S ff 
 
 I 
 
 .-41..-: 
 
 Author . 
 
 Title 
 
 Imprint. 
 
 10 — 47372-2 OFO 
 
THE 
 
 Annexation of Hawaii 
 
 AN ADDRESS BY 
 
 Hermann Eduard Von Holst, Ph.D. 
 
 HEAD PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 
 
 DELIVERED" BEFORE 
 
 THE COMMERCIAL CLUB 
 
 OF CHICAGO 
 
 AT ITS 140TH REGULAR DINNER 
 AT THE AUDITORIUM HOTEL 
 
 JANUARY 29, 1898 
 
A\ 
 
THE 
 
 Annexation of Hawaii 
 
 AN ADDRESS BY 
 
 Hermann Eduard Von Holst, Ph.D. 
 
 Air. President and Gentlemen of the Commercial Club: 
 
 The question you have asked me to discuss is so many-sided and 
 complex that I can barelv touch what, to me, seem to be the most 
 important points. I, therefore, go into medias res without any fur- 
 ther introduction. , tt 
 
 What is the criterion for deciding the question; ought Hawan 
 to be annexed bv the United States? I answer, first, in a negative 
 way Not the wishes or interest of the islanders. Whether they 
 would be benefited or not bv annexation does not legitimately enter 
 into the question with so much as a feather's weight. The conten- 
 tion that to them it would be a great and unalloyed blessing can be 
 allowed to pass unchallenged by the American opponents of the 
 project. It would be Quixotic on the part of the people of the 
 United States to make this consideration the compass in deter- 
 mining upon the course of their policy. It is not only their un- 
 questionable right, but also their imperative duty to be guided 
 solely by their own interest. To prove that annexation is in then- 
 interest, it does not, however, suffice that some advantages would 
 be derived from it. The task incumbent upon the advocates of the 
 ratification of the treaty is to demonstrate that these advantages 
 are not overbalanced by disadvantages. To do this, they must not 
 let their eyes stav riveted to the present and the near future, but 
 look ahead a long way; they must not descant merely upon the 
 direct consequences, but also refute all rational apprehensions^ as 
 to the mediate effects ; they must deal not only with the certainties, 
 but also with the probabilities, and disprove the existence of con- 
 tingent dangers outweighing the promised benefits. Declamation. 
 
therefore, ought not avail ihcni anything before the forum of pubHc 
 opinion. They owe us sober and sound argument, based not upon 
 hypotheses and assumptions, but upon the facts. Not upon those 
 who want to "let well enough alone" does the burden of proof rest, 
 but upon them that urge upon us a new departure in our national 
 politics. j\Iind proo f. Mere assertions will not answer, or, at least, 
 ought to be spurned. By appealing to the prejudices and passions 
 of the people, they may possibly carry their point; but the more 
 they resort to this means, the more they will stand convicted of the 
 weakness, nay, the badness of their cause. If they honestly believe 
 it to be good, let them strictly confine themselves to pleading it 
 before the only tribunal that ought to be recognized as competent 
 — our reason. 
 
 Can the annexationists rightfully claim to have already accoip- 
 plished the task which 1 declared incumbent upon them? To judge 
 from a sentence in the President's message, he seems to think so 
 now, although during the pendency of the Presidential election 
 many people believed that some intimations of his warranted the 
 inference that he was not in favor of the project. With all due 
 respect, I beg to dififer \vith him toto coelo. The time at my dis- 
 posal does not permit my noticing' all the reasons adduced in sup- 
 port of the project, but 1 shall select those which I honestly believe 
 the annexationists themselves wish to be considered the weightiest. 
 If I should lay myself open to the charge of misrepresenting them, 
 or keeping some cardinal jjoint out of view, the sin of commission 
 or omission may spring from different causes, but it will not be due 
 to a conscious lack of fairness. I want tu meet them in the open 
 and without any advantage as to either sun or wind. And in trying 
 to refute them, and to make good my counter-propositions, 1 shall 
 scrupulously adhere to the rules I laid down for them: no declam- 
 ation, but argument, — no assertions unsubstantiated, either In- facts, 
 or experience, or the given circumstances, or the laws inherent in 
 human nature. — no recourse to overstatement and hipii coloriuir. — 
 no working upon the emotions. In a word, I shall, in perfect can- 
 dor, direct my efforts, not towards making out my case, but towards 
 ascertaining what the case is. 
 
 "Ilie peo])k' want annexation." To hear the more rabid annex- 
 ationists, this is so palpable that it is sheer folly to contest it. Some 
 of them go to the length of treating the alleged fact impliedlv as 
 a knock-down argument, rendering the searcli for anv further rea- 
 
sons a labor of supererogation. They take their stand upon the 
 idea that, as Fisher Ames said, as early as 1805, "in our country 
 'popularity' is the test of right and wrong." (F. Ames's Works, I., 
 344.) If the people had really adopted this maxim and consistently 
 acted it out, the United States would surely not be to-day what they 
 are, nav, it is very questionable whether such a political entity as 
 the United States of America would still be in existence. It is im- 
 possible to gainsay that, if one knows but the A B C of their his- 
 tory. To mention but two instances: I am yet to learn that the 
 Constitution framed by the Philadelphia convention and Jay's 
 treatv were popular. The adoption of the former, however, saved 
 the life of the republic, and enabled it to become the very prodigy 
 of history, and the ratification of the latter got the ship of state at 
 least out of the worst breakers, so that it could survive the roaring 
 sea of troubles and dangers into which it was plunged by the 
 revolutionary commotions in Europe. And the Constitution was 
 adopted and the treaty ratified because there were men who deemed 
 the prevailing opinion wrong, and dared to take issue with the 
 people. They appealed— to vary a little a formula well-known to 
 the student of the history of the Roman Catholic church — a pojiuk) 
 male infor mato ad populum mel ius, informandum , and their argu- 
 ments changed the minds of a sufficient number to turn the current. 
 If the day should ever come when no men could be found muster- 
 ing courage enough to live up to their convictions and to try to stem 
 a pernicious popular current, however mighty it be, and when the 
 f)eople, in their passion, infatuation or stolidity, should declare their 
 minds irrevocably closed against ungrateful arguments, the republic 
 would be irretrievably doomed, though its wealth and its power were 
 ever so great. Whatever smacks of an attempt to silence opposition 
 to annexation by pointing to the alleged will of the people, is, there- 
 fore, worse than preposterous. It is not contending for the principle 
 of democracy, but laying the ax to the very root of rational democ- 
 racy, which is discussion. The more the people are bent upon an- 
 nexation, the more it is the imperative duty of those who are con- 
 vinced that it would be injurious to speak out in no uncertain tones. 
 I, for one, shall do so, though I am, more than others, exposed to 
 obloquy, and the charge of being insensible to the interest and glory 
 of the republic, because I am not to the manner born— I shall do so, 
 because I conceive it to be a solemn obligation resting upon me as 
 a citizen, and because ^■ou have honored me with an invitation to 
 
present my views to you. Jt 1 believed the question of any less 
 moment, I could have justly held myself excused by the state of my 
 health. But the more I have pondered it, the more 1 have become 
 convinced that, with the exception only of the declaration of their 
 independence, the adoption of the Constitution and the slavery issue, 
 with its offspring secession, the American people have never been 
 confronted bv a more portentous prdblem. To many, this will seem 
 the wildest exaggeration. Undoubtedly, I may be mistaken, but 
 the conviction is based upon what thirty years of earnest study have 
 taught me of the laws governing the evolutionary history of the 
 United States. That the dangers with which it is fraught mostly 
 do not lie so plainly on the surface as to catch also the eye of the 
 superficial observer, and that they are not of a character calculated 
 strongly to impress the popular mind, renders them only the greater. 
 They are not pregnant with a near, obvious and acute crisis. If they 
 were, we would have less to apprehend. What a nation has to dread 
 the most are the slowly working poisons, wdiose ravages make but 
 an almost imperceptible progress. They work the corruption of the 
 blood, the corruption of the blood vitiates all the vital functions, the 
 vitiation of the vital functions undermines the power of resistance, 
 and drains the recuperative forces, and evolution becomes ever more 
 a slow gliding down towards the fatal end, not so much on account 
 of any specific disease as because of a lack of vitality. 
 
