Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-05-24
Johnson Answers Bryan
Why California Insisted on Bill

Which might become a matter OF in
tenationaI policy.
BY the law adopted We offer no
offense: we make no discrimination
The offense and discrimination are
contained, il is claimed, in the use
OF the words, eligible 10 citizenship
and in making a distinction between
those who are eligible TO citizenship
and these who are not We do not
mention The japanese or any par
tlcular race.
The Constitution of California, in
1879 made its distinction, and there
never has been protest or objection.
Tire naturalization laws of the United
States long since, without demur
/ from any nation, determined who
were and who were. not eligible TO
citizenship If invidious discrimina-
ton ever were made in this regard,
the United States made it when the
I United States declared who were And
who were not eligible to citizenship
and when We but follow and depend
Ep3n the statutes of the United
States. and their determination as to
eligibility of citizenship, we cannot
be- accused Of indulging in invidious
discrimination.
immigration Statutes
May | venture to call your atten-
ton to the immigration law now
pending in congress, which passed
both houses of the last congress,
where apparently certain classes,
who shall be excluded from our coun-
try are described as persons who
cannot become eligible under. exist
ing laws to become citizens of the
United States"
At this very moment the national
legislature. without protest or objec-
tion-indeed it is published in Cali
fornia by express consents using
the terms that are claimed in Cali
fornia's law to be offensive and dis
criminatOry.
At the least three states in the
Union have in the past enacted laws
similar to the contemplated law of
Callfornia, and the enaetments of
those other states, have been without
objection or protest That the pro-
test is now made in respect to Cali.
Iornla, but emphasizes the acuteness
VI the problem confronting Cali
iornlans. and demonstrates that Cali
fornla is differently viewed than
other states of the Union, and that If
discrimination exists it is discrimin-
aIlon against California.
we insist elat justly no offense ran
&c taken by any nation to this law
ana more particularly does this Seem
10 us clear in the instance of a nation
IKE Japan, that by its own law nre-
vents acquisition of land by aliens.
1t is most respectfully submitted
that, after all, the question is NOT
whether any offense has been taken
put whether justly it should be taken,
voice. ! think, the sentiment of the
majority of the legislature of this
state when ! say that if it had been
beheyed that offense could Justly he
taken by any nation to the pronosed
law, that law would not have been
enacted.
Within Treaty Rights.
We of California believe firmly that
IN our legislative dealings with this
alten land question We have violated
absolutely no treaty rights; We have
SHOWN no shadow of discrimination;
we nave given to no nation the right
to be justified in taking offense. So
beilevlng-with a strong reliance on
the justice and the righteousness of
our cause, and with due Difference
and courtesy and with proper eonsid-
Grafton for the feelings and the views
OF others-we had hoped the authori-
ties at Washington would have seen
the question as we in this state have
Deen forced to see it-as we must see
it or be blind.
And so, with all respect and cour.
tesy, the state of California feels it
It's bounden duty to citizens to do
mat which the interests of its people
demand; that which the conscience
OF its people apprcve; that which
violates no treaty rights; that which
presents no discrimination, and that
which can give no just cause for
offense.
You have suggested to me DELAY.
bdt this question was very earnestly
and fully presented by you to our
legislature, and the legislature deter
| mined to proceed. NY province is
tc approve or disapprove the law as
presented. Our people, as represent
ed in the legislature, have overwhelm-
in2ly expressed their desire for the
present alien land bill. The vote in
the senate was So to and in the
assembly y to 8.
With such unanimity of opinion,
even did | hold other views, / would
feel it my plain duty to sign the bill,
unless some absolutely controlling
necessity demanded contrary action.
Apparently no such controlling ne
cessity exists.
L is with the highest respect for
yourself and the president that l. feel
M duty to my state compels ME to
approve the action OF the legislature.
HIRAM W. JOHNSON, "
Governor of California