they will at once place their orders for ships for this traffic, and thus will my amendment offer encouragement for the upbuilding of American shipping. If the amendment shall not prevail, we of the Pacific North-west will be left for the next year with no carrying trade to and from Hawaii, and the transportation companies, who have at great expense been the pioneers in building up this trade, will lose the money they have spent in building it up, and neither the American people nor the Hawaiian people will benefit thereby, but the products of each country will lie rotting for a year waiting for a market. Mr. Chairman, I trust my amendment will prevail. The question being taken, the amendment of Mr. CUSHMAN wasThe Clerk read as follows: SEC. 100. That the portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been on August 12, 1898, and prior, thereto, the property of the Hawaiian government, and to be free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever upon the rents, issues, and profits thereof. It shall be subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by law. Mr. McRAE. I move to amend the paragraph just read by striking out, in line 17, the words "alienation and other uses" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "such disposal so as to read: "It shall be subject to such disposal as my be provided by law."Mr. KNOX. It seems to me that the change of language willnot make any difference whatever in the effect of the provision. Mr. McRAE. I submit that the words proposed in my amendment are the proper words to be used in reference to the publicdomain.The question being taken on the amendment; there were ayes 46, noes 60. So the amendment was rejected. The Clerk read as follows:SEC. 102. That Chinese in the Hawaiian Islands when this act takes effect may within one year thereafter obtain certificates of residence as required by "An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States," approved May 5, 1892, as amended by an act approved November 3, 1893, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States,' approved May 5, 1892," and until the expiration of said year shall not be deemed to be unlawfully in the United States if found therein without such certificates.Mr. KNOX. I move to amend by adding at the end of the section just read the following:Provided, however. That no Chinese laborer, whether he shall hold such certificate or not, shall be allowed to enter any State, Territory, or district of the United States from the Hawaiian Islands.The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment, which will be reported by the Clerk. The Clerk read as follows: Amend by striking out all of section 102 and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: "SEC. 103. All Chinese and other Asiatics who came or were brought into Hawaii since August 13, 1898, under any contracts or contract whereby they bound themselves or are or were bound to any term of service, shall depart therefrom and from the United States within one year from the taking effect of this act; and any such persons being in Hawaii or elsewhere within the United States after the expiration of such period shall be dealt with as if found within the United States in violation of the Chinese exclusion act."Mr. DE ARMOND. Mr. Chairman, the object of that amendment is plainly apparent from the reading of it. Since August 13, 1898, many thousand Chinese and other Asiatics have been brought to the Hawaiian Islands under labor contracts, and they are there now. If this amendment be adopted these people will have to take themselves away or be taken away within a year after the taking effect of this act, and such of them as may fail

Territory of Hawaii, this extension to take effect upon the passage of this act, then all foreign vessels — which are now carrying our Puget Sound trade with Hawaii — will be driven out. Then we. will have neither foreign vessels to carry the trade nor American ships to take the place of the foreign ships.

to go at the expiration of that time will be there in violation of the laws for the exclusion of Chinese, and will be deported or otherwise dealt with, as other Chinamen violating the Chinese-exclusion act. Mr. BARHAM. Will the gentleman allow me there? Mr. DE ARMOND. Yes. Mr. BARHAM. This is a substitute for section 102? Mr. DE ARMOND. Yes. Mr. BARHAM. Now, if your amendment is adopted, it will let into the United States all of the Chinese that are not there under

3862

labor contracts, and yon certainly do not want that. Yon cer-tainly do not want this section stricken out It would let them all into the United States. The section as amended by the amendment offered by the chairman of the committee [Mr. KNOX] brings the Chinese in that island all under the exclusion act and prohibits them from coming to the United States from that island. If you add this to the section as amended by the chairman, then it would have force and effect, but you ought not to offer your amendment in lieu of that. Mr. DE ARMOND. It did not seem to me from the reading of the amendment that the proposition I offer would have that effect; but it may have, and in order to obviate that I will offer it as a new provision, a new paragraph. My amendment was drawn for the section as it was before any amendment to it had been adopted. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as offered in that way. Mr. KNOX. I did not hear the gentleman's remark. This amendment would leave all the Chinese and Japanese in the island who were there previous to that time. If the gentleman's amendment is to be offered, it should be offered as a new paragraph. Mr. DE ARMOND. I offer it as a new paragraph. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that course will be pursued. Mr. SNODGRASS. I should like to ask the gentleman a question. You say that all Chinese and Asiatics that have been brought into those islands under contracts shall depart in one year or be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Chinese-exclusion act. What are the provisions of that act? Mr. DE ARMOND. Oh. I have not time to go into that Mr. SNODGRASS. If those people have been brought to those Islands —— Mr. DE ARMOND. I can not yield to the gentleman for a speech in my time, nor could I read the provisions of the Chinese-exclusion act in twice five minutes. Mr. SNODGRASS. I wish to be heard in opposition to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DE ARMOND] has the floor. Mr. DE ARMOND. The object of the amendment is to prevent the coining into the United States and to take away from Hawaii those Asiatic laborers who came in under contract — some twenty-five or thirty thousand of them. It is not enough that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. KNOX] may exclude them from the United States proper. Whether it does it I can not tell, because I merely heard the amendment as it was read in the confusion of the House; but granting that it does, that, to my mind, is not sufficient. They ought not to remain in Hawaii. The contract system ought not to be maintained there, but they should be deported and should be dealt with in Hawaii, as well as in other parts of the United States, as are Chinese here against the provisions of our law, made, I suppose, for due reason and sufficient cause for the exclusion of the Chinese. 1 would like to have these contract laborers taken out of the Hawaiian Islands as well as prevented from coming to any other part of the United States. The amendment now pending, I think, will have that effect. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. Mr. KNOX. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended five minutes. Mr. DE ARMOND. I do not care for that much time. I only want a moment. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will proceed. Mr. DE ARMOND. It will supplement that which the gentleman from Massachusetts sought to accomplish by the amendment offered by him to the section. As I caught the reading of his amendment, I think that the two provisions are in harmony and not at all in conflict. I think it is entirely right to prevent any and all of the Chinamen in the Hawaiian Islands from coming to any other part of the domain of the United States of America and that it is also proper and right and highly desirable to have all of the Chinese who are there under this contract-labor system taken hence as soon as possible. A year is a reasonable time in which to quit our domain without hardship to them. Mr. BARHAM. The gentleman's amendment does not now propose to strike out the other, as I understand it. Mr. DE ARMOND. This is a new proposition. Mr. BARHAM. I should like to have the amendment reported. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment will be reported in its present form. The Clerk read as follows:Amend by inserting the following at the end of section 102: "All Chinese and other Asiatics who came or were brought into Hawaii

since August 12, 1898, under any contracts or contract whereby they bound themselves, or were or are bound to any term of service, shall depart therefrom and from the United States within one year from the date of the taking; effect of this act, and any such person being in Hawaii or elsewhere in the United States after the expiration of said period shall be dealt with as if found within the United States in violation of the Chinese-exclusion act."Mr. SNODGRASS. Mr. Chairman, the people affected by this provision are poor people. They may not be able to get away at the end of the time mentioned; and I think if that amendment is adopted, there ought to be some provision requiring the persons who brought them into those islands under labor contracts to aid them to get away. If we are going to deal with them thus sum-marily, we ought to provide some way that they may be carried back. Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. That is provided for in the Chinese-exclusion act. Mr. SNODGRASS. That is what I wished to ask the gentleman from Missouri when I addressed an inquiry to him. with reference to the provisions of the exclusion act. Is that a provision of that act? Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. It is. Mr. SNODGRASS. Then I withdraw all opposition to the amendment. The amendment offered by Mr. DE ARMOND was agreed to. Mr. NEWLANDS. I offer the amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada offers an amendment which will be reported by the Clerk. The amendment was read, as follows:Amend section 102 by adding: "That there shall be a commissioner of labor, who shall be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed, whose duty shall be to acquire and diffuse among the people of Hawaii useful information on subjects connected with labor, and especially upon its relation to capital, the hours of labor, the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral prosperity. "It shall be his duty to make annual reports to the governor and legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, and also to the Department of Labor in the United States. The commissioner of labor is also specially charged to inves-tigate the causes of and facts relating to all controversies and disputes be-tween employers and employees as they may occur, and which may tend to interfere with the welfare of the people of Hawaii, and to report thereon to the legislature of Hawaii and to the Department of Labor in the United States. The commissioner of labor shall annually make a report in writing to the governor and legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, as well as to the Department of Labor in the United States, of the information collected and collated by him, and containing such recommendations as he may deem cal-culated to promote the efficiency of the Department. He shall require such statements as may be prescribed by the Department of Labor in the United States, from all employers of labor, as to the number of laborers employed, the nationality of the laborers, the daily, weekly, and monthly wages paid, and such other information as the Department of Labor may require. Any failure to make such a statement by any person or corporation shall subject such person or corporation to a penalty of $100 for each and every refusal, to be collected and enforced by the government of the Territory of Hawaii in the courts of Hawaii, and to such other additional penalties as may be prescribed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii. The legislature of Hawaii may add to the powers and duties of the commissioner of labor as herein prescribed, and may prescribe additional penalties."Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for the appointment of an official whose special duty it shall be to inquire into all questions relating to labor in the Hawaiian Islands, to collect and present statistics both to the governor of Hawaii, the legislature of Hawaii, and the Depart-ment of Labor at Washington. It provides that this commis-sioner shall be appointed by the President, for the reason that I deem it unwise that this appointment should be given to the gov-ernor of the Territory, or that the labor commissioner should be elected -by the people there. The great danger to Republican in-stitutions in those islands arises from their system of land tenure, which means centralization of land ownership in corporations of large capital, for the plantations are almost universally held and owned by corporations, and from the labor system that has prevailed there. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question there? Mr. NEWLANDS. Very well. Mr. COX. I could not determine from your amendment what term of office is fixed or the salary? Mr. NEWLANDS. The term is fixed at four years. I have not provided for the salary. This commissioner should be appointed by the President of the United States, because we should see to it that a republican government is maintained there; and the danger to republican government largely arises from the system of labor which the governing class there seek to maintain. Reports are to be made not only to the governor and the legislature of those islands, but to the Department of Labor in the United States, so that his reports to us annually may present all the statistical information. Now. it has been the custom in almost every State in the Union to appoint such commissioners of labor and to organize such departments of labor. They have done great and efficient work. We have a Commissioner of Labor of the United States and a United States Department of Labor, and the work of that department has been most

3863

beneficial. It seems to me that we can not properly organize the government of Hawaii unless we provide for a department whose special function it is to collect statistical informal on in relation 'to the labor conditions of that country and to present it to the local governing body and the supervising and controlling Government of the United States. Mr. KNOX. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. KNOX. Does not the jurisdiction of our Labor Commissioner extend to-day to the Territories? Mr. NEWLANDS. No; I do not so understand. I present this amendment after consultation with the Labor Commissioner to-day. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Wright. Does he approve it? Mr. NEWLANDS. There are some additions made; but noth-ing at all that antagonizes his recommendation. Mr. McRAE. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. McRAE. Can not he so modify his amendment as to impose these duties upon the commissioner of agriculture and forestry there? Mr. NEWLANDS. The commissioner of agriculture and forestry there is elected by the people. Mr. McRAE. If you require him to perform this duty, I think it will be a saving to the government. Mr. NEWLANDS. I do not want this duty to be performed by any official who will be a representative of the very land system which is interested in maintaining and preserving this system of labor. I wish this commissioner to be appointed by the President of the United States. Mr. McRAE. The objection I see to it is that he has very little to do, and this other officer has very little to do, and these are two big salaries. Mr. NEWLANDS. That can be taken in hand by the conferees and disposed of. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the "noes" appeared to have it. Mr. NEWLANDS. I call for a division. The committee divided; and there were — ayes 39, noes 83. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. NEWLANDS. I offer the following amendment. The Clerk read as follows:Amend section 102 by adding: "That it is hereby declared to be the purpose of the United States to promote the increase of free white labor in the Territory of Hawaii and to discourage the employment of Asiatics, and to that end it is enacted that every corporation employing labor in Hawaii shall, within one year from the passage of this act, employ at least one-tenth of its laborers from citizens of the United States, citizens of the Territory of Hawaii, and other free white persons, and that such corporations shall increase the number of such laborers one-tenth annually, until at least three-fourths of their laborers shall be citizens of the United States, citizens of the Territory of Hawaii, or other free white persons. Any violation of this provision shall subject the corporation guilty of such violation to the forfeiture of its franchise and to such other penalties as may be prescribed by the legislature of Hawaii."Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to gradually relieve Hawaii of the intolerable conditions arising from the employment of Asiatic labor. As it stands to-day these islands are almost entirely devoted to the production of sugar, a production which has been made vastly profitable by the markets which this country has afforded. Lands have risen to fabulous values. The prices received for their products and the profits made have been such as to warrant the employment of a higher class of laborers and a much more expensive system of labor. Notwithstanding that fact, these corporations which own or control almost all the sugar lands and whose influence is potential in government have steadily encouraged Asiatic immigration to those islands, instead of endeavoring to increase white immigration to those islands. Their contention has been that the climate is unsuited to white labor. I have it from those who are informed as to the climate that it is not unsuited to white labor, and especially not unsuited to those white laborers who live in semitropical countries and semitropical climates, such as the Portuguese and Italians, who constitute a most useful portion of our population, whose children are educated in our schools, and who soon become, as citizens of a republican government, devoted to its institutions and its principles. Now, the question is, How can we relieve these islands from the Incubus that has been fastened upon them by a false labor system without injustice to existing rights and without the destruction of the business now conducted there? It is obvious that it must be gradually done. We can accomplish it by the control which the State has over the corporations which it creates. The Government can determine the class of labor which these corpora-tions shall employ, and it can subject them to the penalty of for-

feiture of their franchises if they violate the injunction of the law. These corporations control all the sugar lands of Hawaii: and as that is the occupation which employs almost all the laborers in that country, by controlling the corporations in the employment of Asiatic labor you regulate the evil complained of. Now, I provide in this amendment for the gradual increase in the white labor employed by these corporations. The amendment provides for the employment of one-tenth within the first year and an increase of one-tenth every year, until at least three-quarters of the employees of these corporations shall be citizens of the United States, which includes white and black citizens of the United States, citizens of the Territory of Hawaii, which includes the Kanakas and other white people, such as Italians and Portuguese, who can migrate to these islands, and thus gradually three-quarters of the now Asiatic population of these islands will increase by the addition of such persons, white or black, as are now citizens of the United States and by the immigration of laborers of the white race who are accustomed to a semitropical climate. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nevada has expired. Mr. NEWLANDS. I ask an extension of five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada asks that his time be extended five minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. COX. Now, will the gentleman yield to me for a question? Mr. NEWLANDS. Just for a question. Mr. COX. Why do you exclude the negro there? Mr. NEWLANDS. I do not. Mr. COX. You say free white people. Mr. NEWLANDS. No, I do not; I say citizens of the United States, citizens of the Territory of Hawaii and other free white persons, Now, of the United States includes the negroesthat are in the United States.Mr. COX. Well, put my nigger in, and that is all I want.[Laughter.]Mr. NEWLANDS. Negroes of the United States can go to these islands. The plan which I advocate will not work any vio-lent change in the existing system of labor, nor will it operate inthe end to the disadvantage of the capital employed there. I am as anxious as anyone to avoid that. The process is merely onewhich reaches out for corporations which are creatures of theState and whose franchises are subject to the control of the State.It exercises reasonable control over their employment of labor,to the advantage of the Government and to the advantage of therepublican institutions.Nor will it work an injustice to the Asiatic labor now employed there. The change will be gradual; and as these islands grow in business, as they are bound to do, it is probable that the Asiatic laborers now employed there and displaced by the gradual system which this amendment provides for will be absorbed by new enterprises, or will be glad to return to their homes with the accumulations which most of them acquire. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I have only one word to say in regard to this amendment, and that is. I trust that it will not prevail. The labor problem in Hawaii is a very difficult one and a very uncertain one, and what the future result is going to be there no one can foresee. The hope is, and the best hope is, that as these valuable lands which are now leased on long terms of years expire, an 3 as they become a part of the public domain, inasmuch as under this bill no future leases but for a short term can be made except by an act of Congress, it is the hope that these lands will be taken, not by men who my friend says work for corporations, but that they will be taken by individuals who go to Hawaii in good faith to take these lands as homesteaders. Mr. NEWLANDS. The gentleman has reference to the crown lands. Mr. KNOX. I refer to all public lands. This is the best hope for Hawaii. Now, the great corporations that are there, which own the great sugar plantations and great rice fields, I do not believe with reference to them that any Americans are going there to work in the rice fields. I do not believe that citizens of the United States, the men who have the enterprise to-day, who go to Alaska, are going to Hawaii to work on a sugar plantation. I believe the best hope for the Asiatics, the Japanese, and the Chinese is that they may acquire sufficient of their own means to buy these lands and own small plantations and have families there. I do not believe in opening the door and saying that these Chinese and Japanese shall ever be citizens of the United States; and I do not believe that anyone will ever work in the rice fields in Hawaii or in a tropical country unless he be a Chinaman or a Japanese or some native of a tropical country. Mr. NEWLANDS. Are there any rice fields in Hawaii? Mr. KNOX. Oh, yes. Mr. NEWLANDS. How extensive? Mr. KNOX. I do not know, but the report will give you the information.

3864Mr. HITT. It is the third export Of the island.Mr. FINLEY. I think it is the second industry in the island.

Mr. KNOX. Yes; I think it is the second. These great products will never be produced by American workmen.The CHAIRMAN. Debate on this amendment is exhausted. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gen-

tleman from Nevada [Mr. NEWLANDS].The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. NEWLANDS) there were 34 ayes and 77 noes.So the amendment was disagreed to.Mr. KNOX. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk.The Clerk read as follows:After line 16, page 97, insert two new sections, numbered 104 and 105, as follows:"SEC 104. That the laws of Hawaii relating to the establishment and conduct of any postal savings bank or institution are hereby abolished. And

the Secretary of the Treasury, in the execution of the agreement of the United States as expressed in an act entitled 'A joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July 7, 1898, shall pay the amounts on deposit in Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank to the persons entitled thereto, according to their respective rights, and he shall make all needful orders, rules, and regulations for paying such persons and for notifying such persons to present their demands for payment. So much money as is necessary to pay said demands is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be available on and after the 1st day of July, 1900, when such payments shall begin, and none of said demands shall bear interest after said date and no deposit shall be made in said bank after said date. Said demands of such persons shall be certified to by the chief executive of Hawaii as being genuine and due to the persons presenting the same, and his certificate shall be sealed with the official seal of the Territory and countersigned by its secretary, and shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, who shall draw his warrant for the amount due upon the Treasurer of the United States, and when the same are so paid no further liabilities shall exist in respect of the same against the Government of the United States or of Hawaii.

"SEC. 105. That any money of the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank that shall remain unpaid to the persons entitled thereto on the 1st day of July, 1900, and any assets of said bank, shall be turned over by the government of Hawaii to the Treasurer of the United States, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause an account to be started, as of said date, between such government of Hawaii and the United States in respect to said Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank."

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply carries out the provisions of the annexation resolution for closing up the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank. It is in the exact language recommended by the commission and adopted by the Senate.

The amendment was agreed to.Mr. HILL: I move to add as a new section the paragraph which I send to the desk.The Clerk read as follows:SEC. 106. Nothing in this act shall be construed, taken, or held to imply a pledge or promise that the Territory of Hawaii will at any future time be

admitted as a State or attached to any State.Mr. KNOX. I reserve a point of order on that amendment.Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, the number of eligible voters in the republic of Hawaii to-day is 2,800. If this bill should become a

law now, there would be to-morrow 15,000 such voters. I submit that this is rather a sudden absorption of the privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship. I submit, furthermore, that the committee itself feels precisely in the same way in re-gard to this matter; for I wish to read a clause in their report in regard to the qualifications of voters for senators, being a property qualification which I do not approve. The committee say:

The amendment striking out all property qualifications for electors of senators was made on account of great opposition made to this provision, both in the committee and by other Representatives. It appeared that such a qualification had heretofore existed in Hawaii, and this fact had been salutary, and it is hoped —

A hope in which "the gentleman from Connecticut" most heartily joins —and it is hoped that this amendment will not unfavorably affect either the character of so important a body as the senate of Hawaii or ever be the means of vicious legislation.

I regret that this legislation should be framed in so hasty and inconsiderate a manner that the committee itself feels called upon to apologize when the bill is here for the organization of this Territory.

No harm whatever can come from the passage of the amendment I have just offered. It commits Congress to nothing. It simply says that this bill and the admission of this Territory shall not be taken or construed as a pledge for the admission of the Territory to statehood either in the immediate or the distant future.

Mr. CANNON. Whether the amendment be adopted or not, is there anything in this bill which commits the Congress of the United States or the people of the country to admit this Territory to statehood?

Mr. HILL. I think there is, so far as the sentimental side of the question is concerned. The American people look upon the authorization and full organization of a Territory as the first step toward statehood. It has always been so construed: it always will be so construed. By the adoption of this amendment we shall simply put ourselves" on record as declaring that this legislation is not adopted with that end in view.

Allow me a moment ——The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Debate upon this amendment is exhausted except by unanimous

consent.[Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!"]Mr. HILL. I ask unanimous consent ——The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILL] asks unanimous consent to address the committee. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none.Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I would state in reply to the elegant remark of the chairman of the Committee on Territories

that the amendment offered by me is the precise amendment which the junior Senator from the State of Massachusetts was reported in the papers to have stated that he would have offered if he had had an opportunity.April 6, 1900HouseV. 33 (4)P. 3865-3866

GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.The committee resumed its session.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I ask unanimous Consent to address the committee.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous consent to address the committee. Is there objection?There was no objection.Mr. WJLL1AMS of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, there are two opinions as to the legal status of Territories of the United States.

One is that under the Constitution every Territory is necessarily in process of formation for statehood. The other is that this view is a mere dictum of a court and is not law.

Now, let us take both sides of that proposition. If the announcement of the court be a decision, then the amendment of the gen-tleman from Connecticut [Mr. HILL] would place upon the statute books an unconstitutional pronouncement. If, upon the other hand, the contention of the other side is correct and the announcement of the court be mere obiter dictum and it be not true that a

Territory is necessarily a country in process of formation for statehood, then the gentleman's amendment is unnecessary.Now, why is it unnecessary? For two reasons: First, if Congress desires to prevent Hawaii from becoming a State it has a very easy

method of preventing it. and that is simply never to vote to make Hawaii a State. And then there is another reason why it is un-necessary. Even if this Congress could bind all successive Congresses, as far as any Congress can possibly bind another, by an utterance to the effect that Hawaii should never become a State, that act of this Congress could be repealed by the very next Congress, or the very next Congress after that, if that Congress chose. Therefore I think I agree with the gentleman who is chairman of the committee, without repeating the language or my old friend Mr. Walker, that this thing is "demnition nonsense," either because it is unconstitutional or else because it is unnecessary. [Applause.]

Mr. RIDGELY. Let us have the reading of the amendment again.The amendment was again reported.Mr. RIDGELY. I move to amend by striking out the last word of the amendment.The CHAIRMAN. That motion is not in order, this being an amendment to an amendment. The question is on the amend-

ment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.The amendment of Mr. HILL was rejected.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer an amendment.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts offers an amendment which the Clerk will report.The Clerk read as follows:In place of section 103 of the bill insert a new section, to be numbered 106, and to read as follows:"SEC. 105. This act shall take effect sixty days from and after the date of the approval thereof, excepting: only as to section 62, relating to

appropriations, which shall take effect upon such approval."Mr. RIDGELY. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full time apportioned to me, but I wish at this stage of our proceedings to

call the attention of members here to the fact that while we are claiming that these new possessions are to give us an outlet for our labor element, we have by our action here refused the very conservative provision offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. NEWLANDS], providing that the people in Hawaii employing labor shall gradually give preference to our people by requiring that at least 10 per cent of their employees shall be citizens, adding to this 10 per cent each year until all employees are citizens, allowing them to take the colored people from this country to displace the Asiatics if they so desire.

In opposition to this, the chairman of this committee calls attention to the fact that the peculiar conditions and kinds of work in that country may demand the employment of the Asiatics, who by the bill are denied the right of citizenship. I simply call attention to the fact that we, by our action here, are admitting that we at least hold it to be a matter of grave doubt whether we have any laborers that are adapted to the chief industries of our new possessions.

Another thing I earnestly condemn. We have just passed an amendment to this bill which directly destroys the postal savings bank that the government of Hawaii had established without offering anything in its place. Thus we drive all deposits to private banks, which too often fail. We are really carrying those people backward instead of forward in this, while we boast of our superior civilization.

I will not take up any more time now, but I will extend my remarks in the RECORD.3865

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman ——The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment is still pending.Mr. McRAE. I hope the gentleman will modify that by also excepting section 10 and let that go into operation at once.Mr. KNOX. We could not do that.The amendment of Mr. KNOX was agreed to.Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the chairman of the committee, 1 offer the amendment which I send to the Clerk's desk,The amendment was read, as follows:1. Insert on page 83, after section 76, a new section, to read as follows:"There shall be a commissioner of labor, whose duty it shall be to collect, assort, arrange and present in annual reports to the governor and to the legislature

and to the Department of Labor of the United States statistical details relating to all departments of labor in the Territory, especially in relation to the commercial, industrial, social, educational, and sanitary condition of the laboring classes, and to all such other subjects as the legislature may by law direct. The said commissioner is specially charged to ascertain, at as early a date as possible and as often thereafter as such information may be required, the highest, lowest, and average number of employees engaged in the various industries in the Territory to be classified as to nativity, sex, hours of labor, and conditions of employment, and to report the same to the United States Commissioner of Labor."

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. NEW-LANDS] asks unanimous consent to return to the section referred to in his amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.Is there objection? There was no objection. [Mr. NEWLANDS addressed the committee. See Appendix.] Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is general in its provisions, and I was induced to say that I would not object to it, because it was drawn by the Commissioner of Labor, Mr. Wright, whom we all know to be an able man, and who has thoroughly in-vestigated these questions, and is better able to judge of what is necessary and proper than I am. Therefore I agreed to offer no objection to the amendment.

Mr. HITT. Does this provide any salary for the commissioner?Mr. NEWLANDS. No. The amendment was agreed to.Mr. KNOX. Inasmuch as one section of the bill has been stricken out, I ask unanimous consent that the sections may be renumbered, to make them

consecutive.The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will perform that duty.

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as this whole House bill is an amendment to the Senate bill, striking out the enacting clause and inserting the bill that we have been considering, I move that this amendment be now adopted.

The CHAIR MAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves that the amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed by the Committee on Territories, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr. BARTLETT. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry.The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.Mr. BARTLETT. If this motion prevails, does it prevent the voting in the House upon amendments to this amendment?The CHAIRMAN. That question will arise in the House and there be disposed of.Mr. BARTLETT. We should like to know before we vote.The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no authority to express an opinion upon what will arise in the House.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I should like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Territories ——Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman ——The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia still holds the floor.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Excuse me.Mr. BARTLETT. I desire to know whether this is a request for unanimous consent or whether it is a motion?The CHAIRMAN. It is a motion in order.Mr. KNOX. It is the usual motion that is made in such cases.Mr. BARTLETT. I am not proposing to object to it.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Pending that. I would like to ask the privilege of submitting an amendment to the last section, or an amendment to the

amendment that the Committee on Territories proposed a moment ago.Mr. KNOX. What is it?Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. It is a change from thirty to sixty days in the time at which the bill should take effect.Mr. KNOX. 1 am informed by the Department that the time we have already fixed for this bill to take effect is too short. It takes — I do not know how

long for the bill to get to San Francisco, and we have no cable to Hawaii.

3866Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I am sorry for that, as there are some matters on which it ought to take effect early.Mr. KNOX. We have provided that some provisions take effect at once.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Does that include section 10 — the

labor provision?Mr. KNOX. No; it does not.The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, in the nature of a

substitute.The question was taken; and the substitute was agreed to.Mr. KNOX. I move that the committee now rise and report the bill and amendment to the House.The motion was agreed to.The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. MOODY of Massachusetts. Chairman or the

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration the bill S. 222, and had directed him to report the same with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, with the recommendation that the bill as thus amended do pass.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.The question was taken; and the amendment was agreed to.The SPEAKER. The question now is on the third reading of the bill.The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read the third time.Mr. BARTHOLDT. Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary status of the bill is such that no amendment can be voted upon

separately, and the only opportunity to offer an amendment is by a motion to recommit to the Committee on Territories, I desire to offer such a motion.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri submits a motion to recommit, which the Clerk will report.The Clerk .read as follows:That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Territories with instructions to strike out of page 71, line 7, alter the word "allowed," the

words ''nor shall saloons for the sale of intoxicating liquors be allowed," and that the bill be reported back forthwith.Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. Suppose that motion is adopted. I desire to know whether

it would be the duty of the gentleman in charge of the bill at once on its adoption to report back the bill as instructed.The SPEAKER. The Chair will state, in reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois, that it has been

held repeatedly that the chairman of the committee who reports the bill, if this motion should prevail, should report it back forthwith, without leaving his seat or consulting his committee; and the Chair will further state that in the recollection of the Chair, on a motion made by the gentleman from Illinois who makes the parliamentary inquiry, that ruling was made. The question is on agreeing to the motion.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I call for the yeas and nays. [Cries of "Oh, no!"]Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Speaker ——The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the gentleman rise?Mr. FINLEY. For a parliamentary inquiry. I wish to know whether or not unanimous consent is necessary on that motion?The SPEAKER. On this motion; not at all. It is a privilege the gentleman has. The question is on agreeing to the motion.The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to have it.Several MEMBERS. Division!The House divided: and there were — ayes 50, noes 83.Mr. PARKER of New Jersey and Mr. BARTHOLDT. The yeas and nays.The question was taken on ordering the yeas and nays.The SPEAKER. Eighteen gentlemen have arisen — not a sufficient number; the yeas and nays are refused. The noes have it,

and the motion is lost. The question is on the passage of the bill.The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.Mr. KLEBERG and others. Division!The House divided: and there were — ayes 120, noes 28.Mr. KLEBERG. The yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker.The question was taken on ordering the yeas and nays.The SPEAKER. Twelve gentlemen have arisen — not a sufficient number: the yeas and nays are refused. The ayes have it, and

the bill is passed.On motion of Mr. KNOX, a motion to reconsider the vote by

which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

April 7, 1900 Senate v. 33 (4) p. 3872

Mr. Heitfeld Introduced a bill (S. 4075) to amend an act to prohibit the passage of special or local laws in the Territories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, and so forth; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Territories.

April 7, 1900 Senate v. 33 (5) p. 3907

GOVERNMENT FOE HAWAII.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 223) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. CULLOM. I will simply ask that the bill lie on the table and be printed, before I request a conference. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the bill will lie on the table and be printed.

April 10, 1900 Senate T. 33 (5) p. 3964-3965

GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.Mr. CULLOM. I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill. Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate nonconcur in the amendment of the House and request a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, I see that the House have passed a substitute for the Senate Hawaiian bill and that on page 8 of the House bill, section 10, they provide "that all obligations, contracts, rights of action, suits at law and in equity," etc., "shall continue to be as effectual as if this act had not been passed." This would allow the enforcement of all existing civil contracts. Contract or slave labor is held by the courts of Hawaii to be a civil contract, and under the Hawaiian law they enforce all contracts by imprisonment and can go to the extent of imprisonment for life. I trust the conferees will see that this provision is so amended as to prevent the enforcement of the existing slave-labor contracts of that island. The House have adopted the provision that all contracts made since August 12, 1898, are declared null and void and shall terminate, but section 10 also provides:That no suit or proceedings shall be maintained for the specific performance of any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into for personal labor or service, nor shall any remedy exist or be enforced for breach of any such contract, except in a civil suit or proceeding instituted solely to recover damages for such breach.Inasmuch as the courts have held that these contracts are civil contracts. I do not know but that there are laws existing in Hawaii that we perpetuate (for we perpetuate a large body of their laws) which provide that damages for a breach of one of these contracts may be collected, and that prior to their collection the person against whom the recovery was secured could be imprisoned. Perhaps their laws so provide. If they do, then until we repeal those contract-labor laws and provide that a suit for damages for the breach of these contracts may be had, these men, might still be held for service and compelled to work out the damages upon the plantations under the whip and lash of the slave master. I hope the conferees will carefully guard that provision and see that there is no question about it. The House bill also provides that the provisions of this section 10 shall not apply to merchant seamen. In other words, it indirectly provides that the existing laws with regard to merchant seamen may be enforced. The existing law of Hawaii makes a seaman a slave during the term of his contract. It he is engaged in foreign service, that is the law of the United States. But in 1898 we passed a law by which a seaman engaged in the domestic trade of the United States could not be compelled to carry out the provisions of his contract or be imprisoned if he failed to do so. I hope the conferees will see that this provision is modified so that at least the laws of the United States with regard to seamen, so far as they apply to our domestic trade, shall apply to seamen engaged in the trade with Hawaii. I am particularly anxious about this for the reason that on page 50 of the bill the House have provided—At the expiration of one year after the passage and approval of this act the coasting trade between the islands aforesaid and any other portion of the United States shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts.We put off the time when the coasting laws of the United States shall apply for one year, and I hope this provision will be stricken out entirely. It seems to me that the provision in relation to our coasting trade should apply at once, and I can see no good reason why this provision should be continued.

3965

I find also, on page 36 of the House bill, that there is the following provision:Prior to each regular election, during the time preserved by law for reg-istration, hare caused his name to be entered on the register of voters for representatives for his district.I do not know what the Hawaiian law is with regard to registration, but if a law should be so constituted, or if the last legislature should have enacted a law by which no persons could vote at the next election unless they were registered previous to the passage of this bill, which would shut out all the people except the sugar planters of that country, upon whom especially the right of suffrage is conferred, this provision ought to be modified so that any person who is registered previous to the next election, or if not registered can qualify by affidavit, shall be allowed to vote, and that there may be no question upon that score. We continue the election laws, generally, of Hawaii. I have not examined them, but I think, with the modifications made in this bill, they are reasonably fair, with the correction with regard to registration. I see the House has also provided that the Federal court appointment shall be for life. It seems to me that provision ought not to be agreed to on the part of the Senate. After a long debate, I believe we changed that provision in the Senate, and insisted that it should be a term, and that the judge could be removed by the President. I simply wish to call the attention of the conferees to these points in the record, as I think the Senate ought to insist upon them. Mr. CULLOM. I do not care to say anything now. I ask for a vote on my motion. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves that the Senate nonconcur in the amendment of the House of Representatives and request a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses. The motion was agreed to. By unanimous consent, the President pro tempore was authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate; and Mr. CULLOM, Mr. LODGE, and Mr. MORGAN were appointed. Mr. ALLISON. I wish to call attention to the form in which this bill is printed. The original bill is not printed. Mr. TELLER. It is omitted. Mr. ALLISON. It is omitted. I think on the record this copy is attached to the original bill. Mr. CULLOM. The bill as it passed the Senate is in print, and there will be no difficulty in the matter on the part of the conferees. Mr. ALLISON. Is that the original bill on the Senator's desk? Mr. CULLOM. This is the original bill, and here is the print which I got from the House before it was printed here. Mr. PETTIGREW. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois if the bill is in print exactly as it passed the Senate? Mr. CULLOM. It is, exactly as it passed the Senate. Mr. PETTIGREW. Then there should be a reprint of it, together with the House print. Mr. ALLISON. That should be done. There should be a reprint of the original bill with the amendment of the House. Mr. PETTIGREW. I ask that we may have a reprint of the bill as it passed the Senate, together with the House amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota asks that there be a reprint of the Senate bill with the House amendment attached. Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to that. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. Mr. CULLOM. I wish to say in justification —— Mr. TELLER. It has always been the custom, so far as I recollect, to have bills printed in that way. I do not understand this new arrangement. We have not the Senate bill here at all now. The amendment should have been printed with a copy of the bill showing what was stricken out and what was substituted by the House. That is the proper way to keep the record. I want to protest against this method of sending bills to us. I do not know whose fault it is. Mr. CULLOM. I wish to say that the proper officer of the Senate came to me with the bill as it passed the House and asked me whether both bills should be printed, and it occurred to me at the time that as we had plenty of copies of the original bill as it passed the Senate it might not be necessary to reprint it, and I told him I thought that would not be necessary. So if there was any fault about it on the part of the Senate it was mine. I want to justify the action of the clerk. Mr. TELLER. It is not a very serious fault, but I do not want to depart from the usual custom of sending bills here that has been in vogue ever since I have been in the Senate, because that is the convenient way. Mr. CULLOM. I presume the Senator means to criticise what was done by the House, and not what was done by the Senate. Mr. TELLER. I do not know whom it is a criticism of, and I do not care. What I want to insist upon is that when a bill goes to the House from this body and is acted upon there, and a substitute bill had been passed by the House, the Senate text and the House text shall come here together as one bill. Mr. ALLISON. And be printed. Mr. TELLER. And be printed. That has been the custom. Mr. CULLOM. I do not think it came in that way. Mr. TELLER. Lines should be drawn through the Senate bill showing that the House had stricken it out, and then let the House bill be printed following it. That is the way the bill should come, so that we may compare the bill of the Senate with the substitute passed by the House. Mr. ALL EN. Mr. President —— Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator from Nebraska if he rose -with reference to the pending election case? Mr. ALLEN. No, sir; I have been upon the floor for some time on another matter. Mr. HOAR. I wish to address the Senate on the Quay election case, which I understand is now up, and I think I shall occupy not more than two minutes. Mr. ALLEN. I have had recognition here for nearly half an hour, but have yielded to other matters. Mr. HOAR. Perhaps the Senator will allow me a few moments. Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

April 11, 1900 Senate v. 33 (5) p. 4011

CIVIL OFFICES IN OUTLYING DEPENDENCIES.Mr. ROSS. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 2000) regulating appointments to and removals from civil offices in outlying dependencies of the United States. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont asks unanimous consent for the present consideration of a bill which will be read in full for the information of the Senate. The Secretary read the bill, which had been reported from the Committee to Examine the Several Branches of the Civil Service with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:That all appointments to civil offices made by the President or any bead of a Department In Alaska, Hawaii, or any place brought within the jurisdiction of the United States by the recent treaty with Spain, shall be made irrespective of the political opinions of the persons appointed, and, so far as consistent with the proper performance of the duties of the office, in such a manner as to represent the entire country. In case of removal from any such office, whenever practicable, charges shall be made in writing and a copy thereof furnished to the accused, who shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to make answer thereto; and the President or head of a Depart-ment making the appointment may, wherever the public interest shall seem to require it, suspend the official pending hearing or investigation of such charges.Mr. GALLINGER. I feel constrained to object to the present consideration of the bill, The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made.WINSLOW WARREN.Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Maine allow me to ask for the passage of a bill which I think will not take two minutes? Mr. HALE. I will if it will not give rise to debate. Mr. HOAR. I am sure it will not. Mr. HALE. I yield for the moment. Mr. HOAR. I ask unanimous consent to call up the bill (S. 248) for the relief of Winslow Warren.

April 11, 1900 House v. 33 (5) p. 4072

HAWAII.The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before the House the bill to establish the Territory of Hawaii, returned to the House with the information that the Senate has disagreed to the amendments of the House, and asks for a conference. Mr. KNOX. I move that the House insist on its amendments, and agree to the request for a conference. The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER announced the appointment of Mr. KNOX, Mr. HITT, and Mr. MOON as the conferees on the part of the House.

April 12, 1900 House v. 33 (5) p. 4106 Senate Bills Referred: S, 2. An act to provide for the construction, maintenance, and operation, under the management of the Navy Department, of a Pacific cable - to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

April 14, 1900 Senate v. 33 (5) P. 4156 Mr. Shoup, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4075) to amend an act to prohibit the passage of special or local laws in the Territories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, and so forth, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon.

April 14, 1900 House v. 33 (5) p. 4204

By Mr. Wilson of Arizona: A bill (H. R. 10737) to amend an act entitled "An Act to amend an act to prohibit the passage of local or special laws in the Territories, to limit Territorial indebtedness, and so forth" - to the Committee on the Territories,

April 16, 1900 Senate v. 33 (5) p. 4210

Mr. Parkins introduced a bill (S. 4229) to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an act to prohibit the passage of local or special laws in the Territories, to limit Territorial indebtedness, and so forth;" - which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Territories,

April 18, 1900 Senate v. 33 (5) p. 4357-4358

4358

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. CULLOM. I sent to the desk some time ago a conference report which I should like to have laid before the Senate before any other business is taken up, if I may have it done. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois presents a conference report. The Secretary proceeded to read the report of the committee of conference, but was interrupted by — Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, I should like very much to have this conference report printed in the RECORD and go over until to-morrow. I therefore ask that that may be done. Mr. CULLOM. Of course if the Senate desires to have the report printed —— Mr. PETTIGREW. Simply in the RECORD. That is all. Mr. CULLOM. I suppose I have no right to object to the request, and shall not do so. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota |Mr. PETTIGREW] asks that the report of the conference committee on the Hawaiian bill may be printed in the RECORD. Mr. PETTIGREW. And also as a document. Mr. CULLOM. If the report goes over, I should like also to have the bill printed as it has been agreed upon, so that Senators can see exactly what it is. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That is right. Mr. PETTIGREW. I simply want the information in the easiest possible way. Mr. CULLOM. That will be the best way. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. PETTIGREW] as it has been modified by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM]? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. The report is as follows:The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and agree to the same with amendments as follows: Section 1, line 3, after the word "Hawaii," insert the words "in force." Section 4, line 5, after the word "States," insert the words "resident in the Hawaiian Islands." Section 4, line 6, strike out the words "in the Hawaiian Islands " and insert In lieu thereof the word "there." Sections, line 1, strike out all after the word "That" to and including the word "provided." Section 5, line 2, after the word "Constitution ", insert a comma; after the word "and" insert a comma and the words "except as herein otherwise provided: "after the word "States" insert the words "which are not." Section 5, lines 2 and 3. strike out the word "applicable" and insert in lieu thereof the word "inapplicable." Section 10, line 1, strike out the words "obligations, contracts." Section 11, line 2, after the word "shall." insert the word "hereafter." Section 18. Strike out the whole of said section and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Section 18. No idiot or insane person, and no person who shall be expelled from the legislature for giving or receiving bribes or being accessory thereto, and no person who, in due course of law, shall have been convicted of any criminal offense punishable by imprisonment, whether with or without hard labor, for a term exceeding one year, whether with or without fine, shall register to vote or shall vote or hold any office in, or under, or by authority of the government, unless the person so convicted shall have been pardoned and restored to his civil rights."

