The Northwest times. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1947-1955, 1947-04-22
RESTRICTION

/ hES1hiNliON
In at least two other respects,
the Canadian policy toward those
Of japanese ancestry before Pearl
Harbor differed from that followed
in the United States. In the Uni
ted States, informal and non-goP-
ernmental methods have been used
to restrict the areas Of employment
for Orientals. whereas in the Do
minion of Canada. informal restric-
tions have been supplemented by
formal government orders barring
their employment by government
contractors. Likewise, japanese are
excluded from the possessions Of
law and pharmacy and limited IN
fishing and numbering. On the 9TH
er hand. Canada permitted Japa-
nese immigration after all migra-
ton from Japan TO the United
states WAS prohibited by the Uni
ted States. In actually. although
this meant that only $50 japanese
could enter the Dominion yearly. it
still recognized friendly relations
between Canada and Japan.
Though the general patterns of
Occidental Oriental race relations in
the two countries. as expressed. in
terms of the japanese, are only
slightly divergent before Pearl Har-
Dor, the events of the last four
years have shown marked differen-
tiation in the status, treatment. and
assimilation of the Nisei and their
parents. In the areas of legal posi-
ten, disposal of property. educa-
ton, service in the armed forces,
resettlement. and general assimila-
ton, there has been marked con-
trast in the handling of the prob
lem.
LEGALITY OF EVACUATION
For example. in the United States,
the legality of both the evacuation
and the detention of Ameican- born
citizens of Japanese ancestry has
been subjected to question, and the
Supreme Court has avoided a de-
finite answer on the latter. In Ca
NADIA, the power of the British Co.
lumbia Security Commission and
the Department of Labour to keep
Nisei in relocation centres has been
generally unchallenged, and the
chief legal issue has been whether
those possessing Canadian citizen
ship can be deported. The Supreme
Court of Canada ruled on Febru-
airy 20, 1916. that the Dominion had
| such power. In the United States,
the issue of deportation is not so
sharply drawn, because the prece-
dures for re-registeration of inten-
! lions regarding repatriation and re-
nunciation CT such declarations are
more flexible.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Likewise, property rights of both
Issei and Nisei have been much bet
ter protected in the United States.
To be sure. substantial losses to the
evacuees have resulted from the
sale of land. houses. businesses, and
equipment at the time of evacua-
ton, from the sacrifice of the 1912
crops, from the exploitation of many
individuals, from deterioration Of
property, from difficulties with
storage facilities in war area. and
from unemployment in the reloca-
ton centers. The United States
government did not, however. sell
the property of the evacuees with
cut either their consent or at least
knowledge
In Canada, the Custodian of
Evacuee Property was granted per-
mission to sell property directly to
the buyer without the consent of
the owner or even any contact with
him. Farms of japanese in the
Frasier Valley were appropriated
with compensation. for the purpose
of postwar settlement of veterans
and, incidentally, with the removal
of a thousand Japanese families
from British Columbia. Early 1874
the Custodian began to sell house
hold furniture, cooking utensils
crockery. store stocks. canned goods
and personal possessions which
were then in storage. The proceeds
were credited to the former owners
In 1913, the Japanese took legal
action to block the sale of their
property. The case was argued in
April and May. 1914. and Judgment
was reserved. Property outside the
restricted area of British Columbia
could be held without discrimina-
ton.
The evacuees in both the In
terror Housing Centres treioca-
ton camps and work projects