The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-12-06

That the Presidents structures on
San Francisco over the alleged exclu-
sion OF Japanese students from the
common schools may be sound politics
but wholly unsound in law is the en-
phatic opinion of Louis T. Hengstler,
professor of constitutional and inter-
national law at the University of CALI
fornia.
While Professor Hengstler does not
pretend to be familiar with the terms
of any treaties between the United
States and Japan, he does hold that
the San Francisco Board of ducation
acted entirely within its rights in seq
gregating Japanese students in the
graded schools and that In law Ne
Presidents contention has not a leg
to stand on" He insists that the reg
ulation of their educational systems
is a power never surrendered to the
General Government by the several
States; in fact, that such regulation
may be properly considered analogous
to an exercise of the police power, the
retention of which by other States has
never been successfully controverted.
Touching the particular question,
Hengstler significantly points to de-
cisions of the Supreme Courts of Cali
fornia, Michigan, Massachusetts, and of
the United States. He said yesterday
to The Call:
DE HAVEN UPHELD LAW ~
section 1862, provides that trustees
shall have power to establish separate
schools for Indian children and for
children of Monaghan or Chinese de-
tablished Indian, Chinese or Mongolian
children must not be admitted into
other schools"
In 1902 an infant, being native born
TT,.f& fof ac of III " al go
parentage, sued in the District Court
of the United. States/ for decree
against the principal of grammar
him from preventing the admission of
the complainant into the. grammar
school, The sole ground of his COM
plant was that the maintenance of the
separate school for children of Chinese
descent was a discrimination against
such children, arbitrary and a result of
race prejudice.
Judge de Haven decided on well set
tied principles that the operation of
the California law was not violation
of the United States constitution wher-
ever it appeared that the Chinese
the other schools. The validity of the
statute does not depend upon the mo-
tive which may in fact have actuated
the members of the Legislature in vot-
ing for its enactment. 1t is a valid
law, although the motive may be race
prejudice. --e-s
The same question came up before
the California Supreme Court in 1874
with reference to separate schools es-
tablished for colored children under
California law which at that time
authorized the establishment of such
schools and our Supreme Court, w lie
expressly saying that opportunity of
instruction in public schools is legal
right. as much SO as vested right in
property, held that the. law providing
for the education of colored children in
separate schools affording equal IA
cilities for education was constitution
al. The same question has come be-
fore, the highest courts OF Massachu-
sets and Missouri and has been de-,
cided In the same way.
is RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY
Is there any principle of interna-
tional law by which the Chinese or
right to Insist upon his education in
the Identical common schools provided
for white children? 1t Is settled and
recognized maxim of International law
that every sovereign nation has the
power inherent in sovereignty and es-
sential to- MISREPRESENTATION to entirely
forbid the entrance of foreigners with
in its dominion or to admit them on
such conditions as 1t may see fit to pre-
scribe. or to expel or deport aliens who