1 Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas Skrifter ooh Brefvexling: Orotii epistolcB ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 104, 228, 257, 320, 338, 343; Eugonis Orotii epistolce (Amsterdam: 1687), ep. 496, 636, 671, 722, 745, 754. Grotius confused arbitration and mediation in his De jure belli ac pacis, lib. I I , cap. xxiii, 7-10; lib. I l l, cap. xx, 46-49.

2 Chemnitz, Koniglichen Swedischen in Teutschland gefuhrten Kriegs (Stettin: 1648), I, 28, 33; II, 28, 29, 142, 938. The jurists of the age of Louis XIV and of the eighteenth century laid stress upon the matter of the acceptance of an offer of mediation as a prerequisite to the act. Compare Samuel Pufendorf, De jure natures et gentium (1672), lib. V, cap. xii, 7; Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis juris gentium (1680), cap. xx, 51; Abraham de Wicquefort, L'Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions (1682), II, cap. xi; Francisco Schmier, Jurisprudentia publica universalis (1722), 307; Nikolaus Hieronymus Gundling, Jus natures ac gentium (1751), cap. xxiv, 45; and his Diseours Uber das Natur- und Tolcker- Recht (1734), cap. xxxv, 144; Johann Gottlieb Heineccius, Elementa juris natures et gentium (1738), lib. II, ccxxi; Johann Justin Schierschmid, Elementa juris soeialis et gentium (1743), 551; Christian Wolff, Jus natures methodo scientifica pertractatum (1741-1748), V, 923; Henrici de Cocceji, Grotius illustratus seu commentarii ad Hugonis Orotii De jure belli ac pacis (1744-1747), II, 662; III, 420; Samuel de Cocceji, Introductio ad Henrici de Coceccii Orotium illustratum (1748), 509

3 In the Treaty of Hamburg negotiated between France and Sweden in 1638, the Latin term officia (translated by bons offices in the French collection of Frederic Leonard published in 1693) is employed with the term opera, but even here I do not believe that we find a conscious attempt to separate good offices from mediation. “VII. Et quia ad tractatus cum hoste instituendos et Rex Christianissimus et Serenissima Regina Suecise crebis ainicorum Principium officiis invitantur, ne quid in se desiderari possit honestas pacis universalis conditiones numquam recusaturis, quantocyus notum mediatoribus faeiant sibi esse decretum de pace induciisve non nisi conjunctim agere, nihil absque mutuo consensus pacisci, et utramque causam simul et eodum momento pertractare, ut ipsi Mediatores suam operam et sua officia eo dirigant.”—Hallendorff, Sverges Traktater med Främmande Magter, V, ii, 426. The Latin text is also found in Londorp, Acta publica, IV, 689; and Bougeant, Histoire des Guerres et des Négotiations qui précéderent le Traité de Westphalie (Paris: 1767), I, 314. The French text is in Léonard, Recueil des Traitez de Paix, V; Bernard, Recueil des Traitez, III, 385; Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, VI, 161. Compare the following extract from the dispatch of Mazarin to d’Avaux and Servien on June 14, 1644: “II n’omettra pas aussi d’assurer ledit Roi, que le Roi a resolu d’employer ses offices auprès du Due de Transilvanie, pour empêcher qu’il n’entreprenne rien contre la Pologne.”—Le Clerc, Négotiations secrètes touchant la Paix de Munster et d’Osnahrug (1725), II, 68.

4 Versuch des neuesten Europäischen Völker-Rechts in Friedens- und Kriegs-Zeiten (1777–1780), VIII, 422. Yet Vattel failed to observe the difference in 1758. Compare his Droit des Gens, liv. IV, chap, ii, 17.

5 Chemnitz, op. cit., I, 28–36; Khevenhüller, Annates Ferdinandei, X, 1140–1147. G. Droysen, Gustaf Adolf, II, 125–139.

6 The Powers in dispute at Danzig did not limit themselves to the mediation of Denmark alone. Note the following extract from the instructions given to the Swedish plenipotentiaries in April, 1630: “III. Inquirent deinde, quinam Mediatorum vice fungentur? Et si venerint e Dania, ab Electoribus Saxoniæ et Brandeburgensi aut Civitatibus Hanseaticis, denique a Regibus Galliæ, Britanniæ aut ab Ordinibus Generalibus Belgii Legati, hi admittentur omnes, aut quotquot advenerint ab amicis. Nee repudiabuntur, si qui ab Electoribus Imperii conjunctim fuerint ablegati aut ab Infante Belgica vel Duce Bavariæ. Quod si suos Rex Poloniæ praesto habuerit, suamque interpositionem obtulerit, ne illi quidem rejicientur.”—Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas Skrifter och Brefvescling, II, i, 588.

