A decade before the founding of the Times Los Angeles was the site of the 

most violent act yet committed in the United States against immigrants from 

China.  The 1871 slaughter of 19 Chinese Angelenos by a mob in the city's 

infamous "Nigger Alley" would be exceeded only by a similar occurrence at Rock 

Creek, Wyoming, in the mid-1880s.  But while the Wyoming horror erupted amid 

massive anti-Chinese agitation throughout the West, the Los Angeles massacre 

occurred before the emergence of anti-Chinese agitation in the city and at a 

time when the county's Chinese numbered no more than 300 - less than 2 percent 

of the total population.   Historian Grace Heilman Stimson argued that the 

hostility responsible for the violence was based more on the emotion of racial 

prejudice than fear of economic competition and was a carryover from the 

lawlessness of an earlier era.  As time passed, however, the city's anti-

Chinese agitation came to be closely tied to the workingclass in general and to 

the labor movement specifically.

    Anti-Chinese protests and violence in California had been primarily 

associated with the mines in the 1850s and early 1860s, but the center shifted 

when placer mining played out and white miners drifted down out of the Mother 

Lode to seek work on farms and in towns and cities, particularly San Francisco.  

There the Chinese population in 1870 exceeded 12,000, forty times that of Los 

Angeles.  Use of Chinese labor for railroad construction had brought great 

numbers of immigrants to California in the 1860s.  Completion of the first 

transcontinental line not only created temporary unemployment for many Chinese 

workers but increased the competition for jobs as large numbers of Easterners 

rode the rails west seeking employment.  Organized anti-Chinese protests broke 

out in San Francisco and in other communities with a disproportionately large 

number of Chinese when white workers, only a few years removed from a Civil War 

that had been fought in part over the specter of competition with slave labor, 

saw themselves in danger of vying with "coolie labor" for jobs.

    With only a relative handful of Chinese living in Southern California in 

the early 1870s there was little reason for organized anti-Chinese activity.    

The Chinese population of Los Angeles County in 1860 numbered only 11, 

approximately 0.01 percent of the population.  By 1870 the number had climbed 

to 234 (1.5 percent) and by 1880 reached its 19th century census year peak at 

3.5 percent, a total of 1169 Chinese.  Historians believe that population 

topped out in the early 1880s, perhaps as high as 6000, before falling to 4424 

in 1890 after passage of the exclusion act.  Those restrictions on Chinese 

immigration and an extremely large migration of whites to Los Angeles from 

eastern states reduced the Chinese proportion of the county's population to 1.9 

percent in 1890.

    An organized anti-Chinese movement had emerged in Los Angeles in the mid-

1870s, coinciding with a new influx of Chinese into the state in conjunction 

with several major railroad construction projects utilizing Chinese labor.  

Alfred Moore, then active in the Greenback Labor Party and later a real estate 

developer {see chapter on the river}, organized an Anti-Coolie Club in 1876.  

The following year, as San Francisco's Denis Kearney spearheaded anti-Chinese 

demonstrations that led to the formation of the Workingmen's Party, Kearney's 

battlecry - "The Chinese Must Go!" - was carried into Los Angeles.  Moore, 

Jesse Butler and others associated with labor's political efforts set up a 

local branch of Kearney's party and won the municipal election of 1878.  

    At the state level Workingmen's Party agitation led to a constitutional 

convention in 1878.  The convention entertained numerous anti-Chinese proposals 

but adopted only two major ones, denying Chinese the right to vote and 

prohibiting their employment by corporations or government, both of which were 

later declared unconstitutional as was much of California's state and local 

anti-Chinese legislation.  

    For the state election of 1879 the legislature placed on the ballot an 

advisory proposition regarding the continuation of Chinese immigration.  Over 

150,000 voters supported a ban while less than 1000 opposed it.  Curtailment of 

immigration, of course, was beyond the limit of state or city government.  As a 

result, the focus of agitation moved to the national level with a demand for 

abrogation of the 1868 Burlingame Treaty, which had legalized the movement of 

Chinese workers to the U.S. and by treaty protected them from discrimination. 

    Early in 1882 Senator John Miller, whose election by the California 

legislature was partly due to his anti-Chinese position, pushed through 

Congress a bill to prohibit importation of Chinese laborers for 20 years.  His 

bill was made possible by a revision that year of the Burlingame Treaty, 

eliminating treaty obstacles to immigration restriction.  President Chester 

Arthur vetoed the bill, however, citing the 20 year clause as a major 

objection.  Miller quickly authored a new version calling for a ten year ban.

    Miller's initial exclusion bill reached the floor of Congress shortly after 

the founding of the Times.  At its inception the paper had been sympathetic to 

the anti-Chinese movement.  During his tenure in 1882 Editor Mathes frequently 

published letters in support of efforts to halt immigration.  Despite his 

personal position he also ran letters condemning the anti-Chinese agitation, as 

evidenced by a communication from "Progress," who commented on the 1879 

referendum on Chinese exclusion.  Governor George Stoneman, praised by 

"Progress" for hirng only native labor, was accused elsewhere of having 

employed Chinese household help.  Stoneman claimed his wife did the hiring.

                         {Times, April 14, 1882, p. 2}

                   Pasadena, April 13, 1882.

              Mr. Editor:  Can you find space in your paper for the 

         enclosed spicy and humorous article on the Chinese?  I have 

         never yet noticed in any California paper a single reprint of 

         any of the interesting speeches made in Congress, notably by 

         Senators Horr, Dawes, McDill, Hawley, or Representatives 

         Kasson, Carpenter, Browne and others in opposition to the 

         Miller bill.  Would it not be fair for you to give the people 

         of California a chance to read a little on both sides of the 

         Chinese question?  Is the press of California under duress?  

         Is Denis Kearney all omnipotent over the State?  Do Irishmen 

         or Americans rule this country, or do the poltroon 

         politicians?  A California editor stated to me, that the 

         almost unanimous vote against the Chinese was secured by not 

         printing a single ticket in their favor, and that the few who 

         voted "nay" had to write their tickets, and that thousands 

         voted aye without noticing how their tickets were printed.

              In conversing with a citizen of San Francisco he said it 

         was true, and moreover that the press did not dare to print 

         any other kind of a ticket.  Furthermore, allow me to say 

         that in a three months residence in different parts of 

         California, that a very large majority of the citizens with 

         whom I have conversed, are bitterly opposed to the Miller 

         bill, and that without a single exception, the visitors and 

         travelers here from other States with whom I have spoken on 

         the subject, are equally opposed to the bill.  We all, 

         however, would be willing to see some restrictions made as to 

         the number that shall come in any one year, but are opposed 

         to any entire suspension for any time.  Why don't the people 

         of California refuse to hire Chinese laborers?  Would not 

         that stop the immigration?  If they don't want them, don't 

         hire them.  Let them do as Gen. Stoneman does, hire and 

         employ only natives "to the manor born," and the coming of 

         the heathen Chinee will be a thing of the past.


    Jesse Butler had been elected to the city council when the Workingmen's 

Party, with an anti-Chinese plank in its platform, swept the 1878 city 

elections.  Consequently, his response to "Progress" was not unexpected.  

Accompanying "Progress'" letter was a clipping, reprinted by the editor, from 

the Chicago Tribune reporting a sermon by Henry Ward Beecher in support of the 

Chinese.  In commenting on Beecher's sermon Butler referred to a statement 

attributed to Beecher during the 1877 nationwide railroad strike.  Beecher had 

been quoted to the effect that an honest man ought to be able to support a wife 

and five children on one dollar a day, and any man who was not willing to live 

on bread and water in doing so was not fit to live.  

    Butler's reference to the Chinese "urinary abomination" reflected another 

argument frequently raised by the anti-Chinese movement - that the Chinese 

presented a health hazard.  San Francisco doctor Charles O'Donnell, the city's 

coroner and an associate of Kearney, had incited anti-Chinese feeling there by 

displaying a purported Chinese leper to the public on the city streets.  

