The Madison journal. (Tallulah, Madison Parish, La.) 1888-current, 1913-05-10
CALIFORNIA; LAND LAWS.

Japan's advancement in civiliza.
ion seems to have made her pcopl,
lnduly sensitive, if reports of the
'Xcited state of feeling in Japan
,ver Califomia's land laws are true.
If course, the United States must
.bServe its treaty obligations with
Japan. We have pledged ourselves.
under the favored nation" clause
If this treaty, To deal with Japan
Us we deal with other nations, in Il
spirit of fairness and Justice.
But there is no evidence that Cal
ifornia is going To take away from
citizens ~ Japan any rights that
they possess under this treaty and
under the Federal laws. And even
if California should attempt t. do
50, the Federal courts may be relied
upon to prevent infringement upon
our treaty obligations by the Pacific
Coast State. Therefore, if the Jap
anesc are excited over this Califor-
mia legislation, it must he because
of their ignorance of American laws
and the American system of gov
eminent.
1t appears that it has never been
decided whether the Asiatic exclu-
sion law applies to the Japanese are
of the Monaghan race has never
been determined 10y the United
States Supreme Court. If the cX-
clusion law applies to Japan as well
as to China and California enacis a
law forbidding anyone who is in
eligible to citizenship in this country
from owning land in that State, it
could hardly be claimed that Cali
fornia was discriminating against
the japanese. The real discrimina-
ton is in the Federal Immigration
law. Even that, however, is Il ques-
ton for the Federal Courts.
The people of the South can APP
preciate and sympathize with Cali
fornia in the problem with which
her Legislature is dealing. In the
first place, it is racial problem
and California desires to avoid Il
situation that is fraught with grave
troubles that usually result from
race antagonists. In the next
place, it is an economic problem.
The same objection applies against
Japanese coolie labor. Cheapening
of the Pacific Coast labor market
would involve serious economic dis
turbance.
1t may he asked how land owner
ship in any way concerns this qucs-
ton of cheap labor. The answer is
obvious. Land ownership involves
the employment of labor and Japa-
nese land ownership involves con-
fiict between japanese labor stand
ards and American labor standards.
The California Legislature pro
poses simply to forbid any foreigner
who is not eligible to citizenship to
own land in California. China
would certainly be affected because
the Chinese are not eligible to citi-
zenship. Japan might also be af-
fected, but this would remain for
the United States Supreme Court
to determine. No other nation
would be affected, because the citi-
zens of other nations may renounce
their allegiance elsewhere and 5e-
come naturalized citizens of this
country.
Japan might claim that even if
her citizens are not eligible to citi-
zenship in America the United
States nor any part of it can forbid
land ownership by the japanese
under our treaty. That would open
up the question of the interpreta-
ton of the treaty and certainly
such a question could be settled
without any regard to any lingo
spirit that might manifest itself in