Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1913-05-15

OF eligible to citizenship and in making
Il distinction between those who are
eligible TO citizenship and those who are
not We do not mention the Japanese, or |
any particular race The constitution of |
California In 1879 made its distinction |
and there never has been protest or OBJ |
lection. The naturalization laws of the
United states, long since, without demur
from any nation, determined who were
and who were not eligible to citizenship.
U. s. MADE DISCRIMINATION.
"1f invldlous discrimination ever were
made in this regard. the United states
made it when the United States declared
who were and who were not eligible to
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 indulglng In invidious dis
crim.nation May ] venture to call to
ycur attention the immigration law now
pending IN congress which passed both
houses Of the Inst Congress, where ap-
rsrcntiv certain classes, who shall we
excluded from our country, are descriO-
ed as persons who cannot become
eligible under eylNlng lave to become
citizens Of the United states"
"At this very moment the national
Legislature. without protest or oOjec-
ton, indeed It Is published In Calfor-
MIA by express consent, is using the
terms that arc claimed in California; =
laws 70 be offensive and discriminatory.
"At least three states in the union
have I'm the past enacted laws similar
To the contemplated law of California
and the enactmcrts Of those other states
haze been without objection or protest.
| That the protest Is now made in respect
20 California bat emphasizes .he acute
ness of the problem confronting 'allfor-
MIA and demonstrates that California Is
differently viewed than other states of
the union and that If discrimination ex-
| ista IL is discrimination against Calltor-
! MIA.
I'VE insist that Justly no offense can
| be taken by any action to this law ana
more particularly does this seem to h'
! clear in the instance Of nation ike
Japan. that 10y it's own law prevents ac-
ouisition of land by aliens. 1t is most
respectfully submitted that, after ALL the
question IS not whether any offense has
| been taken but whether justly 1t should
be taken | voicc. ! think, the sentiment
of the majority of the Legislature of this
! state, when I say that If it had been be-
licved that offense could justly be taken
by any nation to the proposed law, that
law would not have been enacted.
VIOLATE NO TREATY RIGHTS.
we Of California believe firmly that il
al
lland question we have violated absolutely
no treaty right. We have shown no dis
crimination; we have given to no natior
the right to be justified in taking offcnse
So, believing with a strong reliance OF
the justice and the righteousness Of oul
cause, and with due Difference and cour
tesy and with proper consideration to
the feelings and the views of others, We
had hoped the authorities at Washington
would have seen the question as we II
this State have been forced to see it, a
We must see it or be blind.
And 50, with all respect and courtesy
the state of california fee'5 it it's boundel
duty to citizens to do that which the in
terests of its people demand; that whici
the conscience of its people approves
that violates no treaty rights that whicl
presents no discrimination and that whicI
can give no just cause for offcnse
You have suggested to me delay bu
this question was very earnestly and ful
~ presented by you to our Legislature
and the Legislature determined to 'ro
ceed Ny province is to approve or dis
approve the law as presented. Our peo
pie as represented in the Legislature
have overwhelmingly expressed their de