7 Chemnitz, I, 318–319; II, 28–29, 116–118, 142–143, 231–232, 315–317, 435, 509, 619, 924–938, 1028–1046; Khevenhüller, op. cit’., XII, 260, 1722–1747, 2340.

8 S. R. Gardiner, History of England, VIII, 158–159; Khevenhüller, XII, 1881, 2095–2141.

9 Avenel, Papiers de Richelieu, V, 1022; VIII, 323.

10 Lib. V, cap. xiii, 7.

11 Adam Adami, Relatio historica de pacificatione Osnabrugo-Monasteriensi, cap. ii, 8; Mémoires de Richelieu, IX, 71 seq.; Avenel, op. cit., V, 222–223, 463, 521–522, 525–526; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna II, ii, 104, 169, 217, 236, 260, 268, 289, 337; Bougeant, op. cit., I, 261–264.

12 Avenel, VIII, 309; Mémoires de Richelieu, IX, 74, X, 108; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 260, 264, 268, 273, 284, 286, 294.

13 Registrum de negotio romani imperi, ep. clxxxv; Hugonis Grotii epistolœ, ep. 709; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 297.

14 Hallendorff, op. cit., V, ii, 318; Léonard, op. cit., V; Bernard, op. cit., III, 365; Dumont, op. cit., VI, 88.

15 Chemnitz, II, 775, 925.

16 Avenel, VIII, 286, Mémoires de Richelieu, VIII, 344.

17 Avenel, V, 403. The fifteenth article of the Treaty of Wismar read: “Is eligatur tractatui locus qui æque commodus et tutus utrique sit qualis pro præsente rerum statu videtur esse Colonia.”—Hallendorff, V, ii, 371. The treaty as published in Pufendorf’s De rebus Suecicis, lib. x, 14, reads the same, except the word creditur is in the place of videtur. Inaccurate summaries of the treaty are in Londorp, op. cit., IV, 500; Léonard, V; Bernard, III, 375; Dumont, VI, 123.

18 Avenel, V, 526.

19 Mémoires de Richelieu, X, 88–91; Avenel, V, 765–766; G. Fagniez, Père Joseph et Richelieu, II, 393.

20 Avenel, VIII, 309.

21 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. ix, 63.

22 Grotii evistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 228, 262, 268, 272.

23 Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 297. Godefroy had a great reputation as a defender of the French King’s claims to pre-eminence. He was the author of the Mémoire concernant la présénce des rois de France sur les rois d’Espagne (Paris: 1613), and of other works of similar nature.

24 Ibid., II, ii, 227, 277, 312, 466; iv, 72.

25 Ibid., II, ii, 312; J. L. de Burigny, Vie de Grotius (Paris: 1752), I, 391.

26 Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 314, 319; Hugonis Grotii epistolœ, 303, 306, 866.

27 Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 376.

28 Ibid., II, ii, 316.

29 Ibid., II, ii, 320.

30 Histoire du Traité de Westphalie, I, 263.

31 Avenel, V, 463, 643, 844, 1014; VI, 256; Mémoires de Richelieu, X, 105–127; A. Cánovas del Castillo, Estudios de Reinado de Felipe IV, I, 393–396; Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni degli stati europei lette al senato dagli ambasciatori vencti, II, ii, 306; Aitzema, Saken van Staet en Oorlogh in ende omtrent de Vereenigde Nederlanden, II, 423; A. Waddington, La république des Provinces-Unies, la France et les Pays-Bas espagnols de 1680 à 1650, I, 290–292; Le Clerc, op. cit., I, 229; Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. ix, 64; Adam Adami, op. cit., cap. ii, 11–12.

