811.5245/10
The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Howard)
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to my note of September 5, 1924,84 concerning real estate acquired by British Indians in certain States of the United States, and to inform you that a communication has now been received from the Governor of California, enclosing a copy of a letter he had received from the Attorney General of that State, dealing with this matter. The letter from the Attorney General of California reads in part as follows:
“In reply to your request for my views on this subject, I would say, first, that it is of course clear that there can be no postponing of the date when the United States Supreme Court decision referred to becomes effective. It is now effective and controlling with reference both to all public officials, and also to the various land holders of this state.
“I would say, however, that it has been the view of this office from the very inception of the alien land legislation that the spirit and [Page 261] purposes of that legislation will be best carried out if we encourage the sale by ineligible aliens of such land as they might hold. This will not only carry out the purposes of the act but will be aiding in the solution of this question in a way that will obviate unnecessary hardships.
“I am pleased to be able to state that, generally speaking, there has been an active cooperation on the part of the various district attorneys of the state in pursuing a policy which will lead to the desired result of so accomplishing the fundamental purposes of our alien land legislation. I am, therefore, prepared to state that so far as the attitude of this office is concerned we would be pleased, under the circumstances, to cooperate with your office in urging that the general policy requested by the British Embassy be carried out, to the end that unnecessary hardships be avoided, and to the further end that the real interests of the state be served by permitting the title to these lands to be finally vested in those qualified, under our law, to hold the same. The right of such persons so holding the legal title to lands to sell and convey good title to the same at any time prior to the institution of proceedings for escheat is generally conceded.
“With reference to the question of the right to escheat those lands which were lawfully acquired prior to the enactment of our Alien Land Act in 1913, I am of the opinion that the lands so lawfully acquired are not subject to escheat under the terms of our Alien Land Act.
“With reference to the other question of the rights of a Hindu who was naturalized as a citizen of the United States, it is, of course, clear that this naturalization was not lawful under the rule now established by the United States Supreme Court. I realize that several United States District Courts did in fact grant naturalization to these Hindus under a mistaken impression that they were ‘white persons’, as that expression is used in the United States Naturalization Statute. These decisions were subject to final review by the Supreme Court. This review has been had and the decision of the Supreme Court has shown that the attempt to naturalize these people was unauthorized by law.
“I do believe, however, that there is an element of justice here to be considered, and that so far as possible reasonable time should be extended to these aliens, who were so erroneously naturalized, within which to dispose of their property. These questions can be solved in accordance with law and at the same time accomplish the real ends of the state, without visiting harsh or unnecessary hardships upon individuals who in good faith accepted privileges which were erroneously granted to them.”
Accept [etc.]
- Not printed.↩