Mr. President. I have been turned from a discussion of oil to immigrationa subject which I should like to discuss by itself. because I am intensely interested in the solution of the immigration question. The Senator from Minnesota states. however. that by treaty a State may be deprived of the power which in the absence of a treaty it would be entitled to enjoy. or that as against a State law the treaty would prevail. Doubtless in many instances that is so. but there is one consideration to which I will refer. and then I shall discontinue that part of the discussion. The theory of that powerthe power of the President. by and with the consent of twothirds of the Senate. to make treatiesmnust have been based. in the minds of the Constitutibn makers. upon the fact that the States composing the Fedeial Union. being represented in the Senate. would be able to look after their own interests. and that there would be some comity between the representatives of the several States by which injury would be prevented which would apply to one State by reason of its peculiar resources and which would not apply to another State. and that is our condition in California. We come to the States of the Union. represented in the Senate. to protect us either by treaty or by statute against any danger which may affect the substantial interests of the people of the State. such statutes or such treaties not affecting at all the other States. because in the one instance they may not have among their resources oil. or in the other instance they may not be exposed to oriental immigration. So we are quite willing to come to the Senate for our protection. but the Senator from Utah says. as though it were a new matter. that we would excite the animosity of the world if we passed any laws barring as a general proposition foreigners from ownership of the soil. I call his attention to the Federal statutes which apply to the District of Columbia and the Territories.
Keywords matched
immigrationa immigration