32 Avenel, V, 765, 820, 822; VIII, 309, 311, 315, 321, 322, 324.

33 S. R. Gardiner, op. cit., VIII, 375–378.

34 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. xi, 67, 68; xii, 68, 69.

35 Hallendorff, II, ii, 370.

36 Ibid., V, ii, 426.

37 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. viii, 78; ix, 61; x, 68–73; xi, 62, 65; xii, 73–80; xiii, 83–90; Bougeant, I, 347–348, 402–406, 415–419, 447–448, 451–472.

38 Hallendorff, V, ii, 501. The Latin text is also in Lünig, Teutsches Beichs-Archiven, Partis specialis continuatio, I, i, 399; Abreu y Bertodano, Coleecion de los Tratados de España, III, 651; Meiern, Acta pacis Westphalicœ, I, 8;Gärtner, Westphälische Friedens-Cantzley, I, 5, 10; Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. xiii, 90; Bougeant, I, 472. French texts are in Léonard, III, 71; Bernard, III, 384; Dumont, VI, 231. A Dutch translation is in Aitzema, op. cit., II, 759.

39 Cap. xx, 56.

40 Cap. xx, 52. Likewise Wicquefort said: “Le Ministre Mediateurs doit estre aussi Men desinteressé que le Prince qui l’employe.” Op. cit., II, 161.

41 Chéruel, Lettres du Cardinal Mazarin, I, xci, 190, 315, 546; Gartner, op. cit., I, 599; II, 440, 458; Meiern, op. cit., I, 34, 62; Relatione de Contarini, in Fontes rerum Austriaearum, XXVI, 297; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, iv, 25, 74, 78, 90, 390; Bougeant, II, 2–3; Adam Adami, cap. iv, 4.

42 Bougeant, II, 4; Meiern, I, 60; Adam Adami, cap. iv, 4.

43 Bougeant, II, 4.

44 Meiern, I, 36–37; Gärtner, I, 655–659.

45 Adam Adami, cap. iv, 2, 3; Meiern, I, 32, 33, 38, 57, 58, 63, 186, 191, 195; Gartner, I, 346, 496, 505, 660; II, 154, 155, 545, 569, 657.

46 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. x, 93; Chemnitz (Stockholm: 1856), III, i, 7; IV, i, 17. J. A. Friderica, Denmarks ydre politiske Historie, 1629–1666, II, ch. v.

47 Meiern, I, 81, 179–182; Gartner, II, 340, 356, 406, 431, 444; III, 456.

48 Meiern, I, 201, 211, 215,218, 256–257, 266; Gartner, II, 338, 347, 361, 363, 371, 449, 483, 681; III, 18.

49 Meiern, I, 218–219, 266, 309–311; Gartner, III, 316, 456, 501; Le Clerc, I, 150, 290; Wicquefort, II, 172, 206.

50 A. F. Berner, Kongresse und Friedenschlüsse der neureren Zeit in J. C. Bluntachli— Brater, K., Deutsches Staafs-Wörterbuch (1857), V, 666 Google Scholar; Bonfils, H., Manuel de Droit International Public (1912), 504 Google Scholar; Calvo, C., Droit International (1887), III, 409 Google Scholar; de Cusay, F., Dictionnaire du Diplomate et du Consul (1846), 169 Google Scholar; Fabrizi, I Congressi Diplomatics dal 1648 al 1878; de Garden, G., Traité Complet de Diplomatie (1833), III, 424 Google Scholar; Heffter, A. W., Europäische Völkerrecht (1888), 471 Google Scholar; von Holtzendorff, F., Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1885), III, 679 Google Scholar; de Martens, C.—Geffcken, F. H., Guide Diplomatique (1866), I, 179 Google Scholar; E. Nys, Droit International, II, 486; Pradier, P.—Fodéré, , Cours de Droit Diplomatique (1881), II, 305 Google Scholar; and his Traité de Droit International Public (1885), VI, 229; Satow, E., Guide to Diplomatic Practice (1917), I, 3 Google Scholar; W. Zaleski, Völkerrechtliche Bedeutung der Congresse (1874).

51 De jure belli ac pacis, lib. II, cap. xxiii, 8; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 217, 276, 289, etc.

