Citation: Pedro Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Status Referendum is Historic, JURIST – Hotline, Feb. 17, 2012, http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/02/pedro-pierluisi-referendum.php.

JURIST Guest Columnist Pedro Pierluisi, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, representing the territory in the US House of Representatives, argues that the coming status referendum is historic because it is the first to include only the viable status options and will be taken seriously by the federal government…

In December 2011, Puerto Rico’s legislature approved, and Governor Luis Fortuño signed, Law 283. This legislation provides for a referendum—alternatively referred to as a plebiscite—to be held on the U.S. territory’s political status. The plebiscite will take place on November 6, 2012, the same day as the U.S. general elections and Puerto Rico’s local elections.

The plebiscite ballot will consist of two questions. Voters will first be asked whether they want the current territory status to continue. Regardless of how voters answer that question, they will then be asked to express their preference among the three alternatives to the current status: statehood, independence, and nationhood in free association with the United States.

If a majority of Puerto Rico voters in November cast their ballots in opposition to the current status, and in support of one of the alternatives, Puerto Rico’s local officials can be expected to petition the federal government to act upon that choice. For example, if statehood obtains majority support, then Puerto Rico’s single representative in the U.S. Congress—known as the Resident Commissioner, a position I have held since January 2009—will likely introduce legislation that would place Puerto Rico on the path to statehood, phasing in equal treatment for the Island under federal law. As with other bills, this legislation would be subject to amendment and require the approval of Congress and the signature of the President.

To fully comprehend the merits of Law 283, some legal and historical background is in order.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, known as the Territory Clause, gives Congress the power “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” In 1789, the first Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance, which provided a template for the future treatment of U.S. territories. As former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has observed, the Northwest Ordinance “assumed that a geographic area’s designation as a ‘territory’ of the United States was a temporary status that would ultimately lead” to that territory becoming a state. For over a century, the Northwest Ordinance prototype was followed, with many jurisdictions evolving from territories to states over time.

However, the Northwest Ordinance model was set aside for Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, which the U.S. acquired from Spain in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War. Article IX of the Treaty stated: “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress.” Under the Treaty, Spain also relinquished sovereignty over Cuba. However, because the federal government had previously disclaimed any intent to exercise permanent sovereignty over Cuba, the Treaty provided that the U.S. would temporarily “occupy” the island until its independence.

Debate raged in turn-of-the-century America as to how the U.S. should treat its newly-acquired territories. In Puerto Rico, after a brief period of military government, the federal government enacted an “organic act,” the Foraker Act of 1900, which created a civilian government on the Island. The government was led by a governor appointed by the President. Two legislative chambers were established: a non-elected Executive Council and a popularly-elected House of Delegates. The Foraker Act also authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner (who, two years later, was given a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives). The law did not confer U.S. citizenship upon residents of Puerto Rico.

Between 1901 and 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of controversial cases regarding its island territories, known as the Insular Cases. Two of the most important decisions in the series are Downes v. Bidwell in 1901 and Balzac v. Porto Rico in 1922. In Downes, the Court held that Puerto Rico had been acquired by the United States but not “incorporated” as part of the U.S. Thus, the Court conceived—out of thin air, critics have charged—a binary world of “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories. An incorporated territory was one on the path to eventual statehood in the well-worn Northwest Ordinance tradition. By contrast, an unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico was one whose ultimate status—statehood or nationhood—Congress had yet to decide.

The distinction between classification as an incorporated territory and classification as an unincorporated territory has additional significance, because the Court in the early Insular Cases held that only those rights in the Bill of Rights that are found to be “fundamental” apply automatically (that is, even in the absence of federal legislation conferring such rights) in unincorporated territories. For example, the Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury is not fundamental and therefore does not need to be furnished to criminal defendants in unincorporated territories.

In 1917, the federal government extended U.S. citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico in the Jones-Shafroth Act. The legislation also established a bill of rights for the territory and provided for a popularly-elected Senate. Five years later, the Supreme Court decided the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico. Many critics of the earlier Insular Cases had taken a measure of comfort in the assumption that Puerto Rico’s status as an unincorporated territory would be temporary, and continue only until such time as the federal government granted Island residents U.S. citizenship (which would presumably set Puerto Rico on the path to statehood) or granted the Island’s independence. In Balzac, however, the Court held that the grant of citizenship in the Jones Act did not demonstrate intent by Congress to incorporate Puerto Rico. Balzac is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Rassmussen v. United States, where the Court interpreted the grant of citizenship to residents of Alaska as the key evidence that Congress intended to incorporate that territory into the Union. Thus, to the chagrin of many, the Insular Cases made clear that Puerto Rico’s judicially-created status as an unincorporated territory could last indefinitely.

As has been noted, during the first two decades of the 20th century the federal government took successive steps to grant the government of Puerto Rico increased authority over local matters. This process continued over time. In 1947, for example, federal law was amended to provide for the territory’s governor to be popularly elected. And in 1950, the federal government authorized the Island to draft a local Constitution, which took effect in 1952 (after Congress required certain modifications). All told, Congress has now delegated to Puerto Rico roughly the same degree of authority over local matters that the states possess. Nevertheless, these measures have not altered Puerto Rico’s fundamental status. Rather, the Island remains an unincorporated territory of the United States, subject to Congress’s plenary power under the Territory Clause.

The Spanish-language version of the Puerto Rico Constitution named the territory the “Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico”—which translates literally as the “Freely Associated State of Puerto Rico.” However, since Puerto Rico was not a freely associated state as that term is defined by international law, the delegates to Puerto Rico’s constitutional convention resolved that the English-language name of the polity would be the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” As federal authorities have emphasized, this term—Commonwealth—“does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship.” This is evidenced by the fact that four U.S. states—Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia—and one of Puerto Rico’s sister territories—the Northern Mariana Islands—are also self-designated as “Commonwealths.”

Territory status has inherent and indisputable defects. Puerto Rico’s 3.7 million residents lack the most basic right in a democracy: the ability to elect voting representatives in the government that makes their national laws. Although Island residents participate in the presidential nomination process, which is governed by party rules, they cannot vote for president in the general elections. Puerto Rico has no representation in the U.S. Senate. And the territory’s lone representative in the U.S. House, the Resident Commissioner, can introduce legislation and vote in committees, but cannot vote in the full House. On a daily basis, the three branches of the federal government make decisions that have a direct impact on Puerto Rico, where federal law is supreme, but the Island has little voice (and no vote) in that decision-making process.

Beyond denying Puerto Rico full self-government, territory status enables the federal government to enact and administer laws that treat Island residents less favorably than residents of the states. To take one of many possible examples, consider the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides monthly cash assistance to blind, disabled or elderly individuals who have limited or no income. SSI applies in the states, the District of Columbia, and one territory. Despite efforts by numerous Puerto Rico officials, Congress has chosen not to extend the program to the Island, leaving its most vulnerable residents without an adequate safety net.

The courts uphold federal laws that treat Puerto Rico unequally as long as the federal government can demonstrate that there is a rational basis for the disparate treatment, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny. The federal government can satisfy this test by asserting that equal treatment would be expensive or that, pursuant to an Act of Congress, residents of Puerto Rico are not required to pay federal taxes on income they earn on the Island. This income tax argument has carried the day in court even though Island residents are required to pay federal taxes on income earned outside of Puerto Rico and all federal payroll taxes. In 2010, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service collected $3.6 billion in individual income taxes, employment taxes, and business income taxes in Puerto Rico, which is more than the IRS collected in one state and not significantly less than it collected in at least four other states. The income tax rationale for disparate treatment also disregards the fact that over half of all households in the 50 states—including most if not all households that benefit from federal aid programs like SSI—do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes, yet still receive equal treatment from their national government.

Puerto Rico’s political status has been—and remains today—the central issue in the territory’s political life. Although Puerto Rico is a U.S. jurisdiction, the Island’s three political parties are not divided along traditional Democrat and Republican lines, but rather based on their views on the status question. One party favors statehood. Another party—as passionate as, but much smaller than, the other two parties—advocates independence. The third party prefers the current status over either statehood or independence. At the same time, this party champions a proposal which its members often describe as an “enhanced” version of the current status, but which is in fact fundamentally different than the current status.

