vention, must have been perfectly familiar with the purposes of that body, it ought to remove any possible doubt which may exist in the mind of the reader as to the lack of the power of Congress either to acquire territory or to admit other nations into the Union. If the Supreme Court in its opinion in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, from which a quotation is above made, intended to be understood as asserting that Congress has the power to acquire territory by a joint resolution under the clause authorizing it to admit new States, it is only necessary to mention the fact that this point has been otherwise definitely settled by the decision of the same court rendered on May 19, 1890. It then declared that "The power to acquire territory, other than the territory northwest of the Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the adoption of the Constitution,) is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare and carry on war." ( Mormon Church vs. United States, 136 U. S. 42.) As the court in this opinion does not re fer to any other mode of acquiring territory than those mentioned in the above-quoted sentence, it is fair to presume that it does not believe that territory can be acquired in any other manner than by treaty or by con quest; and as Congress does not possess the treaty-making power which is lodged in the President and the Senate, and as these islands have not been acquired by conquest, the writer thinks that they have not been con stitutionally annexed to the United States as a part of its territory. It must be apparent to all who are familiar with American history that it affords no precedent for this extraordinary action on the part of Congress. It is true that the friends and the advocates of this measure are accustomed to refer to the admission of Texas into the Union as a State as though it were a precedent justifying the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States as a Territory by a joint resolution of Con
gress. Whether or not the first mentioned action by Congress was strictly within its constitutional powers is a question on which some of our ablest statesmen and jurists have held different opinions'. Among those who denied the power of the Federal Legis lature to admit Texas into the Union as a State, was no less a man than Daniel Webster, who has been called " the great expounder of the Constitution." This may be seen by reference to a speech delivered by him in the Senate on December 22, 1845, and published in Volume V. of his Works, p. 55. Although opposed to her admission at all, he contended that she should first have been acquired as a Territory under the treatymaking power before being admitted into the Union as a State; and several other prominent statesmen were of the same opinion. If this be true, this precedent is of no value whatever in determining the question under consideration, as one exercise of unconstitutional power, if this was one, can be no justification for subsequent acts of the same character. But conceding for the purpose of this argument that Texas was properly admitted, that fact affords no justification for the an nexation of Hawaii as a Territory or for her admission as a State; for the two cases are not at all parallel, as the writer will proceed to demonstrate. Texas was formerly a part of Mexico. She seceded from that country in the year, 1836 and established an inde pendent government of her own; and the United States, on March 1, 1837, recognized her independence and her title to a place in the family of nations; although Mexico still asserted dominion over her; and a condi tion of war existed between the two countries to determine the question where should be the boundary line separating the one from the other. Under these circumstances the Government of the Republic of Texas made overtures to the United States for annexa tion thereto; and after negotiations for that purpose had been entered into between the
