Finnegan offered an amendment, the effect of the adoption of which would have been to prevent aliens securing land by purchase to hold for a period not to exceed one year. The measure provided that aliens could secure land to hold for one year or less by devise, descent or purchase. Finnegan's amendment eliminated the purchase provision, leaving them only the power to secure land for a one-year period, or less, by devise and descent.

But Finnegan's amendment was voted down.

213

The bill was then put upon its passage. Sixty voted for the measure and only fifteen against it.2 After six years, a House of the California Legislature had passed a measure to bar aliens from ownership of the soil.

While the Assembly was passing its alien land bill, a sub-committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Senator Thompson at its head, was at work on a

Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bradford, Brown, Bush, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Collins, Dower, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Ford, Gelder, Green, Griffin, Guill, Hayes, Inman. Johnson, Geo. H.; Johnston, T. D.; Judson, Killingsworth, Kingsley, Libby, McCarthy, McDonald, Moorhouse, Morgenstern, Mouser, Murray, Nolan, Palmer, Peairs, Polsley, Richardson, Ryan, Schmitt, Scott, Shannon, Shartel, Shearer, Simpson, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Tulloch, Wall, Walsh, Weisel, Weldon, White and Young-56. 213 The vote by which the Assembly Alien Land bill was passed

was:

For the bill-Alexander, Ambrose, Bagby, Beck, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bradford, Brown, Bush, Canepa, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Cram, Dower, Farwell, Ferugson, Finnegan, Ford, Gabbert, Gelder, Green, Griffin, Guill, Hayes, Inman, Johnson, Geo. H.; Johnston, T. D.; Judson, Killingsworth, Kingsley, Libby, McCarthy, McDonald, Moorhouse; Morgenstern, Mouser, Murray, Nolan, Palmer, Peairs, Polsley, Richardson, Ryan, Scott, Shannon, Shartel, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Sutherland, Tulloch, Wall, Walsh, Weisel, White, and Young-60.

Against the bill-Benedict, Bowman, Cary, Ellis, Emmons, Fish, Gates. Guiberson, Johnstone, W. A.; Kuck, Nelson, Roberts, Schmitt, Strine, and Woodley-15.

similar measure. The measure which this Senate subcommittee worked out was more complete in detail than the Assembly bill. It fixed the maximum leasing period at three instead of five years as the Assembly bill provided. But the most important difference was regarding the rights of alien-controlled corporations to hold land in this State. The Assembly bill barred from land-ownership corporations "the majority of the issued capital stock of which is owned by aliens who are ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof."

Thus, so far as the corporations were concerned, the Assembly measure applied to Asiatics only.

The Senate substitute bill, however, applied to all corporations of which aliens owned the major portion of the issued capital stock.214

Thus the Senate Bill applied to all aliens alike, individuals as well as corporations controlled by aliens, Europeans as well as Asiatics.

Of the two measures the Senate Bill was given preference by the Washington authorities.

Secretary Bryan under date of April 18, telegraphed

214 The section in the substitute Senate bill governing corporations read:

"Sec. 3. Any corporation, whether formed under the provisions of the laws of this State or of any other State or country, a majority of the issued and outstanding capital stock of which shall be owned or held by any alien or aliens, may hereafter acquire by purchase or devise, any right, title or interest in or to any real property situated in this State, and may hold the same for the period of one year after the date of so acquiring such right, title or interest, but no longer; provided, however, that if such right, title or interest be acquired by such corporation by devise, the same may be held for the period of one year after the date of final distribution thereof to such corporation. At the expiration of said period of one year in any of the cases above stated, all real property so held by such corporation, and all right, title or interest therein so held by such corporation shall be subject to escheat to the State of California, and proceedings for such purpose shall be taken as hereinafter provided."

Governor Johnson that the Senate Bill was greatly to be preferred. Secretary Bryan also advised against the use of the words "ineligible to citizenship." 215

But no sooner had the provisions of the Senate Bill become known, than a powerful lobby appeared at Sacramento to protest against the passage of any such measure. This lobby did not go to Sacramento at the behest of Asiatics, however. It was there to represent corporations and syndicates that have foreign capital invested in California. Letters and telegrams poured in upon the legislators all protesting that the passage of a law to bar alien-controlled corporations from land ownership in California would be inimical to the present and future investments of European banking syndicates. Alien investors in mines protested; alien investors in lands protested.216

215 Secretary Bryan's telegram to Governor Johnson was as follows: "Washington, D. C., April 18, 1913. "Governor Hiram Johnson, Sacramento, Cal.:

"The President desires me to say that, while he fully recognizes the right of the people of California to legislate according to their judgment on the subject of land tenure, he feels it his duty to urge a recognition of the international character of such legislation. Being anxious to preserve and strengthen the long standing friendly relations existing between this country and the nations of the Orient, he very respectfully, but most earnestly, advises against the use of the words 'ineligible to citizenship.' asks that you bring this view to the attention of the Legislature. He believes the Senate bill as telegraphed to the Department of State is greatly to be preferred. That bill limited ownership to citizens and (those) to be who had declared their intention to become citizens.

"W. J. BRYAN."