In May 2009, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would have provided for a federally-sponsored, two-step plebiscite process in Puerto Rico where voters would choose among the current status, statehood, independence and nationhood in free association with the United States. Statehood and independence are widely understood. Under free association, Puerto Rico would become a sovereign nation, but would have a negotiated agreement with the United States that sets forth the terms of the relationship between the two nations. As with any agreement between sovereign nations, the agreement could be unilaterally terminated by either party—as denoted by the “free” in free association. The United States currently has compacts of free association with three nations that it formerly administered under the United Nations trusteeship system—the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. Under the compacts, these small Pacific-island countries receive assistance under a number of federal domestic programs. Residents of the freely associated states may enter the U.S. without restriction, but they are not American citizens. There is a bloc of voters in Puerto Rico that advocates free association for the Island, one that draws its support primarily from a faction within the “status quo” party.

H.R. 2499 provided for the results of the plebiscite process to be certified to Congress, but—in contrast to Puerto Rico status bills that passed the House in 1990 and 1998—did not itemize the steps to be taken by Congress in the event that a majority of Island residents voted for a change in status. In April 2010, H.R. 2499 was approved by the House in a strong bipartisan vote. Although the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources subsequently held a hearing on H.R. 2499, further action on the bill did not take place.

It is important to understand that, while Congress would need to act to change Puerto Rico’s status, the Island does not require Congress’s prior approval to hold a plebiscite,. The Puerto Rico government has already held three plebiscites authorized under local, as opposed to federal, law—in July 1967, November 1993 and December 1998. Why, then, did the Puerto Rico government first attempt to obtain congressional sponsorship for a plebiscite, rather than move immediately to enact local legislation to provide for a (fourth) plebiscite organized under Puerto Rico law—which is ultimately what came to pass with Law 283?

There were two primary reasons. First, some Island residents are skeptical that Congress would consent to a change in the Island’s status if Puerto Rico sought one. When the House voted to approve H.R. 2499, it strongly reaffirmed that it will take seriously the results of any fair plebiscite held on the Island. Accordingly, the November 2012 plebiscite authorized by Law 283 will not be a mere “beauty contest.” To the contrary, it will be a meaningful vote with real implications for Puerto Rico’s political future.

The second reason that Puerto Rico chose to pursue a “Washington-first” strategy is even more fundamental. It was essential for Congress to clarify—once and for all—the possible alternatives to the current territory status, since there was still uncertainty in Puerto Rico on this score. As alluded to above, this confusion stems from the fact that one political party in Puerto Rico has promoted a legally impossible and politically unrealistic status proposal—often called “Enhanced Commonwealth.”

Under “Enhanced Commonwealth,” Puerto Rico would be treated as a nation, but in an association with the United States. Unlike under free association, however, residents of Puerto Rico would be granted U.S. citizenship in perpetuity and the Island would continue to receive at least as much federal assistance as it does now. At the same time, Puerto Rico would have the power to nullify application of federal laws (except in certain cases) and to limit federal court jurisdiction (in most cases). In addition, Puerto Rico could join international organizations and enter into international agreements. Finally, the association would be “permanent”—meaning that the U.S. could not withdraw from it or modify its terms without Puerto Rico’s consent.

As the House Committee on Natural Resources observed in its October 2009 report on H.R. 2499, “proposals for such a governing arrangement have been consistently opposed by federal authorities in the executive and legislative branches . . . on both constitutional and policy grounds.” The Committee report also noted that, as a result of these proposals, the three prior plebiscites in Puerto Rico had been “misinformed and inconclusive.” The Committee concluded that H.R. 2499 would “clarify the viable status options and thereby ensure that the self-determination process is well-informed and productive.”

Through House passage of H.R. 2499, therefore, Congress confirmed that Puerto Rico has four—and only four—valid status options: the current territory status, statehood, independence, and free association. Moreover, in the wake of the successful House vote, the Chairman and Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources sent a letter to President Obama expressing their view that the status options set forth in H.R. 2499 were the only choices available to Puerto Rico. And, in March 2011, the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status—which was created by executive order in 2000 and consists of representatives from 18 federal agencies—issued a comprehensive report that reached the same conclusion. The report stated explicitly that the “Enhanced Commonwealth” proposal is not a viable status option, the same conclusion that had been reached by the Clinton Administration in 2000 and 2001 and by the George W. Bush Administration in 2005 and 2007. While it is inevitable that some Puerto Rico politicians will continue to promote “Enhanced Commonwealth,” it is clear to all reasonable observers that this proposal has finally been dealt a knockout blow.

President Obama and the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have all expressed strong support for Puerto Rico self-determination. President Obama traveled to the Island in June 2011 and delivered a speech that stated: “When the people of Puerto Rico make a clear decision, my administration will stand by you.” On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum have all made similar commitments.

For over a century, resolution of Puerto Rico’s status question has proven elusive. Not unreasonably, this has led to a degree of cynicism among Island residents, who wonder whether, years from now, their grandchildren will be having the same impassioned—but seemingly fruitless—debates that were taking place 50 years ago. However, in the last two years, we have witnessed important progress on this issue, culminating in the enactment of Law 283. Unlike the three prior status votes in Puerto Rico, the ballot in this year’s plebiscite—like the ballot that would have been authorized by H.R. 2499—will include only those options identified as valid by the federal government. Genuine self-determination must be a choice among real options, not an exercise in wishful thinking.

Besides marking the first time that Puerto Rico voters will be given the chance to express their views among just the valid options, the two-step plebiscite also represents the first time that Island residents will have the opportunity to answer “Yes” or “No” to the threshold question of whether they support the status they have enjoyed (or endured) since 1898. This question has intrinsic value in a democracy, where a government’s legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed. If a majority expresses satisfaction with the current status, Puerto Rico’s status would not change at this time. In that case, the answer to the second question—asking voters which of the three alternatives they prefer—will serve to inform officials in San Juan and Washington about where Puerto Rico may be headed in the future.

However, if a majority expresses a desire to change the current status, then the second question takes on greater significance. If none of the three options obtains a majority, voters have demonstrated that they are dissatisfied with the current status, but cannot yet agree on what should replace it. And if a majority votes against the current status, and then in favor of an alternative, federal action that honors this choice should begin.

Is the two-step process provided for in Law 283 the only possible way to structure the self-determination process? Of course not. But is it a reasonable and appropriate process whose results will be taken seriously by the federal government? Absolutely.

Congressman Pedro Pierluisi, a member of the US Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, is Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in the US House of Representatives. He is a member of the Judiciary, Ethics and Natural Resources committees. From 1993 to 1996, Pierluisi served as Puerto Rico’s Attorney General. Congressman Pierluisi would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by his Legislative Director, John Laufer, in preparing this article.

Discuss this article at the Puerto Rico 51 forum!

This, of course, is just my opinion.

Discuss this blog post in the Puerto Rico 51 Forums!

The next conclusion you can draw requires you understand what the Commonwealth “option” has offered Puerto Rican voters in the past. It has included permanent union with the United States and continued US citizenship. These two conditions are obviously also part of the Statehood option. Therefore the conclusion I draw from these results is that Puerto Ricans by an overwhelming margin on several occasions have expressed their desire to remain in permanent union with the United States and maintain their US citizenship. We differ on what form our political relationship should take with the US, but these two conditions are very clear.

The pro–Commonwealth party advocates giving Puerto Rico more autonomy and control over the island’s affairs while remaining associated with the US. The problem with this option is that it is contrary to the US Constitution. The territorial clause of the US Constitution gives full control of all territorial affairs to the US Congress. For Congress to relinquish some or all of its powers over a territory, the territory would have to be removed from under the jurisdiction of the territorial clause, or the Constitution would have to be ammended (very unlikely to happen).

The only way to remove Puerto Rico from under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution is to grant it Independence, something Puerto Ricans do not want. Do you see the dilemma?

The problem is that all the past votes on the matter have been crafted by Puerto Rican politicians, and the definitions of the status options people have voted for in the past ignore this Constitutional reality. The intricacies of US Constitutional law are not very well understood in Puerto Rico, and the US Congress has failed to provide clear guidance on the matter.

On the topic of language – although Spanish is by far the most prominent language in Puerto Rico, English is taught in public schools, many college texts are in English, and many Puerto Ricans are bilingual. I do not believe language would be a barrier to integration through Statehood.

I would disagree with the assertion that Congress has denied proposed changes to Puerto Rico’s status. The issue is Congress has not acted at all. It has not given Puerto Rico a clear and Constitutionally viable choice. Congress has left it up to Puerto Ricans to decide for ourselves, and our political infighting has prevented us from speaking with a clear voice. The status quo is hard to change. People fear change. And by making false promises, the pro-Commonwealth party continues to delay the inevitable.

We cannot remain in permanent union with the US and keep our US citizenship, yet enjoy the autonomy of an independent nation. That is not possible. Not only would it require a change to the US Constitution, but it would also require a super majority of US States to agree to give Puerto Rico a special status they themselves do not enjoy. It’s just not going to happen.

