The record-union., 1894-10-05
AMENDMENT NO. 4
Treatment of That Remarkable and
BIundering Proposition.
1t is Not What it Was Intended to Be
VIM. II. Mills Explains Some Serious
MisapprehensionsC Concerning 1t.
lFrom the Santa Cruz Sentinel

From the Santa Cruz Sentinel.1
Ed. Sentinel: As | usually have the
pleasure OF reading the Sentinel, 1 find
in your issue OF September 18th discus
sion of Amendment No. in which you
criticise a statement of the Chronicle, and
in which, by its general tone at least, you
favor the adoption of the amendment.
viii you pardon me if L call your atten-
ton to the fact that you have missed the
serious objection to Amendment No. 1?
= The object of that amendment was to
prevent the ownership of land in Califor-
MIA by unnaturalized persons. The
thought underlying it was that an Eng
lishman, Frenchman or a German liv-
ing in those countries might own real
estate in this State, and it was to prevent
that result that the amendment was
adopted by the Legislature and offered
for ratification by the people. If the
amendment accomplished this result you
would have wholly different question.
You would have then simply the pro-
prlety OF allowing the capital of aliens 10
be invested III real estate iii California.
The issue raised by that proposal need
not be discussed, since the amendment
does not accomplish that result. 1t pro-
Vides that foreigners of the white race or
OF african descent, eligible to become cit
| liens, while residents of this State, shall
have the same rights in respect to the
acquisition of property other than real
estate as native born citiZsns. There is
no prohibition against the ownership of
real property by corporation.
r. Under the law persons are OF two kinds,
natural and artificial. The natural citi-
zen embraces the men and women Of the
country, and artificial persons are cor
porations created by law. We may, there
lore, have domestic corporation, that is,
a corporation organized under the laws
Of the State of California, and it becomes
capable of suing and being sued, of own
ing property, of conducting business,
such as manufactures, railroads and other
business. This artificial person is a ma
tive of the State. That this may be clear
permit me 10 say that corporation or
! ganiZed under the laws OF California is
an artificial person, and being home cor
poration is, as we say, domestic 1t is
eligible to hold property, because the
! title vests in the corporation or artificial
person, ana not in the Individual stock
holders. Thus foreign capital may be in
vested in real estate in California by the
ownership of stock in a California cor
! poration, which in turn owns the real
estate.
If foreign capital desires to invest in
real estate in the State of California, it
will not be prevented by Amendment
No. 4; that is TO say, while an English
man may not invest his money as an in
! dividuai in the State of California, he
| can own the stock of corporation which
| IS the owner of real estate, and that Spe-
| cies of ownership is lawful, and will be
after the amendment is adopted. There
| are instances Of this kind which will
serve as illustration. The Chow Chilla
ranch in Merced and Stanislaus Counties
| comprises 10000 acres. 1t is owned en-
! tirely by capitalists In Edinburgh. This
! statement covers the fact. but not the en-
! tire fact. The legal ownership or title is
| IN the CallfOr MIA Pastoral and Agricult-
! ural Company, corporation organized
and doing business under the laws OF the
/ State Of California. Not one share of the
! stock of the California Pastoral and Ag
ricultural Company is owned by nat
uralzed or native born citizen of the
| United States and yet the title is legally
! in the corporation and the ownership of
the stock in the Edinburgh capitalists.
! Thus, by this lndirection, any amount
| of foreign capital may be invested in the
| lands of this State. The tendency which
will set up immediately after the adop-
| tion of Amendment No. 4 will be the for
/ eign ownership OF real estate IN California
! by the inteTpOsition of a State corpora
! ton. So the amendment should be Justly
| characterized as an amendment having
| porations. to force capital into corporate
relations and to energize the corporate
! method OF doing business in the State of
California. y citizen of the State, own
ing large ranch and desiring TO sell it
to foreign capital, may be prohibited by
| Amendment No. 4 from doing so. But
there is nothing to prevent the formation
of a corporation, deciding the land to that
corporation and then selling all the stock
in England, Scotland, France or Ger
many.
If there is danger that the real estate of
California will be owned by the residents
OF foreign countries, that danger should
be averLed. | would regard the owner
ship of land here by nonresident for
eigners as highly disadvantageous to this
State. The present Constitution, as
quoted by you. declares that foreigners
OF the white race. or Of African descent,
eligible to become citizens, while bona
tide residents OF this State shall have the
same rights in respect TO the acquisition
possession and enjoyment, transmission
and inheritance of dLL property as native
born citizens. on Will perceive that the
provision permits this equality of enjoy
mont as to all property only to bona fide
residents OF the State, and it is for this
reason that foreign capital is invested in
the real estate OF California through the
Intervention of corporations. Amend
ment No. does not abolish this method
nor change this feature. 1t introduces
after the words ''all property" the words
''other than real estate" The prohibi-
ton, then, is simply one against the indi-
Vidual ownership of real estate while
bona tide residents of the State That
this may be plain permit me to say that
under the present Constitution an alien,
eligible to become citizen, while a resi-
dent OF the Stale may own all property:
a nonresident of the State could not own
such property. The amendment to the
Constitution prohibits the ownership by
one eligible TO become a citizen of any
real estate, even though he be a bona flde
resident OF the State: and this is the full
extent OF the amendment
True. an additional provision is made
in the statement that the. Legislature
may by statute provide for the DISPOSE
ton OF real estate which shall hereafter
be acquired by such alien by descent or
devise. The naturalized citizen owning
real estate i'll California may have an un-
naturallzed brother in England. The
! naturalized brother may die and the un-