 No person having the slightest knowledge of the history of the 
 United States can dispute that it fully bears out what I asserted a 
 minute ago: the popularity of annexation is not a proper gauge to 
 measure its desirability by, and still less is it eo^ijgso conclusive. Even 
 if this were otherwise, it would, however, be still much too early in 
 the day for the opponents of the measure to stop contending against 
 it and respectfully bow themselves out. For, thus far, it is by no 
 means proved thaj_ the majority of the people really wish it. The 
 mere assertion of the advocates, be it ever so positive, does not ren- 
 der it an indisputable and demonstrated fact. Thus far, no au- 
 thentic expression of the people's views, wishes and will has been 
 elicited; nor will it be, unless the opponents forthwith begin to be- 
 stir themselves as vigorously as, with not very many exceptions, they 
 have been heretofore lethargic. Appearances, I admit, are so much 
 in favor of the assertion of the advocates that there is no difficulty 
 in accounting for their perfect good faith in making it. The ex- 
 planation of this phenomenon is, however, exceedingly simple. It 
 
is to be found in a trite truth, the appreciation of which usually 
 stands in an inverse ratio to its importance. A homely German 
 saying expresses it thus: "It takes but one man to make more noise 
 by slfouting than a hundred men that keep still." I am far from 
 contendino- that at present the majority of the people are averse to an- 
 nexation; but I do contend that a great many have never bestowed a 
 single thought on the question, and that an infinitely greater number 
 have not cared enough for it to make the slightest attempt at examm- 
 incr it with a view to forming really an opinion of their own. based 
 up'^on the facts accessible to them, and upon the arguments withm the 
 compass of their minds. They, so to say, let it go by default. This, 
 however, is the cause of more than half of the calamities that befall 
 democratic republics. Not the passions, and still less the vices, but the 
 indifference and indolence of the people as to public questions are the 
 main source of the dangers threatening the comomnwealth. I have 
 full faith in the principle of democracy to this extent : if the people are 
 induced to ponder and examine public questions with the serious- 
 ness and thoroughness commensurate to their importance, experi- 
 ence warrants our trusting that, as a rule, they will ultimately come 
 to a right decision. We need, however, but look up tbe figures of 
 the vo'tes on constitutional amendments to receive no uncertain 
 answer to the querv, whether momentous questions are always pon- 
 dered and examined by them in this manner. The incontestable 
 fact is that, unless the personal material interests are directly and 
 palpably affected, much time is needed and great efforts are required 
 to get them to do it. That they have done it, as to the case in hand, 
 no candid man can possibly aver. Politicians actuated by selfish 
 motives or bent upon what they conceive to be the party interest, 
 some business men with whom it is a self-evident proposition that 
 what benefits their own pocketbooks must also subserve the pubhc 
 interest, and honest enthusiasts of almost all conceivable varieties 
 have combined to build, kindle and fan to a bright blaze the annex- 
 ation fire, but the bulk of the people have been mere passive lookers- 
 on. Even those who have not been exactly indifferent, but more or 
 less interested and amused, have simply taken it for granted that it 
 is only the lusty bonfire, which it seems and is asserted to be. They 
 have seen no reason to go to the trouble of ascertaining for them- 
 selves that really no harm can come from it. The majority of the 
 Senate, by resolving to discuss the treaty with closed doors, has 
 done it's best to keep them in this frame of mind, until a change of it 
 
8 
 
 can no longer l)e of any use, l:)ecaiise they will find themselves con- 
 fronted by an accomplished fact. Under the specious plea of the 
 time-worn rules of the Senate, which, in this ])articular case, are 
 manifestly but hollow and rotten props, public opinion is to be de- 
 barred from asserting- itself to any purpose. I am the last man to 
 deny that this is the most effective strategic move the annexationists 
 could make. But does this indirect way of gagging public opinion 
 indicate that they honestly believe their cause need shun no criticism? 
 That their proceeding is technically warranted by the Constitution 
 cannot be disputed; but it is nex'crtheless the privilege, as well as 
 the duty, of every citizen not to rest satisfied with their assertion 
 that their armor is steel — and bullet-proof — but to test it himself. 
 
 That the Sandwich Islands are one of the fairest spots on God's 
 earth, and of considerable economical value, nobody gainsays. I, 
 however, hold myself justified in passing by this side of the ques- 
 tion, for the simple reason that all the economical advantages to be 
 derived from them can be secured without annexation, nay, are 
 secured already. That the future will change nothing in this respect 
 against the will of the United States is certain, because the immuta- 
 ble facts of the case render it palpably and eminently the interest of 
 the islands to maintain the established economic relation with this 
 country. 
 
 The second reason adduced for annexation is the alleged great 
 value of the islands from a -military point of view. Some weeks ago, 
 I was triumphantly told that, as to this, all our naval ol^cers are 
 agreed, and 1 raised great laughter at my expense by replying that 
 I could by no means recognize our naval officers as an authority 
 whose ijJse^tjixit settles this question. At the risk of meeting here 
 with the same fate, I repeat this declaration. A pnori^ our naval 
 ofificers cannot be considered wholly impartial witnesses. It is to be 
 presumed that they will be more or less bias'ed in favor of whatever 
 tends to increase the import of their vocation. This is no reproach, 
 but simply saying that even our naval officers are heirs to human 
 nature. Does the past history of mankind not warrant the state- 
 ment that tlie military have been fully as i)rone as other mortals to 
 view public problems through the medium of their class-interest? 
 Besides, it will have to b'e admitted to be at least a possibility that 
 the perspective of military men may be marred by taking a some- 
 what one-sided, what I should call a too technical view of it. Into 
 military questions of this character, largely enter factors which com- 
 
mon sense is fully capable of judging correctly. And, finally, I do 
 not hesitate to venture the assertion, though it may expose me to 
 the charge of egotism and arrogance — in military questions of this 
 character, also, historians can lay some claim to speaking as experts. 
 It goes without saying, that this does not extend to tactical and 
 strategic questions, partaking of a strictly technical character and 
 requiring a knowledge of practical details. But if they have studied 
 the military history of the world with open eyes, they must be per- 
 fectly familiar with and competent to judge of the general facts and 
 causes on which military strength or weakness necessarily depends. 
 In this respect, an able historian even holds vantage ground over 
 the majority of military men. If these are not also, to some extent, 
 historians, with a dash of statesmanship in their intellectual make- 
 up, their very mastery of the more technical sides of their profession 
 can easily become a film over their eyes as to these general facts and 
 causes. The historian, lacking this kind of knowledge, can only 
 take the bird's-eye view, and that does not ofifer such obstructions. 
 
