I was Governor of the Territory of Hawaii from July 5, 1929, to March 1, 1934.

I have been a member of the Territorial Senate for three regular sessions and one special session, and was of that body president in 1923. I have served also as a supervisor of the city and county of Honolulu. During the World War I was a major of Infantry in the United States Army; and I have served in the Hawaii National Guard as a private and have held all commissioned grades from second lieutenant to colonel and, as Governor, was its commander in chief.

I was born in Hawaii. My paternal grandfather came here as a medical missionary in 1828. In 1842, at the request of the King, he left the mission and entered the government service. He served in several capacities, including membership on the treasury board of the kingdom, secretary of state for foreign affairs, head of the cabinet and minister of the interior, special commissioner and plenipotentiary extraordinary to the Governments of France, England, and the United States. He became a subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

My father was born in Hawaii, and for 26 years was associate and chief justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii during the monarchy, the provisional government, and the republic.

I am an American citizen by reason of the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States of America.

With the passage of time since the annexation (1898), it is often overlooked that Hawaii became a part of the Union by voluntary agreement as an independent nation, having sovereign powers coequal with those of the United States.

All other annexations of territory were by purchase or conquest, with the exception of Texas, which came into the Union as a State by exactly the same procedure as did these islands. Such Territories therefore became the property or "possessions" of the United States, subject to being dealt with as "property", with no limitation upon their treatment by the Federal Government save that of humanity.

Under these circumstances and the terms of annexation Hawaii is in no sense the "property" or a "possession" of the United States, but became incorporated into and is an "integral part" of the Union, and thereby acquired certain inalienable rights, contractual, equitable, and moral, to the maintenance of which the good faith of the United States is pledged.

I wish to insert in the record, by reference, the act of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii to define and declare the claims of the Territory of Hawaii concerning its status in the American Union, etc. (L. 1923, c. 86; R. L. of Hawaii 1925, vol. 1, p. 133 et seq.). See page 263, this record.

This act asserts in the most formal method possible the status of Hawaii as an integral part of the United States and her rights as such. All of the facts recited therein are accurate. The act was designed to eliminate the very evident misunderstanding existing in the Congress and executive departments as to Hawaii's status in the Union and to prevent this misunderstanding from settling into permanent discrimination.

58300-36- -9

Notwithstanding the claims of Hawaii, as above referred to, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that by virtue of the Hawaiian Organic Act the Constitution was extended to this Territory, and that it thereby became an organized Territory of the United States, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia recently declared that Congress has the power to limit the importations of sugar from Hawaii and may discriminate commercially against the Territory. If, as that court said, the Congress has the right to limit the production of sugar, it evidently may likewise limit the production of anything else which may be raisd or produced in this Territory, and interfere with shipping and other matters so vital to us. Is this not discrimination?

The requirements or qualifications of a Territory to enter the Union as a State are not prescribed by the Constitution and are matters which rest entirely in the discretion of the Congress.

The factors regularly taken into consideration by the Congress have already been dealt with by other proponents at these hearings. In my opinion, it has been shown conclusively that:

1. The area of Hawaii is larger than three of the States and almost as large as three others. Therefore our area is no barrier.

2. The population exceeds the present population of four States. Much has been said about the number of our citizens of oriental ancestry. I am of the opinion that they are making a normal response to the situation and that their progress is quite comparable to that of the descendants of immigrants on the mainland. It must be remember that oriental immigration to Hawaii was stopped in 1908, long before European immigration into continental United States ceased. That was 27 years ago. Their descendants are given to frugality, hard work, self-dependence, clean living and respect of law. Peoples of various races here are coming through the "melting pot" and are taking their places as citizens under the American form of government.

I do not know of an instance when an American citizen of oriental ancestry in Hawaii has ever in the history of the Territory caused an incident of disloyalty to the land of his birth.

3. The political behavior of our citizens is such that they can be fully depended upon. We have had a successful government and that success is no accident. It is all the result of the consistent and conscientious exercises by these citizens of their rights and a realization of their responsibilities. The principles controlling the Government of Hawaii have, for over 90 years, been fundamentally American. They are the basis of Hawaii's progress in the past. Certainly this record justifies the extension of broader rights.

