STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII

MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1935

MAUI COUNTY,

Wailuku, Maui, Territory of Hawaii. The meeting was called to order by Congressman Crowe at 10 a. m. in the courtroom of the Maui County Courthouse, Wailuku, Maui, and the statement made that while there were certain citizens who would be called upon the present their views, that would not in any way preclude anyone, man or woman, for or against statehood, from arising and asking to be heard, and such person would be heard. The meeting was then turned over to Congressman Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma.

The first person to be recognized by the Chair was Mr. H. A. Baldwin, president and manager of the Maui Agricultural Co., Ltd., Paia, Maui. Mr. Baldwin stated that he was sorry the meeting was not a larger one, but that due to the fact that the meeting was originally scheduled for Sunday, word had not got around of the change in dates. Mr. Baldwin then presented the following state

ment:

Mr. BALDWIN. My name is Harry Alexander Baldwin. I am a native son of Hawaii and a sugar planter. My parents were both born here, as were those of my wife. My grandparents on both sides came here as missionaries over 100 years ago on my father's side from Connecticut and on my mother's side from Kentucky.

My father, H. P. Baldwin, a member of the senate, and my father-in-law, W. O. Smith, attorney general of the Republic of Hawaii, were both active in the movement for annexation 40years ago, although both regretted that it seemed wise to them and to other leaders here that the existence of Hawaii as an independent country should cease. Mr. Smith was a member of the commission that went to Washington seeking annexation.

At that time there was considerable discussion as to whether Hawaii should apply for admission as a full-fledged State or as a Territory. Prominent Federal officials advised the latter course, and it was adopted in the belief that later when we had demonstrated our loyalty and ability to govern ourselves as a Territory, we undoubtedly would be granted statehood.

I feel that we have fully demonstrated both. I believe that during the World War there was as low a percentage of slackers here as in any other portion of the United States, and, although our industries profited in some cases by high wartime prices, there were none here would be termed profiteers. We have creditably carried on a democratic form of government here since 1898 as a Territory, and for years before, first as a constitutional monarchy

and later as a republic. The several races that go to make up our citizenry are quite equally divided between the two major American political parties, I think considerably more so than in many parts of the mainland, and the majority of ballots cast at elections here are "straight ticket" votes, regardless of the racial ancestry of the candidates. Divisions into so-called blocs within either party or the two parties combined based on interests or races is comparatively unknown. No one race is more guilty than any other of voting on racial lines.

You gentlemen have been given statistics aplenty that must prove to you that from the standpoint of population, area, economic development, and educational status Hawaii qualifies for statehood. Outstanding in these qualifications are: First, the fact that the population of Hawaii is greater than that of four of the States of the Union, viz, Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, and Wyoming, and almost equal to that of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico-each of which has two Senators and at least one Representative in the Congress, while Hawaii is represented by only one Delegate, who has no vote even on committees to which he may have been assigned; second, the fact that Hawaii pays more into the Federal Treasury in customs duties and taxes than do any of 16 individual States; and third, that during the draft for the Army in 1917 a much lower percentage of illiteracy was found here than in many communities on the mainland.

Our status as a Territory, although we are recognized as an integral part of the Union, is to my mind most unsatisfactory and unfair under existing circumstances. Our political set-up is quite uncertain, as has been shown by recent bills introduced into Congress, one providing for a commission form of government and thus taking away what self-government we now have and another permitting the appointment of a mainlander as Governor of Hawaii-a possible dictator out of sympathy with our people. That our industries are in a similarly uncertain position has been forcibly brought to notice by recently enacted legislation by the Congress of a discriminatory nature inimical to Hawaii's main industry, sugar. Hawaii was listed with certain insular possessions and a foreign country and the allotment of her quota was left to the Secretary of Agriculture. Fortunately, after a strenuous legal fight, the Territory was given a quota that was probably fair but not however commensurate with the quotas given by the Congress to mainland sugar producers. Furthermore we are not permitted to ship more than about 3 percent of our production to the mainland United States as refined sugar. The remainder must be shipped as raws and refined on the mainland. It is unbelievable that such a restriction could or would have been applied to a sovereign State. Some years ago a statement was made on the floor of Congress that products from Hawaii-sugar was referred to-should pay a duty on entry into mainland United States, and more recently there has been talk in Washington of paying a bonus to mainland producers of sugar. A portion of the taxes collected in Hawaii would naturally go toward paying such a bonus to our very competitors.

We do not know what may happen next, not only to the detriment of our sugar industry but possibly our second industry in

importance, canned pineapple, which competes with mainland canned fruits.

There is a doubt in the minds of some, especially of those of the mainland, who are unacquainted with the true state of affairs here, as to the loyalty of our citizens of oriental ancestry, particularly those of the Japanese race.

I would like to read to you a brief statement made to me by W. A. Clark, who for the past 5 years has been the school commissioner for the county of Maui and at one time was a member of the Legislature of Hawaii and an outstanding citizen; also, I wish to present a statement of one of our American citizens of Japanese blood, Yaeko Nakagami, a young lady. Both statements strongly refute the thought that citizens of this class are not as loyal and as American as those of any other race.

