BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1904-12-03
AUTONOMY

effort cast to the winds, since the
American Constitution recognizes no
such conditions as that of the autono-
my This declaration of Mr.. Bas is,
according to our view of the case,
rather absurd. If the 5th article of
the Constitution does not stand for
all that is autonomistic then we feel
assured that there is nothing tor us
to do but to resign ourselves to our
fate and gently drop down the other
side of the earth. If we were really
assured of the fact that the Federal
Government through its Constitution
did not recognize such form of gov
ernment as the autonom1St1c we should
most certainly desist from our efforts
to secure the adoption of such a from
for our island, and we propose to
show just why we are of the opinion
that autonomy is not at all inconsistent
with the provisions of the Federal
Constitution.
Mr.. Bas tells US that there is not
single word in the Federal Constitu-
tition with reference to autonomy, and
that to introduce an innovation of this
sort would require a serious amend
ment of that document, which is not
at all likely to be permitted or even
contemplated. Of course this is only
the opinion of Mr.. Bas. 1t may be
that he is of the opinion that autonomy
can only De granted by complete
renovation and reformation and refors
nation of the great charter which es-
tablishes the rules of conduct for the
nation in it's intercourse with it's citi
zens and with other nations. Mr.. BaS
says it is impossible because the natu
re of the agreement is such that it will
not permit the granting to another
bers of the Federation have volunta-
rily agreed to deprive themselves Of.
It is but natural that there should
not appear, nor can there ever appear
in the Federal Constitution, clsNses in
which a direct reference is made to
government in the form of autonomy
using the word itself to signify exactly
what it means.
The states which bound themselves
originally by the articles of the Cons
titution were several distinct and
organized communities, each one per-
fectly free and independent of any
other one, and they by mutual consent
formulated the conditions by which
they were to be united or confedera-
ted, therefore it was bat natural that
not one of them should desire to
confer upon the others eithea col1ec-
lively or individually, the title of
colony, since it is not to be supposed
that people who had mutually agreed
to adopt some course of action for the
benefit of the public at large would
submit to being made subjects of one
of the parties to the agreement.
Thus far there is no doubt that the
Constitution of the United States
could in NO sense contemplate any
form of government for one of the
sister states But how about the terri
tories which might be acquired by the
United States after they had banded
themselves together as a confedera-
tions?
Is it not only reasonable to suppose
that when the United States in the
future, through war or some other
contingency, should acquire territory,
that the government would feel that
it was a sacred obligation to grant to
the people of the land so acquired
system of laws and institutions which
was best suied to their requirements
at the time? And if it should have
been decided that an autonomistic
form was the best would not the Con
gress of the United States have been
in duty bound to have SO amended
the Constitutions that such form of
government could be granted those
people?
In several places in the Constitution
we find reference made to the various
states as separate and distinct entities
of the Confederation and also to the
territory subject to the jurisdiction of
them, and as no distinction is made
between territory held at the time
when the document itself was formu1-
ated and territory to be acquired at
some future date, and no special
form of government is signifed and
no provision is made for the admin
istrative conduct of their affairs, it may
be inferred that autonomy is as fully
spoken of in the Federal Constitution
as is any other form of government in |