New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-05-15

real property IN the manner anu W 'ic
extent and for the purpose prescribed
by any t.eaty now existing between the
government of the United States ana
the nation or country of which such
aliens a-e citizens or subjects, ana
may in addition lease for period OF
three years lands for agricultural pur-
poses
preserved Every Right"
Thus we have made existing treaties
4 part Of oar law, and thus we have
preserved every right that any foreign
nation by international contract has in
sisted upon preserving with our ma
tional government.
THE treaty of 1911 with Japan. in
reference TO the citizens and subjects
of each country, provides that they
shall have liberty TO own, or lease, or
occupy houses, manufactures, ware
houses and shops; to employ agents OF
their choice: to lease land for residen-
tial and commercial purposes and gen.
orally to do anything incident to or
necessary for trade upon the same
terms as native citizens or subjects
submitting themselves TO the laws ana
regulations there established
I'VE assume that the right of Jap
anese to own real property for the
purposes described is absolute in our
state. and we seek 10 deal only with
our agricultural lands.
I'VE embody the treaty in our law
and we add 10 it permission TO lease
our AGRICULTURAL lands for the period
Of three years.
Where such extraordinary care has
been exercised TO preserve honor ana
good faith, in the very words OF the
contract made by the protesting nation
with our own, and 10 do more by au-
thorizing leases OF agricultural lands,
il would seem that we ought not 10 be
open TO any accusation OF violation OF
treaty rights. or of desire 10 entrench
upon that which belongs alone TO the
national goverpment, or which might
become matter OF international
policy.
"By the law adopted, we offer no Of
fence; we make no discrimination. Inc
offence and discrimination is contained
il is claimed. in the use of the words
eligible TO citizenship and in making
a distinction between those VINO are
eligible TO citizenship and those VINO
are not. We do not mention the Japa-
nese. or any particular race. The con-
stitution Of California in 1871 made its
distinction, and there never has been
protest or objection.
The naturalization laws of :he
United States long since. without de-
mur from any nation, determined VINO
were and who were not eligible 10 cit
zenship. II invidious discrimination
ever were made in this regard, the
United States made il when the United
States declared who were and who
we're not eligible 10 citizenship, and
when we but follow and depend upon
the statutes OF the United States and
their, determination as TO eligibility TO
citizenship we cannot be accused of in
dulgins in invidious discrimination.
MAY I venture TO call to your at
tention the immigration law now pend
ing Congress, which passed both
houses Of the last Congress. where ap-
parently certain classes, who shall he
excluded from our country are &C.
scribed as persons who cannot become
eligible under existing laws 10 become
citizens Of the United States
National Parallel.
AT this very moment the national
Legislature, without protest or objec-
tion--indeed. il is published in Califor-
mia by express consent-is using tbs
terms that are claimed in CALIFORNIA;
law to be offensive and discriminatory.
At least three states in the Union
have in the past enacted laws similar
TO the contemplated law Of California,
and the enactments Of those other
states have been without objection or
protest. That the protest is now made
in respect to California only empha-
sizes the acuteness Of the problem con-
fronting California and demonstrates
that California is differently viewed
than other states OF the Union. and
that, if discrimination exists. it is dis
elimination against California.
I'VE insist that justly no offence can
be taken by any nation TO this law and
more particularly does this seem TO be
clear in the instance in a nation like
Japan, that by its own law prevents
acquisition Of land by aliens. 1t is most
respectfully submitted that, after all.
the question is not whether any Of
fence has been taken, but whether
justly II should be taken. / voice. I
think. the sentiment Of the majority Of
the Legislature OF this state when I
say that if il had been believed that
offence could justly be taken by any
nation TO the proposed law, that law
would not have been enacted.
We of California believe firmly that
i'm our legislative dealings with this
alien land question we have violated
absolutely no treaty rights. We have
shown no discrimination; We have
given TO no nation the right to be JUS
tilted in taking offence. So believing,
with strong reliance in the justice
and the righteousness Of our cause, and
with due difference and courtesy and
with proper consideration for the feel