that this is an old-fogy notion. It is not; it is new. That idea is only a hundred years old, and nations are thousands and thousands of years old, and all of them before we established that principle enunciated the doctrine that might made right. It is not an old-fogy idea. Is it to be abandoned in its youth? Is this great Government to recede from that splendid position and to take its first step in wrong, in crime, as a people, by overturning the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and without the consent of those people force them to become part of this Union? Oh, Mr. President, I hope not.

Around this doctrine is the idea that comes along with it, that wherever our flag is planted there it shall forever remain. It sounds fine, it is good Fourth of July stock, that wherever the American soldier has fallen and been buried that region shall become part of this country. Mr. President, this Government is maintained for the living, not for the dead. What can we do to contribute to the happiness and prosperity and comfort of our people alive? is the problem for us to solve. No such sentiment as that, based on bad morals, as it seems to me, can ever take hold of the people of the United States.

Our sons' bodies lie moldering in the soil of Cuba; and yet, because they do, is that a reason why we should annex that island against the will of those people and force them to become a part of this Government? Would we not build a higher, a grander, and a more splendid monument to the men who fall upon the soil of Cuba if we there establish a free republic, if we there say to those people: "Govern yourselves under a constitution like ours, and we will see that no nation interferes with you?" What grander monument could be erected to the heroes of the Maine than the construction of three republics where Spanish despotism has heretofore cursed the earth—in Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands, and Cuba? The Malays and the Cubans are capable of self-government under a protectorate, or, hardly that, for the moral power of our position would be so strong that no protectorate would be necessary. An intimation on our part that no nation should interfere with the government adopted by the people of those

islands would be enough, and that would be a grander tribute to our dead than the mere sentiment that because their bones rest in that soil we will conquer and subjugate an unwilling people.

But, Mr. President, what is the reason we want to annex these islands? The military reason, the naval reason, is not good. It has not been sustained by argument; it has been absolutely refuted and destroyed. Some have said these islands. possess commercial advantages; that they are rich in tropical products, and therefore we will annex them, so that we may grow tropical products within our own borders.

Certain reasons were urged in the public prints and in executive session by the advocates of annexation, and I regret very much that we have to go outside of this Chamber to find what induces them to support this measure. It seems remarkable that a great and momentous question like this should have no defenders on this floor. It is simply stated that a majority will vote for it. That is the entire plea in its behalf. It is remarkable that a majority will vote for it when in sentiment and at heart a majority of this body are opposed to it. The excuse is given that the President is pushing the matter; that he has for a time abandoned his Executive functions to interfere with legislation; that Senators are constantly importuned and sent for and lectured to compel them to vote for this iniquitous measure, and that such influences pursuade men to insist on staying here under the discomforts of hot weather, induce men to vote against their own clear judgment, against the interests of their country, and in favor of abandoning the policy of a century merely to acquire territory and a people unfit to assimilate with us or become a part of this great Republic.

Such is the situation. Induced by these arguments, of course you are dumb. You can not tell your true reason, and you have no other, and so you say, "Talk as long as you choose; we can not meet your argument, but we are going to beat you anyhow." I do not blame you for being silent. I would be silent if I had been bulldozed by a President, contrary to my convictions, to vote for that which I did not

approve. It is the only way you can account for your silence. You have no honest argument. You dare not tell the real reason. So you sit here or run into the cloakroom to prevent being harried by the truth and to escape the chastisement which you deserve.

There are only four of you present, on the average-six or eight at the outside-and you have nothing to say. Keep silent. We will present this great question to the American people. It is better for you to remain silent than to tell the truth. It is better for you to sit in your seats or escape to the cloakroom or flee from the combat than it is to tell the American people that you do not dare to vote as you want to, because if you do you will not get the appointments of generals, majors, and captains for your friends.

Are there not some of you who have convictions on this subject? Are we forced to go into the public prints and tell what occurred in executive session to find out what your supposed reasons are? I do not expect we will smoke any of you out. We shall talk all next week, but we shall not bring one of you to the front, because you do not dare to appear in defense of your position. If you undertook to give reasons, they would not appeal to your reason and judgment; they would be so flimsy that you would be ashamed of them yourselves, and you dare not tell the truth.

