This arguing over a question of terms is not quite as important as what is really the intent. It is the intent involved and not the use of certain words.

If you will forward that brief to the committee, I will appreciate it. Mr. DE LA HABA. I will brief it and send it to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'BRIEN. Are there other questions?

Mr. WHARTON. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Wharton.

Mr. WHARTON. Am I correct, after this discussion, after all we have heard here, in this procedure in fact we come down to two simple majorities here? One would be a majority in Congress, which our distinguished chairman has indicated would be very unlikely of imposing its will on the people of Puerto Rico. Then we come to a second majority. I said a simple majority, but at least a majority, and that would be a majority of the people of Puerto Rico themselves. Is not that, as a practical matter, exactly what we are up against?

Mr. DE LA HABA. In what sense does the Congressman use the word "procedure"? In what procedure-voting for the bill or voting for the referendum?

Mr. WHARTON. I am speaking in the democratic sense now, the majority of all of the people, the people that vote.

Mr. DE LA HABA. Our party fully respects the rule of the majority, and in a referendum on any question that Congress may submit or the legislature may submit we are duty bound to respect the rule of that majority, because we are cognizant of the democratic principles, and one of the most important is the rule of the majority and respect for the action of the majority.

Mr. WHARTON. It seems to me that is exactly what we have come down to here. I wondered if you agreed.

Mr. DE LA HABA. What I do think is the fact that this is going to be referred to Puerto Rico does not change the argument that, if this bill has the effect of amending the constitution of Puerto Rico, then the Congress should not entertain this bill because that is a function reserved to the people of Puerto Rico by article VII of the Constitution. Although it may be argued that a preamble is not a part of the Constitution, a preamble certainly signifies the intent of the Constitution. And if the intent of the Constitution was within the meaning of the word "Union" in the preamble, any change in the preamble would naturally change the concept.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WHARTON. Surely.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Of course, we know there will always be arguments on what a vote of the people means. I recall some years ago in Alaska, they voted on a very simple question-Do you favor statehood for Alaska? That seemed to be clear enough. Still, when we got the Alaska bill up in the committee, the opponents said they did not say "immediate statehood," and they wanted another referendum, which would have been another round of dancing for 10 or 12 years. I can see where there would be a certain amount of quibbling about what the people are voting on. But, in the final analysis, the judgment of what the people have before them would have to be made by the people who make the ultimate decision.

Mr. DE LA HABA. Absolutely.

Mr. O'BRIEN. That would be Congress.

Mr. DE LA HABA. Absolutely.

Mr. O'BRIEN. In the meantime, everyone has the right to demand. here the form of the plebiscite, the form of the question as they see fit. We are not quarreling with that. But we do remind you that the final decision, the weight, if you will, of the testimony will be in Congress.

Mr. DE LA HABA. If the Chairman would permit me one statement, I wish to make very clear-and I am sure the chairman of our party fully supports this statement-that the Statehood Party of Puerto Rico is not attempting to force statehood on the people of Puerto Rico. We believe in the principle of self-determination. We do have that in our platform as the ultimate goal, but we expect that the people of Puerto Rico express themselves on that. So much so that, in a plebiscite between independence and statehood, if independence would win we would respect that because that is the rules. All of us would know what to do as to our personal situation under independence, but we would respect that.

Mr. O'BRIEN. It might create a little problem for Congress though. Thank you.

Our next witness will be Mr. Anthony Blasini. Is Mr. Blasini here? If not, our next witness is Mr. Pedro Matos Matos. Is he here? If not, our next witness will be Charles H. Julia, representing the Elks Club. Is he here?

Mr. JULIA. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'BRIEN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. JULIA, SAN JUAN LODGE NO. 972, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS

Mr. JULIA. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, I am going to speak on behalf of San Juan Lodge No. 972 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The Order of Elks is an organization of fundamental Americanism. Some of the principal objectives of an Elks lodge are to quicken the spirit of American patriotism and to foster Americanism.

Linking the destiny of our order with the destiny of our country, we have made its flag the symbol of the crowning virtue.

The American flag is the principal emblem on our altar, for the Order of Elks is distinctively American.

