STATE ALIEN LAND LAW UPHELD

JAPANESE CAN'T ACQUIRE REALTY IN WASHINGTON

United States Supreme Court Decision Upholds Statutes of Pacific Coast Commonwealths.

By Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, Monday, Nov. 13. -- The alien land laws of California and Washington, prohibiting aliens ineligible to citizenship from owning or leasing land, were declared valid and constitutional today by the Supreme Court.

Justice Butler asserted it, was clearly within the power of a state to prohibit aliens who had not declared their purpose to become citizens, or who cannot become citizens, from owning land. He held also that such legislation was not repugnant to the agreement made by this government with Japan.

Justice Butler delivered the opinion, which held that the question was one entitled to be considered under the equity power of the Supreme Court and be disposed of on its merits.

Justices McReynolds and Brandeis' took the position that the cases regarding the leasing of land to Japanese should have been dismissed on the ground that no justifiable question was presented. Justice Sutherland took no part in any of the two cases covered by the decision.

Two cases in which the court delivered its opinion were brought, one by W.L. Porterfield and Y. Mizuno against state officials of California and the other by Frank Terrace, his wife and N. Nakatsuka against state official of Washington. The decision did not cover two other cases pending involving the right of aliens to own stock in a land-owning corporation and the contract rights of aliens in crops produced on leased land.

Justice Butler referred to the sections of the state laws which prohibited ownership by aliens other than those who is in good faith have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. In discussing this phase of the case, he said:

Japanese, Chinese and Malays Barred.

"The inclusion of good faith declarants in the same class with citizens does not unjustly discriminate against aliens who are ineligible or against eligible aliens who have failed to declare their intention. The classification is based upon eligibility and purpose to naturalize. Eligible aliens are free white persons and persons of African nativity or descent.

"Congress is not trammeled, and it may grant or withhold the privilege of naturalization upon any grounds or without any reasons as it sees fit. But it is not to be supposed that its acts defining eligibility are arbitrary or unsupported by reasonable considerations of public policy. The state may properly assume that the considerations upon which Congress made such classification are substantial and reasonable. Generally speaking, the natives of European countries are eligible. Japanese, Chinese and Malays are not.

"Appellants" contention that the state acts discriminate arbitrarily against Nakatsuka and other ineligible aliens because of their race is without foundation. All persons, whatever color or race, who have not declared their intention in good faith to become citizens are prohibited from so owning agricultural lands. Two classes of aliens inevitably result from the naturalization laws -- those who may and those who may not become citizens. The rule established by Congress on this subject, in and of itself, furnishes a reasonable basis for classification in a state law withholding from aliens the privilege of land ownership in this act.

No Rights by Treaty.

"We agree with the court below that it is obvious that one who is not a citizen and cannot become one lacks an interest in and the power to effectually work for the welfare of the state and so lacking, the state may rightfully deny him the right to own and lease real estate within its boundaries. If one incapable of citizenship may lease or own real estate, it is within the realm of possibility that every foot of land within the state might pass to the ownership or possession of noncitizens."

In that part of the opinion holding that the laws of Washington and California did not conflict with the treaty between the United States and Japan, Justice Butler said:

"To prevail on this point, applicants must show conflict between the state act and the treaty. Each state, in the absence of any treaty provision, conferring the right, may enact laws prohibiting aliens from owning lands within its borders. Unless the right to own or lease land is given by the treaty, no question of conflict can arise."

A letter written by Secretary of State Bryan to Viscount Chinda on July 16, 1916, was cited by the court as showing that no right was conferred upon Japanese subjects to own land in the United States.