The Chinese in the Courts: The Chinese in the Courts: The Fight for Civil RightsThe Fight for Civil Rights

Asian Americans and the LawAsian Americans and the Law

Dr. SteinerDr. Steiner

Stephen FieldStephen Field Born in Connecticut, Field Born in Connecticut, Field

moved to California in moved to California in 1849 during its Gold 1849 during its Gold Rush. Rush.

Elected to the Supreme Elected to the Supreme Court of California in Court of California in 18571857

Appointed to the Appointed to the Supreme Court by Supreme Court by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 Abraham Lincoln in 1863

Field advocated passage Field advocated passage of a federal law of a federal law excluding Chinese from excluding Chinese from the United Statesthe United States

Lorenzo SawyerLorenzo Sawyer President Ulysses S. President Ulysses S.

Grant appointed Grant appointed Sawyer in 1870 as Sawyer in 1870 as the first judge of the the first judge of the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit.Ninth Circuit.

Sawyer came to Sawyer came to California in 1850; California in 1850; he was “most he was “most favorably impressed favorably impressed with the Chinese” with the Chinese” he met therehe met there

Ogden HoffmanOgden Hoffman The first federal judge The first federal judge

in what was to become in what was to become the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, Hoffman was appointed Hoffman was appointed by President Fillmore in by President Fillmore in 1851 as judge of the 1851 as judge of the Northern District of Northern District of California California

Hoffman favored Hoffman favored restricting Chinese restricting Chinese immigration and immigration and thought the Chinese thought the Chinese were an inferior racewere an inferior race

Michael Les Benedict onMichael Les Benedict on Laisssez-Faire Constitutionalism Laisssez-Faire Constitutionalism

Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. the laws.

The Queue OrdinanceThe Queue OrdinanceSan Francisco San Francisco Evening BulletinEvening Bulletin June 2, 1873 June 2, 1873

The Board of Supervisors have passed to The Board of Supervisors have passed to print an ordinance requiring the cropping of print an ordinance requiring the cropping of the hair of every person who is serving a the hair of every person who is serving a term in the jail under a criminal conviction. term in the jail under a criminal conviction. The ordinance, while it nominally makes no The ordinance, while it nominally makes no discrimination as to race or condition, is discrimination as to race or condition, is aimed specially at the Chinese. … The aimed specially at the Chinese. … The Chinese who offend against the [lodging Chinese who offend against the [lodging house] ordinance refuse to pay the fine, but house] ordinance refuse to pay the fine, but go to jail and board it out.go to jail and board it out.

The Queue OrdinanceThe Queue OrdinanceSan Francisco San Francisco Evening BulletinEvening Bulletin June 2, 1873 June 2, 1873

The Supervisors, casting about for The Supervisors, casting about for some means of relief, have hit upon some means of relief, have hit upon the plan of cropping the hair. White the plan of cropping the hair. White criminals would care nothing about criminals would care nothing about this, and the ordinance would probably this, and the ordinance would probably never be enforced against them. The never be enforced against them. The loss of a pigtail is a great calamity to loss of a pigtail is a great calamity to the Chinese. It his national badge of the Chinese. It his national badge of honor. If it is cut off he is maimed. honor. If it is cut off he is maimed.

Ho Ah Kow v. NunanHo Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879) (1879) What had Ho Ah Kow been convicted of?What had Ho Ah Kow been convicted of? What would have been the purpose of that law?What would have been the purpose of that law?

Ho Ah Kow v. NunanHo Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879) (1879) Why did Ho Ah Kow sue Nunan, the Why did Ho Ah Kow sue Nunan, the

sheriff of San Francisco?sheriff of San Francisco?

Ho Ah Kow v. NunanHo Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879) (1879)

What was the sheriff’s defense to the lawsuit? What argument did the sheriff make?

What was the plaintiff’s response to the sheriff’s argument? What were the plaintiff’s two objections to the ordinance?

Ho Ah Kow v. NunanHo Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879) (1879) We are aware of the general feeling--amounting We are aware of the general feeling--amounting

to positive hostility--prevailing in California to positive hostility--prevailing in California against the Chinese. . . . Their dissimilarity in against the Chinese. . . . Their dissimilarity in physical characteristics, in language, manners physical characteristics, in language, manners and religion would seem, from past experience, and religion would seem, from past experience, to prevent the possibility of their assimilation to prevent the possibility of their assimilation with our people. And thoughtful persons, with our people. And thoughtful persons, looking at the millions which crowd the opposite looking at the millions which crowd the opposite shores of the Pacific, and the possibility at no shores of the Pacific, and the possibility at no distant day of their pouring over in vast hordes distant day of their pouring over in vast hordes among us, giving rise to fierce antagonisms of among us, giving rise to fierce antagonisms of race, hope that some way may be devised to race, hope that some way may be devised to prevent their further immigration. prevent their further immigration.

