The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1909-03-06
CALIFORNIA AND JAPANESE.

The question whether state should enact laws
preventing the holding of land by aliens within
their territories is one which has been the subject
of statutory law in several states before the ques-
ton was preached in California. In Kansas for
instance. no alien, resident or nonresident, may
own land; in Illinois nonresident aliens may not
acquire hold lands, and heirs of aliens who in
herited lands before the statutory provision went
into effect were compelled to dispose of them with
in a limited time. Kentucky forbids alien owner
ship but the law was held to be not retroactive
that titles of land already held by aliens not
disturbed In Texas the constitution forbids aliel
ownership, and those aliens in actual possession OF
land at the time of the adoption of the constltu
ton were compelled to dispose of it, There may be
other states with similar provisions with which we
are not familiar, but sufficient has been cited I'd
show that alien ownership of land within several
states has already been forbidden.
The technical right of California to enact an
anti-alen ownership of land law is thus supported
by the enactments of other states. The United
States government has insisted from the beginning
that each state mistress of her internal af
fairs. An evidence of this may be cited in the
trouble which arose between the American gov
New Orleans of eleven Italians suspected of com
picty in the murder of the chief of police of that
city. Demand being made upon the federal govern
ment for indemnity, James G. Blaine, then secre-
tary of state in the Harrison cabinet plainly told
the Italian minister that it was absolutely mpossi-
bic for the federal government to interfere with the
administration of justice within the various states;
that under the constitution such interference would
be violation of all the accepted principles of
state rights The incident was finally closed BY
paying an indemnity, but without acknowledging
any obligation of the federal government.
The bill to "segregate" the japanese in the
schools of the state of California also comes unden
the same principle; the national government has
not anything to do with the question. All will
acknowledge the duty one state owes to all the
others and to the national government In the mat
ter of legislation which would likely embroil tho
nation in international difficulties but the consti-
tutional rights of California to enact laws dis
crrninatory against aliens is supported by evil
dence gathered from all parts of the nation and
from the decision of one of our greatest and most
able secretaries.
The japanese question in California is one
which will continue as long as the japanese con'
tinue to reside there. 1t is evident that the peo
ple-some of them at least-of California don't
want the Japs to live among them, and they have
decided to make such living among them as I'M
pleasant as possible, with the hope that they may
move, or at least that their number will not in
crease unduly. Whether they wise in thus
tagonizing the little brown men is another ques-
ton The American government is government
of the people and by the people. All residents
within our boundaries should have an intelligent
interest in the welfare of the nation. As long as
the japanese are not admitted to citizenship it
doesn't seem just right that they should be per.
mitted to enjoy the benefits of this government;
and as the race is not assmilable, it doesn't seem
possible that the rights of citizenship will ever be
conferred upon them.
nj n hEE pEMCI0MC