The Chinese in
California, 1850-1879
Foreign-Born Groups in California,
Sucheng Chan, “A People of Exceptional Character”
Nationality
1850
1860
1870
Chinese
660
34,935
48,790
English
3,050
12,227
19,202
French
1,546
8,462
8,063
German
2,926
21,646
29,699
Irish
2,452
33,147
54,421
Italian
228
2,805
4,660
Mexican
6,454
9,150
8,978
Governor Bigler, 1852

[I]n order to enhance the
prosperity and to preserve
the tranquility of the State,
measures must be adopted
to check this tide of Asiatic
immigration, and prevent
the exportation by them of
the precious metals which
they dig up from our soil
without charge, and
without assuming any of
the obligations imposed
upon citizens.
Governor Bigler, 1852

I am sensible that a proposition to restrict
international intercourse, or to check the
immigration of even Asiatics, would appear to
conflict with the long cherished benevolent policy
of our Government. That Government has opened
its paternal arms to the “oppressed of all nations,”
and it has offered them an asylum and a shelter
from the iron rigor of despotism. The exile pilgrim
and the weary immigrant, have been recipients of
its noble hospitalities. In this generous policy, so
far as it effects Europeans, or others capable of
becoming citizens under our laws, I desire to see
no change; nor do I desire to see any diminution
of that spirit of liberality which pervades the
naturalisation laws of the United States.
Governor Bigler

Let us consider the
vile coolies, who like
craven beasts work
the goldmines only to
return to their native
land and bring no
profit to our state.
Theodore Hittell,
History of California (1897)
Norman Asing 1852

I am not much acquainted with your logic,
that by excluding population from this
State you enhance its wealth. I have
always considered that was wealth;
particularly a population of producers, of
men who by the labor of their hands or
intellect, enrich the warehouses or the
granaries of the country with the products
of nature and art.
Norman Asing 1852

But your further logic is more
reprehensible. You argue that this is a
republic of a particular race that the
Constitution of the United States admits of
no asylum to any other than the pale face.
This proposition is false in the extreme,
and you know it. The declaration of your
independence, and all the acts of your
government, your people, and your history
are all against you.
Declaration of Independence (1776)

We hold these
truths to be selfevident, that all
men are created
equal, that they
are endowed by
their Creator with
certain
unalienable
Rights, that
among these are
Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of
Happiness.
Norman Asing 1852

But we would beg to remind you that when your
nation was a wilderness, and the nation from
which you sprung barbarous, we exercised most
of the arts and virtues of civilized life; that we
are possessed of a language and a literature,
and that men skilled in science and the arts are
numerous among us; that the productions of our
manufactories, our sail, and workshops, form no
small share of the commerce of the world; and
that for centuries, colleges, schools, charitable
institutions, asylums, and hospitals, have been
as common as in your own land. . . .
Norman Asing 1852
As far as regards the color and complexion of
our race, we are perfectly aware that our
population have been a little more tan than
yours.
 Your Excellency will discover, however, that we
are as much allied to the African race and the
red man as you are yourself, and that as far as
the aristocracy of skin is concerned, ours might
compare with many of the European races; nor
do we consider that your Excellency, as a
Democrat, will make us believe that the framers
of your declaration of rights ever suggested the
propriety of establishing an aristocracy of skin.

Norman Asing 1852

You say that “gold, with its talismanic
power, has overcome those natural habits
of non-intercourse we have exhibited.” I
ask you, has not gold had the same effect
upon your people, and the people of other
countries, who have migrated hither? Why,
it was gold that filled your country
(formerly a desert) with people, filled your
harbours with ships and opened our
much-coveted trade to the enterprise of
your merchants.
Foreign Miner’s Tax




In 1850, California state
legislature passed the
first Foreign Miners' Tax
Law, levying a $20-permonth tax on each
foreigner engaged in
mining.
Many foreign miners
refused to pay the tax
and left the country.
The tax was repealed in
1851
A $4 tax was passed in
1852
Foreign Miner’s Tax (1853)