He

216 The Fresno Republican on April 16, the day after the Assembly bill passed the Assembly, printed the following editorial article, commenting upon the dilemma presented by the protests of European aliens:

"The Alien Land bill passed the Assembly last night in the form originally reported by the Assembly committee, but it is extremely likely that the Senate bill will pass instead of the Birdsall bill as reported by the Senate committee. The two bills will then go to conference with all the chances favorable to the

The Senate Bill, in the face of these protests was again written so as to permit corporations the majority of stock of which is owned by aliens eligible to citizenship to own land. An entire section was added to permit aliens eligible to citizenship to own mining and oil

Senate bill, which is practically the Assembly bill revised and completed to meet more carefully all the situations involved.

"Since this bill has already stirred up the foreign offices, not merely of Japan, but of France and England, it easily becomes the most important measure of the session. It is the only thing the California Legislature has done or is likely to do in which the whole world is interested. Some of the comments, official and unofficial, however, are curiously inconsistent. Senator Curtin, for instance, pleads for a friend of his who is a British subject and owns land both in California and in Canada. The poor man does not dare take out his first papers as an American citizen because he would then forfeit his holdings in Canada. Because Canada will not permit a foreigner to hold land, therefore California must do $0. This is Senator Curtin's logic.

"The Japanese Ambassador in his interview with President Wilson, is equally brilliant in his consistency. He has carefully gone over the Senate bill and insists that it is still unsatisfactory because it contains a provision identical with the law of the District of Columbia, of the territories, of the public lands, and of the six States of the Union. He does not protest against these various laws but insists that if California passes the same law it is intolerable discrimination against Japan. The Japanese Ambassador is perhaps excusable. He is under instructions and must do his best with a bad case. Senator Curtin is also excusable. He is not trying to be logical, and he does not desire the bill passed which he pretends to advocate. He is simply blustering for the support of constituents to whom he does not attribute sufficient intelligence to see through his illogic. If there are voters with that sort of brain this is as good a way to appeal to what passes for their intelligence as any.

"The present situation is that if the bill is passed in a manner that is discriminatory against Japan, it will make trouble which the Legislature does not care to face and if it is passed in a non-discriminatory form it will make trouble with various British corporations whose representatives are influential constituents of some of the legislators. This dilemma has for six years prevented the passage of either sort of bill. What its effect this time will be may depend somewhat upon the nature of the confidential representation which President Wilson confidentially informs the newspaper readers of the world that he has confidentially transmitted to his confidential friends in California.

"The difficulties raised by the various British companies could be met in several ways. One is Assemblyman Sutherland's proposal to omit the corporation provisions entirely. These provisions would scarcely be effective against European corporations, and they are not now needed against Japanese. If Japanese capitalists were to organize corporations to evade the intent of the law, they know that they would thereby only provoke retaliatory legislation. Another way is to negotiate treaties with all desirable nations, extending the right of ownership. An even simpler way, with Japanese precedent behind it, would be the pro forma transfer of stocks."

well properties.217 Another section was added to protect investments of corporations made up of European aliens.218 The period which aliens could hold land under lease, was increased from three years, as provided in the first substitute bill, to four years.

The Senate Judiciary Committee bill amended to meet the views of European investors, and their California clerks, was accepted by the Senate on April 21 and sent to the printer.219

In it, as in the Assembly bill, the individual alien, European as well as Asiatic, was denied the privilege of land ownership.

217 The section in question read as follows:

"Sec. 13. The prohibitions in this act contained shall not extend to lands, or any interest therein, which are valuable chiefly for mines or minerals, or which are being operated as mines, nor to lands chiefly valuable for the production of oil, or which are being used for the production of oil, nor to timber lands, nor to lands owned or used as sites for warehouses, wharves, refineries, or factories for the treatment, refining, reduction, processing, manufacturing, shipping, storing or otherwise handling or disposing of any of the products of such lands, nor to pipe lines for the conveyance of oil or other fluid substances except water, nor to rights of way for such pipe lines, and any alien or any corporation may take, hold or dispose of any such lands, pipe lines and rights of way, or any interest therein."

218 The section to protect corporation investors read: "Sec. 14. This act shall not apply to the acquisition by aliens or corporations of lands or any interest therein, which are now subject to a deed of trust, mortgage, or other lien to secure a debt or other obligation to any alien or corporation, where such lands or interest therein are acquired at a sale under such deed of trust, mortgage, or other lien, for default of the debtor in the debt or obligation secured thereby, or upon a judicial sale upon the foreclosure of such deed of trust, mortgage, or other lien; provided, however, where such deed of trust, mortgage or other lien attaches to said land or interest therein after this act takes effect, said land or interest therein may be held by any alien or corporation of the class described in section three hereof for four years from the date of acquisition and no longer, and if not disposed of within said four-year period, shall be subject to escheat proceedings pursuant to sections nine, ten, eleven and twelve hereof."

219 The first substitute bill adopted by the Senate and described above, will be found printed in the Senate Journal of April 12, 1913. The second substitute, prepared after the protests from investors of European capital had been heard, will be found printed in the Senate Journal for April 21.