Annexation

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

August 21, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Statehood

“Hawai‘i is America in a microcosm – a melting pot of many racial and national origins, from which has been produced a common nationality, a common patriotism, a common faith in freedom and in the institutions of America.” (Senator Herbert
Lehman; GPO)

On June 27, 1959, Hawaiʻi registered voters voted on three propositions related to Statehood:

Shall the following propositions, as set forth in Public Law 86-3 entitled “An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union” be adopted?

1. Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?
Yes – 132,773 (94.3%)
No – 7,971 (5.7%)

2. The boundaries of the State of Hawaii shall be as prescribed in the Act of Congress approved March 18, 1959, and all claims of this State to any areas of land or sea outside the boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably relinquished to the United States.
Yes – 132,194 (94.5%)
No – 7,654 (5.5%)

3. All provisions of the Act of Congress approved March 18, 1959, reserving rights or powers to the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of Hawaii are consented by said State and its people.
Yes – 132,281 (94.6%)
No – 7,582 (5.4%)

(There was a 93.6% voter turnout for the General election – as compared to generally less than 50% in recent times – total turnout for the 2016 primary election was only 34.8% (a new low.))

While Hawaiʻi was the 50th State to be admitted into the union on August 21, 1959, Statehood is celebrated annually on the third Friday in August to commemorate the anniversary of the 1959 admission of Hawaiʻi into the Union.

Contrary to comments by some, the Crown and Government lands were not ‘stolen’ from the people with Territorial status, Statehood or any other change in governance. Those lands have been consistently recognized as part of the public domain or government property, as decided by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

That court noted, “In 1840 (Kamehameha III) granted the first Constitution by which he declared and established the equality before the law of all his subjects, chiefs, and people alike.”

“By that Constitution, he voluntarily divested himself of some of his powers and attributes as an absolute Ruler, and conferred certain political rights upon his subjects, admitting them to a share with himself in legislation and government. This was the beginning of a government as contradistinguished from the person of the King …”

“… who was thenceforth to be regarded rather as the executive chief and political head of the nation than its absolute governor. Certain kinds of public property began to be recognized as Government property, and not as the King’s.”

The Court noted, “These lands are to be in the perpetual keeping of the Legislative Council (Nobles and Representatives) or in that of the superintendents of said lands, appointed by them from time to time …”

“… and shall be regulated, leased, or sold, in accordance with the will of said Nobles and Representatives, for the good of the Hawaiian Government, and to promote the dignity of the Hawaiian Crown.”

The Court found, “while it was clearly the intention of Kamehameha III to protect the lands which he reserved to himself out of the domain which had been acquired by his family through the prowess and skill of his father, the conqueror, from the danger of being treated as public domain or Government property …”

“… it was also his intention to provide that those lands should descend to his heirs and successors, the future wearers of the crown which the conquerer had won; and we understand the act of 7th June, 1848, as having secured both those objects.” (Supreme Court Decision in the Matter of the Estate of Kamehameha IV, 1864)

Following the overthrow, these lands remained for public benefit when they were transferred through changing governments and governance to the Provisional Government, Republic, Territory and State.

This was affirmed by the US Court of Claims noting, “The constitution of the Republic of Hawai‘i, as respects the crown lands, provided as follows: ‘That portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land is hereby declared to have been heretofore, and now to be, the property of the Hawaiian Government …” (Lili‘uokalani v The United States, 1910)

Beneficiaries of these lands have also not changed – those lands remain part of the public trust for the benefit of Hawai‘i citizens. The government and governance of the Kingdom through Statehood has not been, nor are they now, based on race. People of many races have been and continue to be citizens.

Under the Admission Act, about 1.2-million acres are to “be held by (the) State as a public trust” to promote one or more of five purposes:
1. support of the public schools and other public educational institutions
2. betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians (per the Hawaiian Homes Act, 1920)
3. development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible
4. making of public improvements
5. provision of lands for public use

So, as Statehood is celebrated in the Islands, the lands that were in the public domain over the changing levels and entities of government and governance continue to be held in public trust, for all citizens (just as in the times of the constitutional monarchy.)

“Today, one of the deepest needs of mankind is the need to feel a sense of kinship one with another. Truly all mankind belongs together; from the beginning all mankind has been called into being, nourished, watched over by the love of God.”

“So that the real Golden Rule is Aloha. This is the way of life we shall affirm.”