Section 1. That from and after the
passage of this Act, no person, not being
a citizen of the United States (California
Indians excepted) shall be allowed to take
gold from the mines of this State, unless
he shall have a license therefor, as
hereafter provided. . . .
Foreign Miner’s Tax (1853)

Section 6. The amount to be paid for each
license shall be at the rate of four dollars
per month, and said license shall in no
case be transferable.
What is $4 in 1853 worth now?
 In
2003, $4.00 from 1853 is worth:
–$94.65 (using the Consumer Price
Index)
–$1,234.33 (using the GDP per capita)
–$14,355.75 (using the relative share of
GDP)
Foreign Miner’s Tax (1853)

Section 10. The collector may seize the property
of any person liable to, and refusing to pay such
tax, and sell at public auction, on one hour’s
notice, by proclamation, and transfer the title
thereof to the person paying the highest price
therefor, and after deducting the tax and
necessary expenses incurred by reason of such
refusal and sale of property, the collector shall
return the surplus of the proceeds of the sale, if
any, to the person or persons whose property
was sold. . . .
Foreign Miner’s Tax (1853)

All foreigners residing in the mining
districts of this State shall be considered
miners under the provisions of this Act,
unless they are directly engaged in some
other lawful business avocation.
Tax Collecting:
Diary of Charles De Young, Oct. 23, 1855
 Started
with Dick Wade and Bob
Moulthrop collecting: supper at
Hesse’s Crossing went down the river
in the night collected all the way had
a great time, Chinamen tails cut off.
California Tax Collectors
Quoted in Chang, The Chinese in America
“I had no money to keep Christmas with,
so sold the chinks nine dollars worth of
bogus receipts.”
 “I was sorry to have to stab the poor
fellow but the law makes it necessary to
collect tax, and that’s where I get my
profit.”

Ex Parte Ah Pong
19 Cal. 106 (1861)

The mere fact that the petitioner was a
Chinaman residing in a mining district, does not
subject him to the foreign miners' tax. If the act
is to be construed as imposing this tax, it cannot
be supported, any more than could a law be
sustained which imposed upon every man
residing in a given section of the State a license
as a merchant, whatever his occupation.
An Act to Discourage Immigration of
Persons who Cannot Become Citizens (1855)

Section 1. The master, owner, or
consignee of any vessel, arriving in any of
the ports of this State from any foreign
State, country, or territory, having on
board any persons who are incompetent
by the laws of the United States or the
laws and constitution of this State to
become citizens thereof are hereby
required to pay a tax, for each such
person, of fifty dollars.
How much is fifty dollars in 1855
worth now?

Based on 2003 USD:
– $1,058.00 (using the Consumer Price Index)
– $13,365.94 (using the GDP per capita)
– $149,491.00 (using the relative share of GDP)
An Act to Discourage Immigration of
Persons who Cannot Become Citizens (1855)

In the event of the nonpayment of said tax
within three days after the arrival of said vessel,
or within three days after demand for said tax,
said Commissioner, Mayor, or chief officer of any
city, town, or village, shall commence suit in the
name of the State against the master, owner, or
consignee, or all of them for said tax before any
court of competent jurisdiction in said town or
city; and the commencing of said suit shall
constitute a lien upon such vessel for the
amount of said tax, and it shall be forever liable
for the same.
People v. Downer,
7 Cal. 169 (1857)
State sued the owners of the ship “Stephen
Baldwin,” to recover the sum of twelve thousand
seven hundred and fifty dollars, passenger tax
on two hundred and fifty Chinese passengers,
brought on that ship from Hong Kong, under the
provisions of the Act of April 28, 1855.
 Defendants demurred, and the trial court
sustained the demurrer.

People v. Downer,
7 Cal. 169 (1857)
The question arising in this case was fully
considered and settled in “the Passengers
Cases,” 7 Howard, by the Supreme Court of the
United States. . . . Where a question can only
be argued upon refined distinctions, when once
settled, it ought to remain settled.
 We, therefore, decide that the Act of this State,
laying a tax of fifty dollars each on Chinese
passengers, is invalid and void.

