Page 5 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 5
SUFFOLK UNJVERSJTYLAW REVIEW [Vol. L:587
the conditions operative at the time of the Foraker Act [the first organic Act for
the governrnent of Puerto Rico], which made it needed justice for Porto Rico
not to include it within the general taxing legislation of this country, still
prevail in the island. Porto Rico still needs the receipts under the Federal tariff
and intemal revenues collected at Porto Rico; in other words, she must be
treated differently than and outside of the provisions applicable to incorporated
territories. Politically, the relation between Porto Rico and the United States is
undoubtedly a permanent one and so regarded by responsible thought and
responsible leadership here as well as in the Island But it has been carefully
and frankly pointed out, that certainly for the present at least, statehood is not
the fonn which such relationship is intended to take.12
Frankfurter wrote that granting citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico
would not have the effect of incorporating the territory, but would "merely
give[] legal expression and recognize[] dignity to an insistent living state of
facts" and provide Puerto Ricans with "a securer technical international
standing," which "epitomizes and confirms the sentiment of loyalty they share"
with citizens of the United States. 13 Frankfurter did not believe that granting
U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans would put Puerto Rico on the path to
statehood.14
In 1934, Congress exercised the creative statesmanship allowed by the
nonincorporation doctrine by partially relinquishing its powers over the
Philippines when it authorized tbe territory to adopt its own constitution and
become a commonwealth. 15 Congress later relinquished those powers
completeJy, and granted the Philippines full independence.16 For the first time,
the United States disposed of a territory that was once under its sovereignty.
Congress also made creative use of its territorial powers in 1959 by admitting
noncontiguous states into the Union for the first time, and relinquishing its
12. Id. at 5.
13. See id. at 6 (citing President Taft's and President Wilson's messages to Congress). Frankfurter points
out tbat "[t]he formal grant of citizenship is but a recognition of this tie, and tbe means of cementing it." Id.
14. See Frankfurter Memorandum, supra note 6, at 6-7 (discussing power to confer statebood to Puerto
Rico).
15. See Avelino J. Halagao, Jr., Citizens Denied: A Critica/ Examination of the Rabang Decision
Rejecting UnitedStates CitizenshipClaims by Persons Born in the PhtlippinesDuring the TerritorialPertod, 5
AsrAN PAC. AM. L.J. 77, 83 (1998) (discussing Pbilippine constitutional history).
16. See 22 U.S.C. ยง 1394 (2012) (relinquishing control over Philippines). But see Cincinnati Soap Co. v.
United States, 301 U.S. 308, 319 (1937) (opining United States retained significant powers over Philippines).
Tbe U.S. Supreme Court stated:
Undoubtedly, these acts have brougbt about a profound change in the status of the islands and in
their relations to the United States; but the sovereignty of the United States has not been, and, for a
long time, may not be, finally withdrawn .... Thus while tbe power of the United States has been
modified, it has not been abolished,
Id.
the conditions operative at the time of the Foraker Act [the first organic Act for
the governrnent of Puerto Rico], which made it needed justice for Porto Rico
not to include it within the general taxing legislation of this country, still
prevail in the island. Porto Rico still needs the receipts under the Federal tariff
and intemal revenues collected at Porto Rico; in other words, she must be
treated differently than and outside of the provisions applicable to incorporated
territories. Politically, the relation between Porto Rico and the United States is
undoubtedly a permanent one and so regarded by responsible thought and
responsible leadership here as well as in the Island But it has been carefully
and frankly pointed out, that certainly for the present at least, statehood is not
the fonn which such relationship is intended to take.12
Frankfurter wrote that granting citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico
would not have the effect of incorporating the territory, but would "merely
give[] legal expression and recognize[] dignity to an insistent living state of
facts" and provide Puerto Ricans with "a securer technical international
standing," which "epitomizes and confirms the sentiment of loyalty they share"
with citizens of the United States. 13 Frankfurter did not believe that granting
U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans would put Puerto Rico on the path to
statehood.14
In 1934, Congress exercised the creative statesmanship allowed by the
nonincorporation doctrine by partially relinquishing its powers over the
Philippines when it authorized tbe territory to adopt its own constitution and
become a commonwealth. 15 Congress later relinquished those powers
completeJy, and granted the Philippines full independence.16 For the first time,
the United States disposed of a territory that was once under its sovereignty.
Congress also made creative use of its territorial powers in 1959 by admitting
noncontiguous states into the Union for the first time, and relinquishing its
12. Id. at 5.
13. See id. at 6 (citing President Taft's and President Wilson's messages to Congress). Frankfurter points
out tbat "[t]he formal grant of citizenship is but a recognition of this tie, and tbe means of cementing it." Id.
14. See Frankfurter Memorandum, supra note 6, at 6-7 (discussing power to confer statebood to Puerto
Rico).
15. See Avelino J. Halagao, Jr., Citizens Denied: A Critica/ Examination of the Rabang Decision
Rejecting UnitedStates CitizenshipClaims by Persons Born in the PhtlippinesDuring the TerritorialPertod, 5
AsrAN PAC. AM. L.J. 77, 83 (1998) (discussing Pbilippine constitutional history).
16. See 22 U.S.C. ยง 1394 (2012) (relinquishing control over Philippines). But see Cincinnati Soap Co. v.
United States, 301 U.S. 308, 319 (1937) (opining United States retained significant powers over Philippines).
Tbe U.S. Supreme Court stated:
Undoubtedly, these acts have brougbt about a profound change in the status of the islands and in
their relations to the United States; but the sovereignty of the United States has not been, and, for a
long time, may not be, finally withdrawn .... Thus while tbe power of the United States has been
modified, it has not been abolished,
Id.
