Author 
 
 Title 
 
 Imprint 
 
 18— 47ST2-2 «PO 
 

 ' 
 
7 
 
 GOVERNMENT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 
 THE LATE RICHARD PARKS BLAND. 
 ELECTION OF SENATORS BY THE PEOPLE. 
 SYMPATHY FOR THE BOERS. 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 HOK WILLIAM SULZER, 
 
 OF NEW YORK, 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 April 4, 7, 12, and May 7, 1900. 
 
 
 1900. 
 
til 
 
 J 
 

 SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 HOX. WILLIAM SITLZER. 
 
 GOVERNMENT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 
 
 Wednesday, April 4, 1900. 
 
 The House being in Committee- of the Whole House on the state of the 
 Union, and having under consideration the bill (S. 223) to provide a govern- 
 ment for the Territory of Hawaii- 
 Mr. SULZER said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: This bill is intended to give a stable civil gov- 
 ernment to the Hawaiian Islands, and is entitled ''An act to- pro- 
 vide a government for the Territory of Hawaii."' Owing to the 
 fact that nearly all my time fortne past few weeks has been taken 
 up by the investigation of the Idaho mining troubles now pending 
 before the Military Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, 
 I frankly confess that I have not had an opportunity to give this 
 bill the study and the attention the importance of the subject 
 under consideration deserves. From a superficial reading of the 
 report submitted by the committee, and from a hasty analysis of 
 the provisions of the bill, I believe, however, I can safely say that 
 the bill now before the House is far from perfect and can be, and 
 ought to be, materially improved by amendment. 
 
 I am informed that a number of amendments will be offered, and 
 I indulge the hope that before the bill becomes a law the objec- 
 tionable features it now contains will be eliminated and that the 
 bill will be as nearly perfect as we can make it at the present 
 time. These amendments should be adopted; and if they are, I 
 trust this bill will pass. 
 
 Ever since the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United 
 States I have favored granting to our fellow-citizens there the 
 very best form of Territorial government it is possible for Con- 
 gress to devise. They deserve it; they are entitled to it; and 
 Congress should have vouchsafed them this important right long 
 ere this. I favored and voted for the annexation of the Hawaiian 
 Islands, and I gave my reasons for doing so at that time. I am 
 now, and always have been, anxious to give the people there the 
 best and the most liberal kind of Territorial government. 
 
 There is imperative need of early enactment of an organic act 
 for the government of the Territory of Hawaii. 
 
 The joint resolution of July 7, 1898, providing for the annexa- 
 tion of the Hawaiian Islands, declares that the Hawaiian munici- 
 pal laws not contrary to the United States Constitution or incon- 
 sistent with the terms of that resolution remain in force until 
 Congress enact laws. It was undoubtedly expected then that a 
 Territorial act would soon be passed, and a bill was introduced 
 in each House of the Fifty-fifth Congress. But other matters of 
 great national importance so occupied the time and attention of 
 Congress that the bill was not passed. 
 
 4141 3 
 
Meanwhile it has become apparent that there is much doubt of 
 the extent of the power granted to the local government of Hawaii 
 by the provisions of the joint resolution, and in many important 
 respects it has created something like an interregnum. 
 
 Many doubtful questions of admiralty and maritime jurisdic- 
 tion have arisen, as well as of criminal procedure, rendering it 
 uncertain whether there is now any tribunal for the decision of 
 important questions affecting property and any existing method 
 by which criminals may be indicted or legal juries impaneled for 
 their trial. 
 
 In anticipation of Congressional action, the election to fill va- 
 cancies in the Hawaiian senate was not held last year, and there 
 is, therefore, no legislative power for appropriating money for 
 public purposes. 
 
 There is also grave doubt concerning the power of the Hawaiian 
 government to grant franchises for industrial and commercial 
 enterprises, or for railways which have been projected, and the 
 Attorney-General of the United States has decided that the Ha- 
 waiian government has no power to grant or lease any of the pub- 
 lic lands for homesteads or for any purpose, notwithstanding the 
 fact that the treaty of annexation declared that the proceeds and 
 revenues of such lands should be devoted to the benefit of the in- 
 habitants of Hawaii. 
 
 In many respects the business affairs of the Territory are brought 
 to a standstill. Many Americans have bought government land 
 since annexation, on which they have built residences and planted 
 crops, but their land titles are now in dispute and can not be set- 
 tled until the passage of this bill. 
 
 Meanwhile Americans can not settle in Hawaii on homesteads 
 or land bought from the government, and a very desirable class 
 of citizens is thereby shut out of this new Territory. The local 
 government is unable even to make public roads over any part of 
 the public domain of Hawaii, or carry out plans based on legisla- 
 tion prior to annexation for widening and straightening the streets 
 of Honolulu. 
 
 The presence in that city of the bubonic plague is calling for 
 drastic measures by the Hawaiian authorities, involving the ex- 
 penditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars. In order to pro- 
 vide for these expenditures, and to compensate the owners of 
 buildings which have been burned in the effort to suppress the 
 pestilence, it is proper and just that a Territorial legislature be 
 provided by Congress with no unnecessary delay. 
 
 Since the adoption of the resolution of annexation large num- 
 bers of Japanese contract laborers have been brought into the 
 islands, and delay in extending the laws of the United States to 
 them will be taken advantage of to increase the number. 
 