Historian William Bullough noted that in reality "Doctor" O'Donnell was a 


                         {Times, April 15, 1882, p. 3}

                           A GRATIFIED CONTRIBUTOR.

               He Explains Some Things--Bread and Water Beecher.

              Editor Times:  I am exceedingly gratified at your 

         liberality and fairness in giving room in your paper this 

         morning to a Pasadena correspondent signed "Progress," and am 

         satisfied that this discussive mode is to be the future 

         system in newspaper editorialship and correspondence, and 

         therefore hail you as (locally) its enlightened pioneer.

              But let us see:  He says "the almost unanimous vote 

         against the Chinese was secured by not printing a single 

         ticket in their favor, and that the few who voted nay had to 

         write their tickets."  Now if my memory serves me, it was 

         thus:  no party indeed dared to print on their tickets, "In 

         favor of," or "For Chinese immigration," and why?  Simply 

         because had they done so, the Workingmen's Party would have 

         swept the State with a wide besom of victory; and to prevent 

         that dire (?) result, every ticket in the field had on it 

         "Against Chinese immigration" (this was written from memory, 

         but by politeness of Postmaster Dunkelberger and County Clerk 

         Potts, I have just looked at the tickets of the different 

         parties and found myself correct, "Against Chinese 

         immigration" being printed on the bottom of all party 

         tickets, so that the voter had not to say "yea" or "nay," but 

         voted "against" on every ticket, unless he simply crossed off 

         the proposition with his pen, which would of course be equal 

         to saying nothing, and leaving them free to come as before 

         that vote was taken).  So much for your enlightened 

         correspondent, but one word for poor Beecher and for poor 

         human nature -- on the average.  When his salary was from 

         $800 to $1,500 a year, he eloquently preached that poor men 

         and slaves were the beloved children of God; but now when 

         getting thirty thousand a year and over, he consigns the poor 

         man to bread and water, and a competition in labor with the 

         slaves of the lowest race and the oldest, meanest, dying-out 

         civilization that remains to afflict every large-souled 

         intelligent philanthropist, and every aspiring laboring man 

         and woman in the land of the old Washingtonian Eagle; and in 

         the burning--aye, thank God, in the consuming light of this 

         grand nineteenth century, Poor Beecher!  Poor Yorick!  Thus 

         you see, Mr. Editor, this discussion brings out the cold 

         facts, and "truth always destroys error if left free to 

         combat it."  For the exposition of the Chinese nuisance 

         including the urinary abomination, thank you; and the council 

         of two years since knew it all to be true through the 

         inspection of Dr. Lindley and the police, but refused to act 

         on that knowledge, though pledged to do so in their platform.

                                          JESSE H. BUTLER.

                           A) "THE CHINESE QUESTION"

    Historians of the anti-Chinese movement in California are in general 

agreement that many Easterners, other than wage-earners, entering the state 

during the boom decade were not in sympathy with those calling for an immediate 

end both to Chinese immigration and to their employment in the state's labor 

force.  Usually those Easterners added that they were willing to accept 

immigration restrictions less draconian than a total prohibition and looked 

forward to the day when white labor would be abundant enough to satisfy the 

needs of California's employers.  But they cautioned that that day had not 

arrived.  They appealed for those protesting to use peaceful means, agreeing 

that the Chinese presented a threat to western culture but warning that the 

danger did not require mob action.  Typical of that view was this letter from a 

recent arrival from Ohio.

                          {Times, May 11, 1882, p. 3}

                              AN OHIO REPUBLICAN.

                 His Views are Sound on the Chinese Question.

              To the Editor of the Times:-- I find since my sojourn in 

         this portion of your flourishing State, that there is some 

         excitement and no inconsiderable diversity of opinion on what 

         is usually termed the "Chinese question."  I fine my own 

         views have been modified by a careful consideration of the 

         subject, and I have come to regard it as a matter of far 

         greater importance, and worthy of more careful investigation 

         than is usually given to it in the Middle and Eastern states.

              The question of the immigration of the Chinese and their 

         settlement, whether temporary or permanent, in the country is 

         usually regarded, simply as a labor question, and from this 

         doubtless has arisen much of the diversity of opinion now 

         existing between the people of the East and the West.  We 

         frequently hear well informed men saying, that very much of 

         the improvement of the West has been brought about by Chinese 

         labor; that by this labor, rail roads have been constructed, 

         cities built up, farms opened and cultivated, and a degree of 

         advancement and prosperity attained in a very few years which 

         could not have been reached but for the introduction of this 

         peculiar element.  Let this be admitted, it is very probably 

         true.  Let us go a step farther, and say that the 

         continuation of this species of labor, and the increase of 

         Chinese population to a point very much above what it has yet 

         attained, may still continue to advance the material and 

         physical prosperity of the country.  That cheap labor has its 

         advantages in building up a new country none will deny.  The 

         interests of labor and of capital are not necessarily opposed 

         to each other, because, as the price of labor diminishes, the 

         greatness and power of capital is increasing.  Such a state 

         of things may be and frequently is, entirely consistent with 

         the material growth, advancement and actual well being of a 

         country demanding a large and rapidly increasing population 

         to assure its development.  This has been felt and recognized 

         in the East for many years.  Every State east of the 

         Mississippi river has been largely dependent on foreign 

         immigration for its material progress.  The question of the 

         good and the evil arising from this immigration has been 

         freely discussed, has entered into our state and national 

         politics, and has much to do in the divisions and acerbities 

         of political parties.  And yet it is doubtful it if has ever 

         been considered in its most important bearings.  It has 

         usually been looked upon as simply a labor question, or as a 

         question how far one or another political party could be 

         benefited or impaired by its continuance.  Seldom indeed have 

         we taken the trouble to enquire how far all the interests of 

         society, moral, social, political and material were to be 

         affected by the introduction among us of a foreign element 

         with feelings, habits, modes of living and thinking, and 

         moral and social tendencies, diverse from and frequently 

         opposed to those under which our country has grown up, and 

         gone forward, in the road of progress for nearly three 

         centuries.  And yet this is precisely the point which demands 


              Few men will deny that what we are endeavoring to work 

         out in this land of ours, is a civilization which shall 

         develop in every point the highest characteristics, and at 

         the same time advance the best interest of the human race.  

         We will assume then, what also few will deny, and what the 

         history of our race, if we take the time carefully to 

         investigate it, will fully uphold--namely, that the 

         civilization of the Anglo-Saxon, or speaking in a broader 

         sense, as well say the civilization of the Aryan race, is 

         that which is to-day bringing mankind up to the highest point 

         of moral and civil improvement and well being.  This 

         proposition admitted, which can not only be readily 

         substantiated, but which I apprehend our federal legislators 

         will not be prone to dispute, and then it follows that 

         whatever stands in the way of the complete establishment and 

         perfection of this civilization, should be viewed with a 

         jealous eye, and its introduction to any undue extent 

         carefully guarded.  European immigration, while it has added 

         so much to our material advancement, has not been by any 

         means free from objections in its moral and civil relations, 

         yet the fact that the subjects of this immigration, poured so 

         freely upon our shores, because in no great length of time 

         assimilated to, and largely identified with our own people, 

         casting in their lot among us and uniting with us in 

         endeavoring to work out the great problem of the greatest 

         good for the greatest number, and in many cases becoming 

         leaders among us, in social and civil reforms and progress, 

         these facts have smoothed the way for their reception, and 

         have soon, in a good degree, obliterated the marks of 

         difference which at one time seemed likely to block our way.  

         But the question arises can we afford to admit into our ranks 

         simply in social and business life, saying nothing of their 

         political status, which is a question for after 

         consideration, a large body of men and women, who from the 

         time they came among us have not, and in the nature of 

         things, we may say, cannot and will not now, or hereafter, 

         mingle themselves with us, and become assimilated to "our" 

         modes of living, thinking and acting.  This brings us to the 

         very core of the Chinese question.  The Chinese civilization 

         is older than ours, it is far more fixed, more immovable.  It 

         is so completely indurated, crystallized by the accretions of 

         ages, that it has become inpenetrable.  We cannot impress 

         ourselves upon it, we can change none of its features, none 

         of its facts.  Such as it is to-day, such it will remain, so 

         every new thousand of immigrants increases its power, but 

         does not change its form.  If it is a less perfect 

         civilization than ours to-day, so it will be to-morrow, next 

         year and forever.  Established among us it blocks the way of 

         progress.  If we value the progress we have made, and desire 

         to go forward, this obstacle must be removed out of our way.  

