1912.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 409 



stitutional. He cannot be presumed to have intended by his closing words to 

 contradict his own argument, to say that, apart from that act, the statute was 

 constitutional, and Leisy z's. Hardin was not law. Moreover, he had just 

 shown that the treaty had by its terms no application whatever ; his language 

 therefore must be interpreted with reference to the facts before him and in 

 relation to his whole opinion. In no event, can it properly be cited as estab- 

 lishing the statement of Mr. Devlin, or the contention of Professor Mikell. 

 It is significant that neither, while quoting at length this and the License 

 Cases, make the slightest reference to Leisy vs. Hardin and cognate decisions. 



Note /j.— The facts necessary to a full comprehension of all the ques- 

 tions involved in this dispute are too complex to be inserted in the body of 

 this essay, as they are strictly relevant only to questions other than the one 

 discussed. Inasmuch, however, as they afford an admirable illustration of 

 how, practically, the question of the right of the United States to enforce 

 treaty provisions, may arise, they are here stated in the language of Mr. 

 Root, the then Secretary of State: "The treaty of November 22, 1894, be- 

 tween the United States and Japan provided, in the first article : 



"'The citizens or subjects of each of the two high contracting parties 

 shall have full liberty to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the territory of 

 the other contracting party and shall enjoy full and perfect protection for 

 their persons and property. ... In whatever relates to rights of residence and 

 travel; to the possession of goods and effects of any kind; to the succession 

 to personal estate, by will or otherwise, and the disposal of property of any 

 sort and in any manner whatsoever which they may lawfully acquire, the 

 citizens or subjects of each contracting party shall enjoy in the territories of 

 the other the same privileges, liberties, and rights, and shall be subject to no 

 higher imposts or charges in these respects than native citizens or subjects 

 or citizens or subjects of the most favored nation.' 



"The Constitution of the State of California provides, in Article 9: 



"'Section i. A general dififusion of knowledge and intelligence being 

 essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the 

 legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, 

 scientific, moral and agricultural improvement. 



" ' Section 5. The legislature shall provide for a system of common 

 schools, by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each 

 district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a 

 school has been established. 



" ' Section 6. The public school system shall include primary and 

 grammar schools, and such high schools, evening schools, normal schools 

 and technical schools as may be established by the legislature, or by municipal 

 or district authority. The entire revenue derived from the State school fund 

 and from the general State school tax shall be applied exclusively to the 

 support of the primary and grammar schools.' 



" The Statutes of California establish the public school system required 

 by the Constitution. They provide that the State comptroller must each year 

 estimate the amount necessary to ' raise the sum of seven dollars for each 