4358Section 34, line 4, strike out the word "twenty-five" and insert in lieu thereof the word "thirty."Section 37, line 1, after the word "vacancies," insert the words "in the office of representative.''

Section 3", lines 2 and 3, strike out the words "general or." Section 40, add at the end of said section the words "in the district from which he is selected."Section 47, lines 3 and 4, strike out the word "chairman" and insert in lien thereof the words "presiding officer."Section 49, line 5, strike out the word "shall" and insert in lien thereof the word "may."Section 52, line 9, after the word "on," strike out the word "of;" also strike out the word "Hawaii" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the Territory

of Hawaii."Section 65, line 25, strike out the word "or," after the word "acquire," and insert in lien thereof the word "and."Section 65, line 37, after the word "allowed," strike out all to and including the word "allowed," in line 38, and insert in lieu thereof the words

"nor shall spirituous intoxicating liquors be sold except under such regulations and restrictions as the Territorial legislature shall provide."Section 56, lines 72 and 73, after the word "States," strike out all to the end of the section.Section 60, line 13, strike out all after the word "paid" to and including the comma after the word "year," in line 14, and insert in lien thereof the

words "on or before the 31st day of March next preceding the date of registration, all taxes."

Section 62, in the title of the section, after the word "Senators," insert the words "and in all other elections."Section 64, lines 15 and 16. strike out all after the word "each," and in line 15 to and including the word "party," in line 16.Section 73. line 5, strike out all after the word "provide" to and including the word "him," in line 17.Section 73, line 19,after the word "granted," strike out the words "in good faith."Section 76, line 6, strike out all to and including the word "be," in line 7, and insert in lien thereof "It shall be the duty of the United States Com-

missioner of Labor;" also, after the word "reports," in line 8, strike out all to and including the word "States," in line 9; also, after the word "Terri-tory," in line 10, insert the words "of Hawaii;" also, in line 13, strike out the words "the legislature" and insert in lien thereof the word "Congress;" also, strike out all after the word "to," in line 20, and insert in lieu thereof the word "Congress."

Section 80. inline 9, after the word "forestry," strike out the words "commissioner of labor."Section 80, line 44, strike out all to the end of the section. Section 82, line 2, after the word "and," strike out the words "not less than."

Section 85, line 6, strike out the words "house of representatives" and insert in lien thereof the word "senate."Section 86, line 1, strike out all after the word "that" to and including the word "States," in line 4, and insert in lien thereof the following: "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."Section 86, line 7, after the words "said district" insert the words "and said judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for six years unless sooner

removed by the President."Section 86, lines 7 and 8, strike out the words "The district court for the said district" and insert in lieu thereof the words "said court."Section 86, line 10, after the word "court" insert the words" of the United States."Section 88, line 11, after the word "court," insert the words "and said judge, district attorney, and marshal shall have and exercise in the Territory

of Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon the judges, district attorneys, and marshals of district and circuit courts of the United States. Writs of error and appeals from said district courts shall be 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, and the laws of the United States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said district court."Section 92, line 4, after the word "dollars," strike out the word "and." Section 92, line 6, after the word "and," insert the word "the;" after the word "justices "insert the words "of the supreme court," and after the word "each," in line 7 insert the words "and the judges of the circuit courts, $3,000 each."

Section 92, lines 9 and 10, strike out the words "Territory of Hawaii" and insert in lieu thereof the words "United States."Section 92, line 11, after the word "thousand," insert the words "five hundred."

Section 92, line 13, strike out the word "two" and insert the word "three." Section 96, line 9, after the word "in," strike out the word "a" and insert in lieu thereof the word "such."

Section 96, line 10, before the word "provided," insert the words "as may be."Section 97, line 19, strike out all after the word "States" to the end of the section.

Section 98, line 2, strike out the words "permanent or temporary, on August 12," and insert in lien thereof the words "on the 12th day of August." Section 98, line 9, after the word "and," strike out all to and including the word "act," in line 10.Section 98, lines 14 and 15, strike out all of said lines.Section 99, line 3, after the word "on," insert the words "the 12th day of;"and in the same line, after the word "August," strike out the word "twelfth."Section 101. line 12, strike out all after the word "certificates" to and including the word "acts" in line 22.

Section 104, line 1, after the word "effect" strike out the word "sixty" and insert in lieu thereof the word "forty-five."Section 104, line 3, after the word "section" strike out the word "fifty-two" and insert in lien thereof the word "fifty-three." And the House agree to the same.

S. M. CULLOM, H. C. LODGE,Managers on the part of the Senate. W. S. KNOX, R. R. HITT, JOHN A. MOON, Managers on the part of the House.

April 19, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 5 )p. 4409-4411

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. CULLOM. I now ask for the consideration of the conference report, which I submitted yesterday,

on the bill providing agovernment for the Territory of Hawaii.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asksfor the consideration of the conference report submitted by himyesterday; which will be read.

Mr. BACON. Do I understand that this is a report of the conference committee on the Hawaiian bill?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is.Mr. BACON. May I inquire whether or not it has been printed?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has been printed.Mr. CULLOM. It baa been printed, and it is probably on the

Senator's table.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The reading of the report will

be proceeded with.The Secretary read the report as printed in the proceedings of

the Senate of yesterday.Mr. CULLOM. There is a mistake in the last clause of the

conference report, which reads:Section 104, line 3, after the word "section," strike out the word "fifty

two" and insert in lieu thereof the word "fifty-three."I failed to correct the error resulting from the numbering of

the sections. It should be 52.Mr. SPOONER obtained the floor.Mr. LODGE. Mr. President ——The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin

has been recognized.Mr. LODGE. I beg pardon. I was not aware of that.Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, it is quite impossible to gain

any Very definite information from the reading of this report as to what changes have been made in the bill as it passed the Senate. I should like to have the Senator explain, if he will, brieflythe essential changes, particularly with reference to the provisionincorporated in the bill by the Senate concerning contract labor.

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President ——Mr. BACON. Before the Senator from Illinois proceeds with

his explanation, I should like to make a suggestion. It seems tome impossible to understand this conference report from its merereading at the desk, and it will be equally impossible, after theexplanation of the Senator from Illinois, for us to intelligentlycontrast, as we should do, the Senate bill with the House bill asit came to us and as it has been brought back to us by the conferees. Of course we all know this is a voluminous bill. 55 pageslong. I hope I may have the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM],if of no other Senators, because I wish to make a suggestion for a

practical purpose.Mr. CULLOM. Excuse me; I was interrupted and I did not

hear the last remark of the Senator from Georgia.4410

Mr. BACON. The last remark I made was that I hoped I mighthave the attention of the Senator from Illinois ——Mr. CULLOM. I was trying to give it to the Senator fromGeorgia.Mr. BACON. For the reason that the suggestion I propose tomake is for a practical purpose. I was trying to show the difficulty of oar contrasting the two measures, which it is recognizedby every one we should have a fair opportunity to do. We passedan elaborate bill upon the subject of the government of the Hawaiian Islands. We sent it to the House. The House sent usback a bill in the form of a substitute.In other words, they sent back what purported to be an entirebill. That bill corresponded very largely with the Senate bill; butstill, from the fact that they sent it back not in the shape of amendments to the various provisions of the Senate bill, but in the shapeof a substantive entire bill, it would be with the utmost difficultythat we could take the Senate bill and compare it with the Housebill, for the reason that even where it corresponds with the Senatebill it is simply put down as part of the House bill, and where itdiffers from the Senate bill there is nothing to indicate that thatis something in which it differs. It is all printed as a new bill,and the only thing that appears to us from this bill by which wecan form any accurate judgment as to differences is as to amendments proposed by the conferees to the House bill. In otherwords, the whole of the bill before us, the House substitute, whichis a bill in its entirety, is printed in the ordinary roman text.The House bill, so far as it has been amended by the conferees,has had the part rejected stricken through in the ordinary way,and the part substituted printed in italics in the ordinary way.The report of the conference committee shows in what the conferees differ from the provisions of the House bill, but there isnothing in this bill as printed by which we can judge as to howfar the Senate bill has been changed, and I think it ought to beprinted in some way so that when we read a section we will beable to see that that section is as it left the Senate, or, if that section, has been changed, it ought to be so indicated that we can,from a perusal of that section, tell in what particular it has beenchanged. As it is now, the only way in which we can comparethe bill reported by the conferees with the Senate bill is to takethe original Seriate bill in the one hand and the House bill in theother, and possibly requiring that there shall be two engaged init at the same time, one reading the provision in the Senate billand the other reading the corresponding provision in the Housebill, for the purpose of determining whether or not there has beenany change in the Senate provision by the House provision, andif so, what has been the change.Now, I fully understand, of course, that the Senator from Illinois will as clearly and as accurately as it is practicable for any-body to do, point out to us the changes; but I do say it is impossible for anyone verbally to point out the changes in such a waythat it will enable us to determine whether or not they are suchchanges as will meet with our approval.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Georgia has stated largelythe facts as they exist with reference to the conduct of this billfrom one House of Congress to the other. It is true, as stated,that the Senate passed a bill. It went to the House, and instead,as we naturally supposed they would do, of their amending theSenate bill in the ordinary way, they did as the Senator hasstated — struck out all after the enacting clause and substituted thebill called the House bill. That bill, however, was largely thesame bill, containing very many of the same sections, withoutamendment, that the Senate passed. For instance, I have herea bill not exactly as it passed the Senate, because it is printedwith the amendments made by the House incorporated; and, forinstance, section 2, section 6, section 7, section 8, I believe sec-tion 9 ——Mr. BACON. I would inquire of the Senator whether he isprepared to take up the two bills, section by section, and show thesections which are identical and those in which changes havebeen made?Mr. CULLOM. I can as to most of the bill. I wish to say thatI do not want anything unreasonable in reference to this matter.All I want is to get the conference report considered as soon aswe can consistently, and with all the information that anybodywants, if we can give it. But there are a large number of veryinconsequential amendments made to the Senate bill, which

If the Senator is very anxious for a little time, I wish to inquirewhether a couple of hours would be all that is necessary for theSenator, or would he want a longer time to look over the two bills?Mr. BACON. Mr. President ——Mr. CULLOM. I desire to say before that is done ——Mr. BACON. I think the same course ought to be punned inthis matter that is pursued ordinarily, that we ought to have thismeasure printed in a way that we can conveniently compare thetwo.Mr. CULLOM. I was going to say you can get bills now, ifyou desire them, with the Senate bill all stricken out, lines drawnthrough its text, but still you can read exactly what the provisionsare. There are plenty of those bills which can be secured at anytime. Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me.Mr. CULLOM. It is very difficult to print this report — be-cause that is what it is now — in any other way than it is printed,because it is a substitute, and the substitute was acted upon bythe conferees, and all the amendments that are in the substitutewere concurred in by the conferees of the two Houses. I canhardly see how you can print the bill so as to give any more lightupon the subject than you can get now than by getting the Senate bill as amended by the House, striking out all after the en-acting clause and inserting the House bill, except that yon wantto get the amendments to the substitute which passed the House,because the conferees have amended that measure.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair desires to call theattention of the Senator from Illinois to the last amendment —Section 104, line 3, after the word "section." strike out the word "fifty-two," and insert in lieu thereof "fifty-three."It is clearly a mistake.Mr. CULLOM. Yes.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair knows of no wayin which it can be remedied except by the Senator withdrawingthe report and having the committee of conference amend it.There is no other way of which the Chair knows.Mr. CULLOM. I think the conferees on the part of the Senateregarded that as a mistake in writing "three" instead of "two."The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It appears very clearly in bothreports, House and Senate, to have been a deliberate striking outof ''fifty-two" and inserting "fifty-three." A report of a conference committee can not be amended, and the Chair knows of noway except for the Senator to withdraw the report and have theconferees correct it.Mr. CULLOM. I am fully aware that an ordinary error cannot be changed by any one of the conferees without the consentof all, but I regarded this, and I think my colleague on the conference committee thought so, too, as a sort of clerical mistake,which might be corrected without referring it back. But if theChair thinks differently, of course we will act accordingly. Itwas a mistake on the part of the clerk.Mr. BACON. As the report is not to be considered now, Ishould like to ask the Senator from Illinois whether it is not practicable in the interim to have the bill so printed that we can tellin what particulars changes have been made without having totake the two bills and read them paragraph by paragraph.Mr. CULLOM. How would the Senator suggest that it beprinted so that it would be any plainer than it is now, with thebill as it passed the Senate before him?Mr. BACON. I do not know how I can better answer the Senator than to refer to the suggestion which he made to me. TheSenator asked me whether or not two hours would be sufficientfor me to take these two bills and retire to some secluded spot andcompare them. If I did so, that would not be information for thebalance of the Senate. There are other Senators here as well asI who want to have this information. I am not asking it formyself alone.Mr. CULLOM. I understand.Mr. BACON. And it ought to be put in shape where the Senatewill be advised of the changes which are made. We want to knowtwo things. We want to know, in the first place, what changesthe House bill makes in the Senate bill. That does not appear byany printed document we have here, except we have the printedSenate bill and we have the printed House bill, the one to be com-pared with the other. The other thing we want to know is this:After the House, by means of a substitute, has amended the Senate proposition, in what particulars has the conference committeechanged the two propositions?Mr. CULLOM. That is shown in the bill which the Senator

constitute what is called the substitute or House bill, to which theSenate conferees agreed: but the substantial provisions of thebill, or many of them, are as the Senate passed the bill. For in-stance, as to the land matter, the Senate provisions on that subject arc accepted by the House. As to the Federal court, theSenate provision was accepted by the House — I mean the Houseconferees, not the House itself. So most of the important provisions of the bill as it passed the Senate are retained in the bill asit comes before the Senate now in the conference report and exactly, so far as concerns the provision establishing a Federalcourt, as it passed the Senate of the United States.

has before him.Mr. BACON. I understand that thoroughly.Mr. CULLOM. Then why. do you ask the question?Mr. BACON. I am not asking the question. I am statingwhat is the issue we have to make. I say there are two thingsupon which we are to be informed when we come to pass uponthis question. We have the amendments proposed by the conference committee to the House substitute, but there is nothing there

4411to show how far the conference committee has adopted what wasoriginally the Senate provision or how far it has adopted thatwhich was the House provision.Mr. TILLMAN. I suggest to the Senator from Georgia and theSenator from Illinois that the usual course has been to numberthe amendments to any bill which the Senate has sent to theHouse of Representatives and to point out just what changes orsubstitutions have been made. If that were done in respect tothis bill, we could very easily keep track of it.Mr. LODGE There was but one amendment made to this bill.Mr. CULLOM. By the House.Mr. LODGE. It is impossible to number the amendments, asthe Senator from South Carolina suggests, as there was but oneamendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insertthe House bill. All that the conferees could do under that circumstance was to report back the amendment with amendments.There was no other way of doing it. We followed that method,which is the only one open to us. The House bill is in the mainthe Senate bill, and there is no way of getting at the changes except by laying the Senate bill alongside the conference report andcomparing them line by line.Mr. BACON. Could not that comparison, after it was made,be put in writing, so that it could be printed and brought to us?Mr. LODGE. It is hero on your desk. You can not do any-thing except to put the two bills together.Mr. BACON. I am speaking of the comparison being put inwriting. Take section 3 of the bill; if it is identical, it would beperfectly competent by marginal notes to say "no change." Takesection 4; if that has been stricken out and another substituted, itwould be perfectly competent to. put the stricken lines throughSenate section No. 4, and to put adjacent thereto the House sec-tion No. 4 which has been substituted therefore. As it is, we havethe bill in its entirety as it left the Senate stricken through, andwe have the bill in its entirety as it came back from the Houseput in italics, but there is nothing by which we can contrast onesection with another.Mr. LODGE. The great mass of the two bills is the same, andthe great mass of the amendments are perfectly trivial amendments, chiefly verbal. The important amendments can be com-pared by any Senator by laying the Senate bill alongside theconference report. 'There is no other way to compare them. Ifwe printed what the Senator from Georgia asks for, it would besimply printing the Senate bill alongside of the conference report.He would have to make the comparison just the same when theywere printed together.Mr. BACON. It would not be the same if each section whichwas not amended was so stated, and if each section which wasamended should be expressed as amended and the amendmentprinted in full by the side of it, so that we could see what it is.Mr. LODGE. There are a great mass of amendments. I amnot sure that I understand just what kind of a reprint the Senatorfrom Georgia wants; but if I do understand, it would be a verygreat labor to reprint all those small amendments; to take theSenate bill, compare it line by line, word by word, with the Housesubstitute and show every change, small and large, and then allthe amendments made in the conference report, which are theonly important ones.Mr. BACON. Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts aquestion, because we are both after practical results. The Senatorsays the amendments are of two classes; that there are some material amendments and some trivial ones, but there are very fewmaterial amendments and many trivial ones. Suppose the House,instead of sending us back an entire substitute which expressedall of its changes, had taken up the Senate bill and had expressedeach as a separate amendment, would it not have been perfectlypracticable for the Senate to have printed its bill with the amendments as thus expressed by the House; and if so, is it not nowpracticable?Mr. LODGE. The Senate bill would have come back with theHouse amendments, but the House did not amend it in that way.Mr. BACON. The Senator does not let me finish my question.Mr. LODGE. I beg pardon. I thought the Senator had finished.Mr. BACON. Is it not now equally practicable to take the Senate bill and show as to each provision in what way it has beenamended by the House substitute? Then we could compare itwith the conference report.Mr. CULLOM. Let me make an inquiry, to find out, if I can;what would satisfy the Senator. I hold in my hand a Senate billwith the amendments agreed to by the House incorporated in it.Subsequent to the House bill as a substitute coming here we had,as the Senator from Massachusetts and I have both stated, to

Mr. BACON. Showing what was the Senate bill and what waschanged?Mr. CULLOM. Showing what the Senate did with the Homebill.Mr. BACON. The Senator means what the House did with theSenate bill. Mr. CULLOM. Showing what amendments the House billmakes to the Senate bill.Mr. BACON. That is all I want. Mr. CULLOM. We could not consider it in that way in conference, because the bill before us was the Senate bill with thenumber and title Only and the House bill in place of all after theenacting clause. But if it will satisfy the Senator, I am willingto postpone the further consideration of this matter to-day and toprepare a Senate bill with every amendment in it made by theHouse.Mr. BACON. That is everything I could possibly ask.Mr. CULLOM. And then that will have to be compared withthe substitute bill as amended by the conferees.Mr. BACON. As amended by the conferees. The substitutebill, in other words, will correspond with the bill which the Senator proposes to prepare.Mr. CULLOM. What does the Senator want; the Senate billwith the House amendments as it passed the House or the Senatebill with the House amendments as amended by the conferees?Mr. BACON. That is shown now, Mr. President. The amendments of the conferees are shown.Mr. CULLOM. But it would not be on the same paper.Mr. BACON. So far as the amendments of the conferees areconcerned there is no trouble about them.Mr. CULLOM. No.Mr. BACON. But the trouble is that the Senate conferees agreedto the House bill with certain changes; and we are unable to seewhat changes have been made in the Senate bill by the House bill,and if the Senator will prepare that which will show in what particulars the House bill as it came back from the House and beforeit went to the conferees changed the Senate bill, that is all that isnecessary.Mr. CULLOM. I will undertake to do that to satisfy the Senator from Georgia and Senators generally. I will prepare a Senatebill with all the amendments made to it by the House and have itprinted and before the Senate as soon as I can get it ready. It maybe a day or two, as it involves considerable work.Mr. TILLMAN. Do I understand that the Senate confereesagreed absolutely to the changes of the House? Are there nochanges in the House bill?Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator from South Carolina will lookat his bill he will see that there are a great many changes.Mr. TILLMAN. Unless you point out the changes which theHouse made to the Senate bill and also the changes which the conferees made in the House bill, we will still be at sea.Mr. CULLOM. The bill I reported shows the amendments madeby the conferees. So I do not need to go over that any more, Ishould think.Mr. CLAY. I desire to ask the Senator from Illinois whetherit is not a fact now that we have before vis the bill as it passed theSenate and went to the House, and that which the House reportedand passed as a substitute, and then the conference report inserting certain amendments to that substitute?Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.Mr. CLAY. We have the two bills printed in one. If youtake up section 1 of the Senate bill and section 2 of the House billcan you not compare them and thoroughly understand them?Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.Mr. CLAY. And then simply see the amendments inserted bythe conference committee?Mr. CULLOM. Certainly; it is all there.Mr. CLAY. It strikes me we have the bills before us now.Mr. CULLOM. The lines are marked out, according to thePrinter's rule, but you can read it easily enough. But if it is insisted that I shall prepare the bill as the senior Senator from Georgia suggests I am willing to do it, so that it shall be perfectlyplain.Mr. BACON. I hope the Senator will do that.Mr. CULLOM. I withdraw the report for the time being, andwill comply with the wishes of the Senate as nearly as possible as .regards the printing.

consider the substitute instead of the Senate bill as it would beamended if the substitute were all in it. If that would be satisfactory to the Senator. I can prepare a Senate bill with every pro-vision of the House bill as it passed the House in it. Would thatsatisfy him?

April 19, 1900HouseT. 33 ( 5 )p. 4448

By Mr. Wilson of Arizona: A bill (H . R.10843) to amend an act entitled "An act toamend an act to prohibit the passage oflocal or special laws in the Territories,to limit Territorial indebtedness, and soforth" - to the Committee on the Territories.

April 20, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 5 )P. 4452

Mr. Hale introduced a bin (S. 4290) toprovide for the acquirement by the UnitedStates of lands and rights therein necessaryto the establishment of a naval station inPearl Harbor, island of Oahu, Hawaii, andfor the dredging of approaches to said harbor;which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

April 20, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 5 )p. 4454-4460

——— TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. WARREN. I ask leave to call up Senate bill 2610.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning business is closed,and the Chair lays before the Senate the following resolution.The Secretary read the resolution reported by Mr. TURLEY fromthe Committee on Privileges and Elections January 23, 1900, asfollows:Resolved, That the Hon. Matthew S. Quay is not entitled to take his seat inthis body as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania.Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I made a conference report theday before yesterday, which was withdrawn. I now present itagain, and ask for its immediate consideration.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinoispresents a conference report on the disagreeing votes of the twoHouses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 222) toprovide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, which hasheretofore been read to the Senate. The question is on agreeingto the report.Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, it seems to me that thisreport ought to be rejected and sent back to the conference committee, and for this reason: On page 27 of the bill, paragraph 5,under "Qualifications of voters for representatives," occurs thisprovision:Prior to such registration have paid, on or before the 31st day of Marchnext preceding the date of registration, all taxes due by him to the government.This provision practically disfranchises most of the people whoare citizens of the United States and citizens of Hawaii, for thereason that the Hawaiian government imposes a poll tax of $5upon every voter — that is, they impose a tax of $1, which they calla poll tax; $3 as a road tax, and $2 as a school tax; making a polltax, in all, of $5. This provision is that every person mast havepaid this tax before the 31st day of March next preceding the dateof registration.There were only 2,600 voters in Hawaii according to the lastelection, and this provides that those who wish to vote at the nextelection for members of the legislature shall have paid their taxprevious to the 31st day of last March. Of course, that is previousto the passage of this bill, and it therefore disfranchises everybodywho has not paid this five-dollar tax.The people of Hawaii ——

4454it, because no one told as that the tax law of Hawaii imposes apoll tax of $5 per capita. It was simply overlooked. The Houseamended this provision by providing for the payment of "a polltax of $1 for the current year due by him to the government.

That left the voter a chance to qualify under this bill; but theSenate conferees, it appears, have insisted upon the Senate provision, and insisted, therefore, upon disfranchising everybody batthe sugar planters of Hawaii and their employees.

Who owns the wealth of Hawaii? The men who have receivedthe $80,000,000 bonus paid to the sugar raisers of that country bythe people of the United States. Who can pay the taxes? Thesemen interested in their own affairs. Who, then, can qualify? Noone but those whom they may desire to have qualify and for whomthey will put up the money.

Are we going to have this thing, Mr. President? It seems to methis bill, for that provision alone, should be sent back to the conference committee and amended. I do not desire to disfranchiseall the people of that country. I do not believe that a man be-

cause he is not able to pay this five-dollar tax should be deprivedof the right of voting at the next election. If such a restrictionas that were imposed in this country, it would disfranchise millionsof voters all over the North.

The Ohio coal miner earned, according to the chief mining inspector's report for 1897, $193 annually: and if he had a family offive, that would be less than $39 per capita, with which to educate,feed, clothe, and house an American citizen. In 1898 the reportshows that the coal miners in Ohio earned $241 each, which, ifthere were five in a family, would be $48 per capita; and this wasthe average wage in the whole State. These figures are official.If you should impose a tax of $5 upon them they could not vote.

Are we going to spread this system from our dependencies tothe rest of our country? Is this a precedent to be established bythe Senate of the United States, by the Republican party, for thefuture government of this country? I hope not. Therefore, Mr.President, I hope the report will be rejected and this correctionmade.

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I am inclined to do what I hesitate somewhat to do, and yet perhaps I ought to do it; and thatis to take up each of the sections of this bill, with the changeswhich have been made, and point them out briefly, so that Senators may know what the bill contains somewhat easier and morequickly, at least, than they would be able to do if the discussionshould go on without anything of that kind being done.

There are comparatively few amendments to the bill that areof very great importance and consequence. The first amendmentwhich is found in the substitute is in section 4. That section pro-vided:

Sec. 4. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii onAugust 12, 1898, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States andcitizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

The amendment made to that section by the House, to whichthe conferees agreed, provides:

And all citizens of the United States who were resident In the HawaiianIslands on or since August 12, 1898, and all the citizens of the United Stateswho shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall becitizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

The last provision was added by the House and agreed to by theconferees. It will be found in the print of the bill which has beenfurnished to the Senate to-day.

Before I go further, I desire to state that the amendments asthey appear in the bill which was printed for the use of the Senate to-day only take in the amendments made by the House ofRepresentatives, and not as they were finally agreed to by the conferees of the two Houses.

Mr. COCKRELL. I did not understand that last expression.Mr. CULLOM. I will state it again. On yesterday the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON], and others

very properly raised aquestion of how they could tell what portion of the substitutebill which was reported to the Senate and which was passed bythe House was originally passed by the Senate; and hence I madethe statement yesterday,, and 1 have tried to comply with it, thatthe Senate bill was taken up and every amendment made to it bythe House has been incorporated in the print of the bill that is nowbefore the Senate, so that Senators can see just what changes theHouse made in the bill as it passed the Senate; but I am statingnow that this bill does not show the amendments or changesmade by the conferees to the substitute bill, because Senatorshad that before them yesterday, and can have it before them to-day. It would have been impossible, without printing almost abook, to get all of the subject before the Senate, so that one couldsee at a glance exactly what changes have been made. Hence, Ihave taken this course; and I am calling the attention of the Senate to the amendments to the Senate bill made by the House, andas agreed to by the conferees; so that Senators gee it all practically, though I do not propose to go into the details of the amendments in the remarks I am making.

Mr. COCKRELL. What change is made in section 4 as to citizenship;4455Mr. CULLOM. I have just stated; but I will state it again, sothat it may be understood. Section 4, as passed by the Senate, provided —That all persons who were citizens of the republic of Hawaii on August 12.1898, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens ofthe Territory of Hawaii.The House amended it, and the conferees agreed to the amendment by adding this provision:And all citizens of the United States who were resident in the HawaiianIslands on or since August 12, 1898, and all citizens of the United States whoshall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.Mr. BACON. Will the Senator right there permit me to ask aquestion for information?Mr. CULLOM. Yes.Mr. BACON. I desire to ask the Senator — I probably knew,

by the Senate, I think, as substantially if not absolutely right.Those sections remain in the bill exactly as they were, except thatthere was a provision added to the section to which I will callthe attention of the Senate.The last paragraph of section 10 provides:That the act approved February 28, 1886, "To prohibit the importation andmigration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to performlabor in the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia," andthe acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, be, and the same arehereby, extended to and made applicable to the Territory of Hawaii.It was thought that that was not necessary to be in the bill, butit did not hurt anything and made it certain that the provisiontouching that subject would be recognized as applicable and in

but have forgotten the provision of the constitution of Hawaii onthe subject — as to the extent of citizenship under the republic.Were all the inhabitants made citizens?Mr. CULLOM. No, sir. There are a class of citizens existingunder the republic who declined to take the oath of allegiance.Mr. BACON. And they were in consequence not citizens?Mr. CULLOM. They were in consequence not entitled to vote.Mr. BACON. . But were they citizens of the republic?Mr. CULLOM. I suppose they might be regarded as citizens ofthe republic.Mr. BACON. The Senator will see the pertinency of that inquiry when that part of the section is taken in connection withthe amendment to which the conferees have agreed, because ifthey were not citizens of Hawaii on August 12, 1898. they are notnow under this bill made either citizens of the United States orcitizens of the Territory of Hawaii.Mr. SPOONER. And they could not become citizens of theUnited States except by naturalization, and I do not know thatthey could by naturalization under the existing law.Mr. BACON. Yes.Mr. CULLOM. I think the Senate will find that there is scarcelyanybody over there who is not entitled to vote, except the Chineseand: Japanese.Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me for interruptinghim. 1 am not speaking of the right to vote. A man can be acitizen and not have the right to vote, I am speaking of whetheror. not on the 12tb day of August, 1898, all the inhabitants werecitizens, because those of them who were then not citizens are excluded by this bill from being now made citizens. I suggest tothe Senator that is a matter of such vital importance that weought to have definite and absolutely accurate knowledge upon it.It ought not to be a matter of doubt.Mr. TILLMAN. Has the Senator from Illinois got the Hawaiiancode before him at his desk?Mr. CULLOM. I was just going to say that after I get throughwith my remarks, I will get the Hawaiian code and give the exactstate of the case in reference to that question.Mr. TILLMAN. If the Senator will send for it now, I can belooking it up whilst he is speaking.Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether or not it is in my committee room. It has been carried off, I think, but I shall lookit up.The fifth section was changed by the conferees so that it might,be more certain that the Constitution of the United States wasextended over the Territory by the act. That is the chief purposeof the amendment to section 5 by the House of Representatives as agreed to by the conferees.Mr. BACON. What I wanted to know was whether or not theSenator was prepared to say that, under the constitution of therepublic of Hawaii, all residents, all bona fide inhabitants — I donot mean visitors, but those who are residents and bona

force in those islands. So, with that addition to section 10, as theSenate passed it, the bill stands to-day as it is before the Senatein the conference report.Section 11, providing for the style of process, was amended bythe conferees so as to insert the word "hereafter." That is allthat amounted to. Some of us did not think it was necessary, butone of the conferees thought it was, and so the word was inserted.Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, as they passed the Senate, havenot been changed.The eighteenth section, providing that every citizen entitled tovote shall take an oath to support the Constitution, was strickenout, and only that portion retained relating to idiots, insane per-sons, persons receiving bribes, etc.Mr. BACON. That has been retained.Mr. CULLOM. The latter clause in relation to idiots, insanepersons, persons receiving bribes, etc., remains in the bill, but thefirst part of the section is stricken out.Mr. BACON. I notice that the clause to which the Senator refers, beginning on page 11, at line 24, in the copy I have, is strickenthrough. I understand that was stricken out in the House andhas been restored by the conferees. Is that so?Mr. CULLOM. What clause is that?Mr. BACON. On page 11 of the reprint, the last clause to whichthe Senator has just referred.Mr. CULLOM. That which I read is retained.Mr. BACON. It has a line stricken through it.Mr. CULLOM. But it was reinstated by the conferees.Mr. BACON. That was the question I asked.Mr. CULLOM. Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 were not interfered with by the House, and no changes were made in thosesections as passed by the Senate.The twenty-fifth section was amended so as to punish persons fordisorderly or contemptuous behavior in committee, as well as inthe house of representatives, to which the conferees agreed; inother words, we inserted the House provision on that subject in-stead of the Senate provision, which seemed to be a little moresatisfactory. I do not think there was much difference in the twosections; but the Senate yielded on that score.There was no change made in the Senate bill in the twenty-sixthsection, but in the twenty-seventh section the provision of theSenate was stricken out and in lieu of it the following wasinserted:SEC. 27. That each house may punish its own members for disorderly behavior or neglect of duty, by censure, or by a two-thirds rote suspend orexpel a member.That is the provision I referred to.There was no change made by the House or by the conferees insections 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and they remain in the bill as itwas passed by the Senate.In the thirty-fourth section, relating to the qualifications ofsenators, an amendment was made requiring senators to have attained the age of 30 years instead of 25 years.There was no change made in sections 35 and 36. In section 37,after the word "vacancies," the words "in the office of representative" were inserted.Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me a moment. The

fide in-habitants of the islands — were on that date, under the constitution of the republic of Hawaii, citizens of the republic?Mr. CULLOM. I understand the Senator's question, and I willstate that later on I will get the statutes of the Hawaiian republic and see exactly how they are in that respect.Mr. BACON. I suppose the Senator desires that we should, ashe takes these sections up, ask him such questions as may suggest themselves. 1 think we shall save time by following thatcourse.Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to that.Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9 were not at all changed after the billpassed the Senate, but they remain in the bill just as it waspassed.Section 10 was amended by the House, but all the amendmentsmade by the House were receded from except the last paragraph,which was added to the bill by the House and agreed to by theconferees. The Senate will remember that the first line of section10 referred to obligations and contracts. The Senate struck thosewords out, and then added a section or two with reference to theattitude of contract laborers over there, which was agreed upon

Senator will recognize that section 34 may be very materially de-pendent for its construction upon the section to which I firstcalled the attention of the Senator, which relates to the questionas to whether or not all inhabitants were citizens on the 12th ofAugust, 1898; because if it should be found to be. as has beensuggested, that there was a large part of the then inhabitants notcitizens, they would be made ineligible, of course, under this language inserted in section 34, to any office, because they could notvote.Mr. CULLOM. I was going to say that this section providesthat a person, in order to be eligible to the office of senator, shall bea male citizen of the United States and shall have attained the ageof 30 years, instead of 25 years, and—have resided in the Hawaiian Islands not less than three years, and shallbe qualified to vote for senators in the district from which he is elected.Mr. BACON. I understand; but I was simply calling the attention of the Senator to the fact that it may be necessary to recurto that section if it is found necessary to amend section 34.Mr. CULLOM. The purpose of the committees of both Houses

4456was finally that, barring Asiatics, every other man in the Territory should have the right to vote.Mr. SPOONER. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinoisa question, if he will recur to section 28 of the Senate bill. Uponwhat theory was it that the clause there giving to each house thepower to determine the rules of its proceedings was stricken out?What objection was there to that?Mr. CULLOM. It is section 27.Mr. SPOONER. It was section 28 in the Senate bill, and pro-vided —That each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish itsmembers for disorderly behavior, and; with the concurrence of two-thirds,expel a member.Upon what theory was the phrase "That each house may determine the rules of its proceedings" stricken out? Do yon thinkwe can improve much upon the Constitution of the United Statesand all the State constitutions on that subject?Mr. CULLOM. The supposition is that they have that right.Each house is to determine the rules of its own proceedings.Mr. SPOONER. The framers of the Constitution of the UnitedStates did not proceed upon that theory, nor did the framers ofthe constitutions of the various States.Mr. CULLOM. That may be.Mr. SPOONER. That is true.Mr. CULLOM. The truth is that each house the world overdetermines the rules by which it governs its own proceedings; butthe provision put in here that each house may punish its ownmembers for disorderly behavior, neglect of duty, etc., seemed tobe necessary. The House conferees insisted upon it, and we consented to it.Mr. BACON. May I ask the Senator how are the qualificationsof the members of the two houses to be determined if this conference report shall be adopted and the bill becomes a law?Mr. SPOONER. If the provision is left in that each houseshall have the power to determine the elections and qualificationsof its own members ——Mr. CULLOM. There was no change there, I think. I wasreferring to the thirty-fourth section, as to the qualifications ofsenators; that the age for a senator should be fixed at 30 yearsinstead of at 25 years.There is no change made in the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixthsections.In section 37, after the word "vacancies," the words "in theoffice of representative" were inserted. As the bill stood it wassomewhat indefinite, and so those words were put in by the conferees.There is no change made in section 38 of the Senate bill, andthere is no change in section 39.At the end of section 40 the words "in the district from whichhe was elected " were inserted, and the conferees agreed to that.The suggestion was that without those words a member of thesenate might be elected from a district in which he did not reside.There were no changes in sections 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,49, 50, and 51, except the last clause of section 51 was stricken outof the Senate bill and in lieu of it a paragraph was inserted bythe House, which stated the law more clearly, but which is substantially the same thing, as I construe it.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. What change does the Senator sayhas been made in section 40?Mr. CULLOM. At the end of the section the words "in thedistrict from which be was elected" were inserted.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I do not see anything in the print ofthe bill I have to indicate any change of that kind.Mr. SPOONER. That is section 34, on page 16 of the reprintedbill.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The Senator from Illinois said sec-tion 40.Mr. CULLOM. I did; and I have an impression, though I amnot sure of it ——Mr. JONES of Arkansas. These amendments ought to appearat the places indicated.Mr. CULLOM. The provision as to residence is made applicable, as I think, to the whole of the section referring to senatorsand representatives.Mr. SPOONER. There is no reason why it should refer to oneand not to the other.Mr. CULLOM. No; I think not; but I say I thought when Iprepared this statement that we had actually made the amendment applicable to senators and representatives alike.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Then why should not the print ofthe bill show it?Mr. CULLOM. The bill does not show that as to the house ofrepresentatives, but I take it it will be so construed, at any rate.Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President. I should hardly think so. If

that that restriction was not intended to be placed upon the representative.Mr. CULLOM. I find that the House bill as amended by theconferees does have the provision in it, and it reads:And shall be qualified to vote for representatives in the district fromwhich he is elected.Mr. JO^ES of Arkansas. What section?Mr. CULLOM. That is section 40.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Then it is a mistake in the print wehave on our desks.Mr. CULLOM. That has been dropped out by my clerk.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. It is in the official copy — the conference report?Mr. CULLOM. It is in the copy before the Senate.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. In the conference report, signed?Mr. CULLOM. The report is signed.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Are those words added?Mr. CULLOM. The words are added in red ink in this copy?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. In this copy there is nothing to showthere is an amendment of that kind, but if it is in the conferencereport, of course it is all right.Mr. CULLOM. I will read it. The original provision as itpassed the House simply read as follows:And shall be qualified to rote for representatives.The conferees then added the words:In the district from which he is elected.Mr. BACON. It is in the reprint which we had on yesterday,which shows ——Mr. CULLOM. It was left out of it by mistake. There is nopossible doubt about it being in the bill to be adopted.Mr. SPOONER. That is all right.Mr. CULLOM. Is that satisfactory to the Senator from Arkansas?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Entirely so. If it is in the officialcopy, it makes no difference whether it is in this copy or not; it willbe all right.Mr. CULLOM. It is. I ran over the numbers of the sectionsof the Senate bill wherein no changes are made, being sections 41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48. 49, 50, and 51, except the last clause ofsection 51, which was stricken out of the Senate bill, and in lieuof it a paragraph was inserted by the House which stated the lawmore clearly, but which, I think, is substantially the same thing.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Is there not a change in section 47?The word "chairman" is stricken out and the words "presidingofficer" inserted in italics. I do not know what this print meansexactly.Mr. CULLOM. That is in the bill. It is pretty difficult inhandling so many bills to state the facts offhand. To what sec-tion does the Senator refer now?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Section 47. The word "chairman"is stricken out and the words "presiding officer" inserted. It isa very small matter.Mr. CULLOM. That is in the bill before the Senate. I recollect it very well.I wish to say that some of the sections I regarded as of verylittle consequence, and I did not incorporate them in this statement, because I did not have the time, and it would have requireda good deal of work to do it so as to have what I state in my re-• marks accord exactly with the facts in the bill. Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him aquestion? Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.Mr. SPOONER. I see that in section 46 of this reprint, withrespect to the reading of bills, it is provided—That a bill, in order to become a law, shall, except as herein provided, passthree readings in each house on separate days.The words "on separate days" are in italics, and of course thatis an amendment. Was that agreed to by the conferees?Mr. CULLOM. I would rather read it, so as to be sure. Whatsection is that?Mr. SPOONER. Section 46.Mr. CULLOM. This is the way the bill reads as reported:That a bill, in order to become a law, shall, except as herein provided, passthree readings in each house, on separate days, the final passage of which ineach house shall be by a majority vote of all the members to which suchhouse is entitled, taken by yeas and nays and entered upon its journal.That is the section as it appears in the conference report. Isthat satisfactory?In section 52, as will be seen by the Senate, the word "Hawaii"was stricken out and the words "Territory of Hawaii" substituted, to make it more clear and so that it should

the law provides that the senator shall be a resident of the districtfrom which he is elected, but makes no provision whatever on thesubject as to the representative, the inference would be very clear

be more properly stated. That is the only change from the Senate section. Ithink I would rather use the conference report for the next item.In section 53 there was no change made in the Senate section.I now come to section 54, and here is a provision about which I

4457have no doubt there will be difference of opinion in the Senate,and I will read the whole of the section: That In case of failure of the legislature to pass appropriation bills provid-ing for payments of the necessary current expenses of carrying on the gov-ernment and meeting its legal obligations as the same are provided for bythe then existing laws, the governor shall, upon the adjournment of the leg-islature, call it in extra session for the consideration of appropriation bills-Down to and including that word it reads exactly as does theSenate bill. I call attention to the remainder of the section. TheSenate struck out the remainder of the section, the House restoredit, and finally the conferees agreed to it. It reads as follows:and until the legislature shall have acted the treasurer may, with the ad-vice of the governor, make such payments, for which purpose the sums appro-priated in the last appropriation bill shall be deemed to have been reappro-priated. And all legislative and other appropriations made prior to the date,when this act shall take effect shall be available to the government of theTerritory of Hawaii.That provision was not in the Senate bill; it was in the Housebill, and the Senate conferees finally agreed to it.Mr. BACON. I think that is a question about which there wasa great deal of discussion when the bill was before the Senate.Mr. SPOONER. The Senate struck it out.Mr. BACON. I understand that. The Senate struck it out afterelaborate debate. It is true it is limited to current expenses; andif there were a provision there which limited the time within whichthe governor should call the extra session of the legislature, I donot know that there would be any very great objection to it. Butthere is no limitation of time; and if the governor — of course wewill not presume that he will fail to do his duty ——Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will pardon me. it says the gov-ernor shall, upon the adjournment of the legislature, call an extrasession.Mr. BACON. I understand, but it does not state within whattime it shall be convened. He might put it off ten months.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Upon the adjournment of the legis-lature, I should think, means immediately.Mr. SPOONER. Yes.Mr. TILLMAN. What about the situation in Pennsylvania?Mr. BACON. Very well, if it will be so construed.Mr. CULLOM. While that is not a usual provision in legisla-tion, yet after considerable contest and controversy and discussionthe Senate conferees agreed to it, believing that if it did not turnout to be satisfactory and work well it could be repealed here-after.Section 55 contains an amendment made by the House and agreedto by the conferees, which is to strike out the word "or" and in-sert "and;" so that it will read:That no corporation, domestic or foreign, shall acquire and hold realestate, etc.I have not quoted the whole section, but Senators can see theprovision in the bill. The purpose of it is to limit the holding ofreal estate by corporations to a thousand acres.Mr. BACON. It seems to me that this is an exceedingly drasticamendment. I think the limitation of the number of acres a cor-poration may hold is all right. We have a similar law in myown State; but for it to go on and prescribe that whenever suchtitle shall pass to a corporation it shall immediately escheat tothe Government of the United States, it seems to me, is an ex-tremely rigid provision. There ought to be rather than thatsome provision by which the court could distribute the propertyor administer the property in the interest of those justly entitledto it. But it ought not to say that if, by any means, title shallvest in a corporation ——Mr. SPOONER. It may take it in payment of debts.Mr. BACON. Certainly. There are a number of ways in whicha corporation may come into title, legal or equitable, to property,and to say that it shall be immediately forfeited — I do not knowthat there is any parallel to such a provision in any law, State orFederal. I certainly have never heard of one.Mr. CULLOM. The Senate Knows and the country knows thatthe tendency in those islands — and we are not entirely free fromit anywhere else in this country — is for corporations to accumu-late immense tracts of land and prevent the ordinary citizen or

of the United States. I think, if there is no other thing, thatthat single provision ought to be sufficient to induce the Senateto send the report back to the conference committee in order thatit may be corrected.Mr. CULLOM. My judgment is that it is a tolerably salutaryprovision for that Territory for a while; if not always, and I hopeit will remain in the bill.Mr. TILLMAN. I notice that accompanying the same pro-vision there is no interference with existing or vested rights, andtherefore the question arises at once whether or not there are notnow corporations which hold in excess, and a good many of them,and that these existing corporations, the sugar companies of whichwe have beard so much, will thereby, under this provision, havea monopoly, so to speak, of the right of having enough capital,for instance, to organize a sugar factory. We know that unlessthere is something like a thousand acres or more than that tribu-tary to a large sugar mill it can not run; and would not the ex-isting sugar mills force all the balance of the country capable ofbeing planted in sugar to be tributary to them by reason of thefact that no other corporations could organize? There must besome hidden purpose here. I am not now insinuating that theSenator from Illinois is cognizant of it or in anyway mixed up in,it, but I should like to know why this provision is put in here.Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator wants to find out how it got inhere, he will have to go to the House of Representatives.Mr. TILLMAN. It was put in in the House, and the Senatorsaid he thought possibly it was a salutary one. I threw out theidea which occurred to me, and I should like to have the Senatorexplain it, if he knows anything about it.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator knows, and he has already stated,that there are very large corporations there ——Mr. TILLMAN. And they are not interfered with.Mr. CULLOM. How are you going to interfere with them?You can not interfere with them by law.Mr. TILLMAN. If one corporation is good ——Mr. CULLOM. How can you do it? You can pass a law thatwill prevent a continuation of the grasping spirit of these peopleand restrict their power to get possession of all the land.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Does the Senator from Illinois admitthat corporations now holding more than a thousand acres wouldnot be limited by this provision?Mr. CULLOM. They will be limited as to buying any more,but we can not interfere with what they have if they have a deedto it. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I should think the Government haspower to limit their right to hold real estate. In this paragraphthe language is to acquire or to hold.Mr. PETTIGREW. The Senator will see in the latter part ofthe paragraph a provision for the protection of corporations nowin existence.Mr. SPOONER. It is prospective in its operation.Mr. CULLOM. It is prospective entirely.Mr. PETTIGREW. The paragraph will be entirely harmlessfor the reason that any body of men can organize just as manycorporations as they please, each holding a thousand acres, andrun them all under one management. Further than that, theland is all taken up anyway. There remain nothing but vol-canic fields of lava and a few thousand acres of high groundbetween the two great mountains of the island of Hawaii, whichis adapted to grazing purposes. The missionaries have capturedit all and organized corporations, and got the control of every thing worth having.Mr. TILLMAN. Then why put in this provision prohibitingthem invading that beautiful paradise any more?Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether or not the Senator fromSouth Carolina is answering the Senator from South Dakota, butthe provision is in there, and on its face it is for the future; toprevent hereafter the accumulation of these immense estates asagainst the masses of the people who may want to go there andget homes, if they can. That is all there is of it.Mr. BACON. You allow corporations which have land inexcess of the limitation to retain it?Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator tell me how he is going to getrid of the ownership of land by the corporations or individuals,either, to which they have title under the law?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I think the Government has the rightto limit the power of these corporations to hold real estate.Mr. CULLOM. Certainly it has.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. They are under the control of theGovernment, and the Government can do what it pleases withthem.Mr. CULLOM. That is the purpose of this provision.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. No.Mr. CULLOM. Are yon going to take away from them what

newcomer from getting a footing at all in real estate; and thepurpose of this was to stop that if we could.Mr. BACON. I think that is entirely proper.Mr. CULLOM. And let the people get homesteads and tractsof land to cultivate, and for other purposes.Mr. BACON. I think it is entirely proper to stop it, but thequestion is whether the remedy is a proper one. It would be verywell to prohibit it, and then leave it to the courts to say whatshall become of the property. Of course, if this last provisionwere not in it, and legal proceedings were not had to prevent acorporation from holding it, the courts would distribute the property necessarily to those who are entitled to it. They would administer it in the interest of those who are entitled to it. But here isan express provision that if a corporation ever does acquire suchtitle, it shall immediately, without any possibility of appeal orredress of any kind, be forfeited, and escheat to the Government

they already have?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Why not say that no corporation inthe islands shall hold more than 1,000 acres of real estate?

