San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-01-17

is, their objections are founded on ad-
Indicated cases.
And let il again be stated clearly
that unless the said Rodriguez is a
white person" he cannot be natural
lied, for it is not claimed for one mo-
ment that he is OF African nativity
or descent. What then is meant by a
white person as used in our natur-
alizatiOn law? On this point let the
courts speak.
In the case of All Jup, 5, Sawyers' re-
ports, where a Chinese or Monaghan
applied for naturalization; the court
upon full hearing, said:
THE questions are; Is person
of the Monaghan race white person"
within the meaning of the statute?
Do these provisions exclude all but
white persons and persons of African
nativity or African descent = =
These words C'white persons'O in this
country at least, have undoubtedly ac-
quired a we'll settled meaning, in COM
mon popular speech, and they are con-
stantly used in the sense so acquired, in
the literature of the country, as well
as common parlance. AS ordinarily
used everywhere in the United States
one would scarcely fail to understand
that the party employing the words,
white person." would intend person
Of the Caucasian race.
This case of All Jup has been cited
and fully approved lin the following
cases: In the case of 6, Sawyers re-
ports, Sal, G. Fed. Reporter 256, and in
the case of Elk VS.. wilkins, 112, u. S.
S. Ct, "a. and in case of Tong Yue
Ting, U. S. S. CT, 149, SOS, and lastly
in the case of SaitO, 81, Fed, Reporter,
page 126.
In the first above cited case, that of
Camille, the applicant was half blood
Indian of North America, born in Can
ada, of an Indian mother, and a white
father, and Judge Sawyer applied the
exact same reasoning to his case upon
which he rejected All Jup.
In the next above cited case of Elk
VS.. wilkins, decided by the Supreme
court of the United States, North
American Indian was denied citizen
ship on the grounds that he was not
white person" but an Indian, and
was not made a citizen of the United
States by the Fourteenth amendment.
In the case of Tong Yue Ting, u. s.
S. CT, 149, sos, a Chinese is denied nat
uralization on the ground of color.
In the United States Circuit court
for the Massachusetts Circuit in A.
D., 1894, a certain Japanese of great
wealth. and married into an American
family, applied for naturalization. His
name is Saito, and in his case all the
authorities were carefully examined,
and from that case we cite literally as
follows:
These words C'white persons') were
incorporated in the naturalization laws
as early as 1902. At that time the
country was inhabited by three races,
the Caucasian or white race, the ne
gro or black race, af1 the American or
red race. 1t is reasonable therefore
to infer that when Congress, in desig-
mating the class of persons who could
be naturalized, inserted the qualifying
words white" it included to exclude
from the privilege of citizenship all
alien races except the Caucasian"
Judge Colt then shows from the dis
CussiOns in Congress in 1870, 1873 and
1875, that the true intent Of Congress
is and has always BEEN, by inserting
and keeping the words white person
in the law to exclude the yellow and
red races, in fact all races not white
and Caucasian.
Judge Colt further says in the case:
From a common popular standpoint
both in ancient and modern times the
races of mankind have been distin-
guished by difference in color, and they
have been classified as the white, black
yellow and brown races"
In other words, the United States, in
naturalization law draws the color line
at the white race, and recently includ-
dthe black, but not the yellow, nor
the red.
Next the judge goes into ethnology.,
and anthropology, and the division of
mankind into classes, by color. citing
Blumenbach in 1871, and winds up by
approving all the above cited cases,
and adds this statement:
Whether this question is viewed in
the light of congressional intent or of
the popular or scientific meaning of
white persons" or of the authority of
adjudicated cases, the only conclusion
am able to reach, after careful con-
sideration, is that the application must
be denied"
To these authorities we might add
the fact, that in the attorney generals
office of the United States and in the
office of secretary of state, it has al
ways been held, when the question
came up, that North American Indians
that is Indians found in North Amer
lea, at the discovery of the New World
by Columbus, whether found in Cana
da, the United States, Mexico or Cen
trail America-could not be naturalized
under our laws, because they were not
white persons. See l. vol. attorney
generals opinions, 746, and recent let
ter to Judge Tom Paschal.
Now these are the authorities in
part upon which the objection of Nc
MINI and Evans rest.
1t is strange indeed that this ques-
ton of the right of North American