Puerto Rico needs to decide to either become a State, become a free nation, or stay a US territory. If the Puerto Rican people understood that these are the only three choices, and that this “enhanced” Commonwealth option being offered at voting time is just not possible, I believe you would see much higher support for Statehood.

The current status of US territory (which in Puerto Rico is called “Associated Free State”, something that doesn’t exist) is demeaning, shameful, and goes against everything the US stands for. The US gains nothing by keeping a territory. The US Congress should exercise its duties under the US Constitution and give Puerto Rico a clear choice that removes us from under the territorial clause and makes us either an independent nation or a state.

The status quo must end.

Discuss this blog post in the Puerto Rico 51 forums.

Yo nací en Puerto Rico. Yo estudié en Puerto Rico y me gradué del Recinto de Rio Piedras de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Obviamente hablo español sin problema alguno. Es, después de todo, my primer idioma.

Sin embargo no puedo dejar de sentirme muy agradecido a mis padres por, en adición a haberme dado la vida, también me aseguraron una educación bilingue en inglés y español. Fue por esa decisión que ellos tomaron hace tantos años atrás que pude terminar mis estudios graduados en Florida y ahora ocupo una posición ejecutiva con una compañia multinacional.

El limitarse a un solo idioma, sea el inglés, español o cualquier otro, cierra puertas de oportunidad. Los Puertorriqueños tenemos acceso libre a uno de los mas grandes y prósperos mercados de educación y empleo en el mundo – los Estados Unidos. El aprender inglés es una necesidad si queremos aprovecharnos de las oportunidades que allí nos esperan.

El español es el idioma de mis padres – es el idioma de mis abuelos. Sin embargo, yo no sacrificaré mi futuro ni me negaré oportunidades educacionales o de empleo en un vano intento de hacer un punto sobre mi patriotismo.

Un idioma no es quien yo soy.

Yo soy mas que el idioma en el cual me comunico. Es la esencia de mi mensaje la que me define, no el método en el que decido enviarlo.

El sugerir que un idioma define quien soy es limitar mis posibilidades. Vivimos en una sociedad que valora la libertad de expresión, pero en ningún lugar se dicta que esa expresión tiene que ser en inglés. El dictar un idioma para expresarme libremente viola la esencia misma de esa libertad, y viola mis derechos como hombre libre y ciudadano Estadounidense.

Ahora, si vamos a ser prácticos, yo necesito hablar inglés si me quiero hacer entender en la mayoría de los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el sugerir que tengo que hablar inglés, y sólamente inglés para que se me considere Americano es ridículo. Es igualmente rídiculo el sugerir que solamente puedo hablar español, y solamente español, para que se me considere Puertorriqueño.

Yo soy Americano. Yo soy Puertorriqueño. El ser ambos, contrario al sentido popular, no es una contradicción. Yo puedo valorar mis raices y mi cultura a la misma vez que creo en los principios de la Declaración de Independencia, y en la letra y espíritu de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos. Aquellos que sugieren que estas dos condiciones son mutuamente exclusivas no entienden lo que significa ser Americano. Peor aún, no entienden lo que significa ser Puertorriqueño.

Yo soy quien soy. Yo soy quien yo quiero ser. Nadie me puede dictar lo que yo puedo y no puedo ser. En esta sociedad donde la libertad del individuo es valorada y protegida yo puedo aspirar a ser lo que yo quiera. Los que no entienden un concepto tan sencillo quizás le tienen miedo. A esta gente hay que tenerles pena, pues se estan perdiendo el mayor beneficio que nos brinda el vivir en una democracia.

Nosotros, los Puertorriqueños, tenemos que aprender a hablar inglés. El no hacerlo nos cierra la puerta a demasiadas oportunidades, y nos niega el derecho fundamental de participar en los procesos políticos que afectan nuestras vidas. El no aprender inglés nos condena a nosotros y a nuestros hijos a puertas cerradas en uno de los mas grandes y prósperos mercados del mundo. El no aprender inglés nos limita, nos ata, y reduce nuestra habilidad de afectar el mundo que nos rodea, dándole mas control a quienes nos gobiernan.

Aprender inglés no significa darle la espalda al español – significa que expandamos nuestro horizontes, que aumentemos nuestras oportunidades para avanzar y mejorar nuestra calidad de vida, y que ganemos acceso a cada parte del ambiente que nos rodea. El aprender inglés nos da más poder y nos permite proveer un futuro mejor para nosotros y nuestra posteridad.

Discuta este ensayo en Puerto Rico 51 Forums!

I was born in Puerto Rico. I went to school in Puerto Rico and graduated from the University of Puerto Rico.

Obviously I speak Spanish fluently. It is after all my first language.

However, I can’t help but feel a deep sense of gratitude towards my parents for, among the many things they have done for me since they gave me life, making sure I had a strong bilingual education in both English and Spanish. Because of their foresight I was able to finish my graduate studies in Florida and I now hold an executive position with a Fortune Global 500 company.

Limiting oneself to one language, English or any other for that matter, closes doors of opportunity. In our case, Puerto Ricans have unrestricted access to one of the largest and most advanced educational and employment markets in the world – the United States. We need to learn English if we want to take advantage of the opportunities that await us within.

Spanish is the language of my parents; it is the language of my grandparents; it is my language. However, I will not sacrifice my future, nor will I deny myself educational or employment opportunities in some vain attempt to make a point about patriotism.

Language is not who I am.

I am more than the language I communicate in. It is the content of my message which defines me, not the language in which I choose to send it.

To suggest that language defines who I am is to limit my possibilities. We live in a country that values freedom of speech, but nowhere does it say that speech has to be in English. To do so violates the very essence of freedom of speech, and it violates my rights as a free man and a citizen of the United States.

As a matter of practicality, I need to speak English if I want to be understood in most places in the United States. That is a far cry from saying I need to speak English, and only English, to be considered an American. It is just as ridiculous to suggest I need to speak Spanish, and only Spanish, to be Puerto Rican.

I am an American. I am Puerto Rican. These two conditions are not mutually exclusive. I can value my heritage and my culture while believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and in the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States. Those who suggest that these two conditions are mutually exclusive seek to divide us. It is much easier to be divisive than it is to be constructive.

I am who I am. I am who I choose to be. Do not tell me what I can and cannot be. In the land of the free and the home of the brave I can do as I please. Perhaps those who do not understand this fear it. It is human nature. Pity them, for they are missing out on life.

We, Puerto Ricans, have to learn English. To not do so closes too many doors to opportunities, and denies us our fundamental rights of participating in the very political processes that impact our lives. To not learn English condemns us and our children to missing out on one of the biggest and most prosperous markets in the world. It limits us, it constrains us, it lessens our ability to impact the world around us and it gives those in power more control over us.

Learning English does not mean we turn our backs on Spanish – it means we expand our horizons, we increase our opportunities for advancement and improvement, and we gain access to every part of the environment that surrounds us. We are empowered by this ability and we fulfill our promise to ourselves and to our posterity.

Discuss this essay in the Puerto Rico 51 Forums!

Keynote Address
Alaska Constitutional Convention
University of Alaska
November 9, 1955

The Convention was established by enactment by the 22nd Alaska Territorial Legislature of Chapter 46, approved March 19, 1955. The Act provided for the election by the people of Alaska of fifty-five delagates who would meet on November 8, 1955 for not more than seventy-five days to draft a Constitution for the State of Alaska. The Constitution would thereafter be submitted to the people of Alaska for their approval or disapproval.

We meet to validate the most basic of American principles, the principle of “government by consent of the governed.” We take this historic step because the people of Alaska who elected you, have come to see that their long standing and unceasing protests against the restrictions, discriminations and exclusions to which we are subject have been unheeded by the colonialism that has ruled Alaska for 88 years. The people of Alaska have never ceased to object to these impositions even though they may not have realized that such were part and parcel of their colonial status. Indeed the full realization that Alaska is a colony may not yet have come to many Alaskans, nor may it be even faintly appreciated by those in power who perpetuate our colonial servitude.

Half a century ago, a governor of Alaska, John Green Brady, contemplating the vain efforts of Alaskans for nearly forty years to secure even a modicum of workable self-government, declared:
“We are graduates of the school of patience.”

