{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0064109":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"de3d9fd0-ed9e-4add-9db3-8ff55cebdf0d","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/alternative":[{"value":"JUDGMENT BY PRIVY COUNCIL RE TOMEY HOMMA.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1198198","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"British Columbia. Legislative Assembly","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2014-12-10","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1903]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcsessional\/items\/1.0064109\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" 3 Ed. 7 Judgment by Privy Council re Tomey Homma. J 7\nRETURN\nTo an Order of the House for a Return of a copy of the Judgment delivered by the\nPrivy Council In Re Tomey Homma.\nD. M. EBERTS,\nAttorney-General's Department, Attorney-General.\nApril 8th, 1903.\nJudgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Appeal of the\nCollector of Voters for the Electoral District of Vancouver City and the Attorney-General\nfor the Province of British Columbia v. Tomey Homma and the Attorney-General for the\nDominion of Canada, from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, delivered the 17th\nDecember, 1902.\nPresent at the Hearing : The Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Davey, Lord\nRobertson and Lord Lindley.\n{Delivered by the Lord Chancellor.)\nIn this case a naturalised Japanese claims to be placed upon the register of voters for the\nElectoral District of Vancouver City, and the objection which is made to his claim is that by\nthe electoral law of the Province it is enacted that no Japanese, whether naturalised or not,\nshall have his name placed on the register of voters or shall be entitled to vote. Application\nwas made to the proper officer to enter the applicant's name on the register, but he refused to\ndo so upon the ground that the enactment in question prohibited its being done. This refusal\nwas overruled by the Chief Justice sitting in the County Court, and the Appeal from his\ndecision to the Supreme Court of British Columbia was disallowed. The present Appeal is\nfrom the decision of the Supreme Court.\nThere is no doubt that, if it is within the eapacity of the Province to enact the electoral\nlaw, the claimant is disqualified by the express language of the Statute, but it is contended\nthat the 91st and 92nd sections of the British North America Act have deprived the Province\nof the power of making any such provision as to disqualify a naturalised Japanese from\nelectoral privileges. It is maintained that section 91 (25) enacts that the whole subject of\nnaturalisation is reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion, while the Naturalisation Act of Canada enacts that a naturalised alien shall within Canada be entitled to all\npolitical and other rights, powers, and privileges to which a natural-born British subject is\nentitled in Canada. To this it is replied that by section 92 (1) the constitution of the Province\nand any amendment of it are placed under the exclusive control of the Provincial Legislature.\nThe question which their Lordships have to determine is which of these two views is the right\none, and in determining that question the policy or impolicy of such an enactment as that\nwhich excludes a particular race from the franchise is not a topic which their Lordships are\nentitled to consider.\nThe first observation which arises is that the enactment supposed to be ultra vires and to\nbe impeached upon the ground of its dealing with alienage and naturalisation has not necessarily anything to do with either. A child of Japanese parentage born in Vancouver City is\na natural-born subject of the King and would be equally excluded from the possession of the\nfranchise. The extent to which naturalisation will confer privileges has varied both in this\ncountry and elsewhere. From the time of William III. down to Queen Victoria no naturalisation was permitted which did not exclude the alien naturalised from sitting in Parliament\nor in the Privy Council. J 8 Judgment by Privy Council re Tomey Homma. 1903\nIn Lawrence's \" Wheaton,\" page 903 (Second Annotated Edition, 1863), it is said that\n\" though (in the United States) the power of naturalisation be nominally exclusive in the\nFederal Government, its operation in the most important particulars, especially as to the right\nof suffrage, is made to depend on the local constitution and laws.\" The term political rights\nused in the Canadian Naturalisation Act is, as Mr. Justice Walkem very justly says, a very\nwide phrase, and their Lordships concur in his observation that, whatever it means, it cannot\nbe held to give necessarily a right to the suffrage in all or any of the Provinces. In the\nhistory of this country the right to the franchise has been granted and withheld on a great\nnumber of grounds, conspicuously upon grounds of religious faith, yet no one has ever\nsuggested that a person excluded from the franchise was not under allegiance to the Sovereign.\nCould it be suggested that the Province of British Columbia could not exclude an alien\nfrom the franchise in that Province ? Yet if the mere mention of alienage in the enactment\ncould make the law ultra vires, such a construction of section 91 (25) would involve that\nabsurdity. The truth is that the language of that section does not purport to deal with the\nconsequences of either alienage or naturalisation. It undoubtedly reserves these subjects for\nthe exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion, that is to say, it is for the Dominion to determine\nwhat shall constitute either the one or the other, but the question as to what consequences\nshall follow from either is not touched. The right of protection and the obligations of\nallegiance are necessarily involved in the nationality conferred by naturalisation, but the\nprivileges attached to it, where these depend upon residence, are quite independent of nationality.\nThis indeed seems to have been the opinion of the learned Judges below, but they were\nunder the impression that they were precluded from acting on their own judgment by the\ndecision of this Board in the case of the Union Colliery Company v. Bryden, 1899 A.C., 587.\nThat case depended upon totally different grounds. This Board dealing with the particular\nfacts of the case came to the conclusion that the regulations there impeached were not really\naimed at the regulation of coal mines at all, but were in truth devised to deprive the Chinese,\nnaturalised or not, of the ordinary rights of the inhabitants of British Columbia and, in effect,\nto prohibit their continued residence in that Province, since it prohibited their earning their\nliving in that Province. It is obvious that such a decision can have no relation to the question\nwhether any naturalised person has an inherent right to the suffrage within the Province in\nwhich he resides.\nFor these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the order of the\nChief Justice in the County Court and the order of the Supreme Court ought to be reversed,\nexcept so far as the respondent, Tomey Homma, is entitled to his costs under those orders.\nHaving regard to the terms of the Order in Council giving special leave to appeal, their\nLordships direct the appellants to pay the costs of Tomey Homma in this appeal, but that\notherwise the parties shall pay their own costs.\nVICTORIA, b. C.\nPrinted by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1903.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"J110.L5 S7","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"1903_13_J7_J8","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0064109","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"Victoria, BC : Government Printer","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"RETURN To an Order of the House for a Return of a copy of the Judgment delivered by the Privy Council In Re Tomey Homma.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}