Constitution. Of course, no condition imposed by Congress upon the territory for its admission into the Union as a State would be binding upon the new State which attempted to place it in a position of inferiority or inequality in respect to the other States. When a territory is admitted into the Union as a State thereof, it at once takes rank with every other State. There are no grades among the States of the Union. Until a State is in the Union it is out of it, but once in, it is on a perfect equality with every other State.15

In so far as representation in Congress is concerned, originally and until the Spanish-American War in 1898, the principle was virtually recognized that the territories were at least entitled to be heard in the law-making body of the United States. Thus, it became the constant policy of Congress when legislating for the organization of newly acquired territory by the United States to grant to such territory the right to have a delegate in Congress, with a seat in the House of Representatives, and a right of debating but not of voting therein.16 And while this sort of representation was not at all adequate or effective, yet so long as the old order of things continued to exist, that is to say, so long as the principle of ultimate admission to the Union was adhered to, this defective and inadequate representation of the territories in Congress was generally viewed as merely temporary and preparatory to the proper representation of the future State in the councils of the nation upon an equal footing with the other States, and therefore, was considered acceptable, and probably no one ever complained.

It is probable that adherence to the principle of the Northwest Ordinance had been until then possible not only because the territories so far acquired by the United States, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii and some minor islands in the Pacific and elsewhere, had been contiguous territories, but also because they were populated by the same sturdy race of Americans who had peopled the original colonies which formed the Union, or if by other peoples of a different extraction and race, they were so sparsely populated that this alien element of their population could be easily outnumbered in the course of time by the steady increase of American settlers, all of which contributed to give greater solidarity and strength to the Union.

But now, suddenly and without warning, the whole situation was changed by the fortuitous circumstances of the Spanish-American War, 15 Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340.

16 "There is no authority (express?) in the Constitution for granting a representative to a territory, nor is there any authority in that instrument for allowing a territory to be represented by a delegate, but it has been the policy of the government to permit each territory to elect a delegate to the House of Representatives. Such delegate is given the privilege of taking part in the proceedings of the House, but he is not permitted to vote on any measure coming before that body." Watson, op. cit., Vol. I,

p.

169.

and this country found itself confronted with the difficult and complicated problems arising from the acquisition of distant and alien territories and peoples of different ethnical compositions, history and civilization, entering, so to speak, upon the adventure of an imperial career.

In the first place there were the Philippines, an enormous archipelago composed of more than three thousand islands, 7000 miles away, with their eight or ten million of heterogeneous peoples in various states of civilization, and the overwhelming difficulty of applying to them principles which until that time had been so easily applied in the former territories acquired by the United States. On the other hand, there was Porto Rico, an island in the Caribbean, about a thousand miles from the mainland of the United States, densely populated by a fairly homogeneous and cultured people who had received the American forces as fellow Americans and liberators; but a people of a different ethnical structure, with a different historical background, with different language, customs, laws, religion, mental processes, ideals, and everything that goes to make up a people.17

Out of this situation naturally arose the notion of governing these peoples upon an entirely different principle.18 There was, on the other hand, a large portion of the American people who were opposed to the retention of these acquisitions and the application to them of the same old principle lest they should disturb the social, political and economic life of this country. The sentiment of this large portion of the American people was so keen on this point, especially as to the Philippines, that the Senate of the United States took upon itself, soon after the act of ratification confirming the treaty of cession, to make by resolution the following declaration by a vote of 26 to 22:

Resolved, etc., That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States, but it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of said islands to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the United States and the inhabitants of the said islands." 19

This resolution could not of course have any legal effect on the actual political status of the Philippine Islands,20 but it was indeed an apparent departure from the old principle which had been applied theretofore in

17 "Instead of an open field offering every facility for the building-up of American communities with American institutions and laws, the United States, in Porto Rico and the Philippines, thus, had to do with countries fully occupied and already completely equipped as regards public institutions." Willoughby, op. cit., p. 79.

18 See this JOURNAL, Vol. 10, pp. 312-317.

19 Cong. Rec. 55th Cong., 3rd Sess., Vol. 32, p. 1847.

20 Fourteen Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 176.

respect of all previous acquisitions. Or, as said by Mr. William J. Bryan, the leader of the Democratic Party, in a famous speech at that time:

I want to distinguish between expansion and imperialism. Republicans try to hide behind the word expansion. They say we have expanded in the past. Yes, my friends, this Government has expanded. This nation has secured contiguous territory, territory suitable for the settlement by American people, and that new territory has been settled and built up into States; but when we have expanded heretofore we have extended the limits of a republic. Now we are asked not to expand the limits of a republic, but to aspire to an imperial destiny and convert a republic into an empire.

Be not deceived. There is nothing in the past like that which we now are asked to embark upon. Heretofore we have had no expansion that separated citizens into two classes. Heretofore when people have come in they have come in to share in the destiny of this nation. This is the first time that we have been told that we must cross an ocean, conquer a people, drag them under our flag, and then tell them they are never to be citizens, but are to be subjects, and to be treated with kindness by our people.21

As to the future disposition to be made of Porto Rico, nothing was said at the time; but partly because of the natural alarm of the people and partly because of the apparent necessity of empowering the Federal Government to deal with the new acquisitions in the manner and form that should become the situation, the doctrine was for the first time promulgated in the constitutional history of this country that newly acquired territories and peoples were not to be considered as integral parts of the United States, as the former territory had been, but merely possessions or dependencies of the United States, subject to future disposition by Congress.22 In this way Congress was given unlimited power of government and disposition, not only over the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico, but also over any other territories and peoples that should be acquired by the United States in the future. This was indeed a very radical change, commendable perhaps for the gradual development of the American Empire, but it cannot be denied that the inhabitants of both the Philippines and Porto Rico were deprived of the benefits of the Constitution and timehonored traditions of the Republic-rights which had been always recognized and acknowledged to be inherent rights of the inhabitants of the former territories of the United States; and while efforts were made at the same time by proper limitations upon this novel doctrine, to protect these people against unreasonable encroachments by Congress upon their elemental rights of life, liberty, property, public worship, etc., such fundamental rights of American liberty as the writ of habeas corpus and public trial by jury were absolutely denied to them.

