APPENDIX A.

Discrepancies in the Various Narratives.-The accounts of Drake's movements in the Pacific after capturing the Cacafuego vary somewhat. If we follow Nuño da Silva's account (Hakluyt, Vol. VIII., p. 85, Everyman Edition), the Golden Hind abandoned the Cacafuego on March 6, and thence held her course towards the land of Nicaragua. On the 13th, in the morning, they descried land, being a small island about two leagues from the mainland, where they found a small bay. Coming to anchor, they stayed in this place till the 20th of the month. On that day they captured a frigate close by the island, following it in their pinnace. Transferring their goods to the frigate for four days, they "new calked and trimmed" the Golden Hind, and then made for the open sea, "taking the said frigate and her men with them." After two days they took the men out of her and set them in the pinnace, among them four sailors who had meant to go to Panama and from thence to China. One of these men bore on his person valuable letters from the King of Spain to the Governor of the Philippines and the "sea-cards" that were to be of such use to Drake later. On April 7 they captured another vessel, containing a certain Don Francisco Xarate and a negro. Three days after they let both the ship and the men go whither they would, setting therein two of the China-bound sailors whom they had taken in the frigate. On Monday, April 13, they reached the haven of Guatulco, where they stayed ten days. Two hours or so before leaving they put Nuño da Silva ashore. This is a very satisfactory narration from the chronological standpoint.

Francis Fletcher's account, in "The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake,' makes the Golden Hind leave Cape San Francisco on March 7, shaping its course towards the "Iland of Caines," which they reached on the 16th. In their journey thither they met with one ship more, "the last we met in all these coasts," laden with linen, China silk and China dishes., "among which we found also a faulcon of gold, handsomely wrought, with a great emerald set in the breast of it. Nuño da Silva, who mentions Don Francisco Xarate, to whom the emerald belonged, does not speak of this gem. On April 24, they left the island and steered northward, passing the ports of Papagaia, Vale, and Quantapico. "The next harbor, therefore, which we chanced with on April 15, in 15 deg.. 40 min., was Guatulco. From Guatulco we departed the day following, viz., April 16, setting our course directly into the sea.'

A third account appears in Hakluyt, Vol. VIII., p. 61. After stating that the place where the prize was taken was called Cape de San Francisco, about 150 leagues from Panama, the narrative goes on to state that the Cacafuego, after being thoroughly looted, was cast

off, and the Golden Hind "went on its course still towards the west, and not long after met with a ship laden with linen cloth and fine China dishes of white earth, and great store of China-silks, of all which things we took as we listed. The owner himself of this ship was in her, who was a Spanish gentleman, from whom our General took a falcon of gold, with a great emerald in the breast thereof, and the pilot of the ship he took also with him, and so cast the ship off. This pilot brought us to the haven of Guatulco." Here they found an assize sitting in judgment on three negroes who were accused of conspiring to burn the town; they quickly broke it up. Before leaving Drake set ashore "the Portugal pilot" taken at the islands of Cape Verde. Thence they sailed to the "Island of Canno," where they mended and graved their vessel, and took in sufficient water and wood. While they were here, they caught sight of a ship, set sail after her and captured her, finding in her two pilots and a Spanish governor, going for the Philippines. They searched the ship, "took some of her merchandizes, and so let her go," but there is no mention of sea-charts. It is stated that it was here that Drake resolved to "go forward to the Islands of the Malucos, and thereafter to sail the course of the Portugals by the Cape of Buena Esperanza.' They therefore sailed somewhat northerly to get a wind, leaving on April 16.

At p. 240 of Hakluyt, Vol. VI., there is an account of Drake's voyage across the Pacific from the time he left the "Isle of Cano." After he had "calked and trimmed his ship" here, he kept his course along the coast of Nueva Espana, until he came to the haven and town of Guatulco. Thereafter it gives a repetition of the scene at the courthouse, the setting ashore of the Portuguese pilot, and the decision to cross the Pacific rather than try again the Straits of Magellan.