 This bill proposes a Territorial government for the Hawaiian 
 Islands similar to that of the later Territories of the United 
 States— a governor, a secretary, both appointed by the President; 
 a treasurer, attorney-general, commissioner of public lands, com- 
 missioner of agriculture and forestry, superintendent of public 
 works, superintendent of public instruction, auditor and deputy 
 auditor, surveyor, and high sheriff, appointed by the governor. 
 
 A legislature is provided, consisting of a senate and house of 
 representatives, elected by the people. The Territory is to be rep- 
 resented by a Delegate in Congress. The Territory is made a ju- 
 dicial district of the United States, with a district court having, 
 nil 
 
in addition, the jurisdiction of circuit courts, with a district 
 judge, district attorney, and a marshal of the United States, ap- 
 pointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate 
 of the United States. 
 
 The judicial power of the Territory is vested in a supreme court 
 and in inferior courts to be established by the legislature. The 
 laws of the United States locally applicable are extended over the 
 new Territory, and the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the 
 Constitution or laws of the United States are continued in force. 
 The Territory is made a customs and revenue district and be- 
 comes subject to the tariff laws of the United States. 
 
 It needs no argument, it seems to me, to convince that if it be 
 possible to give to the Hawaiian Islands a government like that of 
 the United States Territories— a government which has met the 
 approval of Congress and the American people since the Constitu- 
 tion was adopted and has proved itself adapted to the needs of a 
 free and progressive people — it is desirable to do so. 
 
 Mr. Chairman. I am aware that there are many difficult prob- 
 lems to be solved regarding this legislation and that it will neces- 
 sarily contain many errors and omissions: but, sir, I feel confident 
 the citizens of the Hawaiian Islands will be able ultimately to 
 solve the problems, and whatever defects this bill contains will 
 soon be discovered when the law goes into operation, and time 
 and experience and subsequent legislation will correct and remedy 
 them. The all-important thing for us to do now, and do promptly, 
 is to give the people of the Hawaiian Islands Territorial govern- 
 ment, and the best, the freest, and the most liberal Territorial 
 government the combined wisdom and judgment of Congress can 
 devise. I am in favor of home rule and absolute local self- 
 government for our Territories. 
 
 And, sir, I desire to say in this connection that what we do for 
 the people of the Territory of Hawaii we should also do for the 
 people of the Territory of Puerto Rico. There should be no salt- 
 ish distinction — no sordid discrimination. A citizen of Hawaii 
 is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of Puerto Rico is 
 a citizen of the United States just as much as a citizen of the 
 District of Columbia or a citizen of the State of New York; they 
 are all citizens of the great Republic, free and independent, and 
 under the dome of the Union sky, protected by the flag of our 
 country, they are entitled to all the rights, to all the benefits, to 
 all the privileges, and to all the immunities of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. This is our plain duty, the imperative mandate of the 
 hour, and for anyone or any party to seriously contend to the 
 contrary is preposterous and in the end will be as unwise as it is 
 unjust, as inhuman as it is indefensible, and as un-American as 
 it is unconstitutional. 
 
 Any departure, in my judgment, by Congress from the well- 
 settled, the successful, the time honored, and the constitutional 
 policy of the Republic regarding the government of our territorial 
 possessions will be fraught with much danger to our free institu- 
 tions and will be a step forward in the contemplated programme of 
 imperialism. I am opposed to any plan or any policy repugnant to 
 or in any way antagonistic to the fundamental principles of our 
 national existence. The Constitution is my guide, and the T;ecla- 
 ration of Independence the lamp that illumines my path. I am 
 opposed to injustice, to militarism, to imperialism, and to indus- 
 trial slavery here or anywhere else, at home or in our islands of 
 
 4441 
 
6 
 
 the sea: and wherever onr flag floats, in the Pacific or in the Atlan- 
 tic, in the States or in the Territories, I want the Constitution to 
 be there, guaranteeing to every human being liberty, equality, 
 justice, and every right of an American citizen. [Applause on 
 the Democratic side.] 
 
 Mr. Chairman, this is all I desire to say at this time regarding 
 the provisions of this bill. I shall vote for the amendments, and 
 if they be adopted, I shall vote for this bill. But in connection 
 with my remarks on this matter and some remarks I made a short 
 time ago I wish to print in the Record some data in relation 
 thereto that may be of interest to^some of the thinking people of 
 this country. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Sul- 
 zer] asks unanimous consent to print in the Record some data 
 in connection with his remarks. Is there objection? [After a 
 pause.] The Chair hears none. 
 
 HON. W. J. BRYAN ON IMPERIALISM— JEFFERSON VS. IMPERIALISM. 
 
 The advocates of imperialism have sought to support their position by ap- 
 pealing to the authority of Jefferson. Of all the statesmen who have ever 
 lived Jefferson was the one most hostile to the doctrines embodied in the 
 demand for a European colonial policy. 
 
 Imperialism as it now presents itself embraces four distinct propositions: 
 
 1. That the acquisition of territory by conquest is right. 
 
 2. That the acquisition of remote territory is desirable. 
 
 3. That the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed is unsound. 
 
 4. That people can be wisely governed by aliens. 
 
 To all these propositions Jefferson was emphatically opposed. In a letter 
 to William Short, written in 1791, he said: 
 
 " If there be one principle more deeply written than any other in the mind 
 of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." 
 