52 Avenel, V, 705, 974; VI, 37, 275, 1024, 1030; VIII, 139, 300, 311, 324, 337, 373.

53 Edition of G. Rosini (Pisa: 1822), III, 192. Guicciardini called the negotiations at Mantua in 1512, a congregazione.—Ibid., V, 19.

54 Compare Chéruel, op. cit., I, 218; Barozzi and Berchet, op. cit., II, ii, 306, 355; Gärtner, I, 17, 28, 30, 594.

55 Colección de Docunyentos inéditos para la Historia de España, LXXII, 4, 7, 8; A. Cánovas del Castillo, op. cit., I, 392, 396, 397.

56 Meiern, I, 25, 27, 31, 65; Gärtner, I, 55, 63–65, 74, 76, 109, 127, 176, 181, 183, 199, 201, 204, 605. The French appear to have been somewhat reluctant to adopt the term congrès. Compare Furetière, Dicticfnaire Vniversel (1090), I; Richelet, Nouveau Dictionnaire François (1719), I, 322; Dictionnaire Universel François et Latin (1732), II, 121; Richelet, Dictionnaire de la Langue Françoise (1759), I, 559.

57 Hallendorff, V, ii, 371; Avenel, V, 463.

58 Hallendorff, V, ii, 370.

59 “Intersit tamen tractatui Coloniensi Agens Suecicus, Hamburgensi Gallicus, uterque tarn sine poteatate agendi cum hoste eommuni quam sine voto, sed honesta cum sessione, ut audiant, referant ad Plenipotentiarioa quisque suos, et sicubi opua, preestentes moneant: Nihil autem illis insciis aut inconsultis lltrobique tractetur.”—Hallendorff, V, ii, 427.

60 Avenel, VIII, 371; Bougeant, I, 392–393.

61 Hallendorff, V, ii, 473. The Latin text is also in Bougeant, I, 425. A summary in French is in Leonard, V; and Bernard, III, 414.

62 “Loca universalis tractatus sint Osnabruga, et Monasterium in Westphalia . . . Uterque congressus pro uno habeatur; atque ideo non solum itinera inter utramque urbem omnibus, quorum interest, ultro citroque libere, secureque commeari posse, tuta sunto: Sed et quicunque locus interjectus particulari tractantium converxtui pro mutua communicatione videbitur commodus, eadem, qua dictae urbes, securitate fruatur.”—Hallendorff, V, ii, 502.

63 De jure helli, lib. II, cap. xii. Compare Textor, Synapsis juris gentium, cap. xix, 1.

64 Le Clerc, I, 158.

65 Dumont, IV, 515; V, 27.

66 Concerning the negotiations upon a general truce, see: Mémoires de Richelieu, IX, 403–418; X, 85–156, 521–539; Avenel, VI, 21, 241; VII, 771, 778, 1026; VIII, 314, 316, 319, 322, 329; Chéruel, I, xciii, 653, 890; Le Clerc, II, 7–11; Gärtner, II, 598, 649; Grotii epistolœ ad Oxenstierna, II, ii, 202, 329, 469, 490; Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. ix, 67; xi, 76–79; xii, 55–61; xiv, 66; Bougeant, I, 279–280, 358–364; II, 36–37, 82–84; Adam Adami, cap. ii, 14; A. Cánovas del Castillo, I, 186–191, 310–316; G. Fagniez, op. cit., II, 392–399; A. Waddington, op. cit., I, chap. iii.

67 Dumont, V, 541.

68 For accounts of neutrality and neutralization in the Thirty Years’ War, see P. Schweizer, Geschichte der Schweizerischen Neutralität, I, 27–36, 213–280; S. Schopfer, Principe Juridique de la Neutralité, 103–28; R. Dollot, Origines de la Neutralité de la Belgique et la Système de la Barrière, 30–99; E. Nys, Études de Droit International et de Droit Politique, II, 72–77.