 Let us, however, grant, for a moment, that the military value of 
 the islands is all our naval men claim. Ought that to determine us 
 in case material objections to annexation must be admitted to exist 
 in other respects? I think clearly not, because I confidently defy 
 any one to successfully refute the assertion that we can never have 
 a war unless it be of our own seeking, and, therefore, the advantage 
 would be merely a fictitious gain, so long as we do not put it to 
 improper and harmful use. So long as we do not demand of other 
 nations more than is justly our due, and do not force them to the 
 alternative of drawing their sword or letting their honor be trampled 
 upon, they, without a single exception, will never appeal to the 
 ultinm ratio. The reason is neither that they love us so much, nor 
 that they stand in such awe of our military resources, but simply 
 that they are not idiots. Unless their potentates and ministers are 
 idiots, they cannot fail to see that, in the given and unalterable con- 
 dition of things, even a successful war would be to them absolutely 
 barren of any advantages, and that even the most successful war 
 would impose upon themselves incalculable sacrifices. A cession 
 of territory is out of the question, for the territory of the United 
 States — with the exception of uncoveted Alaska — being compact 
 and extending over half a continent, the ceded strip of land would 
 be simply an earnest of eternally renewed wars till it was regained; 
 and the Franco-German war of 1870-71 has forever settled the ques- 
 
lO 
 
 ■ f 
 
 tion that the greatest war indemnity which can possibly be imposed 
 upon a vanquished country, falls far short of the expenses of the 
 victorious nation. For these reasons, the United States are the one 
 nation on earth whose peace is wholly in its own hands. 
 
 That we can, nevertheless, sooner or later be involved in a w^ar, 
 is unfortunately only too true. Therefore, it is proper to compare 
 our actual condition with what it will be after annexation. 
 
 Our Western coast, say the annexationists, is dangerously ex- 
 posed ; the way to it will be most efifectively blocked to every enemy 
 if Hawaii is ours, for the hold of no man-of-war is big enough to 
 steam from Asia or Australia over the vast Pacific without recoal- 
 ing, and that can be done only at Hawaii. It must be conceded 
 that there is some truth in this, but if we look a little closer we will 
 become satisfied that, after all, it does by far not amount to as much 
 as it would seem at first sight. And just as to that power with which- 
 we are the likeliest to clash, and whose navy is equal to the combined 
 naval forces of any other two powers, it is of the least consequence. 
 John Bull is still so large a land-holder on the Western coast of 
 America that he neednot defer striking a blow at us on the Pacific 
 till he has got his war-ships over from Asia and Australia. As to 
 all other powers, we would only gain som'e time by this coaling ques- 
 tion, valuable, indeed, but by no means of decisive import. There is 
 no means of effectively protecting our shipping but by an adequate 
 navy, and our seaports can be successfully defended only by efftcient 
 coast defenses. As to the creation of such a navy and such coast 
 defenses, the possession or non-possession of Hawaii is, however, 
 of no relevancy, and, in point of time, it requires not weeks or 
 months, but years. 
 
 In itself, Hawaii is of no military value whatever. This assertion 
 is fully endorsed by Captain Mahan, who is usually considered our 
 leading naval authority. He writes: "Military positions, fortified 
 posts, by land or by sea, do not by themselves confer control. Peo- 
 ple often say that such an island or harbor will give control of such 
 a body of water. It is an utter, deplorable, ruinous mistake." When 
 we have an adequate navy, then, but only then, Hawaii will indeed 
 constitute a p^int (fa^P^i o^ ^'^'^ mean value in its operations for the 
 protection of our shipping in the Pacific. This is true, but, it is only 
 half the truth. The reverse of the medal is, that to be adequate, our 
 navy would have to be considerably larger, if Hawaii is ours, than 
 if it is not ours. The reason is that we would need a navy large 
 
II 
 
 enough to protect not only onr shipping and our coasts but also 
 HawS If we ™ake it a formidable military stronghold as we 
 ": do according to the annexationists, any &-- ---^P"- 
 is likely, in case of war, to make tt a pnnc.pal object of attack, be 
 cause being at such a great distance from our real seat of power 
 its defense will be difficult, and necessitate the wthdrawmg of a 
 Le part of our naval forces from other points, thereby exposmg 
 usLre to telling blows, more especially affecting us econom.cally 
 Thit we would much rather suffer these than r.sk anythutg as o 
 Hawaii, admits of no doubt. For then we would not tlunk of tt only 
 fs a strategic point. We would consider our honor engaged, and 
 rati e th n'yieM as to this pomt of honor, we would submtt to any 
 sacrifices in money and in blood. This be.ng so, we are justified m 
 eeling perfectly Lre that, if we conclude to tek. P-ses^n ^ 
 Hawaii, we shall always be able to kem possession of it. That we 
 can do t, is, however, no proof that we o^ugJiS to put ourselves under 
 tte necessiJy of doing it. Ought we to consider the game worth 
 the candle? We are now, in a sense, practically invulnerable. The 
 re sons are so obvious that I cannot spare the time to eltic^a^e 
 them. Ought we, without any need, to acquire a spot at »hich an 
 enemy can hit us infinitely harder than anywhere else? If tlie 
 mothir o^Achilles had had forethought enough to bnng the whole 
 body of her baby into contact with the water of the Styx would the 
 hero have eagerlv snatched at the proffered gift of a heel, which 
 would not be tmpenetrable to the arrow of Paris? That .s wha we 
 are invited to do. The expense involved in rendering Hawan a 
 formidable military stronghold is comparatively of no moment He 
 decisive point, as to the military side of the question, is that what 
 at first sight seems to be a source of strength will, by directly and 
 indirectly acting as a drain upon our force, ultimately prove to be 
 a source of weakness. When we come to realize that, it will be too 
 late Other mistakes we can correct. This would be a step that 
 could not be retraced, and it is this that renders the issue of such 
 tremendous import. Not only during a war, but always public sen- 
 timent would see "honor" as an insurmountable obstacle in the way. 
 To make the best of a bad job, would be all that was left to us. 
 
 I said, a minute ago, very dehbcrately, we would burden our- 
 selves with it without any need. That this assertion meets only with 
 derision and indignation on the part of the annexationists I know 
 full well. Some of them believe, and all of them try to make us be- 
 
12 
 
 lieve, that we act, in a way, under compulsion, because if we do not 
 take Hawaii, most certainly some other power will — probably Eng- 
 land. For proofs, we ask in vain. The question why some other 
 power, especially England, did not take it long ago, although the 
 natives could never have offered any resistance worth speaking of, 
 remains unanswered. That the same cry has been raised every 
 time we were after some territory; that it has never been substan- 
 tiated; that it was most drastically disproved in the case of St. 
 Thomas by England's not offering a shilling for this "breeding place 
 of earthquakes and hurricanes" when we had failed to buy it, and 
 in the case of San Domingo — it is all of no avail. The cry has hardly 
 ever failed to have the desired effect. Small wonder, therefore, that 
 we hear it now. But I ask: Has not the time come, at last, when we 
 can afford to think high enough of our power as well as of our 
 dignity, not to let the cry "England!" have the effect upon us that 
 the red cloth has upon the bull? 
 
 Nor do 1 stop there. I can serve the annexationists with an 
 answer to the question why — if their assertion be true that Hawaii 
 is coveted by other nations — it has not been grabbed long ago. 
 Simply because all the world knew that the United States would 
 not be an indifferent looker-on. Ever since 1825, when, measured 
 by the standard of their present power, the United States were a 
 mere stripling, the notification — given, by the way, not only to the 
 European but also to the other American states (Mexico and Colum- 
 bia. See my Constitutional History of the United States, I., 428- 
 430) — that they would not "allow" and "permit" Cuba to pass into 
 the hands of any other power, has sufficed to prevent the material- 
 izing of the projects entertained in different quarters with regard to 
 the pearl of the Antilles. And about thirty years ago, though they had 
 but just emerged from the most gigantic civil war history knows of, 
 their pronouncing, without any blustering, but very firmly, the two 
 words *'we object," sufficed to make the French clear out of Mexico. 
 Is it, then, not a moral certainty that their categorical "hands ofif!'^ 
 would now be respected? It surely bespeaks neither levity nor pre- 
 sumption to assume that what more than half a century ago- was 
 justly deemed a sufficient curb upon the supposed covetousness of 
 the great European powers will not now prove too weak a bit upon 
 Japan, the new bug-bear with which the annexationists try to scare 
 us into annexation. 
 
