The Cairo bulletin., 1907-04-20
JAP WAR NEVER
NEAR SAYS ROOT
SECRETARY OF STATE TELLS OF
REAL QUESTIONS IN FRISCO
SCHOOL TROUBLE.
FAVOR DRACO DOCTRINE
And Dccry Practice Of Making Debt
Collectors Of Navies at Meet.
ing Of the international
Law Society.

Washington, April 19.--That there
was never al any time any danger OF
war between the United States and
Japan, growing out of the recent con-
troversy regarding the segregation OF
japanese school childlen in public
schools Of San Francisco, was made
clear by Secretary Root in an address
on 'The Real Questions Under the
Japanese Treaty and San Francisco
School Board Resolution at the first
annual melting of the American So
ciety of International Law, which
convened here today. The question
Of state rights, Secretary Root de-
clared, was not involved.
Much of the afternoon session was
devoted to the discussion of the So
called Drago Doctrine, which former
Secretary of State John w. Foster
declared was first orig na.ed by Alex
ander Hamilton, more than hundred
years ago.
Admirals as Constables.
VIM Barnes, Sr, Natucket, Mass,
introduced Al resolution asking the
society to go on record as consider
ing 1t deg edation of functions ana
purposes Of the navies Of the world
to pervert them to duiy of debt col
leetors and the lowering of the dig
nifty of admirals of navies to force
them to perform duties OF constables,
baiIiffs and sheriffs in the collection
of debts.
The resolution, which also carried
an endorsement OF the Drago doe
trlne was referred 10 the executive
committee for recommendation.
Among those who spoke were Cur
rel DO Amaral of the Brazilian en-
bassy; Amos s. Hershey. University
~ indiana; Robert Lansing. Water
town, N. y.; John n. Latane, Lexing-
ton, Va; Henry w. TemyIe, Washing
ton. Pa. and Theodore p. Ion, OF
Boston.
Root On Frisco Trouble.
shall detain you from the inter-
csting program of instruction and dis
cussion which has been arranged ior
this meeting only by trying to Illus
trate the kind of service that the SO
ciety may render in a few remarks
intended to clear away somewhat
widespread popular misapprehension
regarding a question arising under
treaty of the United States.
The questions thus raised were
promptly presented by the govern
ment of the Uni'ed States TO. the
federal court Il California, and also
10 the state coust of California, in
appropriate legal proceedings. The
matter has been happily disposed OF
without proceeding to judgment In
either case. but in tho meantime
there was much excited discussion of
the subject in the newspapers and
in public meetings and In private con
yersation.
# Is a pleasure to be able to say
that never for a moment was there
as between the government OF the
United States and the government OF
Japan the slightest departure from
perfect good temper, mutual conn
dence. and kindly consideration; ana
that no sooner had the views and pur-
noses of the government OF the
United States, the state OF California
and the city of San Francisco been
cxplained by each TO the other than
entire harmony and good understand
ing resulted. with common desire 10
cxercise the powers vested In each,
for the common good of the whole
country. of The state and OF the cry
The excitement has now subsided,
so that II NAV be useful 10 consider
what the question really was, not be-
cause IT Is necessary for the pnr'
noses of that particular case, but De-
cause of its bearing upon cases which
NAV arise in the future under me ap-
nlication of the treaty making power
Of the United States to other matters
and in other parts of the national 90
main.
II il obvious that three distinct
questions we're raised by the claim
originating with Japan and presented
bv our national government 10 the
courts i'm San Francisco. The hrst
and second were metei. ques'o"s VI
construction of the treaty. was the
right to attend the primary schools a
right. liberty. or privilege OF resi-
dence? 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 es-
neciallvthe second, are by no means
free from doubt: but as they concern
only the meaning of a particular
clause in particular treaty they are
not of permanent importance. and
The particular occasion for the con
sideration having passed. they need
not now be discussed
The other question was whether. II