![]() ![]() Purcell now hoped to find an interned state employee on whose behalf he could file a habeas corpus petition in federal court. Each was nonetheless first charged with being 'a citizen of the Empire of Japan, and a subject of the Emperor of Japan.' Each 'defendent' in the dismissal proceedings was additionally charged with the ability to 'read and write the Japanese language,' having attended 'a Japanese school conducted by officials of the Buddhist Church,' and with being 'a member and officer of certain Japanese organizations' which were 'violently opposed to the Democratic form of Government of the United States and to its principles.' The necessary exposure of the public to state employees of Japanese descent, claimed the personnel board, had 'created discord, hostility, unfriendliness, opposition, antagonism, disharmony truculency.' On April 2, with the evacuation underway, the personnel board notified these employees of their immediate suspension and that charges would soon be filed against them.Cast in the form of an idictment, the board's statement alleged 'failure of good behavior, fraud in securing employment, incompetency, inefficiency, and acts incompatible with and inimical to the public service' as grounds for dismissal.Īll of the charged Nisei employees were native-born American citizens, a requirement of California law. News reports of a resolution of the California state senate calling for the firing of the state's Nisei employees added to their concern. A firm statement by California Attorney General Earl Warren that dismissals on the basis of race would be illegal had failed to deter the personnel board. The forms asked for details about past visits to Japan, knowledge of the Japanese language, and membership in organizations with ties to Japan. Despite the fact that all the affected workers were American-born citizens, the questionnaire seemed to be predicated on the assumption that they were citizens of Japan under that country's 'dual nationality' law. ![]() had suddenly been ordered by the State Personnel Board to complete lengthy questionnaires that probed their past and present activities in detail. Despite a lengthy delay in the lower courts, the petition brought on behalf of Mitsuye Endo eventually forced the Supreme Court to confront the internment issue directly.Įndo's case actually began several months before she reported to Tanforan, and well before the decision to intern Japanese Americans had been made. Her challenge to internment began after she reported to the Tanforan assembly center and was based on the civil procedure of a habeas corpus petition. " Endo did not test the curfew and exclusion orders that preceeded internment, nor did she risk the criminal penalties provided in Public Law 503. Original caption: "Mitsuye Endo, Supreme Court figure, seated at her desk in the administrative office at the Central Utah Relocation Center." ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |