[Enclosure]
The Indian Agency
General to the Department of
State
F. 104/43
Memorandum
According to Sections 1 and 2 of the Alien Land Law of the State of
California, adopted in November 192091 (see
appendix I), aliens not eligible for citizenship may not acquire,
possess, enjoy and transfer real property or any interest therein in
the State. The Senate of California has recently adopted an amending
Bill, Section 11a whereof reads as follows:
“Whenever leases, cropping agreements, or any other
agreements to acquire, possess, enjoy, use, cultivate,
occupy and transfer real property for farming or
agricultural purposes or to transfer in whole or in part the
beneficial use of said lands are made in the name of the
wife or child of any alien mentioned in Section 2 of this
act, or made in the name of any other person, and when any
such alien mentioned in Section 2 of this act is then or
thereafter allowed to remain or go upon the land, farm and
cultivate same and enjoy directly or indirectly the
beneficial use of such said agricultural lands or obtains or
has a beneficial interest in or use of the proceeds received
from the sale of the agricultural crops produced on said
lands, then any person signing or entering into any such
agreement with knowledge that any such alien shall be
allowed or permitted to farm and cultivate such land and
enjoy directly or indirectly the beneficial use of such
agricultural lands or have a beneficial interest in or use
of the proceeds received from the sale of the agricultural
crops produced on said lands or any person who allows or
permits any such alien to farm and cultivate such lands and
enjoy directly or indirectly the beneficial use of such
agricultural lands or obtain or have a beneficial interest
in or use of the proceeds received from the sale of
agricultural crops produced on said lands shall be guilty of
violation of the terms and provisions of this act, and upon
conviction thereof shall be punished in the manner provided
in Sections 10 and 10a hereof, and the Attorney General or
the district attorney of the proper county shall have the
power to institute injunction proceedings in the name of the
people of the State of California against any and all such
persons for the purpose of enjoining and restraining them
from carrying on farming operations on any agricultural
lands in the State of California, under the terms and
provisions of any such said agreements, contracts, or
leases, as hereinbefore provided.”
The amending Bill is now before the Judiciary
Committee of the Lower House of the State. It has been represented
that, as Indians are not eligible for citizenship, the amendment, if
allowed to become law, would prevent them from cultivating land held
in the name of a wife or child or some other person eligible for
citizenship. Precise statistics of the number of persons likely to
be affected or the area of land held by Indians by eligible proxy
are not available. According
[Page 311]
to such information as is available, however, the number of
British Indian subjects who might be hit by the proposed amendment
is between 80 and 100 while the area held by these persons through
proxy is stated to be about 11,000 acres held under lease and 4,500
acres held in ownership. Details of the territorial distribution of
this area are:
|
Leased
|
Owned
|
| Imperial Valley (Los Angeles Consular
Districts) |
10,000 Acres |
2,000 Acres |
| Fresno (Central California) |
500 Acres |
1,200–1,300 Acres |
| Stockton (Northern California) |
. . . . . |
400 Acres |
| Marysville (Northern
California) |
300–400 Acres |
800 Acres |
- 2.
- It is presumed that the amendment is primarily aimed against
Japanese nationals. Indians, however, like the Chinese, who
would also appear to be affected, stand in a different category
from the Japanese. They are nationals of a country which is at
war with Japan and allied, in a strenuous endeavour, with the
forces of the United States of America in the endeavour to
defeat Japan. It is submitted that this consideration is
sufficiently important by itself to justify a request for the
exclusion of Indian nationals from the scope of the proposed
law. Were economic reasons needed to support this request, it
would be legitimate to point out that the number of Indians
involved is both small and likely to diminish. Their ownership
or occupation of land, as at present, and its continued
cultivation could not, therefore, be in any way in conflict with
the interests of the rest of the community.
- 3.
- Opinion in India is especially sensitive on the subject of the
rights and privileges of Indian nationals resident overseas. The
enactment of a law of the kind in question would come as a
severe shock to all sections of the Indian public. It is
earnestly hoped, therefore, that action to avert the inclusion
of Indians in California in the scope of this law will be found
feasible.
[Washington,] April 24,
1943.
