As to laws passed after July 25, 1952, the question seems to be much more important. The implication would seem to be that unless the Commonwealth was also included the idea that Territories and possessions only were mentioned might be interpreted as meaning that Puerto Rico was excluded.

This matter also is being studied as to some laws that have been passed, and which carry the language in the way it is in this bill. Therefore, since we are so anxious to make sure that the law would apply to Puerto Rico, I wish to express our interest in having Puerto Rico expressly included.

It has been suggested that, by making some statement in the report, this question could be taken care of. But this would lead into another matter. The implication then might be that Commonwealth is no different from Territory and possession. This would have, I think, a bad effect in many ways-psychologically, it would have a bad effect in Puerto Rico, and it might have in other directions.

I wish to state to the committee that last fall I was honored by being appointed as alternate delegate to the U. N. to take up the question of the change of status in Puerto Rico, and we had some debates there in the various bodies of the U. N., until the matter came up to the General Assembly, and as a result of our efforts there the General Assembly passed a very complimentary resolution to the United States for the good work done in Puerto Rico, full recognition of the fact that Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth and has self-government, so that it is not included any more in the Territories and possessions, which are subject to report to the U. N. by the United States under the charter.

So I believe that it is in the public interest that this recognition of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could be made whenever possible, so that we may give full credit to the United States for the good deeds that it has always done for Puerto Rico.

I would also state that there are some that still find fault with the present status of Puerto Rico, and one of their arguments is that the Commonwealth status is nothing else but a disguised status of colonial

ism.

I want also to add a few words of thanks to the distinguished member of this committee who brought this matter to my attention, and who has given a great deal of thought and time to this matter, Mr. O'Hara.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I don't think there is any question but what it is intended to include Puerto Rico. Have you given consideration to the introduction of legislation which would remove this doubt with respect to the status of Puerto Rico in all acts which have heretofore covered Puerto Rico in those acts as possessions?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I am working on a bill that would take care of laws enacted before 1952, and laws enacted from 1952 to the time this act might be enacted, clarifying the application of laws that didn't carry the word "Commonwealth."

The CHAIRMAN. I think we can cover it in some way.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. But I would add that-while this act, if it passes-it might be very wise not to let one bill so important as this be open to any question.

Mr. MERRILL. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Merrill.

Mr. MERRILL. As I understand it, you have a double purpose here, though, in appearing before the committee. You do want the Commonwealth of Puerto to receive the benefits of the act. That is one thing.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MERRILL. But the other thing that you would like to get established in all congressional acts is this: That Puerto Rico no longer wants to be referred to and thought of in terms of either a Territory or a possession. That is, in gaining the advantages of the act by being included in the word "possessions" you feel that you would be depriving Puerto Rico of a certain status before the world in having to accept that particuular nomenclature as describing its status now that you have achieved Commonwealth status. Am I right in that?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. You are right, sir. I would say that I would rather try to prevent the implication that recognition is not being given, as it is being otherwise given, to the status of Puerto Rico, by classifying it as a Territory or possession in any given law.

I might add, if I may, that right now in the Senate there is a debate on the statehood bills for Hawaii and Alaska, and time and again question of Commonwealth status has come up, and, generally, it is being recognized in the debate that Commonwealth status is something different from Territorial possession. So it is being widely recognized.

Mr. MERRILL. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot achieve the purpose that you are seeking merely by being assured that the language we now have in the bill will give you the coverage of the act. That doesn't achieve your purpose.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. Not completely.

Mr. MERRILL. If the purpose of this Nation is to be served in having given to Puerto Rico Commonwealth status, then we as a Congress are going to have to recognize from time to time that there is a distinct difference between Commonwealth status and being a Territory or possession.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. At least not do anything that might indicate that Congress does not recognize it.

Mr. MERRILL. Well, you really believe that you have been elevated, as a governmental unit-your status has been improved, both for yourselves and in the eyes of the world, by having been made a Commonwealth rather than remaining a possession or Territory?

Mr. FERNOS-ISERN. Absolutely, without any question.

Mr. MERRILL. And we can achieve the maximum effect of our action, both for your nation and for America, by making clear in every action of the Congress that this new status which you have is something distinct and apart and above a possession or Territory; isn't that right? Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is correct. I would only add that we are American citizens ourselves.

Mr. MERRILL. Oh, yes; that is right.

Now, I see the point that you have in mind, and I am very much. in sympathy with it. There is no use going through the business of creating a Commonwealth if we are then going to say that, really, by all legislation that Congress passes, oh, yes, it is a Commonwealth

in name, but a Commonwealth is nothing more than a Territory or possession. If we do that, we have defeated the whole purpose of creating the Commonwealth.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. I agree with you.

Mr. MERRILL. And we certainly don't want to do that, because we take pride in what we have done. So I am in sympathy with that whole thing. I think we should establish the fact that Territories and possessions do not mean Commonwealth, because Commonwealth is a step upward, I may say, in the dignity of a political unit.

But are you willing, then, in order to achieve this psychological effect, which I deem to be most important, are you willing to have established, for all time in the future, that when they use the words "territory and possessions," you are excluded, so that you will be compelled from now on and forever to fight the battle and make sure that the extra words "and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" are included in every bill? Because once we do make a distinction, which I think should be made if we are to achieve the aims in creating the Commonwealth, once we establish the distinction your office is going to have the burden from now on to make sure that the words "and Puerto Rico" are in every bill.

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. I think we would have to take that risk.

Mr. MERRILL. And you would be willing to assume that risk in order to achieve recognition by Congress that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico cannot be included in the more general term of "territory and possessions"?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is correct.