An Act to Prevent the Further Immigration
of Chinese or Mongolians (1858)

[A]ny person, or persons, of the Chinese
or Mongolian races, shall not be permitted
to enter this State, … and it shall be
unlawful for any man …to knowingly allow
…, any Chinese or Mongolian, … to enter
any … place, …within the border of this
State, and any person … violating any of
the provisions of this Act, shall be held
and deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
An Act to Prevent the Further Immigration
of Chinese or Mongolians (1858)

… and upon conviction thereof shall be
subject to a fine in any sum not less than
four hundred dollars, nor more than six
hundred dollars, for each and every
offense, or imprisonment in the County
Jail of the County in which the said
offense was committed, for a period of not
less than three months, nor more than
one year, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.
The Fate of the 1858 Act

“The bill was duly enacted into law but
was struck down by the California
Supreme Court in an unpublished opinion
when the first attempt to enforce it was
made.
– McClain, “California’s First Anti-Chinese Laws”
An Act to Protect Free White Labor (1862)

Sec 1. There is hereby levied on each person,
male and female, of the Mongolian race, of the
age of eighteen years and upwards, residing in
this State, except such as shall, under laws now
existing, or which may hereafter be enacted, take
out licenses to work in the mines, or to prosecute
some kind of business, a monthly capitation tax of
two dollars and fifty cents, which tax shall be
known as the Chinese Police Tax; provided, That
all Mongolians exclusively engaged in the
production and manufacture of the following
articles shall be exempt from the provisions of this
Act, viz: sugar, rice, coffee, tea.
An Act to Protect Free White Labor (1862)

Sec. 4 The Collector shall collect the Chinese
police tax, … from all persons liable to pay
the same, and may seize the personal
property of any such person refusing to pay
such tax, and sell the same at public
auction, by giving notice by proclamation
one hour previous to such sale; and shall
deliver the property, together with a bill of
sale thereof, to the person agreeing to pay,
and paying, the highest thereof, which
delivery and bill of sale shall transfer to such
person a good and sufficient title to the
property.
An Act to Protect Free White Labor (1862)

And after deducing the tax and
necessary expenses incurred by
reason of such refusal, seizure, and
sale of property, the Collector shall
return the surplus of the proceeds of
the sale, if any, . . .
An Act to Protect Free White Labor (1862)

Sec. 7. Any person or company who shall
hire persons liable to pay the Chinese
police tax shall be held responsible for the
payment of the tax due from each person
so hired; and no employer shall be
released from this liability on the ground
that the employee in indebted to him (the
employer), and the Collector may proceed
against any such employer in the same
manner as he might against the original
party owing the taxes.
Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534 (1862)

It must be admitted that the act before us is a
measure of special and extreme hostility to the
Chinese, and that the power asserted in its passage is
the right of the State to prescribe the terms upon
which they shall be permitted to reside in it. This
right, if carried to the extent to which it may be
carried if the power exists, may be so used as to cut
off all intercourse between them and the people of the
State, and obstruct and block up the channels of
commerce, laying an embargo upon trade, and
defeating the commercial policy of the nation. The act
is sought to be maintained as a police regulation; but
this branch of the police power has been surrendered
to the government as a part of the power to regulate
commerce, and its exercise by a State is incompatible
with the authority of the government.
Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534 (1862)

We may dismiss from the case the question of the
power of the States to exclude obnoxious
persons, such as paupers and fugitives from
justice, for it nowhere appears that the Chinese
as a class are of that description; nor does the act
pretend to deal with them as such. . . . That they
may be taxed as other residents is not disputed,
but that they may be set apart as special subjects
of taxation, and be compelled to contribute to the
revenue of the State in their character of
foreigners, is a proposition which cannot be
maintained. If this may be done, there is no
restriction upon the power that does it, and a tax
may be imposed which no human industry can
pay, precluding all intercourse, and making it as
impossible as if it were positively prohibited.
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Chinese Criminals and to Prevent the
Establishment of Coolie Slavery (1870)

