Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1907-04-19
ROOT DISCUSSES
STATE 5 RIGHTS
Secretary of State Says Ques-
ton Could Not Enter Frisco,
Jap Controversy
TALKS TO lLAw ASSOCIATION
AZ President Of international Law As
sociation Root Reviews Points in the
1 Japanese Row - Opening Meeting
i Held in Washington Well Attended
I Secretary Roots Address.


Washington. April 19.--The Ameri-
can Society of International Law met
here today. The opening session was
well attended. Secretary of State Root,
president of the society," in his opening
address reviewed at length the ques-
ton of states rights and it's bearing on
the japanese school question as raised
at San Francisco. He said In part:
az shall detaiii you from the interest
ing program of instruction and dis
cussion which has been arranged for
this meeting only by trying to Illus
trate the kind of service that the So
ciety may render, i'll few remarks IN NJ
tended to clear away a somewhat
widespread popular nlfsapprehenslof
regarding a question arising under a
treaty of the United States.
ut is a pleasure to be able to say
that never for moment was there, as
between the government OF the Unlted
States and the government of Japan, the
Slightest departure from perfect good
temper, mutual confidence, and kindly
consideration; and that no sooner nae
the views and purposes-of the govern
ments Of the United States, the state
OF California. and the city of San
Francisco been explained by each 10
the other than entire harmony ana
good understanding resulted, with
common desire to exercise the powers
vested in each, for the common good
of the whole country, OF the state, and
of the city.
s"The excitement has now subsided,
so that it may be useful TO consider
what the question really was, not be-
cause 1t is necessary for the purposes
Of that particular case, but because OF
its bearing upon cases which may arise
In the future under the application OF
the treaty making power of the United
States to other matters and in other
parts Of the national domain
ut Is obvious that three distinct
questions were raised by the claim
originating With Japan and presented
by our national government to the
courts in San Francisco The first and
second were merely questions of con-
struction of the treaty. Was the right
to- attend the primary schools right,
liberty or privilege of residence? and
if SO, was the limitation of japanese
children to the oriental school and
their exclusion from the ordinary
schools a deprivation Of that right, lib
erty. or privilege? These questions OF
construction, and especially the second
are by no means free from doubt; but
as they concern only the meaning of a
particular clause in a particular treaty
they are not of permanent Importance,
and. the particular occasion for their
consideration having passed, they need
not now be discussed.
.sThe other question was whether,
IL the treaty had the meaning which
the government Of Japan ascribed to
It. the government Of the United
States had the constitutional power3to
make such treaty agreement with a
foreign nation which should be super
Tor to and controlling upon the laws
of the state of California. A correct
understanding of that question is of
che utmost Importance not merely as
regards the state of California, but
as regards all states and all citizens of
the union.
"There was very general rnisappre-
shension of what this treaty really un-
aertook to do. 1t was assumed that
1 nmaking and asserting the validity
Of the treaty of 1894 the United States
was asserting the right to compel the
state of California to admit Japanese
children to it's schools. No such ques-
{tion was involved. That treaty did
not. by any possible construction, as
sert the authority OF the United States
to compel any state to maintain pub
3jc schools or to extend the privileges
of it's public schools to Japanese chill
dren or to the children of any alien
residents. The treaty did assert the
right of the United States, by treaty,
to assure to the citizens of a foreign
nation residing in American territory
equality of treatment with the citizens
of other foreign nations so that if any
state chooses to extend privileges to
alien residents as we'll as to citizen
residents. the state will be forbidden by
the obligation of the treaty to dis
criminate against the resident citizens
OF the particular country with which
the treaty is made, and will be for
hidden to deny to them the privileges
which it grants to the citizens of other
foreign countries. The effect of such
q treaty, in respect of education. is not
positive and compulsory; it is negative
and prohibitory. 1t is not a require
ment that the state shall furnish edu-
cation; it is prohibition against dis
:crimination when the state does choose
TO furnish education. 1t leaves every
state free to have public schools or
not. as it chooses. bur it says to every
state: IF you provide system of
education which includes alien chill
dren. you must not exclude these par
ticuiar alien children"
1T has been widely asserted or as
sumed that this treaty provision and
its enforcement involved some question
Of states rights.
Legislative power is distributed. /.
,,pon some subjects the national leg
ialaturs has authority; upon other