         It is folly to say, we want Chinese labor we must have it and 

         we shall not permit them to interfere with our manners, our 

         institutions or our business.  Had four millions of negroes 

         no effect on the manners, institutions or business affairs of 

         the twelve millions of whites among whom they lived?  Let 

         history answer the question.  Yet these negroes were only 

         manual laborers, forbidden to think, without civilization and 

         without progress; but the Chinese are a nation of thinkers, 

         shrewd calculators, insinuating themselves into every avenue 

         of business, and forcing every species of business or trade 

         in which they engage to conform to their modes and habits of 

         life and thought.  The question is not a narrow one, shall we 

         have Mongolian civilization or Anglo-Saxon?  shall we go 

         forward or shall we stand still?  shall the American or the 

         Asiatic rule on the Pacific coast?  We may as well look the 

         matter calmly in the face and determine what we wish to do 

         before we are forced to act whether we wish it or not.  It is 

         no time to bring in political parties to settle a question 

         which belongs to the nation and is above all parties.  The 

         Republican has the same interest here as the Democrat--no 

         more, nor no less.  We can tolerate the Chinaman so long as 

         he is not so powerful, by his numbers, as to outweigh us in 

         the social or commercial scale.  Whenever he is so, his 

         presence is an unmitigated evil.  There is no call for force, 

         no need of mob law, the worst of all laws; no need of any 

         organization or system or action outside of the laws of the 

         State or the nation.  Clear, cool, careful, deliberate 

         investigation and action are what is needed, and these will 

         arrest the evil, nay, may do, what God's providence is 

         continually doing in this world, may adduce great good, from 

         what without careful direction will certainly become the 

         source of evil irremediable.

              The President will in all probability sign the bill 

         which the Congress just passed, it may not be the best which 

         could have been made, but it gives the nation and your own 

         State time to think, time to act carefully and deliberately.  

         From it, as we believe, no harm can arise, while wisdom and 

         prudence may found on its provisions a cause of action from 

         which the world will be the gainer.  If the bill does not 

         become a law now, it will at least cause the question to be 

         thoroughly investigated, and if all rash measures be 

         repressed, time will bring us to a correct solution of its 


                                        AN OHIO REPUBLICAN.

              Los Angeles, May 5, 1882.

                            B) MORE THAN EXCLUSION

    With the signing by Arthur of the revised Exclusion Act in May, 1882, anti-

Chinese agitation largely disappeared, but despite the exclusionists' initial 

enthusiasm the law eventually proved less than satisfactory from their 

viewpoint.  Lax enforcement, corruption in the issuance of immigration permits 

and the failure of large numbers of Chinese to return to their homeland led to 

a resurgence of anti-Chinese feeling in 1885.  

    The principal demand of California workingmen was a ban on importation of 

Chinese laborers and the deportation of those already here.  Since that 

required federal action, anti-Chinese forces attempted to achieve that end 

indirectly through state laws and city ordinances designed to drive out Chinese 

residents through harassment.  In numerous cities and towns workingmen sought 

ordinances that would force Chinese beyond the city limits.  In Los Angeles an 

Anti-Chinese Union gathered 1200 signatures calling for the council to evict 

the Chinese.  When the city attorney challenged the constitutionality of such 

an ordinance the council shelved the proposal.  Elsewhere residents took the 

matter into their own hands, resorting to mob action to hound the Chinese out.

    Based on letters in the Times future historians would be unaware of any 

renewed hostility to the Chinese in the mid-1880s.  While about half of the 

paper's issues for 1883-84 are missing from the microfilm, those extant do not 

contain a single letter on the "Chinese Question," although one letter 

denounced the importation of opium into the country.  Those years, of course, 

comprised a period in which exclusionists briefly believed that the law had 

solved the immigration problem.  But even in 1885, when they realized that 

legislation had not accomplished its goal, the Times printed only four letters 

on the Chinese.  One, by R. M. Beach, roundly condemned the violence used 

against them.  

    Two weeks before Beach's letter ran in the Times a Pasadena mob had burned 

a Chinese laundry and several other buildings, and the Chinese were forced to 

vacate the central portion of that city in 24 hours.  Initial reports, even in 

the Times, held the Chinese responsible for the fire, but subsequently the 

paper declared that local citizens had determined that the fire broke out when 

a rock thrown from outside the laundry overturned a lamp.  Since Beach's letter 

dealt with two unrelated topics, thus violating one of the editor's cardinal 

rules, only the portion pertaining to the Chinese question is printed below.  

Richard M. Beach was listed in the city directories of the mid-1880s as a Los 

Angeles clergyman.

                         {Times, Nov. 21, 1885, p. 4}

                        The Stead and Chinese Questions

              To the Editor of The Times--Sir:  ... Now just one word 

         more, and that on the Chinese question.  What are we coming 

         to?  Must we concede that, with all our boasted intelligence, 

         refinement and Christianity, we are a nation of mobocrats?  

         The question is not whether the Chinese are good or bad: a 

         blessing or a curse.  They are here.  They came without 

         protest.  If they are inimical to the interests of our 

         country, we must make the best of it, unless some compromise 

         could be made with China to free us from them.  Mob law is 

         the most cruel, heartless, unjust, unmanly redress for 

         supposed or real evil that any individual or community ever 

         resorted to.  Prejudice blinds, totally blinds, the eye of 

         Justice, and of all prejudice, race prejudice is the 


              Was there ever a more striking illustration of this 

         statement than the Pasadena mob.  It turns out that the 

         Chinamen, after all, were innocent of the offense, that so 

         aroused the ire of that supposed peaceable suburb.  And what 

         will they do about it?  Will they say, as the old woman did 

         who whipped her boy for what she afterwards learned he was 

         not guilty of, "Well, he's guilty of a thousand other things 

         worse and let the whipping be turned to that account?"  The 

         Pasadenians certainly ought to be on their knees at the 

         mourners' bench, every last one of them, bringing forth 

         fruits meet {meant? - Ed.} for repentance.

              Why, Mr. Editor, do not the friends of law and order, to 

         say nothing of the friends of a helpless race in our midst, 

         call meetings to redress the indignation of good citizens at 

         this outrage on decency and Justice on this coast?

                                         R. M. BEACH.

    Critics of the anti-Chinese movement suspected that those most vocal in 

their call for removal of the Chinese were themselves not "native Americans," a 

term that then referred to whites born in the United States.  Historian 

Alexander Saxton found that the state's wage-earning labor force by nation of 

birth in 1870 consisted of only 40 percent native Americans, 25 percent 

Chinese, 15 percent Irish and the rest scattered among several nationalities.  

There are no comparable figures for Los Angeles in the early 1880s before the 

boom, but with a Chinese population of 605 in 1880, accounting for only 5.4 

percent of the city's residents, it is unlikely that the Chinese made up more 

than 10 percent of the wage earners.  

    While conceding that a slow removal of the Chinese was a desirable goal, 

"Justice" questioned the role of foreigners in the anti-Chinese movement.  

"Foreigner," writing a few weeks later, made a similar observation, referring 

to "North American Chinamen."  The Trades Council's "Appeal," referred to by 

"Foreigner," was an endorsement of the boycott of Chinese-made goods, discussed 

below.  Labor leader Arthur Vinette, whose letters appear elsewhere in this 

volume, was a French Canadian.

                         {Times, Feb. 27, 1886, p. 2}

                         The Native-American Movement.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  The writer is not 

         ambitious for office, so, he feels quite safe in speaking his 

         mind on all subjects.

