confirmed when it was held in answer to the contention that the constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was just another organic act of Congress, that there is

no reason to impute to the Congress the perpetration of such a monumental hoax. Public Law 600 offered to the people of Puerto Rico a "compact" under which, if the people accepted it, as they did, they were authorized to “organize” a government pursuant to a constitution of their own adoption.

(3) Incidentally, the term "hoax" was the same added by one of our opponents in his recent statement in describing the project before Congress. Since the attack of the opponents of this bill is not only to the pending bill, but also to law 600, in fact they are imputing the commission of a hoax to Congress when they adopted law 600.

In the realm of international law, the U.S. Government recognized the validity of the compact through its declaration before the United Nations.

These are but only a few of the examples we can mention to sustain our theory for the existence of a valid compact and its irrevocability by one of the parties alone.

The fact that our constitutional status is a new creation within the constitutional framework of the Nation does not destroy its validity. As Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Frankfurter once said:

History suggests a great diversity of relationships between a central government and a dependent territory. The present day shows a great variety in actual operation. One of the great demands upon inventive statesmanship is to help evolve new kinds of relationship so as to combine the advantages of local selfgovernment with those of a confederate union.

Luckily, our Constitution has left this field of invention open. The decisions in the insular cases mean this if they mean anything: That there is nothing in the Constitution to hamper the responsibility of Congress in working out, step by step, forms of government for our insular possessions, responsive to the just needs and capacities of their inhabitants, and ascertained by the best wisdom of Congress.

This way of thinking was recently expounded by Chief Justice Earl Warren when he said in San Juan:

In the sense that our American system is not static, in the sense that it is not an end, but a means to an end-in the sense that it is an organism intended to grow and expand to meet varying conditions and times in a large country-in the sense that every governmental effort of ours is an experimentso the new institutions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico represent an experiment-the newest experiment and perhaps the most notable of American governmental experiments in our lifetime.

He couldn't add anything, being a judge, but I can add to my proposition that there is a valid compact between the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which cannot be altered or amended unilaterally, that we are certain that the Congress realizes that the procedure followed to execute the compact which includes congressional legislation and ratifications, Presidential approval and four instances in which the people of Puerto Rico went to vote to give it validity, cannot be set aside by unilateral decision by Congress. As a matter of fact, no other two procedures can be patterned alike to such extent as the procedure followed in the case of the Commonwealth and that followed for the admission of new States in the Union.

The creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was intended to do away with all possible connotations of colonialism which has

been achieved completely, through the vesting of full self-governing powers in local matters to the people of Puerto Rico. To deny its bilateral character would be to destroy a creation of which both Puerto Rico and the United States shall feel justly proud.

(3) I am a firm believer in the advantages of the Commonwealth status for both Puerto Rico and the United States. Our economy has flourished through a number of factors present in our condition as a Commonwealth: complete fiscal autonomy, freedom to employ our own resources as we deem best for our needs, freedom to procure new industries and commercial enterprises through incentive programs, and free access to the largest market in the world, and at the same time, freedom to preserve our own personality as a country, without being assimilated by an equally dignified but different culture. I need not say that a prosperous and flourishing Puerto Rico with its own personality and culture will yield the best of the crops to the United States in the eyes of Latin America and the world.

(4) And by the same token, I am a firm disbeliever in statehood or independence for Puerto Rico. I am confident that Congress will never seriously consider any bill either for statehood or independence unless it has been continuously supported by a large majority (not merely a 51 percent majority) of our voters, in several consecutive pollings. Statehood has about 25 percent of the total votes and independence, 10 percent. Evidently the people of Puerto Rico understand that statehood represents assimilation coupled with loss of our fiscal autonomy and many other favorable factors to our development, and independence will take us into the forces of extreme nationalism coupled with economic ruin. The amount of $188 million, or whatever amount is correct, estimated as a loss to Puerto Rico if it were a State, is but the direct and immediate loss represented by payments to the Federal Government and loss of funds now available to Puerto Rico.

In addition to these figures, the burden imposed on the people of Fuerto Rico in order to match the Federal funds allowed us as a State would be very heavy, if not unbearable, and the loss of income through migration of industries from Puerto Rico to the mainland, temporary or permanent, would make the price of statehood too high for Puerto Rico to pay without losing its present standard of living, and would mean catastrophe.

