The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1913-05-21

lands, 1t would seem that we ought
not to be open to any accusation of
violation of treaty rights or of de-
sire to trench upon that which be-
longs alone to the national govern
ment, or which might become a mat
ter Of international policy
"By the law adopted we offer no Of
tense; we make no determinations.
The offense and discrimination is con-
tained, 1t Is claimed, in the use of the
words eligible to citizenship and in
making distinction between those
who are eligible to citizenship and
those who are not We do not men
tion the Japanese or any particular
race. The constitution of California
in 1879 made it's distinction and there
never has been protest or objection.
The naturalization laws of the United
States long since, without demur from
any nation, termed who were and
who were not eligible to citizenship.
If invidious discrimination ever were
made in this regard, the United States
made it when the United States de-
clared who were and who We're not
eligible to citizenship and when we
but follow and depend upon the stat
utes of the United States and their
determination as to eligibility to citi-
zenship. We can not be accused of
indulging in invidious discrimination.
IN no Oft
tion the immigration law now pend
ing in congress, which passed both
houses Of the last congress, where ap-
parcntly classes who shall be excluded
persons who can not become eligible
under existing laws to become citi-
Zens Of the United States
The Two Sides.
AT this moment the national leg
islature, without protest or objection,
indeed, it is published in California,
by express consent is using the terms
that are claimed in California's laws
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 but empha-
sizes the acuteness of the problem
confronting California and demon
strates that California is differently
viewed than other States of the Union
and that If discrimination exists it is
discrimination against California.
We Insist that Justly no offense
can be taken by any nation to this
law and more particularly does this
seem to us clear in the instance of a
nation like Japan. that by it's own
law prevents acquisition of land by
aliens. 1t is most respectfully sub
mited that after all, the question is
not whether any offense has been TAX
en-, whether Justly it should have
been taken. I voice. / think the SEN
timent of majority of the lcgisla-
ture of this State, when / say that If
it had been believer tina. oCcnse could
Justly be taken by any nation to the
proposed law. that law would not
have been enacted.
Violated No Rights.
We of California bdhieve firmly
that in our legislative dealings with
this alien land question we have vio-
lated absolutely no treaty rights. We
have shown no discrimination. we
nave given to no nation the right to
be justified in taking offense So be-
lieving. with a strong reliance on the
justice and the righteousness OF our
cause. and with due Difference and
courtesy and with proper considera-
tion for the feelings and the views of
othesr, we had hoped the authorities
at Washington would have seen the
question as we in this State have been
forced to see 1t, as we must see it
or be blind
AS so, with all respect the courtesy
the State of California feels it's
bounden duty to its citizens to do that
which the interests of it's people de-
mand; that which the conscience of
its people approves; that which vio-
lates no treaty rights; that which pre-
sents no discrimination and that
which can give no just cause of Of
Tense.