4458Mr. CULLOM. You may do that, and compel them to sell; butit seems to me there is no occasion for it.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Then there is no occasion for pre-venting any other corporations from holding any more than thathereafter.Mr. CULLOM. Let me say that most of the corporations exist-ing there have already acquired large tracts of land. In the interestof the production of sugar, they have been compelled to expendvery large amounts of money, and if they had not done so thesugar plantations which they have established would not havebeen made at all, because otherwise they could not do it. I knowthe situation there. The sugar lands and sugar cultivation beginat the foot of the hills, and they go up the hill as far as they canget water on the land — on the island of Hawaii, for instance.At one time they supposed that they had got as high up the hillsas they could go. because they could not get water, but it turnedout finally that they could erect pumping works, which cost hun-dreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I do not know butthat some of them cost millions of dollars, by which they throwthe water up the hill say 500 feet more, and that makes an addi-tional amount of land which becomes good sugar land. Such cor-porations exist there where they had to have water, and I do notthink it would be fair to them to ——Mr. TILLMAN. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that itwould not be fair to try to take those vested rights away, but I donot see why we should limit it and prevent new capital from go-ing in and pumping water up other slopes elsewhere, unless thepresent occupants of the country want a monopoly of the growthand manufacture of sugar and desire to force all future enter-prises to submit to their dictation as to toll.Mr. CULLOM. The House passed the bill, and it seems to meit is plain what was desired. The Senate conferees believed thatit was in the interest of the masses of the people, and finallyagreed to the House amendment. That is all I can say about it,and I think it will work to the advantage of the people out there,Stopping the abuse as well as we can under the general law.The remark of the Senator from South Dakota that the lands areall gone already, and so on, I do not think is exactly true.Mr. PETTIGREW. It is practically true.Mr. CULLOM. If it is true, as he says, this does not amount toanything?Mr. PETTIGREW. No.Mr. TILLMAN. If it had not been true, this provision wouldnot have been put in by the House.Mr. CULLOM. I suppose not.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. It does seem to me that this sort oflegislation is absolutely indefensible. I do not see why you shouldUndertake to make a rule applicable to people who may enter intothis business that is not applicable to those already engaged in it.Mr. CULLOM. The next is section 56. There is a slightamendment in it.Mr. PETTUS. Before the Senator passes from this section, IWish to ask him a question. I see an amendment in this section —Nor snail saloons for the sale of intoxicating drinks be allowed.I do not believe in the idea of regulating the morals of otherpeople until we get so that we do not have any such thing here.I do not see why the Congress of the United should prohibit it toother people.Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator will allow me, 1 will read justwhat the amendment to that provision is. The words ''nor shallsaloons for the sale of intoxicating drinks be allowed " are strickenout, and words inserted as follows:Nor shall spirituous or intoxicating liquors be sold except under suchregulations and restrictions as the Territorial legislature shall provide.Mr. PETTUS. That does not appear in this copy.Mr. CULLOM. It is in the conference report. No amendmentmade by the conferees appears in the bill which the Senator has.Is that satisfactory to the Senator?Mr. PETTUS. If that is to be the law, it is.Mr. CULLOM. That is in the bill reported by the conferees.Sections 57 and 53 were not amended.Mr. SPOONER, Will the Senator allow me? There is anamendment marked here at the end of section 55 —No retrospective law shall be enacted.Mr. CULLOM. That was stricken out.In section 59 the minority provision with respect to voting forrepresentative was stricken out by the House and agreed to bythe conferees. The Senate had a provision in the bill which pro-vided for what we call minority representation. They had it outthere, and it being in Illinois, so far as I was concerned, I waswilling that it should stay in the bill. The House struck it out,and I was entirely satisfied to let it go. I suppose the Senate is.Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator tell us why he changed themandatory provision in regard to the creation of counties? It was

Mr. TILLMAN. Section 56 in the conference report.Mr. CULLOM. We have gone by that. The conferees regardedthe word "may" as all that was necessary.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The Senator stated that there wasno change in section 56.Mr. CULLOM. It is left in the discretion of the legislature todo as it thinks best.Mr. SPOONER. I think that is an improvement.Mr. TILLMAN. It depends upon whether they propose to havean oligarchy in Honolulu and to run the whole business andmake everybody come over there, or allow the people to havesome local self-government.Mr. CULLOM. This is in the direction of local self-governmentin that respect. The power remains in Congress to change it if itturns out not to be satisfactory. If any portion of the people getpossession of the government by appointment to office or other-wise and abuse the people, the power -will be in the hands of Con-gress to change it whenever it chooses.Section CO was amended by the House and subsequently amendedby the conferees, so that the provision will read as I will read it.I think I had better read it from the substitute bill reported bythe conferees, so that we may know exactly what it is. The fifthsubdivision of section 60, as agreed to by the conferees, reads asfollows:Fifth. Prior to such registration have paid on or before the 31st day ofMarch next preceding the date of registration all taxes due by him to thegovernment.That is the provision which was discussed by the Senator fromSouth Dakota before I took the floor. That is as it appears in theconference reportMr. BACON. I think slight consideration will show that to bea very great injustice to the people of Hawaii, because the 31stday of March is already passed, and these people have not hereto-fore been recognized as having taken advantage of the conditionsprescribed by the law; and with this remaining as it is, it willlimit the voters in the next election to those who voted in theformer election, which, I understand, is less than 3,000 people inthe whole islands. I may be mistaken about that, but if so, I hopethe Senator from Illinois will point out in what way I am mis-taken, because if that is the truth it certainly ought not to be ap-proved by the Congress or made the law by the Congress. Weshould not put in the organic law a provision in which there is adate fixed which absolutely and irrevocably determines that inthe original organization of this Territory nobody shall vote ex-cept those who voted in the last election. That is practically theeffect of it. If it is not the effect of it, I hope the Senator fromIllinois will point it out.Mr. TILLMAN. There is another phase of this question. Ithink this is the most important matter in the whole bill. Theper capita taxes in Hawaii are $5 — $1 for poll tax and $2 for schoolsand $3 for roads. It is in this bill, and the Senate provision, whichthey have left in, simply provides that those $5 must have beenpaid before the 31st day of March or no person can register for thenext election. I am speaking now about those who do not payanything but the capitation taxes, the poor men. Therefore we willlimit the suffrage to those who have paid their poll taxes of $5 priorto the 31st day of March, just gone. Under that provision as itstands, as the Senator from Georgia just pointed out, the suffragewill be limited to that extent that the electors in the next electionwill have it in their power to elect a legislature which may doubleor treble the poll tax, and these poor devils never will get thefranchise.Mr. PETTIGREW. That is unquestionably the purpose of thebill. As the bill was first brought into the Senate it was clearlythe purpose to limit the franchise simply to sugar planters andthe men in their employ. That provision we corrected in a meas-ure in the Senate. But we left in this provision. Now, the House

"shall" in the Senate bill and is "may" in the conference report.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. What section is that? corrected it by providing for a poll tax of $1, but the conferees on

the part of the Senate appear to have insisted upon this provision,which disqualifies practically everyone from voting except thosewhom the sugar planters want to have vote. Under this provi-sion a graduate of Yale or Harvard College, if he failed to pay thepoll tax on the 31st day of last March, is disqualified from votingfor members of the legislature, and then the next legislature canimpose conditions which would shut him out forever. It does notseem to me that this ought to be tolerated.There are other taxes. The law provides that an annual tax of$1 shall be paid by every male inhabitant of the Territory betweenthe ages of 20 and 60 years, unless exempted by law. It also pro-vides that an annual tax of $3 for the support of public schoolsshall be paid by every male inhabitant of the Territory betweenthe ages of 20 and 60 years, unless exempted by law.The next paragraph provides that an annual road tax of $3 shallbe paid by every male inhabitant of this Territory between theages of 20 and 60 years, unless exempted by law.

4459Then there is a tax on personal property, and then there la thisprovision:SEC, 814. All male animals of the dog kind shall be subject to an annualtax of $1 each, and all female animals of the dog kind shall be subject to anannual tax of $3 each, to be paid by the owner thereof.So if a man has a dog or two dogs, there is an additional tax of$4. Then there is this farther provision:SEC. 832. If any property taxes shall remain unpaid after the 15th day ofNovember in any year, 10 per cent of the amount of such taxes shall be addedby the assessor to the amount of such taxes at said date, and shall becomeand be collected as part of such taxes.SEC. 833. It any personal taxes or dog tax shall remain unpaid after the 31stday of March. 10 per cent of such taxes shall be added to the amount of suchtaxes at said date by the assessor, and shall be collected as part of such taxes.Therefore if those people have failed to pay for two or threeyears, the tax runs up to many dollars. The probabilities are thatthere is an exceedingly small number of people who will be ableto vote under this provision. At the last election in Hawaii Iunderstand that there were about 2,200 votes cast. Under thisprovision I believe the number must certainly sink far below thatfigure. Yet at the last election held under the monarchy, beforethey established a republic in that country, there were between13,000 and 14,000 voters in Hawaii, and that excluded all theAsiatics.I wish to ask a question of the Senator from Illinois, who is morefamiliar with this subject than I am. I want to know whetherthis provision has been repealed?Mr. CULLOM. Which provision is that?Mr. PETTIGREW. It is paragraph 864 of the laws of Hawaii.Mr. CULLOM. I would not be able to answer that unless Itook the time to go through all the sections, paragraphs, chaptersetc., which have been repealed.Mr. PETTIGREW. I wish to call the attention of the Senator ——Mr. CULLOM. But I can answer in a general way that all thelaws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or the lawsof the United States or with the provisions of this act shall con-tinue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the legislatureof Hawaii.Mr. PETTIGREW. Now, here is this provision:SEC. 863. In case of personal taxes due and unpaid on the 1st day of Janu-ary In each year, if no personal property can be found whereon to distrain,the assessor may cause the arrest and detention of the person of such tax-payer by and under a warrant issued and signed by the assessor or his deputy,in substance in the form following, viz: Territory of Hawaii, island of ——— , district of ——— :To ————— , chief sheriff, or any constable or police officer of the districtof ——, island of ——— of ——— in the island of ——— , having failed and neglected to pay the sum of ——— dollars assessed upon him for personal taxesfor the year ——, now due and unpaid, and no property being found belonging to the said ——— whereon to levy by distress; Therefore, by virtue of the authority in me vested by law, I hereby orderand command you to forthwith arrest and take said ——— before —— district magistrate of —— , island of ——— , to show cause, if any he has, whyhe, the said ——, should not be sentenced by said magistrate to be imprisoned at hard labor until he discharge the amount of said tax and costs as bylaw provided.Hereof fail not, but of this order, with your proceedings thereon, make duereturn. Given under my hand this —— day of ——, A. D ——.Assessor of —— Division, Island of ——.SEC. 864. The officer receiving such warrant shall forthwith arrest the per-son therein named and take him before the district magistrate named in thewarrant. Such magistrate shall, if no legal cause be shown for the nonpayment of said personal taxes, sentence such person to be imprisoned at hardlabor until he discharge the amount of such taxes and the costs of arrest andhearing at the rate of 50 cents per day.Costs shall be the usual costs of district courts.The payment at any time of the amount of taxes and costs due shall re-lease the person arrested.I have seen the Republican papers of the North protesting veryloudly that some of the Southern States had enacted a provisionlike this.Mr. TILLMAN. What is the number of the section that theSenator from South Dakota has read?Mr. PETTIGREW. I am reading from the laws of Hawaii,page 121, sections 863 and 864. As I understand it, this provision isnot repealed. In other words, we reenact it, and that, along withthe disfranchisement of these people, it seems to me will leave theRepublican party where it can no longer complain, no matter

applies to regular elections, perhaps it will be said it might as wellapply to all.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. If the Senator's construction of thatis correct, why do yon put in the words "prior to such registration?"Mr. PETTIGREW. Why did you not agree to the House pro-vision? Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Yes. It is "prior to such registra-tion" that this tax has to be paid. So when the registration coniesto be made, the question whether he has paid this tax will beraised.Mr. CULLOM. The provision reads "prior to each regularelection;" not special but regular election.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I am reading it, which is the bestthat I can do. It says "prior to such registration."Mr. CULLOM. I understand. From what section is the Sena-tor reading?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I am reading paragraph 5 of section60, the one which contains the language the Senator read a fewminutes ago.Mr. CULLOM. Let us see how it reads in the bill. Section 60reads as follows:SEC. 60. That in order to be qualified to vote for representatives a personshall —First. Be a male citizen of the United States.Second. Have resided in the Territory not less than one year precedingand in the representative district in which he offers to register not less thanthree months immediately preceding the time at which he offers to register.Third. Have attained the age of 21 years. Fourth. Prior to each regular election, during the time prescribed by lawfor registration, have caused his name to be entered on the register of votersfor representatives for his district.Fifth. Prior to such registration have paid, on or before the 31st day ofMarch next preceding the date of registration, all taxes due by him to thegovernment.All that refers to the regular election.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. But the language of the law that youpropose distinctly says that "prior to such registration" this taxmust be paid.Mr. CULLOM. Yes.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The person can not be registered un-less the taxes are paid.Mr. CULLOM. That is true.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Then the purpose of it is to cut himout That is exactly the complaint made by the Senator fromSouth Dakota.Mr. PETTIGREW. He can not vote at any election. Mr. CULLOM. That connects with the fourth paragraph, re-ferring to the regular election.Mr. PETTIGREW. If the person is not registered, he can notvote at any election.Mr. CULLOM. I think he can; but whether he can or not, inthe first place, the people who I suppose the Senator would thinkwere affected most by that paragraph are the native Hawaiians.The truth is that they have never had any trouble with the nativeHawaiians on the question of preparing themselves for voting. Mr. TELLER. Why?Mr. CULLOM. Because they are always ready to pay their tax.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. There will be trouble after this.Mr. PETTIGREW. If the Senator will allow me, it is wellknown to the commission who visited the islands and to every-body else that the native Hawaiians did not register and did notvote because they protested against the overthrowing of theirgovernment by these people.Mr. CULLOM. Of course many of them did not vote.Mr. PETTIGREW. They are not registered, and they have notvoted.Mr. CULLOM. But it was not because they did not pay theirtaxes. It was because they did not know what was going on anddid not feel satisfied at first to vote under the republic. That isthe meaning of that.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Does the Senator from Illinois admitas correct the fact stated by the Senator from South Carolina[Mr. TILLMAN]. as he understands it, that the present poll tax inthe Hawaiian Islands is $5 per head?Mr. CULLOM. 1 do not know what it is.Mr. PETTIGREW. I have just read the law.Mr. TILLMAN. Here is the law of Hawaii, with the sectionproviding for a capitation tax.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. If that is the case, aside from everyother fact presented in connection with this matter in the Senate,the Senate ought to reject the conference report for that reason.Here is the provision that went to conference:Prior to such registration have paid a poll tax of $1 for the current year.The Senate conferees agreed to strike that out, and the Houseput in the provision that "on or before the 31st day of Marchnext preceding the date of registration all taxes due by him to

what conditions are imposed by any State or any locality to disfranchise the inhabitants of any State or locality.Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President. I am not able to get my eye onall of the sections that bear upon this question. Of course at theregular election that provision could be enforced. My belief is,however, that at the first election, if an election should be calledby the governor before the regular session, there would be no requirement on the part of the governor and no rule by which hecould be governed as to the registration at all, and he could register everybody if he wanted to do so.Mr. PETTIGREW. It does not say so.Mr. CULLOM. I think there are sections which result in thatconclusion. Of course it applies to regular elections; but if it

the Government" shall be paid. To leave that poll tax of $5 perhead in force against the poor people of that island is a shame, asit seems to me, and it ought not to be tolerated.

4460I believe that for that reason, and that alone, the Senate ought to

send this conference report back to the conference committee andlet them bring back a provision for a tax of not more than a dol-lar a head. The truth is, that with the wealth that has been accn-mulated in this great country of ours I have begun to believe and tofeel that to collect a tax from a man who has no property, simplybecause he breathes the air of this free Republic — a tax of even $1a head — is wrong; that it ought not to be tolerated. None of ourStates, so far as I know, collect more than a dollar a head of polltax, and that is enough in all conscience. That is one which hasbeen sanctioned a long time, and I would make no special objec-tion to it. though I would very much prefer to have none. Whenthe proposition is that we shall pass a law here that shall imposea collection of $5 per head of poll tax, I for one am not willing tosubmit to it under any conceivable circumstances.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator gets very much excited about asmall thing.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Five dollars a head is no small thingfor a poor man.

Mr. CULLOM. I never thought much of a poll tax; and whenthat poll-tax provision was stricken out, I supposed, as a matter offact, that the people there who are entitled to vote would prob-ably have no tax to pay at all; that if they do not own anythingthey would not have to pay a tax; and if they do own anythingon which they should pay a tax, they ought to pay it. That is allthere is of that.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Yet the Senator admits that there isa poll tax of $5 a head on all those people, as was read from thelaw here. This is a proposition to keep that in force.

Mr. CULLOM. But it remains for the legislature to wipe thatpoll tax out, and any other tax that is burdensome to the people.

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. When you allow a handful of menwho own the property and are interested in making the poor peo-ple pay a poll tax to select a legislature, it is something like submitting the lamb to the tender mercies of the wolf.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator goes on the theory that if a manowns anything, he is bound to oppress somebody. I do not be-lieve in that doctrine myself.

Mr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois, if it isagreed that this principle shall be applied only to taxes on prop-erty, what is the objection to letting the report go back and havethe poll-tax provision stricken out?

Mr. CULLOM. I would abolish the poll tax if I did anythingwith it. I do not believe in it.

Mr. TELLER. I do not, either. I do not believe that anybodyought to be compelled to pay a tax before he votes. I do notthink anybody ought to buy his suffrage in that way.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator is aware that in some of the Statesthey have a poll tax, and probably the Senator knows how itworks. The politicians or candidates run around and try to findeverybody who is not able to pay the poll tax to vote for them,and they offer to pay the poll tax.

Mr. TELLER. I want to say to the Senator that is the onlyobjection I have to a poll tax. Since I have been a member of theSenate I was told by a man in public life, holding a high office,that he had bought $40,000 worth of poll taxes in his State. Now,that is an indirect way of purchasing votes.

Mr. CULLOM. Exactly.Mr. SPOONER. It is not so very indirect, either.Mr. TELLER. Well, it is just about as direct as when a can-

didate pays any indebtedness. If a man owes $5 and some candi-date desires his vote and pays it and gets his vote, that is a pur-chase of that vote. I say it is absolutely inconsistent with theprinciple of good government to make the suffrage conditionedupon paying taxes. I am in favor of striking out all that provi-sion, and I think the Senate would be in favor of it if we couldget a vote on that proposition. It certainly is not a wise thing todo. A man may have but little property and not be able to paythe tax. Should he be deprived of his citizenship?

Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me, we struck outthe property qualification.

4460 Mr. TELLER. Certainly; we intended to give free suffragethere, and we did not intend to give it after this legislature hadgiven it to them. We intended to give it to them ourselves, sothat they might be able to vote in the next election.Mr. CULLOM. As a matter of fact, when we struck out thepoll tax. if I may be allowed to state the fact ——Mr. TELLER. Certainly.Mr. CULLOM. It was largely on my motion. I did not be-lieve in it.Mr. TILLMAN. Yon mean the properly qualification?Mr. CULLOM. No: I mean in conference. When it was sug-gested that a voter before registering should pay his taxes, it oc-curred to me that the poor man did not have any to pay if he didnot own property; that the great mass of the poor people not own-ing much, if anything, would not have any tax to pay at all, andtherefore it would be much easier for him to pay a little tax, if hehad anything to pay it on, than to be constrained to pay a poll tax.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Now, as the Senator finds there is atax of $5 a head, I suppose he will be perfectly willing to have thereport go back to the conference committee and let that be strickenout.Mr. CULLOM. If it should go back, I would be in favor ofstriking it out; of course I would.

April 20, 1900. Senatev. 33 (5)p. 4460-4470

Mr. CHANDLER. I will ask the Senator from Illinois whetherhe will have concluded his remarks upon the conference reportbefore the close of the routine morning business to-morrow?Mr. CULLOM. It looks a little bit uncertain as to when I shallget through. But I am trying as best I can to give all the infor-mation that the Senate wants with reference to this bill.Mr. STEWART. Will the Senator allow me to make a sugges-tion right here in regard to that point?Mr. CULLOM. Yes.Mr. STEWART. I am so unalterably opposed to making thepayment of a poll tax a condition precedent to voting, and I amso unalterably opposed to a property qualification for voting, thatI think it is a matter that should not be left in doubt in this case.I advise the Senator by all means to withdraw his report if thereis any uncertainty about it and have it made certain. If we adopt

4461An educational qualification, that I think is all right, and I agreeto it. I agree that suffrage will be sufficiently exclusive in thoseislands with that qualification, but it ought not to go any further.I have seen some of the operations of a poll tax. We had it inNevada as a condition of voting, and it was a very demoralizingelement in politics and led to abuses, and the people grew sick ofit and repealed it. There is a general sentiment against it in thecountry where it has been tried. Any man who wants the votewill pay the tax, and the rich man will have it all in his hands.The poor man can not pay the tax, and it is just like buying hisvote when another pays the tax for him. I hope the report willbe returned and that that will be made certain. I could not votefor a conference report where there was any doubt on that question.Mr. CULLOM. As the Senator from New Hampshire has madeinquiry whether I am likely to get through with my remarks be-fore Tuesday, I should like to be let alone until I can make themand see whether there is anything seriously in the way of theadoption of the conference report.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The Senator does not object to theSenate having information given as he goes along?Mr. CULLOM. I certainly have not shown any disposition notto give all the information I could.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I thought the Senator said he did notwant to be interrupted.Mr. CULLOM. I have adopted this course, referring to eachsection and calling the attention of the Senators to each provision,so that when they come to vote they may have, so far as I am ableto give it, the exact information in reference to the action of theconferees.Mr. STEWART. Has the Senator any objection, when he callsup a particular subject, to have us make some remarks in regardto it with a view of having it understood? If we wait until hegets clear through and then take it up, we would have to make

ment of a government in Hawaii. It went over to the House andthe House struck out the entire Senate bill and passed another bill. .Mr. CULLOM. It passed another bill.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The two bills are in disagreementbetween the Senate and the House, and the conferees in their re-port could bring in any bill that they chose, and an entirely newone if they chose to do so.Mr. CULLOM. Of course they could; but confining the con-ference to this particular paragraph, we can agree to either thepoll tax or to the property tax.Mr. PETTIGREW. Or to no tax?Mr. CULLOM. Or. to no tax. just as we choose.Mr. PETTIGREW. The power is unlimited in that respect.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. If the Senator will allow me to makea suggestion in regard to what the Senator from Connecticut just,now said, while I believe that what he said is technically true, »think it is a violation of all reasonable parliamentary precedentI do not believe it was ever intended that the whole of a bill shouldbe stricken out and another bill brought in, similar in terms, soas to leave the whole matter open. For instance, as I understandthis paragraph, as it went first from the Senate there was a pro-vision that — Prior to such registration have paid a poll tax of $1 for the current year,due by him to the government.That is printed in roman and the words "a poll tax of $1 forthe current year" are stricken out I do not understand how thatwas done.Mr. CULLOM. That is the House amendment The confereesstruck it out.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The conferees struck that out?Mr. CULLOM. The conferees struck it out.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. It was in the bill then as it waspassed by the House?

long speeches before we would get to understand it. Mr. CULLOM. Yes.4462

Mr. CULLOM. The last paragraph I read was in reference tothe registration of voters, which we have been discussing.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The fifth paragraphMr. CULLOM. Yes; the fifth paragraph? Now I come to sec-tion 01.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I thought the Senator said the sixthparagraph of section 60 was stricken out. This bill does not showthat.Mr. CULLOM. I did. That refers to some other section, Ithink.Mr. PETTIGREW. A portion of it is stricken out, probably.The gist of it remains.Mr. CULLOM. Yes; I was referring to the sixth paragraph ofsection 60, which reads:Sixth. Be able to speak, read, and write the English and the Hawaiian language.Mr. PETTIGREW. Did the Senator say that was stricken out?Mr. CULLOM. No.Mr. SPOONER. The proviso is stricken out.Mr. CULLOM. The proviso is stricken out, and that reads asfollows:Provided, however, That the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii may.at any time after January 1, 1903, submit to the lawfully qualified voters ofsuch Territory such changes and modifications in the qualifications for elect-ors as they shall see fit; and the same being adopted by a majority vote,taken in the mode prescribed by the legislature, shall be valid and binding asThat was stricken out, as it was not deemed necessary.Mr. SPOONER. They have the power without it.Mr. CULLOM. They have the power without it.There was no change in section 61. Section 62 was amended soas to read:SEC. 62. That in order to be qualified to vote for senators and for votingin all other elections in the Territory of Hawaii a person must possess all thequalifications and be subject to all the conditions required by this act ofVoters for representatives.That was agreed to.Section 63 provides:SEC. 63. That no person shall be allowed to vote who is in the Territory byreason of being in the Army or Navy or by reason of being attached to troopsin the service of the United States.In section 64 there is a slight change from the Senate bill.Mr. PETTIGREW. I think the Senator has skipped the pro-vision in section 63, for instance, with regard to the board of registration. The bill as the Senate passed it. I think, provided ——Mr. CULLOM. The provision was stricken out which requiredthem to be of different parties.Mr. PETTIGREW. Yes: and the House passed this provision:"No more than two of whom shall be of the same political party."Why was that stricken out by the conferees?Mr. CULLOM. That was stricken oat by the conferees on thetheory that there were no parties in Hawaii.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. In what section is that?Mr. CULLOM. In lines 17 and 18, on page 29 of the bill. "nomore than two of whom shall be of the same political party."There was some discussion on that subject, which did not amountto much, but the suggestion was made that there were no partiesin Hawaii; we did not want to suggest any, and did not thank itwas necessary to insert such a provision in the bill.There is no change in section 65, and there is no change in sec-tion 66 except that the House adopted an amendment that thegovernor shall be a citizen of the Territory, and so on, which wasagreed to by the conferees.In section 67 a provision was added, and agreed to by the conferees, that martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeascorpus should not continue longer than until communication could

Mr. CULLOM. No. sir; it was because of their competence;and I desire to say, so far as that remark goes, that there are justas able lawyers in Hawaii, just as good merchants and businessmen, as you can find in any State of the Union at the presenttime.Mr. PETTIGREW. But that is true also of Porto Rico; it wastrue of the Territory of Dakota: it is true of Arizona and NewMexico to-day, and it is true of Alaska, and yet there has neverbeen any such provision as that.Mr. CULLOM. I understand that.Mr. PETTIGREW. In all oar Territories the governor can beappointed from any part of the United States. Therefore thereason the Senator has given for this exception certainly can notbe good.Mr. CULLOM. But that does not furnish any reason why itshould not be made, and therefore the conferees agreed to it.Mr. TILLMAN. That is right, and the action in Porto Ricowas wrong. Mr. CULLOM. I am not running Porto Rico now.As to section 73, with reference to public lands, the Houseamendment, on page 35, was stricken out and the Senate provi-sion reinstated with a slight amendment, which 1 think makes itmore definite as to the dates between which land transactionswere carried on, which were afterwards suspended by the Presi-dent. The Senate knows the history of that matter, and it is notnecessary for me to take up time in discussing it. We put theprovision back substantially, if not exactly, as it was passed bythe Senate.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. That is the proviso in section 73which you put back — "That all sales, grants, leases," etc.Mr. CULLOM. Yes; and ratifying the sale subject to the ap-proval of the President. That is the substance of the provision.In section 74 there was no change.Section 75 of the bill relating to the appropriation of $15.000was stricken out, and that was agreed to by the conferees. TheSenate section of the bill in relation to the superintendent ofpublic works was not changed.In section 76 there was no change as to the provision relatingto public instruction alone; but there was an amendment whichthe House passed providing for a commissioner of labor. Theconferees rejected a part of that amendment and provided thatthe Commissioner of Labor of the United States should do all thework that was proposed by the provision as put in by the House.I think myself that was very wise action on the part of the con-ferees, because there is no man who can do such work better thancan Mr. Wright, who has charge of all these matters.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The print of the bill is confusing. Ican not understand everything in it; but I understand from thetwo prints together that a provision in the print of the

4463establish and to maintain order and secure good government, thatpersons other than citizens of that Territory shall be appointed toofficial positions there. I confess that I am a little tired of hav-ing the Congress of the United States dictated to by the people ofHawaii in this and other respects. I think we ought to legislatefrom this end and not from that end.Mr. CULLOM. Well, Mr. President, that has been discussedmore or less heretofore. All I can say in reply is that I have notthe least idea that it will work badly in that Territory; but, onthe contrary. I am very sure it will do no damage, but will prob-ably work for the welfare of those people.Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, unless the Senator desiresnot to be interrupted. I wish to say something in this connection.Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection. I want this talked out,BO that we shall get a vote at some time.Mr. PETTIGREW. As to all the other Territories of theUnited States, we do not require that the appointees shall be cit-izens and residents at the time of their appointment in order tohold the positions of judges, governors, etc. Why, then, should wemake an exception as to Hawaii? I perceive no reason why thisshould be done.The character of the population of Hawaii is certainly not a rea-son, because there are only 3.000 people of American descent orAmerican blood upon the islands, and of those about 1,900 are malesof all ages. Therefore, the field from which to select these officersis exceedingly small, unless we appoint them from among the Ha-waiians: and of the native Hawaiians there are about 40.000; ofthe Chinese and Japanese between sixty and seventy thousand,and they are coming in constantly. There are about 16,000 Portu-guese there. Is that the kind of a population which entitles Ha-waii to be specially favored over Arizona and over New Mexico,where there are 100,000 Americans, and of the very best blood ofAmerica also?The fact of the matter is that these men — about 19 Americansout of 1,900 males — have established an oligarchy. They controlthe sugar plantations and the sugar industry. They are men ofenormous wealth. They are the recipients of the $80,000,000 we haveremitted in duties; and they want to control and manage the gov-ernment. There has been a steady effort from the start to fix thisbill so that they may be able to manage the government. Thebill that came in here put it absolutely in their hands, and now itis proposed to perpetuate it in their hands. The bill as amendedby the Senate released their grasp. They have their lobbyistshere to look after their interests. They have succeeded in gettingprovisions in the bill that they think most essential, so far as theycould get them in, for a limitation of the suffrage, requiring thatfrom their number shall be selected the officeholders of that coun-try, so that they can get control of the governor, of the courts, andof the enormous veto power, so as to require two thirds of the mem-bers of the legislature to overturn the veto, and so that they canuse the courts for other purposes.In the bill also we have provided that a man may be imprisonedand put at labor under a taskmaster if he fails to pay his tax, evenhis poll tax: and so far as possible we are undertaking to perpet-uate this oligarchical government of a handful of enormously richmen, made rich by the taxation of the people of the United Statesto turning over to them the remitted duties. We have been try-ing to hedge their power around, but now it is proposed that thejudges and the governor shall be selected from their ranks. Thenwe are told what great men they are and what enormous abilitythey have. It is simply a sample of the tendencies of this Govern-ment at the present time toward a plutocracy. We make onething for Porto Rico, another thing for Hawaii, and somethingelse for the Philippines. I fail to find any reason why this shouldbe done.Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, the Senator knows just as wellas anybody else, when he compares the qualifications of the peopleof Porto Rico as equal to those of Hawaii, that it is not true. Alarge portion of the people of Hawaii are well qualified for self-government; and the Senator knows that the Porto Ricans. so faras we have any information about them, are not particularly wellqualified for self-government.Mr. PETTIGREW. Who is it in Hawaii that is particularlywell qualified, except simply the Americans?Mr. CULLOM. The Americans, the Englishmen, the Germans,the Portuguese, and many of the natives as well.Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President ——Mr. CULLOM. I do not want to yield any longer.Mr. PETTIGREW. I only want to answer one statement madeby the Senator. He says I know ——Mr. CULLOM. I think you do.Mr. PETTIGREW. I am on the Committee on Pacific Islandsand Porto Rico, and before the committee came men from PortoRico equal in intellect and ability to these Hawaiians, and I

Mr. PETTIGREW. About 20 per cent of them. Mr. CULLOM. He knows. I think, that nearly every man inHawaii can read and write.Mr. PETTIGREW. That is true; but this bill as it now standsexcludes them, even if they can read and write, from any participation in the Hawaiian government.Mr. CULLOM. That is very easily said.Mr. SPOONER. I should like to ask the Senator from SoothDakota — I ask him only for information — what warrant he haswhen he makes the statement that under this bill or under thelaw a man in Hawaii can he imprisoned for failure to pay histaxes? It may be true, but 1 have not noticed it.Mr. PETTIGREW. We have not repealed this law of Hawaii:SEC. 863. In case of personal taxes due and unpaid on the 1st day of Jan-nary in each year, if no personal property can be found whereon to distrain,the assessor may cause the arrest and detention of the person of such tax-payer by and under a warrant issued and signed by the assessor or his dep-uty, in substance in the form following, viz.Then it gives the form of the warrant.The next section provides that the officer receiving such war-rant ——Mr. HOAR. Read the form of the warrant That is a veryimportant part of it.Mr. SPOONER. What is the warrant?Mr. PETTIGREW. I will read the form of the warrant. Idid not think it was important. I thought what I read had cov-ered the case pretty well, but I will read the last paragraph ofsection 883 of the laws of Hawaii, giving the form of the warrant:Territory of Hawaii, island of ——— , district of ——— :To ——— , chief sheriff, or any constable or police officer of the district of——— , island of ——— of ——— , in the Island of ——— , having failed and neg-lected to pay the sum of ——— dollars assessed upon him for personal taxesfor the year ———, now due and unpaid, and no property being found belong-ing to the said ——— whereon to levy by distress:Therefore, by virtue of the authority in me vested by law, I hereby orderand command you to forthwith arrest and take said ——— before ——— , dis-trict magistrate of ——— , island of ——— , to show cause, if any he has, whyhe, the said ——— , should not be sentenced by said magistrate to be impris-oned at hard labor until he discharge the amount of said tax and costs as bylaw provided.Hereof fail not, but of this order, with your proceedings thereon, makedue return. Given under my hand this ——— day of ——— , A. D. ——.Assessor of ——— Division, Island of ——— .Then the law provides that a man shall be imprisoned at hardlabor until that tax is worked out.Mr. SPOONER. Is that left in force?Mr. PETTIGREW. That is left in force.Mr. CULLOM. Are yon sure about that?Mr. PETTIGREW. I can not find it in the list of repealed sections, and I have examined in order to find it.Mr. CULLOM. We have a provision in this bill which repealsall laws in conflict with the bill we are considering.Mr. PETTIGREW. I can not find that this law of Hawaii isrepealed. 1 may be mistaken, but I can not find any such repeal,and I have been examining the matter very diligently.Mr. HOAR. Before we pass from that, I should like to ask theSenator if he understands it was the intention to repeal that por-tion of the Hawaiian law, because I think if it should happen thatthere is any doubt about the matter, such a declaration as theSenator now makes would be very important.Mr. CULLOM. The purpose of the commission, in the firstplace, and then of the Committee on Foreign Relations of theSenate, and it certainly has been my purpose, was to repeal allprovisions of the Hawaiian law which imprisoned any man fordebt, whatever the character of the debt might be.Mr. PETTIGREW. There is no doubt bat what that law isleft in existence, so far as I can see.Mr. CULLOM. If I may be allowed now, I want to go on. Ibelieve I have got through with section 80.Mr. TILLMAN. I have made a very careful examination ofthe bill and the chapters of the law on pages 3, 4, 5, and 6, whereyon have repealed certain of the Hawaiian statutes, and I do notfind that these two are repealed.Mr. PETTIGREW. I can not find them.Mr. CULLOM. I suppose the provisions of the bill repeal them.Mr. SPOONER. What provisions?Mr. TILLMAN. What. provision of the bill could possibly re-peal them? This is a legal process for collecting taxes. It is notan imprisonment for debt, although it actually amounts to that.Mr. CULLOM. I have not had time to look up the statutes tosee exactly as to that.Mr. TILLMAN. I have not been able to find it in the sectionof the bill in which those two sections of the Hawaiian law havebeen repealed.Mr. CULLOM. I understand that.

believe far exceeding them in character.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator knows, I think, that the great bodyof the people of Porto Rico can neither read nor write.

