The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-23
PP B AMUsIyG.

That San Francisco matter stfti fur nishes amusement for those who know how and where to look fer tt. and some of the papers supplying it cannot see it. For example. The York ePa) pis- patch saya:
 President RooseveIt's message to Congress on the Japanese controversy In san Franeisc0 leaves nc doubt as to his determination in the matter of giving to sliens the freedom of the larIy that the treaty rights of Japan shall be enforced He does not insist that the conditions that aggravate the California people now shah be ignored, but he modtfies his demands by declar- ing that Iapanese children. shall be permitted to attend the public schools though the adult Japanese may be barred. It Is the adult Jap who has made most of the trouble by insisting that he has a right to attend primary grade schools. President Roosevelt comedies that the objection to the adult Jap Is justified, but he will not school board to bar Japanese children Rather than this he is prepared to use "alI the force at bus command"
 Doubtless it win be news to those who have tried to keep up with the Presidents aRerrant course on this question to learn that he is determined to give the aliens the freedom of the public schools" Those who don't know any better would infvr from this that all aliena are to have the freedom of all the public schools. of course, there is no such determination and not even Roosevelt Is going so far as that.
 And that reminds us that in his mes- sage accompanying Secretary Metcalf's report he says that the Government has already ordered suits to be begun in the Federal courts to enforce the Ja- panese treaty, but adds that he hopes such suits will not be necessary. but that the citizens of San Francisco win be good and let the Jap children go to school This implied intention or de- sire to compromise with San Francisco is looked on by The New York Com- merciaI as begging the question, and 1t adds:
 The Federal Constitution reserves to California the right to establish and conduct her schools in her own way;
 
 and turn the structures into brewertes and dlstillePies. It is by no means clear as yet that, when the United states made certain treaty promises 70 alien Iapanese of the ,ght to attend public schools iE the various States; If they did then the United States was promising to Japan something that she had no right to promise, for such a treaty stipulation would be Tn conflict with the Constitution and thus would not be the supreme law of the land' at all. This would Inquestionably con stitute California's ch ef line Of de- fense in any Federal suit brought to enforce the terms of the American Japanese treaty--and the probability fudge in California would order the dismissal of the suit on that ground, But to voluntarily withdraw 1t on san FraneiscO'S promise to cease diserim- tnation against Japanese school-chll- dren would be the veriest folly.
 It will be seen that while The Com mercial practically agrees with the position all along maintained 0y this paper. as to the invulnerable position of the California school authorities. 1t holds that 1t would be folly for the Government to withdraw the suit. Let the case proceed it says, and let California prove that her school law Is constitutional. Then it wants San Francisco to remove the restrictions against the Japanese. But" it adds, "Iet her not resign her constitutional rights before doing so."
 That is putting 1t properly. We do not believe the school authorities there have violated the constItution in the course they have adopted. whether we think 1t was good policy to adopt such rules or not. It is question of inter- est as we'll as Of importance to the en- tire country and to all the States. and