“Let us affirm ever what we really are – for Aloha is the spirit of God at work in you and in me and in the world, uniting what is separated, overcoming darkness and death, bringing new light and life to all who sit in the darkness of fear, guiding the feet of mankind into the way of peace.”

“Thus may our becoming a State mean to our nation and the world, and may it reaffirm that which was planted in us one hundred and thirty-nine years ago: ‘Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.’” (Reverend Abraham K Akaka; Given on: Friday, March 13, 1959)

usa-flag

August 12, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen’s Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group also known as the Annexation Club; they started in 1887 as the Hawaiian League.

The Committee of Safety was made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth;) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (of the 13, none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

“Queen Lili‘uokalani attempted on Saturday, Jan. 14 (1893,) to promulgate a new Constitution, depriving foreigners of the right of franchise and abrogating the existing House of Nobles, at the same time giving her the power of appointing a new House.”

“That meeting unanimously adopted resolutions condemning the action of the Queen and authorizing the committee to take into consideration whatever was necessary for the public safety.” (New York Times, January 28, 1893)

On January 16, 1893, the Committee of Safety wrote a letter to John L Stevens, American Minister, that stated: “We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Honolulu, respectfully represent that, in view of recent public events in this Kingdom …”

“… culminating in the revolutionary acts of Queen Liliʻuokalani on Saturday last, the public safety is menaced and lives and property are in peril, and we appeal to you and the United States forces at your command for assistance.”

Then, “[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawaii, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.” (US Supreme Court; Hawaii v OHA, 2008)

On January 18, 1893, letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government were prepared by the Imperial German Consulate, Austro-Hungarian Consulate, Consul for Italy, Russian acting consul, Vice-Consul for Spain, Consulate of The Netherlands, Royal Danish Consulate, Consulate of Belgium, Consul for Mexico, Consulate of Chile, Office of the Peruvian Consulate, Consul-General and Charge d’Affaires of Portugal, Consulate and Commissariat of France and Chinese Commercial Agency.

On January 19, 1893, the British Legation and His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Consulate-General acknowledged the Hawaiian monarchy has been abrogated and a Provisional Government established.

The Provisional Government convened a constitutional convention, approved a new constitution and the Republic of Hawaiʻi was established on July 4, 1894. Shortly after (from August 1894 through January 1895,) a number of letters of formal diplomatic recognition (de jure) of the Republic of Hawai‘i were conveyed to the Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole.

These included formal letters from Austria/Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, China, France, Germany/Prussia, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain , Switzerland and the United States. (These were countries that had prior agreements and treaties with the Hawaiian Monarchy.)

An August 7, 1894 ‘office copy’ letter notes US President Grover Cleveland wrote to Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford B Dole, saying “… I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian islands”.

In his annual ‘Message to Congress’ (1895,) President Cleveland noted, “Since communicating the voluminous correspondence in regard to Hawai‘i and the action taken by the Senate and House of Representatives on certain questions submitted to the judgment and wider discretion of Congress …”

“… the organization of a government in place of the provisional arrangement which followed the deposition of the Queen has been announced, with evidence of its effective operation. The recognition usual in such cases has been accorded the new Government.”

Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole sent a delegation to Washington in 1894, seeking annexation to the US. John Sherman, US Secretary of State, prepared a report reviewing the negotiation between representatives of the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US, and provisions of the Treaty of Annexation. That report (June 15, 1897) noted, in part:

“The undersigned, Secretary of State, has the honor to lay before the President, for submission to the Senate, should it be deemed for the public interest so to do, a treaty, signed in the city of Washington on the 16th instant by the undersigned and by the fully empowered representative 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.”

“As time passed and the plan of union with the United States became an uncertain 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 electors of the islands …”

“… administration 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.”

“… the Republic of Hawaii approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized 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.” (The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.)

“Turning, then, to the various practical forms of political union, the several phases of a protectorate, an offensive and defensive alliance, and a national guarantee, were passed in review. In all of these the independence of the subordinate state is the distinguishing feature, and with it the assumption by the paramount state of responsibility without domain.”

“There remained, therefore, the annexation of the islands and their complete absorption into the political system of the United States as the only solution satisfying all the given conditions and promising permanency and mutual benefit. The present treaty has been framed on that basis”.