Mr. MERRILL. Thank you.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. I take especial interest in this from the fact that Puerto Rico came to us in connection with the Spanish-American War. We have always said that the Spanish-American War was fought and won without any element of national selfishness. Cuba is free, the Philippines are free, and the people of Puerto Rico, of their own free will, as shown by an overwhelming majority in a popular election, chose a continuing alliance with us as a Commonwealth of the American Union.

Heretofore we have had States, Territories, and possessions. Now, we have a Commonwealth. It is setting a new pattern. I dare say that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is only the forerunner of many commonwealths, peoples of other lands in future seeking and obtaining alliance with us, with the commonwealth status.

So I have been very much interested that there should be in our laws a clear definition of commonwealth. I do not think the old definition suffices. It should include States, Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions. Or at the present time this could cover States, Territories, and possessions, including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

I am glad we have had with us today the distinguished Resident Commissioner. We all know the stature of the Commissioner; how he is regarded in Puerto Rico, and how highly he is esteemed in Washington. It is no overstatement to say that the compact leading to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a tribute to his tremendous

popularity and to his tremendous ability. Certainly all of us in the Congress appreciate the great stature of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico. I believe Dr. Fernós-Isern, one court, I think you told me, in Boston, in some proceeding had passed on the question of the legal meaning of "commonwealth"?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. The Boston circuit court, in passing on a matter incidental to a lawsuit which hasn't been definitely decided, at least intimated or made reference to the fact that apparently Puerto Rico was to be considered as a State in a generic sense, although not a member State of the Union, but in compact with the Union. Words to that effect.

Mr. O'HARA. The distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Gamble, when we discussed this last, thought that because the Commonwealth is so recent that there may have been no judicial determinations. This is the only time that you are familiar with that the matter has reached any court?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. There have been some decisions by the United States court in Puerto Rico, which have gone up to the Boston circuit court. It is a matter that is still under judicial consideration.

Mr. O'HARA. And you are fearful that unless "commonwealth" is included in the definitions in new laws, such as the Housing Act, that there will be some uncertainty because of later judicial determinations that may hold against the present theory?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Mr. TALLE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Talle.

Mr. TALLE. Mr. Resident Commissioner, assuming that your bill is enacted into law by the Congress, what will be the political relationship between the United States Government and Puerto Rico?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. The political relationship is already established. The bill I am contemplating wouldn't change at all that relationship. The bill I am contemplating is only to clarify the question of whether laws, which make reference to States, Territories, and possessions, but not to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, should or should not apply in Puerto Rico.

That is the only question the bill I have in mind now would take care of. But the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States was established by the law that authorized the creation of the Commonwealth.

In general, if the Congressman wants me to briefly state the relationship, it is that emanating from a compact which was enacted-the terms of which were enacted into law by the Congress and accepted by the people of Puerto Rico in a plebiscite. So the present relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States is the result not only of the decision of the Congress, but of the acceptance by the people of Puerto Rico.

It is certainly government by consent, and under the terms of compact the people of Puerto Rico adopted their own constitution, which later was ratified by the Congress, within the framework of the compact, and the constitution creates a Puerto Rican Commonwealth, which to all intents and purposes acts exactly as a State government.

The difference between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and a State of the Union, fundamentally, from a constitutional standpoint, is that a State, of course, is a member of the Union within the Constitution of the United States. Puerto Rico is not incorporated constitutionally into the United States except through this compact. But in practice the laws of the United States, general laws, applicable generally in the States, apply in Puerto Rico. In other words, Congress has the power to legislate concerning Puerto Rico, exactly as it has the power to legislate for the whole Union.

Mr. MULTER. Except that you cannot vote?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That, of course, is not a matter of congressional law, but of Constitution and, of course, Puerto Rico does not vote for President or does not elect Senators or Members of the House, except a Resident Commissioner.

Mr. TALLE. It appears, then, that the question is, What is a commonwealth?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is precisely it, although we adopted the constitution which we adopted under the name "Commonwealth," and this has been ratified by the Congress. There has been no definition of the general category of commonwealth, as yet, and that is what the bill I am thinking of would do. It would define what a commonwealth is. It would do actually for commonwealths what has previously been done concerning territories.

We know what a territory is. We know what a possession is. Those categories have existed for a long time and are well identified in law. The category "commonwealth" has never been created, Puerto Rico is the first one. I think now would be proper to make a definition of what is meant by "commonwealth" in the law, and how do laws of the United States apply in commonwealths. That would be, of course, always to have a relationship with what the compacts say. Mr. TALLE. Thank you.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Multer.

Mr. MULTER. Commissioner, up to the present time the housing acts have been interpreted as applying to Puerto Rico, have they not? Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is correct.

Mr. MULTER. All you are asking is to make sure they continue to apply?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is right. But the acts heretofore applicable have been enacted before 1952, so the question never arose. Mr. MERRILL. Will you yield?

Mr. MULTER. I vield.

Mr. MERRILL. I think that isn't exactly right. The Commissioner is here not only for the purpose of making sure that the Housing Act applies; he is also here to try to get application of the Housing Act to Puerto Rico without having to have Puerto Rico be accepted in the general term of "territory" or "possessions." There is a psychological thing that he is fighting for here over and above merely getting the benefit of the Housing Act; isn't that right?

Mr. FERNÓS-ISERN. That is correct. I have both reasons in mind. Mr. MULTER. I understand that. But actually, so far as the law is concerned, there is no real change in the substantive law that you seek.