Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-09-14
Porto Rican in.


Justice Bradley of the Supreme Court of
the District had interesting question be-
fore him the other day when he granted
naturalization papers to a young Porto
Rican. Whether the judges ruling is right
or wrong will depend on the facts of the
case. If the young gentleman was born in
Porto Rico and removed to the Unit ed
United States before the ratification of the
Paris treaty he was a Spanish subject and
the ruling of this accomplished juriSt Is
right. But if the young man came here
since the ratification of the treaty his rul-
ing, in my opinion, is wrong. The Paris
treaty contained provision that all Span
iards in Cuba who wished to retain their al
legiance to Spain might do so by going
into a designated court and registering
their election. Many have done so. But no
such stipulation was made as to Porto Rico
or the Philippines. The political status of
the inhabitants was left to be determined
by Congress. By the Foraker act the people
of Porto Rico are recognized as citizens of
the island, but not citizens Of the United
States. So that if this young man whom
Justice Bradley has naturaiZed was born in
Porto Rico and removed to the United
States after the treaty with Spain he could
not remain subject of Spain. because her
sovereignty was gone. His status would be
the same whether he remained in Porto
Rico or came to reside in the United States
He would simply be citizen of Porto Rico
| know ii is contended that the treaty of
Paris ipsO facto made the inhabitants of
our insular possessions citizens of the
United States for the alleged reason that
the Constitution of its own force extended
over the islands; and ii can operate only
upon citizens of the United States, these
people must of necessity become citizens
inasmuch 1t is argued, our Constitution
and form of government do not permit the
relation of subject people This whole
question will be examined and pronounced
upon by the Supreme Court of the United
States in a case now pending before 1t, and
/ have no doubt that tribunal will declare
the contention a falacy. 1t is certain that
the Paris treaty left the subject to Con-
gress, and the Foraker law for Porto Rico
Is the only legislation have had. The
Supreme Court will hardly hold that this
provision of the treaty Is in contravention
of the Constitution. The terms of the
treaty with Napoleon for the purchase of
Louisiana, and, likewise, the treaties with
Spain and with Mexico by which other
large territories were acquired, made the
inhabitants of the territories citizens of the
United States. But no such stpulations
were made in the late Paris treaty. If the
former treaties with Napoleon, Spain and
Mexico had been in the language of the re-
cent treaty with Spain our government could
have granted or withheld the privileges of
citizenship to the inhabitants of all the ter
ritories acquired according to its enlight-
ened discretion. The power to admit to cit
izenship implied the power to reject, and all
these territories might have been governed
to this day. as Arizona and New Mexico
practically are. the same as Porto Rico and
ism 1t Is sound law. and think there can
be little doubt the Supreme Court will SO
declare In the case now before It,
r. HUTCHINSON.