Evening star., 1948-01-25
Opponents of Covenants
Study Alien Lund RULING
Supreme Court Views in California
Case May Affect Real Estate Issue
By Gerard d. Reilly

Case May Affect Real Estate Issue
By Gerard d. Reilly
Opponents of restrictive racial covenants
have found considerable encouragement for
their view that such clauses violate the United
States Constitution in decision handed down
by the Supreme Court last week which casts
great doubt upon the validity of the alien land
law of California. The challenged statute was
one which prohibits aliens ineligible for
American citizenship to own, occupy, lease or
transfer agricultural land in that State It's
constitutionality had previously been upheld
in a series of cases which came to our highest
court in 1923.
Although majority of the justices refrained
from expressly holding that the alien land law
was unconstitutional. the opinion of the court,
written by Chief Justice Vinson deemed in
valid an application of the law which deprived
the American-born son land hence citizen)
OF his property because it was paid for by his
father, Japanese subject. The court rested
its decision upon an act of Congress passed
in the reconstruction period after the Civil
War which conferred upon all United States
citizens the same right enjoyed by white
citizens" of every State and Territory to in
herit, purchase, lease and sell property. 1t was
held that the power of Congress to pass such
an enactment was later vindicated by the
equal-protection clause Of the 14th amendment.
In the restrictive-covenant cases which were
argued the previous week, the most persuasive
argument advanced by the petitioners was that
the equa,-protection clause of the Constitution
guaranteed Negro citizens of the United States
the right to own and occupy property. Ac-
cordingly, it was urged upon the court that
not only were the States without jurisdiction
to pass laws which Disseminated against Ne
groes holding title to land, but that they also
could not permit their courts to entertain
suits by private citizens to enforce provisions
in conveyances designed to accomplish the
same result
The holding in the japanese case (Oyama VS..
California; gives broad support for the first
premise. The second point relating to the
enforceability Of restriction in conveyance
was not present. however, for the only issue
before the court arose out of the forfeiture
provisions in the California act which in this
instance had operated to GUST the minor son of
the title vested in him by the instruments
of sale.
Under the California land law the contro-
versy concerned a six-acre farm in Southern
California which was sold to Fred Oyama in
1884 when the latter was years old, his father
having paid the purchase price and later get
ting himself appointed as the boys guardian.
Eight years later the boy and his family were
forced to leave the Pacific Coast along with all
other persons of japanese descent While
they were in the custody of the War Reloca-
tion Authority the State brought an action to
declare an escheat forfeiture of the landO on
the ground that the real owner and occupant
of the land had been the father. The States
attorney relied upon a section OF the statute
which raises the presumption that deed to a
third person Is made with the intent OF evadtng
the statute whenever the consideration is paid
by an ineligible alien. The father failed to
testify to rebut the presumption and a judg-
ment rendered in favor of the State was
affirmed in the California appellate court.
Before the United States Supreme Court,
Oyamas counsel urged that the judgment
should be reversed on two principal grounds:
ID That the boy had been deprived OF equal
protection Of the laws as an American citizen
and (2) that the father had been denied equal
protection of the laws. 1t was the conclusion
of the Chief Justice that the constitutional
rights of the son had been invaded. In his
view and that Of MIR. Justice Frankfurter the
presumption Disseminated unfairly as between
citizen sons of ineligible fathers and otner
citizens who might be the beneficiaries of
paternal gift. Hence the order of the court be-
low could not be supported, which meant that
the younger Oyama had right to reclaim the
property.
This made it unnecessary to pass upon the
second question, which went to the very heart
of whether or not the validity OF the California
law could be sustained with regard to an alien
purchaser. Although four of the justices con-
Cured with the Chief Justice, they would
have preferred to have rested the decision on
the broader ground that the statute was wholly
invalid, asserting that an alien was entitled 10
equal protection Of the laws, irrespective OF
whether or not he was citizen. Opinions TO
this effect we're signed by Justices Murphy,
Rutledge Black and Douglas
Moreover the three dssenters, Justice Reed,
Burton and jackson, did not disagree with this
theory of the case They criticized the ma
jority opinion on the ground that II one enter
tanned the hypothesis that the statutory re-
striction was valid as applied to alien lana
holders. 1t would justify enforcement provisions
which discouraged its evasion by collusiVe
arrangements giving citizens color OF title.
In their totality therefore. the opinions OF
the various justices would seem to indicate
that in a case which presented the issue
souarely a majority of the present court would
probably hold the entire California anti
Japanese law invalid.
The concurring opirion of Justices Murphy
and Rutledge contains more startling In
timation, He said:
1.-THE proposition that the plenary power
of Congress over naturalization Is uninhib-
tied even by the constitutional prohibition
of racism is one that is open to grave
doubts in my mind. Racism has no 1ustin'
able place whatever in our way Of life
Should his view ultimately prevail 1t would
mean that all persons irrespective OF racial
origin would be eligible for naturalization