Since that time Alaskans have continued to take post-graduate courses. Today, in 1955, sorely tried through 88 years of step- childhood, and matured to step-adulthood, Alaskans have come to the time when patience has ceased to be a virtue. But our faith in American institutions, our reverence for American traditions, are not only undimmed but intensified by our continuing deprivation of them. Our cause is not merely Alaskans’; it is the cause of all Americans. So we are gathered here, following action by our elected representatives who provided this Constitutional Convention, to do our part to “show the world that America practices what it preaches.”

In a public address at Denver, September 16, 1950, General Dwight D. Eisenhower declared: “Quick admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood will show the world that America practices what it preaches.”

These words are not original with me. But they remain as valued and as valid as when they were uttered five years ago. They remain no less valid even if their noble purpose is as yet unfulfilled. We are here to do what lies within our power to hasten their fulfillment.

We meet in a time singularly appropriate. Not that there is ever a greater or lesser timeliness for the application by Americans of American principles. Those principles are as enduring and as eternally timely as the Golden Rule. Indeed democracy is nothing less than the application of the Golden Rule to the Great Society. I mean, of course, democracy of deeds, not of lip-service: democracy that is faithful to its professions; democracy that matches its pledges with its performance. But there is nevertheless, a peculiar timeliness to this Alaskans’ enterprise to keep our nation’s democracy true to its ideals. For right now that the United States has assumed world leadership, it has shown through the expressions of its leaders its distaste for colonialism. And this antipathy to colonialism – wherever such colonialism may be found – reflects a deep-seated sentiment among Americans.

For our nation was born of revolt against colonialism. Our charters of liberty – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – embody America’s opposition to colonialism and to colonialism’s inevitable abuses. It is therefore natural and proper that American leadership should set its face against the absenteeism, the discriminations and the oppressions of colonialism. It is natural and proper that American leadership should lend such aid and comfort as it may to other peoples striving for self-determination and for that universally applicable tenet of American faith – government by consent of the governed. Indeed, as we shall see, we are pledged to do this by recent treaty commitments.

What more ironical, then, what more paradoxical, than that very same leadership maintains Alaska as a colony?

What could he more destructive of American purpose in the world? And what could be more helpful to that mission of our nation than to rid America of its last blot of colonialism by admitting our only two incorporated territories – Alaska and Hawaii – to the equality they seek, the equality provided by the long-established and only possible formula, namely statehood?

America does not, alas, practice what it preaches, as long as it retains Alaska in colonial vassalage.

Is there any doubt that Alaska is a colony? Is there any question that in its maintenance of Alaska as a territory against the expressed will of its inhabitants, and subject to the accompanying political and economic disadvantages, the United States has been and is guilty of colonialism?

Lest there be such doubt, lest there be those who would deny this indictment, let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

You will note that this last sentence is borrowed from that immortal document, the Declaration of Independence. It is wholly appropriate to do this. For, in relation to their time, viewed in the light of mankind’s progress in the 180 years since the revolt of the thirteen original American colonies, the “abuses and usurpations” – to use again the language of the Declaration – against which we protest today, are as great, if not greater, than those our revolutionary forbears suffered and against which they revolted.

Let us recall the first item of grievance in the Declaration of Independence:
“He has refused assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

“He,” of course, was King George the Third. Put in his place, in place of the “he”, his contemporary equivalent, our ruler, the federal government.

Has it, or has it not, “refused assent to laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good?”

We Alaskans know that the answer is emphatically, “Yes, it has.”

He, or for the purpose of 1955, it, the federal government, has “refused assent,” although requested to do so for some forty years, to the following “most wholesome and necessary laws:”

First. A law transferring the control and management of Alaska’s greatest natural resource, the fisheries, to the Territory of Alaska, as it transferred the corresponding resources to all other Territories in the past.

Second. It has “refused assent” to a law repealing the thirty-five year old discrimination in the Maritime Law of 1920, the “Jones Act,” a discrimination uniquely against Alaska.

Third. It has “refused assent” to a reform of our obsolete and unworkable land laws, which would assist and speed population growth, settlement and development of Alaska. It alone is responsible for over 99% of Alaska being still public domain.

Fourth. It has “refused assent” to a law including Alaska in federal aid highway legislation.

Fifth. It has “refused assent” to a law abolishing the barbarous commitment procedure of Alaska’s insane which treats them like criminals and confines them in a distant institution in the states.

Sixth. It has “refused assent” to placing our federal lower court judges, the United States commissioners, on salary, and paying them a living wage.

One could cite other examples of such refusal to assent to “laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

But let us instead pass on to the second item for complaint, which is similar to the first, in the Declaration of Independence: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and growing importance. . .”

Substitute for the “He”, then the British royal executive, the present American federal executive, and substitute for “his governors”, his party leaders in Congress, and recall their vote in the House of Representatives last May 10, killing a law “of immediate and growing importance” – the statehood bill.

Let us go still further down the list of our revolutionary fore- fathers’ expressed grievances, again quoting the Declaration of Independence:
“He has obstructed the administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to laws establishing judiciary powers.”

“He”, is today the whole federal government. It has for a decade “obstructed the administration of justice” in Alaska by refusing assent to establishing additional judiciary powers, where they were needed, namely in the Third Judicial Division, while repeatedly increasing the number of judges in the “mother country,” the 48 states. And although the population of Alaska has more than tripled in the last forty-six years, the number of federal judges established in Alaska in 1909 remains unchanged. And federal judges are the only judges this colony is permitted to have.

Let us look still further in the Declaration of Independence:
“He has affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power.”

Is there much difference between this and the recent presidential declaration that the defense of Alaska, that is to say the rule of the military here, could be better carried out if Alaska remains a Territory?

One could go on at length drawing the deadly parallels which caused our revolutionary forefathers to raise the standard of freedom, although, clearly, some of the other abuses complained of in that distant day no longer exist.

But Alaska is no less a colony than were those thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard in 1775. The colonialism which the United States imposes on us and which we have suffered for 88 years, is no less burdensome, no less unjust, than that against which they poured out their blood and treasure. And while most Alaskans know that full well, we repeat:
“To prove this let the facts be submitted to a candid world.”

To begin at the beginning, the Treaty of Cession by which Alaska was annexed, contained a solemn and specific commitment:
“The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States . . .”

That was the pledge. The United States has not kept that pledge. Yet a treaty is the highest law of the land. And it is made in the clear view of all mankind.

The United States has broken that pledge for 88 years. It has not admitted the inhabitants of Alaska to the enjoyment of “all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States.”

“All the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States” would entitle us to vote for President and Vice-President, to representation in the Congress by two Senators and a Representative with a vote, and would free us from the restrictions imposed by the Organic Act of 1912, and the Act of Congress of July 30, 1886. Obviously we have neither the vote, nor the representation, nor the freedom from restrictions.

We suffer taxation without representation, which is no less “tyranny” in 1955 than it was in 1775. Actually it is much worse in 1955 than in 1775 because the idea that it was “tyranny” was then new. Since the Revolutionaries abolished it for the states a century and three-quarters ago, it has become a national synonym for something repulsive and intolerable.

We are subject to military service for the nation – a privilege and obligation we accept gladly – yet we have not voice in the making and ending of the wars into which our young men are drafted.

In this respect we are worse off than our colonial forefathers. King George III did not impose conscription upon them. They were not drafted to fight for the mother country. Therefore there was no revolutionary slogan “no conscription without representation.” But it is a valid slogan for Alaskans today.

The treaty obligation of 1867 is an obligation to grant us the full equality of statehood, for which Alaskans did not press in the first 80 years of their subordination, but which now, overdue, they demand as their right.

But that is only a small part of the evidence of our colonialism under the American flag. Let us submit more facts to a candid world.

First, let us ask, what is a colony? And let us answer that question.

A colony has been defined in a standard college text-book by a Columbia University professor as “a geographic area held for political, strategic and economic advantage.”

That, as the facts will show, is precisely what the Territory of Alaska is – “a geographic area held for political, strategic and economic advantage.”

The maintenance and exploitation of those political, strategic and economic advantages by the holding power is colonialism.

The United States is that holding power.

Inherent in colonialism is an inferior political status.

Inherent in colonialism is an inferior economic status.

The inferior economic status is a consequence of the inferior political status.

The inferior economic status results from discriminatory laws and practices imposed upon the colonials through the superior political strength of the colonial power in the interest of its own non-colonial citizens.

The economic disadvantages of Alaskans which in consequence of such laws and practices redound to the advantage of others living in the states who prosper at the expense of Alaskans – these are the hall- marks of colonialism.

Let us take a look at these hall-marks of colonialism deeply engraved on the policies of the United States in Alaska in the field of transportation. Transportation is the key to almost all development. None have demonstrated this better than have the Americans within the non-colonial areas of their 48 states where transportation of every kind – railways, highways, airways – have linked, built and developed a dynamic domain of continental dimensions.

