The New York herald., 1922-11-14
j. s. SUPREME COURT
HOLDS NO JAPANESE
CAN BECOME CITIZEN
Decides Naturalization Is
Limited to Caucasians
and Africans.
INTERPRETS 1906 ACT
Rules Congress Did Not In
tend to Lift Restrictions
in Revised Statutes.
CONSIDERS TWO CASES
Denies One Man Is 'White,'
Calls Naturalization Of Two
Others Illegal.
CONSIDERS TWO CASES

court OF the Cnlteu states ueciueu TO-
day that Japanese cannot be natural
lied in the United States and cannot
become citizens of this country.
1t was the courts first constructure
subject, and the decision was the first
delivered by Justice Sutherland as
member Of the court. It was handed
down in case brought by Takao
Ozawa, who in 1914 applied for citi-
zenship in Hawaii. No reference was
made to the "gentlemen's agreement"
Under which Japanese immigration
into the country has been regulated.
The Government did not object to the
argument Of the case when 1t was
reached at this term. and the court ad-
vanced and heard at the same time the
case brought by Takuii Yamashita and
Charles Hio Kono, against the Secretary
Of State of Washington.
Naturalixed Illegally.
In the latter case the two Japanese
had been naturalized by a superior court
of Washington prior to 1906. the date Of
the present Federal naturalization
statute. and at time when 1t was con-
cedcd section 2169 of the Revised
Statutes, which restrict naturalization
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
legislation or In our Interpretation Of 1t
any suggestion of Individual unworthi-
ness or racial inferiority. These con-
siderations 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 saAd,
it had mo reason to disagree" Such
matters, however, Justice Sutherland
stated. could not enter into the decision
of the case.
I'VE have no function in the matter"
he said, "other than to ascertain the will
OF Congress and declare it."
Restricting section Upheld.
The two questions decided were
whether the general naturalization act
OF. June 90 1906, was limited by the
provisions of Section 2169 of the revised
statutes, authorizing the naturalization
OF free white persons" and those OF
African birth and descent, and whether,
II SO limited, Japanese were eligible to
naturalization. In an exhaustive analy-
sis of the history OF the legislation The
court held that Section 2169 was in
full force, and that under 1t Japanese
could not obtain citizenship in this
country.
The court stated that "in all OF the
naturalization acts from 1890 to 1906,
the privilege of naturalization was con-
fined to white persons, with the addi-
ton In 1870 of those of African na'iv-
ity and descent, although the exact
wording of the various statutes was not
always the same"
'If Congress in 19o6.' il added, ''de-
sired to alter a rule so well and so long
established II may be assumed that It's
purpose would have been definitely dis
closed and its legislation TO that end
put in unmistakable terms"
Interpret Intent of Congress.
Declaring that It is the duty ~ the
court ito give effect the Intent OF
Congress-" the opinion determine1 the
intent by giving the words their natu-
raj significance" Emphasizing the long
established policy of Congress to restrict
naturalization under Section 2169 the
court found II Uncomfortable thaI a
rule in force from the beginning f the
Government. "a part Of our history as
we'll as our law. welded Into the stiuc-
ture of our national policy by a CEN
tury OF legislative and administrative
acts and judicial decisions would have
been deprived OF its force In such T.
dubious and casual fashion"
Having sustained section 1859, the
court then proceeded to discuss whether
Japanese are free white persons with
In the meaning OF the statute. It was
the intention OF Congress. the court held,
ITO confer the privilege of citizenship
upon that class Of persons whom the
fathers knew as white. and TO deny IL
10 all who could not be so classified
only white ana Black Included.
TT is not enough II added. "to say
that the trainers tof the law) did not
have In mind the brown or yellow races
OF Asia. II Is necessary TO go further
and be able TO say that had these par
ticular races been suggested the lam
guage of the act would have been so
varied as to include them within It's
privileges. II IL be assumed
that the opinion Of the trainers was that
the only person who would fall outside
the designation whites were negroes
and Indians, this would go no further
than to demonstrate their lack of suffl-
cient information to enable them to
torcsee precisely who would be excluded
by that term In the subsequent admins
tration of the statute"
Having ascertained whom Congress
Intended to include "it follows" the
court added, ''as necessary corollary
that all others are TO be excluded"
In discussing the phrase free white
persons" as II appears In the statute,
Continued on Page Two.