Sei Fujii v. State of California

Aрr. 17, In A. No. 21149. Bank. [L. 1952.] FUJII, Appellant, CALIFORNIA, SEI v. THE STATE OF

Respondent. Wright Marion Kupfer J. and Owen E. for Appellant. L. Fred Wirin, A. Okrand Maslow, and Will as Amici Appellant. on behalf of Curiae Brown, Attorneys

Fred N. Hawser and Edmund G. Gen- eral, Mattoon, Attorney Everett General, W. Assistant Hassler, Deputy Attorney John F. General, Respondent. Ralph Bartlett, Lindstrom and Lindstrom & G. as Amici Respondent. on behalf of Curiae Plaintiff, an GIBSON, C. alien who is ineli J.

gible citizenship under laws, appeals our naturalization judgment declaring purchased by certain land him in 1948 had treaty escheated state. There is no be country Japan tween this confers plaintiff right land, question to own presented and the sole on appeal validity is the of the California Alien Land Law.1

United Nations Charter It is first contended that the land law has been invalidated superseded provisions of the United Nations Char- pledging ter the member promote nations to the observance rights of human and fundamental freedoms without distinc- tion as to race. Plaintiff preamble relies on statements in the and in articles 55 and 56 of the charter.2 pertinent portions (1 Deering’s Laws, 1The of the alien law Gen. 261), in Act as amended are as follows: 1‘ eligible citizenship 1. All aliens § under laws the of the United may acquire, possess, enjoy, use, cultivate, occupy, transfer, States trans property, any therein, state, mit and inherit real or interest in this and part thereof, have in in whole or the beneficial use in the same manner States, except and to the same extent as citizens of United the as other provided by wise the laws this of state. “ 2. All § aliens other than in those mentioned section one of this may acquire, possess, enjoy, use, cultivate, occupy act and transfer real property, in any therein, state, or interest in this and have in whole or part thereof, extent, the beneficial use the manner and to the purposes prescribed by any treaty existing country and for the now between government the of the United States and the nation or of which subject, such alien is a citizen or and not . . otherwise. . “ Any property acquired 7. § real hereafter fee in violation of provisions by any the of act alien mentioned in Section 2 of this act, acquiring, to, . . . shall escheat as of the of such date and become property and remain the of the California. state of ...” preamble peoples 2The recites that “We the of the United Nations rights determined ... to reaffirm faith fundamental human . . . employ machinery and for these еnds ... international for promotion peoples; of the economic and social advancement of all have accomplish resolved to combine our efforts to these aims.” Purposes Article states that “The of the United Nations are: co-operation solving . . . 3. To achieve international international problems economic, social, cultural, character, of an or humanitarian promoting encouraging respect rights and in and for human and for fed our treaty, is and a the charter disputed that is not au made under provides that treaties Constitution eral supreme law of the part are thority of the United States thereby. are hound every state judges in land and however, does not VI) treaty, A (U.S. Const., art. inconsistent automatically supersede local laws which self-executing. In treaty provisions are it unless the with is treaty A “to Justice Marshall: the words Chief an act of justice equivalent regarded in as courts aid itself, without operates it Legislature, whenever terms of when the any legislative provision. But parties either of the import stipulation a contract—when treaty act, addresses engages particular perform judicial department; and political, itself to the contract, before can become Legislature must execute the ’! (Foster (1829), 2 Pet. Neilson v. rule for court. (U.S.) 415].) 253, 314 L.Ed. treaty self-executing determining In whether signatory mani parties courts look to the intent and, if the language instrument, instru fested to the uncertain, ment recourse be had circumstances Neilson, surrounding (See Foster 2 Pet. its execution. (U.S.) 253, ; United v. Perche 310-316 States 415] race, sex, for without distinction as to lan- fundamental freedoms all guage, religion ...” chapter appear IX, entitled "International Articles and 56 provides: Cooperation.” and Article "With a Economic Social stability well-being and view are on creation conditions necessary peaceful among friendly for and relations nations based respect rights principle equal for and self-determination promote: peoples, shall the United Nations higher employment, living, full a. standards of and conditions of progress development; economic and social and economic, social, health, b. solutions of and international related problems; cooperation; cultural educational international rights respect for, of, c. universal and observance human and fundа- race, sex, language, mental freedoms or all without distinction as religion.” joint provides: pledge "All Article Members themselves to take separate cooperation Organization action in with the for the achieve- purposes in ment of the set forth Article 55.” Neilson, treaty provisions 3In Foster v. certain were held not to be self-executing English on basis of construction of the version Subsequently, version, (United Spanish document. the the consideration provisions question self-executing. were held to be Percheman, (U.S.) 604].) has States v. 7 Pet. 51 L.Ed. Chief [8 Justice language case, however, quoted Marshall’s in the Poster with been approval (United uscher, 407, in later cases. States Ra 119 v. U.S. 234, 239-240, 425]; [7 417-418 States, S.Ct. 30 L.Ed. Valentine United v. 5, 100, 103, 5].) 299 U.S. 10 [57 S.Ct. 81 L.Ed. 722

man, (U.S.) 7 51, 604]; Meehan, Pet. 58-59 L.Ed. Jones v. [8 5-10, 175 1, 10-23 1, U.S. 44 ; Heong S.Ct. L.Ed. Chew [20 49] v. United 112 States, 539-543 536, U.S. S.Ct. 256- 255, [5 258, 28 L.Ed. ; States, Cook v. 288 102, United U.S. 770] 119 305, 311, ; S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. Nielsen v. John [53 641] cf. son, 279 47, U.S. 52 224, S.Ct. 73 607].) L.Ed. 223, [49 In order for treaty provision operative to be with out the aid of legislation implementing to and have the force and effect of a statute, appear must the framers treaty prescribe intended that, a rule standing alone, would be enforceable in (See Money the courts. Head Cases [Edye v. 112 Robertson], 247, 254, 598 580, U.S. S.Ct. [5 28 L.Ed. 798]; Whitney Robertson, 190, v. 124 U.S. 194 456, S.Ct. 458, 31 386]; States, [8 L.Ed. v. United Cook 288 102, U.S. 311, ; 118-119 S.Ct. L.Ed. 305, [53 641] Valentine v. United States, 103, S.Ct. 5]; L.Ed. Corp. Bacardi Domenech, 311 U.S. 219, 225, 98].) preamble It clear that provisions is and 1 of the charter which are claimed to be in of article con They self-executing. flict with the alien land law are not objectives general purposes and the United Nations Organization purport impose legal obligations do and not rights on the individual member nations or to create private persons. equally none of is clear that provisions by plaintiff self-executing. relied on other Arti promote cle declares that the United Nations “shall . .. respect for, rights universal and of, observance human fundamental freedoms for race, all without distinction as to ’’ sex, language, religion, and in article member “pledge joint separate nations themselves take action cooperation Organization with the for the achievement Although purposes set forth Article 55.” obligated cooperate member have to. nations themselves with organization promoting respect for, international of, rights, plain observance human it is it was con templated legislative that future action the several na required accomplish tions would be objec the declared tives, nothing and there provisions indicate thаt these were intended to become rules of law the courts country upon the ratification of the charter. language used in articles type 56 is

customarily employed in treaties which have been held to self-executing rights and to create and duties in indi-

723 Allen, in v. treaty involved Clark example, For viduals. 1633, 1434, 91 L.Ed. 1431, 503, S.Ct. 507-508 331 U.S. [67 rights a one national of relating to 953], 170 A.L.R. country, in another property located inherit real country to shall be allowed national provided that "such specifically property . sell the . . years in which to three term of discriminatory any free from proceeds ...” withdraw the 483, Lynham, v. 100 U.S. also, Hauenstein (See, taxation. Johnson, U.S. 628].) In Nielsen v. 279 L.Ed. 488-490 [25 as 607], provision treated 223, L.Ed. 47, 50 S.Ct. 73 [49 each self-executing equally definite. There of the being duties, parties agreed higher "no or signatory that other any by levied” one coun kind, or taxes of shall be charges, try property by therefrom on removal citizens or be in country payable State, other "than are shall each subject or such same, when removed citizen respectively.” provisions In treaty other instances they implementing legislation were enforced without where prescribed governing rights obliga detail the rules in provided specifically tions individuals that citizens rights one nation shall have the same in the other while country enjoyed by (Ba country’s as are own that citizens. Corp. Domenech, cardi v. 150, 4311 U.S. 158-159 S.Ct. [61 219, 224, 85 ; 332, L.Ed. v. Seattle, Asakura 265 U.S. 98] 515, ; S.Ct. L.Ed. 516, see Maiorano [44 1041] v. Co., Baltimore & 268, Ohio R.R. 213 U.S. 273-274 S.Ct. [29 424, 425-426, ; Heong States, 53 L.Ed. Chew v. United 792] 255, U.S. 541-542 770].) S.Ct. significant to note when the framers of char- that provisions make certain effective without ter intended they legislation employed language which implementing aid of and manifests that intention. For ex- clear and definite provides: enjoy Organization "The article shall ample, territory legal capacity such of each its Members necessary for the exercise of functions and as its purposes.” provides: Article 105 "1. the fulfillment its enjoy territory in the its Organization The shall of each of privileges necessary as such immunities are Members purposes. Representatives of its 2. fulfillment however, noted, treaty in the 4It involved the Bacardi should be specific provision, court, discussed case also contained its terms “shall tional interna have the force law those in which States character, they possess as soon as are ratified treaties (311 organs.” 150, 159 their constitutional 85 L.Ed. 98].) Organiza- of the United and officials Members Nations similarly enjoy privilеges such and immunities tion shall necessary independent for the exercise of their functions City Organization.” In v. connection with the Curran York, 206, 212, New these articles were treated N.Y.S.2d of as being self-executory. (See, also, Balfour, Guthrie & Co. States, 831, 832.) United 90 F.Supp. provisions pledging cooperation pro- the charter moting of observance fundamental freedoms lack the man- datory quality and definiteness which would indicate an in- justiciable rights tent create persons in private immedi- ately upon they Instead, promise ratification. are framed as a by of future Secretary action the member nations. of State Stettinius, delegation chairman of the United at States the drafted, San Francisco Conference the charter was where report in his stated to President Truman that article “pledges cooperate organ- the various countries to with the by joint separate ization and action in the of achievement objectives organization the economic and social of the with- infringing right out their to order their national af- according fairs own ability, to their way, best in their own and in political accordance with their own and economic processes.” (Report institutions and on President the of Results the San Francisco Conference the Chairman of the United States Delegation, Secretary State, De- partment of State 2349, Publication Conference Series p. Hearings 115; before the Foreign Committee on Relations, July United States Senate 9-13, 1945, 106.) p. [Revised] repeatedly expressed by The same view was delegates of other attending drafting nations the debates of article 56. (See Doc. II/3/40, May 30, U.N.C.I.O. 1-3; pp. 684, II/3/38, May 29, U.N.C.I.O. Doc. Kelsen, p. 4; The Law of United [1950], Nations 9, pp. footnote 100- 102.) enlightened The objectives humane and Na the United are, course, tions Charter respectful entitled to consid by the legislatures eration and every courts member nation, since expresses that document the universal desire thinking peace men for equality and for rights opportunities. represents The charter a moral commitment of foremost importance, permit and we spirit must not pledge compromised of our disparaged or in either our foreign domestic or affairs. satisfied, however, We are charter provisions relied on plaintiff were we legislation, and existing supersede domestic intended to Alien Land they operate to invalidate hold that cannot Law. the Federal Constitution Amendment

Fourteenth Alien Land Law vio is Avhetherthe question next of the equal protection clauses process and lates the due first, asserts, Plaintiff Fourteenth Amendment. eligibility on basis of aliens

statutory classification of discrimina arbitrary for the reason that citizenship is no reasonable relation alien bears against tion of the welfare state. ship promotion safety distinguishes not between He the land law points out that aliens, classes of aliens, but between citizens and rights citizenship given all the persons eligible to they of whether desire intend to be regardless citizens the effect of Secondly, he contends that come naturalized. statute, purpose, as to discriminate well its solely and that such discrimina on basis of race arbitrary tion is and unreasonable. constitutionality of the Alien Land Law