First, let us scrutinize sea-borne transportation. It was, for seventy-three years, until 1940, the only form of transportation between Alaska and the states. Alaska suffers a unique discrimination in maritime law.

Thirty-five years ago the Congress passed a merchant marine act which is known officially as the Maritime Act of 1920. In Alaska it is referred to as the “Jones Act,” after its sponsor, the late Senator Wesley L. Jones of the state of Washington. The act embodied a substantial modification of existing maritime law. It provided that goods shipped across the United States, destined either for the coastal ports of the Atlantic or Pacific or for shipment across those oceans to Europe or to Asia, could use either American or foreign carriers. The foreign carriers principally involved were Canadian.

For example, a shipper from the Atlantic seaboard or from the industrial cities of the middle west of products destined for points to the west could ship these across the country wholly on American railroads or on Canadian railroads, or partly on either.

And when these goods arrived at their Coast destination, he could send them across the Pacific in either American or foreign vessels, or southward in either. But at that point in the legislation, creating this new beneficial arrangement, two words had been inserted in Article 27 of the Act. Those two words were, “excluding Alaska.”

Now what did those two words signify? They signified that Alaska, alone among the nations, or possessions of nations, on earth, was denied the advantages afforded all other areas. The same discrimination, obviously, applies to products shipped from Alaska.

What was the purpose of this discrimination? Its purpose was to subject Alaska to steamship service owned in the city of Seattle. Senator Jones no doubt assumed, and correctly that this would be most helpful to some of his constituents there, as indeed it proved to be, but at the expense, the heavy expense, from that time on, of our voteless citizens of Alaska.

This was in 1920. Under the limited self-government which Congress had granted Alaska through the Organic Act of 1912, more limited than had been granted any other territory, Alaska was still a youngster. Nevertheless, the fifth Territorial legislature meeting the next year, 1921, protested strenuously against this specific and flagrant discrimination, and ordered the Territorial Attorney-General to take the matter to court. The Territorial legislators believed, and so expressed themselves, that this new legislation enacted by Congress at the behest of Senator Jones of Seattle, was in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which forbids discrimination against any port of the United States.

The case came to the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal from a decree of the United States District Court dismissing the suit brought by the Territory and by an Alaskan shipper, the Juneau Hardware Company, which sought to restrain the Collector of Customs in Alaska from confiscating merchandise ordered by the hardware company and others in Alaska from points in the United States shipped over Canadian railroads, through Canadian ports and thence to Alaska by Canadian vessels, or merchandise to be shipped from Alaska to the United States in like manner.

In pleading the cause of the Territory, Alaska’s Attorney-General John Rustgard argued that both the Treaty provisions and the specific extension of the Constitution to Alaska by the Organic Act of 1912 rendered the discriminatory clause unconstitutional. It looked like a clear case.

The Government – our government – which was defending this discriminatory maritime Act, was represented by the Solicitor-General of the United States, the Honorable James M. Beck of Pennsylvania.

Let the candid world note well the language of his argument:
“The immunity from discrimination is a reserved right on the part of the constituent states … The clear distinction of governmental power between states and territories must be constantly borne in mind . . . If the fathers had anticipated the control of the United States over the far-distant Philippine Islands, would they, who concern the reserved rights of the states, have considered for a moment a project that any special privilege which the interests of the United States might require for the ports of entry of the several states should by compulsion be extended to the ports of entry of the colonial dependencies. . .?”

Let the candid world note that the case for the United States was presented on the basis that discrimination against a colonial dependency was proper and legitimate and that “any special privilege” required in the United States would supersede any obligation to a colonial dependency. The colonial dependency involved was and is Alaska.

Mr. Justice McReynolds, in rendering the decision of the court, declared:
“The Act does give preference to the ports of the States over those of the Territories,” but, he added, the Court could “find nothing in the Constitution itself or its history which compels the conclusion that it was intended to deprive Congress of the power so to Act.”

So it was definitely established by the highest court of the land that Congress had discriminated against Alaska, but that, since Alaska was a colonial dependency, such discrimination was permissible and legal.

Every plea by our Alaska legislatures over a period of 35 years to rectify this grave and unjust discrimination has been ignored by successive Congresses. They have “refused assent” to every attempt by Alaska’s delegates to secure remedial legislation.

Now the question naturally arises whether this discrimination imposed by the legislative branch of the federal government, approved by the executive branch, and sanctified by the judicial branch, was to prove to be more than a mere statement of the legality of such discrimination. Was it more than a mere affirmation of the subordinate and inferior status of Alaska’s colonials as compared with the dominating and superior status of the American citizens of the states? Did this discrimination also carry with it economic disadvantages? Indeed it did.

Several private enterprises in Alaska were immediately put out of business by the action of Congress in 1920 even before the Supreme Court upheld the legality of that Congressional action.

A resident of Juneau had established a mill to process Sitka spruce. He was paying the required fees to the Forest Service and had developed a market for his product in the Middle West where it was used in airplane manufacture. He was shipping it through Vancouver, where it cost him five dollars a thousand to ship by rail to his customers.

The “Jones Act” automatically compelled him to ship his spruce boards by way of Seattle. Here he was charged eleven dollars a thousand, as against the five dollars he had been paying, plus some additional charges, which totalled more than his profit. In consequence his mill was shut down and a promising infant industry, utilizing an abundant but little used Alaskan resource was extinguished. Not only did the “Jones Act” destroy this and other enterprises, but prevented still others from starting and has prevented them ever since. If anyone doubts that political control of the Territory through remote forces and absentee interests does not cause economic damage to the people of Alaska he need but look at the working of the maritime legislation directed against Alaska and Alaska only.

Its immediate effects were to more than triple the cost of handling Alaska freight in Seattle on purchases made in Seattle, as compared with Seattle-brought cargoes destined for the Orient. Alaska’s delegate, at that time, the late Dan Sutherland, testified that the Seattle terminal charges on shipments to Hawaii or Asia were only thirty cents a ton, and all handling charges were absorbed by the steamship lines, the result of competition between Canadian and American railways and steamship lines. But for Alaska, where Congressional legislation had eliminated competition, the Seattle terminal charges on local shipments, that is to say, on goods bought in Seattle destined for Alaska, were one hundred percent higher, or sixty cents a ton wharfage. So Alaskans paid $1.10 a ton for what cost Hawaiians and Asiatics thirty cents a ton – nearly four times as much.

This was by no means all. On shipments anywhere in the United States through Seattle, and destined for points in the Pacific other than Alaska, the total handling charges were only thirty cents a ton wharfage, and all other costs were absorbed by railroad and steam-ship lines. But for identical shipments consigned to Alaska, an unloading charge of sixty-five cents a ton was imposed, plus a wharfage charge of fifty cents a ton, plus a handling charge from wharf to ship of sixty cents a ton. These charges aggregated over five times the cost to a shipper to other points in the Pacific, and had to be paid by the Alaska consignee or shipper, and of course ultimately by the Alaskan consumer.

These damaging figures were presented by Delegate Sutherland at a public congressional committee hearing and made part of the official printed record. No attempt was made by the representatives of the benefitting state-side interests, either then or later, to explain, to justify, to palliate, to challenge, to refute, or to deny his facts.

If there is a clearer and cruder example of colonialism anywhere let it be produced! Here is a clear case where the government of the United States – through its legislative branch which enacted the legislation, the executive branch, through the President, who signed it, and the judicial branch, which through its courts, upheld it – imposed a heavy financial burden on Alaskans exclusively, for the advantage of private business interests in the “mother country.”

Nor is even this by any means all on the subject of railroad and steamship discrimination against Alaska, and Alaska alone. In addition to all the above extortions against Alaska’s shippers, suppliers and consumers – the direct result of discriminatory legislation – all the railroads of the United States charge a higher rate, sometimes as much as one hundred percent higher for shipping goods across the continent, if these goods are destined for Alaska.

There is a so-called rail export tariff and a rail import tariff, which apply to a defined geographic area with exceptions made for other areas, which penalizes Alaska and Alaska alone.

Please note that the service rendered by those railroads, for the same distance, is exactly the same, whether the article to be shipped goes ultimately to Alaska or elsewhere in the Pacific or whether it stays on the mainland of the United States. But the charges for Alaska, and Alaska only, on that identical article, for identical mileage, and identical service, are specifically higher, sometimes up to one hundred per cent higher.

