A HAND-BOOK 
....ON THE.... 
ANNEXATION 
OF 
HAWAII 
BY "" 
LORRIN A. THURS|TjQK 
nWvF; If; IMJ 
1. Shall Hawaii Be Annexed? . . . . / . • . 1 
2. Arguments in Favor of Annexation i . . ' . 3 
3. A Brief Description of Hawaii, its People, Govern- 
ment, Laws, Commerce, Finances, Educational 
System and Resources . . . . . .20 
4. Twenty Objections to Annexation and Replies 
thereto . . . . . . . . .27 
5. A Digest of the Official Opinions of American 
Presidents, Secretaries of State, Ministers, and 
Military and Naval Officers concerning the 
Annexation or Control of Hawaii . . . -47 
6. President Harrison’s Message to the Senate Ad- 
vocating Annexation . . . . . -49 
7. President McKinley’s Message to the Senate Ad- 
vocating Annexation . . . . . -50 
8. Report of Secretary Sherman to President McKinley 
Advocating Annexation . . . . . -59 
9. A Digest of the Acts of Congress and of Hawaii 
concerning American Control or Annexation of 
Hawaii ......... 74 
10. Text of the Hawaiian Annexation Treaties of 1854, 
1893, and 1897; and of the Reciprocity and 
- Pearl Harbor Treaties of 1875 and 1887 . . -77 Map showing the portion of the Pacific within which Hawaii is the only Supply Station. 
Within the space surrounded by the heavy black line connecting the numbered 
stations, there is but one spot which can furnish wood, water, and coal to a passing 
vessel, and that spot is Hawaii. Gallapagos, near Callao, and Juan Fernandez, near 
Valparaiso, cannot be depended on, and are so near the American coast as to be 
practically a part of it. 
Midwav Island, a thousand miles west of Honolulu, belongs to the United States. 
An attempt was made in 1867 to establish a naval station there, which failed, and no 
supplies are now available there or on any of the small islands between there and 
Honolulu. 
MAR 
No. 1. CJ2 jMap showing the Relative Size of the Pacific and the Atlantic. 
GOvTap4^togs*>i and 2 are drawn to the same scale. 
MapJJtrl^shows, more particularly, that portion of the Pacific within which 
Hawaiiisjthe only Supply Station, such portion being within the numbered stations 
by th • heavy black line. 
Maprijlo. 2 snows the earth's surface from San Francisco to India. 
Superimposed thereon is a heavy black line enclosing a space of the same size and 
shape as fhe portion of the Pacific within which Hawaii is the only supply station, the 
relative position on such line occupied by Hong Kong being superimposed upon 
San Francisco. 
If the shores of the Atlantic were pushed back so as to make it as wide as the 
Pacific, the distance from New York to Gibralter would be as great as it now is from 
San Francisco to Persia. 
MAR 
No. 2. INDEX 
PAGE 
Alexander, Gen’l on strategic value 
of Hawaii 33, 70 
Aleution Islands, distance from con- 
tinent 30 
Alaska, annexation of—27; No popu- 
lar vote on annexation 37; Popu- 
lation of at time of annexation 30 
American currency standard in Ha- 
waii 31 
Competition with Japanese 7 
Interests endangered by Hawaiian 
independence 18 
Interests in Hawaii, 5, 8, 31, 33, 44. 65, 69 
Ministers, opinions on Hawaii 61 to 70 
Shipping, (see Shipping) 
Annexation of Hawaii, 
(see Protectorate) 
Advocated by President Pierce 47; 
Johnson, 48; Grant. 48; Arthur. 48; 
Harrison, 49; McKinley, 50; Sec- 
retary Marcy 54; Seward, 56; Fish, 
56; Blaine. 57-8; Foster, 58; Sher- 
man, 59; U. S. Minister Sever- 
ance. 62; Gregg, 63; McCook, 64; 
Pierce, 65: Stevens, 68; Mahan, 
71-2; Schofield, 72; Belknap, 73; 
Turpie and Butler, 75. 
American and Hawaiian laws relat- 
ing to 37, 38 
Asiatics acquire no new rights un- 
der 32 
Constitutionality of 27 to 30 
Decisions of Supreme Court on con- 
stitutionality of 28 
Effect on commerce 14 
Shipping 14 to 17 
Hawaiian population 14, 38, 58 
Grant’s confidential message con- 
cerning 48 
Hawaiian constitution provides for 37, 76 
Incidental only to U. S. Hawaiian 
policy 35 
Objections to, and replies thereto 27 to 46 
Of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Cali- 
fornia. Alaska, Guano Islands 
and Midway Island 27 
Population of territories when an- 
nexed 30 
Question of long standing, 1, 2, 51, 67, 75 
Reasons in favor of 1 to 19 
Reciprocity intended to promote 2,48, 56, 68 
Resolutions by Hawaiian legislature 
in 1851-76, in 1896 77 
Sugar Trust, not beneficial to 41 
Treatv of 1851, 62, 63, 67, 76; of 1854 
54, 55, 77; of 1893, 80: of 1897 82 
Will not be precedent for other an- 
nexations 35 
Will not necessitate fortifications or 
navy 35 
Will prevent international friction 17, 18 
Annexation treaties negotiated by U. 
S. 27 
Area of Ha waii 35 
PAGE' 
A ssets 42 
Australian ballot system in 31 
Asiatics (see Chinese and Japanese) 
Australasia, growing power and claims 
of 18 
Beet sugar, annexation not injurious 
to 39 
Belknap’s opinion of strategic value 
of Hawaii 33, 73 
Bonded debt, amount of Hawaiian 
and where held 23, 24 
Buchanan, President, opinion con- 
cerning Hawaii 47, 52 
Blaine, Hawaii within scope of Mon- 
roe Doctrine 36 
On annexation 57, 58 
Cable, attempt of England to get an 
island for 6 
California, annexation of 27 
No popular vote 37 
(see Pacific Coast) 
Census of Hawaii (see Hawaiians) 24 
China, distance from California 4 
Chinese immigration prohibited by 
Annexation Treaty 8, 61, 83 
Number (see Census) 
Character of in Hawaii 32 
Gain no rights by annexation 32 
Citizens, Asiatics in Hawaii cannot be 7 
Clayton, Secretary, opinion con- 
cerning Hawaii 53 
Climate of Hawaii 21, 22 
Coal, value of Hawaii as a base for 
war ships 34 
Coffee, importance of as a Hawaiian 
product 22 
Commerce, Hawaiian, statistics 9 to 16, 35, 66 
Per capita 14 
Under annexation 14 
Importance to U. S. shipping 14 to 16 
To U. S. interests 45, 46 
Congress, Acts of. concerning annex- 
ation 27, 28 
Resolution concerning Control of 
Hawaii 74, 75 
Constitution of Hawaii provides for 
annexation 37, 60, 76 
Constitutionality of annexation, con- 
struction by Executive 27 
Congress 27 
Supreme Court 28 
Non-contiguous territory 29 
Non-homogeneous people 30 
Courts, number and character of Ha- 
waiian 25 
Common Law (see Laws) 
Currency, U. S. standard in Hawaii 31 II 
PAGE 
■Customs Revenue, amount of Ha- 
waiian 23 
Customs Union, objections to 60, 69 
Davis. Senator, report to Senate on 
Hawaii 75 
Debt, schedule of Hawaiian and 
where held 23, 24 
Less than public assests 42 
Distance of Hawaii from principal 
ports (see Map on cover) 20 
Dolph, Senator, report to Senate on 
Hawaii 75 
Dole, President, description and char- 
acter of 25, 41 
Education in Hawaii 22, 31 
Emigration, rate of from Japan 6, 7 
Treaty gives U. S. control of 8, 83 
England (see Foreign Powers), at- 
tempt to get island for cable 6 
Colonial influence in Pacific 18 
Distance from California 4 
Influence in Hawaii 64 
Joint action with, refused by U. S. 50 
Seizure of Hawaii 17, 61, 66 
Treaty with France concerning 
Hawaii 66 
Electorate, qualifications of Hawaiian 25 
Everett, Edward, opinion concerning 
Hawaii 61 
Expenses and revenue of Hawaii, 
statistics 23 
Exports, Hawaiian 9, 16, 22 
Per capita 14, 31 
Fillmore, President, opinion con- 
cerning Hawaii 47 
Financial status of Hawaii 23, 42 
Fish, Secretary, opinion in favor of 
annexation 56 
Florida, date of annexation 27 
Population 30 
No popular vote 37 
Foreign Powers, opinions concerning 
occupation of Hawaii by—Tyler. 
47; Fillmore, 47; Pierce, 47; Buch- 
anan, 47, 52; Johnson, 48; Harri- 
son, 49; McKinley, 50; Webster, 
52-3; Legare, 52. 
Danger of to U. S., 4, 34, 47, 52 to 58, 64, 66, 
68, 72. 73. 
Opposition to annexation 18, 40 
Seizure of Hawaii during war 44, 66 
Troops landed in Hawaii 17, 66 
Fortifications, annexation does not 
necessitate 34, 35 
Foster, opinion on annexation 58 
Protectorate 59 
Treaty negotiated by 80 
France (see Foreign Powers), distance 
from California 4 
Seizure of Hawaii by 17, 34, 53, 61, 62, 66 
Frye, Senator, report to Senate on 
Hawaii 75 
Gadsden Purchase, New Mexico and 
Arizona 27 
PAGE 
Germany, refusal of joint action, by 
U. S. 50 
Government, present Hawaiian 24-5 
Future form left to Congress 33, 51, 60, 83 
Grant, President, opinion favoring 
annexation 48,56 
Gregg, negotiation of annexation in 
1854, by 63 
Guano Island legislation, authorizing 
annexation 27, 28 
Harrison treaty 80 
Messages 49 
On a protectorate 39, 49 
Hawaii, area islands 20, 35 
A sovereign state 42, 59 
American state 75 
Climate 21 
Danger to U. S. of foreign control 
(see Foreign Powers) 
Distance from (see Map on cover) 
Description of 20 to 26 
Decrease of population, problems 
raised (see Population) 
Issue in, is Eastern vs. Western civ- 
ilization 8 
Foreign control inevitable 5, 58, 65 
Drifting Japanwards 7 
Why called “Key of Pacific” 5 
Necessity for action by U. S. 5 
Official acts concerning annexation 76 
Products 22 
People (see Population) 
Physical character of 21 
Strategical value of (see Strategic 
Value of Hawaii) 
Seizures of 17,44 
Policy of U. S. concerning, (see U. 
S. Policy) 
Steamship lines stopping at 4 
Within scope Monroe Doctrine, (see 
Monroe Doctrine) 
Hawaiian constitution (see Constitu- 
tion) 
Commerce (see Commerce) 
Debt (see Debt) 
Form and character of government 24, 25 
Character of officials 41 
Legislative ratification of annexa- 
tion 76, 77 
Law (see Laws) 
Population (see Population) 
Tariff’, present and under annexa- 
tion 14 
Treaties of annexation (see Annexa- 
tion treaties) 
Voters (see Voters) 
Hawaiians, decrease of, question rais- 
ed by 5, 57, 65 
Effect of annexation on 38 
Will not emigrate to U. S. 45 
Holidays, IT. S. observed in Hawaii 31 
Honolulu, population and description 
of 21 
House of representatives, resolution 
by Hawaiian (see Resolutions) 
Immigration laws objected to by 
Japan 31 
Imports. Hawaii 9, 11 to 13, 16 III 
PAGE 
Income and expenditures of Hawaii 23 
International friction diminished by 
annexation 18, 19 
Japan, distance from California (see 
Map) 4 
Change of emigration policy 6 
Hawaiian immigration laws object- 
ed to by 6, 7, 31 
Increased strength and control in 
Hawaii 6, 7, 18 
Opposition to annexation 40 
Japanese, (see Census) 
Character of in Hawaii 32 
Claims and aggressiveness in Ha- 
waii 7 
Immigration and rate of 6 
U. S. Treaty controls emigration to 
U. S. . 8 
Annexation confers no new rights 
on 32 
Not eligible to citizenship in Ha- 
waii 7 
Johnson, Pres., favored annexation 48 
Joint resolution, Texas and Hawaii 
(see Resolution) 
Jury, trial by in Hawaii 26 
Kalakaua election riot 68 
Labor (see Wages) 
Laws, character and foundation of 
Hawaiian 25, 31 
Lands, (see Public Lands) 
Legare, Secy., advo°ated force to keep 
European powers out 52 
Legislature, Hawaiian, how constitu- 
ted 25 
Leprosy in Hawaii 42 
Liliuokalani (see Monarchy) 
Louisiana, Annexation, 27; Population 30 
No popular vote 37 
Mahan on strategical value and an- 
nexation of Hawaii 20. 33, 36, 71, 72 
Marcy, instructions negotiate annexa- 
tion 54 
Disapproval of a protectorate 55 
Annexation Treaty negotiated 
under 77 
Messages, Presidential, concerning 
Hawaii, Tyler, 47; Johnson, 48; 
Grant, 48; Harrison, 49; Mc- 
Kinley, 50. 
Military value (see Strategic Value 
of Hawaii) 
Military and naval officers on strate- 
gical value of Hawaii, McCook, 
64; Schofield, 70, 72; Alexander, 
70; Brown, 71; Wiltse, 71; Mahan, 
71; Belknap, 73. 
Ministers (see American Ministers) 
Midway Island, Annexation and loca- 
tion of 27, 28, 30 
Monroe Doctrine, applies to Hawaii 36, 73, 75 
Morgan, Senator, on landing troops 43 
On U. S. Hawaiian policy 74, 75 
Monroe Doctrine 36 
Monarchy, date and cause of abroga- 
tion 24 
PAGE 
Not overthrown by U. S. troops 42 
Overthrow predicted in 1873 67 
Overthrow is final 8 
Harrison on restoration 49 
Why supporters oppose annexation 37 
McBryde, Minister, on English in- 
fluence in Hawaii 64 
McCook, on strategic value and an- 
nexation 64 
McKinley, Pres., annexation message 50 
Treaty 82 
National debt, Hawaiian (see Debt) 
Native Hawaiian (see Hawaiians) 
Naval ofiicers, opinions of [see Mili- 
tary, etc.] 
Naval stations in Pacific, necessity 
of 66, 70, 71 
At Midway Island 27 
Navy, annexation does not require 
increase of 34, 35 
Foreign must possess Hawaii to at- 
tack Pacific coast 34, 72 
New Mexico and Arizona, annexa- 
tion of 27 
Nicaragua canal, value of Hawaii in 
connection with 5 
Objections to annexation and replies 
thereto 27 to 46 
Pacific coast, importance of Hawaiian 
commerce to 9 to 14 
[see Strategic Value of Hawaii] 
Pacific ocean, size compared with 
Atlantic 3, 4, 33, 44 
Steam ships stopping at Hawaii 4 
Peace, international, annexation will 
promote 17 
Pearl Harbor, report of Schofield on 
military value of 70 
Treaty concerning 74. 76, 80 
Pierce, Pres., favored annexation 47, 54, 55 
Treaty of 1854 77 
Minister favored annexation 65 
Policy, U. S. Hawaiian [see U. S. 
Policy] 
Popular vote, no precedent for in case 
of annexation 37, 38 
Population, Hawaiian— 
Blaine’s opinion effect of annexa- 
tion on 57, 58 
Capacity of Hawaii to support 14 
Census of 24 
Character of 31, 32, 33 
Constitutionality of annexation of 
non-homogeneous 30 
Effect of on U. S. under annexa- 
tion 31, 33, 44, 57, 58 
Past and future of 33, 58, 65 
Questions raised by decrease of na- 
tive 5, 57, 58, 65 
Territories at time of their annexa- 
tion 30 
Post Office revenues, Postal Savings 
Bank deposits 23 
Portuguese, number 24, 32 
Character 32 
Porter, Admiral, opinion on strategic 
value of Hawaii 33 
Precedent, Hawaiian not a, for future 
annexations 35 
Former annexations, legal require- 
ments 37, 38 IV 
PAGE 
None for popular vote on annexa- 
tion 37 
Presidents of U. S„ opinions of, con- 
cerning Hawaii 47 
Provisional Government, why es- 
tablished 24 
('haracter of 41 
Products of Hawaii 22 
Protectorate, why impracticable 8, 39 
< Ipiuions of Pres. Pierce on, 55: Har- 
rison, 49; Sec.Foster, 59; Marcy, 55; 
Sherman. 60; Minister Stevens, 68. 
Public debt [see Debt] 
Lands—area, value, character, laws 24 
Schools [see Schools] 
Railroads, whence imported 31 
Rainfall 22 
Reciprocity, effect of 5, 9 
Why no longer sufficient 5, 6 
Intended to lead to annexation, 
statements of Johnson, Grant, 
Seward, Pierce 48, 56, 68 
Political provisions of 74, 76 
Text of Treaty 79 
Resolutions, Hs. Representatives and 
Senate in re Hawaii 34, 35, 74 
Hawaiian Legislature in re annexa- 
tion 77 
Joint, annexing Texas 37 
Revenue and Expenditures of Hawaii 23 
Royalists, why opposed to annexation 37 
Russia development in Pacific 17, 18 
Distance from California 4 
Seizure of Hawaii 17 
San Domingo, annexation treaty 27 
San Francisco (see Pacific Coast) 
Schofield, Gen’l. Strategic value, an- 
nexation of Hawaii 33, 70, 72 
Schools (see Education) 
Secretaries of State, opinions concern- 
ing Hawaii, Webster 52-3; Legare 
52; Buchanan 52; Clayton 53; Mar- 
cy 54; Seward 56; Fish 56; Blaine 
57; Foster 58; Sherman 59. 
Senate Resolutions [see Resolutions] 
Report Com. Forg'n Affairs on Ha- 
waii 74 
Seward, Instructions to negotiate in 
re. annexation 56 
Sherman, Secy, annexation treaty ne- 
gotiated by 82 
Opinion, annexation only satisfac- 
tory solution 60 
Opposing protectorate 60 
Report to Senate on Hawaii 75 
Shipping, American, annexation will 
increase 16, 17 
Number entering Hawaiian ports 1, 9 
Number entering U. S. from ports 
of the world and from Hawaii 15 
Hawaiian commerce carried by 16 
Steam, stopping at Hawaii 4 
Soil, character of Hawaiian 21 
•Spain, Nearest territory to U. S. in 
Pacific 4 
Statehood, not asked or granted 33 
Not practical question 45 
Steamships [see Shipping] 
Stevens, Minister, Opposed protect'ate 68 
Statem’tin re-overthrow monarchy 43 
Senate report concerning 74 
Strategic value of Hawaii, reasons 
for 3, 33 to 36, 43, 44, 45 
PAGE 
Opinion of McCook, 64: Mahan, 20, 71 
Schofield, 72; Belknap, 73. 
[See Presidents. Opinions of] 
[Secretaries of State, Opinions of] 
Seizures of Hawaii [see Hawaii, Seiz- 
ures of] 
Sugar, annexation not injurious to 
beet 3!) 
Area cultivated aud amount ex- 
ported 22, 30 
Consumption of Pacific Coast and of 
U. S. 39, 40 
Obstacles to cultivation of 39, 40 
Sugar Trust, annexation not benefi- 
cial to 41 
Supreme Court, Hawaii, how consti- 
tuted 25 
U. S. Decisions supporting annexa- 
tion 28,'29 
Taxes. Hawaiian, amount and method 
of levy 23 
Territory of Hawaii, location and area 
of 20 
Treaty provides Hawaii shall be 33,82 
Texas, annexation of 27 
No popular vote 37 
Population of 30 
Procedure in annexation of 37 
Treaty [see Annexation and Recipro- 
city] 
Treaties, Hawaiian, abrogated by an- 
nexation Treaty 61, 83 
Troops, foreign in Hawaii 17, 66 
Monarchy not overthrown by Ameri- 
can 42, 43 
Turpie, report to Senate on Hawaii 75 
Turrill, Consul, protest against 
French seizure of Hawaii 62 
Tyler, Pres, opinion concerning Ha- 
waii 34, 47 
Unalaska, distance from Tahiti 4 
[See Map] 
Unconstitutionality of annexation 
[See Constitutionality] 
United States Hawaiian Policy, what 
it is and reasons for 1, 5. 34, 35. 36, 45, 47, 
to 61, 63 to 75. Annexation only 
incidental to 35 
How best enforced 35 
Why past means of enforcement no 
longer effectual 5 
Vancouver, not a base of operations 
against U. S. 34 
Voter, qualifications of Hawaiian 25, 37, 38 
Vote, popular, annexation valid with- 
out 37 
Wages paid in Hawaii 40 
War, probability of by U. S. 44 
Gen’l Schofield's opiuion naval sta- 
tion should be secured in Hawaii 
before 71 
Belknap’s opinion should annex at 
hazard of 73 
Webster advised hazard with France 34 
[See Strategic Value of Hawaii] 
Webster, advised exclude France 
from Hawaii by force 34, 54 
Opinions in re. Hawaii 52 to 54 
Willis, Minister, on character Prov. 
Govt, officials 41 
Wiltse, Capt., on landing troops 43 
On Annexation 71 Shall Hawaii be Annexed ? 
For two generations the relations existing between the United 
States and Hawaii have been unique. 
The usual attitude of one friendly nation towards another is 
that of keen business rivalry and enlightened selfishness. 
The attitude of the United States toward Hawaii has been 
more that of an indulgent and protecting elder brother toward a 
little sister, than the usual formal courtesies and treatment accorded 
the other nations of the world. 
Hawaii, on the other hand, early recognized this spirit, and 
has reciprocated with an unwavering confidence and faith in her 
great neighbor, such as has never been exhibited by one independ- 
ent nation toward another. 
There is no mystery about the reasons for these mutual 
relations. 
Hawaiian Christianization, civilization, commerce, education 
and development, are the direct product of American effort. 
Hawaii is, in every element and quality which enters into the 
composition of a modern civilized community, a child of America. 
Hawaii is the one “American Colony” beyond the borders of 
the Union. 
Honolulu is the one port of the world where the stars and 
stripes float over more ships than all other flags combined. 
Out of all this has grown a sentimental feeling toward Hawaii 
which does not measure its regard in dollars or material advantage. 
Entwined and interwoven with this sentiment, 'which brings 
the cause of Hawaii so close to the heart of America, are material 
advantages, incidental to the possession and control of Hawaii, 
which have appealed still more strongly to the heads and sound 
business and political judgment of the statesmen who have con- 
troled the destinies of America for fifty years. 
The recognition of the strategic value of Hawaii’s geograph- 
ical position, and the determination that under no circumstances 
should it pass under the control of any other foreign people, con- 
stitute one of the most conspicuous examples of consistent and 
persistent foreign policy in the international history of the United 
States. 
That policy has always been directed toward the exclusion of 
other powers and the drawing closer of the bonds which bind 
Hawaii to the United States, with ultimate incorporation into the 
Union as the destined end. With this end in view special commercial privileges have been 
granted to Hawaii in exchange for exclusive material and politi- 
cal privileges secured to the United States. American influence, 
power, ownership and control have been fostered and increased. 
Many times annexation has seemed at hand. The present is the 
fourth treaty which has been negotiated by the government of 
Hawaii, transferring the sovereignty of that country to this. 
The natural progress of events, under the fostering influences 
of this far-seeing policy has brought this country to the point 
where it must now decide whether or not the fruits of fifty years 
of statesmanship are to accrue to its honor and glory and pro- 
gress, or whether they are to be spurned and rejected. 
For nearly five years Hawaii has stood at the door of the 
Union, asking to come in. Delay has not lessened her confidence 
in the American people, and she still awaits their decision to know 
whether she can cross the threshold; or whether the door is to shut 
in her face. She offers all that she is, has and hopes to be. She 
asks no guarantees in return, but volunteers to share in the de- 
fence of the flag which she already honors co-equally with her own, 
and to bear her proportion of the obligations and burdens incident 
to the conduct of the general government. 
The diplomatic, naval and congressional records of the United 
States contain thousands of pages concerning Hawaii. Scores of 
magazine articles and tens of thousands of columns of newspaper 
matter have been devoted to the subject. But the material is scat- 
tered and not easily available. 
This pamphlet is designed to digest and concentrate for the 
information of the busy man, the principal arguments for and 
against annexation; the replies to objections thereto; and to furnish 
a brief description of the people, laws, finances, educational system, 
resources and civilization of the country proposed to be annexed, 
and such documentary evidence as is necessary to the full under- 
standing of the issues involved. 
Lorrin A. Thurston. 
2 3 
Reasons in Favor of the Annexation of Hawaii. 
FIRST REASON IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION 
OF HAWAII. 
It will prevent the establishment of an alien and possibly hos- 
tile stronghold in a position commanding the Pacific Coast, and the 
commerce of the North Pacific, and definitely and finally secure to 
the United States the strategical control of the North Pacific, there- 
by protecting its Pacific Coast and commerce from attack. 
The question is frequently asked, how the possession of Hawaii, 
2000 miles distant from the continent, will secure control of the 
North Pacific; and why Hawaii is any more necessary to the 
Pacific Coast than are the Azores, which are about the same dis- 
tance off the Atlantic Coast, necessary to the protection of the 
United States on the Atlantic side? 
The reasons why Hawaii is essential to the protection of the 
Pacific Coast, and why the Azores are not necessary to the protec- 
tion of the Atlantic, are as follows : 
In the first place, the distance across the Atlantic is approxi- 
mately 3000 miles. 
The distance across the Pacific is from 7000 to 9500 miles. 
Second : All of the Great Powers of Europe lie, or have coal- 
ing stations, within steaming distance of the Atlantic Coast 
of the United States. On the other hand no nation, European or 
Asiatic, lies, or possesses a coaling station, near enough to the Pa- 
cific Coast to be practically available, as a base of hostile naval 
operation against that Coast or its commerce. 
British Columbia is not a material factor in this connection; 
for, in case of hostilities between England and the United States, 
all Canadian territory would be so speedily overwhelmed by in- 
vasion from the United States that its ports would not cut any 
material figure as hostile bases of operation for any considerable 
length of time. 
Third : On the Atlantic there are scores of islands which 
can be used as bases of naval supply and repair. There are not 
only the Azores, Madeira, Canary, Cape Verde, Bermuda, New- 
foundland, and the Bahamas, but the vast number of West India 
Islands. 
On the other hand; in the whole Pacific Ocean from the 
Equator on the South, to Alaska on the North; from the Coast of 
China and Japan on the West, to the American Continent on the 
the Blast, there is but one spot where a ton of coal, a pound of 
bread, or a gallon of water can be obtained by a passing vessel, 
and that spot is Hawaii. 
The immensity of this area of the earth’s surface is compre- 
hended by but few. 4 
The distance from Hong Kong, through Hawaii to Panama, 
is 9580 miles. This distance is as far as from San Francisco east- 
ward across the continent, across the Atlantic, across the Mediter- 
ranean, and across Turkey to the boundary of Persia. 
The first supply station north of Hawaii is at Unalaska in the 
Alention Islands, and the first similar station on the south is 
Tahiti, a French Colony. 
The distance between Unalaska and Tahiti is 4400 miles; 
as far as from the southern point of Greenland to the mouth of the 
Amazon river. 
The Atlantic is, comparatively, so narrow, that way stations 
are not absolutely essential; while the islands in the Atlantic north 
of the Equator, capable of use as way stations are so numerous 
that it is practically impossible for the United States to absorb 
them all. 
On the other hand, the width and size of the North Pacific is 
so great that no naval vessel in existence can carry coal enough to 
cross the Pacific from any of the existing or possible foreign naval 
stations, to the Pacific coast of the United States, operate there and 
return, without recoaliug. A modern battleship without coal is 
like a caged lion—magnificent but harmless. 
One of the first principles in naval warfare is, that an operat- 
ing fleet must have a base of supply and repair. 
Any country in possession of Hawaii would possess a base of 
operations within four or five days steaming distance of any part 
of the Pacific Coast. 
Without the possession of Hawaii, all of the principal coun- 
tries possessing interest in the Pacific, are so far away that the dis- 
tance is practically prohibitory of hostile operations against the 
Pacific Coast. For instance, the nearest English station is forty- 
six hundred miles distant from San Francisco. The nearest 
French station is thirty-six hundred miles distant. The nearest 
Spanish station is forty-seven hundred miles distant. Russia is 
forty-seven hundred miles away; Japan forty-five hundred miles, 
and China fifty-five hundred miles. 
The United States, in possession and control of Hawaii, will 
thereby, by simply keeping other nations out, afford almost abso- 
lute protection to her Pacific Coast and commerce from hostile 
naval attack. On the other hand, Hawaii, in possession of any 
foreign country, will be a standing menace against, not only the 
Pacific Coast, but against all of the Ocean-bound commerce to and 
from that Coast, and all American commerce on or across the 
North Pacific. 
The Importance of the relation of Hawaii to the commerce of 
the Pacific is demonstrated by the fact that of the seven trans- 
pacific steamship lines plying between the North American Conti- 
nent and Japan, China and Australia, all but one make Honolulu 
a way station. 5 
It is for the reasons above set forth that Hawaii has for the 
last fifty years been currently known to Statesmen and Naval 
Authorities as “The Key of the North Pacific,” and that American 
Statesmen, regardless of party, have consistently and persistently 
maintained the policy that the United States could not allow any 
foreign government or people to colonize or control Hawaii. (See 
appendix of opinions of American Statesmen concerning Hawaii.) 
Upon the opening of the Nicaragua or Panama Canal, prac- 
tically all of the shipping bound for Asia, making use thereof, will 
stop at Honolulu for coal and supplies. 