69 “Loca universalis tractatus sint Osnabruga et Monasterium in Westphalia, ex quorum utroque statim post commutatos, ut infra dicetur, salvos conductus, educantur militaria partium preesidia, et durantibus congressibus dictæ civitates sacramento erga utriusque partis solutæ ad neutralitatem obligentur. Magistratui interim proprio cum milite et oivibus sua cujusque urbis custodia relinquatur. Ipse vicissim dato reversali obstringatur ad fidelitatem et securitatem toti conventui prsestandam, et tractantium res ac personas, comitatumque sanete habendum

et custodiendum. Et si quid ab eo pro communi tractatus bono requisitum fuerit, præstet se quidem obsequentem; neutrius tamen partis jussa exequatur, nisi ab utroque Legatorum corpore collegiatim insinuata.”—Hallendorff, V, ii, 501.

70 Gärtner, I, 5–14.

71 Ibid., I, 269–327; Meiern, I, 14–22.

72 Ibid., I, 10, 328, 343, 346, 365, 370–401; Meiern, I, 22.

73 Avenel, VII, 1034; VIII, 323, 337; Memoires de Richelieu, X, 500–512; Bougeant, I, 347–358, 452–469; Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. x, 72–87; xi, 62–66; xiii, 88–90; Adam Adami, cap. ii, 10–12; iii, 2–3.

74 Bougeant, I, 481.

75 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. xiv, 51–52; Lunig, Literœ procerum Europœ, I, 337–357; Londorp, V, 775–782; Le Clerc, I, 113–134.

76 Hallendorff, V, ii, 501.

77 Gärtner, I, 77.

78 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib: xiii, 90; Chemnitz (Stockholm: 1856), IV, i, 76.

79 Pufendorf, De rebus Suecicis, lib. xiv, 52.

80 182 U. o. 244.

81 Public No. 368, 64th Cong. The text of this law will also be found in the Supplement to this Journal, Vol. XI, pp. 66–93; see “Some Historical and Political Aspects of the Government of Porto Rico,” in The Hispanic-American Historical Review, Vol. II, No. 4.

82 The latest confirmation of this status is to be found in the People of Porto Rico et al, v. José Muratti, and the People of Porto Rico v. Tapia, recently decided per curiam by the Supreme Court on the authority of the case under consideration and other cases mentioned in the docket. (245 U. S. 639.)

83 U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 31, p. 77.

84 See “Some Historical and Political Aspects of the Government of Porto Rico,” supra, note 81.

85 This Journal, Vol. X, p. 317 et seq.

86 See specially Article IX.

87 Article I of the Treaty of Paris contains the following provisions: “Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. And as the Island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.”

88 Article II of the Treaty of Paris is in full as follows: “Spain cedes to the United States the Island of Porto Rico and other Islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the Island of Guam in the Marianas of Ladrones.” See in this connection this Journal, Vol. IX, pp. 890–897; Vol. X, pp. 67–69, 72–74.

89 192 U. S. 1.

90 See this Journal, Vol. X, pp. 318, 321

91 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138; Rassmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S. 510; Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S., 468; Dowdell v. U. S., 221 U. S. 91; The People of Porto Rieo v. Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270; Ocampo v. U. S., 234 U. S. 91; and the recent cases decided per curiam: The People of Porto Rico et al. v. Carlos Tapia, 245 U. S. 639; and The People of Porto Rico et al. v. José Muratti, 245 U. S. 639.

92 182 U. S. 222.

93 182 U. S. 1.

94 This Journal, Vol. X, pp. 318 and 321.

95 Supra, p. 490.

96 Supra, note 90.

97 See a very illuminating article relating to this question, although upon a different subject, by George A. Malcolm in Am. Law. Rev., Vol. LI, No. 4, p. 543.

98 Organization refers to the government; incorporation to the status of the territory in question. A territory is said to be organized when Congress has legislated for it, establishing a formal civil government therein. See Re Lane, 135 U. S. 443. It is said to be incorporated when it has been allowed to become an integral part of the United States. See Mr. Justice White’s opinion, supra, p. 490. Thus a territory may be organized and yet not incorporated, or, conversely, it may be incorporated and yet not organized. That Porto Rico is a completely organized territory was justly asserted in Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 460; but see opinion of Mr. Justice Brown in Rassmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S., 531. See also The People of Porto Rico v. Manuel Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U. S. 270, where it was decided that the government created by the Organic Act has all the attributes of sovereignty as understood under the American system of government.