Ho Ah Kow v.Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan Nunan (1879) (1879)

Besides, we cannot Besides, we cannot shut our eyes to shut our eyes to matters of public matters of public notoriety and general notoriety and general cognizance. When we cognizance. When we take our seats on the take our seats on the bench we are not bench we are not struck with blindness, struck with blindness, and forbidden to and forbidden to know as judges what know as judges what we see as men . . . we see as men . . .

Ho Ah Kow v. NunanHo Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879) (1879) . . . and where an ordinance, though . . . and where an ordinance, though

general in its terms, only operates upon general in its terms, only operates upon a special race, sect or class, it being a special race, sect or class, it being universally understood that it is to be universally understood that it is to be enforced only against that race, sect or enforced only against that race, sect or class, we may justly conclude that it was class, we may justly conclude that it was the intention of the body adopting it that the intention of the body adopting it that it should only have such operation, and it should only have such operation, and treat it accordingly. We may take notice treat it accordingly. We may take notice of the limitation given to the general of the limitation given to the general terms of an ordinance by its practical terms of an ordinance by its practical construction as a fact in its history construction as a fact in its history

San Francisco OrdinanceSan Francisco Ordinance The people of the city and county of The people of the city and county of

San Francisco do hereby ordain as San Francisco do hereby ordain as follows:follows:Section 1. It is hereby declared to be Section 1. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any Chinese to locate, unlawful for any Chinese to locate, reside, or carry on business within the reside, or carry on business within the limits of the city and county of San limits of the city and county of San Francisco, except in that district of Francisco, except in that district of said city and county hereinafter said city and county hereinafter prescribed for their location.prescribed for their location.

San Francisco OrdinanceSan Francisco Ordinance Sec. 2. The following portions of the city and county Sec. 2. The following portions of the city and county

of San Francisco are hereby set apart for the of San Francisco are hereby set apart for the location of all Chinese who may desire to reside, location of all Chinese who may desire to reside, locate, or carry on business within the limits of said locate, or carry on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco, to-wit: Within that city and county of San Francisco, to-wit: Within that tract of land described as follows: Commencing at tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of Kentucky the intersection of the easterly line of Kentucky street with the south-westerly line of First avenue; street with the south-westerly line of First avenue; thence south-easterly along the south-westerly line thence south-easterly along the south-westerly line of First avenue to the north-westerly line of I street; of First avenue to the north-westerly line of I street; thence south-westerly along the north-westerly line thence south-westerly along the north-westerly line of I street to the south-westerly line of Seventh of I street to the south-westerly line of Seventh avenue to the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue to the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue; thence north-easterly along the south-avenue; thence north-easterly along the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue to Kentucky street; easterly line of Railroad avenue to Kentucky street; thence northerly along the easterly line of Kentucky thence northerly along the easterly line of Kentucky street to the south-westerly line of First avenue and street to the south-westerly line of First avenue and place of commencement.place of commencement.

San Francisco OrdinanceSan Francisco Ordinance Sec. 3. Within sixty days after the passage of this Sec. 3. Within sixty days after the passage of this

ordinance all Chinese now located, residing in or ordinance all Chinese now located, residing in or carrying on business within the limits of said city carrying on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco shall either remove and county of San Francisco shall either remove without the limits of said city and county of San without the limits of said city and county of San Francisco or remove and locate within the district Francisco or remove and locate within the district of said city and county of San Francisco herein of said city and county of San Francisco herein provided for their location.provided for their location.

Sec. 4. Any Chinese residing, locating, or carrying Sec. 4. Any Chinese residing, locating, or carrying on business within the limits of the city and on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco contrary to the provisions county of San Francisco contrary to the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of of this order shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months. for a term not exceeding six months.

San Francisco OrdinanceSan Francisco Ordinance The ordinance passed by the City of San The ordinance passed by the City of San

Francisco required the Chinese to move to Francisco required the Chinese to move to an area that had been designated for an area that had been designated for slaughterhouses, tallow-rendering plants slaughterhouses, tallow-rendering plants and other businesses considered to be and other businesses considered to be offensive.offensive.

