determination, and compelling those who desire to obstruct such determination. To accomplish this the shortest possible periods should be fixed for every pleading and every step in a cause, with the power in the court to extend the time upon proper showing that justice requires it.

As a rule we never advertise in the reading pages of this Journal. But as we just received the ad at the closing of the forms for the last pages; We have inserted the following here, and trust that the members of the Bar, will find no fault, and also read the ad with the view of benefiting the widow of a brother lawyer should they need any of the works therein advertised.

Sale of Law Library.

The Law Library of the Late A. P. Smith will be sold at private sale by the executrix at Okemah, Oklahoma, on December 15, 1913, under order of County Court. Among the books to be sold are 134 volumes of N. W. Reporter, 64 volumes Pacific, 40 volumes Cyc, 28 volumes A. & E. Annotated Cases, 14 volumes Encyclopedia of Evidence, 15 volumes A. & E. Encyclopedia of Law and Practice, and a lot of text and miscellaneous books. Terms: Cash. Any information desired can be had by by inquiring of.

Belva A. Smith, Executrix,

Okemah, Okla.

HUMOR.

A Section foreman on a railroad was ordering a list of supplies. He had completed letter whem he found he was in need of a "frog" for a switch, so his letter ran as follows:

Mr. Supervisor,

Dear Sir: You will please ship me some picks handles, spikes and a maul.

yours truly

Pat Hogan and a frog.

THE

OKLAHOMA

LAW JOURNAL

EDITED AND PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY

D. H. FERNANDES, GUTHRIE, Oklahoma.

VOL. 12..

December, 1913.

No. 6

THE TREATY-MAKING POWER.

Summary of the Address of Hon. Frank B. Kellogg of St. Paul, Minn., President of the American Bar

Association at the late Meeting in Montreal.

The President of the American Bar Association delivered the President's annual address, taking as a subjeot "The Treaty-Making Power."

Mr. Kellogg directed attention to the fact that this is the first meeting of the American Bar Association outside the United States, and though in a foreign country it is among people allied to us by every tie that binds nations in a common brotherhood. He stated that the constitution of the Association requires its president in his annual address to review notable changes in the statute law. He accordingly selected for the specific subject 'the treaty-making power,' particularly in its relation to the controversy aroused by the recent Alien Land Law of California, which became a law May 19, 1913. This law discriminates between aliens eligible and those not eligible to citizenship, permitting the former to possess, enjoy, transmit and inherit real property in the same manner as citizens, and limtting those not eligible to citizenship to the rights extended to them by treaty

with the government of the United States. He stated that the question raised by the controversy over this law, which has received such wide discussion, is whether a state may, in violation of a treaty of the United States, regulate the ownership of real estate within its borders by citizens of a foreign country. Speaking of the California law he said:

"If citizens of Japan have any right to own real estate in California, it is difficult to see how this law takes away such right, because it provides in substance that such aliens may acquire, possess, enjoy and transfer real estate in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty."

He said that it was understood, however, by the public generally that California claims the right to legislate in respect to land held by aliens, notwithstanding any treaty provisions with the federal government. He asserted that the question thus raised is one of vital importance to our nation, in its relation to foreign governments, and that he is convinced that there is no serious doubt that the federal governmet may by treaty define the status of a foreign citizen within the states, the places where he may travel, the business in which he may engage, and the property he may own, both real and personal, and the devolution of such property upon his death; that these propositions have been established by the laws and usages of all civilized nations, by the history of the times, by the opinions of the statesmen who framed our Constitution, by the provisions of the Constitution, by the universal practice of making such treaties from the days of the confederation, and by the repeated decisions of the United States and other courts. He maintained the supremacy of the treaty-making power from the standpoint of history and judicial authority. He demonstrated it by the nature of the federal government, the provisions of the Constitution of the United States relative to the treaty-making power, and the limitations upon the states. He pointed out that it is not presumed that the people of the United States

intended to confer upon the federal government a less power than had been exercised by other nations since the dawn of civilization.

He showed that it has been the practice of govern. ments, through the treaty-making power, to fix the status of foreign citizens, their right to enter into business. and own, transfer and inherit property, and that it is one of the indubitable prerogatives of sovereignty. pointed out that few individual states in confederations have retained the treaty-making power, and of these the Greek republics perished, and other confederations have

He

"If it be true that the federal government may not make a treaty upon any matter which is ordinarily reserved for the governmental control of the state, a principal part of the treaty-making power, as it has been exercised for more than one hundred and twenty-five years, is swept away, for the central government has exercised this power, and it is absolutely necessary that it should do so in order to protect foreign citizens in their rights and to demand and receive for our citizens the same rights in foreign countries. We cannot expect that American citizens will be respected and receive the protection to which they are entitled under the principles of international law and the custom of nations if we deolare that our government is so impotent that it cannot give to foreign citizens within the states the same protection."

He traced historically the growth of the idea of the treaty-making power as adopted in the Constitution of the United States, contrasted its weakness under the Articles of Confederation with the strength of the phraseology adopted in the Constitution and speaking of the Constitutional Convention he said:

"There is no question about the determination of the great majority of the convention to place the exclusive right of making treaties in the federal government and to confer on that government the power to enforce their provisions through the machinery of the federal govern. ment, exclusive of the states."

He discussed the history of the provisions of the Con

stitution on this subject in the Constitutional Convention, and in the discussions in the several states and in the federalist before the Constitution was adopted. He added:

"It was in the light of history and with the full knowledge of the condition of the treaty-making power, and of the violation of treaties by the states, that the Constitution was adopted by the convention of every state after the widest discussion and deliberate consideration-While preserving the widest field consistent with liberty in the individual, it was an attempt to confer upon the central government sufficient power to stand among the nations of the earth."

He referred at lenght to the conclusive interpretations of the treaty-making power by the Supreme Court of the United States. He asserts that that court, fully realizing its grave responsibility, has established beyond peradventure the supremacy of the treaties over the laws of the states, and has enforced the rights of foreign citizens in the face of popular prejudice.

He referred to and discussed at lenght the cases in the Supreme Court of the United States. He cited the cases in which the court has held that the treaty power of the United States under the Constitution extended to the subject of the ownership of land by foreign citizens within the states. He cited several decisions of the federal Circuit Courts applying the same, or a similar, principle including a late decision in Nebraska that the treaty of 1853 between the United States and France permitted Frenchmen to own property in Nebraska, and declaring the statute of Nebraska to the contrary to be void. He distinguished thoes cases in the Supreme Court which tend to support the theory that the treaty-making power does not extend to the subjects which by the Constitution are ordinarily committed to the regulative jurisdiction of the states. He illustrated the full extent of the treaty-making power by reference to the extensive power of Congress over interstate commerce. He considered it very significant as determining the extent of the power that our government has from the begining made treaties