In section 81 the House inserted the words "circuit courts" inaddition to the supreme court, struck out the provision in regard

4464to bills of exceptions, etc., and added at the end of the section thefollowing:And until the legislature shall otherwise provide, the laws of Hawaii here-tofore in force concerning the several courts and their jurisdiction and procedure shall continue in force except as herein otherwise provided.That section, perhaps, would be better understood if I shouldread it. There is nothing in section 81, however, except to restorethe words "circuit courts" in the section. The Senate, I believe,bad only provided that the President should appoint the judges ofthe supreme court. The House provided that the President shouldappoint both the supreme court and circuit court judges, and inconference the Senate conferees consented to the President ap-pointing the circuit judges as well as the supreme court judges,and the conferees agreed accordingly on the section.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Is that section 80?Mr. CULLOM. No; section 81.Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me, does that sectionleave in all cases the decisions of the supreme court of the Terri-tory final, without any right of appeal in any case to the SupremeCourt of the United States?Mr. CULLOM. I think the section did not apply to that.Mr. SPOONER. Yes; it did. There was a provision in theSenate bill for an appeal from the supreme court of Hawaii to thecircuit court of appeals of the Ninth judicial circuit, and an ap-peal on writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United Statesupon any writ of habeas corpus involving a question of personalfreedom. Is that all stricken out of the bill?Mr. JONES of Arkansas. From where was the Senator reading?Mr. SPOONER. I was reading from page 43, section 81, of theprint of April 19.Mr. CULLOM. I think, if the Senate will allow me to go onuntil we get entirely through with the court business. Senatorswill probably be better able to understand what is in and what isout of the bill.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I wanted to ask the Senator a ques-tion about something that has been passed; but if the Senatorprefers to conclude before I ask the question, I shall wait.Mr. CULLOM. I am getting a little tired of standing so long.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. There are some questions that I wantto ask the Senator, but I will ask them after he gets rested.Mr. CULLOM. In section 81, as I stated, the House inserted aprovision that—The laws of Hawaii heretofore in force concerning the several courts andtheir jurisdiction and procedure shall continue in force except as hereinotherwise provided.Section 83 is amended so as to require that the judges of thesupreme court shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii; thatthey shall be appointed by the President of the United States andconfirmed by the Senate, and they may be removed by the Presi-dentSection 83 is amended by the insertion, in line 21, on page 44, ofthe word "male," and also the words "and 21 years of age" areinserted; so as to make the provision that no person shall be aqualified juror unless he is a male citizen of the United Statesand 21 years of age, etc.In line 24 there is an amendment which provides that "no per-son shall be convicted in any criminal case except by unanimousverdict of the jury."Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Where is that?Mr. CULLOM. In section 83. That, of course, is making thelaw conform to the laws of the United States.Mr. SPOONER. It will be found in lines 1 and 2, on page 45of the last print.Mr. CULLOM. I will say that the laws of the Territory alloweda verdict by two-thirds of the jury, I think, instead of unanimously.On page 45 of the Senate bill there is an amendment referring togrand jurors which was agreed to by the conferees, is now in theconference bill, and included in the last part of section 83.There is no amendment to section 84 of the Senate bill.Referring to the Delegate in Congress, section 85 of the Senatebill is amended so as to require that the Delegate shall possess thequalifications necessary for membership of the house of repre-sentatives of the legislature of Hawaii, and he is also to have aseat in the House of Representatives with the right to debate, but

by the President, namely, the governor. $5,000, and so on, givingthe salaries of the respective officers provided for in the bill.As to the chief justice, I have forgotten whether the Senate billprovided for a salary of $5,500 or $5,000, but I think it was only$5,000. That is increased to $5,500. The salary of the associatejustices is $5,000 each and that of the secretary of the Territory$3,000.Section 92, providing for the payment of salaries to the gov-ernor, the secretary, the chief justice, and the associate justices, isamended as I have stated.The House provided for the salaries of the circuit judges to bepaid by the Territory of Hawaii, but as we finally agreed thatthose judges should be appointed by the President, the confereesreport the bill providing that they shall be paid their salaries bythe Government of the United States.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. They are Territorial judges?Mr. BATE. Territorial circuit judges.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Is that the practice in the Territoriesof the United States?Mr. CULLOM. I think we pay all the officers in our Territorieswhere we provide for their appointment by the President. In suchcases I think they are paid from the United States Treasury.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. These are simply temporary appoint-ments until such time as the local government there shall be ableto administer affairs in its own way. is it not?Mr. CULLOM. No, sir; the President is to continue to appointthe judges.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The President is to continue to appoint all of them?Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir.Mr. T1LLMAN. If the Senator will permit me, I understandwe are compelled, under the conference report, if adopted, and ifthe bill becomes a law, to select all of these officers from citizensof Hawaii, and we are given the great privilege of paying themtheir salaries out of our own Treasury. Why does not Hawaiisupport her own government?Mr. CULLOM. That is what the commission started in to re-quire them to do; but under the direction in part of Congress, asit has been manifested here, the judges are all to be appointed bythe President; and if they are appointed by the President, 1 thinktheir salaries ought to be paid out of the Treasury of the UnitedStates, as is the case with all of our other Territories.Mr. T1LLMAN. Why not let the President select them, justas he does for all other Territories — wherever he can find the besttalent?Mr. CULLOM. That is a question I do not care to discuss anyfurther now.The section as reported by the conference also provides for thesalary of the United States district judge at $5.000; the UnitedStates marshal, two thousand five hundred; United States districtattorney, three thousand. And the governor shall receive annu-ally, in addition to his salary, the sum of $500 for stationery, post-age, and incidentals, and also his traveling expenses while absentfrom the capitol on official business, and the sum of $2,000 annually for his private secretary.Section 93 of the Senate bill was not amended.Section 94 refers to the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, re-quiring a report, etc., the House striking out the last four lines,beginning after the word "fit," on page 51, line 18, of the Senatebill, being an appropriation of $5,000 for the purpose of examininginto the subject of fisheries surrounding that Territory.Section 95 remains in the bill reported by the conferees as itpassed the Senate. Section 96 was amended by the House striking out "shall" andinserting "may," and inserting "such" between "in" and "man-ner," and inserting after the word "manner" the words "as maybe." The intention was to make it read more smoothly, as the con-ferees thought.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. What section is that?Mr. CULLOM. Section 96.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Some of these prints have no section96 in them.Mr. CULLOM. You have got hold of the wrong bill, I reckon.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I have both.Mr. CULLOM. It will now read as follows:That If such fishing right be established, the attorney-general of the Territory of Hawaii may proceed, in such manner as may be provided by law, etc.Section 97 was amended by striking out all the latter portion of

not to vote, the same as a Delegate from any of the other Territo-ries who comes to Congress.Section 86 was amended by the House, but the amendment wasreceded from in conference, and the section stands in the confer-ence bill as it was passed by the Senate.Sections 87, 88, 89, and 90 were not changed.Section 91 was amended by the House, and the conferees agreedto the amendment, the purport of which is that all moneys in theHawaiian treasury, all the revenues and other property acquiredby the government of Hawaii since the cession, shall be and remainthe property of the Territory of Hawaii.Section 92 provides for the salaries of certain officers appointed

the section, requiring the United States to pay in part all the ex-penses of the leper settlement on the island of Molokai and theleper hospital at Kalihi, and the homes at which the children oflepers are received, etc.The people of the Territory, so far as I could learn, prefer topay the expenses of those settlements, and I thought it better toallow them to do so, and so did the conferees and the commission.Section 98 was amended by the House striking out "on the 12thday of August" and inserting "permanent or temporary, on

4465August 12," and also inserting the words" together with the fol-lowing-named vessels claiming Hawaiian register." That refersto the registration, of a certain number of vessels which were in-corporated in the bill, which are named and the names of whichI presented to the Senate when we considered the bill; but thereseemed to be some confusion as to what ought to go in, and Iasked to withdraw the amendment, and it was done. The Houseput it in and the conferees agreed to it.Mr. BACON. In this connection the Senator will rememberthat that was a provision which elicited considerable debate inthe Senate, and after that debate it was the judgment of the Sen-ate that the ships should not be named as entitled to registration.In other words, the judgment of the Senate was that the questionof registration should be determined by the class to which a ves-sel belonged, and it should not be designated and taken out of aclass and given this special favor. The judgment of the Senatewas that the registration of those vessels should be limited tothose which at a certain date were in the class named.Now, what I desire to ask the Senator is this: The Senator, ofcourse, is familiar with the reasons which were given in the Sen-ate why the designation of particular ships as entitled to registra-tion was not favored by the Senate and why the Senate decidedagainst it; and in order that I may be informed as to whether thechange should be made, I should like the Senator to inform us asto the reasons ——Mr. CULLOM. The Senator does not recollect the exact factswith reference to the matter as it occurred in the Senate. I my-self introduced the amendment.Mr. BACON. Yes; I remember.Mr. CULLOM. It was given to me by a Senator, I think, andI supposed there would be no objection to it. I introduced it inthe Senate, and we bad scarcely began to consider it before, Ithink, my distinguished friend the Senator from South Dakota[Mr. PETTIGREW] proposed to insert the names of a large numberof vessels about which nobody seemed to know anything except,perhaps, the Senator himself. Bather than delay and indulge ina long discussion about it I withdrew the amendment. That isthe literal truth about it. The Senate really did not consider thissubject, except for a very few moments.Mr. BACON. Is the Senator prepared to state now — my recol-lection having been refreshed — why these vessels named, whichare admitted by this amendment to registration, should be admittedrather than other vessels?Mr. CULLOM. The only reason I know is that as to these par-ticular vessels everyone said that while there was a little questionabout their being legally registered in Hawaii, because

the long list I concluded to withdraw the amendment, and did soin order to get rid of the subject.Mr. PETTIGREW. And they are all put back in conference?Mr. CULLOM. The list of five are put back in conference.Mr. PETTIGREW. So my protest, by showing an additionallist, succeeded in knocking it out in the Senate and preventing adiscussion of this question; and then they are put back in conference.Mr. CULLOM. I withdrew the amendment without any refer-ence to the question of the merits of the case, because I did notwant at that time to delay the bill by a long discussion as to whatvessels were entitled to registration and what were not.Section 99 remains in the bill reported by the conferees sub-stantially as in the Senate bill, except a different use of languagemeaning the same thing.Mr. TILLMAN. Before We pass from section 99, I see there isan amendment here which limits or rather puts off for a year ourcoasting laws. Why is that?Mr. CULLOM. That was put in in the House and withdrawnby the conferees.Mr. TILLMAN. But it is in yet.Mr. CULLOM. No; it is not. I have said to the Senator sev-eral times that the amendments of the conferees to the House billare not in this print, because the Senators desired to see just whatthe difference was between the House and the Senate, and not between the Senate and the conferees.Mr. TILLMAN. I have the wrong bill. It is pretty hard tokeep these babies from getting mixed up. It is very difficult totell what is the conference report and what was passed by theHouse.Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator would follow it closely he wouldfind out. Mr. TILLMAN. I am trying to follow it closely.Mr. CULLOM. Section 101 was amended by the insertion ofan amendment providing that "all Chinese and other Asiaticswho came or were brought into Hawaii since August 12, 1898,under contract, etc., shall depart therefrom and from the UnitedStates within one year from the date of the taking effect of thisact." That amendment was stricken out down to the provisoafter the word "acts," in the last part of the paragraph, and thebalance of the section remains in the bill reported by the conferees.Sections 101 and 103 were not amended by the House.One hundred and four, the last section of the bill, was amendedby striking out "thirty" and inserting "sixty" by the House, butthe conferees struck out "sixty" and inserted "forty-five." Inthe second line of the section as appears in the conference bill thewords "excepting only as to section 53, relating to appropriations,which shall take effect upon such approval," were inserted andagreed to by the conferees. There was a mistake in the first con-

of thechange of government in the meantime, yet they were in fact en-titled to registration, provided the government over there had hadsuch an existence as to give registration at all; and so far as I wasconcerned as one of the conferees I allowed the provision to go inas it is reported.Mr. PETTIGREW. The Senator from Illinois made a remarka few moments ago, saying I wanted to add the names of a lot ofother vessels.Mr. CULLOM. I think the Senator did have a list of eight orten, he said.Mr. PETTIGREW. I objected to adding the names of anyvessels, and I read a list of those which had received Hawaiianregister since our flag went up. I protested against adding thenames of any ships, and the Senator decidedly misrepresents meby any such statement.Mr. CULLOM. I certainly did not mean to do so, if the Sena-tor objected.Mr. PETTIGREW. I objected to any being put in.Mr. CULLOM. I remember the Senator had a list of ten vessels.Mr. PETTIGREW. I had a list from the records of Hawaii,showing that they had registered eight or ten ships, perhaps, afterour flag went up there, as I believe, in violation of law, and I didnot think it ought to be ratified by our act. It was a lawless acton their part, and it ought not to be ratified on our part. I ob-jected to adding any names and giving registration in this manner. I want that distinctly understood.Mr. CULLOM. I did not remember that the Senator made anyobjection, but thought that he wanted more ships added.Mr. PETTIGREW. I did object to those that were in and tothe adding of anymore. A year ago I defeated a separate billbrought in here to give those ships a register by refusing to con-sent to its consideration. I do not believe this amendment oughtto be ratified to give an American register to any such vessels.Mr. CULLOM. Of course I do not desire to misrepresent theSenator from South Dakota. I was merely stating in his presencewhat my recollection was. If he says that he first objected to allof them, I withdraw it, of course.Mr. PETTIGREW. I do not say I first objected to all of them.I say I objected at all times to all of them, and I simply read anadditional list to show what they were doing over there.Mr. CULLOM. I remember when the Senator began to read

ference report. It referred to a section of the bill as 53 when itought to have been 53. That is all there was of that.Mr. President, I desire to make a few general remarks, and thenI propose to take my seat.Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me before he beginsthe general discussion, I was unavoidably out of the Chamberwhen one amendment was passed about which I wished to asksome questions. It may have been stated by the Senator, but Inotice that there is an amendment here by which Hawaii is madea separate district and attached to the Ninth judicial circuit.Mr. CULLOM. That is the bill verbatim et literatim as itpassed the Senate, I think.Mr. BACON. It is in italics here.Mr. CULLOM. Yes, but it is ——Mr. BACON. If I recollect aright, the Senator from Wisconsinsucceeded when that was before the Senate in having it changed.The Senator from Wisconsin took the position and argued it withgreat earnestness upon authority that it would be an unconstitu-tional court; that we had no right to establish a constitutionalcourt outside of the organized territory of States.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator will remember that after quite adiscussion by himself and several other Senators, the provision asit was in the original Senate bill was amended so as to make it alegislative court in the estimation of the Senator from Wisconsinand the Senator from Colorado and the Senator himself, as well asthe Senator from Connecticut. The House bill had the originalprovision in it as it was reported to the Senate, and it passed inthat way, but the conferees insisted upon restoring the provisionas it passed the Senate of the United States, and that was done.Mr. BACON. I beg the Senator's pardon. 1 was misled by theprinted copy of the bill as it came from the House.Mr. CULLOM. I understand.Mr. BACON. I supposed that was the status of the bill, butthe statement of the Senator, of course, shows I am in error.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator will find by looking at the confer-ence report that the Senate provision was restored.Mr. BACON. The Senator will see how it was that I made themistake.

MOLOKAI. Molokai is a long, narrow island, about 40 miles in length and less than 10miles in width. The eastern half of Molokai has some very wild mountainscenery and in some places a luxuriant vegetation. Recently much atten-tion has been given to irrigation from artesian water, and a large area is ex-pected soon to be brought under profitable culture. Still, most of the islandis devoted to pasturage. Quite a large number of deer have their haunts onthis island.NIIHAU.Niihau is an island of nearly 100 square miles, the most of the land uponwhich has been leased to sheep raisers. There are about 100 native inhabit-ants, who adhere in manners and style of living to the customs of their earlierancestors. The handiwork of the natives in the making of a kind of mats isknown all over the islands. They are called "Niihau mats," and bring largeprices from the collectors of curios. Apart of this island consists of a coralreef, uplifted by some convulsion of nature, but now largely covered byvolcanic material washed down from the mountains.LANAI.Lanai comprises about 100,000 acres, devoted almost wholly to sheep rais-ing and the production of wool. It has only about 100 inhabitants, and israrely visited except by persons interested in the sheep-raising or wool-growing industry.RAINFALL.There is a great diversity in the amount of rainfall in different localities,but it is thought that about 60 inches per annum is the average over thegroup. On the windward (northeast) side of some of the islands at certainlow altitudes the rainfall reaches 150 inches, as at Hilo, or even 200 inches, asat the volcano of Kilauea, while on the leeward side, at the sea level, verylittle rain falls, but up the mountain sides there is usually abundant mois-ture. The climate is particularly healthy, both in the dry or wet localities,it being claimed even that the frequent showers in some places do not satu-rate the air with moisture. There is very seldom much humidity in theatmosphere, and even in damp or marshy districts there is seldom any malaria or fever germs.

FOR THE TEAR 1897.On the island of Hawaii the rainfall at two stations, Kaumana and Olaa,was, respectively, 136 and 146 inches. For the entire island the average rain-fall was 65 inches. On the island of Maui the average was 27| inches. OnKauai the average was 46 inches.NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS.The following daily papers are printed In Honolulu: Pacific CommercialAdvertiser, English: Daily Bulletin, English; Hawaiian Star, English; Inde-pendent, English; Aloha Aina, native; Ka Loea Kalaiaina, native; HawaiianShimpo, Japanese.Also the following semi weeklies: Hawaiian Gazette, English; Shim Nipon,Japanese; Yamato Shimbun, Japanese.Also the following weeklies: weekly Hawaiian Star, English; The Kuokoa,native; O Luso, Portuguese; O Directo, Portuguese; Hawaiian ChineseNews. Chinese; Chinese Times, Chinese; Chinese Chronicle, Chinese; KaMakaainana, native.And the following monthlies: Al Boas Novas, Portuguese (sectarian); TheParadise of the Pacific, English; The Planters' Monthly, English; The Friend,English: Anglican Church Chronicle, English.And the following quarterlies: The Honolulu Diocesan Magazine, English;The Young Men's Christian Association Review, English.The Hilo Tribune, weekly, and the Hawaii Herald, weekly, are publishedIn English at Hilo, on the island of Hawaii.CHURCHES IN HONOLULU.Central Union Church (Congregational). Methodist Episcopal Church.The Christian Church.The Christian Chinese Church.The Salvation Army.St. Andrew's Cathedral (Episcopal); first and second congregations andChinese congregation.Roman Catholic Church.Protestant Mission, Portuguese.Japanese Union Church, connected with Hawaiian Board of Missions.Japanese Church.Kawaihao Church, Congregational, native.Kaumahapili Church, Congregational, native.THE PUBLIC HEALTH.The Hawaiian government has devoted its most earnest efforts to the pro-tection of the inhabitants against the introduction of dangerous contagionsand infections diseases, and a strict quarantine is maintained at pointswhere ships from infected ports might call.The board of health is one of the most important agencies in the islandsfor the preservation and promotion of the public health, and is given almostplenary powers under the law. Ordinary malarial fevers are quite rare.There are. however, occasional cases of typhoid fever, especially among theUnited States troops recently stationed at Honolulu. There have been oc-

Under present health regulations, with the experience gained, the govern-ment can, it is thought, cope with epidemic diseases bettor than that of al-most any other country.Live stock, including cattle, sheep, and swine, are raised to some extentIt is stated that the value of live stock produced ranks third in amount of allthe agricultural products of the islands.THE PRISON SYSTEM.The Hawaiian Islands maintain a prison system, the principal penal insti-tution corresponding to the State prisons of the various States of the Union,while on each of the larger islands a prison for the use of their respectivelocal offenders is provided. In addition there is in each district a lockup ordetention calaboose, in some of which are detained small gangs held forminor offenses and sentenced for short terms to perform street or road labor.Where possible the plan of placing but one prisoner to a cell is adhered to.The Honolulu prison is under the charge of a jailor and several prison guards,the whole system subject to the supervision of the marshal of the islands,who is responsible to the board of prison inspectors appointed by the ministerof the interior.The foregoing gives briefly a description of the principal fea-tures of the country. It is now about eighteen months since theStars and Stripes were formally raised over the country, and dur-ing that period, although the extension of the laws of the UnitedStates has been held in abeyance until the further action of Con-gress, yet the business of Hawaii has experienced the greatestprosperity, and every material interest of the people and the country has participated in the general welfare.Mr. President, I am more than pleased that the labors of theHawaiian Commission, in which I had the honor of participating,now bid fair to result in the establishment of Territorial govern-ment as a part of the United States. I am highly gratified tothink that the new Territory of Hawaii, which has come to uswillingly and peacefully in the progress of the nation's evolution,will doubtless stand as a bright monument marking almost thestarting point of American expansion over the island provinces ofthe Pacific. No citizen of the United States need ever feel anydoubt as to the intellectual, moral, or financial standing of the peo-ple who inhabit Hawaii. They bring to us a splendid educationalsystem, a prosperous and profitable agricultural establishment,yielding large profits to the sugar planters and the coffee and ricegrowers.Mr. President, it has been suggested to me and to the Senatethat there are one or two provisions in the bill which are not sat-isfactory to the Senate. 1 do not know whether a majority of theSenate are for the provisions that have been controverted, but 1desire to say that at the present moment the Senator from Massa-chusetts [Mr. LODGE] and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MOB-OAK] , conferees on the bill, are absent. The Senator from Ala-bama, I understand, is ill. He has not been out for two or threedays, at least. So if the bill should go back to the conferees, therecould be nothing done with it until one or the other of the con-ferees of the Senate, both of whom are absent, can be secured togive attention to the subject.Mr. HOAR. Put on other conferees.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Alabama is in town, but hehas been ill for several days. The Senator from Massachusetts

4468

casional epidemics of various diseases at times during the past one hundredyears. has been called to New York or somewhere. East. I

should likevery much to get the report ratified and out of the way, but I wantto be entirely fair and frank, as I think I have been in connectionwith the subject to-day in trying to uncover every fact connectedwith it, so that Senators would not be misled.Mr. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator a question, inview of his expressed desire that the report shall be ratified. Inthe bill as agreed upon by the conference committee, the fifthsubdivision of section 60 reads as follows:Fifth. Prior to such registration having paid, on or before the 31st day ofMarch next preceding the date of registration, all taxes due by him to thegovernment. I wish to inquire of the Senator whether he agrees with the state-ment that if the conference report is agreed to and this becomes alaw that that date, being fixed, necessarily will limit the personawho can be this year registered and this year participate in theelection which will select the officers for this Territory to thosewho have heretofore been on the registration list, because the datehas passed. That number, I understand, is less than 3,000. So,instead 14,000 men, which it was stated when the bill was in theSenate before would be the number of those who would be enfranchised and entitled to participate in this election, there will be lessthan 3,000. I want to ask the Senator if he recognizes the correct-ness of that, and if he does so recognize it, if he himself wouldpersonally favor the enactment of a bill into a law which wouldhave that effect.Mr. CULLOM. I would not.Mr. BACON. Does not the Senator agree that that must neces-sarily be the effect of it?Mr. CULLOM. I have been in doubt about it. I was going tosuggest that I would ask the Senate to postpone the further con-sideration of the report to-day, so that I may learn whether theSenator from Alabama, one of the conferees, can be present to-morrow.Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, the course which

4467

of every description, and a large number anchored in the stream compelledto wait for days before being able to discharge, on account of the small accommodations. The revenue from import duties in 1899, adds Mr. Sewall, was$400,000 in excess of that of 1898.The second column in the tables of "Trade by articles" gives theincreases in both imports and exports of Hawaii for 1899 over 1898,which reach nearly all of the articles of trade. It must be remembered that the duties collected upon this com-merce have all gone into the Hawaiian treasury. So it has beenwith all moneys accumulating in the Hawaiian postal service upto this time. But both the customs and the postal receipts will,after the passage of this bill, come to the United States Treasury.Now let us look a little at the geographical situation of Hawaiias related to other parts of the world, and especially to this coun-try. I quote from the reports of the Hawaiian commission madeto the President and published by the Fifty-fifth Congress:The Hawaiian Islands are located in the Pacific Ocean, about 2,100 milessouthwest from San Francisco, and are between 18° and 23° north latitudeand 154° and 101° west longitude. The latitude or distance from the equatoris about the same as that of Cuba. The climate would probably be the sameas that of Cuba wore it not modified and equalized by the northeast tradewinds, which prevail for about nine months of the year, coming over thou-sands of miles of ocean uncontaminated by impurities. The Japanese gulfstream is a broad current of cool water, flowing like a river across the PacificOcean, which lowers the temperature within its vicinity materially.There are other somewhat permanent currents and winds which affecttemperature, and these great natural agencies tend constantly to neutralizethe tropical heat, which would otherwise seriously affect the temperature ofthe islands. The annual average of temperature at Honolulu is 72° or 73° F.,while the lowest is 55° and the highest 88°. During the warmest month ofthe year, September, the temperature, except for about two hours at mid-day, stands at about 78°. There is never any frost or snow, except upon thehigh mountain peaks, where at the altitude of nearly 14,000 feet there are attimes considerable snowfalls.AREA AND POPULATION.The Hawaiian group numbers seven inhabited islands and eleven or twelveemail rocky or sandy shoals or reefs, with a total area of 6,740 square miles.They are described as follows:Population. 1896.Hawaii, area 4,210 square miles ..... __ .............. _ .............. _ 33,285Maui, 760 square miles ......... — . —— . —— —— —— . ————— . — .... 17,726Oahu. 600 square miles..... ...................................... __ ...... 40,205Kauai, 590 square miles (rich farming and grazing lands) —— — ... —— 15,228Molokai, 270 square miles (agricultural and grazing) ..... ________ 2,307Lanai, 150 square miles (devoted to sheep raising) —— . —— . —— —— . 105Niihau, 97 square miles (leased to sheep raisers) . __ __ ... __ ...... 164Kahoolawe, 63 square miles.Molokini, small size.Lehua, small size.Nihoa, 500 acres (about), precipitous rock, 400 feet high (244 miles northwestfrom Honolulu).Laysan, 2,000 acres (about), guano island, low and sandy, 30 feet high (800miles northwest from Honolulu).Gardeners Island, two inaccessible rocks, 200 feet high, about 1,000 feet long(607 miles northwest of Honolulu).Liscansky Island, 500 acres (about), low and sandy, 25 to50 feet high (920 milesnorthwest from Honolulu).Ocean Island, 500 acres (about), low and sandy (1,800 miles northwest fromHonolulu).Necker Island, 400 acres (about), a precipitous rock, 300 feet high (400 milesnorthwest from Honolulu).Palmyra Island, a cluster of low islets, about 10 miles in circumference, withlagoon in center; has a few cocoanut trees (1,100 miles southwest of Honolulu).Kaula. small, rocky island, a few miles southwest of Niihau.French Frigate Shoal, scattered shoals or reefs.THE INHABITANTS.An important subject of our investigation was that of the adaptability ofthe several races of the people who inhabit the islands for American citizen-ship and their ability to sustain the obligations which attach to the right ofsuffrage. The American idea of universal suffrage presupposes that thebody of citizens who are to exercise it in a free and independent mannerhave, by inheritance or education, such knowledge and appreciation of theresponsibilities of free suffrage and of a full participation in the sovereigntyof the country as to be able to maintain a republican government.The following different races and nationalities of people now occupy theHawaiian Islands:Hawaiians and mixed blood........................ ——— ................ 39,000Japanese ..................... ............ ................................. 25,000Chinese............... ——— ............. —— .... —— . — .......... ——— .. 21,500Portuguese _ ... — ... ——— ——— ... — ——— —— .. ——— ——— ——— —— 15,000Americans —— ——— ——— —— ——— ———— ——— —— .. ——— ——— —— . 4,000British..............—-— .................... .......... ................. 2,250Germans and other Europeans. ——— ———— ——— ......... — ————— 2,000Polynesians and miscellaneous —— — — .'. —— —— — .. — . —— ... 1,250Total.— ............... ............................................. 110,000The native Hawaiians are a kindly, affectionate people, confiding, friendly,and liberal, many of them childlike and easy in habits and manners, willingto associate and intermarry with the European or other races, obedient tolaw and governmental authority. Many of the Japanese are contract labor-ers, who are engaged upon the sugar plantations. Others are employed asday laborers. There are some, however, who have become merchants andmechanics, who conduct business for themselves, and who exhibit the nationalcharacteristics of skill, thrift, and ability.There are about 700 Chinese who have been naturalized into the Hawaiianrepublic. Many of the Chinese and Japanese on the islands are, or havebeen, brought there under permits by that government, and contracts underwhich they are bound to work for a term of years, and to return at the expi-ration of the contract term of service. At the expiration of their terms they are either returned to their native country, or renew their labor contracts,or become day laborers. Nearly all Chinese laborers desire and expect to go back to China at death,if not before. The Japanese are not so particular as to returning; but withtheir accumulative habits they frequently attain a position and standing inbusiness which makes it desirable to them to remain in the islands.

The Americans, although in such a small minority practically dominatethe governmental affairs of the country, and, with the British and Germans,and part-blood Hawaiian-Americans together, constitute the controlling ele-ment in business. The Chinese and Japanese do not now possess politicalpower, nor have they any important relation to the body politic, except aslaborers. The Portuguese are largely immigrants from the islands and colo-nies of Portugal in the Atlantic, and have never been very closely tied totheir mother country. With the certain attrition which is bound to existbetween them and the Americans in Hawaii, and under the influence of theexisting public-school system, which makes the study of the English languagecompulsory, they promise to become a good class of people for the growth ofrepublican ideas.It will, of course, be observed that this entire population of 110,000 is domi-nated, politically, financially, and commercially, by the American element.HAWAII.Hawaii, the largest of the islands and from which the group takes itsname, contains nearly 2,500,000 acres of land, and has a population of nearly34,000. Its principal town is Hilo, situated on Hilo Bay, at the month of theWailuku River. Hilo possesses several churches, a good hotel, and severalbusiness houses. There are three lofty mountains on the island of Hawaii,viz, Manna Kea, Manna Loa, and Hualalai. The two first are nearly 14,000feet high and the other 8,000. Upon Manna Loa are two great volcanoes,Kilauea, upon the side of the mountain, at an elevation of 4,000 feet, and theother, Mokuaweoweo, at the top, or at about 13,500 feet elevation. These twogreat volcanoes are still alive, but not now in eruption.We visited Kilauea and crossed its broad lava fields within the walls of itsoriginal crater, and now about 500 feet below the rim or edge of the wall. Onthe southerly portion of this broad lava bed is a still deeper pit, or live cra-ter, apparently some 800 feet below the surface of the broad lava field beforementioned, from the very bottom of which arises a whitish sulphurous smokeso dense as to hide from full view the surface of the burning, seething liquidfar below. This is what is called "Halemaumau," "the house of fire," whenthe volcano is active and in eruption, but it is now very quiet and smoky.Yet even now numerous crevices are found, some of them 2 or 3 miles fromthis pit or lake, from which smoke or steam constantly arises, and in whichsticks thrust down a few inches by us readily took fire. Around some ofthese crevices an efflorescence of sulphur was noticed, and on examinationwe found deposits of pure native sulphur so hot from the subterranean foun-tain, perhaps 3 miles away, that it could not be handled. It must be remem-bered that this description refers only to Kilauea, and not at all to the greatvolcano itself at the top of the mountain, and called "Mokuaweoweo," whichduring the ages and ages past has poured the lava over the island many times.The magnitude of this mountain is hardly believed at first sight, but thedistance is not less than 60 miles from the base on one side to the other. Andfrom the crater of Kilauea, on the side of Manna Loa, to the crater of Mokua-weoweo, at the top of the same mountain, is about 26 miles. The side slopesof these great mountains comprise practically all the agricultural land uponthis island. This can nearly all be cultivated after it is cleared from its lux-uriant vegetation. Some of it, however, has such a rank growth of treeferns, wild bananas, and all sorts of tropical trees and vines as to require acost of from $20 to $60 per acre to clear it. There are great fields of sugarcane on this island, the best of which yields under favorable conditions from5 to 6 or more tons of sugar per acre.MAUI.Maui is believed to be one of the oldest volcanic islands. Much of the lavaof which it is composed has become decomposed and available for easy culti-vation, while the use of artesian water for irrigation has made the sugarlands the most profitable known. This island has upon it the great volcanoof Haleakala, now and for centuries entirely quiet, but which is the largestextinct volcano in the world. This crater is half a mile deep and 20 miles incircumference.On this island artesian water is pumped in quantities of 6,000,000 gallonsdaily to the height of 400 feet, for sugar irrigation. The lands on the southand west sides of the island are mostly cattle, ranches and pasture lands,while on the north and east the numerous streams furnish abundance ofwater for prosperous plantations of sugar and coffee. This island was oncea kingdom. The town of Lahaina was its capital and contained the palacesof the king. Some of the plantations on this island were visited by us andwere truly places of beauty. They evidenced great enterprise, and yieldlarge profits from the great crops of sugar.KAUAI.Kauai, the most northwesterly of the group, is nearly circular in formand about 25 miles in diameter, having an area of about 590 square miles. Itis believed to be one of the oldest of the Hawaiian Islands; has a deeper soiland a greater proportion of naturally arable land. It seems to have beenoriginally formed by eruptions of Mount Waialeale, the great central peak6,000 feet in height, a volcano which has been extinct from time immemorial.There are several mountain streams flowing from an elevated natural res-ervoir, or lake, in the central plateau.The valleys between the mountain ranges, which radiate from the interior,are broad and deep, having large areas of rich bottom lands, very productive under the influence of irrigation, which is largely in use for the sugar plan-tations. Kauai was, in the remote past, a kingdom by itself, and the storiesof kings and chiefs and warriors of Kauai are the traditional histories of theisland. Lihue, the chief settlement, has about 3,500 inhabitants. The Fallsof Wailua are romantically situated in the midst of a luxuriant forest, theriver falling 180 feet in one unbroken sheet. Coffee, sugar, rice, and someother products are grown with profit. The inhabitants of Kauai take muchpride in their fertile lands.OAHU.Oahu, upon which is situated Honolulu, the capital city, is the most popu-lous of the islands, having over 40,000 inhabitants. It is devoted largely topasturage and agriculture. Several very profitable sugar plantations arenow operated on this island, and the full development of the artesian watersupply for the irrigation of growing sugar cane is here exhibited. Daringthe past two years the yield of sugar upon one of the favorably situated plan-tations has exceeded expectation, amounting to from 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 tons of sugarper acre. Honolulu Harbor, although not large enough to accommodate arapidly growing commerce, is a deep-water opening through the coral reefsat the month of the Nuuanu Valley, in front of the city of Honolulu.PEARL HARBOR.A few miles away is Pearl Harbor, a naturally excavated harbor, covering8 or 10 square miles of water surface and ranging from 20 to 90 feet deep.It is expected that by a small appropriation a coral reef, which bars theentrance from the ocean for large vessels, will be removed by the Govern-ment of the United States, whereupon this will furnish the best harbor onthe Pacific. Some of the most beautiful and enchanting residence sites to befound are at Honolulu. A railway 55 miles in length connects Honolulu withWaialua and several intervening points. Several very prosperous businessenterprises are established at Honolulu, and, altogether, the location, formany reasons, is a most desirable one for commercial and shipping facilities.

4469I should like to have pursued is this: If the conference report canbe disagreed to, the Senate could then accept the House amend-ment without more, which I believe is a proper amendment.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator is mistaken, I think, as to the regular order.Mr. BACON. Possibly.Mr. CULLOM. The conference report, as I understand par-liamentary law, must either be rejected as a whole or ratified orconfirmed as a whole.Mr. BACON. Certainly; the Senator is undoubtedly correct;but he does not understand what I said.Mr. CULLOM. It is not in the power of the Senate to make anyamendment to it, and naturally it would have to go back to theconferees.Mr. BACON. The Senator is correct in part. We of coursecan not amend the conference report, but when we reject the con-ference report it is perfectly competent for the Senate to adopt theHouse amendment, which was in conference.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think not.Mr. BACON. We are not obliged to send it back to the confer-ence committee at all. We may accept the entire House amend-ment after that and agree to it.Mr. SPOONER. We have to agree to it or reject it and send itback.Mr. BACON. Rejecting it is not sending it back; it is failingto agree to it.Mr. CULLOM. I should like to hear the Presiding Officer onthat point.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The matter in disagreement be-tween the Senate and the House is upon one amendment of theHouse, which is an entire bill. That is what is in disagreementbetween the Senate and the House. It is the Senate bill as it leftthe Senate; it is the House amendment as the House adopted it;and that is one amendment, and covers the whole ground.Mr. BACON. I admit that the Senator from Connecticut iscorrect. That view of it had not suggested itself to me.' Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Now, one other word. If we re-ject it, we are at liberty then, I think, though I am not sure aboutthat, to accept the entire House amendment, but we can not changeit in one particular.Mr. BACON. The Senator is wrong in that, I respectfully sub-mit. Whenever a bill passes the Senate and goes to the Houseand comes back to the Senate with an amendment, while we cannot amend any part of the bill which we sent to them, we canamend any of their amendments, and we could amend the entirebill, which is an amendment, in any one particular that we sawproper, upon the general proposition that we can always amendan amendment of the House. Of course that would presupposethe fact that the conference committee reports the other way.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That is true, until the matter hasgone to a conference. This has been to a conference. It comesback here. The question and the only question is, Will the Senateagree to the report of the conference committee? Then, as Iunderstand it, the only question after that is whether we willagree to the entire amendment of the House, or whether we willinsist upon our disagreement and send the entire amendmentback to the conference committee. I have never understoodthat we could, after rejecting the report of a conference commit-tee, proceed to make amendments to the House amendment.Mr. HOAR. I ask the Senator from Connecticut if we can notrecede now from our disagreement to the House amendment?Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Yes.Mr. HOAR. Or disagree to the amendment of the House andagree to it with an amendment?Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think not, Mr. President.Mr. HOAR. I supposed we could.Mr. BACON. Oh, yes; undoubtedly.Mr. PETTIGREW. The conference report is still in our pos-session. I think we can.Mr. CULLOM. I do not think so.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senate agree to thereport of the committee of conference?Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President ——Mr. CULLOM. I began to state that I myself was inclined topostpone the further consideration of the conference report to-day,so that the conferees on the part of the Senate might have timeto consult. If the conference report is likely to be rejected. Iwould rather withdraw it and make such amendments to it byanother conference as would be necessary to fairly satisfy theSenate, if we could do it.Mr. TELLER. I suggest to the Senator whether he can with-draw it?Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether I can or not. If I cannot, there is only one thing to do, and that is to agree to it or re-

Mr. JONES of Arkansas. It seems to me also that this mattercan only go back to a conference by the action of the Senate.The conferees have met, the report is made and signed, and it cannot go back to conference except by order of the Senate. Besides,the conferees ought to have the action of the Senate when theygo into conference again to show the state of mind of the Senate,the objections that are made to the different amendments, and thereasons why the Senate will not agree to the conference report.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing tothe conference report.Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, it seems to me, if the Senateconsents, that I have a right to ask that the report be postponedfor the time being.Mr. TELLER. What is the use of postponing it?Mr. CULLOM. Because I want to consult the other confereesbefore taking action.Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator's consultation amount toanything if he has not the power to change it, and can not changeit until he gets it out of the Senate?Mr. CULLOM. Of course we may consent to take the voteand let the report be agreed to or rejected. But I do not think itis exactly fair to press a disposition of it at this moment unless Iconsent to it.Mr. TELLER. It seems to me we might just as well disposeof it. I do not think under the parliamentary law the Senatorcan gain anything by taking a recess and consulting his colleagueson the conference committee. We must either accept the reportor reject it. Now, if we are ready, if debate has gone on as faras it need to go, why not vote on it? I do not know whether anySenator desires to speak on it further, but I will say to the Sena-tor I do not believe the Senate is very likely to accept the reportwith that provision in it. The Senator himself says that he doesnot think it ought to be in there.Mr. CULLOM. I agree ——Mr. TELLER. He says that it may have been an oversight onthe part of the conference committee. The orderly way is for usto reject the report and let the Senator take it back into confer-ence. There may be other things in it that are objectionable. Ido not know whether other Senators may not have other objec-tions, but that is certainly a fatal objection.Mr. PETTIGREW. I want to call attention to another objection.Mr. CULLOM. I simply made the suggestion in perfect goodfaith that I should like to have the report go over for to-day sothat I could consult with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MOR-GAN] , who is interested in it and who is present in town, but notable to be here to-day. I think it is not unreasonable for me toask that privilege.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I see no reason why the Senator fromIllinois should not be gratified in this matter.Mr. CULLOM. I have been perfectly square with the Senate.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The report is in the hands of the Senate. The Senate can do with it what it chooses.Mr. CULLOM. Certainly.Mr. JONE6 of Arkansas. If the Senator from Illinois wantsthe report to go over to another day for consideration or for anyreason, he has charge of it, and it seems to me perfectly reason-able that he should have his request complied with.Mr. CULLOM. I want to make one more remark before it goesover, if it does, and that is that since I sat down I have this note,Which answers the first question that was made:All the subjects of the monarchy were made citizens of the republic byexpress provision of the constitution of the republic. Those who wished tovote under the republic were required to take the oath.Mr. BACON. That is all right, then.Mr. SPOONER. I wish, if this matter is to go over, that theSenator from Illinois, who is more familiar with this subject thanI am and than most of us are, would give attention to the ques-tion whether under the bill as it would stand if it passes the lawof Hawaii punishing a man by imprisonment and hard labor forfailing to pay his poll tax would remain in force.Mr. CULLOM. I shall certainly do so.Mr. TILLMAN. That is a special objection.Mr. SPOONER. I myself would not vote for any such provision.Mr. TILLMAN. Sections 863 and 864 of the Hawaiian codeare the points we want absolute certainty on, as to whether thosestatutes are repealed or not.Mr. CULLOM. Very well.Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, I want to call the attentionof the Senator from Illinois to the provision on page 9. We pro-vide with regard to contract laborers—That no suit or proceedings shall be maintained for the specific perform-ance of any contract heretofore or hereafter entered into for personal laboror service, nor shall any remedy exist or be enforced for breach of any suchcontract, except in a civil suit or proceeding instituted solely to recoverdamages for such breach.

ject it.Mr. TELLER. We can dispose of it either by accepting it orrejecting it. If we want a further conference, we will reject it.

