December 10, 1906.]
and Representatives (who cannot be electors) | and they meet at the State capital and vote by ballot. The ballots are sent to Wash. ington, and opened by the Senatorial President in presence of Congress. But even such
a thoroughly reptative election, even in the case of a strong man like President ROOSEVELT, leaves the elected comparatively helpless under certain circumstances. The laws of the State seem to be about as mighty as the Law of the states, if "An American Exile" be a trust- worthy witness. He BAYS the "only possible answer of the Federal Govern ment to any demand by another Power (in this instance Japan) for the observ. ance of its treaty obligations "is an admission of the obligations and an avowal of its inability to enforce them". The
"
none.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. compelling the State [of Louisiana to give redress". He goes on:
The Stat s of the Union bare no foreigo relations. Louisiana has none. California hat
Foreign relations are
part of those! sovereign p were which each State
has surrendered to the general Government, Our Government did not and could not hold itself responsible for the acts of New Orleans, nor does it for those of San Francisc). It regrets them. Whether it can do much more than
regret is doubtful.”
This, it is evident, is a very awkward | s'ate of things, and the governments of China and of Japan are most intimately concerned in having it cleared up. Polite regrets will not satisfy either for breaches of treaty, and in the case of both, such breaches are as probabl as possible-in fact, they have already been made. It is not fair to them, or to the rest of the world, if such a state of things exists. It means that the Executive Government cannot compel its components to do right, but that it stands in the way of retribution if they do wrong. Such a condition of affairs is unthinkable, and we can only assume that" An American Exile" has misread it. An immediate fest, more to the point than the misiana case, is inevitable. Japin's claims are admittel; it remains to be seen how they are to be
euforcement of them, in the case of such a stubborn State as California, "implies the coercion of a sovereign State". Such a task, says this writer, is not to be lightly undertaken by any President.
"He may CONX. He may not coerce. Or if he coerces, it can only be by some indirect process of law, and not at all by the naked use of the central authority. If California proved stubboru, she cannot be brought to reason otherwise than by arms, And that is civil war ". This is amazing. We met. should have thought it was only rebelliou and to be treated as such. Else what is the worth of any treaty with the central Govern- ment? If that is the admitt state of things, a treaty with Washington is of to more practical use than a disarmament proposal emanating from the Hague or St. Petersburg. The sovereign state f California" could even declare war against China or Japan-a thing which, judging from its recent press utterances, would not be too foolish for some of its leaders, or misleaders. The writer of the letter to the Times says:
"You speak of California as intrenched behind the State rights conferred by the Constitution. State right is not the phrase an American would employ, Still less would he speak of State rights as enferred by the Constitution. If they had beau couferred they could be withdrawn, and so a way out might be found. But it was not the Constitution which conferred rights upon the States; it was the States, the original thirteen in 1787, which surrendered certain rights inherent in each as a sovereign State, and conferred them upon the Federal Government. Thos which were not surrendered were retained Aud rach State of
later birth has in this respect the rights of the original thirteen. California is as good as Massachusetts. It is perfectly true that a treaty is the supreme law of the land. But that only brings us back to the question-How is it to be enforced? The machinery is not adequate. The Supreme Court of the United tates, in its best days who Marshail was Chief Justice, delivered a judgment which the then President, Andrew Jackson, disapproved. Well," said the President, "John Marshall has told us what he thinks the law is. Now let
"
of civil war.'
|
EVIDENCE IN OFFICIAL
LETTERS.
*
(Daily Press, 4th Dirember.)
In calling attention to the discussion in one of to-day's law reports, concerning the admissibility of "confidential" correspond- enca as evilence, we do not make nuv suggestion whatever with regard to the merits or possibilities of the particular ease; but in the interest of pure justice, and arguing ou general principles, we would record our opinion that in refusing to almit all official correspondeuce headed
(4 Con- fidential," the Full Court has set up a precedent to be regarded as dangerous, Sir HENRY BERKELEY, representing the Crown, objects to Mr. Stane reading a confidentia communication from an officer of the Govern- ment to the General Offer commanding the Troops, at first apparently on the ground that it is State property, but later, in reply to the plea that the recipánt had emsented, remarking that such a letter is inadmissible "when it is headed confi len- tial." Its description as a "State docu- mient "is rather awe-inspiring, but we can readily conceive circumstances in which “a confidential communication between officials' might be material evidence the suppression of which would he most unjust. In this case Mr. SLADE contends that a direct
11
387
| refused as inadmissible? But as between the Government and a private citizen, there may be all sorts of possibilities of injustice, if, as Mr. SLADɛ phrased it, the Crown may go back" on its confidential offers. The i assumption is that the Crown does not want to be unjust, hut the future risk lies in the
servants. psibly misplaced zeal of some one of its Some little time ago we had an object lesson in which justice, determined on "the whole truth", published a letter marke I confidential, and that even wit' out that endorsement was a letter patently requiring confidential treatment. So important is justice, so absolutely necessary
the whole truth", sentiment must give way to it.