99 The People of Porto Rico ct al. v. Carlos Tapia, 245 U. S. 639, which was an appeal from the District Court of the United States- for the District of Porto Rico; and The People of Porto Rico et al. v. Jose Muratti, 245 U. S. 639, which came up in error to and on a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico.

100 192 U. S. 1.

101 26 Stat. 1084, c. 551.

102 “Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise as may be provided.” Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 162. By Article IX of the Treaty of Paris, the right to retain Spanish nationality was specifically reserved to the natives of Spain residing in the Island, when complying with certain conditions stipulated therein. As to the Porto Ricans, no such right was reserved to them, but their civil rights and political status was to be determined by Congress. See also, in this connection, Coudert, Certainty and Justice, pp. 136 et seq., and Dudley P. McGovney in Columbia Law Rev., Vol. XI, p. 231.

103 30 Stat. 151, 203, c. 11.

104 Frederic K. Coudert, op. cit., p. 148–149.

105 “American Citizenship,” by Dudley 0. McGovney, of Tulane University, in Columbia Law Rev., Vol. XI, p. 231.

106 See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White in Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222.

107 A. J. Lien, Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States, pp. 26–27.

108 Supra, note 81.

109 The same could be said as to the practice of other professions, such as that of medicine, pharmacy, etc.

110 Section 7 of the so-called Foraker Act, supra, specifically provided that Porto Ricans were entitled to the protection of the United States.

111 Nuevas Campañas, 207–213.

112 See, however, The People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly, supra.

113 Supra, p. 485–486.

114 Keily v. Lamar, 2 Cranch 357; The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 98.

There must be an actual, not pretended, change of domicil; in other words, the removal must be “a real one, animo manendi, and not merely ostensible.” Case v. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70. The intention and the act must concur in order to effect such a change of domicil as constitutes a change of citizenship. In Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400, 423, it was said, that “a removal which does not contemplate an absence from the former domicil for an indefinite and uncertain time is not a change of it,” and that while it was difficult to lay down any rule under which every instance of residence could be brought which may make a domicil of choice, “there must be, to constitute it, actual residence in the place, with the intention that it is to be a principal and permanent residence.” Morris v. Gilner, 129 U. S. 328.

114 In the case of Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter (1 Pet. 511), referring to the admission of the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall said: “They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government, till Florida shall become a State.”

“The right of suffrage is a right which emanates from the State alone, irrespective of Federal interference.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.

115 Porto Rico contributed more soldiers during the late war than the District of Columbia and all the Territories combined.

116 “Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns.” By Justice Grier, in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 19. See also Boyds v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 161.

117 2 Cranch 64, 120.

118 See Edwin M. Borchard, “Basic Elements of Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad,” in this Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 497–520. See also in this connection a very interesting article by Alpheus Henry Snow in this Journal, Vol. VIII, pp. 191–212.

119 Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761.

120 16 Wall. 79.

121 Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Sec. 1.

122 For a comprehensive and yet brief study of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, see A. J. Lien, op. cit., supra, note 107.

123 “The right of suffrage is not one of the necessary privileges of citizens of a State or of the United States.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.

124 Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 662.

125 Meore v. Illinois, 14 How. 10; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 161.

126 “Congress may legislate for territories as a State does for its municipal organizations.” First National Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U. S. 129.

127 “Congress has as full legislative power over the territories as a State has over its municipal corporations.” Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 416. Furthermore, “in legislating for the territories Congress exercises the combined powers of the General and State Governments. Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511.

128 Infra, p. 522–3. See also, in this connection, Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, supra.

129 Supra, p. 488.

130 190 U. S. 197.

131 To the same effect are Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138, which is a Philippine case, and The People of Porto Rico et al. v. Tapia, and The People of Porto Rico v. Muratti, supra.

132 Rassmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S. 516.

133 Supra, p. 499.

134 See Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, cited in Dowries v. Bidwell, supra.

135 Owing to the restrictive nature of this JOURNAL, we must leave for consideration elsewhere the Government of Porto Rico under Spain and the two Organic Acts so far enacted by Congress for the Island, as well as the Porto Rican problem which is now confronting the American people, and its possible solution in the near future. See “Some Historical and Political Aspects of the Government of Porto Rico,” in The Hispanic-American Historical Review, Vol. II, No. 4.