4. Hawaii is primarily an agricultural community. It contributed last year more to the Federal Treasury than one-third of the States. Our total trade with the mainland of the United States last year amounted to $158,000,000 and was exceeded by that of only five nations: Canada, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, or France. It exceeds the trade between the mainland United States and over 70 countries. Certainly it cannot be said that we are deficient in economic resources.

There is no place in the American philosophy of government for colonies or dependencies; the government of our people per

manently by another without their consent is not the American system.

I have, therefore, been in favor of ultimate statehood for Hawaii but prior to 1932 I had considered that the time was not yet opportune for us to seek the highest political status obtainable under our system of government-that of a sovereign State.

The unfortunate events of 1932, followed by incidents of 1933 and 1934, have convinced me that we should now seek that highest status. The main reasons are clearly stated in the brief entitled "Statehood for Hawaii", filed with your committee at its first hearing and prepared by a bipartisan committee appointed by Delegate King to further the cause of statehood in Hawaii. I concur in the statements contained in said brief.

Mr. SING CHAN CHUN. I am Sing Chan Chun, of Chinese ancestry. As president of the student body of McKinley High School, I represent the student body in this hearing. I am here to discuss, to testify, and hope to clear up one issue that is generally discussed in Hawaiian affairs. I have some statistics to present to you verifying that there is no racial dominance by Japanese students in the student body activities of McKinley High School. This has been shown to be true for the past 10 years. Before going into any other statistics, I would like to present the percentage of the different races in our high school [reading]:

1931, Hawaiians 30 (1 percent), part Hawaiians 221 (9 percent), Portuguese 69 (2 percent), Puerto Rican 3 (one-fourth of one percent), Spanish 5 (2 percent), other Caucasian 187 (7 percent), Chinese 672 (26 percent), Japanese, 1,172 (46 percent), Korean 78 (4 percent), Filipino 25 (2 percent), all others 8 (three-fourths percent). During that year, student-body elections showed that four Chinese students were elected to office. If there was any bloc voting or Japanese dominance in McKinley High School, certainly four Japanese would have been elected.

1932. Hawaiians 27, part Hawaiians 195, Portuguese 67, Puerto Rican 2, Spanish 9, other Caucasian 81, Chinese 769 (27 percent), Japanese 1,326 (55 percent), Korean 105, Filipino 35, all others 7. In the student-body elections of 1932, a Chinese was elected president; an Anglo-Saxon girl, vice-president; a Japanese, secretary; and a Chinese, treasurer. Here is another occasion where if there had been bloc voting, four Japanese would have been chosen unquestionably.

1933. Hawaiians 24, part Hawaiians 161, Portuguese 79, Puerto Rican 2, Spanish 33, other Caucasian 81, Chinese 785 (27 percent), Japanese 1,495 (55 percent), Korean 116, Filipino 35, all others 7.

Four Japanese students were chosen as student-body officers. Some might call this bloc voting, but we believe that the students voted for the ones they thought most suitable for office.

1934. Hawaiians 28, part Hawaiians 160, Portuguese 87, Puerto Rican 5, Spanish 1, other Caucasians 44, Chinese 836, Japanese 1,587, Korean 143, Filipino 23, all others 12. Four Chinese were elected to student-body offices in that year. This indicates plainly that bloc voting does not prevail in McKinley High School among the Japanese students.

1935 (this year). Hawaiians 22, part Hawaiians 193, Portuguese 82, Puerto Rican 7, Spanish 4, other Caucasians 38, Chinese 282 (26.2 percent), Japanese 1,752 (56.2 percent), Korean 147, Filipino 27, all others 13. Three Chinese students were chosen president, vice president, and secretary, while one Japanese was elected treasurer.

All these statistics illustrate that Japanese dominance, racial prejudice, and bloc voting do not exist in McKinley High School among the American citizens of oriental ancestry.

I have another case to show you. This year we have a Korean boy as senior-class president. This Korean boy ran against two Japanese

students. There are 1,752 Japanese in McKinley High School, and we have only 147 Koreans. The Korean boy was elected outright in the primary election.

It is

If the sentiment among the students of Japanese ancestry was for nationalism, this Korean boy would not have been chosen to serve. Mr. CANNON. I want to compliment you on your statement. a very splendid statement. How old are you, son? Mr. CHUN. I am 18 years old, sir.

Mr. CANNON. How long has the question of statehood been discussed generally among the students of McKinley High School? Mr. CHUN. The question of statehood has been discussed since

1926.