              I venture the assertion that the most bitter enemies of 

         the Mongolian are themselves foreigners, and it is a question 

         in my mind whether those same officious persons have any 

         better right on American soil than a Chinaman, provided that 

         Chinaman behaves himself as well in all particulars.  Then, 

         if John becomes a permanent citizen, acquires property, pays 

         his taxes, becomes naturalized, and in other respects behaves 

         himself, I ask, who has a better right to live and breathe in 

         our land of equal rights, unless it be the native-born?

              Will you please stop and think one moment?  Of what 

         nationality are all these tramps which infest our land?  Did 

         you ever see a Chinaman begging for something to eat?  I 

         never did.  Did you ever see one who was not willing to work?  

         I never did.  Comparatively few are to be seen in our State 

         prisons?  We call them heathen--true, they are.  They are not 

         all the heathen we have in our midst.

              Has not a Chinaman as good a right on American soil as 

         an American on China soil?  Drive out all our Chinamen and 

         China will drive out all Americans from her country, and we 

         will lose the entire commerce between the two countries, 

         which is many millions yearly.  Let us go a little slow!  

         Look well to our very best interest.

              We need servants of some kind, and I very much doubt if 

         we can do better than to use John, if we can make him acquire 

         property and become a citizen.

              The ultra form taken by the native American movement 

         will not do, of course, but it seems to me that all 

         foreigners, would do well to remember that it is not wise for 

         those who live in glass houses to get "too fresh" about 

         throwing stones.

              Such fierce persecution--such uncontrolled hatred 

         towards one alien, comes with very poor grace from another 


              Too many Chinese in our land would be very bad, but none 

         at all--all expelled at once, would be a calamity.  Let us go 

         a little slow, be not rash.


                         {Times, Mar. 18, 1886, p. 2}

                     A Foreigner's Idea About Foreigners.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  I was much amused when 

         I read the article in your Thursday's issue headed "An 

         Appeal," issued, I believe, by the Trades Council.  I think 

         it is about time the law-abiding people of Los Angeles should 

         study the matter a little, and try and find out what class of 

         men compose the "Trades Council" of Los Angeles.  To my 

         certain knowledge a majority of them are foreigners.  I know 

         some of the loudest-speaking members are French Canadians, 

         who do a good deal of talking in the neighborhood of the 

         Natick House.  This same class of men are called, in the New 

         England States, "North American Chinamen."  Back there in the 

         factory towns, they work for the lowest wages, and live just 

         as cheap as Chinamen.  It is nothing unusual there to see a 

         family of twelve or sixteen living and doing their own 

         cooking in two rooms.  Most every factory village in New 

         England has its "Frenchtown" similar to the Chinatowns on the 

         Pacific coast.  What amuses me is, that this same class of 

         men, when they arrive on the Pacific coast, join some trades 

         union to enable them to get work, and then shout loudest "the 

         Chinese must go."  Now the people of Los Angeles must not get 

         the idea that all the intelligent working men of this city 

         belong to labor unions.  More than one half of the workingmen 

         of Los Angeles have got independence enough to do their own 

         thinking, and are men enough not to be bulldozed into joining 

         trades unions, or to be pulled around by the nose by 

         demagogues.  I am a foreigner myself, and am glad that I have 

         the privilege of living in this glorious country.  When I get 

         dissatisfied I will not try and expel other foreigners who 

         are satisfied, but will go myself.

                                            A FOREIGNER.

                                C) THE BOYCOTT

    Protests continued.  On Feb. 27, 1886, the Times reported that 6000 people, 

approximately 10 percent of the city's population, attended an anti-Chinese 

rally in the Tabernacle at Fourth and Main, the largest such rally ever to 

occur in Los Angeles.  Among the speakers were Col. H. H. Boyce, co-proprietor 

of the Times, Joseph D. Lynch of the Herald, Henry Z. Osborne of the Express, 

Dr. Joseph P. Widney, Congressman Reginald F. del Valle, Mayor Henry Hazard and 

future senator Stephen White.  In the course of the evening a majority voted to 

impose a boycott, commencing May 1st, withdrawing their patronage from Chinese 

vegetable gardens and laundries and withholding patronage from all who employed 

Chinese or sold Chinese-made goods.  Another resolution endorsed the use of all 

legal and peaceful means for "ridding the city of Chinese."

    While supporting the use of peaceful and legal methods and acknowledging 

that workingmen had the right to withhold their patronage where they saw fit, 

Times co-proprietor Boyce said he did not like the word "boycott."  "It doesn't 

sound well to American ears."  Instead, he urged workers to use persuasion.  

    Boyce's partner at the Times, Otis, refused to attend the meeting.  In an 

editorial directed at those who did plan to go, Otis cautioned that expulsion 

of the Chinese would be harmful to the economy.  While agreeing that native 

labor would be preferable to that of the "benighted heathen, which of course 

these sons of Asia are," he warned that any change in the labor supply must 

wait for the development of a domestic labor supply that was adequate to 

replace the Chinese in those occupations that they then dominated.  In 

subsequent editorials Otis came out strongly in opposition to the boycott.  

Historian Grace Stimson believed this difference of opinion on the Chinese 

question was a factor leading to the termination of the Boyce-Otis joint 

ownership of the Times.

    Joining Otis in denunciation of the boycott was Andrew J. Wells, minister 

at the Congregational church, whose letter drew responses from Jordan Cox, who 

was a contractor-builder and the writer of several letters advocating 

exclusion, and from Rabbi Emanuel Schreiber, who challenged Wells from a 

different perspective.  In turn, "Stranger," "Old Miner" and "Justice" defended 

the Chinese.  

                         {Times, Feb. 28, 1886, p. 5}


                       A Manly Plea For National Honor.

                      Some Points for Patriots to Ponder-

           "John" Not a Good Quantity, But He Must Not Be Crucified.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  I am unable to 

         understand how gentlemen who so earnestly, and with such 

         evident sincerity, deprecate violence or unlawful methods of 

         dealing with the Chinese, but who advocate peaceful and 

         lawful measures which contemplate the same end, viz., the 

         expulsion of the obnoxious Mongols, can justify their action, 

         as good citizens of this republic.  If citizens band 

         themselves together to withhold from the Chinaman the means 

         of livelihood, and seek to compel others in a like course by 

         a system of unmanly, un-American and tyrannical proscription, 

         termed "boycotting," the end must be the expulsion of the 

         Chinese as certainly, if more slowly, as if driven out by 


              The argument used against violent methods has never, I 

         think, risen to the level of righteousness, or been urged in 

         the name of justice, but has been the low and selfish plea 

         that violence would disgrace us as a State, and would 

         prejudice the anti-Chinese cause in the East!  But did it 

         never occur to these excellent gentlemen who cry, "Peace!  

         peace!" and declare themselves on the side of law, that this 

         whole business of getting rid of these foreigners is 

         dishonorable to the citizen, because in violation of the 

         solemn compact which this government has made with China?  Do 

         gentlemen deceive themselves by the cry of "peaceful and 

         lawful means?"  Do they not know that Congress alone can deal 

         with this question, and that the faith of the government and 

         the honor of the nation is pledged to maintain the Chinese 

         "in the exercise of their treaty privileges against any 

         opposition, whether it takes the shape of popular violence or 

         of legislative enactment?"  (See Foreign Relations of the 

         United States, 1881.)

              The Angell treaty or Restriction act of 1880 said that 

         "Chinese laborers now in the United States shall be accorded 

         all the rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions which 

         are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored 


              Have we regarded that compact?  Have we not, to our 

         shame, violated it upon the landing of every steamer from 

         China, and in the peaceful or violent expulsion of the 

         Chinese from the small towns and villages of the State?  

         Article III of that treaty pledges the government of the 

         United States, if the Chinese "meet with ill-treatment at the 

         hands of any other persons," to exert all its power to devise 

         measures for their protection."

              Are not reputable citizens of this commonwealth 

         deliberately proposing to ill-treat the Chinese?  They may 

         not think so, but they deceive themselves.  I am ill-treated 

         if driven from my home by violence; I am ill-treated if 

         driven out by peaceful methods, for no crime, by combinations 

         of society against me which make starvation inevitable if I 

         remain, and which combinations are devised for this purpose.  

