sidered as the most treasured possessions of the citizen. However true this contention may be in its ultimate results upon the Porto Ricans who are residing on the Island, it cannot be denied that there is, under the Constitution, only one legitimate citizenship of the United States, and that is the one kind of citizenship which has been extended to the Porto Ricans by the Jones-Shafroth Act.

As already stated, this condition, while thus adversely affecting the rights of Porto Ricans, finds its logical explanation only in the character of American institutions, and in the fact that Porto Rico is not a State of the Union. And let it be remembered here that this peculiar condition does not affect the native inhabitants of Porto Rico only, but it applies equally well to all such other American citizens who happen to be residing on the Island-and for that matter, in any other place outside of the individual States. It is to be remembered also, that the inhabitants of the so-called Territories are in no better condition, in this respect, than the Porto Ricans themselves. The District of Columbia is in the same position. It follows, therefore, that, contrary to unjustifiable assertions made in this respect, there is not in this condition any special discrimination or prejudice against the people of Porto Rico as such. It is a peculiar condition of American institutions, which finds no remedy except in Statehood.

It must be conceded, however, that so far as political rights of a national character are concerned, Porto Ricans are not much better off to-day than they were before the privilege of American citizenship was bestowed upon them; for while it may be true that any Porto Rican who removes into a State of the Union may acquire a direct participation in the National Government, yet with respect to the bulk of Porto Ricans remaining in the Island, the robe of citizenship may be considered by them as an empty honor without practical results, simply because their political rights as citizens will not take shape in a practical manner so long as their country is kept in the condition of a mere subservient piece of territorial property with no constitutional rights of representation in the making of the national

laws.

On the other hand, it is to be observed that, as American citizens,

Porto Ricans are entitled to emigrate to foreign lands, or even to expatriate themselves by swearing allegiance to another sovereign; they may also, as such citizens, remove into the United States and acquire residence and citizenship in any State or Territory thereof,116 or they may still decide to remain in Porto Rico and reside permanently therein. It is to be observed also that while the individual Porto Rican may choose to reside in one place or another, the extent and enforcement of his rights as such an American citizen are, of necessity, more or less controlled, as already suggested, by the status of his place of residence in respect to the United States. Thus, his rights as such citizen may be viewed from these four different points of view: (a) When residing in a foreign country; (b) when residing in a State of the Union; (c) when residing in a Territory of the United States; (d) when residing in Porto Rico.

(a) When residing abroad, there is no question that Forto Ricans, as American citizens, are entitled to demand full protection from the National Government. In this respect the words of Chief Justice Marshall, in 1804, in the case of Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, are pertinent:

The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes local and temporary allegiance to that country, is yet, if he performs no other act changing his condition, entitled to the protection of our government; and if, without the violation of any muniipal law, he should be oppressed unjustly, he would have a right to claim that protection, and the interposition of the American Government in his favor would be considered a justifiable interposition.

What this protection of the citizens abroad means and when and on what circumstances and to what extent it will be accorded by the interposition of the Government of the United States is another question which lies quite outside the scope of this article. It may be said, however, that in venturing to go abroad, the citizen enters into the sphere of international law and diplomacy, and mainly for this reason, he cannot always claim successfully the interposition of

116 "Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns." By Justice Grier, in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 19. See also Boyds v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 161. 117 2 Cranch C4, 120.

his own government if he feels aggrieved or injured by the action or inaction of the foreign government. Moreover, in this matter of diplomatic protection of citizens abroad, it is to be observed that the action of the Department of State is, as a rule, controlled by a good many reasons affecting not only the legitimate rights of the citizen or citizens concerned, but also the national and international policies and superior interests of the United States as a nation. It follows, therefore, that this is a matter of much delicacy and discretion depending for a determination on all the surrounding circumstances of the case which the Department is to weigh and decide. 118 It may not be entirely amiss to state here that in this matter of diplomatic interposition by the Department of State in favor of American citizens abroad, there is no distinction whatever to be made between a Porto Rican and a Virginian, a Californian, or a New Yorker. In this question, as in any other relating to the privileges and immunities of American citizenship, all citizens of the United States are exactly upon the same legal footing.

