As we have already seen, Palmyra had been part of the Kingdom, Republic, and
Territory of Hawaii, but the Hawaii Statehood Act of 1959 specifically excluded
it from the new state. This is done without any explanation in the act.

Politics being what it is, I had assumed that this was done because somebody
with influence wanted it done. My primary candidates were three brothers,
surnamed Fullard-Leo, whose parents had bought up the deeds to Palmyra as early
as 1922, and whose title to the atoll was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in
1947 (United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256). As the then proprietors of
Palmyra, these brothers could have been interested in avoiding the prospect of
paying state and local property taxes on land not likely to benefit from state
and local services. I did learn that, under the Territory of Hawaii, Palmyra
had been a part of the local unit known as the City and County of Honolulu! Who
could have blamed the Fullard-Leos if they had been interested in avoiding
state- or local-government zoning or other restrictions on land use. Search as
I might, however, I could find no expressions one way or the other from the
Fullard-Leo family regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Palmyra from the
State of Hawaii. I kept searching.

At http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/og98005.pdf , there is a November 1997 report
by the United States General Accounting Office (an investigative agency of the
Congress) entitled "Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives; U.S. Insular Areas; Application of the U.S. Constitution."
This is a 75-page PDF file. It contains a wealth of historical information and
finer legal points relative to each of the several possessions of the USA. It
is thoroughly footnoted with references to laws, court decisions, and other
relevant documents. In its discussion of Palmyra, on page 44 of the original
document (PDF page 46), the GAO gives us some interesting insights. Everything
between the two long lines below is from the GAO, including elipses, bracketed
words, and three relevant footnotes.

___________________________________________

We have found several explanations for the exclusion of Palmyra from the state
of Hawaii. The Senate report on the Hawaii Statehood Act recommended that
Palmyra not be made part of the state. That report suggests that distance was
the primary factor; it acknowledged that Palmyra had historically been part of
the Republic of Hawaii but noted that Palmyra is separated from the nearest
island on the Hawaiian Archipelago "by more than 800 miles of open ocean." 19

A somewhat related reason emerges from the Senate hearings on Hawaiian
statehood:

Palmyra . . . is technically today a part of the city limits of the city of
Honolulu. . . . [We] excluded [Palmyra from the state] in deference to my
friend from California who felt that Los Angeles might be discriminated against.
That would have been the longest city limits in the world of any incorporated
city, extending 1,500 miles to Palmyra. 20

Another account adds that in addition to its distance from Honolulu, Palmyra is
uninhabited and separated from the Hawaiian chain by many miles of international
waters. 21

_____

19 S. Rep. No. 83-886, at 16 (1954). Ocean (Kure) Island, part of the Territory
of Hawaii, was included in
the state of Hawaii, although it is further from Honolulu than is Palmyra.
Ocean Island, however, is
within the Hawaiian island chain.

20 Statehood for Hawaii, Hearings on S.50 Before the Subcomm. on Territories
and Insular Affairs, 86th
Cong. 59 (1959) (statement of Sen. Jackson).

21 100 Cong. Rec. 3485-91 (1954) (statements of Sens. Jackson, Stennis,
Anderson, and Daniel).

___________________________________________

So, now we know that Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Washington) was helping an
unnamed California colleague preserve what seems to have been the distinction of
Los Angeles as the USA's most geographically extensive municipality at the time.
Little did they realize that Ocean Island, which footnote 19 tells us is more
distant from Honolulu than Palmyra, is also part of the City and County of
Honolulu!

California's two US Senators in 1959 were: Clair Engle (D) and Thomas Kuchel
(R). Before entering the Senate in January 1959, Engle had been Chairman of the
House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and had there
advocated Hawaii statehood. I strongly suspect that he is the man responsible
for the exclusion of Palmyra from the State of Hawaii.

Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] U.S. External Territories list

>
> Kevin Meynell asked on Tuesday:
>
>> What was the reason for separating Palmyra from Hawaii at the time of
>> statehood?
>
> After laborious digging, I have found the explanation in the words of a
> Senator
> in a government report. I will write it up at length for you tomorrow (when
> it's not 12:20 a.m.). You'll just have to wait. Hint: It's an extremely
> petty
> reason that has to do with the size of a city in another state. Municipal
> boundary freaks are going to love this one!
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>