The issue of again presented we court,5 are met at thus a re-examination the outset with the contention that question Su is foreclosed decisions United States (Porter preme upholding in 1923 Court rendered statute. Webb, ; 21, 225 68 v. 263 S.Ct. L.Ed U.S. [44 278] field ; 68 O’Brien, 112, Webb v. 263 L.Ed. U.S. 313 S.Ct. [44 318] Webb, 115, ; Frick 326 68 L.Ed. v. 263 S.Ct. U.S. 323] [44 Thompson, 15, 263 68 Terrace v. U.S. 197 S.Ct. L.Ed. [44 cf. also, (1925), Cockrill v. 268 U.S. 258 See, 255]. California objection 490, 944].) one, 69 L.Ed This is a S.Ct. serious [45 rejected only and we have it after most careful delib eration. Webb, 1946, v. applied In court the rule of Porterfield 21, 278], 263 225 U.S. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. the case of [44 Oyama, 794], v. People 29 164 P.2d in the Cal.2d [173 following year, Com., in Takahashi v. Fish & Game 30 Cal.2d 5See, example, (1924), for v. Webb 195 P. [231 Cal. 71 Porterfield 554]; (1927), 718]; Dudley Mott v. Cline 200 v. Cal. 434 P. [253 (1930), (1927), 57]; People Dowell 201 Cal. v. Osaki 376 P. [257 Cal.App. 1025]; People (1932), 209 Cal. 169 v. Morrison 125 P. [286 (1945), (hearing denied) ; 282 v. Fross 26 Cal. 800] P.2d [13 Alfafara 14]; People Oyama (1946), 2d 164 [159 358 P.2d v. 29 Cal.2d [173 794]; (1947), P.2d Takahashi Fish 30 Cal.2d 719 of commercial v. Game Com. cf. & (involving legislation prohibiting [185 P.2d 805] issuance fishing ineligible citizenship). licenses to aliens

726 upheld legislation 805], 719 it other P.2d classi [185 citizenship. eligibility fied Both aliens on the basis judgments (Oyama were reversed certiorari 1948. California, 633 92 249]; U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. [68 Com., Takahashi v. Fish & Game U.S. S.Ct. 1478].) and other These recent decisions of the Supreme United Court, States which we shall discuss later, apply concepts rights state and under the Fourteenth opinions Amendment that at variance with the in the earlier eases. holding

The of the United States Court in the Oyama presumption case was that a declared section of the rights alien law6 violated the citizens who ineligible were children of aliens discriminated and. solely ancestry. such citizens their parents’ because of general court was also provisions claim confronted with the that equal the land law denied protection laws, significant of the it is that the conten- tion majority opinion was not discussed although it easily could disposed have been citation of Porterfield v. Webb had question there been no in the minds respect members of the court with correctness that rejecting decision. In an argument presumption that necessary prevent prohibition against evasion ownership by ineligible aliens, of land speaking the court through reasoning said, presup- Chief Justice Vinson “This poses validity premise prohibition, which we unnecessary deem it inappropriate and therefore to re-examine assuming, purposes argument only, in this case. But prohibition that the constitutional, basic is not fol- does low there no constitutional limit to the means which (332 p. used to it.” enforce U.S. at 68 S.Ct. p. 275; see, also, majority opinion.) at footnote 27 to Four justices ground concurred on broad result that the provisions basic of the alien land law violate the Fourteenth Amendment, stating previous upholding decisions statute should be overruled. Com., Takahashi v. Fish & Game gives 92 L.Ed. 1478], further indication that the Porter-

field longer regarded decision no In to be as settled law. provides prima presumption 6This section for a facie of intent to evade upon proof conveyance realty escheat for the consideration agreed paid paid by ineligible was or to be an alien and that title eligible taken the name a citizen alien. denied com- statute which case a California the Takahashi citizenship” for fishing to “aliens mercial licenses equal pro- it violated the ground on was invalidated power immigration with federal- and conflicted tection clause living earning a ineligible aliens from prevented it when analogy arguments relying by on In answer to fishermen. “As- eases, similar the court said: v. Webb and Porterfield they validity cases, think suming continued those we controlling here.” any (334 event be U.S. at could not 1144.) in- p. 422, p. at There was thus another S.Ct. might regard timation that the court not those decisions as authority if binding constitutionality the alien land squarely again presented laws for were determination. precluded re-examining we not from Our view that question Kenji the recent case Namba reinforced (1949), 569], v. McCourt 185 Ore. 579 P.2d where [204 Supreme Oregon, holding Court of invalid the alien land law state, opinions of that reviewed the of the United States Court and concluded that Porterfield by Oyama eases disapproved related had been v. Cali fornia, 332 249], U.S. S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. and Taka [68 hashi v. Fish Com., & Game U.S. S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1478]. appears thus .that the decisions of the United States

Supreme Court do invite, not but rather further foreclose, consideration of the constitutional issues have been raised. involving leading alien legislation, ease Terrace

The 15, 68 255], up- Thompson, any Washington prohibiting landholding by law alien held file a declaration intention to become who had failed While that statute not mention American citizen. did naturalization, court eligibility noted that class necessarily all nondeclarant aliens included in- composed of concluded that discrimination between eligible aliens, ineligibility citizenship did not vio- on aliens the basis following equal protection clause. The reasons were late (1) “Two classes of aliens support decision: given laws,—those inevitably from the naturalization who result rule become es- may and those who citizens. Congress itself, fur- subject, and of tablished on for classification in a law nishes a reasonable basis ownership of land withholding privilege ...” not a “It obvious that one who is citizen cannot (2) 728 effectually power

become one lacks an and the' to in, interest of, state, lacking, for and, work the welfare so the state the may rightfully right him deny to own and lease real (3) “If one incapable estate within its boundaries.” may citizenship estate, lease or own real it within the every possibility realm of foot of land within state might pass ownership possession of noncitizens.” “quality allegiance It was also Said that and of those occupy who and use the farm within its own, lands borders highest importance safety are and matters affect the and power (263 pp. 220-221, at State itself.” U.S. 44 20.) p. S.Ct. at Webb, v. 263 225 21, U.S. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. [44 Porterfield upholding constitutionality

278], of the California alien day law, the same Thompson decided Terrace v. by and was held to be controlled The court, decision. reasoned opinion, prohibited a short as follows: The class Washington under the law consisted aliens; nondeclarant necessarily ineligible included all aliens citizenship, for prohibited by class which was defined act; California and the failure of California to extend prohibition to eligible aliens failed to who declare their to intent become arbitrary not be citizens could said to be or unreasonable. summary foregoing grounds covers all has upheld by our alien land law heretofore been the United Supreme ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Court. we see, States shall Webb, As v. Porterfield 225 68 21, 278], 263 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. greatly has been [44 subsequent decisions, weakened by settled that the authority of an older effectively case be as dissipated later trend decision as a statement expressly over- ruling example, (See, it. for Olsen Nebraska, v. 313 U.S. 862, 236, 864-865, 244-246 S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. 133 [61 1500].) principles A.L.R. Constitutional declared in recent years reasoning are irreconcilable with the of the earlier cases and lead us to conclude that the statute violates protection clause equal Fourteenth Amendment. question can no rights

There be acquire, that the dispose enjoy, property own and “among the civil rights protected intended to be from discriminatory state Amendment,” action the Fourteenth power regulate the use ownership of land must subject exercised the controls of that limitations (Shelley amendment. Kraemer, v. S.Ct. 836, 841, L.Ed. 441]; A.L.R.2d see Terrace 15, 19, Thompson, supra, 263 U.S. 255].) treaty, all act, in the absence of withholds

The California ineligible property who are interests in real from aliens Na laws, and the citizenship under federal naturalization tionality right limits the of naturalization to certain Code designated excluding Japanese and a few nationalities, races or (8 groups comparatively racial small in numbers. U.S.C.A. 703.) 1924,7 Congress, however, prior at least § permit citizenship saw fit to aliens who are despite to enter and reside fact United States they naturalized, that could not become and such aliens protection entitled to the same arbitrary as from discrimination. citizens (Yi Hopkins, Wo v. 118 356 U.S. S.Ct. [6 ck 1064, 30 220]; L.Ed. v. Raich, Truax 239 U.S. 33 S.Ct. [36 7, 131].) 60 L.Ed. Accordingly, be the statute cannot sus tained unless it can be shown interest re public that quires rights acquire enjoy limitation of their in terests in property. real persons

By the land law classifies on the basis terms its citzenship, in fact on the eligibility but classifies nationality. necessary consequence or is a of race This basis express qualifications use of racial found in the Although Japanese singled code. are not out federal discriminatory law, for treatment the land name to federal reference therein standards naturalization which Japanese operates automatically bring exclude about that recognized Oyama California, supra, result.8 This was v. 633, 640, 269, 272, 274, 249], 644 92 332 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. [68 speaking for majority where Chief Justice Vinson, applied alien court, concluded land law as against Japanese-American citizen, ease discriminated “only basis for . that the this discrimination . . was the fact Russian, that his father was American, English.” Chinese, ground It was on this that the cоurt presumption invalidated a contained the California land stating “only law, exceptional the most circumstances excuse can discrimination on that basis the face of the practical purposes, immigration 7For all aliens was halted (8 213c.) Exclusion Act 1924. § U.S.C.A. 8Compare legislative deprive Negroes devices to of franchise without express States, of race. v. United mention See Guinn 238 U.S. 347 926, 1340]; Wilson, 59 S.Ct. L.Ed. Lane v. [35 307 U.S. 268 S.Ct. [59 872, 1281]; Allwright, 757, 83 L.Ed. Smith v. 321 U.S. 649 S.Ct. [64 987, 88 151 L.Ed. A.L.R. 1110].

730 equal protection (332 p. clause.” at 646, U.S. 68 S.Ct. at p. 275.)

Subsequent Oyama ease the Court con- demned the enforcement state courts of covenants which occupancy restrict of real property on the basis of race or color, expressly pointed and it out that incorporat- statutes ing such restrictions would violate the Fourteenth Amend- (Shelley ment. v. Kraemer, 334 111, U.S. 836, S.Ct. [68 841, 92 1161, L.Ed. 441].) 3 A.L.R.2d persons While the discriminated Shelley Oyama in the cases were citizens, it clear, as we have seen, that the Fourteenth protects Amendment aliens as well arbitrary as citizens (Yick discrimination. Hopkins, Wo v. 118 U.S. 356 S.Ct. [6 1064, 30 ; L.Ed. Truax v. Raich, 239 33 7, S.Ct. 220] [36 131].) legislative general rule a As a classification will be ¡! if it is reasonable and relation sustained h^.a^substantial legitimate object]"and' any reasonably the existence of 'to a uphold legislation sufficient to facts [conceivable (Lelande Lowery, v. presumed. 224, . Cal.2d 23 ;¡will ; A.L.R. P.2d Sacramento M. U. Dist. 1109] 2 [157 Co., 20 529].) Gas & Elec. Cal.2d P.2d [128 Pacific however, here, classification on Where, race, “immediately suspect” basis of it is and will be sub rigid jected scrutiny.” (Korematsu “to the most v. United States, 193, 194, 194].) 323 U.S. 89 L.Ed. Sharp, 17], In Perez v. Cal.2d P.2d Justice Traynor pointed out that “Race restrictions must be viewed great suspicion, with for the Fourteenth Amendment ‘was adopted prevent legislation designed state to discriminate (Railway Corsi, on the basis of race or Mail Ass’n color’ v. 326 88, 2072]; U.S. 94 89 v. 1483, S.Ct. Williams [65 International Brotherhood Boilermakers, 586, 27 Cal.2d of 903]) expresses policy P.2d and ‘a definite national [165 ’ against (James discrimination color. because race or Marinship Corp., v. 721, 329, 25 Cal.2d P.2d [155 Any 900].) legislation discriminating against A.L.R. persons on the basis of race or color has to the overcome strong presumption policy.” inherent in this constitutional (See Shelley Kraemer, also 836, S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 441], pur- 3 A.L.R.2d for discussion of pose regard Fourteenth Amendment with to race and color.) import

The clear quoted of the statements above from presump- that the is Oyama Perez and cases ICorematsu, the entirely if scope, in not narrowed validity greatly is tion of legislation here, shown, as that is dispelled, whenever of their persons because certain actually discriminates latest the established nationality. view, This now race or irrecon- Court, is the United States declarations in by that court previously taken approach cilable with the rea- determining there was in whether the Porterfield case sought accom- purposes the be sonable relation between in adopted, the California the classification and plished, Law. Alien Land over- in the Porterfield case Butler Justice opinion of The dis- resulted racial classification fact

looked validity of Cali- it did consider crimination, present rule that restrictive light of the law fornia rights group a racial must curtail which measures above, noted that decision As carefully scrutinized. Thomp- reasoning authority of Terrace v. upon the based 255], 68 L.Ed. 263 U.S. supra, son, on classifying aliens the basis of whether a statute involved filed a declaration of intention to become they had or not rejected a contention that such court there citizens. by point- because of race or color discriminated classification of the statute all nondeclarant under the terms ing out that color, prohibited race or were from own- aliens, of whatever obviously inapplicable is ing The statement land. entirely Porterfield case silent statute, and the is

