Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:10:29.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colonial Representation in the American Empire*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Pedro Capó Rodríguez
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ordinarily we speak of an empire as a state governed by an emperor, as for instance, the two Napoleonic Empires in France. But in a broader and more modern sense, an empire is a powerful state which has wide and supreme dominion over extensive and outlying territories and countries inhabited by peoples usually of a different race, historical background and civilization. In this manner, we speak of an imperialistic nation when the policy of that nation, whatever its form of government, aims to create for itself a position of dominance and control over backward, weaker or helpless nations, territories or peoples.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1921 , pp. 530 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article is based, mainly, on a lecture delivered by the writer before the School of Diplomacy, Jurisprudence and Citizenship of the American University, Washington, D. C, May 23, 1921.

References

1 A. H. Snow, The Administration of Dependencies, Chap. XIX, entitled “The American EAnpire Planned, 1776.”

2 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.

3 “The conclusion of the peace treatywith Great Britain in 1783 gave to the Americans an area bounded on the west by the Mississippi, on the south by Florida, and on the north by the Great Lakes and the ridge between the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic. Their neighbors were the Spanish on the south andthe west and the English on the north.” 0. P. Austin, Steps in the Expansion of Our Territory, pp. 79-80.

4 Gannett, Boundaries of the United States, House Doc. No. 679, 58th Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 30-35.

5 Ibid.

6 Gannett, op. cit.

7 “The Union is the Imperial State as respects the dependencies.” Snow, op. cit.

8 U. S. Const., Art. I, sees. 1, 2 and 3.

9 Ibid, Art. IV, sec. 3, par. 2.

10 Willoughby, W. F. Google Scholar, Territories and dependencies of the United States: Austin.

11 Ibid.

12 Art. IV, see. 3: see Watson on the Constitution, Vol. 2, p. 1245 et seq.

13 The authorship of this ordinance rightly belongs to Mr. Jefferson, and next to the Declaration of Independence (if indeed standing second to that), this document ranks first in historical importance of all those drawn by him. According to Mr. Willoughby, “Next to the Constitution itself, it is the most important organic act of the Federal Government.” Willoughby, op. cit., p. 27 et seq.; see also Watson. op. oft., p. 1245 et seq.

14 The United States as a World Power, pp. 28, 29.14

15 Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340.

16 “There is no authority (express ?) in the Constitution for granting a representative to a territory, nor is there any authority in that instrument for allowing a territory to be represented by a delegate, but it has been the policy of the government to permit each territory to elect a delegate to the House of Representatives. Such delegate is given the privilege of taking part in the proceedings of the House, but he is not permitted to vote on any measure coming before that body.” Watson, op. tit., Vol. I, p. 169.

17 “Instead of an open field offering every facility for the building-up of American communities with American institutions and laws, the United States, in Porto Rico and the Philippines, thus, had to do with countries fully occupied and already completely equipped as regards public institutions.” Willoughby, op. cit., p. 79.

18 See this JOURNAL, Vol. 10, pp. 312-317.

19 Cong. Rec. 55th Cong., 3rd Sess., Vol. 32, p. 1847.

20 Fourteen Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 176.

21 Cong. Rec., 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 33, p. 6340.

22 For the legal aspects of the doctrine see Downes, v. Bidwell, , 182 U. S. 244; see also an article by thewriter on “The Relations between the United States and Porto Rico”in this Journal, Vol. XII , pp .483 Google Scholar et seq.

23 31 U. S. Stat, at Large, p. 77; see also Some Historical and Political Aspects of the Government of Porto Rico, by the present writer, in The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. II , pp. 566 to 567 and 581-582.

24 onstitutions.

25 Fourteen Diamond Rings, supra, note 20.

26 Abridgment, Messages & Documents, 1913, Vol. I, pp. 9-10.

27 Kettleborough, op. cit., p. 1597.

28 Supra, Note 24.

29 Washington Post, April 20, 1921.

30 A. B. Keith, Imperial Unity and the Dominions (1916); Lionel Curtis, The Problems of the Commonwealth (1916); W. Basil Worsforld, The Empire on the Anvil (1916); see also an article on The Privy Council and Problems of Closer Union of the Empire, in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, Vol. 17, pp. 30-44, by Arthur P. Poley.