that the deepest CHIEF JUSTICE indicates, with the approval of the Full Court, that in future cases there is a real possibility of "the whole truth being withheld, if it should happen that some official, writing to a colleague, has had the forethought to mark his script. "con- | fidential ". We have neither right nor qualification to lay down the law, but it
official offer was made on which action WILS taken, and the CHIEF JUSTICE makes the sweeping reply, "If it is him carry it out." And even if a case against covered by the word 'confidential,' you the San Francisco authorilies were taken into cannot [act on it). Are we to assume a Federal Court and a decree obtained, the that any sub-head of an official department question of giving effect to that decree wouli remain a questiou. In the last resort, there is fid-ntial," to (say) offer to compound a has the power, by using the word "con- nothing but force. With a United States marshall on one side an the State of Califor. elony, and the incident be ignorel by the nia on the other, we come back again to a state law Or should the Director of Public Works make a confidential offer to a land This extract alone goes some way to owner for property required to be resumed, our definition of the American may not that offer be reported in any subse. Government as a trinity of non-authoritative quent arbitration? Or tike another authorities, and to suggest the addition of hypothetical example, the possibility of some forty-five other authorities, upon whom which is suggested by recent events. A there is no better check than war, civil war. government official guilty of corrupt The author of it points out that in respouse practices writes confidentially to a colleague to Italy's complaint of the lynching of who anxious to have the service eleven men of the Mada, in New | purified. Is such a confidential com- Orleans, the Government at Wash- munication between officials, containing, it ington pleaded "the impossibility of may be, vital testimony for either side, to be
warrant
But the
"1
seems obvious to us that this decision
contemplated without uneasiness. contains potentialities which cannot he The
trouble on the Sanitary Board, and it seems same shibboleth has recently been causing
desirable t'vst the Government should take steps to miko, less swe-ping, less wholes ile and less dangerous, what is doubtless, within limits, an indispensible precaution. With the how as yesterday enunciated, the public can hardly feel altogether satisfied.
EUROPEAN HEN AND ASIATIC DUCKLINGS,
(Daily Press, 5th December.) Qui s'irenze s'arcuse is an old French proverb founded on universal experience, and there is a doubt that the recent VON BUELOW, while speech of Princ eminently satisfactory with regard to the prospects of European peace in the near future, is als eminently suggestive that in the past his efforts in that direction w-raunt so well directed as now he would
wish them to appear. The past is, hɔw. over, bebin I us, and we certainly are not disposed to recall it, and in the interests of the world at large it is well to permit bygones to be bygones. The past policy of Germany was not successful in disuuiting the west-ra Powers, and we are pleased to see that Germany herself has been able to appreciate the fact that in the unity of the western Powers lies the best hopi for the preservation of a lasting European peace.
It is undoubtedly a new departure Spain jo'ntly should desire to restora to in European politics that France and comparative order the distressed Sultannte of Morocco; it is an unheard of thing that they shoull do this with the tacit approval of all Europe and with the openly expressed
ggo
be confess that it is but an experiment, but experiment as it undoubtedly is, it is in licative of the improved relations of the home Powers, and in itself offers one of the strongest auguries for the future, peace of the Continent. If possible, more satis- factory still is the assurance given by
od will of Great Britain, Still it must
Prince vox BUELOW that the very con- siste.t rumours which have from time to time be whispered in Europe as to the probable interference of Germany in Polan in the interest of the Government of Russia are eutirely without foundation. It is true that any such interference would be intensely unpopular in Germany at large, but indications were not wanting that a strong and united party, even if few-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.