Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1913-05-02
STATES RIGHTS AT
ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA
Tazewell Lawyer Raises Question as
to Governments Right to Inter
fere With States Land Laws.

(lhe IolloWlnR article on the sit
uation in California was prepared by
Tazcwell lawyer at the request of
the editor of the Newe.)
We entertain great doubt as
to the necessity ard wisdom of
California's proposed discrimi-
nations against the "little Japs".
We suspect there is vast
amount of pure buncombe, polit-
ical clap-trap and demagogery
at the bottom of the anti
japanese agitation; but we be-
lieve the state of California has
the right to make a fool of her
self If she so desires, and that
the Federal government can
protest with very little con-
sistency in the face Of its own
anti-Chinese immigration laws.
But, aside from these minor
questions, it appears to us that
the attitude of the Federal
government in appearing to
question a states right to exer-
else plenary power over land
tenures within it's own territory,
raises a much larger question.
Personally, the views of the
writer as to the doctrine of
states rights, have been much
modified within the last ten
years as he has observed social
and industrial wrongs and
special privilege sheltering be-
hind that barrier to the strong
arm of the Federal government,
and challenging the impotent
power of the state, and doubtless
the time has arrived when
states rights can no longer be
allowed to intervene and protect
Interstate wrongs. However,
under the constitution the time
can never come when the FEEDER
al government may successfully
question the exclusive power of
state in purely local, domestic
or police matters. Everybody
knows that the Federal govern
ment has only such powers as
were delegated to it by the
states in the constitution and
that the states reserved all
powers not so delegated and that
among the latter was the ex-
elusive power to regulate all
local, domestic and police mat
ters as the state might see prop
er, so long as it did not deprive
any one of the "equal protection
of the laws. AS we understand
the question at issue in Cali
fornia it is whether the land
tenure laws proposed there will
be supreme" or the treaties
made by the Federal government
in case they conflict.
Article 2 of the constitution
vests the power of making
treaties in the President with
the consent of the. Senate;
article 6 provides that the con-
sitution, laws passed by con-
gress, and treaties made and to
be made under the authority
of the United States, the
supreme" law of the land.
Now suppose the Federal govern
ment makes a treaty with a for
eign nation giving citizens of
the latter resident in state the
right to violate state law as to
some local, domestic or police
policy over which confessedly
the state has plenary power.
Suppose, for instance, the treaty
gave the right of inter-marriage
between different races when it
was prohibited by the state law;
or gave the right to such foreign
citizens to enter all schools and
colleges in the state without re-
gard to race or sex notwith-
standing the state law, in the
exercise of its undoubted police
power, prohibited different races
and sexes attending the same
schools, which would be the
supreme law of the land" un-
DIRE the constitution?
We discuss the question with
some diffidence not protesting a
profound knowledge on the sub
ject, but we confess to very
decided opinion that the state
law would be supreme. 1t is
perfectly well settled common
law of all the states and we'll
established international law,
that any government has the
power to grant aliens only such
rights as to immovable property
within it's territory as it may
see fit to concede, and to hold
that the President and Senate,
through the means of treaty,
may regulate land tenures in
any state, is to say that the
President and Senate may do
what confessedly congress could
not do by statute.