“As to most of these, the negotiators have been constrained and limited by the constitutional powers of the Government of the United States. As in previous instances when the United States has acquired territory by treaty, it has been necessary to reserve 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 sovereignty into the body politic of the United States.”

“For this the only precedent of our political history is found in the uncompleted 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 of 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.”

“In order that this independence of the Congress shall be complete and unquestionable, and pursuant to the recognized doctrine of public law that treaties expire with the independent life of the contracting State, there has been introduced, 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 contract 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 …”

“… for continuing the existing machinery of 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 execution 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.” (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

Meanwhile, the breaking of diplomatic relations with Spain as a result of her treatment of Cuba so completely absorbed public attention that the matter of Hawaiian annexation seemed to have been forgotten.

The war drama moved swiftly. The destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor precipitated matters, and on April 25, 1898, President McKinley signed the resolutions declaring that a state of war existed between the United States and Spain.

On May 5, Representative Francis Newlands, of Nevada, offered a joint resolution addressing the annexation of Hawai‘i. Though considerable opposition to annexation was still manifested in the House, the Newlands resolutions were finally passed.

The resolutions were immediately reported to the Senate, which had been discussing the treaty for nearly a year. That body referred them to its Committee on Foreign Relations, which in turn at once favorably reported them.

On June 15, 1898, the Newlands resolution passed the House by a vote of 209 to 91; the vote on the Newlands Resolution in the Senate was 42 to 21 (2/3 of the votes by Senators were in favor of the resolution, a significantly greater margin was cast by Representatives in the House.) (Cyclopedic Review of Current History, 4th Quarter 1898)

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2 states: “(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …” The following day, July 7, 1898, President McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution it into law.

“There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”.

On August 12, 1898, there were ceremonial functions held in Honolulu at which the Hawaiian government was formally notified by the United States minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary of the adoption and approval of the joint resolution aforesaid, and at which the Hawaiian government made, an unequivocal transfer and cession of its sovereignty and property. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

On June 27, 1959, when the matter of Statehood was put to a popular vote, Hawaiʻi registered voters voted on the question of Statehood (there was a 93.6% voter turnout for the General election – as compared to less than 50% today.)

Shall the following proposition, as set forth in Public Law 86-3 entitled ‘An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union’ be adopted? 1. Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State? – 94.3% voted in support.

American_flags_on_Iolani_Palace,_Annexation_ceremony_(PP-36-1-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-016-400

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-008)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-011)

Annexation_of_Hawaii_(PP-35-8-022)

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-35-8-017

Annexation_of_Hawaii–PP-35-8-025

Annexation_of_Hawaii-PP-36-1-018

Annexation-Here to Stay-PCA-July 14, 1898

July 25, 2016 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Japan’s Hawaiian Protest

Sugar growers, who dominated the Hawaiian Islands’ economy, imported thousands of immigrant laborers first from China, then Japan. (Mintz & McNeil)

“Although the efforts of Hawai‘i to establish treaty relations with Japan met with success in 1871, no considerable number of Japanese immigrants arrived during the years immediately following. Primarily to offset the numerical preponderance of the Chinese plantation laborers, the Hawaiian Government signed an immigration convention with Japan in 1886.”

“With startling rapidity the islands were flooded with Japanese, whose numbers increased from 116 in 1883 to 24,407 in 1896, out of a total population of 109,020.” (Bailey)

“The great influx of Japanese into the Hawaiian Islands during the last several years and especially during the last few months is causing anxiety to the Hawaiian government and to Americans who favor the annexation of the islands to the United States.”

“According to the recent reports of Consul-General Ellis Mills, the Japanese rank second in numerical strength among the nations represented in the Hawaiian Islands.” (The Chautauquan, 1897)

“Faced with the prospect of domination at the hands of a foreign people, the Hawaiian government began as early as 1887 to take fruitless measures to stem this oriental inundation.”

“The situation finally became so desperate that her Hawaiian officials, alleging irregularities, refused admittance to 1,174 Japanese immigrants during March, 1897, and sent them back to Japan.” (Bailey)

“This threatened monopolization of power by the Japanese has been urged during the McKinley administration as a plea for the annexation of the islands by the United States. However, no occasion for special alarm occurred till early in April.” (The Chautauquan, 1897)

At the time, the Republic of Hawai‘i and the US were in discussions for annexation of the Islands by the US. Japan protested Hawaiian annexation.

