Congress, which I submit to you is not relevant to the present discussion. I would like to offer as part of the testimony the official tabulation of the Territory's general elections held November 8, 1932, and November 6, 1934. Mr. CROWE. Has that already been incorporated in the record? Delegate KING. I am not sure. The CHAIRMAN. The stenographers will make note of that. If the reports have not already been incorporated it will be inserted at this point. (The election returns referred to had not previously been offered for incorporation in the records. They are herewith attached and made part hereof, marked "Item 10" in appendix, pt. IV.) Delegate KING (continuing). An analysis of these two election returns will show an electorate nearly evenly divided. May I make this point, without going through all these figures, that the only reason I was elected Delegate over my opponent was that the Fifth District, Island of Oahu, cut down the previous majority of the Democratic candidate from 3,500 to 700. I was elected by the Fifth District, and that distict is on the other side of Nuuanu Avenue, and comprises largely the residences of the working classes of our people of all racial ancestries. There isn't any question that this is one of the most independent groups of voters in the islands. A somewhat greater effort has been made to make the point that the business interests of this territory exercise an undue and dominant influence over elections. An analysis of the vote cast in the several elections of the past thirty-odd years disproves this argument. Whatever influence is held by the business element is wielded by individuals in the proper exercise of their rights as American citizens to take an active part in the political life of the community. The cry that voters are intimidated is absurd. Our people are politically minded and vote their convictions, without fear or favor. To state otherwise is to insult the character of our electorate, who go to the polls to cast their ballots with their minds. made up on the issues of the day and the qualifications of the candidates, derived from an intimate knowledge of both the issues and the candidates. We habitually cast 90 percent of our registered vote, and an analysis of the votes cast by districts and precincts, where the voters are working for the large industries of the islands, show that an entirely normal difference of opinion prevails. In a community predominantly Republican, for reasons that are based on the history of our annexation and on our development since then as an American community, we have never shown the complete allegiance to that party which has, until very recently, been accepted as usual in many States of the Union. I think the most rock-ribbed Republican States are in the Northeast, where 2 or 3 years ago no Democrat had a ghost of a show of being elected. Mr. NICHOLS. We are getting them lined up, though. Delegate KING (continuing). Of course, our allegiance to the Republican Party has never been as complete as the allegiance of many States of the Union to the Democratic Party. There need be no fear that our electorate will not vote as they believe best, and elect candidates to office that they conceive to be the best public servants, regardless of party. I note with pleasure the unqualified support of Hawaii's plea for statehood by most of the leaders of the Democratic Party in Hawaii, including the present Governor of the Territory. Apparently, the question of representation in the constitutional convention which we are asking Congress to authorize is a matter of some discussion. In introducing my bill I modeled it after a bill passed by almost the unanimous vote of the membership of the legislature. I believe that the main issue is statehood, and I am making no particular stand on how the membership of the constitutional convention should be apportioned. If the Governor or any other citizen of Hawaii can present a fair plan that has the approval of the people of Hawaii, I am perfectly willing that my bill be amended to include such a plan. I followed the expression of the duly elected representatives of the people; but I desire statehood, and any fair method of drafting a constitution will satisfy me if it satisfies the people whom I represent. I welcome, therefore, the support of the spokesman of the Democratic Party of the Territory on the question of statehood, without regard to any question of reapportionment. It is rather immaterial as to when any individual or group of people have come to the conclusion that Hawaii is prepared for statehood. Political evolutions go through their regular phases; communities and countries continue for years in a certain status and then suddenly become conscious of some lack or need in their situation, and thereafter become active in an effort to change their condition to one which they conceive may be better. For myself, personally, I am like practically every citizen of Hawaii who was one at the time the American flag was hoisted over these islands, and that group is nearly unanimous in their desire to see this community's final crown of achievement realized, to see Hawaii become a sovereign State. I am one of those who believe we are ready now, but I am willing to accept the judgment of Congress as to the question of time, with the understanding that we of Hawaii may continue to petition Congress for a favorable decision, provided our present efforts are unsuccessful. In pushing this matter at this time, I have done so because I conceived it to be my duty as the only elected representative to the Congress of the United States to bring to your attention the desires of the people of