Evening star., 1924-09-29
In TODAY'S SPOTLIGHT
BY PAUL ]. COLLINS.

permanent allegiance" emitting the
the living generation to acquire the
right of franchise so precious to ma
tives and Africans that 4s per cent
of them still actually exercise it.
The law describing the limitations
or qualified citizens of the United
States was adopted in 1890. revised
and extended in 1870. and revised as
to errors and omissions in 1875.
In the original act of 1890, the Ian
guage referred to free white" per-
sons; not because at that time there
were white slaves, but because in
the earlier times, when our fore
fathers came as immigrants, some
were too poor to advance their pas
sage money, and bonded themselves
TO work it out after arrival; they
were not free" until they had dis
charged that service. No Filipino is
a bonded servant nor a slave.
Is Filipino "white?" What con-
stitutes a white" man? That is the
question for the Supreme Court to
decide. 1t is not his complexion
alone, for there are many Spaniards
and other Mediterranean peoples who
are darker than many negroes. but
they are white" and no negro is
white" Many Chinese are lighter
than many Italians or Greeks. But,
Spaniards, Italians and Greeks be-
long to the white. or Caucasian race
Ethnologists recognize an early race
| upon the Mediterranean as dark
whites"
The term Caucasian" is popular
ly misunderstood. The Encyclopae-
dia Britannica eleventh edition.
says:
The ill-choSen name of Caucasian
invented by Blumenbach, in allusion
! to South Caucasian skull of special
ly typical proportions, and applied
| by him to the so-called white race is
still current; it brings into one race
peoples such as Arabs and Swedes,
although these are scarcely less diff
ferent than the Americans and Ma
lays who are set down as two dis
tinct races"
In the October term, 1922, the Su-
preme Court rendered an adverse
opinion in the case of Bhagat Singh
Thind, a Hindu. Two questions were
involved:
1. Is high caste Hindu OF full
Indian blood, white person
within the meaning of section 216s,
Revised Statutes?
2. Does the act of February 5,
1917 t39 Stat. l.. S75, section 81 dis
qualify from naturalization as citi-
Zens those Hindus, now barred by
that act, who had lawfully entered
! the United States prior to the pas
sage of said act?
In the decision ruling against the
Hindu, the court said concerning the
| law of 1890, now known as section
2l6S r. S.:
''The provision is not that any par
| ticular class of persons shall be ex-
cluded, but it is, in effect, that only
white persons shall be included with
in the privilege of the statute. The
intention was to confer the privilege
of citizenship upon that class of per-
sons whom the fathers knew as white
and to deny it to all who could not
be SO classified. 1t is not enough
to say that the trainers did not have
in mind the brown or yellow races of
| Asia. 1t is necessary to go farther
and be able to say that had these
particular races been suggested the
| language of the act would have been
so varied as to include them within
| its privileges"
| 1t is far beyond the province OF a
| layman to trace the genea1ogy Of the
Filipinos, with all the intermingling
through the centuries, OF the origi-
| nal natives with the Spanish con-