OCR Text |
Show IB'flHlNlBto'PEACEPiJL RELATIONS WITH AN ; " "r i , ... treaty agreement with a foreign nation which should be superior to and controlling: control-ling: upon the laws of the State of California. Cali-fornia. r "There was a very general misapprehension misappre-hension of what this treaty really undertook un-dertook to do. It was assumed that In making- and assertlnr the validity of the treaty of 1894 the United States was asserting as-serting the right to compel the State of California to admit Japanese children to Its schools. No such question was Involved. In-volved. The treaty did not. by any possible pos-sible construction, assert the authority of the United States to compel any State to maintain public schools, or to extend the privileges of its public schools to Japanese children or to the children of any alien residents. - "It Is hard for democracy te learn the responsibilities of Its power; but the people peo-ple now. not governments, make friendship friend-ship or dislike, sympathy or discord, peace or war. between nations. In this modern day. through the columns of the myriad fress and messages flashing over countess count-ess wires, multitude calls to multitude across boundaries and oceans In courtesy or Insult, in amity or in defiance. "The- great question which overshadowed overshad-owed all discussion of the treaty of 1894 was the question: Are the people of the United States about to break friendship with the people .of Japan? That question. ques-tion. I believe, has been happily answered in the negative." . WASHTNdTOW, April . 19. The American Society of International Law met In this city today in its' first annual session. v After the address of welcome, which was responded to by Secretary of State Boot, president of the association, associa-tion, the morning session was devoted to papers and a general , discussion of these topics: .a ' 4 Would immunity from capture during dur-ing war of non-offending private property prop-erty upon the high seas be in the interest inter-est of civilization!" and "Is the trade in contraband of war unneutral, and should it be prohibited by international interna-tional and municipal law f" The question of transference from the municipal courts to an international eourt of all prize cases, and as to whether the forcible collection of contract con-tract debts is in the interest of international interna-tional justice and peace, will ;be discussed dis-cussed t the afternoon meeting. In his address Secretary Boot said, in part: "It 1 obvious that three distinct questions ques-tions were rained by the claim originating with Japan and presented by our National Nation-al Government to the courts in San Francisco. Fran-cisco. The first and second were merely questions of construction of the treaty. Was the right to attend the primary schools a right, liberty, or privilege of residence T And If so. was the limitation of Japanese children to the oriental school and their exclusion from the ordinary schools a deprivation of that right, liberty lib-erty or .privilege? These questions of construction, and -especially the second, are by no means free from doubt; but as they concern only the meaning of a particular clause in a particular treaty t$ey are not of permanent importance, and the particular occasion for thelr.con-sideratlon thelr.con-sideratlon having passed,, they need not now be discussed. "The other question was whether. If the treaty had the meanmg which the Government of Japan ascribed to it, the Government of the United States had the constitutional power to make such a ' |