Before the ordinance was passed, the Before the ordinance was passed, the Chinese in San Francisco were effectively Chinese in San Francisco were effectively segregated in Chinatown. segregated in Chinatown.

Why would the city pass such an ordinance?Why would the city pass such an ordinance? What other choice did the Chinese have in What other choice did the Chinese have in

addition to moving to the designated area?addition to moving to the designated area?

Judge SawyerJudge Sawyer The discrimination against The discrimination against

Chinese, and the gross Chinese, and the gross inequality of the operation of inequality of the operation of this ordinance upon Chinese, as this ordinance upon Chinese, as compared with others, in compared with others, in violation of the constitutional, violation of the constitutional, treaty, and statutory provisions treaty, and statutory provisions cited, are so manifest upon its cited, are so manifest upon its face, that I am unable to face, that I am unable to comprehend how this comprehend how this discrimination and inequality of discrimination and inequality of operation, and the consequent operation, and the consequent violation of the express violation of the express provisions of the constitution, provisions of the constitution, treaties and statutes of the treaties and statutes of the United States, can fail to be United States, can fail to be apparent to the mind of every apparent to the mind of every intelligent person, be he lawyer intelligent person, be he lawyer or layman. or layman.

Restrictive Covenants in SeattleRestrictive Covenants in Seattle

None other than persons of the None other than persons of the Caucasian raceCaucasian race may live upon or may live upon or hold title to land in this plat. (1929)hold title to land in this plat. (1929)

No persons of any race other than No persons of any race other than the the white or Caucasianwhite or Caucasian race shall race shall use or occupy and building or any lot, use or occupy and building or any lot, except that this covenant shall not except that this covenant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a different race domiciled servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant. (1940)with an owner or tenant. (1940)

Restrictive Covenants in SeattleRestrictive Covenants in Seattle No part of said property hereby conveyed shall No part of said property hereby conveyed shall

ever be used or occupied by any person of the ever be used or occupied by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay, or any AsiaticEthiopian, Malay, or any Asiatic race, and race, and the grantee, his heirs, personal the grantee, his heirs, personal representatives or assigns, shall never place representatives or assigns, shall never place any such person in the possession or any such person in the possession or occupancy of said property, or any part occupancy of said property, or any part thereof, nor permit the said property, or any thereof, nor permit the said property, or any part thereof, ever to be used or occupied by part thereof, ever to be used or occupied by any such person, excepting only employees in any such person, excepting only employees in the domestic service on the premises of the domestic service on the premises of persons qualifying hereunder as occupants persons qualifying hereunder as occupants and users and residing on the premises. and users and residing on the premises. (1928)(1928)

Restrictive Covenants in SeattleRestrictive Covenants in Seattle No part of said property hereby conveyed No part of said property hereby conveyed

shall ever be used or occupied by shall ever be used or occupied by any any Hebrew or by any person of the Hebrew or by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic RaceEthiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race, , and the party of the second part his heirs, and the party of the second part his heirs, personal representatives or assigns, shall personal representatives or assigns, shall never place any such person in the never place any such person in the possession of occupancy of said property of possession of occupancy of said property of any part thereof, nor permit the said any part thereof, nor permit the said property, or any part thereof, ever to be property, or any part thereof, ever to be used or occupied by any such person, used or occupied by any such person, excepting only employees in the domestic excepting only employees in the domestic service on the premises of persons qualified service on the premises of persons qualified hereunder as occupants and users and hereunder as occupants and users and residing on the premises. (1929)residing on the premises. (1929)

Gandalfo v. Hartman Gandalfo v. Hartman (1892)(1892) Covenant in DeedCovenant in Deed It is also understood and agreed by and between It is also understood and agreed by and between

the parties hereto, their heirs and assigns, that the the parties hereto, their heirs and assigns, that the party of the first part shall never, without the party of the first part shall never, without the consent of the party of the second part, his heirs or consent of the party of the second part, his heirs or assigns, rent any of the buildings or ground owned assigns, rent any of the buildings or ground owned by said party of the first part, and fronting on said by said party of the first part, and fronting on said East Main street, to a East Main street, to a Chinaman or Chinamen.Chinaman or Chinamen. This agreement shall only apply to that part of lot This agreement shall only apply to that part of lot 2, block 47, aforesaid, lying north of the alley-way 2, block 47, aforesaid, lying north of the alley-way hereinbefore described, and fronting on said East hereinbefore described, and fronting on said East Main street. And said party of the second part Main street. And said party of the second part agrees for himself and heirs that he will never rent agrees for himself and heirs that he will never rent any of the property hereby conveyed to a any of the property hereby conveyed to a Chinaman or Chinamen.Chinaman or Chinamen.