In his "Drake: an English Epic," published in 1908, the poet Alfred Noyes gets mixed up both in regard to chronology and geography. Book VI. opens with an account of the Golden Hynde, as she lay off Cape San Francisco, her crew delighted with their success, and anxious to get home with the booty. They determine to seek the fabled Northern passage; and sailing northward swoop down on the port of Guatulco. Here they break up the assize, free the poor negroes, and revictual. Then they swept northward (sic!) once again, "and, off the coast of Nicaragua, found a sudden treasure better than all gold." This was the "sea-cards" of the first narrative. Being on the track of the China trade they came upon a vessel, which they captured, and found therein "charts of silken sea-roads down the golden West."

ANTI-JAPANESE LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA, AND THE NATURALIZATION OF THE JAPANESE.

BY ROY MALCOLM, PH. D.

When in 1906, the San Francisco School Board adopted a policy segregating the Japanese school children from the American school children, Japan protested upon the ground that it was unjust discrimination. By such action, we were not giving her the rights and privileges of the "most favored nation," which she claimed were guaranteed under the treaty of 1894. Her protest was listened to with respect, a few Californians hastened to Washington to confer with President Roosevelt, and the policy of the Board was abandoned.

In 1913 there was passed by the legislature of California a bill, the purpose of which was to exclude from land ownership within the State those ineligible to citizenship. Japan protested upon the ground that the law, if passed would deny to her subjects the rights and privileges guaranteed by Article I of the treaty of 1911.

This article reads as follows: "The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential purposes and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established. They shall not be compelled under any pretext whatever, to pay any charges other or higher than those that are or may be paid by native citizens or subjects.

"The citizens or subjects of each of the high contracting parties. shall receive in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native citizens or subjects, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native citizens or subjects."

The immediate question that arises is this: Does this provision give to the subjects of Japan the right to purchase and hold land to be used for agricultural purposes? We think not, but granting for

the moment that it does, what would be the legal status of a state law which would deny to the subjects of Japan such a privilege?

We hold that the law on this point is clear and defined. The Federal Constitution, Article VI., Section 2, provides: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." But, it is asked, may the Federal government interfere by treaty provision with matters that are ordinarily within the province of the State Government? No one will deny the power of the states to legislate upon the question of land ownership, but if such legislation conflicts with some treaty provision we hold it to be invalid. It is interesting to note that this principle was upheld by the Supreme Court of California in a decision rendered October 23, 1855, 1855, in the case of People vs. Gerke, (5 Calif. 381, Sup. Court Reports). On August 23, 1853, one Auguste Deck, a citizen of Prussia, died intestate in the city of San Francisco, leaving undisposed of a large amount of real estate. On the 14th of September following, letters of administration were granted by the Probate Court to the defendant Gerke. An information was filed by the attorney-general in the court below (District Court), citing the defendants to show cause why Deck's estate should not escheat to the State of California. The Courts below entered judgment in favor of the people. The defendant appealed. The Court rendered the following decision: "The 14th Article of the convention entered into between the United States and Prussia, in 1828, provides that "When in the death of any person holding real estate within the territory of one party, such real estate would, by the laws of the land, descend on a citizen or subject of the other, were he not disqualified by alienage, such citizen or subject shall be allowed a reasonable time to sell the same, and to withdraw the proceeds without molestation. This treaty is valid and is capable of being maintained in the face of any state legislative enactment."

CASES TO SUPPORT THIS.

2 Story's Com. on Constitution, p 314, par. 1508, Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheaten 259, Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheaton 453, 8 Wheaton 464, 9 Wheaton 489, 10 Wheaton 181, 3 Peters 242.

"These are cases where aliens have claimed to inherit by virtue of treaty provisions and the stipulations have been enforced in favor of foreign claimants. Aside from the limitations and prohibitions of the Constitution upon the powers of the Federal Government, the power of treaty was given, without restraining it to