The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-05-01
NULL AND VOID.

make treaty violating those rights. Certainly
the constitution gave them no such right and
the constitution is the source and the only
source, OF all the rights and powers of the fed
eraI government or of any branch thereof.
Defending the position of the New York World
that the president and the senate has such rights
the Danville Register says:
1t seems to It's The virginian uaisapprenenos
the contention Of the New York World The
World does not argue that the constitution gives
congress the president or the senate all of
them the power TO make treaties which violate
the right of State. AS apprehcnd II. the
Worlds contention Is that, having conferred
upon the president and the senate the treaty
making power. The grant of that power carries
with 1t authority to enforce the fulhlment of
treaty obligations
The World does not argue that the constitution
gives the president and senate the power 10
make treaties which violate the rights of the
State, as the Register says. but the World argues
that the president and the senate have that right.
What The Firoinida wishes to know is; Where
do they get that power"
The Worlds contention is not that the United
States has the power to enforce its treaties
That is admitted, provided that the United States
has the right to make the particular treaty which
1t Is attempting to enforce. The contention of
The Firginian is that the United States never did
possess and does not now possess the right to
make any treaty which conflicts with the plain
provisions of the constitution. which expressly
declares that "the powers not delegated to the
United States by the constitution or prohibited
by 1t to the States reserved to the States
respectively or to the people" while the World
contends that treaties can be made without re-
gard to this or any other provision of the con-
stitution.
The Register continues;
1t seems 10 The vrginian has the case
backward. Instead of the federal government
encroaehing upon the reserved rights OF State,
the State is attempting to deny the federal
government power specifically and expressly
conferred upon II by the constitution, viz: the
freaty-makng power
On the contrary, the Register has the case
backward The right of California to pass alien
land laws existed before the treaty with Japan
was made. The fact that California did not at.
tempt to enact such legislation until after the
treaty was adopted makes no difference The
right Of the State of California and of all States
was denied when that treaty was adopted. and
will be violated on the day an attempt Is made
to enforce that treaty California ia not at
tempting to deny power specifically and ex-
rressly conferred upon II by the constitution"
for the contention of California is that the fed
eral government had no right to enact such a
treaty. That power liz not specifically or express
~ or in any other way conferred upon the United
States 1t Is expressly denied to it. The Vir-
Cinian has before called to the attention of
the Danviile Register Article VI, section 2. OF
the constitution, In which the treaty-making
right is conferred upon the United States. The
right to make treaties is limited In that sec
ton, for all treaties must be made under the
authority of the United States" which authority
comes from the constitution. which denies the
United States any power not expressly given to
It. Accordingly any treaty which violates one
of the reserved rights of the State can no more
be enforced than an act OF congress which
violates such a right A treaty is no more a
part OF the supreme law OF the land than Ia an
act of congress. and neither is part OF 1t unless
enacted in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution.
To hold that treaty which promises foreign
government that State shall not do something
which it has a constitutional right TO do is legal
Is to hald that the president and the senate have
po"ef NH4cH lAe president ana both houses or
congress has not namely the right to enact a
law which denies a reserved right Of the State
OF course. The Vtrgiaian does not believe in the
doctrine Of notification. though It seems that
Senator Works does. Whether the treaty with
Japan is constitutional or not must be decided
finally by the Supreme court II that court
holds that it is, that ends the matter The
virgistan does not even know that the treaty
with Japan is unconstitutional. its contention be-
ing merely that II is II It prohibits California or
any other State from doing what I, mas a right
under the constitution to do, and that the sen.
ate has no more right to make a treaty which
As unconstitutional than congress has to pass an
act that is unconstitutional and attempt to en-
force IT. The nnat decision is with the Supreme
court. II the federal government believes any
Law that may be passed by California conflicts
with the treaty with Japan it may carry the
case to thatscourt for settlement. II this should
hs the outcome. The EirQiaian firmly believes.