Evening star., 1948-01-20
Supreme Court Stops
Short Of Invaidating
Il
California Alien Laws
By the Assoeiated Press

day that California Disseminated
unconstitutionally against a citizen
of japanese ancestry when it seized
lands which his father, ineligible
for citizenship and, therefore, barred
from land ownership, had bought
In the sons name.
Without stating directly that 1t
was doing so, the court at least
came close to throwing out pro-
vision of the California law. This
provision sets up presumption in
such cases that the father acted
for his own benefit and was attempt
| ing to evade forfeiture of the land.
But the court refused to follow
four justices-members of the ma
jority in the 6-3 decision-who
wanted to 60 further. Those four
argued that the whole structure Of
the States alien land laws, forbid
ding ownership of agricultural
property by persons who can not
become citizens, should be thrown
out on the basis of the current case.
The four drew parallel between
the law and the racist theories of
Americas enemies In World War II.
Question May Arise Again.
The law was not specifically up
held yesterday, even in general, and
the question could come up again,
possibly in future proceeding in yes
terday's case.
The actually controlling voices
were those of Chief Justice Vinson,
who wrote the majority opinion,
and Justice Frankfurter. who went
along with him. Chief Justice VIM
son held that there was no need to
pass on the general constitutional
Iity of the alien land laws at this
time because the case could be de-
cided on the more restricted issue.
Those justices who wanted to go
further recorded their views in two
separate "concurrences," both prin-
cipally devoted to attacks on the
land law in general. Justice Murphy
wrote one of them with Justice
Rutledge joining him. Justice Black
wrote the other and Justice Douglas
agreed with his reasoning.
Dissenters Also Split.
The dissenters also split up.
Justice Reed wrote an opinion in
which Justice Burton joined. Justice
jackson wrote his own. Altogether
the court used some 10000 words to
put down its differences.
At issue was title to two small
,,aroo1e of lond 4, Gov, niooo To11ptu
which Kajiro Oyama bought in 1884
and 1887, having title put in the
name of Fred Oyama. The father
obtained appointment as guardian
for the boy, only years of age at
the time of the first purchase.
!, In 1914, California brought action
to seize the property. The State
relied largely on the land law pro-
vision setting up the presumption
that when an ineligible father buys
land in the name of son who may
legally own 1t. he actually does SO
for his own interest with intent to
eyade forfeiture to the State.
The trial court upheld that pre-
sumption and its application in the
Oyama case and the State Supreme
Court agreed.
Finds Rights Denied.
Yesterday, however, Chief Justice
Vinson wrote:
I'VE agree with petitioners : > .
contention, that the alien land law,
as applied in this case, deprives Fred
Oyan1a of the equal protection OF
CALIFORNIA; laws and of his priv
ileges as an American citizen. In
our view of the case, the State has
Disseminated against Fred Oyama;
the discrimination is based soley on
his parents country Of origin : ="
Justice Reed in the stronger OF the
two dissents said:
ANY law aimed at the prevention
of ownership by ineligible aliens
which did not penalize both the act
of owning and the act of attempting
to enjoy the rights of ownership
through a cloak would be defective
and readily avoided
Jackson's Arguments Mixed.
He took direct issue with the ma
| jority argument that racial burden
was placed on young Oyama. He
ccntenGed that the burden came not
| from his ancestry but from the fact
OF being the beneficiary OF a trans
fer which the law made question
=. able.
Justice Jackson presented mixed
arguments, saying he disliked the
result achieved by the majority but
was forced to agree with that
groups reasoning so long as the
land law itself stands up.
Justice Murphy in concurrence
called the statute outright racial
discrimination"