Mr. CANNON. From that time on?

Mr. CHUN. Yes; from that time on.

Mr. CANNON. Is that a playground discussion as well as classroom discussions?

Mr. CHUN. Classroom discussions.

Mr. CANNON. Do you find the students on the campus discussing statehood there?

Mr. CHUN. Some of them do.

Mr. CANNON. The thing I am trying to find out is, Are the young people generally interested in this problem, one way or the other? Mr. CHUN. Yes, sir. They are interested in this statehood prob

lem.

Mr. CANNON. What do you think would be the majority vote; are you prepared to say?

Mr. CHUN. If we should have a straw vote in McKinley High School, I am sure the majority would be in favor of statehood.

Mr. CANNON. Do you mind stating to the committee what, in your opinion, motivates their leaning to the side of statehood?

Mr. CHUN. I would say that since they have been educated in the American schools and learned the American democratic way of doing things, and since they show no prejudice in political affairs, they are in favor of statehood in order to realize full American citizenship.

Mr. CANNON. Has there or not ever been any pressure put on the students of McKinley from the faculty to sway their opinion one way or the other?

Mr. CHUN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will recognize at this time Arthur Chun.

Mr. CHUN. I represent the student body of the University of Hawaii. It gives me great pleasure to appear before you today and represent the young people whose forefathers came here to improve their economic position. We represent the second generation of what may be called a group of oriental immigrants who came to these islands primarily to elevate their economic status to a higher level. Our fathers have been here probably 30 or 40 years, becoming so firmly situated in their positions that they have married, and as a result we are in the present second generation.

Within a short time many of us will be on the outside, we may say, of the university, becoming an actual part of the community earning our living, going into the professions-medicine, law, and so forth—and it is a vital question to us whether we are to continue as a Territory or whether we will be incorporated as a State, or be

further encouraged to bring our efforts to a point where we may some day become a State. In our studies of political science, and so forth, we have been brought to that point where we feel that our position is a step further toward statehood. There is no doubt in the minds of everyone here that the University is equipping young people in a capable manner to take their positions in society, and I am positive that the environment that we are enveloped in is molding American citizens from the heterogeneous groups which constitute the elements here.

We can't help but be patriotic. Our environment with our friends. and business associates is American-no less American than many of the communities throughout the United States. Contrasting in racial backgrounds, we are, nevertheless, all the same when it comes to creeds, national problems, economic security, and patriotism. Today our primary thought is that of learning more and moreeducating our minds to a point where we may become better citizens; with this idea permeating the schools throughout the Territory there is no doubt that were statehood thrust upon us we would be capable of handling our duties. In such a case I am sure that our mother or parent country-the United States-would be proud of us. We recognize your interest here and we want to thank you for taking the time to come here.

In conclusion, may I say that the students of the University will be very delighted to have you visit them before you leave.

Mr. LUNDEEN. How old are you?

Mr. CHUN. Twenty-one.

Mr. LUNDEEN. Nationality?

Mr. CHUN. Chinese-Hawaiian.

Mr. LUNDEEN. What percent?

Mr. CHUN. My mother is Hawaiian, father Chinese, having come. from the South of China 36 years ago; he is chief cook in Kapiolani Maternity Home, and has been there ever since he has been here. Delegate KING. Are you related to Gordon Chun Hoon?

'Mr. CHUN. No; I am related to the late Chun Hoon; he was a cousin of mine.

Mr. CANNON. You said that you felt sure that through the privileges that you have in the university that your mother country would be proud of you. What country did you mean?

Mr. CHUN. America-the United States. We say mother or parent country since our status is so debatable causing us to centralize our efforts for statehood whether immediate or ultimate.

Mr. CANNON. If, in discussions between the students of the university, the students refer to their mother country, in most instances do you think they refer to the United States as their mother country? Mr. CHUN. Yes; there is no doubt that in any discussion on statehood, the words "mother country" would not mean anything else. The oriental student feels just as much American as anyone else does. Mr. CANNON. How long has the question of statehood been discussed generally among the students of the university?

Mr. CHUN. Way back from the beginning. In every political science class it is the custom to discuss facts and these indicate that our position is only temporary-an intermediate bridge toward statehood, whether it be 5, or 10, or 15 years from now. We are extremely conscious of this proposition because it is an actual fact.