         Does not the movement here and throughout the State mean just 

         this, and is it not a cowardly method of evading the letter 

         of the law while violating its spirit?

              These considerations are strengthened by remembering 

         that we compelled unwilling China to enter into treaty 

         obligations and relations with us; that our presence in China 

         has been distasteful and irritating; that American and 

         English steamers in Chinese waters have thrown out of 

         business a vast fleet of Chinese junks, and out of employment 

         an army of Chinese larger than the total Mongol population of 

         the United States; that for ill-treatment of the hated 

         foreigners in her midst, China has punished her citizens and 

         paid large sums as indemnity, while we have ignored Chinese 

         claims, or refused satisfaction and been remiss in the 

         execution of our laws against those who plundered and 

         murdered Chinamen.

              This Christian nation should suffer shame to-day, and 

         loss of character and moral power, as she faces these heathen 


              Do gentlemen who advocate peaceful and lawful methods of 

         evicting the Chinese, who are here by our invitation, by our 

         treaty, and by the policy and principles of our government, 

         feel complacent in view of their want of faith in this 

         heathen nation?  Do they consider, at all, the question of 

         retaliation and the bloody expulsion of white residents from 

         China, which may follow the "peaceful and lawful methods" 

         devised for starving men out of our land?

              It is freely granted that the Chinese are the 

         unendurable element of our population, but when all has been 

         said against them that can be said, only one course remains 

         for us that is honorable and lawful in the best sense, viz. 

         to wait the action of the government, whose citizens we are 

         and whose laws and pledges of faith we must regard.

              "Nothing is safer than justice, and nothing is settled 

         that is not right" and we cannot settle this vexed question 

         and secure peace and quiet by methods which dishonor the 

         nation and override those human impulses which are the best 

         part of human nature, and which urges in behalf of those whom 

         it is proposed to starve out, that they are men--men with 

         their own sorrows, their own burdens and perplexities, and 

         their own problems of destiny to solve.

                                                 A. J. WELLS.

              Feb. 27, 1886.

                          {Times, Mar. 2, 1886, p. 2}

                             A Boycott Both Ways.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  The temperate and 

         wise, yet firm, utterances of the Times on the Chinese 

         crusade, and their indorsement by the people, or a large 

         majority of them, at the Tabernacle Saturday night, are 

         matters of congratulation, and speak loudly in our behalf as 

         justice-loving law-abiding citizens.  We have but two classes 

         of obstructionists to meet and brush aside: those with 

         misguided, morbid sympathy for the "stranger within our 

         gates," and the wealthy, who prefer them as servants to those 

         of their own nation or color.  The labor market in the United 

         States is now overstocked, and every Chinaman employed sends 

         a male or female tramp upon society.  Sympathy for the Mongol 

         is very cruelty and death to sons and daughters of our own 

         blood and nation.  Away with this sickly sympathy!  True, 

         healthy empathy expresses itself for the poor of our own 

         country, who are daily growing poorer.  Our sympathies 

         sometimes make fools of us.  We don't owe the Chinese 

         anything.  In early days in California, when the State had a 

         small population and needed laborers, we invited a few--or 

         hired a few--to work for us.  We now have more than enough 

         laborers of our own and have a right to discharge "our 

         Chinese help" without doing them injustice.  In remaining 

         here when not wanted they become intruders.  They are, as 

         Rev. A. J. Wells says, an "unendurable element," and the 

         overflowing Chinese hive must not select America to settle 

         upon.  I am surprised at the reasoning of Mr. Wells, based 

         upon the false assumption that Congress alone has the right 

         to regulate this thing!  It is a matter between the laborer 

         and his employer, outside of treaty stipulations; and the 

         people have to move, and that vigorously, before Congress 

         finds out that there is anything wrong.  The people govern 

         Congress--not Congress the people.  An American citizen has a 

         right to buy vegetables of Americans, to get his washing done 

         by Americans, has he not?  He has a right to employ white 

         help in his kitchen, has he not?  If so, where is the 

         injustice to Chinamen?  When you employ Chinese you are 

         boycotting Americans, to the same extent!  Girls, boys, men 

         and women of our our {own? - Ed.} color and nation.  Oh, yes, 

         employ Chinese and boycott our own sons and daughters, making 

         hoodlums of them thereby!  Labor must be made respectable and 

         remunerative.  Would the reverend gentleman class the hiring 

         of an American young woman in his kitchen as boycotting the 

         Chinese?  If so, the employment of Chinese is boycotting 

         American labor.  Which would he have, and where are his 

         sympathies, and where is his "justice and righteousness," 

         that he speaks of as so foreign to the conceptions and 

         motives of the anti-Chinese movement?  Let this "unendurable 

         element" return to their own country, and work out the labor 

         problem there.  Respectfully,

                                                JORDAN COX.

                          {Times, Mar. 3, 1886, p. 3}

                             Reasoning of a Rabbi.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  In your issue of 

         Sunday the Rev. A. J. Wells pleads for the Chinese, and, 

         while on the one hand conceding that "Congress can deal with 

         the question," he says that the Chinese must be maintained, 

         even "against legislative enactment"--which would exclude 

         even Congress from dealing with the question; for if, as the 

         reverend gentleman states, "The honor of the nation is 

         pledged to maintain the Chinese in the exercise of their 

         treaty privileges against any opposition, whether it takes 

         the shape of popular violence or legislative enactment," it 

         is difficult to see how Congress can deal with the question.  

         The reverend gentleman further says that only one honorable 

         and lawful course remains, viz.: To wait the action of the 

         Government; but forgets to explain how such action is 

         possible, if "legislative enactment" against the Chinese is 

         also considered a wrong.

              Now, it is not the Chinese question which calls my 

         attention to the article; for, being only several months in 

         this blessed State of California, I must confess that I 

         cannot yet definitely say whether Rev. Wells is right--who 

         calls the Chinese "men"--the italics are his--"with their own 

         problems of destiny to solve" or whether they are right who 

         style them "beasts."

              But I take decided exception to one point of his 

         argument, where he declares:  "This Christian nation should 

         suffer shame to-day and loss of character and moral power as 

         she faces these heathen people."  Now, how can Mr. W., who 

         lays so much stress upon a few words in a "treaty," "law," 

         etc., so utterly disregard the constitution of the United 

         States which excludes the word "God," "religion," "sect" in 

         order to save future generations from such unjustifiable 

         claims as these of Rev. Wells?  If America would be a 

         "Christian nation," the Jews, dissenters, infidels, atheists, 

         agnostics, theosophists, spiritualists, etc., could not be 

         citizens of this country.  It would cease to be a "Republic," 

         and would in time share the fate of Spain, which is a 

         laughing stock of the world, and the only Christian nation.  

         "Christian nation?"  Now, Mr. Wells is no Christian from the 

         standpoint of Catholicism; the Unitarians are none from his 

         own point of view, and every sect has a Christianity of its 

         own, and within the sects so many who do not believe much.  

         How, then, can a man talk of America as a "Christian nation?"  

         This would be the beginning of religious persecutions, as 

         history proves, and the beginning of the end of this glorious 

         Republic, this bulwark against intolerance and fanaticism.

                                            E. SCHREIBER, RABBI.

              Los Angeles, March 1, 1886.

                          {Times, Mar. 3, 1886, p. 3}

                           The Anti-Chinese Crusade.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  Will you allow a 

         stranger to say a few words in the people's column?  Being a 

         stranger, it is natural I should see many strange things.  

         But as I know I must be brief, in order to he heard at all in 

         your valuable paper, I will mention only one.

              The strangest thing I have yet heard in California is 

         that the State is suffering, financially and otherwise, on 

         account of the labor of an admittedly industrious and 

         economical class of laboring men, and is engaged in a crusade 

         to drive them out, in order to make room for tramps.