13 
 
 This disposes also of an argument I heard the other day ad- 
 vanced by a distinguished Hawaiian. If I understood the gentle- 
 man correctly, his declaration was to this effect: If the United 
 States do not accede to our request, dissentions are sure to break 
 out among the ruling elements of the islands, resulting in eternal 
 intrigues with other powers, which it will be impossible to termm- 
 ate in any other way than by l^ringing about annexation by one of 
 them. It won't take the islanders long to come to the conclusion 
 that this is not the way to set their affairs to rights, because the 
 warning given by the United States to all other powers will have 
 stopped their ears to such solicitations. 
 
 The objection that the islands are a sovereign state, and that we 
 have no right to interpose our veto to their merging themselves into 
 any other sovereignty — more especially after having refused to take 
 them ourselves — does not hold water. It is exactly the same right 
 the United States exercised in regard to the Cuban and Mexican 
 question: the right to shape their international policy according to 
 their interests, and to declare in advance what this poUcy will be in 
 certain contingencies. If this policy runs counter to the supposed 
 interests of some other state, it is perfectly free, at its own risk, to 
 defy this policy. In this case, the ruling classes of the islands have, 
 moreover, only to blame themselves, if this puts them into a posi- 
 tion they do not like. They would have no right to complain, if we 
 were to dismiss their lamentations over the dire consequences they 
 declare to apprehend with the cold comifort to be derived from the 
 homely saying: You have to eat the soup you have chosen to cook 
 for yourselves. But I honestly believe they have no reason to lose 
 heart. The docility of the bulk of the population, combined with 
 the moral backing they are sure always to receive from the United 
 States, because the American people consider their own interests in 
 a measure involved in the problem, are a guaranty that it will be 
 possible to devise other ways to secure all that is really essential to 
 the welfare of the islands. 
 
 My last assertions seem to me so incontrovertible that I think 
 even all candid annexationists could not help endorsing them, 
 though ever so reluctantly, if it were not for one fact: the annexa- 
 tion of Hawaii does not mean the annexing merely of Hawaii. If 
 there be one prayer surpassing in practical wisdom and importance 
 all others, for nations no less than for individuals, it is this : Lead us 
 not into temptation. With Hawaii, however, we would annex temp- 
 
tation, and it is chiefly because of this that annexation is so enthusi- 
 astically urg'ed and so strenuously insisted upon. Undoubtedly the 
 annexationists want to get Hawaii for its own sake; but they in- 
 finitely more want it as a stepping stone, an opening, a new de- 
 parture in the general character of our international policy. And 
 they are only too right in assuming that, if they prevail now, the 
 question will no longer be whether, but only how fast the nation 
 will yield to the temptation. This is no baseless charge. It is daily 
 avowed in a hundred different ways. 
 
 I do not mean to assert that the bulk of the annexationists of 
 to-day are already now consciously driving at further annexations. 
 On the contrary, I believe that the ardor of the majority of them 
 would be considerably cooled if they could be made to realize how 
 likely this annexation is to lead to the annexation of other outlying 
 territory. I confess it is a rather bold assumption, that they do not 
 realize it, for it is so palpable that it requires almost an efifort 
 not to see it. The question of the annexation of Cuba is of older 
 date than that of the annexation of Hawaii, — all the "manifest 
 destiny" arguments apply to it much more manifestly, — all the 
 strategic lectures we are so liberally treated to in regard to 
 Hawaii are, in the main, but repetitions of the strategic lec- 
 tures in regard to Cuba, delivered tisque ad^nausearn^ to those 
 who sleep in their graves for many a year. Are there no men 
 within sight, eager to seize the first opportunity to rake all 
 these venerable heirlooms out of the historical lumber-room, 
 give them a fresh varnish, set them up and call upon the people to 
 come, see, admire, hurra'h, and "go it"? Will unsophisticated peo- 
 ple, then, not think that what was but yesterday accepted as sound 
 and convincing argument should to-day be allowed to pass as such? 
 The better they have learned the lesson, that, as up-to-date patriots, 
 they must consider Hawaii an exquisite relish, the more they will 
 be disposed to roll Cuba as a sweet morsel under their tongue. 
 L^Pi)etit yjent en mangeant And the veriest tyro in politics cannot 
 fail to discern how easily the actual condition of things in the hap- 
 less island may turn the perplexing Cuban problem into this chan- 
 nel, even without any aid from scheming politicians, and how many 
 arguments it would furnish appealing strongly to certain generous 
 and noble emotional tendencies, which are marked typical traits of 
 the American people. 
 
15 
 
 Attention had to be called, first, to Cuba, not because there is 
 any reason to believe that a considerable number of Americans 
 would deem the island the most desirable of all possible acquisitions. 
 That has completely changed since slavery was buried beneath half 
 a million graves. The next gust of annexation-wind is the likeli- 
 est to come from that quarter, because it depends largely on Spain 
 .and the Cuban patriots whether the annexation question is to come 
 to a head; while as to all other possible acquisitions, no. outside pres- 
 sure could be brought to bear upon public sentiment. But while 
 Cuba must be watched the closest, it would be a grievous mistake 
 to suppose that no other points of the horizon need watching. 
 Whenever men of annexation proclivities have been in our public 
 councils, they have found no difficulty in putting something nice on 
 -the annexation counter, and, whatever they offered, they always had 
 exactly the same plausible tale to tell in praising up their merchan- 
 dise. A senator, hampered for time to compose a speech of his own 
 on the necessity of taking Hawaii, could, for instance, read off nearly 
 verbatim President Grant's message on the annexation of San Do- 
 mingo, changing only the names; not one of the points that are 
 material in the eyes of his brother-annexationists would be missing. 
 The astounding impulse commerce and shipping would receive, the 
 commanding military position, the isthmus transit, the voluntary 
 offer by the government, the "yearning" of the people, the noble 
 humanitarian ends to be attained, "the reliable information" about 
 the unnamed European power anxious to secure the tit-bit and 
 •offering fabulous sums for it — it is all there. 
 
 Am I asked whether I think I could scare the American people 
 by conjuring up historical ghosts, the San Domingo project hav- 
 ing been shelved twenty-seven years ago? I ask in reply: Is that a 
 guaranty that it will never again be taken down from the shelf, 
 especially if the modernization of the Senate, \yhich, of late years, 
 has been such a fruitful source of inspiring delight and duly appre- 
 •ciated blessing to the people oi the United States, should go on as 
 it promises to do? If Providence should bless San Domingo with 
 another Baez, a second edition, revised or unrevised, of the special 
 message of March 23, 1870, would by no means be an impossibility. 
 The shelving of the Danish Islands is of a little older date, and, lo 
 and behold, in June, 189G, the platform manufacturers sprang on 
 the unsuspecting National Republican Convention at St. Louis the 
 following resolution: "By the purchase of the Danish Islands, we 
 
i6 
 
 should secure a proper and much-needed naval station in the West 
 Indies;" and the junior senator of Massachusetts is reported ta 
 have a bill ready in his pocket, calling upon the party to make good 
 its implied promise to materialize this ghost, that 'has been laid these 
 thirty years. 
 
