in substance that the question of statehood for Hawaii be deferred in view of the international situation. The committee found in this report that Hawaii at that time met all the requirements of statehood. During the war we in the Territory devoted all of our efforts to the prosecution of the war and did not press for statehood.

Immediately after the war the investigation to which Mr. Larcade referred took place. This brought the case for statehood for Hawaii up to date in this very complete record of every aspect of our life. Mr. Larcade has asked that the recommendations of that subcommittee be incorporated in this record.

In the Eightieth Congress, the Public Lands Committee held extensive hearings in order to develop the attitude of the people of the States. I wish to call your attention to the testimony of the Secretary of the Interior, particularly of Admiral Nimitz and of General Charles P. Herron. I am sure that if it were not in the national interest, neither of these men would have taken the position he did in his testimony.

Subsequent to that the Public Lands Committee reported unanimously that Hawaii be admitted to the Union as a State. That is this report [indicating]. The bill passed the House on June 30, 1947, by a vote of 196 to 133 and went to the Senate and the Senate held extensive hearings, but postponed action until such members of the committee as desired could go to Hawaii.

Now, we come to a new session of Congress, a new Congress. I appeal to you on the basis of this testimony, Mr. Chairman, for prompt action on this question.

The people of Hawaii favor statehood overwhelmingly. I am sure that if there were a plebiscite held today it would be at least 4 to 1 in favor of statehood. There is not a single organization of any consequence in Hawaii that does not support the admission of Hawaii to the Union as a State, and does not feel it would be very much to the advantage of not only Hawaii but to the Nation as a whole.

Many of the leading national, civic, patriotic, educational, and commercial and labor organizations of the Nation have gone on record in favor of the admission of Hawaii to the Union as a State.

We feel, Mr. Chairman, that we have been promised statehood. For many years we have been led to believe that once we meet the requirements of statehood we would be admitted to the Union, and enjoy the advantages of that status.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from Hawaii.

What are the arguments of the fourth of the population that do not favor statehood at this time?

Mr. FARRINGTON. I think the opposition to statehood stems from two considerations, and this finds expression not only in the Territory, but finds expression among some of the people of the States. The first of these is that Hawaii is is noncontiguous, and that to admit Hawaii to the Union as a State would change the character of our country.

That argument was advanced by the late Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler in the last Congress. I feel that question was answered in 1898 when Hawaii was incorporated in the Union as an integral part thereof, and in 1900 when we were made a Territory with all the implications of that form of government. I do not think that the geographic consideration should be the determining factor in the question of state

hood. The question involves principally considerations of loyalty and ability to deal with the problems of self-government. If not, and if noncontiguity is a question, then contiguity operates the same way. You might argue very well that because Canada and Mexico are contiguous to the United States then they qualify for statehood. Considerations of distance no longer influence the consideration because you can get to Hawaii from Washington in 20 or 24 hours or less.

The other argument is the one that is based upon race. That is what prompted the opposition that expressed itself in this hearing. Hawaii's people have been drawn from the Pacific area. In the industrial development of the East people were brought from European countries. We drew our people from the Pacific area.

Today our population consists of more than half a million people, 90 percent of whom are American citizens. They are roughly divided into three parts. One-third of the people are Caucasian or European origin; a third are Japanese origin, and the balance are of mixed origin. That includes the Hawaiians, part Hawaiians, the Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and there is a scattering of Polynesians and some Micronesians.

Every committee which has examined the record of our population has agreed that without regard to race they have met the highest standards of American citizenship, and that Hawaii is in fact a dramatic and effective demonstration of how successfully the democratic system can be employed to bring people of diverse racial origins together. Mr. ASPINALL. May I ask one more question?

Mr. FARRINGTON. Yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. From which one of these groups do most of the oppositions come?

Mr. FARRINGTON. The opposition comes mostly from those who distrust the Japanese. It stems from the fears that existed for the most part before the war. Some people felt, and wrongfully, that this part of our population would be loyal to Japan in the event of war. That question has been, I think, completely answered by the record of the war.

Mr. REDDEN. Mr. Farrington, in reference to your statement that 4 to 1 of the citizens on the Island of Hawaii would approve statehood now, I would like to say, if that is true, their position is more unanimous on that point than I believe you could get any State in America on anything.

Mr. FARRINGTON. There is no question about that.

Mr. LEFEVRE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REDDEN. Yes.

Mr. LEFEVRE. I wonder if Mr. Farrington would care to comment on the telegrams he received from the senator of Hawai? Mr. FARRINGTON. I would be glad to comment on that.

Hawaiian legislature consists of 15 senators and 30 representatives. On Tuesday, I believe, the senate adopted the resolution which was transmitted to the chairman by the legislature, and on Wednesday the house adopted the same resolution urging that prompt action be taken on statehood. The only person voting against that measure was Senator Hill, of Hawaii. I do not believe Senator Hill represents either

the people of the Island of Hawaii who send him to the legislature, and I know he doesn't represent the people of the Territory when he takes that position. I believe it is probably prompted by considerations other than what is in the interests of the entire people of the Territory. He offers nothing to substantiate his position.