4470Then we provide further —That the provisions of this section shall not apply to merchant seamen.Mr. SPOONER. That was not in the Senate bill.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Where is the Senator reading?Mr. PETTIGREW. On page 9 of the last print.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Of what print — the 19th?Mr. PETTIGREW. Yes; the print of the 19th of April. I donot know whether they have a law with regard to seamen or notin Hawaii. I have looked at the code or this print of the laws ofHawaii, and I can not find it, but I have had only a brief time toexamine it. However, under our law the Supreme Court haveheld that seamen can be imprisoned and returned to the ship andcompelled to complete their contract. But in 1890 we amended thelaw so that the provisions with regard to enforced service did notapply to seamen who had contracted for service in the domestictrade, the coast trade.Now, it seems to me that we ought not to do more in Hawaiithan extend the provisions of our own laws. I do not believe thatin the foreign service a man should be compelled to finish his con-tract if he did not want to do it. I think there should be someother remedy besides enforced service. But I do object to extend-ing to Hawaii the provisions of any law that are more stringentthan ours. Therefore I am desirous of knowing whether theyhave a law with regard to enforcing contracts with seamen forservice, and what it is, and where it is.Mr. CULLOM. I do not care to take up time now in discussingthe bill any further, except to say that one of my reasons for ask-ing for the postponement of the consideration of the report untilto-morrow, or some other day, is for the purpose of seeing in theRECORD the exact points of criticism of the bill, so that if it hasto go back to conference we will know what has been said aboutit and be more ready to dispose of it.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I want to say that the Senator, ingoing over the bill in a hasty sort of way, referring to

Mr. CULLOM. That was in the conference report.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. That was agreed to in conference?Mr. CULLOM. It was agreed to in conference.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Was it a conference amendment?Mr. CULLOM. No; it was a House amendment.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. And the Senate conferees recededfrom the disagreement of the Senate?Mr. CULLOM. The Senate receded from its disagreement andagreed to it.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asksunanimous consent that the further consideration of the reportmay be postponed? Is there objection?Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, I want to call the attentionof the Senator to one other provision, and that is with regard tothe income tax. I notice that there is an amendment in the bill,apparently made in conference, which seems not to repeal the in-come tax. heretofore in force in Hawaii.Mr. CULLOM. I do not recollect certainly whether that is inor out of the conference bill. Where does the Senator find it?Mr. PETTIGREW. I merely wish to call the Senator's atten-tion to it. I do not care to ——Mr. CULLOM. I think it appears in some other class.Mr. PETTIGREW. I think you will find it on page 4 of thebill.Mr. CULLOM. I see it. My impression is that it is in again.Mr. PETTIGREW. Somewhere else?Mr. CULLOM. Somewhere else.Mr. PETTIGREW. I just wished to call attention to that factnow.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to postpon-ing the further consideration of the conference report? TheChair hears none, and it is postponed.Mr. HOAR. Until when?Mr. CULLOM. Until ——The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The request was that it shouldbe postponed.Mr. CULLOM. I said until to-morrow.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Notice has been given that ——Mr. HOAR. I do not want to interfere with the order of

April 21, 1900Senate v. 33 (5) p. 4508

TERRITORY OF HAWAII. Mr. CULLOM. I ask leave to interfere with the morning busi-ness sufficiently to ask the President of the Senate to lav beforethe Senate again the conference report which was considered on yesterday, so that we may have a vote and disagree to the report, if that is the sense of the Senate, in order that further action maybe taken in conference.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Can not the Senator withholdthat request for a few moments, until the morning business iscompleted?Mr. CULLOM. I suppose there will be no discussion of the sub-ject.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lay's before the Sen-ate the conference report, which will be stated.The SECRETARY. Report of the committee of conference on thedisagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (S. 232) to providea government for the Territory of Hawaii.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing tothe conference report.The report was rejected.Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate further insist upon itsdisagreement to the amendment made by the House of Represent-atives and ask for a further conference.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is that the pleasure of the Sen-ate?Mr. PETTIGREW. Mr. President, I do not think that oughtto be done. This is a bill which the Senate passed. The Housestruck out the entire Senate bill and passed an entirely new meas-ure, containing very much of the matter that was in the Senateprovision. The bill is in the hands of the Senate; it is not in con-ference; and we can take up the bill in the Senate and amend theHouse amendment and return it to the House for their concur-rence, and the conference thereby might be entirely obviated.There are so many important provisions in the bill that thiscourse ought to be pursued in connection with it, and in my April 21, 1900

Housev. 33 (5)p. 4528

GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII. The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before the House the Hawaiianconference hill.The Clerk read as follows:Resolved, That the Senate further insist upon its disagreement to theamendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 222) to provide aGovernment for the Territory of Hawaii, and asks for a farther conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereto.Ordered, That Mr. CULLOM, Mr. CLARK of Wyoming, and Mr. MORGAH hethe conferees on the part of the Senate.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House further insistupon its amendments and agree to the conference.The motion was agreed to.The SPEAKER appointed as conferees on the part of the HouseMr. KNOX, Mr. HITT, and Mr. MOON.

April 25, 1900Senatev. 33 (5)p. 4648-4651

TERRITORY OF HAWAII.Mr. CULLOM submitted the following report: .The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houseson the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 222) to provide a governmentfor the Territory of Hawaii, having met, after full and free conference haveagreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of theHouse, and agree to the same with amendments as follows:Section 1, line 3, after the word "Hawaii," insert the words "in force."Section 4, line 5, after the word "States," insert the words "resident inthe Hawaiian Islands."Section 4, line 6, strike out the words "in the Hawaiian Islands" and insertin lieu thereof the word "there."Section 5, line 1, strike out all after the word "That" to and including theword "provided."Section 5, line 2, after the word "Constitution," insert a comma; after theword "and" insert a comma and the words "except as herein otherwise pro-vided;" after the word "States" insert the words "which are not."Section 5, lines 2 and 3, strike out the word "applicable" and insert in lienthereof the word "inapplicable."Section 10, line 1, strike out the words "obligations, contracts."Section 10, line 13, after the word "law," insert the words "No person shallbe subject to imprisonment for nonpayment of taxes nor for debt."Section 10, line 29, after the word "not," strike out the word "apply" andinsert the words "modify or change the laws of the United States applicable."Section 11, line 2, after the word "shall," insert the word "hereafter.Section 18. Strike out the whole of said section and insert in lieu thereofthe following:"SEC. 18. No idiot or insane person, and no person who shall be expelledfrom the legislature for giving or receiving bribes or being accessory thereto,and no person who, in due course of law, shall have been convicted of anycriminal offense punishable by imprisonment, whether with or without hardlabor, for a term exceeding one year, whether with or without fine, shall reg-ister to vote or shall vote or hold any office in, or under, or by authority ofthe government, unless the person so convicted shall have been pardonedand restored to his civil rights."Section 34, line 4, strike out the word "twenty -five" and insert in lieuthereof the word "thirty."Section 37, line 1, after the word "vacancies," insert the words "in theoffice of representative."Section 37, lines 2 and 3, strike out the words "general or."Section 40, add at the end of said section the words "in the district fromwhich he is selected."Section 47, lines 3 and 4, strike out the word "chairman" and insert in lieuthereof the words "presiding officer."Section 49, line 5, strike out the word "shall " and insert in lieu thereof theword "may."Section 52, line 9, after the word "on," strike out the word "of;" also strikeout the word "Hawaii" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the Territoryof Hawaii."Section 55, line 25, strike out the word "or," after the word "acquire," andinsert in lieu thereof the word "and."Section 55, line 37, after the word "allowed," strike out all to and includingthe word "allowed," in line 38, and insert in lieu thereof the words "norshall spirituous intoxicating liquors be sold except under such regulationsand restrictions as the Territorial legislature shall provide."Section 55, lines 72 and 73, after the word "States," strike out all to the endof the section.Section 60, strike out all of the fifth paragraph.Section 60, line 16, strike out the word "Sixth," and insert in lieu thereofthe word "Fifth." Section 62, in the title of the section, after the word "Senators," insert thewords "and in all other elections." Section 64, lines 15 and 16, strike out all after the word "each," and in line15 to and including the word "party," in line 16.

4649Section 73, line 5, strike out all after the word "provide" to and includingthe word "him," in line 17.Section 73, line 17, after the word "that," insert "subject to the approval ofthe President."Section 73, line 19, after the word "granted," strike out the words "in goodfaith."Section 76, line 6, strike out all to and including the word "be," in line 7,and insert in lien thereof "It shall be the duty of the United States Commis-sioner of Labor;" also, after the word "reports," in line 8, strike out all toand including the word "States." in line 9; also, after the word "Territory."in line 10, insert the words "of Hawaii;" also, in line 13, strike out the words"the legislature" and insert in lieu thereof the word "Congress;" also, strikeout all after the word "to," in line 20, and insert in lien thereof the word"Congress."Section 80, in line 9, after the word "forestry," strike oat the words "com-missioner of labor."Section 80, line 14, strike out all to the end of the section.Section 82, line 2, after the word "and," strike out the words "not lessthan."Section 85. line 6, strike out the words "house of representatives" and in-sert in lien thereof the word "senate."Section 86, line 1, strike out all after the word "that" to and including theword "States," in line 4. and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Thereshall be established in said Territory a district court to consist of one judge,who shall reside therein and be called the district judge."Section 86, line 7, after the words "said district," insert the words "andsaid judge, attorney, and marshal shall hold office for six years unless soonerremoved by the President."Section 86, lines 7 and 8, strike out the words." The district court for thesaid district" and insert in lien thereof the words "said court."Section 86, line 10, after the word "court," insert the words "of the UnitedStates." Section 86, line 11, after the word "court," insert the words "and saidjudge, district attorney, and marshal shall have and exercise in the Territoryof Hawaii all the powers conferred by the laws of the United States upon thejudges, district attorneys, and marshals of district and circuit courts of the

Those two items are substantially the amendments as made bythe fast conference report. I will read them in the bill, so thatthere may be no mistake about them.The provision which reads "That no person shall be subject toimprisonment for nonpayment of taxes nor for debt" was insertedby the conferees in section 10 of the bill referred to in the conference report. Then a provision, on page 26 of the reported bill,read as follows:Fifth. Prior to such registration have paid on or before the 31st day ofMarch next preceding the date of registration, all taxes due by him to thegovernment.That paragraph was stricken out entirely, and the other para-graphs renumbered. That provision being stricken out did awaywith the payment of taxes before registration and voting. Thenthe other provision in reference to imprisonment inserted in sec-tion 10 of the bill, that "no person shall be subject to imprison-ment for nonpayment of taxes nor for debt," leaves the matter, sofar as the payment of taxes is concerned, either before registrationor at any other time, entirely out of the bill.Mr. BACON. Now, I should like to ask the Senator, that hav-ing been done, what is the present requirement for the exercise ofsuffrage so as to show, as the bill remains, what is the changewhich has been stated by the Senator?Mr. CULLOM. That provision was in the bill in connectionwith section 60, with reference to voting for representatives. Iwill read the whole paragraph: .SEC. 60. That in order to be qualified to vote for representatives a personshall —First. Be a male citizen of the United States.

United States. Writs of error and appeals from said district courts shall behad and allowed to the circuit court of appeals in the Ninth judicial circuitin the same manner as writs of error and appeals are allowed from circuitcourts to circuit courts of appeals as provided by law, and the laws of theUnited States relating to juries and jury trials shall be applicable to said dis-trict court."Section 93, line 4, after the word "dollars," strike out the word "and."Section 92, line 6, after the word "and " insert the word "the;" after theword "justices" insert the words "of the supreme court," and after the word"each," in line 7, insert the words "and the judges of the circuit courts,$3,000 each."Section 92, lines 9 and 10, strike out the words "Territory of Hawaii" andinsert in lien thereof the words "United States."Section 92, line 11, after the word "thousand," insert the words "five hun-dred.Section 92, line 12, strike oat the word "two" and insert the word "three."Section 96, line 9, after the word "in," strike out the word "a" and Insertin lien thereof the word "such."Section 96, line 10, before the word "provided," insert the words "as maybe." Section 97, line 19, strike out all after the word "States" to the end of thesection."Section 98, line 2, strike out the words "permanent or temporary, onAugust 12," and insert in lien thereof the words "on the 13th day of August."Section 98, line 9, after the word "and," strike out all to and including theword "act," in line 10.Section 98, lines 14 and 15, strike out all of said lines.Section 99, line 3, after the word "on," insert the words "the 13th day of;"and in the same line, after the word "August," strike out the word "twelfth."Section 101, line 12, strike out all after the word "certificates" to and in-cluding the word "acts," in line 22.Section 104, line 1, after the word "effect," strike out the word "sixty"and insert in lien thereof the word "forty-five." Section 104, line 3, after the word "section," strike out the word "fifty-two" and insert in lieu thereof the word "fifty-three."And the House agree to the same.8. M. CULLOM,C. D. CLARK.JOHN T. MORGAN,Managers on the part of the Senate.W. S. KNOX,B. B. HITT,JOHN A. MOON,Managers on the part of the House.Mr. CULLOM. Substantially all of the report has been readtwice before. Whether the rule requires that it shall be read infull again, I do not know. I can point out, if it is agreeable tothe Senate, the exact changes that have been made by the lastconference report, and it might save some time and some reading,if that course is satisfactory.The Senate will remember that it was brought out in the dis-cussion of the report some days ago that there was a provisionwhich required that a person desiring to register and vote, shouldbefore a certain date, the 31st of March of the year, pay all histaxes, which was the provision in the bill as the conferees agreedto it.During the discussion of that conference report it was foundthat two or three sections of the body of the laws which the com-mission and the committee had printed in the laws to be preservedcontained a provision for imprisonment for the nonpayment oftaxes or for debt. Therefore it was that the judgment of theSenate, as the Senate will remember, was manifestly against thatprovision and against the provision which required the paymentof taxes before registration, and so, by the consent of the conferees,the report was disagreed to and sent back to the conferees of thetwo Houses.The work of the last conference resulted in the striking out fromthe conference report of all the provisions requiring the paymentof taxes before registration and also inserting a provision in thebill to the effect that no person shall be imprisoned for nonpay-ment of taxes or for debt

Second. Have resided in the Territory not less than one year precedingand in the representative district in which he offers to register not less thanthree months immediately preceding the time at which he offers to register.Third. Have attained the age of 21 years.Fourth. Prior to each regular election, during the time prescribed by lawfor registration, have caused his name to be entered on the register of votersfor representatives for his district.Fifth. Prior to such registration have paid a poll tax of $1 for the currentyear, due by him to the government.That was stricken out; and the conferees inserted in place of itthe provision that was in the bill as it was passed by the Senate.I can not put my eye on the provision inserted in the bill by theSenate at the moment, but the whole provision was stricken outrequiring taxes to be paid before registration.Mr. BACON. Even the poll tax?Mr. CULLOM. Even the poll tax; and then the other provi-sion in reference to imprisonment was put in in section 10.That no person shall be subject to imprisonment for nonpayment of taxesnor for debt.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. So that, if the conference report isadopted, there will be no requirement for the payment of any taxwhatever as a prerequisite to the right to rote?Mr. CULLOM. None whatever.Mr. JONES of Arkansas. And there is no imprisonment fordebt or nonpayment of taxes?Mr. CULLOM. Not a word. The only other provision thatthe last conference committee made to the bill was to change theparagraph on page 9 of the conference report of the bill. I willread the paragraph as it stood with the amendment made beforethe last conference. The provision read:Provided further. That the provisions of this section shall not apply to merchant seamen.The conference committee changed that provision so as to readas follows:Provided further. That the provisions of this section shall not modify orchange the laws of the United States applicable to merchant seamen.So as to extend the laws of the United States over those islands.Mr. BACON. Now, as I understand from the statement of theSenator, all citizens of the United States and of the republic ofHawaii are authorized to exercise the elective franchise, and thataccording to the constitution of Hawaii all bona fide inhabitants —Mr. CULLOM. Were made citizens when the republic wasestablished.Mr. BACON. Yes; all who were on the 12th day of August,1898 — the day fixed — then citizens of the republic of Hawaii nowhave the right to vote. Mr. CULLOM. That is the provision in the bill.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senate agree to thereport of the conference committee?Mr. TILLMAN. There was a provision in the conference reportin regard to the limiting of the appointment of the governor, thejudges, and all Territorial officers to citizens of the Territory ofHawaiiMr. CULLOM. The bill remains exactly as it was when it waspreviously before the Senate on the question of citizenship. Thebill originally provided that the officers should only be requiredto be residents of Hawaii. The House amended it so as to makeall officers appointed by the President to be citizens of the Ter-ritory. The House conferees, I may be allowed to state, said thatthey could not yield that; that if they did, there would probably be

4650but two votes for the conference report, one of the conferees stat-ing that be could not vote for it himself. Therefore the Senateconferees finally yielded on that question.Mr. TILLMAN. I want the Senate to understand that we aremaking a difference in this Territory from any other Territory, bywhich the President is limited in the appointment of these im-portant officers to residents or citizens of Hawaii, whereas be cansend into Arizona or New Mexico or Oklahoma or Alaska a citi-zen from outside. I never could see the reason why this specialfavoritism should be given to the Hawaiians; but if the Senate isto support the conference report and the bill is to become a lawwith that provision in it I shall not resist it.Mr. CULLOM. The Senator knows there has been a good dealof controversy upon the question whether the offices in a Territoryshould not be filled by persons living in the Territory.Mr. TILLMAN. The only trouble is that we have just passeda bill for Porto Rico, in which we expressly provided fora largenumber of American citizens of this country to go down there toadminister that government I can not see why there should bethis difference in the treatment of the two islands.Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I do not know so much aboutthe Porto Ricans as I do about the Hawaiians.Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me —— Mr. CULLOM. In one moment. I merely want to say that Iam not as familiar with the people of Porto Rico as I am with thepeople of Hawaii and with the qualifications of the men of thoseislands. I apprehend, however, there is considerable differencebetween the qualifications of a great many of the people in theHawaiian Islands and those in Porto Rico. That may be the rea-son for dealing with one in one way and with the other in another.It certainly, in my judgment, is not a reason why this conferencereport should be rejected, because I am satisfied the Presidentcan find just as good men in Hawaii as he can anywhere else; andif be finds that he can not, we can change this law later on.Mr. TILLMAN. I am equally satisfied we can find just asgood men in Porto Rico to run affairs in Porto Rico as we canfind in the United States to send there to run them, but in viewof my irrepressible and inherited objection to carpetbagism, Ifought that idea in regard to Porto Rico, and I am glad to seethat the gentlemen in charge of this proposition do not propose tohave any carpetbaggers in Hawaii.Mr. FORAKER. I understood the Senator from South Caro-lina [Mr. TILLMAN] to say we have just passed a bill in regard toPorto Rico requiring that appointees be made from citizens of theUnited States.Mr. TILLMAN. No, sir; I did not. But I said you did not

Mr. CULLOM. It will certainly be in the United States whenthis bill becomes a law, if language in a statute can bring it in.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I think it is a question open tovery serious constitutional doubt I remember to have heard anargument made by a former colleague of the Senator, SenatorPalmer, upon the subject of the right of Congress to limit thepower of the President to appoint officers. It made a very greatimpression upon me, and from that time I have doubted whetherit was in the power of Congress so to limit the President in hisappointing power.But whether that be so or not, I believe it extremely bad policyin every way in which it can be viewed. It does not at all answerthe objections to it to say that there are good men in Hawaii tofill the offices. I have no doubt that is true; but there are goodmen elsewhere. There can be no reason in our system of govern-ment for excluding from the right to appointment in a Territoryby the President all the people of the United States except thosewho live in the Territory.As I have said, I have no idea that I can defeat this conferencereport but I am not willing that this portion of it shall go with-out my earnest protest.Mr. PETT1GHE W. Mr. President, I have always believed thatthe officers of the Territories should be selected from the citizensthereof, but there is certainly less reason why this rule shouldapply to Hawaii than to any other Territory of the United States.There is there an exceedingly small group of people to selectfrom, a very few Americans or people of American descent, andnone have gone to Hawaii to make it their home since the annex-ation of that country. But, on the contrary, there has been addedto the population over 30,000 contract laborers.The group of Americans in Hawaii number about 3,000 peopleof American descent. Of that number about 2,000 are males ofall ages, and from this group are to be selected the officers of thatTerritory. These are the men who have enacted contract or slavelabor laws for Hawaii. These are the men who, in establishingthe republic, limited the suffrage to people who are large propertyowners, and thus reduced the number of people who could voteunder the monarchy from 14,000 to about 2,600. These are the menwho enacted a law that if a man did not pay bis taxes he could beimprisoned at hard labor until he earned enough at 50 cents a dayto pay the indebtedness, and from this group of men are to beselected the officers of that Territory.For judges we are to select from the two lawyers of Hawaii.Those lawyers, who are now on the bench and who under this lawwill be continued as the judicial officers of that Territory,

protect the people of Porto Rico against the imposition uponthem of appointees from here, as you do with the Hawaiians.Mr. FORAKER. In so far as there is any provision at all onthat subject that that could have reference to, it is that not less than so many shall be appointed from Porto Rico. All may beappointed from Porto Rico if the President sees fit.Mr. TILLMAN. But the very fact that you make the limita-tion indicates that you expect the other thing to happen; and ithas happened and will continue to happen.Mr. FORAKER. Possibly it may happen; but it does not nec-essarily so follow. The President is at liberty to make all hisappointments from the citizens of Porto Rico if he so desires, butI apprehend he will make some appointments from among thepeople of the United States.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut I will ask the Senator from Illinoisif he will not read that clause with reference to the appointmentof citizens to office as it will stand in the bill, if it is no trouble tohim to do so.Mr. CULLOM. It occurs in two or three places. For instance,in the clause providing for the appointment of a governor, thelanguage is:Ho shall not be less than 35 yean of age; shall be a citizen of the Territoryof Hawaii; shall be commander in chief of the militia thereof, etc.There is a similar provision as to citizenship in reference to thesecretary of state and the supreme and circuit judges of the Ter-ritory; but it does not apply to the Federal judge, the marshal, orthe district attorney.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut By whom are the other officers tobe confirmed — the Senate of the United States?Mr. CULLOM. The President appoints the governor, the supreme judges, and the circuit judges. They are all nominated bythe President and confirmed by the Senate.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Of the United States?Mr. CULLOM. Of the United States.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, I know it is uselessto attempt in the Senate to defeat this conference report on accountof these provisions which have been assented to by the conferees, butI wish to enter my protest against that portion of the report whichtakes away from the President of the United States the right toappoint officers from the entire United States, excepting Hawaii,if that be in the United States, as I suppose it is brought in bythis bill.

are themen who decided that a contract for slave labor was a civil con-tract, and that for breach of that contract by one of the victimshe could be imprisoned for life if he would not consent to go backand perform the slave service under the provisions of his contract,and that the Constitution of the United States was not in force inHawaii. An exception is made, then, for the purpose of perpetu-ating, of continuing in office the men who have done these things.That is all 1 care to say about that branch of the subjectBut there is another provision in this conference report to whichI object, and that is the provision giving an American registry tofour ships.Mr. CULLOM: Five ships.Mr. PETTIGREW. Well, five ships. Before Hawaii was an-nexed several vessels were admitted to Hawaiian registry becausethe owners of the vessels believed that the islands would be an-nexed and that they would then obtain an American register.When we annexed the islands there is no doubt those vessels re-ceived an American register. But after we annexed the islandsthey continued the practice of issuing Hawaiian registers, andthey issued registers to seven vessels. This was an unlawful actThere was no authority for it; they had no right to do it Com-plaint was made to the President of the United States, and thepractice ceased, although nine other vessels had applied for Ha-waiian registers. The Attorney-General of the United Statesdecided that it was unlawful to issue these registers; that it couldnot be done, and therefore the President issued orders that thelaws of Hawaii should be suspended, and no more registers begranted.In view of the fact that the Constitution of the United, Statesand the laws of the United States will only apply to Hawaii afterthis bill becomes a law and goes into effect, which will be forty-five days from now, I wonder where the President got his authorityto legislate for Hawaii and to repeal the laws of Hawaii? Cer-tainly not under the provision that he shall execute the laws ofthe United States or the Constitution of the United States. Ifthe theory of the imperialists in this body is correct, he did notget it under the war-making power, for we did not conquer Ha-waii; we bought it; we annexed it; we absorbed it under anagreement not ratified or consented to by the people of Hawaii,but under an agreement made with those men who, with the as-sistance of our naval force, had overthrown the lawful govern-ment of Hawaii.I ask, where does the President get his authority to issue an

4651 order to the authorities of Hawaii not to issue any more Amer-ican registers? It was done simply because the shipbuilders ofthe United States did not want competition. If he could do that,however, if there was any warrant of law or any authority fromany source which authorized him to do that, he could equally aswell have ordered that they should stop importing slave labor,but that he did not see fit to do. The property interests of theUnited States were the special interests which the Presidentwished to guard and not the labor of the United States. Conse-quently alter our flag went up there were imported into Hawaii37,000 contract laborers, who were bound to perform service un-der taskmasters who could decide whether they were sick or wellenough to work during a certain number of years. These mencan now come to the United States from Hawaii.The President did not see fit to protect the labor of the UnitedStates against this importation of contract laborers, but he did seefit to stop the registration of Hawaiian ships. Of course, Hawaiiis a part of the United States under the provisions of this law, andthese 37,000 Asiatic laborers can now come, without any hindrancewhatever, to the United States, for under the provisions of thisbill their contracts are declared null and void, and the UnitedStates is authorized to at once notify them of the termination oftheir contracts. So I see no reason why large numbers of thesemen shall not immediately come to our shores to compete withthe laborers of this country.This doctrine of imperialism, Mr. President, it seems to me,must drive the Republican party to the abandonment of the doc-trine of protection. It practically has done it. That party mustchoose between their imperial colonies, which they govern againstthe will of the people of those countries, and the protection by lawof the American laborer. The effort to do both will be a failure.The feeble pretense in the case of Porto Rico will deceive no-body. Fifteen per cent of the Dingley duties is not a protection,and the importation of slave laborers is certainly not a measureof protection to the laborers of the United States. Of course Iknow the conference report will be adopted. We have eliminatedfrom the bill many of its most pernicious features as presentedhere by the Committee on Foreign Relations. The bill as it cameto us provided for a large property qualification in order to vote;it provided for the enslavement of men who did not pay theirtaxes, for imprisonment at hard labor, and, in my opinion, pro-vided for the continuation of the labor contract system in thatTerritory. I think those objectionable features have been elim-inated, and therefore the bill is much better than it was as it wasfirst presented to us.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Sen-ate agree to the report of the conference committee?The report was agreed to.

April 26, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 5 )p. 4713

Issuance of Bonds in Territories:Mr. Shoup. I ask unanimous consent forthe present consideration of the bill ( S . 4075)to amend an act to prohibit the passage ofspecial or local laws in the Territories, tolimit the Territorial indebtedness, and soforth.The Secretary read the bill.Mr. Bate. That is a very important bill,sir, giving power to the Territories to issuebonds, and it has property qualifications toenable citizens to vote. I do not think thebill ought to be disposed of in this mannerthis evening.The President pro tempore. The Senator fromTennessee objects.Mr. Bate. I am sorry to do it.Mr. Shoup. Then I ask that it may go overwithout prejudice.Mr. Bate. Oh certainly.

April 26, 1900Housev. 33 (5) p. 4733-4737CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I present a privileged report.The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts presentsa privileged report, which the Clerk will read.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispensewith the reading of the report and that the statement of the Houseconferees may be read.There was no objection.The Clerk read the statement, as follows:The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagree-ing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the Senatebill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii, submit thefollowing written statement in explanation of the effects of the action agreedupon, and recommend it in the accompanying conference report, namely:The Senate agrees to the amendment of the House in the nature of a sub-stitute with the following amendments:Section 1, line 3, after the word "Hawaii." insert the words "in force."This in no way affects the provision of the House bill and is merely for clear-ness.The amendment to section 4 simply states with more clearness that per-sons then resident in the Hawaiian Islands are referred to.The amendments in section 5 are to make the statement definite that theConstitution as a whole is extended to the Territory of Hawaii.In section 10, line 1, the words "obligations and contracts" were strickenout, for the reason that they might be construed to continue in force exist-ing labor contracts.The provision in section 10, line 13, is a new provision, with the manifestpurpose of preventing imprisonment for debt in the Territory of Hawaii.The succeeding amendment in section 10 was to make it definite that thelaws of the United States affecting merchant seamen would not be changedor modified.In section 18 the section is stricken out and the following is inserted: "Noidiot or insane person, and no person who shall be expelled from the legis-lature for giving or receiving bribes or being accessory thereto, and no per-son who, in due course of law, shall have been convicted of any criminal of-fense punishable by imprisonment, whether with or without hard labor, fora term exceeding one year, whether with or without fine, shall register tovote or shall vote or hold office in, or under, or by authority of, the govern-ment, unless the person so convicted shall have been pardoned and restoredto his civil rights." This amendment to section 18 was in the original Senatebill and in the bill reported by the commissioners appointed by the President,and was finally thought essential by the conferees.The amendment to section 34, line 4, restores the provision of the Senatebill as to the age qualification for senators — 30 years.In section 37, lines 2 and 3, the words "general or," inserted in the Housebill, were stricken out because no vacancy could be filled except at a specialelection. The amendment to section 40 was to require the representative to be aresident of the district from which he is elected.In section 49, line 5, "shall" was stricken out and "may" inserted to makeit consistent with section 51.In section 55, line 25, the words struck out and Inserted were for the pur-pose of making it certain that the section should have no retroactive effect.In line 37 of the same section the amendment makes more general the pro-vision of the House bill and puts the control of the sale of spirituous andintoxicating liquors in the legislature. In lines 72 and 73 of the same sectionthe provision of the House bill was considered unnecessary.Section 60. This amendment does away with all provision (or the paymentof taxes as a qualification for voting.Section 62. The amendment in detail was made necessary by taxing thequalifications for voters apply to all elections.Section 64. The amendment striking out the House provision was for thereason that the provision was inapplicable to Hawaii for the reason thatthere are no political parties. The amendment to section 73 in effect put the sale, leasing, and transfer ofthe public lands in Hawaii under the laws of Hawaii, with the exception ofthe restriction upon the power to lease for a longer term than five rears,until action of Congress and the provision of the House bill as to validatingsales and transfers after July 7, 1893, is made subject to the approval of thePresident. The further amendment in the same section, striking out thewords "in good faith," was for the reason that they were no longer necessaryafter the amendment making the transfers subject to the approval of thePresident had been agreed upon.The amendment to section 76 places the duties required of the commis-sioner of labor to be appointed upon the United States Commissioner of La-bor. It was thought that he had the machinery and past experience to en-able him to make such comprehensive reports as the section provides for,and that it was unnecessary to appoint a commissioner specially for thatpurpose. It was also thought best that the reports should be made to Con-

gress instead of to the legislature of Hawaii, presupposing, of course, thatall reports to Congress would be in the possession of the Hawaiian legislature.The provision stricken out of section 80 was objected to by the Senate asthe statistics called for in such detail concerning lands, leases, etc., were al-ready Implied in the duties of the United States Commissioner of Labor as.prescribed in section 76, and the penal provisions at the end of the sectionfor mere failure to make reports in such detail were deemed harsh.The amendment is section 82, striking out the words "not less than" wasthought necessary as it was deemed sufficient to have two associate justiceswith the chief justice.The amendments to section 86 in effect separate the Territorial from theFederal jurisdiction in courts of the Territory of Hawaii, as provided in theHouse bill, the provision for appeals from the supreme court of Hawaii tothe ninth judicial circuit being stricken out and the jurisdiction of UnitedStates district and circuit courts is conferred upon the Federal court estab-lished.The first amendment in section 92 provides salaries for the judges of thecircuit courts at $3,000 each, and provides, further, that the salaries of thechief justice and associate justices of the supreme court and of the judges ofthe circuit courts shall be paid by the United States. This is made necessaryby the change in the bill which provides that the appointments shall be madeby the President of the United States and not by the governor of the Terri-tory. Also, the marshal's pay is raised from $2,000 to $2,600, and the UnitedStates district attorney's from $2,000 to $3,000.In section 97, line 19, the House provision was deemed no longer necessary.The amendment in section 98, line 9 stricken out, was one postponing for ayear the application of the navigation laws of the United States to the islands,restricting the coastwise trade to American vessels.The provision in section 101 requiring the departure of Chinese laborers,10 per cent per annum, was stricken out, as it was objected to by the Senate.Section 104: The amendment to this section substituting forty-five days forsixty days as the time when the act should go into operation, was deemed asafe period.W. S. KNOX,R. R. HITT.JOHN A. MOON,Managers on the part of the House.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I move that the conference reportbe agreed to. I desire to state what the substantial differencesare between this bill and the bill as it left the House, becausethey may not have been caught from the reading of the statement.The first substantial difference is the striking out of the provisionfor the payment of a poll tax as a requisite for voting. As thebill left the House it provided for the payment of a poll tax of $1,payable in the month of March previous to election. The resultof the first conference was that the Senate provision was put infor the payment of a personal tax of $5. After that provision wasinserted providing for the payment of the personal tax of $5, thebill came back to a second conference and, as a result, all provi-sions for the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting isstricken out. There is now no qualification but citizenship, ageof 21 years, residence of one year, and the ability to read, write,and speak the English or Hawaiian language.The next amendment that is of any consequence was the landprovision, which was contained in paragraph 73 of the House bill.The House bill provided that hereafter all transfers of land inHawaii, by lease or otherwise, should be reported to our Secretaryof the Interior and have the approval of the Land Office, and thatthat must take place within a period of sixty days. A letter fromthe Department said that it would be utterly impossible to attendto such matters here within sixty days or six months even, andthe effect would be virtually to tie up all land transfers in Hawaii.So as the bill stands now, all transfers of land in Hawaii are in ac-cordance with Hawaiian law and the Hawaiian practice up to thepresent time, except leases of more than five years, and they cannot be made till Congress shall make further provision.As to the sales that took place between July 7 and September28, their legality is made to depend upon the approval of the Presi-dent. That is a provision which was contained in the Senate bill.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The gentleman says the con-ferees have stricken out the provision as to the poll tax. Doesthat mean no poll tax, or does it mean the old Hawaiian law is inforce?Mr. KNOX. There is no provision for a poll tax whatever.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. The Hawaiian law in regardto that matter is not in force at all.Mr. KNOX Not at all; there is no requisite for the paymentof a poll tax.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I asked the question for thisreason: I thought if the Hawaiian poll tax was left as a tax, itmight be in force and be overlooked if this provision was strickenout.Mr. KNOX. Oh, no; in addition to that it was discovered thatthere was a Hawaiian law for imprisonment for debt, and an ad-ditional provision was out in so that there should be no provisionof that sort or for the payment of a poll tax.Mr. BALL. In the confusion I failed to catch the provision inregard to the labor contracts. Will the gentleman explain aboutthem?Mr. KNOX. That was section 10, and it was my fault that Idid not mention it before, although the change is very slight.As the bill left the House all rights in law and equity were re-served. In conference we struck out the words "obligations andcontracts," through fear that by keeping them we might preservesome of those labor contracts, which the bill entirely eradicates.Mr. BALL. And there is nothing in the bill recognizing them?

4734Mr. KNOX. No; the labor contracts are not recognized in anyway.Mr. McRAE. I want to ask if the report has been printed in ashape so that we can get at it to know what it is?Mr. KNOX. The agreement of the conferees was printed in theRECORD of the 16th of this month.Mr. McRAE. Is the bill printed as agreed upon by the conferees?Mr. KNOX. The bill substantially as agreed upon is in print.It is Senate bill No. 222, the print of April 18. The changes fromwhat the bill was when it left the House are so slight and so fewthat I thought I could state them intelligently.Mr. McRAE. Is the paragraph in regard to alien contractlabor in the bill?Mr. KNOX. Yes; the provision the gentleman offered in theHouse is in the bill.Mr. TERRY. I notice that by the conference report the words"in good faith" are stricken out.Mr. KNOX. Yes.Mr. TERRY. I should like the gentleman to read the contextof the bill in which those words appeared.Mr. KNOX. That will be found in section 73:That. subject to the approval of the President, all sales, grants, leases, andother dispositions of the public domain, and agreements concerning the same,and all franchises granted in good faith by the Hawaiian government in con-formity with the laws of Hawaii between the 7th day of July, 1888, and the28th day of September are ratified and confirmed.It was the intention of both bills to ratify and confirm contractsfor the sale and actual transfer of lands by the Hawaiian govern-ment between the date of the annexation resolution, July 7, andSeptember 28. Those transfers were made when the parties sup-posed they had a right to make them, but the Attorney-Generalsubsequently made a ruling that they could not lawfully be made.The intention was to validate them. The words "in good faith"were stricken out in conference and a provision substituted to theeffect that these transfers must receive the approval of the Presi-dent. We thus designated an officer who should decide upon thepropriety and validity of those transfers.Mr. TERRY. The only objection I have to that is this: That inthe multiplicity of business on the hands of the President and inview of the hurried way in which these things would have to betransacted by him, he could not always inquire into the facts.The words "in good faith," which appeared in the bill as it wentfrom the House, would make the validity of those transfers a judi-cial question that the courts might inquire into more fully thancould the President of the United States. I think it unfortunatethat the words "in good faith" have been stricken out.Mr. KNOX. We thought it better to put this matter in thehands of the President to decide upon the validity of such trans-fers, rather than leave in the bill language which perhaps mightrequire the courts to pass upon the question.Mr. TERRY. My point is that it would be safer, where a ques-tion of good faith is involved, to vest the power of determinationin a tribunal that could inquire into the facts, as the Presidentcan not very well do.Mr. KNOX. We desired to avoid litigation as much as possible.The United States holds these lands upon a naked trust for theHawaiian people. We have no interest in the proceeds of thesales of those lands.Mr. TERRY. I know it was very important to preserve therights which parties supposed they were acquiring when thosegrants were made after the country belonged to the United States.Mr. KNOX. Unquestionably.Another important provision was that in regard to the applica-tion of the coasting laws of the United States. Under the bill asit left the House it was provided that a year should elapse beforethose laws should go into operation with respect to Hawaii. Itwas insisted on the part of the Senate that those laws should gointo operation at once; and on that point the House confereesyielded. It was shown that there had been preparation made overthe entire country to engage in this coasting trade; and hence thatprovision was stricken out.Another important matter in connection with the conferencewas the agreement of the Senate to the establishment of a legisla-tive court — that is, not a constitutional court, but a court clothedwith all the jurisdiction of a district and circuit court — and thetaking out of the Senate bill the provision which allowed an ap-peal from the supreme court of Hawaii to the Ninth judicial dis-trict. By this action we accomplish the purpose of entirelyseparating the Federal from the Territorial jurisdiction, and weprovide that Territorial litigation shall end in Hawaii.Another material provision was an amendment offered by thedistinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. NEWLANDS], whichwas not agreed to in conference. It was thought that the provi-sion for the ascertainment of statistics in regard to labor in theHawaiian Islands was ample in the bill as it stood and that there-

ment of the gentleman from Missouri requiring the deportationof the Japanese and Chinese laborers from the island of Hawaiiat the rate, I think, of 10 per cent a year. The Senate insistedupon that provision being stricken out; and the reasons in favorof doing so were very forcible, from the fact that the momentthese labor contracts are at an end a Japanese subject is as free acitizen of Hawaii as any other person, and we could not deporthim without running in direct opposition to our treaty provisionswith Japan.Mr. NEWLANDS. The gentleman has referred to the amend-ments which I offered regarding labor and regarding agriculturalstatistics. I understand that the conferees on the part of theHouse have agreed that the amendment relating to agriculturalstatistics should be stricken out.Mr. KNOX. The provision for the surveyor ——Mr. NEWLANDS (continuing). And stricken out, first, be-cause you claim the provision for agricultural statistics was cov-ered by that provision of the statute relating to the Commissionerof Labor? Mr. KNOX. Precisely.Mr. NEWLANDS. And also because the Senate objected to thepenalties imposed on those who refused to make the statementsrequired as to the number of laborers employed, the wages paid,etc. Now, did it occur to the conferees that they could leave thatsection as to agricultural statistics in the bill and strike out thepenalty if it was offensive?Mr. KNOX. It did: and I assure the gentleman that we stoodby his amendment as long as there was any use to do it.Mr. NEWLANDS. And do I understand that the gentlemanabandoned it finally upon the assumption that those statistics werecovered by the preceding section, relating to industrial statistics?Mr. KNOX. That was part of it, perhaps, but the main reasonwas that we were finally obliged to yield in order to secure anagreement on the conference report.Mr. NEWLANDS. Was objection made to the provision in re-lation to agricultural statistics?Mr. KNOX. There was very strenuous objection to the multi-plication of offices, and it was thought — and I submit that to thegentleman himself — it was thought that the very broad provisionas to the statistics and all that the Commissioner of Labor is toascertain would cover all that the gentleman desires to get at.It was also thought, if the gentleman will allow me, that thequestion of merely obtaining this information, which will beobtained and reported to Congress on the other provisions, wasnot one upon which we could afford to say that there should beno agreement upon this bill.Mr. NEWLANDS. Will the gentleman refer me to any portionof the section relating to the Commissioner of Labor which au-thorizes him to collect statistics as to the area of landholdingsand the character of the landholdings and the character of thecultivation?Mr. KNOX. Well, I will call the gentleman's attention to this:It shall be the duty of the United States Commissioner of Labor to collect,assort, arrange, and present in an annual report statistical details relatingto all departments of labor in the Territory of Hawaii, especially in relationto the commercial, industrial, social, educational, and sanitary conditions ofthe laboring classes ——Mr. NEWLANDS. Does the gentleman claim that that lan-guage compels the Commissioner of Labor to make statements asto the area of agricultural holdings and the character of the cultivation?Mr. KNOX. I did not quite finish—and to all such other subjects as Congress may by law direct.Mr. NEWLANDS. Hereafter.Mr. KNOX. Certainly. We are not legislating now for all thefuture. I do not pretend that we have a bill here that no personcan criticise. We should have been something more than humanif we had that.Mr. NEWLANDS. Does the gentleman recollect that theHouse, by its judgment, determined that it wished statistics asto the area of agricultural holdings and the character of cultivation?Mr. KNOX. I do.Mr. NEWLANDS. And that that part of the question relatingto the collection of statistics has been left out of this bill andintrusted, as the gentleman says, to future "bills?Mr. KNOX. I do admit that, and I say to the gentleman thatwe tried in good faith to carry out the order of the House, butwere finally compelled to yield.Mr. NEWLANDS. I trust that the House, then, will votedown this report and give the conferees some idea of the con-sistency and fixedness of will of this House.Mr. KNOX. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will notvote down this report, providing, as it does, for the government ofthis Territory, which the gentleman's annexation resolution gave

fore the amendment was unnecessary.The other amendment which was stricken out was the amend-

to this country and which has called upon us to provide a gov-ernment. I hope the House will hot vote down such a report as

