Sisson Puts State Above All Treaties.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 24, 1913:
No Nation Can Dictate Land Laws to Us, He Tells the National House.
FEARS THE TREATY POWER
Through It Corporations Might Control Land and Allen Labor — Bartholdt Would Curb States' Power.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, May 23.— Representative Robert U. Sisson of Mississippi made his heralded speech on the alien land question in the House of Representatives to-day, but it was no "war speech," and could give no offense to the Japanese nation or embarrass the Federal Administration during the negotiations over the new California law. At the outset of his speech to-day Mr. Sisson explained that it was simply his purpose to insist upon the right of the people of America to control their own soil. He insisted that it was within the rights of the States to enact legislation regarding land, and that no treaty could override the power of the States to do this.
    "If any nations," said Mr. Sisson, should decide that they will dictate to us how our land laws should be made, then we would be unworthy of national existence if we submitted to such dictation. Does any one claim that this is a declaration of war?
    "It is no declaration of war." continued Mr. Sisson, "for the United States Government to decline to override the rights of a sovereign State at the dictation of a foreign power. If the United States Government, with its army and navy and with brute force which it has superior to any one of those States, should take away from the State the right to control its domestic concerns and deliver the State over to the mercies of a flood of aliens from any nation, then, I maintain the Federal Government has prostituted its authority. Is the mere announcement of this principle a declaration of war?
    "Nothing has been further from my mind than to embarrass the peaceful solution of whatever differences which may exist between the friendly Government of Japan and our own Government. My judgment is that it only requires patience and cool heads for both countries to arrive at an amicable and just settlement of all differences."

Puts Limit on Treaty's Force.
    "Mr. Sisson insisted that the constitutional questions involved in the controversy were large. He held that the treaty making power was limited to international questions, and could not invade the reserved powers of the States or regulate our domestic concerns.
    "Since the death of the Federalist Party," he exclaimed, "no party has been found to champion the view that the power to make a treaty is absolute and unconditional. A treaty cannot take away essential liberties secured by the Constitution to the people. A treaty cannot bind the United States to do what the Constitution forbids them to do."
    "I have no doubt that it would be more convenient for foreign nations, if they had only to deal with the President as with an absolute monarch, and sometimes it would be less troublesome if the President could close the contract, but human liberty has suffered too much in the past to intrust such power to one man.
    "It would be much easier if only the Senate had to be consulted as to all treaties, because they could be more easily entered into. But Americans are unwilling to be taxed by the President and Senate alone. They are also unwilling to have the Treasury doors open at the behest of the President and the Senate. Our Constitution is a mockery if the unlimited and unrestrained power is vested in a portion of our Federal Government."
    The framers of the Constitution, Mr. Sisson asserted, did not foist a mockery nor practice a fraud on their posterity.

Importation of Cheap Labor.
    Concerning the question of importation of "cheap alien labor" he said:
    "Many of these large employers of labor would be delighted to have the Federal Government, through its treaty-making power, hold down the bars and let in the alien. What would become of the American farmer if the great corporations of the country should enter the land market, buy all of the best lands of the country, and then cultivate them with Mongolian, Chinese, Hindu, Japanese, and other cheap alien labor? "The rich and the powerful will have their fortunes vastly increased by having all barriers to cheap labor broken down. They know that the quickest and surest route is through the treaty-making power, because they only deal first with one man, the President, and one body, two-thirds of the Senate.
    "I do not want this Government to be destroyed through the treaty-making power. So I have taken this position not because the Japanese are involved in this controversy, but I would take this position if England, Germany, France, or any other nation on earth were involved."

Bartholdt Would Curb States.
    Representative Richard Bartholdt of Missouri to-day introduced his resolution to submit to the States a constitutional amendment to broaden the treaty-making power of the Federal Government and prevent the repetition of the California incident. The proposed amendment reads:
    The Congress shall have the exclusive power to legislate on questions affecting the rights and privileges of citizens of other countries residing in the United
    States and the relations of the United States with other countries.
    In explanation of his resolution Mr. Bartholdt said: "Long before the California trouble was thought of the limitations of the National Government with regard to legislation by independent States affecting the rights, and privileges of non-citizens or citizens of other countries was felt to be a serious, defect in our scheme of government.
    "The controversy with Japan has simply made this defect an acute question. If we are really a Nation with a big 'N' and not merely a federation of States, the power to legislate on such matters should be reserved to the Congress exclusively, and the Constitutional amendment which I propose provides for just that and nothing else."