California implicit question whether race discrimination on the adopted California. Accord- method of classification care reasons ingly, us to examine with it devolves in support alien heretofore been advanced which have legislation. arguments popularly advanced persistent most One validity provisions restrictive support in the merely is that the statute carries into Law Land Alien Congress regula- policy of legislative effect may law, who by federal established tions furnish a reasonable basis themselves citizens, not become evading every has the effect of This view for classification. statute, for it concedes on legal attack other discriminatory blame and shifts the to the fed- state law plenary was enacted under the law which immigration eral immigration and naturalization Congress over free power of the Fourteenth Amendment. The inhibitions from argument conveys suggestion also that the courts need seriously not particular concern with themselves denial of may rights, Congress сhange fundamental since time due immigration its policy so as to render alien land law a dead letter. fallacy The in the contention that the California statute

merely congressional policy carries appears into effect from a cursory totally types examination of the two distinct legislation. Congress has enacted a naturalization not law, property Congress regulates law. admission to citizen ship, ownership Congress of property. has de neither clared nor assumed citizenship landowners that to danger are a state; Legislature our has so declared or assumed. purposes The assumptions and factual of the alien originate land law all legislation, our own without direction or suggestion even Congress. It be noted in passing only minority a small of states have such alien legislation, although immigration regulations the same apply throughout (See the country. Vernier, American Family Laws [1938], 304-346; McGovney, Anti-Japanese The Land Laws [1947], 21-24.) pp. Cal.L.Rev. at federal view that naturalization are classifications automatically proper purposes legislation was rejected in specifically Com., Takahashi Fish & Game 410, 420 1138, 1143, 1478], pointed there Black, speaking majority out Justice for a Congress court, poiver of the put groups racial special immigra purposes regulating classifications for wholly very distinguish tion and broad naturalization power able from the of the state to discriminate between groups determining such have its residents shall right acquire, enjoy, own, dispose property. if Accordingly, system state wishes to borrow a federal grouping, justify adopted its must classification setting, new and the state's use of the must stand distinction or fall on own its merits. purpose alien law asserts

The state who ownership persons the use land to restrict have an interest in the welfare of the state. loyal later, objective see this is not the true As we shall rela- but even if it were there is no reasonable legislation, purpose that asserted and the classification tionship between eligibility eligibility citizenship. on the basis Just automatically engender loyalty citizenship does not ineligibility of country, in the so create an interest welfare of interest loyalty a lack of or the absence does establish not country. a in the welfare of Nor does it follow that person in economic fortune of has no stake and social right merely a beсause the federal law denies him the citizens, to naturalization. His American-born children are having and, interest, his here, home he has natural made eligible alien, strength with that of an in identical security country in which for living makes a his he family and educates his children. determining

In propriety of a on the classification ineligibility citizenship, of to basis consideration must neces sarily given requirements be nature of the for natural Nationality ization. The Code sets forth a number con of in qualifications; example, ditions addition to racial for ineligible person speak a citizen who become cannot English, government or does not believe in our form of or property rights, in of has been convicted desertion from the armed forces or evasion during war, of the draft or has in prescribed time, not resided the United States for a or is good (See not moral character. seq.) U.S.C.A. et § may be requirements that some of these for naturaliza tion relationship bear reasonable purpose asserted singling persons out a class loyal who are not to this country or requirements, interested its welfare. Other however, and particularly provisions regarding race, obvi ously do constitute an accurate or reasonable method for distinguishing disloyal loyal between persons. Like wise, might even if it be justi assumed that there be some fication for a denying rights property statute to aliens citizens, who can displayed become but who have not suffi country cient interest in this naturalization, seek there justification can be no operates a classification which property to withhold rights from aliens, some not because they anything any they have done hold, or beliefs but solely they because and not French or Italian. only disqualification urged against Fujii Sei is that but it race, said him as it was said Kumezo Kawato, “Nothing in this record indicates, and we cannot assume, that he any to America for purpose came different from prompted millions others seek our shores—a chance to make his home and work a free coun try, governed by just laws, which promise equal protection Kawato, (Ex 317 U.S. parte by them.”

to all who abide 58].) L.Ed. 115, 117, 87 S.Ct. [63 Terrace v. given for the decision in grounds One 15, 20, 197, 220-221 S.Ct. Thompson, 263 U.S. possibility” that “realm of 255], was it was within ownership might pass to in a state property real all the citizenship in the ab persons possession justification there legislation. Whatever of restrictive sence any bаsis for fear of this sort may have been for lacking. Changes in entirely is now apprehension such immigration the Terrace and laws since naturalization together factors, other have re decisions, 'with Porterfield vanishing point. (See concur possibility to the duced that Oyama Murphy, California, ring opinion of Justice pp. 269 at 92 L.Ed. 285-286, 667-669 only decided, persons were white 249].) When those eases eligible and descent were persons nativity of African and 18 (Naturalization 1790; Act of to become citizens. Stats. proceeding present begun, At the was [1875].) 318 time had 1949, pro in the naturalization laws been amended to following may citizens: “descendants vide that become hemisphere” (8 indigenous of races to the western U.S.C.A. “any person [1940]); ch. 876 703; 54 Stats. not a § regardless or citizen, age, who has served hereafter serves military honorably in the or naval forces of the United (8 1001; [1942]); 56 182 U.S.C.A. Stats. Chinese States” § persons persons (8 § 703; descent and of Chinese U.S.C.A. 57 Filipinos persons indigenous [1943]); 601 and to Stats. India (8 § 703; [1946]). Thus, U.S.C.A. Stats. operate only against the California alien land law could Japanese of residents of a small number few other races, Polynesians. According figures, such as to census Japanese alien Im population 33,569. of California was migration ineligible citizenship by persons was halted (43 213c), the Exclusion of 1924 Act Stats. U.S.C.A. § necessarily Japanese hence in 1949 aliens in the state were materially years, of mature and their number must have been changes death, residence, deporta less than in 1940 due to tion and other causes. if, (263 indicated in the Terrace case

Moreover, pp. may 18-20), properly at a state 217-221, pp. at owning land, the method of classifica- all noncitizens bar designed bring re- was not about that here involved tion possession leaves in and con- The California statute sult. many eligible aliens who never of land have declared trol resi- their to seek naturalization who have been intention long becoming a time for so without declarants dents purpose on part infer a settled their never be- one come citizens.

In foregoing discussion, assumed, have we as asserted attorney general, purpose of the alien land ownership law is to limit the use and of land to who those loyal country have interest the welfare^ generally recognized, of this state. It is however, that purpose legislation of the real was the elimination com farming petition alien California land. Thе argument presented adoption in favor of of the in the act pamphlet 1920 voters “primary pur stated that the statute’s pose prohibit is to Orientals who cannot become American controlling agricultural citizens from our rich lands,” that largely securing “Orientals, Japanese, are fast control of irrigated state,” richest lands and that “control products of these rich lands means control time general control of A the markets.” former attorney Cal ifornia declared that the basis of the legis land law alien undesirability” lation was “race and that “It purpose of those who understood the situation to prohibit enjoyment possession or of, over, agri dominion cultural lands State to citizenship, n —in practical way prevent competition ruinous by farmer the American Oriental farmer.” (See Fer Rev. guson, 68; McGovney, 7, 14, 49; California Anti-Japanese State Board of Alien Land Law Land Laws Control ^[1947] report, ^[1947] Cal.L.Rev. “California 35 Cal.L. pp. and the Oriental” 8-9, 45, 49-52.) Shortly [1920 ed.] recognized after the statute was enacted court this the that legislation Japanese was directed at the and pur that its pose discourage was to them coming from into this state. (Estate Yano, 188 Cal. 645 995].) P. Moreover, [206 solely the against persons state has enforced the law ineligi citizenship primarily ble to because of against race and Jap (See in concurring anese. statistics collected opinion by Murphy Oyama in California, Justice v. 332 633, U.S. 661- Alien 662 [68 Land S.Ct. Law 269, ^[1947] 283, 92 35 L.Ed. Cal.L.Rev. 249] ; Ferguson, at pp. 61, 73.) California Al though agricultural prevention competition between might residents of the state proper legislative be a objective under some circumstances, arbitrary or unreasonable means

736 accomplish result, and not be used to that discrimination by race,

on the whether the terms a statute or basis contrary administration, obviously the manner of its the Fourteenth Amendment. lawfully all aliens in coun that established

It is well living in occu work for a the common right “to try have community.” (Truax Raich, v. of the pations ; Com., Takahashi Fish L.Ed. v. & Game 607, 131] S.Ct. [36 1478].) em Much S.Ct. 334 U.S. argument on an asserted placed in distinc has been phasis engage in right callings common tion between property, real but an or use examination right to own that had shows distinction its roots authorities solely system ancient common law justification today. has no tenure,9 and it rational basis As feudal in Taka above, the United States pointed Court, out Com., 334 U.S. 410 Fish Game v. & hashi provision deny 1478], held that a Californiа code 92 L.Ed. fishing persons “ineligible licenses to to citi ing commercial equal protection and conflicted zenship” violated clause regulate immigration. power to the federal It was with purposes of the Takahashi decision that assumed for licensing protect objective of law was “to one California fishing competition engaged commercial with citizens opinion necessarily aliens.” determined that justify against per did not discrimination purpose such citizenship. If ineligible to ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍there is no constitutional sons regard “ordinary discrimination to work in basis such important Law [2d ished capable be held to ther, in the thirteenth 92-93.) Early commentators offered such the realm” 18-20, 39-41. 1819 and purchase feiture traced to Comm. (Calvin’s 9See At man the fact in time of war aliens early discrimination McGovney, large 250; ed., 1870, respectively. Case fear incidents of the feudal juries performing common and, devise, State number of Normans 1898] aliens, owing crown. The historical basis for this ^[1609] century. in time of and hence “there should follow a failure Anti-Japanese but his 463; Holdsworth, History law an alien could Boston, there would not be military safety (See Eng.Rep. rights “might peace, aliens with C. M.R.R. foreign allegiance, Pollack and service for the & Land Laws so much of the freehold land tenure fortify 377.) Frenchmen English acquire property regard explanations Co., Maitland, History system. enough English France themselves [1947], 25 Vt. king, real crown was threatened were owning English were English disability property (See property by gift, one of the most regarded as in in the heart of for the rule as subject England 2 Blackstone Cal.L.Rev. Law 438.) freeholders rights justice.” has been English ^[1926] might abol Fur for

737 ’’ way in fishing, what does as commercial occupations, such become valid where the of discrimination type the identical incident, possession or ownership the. an involves, as work property? of real many right living earn a oc is that truth inseparably enjoy with connected the use

cupations is example, one Farming, of the most ment of land. making ways living, a but the rule ancient and common permits state, case a Porterfield the absence of ineligible an treaty, restrict alien resident that he can to so capacity employee only farm land or hired hand. (See O’Brien, Webb v. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. [44 318]; Webb, Frick v. 263 U.S. 326 [44 Moreover, 323].) rule, ineligible under the Porterfield protected by be treaty who are not restricted follow ordinary ing many occupations other than farming, since opеration reasonably necessary private of most upon or lease businesses to own which an office, shop factory may Legislation or located.10 which results in imposes such upon ineligible discrimination alien an eco nomic status inferior to that of all other persons living in right with the state and interferes his living. (See earn a Kenji McCourt, Namba v. Ore. P.2d 583]; concurring opinion, Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 1].) Cal.2d 66-67 P.2d As the Supreme Court of Oregon said, declaring recently invalid an alien land law substantially same as the California statute, “Our coun try to create, by legislation cannot afford judicial con ghetto for struction, our yet aliens. And if we lawfully deny to the alien who is here the normal means whereby his him livelihood, he earns we thereby assign of living.” (Kenji lowered standard Namba v. McCourt, p. at supra, 583.) 204 P.2d light

In foregoing discussion, we have con cluded that the constitutional theories which the Por today terfield case was based are support without and must be abandoned. The California Alien Land Law is ob viously designed and administered an instrument for ef- treaty permitted land law was Jap 10When the alien enacted alien property. treaty anese to lease commercial and residential subsequently This abrogated, but having the statute was construed as in treaty corporated provisions permitting (Palermo and as such leases. Theatres, Inc., 1].) v. Stockton Cal.2d 53 [195 P.2d fectuating racial and the most discrimination, searching ex- justifying no amination discloses circumstances classification nothing There is to indicate on that basis. that those alien resi- racially ineligible citizenship possess for dents who are char- dangerous legitimate are to the acteristics which interests of might they, state, class, or that as a use the land for the public safety purposes injurious morals, or welfare. Ac- cordingly, we hold that the alien land law is invalid inas of the Fourteenth violation Amendment. judgment is reversed.