SECOND REASON IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION. 
The conditions are such that the United States must act NO IP 
to preserve the results of its past policy, and to prevent the domi- 
nancy in Hawaii of a foreign people. 
For over fifty years, beginning with President Pierce in 1842, 
Presidents, Secretaries of State, American Ministers to 
Hawaii, and successive Congresses have had to deal with Hawaii, 
and have continuously enunciated the principle that no other for- 
eign nation can be allowed to possess, control, or dominate Hawaii. 
Up to a recent time the simple announcement by the United 
States of its policy has been sufficient to make it effective, at least 
for the time being. Later a combined commercial and political 
treaty, known as the “ Reciprocity Treaty,” was negotiated, de- 
signed to secure the exclusion of other nations. For a time 
this treaty accomplished the desired result. The time has 
come, however, when neither the simple declaration nor the treaty 
is sufficient to effectuate the time honored policy of the United 
States nor retain the advantages already secured. 
Through causes unnecessary to discuss, the native race has 
decreased until there are now only thirty odd thousand of them 
remaining, constituting less than a third of the population of the 
country, and the decrease is continuing. The day when the abor- 
iginal Hawaiian alone should own and control Hawaii has gone 
and gone forever. It is no longer a question of whether Hawaii 
shall be controlled by the native Hawaiian, or by some foreign 
heople; but the question is, “ What foreign people shall control 
Hawaii." 
Through the medium of the reciprocity treaty, American 
dominancy in Hawaii has been maintained, and American interests 
have increased to such an extent that Americans now own, ap- 
proximately, three-fourths of all the property in the country; con- 
sume 98 per cent, of their exports; furnish 75 per cent, of their 
imports and carry 75 per cent, of their foreign trade in American 
bottoms. By this treaty x\merican goods are admitted free while 
other nations pay a duty, and Hawaii is prohibited from granting 
the same privilege to any other government. The United States 
are granted the exclusive use of Pearl Harbor, the best in the 6 
Pacific, as a naval station, and Hawaii is prohibited from granting 
any lien, lease or special privilege in any of her ports or territory 
to any other government. 
It is said by some, Why is not this enough ? Why not let 
well enough alone ? 
There are two answers : 
First: This treaty is terminable by either party upon a year’s 
notice. The uncertainties of politics may at any time bring into 
power in Hawaii a party inimical to American interests, who can 
at once terminate all special privileges and powers now held in 
Hawaii by the United States, and transfer them to one or more 
rival nations. Such action would be entirely legal; and that 
other nations stand ready to avail themselves of the opportunity is 
evidenced by the fact that three years ago the English and Cana- 
dian Governments sent special agents to Honolulu to obtain the 
cession or lease of one of the Hawaiian Islands as a cable station. 
The proposition is still being urged, and all that has stood in the 
way of its consummation has been the Reciprocity Treaty and the 
unflinching determination of the little Republic to keep its terri- 
tory intact, its government free from other foreign alliances and 
its face turned Americawards until the annexation question was 
definitely settled. 
Second : Whether the Reciprocity Treaty is continued or 
not, conditions have developed within the past few years which 
will as certainly evict American interests and control from Hawaii 
as though it were accomplished by abrogation of the Treaty or by 
hostile guns. 
The awakening of Japan has introduced a new element into 
the politics of the world, and more especially of the Pacific. Until 
Vithin a few years, emigration from Japan was prohibited. Japan 
has now reversed this policy, and emigration, particularly to 
Hawaii, is encouraged. So rapidly have the Japanese come to 
Hawaii that in 1896 they numbered twenty-five thousand; the 
adult Japanese males outnumbering those of any other nationality. 
During the latter part of 1896 and the early part of 1897 they 
came in at the rate of 2000 a month. If this rate of immigration 
had continued for a year, they would have numbered one-half of 
the population of the entire country, and before the end of five 
years would have outnumbered all of the other inhabitants put 
together, two to one. The rate at which they were entering 
Hawaii, is, as compared with the population of the United States, 
as though a million Japanese a month were entering San Fran- 
cisco. It has been well said that “ this was not immigration but 
invasion.” 
Hawaii has attempted to stay this invasion by adopting legis- 
lation against contract laborers and paupers, identical with that of 
the United States, and has thereby become involved in its present 
controversy with Japan, the latter country refusing to recognize 7 
the validity of such legislation and practically claiming the abso- 
lute right of emigration, by her people, to Hawaii. 
Even though the Hawaiian legislation referred to is sustained, 
still immigrants who do not come within the terms of the restrictive 
legislation are free to enter Hawaii, to such an extent as will 
soon give Japan an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants 
of the countrv. 
Under the existing constitution of Hawaii, the Japanese are 
not citizens and are ineligible to citizenship ; but it goes without 
saying, that an energetic, ambitious, warlike, and progressive 
people like the Japanese can not indefinitely be prevented from 
participating in the government of a country in which they be- 
come dominant in numbers, and the ownership of property. 
Already the Japanese in Hawaii are restless under the restric- 
tions imposed upon them, and it needs no gift of prophecy to 
demonstrate that, with their growing wealth, commerce and num- 
bers, it will be impossible for any local independent government in 
Hawaii to much longer withhold from them the full privileges 
which they demand. 
Even though political privileges may for some time be with- 
held from them, their commercial men are active and progressive, 
and are rapidly establishing themselves in Hawaii. 
Long experience has shown that in Hawaii, as elsewhere, 
blood is thicker than water. 
The American merchant buys all that he can in the United 
States, and what he cannot get there he buys elsewhere. The 
Japanese merchant naturally buys all that he can in Japan and 
gets elsewhere what can not be advantageously obtained from his 
own country. Much of the advantage heretofore obtained by the 
United States in Hawaii has been by reason of the strong Ameri- 
can commercial representation in the Islands. The new Japanese 
commercial element is in a position to compete and does destruc- 
tively compete with the American merchants in Hawaii, in an ever 
accelerating degree. 
Regardless of the declarations or political intentions cf the 
Japanese government, as a government, Hawaii has, against the 
will and efforts of its government and people, drifted Japan-wards 
during the past two years; and unless radical action is taken to 
stay the process there can be but one logical result, viz : the ulti- 
mate supremacy of the Japanese, and thereby of Japan, in Hawaii. 
This has progressed and will be accomplished in the teeth of the 
American policy of exclusion of foreign control in Hawaii, and 
with no tangible overt act on the part of the Japanese government. 
It may be claimed that Europeans and Americans can hold 
their own in competition with the Japanese. The reply to this is, 
that experience has demonstrated that there can be no competition 
between Europeans and Americans on the one side and Japanese 
or Chinese on the other. The only possible result is the absolute 8 
substitution of the Asiatic in the place of the white man, by 
reason of the fact that the Eastern standard of civilization and 
living is so much lower than the Western, that the Asiatic can 
exist and prosper on a margin of profit which means starvation and 
destitution to a man who attempts to feed, clothe and educate a 
family in accordance with the American standard. 
The issue in Hawaii is not between monarchy and the Repub- 
lic. That issue has been settled. There are some persons who 
do not recognize this fact. There are never lacking those who set 
their faces backward ; who mourn every lost cause and vainly hope 
for the restoration of abused and forfeited power. 
The issue in Hawaii today, is the preliminary skirmish in the 
great coming struggle between the civilization and the awakening 
forces of the East and the civilization of the West. The issue is 
whether, in that inevitable struggle, Asia or America shall have 
the vantage ground of the control of the naval “ Key of the 
Pacific,” the commercial “ Cross-roads of the Pacific.” 
All that has held, and that is now holding, Hawaii for the 
United States, is the indomitable will and pluck of the men in 
Hawaii, of not only American, but of Hawaiian and European 
blood, who against heavy odds, are doing and will contiue to do 
all that is within the bounds of possibility to prevent Hawaii from 
retrograding into an Asiatic outpost, and to hold the country to 
that destiny which American statesmen have for fifty years, regard- 
less of party, outlined for it. But there is a limit to their strength, 
and if help from the great Republic is to come in time it must 
come soon. While the tendency of events in Hawaii is against 
American interests they have not progressed so far that they can 
not be arrested, if the United States will take radical action for its 
own protection. Annexation will accomplish such a result and 
nothing else will. A protectorate is suggested by some. The 
reasons why a protectorate will not meet the requirements of the 
case are given in full elsewhere herein. It is sufficient to say here 
that the alternative of “ annexation or protectorate ” has success- 
ively been presented to Presidents Pierce, Harrison, and McKinley, 
and Secretaries of State Marcy, Foster, and Sherman, in 1854, 
1893 and 1897, and has each time been decided in favor of annex- 
ation ; for the reason that a Protectorate imposes upon the United 
States responsibility without power to control; while Annexation 
imposes practically no more responsibility but is accompanied with 
the full powers of ownership. Under annexetion the United 
States prohibition of Chinese immigration will apply to Hawaii, 
and the new treaty with Japan gives the United States full power 
to control the emigration of laborers. 
Annexation can be consummated now with little or no fric- 
tion. Events are moving rapidly in the Pacific and no one can 
predict what the developments and changes of even a year may 
bring forth. 9 
THIRD REASON IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION 
OF HAWAII. 
It will increase many fold and secure to the United States the 
commerce of the Islands. 
Only those who have been brought directly into contact with 
the commercial relations between Hawaii and the United States 
realize its volume or importance. 
Prior to the negotiation of the Hawaiian Reciprocity Treaty 
in 1876, the commerce of the Islands was inconsiderable, and was 
in a languishing condition. Population, exports, imports, and 
shipping—all were steadily decreasing as the following figures show: 
Table Showing Condition of the Hawaiian Trade for Six Years prior to 
Reciprocity Treaty. 
Year 
Imports 
Domestic 
Exports 
Customs 
Receipts 
Merchant 
Vessels 
Entered. 
Whaling 
Vessels 
Entered 
1869.- 
12,040,000 
$1,743,000 
$215,000 
127 
102 
1870 _ 
1,930,000 
1,514,000 
223,000 
159 
118 
1871 _ 
1,625,000 
1,733,000 
221,000 
171 
47 
1872 
1,746,000 
1,402,000 
218,000 
146 
47 
1873 - 
1,437,000 
1,725,000 
198,000 
109 
63 
1874 
1,210,827 
1,622,000 
183,000 
120 
43 
From the day the Reciprocity treaty went into operation the 
island trade, in all its branches, increased rapidly, and today 
Hawaii is the best customer which the Pacific coast has,—the 
largest consumer of United States products of any single country 
bordering on the Pacific. 
The following table shows the change wrought since the 
treaty : 
Table showing Improved Condition of Hawaiian Trade for the last Five Years, the 
Result of the Reciprocity Treaty. 
Year 
Imports 
Domestic 
Exports 
Customs 
Receipts 
Merchant 
Vessels 
Entered 
1892._ 
$4,684,000 
$8,081,000 
$494,000 
262 
1893 
5,346,000 
10,742,000 
545,ooo 
3i5 
1894 _ . 
5,713,000 
9,591,000 
524,000 
350 
1895 - 
5,714,000 
8,358,000 
547,000 
318 
1896 
7,164,000 
I5,5I5,ooo 
656,000 
386 
STATEMENT SHOWING IMPORTANCE OF HAWAIIAN TRADE TO PACI- 
FIC COAST. 
While the United States as a whole is benefited by Hawaiian 
trade, the Pacific coast finds it one of the most profitable in which 
it engages. 10 
The figures for the full year 1896 showing the trade of the 
Pacific coast are not yet available. The following figures are from 
the published statement of San Francisco’s commerce for the year 
ending November 30, 1896. 
Table showing comparative importance of San Francisco exports to Hawaii, and to 
some other countries, for the year ending November 30, 1896. 
Australia ■ $3,932,000 
Hawaii 3,588,000 
All of Central America 3,440,000 
China 2,989,000 
Japan 2,270,000 
Mexico 1,469,000 
All Europe except Great Britain *. 1,446,000 
All of Asia and Oceanica, except China and Japan 1,298,000 
New Zealand, Samoa, Marquesas, Cook, Fiji, Friendly, Marshall, Caro- 
line and all other Polynesian islands combined 684,000 
British Columbia 431,000 
All of South America 294,000 
STATEMENT SHOWING COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SAN FRAN- 
CISCO EXPORTS OF PRINCIPAL ARTICLES TO HAWAII 
AND SOME OTHER COUNTRIES. 
WINE. 
Hawaii is San Francisco’s second best foreign wine customer. 
Central America is the only country which took more of San Fran- 
cisco’s wine than Hawaii, and the only thing that prevents Hawaii 
from standing first on th'e list is that all the Central American re- 
public’s are grouped and treated as one country in the statistics. 
Hawaii took wine to the amount of $78,000 
Mexico took wine to the amount of 64,000 
England took wine to the amount of 44,000 
Japan took wine to the amount of 20,000 
All of South America todk wine to the amount of 18,000 
China took wine to the amount of 7,000 
Siberia took wine to the amount of 1,400 
All of the Pacific islands (except Hawaii) took wine to the amount of 12,000 
New Zealand took wine to the amount of.; 565 
Australia took wine to the amount of 7 
SAI.MON. 
Hawaii is San Francisco’s third best purchaser of salmon, hav- 
ing purchased to the amount of $59,379- 
The only countries that bought more than Hawaii were Aus- 
tralia and England. 
Other countries took the following amounts : 
New Zealand $43-594 
All of Europe 9>°&9 
All of Asia and Africa, including Japan I5,9°7 
Mexico, Central and South America 12,395 
All of Oceanica and Polynesia I5,I34 
In other words, Hawaii bought more salmon from San Fran- 
cisco in 1896 than all the rest of the countries of the world added 
together, leaving out England, Australia, and New Zealand. 11 
BARLEY. 
Hawaii was the third largest consumer of barley exported by 
San Francisco, having taken barley to the amount of $139,000. 
The only countries which took more barley than Hawaii were 
England and Belgium. 
St. Vincent is credited with more, but that is only a port of 
call at which to receive orders as to where to deliver the grain. 
Australia took barley to the amount of only .. $52,000 
Africa took barley to the amount of only 6,000 
All of the Pacific islands (excluding Hawaii) took barley to the amount 
of only 2,907 
All of Central America took 3.°°4 
Japan took 280 
Mexico took 56 
China, South America, and British Colombia took none. 
FLOUR. 
In the consumption of flour Hawaii stood sixth, flour having 
been exported there to the amount of $164,000. 
England took flour to the amount of only $333.ooo 
Or barely twice the consumption of Hawaii. 
The export to Japan was 123,000 
To all of South America -• - 96,000 
To Mexico — 31.000 
To all of Africa, Polynesia, Oceanica, and Asia (excepting Japan, China, 
and Siberia) the export of flour amounted to only — 114,569 
The above statistics do not include the large shipments being 
made to Hawaii, direct from Washington and Oregon, by the three 
lines of steamers and many sailing vessels running from there to 
Honolulu. 
TABLE SHOWING VALUES OF PRINCIPAL ARTICLES IMPORTED BY 
HAWAII DURING 1896. 
Hawaiian imports amounted during 1896 to $7,164,561, of 
which $5,464,208, being 76 per cent, came from the United States. 
The infinite variety of the exports to Hawaii indicates the 
widespread participation which the residents of the United States 
have in the business. There is not an industry in the United 
States which is not benefited by Hawaiian trade, and which would 
not be injured by abrogation of the treaty, or diversion of Hawaii’s 
trade elsewhere. 
The following statement shows the value of some of the prin- 
cipal articles imported by Hawaii during 1896: 
Ale, beer, cider and porter $ 74>82o 65 
Animals 5T>633 37 
Building materials 120,638 78 
Clothing, boots and hats 292,558 82 
Coal and coke 135.846 85 
Crockery, glassware, lamps and lamp fixtures 47>552 58 
Drugs, surgical instruments, and dental material 68,192 06 
Cottons 311,891 21 
Linens 12,633 94 
Silks 20,953 16 
Woolens 69,368 27 
Mixtures 10,932 59 
Dry goods. 12 
Fancy goods, millinery, etc 101,285 So 
Fertilizer, bone-meal, etc 332,238 71 
Fish (dry and salt) 60,564 21 
Flour 156,999 29 
Fruits, fresh 14, J54 97 
Furniture 9L637 73 
Grain and feed 273,75271 
Groceries and provisions 520,884 69 
Guns and materials 16,046 42 
Gunpowder, blasting, etc 7,526 68 
Hardware, agricultural implements, and tools 278,267 03 
Iron, steel, etc 38,94° 7° 
Jewelry, plate, clocks 25,341 89 
Leather 4L549 28 
Lumber 255,241 64 
Machinery 343,104 69 
Matches 15.58732 
Musical instruments, etc 21,456 82 
Naval stores 47,92 2 34 
Oil—cocoanut, kerosene, whale, etc 107,418 94 
Paints, paint oils, and turpentine 53.410 86 
Perfumery and toilet articles I7.I49 48 
Railroad material, rails, cars, etc 32,977 22 
Sadlery, carriages, and material 95.°°7 74 
Shooks, bags, and containers I99>°96 78 
Spirits 65,947 20 
Stationery and books 92,614 67 
Tea 30,860 26 
Tin, tinware, and materials 10,925 67 
Tobacco, cigars, etc 194,835 82 
Wines, light 161,360 54 
Sundry personal and household effects 24,765 12 
Sundry merchandise not included in above 227,897 01 
TABLE SHOWING HOW MANY AND HOW MUCH OF CERTAIN ARTI- 
CLES WERE IMPORTED BY HAWAII DURING 1896. 
An enumeration of the numbers and amounts of articles im- 
ported will convey a better idea to some, of the importance of the 
Hawaiian trade to the farmers and manufacturers of the United 
States. 
The following items taken at random from the Hawaiian table 
of imports for 1896 indicate the wide range of their business. 
This list can be indefinitely extended, but it is sufficient to 
show that no narrow interest is subserved by the Hawaiian trade: 
33 Bulls and cows. 
246 Horses. 
1,583 Hogs and pigs. 
555 Mules. 
2,223 Blinds. 
110,872 Bricks. 
5,016 Doors. 
22,281 Barrels lime. 
Tons of coal. 
140,000 Bottles and vials. 
7,400 Lamps. 
7,500 Lanterns. 
52,000 Lbs. of acids. 
11,000 Lbs. Epsom salts. 
134,000 Pounds soda ash. 
189,000 Prs. boots, shoes and slip- 
pers. 
18,960 Cravats and ties. 
27.600 Boys’ felt and wool hats. 
6,300 Ladies’ hats. 
38,000 Straw hats. 
55.600 Undershirts. 
194,600 Prs. socks and stockings. 
350,000 Cartridges. 
22.500 Pounds rope. 
31,000 Pairs butts and hinges. 
321,000 Pounds fence wire. 
40.500 Files and rasps. 
20,000 Galvanized buckets. 
1,600 Kegs horseshoes. 271,000 Yards brown cotton. 
488,000 Yards denim. 
79,000 “ drilling. 
94,000 “ dress goods. 
90,000 “ duck. 
48,000 “ flannelette. 
179,000 “ gingham. 
84,000 Cotton handkerchiefs. 
24,000 Yards muslin. 
1,657,000 “ cotton prints. 
521,000 “ sheeting. 
103,000 “ shirting. 
49,000 Silk handkerchiefs. 
12,000 Pairs woolen blankets. 
20,000 Yards embroidery. 
569,000 Needles. 
20,000 Pieces of ribbon. 
304,000 Pounds cod fish. 
4,000 Barrels salt salmon. 
644,000 Pounds and 550 barrels and 
cases of other kinds of 
salt fish. 
11,500 Barrels and boxes of fresh 
apples, grapes, peaches, 
pears and other fruits. 
11,000 Chairs. 
39,000 Rolls wall paper. 
575 Sets parlor and chamber 
furniture. 
970 Tables. 
18,635,000 Pounds of barley. 
12,500,000 “ “ bran. 
565,000 “ “ corn. 
2,155,000 “ “ middlings. 
65,000 Bales of hay. 
3,548,000 Pounds of oats. 
85,700 “ “ meal cake. 
876,500 “ “ wheat. 
23,000 •* dried apples and 
apricots. 
63,000 “ bacon. 
1,100,000 “ beans. 
264,000 “ hard bread. 
120,000 “ butter. 
45,000 “ butterine. 
51,000 “ candles. 
107,000 “ cheese. 
197,000 “ and 16,000 tins of 
cakes and crack- 
ers. 
225,000 “ liams. 
322,000 “ lard. 
477,000 “ onions. 
38,000 Tins canned oysters. 
53,000 pounds split peas. 
632,000 “ potatoes. 
21,000 “ prunes. 
145,000 Tins canned meats. 
477,000 Pounds salt. 
193,000 “ and 10,000 cases of 
soap. 
637,000 “ refined sugar. 
49,000 Gallons vinegar. 
2,932,000 Gun caps. 
6,709 Window sashes. 
5r,ooo Feet rubber hose. 
26.800 Hoes. 
23.800 Butcher and pocket knives. 
36,000 Pounds and 8,000 kegs and 
boxes nails. 
343,000 Nuts and bolts. 
4,300 Picks and mattocks. 
400,000 Feet iron pipe. 
2,000 Razors. 
18,500 Pots and kettles. 
330 Plows. 
260 Refrigerators. 
30,000 Pounds iron and copper 
rivets. 
4,000 Saws. 
15,000 Pairs scissors and shears. 
4.500 Shovels and spades. 
2,900 Stoves. 
100,000 Feet wire cloth. 
26,000 Paint and other brushes. 
3.500 Clocks. 
3,100 Watches. 
19,197,000 Feet northwest pine lum- 
ber. 
800,000 Laths. 
64,000 Fence posts. 
4,100,000 Feet red-wood lumber. 
42.600 Railroad ties. 
21,000 Feet belting. 
1.500 Boiler tubes. 
246,000 Pounds packing. 
937 Sewing machines. 
58 Type-writing machines. 
600 Guitars. 
79 Pianos and organs. 
24,000 Yards canvas. 
52,000 Pounds ship chains. 
220,000 Pounds rope. 
130,000 Pounds and 38,000 feet 
wire rope. 
64,000 Cases kerosene. 
110,000 Gallons lubricating oil. 
620 Barrels tar. 
31,000 Gallons linseed oil. 
493,000 Pounds and 9,000 gallons 
paint and varnish. 
363 Bicycles. 
132 Carriages. 
300 Sets Harness. 
1.200 Horse combs. 
1,560 Saddles. 
4,000,000 Sugar bags. 
1,500,000 Paper bags. 
11,000 Printed books. 
4.200 Blank books. 
41.600 Packs playing cards. 
2,321,000 Envelopes. 
96,000 Lead pencils. 
1,427,000 Cigars. 
5,827,000 Cigarettes. 
320,000 Pounds tobacco. 
869 Cases and 136,000 gallons 
California wine. 
28,800,000 Pounds fertilizer. 14 
COMMERCE WIEL BE GREATLY INCREASED UNDER ANNEXATION. 
The astonishing commercial results shown above have result- 
ed from affording to Hawaii a free market for, practically, only 
three of her products, viz : sugar, rice and bananas. 
Under annexation, the country would have a free market for 
all its products, and, with the exception of the three products 
above named, the resources of the country are practically 
untouched. 
With a population of only 109 thousand, Hawaii in 1896, had 
a foreign trade of over $208 per capita for every man, woman and 
child in the country; a record almost unparallel in the history of 
the world. 
Less than a hundred years ago, Hawaii supported a population 
of four hundred thousand souls with the crude methods of culti- 
vation then known. 
Artificial irrigation in its most advanced methods, is now 
practiced in Hawaii, bringing thousands of acres into cultivation 
that have heretofore been waste. 
There is no reason why Hawaii cannot support a population 
of a million as easy as it does a hundred thousand. 
Islands of less area, and no greater resources than Hawaii, in 
both the East and West Indies are supporting populations of sev- 
eral millions each. 
It requires no mathematical ability to demonstrate that an in- 
crease of the population of Hawaii to even a million will place its 
commerce in the front rank of American export trade. 
Under existing conditions, the Hawaiian general tariff of 10 
per cent has allowed about 25 per cent of Hawaiian imports to 
come from countries other than the United States, and if annexa- 
tion does not take place an increasing proportion of Hawaiian im- 
ports will come from other countries. 
If Hawaii becomes American territory, the American protec- 
tive tariff of approximately 50 per cent will give to Americans 
practically all of its present foreign trade, and an immensely larger 
trade which will spring into existence as the Islands develop un- 
der the stimulating influences of a stable government, fertile soil 
and a free market. 
FOURTH REASON IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION 
OF HAWAII. 
It will greatly increase and secure to the United States the 
shipping business of the islands. 
To those who refer to the Hawaiian Islands, as “Dots in the 
Pacific” this may appear to be an absurd reason. It is absurd to those only who do not know the facts. 
Hawaii is today, the main stay of the American merchant 
marine engaged in deep-sea-foreign trade. 
TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF AMERICAN VESSELS ENTERING AMERI- 
CAN PORTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE 
AMERICAN CONTINENT, DURING THE YEAR 
ENDING JUNE 30, 1896. 
(Compiled From U. S. Treasury Records.) 
Countries cleared from. 
Number of 
Vessels 
Austria 
None 
] 
Belgium .. . — 
16 
Denmark _ 
None 
France _ 
2 
Gibraltar. — 
2 
None 
J- All of Europe _ ..30 Ships. 
Italy 
5 
Netherlands — -- - 
None 
Portugal 
None 
Russia _ 
None 
Spain 
5 
Sweden and Norway . - 
None 
i 
China .... __ 
14 
30 
All of Asia .. 98 Ships. 
Japan 
29 
East Indies. . . _ — 
23 
Russia 
2 
Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, 
30 
All of Australasia . 30 Ships. 
All other Pacific Islands (except 
Hawaii) 
30 
All of Africa. ... 
22 
United Kingdom . _ 
88 
Hawaiian Islands _ _. - 
191 
To summarize further, the number of American vessels entering 
American ports during the year ending June 30, 1896, were : 
From the United Kingdom *--- 88 
From Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Oceanica combined... 210 
From Hawaii r9r 
Or, in other words, Hawaii furnished cargo for 191 American 
ships, and all the world besides, outside of the American continent, 
furnished cargo for only 298 American ships. 
Hawaii is the banner country for promoting American shipping 
and spreading the American flag to the breeze, and it is submitted that 
she should be allowed to carry on and extend the good work. 
The following tables also show the extent to which American 
shipping is dominating the Hawaiian foreign trade, and that Hawaii is 
the only foreign country in the wide world in which American ship- 
ping is not only holding its own, but increasing : 16 
TABLE SHOWING NUMBER AND TONNAGE OF VESSELS ENTERING 
THE PORTS OF HAWAIIAN ISLANDS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES 
FOR THE YEARS 1890 TO 1896, INCLUSIVE. 
Year 
American 
Entered. 
Hawaiian 
Entered. 
Other Nations 
Entered. 
Total 
Entered. 
< 
O to 
O 73 
* 2- 
73 
h 
0 
3 
(O 
0) 
£8 
• ru 
5T 
H 
0 
3 
to 
C 
n> 
'/3 
0 73 
* 0) 
73 
0 
to 
■ 
<; 
O 73 
’ fD 
m 
h 
0 
3 
to 
1890 
1891 
1892 
227 
224 
204 
221 
250 
219 
247 
150,676 
173,891 
154,007 
178,120 
182,I76 
l82,'876 
243,983 
34 
25 
9 
23 
17 
28 
26 
42,229 
28,077 
5,009 
15,759 
13,844 
22,592 
25,049 
34 
61 
49 
66 
73 
71 
113 
37,215 
82,187 
79,606 
126,115 
140,388 
132,349 
208,965 
295 
310 
262 
310 
340 
318 
386 
230,120 
284,155 
238,622 
319,994 
336,408 
337,817 
477,997 
1893 
1894 
1895 . 
T896 
Total 
1,592 
1,265,729 
162 
152,559 
467 
806,825 
2,221 
2,225,113 
Total vessels entering, 2,221 ; tonnage 2,225,113. 
Total American and Hawaiian vessels entering, 1,754; tonnage, 1,418,288. 
Total all other nationalities, 469 ; tonnage, 806,825. 
Note—Nearly all the Hawaiian vessels engaged in foreign trade are owned by 
Americans. 
TABLE SHOWING THE VALUE OF IMPORTS TO AND EXPORTS FROM 
HAWAII FOR THE YEARS 1892 TO 1896, INCLUSIVE ; THE PER- 
CENTAGE OF TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND 
PERCENTAGE CARRIED IN AMERICAN VESSELS. 
Per cent, carried 
in vessels of 
other nations. 
CO N Q w 
to GO CN O' W 
<j\ o <n<n 
Per cent, carried 
in Hawaiian 
vessels. 
fON O'O'O 
o 1-0 
rION ui 
Per cent, carried 
in American 
vessels. 
0"0 NO fO 
co in 
»o fO rf ■*i- <N 
CO CO GO 1^00 
Per cent, of trade 
with U. S. 
Cl CO C O VO 
H H C fN 
rO fO O' Q Cl 
O' O' CO O' O' 
Total value 
exports. 
0 
to lOOirOfO 
0 t-~ tl M o 
6 x 6* *n 
|5 H 
O oo •-<_ «o 
x o O'oo’’ io 
Total value 
imports. 
11 t'' w 
O O X - O 
NW m O iO 
rf rO "3- 
oo **■ i i vo 
tO tONN- 
rf uS lO to rC 
Y ear. 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 t 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
<N ro Tt »n'D 
O' O' O' O' O' 
CO CO CO CO CO 
M M M M 
Note.—Nearly all the Hawaiian vessels engaged in foreign trade are owned 
by Americans. 