The question of communism and communistic influence was very extensively explored by Senator Cordon when he went to Hawaii last January. It was explored by the Department of Justice and, I am sure, by the Department of the Interior. The business people of the Territory would not take the position they do if they did not feel Hawaii itself fully capable of dealing with that problem.

Mr. REDDEN. I want to say for the benefit of the record that I listened to the hearings in the Eightieth Congress on this subject. We had witnesses appearing before this committee who represented the military establishments of this Nation, men who were there at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, men who had lived in Hawaii for years, men who know the life of the people of Hawaii, men whose loyalty and patriotism to this country had not been questioned either in war or in peace.

In addition to that we had many witnesses from departments who made investigations with respect to the question now before us.

I think one of the finest statements I ever saw on the subject was that of Secretary Krug who just before making the statement completed a trip to Hawaii. I do not know how many times the record shows he has been there on other occasions, but all these witnesses, without question, and unequivocally, recommended statehood for Hawaii.

I have not had the privilege of going to Hawaii. I cannot speak from personal observations but sitting as a hearer of the facts, so far as I am concerned, Hawaii has made out a case for statehood beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee go into executive session.

Mr. O'NEILL. I second the motion.

Mr. REDDEN. You have heard the motion.

All in favor of the motion say "aye."

(There was a general affirmative vote.)

Mr. REDDEN. The motion is carried.
We will excuse the audience.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 p. m., the committee adjourned to go into executive session.)

STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1949

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 11:30 a. m., Hon. Clair Engle presiding. Present: Messrs. Engle, Murdock, Morris, Bentsen, Baring, Mrs. Bosone, Messrs. Marshal, O'Neill, Aspinall, Miles, Welch, Crawford, Lemke, Barrett, Lefevre, Miller, D'Ewart, Sanborn, Bartlett, Farrington, and Fernós-Isern.

Mr. ENGLE. This is a bill to enable the people of Hawaii to form a constitution and State government and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. It has been reported with amendments by the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Possessions.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is the committee in full session?

Mr. ENGLE. The committee has been in full session. The Chair recognizes Mr. Farrington, the Delegate from Hawaii.

Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the bill reported last Thursday by unanimous vote of the Subcommittee on Territories is identical with the bill that was ordered reported by unanimous vote by the Public Lands Committee in the spring of 1947 and with the bill that was passed by the House on June 30, 1947, with the exception of three minor amendments.

One appears on the bottom of page 20. It is the amendment to section 10 and extends the jurisdiction of the Federal district courts down to certain islands to our south over which this country has jurisdiction and which are very sparsely populated and whose exact status from the standpoint of the courts is not well defined as yet.

Mr. LEMKE. Where is this amendment?

Mr. FARRINGTON. It is on the bottom of page 10. I think that takes. in Johnson Island and various atolls to the south. The second amendment is on page 25, where the section is redrafted to conform with the changes in the judicial code enacted by the last Congress. The third amendment appears at the end of section 17 and reinforces the provisioning of the national parks, continuation of this title to land they now hold in Hawaii. The committee acted on the basis of very extensive testimony that has been given to at least five different committees of Congress which have explored this question.

It gave due notice of the hearing and those who desired to appear testified. There was about four witnesses, I believe all of whom were members of the House and declared in favor of statehood, the other witnesses being the representatives of the Department of the Interior.

49

I will be glad to answer any questions if there are any, Mr. ChairThe subject has been very thoroughly explored and I certainly hope the committee will act to report the bill out today.

man.

Mr. ENGLE. Any questions?

Mrs. BOSONE. I make the motion we report the bill out favorably. Mr. LEFEVRE. Second the motion.

Mr. ENGLE. Is there any discussion? If there is no discussion those in favor say "Aye", those opposed "No."

Mr. MORRIS. No.

I have I am still

I want to explain my vote for the record here. I voted against this bill last time it came up. I may change my vote this time. some misgivings about this bill and always have had. studying the matter. I am very anxious that the people in Hawaii be given status of statehood if that is not going to be of injury to the rest of the United States.

When we were founded here, when we first started out as a Nation, we were built on the theory and foundation of having a contiguous territory here, building a new state and new Nation here on this particular continent.

Now when we get away from that and depart from that and reach out away from the original shores of our country, that fact alone requires the most careful study and consideration. I am giving careful study and consideration as an individual member of this committee and of this Congress and naturally it would be most pleasing to me personally if I could find myself in the position of agreeing with the rest of you ladies and gentlemen on this committee and I hope that I may be able to satisfy my conscience and vote with you when this comes up on the floor this time, but at this time I must record a "No" vote because I have great misgivings about this policy of our Nation reaching out away from this particular continent and taking on new territory as States.

I want to make the observation at this time.

Mr. ENGLE. The action of the committee is favorable, the gentleman from Oklahoma voting "No." The bill is favorably reported. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee proceeded to further business.)