Whereas, Criminals and malefactors are being
constantly imported from Chinese seaports,
whose depredations upon property entail
burdensome expense upon the administration of
criminal justice in this State; and whereas, by the
importation of such persons a species of slavery is
established and maintained which is degrading to
the laborer and at war with the spirit of the age;
now, therefore, in the exercise of the police
powers appertaining to this State, ...
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Chinese Criminals and to Prevent the
Establishment of Coolie Slavery (1870)

Section 1. [It’s unlawful] to bring or to land from
any ship, boat or vessel, into this State, any
Chinese or Mongolian, born either in the Empire of
China or Japan, or in any of the islands adjacent to
the Empire of China, without first presenting to the
Commissioner of Immigration evidence satisfactory
to him that such Chinaman or Mongolian desires
voluntarily to come into this State, and is a person
of correct habits and good character, and
thereupon obtaining from such Commissioner of
Immigration a license or permit, …
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Chinese Criminals and to Prevent the
Establishment of Coolie Slavery (1870)

Sec. 2. Any master, officer, owner or part owner of
any steamship, sailing or other vessel, or any other
person, violating any of the provisions of this Act,
or assisting in such violation, shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by
a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor
more than five thousand dollars, or by
imprisonment for a term of not less than two nor
more than twelve months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese
Females (1870)

Whereas, The business of importing into this
State Chinese women for criminal and
demoralizing purposes has been carried on
extensively during the past year, to the scandal
and injury of the people of this State, and in
defiance of public decency; and whereas, many of
the class referred to are kidnapped in China, and
deported at a tender age, without their consent
and against their will; therefore, in exercise of the
police power appertaining to every State of the
Union, for the purpose of remedying the evils
above referred to and preventing further wrongs
of the same character . . .
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese
Females (1870)

Section 1. It shall not be lawful, from and after
the time when this Act takes effect, to bring, or
land from any ship, boat, or vessel, into this State,
any Mongolian, Chinese, or Japanese females,
born either in the Empire of China or Japan, or in
any of the islands adjacent to the Empire of China,
without first presenting to the Commissioner of
Immigration evidence satisfactory to him that
such female desires voluntarily to come into this
State, and is a person of correct habits and good
character …
An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese
Females (1870)

Sec. 2. Any master, officer, owner or part owner
of any steamship, sailing or other vessel, or any
other person violating any of the provisions of this
Act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and shall be punished by a fine of not less than
one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand
dollars, or imprisonment for a term not less than
two nor more than twelve months, or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
How much is $1000 in 1870
worth now?
$14,016 (using the Consumer Price Index)
 $177,739 (using the GDP per capita)
 $1,423,209 (using the relative share of
GDP)

An Act to Prevent the Importation of
Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese
Females (1870)

Sec. 3. Every individual person of the class
hereinbefore referred to, transported into
this State contrary to the provisions of this
Act, shall render the person so transporting
liable to a separate prosecution and
penalty, and the transportation of each one
as aforesaid shall create a separate and
distinct offense, and render the person
offending liable to the pains and penalties
herein provided.
California Constitution,
Art. XIX, Sec. 1 (1879)

Section 1. The Legislature shall prescribe all
necessary regulations for the protection of the
State, and the counties, cities, and towns thereof,
from the burdens and evils arising from the
presence of aliens who are or may become
vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or
invalids afflicted with contagious or infectious
diseases, and from aliens otherwise dangerous or
detrimental to the well-being or peace of the
State, and to impose conditions upon which
persons may reside in the State,
California Constitution,
Art. XIX, Sec. 2 (1879)

No corporation now existing or hereafter
formed under the laws of this State, shall,
after the adoption of this Constitution,
employ directly or indirectly, in any
capacity, any Chinese or Mongolian.
California Constitution,
Art. XIX, Sec. 3 (1879)

No Chinese shall be employed on any
State, county, municipal, or other public
work, except in punishment for crime.
California Constitution,
Art. XIX, Sec. 4 (1879)