Seven years of fructiferous experience under its present status has given Puerto Rico hemispherical dimensions. Puerto Rico has ceased to be a tiny spot lost in the vastness of the Atlantic and Caribbean, to take its legitimate place among the self-governing areas of America; it has proclaimed to Latin America and the world the anticolonialistic attitude of the United States. It has proven how people of different languages and cultures can work together to bring about their happiness. And this is a most important role that Puerto Rico can and is playing in the hemisphere to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Latin America.

If this experience of the last 7 years has been so fructiferous, why change it and not make it grow? This is precisely what the MurrayFernós bill does. The pending bill makes no change in the fundamental concept of the compact and its legal and constitutional principles are not affected. It clarifies the compact in some respects, clim

inating anachronical expressions, some of which carry vestiges of colonial terminology. The bill before you restates the fundamentals of the asociation of our countries: Common citizenship, common defense, common currency, a common market, common international relations, and common loyalty to the Federal Union and a joint dedication to the democratic principles of the Federal Constitution.

We feel that as a corollary of these basic fundaments [sic] the permamency of the association is essential. Thus, the bill provides for that in what I think its basic innovation to the present law. Recognizing, however, that the debate at this time about the "status" is detrimental to the development of our economy, it also provides that at such time as our per capita income equals that of any State. due consideration shall be given to proposals for revision as they be submitted by the people of Puerto Rico on the basis of a plebiscite under the laws of the Commonwealth.

It is interesting to notice here that the Popular Party that sponsors this project is proposing a plebiscite at a time best for the Statehood Party. In other words, a plebiscite held at this precise moment will undoubtedly show an overwhelming defeat of the statehood status as has been the case since 1940, whereas if the plebiscite is held after Puerto Rico reaches the per capita income of any State, the Statehood Party will then probably have a much better chance to obtain a larger percentage of the popular vote. Nevertheless, it has been stated by the Majority Party that it is willing to submit the status at any moment, even now, to a plebiscite authorized by the legislature of the Commonwealth, including the statehood, independence, and Commonwealth status, if its results are accepted by all so as to postpone the futile struggle for the "status." Such an acceptance by the followers of statehood and independence does not mean that their aspirations will disappear from the political panorama of Puerto Rico. Freemen will always be free to think as they wish in relation to their political destinies, but such an acceptance will free the people of Puerto Rico from a dilemma that is undermining their ability to find new and better solutions to the vast and difficult problems of Puerto Rico until the day in which our economy permits the dilucidation of the status issue.

Incidentally, those who propose a referendum authorized by Congress are not considering the historical background for the admission of new States in the Union. Such referendums are not held by Congress itself but by the local legislatures through laws of their own adoption. Even though the Popular Democratic Party thinks there is no sense at this moment in holding a referendum, we would accept one immediately if, as stated above, it will put an end to these sterile debates until more realistic conditions prevail.

Another basic provision is article VI of the bill, which provides a way in which Puerto Rico, as its economy so warrant, contribute to the support of the Federal Government or relieve it of some functions in Puerto Rico. This provision needs no expounding since its content is very clear. It merely shows the willingness of Puerto Rico to share the burden of the Federal Government when its economy permits.

I think this particular provision should have no objection from anybody since even without it, by future legislation, Congress may au

thorize such a request made by the Government of the Commonwealth. Of course, any action in relation to this matter must first receive the approval of the Congress.

Article IX recognizes that the people of Puerto Rico have complete powers of local self-government like any State of the Union, and recognizes that the Federal Government shall exercise as to Puerto Rico the same powers that it exercises with respect to the States. This article also recognizes that the Federal laws are not to be applicable to Puerto Rico if inconsistent with the compact. The test for applicability of a Federal law will be the provisions of the articles of permanent association of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the United States itself.

Some other details of the article IX are those requiring express mention of Puerto Rico in prospective laws for their application to us. This will avoid uncertainties as to the congressional intent. Of course, it restates that internal revenue laws do not apply locally.

Another change proposed by the bill from the existing legislation is that the limit of public indebtedness is completely omitted so that the same be fixed by the constitution of the Commonwealth. It is only fair that Puerto Rico itself should judge what its fiscal limit should be, same as in the several States.