 Could he be more explicit? Here we have a clear and strong denunciation 
 of the doctrine that territory should bo acquired by force. If it is said that 
 we have outgrown the ideas of the fathers, it may be observed that the doc- 
 trine laid down by Jefferson was reiterated only a few years ago by no less 
 a Republican than James G. Blaine. All remember the enthusiasm with 
 which he entered into the work of bringing the republics of North and South 
 America into close and cordial relations. Some, however, may have forgotten 
 the resolutions introduced by him at .the conference held in 1890, and approved 
 by the commissioners present. They are as follows: 
 
 " First. That the principle of conquest shall not during the continuance of 
 the treaty of arbitration be recognized as admissible under American public 
 law. .j. 
 
 "Second. That all cessions of territory made during the continuance of 
 the treaty of arbitration shall be void if made under threats of war or in the 
 presence of an armed force. 
 
 '•Third. Any nation from which such cessions shall be exacted may de- 
 mand that the validity of the cessions so made shall be submitted to arbitra- 
 tion. 
 
 "Fourth. Any renunciation of the right to arbitration made under the 
 conditions named in the second section shall be null and void." 
 
 If the principle of conquest is right, why should it be denied a place in 
 American public law? So objectionable is the theory of acquisition of ter- 
 ritory by conquest that the nation which suffers such injustice can, ac- 
 cording to the resolutions, recover by arbitration the land ceded in tho pres- 
 ence of an armed force. So abhorrent is it that a waiver of arbitration made 
 under such circumstances is null and void, While the resolutions were only 
 for the consideration of the American republics, the principle therein stated 
 can not bo limited by latitude or longitude. 
 
 But this is a time of great and rapid changes, and some may even look upon 
 Blaine's official acts as ancient history. 
 
 If so, let it bo remembered that President McKinley only a year ago (De- 
 cember 6, 1897 t, in a message to Congress discussing the Cuban situation, said: 
 
 "J speak not of forcible annexation, for that is not to be thought of. That,' 
 by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression." 
 
 And yet some arc now thinking of that which was then " not tobo thought 
 of." Policy may change, but doesa"code of morality " change? In his re- 
 cent speech at Savannah Secretary Gage, in defending the new policy of the 
 Administration, suggested that "philanthropy and 5 per cent" may go hand 
 
in hand. Surely we know not what a day may bring forth, if in so short a 
 time " criminal aggression " can be transformed into "philanthropy and 5 
 per cent." What beauty, what riches, the isles of the Pacific must possess if 
 they can tempt our people to abandon not only the traditions of a century, 
 but our standard of national morality! What visions of national greatness 
 the Philippines must arouse if the very sight of them can lead our country to 
 vie with the monarchies of the Old World in the extension of sovereignty by 
 force. 
 
 Jefferson has been called an expansionist, but our opponents will search in 
 vain for a single instance where he advocated the acquisition of remote terri- 
 tory. On the contrary, he expressly disclaimed any desire for land outside 
 of the North American continent. That he looked forward to the annexation 
 of Cuba is well known, but in a letter to President Monroe, dated June 23, 
 1833, he suggested that we should be in readiness to receive Cuba " when 
 solicited by herself." To him Cuba was desirable only because of the island's 
 close proximity to the United States. Thinking thatsonie one might use the 
 annexation of Cuba as a precedent for indefinite expansion, he said, in a let- 
 ter to President Madison, dated April 27, 1809: 
 
 " It will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit can then be drawn 
 to our future acquisitions," but, he added, "Cuba can be defended by us 
 without a navy, and this develops the principle which ought to limit our 
 views. Nothing should ever be accepted which would require a navy to de- 
 fend it." 
 
 In the same letter, speaking of the possible acquisition of that island, he 
 said : 
 
 "I would immediately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba 
 and inscribe on it a ne plus ultra as to us in that direction." 
 
 It may be argued that Jefferson was wrong in asserting that we should 
 confine our possessions to the North American continent, but certainly no 
 one can truthfully quote him as an authority for excursions into the Eastern 
 Hemisphere. If he was unwilling to go farther south than Cuba, even in the 
 Western Hemisphere, would he be likely to look with favor upon colonies in 
 the Orient? 
 
 If the authority of Jefter.3on can not be invoked to support the acquisition 
 of remote territory, much less can his great name be used to excuse a colo- 
 nial policy which denies to the people the right to govern themselves. When 
 he suggested an inscription for his monument, he did not enumerate the 
 honors which he had received, though no American had been more highly 
 honored; he only asked to be remembered for what he had done, and he 
 named the writing of the Declaration of Independence as the greatest of his 
 deeds. In that memorable document he declared it a self-evident truth that 
 governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. 
 The defense and development of that doctrine was his special care. His 
 writings abound with expressions showing his devotion to that doctrine and 
 his solicitude for it. 
 
 He preached it in the enthusiasm of his youth; he reiterated it when he 
 reached the age of maturity; he crowned it with benedictions in his old age. 
 Who will say that, if living, he would jeopardize it to-day by ingrafting upon 
 it the doctrine of government by external force? 
 
