South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1922-11-14
OUTLAWS
NATURALIZATION
FOR JAPANESE
Suprem e Tribunal Decides
Nipponese Not Eligible
to Citizenship.
RULING IMPORTANT ONE
Declaration Expected to At
tract Attention Both Here
and Abroad.

WASHINGTON. Nov. 1s.-lBv A.
P)-Japanese cannot be naturaEzed
in the United States and become
citizens Of this country. the supreme
court Of the United States decided
today IN its first construction OF fed
eral statutes bearing on the subject.
The decision was the first delivered
by Justice Sutherland as member
OF the court and was handed down
in a case brought by Tok0a Ozawa
who in 1919 applied for citizenship
in Hawaii The ruling is expected
10 attract wide attention. not only
in the United States bur abroad
Notwithstanding the failure OF the
court 20 make any reference TO its
diplomatic significance. The case
has been long pending IN tne SUI
preme court and last term when
reached for argument during the
conference on limitation OF arma-
ment and Far Eastern questions. its
consideration was postponed at the
request Of the department of Justice
No reference is 20 be found I'M the
decision 10 the "gentlemen's agree
ment." under which japanese inn
migration into the country had been
regulated.
Other Cases Heard.
The government did nor object 20
the argument OF the case when it
was reached at this term and the
court advanced and heard at the
same time the case brought by Ia
kuja Yamashita and Charles Hio
kono. against the secretary OF state
OF Washington Tn the latter case
the two Japanese had been natur-
allied by a superior court OF Wash
ington prior TO 1905. the date OF
the present federal naturalization
statute. and at a time when 30 was
conceded that Section 2169 OF the
revised statutes. which restricts ma
turalization 10 free white persons
and those OF African birth or de-
scent. was in full force.
In the Ozawa case. tho court
stated that there is not implied
either in the legislation or in our
Interpretation OF it-any suggestion
or indivudal unworthiness or racial
inferiority. These considerations
are IN no manner involved" II also
referred 20 the complimentary"
terms used in describing in the pap
ers presented 10 the court the 'cul-
ture and enlightenment OF the Jap
anese people" with such estimate.
the court said. 10 had "no reason 20
disagree" such matters. however.
Justice Sutherland stated. would not
enter into the decision OF the case
Decide Two Question.
we have no function in the mat
ter" he said. other than 10 ascer-
tain the viii of congress and declare
IT,"
Two questions decided by the
court were whether the general nat
urallzation act OF June %, 1905 WAS
limited by the provisions of section
2169 Of the revised statutes. author
izing the naturalization 81 free
white persons" and htose OF African
birth and descent. and whether, II
so limited. japanese were eligible 90
naturalization. In an eNhaus' I've
analysis OF the history OF the legis-
lation. the court held that Section
21Gg was In full force and that un-
der il japanese could not obtain
citizenship in this country.
The court stated that IN all or
the naturalization acts" from 1870
70 1906, the privilege Of naturaliza-
ton was confined 20 white persons
with the addition in1S79 OF those
OF African nativity and descenD all
though the exact wording or the
various statutes was not always the
same.
Declaring that 70 Is the duty %
the court 10 give effect 20 the IN
tent OF congress. The opinion pro-
ceeded 20 determine the intent "b7
giving the words their natural Sig
nificance." Emphasizing the long
esta blished policy Of congress %
resrric5 naturallzat under sec
ton 216s. the court found % "incon-
ce!vabIe that rule IN force from
the beginning OF the government, a
part OF our history as well az our
law. welded into the structure OF our
national policy hy century Or leg
isla,ive and administrative acts and
judicial decisions would have been
deprived Of its force in such du-
bioue and casual fashion"