4735this and such a great bill as this simply because it does not com-port with the particular ideas of the gentleman from Nevada aboutland statistics.Mr. NEWLANDS. I object to it because it does not comportwith the view of this House.Mr. KNOX. Very well; I yielded to the gentleman's amend-ment. I accepted it. No great consideration was given to it. Ican give to the gentleman statistics as to every acre of land to-dayin Hawaii. They are all accounted for, all the holdings, and theyare in printed report No. 305. In Hawaii, in the land office, theinformation can be obtained as to the landholdings in the Terri-tory of Hawaii.Mr. NEWLANDS. Yes; the gentleman informs me that some-where else this information can be obtained. What we want is acommissioner whose duty it shall be to obtain this informationfor the Congress of the United States.Mr. KNOX. Very likely, but you can not expect to have thisinformation placed upon your table at once. It may be that itwould be well to have all that; I do not think it is of any verygreat consequence; but while all consideration should be given, ofcourse, to a gentleman who has given so much time to Hawaii asthe gentleman from Nevada has done, I do hope that no one willseek to vote down this final report. [Applause.]Now, the net result of all this is that the Senate has agreed toour amendment, which was a substitution of the House bill, withthese amendments which I have stated.Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining in the hour?The SPEAKER. The gentleman has forty minutes remaining.Mr. KNOX. I will yield five minutes to the gentleman fromIndiana [Mr. ROBINSON] , but I do not wish to yield the floor.The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON]is recognized for five minutes.Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have carefullywatched the course of this Hawaiian bill through its varioustrials and tribulations, its amendments and changes before thecommittee, and its changes in the House, in the Senate, and inconference. The Committee on Territories have devoted to it agreat deal of study, and have spent long days, covering weeks oftime, in a careful consideration of it. It was not easy to draft ameasure suited to Hawaii or to the conditions then prevailing.I have paid particular attention to the labor feature of the bill,and upon a former occasion I offered some observations to theHouse upon that subject. The labors of the committee, in con-junction with the proceedings of the House and Senate and theresults of the conference, have brought into the bill what are tomy mind the best provisions that could have been enacted uponthe subject of labor. It was extremely difficult to get informa-tion on and understand the real conditions.I believe that the result of the action of the conference commit-tee on the subject of the appointment of judges of the courts bythe President is highly satisfactory, and that it impresses uponthe bill an American feature. The rights of franchise, as givenby the combined judgment of the House and Senate and as finallymolded in conference, give full and free rights to the people.I very much regret that the provision on the subject of deport-ing the Asiatics from Hawaii was not also agreed to in confer-ence. Nearly one-half of the population of the Hawaiian Islandsare Japanese and Chinese, and they will be a constant menace tothis country as long as they remain there. The Chinese have fora long time been breaking across the border of Canada to thiscountry, and many false and forged certificates have been dis-covered from time to time. I believe a law like the Chineseexclusion act must be passed to protect our labor from the Japanese.I very much doubt whether the provision in the bill providingthat the Chinese shall not come from the Hawaiian Islands to thiscountry will stand the test of the courts when the question comesup on the subject of the right, under the Constitution, to have alaw of that kind passed restricting persons to a certain part of ourcountry.But the general features of the bill, as finally agreed to and nowbefore us, seem to be as good as under the present circumstancescan be hoped for, while the bill as at first introduced containedtoo many Hawaiian traces. I believe that the bill in its presentform is a good American bill, outside of the special features towhich attention has been called by the gentleman from Nevada,and on which I am not informed. I desire to commend the com-mittee of conference, and the House committee having the bill incharge, and Congress, and as well to congratulate the people ofHawaii upon having what in my judgment is a good measurefor their first government.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, out of my time I yield ten minutesto the gentleman from Nevada.The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized forten minutes.Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Speaker, I concur in the commenda-tion which. the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON] has

ered thus far in a nonpartisan way by the members of this House.There is not a man on either side who does not want to secure thebest government that is possible for Hawaii.There is not a member on either side that does not want to se-cure for that island the benefits of republican institutions; but Ifear that we have lost sight of the tact that the maintenance ofrepublican institutions in those islands will depend more uponeconomic conditions existing there than upon the form of govern-ment which we give them.The form of government may conform to the highest theoriesof republican institutions, and yet, unless we have able, intelli-gent, courageous, and fearless men to discharge the official dutiesimposed upon them by this law, and unless we can have a con-stituency there, capable, courageous, determined to maintaintheir rights, free government may fail.Now, what are the economic conditions which prevail there?First, a condition of land monopoly. The principal product ofthe islands is sugar. The exports of sugar amount to $20,000,000annually, constituting substantially the entire export of theisland, and the production of sugar is almost entirely in the handsof large corporations, whose land holdings aggregate in areafrom one thousand to five or six thousand acres.By incorporating Hawaii in the United States we gave thoseislands the benefit of the enlarged markets of this country. Wehave added $10,000,000 to the annual value of their sugar product.The cost of sugar production there is $35 a ton.The duty on sugar imported to this country is about $40 a ton.Thus the value of their products to them is doubled by free ad-mission to our markets; so that they are receiving $80 a ton, andthis extraordinary benefit given to the agricultural land there, bymaking these islands a part of the United States, is $10,000,000 ofclear gain annually given to the landowners, and not a dollar isapplied to the establishment there of a superior system of labor.And yet the very foundation stone of our protective system isthat it protects and elevates labor. Now, I make no reflection upon the capacity or honesty of thelandowners of Hawaii. You can not expect a people. who are thebeneficiaries of an abuse to reform it. That statement applies tohuman nature universally, and the legislation must be inaugu-rated by this Congress which will reform it. Now. what was thepurpose of these amendments which were introduced upon thefloor of this House, debated by the House, and adopted after duedeliberation? The purpose of the amendment was to select therefrom the people of Hawaii a labor commissioner who should re-port to the United States Commissioner of Labor here, giving allthe statistical information relating to labor and relating to theindustries there.The conferees have changed all that. They have provided thatinstead of having a labor commissioner there, who would be se-lected by the people and who would be selected probably as aresult of agitation of the labor question — and I think that agita-tion should be stimulated there, as well as here — instead of thatthey have determined that our United States Commissioner ofLabor at Washington should discharge this duty.Then what do you do with reference to landholding? We pro-vided that the surveyor-general there should make an annual re-port to the United States Labor Department here and to the gov-ernor and legislature there covering1 the area of the various land-holdings, the character of cultivation, the nativity of the laborers,and the wages paid. So that you see we aimed nothing at thevested interests there. Our legislation did not disturb existingconditions, but we simply planted the seed for action hereafter.Now, what have the conferees done? They have left out thelabor commissioner there and substituted the United States LaborCommissioner here, 7,000 miles away from the scene of inquiryand contemplated reform. They have stricken out entirely thesection requiring annual reports as to the area of agriculturalholdings, the character of the cultivation, the number of laborersemployed on each holding, and the nativity of the laborers andtheir wages; and they have done so because it imposed a penaltyof a hundred dollars upon the landowners for failure to respondto the demand of the surveyor-general for such reports.A most reasonable penalty for a failure to furnish Informationnecessary to future labor legislation is stricken out because it isalleged to be harsh and oppressive.The landowner is to be protected from questions, whilst laborremains abject and servile. But assuming that they wanted towipe out the penalty; assuming they did not wish to have the ma-chinery of the law which would compel the enforcement of itsmandates; would it not have been sufficient to strike out the pen-alty alone?Instead of striking that out alone, they struck out also the por-tion of the same provision which compels the surveyor-general tomake reports on the area of agricultural holdings, the character ofcultivation, the nativity of the laborers, and the wages paid labor-ers. So far as I am concerned, I would have been content if they

bestowed upon this bill in its general features. It has been consid- had united the duties of these two officers into one, provided that

4736in doing so they had imposed on the one officer the duties thatthis House by its solemn action imposed upon the two.Now, we have this bill coming to us on the report of the con-ferees with some fifty or sixty amendments. I understand thereis objection only to the amendment of section 76, covering thequestion of labor, and section 80, covering the question of landmonopoly; and I understand that the only way that we can getat these amendments and insist upon the substance of the originalsections is to reject the report, and then the matter will go backto the conferees, and they can easily shape these sections by con-solidating the duties in one officer — a commissioner of labor, whocan report annually both as to labor conditions and land monopoly.The latter question is entirely eliminated from this bill, andyet the question of land monopoly in these islands of the Tropicsis the most important question of the future. Heretofore thelandowner has grown wealthy while labor has been degraded.The aim of our legislation should be, whilst avoiding industrialdisturbances, to provide gradually for a better system of labor;to promote small land holdings and to discourage the concentra-tion of land ownership and the system of servile and degradedlabor which it promotes. There are 120,000 people in those islandsto-day, of whom 00,000 are Asiatics and about 40,000 Kanakas,17,000 Portuguese, and 8,000 Americans and other whites.The population of those islands will increase. Shall we so shapethe land system as to promote the immigration of people

one year Americans will have ample time and notice that theymust provide American ships if they expect to continue in thistrade. The reason for this provision, as I before stated, is thatthere are not now ships enough engaged in this trade to carry thetonnage between the Pacific coast and the Hawaiian Islands.That is the naked truth — the frozen fact! Members can theorizeabout it until we are tired, but, in the language of a distinguishedand deceased (?) statesman, "It is a condition and not a theorythat we are confronted with" on the Pacific coast.American products are rotting on American soil and Hawaiianproducts are rotting on Hawaiian soil for lack of ships to carrythem either way, and yet some gentlemen continue to rise andproclaim that there are plenty of ships, and they desire to strikeout the one-year clause in order to encourage American shipping.I yield to no man on this floor the honor of being more anxious toencourage American shipping than I am, but, in God's name, is itnecessary for the American Congress to destroy what we now havein order to give us something else, and especially to destroy whatwe now have before they are prepared to give us something elsein its place? What are we of the Pacific Northwest to do if thisconference provision is agreed to. We have built up a prosperousline of traffic between Puget Sound and Hawaii, now being car-ried in foreign ships. We expect to replace those foreign shipswith American ships just as soon as money and men and a first-class shipyard can produce the vessels.You can not build a ship in a day. It takes from a year to fif-teen months to construct a ship. Now, if this law is passed in itsproposed form, we can not continue to carry on that traffic in for-eign ships, because that is against the law; and we can not carryit on in American ships, because we have had no time nor oppor-tunity to build them. Now, when a man is ready to buy a newwagon, he does not burn up the old one until he gets the new one.I claim it is false in theory, and 1 know it is false in practice, todestroy by law the present commerce between the Pacific North-west and Hawaii before you are prepared to give us somethingelse in the place of what we now enjoy. The shipbuilders of ourcountry expect to commence at once to build ships to carry onthis trade, but it will take about a year to build these ships.It is frequently asserted by those who oppose this one-yearclause that if that clause is allowed to remain in the bill foreignships will rush in and crowd American ships out of this traffic.Where will they come from? There is no provision in the law to-day that will prevent a foreign ship from engaging in this trade,

who canbecome self-respecting citizens or shall we maintain a systemwhich promotes peonage without rights in the soil?We should so legislate that some of the increased profit of pro-duction, to which I have alluded, should go to self-respecting laborand not all go to land syndicates. We should encourage the im-migration of the people from Porto Rico, which is we densestagricultural population in the civilized world, to the HawaiianIslands. Seven-tenths of the population of Porto Rico are whites.The island is overcrowded.The people are accustomed to the very pursuits which are com-mon in Hawaii — the raising of sugar, tobacco, and coffee. Weshould see to it that gradually the standard of citizenship in theHawaiian Islands is raised by discouraging the employment ofAsiatics, by encouraging the employment of American citizens,either white or black; by the employment of the citizens of PortoRico, the employment of Italians and Portuguese, encouraged byhigher rates of labor than prevail, and who would gladly go tothese islands. With such a system the maintenance of repub-lican institutions in Hawaii is possible, but without reform in thesystem of land tenure you will nave permanently a small, wealthyplanter class and a large population of servile laborers, incapableof citizenship and a constant menace to free institutions. I hopethat this important matter will go back to the conferees, and thatthey will be instructed to adhere to the spirit of the House's actionas exhibited in the original bill.

and yet the fact stares us in the face to-day that there are not shipsenough there to carry on the trade. Now, if the ships are notthere under existing law, what makes any man think there will bea mighty rush of ships in the next year if the law is left just as itis now? They have not rushed in under that law in the past.What makes you think they will do in the future exactly whatthey have failed to do in the past?As a slight piece of ex parte testimony, for the benefit of thosegentlemen who are proclaiming aloud that there are plenty of shipsto carry all the traffic, I might say that one of the distinguishedHawaiian gentlemen who appeared before our committee in rela-tion to the Hawaiian bill said to me that it would in all probabilitybe impossible for him to secure a stateroom from San Francisco toHawaii on any of the steamers, and that he would probably haveto pay an officer of the boat a hundred-dollar bonus for an offi-cers room on the voyage. And yet in the face of such facts asthis the people who desire to monopolize this trade and be the ben-eficiaries of this legislation still continue to proclaim that "thereare plenty of ships."Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman allow me aquestion?Mr. CUSHMAN. Certainly I will yield to the gentleman fromWisconsin.Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I understood the gentleman tosay a few moments ago that crops were rotting on the docks orshores of the Pacific coast and in the island of Hawaii. Whatare those crops?Mr. CUSHMAN. Well, in my State we produce almost every-thing — lumber, coal, fruit, and grain, and a multiplicity of otherproducts.Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. What disease is it that is rottingyour coal? [Laughter.]Mr. CUSHMAN. Perhaps that is a very fine point. I guess itis. It is so fine that it is not visible to the naked eye. When theproducts of the earth which are necessary for man's use, whichneed to be transported to a proper market, lie idle and useless be-cause they can not be transported to a market, that is a conditionof industrial paralysis and commercial rottenness, whether theproducts actually stink or not. [Laughter.]As a matter of fact, the ships are not there to carry the prod-nets and the traffic back and forth. Every available craft on thePacific coast, almost, has gone into the Alaskan trade by reasonof the unprecedented rush to Cape Nome. Why? Because the

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Nevada hasexpired.Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I yield ten minutes to the gentlemanfrom Washington [Mr. CUSHMAN].Mr. CUSHMAN. Mr. Speaker, being a member of the Commit-tee on Territories, which drafted this Hawaiian bill, I have no in-tention or inclination to criticise or belittle the labors of. thatcommittee. I believe the bill in its present form, as reported backto this House from the conference committee of the House and theSenate, is, generally speaking, an excellent one. I regret verydeeply that some of the provisions which the House inserted in thisbill have been stricken oat in conference. I desire to call atten-tion particularly to one of the provisions of the conference report,,which appears in section 98 of the bill, wherein the conferencecommittee struck out of the bill a part of the provision insertedby the House relating to the shipping laws.In order to thoroughly understand this matter it is necessarythat I should state in the first instance that the shipping laws ofthe United States provide that all shipping carried between Amer-ican ports must be carried in American ships. A provision wassought to be placed in this bill extending unreservedly the ship-ping laws of the United States to Hawaii. That would mean, ifadopted, that immediately upon the passage of such a provisionall shipping between the United States and Hawaii must be car-ried by American ships.Theoretically, that sounds very well, and nearly every one who

has sought to place the provision in that form in the bill has de-fended it on theoretical grounds; but upon examination of thisquestion before the House committee the fact was developed thatthere are not now enough ships available, especially on the Pacificcoast, to carry the shipping between the United States and theseislands if all the ships of any nationality now engaged in thattrade were allowed to continue therein.It was For that reason that the House committee inserted inthis bill a provision that the shipping laws should not be extendedto Hawaii for the period of one year; and during this period of

4737Alaskan run pays a great deal more than the Hawaiian ran. There-fore the ships have been withdrawn, and they can not be replacedin a day, a week, nor a month. I hope that the members of thisHouse will refuse to agree to the conference report, and when thatis disagreed to a motion will be in order that this bill may againbe sent to the conference committee with instructions to theHouse members to insist upon the House provision in the bill.Some few men, who are trying to reap a rich harvest in theHawaiian trade to the detriment and exclusion of others, havesaid that we were selfish because we wanted this provision in thebill.Mr. Speaker, I say to you that had it not been for the hardy andheroic race who blazed a pathway through the primeval wilder-ness, and populated and built up the mighty and myriad indus-tries of the West (that in the march of events has linked us tothe East), that the American flag would not to-day be floating overHawaii. And yet, when our people are actuated by an honorableambition to reap a small portion of the benefits that their industryand push have helped to bring into being, some two-by-four states-man arises and proclaims that we are selfish. I deny it. Theselfishness is on the other side of this proposition. [Applause.]Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one word in answer tothe gentleman who has just taken his seat. I appreciate very fullyhis feeling in regard to this matter. As a member of the commit-tee, he was given the privilege of reporting this amendment pro-viding that the coasting laws of the United States extended toHawaii should not take effect until the expiration of one year.Now, what is the trouble with the bill as agreed upon? It doesperhaps affect somewhat injuriously his people in Seattle, becausethey have not got their ships ready; but the people in the rest ofthe United States have been at work. Knowing for almost twoyears that the coasting laws of the United States would be ex-tended so as to operate between this country and Hawaii, theyhave been preparing for it; and the most magnificent steel shipshave been built in Philadelphia and have gone to the Pacific coast,and many have been purchased. Not only is there no lack of shipson the Pacific coast, but there are so many now that they go toHawaii in ballast.Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will allowme to say that I have a statement from the representative of oneof the largest shipping, lines that they are short of business, andthat the retention of this provision in the bill would let into ourcoasting trade a vast volume of foreign ships, to the absolute de-struction of American-owned ships on that coast.Mr. KNOX. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, that is true. So faras Seattle is concerned; I believe they have there only one Ameri-can ship. They have one with reference to which the House afew days ago passed by unanimous consent a bill granting anAmerican register.

Mr. JONES of Washington. Is it not a fact that about 50 percent of the traffic between the Pacific coast and Hawaii is earnedon at this time in foreign-built vessels?Mr. KNOX. That has been the fact.Mr. JONES of Washington. Is it not so now?Mr. KNOX. Oh, no; they are all prepared for this trade now.Some of our friends from California will tell the gentleman thecondition of things in. that regard,Mr. JONES of Washington. One more question. Does thegentleman know of any ships built now that expect to engage inthe trade from Puget Sound to Hawaii?Mr. KNOX. I do not. In that particular locality you havebeen busy carrying on your trade with Alaska. You have hadmore than you could do.Mr. JONES of Washington. Not at all.Mr. KNOX. These other people in the rest of the country areprepared for engaging in the trade with Hawaii. It is impossible,in preparing a bill of this kind, to obviate the fact that some peo-ple on the coast, at some towns, some cities, some localities, willfor a short time be injuriously affected. But their remedy is tobuy or build American ships, as the people of other parts of theUnited States have done.Mr. JONES of Washington. One further question. It wasstated by the gentleman from Ohio that there are a great manyforeign-built ships that will go into this trade if this provision beadopted. Now, what would induce vessels that are not in thistrade now to go into it for a year or two?Mr. KNOX. Oh, there are tramp steamers that would gladlyenter into this business.Mr. JONES of Washington. They will not take the regulartrade?Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I left?The SPEAKER. Sixteen minutes.Many MEMBERS. Vote! Vote!Mr. KNOX. I move the previous question on agreeing to thereport.The previous question was ordered.Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order now tomove concurrence in all these amendments except as to those sec-tions that have been objected to?The SPEAKER. The report must first be adopted or rejectedas a whole.The question being taken on agreeing to the report,The SPEAKER said: The ayes appear to have it.Mr. NEWLANDS. I call for the yeas and nays.The yeas and nays were ordered, there being — ayes 27, noes 96.Mr. PAYNE. I move that the House now adjourn.The motion was agreed to; and accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 5minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.

April 27, 1900Housev. 33 (5)p. 4766-4767

CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.The SPEAKER. The question before the House is on the adop-

tion of the conference report on the Hawaiian bill, and on thatthe yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question was taken; and there were — yeas 138, nays 54,answered "present" 21, not voting 138; as follows:

4766Mr. GRIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I desire to state that I am paired

on all political questions with Mr. CROMER, of Indiana, and thereappearing to be a division in the House on political lines, I with-draw my vote in the negative, and desire to he marked as"present"

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a general pair with mycolleague, Mr. COOLER of Texas. I voted "aye" on this proposi-tion, but desire to withdraw my vote and be marked as "present"

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, 1 am paired withmy colleague, Mr. METCALF, and desire to withdraw my vote andbe marked as "present"

Mr. HULL. I am paired with the gentleman from Virginia,Mr. HAY; and as I voted and he has not, I desire to withdraw myvote and be marked as "present."

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, I voted in the negative.I find that I am paired, and in order to observe that pair, I willask to withdraw my vote and be marked as ' present."

Mr. JAMES R. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear myname called. I was in the Hall, but did not hear my name.

The SPEAKER. Was the gentleman listening when his nameshould have been called?

Mr. JAMES R. WILLIAMS. I was listening when the rollwas called. My attention might have been called away at themoment my name was called. I did not hear my name called.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's name can not be called uponthat statement.

Mr. THAYER. I will ask if the gentleman from Massachusetts,Mr. GILLETT, has voted?

The SPEAKER. He has notMr. THAYER. I am paired, and wish to withdraw my vote

and to answer "present."Mr. ZENOR. I have a general pair with my colleague, Mr.

BRICK. I voted on the roll call, and am inclined to think my col-league would vote just as I did, but not being advised on thatpoint, I desire to withdraw my vote and be marked as "present."

Mr. F1TZPATRICK. I desire to say that I am paired generallywith the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. BOREING. If he werehere. I do not know how he would vote. I was present, but re-fused to vote, but if he were here, I should have voted "aye."

The SPEAKER. This statement is entirely out of order.Mr. MIERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am paired with the

gentleman from Indiana, Mr. HEMENWAY. I voted "no" and de-sire to withdraw my vote and to answer "present."

Mr. GAINES. Mr. Speaker, having voted in the affirmative, Iwish to withdraw my vote and to answer "present," as I ampaired with the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McCALL.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:For the session:Mr. HULL with Mr. HAT.Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH with Mr. WILSON of South Carolina.Mr. WEIGHT with Mr. HALL.Mr. METCALF with Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky.Mr. PACKER of Pennsylvania with Mr. POLK.Until further notice:Mr. ADAMS with Mr. BERRY.Mr. GILLETT of Massachusetts with Mr. THAYER.Mr. SOUTHARD with Mr. NORTON of Ohio.Mr. STEELE with Mr. BURKE of Texas.Mr. WEYMOUTH with Mr. BROUSSARD.Mr. PRINCE with Mr. GRIFFITH.Mr. MINOR with Mr. RIXEY.Mr. COCHRANE of New York with Mr. CROWLEY.Mr. MERCER with Mr. CLAYTON of Alabama.Mr. OTJEN with Mr. BRENNER.Mr. LANDIS with Mr. LAMB.Mr. PUGH with Mr. TAYLOR of Alabama.Mr. HAWLEY with Mr. COOPER of Texas.

4767Mr. McCALL with Mr. GAINES.Mr. BOUTELLE of Maine with Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri.Mr. MOODY of Massachusetts with Mr. WILSON of Idaho.Mr. WEEKS with Mr. SHALL.Mr. ZENOR with Mr. BRICK.Mr. LORIMER with Mr. CUSACK.Mr. STEWART of Wisconsin with Mr. NORTON of South Carolina.Mr. EMERSON with Mr. RUPPERT.Mr. DRISCOLL with RIORDAN. Mr. STEWART of New York with Mr. MAY.Mr. MIERS of Indiana with Mr. HEMENWAY.Mr. RANSDELL with Mr. SIMS.Mr. ROBERTS with Mr. NAPHEN.Mr. GILL with Mr. LEWIS.Mr. GARDNER of Michigan with Mr. ATWATER.Mr. HENRY of Connecticut with Mr. GORDON.Mr. POWERS with Mr. BANKHEAD.Mr. OVERSTREET with Mr. STALLINGS.Mr. GAMBLE with Mr. ROBERTSON of Louisiana.Mr. WATSON with Mr. ELLIOTT.Mr. DOLLIVER with Mr. ROBB.Mr. DAYTON with Mr. MEYER of Louisiana.Mr. MCCLEARY with Mr. SPIGHT.

Mr. SHERMAN with Mr. DRIGGS.Mr. CONNELL with Mr. STANLEY W. DAVENPORT.Mr. BARNEY with Mr. ALLEN of Mississippi.Mr. REEVES with Mr. SPARKMAN.Mr. CROMER with Mr. GRIGGS.Mr. BOREING with Mr. FITZPATRICK.Mr. BISHOP with Mr. CAMPBELL.Mr. DOVENER with Mr. CATCHINGS.This day:Mr. BULL with Mr. BREWER.Mr. LITTAUER with Mr. LLOYD.Mr. PEARRE with Mr. QUARLES.Mr. KERR with Mr. LENTZ.Mr. DAHLE of Wisconsin with Mr. GAYLE.Mr. BUTLER with Mr. SUTHERLAND.Mr. BROWNLOW with Mr. SLAYDEN.Mr. EDDY with Mr. FITZGERALD of New York.Mr. KETCHAM with Mr. MULLER.Mr. YOUNG with Mr. BENTON.Mr. BABCOCK with Mr. HENRY of Texas.Mr. COUSINS with Mr. BREAZEALE.Mr. DICK with Mr. CHANLER.This vote:Mr. WACHTER with Mr. RICHARDSON.Mr. NEEDHAM with Mr. FOSTER.Mr. LITTLEFIELD with Mr. BAILEY of Texas.Mr. GREENE of Massachusetts with Mr. DE VRIES.Mr. FARIS with Mr. DINSMORE.Mr. CRUMPACKER with Mr. Fox.Mr. CONNELL with Mr. STANLEY W. DAVENPORT until Tuesday

next.Mr. McCLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I find that I am paired. I did

not know it at the time I voted. I ask leave to withdraw myvote and to answer "present."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.On motion of Mr. KNOX, a motion to reconsider the last vote

was laid on the table.April 28, 1900Housev. 33 (5)p. 4800

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.The signature of the President pro tempore was announced tothe enrolled bill (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territoryof Hawaii, which had previously been signed by the Speaker ofthe House of Representatives.

April 28, 1900Housev. 33 (5)p. 4806

The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bill of thefollowing title:S. 223. An act to provide a government for the Territory ofHawaii.

May 1, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 4892

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVALS.A message from the President of the United States, by Mr. O. L.PRUDEN, one of his secretaries, announced that the President hadon the 30th ultimo approved and signed the following acts andjoint resolution:An act (S. 222) to provide a government for the Territory ofHawaii;

May 3, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5020

Mr. Morgan Introduced a bill (S. 4560) toprovide for officers in the customs districtof Hawaii) which was read twice by its title,and with the accompanying paper, referred tothe Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico.

May 8, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5263

Mr. Frye introduced a bill (S. 4615) tofacilitate the entry of steamships engagedin the coasting trade between Porto Rico andthe United States; which was read twice byits title, and referred to the Committee onCommerce.

May 8, 1900HouseT. 33 (6)P. 5304

Executive Communications, etc.A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury,transmitting a copy of a communication fromthe Supervising Surgeon-General of the Marine-Hospital Service submitting an estimate ofappropriation for quarantine service in Hawaii- to the Committee on Appropriations, andordered to be printed.

May 8, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5307

GOVERNMENT FOR HAWAII.The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a com-munication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting esti-mates of appropriations required to carry out certain provisionsof an act entitled "An act to provide a government for the Terri-tory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900; which was referred tothe Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. COURTS IN HAWAII.The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a commu-nication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a letterfrom the Attorney-General. submitting additional estimates ofappropriations for salaries of clerk and reporter of the UnitedStates district court, additional United States district judges, andmiscellaneous expenses. United States courts, Territory of Hawaii;which, with the accompanying paper, was referred to the Com-mittee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed.

May 9, 1900HOUSEV. 33 (6)p. 5327

GOVERNOR OF HAWAII.Sanford B. Dole, of Hawaii, to be governor of the Territory ofHawaii, an original appointment under the provisions of the actof Congress entitled "An act to provide a government for theTerritory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900.SECRETARY OF HAWAII.Henry E. Cooper, of Hawaii, to be secretary of the Territory ofHawaii, an original appointment under the provisions of the actof Congress entitled "An act to provide a government for theTerritory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900.POSTMASTERS.John M. Oat, to be postmaster at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii.Harry S. Edwards, to be postmaster at Macon, in the county ofBibb and State of Georgia.Daniel Williams, to be postmaster at Sharon, in the county ofMercer and State of Pennsylvania.

May 10, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5361

Mr. NELSON, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom wasreferred the bill (S. 4615) to facilitate the entry of steamships en-gaged in the coasting trade between Porto Rico and the UnitedStates, reported it without amendment, and submitted a reportthereon.

May 1o, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5362-5363

REGULATIONS FOR TRAVEL IN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.Mr. HOAR. I offer the following resolution, for which I desirepresent consideration.The resolution was read, as follows:Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations be directed to inquirewhether American citizens are obliged to obtain passports or other license,or to pay any fees for permission to pass from the Hawaiian Islands to anypart of the United States, or from any part of the United States to the Ha-waiian Islands, or to make any payment or deposit of money to secure theprivilege of landing in said islands, and whether it is expedient that suchregulations be longer continued.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pres-ent consideration of the resolution?Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Yea, Mr. President —— Mr. HOAR. There can be no possible objection to it.Mr. DAVIS. I should like to hear the resolution read again.Mr. HOAR. Let the resolution be read again.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If I may be permitted to say oneword, I know debate is not in order, but I think when such resolu-tions are presented to the Senate, if any Senator desires to look at aresolution and to inform himself a little about the subject-matter,it is quite proper that it should go over for one day.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution goes over.Mr. FORAKER. Before we pass from that, I wish to call theattention of the Senate to the fact that we have a Committee onPacific Islands and Porto Rico, and inasmuch as this is a matterrelating entirely to one of the Pacific Islands, and should be withinthe jurisdiction of that committee, as I suppose, I suggest to theSenator the inquiry ought to be directed to that committee. I amnot particular about taking this additional labor upon myself. Isuppose it was simply overlooked by the Senator.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If that action can be taken, I willwithdraw my objection.

5363Mr. HOAR. I will not say that it is not a matter of the slight-

est possible general importance, but the adoption of the resolutionis not very, important, because I presume 1 can get the informa-tion in another way, by inquiring of the Secretary of State, or bya private note from the committee.

I will state the reason for offering it. Some complaints havereached me. I have one now on my desk, which I shall not un-dertake to read and which I did not propose to make public, froma very worthy and excellent Massachusetts soldier, as to the obli-gation to deposit a sum of money before he could land at theHawaiian Islands and to get a passport, of which he sent me aphotograph, before he could leave for home.

The reason why I directed the resolution to the Committee onForeign Relations was because the Senate had committed to thatcommittee the bill in regard to the Hawaiian Islands and mem-bers of that committee had visited the islands and had speciallyinvestigated the subject. The bill was largely their work, and Ithought this piece of information as to whether those laws werein force or were modified, a mere matter of information, wouldbe more easily rendered by that committee, which has just beenover the subject, than by the new committee.

I do not think there is any probability that there will be any-thing but a simple reply that these regulations have now beenabolished, which will be a public satisfaction for travelers. Ithink that is all that will come of it. It is not a resolution whichto my mind indicates any necessity for probing into the matter?but if the Senator from Ohio prefers, I will modify the resolutionby saying "the Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico" inlieu of "the Committee on Foreign Relations."

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, I have no special preferenceabout it, and I called the attention that I did to the matter becauseI thought this was not a very important subject, simply in orderthat it might be brought to the attention of Senators in introduc-ing similar resolutions that there is such a committee, and we aresupposed to have charge of that which pertains to the PacificIslands.

Mr. HOAR. I reflected on that.Mr. FORAKER. There have been a number of similar resolu-

tions introduced and I paid no attention to them, but I thought itmy duty, in behalf of the committee of which I have the honor tobe chairman, to direct attention to it. I have no objection to theinquiry going to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. HOAR. It seemed to me, if I may repeat, that this wasmerely an inquiry as to the effect of the bill which had just comefrom the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that the chairmanof that committee would reply that this state of things had been

changed by the new law, and that information would go to thepublic.

Mr. FORAKER. I am quite willing now, after this explanationhas been had, that the inquiry may go to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?Mr. PLATT of Connecticut rose.Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will look at it he will see it is a

very trifling matter.Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will not the Senator be satisfied

if the resolution is referred to the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions. That will satisfy me. Otherwise I want to look at it.

Mr. HOAR. Very well; if my friend wishes to make a moun-tain out of a molehill, be can.

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I do not think molehills oughtto be introduced into the Senate.

Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, when a mote gets into the eye ofan American citizen, it is sometimes quite exasperating, even if itis not of any great size. I should like to repeat that this resolu-tion was offered simply in order to elicit some information whichwould enable American travelers to know that the requirementto get passports and deposit sums of money in the HawaiianIslands had now been remedied; that is all. It is the slightestpossible affair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the ref-erence of the resolution to the Committee on Foreign Relations? The Chair hears none, and it is so referred.May 14, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5477 CUSTOMS OFFICERS AT HONOLULU.

Mr. FORAKER. I am directed by the Committee on PacificIslands and Porto Rico, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4560) toprovide for officers in the customs district of Hawaii, to report itwith an amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

The Secretary read the bill; and, by unanimous consent, the Sen-ate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its consideration.

The amendment of the committee was, in line 5, after the word"thousand," to strike out the words "five hundred;" so as to makethe bill read:

Be it enacted, etc.. That there shall be in the customs district of Hawaiione collector, who shall reside at Honolulu, and who shall receive a salary of$4,000 per annum, and such deputy collectors and other customs officers asthe Secretary of the Treasury shall deem necessary.

The amendment was agreed to.The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend-

ment was concurred in.The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read

the third time, and passed.HAWAIIAN POSTAL SAVINGS BANK.

Mr. DANIEL. I am instructed by the Committee on ForeignRelations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4650) to amend and,reenact an act entitled "An act to provide a government for theTerritory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900, to report it with-out amendment and to submit a report thereon. I ask for thepresent consideration of the bill. It is recommended by the Sec-retary of the Treasury.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read in full tothe Senate.

The Secretary read the bill, as follows:Be it exacted, etc.. That sections 102 and 103 of the act entitled "An act to

provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900,be amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 102. That the laws of Hawaii relating to the establishment and con-duct of any postal savings bank or institution are hereby abolished. And theSecretary of the Treasury, in the execution of the agreement of the UnitedStates as expressed in an act entitled 'Joint resolution to provide for annex-ing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July 7,1898, shallpay the amounts on deposit in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank to the per-sons entitled thereto, according to their respective rights, and he shall makeall needful orders, rules, and regulations for paying such persons and fornotifying such persons to present their demands for payment. So muchmoney as is necessary to pay said demands is hereby appropriated out of anymoney in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be available on andafter the 1st day of July, 1900, when such payments shall begin, and none ofsaid demands shall bear interest after said date, and no deposit shall be madein said bank after said date. Said demands of such persons shall be certifiedto by the chief executive of Hawaii as being genuine and due to the personspresenting the same, and his certificate shall be sealed with the official sealof the Territory and countersigned by its secretary, and when the same arepaid in the manner respecting payment from the Treasury no further liabili-ties shall exist in respect of toe same against the Governments of the UnitedStates or Hawaii.

"SEC. 103. All money on deposit in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank shall,on the 1st day of July, 1900, be turned over by the government of Hawaii tothe Treasurer of the United States; and the Secretary of the Treasury ishereby authorized to assume charge of all the assets of said bank and to con-vert the same into money, in such manner and in such time as may, in hisjudgment, best subserve the public interests, and by such agents as he may

appoint. Such agents shall give good and sufficient bond to the United Statesfor the faithful performance of their duties, in such form and in such pen-alty as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe. The moneys so turnedover to the Treasurer of the United States, and those collected from theassets of said bank, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United Statesto the credit of the Treasurer of the United States.

"And it is further provided. That the Secretary of the Treasury, in theexecution of the agreement of the United States expressed in a 'Joint resolu-tion to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' ap-proved July 7, 1898, at the earliest practicable period shall pay of the publicdebt of the republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of the passageof said joint resolution, an amount not exceeding in all $4,000,000, includingthe sum required to pay the depositors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank,as provided in the act entitled 'An act to provide a government for the Ter-ritory of Hawaii,' approved April 30, 1900, as above amended; and so muchmoney as shall be necessary to pay the same is hereby appropriated, out ofany money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.

"There is also hereby appropriated in like manner such amount as may benecessary to pay any accruing interest on said public debt for which the UnitedStates may be liable under joint resolution of Congress, approved July 7,1896, entitled 'Joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islandsto the United States;' and in addition thereto an amount not exceeding$20,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to pay the expenses of executing this resolution."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the pres-ent consideration of the bill?

Mr. HALE. I am afraid that bill will give rise to controversyand debate. If the Senator will withdraw it if it will give rise todebate, I shall not object to its consideration.

Mr. DANIEL. I can state the gist of the bill.Mr. HALE. I do not want the Senator to do that. If the Sen-

ator does that, it will certainly give rise to controversy; but if thebill can be passed without any debate, I am willing that it shallbe done, but not other wise.

Mr. SPOONER. What committee does the bill come from?Mr. DANIEL. The bill has been carefully gone over by the

Committee on Foreign Relations, and I have been instructed toreport it. It is recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury.It is simply for the immediate execution of our assumption of theHawaiian debt to the extent of. $4.000,000, and it provides thatthe Secretary of the Treasury shall take charge at once of thePostal Savings Bank in Hawaii, reduce the assets into possession,5477and tarn the proceeds over to the Treasury of the United States.It makes the necessary appropriation to enable him to assume thedebt, all of which except about some five hundred and odd thou-sand dollars is now redeemable. On June 15 the time whenHawaii was to pay interest on the debt expires; and if we want toprevent an accumulation of interest, we ought to assume thedebt and make provision for the payment of it beforehand.Mr. COCKRELL. Do we continue the Postal Savings Bankthere?Mr. DANIEL. The bill provides for winding up immediatelythe whole matter. Indeed, it was provided in the act for the gov-ernment of Hawaii — that is, that it should cease as an activeinstitution, but the winding up was postponed until 1901. Thebill provides for doing it immediately. The additional charge inthe bill, I should state, is to the extent of $20,000, which is neces-sary to give the proper agencies to the Secretary of the Treasuryto execute the act and leave the business all right in every par-ticular.Mr. HALE. I do not object if the bill does not give rise to anydebate. If it does I must object.Mr. TELLER. The bill has been read, but it has been utterlyimpossible in this part of the Chamber to know what the bill con-Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I will object for the present.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made, and the billwill go to the Calendar.

Mr. TELLER. The first information those in this part of theChamber could get in regard to the bill was the statement madeby the Senator from Virginia.