 R* Upon the fourth proposition Jefferson is no less explicit. Now, when 
 some are suggesting the wisdom of a military government for the Philip- 
 
 Eines, or a colonial system such as England administers in India, it will not 
 e out of place to refer to the manner in which Jefferson viewed the inability 
 of aliens to prescribe laws and administer government. In 1817 a French 
 society was formed for the purpose of settling upon a tract of land near the 
 Tombigbee River. Jefferson was invited to formulate laws and regulations 
 for the society. On the 16th of January of that year he wrote from Monti- 
 cello expressing his high appreciation of the confidence expressed in him, but 
 declining to undertake the task. The reasons he gave are well worth consid- 
 ering at this time. After wishing them great happiness in their undertaking, 
 he said: 
 
 " The laws, however, which must effect this must flow from their own 
 habits, their own feelings, and the resources of their own minds. No stran- 
 ger to these could possibly propose regulations adapted to them. Every peo- 
 ple have their own particular habits, ways of thinking, manners, etc., which 
 have grown up with them from their infancy, are become a part of their 
 nature, and to which the regulations which are to make them happy must be 
 accommodated. No member of a foreign country can have a sufficient sympa- 
 thy with these. The institutions of Lycurgus, for example, would not have 
 suited Athens, nor those of Solon, Lacedaemon. The organizations of Locke 
 were impracticable for Carolina, and those of Rosseau for Poland. Turning 
 inwardly on myself from these eminent illustrations of the truth of my ob- 
 servations, I feel all the presumption it would manifest should I undertake 
 to do what this respectable society is alone qualified to do suitably for itself." 
 The alien may possess greater intelligence and greater strength, but ho 
 4411 
 
8 
 
 lacks the sympathy for, and the identification with, the people. We have 
 only to recall the grievances enumerated in the Declaration of Independence 
 to learn how an ocean may dilute justice and how the cry of the oppressed 
 can he silenced by distance. Aud yet the inhabitants of the colonies were the 
 descendants of Englishmen— blood of their blood and bone of their bone. 
 Shall we be more considerate of subjects farther away from us, and differ- 
 ing from us in color, race, and tongue, than the English were of their own 
 offspring? 
 
 Modest Jefferson! He had been governor, ambassador to France, Vice- 
 President, and President; he was ripe in experience and crowned with hon- 
 ors; but this modern lawgiver, this immortal genius, hesitated to suggest 
 laws for a people with whose habits, customs, and methods of thought he was 
 unfamiliar. And yet the imperialists of to-day, intoxicated by a taste of 
 blood, are rash enough to enter upon the government of the Filipinos, con- 
 fident of the nation's ability to compel obedience, even if it can not earn grat- 
 itude or win affection, Plutarch said that men entertained three sentiments 
 concerning the ancient gods: They feared them for their strength, admired 
 them for their wisdom, and loved them for their justice. Jefferson taught 
 the doctrine that governments should win the love of men. What shall be 
 the ambition of our nation; to be loved because it is just or to be feared be- 
 cause it is strong? 
 
 THE LATE RICHARD PARKS BLAND. 
 
 Saturday, April 7, 1900. 
 
 The House having under consideration the following resolutions: 
 
 "Resolved, That the business of the House be now suspended in order that 
 suitable tribute may be paid to the high character and eminent public serv- 
 ices of the Hon. Richard Parks Bland, late a most distinguished member 
 of the House of Representatives of the United States from the State of Mis- 
 souri. 
 
 "Resolved, That as a mark of respect for the memory of the deceased the 
 House, at the conclusion of these memorial exercises, shall stand adjourned. 
 
 " Resol red, That the Clerk of the House transmit a copy of these resolutions 
 to the family of the deceased statesman and inform the Senate of the action 
 of this body" — 
 
 Mr. SULZER said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: With all that has been so eloquently and so af- 
 fectionately said here to-day regarding the life and character of 
 the late Richard P„ Bland I concur, "and I would not be true to 
 myself and to my friendship and admiration for him if I did not 
 on this sad occasion place on record my humble tribute to his 
 memory. 
 
 For years Mr. Bland has been a prominent national figure and 
 his name a household word. He had friends and followers and 
 admirers in every hamlet and every State in the Union. His un- 
 timely death was a sad and terrible shock to us all, and to his 
 country an irretrievable loss. When he died, the whole nation 
 mourned and sympathized with his bereaved family, and the Re- 
 public lost as true and sincere a patriot as ever lived. He was a 
 true man. a friend of the plain people, generous and forgiving, 
 sincere and patriotic, honest and truthful, zealous and indefati- 
 gable in the cause of right and justice. For a quarter of a cen- 
 tury he was a towering pillar of the Republic. The work he did 
 is a part of the history of our country, and it is fitting and proper 
 that his colleagues in this House should set aside a day to justly 
 commemorate his name aud fame. As the years come and go he 
 will he better understood and more appreciated. Posterity will 
 give him a higher place in the' Temple of Fame, and future gen- 
 erations will pay his memory greater homage. 
 
