Show S I 1 I 1 ILI 1 RO U 11 di M T I 1 WS J F at N f I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 ff I 1 HEA 1 T I ND sa U el N U A N 10 OL qui III S 9 TIUN MR M 9 a ma maintains the supreme court has invariably ruled that the state statue falls before the treaty he makes light of the talk I 1 kiwar of war with japan international law discussed I 1 I 1 I 1 washington april 1 the amerl I 1 can society of law met in this city elty today in its first annual session after the address of welcome which was responded to by secretary of state root president of 0 the association the morning session was devoted to papers and a general discussion of these topics would immunity from capture during war of noa non offending private property on the high seas be in the interest of civilization and and la to the trado trade in contraband of war and should it bo be prohibited by international law the questions of transference from froin the municipal courts to an international court of all prize cases and as to whether forcible collection of contract debts are in the interest of international ter justice and peace will bo be discussed at the afternoon meeting the delegates were entertained at nt dinner last night by charles henry butler one hundred guests prominent in washington official diplomatic and social life were present to meet the visiting lawyers 0 I 1 the opening session today was well attended secretary root who was the first speaker said gentlemen in opening this meeting of the american society of international law which I 1 hope will be the first of many meetings in unbroken succession to continue long after we ne personally have ceased ti tako taka part in affairs let me welcome you to hc he beginning of your labors for a wore thorough understanding of this important and fascinating subject it IP Is impossible that the human mind should be lie addressed addre ased to questions better worth its noblest of efforts forts offering a greater opportunity for usefulness in tho the exer clep of its powers or moro more full of historical and contemporary in than in the field of ui xi right rand duties the change lu li tho theory ad of which hag lifts mark edthe century sance the establishment of the american Americ hn union unton has shifted tho the determination of great questions of domestic national policy from a few rulers in each country to the great body of the people who render the ultimate decision under all modem modern constitutional governments CG coincident Incident with that change the practice of diplomacy has bar ceased to be a mystery confined to a few learned leanie men who strive to give effect to the wishes of personal rulers and has become a representative of function answering to the and the will of tho multitude of citizens who themselves create the relations I 1 states and determine the issues of friendship and estrangement of peace and war under the new there are many dangers from which the old Lytt cm was tree the rules and customs which the experience peri ence of centuries had bad shown to be essential to the maintenance of peace and good understanding bi between 4 nations have little weight with the new popular masters of diplomacy the precedents and agreements of which havo have carried L eo to gre great ackt a part of the rights and duties of nations towards each other beyond the pale of discussion are but little understood the education of public plu ion which should lead the sovereign people lu in each country to understand the delaite limitations upon national rights and tho the full scope and cespon of national duties lut les baa bas onty only lust just begun information understanding leadership leaders bip of opinion la in these matters nat teri so vital to wlee wise judgment acl ani ac an I l right action in international affairs are much needed this society may serve as a colle glum in the tine sense ol 01 the word in which all who choose to seek a broader knowledge of the law that governs the at af falis of ol nations may give each to the oiher tho the incitement of earnest and faithful study and may give to the mat body of our countrymen a clearer view of their international rights and 1 I shall detain y you u from the inter f sting program of instruction and dis dl amion has been arranged fin this only by trying to illustrate the kind ot of service that the society may render in a fow few remarks intended to clear away a somewhat widespread popular misapprehension regarding a question arising under a treaty of the united states the throaty of november 22 12 1 1894 between the united states and japan provided in the first article the citizens or subjects of each ot of the two high contracting part parties iea dball have fall full liberty to enter travel ST cr ree ade in any part ot of the territory of tait other contracting party and shall enjoy full and perfect protection tor for their persons and property in whatever relates to righta rights or 0 residence and travel to the possession of goods and effects ot of any hind kind to the succession ot of personal estate by will or otherwise and the of property of any sort and in aay bay manner whatsoever which they may lawfully acquire the citizens or subjects of 0 each contracting party shu enjoy in the territories orle of the