May 15, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5537-5540

CIVIL OFFICES IN ALASKA, HAWAII, ETC.Mr. BOSS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sen-ate bill 2000 be taken up for the occasion of some remarks.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays the bill beforethe Senate.The SECRETARY. A bill (S. 2000) regulating appointment toand removals from civil offices in outlying dependencies of theUnited States.Amendment of the Committee to Examine the Several Branchesof the Civil Service. Strike out all after the enacting clause andinsert: "That all appointments to civil offices made by the President or any headof a Department in Alaska, Hawaii, or any place brought within the juris-diction of the United States by the recent treaty with Spain, shall be madeIrrespective of the political opinions of the persons appointed, and, so far asconsistent with the proper performance of the duties of the office, in such amanner as to represent the entire country. In case of removal from anysuch office, whenever practicable, charges shall be made in writing and acopy thereof furnished to the accused, who shall be afforded reasonable op-portunity to make answer thereto; and the President or head of a Depart-ment making the appointment may, wherever the public interest shall seemto require it, suspend the official pending hearing or investigation of Bachcharges" —Mr. ROSS. Mr. President, during the closing year of the cen-tury this nation has taken on new relations and entered upon thedischarge of new duties. For the first time in her existence shehas entered upon the difficult undertaking of governing depend-encies, located quite remotely, having fixed customs and laws —growth of the centuries — the fundamental principles underlyingwhich are the opposite of those which have ruled her existence.I speak of them as dependencies because that word most clearlyexpresses their relation to this nation. "Territory" is a more gen-eral term and applies more strictly to the nation's ownership ofthe soil than to its relation to the inhabitants of the country."Colony" less correctly expresses their true relation. Most of themare quite thickly populated and are not expected to become colo-5538by Congress, of being admitted into the Union as States. Allwere contiguous or nearly contiguous to some of the States, andtheir inhabitants largely came from the surplus population of theStates. When admitted as States, and sometimes before, theywere factors in the politics of the nation. These dependencies arequite differently situated. They are remote from any of theStates; many of them densely populated, each with inhabitantspeculiar to itself. Most of them have fixed laws and customs.For years they can exert no direct influence in the political poli-cies and parties predominating in the nation. Questions as totheir proper management and government may become involvedin the policies of the political parties.The conditions to be encountered differ widely in each depend-ency. Alaska is a country of magnificent distances, has a diver-sified population, widely scattered and mostly afloat, ready topick up their few belongings and start at a moment's notice forthe most recently discovered promising gold field. Very few ofits inhabitants are permanently located or own the fee of the soilwhere their homes are located. They are also intermixed withthe uneducated native tribes. The main industries are the sal-mon, the fur seal, and gold mining. The civil and criminal codesrecently enacted are to be so applied, if possible, as to meet thepeculiar conditions existing there.

ests of their respective and varied inhabitants, and in the bestinterests of the nation, demand that the appointees to control andadminister these departments be men filled with the fundamentalprinciples of our institutions, men of intelligence, of experience ingovernmental affairs, of. excellent judgment, thoroughly honest,energetic, and heartily devoted to their work.Statutes, however carefully formulated and nicely adapted toexisting conditions, are lifeless and inert. Those who put themin operation, who mold, construe, and enforce them, give themlife and action, effective to beneficial results. That these resultsmay be most beneficial to every interest demands that the ap-pointees be men of national qualities and characteristics, devotedto their work, earnest and practical. Unlike appointees for homework, to whom all the conditions and every detail are familiar,these appointees will go to new and unfamiliar fields, encountercomparatively a strange people, speaking an unknown tongueand surrounded by peculiar conditions. They must be given timeto become acquainted with the people and their conditions. Thewhole nation, not the party in power, will be responsible for theresults accomplished; every citizen will be more or less affectedthereby.It must be apparent that the appointees should be nonpartisan, should be national. This is what the bill demands, not rigidly,

In Hawaii the conditions are very different and much diversi-fied. The natives, partially educated and civilized, the Portuguese,Japanese, Chinese, and peon laborers have each their nationaland other peculiarities, but are dominated by a comparativelysmall number of descendants from devoted American mission-aries and by speculators of more recent arrival. They are amixed population, in all stages of civilization and advancement,existing under established laws and institutions, coming fromroyalty down to their present status. Upon these has been in-grafted by Congress, little knowing what the existing laws are,the provisions of the civil government or Territorial act. The in-dustrial conditions are also somewhat anomalous. The govern-ment of these islands presents no easy problem if they are to besuccessfully molded under and made subject to the fundamentalprinciples of this Government.The conditions in Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands aregreatly unlike those which exist in Alaska or Hawaii. Each haveexisting customs and laws of similar origin and kind. But theinhabitants and industrial and other conditions to which the lawsare to be applied, are dissimilar and peculiar and very differentfrom those prevailing in Alaska and Hawaii. Porto Rico is gen-erally under cultivation and well peopled. Its people are mostlyof mixed origin; Indian, negro, and Spanish blood prevails invarious degrees of intermixture. These constitute four-fifths ormore of the population and are mostly laborers dependent upontheir daily earnings for a living. They possess limited educationand have little, if any, experience in governmental affairs. Theother fifth are mostly merchants, planters, and professional men,better educated and possessing more wealth. There are fewschools and very limited internal improvements. It will be noeasy task to ingraft the recent civil-government act upon the ex-isting laws and customs, and much more difficult to train theinhabitants into suitable ways of legislation, of living, and ofthinking. In addition to these peculiarities, in the Philippine Islands thereare many races, speaking many languages, varying in attainmentsand civilization from savagery to a medium civilization. Be-tween many of these tribes there exist bitter hostilities. Some por-tions of the islands are well and others sparsely populated. Theislands vary in fertility and climatic conditions. Some of thetribes are fairly educated and others densely ignorant. They haveno uniformity of religious or governmental views. Generally thebest educated and most advanced in civilization are cruel treach-erous, and have slight regard for truth.The nation's relations to Cuba are by the terms of the resolu-tion of April 20, 1898, of temporary duration. I will not dwellupon the conditions existing there. Much that has been said ofthe conditions in Porto Rico will apply. Probably no civil ap-pointments, under existing relations, will be made in that island,nor at present in the Philippine Islands. But in the assignmentof military officers to discharge civil duties the same care andgood judgment should be exercised as in making appointmentsto civil offices in the other dependencies.The several civil government acts provide that the nation shallcontrol, by appointees, the heads or the three departments intheir government. This necessarily must continue so long asthis nation is responsible to other nations and to its own peopleand to the people of the several dependencies for the conditionsthat shall exist in them. In every form of government responsi-bility and control are closely related factors. The one can notwell exist in the absence of the other.It is manifestly evident that to mould successfully the civilgovernment acts into existing laws in these dependencies; to setup and establish the executive, legislative, and judicial depart-ments; to administer them honestly, prudently, in the best inter-

with no allowance for the exercise of discretion and judgment.Such requirement would be unwise. The requirement that theseappointees shall be selected and commissioned by the Presidentand heads of Departments casts upon them grave responsibilities,duties not easy of performance. They should be given reason-able discretion. But the principles which should control the ex-ercise of this discretion should be clearly outlined, both to guidetheir action and the action of the Senate in confirming nomina-tions for appointments. This is done by requiring the appoint-ments to be made without regard to party opinions, and so as torepresent the entire nation, or to be of national character. But,no person possessing the qualities of mind and heart requisite toa successful performance of these difficult but important dutiescan be secured unless the position is reasonably secure from un-just removal and the service demanded be fully compensated.The bill seeks to secure reasonable permanency by requiring re-movals to be made on charges preferred in writing with an op-portunity to answer and be heard in regard to their truth. Ifappointments are nonpartisan, and removals made only on chargesin writing, established by proof on hearing, men of high qualitiesof mind and character can be secured, men who will be exemplars,missionaries of the fundamental principles of this Government.A measure of this kind should be inaugurated, and control themaking of the first appointments. If the appointments, providedfor in the acts establishing civil government in these depend-encies, are once made on a partisan basis, subject to removalwithout filing charges or hearing, they will continue of the samecharacter. The men appointed will not be of the highest class,men sought out for their qualities of mind, heart, and efficiency,men devoted to promoting the highest interests of those overwhom they are given authority.Such men always have desirable positions which they can notbe induced to surrender to accept difficult positions for an un-certain period. On the contrary, there will be appointed men whohave political pull, who are given a place to square political ac-counts, frequently men who have been active but incompetent orinefficient partisans, unable to command the support of honestcitizens, and who bring pressure to secure appointment to someposition removed from observation where they can secure largepay for diminutive service. If the appointees are from this class,removals must be expected to follow every change in the politicaladministration of the Government. If such appointments aremade and prevail, the nation will entirely fail in the discharge ofits duty, and the condition of the dependencies be made worse in-stead of better. Rather than incur such results, the nation hadbetter, to its humiliation and disgrace, haul down the flag andleave the islands to go their own way.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PETTUS in the chair). Willthe Senator please suspend for a moment while the Chair lays be-fore the Senate the regular order?Mr. ALLISON. I ask unanimous consent that the regularorder may be informally laid aside.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it win be soordered.Mr. President, the soundness of these views, previously formed,has been confirmed by the report of the able commission sent toexamine into the conditions and report a form of government tobe established in the Philippine Islands. What they so well sayin regard to the character and quality of service required of ap-pointees, if made in these islands, applies with nearly equal forceto appointments in Alaska and all the island dependencies. I readwhat they have so forcibly said on pages 113 to 116, inclusive, oftheir report:A small number of American officials will be necessary for the Philippineservice. The highest, according to the form of government recommendedby the commission, may be divided into two classes.

5539In the first group belong the governor, secretary, attorney-general, cer-tain judges, and other high officers of the Territorial government. To thesecond group belong the directing heads of the postal, customs, and otherdepartments of the Federal service in the Philippines. It is not meant thatin practice these groups should be isolated and kept apart, as they are in theStates of the Union. Indeed, there are obvious advantages, including har-mony of action and centralisation of responsibility, in unifying as completelyas possible all the branches and departments of government over which theAmericans are to preside in the Philippines.The members of the first group will be appointed by the President; thoseof the second, probably transferred from the home service. In neither casewill there be examinations. Now, in neither of these groups is there anynecessity for limiting the term of office except, of course, in the case of thegovernor, whose term should be long enough; however, to enable him to ac-complish something. Under the scheme of government recommended by thecommission half of the senate is to consist of appointed members, and it isassumed that the attorney-general, secretary, and other heads of depart-ments would be appointed senators. It would be extremely unfortunate if, when these officials had come tounderstand the language of the people and to appreciate their character, aswell as to have gathered valuable experience, their places should be takenby novices, for whom the same elementary training would once more benecessary, and with whom again It would be balked of Its proper fruition.The same considerations apply to the judges, the chiefs of the customs, post-office, and other departments of the Federal service. Permanency of tenureis therefore the first requisite in the highest offices which Americans will becalled upon to fill in the Philippines; and to secure the best men — men whoare qualified for the arduous task of shaping and guiding public administra-tion in the Philippines — it is essential that high salaries should be paid.Besides the executive, administrative, and judicial heads, who can not beselected by means of competitive examinations, there will be a small numberof offices, intermediate between the heads of departments and the great bodyof native officials, in all branches of the government, for which it will be de-sirable to have American incumbents. Americans who are candidates forthese positions should be subjected before admission to tests of fitness in theUnited States. They should then be promoted upon merit, and retained dur-ing efficiency and good behavior. In some cases it may be desirable on ac-count of their experience and training to transfer men from the existingclassified service to the Philippine service, and provision should be made toenable such officials to retain all their rights and privileges as classified em-ployees. By whichever method secured, American officials in the Philippinesshould be offered salaries large enough to induce the most capable of theirclass not only to enter and remain in the service, but to give an honest, effect-ive, and economical administration, free from any taint of corruption. Theappointment to the service of the best men available, without regard to poll-tics, and their retention as long as they discharge their duties satisfactorily,are, in the opinion of the commission, indispensable principles of administra-tion in the Philippines.With a view to facilitate the discharge of their official duties, as well as topromote mutual understanding, sympathy, and good fellowship betweenAmericans and Filipinos, the commission holds it essential that the Ameri-can members of the regular Philippine civil service should be required tolearn the language of the people (Tagalog, Ilocano, Visayan, Vicol, etc.)among whom they live, and that facility in the use of such vernacular be acondition of all promotion. This requirement should be extended to thetown and county commissioners or supervisors, if they are not as a classbrought under the provisions of the civil-service regulations. The more anAmerican official has to do with natives, the greater the need and the moreImperative the duty of learning their language. By no other means can thetwo people be so speedily brought to understand and appreciate one another.Of course this recommendation is not inconsistent with another recommen-dation made by the commission — i. e., that English should be taught in theschools of the archipelago to the utmost extent feasible.The business or merit system of civil service is economical of officials, forit aims only at the public good. The patronage system, on the other hand,creating offices for favorites irrespective of the needs of the country, impliesan exorbitant number of officials. Good government being the result or theformer system, the people are contented and only a small force is necessary.The patronage system, on the other hand, necessarily involves incapacityand extravagance, and issuing in misgovernment and corruption, alienatesand embitters the governed, and necessitates in consequence large armies tokeep them in subjection.As has been shown elsewhere, Spain, prior to the last insurrection, spentannually more than $4,000,000 on the Philippine army and more than $800,000on the civil guard, the latter being composed of 3,482 individuals and theformer of 13,291 , of whom, however, only 2,210 were Europeans. Burma, withabout the same population, has a military force of about 15,000 men, of whomone-third are British and two thirds Asiatic (almost entirely Indians); andthe annual cost of the establishment is about 10,000,000 rupees. In addition,the civil police force of Burma consists of 13,000 men, at an annual cost of3,563,697 rupees, and military police force of nearly 16,000 men. at a cost of4,045,552 rupees — all Asiatics, except a small number of British officers.The figures are extraordinarily high; first, because Burma is a compara-tively new acquisition; secondly, the population is scattered, and thirdly,upper Burma on three sides is surrounded by extensive mountain tracts, oc-cupied by wild and savage tribes. In an old colony like Ceylon, with 3,500,-000 inhabitants, the military force numbers only 1,700 men (mostly British,however),with a voluntary corps of 1,200 men (mostly Asiatics), both togethercosting annually less than 2,000,000 rupees, while the police force consists ofabout 1,600 officers and men (of whom only 42 are Europeans), at an annualcost of less than 500,000 rupees. The experience of Ceylon indicates whatwith good government may be anticipated in the Philippines in the course ofa decade or two.As to the number of Americans who may be needed for the Philippinecivil service the experience of the British will once more afford the safestindications. Take British India and the feudatory native states, with anarea of 1,500,000 square miles and a population of 300,000,000, of which BritishIndia alone has an area of nearly 1,000,000 square miles and a population ofover 230,000,000. "The whole of the higher executive and judicial work Inthis immense area and over this enormous population," says an eminentauthority, Mr. Montague Kirkwood, "is performed by 1,000 British officialswith the aid of natives on the average of one such European official to every1,000 square miles of country and to every 230,000 inhabitants."A similar work in Ceylon, with 25,000 square miles and 3,500,000 populationIs discharged by 71 British officials. * * * The conclusion is irresistible,that only a small number of Americans are needed as the organizing anddirecting brain of the civil administration of the Philippines; but theseshould be men of the highest qualifications, and to. secure them, and at thesame time good government, it is indispensable that they should be offeredhigh compensation and appointments during good behavior and efficiency.On them, and practically on them alone, will devolve the fulfillment of ourhigh obligations in the Philippines. Again, on page 121, the commission gives this as their eighthconclusion:

tration They should be men of the highest character and fitness, and parti-san politics should be entirely separated from the government of the Philip-pines.If the conclusions reached by these eminent commissioners,made on personal examination and after careful study and con-sideration, are true, it follows that economical and successful ad-ministration of these dependencies can be made only through com-petent appointees, selected and continued in accordance with theletter and spirit of this bill.The most effective home institutions for the cultivation of theprinciples of religious and civil liberty are nonpartisan. The NewEngland common schools, higher institutions of learning, towns,courts of all grades, churches, Army, and Navy, as a rule, arenonpartisan and each a most effective educator in these principles.The common school may well be denominated the primary schoolof religious and civil liberty.In the school district persons liable to taxation meet on equalterms, choose the necessary officers, discuss the common needs ofthe youth of the district, make provision therefore, deal with sub-jects which touch closely their pockets and the dearest interestsof their homes. The same is true, only as affecting a larger com-munity, in the management of the affairs of the town. The in-struction in all educational institutions and in the churches, thedetermination of property and personal rights in courts, and theorganization and teaching in the Army and Navy are nonpartisan;and these institutions are moat effective educators in these princi-ples. They educate and develop the individual man; hence thecommunity. They quicken and strengthen his power of thought,stimulate his ambition, show him that his rights of person andproperty are as fully protected as those of any class; that there isno class of nobility but those who think noble thoughts and per-form noble deeds.The product of our institutions in developing from the loweststations in life the noblest, finest, highest specimens of individualmanhood has been the wonder of the age and the amazement ofmankind. This is the crowning glory of our free institutions.The nation must carry this work into and develop it in each ofthese dependencies, commencing with the primary or lower insti-tutions of society, and there educate and develop the child, eventhe wayward child, into the noble man; the man into the honest,high-minded citizen and officer.The great work can suitably be committed to the manage-ment, control, and development of only high-minded, unselfish,competent, efficient, nonpartisan appointees who, by securityfrom unjust removal, are given time to comprehend fully thegreatness and importance of the work and prosecute it to a suc-cessful issue. It is, under the resolution of April 20, 1898, not thework of a party, but the work of the nation, undertaken in thespirit of the good Samaritan, of the good neighbor, among thenations of the earth.The intervention of this nation, on the terms announced in thatresolution, for the relief of the Cubans is the first application ofthe doctrine of the good Samaritan, so far as I am aware, tonational rights and duties. As there announced, the applicationis an unselfish intervention by this nation for the relief of a peo-ple suffering for centuries under "abhorrent conditions," robbed,stripped, wounded, half dead. In driving away the robber andgranting relief to the Cubans, the Porto Ricans and Filipinoswere found in like condition under the power of the same oppres-sor. Every noble instinct, as well as the spirit upon which therelief of the Cubans was undertaken, demands that like reliefshould be granted to them. The nurse who volunteers to relievethe half dead must be allowed some discretion in regard to theremedies to be applied, certainly until the sick is restored to rea-son and in some measure to health. Such is the teaching of theparable. The motive inciting to this action is the noblest knownto the world. Its glory must not be dimmed by withdrawal be-fore substantial relief has been given, religious and civil libertyestablished, nor by allowing selfish motives to dominate thenation's actions.No worthy citizen of any political party can or will desire tohave the nation's noble work in this behalf prove unsuccessful.They all are ready and will most heartily aid the President andheads of Departments in selecting and appointing high-minded,capable men to take charge of and carry forward the work. Ifthis is done in the spirit of the good Samaritan, and in firm reli-ance on the guidance of the Father of men and nations, mostsurely the croakings of the pessimists will prove but idle words,born of their own doubts and fears, and there will be erected ineach dependency a light-house of religious and civil liberty, whichshall enlighten, elevate, and render contented and happy all theinhabitants thereof and afford help and encouragement to sur-rounding nations. To this end this measure, if enacted into lawand obeyed in letter and spirit, will prove an important step inthe right direction.Unless further discussion of it is desired, I ask unanimous con-

The greatest care should be taken in the selection of officials for adminis- sent of the Senate that it may receive present and favorable con-sideration.

5540Mr. HALE. Mr. President, before the matter is voted on, I de-

sire to say that 1 wish I could share in the hope and expectationthat the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Ross] has. that the peacefuland perfect programme that he has marked out for what are calledour new possessions could ever be realized. I do not expect itever will be realized. The history of colonial possessions fromthe days of the Romans to the present time is a history of robbery,of peculation, of extravagant expenditure of money, of wrong-doing in high places, and of corruption broad and large. I do notthink that the examples of to-day go to show that we are to beexempted from the monstrous evils that have always attendedcolonial rule.

The proconsular system of the Roman Empire and of the RomanRepublic was the system that produced the abuses against whichCicero spoke to the senate, and, to use Macaulay's language, Taci-tus thundered against the oppressor of Africa. The world hasnot changed. The jaunty way in which the American people em-barked in this enterprise of colonial possessions and sent out itsofficials and its armies has certainly had a rebuke in what hasbeen seen to happen in the last few months; and the Senator fromVermont and I will be older than we are now before the rule thathas been laid down in all history is changed in our experience.

I do not object to the passage of the bill, but before it waspassed I wanted to say this.

Mr. ALLISON. I hope the Senator from Vermont will not pressthat bill at this time. I yielded to the Senator with the view ofgiving him an opportunity of making some observations on thebill. After I have concluded the business I have in hand I shallnot interfere with the further business of the Senate to-day. Inow ask that the conference report on the District of Columbiaappropriation bill may be laid before the Senate, without inter-fering, of course, with whatever is the order of business thismorning.

Mr. HOAR. I suggest to the Senator from Iowa that he allowthe bill of the Senator from Vermont to be considered — indeed, itis before the Senate — and the that the Senator from Vermontgive way to the conference report, because if the bill has to becalled up anew a week or a fortnight hence it will take an houror two then, whereas it might not take five minutes to finish itnow.

Mr. ALLISON. The junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.LODGE], who has charge of what is known as the Philippine bill,which is the regular order by unanimous consent of the Senate,desires it to preserve that situation and position.

Mr. HOAR. That bill can be laid aside informally. I think thebill of the Senator from Vermont will not take much time.

Mr. ALLISON. If it will not take much time, that is anothermatter.

I ask now that whatever is the pending business before the Sen-ate may be informally laid aside until I can present to the Senatethe conference report on the District of Columbia appropriationbill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unfin-ished business will be temporarily laid aside, and the conferencereport on the District of Columbia appropriation bill be laid beforethe Senate. The Chair bears no objection, and that order ismade.May 15, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5544-5546

CIVIL OFFICES IN ALASKA, HAWAII, ETC.Mr. McMILLAN. I ask unanimous consent for the presentconsideration of the bill (S. 1929) to provide for eliminating cer-tain grade crossings on the line of the Baltimore and PotomacRailroad Company in the city of Washington, D. C., and requir-ing said company to depress and elevate its tracks, and to enableit to relocate carts of its railroad therein.Mr. ROSS. Senate bill 2000 was laid aside temporarily for theconsideration of the conference report on the District of Colum-bia appropriation bill, and, unless there is objection, I should liketo have action upon the bill by the Senate.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. What is the request of theSenator?Mr. ROSS. That the bill I have named be considered at thepresent time, unless there is objection or more discussion is de-sired upon it. The bill is really under consideration now. It waslaid aside temporarily for the consideration of the conference re-port. The amendment reported by the committee has been read.

5544 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed thatthe bill was before the Senate and that the amendment reportedby the committee had been read.

Mr. ALDRICH. What is the bill? Let it be read by title.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title will be stated.The SECRETARY. A bill (S. 2000) regulating appointment to

and removals from civil offices in outlying dependencies of theUnited States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is before the Senateas in Committee of the Whole, and the amendment reported bythe committee will again be stated.

The Secretary read the amendment reported by the Committeeto Examine the Several Branches of the Civil Service, which was,to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That all appointments to civil offices made by the President or any headof a Department in Alaska, Hawaii, or any place brought within the jurisdic-tion of the United States by the recent treaty with Spain, shall be madeirrespective of the political opinions of the persons appointed, and, so far asconsistent with the proper performance of the duties of the office, in such amanner as to represent the entire country. In case of removal from anysuch office, whenever practicable, charges shall be made in writing and a copythereof famished to the accused, who shall be afforded reasonable opportu-nity to make answer thereto; and the President or head of a Departmentmaking the appointment may, wherever the public interest shall seem to re-quire it, suspend the official pending hearing or investigation of such charges.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amend-ment of the committee, which has been read.

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, when the Senator fromVermont [Mr. Ross] a little time ago asked for the considerationof this bill, I raised some objection, and it went over. I merelyrise to-day to say that while I shall not object, as I desire to bevery courteous to the Senator from Vermont, I regard it as anunnecessary and an absurd bill. The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend-ment was concurred in.

Mr. VEST. Mr. President, from what committee does the billcome?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. From the Committee to Exam-ine the Several Branches of the Civil Service.

Mr. ROSS. I will state that the report of the committee isunanimous.

Mr. VEST. It seems to be a very strange bill.Mr. TURLEY. Mr. President, I am a member of the committee

which reported the bill, and the Senator from Texas [Mr. CUL-BERSON] and myself, the Senator from Vermont, will remember,when the bill was in committee, asked, and we understood it wasagreed to, that the caption of the bill be changed so as to strikeout the words "outlying dependencies."

Mr. ROSS. There is provision for that in the amendment re-ported to the title of the bill.

Mr. TURLEY. I mean in the title of the bill.Mr. ROSS. That will be in order after the bill shall have been

passed.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is a proposed amend-

ment to the title, which will be reached in time. The questionnow is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. VEST. I must confess, Mr. President, I do not understandthis bill. I have never known of any such legislation. We aretelling the President of the United States — true, it is a mere plati-tude — that he shall make appointments with a view to the inter-ests of the whole country. I hardly think it is exactly our prov-ince to tell the Executive what his duty is about appointments.That matter is exclusively for him, with the approval of the Sen-ate. The Constitution gives him the right to make appointmentson the advice and consent of the Senate; and now we anticipatehis action and say, if I understand it — a Senator was talking tome at the moment and perhaps I did not correctly catch the mean-ing of the bill — '"Mr. President, you must make these appoint-ments with a view to the best interests of the entire country." Iam not representing the President, but I rather think he will dothat, and rather think we are going out of our way to tell him heought to do it. If we had a Democratic President, I should cer-tainly think so.

5545The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is, Shall the

bill be engrossed for a third reading?Mr. MASON. Do I understand that the question now is on the

engrossment and third reading of the bill?The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on ordering

the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.Mr. MASON. Then I ask to have it read in full.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read in full asit has been amended.

The bill was read in full as amended, and ordered to be en-grossed for a third reading.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is, Shall thebill be read a third time?

Mr. MASON. I object to the further consideration of this billat the present time. I have not had a chance to examine it, andthis is the first time I have heard of it.

Mr. LODGE. It is too late now to object.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands, the

bill is parliamentary before the Senate and that an objection doesnot lie against it.

Mr. MASON. What is the entry in the Journal in regard to it?The PRESIDENT pro. tempore. The bill was laid before the

Senate this morning on the request of the Senator from Vermont[Mr. Ross] without objection; the Senator from Vermont madea speech upon it, and then it was laid aside.

Mr. GALLINGER. If 1 may be permitted, while I do not wishto obstruct this bill further than to vote against it, the Senatorfrom Vermont asked distinctly in my presence that the bill be laidbefore the Senate that he might submit some remarks upon it.That is a customary thing to do, without proceeding to the con-sideration of a bill.

Mr. MASON. I did not understand that the bill had been takenup.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The present occupant of thechair was not presiding at the time it took place, but the Chair isinformed ——

Mr. ROSS. I asked that the bill be considered.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that the

Senator from Vermont asked unanimous consent for the consid-eration of the bill, that that consent was given, and that it was,by unanimous consent, laid aside in order that the Senator fromIowa [Mr. ALLISON] might present the conference report on theDistrict of Columbia appropriation bill. Therefore, if that is acorrect statement of the matter, the bill is before the Senate, andno objection will lie against it. The question is on the third reading of the bill.

Mr. SCOTT. I move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.Mr. PENROSE. I second the motion.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Vir-

ginia moves the indefinite postponement of the bill. [Puttingthe question.] By the sound, the "ayes" have it.

Mr. ROSS. I call for the yeas and nays on the motion.The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded

to call the roll.Mr. CAFFERY (when his name was called). I have a general

pair with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. BURROWS]. If he were present, I should vote "nay."

Mr. DAVIS (when his name was called). I am paired with theSenator from Texas [Mr. CHILTON],

Mr. HANNA (when his name was called). I have a generalpair with the Senator from Utah [Mr. RAWLINS], who is absent.

Mr. LODGE (when his name was called). I have a general pairwith the Senator from Georgia [Mr. CLAY]. I suggest to the Sen-ator from Louisiana [Mr. CAFFERY] that we might transfer ourpairs, if agreeable to him, and then we may both vote.

Mr. CAFFERY. That meets my approval.Mr. LODGE. I vote "nay."Mr. CAFFERY. I vote "nay."Mr. MARTIN (when his name was called). I have a general

pair with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM]. In his ab-sence, I withhold my vote. I should vote "nay" if he were present.

Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired withthe junior Senator from Iowa [Mr. GEAR],

Mr. PENROSE (when his name was called). I have a generalpair with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. KENNEY]. He beingabsent, I will withhold my vote.

Mr. PLATT of New York (when his name was called). I havea general pair with the junior Senator from Idaho [Mr. HEITFELD];but this question being one that is nonpolitical, I will take theliberty of voting, and will vote "nay."

Mr. THURSTON (when his name was called). I have a generalpair with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. TILLMAN]. Ifhe were present, I should vote "yea."

Mr. TURLEY (when his name was called). I have a specialpair with the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT], who is

necessarily absent. As I am informed he would vote "nay" onthis question, I shall vote. I vote "nay."

The roll call was concluded.Mr. BACON. The junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.

WETMORE], with whom I am paired, is absent, and so I withholdmy vote. If he were present, I should vote "nay."

Mr. CULBERSON (after having voted in the negative). I de-sire to ask if the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. QUARLES]has voted?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that hehas not voted.

Mr. CULBERSON. I have a general pair with that Senator,and therefore I withdraw my vote.

Mr. SPOONER. I wish to announce that my colleague [Mr.QUARLES] is absent acting upon a subcommittee of the Senate.

Mr. THURSTON. I understand that no quorum has voted.If that is the fact, I will take the liberty of voting, notwithstand-ing my pair. I vote "yea."

The result was announced — yeas 12, nays 28; as follows:

Mr. CULBERSON. My colleague [Mr. CHILTON] is absent onaccount of illness.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Forty-six Senators have an-swered to their names. There is a quorum present. The roll willagain be called on the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.Mr. BACON (when his name was called). I again announce

my pair with the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. WET-MORE].

Mr. CAFFERY (when his name was called). Under the ar-rangement wade with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.LODGE] to transfer our respective pairs, I vote "nay."

Mr. DAVIS (when his name was called). I am paired with theSenator from Texas [Mr. CHILTON].

Mr. HANNA (when his name was called). I have a general pairwith the Senator from Utah [Mr. RAWLINGS].

Mr. LODGE (when his name was called). I am paired with thejunior Senator from Georgia [Mr. CLAY]; but under the arrange-ment heretofore made with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.CAFFERY], I transfer that pair to the Senator from Michigan [Mr.BURROWS] and vote "nay."

Mr. PENROSE (when his name was called). I again announcemy pair with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. KENNEY] , and with-hold my vote.

Mr. THURSTON (when his name was called). I have a gen-eral pair with the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. TILL-MAN], but being anxious to assist in making a quorum I feel jus-fied in voting. I vote "yea."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No quorum has voted. TheSecretary will call the roll.

The Secretary called the roll; and the following Senators an-swered to their names:

The roll call was concluded.Mr. McMILLAN (after having voted in the affirmative). I

have a general pair with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. LIND-SAY] , but under the circumstances I will let my vote in the affirm-

ative stand.So the Senate refused to postpone the bill indefinitely.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question recurs. Shall the

bill be read a third time?Mr. MASON. Mr. President, I desire to offer a few remarks in

regard to the pending bill. The original bill as it was introducedprovided:

That appointments to civil offices in Alaska, in Hawaii, in Guam, in Cuba,in Porto Rico, and in the Philippine Islands shall be made irrespective ofthe political affiliations of the appointees and in such manner as to representthe entire country and to give to each political party, as nearly as practica-ble, its proportionate share thereof.

Section 2 provided:That such appointees shall not be removed from office except for incompe-

tency, misconduct, inefficiency, or neglect of duty. Before removal thecharges shall be made in writing and a copy thereof furnished to the accused,who shall be ordered to make answer thereto in writing, under oath, withina reasonable time, named in the order for answer.

Section 3 provided:That if the accused shall fail to make answer within the time named the

charges shall be taken as confessed. If the answer shall deny the charges,the President may refer the ascertainment of the truth of the charges to anyimpartial person, who shall, in the vicinity of the place where the office islocated, hear the testimony and report the facts found thereon to the Presi-dent.

This bill was introduced and referred to the committee in Jan-uary of this year, and of course we all had constructive notice, atleast, as to what the bill provided. We may not, of course manyof us did not, have actual notice, but we certainly had construct-ive notice; and now, for the first time, the Senate's attention iscalled to the fact that all the three sections of the bill are strickenout; the author is heard in support of his bill as amended, and bysome management which is not in keeping with the facts of thecase, us I understood it, for I was in the Senate Chamber, we areforced to a vote upon this bill without discussion and without anopportunity of weighing its good or bad qualities. Yes, as theSenator from Pennsylvania suggests to me, it may be unconstitu-tional, and some of us constitutional lawyers have not had anopportunity to discover wherein it is or is not constitutional.

I wish, before I proceed to a discussion of the merits of thiscase, to call attention to the marked difference between legislationif it is introduced by one of our brother Senators or if it is intro-duced by some other brother Senator, not necessarily showing anyspecial influence or advantage that any distinguished Senator mayhave over some experienced brother upon this floor, but to showhow eager we are to take up and discuss in brief moments those

The result was announced — yeas 10, nays 35; as follows:

5546

things which seem to be satisfactory or will give us an oppor-tunity to say to the world that we are in favor of civil service, forI propose to show before I sit down that there is no civil servicehere. It is a division of the spoils, and yon gentlemen who havebeen preaching civil service, which is one of the living hypocrisiesof the age, abandon your high plane of civil service and say, "Nomore examinations for fitness, but let us agree, boys, that which-ever one of us wins we will divide the plums regardless of theman's ability, fitness, education, or training for the situation."

Mr. GALLINGER. And do it geographically.Mr. MASON. Yes, and do it geographically. Now, I do not

know whether or not our distinguished appointee in Cuba, Mr.Neely, was examined and gave the distance from the earth to themoon. One distinguished gentleman who was examined out Westby the Civil Service Commission was asked how many Hessianscame over to fight the Americans, and his answer was that a greatmany more came over than went back. [Laughter.] I think hereceived 90 per cent for the answer that he gave to that importantquestion, when he was being examined to determine whether ornot he could throw a letter into the Chicago box that was addressedto St. Louis. [Laughter.]

But, as I said before, I want to show the difference in treat-ment that this revolutionary bill has received and that whichwas received by the resolution I introduced, expressing sympa-thy for the struggling Boers. I introduced the resolution longbefore the appearance of Santa Clans last Christmas, long beforeyou gentlemen went home or stayed in Washington to celebrateyour Christmas holidays. I had supposed, by reason of the prec-edents established from the days of Monroe down to the days ofGrover Cleveland, and the present Administration, too, that whenI introduced a part of the Republican platform, which we adoptedat St. Louis and which was adopted at the polls, from the begin-ning of the roll call, from the distinguished Senator from RhodeIsland [Mr. ALDRICH] , who answers first, down to my youngerand less experienced friend who answers last, every man in theSenate would pray for 'a moment when he could express his sym-pathy for the struggling Republic in South Africa.

I introduced that resolution. I had not the good fortune thedistinguished Senator has who presented this of being able to re-port my own resolution. On the 6th day of December, as I re-member, I sent it adrift into the cave of doom and despondency,into the very valley of the shadow of death, presided over by thedistinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. DAVIS] whom I nowaddress.

Mr. President, I am sorry to address the Senate when there areso few present to hear these remarks of wisdom that fall from mylips so easily.

Mr. WELLINGTON. Would it not be well to have a quorumpresent? I raise the question of the presence of a quorum.

Mr. MASON. I am obliged to the Senator from Maryland.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KEAN in the chair). The

Senator from Maryland suggests the absence of a quorum. TheSecretary will call the roll.

The Secretary called the roll; and the following Senators answered to their names:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-eight Senators have answered to their names. A quorum is not present.Mr. PETTIGREW. I move that the Senate adjourn.The motion was agreed to; and (at 4 o'clock and 23 minutes

p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, May16, 1900, at 12 o'clock m.

May 16, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 6 )p. 5580

Fisheries of Hawaii:The President pro tempore laid before theSenate a communication from the Secretary ofthe Treasury, transmitting a letter from theUnited States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries,submitting an estimate of appropriation, $6,500,for the investigation of fisheries of Hawaii,etc.; which, with the accompanying papers, wasreferred to the Committee on Appropriations,and ordered to be printed.

May 16, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 6 )p. 5602

HAWAIIAN POSTAL SAVINGS BANK.Mr. DANIEL, I ask for the present consideration of the billreported from the Committee on Foreign Relations authorizingthe Secretary of the Treasury to settle the debt of Hawaii.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginiaasks unanimous consent for the consideration of a bill the title ofwhich will be stated.The SECRETARY. A bill (S. 4650) to amend and reenact an actentitled "An act to provide a government for the Territory ofHawaii," approved April 30, 1900.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill has been read in fullto the Senate. Is there objection to its present consideration?Mr. PETTIGREW. I should like to hear the bill read through.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be again read.The Secretary proceeded to read the bill.Mr. PETTIGREW. I shall object to the consideration of thebill at this time.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made to the con-sideration of the bill.

May 16, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5603-5604

5604

STEAMSHIPS IN COASTING TRADE.Mr. NELSON. I ask unanimous consent for the present con-sideration of the bill (S. 4615) to facilitate the entry of steam-ships engaged in the coasting trade between Porto Rico and theUnited States.There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of theWhole, proceeded to consider the bill.Mr. NELSON. I offer an amendment to the bill, to insert inline 0, after the name "Porto Rico," the words "and the Terri-tory of Hawaii."The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.The SECRETARY. It is proposed to amend, in line 6, after thename "Porto Rico," by inserting "and the Territory of Hawaii;"so as to make the bill read:Be it enacted, etc., That the provisions of the act of June 5, 1894, entitled"An act to facilitate the entry of steamships," are hereby extended to steam-ships engaged in trading between ports of Porto Rico and the Territory ofHawaii and those of the United States.The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend-ment was concurred in.The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read thethird time, and passed.The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to facilitate theentry of steamships engaged in the coasting trade between PortoRico, the Territory of Hawaii, and the United States."

May 17, 1900Senatev. 33 (6)p. 5672

By Mr. FOSS: A bill (H. R. 11649) to provide for the acquire-ment by the United States of lauds and rights therein necessaryto the establishment of a naval station in Pearl Harbor, island ofOahu, Hawaii, and for the dredging of approaches to said harbor —to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

May 18, 1900Housev. 33 (6)p. 5730

By Mr. Newlands: A bill (H.R. 11668) pro-viding for appeals and writs of error fromthe supreme court of the Hawaiian Islands andfor writs of habeas corpus to the courts ofthe United States - to the Committee on theTerritories.

May 21, 1900Housev. 33 (7)p. 5827

Senate Bills Referred:S. 4560. An act to provide for officers inthe customs district of Hawaii - to the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

May 22, 1900Housev. 33 (7 )p. 5856

MAUSOLEUM OF HAWAIIAN KINGS.Mr. KNOX. I desire to call up Senate joint resolution No. 76,and rink unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts asksunanimous consent for the present consideration of a joint resolu-tion of the Senate, which the Clerk will now report.The joint resolution was read, as follows:Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled. That the following-described lands lying andbeing situate in the city of Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, heretofore used as amausoleum for the royal family of Hawaii, to wit: The mausoleum premises,beginning at the north corner of said lot; on the southeast side of Nuuanustreet, the same being the west corner of L. C. A. 682, to M. Kekuanaoa, asshown on government survey's registered map No. 838, and running by truebearings: South 40° 20' east 396 feet along L. C. A. 682, to Kekuanaoa; south25° 28' west 258 feet, to stone wall; north 34° 22' west 72.9 feet, along L. C. A.10,605 ap 2, to Piikoi; north 57° 15' west 106 feet along L. C. A. 10,005 ap 2 toPiikoi; north 62° 10' west 266.5 feet along L. C. A. 10,606 ap 2, to Piikoi, and L.C. A. 785. to J. Robinson; north 86° 40' east 367 feet along Nuuanu street toinitial point; area, 119,610 square feet, be withdrawn from sale, lease, or otherdisposition under the public land laws of the United States.The SPEAKER. Is there objection?Mr. UNDERWOOD. Reserving the right to object, I shouldlike to inquire if this resolution has been referred to the propercommittee of the House?Mr. KNOX. This is a Senate resolution. It was referred to theCommittee on Territories of the House, considered by that com-mittee, and favorably reported. I would like to say to the gentle-man from Alabama, so that the House may understand what theresolution is, that this simply withdraws from the public landsthe mausoleum or graveyard where the old Hawaiian kings androyal family are buried, sleeping in unconsciousness of the factthat we have annexed the islands to the United States. It is properthat their burial place should be preserved.Mr. UNDERWOOD. Has the resolution a unanimous reportfrom the Committee on Territories of the House?Mr. KNOX. It has a unanimous report from the committee.Mr. UNDERWOOD. What disposition will be made of thisproperty after it is withdrawn? Mr. KNOX, It is a royal cemetery and it is to remain forever asit is now.Mr. LACEY. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Idid not catch the full reading, but I understood the resolutionsimply to withdraw this land from the operation of the land lawsof the United States.Mr. KNOX. From the public domain of the United States.5856

that the resolution ought to be amended so as to include the landlaws of Hawaii as well.

Mr. KNOX. The general public-land laws of Hawaii are con-tinued in force, except as Congress otherwise directs. We haveprovided that no lease of lands or disposition of the public landsof Hawaii shall take place unless authorized by act of Congress.It presupposes the power of Congress to lease for a term of yearsor to otherwise dispose of lands in Hawaii. It is to make sure.While it is safeguarded under the land laws of Hawaii, we wantto make it sure under the public-land laws of the United States,but there shall be no disposal of the mausoleum of the royal fam-ily of Hawaii.

Mr. LACEY. What land laws of the United States have wepassed that would affect this?

Mr. KNOX. The land law that we created by the bill we passed,that created the power of Congress to regulate, to lease, and dis-pose of lands in Hawaii. It is to guard against that that this billprovides.

Mr. LACEY. The land laws of the United States have notbeen extended to Hawaii.

Mr. KNOX. I know that. They have been extended only tothe extent of the former bill passed.

Mr. McRAE. I would like to ask the gentleman from Massa-chusetts a question. This land, as I understand, is to be pre-served for cemetery purposes. I would ask the gentleman if thebill dedicates the land to that purpose, and if not, why it shouldnot?

Mr. KNOX. There has been a law in Hawaii dedicating about119,610 square feet, which from time immemorial has been usedas a mausoleum or burial place for the members of the royalfamily of Hawaii.

Mr. McRAE. I understand that feature of it. Does this reso-lution dedicate it for that purpose? '

Mr. KNOX. It is now dedicated for that purpose. This billprovides that this plot shall be withdrawn from sale, lease, orany other disposition under the land laws of the United States.It is to preserve it as it is, and to keep it as dedicated.

Mr. McRAE. That withdraws it from sale, which is right.Should it not go further, and dedicate the land for that purpose?

Mr. KNOX. By the former bill we preserve all the land lawsof Hawaii that are not in contravention of our own laws, and thisplot is already dedicated under the laws of Hawaii to this use.

Mr. McRAE. I am afraid that yon do not dedicate it.Mr. KNOX. It is already dedicated under the Hawaiian laws.Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I hope there will

be no further objection to this bill on this side of the Chamber;for I am persuaded that a few kings, dead or living, are only nec-essary to complete the policy of the present Administration, and Itrust the bill will be passed.

Mr. STEELE. That was very severe!Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Yes;The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the consideration of the

bill? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading; and it was

accordingly read the third time, and passed.On motion of Mr. KNOX, a motion to reconsider the vote bywhich the joint resolution was passed was laid on the table.

May 22, 1900Housev. 33 (7)p. 5880

Mr. Fletcher, from the Committee on Inter-state and Foreign Commerce, to which was re-ferred the bill of the Senate (S. 4615) tofacilitate the entry of steamships engaged inthe coasting trade between Porto Rico and theTerritory of Hawaii and the United States, re-ported the same without amendment, accompaniedby a report (No. 1641); which said bill andreport were referred to the House Calendar,

May 23, 1900Housev. 33 (7)p. 5924-5925

CUSTOMS OFFICERS FOR HAWAII.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I present a report from the Com-mittee on Ways and Means.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York calls up aprivileged bill, which the Clerk will report.

The bill (3. 4560) to provide for officers in the customs districtof Hawaii was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.. That there shall be in the customs district of Hawaiione collector, who shall reside at Honolulu, and who shall receive a salary of$4,000 per annum, and such deputy collectors and other customs officers asthe Secretary of the Treasury shall deem necessary.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that a bill like thispassed the last House unanimously, and this bill is unanimouslyreported by the Committee on Ways and Means. I ask unani-mous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Com-mittee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks unani-mous consent that this bill be considered in the House as in Com-mittee of the Whole. Is there objection?

Mr. McRAE. With the opportunity to move an amendment tolimit the number of officers, I am ready to consent to it.

Mr. PAYNE. I do not understand the gentleman.Mr. McRAE. With an opportunity to move an amendment to

limit the number of officers.Mr. PAYNE. Why, if the gentleman desires to offer an amend-

ment, I will yield to him for that purpose.The SPEAKER. Is there objection, with that understanding?There was no objection.Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been read. It simply

provides for a collector of customs at Honolulu, at a salary of$4,000 a year. While the bill that passed the House regulated thematter of customs duties for the Hawaiian Islands and createdcustoms districts, it did not provide for any collector of customsat Honolulu. That was an omission. I want to say that in thelast Congress a bill was introduced in the House providing forthe collection of customs in the Hawaiian Islands, providing col-lection districts, and also providing for this very officer, a col-lector of customs at Honolulu, at a salary of $4,000. It was theunanimous voice of the committee at that time, and of the Houseas well, but the bill was not acted upon by the Senate. I under-stand at the Treasury Department that they are anxious that this legislation be had now, because they want to send officials thereto provide for the collection of the customs, to reach there by the15th of June. If I mistake not, the Hawaiian bill goes into oper-ation on the 1st of July.

