IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. OCTOBER TERM, 1900. GEORGE W. CROSSMAN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES. THE HAWAIIAN CASE. ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOHN K. RICHARDS, SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. IN THE SUPREME COURT, TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1901. The Solicitor-General then addressed the court as follows: If the court please: I have discussed the general question involved in this case quite fully in the other cases, and I shall endeavor this morning to cut my argument as short as possible, and direct it to the distinctive features of this case, possibly, also, endeavoring to answer a few of the points made by opposing counsel upon the general question. I think there could not be a case which more completely illustrates the absurdity of the broad contention of the other side than this case. I refer to the contention that immediately upon the cession or annexation of territory it becomes at once an integral part of the United States within the meaning of the limitation of the taxing clause, so that instantly our customs and internal-revenue laws must apply there. At the time the resolution of annexation was passed the Republic of Hawaii had in force a government covering the entire field of gov ernment in those islands, regulating their municipal affairs, their customs, their taxes, their commerce, their citizens, and that was the only government there. That government was carried on by the officers and agents of the Republic of Hawaii, and they constituted the only official authority in operation in the islands. Such was the situation at the time the resolution of annexation was passed, on July 7, 1898. There were no officers of the United States, there were no agents of the United States, there were no laws of the United States, in Hawaii. The laws of the United States were not there, nor were men there to execute them. The only laws in force were the laws of the Republic of Hawaii, the only government was the government of that Republic. And yet the contention is that just as soon as that resolution passed, immediately the customs and commercial regulations of the Hawaiian Republic were wiped out of existence. It is also said that instantly the customs and commercial regulations of the United States became operative, but it is not explained how they could be executed. There were no agents or officers of the United States there to execute them. And so if the effect of annexing that Territory was immediately to abrogate all the existing laws of the Republic relating to commerce and revenue, it simply meant that instantly the ports of Hawaii were thrown open to the commerce of the world. It is said the laws and customs regulations of Hawaii could not be enforced, and yet there were no other laws in force, and no other officers to enforce any other laws. Therefore, instantly Hawaii would have been thrown open to the commerce of the world. And following the contention, the iron.clad constitutional argument of counsel on the other side, immediately the ports of the United States became open and free to commerce from Hawaii. Then the irresistible effect of the passage of the resolution of annexation was to make Hawaii an entrepôt to the United States, and allow the commerce of the world through Hawaii to enter here without the payment of duties. Can it be contended for a moment that Congress under those circumstances would have passed this resolution of annexation? Would we have consented to annex Hawaii and make it an integral part of the United States, knowing that under the Constitution there could be no period of preparation within which to organize a government and put in force there our customs and commercial regulations? Certainly we would not. And yet in that same connection the court must observe that we could not have prepared to put in force in Hawaii instantly upon the passage of a resolution like that, our customs and commercial laws, because no officer of the Government would have been authorized to send our agents there until it should have been finally and conclusively determined, by the passage of a resolution of annexation, or by the ratification of a treaty, that Hawaii was to be a part of the territory of the United States. Before the Government could take any steps to extend our laws and customs regulations to Hawaii, there must have been a conclusive, authentic expression on the part of the treaty-making or legislative power that Hawaii was to be ceded or annexed to the United States. Now because of these facts the resolution of annexation provided for a period of preparation, a period during which time the existing laws of Hawaii should remain in force until a commission, to be composed jointly of representatives of this country and Hawaii, could frame a form of government to be put in operation in those islands. Let me call the attention of the court to some of the provisions of this resolution. The preamble says (30 Stat., 750): "Whereas the Government of the Republic of Hawaii having, in due form, signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies." Observe, there is the recital of a proposition on the part of the Government of Hawaii to cede the islands to the United States. I shall later call the attention of the court to the terms of that proposition. It was a proposition, however, to cede Hawaii to the United States, and then the resolution goes on to accept that proposition. It says: "Therefore, resolved that said cession is accepted." |