as such, shall take and retain custody of all records, dockets, journals, and files of such courts except in causes transferred therefrom, as herein provided; the files and papers in such transferred cases shall be transferred to the United States district court, together with a transcript of all book entries to complete the record in such particular case so transferred. SEO. 14. All cases pending in the Circuit Courts of the Territory of Hawaii at the time said Territory becomes a State not transferred to the United States District Court in the State of Hawaii shall be proceeded with, held, and determined by the courts of said State, the successors of said Circuit Courts of the Territory of Hawaii with the right to prosecute appeals or writs of error to the supreme court of said State, and also with the same right to prosecute appeals or writs of error from the final determination in said causes made by the Supreme Court of said State of Hawaii to the Supreme Court of the United States, as now provided by law for appeals and writs of error from the supreme court of a State to the Supreme Court of the United States. SEO. 15. The constitutional convention shall by ordinance provide for the election of officers for a full State government, including members of the legislature, two United States Senators and one Representative in Congress. Such State government shall remain in abeyance until the State shall be admitted into the Union and the election for State officers held as provided for in this Act. The Governor and secretary of said State shall certify the election of the Senators and Representative in the manner required by law; and said Senators and Representative shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and Representatives of other States in Congress of the United States. And the officers of the State government formed in pursuance of said constitution, as provided by said constitutional convention, shall proceed to exercise all the functions of such State officers; and all laws in force in the Territory of Hawaii at the time of the admission of said State into the Union shall be in force throughout said State, except as modified or changed by this Act or by the constitution of the State, and the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within said State as elsewhere within the United States. SEC. 16. All Acts or parts of Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act, whether passed by the Legislature of said Territory or by Congress, are hereby repealed. Mr. CROWE. Governor Poindexter. Governor POINDEXTER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I wish to extend to you at this time the Aloha of the people of the Territory, and tell you that we are delighted that you are here on this mission. We wish you every success in your endeavors, and we want you to have a pleasant time with us, and want you to know us and we want to know you better; for that reason it is with great pleasure that we welcome you here. I am here this morning as a member of the Equal Rights Commission. At the last legislature there was created an Equal Rights Commission, largely a fact-finding body. I will present a formal letter calling your attention to this commission and submit a list of the members, and also a copy of the act. The members of the commission are Lawrence M. Judd, formerly Governor of Hawaii; James L. Coke, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Hawaii; Victor S. K. Houston, formerly Delegate to Congress from Hawaii; Louis S. Cain, Superintendent of Public Works, Territory of Hawaii. We want to offer our services and wish to forward your labors in any manner we can, and if, after you have completed your work in Hawaii, there are any facts or data you may desire, which in your limited time you have been unable to accumulate, our Equal Rights Commission will be very glad to furnish them. (The letter and copy of the act are hereto appended and appear in part IV as item 1.) Mr. CROWE. Thank you, Governor Poindexter. We will request that, as the witnesses are called, they be seated at the desk in front of this committee. At this time I will ask Mr. Dempsey to take the Chair. (Mr. Dempsey takes the Chair.) The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, as the chairman of our committee has explained to you, it is the desire of this committee to hear every person who desires to be heard. In the event that you appear for an organization, we will be pleased if you will state the name of the organization you appear for and the approximate number of your members. It may be that during this hearing certain questions may be asked by the committee. I want you to understand that it is not in the way of cross-examination, but in order to bring out to the members of the committee the facts more clearly. With that in mind, I will say that we are here with friendly and open minds. We will now hear from you of Hawaii. I will ask, first, Dr. David L. Crawford to make any statement he desires in behalf of the citizens' committee on statehood for Hawaii. Dr. CRAWFORD. My name is David L. Crawford; I am president