UNDER ANNEXATION, AMERICAN SHIPPING WILL BE 
GREATLY INCREASED. 
After annexation, all exports and imports to and from the United 
States, will have to be carried in American vessels; for, being American 
territory, the Coasting trade laws will apply, and freight and passengers 17 
can be carried between Hawaii and other parts of the United States in 
American vessels only. 
As the American tariff will bar out almost all imports from for- 
eign countries, practically the w’hole freighting business of Hawaii 
will be with the United States and will be transacted by American ves- 
sels. With the unquestionably rapid and large increase of Hawaiian 
population and commerce under annexation, it is entirely within bounds 
to say that within ten years after annexation is completed, the number 
of American vessels required to carry freight to and from Hawaii to 
the United States will be double that now engaged therein. That is 
to say, 247 American ships being required to carry Hawaiian freight, 
in 1896, approximately five hundred will be required in 1906, if an- 
nexation is consummated; or more than all the deep sea American 
ships which entered American ports during 1896, from all the world 
outside of the American continent. 
FIFTH REASON IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION OF 
HAWAII. 
It will remove Hawaii from international politics, and tend to pro- 
mote peace in the Pacific by eliminating an otherwise certain source of in- 
ternational friction. 
It is the habit of those who oppose the annexation of Hawaii, to 
ridicule the possibilily of any foreign government taking any action in 
or towards Hawaii inimical to the interests of the United States. 
One of the best methods of judging the future is to examine 
the past. 
Within the past eighty-five years, Hawaii has been taken pos- 
session of : 
Once by Russia. 
Once by England. 
Twice by France. 
And by reason of hostile demonstrations by foreign governments, 
creating the fear of foreign conquest, an absolute cession of the sov- 
ereignty of the country to the United States was executed and deliver- 
ed in 1851, and a treaty of annexation negotiated in 1854. 
Since 1874, on four seperate occasions, internal disturbances have 
required the landing of foreign troops from war ships, for the protec- 
tection of the interests of the several nations there represented. 
During the past few years there has not seemed to be any likeli- 
hood of conflict between the United States and any other foreign pow- 
ers, and many persons have concluded that there is no possibility of 
conflict in the future. 
While the tendency of the age is undoubtedly in favor of arbitra- 
tion and against war, the existing conditions in the world are not such 
as to guarantee that the millennium is near at hand, and more particu- 
larly are the developments in the Pacific such as to render it unsafe 
for any country possessing interests therein to act upon the supposi- 
tion that there will be no conflict of interests in that locality. 
Russia has heretofore been a European country, with but a nomi- 
nal interest in the Pacific. Within the past five years it has developed 
Pacific wards, until it fills the northwestern horizon, and with the now 
rapidly progressing development of its vast empire on the Pacific coast 18 
of Siberia; the construction of its transcontinental railway from St. 
Petersburg to the Pacific, and the fore-shadowed absorption of northern 
China, there can be no prediction of the limit of its interests and 
strength in the Pacific. 
The meteor-like projection of Japan into the international sky, is 
too recent and vivid to need any enumeration of detail. In the short 
space of a year Japan has become not only a Pacific, but a world power. 
With its rapidly increasing population, already numbering nearly 
fifty million; its navy now stronger than any other in the Pacific; its 
demonstrated power of organization and military execution; its pro- 
gressive commercial and aggressive national spirit, there is no safety 
in basing any calculations upon the meekness or weakness of Japan. 
Whether the government of Great Britain will voluntarily engage 
in hostilities with the United States, may be doubted; but there is a 
great Anglo-Saxon community growing up in the Pacific, including 
Australia, New Zealand, and hundreds of islands within their sphere 
of influence, whose interests are so great as to radically affect and fre- 
quently control British policy. This great Anglo-Saxon community 
inhabiting a country larger than the United States, excluding Alaska, 
is in the spring tide of its development. Its leading statesmen have 
repeatedly and publicly advanced the claim that the control of the Pa- 
cific was theirs, by right. Today, their influence and strength is not 
sufficient to be a serious menace to other interests in the Pacific. 
What their power may be fifty, or a hundred years from now, no man 
can tell. The statesmen of the United States should look, not to the 
conditions of today only, but should stake out and secure to the United 
States the position and policy which that country may require for a 
hundred years to come. 
The population of Hawaii is, and for years to come will be, con- 
stituted of many divers nationalities and factions. 
For the immediate present, the government is under the control of 
those favorable to the United States. There is no certainty that this 
condition of affairs will continue. As long as Hawaii is independent, 
other nationalities will naturally and legitimately seek to advance their 
interests at the expense of those of the United States. 
It is not necessary that any foreign government should attempt 
to do this, as a government. 
The present difficulty with Japan is an illustration of how inter- 
national troubles may arise through conflict of interests of the different 
nationalities resident in Hawaii, without direct initiative of a foreign 
government, and from entirely unexpected sources. Today the 
friction is with Japan. Tomorrow it may be with Europe, Eng- 
land, or China. 
The population of the country is so small that individual in- 
fluence is much greater than in a larger country, and it is much easier 
for a nationality or a faction to get control of the government. 
As long as the country is independent, with its growing wealth 
and importance there is, and will be, a growing tendency to interna- 
tional friction among its inhabitants, which will inevitably draw into 
controversy the respective governments. 
When annexation was proposed in 1893 no government objected. 
Today, by reason of the increase of the interests of Japanese subjects in the islands, Japan interposes a vigorous objection. It may not be 
considered a serious obstacle to annexation; but it is an illustration of 
the rapidity with which changes are taking place in the Pacific, and of 
the possibility and probability of rapid developments inimical to Ameri- 
can control, which must be expected in the Pacific within the early 
future. 
Hawaii independent, but without the power to maintain its inde- 
pendence, is a standing invitation to international intrigue, and fric- 
tion, and a menace to the peace of the Pacific. 
As a part of the territory of the United States, Hawaii will be 
eliminated from international politics, as much so as is Florida or 
California. 20 
A Brief Description of the Republic of Hawaii, Its People, Govern- 
ment, Laws, Commerce, Finances, Educational System 
and Resources. 
LOCATION. 
The Hawaiian Islands are near the middle of the North Pacific 
Ocean, between 18 and 22 degrees North Latitude and 154 and 160 
degrees West Longitude. 
The map on the back cover of this pamphlet shows their position, 
better than any description. 
Without disputing Boston’s claim to be the hub of the Universe, 
Hawaii is the hub of the Western Hemisphere. 
STRATEGICAL POSITION. 
Hawaii is the only spot in the Pacific, from the Equator on the 
South to Alaska on the North, and between America on the East and 
Asia on the West, where water, food or coal can be obtained. It is 
also on or near the principal trade routes across the Pacific. Its 
unique position is what has given it the name of ‘ ‘ The Cross Roads oj 
the Pacific'' “ The Key of the Pacific'' and “ The Gibraltcr of the 
Pacific.'' 
Captain Mahan, of the U. S. Navy, one of the highest authorities 
on naval strategy, says that Hawaii is one of the most important 
strategical points in the world; that it stands “ alone, having 110 rival 
and admitting no rival.” 
The distances to the principal Pacific ports are as follows : 
CAPTAIN MAHAN’S OPINION. 
Hawaii 
to 
San Francisco . 
2080 
Miles. 
4 < 
< 4 
Nicaragua Canal 
4210 
4 4 
4 4 
4 4 
Tahiti __ _ _ __ 
23S9 
4 4 
4 4 
4 4 
Pagopago, Samoa 
2263 
4 4 
4 ( 
4 4 
Auckland, New Zealand 
3850 
4 4 
4 4 
44 
Fiji 
2736 
4 4 
( 4 
« 4 
Marshall Islands. _ 
2098 
4 4 
4 < 
« 4 
Caroline Islands . _ _ 
2602 
4 4 
(4 
4 4 
Hong Kong. . _ 
4917 
4 4 
( 4 
4 4 
Yokohama, Japan 
3399 
4 4 
4 4 
4 4 
Unalaska, Aleution Islands 
2016 
44 
4 4 
4 4 
Sitka.. 
2395 
4 4 
4 4 
Vancouver 
2305 
4 4 
(See the map on the cover of this pamphlet.) 
NUMBER AND AREA OF ISLANDS. 
The group contains eight inhabited islands and a large number of 
small uninhabited ones, of a total approximate area of 7000 square 
miles, or 4,480,000 acres ; being nearly the area of Massachusetts, and 
considerably larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. 
The group extends east and west a distance of 1200 miles. The eight 
principal islands cover 300 miles at the eastern end of the group. 
They are Ha-wai-i, Mau-i, O-a-hu, Kau-ai, Mo-lo-kai, La-nai, 
Ka-hoo-la-we and Ni-i-hau. There are valuable guano and phosphate 
rock deposits on some of the western islands. 21 
HO-NO-LU-LU. 
Situated on the island of O-a-hu, is the principal city and the 
capital of the Republic. 
It is located on a small but safe harbor, and has a population of 
30,000. 
The business portion is well built of stone and brick ; the resi- 
dences are of wood. 
The city has 67 miles of streets and drives, of which 20 miles are 
macadamized ; has a street railway system ; public and private electric 
light systems ; a telephone system extending throughout the island 
and using 1300 telephones ; a well regulated State prison; handsome 
executive buildings, Custom House and Court House; an Insane 
Asylum, Public Hospitals, Maternity Home, Old Folks Home ; Public 
Eibrary ; a well equipped Y. M. C. A. building ; banks ; churches ; 
public and private schools ; public water works, both a reservoir and 
pumping plant; a paid fire department equipped with the most modern 
steam and chemical engines ; has a G. A. R. Post; branches of the 
Societies of “Sons” and “Daughters” of the American Revolution, 
and numerous Masonic, Odd Fellows and other similar Dodges. In 
other words, it has the appliances and conveniences of an up-to-date 
American city, with the added charm of a profuse tropical vegetation, 
and a climate unrivalled the world over for mildness and evenness. 
The city lies on a level strip of land along the sea, a mile or two 
wide and five miles long, and extending back for several miles into 
five valleys, which cut deep into thickly wooded, cloud-capped moun- 
tains rising to an elevation of nearly 4000 feet at a distance of six 
miles from the sea. 
GENERAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 
COUNTRY. 
The islands are all high and mountainous, rising to a height of 
4000 feet on Oahu, to 10,000 on Maui, and 14,000 feet and perpetual 
snow on the island of Hawaii. The whole country is volcanic in 
origin, there being hundreds of extinct and two active volcanoes. 
Each island consists of one or more mountains seamed with valleys 
and gorges, with rolling plains lying between the mountains, and gen- 
erally fringed with a comparatively level belt along the sea shore. 
Some portions of the coast are protected by reefs of coral, while 
others are sheer precipices rising out of blue water to a height of 
thousands of feet. 
The Soil, consisting of decomposed lava, is fertile; but has to be 
irrigated in many places, the water coming from mountain streams, 
artesian and surface wells. Some of the largest steam pumps in the 
world are used, raising water to an elevation of 400 feet. 
Fertilizers are used in large quantities, thousands of tons per 
annum being used on the sugar plantations. 
The Climate, is mild and even, being of an average weekly 
maximum of 74 in winter and 82 in summer. There are no extremes 
of heat or cold. The lowest temperature at sea level in winter, is 
about 56° and the hottest in the summer about 88°. A 
temperature of 90° in the shade is almost unknown. At higher eleva- 22 
tions above the sea almost any desired temperature can be found. On 
two mountains there is perpetual snow. 
The cool northeast trade winds blow for nine months of the year. 
Except when the south winds blow7 the humidity of the air is low7. 
The country at all elevations, and throughout the year, is healthy, 
the death rate among whites being exceptionally small. None of the 
fevers and other typical diseases of tropical countries are found there, 
and the diseases of the temperate zone are usually of a mild character. 
The climate is so balmy and natural conditions so delightful that, 
by common acceptance, Hawraii is known as “The Paradise of the 
Pacific.” Although spoken of as a “tropical country” it is barely on 
the edge of the tropics, and the same Arctic current that cools San 
Francisco gives Hawyaii a climate many degrees cooler than in the 
same latitude in the Atlantic. It is a climate well suited to the physi- 
cal and mental development of the Anglo Saxon. 
Products. The principal products are sugar, rice, coffee, bananas, 
pine apples, guavas and other tropical fruits, many of which grow 
wrild. 
Sugar. The area cultivated with sugar cane is approximately 
80,000 acres. The export of sugar in 1896 amounted to 221,000 tons. 
The output of sugar cannot be much increased, as most of the sugar 
lauds are already occupied. 
Coffee. The cultivation of coffee is rapidly increasing. It wrill 
soon rival sugar in amount and value, as there are large areas of rich 
but yet uncultivated land, not available for sugar but peculiarly 
adapted to coffee. This product is the hope of the country, as it can 
be produced profitably by farmers w itli small capital. 
Bananas and Pine Apples. The principal supply of these 
fruits consumed on the Pacific Coast is from Hawraii. It is a grow7- 
iug trade. 
The rainfall varies greatly, ranging from fifty inches in some 
districts to 175 inches in others. Irrigation supplements the rainfall 
in the dryer section. Twro-tliirds of the sugar is produced by 
irrigation. 
Education. There is a highly organized system of free public 
schools, modeled on that of the United States, in which the English 
language is taught. There are also a number of private boarding 
schools, and schools ranking with high schools in the United States. 
The public school year is eight months, and all children between 
six and fourteen years of age are compelled, if physically able, to at- 
tend school. 
All the Hawaiian born population of all nationalities can read and 
w7rite English. The number of schools in 1896 was 187; number of 
teachers 426; number of scholars 12,616. 
The schools are under the control of an unpaid board of five per- 
sons, appointed by the President. 
The constitution prohibits the appropriation of public funds for 
sectarian or private schools. 
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES. 
The financial status of the Republic is strong. The country is 
self-supporting, solvent and prosperous. 23 
FINANCIAL STATUS JANUARY 1, 1897. 
RECEIPTS. The current cash on hand January 
1, 1896, was $ 22,496.30 
The current revenue for 1896 was: 
From customs 656,895.82 
“ postoffice 77,488.94 
“ internal revenue 1,240,937.12 
Total current revenue for 1896 $1,997,818,18 
Expenditures. The current expenditures for 1896 
were: General expenses $1,651,631.33 
Interest on all loans 236,459.59 
Matured bonds paid 16,100.00 
Total current expense for 1896... $1,904,190 92 
Cash on hand December 31, 
1896 $ 93,627.26 
$1,997,818.18 
This shows that after paying all running expenses, interest on all 
loans, and redeeming $16,100 worth of bonds falling due, the Treasury 
closed the year with a cash surplus over $71,000 greater than at the 
beginning. 
TAXATION. 
Revenue is raised by duties on imports, averaging 10 per cent ad- 
valorem; (except a few specific duties); and by internal taxes. The 
internal revenue is derived from rents of public lands, wharfage and 
water rates in Honolulu; a system of licenses for different kinds of 
business; a stamp duty on conveyances and legal documents; a tax of 
one per cent on all real and personal property, and a poll tax on male 
adults. 
PUBLIC DEBT. 
The bonded debt consists of 7 per 
cent bonds $ 1,500. 
6 per cent bonds 3,073,600. 
5 “ “ “ - 255,100. 
$3,330,200. 
Deposits in Postal Savings Bank. $ 882,345.29 
Total gross debt $4,212,545.29 
Less bond proceeds, cash in Treas- 
ury $ 221,565.90 
And Postal Bank deposits 111,371.04 
$ 332,936.94 
Total net debt January 1, 1897 $31879.608.35 
With the exception of $222,000 five per cent bonds, which are 
redeemable in 1901, all of the debt can be taken up at any time. 
Measures to refund the debt at four per cent, which were being 
taken.are being delayed, pending action on the annexation treaty, as 
the United States can, of course, refund at a still lower rate. With the exception of $1,000,000 held in London, practically all 
of the bonds are held in Hawaii. 
24 
PUBLIC LANDS. 
The area of the public lands is 1,740,000 acres, of an estimated 
value in 1894 of $4,389,550. The income from the rents of public 
lands during 1896 was $137,773, an amount which can be largely 
increased. 
A considerable portion of the public land is mountainous and 
waste, and much that is arable is under leases. 
The policy of the government is to renew leases of only such por- 
tions of arable land as are in actual cultivation, cutting up all available 
farming lands into small farms and disposing of it on easy terms to 
actual settlers. It is mainly through this means that the coffee indus- 
try has become established. 
A complete and extremely liberal land law has been enacted by 
the Republic, and is in operation under a Board of Land Commissioners. 
The lands are being surveyed and roads constructed to them as 
rapidly as practicable. 
Public lands suitable for coffee and fruit culture can be bought by 
actual settlers at from $7 to $20 an acre, on easy terms. 
Land of similar quality can be purchased unconditionally from 
private parties at from $25 to $50 per acre. 
POPULATION. 
The census of 1896 shows the population to be 109,020. 
In round numbers the different nationalities are represented as 
follows : 
Native Hawaiians 31,000 
Japanese 24,400 
Portuguese 15,100 
Chinese 21,600 
Part Hawaiian and part foreign blood 8,400 
Americans 3,000 
British 2,200 
German 1,400 
Norwegian and French 479 
All other nationalities 1,055 
Expressed in percentage the population is as follows : 
Native Hawaiian 28 per cent. 
Japanese 22 “ “ 
Chinese 20 “ “ 
Americans, and Europeans by birth or descent 22 ‘ “ 
Mixed blood 8 “ “ 
FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 
The Government of Hawaii was a monarchy until January, 1893, 
when Queen Liliuokalani attempted to abrogate the constitution and 
promulgate one increasing her power and disfranchising the whites. 
The people thereupon overthrew the monarch)' and established a 
Provisional Government, January the 17th, 1893. 
Later a constitutional convention unanimousiy adopted a constitu- 
tion declaring the Republic of Hawaii, on July 4, 1894. 25 
The Executive consists of a President and four cabinet officers. 
The President is Sanford Ballard Dole ; fifty years of age ; Ha- 
waiian born, of American parentage ; a graduate of Williams College ; 
a lawyer by profession. He was a judge of the Supreme Court under 
the monarchy, which position he resigned to accept the leadership of 
the revolution which overturned the monarchy. He is respected and 
admired by all classes and factions in the community. 
The Electorate consists of all male adult citizens who take an 
oath of renunciation of the monarchy and allegiance to the Republic. 
Asiatics are not eligible to citizenship or to vote. 
The required qualifications of a voter for Representatives is abil- 
ity to read and write Hawaiian or English and the payment of all taxes 
due ; and for Senators, in addition thereto, an income of $600 per 
annum, or the ownership of real estate worth $1,500, or personal prop- 
erty worth $3,000. 
The Legislature consists of a Senate elected for six years and 
a House of Representatives elected for two years, each consisting of 
fifteen members. 
The Legislative Procedure is practically the same as in the 
United States. Each measure, in order to become law, has to pass 
three readings before each House and be signed by the President. 
The committee system is the same as in American legislative 
bodies. 
The President has the power of veto, which may be overridden 
by a two-thirds vote of each House. 
Character of Laws. The foundation of the legal system of 
the country is the common law of England. 
The penal law and practice is codified, and there are no penal 
offenses except those enumerated in the code. 
The civil law, practice and procedure, is partially codified, and is, 
in general, as much like that of the several American States as the law 
of one State is like that of another. 
The text books and law reports of England and the United States 
are cited as authority in the courts in the same manner that they are 
in this country. 
The members of the Supreme and Circuit Court bars are nearly 
all Americans, or were educated in American law schools. The attor- 
neys in the District Courts are mostly native Hawaiians, educated in 
Honolulu. 
THE COURTS. 
The main judicial system consists of District and Circuit Courts 
and a Supreme Court. 
District Courts. There are about thirty District Courts. 
They have jurisdiction over civil matters involving not more than 
$300, and over misdemeanors. They also commit, for trial by jury, 
persons accused of felony, exercising the functions of an American 
Grand Jury. The grand jury system has not been adopted. 
An appeal lies from the District to the Circuit or Supreme Court. 
Circuit Courts. There are four Circuit Courts, with appellate 
jurisdiction over appeals from the District Courts and original juris- 
diction over all civil suits involving more than $300; over persons 
committed for trial for felonies ; in all equity, admiralty and probate 26 
cases and over special proceedings such as habeas corpus, etc. Each 
Circuit Court is presided over by one judge. All jury trials are held 
in the Circuit Courts. 
Juries. The same class of cases are tried by jury as in the Uni- 
ted States. Juries consist of twelve men, but nine can render a verdict 
in both civil and criminal cases. Jury can be waived in both civil and 
criminal cases, except capital cases. 
The Supreme Court consists of three judges, with exclusive 
jurisdiction to decide certain special proceedings and the validity of 
elections to the legislature ; concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit 
judges concerning habeas corpus and certain other special proceedings; 
and appellate jurisdiction over exceptions and appeals from District or 
Circuit Courts. Cases are tried promptly and the courts are ably and 
honestly conducted. 
The judges are appointed by the President. District Judges for 
two years ; Circuit Judges for four years, and Supreme Court judges 
for life. 27 
TWENTY OBJECTIONS TO 
THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII 
J Jt AND REPLIES THERETO j* 
FIRST OBJECTION. * 
It is unconstitutional because the general government is limited in 
its powers to those expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution. 
The Constitution does not specifically grant power to annex territory, 
and therefore the power does not exist. 
This objection is based upon what is known as the “ Strict con- 
struction theory.” It was believed in by Jefferson, when he annexed 
Louisiana in 1803; and he believed that an amendment to the Consti- 
tution was necessary in order to validate the treaty of annexation. He 
even drafted an amendment to the Constitution to this effect, but it 
never went beyond his Cabinet, Contemporary thought condemned 
the strict construction theory, as applied to annexation, and the Con- 
stitution has since then been repeatedly interpreted in favor of an- 
nexation by the Executive, Congress and the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 
Interpretations of the Constitution by the Executive in favor of the 
power of annexation. 
The instances in which the Executive has interpreted the Con- 
stitution in favor of annexation are eleven in number, viz.: By the 
negotiation of treaties for the annexation of Lousiana in 1803; Florida 
in 1819; California, New Mexico and Arizona in 1849; the so-called 
Gadsden purchase of the southern portion of New Mexico and Arizona 
in 1853, and Alaska in 1867, all of which were ratified by the Senate. 
Treaties were also negogiated by the Executive for the annexation of 
Texas in 1837 and 1843; Hawaii in 1854; San Domingo in 1870; Hawaii 
in 1893, and Hawaii again in 1897, which treaty is now pending be- 
fore the Senate. 
Interpretations of the Constitution by Congress in favor of the power 
of annexation. 
The instances of Congressional action in favor of the power of 
annexation are : 
1. The annexation of Texas in 1844, by joint resolution passed 
by a majority of the two houses of Congress. 
2. A statute passed Aug. 18, 1856, by which any American 
citizen was authorized to take possession of any island on which guano 
was located, and, with the approval of the United States Government, 
upon taking certain preliminary action, to make the same United 
States territory. 
3. By the ratification of the annexation of Midway island in the 
North Pacific, which had been accomplished by the Executive in 1867, 
by the appropriation of funds, with which to convert the same into a 
naval station. 28 
The legislation referred to above, concerning the annexation of 
guano islands, is especially pertinent at the present time, when the 
Hawaiian Islands are under discussion, for the reason that we find 
that as long ago as 1856, Congress not only approved of insular 
annexation; but that, under that legislation, seventy islands and 
groups of islands were actually annexed to the United States; fifty- 
seven of them being in the Pacific Ocean and thirteen in the Carribean 
Sea. The first annexation under this statute was in 1856, and the 
last in 1884. 
It may be claimed that the motive for annexing these Islands was 
simply to obtain the guano located thereon. Such undoubtedly was 
the motive; but the motive for annexing territory has no bearing upon 
the constitutionality thereof. The passage of the statute is a positive 
declaration by Congress that the annexation of territory, and insular 
territory at that, is constitutional, and that so slight a value accruing 
to the United States as the obtaining of a limited amount of fertilizing 
material, is a sufficient reason for the exercise of the power of an- 
nexation. 
The Executive and Congressional action concerning Midway 
island is of especial interest, in that Midway island is at the western 
extremity of the same group of islands of which Hawaii is the eastern- 
most; and also from the fact that the motive for the annexation of 
Midway was to secure a naval station in the North Pacific, which is 
one of the main reasons now urged for annexing Hawaii. 
The query presents itself, why, if it was proper to annex the 
western end of the Hawaiian group in 1867, it is not now proper to 
annex the eastern end of the same group ? Midway island is 1,200 
miles west of Honolulu. Congress appropriated and there was spent 
the sum of $50,000 in trying to make it into a naval station; a United 
States man-of-war was wrecked and three lives lost in the attempt, 
which was finally abandoned. The only reason that Midway was not 
developed into a full-fledged naval station was that it was found that 
the expense was far greater than originally supposed. It nevertheless 
remains United States territory, and a monument constructed by the 
Executive and Congress in favor of the constitutionality and propriety 
of insular annexation. 
Interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in favor of the power of annexation 
The instances of interpretation by the Supreme Court of the 
United States of the constitutionality of annexation are four in num- 
ber, viz., one in 1828, two in 1850, and one in 1889. 
The first was in the case of the American Insurance company vs. 
Canter, to be found in 1 Peters, 542. The opinion was delivered by 
Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of which the following words 
were used : 
‘ ‘The Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the 
Union the power of making wars and of making treaties. Consequently 
that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by 
conquest or treaty.’1 
The two decisions rendered in 1850 were by Chief Justice Taney. 
The decision in 1889 is the case of the Mormon church vs. the United 29 
States, contained in 136 United States Reports, page 42. In the course 
of the decision, the court used the following words : 
“The power to acquire territory is derived from the treaty-making 
power, and the power to declare and carry on war. ’ ’ 
“The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty 
and belong to all independent governments. ’ ’ 
The foregoing decisions base their conclusions some upon one 
point, some upon another; but they all agree that the constitutional 
power to annex territory exists absolutely; and the last decision is 
based upon the broad ground that ‘ ‘the power to make acquisitions of 
territory is an incident of national sovereignty.” 
It is submitted that the foregoing acts and decisions of the Execu- 
tive, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court, covering a period 
of nearly a hundred years, are decisive in favor of the constitutional 
power of the United States Government to annex territory. 
SECOND OBJECTION. 
It is unconstitutional because Haivaii is not contiguous to the United 
States. 
The opponents of the constitutionality of annexation, finding the 
precedents and reasoning strongly against them, have fallen back 
from the position that annexation is directly prohibited by the Consti- 
tution, to the claim that there are certain “implied prohibitions” in 
the Constitution, which are as binding as those which appear on its 
face, and that among these “implied prohibitions” is the one above 
stated. 
The only reason presented why the annexation of non-contiguous 
territory is unconstitutional, is that the “people of the day” did not 
discuss nor contemplate the annexation of such territory. 
We have seen by the authoritive decision of the Supreme Court 
in 1889, that the power to acquire territory is an incident of national 
sovereignty; that is to say, the United States has the right to acquire 
territory, or any other property, because it is a nation. It has the 
same rights and powers in this respect that any other nation has—that, 
for example, England has. There is manifestly no limitation upon 
the power of England to acquire territory. How, then, can there be 
any limitation upon the power of the United States to do so ? 
The fact that territory is contiguous or non-contiguous, is to t>e 
considered in reference to the policy or expediency of annexation, but 
it is submitted that both on principle and precedent there is all the 
constitutional power necessary to accomplish annexation in any case 
where annexation is deemed to the interest of this country. 
The fact that territory is contiguous or non-contiguous can have 
no bearing upon the constitutionality of its acquisition; but simply 
goes to affect the value of the territory proposed to be annexed On 
general principles, if it is contiguous, it is more easily governed and 
defended. But whether this is so or not depends upon circumstances. 
In these days distance is not a matter of miles, but of hours. When 
California was annexed, it was two months distant from the center of 
civilization in the United States. Honolulu today lies only ten and 
a half days from Washington. 30 
As to the arguments presented in favor of the unconstitutionality 
of the annexation of non-contiguous territory, it is submitted that be- 
cause our forefathers of 1776 did not discuss or contemplate any given 
proposition, is no reason, constitutional or otherwise, why their chil- 
dren should not discuss and contemplate any and every problem which 
is presented to them in 1897, upon its merits, whether their ancestors 
ever heard of such subject or not. 
It is further submitted that the precedents in United States history 
are all against the unconstitutionality of the annexation of non-contig- 
uous territory. Alaska is separated from the United States by a vast 
foreign territory. Midway Island is approximately three thousand 
miles from the American coast. The Aleutian Islands, reaching almost 
to the Asiatic coast, extend twelve hundred miles west of Alaska, and 
the guano islands are scattered all over the Pacific and the Carribean 
Sea. 
THIRD OBJECTION. 
It is unconstitutional because its inhabitants are not homogeneous 
with the people of the United States. 
This is another of the alleged “implied prohibitions.’’ The same 
reasoning applied to the last objection applies to this one, to wit, that 
there is no constitutional feature involved, but it is simply a fact to be 
taken into consideration when the advisability of annexing any given 
territory is under consideration. 
Is it conceivable that, regardless of the advantages of annexing 
any given territory, the people of the United States are absolutely pro- 
hibited from annexing such territory, simply because its inhabitants 
may not be up to the full American standard ? 