Gandalfo v. Hartman Gandalfo v. Hartman (1892)(1892) What is the purpose of using a What is the purpose of using a

covenant in a deed to specify that a covenant in a deed to specify that a property can’t be sold to a Chinese property can’t be sold to a Chinese buyer? buyer?

What argument did the private party What argument did the private party defending the restriction in the deed defending the restriction in the deed make?make?

Why did this argument fail?Why did this argument fail?

Restrictive Covenants and the Restrictive Covenants and the United States Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Corrigan v. BuckleyCorrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), 271 U.S. 323 (1926) [T]he prohibitions of the Fourteenth [T]he prohibitions of the Fourteenth

Amendment ‘have reference to State action Amendment ‘have reference to State action exclusively, and not to any action of private exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals.’ . . . ‘It is State action of a individuals.’ . . . ‘It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the Amendment.’ . . . the subject-matter of the Amendment.’ . . . It is obvious that none of these amendments It is obvious that none of these amendments prohibited private individuals from entering prohibited private individuals from entering into contracts respecting the control and into contracts respecting the control and disposition of their own property. . . . disposition of their own property. . . .

Restrictive Covenants and the Restrictive Covenants and the United States Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), 334 U.S. 1 (1948) Restrictive Covenant in Missouri CaseRestrictive Covenant in Missouri Case

the said property is hereby restricted to the the said property is hereby restricted to the use and occupancy for the term of Fifty (50) use and occupancy for the term of Fifty (50) years from this date, so that it shall be a years from this date, so that it shall be a condition all the time and whether recited and condition all the time and whether recited and referred to as [sic] not in subsequent referred to as [sic] not in subsequent conveyances and shall attach to the land as a conveyances and shall attach to the land as a condition precedent to the sale of the same, condition precedent to the sale of the same, that hereafter that hereafter no part of said propertyno part of said property or or any portion thereof any portion thereof shall beshall be, for said term of , for said term of Fifty-years, Fifty-years, occupied by any person not of occupied by any person not of the Caucasian racethe Caucasian race, it being intended hereby , it being intended hereby to restrict the use of said property for said to restrict the use of said property for said period of time against the occupancy as period of time against the occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of said owners or tenants of any portion of said property for resident or other purpose property for resident or other purpose by by people of the Negro or Mongolian Racepeople of the Negro or Mongolian Race. .

Restrictive Covenants and the Restrictive Covenants and the United States Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 , 334 U.S. 1 (1948)(1948)

Restrictive Covenant in Michigan Restrictive Covenant in Michigan CaseCase This property shall not be used or This property shall not be used or

occupied by any person or persons occupied by any person or persons except those of the except those of the Caucasian raceCaucasian race. .

Restrictive Covenants and the Restrictive Covenants and the United States Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Shelley v. KraemerShelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), 334 U.S. 1 (1948) The federal guaranty of due process The federal guaranty of due process

extends to state action through its extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of executive or administrative branch of government. . . . We hold that, in government. . . . We hold that, in granting judicial enforcement of the granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws, and that, equal protection of the laws, and that, therefore, the action of the state courts therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand. cannot stand.

In re Hong Yen Chang In re Hong Yen Chang (1890)(1890) Who is Hong Yen Chang? Who is Hong Yen Chang? What is the legal issue before the What is the legal issue before the

court?court? The concept of “whiteness” The concept of “whiteness”

reappears in this case and is reappears in this case and is determinative of the outcome. How determinative of the outcome. How so? so?

The Stockton Laundry Case The Stockton Laundry Case (1886)(1886) Stockton Ordinance (1886):Stockton Ordinance (1886): The establishment of public The establishment of public

laundries and public wash-laundries and public wash-houses . . ., within those houses . . ., within those portions of said city, other portions of said city, other than the portions hereinafter than the portions hereinafter especially mentioned, being especially mentioned, being injurious and dangerous to injurious and dangerous to public health and public public health and public safety, and prejudicial to the safety, and prejudicial to the well-being and comfort of the well-being and comfort of the community, it shall be community, it shall be unlawful for any person or unlawful for any person or persons to establish, maintain, persons to establish, maintain, carry on, or conduct, … any carry on, or conduct, … any public laundry or public wash-public laundry or public wash-house, within any portion of house, within any portion of the city of Stockton other than the city of Stockton other than that portion of said city lying that portion of said city lying west of Tule street and south west of Tule street and south of Mormon channel. of Mormon channel.