Edmonds, J., J., and Traynor, concurred. judgment

CARTER, J. I concur the reversal. barring justification of the statute The sole occupying property in owning or California is that from legal persons will not be citizens familiar with Ameri- such property concepts detriment, and will use the can welfare, Authority of the nation. for that rather than by made Mr. is a similar statement Justice Butler conclusion Thompson, 263 197 v. U.S. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. in Terrace [44 who, turn, it from took the decision of the 255], then, lower court. There was not judge in the much less Regardless any basis it. what have been now, concept present when our popular immigration, natural- adopted upheld by alien land laws were ization and thought subsequent courts, by the trend of influenced our diametrically opposed underly- to the philosophy events is upholding ing and the decisions them. The those laws basic argument support fallacy validity advanced making ineligibility is in the alien land laws for citizen- postulate persons of the classification of ship the who owning land. prohibited Schauer, dissenting charges opinion, in his

Mr. Justice judicial majority perform of this court with refusal to its duty by declaring of its the rendition decision the California decision, says, Land Law Our he stems Alien unconstitutional. justices strong social views of the “from who write they from their desire to make the law what think it conjecture on be,” Supreme should and is based that the previously upheld Court of the United States “which has may eventually the law reverse itself.” my part participating decision, deny in the I For always uphold- charge. I have considered that the decisions ing premise alien land laws were based a false they that those laws never valid because contravened were join majority constitutional I did not with the mandates. People 794], Oyama,

this court in 29 Cal.2d 164 P.2d [173 by Supreme was reversed Court the United States Oyama v. California, U.S. S.Ct. (see [68 249]), Com., and I dissented in Takahashi v. Fish & Game by 805], Cal.2d 719 P.2d which was likewise reversed Supreme (see Fish Court the United States Takahashi v. 1478]). & Com., Game 92 L.Ed. I position took the when those were before this court eases statutes there involved violated constitutional man position dates and should be stricken down. I took this with regard might finally out to the conclusion which be reached Supreme major Court of the While the United States. ity upheld Court of California the statutes involved in cases, those were reversed its decisions Supreme Court of the I United States. can see no distinction disposition in the of those eases this court and the case at my In opinion say bar. right this court has the at this time that the statute here even involved is unconstitutional though the former Supreme decisions of the Court of the appear upheld United States to have it as constitutional. What conclusion that court ultimately particular reach in this my change case cannot respect view with to what the decision of fully cognizant position court should be. I am that this may be in following conflict with in the dis declaration opinion senting pictured of Mr. is Justice Schauer: “Justice being posture ostrich, judi blind but an duty performed cial is not to follow a when a court refuses conjectures higher law it has because that a court which previously upheld may eventually the law reverse itself.” Contrary Schauer, expressed to this belief of Mr. Justice my judge it is view that refuses who closes his mind and day apply principles light present constitutional in the concepts confuses head when dan the ostrich which hides his ger approaches mythical with the whose Goddess of Justice depicted impartiality is blindfold to illustrate her and free dom external influences. always My philosophy law is and been has it duty judge, construing of a

is the Constitution, give provisions legislation its and strike down effect to in contra (Werner v. thereof. Southern vention etc. Newspapers, Calif. 825, P.2d 121, 137 13 252]; 35 Cal.2d A.L.R.2d Perez [216 v. 740 Blaney, 30 ; In re Sharp, P.2d 711, 32 732 17] Cal.2d [198 Court, Army Municipal v. ; Rescue Cal.2d 643 P.2d 892] [184 Army City Los v. 8]; Gospel 28 460 P.2d Cal.2d [171 Angeles County Los ; 232 P.2d Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 704] [163 ; P.2d Co., 378, 393 v. Tel. 32 Cal.2d 773] Southern [196 Calif. P. 53, 66 Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal.2d

Palermo [195 v. Stockton 719, 30 Cal.2d 737 Com., ; 2d v. Fish & Game Takahashi 1] P.2d 351 Warren, v. 32 Cal.2d 805]; P.2d Hollman [196 [185 468 453, 33 Cal.2d 562]; City Angeles, Los Lockard v. Horse v. ; Sandstrom 38, P.2d 7 A.L.R.2d [202 990] California A.L.R.2d 17, P.2d 3 Racing 401, 415 Board, 31 Cal.2d [189 380, 384 ; Payne, v. 29 Cal.2d Canning Del Mar Co. [175 90] 365, Com., 29 Cal.2d P.2d Ferrante Fish & Game ; v. 231] 222].) 375 P.2d [175 the supreme law United States Constitution my support In judges all it. of the land and take oath permit when laws to opinion.this oath is courts stand violated provisions. People with or acts to be done conflict its See 140, 1, 913], P.2d re Rochin, Cal.App.2d v. 101 143 [225 (Rochin Supreme of the United States versed Court 997, 1366]). 95 California, v. 341 939 S.Ct. L.Ed. U.S. [71 always I Convinced as am and have been that this statute duty guarantees, my plain violates basic constitutional conceding Even to so Court of declare. Webb, has not overruled v. the United States Porterfield O’Brien, 21, 68 278], 263 225 S.Ct. L.Ed. v. U.S. Webb [44 112, 318], Webb, 68 263 L.Ed. Frick v. U.S. 313 S.Ct. [44 323], Thomp- 263 68 L.Ed. Terrace v. U.S. 326 S.Ct. [44 son, 255], v. L.Ed. 263 U.S. S.Ct. Cockrill [44 944], it has California, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. only con- reversed this court on the cases which have recent problem Furthermore, here involved. that court sidered the Oyama recently California, declared in has 269, 92 : page at “There remains 249] question whether discrimination between citizens on descent, case, is of their racial as revealed this basis only with justifiable. proposition Here we start circumstances can excuse discrimination on exceptional most equal protection and a in the face of clause basis right giving all land. In citizens the own federal statute States, United this a war Sirabayashi Court sustained Jap- involved restrictions citizens of measure which that, recognized general But the Court as a anese descent. n their solely because of citizens between rule, Distinctions people a free very by nature odious ancestry are their ’ equality. upon the doctrine are founded institutions whose (1943).” 81, 100 1774] of-harmony with clearly is out foregoing declaration The court in the decisions announced philosophy basic laws. upholding cited the alien hereinabove equal principle protec- fundamental enunciated Constitutions, our and federal, tion clauses of both state means equality country, for within our as well as for citizens. antiquity sanctity background. both “And has for its stranger sojourn your ye if land, with thee in shall not stranger you But the vex him. that dwelleth with shall be you among as one born you, unto shalt him thou love as (Leviticus thyself.” 19:33, 34.) recently And this admoni- tion has been fostered United Charter Nations as an policy. Any equality international curtailment of nec- must essarily, therefore, carefully scrutinized. Harbor, arguments

After Pearl one the chief advanced for the Japanese evacuation from California of was, expressed: has practices been “Economic made Japanese competitors, productive undesirable and their contribution to economy negligible.” the nation’s (Grodzins, Americans p. 401.) Betrayed, impact If agricul- on shortly “negligible”—of ture after 1941 was importance no cannot —then it be said to be now important justify so as to depriving them rights. of their constitutional Indeed, even importance exists, they less now for placed were in detention camps been-widely and since their release have dispersed. March, 1951, hearings

In were conducted Subcommittees Judiciary of the House and the Senate Committees on meas- revising the on immigration, ures nationality. laws naturalization and basic

One of the proposed features of the revi- the elimination sion was discrimination on basis race entry the country aliens into both and their eligibility for people Many representing naturalization. organi- various hearings. at the zations testified organizations Some of those actively participated heretofore in sponsoring have and fos- Alien tering the Land Law California. Yet no one opposed departure as a denying race basis for citizenship, expressly most them endorsed Although it. repre- any organization, Congressman senting Judd’s statement me, He typical. said: “To elimination [the racial simple justice. matter people These discrimination] They legally They are here. are here. stay entitled to They average age 50. here above their lives. Their rest of com- law-abiding their pay they good, members of taxes; during proved through their conduct They munities. have children war, especially through the conduct of their Armed heroism, distinction, and in our who served with valor fully loyal Forces, they are to the United States of our worthy standpoint citizenship. From the American fully ineorpo- them society, own have would better to rated as citizens than as alien residents. country Certainly part our it is better have them can be sub foreign body than a in it. I believe there cannot naturalized objection stantial to become allowing them citizens, they want to. . . .

“I own con- that, standpoint think both from our respect we want standpoint science and from injustice us, rest of the world to have this is for merely good It is sense to naturalize should be corrected. full-fledged Ameri- group those who want to become every- every is, citizens, can as almost one of them does. That Hearings one, (Joint so I know.” the Sub- far as before States, Judiciary, Congress committees of United 6-April 31.) 9, 1951, p. 82nd Congress, March has therefore, It is and never clear, that there is now any excluding Japanese for from land been basis rational immigra- ownership. in the naturalization and Even field of restric- tion, Congress where act without constitutional tion, prevail prejudice. there appears reason over Since for logical excluding no aliens from naturalization reason there them race, on the is even less reason exclude basis of ownership they legally when from land reside here. Konvitz, Professor, University, Milton Associate Cornell R. say Japanese pioneers in 1946: were who “The had They Joaquin Valley from the reclaimed desert. the San unhealthy ‘from its barren wasteland turned this land state of productive and most in the state of into richest district ’ Through perseverance they gained sheer con- California. berry, potato, flower, truck-garden markets. trol corrupt politicians, having Organized put and the labor Japanese, place,’ turned their attention to the Chinese ‘in their every scapegoat The anti- who became misfortune. predominantly agitation, said, it has been mo- factors; though suggested it has economic been tivated intermarriage of racial was not absent. that the fear “ Japanese immigrants man, compared very ‘Man for ’ favorably immigrants European period, with the of this Treat always ‘They generally literate, almost has observed. were ’ law-abiding, rise in the industrious, and ambitious to world. they ‘servile’; Jap- because were were hated Chinese they were industrious and anese were hated because ambitious. they ghettos were lived urban The Chinese hated because farms; Japanese in than and worked cities rather on they preferred agriculture and were hated because worked on farms. early attempts

“As as 1907 were made in the California legislature pass to Japanese bills drive the from the land (and ultimately California). Owing efforts of Theodore President Roosevelt the bills pass. did then The persons anti-Japanese animus behind this drive legislature is by well illustrated the following passage from an address one of ‘I them: would rather,’ audience, ‘every an he told foot California inwas its native than wilderness to be cursed yellow the foot of these in- vaders, who are a country, curse to the a menace to our insti- tutions, every and principle destructive of of Americanism. aliens, I want no white, red, yellow black or to own a foot of ’ land in State of California. . . . “The facts show relationship that there is no between the of the Japanese character in the United and pro- States ownership on them, hibition of land in so far as concerns health, morals, public the Japanese welfare. The record of the today open is book, anyone California and may read it. The record them who wants shows to have been law-abiding loyal group, political to American a institutions, industrious, economically dependent. They self have not used plant in of California to it the soil mines blow California heavens; they used it for the vegetables cultivation of delight which were the They of the consumer. and berries competition economic to members of the race; offered white compel group give the law a racial up be used to but can its industry skills, and fundamental and human rights, habits position dependence economic and social ? and assume Supreme Court has said that the “The differentiation be- eligible citizenship for aliens tween ineligibles one, for the be assumed cannot to have a rational people. in the welfare of the great interest facts con- cerning and Chinese and other Asiatics this country judgment do not bear out court. These development of our have never hindered national people they have welfare; public in the furtherance policy grow where berries they have made us; for railroads built than their less they have contributed before; grew thistles handi- Despite economic population. prison to our ‘quota’ they inferiority, of social positions caps, placement leaning on without for themselves managed to shift have ineligibility for that their be said then, How, can others. them of depriving justification citizenship is rational The Alien (Konvitz, rights?” human fundamental 168.) Law, pp. in American Asiatic University, with Law, Yale Rostow, V. Professor Eugene say: authority has this citations of scientific comprehensive disloyalty be- doctrine of ethnic . the Court’s ‘‘. . water’—and proverbs—‘blood is thicker than longs folk with flatly contradicted of the Nazis. pseudo-genetics anthro- biological sciences, of cultural by the evidence of the systematic every so- sociology, other branch of pology, specific and with reference to study, general, both cial The most the West Coast. Japanese groups on position minority groups is to con- driving urge of such important the American minori- This is true even for form, not to rebel. society by from the rest partially isolated ties which are stronger re- than conform is The desire to bar of color. the and discrimina- prejudice and counter-reactions sentments threat, as a the environment conscious of Insecure and tion. by proving them- their status establish minorities seek to such L.J., 489, 506.) (54 Yale good Americans.” to be selves Dudley Law, McGovney, The late 0. Professor of Univer- sity California, searching analysis made of the entire ‘‘In problem respect in and said: what does the owner- by in ship persons of some of the farm lands a state who owe safety state, allegiance to the States affect the of a no United by peace in time of or of war? Has this ancient idea either early English law rationalized the writers exclusion King’s subjects from certain feudal land tenures but the all by validity knight service, ? Tenure any our time or mili- something tenure, conceived of as that none tary was then but ‘by King might allegiance owe. But persons under century, by knight tenure service had thirteenth end of the ’ says Maitland pay. either soldiers or their provide ceased military strength in 1300 the been abolished that if had been unaffected. When the statute of would have realm military merely was clear- completely abolished tenure it military far away long been a dead letter so ing what had tenure between A connection was concerned. service military saw theory when Coke only in existed had service In our landholding by aliens. of the realm’ ‘destruction upon alle- dependent military is not liability service time compulsory mili- subjected to now aliens Resident giance. nothing but warfare, and in international tary even service ex- is not An alien enemy aliens. exempts policy legislative also Coke’s he farm land. So owns because from draft empt fortify ‘might owning land aliens idea, that Trojan-horse any validity realm,’ never had heart in the themselves certainly Congress then not since 1798. States, in the United authorizing arrest, force, ever since statute, passed enemy aliens in wartime. also removal of confinement, or observed, ‘to direct the conduct to be President authorized enemy aliens. Dur- States, toward’ part of the United on the Britain, the Presi- 1812 with Great orders ing war of acting authority under his directed officials and other dent years age nationals, over, resid- fourteen British all forty to surrender to miles tidewater United ing within and be retired further into the interior of marshals States . . country kept or to be in close confinement. . enemy that an alien owns farm lands in nowise “The fact liability ownership to evacuation.- Indeed the his affects enemy alien in United is an any States property us, liability handicap, than a or a view of rather asset to authority given Property it, the Alien Custodian to seize 'deal with it in interest, it or otherwise it, sell hold benefit, of the United States. for the only Trojan-horse now lives in law books or in “Coke’s unthinkingly persons accept antiquated who minds the ancient discrimination that the common law ‘reasons’ respect with landholding. made peacetime, “Turning to how does alien landholding then safety ? complete of the state I think the answer was affect question Chief Justice given to that Redfield of Vermont question supreme before Vermont in 1853. court against landholding by law the common aliens had whether survived, particular received, state, or had and in been any procedure Vermont law for the for- whether contained ‘no,’ of aliens. The court held of estates the feiture Chief must, think, regarded questionable I saying, ‘it be as Justice enforced, any procedure could ever be for the far such how escheating quiet the State the of a purpose of lands mere alien, profound in time of pеace, non-resident or resident remotely imminent, or even danger apparent, where no ’ threatened. “If of allegiance ‘highest the farm owners is of importance’ alienage of farm safety the owners affects the of state, legislators forty-one of our are lacking states in state- craft, allegiance for their laws the of those own farm who regarded significance lands is as of no Rightly whatever. forty-one ‘ineligible included states are the nine alien’ they regard land for also allegiance law states of land- except in significance owners of no case of the small numbers racially ineligible aliens naturalization. So California denying lawmakers see no reason to a million alien for half privilege owning limit, residents without though privilege denying thirty to less than thousand other alien their race. residents because of if allegiance

