The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1907-04-23
Secretary Root Explains Frisco
School Situation.
STATE RIGHTS NOT INVOLVED

made clear by Secretary Root In an
address on the real questions under
the japanese treaty and the San Fran
cisco school board resolution at the
first annual meeting of the American
Society of international Law. The
question OF state rights. Secretary
Root declared, was not involved.
Mr.. Root said in part:
"The treaty of November %, 1894.
between the United States and Japan
provided. in the first article:
"'The citizens or subjects OF each
of the two high contracting parties
shall have full liberty to enter. travel
or reside in any part of the territory
OF the other contracting party, and
shall enjoy full and perfect protection
for their persons anw property.
"In whatever relates to rights OF
residence and travel; 90 the possession
OF goods and effects OF any kind; 10
the succession to personal estate. by
will or otherwise. and the disposal OF
property OF any sort and in any man
ner whatsoever which they may law
fully acquire, the citizens or subjects
OF each contracting party shall enjoy
in the territories of the other the same
privileges. liberties and rights. and
shall be subject to no higher imposts
or charges in these respects than ma
tive citizens or subjects or citizens or
subjects of the most favored nation.
The secretary OF state then quoted
from the constitution OF California
the article providing for the establish
ment OF educational institutions and
followed IL with the resolution or the
board of education OF San Francisco
adopted October IL, 1906.
After the passage OF this resolu'
ton admission to the ordinary primary
schools OF San Francisco was denied
to japanese children. and thereupon
the government of Japan made repre-
sensations to the government OF the
United States that inasmuch as the
children 0f residents who were citi-
zens OF other foreign countries were
freely admitted to the schools. the
citizens OF Japan residing in the Unit
ed States were. by that exclusion. de-
MED the same privileges, liberties and
rights relating to the right OF resi-
dence which were accorded to the citi-
zens or subjects OF the most-lavore /
nation"
The most important question involy-
ed in the issue. Mr. Root said. was
whether. II the treaty had the mean
ing which the government OF Japan
ascribed to II. the government OF the
United States had the constitutional
power to make such a treaty agree
ment with foreign nation which
should be superior to and controlling
upon the laws OF the state OF Cali
fornia.
"A correct understanding OF that
question is OF the utmost importance.
not merely as regards the state OF Cal
ifornia. but as regards all states and
all citizens of the Union" declared Mr..
Root
THAT treaty did not, by any posi-
BILE construction, assert 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 children 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 foreign nation re-
siding in American territory equality
of treatment with the citizens of other
foreign nations. so that II any state
chooses to extend privileges to alien
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 forbid
den to deny to them the privileges
which II grants to the citizens OF other
foreign countries.
1.-THE effect of such a treaty in re-
spect of education. is not positive and
compulsory; 1t is negative and pro-
hibitory. II is not a requirement that
the state shall furnish education; it
is a prohibition against discrimina-
ton when the state does choose to
furnish education. 1t leaves every state
free to have public schools or not. as
Il chooses. but it says to every state:
If you provide a system of education
which includes alien children, you
must not exclude these particular
alien children
mo state can set up its laws as
against the grant of any particular
right. privilege, or immunity any more
than against the grant Of any other
right, privilege or immunity. No state
can say a treaty may grant to alien
residents equality of treatment as TO
but not as to education. or as
to the exercise of religion and as to
burial. but not as to education. or as
to education but not as to property or
THAT would be substituting the
mere will of the state for the judgment
Of the president and senate in exercis-
ing a power committed to them and
prohibited to the states by the tOnsti-