Arizona republican., 1921-12-20
California Anti Alien Land Law
 Declared Valid
TRepubIIcan A. p. Leased Wlrel

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 19-The constitutionality of the California anti-alien land law forbidding aliens ineligible to citizenship from owning or leasing agricultural land, was up- held late today by a court Of three federal judges.
 Several other states have enacted laws patterned on the California act.
 The decision was given in case Involving the leasing feature or the act. It said:
 sSuch a leasehold is an interest in agricultural land and nothing in the treaty with Japan secure to Japanese subjects residing in this country the right to posses, acquire or enjoy aerl- cultural land or an interest therein
 The decision said in part:
 "It will readily be seen that the act itself violates no treaty provision because the conclusion thereof eX- pressly protects aliens not eligible to citizenship in their relation 10 real property to the extent and for the purpose prescribed by any treaty be- tween the United States and their own country what ever IS guaran- teed by such treaty is excluded from the operation of this act. This lease in agricultural land, and there is nothing in the treaty with Japan that secures to Japanese subjects resident in this country the right 10 acquire, posses or enjoy agricultural land or any interests therein It IS understood congress, has the power arbitrarily to say who may be natu- ] ralized and that exercising such | power it has limited the right of nat uraliZation to aliens being free While | persons and to aliens of African In se- a. | tion excludes three of the five great races of the world, the yellow. the l brown and the red. And while such | exclusion is in a sense arbitrary, II ! is not without foundation Tn reason | and has been in effect except Tor ! brief period practically during the | existence of our government
 Tn any event, once established ! however, arbitrarily and so long as 1 it continue, it furnished a funda- mental and important distinction | which may well be adopted by a state ! in determining who may own lana within its borders.
 That fact was clearly recognized | by the court and given expression l in the terrace case in the following 1 language:
 "It is obvious that one who is not ] a citizen and can not become one 1 lacks an interest in, and the power lo | effectually work for the welfare ol { the state and so lacking, the state l may rightfully deny him the right to
 own and lease real estate within its l boundaries. If one incapable or cltl-
 zenship may own or lease real estate | it is within the realm of possibility
 that every foot of land within the
 state might pass to the ownershll
 and possession of non-cltizens- SucA
 a result would leave the foundation
 of the state but a pale shadow. arIo
 the structure erected thereon but
 tower of Babel from which the ten
 ants in possession might. when tho
 shock of war came, bow themselves
 out because they were not bound as
 citizens to defend the house in whicf
 they lodged"
 The decision then recited that tht
 constitutional, statutory and treaty
 provisions involved all had been con-
 sidered at length in the Terrace case which arose in the state of Nashlng'
 ton under a law patterned on tha
 of California and said that as th' present court agreed with the court:
 action in that case in refusing to re-
 strain Washington officials from en- | forcing the act, it would be unnec'
 sary to re-state these provisions.