Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-04-19


with Japan and presented by our national
government to the courts in San Francisco
The first and second were merely Ques-
lions of construction of the treaty.
The other question was whether, If the
treaty had the meaning which the gov
eminent of Japan ascribed to 1t. the gov
eminent of the United States had the con-
stitutional power to make such a treaty
agreement with a foreign nation which
should be superior to and controlling upon
the laws of the state of California.
There was q very general miSappre-
hension Of what this treaty really under
took to do. 1t was assumed that in max
ing and asserting the validity of the
sorting the right to compel the state OF
California to admit Japanese children to
Its schools. No such question was in
voived. That treaty did not assert the au-
thority Of the United States to compel any
state to maintain public schools, or to ex-
tend the privileges of it's public schools
to Japanese children OF to the children Of
any allen residents. The treaty did assert
the right of the United states. by treaty. to
assure to the citizens of foreign nation
residing In American territory equality Of
treatment with the citizens Of other foreign
nations.
ut has been widely asserted or assumed
that this treaty provision and it's enforce
ment involved some question of states
rights. There was and is no question Of
states rights involved, unless it be the
question which was settled by the adop-
ton of the Constitution. .
During the entire history Of the United
states provisions of this description have
Oeen Included in our treaties of friendship.
commerce and navigation with practically
all the other nations of the world.
Not Open to Doubt.
1T Is not open to doubt that when the
delegates Of the original thirteen states
conferred the power to make treaties mon
the new national government in the broad
est possible terms and without any words
VI limitation, the subject abouts which
tney themselves had been making the
treaties then in force We're included In the
The treaty of July %, 1868, between
the United States and China-the cele-
Drated Burlingame treaty-contained, In
the sixth article. provision in the very
words Of the Japanese treaty
1t has been settled for more than a CEN
fury That the fact that a treaty prOyi-
sion would interfere with or annul the
laws OF state as to the aliens concern
impeachment Of the .treaty's authority.
There was no real question of power
arising under this Japanese treaty and no
question of state rights.
mere were, however, questions of pol
icy, questions of national interests and of
state interests arising under the admins
tration Of the treaty and regarding the
application of it's provisions to the condi-
tions existing on the Pacific coast
Ihere was one great and serious ques-
ton underlying the whole subject which
| made all questions of construction and of
scope and Of effect of the treaty itself-all
questions as to whether the claims of
Japan We're well founded or not: all ques-
t1ons as to whether the resolution of the
school board was valid not-seem tenn
porary and comparatively unimportant
| It was not question of war with Japan.
All the foolish talk about war was nureIy
| sensational and Ina pfDatiya
never even friction between the two gov
ernments. The question was, What state
! or FEELING would be created between the
| great body of the people of the United
states and the great body of the people Of
Japan as a result Of the treatment given
| to the Japanese in this country?
Asks a Question.
What was to be the effect upon that
proud, sensitive. highly civilized people
across the Pacific. Of the discourtesy, in
| suit. imputations of inferiority and abuse
aimed at them in the columns of American
newspapers and from the platforms of
American public meetings?' What would
De the enect upon our own people of the
responses that natural resentment for
such treatment would elicit from the jap
anese?
1T is hard for democracy to learn the re-
| sponsib1lities Of Its power; but the people
now, not governments. make friendship or
dislike, sympathy or discord, peace or war
between nations In this modern day,
through the columns of the myriad press
and messages flashing over countless wires
multitude calls to multitude across boun-
DIARIES and oceans In courtesy or insult in
amity or in defiance. Foreign offices and
ambassadors and ministers no longer keep
| or break the peace. but the conduct Of each
| people toward every other. The people who
permit themselves to treat the people of
other countries with discourtesy and insult
| are surely sowing the wind to reap the
q 20
yengeful hatred can never. be a world of
| peace. Against such a feeling treaties are
| waste paper and diplomacy the empty rou-
! tine OF idle form. The great question which
| overshadowed all discussion of the treaty
| OF 1894 was the question: Are the people Of
| the United States about to break friendship
with the people OF Japan? That question
| believe, has been happily answered in the
| negative"
International Agreements.
The first subject for discussion was
| whether not the interests of ciyiliza ton
| would be served by an international agree
ment granting immunity from capture dur
! ing war Of non-ofrending private property
| ON the high seas Rear Admiral Stockton
| traced the attitude of the United States
| on the subject from the foundation of the
| government. He said the theory of this
| government had been consistently in favor
! of such an agreement, but the practice of
| pQe OfllteQ states III war Time haQ Deeu
! as consistently the reverse. Franklin, Mon
| roe, Pierce and Mckinley, at different times,
| had all favored such a convention, but
with the single exception Of an agreement
| with Italy In 1871 the principle had never
| been reduced to the form of an agree
ment.
| Admiral Stockton said for his part he did
| not know whether civilization would be par
| ticularly served by such an arrangement.
| The most humane war, when war was in
| evitable, was that which ended quickest.
| The capture of private property on the high
| seas did not involve as a rule great mortal
! ity or personal suffering and If 1t could
| be made to weaken the resources of fight
| ing power 1t undoubtedly would tend to
| shorten the period of active war.
England in Opposition.
| Chas Cheney Hyde, following in the
| same vein. said Great Britain, as the pre-
ponderating naval power of the world. had
| always been against the immuniay Of pri-
| vate property from capture on the high
seas, because 1t served her purpose better
! to have the practice the other way. Now,
| however, when the bulk of her food sup
1 plies are water borne and shire Is depend
/ ent on foreign supplies of raw material
| to keep her factories going, she finds that
! her interests are in the other direction.