Images de page
PDF
ePub

prohibiting the changing of boundaries of Indian reservations except by act of Congress, under date of September 2, 1931, this department reserved temporarily the above-described land from settlement, entry, or other disposition until the matter of its permanent withdrawal for the benefit of the Skull Valley Indians could be laid before Congress. Such temporary withdrawal was necessary in order to prevent the land from being entered in the meantime under the public land laws.

This department recommends the enactment of legislation such as is contemplated by the attached draft of a bill. Very truly yours,

RAY LYMAN WILBUR. O

No.

No.

AMEND THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT

JANUARY 7, 1932.- Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DRIVER, from the Committee on the Territories, submitted the

following

REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 309)

The Committee on the Territories, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 309, after consideration, reports the same favorably and recommends that the bill do pass.

This is a bill to amend section 4 of the Hawaiian organic act, so as to provide definitely and specifically, for the status of persons who were born between the date of the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, when the Republic of Hawaii ceased to exist, and April 30, 1900, when the organic act was approved by the President of the United States.

Under section 4 of this act, it has been held that citizens of the Republic of Hawaii, became United States citizens by group naturalization, As a result of a recent decision of the United States Deitrict Court for the Territory of Hawaii (H. C. No. 250) in the matter of the application of Lum Yuk Kwai for a writ of habeas corpus, Judge Edward K. Massee held, amongst other points as noted in the syllabus as follows:

7. CITIZENSHIP: FORMER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII Persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, did not become citizens of the United States until June 14, 1900.

It has generally been assumed that because of the declaratory form as to the United States citizenship in which this section was written, that the effective naturalization was as of the date of annexation, in which case their children born subsequent to such date would necessarily have been American citizens. The case referred to, however, establishes a precedent and has invited attention to the defective and inadequate wording of the statute, and to the anomalous situation under which such children now find themselves.

As a consequence of the decision of the learned judge it was held that Lum Mun King, who was born in the Hawaiian Islands December 16, 1880, though now conceded to be an American citizen, was at the time of the birth of his child, born subsequent to the date of annexation, not then a citizen of the United States. He could not have been an alien because at that time he owed allegiance to the United States through annexation of the country of his birth.

There was no remaining alien authority, to which he could in any way owe allegiance, because the Hawaiian Republic had been merged, wholly and completely, into that of the United States. In this consideration the status of a citizen of Hawaii differs from that of the citizen of all of the other land acquisitions made by the United States; for instance, when Texas was annexed to the United States there remained the possibility of Mexican allegiance; in the case of Louisiana there remained French allegiance; in the case of California there again remained Mexican allegiance; in the case of Alaska there remained Russian allegiance; in the case of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands, there remained Spanish allegiance; and in the case of the Virgin Islands there remained Danish allegiance; but in the case of the Hawaiian Islands there was no further foreign sovereignty remaining at the time of the accomplishment of the annexation.

With respect to Porto Rico, some such recognition was written into the organic act which provides amongst others as follows:

All inhabitants continuing to reside in Porto Rico who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in Porto Rico, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto Rico.

Ordinarily, a situation such as this could be remedied by individual naturalization, providing the applicant were of Caucasian or of African race; but as to the population of the Territory of Hawaii, a large part of which is Hawaiian, that is to say Polynesian race, of Chinese race, and of Japanese race, such individual action may no longer be had under the existing statutes, and by the decision of the courts the group naturalization has been held not to apply to the child in question. Hence we are confronted with a situation where the father owing allegiance to the United States had a daughter, born to him subsequent to this date, and held to be an alien inadmissible under the immigration laws, though he himself upon the date of the passage of the organic act was declared to be an American citizen.

It is to correct this anomalous situation that the bill was introduced and approved and favorably reported by the committee. It does not affect the status of others than those, necessarily limited, who were born during a period of about one year and eight months.

In compliance with the rule there follows a statement of the law showing the new law in italics:

Sec. 4. That all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, and their children born subsequent thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August 12, 1898, and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

O

TO AMEND THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT

JANUARY 7, 1932.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GIBSON, from the Committee on the Territories, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 310)

The Committee on the Territories, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 310, after consideration reports the same favorably with the following amendment and recommends that the bill do pass:

On page 1, line 3, after the word "That" insert the words "the first paragraph of”.