Obedient and loyal to the above-mentioned principles, we, as American citizens and as members of the Order of Elks, feel very preoccupied concerning the approval in any way of the Fernós-Murray bill which tends to separate Puerto Rico more and more from the mainland.

We recognize the good luck of the present local government in having received more millions from Federal funds than any other local government in Puerto Rico ever received.

We accept the progress of the island that the members of the local government in Puerto Rico have achieved in 20 years with those millions which have poured in from Washington. However, the Commonwealth government has increased its activities to anti-Americanize this island during those 20 years:

First, by its declaration of war against the English language.

Second, by stressing too much a false and narrow regionalism, instead of the great progress of the island in its political maturity under American institutions.

Third, too much meddling in Latin American affairs through other channels but the proper channels of the Nation's Department of State, and too much indifference for the great values, spiritual and social, of the United States. This island should be looking, primarily, toward the United States and not toward South America.

The leaders of this local government have not only confused some of the people on this island by making them believe that we are an independent and sovereign Nation under Public Law 600 or the Commonwealth, but they have also confused South America and many people in the United States with their theory of two citizenships, two national flags, and two national anthems.

As to the dissimilarity of culture, ideals, and language, this is something that only bothers Governor Luis Muñoz Marín and a few other poets and dreamers close to him.

In our opinion, the Commonwealth government, with its high-sounding translation into Spanish as "Associated Free State" has been very detrimental to the good relations between South America and the United States.

In fact, we honestly believe that it has stirred South America against the United States.

A plebiscite should be held, the sooner the better, under the supervision of the U.S. Congress and separate from the general elections to determine whether the island wants to become a State of the Union or not.

The United States would receive a big surprise as to the result of the plebiscite which will show that the immense majority of the island wants to become a State of the Union.

In sound justice to the true loyal American citizens of Puerto Rico, Congress should not consider such a controversial and separative piece of legislation as is the so-called Fernós-Murray bill.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Senator.

How many members does the San Juan Lodge No. 972 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks have?

Mr. JULIA. Membership of the lodge is over 2,000 members. Mr. O'BRIEN. How many of those members participated in the vote in opposition to the Fernós-Murray bill?

Mr. JULIA. More than half of the members belonging to the lodge participated, either present at the meeting or in writing.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Aspinall?

Mr. ASPINALL. Do I understand, Mr. Julia, that there was a vote had in the lodge on this resolution?

Mr. JULIA. Yes. Not on this statement, on a resolution that was presented so the lodge would come down to the hearing to oppose the Fernós-Murray bill.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you have a copy of that motion or that resolution? Mr. JULIA. I do not have a copy with me, sir.

Mr. ASPINALL. Will you send it to the committee, a copy of it, attested by your secretary?

Mr. JULIA. Yes, Congressman.

[The aforesaid motions follow:]

SAN JUAN LODGE NO. 972

BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS

SAN JUAN, P.R.

MOTION

A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously carried, that the articles of "El Mundo" published on April 25 and also the Island Times of April 27, concerning the display of the American flag in Puerto Rico, which the Governor says that it is displayed simply voluntarily as a matter of courtesy, and all related articles concerning these matters criticizing the action of Government officials which might in any way endanger our permanent union with the United States, the editor of our Bulletin be directed to translate any of said articles to the English language, publish them in the Bulletin, and mail our Bulletin to each Senator and Representative of the U.S. Congress. For some of the principal duties of an Elks lodge are: (1) To quicken the spirit of American patriotism. (2) To foster Americanism. (3) To fight anti-Americanism. San Juan Lodge has always done its duty in that respect, in time of war and in time of peace.

I hereby certify that the above is a correct and true copy of the motion unanimously approved by San Juan Lodge No. 972, B.P.O. Elks, at its session held on May 21, 1956.

San Juan, P.R., December 9, 1959.

RAFAEL BIRD, Secretary.

SAN JUAN LODGE NO. 972

BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS

SAN JUAN, P.E.
MOTION

It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried that all articles published in the newspapers criticizing the local government for actions or procedures which might result detrimental to the financial, political, and social relations of the island with the United States and which might endanger our permanent association with the continental United States, be translated to the English language, published in our Bulletin, and mailed to each Senator and Representative of the U.S. Congress.

