NAA: A1, 1917/15768
Inagaki, Rose Caroline
Digital copy - 36306
| Occupation as written | State School Teacher |
| Standardised occupation | PP13: Public services and Professionals - Education |
| Application received | 25 Aug 1917 |
| Application status |
Denied |
| Official | NUUG |
| Date of approval or denial | 11 Oct 1917 |
| If rejected, why? | husband still living (Japanese) |
| Birthplace as written | South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia |
| Modern country | Australia |
| Age on application | 36 |
| Age on arrival in Australia | None |
| Port of Departure | None |
| Port of Arrival | None |
| Date of arrival | None |
| Name of ship | None |
| Address in Australia | Rowena Street, Caulfield |
| Address State | Victoria |
| Time at address | |
| Previous address 1 | St Kilda |
| Address State | Victoria |
| Time at address | |
| Married | Yes |
| Children | Yes |
1 female, residing with them |
| Name of reference | John Cross |
| Occupation of reference | Inspector of State Schools, Victoria |
| Marginalia description | |
| Police report attached | No |
| Link to other applicant | |
| Literate | Yes |
| Reason | Vote |
| Other information | In a letter from 18 Sept 1917, she explains that ‘I have not before heard of a British subject being so treated in a British Colony, and naturally after being for so long an elector, resent the treatment… Again may I ask that I may, by naturalization, be given the rights of protection, and the privileges, which are mine by right of birth.’ |
See also NAA: MP16/1, 1916/1378
Glynn looked at her application and correspondence and has decided that it ‘must be refused’ (15 Oct 1917, Hunt to her).
B in Victoria, Australia. Married to Japanese man. DEA Memorandum, 11 October 1917: summary presented to minister, explains initially refused.
She appealed and pointed out that two women like her married to Japanese men naturalised in 1914. Also the NSW Franchise Act of 1916 allowed such women to apply to still vote (they point out this does not apply nationally). Also ‘the Department did not consider it desirable that husband and wife should owe separate allegiance to two distinct Governments.’ He also told her that the relevant act was the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914: ‘“The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien”.’
She’s appealed again, hence the minister being asked to make a decision, and his unusual explicit ‘refused’ as ‘husband still living and an alien’, dated 11/10/17 handwritten at the bottom of the Memorandum, p.3 (which summarises most of the above).