Again, it is submitted that the precedents are all opposed to the 
view advanced in the objection under consideration. For example, 
when Louisiana was annexed, its population consisted of a few thous- 
and Frenchmen and several hundred thousand Indians, reaching from 
the Gulf of Mexico to the Oregon coast. To say nothing about the 
Indians, the Frenchmen were governed by the civil law of France, and 
to this day the foundation of the law of Louisiana is the civil law. and 
not the English common law. 
Florida had a population of a few Spaniards and Indians. Texas, 
prior to the great influx of Americans, had a population solely of 
Mexicans, Spaniards and Indians. At the time of its annexation, 
California had an American population consisting of only a few traders 
and a military post, the great bulk of the population consisting of 
Mexicans and Indians, with a sprinkling of Spanish priests. Alaska 
had a few hundred Russians and some thirty or forty thousand Arctic 
Indians. Were these homogeneous populations? Were they up to 
the American standard of citizenship ? If not, and if it is unconstitu- 
tional to annex territory unless the inhabitants of such territory are up 
to the American standard, then such annexations were void, for if this 
is a constitutional principle, it cannot be varied by circumstances. 
It is submitted that there is no principle, direct, or implied, in the 
Constitution of the United States, which makes the title of the United 
States to the territories enumerated, depend upon the quality of the 
people living therein at the date of annexation. FOURTH OBJECTION. 
Whether the annexation of a non-homogenous people is constitutional 
o> not, the population of Hawaii is unfit for incorporation into, and willbe 
dangerous to the American political system. 
Whether the Hawaiian population is unfit for incorporation into 
the American system, depends upon two things. First, the existing 
facts; and second, the outlook for the future. 
First, as to the existing conditions in Hawraii. The foundation of 
Hawaiian law is the common law of England. The general .statutes, 
court procedure and legal methods of Hawaii are as much like those 
of Illinois as those of Illinois are like those of Massachusetts. The 
laws of Hawaii are based upon—many of them copies of—those of the 
United States. The two statutes, for example, which Japan is now 
objecting to, as limiting Japanese immigration, are almost exact copies 
of the United States immigration laws restricting the immigration of 
contract laborers and undesirable persons. All legal documents are 
modeled on those in use in the United States. Most of the lawyers and 
judges are either from the United States or educated therein. The 
public school system is based upon that of the United States. There 
are one hundred and eighty-seven of them, taught by four hundred 
and twenty-six teachers, and containing 12,600 pupils, all taught in 
the English language. More than one-lialf the teachers are Americans. 
English is the official language of the schools and courts, and the com- 
mon language of business. The railroads, cars, engines, waterworks, 
waterpipes, dynamos, telephones, fire apparatus, are all of American 
make. United States currency is the currency of the country. All 
Government and private bonds, notes and mortgages are made payable 
in United States money. Practically manhood suffrage among all 
Hawaiian citizens has existed since 1852. The Australian ballot sys- 
tem has been in operation since 1890. All American holidays, Wash- 
ington’s Birthday, Decoration day, Fourth of July and Thanksgiving 
day are as fully and enthusiastically celebrated in Hawaii as in any part 
of the United States. This is not the growth of a day, but of two 
generations, so that even to the native Hawaiian it appears to be the 
natural order of things. 
The people of Hawaii as a whole, are energetic and industrious. 
They are annually producing and exporting more per capita than any 
other nation in the world. Moreover their chief export, sugar, is an 
article which has to compete in the markets of the world on the small- 
est possible margin of profit, and can be produced only by a combina- 
tion of industry, economy, and keen business ability. 
No people who are leading the world in the per capita export of 
manufactured products can be truthfully characterized as lazy, worth- 
less or unreliable. 
As a matter of fact there are no poor-houses, paupers, beggars or 
tramps in Hawaii. 
To take the different nationalities up in detail: 
The Native Hawaiians, only 33,000 in number, are a conserva- 
tive, peaceful and generous people. They have had during the last 
twenty years, to struggle against the retrogressive tendencies of the 
reigning family; but in spite of that, a very large proportion of them have stood out against such tendencies, and are supporters of the Re- 
public and of annexation. The majority of the present House of 
Representatives, the first under the Republic, consists of pure-blood 
native Hawaiians, and the Speaker of the House is a native Hawaiian. 
The Hawaiians are not Africans, but Polynesians. They are 
brown not black. There is not, and never has been any color line in 
Hawaii as against native Hawaiians, and they participate fully and 
on an equality with the white people in affairs political, social, relig- 
ious and charitable. The two races freely intermarry one with the 
other, the results being shown in a present population of some 7000 
of mixed blood. They are a race which will in the future, as they 
have in the past, easily and rapidly assimilate with and adopt Ameri- 
can ways and methods. 
The Portuguese have frequently been spoken of as being a bad 
element, and are even spoken of as not being Europeans. This is un- 
just and incorrect. Seven thousand of the so-called 15,000 Portuguese 
of Hawaii, are Hawaian born, and all of them have been educated in 
the public schools, so that they speak English as readily as does the 
average American child. The criminal statistics show a smaller per- 
centage of offenses committed by this class of Hawaiian population 
than by any other nationality in the country. They are a hard-work- 
ing industrious, home-creating and home-loving people, who would be of 
advantage to any developing country. They constitute the best labor- 
ing element in Hawaii. 
The Chinese and Japanese are an undesirable population from 
a political standpoint, because they do not understand American prin- 
ciples of government. The Asiatic population of Hawaii consists 
largely, however, of laborers who are temporarily in the coun- 
try for what they can make out of it. As soon as they accumu- 
late a few hundred dollars they return home. Shut off the .source of 
supply, and in ten years there will not be Asiatics enough left in Ha- 
waii to have any appreciable effect. 
Moreover, most of them are making as much or more money in 
Hawaii than they can in the United States, and they have no object in 
trying to come to this country. This is evidenced by the fact that 
prior to the passage of the Chinese exclusion act by Congress, there 
were as many Chinese in Hawaii as there now are, but practically none 
came to California. The Japanese are now free to come to California 
from Honolulu, but none come. 
The treaty of annexation prohibits any further Chinese immigra- 
tion from the date of the ratification of the treaty; prohibits emigration 
of the Chinese now in Hawaii to any other part of the United States, 
and the treaty with Japan, which goes into effect in 1899, allows the 
United States to regulate the immigration of Japanese laborers. 
Individually, the Chinese and Japanese in Hawaii are industrious, 
peacable citizens, and as long as they do not take part in the political 
control of the country, what danger can the comparatively small num- 
ber there be to this country ? They are not citizens, and by the Con- 
stitution of Hawaii, they are not eligible to become citizens; they are 
aliens in America and aliens in Hawaii ; annexation will give them no 
rights which they do not now possess, either in Hawaii or in the 
United States. 
32 33 
The remaining inhabitants of Hawaii are some seven or eight 
thousand Americans, English and Germans; strong, virile men who 
have impressed their form of government upon the much larger popu- 
lation living there, and have acquired the ownership of more than 
three-fourths of all the property in the country. If they were able to 
do this against the hostility and in the face of an unfavorable mon- 
archy, why is there is any reason to believe that they will be any less 
strong under the fostering influence of the republican Government of 
the United States ? 
No territory of the United States was ever annexed with so 
strong a leaven of Americanism in it as exists today in Hawaii. 
As to the Future Prospects. Within a hundred years Hawaii 
possessed a population of 400,000 people, who were supported by the 
lax methods of cultivation then in effect. With the advanced methods 
of today, and the irrigation of the heretofore barren plains, there is no 
reason why Hawaii cannot support a population of a million as easily 
as it now does 100,000. With stability of Government will come im- 
migration, development and growth, which will as certainly take place 
in Hawaii as it has in all the other territories heretofore annexed by 
the United States. 
FIFTH OBJECTION. 
We do not want Hawaii as a State with two more Senators. 
The treaty does not provide for Statehood. Hawaii does not ask 
for it, and the United States does not grant it. The treaty of annexa- 
tion provides that Hawaii shall come into the Union as a territory, and 
leaves the form of such territorial government absolutely in the hands 
of Congress. What more could Hawaii give or the United States ask ? 
It is recognized that Hawaii does not now possess the population or the 
wealth to warrant Statehood, and there is no probability that it will 
possess such qualifications for some time to come. It will be a ques- 
tion for our successors and not for us to settle. They will be dealing 
with their own fortunes and fates, and not with ours. Can we not 
perform the duty of the hour as it is presented to us, and leave the 
future to our successors in the faith that they will be as wise and as 
patriotic as we are ? 
SIXTH OBJECTION. 
Hawaii is an outlying territory and in time of war it will be a soioce 
of weakness to the United States. 
Whether outlying territory is a source of weakness depends upon 
circumstances. When England owned territory in France, it was a 
source of weakness to her. Her ownership of Gibralter is a source of 
strength. This objection involves somewhat of a technical military 
question. All of the military and naval authorities of the United 
States who have expressed themselves upon the subject, Generals 
Schofield and Alexander; Admirals Porter, Walker, Belknap, and 
Captain Mahan have declared that Hawaii would be a source of 
strength to the United States in case of war. They do not base their 
opinion upon any occult reasoning, only known to themselves, but 
upon a plain demonstration of facts, viz : 
The distance from Hongkong on the west of Hawaii to Panama 
on the east, is 9,580 miles, as great a distance as from San Francisco across the American continent, across the Atlantic, across the Medi- 
terranean and across Turkey to the Persian border. The distance 
from Unalaska, the first port north of Hawaii, to Tahiti, the first port 
on the south, is 4,400 miles, a distance as great as from Greenland to 
the Amazon river. In all this vast territory there is only one spot 
where a ton of coal, a pound of bread or a drink of water can be ob- 
tained, and that spot is Hawaii. 
The great powers having interests in the Pacific are so far distant 
from the Pacific coast of the United States that not one of them can 
operate against it with a naval force, unless they have a base of opera- 
tions nearer than any which they now possess. 
The navies of today are all steamers with limited coal-carrying 
capacity. There is not a wrar vessel in existence which can steam 
from any of the ports belonging to England, France, Russia, Spain, 
Japan or China to the Pacific coast and back again without renewing 
its coal supply. Hawaii is only four days steaming from San 
Francisco. In possession of Hawaii, any of the great powers 
mentioned would be within easy striking distance of the Pacific coast 
and its commerce. Shut out from Hawaii, all of them are forced back 
the entire width of the Pacific—a distance practically prohibitive of 
naval operations against the Pacific coast or its vicinity. Hawaii in 
the possession of any foreign power would be a menace and a danger 
to the Pacific coast and its commerce. With foreign countries barred 
out of Hawaii, the Pacific coast and its commerce is almost absolutely 
safe from naval attack. Vancouver has not been mentioned in this 
connection, for the reason that it is taken for granted that any foreign 
possession which can be reached from the mainland by United States 
troops would be taken in case of wrar, within a very short time after 
the commencement of hostilities. 
34 
SEVENTH OBJECTION. 
It will necessitate heavy expenditures and a navy in order to protect 
Hawaii in time of war. 
War between the United States and any foreign country may or 
may not require the fortification of Hawaii. But this question depends 
not in the remotest degree upon annexation. It depends upon whether 
the United States is to continue its policy of the past fifty years, to- 
wit, the barring out of all other nations from Hawaii. This policy 
was initiated by President Tyler in 1842, when he said that “it could 
not but create dissatisfaction on the part of the United States at any 
attempt by another power to take possession.’’ 
It was reiterated by Daniel Webster a short time thereafter, when, 
upon being informed that the French were contemplating taking 
possession of the islands, he said : 
“ I trust the French will not take possession; but if they do, they 
will be dislodged, if my advice is taken, if the whole power of the 
Government is required to do it.’’ 
This policy has been reiterated by Presidents and Secretaries of 
State and other American statesmen during almost every Administra- 
tion from that time to the present day. 
In 1894, the House of Representatives formally adopted a resolu- 
tion declaring that “intervention in Hawaii by any foreign power will not be regarded with indifference,” while the Senate adopted a resolu- 
tion containing stronger language, to the effect, that such intervention 
“will be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States.” 
This is the policy which will have to be defended. Annexation 
is only incidental to the policy of exclusion. 
The policy can be defended either by guns or arguments. If it 
can be defended by arguments now, it can likewise be so defended 
after annexation. If it is to be defended by guns, annexation will 
facilitate such defense. 
Having long ago decided that its policy concerning Hawaii should 
be to keep other countries out, the question now to be decided is, can 
that policy best be subserved by vesting the legal title in the United 
States, or by leaving Hawaii as an independent country ? 
If the title is vested in the United States, all possibility of future 
international complication will be a an end; and if the United States at 
any time hereafter decides that its policy of exclusion of other countries 
can be best be subserved by guns it can immediately proceed to fortify 
Hawaii. If, however, the title to Hawaii remains in a foreign Gov- 
ernment, it is certain that in the future, as in the past, Hawaii wall 
become involved with foreign countries, and continue to be a fertile 
source of international complications; and if the United States in the 
course of time should deem that its time-honored policy required the 
fortification of Hawraii, there might be found in control in Hawaii a 
Government inimical to the United States, which would prohibit forti- 
fications. Annexation does not necessitate fortification, but if ever 
fortification is required, title will be an essential. 
Title can be obtained now. What the future may bring forth no 
one can tell. 
35 
EIGHTH OBJECTION. 
It will be a forerunner and form a precedent for a policy of unlimited 
annexation of territory. 
Any party in the United States which may in the future desire a 
precedent for annexing any country whatsoever, will in the past his- 
tory of the country find ample precedent for so doing without referring 
to Hawaii. The United States has annexed all kinds of territory, 
from the coral reefs and cocoanut groves of Key West to the icy barrier 
of northern Alaska; territories bordering on the Atlantic, the Gulf of 
Mexico, the Pacific and the Arctic ; islands of the Pacific and the 
Carribean Sea. Its possessions extend as far west of San Francisco as 
Maine is east of San Francisco, and as far north of Chicago as Florida is 
south of Chicago. So far as precedents are concerned, nothing more is 
required. 
It is submitted, however, that the annexation of Hawaii will, if it 
is accomplished, forever stand unique. The area of Hawaii, approxi- 
mately 7,000 square miles, is not inconsiderable. It is nearly as large 
as Massaschusetts, and considerably larger than Connecticut and 
Rhode Island combined. But if it did not contain a hundred square 
miles, its value to the United States would remain practically the same. 
Its foreign commerce is wonderfully large for a country of its size. 
It amounted to $22,000,000 for the year 1896. But if it had no com- 
merce, its value to the United States would be practically the same. 36 
Its value to the United States consists in its unique position in the 
Pacific ocean. It is the one and only point which can be made a naval 
base of operations against the Pacific coast. As Captain Mahan has 
said, “it stands alone * * * having no rival, and admitting of no 
rival.” In the Atlantic, on the other hand, there are a hundred 
islands scattered around the United States coast, any one of which can 
be made a base of operations. In order to secure immunity from 
attack on the Atlantic, all of these islands must be secured by the 
United States. In order to secure like immunity on the Pacific, Ha- 
waii alone needs to be secured. 
If there were numerous other islands in the Pacific, as there are in 
the Atlantic, then the annexation of Hawaii would offer a precedent 
for further extension of territory. As it is, the annexation of Hawaii 
will not be for the purpose of securing additional territory or additional 
commerce, but will simply be the securing of a strategical point for the 
protection of territory which the United States already owns. It will 
come precisely within the same principle that would be invoked did the 
Farallone Islands, thirty miles off the Golden Gate; or Long Island, 
off New York harbor, belong to some foreign country, and were 
they now proposed to be secured by the United States. 
NINTH OBJECTION. 
It is contrary to the Monroe Doctrine to acquire territory beyond the 
boundaries of the American continent. 
This objection is made by those who do not understand what the 
Monroe Doctrine consists of. The Monroe doctrine is a limitation on 
European Powers, excluding them from participation in the affairs of 
the American continent and its outlying islands, but it places no limita- 
tion upon the United States. 
Instead of Hawaii lying beyond the purview of the Monroe 
doctrine, there is no territory to which the Monroe doctrine more 
directly applies than to Hawaii, and in no other case has there been 
such continued insistence on the part of American statesmen of the ap- 
plication of the doctrine as in the case of Hawaii. 
In addition to the immense number of general statements by 
American statesmen concerning American control over Hawaii, the 
following quotations are directly in point : 
In 1881, Secretary of State Blaine, in writing to United States 
Minister Comly, at Honolulu, says : 
“The situation of the Hawaiian Islands, giving them strategic 
control of the North Pacific, brings their possession within the range 
of questions of purely American policy, as much so as that of the 
Isthmus itself.” 
In 1894, Senator Morgan of Alabama, in a report to the Senate 
concerning the Hawaiian Islands, says : 
“Observing the spirit of the Monroe doctrine, the United States, 
in the beginning of our relations with Hawaii, made a firm and dis- 
tinct declaration of the purpose to prevent the absorption of Hawaii or 
the political control of the country by any foreign power. 
TENTH OBJECTION. 
A large portion of the Hawaiian voters have been disfranchised: 37 
No vote has been taken in Hawaii upon the question of annexation; 
and it is un-American to annex a ter7itory without a popular vote of its 
inhabitants. 
It will be noted that this is the argument most resorted to by the 
ex-Queen Liliuokalani and her supporters. Their objection is not 
based upon opposition to the American Republic, but upon opposition 
to any Republic. They are selfishly seeking the restoration of the 
Monarchy for their own benefit, and as long as Hawaii remains inde- 
pendent, they hope for some internal discord or foreign complication 
which will restore them to power. 
The reply to the objection is that no Hawaiian voters have been 
disfranchised, and that it is not un-American to annex territory without 
a vote of the inhabitants. 
Whether it is un-American to annex territory without a popular 
vote, depends upon w hat has been done upon like occasions in the past. 
In the cases of the annexation of Louisiana, with its colony of intelli- 
gent Frenchmen; of Florida, wfith its Spaniards; of California, New 
Mexico, Arizona and Alaska, there was no semblance of a vote, and 
there is no indication that the subject was even so much as discussed 
by either of the contracting parties. All that wras done or lawfully re- 
quired to be done, wras the agreement of the tvro Governments, and the 
act was complete without reference to either the people of the United 
States or of the territory proposed to be annexed. 
The case of Texas is sometimes referred to as a precedent sup- 
porting a popular vote, but it is not. Texas was first proposed to be 
annexed by a treaty negotiated in 1837. After it failed of ratification, 
the same method was followed in 1843. In neither treaty was any 
vote of the people provided for. In 1844 a bill was introduced into the 
Senate, providing for the annexation of Texas and for the taking of a 
vote of her people, which bill was defeated. Shortly thereafter a joint 
resolution was introduced to effect the annexation of Texas, in wdiich 
no mention was made of a popular vote, but which contemplated the 
completion of the annexation upon the acceptance of the terms of the 
joint resolution by the Texan Government. Immediately upon receiv- 
ing the news of the passage of this resolution, the Texan Legislature 
accepted the terms of the resolution and the annexation was complete. 
Several months thereafter, the people of Texas adopted a State Consti- 
tution, which incidentally ratified the annexation. But such ratifica- 
tion was not necessary, as that had already been completed months be- 
fore by the Legislature. 
There is, therefore, no precedent, in any of the annexations of 
the past, for taking a popular vote upon the subject. Why, then, is it 
un-American to annex Hawraii without a popular vote? 
There is less reason for taking a popular vote in the case of Hawaii 
than in any instance in the past, for the reason that there is not now 
and never has been any Hawaiian law requiring that a treaty of an- 
nexation should be submitted to the people; but, on the contrary, there 
is specifically incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic an 
article authorizing and directing the President, by and with the consent 
of the Senate, to negotiate and conclude a treaty of annexation with 
the United States. 
Again, wdiy in logic is there any more reason for requiring a popu- 38 
lar vote on the part of the citizens of Hawaii than by the citizens of 
the United States? The citizens of the United States, as well as those 
of Hawaii assume responsibilities and obligations by reason of annexa- 
tion. Why should the citizens of Hawaii be individually consulted, 
and those of the United States ignored ? 
Incidentally, however, as in the case of Texas, there has been a 
practical vote in Hawaii upon the subject of annexation, for every 
person who is now a voter in Hawaii has taken the oath to the Consti- 
tution of Hawaii, thereby ratifying and approving of annexation to 
the United States. 
In support of the statement that no Hawaiian voter has been dis- 
franchised, I would state that every person who was a voter under 
the monarchy has the privilege of voting under the Republic, with 
the sole difference that whereas under the monarchy he took an oath 
to support it, under the Republic he renounces the monarchy and 
takes an oath to support the Republic. There has been no disfran- 
chisement of voters in Hawaii. The only persons who could vote un- 
der the monorchy and who cannot vote now, are those who have 
disfranchised themselves by refusing to accept, the Republic. 
The situation then is : 
1. Neither the Constitution nor laws of the United States nor of 
Hawaii require a popular vote. 
2. During fifty years, there have been four annexation treaties 
negotiated by Hawaii with the United States, viz.: in 1851, 1854, 1893 
and 1897, in which, neither under the Monarchy, Provisional Govern- 
ment, nor the Republic, has any provision been made for a popular 
vote, either in the United States or Hawaii. 
3. Six annexations of inhabited territory by the United States, 
during the past one hundred years, have been made without a popular 
vote being taken. 
4. The Constitution of the United States, in general terms, and of 
Hawaii specifically, authorizes the respective Presidents and Senates 
to conclude a treaty of annexation. 
Under these circumstances, what basis is there for claiming that 
an annexation treaty cannot be legally concluded except by popular 
vote ? 
If it is admittted that the legal right exists, and that the objection 
is based on a sentimental regard for the native Hawaiian, the native 
Hawaiian may well pray “deliver me from my friends”! America 
has given him a taste of American liberty and civilization. America- 
wards lies the full freedom and the proud status of republican citizenship. 
Unless annexation take place, the only future for the native Hawaiian 
is retrogression to the status of the Asiatic coolie, who is already 
crowding him to the wall. 
If the theoretical philantropists of America who are lifting up 
their voices against annexation through sympathy for the native 
Hawaiian could descend out of the clouds long enough to ascertain the 
facts, they would learn that every native minister of the gospel; most 
of the better educated natives ; almost without exception, all of the 
white ministers of the gospel; the representatives of the American 
Board of Foreign Missions; the Hawaiian Board of Missions ; the 
practical educators ; those who have for years contributed their time, 39 
their money and their lives to the Hawaiian people ; who feel that their 
welfare is a sacred trust—all of these are working, hoping and praying 
for annexation as the one last hope of the native Hawaiian. 
ELEVENTH OBJECTION. 
A protectorate will secure to the United States all the advantages 
which will accrue under annexation, without involving the country in the 
respo?isibilities of ownership. 
This is one of the problems which has confronted every Ameri- 
can statesman who has been compelled to practically consider how best 
to maintain American control in Hawaii. It was the problem which 
faced President Pierce and Secretary of State Marcy in 1854; President 
Harrison and Secretary Foster in 1893, and President McKinley and 
Secretary Sherman in 1897. In each case, the alternative of protector- 
ate or annexation was presented, and in each case, after full delibera- 
tion, the decision was against a protectorate and in favor of annexation. 
The reason is, that under a protectorate, the independent government 
of Hawaii would still be free to get into troubles with other govern- 
ments, thereby creating international complications for the settlement 
of which the United States would be responsible; while under annexa- 
tion, no international complications would arise, except such as might 
be created by the United States itself. The difference between a pro- 
tectorate and annexation is, that under a protectorate, the United 
States would assume all the responsibilities, incident to ownership, 
without the power of control; while under annexation, it would assume 
no more responsibilities, and would acquire absolute control. Under a 
protectorate, Hawaii would still remain an incubator of international 
friction. Under annexation, it would be removed absolutely from 
international politics, as much so as is California or Florida. 
twelfth objection. 
It will be injurious to the beet sugar industry, as Hawaiian sugar 
will compete with beet sugat raised in the United States. 
The only way in which Hawaiian sugar can injure beet sugar is by 
being produced in such quantities as to supplant the beet product of 
the United States, or by cutting the price so as to lower the price of 
beet sugar to its producers. 
Hawaii can never produce enough sugar to supplant the beet or 
any other sugar in the United States. The sugar consumption of the 
United States was approximately two million tons during 1896, which 
consumption is rapidly increasing year by year. During 1896, Hawaii 
produced a little over two hundred thousand tons, or approximately 
one-tenth of the consumption of the United States. This is the high- 
est output ever made by Hawaii, and is the best it has been able to do 
after twenty years of encouragement, under the reciprocity treaty with 
the United States. 
All of the natural cane lands of Hawaii are already under cul- 
tivation. 
The only remaining lands which can possibly be cultivated with 
sugar cane are those now dry and barren, which can only be cultivated 
by artificial irrigation, by pumping water to an elevation of from one 40 
hundred and fifty to six hundred feet. It goes without saying that 
such irrigation must be limited in area and problematical in profits. 
As to Hawaiian sugar cutting the price, sugar is a world product, 
and its price is determined by the world’s price, which is fixed in New 
York and London. If the Hawaiian crop were cut off entirely, or 
doubled, it would not raise or lower the price of sugar in the United 
States one mill. It is sometimes suggested that Hawaiian sugar may 
more than equal the consumption of the Pacific coast, and that Hawaiian 
planters would lower their price rather than send it to New York. The 
reply to this is that the Pacific coast’s consumption is only about 
seventy-five thousand tons per annum, and long ago the Hawaiian pro- 
duct far exceeded this. About one-third of the Hawaiian product for 
1896-97 was sent to New York, and probably more than one-half of the 
crop of 1897-98 will be sent there. 
Again, the Hawaiian cane sugar planters suffer under many disad- 
vantages which the beet sugar producers do not. It takes from 
eighteen to twenty-two months to grow a crop of sugar cane in Hawaii, 
during the entire period of which it must be irrigated on most of the 
plantations every week or two. It takes the beet sugar planter only 
about six months to make a crop. 
The cane sugar planter has to employ his laborers all the year 
around; the beet sugar planter discharges his laborers when the crop 
is made. 
The cane sugar planter of Hawaii pays now somewhat less wages 
per month than does the beet sugar planter, although not as much less 
as is generally supposed, the average laborer in Hawaii costing the 
planter from fifteen to eighteen dollars per month. Under atinexation, 
the Asiatic supply of labor will be cut off, and this slight advantage 
will be eliminated. 
Again, it costs the Hawaiian cane planter approximately ten dol- 
lars a ton to get his sugar from the plantation to its market, while the 
beet sugar planter has his market at his door. 
Taken all in all, the cane sugar planter of Hawaii stands on no 
more favorable basis than does the beet sugar planter of the United 
States, and there in no reason why their interests should clash, any 
more than do the interests of the corn planter of Kansas clash with 
those of the corn planter of Nebraska. 
THIRTEENTH OBJECTION. 
It will exdte the jealousy of, a?id create complications with, foreign 
governments. 
When the annexation treaty of 1893 was negogiated, no protest 
was made by any foreign country. None has been made now, except 
by Japan, and the reasons assigned by Japan for her protest are 
absolutely inconsistent with the traditional policy of the United States, 
that they shall control Hawaii. 
The rapid development of Japanese pretensions in Hawaii since 
1893 is a signal illustration of the danger of further postponing that 
which all American statesmen agree must at some time be done, viz : 
definitely and finally secure to the United States the control of Hawaii. 
This can never be done with as little friction as at present, and if it is 
further delayed, the increasing importance of the Pacific and the interests of other nations therein, may at an early date cause other 
nations than Japan to also assume an attitude of hostility toward an- 
nexation. There is danger in delay. There can be little danger of 
foreign complication if immediate action is taken. 
FOURTEENTH OBJECTION. 
The government of Hawaii consists of foreign adventurers, who have 
no authority or jurisdiction over the country. 
This was an objection made when the Provisional Government was 
first formed, and when its members were unknown to the world. The 
history of the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii 
and its dealings with the world have refuted this charge. If 
anything more were needed as proof in the matter, it is furnished by a 
report from Minister Willis to Secretary Gresham, when he was in the 
midst of his attempt to restore the ex-Queen, and it was feared that 
the attempt might be forcibly resisted by the citizens of Honolulu. Mr. 
Willis wrote : 
“Fortunately, the men at the head of the Provisional Government 
are acknowledged by all sides to be of the highest integrity and public 
spirit. 
It is sufficient to say further, that of the so called “Foreign popu- 
lation,” nearly 10,000 were born in, and are natives of Hawaii, with 
as much right to speak for Hawaii as the American born white man 
has to speak for the United States; 
That the other so called “foreigners” have made Hawaii the land 
of their adoption; have acquired property, homes and political rights; 
have built up the country and made it what it is, and have as much 
right to speak for Hawaii as the multitude of European born American 
citizens who occupy every official position throughout the land, save 
that of president, have to legislate and speak for the United States; 
That the President, two members of the Cabinet, the Chief Jus- 
tice, and a very large number of the leading officials of the Govern- 
ment, were born and have always resided in Hawaii; and that the other 
members of the Government are, almost without exception, old 
residents; while, without exception, the members of the Government 
are the leading business and professional men of the country; who 
have temporarily taken on the cares of public office until the Gov- 
ernment can be established on a permanent basis, when they will only 
too willingly hand over its conduct to others. It would seem suffi- 
cient to meet the charge that they are adventurers seeking their own 
private benefit, to show that they are, by every means within their 
power, advancing a treaty which by its terms will legislate them out 
of office. 