“. . . Even had significance why farmers significance respect is with less thirty it than thou- ‘ineligible aliens’ significance sand in California but of no respect with a half million other aliens California who may acquire citizenship seek ? Moreover, never or the state- exaggeration ment smacks of he Coke’s when said if England, could hold land in there would not enough British juries. freeholders to man the If all ‘ineligible aliens’ were to exhaust themselves in cropping, California share there would be millions acres of farm lands left for the citizens exaggeration and other aliens. same found a state- he agreed: ment with which Justice Butler said ‘If one incapable citizenship or lease own estate, real possibility every realm of within the foot of land within might pass ownership possession the state non- ’ possibility if that were citizens. Even the evil inherent specified. . . therein is not . in farming any

“If evil condition state, some existed in up licensing system might set for prescribe farmers and evil, qualifications deemed essential to overcome the and the Su- pay would doubtless preme judg- Court deference to the local rationality thereby. ment on discrimination made land were scarce Thus if tillable California relative to the population, her might prescribe food needs of the state quali- farming that would all qualified fications exclude not well If productive operators. purpose such was Cali- charge fornia it fits ill with the fact that the chief law ‘ineligible aliens,’ in particular, was that they unduly especially skillful and industrious—par- were involving la- ticularly personal cultivation, in hard intensive judicial deference to local high degree of It would take a bor. worst offenders judgment Japanese believe that were the 7, 39.) added.) (35 (Italics Cal.L.Rev. nonproductivity.” in “They Japanese] possessed Further, it has been said: [the to treat soils knowledge a remarkable of soils and how expert knowledge the production crops; of certain an the in fertilizing great a skill methods; use of fertilizers and of willingness reclamation, irrigation, drainage; a required in in intensive put the enormous amount of labor many farming They pioneered production operations. the including West, crops. They reclaimed vast areas delta cut-over timber lands of Northwest and valuable readily . . Francisco Chronicle lands California. . the San farming Japanese ‘the striking conceded that most feature of orchards, development has California been the of successful completely vineyards, gardens on out land that was either employed enterprises.’ of use or profitable for far less George Shima, immigrant, taught “It who was Cali- Japanese It develop good potato a fornians how to seed. developed berry farmers in- production who the West creasing yield had four or times what it been five over (planting grapevines the same time so that strawberries at years replanted when the strawberries three later were vineyard was the profitable production). would be in Japanese community who took over the semi-abandoned Livingston profitable farming area, and and made it a who County succeeded in the in Placer after mountain-fruit section Valley groups Imperial ‘In the and the other had failed. Japanese country,’ Ritchie, Delta observed Robert Welles ‘the men, men displaced never white for white would work there; .district, in the Chinese and after mountain fruit every man in, nearly had Japanese came after white them industry.’ years In later quit, go crippled and made a of a monopo- contended were the Californians compelled the should have lizing lands; but candor best originally marginal were most of these lands admission that in character. economy important

“. . . contribution Their most they organ- however, which West, was the manner year-round on basis so as produce production ized (McWil- steady produce provide flow of the markets.” Prejudice, p. 79.) liams,

In published a recent articlе Mr. Blake Clark in The July 16, 1951, Freeman on he states: “Mrs. Nawa Munemori is mother of War grateful an American World II hero. A Congressional nation bestowed the of Honor her Medal on son wiping machine-gun Sadao for out throwing two nests and himself an exploding grenade on hand to save his fellow Army soldiers. The transport, United States Pvt. Sadao Munemori, brought regiment his home from Europe, today. bears Munemori, his name Yet Mrs. his widowed mother, citizenship country is denied for which her son sacrificed his life. symbolizes plight

“Mrs. Munemori of victims of our immigration outmoded laws, and naturalization which dis- against worthy people purely criminate on basis of their antiquated give race. These statutes Communists powerful Far East a propaganda weapon, anti-American damage people our relations with Asia.

“The 85,000 country situation of some aliens in this demon- position strates the unfairness of the we have taken. About 80,000 Japanese; Polynesians, are Koreans and with sprinkling a of other legally nationalities. These residents country entered this Immigration before 1924. The Act of year permitted them remain deny here but continued to rights them the of naturalization granted that were to Euro- pean immigrants. affecting The sole consideration our treat- ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍long-time ment these settlers is their race. example, Buck, professor Sir Peter for a former of anthro pology University, at Yale is one of the outstanding world’s England in his proud knight him, scientists field. but he is privilege citizenship. refused the U. S. Sir Peter is an son of Irish father and Maori mother. The fact that he is half-Maori—and that alone—bars Sir Peter from citizen ship in adopted country. his beloved appointment his

“Before recent as Korean Ambassador to States, Yang prominent Dr. Y. United was a C. Honolulu practiced physician, community and had in this American for half lifetime. He States, was educated in the United married an American, and is the father of an American daughter. Yang Dr. would have American citizen- welcomed ship ago long possible. had it been attacked, Yang responded Pearl

“When Harbor was Dr. immediately appeal emergency to an for medical volunteers indefatigably to treat the wounded. He worked save seamen, many American lives He then volunteered captain being Hawaii National After commissioned a Guard. serving weélcs, could he was his service two notified that longer accepted. no Korean, As a he was classified as enemy country—beсause alien. He could not serve his chosen of his race.

“The Japanese, largest group probably affected, have any contributed more to America than other Asiatics. Their sons formed Regimental Team, the famous 442nd Combat probably received more more decorations suffered any casualties than unit similar size the entire S.U. Army. parents Yet these cannot become citizens. Japanese

“The abuses origin those of are com- pounded in California, many where of them live. There state citizenship owning laws forbids an alien a farm. Men who have acres of into turned desert waste green, producing only fields can cultivate the land as hired hands.

“The California law makes a crime for alien ‘enjoy, use, occupy, land, be or remain on the or have a ’ beneficial interest in land, crops proceeds. Tempo- its rarily abeyance pending case, court decision on a prejudiced law strictly has been so in some counties enforced that families cannot together. live California filed a suit to property seize Roy of Mrs. Hirata, K. born an American citizen and mother of three children, citizen because her alien helped husband her her had cultivate farm and lived on it. Hirata had to leave home and strangers gather watch hired crops planted. he had eager get

“Akira Iwamura was to home years after two Army Intelligence with in the Pacific. His bought father had good 60 acres of grape Fresno in land his citizen son’s name taking and had been care of it for him. California AvelcomedAkira home from war service with a demand that he forfeit parent his land—because his alien had a beneficial laAvyer interest in it. Akira’s him to settle advised out of exchange court. In ‘quieting for the title,’ state’s Akira pay to had half the buy assessed value of the to back his OAvnacres. is not making racially ineligible

“California alone in alien run a stiff obstacle course for his livelihood. Nowhere from lawyer the Pacific to the Atlantic can he be a or certified public Despite accountant. shortages important professions, prohibit 26 states making living his a dentist; as a 25 as a physician; passed as a teacher. Some 500-laws various him states bar from such work as a real estate insurance agent, pharmacist or In civil servant. some states he cannot accept old-age pension, although money even toward it wages! have been withheld from his Immigration prevent passed “The Act of 1924 was a foreigners flooding depressing horde of our shores and wage our Legislators equitable system, scale. worked out an as far as nations of the World were concerned. was Old agreed readily 150,000 that America could assimilate immi- grants year, percent population a one about sixth of one of our reported quota assigned in the 1920 A each census. nation, based on the number of residents each had contributed population. to our

“But, exception parts Afghanis- with the of Persia and tan Russia, quota all. Oriental nations received no at they Instead, constituting were described as the ‘Asiatic barred zone,’ keep According Joseph and were told out. Grew, Japan, perhaps C. former Ambassador to it was worst mistake we ever made in our with the Orient. relations gross placed potent This weapon insult a the hands of They promote militarists. used it ‘Asia for throughout Asiatics’ Far Bast.

“During folly asking from the Chinese the war the aid racially barring while them as inferior became so obvious exempted groups. Later we them from the excluded It is Philippines bans India and lifted. were wipe remaining time to our record clean of the blots which mar potential our relations with friends and allies. repercussions trip a recent I heard

“On around world Bangkok prejudice every stop. In short-sighted of this race at newspaperman in the Far Bast said that Communist editors constantly Orientals ra- told their readers that we consider despise An American official cially them. inferior constantly if the Rangoon the Burmese ask status declared that changed. of our ‘outcast law’ has been “ Communists,’ Korean, ‘The said ‘accuse America of you If fighting quota, a colonial war here. extend us it will you you help say equal mean when we demo- show deserve Japan Tokyo In the chief rights.’ cratic news over Radio days hearings in Representa- dealt with the the House of a bill to abolish this racial clause. tives on large “Correcting these abuses would not result in a flow Japan’s quota foreigners into the United States. annual of mere most of the' other Asiatic areas would be a would quota a full group used every If excluded have each. of our equal percent one year, each their total would the number practice, In yearly immigrants. actual 150,000 literacy, Qualifications such fеwer. arrivals would be even number of keep the ability living would health and to earn expect all we could low. In immigrants from some countries comparatively newcomers, a year each than a thousand less number. infinitesimal great

“Public-opinion polls majority show that Americans, including Californians, any do not person want citizenship denied because of his race. A bill to this effect, supported groups and civic Depart- church and our State, passed ments of Justice and by has three times the House only vote, stopped unanimous Senate committee. Representative Judd, authority Walter well-known on the sponsors, Par Bast and one of the bill’s is convinced if brought majority it could be to the floor for a vote agree majority Senators would with the other Americans. II, “Before end of World War the United States and Germany only major Nazi were the two nations that used Now, race as a test for naturalization. we alone maintain this discrimination. In Asia we well-organized face a minority attempting to unite the East us. We can show the people of the Orient we stand back of our national pledge of ‘liberty justice by welcoming worthy for all’ persons and providing equality them under our naturalization and immi- gration purely laws. Prom a standpoint, selfish wiping dis- off crimination the books as well as out of our hearts would to us in be worth more than army Orient a dozen divi- ’’ sions. publications reports Numerous other have dealt with impact Japanese immigrants on the way American I will refer to life. some them:

Brown, Roucek, Joseph S., Francis J. eds. One Amer- history, present problems ica. The contributions and of our racial and national minorities. Rev.ed. Prentice-Hall, 1945;

Bloom, Riemer, Leonard Ruth. Removal and Return. The socioeconomic effects the war on Americans. University Press; of California

Foote, story Caleb. Outcast! of America’s treatment Japanese-American minority. her Fellowship of Recon- 1944; ciliation. Team. The Camp

442d Combat Album. Shelby, Missis- sippi. Japanese Ancestry, Violette, La E. Americans Forrest community. To- study of in the American assimilation 1945; International Affairs. ; The Canadian Institute of

ronto Governing Men. General Leighton, Alexander H. The experience at a on principles and recommendations based J., Princeton camp. Princeton, N. Uni- Japanese relocation versity Press; The Japanese problems Americans.