31 “The decisions of this Conference may not be for the moment of vital importance; the business may seem prosaic, and may not issue in any great results at the moment. But we are all sensible that this meeting is the beginning of a state of things which is to have great results in the future. It will be the parent of a long progeniture, and distant councils of the Empire may, in some far-off time, look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which all their greatness and all their beneficence sprang.” The Marquis of Salisbury, April 4, 1887. Jebb's, The Imperial Conference, Vol. I, p. 5; Keith's, Imperial Unity and the Dominions, supra. As to the history and development of imperial cooperation through the Imperial Conference since 1916, newspaper reports seem to be the only available source; see, however, A. B. Keith's recent publication entitled Dominion Home Eule in Practice, 1921, Ch. VII, p. 63 et seq.

32 ve Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland), the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom being ex-officio President, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who takes the chair in the absence of the President. Other Imperial and Dominion ministers may attend its meetings to deal with their special topics, but not more than two representatives of any party can discuss any issue save with special permission, and each member has only one vote. The omission of India was deliberately decided upon in 1907 on the ground that India does not possess responsible government, but the omission became indefensible in view of the part played by India in the war, and the admission of India to be a regular member of the Conference is now accepted.” A. B. Keith's Dominion Home Eule in Practice, page 54.

33 “In view of the recognition accorded to the Dominions at the Conference of Paris regarding international affairs, it may well be suggested that the process whereby the unity of empire and the individuality of colony are developed and reconciled is reaching its perfect conclusion at this present time; dependence, independence and interdependence, as between mother country and colony and between both and other nations, are being worked out in all their manifold phases in a most startling manner.” James Brown Scott, Autonomy and Federation within Empire, p. ix.

34 U. S. Foreign Relations, p. 634.

35 The selective draft laws were extended to Porto Eico by acts of Congress, U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 40, pp. 76, 557. Dates for registration in Porto Eico were fixed and established by proclamations of President Wilson of June 27, 1917, June 11, 1918, and October 10, 1918. U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 40, pp. 1674, 1793, 1860. Actual registration took place on July 5, 1917, July 5, 1918, and October 26, 1918. According to statutory rule, Porto Rico's quota was supplied in the proportion that its population bears to the total population of the United States. The actual number of registrants was 240,886. To this figure should be added the immense number of Porto Ricans of draft age who on account of actual residence in this country were drafted or volunteered in the several States.

36 See Keports of the Governor of Porto Eico to Secretary of War, 1917, 1918, 1919. See also an article published in the New York Herald, Aug. 11, 1918, by Henry Wise Wood on “Porto Kico's demand to fight for the Flag.”

37 U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 38, p. 131. This law was approved by President Wilson on Oct. 3, 1913.

38 U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 39, pp. 56, 57, approved by President Wilson April 27, 1916.

39 Under the Underwood Tariff Act sugar was to be admitted into the United States free of duty after May 1, 1916. By abolishing the duty on sugar, the main source of wealth of Porto Eico, namely, the sugar industry, would have been entirely crippled if not completely destroyed. It is entirely certain too that by this measure Porto Eico would have been deprived of the most practical advantage which it now enjoys under the policy of free trade between the United States and that island, as Porto Eico would have been placed so far as this commodity is concerned, in the same condition as a foreign country.

40 See Eeport of the Governor of Porto Eico for 1918; also Porto Eico as a National Problem, “Mexico and the Caribbean,” pp. 333-363.

41 See an address by the present writer on “Porto Eico as a National Problem,” supra.

42 An example of these schemes may be found in ajoint resolution introduced in the House of Representatives in April last, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to empower Congress to fix and determine the representation in Congress of overseas and non-contiguous territories now or hereafter acquired as territories, possessions or dependencies of the United States, upon their admission and thereafter as a State of the United States. H. J. Res. 68, 66th Congress, 1st sess.

43 These prents ratio of apportionment under the cenuse of 1910 is one of representative for every 211,877 inhabitants. There are at the present time two bills pending in Congress to readjust the ap. There are at the present time two bills pending in Congress to readjust the apportionment of representatives under the Constitution (H. R. 6991, and H. R. 7080). There are also pending various joint resolutions in both Houses of Congress proposing amendments to the Constitution in respect to representation. H. J. Res. 36, 37 and 80; S. J. Res. 44 and 47.

44 See note 22, supra.