Brother Charles W. Parkhurst, P.E.R., PDD, in making this motion had the good judgment of calling the attention of the lodge to the following facts: That the life of this lodge will last as long as Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. Once this island ceases to be a part of the United States, this lodge will be immediately disbanded and its members would have to affiliate by special dispensation of the grand exalted ruler, with Miami Lodge No. 948 which is the nearest one to Puerto Rico.

I hereby certify that the above motion was unanimously approved at the session held on October 6, 1956. A true copy from the original.

SAN JUAN LODGE NO. 972

RAFAEL BIRD, Secretary.

BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS

SAN JUAN, P. R.
RESOLUTION

Be it resolved by the members of San Juan Lodge No. 972, B.P.O. Elks, complying with the permanent obligation of every Elk and of all American citizens, to oppose to any action or bill in the Legislature of Puerto Rico or in Congress which might in any way try to sever, weaken, or endanger our permanent and

indestructible union with the United States of America; and as a consequence thereof tend to deprive the Puerto Ricans from their American citizenship or of any of the rights, liberties, and opportunities for all it represents.

That this resolution be published in the newspapers of largest circulation in Puerto Rico and in the Elks Bulletin and that same be sent to the Congress of the United States.

This resolution was unanimously approved at the regular session of the lodge held on Monday, March 2, 1959.

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the original resolution of the lodge unanimously approved at its regular session held on March 2, 1959. San Juan, P.R., December 8, 1959.

RAFAEL BIRD, Secretary.

OCTOBER 19, 1959.

Under reading communications letter was read from Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall, chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives to the exalted ruler inviting the Elks to send a representative to the hearings during the month of December on the bills No. 5926 and No. 9234 of Dr. Fernós-Isern, Resident Commissioner.

Under good of the order Brother Ramón Montaner, past exalted ruler and past district deputy, raised the point that no representative from the Elks lodge should be sent to the hearings about the Fernós bills on December as invited by Congressman Aspinall on the ground that in his opinion this is a political matter. Brothers Ignacio R. Baca, Ferdinand M. Bissell, Luis F. Caratini, past exalted ruler, and Secretary Rafael Bird, argued on the contrary stating that this is no politics to defend our national flag against bills which are driving Puerto Rico away from the United States. The exalted ruler decided to put the question to a vote of the lodge and the result was that six brothers, Ramón Montaner, Salvador V. Caro, Gilberto M. Font, and three of the new members voted against and the rest of the lodge, or 37 members, voted in favor of sending Brother James R. Beverley to the hearings as delegate of the lodge.

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the motion approved by the lodge at its meeting held on October 19, 1959. San Juan, P.R., December 8, 1959.

RAFAEL BIRD, Secretary.

Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you this: Have you cleared with the grand exalted ruler of the Elks lodge the question of whether or not this sort of action might trespass upon the regulations, rules, and constitution of the lodge?

Mr. JULIA. The secretary of the lodge wrote to the grand exalted ruler and requested an opinion on that, and he was clear on that, and he was authorized to come down with the resolution.

Mr. ASPINALL. Will you send to us a copy of that letter or communication?

Mr. JULIA. Yes.

Mr. ASPINALL. Your request and the answer?

Mr. JULIA. Yes, your honor.

[The aforementioned letter follows:]

LAW OFFICES, BEVERLEY, CASTRO & RODRIGUEZ LEBRON,

Mr. R. MACHARGO DEL Río,

Exalted Ruler, San Juan Lodge 972, B.P.O.E.,
San Juan, P.R.

San Juan, P.R., October 27, 1959.

DEAR BROTHER MACHARGO: I am sorry not to have replied sooner to your letter of October 16, 1959, requesting me to represent the lodge at the hearings to be held by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives. These hearings apparently will be in the first week of December. I held up answering your letter in the hope that I would be able to be back in Puerto Rico by December 1, but I find now that I will not be able to be back until the second week in December. I appreciate highly the request, but will be unable to comply with it.