 Richard Pauks Bland was born near Hartford, Ky., on the 
 19th day of August, 18;i.~>, and died at his home in Lebanon, Mo., 
 on the 15th day of June, 1899, He received an academic educa- 
 tion. He was an unwearied student and an apt scholar. In 1855 
 
 4111 
 
9 
 
 he removed to Missouri and shortly thereafter to California, thence 
 to that portion of Utah now Nevada, locating in Virginia Cirv 
 where he practiced law for a time. He was interested in minin- 
 operations in California and Nevada; was county treasurer of 
 Carson County, Utah Territory, from 1860 until the organization 
 of the btate government of Nevada; returned to Missouri in 1865- 
 located at Rolla, Mo., and practiced law with his brother, C. c' 
 Inland, until he removed to Lebanon, in August, 1869, and con- 
 tinued his practice there; was elected to the Forty- third, Forty- 
 fourth, Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth, Forty- seventh, Forty-eighth 
 fi& ty " m ?P-W Flf ^.Fifty-first, Fifty-second, Fifty-third, Fit' yl 
 fifth, and Fifty-sixth Congresses. J 
 
 raSf^° rk he d r l 0r , * he toilers of the land and the beneficent 
 results he accomplished for struggling humanity during his long 
 career as a member of this House must ever be a part of the im- 
 perishable history of the country, and the future historian impar- 
 tially writing the legislative story of the last twenty-five years of 
 the American Congress will place him in the front rank of con- 
 structive statesmen. That record is the heritage he left his coun- 
 trymen and will be for all time to come the monument of his 
 undymg fame. It stands for absolute truth, exact .justice, eter- 
 nal principles, equality before the law, and equal rights for all 
 _ -He was no respecter of persons, no hero worshiper. He believed 
 m humanity and trusted the people. He had faith in the great- 
 ness and the endurance of the Republic, and battled all his life 
 to perpetuate our free institutions and hand them down unim- 
 paired to future generations. He was a plain, simple man who 
 loved his fellow-man. He was a believer in the fundamental 
 principles that constitute our national existence and he trod the 
 path oi the patriot fathers. He was a disciple of Thomas Jefferson 
 and struggled to keep the Government pure and in the control of 
 tiie people. He turned his back on caste, combated privilege, and 
 was the relentless foe of monopoly. He was a unique man in 
 many ways. His nature was without guile; he hated cant, spurned 
 pretense, and aespised hypocrisy. He was the friend of the Con- 
 thl «« n ' a . n ? ?° ar ^ im , e . n , t : no sophistry, could persuade him from 
 the path of duty. He did his works bravely and fearlessly in the 
 face of obstacles tnat would appall a weaker and a more timid 
 man, 
 
 ^I n J he F? a 5 £ at ? e l or the P e °P le 's rights he never wearied, and 
 tne marshaled hosts of error never conquered him. Year in and 
 
 +™f °? t Sf f0 ??l! ^ go - od fi S ht ; be kept the faith. He lived 
 ti uly, he thought truly, and he spoke truly. His life was as placid 
 as a summer stream, and made him loved by all who knew him. 
 His words uttered here for the defenseless were always respect- 
 fully listened to by admiring friends and doubting opponents and 
 were read and reread by innumerable millions. He spoke the 
 trut.n for the countless who were robbed and oppressed for the 
 enrichment and the benefit of the few, and he knew the truth 
 would ultimately triumph and that his efforts for the rights of 
 the people would sooner or later be crowned with success. 
 
 Think truly, and thy thought 
 Shall the world's great farniue feed; 
 
 Speak truly, and each word of thine 
 Shall be a fruitful seed; 
 
 Live truly, and thy life shall be 
 A grand and noble creed. 
 
 Such a man was Richard Parks Bland— a truly great, a truly 
 good, a truly honest man in all things. 7 
 
10 
 
 The great and immortal truths he uttered were not uttered in 
 vain. They have borne and will continue to bear abundant fruit. 
 His causa will live, and, in my opinion, the day is not far distant 
 when the principles he contended for will be written on the statute 
 books of America, an everlasting monument to his wisdom, his 
 foresight, and his unerring judgment. The martyr dies; the 
 cause survives. Man goeth to his long home, but his works live 
 after him. 
 
 Mr. Bland was a faithful public servant. He never betrayed 
 a friend, a trust, or a principle. He always fought fair and open 
 and aboveboard. He never resorted to trickery, to device, or to 
 chicanery. Pie had no tricks of speech. He was a plain, blunt 
 man, who never used words to conceal thoughts. He told the 
 truth and told it in the simplest and most direct way. He went 
 to the root of ths subject. His heart was in all he did, in all he 
 said, and he was great and eloquent and impressive because he 
 was simple, honest, and sincere, and every word he uttered had 
 the genuine ring of truth. He never despaired. He had the rec- 
 titude and patience of the rocks, the hope of the stream rushing 
 to meet the ocean, the fidelity of the sun. 
 
 He believed in equal opportunity, encouraged worth, applauded 
 manly effort, and wanted man to be free and stand erect. He was 
 a great commoner; he sympathized with those who toil and strug- 
 gle; he believed in the love of home, the sanctity of the hearth- 
 side, and his great responsive heart went out to comfort the sad, 
 the sorrowing, and the disconsolate. He was the foe of tyranny, 
 the enemy of bigotry, the eternal adversary or" oppression. He 
 was the champion of the masses, the friend of the downtrodden, 
 the pioneer and the leader of the reform forces of the Republic 
 against the serried ranks of the predatory classes. 
 