FIFTEENTH OBJECTION. 
Annexation will be beneficial to the Sugar Trust. 
No one has advanced any theory showing how the sugar trust will 
be benefited by annexation. As a matter of fact, no sugar refiner in the 
United States will be benefited by annexation, for the reason that it will 
place just so much more sugar upon the American market free of duty, 
to come into competition with the product of the American sugar re- 
finer. There is no probability that a large quantity, if any, sugar will 42 
be refined in Hawaii; but entry to other portions of the United 
States for high grade raw sugars will enable the sugar planters of Ha- 
waii to place in the markets of the United States a light colored whole- 
some raw sugar which can compete with the refined product of the sugar 
trust. This Hawaiian sugar will be limited in amount to be sure, but to 
the extent to which it goes, it will compete with the product of the 
trust, with no compensating advantage to that organization. 
SIXTEENTH OBJECTION. 
Under the proposed treaty of annexation, the United States assumes 
the Hawaiian public debt without receiving in return the means ot piop- 
erty with which to pay it. 
This statement can only be made by one unfamiliar with the prop- 
erty and resources owned by the Hawaiian Government. The present 
net debt of the Republic of Hawaii is approximately $3,900,000, and 
the schedule of its saleable property, exclusive of the public streets 
and roads, upon which not less than a million dollars have been ex- 
pended, amounts to $7,938,000, leaving a clear net profit to the United 
States in property acquired, of approximately $4,000,000; all of the 
property owned by Hawaii being transferred by the terms of the an- 
nexation treaty to the United States. This does not include the 
revenues from customs, rents, postoffice etc. which largely exceed cur- 
rent expenses. 
SEVENTEENTH OBJECTION. 
There is leprosy in Hawaii. 
This is, unfortunately, true. Nothing in the climatic conditions 
of Hawaii, however, caused the disease. It was brought from China 
about thirty years ago, and has attacked a large number of the natives, 
it being confined almost exclusively to them. There are not, however, 
as many lepers in Hawaii as there are in Norway, nor do there begin 
to be the numbers that there are in Japan, China, India and other 
Eastern countries. Moreover, Hawaii is the one country in the world 
dealing with the subject which rigorously segregates the victims of the 
disease. No cases are seen at large, and all of the patients are most 
carefully cared for by the local government. Moreover, I have yet to 
learn that the political relations existing between two countries will in- 
crease the danger arising from diseases existing in either. The local 
government of Hawaii will continue in the future, as in the past, to 
care for its own unfortunates, with no more expense nor danger to the 
people of the United States than there now is. 
EIGHTEENTH OBJECTION. 
The monarchy was overthrown through the agency of American troops' 
This accusation is ancient history. If it were true, which is not 
admitted, it would have no more effect today upon the status of the 
Hawaiian Republic than does the fact that French troops assisted 
Washington to overthrow the British monarchy in America have 
any effect upon the present status of the American Republic. 
Regardless of its origin, the Republic of Hawaii is today recog- 
nized by every sovereigh government of the world as an independent 
nation, with all the rights and powers of any other sovereign or inde- 43 
pendent nation, and this with the full knowledge that its constitution 
contains an article providing explicitly for annexation to the United 
States. 
Concerning the truth of the charge mentioned, we have the posi- 
tive statements of United States Minister Stevens and Capt. Wiltse of 
the United States Navy, who were on the ground at the time, that the 
American troops were not landed for such purpose, and did not take 
any part in the overthrow of the Monarchy. There has been a vast 
amount of controversy upon the subject, and in 1894, the United States 
Senate appointed a committee for the express purpose of investigating 
this very point, Senator Morgan, of Alabama, a Democrat, being the 
the chairman of the committee. The committee made an exhaustive 
examination of the subject, and made a report to the Senate covering 
over two thousand pages of fine printed matter. The conclusion of 
the committee upon this point, formulated by Senator Morgan, is as 
follows : 
“The committee, upon the evidence as it appears in their report 
(which they believe is a full, fair and impartial statement of the facts 
attending and precedent to the landing of the troops) agree that the 
purpose of Capt. Wiltse and of Minister Stevens wrere only those which 
were legitimate, viz.: the preservation of law and order to the extent 
of preventing a disturbance of the public peace, which might, in the 
absence of troops, injuriously affect the rights of the American citizens 
resident in Honolulu. ’ ’ 
History will vindicate Minister Stevens and prove, what those 
who knew him best already know, that the United States never 
possessed a truer officer or a more patriotic citizen or one wTho more 
fearlessly met difficult and unexpected conditions and did his duty to 
his country. 
NINETEENTH OBJECTION. 
It is unlikely that the United States will go to war with any othe> 
tountry. But if it does, and it then wants Hawaii, there is time enough 
to take it. 
, It is idle to discuss whether the United States will again go to 
war. It is a matter of opinion. Judging the future by the past, the 
chances are strongly that it will. Its might is not an insurance against 
war. Rome ruled the world, but war came. The intervening sea will 
not prevent it. England, the one isolated nation of Europe, has as 
many wars as all the rest of Europe put together. 
The certainty that the United States would probably conquor in 
the end, is no guarantee against it. Small boys frequently fight big 
ones, expecting to be whipped. There can be no doubt concerning 
the ultimate result of a war with Spain; but it seems probable that 
Spain might welcome war with the United States, as the method by 
which she can get out of Cuba with the least injury to her national 
dignity and prestige. 
There is no certainty that there will be war; but on the other hand 
there is no certainty that there will not be. Human nature has devel- 
oped but has not radically changed. The nations of the world never 
spent more time or money in preparation for wrar than they are doing 
to-day. 44 
It is not wise for a man to leave his doors unlocked when burglars 
are around, simply because none have been to his house. They may 
come when least expected. 
Wars come nowadays, suddenly and unexpectedly. The nations 
are in such a state of preparation that they can accomplish in a week 
what formerly took months. 
The Austro-Prussian war was finished, and Austria prostrated, in 
six weeks. 
No sooner was war declared than Germany over-ran France and 
was victorious within four months. 
Japan opened the war on China with an attack which destroyed a 
ship and a thousand men, and made formal declaration at her leisure. 
Turkey and Greece each began hostilities without notice. 
Any nation which attacks the United States by way of the west, 
will, as a military necessity, first occupy Hawaii as a base of operations. 
The first intimation of war which the United States will have, 
may be the seizure of Hawaii; and, with its natural defensive possi- 
bilities, any strong maritime nation once entrenched in Hawaii can be 
evicted therefrom, if at all, only by vast expenditure and tremendous 
effort. 
Gibralter is a century long lesson of how much easier it is to let a 
warlike nation in, than is is to get it out of, a strong position. 
TWENTIETH OBJECTION. 
The United States already has enough territory, people and problems. 
We want no more of them. Let well enough alone. 
It has already been stated above, that the chief reason for the an- 
nexation of Hawaii is to secure a vantage ground for the protection of 
what the United States already owns. It is not primarily to secure new 
territory, promote shipping and increase commerce ; but as a measure 
of precaution to prevent the acquisition by a foreign, and perhaps in 
the future, hostile power, of an acknowledged military stronghold, 
possessing peculiar strategic relations toward the territory and com- 
merce of this country. In comparison with the benefit and advantage 
to the country of securing control of this .strategic stronghold, what do 
the disadvantages amount to ? 
Even if all the people of Hawaii are not up to the highest ideal 
American standard, how can they harmfully affect the American peo- 
ple or government ? They number 109,000. No more than are some- 
times landed in New York in a single month. About one-tenth of one 
per cent, of the present population. Can any one seriously maintain 
that this insignificant, fractional addition of people, without the powers 
appurtenant to statehood—with only such limited territorial form of 
government as Congress pleases to grant—can to any appreciable ex- 
tent injuriously affect the political life and fortunes of the American 
people ? Can such claim be urged in good faith, when the dominant 
element in Hawaii, politically, socially and financially, is, and for 
years has been, so strongly American in its business, financial and 
political methods as to have converted an alien land and people into 
what is universally recognized as being ‘ ‘ the most American spot on 
earth.” 45 
As to problems, what problems that the United States does not 
now have; will it have after annexation ? 
None arising from the people of Hawaii coming over here. If 
they wanted to come to America they could come now. But they 
have no reason for coming. They are more prosperous now than the 
people of the United States, and after annexation they will be more 
prosperous still. 
The movement of population is already to, and not from, Hawaii, 
and annexation will greatly accelerate it. 
The people of Hawaii will remain in Hawaii, and will themselves 
settle locally the local problems arising out of local conditions, with no 
more effect upon the political life and principles of the general government, 
than has a town election or local option agitation in Arizo?ia. 
As a territory, Hawaii will have no vote in national affairs ; and 
with the trend of existing feeling against admitting new states, the 
time for discussing statehood is so far in the future that it is beyond 
the domain of practical life. 
Financially, no problem will be created. Hawaii is more than 
self supporting. 
Internationally, no problems will be created. On the contrary, an 
international problem which has made demands upon the time and 
attention of American statesmen for two generations—the problem of 
“ How to keep other nations out of Hawaii”—will be solved and 
written off the books. 
From a military standpoint no problems wall be created. On the 
contrary the military situation will be simplified. Military experts, 
American and foreign, unite in acknowledging that Hawaii is a strate- 
gical point of the first importance, ranking with Gibralter and the Suez 
canal. 
If it is ever deemed essential to American interests to fortify 
Hawaii, it will certainly be far easier to do so if it belongs to and is 
already occupied by the United States, than if it belongs to another, 
and possibly hostile government. 
This objection is made by those who think that the United States 
is sufficient unto itself. That it does not need to take a part in affairs 
beyond its borders, and that danger lies in every direction beyond them. 
The day when the United States can, hibernating, live off itself, 
has passed. In this end of the nineteenth century a ‘‘hermit nation” 
is no longer possible. The United States resurrected Japan from that 
status, but it cannot assume the role itself. 
No man lives unto himself, neither can a nation. No nation can 
stand still. It must either progress or retrograde. 
For a number of years the apparent paradox was seen of the Uni- 
ted States, growing and developing faster than anything known in 
history, while paying but slight attention to her international relations, 
either political or commercial. 
The manifest reason was that it possessed a vast undeveloped area 
which afforded within its borders, full scope for all surplus energy and 
capital that, in the kindred country of England, has spread itself over 
every quarter of the globe, 
That condition no longer exists. The unoccupied territory has 
been taken up, and while much remains to be done, the creative energy 46 
of the American people can no longer be confined within the borders 
of the Union. Production has so outrun consumption in both agricul- 
tural and manufactured products that foreign markets must be secured 
or stagnation will ensue. 
Foreign trade means foreign interests which must be protected. 
It means rivalries and jealousies with other exporting nations in which 
the American citizen must have the support of his government. 
The day has gone by when the United States can ignore its inter- 
national relations, privileges and obligations. Whether it will or no, 
the logic of events is forcing the American people and their govern- 
ment to take their place as one of the great “ international nations,” 
and incidentally thereto, to adopt such means as are necessary to 
sustain the position. 47 
Opinions of Presidents of the United States Concerning the Control 
or Annexation of Hawaii. 
JOHN TYLER. 
United States Opposition to Foreign Coni) ol. 
On December 31, 1842, President Tyler sent a special message to 
the Senate, relating to the Hawaiian Islands, from which the following 
extracts are made. 
After speaking of the development of the Island Government and 
the importance of the islands to shipping, he continues : 
“ It cannot but be in conformity with the interest and wishes of the Govern- 
ment and the people of the United States that this community * * * should 
be respected, and all its rights strictly and conscientiously regarded. * * * Far 
remote from the dominions of European Powers, its growth and prosperity as an 
independent state may yet be in a high degree useful to all whose trade is extend- 
ed to those regions, while its near approach to this continent, and the intercourse 
which American vessels have with it—such vessels constituting five-sixths of all 
which annually visit it—could not but create dissatisfaction on the part of the 
United States at any attempt by another power, should such attempt be threatened 
or feared, to take possession of the islands, colonize them, and subvert the native 
gouernment.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 847.} 
MILLARD FILLMORE. 
President Fillmore reiterated this sentiment in stronger language 
in 1850-’1. See dispatches of Secretaries Clayton and Webster quoted 
below. 
FRANKEIN PIERCE. 
Approval of Annexation. 
President Pierce desired the annexation of Hawaii, and authorized 
the negotiation of the treaty of annexation of 1854. See treaty in full, 
hereunder. 
(See dispatch of Secretary Marcy to U. S. Minister Gregg, 
April 4, 1854. Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., con- 
cerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 929.) 
First Attempt at Reciprocity. 
A treaty of reciprociy was negotiated between the United States 
and Hawaii under President Pierce, but was not confirmed by the 
Senate, 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 944.) 
JAMES BUCHANAN. 
Foreign Control Highly Injurious to United States. 
President Buchanan, in his dispatch as Secretary of State, Sep- 
tember 3, 1849, quoted below, stated that English or French control 
of Hawaii would be “ highly injurious” to the interests of the United 
States. 48 
ANDREW JOHNSON. 
Reciprocity Advocated as Leading to Annexation. 
The following is an extract from the annual message of President 
Johnson to the 40th Congress, December 19, 1868 : 
“ I am aware that upon the question of fruther extending our possessions it is 
apprehended by some that our political system cannot successfully be applied to 
an area more extended than our continent ; but the conviction is rapidly gaining 
ground in the American mind that, with the increased fa< ilities for intercommuni- 
cation between all portions of the earth, the principles of free government, as em- 
braced in our Constitution, if faithfully maintained and carried out, would prove 
of sufficient strength and breadth to comprehend within their sphere and influence 
the civilized nations of the world. 
‘ ‘ The attention of the Senate and of Congress is again respectfully invited to 
the treaty for the establishment of commercial reciprocity with the Hawaiian 
Kingdom, entered into last year, and already ratified by that Government. The 
attitude of the United States towards these islands is not very different from that 
in which they stand towards the West Indies. It is known and felt by the Hawai- 
ian Government and people that their institutions are feeble and precarious ; that 
the United States, being so near a neighbor, would be unwilling to see the islands 
pass under foreign control. Their prosperity is continually disturbed by expecta- 
tions and alarms of unfriendly political proceedings, as well from the United States 
as from other foreign powers. A reciprocity treaty, while it could not materially 
diminish the revenues of the United States, would be a guarantee of the good will 
and forbearance of all nations until the people of the islands shall of themselves, at 
no distant day, voluntarily apply for admission into the Union." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 954.) 
U. S. GRANT. 
The annexation of Hawaii was favored by President Grant. 
(See dispatch Sec’y State Seward to Minister McCook, Sept. 
12, 1867, quoted hereunder.) 
Question of Annexation Submitted, to Seriate. 
In February, 1871. Mr. Pierce, American Minister to Honolulu, 
wrote, recommending the subject of annexation to the attention of the 
President. President Grant thereupon sent to the Senate a confiden- 
tial message, accompanied by Mr. Pierce’s statement. The message 
is as follows : 
To the Senate of the United States : 
“ I transmit confidentially, for the information and consideration of the Sen- 
ate, a copv of a dispatch of the 25th of February last, relative to the annexation of 
the Hawaiian Islands, addressed to the Department of State by Henry A. Pierce, 
minister resident of the United States at Honolulu. Although I do not deem it 
advisable to express any opinion or to make any recommendation in regard to the 
subject at this juncture, the views of the Senate, if it should be deemed proper to 
express them, would be very acceptable with reference to any future course which 
there might be a disposition to adopt. 
“U. S. GRANT. 
“Washington, April 5, 1871.“ 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 824.) 
Note—The dispatch from Mr. Pierce is given hereafter under the heading, 
“Statements of American Ministers at Honolulu,” &c. 
CHESTER A. ARTHUR, 
President Arthur was in full sympathy with the Americanizing of 
Hawaii. See Secretary Blaine’s dispatches of December i, 1881, 
quoted below. 49 
BENJAMIN HARRISON. 
Annexation Treaty Negotiated and Advocated. 
In February, 1893, President Harrison caused an annexation 
treaty to be negotiated with Hawaii. The following is the message 
accompanying the treaty upon its transmission to the Senate for con- 
firmation : 
11 To the Senate : 
“ I transmit herewith, with a view to its ratification, a treaty of annexation 
concluded on the 14th day of February, 1893, between Hon. John \V. Foster, Sec- 
retary of State, who was duly empowered to act in that behalf on the part of the 
United States, and Eorrin A. Thurston, W. R. Castle, W. C. Wilder, C. L,. Carter, 
and Joseph Marsden, the commissioners on the part of the Provisional Government 
of the Hawaiian Islands. 
“The treaty, it will be observed, does not attempt to deal in detail with the 
questions that grow out of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United 
States. The commissioners representing the Hawaiian Government have con- 
sented to leave to the future and to the just and benevolent purposes of the United 
States the adjustment of all such questions. 
“ I do not deem it necessary to discuss at any length the conditions which 
have resulted in this decisive action. 
“It has been the policy of the administration not only to respect, but to en- 
courage the continuance of an independent government in the Hawaiian Islands 
so long as it afforded suitable guarantees for the protection of life and property, 
and maintained a stability and strength that gave adequate security against the 
domination of any other power. The moral support of this Government has con- 
tinually manifested itself in the most friendly diplomatic relations, and in many 
acts of courtesy to the Hawaiian rulers. 
“ The overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted by this Gov- 
ernment, but had its origin in what seems to have been a reactionary and revolu- 
tionary policy on the part of Queen Eiliuokalani, which put in serious peril not 
only the large and preponderating interests of the United States in the islands, but 
all foreign interests, and, indeed, the decent administration of civil affairs and the 
peace of the islands. 
“ It is quite evident that the monarchy had become effete and the Queen’s 
government so weak and inadequate as to be the prey of designing and unscrupu- 
lous persons. The restoration of Queen Liliuokalani to her throne is undesirable, 
if not impossible, and unless actively supported by the United States would be 
accompanied by serious disaster and the disorganization of all business interests. 
The influence and interest of the United States in the islands must be increased 
and not diminished. 
“ Only two courses are now open ; one the establishment of a protectorate by 
the United States, and the other, annexation full and complete. Ithink the latter 
course, which has been adopted in the treaty, will be highly promotive of the best 
interests of the Hawaiian people, and is the only one that will adequately secure 
the interests of the United States. These interests are not wholly selfish. It is 
essential that none of the great powers shall secure these islands. Such a possession 
would not consist with our safety and with the peace of the world. 
“ This view of the situation is so apparent and conclusive that'no protest has 
been heard from any government against proceedings looking to annexation. 
Every foreign representative at Honolulu promptly acknowledged the provisional 
government, and I think there is a general concurrence in the opinion that the 
deposed queen ought not to be restored. Prompt action upon this treaty is very 
desirable. 
“If it meets the approval of the Senate peace and good order will be secured 
in the islands under existing laws until such time as Congress can provide by leg- 
islation a permanent form of government for the islands. This legislation should 
be, and I do not doubt will be, not only just to the natives and all other residents 
and citizens of the islands, but should be characterized by great liberality and a 
high regard to the rights of all the people and of all foreigners domiciled there. 50 
“ The correspondence which accompanies the treaty will put the Senate in 
possession of all the facts known to the Executive. 
“BENJ. HARRISON. 
“ Executive Mansion, February 15, 1893.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 1005.) 
The Treaty of Annexation is hereinafter contained. 
william mckinley. 
Annexation Treaty Negotiated and Advocated. 
On June 15, 1897, President McKinley caused an annexation 
treaty to be negotiated with the Republic of Hawaii. 
Message to the Senate. 
The following is the message accompanying the treaty upon its 
transmission to the Senate for confirmation: 
“ To the Senate of the United States: 
“ I transmit herewith to the Senate, in orr’er that, after due consideration, the 
constitutional function of advice and consent may be exercised by that body, a 
treaty for the annexation of the Republic of Hawraii to the United States, signed in 
this capital by the plenipotentiaries of the parties on the 16th of June instant. 
“ For better understanding of the subject I transmit in addition a report of the 
Secretary of State, briefly reviewing the negotiation which has led to this import- 
ant result. 
Annexation Necessary Sequel of Historical Events. 
The incorporation of the Hawaiian Islands into the body politic of the United 
States is the necessary and fitting sequel to the change of events which, from a 
very early period in our history, has controlled the intercourse and prescribed the 
association of the United States and the Hawaiian Islands. The predominance of 
American interest in that neighboring territory was first asserted in 1820, by send- 
ing to the islands a representative agent of the United States. It found further 
expression by the signature of a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation 
with the king in 1826—the first international compact negotiated by Hawaii. It 
was signally announced in 1843, when the intervention of the United States caused 
the British Government to disavow the seizure of the Sandwich Islands by a British 
naval commander, and to recognize them by treaty as an independent state, re- 
nouncing forever any purpose of annexing the islands or exerting a protectorate 
over them. 
Cession of Hawaii in 1851. 
“ In 1851 the cession of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States was for- 
mally offered, and although not then accepted, this Government proclaimed its 
duty to preserve alike the honor and dignity of the United States and the safety of 
the government of the Hawaiian Islands. From this time until the outbreak of 
the w’ar in 1861 the policy of the United States toward Haw'aii and of the Hawaiian 
sovereignty toward the United States was exemplified by continued negotiations 
for annexation or for a reserved commercial union. 
Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 and 1884. 
The latter alternative was at length accomplished by the reciprocity treaty of 
1875, the provisions of which were renewed and expanded by the convention of 
1884, embracing the perpetual cession to the United States of the harbor of Pearl 
River in the Island of Oahu. 
Refusal of Joint Action with Germany and Great Britain in 1888. 
% 
“ In 1888 a proposal for the joint guaranty of the neutrality of the Hawaiian 
Islands by the United States, Germany and Great Britain was declined on the an- 
nounced ground that the relation of the United States to the islands was sufficient 
for the end in view. 51 
Continuous Policy Exclusion of ate Foreign Influence. 
In brief, from 1820 to 1893 the course of the United States toward 
the Hawaiian Islands has consistently favored their autonomous welfare 
with the exclusion of all foreign influence save our own, to the extent of upholding 
eventual annexation as the necessary outcome of that policy. 
Annexation a Consummation, Not a Change. 
“ Not only is the union of the Hawaiian territory to the United States no new 
scheme, but it is the inevitable consequence of the relation steadfastly maintained 
with that mid-Pacific domain for three-quarters of a century. Its accomplishment, 
despite successive denials and postponements, has been merely a question of time. 
While its failure in 1893, may not be a cause of congratulation, it is certainly a 
proof of the disinterestedness of the United States, the delay of four years having 
abundantly sufficed to establish the right and the ability of the Republic of Hawaii 
to enter, as a sovereign contractant, upon a conventional union with the United 
States, thus realizing a purpose held by the Hawaiian people and proclaimed by 
successive Hawaiian governments through some twenty years of their virtual de- 
pendence upon the benevolent protection of the United States. Under such cir- 
cumstances, annexation is not a change ; It is a consummation. 
Details of Form of Government Left to Congress. 
“ The report of the Secretary of State explains the character and course of the 
recent negotiation and the features of the treaty itself. The organic and adminis- 
trative details of incorporation are necessarily left to the wisdom of the Congress, 
and I cannot doubt, when the function of the constitutional treaty-making power 
shall have been accomplished, the duty of the national legislature in the case will 
be performed with the largest regard for the interests of this rich insular domain 
and for the welfare of the inhabitants thereof. 
“WILLIAM McKINLEY. 
“ Executive Mansion, Washington, June 16, 1897.” 
[Secretary Sherman’s report to President McKinley accompanying the Treaty 
is hereinafter contained.] 52 
Opinions of Secretaries of State of the United States concerning the 
Control or Annexation of Hawaii. 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 
First Public Statement of Superior Interest of United States in Hawaii. 
Upon application of the Hawaiian Government for recognition by 
the United States, Secretary of State Webster replied on December 19, 
1842, that the matter had been submitted to the President (Tyler) and 
‘‘The President is of opinion that the interests of all the commercial nations 
require that that government (Hawaii) shall not be interfered with by foreign 
powers. *• * * The United States * * * are more interested in the fate of the 
islands and of their gouernment than any other nation can be, and this considera- 
tion induces the President to be quite walling to declare, as the sense of the 
Government of the United States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands 
ought to be respected; that no power ought either to take possession of the islands 
as a conquest or for the purpose of colonization, and that no power ought to seek 
for any undue control over the existing government, or any exclusive privileges or 
or preferences in matters of commerce.” 
(Appendix 2 For Rel. of the U. S., 1894, p. 44.) 
Webster’s views were elaborated in 1851, hereafter quoted. 
H. S. EEGARE. 
Advocated Force to Keep European Powers Out. 
June 13, 1843, Secretary of State Legare sent a dispatch to Edward 
Everett, U. S. Minister at London, in which the relations of the United 
States to Hawaii are mentioned, by reason of the then recent seizure 
of the Islands by England. In this connection he says : 
“ It is well known that * "x' * we have no wish to plant or to acquire colonies 
abroad. Yet there is something so entirely peculiar in the relations between this 
little commonwealth Hawaii and ourselves that we might even feel justified, con- 
sistently with our own principles, in interfering by force to prevent its falling into 
the hands of one of the great powers of Europe. These relations spring out of the 
local situation, the history, and the character and institutions of the Hawaiian 
Islands, as well as out of the declarations formally made by this Government 
during the course of the last session of Congress, to which I beg leave to call your 
particular attention. 
“ If the attempts now making by ourselves, as wTell as other Christian powers, 
to open the markets of China to a more general commerce be successful, there can 
be no doubt but that a great part of that commerce will find its way over the 
Isthmus. In that event it will be impossible to overate the importance of the 
Hawaiian group as a stage in the long voyage between Asia and America. But 
without anticipating events which, however, seem inevitable, and even approach- 
ing, the actual demands of an immense navigation make the free use of these road- 
steads and ports indispensable to us. * * * It seems doubtful whether even 
the undisputed possession of the Oregon Territory and the use of the Columbia 
River, or indeed anything short of the acquisition of California (if that were possi- 
ble), would be sufficient indemnity to us for the loss of these harbors.” 
(Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, Vol. 2, p. 921.) 
JAMES BUCHANAN. 
Occupation by England or France Highly Injurious to United States. 
On the 3d of September, 1S49, Secretary of State Buchanan sent 
a dispatch to the U. S. Minister resident at Honolulu, TenEyck, con- 
cerning the relations between Hawaii and the United States, in view 53 
of the then threatening conduct of the French against Hawaii, in 
which the following words are used : 
“ We ardently desire that the Hawaiian Islands may maintain their independ- 
ence. It would be highly injurious to our interests if, tempted by their weakness, 
they should be seized by Great Britain or France ; more especially so since our 
recent acquisitions from Mexico on the Pacific Ocean." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 897.) 
JOHN M. CLAYTON. 
United States Could Never Allow Hawaii to be Controlled by Any Other 
Power. 
In a dispatch from Secretary Clayton to U. S. Minister Rives at 
Paris, July 5, 1850, referring to the differences between the French 
and Hawaiian Governments, he made the following statement : 
“ The Department will be slow to believe that the French have any intention 
to adopt, with reference to the Sandwich Islands, the same policy which they have 
pursued in regard to Tahiti. If, however, in your judgment it should be warranted 
by circumstances, you may take a proper opportunity to intimate to the Minister 
for Foreign Affairs of France that the situation of the Sandwich Islands, in respect 
to our possessions on the Pacific and the bonds commercial and of other descriptions 
between them and the United States, are such that we could never with indifference 
allow them to pass under the dominion or exclusive control of any other power." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 895.) 
DANIEL WEBSTER. 
Action by France Would Seriously Disturb Friendly Relations with 
United States. 
Upon receipt of a communication by Mr. Severance (quoted below 
under the heading “Opinions of American Ministers at Honolulu,” 
&c.), Secretary of State Webster on June 18, 1851, again addressed 
U. S. Minister Rives at Paris instructing him to immediately inform 
the French Government that the further enforcement of the French 
demands against Hawaii— 
“ would be tantamount to a subjugation of the islands to the dominion of France. 
A step like this could not fail to be viewed by the Government and people of the 
United States with a dissatisfaction which would tend seriously to disturb our 
existing friendly relations with the French Government.''' 
Reparation Requested for Hazvaii, Indieating U. S. Claim of Right to 
Protect Hawii. 
And he is further instructed to make such representations to France— 
• ‘ ‘ as will induce that Government to desist from measures incompatible with the 
sovereignity and independence of the Hawaiian Islands, and to make amends for 
the acts which the French agents have already committed there in contravention 
of the law of nations and of the treaty between the Hawaiian Government and 
France." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 905-6.) 
Declaration of Policy.—United States can never Consent to Occupation 
by, or Hostile Demands of ’ European Powers. 
Secretary of State Webster, replying to U. S. Minister Severance 
at Honolulu, on July 14, 1851, says, after reciting that the demands of 
France were improper and “could only end in rendering the islands 
and their Government a prey to the stronger commercial nations of 
the world : ’ ’ "It cannot be expected that the Government of the United States could look on 
■a course of things leading to such a result with indifference. 
“ The Hawaiian Islands are ten times nearer to the United States than to any 
of the powers of Europe. Five-sixths of all their commercial intercourse is with 
the United States, and these considerations, together with others of a more general 
character, have fixed the course which the Government of the United States will 
pursue in regard to them. The annunciation of this policy will not surprise the 
governments of Europe, nor be thought to be unreasonable by the nations of the 
civilized world, and that policy is that while the Government of the United States, 
itself faithful to its original assurance, scrupulously regards the independence of 
the Hawaiian Islands, it can never consent to see those islands taken possession 
of by either of the great commercial powers of Europe, nor can it consent that 
demands manifestly unjust and derogatory and inconsistent with a bona fide inde- 
pendence, shall be enforced against that Government." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 908.) 
