The Washington times., 1922-09-02
The States
Us. the u. s.
vTHE so-called Kellogg bill, in
troduced into the Senate at


thorizes the President to file an
injunction in Federal Court
against any person whom the Pres
ident may regard as threatening to
violate the rights Of foreigner in
this country.
The excuse for the bill is the
death of two Mexicans imported
into the mines at Herrin to take
the place of strikebreakers. These
Mexicans were killed in fight by
striking miners. That is the imme-
diate excuse.
The remote excuse was the {; =
cution by lynching of several Ital-
ians at New Orleans twenty-five
years ago for the purpose of
stopping the black hand, Mafid
murders which had been going on
unpunished in New Orleans for
long time. The mob, in this case,
was led by the most respectable
citizens of the city, and the MUIR
ders, which included the murder of
the chief of police, stopped prompt
ly thereafter. The United States
Government paid the damages.
But here is where the shoe
pinches. The law gives the Presi-
dent and his subordinates the right
to control the action Of State Off
cials who are attempting to enforce
a, State law.
Now consider how it works with
respect to the Asiatic land laws on
the Pacific Coast, where the people
realized that, if some limitation
were not put on the rights of the
Asiatics to acquire land, with their
low standard Of living, they soon
would acquire the whole of the
Pacific Coast. So their right to
acquire land was prudently linn
tied.
We have yet to discover a single
instance in which the United States
has been handicapped or seriously
embarrassed by the power reserved
by the States to deal with their
own land questions according to
the dictates of the law Of SELF
preservation.
Treaties which take away from
the States the right to deal with
these fundamental questions, in
volving local self-preservation,
ought to be abrogated Immediately,
for there are no compensating ad-
vantages in a treaty which de-
stroys the American character of a
great section Of the country.
The bill is revolutionary in its
character, because it overturns the
relations Ct the National Govern
ment to the States; it destroys the
balance of power between these
two important and independent
jurisdictions-that of the sovereign
State and that of the equally SOW
creign United States.
The State has always regarded
its land power, its control over the
laws with respect to it's land, as
absolute. The United States courts
have always so regarded it and re-
spected it.
If suit is brought in a United
States court sitting in any State
and the question concerns the law
Of contracts or the law of torts or
the principles of equity, the United
States courts will apply their own
rules and not the State rules.
But if the question concerns the
law of land, the descent of land or
the sale or the mortgaging of land,
or the granting of easements on
land, or any question which has its
root in the land, the United States
courts have always recognized the
law of the State and not its own
rules.
If we are going to attempt to
keep up the distinction between the
powers of the National Govern
ment and the States; in short, if
we are going to maintain the Gov
ernment of the United States, we
must not impair the control of the
States over their lands because of