“Japanese minister, Toru Hoshi, calls the attention of Secretary Sherman to the rumor that the governments of the United States and of Hawai‘i were upon the point of concluding a treaty of annexation, a rumor the circumstantiality of which had caused it to be the subject for an interview between them before the note was sent to the secretary.”

“In the note itself the minister stated that the Japanese government could not view without concern the prospects of a sudden and complete change in the status of Hawai‘i, whereby the rights of Japan and of Japanese subjects may be imperiled, and that while they confidently relied upon the United States to maintain towards them a just and friendly attitude …”

“… they felt that under the circumstances they could not be regarded as spectators merely, without interest in the important change which was about to be made. For these reasons the minister said he felt himself justified in inquiring of the secretary what provision had been made for the preservation and maintenance of the rights acquired by Japan under treaty.” (Los Angeles Herald, July 25, 1897)

At the time, the “Japanese in the islands with large property rights, and under the present conditions they are entitled to become citizens of Hawai‘i.”

“In case of annexation these Japanese could not become citizens of the United States, as the decisions of United States Circuit Courts are to the effect that no Asiatic can become a citizen of the United, States.”

“The Japanese base their opposition to annexation almost entirely upon the ground that it is an interference with the treaty rights of Japan and complain especially that the treaty was negotiated in the face of the most friendly protestations from Japan and at a time when the Japanese authorities had been led to believe that no such treaty would be undertaken.”

“The Japanese insist, as on all former occasions, that the Japanese Government has not now and never has had any designs against Hawai‘i. This they consider a most important point because of the talk about colonization which they say apparently has had so much weight in the discussions of the question.”

“They contend that the Japanese just went to Hawai‘i in response to the demands for labor in the islands under provision of a treaty concluded in 1886 at the solicitation of the Hawaiian Government.” (New York Times, June 27, 1897)

“Hawaiians in Washington insist that the reason for the protest of Japan against annexation is that Japan really desires to acquire the Islands herself.” (New York Times, June 25, 1897)

“The evident intention of Japan to take possession of the islands has caused some uneasiness in Washington among those who favor annexation, and it is said that prompt action should be taken by this Government to prevent such a calamity.”

“It is now known here that, notwithstanding the demands at the time concerning the reason of the Philadelphia’s hurried trip to Honolulu …”

“… that ship was really ordered there on account of news received from the American representative there calling attention to the floods of Japanese pouring into the country and the evident intention of the Japanese to overwhelm the other people there, both native and foreign.” (Sacramento Daily News, April 13, 1897)

“The Japanese assert that Hawai‘i took no steps to restrict immigration from Japan until last February, when a sudden and suspicious demand was made upon Japan to this end. This, it is claimed, is evidence sufficient that there is no flooding of the Island.”

“The Japanese regarded this demand from the island Government as capricious and concluded that it was made for increasing the agitation in the interest of annexation, and to furnish a pretext for speedy action in that direction.”

“In view of these explanations on their part to the United States, the Japanese complain of the suddenness of the announcement of the Hawaiian treaty of annexation, and say the treaty was consummated when they had reason from official assurances for believing that no hasty action in that direction was contemplated.” (New York Times, June 27, 1897)

US Secretary of State John Sherman relied to the Japanese protests saying, “What the Hawaiian treaty of annexation proposes is the extension of the treaties of the United States to the incorporated territory to replace the necessarily extinguished Hawaiian treaties in order that the guarantees of treaty rights to all may be unquestionable and continuous.”

“To this end the termination of the existing treaties of Hawai‘i is recited as a condition precedent. The treaty of annexation does not abrogate these instruments. It is the fact of the Hawai‘i’s ceasing to exist as an independent contract that extinguishes those contracts.”

“As to the vested rights, if any be established in favor of Japan and of Japanese subjects in Hawai‘i, the case is different, and I repeat that ‘there is nothing in the proposed treaty prejudicial to the rights of Japan.’”

“Treaties are terminable in a variety of ways; that of 1886, between Japan and Hawai‘i, to which your protest is supposed to relate, is by either party on six months’ notice, but its extension would no more extinguish vested rights, previously acquired under Its stipulations, than the repeal of a municipal law affects rights of property vested under its provisions.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, July 14, 1897)

“This reply of Secretary Sherman was not satisfactory to the Japanese government, for in three days thereafter the minister having communicated with the Japanese minister for foreign affairs In the meantime, he laid before the secretary his formal protest against the annexation of the islands.”

