811.5245/6
The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State
Sir: In the note which you were so good as to address to me on April 2nd last regarding the property rights acquired by British Indians in certain States of the Union, you enquired whether detailed information could be furnished to you concerning the names of the persons involved, and the extent of their holdings in land: you added that on the receipt of this information, further consideration would be given to the whole matter.
I have made the necessary enquiries from His Majesty’s Consular officers in the States involved, and as a result of their reports I have the honour to enclose a list comprising the names of 95 Indians,83 who hold either jointly or individually, separate tracts of land of a total area of 1868 acres valued at approximately $1,328,000. In this connection I would however point out that the list is still incomplete for not only does it not include property holders in the Imperial Valley, Southern California, but also because, in several cases, only the name is given of one of the joint owners: but on the other hand, I must add that the names therein included are to the best of my knowledge those of bona fide property holders, the valuation of whose estates has been made on very conservative premises.
In the note which he addressed to you on September 19th last, Mr. Chilton made it clear that my Government in no way desired to impugn the right of the United States Government to determine what persons are eligible for United States citizenship, nor to contest [Page 259] the validity of the laws in force in certain States by which aliens who are ineligible for citizenship are unable to possess real property. The suggestions of His Majesty’s Government, to which Mr. Chilton gave expression, were to the effect that the inevitable hardships, ensuing from the decision of the United States Supreme Court of February 19, 1923, might possibly be mitigated if the competent United States authorities could see their way to extending the period of time within which the properties held by British Indians should be liquidated: and in this hope, His Majesty’s Government ventured to propose, as a fair and practical solution of these difficulties, that the date on which the Supreme Court ruling shall be deemed to become effective, should be January 1st, 1925.
While still adhering to the views expressed in September, His Majesty’s Government now feel that as the United States authorities have not yet found it possible to give a final decision in this matter, the delay, within which the ruling should be made effective, might with fairness to all parties concerned be extended for a further period of twelve months and become January 1st, 1926. His Majesty’s Government cannot but reiterate that they do not wish to lay emphasis on questions of naturalization, or of eligibility or ineligibility for citizenship through naturalization, but rather on the patent hardship accruing to those Indians who have continuously retained their British nationality and who are now threatened with the forfeiture of legally acquired property rights. From the merely practical point of view, the British Indians in question will in any case be faced with conditions which will adversely affect their chances of selling their property at fair prices: the fact that these various Estates will be thrown upon the market more or less simultaneously will tend to reduce prices, at a time when there is likely to be a period of agricultural depression in California owing to the abnormally dry winter and to the serious outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease, and when the leases of land held under cropping contracts (amounting in the case of British Indians to 86,340 acres in 1920) will also be falling in.
My Government hopes therefore that the United States Government will see its way to considering as favourably as possible the views expressed above on the general question, and will urge upon the State authorities involved the possibility of alleviating, within the limits suggested, the hardships which the British Indians in this country are being unexpectedly called upon to face.
At the same time I should be glad to learn whether or not the United States Government concurs in the views expressed in the third paragraph of Mr. Chilton’s note above-mentioned, to the effect that real property legally acquired by British Indians in California, prior to the passage of the first Californian Alien Land Law on [Page 260] May 19, 1913, will not be liable to confiscation for the reasons therein adduced. An expression of your views on this question would be of particular value, because certain of the British Indians who figure in the attached list did in fact purchase land before May 19, 1913: namely No. 9, Fattu Peero purchased 10 acres at Orangevale, California, in 1910; No. 10, Charles Sri Earn purchased 10 acres in 1912, No. 21, Budh Singh purchased 20 acres, out of the 75 now jointly held, prior to 1913. In this connection I would observe that Charles Sri Earn was threatened with the confiscation of his holding in 1922 (at a date prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court) on the ground of his ineligibility to citizenship, but because purchase of part of his holding had been effected in 1912, the State Court dismissed the case. Moreover, you will observe that No. 8 on the attached list, Earn Nath Puri, holder of 10 acres of agricultural land, was naturalized in 1916 as a citizen of this country, and you will doubtless concur with me in considering that his is a case deserving the most sympathetic treatment prior to expropriation.
In conclusion, I have the honour to reiterate my request that you will be so good as to draw the urgent attention of the competent authorities to these questions, in order that they may consider with the least delay possible the solution which I have suggested above. I venture to hope that they will see their way to concur in His Majesty’s Government’s proposals in the interest of equity and justice.
I have [etc.]
- Not printed.↩