of the University of Hawaii. I am speaking at this time in behalf of the Citizens' Bipartisan Committee, of which I am chairman.. This committee was set up a few weeks ago at the request of Dele-gate Samual W. King, when it became known that the subcommittee of the Committee on Territories of Congress was to come to Hawaii to investigate the problem of statehood. This committee is composed of the following people: Romanzo Adams, Frank C. Atherton, Raymond C. Brown, Louis S. Cain, Charles Chillingworth, Peter Chu, David L. Crawford, Joseph R. Farrington, Hiram Fong, Ernest Heen, William H. Heen, Charles R. Hemenway, Kim Tong Ho, Charles Holt, Victor Houston, Lawrence Judd, Princess Kawananakao, Min Hin Li, Mrs. L. L. McCandless, Masaji Muramoto, M. C. Pacheco, Lester Petrie, A. G. M. Robertson, O. P. Soares, Joseph Sylva, Wilfred Tsukiyama, Roy A. Vitousek, Jack Wakayama, John H. Wilson, James Winne, J.. Stowell Wright, and George F. Wright. This group of citizens, some of them being members of the Democratic Party, some of them Republicans, and some not identified with either party, has had a number of meetings and through the medium of a subcommittee, headed by former Gov. Lawrence M. Judd, has. prepared a brief which sets forth some of the facts which we believe are pertinent to the problem before you. It is our sincere belief that this brief represents the ideas of a very large number of citizens, probably a decided majority of the whole. The brief is as follows: STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII (A statement prepared by a bipartisan committee of citizens appointed by Delegate Samuel Wilder King to further the cause of statehood in Hawaii.) The Territory of Hawaii in seeking statehood is only asserting the true American spirit of love of freedom and of self-government, and is following the historical precedent established by the citizens of the 35 States that havejoined the Union since its inception. It is the American system. Upon annexation in 1898, following the passage of the joint resolution of annexation by the Federal Congress and its approval by President McKinley,. Hawaii's destiny of joinder to the Union came to pass. Such a final result had been foreseen for nearly a century and was actively sought, beginning with the attempted cession by Kamehameha III in 1851. Annexation by joint resolution followed the pioneer precedent established by the admission of Texas, but with this difference that in the case of Texas the treaty previously submitted had been rejected, whereas in the case of Hawaii the treaty simply failed of passage but was still under consideration. With the passage of the resolution, Hawaii, after having been an independent nation, as was Texas, recognized by all the major powers of the world, voluntarily stepped back into a state of political inferiority and became, as we fully hoped, a State in the making. In all previous territorial governments, the form of government had been temporary, and was, in fact, succeeded by statehood. The Declaration of Independence dealt only as between free and sovereign commonwealths. All were equal, none were superior to the others, and none were subordinates. The Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1777, provided for the admission of Canada upon her signing the articles. No other colony was to be admitted unless by agreement of nine of the States. This was the first provision for the admission of new States. Under the Articles of Confederation there was passed the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory. This specifically stated its purpose as being the provision of a temporary government until such time as the inhabitants of the constituent territories might form stable governments and erect the same into State of the Union. This ordinance set a population requirement of 60,000 free inhabitants as necessary for admission, the other requirement being the adoption of a permanent constitution and State government which had to be republican in form. The Constitution was later in the same year adopted by Congress and referred to the States for ratification by conventions. Before ratification and operation of the Constitution, Vermont was admitted as "a new and entire member of the Union." In the Constitution, the provision looking to the admission of new States is found in section 3 of article IV, which merely says that "* * * new States may be admitted by Congress into the Union." No qualifications are set forth. The 60,000 population requirement of the ordinance of 1787 was closely followed in setting up new States and, in addition, the Congress considered factors relating to area, resources, industries, and the ability and willingness of the citizens to assume and carry out the duties and obligations of a free State. Under this method of analyzing the situation, States were admitted from time to time. When Kansas was admitted in 1861, a new rule was exacted that the population should be equivalent to the unit of representation in the Federal House of Representatives. This new rule, however, was of short duration, for we find in the case