 Humanity was his constituency, to do good his political creed. 
 He stood for the weak against the strong, for the lowly against 
 the powerful, for the oppressed against the oppressor, for the 
 right against the wrong, for truth against error, for every cause 
 that lacked assistance, and, above all and beyond all. he stood, in 
 all places and at all times, for the rights of man. When he died 
 a great tree in the forests of the people fell and a great light in the 
 Republic went out. We who follow after him, imbued with his 
 noble example and inspired by his civic virtues, will heroically 
 take up his burden, push forward his cause, and continue his fight 
 ■until the battle is won and the mighty principles he contended for 
 are forever triumphant. I believe if he were here to-day this 
 would be his message, his wish to us, and that he would say to all 
 as the poetess of America has so truly said to the world: 
 
 Let those who have failed take courage, 
 
 Though the enemy seemed to have won, 
 Though his ranks are strong, if he be in the wrong, 
 
 The battle is not yet done. 
 For sure as the morning follows 
 
 The darkest hour of the night, 
 No question is ever settled 
 
 Until it is settled right. 
 
 O man bowed down with labor, 
 
 O woman young, yet old. 
 O heart oppressed in the toiler's breast 
 
 And crushed by the power of gold, 
 Keep on with your weary battle 
 
 Against triumphant might, 
 No question is over settled 
 
 Until it is settled right. 
 
 4441 
 
11 
 
 ELECTION OF SENATORS BY THE PEOPLE. 
 
 TJiursday, April 12, 1900. 
 
 The House having nnder consideration House joint resolution No. 28, pro- 
 posing an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of Sen- 
 ators of the United States — 
 
 Mr. SULZER said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: The joint resolution now before the House and 
 tinder discussion proposes to amend the Constitution so that Sen- 
 ators in Congress shall be elected directly by the people. I am in 
 favor of the people electing United States Senators. Ever since 
 I have been a member of this House I have worked faithfully to 
 bring about this desirable reform. I introduced this joint resolu- 
 tion in the Fifty-fourth Congress, I introduced it in the Fifty-fifth 
 Congress, and I reintroduced it the first day of this Congress. It 
 passed this House by an almost unanimous vote in the last Con- 
 gress, but failed to pass the Senate. For years, in Congress and 
 out of Congress, iD season and out of season, I have favored, dis- 
 cussed, and agitated this proposition. I believe it is right, I know 
 the people favor it, and I hope every member of this House will 
 now vote for it. The people all over this country demand this 
 change in the Constitution and appeal to us to pass this resolution 
 to give them this right. 
 
 This appeal is not sectional, nor is it partisan. It reaches us 
 from all sections and from the different political parties with a 
 degree of unanimity quite surprising and unaccountable, if not 
 guided and impelled by a sense of righteous indignation, aroused 
 by reports and accusations of alleged methods sometimes em- 
 ployed by gentlemen whose ambitions lead them to seek a seat in 
 the* Senate of the United States. We can well afford, indeed, as 
 their representatives it is our bounden duty, to respect the wishes 
 and do the will of the people and give them a uniform law allow- 
 ing them by direct vote to elect their Senators. 
 
 It has been said that our action in passing this resolution will 
 be useless and a waste of time, for the reason that the Senators 
 will never consent to a change in the mode of their selection. 
 That may be true in regard to some of the Senators, but I know it 
 is not true in regard to all of them. Many of them favor this 
 change and will advocate it. I know also that this resolution may 
 fail this time, as it has failed to pass the Senate before, but those 
 who believe in this change will not give up the struggle to bring 
 it about, and sooner or later it will be adopted. 
 
 If a majority of Senators oppose the adoption of this resolution 
 in this Congress and, from personal motives, mistaken ideas, or 
 narrow-minded views, vote it down, the agitation of the people for 
 this change will not cease, but will become more pronounced and 
 more determined until there is a Senate that will respond to their 
 wishes and enact legislation that will give the people the right to 
 elect their United States Senators as well as their Representatives 
 in Congress. Do not be deceived; make no mistake. This reform 
 is growing more popular every year and is destined to come in the 
 near future. I trust it will come this year and that the Senate 
 will concur in the judgment of this House before this Congress 
 adjourns. 
 
 In recent years there has been much scandal in several States 
 regarding the election of United States Senators by the State legis- 
 latures. These scandalous elections are becoming more flagrant 
 
 4441 
 
12 
 
 and more frequent. The adoption of this amendment will prevent 
 corruption, stop scandals, and to a great extent eliminate the temp- 
 tation to gerrymander for partisan purposes. 
 
 Let me say to this House that this legislative gerrymandering 
 has been carried further by the Republican party in my own State 
 of New York than perhaps any other State in the Union. In the 
 State of New York, under the present outrageous Republican ap- 
 portionment, the people can not secure a Democratic legislature 
 unless the Democratic partv carries the State by at least a plural- 
 ity of 100,000 votes. 
 
 The Republicans in their partisanship went so far that they 
 wrote in our State constitution a provision that no matter what 
 the population of Greater New York should be, no matter if it 
 w r ere twice as large as the population in the rest of the State, the 
 city of Greater New York should never have more than one-half 
 the members in the uppar branch of onr State legislature. 
 
 I believe the change in our Federal Constitution sought to be 
 made by this resolution will almost entirely prevent these unfair 
 and outrageous apportionments and at the same time give the 
 poor man the same opportunity under the law as the wealthy one 
 to submit his cause and his candidacy to the arbitration of the 
 people for the high and honorable office of a Senator in Congress. 
 