This bill is intended to amend section 100 of the Hawaiian organic act so as to give to the persons born in Hawaii the same privileges as were obtained for the citizens of the mainland, by reason of the passage of the so-called Cable Act, which provided in substance that "Any woman who was a citizen of the United States at birth shall not be denied citizenship under section 4 on account of her race.”

Section 100 now reads as follows:

Sec. 100. That for the purposes of naturalization under the laws of the United States residence in the Hawaiian Islands prior to the taking effect of this act shall be deemed equivalent to residence in the United States and in the Territory of Hawaii, and the requirement of a previous declaration of intention to become & citizen of the United States and to renounce former allegiance shall not apply to persons who have resided in said islands at least five years prior to the taking effect of this act; but all other provisions of the laws of the United States relating to naturalization shall, so far as applicable, apply to persons in the said islands.

All records relating to naturalization, all declarations of intention to become citizens of the United States, and all certificates of naturalization filed, recorded, or issued prior to the taking effect of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, in or from any circuit court of the Territory of Hawaii, shall for all purposes be deemed to be and to have been made, filed, recorded, or issued by a court with jurisdiction to naturalize aliens, but shall not be by tiis act further validated or legalized.

The principal intent of this bill, is to make it possible for a person who was born in Hawaii, prior to annexation and prior to the passage of the organic act, to recover citizenship after having lost it, even though not a Caucasian or an African. It should be remembered in

this connection that the native race of the Hawaiian Islands is of Polynesian stock, and consequently neither Caucasian nor African.

The principal beneficiaries of this bill naturally would be women who had married aliens ineligible to citizenship and consequently have lost their own. Many of these women know no other country than Hawaii and the United States, have never been out of the country, never intend to go out of it, have been divorced or have lost their husbands, and remain in the country without any official allegiance to or recognition by the country of their birth.

In the Federal court for the Territory of Hawaii two cases were under consideration, and in a broad and very learned decision Judge Massee held that the petitioner was entitled, because of her birth in Hawaii, to be naturalized.

The more pertinent parts of the syllabus are as follows:

9. StatutesConstruction.-By the use of the words “United States” in the act of March 3, 1931, it is evident that Congress had in mind the United States as it was constituted at the time the act was passed and did not intend to restrict it to the United States as constituted at the time of birth of the applicant.

10. Alien-Naturalization-Effect of act of March 3, 1931.-A woman, born in the Hawaiian Islands, who became a citizen of the United States by section 4 of the Hawaiian organic act of 1900 and who lost her citizenship by marriage to an alien but who continuously resided in the Hawaiian Islands since birth and has never acquired any other nationality by affirmative act, but who, by race, is neither "a white person" nor a person of African blood is a “woman who was a citizen of the United States at birth" within the meaning and intent of the naturalization laws which provide that she “shall not be denied naturalization under section 4 on account of her race.”

In this decision the other Federal judge for the Territory of Hawaii, Judge William B. Lymer, concurred.

Shortly thereafter a similar case originated in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit for the Territory of Hawaii, a court having concurrent jurisdiction of naturalization cases, and in that court Judge William C. Achi held to the narrow and restricted interpretation of the statute, and in a decision, which was only part of three pages long, he held that the petitioner was not entitled to recapture her citizenship even though she, the petitioner, had resided in the Hawaiian Islands continuously since birth in 1889.

It has seemed to all of us that such a position could not have been intended by the Federal Congress. In fact it was felt when the Cable Act was passed that it covered the situation with respect to Hawaii for all time. The principal difficulties are well described in the decision of Judge Edward K. Massee in the following passages of his decision:

The passage of this act created numerous difficulties in this Territory as well as elsewhere. We had here many women, born in Hawaii both before and after annexation, who had married foreigners but whose racial characteristics were such that, within the provision of the naturalization laws, they could not be classed as "white.” Outstanding among them were women of the Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean races. Some had married aliens eligible to citizenship and some had married aliens ineligible.

Prior to the passage of this act, such persons, upon the termination of the mari. tal status, could “resume" their citizenship by remaining in the United States, but the enactment of this act prevented this, and the only way they could become citizens was "upon full and complete compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws" with two exceptions not necessary to note, but her naturalization was limited to (sec. 4) "a woman who, before the passage of this act, has lost her United States citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien eligible for citizenship,” and it made no provision for the naturalization of one who had lost it

« PrécédentContinuer »