Norwich bulletin., 1922-11-14

Washington, Nov. IS.-JapaucSe can I not be aturaiized in the United States ! and cannot become citizens of this cOun- l try, the supreme court of the L. $. de- cided today. in its first construction of federal statutes bearing on the subject The decision was the first delivered by Jus;ic" Sutherland d m"mb-r ot ih" ] court and Was handed down in z case brought by TakaO UZaWa. who in 1914 applied for citizenship in Hawaii.
 The ruling IS expected to attract wide attention not only in the Cnited States, but abroad. The case long has been pending in the court and last term when reached for argument during the confer ence on limitation ut armament ani Far Eastern questions its consderation was postponed at the request of the de- partment of justice. No reference is 10 be found in the decision 10 "gentlcmens agreement under which Japanese immi- grafton into the country has been rcsu- lated.
 The government did not object 10 the argument of the case when il was reached at this term, and the court advanced and heard at the same time the case brought | by Takaji Yamashita and Charles Hio | kono. agaInst the secretary Of state al Washington. In the latter case the two Japanese had been naturalized by su- perior court of Washington prior to l 1906, the date of the present federal nat
 uralization statute, and at time when | il was conceded section 2l59 of the re- Yised statutes, which restricts naturali
 zation to free white persons and those
 of African birth or descent, was in full | force
 In the Ozawa case the court stated
 that there is not implied-either in the legislature or in our interpretation of II t-any suggestion of individual unworth- mess or radical inferiorIty. These con alterations are in no manner involved" It also referred to the complimentary terms used in describing in the papers presented to the court the culture and
 enlightenment of the Japanese people" " With such an estimate, the court said, it had mo reason to disagree" Such
 matters, however, Justice Sutherland
 stated, could not enter into the decision of
 the case. We have no function in the
 matter" he said, other than 10 ascertain
 the will of congress and declare it.
 The court stated that "in all of tho BaturalIzaiour acts from-l79O to 1906, the
 privilege of naturalization was confined
 to white persons (with the addition in
 1870 of those of African nativity and
 descent) although the exact working ot
 the various statutes was not always the
 same"
 If congress in 190G," it added, desired
 to alter a rule so well and So long es' tablished it may be assumed that iu purpose would have been definitely dis'
 closed and it's legislation to that enc
 put in unmiStakabie terms"
 The court discussed whether Japanes'
 are free white persons'' within tn, ! meaning of the statute and held it wa! the intention of congress, ito confer witt
 the privilege of citizenship upon tha class of persons whom the fathers knew as white and to deny it to all who coul, , not be so classified"
 Tt is not enough" it added, "to ga! that the framers (of the law) did no have in mind the brown or yellow race of Asia. IL is necessary to go IaI sr,. ' and be able to say that had these par ticudar races been suggested the lang uage of the act would have been S varied as to include them within it l privileges If it be assume, ] that the opinion of the framers was ,ha the only persons who would fall outsid the designation whites were negroe and Indians, this would go no farthe than to remonslrate their lack of sut ficient information to enable them to fore see precisely who would be excluded b. l. that term in the subsequent adminlstra ton of the statute.''
 ? Having ascertained whom congress in
 tended to include "it follows the cour
 added, "as a necessary corallary, tha
 all others are to be excluded"