examples are sufficient to establish the possibility of local action of this kind. When we consider the strong feeling against the Chinese, and the failure to obtain relief from state laws, we have every reason to believe that there were many other districts with similar local regulations.

COMBINED STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS, 1855-1867.

There was such an intimate connection between the local and state regulations in this early period that we will not attempt to separate the accounts of the remaining anti-Chinese legislation. Instead of deciding the matter for themselves, many mining districts looked to the state for relief, demanding the passage of exclusion laws, or measures preventing the great influx of Chinese to the mines. The legislature depended on the foreign miners' license laws to achieve this latter purpose. We have already traced the history of these laws to the point where they began to be particularly applicable to the Chinese. Later modifications resulted in their bearing practically the entire burden of this tax. While this and the impositions connected with its collection undoubtedly discouraged the Chinese miners, it at the same time prevented their absolute exclusion from the mines. The heavy contributions which it brought to the county treasuries served to reconcile the miners in many districts to the presence of the Orientals, and to prevent the more general action for their entire exclusion.

The arrival of sixteen thousand Chinese in 1854 stimulated the state legislature to attempts to find ways of discouraging the immigration and excluding the Chinese from the mines. While the various committee reports agreed that some restriction of the immigration was necessary,36 they pointed out the impossibility of removing the Chinese entirely from the state, the evils of suddenly throwing a large number of laborers into the agricultural districts, and the fact that the revenues from the miners' tax could not well be spared in many counties. Laws were finally passed taxing the immigration of the Chinese, and increasing the miners' licenses in such a way that it would soon

36 Rept. of Select Com., Senate Journal, 1855, Appendix, Docs. 16 and 19.

be impossible for them to engage in that industry. The amount paid for licenses by foreigners ineligible to citizenship was increased two dollars per month, the addition to be made on October first of each succeeding year. Thus from October 1, 1855, to October 1, 1856, the tax would be $6.00; from October 1, 1856, to October 1, 1857, $8.00 per month, and so on.37 Of course in time the tax would become prohibitive, thus accomplishing its purpose of exclusion.

It was found impossible to enforce the law subjecting the Chinese to this special tax, and the next meeting of the legislature showed a decided reaction in their favor. The majority report of the committee on mines condemned the law as "a hasty, imprudent piece of legislation, unauthorized by the existence of any evil at the time in view, or demanded by any fair expression of public opinion," while the minority report set forth the fact that the working people of the state were opposed to the repeal of the law. The original tax of four dollars a month for all foreigners was restored.39 The law was again amended in 1858, so that foreigners who declared their intention to become citizens before the passage of the act were exempt from the tax.40 The provisions requiring the payment of the tax for all foreign employees or partners were also made more explicit. Practically the same regulations were retained until 1868, when the whole matter of the collection of the tax was turned over to the counties, with the requirement that ten per cent. of the money collected be paid into the school fund, and the balance to the general county fund.

The Federal statutes regulating mines passed in 1866 and 1872 recognized the local jurisdiction of the miners' meetings; in the matter of the right to acquire title to mines, sanction was given to the exclusion of the Chinese, as only citizens or those who have declared their intention to become citizens can obtain a patent for mining land.

37 Statutes of California, 1855, p. 216.

38 Rept. of Com. on Mines, Senate Journal, 1856, Appendix.

39 Statutes of California, 1856, p. 141.

40 Ibid., 1858, p. 302.

41 Ibid., 1867-8, p. 173.

In 1860 the same requirement of a license costing four dollars a month was made of the Chinese fishermen.42 The provisions of this law allowed the collector, in case of failure of payment, to seize the property of the delinquent and sell it at one hour's notice, in order to obtain the amount due. The lawless actions of unprincipled collectors often added to the burdens of the Chinese in this, as well as in the collection of the miners' tax. The law taxing the fishermen was repealed four years after its passage.