“The protest concluded with an emphatic and unequivocal repudiation of the suggestion or report that Japan had designs against the integrity or sovereignty of Hawai‘i and a declaration that Japan has not now and never had such designs or designs of any kind whatever against Hawai‘i.”

“In this shape the incident remains for the present. It is scarcely conceivable that the protest of Japan can have any appreciable effect upon the fate of the treaty.” (Los Angeles Herald, July 25, 1897)

With the country aroused by the Spanish American War and political leaders fearful that the Islands might be annexed by Japan, the joint resolution easily passed Congress. Hawai‘i officially became a US territory in 1900. (Mintz & McNeil)

Uncle Sam Hawaii Annexation Cartoon

Uncle Sam Annexation Cartoon

Japanese Ambition

July 7, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Annexation Into US – Is A Treaty Required?

“In the Legal Tender Cases, Mr. Justice Strong, speaking for the majority of the court, said that the adoption of the first ten amendments indicated that in the judgment of those who adopted the Constitution there were powers created by it not specified nor deducible from, or ancillary to, any one specified power ‘but which grew out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government, or out of the sovereignty instituted.’”

“Mr. Justice Bradley in a concurring opinion characterized the United States as ‘a national government and the only government in this country having the character of nationality,’ and added:”

“Such being the character of the General government, it seems to be a self-evident proposition that it is invested with all those inherent and implied powers which, at the time of adopting the Constitution, were generally considered to belong to every government as such, and as being essential to the exercise of its functions.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“The power of congress to acquire new territory, either by conquest, purchase, or annexation, was much debated at the time of the acquisition of Louisiana from France, in 1803, and in a less degree in connection with the purchase of Florida and of Alaska.”

“It has now come to be recognized and established, rather by precedent and the general acquiescence of the people, than by any strict constitutional justification. In fact, the power cannot be derived from any narrow or technical interpretation of the constitution.”

“But it is necessary to recognize the fact that there is in this country a national sovereignty. That being conceded, it easily follows that the right to acquire territory is incidental to this sovereignty. It is, in effect, a resulting power, growing necessarily out of the aggregate of powers delegated to the national government by the constitution.” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“We have acquired much territory under treaty provisions and by conquest, and in such case the acquisition may be regarded as incidental to the powers mentioned …”

“… but we have also acquired territory by original discovery and appropriation alone. Such is the fact with reference to a large portion of Oregon; and such is peculiarly the fact with reference to certain small islands of the sea— the so-called Guano Islands.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“An act of congress passed in 1856, declared that guano islands taken into possession and occupation by American citizens, might be declared by the President to be ‘appertaining to the United States.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

“An act of Congress provides for the acquisition by Executive proclamation of any islands valuable for their deposits of guano, discovered by citizens of the United States and not, at the time of discovery, occupied or possessed by any other government or its citizens.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“In regard to this statute, the supreme court has recently declared that ‘by the law of nations, recognized by all civilized states, dominion of new territory may be acquired by discovery and occupation, as well as by cession or conquest …”

“‘… and when citizens or subjects of one nation, in its name, and by its authority or assent, take and hold actual, continuous, and useful possession (although only for the purpose of carrying on a particular business, such as catching and curing fish, or working mines) of territory unoccupied by any other government or its citizens …’”

“‘… the nation to which they belong may exercise such jurisdiction and for such period as it sees fit over territory so acquired. This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of congress concerning guano islands.’” (Handbook of American Constitutional Law)

In 1811, another annexation of foreign territory (West Florida) resulted from a Presidential Proclamation followed by an act of Congress (House and Senate participation.)

The Supreme Court, in speaking of the power of Congress to establish the Territorial Government in Florida until it should become a state, declared, “In the mean time, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States …”

“… governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, which empowers Congress ‘to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory, or other property belonging to the United States.’”

“Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a state acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts, that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States.”

“The right to govern, may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned.” (Canter Decision – Decision also cited in Dred Scott Decision)

Then, in Hawai‘i, “In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).” (US Supreme Court)

On May 5, 1898, Representative Francis Newlands, of Nevada, offered a joint resolution addressing the annexation of Hawai‘i. Though considerable opposition to annexation was still manifested in the House, the Newlands resolutions were finally passed.