River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-07-17
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
United States, California and
Japan.
BY Walter K. Towers, A. g., J. D.. OF the
Michigan Bar.

The wide publicity given to the
proposal of the commonwealth of
California to bar the Japanese from
ownership of real estate in that
state, the Intellectual protests of the
executive heads of the United States
and Japan, brings before US the
complex form of our government.
We all know that there is nation
al government and a state govern
ment. We have been told that the
United States is supreme-yet as
to just how far it is supreme is a
matter that is not altogether clear
to most of us. How is it that the
state of California may pass law
denying to Japanese the right to
own land within the state when the
national government may have
Though we have no evidence that
congress has) entirely different
The field of government is divid-
ed between the United States and
the state. The United States has
the powers given under the consti-
tuition which we have read and re-
read as it appears in the back of
school histories. The powers and
capabilities given the United States
under that wonderful document are
the only powers it possesses, 1t
has no others. 1t has no natural,
inherent powers. Congress may
legislate only concerning the mat
tiers of which the constitution gives
the national government control.
The federal courts have jurisdic-
tion only of questions involving the
United States constitution, its laws,
or treaties. The constitution gives
to the United States the entire
treaty-making power and bars the
invidual states from the realm of
international relations.
As to all matters which the feder-
al government does not exclusively
control under the constitution, the
state has complete and sovereign
powers. The state is possessed of
all the powers of government not
denied it by the federal constitution.
Thus we have two governments,
each supreme within its sphere.
When the two authorities come into
conflict the state authority must
yield, for the federal power is SUI
preme insofar as it reaches. But
in matters of which t. e federal gov
eminent is given no control under
the constitution, the states power
is complete. Generally the state
has complete power to regulate its
internal affairs. And so it is that
we find the state prescribing who
may own real property within its
borders. Every state by its laws
prescribes who may hold land.
One restraint that is placed upon
the state is by the provision of the
constitution that the treaties of the
federal government stand upon the
same plane as the laws of congress
they are the supreme law of the
land, and if any provision in a state
constitution or law is inconsistent
with federal enactment the meas
ure of the state must give way. The
state in making its laws must have
regard for the treaties which the
United States has negotiated with
foreign countries. California wa:
free to enact any measure she saw
fit concerning the ownership of lanC
SO long as no provision OF treaty
was contravened.
CALIFORNIA; avowed purpose wa:
to discriminate against the Japa
nese, who had begun to settle il
that state in large numbers, &C
quiring the ownership of farm
lands. With the Californians it il
vital question, question of tn,
kind of a man who is TO be you
neighbor, and the kind of childrel
who are to go to school with you
children. California did not wisl
to bar all aliens from owning land
for that would drive out forei2l