290
The Green Bag
ways of promoting peace — one by mak ing' our nation so weak that it cannot fight, the other by making it so strong that it need not fight." The futility of this "panacea," as it was well termed, has been exposed by Mr. Carnegie. As Mr. Carnegie says, we are a peaceful nation, and have been one so long that we have not an enemy in the world of whose attacking us there is any likeli hood; if we were attacked no nation or conceivable combination could entertain the hope of successful invasion, in view of the defensive strength of our stand ing army and militia. But to this it should be added that it is the moral position of the United States, the strength of its record written on the pages of the history of enlightened civilization, and not its military de fenses, which affords the most certain guaranty of its future peace. And Mr. Carnegie took pains to assert that the true panacea for ending war lies in the growing belief in the brotherhood of man. Are we, in the light of recent events, drawing nearer to this goal of a human ity more closely united by the sentiment of solidarity and sense of international justice? This question is to be con sidered with respect to the course of Mr. Wilson's new Administration and other significant developments of the past few weeks. The first serious difficulty in our foreign relations affording the present Administration an opportunity for friendly offices arose in the dispute with Japan concerning the anti-alien legisla tion of California. The Administration, too young to have studied our relations with Asiatic nations and to have formu lated a policy in regard to them, found itself suddenly confronted by a situation which had to be promptly met and as to which the plea that time be taken for
deliberation could not prevail. This situation may be described as that resulting from the exercise by California, following the example of other states, of a power closely related to the treatymaking power of the United States. In De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, the Supreme Court said : — That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the government of other nations is clear. It is also clear that the protection which should be afforded to the citi zens of one country owning property in another, and the manner in which that property may be transferred, devised, or inherited, are fitting subjects for such negotiations and of regulation by mutual stipulations between the two coun tries. As commercial intercourse increases be tween different countries the residence of citizens of one country within the territory of the other naturally follows, and the removal of their dis ability from alienage to hold, transfer, and inherit property in such cases tends to promote amicable relations. Such removal has been within the present century the frequent subject of treaty arrangement. The rights of aliens thus being an appropriate subject for formulation by treaty, and also being a subject as to which the pride of foreign nations is sensitive and which therefore it would be politic to leave wholly to federal negotiation with foreign governments, a wise Administration would use every means to dissuade the states from pass ing laws in any way abridging the rights of aliens, even though such laws may not definitely set at defiance existing treaties. The mere fact that our treaty with Japan is silent on the subject of acquisition by aliens of farming lands in this country, while it would seem to offer no legal barrier to the passage of a drastic state law prohibiting alien owner ship of agricultural lands, nevertheless does not afford any moral justification for legislation obnoxious to sister nation and embarrassing to our Department
