Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-20
DECLARES WAR
WASN'T EVEN
A POSSIBILITY
Secretary Root Tells
of Treaty
Says There Was No Danger Of Conflict
Between the United States and
Japan During the' School
Controversy
BY Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, April 19.--That there
was never at any time any danger Of
war between the United States and
Japan growing out of the recent con-
troversy regarding the segregation Of
the Japanese school children in the
public schools in San Francisco was
made clear by Secretary Root in an
address on "The Real Questions Under
the Japanese Treaty and the San Fran
cisco School Board" at the first annual
meeting of the American Society OF
International Law today.
The question of state rights, Secre-
tary Root declared, was not involved.
Much of the afternoon session was de-
voted to a discAss of tho so-called
Drago doctrine which CORNER Secretary
of State John w. Foster declared was
first originated by Alexander Hamilton
more than a hundred years ago..
William Barnes, sr., of Nantucket,
Mass, introduced a resolution asking
the society to go on record as consid-
ering 1t a degradation of the func-
tions and dignity CT the navies of the
world to pervert Their to the duties of
debt collectors and tho lowering of the
dignity of admirals Of the navies to
force them to perform the duties of
constables, bailiffs and 3herltfs in the
collection of debts"
The resolution, which also carried an
Endorsement of the Drago doctrine, was
referred to the executive committee.
War Never Possible
In the course of mis- speech fecretary
Root said, in part:
1T is a pleasure to e able to say
that never r moment vas there,
as between the government of the
United States and the government of
Japan, the slightest departure from
perfect good temper, mutual confidence
and kindly considerations; and that no
sooner had the views and purposes of
the governments of the United States,
the state of California and the city of
San Francisco beer explained by each
to the other than entire harmony and
good understanding resulted, with a
common desire to exercise lie powers
vested in each for the common good of
the whole country, of tie state and of
the city.
"The excitement has now subsided,
so that it may be useful to consider
what the question really was, not be-
cause it is necessary for the purposes
of that particular case, but because
of it's bearing upon cases which may
arise in the future under the appli-
cation of the treaty making power of
and in other parts OF the national do
main.
Right, Liberty or Privilege?
"It 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 a 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,
liberty or privilege? These questions
Of construction, and especially the Sec
ond are by no means free from doubt;
but as they concern only the meaning
of q particular clause in a particular
treaty they are not of permanent i'm
portance and the particular occasion
for their consideration having passed
they need not now be discussed
"The other question was whether,
If the treaty had the meaning which
the government Of Japan ascribed to
1t, the government of the United
States had the constitutional power to
make such treaty agreement with
foreign nation which should be su-
perior to and controlling upon the
idWS OF LHe state OF AdIlIOr1ld. A cor
rect understanding of that question is
OF the utmost Importance not merely
as regards the state of California, but
as regards all states and all citizens
of the Union.
lnterprets Treaty
There was a very general misappre-
hensiOn of what this treaty really un-
dertook to do. It was assumed that
in making 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 dues-
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 public
schools, or to extend the privileges of
its 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 citi-
zens of other foreign nations, so that
If any state chooses 10 extend privi-
leges TO allen residents as well as to
citizen residents the state will be for
bidden by the obligation of the treaty
to discriminate against the resident
citizens of the particular country with
which the treaty is made and will be
forbidden to deny to them the priVi-
leges which 1t grants to the citizens
of other foreign countries The effect
Of such a treaty, in respect OF edu-
cation, is not positive and compul-
sorry; 1t Is negative and prohibitory.
1t is not requirement that the state
shall furnish education; 1t is a pro-
hibition against discrimination when
the state does choose TO furnish edu-
cation, 1t leaves every state free to
have public schools or not, as Il
chooses, but 1t says to every state:
II you provide system of education
which includes alien children. you
must not exclude these particular alien
children
1T is difcult for democracy to learn
the responsibilities of its power; but
the people now, not governments. make
friendship or dislike, sympathy or dis
cord, peace or war, between nations.
In this modern day, through the coll
umns Of the myriad press and mes
sages flashing over countless wires