The Stockton Laundry Case The Stockton Laundry Case (1886)(1886) What is a “nuisance per se”?What is a “nuisance per se”?

An activity that is a nuisance at all times An activity that is a nuisance at all times and all circumstances regardless of and all circumstances regardless of location or surroundings is a “nuisance location or surroundings is a “nuisance per se” (or “absolute nuisance”) per se” (or “absolute nuisance”)

Is a laundry a “nuisance per se”?Is a laundry a “nuisance per se”? What is the extent of the police What is the extent of the police

power?power?

The Stockton Laundry Case The Stockton Laundry Case (1886)(1886) According to Judge Sawyer, what is According to Judge Sawyer, what is

the purpose of the laundry the purpose of the laundry ordinance?ordinance? Of course, no one can in fact doubt the Of course, no one can in fact doubt the

purpose of this ordinance. It means, purpose of this ordinance. It means, ‘The Chinese must go;’ and, in order ‘The Chinese must go;’ and, in order that they shall go, it is made to that they shall go, it is made to encroach upon one of the most sacred encroach upon one of the most sacred rights of citizens of the state of rights of citizens of the state of California,-- of the Caucasian race as California,-- of the Caucasian race as well as upon the rights of the Mongolian. well as upon the rights of the Mongolian.

Soon Hing v. CrowleySoon Hing v. Crowley,,113 U.S. 703 (1885)113 U.S. 703 (1885)

San Francisco ordinance prohibited San Francisco ordinance prohibited laundries from washing or ironing of laundries from washing or ironing of clothes from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 clothes from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.a.m.

Petitioner claimed that ordinance Petitioner claimed that ordinance violated Burlingame Treaty and the violated Burlingame Treaty and the Fourteenth Amendment.Fourteenth Amendment.

Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. Supreme Court upheld the ordinance.

Soon Hing v. CrowleySoon Hing v. Crowley,,113 U.S. 703 (1885)113 U.S. 703 (1885)

The petition alleges that it was adopted owing to a The petition alleges that it was adopted owing to a feeling of antipathy and hatred prevailing in the city feeling of antipathy and hatred prevailing in the city and county of San Francisco against the subjects of the and county of San Francisco against the subjects of the emperor of China resident therein, and for the purpose emperor of China resident therein, and for the purpose of compelling those who engaged in the laundry of compelling those who engaged in the laundry business to abandon their lawful avocation and business to abandon their lawful avocation and residence there, and not for any sanitary, police, or residence there, and not for any sanitary, police, or other legitimate purpose. There is nothing, however, in other legitimate purpose. There is nothing, however, in the language of the ordinance, or in the record of its the language of the ordinance, or in the record of its enactment, which in any respect tends to sustain this enactment, which in any respect tends to sustain this allegation. . . . [E]ven if the motives of the supervisors allegation. . . . [E]ven if the motives of the supervisors were as alleged, the ordinance would not be thereby were as alleged, the ordinance would not be thereby changed from a legitimate police regulation, unless in changed from a legitimate police regulation, unless in its enforcement it is made to operate only against the its enforcement it is made to operate only against the class mentioned; and of this there is no pretense.class mentioned; and of this there is no pretense.

San Francisco Ordinance of 1880San Francisco Ordinance of 1880

Section 1. It shall be unlawful, from Section 1. It shall be unlawful, from and after the passage of this order, and after the passage of this order, for any person or persons to establish, for any person or persons to establish, maintain, or carry on a laundry, within maintain, or carry on a laundry, within the corporate limits of the city and the corporate limits of the city and county of San Francisco, without county of San Francisco, without having first obtained the consent of having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone. constructed either of brick or stone.

