The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-04-25
THE CALIFORNIA FUT1LITY.

! II is impossible for us to see the
reason for such a tumult as ia raised
about the legislation proposed in Cali
fornia with regard to land holding in
that State For, first OF all, the leEis-
Ilation proposed has already been in ef-
! feet in a number of States without
any complaint from anybody. There
| fore. 20 assume that something most
extraordinary has been proposed in,
California. of sensational and dam
aging character, calculated to em-
broil the United States in complca-
! tions with Japan, is an absolutely false
assumDtion TO begin with; and, on the
other hand, IL is futile to suppose that
any legislation proposed in California
could in fact deprive the Japanese from
holding land in that state, for as has
been fairly stated, anybody can buy
anything in any country that he is
willing and has the money TO pay for.
The holding Of land can be either by
agent, by attorney. by corporations, or
by firms. and the interest of the Jap
anese in any firm, association, or
corporation ownership Of land would
not necessarily be disclosed even
though that interest wero con-
trolling Instances in illustration of
this point arc cited by the San Fran
cisco Argonaut,
In Oregon some years ago. under a
law prohibiting aliens from owning
lands in that State large instances Of
alien ownership were developed later,
the titles all held in the name Of an
attorney or some other person "es-
pccially chosen under an easy ar.
rangement of guarantee.
Again. under Mexican law "owner
ship Of land within ten miles of the
American boundary is absolutely pro
hibited. Yet as matter of fact pretty
much all the land within the pro.
hibtcd district Is under American
ownership; and IL passes from one
American ownership TO another as free
" as lands north of the boundary line |
In eases Of this kind there is always |
the easy plan Of having some dummy |
carry the title; and there are forty |
other devices entirely within the law !
which come TO the same thing. For ex
ample. the California land and cattle
company, a corporation duly organized |
under both American and Mexican
laws, holds title to an immense prop
erty in the Imperial valley on both
sides Of the national boundary. The
stock OF this company is owned in Los
So that the legislation itself would
be futile If passed. Therefore how
would Californians be protected against
Japanese ownership OF land since the
ownership can be indirect and undis.
,overable7 But If il is said. on the
other hand, that the legislation is vio.
ative Of treaty rights. that is
matter that can easily be determined
oy suit in the Supreme Court Of the
United States; and it is always to be
remembered that japan is herself the !
irst offender, in denying TO aliens the
light TO hold land in Japan. But If I
'nybody supposcs that this sort Of Is
egislation is violative of treaty rights, {
Why has not the point been tested long "
go, since, as President Wilson points /
,ut. number Of States have such /
avs. and that is the existing law e
'assed by Congress itself in the District ]
Il Coiumbia7 Surely, If there is any 6
'alidity 10 the claim that the legisla- (
ION proposed infringes upon the treaty s
lights of the japanese, there is {
mple opportunity TO test the question a
light now, before California acts at all. ID
\ case can be made from any OF the IS
states that have such legislation. and !
he matter brought TO direct and Z
peedy issue. t
But, since it is clear case that the C
egislation does not violate any treaty o
= deprive anyone OF treaty rights. and ?
ince the legislation. even II passed, h
7ould be Ineffective, it is really impos. =
ible for us TO get excited about IL or d
o see why all the pother is stirred up. III
n
nc