Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1922-11-14
TEST CASE
IS AGAINST
0RIEN Ais
IN AMERICA

WASHINGTON. Nov. l3.-.Iapanese
can not be na.uIuiiIed In the United
states and can not become citizens of
this country, the supreme Court of the
nited States decided today In It's first
construction Of Federal bearing ON the
subject. The decision was the first DE-.
hvered by Justice Sutherland az a mem.
ber Of the court and was hansled down
In case brought by TakaO Ozawa, who
In 1914 applied for citizenship IN Tia
waii.
The ruling Il expected % attract wide
attention not only in the United States
but abroad. Notwithstanding the failure
of the court 10 make any reference 10
its diplomatic significance. The case has
been long pending In the Supreme Court
and last term when reached for argu.
mont during the conference on hmita.
ton of armament and Far Eastern ques
tiuns rs consideration was postponed
st tho request Of the Department OF
Justice No reference IL to be found In
the decision 10 the gentleman's' - agree.
mcnt under which Japanese immigra.
tion into the country has been regu.
lated
Other Case Heard.
The government did not object 10 the
argument of the case when IL was reach
I'd at this term, and the court advanced
and heard az the same time the case
brought hy Takuil Yamashita and Chas.
Hin Kno against the secretary OF the
a. la.aH
the two japanese had been naturallzed
hv superior court of Washington
prior 10 1905. the date OF the present
federal naturalization statute. and at
time when Il was conceded Section
2ise of the revised statutes which re-
stricts naturalization 20 free white
persons" and those % African birth'o-
descert was IN tuii force.
In 'he oziwa ease the court slated
that there Is not implied-either in the
{ legislation or Ia our Interpretation of
T it-any suggestion of Individual un.
worihIness or racial nferiorty These
considerations are iu nO manner involv'
"a u also referred to the "Compli.
mCntary terms used in descri rihing In
the papers presented Co the court the
culture and enlightenment % the JAP
auese people" With such an estimate,
Oh, court said 10 hnd emo reason TO
disagree such matters however, jus
tee sutherland stated. could not enter
into the decision of the case We have
ro function boz the matter" he slia.
"Uther than 90 ascertain the will %
Congress and declare it,
Two Questions Decided.
Tho two questions decided by tho
.nur' were whether the general natm .
aIut.on act ot June 20. 1905. was linn.
t.1 ly ,he provisions OF section 2lsa
~ thc revised statutes. authorizing the
naturalization Of free white persons
and those of African birth and dcN.
c,udlnt ana whether b 80 limited, Jap
| an,sr w,r. eligible On naturalization.
/ Iu au exhaustive ANALYSIS of the his
tors of the legislation the court held
I th., Section eIls was in fun force and
. thsf under 10 Japanese could not Oh
+ tlir citizenship n this country.
Th. court stated that IN all of the
naturalization agt, from 1890 10 1909
rr. r..tU.e. nf naturalization was con-
? fr,v q. whit. persons with the addi'
. ilr bon 1890 1f those ot African nativity
/ and dcs.cru. although the exact word
.rr ot fh, various statutes was not Az
I V... th. ~im,
.If Congress ln 1905" u added. de.
. sired OBJ alter rul, sO Well and 80 Ions
. established u mas Do, assumed that its
/ purpos. would have been definitely -
4 ulHsbeI AND U.s legislation 20 that end
puf r unm etlkahlc terms"
D.eu.rr that t Is the duty Of the
court ..n give effect 90 the intent OF
Carer the opinion proceeded TO de-
termm. OBJ. intent by giving the words
, fh,r rltHrul uiiiaucc. r.mphasiz
y INK ,r, furg established policy Of Cong
.... 4. restrict naturalization under
Section .I,' zoe court found u "incon
/ ,..,aH. thlt rule In force from the
4 hprirrul ., th, government. part OF
/ our b story a. we'll as our law, welded
4 into structure ~ our national policy by
\ century o. legislative and admins
.rrf.,. A.t- and judicial decisions would
3 l4le l,eu deprived ot is force In such
ID dubious and casual fashion,
Having sustained section 2i6s ths
.orr, ,fen proceeded 90 discuss whether
iaulr,sa ar. ,rec white persons with
in The meaning of the statute. II wss
fhe intention of Congress. the cour
4 hold .fn confer the privilege of citizen
shin uuor fhat class of persons whom
fho fathers knew ss white and to deny
- ta .u VINO Gould not be- so classified.
~ is not enough" u added ito saJ
fhst the trainers tOf the lawl did no
have In mind the brown OF yellow race
| Of Asia lf is necessary to 10 farther
\ and hs 1bIs tu say they had these parti
,pi,r races been suggested the Language
of IN, Act would have -,ccn 30 varies
as to includ, them within Its privileges
lf Q be assumed that the opinion q
the framers WAS that only persons wh,
would fan outside the designation whit
,sw,re negroes and indians. this woul'
20 no farther than 10 demonstrate theil
lack OF sufficient Information TO en-
anI them % forcSec precisely who woui.
! DE- excluded nv that term In the subsu
ourni administration of the statute"
! Having ascoriaincd who Congress IN
tended to include 1t follows" the cour
added. As necessary corallary tina
al others are TO be excluded"
The Yamashiia. .Kono case was decid
ell upon the authority u the oxawa q
clsion.