Redfield, Robert. The University Chicago The loyalty; thе of divided evacuation. ; Press People Japan. history

Smith, Bradford. Prom Lippincott Co.; in America and Hawaii. J. B. Japanese Story Shirey, C. Americans: The 442nd Orville occupation with 442d Team. From activation to Combat Infantry Press; Regimental Combat Team. Journal Army. Western Defense U. S. Command and Fourth Army. report, Japanese Final evacuation from the West Washington, Off., U. S. Govt. Print. through Coast. Pt. I IX. DeWitt, L. Signed Lt. Gen. J. U. army, S. commanding; Agricultural Bureau of U. S. Economies. farm holdings Coast, by on the Adoni Poli. Berkeley, Calif. Pacific tables; Processed. Detailed and Congress. U. S. Select Tolan Committee Investigating Na- Migration. Defense tional publications

These reports, and like those from which I quoted above, have fallacy demonstrate the of the basic con- underlying cept holding the decisions that race or nation- ality person proper is a basis for classification of those ineligible who are to own land or property. other This con- cept upon a background is based factual which was assumed present at the time our immigration, naturalization and alien adopted upheld by laws were courts, our but which has been shown to be since without foundation. It seem, would therefore, maxim that “when the reason for the rule ceases, rule ceases,” applicable itself should be here.

I am, therefore, opinion of the race nationality person proper of a is not a basis for a classification of aliens eligible to own land or other property, provisions barring of the California Alien Land Law citizenship owning land here are in violation of the equal protection clauses of both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. This case Concurring. Dissenting

SCHAUER, J., reason: for this judicial annals regrettable remarkable and opinion join in court justices of this majority A it. follow refuses as it is but the law recognizes enacted It was law is. toas what the question no There is through the ini- people by the of California year 1920 in the based, as to 261); it Deering’s Act Laws, Gen. (1 tiative Congress of established, on an act of the the classification law, will years this as past 32 States1; for the the United discussed, cited fully hereinafter in the cases appear more Supreme consistently court and upheld has been attack now precise of the United States Court majority, an elaborate say now, it. But on made Court decisions of of recent analysis trend ques- if the court, States, they that that think the United change might or would it again presented to were to tion majority study opinion The most careful holding. its than this con- legal holding their basis for no other discloses jecture. anticipate may properly that the

If this court United States may prior holdings reverse Court the future its Supreme upon anticipation, if act reliance such and we then good grace can we in offer if parties what criticism hereafter anticipate judgments may by our litigant that be reversed by or Supreme Court, stricken down the federal ourselves anticipation judgments? such flaunt our we Have today precedent just a not established for such action ? What employers’ organization or labor union little man could consistently right be denied speculation follow us in anticipation and to act in reliance thereon? by majority opinion,

The I think, is motivated an effort law, and uphold find the it as found. I think it stems strong justices more from the social views of the who write it from their desire they to make the law what think it should be. But whether this law should be modified or re- pealed not, think, or continued in force is I proper subject ruling. people for debate or The and, our enacted it as al- noted, only ready classification it by makes is created Congress By act of the of the United States. constitutional processes will, people, they if can or repeal amend it or Congress can abolish the classification. But until and Congress people by or the unless the act the constitutional (1875); 1Naturalization Act of 18 Stats. 318 8 U.S.C.A. § (1940). 54 Stat. ch. by process, unnecessarily he stricken down law should not judicial intervention. justices join striking

That who down this law find personal it obnoxious to their social views and to their con cepts of quite desirable international relations is understand able, they and that shall light examine the law in the of their personal concepts part views and is of course judicial of our process. legitimate judicial process But our requires likewise indulge every we that reasonable presumption in favor of validity of a law whether we like it or not; that, when personal public differ, subjugate pur views and law we personal concepts adopted by social views and to the law the people; and that we not strike down any as unconstitutional law which, consistently with constitutional precepts, can be sus tained. That this law can be indubitably sustained is demon by years plain strated fact for 32 that it has been sus by this tained both court and the United Supreme States recently Oyama People As Court. (1946), 29 Cal. 2d (opinion P.2d the court 794] Mr. Jus Edmonds), upheld validity tice we today held act noteworthy void. It is and commendable that Mr. Justice Traynor concurring therein (p. 181).- said “I concur in the judgment ground on the the decisions of the United opinion Court cited in the States main are control ling they until such time as are reexamined and modified concurrence Traynor that court.” This Justice exem duty judge plifies conformance usually as it is respected; suggests judicial duty understood personal respect desire is obnoxious .but for the law prevail. and will decisions he must refers to have been they have not but been modified reexamined in the control point by court which rendered ling implicit the them. The principles of the soundness of and utter constitutional law rest, they stand upon which unweakened and untarnished— today. Compliance discharge with the law faithful until my view, judicial duty, light of furnish a which is as clear Certainly may it law today progress. as was 1946. the necessarily may change progress; it destruction But is not be growth. than rather recently (again speaking through this court

Also Mr. Jus majority) said, Traynor for the Werner v. tice Southern 121, Newspapers (1950), 35 Cal.2d etc. P.2d [216 Calif. quoting 252], County Angeles Los 13 A.L.R.2d (1948), Tel. 32 Cal.2d Co. P.2d v. Southern [196 Calif. Growers People Western Fruit 773], quoting in v. turn from 1“ legis 13], P.2d “When (1943), Cal.2d any facts reason questioned, if lative classification pre it, there is a ably can be conceived that would sustain burden facts, the sumption of existence of that state of assails upon the one who showing arbitrary action rests ”' here the followed principle If that were classification.” up It has been down. Alien Land Law could not stricken States; stands held it still Supreme United Court of the except by it, refuses today this abide as court refuses to concludes, uphold people the will of California contrary Court Supreme to the announced decisions many United determinations States, and earlier court, that the federal Constitution. law contravenes the It is, holds indeed, a state court procedure when unusual grounds a state act which the unconstitutional on federal as United States holds to be constitutional Court only my view, In unconstitu same attack. procedure majority apparent tional here act is the justices their using judicial impose social process they than, views on if were people California, rather so minded, actively lеgislative remedy. pursuing the obvious substituting judicial legislative,

Of process for the again in Newspapers (1950), Werner v. Southern etc. Calif. supra (p. 129 of Cal.2d), majority said: this court “It Legislature conflicting for the ... to choose between policies, may presume reaching and this court that in its decision it improper acted motives ... ‘We cannot constitutionality undertake a testing search for motive in . .’. ‘‘ court process This cannot invoke the due to invali- clause legislative policy date a deem unwise without exercising judicial censorship directed not at constitution- ality legislation wisdom, censorship but at whose its dangers clearly envisaged: Mr. Holmes ‘I Justice have not yet adequately expressed anxiety the more than that I feel given increasing scope at the ever to the Fourteenth Amend- cutting I ment in down what believe to be constitutional stand, hardly rights of the As the decisions now I States. see any sky invalidating if rights limit but the of those majority any they to strike a of this Court happen I believe that the Amendment reason undesirable. cannot embody give us carte hlcmche to was intended our economic ’ (Baldwin prohibitions. Missouri, in its beliefs moral 1056], dissent.) 74 L.Ed. 281 acceptance by TMs view increasing has found the United beginning States Court. least as ‘This Court at early steadily as 1934 when Nebbia was decided, case has - rejected process philosophy the due enunciated in Adair Coppage doing consciously line of In it has returned cases. so closer that principle and closer to the earlier constitutional legislate against to be power states have what are found injurious practices in their internal commercial and business long affairs, specific so as their laws do not run afoul some n prohibition, federal constitutional or of some valid federal law. this Under constitutional doctrine [Citations.] process longer broadly due clause no to be so construed Congress legislatures put that strait jacket they attempt and industrial suppress when business they regard public conditions which as offensive to wel- ’ (Lincoln Co., fare. Fed. L. Union v. Northwestern I. & M. 212, 251, 536-537 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed. 6 A.L.R.2d U.S. 473].) “ ‘Despite respondents evil contrary, evidence to the see no legislation. agree to be corrected are asked to We respondents arbitrary with and call the statute unrea- sonable. “ ‘Looking through form plea of this to its essential basis, recognize we cannot fail to argument it as an for in- validity because disagrees this Court desirability with the legislation. We rehearse the say obvious when we our function is thus misconceived. We are not equipped to desirability; decide and a court cannot eliminate measures which do happen to suit its tastes if it seeks to maintain system. democratic The forum for the correction of ill- legislation responsive legislature.’ (Daniel considered is a Family Co., Secur. L. Ins. 945].) A.L.R.2d responsiveness “The legislature of a the alertness reflects electorate, legislation ill-considered in a climate may indifference continue to flourish in such a climate to the dismay of interested may citizens whose numbers be small. If impatiently these few then turn courts, however, abandoning the hard task of dispelling general lethargy, they accomplish nothing improve legislation, for if courts are called judgment set their as to what is wise they popular judgment may summarily put an may be end to certain laws that foolish but also to certain may wise, particularly laws be to laws foolish at the mo although they appear long wise in the run problems dealing economic and social with ment. laws ‘Most ap trial before error. That which of trial and are matters may prophecy in actual demonstrably belie bad pears to be may prove innocu but it may prove good, operation. It not wanting trial, on it is better if a law is found ous. But even and removed than demonstrated defects should be its by judicial fiat. an as Such should be aborted law from responsibility those judicial power deflects sertion of ultimately society peo rests—the whom in a democratic on ’ concurring in A.F.L. v. Amer (Mr. Frankfurter ple. Justice 258, 93 L.Ed. Co., S.Ct. ican & D. U.S. Sash [69 481].)” 6 A.L.R.2d immediately grave today probably not of such This case is California, and to the United importance to the citizens of prior nation, would have been to the events states as a as it 7, 1941, August 14, and December 1945. period of the between conquest occupation of California long-planned and The future has been at least for the foreseeable averted. Japan finally nation, defeated at horrible cost to United That freedom-loving peoples world, as and to other States building government. new itself, as to is now is well may prove right government new in time its hoped be that this to, in, family thereupon be welcomed of nations as and peace good will and a defender champion devices, stealth, cunning and aggressors, their their their thеir fervently hoped ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍people that the It is indeed to be violence. nation, enemy though perhaps unwillingly rescued of this late totalitarianism, may espouse principles democracy, honesty, gentleness their reason and for forthrightness, and of dealings their with all. But the valid- government and in own ity they decided on facts as existed at the a law should be enactment, expectation on theories or social of its time future, speculation United States change eventually ruling on a may its constitutional Court being pictured posture not in blind but is issue. Justice ostrich, duty judicial performed when is not a court of an conjectures higher because it that a follow law refuses may eventually previously upheld has the law court itself. reverse completely the doctrine if forsake of stare decisis we

Even question aspects, in all its its reexamine statute any unquestionable approach. on sound validity whether one our union states of question properly place restrictions rights property real within its boundaries which may enjoyed by an alien resi- dent whom Congress of the United States has not made eligible citizenship.2

Regulation of the ownership devolution and of land within its traditionally borders has been considered an attribute of state sovereignty (United States v. Fox (1876), 94 L.Ed. 192]; Lynham Hauenstein v. (1879), [24 100 U.S. 483, 484 628]; Blythe L.Ed. Hinckley (1901), 180 U.S. 393-394, 557]). Plaintiff, how- ever, contends that the Alien Land Law of this state violates process equal protection due clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, power immigra- invades the field of federal over tion, and is inconsistent with the United Nations He Charter. also contends that the special legislation pro- law is invalid hibited the Constitution of state, unlawfully and that it delegates legislative power Congress.