 Take a warning. It is very rash to speak of ghosts as to annex- 
 ation. You mistake your men if you suppose that, when beaten 
 ofi at one point, they will resign themselves to stay defeated as to 
 that point. 
 
 Nor is that the only reason why there is no telling what surprises 
 may be in store for us if we proceed upon the theory that they will 
 ever be at the end of their tether. The sublimated mind of your 
 full-fledged annexationist easily alights upon projects utterly baffling 
 the puny imagination of common mortals in its wildest flights. The 
 purchase of Alaska made the mouth of Robert J. Walker water for 
 Iceland. And where does the spirit of our people draw a line to 
 extravagance in this respect? Speaking in the House of Represent- 
 atives on the bill making the approi)riation for the Alaska purchase,. 
 Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, stated the reasons commending the 
 treaty thus : "That we are a land-stealing people by nature, and that 
 our propensities and our manifest destiny are to steal land, until our 
 'abutments,' as the gentleman (Donnelly, of Minnesota) says, shall 
 be one on the Atlantic and the Pacific, and also upon the Arctic and 
 the tropic seas. I know how that argument appeals to our Fourth 
 of July natures; I know how that is calculated to carry us ofT in 
 that direction, and how I am and how everybody else is disposed 
 to fall into this kind of thing. That is one thing we have to en- 
 counter in dealing with this matter. Our propensities as Saxons, 
 our vanity as Americans, our pride as a great and progressive na- 
 tion, our love of dominion, our lust of power, our self-glorification, 
 our notions of what a great thing in diameter our country ought to 
 be, and, above all, our ideas that it is as impatriotic and out of 
 fashion to hold that our future glory is not to be found in owning 
 all the continents and the islands between ; all impel us to take this 
 land." (Congressional Globe, 2d Session, 40th Congress, Append., 
 p. 377.) The bold scofTer thereby provoked the following retort from 
 his colleague, Mr. Spalding: "Sir, as an American citizen, and a Re- 
 publican at that, I deny that any territory upon this western continent 
 is to be deemed foreign to the government of the United States when 
 it seeks to extend its limits. I believe that if anything under heaven 
 
17 
 
 be fated, it is that the American flag shall wave over every foot of 
 this American continent in course of time. This proud Repubhc 
 will not culminate until she rules the whole American continent, 
 and all the isles contiguous thereunto." Here Mr. Pike, of Maine, 
 interjected: "Including .South America." Mr. Spalding continued: 
 ''Including South America, by all means." (Congressional Globe, 
 2d Session, -iOth Congress, p. 3810.) 
 
 There you have the Simon-pure annexationist. He does not 
 stop short anywhere, nothing is too mad for him; and, judging from 
 the beating of the people's pulse in the past, he never doubts that 
 he will find a goodly number of approving listeners, whenever he 
 shall see fit to begin in good earnest the agitation for the next step 
 forward. And with every inch of ground he and his soberer fellow- 
 workers — I am tempted to say his soberer co-religionists — are al- 
 lowed to gain, their strength and power of mischief increases. Who 
 can gainsay that, seeing how the annexation speeches and editorials 
 teem with the assertion that our having annexed so much is in itself 
 irrefragable proof that we ought to annex more. They know only 
 too well how telling an argument that is with people, who are at 
 no pains to let their thoughts go any further than they are led. 
 
 In spite of all I have said on this head, the danger of further 
 annexations causes me the least alarm. I am enough of an optimist 
 to hope that at the next occasion the level-headed men and women 
 will not wait until the eleventh hour ere they step forward and 
 speak out forcibly enough to arouse the people into assefting their 
 sober second thought in so peremptorv^ a manner that their official 
 representatives cannot help minding it. I am infinitely less hopeful 
 in regard to another side of the question, which is even of vastly 
 greater import. 
 
 Captain Mahan says: "This is no mere question of a particular 
 act, but of a principle, a policy, fruitful of many future acts." That 
 is true, too true, and the scope of it is appalling. 
 
 Further territorial acquisitions are only an incidental feature of 
 the irresistible temptation which the annexationists want to foist 
 upon the United States by the annexation of Hawaii. It is of the 
 most sweeping character, comprising all their relations as a political 
 entity with the rest of mankind as poHtically organized. In a con- 
 versation on the question I had the other day, a gentleman formu- 
 lated the issue thus: "Washington's warning counsels in his Fare- 
 well Address as to out international relations were conformable to 
 
i8 
 
 the then condition, and the American people have done wisely to 
 heed them thus far;- now,- however, .we ,have outgrown this condi- 
 tion of things, the time has come to close the provincid era of our 
 histor}- (a leading daily paper, of Chicago 'goes it one better,' sub- 
 stituting 'parbchial' for provincial); henceforth it is our interest, 
 and therefore our duty, to assert ourselves to the full extent of our 
 actual power as a determining formative factor in all the world's 
 concerns and problems." That sounds so plausible and touches so 
 strongly two very resonant and most dangerous chords in the popu- 
 lar mind, that to consider the refutation easy is to concede the vic- 
 tory to the oponent. 
 
 Fisher Ames said, in his famous speech of April 28, 1796, on 
 Jay's treaty: "The treaty alarm was purely an address to the im- 
 agination and prejudices of the citizens, and not on that account 
 the less formidable. Objections that proceed upon error in fact or 
 calculation may be trf ^|ed and exposed ; but such as are drawn from 
 the imagination or addressed to it elude definition, and return to 
 domineer over the mind after having been banished from it by truth." 
 (F. Ames's Works, II., 47.) And in the Massachusetts ratification 
 convention of 1788, he asserted: "Faction and enthusiasm are the 
 instnmients by which popular governments are destroyed." ( Chap - 
 JiU-. 4«* II., 7.) What is said in the first quotation of objections drawn 
 from or addressed to imagination equally applies to arguments m 
 favor of a measure. 
 
 The tremendous import of the truths embedded in these two sen- 
 tences is fully realized by but very few. Our typical politicians hold 
 them in utter contempt, if they are not as unintelligible to them as 
 Chinese, though the reasons rendering imagination and enthusiasm 
 so dangerous are obvious enough. Imagination is so formidable a foe, 
 because "men are not to be reasoned, out of an opinion they have 
 not reasoned themselves into." (- Chaptt^r II., 95.) Enthusiasm, 
 however, is the offspring of imagination and sentiment. Democra- 
 cies have so much more serious consequences to apprdiend from it 
 than peoples living under a different form of government, because 
 enthusiasm is intensely contagious, to resist the infection is to 
 placard oneself as deficient in patriotism, and in democracies that 
 is so momentous a charge that considerable nerve is required not to 
 wince under it. To combat with the blandishments of imagination 
 and the ardor of popular enthusiasm arrayed against one is, there- 
 fore, indeed to fight against heavy odds. And what can appeal more 
 
19 
 
 powerfully to the imagination, what is better calculated to arouse 
 popular enthusiasm than this idea of taking a leading hand in all 
 the great affairs of the world! We can do it, and therefore we musj 
 do it, partly for our own sake, because if we do not do it we will 
 necessarily be distanced in the race for empire and all that it im- 
 plies by the other competitors for the stakes, and partly because we 
 haye a great and glorious mission to fulfill. 
 