              All political economists have taught that the laboring 

         man was the real and only creator of wealth and the true 

         foundation of national prosperity.  But, of course, they are 

         all wrong, and as soon as California can expel 100,000 

         industrious laborers from her mines, her wheat fields, her 

         orchards, her vineyards and her vegetable gardens--although 

         her productions must necessarily decrease to the amount of 

         many million dollars annually--yet she will, according to our 

         new school of political economists, immediately become 

         prosperous and happy.

              But we are told they must be driven out because their 

         labor comes in competition with white labor.  So does the 

         steam engine, the power press, the threshing machine, the 

         sewing machine and every other labor-saving invention that 

         was ever made.  There is a machine in Boston that does the 

         work of 40,000 shoemakers.  It must be thrown like the 

         British tea, into Boston harbor.  If the Chinese are a curse 

         to white labor, so are labor-saving machines.  It is no 

         uncommon thing for the tramp in the Eastern States, who would 

         not work if he had the best chance in the world, to go over 

         the country setting fire to the farmers' reapers and mowers 

         because he considers that in some way they have deprived him 

         of the means of living well.  That seems to be the school of 

         political economy that we are all coming to in this State.  

         God save the State when such men as Kearney and O'Donnell 

         mould and become the leaders of public opinion.

              Notwithstanding the open sympathy of nearly all the 

         newspapers and the silence of the pulpit, I assert that 

         thousands of the intelligent, moral and religious people of 

         California are opposed to this unlawful, inhuman and 

         unchristian crusade.

              We have an abundance, if not a superabundance, of 

         churches.  Where are the ministers of that religion which 

         teaches the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man?  

         Why are they silent?  Let faith, baptism, grace and other 

         dogmas have a rest and let us have a few practical sermons, 

         yes, thousands of them, on such texts as, "Love thy neighbor 

         as thyself;" and let us not forget those other words of 

         fearful import which will be pronounced at the last day:  

         "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, 

         my children, ye have done it unto Me."

              The movers in these crusades take great pains to 

         inculcate the idea that they are proceeding lawfully.  There 

         never was a more false or ridiculous assumption.  The Chinese 

         are here in accordance with the provisions of a treaty which 

         is as much the supreme law of the land as any act of 

         Congress.  It guarantees to them protection and the same 

         treatment that is accorded to the subjects of the most 

         favored nation.  A "boycott" is just as much an unlawful 

         combination as a mob.  And here let me say that, as an 

         American, I blush for my country, and especially for the 

         proud State of California, if we are descended so low, if 

         free government has become such a failure that we are driven 

         to adopt the language and proceedings of Irish bondmen after 

         centuries of tyranny and degradation.  While I have never 

         regarded the Chinese as desirable permanent citizens, and was 

         and am in favor of the restriction act, I am convinced that 

         that act, thoroughly enforced, is all that California ought 

         to ask or can safely have.  By that act you would get rid of 

         the Chinese gradually, and other laborers would take their 

         places, so that the change would injure no one.  To drive 

         them out suddenly will unsettle every thing and cause a 

         financial loss of many million dollars to the people of 


              If the Chinese are driven out because they work, who can 

         tell where this insane delusion will end?  May not labor-

         saving machinery be the next to be condemned?  And why should 

         not the patient ox, mule and horse be banished also?  They 

         bear your burdens and perform labor that might be done by 

         man; and like the despised Chinaman they, too, fail to buy 

         your groceries, wear your clothes, drink your whiskey or chew 

         your tobacco.  When will men learn the important truth that 

         the wants of mankind increase as fast as the power of 

         production, and that the condition of the laborer has always 

         been made better and not worse by cheapening production.

              This crusade is an outrage on the Chinese, because they 

         have property here, lands rented, crops planted and many 

         other interests that would be sacrificed if they were driven 

         out on a few weeks' or months' notice.  We claim to be a 

         civilized and Christian people.  Let us not imitate the 

         barbarism of the Middle Ages--of Spain's expulsion of the 

         Jews or France's infamous expulsion of the Huguenots.  The 

         people of this State will be ashamed of this movement.  It 

         will disgrace us in the opinion of the whole civilized world.  

         It will involve an immense loss financially, and greatly 

         cripple our production.  Let us, then, act lawfully and with 

         moderation, and through the general government, which alone 

         has any authority in the matter; and let the departure of the 

         Chinese be effected gradually, peaceably and honorably, and 

         without violating the precepts of religion or the dictates of 



              P. S.--Since writing the foregoing I see, with 

         satisfaction, the noble and courageous stand taken by the 

         Times in your issue of the 27 inst.  California needs more 

         such newspapers and fewer of the base sheets which fawn upon 

         every so-called popular movement as they fawned upon Kearney 

         and O'Donnell.

              Pomona, Feb. 27, 1886.

                          {Times, Mar. 4, 1886, p. 3}

                             An Old Miner's Words.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  You published a good 

         letter from a stranger.  Now will you give an old miner space 

         to say a few words on the boycott?  Mr. Cox says that we are 

         boycotting the Americans by employing the Chinese.  I think 

         that statement rather sweeping.  There is perhaps no American 

         in this county that would prefer a Chinaman to an American. 

         But they are often compelled to employ Chinese or do without 

         help.  I know a family in West Los Angeles that tried for one 

         month to get a girl to do general housework, and failed, 

         because there are small children in the family and part of 

         the washing had to be done at home.

              Now, does any one expect that family to boycott their 

         Chinese servant and do without help when the family is 

         dependent on said help?  I think no reasonable person would 

         expect any such thing.

              This may not be a Christian country.  But I trust there 

         are some Christians in it, and if so, will they violate the 

         teachings of Christ by boycotting a helpless and despised 

         race of strangers (aliens) that are among us, and who came 

         here under treaty stipulations of protection from our own 

         government?  I think they will do no such thing.

              The Master says:  "Therefore all things whatsoever ye 

         would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for 

         this is the law and the prophets."

              Now, will any man say that he can obey this command of 

         the Savior while engaged in boycotting his fellow-men?  Or 

         can anyone say that they can be a Christian and violate the 

         commands of Christ?  These are times that try men's souls.  I 

         suggest the propriety of calling another meeting for the 

         purpose of testing the matter and proving how many there are 

         in Los Angeles city that will stand firm for the command of 


                                        OLD MINER.

                          {Times, Mar. 4, 1886, p. 3}

                           Help for Rabbi Schreiber.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  In this morning's 

         Times, Rabbi E. Schreiber says that he cannot yet definitely 

         say whether he is right who calls the Chinese men, or whether 

         they are right who style them beasts.  Now, if the Rabbi will 

         turn to Shakespeare's play of the Merchant of Venice (Act 

         III. Scene 1), he will find an argument by one Shylock which 

         may aid him in making up his mind before the next time that 

         he "must confess."  The argument is by analogy, for "Shylock" 

         does not say "Has a Chinaman eyes?" but "Hath a Jew eyes?  

         Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, 

         passions?" etc.

              He was addressing that vast multitude in Europe that for 

         many generations did not know whether a Jew had any rights 

         that a white man was bound to respect; who baited and 

         badgered the Jews for their sport, and considered it a joke 

         to strip them, as the Jews had plundered the Egyptians.  

         Shylock's argument has not yet convinced the masses in Russia 

         and some parts of Germany.  Has Rabbi Schreiber heard of the 

         plunderings and murders and ravishings of recent years done 

         against the Jews in those countries?

              The Jews call themselves the chosen people of God, and 

         say they have the books to prove it, written in a crosseyed 

         alphabet without vowels, nearly as funny as the bill of fare 

         on a Chinese tea chest.  And the Chinese still more 

         arrogantly style themselves Celestials.  But since Darwin has 

         told us that our ancestor was a hairy quadruped, with pointed 

         ears and a tail, how all this grates on the ears of a 

         scientific man!


    Two appeals issued in mid-March further polarized the community.  The 

Trades Council, speaking for organized labor, circulated an order calling for 

the discharge of Chinese labor, warning that failure to do so might throw the 

control of the anti-Chinese movement into the hands of a less patient element, 

resulting in violent actions.  The Times printed that appeal on Mar. 11.