Copy Furnished Diplomatic Corps at Washington. 
A copy of the above letter from Secretary Webster to Minister 
Severance was, simultaneously with its dispatch, furnished to all the 
members of the Diplomatic Corps in Waahington, in circular form, 
wdiich caused offense to the French Government, but they nevertheless 
acquiesced in its terms, and desisted from the course of aggression 
wdiich they had been following. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. 011 For, Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 913.) 
Force Advocate to Keep France Out, 
At this time the French vTere so threatening in Hawraii that the 
Hawaiian Government requested the American consul, E. H. Allen to 
go personally to Washington and represent the state of affairs, which 
he did. Upon making his statement to Secretary Webster the lat- 
ter replied : 
"I trust the French will not take possession; but if they do, they will be dis- 
lodged, if my advice is taken, if the whole power of the government is required to 
do it." 
54 
W. E. MARCY. 
Inevitably Hawaii must be Controlled by the United States. 
Secretary of State W. E. Marcy addressed a communication on 
December 16, 1853, to Mr. John Mason, U. S. Minister to France, in 
which he states that during the recent disturbances in Hawaii— 
“ the question of transferring the sovereignty of these islands to the United States 
was much discussed.” 
He further states that the British and French Ministers had both 
called upon him (Marcy) and tried to induce him to agree— 
‘‘that this Government would take no measures to acquire the sovereignty of these 
islands or accept it if voluntarily offered to the the United States. * * * Their 
ministers, particularly the Minister of France, labored to impress me with the 
belief that such a transfer would be forcibly resisted. * * * 
Annexation For shadowed. 
“ fhe object in addressing you at present is to request you to look into this 
matter and ascertain, if possible, * * * what would probably be the course of 
France in case of an attempt on the part of the United States to add these islands to 
our territorial possessions by negotiation or other peaceable means. 
‘‘I do not think the present Hawaiian Government can long remain in the 
hands of the present rulers or under the control of the native inhabitants of these islands, and both England and France are apprised of our determination not to 
allow them to be owned by or to fall under the protection of either of these powers 
or of any other Europeon nation. 
“ It seems to be inevitable that they must come under the control of this Gov- 
ernment:, and it would be but reasonable and fair that these powers should acquiesce 
in such a disposition of them, provided the transference was affected by fair means.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 914.) 
Instructions of Marcy to Negotiate Annexation Treaty. 
On the 4th of April, 1854, Secretary of State Marcy sent a dis- 
dateh to David D. Gregg, U. S. Minister at Honolulu, giving special 
instructions on the subject of annexation, viz : 
“In your general instructions you were furnished with the views of this 
Government in regard to any change in the political affairs of the Sandwich 
Islands. The President was aware, when those instructions were prepared, that 
the question of transferring the sovereighty of those islands to the United States 
had been raised, and favorably received by many influential individuals residing 
therein. It was for seen that at some period, not far distant, such a change would 
take place, and that the Hawaiian Islands would come under the protectorate of or 
be transferred to some foreign power. You were informed that it was not the 
policy of the United States to accelerate such a change ; but if, in the course of 
events, it became unavoidable, this Government would much prefer to aquire the 
sovereignity of these islands for the United States, rather than to see it transferred 
to any other power. If any foreign connection is to be formed, the geographical 
position of these islands indicates that it should be with us. Our commerce with 
them far exceeds that of all other countries ; our citizens are embarked in the most 
important business concerns of that country, and some of them hold important pub- 
lic positions. In view of the large American interests there established and the inti- 
mate commercial relations existing at this time, it might be well regarded as the 
duty of this Government to prevent these islands from becoming the appendage 
of any other foreign power. 
“ It appears by your dispatches lately received at this Department that the 
ruling authorities of the Hawaiian Government have been convinced of their ina- 
bility to sustain themselves any longer as an independent State, and are prepared 
to throw themselves upon our protection or to seek incorporation into our political 
system. Fears are entertained by those who favor such a measure that if the 
United States should manifest a disinclination to receive the proffered sovereignty 
of this country, the people would seek elsewhere a less desirable connection or be 
given over to anarchy. 
“ The information contained in your last dispatch, No. 10, dated the 7th of 
February, renders it highly probable that the ruling powers of that Government 
will have presented to you, as our diplomatic agent, an offer of the sovereignty of 
their country to the United States. The President has deemed it proper that you 
should be furnished with instructions for the guidance of your conduct in such an 
emergency. With this dispatch you will be furnished with a full power to treat 
with the present authorities of the Hawaiian Government for the transfer of the 
Sandwich Islands to the United States. This can only be done by a convention or 
treaty, which will not be valid until it is ratified by the Senate of the United States. 
Protectorate Disapproved. 
“ No intimation has ever been given to this Government as to the terms or 
conditions which will be likely to be annexed to the tender of the sovereignty. It 
is presumed, however, that something more than a mere protectorate is contem- 
plated. A protectorate tendered to and accepted by the United States would not 
change the sovereignty of the country. In that case this Government would take 
upon itself heavy and responsible duties for which it could hardly expect compen- 
sating advantages. 
“ I understand that the measure proposed by the people, and that in which the 
present rulers are disposed to concur, is ‘annexation’ as distinguished from pro- 
tection ; and that it is their intention that these islands shall become a part of our 
territories and be under the control of this Government as fully as any other of its 
territorial possessions. In any convention you may make it is expected that the 
rights to be acquired by the United States should be clearly defined. 
55 56 
“ Should the sovereignty of these islands be transferred to the United States, 
the present government would, as a matter of course, be superseded, or, at least, be 
subjected to the Federal authority of this country.” 
Annuities to the amount of $100,000 per annum were authorized 
to be paid to the King and chiefs. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For Rel., concerning Hawaii, p. 
929.) 
Discussion of Terms of Annexation. 
On January 31, 1855, Secretary Marcy wrote to Mr. Gregg that 
the President did not approve of Hawaii immediately becoming a 
State, but thought it should come in as a Territory. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 941.) 
WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Annexation Overtures to be Confidentially Received. 
In reply to a dispatch from U. S. Minister McCook, suggesting 
the possibility of the annexation of Hawraii, Secretary Seward wrote to 
him, July 13, 1867 : 
“You are at liberty to sound the proper authority on the large subject men- 
tioned in your note (annexation) and ascertain probable conditions. You may 
confidentially receive overtures and communicate the same to me. 
“ I will act upon your suggestion in that relation in regard to a party now 
here. (The Hawaiian Minister at Washington.)” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 948.) 
Annexation Deemed Desirable by U. S. Government. 
In a dispatch to U. S. Minister McCook at Honolulu, of Septem- 
ber, 12, 1867, Secretary Seward says : 
“ Circumstances have transpired here which induce a belief that a strong 
interest, based upon a desire for annexation of the Sandwich Islands, will be active 
in opposing a ratification of the reciprocity treaty. It will be argued that the 
reciprocity will tend to hinder and defeat an early annexation, to which the people 
of the Sandwich Islands are supposed to be now strongly inclined. * * * 
Second. You will be governed in all your proceedings by a proper respect 
and courtesy to the Government and people of the Sandwich Islands ; but it is 
proper that you should know, for your own information, that a lawful and peaceful 
annexation of the islands to the I'nited States, with the consent of the people of the 
Sandwich Islands, is deemed desirable by this Government; and that if the policy 
of annexation should really conflict with the policy of reciprocity, annexation is in 
every case to be preferred. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 951.) 
HAMILTON FISH. 
Control of Hawaii Discussed. 
In a dispatch from Secretary Fish to the American Minister at 
Honolulu, March 25, 1873, the following occurs : 
“ The position of the Sandwich Islands as an outpost fronting and command- 
ing the zuhole of our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, gives to the future of those 
Islands a peculiar interest to the Government and people of the United States. It 
is very clear that this Government cannot be expected to assent to their transfer 
from their present control to that of any powerful maritime or commercial nation. 
Military Surveillance by Bermuda must not be Repeated in the Pacific. 
“ Such transfer to a maritime power would threaten a military surveillance in 
the Pacific similar to that which Bermuda has afforded in the Atlantic—the latter 57 
has been submitted to from necessity, inasmuch as it was congenital with our Gov- 
ernment—but we desire no additional similar outposts in the hands of those who 
may at some future time use them to our disadvantage. 
Consideration of Hawaii’s Future Forced on United States. 
“ The condition of the Government of Hawaii and its evident tendency to de- 
cay and dissolution force upon us the earnest consideration of its future—possibly its 
nearfuture. 
“ There seems to be a strong desire on the part of many persons in the islands, 
representing large interests and great wealth, to become annexed to the United 
States. And while there are, as I have already said, many and influential persons 
in this country who question the policy of any insular acquisitions, perhaps even of 
any extension of territorial limits ; 
Policy of Wise Foresight to Acquire Hawaii. 
there are also those of influence and of wise foresight who see a future that must 
extend the jurisdiction and the limits of this nation, and that will require a resting 
spot in mid-ocean, between the Pacific coast and the vast domains of Asia, which 
are now opening to commerce and Christian civilization. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 827.) 
JAMES G. BEAINE. 
Hawaii the key of the American Pacific. 
In 1881, the British Government having made certain demands 
upon the Hawaiian Government, arising out of the reciprocity treaty 
with the United States, negotiated in 1876, Mr. Blaine, in a dispatch 
dated December 1, 1881, to U. S. Minister Comly at Honolulu, used 
the following language : 
“This Government firmly believes that the position of the Hawaiian Islands 
as the key to the dominion of the American Pacific demands their benevolent neu- 
trality, to which end it will earnestly co-operate with the native Government. 
And if, through any cause; the maintenance of such a position of benevolent 
neutrality should be found by Hawaii to be impracticable, 
An avowedly American Solution. 
this Government would then unhesitatingly meet the altered situation by seeking 
an avowedly American solution for the grave issues presented." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 831.) 
In a further dispatch he said ; 
“The government of the United States * * * has always avowed, and now 
repeats, that under no circumstances will it permit the transfer of the territory or 
sovereignty of these islands to any of the great European powers. It is needless 
to restate the reasons upon which that determination rests. It is too obvious for 
argument that the possession of these islands by a great maratime power would 
not only be a dangerous diminution of the just and necessary influence of the 
United States in the waters of the Pacific, but in the case of international difficulty 
it would be a positive threat to interests too large and important to be lightly risked. ’, 
Hawaii's Relations to the United States. 
In a confidential dispatch to U. S. Minister Comly at Honolulu, 
December 1, 1881, Mr. Blaine says; 
Early Extinction of Natives—Transfer of Power to Others. 
“ In my formal instruction of this date I have reviewed the general question 
of the relationship between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, and the 
position of the latter, both as an integral part of the American system and as the 
key to the commerce of the North Pacific. As that instruction was written for 
communication to the Hawaiian secretary of state, I touched but lightly on the 
essential question of the gradual and seemingly inevitable decadence and extinc- 
tion of the native race and its replacement by another, to which the powers of 
Government would necessarily descend. THOMAS F. BAYARI). 
The Reciprocity treaty with Hawaii was negotiated in 1875 under 
Secretary Fish. An extension of the treaty was negotiated by Secre- 
tary Frelinghuysen, and finally carried into effect under Thos. F. 
Bayard, Secretary of State in Mr. Cleveland’s first administration. In 
an interview published in the Philadelphia Ledger, February 1, 1897, 
Mr. Bayard discusses the objects and intent of these treaties. Among 
other things he states that he was “ greatly impressed with the special 
advantages which our exclusive rights in the Islands gave us, and 
woidd have preferred to extend the period of its duration so that our 
commercial interests there woidd have ample time to develop, and 
American control of the Islands, in a perfectly natural and legitimate 
way, would be assured by the normal growth of mercantile and 
political relations.” He further states that the British Minister re- 
quested that the United States join England and Germany in a 
guaranty of the neutrality of Hawaii, which Mr. Bayard declined to 
do, February 15, 1888. Continuing, Mr. Bayard says : 
‘1 I held that there could be no comparison between our rights in the Ha- 
waiian Islands, as secured by the treaties of 1875 and 1887, with those of other 
nations, and I would not consent that the United .States should be put upon an 
equality with them * * * We had an interest in Hawaii that no other country 
could have. A political union would logically and naturally follow, in course of 
time, the commercial union and dependence which were thus assured. * * * It 
7uas my idea that the policy originating in the Fish treaty of the Grant adminis- 
tration in 1875 should be permitted to work out its proper results. The obvious 
course was to 70a if quietly and patiently and let the Islands Jill up with American 
planters and American industries until they should be wholly identified in busi- 
ness interests and political sympathies with the United States. It was simply a 
matter of waiting until the apple should ripen and fall. Unfortunately, nothing 
70 as done by Congress in pursuance of this easy, legitimate and perfectly feasible 
process of acquisition." * * * 58 
'A single glance at the census returns of Hawaii for half a generation past 
exhibits this alarming diminution of the indigenous element, amounting to per 
cent per annum of the populaiion. Meanwhile the industrial and productive de- 
velopment of Hawaii is on the increase, and the native classes, never sufficiently 
numerous to develop the full resources of the islands, have been supplemented by 
an adventitious labor element, from China mainly, until the rice and sugar fields 
are largely tilled by aliens. The worst of this state of things is that it must inevit- 
ably keep on in increasing ratio, the native classes growing smaller, the insulur 
production larger, and the immigration to supply the want of labor greater 
every year. 
[Hawaii Commercially a District of California. 
‘ I have shown in a previous instruction how entirely Hawaii is a part of the 
productive and commercial system of the American States. So far as the staple 
growths and imports of the islands go, the reciprocity treaty makes them practically 
members of an American zollvercin, an outlying district of the State of California. 
So far as political structure and independence of action are concerned, Hawaii is 
as remote from our control as China. 
Perpetuity of Natives Basis of Independence. 
“This contradiction is only explicable by assuming what is the fact, that thirty 
years ago, having the choice between material annexation and commercial assimi- 
lation of the islands, the United States chose the less responsible alternative. The 
soundness of the choice, however, entirely depends on the perpetuity of the rule of 
the native race as an independent Government, and that imperiled, the whole 
framework of our relations to Hawaii is changed, if not destroyed. 
“The decline of the native Hawaiian element in the presence of newer and 
sturdier growths must be accepted as an inevitable fact, in view of the teachings of 
ethnological history. And as rcstrogression in the development of the Islands, can- 
not be admitted without serious detriment to American interests in the North Pa- 
cific, the problem of a replenishment of the vital forces of Hawaii presents itself 
for intelligent solution in an American sense—not in an Asiatic or a British sense. 
Annexation Would Cause American Colonization. 
“ There is little doubt that were the Hawaiian Islands, by annexation or district 
protection, a part of the territory of the Union, their fertile resources for the growth 
of rice and sugar would not only be controlled by American capital, but so profita- 
ble a field of labor would attract intelligent workers thitherfrom the United States. 
“Throughout the continent, north aud south, wherever a foothold is found for 
American enterprise, it is quickly occupied, and this spirit of adventure, which 
seeks its outlet in the mines of South America and the railroads of Mexico, would 
not be slow to avail itself of openings for assured and profitable enterprise even in 
mid-ocean.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 977.) 
JOHN W. FOSTER. 
Secretary of State Foster made a report accompanying the treaty 
of annexation negotiated by him February 15, 1893, in which he 
says : 
“The policy of the United States has been consistently and constantly declared 
against any foreign aggression in Hawaii inimical to the necessarily paramount 
rights and interests of the American people there, and the uniform contemplation 
of their annexation as a contingent necessity. But beyond that it is shown that 
annexation has been on more than one occasion avowed as a policy and attempted 
as a fact.” 
(Ib., Vol. 1, p. 136.) 
Duty of the United States to Annex. 
In an address to to the National Geographic Society, March 26, 
1897, Mr. Foster said : 
“It is, in my opinion, the plain duty of the United States to annex Hawaii to 
its territory. And in a matter which involves the interests and destiny of a great 59 
nation of 70,000,000 people no mere technical questions of procedure should be al- 
lowed to embarrass our action. * * * 
Annexation Presents no Difficulties—Frotectorate Impracticable. 
“To my mind annexation presents no political or administrative difficulties. * 
* * I do regard the suggestion of a protectorate as practiable. We cannot as- 
sume it without becoming responsible for the goverment of the islands and we 
should not become responsible for the government unless we can * * * con- 
trol its management. Such a system would bring no end of complications with 
foreign powers and in domestic affairs. 
Either Annex or Let Alone. 
“We must either annex the islands or leave them free to make such other al- 
liance as they may choose or as destiny may determine.’’ 
JOHN SHERMAN. 
Report Accompanying Annexation Treaty of 189J. 
Secretary of State Sherman made a report to the President accom- 
panying the treaty of annexation negotiated by him June 15, 1897, as 
follows: 
“ The President : 
The undersigned, Secretary of State, has the honor to lay before the Presi- 
dent for submission to the Senate, should it be deemed for the public interests to 
do so, a treaty signed in the city of Washington on the 16th instant by the under- 
signed and by the duly empowered representatives of the Republic of Hawaii, 
whereby the islands constituting the said republic and all their dependencies are 
fully and absolutely ceded to the United States of America forever. 
“It does not seem necessary to the present purpose of the undersigned to 
review the incidents of 1893, when a similar treaty of cession was signed on Feb- 
ruary 14, and submitted to the Senate, being subsequently withdrawn by the Pres- 
ident on the 9th of March following. The negotiation which has culminated in 
the treaty now submitted has not been a mere resumption of the negotiation 
of 1893, but was initiated and has been conducted upon independ- 
ent lines. Then an abrupt revolutionary movement had brought about the de- 
thronement of the late Queen and set up instead of the heretofore titular monarchy 
a provisional government for the control and management of public affairs and the 
■protection of the public peace, such government to exist only until terms of union 
with the United States should have been negotiated and agreed upon. Thus self- 
constituted, its promoters claimed for it only a de facto existence until the purpose 
of annexation in which it took rise should be accomplished. 
REPUBLIC EVOLVED FROM PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT. 
“ As time passed and the plan of union with the United States became an un- 
certain contingency the organization of the Hawaiian commonwealth underwent 
necessary changes, the temporary character of its first government gave place to a 
permanent scheme under a constitution framed by the representatives of the elec- 
tors of the islands, and the government, administered by an executive council, 
not chosen by suffrage, but self appointed, was succeeded by an elective and 
parliamentary regime, and the ability of the new government to hold—as the 
Republic of Hawaii—an independent place in the family of sovereign states, 
preserving order at home and fulfilling international obligations abroad, has been 
put to the proof. 
REPUBLIC OF HAWAII A RECOGNIZED SOVEREIGN STATE. 
“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, en- 
forcing respect for the law and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii 
sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, 
but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign 
State. However sufficient may have been the authority of the commissioners with 
whom the United States government treated in 1893, and however satisfied the 
President may then have been of their power to offer the domain of the Hawaiian 
Islands to the United States, the fact remains that what they then tendered was a 
territory rather than an established government, a country whose administration 
had been cast down by a bloodless but complete revolution, and a community in a 
state of political transition. 60 
HAWAIIAN CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES ANNEXATION. 
“Now, however, the Republic of Hawaii approaches the United States as an 
equal, and points for its authority to that provision of Article 32 of the Constitu- 
tion promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby the President, with the approval of the 
Cabinet is expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or 
commercial union between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of Amer- 
ica, subject to the ratification of the Senate. 
simple commercial union impracticable. 
“ The present negotiation is, therefore, as has been said, not a mere renewal 
of the tender of Hawaiian territory made in 1893, but has responded to the pur- 
pose declared in the Hawaiian constitution, and the conferences of the plenipoten- 
tiaries have been directed to weighing the advantages of the political and the 
commercial union alternately proposed, and relatively considering the scope and 
extent thereof. 
“ It soon appeared to the negotiators that a purely commercial union on the 
lines of the German Zollervein could not satisfy the problems of the administration 
in Hawaii and of the political associations between the islands and the United 
States. Such a commercial union would on the one hand deprive the Hawaiian 
government of its chief source of revenue from customs duties by placing its terri- 
tory in a relation of free exchange with the territory of the United States, its main 
market of purchase and supply, while on the other hand it would entail upon 
Hawaii the maintenance of an internal revenue system on a par with that of the 
United States or else involve the organization of a corresponding branch of our 
revenue service within a foreign jurisdiction. 
“ We have had with Hawaii since 1875 a treaty of commercial union, which 
practically assimilates the two territories with regard to many of their most impor- 
tant productions, and excludes other nations from enjoyment of its privileges, yet, 
although that treaty has outlived other less favored reciprocity schemes, its per- 
manency has at times been gravely imperiled. Under such circumstances, to 
enter upon the radical experiment of a complete commercial union between 
Hawaii and the United States as independently sovereign states, without assurances 
of permanency and with perpetual subjection to the vicissitudes of public sentiment 
in the two countries, was not to be thought of. 
POLITICAL protectorate impracticable. 
“ Turning then to the various practical forms of the political union, the sev- 
eral phases of a protectorate, an offensive and defensive alliance and a national 
guaranty were passed in review. In all of these the independence of the subordi- 
nated state is the distinguishing feature, aud with it the assumption by the para- 
mount state of responsibility without domain. This disparity of the relative inter- 
ests and the distance separating the two countries could not fail to render any 
form of protective association, either unduly burdensome, or illusory in its benefits, 
so far as the protecting state is concerned, while any attempt to counteract this by 
tributary dependence or a measure of suzerain control would be a retrograde move- 
ment toward a feudal or colonial establishment alike inexpedient and incompatible 
with our national policy. 
annexation only satisfactory solution. 
“ There remained, therefore, the annexation of the islands and their complete 
absorption into the political system of the United States as the only solution satis- 
fying all the given conditions and promising permanency and mutual benefit. 
The present treaty has been framed on that basis, thus substantially reverting to 
the original proposal of 1893, and necessarily adopting.many of the features of that 
arrangement. As to most of these, the negotiators have been constrained and 
limited by the constitutional powers of the Government of the United States. 
ORGANIC POVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT RESERVED FOR ACTION OF CONGRESS. 
“As in previous instances, when the United States has acquired territory by 
treaty, it has been necessary to preserve all the organic provisions for the action of 
Congress. If this was requisite in the case of the transfer to the United States of a 
part of the domain of a titular sovereign, as in the cession of Louisiana by France, 
of Florida by Spain, or of Alaska by Russia, it is the more requisite when the act 
is not cession, but union, involving the complete incorporation of an alien sov- 
ereignty into the body politic of the United States. 
“. For this the only precedent of our political history is found in the uncom- 
pleted treaty concluded during President Grant’s administration. November 29, 
1869, for the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the United States. “ Following that example, the treaty now signed by the plenipotentiaries of 
the United States and the Republic < f Hawaii reserves to the Congress of the 
United States the determination of all questions affecting the form of government 
of the annexed territory, the citizenship and elective franchise of its inhabitants 
and the manner in which the laws of the United States are to be extended to the 
islands. 
HAWAIIAN TREATIES ABROGATED. 
“ In order that this independence of the Congress shall be complete and un- 
questionable, and pursuant to the recognized doctrine of public law, that treaties 
expire with the independent life of the contracting state, there has been intro- 
duced, out of abundant caution, an express proviso'for the determination of all 
treaties heretofore concluded by Hawaii with foreign nations, and the extension 
to the islands of the treaties of the United States. 
“This leaves Congress free to deal with such especial regulation of the con- 
tract labor system of the islands as circumstances may require. There being no 
general provision of existing statutes to prescribe the form of government for 
newly incorporated territory, it was necessary to stipulate, as in the Dominican 
precedent, lor continuing the existing machinery of the government and laws in 
the Hawaiian Islands until provision shall be made by law for the government, as 
a territory of the United States, of the domain thus incorporated into the Union ; 
but, having in view the peculiar status created in Hawaii by laws enacted in exe- 
cution of treaties heretofore concluded between Hawaii and other countries, only 
such Hawaiian laws are thus provisionally continued as shall not be incompatible 
with the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or with the provisions of 
this treaty. 
PROHIBITION OF CHINESE IMMIGRATION. 
“ It will be noticed that express stipulation is made prohibiting the coming of 
Chinese laborers from the Hawaiian Islands to any other part of our national terri- 
tory. This provision was proper and necessary in view of the Chinese exclusion 
acts, and it behooved the negotiators to see to it that this treaty, which in turn is 
to become, in due constitutional course, a supreme law of the land, shall not alter 
or amend existing law in this most important regard. 
“JOHN SHERMAN. 
“ Department of State, Washington, June 15, 1897.” 
Opinions of American Ministers at Honolulu, London and Paris 
Concerning the Control or Annexation of Hawaii. 
EDWARD EVERETT. 
English Seizitre of Hawaii Prevented French Occupation. 
Edward Everett, U. S. Minister at London, sent a dispatch to the 
U. S. State Department, relating to the seizure of Hawaii by the Eng- 
lish, and their subsequent restoration thereof. In the course of the 
dispatch lie says: 
“There is now reason to think that the occupation of the islands by Lord 
George Paulet was a fortunate event, inasmuch as it prevented them from being 
taken possession of by a French squadron, which (it is said) was on its way for 
that purpose. Had France got possession of the islands she would certainly have 
retained them. 
England’s Recognition of Hawaii due to Ignorance of Seizure. 
Had intelligence been received here of Lord George Paulet’s occupation of 
them before her promise was given to recognize them, England, I think, would 
not have given them up. As it is, an understanding between the great European 
powers, amounting in effect, if not in form, to a guaranty of their independence, 
is likely to take place. This is the only state of things with which the United States 
could be content. As it will be brought about without involving us in any compacts 
with other powers, * * * 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 926.) 62 
J. TURRILL. 
Protest Against French Aggression. 
On August 18, 1849, the French Admiral Tromelin made demand 
for settlement of certain alleged grievances against the Hawaiian 
Government, with a threat to use force if not complied with. 
Mr. Turrill, U. S. Consul at Honolulu, thereupon addressed a 
communication to him, in which he used the following language : 
“ The demands which have been made upon this Government are, in my 
judgment, in direct opposition to the plain provisions of the treaty, and the en- 
forcing them in the manner indicated would be a palpable violation of the law of 
nations. 
‘'As the course you have advised me that circumstances may induce you to 
pursue must of necessity seriously affect the great American interests connected 
with these islands, it becomes my imperative duty, as a representative of the Uni- 
ted States, to interpose my solemn protest against it, which I now do, and I shall 
lose no time in communicating to the President of the United States the facts and 
circumstances attending this case.” 
Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel,, concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 884.) 
French Admiral Replies, None of United Stales' Business. 
To this Admiral Tromelin replied, expressing surprise at the com- 
munication received, saying : 
‘‘The policy of the American Government made it your duty to not interfere 
officially in our affairs with the administration of His Majesty Kamehameha III, 
for vou know as well as I do that the United .States of America has made it to 
themselves a law of not mixing ever in the affairs of other nations, and especially 
those of France.” 
{Ibid., p. 884.) 
French Action Injurious to American Interests. 
To this Mr. Turrill replied : 
“You are right in supposing it not to be the policy of the United States to 
mix in the affairs of other nations. But when a case like the one under consider- 
ation occurs, and I clearly see that the course military power is to take against 
this weak nation must greatly injure my countrymen and seriously embarrass the 
extensive American commerce connected with these islands, it becomes my duty 
so far to interfere officially as to interpose my protest; and in doing so I doubt not 
my course will meet the entire approbation of the President of the United States.” 
{Ibid., p. 885.) 
LUTHER SEVERANCE. 
Provisional Cession of Hawaii io United States. 
The French aggressions in Honolulu being renewed in 1851, the 
King, on the 10th day of March, 1851, executed a document reciting 
his inability to withstand the aggressions of the French, and placing 
the country- 
“ under the protection and safeguard of the United States of America until some 
arrangements can be made to place our said relations with France upon a footing 
compatible with my rights as an independent sovereign, * * * or, if such 
arrangements be found impracticable, then it is our wish and pleasure that the 
protection aforesaid under the United States of America be perpetual. 
“ And we further proclaim as aforesaid that from the date of publication here- 
of the flag of the United States of America shall be hoisted above the national 
ensign on all our forts and places and vessels navigating with Hawaiian registers.” 
This was delivered to U. S. Minister Severance. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel.. concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 897.) 63 
Annexation Desired by Hawaii. 
In a dispatch from Mr. Severance to Secretary of State Webster, 
dated March nth, 1851, giving at length a statement concerning the 
situation, Mr. Severance says : 
“ * * * the King, with the approbation of his chiefs, and I believe nearly 
all the principal officers of the Government, have it in contemplation to take down 
the Hawaiian flag and run up that of the United States, 1'hey contemplate annex- 
ation to our Republic and have already consulted me about it. * * * 
“The popular representative body recently elected by native votes is for the 
most part composed of natives of the United States, and so is the executive part 
of the Government, as well as the judiciary, at least in the high courts. * - * 
Three-fourths, at least, of the business done here is by Americans, and they already 
own much, of the real estate. * * * If the action of the French should precipi- 
tate a movement here, I shall be called on, perhaps, to protect the American flag. 