 Aye, sir, a great and glorious mission has been entrusted by 
 Proyide'nce'to the people of this republic, and they will become 
 recreant to it if they listen to the voice of the tempter. They haye 
 thus far worked effectiyely at it by mincling their own business. Now 
 they are to hitch the republic to the entangled politics of the rest of 
 the world so as to affect it in every way by their yicissitudes, 
 whether they are really any of its business or not. Do you know 
 what the heaviest incubus is lying upon the nations of Europe? Not 
 emperors and kings, not aristocracies, not remnants of feudalism, 
 not class distinctions, not lack of liberty, not the antagonism be- 
 tween poor and rich, but what the intemational history of Europe 
 in the by-gone centuries has bequeathed to them. This heirloom 
 forged by the past of that continent, is an unbreakable chain, drag- 
 ging them, jointly a^d severally, all the while down and along by 
 its terrible weight. This republic of ours came into being practi- 
 cally uaencumbered by this chain, and this is one of the cardinal 
 causes to which it owes the wonderful possibilities vouchsafed to it 
 by Providence. Unbound by the past, it has been free to shape its 
 course with a single view to its true interests, and it can remam 
 thus free to the end of time. And now it shall renounce this inestim- 
 able privilege and insist upon having its arms, too, riveted to the 
 curseful chain to satisfy a delusive megalomaniac itch. 
 
 Yes, delusive ! They grossly deceive themselves who believe that 
 this is the way to secure to our prestige the luster, and to our in- 
 fluence the weight, to which our actual power entitles us. The 
 longer we continue what they are pleased to term the provincial or 
 colonial period of our histor\\ the surer and the more these ends 
 will be attained. The new international part we are urged to play 
 would consume no inconsiderable part of our strength, and it would 
 necessarily result not only in what would be deemed sucesses, but 
 also expose us to occasional checks; for so overtopping our power 
 is, after all, not yet, that we would always have it all our own way. 
 On the other hand, leaving well enough alone, continuing to travel 
 
20 
 
 on the old roads that have conducted us to where we are now, our 
 
 actual strength will and must go on increasing at least at the rate 
 
 it has done heretofore. Prestige and influence, however, are not 
 
 commensurate to the degree of meddlesomeness, but depend solely 
 
 on the actual power, and our greater actual power could every time 
 
 be brought to bear with its full weight on questions that are really 
 
 our business, i. e., palpably affect, not our imaginary and -faetiow^ ^^^^^''^^^'^ 
 
 but our real interests. We rest under no obligation, nay, we have ' 
 
 no right to do aught contravening these for any missionary purposes 
 
 whatever. To do this would be pure and simple Quixotism, and 
 
 Quixotism of an infinitely more vicious type than that of the noble 
 
 knight of La Mancha ; not a generous folly, but a portentous crime 
 
 — a crime not only against ourselves, but also against mankind. For 
 
 tiie stricter we are guided only by our own true interests, the more 
 
 effectively do we serve the true interests of mankind. 
 
 Look at what our contemned provincial policy has accomplished 
 already. An Austrian minister calls, in tones of deep distress, upon 
 the nations of Europe to make a joint stand against the unbloody 
 onslaughts of the transatlantic giant. ^ He not only sets their tillers 
 of the soil a-squirming, but is also changing with bewildering rapid- 
 ity from a buyer into a seller of manufactured goods. Nor is this 
 due solely to the unsurpassed natural resources of his patrimony 
 and his ingenuity and industry. He can bend all his energies to the 
 legitimate tasks of civilized man. They are condemned to spend an 
 awful and ever-increasing part of their strength upon maintaining 
 among each other the equilibrium of destructive force. This end- 
 less chain must ultimately put them at our mercy. No less an au- 
 thority than Moltke has frankly confessed that it cannot go on so 
 forever. No, it cannot, and primarily for this reason, that the eco- 
 nomical competition of nations not weig"hted down by this endless 
 chain must, in the end, become crvishing. Thus the best interests of 
 mankind are served in an eminent degree by the economical pres- 
 sure we exercise upon the leading nations of Europe. For it steadily 
 pushes them towards the line, where they must turn over a new leaf 
 of their history, whether or no. It forces them to learn the lesson 
 that, in the nature of things, the progress of civilization implies the 
 conscious and systematic contending against and breaking down of 
 whatever tends to the settlement of international questions by the 
 sword. The history of the world has taken such a turn that, so far 
 as we are concerned, in tlie long run much more coercive power is 
 
21 
 
 to be derived from peace, from whatever is calculated to keep us 
 out of the broils of the world, than from any number of battleships 
 we are able to build and to man, and from having- our fingers in all 
 the pies that are being baked in the hot oven of international 
 politics. 
 
 As to the rest of the mission entrusted to us, I can say on this 
 occasion only this much: It does not consist in g-oing forth among 
 all the heathen and preaching to them — in whatever way it may be 
 — the gospel of our free institutions, but in staying quietly at home 
 and teaching them by our example. Here is a vast enough field 
 for missionary work to keep all our material, intellectual, and moral 
 energies fully employed a good long while. It never pays and al- 
 ways comes wnth a bad grace to volunteer to sweep other people's 
 houses, while in one's own abode many a nook and corner stands 
 badly in need of a thorougli cleaning. It will be early enough in 
 the day to proclaim ours all Ijrightness and gloss when the papers 
 have been able to grant us a single week's respite in dinning into our 
 ears the sorry tales of bossism, rotten municipal governments, cor- 
 rupt and incapable State legislatures, unscrupulous and voracious 
 corporations, etc., etc. 
 
 Are the tasks confronting us in all these problems not grave, dif- 
 ficult, and urgent enough to deprecate whatever is calculated to di- 
 vert the popular mind and the popular conscience from them? And 
 will this launching us into the troubled sea of an imperial interna- 
 tional policy not have this tendency? Take heed, gentlemen. I do 
 not hesitate to express my firm conviction that it is advocated by 
 many an anexationist with a view to this end. And even if this 
 charge be unfounded, there is no doubt that it will serve as an in- 
 valuable cover to the class of men so graphically described in the 
 witty saying that they turn patriots after having failed in every other 
 vocation; for these worthies are no fools, but know a good thing 
 when they see it. 
 
 "Neither are England, Germany, France, and Russia fools." 
 ,^^^Thet^ some annexationist^ interject, "and they are tumbHng over 
 each other in their hot craving for what you contend must prove to 
 us to be a prickly pear." Isn't it rather strange that the very men 
 who are wont scornfully to hoot down the craven notion that the 
 United States can learn from Europe valuable lessons of any kind 
 whatever, are in this case so eager to bid us accept Europe as an 
 authoritative model? I for one must beg to be excused, because, 
 
22 
 
 whether the European powers act wisely or not, their doings cannot 
 serve us as an example, for they act under conditions that are not 
 analogous to our own, but essentially different. England and Ger- 
 many have a larger population than they can sustain. With them 
 the question, therefore is, what can be done to secure the greatest 
 benefit to the mother country from the outflow of the surplus. 
 France has no people to spare and many reflecting and discerning 
 men therefore do not doubt that her so-called colonial policy must 
 turn out a losing venture and are satisfied that only vanity prevents 
 the French people from realizing its folly. More than once France 
 has brought down upon herself unutterable misery and woe by her 
 inclination to consider "prestige'' and "gloire" her paramount inter- 
 ests ; prestige and gloire^received a terrible blow by her last war with 
 Germany, and the people give her rulers almost carte blanche as to 
 measures which can be made to appear a burnishing up of the 
 dimmed luster. Russia, while prone even more than we to confound 
 size and greatness, is partly prompted in her policy of expansion by 
 a desire resting upon a basis of sound statesmanship. Her usable 
 coast line is greatly out of proportion to her vast expanse of territory, 
 and she more especially stands sorely in need of ice-free harbors. 
 Are we as to any one of the points mentioned in a similar situation? 
 We have no surplus population, we have not to retrieve lost prestige 
 and glory, we do not stand in need of more coast line or ice-free har- 
 bors. There is still room for uncounted millions within our borders, 
 every year brings new revelations as tp the boundlessness of our nat- 
 ural resources, and we command all the means necessary for securing 
 all the benefits to be derived from peaceable intercourse with other 
 nations, without having to resort to a hazardous change of our inter- 
 national policy. 
 