This abuse, as well as the others dating from the Jones Act have been the subject of unceasing protest from Alaskans. Alaska’s legislatures have repeatedly memorialized the Congress and the federal executive agencies asking for equal treatment. Again and again have Alaska’s delegates sought to have the discriminatory clause in the maritime law repealed. But each time the lobbies of the benefitting stateside interests have been successful in preventing any relief action.

How powerful these lobbies are and how successful they have been in maintaining these burdensome manifestations of colonialism may be judged from the unsuccessful efforts of the late Senator Hugh Butler of Nebraska to get the discriminatory words “excluding Alaska” stricken from the Act. He introduced a bill for that purpose.

In a speech on the Senate floor on December 4, 1947, he denounced “the discrimination against the territory in the present law”, that is the Maritime Act of 1920, and urged that there was “need for the prompt removal of that discrimination if we are to demonstrate that we are in earnest in our determination to promote the development of Alaska.”

In a subsequent communication to Senator Homer Capehart, who was then chairman of a sub-committee on Alaska matters of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to which Senator Butler’s bill was referred, Senator Butler specified the character and extent of the abuse which Alaska was suffering, saying:
“To-day after 27 years of operation under the Jones Act of 1920, the carriers have failed to establish satisfactory service. . . . The Territory is still without adequate transportation to meet its needs. . . . Most Alaskan coastal towns are not connected with the continental United States, or with each other, by highway or rail. Accordingly they have been at the mercy of a steamship monopoly of long duration. There could be no competition from rail or bus lines which would compel better services or lower rates. American steamship lines have not been able or willing to meet Alaska’s transportation requirements. The service has been infrequent and the rates exorbitant.”

This caustic language was Senator Butler’s. And his testimony and vigorous denunciation are highly significant, not merely because he was very conservative, but because for the first fourteen years of his Senatorial service he was a bitter opponent of statehood for Alaska, a stand which made him the beau ideal of the anti-statehood elements within and without the Territory. He professed conversion to statehood for Alaska in 1954 only a few months before his death. He was still an unqualified opponent of Alaskan statehood when he issued this devastating indictment of the maritime transportation in 1947 and 8.

After going into further detail on the injurious effects on Alaska of the Jones Act, and the fact that most of the “merchandise . . . food products . . . and other commodities” shipped to Alaska were “an exclusive Seattle prerogative,” Senator Butler continued: “The passage of this amendment to the Jones Act could well mean the difference between the slow, continued strangulation of Alaska’s economy, and the full development of the Territory’s vast potentialities.”

Senator Butlter then spoke of the discriminatory rates in favor of canned salmon, which industry, he pointed out, likewise centered in and around Seattle, saying: “The people of Alaska have long been subject to higher rates than has the salmon industry, for general cargo. These higher rates are, in fact, a decree penalizing the resident Alaskan for living in Alaska; the lower rates are, in effect, a decree requiring the Alaska resident to make up for whatever deficits accrue from the costs of shipping canned salmon and salmon cannery needs. . . . The strangling provisions of the present laws would be eliminated by the enactment of S. 1834.”

S. 1834 was Senator Butler’s bill to remove this manifestation of colonialism.

And Senator Butler concluded:
“The development of Alaska would be accelerated, and justice would be done to those permanent residents of our northwestern frontier, who have, for so many years, struggled valiantly against discouraging circumstances to develop that area.”

Despite Senator Butler’s powerful position as the Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs when his party controlled the Congress, this legislation failed. It did not even come out of committee. Eight more years have passed since that time; the tragic situation as far as Alaska is concerned, in its key transportation, has further deteriorated. Steamship freight rates have continued to go up and up, far above the levels that Senator Butler termed “exorbitant.”

Invariably, whenever the operators announced another rate increase, the Alaska territorial authorities used to request the maritime regulatory agency to secure an audit of the company’s books in order to demonstrate that the increases requested where justified. But almost invariably the increases were granted without such audit and often without question. It may well be asked whether, if Alaska were not a colony, but a State, its two Senators might not be reasonably effective in at least securing a demonstration from the carrier that its financial situation justified the rate increase demanded and promptly acceded to by the federal maritime bureau.

But actually, if Alaska were a State, the whole discrimination in the Jones Act would go out of the port-hole. Alaska would then get the same treatment in the transportation of freight that is accorded to every other area under the flag and to foreign countries. But as a colony it gets no consideration in this matter either from the legislative branch, the Congress, or from the executive branch, in this instance the Federal Maritime Board, successor to other agencies similarly subservient to the vested interests within the colonial power.

The net result of those cumulative charges – 50 to 100 percent higher railroad freight rates to Seattle, higher unloading and transfer charges in Seattle, higher wharfage and higher longshoring charges, and finally higher maritime freight rates to Alaska ports – all higher than anywhere else for any but Alaskans, has been and is greatly to increase the cost of living in Alaska. This in itself has been and continues to be a great hindrance to settlement and permanent residence in Alaska, a heavy burden on private enterprise in Alaska, a forecloser of new enterprise, and obviously a great obstacle to development.

How absurd in the light of these facts – and others similar to be submitted to our candid world – is the allegation of the small minority of Alaskans and of others “outside” that we are not ready for statehood. How shall we get readier with these handicaps? How can we cope with what conservative Senator Butler described as “the slow, continued strangulation of Alaska’s economy,” if the throttling grip of colonialism is not loosened?

To complete the maritime picture, beginning last year all passenger travel on American boats has ceased. The Alaska Steamship Line has eliminated it. This is a blow to an infant and potentially great industry in Alaska, the tourist industry, which four years ago the Alaska 1951 legislature sought to develop by establishing the Alaska Visitors’ Association, financed jointly by territorially appropriated and publicly subscribed funds.

One postscript remains on the subject of maritime transportation before we pass on to other of Alaska’s colonial disadvantages. Though it is invariably pointed out by Congressional opponents of statehood that Alaska is a non-contiguous area, separated from the main body of the 48 states by some 700 miles of foreign territory, or 700 miles of either international or foreign coastal waters, the United States persists in maintaining the coast-wise shipping laws against Alaska. Their removal would make a steamship line eligible for the subsidies which American flag ships in the European, African or Asiatic trade receive. That might, were Congress sufficiently interested, induce some competition in the Alaska steamship trade from other American carriers. That the imposition of the coast-wise shipping laws is not a necessary corollary to being a colony, it proved by the fact that the United States has suspended the coast-wise shipping laws for the Virgin Islands. But it has declined to do so for Alaska.

Let us now turn to a third form of transportation: highways. These catchwords of colonialism, “excluding Alaska”, likewise apply to our highway transportation. For Alaska is denied inclusion in the Federal Aid Highway Act. From this beneficent legislation enacted in 1916, and repeatedly amended and amplified, Alaska, alone among the States and incorporated territories, is excluded. Even Puerto Rico, which pays no federal taxes whatever, is included. Yet Alaskans pay all taxes, including the federal gas tax.

The Congressionally wrought substitute – annual appropriation – is a witness to colonialism expressed in cold figures. The results are visible in the lack of an adequate Alaskan highway system. After 88 years of colonialism and 40 years after the enactment by Congress of the joint federal aid and state highway program, Alaska has only some 3,500 miles of highway. This is a negligible amount for an area one- fifth as large as the 48 states and with only one railroad.

For the first 38 years after the cession of Alaska no roads were built by any government agency. With Alaska almost totally public domain, highway construction was clearly a federal responsibility. In the next 36 years beginning with the first federal construction in 1905 and the outbreak of World War II, in 1941, the federal government appropriated about nineteen and a half million dollars, an average of a trifle over half a million dollars a year – a pittance. During that same period Alaska contributed some nine million dollars. Thus the federal contribution was 68.4 per cent of the total of twenty-eight and a half million dollars, and Alaska’s was 31.6 percent, a far greater proportion than Alaska with its virtual totality of public domain would have had to pay under the Federal Aid Highway Act. It is fair to say, however, that under the Highway Act, federal funds go for construction and not for maintenance.

After road construction had been transferred from the War Department to the Department of the Interior in 1930, for the next decade or more throughout the nineteen thirties, when the federal government and the States were jointly expanding the national highway network, Alaska was given no new highway construction. Maintenance only was granted. Military requirements brought the Alaska Highway and the Glenn Highway, and in the later 1940′s a highway program to satisfy defense needs was begun and carried out for five years. But even that has been brought to a virtual halt. For the past three years the federal program has contained no new highway project. This year a token appropriation was included for the desirable Fairbanks-Nenana road, but at the price of halting construction of the important Copper River Highway. In fact the present greatly reduced program spells little more than slow completion and paving of the military highways begun eight years ago. The federal government seems to be heading us back to mere maintenance.