other the came imme privileges liberties nd rights and shall be subject to no higher imposts or charges in these rox Poeta than native citizens or bub sub lite or citizens or subjects ol 01 the most nation the me statutes of california establish me tb public school system stein required by L ta they provide that tha I 1 I 1 I 1 the state comptroller must each year estimate the amount necessary to raise the sum of seven dollars for each census child between the ages of live five anil and seventeen years in the said state of Cull california fornia which shall bo be the amount necessary to be raised by ad valorem valoree tax for the school purposes during the year the statutes further provide that the board of education of aan san francisco shall have authority to lish and enforce all necessary rules and regulations for the government and efficiency of the schools in that city and for carrying into effect the school system to remedy truancy and to compel attendance at school oi of children between the ages of six and fourteen years who may be found idle in public places during school houra hours on the alth of october 1906 the board of education of san francisco adopted a resolution in these words resolved that in accordance with article X section igge of the scho school 34 law of california principals are hereby phereby directed to send all chinese japanese or korean children to the oriental public school sItU situated atod on the south side of clay street between powell and und mason alason streets anand on and at af iter tor monday october 15 1 the school system thus provided school privileges for all resident chil dren aren whether citizen or alien all i resident children were included in the basis for estimating the amount to be raised by taxation for school purposes the fund for the support of the I 1 school was raised by general taxation apon all property of resident aliens as well as of citizens and all resl rest dent children whether of aliens or of citizens were liable to be compelled ito I 1 to attend the schools so that under tho the TE resolution of iho the board of education th the p children of resident reSIde resident nL allen alieni 1 ot of all othor i were e T freely f admitted to the schools of bt th the J city in the neighborhood of their hom homes e S while the children of Ind indiana lono chinese and japanese were excluded from those fech te bools and were not only deprived of education unie unless as they consented to go to the special oriental school on clay but were liable to bo be forcibly compelled to go to that particular school A after ator the passage of this ros resolution alution admission to the ordinary primary schools of san an francisco waa was d anted to japanese JaPa children and thereupon the government of japan made representations rosen to the government of the united states state s that inasmuch as the children of residents who were citizens of all other foreign countries were freely admitted to the be schools hoole I 1 ithe the citizens of 0 japan residing in the IUnI united tADd states were by t that hat exclusion dented the same privileges liberties and rights celab ing to the right of residence which were awer accorded to the citizens or r subjects ab ejects s of the most favored nation the thus raised were promptly presented by ky the government of the united states to the federal court in california in appropriate legal proceedings Ice ce edings the matter has been happily evily disposed of without proceeding to 1 judgment in cither either case but in the 1 I 1 meantime there was much excited dis i on the subject in the news papers and in public meetings meet lugs and in private conversation it la Is a pleasure to bo be able to eay sav that never for a moment was there ra n s Ie between tween the government of the unit united d states and the government of japan I 1 the slightest departure from perfect good te temper inper mutual confidence and kindly consideration and that no booner had the views and purpose of the governments of the united states I 1 the state of california and the city of san francisco been explained by each j to the other than entire harmony and I 1 good understanding resulted with a common desire to exercise the powers vested in each for the common good of the whole country of the state and of the city the excitement nas has now so to that it may be useful to consider what the question wally really was not because it Is necessary for the purposes of that particular case but because of its bearing upon cases basea which may inay art arise in the future under the ap applina i aton of the treaty making power of the united states to other matters and in other parts of the national domain it Is obvious that three distinct questions were raised by the claim originating with japan and ad pren presented ted by our national government to the courts of san francisco 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 and it if so was the limitation of japanese children to the oriental school and their exclusion from the I 1 ordinary schools a deprivation of that right liberty or privilege these questions of construction and especially cfall r the second arc are by no means tree free from doubt but as they concern only the meaning of 0 a particular clana