writer's contention that the vast majority of these people have no desire to become citizens of the United States, he will refer to the fact that out of a total population of more than one hundred thousand persons, less than three thousand have been consulted in the matter; and at least thirty thousand natives have never given their consent to this action on the part of Congress. The question is now presented to the cit izens of the United States whether or not Congress have the power to annex a foreign nation as a Territory without first obtaining the consent of its people. If they do possess this extraordinary authority from what source does it flow, and what, if any, are its limita tions? If Hawaii can be annexed in this manner, why may not England, France, or any other nation on the globe be also like wise annexed? Nothing can be more selfevident than that such a radical departure from the settled policy of our Government as this is, never could have been contem plated by the men who framed our Constitu tion; and it is also perfectly clear that there
is no analogy between the admission of Texas into the Union as a State, and the annexation of Hawaii to this country as a Territory by a joint resolution of Congress; for the Texans had repeatedly expressed their desire to be come citizens of the United States, while the Hawaiians never have done so; and there is good reason to believe that had they been permitted to vote on the question of annex ation they would have declared against it by an overwhelming majority. As it has t>een clearly proven that there is no provision of the Constitution authoriz ing the passage by Congress of the joint resolution in question, and as it is a com plete departure from the settled practice and policy of our Government in the acqui sition of territory, the writer feels perfect ly justified in expressing the opinion that the action of Congress in this matter is manifestly unconstitutional, and therefore, null and void; and he has no doubt that the Supreme Court will so decide if the ques tion should ever be brought before it for adjudication.
PRACTICAL JOKES. By Irving Browne.
ONE of the greatest pests in a commu nity is a practical joker, and the law has very little patience with him. Justice does not allow her facial muscles to relax when a suitor comes before her complaining of injuries suffered through the unfeeling horse-play of another. So there is small mercy found in the courts for those funny but misguided persons who scare nervous people into fits, or point pistols at them, or duck them in chilly ponds. Such has been the uniform tendency of the courts from first to last. A not inconsiderable number of cases recorded in the reports evince the
utter want of sympathy in the courts with playful offenders of this noxious descrip tion. An injury committed with a feeling of honest malice is more respectable than the callous pranks of the practical joker played with a silly grin. A glance at these curious cases will repay the reader. In Fenton's case, i Lewin C. C. 179, where the prisoners, in sport, threw heavy stones into a mine, breaking a scaffold, which fell against and upset a corf, in which a miner was descendinginto a mine, whereby he was killed, they were held guilty of man slaughter. Tindal, C.J., said: "In the
