Omaha daily bee., 1907-04-20
ROOT ON JAP ISSUE
s.orstary Of State Says there Was No
Danger o. War at Amy Time.
TALKS TO INTERNATIONAL LAW SOCIETY
Real Questions Invo.vsd in recent schOol
Dispute Ars Explained,
DRkGO DOCTRINE IS UNDER DISCUSSION
John w. Foster Says it Was Originated BY
Alexander Hamilton.
ADDRESS BY UDGE ADVOCATE DAVIS
Immunity of Neutral Property at
Sea and Rights of BeIliRerents
Are Subject of Dis
cusatOn.
Real Questions Invovsd in recent schOol
Dispute Ars Explained,
DRAGo DOCTRINE IS UNDER DISCUSSION
John ", Foster Says it Was Originated BY
Alexander Hamilton.
ADDRESS BY JUDGE ADVOCATE DAVl;


WASHINGTON. Aprn 19.-That there
never was at any time any danger Of war
between the United States and Japan.
growing out OF the recent controversy re-
EnYfiing 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
Francisco school boards resolution at the
FIRST annual meeting Of the American
Society OF International Law here today.
The question Of state rights, Secretary
Root declared, was not involved
Much OF the afternoon cession was de-
voted 10 the discussion Of the so-called
Drago doctrine. which Former Secretary
Foster declared was first originated by Alex
ander Hamilton. more than 100 years ago.
Willien Barnes, sr.. Of Nantucket Mass,
introduced a resolution asking the society
20 20 on record as considering It degrade
tion OF the functions and purposes Of the
navies OF the world to pervert them to the
duties Of debt collectors and the lowering
of the dignity of admirals OF the navies
to force them TO perform the duties Of con-
stables bailins and sheriffs in the collec-
ton of debts" The resolution, which also
carried an endorsement of the Drago doc
trine was referred to the executive COM
mittee.
The delegates were entertained at dinner
last night by Charles Henry Butler. One
hundred guests prominent in Washington's 5
omcial diplomatic and social life, were
present to meet the visiting lawyers.
Secretary Root Talks.
The opening session was we'll attended
Secretary Root, who was the nrst speaker
said
Gentlemen: In opening this meeting OF
the American socIety OF international
Law, Wnicn hope Will he tne nTst VI
continue long after we personally nave
ceased to take part in analts, let me wei-
come you 10 the DesInnins oil your lapors
tor a more thorough Understanding OF lhls
important and Fascinating subJect. II rs
Impossible tnat the human nnnc should
be addressed TO questions better worth lta
noblest enorts, ouerlng a greater oppor
tunity for usefulness in the exercise OF It's
temporary interest, than In the neid OF in
ternatonal rights and duties,
shall detain you from the intereslng
program OF instruction and discussion q
which has been arranged for this meeting
only by trying TO illustrate the KIND OF
few remarks intended to clear away a
somewhat widespread popular misappre-
hensiOn regarding a question arising under
treaty OF the United states.
After reading the provisions Of the treaty
with Japan, the constitution and school
laws Of California, Mr.. Root said:
II is obvious that three distinct questions
were raised by the claim originating with
Japan and presented by our national gov
ernment to the courts in San Francisco
The first and second were merely questions
OF construction Of the treaty. Was the
right to attend the primary schools right
liberty or privilege of residence? And, II
so, was the Limitation Of Japanese children
20 the oriental school and their exclusion
from the ordinary schools a deprivation o
that right. liberty or privilege2 These ques
tons or construction, and especially tn,
second, are by no means free from doubt
but as they concern only the meaning Of
paruSular eiause IN particular treaty
and, the particular occasion for their con
sideration having passed, they need no
other Important Point.
The other question was wneIner, II tn,
treaty had the meaning which the govern
ment OF Japan ascribed TO IT, the govern
ment OF the United States had the con
agreement with a foreign nation whici
should be superior to and controlling upol
the laws OF the state OF California. A cor
rect understanding OF that question is o
the utmost Importance not merely as re
union
There was very general misapprehen
20 &c. II was assumed that in making an,
asserting the validity or the treaty OF 1Sg
% compel the state Of Callfornf, TO sdTni
Japanese children to its schools No sud-
question was involved. The treaty did not
authority OF the United States 10 comps
ana s5ate 70 maintain public schools or I,
10 japanese children or 10 the Children ~
any allen residents. The treaty did asser
the right Of the United States. bv trsst,,
to assure TO the citizens OF foreign nsttC,
residing IN American territory equaiitv q
eign nations, 80 tNat n amy state CHOOSE
to extend privileges 90 alien residents a
well as 70 g. pen residents the state vii
be forbidden hy the obligation OF the treat,
20 DISCRIMINATE against the resident citi
Eens OF Pc particular country with whic
the trraiy Is made. and will be fnrbidde
70 dery 20 them the privileges which
Er1r.s 10 the citizens Of other foreIq-
countries The eject OF such a treaty, i
resneet Of education. Is not positive an
compulsory, II Is negative and prohibitorS
is not a requirement that the state sha
against discrimination when the state doe
choose 10 furnish education II leave
not h chooses but Il 'siy says 'fIi9S'S To- ever
stare ~ you provide q system n educa
uqn which includes alien children. 70
children"
state RiEhts Not Involved.
II has been widely asserted or assume
msnt Involved some question OF sac
rights. There was and Is no question q
states rights involved, unless il be N
question which was settled by tbe ado
ton OF the constitution.
The speaker then cited cases IN suppol
% the power OF the United States In mak
rg treaties and the binding effect OF tbos
trfrfles on 1lr states he referred 20 ~
feeling IN San Francisco and the cor
terence Ia Washington. saving,
Thea VAS nONeyer, a supposed ar a,
pal eat clashlns OF interests, and 10 &
way with this, conference. communfcr
lon comparison Of Views. sxplanation
policy and purpose were necessary. Man
thouGhtiess and some mischieVous uersor
nave spoken and written regarding tUes
conferences and communications as IL the
were the parleying and cOmpromise OF en-,
nies. on the contrary, they We're an eI
annie OF the way IN which the pubi
buslness ought always 70 be conducts.
50 that the different public officers r,
specuyely charged with the performanS
of duties affecting the same subject matt,
may work tOEether la furtheTance OF al
same public policy and with a common pu
pose Tor good q the whole country an