San Francisco Ordinance of 1880San Francisco Ordinance of 1880 Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person

to erect, build, or maintain, or cause to be to erect, build, or maintain, or cause to be erected, built, or maintained, over or upon erected, built, or maintained, over or upon the roof of any building now erected, or the roof of any building now erected, or which may hereafter be erected, within which may hereafter be erected, within the limits of said city and county, any the limits of said city and county, any scaffolding, without first obtaining the scaffolding, without first obtaining the written permission of the board of written permission of the board of supervisors, which permit shall state fully supervisors, which permit shall state fully for what purpose said scaffolding is to be for what purpose said scaffolding is to be erected and used, and such scaffolding erected and used, and such scaffolding shall not be used for any other purpose shall not be used for any other purpose than that designated in such permit. than that designated in such permit.

San Francisco Ordinance of 1880San Francisco Ordinance of 1880

Sec. 3. Any person who shall violate Sec. 3. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this order any of the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months, or by both not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.such fine and imprisonment.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)(1886) How many laundries were there in San How many laundries were there in San

Francisco?Francisco? How many laundries were made of How many laundries were made of

wood?wood? How many laundries were owned by How many laundries were owned by

Chinese?Chinese? How many of the laundries owned by How many of the laundries owned by

Chinese were able to secure the proper Chinese were able to secure the proper license? How many of the remaining license? How many of the remaining laundries were able to do so? laundries were able to do so?

Who developed all this evidence?Who developed all this evidence?

Yick Wo v. Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)(1886)

What role did the 1880 treaty with What role did the 1880 treaty with China have on the court’s decision?China have on the court’s decision?

Was the ordinance fair on its face? If Was the ordinance fair on its face? If so, why then was it struck down?so, why then was it struck down?

Yick Wo v. Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)(1886) Though the law itself be fair Though the law itself be fair

on its face, and impartial in on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by applied and administered by public authority with an evil public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations and illegal discriminations between persons in similar between persons in similar circumstances, material to circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within equal justice is still within the prohibition of the the prohibition of the constitution. constitution.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)(1886) Yick WoYick Wo has acquired its place in has acquired its place in

constitutional history for its early constitutional history for its early endorsement of the principle that racially endorsement of the principle that racially discriminatory enforcement of the law discriminatory enforcement of the law offended the constitutional mandate of offended the constitutional mandate of equal protection just as much as did a law equal protection just as much as did a law that discriminated in its terms.that discriminated in its terms.

Charles J. McLainCharles J. McLain, In Search of Equality: , In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America America (1994)(1994)

California School Law of 1866, sec. 57California School Law of 1866, sec. 57

Children of African or Mongolian Children of African or Mongolian descent, and Indian children not living descent, and Indian children not living under the care of white persons, shall under the care of white persons, shall not be admitted into public schools, not be admitted into public schools, except as provided in this Act; provided except as provided in this Act; provided that upon the written application of the that upon the written application of the parents or guardians of at ten such parents or guardians of at ten such children to any Board of Trustees or children to any Board of Trustees or Board of Education, a separate school Board of Education, a separate school shall be established for the education of shall be established for the education of such children. . . .such children. . . .

Exclusion from Public SchoolsExclusion from Public Schools

Chinese children were omitted from Chinese children were omitted from school laws in 1870 and school school laws in 1870 and school authorities didn’t acknowledge any authorities didn’t acknowledge any responsibility toward themresponsibility toward them

From 1871 to 1884, Chinese children From 1871 to 1884, Chinese children were excluded from public education were excluded from public education in San Franciscoin San Francisco

Report of the Board of Supervisors Report of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco (1885)of San Francisco (1885)

Meanwhile, guard well the doors of our Meanwhile, guard well the doors of our public schools, that they do not enter. For public schools, that they do not enter. For however hard and stern such a doctrine however hard and stern such a doctrine may sound, it is but the enforcement of the may sound, it is but the enforcement of the law of self-preservation, the inculcation of law of self-preservation, the inculcation of the doctrine of true humanity, and an the doctrine of true humanity, and an integral part of the iron rule of right by integral part of the iron rule of right by which we hope presently to prove that we which we hope presently to prove that we can justly and practically defend ourselves can justly and practically defend ourselves from this invasion of Mongolian barbarism.from this invasion of Mongolian barbarism.

Tape v. Hurley,Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473 (1885) 66 Cal. 473 (1885)

The main question in this case is The main question in this case is whether a child between six and whether a child between six and twenty-one years of age, of Chinese twenty-one years of age, of Chinese parentage, but who was born and parentage, but who was born and has always lived in the city and has always lived in the city and county of San Francisco, is entitled to county of San Francisco, is entitled to admission in the public school of the admission in the public school of the district in which she resides. district in which she resides.

