· 4/10/1922

Balzac v. Porto Rico

Citations

258 U.S. 298
42 S. Ct. 343
66 L. Ed. 627
1922 U.S. LEXIS 2273

Syllabus

1. The Act of January 28, 1915, c. 22, 38 Stat. 803, amending § 246 of the Judicial Code, and providing that writs of error from this court may be prosecuted to the supreme courts of Porto Rico and Hawaii in the same classes of cases as to the courts of last resort of the States under Ju'd. Code, § 237, meant to assimilate the jurisdiction over those territorial courts to that over the state courts and is to be construed as embracing subsequent changes in § 237 not obviously inapplicable, such as the amendments made by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726. P. 300. 2. In prosecutions for criminal libel in a district court of Porto Rico, defendant demanded a jury under the Sixth Amendment, which was denied him upon a construction of local statutes, applicable to this and other misdemeanors. Held, that the demand drew in question the validity of the statutes, within the meaning of Jud. Code, § 237, as amended in 1916, and that judgments of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico affirming the convictions were reviewable here by writ of error. P. 302. 3. To present the constitutionality of a statute, it is not essential that ■ an assignment of error should mention the statute in question, if the record definitely shows that its constitutionality was questioned and the assignment is clearly directed to that controversy. P. 303.. 4. The provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing jury trial in all criminal prosecutions do not' apply to a territory belonging to the United States which has not been incorporated into the Union; and Porto Rico was not so incorporated by the Act of April 12, 1900, c. 191, 31 Stat. 77, which gave it a temporary government. P. 304. Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138. 5. The Organic Act for Porto Rico of March 2, 1917, c. 145, 39 Stat. 951, known as the Jones Act, did not have the effect of in-. corporating Porto Rico into the United States. P. 305. 6. Since the Spanish War, an intention of Congress t

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1922 United States Supreme Court case

Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to territories not incorporated into the union. It originated when Jesús M. Balzac was prosecuted for criminal libel in a district court of Puerto Rico . Balzac declared that his rights had been violated under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as he was denied a trial by jury since the code of criminal procedure of Puerto Rico did not grant a jury trial in misdemeanor cases. In the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts on the island in deciding that the provisions of the Constitution did not apply to a territory that belonged to the United States but was not incorporated into the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases ".

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balzac_v._Porto_Rico&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Jesús Maria Balzac y Balzac edited the newspaper El Baluarte. Balzac published on April 16 and 23 of 1918 respectively a pair of articles, bylined only as "The Knight-Errant," that were considered libelous by the authorities because of the language they directed at the colonial governor at the time, Arthur Yager :

[T]he first alludes to governor Yager as "an abortion from Avernus ," "our governor and... our tyrant," who "keeps Borinquen mired in the swamp of social slavery," "dictator," "American Kaiser," "demon-possessed filibuster," "a figure of ill omen, abominable and somber, ... a man held in contempt by the people," "odious undertaker of the public, ... murderer of democracy... persecuter of the people," "hypocritical ruler," who "kills peasants," "inauspicious man, too feeble in judgment to be ruler." Meanwhile, the second catalogues Yager as "[b]andit, murderer, tyrant, despot!", "living human body without viscera nor feeling," "Traitor!", "uncalled-for spawn of a libertarian race" and somebody "so abominable that our land refuses to give you burial."[1]

Pursuant to the Jones Act of 1917 , which granted Puerto Ricans American citizenship among other guarantees, Balzac sought jury trial under the Sixth Amendment . In denying the request for jury trial, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico relied on two 1918 decisions by the United States Supreme Court : People v. Tapia, 245 U.S. 639 (1918), and People v. Muratti, also at 245 U.S. 639 (1918). These two _per curiam _ decisions cited the earlier _Insular Cases _ and held that provisions of the Bill of Rights were inapplicable to Puerto Rico even after the passage of the Jones Act.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balzac_v._Porto_Rico&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]

Taft Court in 1921.

The unanimous opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Taft . He argued that although the Jones Act had granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, it had not incorporated Puerto Rico into the Union. Although Puerto Rico had been under the control of the United States since the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898, the territory had not been designated for ultimate statehood, and Congress could determine which parts of the Constitution would apply. Taft distinguished Puerto Rico from the territory in the Alaska Purchase , acquired from Russia in 1867, which had been held to be incorporated in _Rasmussen v. United States _. Thus, particular constitutional provisions were applied based on location, rather than on citizenship.

Taft's grounds for denying jury trial specifically echoed earlier Insular Cases reasoning. He argued that because Puerto Rico had been governed by Spanish civil law for four hundred years before American acquisition, the inhabitants would be unprepared for jury service. Taft argued that locals should be able to determine their own laws:

Congress has thought that a people like the Filipinos, or the Porto Ricans, trained to a complete judicial system which knows no juries, living in compact and ancient communities, with definitely formed customs and political conceptions, should be permitted themselves to determine how far they wish to adopt this institution of Anglo-Saxon origin, and when.

— 258 U.S. 298, 310

Toward the end of the opinion, the court uses "language that would lead to perpetual litigation in an effort to clarify the rights of the American citizens of Puerto Rico":[2]

The guaranties of certain fundamental personal rights declared in the Constitution, as, for instance, that no person could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, had from the beginning full application in the Philippines and Porto Rico, and, as this guaranty is one of the must fruitful in causing litigation in our own country, provision was naturally made for similar controversy in Porto Rico.

— 258 U.S. 298, 312–313

The court leaves unresolved the exact "personal rights" that were so "fundamental" that they would extend to American citizens in Puerto Rico.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balzac_v._Porto_Rico&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ Ortiz Santini, Francisco (2022). "Las llamas fugitivas de la deslealtad: el caso Balzac y otros procesamientos por libelo criminal en Puerto Rico" (PDF). Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. 91 (3): 695–711. Retrieved September 18, 2025.
↑ Torruella, Juan (1988). The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal. San Juan: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-8477-3019-3 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balzac_v._Porto_Rico&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

Works related to Balzac v. Porto Rico at Wikisource
Text of Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) [Justia](https://supreme.ju

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding the Fifth Amendment right to a jury trial inapplicable, even to a U.S. citizen, in Puerto Rico
noting the necessity that the Government be subject to the constraints of due process in the territories
“It is the locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution ... and not the status of the people who live in it.”
\`[T]he tyranny of the majority' is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on guard.\
one of “The Insular Cases,” holding Sixth Amendment right to jury trial inapplicable in Puerto Rico
“The Constitution of the United States is in force in Porto Rico [sic] as it is wherever and whenever the sovereign power of that government is exerted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Taft, Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.