In contrast the federal aid program in the mother country is being handsomely increased, reaching the largest sums in its history in the current biennial appropriation enacted in the second session of the 83rd Congress.

If Alaska were a State it would be automatically included in the expanding highway program. But as a colony it continues to be discriminated against, and that discrimination, instead of lessening is being aggravated.

By the same token Alaska has been excluded from the administration’s one hundred and one billion dollar federal highway program. One of its principal justifications, perhaps the principal justification, for this lavish, yet important and valuable proposal, is that it is in part a civilian defense measure to aid evacuation and dispersal in the event of a shooting war with atomic weapons. Yet the same administration that excludes Alaska from this defense measure wishes to keep Alaska in colonial bondage because of alleged national defense reasons.

The enactment of this multi-billion dollar program was deferred in the last session of Congress because of differences of opinion on how to finance it. But in one respect there was no difference of opinion: Alaska would be taxed for the program even if not included in it. The Eisenhower program, presented by General Lucius Clay, called for long term bonding to be repaid out of general funds, Congressional substitutes, on a more nearly “pay-as-you-go” basis, called for increased taxes on gasoline, tires, and other automobile accessories. Efforts to include Alaska in both programs failed, as did subsequent efforts to exclude Alaska from the tax provisions. So Alaskans will be taxed for benefits accruing solely to the residents of the mother country. What else is this but colonialism, crude, stark, undisguised and unashamed?

When both the presidential and congressional drafts failed of passage, President Eisenhower declared he was “deeply disappointed” and added:
“The nation badly needs good roads. The good of our people, of our economy, and of our defense requires that the construction of these highways be undertaken at once.”

As colonials we can merely note that Alaskans are, in the consideration of our President, apparently not part of “our people, our economy and our defense.”

There is yet more of humiliating disregard. The federal administration while patently uninterested in developing Alaska through its highways is strongly in favor of completing the Inter-American Highway.

On March 31, last, President Eisenhower in a letter to Vice- President Nixon requested an increase in the current appropriation for the central American portion from five million to seventy-five million dollars, a more than thirteen-fold increase. The President gave several reasons for this massive amplification. Three of them emphasized the important economic contribution to the countries through which this highway passes, and a fourth stressed the security aspects of the road.

We may applaud the purpose to complete the Inter-American Highway, with its economic benefits to Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. We may even enjoy our participation in this philanthropy to these good neighbors, remembering that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and that every Alaskan is paying his share of that 75 million dollars. Still, some of us may wonder why similar consideration is not vouchsafed to Alaska, whose highway and economic needs are great, whose trade is almost exclusively with the United States, and whose relation to national security is certainly much closer than that of the Central American republics. This wonder in our part would be particularly natural since President Eisenhower seems to exhibit concern about Alaska’s defense in connection with statehood.

We have now viewed three flagrant examples of colonialism in three of the major means of transportation, shipping, railways and highways. Let us now look at the fourth – airways.

It is superfluous to signalize our air-mindedness to any group of Alaskans. But the candid world should know that Alaskans fly thirty to forty times more than other Americans, and starting with our bush pilots, early developed a fine system of intra-Alaskan aviation. It was almost wholly an Alaskan enterprise – flown and financed by Alaskans – though for a time without airports, aids to navigation and other assistance provided in the mother country. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 – a sort of federal aid act for air – did not supply any of these aids to Alaska, although Alaska was included in the legislation. Nevertheless Alaska again suffered the penalty of being a colony, this time at the hands of the federal executive agency entrusted with administration of the Act. This time it was the bureaucrats who “excluded” Alaska. But the Alaskan bush pilots flew anyhow and what we have in the way of airways in Alaska is largely due to their courageous and skillful pioneering.

However, air service between Alaska and the States, which required the approval of federal bureaus and investment of outside capital, lagged far behind. The first commercial service connecting Alaska with the mother country did not take place til 1940, long after American commercial air carriers had spanned the rest of the hemisphere and had established regular service across the Pacific.

Meanwhile the newly created bureaucracies of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved into Alaska. They began restricting local enterprise. In the late 1940′s, over the widespread protests of Alaskans, the C. A. B. began cracking down on non-scheduled operations, and finally eliminated the “non-scheds” completely. It did not do so in the forty-eight states. Alaska was again the victim of its colonial status. We had no Senators or voting representatives to fend for us.

The successive certification cases which for over a decade have dealt with transportation between the states and Alaska, have been desperate, and not wholly successful, struggles by Alaskans to overcome the inadequate understanding of the Civil Aeronautics Board that air transportation is relatively much more important in Alaska than in the states with their well-established alternative forms of transportation, by railways and highways. Five years ago interior Alaska was saved from insufficient service only by President Truman’s overruling the Board and granting certification to one of the two Alaskan carriers which the Board had denied.

For the last two years our two Alaskan carriers, in the face of steadily mounting traffic, have managed by heroic, all-out effort at least to retain what they had. But it is noteworthy that while the two international carriers serving Alaska, both “mother country” enterprises, have been granted permanent certificates, the certificates for our two Alaskan carriers are only temporary – a handicap to their financing and to their ability to expand.

Alaska’s statehood case could rest here. Yet no account of its 88 years would be complete without some notice of the salmon fishery. It comes, this year, pretty close to being an obituary notice.

Here was Alaska’s greatest natural resource.

Here was the nation ‘s greatest fishery resource.

For nearly half a century, the federal government has totally ignored, has “refused assent” to the petitions, pleas, prayers, memorials, of legislatures, delegates, governors, and of the whole Alaskan people for measures that would conserve that resource.

The result is written in figures that spell tragedy for Alaska’s fishermen and for many others in Alaska’s coastal communities whose economy has long depended on the fisheries. The tragedy has deepened year after year. So grave has become the plight that the administration found it necessary to proclaim the fishing villages to be disaster areas. It is a disaster caused by colonialism, and the federal government may charge the costs of disaster relief and loss of federal tax income to its own policies.

From over eight million cases twenty years ago the salmon pack has fallen year by year until in 1955 it has reached the incredible low of 2,382,131 cases, the lowest in 46 years.

Nowhere, as in the Alaska fisheries fiasco, is the lesson clearer or the superiority, in purely material terms, of self-government to colonialism. In neighboring British Columbia and Washington State, where the fisheries are under home rule, and where fish traps have been abolished, the identical resource has not only been conserved but augmented.

It is colonialism that has both disregarded the interest of the Alaskan people and caused the failure of the prescribed federal conservation function. Colonialism has preferred to conserve the power and perquisites of a distant bureaucracy and the control and special privileges – the fish traps – of a politically potent absentee industry. Alaska has been the victim, but the entire nation has also lost heavily.

Let us by way of a footnote make crystal clear how and why this is colonialism – because some defenders of the status quo may deny it is, and we don’t want the candid world to be confused.

The people of Alaska have repeatedly and unchangingly manifested their overwhelming opposition to fish traps. It isn’t necessary to rehearse all their reasons – the results have amply justified the Alaskans’ position. But fish trap beneficiaries, residents of the mother country, want to retain their Alaska traps. So the traps are retained. And it is the power and authority of the federal government which retains them. In a clear-cut issue between the few, profiting, non-colonial Americans and the many, seriously damaged, colonial Alaskans, the state-side interest wins hands down. And it wins because the government, which is also supposed to be our government, throws its full weight on their side and against us. That is colonialism.

It would be impossible in any one address, even one that assumed the length of a Senate filibuster, to list all the wrongs, disadvantages and lack of immunities that Alaska has endured in its 88 years as a territory. They constitute an incredible story. Even for these who know it, it is hard to believe. It is hard for us as Americans who long ago established our faith in American intelligence, competence, good sense, and above all in American fair play, to contemplate the story of American colonialism in Alaska. It has been part of our faith, an abiding faith, that to right deep-seated wrongs in America, one but had to make them sufficiently widely known. And our best hope does lie, I am convinced, in making the facts known widely – and especially the overshadowing fact of our colonialism – to our fellow Americans and to the rest of the candid world. They should know that what progress has been made in Alaska, and it has been substantial and praiseworthy, has been made in spite of these colonial impositions, and largely because of the character and fibre of the colonials themselves. Coming here from the forty-eight states, following the most cherished American trend, the westward march in search of greater freedom and greater opportunity, they brought to the last frontier and to its friendly native population, the very qualities that have made America. Only distantly man-made problems, the problems created by a remote, often unseen officialdom and its beneficiaries in the mother country, have remained unresolved.

