The Independent. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1895-1905, 1898-02-17
JAPANESE AND THE FRANCHISE


Tribunal The Position Assumed
by the State Department in the
Controversy Over Annexation
WASHINGTON, Feb. Sin view OF
the question that has been raised as
to the correctness Of the conclusion
reached by the officials OF the State
Department who have been engaged
in the negotiations with the Japa-
nese Government as to the Status of
Japanese in Hawaii after annexation
is completed, further inquiry was
made to-day to ascertain the ground
for the statement that the Japanese,
unless there was legislation to the
contrary by Congress, would be en-
titled to privileges of naturalization,
if they so desire, and are otherwise
able to meet the requirements of
the law. The officials naturally are
reluctant to discuss publicly ques-
ton OF this kind, which must be
hypothetical in advance OF the dis
position OF the pending annexation
treaty, and, moreover, are not dis
posed to be put in the position OF
laying down legal principles, but in
substance their contention is that
under the laws as they exist today,
japanese in the United States are
entitled to naturalization.
They freely admit that in some
instances the United States have
taken the ground that such applica-
tions cannot be entertained, notably
in the Boston case decided June 81,
1894, known as SIN re Saito," but
they also assert that the practice of
the courts has not been by any
means uniform in this matter, and
there are very many cases where
Japanese have been admitted to the
rights of naturalization without the
slightest objection on the part of
the Court. 1t is not denied that the
State Department itself has not been
consistent in its treatment of the |
question, as is made plain by refer
ence to the existing regulations for
the government OF the diplomatic
service. in which is to be found di-
rection to United States officers
abroad to refuse to recognize the
the claims of Japanese to natural
lied citizens rights. However, the
regulation was founded upon the
old statute, section 2169, which was
couched in terms so vague as to give
rise to the varying constructions
placed upon it by the courts, and
the latest view Of the department is,
as stated, that the Japanese may
apply for naturalization.
This statute seems to limit natur-
alization to white persons and per
sons OF African descent. 1t was
plainly piece of patchwork as his
tory reveals, and an exact applica-
ton of the test of language to il
would not, it is held, prove the real
purpose of its authors. But aside
from that, the broad question has
been raised that the Japanese are
not to be regarded as outside of the
white races, they not being Mon
golian in the true chronological
sense. 1t is probably sufficient for
the purpose Of this explanation of
the departments position to cite
these consideration as matters that
might readily account for the failure
OF the courts to reach unanimity in
the construction of this law. There
has not been, up to this time, it is
said, any expression Of opinion on
the part of the court Of last resort,
the United States Supreme Court,
and until that opinion shall have
been called for the question cannot
be regarded as settled.
When the opinion is rendered, of
course, the Department of State will
be bound by it, and meanwhile it
has no desire to pose as usurper OF
the rights OF the judicial branch OF
the Government. AS for the condi-
tions that will arise under the new
treaty with Japan, that goes into
affact in 1900 tha danartmant holds |