In two instances, that of Texas in 1845, and Hawaii in 1898, the sovereignty of the United States has been extended over new territory by means of a Joint Resolution of the Houses of Congress. In the case of Texas an attempt had been made to annex the State by treaty, but this effort, requiring a two-thirds favorable vote in the Senate, had failed. Thereupon the same end was secured by a Joint Resolution which needed but a simple majority vote in each of the two branches of the national legislature, with, of course, the approval of the President. This resolution provided that "Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas with a republican form of government to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of the Union." Upon Texas taking the action called for by this clause, Congress later by Joint Resolution declared Texas one of the States of the American Union.

The peculiarity of the annexation of this State was not simply that it came under American sovereignty by Joint Resolution but that it became at once one of the States of the Union, and thus never had the transitional territorial status. This fact, indeed, gave additional constitutional support to the action of Congress in the matter, for to that body is given by the Constitution the right to admit new States into the Union, and, therefore, its admission of Texas to fellowship with other American commonwealths might easily be construed as a legitimate exercise of that power.

The acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands was another instance of the extension of the United States sovereignty by a simple Joint Resolution of the two branches of Congress. In this case, however, the islands were not, as was Texas, admitted as a State or States of the Union, but were simply annexed as a territory.

The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. The incorporation of one sovereign State, such as was Hawaii prior to annexation, in the territory of another, is, it was argued, essentially a matter falling within the domain of international relations, and, therefore, beyond the reach of legislative acts. Only by means" of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force - confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted. To meet this point Senatorr Foraker argued that though a treaty may be the proper mode for annexing a portion of the territory of another State, it is inappropriate when an entire State is annexed by another. "I agree," he said, "with Senators on the other side that a treaty is a contract - that has been your contention throughout - until the treaty has been signed on both sides. The very minute that is done one of the parties is gone, and there is no continuing contract. Therefore it is simply a cession on their part and an acceptance on ours, and it might be done just as well by legislation as otherwise."

In the report made March 1G, 1898, by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations1 in favor of the Joint Resolution of Annexation, the annexation of Texas was cited as a precedent and in addition the assertion made that for annexation the consent of the government of the annexed territory is needed but not, necessarily, that of its populace.2

1 Senate Report 681, 55th Cong., 2d Sess.

2 "This Joint Resolution [annexing Texas]," the Committee declare "clearly establishes the precedent that Congress has the power to annex a foreign State to the territory of the United States, either by assenting to a treaty of annexation or by agreeing to articles of annexation or by act of Congress based upon the consent of such foreign government obtained in any authentic way. No exercise of power could be more supreme than that under which Texas was annexed to the United States, either as to its scope or the manner of the annexation or the choice of conditions upon which Congress would merge the sovereignty of an independent republic into the supremacy of the United States. The act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed tc the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation, which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation, to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people. It further establishes the fact that Congress, in legislating upon the question of the annexation of a foreign State, rightfully acts upon the consent of such State, as the sovereign representative of its people, and that the power of Congress to complete the annexation of such foreign State depends alone upon the sovereign will and consent of such State, given and expressed through its organized tribunals. It further establishes the fact that Congress cannot acquire the right or jurisdiction to annex a foreign and independent State through a vote of a majority of its people, in opposition to the will of its constituted authorities. It is the constitutional power of Congress that operates to annex foreign territory. Such a proceeding on the part of Congress as the submission of the question to vote of the people of such a State would only create disorder and revolution in a foreign State applying through its constituted authorities for admission into the United States. This important, clear, and far-reaching precedent established in the annexation of the Republic of Texas is a sufficient guide for the action of Congress in the passage of the Joint Resolution herewith reported. If, in the judgment of Congress, such a measure is supported by a safe and wise policy, or is baaed upon a national duty that we owe to the people of Hawaii, or is necessary for our national development and security, that is enough to justify annexation, with the consent of the recognized government of the country to be annexed."

The assertions here made by the Committee that the annexation of Texas constituted a precedent for annexation by legislative act, the consent of the constituted governmental authorities of the annexed territory being obtained, is open to question. For it it will be remembered that Texas was admitted directly into the Union as a State, and, therefore, its admission could be upheld as an exercise of the power given to Congress and the President to admit new States into the Union.