The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-06

WASHINGTON. req. o.-1n vie" VI
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 negoua-
tions with the japanese Government as
10 the status of Japan in Hawaii after
annexation is completed, further m
CURRY was made to-day to ascertain the
ground for the statement that the Jap
anese, unless there was legislation TO the
contrary by Congress, would be entitled
to the privileges of naturalization, il
they so desire and are otherwise able to
meet the requirements of the law.
The officials naturally are reluctant
to discuss publicly a question OF TINS
kind, which must be hypothetical, in ad-
vance of the disposition Of the pending
annexation treaty, and moreover are
not disposed to be put in the position
of laying down legal principles. But IN
substance their contention is that under
the laws as they exist to-day japanese
in the United States are entitled 10 nat
uraliZation. They freely admit That III
some instances the United States
courts have taken the ground that such
anplicationS cannot be entertainer,
notably in the Boston case, decided June
- 1891, known as In re Saito, put
they also assert that the practice OF the
courts has not been by any means uni
form in this matter and that there are
very many cases where Ja9anese nave
been admitted to the rights of naturah-
cation without the slightest obJsctlon on
the part of the court.
1t is not denied that the State Depart
raent itself has not been consistent IN
its treatment of the qeustion, as is made
rIain BIZ reference to the existing regu-
lations for the government of the dip
lomatic service in which is to be found
= direction to United States officers
abroad to refuse TO recognize the
claims of japanese TO naturalized citi-
zels' rights However, the regulation
was founded upon the Old statute, See
ton 2l69. which was couehed in terms
so vague as TO give rise to the varying
constructions placed upon it by the
courts. and the latest view of the De-
Iartment is as stated that the japanese
may apply for naturalization.
This statute seems to limit naturaliZa-
ton to white persons, and persons of
African descent. 1t was plainly piece
Of ratch work, as history reveals, and
as exact application of. the test Of Ian
guage to it would not, it is held, prove
the real purpose of its authors. But
aside from that. the broad question has
been raised. are they to be regarded as
outside of the white race, they not being
Monaghan in the true astrological sense.
1t is probably sufficient for the pur-
pose of this explanation of the depart
ment's position TO cite these considera-
tons as matter that might readily &C
count for the failure of the courts to
reach unauimity in the construction OF
this law There has not been up TO this
time, it is said, any expression OF. opin-
resort, the United States Supreme Court,
ana until such opinion shall have been
called forth. the question cannot be re-
garded as settled. When the opinion is
rendered. Of course, the Department of
State will be bound by II, and mean
while il has no desire tc pose as usurper
of the rights of the judicial branch of
the Government.
As for the conditions that Will arise
under the new treaty with Japan that
goes into effect in 1899, the department
hclds that it confers upon the japanese
The rights of favored nations in all mat
tors. While there does not as yet exist
any naturalization treaty with Japan
and the United States. this cannot be
regarded as a bar to naturalization, for
there are no such trea ties existing with
a number of countries, the citizens Of
which are admitted to the United States
citizenship in compliance with the laws.