Tape v. HurleyTape v. Hurley

Every school, unless otherwise provided by Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, must be open for the admission of all law, must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years children between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district; and the of age residing in the district; and the board of trustees, or city board of board of trustees, or city board of education, have power to admit adults and education, have power to admit adults and children not residing in the district children not residing in the district whenever good reasons exist therefor. whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have the power to exclude Trustees shall have the power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases. Political Code, § 1667. infectious diseases. Political Code, § 1667.

Tape v. HurleyTape v. Hurley

As amended, the cause is broad enough to As amended, the cause is broad enough to include all children who are not precluded include all children who are not precluded from entering a public school by some from entering a public school by some provision of law. And we are not aware of provision of law. And we are not aware of any law which forbids the entrance of any law which forbids the entrance of children of any race or nationality. The children of any race or nationality. The legislature not only declares who shall be legislature not only declares who shall be admitted, but also who may be excluded, admitted, but also who may be excluded, and it does not authorize the exclusion of and it does not authorize the exclusion of any one on the ground upon which alone any one on the ground upon which alone the exclusion of the respondent here is the exclusion of the respondent here is sought to be justified. sought to be justified.

1885 Amendment to Political Code1885 Amendment to Political Code Every school, unless otherwise provided by law, Every school, unless otherwise provided by law,

must be open for the admission of all children must be open for the admission of all children between six and twenty-one years of age between six and twenty-one years of age residing in the district, and the Board of residing in the district, and the Board of Trustees, or City Board of Education, have Trustees, or City Board of Education, have power to admit adults and children not residing power to admit adults and children not residing in the district, whenever good reasons exist in the district, whenever good reasons exist therefor. Trustees shall have power to exclude therefor. Trustees shall have power to exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases, suffering from contagious or infectious diseases, and also to establish separate schools for and also to establish separate schools for children of Mongolian or Chinese descent. children of Mongolian or Chinese descent. When such separate schools are established When such separate schools are established Chinese or Mongolian children must not be Chinese or Mongolian children must not be admitted into any other schools.admitted into any other schools.

Wong Him v. CallahanWong Him v. Callahan (1902) (1902) California Political Code sec. 1662 California Political Code sec. 1662 Trustees shall have the power to Trustees shall have the power to

exclude children of filthy or vicious exclude children of filthy or vicious habits, or children suffering from habits, or children suffering from contagious or infectious diseases, and contagious or infectious diseases, and also to establish separate schools for also to establish separate schools for children of Mongolian or Chinese children of Mongolian or Chinese descent. When such separate schools descent. When such separate schools are established Chinese or Mongolian are established Chinese or Mongolian children must not be admitted into any children must not be admitted into any other schools.other schools.

Wong Him v. CallahanWong Him v. Callahan (1902) (1902)

What is the basis of Wong Him’s complaint?What is the basis of Wong Him’s complaint? It is not alleged that such school does not It is not alleged that such school does not

afford the same advantages in the matter of afford the same advantages in the matter of acquiring an education as is given to children of acquiring an education as is given to children of schools to which Chinese are not admitted. schools to which Chinese are not admitted.

““The sole ground of complaint is that the The sole ground of complaint is that the maintenance of separate schools for children of maintenance of separate schools for children of Chinese descent is a discrimination against Chinese descent is a discrimination against such children, and it is alleged that such such children, and it is alleged that such discrimination ‘is arbitrary, and the result of discrimination ‘is arbitrary, and the result of hatred for the Chinese race.‘”hatred for the Chinese race.‘”

Wong Him v. CallahanWong Him v. Callahan (1902) (1902) Is Judge De Haven’s answer to Wong Is Judge De Haven’s answer to Wong

Him’s argument about the purpose of Him’s argument about the purpose of the statute consistent with Judge the statute consistent with Judge Sawyer’s approach in the Sawyer’s approach in the Stockton Stockton Laundry CaseLaundry Case??

““The validity of the statute referred to The validity of the statute referred to does not depend upon the motive does not depend upon the motive which may in fact have actuated the which may in fact have actuated the members of the legislature in voting for members of the legislature in voting for its enactment. Upon such an inquiry its enactment. Upon such an inquiry the courts have no right to enter.” the courts have no right to enter.”