The presence of foreigners ineligible to become
citizens of the United States is declared to be
dangerous to the well-being of the State, and
the Legislature shall discourage their
immigration by all the means within its power.
Asiatic coolieism is a form of human slavery, and
is forever prohibited in this State, and all
contracts for coolie labor shall be void. All
companies or corporations, whether formed in
this country or any foreign country, for the
importation of such labor, shall be subject to
such penalties as the Legislature may prescribe.
United States Constitution and
Immigration
Art. I, sec. 8 The Congress shall have Power .
. . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
...
 Art. I, sec. 9
The Migration or Importation of
such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or
duty may be imposed on such Importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

California Constitution,
Art. XIX, Sec. 4 (1879)

The Legislature shall delegate all
necessary power to the incorporated cities
and towns of this State for the removal of
Chinese without the limits of such cities
and towns, or for their location within
prescribed portions of those limits, and it
shall also provide the necessary legislation
to prohibit the introduction into this State
of Chinese after the adoption of this
Constitution.
The Know-Nothing Judges of the
California Supreme Court
The Know-Nothing Judges of the
California Supreme Court
People v. Hall (1854)
The 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil
Cases, provides that no Indian or Negro shall be
allowed to testify as a witness in any action or
proceeding in which a White person is a party.
 The 14th section of the Act of April 16th, 1850,
regulating Criminal Proceedings, provides that
“No Black, or Mulatto person, or Indian, shall be
allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a
white man.”

People v. Hall (1854)
Why are Chinese to be considered “Indians”?
 When Columbus first landed upon the shores of
this continent, in his attempt to discover a
western passage to the Indies, he imagined that
he had accomplished the object of his
expedition, and that the Island of San Salvador
was one of those Islands of the Chinese sea,
lying near the extremity of India, which had
been described by navigators.

People v. Hall (1854)

When Columbus first landed upon the
shores of this continent, in his attempt to
discover a western passage to the Indies,
he imagined that he had accomplished the
object of his expedition, and that the
Island of San Salvador was one of those
Islands of the Chinese sea, lying near the
extremity of India, which had been
described by navigators.
People v. Hall (1854)

Ethnology, at that time, was unknown as a
distinct science, or if known, had not
reached that high point of perfection
which it has since attained by the scientific
inquiries and discoveries of the master
minds of the last half century. Few
speculations had been made with regard
to the moral or physical differences
between the different races of mankind.
People v. Hall (1854)

The general, or perhaps universal opinion
of that day was, that there were but three
distinct types of the human species,
which, in their turn, were subdivided into
varieties or tribes. This opinion is still held
by many scientific writers, and is
supported by Cuvier, one of the most
eminent naturalists of modern times.
People v. Hall (1854)

The word “Black” may include all Negroes, but the term
“Negro” does not include all Black persons. By the use of
this term in this connection, we understand it to mean the
opposite of “White,” and that it should be taken as
contradistinguished from all White persons.
In using the words, “No Black, or Mulatto person, or
Indian shall be allowed to give evidence for or against a
White person,” the Legislature, if any intention can be
ascribed to it, adopted the most comprehensive terms to
embrace every known class or shade of color, as the
apparent design was to protect the White person from the
influence of all testimony other than that of persons of the
same caste. The use of these terms must, by every sound
rule of construction, exclude every one who is not of white
blood.
People v. Hall (1854)

We are of the opinion that the words
“White,” “Negro,” “"Mulatto,” “Indian,” and
“Black person,” wherever they occur in our
Constitution and laws, must be taken in their
generic sense, and that, even admitting the
Indian of this Continent is not of the
Mongolian type, that the words “Black
person,” in the 14th section must be taken
as contradistinguished from White, and
necessarily excludes all races other than the
Caucasian.
People v. Hall (1854)

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in
our community, recognizing no laws of this State
except through necessity, bringing with them their
prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in
open violation of law; whose mendacity is proverbial;
a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior,
and who are incapable of progress or intellectual
development beyond a certain point, as their history
has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and
physical conformation; between whom and ourselves
nature has placed an impassable difference, is now
presented, and for them is claimed, not only the right
to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further
privilege of participating with us in administering the
affairs of our Government.