I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 411 



accorded to the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. The ques- 

 tion thus raised was promptly presented by the government of the United 

 States to the federal court in California, and also to the state court of Cali- 

 fornia, in appropriate legal proceedings. . . . 



" It is obvious that three distinct questions were raised by the claim 

 originating with Japan and presented by our national government to the 

 courts in 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, if so, was the limitation of 

 Japanese children to the oriental school and their exclusion from the ordi- 

 nary schools a deprivation of that right, liberty, or privilege? . . . 



" The other question was whether, if the treaty had the meaning which 

 the government of Japan ascribed to it, the government of the United States 

 had the constitutional power to make such a treaty agreement with a foreign 

 nation which should be superior to and controlling upon the laws of the 

 State of California." American Journal of International Laiv, Vol. I., Part 

 I., pp. 274-276-277. 



Note 16. — " It would, I believe, be entirely competent for Congress to 

 make offenses against the treaty rights of foreigners domiciled in the United 

 States cognizable in the Federal Courts. This has not, however, been done, 

 and the Federal officers and Courts have no power in such cases to intervene, 

 either for the protection of a foreign citizen or for the punishment of his 

 slayers. It seems to me to follow, in this state of the law, that the ofificers of 

 the State charged with police and judicial powers in such cases must in the 

 consideration of international questions growing out of such incidents be 

 regarded in such sense as Federal agents as to make this Government answer- 

 able for their acts in cases where it would be answerable if the United States 

 had used its constitutional power to define and punish crime against treaty 

 rights." Richardson's " Messages of the Presidents," Vol. 9, p. 183. 



Note 17. — " A bill to provide for the punishment of violations of treaty 

 rights of aliens was introduced in the Senate March i, 1892, and reported 

 favorably March 30th. Having doubtless in view the language of that part 

 of Article III, of the treaty of February 26, 1871, between the United States 

 and Italy, which stipulates that ' the citizens of each of the high contracting 

 parties shall receive, in the States and Territories of the other, most constant 

 protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in 

 this respect the same rights and privileges as are or shall be granted to the 

 natives, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the 

 natives,' the bill so introduced and reported provided that any act committed 

 in any State or Territory of the United States in violation of the rights of a 

 citizen or subject of a foreign country secured to such citizen or subject by 

 treaty between the United States and such foreign country and constituting 

 a crime under the laws of the State or Territory shall constitute a like crime 

 against the United States and be cognizable in the Federal courts. No action 

 was taken by Congress in the matter. 



"I earnestly recommend that the subject be taken up anew and acted 



