The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-24
soMR oLp nocrnrNr.


 SOME OLD DOCTRINE.
 The Buffalo News is evidently of the opinion that 1t has settled the whole business of that San Francisco affair It declares that 1t Is mainly princi- pie that is involved" and then goes on as follows:
 It Is maintained by many that treaties have nothing to do with the case of education in any State, so that appeal to the Federal government to with Japan and permit Jap children to attend the public schools on the same basis as other children, Is vain. That is true only in part, Congress may not of any sort nor may it supervise schools established under State law, but 1t may compel the State to observe sion of Japanese children to the com mon schools of the United States the Federal government can legally com pei any State to observe the treaty.
 The Constitution makes a treaty the supreme law of the land If a State may disregard treaty in one thing it may in another and any treaty may be torn into shreds by that process. But ministration will deal as wisely as it does firmly with the question raised at San Francisco.
 We are glad for once to agree with a rabid Republican contemporary, as we do when 1t tells us that 1t is mainly a principle that is involved, for that is true. and 1t is a principle as we'll de- fined as anything in our governmental system. But that is neither here nor fhara INhof xrrA xn,l~h 4A 1R the position of The News that tthe Constitution makes treaty the su- preme law of the land" We are in- debted to Harper's Weekly for some history on this subject. which Is so interesting that we herewith copy from it at some length:
 We seem likely, therefore, to be obliged to face the fundamental ques- tion, does treaty concluded by our Federal goyernment bind our constitu- ent States? Is such a. treaty "the law of the land" in the sense that our Fed eral Executive or Judiciary can treat as invalid the statute of d State that think of the assertion, more than once made and acted upon by us, that, our Constitution does not permit the Fed @raI government to coerce States into
 
 was so distinctly declared in the fla nous Mcleod case that 1t may be worth while to recall the peremptory position taken by Great Britain fin that affair. In the autumn of 1S40 a Canadian named Alexander Mcleod was arrested at Lewiston, New York, and committed to the Lockport jail, on the charge that ssot he had "a, confessed h,ss to having fired the Amos Durfes was killed on the night when vessel named the Caroline" was captured in American waters by ernment forthwith demanded the re- lease of the prisoner, but Forsyth, who was Secretary of State, replied that the onense of which Mcleod was accused had been committed in the territory and against the laws of the citizens of the State of New York; that it came within the Jurisdiction of her tribunals; the Union was, within it's proper sphere, perfectly independent of the Federal government; and that any Fed eral Interpretation would therefore be
 Subsequently, Mir. Fox. the British Minister at washington. was instructed by her majesty's government-Lord iyaraien 1fra W ;rssto tne addrsss s nots fo Daniel Webster, who had succeeded Forsyth as Secretary of State, in which ''the immediate release of Mir. Alexan- British government went on to point out that it could not admit for a moment the doctrine that the Federal govern ment had no power to interfere ana State of New York. The relations of foreign powers were with the Federal government, and when reparation was it was to the Federal government that the aggrieved foreign power must look for redress. To concede that the Fed srai government hSa no e. Sohsrol .n Sner @ 2 sumption that the Union did not exist so far as foreign powers were con cerned, and to the accrediting Of for- elgn diplomatic agents, not to the Fed erai government, but to each separate State, and would make their relations of peace and war with each State de- pend upon the results or tneir separate intercourse with such State.
 John Forsyth was an eminent states map. a Georgian and fine constitu- tional lawyer, who was Secretary of State under Jackson and Martin Van Buren. It is a pity that hs was not holding that position when MT. Fox made the plea above set forth. for For syth would most assuredly have turned 1t down, as he did the other statement, but Daniel Webster, assuredly great statesman himself, "evaded the issue" we are told. At all events, he man aged to settle the matter in way that satisfied the British government but did not really take back any arguments used by Mir. Forsyth. In plain words, Mir. Webster got out of it in dipio- matic way. However. as Forsyth was a Southern man. perhaps his name will not weigh much with The News.