into the United States. A comparison of the respective sections of the two treaties concerning the rights
of inhabitants shows that they are practically identical in language and construction. That Alaska was a
continental territory, rather than an insular possession, probably influenced the Court in this case.

 The doctrine of incorporation advanced one stage further towards its final establishment in
Dowdell v. United States33 This case arose on an appeal from a conviction in the Philippines following a
trial in which the accused claimed that he had not been confronted by the witnesses against him. Justice
Day, speaking for the majority of the Court, said that:

 The objection that the accused was not tried by a petit jury is disposed of in Dorr
 v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, in which it was held that in the absence of
 congressional legislation to that end there was no right to demand trial by jury in
 criminal cases in the Philippine Islands. It is unnecessary to repeat the reasons
 for that conclusion announced in the Dorr case.34

 Justice Harlan registered the only dissent. He and Justices White and McKenna were the only
 Justices remaining on the Court who had sat in the original Insular Cases. It appeared that the Justices,
 who had come into the Court after those cases, believed that the doctrine of incorporation had become
 settled constitutional law.

 Again, in Ocampo v. United States,ss involving a criminal prosecution in the Philippine Islands in
 which, among other things, it was claimed that the judgment was invalid in that there had been no
 presentment or indictment by grand jury, the Court, speaking through Justice Pitney, said:

 Section 5 of the act of Congress contains no specific requirement of a
 presentment or indictment by grand jury, such as is contained in the Fifth
 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. And in this respect the
 Constitution does not, of its own force, apply to the Islands. Hawaii v. Mankichi,
 190 U. S. 197; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138; Dowdell v. United States, 221
 U. S. 332.36

 It was not until 1922, however, in Balzac v. Porto Rico,37 that an opinion by a unanimous court
 unequivocally adopted the doctrine of incorporation as a part of our constitutional law.

 The Jones Act of March 2, 1917,38 was a complete organic act which appeared to place Puerto
 Rico upon a status precisely similar to that of the older territories of the United States. It included a full bill
 of rights containing practically all the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Amendments,
 except as to juries. It also clearly defined the functions of the executive and the legislature. Furthermore,
 section 5 of that act provided that "all citizens of Porto Rico .... shall be deemed and held to be citizens of
 the United States." Did this mean that Congress had finally incorporated Puerto Rico into the Union? Did
 citizenship mean that the decisions in the original Insular cases would cease to be binding upon the
 inhabitants of Puerto Rico?

 Chief Justice Taft evidently desired to reach finality in regard to the doctrine of incorporation, and
 his opinion reviews the controversy. It was claimed, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that both Article III of
 the Constitution, providing for trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, by jury, and the
 provisions of the Sixth Amendment requiring jury trial, were alike applicable. Chief Justice Taft, speaking
 for the unanimous Court, said:

 The Insular cases revealed much diversity of opinion in this court as to the
 constitutional status of the territory acquired by this Treaty of Paris ending the
 Spanish War, but the Dorr Case shows that the opinion of Justice White of the
 majority, in Downes v. Bidwell, has become the settled law of the court......
 Few questions have been the subject of such discussion and dispute in our
 country as the status of our territory acquired from Spain in 1899. The division