    Three days later Otis ran two separate editorials condemning the boycott as 

conspiracy, revolutionary, bigotry, un-American, the offspring of despotism and 

oppression, ultimately leading to violence.  "J. C." {Jordan Cox?} replied 

with a defense of the boycott in which he took the claim by critics that the 

boycotters contained a hoodlum element and turned that charge into an argument 

for removal of the Chinese.

    The second appeal appeared on Mar. 12 when the Times printed eight 

resolutions signed by 33 ministers, among them some of the most prominent 

clergymen in the city, denouncing the boycott as an un-American, un-Christian 

act of "unjust discrimination against a class of men who are entitled to fair 

treatment in the struggle for daily bread."

    Writing a rebuttal that also included a denunciation of the existing social 

order, Jordan Cox answered the ministers.  In the course of his response, Cox 

invited them to recall the role of the church in the slavery debate, in which 

many of them had been active.  "B" also remembered the position of the church 

on that issue, but saw it in a different light.

                         {Times, Mar. 18, 1886, p. 2}

                          A Defender of the Boycott.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  I have just seen an 

         article in your Sunday edition relative to the Chinese, with 

         which I must say I cannot agree.  You seem to be under the 

         impression (and I am aware quite a number of the citizens of 

         Los Angeles concur with you) that the boycotters, if 

         encouraged, are apt to resort to violence.  I can safely 

         state that the contrary is the case.  They, to a man, have no 

         such intentions.  The very fact of their preferring the 

         peaceful method system of boycotting to the forcible means 

         used in the northern part of the State is of itself a 

         sufficient proof of my statement.  You are also afraid that 

         white labor could not be procured in time enough to fill the 

         places of the Chinese.  Now, the floating population of this 

         State is a large one, and when the report reaches the East 

         that the Chinese will no longer be employed in California you 

         may rest assured of a large immigration of Eastern labor.  

         More (in all probability) than will be required.

              You need not leave Los Angeles to solve the problem.  

         Look on the streets of your city any day in the week and you 

         will see numbers of men seeking employment.  The fierce 

         competition for the most insignificant job proves that those 

         men are sincere in their search for work.  No matter where 

         they go, "John" has preceded them.  Hunger is a fearful spur, 

         and is it to be wondered at that, too proud to beg (which is 

         also a crime in the eyes of the law), rendered desperate by 

         the pangs of hunger, and (oftentimes) the sight of his 

         starving wife and children, the unfortunate victim of 

         circumstances, created by the avarice of his fellow-man, is 

         finally driven to crime to preserve the vital spark in his 

         family and himself?  We will suppose for a moment that the 

         man gets off safely with his plunder; he may get work before 

         the proceeds of his crime are spent; he tries to lead an 

         honest life again, but remorse for his crime still haunts 

         him; he makes the acquaintance of a criminal, or again finds 

         himself in distress through lack of work, he remembers the 

         ease with which he once before supplied his wants, falls 

         again.  Arrest, conviction and imprisonment follow.  He is a 

         criminal.  His children, with no protector over them, become 

         hoodlums (his daughters perhaps worse); and meantime the 

         sleek John sends the money to China that would have left this 

         unfortunate man a decent member of society.

              With regard to the preachers, their action reminds me of 

         the case of the woman who had no time to attend to the wants 

         of her own family, as she was busy making clothes for the 

         heathen. I think charity should begin at home.  According to 

         the resolutions passed at the Tabernacle meeting, boycotting 

         was not to be commenced till the 1st of May, giving (I think) 

         ample time for the change from Mongolian to white labor.  

         Moreover when you employ or deal with Chinamen, you virtually 

         boycott the American to the extent of the patronage you give 

         the Chinese.  Is it likely that the white laborer will attack 

         the Chinaman when he finds that, by the boycott, he has got 

         that employment he so much desired?  Is he apt to leave his 

         work or risk his life or liberty in a silly attack on a class 

         who have nothing whatever to excite his cupidity?  On the 

         contrary, keep him in enforced idleness and you may drive him 

         to acts which, under more favorable circumstances, he would 

         never contemplate.

                                                       J. C.

                         {Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2}

               The Pope and Ministers vs. The Knights of Labor.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  In the contests 

         between labor and capital, it is a matter of sorrow and 

         regret to all the lovers of their kind to see both the 

         Catholic and Protestant clergy on the side of wealth, 

         aristocracy and privilege, against every step of the toiling 

         masses toward a position where they shall receive for their 

         labor, of head and hand, simple justice.

              The fulminations from the Vatican against the Knights of 

         Labor meet a welcome in the temples of Protestantism which 

         reverberate, in subdued cadence, their little thunders 

         against American labor, in its contest for bread against the 

         Chinese among us.  The thirty-three Los Angeles ministers, 

         whose manifesto appeared in the Times of the 12th inst., are 

         on record as having taken the side of the Mongolian against 

         their own countrymen and women--entrenched behind a paper 

         treaty which our agents were swindled into signing by the 

         Chinese diplomats, who are noted as getting the best of all 

         nations with whom they treat, and concerning the terms of 

         which treaty the people were not consulted, and which they 

         now desire amended or annulled.

              It is reasonable to expect that ministers, when they 

         engage in a contest against such a large majority of the 

         people, will lay bare the subject and strip it of all 

         disguises and reduce it to first principles--scientific, 

         moral, social or religious--that, if they advocate an open 

         door to all tribes and colors, they would openly base their 

         arguments upon the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of 

         Man, no ownership in land, the equality and unity of all men, 

         each for all and all for each, no exclusive ownership for 

         anything; the needy, benighted, sick and besotted hunted and 

         cared for and lifted to as high a heaven as they are prepared 

         for, and thus inaugurate the millenium.  But they do not take 

         such ground, ask no concession of the land-holders or 

         property-owners.  They only ask that labor, want, and in 

         tatters, divide its bread with this alien horde.  Do they 

         remember a text from the lips of Jesus, which will, I think, 

         offset the text of a Chinese treaty:  "Give not the 

         children's bread to dogs."  That the clergy have no sympathy 

         with labor in general nor labor reform movements, their 

         opposition to the anti-Chinese movement is but one 

         indication.  Among the hundreds of Knights of Labor in this 

         city, from whose assemblies only two classes are prohibited 

         from joining, the lawyer and the saloon keeper, not a 

         minister is enrolled.  The movement to improve the condition 

         of the laboring classes has to face the combined opposition 

         of the ministers; but while our Los Angeles ministers would 

         join to protest against the assumptions of the Pope to crush 

         out private opinion and private liberty, the members of the 

         Protestant churches may protest against their own little 

         popes taking the side of the Chinese against the poor of 

         their own congregations; (if poor people cam afford to belong 

         to a church now) and compel them to surrender the industrial 

         field to their enemies.  Can priestly assumption go farther?  

         It is well in them that they do not claim infallibility.  I 

         wonder whether they would admit that they are sometimes 

         biased by mercenary considerations?  To show how the minds of 

         ministers may be swayed by such influence, the Methodist 

         church furnishes a good illustration.  South of Mason and 

         Dixon's line they were almost to a man pro-slavery; north of 

         that line they were almost to a man anti-slavery.  Interested 

         motives made southern ministers see chattel slavery as a 

         divine institution--and they proved it by the Bible; while 

         northern ministers, without pecuniary bias, came to a truer 

         opinion.  Slavery and secession and Book Concern and 

         coercion, (civil and military) with their terrible 

         association, and what they have said about each other are 

         enough to keep the militant churches apart; and if they tell 

         the truth on each other, I don't blame them for rearing a 

         gate between them, over which is inscribed on both sides this 

         scripture text:  "Be ye separate; touch not the unclean 

         thing,"--and they don't touch--except on the Chinese 

         question, in which they have common interests, as ministers, 

         with the substantial men of their respective congregations.

              But they say the boycott will cause "ill feelings."  It 

         may--even in some of the pulpits.  It would be interesting to 

         know how many ministers in this city keep Chinese servants 

         and patronize Chinese laundries?  They say, also, "that the 

         boycott is an unjust discrimination against a peaceable and 

         law-abiding people in their struggle for daily bread,"

              We answer:  The ministers discriminate unjustly against 

         our own workers.  They oppose the driving out of the Chinese.  