I?vas indeed requested to go and see the Ring on Monday night, and in the presence 
of the council to give him assurance of protection should he raise the American flag 
instead of his own ; but I preferred to keep away, so as to avoid all appearance of 
intrigue to bring about a result which, however desirable, and as many believe 
ultimately inevitable, must still be attended with difficulties and embarrass- 
ments.” * * * 
After referring to the French and their possible further attack, 
he continues : 
“ The natives look upon them as enemies, and if they come again on a like 
errand we shall be again appealed to for protection and the subject oj annexation 
will come up again luith added force." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel. co’ cerning Hawaiian Islands, pp. 897-8.) 
Referring to the document executed by the King, above referred 
to, Mr. Severance continues that he has not committed himself other 
than to say— 
“that if the King cedes the islands to the United States and puts up the American 
flag, I will do what I can to protect it for the time being, until the pleasure of my 
Government shall be known. Leaning upon us as they do, and sympathizing with 
them under aggravated wrongs and repeated insults, I could not tell them we 
should reject their proffered allegiance, and stand passive while they, with the 
American flag in their hands, should be trampled under foot by the French.” 
Distance 110 Objection to Annexation. 
Continuing, Mr. Severance says that arrangements are being made 
for steam navigation with San Francisco : 
* “With these steamers and a telegraph from San Francisco to Washington we 
can communicate with you in about a week; so I hope you will not object to a politi- 
cal connection on account of distance. Nor are we so far from the centripetal force 
of our Republic as to be in danger of being thrown off in a tangent. We must not 
take the islands in virtue of the '•manifest destiny' principle, but can we not accept 
their voluntary offerf Who has a right to forbid the bans f" 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 903.) 
DAVID L. GREGG. 
Treaty of Annexation Negotiated. 
Acting under instructions from Mr. Marcy, U. S. Minister Gregg 
negotiated a treaty of annexation with the Hawaiian Government. 
It was completed ready for signature, August 7, 1854, but before 
it was signed the King, Kamehameha III, died, and his successor, 
Kamehameha IV, declined to ratify it. 64 
This treaty of annexation and the dispatches concerning it are tc 
be found in— 
Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 935. 
It is hereinafter contained. 
JAMES McBRIDE. 
English Control would be Injustice to Americans. 
In a dispatch from U. S. Minister McBride, at Honolulu, to Sec- 
retary Seward, dated October 9, 1863, he sets forth the growing power 
of the English, and the tendency of the King and Government of 
Hawaii to Anglicize everything in connection with the Government, 
and the danger that the country would come under British control. 
Upon this subject he says : 
“It would be a flagrant injustice to American citizens, after they have labored 
for the good of these islands for the last forty years, after they have brought these 
people out of barbarism and taught them civilization, science, and religion; in a 
word, made them an intelligent and Christian nation and have done all that has 
been done in the development of the resources of the country, and given it a world- 
wide popularity, to be either driven out or so treated and harassed as to make it 
necessary for their interests to sacrifice their property and leave, which is believed 
would be the case provided the English obtain greater influence with the King 
than they now have; which influence it is the desire of Americans here and for the 
interests of the American Government to avert. Some merchants and planters 
are contracting their business, so that they may not suffer so heavy a loss in the 
event of the change which seems probable at no very distant day.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 943.) 
EDWARD McCOOK. 
Hawaii Absolutely Necessary to United States in Case of War. 
In a dispatch to Secretary Seward, dated September 3, 1866, U. 
S. Minister McCook, at Honolulu, after giving a general resume of 
conditions of the Islands, says : 
“Geographically these islands occupy the same important relative position to- 
wards the Pacific that the Bermudas do towards the Atlantic coast of the United 
States, a position which makes them important to the English, convenient to the 
French, and, in the event of war with either of those powers, absolutely necessary to 
the United States. Destitute of both army and navy, the Hawaiian Government is 
without the power to resist aggression, to compel belligerents to respect the neu- 
trality of her ports. Equally destitute of financial resources, they are without the 
means of indemnifying those who may suffer through their weakness. 
Spirit of Country Wholly American and Favorable to Annexation. 
“The spirit of this whole people is heartily republican and thoroughly Ameri- 
can. The King, his half dozen half-civilized nobles, as many cabinet ministers, 
and the Lord Bishop of Honolulu (Staley) constitute the entire aristocratic element 
of the country, either in fact or in feeling. And when this dynasty ends, as end it 
will probably within the next year, I am sure that if the American Government 
indicates the slightest desire to test in these islands the last Napoleonic concep- 
tion in the way of territorial extension you wrill find the people here with great un- 
anmity ‘demanding by votes, freely expressed, annexation to the United States. 
(Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., Vol. 2, concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 947.) 
Annexation Favored. 
A reciprocity treaty was in process of negotiation between Hawaii 
and the United States, under President Johnson, in 1867. U. S. Min- 
ister McCook at Honolulu, June 7, 1867, writes to Secretary Seward : 65 
“Should the treaty be ratified, I will feel that I have possibly accomplished all 
I can accomplish in my present position, and will probably wish to return to my 
home in Colorado, unless you should favor the absolute acquisition of the Hawaiian 
Islands, in which event I would like to conduct the negotiations. I think their 
sovereignty could be purchased from the present King, and feel sure that the people 
of the United States would receive such a purchase with universal acclamation." 
(Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., Vol. 2, concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 947.) 
HENRY A. PIERCE. 
The Dispatch Concerning Annexation which Grant Submitted for 
Confidential Consideration of the Senate. 
On February 25, 1871, Mr. Henry A. Pierce, then U. S. Minister 
at Honolulu, wrote to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish a dispatch 
concerning annexation, which, upon reference to President Grant, was 
deemed by him so important that he forwarded it to the Senate, ac- 
companied by a confidential special message recommending it to the 
consideration of the Senate. 
The dispatch from Mr. Pierce is as follows : 
Annexation Ultimate Destiny of Hawaii. 
‘ ‘Impressed with the importance of the subject now presented for considera- 
tion, I beg leave to suggest the inquiry whether the period has not arrived making 
it proper, wise, and sagacious for the United States Government to again consider 
the project of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the territory of the republic. That 
such is to be the political destiny of this archipelago seems a foregone conclusion in 
the opinion of all who have given attention to the subject in this country, the United 
States, England, France, and Germany. 
‘•A majority of the aborigines, creoles, and naturalized foreigners of this coun- 
try, as I am credibly informed, are favorable, even anxious for the consummation 
of the measure named. 
“The event of the decease of the present sovereign of Hawaii, leaving no heirs 
or successor to the throne, and the consequent election to be made by the legisla- 
tive assembly of a king, and new stirps for a royal family, will produce a crisis in 
political affairs which, it is thought, will be availed of as a propitious occasion to 
inaugurate measures for annexation of the islands to the United States, the same 
to be affected as the manifest will and choice of the majority of the Hawaiian peo- 
ple; and through means proper, peaceful and honorable. 
“It is evident, however, no steps will be taken to accomplish the object named 
without the proper sanction or approbation of the United States Government in 
approval thereof. 
American Sentiment in Hawaii. 
“The Hawaiian people for fifty years have been under educational instruction 
of American missionaries, and the civilizing influence of New England people, 
commercial and maritime. Hence they are Puritan and democratic in their ideas 
and tendencies, modified by a tropical climate. Their favorite songs and airs are 
American. 
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has made 
the project of annexation to our Union more popular than ever, both here and in 
the United States. 
Decrease of Natives. 
“The native population is fast disappearing; the number existing is now esti- 
mated at 45,000, having decreased about 15,000 since the census of 1866. The 
number of foreigners in addition is between 5,000 and 6,000, two-thirds of whom 
are from the United States, and they own more than that proportion of the foreign 
capital, as represented in the agriculture, commerce, navigation, and whale fisher- 
ies of the kingdom. 
Foreigners to Succeed. If not Americans, Who? 
“ This country and sovereignty will soon be left to the possession of foreigners, 
‘to unlineal hands, no sons of theirs succeeding.’ To what foreign nation shall 66 
these islands belong if not to the great Republic? At the present, those of foreign 
nativities hold all the iniportant offices oj Government, and control legislation, the 
judiciary, etc. Well disposed as the Government now is toward the United States 
and its resident citizens here, in course of time it may be otherwise, as was the 
case during our civil war. 
Points Which Should Influence U. S. Policy. 
“I now proceed to state some points of a mere general character, which should 
influence the United States Government in their decision of the policy of acquiring 
possession of this archipelago; 
Necessity as Naval Depot. 
their geographical position accupying, as it does, an important central, strategical 
point, in the North Pacific Ocean, valuable, perhaps necessary, to the United States 
for a naval depot and coaling station, and to shelter and protect our commerce and 
navigation, which in this hemisphere is destined to increase enormously from our 
intercourse with the 500,000,000 population of China, Japan, and Australia. Hum- 
bolt predicted that the commerce on the Pacific would, in time, rival that on the 
Atlantic. A future generation, no doubt, will see the prophecy fulfilled. 
“The immense injury inflicted on American navigation and commerce by 
Great Britain in the war of 1812-1814, through her possessions of Bermuda and 
other West India Islands, as also that suffered by the English from French priva- 
teers from the Isle of France, during the wars between those nations, are instances 
in proof of the necessity of anticipating and preventing, when we can, similar evils 
that may issue from these islands if held by other powers. 
Commercial Value. 
Their proximity to the Pacific States of the Union, fine climate and soil, and 
tropical productions of sugar, coffee, rice, fruits, hides, goat-skins, salt, cotton, 
fine wool, etc., required by the West, in exchange for flour, grain, lumber, shooks, 
and manufactures of cotton, wool, iron, and other articles, are evidence of the com- 
mercial value of one to the other region. 
European Powers May Seize in Time of War. 
“Is it probable that any European power who may hereafter be at war with 
the United States will ref rain from taking possession of this weak Kingdom, in 
view of the great injury that could be done to our commerce through their acquisi- 
tion of them ? 
Palmerston’s View of Destiny of Hawaii. 
“Prince Alexander and Lott Kamehameha (the former subsequently became 
the fourth Hawaiian King and the latter the fifth) and Dr. G. P. Judd, my inform- 
ant, visited England in 1850 as Hawaiian commissioners. 
“Lord Palmerston, at their interview with him, said, in substance, ‘that the 
British government desired the Hawaiian people to maintain proper government 
and preserve national independence. If they were unable to do so, he recommend- 
ed receiving a protectorate government under the United States or by becoming an 
integral part of that nation. Such,’ he thought, ‘was the destiny of the Hawaiian 
Islands arising from their proximity to the States of California and Oregon, and 
natural dependence on those markets for exports and imports, together with pro- 
bable extinction of the Hawaiian aboriginal population and its substitution by im- 
migration from the United States.’ That advice seems sound and prophetic. 
Historical Foreign Aggressions. 
‘ ‘The following historical events in relation to these islands are thought worthy 
of revival in recollection : 
“February 25, 1843.—Lord George Paulet, of Her Britannic Majesty’s ship 
Carysfort, obtained, by forceful measures, cession of the Hawaiian Islands, to the 
Government of Great Britain, July 31, 1843. They were restored to their original 
sovereignty by the British Admiral Thomas. 
“November 28, 1843.—Joint convention of the English and French Govern- 
ments, which acknowledged the independence of this archipelago, and reciprocally 
promised never to take possession of any part of same. The United States Gov- 
ernment was invited to be a party to the above, but declined. 
“August, 1849.—Admiral Tromelin, with a French naval force, after making 
demands on the Hawaiian Government impossible to be complied with, took unre- 67 
sieted possession of the fort and government buildings in Honolulu, and blockaded 
the harbor. After a few weeks’ occupation of the place, the French departed, 
leaving political affairs as they were previous to their arrival. 
11January, 1851.—A French naval force again appeared at Honolulu, and 
threatened bombardment and destruction of the town.” 
Deed of Cession to United States. 
“The King, Kamehameha III, with the Government, fearing it would be car- 
ried into effect, and in mortal dread of being brought under French rule, similar to 
that placed by the latter over Tahiti, of the Society Islands, executed a deed of 
cession of all the Hawaiian Islands and their sovereignty forever in favor of the 
United States of America.” * * * 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 825.) 
Annexation tinder Discussion in Hawaii. 
In a dispatch to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, February 17, 
1873, U. S. Minister Henry A. Pierce, at Honolulu, writes as follows: 
“ Annexation of these islands to the United States and a reciprocity treaty 
between the two countries are the two important topics of conversation and warm 
discussion among Govenment officials and foreign residents. 
“ A large majority of the latter favor the first-named project, while the former 
advocate reciprocity. All are convinced, however, that some measure should be 
taken by the Hawaiian Government to effectually stay the decline in the prosperity 
of the country, evidenced in decreasing exports, revenue, population, whale fish- 
ery, and an increasing public debt. 
Overthrow of Government, Estabeishment of Repubeic and Annexa- 
tion Foreshadowed. 
“ Annexation of the islands to the United States will never, in my opinion, be 
adopted or presented as a Governmant measure, however much the people as a 
whole may desire it. The glitter of the crown, love of power, and emoluments of 
office have too many attractions to prevent it. Should the great interests of the 
country, however, demand that ‘annexation' shall be attempted, the planters, mer- 
chants, and foreigners generally will induce the people to overthrozv the Govern- 
ment, establish a republic, and then ask the United States for admittance into its 
Union. My opinion has recently been frequently asked in regard to probable 
success of the two measures proposed. I have said that if annexation or a reci- 
procity treaty is proposed on the part of Hawaii to the United States, that the 
subject will, in either case, be profoundly considered and decided upon. 
King Wieeing to Seed out. 
“Those favoring the former measure think it can be carried if the King’s con- 
sent thereto is first obtained (and endeavors will be made to that end), provided 
the United States will, for and in consideraton of said cession, pension off His 
Majesty and all the chiefs of royal blood with the aggregate sum per annum of 
$1 25,000, and pay off the Hawaiian national debt, now amounting to about $250,000, 
and bestow upon the cause and for the benefit of education, public schools, and the 
nation’s hospitals (three of the later in number) the proprietorship and revenues 
of the crown and public lands. The value of said lands is at present estimated at 
about $1,000,000. It includes, however, the public buildings, waterworks, wharf 
property, fish ponds, etc. The income of the crown lands, now inuring to the 
sovereign, amounts to about $25,000 per annum. The public, or Government, 
waterworks give about $15,000 per annum, wharf property about the same, not- 
withstanding the free use of them granted to steamship lines. 
U. S. Government Shoui.d Declare its Policy. 
“ Many persons are lukewarm on the subject of annexation to the United States 
solely for the reason that they fear repulse by the United States Government. 
/ think the latter should declare its policy and object in regard to this important 
subject. This nation is bewildered and suffering to some degree, not knowing how 
to shape its own policy in connection with its hopes and expections in regard to 
the United States.” 
(Vol. 2. Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 961.) 68 
The Kalakaua Election Riot. 
In a dispatch to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, U. S. Minister 
Pierce describes the riot in Honolulu, at the time of and consequent 
upon the election of Kalakaua as King, which was suppressed by 
United States troops. 
American War Vessels Should Always be Maintained at Honolulu. 
He concludes: 
“Hereafter a United States vessel of war should always be stationed at these 
islands under a system of reliefs. A time may arrive when the United States 
Government will find it necessary for the interests of our nation and its resident 
citizens here to take possession of this country by military occupation." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 970.) 
Reciprocity Urged to bind Hawaii to the United States. 
Mr. Pierce, to Secretary Fish, urges the negotiation of a treaty of 
reciprocity between the two countries, and concludes: 
“ In view of the best interests of the United States in their relations with these 
islands, I take the liberty to express the hope that a liberal commercial treaty may 
soon be inaugurated by the two countries, feeling confident that such act would 
result to the equal benefit of both nations in a pecuniary sense, and, moreover, be 
the means of binding this archipelago to the United States by the chains of self- 
interest, never to be severed. ’ ’ 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 971.) 
JOHN E. STEVENS. 
Increase of Annexation Sentiment i)i Hawaii. 
U. S. Minister John L. Stevens, at Honolulu, on February 8, 
1892, says in a dispatch to Secretary of State Blaine, after describing 
the situation in Honolulu : 
“ There are incetasing indications that the annexation sentiment is growing 
among the business men as well as with the less responsible of the foreign and 
native population of the island. The present political situation is feverish, and I 
see no prospect of its being permanently otherwise until these islands become a 
part of th“ American Union or a possession of Great Britain. The intelligent and 
responsible men here, unaided by outside support, are too few in numbers to con- 
trol in political affairs and to secure good government. There are indications that 
even the ‘ Liberals,’ just beaten at the election, though composed of a majority of 
the popular vote, are about to declare for annexation, at least their leaders, their 
chief newspaper having already published editorials to this effect. 
New Departure Necessary—Protectorate Impracticable—Annexation 
only Remedy. 
“ At a future time, after the proposed treaty shall have been ratified, I shall 
deem it my official duty to give a more elaborate statement of facts and reasons 
why a ‘ new departure * by the United States as to Hawaii is rapidly becoming a 
necessity, that a ‘protectorate* is impracticable, and that annexation must be the 
future remedy, or else Great Hu tain will be furnished with circumstances and 
opportunity to get a hold on these islands which will cause future serious embar- 
rassment to the Uniteed States. 
“ At this time there seems to be no immediate prospect of its being safe to 
have the harbor of Honolulu left without an American vessel of war. Last week 
a British gunboat arrived here, and it is said will remain here for an indefinite 
period.’* 
(Yol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 9S9.) 69 
Revolutionary Movement for Annexation. 
On March 8, 1892, U. S. Minister Stevens, in a dispatch to Secre- 
tary Blaine, states that there are indications of a revolutionary attempt 
to overthrow the Queen and establish a republic, with a view of ulti- 
mate annexation to the United States, and asks for instructions 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 990.) 
Note.—(The revoluion indicated was not by the persons who afterwards 
carried out the revolution of 1893, but was being gotten up by an almost exclusively 
native combination, under the leadership of a half-white, Wilcox. They were 
politically hostile to the persons organizing the successful revolution of 1893, and 
since 1893 have been rabid royalists.) 
Superior Interests in Hawaii the Avowed Policy of the United 
States. 
Mr. Stevens sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Foster, Novem- 
ber 20, 1892, in which he states: 
“An intelligent and impartial examination of the facts can hardly fail to lead 
to the conclusion that the relations and policy of the United States toward Hawaii 
will soon demand some change, if not the adoption of decisive measures, with the 
aim to secure American interests and future supremacy by encouraging Hawaiian 
development and aiding to promote responsible government in these islands. It is 
unnecessary for me to allude to the deep interest and the settled policy of the 
United States Government in respect to these island, from the official days of John 
Quincy Adams and of Daniel Webster to the present time. In all that period, we 
have avowed the superiority of our interests to those of all other nations, and have 
always refused to embarrass our freedom of action by any alliance or arrangement 
with other powers as to the ultimate possession and government of the islands.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 996.) 
Analysis of Conditions. 
He then proceeds to give an analysis of the situation, referring to 
the commercial and naval importance of the Islands, its Government, 
existing business status, and recommends that: 
Either Annexation or Customs Union. 
“One of two courses seems to me absolutely necessary to be followed, either 
bold and vigorous measures for annexation, or a '■customs union,' an ocean cable 
from the California coast to Honolulu, Pearl Harbor perpetually ceded to the 
United States, with an implied but not necessarily stipulated American protectorate 
over the islands. 
Reasons Why Annexation Preferable. 
I believe the former to be the better, that which will prove much the more advanta- 
geous to the islands, and the cheapest and least embarrassing in the end fo> the 
United States. If it was wise for the United States, through Secretary Marcy, 
thirty-eight years ago, to offer to expend $100,000 to secure a treaty of annexation, 
it certainly cannot be chimerical or unwise to expend $100,000 to secure annexa- 
tion in the near future. Today the United States has five times the wealth she 
possessed in 1854, and the reasons now existing for annexation are much stronger 
than they were then. * * * A perpetual customs union and the acquisition of 
Pearl Harbor, with an implied protectorate, must be regarded as the only allowable 
alternative. This would require the continual presence in the Harbor of Honolulu 
of a United States vessel of war and the constant watchfulness of the United States 
Minister while the present bungling, unsettled, and expensive political rule would 
go on, retarding the development of the islands, leaving at the end of twenty-five 
years more embarrassment to annexation than exists today, the property far less 
valuable, and the population less American than they would be if annexation were 
soon realized. * * * 70 
“Objections to Customs Union. 
“To give Hawaii a highly favorable treaty while she remains outside the 
American Union would necessarily give the same advantages to hostile foreigners, 
those who would continue to antagonize our commercial and political interests 
here, as well as those of American blood and sympathies. * * * Besides, so 
long as the islands retain their own independent government there remains the 
possibility that England or the Canadian Dominion might secure one of the 
Hawaiian harbors for a coaling station. Annexation excludes all dangers of 
this kind. 
Decision Shourd be Made as to Which Poricy to Forrow. 
“Which of the two lines of policy and action shall be adopted our statesmen 
and our Government must decide. Certain it is that the interests of the United 
States and the welfare of these islands will not permit the continuance of the exist- 
ing state and tendency of things. Having for so many years extended a helping 
hand to the islands and encouraging, the American residents and their friends 
at home to the extent we have, we cannot refrain now from aiding them with vig- 
orous measures, without injury to ourselves and those of our ‘kith and kin,’ and 
without neglecting American opportunities that never seemed so obvious and press- 
ing as they do now.” 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, 
pp. 1002-3.1 
Opinions of U. S. Military and Naval Officers Concerning the Con- 
trol or Annexation of Hawaii. 
GEN. J. M. SCHOFIELD AND GEN. B. S. ALEXANDER. 
Report on Defensive Capabilities of Hawaii in Case of War. 
On June 24, 1872, Secretary of War Wm. W. Belknap issued con- 
fidential instructions to Generals Schofield and Alexander to go to 
Honolulu and investigate its defensive capabilities, in the event of war 
between the United States and some other maratime nation. 
Their report is lengthy and contains the following : 
<•**-* We ascertained from the officers of the U. S. Navy, from maps 
and from seafaring men that Honolulu is the only good commercial harbor in the 
whole group of the Sandwich Islands. 
“An enemy could take up his position outside of the entrance to the harbor 
and command the entire anchorage, as well as the town of Honolulu itself. This 
harbor would, therefore, be of no use to us as a harbor of refuge in a war with a 
bowerful maritime nation. 
Pearr River onry Harbor that can be Protected in Time of War. 
“ With one exception there is no harbor on the islands that can be made to sat- 
isfy all the conditions necessary for a harbor of refuge in time of war. This is the 
harbor of Ewa or Jyeart River, situated on the Island of Oahu, about 7 miles west 
of Honolulu. 
“ Pearl River is a fine sliaet of deep water extending inland about six miles 
from its mouth, where it could be completely defended by shore batteries. The 
depth of water after passing the bar is ample for any vessel. 
“ Pearl River is not a true river ; it partakes more of the character of an estu- 
ary. It is divided into three portions called ‘locks’—the east lock, the middle 
lock, and the west lock, the three together affording some 30 miles of water front, 
with deep water in the channels. * * * 
Easiry Defended—Water—Land—Provisions. 
“ If the coral barrier wTere removed, Pearl River harbor would seem to have 
all, or nearly all, the necessary properties to enable it to be converted into a good 
harbor of refuge. It could be completely defended by inexpensive batteries on 71 
either or both shores, firing across a narrow channel of entrance.. Its waters are 
deep enough for the largest vessels of war, and its ‘locks, ’ particularly around 
Rabbitt Island, are spacious enough for a large number of vessels to ride at anchor 
in perfect security against all storms. Its shores are suitable foi building proper 
establishments for sheltering the necessary supplies for a naval establishment, 
such as magazines of ammunition, provisions, coal, spars, rigging, etc., while the 
island of Oahu, upon which it is situated, could furnish fresh provisions, meats, 
fruits, and vegetables in large quantities. * * * 
If Made a Naval Station Jurisdiction Should Be Transferred to the 
United States. 
“ In case it should become the policy of the Government of the United States 
to obtain the possession of this harbor for naval purposes, jurisdiction over all the 
waters of Pearl River, with the adjacent shores to the distance of 4 miles from any 
anchorage, should be ceded to the United States by the Hawaiian Government. 
I ‘ This would be necessary in order to enable the Government to defend its 
depots and anchorages in time of war by works located on its own territory. Such 
a cession of jurisdiction would embrace a parallelogram of about 10 by 12 
miles. * * * 
Action Must be in Advance of War. 
“ It is to be observed that if the United States are ever to have a harbor of 
refuge and naval station in the Hawaiian Islands in the event of w7ar, the harbo> 
must be prepared in advance by the removal of the Pearl River bar. 
II When war has begun it will be too late to make this harbor available, and 
there is no other suitable harbor on these islands.'' 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, pp. 
963-6.) 
GEO. BROWN. 
Hawaiian Sentiment in Favor of Annexation. 
Admiral Geo. Brown, September 6, 1892, in a dispatch to Secre- 
tary of the Navy Tracy, says : 
“ There is a strong sentiment existing in Hawaii, among the native Hawaiians 
as well as among the Americans and Germans, in favor.of a change in the form oj 
government, looking toward the ultimate annexation of the islands to the United 
States. * * * 
“ It is thought that the Queen will consent to abdicate in favor of a republican 
form of government if she can be assured that a suitable provision will be made 
for her in the way of a permanent pecuniary settlement.” * * * 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 991.) 
G. C. WIETSE. 
Growing Annexation Sentiment. 
Capt. G. C. Wiltse, October 12, 1892, in a dispatch to Secretary 
of the Navy Tracy, says : 
“ There is a large and growing Sentiment, particularly among the planters, 
in favor of annexation to the United States, but I am informed that the leaders do 
not think an opportune moment will arrive for some time to come. However, 
everything seems to point toward an eventual request for annexation." 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian Islands, p. 993.) 
CAPTAIN A. T. MAHAN. 
Favors Annexation. 
(Id., Vol. i, p. 113, and the Forum, Mar., 1893:) 
“ The United States finds herself compelled to make a decision * * * whether 
we wish to or no, we must make the decision. * * * 72 
“ To any one viewing a map that shows the full extent of the Pacific, * * 
two circumstances will be strikingly and immediately apparent. He will see at 
a glance that the Sandwich Islands stand by themselves in a state of comparative 
isolation, amid a vast expanse of sea ; and, again, that they form the center of a 
large circle whose radius is approximately the distance from Honolulu to San 
Francisco. * * * this is substantially the same distance as from Honolulu to 
the Gilbert, Marshall, Samoan, and Society islands, all under European control 
except Samoa, in which we have a part influence. * * * 
Remarkable Strategical Position of Hawaii. 
“ To have a central position such as this, and to be alone, having no rival and 
admitting no rival, * * * are conditions that at once fix the attention of the 
stratagist. * * * But to this striking combination is to be added the remarkable 
relations borne * * * to the great commercial routes traversing this vast ex- 
panse. * * * 
“Too much stress cannot be laid upon the immense disadvantage to us of any 
maritime enemy having a coaling station well within 2,500 miles, as this is, of every 
point of our coast line from Puget Sound to Mexico. Were there many others 
available we might find it diffcult to exclude from all. There is, however, but the 
one. Shut out from the Sandwich Islands as a coal base, an enemy is thrown back 
for supplies of fuel to distances of 3,500 or 4,000 miles—or between 7,000 and 8,000 
going and coming—an impediment to sustained maritime operations well nigh pro- 
hibitive. * * * ft is rarely that so important a factor in the attack or defence of 
a coast line—of a sea frontier—is concentrated in a single position, and the circum- 
stance renders doubly imperative upon us to secure it if we righteously can." 
STATEMENT OF GEN. SCHOFIELD. 
Failure to Annex Would be a Crime. 
“ ‘ I went to the Hawaiian Islands 20 years ago. The annexation question was 
up then. My business was to look the question over from the military point of 
view. I made a report that while I regarded annexation as inevitable, and but a 
matter of time, the conditions were not ripe for it then. * * * 
“ 1 There can be no doubt now about the time for annexation, or that it should 
be the outcome of the present negotiations. Annexation may not be the imme- 
diate step; but it is near at hand and is a foregone conclusion, whether it is put off 
a little while by a protectorate or until a commission further ascertains the con- 
ditions favorable to it.’ 
“ In regard to the question of suffrage, the General said there would be no 
trouble. If annexed, all those who are citizens now would of course become cit- 
izens of the United States. The Chinese and Japanese, who are not citizens there 
now, would be excluded. * * * 
“On thing is plain enough, the Hawaiian people must have protection from 
some quarter. If they cannot get it from the United States, they will have to reach 
out for it in some other direction. * * * To fail those people now would he a 
crime. ’ ’ 
(N. Y. Tribune, March 15, 1893, p. 2.) 
In 1875 General J. M. Schofield, then commanding the Division 
of the Pacific, gave his views to Congress, through Mr. Luttrell, con- 
cerning the reciprocity treaty, then pending before Congress as follows: 
“ The Hawaiian Islands constitute the only natural outpost to the defences 
of the Pacific coast. In possession of a foreign naval power, in time of war, as a 
depot from which to fit out hostile expeditions against this coast and our commerce 
on the Pacific Ocean, they would afford the means of incalculable injury to the 
United States. If the absolute neutrality Jof the islands could always be insured, 
that would suffice; but they have not, and never can have, the power to maintain 
their own neutrality, and now their necessities force them to seek alliance with 
some nation which can relieve their embarrassment. The British Empire * * * 
stands ready to enter into such an alliance, and thus complete its chain of naval 
stations from Australia to British Columbia. We cannot refuse the islands the lit- 
tle aid they need and at the same time deny their right to seek it elsewhere. The 
time has come when we must secure forever the desired control over those islands 
or let it pass into other hands. The financial interest to the United States involved 73 
in this treaty is very small, and if it were much greater it would still be insignifi- 
cant when compared to the importance of such a military and naval station to the 
national security and welfare.” 