eln a particular treaty they are not ot permanent importance and the particular occa occasion alon for their chusid 1 oration having passed they saeed not now ho be disca discussed seed the other question was whether it the treaty lad the meaning which the government of japan ascribed to it the goern government ment of the united states had tho the constitutional power to make I 1 I 1 such a treaty agreement with a foreign nation which should be superior to and controlling upon the laws of the state of california A correct understanding der standing of that question Is of the utmost importance not merely as regards the state of CaU california fornia but as regards all states and all citizens of the union there wag was a very general misapprehension of what this treaty really undertook to do it was assumed tha that t I 1 in making and asserting the validity of the treaty of 1894 the united states t j was asserting the right to compel the estate state of california to admit japanese children to its schools no such ques alon was involved that treaty did inot I 1 not by any possible construction assert the authority of the united states to compel any state to pub 1 1 1 uc lie schools or to extend the privileges of its public schools to japanese chii dren or to the children of any alien residents the treaty did assert the j right aright of the united states by treaty tre a ty I 1 ito to assure to the citizens citizen of a foreign fore ign nation residing in american territory equality of treatment with the citizens of other foreign nations so that if any state chooses to extend privileges to alien residents as well as to citizen residents the state will be forbidden by obligation of the treaty to dierig inato against the resident citizens of the particular country with which the treaty is made and will be forbidden to tb deny to them the privileges which it grants to the citizens of other foreign countries the effect of such a treaty treat in respect of education is not posit positive te and compulsory it Is negative and prohibitory it Is not a requirement qui rement that the state shall furnish education it Is a prohibition against discrimination when the state docs does choose to furnish education it leaves every state free to have public schools or not as it chooses but it says to every state icyda if yaa a system of education alien children you must not exclude these part particular icolar alien children since the rights privileges and immunities muni ties loth both 0 of person and property to be accorded to foreigners in our countr country y and to our citi citizens zeng in foreign 1 countries ire are a proper subject of of I 1 treaty provision and within the limits I 1 I 1 of the treaty making power and find since elace i I 1 such rights privileges and immunities I 1 may be given by treaty in contravention I 1 of the laws of any state it kollowa of necessity that the treaty making power lone alone a has authority to determine what those rights privileges and immunities shall be no state can set I 1 i up tip ita its laws law as against the grant of any I 1 particular right privilege or im hiromu mui 1 anity any more than against tho the grant of any oilier other right privilege or I 1 immunity in mu n I 1 t Y N no 0 state can say a treaty may grant to alien aeri residents equality of treatment as to td property but not aa as to education or asto the exercise ot of re ligion and ag as to burial but not aa as to i education or aa as to education but not as to property or reli religion glon that would be substituting the mere will of tho the i state for the judgment of the president and senate in exercising a power committed to them and prohibited to the I 1 states by the constitution there was therefore no real question i of power arising under this japan ese treaty tr and no question n of state rights I 1 there were however questions question of I 1 policy questions of national interests and of state interests arising under I 1 the administration of the treaty and regarding the application of its provisions to the conditions existing on I 1 the pacific coast I 1 in the distribution of powers under our composite system of government the people of san francisco had three bets of interests committed to three different sets of officers their special interest as citizens of the principal city and commercial port of the pacific wast represented by the city government of san sat 1 francisco their Int interest in common with all the people of the state of Call california forn a represented by the 1 boveri governor and legislature 1 eg 1 at sacrament Sa cramen to and their interests in common with au all the people of the united states represented by bv the th national government at washington each one of 0 three different go governmental agencies had authority to do certain things relating to the treatment of japanese residents in san francisco thee mee the e three interests Inter eatn could not be really in conflict for the best interest of the whole coti country la is always the true interest of every state and city and the protection of the interests of every locality in the country Is always the true interest of the nation there was however a supposed or apparent clashing of 0 interests and to do away with thle this |