 I favor this change in the Constitution, as I shall every other 
 that will restore the Government to the control of the people. I 
 want the people, in fact as well as in theory, to rule this great 
 Republic and the Government to be directly responsible and im- 
 mediately responsive to their will. I believe in the people, and I 
 trust the people. In my judgment, the people can and ought to be 
 trusted. 
 
 If the people can not be trusted, if they can be corrupted, coerced, 
 influenced, or intimidated, then representative government is a 
 failure and the free institutions of the Republic are doomed. We 
 must rely on the people, and we should legislate at all times in 
 their interest. 
 
 With the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution it will 
 be impossible to defeat the will of the people, and the vacancies 
 that are now too frequent in the Senate and occupy the time and 
 attention of that body would never occur. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, there is a rapidly growing sentiment all over 
 the country in favor of this change in the mode of electing Sena- 
 tors in Congress. It is a most important question to the people, 
 and the Senate will make a sad mistake if it attempts to ignore it. 
 
 The legislatures of thirty-four States have formally indorsed 
 this proposed amendment to the Constitution, and I firmly believe, 
 if the Senate will now pass it, that every State in the Union will 
 speedily ratify it, and it will become a part of the supreme law of 
 the land. The people are in earnest in this matter, and any at- 
 tempt to thwart their will in securing this reform will only hasten 
 its consummation. 
 
 I am opposed to delegating away the rights of the people, and 
 where they have been delegated I would restore them to the peo- 
 ple. For one hundred years and more the distrust of the people 
 by some of the founders of the Republic, as embodied in our Fed- 
 eral Constitution, has stood as fixed and immutable as the laws of 
 the Medes and the Persians. 
 
 I am a friend of the Constitution and share in the patriotic sen- 
 timent which as prompt to challenge almost every proposition to 
 an 
 
13 
 
 amend it. But, sir, I sincerely believe the man who would boldly 
 point out the defects in our great Magna Charta and honestly 
 seek to remedy them is a better friend of the Constitution than he 
 who will not see its faults, or, seeing them, endeavors to justify 
 them from motives of mistaken zeal. 
 
 The right to elect United States Senators by the people is a step 
 in advance and in the right direction. I hope it will speedily be 
 brought about. It is the right kind of reform, in the interest of 
 the many and for the benefit of all the people, and its accomplish- 
 ment will keep the Government nearer the masses and herald a 
 better and a brighter day in the onward march of the Republic. 
 [Applause.] 
 
 
 SYMPATHY FOR THE BOERS. 
 
 May 7, 1900. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules for the 
 purpose of passing the following resolution, which I send to the 
 Clerk's desk. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is out of 
 order. The Journal has not been approved. Without objection, 
 the Journal will be considered as approved. [After a pause.] 
 The Chair hears none. 
 
 THE TWELFTH CENSUS. 
 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House the bill H. R. 10696, an 
 act relating to the Twelfth and subsequent censuses, and giving 
 the Director thereof additional power to print in certain cases, and 
 for other purposes, with Senate amendments. 
 
 The Senate amendments were read. 
 
 Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in 
 the Senate amendments. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Bingham was recognized. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had the floor. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York was not rec- 
 ognized. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. I understood that I had the floor and would be 
 recognized as soon as the Journal was approved. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York was not rec- 
 ognized, and the Chair may as well state that the Chair will recog- 
 nize no gentleman unless he has some knowledge of what is going 
 to be called up. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. I would like to have the resolution read. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman has not been recognized. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I ask unanimous consent for the present con- 
 sideration of the bill (S. 3537) to grant authority to change the 
 name of the steamship Paris. 
 
 The Clerk read the bill. 
 
 The SPEAKER. Is there objection? . 
 
 Mr. SULZER. I object. 
 
 The SPEAKER. Objection is made by the gentleman from 
 New York. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker 
 
 The SPEAKER. For what purpose do6s the gentleman rise? 
 Mr. SULZER. I rise for the purpose of moving a suspension of 
 an 
 
14 
 
 the rules, this being suspension day, for the purpose of passing a 
 resolution sympathizing with the patriotic Boers in their struggle 
 to maintain their freedom and independence. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The Chair declines to recognize the gentleman 
 from New York at this time. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Does the Chair refuse to recognize me be- 
 cause 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is out of order. 
 
 Mr. SULZER (continuing). The Speaker isopposed to thereso- 
 lution? 
 
 The SPEAKER, The gentleman will take his seat; the gentle- 
 man is out of order. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. My parliamentary inquiry is, Have I no rights 
 on the floor of this House, as a member, to move a suspension of 
 the rules on suspension day? 
 
 The SPEAKER. The gentleman is not making a parliamentary 
 inquiry. The Chair must exercise his duty to this House and 
 recognize members upon matters which the Chair thinks should 
 be considered. 
 
 ****** * 
 
 Mr. MIERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker. I now yield five minutes 
 to the gentleman from New York" [Mr. Sulzer]. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. Mr. Speaker, the measure now before the House 
 is in the interest of the soldiers of the Union, and I am in favor 
 of it and shall vote for the bill. I am now, always have been, and 
 always will be a friend of the men who saved the Union, and I 
 shall always favor the most liberal pension legislation in the in- 
 terest of our heroic soldiers, their widows, and their orphans. I 
 would make the pension roll a roll of honor to the friends of lib- 
 erty and the brave defenders of our national existence. All glory, 
 I say, to the brave men who fought for freedom in the dark hours 
 from 1861 to 1865. 
 
