New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-03-12
on THE SAME BASIS.

The idea that legislation for Puerto Rico is in
no way connected with legislation for the Phil
ippineS, and that the legal relations of these two
dependencies 10 the United States are in some
way different seems to be widely prevalent.
Statements 10 this effect have been made fire.
quently in the last few weeks We notice one in
The Atlanta Constitution which is perhaps a
typical but more than usually definite presenta-
ton Of that view. 1t says:
The attempt to make out an excuse for the
taxing of Puerto Rico because ii would save us
from possible complications in the Philippine
fiscal system is not well taken. We in Cuba,
Luzon and Puerto Rico under absolutely differ
ent conditions. We under obligation to give
Independence to Cuba, which justifies in
treating the island foreign, We in LuZon
through the fortune of war, awaiting Con-
gressiona solution of what we to do there
But in the case of Puerto Rico II has been
formally and forever taken under our own flag.
subject to future condition. 1t stands in the
same relation to the Union as does New Mexico
Arizona
reference to the Treaty of Paris will show
that the Philippines territory of the United
States in exactly the same sense, and quite
irrevocably as Puerto Rico. The treaty reads:
Spain cedes TO the United States the island Of
Puerto Rico and other islands now under
Spanish sovereignty In the West Indies' and
in the next article it says Spain cedes to
the United States the archipelago known as
lutte in both cases, and the provision that the
civil rights and political status of the native in
'habtants Of the territories hereby coded to the
United States shall be determined by the Con-
"gress' applies to one much to the other.
The Senate Of the United States ratified that
treaty and made ii the supreme law OF the
land, and by that law the Philippines are just
as much part Of the United States as Puerto
Rico Puerto Rico has more been formally
land forever taken under our flag. subject to no
future condition." than the Philippines. The
fact that there is a war on hand in the latter
does not make the least difference in its legal
status. If Puerto Rico is under the Constitution
the Philippines are. If Puerto Rico stands in
the relation to the Union as does New
Mexico or Arizona, the Philippines do.
AS matter of fact, neither of the new
acquisitions stands in that relation. New-Mexico
and Arizona We're acquired subject TO the prom
Use in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that
they should "be Incorporated into the Union of
the United States and be admitted at the
proper time Ito be Judged by the Congress of
"the United States TO the enjoyment of all the
rights of citizens of the United States, accord
ling TO the principles of the Constitution"
Puerto Rico and the Philippines have no such
guarantee, but are by treaty remanded TO the
entire discretion Of Congress. If Congress had
the right pending admission of New-MexicO and
Arizona to the Union TO govern them outside the
Constitution, or if it has such a right respect
ing any territory whatever concerning which it
has made no promises a condition of acquire
ment It can govern Puerto Rico outside the
Constitution. If it has no such power it can
not govern the Philippines outside the Const-
tuition, bu must establish its domestic tariff
there What must be done in Puerto Rico must
be done in the Philippines. The constitutional
necessities of the are an absolute prece-
dent for the other.