         Do they believe in grafting an inferior on to a superior 

         stock, or civilization?

              But I imagine they have in their minds some of that 

         foreign mission romance.  They want to christianize them.  

         They have tried that on the Indian, and they disappear like 

         grass before a paririe fire.

              They have Christianized the Sandwich Islanders from 

         150,000 to 35,000 in forty or fifty years.  Do they want to 

         turn loose on these "peaceable" people?  We shall beg them in 

         the name of humanity, if this is their design, to desist!  

         They know this is the uniform effect of our religion and 

         civilization upon people of their grade.  According to their 

         own Buddhism, they are an evolutionary cycle behind the white 

         race, and our religion, like water, takes the shape of the 

         vessel it is poured into; and learning the catechism is not 

         quite the same as a few thousand years' development.  But if 

         these ministers have missionary designs on the Chinese, for 

         one, I should say they had better go over there to 

         work--don't bring them here to Christianize them!

              Now, I am not authorized to speak but for myself, but I 

         think I represent the rank and file of society, workers of 

         all grades, as well as others, when I say:  No injustice to 

         the Mongol is intended; no treaty is to be violated, nor our 

         honor tarnished, individual or national.

                                               JORDAN COX.

                          {Times, April 1, 1886, p. 2}
                          Pro-Chinese and Anti-Slavery.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  In the discussion upon 

         the Chinese question I have noticed a most singular confusion 

         of things.  An example of what I refer to may be seen in one 

         of your evening dailies of a week ago.  The editor was 

         criticising pretty severely Rev. Bresee's address, the Sunday 

         night previous, on the vexed subject, and seemed to think the 

         reverend gentleman had assumed a very inconsistent position 

         for one who had been, in the days of slavery, so radical an 

         anti-slavery advocate.  Here is the singular thing about it, 

         that an editor, or any intelligent man, does not perceive 

         that the logical and only consistent position for a former 

         abolitionist to take in this regard--as the question is being 

         put before the people with its boycotting attached and 

         insisted upon--is what is termed the pro-Chinese side.  And 

         having for months heard, read and observed the drift of 

         sentiment among the people of this coast, it has been evident 

         to me that this same spirit in its animus, now animates the 

         pros and antis as in the times of slavery, only the positions 

         are reversed.  And I think that any careful observer, without 

         prejudice or selfish interest to bias his judgment, will have 

         been impressed in the same way.  I have noticed, with no 

         little satisfaction, that you have some heroic spirits who 

         dare to stand up, as did the early anti-slavery men, in the 

         face of a mob, and defend the rights of the unprotected 

         against the majority.  Another fact, unless I am greatly at 

         fault in my observation and reading, there is the leaven of a 

         public sentiment at work, quietly, but surely growing, which 

         will crystalize into some organized form, to withstand the 

         "violence of the masses," as evinced in conventions, etc.  

         Your ministers, whose late action you published last week, 

         have taken a just and righteous position in this regard, and 

         they can well afford to be persecuted for righteousness sake.  

         The evening daily to which I refer quite kindly excuses the 

         ministers for "honest intentions, because they were educated 

         in theological seminaries, and away from the people."  How 

         considerate of the editor to let the ministers off so 

         tenderly.  But what will he say of the men who were not 

         "educated in theological seminaries," but who indorse and 

         hold the same sentiments?  I see in this anti-Chinese furore 

         the spirit of ostracism, abuse and brick-bats of the early 

         anti-slavery times.  Boycotting and bricks are nearly 

         related as weapons, and those who favor and employ them will 

         in the end find them dangerous factors in any political or 

         moral cause.  Of one thing we may all be assured.  Uncle 

         Samuel may be a little conservative, but he will keep the 

         treaty with China and protect its subjects in America.


                        D) WANING OF THE CHINESE ISSUE

    Despite an initial strong show of support, the anti-Chinese agitation of 

1886 swiftly evaporated.  It could not overcome the fear that Chinese vegetable 

peddlers, who had a virtual monopoly on the market, would boycott families that 

had dismissed Chinese domestic help and the belief that white labor was not 

available in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of employers.  The Chinese 

question would resurface again periodically until exclusion was made permanent 

early in the 20th century.  While both political parties became committed to 

exclusion each attempted to blame the other for failure to resolve the issue.  

"Workingman," writing an anti-Chinese letter during the campaign of 1888 in an 

era when virtually all such letters had disappeared from the Times, drew a 

distinction between the Republican presidential candidate's stand and that of 

the incumbent Democrat, Grover Cleveland.  The Wyoming reference is to the Rock 

Creek massacre, which had occurred early in Cleveland's first term.  

                          {Times, Mar. 9, 1888, p. 2}

                          Cleveland's Administration.

              Pomona, Aug. 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  Did not 

         Grover Cleveland send United States troops into Wyoming to 

         protect the Chinese, and did he not fill other Territories 

         with troops without any cause whatever, for the especial 

         protection of the Chinese?  Did not Secretary Bayard send an 

         official communication to Gov. Stoneman, directing the 

         latter's attention to the protection of Cleveland's beloved 

         Chinese?  Did not Grover Cleveland send one or two messages 

         to the United States Congress, urging vigorously a good round 

         sum be paid to the Chinese Government for the few deceased 

         Wyoming pigtails?  Has any Democratic President ever sent 

         messages to Congress requesting that body to pay damages for 

         deceased Germans, Irish or other foreigners killed by a mob?  

         It would please us to know, though we believe nothing of the 

         kind was ever thought of until the Chinese champion, 

         Cleveland, urged and procured from Congress an appropriation 

         for his celestial friends.  This bulky fellow was in his 

         glory while aiding the cheap coolie laborer to override the 

         American workingman on this coast.  The Army was sent out to 

         shed the blood of American citizens because they could not 

         starve and stand by while the Chinese usurped their places 

         and their wages.  The Cleveland-Bayard Chinese Administration 

         is now on its odious record before the people to be passed 

         upon in November, and the workingmen whom the army would have 

         shot down like so many dogs if they had stood in Chinese way 

         will be able to vote it out of existence.   Elect Harrison, 

         who, after a thorough study of the Mongolian question, firmly 

         concludes they are a curse, and put in everlasting obscurity 

         the only President who has used the military arm of the 

         Government to protect leprosy, low wages and the hordes of 

         Chinese that overwhelm us.  The Cleveland Administration 

         stands out in bold and nasty relief as the especial champion 

         of Chinese cheap labor, low wages and free trade.  In 

         November let us put brains in charge and send bullbeef to the 



    The final letter of the decade on the Chinese question, and the only one 

printed in 1889, would sound amazingly familiar a century later.  At the 

beginning of the 1890s the state legislature enacted the registration proposal 

suggested in "B's" letter below.  Although the state supreme court ruled it 

unconstitutional, the federal Geary Act of 1892, which incorporated the 

registration requirement, was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court.  With 

additional restrictive legislation and treaty adjustments in the next decade, 

the Chinese question would give way to other issues.   Since Otis left no 

record of the true names of those correspondents who used pseudonyms, we are 

left to wonder if the "B" of 1886 is the "B" of 1889, but writing now from an 

anti-Chinese position.

                          {Times, May 26, 1889, p. 6}

                       Photographers, Come to the Front.

              Los Angeles, May 21.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  In 

         view of the danger to our welfare through the smuggling of 

         Chinese across the border from Mexico and the British 

         possessions on our northern border would it not be a good and 

         practicable plan to photograph and register every Chinaman 

         now in the United States, so that there would be a 

         possibility of discovering any of the heathens who might 

         obtain entrance to our country illicitly?  Each Chinaman 

         should be furnished with a passport containing his 

         photograph, which he might be required to produce on demand 

         of any one in authority.  It might further be made an offense 

         for residents of the United States to employ any Chinaman 

         unable to produce his papers.  I offer this as a suggestion 

         that you can elaborate.