 And, sir, in this connection I want to say all honor and all 
 glory to the brave men who are now fighting for freedom and re- 
 publican institutions on the veldts of South Africa. [Applause 
 on the Democratic side.] I want to say a few words in favor of 
 the Boers. I want the liberty-loving people of this country to 
 know why official America refuses to sympathize with them in 
 their struggle to maintain their independence. You Republicans 
 stand up here and talk of freedom, of liberty, and about patriot- 
 ism, but you dare not pass a resolution through this House ex- 
 tending sympathy to the liberty-loving and patriotic Boers of 
 South Africa. Official America sneezes when Downing street 
 takes snuff. Republicans, I dare you to permit this resolution in 
 favor of the Boers to come to a vote. 
 
 Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Will the gentleman allow me a 
 question? 
 
 Mr. SULZER. I have only five minutes. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capron). The gentleman 
 from New York declines to yield. 
 
 Mr. SULZER. This morning— this being suspension day and 
 the motion being in order — in accordance with the rules, in ac- 
 cordance with my rights as a member of this Housa, I moved to 
 suspend the rules and pass the following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That wo watch with deep and abiding interest the war between 
 Great Britain and the South African Republics, and, with full determina- 
 4141 
 
15 
 
 tion to maintain a proper neutrality between the contending forces, we can 
 not withhold our sympathy from the struggling people of the Republics, and 
 it is our earnest desire that the Government of the United States, by its 
 friendly offices offered to both powers, may assist in bringing the war' to a 
 speedy conclusion in a manner honorable to both Great Britain and the Afri- 
 can Republics. 
 
 Now, sir, the Speaker, in violation of the Rules of this House 
 and contrary to all parliamentary precedents, arbitrarily ruled my 
 motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution as out of order, 
 and ordered me to take my seat. His action, as witnessed here 
 this morning, clearly demonstrates that the Republican partv is 
 opposed to the Boers in their struggle to maintain their freedom 
 and independence and is in secret sympathy with the Empire of 
 Great Britain in its cruel, predatory^ and rapacious war to devas- 
 tate and exterminate the two little Republics of South Africa. 
 The Speaker says he will not recognize a r"™' 1 " *r tbi P ",..„ 
 unless he knows in advance the purpose for which the member 
 rises. If his position is right, then he is the House, and repre- 
 sentative government is a farce. I protest against it. 
 
 Sir, actions speak louder than words; and the action of the Re- 
 publican party in the White House, in the Senate, and in this 
 House of Representatives proves, if it proves anything, that the 
 President and the Republican party are opposed to the Boers and 
 in favor of Great Britain. I read in a New York newspaper the 
 remarks of Mr. Webster Davis, made to a New York audience last 
 night, in which he said that President McKinley is a patriot and 
 a grand American and was opposed to the robbery and the mur- 
 der Great Britain was carrying on in South Africa, and that the 
 President would do his duty. 
 
 I challenge that statement. It is not in accordance with the 
 facts and the record. In my j udgment, it is absolutely inconsistent 
 with the truth. The Administration is not patriotic; it is not 
 American. On the contrary, it is doing all that it can to suppress 
 the honest expression of opinion in this representative body re- 
 garding the war in :South Africa. Nine-tenths of the American 
 people are in sympathy with the Boers, and they want Congress to 
 pass a resolution sympathizing with them in their heroic struggle, 
 but the Administration refuses to permit Congress to express its 
 opinion. 
 "The Administration is doing all it can against the South African 
 Republics. It is doing all it can in favor of Great .Britain. _ If it 
 were a patriotic Administration, if it were truly representative of 
 American sentiment, it would have followed the precedents of a 
 century and extended its sympathy long ago to the Boers. We 
 sympathized with Poland, with Hungary, with Greece, with Ar- 
 menia, with all the South American Republics, with Cuba. Many 
 we helped. Why, I ask in the name of all these precedents, in the 
 name of all our glorious past, do we refuse to sympathize with 
 the Boers? 
 
 Is it because England dominates the McKinley Administration? 
 Is it because the Republican party has surrendered American 
 rights to British interests? Is it because, officially, American 
 sentiment is dead? This morning when the Speaker told me that 
 he would not recognize me, that he would not permit the consid- 
 eration of the resolution I offered, what a spectacle he presented! 
 I felt sorry for him. No doubt he was simply obeying his orders 
 from the White House or from Mark Hanna; but it is a spectacle 
 that should make every friend of representative government blush 
 with shame. 
 
 4411 
 
16 
 
 Just a word more. In my judgment Congress should act. 
 Now is the time to do something. America should do its duty 
 and do it at once. We must not wait. We should respond to 
 the overwhelming sentiment of the country and pass a resolution 
 extending our sympathy to our two brave little sister Republics of 
 South Africa. The Boer peace commissioners are on the way 
 here, and if we did this now we. would not only be doing our duty, 
 but what a grand welcome the news would be to them, and how 
 it would enthuse and encourage their struggling compatriots in 
 South Africa. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has 
 expired. 
 
 4141 
 
 o