Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-12-03
e..manx,s Side Of Il.

Germany has never Deen dccuseo -
breaking any treaty. except IN the ease
of Belgium We deny that treaty
existed; if it existed it was OF the Hoss
shadowy substance. But even II II iiau
been iron bound, the conspiracy pe-
tween. Belgium, England and france
utterly destroyed its validity. we WIZ
go even further than that. GRANTED
that It did exist, and that IL was hol
broken by Belgium, 1t was neFerthe-
less. Germanys solemn duty 10 tear ~
like a scrap Of paper. IL the eoltof oi
the Outlook saw three burglars attacA
his venerable father at GONE dlseahce
from his house, he certainly "ouiu
come to his rescue by the shortest
route, even If the road snouio leaa
over a neighbours field where Tres
passing was forbidden. Germany mace
a dash thru Belgium in order 10 save
not one venerable man, but d thousaiiu'
Her action protected the lives OF
hundred million people dwelling In the
territory of the dual alliance.
The present generation OF Germans
refused to sacrifice the blood OF ,helr
wives and their children to shado"y
agreements made by dead men. Ihey
struck at the dead hand OF the past
to save the living present. In DONG So
Germany has the approval OF our own
legal tradition. We call he attention
OF the editors Of the Outlook to the
decision Of the supreme court, founo on
pages 5s1-611, volume 100. OF Cnlteo
States Reports, recently quoted by Won
Briesen.
In this famous decision the supreme
court held that 1t was lawful and just
OF congress to pass law that nuflihed
solemn treaty entered into between
the United States and China. Inc re-
suit of the supreme courts ruling was
to deprive Chinese subjects IT the right
| TO visit and to reside In this country.
| OF course, the great question involved
was whether we could violate treaty
| which we had made in good faith with
another nation. The exact wording Oh
| the decision makes interesting reading
| today when we hear so much about the
sacredness of treaties. On page 6Oo
| appear these very pertinent facts:
! "The effect of legislation upon con-
| hicting treaty stipulations was elab-
| orately considered in the Head money
| cases, and it was there 'adjudged that
| SO far as treaty made by the Unltec
States with any foreign nation can
become the subject Of judicial cog
! ntzance in the courts of this country
| it is subject to such acts as congress
| NAV pass for its enforcement, modi-
| fication, or repeal" 112 U. 8. 5S0,599
| This doctrine was affirmed and fol.
lowed in Whitney VS.. Robertson. 124 U.
S. 100, 1876 1t will not be presumed
that the legislative department OF the
| government will lightly pass laws
| which are in conflict with the treaties
OF the country; but that circum-
| stances may arise which would MOI
only justify the government in disre-
garding their stipulations, hut demand
in the interests Of the country that it
should do so. there can be no question
Unexpected events may call for a
change in the policy Of the country"
Further on in his admirable paper
Mr.. Won Briesen cites Justice Curtis
who held, as the supreme court says:
THAT while it would always be a
matter Of the utmost gravity and deli
cecy to refuse to execute treaty, the
power to do so was prerosative, OF
which no nation could be deprived
without deeply affecting its independ-
ence.''
! Unless the Outlook regards opinions
, Of the supreme court of the United
States as mere scraps Of paper. let i
put it's decision into its pipe. and smoke
iit-The Fatherland.