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson (1896) (1896) [W]e cannot say that a law which [W]e cannot say that a law which

authorizes or even requires the separation authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress requiring separate schools for congress requiring separate schools for colored children in the District of colored children in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem to have been questioned, does not seem to have been questioned, or the corresponding acts of state or the corresponding acts of state legislatures. legislatures.

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson

We consider the underlying fallacy of We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction chooses to put that construction upon it. upon it.

Plessy v. Ferguson,Plessy v. Ferguson,Harlan’s DissentHarlan’s Dissent

There is a race so different from our There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race.country. I allude to the Chinese race.

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson,,Harlan’s DissentHarlan’s Dissent

But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the state and nation, who the political control of the state and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race. occupied by citizens of the white race.

Rice v. Gong LumRice v. Gong Lum, 139 Miss. 760 (1925), 139 Miss. 760 (1925) Under section 207 of the Constitution of Under section 207 of the Constitution of

1890, providing that there shall be 1890, providing that there shall be separate schools for the while and colored separate schools for the while and colored races, the term “white race” as used races, the term “white race” as used therein is limited to the Caucasian race, therein is limited to the Caucasian race, and the term “colored races” is used in and the term “colored races” is used in contradistinction of the white race, and contradistinction of the white race, and embraces all other races.embraces all other races.

The dominant purpose of the Constitution The dominant purpose of the Constitution in providing for separation of the races in providing for separation of the races was to preserve the purity and integrity of was to preserve the purity and integrity of the white race and prevent amalgamation, the white race and prevent amalgamation, and to preserve, as far as possible, the and to preserve, as far as possible, the social systems of race segregation. social systems of race segregation.

Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927)(1927) Mississippi Constitution of 1890: Mississippi Constitution of 1890:

Separate schools shall be maintained for Separate schools shall be maintained for children of the white and colored races.children of the white and colored races.

““The [Mississippi supreme] court held that The [Mississippi supreme] court held that this provision of the Constitution divided this provision of the Constitution divided the educable children into those of the the educable children into those of the pure white or Caucasian race, on the one pure white or Caucasian race, on the one hand, and the brown, yellow, and black hand, and the brown, yellow, and black races, on the other, and therefore that races, on the other, and therefore that Martha Lum, of the Mongolian or yellow Martha Lum, of the Mongolian or yellow race, could not insist on being classed with race, could not insist on being classed with the whites under this constitutional the whites under this constitutional division.” division.”

Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) (1927)

Is there any similarity in the Is there any similarity in the reasoning used in this case and that reasoning used in this case and that used in used in People v. HallPeople v. Hall??

Why would Chinese parents in Why would Chinese parents in Mississippi want their kids to go to Mississippi want their kids to go to school with white kids? school with white kids?

Do you think the court is accurate Do you think the court is accurate when it says that the educational when it says that the educational facilities are equal for all children?facilities are equal for all children?

Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927)(1927) The case then reduces itself to the The case then reduces itself to the

question whether a state can be said question whether a state can be said to afford to a child of Chinese to afford to a child of Chinese ancestry, born in this country and a ancestry, born in this country and a citizen of the United States, the citizen of the United States, the equal protection of the laws, by equal protection of the laws, by giving her the opportunity for a giving her the opportunity for a common school education in a school common school education in a school which receives only colored children which receives only colored children of the brown, yellow or black races. of the brown, yellow or black races.

Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927)(1927) Most of the cases cited arose, it is true, Most of the cases cited arose, it is true,

over the establishment of separate schools over the establishment of separate schools as between white pupils and black pupils; as between white pupils and black pupils; but we cannot think that the question is but we cannot think that the question is any different, or that any different result any different, or that any different result can be reached, assuming the cases above can be reached, assuming the cases above cited to be rightly decided, where the issue cited to be rightly decided, where the issue is as between white pupils and the pupils of is as between white pupils and the pupils of the yellow races. The decision is within the the yellow races. The decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chinese school students in Indianola, Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1938. Chinese school students in Indianola, Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1938.

Students of the only all-Chinese school in Bolivar County, Mississippi, 1938. Students of the only all-Chinese school in Bolivar County, Mississippi, 1938.

Students from the Chinese School in Cleveland, Students from the Chinese School in Cleveland, Mississippi collected 6,000 pounds of scrap metal Mississippi collected 6,000 pounds of scrap metal to sell as part of their participation in the Schools-to sell as part of their participation in the Schools-At-War Program, 1942-1943. At-War Program, 1942-1943.

Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education (1954) (1954)