H. A. Yeomans '00, the second speaker for the affirmative, after calling attention to the advantages of the affirmative policy as an emergency measure, declared that the more important question is one of permanent policy. "Consul Hanna, in his report for last year, declared that the time will not come for American business men to develop the island until it has American government and until the laws of the United States are enforced.
"In like manner we are supported by the reports of the insular commission and of Special Commissioner Carrol, which declare that the future prosperity of Porto Rico is absolutely dependent on its being treated as an integral part of our country. We are supported, moreover, by the military governors, Generals Brooke, Henry and Davis, who have urged upon our government, that, as we value the welfare of this people, we must grant them the privileges and immunities the rest of our territory enjoys. We are supported, finally, by the published and uncontradicted utterances of our secretary of War and our President.
"The great industrial need of Porto Rico is capital. Any policy by which we expect to solve the Porto Rican question must provide for the introduction of capital and the resulting commercial development. To place Porto Rico within our customs boundary is the very policy which meets this requirement. It is the only measure which guarantees permanent economic conditions, without which capitalists will never invest. Second, it provides that the capital attracted to the island shall be American, and that Porto Rico shall be developed along American lines.
"Ours is the measure of permanence, for it is the only measure that contemplates equal treatment for Porto Rico and for us. Congress can never follow a permanent, consistent policy when asked to provide separate and distinct tariff legislation for two peoples, to one of which it is responsible and to the other not. The only permanent tariff measure for Porto Rico is the one which gives the island the privileges and responsibilities we enjoy and bear. No more and no less.
"Finally, we must not forget that the island of Porto Rico is to be Americanized, or its possession will prove a source of weakness. If we place it within our customs boundary the capital which will flow there is sure to be American, and every commercial influence will make for assimilation. Not until this policy is carried out shall we see an Americanized Porto Rico."
Ashley D.Leavitt, Yale's second speaker, said: "In legislating for Porto Rico, Congress is not limited by constitutional provision for uniformity of duties, etc. This we maintain on the ground that Porto Rico is not a part of the United States as regards the constitution, and that Congress has the power to legislate for it in this condition. That conquest did not make Porto Rico a part of the United States is clear from the decision of the court in Fleming vs. Page (9 Howard). The court said in regard to Tampica, a conquest by the United States: 'It was undoubtedly under the sovereign dominion of the United States.' But yet it was not a part of the Union. That the treaty of cession did not bring Porto Rico within our boundaries is clear from the wording of the treaty itself, and secondly, from the uniform construction put upon such treaties by Congress, and thirdly, from the decision of the court in the case of Cross vs. Harrison (16 Howard) referring to California which had been ceded to the United States as has Porto Rico. From this decision it is clear that California had not in consequence of the treaty become a part of the United States to which the statutes applied. This case is parallel to Porto Rico.
'Congress has power to legislate outside our boundaries where the constitutional limitations do not apply. The main question is, how long may we legislate for Porto Rico in its present political status? This, like the question as to how long we may hold New Mexico and Alaska as territories must be settled on the ground of pure legislative expediency. Considering the best interest of Porto Rico it is inexpedient to make the island a part of the United States."
W. Morse '00, after summing up the case as thus far stated, proceeded to say that the question involves a moral obligation incumbent on the United States: "Just before our occupation of Porto Rico the Spanish government granted the island more beneficent privileges than any other Spanish colony enjoyed. Yet the people accepted American occupation willingly, relying on the promise of General Miles that they should enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the people of the United States. One of those privileges was equal trade rights with every other part of the United States.
"Back of this promise was the sentiment of the American people as expressed by the public press all over the country. Back of it was our constant declaration to the world that American expansion meant the carrying to less fortunate people of those principles of liberty, equality and justice for which this republic has stood since its foundation.
"The policy advocated by the affirmative, moreover, is politically wise. It is a measure of conciliation, inasmuch as it is what the Porto Ricans themselves earnestly desire and expect. Leaving out the question of legal right to deny our new subjects these things, is it politically wise to do so? 'I am not declaring,' says Edmund Burke, 'whether you have the right to make your people miserable, but whether it is not to your interest to make them happy.'
"Finally, the policy of including Porto Rico within our customs boundary is politically wise, because it follows a line of successful precedent and is in keeping with the spirit of American governmental ideals. The policy of a territorial government with equal treatment for all has met the varying conditions in Louisiana, Florida and Hawali. Now we are asked to break faith with the Porto Ricans and abandon these principles.
"To include Porto Rico within our customs boundary is economically advantageous to the island; it fulfills our national moral obligations, and it is politically wise in that it upholds the highest spirit of American institutions, of American civilization, and of American governmental ideals."
F. Q. Blanchard completed the negative case.
"The power to hold and govern territory without making it a part of the United States is given by necessary implication in the treaty and war-making power. In the Constitution the states delegated to the national government the power to make war and treaties. Did they at the same time delegate the right to hold territory without bringing it under the organic laws? The states do not possess this right today, and clearly they must have given it to the federal government with the treaty and war-making power. The affirmative contention is to make the United States a cripple among nations. If the United States cannot immediately dispose of territory which has come as a result of war, then, however unwise the course may be, it must make that territory a part of itself. It assuredly was not the intention of the Constitution's makers thus to render the United States unable to exercise the ordinary incidents of the power to make treaties and declare war. If we assert this principle in the face of our present problems we put a construction upon the Constitution not only fallacious but certain to work the most disastrous results in the future. We might thus argue from the point of view of the United States, but we prefer to lay special stress on the evils inclusion would bring to Porto Rico.
"The revenue laws of this country would raise, on the statement of the Porto Ricans, nearly three times as much as is necessary for the expenses of the government. Furthermore, it would place the burden of taxation on those least able to bear it, while the wealthy producers would escape comparatively free. For the sake of obtaining free markets by inclusion within our customs boundaries we must face unjust taxation.
"The negative position secures every advantage of the affirmative and we do not injure the prosperity of the island while we attempt to upbuild it. We furthermore argue for the right of Congress to deal with the island as needs demand.