of Nevada (admitted in 1864) that the population was only 42,491 upon admission, but the 60,000-population rule was thereafter again used as the measuring stick. With the drift to the West, criticism was voiced against the formation of States in areas of which it was said they "would never be of any value." California, it is said, was even qualified this way; others were described as forming only part of the great American desert. The ambition to acquire statehood is a natural and legitimate one. There has been a great fluctuation in the length of the probationary period of the several territories. It will sufficiently serve our purpose to refer to a few of them: Nevada (3 years) 1861-64. Oklahoma (17 years) 1890-1907. New Mexico (62 years) 1850-1912. It was at one time proposed to join in one State the territories of Arizona and New Mexico, the name of the State to be Arizona; Oklahoma and Indian Territory were actually so joined under the name of Oklahoma. Opposition to the admission of some of these territories became quite strong, and the fight for admission was in some instances protracted. New Mexico, for instance, first applied for admission in 1850, and one House or the other of the Federal Congress passed an enabling act for New Mexico on 17 different occasions. Before the final success in 1912, in two instances, both Houses passed enabling acts, which, because of differences, failed in conference. In the case of Arizona, her efforts began in the Forty-ninth Congress and did not terminate until 1912 in the Sixtieth Congress. In the meantime a bill to authorize statehood for Arizona passed the House in the Federal Congress three times and was twice favorably reported in the Senate, but failed of passage. This struggle was comparatively short, but her Territorial life had a span of 49 years. As in our case, some of the grounds of opposition to statehood for several of the western territories were based on racial differences. In Arizona and New Mexico, it was the Indian and the Spanish-Mexican population that caused delay. The Indians were generally illiterate, and the people of SpanishMexican descent habitually spoke Spanish. In New Mexico, although there was no reliable census, it was claimed that the Spanish-speaking population was two-fifths or perhaps even more than a majority of the population. the legislature the use of Spanish was authorized and interpreters were used; the laws were published both in English and Spanish. In certain judicial districts the court procedure was in Spanish. A similar situation at one time existed in Hawaii, as to the use of two languages in the legislature and in the courts, but it was done away with many years ago. In Our early efforts at annexation of Hawaii by treaty looked to admission as a State. Our acceptance, in principle, of the Territorial status in 1898 was a matter of opportunism and convenience to avoid protracted delays and was with assurance from the highest authority in the land that we could well and safely rely upon the just and benevolent purposes of the United States in dealing with people of this newly acquired Territory. From the beginning we desired statehood, we strove for statehood, and only accepted a lesser status because of informal assurances that statehood would come later. As early as 1903, the Legislature of Hawaii petitioned Congress by a joint resolution "* to pass at an early date an act enabling the people of this Territory, who are citizens thereof and duly qualified to vote, to meet in convention and frame and adopt a State constitution whereby and whereunder this Territory may be admitted as a State into the Union." This measure was introduced by Senator Charles Achi and received the approval of Governor Dole, who had been President of the Republic of Hawaii. ** * * * * In 1919 Governor McCarthy, in a message to the Legislature of Hawaii, said, "While our population is more or less cosmopolitan, our people are united with the same spirit that animates the people of the several States and are fully as competent to conduct a State government as any State in the Union In view of our qualifications I recommend the legislature adopt a concurrent resolution memorializing Congress to pass an act giving statehood to Hawaii." Such a resolution was passed, introduced by Representative H. L. Holstein, and an appropriate bill was early introduced in Congress by Delegate Prince Kuhio Kalanianaole, asking that the people of this Territory * inay become a State of the Union under qualifications to be determined by the Congress of the United States." Governor Farrington, than whom no stouter champion of Hawaii's citizenry ever lived, said, "We feel that our progress entitles us to recognition as equals. There is just one way in which that recognition can be granted-by statehood." In 1931 the Legislature of Hawaii felt that the time was ripe for another effort in this direction and adopted both a joint resolution and a concurrent resolution memorializing the Congress to pass an enabling act for Hawaii, which in the resolution was set out in form substantially as desired. The necessary