CHAPTER VIII

ALIEN LAND LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA

The Alien Land Law Discriminatory. With the approval of the governor May 19, 1913, an alien land bill became a law in the state of California. It is discriminatory against Asiatics in that while it confers upon aliens eligible to citizenship, the same rights as citizens in the ownership and leasing of real property, it limits leases of agricultural lands by other aliens to periods of three years and ownership to the extent provided by existing treaties.1

The Outcome of a Long Struggle. This antiJapanese measure, for such it is, was the outcome of various discriminatory measures under consideration by the legislature for many years. In 1909, as a result of the President's intervention, a measure designed to prevent the acquisition of land by Japanese was amended so as to apply to all aliens, and thus lost its discriminatory character and failed to pass. Again in 1911 a measure forbidding the acquisition of land by aliens ineligible to citizenship and forbidding leasing by them, after being passed by one branch of the legislature was killed in the

1 See Appendix A for extracts from the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation and Protocol between Japan and the United States of America of February 21, 1911, and Appendix B for California's Alien Land Law of 1913.

were.

other. Pressure had again been exerted from Washington, and the Asiatic Exclusion League weakened in its hostile position and advised against its enactment. Moreover, the Panama-Pacific Exposition Company had appeared as an opponent of all legislation likely to injure its enterprise, and the governor was satisfied to leave matters as they But in 1913 the situation was different, for the national administration was Democratic, the majority of the members of the state legislature and the governor, Progressive-Republican, and instead of the one serving as a check on the other, its intervention assisted in enacting the offensive measure. While the enactment of the law was not merely a piece of politics emanating from a desire to put the President in a hole," as some have asserted it to be, political considerations had something to do with it.

History of the Alien Land Legislation. Election Promises. The legislative history of the alien land bill is briefly this. Of the state platforms adopted by the political parties in 1913, that of the Democratic party alone contained a plank relative to the holding of land by Asiatics. Not only did that party, as it and other parties had done for years, proclaim itself in favor of an amended exclusion law which would apply to all eastern Asiatics; it inserted in its platform a plank reading, "We favor the passage of a bill that will

1 Its history has been presented fully by Franklin Hichborn in Chapters XVI to XX of his admirable Story of the California Legislature of 1913.

prevent any alien not eligible to citizenship from owning land in the state of California." Having been a minority party in the legislature when federal intervention had defeated anti-Japanese bills, this plank was given a prominent place in the platform, and in the campaign which followed the subject was made one of the most emphasized issues in the state. Much campaign literature was distributed, some of it attributing to Mr. Wilson the view that the policy of exclusion should be applied in dealing with the problem of "Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration," and calling attention to then President Roosevelt's message of 1906, urging upon Congress amendment of the naturalization law so that the Japanese might become American citizens. Though the Progressive-Republicans as a party took no position on the " Asiatic question" and made their successful fight on a platform calling for constructive progressive legislation, many of the candidates for office went on record in favor of restrictive legislation. Some of them, indeed, had been earnest advocates of such legislation in the previous sessions of the legislature. Moreover, it was closely affiliated with organized labor, which has always been foremost in agitating legislation against Asiatics. The State Federation of Labor and related organizations in 1913 asked the various candidates for office to state their positions with reference to the Asiatic problem, and with the usual result — a majority reported that they were in favor of restrictive legislation. Some, like Mr. Bradford of Sacramento,

pledged themselves, if elected, to introduce restrictive measures relating to land ownership by Asiatics. Thus only a minority of the members of the legislature went to Sacramento free from platform or personal pledges. Following the election the Asiatic Exclusion League, which had proved to be timid in 1911, went on record in favor of the radical Sanford measure which had been defeated two years before.1 This would not only have forbidden the acquisition of land by purchase by Asiatics; but "section 8" provided that " every contract, agreement, or lease of any land made with or to any alien, not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States, shall be null and void." And on the other hand, the Panama-Pacific Exposition Company made its plans to prevent discriminating legislation which would imperil the exposition to be held in 1915 and for which the state was being heavily taxed.

Opposition of the Panama-Pacific Exposition Company to Alien Land Legislation. The Exposition Company worked through a special committee which devoted itself entirely to dealing with the problem involved in discriminatory legislation. An attempt was made to prevent the introduction of measures which might be construed as hostile to Asiatics and thought to be offensive to them, and San Francisco papers, it was said, had agreed to say nothing of failures to redeem preëlection and platform pledges. But this effort to "hush up" the whole matter failed and the first days 1 At its meeting of Dec. 15, 1912.

of the session witnessed the introduction of several bills in Assembly and Senate designed to bar aliens or certain classes of aliens from ownership of the soil.

Various Measures presented to the Legislature to meet the "Problem." Some of the measures were discriminatory, while others were not, but the "problem" attacked by most of them, if not by all, was that of the holding of agricultural land by Japanese. Most of the men who introduced bills came from districts in which the Japanese were conspicuous as farmers or as laborers in agricultural industries. The Democratic Sanford-Shearer bill (Senate Bill No. 27, Assembly Bill No. 113) squared with the Democratic platform. It was less radical than the Sanford measure, defeated in 1911, in that it did not declare leasing null and void. One Birdsall bill (Senate Bill No. 5) prohibited the acquisition of land by purchase by aliens who had not declared their intention to become citizens, but expressly authorized leasing of lands by such parties. Another bill introduced by the Senator was along the lines of the law finally adopted, aliens other than those eligible to citizenship being limited to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, and transfer "of real property, or any interest therein, in the manner and to the extent and for the purposes prescribed by any treaty now existing between the Government of the United States and the nation or country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and not otherwise." Senator Larkin introduced a bill (Senate Bill No. 416) which drew the line between citizens and aliens