(b) When residing in one of the States of the Union, the individual Porto Rican is, as already stated, invested with the full status of a citizen of that State. In an early case,119 decided in 1832, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said that "a citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." And this view was later incorporated into the opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

In this respect it may be pertinent to quote the words of Mr. Justice Miller in the Slaughter House Cases. 120 Referring to the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States, he said: "One of these privileges is conferred

118 See Edwin M. Borchard, "Basic Elements of Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad," in this JOURNAL, Vol. VII, pp. 497-520. See also in this connection a very interesting article by Alpheus Henry Snow in this JOURNAL, Vol. VIII, pp. 191-212.

119 Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761.

120 16 Wall. 79.

by the very Article under consideration.121 It is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State."

As a citizen of the State wherein he resides, the individual Porto Rican must look to the Constitution and laws of that State in order to determine the extent of his rights therein. It must be remembered, however, that he is also entitled, under the protection of the National Government, to the enjoyment and exercise of these privileges and immunities which arise out of his American citizenship.122

The right of acquiring residence and citizenship in any State of the Union is indeed one of the greatest privileges of the citizens of the United States. In this respect it is to be observed that the individual Porto Rican who moves into any of the States, say, for instance, New York, with the intention of residing therein, acquires ipso facto the legal status of a New Yorker. He is therefore entitled and privileged to do, under the same circumstances and upon the same conditions, any thing which all other New Yorkers may do under the Constitution and laws of that State. He is, for all civil and political purposes, exactly the equal of the native citizens of that State, and thus he may vote and hold public office, and take part in the whole civil and political life of the State without molestation, according to law. There may be, however, some constitutional or statutory conditions prescribed for the entire community affecting a whole class of citizens, in which he may be included, and affecting his personal status, which may deprive him of the enjoyment or exercise of a given right or privilege. Thus, for instance, if he were a minor, an idiot or a convict, or if he did not possess the necessary qualifications for the purpose, he would not be entitled to the political franchise. But surely he would not be deprived of any privilege or immunity belonging to him as a citizen because of any defect or inferiority in his citizenship, and much less because of the fact that he is a Porto Rican. In connection with the electoral franchise as affecting a direct

121 Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Sec. 1.

122 For a comprehensive and yet brief study of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, see A. J. Lien, op. cit., supra, note 107.

participation in the national politics, it seems interesting to observe that, although the right of suffrage is not one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of a State or of the United States, 123 when the individual Porto Rican, as a citizen of the State wherein he resides, is duly qualified to vote at an election at which members of Congress or presidential electors are being selected, he has the right, as a citizen of the United States, to exercise that privilege freely and without molestation. Referring to the general subject of the privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States, said Mr. Justice Miller in a famous case:

It is not correct to say that the right to vote for a member of Congress does not depend on the Constitution of the United States. The office, if it be properly called an office, is created by that Constitution and by that alone. The States in prescribing the qualifications of voters for the most numerous branch of their own legislature, do not do this with reference to the election for members of Congress. Nor can they prescribe the qualifications for voters for those eo nomine. They define who are to vote for the popular branch of their own legislature and the Constitution of the United States says the same persons shall vote for members of Congress in that State. It adopts the qualifications thus furnished as the qualifications of its own electors for members of Congress. It is not true, therefore, that electors for members of Congress owe their right to vote to the State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend exclusively on the law of that State.124

(c) When residing in a Territory of the United States, the individual Porto Rican is also, according to the established practice of the Government and even the decisions of the Supreme Court, a citizen of that Territory.125 He enjoys therefore the same privileges and immunities secured to such citizens by the Organic Act and laws of the said Territory.

In this connection it may be useful to notice a fundamental distinction in the extent of the powers of the Federal Government, which must necessarily affect the rights of the citizen residing therein. This distinction is founded upon the equally fundamental distinction be

123 "The right of suffrage is not one of the necessary privileges of citizens of a State or of the United States." Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162. 124 Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 662.

125 Mcore v. Illinois, 14 How. 19; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 161.