bill was introduced in Congress and printed in two separate prints. The ball had started rolling, and in the succeeding two Congresses similar measures were introduced. In the present Congress, for the first time, we have reached the point of a hearing before the appropriate committee of the Congress. Why all this consistent and persistent effort on the part of the Territories of the United States to become States? In the first place, there is no place in the American philosophy of government for colonies or dependencies; the government of one people permanently by another people without their consent is not the American system. Secondly, people wish to acquire as soon as possible that full measure of United States citizenship that is given only to citizens of a State and to assume their full share in the responsibilities of government. Thirdly, the territorial form of government, not being set out in the Constitution, is recognized as a transitional or temporary form. The organic act of a territory, having been enacted by Congress, may be by it repealed or amended in important particulars, without the people's consent and perhaps to their detriment. And, finally, we of Hawaii desire the security in our social and economic lives that can come only from the automatic application of all the laws of Congress to Hawaii and its people, on a basis of equality with the 48 States. As previously stated, the situation of a Territory of the United States is an anomalous one. The United States Supreme Court has referred to it as a period of "pupilage." Another court has referred to it as but a "necessary incident of immaturity", and declared the ultimate purpose to be that every Territory shall, as soon as practicable, be organized as a State which shall take its equal place and part in the American Union. As a matter of fact, the Territorial status furnishes an outstanding illustration of the very un-American idea of taxation without representation. The people of a Territory pay taxes to the Federal Government in the same manner and on the same basis as the people of a State, but they have no voice in the making of the laws under which the taxes are collected and disbursed, nor have they a vote for Presidential electors. (Laws of life, limb, and property, all applicable to the people of a Territory, are passed by the Federal Congress without their participation.) If a citizen of a State changes his residence by moving into a Territory, he thereby loses his right to vote in a Presidential election, although he continues to pay taxes to the Federal Government as he did before. Conversely, a citizen of Hawaii who becomes a resident of a State thereby acquires full rights of United States citizenship. For these reasons the Territorial status is properly a temporary one, and the right of the people of a Territory to acquire the full stature of American citizenship as soon as they are ready must be conceded, if the American philosophy of government is to prevail. Hawaii has been on probation as a Territory for over 35 years, longer than all those territories previously mentioned, except New Mexico. Since background counts for something, we point to the fact that constitutional government has been maintained in these islands by a liberty-loving and orderly people since 1840-95 years. As previously mentioned, the requirements or qualifications of a Territory to enter the Union as a State are not prescribed by the Constitution. It is a matter which rests entirely in the discretion of Congress. There are some factors, however, which Congress has regularly taken into consideration, namely, the area of the Territory, its population, its economic resources, its state of development, and the willingness and ability of its people to maintain an orderly and stable government. Let us present briefly what Hawaii has in these respects: First, as to area. We cannot equal, of course, the enormous areas of the western Territories which have been admitted to the Union, but Hawaii, with an area of 6,449 square miles of populated islands, is larger than three of the States, namely, Connecticut (4,845 square miles), Delaware (2,120 square miles), and Rhode Island (1,248 square miles), and almost as large as Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. Thus it cannot be alleged that smallness of area impairs our claim to statehood. The fact that Hawaii is noncontiguous to the mainland has been used as a point against us. On the other hand, it is that very situation that lends such tremendous importance to this Territory from a naval, and, therefore, a national standpoint. Importance of location is a potent fact in our favor. In these days distance is not considered so much in terms of miles as in terms of time. Even without the use of airplane, Honolulu is now nearer to Washington than Boston was in the early days of the Nation, and air communication with Hawaii on a commercial scale is on the point of realization. As to population.-We offer a few comparisons in this connection, using round figures. When admitted to statehood the population of certain Territories was as follows: |