It has been argued most earnestly, Mr. President, that if we do not take these islands Japan will take them. There is one thing certain: Our relations have been such with Japan for the last fifty years that Japan will never interfere with these islands so long as we express a desire that they maintain a government of their own. Japan disclaimed it. Then we are told that there was difficulty between these people and Japan last year. Mr. President, that difficulty was created by the unjust act of the sugar-raising missionaries who now control the Government of Hawaii, under the guns of American war vessels. They created that difficulty. They picked a quarrel with Japan as an excuse, in order to influence the American people. First, they said that England was going to

take the islands. England disclaimed it and said she had no desire to take them. In fact, the islands were taken once by England in 1843 and turned back. England refused to accept them. Nobody has seemed to want them.

Then it was said that Germany was going to take the islands. Germany disclaimed it; and, having gone the rounds and annexation not yet being accomplished, it was then said that Japan was going to take the islands. So they picked a quarrel with Japan and they turned back her immigrants, although since they instituted that quarrel with Japan they have admitted over 6,000 Japanese. They turned back her immigrants, claiming that their coming was in violation of the Hawaiian law, and yet since that time they have admitted over 6,000 Japanese laborers under the same conditions.

I talked with one of the officers of the Hawaiian Government upon this matter, and he said that their law required when immigrants arrived that they should have $50 each. He said those immigrants did not have it, or if they did have it he did not believe it was their own money; that they had $50 drafts on the bank of Honolulu, and the officers believed that they would go and cash the drafts at the bank and return the money to the people who had furnished it. I said, "Why did you not cash the drafts and give them the money?" said, "We did in some cases give them the money, as we have done since." But there was no indication and no proof that it was not their money. However, since then the Hawaiian Government have admitted over 6,000 Japanese under these same conditions, showing conclusively that they picked this quarrel for the purpose of affecting sentiment in the United States.

He

Japan disclaims any desire to interfere. I will have placed in the RECORD a clear statement of this controversy; but I will first have read President Dole's interview, published in the New York Journal of the 24th of last January, on this same subject.

The Secretary read as follows:

"There is absolutely no foundation for these stories of Hawaii being menaced by Japan. There is absolutely nothing in it. There is nothing in the relations between our country and Japan that hurried me to America."

And yet for weeks and days the American people were humbugged with the statement that unless the United States annexed Hawaii Japan or some other nation would.

And Mr. Dole is reported to have also said, in answer to a question as to what would become of the present Government should the United States refuse to annex the islands:

"Well, the Republic is there. I don't know that anything would happen except that things will go on as usual. I don't see any immediate danger from possession by any other country."

And so, too, the "commercial" argument has ceased to be used. So that the reasons on which this annexation "scheme" were originally based, to a very considerable extent, have dropped entirely out, and we have mere sentiment left. The latest scheme to secure free sugar for the Hawaiian trust is to have Mr. Dole duplicate the visit of King Kalakaua here.

MR. PETTIGREW: I ask to have the Secretary read a statement in relation to the controversy between Japan and Hawaii with regard to this labor question. I propose to set at rest forever this talk that Japan is trying to capture the islands.

During the months of March and April, 1897, the Hawaiian Government refused permission to 1,185 Japanese subjects to land in Hawaii, and compelled the steamers which brought them to Hawaii to take them back again to Japan.

The first case was that of the Shinshiu-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on the 27th of February, 1897, having on board 864 Japanese immigrants, 463 of whom were expelled.

The second case was that of the Sakura-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on March 19, 1897, having on board 315 Japanese immigrants, 164 of whom were expelled.

The third case was that of the Kinai-maru, which arrived at Honolulu on the 9th of April, having on board 684 Japanese immigrants, 558 of whom were expelled.

All of the persons thus expelled while in Hawaii were detained on shore and practically deprived of their liberty. They were not allowed to hold communication with their friends and countrymen in Hawaii, or to employ lawyers or agents or to take legal advice. During their detention they were examined by the Hawaiian minister for for