Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-10-26
HOW 1T WORKS.
WHY A DETROIT LOAN COMPANY
STOPPED TEXAS BUSINESS.
the Alien Land Law Bars Them Out
OF this State-The Letters.
DETROIT, MICH. Sept. q, 1891.


present year, we were invited by several
prominent bankers and business men OF
your state to enter it for the purpose of
establishing business.
We paid the heavy tax eyacted from
foreign corporations under the laws of
Texas, and went to great expense in pre-
partng to do business, but had no sooner
commenced than we were confronted by an
opinion written by the well known law
firm, MeSsrs. Robertson s. Coke, of Dallas,
to the effect that no building and loan
association could safely make loans upon
homesteads.
We Immediately retained as our general
counsel for Texas Messrs. Bookhout s. Nc
Laurin of Dallas, and acting upon THAR adj
vice our bonds and mortgages weren re-
drafted. and we came to thorough under
standing of the law governing our loans,
and were prepared TO place in small loans,
on satisfactory security, S25,OOO 10 $4,000
per month of foreign capital, IN addition to
the sum of all deposits by our Texas share
holders. We made a number OF loans in
Your state and were suddenly confronted
by what is known as the ''alien land law"
statute passed by your last legislature.
While we had been preparing to push our
interests in your state, we had no knOwl-
edge whatever of the tendency of the bill
which afterwards became the law referred
TO. ? large number of our shareholders
AS a matter of fact, we have aliens of all
nationalities carrying our stock. and this
measure, II was apprehendet, would affect
Us and our Texas shareholders seriously.
After some Geographic correspondence
we were informed by wi re that we could
not close up any more loans, and on the
18th day of August we wrote to MesSrs.
Bookhout & McLaurin, our general counsel,
with reference to the matter, and | quote
their reply in full
DALLAS, TEX, August 90, 1891.
National Loan and Investment Company, De-
troit, Mich.
GENTLEMES-Your letter of the 18th
inst, asking our opinion as to whether
Texas Alien Land Law" bars you out of
Texas, has been received.
In reply we say that: Articles 8 and 10,
chapter 62, general laws of Texas, approved
April -. 1891, and taking effect July Is,
1891, are as follows:
Art. 9. An alien shall have and enjoy in
the state OF Texas such rights pertaining to
personal property as are or snail be ac-
corded to citizens of the United States by
the laws of the nation to which such alien
shall belong, or by the treaties of such ua-
ton with the United States.
Art. 10. No alien, or person who is not
citizen of the United States OF America,
shall acquire title to or own any interest in
the lands within the state of Texas, and
any deed or other conveyance purpOrting TO
convey such title or interest to any alien or
unnaturalized foreigner or to any firm,
company or corporation, composed of such
in whole or in part. shall be void.
The provisions of Article 10 are an abso-
luTe bar to the holding of Texas land by an
alien or BY any firm, company or corpora
ton composed of aliens in whole or in part.
You say that your corporation is largely
composed of aliens; then it follows from
cannot hold Texas lands, unless the law is
unconstitutional To determine the ques-
ton Of cOnStitutionaiity of the law, it will
be necessary to determine what are the
treaty rights of the alien members of your
corporation. If your aliens are citizens of Il
country the treaties of which with the
United States allow citizens of the United
States to hold and own land within its ter
ritory, then this treaty becomes the supreme
law governing all states of the United
States. for a treaty is the supreme law of
the land, and binds the courts as much as an
act OF congress. United States VS.. The
Peggy, IL Cranch, 1903; Strother Us. Lucas,
Il Pet, 40; Fellows vs.. Blacksmith, -
How, 3GG
Every treaty made by the authority of
the United States is superior to the consti-
tuition and laws of any individual state. IT
a law OF a state IS contrary to treaty, 1t IS
void. Havenstein VS.. LYMAN, 100 U. S.,
4S3; Ware vs.. Hylton. Dali, 1879.
The question then is this: What is the
nationality of your aliens and the treaty
rights of their nations with the United
States? If your aliens are British subjects,
we think your company is barred, for we
fail 10 find any treaty between the United
States and Great Britain providing for the
ownership of real estate by the subjects of
one of their countries in the lands of the
other. We find no treaty between them on
e h. Of ct.4a q, fhn
of the years 1888 and 1874, and it has been
held by the United States supreme court
that these two treaties only provided for
titles existing at the time these treaties
were made. Harden VS.. Fisher, l Wheat,
800; Blight VS.. Rochester, Wheat, 535l.
An alien is disabled to hold land. [See
Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of
England, Book 2nd, PIP. PA, 1913.
There is grave doubt as to whether the
Texas alien land law is constitutional for
another reason. The constitution of Texas,
article IL, section IS, provides: NO law
shall be amended by reference to its title,'
etc, and yet the title of the alien land law
is this: 'An Act to amend title 3, articles
and 10, and to add articles 1Oa, etc, and to
repeal all laws in conflict herewith Fol-
lowing the title the amendments are set out
in full, as the constitution requires, but GER
tainly the title does not conform to the con-
stitution. 1t is contended here, upon good
authority. that for the above reason the law
is unconstitutional. We think, however,
that any alien would run great risk in lend
ing money here on land as security, for
even if the law is unconstitutional the fault
might be remedied at the next legislature.
\ great effort is being made to get the gov
ernor to call a special session of the legiSla- |
ture to repeal the act, and 1t is to be hoped |
he will, but here comes question of poll |
tics and the pleasure OF the people, upon
which we will make no predictions. Re- |
spectfully submitted,
TSignedI BooKHoUT & MCLAURIN.
In another letter, dated September II. |
1891, Messrs. Bookhout & McLaurin advise |
US as follows: 1--WE are informed that a test |
case for the purpose of trying the constitu-
tionality of the alien land law will be pre- |
sented to our courts at an early date |
Should the opinion be adverse to the con-
of the law, ii will afford US |
pleasure to notify you promptly"
Should the courts of your state, as seems
highly probable, declare this alien land law |
we shall at once resume
our business operations in Texas. The ab-
surdity of the law, which absolutely bars |
foreign capital from entering your state, is
patent and the probability is that your leg
stature will repeal it at its next session,
and if the supreme court declares the
statute unconstitutional, we do not believe
t will ever be re-enacted IN proper form.
We do not care to continue to sell our stock
Tor investment in your state unless we are
permitted to lend our funds there, and we
ask our Texas shareholders to stand by
his company, assuring them that their in
7estments already made with US will prove
entirely satisfactory, and that we will re-
o,.icn