 If I were to stop here, I think I would have said enough to con- 
 vince any American Whose mind is still open to argument as to this 
 question that the annexation of Hawaii would at best be a leap in the 
 dark, which we as sensible people ought not to take, unless we are 
 compelled to do it. And still by far the most momentous objections 
 I have not yet even alluded to. 
 
 In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it 
 is asserted that governments derive "their just powers from the con- 
 sent of the ^governed." The Declaration of Independence is the 
 nation's birth-certificate, officially and authoritativeZb;!^ stating its 
 raison d'etre. To eliminate this axiomatic assertimi as the basi^C-- 
 
23 
 
 formative nay creative principle of our whole national existence,. is 
 to dve the lie to the generation of 1776 and our whole past history. 
 The annexation of Hawaii as proposed would be such an elimination 
 as to the islands. This the annexationists deny, pointing to the 
 unanimous ratification of the treaty by the Hawaiian Senate. I ask: 
 is there one man among those of them whose reputation for honesty 
 and candor is not a sham and a fraud, who could look another honest 
 man square in the face and protest that he would not indignantly 
 pronouncethis justification a disingenuous evasion and a brazen 
 quibble, if the Hawaiian government had originated with English- 
 men and under English auspices, as it has originated with Americans 
 under American auspices, and England were to adduce such a ratifi- 
 cation as incontestable proof that annexation would rest upon the 
 consent of the governed? This specious argument may do as a 
 soporific drug for the uneasy conscience of honest annexationists, 
 but it can never fool those who do not subscribe to the doctrine that 
 the essence is of no consequence, if it can be covered up by ever so 
 thin a veil of a plausible form. 
 
 Proof is not lacking that they know it well. Though the Senate 
 discusses the treaty behind closed doors the Washington correspond- 
 ents have no difficulty in sending a synopsis of the speeches to their 
 papers. It is curious reading. I have not been able to quite make 
 up my mind which of the several astounding statements deserves the 
 • palm. The guns "pointing straight" to the mouth of the Nicaraguan 
 canal iflLSjee^over a couple of thousand miles have it, I said to myself, 
 when I vainly tried to fathom the awful consequences of the develop- 
 ment of artilleristic possibilities foreshadowed in this momentous an- 
 nouncement by so eminent a ballistic authority, as a United States 
 Senator cannot fail to be. But I again became doubtful, when I 
 read that the natives were now, as they always had been, enthusiastic 
 for annexation. Did the wicked press palm off a sensational ro- 
 mance upon the people with its stories about a deputation of natives 
 gone to Washington to protest against annexation? Why did a 
 prominent Hawaiian gentleman, who for years has been earnestly 
 laboring for annexation, to my direct question the other day as to 
 the attitude of the natives, give an answer in which the absence of the 
 faintest intimation of such an enthusiasm was painfully conspicuous? 
 Above all: if the natives have such an ardent longing to become 
 Americans, why does no annexationist want to hear of the proposi- 
 tion to make annexation dependent on a free expression of the popu- 
 
24 
 
 lar will? Except in cases of conquest this has been for about forty 
 years the uniform practice in Europe, which we are so prone to decry 
 as despot-ridden. We, the democracy par excellence, with the Dec- 
 laration of Independence tucked under our arm, are now to abjure 
 the old faith and proclaim by our act a new creed to this purport: 
 "the consent of the governed'' is a good enough thing, if you are the 
 o-overned; a fool, who stickles about it. if his chance to govern de- 
 pends on disregarding it. 
 
 This objection, the annexationists declare, is a shell sounding so 
 loud only because it is hollow ; the argument comes too late in the 
 day; many a vast territory has been annexed by the United States 
 without submitting the question to a popular vote; then nobody 
 thought of making the charge that the underlying principle of the 
 Declaration of Independence was infringed, and even supposing that 
 it could have been made nobody can contend to-day that any harm 
 has come of it. To the uninformed and the unthinking this may 
 seem a plausible refutation ; in fact it has no basis whatever to rest 
 upon. It is very clear that no precedent is to be found in the past 
 history of the United States — provided we are not prepared to con- 
 test wdiat all mankind has thus far been agreed upon, viz. : that every 
 principle requires a reasonable application, because in practice every 
 principle turns into a monstrous absurdity if it be run down to its 
 last logical conclusions. The Indians inhabiting the Territories in 
 question were savages, and as to annexation savages were never 
 thought to come within the pale of the principle of the Declaration 
 of Independence. The other inhabitants — Texas excepted, where, 
 although the popular sentiment was not doubtful, a convention was 
 called ad^hoc^-were comparatively few in number, occupying but a 
 small part of the territory to be annexed, and the gift of American 
 citizenship was deemed so valuable that the dispensing with their 
 consent was morally justified. In Hawaii not a single savage is to be 
 found, the islands are more densely peopled than vast areas within 
 the borders of the United States, and as to the gift of American 
 citizenship- — Ah, "there is the rub." 
 
 Is the infringement of the principle that governments derive their 
 just powers from the consent of the governed to be confined to the 
 question of annexation, or is it after annexation to go on indefinitely, 
 permanently? The treaty is silent on this all-important question. 
 President McKinley in his message recommends "the most just pro- 
 visions for self-rule in local matters, with the largest political liberties 
 
25 
 
 as an integral part of our nation'' to the Hawaiians. That sounds 
 fair enough. But a ruthless sceptic arises who will not be satisfied 
 with two lives of "glittering generalities;" he insists upon a bill of 
 specifications. 
 
 Oh, say our annexationists, this is not the time to talk of details; 
 in due time Congress will see to that and fix it all right. Excuse me. 
 This is the time to discuss the details. After annexation it will be 
 too late, for the annexation could not be undone, and great as the 
 w'isdom of Congress unquestionably is, it is not equal to the impossi- 
 ble; the discussion of the details, however, would prove beyond con- 
 troversy that the given condition of things, the hard unalterable facts 
 of the case render impossible a fixing of the practical details so as to 
 make a satisfactory, nay even a tolerable job of it. 
 
 Who are the Hawaiians the President had in mind, when he 
 penned the passage in his message which I quoted before? The 
 Chinese are not included, for our laws brand them not only as unfit 
 for citizenship, but even as a tainted race against which "the land of 
 the free" must be closed altogether. How far the Japanese come 
 under- ^the same head may be a question that has as yet not been 
 definitely passed upon by the courts; but that the ruling element in 
 Hawaii views the class of Japanese settled in the islands in no other 
 ligiit than the Chinese is not disputed, and that on this point Ameri- 
 can public sentiment. will fully sustain the ruling element of Hawaii 
 admits of no doubt. The Portuguese, at least so far as the exercise 
 of political rights is concerned, are not much more favorably looked 
 upon by those who pose as "the Hawaiians." Mr. W. N. Arm- 
 strong, of Honolulu, who I understand cuts quite a figure in the 
 front row of the annexation phalanx, goes to the length of denying 
 their right to be counted among "the whites." As to the natives or 
 Kanakas, the Supreme Court of Utah, then a Federal tribunal, held 
 in 1889 iji re^ Kanaka Nian, as Air. Lobingier points out to The Na- 
 tion, that they cannot be naturalized. Congress could, of course, 
 nevertheless confer the sufTfrage on them. But if this were done, 
 what would the^ Hawaiians come to think of "the wisdom" of Con- 
 gress? Mr. Armstrong says: "It must be distinctly understood 
 that, besides ruling themselves, the whites must create a form of gov- 
 ernment through which they can rule natives, Chinese, Japanese, 
 and Portuguese, in order to prevent being 'snowed under.' That is, 
 we need two distinct forms of government made up into one form; 
 one for ourselves and one for aliens, who outnumber us." (Quoted 
 