Mr. KNOX. Forty-five days from the date of its passage.Mr. PAYNE. It will be necessary for the officials to reach

there by the 15th of June in order to get the machinery in orderto collect the customs.

Mr. KNOX. It goes into effect earlier than the gentlemanstated.

Mr. RIDGELY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him aquestion?

Mr. PAYNE. Certainly.Mr. RIDGELY. Is it proposed to put a tax upon commerce

between the Hawaiian Islands and the United States, the same aswe imposed a short time ago in the case of Porto Rico?Mr. PAYNE. Not by this bill. I will say, however, that theHouse and Senate did impose in the Hawaiian bill a tax upon.articles coming from the Hawaiian Islands, which articles wereimported into the Hawaiian Islands from foreign countries priorto the passage of the bill. While the gentleman from KansasMr. RIDGELY] may regard this as a violation of the Constitution,yet both sides of the House fractured the Constitution with re-spect to the Hawaiian bill, if that is a fracture of it.

Mr. RIDGELY. Can the gentleman inform us as to whetherhis committee would favor a tax upon the commerce between thiscountry and the Hawaiian Islands?

Mr. PAYNE. I can not speak for the committee. So far as Iam concerned, I am in favor of the provision that was put in theHawaiian bill, to put the full tariff duties of the United Statesupon all articles the products of foreign countries which wereimported into Hawaii previous to the passage of the bill and after-wards imported into the United States.

Mr. RIDGELY. How about goods that are produced there andgoods that are produced here being exchanged?

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, sufficient to say that I voted for the Hawaiianbill, which does not impose a duty upon those articles, the Ha-waiian people not having had any hurricane or any other de-structive calamity, and having sufficient resources within them-selves to provide for the government of the islands otherwise thanby imposing duties upon articles of traffic between this countryand the Hawaiian Islands. There is no necessity for it, and of5924course I did not suggest any, but I voted for the bill which pro-vides for duties upon the articles which I have stated.

Mr. McRAE. Mr. Speaker ——

The SPEAKER. The question is ——Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas de-

sires to make a statement.Mr. McRAE. I hope the gentleman will modify the bill and

limit the number of officers to be employed. I do not think thathe should give to an executive officer the right to appoint as manyas he may deem necessary, without any maximum limitation.

Mr. PAYNE. I think that is the provision of the general law.Mr. McRAE. I think not.Mr. PAYNE. It is the same provision that was in the bill two

years ago.Mr. McRAE. Then the bill was wrong two years ago. There

ought not to be any law allowing to an Executive Department theright to fix the number of officers without some limit. I do notknow in this case how many they ought to have; but the Depart-ment ought to have some idea of the number of people that willbe necessary to perform the work, and the committee should haveobtained such information and made a limit.

Mr. HOPKINS. Does not the gentleman think his own state-ment refutes his position?

Mr. McRAE. It does; but if I had charge of the bill, I wouldknow more about it than it appears is known by the gentleman incharge of it.

Mr. HOPKINS. You say you do not know the number re-quired. Now, do yon not believe that the Secretary of the Treas-ury is better capable of determining that than a member of theHouse?

Mr. McRAE. He ought to be able to tell the committee whatthe public service requires.Mr. HOPKINS. It might require five men at one time and tenmen at another. It all depends upon the amount of commerce.Mr. PAYNE. I want to say to the gentleman from Arkansasthat it is within the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasuryas to how many officials he will appoint at nearly every subportin the United States — where there are sub-ports of entry. I knowit is so in my district, and under one Administration there weremore officials than under another, without any change of law,and it was found to be lawful in each case. It depends entirelyupon the Administration; and it is a matter that you can not fixa hard and fast rule about, especially in regard to this country, aswe have to go there and try and find out what is necessary.

Mr. McRAE. Does the gentleman mean to tell me that at allthe ports of the United States the Secretary of the Treasury haspower to employ, without limit, such officials as he may see fit?

Mr. PAYNE.. Well, I did not say quite that much. A part ofthe ports of the United States he has the power to appoint depu-ties and inspectors, and without limit, so far as practical observa-tions have been concerned. In some ports in my own district,sub-ports, one Secretary of the Treasury would sometimes allowmore than another,

Mr. McRAE. I do not want any statute passed that has notthe number fixed. Of course I am not familiar with the require-ments of this case, but I would not give this unlimited power toan executive officer in any permanent statute like this. We shouldnot at this time, when Congress is just about to adjourn, a reso-lution having already been passed to adjourn, in a Presidentialyear, give an Executive Department the right to fix the numberof officers. The temptation is too great. I think it is withoutprecedent, so far as I know, and unless the gentleman will sug-gest some number, I will move to insert "not exceeding five innumber."

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker. I will simply say this, before mov-ing the previous question on the amendment and the bill, that itis impossible to fix the number in a matter of this kind; otherwiseI will have no objection. We do not know how many men areneeded. This bill was carefully considered two years ago by theCommittee on Ways and Means of the House and adopted. Asimilar provision was adopted in the Senate on the Porto Ricanbill, if my recollection is right, when it came from the Senate.Therefore I move the previous question on the bill and amendment.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arkansas offers theamendment which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:Insert after the word "collectors," to line 6, the words "not exceeding

five in number."Mr. PAYNE. The gentleman does not mean that.Mr. McRAE. I have not a copy of the bill, and have not been

able to get one, so as to see the proper place to insert the amend-ment. I want to limit the officers not named.

The Clerk read as follows:So that it will read, "and such deputy collectors, not exceeding five in

number."The SPEAKER. Upon the bill and amendment the gentleman

from New York asks the previous question,

5925Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Before that question is put,

Mr. Speaker, of course the House wants to understand the amend-ment. The gentleman from Arkansas has not a copy of the bill.As it is, with his amendment, it reads "deputy collectors not toexceed five in number and such other customs officers as the Sec-retary of the Treasury deems necessary."

Mr. McRAE. It is to come in after the indefinite number ofofficers. If yon will give me a copy of the bill, I will show whereI want it to go in; and if it reads as the gentleman from Missis-sippi suggests, it is not where it should come in.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has no power in a matter of thatkind.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I ask that the gentleman bepermitted to insert the amendment at the proper place. It wasdone by the Clerk in mistake.

Mr. McRAE. It should come in after the last word.The SPEAKER. Let the Clerk report it to the House, so that

it will be understood.The Clerk read as follows:After the word "necessary" insert at the end of the bill "not exceeding

five in number;" so that it will read, "and such deputies and other customsofficers as the Secretary of the Treasury shall deem necessary, not exceed-ing five in number."

The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previousquestion.

Mr. PAYNE. I withdraw that for the moment. I do not seehow that amendment can be put in there without destroying thebill. To insert the words "not exceeding five in number" will apply to the collector, clerks, and everything else.

Mr. McRAE. I did not intend it to do that.Mr. PAYNE. To put this on the bill destroys the service down

there. I now demand the previous question.Mr. McRAE. Then let me modify the amendment. I do not

want any misunderstanding about it. I will ask that it be in-serted after the word "officer," but I really believe that it makesno difference whether there or at the end.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker ——The SPEAKER. This is all out of order.Mr. PAYNE. I demand the previous question.Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. May I ask the gentleman to

withdraw the call for the previous question?The previous, question was ordered.The SPEAKER. The question now is on the amendment offered

by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. McRAE].The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.

McRAE) there were — ayes 55, noes 87.So the amendment was rejected.The bill was ordered to be read a third time; and being read the

third time, it was passed.On motion of Mr. PAYNE, a motion to reconsider the last votewas laid on the table.

May 24, 1900Housev. 33 (7)p. 5992

The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bill andjoint resolution of the following titles:S. 4560. An act to provide for officers in the customs district ofHawaii; andS. R. 76. Joint resolution withdrawing certain lands on theisland of Oahu, Hawaii, from the public domain.

May 25, 1900Senatev. 33 (7)p. 6014

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED.The message also announced that the Speaker of the House hadsigned the following enrolled bills and joint resolution; and theywere thereupon signed by the President pro tempore:A bill (S. 4560) to provide for officers in the customs district ofHawaii;A joint resolution (S. R. 76) withdrawing certain lands on theisland of Oahu, Hawaii, from the public domain.

May 26, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 7 )p. 6078

An act (S . 4560) to provide for officers inthe customs district of Hawaii.(Approved and Signed by the President)

May 26, 1900Housev. 33 ( 7 )p. 6103

STEAMSHIPS BETWEEN PORTO RICO, HAWAII, AND THE UNITEDSTATES.Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent forthe present consideration of the bill (S. 4615) to facilitate the entryof steamships engaged in the coasting trade between Porto Rico .and the Territory of Hawaii and the United States.The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc.. That the provisions of the act of June 5, 1894, entitled"An act to facilitate the entry of steamships," are hereby extended to steam-ships engaged in trading between ports of Porto Rico and the Territory ofHawaii and those of the United States.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection?Mr. PAYNE. I should like to ask the gentleman if that billhas been reported by any committee of the House?Mr. FLETCHER. It has been reported by the Committee onCommerce of the Senate and by the Committee on Interstate andForeign Commerce of the House — a unanimous report.The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection?There was no objection. The bill was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordinglyread the third time, and passed.On motion of Mr. FLETCHER, a motion to reconsider the lastvote was laid on the table.

May 28, 1900Housev. 33 (7)p. 6180

Enrolled Bills Signed:S. 46l5. An act to facilitate the entry ofsteamships in the coasting trade between PortoRico and the Territory of Hawaii and the UnitedStates.

May 29, 1900Senatev. 33 ( 7 )p. 6186

A bill (S. 4615) to facilitate the entry ofsteamships in the coasting trade between PortoRico and the Territory of Hawaii and the UnitedStates, (Approved and Signed by the President)

June 1, 1900Senatev. 33 (7)p. 6369

Presidential Approvals:An act ( S . 4615) to facilitate the entryof steamships engaged in the coasting tradebetween Porto Rico and the Territory of Hawaiiand the United States; andA joint resolution ( S . R. 76) withdrawingcertain lands on the island of Oahu, Hawaii,from the public domain.

June 4, 1900Senatev. 33 (7)p. 6531

ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN TERRITORIES.Mr. HEITFELD. I ask unanimous consent for the present con-sideration of the bill (S. 4075) to amend an act to prohibit thepassage of special or local laws in the Territories, to limit the Ter-ritorial indebtedness, etc.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill has been read as inCommittee of the Whole.Mr. ALDRICH. Let it be read again for information.The Secretary read the bill; and, by unanimous consent, theSenate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed its consideration.

6531The bill was reported from the Committee on Territories withan amendment, in line 10, page 2, after the word "given," to strikeout the words "at least" and insert "not more than sixty nor lessthan;" so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc.. That the act of Congress approved July 13, 1886, enti-tled "An act to prohibit the passage of local or special laws of the Territoriesof the United States, to limit Territorial indebtedness, and for other pur-

poses," is hereby amended so as to permit, authorize, and legalize the issu-ance of bonds by chartered municipal corporations having a bona fide popu-lation of not less than 10,000 persons, in any Territory of the United States,for erecting a city building and purchasing the ground for the same. Thelimitations of said act of July 13, 1886, shall not apply to such municipal cor-porations: Provided, That before any bonds shall be issued the mayor andcommon council of such municipal corporation shall cause an election to beheld in such city or town, and the mayor and common council of such munici-pal corporation shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circu-lation published in said city or town a notice of the time and place or placetof holding such election.

Such notice shall be given not more than sixty nor leas than thirty days be-fore such election. On the question of the issuance of said bonds no personshall be qualified to vote except he be in all respects a qualified elector andowner of real or personal property subject to taxation within the munici-pality. In case two-thirds of the qualified voters, as above described, shall vote affirmatively for the issuance of said bonds, then the mayor and common,council shall issue the same, and not otherwise. Bald bonds shall contain allnecessary provisions as to form, and such municipality shall provide a proper,sinking fund for the redemption of said bonds. Said bonds shall not bear a rate of interest exceeding 6 per cent, and the interest shall be paid semi-annually, and none of said bonds shall be sold at less than their par value:Provided further. That no city under this act shall issue bonds in excess of$30,000.

The amendment was agreed to.The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend-

ment was concurred in.The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read

the third time, and passed. June 5, 1900Housev. 33 (8)p. 6780-6781

TERRITORIAL INDEBTEDNESS.The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before the House a Senatebill which does not carry an appropriation, and which is exactlysimilar to a House bill favorably reported. The Clerk will readthe bill.The Clerk read as follows:A bill (S. 4075) to amend an act to prohibit the passage of special or local lawsin the Territories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, and so forth.Be it enacted, etc.. That the act of Congress approved July 30. 1886, entitled"An act to prohibit the passage of local or special laws of the Territories ofthe United States, to limit Territorial indebtedness, and for other purposes,"is hereby amended so as to permit, authorize, and legalize the issuance ofbonds by chartered municipal corporations having a bona fide population ofnot less than 10,000 persons, in any Territory of the United States, for erect-ing a city building and purchasing the ground for the same.The limitations of said act of July 30, 1886, shall not apply to such municipalcorporations: Provided, That before any bonds shall be issued the may or andcommon council of such municipal corporation shall cause an election to beheld in such city or town, and the mayor and common council of such munici-pal corporation shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circula-tion published in said city or town a notice of the time and place or placesof holding such election.Such notice shall be given not more than sixty nor less than thirty daysbefore such election. On the question of the issuance of said bonds no per-son shall be qualified to vote except he be in all respects a qualified electorand owner of real or personal property subject to taxation within the mu-nicipality. In case two-thirds of the qualified voters, as above described,shall vote affirmatively for the issuance of said bonds, then the mayor andcommon council shall issue the same, and not otherwise.Said bonds shall contain all necessary provisions as to form, and suchmunicipality shall provide a proper sinking fund for the redemption of saidbonds. Said bonds shall not bear a rate of interest exceeding 5 per rent,and the interest shall be paid semiannnally, and none of said bonds shall besold at less than their par value: Provided further, That no city under thisact shall issue bonds in excess of $10,000.Mr. FINLEY. Is this a request for unanimous consent?The SPEAKER. Not at all. The bill comes up as the regularorder.Mr. FINLEY. I should be glad to hear some explanation ofthe bill.Mr. FLYNN. A bill identical with this has been, unanimouslyreported by the Committee on Territories. It authorizes citiesor towns in the Territories having over 10,000 population to issuebonds not to exceed $30,000 in any one case for the purpose oferecting city buildings. It prescribes qualifications for electors.They must be taxpayers; and after legal notice has been given,two-thirds of the qualified electors must vote on the proposition.The bonds are to bring 5 per cent interest and not be sold at lessthan par.

67806781

Mr. FLYNN. Yes, sir.Mr. FINLEY. And the bill applies, I believe, to all cities and

towns in the Territories?Mr. FLYNN. All cities and towns having over 10,000 people.Mr. FINLEY. When was this bill considered by the commit-

tee — in January?

Mr. FLYNN. No; the report was made by our committee in

The bill was ordered to a third reading, and read the third time.The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.Mr. LENTZ. I object.The SPEAKER. To what does the gentleman object?Mr. LENTZ. I object to this business going on. I do not know

what it is. I can not find out.The SPEAKER. That is not the fault of the Chair or the House.

The bill was regularly laid before the House and read.Mr. LENTZ. I ask to know what it is we are doing.The SPEAKER. The bill has been read and explained and dis-

cussed.Mr. LENTZ. I could not hear it.The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.The bill was passed.The SPEAKER. Without objection, a House bill of similar

purport to the Senate bill just passed will be laid on the table.There was no objection.Mr. SHATTUC. I move to reconsider the vote by which the

Senate bill was passed, and also move that the motion to recon-sider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.June 6, 1900SenateV. 33 (8)p. 6799

Enrolled Bills Signed:A bill ( S . 4075) to amend an act to prohibitthe passage of special or local laws in theTerritories, to limit Territorial indebtedness,etc;.

June 6, 1900Housev. 33 (8)p. 6857

Enrolled Bills Signed:S. 4075. An act to amend an act to prohibitthe passage of special or local laws in theTerritories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, etc.

June 7, 1900Senatev. 33 (8)p. 6867

Presidential Approvals:An act ( S . 4075) to amend an act to prohibitthe passage of special or local laws in theTerritories, to limit the Territorial indebtedness, etc.

200Upon these plantations are employed about 60,000 Asiatics, as

well as a certain proportion of the Kanaka and Portuguese popula-tion. The tendency is to regard the Asiatic laborers as mere ma-chines. Their food, their health, their sanitary conditions arelooked after only with a view to maintaining their efficiency asmachines. As to the Kanakas, they are a kindly people who havereceived a fair education, but who seem unable to withstand thecontact of strong and vigorous races, and as a result the nativerace is gradually becoming extinct.

It is probable that these islands will support a population of ahalf million of people, and the development of the industries therewill necessitate the increase of population by means of immigra-tion from without. Chinese immigration is now prohibited bythe United States laws, but other Asiatics, such as the Japanese,can enter, and they are crowding there in large numbers. Unless,therefore, we are content to allow the Japanese to gradually meetall the increasing requirements of these islands for laborers, wemust devise some system by which the migration of citizens ofthe United States, white or black, or of the white people of othercountries shall be promoted; and we can never expect to be able tosuccessfully promote such migration if the laboring class is to be at-tached, as heretofore, in a semi-servile capacity to the soil, withoutrights in it. The promotion, therefore, of small land holdings isabsolutely essential to the promotion of a desirable immigration,and without the latter Hawaii will be republican in name only.

The task is a difficult one, I admit, but the more difficult it isthe sooner we should enter upon it. We can not expect the classwhich has heretofore governed the islands, intelligent, public-

spirited, and capable though it be, to work out the reforms thatwill be essential to the maintenance of republican institutions.They are the landed class. They are the beneficiaries of the systemwhich now prevails there, a system which increases the dignityand wealth of the landowner and degrades the condition of theland laborer, a system which has given this class the wealth whichit possesses. It can never be expected that the beneficiaries of anabuse will reform that abuse. This is too much to hope of human nature. The landowning class will control the political govern-ment of Hawaii, and any reform in the future must be compelledand forced by the United States Government through its controlover Hawaii as a Territory of the United States.

It is urged that the sugar industry is such as to require largeholdings and semi servile labor, and that the climate of Hawaii isunsuited to the labor of any other class than that now employedthere, and that therefore reform is hopeless. My answer is thatby admission of Hawaii to the commercial union of the UnitedStates large markets have been given to her sugar production,which have vastly increased its value, and that we will be recreantto our duty if we permit the entire benefits of this increase of thevalue of their sugar product to go to capital instead of being di-vided into some fair proportion between capital and labor. Arewe to perpetuate a system which will raise the value of sugar landsfrom $50 an acre to a thousand, two thousand, and three thousanddollars an acre and say none of the benefits of this system shallgo to the labor employed upon the land? The very foundation ofthe protective system of this country is that monopoly of Ameri-can markets given to American products tends not so much to theadvantage of capital as it does to the elevation of labor. If, then,our tariff on sugar gives to Hawaii a share in the monopoly ofAmerican markets, should we not see to it that this advantageaccrues to the labor as well as to capital; the men employed tothe soil as well as the men who own the soil?

As to the climate, the very fact that 15,000 Portuguese are nowemployed there indicates that it is adapted to the white races.The immigration of the Italians and Portuguese can be encour-aged there rather than the immigration of Asiatics. The Italiansand Portuguese in our Western country constitute a very valua-ble part of our community. They are soon assimilated. Theirchildren are educated in our schools and become familiar withand attached to our institutions. Then, again, the climate isadapted to our negroes, who are now citizens of the United States,entitled to political rights; and then the overcrowded conditionof Porto Rico offers an opportunity for the gradual transfer ofthousands of people who are accustomed to a climate almost iden-tical with that of Hawaii, and who have been trained in thevery industries pursued in Hawaii. But the migration of the201inhabitants of Porto Rico and the whites and the negro popula-tion of the South and of the Italians and Portuguese can not bepromoted if the large holdings of land are to be continued.It is, perhaps, essential that these large holdings should be per-mitted for the purpose of development, that is to say, it may be awise thing to permit a corporation to hold a large tract of landwith a view to its development by irrigation works and the con-struction of a sugar factory and the construction of a railway sys-tem for transportation, but when this is accomplished the policyof the State should be to compel the partitioning of this area intoconvenient tracts, with water rights attached; the waterworks,the sugar factory, and the railroad to be charged with a publicuse and their rates regulated by law, either through a commis-sioner or the courts. Such enterprises are to-day conducted allthrough the arid West and in California. Large areas of land aretaken up, irrigation works constructed, and when completed thelands are divided into small tracts of from 20 to 40 acres, withwater rights attached, and the land sold to small holders whose

or one-tenth of the total every year; the factory, the irrigation works,and the railroad being held and retained by the corporation or its as-signees as a public use. with charges regulated by law, so that theownership or this public use could not be used in such a way as to oppress the land and transfer its value to the owners of the publicuse. They might also compel the gradual division and sale of exist-ing holdings, or, if the conferees were indisposed to map out anydefinite system, they could provide the appointment of a commis-sion whose duty it would be to inquire into the condition of landholdings in Hawaii and to report to Congress a method for grad-ually rectifying its abuses.Another amendment which I offered was one defining the dutiesof the surveyor-general of Hawaii and providing that he shouldreport annually to the Department of Labor of the United Statesand to the governor of Hawaii and the legislature the owners ofall holdings not less than 100 acres in extent, by whom owned,the character of the cultivation, the number of laborers employedon each holding, their nationality, the wages paid, and such otherinformation as the Department of Labor might prescribe. Thisamendment was adopted by the House. It simply

rights to the water are protected by law. Such a system could beinaugurated in Hawaii, but it must be compulsory, for the profitsof sugar production are so large there as to appeal to the selfish-ness of monopolies and trusts.The question is, how can this be done without violently wrench-ing the business as now conducted? No one, of course, wishes toaccomplish reform at the expense of a temporary industrial read-justment which will bring distress or loss to that community, andit is for this reason that I have urged throughout, in the considera-tion of this bill, amendments which would call the attention bothof the governing body in Hawaii and the governing body here tothe desired reforms, and which would result in the collection ofaccurate statistical information that would be a guide to futureaction both there and here. I have been as anxious that the in-telligent thought of Hawaii should be stimulated to action uponthis matter as well as our own, for the reason that I fear whenthis organic act is passed our attention will be so much absorbedin other questions of domestic and foreign relations that the Ha-waiian Islands will drift from our consideration, and I wish toplant the seed of an agitation there which will make itself felt inlocal legislation, and, if necessary, in such a movement as will com-pel attention at the Capitol of the nation.The tendency of human nature is to apply remedial legislationrather than to engage in preventive legislation. Whilst prevent-ive legislation may be easier, yet indolence prompts us to waittill abuses cry aloud for a remedy. We are all more likely totake this view as to the questions now under consideration be-cause we have never yet ourselves experienced the evils of landmonopoly. We have here a population of 70,000,000 people in acountry capable of sustaining 400,000,000. There has been as yetno congestion of population. Land has been the one thing ofwhich we have had a superabundance; but this is not true of Ha-waii, Porto Rico, or Luzon, and history tells us that the centrali-zation of land ownership has been the fruitful cause of most dis-astrous wars and prolonged and violent agitations. We can restassured that all the disturbances which history accredit to a systemof land monopoly will be felt in Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Luzonwhen the advantages of our extended markets advance the valueof the sugar lands in those islands to a point where they will arousethe greed of the trusts and syndicates. History teaches us thatunless restrained by law these great monopolies will accommodatethemselves to any system of degraded labor which will advancethe profits of the land.Turning for a moment from this general view of the subject,

provides forthe statistical information which will enable the legislature, ofHawaii and the Congress of the United States to actI also offered an amendment declaring it to be the purpose ofthe United States to promote the increase of white labor in Hawaii,and to discourage the employment of Asiatics, and enacting thatevery corporation employing labor in Hawaii should, within oneyear, employ at least one-tenth of its laborers from citizens of theUnited States, citizens of the Territory of Hawaii, and other whitepersons, and that such corporations should increase the number of such laborers one-tenth annually, until at least three-fourths oftheir laborers should be citizens of the United States, citizens ofthe Territory of Hawaii, or other white persons. It was the pur-pose of this amendment to control the question of labor by reasonof the unquestioned power of the State over corporations, for, asI have already stated, almost the entire agricultural business ofthese islands is done by corporations. It provided that graduallythey should employ laborers other than Asiatics and spread thegradual increase of such labor over such a long period of time aswould create no inconvenience to employers.It opened up the entire labor employment of corporations to theKanakas who are now there, the Portuguese and Italians who arenow there, and other white persons who are now there, to whiteimmigrants from any country who may land there in the future,and to citizens of the United States, which would include bothwhites and negroes, and which would also include the people ofPorto Rico, from which overcrowded island it should be our policyto transfer a part of the congested labor. I regret to say that this amendment was lost, notwithstanding my statement that I pre-sented it in order that it might form the basis of consideration andaction by the conferees, who could enlarge it or contract it ormodify it and whose judgment would finally be submitted to boththe Senate and the House. It worked no injury whatever to theexisting Asiatic labor there, for it must be recollected that thepopulation of these islands must be steadily increased, and it isentirely probable that the Asiatic labor now employed there, anddisplaced by the gradual system which the amendment providesfor, would be absorbed by new enterprises, such as rice planta-tions, etc., or in domestic labor, or would be glad to return to theirhomes with their accumulations, as most of them do. But unfor-tunately this amendment was defeated.1 also offered an amendment providing that there should be acommissioner of labor who should be appointed by the Presidentof the United States and whose duties were identical with those ofthe various commissioners now provided for by the

I wish to state that the amendments which I have offered wereprepared upon the floor of the House whilst the bill was underconsideration. I do not claim that they are as perfect as theymight be. I have had no time to go into the details of this ques-tion, absorbed as I have been by the questions which have beenbefore the Ways and Means Committee, of which I am a member;but my purpose has been to insert in this bill certain amendmentswhich can be made the basis of thoughtful consideration by theconferees of the Senate and the House when this bill goes beforethem, and which can be there shaped in more scientific terms.Now, what are the amendments which I have offered, both suc-cessful and unsuccessful?First. In that provision of the organic act of Hawaii which pro-vides for the organization of corporations by the legislature ofHawaii, I offered an amendment that no corporation, domestic orforeign, should in the future acquire and hold real estate in excessof 1,000 acres. That amendment was carried. I do not pretendthat that amendment will reach the entire difficulty to which Ihave alluded. It will, however, go to the conferees and opportu-nity be given to shape it in such a way as will gradually and pro-gressively diminish the evils of land monopoly. For instance, theymight amend this by providing that corporations could acquirelarger areas than 1,000 acres, and could develop irrigation worksupon them, construct a factory, and build a railroad, but that whenthe entire enterprise was completed they should sell the lands soacquired in small holdings at the rate of not less than one-twentieth

intelligentlegislatures of the various States of the Union. It was made hisduty to acquire and diffuse among the people of Hawaii usefulinformation on the subject of labor, and especially upon its rela-tion to capital, the hours of labor, the earnings of the laboringmen and women, and the means to promote their social, intellec-tual , and moral prosperity. It was made his duty to make annualreports to the legislature of Hawaii and also to the United States Department of Labor. He was charged with the duty of investi-gating the causes and facts relating to all controversies and dis-putes between employer and employee and to report thereon bothto the Hawaiian government and our own. He was to requiresuch statements as might be prescribed by the United States De-partment of Labor from all the employers of labor. This provi-sion, moderate yet full and ample and molded upon the best legis-lation in this country, was, to my great surprise, lost. And now, Mr. Chairman, I have presented to the committee theamendment which has just been read regarding a commissionerof labor. It is not as full and complete as the one that I desired.It was drawn hastily by the Commissioner of Labor, with whom I communicated by telephone. I am inclined to think that he would have made it fuller in its details if I had had an oppor-tunity of conversing with him, but I now submit the amendment as presenting the views of Mr. Wright, the Commissioner of Labor of the United States, and ask its adoption.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.Congressional Record Index (Hawaiian Islands) v. 33 (1-8) p. 347Hawaiian Islands. See also NEW POSSESSIONS.

Bills to construct submarine cable to (sea bills S. 2, 1928, 3140: H. B. 930, 2080, 3330, 6766, 8303).

Bills to provide government for (see bills S. 222; H. R. 2972).Bill to extend immigration laws to (see bill S. 600).Bills to extend laws relative to commerce, navigation, and

merchant seamen over (see bills S. 729, 2439; H. R. 5065).Bills to provide for telegraphic communication to (see bills S. 1479, 1625; H.R. 2980).Bill to extend immigration, contract labor, and Chinese- exclusion laws of United States to (see

bill S. 2244).Bills to amend act to allow C. C. Moreno and others to lay submarine cable to (see bills S. 2604;

H. R. 1069).Bill placing under jurisdiction of Secretary of Navy appropriation for improvement of Pearl

Harbor (see bill S. 2708).Bills for establishment of naval station in Pearl Harbor, island of Oahu (see bills S. 4290; H. B.

11649).Bill to provide for officers in customs district of (see bill S. 4560).Bill to facilitate entry of steamships engaged in coasting trade between United States and (see

bill S. 4615).Bill to amend act to provide government for (see bill S. 4650). Bills to extend anti-contract-labor laws to (see bills H. B. 2971, 8874). Bill to extend customs and internal-revenue laws over (see

bill H. R. 4599). Bill relative to silver coinage and silver certificates of (see bill H. R. 7091). Bill providing for appeals and writs of error from supreme

court of (see bill H. B. 11668). Joint resolution to reserve certain lands in city of Honolulu, island of Oahu (see S. B. 76). Joint resolution relative to sending of newspapers and periodicals to soldiers in (see H. J. Res. 209). Resolution of inquiry in House relative to banks or other institutions used by Government for deposit of public moneys in (H. Res. 208) referred 3663. Resolution of inquiry in Senate relative to regulations for travel in, debated and referred 5365.

—Amendments in Senate to bill (S. 222) to provide government for 1112, 1327.Amendment in Senate to guarantee republican form of government for 601.Amendments in Senate for appropriation for topographical and geological surveys in 3872, 4829.Estimate of additional appropriation for expenses of United States courts in (S. Doc. 347) 5307.Estimates of appropriations to carry out certain provisions of act to provide government for (S.

Doc. 348) 5307.Estimate of appropriation for investigation of fisheries of (S. Doc. 366) 5580.Estimate of appropriation for quarantine service in (H. R. Doc. 666) 5304.Letter of Secretary of Navy relative to jurisdiction of appropriation for improvement of Pearl

Harbor (S. Doc. HO; H. R. Doc. 323) 1021, 1023.Letter of Secretary of State transmitting reports of decisions of supreme court of Hawaii in certain cases relative to application of Constitution of United States to (H. R. Doc. 237) 628, 636.Conference report on bill (S. 223) to provide government for 4358.

Memorial of citizens of Honolulu favoring extension of American Territorial laws over 559. Statement of financial resources of 2180.Statistics relative to trade, area, population, churches, news- papers, etc., of 4466.Paper relative to land system of (S. Doc. 72) 735.

Congressional Record Index(Hawaiian Islands)v. 33 (1-8) p. 515

New Possessions. Sec also ALASKA; CUBA; GUAM; HAWAIIAN ISLANDS; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; PORTO RICO.Bill regulating appointments to and removals from civil offices in (see bill S. 2000).Bills to provide better facilities for safe-keeping and disbursement of public moneys in (see bills S. 3948;

H. R. 9388).Bill authorizing establishment of banks in Cuba, Porto Rico, and Philippine Islands, and to issue letters of

credit (see bill H. B. 2968).Bill to extend laws enacted by Congress for the Territories to (see bill H. R. 6870).Joint resolution fixing status of islands ceded to United States by Spain (see H. J. Res. 115).Resolution in Senate declaring obligations of United States to 601.Resolution in Senate declaring that provisions of Constitution unaided by act of Congress do not extend

over, de- bated 935, 1053.Resolution in Senate to print report of Charles E. Magoon on legal status of territory and inhabitants of,

passed (S. Doc. 234) 3414.Resolution of inquiry in Senate relative to topographical and geological surveys on islands under

jurisdiction of United States, passed 702.Resolution of inquiry in Senate relative to collection of revenue in, passed 1113, 1156.Resolution of inquiry in Senate relative to surveys made by Navy Department in, passed 3551.Resolution of inquiry in House relative to banks or other institutions used by Government for deposit of

public moneys in (H. Res. 208), referred 3663.Amendment in Senate declaring policy of United States con-: earning 601.Letter of Secretary of Treasury relative to establishing depositories of public money in (H. R. Doc. 177)

435.Report of Secretary of Interior relative to topographic andgeologic surveys on islands under jurisdiction of UnitedStates (S. Doc. 115) 1152, 1486.Report of Secretary of Navy relative to surveys in (S. Doc. 339) 5259.Report of Secretary of Treasury relative to coast surveys on islands under jurisdiction of United States (S.

Doc. 120) 1247.Report of Secretary of War relative to tariff collections in (S. Doc. 254) 1761, 3463.Report of Charles E. Magoon on legal status of territory and inhabitants of (S. Doc. 234) 3073.Argument by-Carman F. Randolph relative to territorial expansion 3551, 3554.

Congressional Record Index (Hawaiian Islands) v. 33 (1-8) p. 691

TerritoriesBill to donate public lands to (see bill S. 25).Bill extending desert-land laws to (see bill S. 765).Bills to amend act to better define and regulate rights ofaliens to hold and own real estate in (see bills S. 2011;H. R. 5297). Bills to prevent adulteration of foods, beverages, candies,drugs, and condiments in (see bills S. 2050, 2222, 2426, 3618; H. R. 2561, 4618, 6245, 9877). Bills to

restrict grounds of divorce in (see bills S. 2533; H. R. 6641). Bills to amend act to prohibit passage of .special or local laws in (see bills S. 4075, 4229; H. R. 8355, 9708, 10737, 10843). Bill prohibiting legislatures from creating new counties by special act (see bill H. R. 1025).

Bill to confer appellate jurisdiction on circuit courts of appeal to review judgments of supreme courts of (see bill

H. R. 6053). Bill to establish court of appeals for Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (see bill H.R.6034). Bill to prohibit passage of local or special laws and to limit Territorial indebtedness in (see bill H.R.9708). Bill to amend act for protection of lives of miners in (see

bill H. R. 10553). Compilation of organic acts of (S. Doc. 148) 1431,1487.Territory of Hawaii. See Hawaiian islands.

S. 222 — To provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.

Introduced by Mr. Cullom mid referred to Committee on Foreign Rela-tions 89, 233, - Reported back with amendments 643. — Debated andamended 1559, 1836, 1869, 1918, 1978, 1979, 2022, 2122, 2128, 2179, 2240, 2316, 2386, 2438. Passed Senate 2449. - Referred to House Committee on Terri-tories 2490.- Reported back with amendment (H. R. REPORT 549) 2637. —Made special order 2740. — Debated and amended 3702, 3746, 3769, 3800,3814, 3857, 3865. passed HOUSE 3866. — Laid on table in Senate withHouse amendment 3067. — Senate nonconcurs in HOUSE amendment3954. - HOUSE insists on its Amendment 4072. — Conference appointedRim3965, 4072. — Conference report made, debated, and rejected in Senate

4357, 4409, 4454, 4508. — Senate further insists on its disagreement toHouse amendment 4508. — House further insists on its amendment

4528. -- Second conference appointed 4508, 4528. — Conference reportmade, dictated, and agreed to 4648, 4733, 4766. — Examined and signed

4860, 4806. — Approved by President 4892.

H. R. 2972 -To provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii.

Introduced by Mr. Hitt and referred to Committee on Territories 165.—Reported back with amendment (H. R. Report 305) 1739.

SUPPLEMENT - 1

SELECTED REFERENCES IN U. S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

TO

ANNEXATION AND THE ORGANIC ACT

From: Document Catalogue v. 4 (55th Congress, July 1, 1897 to June 30,1899,) and v. 5 (56th Congress, July 1, 1899 to June 30, 1901).

CATON, J. D. Argument favoring annexation of Hawaii. March 30, 1898. 15pp.(S. Doc. 214, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 21).

DANIEL, J. W. Report from Committee on Foreign Relations, favoring S. 4650,to amend act to provide government for Hawaii. May 14, 1900. 6 pp.(S. Rep. 1305, 56th Congress, 1st session. In v. 9; 3894.).

DAVIS, C. K. Report from Committee on Foreign Relations, submitting S.J .R. 127for annexing Hawaiian Islands, as substitute for S.J.R. 100 andS. 2263. March 16, 1898. 119 pp. (S . Rep. 681, 55th Congress, 2dsession. In v. 3).

DINSMORE, H. A. Views of minority of Committee on Foreign Affairs, adverse toH.J.R. 259, for annexing Hawaiian Islands. May 17, 1898. 2 pp.( H . Rep. 1355, pt. 2, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 5) Stat. L.v. 30, p. 750.

DUBOIS, F. T. Lecture against annexation of Hawaii. January 24, 1898. 14 pp.(S. Doc. 82, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 4) .

Memorial remonstrating against annexation of Hawaii. December 17,1897. 3 pp. (S. Doc. 28, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 1) .

FERGUSON, H. B. Views of minority of Committee on Territories, adverse toH. 10990, to provide government for Hawaii. January 23, 1899.(In H. Rep. 1808, p. 7,8, 55th Congress, 3rd session. In v. 1).

HITT, R. R. Report from Committee on Foreign Affairs, adverse to H. R. 162,calling for draft of treaty of annexation between U. S. and Hawaii,and statement as to authority of President for contracting to paybond creditors of Hawaii. January 22, 1898. 1 p. (H . Rep. 230,55th Congress, 2d session. In v. l).

__ Report from Committee on Foreign Affairs, adverse to H. R. 175, in-quiring as to authority of President for contracting to pay bondcreditors of Hawaiian Government in treaty of annexation. January 27,1898. 1 p. (H. Rep. 283, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 2 ) .

HITT, R. R. Report from Committee on Foreign Affairs, favoring H.R.J. 259,for annexing Hawaiian Islands, May 17, 1898. 119 pp. map.( H . Rep. 1355, pt. 1, 55th Congress, 2d session. In v. 5) Stat. L.v. 30, p. 750.

Selected Reference in U. S. Government Documents - 2

KNOX, W. S. Report from Committee on Territories, amending H. 10990, to pro-vide government for Hawaii; with views of minority. January 23,1899. 8 pp. (H. Rep. 1808, 55th Congress, 3d session. In v. 2 ) .

__ Report from Committee on Territories, amending H. 2972, to providegovernment for Hawaii. February 12, 1900, 106 pp. ( H . Rep. 305,56th Congress, 1st sess. In v. 2; 4022).

Report from Committee on Territories, amending S. 222, to providegovernment for Hawaii, so as to substitute text of H. 2972. March 7,1900. 1 p. (H. Rep. 459, 56th Congress, 1st session. In v. 3; 4023)Stat. L. v. 31, p. 141.

MELVILLE, F. W. Letter in regard to value of Hawaiian Islands and callingattention to prize essay, Protection of Commerce during War, pre-pared for Royal Service Institution of London by Captain Winter;presented by Mr. Morgan. June 24, 1898. 2pp. ( S . Doc. 315, 55thCongress, 2d session. In v. 26) .

__ Views as to strategic and commercial value of Nicaraguan Canal,future control of Pacific Ocean, strategic value of Hawaii, and itsannexation. 1898. 33 pp. (This edition with covers ordered print-ed by Senate, March 4, 1898). ( S . Doc. 188, 55th Congress, 2dsession. In v. 11, March 14, 1898).

SCHOFIELD, J. M. Letter relative to annexation of Hawaiian Islands; Presentedby Mr. Morgan. January 17, 1898. 2 pp. (S . Doc. 62, 55th Congress2d session. In v. 3).

STATE DEPARTMENT. Treaty of annexation of Hawaii, signed Washington, June 16,1897. June 18, 1898. 7 pp. (Senate Executive E. 55th Congress, 1st

session.) (In Senate Journal, p. 181-183, 55th Congress, 1st session).

TREASURY DEPARTMENT. Annexation of Hawaiian Islands (text of joint resolution).July 16, 1898. 2 pp (Dept. Circular 139, 1898, Division of Customs).

__ Estimates of appropriations to carry out act to provide governmentfor Hawaii. May 9, 1900. ln. ( S . Doc. 348, 56th Congress, 1stsession. In v. 33, 3875.)

From Congressional Record;

55th Congress. 1st session. Bills to provide for annexation of Hawaii (see bills S. 2263}H. R. 3558, 3943; H. Res. 45, 53.)

55th Congress. 3d session. Bills to provide government for Hawaii (see bills S. 4893; H . R . 10990.)

56th Congress, 1st session.Bills to provide government for Hawaii (see bills S. 222, H.R. 2972.)Bill to amend act to provide government for Hawaii (see bill S. 4650.)

Selected Reference In U. S. Government Documents - 3

Miscellany;

CULLOM, S. M. Hawaiian Annexation, Speech of Hon. S. M. Cullom of Illinoisin the Senate of the U. S . , March 1, 1899. Wash., 1899, 20 p.

FINLEY, DAVID E. Government for the Territory of Hawaii. Speech of Hon.David E. Finley, of South Carolina, in the House of Representatives,Wednesday, April 4, 1900. Wash., 1900. 22 pp.

KNOX, W. S. Government for the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. Knox from the Com-mittee on Territories, submitted the following reports to accompanyH. R. 2972; (H. Rep. 305} 56th Congress, 1st session.)

U. S. CONGRESS. 2d session, 55th Congress, 1898 (Speeches on Hawaii).

U. S. HAWAIIAN COMMISSION. The report of the Hawaiian Commission, appointedin pursuance of the "Joint resolution to provide for annexing theHawaiian Islands to the U. S. " approved July 7, 1898. Wash.,Gov't Printing Office, 1898. 164 pp.

The above list was prepared by Miss Charlotta Hoskins andMiss Janet Bell, of the University of Hawaii Library Staff,June 22, 1944)