The Omaha morning bee. [volume] (Omaha [Neb.]) 1922-1927, 1922-11-14
Citizenship
Barred to
japanese
ipreme { Court Holds Orien.
t1is Ineligible TO NaiuraIiza.
Aon Under Laws of the
United States.
Decision in Test Cases

Washington, Nov. 13--By a. P.l--
Japanese cannot be naturalized In the
United States and cannot become citi.
zens Of this country, the supreme
court Of the United States decided 10.
day. In It's first construction OF federal
statutes bearing on the subject The
decision was the first delivered by
Justice Sutherland as n member Of
the court and was handed down In "a
case brought by Takao ozawa. who,
IA 1914. applied for citizenship In
Hawaii.
The ruling In expected 10 attract
wide attention not only In the United
states but abroad, notwithstanding
the failure Of the court TO make any
reference 20 It's diplomatic sig
nincance. The case has been long
pending In the supreme court and last
term when reached for argument dur.
ing the conference Oh limitation Of
armament and FAR eastern questions.
It's consideration was postponed at
the request OF the Department OF JUS
tlce.
No reference Ia 10 be found In the
decision TO the "gentlemen's" agree
ment under which Japanese immigra'
lion into the country bas been regu'
lated.
Two Cases Heard.
The government did not object to
the argument Of the case when IT was
reached at this term. and the court
advanced and heard 0t the same time
The case brought by TakuJi Bamash.
itn and Charles Hio Kono. against the
secretary OF state OF Washington. In
the hitter case the two Japanese had
heen naturalzed by superior court
of Washington prior TO 1906, the date
~ the present federal naturalization
statute, and Mt a time when It was
conceded section 2l69 OF the revised
statutes which restricts naturalization
10 free white persons" and those OF
African birth or descent, was in fun
force.
In the Ozawa case the court stated
that "there is not implied-either IN
The legislation or In our interpreted
ton OF it-any suggestion OF ina
viduai unworthiness or racial infer'
lority. These considerations are IN
no manner involved
II also referred TO the "cofnplimen.
tary" terms used in describing In the
napers presented TO the court. "the
culture and enlightenment OF the
Japanese people
VIII of Congress.
with such an estimate, the court
said. II had mo reason to disagree.
such matters, however, Justice snth-
erland stated, could not enter into the
decision Of the case.
we have no function In the mat
ter" he said, "other than to ascer-
tain the Will Of congress and declare
ttn The two questions decided by the
court were whether the general natur'
alization act Of June, 1906, was iilni..
ed by the provisions OF section 2los
of the statutes, authorizing the natur-
a,lzation Of free white persons ana
those OF African birth and descent ana
whether, II SO limited Japanese were
eligible TO naturalization. In an ex.
haustiye analysis Of the history OF
Tho legislation the court held that sec
ton 21e9 was in full force, ana thae
under il Japanese could not obtain
citizenship in this country.
The court stated that 'in all natuf'
alization acts from 1890 to 1905, the
privilege Of naturalization was CON
lined TO white persons with the addi-
tion. In 1870. OF those OF African ma
tlyity and descent, although the exact
wording Of the various statutes was
not always the same