26 
 
 ill The Nation, Dec. 2, 1897.) In parenthesis: make a note of it in 
 vour Webster or Century Dictionar} that in Hawaiian English na- 
 tives means aliens. Now, will it be denied that t]i^ ilawaiians are 
 more competent to judge of the Kanakas than Congress? The wis- 
 dom of the Hawaiians, however, informs us that the Kanakas are 
 utterly unfit to rule and must be ruled. Rev. Dr. S. E. Bishop, the 
 son of a missionary and himself a missionary pastor, most emphati- 
 cally endorses what JMr. Armstrong asserts on this head. The Kan- 
 aka, he says, "can no more rule than a child;" "in kindness he can- 
 not be left to assert a right to control the vast public interests here." 
 (Quoted in The Nation of Dec. 9, 1897, from The Independent.) 
 
 Now, what does all this mean? The venerable gentleman last 
 quoted concludes from it: "the question (of annexation) is one too 
 broad and far-reaching for the mass of the people to vote on with 
 any intelligence." Though there may be and probably is a good 
 deal of truth in this, it does not warrant our trampling under foot the 
 basic principle of the Declaration of Independence. But let it be 
 granted for argument's sake that it is conclusive as to the question 
 whether a ratification of the tender of the Hawaiian governmental 
 authorities by popular vote may be dispensed with. Would that be 
 conclusive also as to the main question? Whether Dr. Bishop's 
 conclusion be right or not, it is most obviously not the only conclus- 
 ion to be drawn from the facts I mentioned. According to their 
 own statement t];e Hawaiians are less than 1,000 in a population of 
 about 110.000 and the 106,000 "aliens" or non-"whites'' are of such a 
 character that we could not afford to merge the islands in the Union, 
 though their strategic and economical value were a hundred times 
 what it is claimed to be. That is what Mr. Armstrong and Dr. Bish- 
 op have demonstrated beyond the possibility of refutation. 
 
 In the discussion of the Alaska purchase Mr. Shellabarger and 
 other opponents of the measure strongly dwelt upon the fact that this 
 was the first time non-contiguous territory was to be acquired. It 
 is still much too early to contend that experience has proved their 
 apprehensions to be unfounded. The first war with a great na\al 
 power may easily bring a drastic vindication of their views. x\nd 
 even if it should fail to do so, that would by no means disprove the 
 principle they contended for. Possibly Alaska would play no part of 
 any consequence in such a war, only because the United States, in 
 spite of its gold-bearing rivers and mountains, do not deem it valu- 
 able enough to warrant considerable efforts for its defense, or because 
 
27 
 
 the enemy thinks that all his forces can be employed to better purpose 
 at other points. Whether territorial contiguity ought to be made a 
 sine qita nonforannexation. we, however, need not discuss to-day. To 
 ;;^^7^der i't of no consequence is certainly not the part of sound states- 
 manship. But let its import be rated ever so high, another question 
 is indisputably of vastly greater moment. Homogeneity as to what 
 is in the true and strict sense of the word essential must be deemed 
 indispensable. If this degree of homogeneity does not exist at the 
 time the annexation is contemplated, it must at least be certam that 
 it can be brought about in a very short time. Accordmg to the 
 unanimous testimonv of the.Hawaiians, this degree of homogeneity 
 does not exist at present in Hawaii and the facts on which their state- 
 ment rests prove that it cannot be brought about in the fuure, either 
 near or remote. That ought to settle the question with every 
 American, who does not let imagination and enthusiasm get the 
 better of his sober reasoning. 
 
 Self government is to this gigantic republic of ours even more 
 than its breath of life ; it is its very structural principle. It permeates 
 not only all its institutions, but also the whole thinking and feeling 
 and all the habits of the people, which are even a greater force m a 
 nation's life than its institutions. In the great ordinance for the or- 
 cranization of the Northwestern Territory, antedating the constitu- 
 tion, it was made the bedrock on which the new commonwealths 
 must be reared that .in the course of time were to become equal con- 
 stituent members of the Union. The federal government under the 
 constitution has never swerved from the path thus taken by the old 
 Congress. Our laws teem with provisions bearing testimony to the 
 fact that self government is the basic national principle, not merely 
 -ranted as an inestimable privilege to the incipient new common- 
 wealths, the inchoate states of the future, but also imposed upon 
 them as an irrefragable obligation. A committee of the Hawaiian 
 Senate, however, has informed us that "good government cannot be 
 permanently maintained in these islands without aid or assistance 
 from without." What is this if not a formal official declaration that 
 Hawaii is permanently incapable of self government? Therefore, if 
 we annex Hawaii we consciously insert into the nation's lifeblood a 
 foreign body which cannot be assimilated. 
 
 Am I to be answered that so tiny a thing in so huge a body can 
 surely not do much harm? Beware! A foreign body in the blood, 
 which cannot be assimilated, \\\\\ cause festering though it be never 
 
28 
 
 so tiny, and if it be not removed the festering will spread, slowly 
 perhaps, Init steadily. An incongruous element will be introduced 
 into our institutions and, what is a hundred times more portentous, 
 this will bring about progressing vitiation of the thinking and feeling 
 and of the habits of the people. We will have two heterogeneous 
 basic principles, two heterogeneous sets of institutions, two hetero- 
 geneous sets of ideas, sentiments, and practices; and, as with two dif- 
 ferent money standards, the baser will constantly encroach upon and 
 irresistibly filch ground from the better. The eclipse of the republic 
 will have set in. For a nation's vitality is not to be measured by 
 area, wealth, and power; it primarily depends on the energy and 
 momentum of the vital force in the harmonious regulation of all the 
 vital functions. When the area, wealth and power of the Roman 
 empire were the greatest. Fate, in pursuance of the implacable laws 
 governing the life of nations, tolled its death knell. 
 
 I, too, am a sincere and tliorough believer in the "manifest des- 
 tiny" of this country; I have only a somewhat different conception of 
 what it is popularly understood to mean — different, but certainly not 
 less lofty. Yea, I believe in its manifest destiny and I am thoroughly 
 convinced that nobody can thwart or prevent its fulfilment — -Jiobody 
 but o urs elves . The annexation of Hawaii, however, seems to me the 
 first fatal step towards our frustrating its fulfilment. I have ex- 
 amined the question honestly and earnestly, bringing all the light to 
 bear upon it furnished me by knowledge of human nature, by my 
 obsei'vations during repeated extended sojourns in most of the lead- 
 ing countries of the world, by my studies of the history of mankind 
 and especially of this country. Though the frankness with which I 
 have stated the result to which I have come, is perhaps unpalatable, 
 I trust it will be admitted that I have reasoned dispassionately. Aye, 
 dispassionately, but not as if there was nothing in the problem to 
 touch the emotional chords in my mind's harp. I feel strongly about 
 it. My race will be run long ere the dire consequences which I ex- 
 pect will become very manifest. But I have taken my children along 
 to become and remain Americans. How then can I help looking 
 beyond my grave with deep concern and considering the issue as in 
 a way of personal moment to me? How can you help doing the 
 same? All the impressiveness I can command I wish to lay into my 
 last word, addressing it to every one of you individually: tua res 
 agitur, it is your cause I have been pleading. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 744 800 2