Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1907-04-12

A'oNSh WIZ Will PsA>A cSt"SOA
our Government and Japan, over the
San Francisco school question, seem
to have crystallized into a temporary
adjustment, the fundamental princi-
pie involved in, it will, sooner or later,
demand a settlement. Ex-Secretary
of State Olney, who negotiated the
treaty between the two countries, in
q communication addressed to Con-
gresham Mccall, of Massachusetts,
invites attention to the following
clause in Article IL:
sit is, however, understood that the
stipulations contained in this and the
preceding article do not in any way
affect the laws, ordinances and regula-
tons in regard to trade, the immigration
of laborers, police, and public security
be enacted in either of the two coun-
tries"
The special reservation of the po-
lice power would seem to very ma
terially narrow the issue in contrO-
versy. The sole question at point is
as to the proper construction of the
treaty. The proposition regarding
State and Federal rights, under the
United States Constitution, is there
by eliminated; has no legitimate
place in the realm of the debate be-
tween the parties concerned. MIR.
Olney maintains that education is a
matter of police regulation, which is
vested in the State of California, and
expressly reserved in the treaty it.
self. He cites;
U. S. Q. Dewitt, 9 Wall. u. S. Al ;
Patterson .. Kentucky, 81 U. s. SOL Ten
nesses .. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; In re Heff
1877 U. S. 1888.
These cases show that education is
a matter exclusively within the do
main of State regulation, beyond the
province of Federal interference, out
side of the District of Columbia and
the Territories. But even by elimi-
mating this question of police power,
can it be maintained by any fair ar
gument that the State of California,
or the School Board of San Francisco
have violated any of the provisions
of the treaty by providing separate
schools for Asiatics? Certainly the
Japanese government cannot within
reason claim any greater rights for
her subjects than those provided for
native citizens or subjects, or citi-
zens or subjects of the most favored
nation" The highest court in the
land has held that American citizens
may be segregated on the basis of
racial distinction
Chesapeake Railroad Co. Q. Kentucky,
179 u. S. 1888.
How can it justly or legally be
urged this treaty intended to grant
to foreigners of different race and
color greater privileges than those
enjoyed by our own citizens? Fur
Their, under the United States Con-
stitution, treaties are made under
the authority Of the United States"
and not otherwise. In the words of
Mr.. Bayard, when Secretary of State:
q treaty is, it is true, the supreme
law of the land, but it is neverthe-
less only law imposed by the Fed
eral government, and subject to all
the limitions of other laws imposed
by the same authority" 1t has been
decided that a provision in o treaty
yields to an Act of Congress Head
Money Cases, liz U. S. SOY which is
itself of no validity when it oversteps
the sphere ordained for the national
government by the Constitution, and
attempts to control the purely inter-
nal police affairs of the several States.
U. S. .. Dewitt, 3 Wall. (U. S. Al.
1t would be an illogical anomaly that
o treaty should prevail where an Act
of Congress which might control the
treaty, is itself futile.
Some writer's have advanced the
argument because the Federal Con-
stitution recognized the power of the
States over matters concerning the
immigration of foreigners until 1903;
that thereafter this power was vested
exclusively in the United States, and
therefore the authority of the treaty
making power is supreme over the
local polity Of the States in all par
ticulars relating to this matter. This
contention is answered by the deci-
sions OF the U. S. Supreme Court,
some of which have heretofore been
cited. Again Amendment x. pro-
vides: The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Consti-
tuition, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States re-
spectively, or to the people,"
In great measure this and kim
dred provisions in favor of personal
rights have been legislated and con-
strued out of force by Congress and
the courts. The founders of our
government saw the dangers of CEN
tralization, and provided such safe
guards as they deemed wise to pro-
tect the people of the respective
States from invasion or interference
with regard to affairs of their own
local concern. The time is oppor-
tune to consult our chart and not
drift farther from our mornings.
TWENTY-FIVE years ago William H.
Vanderbilt announced that railroad
warfare that had disturbed business