Hawaii. Many of my personal friends disagree with me on this matter, and it has been indicated that my advocacy of statehood may be politically detrimental. I feel as a conscientious public servant that no consideration of my personal political fortunes should interfere with the presentation of Hawaii's wishes to the National Government. I know from my acquaintanceship with the membership of Congress and from my close friendship with members of this committee that your decision will be actuated by only one desire, and that is to do the right thing for the Nation and for Hawaii. Mahalo me ke aloha. THE PART HAWAIIANS MULTIPLY (By Romanzo Adams) Now that there is no important immigration to Hawaii, population trends are influenced more by births and deaths than by immigration. That is, the recent gains in population are more nearly matters of natural increase. Probably the most interesting and important fact in relation to such increase is the rapid gain in the number of part Hawaiians. During the five and a quarter years from the census date, April 1, 1930 to June 30, 1935, the population of the Territory increased by 4.4 percent. But the number of part Hawaiians increased by 27.4 percent while for all others combined the rate of increase was only 2.4 percent. The low rate of gain for all others was, in considerable measure, the consequence of a considerable emigration of Filipinos and Japanese and smaller emigration of some other racial groups. If the situation had been unaffected by migration the rate of increase for all except the part Hawaiians would have been about 9 percent, a rate only a third as high as that of the part Hawaiians. In the past 30 or 40 years the numbers of Japanese, Portuguese, Filipinos, and others have been, at one time or another, increased at a very high rate by immigration, but, never at any time has the natural increase for any other group been at as high a rate as that of the part Hawaiians. Never have the part Hawaiians gained except by births and their numbers have been diminished a little by emigration to the mainland. (About 500 emigrated 1920-30.) In 1896 the number of part Hawaiians (8,485) was so small that even a high rate of increase did not, in the 131⁄2 years, 1896-1910, modify their position much. The group was surpassed in size in 1910 by five other groups, the Hawaiian, the Portuguese, and other Caucasian, the Chinese, and the Japanese, while the Filipinos were destined to pass them before 1920. But their numerical rank among the peoples is steadily rising so that their future gains are bound to be noticed. During the decade, 1920-30, they passed the Hawaiians, the Chinese, and the Portuguese in numbers and they are now surpassed only by the other Caucasians, the Filipinos, and the Japanese. According to present indications the part Hawaiians will outnumber the other Caucasians and the Filipinos before 1950 and they will pass the Japanese before the end of the century. The following table shows the part-Hawaiian population for various census dates, the increase for the periods between censuses, and the percents of increase. The census data for 1900 are not usable because of incorrect classifications. At this time there was an attempt to use mainland classifications, and this resulted in great inaccuracy. It is of interest to note that the numerical increase, length of period considered, and also the rate percent of increase has grown steadily higher. The prospect is for a gain of about 57 percent this decade. Assuming that the rate will fall gradually after 1940, one may forecast the part-Hawaiian population for a few decades about as follows: 1940_ 1950 1960_ 1970___ 1980_ 44, 000 66,000 90,000 125, 000 165, 000 While the part Hawaiians continue to increase in numbers, the tendency will be for others to decrease. This is due mainly to interracial marriages. A good many men and women of the various immigrant groups marry Hawaiians or part Hawaiians and their children are part Hawaiian. For example, in the 2 years, 1931-33, there were born 213 children, one of the parents in each case being Japanese and the other Hawaiian or part Hawaiian. The children are part Hawaiian. From all such interracial marriages the part Hawaiians gain and the others lose. The racial character of the parentage of the part Hawaiian children born in recent years is indicative of the large amount of interracial marriage and it helps to explain the rapid growth of the part Hawaiian population. In the latter part of the year 1931 the importation of labor for plantation purposes came to an end, at least for the time being. The cessation of Filipino immigration was not a consequence of the granting of independence to the Philippines, since it occurred in 1931, while the Philippine independence did not come until 1934. The most important reason for change in plantation policy was that at this time Hawaiian-born boys were reaching manhood in sufficient numbers to provide the necessary labor. Doubtless the date of the adoption of the new policy was advanced a little on account of the business depression, but it was about due in any case. For the 3 full years since the adoption of the new plantation policy the population has been affected by the arrival and the departure of men, women, and children of the various races, as indicated in the following table. (These figures exclude those who come and go on transports.) The citizens lost by excess of departures over arrivals were, of course, mainly children who were taken by their alien parents. Mainly they were Japanese and Filipino. Part-Hawaiian children born in the 2 years ending June 30, 1933, according to paternity and maternity |