Unfortunately, positive proof of their loyalty could be shown only by their actions in case of war. I hope for the sake of both countries that such a calamity will never occur, but if it should, I believe that the American-born citizens of Japanese parentage who have been brought up and educated here are so imbued with American ideals that they would pass through the test with flying colors, and those colors would be the Stars and Stripes.

The statement of Mr. Clark is as follows:

In view of the fact that a congressional committee is expected here in a few weeks to look into the question of statehood for Hawaii, I thought I would express to you some definite convictions I have arrived at after serving as commissioner of public instruction during the past 5 years.

Since it has been mentioned before, the question will naturally arise as to the loyalty of citizens of Japanese ancestry who reside in this Territory. As Commissioner, I have come in contact with a great many of them from all walks of life. Many of them have come to me and brought up this very question themselves. They resent the fact that their loyalty is even questioned. I have answered by stating that their loyalty had been questioned in some quarters. This questioning of their loyalty is what perplexes them, because they see no more reason why their loyalty should be questioned than that of children of immigrants who came from Europe.

I have put this question point-blank to many of them: "In case of war between Japan and the United States, would you willingly bear arms against Japan." The answer has been "yes" without any hesitation or equivocation. All of us hope that a war between Japan and the United States will never happen, but if it ever should, I am certain from my experience with them that the loyalty of the great majority to their own country-the United Stateswould be 100 percent.

Loyalty is fostered by confidence and not by suspicion. I believe that if we accept the loyalty which they believe in and are willing to give, the idea of any "Japanese problem" here will fall to pieces just as the "German-American" problem did during the World War.

As to the issue of statehood itself, I believe that Hawaii is ready and should be made the forty-ninth State of the Union. By comparing our people and our situation with other Territories that became States in the past, we are ready and fit at the present time.

Miss Nakagami's statement on this subject is as follows:

Will the younger Japanese of the Territory remain loyal to the American flag? Could they be trusted for their loyalty in time of crisis? These questions have been asked, time and again, by some Americans who were quite skeptical of the loyalty of the younger Japanese here.

It is my desire, at this time, to attempt to answer these questions truthfully, basing my qualification as a loyal American citizen who has gone through the many experiences of a younger Japanese.

May I state that the great majority of the Americans who are still skeptical of our loyalty are not those who have lived and come in contact with the lives

of the younger generation here, but they are those who are not familiar with these conditions.

They claim that we could not be trusted because of our inheritance. They believe that our thoughts and feelings are still like the Japanese of old. This belief is based on untrue assumptions, as the younger generation are gradually assimilating everything American. They no longer feel nor think like their parents. They have no desire to be loyal to the emperor, as some of the Americans claim. The great majority of the younger people here are happy to be Americans. They enjoy the many privileges given them under the Stars and Stripes which could not be obtained under the Japanese Government. They were born here, raised and educated here like the rest of the Orientals. They belong here; they want to remain here.

In the event of assimilation a few changes have taken place. Because of the change in thoughts and ways from the old to the new there have arisen conflicts between the older generation and the new. However, the importance lies in the fact that the younger generation have expressed their rights as individuals. Most of them do not think any longer in terms of group undertakings, in which their rights and interests are taken away from them. The younger generation have learned to think for themselves and by themselves. The older generation cannot dictate to them that they should worship the Emperor, for the heart is not there in the younger ones.

The homes, families, interests of the younger generation are here with them. They have no reason to throw them away now. They have expressed their devotion to the land of their birth by being law-abiding, respectable citizens. They have responded to the American ways and thoughts just as well as the Europeans. They feel that they belong to the United States and are proud of their forefathers who have come on the Mayflower, just as the older Americans

are.

The Americans need have no fear of their disloyalty, for what motive have they here for disloyalty? The majority of the Americans have given them a square deal, and it is their turn to express their square deal to the Americans. They want the Americans to believe in them.

Mr. KING. Did you serve as Delegate to Congress from Hawaii? Mr. BALDWIN. Yes; I served out the unexpired term of Prince Kuhio after his death in 1922.

Mr. NICHOLS. You stated that you felt that Hawaii's being a territory was highly unsatisfactory. Do you mean that it is unsatisfactory to the Hawaiian Islands to be a territory, or do you think that being in this status is unsatisfactory to the mainland United States?

Mr. BALDWIN. I mean that it was unfavorable to the Hawaiian Islands. I might say that a number of questions have been asked in Honolulu as to why the sugar people have changed their attitude in the matter of statehood. Relative to this, I can only speak for myself. I think that I have always been in favor of statehood, but until I was Delegate to Congress I did not realize what we were up against without a vote in Congress and only one man to watch all the legislation concerning Hawaii. Recently, since the passage of the Jones-Costigan Act, and the decision of the District of Columbia court, which was practically that we were outside of the Constitution and that Congress could do as they liked with us, I have felt very strongly that we were not in the position we deserved as taxpayers and citizens, fully capable of governing ourselves.

Mr. NICHOLS. Can you state some reason why it would be more beneficial to the Government of the United States if Hawaii were made a State?

Mr. BALDWIN. I don't know that I can. I have never advocated statehood actively because I understood that the War Department was strongly opposed to it, and I felt, as many others here felt, that under these circumstances, if it would embarrass the Federal Government, we should not ask for it.