Constitutionality regard equal With to protection, plaintiff urges, first, that statutory classification of aliens on the basis eligibility to citizenship arbitrary insofar as against discrimination ineligible bears no reasonable relationship promotion safety and argues welfare state. He that the statute distinguishes not aliens, between citizens and but between aliens, persons eligible and classes citizenship are given ownership rights regardless all of citizens of whether they intend Secondly, to become naturalized. he contends that purpose effect of the statute is to against discriminate right of aliens 2Restrictions on to hold land are no innovation in the law. Since 1887 there has been a federal Alien Land Law which, exceptions, prohibits with certain aliens who have not declared owning (8 their from intention to become citizens territorial land. 71-86.) Every provision U.S.C.A. §§ state has made some with re gard rights property. (See Vernier, of aliens to own real 5 Family (1938), 304-346; McGovney, Anti-Japanese American Laws “The pp. 21-24.) Land Laws of California . 35 . Cal.L.Rev. at Of twenty-one expressly aliens, these about residing states allow at least those state, property rights in the all the of citizens. All the re maining impose aliens, states kind some of disabilities on and these vary outright prohibition ownership from of land to limitations on the holdings statutory size of or the time land be held. Some of these apply distinguish restrictions to all aliens. Other states between classes aliens, such as those who have have not declared their inten citizens, eligible tion to become those who are and who are not citizenship, states, those who are enemies and those who are friends. Nine California, classify eligibility than other on the basis of citizenship.

759 of race and that such discrimination solely on the basis arbitrary and irrational. Supreme by States Although it is declared United Court case, Shelley v. Kraemer (1947), covenants in the restrictive 836, 841, 1161, 441], 92 L.Ed. 3 A.L.R.2d 1 S.Ct. 334 U.S. [68 cannot be doubted plaintiff, “It relied protected from rights intended to discrimi among the civil by the Fourteenth Amendment are natory action enjoy, dispose property,” acquire, own it must rights to Shelley property case involved mind that the be borne is, course, rule negro settled that rights of a citizen.3 protects Amendment aliens as well as citizens the Fourteenth discriminatory (Yick state action. Wo from unreasonable 1064, 118 356 30 (1885), U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. Hopkins 220]; v. [6 33 (1915), 131].) 349 U.S. S.Ct. 6 L.Ed. v. Raich Truax [36 rights equal protection, where other than those And, as to ownership involved the United relating to States power that11 The of a apply has stated state to Supreme Court exclusively alien inhabitants to its as a class is confined its laws (Takahashi v. Fish limits.” & Game narrow Com. within 1138, 1143, 1478].) 410 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. (1948), U.S. [68 upheld States However, in 1923 United Court Alien Land Laws Washington and California equal protection grounds, and process and those on due attack (Terrace Thompson, v. never been overruled. have decisions [Washington L.Ed. 15, 68 stat S.Ct. 255] [44 Webb, 263 U.S. S.Ct. v. ; [44 ute] Porterfield O’Brien, v. statute]; see, also, Webb 263 U.S. 278] [California 318], Webb, Frick 68 L.Ed. 263 U.S. S.Ct. 323], sustaining 68 L.Ed. constructions of prohibited aliens statute the California cropping holding into contracts or citizenship entering respectively.) farming corporations, stock in legislation pursuant enacted to the that federal be noted 3It should any aliens Amendments does secure to Fourteenth and Thirteenth Rights provides property. acquire Oivil Act rights The real to every right, States shall have the same the United “All citizens of inherit, enjoyed by Territory, citizens thereof *to white as and State convey personal property.” hold, lease, sell, purchase, real 144.) However, (8 27 and 16 Stat. on Stat. based § U.S.C.A. merely pro provision act for noncitizens. The is made similar no jurisdiction persons of the United States shall within the “All vides: Territory every right to make and enforce State have the same equal evidence, give sue, parties, full and contracts, and to the to security persons proceedings for laws and of all benefit (8 enjoyed by based property citizens. . . .” U.S.C.A. § white as is 144.) 16 Stat. 27 and on Stat. case, leading The Terrace Thompson, involves the Wash ington prohibited law which holding by land except all aliens those who had declared an to intention become American disposes citizens.4 The court process of the due argument in following (pp. manner 216-217 of 263 U.S.)': Four “The protects teenth . . Amendment . right the owners in their dispose to lease and of their land purposes for lawful and the right alien resident his to living by earn a following ordi nary occupations community, but away it does not take powers police from the State those that were at reserved adoption the time of of the Constitution And, . . . [citations]. Congress jurisdiction while has exclusive immigration, over disposal public and the domain, naturalization each any treaty provision in the absence of State, contrary, deny power right to aliens the has to own land within its ’’ points borders. court out the common law rule could not hold land seizure alien crown and legislation withholding that state from all aliens .concludes ‘1 equally right to hold can not capricious land be said to be arbitrary deprivation to an liberty amount or prop transgress process erty, or to the due clause.” (P. 218 of 263 U.S.) equal protection

Turning argument rejects court foundation” the contention that Washington “without grounds color, on of race or stating statute discriminated that, statute, all aliens, terms of the whatever race or color, failed to declare their intention to become who citizens owning agricultural lands. prohibited were The court on the that discrimination basis of ineligibility holds then equal protection violate the citizenshiр did not clause, (pp. 220-221 following U.S.) reasons of 263 : “Two classes inevitably result from the naturalization of aliens laws—those may and those who not become who citizens. The rule Congress subject, on this md itself, established fur- basis in a a reasonable state nishes law with- for classification privilege aliens the holding from, ownership. [Italics . .. added.] that one is not a is obvious who citizen and cannot “It in, power an interest and the effectually one lacks become state, of, and, so lacking, for the' welfare the work deny right him to own and lease real may rightfully estate incapable citizenship may If one boundaries. within its automatically places to citizen 4This classification group. prohibited ship within

761 possibility realm of within the or own real estate it is lease might pass to the the state every foot of land within quality and . . . The possession ownership or of non-citizens. farm lands occupy and use the allegiance own, who of those importance affect highest within its borders are matters power of itself.” safety the state Truax discusses Terrace decision case The court an Arizona involves (1915), supra, v. which Raich persons five to more requiring employers statute all than native- qualified electors or per cent employ not less than violated the statute there held born citizens. against alien discriminating equal protection clause in lawfully “right inhabitants, state, regard with of the com- living occupations work for a in the common right munity,” and, further, denial of such to aliens denying would entrance and abode be tantamount them power federal would conflict with the exclusive the state and immigration. over occupations living common “right

The to work for a in the by case, Truax community,” of the secured to aliens all urged invalidating land laws in the was as reason for alien by the distinguished Terrace ease but court as follows for- (p. U.S.) thing : “In before us the the case very opportunity earn a bidden is different. It is not an occupations but is the living community, in common owning controlling agricultural privilege of or land within quality allegiance own, The those who the State. farm lands within its borders are matters occupy and use the safety power highest importance and affect the State itself.” supra, 225, upholding (1923), v. Webb 263 U.S. Porterfield constitutionality Law, Alien Land California Thompson day Terrace v. and was held the same as

decided court, The Terrace decision. a short to be controlled prohibited in the class Wash- opinion reasons as follows: aliens; Law were all nondeclarant ington Land Alien citizenship, necessarily all included prohibited class defined group constituted the smaller prohi- to extend the act; of California forbearance California failed eligible aliens who to declare their intent bition arbitrary said to not be citizens could become unreasonable. Thompson above, companion Terrace v. and its

As noted only been overruled the United States never cases have Supreme Court, constitutionality but of the California again upheld by statute was recently People this court as Oyama supra, v. (1946), Although Cal.2d 164.

Court of the (Oyama United States reversed our decision State (1948), 332 U.S. 633 of California 249]), upon ground the that presumption narrow by 9(a) declared act, section of the and relied the case, on in violated the rights of citizens the who were children of ineli- gible arbitrarily against aliens and citizens, discriminated such I highly important cannot overlook the fact that that court holdings refused to earlier overrule its the Alien Land Law is rights constitutional insofar as it relates to the land of ineligible holdings, aliens themselves. These as well as our own antecedent expressions to same effect, exposi- the are sound tions of the best precepts. constitutional inescapable by that it is foregoing settled the cases and numerous sustaining validity other decisions specific of provisions of the Alien Land Law that classification on the eligibility citizenship proper basis of purpose determining may enjoy who own and land. With reference to the statement made in the Terrace case citizenship that if ineligible aliens land, could own farm they might possibly acquire plaintiff all in state, such land argues changes in that natural events and the naturalization immigration and the Terrace laws since decision have reduced possibility vanishing point. such a Moreover, to the he urges, changes in these circumstances of themselves warrant reexam- ination of the land law. decided, only Terrace case was in 1923,

When white persons nativity persons and of African and descent were eligible (Naturalization to become citizens. Act 1790; (1875).) present 18 Stat. 318 At the time the proceeding was begun, 1949, the naturalization laws had been amended to provide may following that the become citizens: “descendants indigenous Hemisphere” (8 races Western U.S.C.A. 703; “any 876 (1940)); person Stat. ch. § age, citizen, regardless of who has served or hereafter serves honorably military in the or naval forces of United States” (8 persons 1001; (1942)); U.S.C.A. Stat. Chinese and § persons (8 § 703; Chinese descent U.S.C.A. 57 Stat. 601 persons indigenous (1943)); Filipinos (8 to India U.S. Thus, 703; (1946)). C.A. Stat. Cali § only operate against fornia Alien Land Law could Orientals Japanese races, certain other who such as According figures, census the alien Polynesians.5 to 1940 and counted California Japanese population discovered citizenship ineligible Immigration persons 33,569. (43 the Exclusion Act of 1924 Stat. 8 U.S.C. was halted legally aliens 213(c)); hence number § death, probably than in 1940 in 1949 was less due to state changes residence, deportation other causes. For the however, purposes legislation, constitutional test of the number of races embraced in the it is immaterial Congress through ineligible narrowed class has been Congress laws; naturalization recent amendments to the preserved class; it has has itself has made and set qualifications of eligibles; the class defined the limits and again in the future and it ineligibles be broadened possibility realm is still within acquire dangerously might disproportionate share, or located areas, of land in the state. and extensive most, contends that if not all of the reason further Plaintiff Porterfield cases ing repudiated Terrace and has been Oyama Court the United States State of supra, 269; parte Ex Endo (1948), (1944), S.Ct. California 208, 89 243]; S.Ct. and Taka 323 U.S. (1948), supra, Fish Game Com. S.Ct. hashi v. & may “properly” disregard as, them, court that a state is recently by Oregon Supreme done the in said, was Court 569], (1949), McCourt 185 Ore. 579 P.2d It Namba v. Oregon Law, Alien Land one similar was there held that statute, the Fourteenth to violated Amendment the California citizenship ineligible but restrictions on aliens to placing why there was no valid reason aliens, since not on other permitted aliens, not to own of should ineligibles, as a class land. The court reviewed the decisions agricultural and rent giving Supreme subject, Court on the States of the United cases, Oyama and Takahashi particular attention to longer “no Supreme States Court that the conjectured United binding.” (No peti cases and related] deems the [Terrace States Court to the United tion for certiorari by Oregon thought expressed Regardless filed.) upon relied my that since none of cases court, view it is discussion, defendant excludes from considera purposes of this 5For citizenship ineligible their reasons other than persons to all tion English speak or have not satisfied the race, who do not those such as political principles requirement not attached to the or are residence seq.) (See country. 704 et 8 U.S.C.A. § of by plaintiff passed power upon regulate of the state to ownership alien' boundaries, of land within its such cases are controlling not here. upon

In reliance the statements Truax and Taka hashi cases deprives that discrimination is invalid when it an “right alien of living to work for a in the common occupations community,” prevents or him from “earn ing living way a in the same that other state inhabitants earn (Truax living” (1915), their Raich supra, v. 7, 10; 36 S.Ct. Takahashi v. (1948), supra, Fish & Game Com.