Alaskans have striven consistently to resolve them. Let it be recorded that for 43 years, since the first legislature, and before that by individuals and groups, they have pleaded for relief from the abuses a part of which have been detailed.

Yet after two generations not a single one of these pleas, all of them fair and reasonable, has been granted.

How applicable to Alaska’s plight the words of the Declaration of Independence:
“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury.”

Lest these frequent citations from the Declaration of Independence lead anyone to the conclusion that there are any among us who now desire our independence, let such a totally erroneous assumption be promptly corrected. We desire and demand an end to our colonialism. But we seek it through a re-affirmation in deeds for Alaska of the principles which launched the American experiment, and re-application of the practice that has been followed in 35 states.

We Alaskans believe – passionately – that American citizenship is the most precious possession in the world. Hence we want it in full measure; full citizenship instead of half-citizenship; first class instead of second class citizenship. We demand equality with all other Americans, and the liberties, long denied us, that go with it. To adapt Daniel Webster’s famous phrase uttered as a peroration against impending separatism, we Alaskans want “liberty and union, one and inseparable, now and forever.”

But the keepers of Alaska’s colonial status should be reminded that the 18th century colonials for long years sought merely to obtain relief from abuses, for which they – like us – vainly pleaded, before finally resolving that only independence would secure for them the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” which they felt was their natural right.

We trust that the United States will not by similar blindness to our rights and deafness to our pleas drive Alaskans from patient hope to desperation.

We have been challenged in the course of Congressional debates to show as a pre-requisite that admission of Alaska to statehood would be beneficial to the nation. That test was never applied to earlier territories seeking and securing statehood. But we gladly accept that challenge and willingly subscribe to it as a condition.

The development of Alaska, the fulfillment of its great destiny, cannot be achieved under colonialism. The whole nation will profit by an Alaska that is populous, prosperous, strong, self-reliant – a great northern and western citadel of the American idea. Statehood would automatically bring us far along that high road.

Nothing could more pathetically reveal the lack of understanding regarding Alaska, and the poor advice concerning Alaska that is given and accepted in the highest places, than the presidential pronouncement in the last state-of-the-union message.

“As the complex problems of Alaska are resolved that Territory should expect to achieve statehood.”

Bless us! The complex problems of Alaska are inherent in its territorial status; they are derived from its colonial status; they will be largely resolved by statehood and only by statehood.

As was promptly called to President Eisenhower’s attention this was like the old story of telling a youngster he must learn to swim before going into the water!

So we return to the proposition that America can scarcely afford to perpetuate its colonialism. Our nation is attempting to lead the world into the pathway of peace. No goal could be more worthy. But to lead effectively, it must not only practice what it preaches, it must carry out its solemn commitments. It can scarcely be critical of nations that break their pledges and break its own. It must first cast the beam out of its own eye before attempting to pull the motes of its neighbors’ eyes.

For the United States has pledged its good name and good faith in treaties and agreements far more recent than the Treaty of Cession of 1867. Not that our nation’s responsibility for not carrying out those original pledges in regard to Alaska is diminished by the passage of time. But there are recent and even contemporary commitments which demand fulfillment.

Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, dealing with non-self- governing territories – and that includes Alaska which must make annual reports to the U.N. – pledges the signatories:
“To the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories is paramount,” and further pledges them

“To insure . . . their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses,” and, finally, and this is most pertinent, it pledges them

“To develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. . . .”

The United States pledged itself to that ten years ago. If the English language has not lost its meaning and the United States its integrity, it should some time ago have, and should now, in any event, “take due account of the political aspirations” of Alaskans and enable them to develop the self-government which they seek.

There is an even more recent commitment – the Pacific charter signed a year ago, in which the signatory nations, including the United States, pledged themselves “to uphold the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” and to re-enforce that principle the signatories further pledged that they were “prepared to continue taking effective practical measures to insure conditions favorable to orderly achievement of the foregoing purposes”, namely self-government.

We are agreed that there is only one form of self-government that is possible for Alaska. And so we are drawing up the constitution for the State that we fervently hope will soon come to be. That hope, it is encouraging to note, is shared by the great majority of Americans. If our 88-year experience inevitably leads to strictures of the colonialism that has ruled us, let us remember that it is a course not sanctioned by American public opinion. The Gallup polls, which last recorded an 82 percent support of Alaskan statehood, the endorsement of virtually every important national organization, demonstrate clearly that the forces in and out of government which would deny Alaska statehood – in fact the government itself – do not represent prevailing American sentiment.

But while we may derive satisfaction and hope there-from, let us not delude ourselves that victory is at hand. It ought to be. But too many solemn pledges to Alaska have been honored in the breach to assure that what ought to be will be.

It may be regrettable – or not – but every generation must fight to preserve its freedom. We have twice in a life-time participated in our nation’s fight to preserve them. In Alaska we still have to win them.

This Constitutional Convention is an important mobilization. But the battle still lies ahead, and it will require all our fortitude, audacity, resoluteness – and maybe something more – to achieve victory. When the need for that something more comes, if we have the courage – the guts – to do whatever is necessary, we shall not fail. That the victory will be the nation’s as well as Alaska’s – and the world’s – should deepen our determination to end American colonialism.

Source:
Alaska Constitutional Convention
Minutes of the Daily Proceedings

Published by the Alaska Legislative Council, March 1965

prepared by Howard Benson 71754.2451@compuserve.com January 1995

Discuss this article in the Puerto Rico 51 Forums!

Shortly after several political concessions were granted by the Spanish crown, the Spanish-American war of 1898 unwillingly thrusts Puerto Rico into the arms of her new master, the United States of America. Ceded to the U.S. as a war prize, Puerto Rico has sustained enormous economic growth over the last 110 years. U.S. efforts to convert the island’s economy from an agricultural to an industrial base were largely successful. However, Puerto Rico has never fulfilled its destiny as a country, or as a people, always subject to the rule of others and never in control of its own destiny.

The United States Congress granted Puerto Rico several significant concessions, most important of which was U.S. citizenship in 1917. In 1948 Puerto Ricans elected their first governor, and in 1952 established a new Constitution, subject to the Constitution of the United States.

“…The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. ;”

Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution (also known as the “Territorial Clause”)

Puerto Rico was never removed from under the control of the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, thus maintaining all power and authority with the U.S. Congress. Puerto Rico’s representation in this Congress is limited to a single non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives.

The United Nations charter, of which the United States is a signatory, clearly states that

“…Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote [...] the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end [...] to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;”

Chapter 11, Article 73, paragraph B of the United Nations Charter

Puerto Rico’s political evolution has brought us to the point were the current political status does not meet our country’s needs. It becomes necessary to resolve all outstanding issues, most important of which is the removal of Puerto Rico from under the territorial “claws” of the U.S. Constitution. It is time that Puerto Rico chose a path of political dignity and finality that will allow us to continue to grow and achieve our full potential, as a country and as a people.

This web site is dedicated to the notion that of the available alternatives, statehood is the only one that achieves all the goals that the Puerto Rican people have expressed, by means of the democratic vote, they want for themselves and their children. These are

• Guaranteed U.S. citizenship
• Common market, currency and defense
• Permanent union with the United States

These conditions are the centerpiece of two of the three formulas that were presented to the Puerto Rican people during a referendum held in November of 1993. The statehood formula received 46.3% of the vote, while the Commonwealth formula, which curiously includes all three conditions as well, received 48.6% of the vote.

Congress has expressed, through its relevant committees, its unwillingness to accept the terms and conditions of the Commonwealth option. They have clearly stated that to achieve these three fundamental goals, statehood is the only viable alternative. And I quote:

“…Certain elements of the commonwealth option, including permanent union with the United States and guaranteed U.S. citizenship, can only be achieved through full integration into the U.S. leading to statehood.;”

Paragraph 3 of a letter sent to the Puerto Rico Legislature by the Chairmen of the Committees on Resources, Native American and Insular Affairs, International Relationships and Western Hemisphere.

Until the debate is framed in these terms, the confusion will continue.

Feel free to browse around this site and learn more about the statehood process and of Puerto Rico’s statehood quest. You will find links to other resources, such as historical and reference materials that will help to supplement the information found here. Although this is by no means the comprehensive, definitive Puerto Rico statehood information source, it is a beacon on the information superhighway for those who wish to learn more about a modern struggle for justice and equality.

Not only do I hope you enjoy your visit, I hope you find this information useful. That is my goal.

Sincerely,

Samuel Quirós
May 22, 1996
(revised 1/31/11)

Discuss this blog article at the Puerto Rico 51 forums!