21 Cong. Rec., 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 33, p. 6340.

22 For the legal aspects of the doctrine see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244; see also an article by the writer on "The Relations between the United States and Porto Rico" in this JOURNAL, Vol. XII, pp. 483 et seq.

One of the most important features of these unusual conceptions in the American theory of government was that these newly acquired territories were not to be regarded in any legal or political sense as future States of the Union, and therefore they were not given any positive right of representation, not even the very limited, inadequate and ineffective representation which had been accorded to all other territories in the past. Thus, while under the old order of things the territories were entitled to have a delegate in the House of Representatives with a seat therein and the right of debating, that is to say, with the right to speak and thus present his own views upon any subject brought up for the consideration of that body, but with no right to vote which might directly and effectively influence Congressional legislation, the newly acquired territories were not consid ered entitled to even that meager representation. Under the impression, however, that the people of these newly acquired territories should have some sort of official recognition in Washington, the capital of the nation, near the Federal Government, they were permitted to have so-called Resident Commissioners to the United States. In order to understand what is a resident commissioner from these newly acquired territories to the United States, we must go directly to our best source of information, namely, the organic acts of these territories, enacted by Congress for their government; and since the character and rights, or privileges, of all these Resident Commissioners are substantially identical, we shall take as an illustration the case of Porto Rico. The first organic act of Porto Rico, the so-called Foraker Act, enacted in 1900, provided (Section 39) as follows:

That the qualified voters of Porto Rico shall choose a resident commissioner to the United States, who shall be entitled to official recognition as such by all Departments, upon presentation to the Department of State of a certificate of election of the governor of Porto Rico, .. Provided, That no person shall be eligible to such election who is not a bona fide citizen of Porto Rico, . . . and who does not read and write the English language.23

The same provisions have been practically reënacted in the present organic act of that island, the so-called Jones-Shafroth Act, passed by Congress at the urgent demand of President Wilson in 1917.24

From a careful examination of these provisions, it is apparent that the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico is not a delegate in the same sense as the delegates from Hawaii and Alaska are, for he is neither entitled to have a seat in the House of Representatives, nor the right to debate, and much less to vote. However liberally construed, these provisions do not

23 31 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 77; see also Some Historical and Political Aspects of the Government of Porto Rico, by the present writer, in The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. II, pp. 566 to 567 and 581-582.

24 Public. No. 368, 64th Cong. [H. R. 9533]. Also in Kettleborough's The State Constitutions.

entitle him to even so much as to be admitted to the floor of the House. If he is allowed a seat therein, if he ever is permitted to take the floor in the House of Representatives, it is by the mere courtesy of that branch of Congress, and must be therefore by unanimous consent of the members present at the time, for if a single representative should object to his taking the floor, there would not be any parliamentary escape to a positive negative. Sometimes he is given two minutes, sometimes three, sometimes five, but rarely is he allowed more than ten minutes to talk. Usually if the time allowed him by the House expires before he has finished his speech, he is allowed one or two minutes more, and if still he has something else. to say, he is permitted to extend his remarks in the record as a further compliment, if they are not too long.

Under these conditions it is apparent that the Commissioner from Porto Rico will have, out of necessity, to circumscribe his remarks to matters directly concerning that island, for it is highly problematic whether the House would, except under very exceptional circumstances of personal charm and eloquence on the part of the Porto Rican Commissioner, extend to him the courtesy of debate in matters not relating to the island. It has not happened as yet, and it is not, in my opinion, very likely that it will ever happen, at least while things continue as they are.

It is for these reasons, perhaps, that the Commissioner of Porto Rico will, as a rule, absent himself from the House, unless, out of mere curiosity he attends the meetings as a spectator, just to see what is going on therein, or unless some legislation is pending before the House which directly or indirectly affects Porto Rico, or unless, perhaps, he wishes to call the attention of the House of Representatives to some matter or event affecting the interests of the island, or to some petty question of personal privilege.

He is not in any legal or parliamentary sense of the word a member of Congress, although, indeed, he is entitled to use the same stationery as the members of Congress and is given office quarters in the House Office Building, and has the same salary, and all the other perquisites and emoluments pertaining to representatives in Congress.

And this condition attending the so-called representation of Porto Rico in Congress is in substance equally applicable to the representation of the Philippines. So far, however, as the Philippine Islands are concerned, a very marked distinction may be perhaps established which may, no doubt, change our point of view. Owing, of course, to the fact that Porto Rico and the Philippines were acquired by the same act of cession from Spain, it is legally assumed that their status is identical as possessions or dependencies of the United States.25 The apparent and logical conclusion from this would seem to be that both should occupy identical positions in this matter of colonial representation in the American Empire. As a matter

25 Fourteen Diamond Rings, supra, note 20.