1142), urges plaintiff although farming is one of the ways earning most ancient and common of a living, Terrace Thompson permits state, rule treaty, a in the absence of a so restrict an alien he farm only can in the capacity employee an or hired hand, permits and also a following occupations to restrict an alien other than necessary operation farming, any ordinary since it is industry upon or shop business own or lease land a factory may or legislation, be located. The effect such argues upon plaintiff, impose is the alien to citi zenship persons an economic status inferior all other living argument ignores state. Such the fact that land relatively ownership only held a few of is the inhabitants necessary nation, this state and at all not attribute of equality status, economic and is not desired or availed by many ample enjoy security. is, who economic there fore, persuasive striking to the end of down a law which duly people been enacted has the state and which highest been courts of has sustained state and nation quarter century. for more than of a question (if The critical this court assumes to reexamine problem) determining whether the land law accords guarantee equal protection with the is whether the discrimi persons ineligible between to citizenship nation and those who eligible citizenship are citizens “based some having in the classes difference substantial relation to a be object accomplished.” legitimate (See Takahashi v. (1947), Com. 30 719, & Cal.2d Fish Game 727 P.2d [185 805] 410, (reversed 334 422 1138, 92 1478], [68 ground on the classification there involved was un constitutionally discriminatory, but expressly distinguishing cases); see, also, land law Werner v. Southern etc. Calif. (1950), supra, 35 Newspapers Cal.2d 121, 131; Watson v. Motor Vehicles (1931), 212 Division 279, Cal. 284-285

765 the outcome concedes, upon And, plaintiff 481].) P. [298 conten plaintiff’s answer depend the will question of this legislation special constitutes Land Law Alien tion that the v. (See Lelande Constitution. the California in violation 639, 175 A.L.R. P.2d 224, 232 Lowery (1945), 26 Cal.2d [157 Co. Tel. Angeles County Los v. Southern 1109]; Calif. 389.) (1948), 378, 32 supra, Cal.2d following principles are well established: pertinent Legislature making is vested in “Wide discretion validity every is favor of the presumption classification Legislature is as to what statute; the decision of the classification will to warrant distinction sufficient arbitrary palpably the courts unless be overthrown A distinc beyond doubt erroneous. rational [Citations.] arbitrary any facts if set of reason legislation is not tion (Sacramento it.” ably be that would sustain can conceived 684, 20 (1942), Elec. Cal.2d v. Gas & Co. M. U. Dist. Pacific (1943), ; also, In re Herrera 23 Cal. see, P.2d 529] [128 Riley v. ; Reclamation District 206, 212 P.2d 2d 345] [143 762].) “The 147, 156 existence 192 Cal. P. (1923), presumed be legislative judgment is to supporting the of facts presumption overcoming the of constitu and the burden (Takahashi v. Fish & tionality the assailant.” cast also, 719, 728; see, Peo (1947), supra, 30 Cal.2d Game Com. (1943), supra, 494, ple Cal.2d v. Western Fruit Growers ; 507; (1940), P.2d 425, In re Fuller Cal.2d 321] (1946), v. Cal.2d Physicians’ Garrison Service California 4, 306].) The classification 167 A.L.R. 790, P.2d 803 [172 reasonable; e., relation to a “have a substantial be i. should .. . is not our con object accomplished legitimate [I]t might we Legislature what adopted cern whether the has accomplish means of the wisest and most suitable think to be (Lelande Lowery (1945), v. objects. ing its [Citations.]” 232, 234.) supra, 224, 26 Cal.2d Newspapers v. etc. (1950), supra, Southern In Werner Calif. 121, 131, quoting County Angeles Los 35 Cal.2d (1948), supra, Tel. Co. Southern Cal.2d Calif. (1943), People supra, v. Western Fruit Growers Cal.2d the rule is in these words: reaffirmed “Problems of under California Constitution are simi classification thus presented equal protection the federal lar those provision, the 14th Under either clause of Amendment. laws necessarily production inequality mere results every persons regulation selection of degree some place does not pro- the classification within the constitutional inequality hibition. The produced, discrimination or order ‘actually provisions, conflict with the be constitutional must palpably legislative arbitrary/ unreasonable and or the determination as to what is sufficient distinction to warrant the classification will When not be overthrown. [Citations.] legislative any questioned, classification is if of facts reasonаbly can it, be conceived that would there sustain is presumption of facts, existence of state of the burden that showing arbitrary of action rests the one who assails the classification.”

Applying present these rules controversy, to the it can hardly seriously be ownership doubted that use or of land by persons ineligible citizenship may reasonably be deter by people mined of a state to constitute to the a threat safety or ineligible welfare of the persons state because such by be allegiance cannot bound an of States, oath to the United inseparable and, of which each state part, class, is as a loyalty their to and suspect, interest the state are and fur ther, by ownership citizens, such of the land its or those who such, relationship strength can become bears a vital country. a free As in Mott v. (1927), declared Cline 200 Cal. firmly by P. 718], “It has been settled the deci sions both federal and state courts that [citations] adoption the Alien Land Acts was a lawful exercise of the power. fact, In police power it is the exercise of in its that highest and truest sense. The ownership of the soil per obligations morally sons bound of citizenship is vital to the directly existence of the state. political affects its welfare also, safety.”6 Palermo v. (See, Theatres, Stockton Inc. (1948), Cal.2d 1].) P.2d The question is not every may individual whether alien be said to be nation, disloyal to this but loyalty whether the of such ineli gible a class doubted.7 It is not within the court, especially history province light of this go no further back than December need to declare importance ownership 6The attached to domestic control of land is merely nation; far-flung recognition local to state or its must every history be obvious to tion or current reader events. We need men examples: only (1) relatively expropriation two The recent acts Bepublie Mexico; (2) pending controversy between Great petroleum bearing Britain and Iran over the lands of the latter nation. ’’ pointed Fight Japan? 7As is out Walter Pitkin Ms "Must We (1921, Century p. 440), Co., loyalty "The his religion.” stands all above else. That is his Government no substantial and bears that such doubt unreasonable public welfare. relationship to plaintiff's contention

Likewise without merit purpose Land Law is to discriminate and effect the Alien despite the solely race, him because his race color on face fact thе law not mention its does prejudice was the result of race we should determine that it and it against particularly Japanese, declare Orientals and relies respect plaintiff upon In this therefore unconstitutional. legislation in favor the contained in the arguments of certain prior the at to the voters to election pamphlet8 official mailed upon, as well as on the act to be voted statements which 645, 654, 658 P. (1922), in Yano9 Cal. Estate of ignores position point this the funda- Plaintiff’s on 995]. fact, are controlling however, it is those who mental and that color, ineligible citizenship, regardless of race or to whom for Congress not applies, Law and that and the Alien Land ineligibility. such of that determines the State California upon in Yano the statements Estate which is clear that of problem the here in- application have no plaintiff relies recognize Japanese no than that fall and do more volved Congress declaring refrained from class whom has within the Moreover, pointed (p. out the Terrace eligible. in case U.S.), Japan in with the desire of it was accordance of by not conferred either right to own land was that that the upon the nationals of the the United States other. nation or circumstance, face argue, in the of such the Califor- To plaintiff solely Law is directed at because of Alien Land nia reality. Furthermore, the fact simply denies that the his race being chiefly citizens was attracted the attention argument appears pamphlet: primary- following in the “Its 8The prohibit purpose cannot Orientals who become American citizens is to agricultural Orientals, controlling . . lands . and more our rich from particularly Japanese, agricul to secure control of commenced [have] arguments pamphlet in Further in in California.” the tural lands against Japanese alone, support were directed with of the measure ineligible Orientals or to others who were to other out reference citizenship. American provision prohibiting appointment of the act involves 9Yano court, guardian holding of alien as land. of person appointed guardian right and a father to be of depend upon eligibility not his his citizen minor child did own of estate prohibitory provision clearly citizenship, “is stated that a dis residing state,” Japan of and that citizens crimination discourage object coming Japanese into thereof was “to the this state.” Japanese by very nature extent their and activities10 in the state, showing prejudice far racial from as the motivat- ing act, for the cause for land indicates sound basis law. argument

Plaintiff’s Alien Land Law interferes Congress legislation power by with the is answered over 217) (p. in the Terrace case that “while the declaration Con gress jurisdiction over immigration, has exclusive naturali disposal public domain, State, zation and each treaty any provision contrary, power the absence has ’’ right deny aliens the to own land within its borders. (1915), supra, Traux v. Raich and U.S. Taka (1948), supra, & h ashi v. Fish Game Com. laws, and

do not involve statements therein which are by controlling plaintiff relied here. prepared report Board Control 10Tlic California State confronting then the state. In a on the situation of Stephens Washington, letter of transmittal therewith), (and published report written Governor Wm. D. Bainbridge Colby, Secretary State, California to Hon. 19, 1920, C., following D. June dated reference is fully report appear more made to facts itself: "The strong in our midst have indicated a trend to land owner unquestioned ship control, industry applica and land their widely tion, separated standards and methods that are methods, standards both in our occidental connection with hours living, gradually developed labor and standards of have to a con important agricultural many Indeed, trol of of our industries. at the they 458,056 present operate very of time acres the best in lands Cali acreage decade, in increase control within fornia. The the last ac figures cording per productive official has been 412.9 to these cent. In say, crops produced by is to in the market value of values—that them-— figures against § 6,235,856 produce show that as our worth of mar § 67,145,730, approximately in has keted the increase been to tenfold. significant figures, however, these "More than is the demonstrated years Japanese agricultural ten fact that within the last veloped per labor has de- degree present a that to such at the time 80 between and 90 vegetable berry products most' of cent of our and are those of the Japanese Approximately per crop farms. 80 cent of the tomato of the by produced Japanese; per is state spinach the 100 asparagus crops to cent of the part crop; greater potato a of our apparent on. it is sо So that that without much more effective restric- very time, historically speaking, Japanese in a within our midst will tions that short the population represent portion a considerable of population, Japanese the our entire control over certain essential products ("California will

food be an absolute one.” and the Oriental” California, ed., pp. 8, 49-52.) State Board of Control of Again, Fight Japan?” (The B. in Walter Pitkin "Must We Cen- tury Co., 1921), speaks competition imposed of the on the non-Oriental practice taking Sundays American farmer who made a of off and of working only day, by Japanese ten or hours twelve the whose schedules eighteen day. Says (pp. ran from fourteen to 207-8): hours Mr. Pitkin competition clearly such "The results of can be all read over go observers, California. For the statistics we need not to American suspected prejudice. luckily who We have at hand a com- under attack that the law further contention Plaintiff’s Congress be- legislative powers to delegates state unlawfully eligi- changing laws to naturalization amendments cause law the state without bility to amend provisions operate has Legislature of this state people or the consent of Oyama (1946), People court in rejected by this already been following language: “The 164, 178,11 in the supra, 29 Cal.2d up eligibility citizenship has set of this state Legislature of some determination standard, and because primary as a primary in this standard rests incorporated fact or condition requirement is Legislature, in or this than elsewhere Japanese expansion prehensive made which farmers has been stud^of countrymen, Ichihashi, own one Yamato in- S' their one Japanese history and economics at Stanford Uni- Leland in structor published ‘Japanese versity. Ichihashi a volume on Im- In 1915 Mr. brought presented migration,' charts that in he detailed out which following facts: remarkable people growing California, Jap- every 100 berries are “Out of every sugar beets, Japanese. 100 who raise Out anese. Out grow grapes, Japanese. every every Out 52 are 100 who market, course), Japanese. vegetables (for 46 are Out who raise Japanese. every grow fruits, every 39 are Out who citrus of 100 who fruits, Japanese. grow 36 are deciduous Control], commenting upon findings, these “The State board [of considerably higher today.” percentages would run holds that report board, of transmittаl of the of the people In the same letter Japanese respect officially of California the attitude expressed Stephens as follows: Governor speak feelings proper I I to state that believe “It is also you recognition many express people a full I when ad- our people. arrogant qualities Japanese We no their assume su- mirable periority art, literature, or culture over them. Their of race years, philosophy, and, in scientific recent their attainments have their respect peoples we, gained from the white who for them well, fully share. We have learned to admire the bril- know them so liancy genius people display. these We art and the re- of their deep placidly spect philosophy so out of that which flows wonder- through ages past ful of theirs and which has come down that ante- join with entire civilized world in era. We our date our Christian Japanese strides which the of the tremendous nation itself admiration generations unparalleled two as its has made in the last career respect right history We to their of nations. the true destiny. development to the attainment of their pains of emphasize you, I am at so “All matters convince these you people States, and, through problem the United insignificant temporary one. It of ours is not factious. hostility. prejudice is, origin in no narrow race or rancor or It has problem affecting however, solemn our entire Occidental civilization.” (P. “California and the Oriental” State Board of Control of 9 of ed.) Calif., 1920 ” “Report See, also, “Is This a discussion Racial War? Prom Tokyo” Schuster). 1942, p. (Grew, Simon and (1948), Oyama v. State 11See of California 249]. 92 L.Ed. be measured another standard not control of the under the and which subject change, not amount to does delegation legislative authority. unconstitutional [Cita ” (See, also, Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. tions.] (1948), supra, 53, 59.) Cal.2d agree I Charter, presently United Nations con- accepted to, not, stituted was not and does intended supersede existing legislation domestic of the United States several states and territories. provisions

I Alien would hold that Land Latv here do invoked the State California not contravene either ‍‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Constitutions; judg- the federal or state and would affirm the ment of the trial court.

Shenlc, J., J., Spence, concurred. Apr. 17, 6170. In No. Bank.

[Sac. 1952.] KLETT, Appellant, A. ACCEPT HAROLD v. SECURITY (a Corporation) al., Respondents. ANCE COMPANY et

Case Details

Case Name: Sei Fujii v. State of California

Court Name: California Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 17, 1952

Citation: 242 P.2d 617

Docket Number: L. A. 21149

Court Abbreviation: Cal.