As the number of Chinese emigrating to California grew rapidly during the 1850s, fears increased that they would take work opportunities away from whites. By 1882, prejudices against the Chinese led to many laws limiting the Chinese and ultimately to the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting entry of Chinese laborers.
An even stricter measure against the Chinese in San Francisco was proposed in 1890 when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued Order No. 2190 known as the Bigham Ordinance named after the Supervisor initiating the law) ordering all Chinese to vacate the location of Chinatown in the heart of the city and move to outer parts of town in South San Francisco near Kentucky and Railroad Streets, which as far as I could determine no longer exist.
Order No. 2190 designating the location and the district in which Chinese shall reside and carry on business in this city and county.
“The people of the city and county of San Francisco do hereby ordain as follows:"
Section 1. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any Chinese to locate, reside, or carry on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco, except in that district of said city and county hereinafter prescribed for their location.
“Sec. 2. The following portions of the city and county of San Francisco are hereby set apart for the location of all Chinese who may desire to reside, locate, or carry on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco, to-wit: Within that tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of Kentucky street with the south-westerly line of First avenue; thence south-easterly along the southwesterly line of First avenue to the north-westerly line of I street; thence south-westerly along the north-westerly line of I street to the south-westerly line of Seventh avenue; thence north-westerly along the south-westerly line of Seventh avenue to the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue; thence north-easterly along the south-easterly line of Railroad avenue to Kentucky street; thence northerly along the easterly line of Kentucky street to the south-westerly line of First avenue and place of commencement.
“Sec. 3. Within sixty days after the passage of this ordinance all Chinese now located, residing in or carrying on business within the limits of said city and county of San Francisco shall either remove without the limits of said city and county of San Francisco or remove and locate within the district of said city and county of San Francisco herein provided for their location.
“Sec. 4. Any Chinese residing, locating, or carrying on business within the limits of the city and county of San Francisco contrary to the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months.
Several Chinese arrested for failing to move from Chinatown and facing jail time served as test cases, In re LEE SING et al. In re SING TOO QUAN et al. Circuit Court, N. D. California August 25, 1890
Judge Lorenzo Sawyer, a prominent judge who personally opposed* Chinese immigration, to his credit made his ruling based on the legality of the Ordinance, as sections of his ruling below show.
"The ordinance enacted by the city of San Francisco, known as the “Bingham Ordinance,” which requires all Chinese inhabitants to remove from the portion of the city theretofore occupied by them, outside the city and county of San Francisco, or to another designated part of the city and county, is void as being in direct conflict with the constitution, treaties, and statutes of the United States, particularly in the sense that it is discriminating and unequal in its operation, and an arbitrary confiscation of property without due process of law…
Upon what other people are these requirements, disabilities and punishments imposed? Upon none.
The obvious purpose of this order, is, to forcibly drive out a whole community of twenty-odd thousand people, old and young, male and female, citizens of the United States, born on the soil, and foreigners of the Chinese race, moral and immoral, good, bad, and indifferent, and without respect to circumstances or conditions, from a whole section of the city which they have inhabited, and in which they have carried on all kinds of business appropriate to a city, mercantile, manufacturing, and otherwise, for more than 40 years. Many of them were born there, in their own houses, and are citizens of the United States, entitled to all the rights, and privileges under the constitution and laws of the United States, that are lawfully enjoyed by any other citizen of the United States. They all, without distinction or exception, are to leave their homes and property, occupied for nearly half a century, and go, either out of the city and county, or to a section with prescribed limits, within the city and county, not owned by them, or by the city. This, besides being discriminating, against the Chinese, and unequal in its operation as between them and all others, is simply an arbitrary confiscation of their homes and property, a depriving them of it, without due process or any process of law. And what little there would be left after abandoning their homes, and various places of business would again be confiscated in compulsorily buying lands in the only place assigned to them, and which they do not own, upon such exorbitant terms as the present owners with the advantage given them would certainly impose. It must be that or nothing. There would be no room for freedom of action, in buying again. They would be compelled to take any lands, upon any terms, arbitrarily imposed, or get outside the city and county of San Francisco.
The discrimination against Chinese, and the gross inequality of the operation of this ordinance upon Chinese, as compared with others, in violation of the constitutional, treaty, and statutory provisions cited, are so manifest upon its face, that I am unable to comprehend how this discrimination and inequality of operation, and the consequent violation of the express provisions of the constitution, treaties and statutes of the United States, can fail to be apparent to the mind of every intelligent person, be he lawyer or layman."
Judge Sawyer concluded:
"That this ordinance is a direct violation, of, not only, the express provisions of the constitution of the United States, in several particulars, but also of the express provisions of our several treaties with China, and of the statutes of the United States, is so obvious, that I shall not waste more time, or words in discussing the matter. To any reasonably intelligent and well-balanced mind, discussion or argument would be wholly unnecessary and superfluous. To those minds, which are so constituted, that the invalidity of this ordinance is not apparent upon inspection, and comparison with the provisions of the constitution, treaties and laws cited,” discussion or argument would be useless. The authority to pass this order is not within any legitimate police power of the state. See, In re Tie Loy, 11 Sawy. 472, 26 Fed. Rep. 611; In re Ah Fong, 3 Sawy. 144; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; In re Quong Woo, 7 Sawy. 531, 13 Fed. Rep. 229; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Ho Ah Kow v. Numan, 5 Sawy. 552.
Let the order be adjudged to be void, as being in direct conflict with the constitution, treaties, and statutes, of the United States, and let the petitioners be discharged."
The Bigham Ordinance failed miserably but illustrates the extreme measures considered against the Chinese in the late 19th century. On the positive side is the fact that Judge Sawyer placed legal criteria above his own negative feelings about Chinese immigration in reaching his ruling against the ordinance to protect the rights of the Chinese.
*If they would never bring their women here and never multiply and we would never have more than we could make useful, their presence would always be an advantage to the State . . . so long as the Chinese don’t come here to stay . . . their labor is highly beneficial to the whole community . . . the difficulty is that they are beginning to get over the idea that they must go back. Then they will begin to multiply here and that is where the danger lies in my opinion. When the Chinaman comes here and don’t bring his wife here, sooner or later he dies like a worn out steam engine; he is simply a machine and don't leave two or three or a half dozen children to fill his place."
No comments:
Post a Comment