El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1897-05-07

sable to obtain the view of several
members of the bar as to the proper
construction of that clause of the natur-
aliZatiOn statute which the court Is
called upon to consider and construe.
With that object in view the court ad-
dressed letters to Mr.. L. M. Paschal
and Mr.. Floyd McGOWn. enclosing
Herewith copies of the papers and tes-
timooy on file. Generous respOndin g
to the wish of the court, these gentle
men have submitted able and interest
ing briefs, which have received, to-
gether with those of Mr.. Evans and Mr..
McMinn, the attentive consideration
with the rature of the case and 1mpor-
lance of the question demand. And
the court now desires to express It's
acknOwled gements to all CONSUL APP
pearing in the case for the valuable
aid thus rendered.
The applicant, citizen by birth OF
the republic of Mexico. desires to avail
himself of the inherent right Of ex-
patriation and to invest himself with
the rights and privileges pertaining to
citizenships of our country.
Although forty-nine years have clap
sed since the negotiation of the treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which greatly in
creased our territorial area and incOr-
porated many thousands of MeXicans
into our common citizenship as Will be
hereinafter shown, the question of the
individual naturalization of a Mex
lean citizen is now for the first time, so
far as the court is advised, submitted
for judicial determination.
| To the question, why may not he be
pa.uralized under the laws of congress?
1t is replied, that by section 2l69 of the
| Revised Statutes it is provided:
The provisions of this title shall ap-
ply to aliens (being free white persons
and aliens of African nativity and to
persons of African descendent.
| COLOR QUALIFICATION.
| The contention is that by the letter of
| the statute a Mexican citizen, answer
| ing to the description of the applicant,
| is, because of his color, denied the
right to become a citizen of the United
States by naturalization: And in sup
port of this view, the following author
tiles are relied upon: In re All Yup,
), Sawy, 155, decided by Judge Saw
yer in 1878; infe~ Camille, 6 Fed, 256,
decided by Judge Deadly in 1880: in re
Kanaka Man, p Pac. Rep, 993, decid-
ed by the supreme court OF Utah in
1889: in re Saito, 81 Fed, 125, decided
by Judge Holt in 1894, and 2 Kent
Com. 10, where the learned chancellor
expressed doubt in these words:
'Perhaps there mi ght be difficulties
also as to the proper copper-colored ma
tives of America, or the yellow or
tawny races of the Asiatics, and it may
well be doubted whether any of them
are white pers 0ns within the purview
of the law"
Of the four cases cited in re All Yup
it is the first in point of time and the
leading one. The four applications are
denied. All Yup being native of
China; Camille, a native of British
Columbia and half Indian and half
white blood: Man, native of the
Hawaiin Islands, whose ancestors were
Kanakas, and SaitO a native OF Japan.
When the case of All 4up was de-
cided the Chinese question was Migrant
on the Pacific coast, and Judge Sawyer
seemed to think, predicating his con-
cluSiOn upon the debates in congress,
that the purpose of the amendme nt,
extending the right of naturalization
to Africans and persons of Afrca de5-
cent, was to exclude Chinese from the
benefits of naturalization. To quote
his own language: Many other
senators spoke pro and con on the
question, this being the point of con-
test and these extracts being fair sam
pies of the opposing opinions. 1t was
finally defeated" the amendmedt to
strike out the word ''white" from the
naturalization laws land the amend
ment cited, extending the right of ma
turalization to thu African only, was
adopted. 1t is clear from these pro-
ceedings that congress retained the
word "white' in the naturalization
laws for the sole purpose OF excluding
the Chinese from the right of natural
ization. Thus, whatever lati-
tudinarian construction might other
have been given to the term white
person. it is entirely clear that con-
gress intended to exclude MOngOlians
from the right of naturalization. | am,
therefore, of the opinion that a native
of China of the Monaghan race, is not
a white person IN the meaning OF the
act of congress-
INTENDED FOR THE CHINESE.
The second question is answered in
the discussion of the first. The
amendment is intended to limit the
operation Of the provision as it then
stood in the Revised Statutes. 1t
would have been more appropriately
inserted in section 2l65, than where it
is found in section 2l69. But the pur-
pose is clear. 1t was certainly intend
ed to have some operation. or it would
not have been adopted. The purpose
was doubtless to restore the law to the
condition in which it stood before the
revision, and to exclude the Chinese.
1t was intended to exclude some classes,
and as all white aliens and those OF the
African race are entitled to naturaliza-
tion under other words, it is difficult to
perceive whom it could exclude unless
it be the Chinese
The opinion of Judge Sawyer is by
no means decisive of the present ques-
ton, as his language may well convey
the meaning that the amendment of
the natura lization statutes referred to
by him was intended solely as q prohi-
bltiOn against naturalization of mem
bers of the Monaghan race. The ma
turaliZation of the Chinese is, however,
no longer an open question, as section
II of the act of May 6, 1882, expressly
provides:
L That hereafter no state court or
court of the United States shall admit
Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in
conflict with this act are hereby re-
pealei." % Statutes at Large, 81.
If Chinese were denied the right to
become naturalized citizens under laws