Although these are the most important provisions of the bill, it is also worth mentioning article III, paragraph (d), providing the machinery by which part of the tax now collected on rum and cigars manufactured in Puerto Rico and imported into the States, and which amounts to several million dollars, which now is returned completely to the treasury of Puerto Rico, be collected and covered into the Treasury of the United States. This is in line with the provisions of article VI as to contributions to be made by Puerto Rico to the support of the Federal Government.

Gentlemen, the concepts expressed by me and contained about the constitutionality of the Commonwealth, the validity of the compact, its bilateral nature and its accompanying irrevocability or amendment by one of the parties alone, are sustained by precedents in the American constitutional history and by ample jurisprudence submitted herewith as exhibit 1. These concepts are the very essence of government by consent, and they answer the arguments of our adversaries as to Puerto Rico not participating in the election of the President and as not having Senators and Representatives to Congress.

As I said in the beginning, there may have been some repetition in my statement and the statements previously made by other speakers before the committee, but, since mine is given almost on the closing of the hearings, that has given me an opportunity to recapitulate on the testimonies offered by some of our adversaries.

Mr. Trias Monge and other exponents of our views have expounded before you the chaotic conditions prevailing in Puerto Rico before the Popular Democratic Party came into existence. They have analyzed our program, how we dealt with these conditions. You have heard of the results, and I hope that during your short stay you may have seen part of those results. You know of the background of the compact and the Commonwealth and you have heard about and appreciated the progress attained after its establishment.

On the other hand, you have had an opportunity to hear the exponents of independence and statehood. I believe in the sincerity of the advocates of independence. They place their emotions before their minds. They have always been a small minority without the least opportunity of gaining political power.

What you have not heard from any of them is a program. Maybe they just plan to produce a rabbit out of the juggler's hat.

I am sure by now you have appreciated that the Independentistas completely refuse a plebiscite and that the statehooders evade the issue completely. They have said that they are in favor of a plebiscite only if Congress ordered it, or what is the same, they want a commitment in advance from Congress. History tells us that Congress will not commit itself to statehood when it has not been, as I said before, continuously asked for for many years by an immense majority of the people. And they are conscious of this fact. They are asking for something they know they cannot get.

It was stated here yesterday that the Statehood Party was induced to vote in favor of the constitution by the promise that it would be an intermediate step to other kinds of status, and that it did not close doors to statehood. It was further stated that they changed their attitude when the Governor publicly stated that the Commonwealth status was permanent and the doors were shut to statehood.

I assure the members of the committee that this fact is incorrect. The Popular Party and the Governor repeatedly said that the doors are open to other political solutions; that we want the Commonwealth to be permanent but dynamical in its growth, but that it is up to the people to decide in the future what status they will prefer. In fact, the evidence for this is found in this very same bill when its article XVI postpones a referendum, with statehood as one of the possibilities, until certain economic conditions are met. (Exhibit 1 follows:)

EXHIBIT I

1. Pernell v. First Municipality (3 How. 589 (1845)).

2. Mora v. Torres (113 F. Supp. 309, at 313 (D-P.R. 1953)).

3. Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico (232 F. 2d. 615, at 620 (1st Cir. 1956)). See also:

Mora v. Mejias (115 F. Supp. 610 (D-P.R. 1953)).

United States v. Figueroa (140 F. Supp. 376 (D-P.R. 1957)).

Northwest Ordinance (1 Stat. 50).

1 Story on the Constitution, S. 267.

2 Story on the Constitution, S. 1328.

Philippine Independence Act (48 Stat. 456).

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, sir.

I would like to ask you this: You said in your statement that the majority party has stated that it was willing to submit the status at any moment to a plebiscite authorized by the Commonwealth and including the three alternatives. Does not the expressed willingness to have such a plebiscite, no matter what the conditions might be, indicate that you do not believe that Congress would give much weight to the fact of past elections in which candidates running under the Commonwealth shield were victorious?

Mr. MUNIZ RAMOS. I think, as a matter of fact, this project was presented by the mandate of the majority of the people and, of course, Congress should have that in mind when considering this bill.