ADMIRAL, BEDKNAP. 
Overthrow oe Monarchy Expected. 
“ The revolution in the Hawaiian Islands, resulting in the deposition of the 
Queen and the establishment of a provisional government, is an event not unex- 
pected to diplomatic, naval, and consular officers who have had any acquaintance 
or familiarity with the course of affairs in that island Kingdom for the past twenty 
years. 
Annexation oe Momentous Interest and Vitae Importance. 
“To the people of the United States the present situation is of momentous in- 
terest and of vital importance. Indeed, it would seem that nature had established 
that group to be ultimately occupied as an outpost, as it were, of the great Repub- 
lic on its western border, and that the time had now come for the fulfillment of 
such design. 
“A glance at a chart of the Pacific will indicate to the most casual observer 
the great importance and inestimable value of those islands as a strategic point 
and commercial centre. Situtated in mid-north Pacific, the group looks out on 
every hand toward grand opportunities of trade, political aggrandizement, and 
polyglot intercourse.” 
“ The group now seeks annexation to the United States; the consummation of 
such wish would inure to the benefit of both peoples commercially and politically. 
Annex the islands, constitue them a territory, and reciprocal trade will double 
within ten years. Let the islanders feel that they are once and forever under the 
folds of the Amercan flag, as part and parcel of the great Republic, and a develop- 
ment will take place in the group that will at once surprise its people and the 
world. 
Faieure to annex Woued be Foeey. 
“Not to take the fruit within our grasp and annex the group now begging us 
to take it in would be folly indeed—a mistake of the gravest character, both for 
the statesmen of the day, and for the men among us of high commercial aims 
and great enterprises. 
“ Our statesmen should act in this matter in the spirit and resolve that secured 
to us the vast Louisiana purchase, the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition 
of California. The administration that secures to the United States the ‘coign 
of vantage’ in the possession of those beautiful islands will score a great measure 
of beneficent achievement to the credit side of its account.” 
Should Annex Even at Hazard oe War. 
“ We want no joint protectorate, no occupation there by any European power, 
no Pacific Egypt. We need the group as part and parcel of the United States, and 
should take what is offered us, even at the hazard of war. 
“ Westward the star of empire takes it way. Let the Monroe doctrine stay not 
its hand until it holds Hawaii securely within its grasp. 
“In this matter the undersigned speaks from personal knowledge, gained 
through official visits to the islands in 1874 and 1882. ” * * * 
(Sen. Com. of F. R. on H., Vol. 1, p. 169, and Boston Herald, January 31, 
1893-) 74 
Acts of the United States Congress Concerning the Control or 
Annexation of Hawaii. 
The Grant Reciprocity Treaty, 1874. 
A Reciprocity Treaty was negotiated by Secretary Fish under 
President Grant. 
The Political Clause. 
The vital feature of the Treaty to the United States is in article 
IV, which provides that so long as the treaty exists, Hawaii— 
“ will not lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port harbor or 
other territory * * * or grant any special privilege or right of use therein to 
any other government” * * * 
nor make any reciprocity treaty with any other Government. 
The Pearl River Clause. 
A renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty for seven }Tears was concluded 
November 9, 1887, by President Cleveland. 
The extended Treaty also gives the United States : 
* * “ The exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island 
of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the 
use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve 
the entrance of said harbor and do all things needful to the purpose aforesaid.” 
(The full Treaty is printed in Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., relating 
to Hawaii, p. 978-9, and hereunder.) 
Resolution of U. S. House of Representatives. 
(February 7, 1894.) 
“Resolved, * * * That foreign intervention in the political affairs of the 
(Hawaiian) Islands will not be regarded with indifference by the Government of 
the United States.” 
(Cong. Record, 53d Cong., 2d Sessn, p. 2001.) 
Resolution of U. S. Senate. 
(May 31, 1894.) 
“Resolved, That * * * any intervention in the political affairs of these 
islands (Hawaii) b}r any other government will be regarded as an act unfriendly 
to the United States.” 
(Cong. Record, 53d Cong., 2d Sessn., p. 5499.) 
Report of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Concerning 
Hawaii. 
The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations was, by resolution of 
the Senate, instructed to enquire into and report upon matters arising 
out of the revolution in Hawaii of January, 1893. 
On February 26th, 1894, an elaborate report was filed by the 
Chairman, Senator John T. Morgan, from which the following extracts 
are made : Hawaii an American State. 
“ Hawaii is an American State, and is embraced in the American commercial 
and military system. 
“ This fact has been frequently and firmly stated by our government, and is 
the ground on which is rested that peculiar and far-reaching declaration so often 
and so earnestly made, that the United States will not admit the right of any 
foreign government to acquire any interest or control in the Hawaiian Islands that 
is in any way prejudicial, or even threatening, toward the interests of the United 
States or her people.” * * * 
(Report Sen. Com. on For. Rel. on Hawaii, Vol. i, p. 2.) 
Within The Scope oe the Monroe Doctrine. 
“ Observing the spirit of the Monroe doctrine, the United States, in the begin- 
ning of our relations with Hawaii, made a firm and distinct declaration of the 
purpose to prevent tlie absorbtion of Hawaii or the political control of that country 
by any foreign power. 
“ Without stating the reasons for this policy, which included very important 
commercial and military considerations, the attitude of the United States toward 
Hawaii wyas, in moral effect, that of a friendly protectorate. 
“ It has been a settled policy of the United States that if it should turn out 
that Hawaii, for any cause, should not be able to maintain an independent govern- 
ment, that country would be encouraged in its tendency to gravitate toward polit- 
ical union with this country.” * * * 
(/£., p. 20.) 
* ‘ Annexation is a question of longstanding w’hich has been under favorable 
consideration by the kings and people of Hawaii and the government and people 
of the United States for more than fifty years. 
“ It is well understood, and its importance increases with every new event of 
any consequence in Hawaii, and with the falling in of every island in the Pacific 
Ocean that is captured by the great maritime powers of Europe.” * * * 
(lb., p. 28.) 
Senators Sherman, Frye, Dolph, and Davis, of Minnesota, added 
to this report the following words : 
‘ ‘ We are in entire accord with the essential findings in the exceedingly able 
report submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.” But 
they proceed to set forth certain points wherein they differ from him and elaborate 
others. In this connection they say : 
“ The question of the riglitfulness of the revolution, of the lawfulness of the 
means by which the deposition and abdication of the queen were effected, and the 
right of the Provisional Government to exist and to continue to exist was conclus- 
ively settled, as the report so forcibly states, against the queen and in favor of the 
Provisional Government, by the act of the administration of President Harrison 
recognizing such Provisional Government; by the negotiation by that administra- 
tion with such Provisional Government of a treaty of annexation to the United 
States ; by accrediting diplomatic representation by such administration and by 
the present administration to such Provisional Government.” * * * 
(/6.,pp. 33, 34.) 
Senators Turpie and Butler, of South Carolina, added to the 
report the following words : 
* * * “ I am heartily in favor of the acquition of those islands (Hawaii) by 
the Government of the United States ; and in the proper case and on an appropriate 
occasion I should earnestly advocate the same. ” * * * 
(/£., p. 36.) 
75 76 
Official Acts of Hawaii, concerning the Control or Annexation of 
Hawaii to the United States. 
Cession of Hawaii to United States. 
Kamehameha III executed and delivered to the American Minis- 
ter in Honolulu a provissional cession of Hawaii to the United States, 
on March io, 1851. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaii, 
p. 897.) 
Ratification of Cession to United States. 
June 21, 1851, a joint resolution was passed by the two Houses of 
the Hawaiian Legislature, authorizing the King, in his discretion, to 
place the Kingdom under the protection of some foreign state. This 
was in confirmation of the provissional cession of the country to the 
United States, above quoted, which was dated the iothof March, 1851. 
(Vol. 2, Rep. Sen. Com. on For. Rel., concerning Hawaiian 
Islands, p. 934.) 
Annexation Treaty Negotiated. 
A formal treaty annexing Hawraii to the United States was nego- 
tiated in 1854 by Kamehameha III and U. S. Minister Gregg, under 
the instructions of Secretary Marcy. The draft was agreed to, but 
the King died before the final copy was signed. 
(Ib., p. 932-5-) 
The Reciprocity Treaty. 
In 1875 Hawaii made a treaty with the United States never to 
cede any port or territory to any other government as long as the 
treaty of reciprocity lasted. fThe treaty is hereinafter contained.'I 
\lb., p. 972-) 
The Pearl River Treaty. 
November 9, 1887, Hawaii granted to the United States the 
exclusive use of Pearl Harbor for a Naval and Repair Station. ("The 
ireaty is hereinafter contained.) 
(Ib., 978.) 
Hazvaiian Constitution Providesfor Annexation. 
The Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, adopted July 4, 1894, 
provides, Article 32, that— 
"The President, with the approval of the Cabinet, is hereby expressly author- 
ized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the 
Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of 
the Senate.” 
(President’s Message, Senate Ex. Document No. 156, p. 13, 53d Congress, 
2d Session.) 77 
Hawaiian Legislature Unanimously Votes for Annexation. 
The following Joint Resolution was unanimously adopted by both 
the Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislature of the 
Republic of Hawaii, May 27, 1896 : 
“Whereas it has heretofore been the announced policy both of the Provisional 
Government and of the Republic of Hawaii to advocate the annexation of the 
Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America; and 
“Whereas the Legislature of the Republic of Hawaii is now in regular session 
assembled, and will soon adjourn for a considerable period ; and 
“ Whereas it is fitting that the elected Representatives of the people should 
place themselves on record as to the present state of feeling among themselves and 
their constituents on this subject; 
“ Be It Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, that the 
Legislature of the Republic of Hawaii continues to be, as heretofore, firmly and 
steadfastly in favor of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States 
of America, and in advocating such policy they feel assured that they are express- 
ing not only their own sentiments but those of the voters of this Republic. ” 
“ Approved this 27th day of May, A. D. 1896. 
(Laws of the Rep. of Hawaii, 1896, p. 274.) 
Treaty of Annexation of Hawaii, Negotiated in 1854, Under President 
Pierce, Secretary of State Marcy. 
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, being convinced that plans 
have been, and still are, on foot hostile to his sovereignty and to the peace of his 
Kingdom, which His Majesty is without power to resist, and against which it is 
his imparative duty to provide, in order to prevent the evils of anarchy and to 
secure the rights and prosperity of his subjects, and having in conscientious regard 
thereto, as well as to the general interests of his Kingdom, present and future, 
sought to incorporate his Kingdom into the Union of the United States, as the 
means best calculated to attain these ends and perpetuate the blessings of freedom 
and equal rights to himself, his chiefs, and his people; and the Government of the 
United States, being actuated solely by the desire to add to their security and pros- 
perity and to meet the wishes of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, 
and of his Government, have determined to accomplish by treaty objects so im- 
portant to their mutual and permanent welfare. 
Article I. 
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, acting in conformity with the 
power vested iti him by the constitution of his Kingdom, and with the wishes of 
his chiefs and people, and of the heads of every department of his Government, 
cedes to the United States his Kingdom, with all its territories, to be held by them 
in full sovereignty, subject only to the same constitutional prov:sions as the other 
States of the American Union. This cession includes all public lots and squares, 
Government lands, mines and minerals, salt lakes and springs, fish ponds, public 
edifices, fortifications, barracks, forts, ports and harbors, reefs, docks, and maga- 
zines, arms, armaments and accounterments, public archives, and funds, claims, 
debts, taxes and dues existing, available, and unpaid at the date of the exchange 
fo the ratifications of this treaty. 
Article II. 
The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands shall be incorporated into the American 
Union as a State, enjoying the same degree of sovereignty as other States, and ad- 
mitted as such as soon as it can be done in consistency with the principles and re- 
quirements of the Federal Constitution, to all the rights, privileges, and immuni- 
ties of a State as aforesaid, on a perfect equality with the other States of the Union. 
Articles III. 
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his chiefs and subjects of every 
class, shall continue in the enjoyment of all their existing personal and private 
right's—civil, political, and religious—to the utmost extent that is possible under 
the Federal Constitution, and shall possess and forever enjoy all the rights and 
privileges of citizens of the United States, on terms of perfect equality, in all re- 
spects, with other American citizens. 78 
Article IV. 
The decision of the board of land commissioners made and not appealed from, 
at the date of the final ratification of this treaty, shall be and remain forever valid 
and undisturbed, and all titles to real estate which are now, or shall have then 
been declared valid under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, shall be held to be 
equally valid by the United States, and measures shall be adopted by the United 
States for the speedy and final adjudication of all unsettled claims to land in con- 
formity with the laws and usages under which they may have originated. 
Article V. 
All engagements of whatever kind, affecting the rights of corporations or indi- 
viduals, validly contracted, and lawfully incumbent upon the King’s Government 
or the Hawaiian nation to pay and discharge, shall be respected and fulfilled in as 
prompt, full, and complete a manner as they would have been respected and ful- 
filled had no change of sovereignty taken place 
Article VI. 
The public lands hereby ceded shall be subject to the laws regulating the pub- 
lic lands in other parts of the United States, liable, however, to such alterations 
and changes as Congress may from time to time enact. The grants of land for the 
promotion of education heretofore made by the Government of the King of the 
Hawaiian Islands shall be confirmed by the United States, which in addition there- 
to, shall grant afld set apart for the purposes of common schools, seminaries of 
learning, and universities so much of the public lands and of the proceeds thereof 
as may be equal proportionally to the grants for such purposes in any of the States 
of the Union. 
Article VII. 
The laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, so far as they are compatible with repub- 
lican institutions and conformable to the Constitution of the United States, shall 
be and remain in full force and effect until modified, changed, or repealed by the 
legislative authority of the State contemplated by this treaty. 
Article VIII. 
In consideration of the cession made by this treaty, and in compensation to all 
who may suffer or incur loss consequent thereon, the United States shall pay the 
aggregate sum of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) as annuities to the 
King, the Queen, the crown prince, those standing next in succession to the throne 
the chiefs, and all other persons whom the King may wish to compensate or reward, 
to be apportioned as may be determined by His Majesty the King, and his privy 
council of state, which amounts to be apportioned as aforesaid, shall be paid rata- 
bly without deduction or offset on any ground or in any shape whatever, to the 
parties severally named in such apportionment, at Honolulu on the first day of July 
of each successive year so long as they may live. It is, however, expressly agreed 
upon that on the demise of His present Majesty the annuity of the immediate heir 
to the throne shall then be increased to the same amount before allowed and paid 
to the King himself. 
As a further consideration for the cession herein made, and in order to place 
within the reach of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands the means of education, 
present and future, so as to enable them the more perfectly to enjoy and discharge 
the rights and duties consequent upon a change from monarchical to republican 
institutions, the United States agree to set apart and pay over for the term of ten 
years the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars per annum, one-third of which shall 
be applied to constitute the principal of a fund for tha benefit of a college or uni- 
versity, or colleges or universities, as the case may be, and the balance for the sup- 
port of common schools, to be invested, secured, or applied as may be determined 
by the legislative authority of the Hawaiian Islands, when admitted as a State into 
the Union, as aforesaid. 
Article IX. 
Immediately after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty the President 
of the United Stated shall appoint a commissioner, who shall receive in due form, 
in the name of the United States, the transfer of the sovereignty and territories of 
the Hawaiian Islands; also all public property, archives, and other things herein- 
before stipulated to be conveyed, and who shall exercise all executive authority in 
said islands necessary to the preservation of peace and order, and to the proper 
execution of the laws, until the State contemplated in this treaty can be duly or- 79 
ganized and admitted as such State; and until the arrival of such commissioner, all 
departments of His Majesty’s Government shall continue as now constituted. 
Article X. 
This treaty shall be ratified by the respective high contracting parties, and the 
ratifications exchanged at the city of Honolulu within eight months from the date 
hereof, or sooner, if possible, but it is agreed that this period may be extended by 
mutual consent of the two parties. 
In witness whereof, we, the undersigned, plenipotentiaries of His Majesty the 
King of the Hawaiian Islands and of the United States of America, have signed 
three originals of this treaty of annexation in Hawaiian and three in English, and 
have thereunto affixed our respective official seals. 
Done at Honolulu this day of , in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-four. 
SEPARATE AND SECRET ARTICLE. 
Whereas it is desirable to guard against the exigencies declared in the pream- 
ble to the foregoing treaty, and to secure the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his 
chiefs and all who reside under his jurisdiction from the dangers therein referred 
to and expressed, it is hereby provided and expressly agreed that at any time be- 
fore the final exchange of the ratifications of said treaty, if the same shall be duly 
ratified on the part of His Majesty the King and satisfactory notice thereof given 
to the commissioner of the United States, it shall be competent for His Majesty, by 
proclamation, to declare his islands annexed to the American Union, subject to the 
provisions of such treaty as negotiated; and the commissioner of the United States, 
for the time being, shall receive and accept the transfer of the jurisdiction of the 
said islands, in the name of the United States, and protect and defend them by the 
armed forces of the United States, as a part of the American Union, holding the 
same for and in behalf of his Government and exercising the jurisdiction provided 
for in said treaty, with the understanding, however, that in case the said treaty is 
not finally ratified, or other arrangement made by the free consent and to the mu- 
tual satisfaction of the contracting parties, the sovereignty of the islands shall im- 
mediately revert, without prejudice, to His Majesty, or his immediate heir, in the 
same condition as before the transfer thereof; and it is further understood and 
agreed that this article shall be as binding for all the ends and purposes herein ex- 
pressed as if it formed a part of the foregoing treaty. 
Reciprocity Treaty of 1875* 
Article I. 
For and in consideration of the rights and privileges granted by His Majesty 
the King of the Hawaiian Islands in the next succeeding article of this convention, 
and as an equivalent therefor, the United States of America hereby agree to admit 
all the articles named in the following schedule, the same beiug the growth and 
manufacture or produce of the Hawaiian Islands, into all the ports of the United 
States free of duty. 
(schedule.) 
Article II. 
For and in consideration of the rights and privileges granted by the United 
States of America in the preceding article of this convention, and as an equivalent 
therefor, His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands hereby agrees to admit all 
the articles named in the following schedule, the same being the growth, manu- 
facture, or produce of the United States of America, into all the ports of the 
Hawaiian Islands free of duty. 
(SCHEDULE.) 
Article III. 
The evidence that articles proposed to be admitted into the ports of the United 
States of America, or the ports of the Hawaiian Islands, free of duty, under the 80 
first and second articles of this convention, are the growth, manufacture, or 
produce of the United States of America or of the Hawaiian Islands, respectively, 
shall be established under such rules and regulations aud conditions for the pro- 
tection of the revenue as the two Governmeuts may from time to time respectively 
prescribe. 
Article IV. 
No export duty or charges shall be imposed in the Hawaiian Islands, or in the 
United States, upon any of the articles proposed to be admitted into the ports of 
the United States or the ports of the Hawaiian Islands free of duty under the first 
and second articles of this convention. It is argeed, on the part of His Hawaiian 
Majesty, that, so long as this treaty shall temain in force, he will not lease or 
otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in 
his dominions, or grant any special privilege or rights of use therein, to any other 
poiver, state, or government, nor make any treaty by which any other nation shall 
obtain the same privileges, relative to the admission of any articles free of duty, 
hereby secured to the United States. 
Article V. 
The present convention shall take effect as soon as it shall have been approved 
and proclaimed by His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, and shall have 
been ratified and duly proclaimed on the part of the Government of the United 
States, but not until a law to carry it into operation shall have been passed by the 
Congress of the United States of America. Sucli assent having been given, and 
the ratifications of the convention having been exchanged as provided in Article 
VI, the convention shall remain in force for seven years from the date at which it 
may come into operation; and further, until the expiration of twelve months after 
either of the high contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to 
terminate the same, each of the high contracting parties being at liberty to give 
such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven years, or at any time 
thereafter. 
Article VI. 
The present convention shall be duly ratified, and the ratifications exchanged 
at Washington City, within eighteen months from the date hereof, or earlier if 
possible. 
In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries of the high contracting 
parties have signed this present conventiou, aud have affixed thereto their respec- 
tive seals. 
Done in duplicate, at Washington, the thirtieth day of January, iu the year of 
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five. 
PEARL RIVER CLAUSE. 
(On the 9th of November, 1887, the Reciprocity Treaty was extended for seven 
years aud the following clause added to it.) 
“ His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government of 
the I nited States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the 
island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station 
for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may 
improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose 
aforesaid.” 
Treaty of Annexation of Hawaii, Negotiated in J893, under Presi- 
dent Harrison, Secretary of State Foster. 
The t nited States of America and the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian 
Islands, in view of the natural dependence of those Islands upon the United States, 
of their geographical proximity thereto, of the intimate part taken by the citizens 
of the United States in their implanting the seeds of Christian civilization, of the 
long continuance of their exclusive reciprocal commercial relations whereby their 
mutual interests have been developed, and the preponderant and paramount share 
thus acquired by the United States and the citizens in their productions, industries 
and trade of the said Islands, and especially in view of the desire expressed by the 
said Government of the Hawaiian Islands that those Islands shall be incorporated 
into the United States as an integral part thereof ar.d under their sovereignty, in 
order to provide for and assure the security and prosperity of the said Islands, the High Contracting Parties have determined to accomplish by treaty an object so im- 
portant to their mutual and permanent welfare. * * * 
Article I. 
The Government of the Hawaiian Islands hereby cedes, from the date of the 
exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty, absolutely and without reserve to the 
United States forever all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the 
Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies, renouncing in favor of the United States 
every sovereign right of which as an independent nation it is now possessed; and 
henceforth said Hawaiian Islands and every island and key thereunto appertain- 
ing and each and every portion thereof shall become and be an integral part of the 
territory of the United States. 
Article II. 
The Government of the Hawaiian Islands also cedes and transfers to the United 
States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government or crown lands, 
public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, fortifications, military or naval equip- 
ments and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the 
Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance 
thereunto appertaining. The existing laws of the United States relative to public 
lands shall not apply to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands, but the Congress of 
the United States shall enact special laws for their management and disposition : 
Provided, that all revenue from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such 
part thereof as may be used or occupied for the civil, military or naval purposes of 
the United States ofmay be assigned to the use of the local Government, shall be 
used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educa- 
tional and other public purposes. 
Article III. 
Until Congress shall otherwise provide, the existing Government and laws of 
the Hawaiian Islands are hereby continued, subject to the paramount authority of 
the United States. The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
ate, shall appoint a Commissioner to reside in said Islands who shall have the pow- 
er to veto any act of said Government, and any act disapproved by him shall 
thereupon be void and of no effect unless approved by the President. 
Congress shall, within one year from the exchange of the ratifications of this 
Treaty, enact the necessary legislation to extend to the Hawaiian Islands the laws 
of the United States respecting duties upon imports, the internal revenue, com- 
merce and navigation; but until Congress shall otherwise provide, the existing 
commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands both with the United States and for- 
eign countries shall continue as regards the commerce of said Islands with the rest 
of the United States and with foreign countries, but this shall not be construed as 
giving to said Islands the power to enter into any new stipulation or agreement 
whatsoever or to have diplomatic intercourse with any foreign Government. The 
Consular representatives of foreign powers now resident in the Hawaiian Islands 
shall be permitted to continue in the exercise of their consular functions until they 
can receive their exequaturs from the Government of the United States. 
Article IV. 
The further immigration of Chinese laborers into the Hawaiian Islands is here- 
by prohibited until Congress shall otherwise provide. Furthermore, Chinese per- 
sons of the classes now or hereafter excluded by law from entering the United 
States will not be permitted to come from the Hawaiian Islands to other parts of 
the United States, and if so coming shall be subject to the same penalties as if en- 
tering from a foreign country. 
Article V. 
The public debt of the Hawaiian Islands, lawfully existing at the date of the 
exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty including the amounts due to deposi- 
tors in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government 
of the United States; but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no 
case exceed three and one quarter millions of dollars. So long, however, as the 
existing Government and the present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands 
are continued as hereinbefore provided, said Government shall continue to pay the 
interest on said debt. 
Article VI. 
The Government of the United States agrees to pay to Liliuokalani, the late 82 
Queen, within one year from date of the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty 
the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and annually thereafter a like sum of 
twenty thousand dollars during the term of her natural life, provided she in good 
faith submits to the authority of the Government of the United States and the 
local Government of the Islands. 
And the Government of the United Stares further agrees to pay to the Princess 
Kaiulani within one year from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this 
treaty the gross sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, provided she in 
good faith submits to the authority of the Government of the United States and 
the local Government of the Islands. 
Article VII. 
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part, and by the Pro- 
visional Government of the Hawaiian Islands on the other, and the ratifications 
thereof shall be exchanged at Honolulu as soon as possible. Such exchange shall 
be made on the part of the United States by the Commissioner hereinbefore pro- 
vided for, and it shall operate as a complete and final conveyance to the United 
States of all the rights of sovereignty and property herein cedei to them. Within 
one month after such exchange of ratifications the Provisional Government shall 
furnish said Commissioner with a full and complete schedule of all the public 
property herein ceded and transferred. 
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the above 
articles and have hereunto affixed their seals. 
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington this fourteenth day of February, 
one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three. 
Treaty ot Annexation of Hawaii, negotiated in 1897, under President 
McKinley, Secretary of State Sherman* 
The United States and the Republic of Hawaii, in view of the natural depend- 
ence of the Hawaiian Islands upon the United States, of their geographical prox- 
imity thereto, of the preponderant share acquired by the United States and its 
citizens in the industries and trade of said islands and of the expressed desire of 
the government of the Republic of Hawaii that those islands should be incorpora- 
ted into the United States as an integral part thereof and under its sovereignty, 
have determined to accomplish by treaty an object so important to their mutual 
and permanent welfare. 
To this end the high contracting parties have conferred full powers and 
authority upon their respectively appointed plenipotentiaries, to-wit : 
The President of the United States, John Sherman, Secretary of State of the 
United States. 
The President of the Republic of Hawaii, Francis March Hatch, Lorrin A. 
Thurston, and William A. Kinney. 
Articee I. 
The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes 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; and it is agreed that all territory of 
and appertaining to the the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United 
States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii. 
Article II. 
The Republic of Hawaii also cedes and hereby transfers to the United States 
the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government or crown lands, public 
buildings, or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipments, and all other public 
property of every kind and description, belonging to the Government of the Ha- 
waiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining. 
The existing laws of the United States relative to public lands shall not apply 
to such lands in the Hawaiian Islands, but the Congress of the United States shall 
enact special laws for their management and disposition. Provided that all reve- 
nues from or proceeds of the same, except as regards such part thereof as may be 
used or occupied for the civil, military or naval purposes of the United States, or 
may be assigned for the use of the local government, shall be used solely for the 83 
benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public 
purposes. 
Article III. 
Until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands all the civil, 
judicial and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government 
in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons, and shall be exercised in 
such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President 
shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned. 
The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forth- 
with cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may 
be hereafter concluded between the United States and 6uch foreign nations. The 
municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfillment of 
the treaties so extinguished, and not inconsistent with this treaty nor contrary to 
the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United 
States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise 
determine. 
Until legislation shall be enacted extending the United States customs laws 
and regulations to the Hawaiian Islands, the existing customs relations of the 
Hawaiian Islands with the United States and other countries shall remain un- 
changed. 
Article; IV. 
The public debt of the Republic of Hawaii, lawfully existing at the date of the 
exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, including the amounts due to depositors 
in the Hawaiian Postal Savings Bank, is hereby assumed by the Government of 
the United States, but the liability of the United States in this regard shall in no 
case exceed $4,000,000. So long, however, as the existing government and the 
present commercial relations of the Hawaiian Islands are continued, as hereinbe- 
fore provided, said government shall continue to pay the interest on said debt. 
Article V. 
There shall be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian Islands, 
except upon such conditions as are now or may hereafter be allowed by the laws 
of the United States, and no Chinese by reason of anything herein contained shall 
be allowed to enter the United States from the Hawaiian Islands. 
Article VI. 
The President shall appoint five commissioners, at least two of whom shall be 
residents of the Hawaiian Islands, who shall, as soon as reasonable and practi- 
cable, recommend to Congress such legislation for the Territory of Hawaii as they 
shall deem necessary or proper. 
Article VII. 
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the 
Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accord- 
ance with the Constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications 
hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. 
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above 
articles and have hereunto affixed their seals. 
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one 
thousand, eight liundred and ninety-seven. 
JOHN SHERMAN. [seal/ 
FRANCIS MARCH HATCH, [seal/ 
LORRIN A. THURSTON. [seal. 
WILLIAM A. KINNEY. [seal/ 
A. B. Morse Company, Printers and Binders, 
St Joseph, Michigan, V. S. A. HAWAII 
MAU I 
MOLOKAI 
LANAI; 
urQAlI U 
MAP 
OF THE 
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS 
KAUAI 
NIIHAU THE PACIFIC OCEAt> 
Showing the relation of 
' NAVAL STATIONS 
and principal ports 
I HAWAIIAN ISLANDS 
HAWAIIAN STATISTICS. 
AREA, 7000 SO. MILES 
. POPUL A T/0N-/896, 109,000 
EXPORTS-1896. *15,515,000. 
IMP0RTS-I896, *7,164,000 
REVENUES-1896, *1,975,000 
EXPENSES-1896, *1,904,000. 
NET DEBT-1897. *3,889,000