44

43

The other local and state laws passed for the regulation of the Chinese during this period were not strictly industrial, but dealt with educational and police measures. Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians were excluded from the public schools in 1860, although the school trustees were permitted to establish separate schools, supported by public funds, for their use. This law was modified in 1866, so that the trustees could permit the attendance of these children so long as parents of white children made no objections.45

46

In his report for 1859-1860, the San Francisco chief of police asked for the appointment of a special committee to whom he might impart the revolting facts connected with Chinese prostitution, and he continued from year to year to point out its evils. The coroner and health officers united with him in describing the extremely filthy conditions in Chinatown. In October, 1865, the supervisors passed an order permitting the police to remove the Chinese houses of ill-fame to quarters where they would be less offensive to the public. A few months later the state legislature passed a law that would make possible the entire suppression of these houses.48

42 Statutes of California, 1860, p. 307.

43 Ibid., 1863-4, p. 493.

44 Ibid., 1860, p. 325, Sec. 8.

45 Ibid., 1863-4, p. 213, Sec. 13.

46 San Francisco Municipal Reports, 1859-1860, pp. 62-3.

47 Ibid., 1865-1866, pp. 124-6.

48 Statutes of California, 1865-6, p. 641.

47

ATTEMPTS TO EXCLUDE THE CHINESE BY STATE LAWS,

1852-1862.

During this early period of anti-Chinese agitation, the inability of the state to exclude the Chinese was fully established in the courts. Before the question arose in California, the rights of the states and Federal government had been clearly defined in what are known as the "Passenger Cases." These were argued in 1849 by the best legal talent in the country, when every possible aspect of the subject was carefully discussed. It was clearly established in the decision that the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress by the Constitution is an exclusive power, that the transportation of passengers is an act of commerce; and that the states could not tax such traffic; nor exclude foreigners, except in self-defense when they were shown to be diseased, criminal, or paupers.49

Apparently the California legislators did not know of this decision or failed to realize its significance, for they made repeated attempts to regulate immigration by state laws. Many undesirable characters came with the rush to the gold fields, and it was feared that the state would be burdened with criminals and paupers, while the care of the homeless sick was already becoming a serious problem. An act was passed in 185250 which required that each owner or master of a vessel bringing passengers to California should furnish a bond of $500 for every alien passenger landed, or pay a commutation fee of $5.00 to the state hospital fund. If, in the opinion of the Mayor of San Francisco or the Commissioner of Immigration any passenger, by reason of sickness, insanity, or other disability, was likely to become an immediate public charge, the bond was increased to $1000 or such commutation fee as the Commissioner of Immigration should consider reasonable.

This law does not seem to have come before the State Supreme Court until 1872. In the case of the People v. S. S. Constitution, on the authority of the Passenger Cases, it was declared unconstitutional. In his concluding argument Justice

49 7 Howard, 282, 391 ff.

50 Statutes of California, 1852, p. 78. Amended ibid., 1853, p. 71.

Crockett said of the measure: "It seeks to apply to emigrants from foreign countries, landing on our shores, onerous conditions not exacted from them at other of our domestic ports, and not imposed upon them by any Act of Congress. The regulation is not local in its nature or character, and, if Congress deemed it wise to do so, could as well be enforced at the port of New York, as at San Francisco. Congress having omitted to establish such regulations, and to impose such burdens on foreign emigrants, the presumption is that it deems it unwise or impolitic to do so. 9951

The senate and assembly passed concurrent resolutions in 1854 instructing the California representatives to procure the passage of an Act of Congress authorizing the imposition of a capitation tax upon natives of China and Japan who emigrated to California, the tax to be paid by owners and masters of vessels before the emigrants landed.52 Without waiting for any such authority, the tax was levied in the following year. "An Act to discourage the immigration to this State of persons who cannot become citizens thereof" required the master, owner, or consignee of the vessel to pay a tax of $50.00 each for all passengers landed. In case of failure to pay, the tax became a lien on the vessel.53 The courts promptly declared this law unconstitutional.54

Notwithstanding this decision, the legislature passed a stringent exclusion law in 1858. After October, 1858, no Chinese or Mongolian was to be allowed to enter the state. Not only the captain or commander of the vessel, but also those employed on board, and even the passengers, were held responsible for knowingly permitting the landing of the Chinese. The penalty for violation of the act was a fine of $400 to $600, or imprisonment from six months to a year, or both such fine and imprisonment. If landed by accident or shipwreck, the captain of the vessel was exempt from the fine, if he used all due diligence to cause each and all of such Chinese to be immediately

51 People v. S. S. Constitution, 42 Cal. 578, 590.

52 Statutes of California, 1854, p. 230.

53 Ibid., 1855, p. 194.

54 People v. Downer, 7 Cal. 170.